https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaKT1qSRH0Q&t=676s. its called the AIM-174 and could have a 200+ mile range with modified AMRAAM seeker.
I want my hornet with a 200 nm+ range and Mach 6 and maneuverable and good and multifunctional missiles. AND 4 of them
yeah ik
How heavy is it? Around 900kg?
Considering that the weight of the SM-6 and Mk 72 booster is 1,500 kg and 680 kg each, the AIM-174B will weigh around 820 kg.
I found this. So i think that Mk104 mod 1 is dtrm used in older SM series without Mk72 booster. Mk104 mod 3 is sustainer only used in SM-6 because initial boost is provided by Mk72.
So. If mass is 850kg. Fuel mass 358.5kg. Specific impulse =2500m/s. dV is only 1370m/s. Even worse than Fakour.
Mk 104 Mod 3 is also DTRM.
The term “sustainer” probably comes from the fact that the SM-2ER has a separate booster, unlike the SM-1MR and SM-2MR.
From which resource was the acceleration time information taken? If this is data from the NSIAD-96-98 report, then it is most likely incorrect.
Yes, I know that the accuracy of this data is somewhat questionable. However it is in the official documentation and I can’t cite more accurate one, so I’ve used it instead.
“Somewhat questionable”? The accuracy of this data is absurd. The author seriously claims that with a difference in thrust-to-weight of 7.24% (page 82) and in feet-per-second of 5.15% (page 83), a difference in acceleration speed of almost THREE TIMES is possible.
Check the thrust table on page 81. Based on these data, F-18E cannot accelerate from 0.8M to 1.2M at 5,000 ft slower than at 20,000 ft.
I’m sorry, but I don’t want to get into a debate about the reliability of the GAO document here.
And as far as I know, no accurate and publicly available data on Rhino’s acceleration performance exists apart from this. If you have a document (except NATOPS manual) that clearly refutes this, I’ll use it instead.
GAO is not a technical reliable source.
GAO does not provide any real sources from where the acceleration data was taken.
1 Like
where AIM-174B
The manual is publicly viewable on the internet with a simple google query (but it cannot be posted or discussed here), I think you’ll find the information enlightening at the very least. The GAO report is the only publicly available data for the Hornet that we have from the US with specific thrust and performance data.
I have read all the manuals on the F-18E, as well as the full NSIAD-96-98 report. I have not found any evidence of the indicated acceleration time of the F-18E. Moreover, even the GAO does not name the exact source.
Check the attachments at the end of the GAO report.
A source that provides data that contradicts his own statements cannot be considered reliable.
Can you elaborate
GAO claims that the F-18E accelerates from 0.8M to 1.2M:
- 52.8s at 5,000 ft
- 50.3s at 20,000 ft
- 64.85s at 35,000 ft
Are the numbers true? Spoiler alert, with a very high probability - no.
At the acceleration time of the F-18C:
- 21.0s at 5,000 ft
- 34.6s at 20,000 ft
- 55.80s at 35,000 ft
as well as differences in thrust-to-weight:
- 10.49% at 5,000 ft
- 6.42% at 20,000 ft
- 3.02% at 35,000 ft
there is simply no place for such a difference in acceleration time (especially at 5,000 ft). And the acceleration curve of the F-18E looks like some kind of nonsense.
I have found absolutely no documentary evidence for the acceleration time data provided by the GAO. Moreover, the GAO does not name the exact source from where this data is taken.
Also, GAO does not refer to this data in the DOD responses, although such a gap in acceleration speed is definitely not in favor of the F-18E.
Where does it contradict itself? Acceleration is not just a function of power to weight at a given airspeed data point.