User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 8:37:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: NasalRadiator]
[#1]
Miss flying the legacy Hornet… just fly busses full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong now. Pay is mo betta tho
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 2:47:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NasalRadiator: Miss flying the legacy Hornet… just fly busses full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong now. Pay is beta tho Username checks out |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 2:55:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Did not realize a super hornet could support those missiles. Pretty interesting capability that opens up.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:00:54 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: I always thought the more forward deployed stealthy asset was able to provide guidance to the missile the truck launched. Keeping the unstealthy asset safer. I guess that scenario requires a longer stick than the other guy. The public range of the 120D doesn't do that. But I guess thats probably not supersonic at 60k either. An SM6 would provide that reach advantage for sure. The navy is getting all kinds of creative, patriot on burkes now standards on hornets... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Nah, it isn't that. It is that the "missile truck" concept is something that doesn't fit with the current capability state of sensors and missiles. Its core idea is that the lesser-capable (lesser sensors, lesser speed/maneuveravility, lesser stealthiness) "truck" is sitting far away from the threat range of adversary missiles, and the stealthy aircraft with the good sensors can be safely closer to the adversaries and designate targets. Unfortunately, that is a concept/strategy that inverts the capability limitations. Fighter aircraft radars (especially the current AESA radars) are more discerning and capable with respect to range to the target than the missiles are, and the target processing capability of the datalink networks amplifies that difference in capability. It is the missile carrier who needs to be close to the adversary in order for that missile to be effective. It is the missile carrier that needs to be able to fly higher and faster so as to impart more energy at launch, and thus increase the Pk against a stealthy or maneuvering target. It is like having a tactic in baseball where you're concerned the pitcher is going to get hit by a line drive, so you put him out in center field to protect him. How fast is Nolan Ryan's fastball over the plate when thrown from 300' away vs 60 feet away? Certainly newer missiles like the AIM-260 and even the larger-engine variants of the AIM-120 increase employment range or increase capability against maneuvering targets at the same range as legacy AMRAAMs, but that still doesn't change that the radar is more capable range-wise than the missile. I certainly doesn't mean that in a future landscape of sensor and weapon capabilities won't find a home for the "missile truck" concept. But, such a role or mission does not exist in the current battlespace and hasn't existed in combat airpower up to this point in history. But I guess thats probably not supersonic at 60k either. An SM6 would provide that reach advantage for sure. The navy is getting all kinds of creative, patriot on burkes now standards on hornets... Having no non-public knowledge about this at all, I strongly suspect the highlighted above is not accurate. Range is a function of weight versus fuel carried versus launch altitude (highly simplified I suppose), and taking ranges of an SM6 off of wikipedia without realizing the SM6 as conventionally deployed has a massive booster on it that this does not is probably not going to give useful information. My guess is that the SM-6 brings some other capabilities like handoff and remote guidance to the table. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:02:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ServusVeritatis: For perspective….the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It’s got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ServusVeritatis: Originally Posted By MEK: Is this a significant gain in ASAT capabilities? For perspective….the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It’s got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. That surely includes the booster that isn't going to be carried by an F/A-18. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:03:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. I see I've been beaten to the punch already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:06:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: That booster is 1500lbs and 45% of the weapon's total mass though. M39 ATACMS is 45% warhead, so even without accounting for guidance and control, that is at most 65% booster, and it hits Mach 3 with an Apogee something like 50mi downrange and an altitude several times that of a manned fighter. If the Mk72 can hit Mach 1.5 at 40kft, it will beat what a Super Hornet could reasonably do while carrying an SM-6 and not having a hundred mile run up with tankers at the start and end points. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: I imagine it varies depending on how big the missile is. Air launching an ICBM for instance isn't going to give it the delta-v to hit the moon, but an air to air missile that would use up most of its energy just getting to the altitude and speed a fighter could launch it from might only get 1/10th the reach when fired from the ground, and might not even be able to hit a fighter flying high and fast directly overhead. I would guess that the 1500lb Mk72 booster can yeet an SM-6 higher and faster than a Super Hornet can. That booster is 1500lbs and 45% of the weapon's total mass though. M39 ATACMS is 45% warhead, so even without accounting for guidance and control, that is at most 65% booster, and it hits Mach 3 with an Apogee something like 50mi downrange and an altitude several times that of a manned fighter. If the Mk72 can hit Mach 1.5 at 40kft, it will beat what a Super Hornet could reasonably do while carrying an SM-6 and not having a hundred mile run up with tankers at the start and end points. An F/A-18 can do a bunch of other things though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:21:48 PM EDT
[#8]
So why not use the booster?
If you’re gonna go, go big. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:24:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR18: They should had done the B-1R concept with that missile. The world would fear the BoneR. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:27:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Originally Posted By KA3B: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/06/air-launched-sm-6-spotted-again-on-f-a-18-super-hornet/ Much further range than the Phoenix AIM-54 and much more capable seeker. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 3:34:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: I have seen ASuW effects of an SM6, it is pretty impressive. It’s not so much the warhead but instead all the velocity it hits with. Similar to a 193. Wonder how much does the left over fuel add to the fire? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 4:15:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: They are being converted to Block IIIC Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Yeah. Little by little SM-2 and SM-6 are becoming the same missile. They are being converted to Block IIIC Yeah, IIIC has a common guidance section with the newest SM-6. At least that’s what the contracting announcements said. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 4:18:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crazymoose: The world would fear the BoneR. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crazymoose: Originally Posted By AR18: They should had done the B-1R concept with that missile. The world would fear the BoneR. They would not. The poor sumbitches that had to keep it flying would. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 4:24:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Josh: I see I've been beaten to the punch already. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Josh: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. I see I've been beaten to the punch already. The model of SM-2 that didn’t have a booster had a 166-185km public range against air targets from the surface. Add the booster and its range is up to 370km (public). Assuming all those figures as released are correct the air launched version probably has at least the range of the boosted surface launched variant. Could be more from an aircraft that flies higher and faster than the F/A-18. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 4:25:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: So why not use the booster? If you’re gonna go, go big. Too much weight and drag. I’d be surprised if the pylons could handle it and you’d be obligated to jettison the missiles, some of them, to land again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 4:33:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: So why not use the booster? If you’re gonna go, go big. The Hornet has to take off and land... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 5:10:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GunLvrPHD: What would one SM6 do to a Chinese roll-on roll-off ship? Waste taxpayer money and enrich the MIC. Use a quicksink. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 5:11:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Josh: The Hornet has to take off and land... Nonsense. Drop the Hornet from a B-52 like the X-15. DO I HAVE TO THINK OF EVERYTHING AROUND HERE??? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2024 8:08:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pukindog: Why is this pissing off the Chinese? Do they just expect us to do things the Chinese way - sit around on our collective asses waiting for the opportunity to steal someone else's tech? Well, they buy the opportunity to steal everybody else's tech and everything else too. Let's not forget they buy politicians and buy control of governments. That's kind of a big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 9:17:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: NasalRadiator]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. Good profile pic. Had a T-6G for years, one of my favorite Warbirds. Learned tailwheel in it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 11:06:50 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NasalRadiator: Good profile pic. Had a T-6G for years, one of my favorite Warbirds. Learned tailwheel in it. The Six is a big horse to climb on to learn tailweel flying. Respect! I like to call her "the dominatrix". She wants to have a good time with you, but if you get out of line she's not shy about cracking you in the beans with a whip. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2024 12:39:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: The Six is a big horse to climb on to learn tailweel flying. Respect! I like to call her "the dominatrix". She wants to have a good time with you, but if you get out of line she's not shy about cracking you in the beans with a whip. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By NasalRadiator: Good profile pic. Had a T-6G for years, one of my favorite Warbirds. Learned tailwheel in it. The Six is a big horse to climb on to learn tailweel flying. Respect! I like to call her "the dominatrix". She wants to have a good time with you, but if you get out of line she's not shy about cracking you in the beans with a whip. So true 😆 |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 7:01:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By disco_jon75: Boost phase intercept? Need to be within 150 miles of the site at launch. Depending on geometry. 150 is probably generous (SM-6 velocity 40 miles/min, 3rd stage burnout at around T+180 seconds.) ICBMs get up there pretty quickly. But that's where my mind first went too. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 7:28:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Need to be within 150 miles of the site at launch. Depending on geometry. 150 is probably generous (SM-6 velocity 40 miles/min, 3rd stage burnout at around T+180 seconds.) ICBMs get up there pretty quickly. But that's where my mind first went too. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Originally Posted By disco_jon75: Boost phase intercept? Need to be within 150 miles of the site at launch. Depending on geometry. 150 is probably generous (SM-6 velocity 40 miles/min, 3rd stage burnout at around T+180 seconds.) ICBMs get up there pretty quickly. But that's where my mind first went too. With the booster are they small enough for rapid dragon? |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 7:59:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Hmmmm do an omnidirectional attack with B1s armed with SM-6s, which ought to be 30ish missiles each. Back up that with a wave of Rapid Dragon deployed LRASMs timed to enter detection range just after the SM6s begin their terminal phase. Give the PLAN a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario that can hit them hard and pick off the stragglers in the same event.
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 6/17/2024 8:11:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Would this fit in the VLS cell of a 688? Off to Google...
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:27:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FatSteve: Would this fit in the VLS cell of a 688? Off to Google... Dude, an SSGN would be a better platform |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:31:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: Dude, an SSGN would be a better platform Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: Originally Posted By FatSteve: Would this fit in the VLS cell of a 688? Off to Google... Dude, an SSGN would be a better platform Getting to the second targeting data to it might be challenging... OTOH, if the plan is, "Lob these >100 SAMs that way, at 0342.23Z on this day, and some other platform takes over for midcourse correction/retargeting etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:34:34 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Getting to the second targeting data to it might be challenging... OTOH, if the plan is, "Lob these >100 SAMs that way, at 0342.23Z on this day, and some other platform takes over for midcourse correction/retargeting etc... NIFC from the Sea and NIFC from the Air, or what ever they are calling them now is a thing. |
|
|
|
ND, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:37:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DH2: Hmmmm do an omnidirectional attack with B1s armed with SM-6s, which ought to be 30ish missiles each. Back up that with a wave of Rapid Dragon deployed LRASMs timed to enter detection range just after the SM6s begin their terminal phase. Give the PLAN a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario that can hit them hard and pick off the stragglers in the same event. We could probably do about 2 of those attacks and then have to wait 3 years until enough replacements are built to do another. IIRC we only build 100 LRASMs a year and about the same SM-6s. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:37:55 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Getting to the second targeting data to it might be challenging... OTOH, if the plan is, "Lob these >100 SAMs that way, at 0342.23Z on this day, and some other platform takes over for midcourse correction/retargeting etc... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Originally Posted By feetpiece: Originally Posted By FatSteve: Would this fit in the VLS cell of a 688? Off to Google... Dude, an SSGN would be a better platform Getting to the second targeting data to it might be challenging... OTOH, if the plan is, "Lob these >100 SAMs that way, at 0342.23Z on this day, and some other platform takes over for midcourse correction/retargeting etc... It would be a whole lot faster than tomahawks too |
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 9:51:27 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: SM-2 ER and SM-6 are the ones with a booster. The 166km figure I gave was for SM-2MR which is kinda like a boosterless SM-6 with a semi active seeker. https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-66_DAT/RIM-66-Standard-Missile-005.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Kinematicly, it should be similar to an SM-2MR BlkIII since it is more or less the same missile with a new seeker. That missile has a public range figure of 166km when fired from a ship. When air launched, 250km against a bomber might not be out of the question It is launched off the ship as a SAM with an entirely separate booster section attached to it, so those range figures aren't accurate for the configuration which it is being flown on the Hornet. SM-2 ER and SM-6 are the ones with a booster. The 166km figure I gave was for SM-2MR which is kinda like a boosterless SM-6 with a semi active seeker. https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-66_DAT/RIM-66-Standard-Missile-005.jpg SM-2MR uses a different rocket motor than the upper stage of the two stage models. It has a dual thrust motor that uses a faster burning propellant blend initially. |
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 10:21:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Sm2 can also be used anti ship.can it not? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: SM-2 ER and SM-6 are the ones with a booster. The 166km figure I gave was for SM-2MR which is kinda like a boosterless SM-6 with a semi active seeker. https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-66_DAT/RIM-66-Standard-Missile-005.jpg Sm2 can also be used anti ship.can it not? The Standard missile family (apart from SM-3) has always had anti-ship capability, as did the Terrier and Tartar missiles from which they are descended. In principle any active or semi-active radar homing missile should be able to attack a ship, though the guidance logic and other features of the missile may not be optimal for the role. USS Saratoga hit a Turkish destroyer with Sea Sparrow SAMs in a training accident, and a Canadian F-18 pilot attacked an Iraqi missile boat with Sparrow AAMs, though he failed to hit it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 10:29:28 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: Can SM6's target missiles? Maybe this is an attempt to push the engagement envelope for incoming low altitude hypersonics beyond the fleet's engagement zone? Yes |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 12:55:19 PM EDT
[#35]
In other news LM test fired a patriot PAC3 missile from a MK41 vls.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 12:58:25 PM EDT
[#36]
#$%* China.
USN is doing a fairly decent job with their strategy concerning the Pacific. The problem is that our domestic situation is not matching up well to place us in a position where we can implement that strategy effectively or in a timely manner.  |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 1:00:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dedreckon: In other news LM test fired a patriot PAC3 missile from a MK41 vls. https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/pac-3-mse-integrated-with-aegis-2-1-6661f054b5657.png?resize=980:* Does PAC-3 provide greater performance than SM-6, or is this more of an integration test with shore-base Patriot batteries? |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 1:02:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: #$%* China. USN is doing a fairly decent job with their strategy concerning the Pacific. The problem is that our domestic situation is not matching up well to place us in a position where we can implement that strategy effectively or in a timely manner. The lack of implementation for greatly accelerated production rates for these weapons, is a concern. We're going to make Jesse Ventura's ammo burn rate in Predator look paltry, if hostilities start with either the PRC or the Norks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 1:07:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: The lack of implementation for greatly accelerated production rates for these weapons, is a concern. We're going to make Jesse Ventura's ammo burn rate in Predator look paltry, if hostilities start with either the PRC or the Norks. I would plan on both happening at once. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 1:38:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153: I would plan on both happening at once. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153: Originally Posted By Wineraner: The lack of implementation for greatly accelerated production rates for these weapons, is a concern. We're going to make Jesse Ventura's ammo burn rate in Predator look paltry, if hostilities start with either the PRC or the Norks. I would plan on both happening at once. Plus iran. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 1:51:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Does PAC-3 provide greater performance than SM-6, or is this more of an integration test with shore-base Patriot batteries? They are integrated on Burkes now, in baseline 10 or whatever the newest AEGIS version is. I do believe they have greater range than the 6 PAC-3 seems like a very serious unit. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 1:54:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: castlebravo84]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Does PAC-3 provide greater performance than SM-6, or is this more of an integration test with shore-base Patriot batteries? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Originally Posted By dedreckon: In other news LM test fired a patriot PAC3 missile from a MK41 vls. https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/pac-3-mse-integrated-with-aegis-2-1-6661f054b5657.png?resize=980:* Does PAC-3 provide greater performance than SM-6, or is this more of an integration test with shore-base Patriot batteries? PAC3 would be for targets that make it past SM-3, SM-6, and SM-2ER. The real question is how PAC3 performs compared to ESSM. I bet PAC3 is superior, especially against very fast maneuvering targets and/or targets that need a hit to kill interceptor to reliably negate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 2:22:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: PAC3 would be for targets that make it past SM-3, SM-6, and SM-2ER. The real question is how PAC3 performs compared to ESSM. I bet PAC3 is superior, especially against very fast maneuvering targets and/or targets that need a hit to kill interceptor to reliably negate. Unless there’s a standard missile other than SM-3 that has an attitude control section PAC-3 is going to beat the rest for BMD at least in Pk. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 5:55:48 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: #$%* China. USN is doing a fairly decent job with their strategy concerning the Pacific. The problem is that our domestic situation is not matching up well to place us in a position where we can implement that strategy effectively or in a timely manner. No shit. Need to be making 3x the ordinance we are now, if not more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 7:48:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Does PAC-3 provide greater performance than SM-6, or is this more of an integration test with shore-base Patriot batteries? SM6 is probably the best all-around missile in the world, but they are very expensive |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 7:54:58 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/18/2024 8:45:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Yup, glad I'm too old for this shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 8:35:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Unless there’s a standard missile other than SM-3 that has an attitude control section PAC-3 is going to beat the rest for BMD at least in Pk. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: PAC3 would be for targets that make it past SM-3, SM-6, and SM-2ER. The real question is how PAC3 performs compared to ESSM. I bet PAC3 is superior, especially against very fast maneuvering targets and/or targets that need a hit to kill interceptor to reliably negate. Unless there’s a standard missile other than SM-3 that has an attitude control section PAC-3 is going to beat the rest for BMD at least in Pk. It may be that LM can produce more PAC3 than Raytheon can make sm6. Might be cheaper due to the higher production also. They did the aegis radar integration already according to news I saw. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2024 12:52:57 PM EDT
[#49]
PAC-3 is made in quantities several times larger but the price difference isn’t as much as I expected.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
