Eurocopter's future heavy lift helicopter: the HTH

[mr_rOk 0]

Bucketman wrote:

Why aint countries just buying AA-12 Adder or similiar missile? Its basicly all the same if your plane has Adders or AMRAAM's

AMRAAM=range ~50km

AA-12=range ~100 km

Is it really the same? I think Malaysia bought the adders with their batch of MiG-29's. Also India and China, possibly Vietnam with their Su-27's

@ killagee

Your right!

[bucket man 2]

You mixed something up. Adders have a range of 50km's and AMRAAM range is 20 miles. Id say they are pretty much the same atleast range wise.

[mr_rOk 0]

khmmm...bucketman, where on earth did you get that lousy piece of info?

Check this out

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-12.htm

http://www.wonderland.org.nz/raa.htm

And that's just two of the numerous resources on the web that says so, if you want other links just feel free to negate me in your next post.

btw-i knew this long before I got wired up, from magazines and stuff-you should read more, and the 50km version isn't even operational nowadays, it was more of an extended prototype series-a technology demonstrator for the real 100km missile which the Russians had planned to use on their new stealth fighter and which would be using a more powerful fuel=>this was all happening at the end of the cold war, so there's still no operational stealth fighter in the Russian AF, however the missile and the fuel made it through and are in service today

Have fun

oh and the new version with scramjet is supposed to have a 150 km range

Is it possible you mixed things up, with let's say Alamo?

[bucket man 2]

Well I used FAS.org for my info.    I must have missed something as in FAS.org, it says that AA-12 Adder has a range of 50 km's. On the other hand the text says it has maximum range of 90-100km's.

Im all confused here.  

The other page that you gave me also says Adders have range of about 100km's.

So my wrong info was because FAS gives different ranges in different places. Or Im just stupid or something.

[mr_rOk 0]

No you're not stupid!

Actually I dont know why they(FAS) didn't write down that the 100km(or 90, sources vary, again) version had more potent fuel onboard, or at least say that there is(was) a 50k and a 100k version.

Infact I haven't noticed the chart, well I have but not the range remark where it says 50km, until you warned me about it.

Sloppy work on their part, confusing people like that!

[Badgerboy 0]

Thats 100km under 'optimum conditions'

Its assuming you have a track on the target, that the target isn't using ECM, is at a lower altitude than the shooter, and is heading straight into the missile envelope before and after the launch, and still keeps heading in when the seeker goes active.

Strangely enough, this doesn't seem to happen much in BVR combat. A range of 55km to 75km is far more realistic, and even that can be negated by a simple manoever by the targeted aircraft.

[mr_rOk 0]

True, 100k in optimum conditions!

I've read that the rear "wings" of the adder do much for its maneuverability, the newer versions have "seek on" the whole time, unlike the old ones which were more semi-active and required the parent A/C to keep illuminating the target until the missile was about 30k off, then it's own radar would engage.

[MontyVCB 0]

Outdated?   The only thing that could be argued to be "better" is the F22 and the JSF (still in development). But that is very arguable as the EF beats both those in maneuvrablity. Long range engagements are usually handled by long range missiles anyway and have little to do with the plane.

There are comparable alternatives, such as the "Flying Brick" Mirage as well as the "Best Plane In The World" JAS 39 Gripen. But they're all fairly similar.

And the EF gets you more hardware/€ than those two planes.

The RAF doesn't want the numbers, because it can't afford the numbers.

What alternative would you suggest, apart from disbanding the RAF or letting them fly Spitfires?

i would buy the F/A-18 super hornet, i can't see what is wrong with buying american equipment specialy since they put most of the money in to developing the thing and works out to be cheaper to, bloody crazy

[iNeo 0]

works out to be cheaper to, bloody crazy  

hehe well then maybe you should read the thread once more. cause it doesnt

[Badgerboy 0]

Outdated?   The only thing that could be argued to be "better" is the F22 and the JSF (still in development). But that is very arguable as the EF beats both those in maneuvrablity. Long range engagements are usually handled by long range missiles anyway and have little to do with the plane.

There are comparable alternatives, such as the "Flying Brick" Mirage as well as the "Best Plane In The World" JAS 39 Gripen. But they're all fairly similar.

And the EF gets you more hardware/€ than those two planes.

The RAF doesn't want the numbers, because it can't afford the numbers.

What alternative would you suggest, apart from disbanding the RAF or letting them fly Spitfires?

i would buy the F/A-18 super hornet, i can't see what is wrong with buying american equipment specialy since they put most of the money in to developing the thing and works out to be cheaper to, bloody crazy  

Not at all. A far superior airframe to the Hornet can be found in the SU-27 range, which is FAR cheaper to purchase. Add western avionics and radar system and it's the better choice.