Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Alrighty then.

Please stop the personal sniping and multiple quotes. Its getting a bit out of hand.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Unfair! Unfair!

Special Interest Pimp Daddy Tom should get a retaliation post!

I think you're being paid by esecallum, it's the only explanation.
I call for an investigation!



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Actually esecallum, there are in fact non-cylindrical missiles, they aren't air-to-air missiles more like cruise-missiles, but still missiles non the less.

You have to understand that every aircraft in order to achieve a certain velocity does indeed need a certain shape(this concept applies only to an atmosphere and not a vacuum). If the aircraft in question exceeds a certain velocity when it is equipped with extra parasite and induced drag it will experience a complete structural failure. The wind resistance will be so much for the airframe that the airframe will rip apart. The missiles hanging from pylons must be streamlined and are generally designed to cause as little parasite drag as possible as to allow the aircraft to achieve a higher combat speed without stressing the airframe as much as it would if the pylons and missiles were set up asymmetrically.

If you check youtube I'm sure you can find multiple videos that demonstrate the airflow over wing foils. Of course this goes far more deeper than simply throwing around the words drag and airflow because in reality there are many more different factors that affect the aircraft since this is by no means the perfect physical world.

One example I can think of are crosswind landings and putting the aircraft into what's called a "crab angle" as to keep the aircraft's momentum forward when it is experiencing winds from different angles. It gives the illusion that the aircraft is flying sideways, but in reality it is going forward. There is an extremely indepth science in it and my only advice for you esecallum is to go to your local small time airport and find a Fixed Base Operator and take some flying lessons and go to ground school. If you're really interested in aviation you won't at all mind fork over the several hundreds of dollars that it costs to learn to fly and become a pilot.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This whole thread reminds me a lot of a heated argument that used to raise its head every so often when I was a student and certain people had a few too many sherbets. Permit me if you will - I'm not trying to derail the thread here (just trying to point out a dead lock)

You have a train track running east west, you have a train heading East, lets give it a speed of 50 mhp (not important but 50 mph for arguments sake). You also have a fly heading West (say the fly's speed is 5 mph).

The train and the fly collide - every part of the fly is now connected to the train, it's smeared across the windscreen.

So the fly has now changed direction - it was traveling west, now it is traveling east with the train.

In order for the fly to of stopped going west and start going east it must of at one point of stopped in space - for how ever short an amount of time it MUST of been stationary in order to of then started traveling in the other direction.

But if the fly is connected to the train how can this be?

The only answer is that the fly and the train must of both been stationary for the tiniest fraction of a second - therefore the Fly stopped the train!



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
So if we are the train, is esecallum the fly



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
In all honestly Now_Then, I fail to make the connection of relevance of the that to this thread.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
In all honestly Now_Then, I fail to make the connection of relevance of the that to this thread.

Shattered OUT...



Actually its very `random` in its content which *could* be said is the same as the bulk of esecallum replies in this very thread.

but i believe now_then was making an analogy regarding aircraft and changing direction (to do with flys and trains)


trying not to grasp at straws though i am.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Okay. In light of a mod finally looking at this thread I'm going to be nice.

What I'm going to do is explain exactly why the first idea in this thread will not work.

For those that have forgotten, the idea was to put missiles on a pylon that can turn itself in any direction and fire. I am going to proceed to prove this as something that won't work in as many ways as possible. And I'll do it withfacts.

Point 1: Missiles that can be redirected prior to launch are not necessary.

New missiles are fully capable of firing in whatever direction the aircraft faces and reorienting in flight to engage the enemy aircraft. Missiles such as the AIM-9X demonstrate this all-aspect capability. With this ability, it doesn't matter the direction in which the missile is pointed at launch.

From that, we can see that pointing the missile in a particular direction using a pylon is unnecessary.

Of course, as far as I know only the short-range IR missiles are capable of this. But with something like an AIM-120 AMRAAM "Slammer" it's still unnecessary as you have plenty of time to reorient the entire aircraft, point at the enemy, uncage, and return to the original direction.

Point 2: With a full loadout you cannot rotate an external missile 90 degrees to the right.

Let's take an F-16 Fighting Falcon in this example.

An AIM-120 is 12 feet long. An AIM-9 is about 9 feet long. The wing of an F-16 from the root to the tip is calculable to be 12 feet long.

So in this regard you get fit a single missile on each wing if you want to be able to rotate them 90 degrees to the outside or inside (whether or not inside is a good idea.)

So now you're down from 6 hard points to 2. Not the greatest record, since you gain no appreciable advantage.

Point 3: Internal weapons bays don't make it any easier.

You can't rotate missiles in a standard internal weapons bay. So let's take a look at a totally different idea. It was previously presented that putting the missiles in a large, rotateable turntable that would pop up when it was necessary to fire missiles.

This is also a problem. The missiles are too long to be placed in something that large on a fighter airframe. So the only option here is to design a new, wide fighter airframe capable of doing this. A bomber airframe could accommodate something like this, but it would take extensive, expensive modifications. Bombers are not made to engage air targets. Of course, the problem with that is that bombers are large, problematic in terms of ACM, and once you lose the aircraft you lose a giant chunk of your force.

This is where my opinion of the original subject ends. I'm not going to even bother to address the idea of air resistance here because you are refuted the facts we've presented you with using physics that are not plausible. I will not address you theories on missiles flying in three directions at once unless you specifically ask me to.


Also, for any that enjoyed my evil humour, feel free to PM me. I'll give you a dose of evil from this thread once in a while, I just don't feel like going through the trouble of posting it here.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
OK so things have been getting a little out of hand and everyone here bares a little responsibillity. However I would like to make two observations, to esecallum, the moderators and everyone.

1). No offence to the moderators(FredT), but if any of you guys had been watching and jumped in a few days back this might not have degenerated into what it became. The problem with the large number of small quotes was due to the non standard posting method used by the thread author. I actually left a note for the mods to this effect in one of my early posts here. It was very difficult if not impossible to rebutt his many single line statements without doing it this way. The only other method would have been to quote the entire post and well, you guys would have penalised us for doing that.

2). esecallum, I am sorry if you are frustrated or feel you are being picked on, and obviously English not being your first language makes this harder. But when someone with some engineering expertise provides you with a perfectly reasonable explanation why your idea or any idea will not work, it doesnt help if you call them a liar or say they are brain washed by the millitary/industrial complex. It was this, the accusation against Tom Bedlam and your refusall to accept my defence of waynos's analogy of the Boulton-Paul Defiant, that started the problem, NOT your idea. I can see now that some of your comments can be put down to a language barrier, as exampled by your eventual explanation of what you meant by a "curved missile".

After all that has happened maybe now you can see why I asked you to type your comments in sentence and paragraph form clearly. Above all please learn to accept that no matter how good ANYONE thinks their ideas are, they may not be right. If you wish to discuss this issue further, learn more and listen to what we are trying to tell you that is fine, but please realise that we have looked at your idea and cannot find a way that it can work. As I said to you I thought of this idea many years ago and presumably so have lots of other people including engineers. However unless somone can find a way to build a revolutionary missile that is far more compact (shorter), much stronger and much faster the basic idea of a missile turret will not work. I encourage you to continue contributing and asking questions, just be prepared to accept criticisms without taking it personally..

Thanks also to Darkpr0 for a well thought out constructive analyisis and bringing up the very obvious problem we all missed,(myself included
) regarding slewable pylons and there affect on payload restrictions.

Also, for any that enjoyed my evil humour, feel free to PM me. I'll give you a dose of evil from this thread once in a while
Oh I just might take you up on that challenge! I did offer to tell you that the Flanker family were crap to get the ball rolling.
However I should warn you that one of my many, many , many nick names in addition to The Bozeian (which is actually the title of a mythical job) is The purveyor of minor evils


LEE.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Actually its very `random` in its content which *could* be said is the same as the bulk of esecallum replies in this very thread.

but i believe now_then was making an analogy regarding aircraft and changing direction (to do with flys and trains)


Errr sorta ~ think I was just spouting a bit of randomness ~ it is actually a question with no real answer, a lecturer asked us it at the beginning of a year.

Sorta my way of bowing out of reading this thread - Peace.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0. But with something like an AIM-120 AMRAAM "Slammer" it's still unnecessary as you have plenty of time to reorient the entire aircraft, point at the enemy, uncage, and return to the original direction.
e.


no.

you have all evaded the point.

below:-

xyz vectors prove that u can move in 2 directions or 3 at the same time.

i will give you an example.

suppose someone jumps from a plane at say 10000 metres travelling at say 500 mph going west.

the person will have 2 velocity vectors ON LEAVING THE PLANE.

downward at v=gt and westword at 500 mpg.

am i right or am i right?


you got that?


DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

the missiles on the pylons ALREADY suffer the G forces you allude too when a plane changes direction as explained above.


[edit on 11-8-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 11-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
no.

you have all evaded the point.


Excuse me? I'm sorry to have to be like this, but you've completely evaded the point. Not only are you using physics that don't hold water (you can move in 1 direction. You can move in 2 or 3 dimensions, but there's only one resultant direction.), but you're completely missing the point that I've just directly addressed the first idea without using the evidence you think you've successfully refuted!

So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to go after the point you've just made, and I hope that it'll show you the truth, because if it doesn't I probably won't have further patience to deal with your idea.

An object may possess ONE velocity. You get one direction and one magnitude (Of course, you could say this in different ways. Example: you could be going 25 miles per hour EAST or (negative) -25 miles per hour WEST. But they're still the same direction). This is all. The direction is a RESULTANT. It is a SINGLE direction. You're absolutely right, however, that it does have X Y and Z in it. However, these are COMPONENTS. You CAN be going 20 mph East, 25 mph North, and 15 mph Down. But if you are doing them all at the same time, you have moved along the RESULTANT.

To illustrate this. Go to a corner of a room and run along the wall to the other corner. Can you feel the wind? It's coming from the front, correct? There you go. So now, according to your thoughts, this would have to be one of the Axes. Let's say, for example, that it was the X axis, and that the wall perpendicular to that was the Y axis. If your theory were correct, you could run from a corner DIAGONALLY and would feel two different winds pushing at your face. Seriously. Try it.

Doesn't work, does it? This is because you're moving along the resultant vector. You have one direction, and one magnitude. This is the definition of a vector. Now, measurement-wise, you would be ABLE to say that you're moving at two different speeds, X and Y. But in order to feel two different winds, you'd have to have two different yous (scary concept) since you'd have to move in each direction SEPARATELY but at the SAME TIME. The only way to move in two different dimensions at the same time is to move in a direction between the two.

What I'd like to put forth for you is a different sort of coordinate plane. It appears that you're thinking in terms of Cartesian coordinates, X, Y, and Z. It's very useful, but can be mixed up with real life. If you want to see how things will work in the air, I would like to direct you to the Polar Coordinate System. In this system, you start from a single point. To define a line (which could represent movement) you supply an angle (direction) and a length (magnitude). These are vectors. Ultimately, this is a better way to see the movement of an aircraft (without wind, of course) since you don't have to deal with the differing X-Y-Z aspects of it all.

Hope this has been some help.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
esecallum, from your post alone I believe that you have no idea what you're talking about. Excuse this post, but once again, there is no such thing as moving in multiple directions, that's physically impossible. The only direction motion can be in is the resultant vector. What you described was the resultant vector, not motion in multiple directions.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Escallum, have you ever bothered to read any after action reports by pilots? Know what the best way to defeat a missile is? Be it SAM, or A2A? You wait until it gets close, and pull a high G turn. The missile tries to keep up with the aircraft, TUMBLES when it gets too far sideways into the airflow, and explodes.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by esecallum
no.

you have all evaded the point.


Excuse me? I'm sorry to have to be like this, but you've completely evaded the point. Not only are you using physics that don't hold water (you can move in 1 direction. You can move in 2 or 3 dimensions, but there's only one resultant direction.), but you're completely missing the point that I've just



look you are mistaken.

i understand all about resultant directions.

you missed the point.

the missiles on pylons still experience the x y z component forces of the resultant force.

MEANING THE MISSILES DONT BREAK UP.


as the aircraft is already subject to those forces already as it zig zags or performs 90 degree turns.

i see you carefully ignored my man falling out of the aircraft example.

twice.

because you know you are wrong.

that is why?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
At no point in combat does a pilot ever put his plane into a 90 degree angle turn unless he purposely wants his plane to lose so much energy that he becomes a sitting duck for the enemy.

The only times I've really seen 90+ degree maneuvers is at Airshows when the aircraft are equipped with no combat armaments.

As stated before by Zaphod missiles do in fact tumble when maneuvering at high alphas and more than sustainable G's are put on the structure of the missile. There is quite a different from a missile experiencing high alphas to a missile on a plane that is experiencing high alphas.

Keep in mind planes also can in some form "tumble". They can also stall and then spin depending on what the situation is. There are more situations which are actually worse such as stalling in a nose down position and then falling into a flat spin when trying to recover.

You continue to have a one-on-one conversation with Darkpr0 completely ignoring everyone else who is putting forth information. Why is that? Is it because YOU know that YOU are wrong and will so ignore others around you whilst only conversing with one member in the hopes that people will see you as addressing other's arguments?

Why do you continue to fight what's been put in front of you? I know we are all allowed to have our opinions, but this isn't even opinionated this is cold hard physics. There is nothing more true than what we've told you. When it comes to a science topic you can either be right or you can be wrong, there is in-between.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
First of all, newer aircraft have very powerful radars which can pick up aircraft hundreds of miles before your eye can see them. Once you get inrange, you only need the nose of your aircraft to be pointed in there general direction of the enemy aircraft. You then fire and the missile will guide itself to the target even though you cannot even see the enemy plane. You do NOT need to be behind an aircraft to shoot at it. That is one of the main things that incurs the huge cost on aircraft, big powerful radars so that you can detect the enemy and fire a missile before they do.

Stearable pylons would be pointless as it would make a plane very heavy, and would have huge development costs. Not only that, but it's not needed AT ALL. Take the AMRAAM for example, planes only need to aim within 60 degrees of the enemy for it to launch. Even if pylons were stearable, it would be pointless, you need to point the nose of the aircraft at them to get within fireing range anyway.

AIM-9X can fire in pretty much any direction, but that is used mainly for close quarters.

The reason we still make aircraft maneuverable is I think, from the lessons learnt in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom was a flying brick and although it had fairly long range missiles, it could still be shot down by more maneuverable MIGS if they got close enough. Another reason we make planes maneuverable is so we can outmaneuver enemy missiles.

When the enemy fires a missile, you could quickly change direction a few times so they enemy missile bleeds off its energy trying to aim at you. Once it gets close you do a very hard evasive maneuver to try and make the missile tumble.

The reason you want it to bleed off its energy, is missiles cannot make sharp maneuvers when they are going slow.

Esecallum why would you need a turret that shoots missiles if YOUR PLANE IS ALREADY FACING THE ENEMY AIRCRAFT!? And at low speeds missiles DO tumble. They are a cylender with a bunch of fins on them, at low speeds when maneuvering they would just stall and then begin to tumble.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Esecallum why would you need a turret that shoots missiles if YOUR PLANE IS ALREADY FACING THE ENEMY AIRCRAFT!?
[edit on 15-8-2007 by C0bzz]


He seems to think planes still fly in neat formations of entire squadrons all going the same way like in WW2 I think. That is why he does not understand there is no need, since no one flies high and slow anymore. The only way it could be useful I think is with a huge cargo plane for defence, but even then why are you flying so they are to your side?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You continue to have a one-on-one conversation with Darkpr0 completely ignoring everyone else who is putting forth information. Why is that? Is it because YOU know that YOU are wrong and will so ignore others around you whilst only conversing with one member in the hopes that people will see you as addressing other's arguments?
Shattered its because of two reasons.
1) esecallum can only deal with one poster at a time. A quick perousal of his other posts here shows that he often gets confused in his rebuttals and starts accusing one person of anothers comments. This is despite the fact that he has often been corrected as to who said what, but continues with his argument to the wrong person(s).
2) Darkpr0 is the only one who has had the perseverence to argue with him this far. I have affectively given up as have many others, not because we have been defeated by esecallum's brilliance, but because we have run out of ideas to show him he is WRONG. Darkpr0 should be congratulated for continuing on and persevering with esecallum in the face of overwhelmingly ilogicall arguments.


Originally posted by ShatteredSkiesWhy do you continue to fight what's been put in front of you? I know we are all allowed to have our opinions, but this isn't even opinionated this is cold hard physics. There is nothing more true than what we've told you. When it comes to a science topic you can either be right or you can be wrong, there is in-between.
To be fair to esecallum for a millisecond, if we just stopped replying to his posts he wouldn't continue. It seems that like a religious zealot, no matter what overwhelming logic, evidence, proof or professional experience, he will refuse to believe anything that shakes his faith in his idea or belief in his self prescribed brilliance.

We are fighting an impossible battle here guys, so like Galileo, lets just tip toe dignified and quitely to the emergency exit at the back of the room, and remember no sudden noises or movements, and above all avoid eye contact.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by C0bzz
Esecallum why would you need a turret that shoots missiles if YOUR PLANE IS ALREADY FACING THE ENEMY AIRCRAFT!?




I never said any such thing.

read the thread title.

i said you dont need to rotate the aircraft and do fancy dogfights and simply shoot the missiles in the general direction of the enemy.by using pointable missiles.
learn to read what i said.

WHEN I REPLY,I REPLY TO EVERYONE.

including the person who was wrong.
the other person who claims i wronged him did not read the preceding post and so wrongly accused me of addressing him.

but you people lied when you said missiles tumble as they have gyroscopes.

EVEN IF A MISSILE TUMBLED THE GYROSCOPE WOULD STABILIZE IT.

also you claim to be able to dodge missiles but you ignore tha fact a MISSILE WILL ALWAYS HAVE LESS MASS THEN THE AIRCRAFT.which means it will be always more agile.

THIS IS INDISPUTABLE FACT.

you also accused me of being a foriegner.

I am American.

i live in Helena,Montana.

i am white.

I AM proud to be American.

It was us Americans who saved europe from Hitler in WW1 and ww2 and cominusts.we gave you a trillion dollars in the marshall plan to rebuild europe after hitler destroyed you.we own you people.



Also thrust vectored missiles exist too meaning it's even harder to dodge them as cpu's advance even more.

your claim that you can dodge bullets from anti-craft fire is the most absurd.

you have been watching too many matrix bullet time movies again.

bullets hit you and then you realize you have been hit.you cannot know where or when they are going to hit.

also you have still not replied to point 2 repeated twice above as you know this is the killer point that defeats all your arguments.


[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by esecallum]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join