major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (06/11/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) > I think the radar dish would detonate a missle if one was > carried, which is why AWACS doesn't. > That is a lot of radiation flux. The main reason AWACS is unarmed is to allow the aircraft more freedom to traverse national airspace. As an unarmed surveillance airplane, "neutral" countries allow AWACS to fly through their airspace unhindered. Whereas a more "offensive, armed" airplane would be more restricted in its movements. Secondly, AWACS is full of radar/electronics/sensors/radar paraphenalia and consoles and controllers and surveillance technicians - so - there's no room for any weapons and associated weapons-avionics. mts
gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (John Rudd) (06/11/91)
From: gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (John Rudd) Having watched this discussion for the last week or so, I've noticed that some of the people are confusing "Air Superiority B-52" with "Air Control B-52". That is, they're saying an "AS B-52 wouldn't be able to carry the AWACS equipment".. which doesn't apply. If AWACS equipment were required to the Air Superiority role, the F-14 wouldn't be able to do the fine job it does. All that is being proposed, is adding a radar/sensor system capable of detecting/designating/tracking targets for the Phoenix or AAMRAM missile. That does *NOT* require a system as elaborate as the AWACS equipment (whose main purpose is to control multiple aircraft in support of air superiority). One possability could be to have some sort of phased array radar attached to the sides of the craft, and some radars simular to those on the F-14 placed in the nose area, which would detect and track the targets..then the Phoenix missiles could be launched via wing pylons and (perhaps) internal rotary launchers (in the bomb bays). My step-father had thought about something simular as a modification to a 707 or 727 type frame.. the system doesn't require a high maneuverability platform.. it is a standoff system, and you just point the nose of the craft at the threat.. So, you put guidance radar in the nose and maybe one or two on the wings (yeah, that would require some mods).. then, you'd place some rotary launchers in the fusalage (sp?).. If you went as extreme as a 747 frame, you could carry QUITE a few Phoenix missiles inside.. -- John E. Rudd jr. gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu #include<std.disclaim> Send all comments, flames, and complaints to /dev/null.
wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) (06/14/91)
From: wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) Dave Goldblatt <dreg@clearpoint.com>, writes that Isreal and Japan should be added to list of Countries operating the E-3A Sentry. Sorry, this isn't the case with either countries. Both of them use the Grumman E Hawkeye. The naval version that is flown off the carrier, etc. Singapore also owns these aircraft. Main reason, for this the US did not want sell the more capable E3, becuase of fears that the possibly they might destabilize the region. But Israel said, Saudi is getting some E3, we want some. So the US finally the E2, which is perfectly viable for Israel. One note, I read becuase they are designed for carrier ops, they folding wings, and becuase of this the Israel park the E2 in fighter-type shelters. Certanly something impossible with the E3. As for Japan and Singapore, I do not know. Hope this info help. Alex Klaus <wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca>
Scott.Johnson@f1020.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson) (06/15/91)
From: Scott.Johnson@f1020.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson) >then, you'd place some rotary launchers in the fusalage >(sp?). If you went as extreme as a 747 frame, you could carry QUITE >few Phoenix missiles inside. It doesn't matter what you hang in it or on it, the "super bomber" concept DOESN'T WORK. They tried this in WWII and they got HOSED. While they didn't have missles, they did have a parity of armament (everybody had machine guns). It boils down to the fact that a fighter can jam AND dodge missles, while a bomber can only jam. If the missle can find a way through the jamming, the fighter still has a chance, while the bomber is simply out of luck. Also, if the fighter (or more likely LOTS of fighters all at once) get through the missle screen the bomber is again totally defenseless. A VERY expensive target. See ya! Scott J.
yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) (06/15/91)
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) The air superiority B-52 seems hopeless, but what about a similar concept: having the B-52 drop lots of laser-guided bombs, which are guided by smaller aircraft lower down? This way we could achieve air superiority at least against helicopters. :-) Of course the bomb might have a bit of trouble acquiring the target from 6 miles up. -- Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu