Forum: Technology

Last edited by Neno on Jan 21, 2011 - 08:24 AM; edited 1 time in total

Wow 5 years.. was digging on google and found this old post started by me..

hp9577 wrote:

An M61A2 20-mm Vulcan is definitely not a good candidate for a system like the Phalanx....

As anybody can see here :
http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php?title ... M61_Vulcan
at link like that the Phalanx is a derrivate of M61, so.. yes, i think it could be a good candidate !!!

F-16.net Sponsor

While maybe possible in theory an A-A missile shooting down another A-A missile is nowhere near the easiest or most effect way to defeat that weapon, and extremely impractical as well.

Ha, and definitely not cost effective if you're planning on trading AIM-120D's for PL-12's.

If you gave the defending aircraft all the techno-gizmology of the F-35's EO-DAS, combined the power of a supercomputer, combined the system with DIRCOM, and ringed the aircraft with machine-guns in virtually every direction - think B-29 Superfortress - then I don't see why not. The effective blast radius of an AAM warhead is not 5-8km, so there is no reason to suspect you'd anywhere near that range. You can also armor and internally harden the most vulnerable spots of the aircraft to require a near-hit to effective damage the aircraft. Maybe you even use a turret that can lob disruptive chaff and flare bursts from smart-fused shells at regular intervals. Maybe your machine-guns would need to be 20mm gatling guns, but I'm thinking .50-caliber shells would be enough throw weight to take out an AAM. And perhaps you fly several of the aircraft in data-linked box formations to further increase the odds of survivability. May not be sexy, but it doesn't mean it could not work.

Neno wrote:

Hi boys,
Do you think it would be possible, using an appropriate software, to link aircraft control surfaces, hi definition radar and fast firing M61A2, to intercept an incoming enemy a2a missile, as an MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System ??

Neno,

I can tell you this: is it possible to do? Yes, it is. Now, will it be effective in real life scenarios? Does it even make sense to put that kind of a weapons system on an aircraft, let alone a fighter? I don't think so.

As others have stated, just getting the thing to move fast enough to do the intercept will be almost if not completely impossible. The aircraft won't be able to compensate that much either, and so you just end up with about 300-400 extra pounds on the aircraft and not much else.

I think long term, the best answer is solid state lasers. These would need to be compact enough to be placed in strategic places in the aircraft, and would work similar to how an AESA radar works today - i.e. instead of mechanically moving the emitter/receiver element to scan a piece of the sky, they just emit radar in different directions without moving the elements physically. This is quite a long ways off, but it is logically the best answer. It would provide near 360 degree protection in all axes at a weight that is manageable. The electronics aren't there yet, but I think they will be in time.

A solid state laser coupled with a deformable (focusable) mirror is the way to go. You would only need one with two apertures, one above and one below the aircraft. We would likely see these in bombers before we see them in fighters.

I don't want to sound like a jerk but I suggest the thread starter do three things:

1. Look up the weight of a Phalanx
2. Look up the weight of a tactical aircraft
3. Pontificate in some type of science/engineering fashion

Let's hope that we see more of Gums, Raptor Claw, Dwightlooi etc, while this kind of bunk and the spillover from the moron board ends soon.

Ouch

shingen wrote:

I don't want to sound like a jerk but I suggest the thread starter do three things:

1. Look up the weight of a Phalanx
2. Look up the weight of a tactical aircraft
3. Pontificate in some type of science/engineering fashion

Let's hope that we see more of Gums, Raptor Claw, Dwightlooi etc, while this kind of bunk and the spillover from the moron board ends soon.

Maybe you miss some details: the hardware is there. F-22 (or F-35) do have an M-61 with 480 rounds insight. right now .
The mk15 phalanx is based on M-61 whit half speed of fire ratio accordin to infos found on the net.

Yeah, but you also get a precise motorized turning platform with the Phalanx...

Neno wrote:

shingen wrote:

I don't want to sound like a jerk but I suggest the thread starter do three things:

1. Look up the weight of a Phalanx
2. Look up the weight of a tactical aircraft
3. Pontificate in some type of science/engineering fashion

Let's hope that we see more of Gums, Raptor Claw, Dwightlooi etc, while this kind of bunk and the spillover from the moron board ends soon.

Maybe you miss some details: the hardware is there. F-22 (or F-35) do have an M-61 with 480 rounds insight. right now .
The mk15 phalanx is based on M-61 whit half speed of fire ratio accordin to infos found on the net.

It sounds as if you are proposing the fighter jet turn head-on with the missile and use its onboard cannon to defeat the incoming missile? Not only is that simply impossible due to missile intercept speeds but the fighter's control systems aren’t accurate enough to vector the gunsight directly to that of the missile's nose.

If you are proposing dropping precious added fuel to hollow out sections of the fighter at all 4 axis to plant a stationary M-61 then that isn’t possible either. Not only would that add thousands of extra pounds and take away hundreds of miles of range on any fighter it would prove ineffective.

If you are proposing simply adding a Phalanx on the top and bottom of a fighter, Laughing

.

The only useful option besides turn 'n burn while jamming and counters will be a laser defense. I wonder what is up with the proposed unit for the F-35.

The whole thing about bombers, even ones with some kind of CIWS, is that if you are targetable then something will get you. The thing could be armed to the teeth with anti-AAM and anti-SAM guns, true. And each of your bombers could cost merely a fraction of the B-2. But for all the hardening against missiles it does nothing against low tech bomber-killer stuff like radar-guided AAA. The Cold War solution to armed bombers were the Mighty Mouse rocket packs; not perhaps effective but massed a lot of firepower for one attack run! If you don't have air superiority your bomber is vulnerable to low tech solutions. If you do have air superiority then it makes no sense to attract low tech AAA fire.

chrisrt wrote:

It sounds as if you are proposing the fighter jet turn head-on with the missile and use its onboard cannon to defeat the incoming missile? Not only is that simply impossible due to missile intercept speeds but the fighter's control systems aren’t accurate enough to vector the gunsight directly to that of the missile's nose.

No need to be so accurate since:
The rounds could be explosive whith some proximity fuze and a blast anular fragmentation warhead.
The missile path is near a point from your perspective (head to head).

How do you propose a 40+ thousand pound class fighter jet vector its nose from one heading to another within a 4 second or less window that it has to defeat a SAM and gain forward momentum at the new vector?
IF it would even be possible to produce that power with air breathing engines the pilot would expire, the engines would detach from the frame and the fighter's basic frame would be destroyed.

Neno wrote:

shingen wrote:

I don't want to sound like a jerk but I suggest the thread starter do three things:

1. Look up the weight of a Phalanx
2. Look up the weight of a tactical aircraft
3. Pontificate in some type of science/engineering fashion

Let's hope that we see more of Gums, Raptor Claw, Dwightlooi etc, while this kind of bunk and the spillover from the moron board ends soon.

Maybe you miss some details: the hardware is there. F-22 (or F-35) do have an M-61 with 480 rounds insight. right now .
The mk15 phalanx is based on M-61 whit half speed of fire ratio accordin to infos found on the net.

F-35 doesn't use M61 to the best of my knowledge, and in those planes that use it, there isn't a turret (what if the missile's behind you?). You'd be better off with an AIM-120, or better yet an AIM-9X (or European equivalent).

Forum: Technology

M61A2 20-mm like Phalanx