Forum: General F-35 Forum

count_to_10 wrote:

An actual Stinger is probably of limited use -- I was just thinking something that had about that weight and form factor, which you could pack into a plane instead of a gun. Laser guided or just plain data link guided, you could end up with a multipurpose weapon for close in fighting.
As far as maximum range goes, isn't a stinger longer range than the cannon?

Stinger vs R-27 or something similar.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8

F-16.net Sponsor

southernphantom wrote:

It's not so much invisibility, as dispersing the exhaust to avoid creating ridiculously obvious flares. See the Apache's engine exhausts.

@count to 10 agreed completely on the Stinger part, a while back I proposed loading a bunch of those into the space on an F-15 occupied by the ammunition drum, and possibly even firing backwards. That last part would avoid spending energy and time to get the target in the missile's killzone.

Firing backwards would be bad as your missiles would be fighting the forward energy of the aircraft to achieve a net velocity that is opposite of your own. It was mentioned much earlier that firing them forward and having them arc around like modern HOBS missiles do anyways will allow for better energy sustenance.

I'm personally against the idea of a stinger pod though. The cannon only has a small number of rounds in it so that only serves as a testament to how much it is fast approaching, or rather returning to, obsolescence. I honestly don't know how many stingers you could fit in an F-15 anyway.

As mentioned earlier an AMRAAM has a relatively small minimum arming distance so that, coupled with a degree of HOBS capability by its lonesome, means that AMRAAM should be useful and the weapon of choice for the vast majority of scenarios.

Actually, firing backward at a jet tailing you would be better than firing forward, where you are wasting burn time accelerating forward.
Stingers are 10 lbs each, while Sidewinders are something like 80 each, an AMRAAM is over 100, and the gun with ammunition is somewhere around 1000 lbs.

If a jet is tailing you then you are already dead.

btw, A stinger is 22lbs, not 10 and a 9X is 188lbs, not 80. I think you meant kilograms not lbs.

SpudmanWP wrote:

If a jet is tailing you then you are already dead.

btw, A stinger is 22lbs, not 10 and a 9X is 188lbs, not 80. I think you meant kilograms not lbs.

Looks like I did. Oops. Embarassed

Otherwise, I the first thing he sees when he pulls around on you is an incoming missile, I doubt you are "already dead".

In any case, what is the point? The F-35 could just launch an AIM-9X cued by EODAS and have it fly forward and arc around like I described to intercept the bandit from considerably greater distances away. Exactly how would putting a bunch of stingers in an F-35 be a sensible idea if the F-35 could deny the enemy access to your six from vastly greater distances away with AIM-9X or any other HOBS missile?

Forget 9X. AMRAAM from even farther.

tacf-x wrote:

In any case, what is the point? The F-35 could just launch an AIM-9X cued by EODAS and have it fly forward and arc around like I described to intercept the bandit from considerably greater distances away. Exactly how would putting a bunch of stingers in an F-35 be a sensible idea if the F-35 could deny the enemy access to your six from vastly greater distances away with AIM-9X or any other HOBS missile?

We are talking about back up weapons for when you are all out of those, or when you would like to save your bigger, heavier missiles for longer range targets. The question is "is there a better alternative to a gun or gun pod?" not "are stingers better than larger missiles?".

When will you ever be in that kind of situation? You will always have your own missiles and those of your flight-mates to deal with the occasional enemy fighters you may encounter. If there is the potential for a substantial OPFOR, they you will have either F-22 or F-35 escorts caring nothing bu AAMs.

You seem to be trying to come up with a solution for a problem that does not exist (or likely never will).

It's the same situation in which a gun might be useful -- but the gun is much heavier and much harder to get a hit with.

Gun doesn't have a minimum arming distance to worry about. If we're getting rid of the gun, we're installing a DEW. DEWs are infinitely more versatile anyway once they become cheap and effective enough to be useful. In the hundreds of kilowatts range, it won't be the most powerful thing ever but it could serve as one of heck of a countermeasure against any and all incoming missiles. It might be possible to disable enemy aircraft if the DEW targets the right spot too.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Stingers really have a minimum arming distance issue, either. They are hit-to-kill weapons with a small warhead.
DEWs are actually most likely to show up as missile warheads before any aircraft mounts one on it's airframe.

count_to_10 wrote:

It's the same situation in which a gun might be useful -- but the gun is much heavier and much harder to get a hit with.

Your situation called for saving an AMRAAM for later Rolling Eyes

, like that will ever happen.

SpudmanWP wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

It's the same situation in which a gun might be useful -- but the gun is much heavier and much harder to get a hit with.

Your situation called for saving an AMRAAM for later Rolling Eyes

, like that will ever happen.

I was thinking about that story of the Israeli pilot that gunned down a mig because he didn't want to wast a missile on it. Mostly, I meant that, after you have used your AMRAAMs, would it be better to have the weight of the gun or the weight of a few stinger sized missiles?

A stinger-sized missiles that can handle the Gs and have the range to fight WVR don't exist.

Besides, it's not just weight to consider, but internal space. That and those missile would be useless in CAS which is the primary reason for the gun.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 may change everything we know about modern dogfighting?