COMBATSIM.COM ARCHIVE FORUM : Pilot or politician?

Content:

Home Page
Articles and News

Files / Links:

Downloads
Web Links

Interact:

Forums
Forums (Archive)

Search Site

2005 to Today
1997-2005 Search

News Feeds

This is our archive forum. It contains posts from 1999 to 2003. If you prefer, you may participate in our current COMBATSIM.COM Forum

my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

»	COMBATSIM.COM ARCHIVE FORUM » Real Military Discussions » Current » Pilot or politician?

Author

Topic: Pilot or politician?

Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 12-28-2000 07:57 PM

Interesting statement...snatched from the Falcon thread...orig. by Hangar...
http://www.house.gov/cunningham/congressional_record/false_statements_concerning15F eb00.htm

[This message has been edited by Toecutter (edited 12-28-2000).]

Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 12-28-2000 10:10 PM

Excellent analysis by Duke Cunningham. I wonder who the idiot in the senate was.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 12-29-2000 12:55 AM

Yeah, nothing really new to this crowd I suppose, but when you add it all up and put the credibility of Cunningham behind it all...it`s hard to argue with...compared to Twalt...sorry T.

I still think, that without the F-14 tooling destroyed, it might have been a viable platform for similar upgrades(size) new models, but that`s academic by now...plus who am I to argue with a D.C. ?...

He is not IN the business...he IS the business...

Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

#Alex
Member
Member # 6652

posted 12-29-2000 04:07 AM

+++
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would particularly recommend that the gentleman in the other body get the briefings on potential threats posed by forces by Iran, Iraq and Libya, in North Korea and China. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the Speaker look at the Russian SU-37 with the AA-10, the AA-11 and AA-12 missile, because in today's fleet, if our pilots in the F-14, the F-15, the F-16 or current F-18 meet this SU-27, with the Russian missiles and their jammer and their radar, our pilots will die 95 percent of the time.
+++

Tough cookies... Is it that bad?

Posts: 126 | From: | Registered: Sep 2000 | IP: Logged

Tomcat84
Member
Member # 1075

posted 12-29-2000 04:25 AM

Either theres a typo, or he mixes it up... look he says:

"look at the Russian SU-37 with the AA-10, the AA-11 and AA-12 missile"

and then he says: "or current F-18 meet this SU-27, with the Russian missiles and their jammer and their radar"

First the SU-37 then the SU-27

Posts: 356 | From: Netherlands | Registered: Nov 1999 | IP: Logged

Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 12-29-2000 05:34 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tomcat84:
Either theres a typo, or he mixes it up...
...
First the SU-37 then the SU-27

Then again, 27 or 37, variants of the same plane in any case. However other than that the entire piece is full of holes. "Our pilots will die 95% of the time"? Ok, so perhaps we might assume the R-77 to have a bit longer reach than AIM-120 and maybe they'll field an improved R-73 variant that's slightly superior to AIM-9X, but I can't see how they could suddenly gain that significant an edge in technology. Second, just how likely is it that a likely threat nation could buy a significant number of those planes? Third, how likely is it that they'll come up with a working support structure for that force and can create a fighter force that would even remotely resemble the abilities of a western air force? Not bloody likely IMO. And then there's those interesting comments about MiG-29 being a F-16/18 copy, some Russian MiG being a F-111 copy (I wonder what that would be), etc... All in all it seems to me like Cunningham's abilities as a fighter pilot far exceed his talent at being a congressman or a defence analyst.

Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged

Vympel
Member
Member # 3693

posted 12-29-2000 06:16 AM

Jussi

who says the AIM-9X is better than the R-73?

Looks positively lame to me

the rocket motor, warhead and fuze are retained, the only thing upgraded is a new seeker and a 'high performance' air frame. No mention of thrust vectoring ala R-73.

The MiG-29 doesnt look like either the F-16 or the F-18 ... the F-111 ... he's probably talking about the MiG-23 that's an off the top of my head guess ...

He seems like a bit of a fear monger, the 95% of the time thing was just ridiculous exaggeration.

[This message has been edited by Vympel (edited 12-29-2000).]

Posts: 238 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000 | IP: Logged

Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 12-29-2000 06:41 AM

IMO the biggest advantage of AIM-9X is that it should have a much better seeker. R-73 is a mid-80's missile which means it has most likely an FM-modulated reticle seeker with single InSb detector, and might at best have a second UV or short-wavelength IR channel for flare rejection, but that's it. That in turn means that it's sensitivity against difficult backgrounds or in a straight head-on aspect angle is probably nowhere near good enough to take full advantage of it's kinematic reach. The AIM-9X on the other hand is going to have a staring array of multiple detectors which promises much better sensitivity agains low-signature targets and otherwise difficult situations where say flares, sun reflections etc. would greatly hamper traditional seekers. The new seeker would also enable the AIM-9X to recognize the target once it gets closer and aim at the cockpit instead of engine exhaust, which would be lethal with even much smaller warhead than what it has now (though the AIM-9 already has a bigger warhead than the R-73: about 11 and 7kg respectively).

Finally the aerodynamics, the lack of thrust vectoring might mean slightly slower initial turn rate during the first second or so while the missile accelerates to fast enough speed for the control surfaces to take full effect, but after the rocket burns out (which happens very fast, 2-4 seconds should be about the right ballpark) a weapon that relies entirely on advanced aerodynamics to produce high maneuverability shouldn't be at any disadvantage to the R-73. And at very short ranges seeker angle rate limits and the pilot's ability to keep the narrow field of view of the seeker on the target with the helmet-mounted sight are probably bigger limitations than raw aerodynamical turning performance, anyway...

Jussi

Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged

#Alex
Member
Member # 6652

posted 12-29-2000 08:38 AM

As far as I understand, AA-11 has a range advantage on AMRAAM, and Sukhoi is generally a better flyer than Hornet. However, what surprised me most was an alleged advantage in sensor / jammer package. That Su can see Hornet considerably better than the other way around. Before you say that it is just hawkish fear-mongering (which it plainly is), consider that this must be outlined in more detail in the briefing that he recommends to "the other person" to read. Obviously, the briefing contains the same conclusions, including the 95% estimate.

Probability for a USN pilot meeting a Flanker on level terms is not inconceivable even right now. China and Russia (two main military threats to USA) have them. In future there will be more of the same.

Posts: 126 | From: | Registered: Sep 2000 | IP: Logged

Red Ant
Member
Member # 5468

posted 12-29-2000 09:37 AM

quote:
Originally posted by #Alex:
As far as I understand, AA-11 has a range advantage on AMRAAM, and Sukhoi is generally a better flyer than Hornet....

You probably messed up a little . Cuz the AA-11 doesn't even come close to outranging the AMRAAM. The first is WVR missile while the latter is a BVR missile. Maybe you meant the AA-12 has a range advantage over the AMRAAM? In this case you would be right. Still the AA-12's range advantage over the AIM-120 is marginal, and the AIM-120's superior radar kinda makes up for this.

The Russian AA-10's range advantage over the AMRAAM is however a little more discomforting. But then again the AA-10 is semi-active radar homing (SARH) (whereas AMRAAM is active radar homing) only and it really doesn't seem to be too lethal as so far not a single kill has been scored with this missile.

[This message has been edited by Red Ant (edited 12-29-2000).]

Posts: 447 | From: Germany | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged

#Alex
Member
Member # 6652

posted 12-29-2000 11:35 AM

To be sure - I meant R-77.

As I said, the more important part for the author of the referred speech seems to be in the sensor/jammer package. That's an interesting point to me, not the marginal differences in range, flight performance etc. Although the difference of 5 sec on heads on approach is not so marginal - if modern sims are any indication, with right timing it is a definite edge.

Posts: 126 | From: | Registered: Sep 2000 | IP: Logged

Red Ant
Member
Member # 5468

posted 12-29-2000 12:15 PM

On the R-77's (AA-12) range advantage over AMRAAM (AIM-120B)

Let's assume the R-77 has, like you said, a range advantage over the AMRAAM which translates into 5 seconds in a head-on engagement. In such a scenario the AMRAAM has an effective range of 20 N.M (give or take a mile). The opposing fighters would probably close in on each other at max speed to import as much energy as possible to their missiles before launch. So if both fighters are approaching each other at 600 knots that gives us a closure speed of 1200 knots (2025 feet/sec = 617 meters/sec = 0.333 N.M./sec). An advantage of 5 seconds would mean that the US fighter (the one that deploys AMRAAM) has to close in another 1.66 N.M. after the Russian pilots has launched his R-77 at him. Hence you have an effective range advantage of 1.66 N.M. over the AMRAAM. However, the AMRAAM's seeker range is 10+ N.M. while that of the R-77 is 8 N.M.
This means the Russian pilot has to support his missile a few seconds longer than the US pilot, which almost cancels out any range advantage the R-77 provides. Note that I said almost. What it comes down to is that in the end the R-77 still does grant the Russian pilot an advantage but not very substantial one.

Posts: 447 | From: Germany | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged

#Alex
Member
Member # 6652

posted 12-29-2000 07:11 PM

Gee, when you have fired a missile, you do not continue on ingress course. Rather, you turn as far away as you radar allows and start climbing to gain energy and stay near the edge of the other missile's engagement envelope. You have pretty good chance for survival.

At then same time you counterpart must continue on ingress to get in range. That means, he is already 99.9% dead.

Can you see the difference here? If not, try this tactic on any good fighter sim of your choice.

Posts: 126 | From: | Registered: Sep 2000 | IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)

Hop To:

Home of the VMF-124 Death's Head Virtual Marine Squadron

Home of the VMF-124 Death's Head Squad

Classic Reviews: