David Hingtgen Posted January 16, 2007 Author Posted January 16, 2007 Interesting, but I'd especially like to hear what Knight26 has to say about the feasability of this: _______________________________________________________________ F-15s could carry Patriots for missile defence missions By Graham Warwick Air force to also test Raytheon's NCADE candidate against ballistic weapons threat Launching the Patriot PAC-3 surface-to-air missile from a Boeing F-15C fighter to intercept a tactical ballistic or cruise missile could be demonstrated within two years, believes Lockheed Martin, which has received a $3 million follow-on contract from the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to continue refining the concept. The Air-Launched Hit-To-Kill design is one of several concepts being studied by the MDA for boost-phase intercept and homeland defence. Work completed by Lockheed under an initial $2 million contract concluded that launching the PAC-3 from dual-missile canisters under the wing of a tactical fighter was feasible, says Mike Trotsky, vice-president air and missile defence systems. There are two possible mission scenarios, says Trotsky. In one, a forward-deployed F-15 on combat air patrol (CAP) would launch the PAC-3 to intercept a ballistic missile in its boost phase. The homeland defence mission envisages tactical ballistic or cruise missiles being launched from barges. "The aircraft could be on CAP or be scrambled and intercept both types of target," he says. The F-15's radar would detect and track the target. The aimpoint would be uploaded to the PAC-3 before launch and updated during flight using the fighter's radar as a datalink, with terminal guidance to be provided by the missile's active seeker. "We would not have to do much to the PAC-3. Once it leaves the aircraft, its mission is pretty much the same," says Trotsky. Raytheon is working on a competing air-launched boost-phase intercept concept under the MDA's Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) programme. The company's interceptor combines an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile's first stage with an AIM-9X Sidewinder's infrared seeker with a new second stage using hydroxyl ammonium nitrate propellant. An F-15 test flight is planned for mid-year under a 12-month, $7 million risk-reduction contract awarded last year. Raytheon says NCADE will be the same size as AMRAAM and rail launched, and that F-15 flight tests will involve an interim design using the AIM-9X as its first stage. Trotsky believes that Lockheed's approach offers lower risk, although the combat-proven PAC-3 has never been integrated with an aircraft. "Although NCADE is based on AMRAAM, and therefore low risk in integration with the aircraft, it is a new missile with no pedigree," he argues. Lockheed has also looked at arming the F-15 with its new THAAD missile-defence interceptor, which is three times the weight of the 320kg (700lb) PAC-3 and 1m (3.3ft) longer at 6m. __________________ Actually, I'm even more interested in (and think is more likely to be in service) that boosted IR-seeking AMRAAM. Image attached is from the article, F-15 with twin Patriots in a box launcher. Size-wise it'd be huge, along with anything else listed in the article, but weight-wise almost nothing would be a problem, due to the basic pylon being rated for a 600gallon.
Lynx7725 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 Err, meh... What's the basic Patriot's actual kill rate? I'm not sure whether this would actually do anything meaningful. Let's talk about airliners. Anything new on the GOL flight that went down in the middle of nowhere late last year? Or the disappearing Adamair flight in Indonesia, any idea what happened?
VF-19 Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 Err, meh... What's the basic Patriot's actual kill rate? I'm not sure whether this would actually do anything meaningful. Let's talk about airliners. Anything new on the GOL flight that went down in the middle of nowhere late last year? Or the disappearing Adamair flight in Indonesia, any idea what happened? Apparently, during the first Gulf War, it was lousy. In some cases, the missile would indeed destroy the incoming shot, only to destroy the body of the missile, leaving the warhead intact. Nowadays, it's supposed to be pretty good.
Chewie Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) I thought this was cool. Video of an F-18 Hornet Edited January 16, 2007 by Chewie
Apollo Leader Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 Actually, I'm even more interested in (and think is more likely to be in service) that boosted IR-seeking AMRAAM. Image attached is from the article, F-15 with twin Patriots in a box launcher. Size-wise it'd be huge, along with anything else listed in the article, but weight-wise almost nothing would be a problem, due to the basic pylon being rated for a 600gallon. I wonder what it would take to resurrect the anti-satellite missile tested out on the F-15 back in the 1980's and modify it for this purpose. I wonder if the Phoenix could be modified for this role (a navalized F-15 carrying Phoenix missiles as an alternative to the F-14 was proposed at one time). Anyway, good to see that the F-15 could yet see some sort of anti-missile/anti-satellite role.
Apollo Leader Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 Apparently, during the first Gulf War, it was lousy. In some cases, the missile would indeed destroy the incoming shot, only to destroy the body of the missile, leaving the warhead intact. Nowadays, it's supposed to be pretty good. The original Patriot was a late 60's/early 70's design intended primarily to knock down conventional aircraft and I believe that it used a proximity fuse warhead in order to make its kill. For what it did and accomplished during Desert Storm was above and beyond was it was designed and intended to do... taking out out a tactical ballistic missile on a reentry trajectory. I'm not sure how much the current PAC-3 shares physically with the original, but for all practical purposes it is a totally different missile. The original Patriot was a simple looking rocket with clipped delta fins. The current generation Patriots look for more exotic in design.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) The original Patriot was a late 60's/early 70's design intended primarily to knock down conventional aircraft and I believe that it used a proximity fuse warhead in order to make its kill. For what it did and accomplished during Desert Storm was above and beyond was it was designed and intended to do... taking out out a tactical ballistic missile on a reentry trajectory. I'm not sure how much the current PAC-3 shares physically with the original, but for all practical purposes it is a totally different missile. The original Patriot was a simple looking rocket with clipped delta fins. The current generation Patriots look for more exotic in design. The new Patriots also come four to a launch canister (i.e. 16 missiles per launch trailer). Off the top of my head, they're much smaller in size, not quite as long range, and come in a number of versions, one of which is designed for intercepting ballistic missiles. It should be noted that the issue of Patriot kills is somewhat controversial. From one point of view, any Patriot that hits the target has pretty much achieved a kill. The trouble is, the missiles they were intercepting would break up and drop dangerous debris - including warheads - over the area they were defending. Edited January 16, 2007 by F-ZeroOne
David Hingtgen Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 Nothing lately about the GOL crash AFAIK. Best/most recent theory for the actual breakup is that the ERJ's winglet sliced through the lower skin of the 737's wing, which was stressed enough to almost instantly go into flutter and break off, then the 737's wingtip flew back and over and sheared off its own v.stab. Still not sure if engines came off prior to impact. AdamAir--Singapore Nav sending ships to search last I heard.
Lynx7725 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Nothing lately about the GOL crash AFAIK. Best/most recent theory for the actual breakup is that the ERJ's winglet sliced through the lower skin of the 737's wing, which was stressed enough to almost instantly go into flutter and break off, then the 737's wingtip flew back and over and sheared off its own v.stab. Still not sure if engines came off prior to impact. Talk about freak accident. That's got to go into the books under some category.. AdamAir--Singapore Nav sending ships to search last I heard. Latest is that the sea search found something that looked like the nose underwater, so they are going to go down to take a look-see. They are ruling out mid-air explosion though, citing lack of large debris spread or charring on what little they recover, though I think that's a hasty conclusion.
Apollo Leader Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 (edited) Iran trying to get F-14 parts and other US military gear. On the updated episode of Modern Marvels on the History channel having to do with the F-14 Tomcat, this whole very issue is addressed of Iran very much wanting to get their hands on all the parts, instruments, etc. being taken from scrapped F-14's. Edited January 17, 2007 by Apollo Leader
Knight26 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Interesting article you dug up DH. My personnal thought. Of the two options the Patriot is probably the better way to go, it is longer range and the latest PAK-3s are quite good, from what I have seen. Also it gets Raytheon out of the picture entirely. Making a new missile out of a modified AMRAAM mated to a 9X just sounds like a really bad idea to me. If you really want to use a two stage design my suggestions are if you want to go off the shelf, i.e. just adapt an existing design. Take either the SM-3 (standard missile) yes it will be huge, but it can already engage spaceborne targets, you would just be transitioning from a ship to a plane. Or go with the ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, aka Extremely Small Standard Missile). This would make for easier carriage them the SM-3 or Patriot and would probably be easier to adapt then the AMRAAM/9X combo. Of course they could always resurrect the F-15s old anti-sat missile and modify it, but I doubt that that would happen since it would basically have to be redesigned from scratch at this point.
Noyhauser Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Interesting article you dug up DH. My personnal thought. Of the two options the Patriot is probably the better way to go, it is longer range and the latest PAK-3s are quite good, from what I have seen. Also it gets Raytheon out of the picture entirely. Making a new missile out of a modified AMRAAM mated to a 9X just sounds like a really bad idea to me. If you really want to use a two stage design my suggestions are if you want to go off the shelf, i.e. just adapt an existing design. Take either the SM-3 (standard missile) yes it will be huge, but it can already engage spaceborne targets, you would just be transitioning from a ship to a plane. Or go with the ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, aka Extremely Small Standard Missile). This would make for easier carriage them the SM-3 or Patriot and would probably be easier to adapt then the AMRAAM/9X combo. Of course they could always resurrect the F-15s old anti-sat missile and modify it, but I doubt that that would happen since it would basically have to be redesigned from scratch at this point. Actually the PAC 3's record against low flying cruise missles during the 2003 War in Iraq was judged to be moderate to poor. It was quite successful at knocking down Frogs and the like though.
Knight26 Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 Actually the PAC 3's record against low flying cruise missles during the 2003 War in Iraq was judged to be moderate to poor. It was quite successful at knocking down Frogs and the like though. IIRC their issue against low fliers, was/is with the radar, while the software has been upgraded to allow it to engage missiles and the like, instead of the aircraft it was originally intended to go against, the radar has difficulty dealing with ground clutter.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 19, 2007 Posted January 19, 2007 Anyone got more info on this PLA Anti-Sat missile? http://news.asiaone.com/a1news/20070119_story3_1.html
eugimon Posted January 19, 2007 Posted January 19, 2007 Anyone got more info on this PLA Anti-Sat missile? http://news.asiaone.com/a1news/20070119_story3_1.html Please, I'm anxious on this topic as well...
kung flu Posted January 21, 2007 Posted January 21, 2007 Please, I'm anxious on this topic as well... Theres nothing to be anxious about, its just propaganda. Every so often the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would pull off a stunt like this. The Chinese Communist Party is struggling to keep up with the modern world, they are trying to remain communist while embracing capitalism, which does not work. The Chinese people are growing increasingly unhappy with the CCP, so to divert attention away from themselves they either dig up old wounds about the Japaneses in WW2, a way of saying without the CCP the Japanese would not have been driven out of China. They would also display military strength such as that rocket test or send a man in space not so long ago, also another way of saying without the CCP China could not have achieved this and that. The Chinese Communist Party would not risk open war with the USA or Europe because China relies on them economically and it would also mean the collapse of Communist Party.
joseph Posted January 21, 2007 Posted January 21, 2007 India moves ahead with MiG-29KUB for the Navy NEW DELHI: India will start receiving the first carrier-based MiG-29K multi-role fighters from Russia in 2007, a year ahead of schedule. The first batch of few MiG-29KUB would be delivered towards the middle of 2007, in time for Indian Navy to train the first batch of its pilots, a top official of Russian Aircraft building Corporation (RSK), the manufacturers of the MiG range of fighters, said. He said that RSK would deliver Navy's entire order of 16 MiG-29K by 2009. The Russian team is here to finalise the training schedule for the Indian Naval pilots. While the first batch of naval pilots would be trained in Russia, India is subsequently planning to operate the MiG-29K for training purposes from its shore-based Dabolim airbase in Goa. Under a Rs 3,256 crore (740 million dollar) deal, signed in January, 2004, Navy is to acquire 12 MiG-29k Single seater combat aircraft and four two-seater MiG-29KUB operational trainers. The deal also includes airborne armaments, maintenance, personnel training, plus the supply of simulators, spare parts and servicing. The naval version of the MiG-29 is yet to enter service and India would be the launch customer for the multi-role aircraft, which can operate from ski-jump platform. Russian officials said that the fighters would be fully operational by April, 2008, when the Carrier Gorshkov is scheduled to be delivered. ELTA presents RTP ( Radar Targeting Pod) The EL/M 20600 RTP is a unique Radar Targeting Pod integrating High Performance Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging, Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) and Precision Target Tracking.The RTP is a complete All-Weather, Autonomous Real Time System. It provides high quality radar images of ground targets and terrain from Stand-Off ranges, even through clouds, rain, fog, battlefield smoke and man-made camouflage. The RTP incorporates ELTA’s multi-year vast experience in the development and manufacturing of a varietyof radars including Airborne Fire Control, SAR, GMTI and Multi-Mission Suites.
kalvasflam Posted January 21, 2007 Posted January 21, 2007 As for the Chinese ASAT, welcome to the club.... Third country in the world that has an ASAT capability. Great. Other than that, it ain't a big deal. It's about capability and flexing the muscles. Something that any superpower would do when they can. There is too much money to be made for anything really stupid. I'd be interested when someone has a space capable fighter.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Other than that, it ain't a big deal. It's about capability and flexing the muscles. Something that any superpower would do when they can. There is too much money to be made for anything really stupid. I'd be interested when someone has a space capable fighter. I suppose a space capable fighter isn't going to be sexy like in our favourite animes. I mean, if they strapped a current generation 1 or 2 shot laser weapon onto the shuttle/orbiter, its a space fighter too. I am more interested to see what a true reusable spacecraft would be like. (i.e. take off under own power, acheive orbit and back) Edited January 22, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
kalvasflam Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 For me, I think a space fighter on the first generation has to be launched on a booster. Otherwise, it's forced to carry too much fuel to have enough usable sensors or armaments and other stuff. The fighter ought to be able to land like the standard shuttle, I think the difference ought to be that the fighter has limited atmospheric capabilities, in that it can maneuver and move around in the atmosphere, not a strict glider like the shuttle. The primary armament ought to be a chain gun or a gatling of some type, modified for space operation of course. Then it needs a very good sensor suite with a fantastic tracking computer. Building in stealth features should not be too big a deal I think. I wouldn't be surprise if there is such a capability in the US already, black project of some type. But such a unit would likely have to have a booster unless there is some very exotic type of propulsion.
Lynx7725 Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 As for the Chinese ASAT, welcome to the club.... Third country in the world that has an ASAT capability. Great. Other than that, it ain't a big deal. It's about capability and flexing the muscles. Something that any superpower would do when they can. There is too much money to be made for anything really stupid. I'd be interested when someone has a space capable fighter. Uhm, personally, I won't be so quick to write off the event. Like you said, this demonstration -- if true -- makes the PRC the third nation to have an ASAT capability. That makes it the third out of 192 nations in the UN. That's a significant achievement, and lays the groundwork for who can actually partipant significantly in a space war. Not to mention, in a conventional land war, having an ASAT capability is a big deal. The Western forces are used to having high technology to help command, control and communicate -- a large part of which is through satelite. Take away that capability, or even threaten the capability, and the western forces suddenly end up with less of a force multiplier effect. Can you imagine all those GPS-based precision weapons working accurately.. without enough GPS satelites to guide them? So, just a demonstration, even a failure, is a big sign that a nation is ready to move over a certain technological divide. As with any political balance of power, those with the power tends to want to keep those without from gaining that power. As for the stability of the PRC political entity, I would be very careful before making sweeping assertions. The PRC has huge economic and human reserves, either exploited or waiting for exploitation. Certainly a war against a Western entity would hurt PRC's progress, but the reverse is also true -- the Western nations would also be badly hit by a war. Just consider how much of Western manufacturing is actually being done in China. All in all, the Western nations are more likely to lose more than the PRC would in a shooting war.
Phyrox Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 The primary armament ought to be a chain gun or a gatling of some type, modified for space operation of course. Then it needs a very good sensor suite with a fantastic tracking computer. Building in stealth features should not be too big a deal I think. I think a much better idea would be self guiding missiles. Newton's Third Law tells us that a powerful rotary cannon would not be a great idea in space. Not a conventional one anyhow. But all this talk of anti-sat missles and Mig-35s is no fun. So I'll inject something interesting into the thread. I don't have any of my books with me, but I believe what we have here is a Chinese re-engined Tu-4 modified for AEW. How cool is that I ask you?
Warmaker Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 I thought the thing looked similar to a WWII B-29, then I dug up the history of the Tu-4 on the 'net
kalvasflam Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 I think a much better idea would be self guiding missiles. Newton's Third Law tells us that a powerful rotary cannon would not be a great idea in space. Not a conventional one anyhow. But all this talk of anti-sat missles and Mig-35s is no fun. So I'll inject something interesting into the thread. I don't have any of my books with me, but I believe what we have here is a Chinese re-engined Tu-4 modified for AEW. How cool is that I ask you? Heh heh, you noticed, I did say modified for space. I know basic physics after all. But think about it, what is the so called smart pebbles other than a glorified rock. There are ways to get around that, you have to design a gun that handles the right type of bullets, in the end it's just a matter of compensating for the momentum. Lynx, no offense, but lets not make a mistake in believing that other countries couldn't have duplicated the effort before China. It's not a denial that China has gone a long way from the day of the first paramount (idiot) leader, but if Japan for example wanted that capability, they could do it. Same for quite a few countries in Europe. That said, we'll see what the next step is. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Man, those things are still flying? The Chinese characters on the arch behind the bird says 'MUSEUM'. No idea how old that photo is as well.
Lynx7725 Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Lynx, no offense, but lets not make a mistake in believing that other countries couldn't have duplicated the effort before China. It's not a denial that China has gone a long way from the day of the first paramount (idiot) leader, but if Japan for example wanted that capability, they could do it. Same for quite a few countries in Europe. That said, we'll see what the next step is. It'll be interesting, that's for sure. While what you say is true, it's also true that they didn't and PRC did. That, along with the on-off love-hate relationship the world generally have with the PRC, makes PRC a potential threat. And what you said is also true -- it'll be interesting. The Chinese characters on the arch behind the bird says 'MUSEUM'. No idea how old that photo is as well. True, didn't quite see them until after my post.. my bad.
Coota0 Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 As for the Chinese ASAT, welcome to the club.... Third country in the world that has an ASAT capability. Great. Other than that, it ain't a big deal. It's about capability and flexing the muscles. Something that any superpower would do when they can. There is too much money to be made for anything really stupid. I'd be interested when someone has a space capable fighter. Why would you want a space fighter? If you've got no other enemy space craft to fight you don't need one. A space capable bomber would be much more useful. Then someone can develop a fighter to counter the bomber and we can develop a fighter to counter theirs and the arms race is on.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Why would you want a space fighter? If you've got no other enemy space craft to fight you don't need one. A space capable bomber would be much more useful. Then someone can develop a fighter to counter the bomber and we can develop a fighter to counter theirs and the arms race is on. Space fighters? bah! What we want are Star Battleships.
Mislovrit Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Other than that, it ain't a big deal. It's about capability and flexing the muscles. Flexing muscles is another way of saying saber rattling. Something that any superpower would do when they can. Other superpowers use discretion when making a point.
Mislovrit Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Just consider how much of Western manufacturing is actually being done in China. All in all, the Western nations are more likely to lose more than the PRC would in a shooting war. Cause of that losing bit is where the nukes come into play, the loser will certainly fired them off turning the supposed Chinese victory into a defeat at worse or a pyrrhic victory at best.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Flexing muscles is another way of saying saber rattling. Other superpowers use discretion when making a point. Huh? I don't find anything discrete about how the biggest Superpower makes it's military points. I can imagine the USA raising the same fuss if China had tested an airborne laser. Or spent several hundred billion on a new fleet of steath fighters. Or built a few Carrier Battle Groups. Or intercontinental stealth bombers. Or missile defence shields.
kalvasflam Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Huh? I don't find anything discrete about how the biggest Superpower makes it's military points. I can imagine the USA raising the same fuss if China had tested an airborne laser. Or spent several hundred billion on a new fleet of steath fighters. Or built a few Carrier Battle Groups. Or intercontinental stealth bombers. Or missile defence shields. My thoughts exactly, let's not blow things out of proportion. China tested a capability. Let's not treat it as a declaration of war or anything. As the country grows, military muscle is one of the thing that China feels it has to have. From their point of view, it's protection of their current infrastructure. It's a bit unlikely for China to go off like little Kimmy to the East.
Graham Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 To be honest, the following sentence from the link posted earlier sends the shivers down my spine far more than the Chinese testing an anti-satellite capability. "In October, President George W. Bush signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes" To me as a non-American it sounds like Bush is trying to grab all of space for himself by preventing others access. Not sure that even the US has the right to prevent others access to space. Not trying to get political or off topic. I'm usually very pro-American, but that sentence honestly disturbed me. Anyway, back to our regular discussion about pointy things with wings. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted January 24, 2007 Author Posted January 24, 2007 Summary of a thread I'm reading on another forum: The key to China is the ocean. The Himalayas both protect them from attack, and make it hard for them to attack anyone else on land. And there's little point/interest in going after Russia anyways. (that'd just help the US's position) China imports so much oil, and we buy so much stuff from them---their entire economy and life-line is the sea, and frankly the US controls those sea lanes. They couldn't even invade Taiwan without control of the Strait, and the US could fairly easily deny that. US subs are basically the great equalizer here. They don't rely on satellite communication, navigation, or anything. They are quite independent, since they were designed to operate cut-off from the rest of the world. And they could easily sink every ship heading to or from China if needed. China couldn't do much against a dedicated embargo etc enforced by US subs. Even our boomers could be sent to hunt tankers or even warships if needed. And there's plenty of "all-purpose" cruise missiles on the attack subs. And mines. And, there's plenty of choke-points etc where US ships could be stationed to enforce an embargo hundreds, if not thousands of miles from China, where they have little to no capability to strike back. In other words--the US Navy could pretty easily deal severe blows, even if it's only economic, without taking a scratch. All the money and building in the world won't allow you to just leap-frog past a few decades of naval development, and get the training and experience necessary to come even close to any large, modern navy.
Recommended Posts