This has been brought up before, I was wondering what you guys thought of this one:
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml
-
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
U.S. Missle technology
- Thread starter nickou23
- Start date
- Status
Dave Shutter
Registered User
The types of issues raised in the article pose some interesting questions: We can only afford to build so much these days, so do we build better planes, or better missles?
D
D
Randy Haskin
Registered User
quote:
The types of issues raised in the article pose some interesting questions: We can only afford to build so much these days, so do we build better planes, or better missles?
I don't think the article really brings up any issues that we don't already think about in the fighter community. Our tactics in the Strike Eagle are based on defeating a MiG-29/SU-27 threat using the AA-10C (the "long burn" Alamo) in a medium range, medium altitude engagement. Believe it or not, we also have tactics aimed at beating the "unbeatable" AA-11 Archer and other helmet-mounted sight targeted SRMs (like the Python).
That being said, good missile technology is getting cheaper and cheaper. With aircraft like the MiG-21 upgraded with a better radar, better avionics, and the HMS, there are a lot of small countries that can have some pretty first-rate (AA-10, AA-11, and AA-12 shooters) fighters. With our current crop of multimillion dollar fighters getting to be over 25 years old, it's important to get some more capable replacements out there.
Either that, or we just haul all our F-5s out of AMARC and load them up with new Russian missiles....
The types of issues raised in the article pose some interesting questions: We can only afford to build so much these days, so do we build better planes, or better missles?
I don't think the article really brings up any issues that we don't already think about in the fighter community. Our tactics in the Strike Eagle are based on defeating a MiG-29/SU-27 threat using the AA-10C (the "long burn" Alamo) in a medium range, medium altitude engagement. Believe it or not, we also have tactics aimed at beating the "unbeatable" AA-11 Archer and other helmet-mounted sight targeted SRMs (like the Python).
That being said, good missile technology is getting cheaper and cheaper. With aircraft like the MiG-21 upgraded with a better radar, better avionics, and the HMS, there are a lot of small countries that can have some pretty first-rate (AA-10, AA-11, and AA-12 shooters) fighters. With our current crop of multimillion dollar fighters getting to be over 25 years old, it's important to get some more capable replacements out there.
Either that, or we just haul all our F-5s out of AMARC and load them up with new Russian missiles....
Dave Shutter
Registered User
quote:...I don't think the article really brings up any issues that we don't already think about...
Now that you mention it Randy, your right! I don't know what I was thinking! This is by no means a new argument. You can go back forty years to the F-4 and see the reliance on "new" missle technology (no gun on the first version, everyone remember Jester's monologue in the ready room?) and even more so later on in the development of the Tomcat. Originally the Pentagon wanted a joint stand-off missle shooter (Navalized F/B-111) and not a high performance fighter since it was deemed: "no longer required." I try to watch the development of the new fighters very carefully, watchful of what capabilites are done away with whenever they're also deemed no longer relevant. History has shown repeatedly that low-tech adversaries find flaws in their opponents high-tech weapons and shove it in their faces complete with matching body bags. Whenever designers and Flag Officers start talking about "no longer needing" a certain capability, I get nervous.
D
Now that you mention it Randy, your right! I don't know what I was thinking! This is by no means a new argument. You can go back forty years to the F-4 and see the reliance on "new" missle technology (no gun on the first version, everyone remember Jester's monologue in the ready room?) and even more so later on in the development of the Tomcat. Originally the Pentagon wanted a joint stand-off missle shooter (Navalized F/B-111) and not a high performance fighter since it was deemed: "no longer required." I try to watch the development of the new fighters very carefully, watchful of what capabilites are done away with whenever they're also deemed no longer relevant. History has shown repeatedly that low-tech adversaries find flaws in their opponents high-tech weapons and shove it in their faces complete with matching body bags. Whenever designers and Flag Officers start talking about "no longer needing" a certain capability, I get nervous.
D
Dave Shutter
Registered User
No, but they will probably have a gun-pod, and it will be a better gun than the M60-A1 Vulcan, a 27mm Mauser used in the Eurofighter, and it will go on the plane depending on your mission. Betcha you'll never have it when you need it!
Just what I've read...
D
Just what I've read...
D
- Status