And which never shot down an enemy aircraft in combat, unless the Iranians made it work. As I recall, both times US Tomcat crews tried to get a Phoenix off the rail (in Desert Storm), the missile just dropped off the jet like a rock.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
B-1's and B-52's as flying arsenals of air to air missiles?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
That says more about poor acquisition QC, testing, and maintenance than the validity of the concept though doesn't it?
That's kind of a scary thought. Those things already go damn far coming off from a standstill on a surface ship. I'd assume they'd drop the first stage booster but still...adding a few ten thousand feet of altitude and speed would probably do wonders for its performance.
Seeker's supposed to more or less be an AMRAAM seeker though, for good or for bad, so there's that...
I love how the OP asks for the pointy nose perspective and it's a bunch of fat kids saying it's a dumb idea.
Fester, you are comparing 1960s tech to a 2020 idea. Technology has improved a bit since then if you haven't noticed. It isn't like you would have a division of these manning a DCA lane. That's what the actual fighters are for. This thing would need to go to the merge as much as the E-2 or Growler would now. Speaking of building airplanes with one fight...
I like the idea of SM-3/6 but I assume there would be a balance between available load out since SM-3 is so much heavier. I could see a mix load out.
The SM-6 is a much bigger missile and has a lot more real estate in the seeker head than the -120. More space means more processing capability. It can also utilize an illuminator for terminal guidance in most cases.
Also, (not directed at you BigRed) but SM-3 isn't A/A capable. If it were, it would be incredibly badass.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
Well it depends on whether you want to shape an OCA / DCA picture or you want to trim the military fiscally.
Yeah, thanks for the insight. The concept is solid now because technology. What the fuck does an E-2 guy know about intercept control.
The Missileer concept didn't die because they couldn't make the technology work. It's a dumb idea because it requires the opposition to cooperate with your tactics. Give you enough warning time to set up the missile truck for the intercept, and you need to dedicate hvaap so they don't go after it in the meantime. Because God forbid they don't cooperate with getting shot at max range, or only go after your fighters per the tactic - no fair, the Aresenal Plane wasn't meant to go to the merge?
I'd love to have this conversation on SIPR Airwarriors, but since that won't happen, I'll leave it at this. As someone who could be manning these DCA lanes, I like the idea. I don't need the opposition to cooperate. I need them to do their thing and we will do ours. No HVAAP needed. No merges required.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you or I think. This idea is being pushed around way above any of our pay grades.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you or I think. This idea is being pushed around way above any of our pay grades.
I'd prefer to simply have a section of F-22's behind me on the lane, a lot more feasible and flexible, if we're going to spend money somewhere... But if we want to be fanciful, why don't we have that Airborne Laser platform thing on goalie cap? No need to worry about kinematics...
Where is this lane and how long are you going to have that section of F-22s there? What was the loiter time for a B-1 again?
In a high-end fight, I would rather have Raptors in the lane as well. As a matter of fact I would rather have Raptors and my Block II Super Hornets and that is about it. Don't bring your legacy aircraft to this fight. Now put a section of B-1s out there as well and you can handle pretty much anything the threat can throw at you.
Again, I don't give a fuck if you like the idea. Talk to SECDEF. He's the one pushing it.
It sounds like they're being intentionally ambiguous. Given that this is a SCO project, I think it's safe to assume that everything is on the table.
Also... An F-35 can only carry 2x AAMs to preserve its stealth?! That's insane.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
What kind of fight are you talking about? And.... guess the APG-82/70 E models and 63v3 C models are out then - we can cancel tomorrow's sortie.. the B-1s and Super Hornets have this thing all figured out.
Beat me to it. While I wish the Marine Corps had purchased a number of high lot E/F Hornets, at least so I was getting more than 8 hours of flight time a month, an upgraded F-15C with v3 radar will always be a superior BVR platform to a high lot Super, as will a dark gray Eagle, though obviously to a lesser extent. Your Block II Supers are nice pilot_man, but we all know they're the fat chicks in the bunch when it comes to getting high and fast...