Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 02 Mar 2018, 16:09

The air to air SM6 weighs 1,800lbs?

I thought the Phoenix was heavy at 1,000!!!

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 02 Mar 2018, 17:59

'There are miles to go before the SM-6 on Shornets sleeps...' It is always nice to imagine stuff. The internet is filled with musings both useful and non-sensical and all shades inbetween. The author of 'SM-6 on Shornet' has perhaps confabulated the story of F-35s using MADL to fire an SM from first a shore ship and then soon a sea ship.

IF a Shornet is able to carry such a missile on an appropriate store station there are still many more MILES TO SCHLEPP. Carrier Suitability is an arduous test of 'bringing back' new stores on an existing NavAv aircraft called 'Shake, Rattle & Roll', carried out by VX-23 on every NavAv aircraft when new and when new stores added, ARREST & CATAPULT also.

I cannot imagine the USN dumping these expensive missiles unused if they cannot be BRUNGBACK. Elsewhere on this forum there is a good overview of what constitutes 'SR&R' - look it up. Of course the string is in - here are examples:

WITH VIDDYS:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=362993&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p362993
MOAR:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=278202&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p278202
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=277832&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p277832

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 03 Mar 2018, 04:02

spazsinbad wrote:'There are miles to go before the SM-6 on Shornets sleeps...' It is always nice to imagine stuff. The internet is filled with musings both useful and non-sensical and all shades inbetween. The author of 'SM-6 on Shornet' has perhaps confabulated the story of F-35s using MADL to fire an SM from first a shore ship and then soon a sea ship.

IF a Shornet is able to carry such a missile on an appropriate store station there are still many more MILES TO SCHLEPP. Carrier Suitability is an arduous test of 'bringing back' new stores on an existing NavAv aircraft called 'Shake, Rattle & Roll', carried out by VX-23 on every NavAv aircraft when new and when new stores added, ARREST & CATAPULT also.

I cannot imagine the USN dumping these expensive missiles unused if they cannot be BRUNGBACK. Elsewhere on this forum there is a good overview of what constitutes 'SR&R' - look it up. Of course the string is in - here are examples:

WITH VIDDYS:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=362993&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p362993
MOAR:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=278202&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p278202
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=277832&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p277832

The article proposing SM6 claims CFT will increase operating radius from ~400 nm out to ~510 nm, but F-35C has a radius of 760 nm already, with AIM-120, same terminal sensor, so WHY bother doing SM6 with Shornets?

Red herring.

lbk000 · by **lbk000** » 03 Mar 2018, 06:40

Can't even begin to point out all the things wrong with the article. Easily one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, literally a Youtube Air Force doctrine.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 03 Mar 2018, 07:17

element1loop wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'There are miles to go before the SM-6 on Shornets sleeps...' It is always nice to imagine stuff. The internet is filled with musings both useful and non-sensical and all shades inbetween. The author of 'SM-6 on Shornet' has perhaps confabulated the story of F-35s using MADL to fire an SM from first a shore ship and then soon a sea ship.

IF a Shornet is able to carry such a missile on an appropriate store station there are still many more MILES TO SCHLEPP. Carrier Suitability is an arduous test of 'bringing back' new stores on an existing NavAv aircraft called 'Shake, Rattle & Roll', carried out by VX-23 on every NavAv aircraft when new and when new stores added, ARREST & CATAPULT also.

I cannot imagine the USN dumping these expensive missiles unused if they cannot be BRUNGBACK. Elsewhere on this forum there is a good overview of what constitutes 'SR&R' - look it up. Of course the string is in - here are examples:

WITH VIDDYS:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=362993&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p362993
MOAR:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=278202&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p278202
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=277832&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p277832

The article proposing SM6 claims CFT will increase operating radius from ~400 nm out to ~510 nm, but F-35C has a radius of 760 nm already, with AIM-120, same terminal sensor, so WHY bother doing SM6 with Shornets?

Red herring.

One benefit that I can see, is holding any enablers, fighters, cruise missiles, and even ballistic missiles, at risk at extreme ranges. The SM6 has a ~500km range when surface launched. Air launched, holy mackeral!

madrat · by **madrat** » 03 Mar 2018, 07:20

It wasn't too long ago Sea Sparrow was getting new life as an AAM...

southernphantom · by **southernphantom** » 03 Mar 2018, 07:51

I think the air-launched SM6 has more potential as a Harpoon replacement/supplement than as an AAM. The SM6-AAM proposal reminds me of the Iranians mounting MIM-23s to their Tomcats.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but SM6 is not designed for aerial carriage, right? There are a whole lot of stresses (vibration, thermal, et cetera) that it would probably never experience inside a canister in a VLS. It would seem like there is a significant expense to be incurred in getting SM6 certified for aerial carriage, well beyond just figuring out how to mount it to a SH and get it talking to the SH's systems.

lbk000 · by **lbk000** » 03 Mar 2018, 07:56

wrightwing wrote:One benefit that I can see, is holding any enablers, fighters, cruise missiles, and even ballistic missiles, at risk at extreme ranges.

You're generating no threat when you can't keep it on station. The only thing you'll be generating is airframe fatigue bringing the lard back onto the deck.

War is won by logistics, I think it's logistically stupid to try to put the SM-6 up into the air.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 03 Mar 2018, 08:02

YEAH BUTT (I'm being sarcastic HOKAY!) Wave your hands so - and make it so - on the internet - where no one knows....

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 03 Mar 2018, 08:05

wrightwing wrote:
element1loop wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'There are miles to go before the SM-6 on Shornets sleeps...' It is always nice to imagine stuff. The internet is filled with musings both useful and non-sensical and all shades inbetween. The author of 'SM-6 on Shornet' has perhaps confabulated the story of F-35s using MADL to fire an SM from first a shore ship and then soon a sea ship.

IF a Shornet is able to carry such a missile on an appropriate store station there are still many more MILES TO SCHLEPP. Carrier Suitability is an arduous test of 'bringing back' new stores on an existing NavAv aircraft called 'Shake, Rattle & Roll', carried out by VX-23 on every NavAv aircraft when new and when new stores added, ARREST & CATAPULT also.

I cannot imagine the USN dumping these expensive missiles unused if they cannot be BRUNGBACK. Elsewhere on this forum there is a good overview of what constitutes 'SR&R' - look it up. Of course the string is in - here are examples:

WITH VIDDYS:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=362993&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p362993
MOAR:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=278202&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p278202
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=277832&hilit=Shake+Rattle+Roll#p277832

The article proposing SM6 claims CFT will increase operating radius from ~400 nm out to ~510 nm, but F-35C has a radius of 760 nm already, with AIM-120, same terminal sensor, so WHY bother doing SM6 with Shornets?

Red herring.

One benefit that I can see, is holding any enablers, fighters, cruise missiles, and even ballistic missiles, at risk at extreme ranges. The SM6 has a ~500km range when surface launched. Air launched, holy mackeral!

Why not put it on the F-35C then and get 250 nm extra radius right off the bat?

Why bother with putting SH into an air superiority fleet air defence role, when F-35C is vastly more appropriate for that?

Why the irrational distraction?

I'm sure you don't think that's a good idea, but the article's premise and SM6 'solution' proposal is a bit weird to me.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 03 Mar 2018, 08:12

southernphantom wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but SM6 is not designed for aerial carriage, right? There are a whole lot of stresses (vibration, thermal, et cetera) that it would probably never experience inside a canister in a VLS.

Here is an idea for air launch Pac-3. SM-6 (without the booster) is about the same size.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 03 Mar 2018, 08:23

southernphantom wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but SM6 is not designed for aerial carriage, right? There are a whole lot of stresses (vibration, thermal, et cetera) that it would probably never experience inside a canister in a VLS. It would seem like there is a significant expense to be incurred in getting SM6 certified for aerial carriage, well beyond just figuring out how to mount it to a SH and get it talking to the SH's systems.

You're right; the temperature extremes that air-to-air missiles are subjected to greatly exceed what
(at a minimum) the case material and propellant of SAMs can tolerate.

Which is why for these concepts, like ALHTK with PAC-3, you tend to see enclosed weapon pods for the SAM.

Giving AARGM-ER an air-to-air mode against certain target sets would be a good first step.
Followed-by adapting ESSM Block II for internal carriage on the F-35.

But the navy desperately needs an air-launched terminal interceptor.
But the Navy may have to overcome its allergy to hypergolic propellants.

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 03 Mar 2018, 09:47

I don't see how an ESSM BkII internal would be superior in terminal kill or overall performance to a LOAL HOBS 2-way datalinked AIM-120 specifically designed for the job, and for internal fit on 5th-gens. AMRAAM isn't deficient, nor is F-35C range, but USN tanking might be deficient.

AARGM-ER with A2A modes = √

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 03 Mar 2018, 10:48

element1loop wrote:I don't see how an ESSM BkII internal would be superior in terminal kill or overall performance to a LOAL HOBS 2-way datalinked AIM-120 specifically designed for the job, and for internal fit on 5th-gens. AMRAAM isn't deficient, nor is F-35C range, but USN tanking might be deficient.

AARGM-ER with A2A modes = √

ESSM Blk II gives you a bigger warhead and a larger seeker aperture which would be
useful against a set of targets like sea skimmers. Kinematically it's likely superior*

* more propellant volume overcomes reduced fineness?

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 04 Mar 2018, 02:16

element1loop wrote:

Why not put it on the F-35C then and get 250 nm extra radius right off the bat?

Why bother with putting SH into an air superiority fleet air defence role, when F-35C is vastly more appropriate for that?

Why the irrational distraction?

I'm sure you don't think that's a good idea, but the article's premise and SM6 'solution' proposal is a bit weird to me.

2 reasons. 1) The F-35C can get much closer to targets, undetected, making it less urgent to put such a weapon on it. 2) the Super Hornet is already not stealthy, so hanging 1800lb missiles on it isn't going to matter from an RCS standpoint.

These are Devil's Advocate answers. IF they're keeping 4th generation aircraft, they may as well make them as survivable as possible.