| Author |
Message |
|
Yapester
|
 Posted: May 11, 2007 - 02:05 AM
|
 
|
|
Newbie
Joined: May 11, 2007
Posts: 1
Status: Offline
|
| Have you ever heard of airlines being hijacked and used as weapons???? Is there not a country to the NE that really does not like us??? Would you ever send an Army troop into combat without his gun (means to defend himself). Those missiles give me the assurance that if I were attacked, highly unlikely, by Syria or Iran, I would be able to defend myself. If we flew our jets without them, it might give Iran pause if we ever, heaven forbid, accidentally get too close to their airspace (British sailors sound familiar) where they might take pot shots at us. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Nov 18, 2008 - 6:08 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky_LC
|
|
Posted: May 11, 2007 - 03:54 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 21, 2004
Posts: 76
Status: Offline
|
In case they get a crack at some of those F-14's that are rumoured to still be operational from Iran?
Who wants to be the guy hit by an AIM-9B because he didn't have anything to shoot at them first with?
Rocky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TJSmitty
|
|
Posted: May 16, 2007 - 03:57 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 220
Status: Offline
|
Just because we don't THINK they are needed, doesn't mean they aren't.
07 March 87, the USS Stark was patrolling off the coast of Saudi, The ship's crew didn't THINK that they needed their defensive coutermeasures. An Iraqi Mirage F-1 fired two Exocet missliles, since the ship's crew didn't have their countermeasures activated, the missiles were effective, 35 sailors lost their lives.
I would rather have my defenses ready and NOT need them then to find myself at an armed disadvantage.
Smitty |
_________________
Tim Smith
Avionics '81 - '05
F-16 A/B/C/D
F-111D FB-111A
F-15A/B
F-22A
F-18E/F & G
Wedgetail
|
|
|
|
|
|
elguapo
|
|
Posted: May 16, 2007 - 07:39 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 01, 2006
Posts: 32
Status: Offline
|
| Let's not forget 9-11. Who's to say some terrorist can't hi-jack an airliner in the region and fly it straight into the green zone. We sure would look stupid if our jets are flying a CAP mission and didn't have the ability to shoot it down! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roscoe
|
|
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 07:52 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 988
Status: Offline
|
The OP asked about aircraft other than Vipers. Because that's what we do...
AS for the discussion about the Viper, missiles are carried on the tips to reduce flutter and therefore maintain full envelope clearance. |
_________________
Roscoe
<b>"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns"</b> - <i>Dos Gringos</i>
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnwill
|
|
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 10:49 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Mar 24, 2007
Posts: 441
Status: Offline
|
Well, not quite. Flutter margins are generally higher with tip missiles, but as far as I know, all external store loadings have the same speed limit with or without tip missiles ("full envelope clearance").
There is another beneficial effect of mounting missiles on the tip, effectively a higher aspect ratio wing, for slightly improved range at cruise conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raptor_One
|
|
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 11:32 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1092
|
|
Roscoe wrote:
The OP asked about aircraft other than Vipers. Because that's what we do...
AS for the discussion about the Viper, missiles are carried on the tips to reduce flutter and therefore maintain full envelope clearance.
The wingtip launchers are required for full envelope clearance, but not the wingtip missiles themselves according to the -1 manual. A clean F-16 (including wingtip missiles) doesn't have any envelope restrictions according to the -1 manual, but perhaps there is some unwritten rule you know about that I don't. I'm just getting my info from an (outdated) -1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnwill
|
|
Posted: May 18, 2007 - 04:36 AM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Mar 24, 2007
Posts: 441
Status: Offline
|
No unwritten rules, I assure you. You are of course correct about tip launchers (but not missiles) being required for full envelope clearance. Furthermore, they are required for any flight whatsoever. No launcher - no flight.
Your outdated -1 is probably more reliable than my memory anyway. I haven't looked at a TO-1-F-16A-1 in about 20 years, but at one time the Stores Limitations Chart in Section 5 was my baby. I had total responsibility for that chart for the first production airplanes in 1979 until I transferred to the XL program in 1981. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raptor_One
|
|
Posted: May 18, 2007 - 04:57 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1092
|
|
johnwill wrote:
No unwritten rules, I assure you. You are of course correct about tip launchers (but not missiles) being required for full envelope clearance. Furthermore, they are required for any flight whatsoever. No launcher - no flight.
Your outdated -1 is probably more reliable than my memory anyway. I haven't looked at a TO-1-F-16A-1 in about 20 years, but at one time the Stores Limitations Chart in Section 5 was my baby. I had total responsibility for that chart for the first production airplanes in 1979 until I transferred to the XL program in 1981.
The XL program... cool. I read several journal papers from AIAA's Journal of Aircraft on the F-16XL. What struck me most about the XL's performance compared to the standard F-16 was CDmin through the transonic regime. It was significantly less than pronounced than the standard F-16's rather characteristic looking CDmin vs. Mach graph. That must have been an interesting program to work on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
