It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why the F-18?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:00 PM
Are you sure they weren't only jettisoned prior to emergency landings? That sounds very wasteful otherwise. That said, my attempt to find a photo of an F-14 landing with Phoenix' in place has proven fruitless so far.

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:44 PM
Actually, I was mistaken. It's more about the maximum weight of ordinance allowed to be carried by the aircraft while attempting carrier landing, taking its fuel state into consideration. AIM-54 is pretty heavy so it usually gets jettisoned

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:12 PM
Ignorant_Ape and I were just discussing this the other night. They can land with four AIM-54s mounted.

However, the Phoenix, nicknamed the "Buffalo" because of its size, was so heavy that a Tomcat couldn't carry six of them if the aircraft was to land on a carrier. No such restriction existed if the Tomcat was operating off a land base. Another problem with carrying six Phoenix missiles was that the drag of the two extra missiles on the wing glove pylons cut into aircraft performance and flight endurance.

In practice, a full armament load consisted usually of four Phoenix missiles on the tunnel stations, plus two AIM-9 Sparrow semi-active radar homing (SARH) medium-range AAMs and two AIM-7 Sidewinder heatseeking short-range AAMs, for a total of eight AAMs. A Sparrow and a Sidewinder were carried on a special dual rack mounted on each wing glove pylon, with a Sparrow on the bottom of the rack and a Sidewinder to the outside. This unusual configuration was used because mounting stores pylons on a swing wing is tricky and there was limited room on the wing gloves. If the Phoenix wasn't carried, there were also recesses in the fuselage tunnel for carriage of three more Sparrows.

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:33 PM
Thanks for the replies everyone. The F-18 reminds me of a Copier/Fax/printer combo. Sure it can do all those things, but can it do any of them well?

Now what can be done to modernize the F-18? Is the airframe suitable for 3DTV? How about AESA Radar(would APG-77 fit?)? If the ARMRAAM D(FRMAAM) or the SDB are deployed(air force projects) would the F-18 be able to use such weps?

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by uuhelpus
How about AESA Radar(would APG-77 fit?)?

Isn't it already fitted on the E/F versions?

(edit) sorry. That's APG-79. Still and AESA though

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Taishyou]

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:55 PM

The F-18 reminds me of a Copier/Fax/printer combo. Sure it can do all those things, but can it do any of them well?

Well its not a B-52 but it is a capable attack aircraft, and it’s not a Raptor but the latest EF versions fitted with the upcoming AIM-120D will do fine for BVR engagements. I’ve never been crazy for it and it does deserve some criticism but sometimes its just unwarranted. By the way I believe Super Hornets carry the APG-79 AESA radar.

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:49 PM

I don't think my weight estimates are 'far too optimistic'. What's the fuel fraction on a 250lb missile with a combined signature enhancer and emission tape repeater system? .4? .6?

Provided it didn't eat their performance, fighter pukes would /kill/ for that kind of a number.

Keeping in mind, that MALD can fly for 20 minutes at Mach .9.

/Double/ the overall munition weight and make 70% of the addition in fuel while dropping the _loiter threshold speed_ (the notional idea behind Fast-Slow is that it GETS THAR FUSTEST and then STAYS SLOW LONGEST) to about M=.5 or .6.

Remember too that in one of my scenarios (the MiG Sweep) you KNOW they are coming so you are advancing at top Mach to smack them in the teeth as far from the raidfront or lane as you can. Since there is ZERO loiter requirement, you can afford to burn gas like there is no tomorrow because, for the missile, there isn't.

And for the defender there is only the choice between an 'honorable suicide' (against a robot interceptor twice as capable as he is). Or watching a shower of GBU-39's HAS-smash his ride, performing an instant pilot-transmogrification into an infantryman.

On the Ks-172 vs. Drone.



That missile is designed to basically compensate for the inability of it's MANNED parent airframe to survive transit to the close in fight (where it will also lose, 50% of the time to an SRM) through the use of _high energy_ propellant to cover the intervening distance between the time its GCI source detects a target and the interval it can **react** to said threats 'sudden' presence on a radar scope.


Why on earth would you yield initiative like that why not BE THERE already? In numbers sufficient to soak the /other guys/ defensive attrition fire? Why would you /allow/ a threat to -approach- the point where it's sensors or weapons could gain dominant positioning and thus FORCE you to respond to their leading actions?

Most especially because, when that million dollar LRAAM -does- arrive it /still/ won't be able to 'dogfight' with the target so you are looking at a hit-or-miss-ile type engagement model that is effectively ONE SHOT. One throw of the dice. One chance.

Every time you do that, you make the enemy EW scenario a workable solution. Because it too only has to work ONCE. In an environment that is already putting max physical and time stress on the proportional lead intercept curves of the closing missile.

In any case, first shot or last, you get to wait /another/ X-minutes (up to 5) while that damn rocket flies out /again/ to hit the next target, deliberately 20-100nm offsent out of cone. Which is _stupid_ because:

1. Such a Tsar Pushkan approach requires a -massive- airframe to carry not just the missile but the supporting radar.
2. Your 'uniquely innovative pilot' is spending a HUGE chunk of 'ho-hum closing nose on, nothing better to do than support a DEAD missile with a LIVE man.' As a PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR window.

Which together, just about 'solve for' the space around X that a defensive solution HAS TO BE IN relative to an OCA counter sweep which -knows precisely- when it's followon strikers are crossing the fence.

Christ, if that's your best solution, for pities' sake put a 20ft wide, lowband, radar+SAIRST in a stealth blimp and launch an even /bigger/ missile _From The Ground_. Because then you only end up losing the cost of the radar when the 20 million dollar LTA dies. And your ADSAM (beat back the horizon as much as the airframe) can go a 1,000km instead of 400. To make sure the enemy has to come a good long ways _above the horizon_ to kill Goodyear.

Nonsense. Double the installed thrust to 250lbs. Lengthen the body to accomodate a (typical Western approach) fuel cell insert. Or 'scab it on' like the Russians do. And you will STILL go the same speed on a .5:1 T/Wr.

Because the fineness ratio has gotten better while the overall thrust-minus-drag curve is still /tenths/ that of a manned platform. Or a rocket AAM trying to boost-coast shove a hypersonic bowshock out of the way. Indeed, _who says_ you have to skid? Why not polarimetric instead of cartesian control?

People ass-u-me that it's all about Power (Arr-rrraahuu!), it's not. You throw anything with a 3 foot wide nose through the air and anything up to maybe 20 square feet of intake behind it and your DRAG numbers are going to be ****.

You reduce that drag part of the quotient to perhaps 10+10" (radome and NACA inlet) and your _acceleration_ is going to be phenomenal, even on next to no thrust.

Which is where the idea of swarming the threat and then smacking them in the teeth from a deceptive aspect _once they honor the first shot_ (break!) really adds up.

Surely you've had someone tap your right shoulder and show up at your left side? As irritating as it is, it is also subconsciously scary as a 'what makes us different from wolves' scenario because you are used to reacting to a direct stimulus from one person. What happens when your worst enemy really IS at your right side? And his evil-twin is /also/ at your left?

You get the crap kicked out of you is what.

NUMBERS COUNT IN COMBAT SIR. More than almost any other thing. Because war is about the ability to win in spite of losses. Not because of their one-sided imposition.

I'm not forgetting that MALD has a complex signature repeater and taped emission package.

And Fast-Slow has a recovery package (gear and a sturdy weight-bearing keel or parachute and stiffened airfoils) plus a datalink and recce package. None of which is light. None of which is 'throwaway'.

Furthermore, MALI is not decoy. And the reason MALI was cancelled /after a successful flight test phase/ was because it's 'multimission' capabilities were deemed too-threatening to the monstrous egos and profit ratios of manned aviation.

Not because it couldn't do the job. But because the Fighter Mafia and the MIB were collectively scared pissless of having publically revealed how WELL it could. Cheaply.

Again, my system can cost _UP TO_ 3.3 million dollars each. So long as you can buy 15 for every 'advanced' threat jet likely to be encountered in Gumby Land, what are they going to do to stop it from coming into their airspace, SITTING ON the damn airbase and wheel-in-welling the jets as they take off?

How much 'excess performance' do you need at that point? This isn't hollyweird sir. It's not 1v.1. It's 1v.8 or more.

Even for a Sweep type 'nose to nose' mission; what can the archaic manned platform do?

Supercruise? Snort. Stack-back your turbo-AAM shots and make the oncoming jet 'honor every turn signal'. Until it's no longer super-freaking-sonic.

It takes a LOT of structural complexity to be capable of even bleed-down 9G maneuver at Mach 1.5. And the Raptor is. While the Su-27 and 30 are not. Does that mean a 5-6G break?

It also takes a lot of thrust which the Raptor has _and the F-35 does not_.

Thus if the controlling factor on air supremancy is the need to /get ahead of/ your own forces with sufficient time to engage the threat, you can largely obviate the requirement to hit the bad guy 'in their element'. By simply ensuring that time on the pointy end is sufficient to kill the defenders /whenever/ they QRA reflex to the raid warning.

(Hunting weapons favor the slow approach or can at least be made to work with subsonic strikers.)

It should further be noted that the 'zone' of best manned platform performance is subsonic not simply for physical reasons but for signature ones. Because while the Raptor is Stealthy; the Su-27/30 are not. And the F-35 only is in the front quarter (no penetration in depth, all standoff or else). Lest you suck up -vectored- missile fire from even farther out.

(Hunting weapons _generate_ flexibility by letting the Sweep force go where the gliding-IAM dropper cannot)

FINALLY, _no CTOL 'fighter' airframe_ is capable of sustained offbase operations. In the Flanker's case especially, not when it takes anywhere from 12 to 20,000lbs of gas to fly one sortie. And 4-8,000lbs of munitions to arm it up (another 'big deal' with rocket powered LRAAM is that solid HTPB based propellants are /incredibly/ heavy for their volume).

(Hunting weapons can be prepositioned with more certainty than an airframe can surprised GAI from, not least because they can also chase it back down through the trashfire as it lands).

If by Novator, you mean the Ks-172, you couldn't be more wrong.

OTOH, for a turbo-AAM, it all depends on the size envelope-

The majority of Chukars weigh less than 500lbs. Even the '1,600nm' version is merely 620lbs. BUT. They are anywhere from 11 to 15ft long.

Which would rapidly disqualify the majority of tacair shooters based on assymetrics and tank clearances if nothing else. It would even limit up (no CFT for instance) the F-15E/22 class. Such 'bulky = not operationally suitable' clearance issues being how they dumped the BQM-149/154 drone as the 'other-half of the six pack' ATARS system.

To beat them black-and-blue before they can bloat-up the design as an excuse to killing it; I want a missile system that can be dropped from a BRU-57 (X2) like a Mk.82 munition. Or even a BRU-61 (X4) like a GBU-39.

Because the only reality that counts is that liquid fuel brings with it a MUCH larger tank-reserve of 'restockable energy'. Which means if you miss, you can come around again. And thus /aside from fuel/ you can make just HUGE trades in overall system enclosure numbers as well as absolute performance (2.5-3hrs instead of 3-4?).

And THAT sir is the ultimate fear of a fighter pilot. Engaging a well design-traded threat missile which he is only 10-20% better than (in terms of instantaneous Ps bleed) on the first _subsonic_ break.

So that timing is everything.

Only to look around and _lose sight_ of said Robo-Richtofen. Because it's only inches across covered with isoluminant paint and NOT leaving a smokey-SAM contrail. KNOWING that 'somewhere, out there' it is gathering energy to come around again.

Even as he KNOWS it may take him 10-15 seconds (fuel heavy with bombs still aboard 'fresh off the tanker' especially) to get back in the game. While that drone is putting knots back on the clock at the rate of 30-50 per second.

Under such a scenario 'just as he sees the threat make a square corner and glances at his HUD to see he is STILL too slow to beat it...'. The weapons twin, the one he was so threat-locked he didn't have time to look for, comes smashing through his windscreen.

And he leaves behind his wife, life and kids (the people he 'really' doesn't care about) because he thought a 'career in the military' would be such a cool way to indulge his natural killer instincts.

Such being how you slaughter a Sky Knight like the feral dog he/she really is.

By making him treat every threat 'missile' as another airplane that won't stop hunting-them-back until it's destroyed. And then simply buying more such weapons, within the cost of his own ride, than he can keep track of or evade as a total Ps
s numbered trade.

Duh-uuuhhhh doesn't even begin to cover the _greed_ as much as idiocy of those who demand we pay them 'protection money' to be such incompetent defenders. Nor of the men who design for them. Because there is NO DAMN WAY that engineers /the world over/ haven't seen this underlying truth-in-numbers of my argument for DECADES!

And still they choose to support themselves by helping create a militarist aristocracies restricted view of 'how things oughta be':

Robbing the taxpayer to sustain their own class-elite.


Note to Moderator: I _will not_ be told 'how to write' as an alternative form of inhibiting _what I speak_. That said, it is of course 'your forum' and as such there are now no > >> >>> inclusive 'quotes' in my posts.

I'm sure it makes it /so much easier/ for everyone to scroll up and read the original poster's words without attribution but so long as _you're happy_ I'm sure the world can keep rotating about it's axis.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by ch1466]

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by WestPoint23

The F-18 reminds me of a Copier/Fax/printer combo. Sure it can do all those things, but can it do any of them well?

Well its not a B-52 but it is a capable attack aircraft, and it’s not a Raptor but the latest EF versions fitted with the upcoming AIM-120D will do fine for BVR engagements. I’ve never been crazy for it and it does deserve some criticism but sometimes its just unwarranted. By the way I believe Super Hornets carry the APG-79 AESA radar.

Just found this
APG-79 radar enters service at the end of this year. I asumed the E used the same APG-73 as the C model, but I was wrong.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:59 AM

Originally posted by ch1466
Note to Moderator: I _will not_ be told 'how to write' as an alternative form of inhibiting _what I speak_. That said, it is of course 'your forum' ...etc, etc

Dear ch1466,

I explained to you, via extremely nice U2U, how to use the quote and ex tags and the reasons why we all use them. Perhaps you missed the U2U, or you decided simply to respond in public, so I will repeat the relevant portions here:

Hi ch1466,

I've noticed your posts in this thread...
...are extremely long and hard to read, because you are not using quote and ex tags.

...When you quote text from another member, please surround the quoted text with [quote][/quote] tags but with square brackets.

When you quote from external sources outside ATS, you should surround the text with [ex][/ex] tags but with sq. brackets. This not only makes your posts easier to read, it also protects ATS from any copyright infringement hassles....

If you read the above excerpts again, I'm sure you will see that my concern is for the convenience of other members reading your posts and for the protection of this website, rather than me being on a power trip or attempting to censor your expression. Please feel free to quote other members or external sources as you need to in order to express your view, but within the guidelines set down here:

Mod Note: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

In future, should you wish to take issue with staff, please do so via U2U or via the complaints/suggestions button at the top of your page.


[edit on 2006-3-24 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:53 AM

I'm sure you know as well as I do that a missile needs to have much better performance than the aircraft its hunting as it has to turn "inside" the aircraft to kill it. With the energy and power you are estimating, it simply will not be able to perform these manouvres while sustaining airspeed. If your going to abandon the skidding for 'conventional' control, then you need the corresponding increase in wing/tail area = drag. I reckon most pilots would feel fairly comfortable in outperforming what is essentially a converted Tomahawk.

When this missile overshoots, what sensors are going to enable it to re-aquire? Surely since thats beyond current missiles its unfair to assume this machine will be capable of it. The same with Satellite radar coverage, its not giving current technology a fair crack at it.

Or, if you must make that assumption, you must factor in increased complexity, size and therefore weight of sensors.

Your proposing to cut loiter time to reduce initial weight, I thought that was key to the "airspace denial" of your concept? Also, are you going to allow enough fuel for 2 or 3 sweeps at terminal "intercept speeds"?

What was so wrong about the KS-172 please tell me?
The chukar does not perform any manoeuvering, using such a missile for basing weight on is completely wrong.

To perform a valid comparison with a more conventional missile:

- both must have the same sensors [either offboard with passive missile or onboard active, both capable of reaquiring after overshoot].
- your manouvering must take a real account of energy bleed, you've pretty much glossed over this so far. Your engine also needs to be capable of performing this throttling between cruise and kill conditions.
- what will stop this showing up on the enemy's radar and him simply taking evasive action? Slow cruise speed means plenty of reaction time fast cruise speed reduces this correspondingly.

*Oh, and I'd prefer it if you could avoid the irrelevancies if possible, your posts are far too long and hard to read. Thanks

[edit on 24-3-2006 by kilcoo316]

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:58 PM
Here is something my brother e-d me the other day, wanted to share it with you OP, enjoy!

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:45 PM
The 18 is goog but all of them should have the APG-79 istalled before 2010, if they want to be ahead .

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:33 AM
how can i get a ride in an F/A-18 in one of the blue angels for myself?

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in