:rolleyes:
dumb thread

Stoopid!!

Ridiculous… Please close this thread 😮

It will be over before it begins. What a stupid thread!

Quit wasting yur time Cat this is a useless discussion

Calm down, it’s only a forum 😉

I did a AIRWOLF vs BLUE THUNDER thread and didn’t get this abuse 🙂

So you’d spend nearly $1.2 million to take out three targets instead of $54,000? 😮 Doesn’t sound too good to me.

If it could be done with 3 JDAMs, of course I’d use 3 JDAMs.

What would happen when they ran out of munitions before the war was over because the stuff they bought cost twenty times as much as what they needed? Oops.

Your missing my point, the Dual Role/Range missile I am proposing is primarily a self defence weapon for a2a and anti radar use.

The GPS/INS guided ground attack capability is a useful secondary role for emergencies and targets of opportunity.

The missile I am suggesting is basically a AMRAAM, which already has a GPS/INS unit, fitted with a IIR and anti radar sensor alongside the active radar sensor.

The JCM is the inspiration for this multi seeker head http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/JCM/product-jcm.html

It might be more expensive, but it is also more likely to be used, buying cheaper missiles that might never be used would be just as expensive.

sferrin,

Very good point about BVRAAM, most new missiles are now.

I don’t think there is a need for dedicated SRAAMs or LRAAMs at the moment for countries like the UK or USA.

Seeing fighters carrying missiles which are unlikely to be needed and are of no use in the a2g role seems very wasteful.

What I think is needed is a missile that can combine the capabilities of the AIM-9X/ASRAAM, AMRAAM/Meteor and HARM/ALARM.

With single role missiles a Typhoon would fly a a2g mission with 2x ASRAAM, 2x ALARM, 4x AMRAAM (3 if designator a is carried), 3x fuel tanks and 2-4 smart bombs.
If it encounters no air threat, 6 hardpoints where wasted.

With a Dual Role/Range missile the Typhoon would have had 8x missiles for air combat or anti radar needs and could have cut back on these missiles to save weight/drag or increase bomb load.

With GPS/INS guidance the Dual Role/Range missile could have a useful fixed target attack capability too.

Thanks Terran, I have seen this ship on TV for some reason, did it attend the Kursk disaster?

the second pic shows the raptor’s main weapons bay..it looks kinda cramped from what we can see..but i would imagine (and have read somwhere) that a slightly bigger version of the AMRAAM (with clipped wings ofcourse) that was proposed during the early stages of the ATF competition would have fit in the bays..however i am sure they would find a way around this problem..

The AMRAAMs in a F/A-22 weapons bay are staggered 1 forward, 2 back, to give the fins clearance from each other when launching. This means that there is extra bay space in front or behind each missile, so you could have a longer missile for the F/A-22 if you further cut down the missile fins, smaller fins may make it possible to fit 4 missiles in each bay too.

A missile longer than AMRAAM probably wouldn’t fit on the conformal stations on F-15s, F/A-18s and Typhoons though 🙁

Does anyone have pics or info about a Norwegian research ship that has a length to beam ratio of 2:1.

I’m not sure if it is a navy ship but it looks very unusual.

sferrin,

I disagree that ”SRAAM and BVRAAM are damn near mutually exclusive”.

A SRAAM would be expected to be launched in a dogfight at low speeds and be powered all the way to the target.

A BVRAAM would get its boost from the launch aircraft travelling at Mach 2ish, climb to high altitude, travel the distance required and supersonically dive on the target powered or unpowered depending on the range.

A missile that covers both ranges might have to be bigger than necessary for the SRAAM role and more agile than necessary for the BVRAAM role but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.