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

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4199
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Mar 2018, 16:09

The air to air SM6 weighs 1,800lbs?

I thought the Phoenix was heavy at 1,000!!!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 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
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 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.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post03 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.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3623
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 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!
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2829
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post03 Mar 2018, 07:20

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

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post03 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.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post03 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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24912
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 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....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 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.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 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.

"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 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.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1590
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 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 = √
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1468
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 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?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3623
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 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.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests