á


  
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Swedish fighters (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Swedish fighters
Silverback
Member
Member # 882

posted 12-06-2000 05:10 PM     Profile for Silverback     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
/doublepost/

[This message has been edited by Silverback (edited 12-11-2000).]


Posts: 316 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Silverback
Member
Member # 882

posted 12-07-2000 02:52 AM     Profile for Silverback     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks Leadhead ! Checking it out as we speak.

On a side note - what's with all the nagging on Kurt Plummer ?!
I can't understand half of what he writes but he is always polite and to the point, and I to me he seems very knowledgeable.
Also I think he has many good points pertainnig to this thread.

After the "swedish talk" I'll doubt he'll revisit this thread.

I saw hom get kicked out of the F4 forums, but he never ever was rude, just posting the "Plummer Posts" that are his trademark.
Please, extend him the same courtesy.

------------------
Silverback
Stockholm, Sweden

Specs: TBird 1GHz, Vantech Big Blue Heatsink with Delta 38 CFM Fan, Abit KT7-RAID mobo, 256 PC 100 RAM, ASUS V6600 GeForce256 SDR, Turtle Beach Montego II, Zoom 56K Internal Modem, 17 GB Master HDD, 8 GB Slave HDD, DVD-ROM, 21" Trinitron Monitor, Altec Lansing ADA 880R Dolby Surround System, Saitek X36 USB HOTAS, , Game Commander 2, LabTec LVA 8550 Headset.
Win98 SE, DX8, SGE 2.3


Posts: 316 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mr_Pyro
Member
Member # 4319

posted 12-08-2000 01:25 AM     Profile for Mr_Pyro   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Silverback:
Thanks Leadhead ! Checking it out as we speak.

On a side note - what's with all the nagging on Kurt Plummer ?!
I can't understand half of what he writes but he is always polite and to the point, and I to me he seems very knowledgeable.
Also I think he has many good points pertainnig to this thread.

After the "swedish talk" I'll doubt he'll revisit this thread.

I saw hom get kicked out of the F4 forums, but he never ever was rude, just posting the "Plummer Posts" that are his trademark.
Please, extend him the same courtesy.


His info in this thread was mostly wrong.


Posts: 27 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 12-08-2000 04:55 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, all you oh-so-proud Swedes seem to have made a fine job in discouraging him to continue his discussion with you.

You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone if half of your answers to his arguments are "you're wrong, but I can't elaborate because of national security" (Jeez guys, I wonder how much you would tell if you had an invasion of your homeland waiting to happen, just like we do) and the other half are "your points show just how little you know about us".

I often find myself disagreeing with some of Kurt's points, but I _always_ find his posts informative, direct and hell, even entertaining (in a good way). You can't criticise him for laying out his arguments the way he does - who is to judge that you argue better than he does?

Now that your rock-rigid attitude and obvious willingness to praise Swedish hardware rather than have any sort of intelligent discussion have made him reluctant to participate in this thread anymore (and me, since this is my parting shot), you can sit back and continue discussing among yourselves about Volvos and whatnot.

Have a nice day.

And If I offended anyone, I'm NOT sorry.

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
www.geocities.com/akulashaker/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-09-2000 01:46 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by snake1999:
SAAB, have been producing cars even longer than they have been building aircrafts. Maybe you haven't heard about SAAB, but the first thing I (as a swede) think of when I hear SAAB is, the big car manufactor, and then,,, hell yeah!!"",, they also makes realy great aircrafts...

Not meant as an insult but that statement almost scares me.

AFAIK, SAAB is an abreviation for "Svenska Aeroplan AktieBolag" meaning "Swedish Aeroplanes Ltd".

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-09-2000 02:57 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Akulashaker:
Well, all you oh-so-proud Swedes seem to have made a fine job in discouraging him to continue his discussion with you.

You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone if half of your answers to his arguments are "you're wrong, but I can't elaborate because of national security" (Jeez guys, I wonder how much you would tell if you had an invasion of your homeland waiting to happen, just like we do) and the other half are "your points show just how little you know about us".

I often find myself disagreeing with some of Kurt's points, but I _always_ find his posts informative, direct and hell, even entertaining (in a good way). You can't criticise him for laying out his arguments the way he does - who is to judge that you argue better than he does?

Now that your rock-rigid attitude and obvious willingness to praise Swedish hardware rather than have any sort of intelligent discussion have made him reluctant to participate in this thread anymore (and me, since this is my parting shot), you can sit back and continue discussing among yourselves about Volvos and whatnot.

Have a nice day.

And If I offended anyone, I'm NOT sorry.


Offended? Nope...

Anyway, if I would say a few things about Kurt in general and his involvement in this thread in special...

First of all, I can't do anything else but admire what seems to be first class knowledge about military aviation technology (Hey! I also want a micro-chip inplant with all Jane's publications! ).

However, to sum it up, I think he made some shots with powder seemingly coming right out of the air:

- EW capabilities. - Common sense as well as some SwAF "friends" of mine says he doesn't know enough about for an example the ECM systems of the Gripen to even guess how good they are. If he does, he needs to get a visit by some foreign men in black suits. But heck, we're Swedes, we don't do that. I think...
Somehow he assumes that it's inferior to that of the F-16. This is something he has just pulled out of seemingly nowhere. Or can someone tell me where he gets that info?

- He immediately turned this into a discussion about industrial competition/political aspects of the export-attractiveness of the product. You can have an outstanding (if not superior) product, selling less than a worse one because the worse one has the best distribution chains, the best marketting and the best lobbying. This happens all day in our current free competition society.
IMNSHO, that's a darn good simily describing the situation with F-16 sales vs. Gripen sales.

- He manages to forget the rather obvious difference between 3rd and 4th generation fighters in terms of pilot/maintainance workload, man-machine interface and situational awareness aids.

- Plummer also persists in looking at things from a US perspective. Take the fuel issue for an example.
Now, not every country in the world has similar requirements on it's air force as the US. Actually, most countries don't have to be able to go anywhere, anytime to bomb the crap out of anyone.
Anyway, I can't see how the F-16 could be much better suited for that purpose...


------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Silverback
Member
Member # 882

posted 12-11-2000 08:54 AM     Profile for Silverback     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Leadhead
Like Akulashaker says; it's pretty pointless to have this discussion if you cannot argue directly the points that Kurt brings up. He's very specific in the things that he brings to the table and throughout the JAS-supporters replies have not been on the same level as his elaborations.
I'd like you to meet Kurts arguments on a point-per-point basis and not dissmiss what he says in broad swooping terms (like Mr
-Pyro says ""his info in this thread was mostly wrong") or /suggest/that the ECM on Gripen is way better or at least equal to anything US flying today. If this was the case, then why haven't we heard about it ?! That would indeed bring with it tremendous interest on the export market. BAe is not in it for the warm fuzzy feeling, but for the money, if they have a edge over the competitior, they will exploit it - very simple. Just like the americans do BTW.
I have followed the developement of JAS 39 and have been somehow surprised that LANTIRN/LITENING, LGB's/PGM's and HARM capabilties have not been part of the equation from the start.
If gripen was considered to be an export product from the start these things should have been there, no matter what the requirements of the SweAF are.
And, like kurt says, the argument that the customer will have to pay for the capabilities that are not currently included is downright stupid. The name JAS demands multirole capability and SEAD and precision strike are paramount. Any MODERN a/c, nevermind 4'th gen, will have to be able to perform those missions. Anything else is a blatant shortcoming.
The fact that it Gripen can BE MADE CAPABLE of carrying ALARMS and such is not convincing at all. The Viper has a multitude of weapons for every mission role (even the nuke) and as a buyer it's very reassuring to know that the platform you invest in is TRIED and ready to carry those weapons. Without you, the buyer, having to finance the very costly process of implementation, testfirings and OPEVAL.
Also, the argument that since Gripen is 4'th generation fighter and as such has a lot of advantages over current fighters are moot if it cannot carry the required weapons.
If the man-machine issue was all-important, every fighter would be a two seater.
Fighters and their capabilities are a very complex equation and the man-machine interface (for example) are only one facet of the hole.
No chain is stronger than it's weakest link and that is also true for fighters. Also remember that the PILOT is ALWAYS the deciding factor.
Being a Swede I'd love to have the best A/C around, but Kurt has stated some very good points that are hard to argue with.


Posts: 316 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mr_Pyro
Member
Member # 4319

posted 12-11-2000 06:30 PM     Profile for Mr_Pyro   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree that Kurt do have som points.
with "mostly" I didn┤t mean that he┤s totaly wrong, the engine could be a bit more powerfull (EJ200 and F414 are being thought of for a technology demonstrator).

But the problem with his arguing is when he compares the Gripen with non existing future exportversions of the F-16, and older cheaper types of the same aircraft.
The Gripen is all about: price/performance, ease of maintaince, low service and drift costs.

If you read my post on Gripens armament options and compare it with Kurts statements of Gripens lack of the same, you┤ll se that he┤s sometimes taking shortcuts.

If a customer asks for ARM capability, I┤m sure that BAE/SAAB will offer this (ie ALARM).

/Mr_Pyro


Posts: 27 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-12-2000 03:35 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Originally posted by Silverback:

"I'd like you to meet Kurts arguments on a point-per-point basis and not dissmiss what he says in broad swooping terms (like Mr
-Pyro says 'his info in this thread was mostly wrong')"

I'll try that but the problem is that Plummer has a tendency to spew out his stuff in hilarious amounts in a manner making it both hard and tiresome to answer them all one for one.
I've actually been writing replies so long Netscape has decided to crash on me before I finished and, *zappa*, all gone. I don't like writing the same thing several times...


"or /suggest/that the ECM on Gripen is way better or at least equal to anything US flying today."

Why wouldn't it be? Celsius/Ericsson/SAAB are among the utmost top of the world when it comes to electronics.

"If this was the case, then why haven't we heard about it ?! That would indeed bring with it tremendous interest on the export market."

Do you really think that everything that the marketters tell potential buyers get to the knowledge of the public?


"BAe is not in it for the warm fuzzy feeling, but for the money, if they have a edge over the competitior, they will exploit it - very simple."

They don't own the project, do they? They are marketting partners and who knows what regulates what they are allwoed to say and to who.


"Just like the americans do BTW."

We do not necessarily do things the same way as the Americans...


"I have followed the developement of JAS 39 and have been somehow surprised that LANTIRN/LITENING, LGB's/PGM's and HARM capabilties have not been part of the equation from the start."

It is capable of doing LGBs. I guess it has only been tested but I'm sure I read somewhere that the capability is there.

As said earlier, the idea with ARMs and such is that they are supposed to be easy to integrate should you need to. The catch is that the SwAF don't have any ARMs...


"If gripen was considered to be an export product from the start these things should have been there, no matter what the requirements of the SweAF are."

It wasn't an export product from the start (or can someone correct me?) and I really can't get why this thread has exclusively discussed it with its export potentials as the basis.


"And, like Kurt says, the argument that the customer will have to pay for the capabilities that are not currently included is downright stupid."

I don't quite see your point. The capability is sure as hell included if the customer wants it (unless they start asking for purpose-built stealth design or something )


"The name JAS demands multirole capability and SEAD and precision strike are paramount. Any MODERN a/c, nevermind 4'th gen, will have to be able to perform those missions. Anything else is a blatant shortcoming."

JAS is an abbreviation for the Swedish words of Fighter, Attack and Reconnaissance.
As soon as we get the recon-pod it'll fulfil those requirements just fine.


"The fact that it Gripen can BE MADE CAPABLE of carrying ALARMS and such is not convincing at all. The Viper has a multitude of weapons for every mission role (even the nuke) and as a buyer it's very reassuring to know that the platform you invest in is TRIED and ready to carry those weapons."

Is the basic F-16 really that much closer to being able to carry such a multitude of weapon systems than the Gripen?

Would you define multitude?


"Without you, the buyer, having to finance the very costly process of implementation, testfirings and OPEVAL."

Can you say for sure that this is the case for the Gripen?


"Also, the argument that since Gripen is 4'th generation fighter and as such has a lot of advantages over current fighters are moot if it cannot carry the required weapons."

But who says it can't?


"If the man-machine issue was all-important, every fighter would be a two seater."

I'm not saying it is, but that is the point of a good man-machine interface; you don't need two seaters!


"Fighters and their capabilities are a very complex equation and the man-machine interface (for example) are only one facet of the hole.
No chain is stronger than it's weakest link and that is also true for fighters."

Almost. - In some cases strenghts in some areas can make up for weaknesses in other areas.


"Also remember that the PILOT is ALWAYS the deciding factor."

No, not always. Weapons, numeral, deployment and ease of use with the systems also play a major role.

"Being a Swede I'd love to have the best A/C around, but Kurt has stated some very good points that are hard to argue with."

That's where we disagree...

Let's see what we've got out of this discussion. What can the F-16 (which seems to be the only thing you people want to compare it to) do tha thte Gripen can't do today?

What I have this far:
* Carry out SEAD using ARMs
* Carry a slightly heavier load a little bit farther. However, from photage from Kosovo for an example, it seems that the heavier loading capabilities usually aren't exploited fully.

What will it be able to do in the future?
I don't know for sure.

I think it'll get an electronically scanned radar (so will the Gripen but not necessarily the SwAF ones).


So what can the Gripen do that at least not every F-16 can do?

* Sink ships using stand-off missiles (For the F-16 AFAIK, this is one area where the relations between a/c and weapon is about the same as Gripen and ARM).
* Use stand-off submunitions dispensers.
* Link to AWACS, GCI and other fighters, displaying anything they see on a colour (soon to be installed in SwAF a/c, currently monochrome) display.
Now don't come bull$itting me saying that it does not make a huge SA difference.
* Guide multiple (AR) missiles to different targets at the same time.
* Use short runways.
* Be readied for another sortie faster than the pilot can get to the toilet and back. - By conscripts.

What will the Gripen be able to do in the fairly near future? I can only make some qualified guesses but here are things that come to my mind:

* Use a Helmet Mounted Sight for off boresight cueing of the next generation of SRAAMs.
* Use modern LRAAMs like the Meteor.
* Drop LGBs.
* Add to that various sensor upgrades such as the OTIS. Some pod is underway (if not already operational) as well.

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 12-12-2000 04:22 PM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Temporarily back.......


quote:
Originally posted by LeadHead:

So what can the Gripen do that at least not every F-16 can do?

* Sink ships using stand-off missiles (For the F-16 AFAIK, this is one area where the relations between a/c and weapon is about the same as Gripen and ARM).


Most post-Blk-30/32 F-16Cs are capable of using the AGM-84 Harpoon for that mission. Post-Blk-50/52s can also use the AGM-84E SLAM and the extented-range SLAM-ER. Norwegian F-16As additionally employ the Penguin Mk-3.

quote:

* Use stand-off submunitions dispensers.

*cough* AFDS/DWS-39 *cough* Taurus/KEPD-350 *cough* AGM-154A/B JSOW *cough*. And soon SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow and LOCAAS.

quote:

* Link to AWACS, GCI and other fighters, displaying anything they see on a colour (soon to be installed in SwAF a/c, currently monochrome) display.
Now don't come bull$itting me saying that it does not make a huge SA difference.

Post-Blk-50/52s are fully JTIDS-wired, AFAIK. Plus the same IMD as AH-64D Longbow - nuff said.

quote:

* Guide multiple (AR) missiles to different targets at the same time.

APG-68 had 6-on-6 capability since 1984/85 (only the missile was no there yet).

quote:

* Use short runways.

Useful if your main bases and your tankers are gone - in which case, you may as well "fight bravely to the last one".

BTW, will the dirt-strip have all the smart-goodies you plan to load on the plane? Or are they at the burning ammo depot of your bombed-to-hell main airbase?

quote:

* Be readied for another sortie faster than the pilot can get to the toilet and back. - By conscripts.

Damn useful if your opponent has 3 times your airframes (and appropriate operational tempo) because he spent on something cheaper.

quote:

What will the Gripen be able to do in the fairly near future? I can only make some qualified guesses but here are things that come to my mind:

* Use a Helmet Mounted Sight for off boresight cueing of the next generation of SRAAMs.


Long after the Viper will have JHMCS with -9X and two years later IRIS-T.

quote:

* Use modern LRAAMs like the Meteor.

Again, probably after the -16 will have them. It just makes sense to get the goodies on your golden goose first.

quote:

* Drop LGBs.

Finally . In the meantime, the -16 is already getting JDAM, JSOW, soon JASSM....

quote:

* Add to that various sensor upgrades such as the OTIS. Some pod is underway (if not already operational) as well.

About the same timeframe that "LANTIRN Gen-2"-equivalent systems will be fitted to strike -16s (already Pathfinder and Litening are available.....guess who's getting them first)....not to mention the already numerous succesive APG-68 upgrades.

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
www.geocities.com/akulashaker/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-13-2000 12:22 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You corrected some points but I still disagree on other ones...


"Most post-Blk-30/32 F-16Cs are capable of using the AGM-84 Harpoon for that mission. Post-Blk-50/52s can also use the AGM-84E SLAM and the extented-range SLAM-ER."

Well, that contradicts what I have heard...


"Norwegian F-16As additionally employ the Penguin Mk-3."

Penguins... Oh my God!

"*cough* AFDS/DWS-39 *cough* Taurus/KEPD-350 *cough* AGM-154A/B JSOW *cough*. And soon SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow and LOCAAS."

In contrary to most of those systems, the Mjoelner bomblet dispenser is operational today.


"Post-Blk-50/52s are fully JTIDS-wired, AFAIK. Plus the same IMD as AH-64D Longbow - nuff said."

Do you have any source of that? AFAIK, JTDIS isn't even operational.


"APG-68 had 6-on-6 capability since 1984/85 (only the missile was no there yet)."

I take it you mean that the F-16 can have 6 AMRAAMs in flight simultaneously flying towards different targets outside of the missile's own radar coverage.

Hmm... Interesting... Maybe something for the Falcon 4.0 RP Group to bite at...

*Shrug*

About STOL capability.

"Useful if your main bases and your tankers are gone - in which case, you may as well 'fight bravely to the last one'."

Not exclusively. It allows you to build cheaper (shorter runways) and if you get one hole in the runway that would stop an F-16 or and F-15, the Gripen might well get away with it.


"BTW, will the dirt-strip have all the smart-goodies you plan to load on the plane? Or are they at the burning ammo depot of your bombed-to-hell main airbase?"

If you're talking about our airbase system the answer is yes, the goodies will be there.


"'* Be readied for another sortie faster than the pilot can get to the toilet and back. - By conscripts. '

Damn useful if your opponent has 3 times your airframes (and appropriate operational tempo) because he spent on something cheaper."

And what would be cheaper?
It's also useful if the enemy has just as many aircraft as you as it allows you to shoot him down him quicker.


"Long after the Viper will have JHMCS with -9X and two years later IRIS-T."

What makes you jump to that conclusion?

About LRAAMs:

"Again, probably after the -16 will have them. It just makes sense to get the goodies on your golden goose first."

Wrong. The Meteor is made by BAe Matra Dynamics which is a close partner to SAAB and also has interest in Gripen sales.
The SwAF is actually one of the main interestors in the Meteor. SAAB Dynamics is involved in the development.
If you don't believe me: http://www.global-defence.com/missiles/missile9.htm

About LGBs:

"Finally . In the meantime, the -16 is already getting JDAM, JSOW, soon JASSM...."

The Gripen already has the Mjoelner.

"About the same timeframe that "LANTIRN Gen-2"-equivalent systems will be fitted to strike -16s (already Pathfinder and Litening are available.....guess who's getting them first)....not to mention the already numerous succesive APG-68 upgrades."

And what is there saying they'll be so much better than whatever is to be fitted on the Gripen?


About the HARM:

Does the "standard" F-16 really carry the HARM?
I got the impression that this was the exclusive right for the Blk. 50/52 Wild Weasel version.
At least that's what FAS states.

Another thing you people have managed to forget: Running costs. - Does anyone have any idea of this? Given that the Gripen uses less fuel for almost the same range, so I'd suspect that it has an advantage...

Also what about unit cost? It has been mentioned before but someone put the Gripen price tag unbelievably high, around 40 MUSD.
According to what I read at the SwAF website recently it would rather be like 18 MUSD (with an exchange rate of 9 SEK for 1 USD).

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 12-13-2000 12:46 PM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jaakko,
As far as the Gripen goes, the Meteor deal is paper until 2008. Raytheon is only producing the AMRAAM til about then so what do figure the US DOD is gonna do, sit on our thumbs!! I will guaruntee Raytheon will have at least a competitive if no superior product in that timeframe!

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-13-2000 01:11 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
http://www.gripen.se/news/gripen_news.html

For your own sake, read that. Especially issues 1/99 and 1-2/00 Of course, the info may be a bit biased but anyway...

TWalt: While not the whole of your post is legible and "glass-clear" about what you mean, you sure sound confident...
Tell me: What makes you so sure that Raytheon will get a equal or better product out before BAe Matra Dynamics?

Remember that in contrary to the US who apparently haven't decided, the Britts have officially satated that they'll go with the Meteor. The other Eurofighter nations and Sweden with the JAS-39 are involved (the radar proximity fuze is by Saab Dynamics).

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 12-14-2000 05:47 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Snake,
Haven't decided what? We've actually decided to evolve the AMRAAM in the short term (sensor, software and dual-burn motors) and proceed with a totally unique approach in the long-term. Raytheon's follow up BVRAAM will probably not contain a ramjet but most likely a newer technology possibly gel based vice liquid fuel. Gel fuels allow the superior acceleration of a rocket with the controllability of a ramjet.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-14-2000 12:12 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
And what if they don't pull that Gel thing off?

A million things can happen...

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 12-15-2000 05:52 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Leadhead,
Agreed but reverting to a ramjet motor would not be a big deal. Either way it's pretty narrow-minded to believe the US will just sit on her hands in the case of AAM technology. Hell, what would prevent a METEOR buy once it reaches production and Raytheon is still having troubles?? Boeing is already a partner!

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jedi Master
Member
Member # 3223

posted 12-15-2000 11:14 AM     Profile for Jedi Master   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Ramjet AMRAAM probably won't happen for the simple reason that it makes them too big. Both the F-22 and JSF will need to carry them internally, and while a LONGER missile would be ok, a WIDER one won't be. The F-22 must be able to carry 6 AMRAAMs--it can only do that with the new cropped-wing AIM-120C. Ramjet might be useful for Eagle Charlies at longer range, but eventually they'll go away.
As for a Meteor buy...well, we stuck to the AIM-9M long after Python 4 and ASRAAM came along, only belatedly making the AIM-9X. A foreign weapon buy is politically undesirable in high-profile instances. A few here and there are ok, but not as the replacement for the long-suffering Sidewinder/AMRAAM pair!
As for JTIDS, last I've heard is that JTIDS is being skipped in favor of the later-gen Link 16. While it is available NOW, it's also not yet in widespread use. It's hoped to eventually retrofit to all planes meant to be flying in 2010 and later, but that's a budgetary issue. I'm almost 100% certain it will be in production F-22s and JSFs, though. I think it's going in the Super Bugs, too.
The Jedi Master

Posts: 477 | From: Coral Springs, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-23-2000 05:31 AM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by zebra:
CALIX

DET SKULLE VAR INTRESSANT ATT HÍRA VAD DU BASERAR DIN KRITIK P┼ MOT "PLUMMER"
FÍRMODAR ATT DU TILLHÍR CALIX-FLOTTILJEN. ─R DET F21, ELLER DEN KANSKE LIGGER I LULE┼?


F-21 Airwing (or rather the "21th Airwing" as "F" stands for "Airwing") has its peacetime base at Kallax airport/airbase which indeed is only a few kilometers out of Luleň which is many metric miles from Kalix.

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteň, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  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

ę COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
ę 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved
á