my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » Super Duper Hornet (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Super Duper Hornet
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 08-02-2000 09:21 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TWalt:
The Brimstones on the Typhoon are a joke considering they are limited by a puny warhead and range.

Hardly a puny warhead if you consider the intended targets, tanks. The very latest MBTs might just have enough front armour to stop one, but given the flight profile it will most likely hit the top surfaces and penetrate easily. As for range, if the Hellfire airframe can reach 8km from stationary low-level helicopter, from a fast high-altitude jet it should reach at least twice the distance.

Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Someone
Member
Member # 5861

posted 08-02-2000 10:00 AM     Profile for Someone   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TWALT, are you a hornet pilot? It's a good thing that I see at least another person supporting this aircraft...could you give me your e-mail or ICQ# pls...

Regards...


Posts: 78 | From: Dubai, U.A.E | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 08-02-2000 11:51 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Zed,
Well you believe what you want. Mr Kopp is very well accredited and has some particularly useful contacts working with and for the largest publishers in the military aviation field.
If you think the N-001 is capable of tracking any aircraft at over 100 NM you're sadly mistaken. Against a fighter size target, it's max detection capability is very obviously stated in multiple sources at no greater than 50-60 NM. I don't know where your "data" comes from! Even the advanced Phazatron Sokol electronically scanned array developed for the S-37 and first released at the 99 Moscow air show is rated around 95 NM in detection of moderate sized targets.

Rosco,
As far as costs, the numbers quoted are system costs which include the development costs of the aircraft. This is currently the strongpoint of the E/F so if you wanna go there.... The Boeing contract for production of 222 E/F's at $8.9 billion is the unit cost of the aircraft as all development costs fell under the initial $4.9 billion contract. At $4.9 billion the E/F is a steal in this market for development. The Rafale was at $9 billion in 97, not sure how much higher it got but even that is about twice the new Hornet. Typhoon development cost the UK alone over $6 billion for development with total costs estimated around $12-15 billion or 3 times the E/F!!


Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 08-02-2000 01:14 PM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jussi,
There's been some recent speculation that the T-90's ERA can defeat Hellfire II as it has a fairly small 2 stage warhead unless you attack from the rear. At least the Maverick offers a warhead that cannot be countered. JSOW AGM-154B offers better range (up to 40 NM from high alt release) and contains 24 projectiles per weapon, each with IR self-targeting specifically designed to detect and attack the motor from above (only front engine Merkava is safe!).

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 08-02-2000 02:31 PM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
yea, but why do we HAVE to target the turret? if you are killing tanks from the air, you probably don't have to kill the turret, just get a mob-kill on the engine compartment, and that warhead should do just fine. Your alternative is the JSOW? are the submunitions on that not smaller?

The flexibility of the brimstone to my mind makes it the best anti-armor weapon in the world, and it may also do reasonably well in the SEAD role too, but you would have to dig deep for that info....

PS: is the T-90 really that much of a factor anyway? How many have been produced? could an EPF warhead on Hell/Brims not defeat this new turret?

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 08-02-2000 02:56 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TWalt >

The Rafale seemingly has much better shielded intake fans than the other two aircraft, is more rounded on the forebody and incorporates substancially more non-metallic composites than the E/F, I wouldn't doubt if Rafale had a noticable {relative} RSC advantage it the front sector at least.

However, this is all relative since it would take an order of magnitude in further RCS reduction before you could consider yourself really stealthy. The E/F may have an RCS advantage from the side, but then again, maybe not, is the F/A-18C really a smaller radar target from the side than the F-16C?

Regarding jammers, SPECTRA can of course be reprogrammed or modified to account for enemy countermeasures, though I personally think it will have to be replaced, perhaps by a full-on radar wave nullifier, within a decade of introduction. Also, I think it would have trouble with radar systems at the RBE2 tech level and above.

I don't think having a more powerful conventional jammer would help as onboard jamming is marginal against modern SAMs and may actually render you more vulnerable overall, a towed decoy is a different story and that's why Rafale is slated to recieve {probably with the F2 update} a towed decoy incorporating both EM and IR components.

Of course Rafale can also carry at least eight MICA "decoys" for those pesky incoming missles in {presumably} the frontal quarter. Also SPECTRA and DASS provide range as as well as bearing when it comes to ground radar threats, I'm surprised the E/F doesn't have this capability.

Regarding low level flight and vulnerability, by itself terrain hugging is probably very dangerous. However, the Rafale has enough range even at low level that the thickest of the defences can be avoided on the way in, also the opposing air defences would have to deal with a SCALP or APACHE stealthy cruise missle or AASM glide bomb rather than the Rafale itself because of the healthy standoff ranges these weapons offer.

The SLAM-ER sounds like an impressive weapon and the re-targeting ability could prove highly useful. It theoretically could be integrated with Rafale but the U.S. would probably never allow it. The problem is, that I wouldn't want to loiter around in hostile airspace to re-target while this subsonic weapon takes it's time travelling to it's destination. Also, it moves slowly enough that a mobile SAM could well have moved by them.

If you want to knock out a far away SAM quickly and with a backup IR homing capability, you need the Franco-German Armiger ramjet ARM, I don't have the specs but a range of at least 100 miles and a maximum speed of Mach 5 doesn't seem unreasonable.

Of course Rafale pilots will have to "make do" with a new generation ALARM until this thing presumably comes in as the long range option.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"

[This message has been edited by Rosco (edited 08-03-2000).]


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 08-02-2000 03:30 PM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jussi,

Sorry, i did mean the F/A-18As of the RAAF...typo. My bad!

TWalt,

Look, this is not an attack on your integrity, but after the large number errors and wild assumptions he has made and then having them pointed out to me...i don't believe that what he says is more valid than any other publisher or writer. It one of those things that when one have a few errors pointed out, you start to question what one has read before, and start to spot errors.

Now, i do not believe that it can track at more than 100NM, but it can search...Mr Kopp's graph discusses search performance, no track. April 2000 'Air International' has a face-off between the F-15C and the Su-27S, and has its radar track performance rated at only 70km (38nm) but the search at 165km (89nm), against a 'fighter sized' target. Also the Su-27 is quoted as having a 'naturally low RCS'...how much below the F-15's this is, is anyone's guess. Mike Speck has some figures (overrated IMO) for the N-011 at 216nm for search, but this could represent either theoretical search or a physical maximum against a bomber sized target. Now when you come to AWPJ; they have manufacture quoted figures at 100miles (87nm) against a 3m^2 target at '97 development levels. This figure is also constant for the N-001. Now phased array antennas, according to Mike Speak allow better tracking of stealth targets...which from the simulators at uni seem to be born out. So the real question lies as to where Mr Kopp acquired his value for the RCS of the F/A-18E/F...a guess?. Also what he is doing is sort of self-defeating in that he is using a Su-27 airframe with a N-011 radar. Now within any environment where a nation has to fly a high priced jet into combat (or the prospect there of) it would seem reasonable to introduce alternative methods of reduction of RCS (so as to counter the F-22, for example); this may involve any number of active cancellation techniques that are known to exist and are available for such platforms. Now what really has to be considered here is how useful what Mr Kopp has produced could be. Reduction of RCS against an aircraft (or family thereof), which used thermal detection and tracking to the level of 70km quoted detection head-on (personally I don't believe that), would be limited. Also there are issues of aspect & profile to consider. Now where I believe he has derived the F/A-18E RCS figure is from a Boeing quote of 6-10 times greater ‘survivability’ of the E over the C, when loaded with ordinance (Flight International Jan ’99). Now to me survivability means more than just RCS reduction…introduction of better detection systems, better fire suppression or even the increase in specific thrust that is available to it. Note also how he has taken the higher of the two figures…interesting. If this is not the source than only 6-10 times increase in survivability when given a 10 times reduction in RCS is poor. So you seen even if the AIM-120C-5 shows up in number some time soon, the RCS figure at 0.17 will give a track at +50nm (given detection well before this) and the R-77 still shows its advantage, even off his graph (granted it is reduced quite considerably).

So you see sir, I do believe what I want.

Z


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 08-02-2000 10:50 PM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Zed,
You just don't get it. The N-001 is not rated to detect a fighter sized target beyond 100 km (not NM!!). It can track up to 2 fighter sized targets at 65 km. This gave it a first shot advantage over the RAAF's F/A-18A with APG-65/Sparrow combo. Do you really believe RAAF would bother upgrading to APG-73/AMRAAM if it couldn't improve this dilemma?? Wake up!
The N-011 Zhuk-PH (Zhuk 27 with phased array) search range is indeed around 245 KM or 132 NM against a "medium sized" target. This corresponds very accurately to Mr. Koops figures. Tracking range for a medium sized target is 99.8 NM with the ability to track 24 and engage six simultaneously. I think what you're looking at is that often published 350-400 km search range for the N-011M variant. This is a design evolution containing 2 transmitters vice 1 on the N-011 Zhuk-PH, among other changes. Most estimates place it at an additional 50 km to the Zhuk-PH, on the average so more realistically, it will attain around 300 km searches and possibly approaching 220 km targeting (this is pure speculation and would not conform to low observable/low RCS targets). Maybe your just confused by all the designations? It isn't exactly easy to follow (took me quite some time!). Either way, this radar will probably get pushed into the exported Sukhoi family but it's effectiveness on the latest gen western fighters would be only slightly better than Mr. Koops figures for the N-011 Zhuk-PH.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 08-03-2000 02:19 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TWalt:
Jussi,
There's been some recent speculation that the T-90's ERA can defeat Hellfire II as it has a fairly small 2 stage warhead unless you attack from the rear. At least the Maverick offers a warhead that cannot be countered. JSOW AGM-154B offers better range (up to 40 NM from high alt release) and contains 24 projectiles per weapon, each with IR self-targeting specifically designed to detect and attack the motor from above (only front engine Merkava is safe!).

Yes, but given the typical flight profile of Hellfire, the most likely place to be hit is the top armour. If it happens to hit the glacis it will do so at a very favourable angle and only turret front might remain problematic, but from a diving flight path that's also a very small area. A Maverick works only in good weather and only a few can be carried, plus it is a very workload-intensive weapon. JSOW will only get mobility kills most of the time, and won't find cold dug-in tanks or be able to separate T-72s from nearby M1s or refugee convoys, which limits it's application.


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 08-03-2000 04:07 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TWalt,

I think it is you who just don't understand. You are effectively saying that these other published figures are incorrect...prove it.
And you see, we are talking about search performance...and there you go, as blind as a bat, on about track performance!

Look i'm not going to fight you on this...believe what you want, and so will i. As far as improving the situation for the RAAF F/A-18s, this may be true, but it will only be an improvement.

As far as designations are concerned, you are very wrong - the N-011 is produced by NII, while the Zhuk-PH is a completely different radar produced by Phazatron, who also produce the Zhuk-27 upgrade radar. The capabilities are as follows (manufacture quoted)how you mixed these up i'll never know:

NII N-011 - 55 deg elevation, 90 deg azimuth, track 20 targets & engage 8 simultaniously. Target of 3m^2 detected at 160km.

Phasatron Zhuk-PH - 65deg elevation & azimuth (but greater on mechanically moving array), track 24 & engage 6-8 targets simultaniously. Detection range 165-245km.

Currently there is also an un-designated advanced alternative to the N-011, produced by NII, currently in testing that can track air and ground targets simultaniously. This is also thought to have been offered for the Su-35.

...there is still no word where he gets his RCS figures from...and if the N-019ME/R-77 combo can defeat the F/A-18s of the RAAF, then it would be reasonable that the N-011 would. I doubt the -35 will ever enter production or if it does it will use active RCS reduction measures. Remember also that AIM-7P has a range advantage over the AIM-120A.

Z


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Super Hornet Shareholder
unregistered

posted 08-03-2000 04:33 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Dammit, none of you people get it, so let me spell it out as our fellow fanboys have tried to do so often in the past. Why won't you unwashed masses support our precious Super Hornet? It's better than Rafale! Better than Super Flanker! Better than anything those silly Euros can put onto a carrier today. Why? Good old American know-how, of course! That's all you need to know or worry about. Why, by our secret calculations, one Super Hornet is worth 60 Mig 29s in cost and capability, and yet none of you except TWalt will open your clouded eyes to the truth. In fact, its such a good fighter that we're gonna make the Air Force buy it after we're through telling you cynics how wrong you all are. That'll show ya!

And you, Rosco, you communist [email protected]! What's the matter with you? Everything you've said about our valuable Super Hornet is wrong, wrong, wrong! Get with the program, because every time you try to chip away some of the glory surrounding our precious Super Hornet with some trifling fact about RCS, thrust, radar capability, etc, we have to pay a sh**load of flunkies overtime, looking high and low on the Net to try to find some weakness in your arguments. We're sick of it! And if you keep it up, we're going to send a very large man named Guido to your house to straighten you out. And your little Flanker, too, hehe.


IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 08-03-2000 04:46 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TWalt:
You just don't get it. The N-001 is not rated to detect a fighter sized target beyond 100 km (not NM!!). It can track up to 2 fighter sized targets at 65 km. This gave it a first shot advantage over the RAAF's F/A-18A with APG-65/Sparrow combo

No, it was the Malaysian MiG-29s with N-019M radar that was used in those tests with F/A-18s. They could track two targets but had smaller antennas and lower emission power than the N-001 (which only tracks one target) so they also had shorter range. Most sources I've seen give little under 100km for tracking a 2-3 sqm target for N-001.

As for Carlo Kopp, I'll have to agree with Zed. He sometimes visits rec.aviation.military and he has a habit of stubbornly believing that Russian equipment is no good and copied from west mostly. I lost a lot of confidence in his judgmenent regarding Russian gear when after having reached an agreement that SA-7A beat the Redeye into service by half a year, used different guidance logic, had a bit different seeker and didn't look much like the Redeye, Carlo was still covinced that it must have been a slightly adjusted Redeye copy because it was such an ingenious piece of engineering that the Russians couldn't have figured it out by themselves... It also didn't help his credibility when it became obvious that his tendency to downplay the Russians took a U-turn to the other extreme always (and only) when it was useful for proving his case that Australia needs an F-22 and Eurofighter won't be enough. My opinion of Carlo is that he's a fairly knowledgeable person who knows especially physics-related aspects of weapons and sensors very well, but his conclusions are best taken with a big grain of salt and his facts are often represented in a more or less twisted form to support his pre-determined viewpoints.


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 08-03-2000 04:56 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thats exactly my point...the worst thing he did, that i reacall was equate the dominace of the USAF over Iraqi ADNs (a french system that they had complete knowledge of) as proof of the complete dominace over the European theater during the cold war, then completely BSed his figures to support his point. This was where all my faith in Mr Kopp's abilities where lost. What is need is balanced evaluation and this is not something that Mr. Kopps seems to provide...

Z

[This message has been edited by Zed (edited 08-03-2000).]


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Someone
Member
Member # 5861

posted 08-03-2000 09:47 AM     Profile for Someone   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey "Super Hornet Shareholder" don't forget me...I'm with you and TWALT, the Super Hornet is an exceptional aircraft that can outpreform all today's major threats, and tomorrow's ....

Just one thing though...how does it compare to the Typhoon?


Posts: 78 | From: Dubai, U.A.E | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Super Hornet Shareholder
unregistered

posted 08-03-2000 10:49 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What does it matter how it compares to the Typhoon, Someone? All we need to think about is that it's the better aircraft, no matter what it's compared to, or who's figures are being used. Just keep repeating after me...it's not a second-best plane, not a second-best plane. It isn't! It isn't! Should this get monotonous after awhile, just throw out perforance figures that make our Super Hornet seem able to top Typhoon, Super Flanker, and the freaking Starship Enterprise! It works for our Navy brass, and it can work for you too..
IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 08-03-2000 10:55 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jussi and Zed,
Look, we can agree to disagree. I think we can all agree that the information out there is sketchy and often conflicting (I don't mean to sound like I'm denying your sources as both AI and WAPJ are solid). The information I have obtained is amassed from over 100 resources. All I can say is that what you see in the press is not always accurate. Cross-referencing takes some of the blatant errors out of the picture but it's still a fuzzy picture. I don't agree with all of Mr. Kopps positions, I just thought the representative graph was a good source for the N-011.

Jussi,
As far as Brimstone is concerned, it is primarily a front attack weapon (unless you fly around the targets and attack from the rear!) and the ERA on the T-90 (currently offered for export, India getting it first with their T-90s) has complete coverage of the turret. The only assured way to kill this is a rear attack and the skeet rounds of the JSOW AGM-154B have proven in testing to successfully achieve complete hard kills (usually through secondary explosions). The Maverick is not a daylight only weapon (the optically guided A models are not in US service), it is IR or laser guided in all US models. Even in the Gulf, A-10's used the IR variants as a poor man's NAVFLIR to successfully engage dug in tanks. The point I was making is that the warhead is sufficient to render even the newest ERA ineffective, ie there's no risk there like there is with the Brimstone. I would have thought a new, or bigger warhead would have been fitted to a brand new weapon.

Zed,
The N-011 is just a western intelligence designation for the follow on N-001 radar. It has been given (possibly in error) to a lot of the Phazotron versions depending on who you talk to. I knew that the N-011M was the NIIP (yes that's a P on the end!!)version but I'm positive that the N-011 depicted in Mr. Kopps analysis is the Zhuk-27 Phazotron. This explains the lowered performance figures given. Even in WAPJ, I found a quote for the "Su-33 N-014 Phazotron-NIIP radar", so obviously this designation is confusing (Phazotron-NIIP???) or nobody is getting it totally right (me included ). I apologize if I seemed to disregard your earlier quoted stats (I don't) but if you dig around a little, I think you'll see that all 3 radars (Zhuk-27, Zhuk-PH, and the NIIP version) are given the same NATO N-011 designation. The only difference I've seen to date is the the NIIP has been given the M letter code to differentiate it (N-011M).

I'm not trying to be some stuffy American, biased jerk. It's just I don't beleive everything I read and I get to read a lot!!


Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 08-03-2000 11:35 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TWalt:
Jussi,
As far as Brimstone is concerned, it is primarily a front attack weapon (unless you fly around the targets and attack from the rear!) and the ERA on the T-90 (currently offered for export, India getting it first with their T-90s) has complete coverage of the turret. The only assured way to kill this is a rear attack and the skeet rounds of the JSOW AGM-154B have proven in testing to successfully achieve complete hard kills (usually through secondary explosions). The Maverick is not a daylight only weapon (the optically guided A models are not in US service), it is IR or laser guided in all US models. Even in the Gulf, A-10's used the IR variants as a poor man's NAVFLIR to successfully engage dug in tanks. The point I was making is that the warhead is sufficient to render even the newest ERA ineffective, ie there's no risk there like there is with the Brimstone. I would have thought a new, or bigger warhead would have been fitted to a brand new weapon.

Unless the Brimstone autopilot is significantly changed from the original Hellfire one, it will dive on the target from about 35 degree angle, and if it's changed, I'd say it's more likely a steeper than a lower angle given a higher-altitude launch platform than a helicopter. This means that turret front armour is relatively small part of the target, glacis hits will come at pretty close to 90 degree angle which reduces the penetrated thickness and makes ERA less effective, and all other parts are easily penetrated. Whether it attacks from side, front or rear would of course depend on where the tank is headed...

With Maverick's lack of all-weather capability I didn't mean night, but rain, fog, clouds, etc. MMW Brimstone will see those, and also through most smoke, Maverick or JSOW won't. Also while JSOW can score catastrophic kills, hits in the engine block are never as sure as hits into turret.

Finally, on the ERA coverage on T-90s. Kontakt-5 (the heavy ERA) covers most of turret front and little of turret side and hull side, turret roof has older (was it Kontakt-1? not sure..) ERA that's less effective, and rest is unprotected.


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 08-03-2000 11:47 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TWalt,

Fair do's, actually WAPJ called it the "N-014 fire control radar developed by NPO Phazatron (NIIR)" '99 PP21. I must stress that the NII & this reference to the NIIR are two different ' Bureau'...

The NII is the nauchno-issledovatelskiy institut which is related to the VVS, i.e. the Airforce Science Research Institute, - this is normally called the NII (not to be confused with the LII(NIIKAM), Aviation Medical Research). What the WAPJ is referring to is simply 'Defence Development Bureau (NPO) Phazatron R&D department (NIIR)'. So you see there are two groups here. The NII VVS as the Elektroavtomatika Experimental Design Bureau that did weapons/systems amalgamations for the MiG-29.

Hope that helps.

If there is one concrete conclusion that I can come to on this, it is that there is insufficient information out there for Mr Kopp to have made his graph.

Z


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SomeoneElse
unregistered

posted 08-03-2000 11:54 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Super Hornet Shareholder,
You are an idiot, don't ever breed!

IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 08-03-2000 01:13 PM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jussi,
I dunno, looks to me like the entire rooftop is covered and the Kontakt-5 ERA isn't required to stop the HEAT round of the Hellfire (the second gen box is plenty effective), its main advantage is improved APFSD protection. The MAV is just too big to stop at present and the AGM-65D (USAF) and AGM-65F (USN) are both imaging seekers that are not effected by poor weather or smoke so that's not a problem. Also the IR seeker in the skeet rounds of the JSOW AGM-154B or not hindered as they flot in from above the target (the weather and smoke won't hide their IR signature).

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Avatar
Member
Member # 4363

posted 08-03-2000 05:09 PM     Profile for Avatar   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE!! Don't any of you get it? To TWalt, here, the Bug (Hornet) is God's gift to fighter aviation, any who dare slander it or say less is subect to the Wrath of Walt!

Never mind that the Navy found it lacking, and was ordered to change their criteria because they were getting it anyway.

Never mind that the first Hornets were barely capable of getting to their targets.

Never mind that the design has seen its day, and the newer aircraft out of Europe will probably eat it for breakfast (pilot skill not counted).

TWalt trolls for arguments about his beloved F-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornetsuperhornet. My bet is that the ceiling above his bed is plastered with posters of it. What he does then is anybodys guess.


Posts: 175 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
bob671
Member
Member # 5165

posted 08-03-2000 06:09 PM     Profile for bob671   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Can we actually see a link that confirms the suggestion that the "Super" Hornet will only cost the US military $40 million?
Posts: 263 | From: Canberra, Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 08-03-2000 07:21 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here's a link showing the Rafale's unit cost figure, it's at the bottom of the Rafale page.
http://www.citeweb.net/adce/index2.htmL

51,000,000.00 EUR = 46,600,877.19 USD
as of today, slightly undercutting even the lower $47M E/F price estimate.

Not bad for an aircraft that had supercruised at Mach 1.4 as a prototype, will pack an amazing 230 mile punch with the Meteor missle and that can even boast a carrier "bringback" weight on line with the much larger, heavier "Super" Hornet.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"

[This message has been edited by Rosco (edited 08-03-2000).]


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 08-04-2000 03:15 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TWalt:
Jussi,
I dunno, looks to me like the entire rooftop is covered and the Kontakt-5 ERA isn't required to stop the HEAT round of the Hellfire (the second gen box is plenty effective), its main advantage is improved APFSD protection. The MAV is just too big to stop at present and the AGM-65D (USAF) and AGM-65F (USN) are both imaging seekers that are not effected by poor weather or smoke so that's not a problem. Also the IR seeker in the skeet rounds of the JSOW AGM-154B or not hindered as they flot in from above the target (the weather and smoke won't hide their IR signature).

TWalt, no IR weapon is truly all-weather since water in rain and fog is almost like a brick wall to IR radiation. Coming from above, side or below doesn't matter, if there's water in between it's not seen. Smoke depends, IR sees easily through thin and/or cold smoke but a thick, hot smoke from a big fire is sometimes a bit more troublesome, and smoke grenades usually use phosphorous smoke to create an IR-absorbing smokescreen (which covers the target decently from above also).

As for the ERA, old-generation ERA is said to be able to reduce HEAT penetration by about 300-400mm, which stops RPG rounds and small submunitions but would be useless against a heavy ATGM like the Hellfire even if it didn't have a precursor to blow the ERA. K-5 is more effective against HEAT as well, over 500mm protection if my memory serves, but even that wouldn't be enough against the Hellfire even if the precursor wouldn't work against it, which I'm not quite sure about either.


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 08-04-2000 06:54 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A little clarification on maverick models seems needed here.

A-First maverick version. Used TV sensor with 5 degree FOV. Has shaped charge antiarmor warhead for use against tanks

B-A model with a slightly better seeker--it is magnified, but FOV is down to 2.5 degrees.

C-laser guided model used by the marines. essentialy the same as the other mavericks though

D-First model with IIR seeker. retains tankbusting warhead

E-second laser-guided model. not sure of warhead fit.

F-IIR guided antiship version. heavier warhead.

G-IIR version with 300lb warhead for bunker killing and use against structures. i believe this is the same warhead used on the F model


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved