747 as fighter jet

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Air-to-air counter missiles? Show me the link.

there aren't any yet, because no fighter could devote the room to them

but i don't see any reason why they couldn't be developed

also like i said, i'm not talking a literal 747, something like it that is TOUGHER and actually built to withstand a missile impact

and yes, planes have been known to survive missile impacts. many a soviet plane came back after being hit by a stinger

granted, that had a small warhead, but no reason that couldn't be built upon

It's hard enough to shoot a large ballistic missile down with missiles. Shooting down an anti-aircraft air-to-air missiles that's extremely fast, small, and maneuverable would be extremely difficult.

And no matter what your crappy logic, a 747 is NOT survivable by any means.

 

[her209]

Side question, how many fighter planes can you get versus one jumbo jet? Take that number, then simulate an air battle and see who would win the most rounds.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Air-to-air counter missiles? Show me the link.

there aren't any yet, because no fighter could devote the room to them

but i don't see any reason why they couldn't be developed

also like i said, i'm not talking a literal 747, something like it that is TOUGHER and actually built to withstand a missile impact

and yes, planes have been known to survive missile impacts. many a soviet plane came back after being hit by a stinger

granted, that had a small warhead, but no reason that couldn't be built upon

Don't missiles explode near the target, and don't actually impact anything?

 

[tynopik]

> It's hard enough to shoot a large ballistic missile down with missiles. Shooting down an anti-aircraft air-to-air missiles that's extremely fast, small, and maneuverable would be extremely difficult.

during the gulf war a silk worm anti-ship missile was successfully destroyed by a counter-missile

shooting down an air-to-air missile doesn't seem like such a gigantic leap

it may not be there now, but it certainly seems like something that could be done

 

[tynopik]

> Side question, how many fighter planes can you get versus one jumbo jet?

well i guess that depends on how good your missiles and counter-missiles and radar are

conceivably it could handle as many as it could track

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Again, you are simply imagining something invincible.
Sure, we can all ask the hypothetical "what if our missles rule the sky". Well then there would be no point in sending up a plane anyways, we could shoot down planes fromt he ground in the comfort of our boxers and warm coffee!

well our current aerial superiority is predicated upon beyond visual range (BVR) engagements, so this doesn't seem entirely fantasy

ground launched missiles are great for defending your territory, for taking the fight to the enemy territory, they need a little help (i don't think launching something the size of a ballistic missile to take out a single plane would be a good use of resources)

If it keeps a pilot from beign in harms way the American Government would be all over that. We don't acept casualties too well.
And this is all fantasy. What material can stop a missile going 4 times the speed of sound if your air-to-air missile counter measures fail?

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Air-to-air counter missiles? Show me the link.

there aren't any yet, because no fighter could devote the room to them

but i don't see any reason why they couldn't be developed

also like i said, i'm not talking a literal 747, something like it that is TOUGHER and actually built to withstand a missile impact

and yes, planes have been known to survive missile impacts. many a soviet plane came back after being hit by a stinger

granted, that had a small warhead, but no reason that couldn't be built upon

Don't missiles explode near the target, and don't actually impact anything?

Yeah, that's correct.

And the OP's idea of shooting down targets 100 miles away...
Very few missiles have that capability. The range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is just over 20 miles. Many foreign missiles have a greater range. What would you rather be in: a slow 180 ton behemoth with no maneuverability and a RCS that can be seen 100+ miles away, or a small, stealthy fighter with the exact same armament that is faster, more maneuverable, and more survivable?

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

 

[SVT Cobra]

WOW I usually do not ike to insult people at all, especially online, but reading this post, with all I know about military air frames, just made me cry.

OP thank god you do not work for the department of defense, although CNN might take you to be their aeronautics specialist.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

And I'm glad you don't work for me, as I can guarantee you know nothing about my field of work. You are more than welcome to ask questions about my field of work to gain more knowldege, though.

also, you need to learn some reading comprehension skills, as the last sentence in the OP states the reason for the post. He's just trying to gain knowledge.

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

And I'm glad you don't work for me, as I can guarantee you know nothing about my field of work. You are more than welcome to ask questions about my field of work to gain more knowldege, though.

Could you be any more cryptic?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Air-to-air counter missiles? Show me the link.

there aren't any yet, because no fighter could devote the room to them

but i don't see any reason why they couldn't be developed

also like i said, i'm not talking a literal 747, something like it that is TOUGHER and actually built to withstand a missile impact

and yes, planes have been known to survive missile impacts. many a soviet plane came back after being hit by a stinger

granted, that had a small warhead, but no reason that couldn't be built upon

Don't missiles explode near the target, and don't actually impact anything?

Yeah, that's correct.

And the OP's idea of shooting down targets 100 miles away...
Very few missiles have that capability. The range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is just over 20 miles. Many foreign missiles have a greater range. What would you rather be in: a slow 180 ton behemoth with no maneuverability and a RCS that can be seen 100+ miles away, or a small, stealthy fighter with the exact same armament that is faster, more maneuverable, and more survivable?

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

AIM 52 phoenix missile?

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Air-to-air counter missiles? Show me the link.

there aren't any yet, because no fighter could devote the room to them

but i don't see any reason why they couldn't be developed

also like i said, i'm not talking a literal 747, something like it that is TOUGHER and actually built to withstand a missile impact

and yes, planes have been known to survive missile impacts. many a soviet plane came back after being hit by a stinger

granted, that had a small warhead, but no reason that couldn't be built upon

Don't missiles explode near the target, and don't actually impact anything?

Yeah, that's correct.

And the OP's idea of shooting down targets 100 miles away...
Very few missiles have that capability. The range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is just over 20 miles. Many foreign missiles have a greater range. What would you rather be in: a slow 180 ton behemoth with no maneuverability and a RCS that can be seen 100+ miles away, or a small, stealthy fighter with the exact same armament that is faster, more maneuverable, and more survivable?

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

AIM 52 phoenix missile?

You mean the AIM-54? It was only carried by the F-14 Tomcat and the F-14 is no longer in service.

 

[Drakkon]

from what starcraft has taught me...a squadron of wraiths (4-5) can take out a battlecruiser or an unmanned carrier....thus a set of just a few migs should be able to take out a 747

yay for game logic

 

[Tangerines]

A 747 wouldn't have a hope in hell. A massive, slow air target is practically a sitting duck against a smaller, more maneuverable fighter. It would have no survivability.

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
from what starcraft has taught me...a squadron of wraiths (4-5) can take out a battlecruiser or an unmanned carrier....thus a set of just a few migs should be able to take out a 747

yay for game logic

4-5 wraiths cost more than a battlecruiser/carrier... how would 3.5 wraiths do?

 

[tynopik]

> And the OP's idea of shooting down targets 100 miles away...
> Very few missiles have that capability. The range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is just over 20 miles.

well that's because they are designed to be carried by small lightweight fighters

if they were no longer faced with that constraint, there's no reason they couldn't be built with a 100 mile range

as far as survivability, are y'all saying that there's no way a plane could be designed withstand a hit from say a sidewinder? it is one of the most widely deployed missiles in the world and carries a 21lb warhead. Certainly it seems like you could design a plane that could survive most single hits from such a missile

 

[LordMorpheus]

It would never work. A modern fighter has a very good chance of dodging a missile if the pilot see's it coming and has enough energy for some maneuvering. A large plane would be gone if anyone in range launched a missile at it (countermeasures are out - large cruise missiles are very hard to destroy, somethinga fraction of the size and much much faster would never be shot down by an anti-missile missile. And your idea about the battleplane carrying a huge radar and thus knowing its enemies in a 100 mile radius is out. Flying with a radar on is a very very bad plan. Most enemies will see your radar at 2x your range of vision. In addition, they can launch missiles are your radar without going active so you would have no idea until you get a warhead up your ass. Even with the radar on, a plane with a small radar signature like an F-22 or an F-111 would easily get in range and own you by flying passive.

And a large plane is usually less survivable than a small one - your structure is required to support much much larger stresses, slight damage is more likely to turn into catastropic failure than it would be on a smaller aircraft. You see commercial flights that land after being hit by RPG's in the middle east, but you see F-15's that land without a wing or a pair of F-16's that landed after a head on collision with each other.


Heh, playing along for a minute, though, it'd be fun to give the 747 (or whatever) a towed radar array - so it could be as active as it wants to be but enemy stations see the signal as coming from a mile or so behind the actual aircraft. Give it multiple arrays, maybe, so that each time one gets hit by a missile they just reel a new one out and turn it on. Heh, I like that idea.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> And the OP's idea of shooting down targets 100 miles away...
> Very few missiles have that capability. The range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is just over 20 miles.

well that's because they are designed to be carried by small lightweight fighters


if they were no longer faced with that constraint, there's no reason they couldn't be built with a 100 mile range

The longer range the missile is, the bigger it is. An F-14 could hold 6 AIM-54 missiles. It's not a weight/size problem for the aircraft, it's a problem for the missiles - the bigger it is, the less maneuverable it is.

as far as survivability, are y'all saying that there's no way a plane could be designed withstand a hit from say a sidewinder? it is one of the most widely deployed missiles in the world and carries a 21lb warhead. Certainly it seems like you could design a plane that could survive most single hits from such a missile

Yes, that's what we're saying. If you'd even try to make an aircraft strong enough, it'd be so heavy that it couldn't take off.

 

[Drakkon]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Drakkon
from what starcraft has taught me...a squadron of wraiths (4-5) can take out a battlecruiser or an unmanned carrier....thus a set of just a few migs should be able to take out a 747

yay for game logic

4-5 wraiths cost more than a battlecruiser/carrier... how would 3.5 wraiths do?

4-5 F14's cost about 2x (according to the US govt) a 747...thus i didnt think "cost" was needed to be factored in

 

[tynopik]

> Flying with a radar on is a very very bad plan. Most enemies will see your radar at 2x your range of vision.

but as has been pointed out, most air-launched missiles have a very short range. so what if they can see you 200 miles out if they can't fire till within 50 miles?

> Heh, playing along for a minute, though, it'd be fun to give the 747 (or whatever) a towed radar array

not a bad idea

 

[tynopik]

> The longer range the missile is, the bigger it is. An F-14 could hold 6 AIM-54 missiles. It's not a weight/size problem for the aircraft, it's a problem for the missiles - the bigger it is, the less maneuverable it is.

well that's a interesting point

how about a dual stage missile that has a large 'booster' stage that gets it within range and then falls away, leaving a small manoueverable missile to hit the target?

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

And I'm glad you don't work for me, as I can guarantee you know nothing about my field of work. You are more than welcome to ask questions about my field of work to gain more knowldege, though.

also, you need to learn some reading comprehension skills, as the last sentence in the OP states the reason for the post. He's just trying to gain knowledge.

Hmmm. No. No, you're not a writer... Let's see...

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: tynopik
> Air-to-air counter missiles? Show me the link.

there aren't any yet, because no fighter could devote the room to them

but i don't see any reason why they couldn't be developed

also like i said, i'm not talking a literal 747, something like it that is TOUGHER and actually built to withstand a missile impact

and yes, planes have been known to survive missile impacts. many a soviet plane came back after being hit by a stinger

granted, that had a small warhead, but no reason that couldn't be built upon

Don't missiles explode near the target, and don't actually impact anything?

Yeah, that's correct.

And the OP's idea of shooting down targets 100 miles away...
Very few missiles have that capability. The range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is just over 20 miles. Many foreign missiles have a greater range. What would you rather be in: a slow 180 ton behemoth with no maneuverability and a RCS that can be seen 100+ miles away, or a small, stealthy fighter with the exact same armament that is faster, more maneuverable, and more survivable?

Once again, I'm glad the OP doesn't work for the DoD.

Wrong, the range is over 30 with some saying 45ish link

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
You mean the AIM-54? It was only carried by the F-14 Tomcat and the F-14 is no longer in service.

You mean no longer in production. We still have many carriers with F-14's on them and until the superhornets and the F-35 (naval variant) can fully replace them that will stay the case. Also the AIM-54 is no longer in production as well though we still have some left and I believe I heard talk of modifying other airframes to be able to carry them but I have no idea if that was just rumors.

-spike

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: tynopik
> The longer range the missile is, the bigger it is. An F-14 could hold 6 AIM-54 missiles. It's not a weight/size problem for the aircraft, it's a problem for the missiles - the bigger it is, the less maneuverable it is.

well that's a interesting point

how about a dual stage missile that has a large 'booster' stage that gets it within range and then falls away, leaving a small manoueverable missile to hit the target?

by the time this 747 invincible fighter jet is designed it will have a cost of 10% of the US's budget. Not worth it.

 

[tynopik]

> You mean no longer in production. We still have many carriers with F-14's on them and until the superhornets and the F-35 (naval variant) can fully replace them that will stay the case.

nope, they are retired now

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,88041,00.html?ESRC=navy.nl