Navy Test Fires First Working Prototype Railgun.

[desertswo]

I know where one complete AWG-9 radar is.

Let me guess; sitting either in Hornet's hangar bay, or up on deck?

[Blademaster]

Errr, guys, it's Mach 8. Projectile is going towards the target at Mach 7 and the target is approaching at Mach 1. Mach 8.

The other question is, can the plane's radar detect something so small?

It doesn't need to. The heat generating by the projectile streaking through the air will easily light up on the plane's infrared sensors. Even the air disturbance caused by the projectile's wake is enough to generate a radar return.

[Officer of Engineers]

What's the effective range? The MiG-23s don't see the AIM54 launched from 100 miles out until it's too late.

[desertswo]

It doesn't need to. The heat generating by the projectile streaking through the air will easily light up on the plane's infrared sensors. Even the air disturbance caused by the projectile's wake is enough to generate a radar return.

That is another option. Has anyone ever noticed that there are always other ways to denude the feline? So it is with warfare. We (the US) come up with some great technological advance that gives us battle space dominance, and then "they" (and "they" is an ever evolving and often amorphous cloud of either single actors, formal alliances, or simply groups who are united by only one factor; their "hatred" or at least a national rivalry with the US) develop another technological advance that either levels the playing field, or tilts it in their favor. So it is with the rail gun. Already, it is generating responses.

[Blademaster]

What's the effective range? The MiG-23s don't see the AIM54 launched from 100 miles out until it's too late.

I thought we were referring to the rail gun projectile?

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm using historic examples where the other side don't have the technology to counter the system. What's the effective detection range of a SU-27 on such a projectile?

[Blademaster]

I'm using historic examples where the other side don't have the technology to counter the system. What's the effective detection range of a SU-27 on such a projectile?

That I do not have enough data to form an opinion. But today, with Russian AWACs and ground control tracking radars and networking capability, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia can detect the projectile and vector the plane away from the incoming threat.

Soviet Union may not have this capability in the past but today, I would not bet against Russia.

[desertswo]

What's the effective range? The MiG-23s don't see the AIM54 launched from 100 miles out until it's too late.

Unfortunately, there aren't any US F-14s flying with Phoenix missiles hanging from their hard points. I love the photo below, but in the three years I served in an aircraft carrier with Tomcats assigned, and all of the years I spent in the fleet in other billets where I was involved with F-14s, I never saw one launch with a full bag of six Phoenix missiles like that. That is real, no fecal matter, "loaded for bear!" What I normally saw was something along the lines of two Phoenix, four Sparrow and a couple of Sidewinders, along with their 20mm gun ammo. That was a bad ass combat load out in its own right.



I've probably told the story about how one of our F-14 squadrons had a cake baked for me, because I saved their Tomcat, it's crew, and a bag of Phoenix missiles. It wasn't all that dramatic, and yet, in many small ways, it was. Anyway, if I haven't related the experience, I will. Just not tonight. :Zzzzzz:

[Blademaster]

That is another option. Has anyone ever noticed that there are always other ways to denude the feline? So it is with warfare. We (the US) come up with some great technological advance that gives us battle space dominance, and then "they" (and "they" is an ever evolving and often amorphous cloud of either single actors, formal alliances, or simply groups who are united by only one factor; their "hatred" or at least a national rivalry with the US) develop another technological advance that either levels the playing field, or tilts it in their favor. So it is with the rail gun. Already, it is generating responses.

I still think that railguns are a good idea because battleships of the past could only fire shells within 20 miles to be effective and carriers with longer range had rendered those battleships obsolete. But the need for artillery barrage from the sea never went away because 90% of the world cities are close to the sea. Railguns with its longer range could allow modern day warships to launch artillery barrages without being threatened by planes.

But as an anti-ballistic missile program, I do not think it would work unless it has some sort of maneuvering system that allows to adjust as needed and close upon the target.

[Blademaster]

I've probably told the story about how one of our F-14 squadrons had a cake baked for me, because I saved their Tomcat, it's crew, and a bag of Phoenix missiles. It wasn't all that dramatic, and yet, in many small ways, it was. Anyway, if I haven't related the experience, I will. Just not tonight. :Zzzzzz:

Looking forward to reading your story, sir.

[desertswo]

That I do not have enough data to form an opinion. But today, with Russian AWACs and ground control tracking radars and networking capability, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia can detect the projectile and vector the plane away from the incoming threat.

Soviet Union may not have this capability in the past but today, I would not bet against Russia.

I would. Of course, you know I say that just to stir up the fecal matter. ;)

[desertswo]

Looking forward to reading your story, sir.

I look forward to telling it. Perhaps in another thread so as not to clutter this one up with the reminiscences of an old man.

[Stitch]

I know where one complete AWG-9 radar is.

Did they leave that in the F-14A onboard the Hornet, too? Last time I was onboard, the Aviation Merit Badge instructor (an ex-Navy pilot) was opening all kinds of panels on the F-14, and pretty much everything was still there. I noticed they'd left the TF-30's in there, too; that's usually something that gets yanked before a plane is handed over to a museum, even one as prestigious as the Hornet. But, then again, I guess there aren't too many people out there who really want a couple of old TF-30-P-100's, except for maybe Australia.