It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question about the F-15 Satellite Destroyer

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Internet FAQ Archives is indicating from an old FAS article this:


One of the more interesting experimental applications of the F-15 has been as a "antisatellite (ASAT)" interceptor. During the early 1980s, F-15s performed tests with an ASAT missile carried on the centerline pylon, with the aircraft going into a climb along a prearranged trajectory to fire the missile at an altitude of 24,400 meters (80,000 feet). The missile then went into space and released a "kill vehicle" that homed in on the orbiting target using an infrared seeker and rammed it, destroying the target through sheer kinetic energy.

F-15 Origins & Variants


globalsecurity.org gives no altitude indications.
Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV)


Personally, being that the military never releases full disclosed details on military hardware, and being that it has been officially documented that the F-15 [albeit a stripped version] had "coasted to 103,000 feet," I believe that it is quite possible that the book may be correct. The only other possible case here is that the author of the book is mixing the ASAT program and the altitudes reached with the F-15 time-to-climb record or the member who created this is mis-quoting or mis-interpreting what he/she is reading.





seekerof

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
From the reading on the ASAT, they probably reached 80,000 by coasting. They'd climb at 65 degrees and accelerate past Mach 1 and trade airspeed for altitude until they reached the launch window. The Streak Eagle is the only one I have ever heard of reaching 100,000 by any means, and that had extensive mods to even reach CLOSE to that.


SOC

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Climbing at over Mach 1 to launch the ASAT may not have been intended to reach a higher altitude necessarily, but to impart more kinetic energy on the weapon at launch.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
The altitude wasn't so much for the energy as it was that the Eagle was the booster stage. The higher you got before launch the more fuel the missile had left for the limited manuvering it was capable of. If you launched at 80,000 as opposed to 40,000 that's that much less fuel the missile has to just to reach the target and can use later.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
When you see the F-15ACTIVE it is impossible not to notice how the SU-30 is a copy of it's design. It shows you how original russian designs are...

And about the missile launch. I once saw a movie (I can't remember which one), they launched a missile from a stealth bomber. Is this a fact or hollywood fiction?

[edit on 10-7-2005 by iris_failsafe]

[edit on 10-7-2005 by iris_failsafe]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by iris_failsafe
And about the missile launch. I once saw a movie (I can't remember which one), they launches a missile from a stealth bmber. Is this fact or hollywood fiction?


That was Independance Day. I do believe that the B-2 can carry the SRAM and the CALCM / ALCM, but I will need to some digging



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Sorry for the long quote, but here are some of the options that the USSR looked at for its ASAT program also of note according to the site (and its a pretty good one IMHO) the US tried the air launched ASAT in 1959.



A wide range of alternative projects were considered before a single approach was selected. The fundamental task was for the system to enter an orbit intercepting or coinciding with the enemy spacecraft, and then to destroy it. To meet this objective the following proposals were made:


Use of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, which would be exploded in space. This was part of the Soviet military’s Global Rocket projects of the early 1960’s. These included the GR-1 global rocket (known in the US as the Fractional Orbital Bombing System, FOBS), and the GR-2 with a 50 megaton warhead . The advantage of this destruction of enemy satellite was that it certainly guaranteed the annihilation of all spacecraft out to a distance of 1,000 km from the site of the explosion. The drawback was that it would destroy not only the enemy’s spacecraft, and that the radiation and electromagnetic pulse effects of such a huge explosion were not known. Luckily for future generations, this approach was rejected and trials of nuclear weapons in space were not conducted. The United States did however deploy two such systems (Nike Zeus DM-15S and Project 437/Thor LV-2D) from 1963 to 1972.

An air-launched ASAT, as had been the subject of repeated trials in the USA from 1959. This would be launched from an aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 m and lift an explosive charge of 50 kg to orbital altitude. The rocket would have to intercept the target satellite and approach to within 30 m for the satellite’s destruction to be assured. Work on this project began in 1961 and continued to 1963. However, as in the US, the flight trials did not achieve any results that would justify putting the system into production. A guidance system could not be developed that was effective enough to achieve the required intercept accuracy.

Manned ASAT. OKB-1’s Filial 3, led by Kozlov, began active development of the Soyuz-P in 1964. Initially the Soyuz-P was designed for piloted inspection and destruction of enemy satellites. It was intended that the Soyuz would rendezvous with the target satellite. The cosmonaut would then exit the spacecraft and inspect the satellite. Depending on the mission and results of the inspection, the satellite would then be destroyed, neutralised, or returned to earth for further study. This approach was quickly rejected due to its multiple technical complexities and the obvious danger to the cosmonaut. All Soviet satellites were equipped with automatic destruct systems to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. These would go off if given parameters were met, even when not in radio contact with Soviet ground control. There was every reason to believe that the enemy used similar systems in their satellites. Therefore it was believed that this approach would only result in the death of the cosmonaut.

Manned ASAT using stand-off inspection and weapons. The revised design was designated the Soyuz 7K-PPK (pilotiruemiy korabl-perekhvatchik, manned interceptor spacecraft). In this version, the Soyuz was equipped with eight small rockets. As in the previous case, the spacecraft would rendezvous with the enemy satellite. But the cosmonaut would remain in the spacecraft, using visual and other on-board systems to inspect the satellite. If the satellite was to be eliminated, the Soyuz would back off to a distance of 1 kilometre, and then destroy it using its on-board rocket-mines. A new version of the R-7 launch vehicle, the 11A514, was put into development to support launch the Soyuz 7K-PPK. In the end, delays in the development of the Soyuz and success in initial tests of the selected approach led to abandonment of this project.

Unmanned satellite interceptor, similar to the manned Soyuz-PPK, which would destroy targets using on-board mine-rockets. But here again designers were unable to come up with a guidance and targeting system of sufficient accuracy to solve the difficult problem of satellite-to-satellite interception. Furthermore the interceptor would have to manoeuvre to a distance close enough to the target to launch its rockets, in the process itself becoming a target for enemy systems.

A ‘kamikaze’ satellite. This would not require the absolute precision of the other methods. It could have a large fragmentation charge, manoeuvre to the vicinity of the target, and then explode, destroying itself and the nearby enemy satellite in the process. This was the cheapest, earliest available, and easiest variant technologically. In the end it was this design that was selected for further development.

Lurking unmanned space interceptor. These would be placed into earth orbit, but then stored there dormantly for a long time. At the start of military operations, they would be activated, and the spacecraft’s engine would manoeuvre the interceptor to the vicinity of the intended target, and then explode. This system had the advantage, compared to the earth-launched kamikaze, of rapid response at the start of hostilities. But it had the disadvantage of requiring a large new engine with a substantial fuel supply so that the interceptor could quickly change its altitude and inclination to reach the required target orbits (300 to 1000 km altitude and 32 to 100 degree inclination). Such a satellite would be too large for available launch vehicles. A second disadvantage was that it was not considered possible for the on-orbit storage to be maintained for more than 6 to 12 months, which would require constant and costly replenishment of the ASAT constellation. The third and most telling disadvantage was that such on-orbit storage would turn the ASAT’s themselves into targets for enemy ASAT’s. Therefore this variant never got beyond the paper stage.

A large space mine dispenser, which would carry 12 interceptors into orbit in a single launch. The dispenser would manoeuvre to the vicinity to a consecutive series of targets, and then destroy each in turn. On the plus side this approach would allow calculation and optimisation of the orbit to most efficiently destroy a series of enemy satellites at the start of a conflict. However offsetting this was the extremely large and expensive nature of such a spacecraft.
www.astronautix.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The ASAT was based on a missile that would have been launched from the B-52, B-1, and B-2 that was modified. The first stage was an AGM-69 SRAM-A.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
If the F15 is really that good at carrying big bulky payloads then why isnt the US navy using it instead of the F14?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
It would have been way too complicated to "navalize" the F-15 (allweather body, tail hook, landing gear, etc.).

One must also remember that the F14 and F15 were designed in an era where the services did not get along well at all. They competed against each other for the same DoD money. The Navy wouldn't have thought twice about using a "gasp" Air Force plane.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
There WAS a Navalized version of the Eagle desgined, that the USN politely looked at because they had to, then said Thanks but no Thanks. By the time they developed and designed it the F-14 was already designed.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Actually the F15 was refused because its performance when equipped with the Phoenix would deteriorate too much.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Actually the F15 was refused because its performance when equipped with the Phoenix would deteriorate too much.


It would've just been easier to rerun a substitutional. The F-14 is going to go into a retirement status long before the F-15's will, for that matter the F-15 will have to be made compatable. What does this tell you?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iris_failsafe
When you see the F-15ACTIVE it is impossible not to notice how the SU-30 is a copy of it's design. It shows you how original russian designs are...


I'm sorry, I'm just so confused, the F-15S ACTIVE first came into play in the mid 1980's, and it flew in the early, mid 1990's.

The Su-30 Series has existed since 1976. The thing here is that not only does the F-15 look nothing like the Su-30 series, but their capabilities and equipment is very different, the F-15C is alot better than the earlier Su-30's, as those models have proven worse than even the MiG-29.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The F14 is getting retired because its rather expensive and it isnt really suitable for todays wars. Altrough it is a good bomber. The best answer is perhaps the F18 super hornet is entering service faster than the F22.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
The F14 is getting retired because its rather expensive and it isnt really suitable for todays wars. Altrough it is a good bomber. The best answer is perhaps the F18 super hornet is entering service faster than the F22.

Umm, not make much sense your post!

lol, I'm having trouble to make sense of it, from what I understand, the Super Hornet entered service in the mid 1990's and the Raptor enters service next year. Both have different aircraft roles and are of different branches, I don't think they'll be making a naval variant to the Raptor.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I'm sorry, I'm just so confused, the F-15S ACTIVE first came into play in the mid 1980's, and it flew in the early, mid 1990's.


That date was for the inital SU-27 from which so many variants were derived. The variant you are refering to cam much later.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I read some where that the Navy was looking at possibly making a naval version of the F/A-22 only the navy version would carry more bombs/missiles and be bigger.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I read some where that the Navy was looking at possibly making a naval version of the F/A-22 only the navy version would carry more bombs/missiles and be bigger.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the JSF?

Shattered OUT...


SOC

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The Su-30 Series has existed since 1976. The thing here is that not only does the F-15 look nothing like the Su-30 series, but their capabilities and equipment is very different, the F-15C is alot better than the earlier Su-30's, as those models have proven worse than even the MiG-29.

Shattered OUT...


The first FLANKER-A prototype flew in 1977, not 1976. The FLANKER-F (T-10PU, Su-30) prototype was converted from the fifth T-10U, and flew sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s (the first T-10U FLANKER-B/Su-27UB prototype flew in 1985).

How are Su-30 series aircraft worse than the MiG-29? Have MiG-29s acquitted themselves better on an international stage than the Su-30Ks of India did over India against the USAF, and now over France against the AdA?

If you compare a baseline Su-30 to a baseline MiG-29C, you have a bigger aircraft with more range, more ability to operate autonomously from a GCI network, and longer-ranged weapons (R-27ER and ET against the operational FULCRUMs R-27R and R-27T). Both still retain a very rudimentary A/G capability in the form of unguided weaponry, the only advantage the FULCRUM having in this arena is the ability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons as it was an FA aircraft.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join