Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

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

  • Andrey Egorov
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    I doubt that it is going to do mach 2+ at 20 feet, the missile "only" does mach 2.5 as its top speed and that would be at altitude. I would believe mach 1.5 though, which is still formidible.
    Well, at least it supposed to fly last 20 nm at maximum speed with internal radar guidance

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrey Egorov View Post

    Only one P-700 in a salvo goes subsonic on high profile trajectory. If it hit, another one lifts up from low profile. The rest go 20 feet above the surface in silence at mach 2+. Again, I'm happy we'll never know how efficient AEGIS is
    I doubt that it is going to do mach 2+ at 20 feet, the missile "only" does mach 2.5 as its top speed and that would be at altitude. I would believe mach 1.5 though, which is still formidible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrey Egorov
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    I think that an Oscar firing a salvo of P-700's would be about the only thing that would have a fighting chance of scoring a hit on a USN carrier, as it is the only platform with enough weapons that would reliably get to within launch range.
    Agreed

    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    However, I still think the carrier would have good odds. When we say that the Oscar is going to launch all of its missiles, are we talking about firing all of them at once or consecutively with a few seconds in between? I would have thought that if it fired all 24 at once that the combined backblast wouldn't do the submarine or crew any good, so I figure the latter is the case. Assuming that I am correct you are probably looking at a minute between the first and last missile being launched, which gives AEGIS time to switch its fire control radars to new targets as the original ones are engaged. When the SM-6 comes on line this won't even be an issue as it has an active radar onboard for the terminal homing stage.
    Only one P-700 in a salvo goes subsonic on high profile trajectory. If it hit, another one lifts up from low profile. The rest go 20 feet above the surface in silence at mach 2+
    Again, I'm happy we'll never know how efficient AEGIS is

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
    Yep - all the max speeds you see on those planes, cut'em down by 1/4 or so when they are fully armed. Won't give a precise answer, but close enough. The Raptor would be the exception here.

    You can find some -1's for USAF aircraft or in some cases NATOPS publications for USN aircraft with performance charts on the net. Sometimes you can even find them for free - either way they are not usually classified as they just give you an overview of the flight capabilities rather than weapon employment specifics, tactics etc - assuming you're ever curious about it :)
    Thanks, I might do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • GGTharos
    replied
    Yep - all the max speeds you see on those planes, cut'em down by 1/4 or so when they are fully armed. Won't give a precise answer, but close enough. The Raptor would be the exception here.

    You can find some -1's for USAF aircraft or in some cases NATOPS publications for USN aircraft with performance charts on the net. Sometimes you can even find them for free - either way they are not usually classified as they just give you an overview of the flight capabilities rather than weapon employment specifics, tactics etc - assuming you're ever curious about it :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
    The MiG is affected as well.
    Thanks. I note the article that we were talking about states that the Mig-25 can carry full weapons to mach 2.8. I strongly suspect that is balony, as is the rest of the article.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimmy
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    In the absense of the performance charts I'll take your word for it, though I have to admit that I am a little surprised. Why would would only the F-15 be limited in this case when Sparrows/AMRAAMs are carried semi-conformally and sidewinders are little, low drag loads, while the Mig-25 isn't with its stinking big missiles?
    The MiG is affected as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    I think that an Oscar firing a salvo of P-700's would be about the only thing that would have a fighting chance of scoring a hit on a USN carrier, as it is the only platform with enough weapons that would reliably get to within launch range.

    However, I still think the carrier would have good odds. When we say that the Oscar is going to launch all of its missiles, are we talking about firing all of them at once or consecutively with a few seconds in between? I would have thought that if it fired all 24 at once that the combined backblast wouldn't do the submarine or crew any good, so I figure the latter is the case. Assuming that I am correct you are probably looking at a minute between the first and last missile being launched, which gives AEGIS time to switch its fire control radars to new targets as the original ones are engaged. When the SM-6 comes on line this won't even be an issue as it has an active radar onboard for the terminal homing stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
    It is clearly marked in the performance charts of the F-15A/B/C/D -1.
    In the absense of the performance charts I'll take your word for it, though I have to admit that I am a little surprised. Why would would only the F-15 be limited in this case when Sparrows/AMRAAMs are carried semi-conformally and sidewinders are little, low drag loads, while the Mig-25 isn't with its stinking big missiles?

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Kilo 2-3 View Post
    How is calling on other zoomies cheating? In some situations you can call on land-based air forces to help out. Besides, you could probably launch buddy-packed aircraft with enough gas to make a difference and still be under the reduced MTOW this case dictates. Wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.
    I thought the navy didn't need the air force for anything (or, at least, or rather sink than admit it...) ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Kilo 2-3
    replied
    How is calling on other zoomies cheating? In some situations you can call on land-based air forces to help out. Besides, you could probably launch buddy-packed aircraft with enough gas to make a difference and still be under the reduced MTOW this case dictates. Wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Ooo found this! Go to almost the end:
    The F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet"

    "Minimum wind over deck:

    Launching 35 knots

    Recovery 19 knots"

    at max TO weight.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    And where are you geting the tankers from? F-18s with budy packs? Heavy loads (btw, I'm assuming you're not gonna call the USAF for taking; that's cheating )

    Leave a comment:


  • Kilo 2-3
    replied
    CAG could elect to launch his strikers and CAPs with minimal fuel loads and suitable ordnance loads then gas them up from tankers. Even with only nominal headway and a decent wind, a determined air group is still going to be able to hit back if called on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dreadnought
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    All true, older weaker cats, but remember they were launching 18-19000pound A-4s (loaded). An F-18E weights around 47000 (loaded) so the needs for wind/cat are gonna scale up. Say you can launch an F-18 with 4 AAMs. For strike purposes that carrier is out of business...

    Damn.. now I really wanna know this :(
    Yes, she was originally a WWII CVL (Carrier Vessel Lite) originally designed to launch aircraft during WWII which would mean the aircraft would have been much liter then the A-4 Skyhawks they were launching during the Faulkland campaign. Ordinance would have changed in weight factors as well. I couldnt find any instance where the cats were upgraded since being sold by the Brits to the Netherlands for service although they (Argentina) did remove the cats for service on another ship.


    "The Argentine Navy could not procure the funds for a modernization and new engines, leading to decommissioning by 1997, by this time her catapult and other systems had already been stripped and transplanted into her sister ship the Brazilian NAeL Minas Gerais which had also been heavily modified in the Netherlands. [http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ve...story_BN.html] Finally in 2000, she was towed to Alang, India for scrapping.

    Although the Minas Gerais was offered to the Argentine Navy as a replacement in 2000 she was rejected due to her poor condition and high restoration and maintenance costs. Argentine cooperation with Brazil has meant that the naval air wing has continued to operate from the deck of carrier NAe São Paulo in joint exercises."

    http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/305226
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 09 Oct 10,, 20:46.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X