dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,436 through 3,450 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-5 Tiger II #2368462
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I found this one.

    http://www.irandefence.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=63787&stc=1&d=1309374586

    in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2368463
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    If Japan tried to go the RR/GE route they would say goodbye to having those F-35s before 2020. Also, the additional funding needed to finish F136 R&D would double or triple the price of their F-35 purchase not to mention the increased lifetime costs due to the small economy of scale issue.

    in reply to: NASAMS 2 vs BAMSE #1794763
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Given that ground launching is built into every AMRAAM coming off the line, the same should also apply to NGM. This should setup an interesting distributed SAM network with radar and IIR capabilities.

    I see the SA-22 and NASAMS having two different roles, primarily based on the different doctrines of western vs eastern warfare.

    SA-22 should be cheaper.

    in reply to: NASAMS 2 vs BAMSE #1794770
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The primary Cs are C1,3,& 7. All current AMRAAM production is either C7 or D.

    FY2012 budget has 218/363/341/364/279 (FY 2012-2016 USAF 120Ds), 161/210/216/244/232 (FY 2012-2016 USN 120Ds), and 250 each year (2012-2016 FMS C7s).

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2368482
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    True, it all depends on the defenses.

    There could also be a combo, cheaper SDBs to saturate and NGM to finish it off before it reloads.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2368492
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    As point-defense becomes better, you may need more SDB type weapons to overwhelm the defenses.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2368504
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Here is a couple of the Gripen NG

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/Gripen_NG5B25D.jpg

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/gripen-ng-2.jpg

    in reply to: NASAMS 2 vs BAMSE #1794775
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Every AMRAAM since the first C has the software installed to be air-launched or ground-launched. To answer your questions, it depends on what missile is purchased, but the C-7 is being used (IIRC) in the latest systems.

    in reply to: NASAMS 2 vs BAMSE #1794830
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Oops, my bad on missing the CLOS info (helps in clouds, but not behind cover)

    According to their own website its range is 20km which is still shorter than an AMRAAM.

    range out to 20 km

    in reply to: NASAMS 2 vs BAMSE #1794851
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Besides the longer range of the AMRAAM over the RBS23, there is also the issue of networking, Tracking & development.

    Networking: Depending on the model of AMRAAM, pre-launch and post-launch updates can come from a variety of sources (even if LOS from the launching vehicle is lost).

    Tracking: Being a laser guided missile, the RBS23 gives it’s position away as soon as it tries to acquire the target. The missile itself will lose the track of the target goes behind a hill, into a cloud, etc. OTOH, an AMRAAM can be continue to track a target after it maneuvers as stated above.

    Development: All development ro improve the RBS23 has to come from the program itself. The AMRAAM, OTOH, enjoys a massive user & development base that will keep improvements coming for many years to come. There is already a new motor on the way that will improve weight, speed, and range performance.

    in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2368873
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Nice, I didn’t know it’s was more than a paper plane.

    You do realize those are computer models and not physical planes, right?

    in reply to: AT-6 Kicked out! Souper Toucan only contendor left for US! #2368881
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I hope they win and find out what political BS was working in the background.

    My bet, the Big “O” was trying to buy favor in Brazil in order to get a better chance of teh F-18 winning its bid.

    in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2300538
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    High def in relation to what it is, which is a MLD/MAWS.

    in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2300805
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I think the 6 high definition IIR cameras (backed up by the processing power of the ICP) will help significantly over any previous fisheye based MAWS. IIRC no other MAWS mfg has claimed the ability to track any SAM or AAA flight trajectory.

    in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2300989
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    It’s a possibility – but it is ticklish knowing when to jam. AESAs don’t give you much of a clue that you’ve been detected, and you don’t want to emit and give the game away before that.

    Also, a ventral pod is limited to lower-hemisphere targets in level flight.

    The same limitations (knowing vs not knowing) apply to current self-protection jammers. One benefit that the F-35 enjoys is that EODAS has a YATO (You Are The One) mode that lets them know when they are the target of a rising SAM or AAA.

    As the NGJLight’s job would be primarily protection in a IADS environment, lower+ hemisphere coverage is just fine.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,436 through 3,450 (of 4,849 total)