Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

I think AIM120C7 has already some A-cruise Missile capablity

Quote:

The U.S. is fast approaching the reality of using legacy fighters armed with modern radars and extended-range AIM-120 air-to-air missiles to shoot down enemy ballistic missiles early in their flight, or even low-flying satellites.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 523a7f3e0f

F-16.net Sponsor

wrightwing wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

Who knows, maybe it wasn't shot down in flight but in fact destroyed on the ground. SCUDs are rather big however and have a high IR signature in their boosting phase as well, so in theory it's certainly possible. Maybe we'll learn more in the future.

Quote:

A NATO warplane shot down a scud missile fired from Sirte, Muammar Gaddafi's home city east of Tripoli, Al-Jazeera TV reported on Monday citing information received by one of its correspondents.

I'm not sure how one would interpret this as destroying it on the ground.

We have to consider the avarage journalist military guide:

target hit = target wiped out
air strike = devasting Godzilla type attack
aircraft destroyed in war = aircraft shot down (see the galeb destroyed on the ground early in this war)
tank = anything that moves in a warzone
US soldier = superhero with superpowers
NATO soldier = pretty much the same as above
US Marine = any US miltary personnel
A dictator says that a school and the milk factory were hit = hot news
NATO says that actually they recorded several secondaries = confirmed, a school was hit and the books were cooking off
SCUD = devasting last ditch weapon. Only the Partiot superhero can do something about it. No one understands why NATO is not trying to copy such a perfect war tool... maybe because they employ the "Criuse missile"
Cruise missile = a devasting weapon similiar to the SCUD. It's really like a terminator.
Missile = rocket
Rocket = missile
Grad = anything between a bullet and the SCUD
RPG = rocket= missile = antitank = bigger than a bullet = smaller than a SCUD = Grad
helicopter shot down = helicopter shot down BY RPG. Heavy machine guns, small arms fire, MANPADS are just RPGs
MANPADS = RPG
MiG = a legendary aircraft. It is around since 200 BC, someone says the Romans were employing MiGs during their military campaigns. Again no one understands why NATO is not employing MiGs... maybe because they employ THE F-16!!!
F-16 = the solution to EVERYTHING ABOVE.

LOL!! I enjoyed that marco9, thank you.

Video: Two specially equipped Aim-9s intercepting a target missile. They carried the seekers being developed for the NCADE which is an advanced AMRAAM for intercepting ballistic missiles.
3 December 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8J_G0Mj5As

Thanks for reference, fredric. I think it's been pondered before also, putting the NCADE-tipped AIm-9s on Reapers as a possibile capability. Alternatively, the MICA-IR has about 2-3x the effective range as AIM-9x, which could conceivably be a solution also. So if there was any true 'shoot-down' though, I'm guessing that the more capable current systems would point to an IIR-tipped interceptor, above the AMRAAAM? Now, integrate NCADE's IIR tip on an air-launched RIM-162 derivative (cued by IRST) and you could be talking about a poor-mans NCADE - reaching well beyond AIM-120D range - yet one which can effectively intercept air-breathing low-altitude threats too.

Here it says it was a NATO cruiser or destroyer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au ... CMP=twt_gu

I did not find any military analysis that even considers the idea of the SCUD being "shot down" by a fighter jet. Either destroyed while on the TEL or shot down by a ship.

No way a fighter jet in a war zone would be armed with any test missile. They have better things to do with actual missiles and bombs than roaming around with a fairly useless tool with next-to-zero chances of using it.

geogen wrote:

I'm guessing that the more capable current systems would point to an IIR-tipped interceptor, above the AMRAAAM? Now, integrate NCADE's IIR tip on an air-launched RIM-162 derivative (cued by IRST) and you could be talking about a poor-mans NCADE - reaching well beyond AIM-120D range - yet one which can effectively intercept air-breathing low-altitude threats too.

What sort of range do you imagine that that RIM-162 has?

[quote="marco9"][quote="wrightwing"][quote="Scorpion82"]Who knows, maybe it wasn't shot down in flight but in fact destroyed on the ground. SCUDs are rather big however and have a high IR signature in their boosting phase as well, so in theory it's certainly possible. Maybe we'll learn more in the future.[/quote]

[quote]A NATO warplane [b]shot down [/b]a scud missile [b]fired[/b] from Sirte, Muammar Gaddafi's home city east of Tripoli, Al-Jazeera TV reported on Monday citing information received by one of its correspondents. [/quote]

I'm not sure how one would interpret this as destroying it on the ground.[/quote]

We have to consider the avarage journalist military guide:

F-16 = the solution to EVERYTHING ABOVE.[/quote]

We have a winner!
LOL

Just want to remind us all that there is absolutely no confirmation of this shootdown. The only report came from Al Jazeera. Everyone else is using them as a source or referring to each other who are referring to the Al Jazeera story, a common occurrence in the MSM when they don't want to bother to check something out or when the story fits their worldview.

The fact that the DoD Press Office has already said that no shootdown occurred is of little consequence to the MSM. "Don't bother me with facts, I've got a story to get out".

marco9 wrote:

No way a fighter jet in a war zone would be armed with any test missile. They have better things to do with actual missiles and bombs than roaming around with a fairly useless tool with next-to-zero chances of using it.

And yet Eagles flew with AMRAAMs in Desert Storm. Before the IOC of the weapon.

southernphantom wrote:

marco9 wrote:

No way a fighter jet in a war zone would be armed with any test missile. They have better things to do with actual missiles and bombs than roaming around with a fairly useless tool with next-to-zero chances of using it.

And yet Eagles flew with AMRAAMs in Desert Storm. Before the IOC of the weapon.

More details, please. My understanding was that they were all "captive carrys" used to get test data after the air-to-air threat was neutralized and none were fired at targets.

southernphantom wrote:

marco9 wrote:

No way a fighter jet in a war zone would be armed with any test missile. They have better things to do with actual missiles and bombs than roaming around with a fairly useless tool with next-to-zero chances of using it.

And yet Eagles flew with AMRAAMs in Desert Storm. Before the IOC of the weapon.

You are missing an important point when comparing Desert Storm to Unified Protector: the committed force shows very different numbers.
With more than 2000 air sorties per day you can spend some of them in testing, with less than 140 sorties per day, you want them all to fulfill a proper mission, you have no resourses to waste.
Consider that in 1991 pre-war analysis had no idea that the Iraqi Air Force had no will to fight, so it did make sense sending some newer AMRAAMs over there… there was an actual possibility of using them.
After 6 months of Libyan Operation, with negligible number of Scud and Frog-7 launches, there is no point of circling the sky with a useless tool.
Anyway, the correct point was done by AAAM and it’s what I was trying to explain before about journalists and wars: "Don't bother me with facts, I've got a story to get out"

marco9 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

marco9 wrote:

No way a fighter jet in a war zone would be armed with any test missile. They have better things to do with actual missiles and bombs than roaming around with a fairly useless tool with next-to-zero chances of using it.

And yet Eagles flew with AMRAAMs in Desert Storm. Before the IOC of the weapon.

You are missing an important point when comparing Desert Storm to Unified Protector: the committed force shows very different numbers.
With more than 2000 air sorties per day you can spend some of them in testing, with less than 140 sorties per day, you want them all to fulfill a proper mission, you have no resourses to waste.
Consider that in 1991 pre-war analysis had no idea that the Iraqi Air Force had no will to fight, so it did make sense sending some newer AMRAAMs over there… there was an actual possibility of using them.
After 6 months of Libyan Operation, with negligible number of Scud and Frog-7 launches, there is no point of circling the sky with a useless tool.
Anyway, the correct point was done by AAAM and it’s what I was trying to explain before about journalists and wars: "Don't bother me with facts, I've got a story to get out"

Fair point. It could have just been a -120D or some as-yet-unknown upgrade to it. A whole new missile probably wouldn't go into COMBAT for testing, but a seeker head MIGHT.

wrightwing wrote:

geogen wrote:

I'm guessing that the more capable current systems would point to an IIR-tipped interceptor, above the AMRAAAM? Now, integrate NCADE's IIR tip on an air-launched RIM-162 derivative (cued by IRST) and you could be talking about a poor-mans NCADE - reaching well beyond AIM-120D range - yet one which can effectively intercept air-breathing low-altitude threats too.

What sort of range do you imagine that that RIM-162 has?

IMHO, an educated guess would speculate somewhere between 15-25+% greater effective range than AMRAAM, be it surface launched or lofted?

geogen wrote:

IMHO, an educated guess would speculate somewhere between 15-25+% greater effective range than AMRAAM, be it surface launched or lofted?

Than any model AMRAAM? This would be based upon what exactly? The A model AMRAAM had a greater range than the M model Sparrow, which was the latest variant of a larger missile. The D model AMRAAM has ~>100% range improvement over the A model. Instead of making guesstimates, how about citing some sources for range figures of the ESSM(even vanilla ones will at least provide some sort of figure to use for comparison).

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Can this be true.. (NATO aircraft shoots down a SCUD!)