Patriot-equipped F-15C.

[Starlight]

An ICBM launched from say N. Korea, will take more than 5 minutes to get here. F-15s from PANG (Oregon), I am sure would be able to intercept.

 

like my C64 used to say... "Syntax error" :D

the article describes that "it could defeat cruise missiles and intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase"... that means when they're launched, which in turn means that the F-15 should be on CAP over north korea (in this example)

or in other example, cruise missiles are launched from boats off the U.S. shores... even there, I don't find it realistic.... attack boats like subs, can approach their targets in a stealth way, then launch the missiles and disappear... the warning to such attacks, if any, would be very short...

I find it hard for the F-15s to be useful in this roles

Keep in mind that such missile attacks are very quick... in in 9/11 the US defense didn't manage to intercept some airliners after a 15-30 minutes warning!

 

 

Its about money. Maybe the F15/PAC-3 is cheaper than a Tomcat/Pheonix.........

 

It's all about lobbies... tomcat/phoenix was expensive, but surely less that planning, designing, testing and buying a brand new system, that's for sure!

Yes, there was maintenance, but new tomcats with planned digital equipment refurbishment, were much easier and less time-consuming to maintain...

 

 

The tomcat, being a large aircraft, had plenty of room for expansions, that's one thing everybody credit to it, many people find that it was a much more stable multirole platform than the F-15E...

 

 

I am sure all it takes is a bit of software coding to get the PAC-3 usable with any radar.

LOL... just equipping the F-16 with the amraam usually required a major overhaul. and it's quite a normal weapon. The patriot surely isn't a common air-launched weapon ;)

 

The ASAT F-15 wasn't a common F-15 equipped with the ASAT missile under the belly ;)

 

Imho the USAF is thinking about using the Patriots on F-15s which are stationed in Japan.

I don't think they could make it in time, unless they were on CAP over NK. The missile boost phase is quite quick. Given that the f-15 should scramble, fly some hundred miles and launch, they will take at least from 10 to 30 minutes. By that time the missile is already re-entering to hit.

 

And BTW, I don't think that Patriot sites in Japan or SK could even detect and track launches in deep NK territory...

 

Satellites get pictures that NK is preparing a ICBM start. This preparations will take them at least some days. You have enough time to get everything in the right place to shoot it down on its first stage after launch.

there are mobile launchers. they need very little time to setup an attack. and they can fool satellites, especially if there is bad weather. The coalition forces in 1991 were hardly able to spot any scud launcher in Iraq, despite all that flat land and all that aircraft flying in the sky... north korea and other nations have better structures than former iraq for ICBM launches

 

Im still sceptical about shooting down re-entry vehicals....

you should be more than sceptical ;)

[Groove]

Starlight, i dont think NK is at the moment capable of shooting ICBMs from mobile launchers. But how knows in the future :D

[AerialHawk]

Nono, excuse /me/ :D

 

Have you ever seen how much shorter an AAM's range is when used as a SAM, especially if it has to hit a high-flying jet? No?

 

Well, a PAC-3 launched from an F-15 would multiple its range a good bit. In fact, the is EXACTLY the point - not ONLY do you demploy the system faster, but you enlarge its operational footprint.

 

Ok, 20km, happy? :lol:

[GGTharos]

Try a couple hundred.

[Starlight]

But man, I would like to see what and F-15C looks like with PAC-3’s hanging off the wings.

 

here it is, that's my masterpiece :D :D :D

 

 

ok, I know it sucks... anyway that was just to give a rough idea of the size of the two things coupled...

 

And there are a lot of details which could make this pic realistic... the F-15 belongs to a TES (Test and Evaluation Squadron) and the pilot, if you look close, is clearly looking down in the cockpit which means he's obviously looking for that damn "PATRIOT LAUNCH" button :D LOL!

 

he's saying "WTH, I can't find that damn button in my vanilla F-15 manual" :)

[GGTharos]

Nice try but...wrong missile? :D

[Starlight]

Nice try but...wrong missile? :D

 

ok that's a surplus pac-1 ;) or maybe even just a pac-man :D

 

anyway they're quite similar in size, 5.3 vs 5.2 meters

[AerialHawk]

Try a couple hundred.

 

Nah, 20km it is. ;)

[D-Scythe]

Nah, 20km it is. ;)

 

Actually, GG is grossly over-estimating and you're under-estimating. If we take the range proportion of the RIM-7 vs. AIM-7 as a rough estimate for the difference in range between a missile launched in the air as opposed to the ground, the range of the air-launched weapon should be about 3-5 times as great as the exact same weapon launched from the ground.

 

Thus, even assuming a 15 km range for a ground-launched PAC-3, the range for an air-launched missile should be around 50 to 75 km (30 to 45 miles). Let it be said, that the 15 km employment range is primarily against ballistic missiles, where the interceptor will expend energy and range to manuever itself such that the intercept geometry is as sweet as possible - i.e. the PAC-3 ERINT will try to avoid a low PK crossing shot, at the expense of range. And based on reports that PAC-3 ERINT provides greater area coverage in the defense of ballistic missiles, it is very likely that its range against other types of targets (like cruise missiles and fighters) is very much greater than 15 km - maybe not as great as the previous MIM-104 Patriot missiles, but fairly significant nonetheless.

 

Of course, this assumes that the PAC 3/Configuration 3 missile is used - i.e. the ERINT, active radar TVC missile. Earlier configurations of PAC 3 use the standard MIM-104 Patriot missile with a 90 km + range, but I don't think that that is the missile to be carried by any proposed F-15 - it's sheer size will pose rather detrimental problems in the logistics of things.

[GGTharos]

Actually, GG is grossly over-estimating and you're under-estimating.

 

I think we're both doing it on purpose ... ;)

 

Thus, even assuming a 15 km range for a ground-launched PAC-3,

 

IIRC Raytheon claims 20 -

 

[quote

the range for an air-launched missile should be around 50 to 75 km (30 to 45 miles). Let it be said, that the 15 km employment range is primarily against ballistic missiles, where the interceptor will expend energy and range to manuever itself such that the intercept geometry is as sweet as possible - i.e. the PAC-3 ERINT will try to avoid a low PK crossing shot, at the expense of range.

 

Correct. There's a video out there that shows exactly why it's 'only 20km'. The missile will spiral up to get in the incoming warhead's way, and hit it head-on. In a straight launch using more conventional launch techniques you'd likely see a big increase in range.

 

Of course, this assumes that the PAC 3/Configuration 3 missile is used - i.e. the ERINT, active radar TVC missile. Earlier configurations of PAC 3 use the standard MIM-104 Patriot missile with a 90 km + range,

 

No. PAC-3 specifically calls for the new missile. You might be thinking of PAC-2GEM+

[D-Scythe]

No. PAC-3 specifically calls for the new missile. You might be thinking of PAC-2GEM+

 

Google PAC-3/Configuration 3 ;) Believe me, there are several iterations of the PAC-3 system, the latest of which calls for a completely new missile - i.e. the ERINT. The previous versions of the PAC-3 use upgraded MIM-104 missiles.

 

More accurately, the entire PAC 3 program consists of two inter-related programs - a "growth" program and the ERINT missile program. The "growth" division consists of a series of improvements to the PAC 2 system, and last time I checked is associated with GEM improvements to the MIM-104 missile.

 

The missile program of course uses the the new ERINT interceptor, which still has not recieved an official designation.

[Allochtoon]

ok now it's scientifically proven that the us military is industry/lobby-driven!

 

Well no shit :D

[Force_Feedback]

Well no shit :D

 

And artificially maintained too, but hey, 'terrorists' may get tactical ballistic nukes at some 'black market', sure... I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial amount of people were killed to get some useless weapon contract

 

Didn't knew the pac 3 was so light, how about doing some .lua and meint tweaks to get us some mim-104Cs under our beloved F-15 (2 fuselage stations)? I saw some id lists, so if we can swap those for some unused missiles, like the r-550, R-37, and R-27EA entries, in theory, we should be able to stick any kind of missile to an aircraft.

[Willy p.]

And BTW, I don't think that Patriot sites in Japan or SK could even detect and track launches in deep NK territory...

 

FYI...there are no AMD Battalions in Japan, But will be soon. And they can see...well verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry far, again...clasified!!:detective:

[wsoul2k]

One missile can have multiple warheads.....at least 100 km of altitude can the patriot hit the target before it release its warheads ?

[Pilotasso]

Correct. There's a video out there that shows exactly why it's 'only 20km'. The missile will spiral up to get in the incoming warhead's way, and hit it head-on. In a straight launch using more conventional launch techniques you'd likely see a big increase in range.

 

Wheres that video? I got the one at Jabog32.

[GGTharos]

I think I found it on Raytheon's site, and it might be the same as you have. Can't check right now.

[GGTharos]

Time to bring back ASAT!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm

 

Strap it onto my F-15! :D

[nscode]

Now you know who to blaim if you stop reciving satellite tv in the middle of a game

[Pilotasso]

WOW didnt know china even had the bidget and technology for that.