Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I just want to brink new perspective on these very FANCY expensive fighter jets and all the money being wasted on ever increasing costs.

instead of all this nonsense of dogfights and maneovering of the aircraft and getting behind the enemy aircraft to shoot it down or lock missiles on it...why not
just makes the air to air missiles steerable and pointable instead...?

so that you can shoot the enemy aircraft as soon as you can lock on it...

just makes the missiles on the pylons pointable on rotatable pylons.

point and shoot the missile.THAT'S IT.

NO NEED TO POINT THE AIRCRAFT.

NO NEED TO INDULGE IN POINTLESS AND TIME WASTING DOG FIGHTS.

NO NEED FOR FANCY AIRFRAMES.




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The part where you have to get behind the aircraft comes with IR heat seekers like an AIM-9 - it's not so easy to lock on the front of the aircraft, you really need an exhaust to "look at".

For some missile types such as medium and long range radar guided missiles like the now-defunct Phoenix and the AMRAAM, you can fire them from something like 30 miles away - no dogfight required (or desired).

As far as turning them sideways, I think that might be a tad difficult at high speeds - the missile would tear off or tumble when you released it.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
THE MISSILES can be fired from a bulbous rotating turret in much the same way as www2 bombers had them...

or as in like revolver type turret...endless possibilities..


the missile would be shot out just like a bullet using compressed air out of the turret barrels pointing at the target...

modern missiles are all aspect capable.



[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 2-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
If they hit the slipstream sideways at any speed at all they will tumble. They're not meant to do that.

For IR guided missiles, it would be totally impractical anyway - any shot you get will be a tail chase shot.

For longer range radar guided missiles, there's no reason not to just turn toward before firing. Although if you've got the burn time, they are mostly directed by a data link from the airplane anyway until they hit terminal guidance, so you could just pop them out the front and let them hook around. You can see this by looking at the missile's engagement envelopes. Most of the radar guided/data link types can engage at up to 45 to 70 degrees or so off axis.

Some of this is also due to the plane needing to maintain a radar lock on the target until the missile self-acquires (some missiles/modes don't require this), and the plane's main radar can't see very well to the sides.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Plane is still required. Guns/cannon are extremely useful when used on an airbourne platform. So if you still need planes, you need them to be defensible. Thus your fancy airframes and dogfighting equipments.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Turret mounted missiles would be heavy, complex and completely unnecessary esecallum, I'm afraid on this one you have already missed the boat as all-aspect missiles and helmet mounted cueing devices already mean the missile can be launched at any target the pilot can see by turning his head, no need to pivot the missiles themselves. Agility is still vital however as you want to be able to get that view of your enemy as quickly as possible while trying to stop him doing it to you.

Pivotable missiles in a less manouverable airframe is reminiscent of the Boulton Paul Defiant turret fighter of WW2, do you know what happened to the Defiant? It was massacred and quickly withdrawn as the concept was flawed and more manouverable fighters with fixed guns always won.

[edit on 28-7-2007 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
firing missiles from directly astern or diferctly ahead - cuts down on flight time and manouvers required

this direct flight path makes the missile faster , gives it a longer range and allows larger warheads for a given missuile size

if you are attempting to launch at a target to the side - you have a longer flight time , need a wider angle sensor herad

expend fuel needlessly compesating for lead etc etc



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Only airborne platform that could benefit from rotating missile launchers would be an Anti-tank oriented helicopter. As rotating missiles would allow it to fly past rather than over hostiles. I remember that Waynos has drawn a desing along these guidelines in the past



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Plane is still required. Guns/cannon are extremely useful when used on an airbourne platform. So if you still need planes, you need them to be defensible. Thus your fancy airframes and dogfighting equipments.


you are all wrong.

a plane cannot dodge bullets and a.c.f.

unless you are in the movies.

you are going from a to b and back to a.

no need for fancy agility.

the missiles will not tumble.

they will be fired at high speed just like bullets using small charges or just compressed air...


that boulton ancient plane with a turret FIRED GUNS NOT MISSILES.
why are you misleading people?


www.aeroflight.co.uk...

and the guns were fired from an open cockpit!!!
manuelly!!!

we are 50 years on now...

why are are you using ancient UNRELATED craft to dismiss an idea?

why?

by firing missiles just like bullets the need for agilty is minimal.

i understand you already have a bullet that can steer like a missile towards the target.

now we need missiles which can be fired at a target in any direction using amissile gun..

firing the missiles will reduce the weight and size as the high initial burn will be reduced.

the F35 JSF which badly designed in size as it is too small needs to have smaller but more powerful missiles...

SO THE TREND IS ALREADY THERE.



i am afraid the military industrial complex has brainwashed you into all the lies to get more money.


[edit on 31-7-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 31-7-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
i am afraid the military industrial complex has brainwashed you into all the lies to get more money.


Are you sure? I thought they had just bought us all off and we were spreading disinfo for money.

That's what you said last time I disagreed with you.

At any rate, I work for the military-industrial complex, so I don't get paid extra, sad to say.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I any one was to go to all the trouble of an almost total redisign of missile design in order to make them compatible with a rotating turret, and the mechanical and logistical implications then why would they bother with missiles at all?

By the time it hits production you could use directed energy beams - far more suitable for a turret design - and way cooler IMO.




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   


that boulton ancient plane with a turret FIRED GUNS NOT MISSILES.


Well Duh, since it was a WW2 aircraft what do you expect?




why are you misleading people?


I am not, everything I said about is true, I even did a detailed appraisal of it in a thread several months ago.




and the guns were fired from an open cockpit!!!


No, it was a power operated enclosed turret, check YOUR OWN link.



manuelly!!!


By a Spanish waiter?



we are 50 years on now...

why are are you using ancient UNRELATED craft to dismiss an idea?


Because the principle on which the defiant was designed is exactly the same and that principle was DEMONSTRATED to be flawed.

You know your non-agile fighter flying straight and level rotating its missile turret? It could also be called an 'easy target'.


[edit on 31-7-2007 by waynos]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam


he never asks why they never actually work.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by esecallum
i am afraid the military industrial complex has brainwashed you into all the lies to get more money.


Are you sure? I thought they had just bought us all off and we were spreading disinfo for money.

That's what you said last time I disagreed with you.

At any rate, I work for the military-industrial complex, so I don't get paid extra, sad to say.


i remember you.

are you not that "journalist" who swallows ever lie,hook, line and sinker pedaled by BIG PHARMA just because they give him a free $2 buffet and a beer.

this guy reports on every new wonder cancer cure drug of the week at the press conferences of big pharma.

just sits there absorbing the lies.

he never asks why they never actually work.

now the plane is very old.

it has no relevance.
it's mechanical.

50 years old.

modern planes are all servo controlled and automate firing control...
the boulton plane was clumsy due to poor design...
guns are not missiles

boulton guns were manuely fired and aimed...


you are trying to cloud the issue...


wherever i go there you are.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

Originally posted by SteveR
Plane is still required. Guns/cannon are extremely useful when used on an airbourne platform. So if you still need planes, you need them to be defensible. Thus your fancy airframes and dogfighting equipments.


you are all wrong.

a plane cannot dodge bullets and a.c.f.

unless you are in the movies.


So thats why they concentrate on all the fancy anti IR and anti radar is it? By your logic, stealth would last as long as everything else, since you can't dodge anything. And bullets only have range of a couple of miles, and then maneuverability is everything. And why would you want a turreted weapon, it would only be practical with directed energy, as everything else is affected by the airflow.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
esecallum, in regard to the Boulton-Paul Defiant would you please look up the word analogy in the dictionary. waynos is completely correct, he is trying to point out that the idea of a slewable missile launcher is completely redundant(pointless) in view of the fact that a straight and level aircraft launching it in a WVR engagement will itself be more vulnerable, in much the same way as a straight and level Defiant PROVED to be vulnerable, whether it fired guns, missiles or Spanish waiters(Que? Mr Fawltey) isn't the point . It is you who have been misleading 'a la' attacking Tom Bedlam on an unrelated topic, not waynos.

As you have already been told the aerodynamic loads such a system would impart on what would be by its design premise WVR, would necessitate beefing up considerably the airframe of BOTH the aircraft and missile. There goes your, "no need for fancy airframes theory". It would also be somewhat heavier and technically complex and therefore potentially more unreliable than a fixed pylon or bomb bay trapeze/ram ejector arrangement. And of course then there is the "small" issue of the fact that current helmet cueing systems and high off boresight capable AIM's are ALLREADY capable of slewing around through large angles to attack a target. All that has to happen is the pilot needs to sight the target, lock and launch. Your system would make the aircraft heavier, no more capable of attacking a target earlier as the pilot still has to see it, and if flying a more sedate flight pattern, more vulnerable. It would also lead to a high missile launch failure rate and the need to completely redesign or newly design missiles to cope with the tremendous aerodynamic and G loads such a launch system would impart on it. And so bang goes your "military/industrial" complex conspiracy as they would need to spend even more of our money finding a way to keep you happy.

This idea sounds nice in your head, but it doesn't make sense in the real world.

LEE.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

are you not that "journalist" who swallows ever lie,hook, line and sinker pedaled by BIG PHARMA just because they give him a free $2 buffet and a beer.


No, I'm the engineer guy that actually reads things for understanding.

You're the guy that accuses everyone of being a disinfo agent.



this guy reports on every new wonder cancer cure drug of the week at the press conferences of big pharma.


this guy thinks that they can all be cured by using a grill starter on them. Good luck with that.



boulton guns were manuely fired and aimed...


you are trying to cloud the issue...


wherever i go there you are.


esecallum again demonstrates that he can't keep what he reads straight - go look again, that was some other poster.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
esecallum, in regard to the Boulton-Paul Defiant would you please look up the word analogy in the dictionary. waynos is completely correct, he is trying to point out that the idea of a slewable missile launcher is completely redundant(pointless) in view of the fact that a straight and level aircraft launching it in a WVR engagement will itself be more vulnerable, in much the same way as a straight and level Defiant PROVED to be vulnerable, whether it fired guns, missiles or Spanish waiters(Que? Mr Fawltey) isn't the point . It is you who have been misleading 'a la' attacking Tom Bedlam on an unrelated topic, not waynos.

As you have already been told the aerodynamic loads such a system would impart on what would be by its design premise WVR, would necessitate beefing up considerably the airframe of BOTH the aircraft and missile. There goes your, "no need for fancy airframes theory" It would also be somewhat heavier and technically complex and therefore potentially more unreliable than a fixed pylon or bomb bay trapeze/ram ejector arrangement.missile launch failure rate and the need to completely redesign or newly design missiles to cope with the tremendous aerodynamic and G loads such a launch system would impart on it. And so bang goes your "military/industrial" complex conspiracy as they would need to spend even more of our money finding a way to keep you happy.

This idea sounds nice in your head, but it doesn't make sense in the real world.

LEE.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by thebozeian]


look i too can use old aircraft to bolster my postion.

the avro lancaster was hugely successful AND IT HAD 2 TURRETS...

YOU GOT THAT?

2 ANTI AIRCRAFT TURRETS...

and it shot down thousands of nazi planes.


i am afraid you are totally wrong.


the complexity you mention is absurd.

the f35 for example has a huge fan for vtol lift...
with gears...
including the complexity...



the missiles are simply put into a disc shaped turret.
to fire one the disc shaped turret pops out for 1 second shoots the missile at the target and pops into the airframe flush with the surface.


JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.


NO WAY CAN U REFUTE THAT..


i fear the reason you are making spuriuos objections is simple envy.

you did not think of it first so you try to dismiss the idea.
.
when everyone has forgotten then you will claim the idea as your own...

i find that morally reprehensible.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
esecallum, what experience and education do you have in the area of military aeronautics?

In the perfect physical world, yes, you're idea would work, unfortunately we don't live in the perfect world.

The analogy of a rotating missile turret to a ball turret on a WWII bomber is laughable at best. It doesn't work here because the ball turrets were a purely defensive measure and by no means used by the bombers to engage primarily in Air-to-Air combat. Check it again, Lancasters did not dog fight, they bombed German ground positions and used two anti-aircraft gun positions to defend themselves. They always took escorts when they could too for a very good reason.

Now I always thought that the better design would be a B-1 transformed into a long-range missile boat supported by AWACS and F-35's. Those B-1's would probably be loaded down with 20-30 AIM-120D's or better and engage in pure BVR combat. I'd say a group of 5 missile boats supported by fighters and AWACS.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
esecallum, where to begin?

Firstly your posts, would you please put your comments into good old fashioned sentence and paragraph form. Your writing's and therefore you’re meaning, are difficult to understand and disjointed. The word "I" is a first person pronoun, it is meant to be used in capital form to highlight that the speaker is talking for themselves, this is not a teenagers mobile phone text message so please use correct English to be understood clearly.

As for the rest,

i am afraid you are totally wrong.
How so? You make a statement and then don't indicate what you mean.

the complexity you mention is absurd.

the f35 for example has a huge fan for vtol lift...
with gears...
including the complexity...

Really? And do you know how much it is costing to develop the F-35B lift fan so that it will be reliable?... Billions is the correct answer.

the missiles are simply put into a disc shaped turret.
to fire one the disc shaped turret pops out for 1 second shoots the missile at the target and pops into the airframe flush with the surface.

NO! it isn’t simple to put into a disc shaped turret. This would require a totally new airframe design. It would be almost impossible to modify existing airframes to accommodate this. It would require you to cut a huge circle at least 10 ft across, more or less in the centre of the aircraft and at least several feet deep to fit your mechanism, umbilicals and drive motors. Where do you intend on putting the fuel, engines and structural load bearing members like the wing carry through spars/box? The only aircraft with something like this already designed into it is the F-35B. And as I said given that there are virtually no air to air missile designs much under 9/10 ft in length, even short range ones, you are going to end up with one VERY large diameter turret that will weigh with all its power accessories an awful lot.

JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.

The B-2 uses a ROTARY launcher in an internal bay, NOT your turret. It is also able to do this because it is a bomber, much larger than a fighter and the internal weapon bays are therefore able to be very large indeed.


NO WAY CAN U REFUTE THAT..

I wasn't refuting the B-2 rotary launcher YOU brought that up. But I DID just refute why a turret type launcher won’t work on a fighter.


i fear the reason you are making spuriuos objections is simple envy.

you did not think of it first so you try to dismiss the idea.
.
when everyone has forgotten then you will claim the idea as your own...

i find that morally reprehensible.

My objections are not spurious, they are engineering FACT. Your idea is the spurious suggestion here. And as a matter of fact yes I did think of it, about 20+ years ago as a teenager. And I think you will find that lots of other people both professional and amateur have as well. Matter of fact I am willing to bet that most teenage boys who are military aircraft technology enthusiasts think of this idea. However they quickly realise as they get older or become engineers themselves that it isn't practical. Don’t worry I won't be claiming this idea, you are NOT the first person to think of this idea esecallum, so maybe YOU should stop claiming it as your own. I would also point out that some of the people you have been arguing with here ARE actually engineers and DO know what they are talking about. So what did you say your credentials were again?

LEE.


[edit on 2-8-2007 by thebozeian]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join