Forum: Technology

Would a MANPADS-class weapon in a 4- or 7-tube container replace a gun pod more effectively on a fighter tasked as an interceptor? The missile should have a wider engangement envelope than the gun. The guns normally are preloaded with tracers for firing warning shots with tracers spaced ever so many shots. Maybe a dummy rocket could act as a tracer round.

Otherwise what other drawbacks would there be? Would a laser designated weapon be better than an infrared or post seeker? Is the gun too valuable to give up? For fighters already equipped with a gun would the drag penalty make it not worthwhile? Please give your feedback weighing one option against the other.

F-16.net Sponsor

Interesting. I've too pondered if such a 'multi-pack' stinger (or equivalent) payload could be a justified close-in-layered ordnance, even if in addition to gun?

I was originally contemplating a 'twin' Stinger-type pod on each wing-tip pylon instead of the single round. Perhaps an aero-dynamically viable (perhaps slightly finned) wing-pod could also add to stable flight controls also? (Especially if a vertical stab was shortened or even removed)? But I hadn't gone as far as thinking full blown 7 tube load-out... so that would be worth the study, imho. Voted.

Maybe dual-moded seeker/fuze though (if I'm saying that correctly)... as maybe two (laser+IIR or even MMW) could be more effective than a single seeker mode to counter the counters??

Starstreak is an interesting manpads with its triple payload and laser beam riding. Starstreak reaches several times the speed of sound, making it more useful in the intercept role. The Stinger and later RBS70 are about 2/3rds as fast. An LAU-10 modified to carry 4 Starstreak under the wing and a helmet cued automated laser designator would be pretty useful. Potentially you could single out engines or other critical areas to disable the target's engines without trying to kill it outright. Something like that might be useful over Colombia when they interdict the drug runners.

Good god where to even start....

Alright first off laser vs heaters. Do any of you have any idea how hard it is to hold a laser spot on a semi stationary tank when all I have to do is manipulate the tads? Now you wanna do a helmet slaved laser for the guy actually flying the plane? Outrageous would be one word for it. ****** retarded would be two. Also beam riding missiles like hellfire require a minimum time on target laser spot. Try doing that and worrying about everything else that can be a issue for a laser guided weapon oh and fly the plane too. Simply not possible without a level of automated tracking that we can't get to work on the apache on the mtads. Image auto tracking is touchy at best and often not even used. You simply can't count on it in a real no kidding shooting situation.

Second missile aerodynamics chance drastically at the speeds your taking about. Boosters designed simply to overcome the pull of gravity now have to burn a very limited amount of propellant to overcome drag from highspeed flight. Those missiles mentioned are designed primarily to deny helicopters free rain over ground trips not to shoot down a mig at 30k. We tried putting stingers on the apache... My longbow hellfires are actually more effective and don't waist weight on a one use weapon.

Finally guns offer a versatility beyond interception. We have fighters doing gun runs in country. And I don't just mean a10s. Is it that effective... No. But it gets hadji's attention better than lobbing an unguided 4 lbs warhead ballistically into the dirt and hoping you hit something.

Last time I checked the Hellfire is a one-use weapon. Hellfire is a five foot long seven inch diameter missile, the stinger is a five foot long and under three inch diameter missile. Starstreak is about a four foot length and four inch diameter. Either of the missiles I cited will fit in a larger quantity in a far narrower pod, and the weights are a mere fraction of the hellfire. You complain about an air launched stinger (atas) coming off the Apache in which it hit all but one target in testing. Your waste is another man's treasure.

The big question is whether the missile would have the impulse to reach the target.

Let's think about this. A 106 lbs missile that can kill both moving aircraft and any mbt on the battlefield. Or a stinger with half it's weight and range that can only be shot at other aircraft well inside the range of the aa8 they bolt on hinds. Oh and to carry it I have to loose the cmws sensors on the wings which are far more useful to me. Yeah that's a hard f'ing decision.

How about this. You asked an open ended question that sounded like something out off a Japanese anime you watched when you were 14. Then an operator came on here and told you your idea was retarded. Next question please.

You're talking about trade offs using it on an Apache, I'm talking about an interceptor. Obviously you forgot to read the original post before you inserted your opine. You should look in the mirror and ask why you're getting all out of shape over a simple forum question asked seven months back.

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Oct 24, 2010 - 06:32 PM; edited 1 time in total

Interesting use of manpads (from original post).

My only concerns are guns are normally used in a turning fight.... So can a manpads turn well and maintain it's energy state after motor burnout?

Your idea gets even dumber on an interceptor. Do you think ofbit was a good idea they wouldn't be mounting gem instead of heaters? I keep seeing you on this forum spouting off the same kind of stupidity.

Why do I jump on you... Because it seems like you just ask for it. You come on this forum trying to spout off whatever opensource globalsecUrity/janes/wiki bs knowledge you have and then try to use it on people with access and experiance that vastly out rates yours in some sort of third grade "Nuh-uh!" fashion. I damn near had to strangle you with thebcord to your keyboard to shut you up in the titled wing forum. You just wouldn't get it through your head that you were way out of your lane telling an actual military aviator and a crewchief you knew something they didn't about military helicopters. Your a guard house lawyer (look it up). Stop wasting badwidth with your stupidity. This is the only aviation forum I'm on where this kind of behavior is even remotely tolerated. I'm fine with enthusiasm for all things aviation but what goes on in this place is borderline retarded sometimes. You wanna dream up cool ideas and talk about fun what ifs with people that matter. Go to school, get a degree, and get a job with raytheon or something.

Lawman, you're out of line.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Interesting use of manpads (from original post).

My only concerns are guns are normally used in a turning fight.... So can a manpads turn well and maintain it's energy state after motor burnout?

This is what I was wondering. If a target is maneuvering more than 5G then it will break the lock of the original Stinger. The gun has to be aimed out in front of the target - lead the target - which this kind of missile would not. The drawback is the infrared seeker has to successfully pick what target you're aiming at. The laser designated missile would require you to paint a maneuvering target. The gun pod doesn't have unlimited ammunition; seven rounds may actually offer you more chances for a successful engagement.

There was a plan that started in 96, but was canceled in 2002, to add a FPA seeker. The program was called Stinger-RMP Block II. This would have helped significantly with target recognition and discrimination. The article below states 8g as the upper limit of it's capabilities.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html

Do any modern fighters have "gunpods"? -- I assume that you mean an externally carried gun. The only one that I know of was the F-4, and it was apparently a POS because it wasn't stable (thus the switch to an internal gun).

As for your thoughts, Lawman did point out some real drawbacks
- lasers need time to paint a target, plus they need some dedicated operator time --which is precious

Also, guns can be quicker. I've never been a pilot of any type, but from all that I've studied, it would seen that sometimes your target may suddenly present itself -- possibly in close proximity. A quick burst may save the day.

Not to mention that you are limited to somewhere between 4 and 7 somewhat slow response shots. Fighters can only carry limited ammo, but the response is fast, and the bursts can be short.

Any interceptor will already be carrying a missile package, so your concept is a variation on that. If laser designated units had an advantage, they might have included them in the mix.

We have been trying the stinger on the Reaper ucav. We even fired it at a Mig. I don't know what mig it was, but if I remember right the stinger didn't have the range to run the Mig down, so the Mig came back and shot the ucav down.

It was a MiG-25 over Iraq. I heard the Stinger was fired headon.

I was just thinking about something like this. It doesn't have to be an actual manpad weapon, just something with those general dimensions. Probably with vectored thrust instead of fins and just enough range to be useful in a turning battle. High-off-bore-sight would be handy, particularly if it could be quickly instructed by the avionics to turn to where the target is after it is launched.
I can also imagine launchers being integrated into airframes instead of cannons.

Forum: Technology

Interceptor - Gun Weight versus Stinger pod