Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Call me crazy... Air Launched SM-6?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Vis-a-vi an incoming supersonic/hypersonic missile? Chaff and flares are cheaper, easier, and more than a one shot wonder and you save room for all the other gear you need for EW and battle management.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • #17
      Holy Shit, Stitch!!!!

      What, a Nike-Hercules wasn't available?
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #18
        I think you guys have the range of SM-6 way off when air launched.

        That motor/rocket is designed to get it from stationary at sea level to altitude at XX MPH. Launched from a plane you are already traveling a couple hundred MPH and at altitude (or close to it).

        Its going to go way further.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
          I think you guys have the range of SM-6 way off when air launched.

          That motor/rocket is designed to get it from stationary at sea level to altitude at XX MPH. Launched from a plane you are already traveling a couple hundred MPH and at altitude (or close to it).

          Its going to go way further.
          SM6 is listed at 3300 pounds... how far can an AWAC's see....? And at that weight... how many could you conceivably carry.....?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
            I think you guys have the range of SM-6 way off when air launched.

            That motor/rocket is designed to get it from stationary at sea level to altitude at XX MPH. Launched from a plane you are already traveling a couple hundred MPH and at altitude (or close to it).

            Its going to go way further.
            I suspect that an air launched version would omit the booster segment to cut down on weight since the missile wouldn't be starting at sea level. I'm not sure how high and fast an SM-6 is going when the booster typically cuts out. From the videos I can find it appears the booster burns out at only a couple thousand feet, although the missile appears to be moving quite fast already. It could be that launching from 40,000 feet even without the booster increases the range dramatically.

            As mentioned previously, something with a ducted rocket/ramjet à la Meteor can buy you 400km range with similar top speed in a much smaller and lighter package. Still, I suspect that type of design sacrifices acceleration in order to achieve longevity, and would suffer accordingly at shorter ranged engagements. The SM-6 is a BIG bird to hang off of anything carrier launched. I think a P-8 could probably handle it sans booster though.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
              SM6 is listed at 3300 pounds... how far can an AWAC's see....? And at that weight... how many could you conceivably carry.....?
              A big chunk of that weight is the 1570 lb MK-72 solid booster, which could probably be omitted if it is being air launched.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	SM-6_141026_03.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	967.7 KB
ID:	1468494

              If used in concert with forward stealthed platforms, the missile launcher doesn't have to see all that far, it only has to hand the missile off to friendlies closer to the action.
              Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 25 Mar 16,, 15:34.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                A big chunk of that weight is the 1570 lb MK-72 solid booster, which could probably be omitted if it is being air launched.

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]41211[/ATTACH]

                If used in concert with forward stealthed platforms, the missile launcher doesn't have to see all that far, it only has to hand the missile off to friendlies closer to the action.
                I guess part of what I was thinking though would be the long stand off range it could provide. Strap some to an awacs or P8 (or a B52 or B1 etc...) and be able to engage a target at long range instead of having to put that asset out forward

                If it were a stealthy platform out in front of an awacs pretty far the amraam or similar would work assuming the ranges wouldn be shorter.

                Having an air borne platform with long loiter time just cruising around doing its thing with the ability to engage a target at 300-400 km's... it's an existing and tested weapon, attaching to another existing and tested platform... I would think there could be a lot of bang for the buck so to speak (limited testing and development cost?)

                But obviously i could be way off there and I have no real knowledge of the actual engineering and testing required or the real feasibility... just a thought.
                Last edited by bfng3569; 25 Mar 16,, 17:06.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Is this range necessary? Is it practical? Would it be practical for every single infantry squad to have 1 guy carrying a rifle in either 50 BMG or 336 Lapua?
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    Is this range necessary? Is it practical? Would it be practical for every single infantry squad to have 1 guy carrying a rifle in either 50 BMG or 336 Lapua?
                    Soooo... I'm gonna say you don't think so?

                    Practical I can't answer.

                    Necessary... I can't answer either.

                    Is the B-21 necessary? The F35? The ddg1000? The Ford class?

                    I keep hearing terms like dispersed lethality and force multipliers and projection etc etc being used a lot.

                    I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the downfall for something like this? Cost vs capability?

                    Using an infantry squad for comparison seems extremely off base.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                      Is this range necessary? Is it practical? Would it be practical for every single infantry squad to have 1 guy carrying a rifle in either 50 BMG or 336 Lapua?
                      The .50-cal is probably overkill for the majority of situations, especially considering how heavy the gun and the ammo are for that thing. I could see the .336 Lapua being standard issue; give one Designated Marksman an Accuracy International AXMC or a Barrett 98B, and call it good.
                      "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Think of this in the anti-AWACS role.

                        F-22 or stealthy UCAV gets close enough to get a bearing and good range swag on the enemy AWACS. Transmits that info through CEC. Far away, a loitering big plane launches a couple of SM-6.

                        Enemy doesn't know its being targeted until SM-6 pops on its radar for final adjustments.

                        F-22 doesn't have to risk being detected getting close enough for a shot. Or being spotted when the doors open to launch a 120.

                        The threat of this capability pushes the enemys AWACS further to the rear. Which cuts down their detection/response time


                        Gunnut. Infantry doesn't need a .50cal at the squad level. They have a radio. And with that, they can kill anything out as far as their eyes can see.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          Gunnut. Infantry doesn't need a .50cal at the squad level. They have a radio. And with that, they can kill anything out as far as their eyes can see.
                          Gunny, admit it. You got a little chubby when you wrote that, didn't you?
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I did not need that image in my head.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              Gunny, admit it. You got a little chubby when you wrote that, didn't you?
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                              I did not need that image in my head.

                              Got a BIG chubby when I wrote that.

                              Col, Do I need to post pics of SWNBN to get that image out of your head?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Wouldn't work. I just got an image with you having a big chubby eagerly posting her pics.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X