Jump to content

State of US Navy


Recommended Posts

>Russians took very detailed photos

Would be much easier to just download some from internet.... ;-)

 

ROFL, good one!

 

Nscode, u said this was not the first time? If you can hop out from your boat, cross the Danube and go to your PC and tell me about those other situations? :=)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Commanding Officer of:

2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine"

See our squads here and our

.

Croatian radio chat for DCS World

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Block IIIs entered service in the 80s, IIRC. Block IVs with dual IR/radar seekers have been delayed, and although a few have been delivered, I think for the most part the program has been axed (not current on the Block IV really). Development has shifted to the SM-6 programme, whose main improvements include the AMRAAM's active radar seeker, the SM-2ER's extra range available to ships with VLS, and a two way datalink, I think. Someone who googles this can probably confirm.

 

The Block III has a range about 75-90 km (varies depending on source). The Block IV and the SM-6 are IIRC are based on the SM-2ER, so range is likely to approach or exceed 250 km. With AEGIS, the F-35B, the F/A-18E/F, SM-2/6, ESSM and RAM, it would probably be even more difficult to attack a US CVBG even without Tomcats on patrol.

 

This is not the way to atack sink a Aircraftcarrier...the real danger came from below :music_whistling:

Rodrigo Monteiro

LOCKON 1.12

AMD 3.8 X2 64 2G DDR ATI X1800XT 512

SAITEK X-36

AND VERY SOON TRACKIR-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose there are those who subscribe to the wishful thinking of the group's long-ranged search radars seeing nothing :D

 

No... just that someone can detect when the carrier is at 0-0 hour and do a mini perl harbur recreation with a bit of luck.

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the way to atack sink a Aircraftcarrier...the real danger came from below :music_whistling:

 

So they can get "Raptored" by the F-22 of the sea? If people thought that building F-22s were a waste of money, I'd hate to hear what they'd think of the SSN-21 Seawolf.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some AAMs can pull up to 30G, AFAIK. If you search on the Internet maybe you can have more precise data.

 

The Phoenix was inteded since its early stage ("A" version) to be employed against ASM/SSMs. In the first test one of the drones was simulating such a threat. Of the six targets 5 were shot down, the sixth ceased to simulate the RCS of the intended target and the Phoenix lost track.

 

Even if the Phoenix can engage fighters it was not designed to do that, so it's not believable that it can intercept a highly maneuvrable fighter turning at corner speed or pulling a lot of Gs.

 

And also remember that 17Gs are high, but also speeds are higher in the Phoenix, so even at 17G the turn radius is probably wider than a fighter doing 9G at 400 kts.

This is correct, but besides the point. Missiles have been incorporating Kalman loop filters for a while now that allow them to effectively lead a turning target. Furthermore, the Phoenix, much like the AMRAAM, gives minimal warning to a fighter pilot and -furthermore-, your G is pretty limited at high-altitudes. Frankly at those closure rates, a 9g turn changes your position so little that you wouldn't really want to bet your life on it.

 

In addition, the 'wasn't designed for' comment is highly underrated. It was in fact designed to attack MUCH MORE DIFFICULT targets.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Seawolf got cancelled after a small number of them were built?

 

Yeah. 3 were built at great cost, and the cold war was over. It's a pretty awesome ship all in all (I worked where the sonar was being built and tested) but modern times don't require something this hideously expensive ... thus, the Virginia class.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All CVN battle groups have at least one sub escort and 4-5 anti-sub destroyers to get through first.

 

The TAMOIO sub have done this before on linked Seas training operation

Rodrigo Monteiro

LOCKON 1.12

AMD 3.8 X2 64 2G DDR ATI X1800XT 512

SAITEK X-36

AND VERY SOON TRACKIR-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virginia class? Is that like Seawolf light kinda like what the F-35 is to the F-22.

 

Pretty much. The Virginia class was actually on the verge of entering service last time I checked, IIRC. Although IMO, in the short-term, more money should be allocated to upgrading M1A1s to M1A2 SEP+TUSK standard, or adding armor to HUMVEEs and Bradleys.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, there is very little chance of US war with Russia, and that's the only place where seawolfes might be needed. In Middle East 688I is fairly adequate, only threat there is Kilo and Kilo Improved, which, while being almost impossible to detect, will not detect 688I unless it's few hundret meters away goiung at decent speed. While against Russia you've got to deal with Akula II's, which are almost as silent as Seawolf (newest ones like Vepr And Gepard). There's also a couple of Borey's which should enter service within next couple of years, which would be even quieter. :)

The bird of Hermes is my name eating my wings to make me tame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is correct, but besides the point. Missiles have been incorporating Kalman loop filters for a while now that allow them to effectively lead a turning target.

 

The Pheonix is a lumby 500 kg missile travelling at ~ MACH 5 - it is not going to perform like an AMRAAM against a manouvering target.

 

Furthermore, the Phoenix, much like the AMRAAM, gives minimal warning to a fighter pilot

 

I would think that getting a fix on target via its onboard seeker and thereby accurately predict target intercept point as soon as possible would be esential for a high speed long range intercept missile with low agility - and the fact that the missile employs a combined SARH/ARH homing method kind of tells me that this is the case - i.e. that the missile not only takes advantage of the large body diameter to house a very powerful ARH seeker, but that the designers found it necessary to extend the seeker range further via SARH - by taking advantage of the awesome emitter output of the AWG-9.

 

So while the high speed naturally decreases the available reaction time of the target, the terminal homing stage would also alert the target at greater distance.

 

and -furthermore-, your G is pretty limited at high-altitudes. Frankly at those closure rates, a 9g turn changes your position so little that you wouldn't really want to bet your life on it.

 

:huh:

 

In addition, the 'wasn't designed for' comment is highly underrated. It was in fact designed to attack MUCH MORE DIFFICULT targets.

 

"MUCH MORE DIFFICULT targets" than manouvrable fighters.....like what?

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While against Russia you've got to deal with Akula II's, which are almost as silent as Seawolf (newest ones like Vepr And Gepard). There's also a couple of Borey's which should enter service within next couple of years, which would be even quieter. :)

 

The Su-35, Su-27IB, MiG-29SMT and Ka-50 were supposed to enter service "within the next couple of years" more than 10 years ago :p

 

The Pheonix is a lumby 500 kg missile travelling at ~ MACH 5 - it is not going to perform like an AMRAAM against a manouvering target.

 

I see your point, but the Phoenix doesn't travel Mach 5 all the time, to be fair.

 

I would think that getting a fix on target via its onboard seeker and thereby accurately predict target intercept point as soon as possible would be esential for a high speed long range intercept missile with low agility - and the fact that the missile employs a combined SARH/ARH homing method kind of tells me that this is the case - i.e. that the missile not only takes advantage of the large body diameter to house a very powerful ARH seeker, but that the designers found it necessary to extend the seeker range further via SARH - by taking advantage of the awesome emitter output of the AWG-9.

 

Yeah, I don't think an AIM-54C can behave exactly like an AIM-120 since it's a SARH missile prior to turning on its radar seeker.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

Wow, this old story comes up again? That's OK. The guys at NorthCom had a pretty good chuckle over some of the results of Russia's big exercise a few years ago...so we're even. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pheonix is a lumby 500 kg missile travelling at ~ MACH 5 - it is not going to perform like an AMRAAM against a manouvering target.

 

 

 

I would think that getting a fix on target via its onboard seeker and thereby accurately predict target intercept point as soon as possible would be esential for a high speed long range intercept missile with low agility - and the fact that the missile employs a combined SARH/ARH homing method kind of tells me that this is the case - i.e. that the missile not only takes advantage of the large body diameter to house a very powerful ARH seeker, but that the designers found it necessary to extend the seeker range further via SARH - by taking advantage of the awesome emitter output of the AWG-9.

 

So while the high speed naturally decreases the available reaction time of the target, the terminal homing stage would also alert the target at greater distance.

 

Are you saying it isn't maneuverable because it weighs 500kg? ... should I my the same token say that an 8 Metric tonne fighter is even less maneuverable?

Or perhaps that the flanker isn't anywhere near as good a maneuvering fighter as the F-16 or the mig?

 

The missile might employ quite a few tricks to 'know' when to go active on its target, such as motion analysis etc - it may effectively know when it's target is in the optimal 'basket' for going active ...

 

It isn't like a fighter is a sitting duck - but then, that's probably exactly why F-14 guys would launch at 50-60nm against fighters rather than farther away. AFAIK.

 

 

"MUCH MORE DIFFICULT targets" than manouvrable fighters.....like what?

 

- JJ.

 

Maneuvering supersonic missiles? ...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying it isn't maneuverable because it weighs 500kg?

 

No I am saying that it isnt manouvrable because it travels at MACH-silly and is a heavy missile.

 

... should I my the same token say that an 8 Metric tonne fighter is even less maneuverable?

Or perhaps that the flanker isn't anywhere near as good a maneuvering fighter as the F-16 or the mig?

 

How about a MIG-31 at MACH 3 isn't nearly as manouvrable as a MiG-29 at MACH 1?

 

The missile might employ quite a few tricks to 'know' when to go active on its target, such as motion analysis etc - it may effectively know when it's target is in the optimal 'basket' for going active ...

 

How does a missile perform a "motion analysis" and "know" when to go active if it cannot see the target? - why does the missile employ SARH in addition to ARH if seeker homing at longest possible range wasn't considered a requirement in order for it to have a chance to intercept a target.

 

The high speed gives the target less reaction time, but it also gives the missile less time to predict intercept point and less agility to make last minute course corrections.

 

It isn't like a fighter is a sitting duck - but then, that's probably exactly why F-14 guys would launch at 50-60nm against fighters rather than farther away. AFAIK.

 

I don't see how that would benefit seeker homing and missile agility at terminal stage.

 

Maneuvering supersonic missiles? ...

 

Get real George! :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am saying that it isnt manouvrable because it travels at MACH-silly and is a heavy missile.

 

All missiles travel at Mach. In fact, most missile terminal velocities are probably quite high, and moreso excascerbated by high-closure in head-on engagements (where RH missiles work best)

 

How about a MIG-31 at MACH 3 isn't nearly as manouvrable as a MiG-29 at MACH 1?

 

Can the MiG-31 pull 25g's?

 

How does a missile perform a "motion analysis" and "know" when to go active if it cannot see the target? - why does the missile employ SARH in addition to ARH if seeker homing at longest possible range wasn't considered a requirement in order for it to have a chance to intercept a target.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at - wether it gets it's data from a data link, or the sarh function, what's preventing it from 'knowing'? It has a lot of data, like the initial estimate of the TTI (the -simplest- way to derive a useful TTA), it's own flight time, closure data with which to recalculate the TTI, etc etc.

 

The high speed gives the target less reaction time, but it also gives the missile less time to predict intercept point and less agility to make last minute course corrections.

 

No. The problem is not high terminal speed. It's low terminal speed ... the missile certainly doesn't /arrive/ at mach 5, -if- it ever reaches that velocity, and IIRC some serious doubts were raised as to this velocity. It may simply be capable of maintaining a high mach at high altitude (educated guess, around mach 3) much like the Nike Hercules.

 

I don't see how that would benefit seeker homing and missile agility at terminal stage.

 

It doesn't; it benefits terminal velocity, which is the more important element in intercepting a maneuvering fighter. And, IIRC, most AIM-54C misses were due to turning tail and running while the missile was still on the way ...

 

Get real George! :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Hey, I'm pretty sure I got that piece of info out of some seemingly credible person or place. AIM-54C SEALED/ECCM was capable of engaging a supersonic seak-skimmer during the pop-up phase. I'd say that rates as maneuverable.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read a quote, from the NAVY that the 54C was indeed capable and would be used to intercept a missile at this stage if an aircraft was on-station.

Hey, I'm pretty sure I got that piece of info out of some seemingly credible person or place. AIM-54C SEALED/ECCM was capable of engaging a supersonic seak-skimmer during the pop-up phase. I'd say that rates as maneuverable.

 

Are you talking about the final attack phase? How long does it last? 10 seconds at most? I don't see a Tomcat turn, locate a target, lock-on, fire a Phoenix and destroy the ASM in such short notice. Even if it lasted a minute, it would be hard.

 

This sounds more like one of those "sounds good on paper to get funding approval for more expensive modifications of an already too-expensive missile" things.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am saying that it isnt manouvrable because it travels at MACH-silly and is a heavy missile.

- JJ.

 

But remenber at that speed the target will look like as standing still. Usualy this is the intent of missiles, if not by low speed amanueverability just cut the turn from far away straight ahead at blazing speed and the target will be as good as stationary.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that these subs will enter service soon, cause they are actually in process of being build at the moment... Russia has 6 subs in production atm IIRC

The bird of Hermes is my name eating my wings to make me tame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the final attack phase? How long does it last? 10 seconds at most? I don't see a Tomcat turn, locate a target, lock-on, fire a Phoenix and destroy the ASM in such short notice. Even if it lasted a minute, it would be hard.

 

This sounds more like one of those "sounds good on paper to get funding approval for more expensive modifications of an already too-expensive missile" things.

 

No, actually, that's done witht he lasers in the pilot's helmets ...

 

Since when does 'it's capable of intercepting the missile in the terminal pop-up phase' equate to 'the aircraft will search, track, designate and launch on the target in the terminal pop-up phase?'

I suppose you can assume that this is what I'm saying, but would you like me to assume you don't think at all, too?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...