dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,071 through 2,085 (of 4,849 total)
1 2 3 … 138 139 140 … 322 323 324
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm in reply to: Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD #2230859
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Starting after Block 4 you will many weapons being developed and used for the F-35 thanks to UAI.

    This also allows for quicker “Black Projects” since no changes to the F-35 need to take place.

    August 21, 2014 at 9:42 pm in reply to: F-18 stealth weapons pod ( EWP ) #2231165
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The ability to carry six AIM-120 internally has been discussed on and off, but never gone beyond the “we are thinking about it” stage. It has not emerged in any serious context for several years.

    LM’s Skunk Works shop has already done the simulations needed to say it can be done. It’s well past the “we’re thinking about it” stage.

    That is likely where the above graphic originated (the one showing 6 AMRAAMs).

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_wmDiNZrelYJ:www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2010/June%25202010/June%252018%25202010/SqueezingInTwoMoreShots.aspx+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    There has not been a lot of talk about it lately since Blk5 (the planned 3 AIM per bay timeline) is 10+ years away.

    August 20, 2014 at 6:34 pm in reply to: F-18 stealth weapons pod ( EWP ) #2231646
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    LOL, that’s what I get for posting before coffee.

    August 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm in reply to: F-18 stealth weapons pod ( EWP ) #2231690
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Not sure if it has been mentioned but here are two reasons why the F-18 pod could have not been designed for a 2k bomb:
    1. It would have been to big to fit with acceptable clearance for deck landings.
    2. It may have weighed too much and would have exceeded the pylon’s rating.

    August 19, 2014 at 4:54 pm in reply to: How Iron curtain , AMAP-ADS work #2232103
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Another reason why I think that it is an explosive-based directed blast wave (or micro-particle shaped charge) is that it claims to be able to defeat KE rounds like sabot.

    Since a KE round has no explosive or seeker of its own, there is no way to sop it with any kind of instantaneous laser or other Em-based directed energy weapon.

    Keep in mind that the “Energy” in “Directed Energy” can be Kinetic.

    August 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm in reply to: How Iron curtain , AMAP-ADS work #2232150
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    oh i see what you mean , but iam asking about different thing , here is what they say about the system

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS
    my question is , what exactly is that “non-fragmenting strong directed energy beam” never heard of any weapon using that apart from laser or EMP

    but if you want to create shaped change, you need to create an explosion don’t you,, but there nothing like that there

    It is explosive

    http://www.gizmag.com/rheinmetall-ads-live-fire-test/21278/

    August 13, 2014 at 4:41 pm in reply to: Dual rack and SDB load out #2233612
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Some BRU clarification:

    The BRU-61 is a pneumatically-powered 4-place ejector for the SDB family of bombs with others added later of similar size

    The BRU-55/57 (USAF/USN) is a pyrotechnically-powered 2-place bomb rack that uses the BRU-46 family of ejectors. While they are currently pyrotechnic based, there is work ongoing (by the same makers of the BRU-61) to create a drop-in pneumatic-powered BRU-46 replacement.

    The BRU-69 is a joint service (USN/USAF/USMC) smart pneumatic bomb rack to replace the BRU-33/41/42/55/57 families of bomb racks. The BRU-69 is already UAI compliant. The BRU-69 reached Milestone “B” in 2010 and is scheduled for IOC in 2017.

    On the issue of F-35 and carrying 10k of ordinance, it would do significantly better than the Gripen since the first 4k is drag “Free” and is already included in the Combat radius calculations of the F-35. It would only require 4 more bombs on the wings and would remain aerodynamically cleaner than a Gripen.

    August 12, 2014 at 11:51 pm in reply to: Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) status #2233759
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The reason that it has greater range is that SPEAR has a 50lb warhead and SMACM had a 18lb warhead.

    August 12, 2014 at 10:18 pm in reply to: Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) status #2233764
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Madrat, you must have missed the clarification.

    The SMACM as he described it does not (and cannot) exist.

    August 12, 2014 at 9:22 pm in reply to: Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) status #2233799
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Upon further review… the defense update article that you are basing your assumptions (and entire cost & effectiveness argument) on is just plain WRONG.

    It states that the SMACM is SDB-sized yet includes 4 LOCAAS sub-munitions. However, each LOCAAS weighs 100 lbs. A standard CBU casing can hold 4, but not something the size of an SDB.

    As you can see, a LOCAAS is HUGE and is actually wider than an SDB itself.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7ecKQ49_85g/TksjrQSc4vI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/aU9GqpakIPI/s1600/LOCASS%2B4.jpg

    Try this link: http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/1099
    It says that SMACM has a single, 18-lb warhead.

    Another Link: http://missilethreat.com/missiles/smacm/
    The only mention of LOCAAS in either article is that it borrows tech from the LOCAAS program.

    You may have confused SMACM with LCMCM (the much bigger SMACM followon) that weighs 1000+ pounds and has 3-5 50lb submunitions.
    http://missilethreat.com/missiles/lcmcm/

    August 12, 2014 at 7:29 pm in reply to: Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) status #2233817
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    SMACM would be HORRIBLE at CAS. It would basically fire 4 big bullets at the target. No other shrapnel, not blast effect.

    Same goes for SEAD. Not only is the seeker choice wrong for SEAD, but you again only have 4 big bullets in which to do damage.

    As OB had stated, it’s also a LOT more expensive. The seeker is the most expensive part of a weapon and SMACM had 5 Tri-mode seekers!

    SMACM was designed to disable massed armored formations and that threat no longer exists.

    August 12, 2014 at 6:21 pm in reply to: Surveilling Miniature Attack Cruise Missile (SMACM) status #2233852
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Two different mission sets.

    SMACM was designed to attack vehicles with EFPs (Explosively Formed Projectiles) while SDB was designed for larger, hardened targets.

    August 12, 2014 at 3:12 pm in reply to: Dual rack and SDB load out #2233957
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I have done a pixel count on several SDB pics and it looks like the SDB has a standard 14inch lug spacing. However, so does the BRU-61, so it’s still up in the air whether the MPBR carries two SDB bombs or 2 BRU-61 bomb racks.

    August 11, 2014 at 5:32 pm in reply to: Dual rack and SDB load out #2234098
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I do not see why not.

    The Objective Stores loadout for the MPBR (BRU-69/A) lists “Small Diameter Bomb” Quantity 2. I doubt they are talking about two individual SDBs as they have a smaller lug pattern than a BRU-69 can handle (but I could be wrong).

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]230960[/ATTACH]

    August 6, 2014 at 11:51 pm in reply to: best looking stealth fighter #2235349
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The mission set is useless for practically all users except US.

    Really? You might want to tell all the government and military leaders that it will be useless because they seem to disagree with you.

    Once again, “if it could be done cheaper, they would”.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 2,071 through 2,085 (of 4,849 total)
1 2 3 … 138 139 140 … 322 323 324