The aft mounted missiles might contact the tank under certain low G scenarios, so the solution was to jettison prior to launch (likely due to normal tactics approaching an engagement) or load the jet up with a couple of Gs during the shot. There was a restriction to firing fuselage mounted AIM-120s and AIM-7s with wing tanks still on. DEVELOPMENT: The development of AIM-54A Phoenix started in 1960, with Hughes being selected as prime contractor in. The shelf life of the weapons he has on board will probably never even enter into his thought process.Īny version of the F-15 can fire wing mounted missiles while carrying wing tanks without restriction. Long range radar guided air-to-air missile. Frankly, the chance to engage an enemy fighter is so uncommon that a fighter pilot is simply going to choose the best weapon for the situation and press the attack to the utmost of his ability. We didn't train that way and we certainly wouldn't employ that way either. let's get rid of them because they're old). We would never choose an AIM-7 over an AMRAAM for "economic" reasons (i.e. Both missiles are very discriminating and if shot with a solid radar lock, the chances of them hitting something you don't want them to hit are very small. In reality, the scenario described where friendlies might be nearby and a factor to your shot was very limited in scope. If you can't shoot an AMRAAM because friendly aircraft might be in danger from your shot, then it's unlikely an AIM-7 would be much better. Another was mentioned in another post concerning friendlies nearby, although that situation isn’t as likely as it sounds. When stuck in lag with your nose well behind the tail of an adversary but with a radar lock, the AIM-7 was the weapon of choice. Also, due to its slow acceleration compared with the AMRAAM, the sparrow was surprising capable in certain types of turning engagements. If I had to down a larger aircraft, I might choose it over the smaller AIM-120. ![]() First, the AIM-7 is a much larger weapon with a bigger warhead. Some can be discussed here, others cannot. There are several reasons that a mix of AIM-7s and AMRAAMs was preferable (more so in the F-15C). I would think, in light of the limited number of aircraft patrolling the NFZ at that time, having more air to ground ordnance available would have been a priority. Personally, I'm surprised to see them using one of the fuselage stations for an AIM-7 as that weapons station can be used for bombs or missiles. I'm not sure about 1999 but it's possible this particular unit was allotted only so many AMRAAMs(due to their primary mission as a bomber) and rather than go out with empty stations, they chose to take some AIM-7s as well. There was a period of time during the initial years of the transition to the AIM-120, that they weren't plentiful in certain theaters. The aircraft is not equipped with the interface required to use the missile. While Harms may have been tested in the early days of the aircraft, they have never been carried by operational F-15Es. It’s likely there is a second AIM-7 on the aft fuselage station out of view of the camera. Without question, the missile is an AIM-7M. New guy here - Former F-15C pilot with a few answers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |