Quote:
Originally Posted by GGTharos
You need to put this into context: Some of those slammers were fired out of parameters (ie. too far, poor intercept angle, etc). Missiles are not magical - if you shoot them within correct parameters, they are very, very deadly. If you don't, they're much easier to evade.
|
How many weapons can this statement be made, if you use the weapon as the designers had intended, it works as advertised.
In this particular case there was very little maneuvering. Just four aircraft two F-15C's piloted by Lt. Col. (Capt. then) Mike "Dozer" Shower and Capt. Cesar A. Rodriguez and two MiG-29's, charging head-on at each other. The four aircraft were traveling above six hundred mph, twelve hundred plus mph closure speeds. In between the four fighters was a single F-117 about three thousand feet below the F-15's which was not detected by any of the four fighters.
A surviving MiG-29 pilot later interviewed said he would have tried to avoid the F-15's and gone for the F-117 had he known the Nighthawk was around. The Nighthawk pilot was interviewed later (part of which was in AW&ST) who stated he first thought the F-15's were firing on him. Then he noticed the missiles were not comming down but maintaining level flight and he saw the missiles making impact with the MiG-29. The Nighthawk pilot said he wanted to buy the F-15 pilots a drink.
In another kill of an MiG-29 by an F-15C firing a Slammer Missile. I remember reading about, the MiG-29 was able to get the Slammer on its "3-9" line and out maneuver the first missile. The pilot had ripple fired two missiles about ten seconds apart. The MiG-29 lost most of its energy evading the first missile but was an easy target for the second missile. By firing the missile when he did, the F-15 pilot was able to keep the MiG-29 pilot on the defensive until the second missile made the kill. So while in this engagement only one-half the missiles fired accomplished the task of killing the opponent, the other missile accomplished the task of keeping the MiG from firing at the F-15C. There can be more than one reason to fire a missile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy
The other thing to consider is that sometimes more than one missile is fired at a target. If the first missile hits, the other counts as a miss when you look at the overall hit ratio. Stupid, I think.
|
I agree, especially if the second missile goes through the fireball. I guess my point is there should be listings when a missile is fired in combat, so what happened to the missile that fired?
I know when testing, when a new missile misses because something happens to the target drone and the AIM-xxx misses because the target is no long around. I remember this sort of accounting took place when testing the Phoenix Missile, one missile missed due to one target missile failed and was not in the area when the Phoenix arrived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avon1944
About three F-35's for a single F-22A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy
Some "per frame" numbers show the F-35 costing about 3/4 of an F-22, which is absolutely inexcusable.
|
|
How little of this problem should be dropped at the doorstep of the US Military or the civilian contractors and..... how much of this problem should be dropped at the doorstep of America's civilian leadership! I vote for the responsibility to be placed at the doorstep of the civilian leadership for the cost over-runs of the F-22 and F-35 programs.
Adrian