> Wrong. The USAF would love to have a longer range AMRAAM for the F-22.
Ah ha! I see the disconnect we're having here. NO the Air Force does NOT want
a longer ranger version of the AMRAAM:) What your thinking of is the ALRAAM
project. Still in the design and test phase. Rumor's (from the usual
unquotable sources:o) say they are leaning towards intigrated rams, or
hypervelocity motors to power it. As I mentioned about the Phoenix, long range
is tought to do in a small platform.
The AMRAAM does well at what it is designed to do. No the AF doesn't want a
120nm missile. (We don't need to worry about Bears with nuke cruise missiles,
we figure our bases went up in smoke right after we took off anyway:o) The
ALRAAM is quoted at looking at the 60-90 some odd nm range and is, like
you said, looking to take out both attacking aircraft at longer range but at a
possible role as a TAD asset.
As for the F-22 in a furball, it is a super manueverable fighter. The
prototypes compare well to the Flanker. The only current prototype to out do
it is the Su-27 Vector thrust/canard demonstator. As for current IR
short range missiles, all current IR trackers are able to lock onto a target
within @120 degree of the nose, and all can be locked on to front aspect shots
due to air friction over the wings. We and the Russians have had them for
almost
20 years now. The problem is at 9-12 miles range unless you can preform
some radical manuvers, SRAAM's are scarily accurate. The problem is, that if
you CAN do some radicals, the likely hood of a miss goes way up as at the
speeds and ranges involved the missile can lose the target in an instant.
The RCS shapes such as the F-22 does have some advantages in a furball.
The
F-22 blended shape makes the camo more effective. It makes less shadows
and light patches which in close combat makes it harder to distingush at what
angle the F-22 is at to you. Also the blended body has much less vortex
generation, which causes those neat but telling contrails to bleed off the
aircraft in a turn. IR missile seekers are only good to about 9 miles or so
for a shot based on the air flow over the wings. You can use modern IR
sensors, (spotting not targeting) to spot a target at 20 or so miles, but
unless he's a major heat source it's not enough to lock onto. Which is why the
majority of IR shot's are still tailing hits.
(I seem to recall the F-14D's sensor can lock the camera onto an IR
target at about 30 some odd miles to track it. Or maybe that was just
something I read in a Tom Clancy book:o)
The B-2's and F-117's are NOT used for interdiction. They are used as
strikers only. Neither is an air combat asset. As for IDing their CAPs, don't
count on it. Unless the AC are going in on surgical stikes, (such as Bahgdad)
the sky will be filled with strike packages and CAPs. Figuring out which
one's are escorts and where the AC they are escorting are is going to a
reallly fun job.
Then of course you have to get your fighter THROUGH the mess and have time to
hunt down the target. The CAPs would have a field day.
Randy
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> >Wrong. The USAF would love to have a longer range AMRAAM for the
The problem is how many SU-27's and MIG-29's you can buy for 1 F-22. In
a furbal F-22 are not going to have a kill ratio favorable enough to
justify their much higher price.
> The RCS shapes such as the F-22 does have some advantages in a
Current generation IR's are starting to be replaced by next generation IR's.
Please add about miles to your ranges... Also, you seem to
forget the both SU-27's and MIG-29's have built in IR sensors that can
hand off their lock on to their IR missiles.
> The B-2's and F-117's are NOT used for interdiction. They are used as
Great, but that doesn't change much. We were lucky in both Iraq and Serbia.
Why??? Lot's and lot's of good bases nearby. Saudi Arabia had far more
infrastructure then their airforce ever needed. Large NATO airbases in Italy
support most of the air opperation in Serbia. If you go to fight somewhere
where their isn't that much infrastructure, and these massive attacks are
going to be a whole lot smaller.
The airwar over Germany in WWII is very interesting. Each side continually
developed tactical and equipment counters, counter counters, counter counter
counter, etc. Do not assume that future opposition will be as incompetent as
the Iraqi's or as outnumbered as the Serb's. By the way, how many months did
it take build up the assets in Iraq to crush them so easily? 4 to 5 months, if
I remember correctly.
> Then of course you have to get your fighter THROUGH the mess and have
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> >Wrong. The USAF would love to have a longer range AMRAAM for the
I haven't had the time to go to the library and do Jane's dump in about a year
and a half. I would not be a bit surprised if the ALRAAM project got started
because of the in ability to develop an extended range
AMRAAM that will fit into an F-22's weapons bays.
> The AMRAAM does well at what it is designed to do. No the AF doesn't
ias@sprintmail.com (Imre A. Szabo):
> The problem is how many SU-27's and MIG-29's you can buy for 1 F-22.
In
> a furball F-22 are not going to have a kill ratio favorable enough to
The exact same thing was said of the F-15 and the Mig-21, 25 etc....
The F-22 is more capable than either the Su-27, (Production version) or
MiG29.
> Current generation IR's are starting to be replaced by next generation
I've already seen the next generation IR sensors and seekers. There is a
difference between how the two operate. Limit for lock on is still under 10
miles for the newest heads in anything but an aft aspect shot.
The IR sensors are used to visually track and lock onto a "target," they can
NOT pass off a lock until the missile seeker head has enough difference to
lock onto the target. Your still looking at anything but a rear angle shot
being under 10 miles.
> Great, but that doesn't change much. We were lucky in both Iraq and
I have to ask. Where you there for Desert Shield/Storm? Saudi did NOT
have far more infrastructure than we needed. We had to drag a lot of it with
us, (part of the build up time). They had buildings and runways, and they lent
us the bunkers, but for the most part our aircraft resided in bunkers WE
built. We had to do major repairs to their airbases and facilities, (not to
mention WE repaired a lot of their aircraft for them) in order to use them.
> Large NATO airbases in Italy support most of the air operation in
That I know of neither Brindisi(sp) or Aviano are "Large." In fact Aviano was
my second station, and it was smallish back when it DIDN'T have an actual
mission. It was not built up until the problems in the Balkans began and most
of what was built up is overcrowded and temporary.
> If you go to fight somewhere where their isn't that much
Actually, bare-basing is how we are TRAINED to fight a war. We practice
going to a bare base and hope we don't have to. We can be set up and flying
sorties within 12 hours.
> Do not assume that future opposition will be as incompetent as the
We never do. We train to do landing, buildup, generate and launch all under
WORSE conditions than we will ever face.
> By the way, how many months did it take build up the assets in Iraq to
Actually? We could have started the air campaign 24 hours after the first
assets arrived. It would have been rough, but we could have done it. We took
awhile to get the assets into place due to constant negotiation with the
Saudis as to what, when, how and how much. We also used the time to get the
facilities and equipment from our hosts up to snuff. My unit, (AWACs at the
time) was genned up to go within 24 hours of the news of the Iraq invasion
hitting the US. Some of the actual combat aircraft were ready in less than 12.
We had to wait for the Saudi's to ask for our help. (As an aside, I spent my
first week in Saudi fixing Saudi AWACs rather than working on my own.:o)
Randy
> I haven't had the time to go to the library and do Jane's dump in about
I don't think so. I've been hearing about ALRAAM for about 10 years off and
on. Mostly off:o) There seems to be a real scizophrenia about long range air
intercept missiles:o)
My first base was Eglin (Weapons) test side, which is where I first heard of
it. About the same time somone decided to call the AIM-7 replacment the
"AMRAAM."
(Ouch, that's dateing myself:o)
randy
*The exact same thing was said of the F-15 and the Mig-21, 25 etc....
*The F-22 is more capable than either the Su-27, (Production version)
*or MiG29.
It reminds me of a passage I read in a book titled "Heavy Losses" about the
American military equipment developement and procurement
programs/industries. When the comment was made that one F14 cost the
same as three F4's the reply was that the F14 would shoot down the F4 every
time in simulated air combat. Of course what wasn't mentioned was that the
same simulations had shown that three F4's would shoot down one F14 everytime
too. The point is how many assets is a side willing to risk? Especially
expensive, valuable and hard to replace ones?
*I have to ask. Where you there for Desert Shield/Storm? Saudi did NOT
*have far more infrastructure than we needed. We had to drag a lot of *it with
us, (part of the build up time). They had buildings and *runways, and they
lent us the bunkers, but for the most part our *aircraft resided in bunkers WE
built. We had to do major repairs to *their airbases and facilities, (not to
mention WE repaired a lot of *their aircraft for them) in order to use them.
*That I know of neither Brindisi(sp) or Aviano are "Large." In fact *Aviano
was my second station, and it was smallish back when it DIDN'T *have an actual
mission. It was not built up until the problems in the *Balkans began and most
of what was built up is overcrowded and *temporary.
*Actually, bare-basing is how we are TRAINED to fight a war. We
*practice going to a bare base and hope we don't have to. We can be *set up
and flying sorties within 12 hours.
*We never do. We train to do landing, buildup, generate and launch all *under
WORSE conditions than we will ever face.
*Actually? We could have started the air campaign 24 hours after the *first
assets arrived. It would have been rough, but we could have *done it. We
took awhile to get the assets into place due to constant *negotiation with the
Saudis as to what, when, how and how much. We *also used the time to get the
facilities and equipment from our hosts *up to snuff. My unit, (AWACs at the
time) was genned up to go within *24 hours of the news of the Iraq invasion
hitting the US. Some of the *actual combat aircraft were ready in less than
12. We had to wait for *the Saudi's to ask for our help. (As an aside, I spent
my first week *in Saudi fixing Saudi AWACs rather than working on my own.:o)
I was going to put in my points at each paragraph but as they all just deal
with the same thing I'll just roll it into one.
You missed the whole point of the comments!!!!!!!
If I follow your argument your saying that there is no difference flying
from a major perminant airbase in the USA with all the modern conveniences and
operating from a single bare bones runway 10,000 kilometers away in some
Jungle with NO other facilities.
The previous post is saying that there is a vast difference in the resourses
expended for the returns gained and I agree.
Thats not to say that it couldn't carry out successfully but not by many and
not at a Hideous expence.
Buck
> On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Geoffery R wrote:
> It reminds me of a passage I read in a book titled "Heavy Losses"
about the
> American military equipment developement and procurement
Especially
> expensive, valuable and hard to replace ones?
But the F4 didn 't have the ability to run interference on 12 Bear Bombers at
1400 nm at the same time. The F14 did. It was built around the ability to
carry the Phoenix.
> If I follow your argument your saying that there is no difference
The point of his argument was that we don't need a 3 month lead time to ship
everything over we need to begin ops. We can do it in 12 hours. SAC
practiced this sortof thing with Loadmasters and B36's back in the 50's.
Surely you dont think that they tossed this whole concept out the windo do
you?
> The previous post is saying that there is a vast difference in the
possibly, you'd prefer we build the same quality of aircraft as the russians
and have fewer pilots to fly them? One whole doctrine issue missed is that we
don't have 16 million people wanting to fly in the airforce and navy. We have
a select few. We train our pilots far more than the chinese do. Talk to Ed
over on sci.military.naval and rec.mil.aviation. He'll tell you first hand the
importance of training.
> Thats not to say that it couldn't carry out successfully but not by
I'd rather spend lots of money and few lives than less money and lots of
lives like we did in WWII. Human waves were tried in Korea, we figured out how
to deal there (you throw everything you can into their assembly area and throw
more at them when they attack). Motiviated professional troops are the way to
go. Not half trained conscripts with rifles and aircrat from the 60's.
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> >I haven't had the time to go to the library and do Jane's dump in
The ALARM's I think of are a British anti-radar missile, very similar to
HARM's but with slightly shorter range and much less hang weight.
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> The ALARM's I think of are a British anti-radar missile, very similar
They are talking of ALRAAM Advanced Long Range Air to Air Missile and AMRAAM
Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile which goes along with the
British/German ASRAAM which I think died Advanced Short Range Air to Air
Missle.
ALARM is a whole nother beast. That is Air Launched Anti Radiation Missile.
That is built by British Aerospace and what is now GEC Marconi (if I'm up on
my merger history, which I may not be).
In a message dated 12/7/99 05:36:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> ias@sprintmail.com writes:
<< The ALARM's I think of are a British anti-radar missile, very similar
to HARM's but with slightly shorter range and much less hang weight.
IAS >>
I think your right which is why the name keeps changing. Last I heard, (about
8 months ago, Eglin test command has gone back to calling it a ALRAAM again
:o)
Randy
In a message dated 12/7/99 06:13:41 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> ias@sprintmail.com writes:
<< There is no reason why can't have a massive number of mini-attenas
the size of cellular phone. All the electronics to make it work would be below
the
armor, so you would end having to blast the ship from on end to the other.
Easy to do if the ship is in port, but quite difficult if she is free to
maneuver. >>
Just a point on this comment. One of the missions of the newer
sea-skimmer
and hypervelocity missiles is to accellerate a payload of pellets aimed to
impact an enemy vessel at high velocity.
These will actually "kill" the vessel. It's called a "Soft-Kill".
How? Your pellets wipe out all the external attena of you ship. No attena, no
communications, no sensors, no fire control. And this stuff is NOT an easy
fix. Your looking at hours to re-wire, replace, and ops check your
antena arrays. This is one of the reasons for putting more and more data link
and aqusition antena on the escorts rather than the attacking ship. (The other
being when ever you light up, your a target not an attacker:o) Now this is
also quite useful against most ships not just the big ones. But that again
goes back to the "all your eggs in one basket" argument. For the cost of one
BB or CV you can get about 4 or more smaller ships with the same capability.
(As long as those four are in the same task force:o)
Randy