(necro)What speed do SAMs travel at? Any aircraft that can outrun?

[jspeicher]

Topic.

Hornet is Navy correct? Air force has the F-16?

 

[Farmer]

It depends on what SAM you are talking about.

I don't know much about SAMs, but AAM (air to air missiles), and all missiles designed to counter aircraft generaly travel much faster than aircraft are capable of. For example, the AIM-120 AMRAAM (the US's mid-range radar guided AAM) is capable of speeds over mach 4 at altitude.

I guess its because aircraft are designed to deliver ordnance, while missiles are ordnance. If all aircraft were designed for Kamikaze purposes, there's no reason to think that general use rocket-propelled aircraft molded after the X-15 are not common fare.

Keep in mind that aircraft are designed for much longer ranges than missiles (thus must carry much more fuel). The AMRAAM has a maximum engagement range of something like 100 km (though in-development ramjet powered missiles have something like a 200km range), while aircraft have much, much longer ranges.

If you're talking about US armed forces, then yes, F/A-18 is carrierborne Navy/Marine Corp. F-16 is Air Force.

 

[RichPLS]

THe F-22 Stealth is the most robust fighter.

 

[Farmer]

The F-22 was also the biggest waste of tax money since the F-117 and B-2, especially since no one else has a comparable fighter (The Eurofighter really isn't a problem, Russia is too low on money to keep spending on "Mig 39" or Su-47).

If it weren't as good as it is or better, I'd be asking Lockheed Martin for a refund.

Define 'robust.' It hasn't seen any action.

 

[Hurricane Andrew]

Originally posted by: Farmer
The F-22 was also the biggest waste of tax money since the F-117 and B-2, especially since no one else has a comparable fighter (The Eurofighter really isn't a problem, Russia is too low on money to keep spending on "Mig 39" or Su-47).

So we shouldn't build fighters/bombers that are superior to any potential adversary, we should limit our best weapons to merely match those of other nations? That's the kind of thinking that would have had the world speaking a strange combination of German and Japaneese some 60+ years ago, or if not then Russian later on. The Nighthawk (F-117A) and Stealth Bomber (B-2) are hardly a waste, though the Raptor may have some issues that need to be addressed. Not a single B-2, and only 1 F-117A have ever been shot down, and there is more than a little evidence to suggest that a leaked flight plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/431408.stm ) was the only reason the fighter was lost. Considering some of the things the government wastes its money on, I'll take these planes in a heartbeat. They are nothing short of marvels, though admittedly they are early 70's technology that need an update.

"Peace through strength." It's the motto of our newest Aircraft Carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), and is second only to "Trust, but verify" on my list of great slogans.

 

[Farmer]

Hurricane Andrew:

Well, I knew a staunch Republican would be the first to respond. However, from your sig, it doesn't seem like you are much of a Bush supporter.

Don't worry. I'm the last person that would be advising defense budget cuts. However, I do think that, yes, platforms such as the B-2 and F-117 are superbly effective, especially during recent events? But they cost a whole shitload of money, and the F-22 program is by no doubt bloated! This money could be solving supply problems currently being experienced in Iraq, providing all sniper units with necessary equipment, our troops with adequently armored light wheeled transport vehicle. With the money spent on the F-22, I think every unit in the Army could be outfitted like 10 SFG! (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating).

I mean, think of the development of the LGB; fraction of the cost of stealth technology of any brand, and is almost completely superior to any system prior to it (which would be dumb bombs).

If we love fighters, I say divert funding from F-22 production to purchase of new Block 60 F-16s. But, since ATF is a sunk cost now, there is no reason not to begin integration of the F-22 into USAF. As for JSF, I do believe this would be something of an improvement over the "Super Hornets," which, if you dont mind me saying, wouldn't be here if the F-14D wasn't so expensive.

 

[Gibsons]

The U.S. Patriot does about Mach 5, the smaller man portable SAMs (stingers) probably a lot less. That's way faster than any airplane, but even the patriot would find a Mach 3.2 SR-71 nearly impossible to shoot down.

Current airplane designs aren't optimized for high top speeds though, other parameters (agility - particularly in the subsonic regime, range, pilot vision, electronics/radar, stealth etc etc) seem to be much more important. In terms of pure top speed, I don't think the F/A-22 will be any faster than the old F-4s (I could be wrong of course, but F-4s were fast!). Should be better in every other respect though.

 

[Farmer]

Also, with the cost of building these planes and the skill of their pilots, one loss is enough.

Yes, but Patriots are really intended to shoot down other missiles.

CiS Mig-31s fly at around Mach 3, so do the older MiG-25s, I think. They're bullets.

The F-22 is capable of F-18 speeds with afterburner (around Mach 1.8). Every current US frontline fighter flies faster with reheat (F-15 is capable of mach 2.7, F-16 around mach 2). However, the F-22's brightspot is supercruise, meaning it can go extended periods of time above mach 1.0 without afterburner use. And the F-22 has vectorable thrust capabilities. We have P&W to thank for this.

 

[Gibsons]

Yes, but Patriots are really intended to shoot down other missiles.

Patriots were originally designed for defense against aircraft, got pressed into service against missiles in DS. The current PAC3s are supposed to be able to deal with either.

CiS Mig-31s fly at around Mach 3, so do the older MiG-25s, I think.

Mig-25s are actually faster than the 31. Mig-31s have a max of about 2.85, but 25's can go over 3.0. The Mach 3.0 comes with a pretty severe catch though in that the engines need to be replaced after every flight at that speed. The big improvement with the 31 airframe-wise was range.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...ussia/mig-31-specs.htm

As for U.S aircraft, there was a pretty good thread about max speeds on rec.aviation.military a little while back:

(edit: google group link doesn't seem to work, but search rec.aviation.military for "third fastest," and it'll come up.

 

[uOpt]

Tyical Russian hand-held SAMs fly at 550 -580 m/s. Yes, that's pretty slow, these weapons are more a detraction device than anything else.

The larger systems like the SA-6 have missles at up to Mach 3.0, SA-2 up to 4.5.

The F/A-18 is a fine airplane but has never been the premium fighter, the F-14 tomcat was better in that role, as is the F-16. If it get get to the action with enough fuel and ammo, that is.

The patriot has been designed to be used against aircraft and was later modified to be useful against missiles.

 

[Hurricane Andrew]

Farmer,

I do agree that there is an ungodly amount of bloat in the DOD, particularly with some of the larger projects. Then again, there waste in every area of govt. Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. Until some folks in DC grow a set, and force some real accountability (without jeapordizing the programs and dpts. they are trying to reign in), there will continue to be waste. I would like to see both the F22 and the Joint Strike Fighter in our arsenal. I think the most frustrating thing from a civilian standpoint (and probably military as well) is knowing the potential of these systems and waiting years or decades for them to be deployed.

And I do like Bush, even if he's not quite as conservative as me. Now if he'd only take Nancy Reagan's advice and "just say no" to new non-defense discretionary spending....

 

[Farmer]

I really miss the F-14, especially with eastern aircraft like the Su-33+. I've even heard of propositions to purchase Su-27/33s from Russia (undoubtly left completely unconsidered by DoD. We can adopt a German main battle rifle, but can't buy Russian planes).

 

[Colt45]

The new Russian SAM, SA-20 "Triumf" is supposed to be able to intercept objects with speed of up to 4.8km/s,
which is 17280km/h. which is uh what.. something like mach 15?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm

 

[Farmer]

4.8 km/s????? Jesus!

That's like Space Shuttle speeds!

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: Farmer
4.8 km/s????? Jesus!

That's like Space Shuttle speeds!

Doesn't the space shuttle do mach ~26?

 

[Gibsons]

I was bored...

Space shuttle travels at roughly 17,000 mph.
17000mph = 27419 kph = 7.6 kps = ~ Mach 24ish (depends on what you put in for speed of sound, I used 700 mph). If I slipped on my calculations, someone flame me.

Modern SAMs (or missiles in general) are pretty impressive, there's a story of a Brit SAM (maybe Sea Sparrow?) hitting a 5 inch cannon shell in flight.

 

[sao123]

The F/A-18 is a fine airplane but has never been the premium fighter, the F-14 tomcat was better in that role, as is the F-16. If it get get to the action with enough fuel and ammo, that is.

Dont forget the F15 Eagle, which was the air-forces developed equivolent to the F-14. (Similar design, same role, same time)
:beer:



/Breaks out the PS2 and AceCombat 4 disc...


A little tidbit i just found out...
The Mig28 used in the movie Top Gun is a mythical plane. It was a repainted F5 Tiger.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: sao123

The Mig28 used in the movie Top Gun is a mythical plane. It was a repainted F5 Tiger.

I knew it!

 

[unipidity]

Not highly technical, but:

The US currently field an airforce than consists primarily of a hi/lo mix of F-15s and F-16s. Both are air-air fighters, and both have been modified to be ground attack aircraft/SEAD- the Strike Eagle, and later block F-16s. The F-22 is an expensive waste of money.

F-18s, including the F/A18, are Navy aircraft designed for the whole gamut of possible missions and based off aircraft carriers.

When you ask if an airplane can outrun a SAM.... well, no not really, but its not the relevent question. Each weapons platform is going to have a kill 'radius' (in 3d) against another platform. Stealth, top speed, range acceleration, pilot skill, avionics etc etc all affect this.

For example, in an unsupported air-air engaement between an F-22 and Su-27 variant, the Su-27s kill radius vs the F-22 is about 0km since the F-22 is designed to be staelthy against high frequency fighter radar, and the SU-27 would have to use anti-radiation missles (name, designation anyone?) against a frequency agile F-22 radar, or very short range infrared 'heatseeking' missles. The F-22 would be able to light up its radar at 40 miles and shoot it down using an AMRAAM, given equal heights and a well-programmed missle (I have no idea if the latter is true). However, a supported engagement over non-US airspace, with AWACs and ground radar support, the Su-27 would be able to use its much longer range missiles to engage the F-22 at extreme range (>60 miles?), and the F-22's poor top speed makes the kill envelope much larger than vs, say, a Mig-31.


Which brings up to the topic of the F-22. Firstly, radar stealth is a nice but highly flawed concept, a bit like mid-flight ICBM interception. It works, kinda maybe a bit, but its a thousand times as expensive as the obvious and only marginally technically demanding work-arounds.

Secondly, its stupidly expensive. Buying the F-22 cedes air dominance- the US is going to end up with fewer top of the line fighter planes than France (though they are much better, im not suggesting France will ever have 10% of their overall capability). The fact that program development is sunk IS relevant, though opponents of the F-22 dont like it- unit flyaway costs are still 133m though.

The Mig-25 was always limited to 2.85 by the manual, and it was only the flight of a single example over Isreali air-defences that produced the myth that they could fly at Mach3.1 all the time. The Foxbat that 'defected' in the early 70s some time made the US laugh at its crapness a bit.

 

[Gibsons]

For example, in an unsupported air-air engaement between an F-22 and Su-27 variant, the Su-27s kill radius vs the F-22 is about 0km since the F-22 is designed to be staelthy against high frequency fighter radar, and the SU-27 would have to use anti-radiation missles (name, designation anyone?)

Su-27s carry AA-10s (Alamo, Russian designation is R-27) and AA-11s (Archer, Russian designation is R-73) according to globalsecurity.org. AA-11s are short range IR missiles, AA-10s longer ranged radar guided. I found no mention of an anti-radiation mode for AA-10s but there's a lot of different variants. Whether it could lock onto an F-22s radar is another question. The F-22 can always turn off its radar for a few seconds too, leaving the missile completely blind. For AA purposes, I think most "anti-radiation" capability is a home-on-jamming mode for a radar guided missile. The 'real' anti-radiation missiles like HARM are air-surface.

The F-22 would be able to light up its radar at 40 miles and shoot it down using an AMRAAM, given equal heights and a well-programmed missle (I have no idea if the latter is true). However, a supported engagement over non-US airspace, with AWACs and ground radar support, the Su-27 would be able to use its much longer range missiles to engage the F-22 at extreme range (>60 miles?), and the F-22's poor top speed makes the kill envelope much larger than vs, say, a Mig-31.

Well, the F-22 would know about the AWACS long before the AWACS was aware of the F-22, so the F-22 can decide if it wants to fight or not. As for range, AA-10s seem to have a claimed range of about 70 miles (depends on variant, some have more, some less), vs ~50 miles for AMRAAM. But, the AA-10 won't hit the F-22 if it can't get a radar lock. It could be that its effective range against an F-22 is much less than that.

Can't argue with you about the F-22s cost, it's looking like a boondoggle... but if buying the F-22 cedes air superiority, what does NOT buying it do? Seems we're painted into a corner, much to the delight of Lockheed.

 

[Farmer]

unipidity:

A comparison between a Su-27 and an F-22 isn't fair. One was designed for BVR AA engagements, the other is not. One is fifth generation, the other is fourth. If your point is that an F-22 can defeat a Su-27, my point is that it better defeat it. If the Mig p1.42/1.44 wasn't scrapped, it would be in a development state similar to that of the F-22 (since Russia's MFI started at around the same time as ATF), and will undoubedtly be comparable to the F-22 in every way (and, from the 1.42, the "Mig-39" would have been much faster). If Russia were to build what would have been the "Mig 39," I would have no doubt in my mind to support the F-22's procurement, as Russia will undoubdtly export.

And general responses:

"with AWACs and ground radar support, the Su-27 would be able to use its much longer range missiles to engage the F-22 at extreme range (>60 miles?), and the F-22's poor top speed makes the kill envelope much larger than vs, say, a Mig-31."

As far as I know the Adder (R-77) is in every way comparable to the AMRAAM, and only better (longer maximum range). Unless you speak of the ramjet-powered Adder varient 'in development,' I don't think the Russians have any better a BVR AAM.

"Well, the F-22 would know about the AWACS long before the AWACS was aware of the F-22"

You're saying the phased array on the F-22 is superior to the radar on AWACS systems designed solely for the purpose of having a huge-ass range radar? Maybe you are underestimating Russian technology.

"Whether it could lock onto an F-22s radar is another question. The F-22 can always turn off its radar for a few seconds too, leaving the missile completely blind. For AA purposes, I think most "anti-radiation" capability is a home-on-jamming mode for a radar guided missile. The 'real' anti-radiation missiles like HARM are air-surface. "

I agree. The Adder (most likely missile in the inventory) is semiactive outside 20 km range, and then fully active (with housed radar) within. Whether it homes or not depends not on whether the F-22s radar is on, but on whether the Su-27's radar is on, as it is not at all (I don't believe) capable of anti-radiation homing. Now you say, yeah but the F-22 is stealthy. That's the whole point of the F-22.

"but if buying the F-22 cedes air superiority"

At a time when you air force is considered the best in the world, with an jet like the F-15 that is capable of the air superiority role?

All in all, if you are trying to say that the F-22 can deal with an Su-27, I'd say yeah. It could probably deal with six of them at the same time from 40 miles away.

 

[Gibsons]

You're saying the phased array on the F-22 is superior to the radar on AWACS systems designed solely for the purpose of having a huge-ass range radar? Maybe you are underestimating Russian technology.

No... I'm saying the F-22 can detect the AWACs radar emissions long before the AWACs can detect the RETURN of the same radar emission from the F-22. You can (almost) always detect a radar emitter before the it can detect you.

 

[Farmer]

Well, umm, you would have to recieve the emission, but that emission will go back to the AWACS (in what, like a second? I was under the impression radar waves, em radiation, travelled at the speed of light through air). So, in order to avoid the fight, the F-22 runs away?

 

[sao123]

an jet like the F-15 that is capable of the air superiority role

Unfortunately the F15 was desinged at the same time and for the same role as the F14. The navy is currently phasing out the F14 in favor of the F18, and end of service is approx 2010. The F15 is supposed to possibly be phased out in 2014. The original F18 did not have the range and durability as the F14, but was a superior air to air fighter. Thus enter the F18E/F SuperHornet. Longer Range More Durable, and better in multirole fighting Air to Ground etc. The Airforce does not yet have its F15 replacement, but is pinning its hopes on the F22. The previous design of the fighter to replace the F15 was the even stealthier F23, but it was even more expensive, less maneuverable, and harder to maintain.
Currently the X35, would be the next generation aircraft if the F22 does not become the mainstream fighter as planned.

Some speculated the airforce would go pure F16, but the F16 could not succeed the F15 as a air superiority multirole, because of its classification as LightWeight Air Fighter. It is 1/2 the size of the larger jets, and is best suited for close range visual dog-fight combat. Due to its one engine design and smaller frame, it could not carry as much fuel or munitions necessary for extremely long range multirole missions.
The F20 TigerShark(a highly upgraded F5 Tiger) was thought to be the successor to the F16 at one time. However this program never took off, and this aircraft was produced & sold to our allies.

 

[Farmer]

Well, if the F-35 becomes our mainstay, I wouldn't like it one bit. The F-22 and F-23 competed together in the Advanced Tactical Fighter program, and the F-22 won; never was the F-23 the only fighter under consideration as a replacement for the F15. The major cause was actually because of a mechanized internal missile launch device (as far as I know, though many of the points you brought out may have been major factors as well), which failed too easily when compared to the F-22's bay design.

Superhornets do not have the same range or performance offered by F-14s. Like I said, if F-14Ds were not so expensive, there would be no reason for the existence of Superhornets.