Jolanta NowakHow many fighters expecting to see air to air only carry 2 to 4 AAMs? The Eagles standard is 8, F-16’s 6, F-18 can carry up to a dozen. Not seeing what the problem is. Also the topic isn’t limited to AAMs. Missiles ARE getting somewhat smaller for the job in case you missed that point in my post but there are limitations. For examples in sizes to do a particular job consider the Talos and SM-2 block IV. The Block IV weighs less than half the Talos but has nearly twice the range, more altitude capability, and higher speed. Of course it’s warhead is only about a third the size but then it doesn’t need the bigger warhead. The biggest contributors to today’s smaller missiles is smaller warheads, better materials, better packaging, and more compact electronics. Take the 10,000lb Nike Hercules for example of the way things use to be. A THOUSAND pound warhead and lots of dead space in it.
Anyway, it sounds as though you’re advocating outfitting a fighter with hoards of tiny short-range missiles as if the future of air combat is the proverbial furball whilst being outnumbered ten to one. Not going to happen.
I’ll take all that as agreement, then.
No, I’m not advocating ‘tiny, short range missiles’ by the dozen… but, as regards fighters, you may find that the advent of multi-role aircraft means that the ability for bombing missions to carry more than just a skeletal defensive missile complement may be distinctly useful.
I dispute your ‘not going to happen’ dismissal. You may be right but I suspect the leading manufacturers will actually be looking closely at this one. There are definite selling points.
Jolanta NowakThen there’s the problem of ISP. That hasn’t changed much in 40 years. On the other hand if you put a tandem booster on an ESSM using the motor it currently has and regrain the missile motor with a longer burning profile you could probably get it’s range up to a hundred miles or better on a missile about a third the weight of a RIM-67 not to mention much more compact (4 to a Mk 41 VLS cell). Reduce the warhead size to 25 pounds and you could extend its range even more. Don’t think we’ll ever see Gene Simmons’ pistol launched guided missile though. 😉 Not one that’s going to bring down an aircraft anyway.
I just don’t agree. There seem to be distinct advantages in ‘small’, particularly weight.
The trade-off between weight and numbers is an interesting one – how many fighters have become, effectively, redundant pieces of flying metal when they’ve foxed off the last of 2 – 4 missiles..? It’s heading back to base time, let’s face it… and many must have been the pilot who would have valued one or two more arrows left in the quiver…
Jolanta Nowakshe looks wonderful, and considering the age of the design, still looks frighteningly modern, anyone else think so?
I’ll second the ‘wonderful’ bit.
Not sure about modern, though. Not enough straight lines for modern. A very curvy beast.
Jolanta Nowakme, e.g
Yes it is! The difference between a missile and an aeroplane is the aeroplane produces aerodynamic lift by means of having wings…
The brain behind the machine does not necessarily have to be inside the machine!
‘Aeroplane’…?
… hmm.
I say, ol’ fruit. Aren’t we being just a teeeeensy bit English? Where’s that perennial doffing of the cap to the Yanks and their ongoing marmelisation of the language?
‘Airplane’, if you don’t mind… and make sure you know your place in the world.
Of course, I suppose the Yanks themselves are going to have to learn the Mandarin for the word any year now….
Jolanta NowakNo. The 1972 treaty limited each side to two deployment areas of no more than 100 launchers each, one around an ICBM field and one to protect the nation’s capital. The 1974 ABM Protocol limited this to one site each, identifying the US complex as the Safeguard complex around Grand Forks and the Soviet complex as System A-35 around Moscow. It was specified that each side could, one time only, change the location of their ABM site (i.e. the US could’ve taken down Safeguard and deployed an ABM to protect Washington, D.C, or the USSR could’ve moved the Moscow system to defend an ICBM field like Tatischevo). The ABM Treaty of ’72 also specifically mentioned the US and Soviet extant ABM systems, giving them legal status. The widespread nature of the systems was probably why they said “two deployment areas…” and not “two ABM sites…”.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Shows how the memory blurs…
Still, I feel my original point was valid, inasmuch as 100 launchers vs hundreds of incoming mirvs was as good as useless… not to mention, I would have thought, a certain significant potential clouding of the radar from the initial nuclear takeouts by Sprint/Spartan…
Jolanta NowakThe Spartan/Sprint ABM system was fully legal under the ABM Treaty. It was deactivated after being operational for 24 hours due to the exorbitant operating costs associated with the network.
The 1972 ABM treaty restricted the USA and USSR to one ABM site each, as I recall, no..?
Check out:
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.55/system_detail.asp
Jolanta NowakI guess the actual sequence of event scenarios was something like:
1. Let’s have Blackbirds to intercept mighty Soviet intercontinental bombers somewhere over the pole.
2. Oh dear, there aren’t really any such – and, anyway, ICBMS are the real threat now.
3. Sprint missiles will now do the job for us.
4. Oh dear, those blasted peaceniks have gone and signed ABM treaties – we can’t have the Sprints either.
5. Now then, what new exotica can we military-industrialist types invent for shaking yet more dollarbillions off the federal budget…? Oh yes, particle beam and laser weapons, anti-satellite missiles.
Arms races are such fun.
One wonders what other uses could have been found for the money. Banal things like schools and hospitals maybe. One of these days it’ll occur to people to ask the Swedes how they manage to maintain both a state-of-the-art weapons/defence industry and a cutting edge health/welfare system on the basis of a population little greater than London’s…
Jolanta NowakI too think the F-106 was a pretty good machine but, with respect, speedwise not in the same bracket as the F-12.
This was exactly why I posted the thread – the fact that the Dart ended up filling 20+ squadrons whereas the F-12 had the plug pulled says things to me not just about cost but also about precisely what aero-ecological niche the latter was intended to fill.
It seems to me that a sudden realisation must have set in to the effect: ‘we’ve built a plane which has no role.’
Jolanta NowakWelcome to the world of the interceptor.;)
Ps. The F-108 Rapier in Mockup form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F-108_mockup.jpg
+ some history. http://www.alexstoll.com/AircraftOfTheMonth/7-01.html
Indeed.
The bird looks very capable…. and I was about to say it has distinct echoes of the Valkyrie when I actually saw this mentioned in the text..!
Jolanta NowakLet’s keep the basis of this discussion firmly on commerical aviation or we shall have to setup camp moderation… :diablo: (its the way i tell ’em)
Oh, I agree.
It won’t have escaped your notice that the OP itself was firmly OFF the topic of commercial aviation and firmly ON name calling.
I apologise for my tuppence worth of input but thought it only fair to redress the balance a bit.
Sincerely, I doubt that you’ll get the same apology from anyone else – and that alone should tell you something…
Jolanta NowakLet’s keep the basis of this discussion firmly on commerical aviation or we shall have to setup camp moderation… :diablo: (its the way i tell ’em)
Oh, I agree.
It won’t have escaped your notice that the OP itself was firmly OFF the topic of commercial aviation and firmly ON name calling.
I apologise for my tuppence worth of input but thought it only fair to redress the balance a bit.
Sincerely, I doubt that you’ll get the same apology from anyone else – and that alone should tell you something…
Jolanta NowakWhat a giggle to see all the predictable, knee-jerk ,’luddite’ remarks.
To introduce a note of sanity, these protest camp guys, sad as it may be, are right…
…it’s just that some people will absolutely refuse to recognise the dangers of climate change until they have 10 metres of Channel/North Sea/Irish Sea over not just the Heathrow runways but also their own heads.
As far as the 4×4-owning, drive-round-the-corner-to-the-supermarket classes are concerned, I’ve already seen quite a good term in use for them in the press: ‘clarksons’.
We’ve yet to have one invented for the aviation bloody-minded but I might suggest ‘o’learies’ or, possibly, ‘sl…easyjetters’…
Jolanta NowakWhat a giggle to see all the predictable, knee-jerk ,’luddite’ remarks.
To introduce a note of sanity, these protest camp guys, sad as it may be, are right…
…it’s just that some people will absolutely refuse to recognise the dangers of climate change until they have 10 metres of Channel/North Sea/Irish Sea over not just the Heathrow runways but also their own heads.
As far as the 4×4-owning, drive-round-the-corner-to-the-supermarket classes are concerned, I’ve already seen quite a good term in use for them in the press: ‘clarksons’.
We’ve yet to have one invented for the aviation bloody-minded but I might suggest ‘o’learies’ or, possibly, ‘sl…easyjetters’…
Jolanta NowakThanks for the info, guys. All fascinating stuff.
My lingering thought on the subject is that a Blackbird intercept mission would have been about as far from the classical concept of a ‘fighter’ as you could get: 1. Take off 2. Accelerate to cruise 3. Press buttons 4. Return to base (if base survived)…
Jolanta NowakSo would the Bear win the prize as being the most intercepted aircraft of all time… WWII apart, that is…?
Sign In
