| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Air Launched Anti-Missile Missiles |
| 2007-01-18 |
| The U.S. has configured Patriot PAC 3 anti-missile missiles to be launched from F-15 fighters. This would enable missiles to be in position, over a wider area, to intercept incoming ballistic missiles. The PAC 3 version of the Patriot is lighter (700 pounds, versus 2000) than the anti-aircraft version. PAC 3 also has a shorter range (20 kilometers versus 70). An F-15 can move around a lot faster than the towed launchers that normally carry PAC 3 missiles. The PAC 3 fired from the air can also hit cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles that were just launched, and are still climbing. Work is now underway to adapt the 17 foot long PAC 3 to be launched from the F-16, F-22 and F-35 aircraft as well. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #19 Nah, Shipman, you need the Sopwiths with the incendiary bullets for the Zeps. Remember WWI? |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-18 18:21 |
| #18 First war Zeppelins with Pac 3ees then the inevitable fighter blimps with the needle nose to assault them by ramming. I'm so there. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-01-18 17:40 |
| #17 4 Why not mount on a "long loiter" platform like globalhawk? For long loiter times what you need is a good war zeppelin. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-18 13:19 |
| #16 I imagine that bolting one onto a UAV will require some upgrades to the software and controllers. Still, a good idea, one that probably someone's working on. For that matter, you wonder if it's possible to trick out a C-130 or something like that with a whole mess of PAC-3s. Agree with DV, this is so you can hang one on any airplane that's handy if you need to. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-01-18 12:11 |
| #15 You need a radar that can send guidance data to the missile. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-01-18 12:07 |
| #14 Why not mount on a "long loiter" platform like globalhawk? |
| Posted by: frank martin 2007-01-18 12:00 |
| #13 I don't think the F-22 is gonna be the jet lottering over Japan with this thing attached. I agree. Perhaps the Japanese might be interested in a F-15-Pac 3 solution. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-01-18 11:35 |
| #12 I can't tell if this is a wild or extremely awesome idea. |
| Posted by: Anon4021 2007-01-18 11:16 |
| #11 Jackal, F-22 and F-35 do have external hardpoints - to the USAF's credit, somebody realized that sometimes you've gotta carry stuff that won't fit in the bay. It's just that standard planning assumes that they won't be used. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-18 10:40 |
| #10 The marines have fixed wing Harrier jumnp jets. Gee, Bright - wait until I show the guys at 1stMarDiv that. I'm sure they'll appreciate it. >:) |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-01-18 10:09 |
| #9 I don't think the F-22 is gonna be the jet lottering over Japan with this thing attached. However, if you are the only jet available during a ballistic missile attack, you had better be able to launch the goddamn thing. That is what is going on here. Backup, for the backup's backup. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-01-18 09:52 |
| #8 The AF was in such a hurry in the downsizing after the first Gulf War, that they wanted to terminate the A-10 all together. Someone in Congress got a rider put in the funding authorization bill that required the AF to transfer the craft and crew to the Army if the Army wanted them. The AF did a step back but put them in the Guard units. It is interesting that technically it's the Army National Guard not the Air Force National Guard, however on federalization it's DAF not DA. Time to revisit the law on fixed wing aircraft issue between the services. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-18 09:32 |
| #7 The marines have fixed wing Harrier jumnp jets. In the United States, the Marines are not the Army. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-18 09:04 |
| #6 I have to wonder about the F-22 and F-35. How are they going to get these things in the internal bays? And hanging them outside would compromise your stealth. It's not a problem for F-15 and F-16, since the old Sparrow was around that size. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-01-18 07:33 |
| #5 ...Actually, all they've done is work out the technical requirements for doing so. PAC-3 is only about ten inches wide (by way of comparison, an AMRAAM is 7")so length is the only factor there. IMHO however, they need to keep these away from the tactical ships and rig them on B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s. A single bomber could carry enough long enough to defend against the bad guys for hours until another one comes on station. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-18 06:16 |
| #4 Shieldwolf, The marines have fixed wing Harrier jumnp jets. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-01-18 05:53 |
| #3 SPACEWAR.com/OTHERS > USA's LASER TESTINGS becoming more and more successful/potent. More successes, more capable, more accurate, you-betcha stronger. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-18 04:06 |
| #2 Because the Air Force is trying to justify its existence. They are proposing weapon mods to just about everything in their inventory, so that the F-222 and F-35 will get purchased in larger numbers. They have even suggested a CAS mission for them, and replacing the A-10 with one or both aircraft. The general lack of utility of high-performance fighters for counter-insurgency warfare, and the bad image CAS has with the Air Force top brass, has created a real PR and funding crunch for the Air Force. The Marine Corps has been suggested as the force to take over ALL close air support, with the Navy's F/A-18s serving as backup; thereby removing one of the major funding rationales for Air Force upgrades and new equipment. The only reason that the Army has bought such expensive helicopters, including those that have been cancelled, is that they are legally prohibit from operating fixed-wing aircraft for CAS - the 1947 Department of Defense reorganization explicitly prohibits the Army from providing CAS using fixed-winged aircraft. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-18 02:56 |
| #1 Interesting idea. But why fit it to an F-22? That's supposed to be our new, stealthy, high-performance fighter. As we bring in the F-22 and F-35, why not just have a squadron or two of F-15s specially tasked to this purpose? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-01-18 01:26 |