US AAMs 0-for-6?
Mark Andrew Spence
2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons? Is this the first time the
AMRAAM has ever been fired in a combat situation and missed? Same for
the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
M.S.
Adam Yoshida
6 AAM's for no kills? Hell.
Yes, that would be the first time the AMRAAM fired and missed in
combat. How the hell did all of those missiles miss a few MiG's?
Next time the Iraqi's try that they should close a ensure a kill, then
bomb the fighter bases. It'll prevent the prolifigate wastage of
AAM's. Perhaps it''ll become a favored Iraqi tactic. Buzz the no fly
zone, then turn and burn. Force the US to fire on them.
Thomas Schoene
<36958434...@news.axion.net>...
[snip]
> Yes, that would be the first time the AMRAAM fired and missed in
> combat. How the hell did all of those missiles miss a few MiG's?
> Next time the Iraqi's try that they should close a ensure a kill,
then
> bomb the fighter bases. It'll prevent the prolifigate wastage of
> AAM's. Perhaps it''ll become a favored Iraqi tactic. Buzz the no
fly
> zone, then turn and burn. Force the US to fire on them.
The former is probably exactly what the Iraqis had in mind. Have the
US planes give chase, right over the mobile SAM site you've tried to
hide in their path. The US wasn't playing that game, so they fired
at long range, staying away from the SAM threat. The downside is
that firing that close to the edge of the engagement envelope, the
MiGs could evade simply by turning and running. Even that wasn't
apparently enough; one MiG-23 was apparently lost to fuel starvation.
Either he took off with limited fuel (as an anti-defection measure
or due to fuel shortages) or he spent way too much time in
afterburner running from missiles.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Kurt Plummer
Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
> I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
> 2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
>
> I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
> billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons? Is this the first time the
> AMRAAM has ever been fired in a combat situation and missed? Same for
> the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
>
> M.S.
Hey Mark,
To me we're starting to see the 'results' of stuffing an ARH seeker into a
7" airframe so that just about any dinky-fighter can carry/immitate it.
Remember, the AMRAAM was initially a product of AIMVAL recommendations way
back in the mid-70's which indicated a compromised or unsortable IFF
situation in the midrange fight traditionally (MRM) allocated to Sparrow
and the need for merge killers that outsmacked the I-SRM's yet which were
able to be salvo-fired from the most-numerous of our inventoried jets
(because massive attrition after the initial salvo was 'unavoidable':(.
As such the F-16C/MSIP program got started with a whole bunch of 'wiring'
precursors for Seek Talk, LANTIRN, GEPod, ASPJ, Maverick-D and AMRAAM...
Which makes sense if you're trying to fight off hordes of sorta-dumb MiG-23
from below the SAM radar horizon while carrying literal /tons/ of A/G and
mission enabler -crap-. 347lbs and 7" is about the biggest you dare go on
the outboards.
OTOH, the F-15 didn't really mind a 500lb Sparrow on the shoulders and
provided a better (profile sprint launch and LOS/Lookdown) 'perch' for the
-fighter- mission. Of course you're hanging an RCS like a barndoor but
you've got weasels, ravens and a fairly nice (if non installed, mostly)
ICMS to 'protect you' from all the baddy big guns (SA-2/3/4/5/10 etc.).
The USN was always smarter in the missile engineering arena but sadly lack
the political infighing sense God Gave Cow Manure.
Namely, they knew that the Phoenix, while an adequate bomber killer, was
'Buffalo Slow' (Mach <>3) and achieved most of it's phenomenal range with a
significant trajectory loft modifier against non cross track or retrograde
capable evaders (AS-4/6 and Badger/Blinder) with pretty primitive noise
jamming (even an AAM loses controllable agility at the peak of the loft).
They thus 'wanted' an AAAM as far back as 1984 to put aboard the later
Tom's and eventually a VFAX (I think that's the acro) combined multirole
replacement for the 14 and the A-6.
Depending on whom you ask, either Glasnost or the USAF killed that idea by
'removing' the AVMF carrier-killer air threat and thus deballing the VF to
leave the Doritomobile AX-12. For awhile the AAAM program coals where kept
hot and there were all kinds of wild ideas about putting a separate
'illuminator pod' (Med PRF high band PD in a likelihood) aboard equally
aged-AWG Tomcats and giving the 'mini B-2' striker a new-Missileer makeover
with stealth to forward-snipe or 'selfdefend with a vengeance', on it's
own, over the beach.
Ask any fighter pilot, and he'll tell you that there will 'Never Be An AAM
Toting Bomber'. They also firmly believed in vectored CAP control of
airspace rather than put-a-missile-where-you-want-to-be-'superior' theory
which meant they 'couldn't find a mission niche' for the AAAM (in all
likelihood Congress also said AIM-120 or AAAM and the AF backed their own
program). Thus, since fighter pilots run the AF and the AF is effectively
running the Navy, the AAAM died.
Instead we got the 'C' and then virtually back to back 'C+/C++' Phoenix
with a new autopilot and ECCM processor to handle steeper transient
terminals deeper into clutter on /fighter/ targets with rather more serious
CM and terminal endgame Ps.
While AIM-120 soldiered on 'in-development' for about 7 years longer than
originally planned, while we basically invented PP3 and MMIC tech small
enough to cram and recram the cosmiconics guts into new configurations able
to 'meet the mission'. This took about 4 major and 2 minor redesigns I
hear.
As things became more and more embarrasing and costly the, AF shelved
'looks nice' upgrades(like a big-case booster section I first saw at an
AUSA show, on a proposed SAM variant of all things, back in errr 1987) in
an effort to leap every new Congressional hurdle and get the damn thing out
the door. Forget about tinkering with ramjets.
Of course ramjets were an 'integral' part of one of the USN AAAM contenders
research efforts but gads the last time the USAF got stuck with a Navy
missile it was the Sidewinder and -GASP!- they aren't shuck of that
/yet/!!...;)
Then along come DS and the AMRAAM -still- isn't ready but the AF is running
things and so "because it lacks a '2-tier' EOID capability" the Tom is back
to dober-manning the boat like a good little F-6 and only gets one supposed
kill. I think it was a helo and their was dispute with a Saudi F-15 so in
the spirit of the moment the 'allies got the credit'.
As far as Phoenix failures.... IMO, it's probably as much a combination of
radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an autopilot but is
still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a medium PRF to handle
sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances. Combined, these
/might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit out' a high-lofting
Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress test'.
It should also be noted that the 'common loads' I see these days are _1-2_
AIM-54 per plane and this significantly drops your salvo loading Pk raiser.
At any rate, the AMRAAM gets 'debuted by brute force' in the final days of
the I-ran-to-D'border escape attempts and does, zilch, all while
MOU-screwed Euro's are starting to spool up for A-production. I'm told all
/kinds/ of bad stories about these model's shortcomings in reliability and
performance which -quickly- became evident to Euromissile-D/BGT such that
-both- sides of the Atlantic simultaneous went to immediate-B production
instead.
This didn't and couldn't change the genetics of the program however and
that was for a Euro-war missile that could be slingshot off a Falcon with a
still-primitive radar and about 6-8nm worth of lookup-shootback against a
MiG-23.
The lack of a motor muscle was made even wose by the absence of a two way
datalink as it made it hard to 'work both sides of the equation' getting a
collision steer advice from the missile seekers 'pointing' of view.
So Hughes rushes off to improve the seeker some more (better acq. and
additional passives modes) while the T'd off Euro's decide enough is enough
and go to work on a REAL weapon, the BVRAAM/FMRAAM with ramjet propulsion
and the full missile-conversant datalink trajectory steerage.
At which point the USN and USAF suddenly develop a case of 'follow that
that bandwagon!' and miraculously develop a similar corequirement variously
labelled Stage III and AIM-120D from what I read. They still differ in
'minor ways' as the one want's high initial impulse on 'fleeting target'
coward overtake (hey I-Ran away!;), while the other opts for a higher
sustained-EPol velocity for terminal chase maneuvering (hey, my Phoenix
/sucks/ here?!:(.
Hughes say they will 'happily do all the seeker work (and warhead) while
the Euro's can do the airframe-rest and everyone will be happy'.
Except the Euros aren't stupid and increasingly aren't technically backward
anymore. They know where the serious continuing upgrade and export-control
money is (software and hardware upgrades to the missiletronics section) and
they _don't_ 'want' (hate your guts you steenking Yankees) any more USian
'ass-istance' in terminating promising internal engineering efforts with
big-company, politicized-program, offers...
Hell we've got stealth ain't that enuf?:)
Which sucks because it may not be and nobody wants to have a shorter spear
in AAM games. And of course we've effectively killed the only airframe
programs (14/15) which are capable of routinely using 9", 650lb class, AAAM
style rockets from easy-conformal stations while ensuring their 'cost
effective' replacements lack the radar/fuel-drag/aspect ratio-drag
qualities needed for long high-Mach engagements at altitude where the
AMRAAM might be competitive.
In many ways ramjets (which could be tailored to provide either-or
service/target profile boosting) were never 'our' specialty (the one Hughes
version intended for the AAAM didn't even reach R&D testing) and 'cheats'
like the HFDR proposed for the Have Dash airframe are nearly as nebulous
with a lot of program risk to mature quickly.
Which brings U.S. back to the 'Alamo Approach' using as much as an 11"
fat-back motor on a '450lb' (++ IMO) class missile that effectively makes
it carriageable, X2 on the Falcon and /perhaps/ X6 on the Super Hornet, if
you rob the A/G stations of their 'multirole' capacity and can retailor the
weapon around the main gear.
All of which is FINE by me (Never, _Ever_, 'multirole' an airframe with
air-to-mud stuff and expect to live against a determined opfor) if there's
a true-LO independent strike and/or rollback SEAD capability to do the
actual strike work but there just /isn't/ for the USN (which has limited
deckspace for massed of Bug-alikes anyway) and there won't be for the AF
until the F-22 (another AF-only program) comes online.
And both the Raptor itself (which is under serious acquisition pressures)
and the 'cheap' JSF followon may be compromised in there initial equipment
fits by the baysizing requirements for such a BIG missile. In the latter
case by 'offboard' sensor prejudicing too.
So we suck it up we wheeze along with AWACS and JTIDS and 'tape upgrades'
to existing systems and the enemy grows a little smarter with every
tactical gambit we employ against them and a little less unnerved by every
pseudo-victory they win by dynamic envelope surviving the 'onslaught' of
the Massed American Legions.
What A Pisser- KP
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<ch1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
>
>> I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
>> 2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
>>
>> I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
>> billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons? Is this the first time the
>> AMRAAM has ever been fired in a combat situation and missed? Same for
>> the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
>>
>> M.S.
>
>Hey Mark,
>
>To me we're starting to see the 'results' of stuffing an ARH seeker into a
>7" airframe so that just about any dinky-fighter can carry/immitate it.
>
[ huge snip ]
I'd like to comment, but I don't think I will, other than to say:
Nice job...a very insightful post.
>What A Pisser- KP
Yup. I still think these shots at the Mig-25s were of the "Hail Mary"
variety, though - so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the misses.
- John T.
David Lentz
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
<3695dfbe...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
<snipped>
>>What A Pisser- KP
>
>Yup. I still think these shots at the Mig-25s were of the "Hail Mary"
>variety, though - so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the misses.
I don't like missing either. However there don't seem to be enough details
to formulate an informed judgement. Best to wait.
David
Sylvanian
> Same for the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
See the 'Iranian Navy' thread. There seem to have been several Phoenix
engagements of Iraqi a/c in the 80s.
Sincerely,
Sylvanian
Paul Holloway
Adam Yoshida wrote in message <36958434...@news.axion.net>...
>Mark Andrew Spence <mksp...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>
>>I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
>>2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
>>
>>I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
>>billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons? Is this the first time the
>>the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
>>
>>
>
>6 AAM's for no kills? Hell.
>
>combat. How the hell did all of those missiles miss a few MiG's?
>Next time the Iraqi's try that they should close a ensure a kill, then
>bomb the fighter bases. It'll prevent the prolifigate wastage of
>AAM's. Perhaps it''ll become a favored Iraqi tactic. Buzz the no fly
>zone, then turn and burn. Force the US to fire on them.
You have to look at the paramaters to understand why they missed. From the
info available, the MIGs were baid for a SAM trap. They were trying to draw
the US boys in close enough for the SAMS. Having enough sense not to do
this, they fired their shots at long range, near the edge of the launch
envelope. All the MIGS had to do was pop 'burner and evade. Probably
explains why that Flogger crashed from a lack of fuel. Wasn't due to any
fault with the missiles, it was due to the engagement parameters.
Paul Holloway
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.........."
Ogden Johnson III
: I'd like to comment, but I don't think I will, other than to say:
: Nice job...a very insightful post.
:
: >What A Pisser- KP
:
: Yup. I still think these shots at the Mig-25s were of the "Hail Mary"
: variety, though - so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the misses.
Ditto your Yup, in that what we see here is what has become a true Usenet
tradition; a bunch of people making BS assumptions, followed by BS
extrapolations, followed by BS pronouncements, all on the scantiest of
factual information, and on the BS assumptions, BS extrapolations, and
BS pronouncements being traded back and forth amongst themselves. But,
let anyone challenge the slightest aspect of all of this BS, and that
anyone is subjected to a barrage of demands for facts and citations to
support the heresy.
Sorry, John. I am in the midst of catching up on a week+ backlog of
Usenet posts in my regular groups, and I guess the concentrated dose has
gotten to me halfway through. Since I'm off due to the DC blizzard [a
whole 2"] this morning, I think I won't wait until the sun is past the
yardarm before grabbing a single-malt to ease the overload rather than
venting here.
OJ III
Paul J. Adam
<adam_y...@yahoo.com> writes
>6 AAM's for no kills? Hell.
Enemy aircraft, (mumble) miles away, closing at a net speed of ~1000
knots. In the envelope, fire AMRAAM.
Enemy aircraft turns and runs for its life, opening the range rapidly:
missile runs out of energy and, well, misses.
>Next time the Iraqi's try that they should close a ensure a kill,
Flak traps. The North Vietnamese were apparently fond of them: use a MiG
to lure US aircraft through a AAA or SAM concentration.
>It'll prevent the prolifigate wastage of
>AAM's. Perhaps it''ll become a favored Iraqi tactic. Buzz the no fly
>zone, then turn and burn. Force the US to fire on them.
Could get painful fast, if the Iraqi C2 isn't very good. Same as the SAM
crews: it's not going to do much for pilot morale, to go up and be
missile bait with no chance to retaliate.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul J. Adam
<mksp...@ricochet.net> writes
>I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
>2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
>
>I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
>billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons?
Within their envelope, yes, but aren't all systems prone to
exaggeration?
>Is this the first time the
>AMRAAM has ever been fired in a combat situation and missed?
Had to happen someday.
>Same for
>the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
First use by the US. Iran has apparently used a few, but the numbers and
results aren't known.
Sounds like a long-range shot, at an enemy who turned and ran rather
than press in.
LHW
Yoshida) wrote:
>
>Yes, that would be the first time the AMRAAM fired and missed in
>combat. How the hell did all of those missiles miss a few MiG's?
>Next time the Iraqi's try that they should close a ensure a kill, then
>bomb the fighter bases. It'll prevent the prolifigate wastage of
>AAM's. Perhaps it''ll become a favored Iraqi tactic. Buzz the no fly
>zone, then turn and burn. Force the US to fire on them.
I am sure the US will change their tactics to make sure those missiles
hit, which will unsurprisingly, surprise the Iraqi pilots.
- lhw
Cliff
Kurt Plummer wrote in message <3695B6C1...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
>Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
>
>> I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
>> 2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
>>
>> I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
>> billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons? Is this the first time the
>> AMRAAM has ever been fired in a combat situation and missed? Same for
>> the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
>>
>> M.S.
>
>Hey Mark,
>
>To me we're starting to see the 'results' of stuffing an ARH seeker into a
>7" airframe so that just about any dinky-fighter can carry/immitate it.
Yep. Teeny weeny missile too small and slow. We can do better.
>Remember, the AMRAAM was initially a product of AIMVAL recommendations way
>back in the mid-70's which indicated a compromised or unsortable IFF
>situation in the midrange fight traditionally (MRM) allocated to Sparrow
>and the need for merge killers that outsmacked the I-SRM's yet which were
>able to be salvo-fired from the most-numerous of our inventoried jets
>(because massive attrition after the initial salvo was 'unavoidable':(.
Guruspeak for sure.
>As such the F-16C/MSIP program got started with a whole bunch of 'wiring'
>precursors for Seek Talk, LANTIRN, GEPod, ASPJ, Maverick-D and AMRAAM...
>Which makes sense if you're trying to fight off hordes of sorta-dumb MiG-23
>from below the SAM radar horizon while carrying literal /tons/ of A/G and
>mission enabler -crap-. 347lbs and 7" is about the biggest you dare go on
>the outboards.
If you say so.
>
>OTOH, the F-15 didn't really mind a 500lb Sparrow on the shoulders and
>provided a better (profile sprint launch and LOS/Lookdown) 'perch' for the
>-fighter- mission. Of course you're hanging an RCS like a barndoor but
>you've got weasels, ravens and a fairly nice (if non installed, mostly)
>ICMS to 'protect you' from all the baddy big guns (SA-2/3/4/5/10 etc.).
>
>The USN was always smarter in the missile engineering arena but sadly lack
>the political infighing sense God Gave Cow Manure.
>
>Namely, they knew that the Phoenix, while an adequate bomber killer, was
>'Buffalo Slow' (Mach <>3) and achieved most of it's phenomenal range with a
>significant trajectory loft modifier against non cross track or retrograde
>capable evaders (AS-4/6 and Badger/Blinder) with pretty primitive noise
>jamming (even an AAM loses controllable agility at the peak of the loft).
>
>They thus 'wanted' an AAAM as far back as 1984 to put aboard the later
>Tom's and eventually a VFAX (I think that's the acro) combined multirole
>replacement for the 14 and the A-6.
>
>Depending on whom you ask, either Glasnost or the USAF killed that idea by
>'removing' the AVMF carrier-killer air threat and thus deballing the VF to
>leave the Doritomobile AX-12. For awhile the AAAM program coals where kept
>hot and there were all kinds of wild ideas about putting a separate
>'illuminator pod' (Med PRF high band PD in a likelihood) aboard equally
>aged-AWG Tomcats and giving the 'mini B-2' striker a new-Missileer makeover
>with stealth to forward-snipe or 'selfdefend with a vengeance', on it's
>own, over the beach.
*my heads spinnin ... or is it the room?*
Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*
Cliff
Paul J. Adam
writes
>>to existing systems and the enemy grows a little smarter with every
>>tactical gambit we employ against them and a little less unnerved by every
>>pseudo-victory they win by dynamic envelope surviving the 'onslaught' of
>>the Massed American Legions.
>>
>>What A Pisser- KP
>
>Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
>PUBLICLY IF YOU DID.
(raises hand in embarrasment)
Read it, understood it, laughed along with it, mailed Kurt to thank him.
Anyone selling T-shirts? :)
D. Scott Ferrin
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <778ta3$bar$1...@news.megsinet.net>, Cliff <cli...@HCIS123.net>
>writes
>>Kurt Plummer wrote in message <3695B6C1...@earthlink.net>...
>>>So we suck it up we wheeze along with AWACS and JTIDS and 'tape upgrades'
>>>to existing systems and the enemy grows a little smarter with every
>>>tactical gambit we employ against them and a little less unnerved by every
>>>pseudo-victory they win by dynamic envelope surviving the 'onslaught' of
>>>the Massed American Legions.
>>>
>>>What A Pisser- KP
>>
>>Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
>>PUBLICLY IF YOU DID.
>
>(raises hand in embarrasment)
>
>Read it, understood it, laughed along with it, mailed Kurt to thank him.
>
>Anyone selling T-shirts? :)
Me too. Excellent post.
Paul Michael Brown
> radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an autopilot but is
> still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a medium PRF to handle
> sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances. Combined, these
> /might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit out' a high-lofting
> Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress test'.
[Remainder of amazing post deleted.]
I once heard that when a Rhodes Scholar studies at Oxford, he's expected
to read 1,000 pages a week *in a foreign language.* For this armchair
wannabe naval aviator, reading that post was something like that.
Definitely a challenge. But worth the effort.
Carlo Kopp
>
> > As far as Phoenix failures.... IMO, it's probably as much a combination of
> > radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an autopilot but is
> > still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a medium PRF to handle
> > sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances. Combined, these
> > /might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit out' a high-lofting
> > Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress test'.
>
>
> I once heard that when a Rhodes Scholar studies at Oxford, he's expected
> to read 1,000 pages a week *in a foreign language.* For this armchair
> wannabe naval aviator, reading that post was something like that.
> Definitely a challenge. But worth the effort.
Kurt is an exceptional poster, Paul, and one of the best thinkers on
this NG. Take the time with his posts, it is always well worth it.
Cheers,
Carlo
Skibumdse
thats pobably the reson the migs ran out of gas. they probably didn't have a
full fuel load any way. To prevent the piolets from defecting.
Bob Baal
>
>Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
>PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*
>
>Cliff
>
Yes I read it - though I took two goes to read it. Its very
interesting and raises some good posts
Bob
>
Vladimir Malukh
Kurt Plummer wrote:
>
Gotcha!!!! What exellent stuff! Since my student years
I didn't expect that such "boring" topic as AA missiles
can be such fun and joy to read about!
Well, well done!
PS watch my address - I used to be your enemy :):)
stil building planes for them...
gws
Kurt's posts, except Carlo gave his advice to Paul [Adam] when he
should have given it to Cliff. Cliff, not Paul, posted the snide
article asking if anyone had read Kurt's post in its entirety.
Grey Satterfield
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <369847FC...@aus.net>...
>Paul Michael Brown wrote:
>>
>> > As far as Phoenix failures.... IMO, it's probably as much a
combination of
>> > radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an
autopilot but is
>> > still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a
medium PRF to handle
>> > sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances.
Combined, these
>> > /might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit out'
a high-lofting
>> > Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress
test'.
>>
Paul J. Adam
writes
>I agree with Carlo's advice that one should take the time to read
>Kurt's posts, except Carlo gave his advice to Paul [Adam] when he
>should have given it to Cliff.
I didn't take it as advice, I took it as a deserved compliment to Kurt.
Cliff
>I agree with Carlo's advice that one should take the time to read
>Kurt's posts, except Carlo gave his advice to Paul [Adam] when he
>article asking if anyone had read Kurt's post in its entirety.
>
>Grey Satterfield
grey (or maybe I should call you Mr. satterfield):
If my post regarding Kurt Plummers acronym-filled essay on missiles seemed
"snide", I sincerely apologize.
It should be obvious to all from my (thankfully pretty rare) posts that I
have nowhere NEAR the knowledge base that 99% of the posters in this
newsgroup have. I come here to learn what I can.
When I read (superficially scanned) thru Kurts post the first time, the
overwhelming content caused a "FATAL OPERATION ERROR" in my cerebral cortex
processor. Honest to God, I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek post from one
of you guru's - crafted as to be so technical, and acronym-and-lingo-filled,
as to be humorous when read.
As USUAL, I opened my yap before I had a clue as to what was REALLY going
on.
In other words, I leaped - and after having thus irreversably leaped,
subsequently noticing the 1000 foot chasm.
Turns out it was - I guess - a hellova post. Carlo's advice was sage.
To correct the record though: It was Paul Michael Brown was was the
"target" of Carlos advice, not Paul J. Adam as you say. Understandable
mistake, however. Paul J. Adam made the BAD MISTAKE of being extra nice to
me when I first came in this newsgroup. Now I often drive him nuts with
newbie/weeniebiy questions and stuff.
My intent was to express FASCINATION more than anything, I guess.
If anyone wants to talk to me, I will be hanging around the following
newsgroups, in which I am WELL RESPECTED as a guru:
newbie.naval.bathtub.sailors.bringbackthebattleships
dreamers.armchair.warriors.naval.clueless
alt.health.disease.braininfarct.temporary
Regards:
Cliff
>Carlo Kopp wrote in message <369847FC...@aus.net>...
>>Paul Michael Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> > As far as Phoenix failures.... IMO, it's probably as much a
>combination of
>>> > radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an
>autopilot but is
>>> > still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a
>medium PRF to handle
>>> > sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances.
>Combined, these
>>> > /might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit out'
>a high-lofting
>>> > Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress
>test'.
>>>
D. Scott Ferrin
>If my post regarding Kurt Plummers acronym-filled essay on missiles seemed
>"snide", I sincerely apologize.
>
>It should be obvious to all from my (thankfully pretty rare) posts that I
>have nowhere NEAR the knowledge base that 99% of the posters in this
>newsgroup have. I come here to learn what I can.
>
>When I read (superficially scanned) thru Kurts post the first time, the
>overwhelming content caused a "FATAL OPERATION ERROR" in my cerebral cortex
>processor. Honest to God, I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek post from one
>of you guru's - crafted as to be so technical, and acronym-and-lingo-filled,
>as to be humorous when read.
There was on that Dweezil posted a while ago that made me just shake
my head and laugh. I didn't know WTF he was talking about :)
>
>As USUAL, I opened my yap before I had a clue as to what was REALLY going
>on.
>
>In other words, I leaped - and after having thus irreversably leaped,
>subsequently noticing the 1000 foot chasm.
>
>Turns out it was - I guess - a hellova post. Carlo's advice was sage.
>
>To correct the record though: It was Paul Michael Brown was was the
>"target" of Carlos advice, not Paul J. Adam as you say. Understandable
>mistake, however. Paul J. Adam made the BAD MISTAKE of being extra nice to
>me when I first came in this newsgroup. Now I often drive him nuts with
>newbie/weeniebiy questions and stuff.
>
>My intent was to express FASCINATION more than anything, I guess.
>
>If anyone wants to talk to me, I will be hanging around the following
>newsgroups, in which I am WELL RESPECTED as a guru:
>
>newbie.naval.bathtub.sailors.bringbackthebattleships
>dreamers.armchair.warriors.naval.clueless
>alt.health.disease.braininfarct.temporary
>
>Regards:
>
>Cliff
>
>>Carlo Kopp wrote in message <369847FC...@aus.net>...
>>>Paul Michael Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > As far as Phoenix failures.... IMO, it's probably as much a
>>combination of
>>>> > radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an
>>autopilot but is
>>>> > still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a
>>medium PRF to handle
>>>> > sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances.
>>Combined, these
>>>> > /might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit out'
>>a high-lofting
>>>> > Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress
>>test'.
>>>>
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Ferrin) wrote:
>There was on that Dweezil posted a while ago that made me just shake
>my head and laugh. I didn't know WTF he was talking about :)
After a few drinks, neither do I...
<G>
- John T.
gws
good humor and willingness to admit error are much appreciated.
Grey Satterfield
Cliff wrote in message <77apon$ao0$1...@news.megsinet.net>...
>gws wrote in message ...
>>I agree with Carlo's advice that one should take the time to
read
>>Kurt's posts, except Carlo gave his advice to Paul [Adam] when
he
>>should have given it to Cliff. Cliff, not Paul, posted the
snide
>>article asking if anyone had read Kurt's post in its entirety.
>>
>>Grey Satterfield
>
>
>grey (or maybe I should call you Mr. satterfield):
>
>If my post regarding Kurt Plummers acronym-filled essay on
missiles seemed
>"snide", I sincerely apologize.
>
>It should be obvious to all from my (thankfully pretty rare)
posts that I
>have nowhere NEAR the knowledge base that 99% of the posters in
this
>newsgroup have. I come here to learn what I can.
>
>When I read (superficially scanned) thru Kurts post the first
time, the
>overwhelming content caused a "FATAL OPERATION ERROR" in my
cerebral cortex
>processor. Honest to God, I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek
post from one
>of you guru's - crafted as to be so technical, and
acronym-and-lingo-filled,
>as to be humorous when read.
>
>>>> > As far as Phoenix failures.... IMO, it's probably as much
a
>>combination of
>>>> > radar-midcourse band control as anything, the C uses an
>>autopilot but is
>>>> > still SARH mid-c'd and the AWG at least may not have a
>>medium PRF to handle
>>>> > sudden aspect/closure changes over significant distances.
>>Combined, these
>>>> > /might/ let a high energy target like the Foxbat, 'spit
out'
>>a high-lofting
>>>> > Phoenix even with just a 4-5G extend-to-beaming 'stress
>>test'.
>>>>
Tarver Engineering
gws wrote in message ...
>I agree with Carlo's advice that one should take the time to read
>Kurt's posts, except Carlo gave his advice to Paul [Adam] when he
>should have given it to Cliff. Cliff, not Paul, posted the snide
>article asking if anyone had read Kurt's post in its entirety.
I do, and Paul Adam gives up zero ground to Kurt; when it comes to missiles.
John
Mary Shafer
> There was on that Dweezil posted a while ago that made me just shake
> my head and laugh. I didn't know WTF he was talking about :)
Hey, if you guys want obscure, let me know. I can drop back into
jargon, acronyms, and local terms very quickly and it'll speed up my
posting, too. I had assumed people wanted to _understand_, not just
read, but I'm open to correction.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Paul J. Adam
<jta...@tminet.com> writes
>I do, and Paul Adam gives up zero ground to Kurt; when it comes to missiles.
Thanks, John, but Kurt beats me on airborne ordnance.
Torpedoes, now... :)
Harry Andreas
> Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
> PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*
Yeah, I did, as it concerns the company I work for and products we
manufacture [although I'm personally not in that division].
If read slow, it's understandable, and well done too.
Don't fret Cliff, I've got over 20 years in avionics and I had a hard time
with it.
--
Harry Andreas
the engineering raconteur
replace baloney with computer to reply
gws
with it. Jargon and acronyms, ad nauseum mystify me instantly.
Grey Satterfield -- wondering if he *really* knows what USN means
Mary Shafer wrote in message ...
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>sfe...@xmission.com (D. Scott Ferrin) writes:
>
>> There was on that Dweezil posted a while ago that made me just shake
>> my head and laugh. I didn't know WTF he was talking about :)
>
>Hey, if you guys want obscure, let me know. I can drop back into
>jargon, acronyms, and local terms very quickly and it'll speed up my
>posting, too. I had assumed people wanted to _understand_, not just
>read, but I'm open to correction.
I recall the original "seed" of this tangental discussion. I was
pulling Kurt's leg about the depth of jargon in one of his posts
( though I never actually stated that ).
At the time I thanked him for including a definition of one of the
acronyms he used - or else I would have thought "it was there solely
to compensate for crossit-turreting of the locatimatilister drift",
a purely-trash statement full of meaningless 50-cent words. ( Side
note: this was a well-rehearsed and oft-used response when some
butter-bar aircrew posed a really stupid question, formulated more to
impress us enlisted swine than an actual inquiry for knowledge...)
- John T.
Johan Fredin
Cliff skrev:
>
>
> Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
> PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*
>
> Cliff
Well I read it and the man has some rather intresting points...
Bob Horner
> crews: it's not going to do much for pilot morale, to go up and be
> missile bait with no chance to retaliate.
>
Since when have the Iraqis worried about morale? Anyone who objects get
shot. This way the pilots at least have a chance of survival.
Mike
Bob Horner
Cliff,
You're not alone. I got about three-quarters of the way through Kurt's post and
gave up. This is not to say that I thought the post was bad, its just that I was
on my lunch break and the brain was not not fully spun up (and I was running out
of time). Still. I'll try to read the whole thing sometine and will look out for
further posts his. Just one thing Kurt: please try to make the next one a bit
shorter :-)
Mike
P.S. Can the rest of you cut Cliff a little slack? The guy is a self confessed
newbie and at least has the balls to appologise when he screws up. More than be
said for a lot of posters I've seen.
Bob Horner
> Grey Satterfield -- wondering if he *really* knows what USN means
>
USN = Un Specified Nomenclature
Mike
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
"gws" <g...@sct.state.ok.us> wrote:
> No, no, no, no, Mary. Stick with English. I have enough trouble
> with it. Jargon and acronyms, ad nauseum mystify me instantly.
>
Right - now's our chance to get our own back on the lawyer.
Grey Satterfield, hereinafter referred to as the party of the
first part has requested that the rest of us (hereinafter
referred to as the parties of the second part, if they are
ever mentioned at all) eschew obfuscation, to whit, avoiding
the use of excessive and unecessary technical terminology
merely to prevent said party of the first part's head
rotating (figuratively) at high rpm.
Pile 'em on, folks, thick and heavy. Sorry Grey, but I reckon
that the aforementioned party of the first part deserves
everything the party of the second part gives out.
David
ps I know it's not particularly obscure, but then I'm not
the lawyer.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gws
Grey Satterfield
dmb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<77fp76$vfs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Peter Skelton
Did he screw up? I don't remember him screwing up?
Seriously folks, if you can't understand something why not ask for an
explanation? The post was logical, well-constucted and correct (to the best
of my limited knowlwdge). The subject was appropriate for this newsgroup.
It is hard to see where it could have been shortened without losing
content.
Cliff is not responsible for my lack of education (which is a little bit
less now than it was), or yours.
I can understand getting pissed off at the fourteenth regurgitation of why
BB armour would keep out a sunburn, how a missle dropped an airplane off
Long Island or why Iran was responsible for another air crash in 483 lines
of ungrammatic, incoherent, illogical idiocy mixed with unjustified
near-profane personal slights at those holding opposing viewpoints, but
that does not apply here.
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@kingston.net
David Bofinger
requires (pseudo-)CWI from launch and so would immediately reveal
the launch, or at least a fake launch.
Would the Iraqis have been aware of the AIM-120 launch? Obvious
mechanisms are an IR detection of the rocket plume (did they have
IR? What was the range?) or an AIM-120 requirement for higher
update rate during the mid-course phase.
If the AIM-7 had been omitted, might the Iraqis have remained
unaware sufficiently long that the engagement would have been a
success?
(For what it's worth, CLiff, I also found Kurt's post rather hard
to understand. Kurt, I think you have a habit of cynical digression
that you should tightly leash. :-))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>IIRC one engagement was 3 x AIM-120 + 1 x AIM-7. The use of AIM-7
>requires (pseudo-)CWI from launch and so would immediately reveal
>the launch, or at least a fake launch.
>
>Would the Iraqis have been aware of the AIM-120 launch? Obvious
>mechanisms are an IR detection of the rocket plume (did they have
>IR? What was the range?) or an AIM-120 requirement for higher
>update rate during the mid-course phase.
>
>If the AIM-7 had been omitted, might the Iraqis have remained
>unaware sufficiently long that the engagement would have been a
>success?
Two things:
- if the Iraqis had almost any sort of RHAW installed on those
aircraft, they would have known that "hostiles" were painting
them, right from the beginning of the engagement. The rumors
here seem to give the idea that the Iraqi intention from the
beginning was to "sucker" some allied jets into a SAM trap.
They knew all along what they were getting into.
- the mechanics of an AIM-7 shot ( with its required illumination )
set off some hard-to-ignore alarms with almost any RHAW set.
Usually, this results in the target attempting to avoid the BVR
missile - which slows him down. ( A $40,000 "turn signal" )
Employed against a very fast target, running away, this can be a
very effective means of pressing the engagement at a closer
range.
- John T.
gws
routinely deal with arcane and esoteric topics here and many
(sometimes it seems like most) of the posters are experts in the
fields about which they post. There is no shame in asking for a
clarification, as it is often needed. For those who ask nicely
we will forgive just about anything. Cliff, by the way, was
never discourteous.
Grey Satterfield
Peter Skelton wrote in message
<369b744c...@news.kingston.net>...
. . .
Lloyd Lim
>>
>>To me we're starting to see the 'results' of stuffing an ARH seeker into a
>>7" airframe so that just about any dinky-fighter can carry/immitate it.
>>
>>Remember, the AMRAAM was initially a product of AIMVAL recommendations way
>>back in the mid-70's which indicated a compromised or unsortable IFF
>>situation in the midrange fight traditionally (MRM) allocated to Sparrow
>>and the need for merge killers that outsmacked the I-SRM's yet which were
>>able to be salvo-fired from the most-numerous of our inventoried jets
>>(because massive attrition after the initial salvo was 'unavoidable':(.
>>
>>[lots deleted]
>
>Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
>PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*
:) :)
I went back and read it after people said it was interesting. Yes, it
was interesting. However, I don't usually read his entire posts. Normally,
I just read enough to see where he's headed and then I move on.
Since a lot of people are praising Kurt, let me point out a few things
as gently as I can:
* Long run-on sentences don't make it easy. Take a look at that second
paragraph above--65 words, 6 lines, _1_ sentence. Cough.
* He rambles quite a bit, which is why his posts are so long.
* He sticks in a lot of inside jokes, which don't really do anything
except make it slower to read.
I don't mind the acronyms that much. I think any regular reader can
decipher them, usually.
Anyway, I appreciate Kurt's contribution, but, with all due respect,
I hope he understands that his writing is very difficult to read.
+++
Lloyd Lim <Lloy...@mail.limunltd.com>
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
> - the mechanics of an AIM-7 shot ( with its required illumination )
> set off some hard-to-ignore alarms with almost any RHAW set.
> Usually, this results in the target attempting to avoid the BVR
> missile - which slows him down. ( A $40,000 "turn signal" )
> Employed against a very fast target, running away, this can be a
> very effective means of pressing the engagement at a closer
> range.
>
Can you explain this point a bit more? If they're running, why
would they slow down? Presumably by this point in the engagement
they would have a fairly good idea of the range to the launching
a/c and even Iraqi intelligence must have a fair idea of the
Rmax of an AIM-7 in a tail chase?
Seems to me this is a bit like those bad TV-movie chase scenes,
where the heroine, running through the woods spends more time
looking over her shoulder and hence falls over the conveniently
placed plot device...
David
Matt Spencer
My knowledge of ACM is limited to that of an interested bystander but
how's this for a scenario:
The Migs were attempting to lure the F-15s into a SAM trap.
The Migs turn and run as soon as they're aware that they've been
detected, expecting the F-15s to give chase towards the Mobile SAM Site.
The F-15s attempt to spring a missile trap of their own by illuminating
the targets and engaging with AIM-7, knowing that this attack will be
detected and cause the Migs to attempt to evade the incoming AIM-7.
AIM-120s are launched at extreme range, their sucess being dependant on
the Migs attempts at evading the incoming missile bringing them into the
jaws of the already launched AIM-120s.
Feasible scenario or just uninformed BS?
Under what circumstances would an AIM-7 shot be favoured over AIM-120 ?
Does AIM-7 have longer range and/or is it faster ?
What situations would call a combined AIM-7 and AIM-120 attack ?
matt
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:16:32 +1030, David Bofinger
> <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>
> >IIRC one engagement was 3 x AIM-120 + 1 x AIM-7. The use of AIM-7
> >requires (pseudo-)CWI from launch and so would immediately reveal
> >the launch, or at least a fake launch.
> >
> >Would the Iraqis have been aware of the AIM-120 launch? Obvious
> >mechanisms are an IR detection of the rocket plume (did they have
> >IR? What was the range?) or an AIM-120 requirement for higher
> >update rate during the mid-course phase.
> >
> >If the AIM-7 had been omitted, might the Iraqis have remained
> >unaware sufficiently long that the engagement would have been a
> >success?
>
> Two things:
> - if the Iraqis had almost any sort of RHAW installed on those
> aircraft, they would have known that "hostiles" were painting
> them, right from the beginning of the engagement. The rumors
> here seem to give the idea that the Iraqi intention from the
> beginning was to "sucker" some allied jets into a SAM trap.
> They knew all along what they were getting into.
> - the mechanics of an AIM-7 shot ( with its required illumination )
> set off some hard-to-ignore alarms with almost any RHAW set.
> Usually, this results in the target attempting to avoid the BVR
> missile - which slows him down. ( A $40,000 "turn signal" )
> Employed against a very fast target, running away, this can be a
> very effective means of pressing the engagement at a closer
> range.
>
> - John T.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>In article <369ba3fb...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>>
>> - the mechanics of an AIM-7 shot ( with its required illumination )
>> set off some hard-to-ignore alarms with almost any RHAW set.
>> Usually, this results in the target attempting to avoid the BVR
>> missile - which slows him down. ( A $40,000 "turn signal" )
>> Employed against a very fast target, running away, this can be a
>> very effective means of pressing the engagement at a closer
>> range.
>>
>
>Can you explain this point a bit more? If they're running, why
>would they slow down?
Think about it. You've got your throttles maxed out, rushing away
from the fight. Bells and whistles are clamoring in your ear, and
lights flashing that you are about to be hit by a missile. Perhaps
one comes alongside ( near miss ) and blows up. Do you do some
maneuvers to avoid the next one or press on ? BTW - any of these
missiles will catch up to your aircraft; it isn't as though you can
outrun it.
> Presumably by this point in the engagement
>they would have a fairly good idea of the range to the launching
>a/c and even Iraqi intelligence must have a fair idea of the
>Rmax of an AIM-7 in a tail chase?
I'll stay away from info about ranges. The thing most people don't
understand is that a missile's "good" range is a very dynamic thing,
constantly fluctuating as conditions of the shot change. About the
only thing "locked in concrete" is the range beyond which the missile
is not a threat - and that isn't a certainty. ( Though allies using
the same equipment might have a good idea...)
>Seems to me this is a bit like those bad TV-movie chase scenes,
>where the heroine, running through the woods spends more time
>looking over her shoulder and hence falls over the conveniently
>placed plot device...
Perhaps - but if someone who is chasing the heroine starts shooting
at her, should she continue in a straight line or duck ?
- John T.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<Matt...@NOSPAMaol.com> wrote:
>Could we be getting somewhere now ?
>
>My knowledge of ACM is limited to that of an interested bystander but
>how's this for a scenario:
>
>The Migs were attempting to lure the F-15s into a SAM trap.
>The Migs turn and run as soon as they're aware that they've been
>detected, expecting the F-15s to give chase towards the Mobile SAM Site.
>The F-15s attempt to spring a missile trap of their own by illuminating
>the targets and engaging with AIM-7, knowing that this attack will be
>detected and cause the Migs to attempt to evade the incoming AIM-7.
>AIM-120s are launched at extreme range, their sucess being dependant on
>the Migs attempts at evading the incoming missile bringing them into the
>jaws of the already launched AIM-120s.
>
>Feasible scenario or just uninformed BS?
A very possible scenario - but we're all speculating.
>Under what circumstances would an AIM-7 shot be favoured over AIM-120 ?
>Does AIM-7 have longer range and/or is it faster ?
>What situations would call a combined AIM-7 and AIM-120 attack ?
I get the feeling that it was an F-15E ( closer in, perhaps going
after the SAMs with GBUs ) that launched the AIM-7. To my knowledge,
the two types ( AIM-7 and AIM-120 ) are never mixed on the same jet.
Even the F-4 bombers in Vietnam carried two AIM-7s as self-protection.
Perhaps the E was the first to engage, and called for assistance from
the A/A boys...
- John T.
Andy Pan
we've gotten the Aim-120s... or at least could have sold them in bulk to
other countries...
Bob Baal
wrote:
[SNIP]
>>What situations would call a combined AIM-7 and AIM-120 attack ?
>
>I get the feeling that it was an F-15E ( closer in, perhaps going
>after the SAMs with GBUs ) that launched the AIM-7. To my knowledge,
>the two types ( AIM-7 and AIM-120 ) are never mixed on the same jet.
>
>
>- John T.
While I would expect that the picture
http://www.af.mil/photos/Jan1999/990106nwf15e.jpg
of a F-15E over Iraq looks a lot like a mix of AIM-7 and AIM-120
and if its not what is that under the Stbd. air intake?
Bob
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:58:57 GMT, dmb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <369ba3fb...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> > wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> >>
> >> - the mechanics of an AIM-7 shot ( with its required illumination )
> >> set off some hard-to-ignore alarms with almost any RHAW set.
> >> Usually, this results in the target attempting to avoid the BVR
> >> missile - which slows him down. ( A $40,000 "turn signal" )
> >> Employed against a very fast target, running away, this can be a
> >> very effective means of pressing the engagement at a closer
> >> range.
> >>
> >
> >Can you explain this point a bit more? If they're running, why
> >would they slow down?
>
> Think about it. You've got your throttles maxed out, rushing away
> from the fight. Bells and whistles are clamoring in your ear, and
> lights flashing that you are about to be hit by a missile. Perhaps
> one comes alongside ( near miss ) and blows up. Do you do some
> maneuvers to avoid the next one or press on ? BTW - any of these
> missiles will catch up to your aircraft; it isn't as though you can
> outrun it.
Well, sure you can outrun it, if you're at say, FQ max. range at launch and
then crank a 90 or 180. That's what E-pole's all about. The quicker you can
get cranked around and running away, the more you make the missile maneuver,
the lower the closure rate, the further the missile has to run, the less
energy for maneuver it has when it gets there, etc.
Guy
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:24:13 +0000, Matt Spencer
> <Matt...@NOSPAMaol.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> >Under what circumstances would an AIM-7 shot be favoured over AIM-120 ?
> >Does AIM-7 have longer range and/or is it faster ?
> >What situations would call a combined AIM-7 and AIM-120 attack ?
>
> I get the feeling that it was an F-15E ( closer in, perhaps going
> after the SAMs with GBUs ) that launched the AIM-7. To my knowledge,
> the two types ( AIM-7 and AIM-120 ) are never mixed on the same jet.
They are or were mixed, John. I can remember when the AIM-120 was first
cleared for the F-15, they were carrying mixed loads of 4 AIM-120s, 2 AIM-7,
and 2 AIM-9. The AIM-7s were carried on the flanks, can't remember if they
were front or rear stations, with AIM-120s on the other flank stations and
one of the two launch shoes on the side of each wing pylon, with an AIM-9 on
the other. At some point, the Air Force made an announcement that they were
going to keep some AIM-7s, as there were situations where it was more
suitable than the AIM-120. What those situations are, I don't know, but ISTR
that this wasn't presented as a means to save money. The AIM-7's warhead is
about double the size, and maybe it's better in certain types of shots or
jamming conditions.
Brian Brunner
::
::Kurt Plummer wrote in message <3695B6C1...@earthlink.net>...
::>
::>
::>Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
::>
::>> I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
::>> 2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
Bagged one flogger. That's a hit, to me.
::>>
::>> I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
::>> billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons?
Quit believing advertising.
::>Hey Mark,
::>
::>To me we're starting to see the 'results' of stuffing an ARH seeker into a
::>7" airframe so that just about any dinky-fighter can carry/immitate it.
::
::Yep. Teeny weeny missile too small and slow. We can do better.
Figures, we went from .30 cal M-14 to .223 M16. It's a good .223, but
an equally good quality .30 would have distinct advantages.
::
::
::>Remember, the AMRAAM was initially a product of AIMVAL recommendations way
::>back in the mid-70's which indicated a compromised or unsortable IFF
::>situation in the midrange fight traditionally (MRM) allocated to Sparrow
::>and the need for merge killers that outsmacked the I-SRM's yet which were
::>able to be salvo-fired from the most-numerous of our inventoried jets
::>(because massive attrition after the initial salvo was 'unavoidable':(.
::
::
::Guruspeak for sure.
I wish you WingWiper Anoxia Posterkids would include an ACRONYMICON for
your posts. I enjoy reading. It would be nice to understand, too.
::>> 347lbs and 7" is about the biggest you dare go on
::>the outboards.
::
::If you say so.
In other words we're flying tiny planes with tiny missiles, and giving
them a mission of governing a damn big sky, and when they can't reach
out and touch panick-stricken run-for-the-bunker fighters, we wonder why
as evidence that we understand some things as poorly as does Saddam.
::*my heads spinnin ... or is it the room?*
It's your gyros, trying to track Keith at the speed of thought. We
spend most of our time waddling at the speed of bullshit, and Keith
requires a fast (mental) slew/track mind.
::>As far as Phoenix failures....
Doesn't phoenix require radar assist to track to target, having just a
receiver? If you can't follow after launch (because of the wolf pack of
SAMs) how do you aim the thing to target? Another, non-shooter
platform, maybe? Room for the Fog of War.
::>Hell we've got stealth ain't that enuf?:)
Nope.
::>All of which is FINE by me (Never, _Ever_, 'multirole' an airframe with
::>air-to-mud stuff and expect to live against a determined opfor)
We don't need to. Air-to-gopher work is the Warthog's trade. Upgrade
it and play it. It's not a zoomie air-to-air frame, but I haven't seen
many flying tanks. At least not with and extended air-time.
::>What A Pisser- KP
::
::
::
::Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
::PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*
Yup, twice. I think I got his drift, and some of his gist.
::
::Cliff
::
Brian
=================================================================
If the IRS code was on King George's books in 1775,
Would it have been on the Declaration of Independence in 1776?
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>In article <369cc483...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>> Think about it. You've got your throttles maxed out, rushing away
>> from the fight. Bells and whistles are clamoring in your ear, and
>> lights flashing that you are about to be hit by a missile. Perhaps
>> one comes alongside ( near miss ) and blows up. Do you do some
>> maneuvers to avoid the next one or press on ? BTW - any of these
>> missiles will catch up to your aircraft; it isn't as though you can
>> outrun it.
>
>Well, sure you can outrun it, if you're at say, FQ max. range at launch and
>then crank a 90 or 180. That's what E-pole's all about. The quicker you can
>get cranked around and running away, the more you make the missile maneuver,
>the lower the closure rate, the further the missile has to run, the less
>energy for maneuver it has when it gets there, etc.
That is one possible scenario, of course. ( The conversion from max
range head-on to tail chase after missile launch would, indeed, expend
much of the missile's energy.)
My assumption, above, presumed a tail shot at a fleeing target.
- John T.
Bob Horner
Looks like a HARM to me. GBU-something under port intake, and a mix of
'Winders and AMRAAMs on the wing pylons.
BTW does anyone know if the AIM-120 has ever been given an official name,
and if so what is it?
Mike
Lizard of Oz
>
>BTW does anyone know if the AIM-120 has ever been given an official name,
>and if so what is it?
>
>Mike
>
that's official or not.
Neil
Lizard of Oz
>
>Well, sure you can outrun it <snipped the rest in the interest of brevity>
>
Aren't you confusing "out-running" with "out-distancing" here? The "turn and run
like hell" tactic allows you to out-distance a missile launched at max range, but
I think Dweezil was talking about "out-running" in terms of pure speed...that is,
pulling zone-5 and leaving the missile in your figurative dust is not an option,
***unless*** the range/energy factor comes into play.
Harry Andreas
wrote:
> They are or were mixed, John. I can remember when the AIM-120 was first
> cleared for the F-15, they were carrying mixed loads of 4 AIM-120s, 2 AIM-7,
> and 2 AIM-9. The AIM-7s were carried on the flanks, can't remember if they
> were front or rear stations, with AIM-120s on the other flank stations and
> one of the two launch shoes on the side of each wing pylon, with an AIM-9 on
> the other. At some point, the Air Force made an announcement that they were
> going to keep some AIM-7s, as there were situations where it was more
> suitable than the AIM-120. What those situations are, I don't know, but ISTR
> that this wasn't presented as a means to save money. The AIM-7's warhead is
> about double the size, and maybe it's better in certain types of shots or
> jamming conditions.
The AIM-7 is a less expensive piece of ordnance than an AIM-120.
The AIM-120 is designed as a "fire and forget" radar missile, while the
AIM-7 must be illuminated all the way to the target.
Bearing these mind, I postulate the following:
If you have clear air superiority, where you don't have to worry about the
time taken to illuminate the target during the missile's run, then it may
be advantageous to use the AIM-7 for two reasons:
1] cost
2] less uncertainty in the missile breaking lock, since you are
illuminating the target.
OTOH, if you know the enemy has good jamming it's probably better to
launch AIM-120.
Just a guess.
--
Harry Andreas
the engineering raconteur
replace baloney with computer to reply
CJ Martin
>> of a F-15E over Iraq looks a lot like a mix of AIM-7 and AIM-120
>> and if its not what is that under the Stbd. air intake.
>
>Looks like a HARM to me. GBU-something under port intake, and a mix of
>'Winders and AMRAAMs on the wing pylons.
The F-15E does not carry the HARM operationally.
-CJ
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
rb...@clear.net.nz (Bob Baal) wrote:
<snip>
> While I would expect that the picture
>
> http://www.af.mil/photos/Jan1999/990106nwf15e.jpg
>
> of a F-15E over Iraq looks a lot like a mix of AIM-7 and AIM-120
> and if its not what is that under the Stbd. air intake?
>
> Bob
>
> rb...@clear.net.nz
>
>
HARM? It looks like it's carrying a couple of GBU-12s on the other side,
along with 2 AIM-120/2 AIM-9 on the wing pylons.
Bob Baal
wrote:
>> of a F-15E over Iraq looks a lot like a mix of AIM-7 and AIM-120
>> and if its not what is that under the Stbd. air intake.
>
>Looks like a HARM to me. GBU-something under port intake, and a mix of
>'Winders and AMRAAMs on the wing pylons.
>BTW does anyone know if the AIM-120 has ever been given an official name,
>and if so what is it?
>
I thought of that but the HARM would look a bit fatter and the nose
profile would be a bit different.
Bob
Groundplant
Lizard of Oz wrote in message <369df...@news1.ibm.net>...
>In <369DEF24...@dera.gov.uk>, Bob Horner <rmho...@dera.gov.uk>
writes:
>>
>>BTW does anyone know if the AIM-120 has ever been given an official name,
>>and if so what is it?
>>
Kurt Plummer
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:24:13 +0000, Matt Spencer
> <Matt...@NOSPAMaol.com> wrote:
>
> >Could we be getting somewhere now ?
> >
> >My knowledge of ACM is limited to that of an interested bystander but
> >how's this for a scenario:
> >
> >The Migs were attempting to lure the F-15s into a SAM trap.
> >The Migs turn and run as soon as they're aware that they've been
> >detected, expecting the F-15s to give chase towards the Mobile SAM Site.
> >The F-15s attempt to spring a missile trap of their own by illuminating
> >the targets and engaging with AIM-7, knowing that this attack will be
> >detected and cause the Migs to attempt to evade the incoming AIM-7.
> >AIM-120s are launched at extreme range, their sucess being dependant on
> >the Migs attempts at evading the incoming missile bringing them into the
> >jaws of the already launched AIM-120s.
> >
> >Feasible scenario or just uninformed BS?
>
> A very possible scenario - but we're all speculating.
>
> >Under what circumstances would an AIM-7 shot be favoured over AIM-120 ?
> >Does AIM-7 have longer range and/or is it faster ?
> >What situations would call a combined AIM-7 and AIM-120 attack ?
>
> I get the feeling that it was an F-15E ( closer in, perhaps going
> after the SAMs with GBUs ) that launched the AIM-7. To my knowledge,
> the two types ( AIM-7 and AIM-120 ) are never mixed on the same jet.
>
> Even the F-4 bombers in Vietnam carried two AIM-7s as self-protection.
> Perhaps the E was the first to engage, and called for assistance from
> the A/A boys...
>
> - John T.
Hey John,
Be fair though, how many early PACAF/TAC boys cried themselves to sleep,
thinking they 'Coulda Been A Contender (Born Navy;)!' but for the absensce of
the longer LAU extender bolts for early-nines (and no fours!).
I've often wondered how much, in addition to reliability failure and poor
pilot envelope awareness, Sparrow 'shortfalls' in-SEA occurred because there
-was no other system- to fend off the foe with and the pilot decided to
'dazzle his opponent' with sighting of the Great White Hope...??
Thanks- KP
P.S. Can you give an idea of the kinds of trades and availability when the
USN started cranking out their own in the machine shops? Did the base
facilities or Depot have a similar option?
Kurt Plummer
Bob Baal wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:24:55 GMT, wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser)
> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> >>What situations would call a combined AIM-7 and AIM-120 attack ?
> >
> >I get the feeling that it was an F-15E ( closer in, perhaps going
> >after the SAMs with GBUs ) that launched the AIM-7. To my knowledge,
> >the two types ( AIM-7 and AIM-120 ) are never mixed on the same jet.
> >
> >
> >- John T.
>
> While I would expect that the picture
>
> http://www.af.mil/photos/Jan1999/990106nwf15e.jpg
>
> of a F-15E over Iraq looks a lot like a mix of AIM-7 and AIM-120
> and if its not what is that under the Stbd. air intake?
>
> Bob
>
> rb...@clear.net.nz
Hey Bob,
I owe this to a fellah named Todd Enlund over on RMS whom I have found to
always be a reliable source in the past-
(On the F-15E), Sparrows are carried on the lower shoulders of the HRL
(Heavy Long Rail) because the required LAU-106A's needed to squirt AIM-120
remain unpurchased as of yet. This is an MSIP item which I understand the
15I/S buy may have actually helped pay for.
The F-15E you see is carrying either 2 or 4 GBU-12 (500lb LGB nominal
about 688lbs, with-kit, I think) on the port (your right, observing) side
while the wing tanks are 610 gallon items weighing around 4.5-5K when full
and the full set of LANTIRN pods are another 1K. The AIM-7M is rated as
508-510lbs and the AMRAAM/M-'Winders run at 347 and 196 each. I'm not
gonna comment on the 'FASTness' of the Type IV CFT's except to say that,
weight aside, it's lost a lot of it's tangential carriage value.
Say 14K worth of falling safe and at least 300knots worth of speed brake
with all that crap aboard. Try catching a Bat out of Hell with a fattened
Beagle on a Bungee (you can 'unload', once, but you're likely forbidden to
drop anything but the tanks short of IFE declare and all the A/G stuff has
some serious speed limiters...).
It's also quite possible that the E's were -alone- 'multiroling' the
denial zones as the continuing pace of deployment and a certain
/fascination/ with 'self escort' has led to some seriously delusional
behaviour regarding profiled mission frags, IMO. They probably had
on-call support from a secondary real-fighter orbit though.
At least this makes more sense to me than the concept of an AIM-7 fired
from a Tomcat which had /already/ shot off a Phoenix. Speaking of which,
any photos of the engaged aircraft yet? I'd like to know exactly how
_many_ -54's each Turkey was lugging too. 1-apiece is not impossible in
this day and age which may have reference to Mr. Dwarftosser's 'turn
signal' references on killing escape energy by forcing a break-overtake
change in tail-chase. A Foxbat might be missed once but I kinda have my
doubt's about a full-four fire off (is there a target/channel overlap
maximum anybody?).
AIM-120 itself can be carried on all the original (slab side) fuselage
stations AFAIK, but for awhile at least it /wasn't/ because failure of the
much thinner (= faster, less criticaled AOA) surfaces was occuring on the
forward one due to intake spills of very high energy air (Sparrow, that
fat bodied iron-pig-stabber, never seemed to 'mind'...;).
This may also be a function of higher, un-switched, carriage intervals,
on-deployment I think the AvLeak article back in the early nineties
mentioned as much.
In any case, the AIM-120B supposedly has much more robust plugins but you
can still occasionally see pics of AIM-7 forward on the Albino Eagles
while AMRAAM takes over a Winder station on a LAU-128 adaptor rail.
Funnily enough, the presence of /any type/ of CFT supposedly takes the
AIM-120 far enough out to avoid any spillage eddy (though the Eagle is
still the most 'dynamic' of stressful applications for the weapon I
guess).
KP
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<ch1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Be fair though, how many early PACAF/TAC boys cried themselves to sleep,
>thinking they 'Coulda Been A Contender (Born Navy;)!' but for the absensce of
>the longer LAU extender bolts for early-nines (and no fours!).
Hi Kurt -
Fortunately, by the time I got there, all of those AIM-4Dogs were
safely buried in TAC, where nobody could get hurt by them. ( Hey !
There is one AIM-4 kill recorded; the poor Mig driver probably jinked
into it by mistake as it cruised on by...)
There were no Mig-caps out of Korat back then ( except for two
memorable occasions, one of them the Son Tay Raid ) - but all of
our "tiger" FACS carried smoke 2.75s, two -9s and four -7s. ( The
TIGER FACS were long-loiter, high-speed FACS controlling the action
over...ah...the "practice range", far from home.)
>I've often wondered how much, in addition to reliability failure and poor
>pilot envelope awareness, Sparrow 'shortfalls' in-SEA occurred because there
>-was no other system- to fend off the foe with and the pilot decided to
>'dazzle his opponent' with sighting of the Great White Hope...??
Heheh. I hope there was more reason than that ! Actually, the AIM-7
was more easily employed. ( More G's, too. ) While the -9s of those
days required the nose gunner to keep the bad guy inside the reticle
while the growl changed, a sparrow shot could be successful quite a
bit off-boresight - particularly if the target was far enough away.
However - I really have to give the majority of early AIM-7 failures
to one source above all else. We really didn't know how to maintain
it properly. ( Primarily: test equipment. We didn't know that the
signals the radar was producing were bad. Everyone in the chain
assumed that if the things tuned okay, they would hit the red stars.
They were wrong. ) It took new test equipment - produced directly
in response to "Project Constant Hit" - before we knew what to fix.
>P.S. Can you give an idea of the kinds of trades and availability when the
>USN started cranking out their own in the machine shops? Did the base
>facilities or Depot have a similar option?
Are you kidding ? The machinists literally CRAVE such work. Most
of the time, they spend their lives either drilling out screws for
clumsy crew chiefs, or cracking classified safes for which the
combination has been lost. If it was coded LM ( local manufacture ),
they made it. If it was needed - now - they made it, regardless of
the "repair level".
- John T.
p.s. - I recently saw one of those "new" pieces of test equipment
for sale as salvage on the 'net. I sure hope they "de-milled" it
first.
Bob Horner
Lizard of Oz wrote:
> In <369DEF24...@dera.gov.uk>, Bob Horner <rmho...@dera.gov.uk> writes:
> >
> >BTW does anyone know if the AIM-120 has ever been given an official name,
> >and if so what is it?
> >
> >Mike
> >
> I've heard the name "Scorpion" used for the AIM-120, but I have no idea whether
> that's official or not.
>
> Neil
Yeah that was the name Dale Brown gave it in Flight of the Old Dog, so you can
probably bet that it isn't official :)
Mike
Bob Horner
> profile would be a bit different.
>
>
Look at the forward fins. They look cranked to me, which in my bbok spells
HARM. Anyone know of any other missiles witha similar configuration?
Mike
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:11:36 -0700, Kurt Plummer
> <ch1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Be fair though, how many early PACAF/TAC boys cried themselves to sleep,
> >thinking they 'Coulda Been A Contender (Born Navy;)!' but for the absensce of
> >the longer LAU extender bolts for early-nines (and no fours!)
>
>
> Fortunately, by the time I got there, all of those AIM-4Dogs were
> safely buried in TAC, where nobody could get hurt by them. ( Hey !
> There is one AIM-4 kill recorded; the poor Mig driver probably jinked
> into it by mistake as it cruised on by...)
IIRC it was 6 hits and 5 kills for 61 attempts. This was worse than the
AIM-9B was getting during Rolling Thunder, but about the same as the AIM-9E
managed in 1972 (6/71, if memory serves). The AIM-9J managed 4/31, and the
AIM-7D/E was (lost in memory) in RT, with the AIM-7E2 getting a pK of around
.106 in 1972 (23 for 215, something like that). I've got the appropriate
section of Red Baron at home, which would have the exact numbers. Again,
working off memory, 49 AIM-4D attempts (including all the hits and kills)
were made by F-4Ds during Rolling Thunder. The F-4E made some attempts
afterwards, and I think the F-102 also had some. Still, John accurately
states PACAFs general attitude towards the AIM-4D. The warhead was considered
too small, and the lack of a prox. fuse was a real problem, as the seeker
often locked onto the exhaust plume and passed 10-15 feet behind the target.
Also, it was considered the most complex and time-consuming of all the AAMs
in the inventory to set up and fire. Lack of training in its use for TAC
crews was considered a big part of the problem -- Ex-ADC types tended to
think it was no big deal. Launch reliability wasn't that great (about .67,
IIRC), but it was comparable with the AIM-7, if below the AIM-9 (about .85
for the AIM-9B, IIRR).
We'll never really know how good the thing might have been. After the poor
results in Rolling Thunder, Hughes was given a contract to develop the
AIM-4H, which would have had a larger warhead and a prox. fuse (Active
optical, IIRC). The development was canceled in 1969 or 1970. I suspect it
would have done better than the AIM-9E, and maybe about the same as the
AIM-9J.
> >I've often wondered how much, in addition to reliability failure and poor
> >pilot envelope awareness, Sparrow 'shortfalls' in-SEA occurred because there
> >-was no other system- to fend off the foe with and the pilot decided to
> >'dazzle his opponent' with sighting of the Great White Hope...??
>
> Heheh. I hope there was more reason than that ! Actually, the AIM-7
> was more easily employed. ( More G's, too. ) While the -9s of those
> days required the nose gunner to keep the bad guy inside the reticle
> while the growl changed, a sparrow shot could be successful quite a
> bit off-boresight - particularly if the target was far enough away.
>
> However - I really have to give the majority of early AIM-7 failures
> to one source above all else. We really didn't know how to maintain
> it properly. ( Primarily: test equipment. We didn't know that the
> signals the radar was producing were bad. Everyone in the chain
> assumed that if the things tuned okay, they would hit the red stars.
> They were wrong. ) It took new test equipment - produced directly
> in response to "Project Constant Hit" - before we knew what to fix.
Another cause that at least one Thailand Wing CO bitched about was the lack
of checkout gear near the a/c (they couldn't be checkend on the a/c at the
time, IIRR). This required a missile to be downloaded onto unsprung trailer
and driven on lousy roads anything up to several miles to the maintenance
shops, and the same on return. He pleaded for the AF to buy sprung trailers
for the AIM-7s, so they wouldn't take such a beating going back and forth,
causing a lot to fail before take-off, and who knows how many after.
The thing was just never meant to be loaded on an a/c and then be carried
around in tropical weather for months at a time. It was originally designed
to be pulled from a magazine on a carrier, loaded on an a/c, taken out and
fired, after which you'd repeat if necessary.
Guy
BlackBeard
<rmho...@dera.gov.uk> wrote:
Wasn't someone calling them the Slammer? I remember confusing the post
with SLAM-ER until he clarified he was talking about AIM-120's.
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
""Bless those who serve beneath the deep, Through lonely hours their vigil keep, May peace their mission ever be, Protect each one we ask of thee.
Bless those at home who wait and pray, For their return by night or day."
-Rev. Gale Williamson
Carl Crosby
I read the AIM-7 can handle some types of high intensity jamming better
than the AIM-120. I assume because of its using the more powerful
aircraft radar and its 'stupidity' the AIM-7 tends to ignore some kinds
jamming that confuse the 'smarter' AIM-120.
Thomas Schoene
<369F4ECD...@dera.gov.uk>...
Also, the tail fins are triangular, HARM's are cropped deltas. I'd
say it's definitely not a HARM. Either Sparrow or AMRAAM would fit
the profile better.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Kurt Plummer
g_alca...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Thanks John, Guy,
'Another for the annals' of saved postings as it were but if you should 'come
across' the RB specifics on kills in a spare moment I'm sure they would make a very
interesting addition either here or privately.
KP
Bob Horner
BlackBeard wrote:
> In article <369F4E5E...@dera.gov.uk>, Bob Horner
> <rmho...@dera.gov.uk> wrote:
>
> >Lizard of Oz wrote:
> >
> >> In <369DEF24...@dera.gov.uk>, Bob Horner <rmho...@dera.gov.uk> writes:
> >> >
> >> >BTW does anyone know if the AIM-120 has ever been given an official name,
> >> >and if so what is it?
> >> >
> >> >Mike
> >> >
> >> I've heard the name "Scorpion" used for the AIM-120, but I have no idea
> whether
> >> that's official or not.
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> >Yeah that was the name Dale Brown gave it in Flight of the Old Dog, so you can
> >probably bet that it isn't official :)
> >
> >Mike
>
> Wasn't someone calling them the Slammer? I remember confusing the post
> with SLAM-ER until he clarified he was talking about AIM-120's.
>
> Yeah Clancy's taken to calling it the Slammer, claiming that this is what the F-15 drivers call it as a nickname. Whether this is true or not I don't
> know.
Mike
David Bofinger
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:16:32 +1030, David Bofinger
> <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
> - if the Iraqis had almost any sort of RHAW installed on those
> aircraft, they would have known that "hostiles" were painting
> them, right from the beginning of the engagement.
Well, maybe. I'd assume that both sides were being tracked by other
assets: the US using AEW&C A/C, the Iraqis ground-based radar sites.
So if you start getting a lot of radar pulses in your direction all
it really tells you is that the AEW&C has pointed you out to the
F-15 (or whatever) and is cueing a search.
But let's assume you do know the moment you're detected by the F-15.
You still don't necesarily know he's fired.
> - the mechanics of an AIM-7 shot ( with its required illumination )
> set off some hard-to-ignore alarms with almost any RHAW set.
That's my point: AIM-120 doesn't necessarily have such a signature.
Maybe the single AIM-7 warned them, where the AIM-120 on their own
would have had a better chance of hitting?
> Usually, this results in the target attempting to avoid the BVR
> missile - which slows him down.
If they were intending to run anyway, this isn't an issue. If they
only ran because they heard CWI then maybe you don't want them to
run.
Or maybe the US didn't really want a kill out of this engagement.
Clausewitz and all that.
> ( A $40,000 "turn signal" )
I suspect you dropped a 0 here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Crowell
Guy wrote:
>> The thing was just never meant to be loaded on an a/c and then be carried
>> around in tropical weather for months at a time. It was originally
designed
>> to be pulled from a magazine on a carrier, loaded on an a/c, taken out
and
>> fired, after which you'd repeat if necessary.
Much other good stuff snipped.
I'd also add that, vis a vis carrier ops, the damn thing was never intended
to take eightyleven arrested landings (crashes) prior to being fired in
anger,
either.
Jeff
David Lentz
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
<36a5374...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
<snipped>
>Hey! Those "simulated G" hits were sometimes the only things that got
>old AIM-7s to tune ! ( Kicked, smacked with a chock, etc. on
>pre-flight "hot tunes"...)
I thought that was brogan maintenance.
David
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Hey! Those "simulated G" hits were sometimes the only things that got
old AIM-7s to tune ! ( Kicked, smacked with a chock, etc. on
pre-flight "hot tunes"...)
- John T.
Dean Klein
PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*>
This is what happens when people play too many flight-sim video games
and spend too much time reading WAPJ and "Aviation Leak and Spy Technology."
Sheesh!
Bottom Line: These guys were taking Rmax shots and hoping to get lucky.
Low Pk all around. Can't say I blame em. I'd do the same to get a MIG
kill.
Regards,
Dean (900 hrs in the F-14)
P.S. Anybody out there who read all of that last post and actually says
they understand it either:
1) Needs to get a life.
2) Is lying
3) All of the above.
Carlo Kopp
Dean, I think you have summarised a large part of what is wrong with
many posters on this NG, quite succinctly I must add.
Add to the above an unwillingness to accept what more knowledgable
people have to say about the subject matter.
Perhaps it is a sign of these times :-(
Cheers,
Carlo
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
><Be HONEST, you bastards. Is there ANYONE who read all this? CONFESS
>PUBLICLY IF YOU DID. *LMAO*>
>
> This is what happens when people play too many flight-sim video games
>and spend too much time reading WAPJ and "Aviation Leak and Spy Technology."
>Sheesh!
>
> Bottom Line: These guys were taking Rmax shots and hoping to get lucky.
>Low Pk all around. Can't say I blame em. I'd do the same to get a MIG
>kill.
>Regards,
>Dean (900 hrs in the F-14)
>
>P.S. Anybody out there who read all of that last post and actually says
>they understand it either:
> 1) Needs to get a life.
> 2) Is lying
> 3) All of the above.
So are you saying that Kurt Plummer was full of BS or the guy that
thought it was a joke? I'm not claiming I understood *all* of that
post but I did understand part of it. A lot of what he says you'd
have to be an insider to understand IMO.
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>
> Dean, I think you have summarised a large part of what is wrong with
> many posters on this NG, quite succinctly I must add.
>
> Add to the above an unwillingness to accept what more knowledgable
> people have to say about the subject matter.
>
> Perhaps it is a sign of these times :-(
>
Except the last bit he wrote. To be honest, KP's post was
one of his clearest from my point of view - he does have
a tendency to tie my brain in knots at times, which I consider
to be a challenge rather than a nuisance, rather like
reading up my old QM notes...
David
Tarver Engineering
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <36A835CB...@aus.net>...
>
>Add to the above an unwillingness to accept what more knowledgable
>people have to say about the subject matter.
Pot kettle.
John
Paul J. Adam
<klei...@erols.com> writes
>P.S. Anybody out there who read all of that last post and actually says
>they understand it either:
> 1) Needs to get a life.
> 2) Is lying
> 3) All of the above.
4) Works amidst guided weapons ;)
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Carlo Kopp
>
> In article <36A835CB...@aus.net>,
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Dean, I think you have summarised a large part of what is wrong with
> > many posters on this NG, quite succinctly I must add.
> >
> > people have to say about the subject matter.
> >
> >
>
> Except the last bit he wrote. To be honest, KP's post was
> one of his clearest from my point of view - he does have
> a tendency to tie my brain in knots at times, which I consider
> to be a challenge rather than a nuisance, rather like
> reading up my old QM notes...
>
moreover he is always polite. KP is an example of an non-flyer who will
not insult pilots, but rather argue issues on merit. He also stimulates
a lot of good quality discussion on this NG which seems to be frequently
missing.
Cheers,
Carlo
D.B
I second Carlo. Kurt helps to many of us with his spectacular
knowledge. Its a shame that there are not as many as KP.
DANNY
dvc
Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
> I read the write up of the two recent engagements over Iraq. 3 AMRAAMs,
> 2 Phoenix, and 1 Sparrow were fired, for no hits.
>
> I can understand the Sparrow's performance, but aren't the AMRAAMs
> billed as "one-shot, one-kill" weapons? Is this the first time the
> AMRAAM has ever been fired in a combat situation and missed? Same for
> the Phoenix, or was this its first use in combat?
>
> M.S.
AMRAAM was used before (Desert Shield?) or during Northern Watch and over
Bosnia. Both were kills but I dunno how many were fired. During testing it
was said that 24 out of 28 targets were downed.
Actually Sparrow was the most successful AAM during Desert Storm. Phoenix
was never fired before I think. But it may have been used during the
Iran-Iraq war or before to down Russian Foxbats entering Iranian airspace.
Phoenix is, however, not designed for shooting down Migs. Huge waste of
money (1 AIM-54C = 1mio. bucks).
Darius
Katana
reports again.
dvc wrote in message <36AF5C23...@hotmail.com>...
Tan
>money (1 AIM-54C = 1mio. bucks).
I think you are wrong here. A Mig-29 cost between 20-28 million dollars
a piece. Depends on what version it is and how hard you
drive a bargain with the Russians.
Tan
>the reports again.
He's right have a look at this:
http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/aakill.html
Aim-7 accounts for more kills than Aim-9. Apparently almost all
air combat occurs BVR.
Katana
and 50 hit, thats only a 25% kill ratio....
Tan wrote in message <78o6ud$a04$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
Simon Robbins
very least) if that MiG closes to within his own firing range. Suddenly 1
million dollars seems like a bargain.
Si.
Tan wrote in message <78o6lv$a04$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
Thomas Schoene
<36af7...@pavlof.gci.net>...
> SPARROW??? MOST sucessful of DS....GET REAL.....better go back and
read the
> reports again.
Given that AMRAAM was never launched, and Sidewinder used only
rarely, Sparrow did indeed take the vast majority of the kills during
Desert Storm. Whether that is the same as "most successful" is a
matter for grammarians, and we already have one grammar debate
running on smn, which is enough, IMHO.
Katana
What they dont tell you is how many were fired and didnt hit. and there
were a hell of a lot that missed. I know of ten for sure
Tan wrote in message <78o6ud$a04$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
>>SPARROW??? MOST sucessful of DS....GET REAL.....better go back and read
>>the reports again.
>
Tan
It depends on how one define "success". There are many ways to measure
it. I won't dwell on it further since english is my 2nd language.
Anyway you are right in saying that sparrow is not that
successful in terms of "accuracy", But it is the only
available US medium range missile during desert storm (AIM-120
wasn't produce in large numbers in time). So given that it kills
more than short range missiles. It is succesfull in terms of kills.
IamFritz
to the F-15 pilot who, on or about Jan 20 1991, salvoed off all four of his
AIM-7s: only three of them launched, and of the three that launched only two
guided, of the two that guided, both missed.
The finances and numbers heretofore discussed must have been even LESS
interesting when we consider that during this aerial battle, he had become
separated from his wingman, had drifted over Baghdad, and his opponent was a
fully loaded MiG-25 with one of their more aggressive pilots, and his wingman.
Ask that pilot (LtCol Bigum, 1st TFW) how effective he thinks the AIM-7 is.
(note: The MiG-25, and LtCol's wingman also fired missiles, witha grand total
of 10 missiles launched by four aircraft, with 0 hits.)
Of course, F-16 pilots are 100% on with their AMRAAM launches- maybe the Ego
-ahem- Eagle drivers should take a few lessons from them?
Other note: No AMRAAMs were fired during Desert Storm. Though in the last few
weeks they were flying on the outboard stations of F-15s, the Iraqi Air Force
wasnotinterested in testing its accuracy.
Fritz Gunter
iamf...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/atroxmil/
(check out my great military art)
Kurt Plummer
> >Aim-7 accounts for more kills than Aim-9. Apparently almost all
> >air combat occurs BVR.
> >
Thanks Katana, a good link, but IMO 'BVR' only applies to FQ engagements and
even then the E-Pol may very well be radar or viz merge 'transient'.
OTOH, Sparrow rear quartering shots are not that uncommon from purely visual
distances because the wheezy Mk.36 motor on the Sidewinder, added to it's
incredibly narrow field of view, make it an uncompetitive 'tail chaser'.
Sidewinder kills happen at the edges of the guns boundary where there are too
many opponents and/or YOUR opponent has too much energy to fiddle fart
bleeding him down to a tracking solution. In those cases (and countries)
where guns competency (training hrs) may be absent altogether, it is
functionally a /replacement/ for the cannon, whether you have to lag him out
a bit or not. IMO...;)
KP