Emu

A change of administration, current climate maybe.

It just keeps popping up. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/congress-asking-air-force-to-look-at-restarting-f-22-production-line/article/2588961 Would make a great Tornado replacement if you're willing to export.

NATO hasn't really had any dogfights since the AMRAAM entered service and only 5 of 29 F-15 kills in Desert Storm involved dogfights and they were mainly caused by a combination of dodgy IFFs and RoEs.

The main blunder was that they took on everybody at once. It seems almost a joke now that someone thought they could take on the US and Russia at the same time, as well as the UK, which was also a superpower at the time. It was just lunacy.

Someone did a miscalculation, some say deliberately, which suggested they'd need 13 tons of U-235 for a bomb. This made it seem impractical and undeliverable, so they stopped.

I don't think it would have changed the course of the war because by 1944 Britain had the Gloster Meteor.

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-08-28 Friendly “Gremlins” Could Enable Cheaper, More Effective, Distributed Air Operations Volleys of low-cost, air-retrievable, unmanned air systems promise distributed capabilities and enhanced mission effectiveness in contested environments OUTREACH@DARPA.MIL 8/28/2015 For decades, U.S. military air operations have relied on increasingly capable multi-function manned aircraft to execute critical combat and non-combat missions. Adversaries’ abilities to detect and engage those aircraft from longer ranges have improved over time as well, however, driving up the costs for vehicle design, operation and replacement. An ability to send large numbers of small unmanned air systems (UAS) with coordinated, distributed capabilities could provide U.S. forces with improved operational flexibility at much lower cost than is possible with today’s expensive, all-in-one platforms—especially if those unmanned systems could be retrieved for reuse while airborne. So far, however, the technology to project volleys of low-cost, reusable systems over great distances and retrieve them in mid-air has remained out of reach.

Another source said a simulated strafing run. Because high noon with a destroyer will work well.:D

https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/heres-why-navy-didnt-shoot-141845003.html

It's still not as good as the low level pass on Firefox.

Thanks.

USS Seawolf, 26 inch torpedo. What is it? I thought all large ones were 21 inch (533mm)?

Interesting. http://defense-update.com/20160326_verba_defexpo.html

Sorry to interrupt with question, but what weapons were those?

http://www.gizmag.com/british-army-40-mm-gun-sideways-loading/42405/

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-new-mig-35-start-flight-testing-summer-15554

F-16 [ame]http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf[/ame] F-15 [ame]http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf[/ame]

http://www.gizmag.com/trident-missile-3d-part/42370/

Surely F-22C if it's single seat?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/pentagon-mad-scientists-have-made-the-f-16-even-more-lethal-15470

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/decades-old-planes-used-against-isis/index.html

Well I can't be absolutely certain that ASRAAM doesn't have a datalink but I can't find proof that it does either. However a 5+km OTS shot at low altitude is not an easy test to pass. So I'll leave a question mark on that. Okay I see.:thumbup: Definitely a nice to have. It also looks like it's due to be the same size as SDB and SPEAR, and I think BAE is working on a common launcher for Brimstone and SPEAR, so joined up NATO thinking (which is maybe a big ask;)) would be to look at a common launcher for all 1800x180mm weapons (CUDA, SDB, SDBII, SPEAR, Brimstone) and maybe allow for mixed loads too.

Thanks.

I can't find evidence of it having a datalink anyway but it still managed LOAL fine in tests. CAMM does have a datalink though. http://www.yourindustrynews.com/raaf+has+successfully+fired+asraam+at+a+target+located+behind+the+wing-line+of+the+%E2%80%98shooter%E2%80%99+aircraft_26109.html http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html Thanks, the document is internet archived from MBDA's site, they changed the site recently. So yes, it's official. I thought TVC did augment lift, therefore reducing drag in high speed turns. Isn't that why the F-22 uses it? Maybe an IIR option will be added to CUDA? The interesting thing is that CAMM is supposedly a new variant based on ASRAAM for land, sea and air based anti-air, so we may see an air-launched derivative with even better range than ASRAAM, hence I wondered what was meant by 'ASRAAM New Build'.

It's certainly less useful without parameters but it does mean something, since NATO missiles will likely be rated against a fairly consistent benchmark. There is no datalink in ASRAAM and it has less fins and no TVC and associated actuators, all of which has weight - solid metal vs powder. It's also possible the dual burn fuel has a lower combined mass for the same overall kinetic energy output. It weighs about 75% more, volume is 140% greater. Volume taken up by propellant however is likely near 3 times greater. Acceleration is broadly determined by rocket diameter/missile mass, so yes, but the same is true for ASRAAM on acceleration and propellant volume to a lesser degree. TVC helps the missile turn slightly sooner after it leaves the rails, at speeds that aren't good for aerodynamic turning. ASRAAM uses a larger rocket diameter to accelerate faster and has enhanced body-lifting for manoeuvrability. It's no AMRAAM for sure, but it does extend range out to BVR. Missiles fall out of the sky when they lose energy, sure TVC reduces drag a little but also adds weight and how long does the motor actually burn for? A few seconds on an AIM-9? The AIM-9 has served well but the airframe is essentially an old design that's been polished a little over time. More recent SRAAMs have nearly all opted for a 160-166mm body diameter - ASRAAM, MICA IR, Python 5, R-73 etc. [ame]https://web.archive.org/web/20150330104521/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/asraam_background-1402652228.pdf[/ame]