Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The AIM-120D has a higher sustained speed and range than previous AMRAAMs. A ramjet missile would have an even higher sustained speed and range.

Even if the speed is "just" mach 4 with that kind of missile, the radar could be hit within 2 minutes..

Concerning the size of the missile, look at the FMRAAM, it's not much bigger than the AMRAAM, and the weapon bay of the UCAV would certainly be larger than that of the F-22 which can carry 3 of them.

The missile would have a big kinetic energy thanks to its speed so the warhead doesn't need to be so big. Let's say it flies twice as fast as a HARM and weights half as much. It means that it would have twice the kinetic energy ( 2^2/2 = 2 ). The target would be killed by the ke more than by the warhead.

F-16.net Sponsor

dude, if you're so sold on ucavs, then go to ucav.net and chat with those guys, while they may be the future, we're not there yet, nor do we want them to be because wheres the fun in that? As for the money issues, I dont know about how all that money stuff works, thats for guys with a lot of stars, and I dont have any. If you want to argue based on money, then we're both speculating based on word of mouth, figures from newspapers etc, we dont have the whole picture so we cant really argue, only speculate. That being said, from a purely tactical perspective, based on both current and very near future threats, the F-16 just cant do what we need it to do. The force as we have it now is not good enough. We can argue all day about buying more 22's, but at the risk of sounding redundant, the number is only getting smaller not bigger. Again, I would love to have hundreds of raptors and hundreds of 35's, man thats a force to be reckoned with period dot. However, theres no need for a force shaped like that. What we need is where we are going, Raptors to take care of air threats in the first few days, 35's to take care of Sam threats in the first few days, then its a turkey shoot. Again we can also argue the 22 vs the 35, but again, the slight deficiency of the 34 in the a/a regime is more than made up in its far superior a/g capability...imagine a former eagle driver trying to do cas in a raptor, now if that doesnt make you chuckle nothing will...

Viperalltheway wrote:

Concerning the size of the missile, look at the FMRAAM, it's not much bigger than the AMRAAM, and the weapon bay of the UCAV would certainly be larger than that of the F-22 which can carry 3 of them.

F-22 would be able to carry it internally, yes but not the F-35, as far as things are current... an FMRAAM based SEAD weapon would be roughly the size of Meteor, which btw, doesn't fit in the F-35's weapon bay! I'm not sure its just the B with its smaller bay but still not bril.

I've been trying to find some images of the sead meteor, I have seen them before but no luck so far. I have also read this week they are looking at a anti-ship variant aswell The SEAD version has the same motor/control fins with a different nose... with a very slim and FLAT seeker head coupled to a shaped charge.

Andy

Last edited by hansundfranz on Apr 29, 2006 - 11:30 PM; edited 2 times in total

Viperalltheway wrote:

The AIM-120D has a higher sustained speed and range than previous AMRAAMs.

No Rocket powered missile has a "sustained speed"

Quote:

A ramjet missile would have an even higher sustained speed and range

Even if the speed is "just" mach 4 with that kind of missile, the radar could be hit within 2 minutes..

Public specs for the Meteror claim speeds between mach 2.5 and 4+ with variable thrust created by the ramjet engine.
This means it will fly slower to maxmise range and faster to shorten time to kill for medium / close range shots and that it MIGHT be able to accelerate for endgame.
Speed over long distance should only be in the area of mach2.5

Quote:

The missile would have a big kinetic energy thanks to its speed so the warhead doesn't need to be so big. Let's say it flies twice as fast as a HARM and weights half as much. It means that it would have twice the kinetic energy ( 2^2/2 = 2 ).

Master of the obvious?
If you assume the same efficiency factor for your super fast fantasy missile and a HARM (and of course the faster the missile goes the more your efficency transfering chemical energy of the fuel into kinetic energy will be reduced) your fanatsy missile still has to store twice the chemical energy, twice the amount of fuel of the harm to reach get twice the kinetic energy, and all that haveing half the weight.

Yeah right.

If I could create a Van with the engine of a F4U corsair I could sell tickets for passenger rides for the Indy 500 and win the race

Quote:

imagine a former eagle driver trying to do cas in a raptor, now if that doesnt make you chuckle nothing will...

Even an eagle driver should manage to pickle GPS guided bombs on coordiantes recieved via link 16 from 30.000 ft (or 40 to 50.00 in a F22)

sure, a gps guided bomb, a monkey could drop one of those, but ask a eagle dude what a dive glide is...sure a lot of that stuff isnt too difficult, but its a pride thing with those guys, they're the best in the world at a/a, they'd like to keep it that way, they dont even like saying the word bomb...

clown_shoes wrote:

dude, if you're so sold on ucavs, then go to ucav.net and chat with those guys, while they may be the future, we're not there yet, nor do we want them to be because wheres the fun in that? As for the money issues, I dont know about how all that money stuff works, thats for guys with a lot of stars, and I dont have any. If you want to argue based on money, then we're both speculating based on word of mouth, figures from newspapers etc, we dont have the whole picture so we cant really argue, only speculate. That being said, from a purely tactical perspective, based on both current and very near future threats, the F-16 just cant do what we need it to do. The force as we have it now is not good enough. We can argue all day about buying more 22's, but at the risk of sounding redundant, the number is only getting smaller not bigger. Again, I would love to have hundreds of raptors and hundreds of 35's, man thats a force to be reckoned with period dot. However, theres no need for a force shaped like that. What we need is where we are going, Raptors to take care of air threats in the first few days, 35's to take care of Sam threats in the first few days, then its a turkey shoot. Again we can also argue the 22 vs the 35, but again, the slight deficiency of the 34 in the a/a regime is more than made up in its far superior a/g capability...imagine a former eagle driver trying to do cas in a raptor, now if that doesnt make you chuckle nothing will...

Thats OK, I am in a position that sees where the money is or in this case now, ...... is not going. For the sake of buying it only ( as I still don't think we need it )... I would submit that JSF would be more sustainable of an idea if the ops tempo wasn't also sucking down cash. Iraq alone has peaked out at 10 billion per month give or take. A lot of that payed for with budget supliments that sometime have the word "emergency" put next to their name so congress gets it down within a few months. And when you have a bill like that pass through, it has all kinds of pork in it that has nothing to do with the title of the bill. Meanwhile people say we have the blah blah blah largest military budgets ever,.... yet a dollar doesn't buy what it used to, and including some of this big ticket items like planes, ships etc... labor costs alone are going up. The only thing saving the JSF now is that the program doesn't look completely like a welfare-jobs program moving along at a snails pace like Eurofighter was. Also it hasn't killed a bushel or two of people like V-22 ( and that is still going ....thus setting the bar for tollerance in the political world ). All the above sillyness and we have had flying hours CUT to pay for this fools errand and numerous other things cut or slowed down...... just to field one buick of stealth "Joint" fighter that ain't all that joint at all. The pentagon and military industrial complex have a real hard time with math. That gets worse when programs are shoved on to congress who can't even balance a checkbook. I am now just waiting for AESA radars to make some leap ahead.... ( remember, we are still just learning what this technology can do.... that in effect have the potential to make stealth ( especially stealth that isn't top drawer.... ) obsolete or stripped of most of it's advantage. And here at least... with F-22, even if it is naked to an adverse stealth event, has world beating performance that can get it out of trouble just as fast as it got into it.
So IMHO.... ( really CS I am not trying to make some big splash about this, I am seriously concerned ) ..... I am not in favor of spending lots of cash on huge stealth fleets. F-22 production costs will be down in the 90-100 mill range if additional buys are requested. Meaning if I want to order another 100 of these things above the 183 number, it is only a lousy 20 billion +/- Again though, I don't see the point. The 183.... or really much less ....even just one WING in a theater, is going to make it's ability to kill well, felt.

As for the F-16. A CFT block 60 with the new twin racks can carry, a nice number of 500lb class PGMs... even more if you rigg it up with SDB. Ditto for the F-18E/F. Either of these aircraft along with the rest of the team, will operate in an enviornment that is already swept of the super killer threats. There is nothing wrong with a mix of a low number of stealth aircraft and a high number of legacy jets all working as a team. Add to that..... The "golden fleet" ( existing C model F-15Cs that have the lowest hours ) are seaking funding to get the super nice "v2" AESA radar that is in the current 18 up in Alaska. The F-15 production line ( along with F-16 and F-18E/F ) ..... is still ....open. Look at all the stuff that the Koreans are getting in the K model F-15. We can keep these lines open at a lower rate over time, and still put out aircraft with the new car smell to replace old airframes. These are all good bomb trucks.... where the F-15E/K carries an incredible amount of weapons ( x12 JDAM-38 just on the CFTs ( K model tests ) and who knows how many SDBs when they get done figuring that out. Finally the claims of JSF replacing the niche market of the A-10 leave one to wonder the ability of those making the claim. More- our funding can do this an not be stressed so as to keep the USAF healthy in these tight budget times. There would be money left over to R&D FB-22 over a long time which should be a real serious fast/long reach killer in an operational theater. What is sad is USAF is not at this moment pumping out a low rate production of the Block 6x to USAF spec.
Again what the USN does is going to be interesting. However IMHO, I think R&D on a 2 engine carrier jet that has F-22 like performance is the way to go, where a squadron of 10-12 on each deck could give extra comfort and increased creativity to carrier ops.
Finally, read everything you can on the DARPA inspired J-UCAS.( x-45 and x-47 ) As a strike vehicle only, it has serious tangable use as a special team player. What it did was honest useful work to help crush an enemy by being a very outstanding SEAD/DEAD asset. Not standing up a few squadrons of these right now, is a serious failure in senior leadership.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and sure its risky putting all your eggs in 1 basket, however, based on some of the new stuff that the bad dudes are getting, stealth looks like it may be all that works. I'll leave it at that though, again, we can just agree to disagree, I see where youre coming from, and if I didn't know better, if I didnt know some of the new stuff that those guys are trying out, I'd agree with you. All I have to say is I am glad that decision is not on my shoulders.

Frankly I have always been of the mind that an airplanes purpose should be told by its designation.

To take out pin-point ground targets... A is the proper designation

To clear the skies of enemy planes... F is the preper designation

To utterly destroy a swath of earth... B ::cough::-52::cough is the proper desgnation

Why then did the F-111 have 1.2 the payload of a B-52? Why does the F-16 do soley A2G ops in USAF? Their few A2A kills with USAF are pure luck. and why is the A-10 the ONLY pure attack, not a single design point for A2A, aircraft still flying?

I think changing F/A-22 back to F-22 was a great idea. F/A-18 is properly designated as it is used heavily for both roles. Sadly, F-16 should be F/A-16 as it does mostly air-to-mud.

Let the F-22 sweep the skies clean, JSF or UCAS to wipe the surface threat board clean, and use anything you darn well please from that point on.
Frankly I think I am the only fan of the Super Hornet procurement. Is the plane perfect, hell no, does it get the job done, yes, is there plenty of room/time to tweak it, yes, IS IT IN SERVICE, YES. that is the way to go. Dont spend 20 years R&Ding a plane to perfection because then it becomes too expensive to buy in large numbers. Example, Origional orders for B-2 were 180 airframes, but too much R&D ment they would only afford one Sqdrn. Look at the F-16. The F-16E is almost NOTHING like the YF-16 except in layout, wing area, and vertical tail area. Thats it. New fuselage(internaly), new horizontal stabs, new nose, new avionics, new cockpit, new engine, new everything. Even the insides of the wing and vertical have changed. And no one can argure that F-16 did/does not get the job done. I expect the Rhino will be vastly different in 10 years from now. F-22 has almost no room for growth short of MAJOR changes(i.e. adding canards or soemthing silly like that).

Okay I think I ranted about enough topics.

So the Viper does not get the job done? What crap are you reading? Seriously that is completely stupid and ignorant. Do you actually live in the Ops world or just pretend?

re-read my post, I am saying that no one can argure that it does not get the job done, as if that is there stand on the topic. Actually, uppon reading my post it does seem a bit ambiguous. I am trying to say that the Viper gets the job done... period, and that is has gotten the job done ever since it started being used. So its more capable now that its inception, but even in its inception it got the job done. Sorry about the confusion.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Why then did the F-111 have 1.2 the payload of a B-52? Why does the F-16 do soley A2G ops in USAF? Their few A2A kills with USAF are pure luck. and why is the A-10 the ONLY pure attack, not a single design point for A2A, aircraft still flying?

If I remembered correclty, vipers flew quite a bit of CAP missions in GW I and Bosnia. Two incidents come to mind, the guy who crashed his ride cuz he had to pee, and the first AMRAAM kill ever. I think the problem of vipers not getting A-A kills is more due to the lack of an OpFor air threat.

Personally, I think the viper should be given a large A-A role, which is why I'm an advocate of expanding its A-A capability. Smile

Your right, a Viper killed a MiG-25 with an AMRAAM, but when compared to Isreli use where (correct me if my info is off) Vipers downed 44 Syrian MiGs in one day.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Super Hornet