| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 seasick |
AIM-120 City |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 4776 (21-Jun-2008 05:51:54) |
This plane looks like its going for the record of most AAM on a single plane.
http://gluefox.com/flygsim/amraam.jpg Is this an actual load out or just a photo-op?
Visit Smart Ship Development Lab on the Naval Fiction Board, new episodes weekly.
|
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 104 (21-Jun-2008 06:17:10) |
seasick wrote: Do i count 12? Typhoon can carry 6 meteor, 2 ASRAAM at the same time as 3 1000 L tanks and with nothing on the wingtips. |
||
 taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4262 (21-Jun-2008 06:52:55) |
Seasick: It's real, in the sense that the plane can technically carry and use all of those missiles. But it's not a realistic operational loadout,
except maybe in some very weird scenarios.
SteveO: The Hornet/Super Hornet could match that Typhoon load fairly easily: 6 AMRAAM (2 on the fuselage shoulders and 4 more on twin launchers under each wing), 2 AIM-9X on the wingtips, and 3 tanks (1 centerline, 2 wing). The tanks are 1,250 liters (330 gallons) in the Hornet or 1,800 liters (480 gallons) in the Super Hornet. You note that the Typhoon would not carry anything on the wingtips -- that's because there are no wingtip rails. That position is dedicated to the Defensive Aids Sub-System instead. Having SOMETHING (missiles or DASS pods) on the wingtips is generally a good idea from an aerodynamics perspective, but the Eurofighter designers opted to put countermeasures there instead of missiles. US aircraft have tended to put their equivalent systems closer to centerline. The Super Hornet houses the ALE-50 or -55 towed decoys above and between the engines, IIRC. |
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 106 (21-Jun-2008 07:27:14) |
taschoene wrote: Can you put twin launchers on the typhoon? the images i saw only had a single missile per rail.
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4264 (21-Jun-2008 15:44:09) |
StevoJH wrote: I don't think they've developed a twin-rail AAM launcher for the Typhoon. It could be done, but there doesn't seem to be any intention to do
so. Hanging missiles individually saves a lot of drag, as does conformal or semi-conformal carriage.
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4780 (21-Jun-2008 18:03:10) |
AIM-120C weighs 335 pounds (152 kg) so ten weigh 3350 pounds (1520 kg).
Its certainly lighter than the Sparrow. |
||
|
Ichigo Kurosaki |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 13 (21-Jun-2008 22:58:50) |
Actually, the AIM-120 can fit on the wingtip pylons of the F-16 and F/A-18.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article3.html F-16 AIM-120 load-outs.
I will NEVER give up!!
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4266 (22-Jun-2008 15:15:17) |
Yes, you can put AMRAAM on the F-16's wingtip stations. In fact, it seems to be the preferred position, with Sidewinders going under the wing instead.
This has to do with aerodynamics and wing bending moments, I believe.
I'm not so sure you can hang AMRAAM on Hornet wingtips operationally. The rail will hold an AMRAAM, but when they tried it, the wing flex was excessive, so it's not an approved load. http://www.groupsrv.com/hobby/about151442.html (scroll down to the bottom) |
||
|
Ichigo Kurosaki |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 20 (22-Jun-2008 17:57:19) |
The SuperHornet is supposed to have stronger wing hinges. That was the problem.
I will NEVER give up!!
|
||
|
caioduilio |
speed? | ||
|
Posts: 83 (22-Jun-2008 22:15:03) |
I wonder what's the maximum speed of a Super Bug with those 12 AMRAAM...
500 kts? |
||
|
Ichigo Kurosaki |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 28 (22-Jun-2008 22:30:26) |
Probably 850kts, on zone 4 afterburners...
I will NEVER give up!!
|
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 992 (24-Jun-2008 14:23:23) |
If you need 12 AMRAAM hanging off a F/A-18 then something has probably gone very wrong. But, certainly helps to counter-act arguments put forward by the F-14
fan club ("look an F/A-18F can carry longer range AAM [AIM-120D] and more of them").
|
||
