Wikipedia

Talk:CRV7

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Maury Markowitz in topic Decommissioning and disposal
Learn more about this page

CRV7 did not replace the Mighty Mouse

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Folks, the Mighty Mouse 2.75 inch rocket was the first of its glass. But it was replaced in the 1960s with a far more powerful 2.75 inch rocket which was much longer and had a greater effective range and warhead. The Mighty Mouse was limited to the 1950 interceptors like the F-94C, F-86C, the CF-100, the F-84, etc. which had rocket tubes which could not accommodate the newer and longer 2.75 inch rockets. Also, I believe that the Canadian AF was using the 2.75 inch rockets developed by the Belgium firm of Les Forges de Zeebrugge which has become the supplier for non-USA military aircraft in NATO. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The MM was upgraded to the Mk.40, but that was limited to air-to-ground. Except for remaining F-102s and CF-100's, I'm unaware of any MM's still in AA service at the time. The Mk.66 (Hydra) was not used in the AA role as far as I'm aware. The Belgian rockets were the FZ series, identical to the US versions they were based on. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
So do you agree the statement "Compared to the U.S. Mk 40 Mighty Mouse rockets the CRV7 replaced" should be edited? It definitely implies the CRV7 replaced the MM (and probably refers to Canadian service but is kind of open-ended in the way it is phrased). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ohhhh, yes now I see what you mean. The CRV definitely did replace the MM directly in many forces. It didn't in US service because they were already in the process of moving to the Hyrda, during Vietnam IIRC. AFAIK the only NATO forces using the MM was the US, Canada, UK, Belgium, Germany and Italy. I don't have a single document that states this specifically, but I believe every one of those forces, with the exception of the US, moved to the CRV. Don't know about Australia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Range superior to Hydra-70 ?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article notes, Its maximum effective range is over 4,000 m, allowing launch from beyond the envelop of most short-range anti-aircraft weapons. In comparison, the Mighty Mouse or Hydra 70 requires launches from much shorter ranges, placing the launcher within the range of ground-based weapons.. However, Jane's Air Launched Weapons notes The Mk 66 motor can propel Hydra 70 warheads up to ranges of 8.8 km depending on launch conditions. Okay, the 8.8 kilometers is a maximum range, but maximum effective range for the Hydra-70 is very likely equal to that of the CRV7. The Mighty Mouse had a MER of 3400 meters, but if the article is to assert that the MER of the Hydra-70 is less than 4000 meters, then a better citation than a manufacturer's claim would be preferable. The manufacturer's claim in question asserts The best of the other commercially available 2.75" rocket motors must enter the surface-to-air envelope to achieve the identical terminal velocity of the CRV7. This statement is vague because it does not specifically identify the other 2.75" rocket(s) and because it does not specifically discuss maximum effective range, although the statement about terminal velocity leads one's thinking in that direction. I will mark the statement in question as needing clarification. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also noted this statement Live-fire testing shows that rockets are most effective between 3,000 and 5,000 meters. These test results apply to both MPSM and unitary warhead rockets. -- referring to Hydra-70 rockets, this statement is found in U.S. Army Field Manual 1-140, viewable online here. Also, note this statement, Thirty-eight 2.75-inch rockets (fired from two 19-round pods) with a maximum effective range of 5,500 meters. Thirty-eight additional 2.75 inch rockets can be installed if the TOW antitank missiles mounted on the outboard weapon mounts are not used., found in U.S. Army Field Manual 71-123, viewable online here. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to the Bristol document, the Mk.66 motor (Hydra) burns out 2,000 ft earlier than the CRV7, at 1,000 ft/sec lower velocity. That's 1/2 the range and 3/4 the speed. That means that at any given distance from launch, the CRV7 will have more smash, so if there's a lower limit to your engagement envelope, the CRV7 will hit that somewhere between 50% and 100% further away from the launch point. That's pretty significant.
Now should we believe these claims? Well considering that the Hydra integration document states that the specific impulse of the Hydra is 1472 lbf·s (look for it) and the CRV7 is 2,320 lbf·s, these numbers seem to be entirely in-line with what you'd expect -- the CRV7 is significantly more powerful. Moreover, the burn time, distance and other numbers closely agree with the numbers in the Bristol document. So I believe it is safe to say we can treat the Bristol document as accurate.
The 5,500 meter range you quote appears to refer to maximum range with ~zero remaining velocity. You can see this in the Bristol document, extrapolating to the right. This is perfectly adequate for a point-detonated HE round, but completely useless for any sort of penetrator. I cannot find specific statements on the smash needed for T-72 penetration, but I'd be very surprised if it was much beyond 3 km even for the CRV.
So for the "surface-to-air envelope" issue, consider the ubiquitous ZSU-23. It has a range of about 2,500 m, and it's performance against A-4s at about this range has been proven in combat. If the maximum range of the CRV7 against this medium-armored target is, we'll assume, 4 km, then it can be fired outside it's envelope. If we apply the 3/4 rule for the Hydra, following the curves in the Bristol document, then the Hydra has to be fired right as it enters the zoo's engagement range.
So I really don't think any of these statements seems that suspect.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Maury, interesting documents, thanks. As far as penetrating any tank's armor, I'd much rather rely on an ATGM than a 70-mm rocket. By the way, do you know which source is claiming "The CRV7 remains the most powerful rocket to this day, and has slowly become the de-facto standard for Western-aligned forces, at least outside the United States." (I mean the part about becoming a de-facto standard.) Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No source in that case, just editorializing. It's used by everyone other than the US, who is still trying to get rid of their stocks of Hydras. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Most Powerful

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How is this the most powerful rocket as the article states, and not the Warsaw pact S-24 rocket probably deserves this title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.244.19 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did some digging and it seems that this might be a terminology issue. The S-24 definitely has more explosive power. However, the rocket power does not appear to be anywhere near the same. Note that the S-24 has a very short maximum range, about 1/3rd or less than the CRV. But of course it's also a larger rocket, which means the engine has to work harder. However, generally, it appears the S-24 is a device that is designed to attack through its warhead's energy, whereas (to some degree at least) the CRV7 is designed to attack through impact energy. I suspect the CRV is much more "powerful" in this respect. I'll keep looking for examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

seems the article has been updated to note NATO only and not Warsaw Pact weaponry

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on CRV7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Decommissioning and disposal

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that Canadian's remain CRV7s are being decommissioned, but I don't know how to work that into the article effectively.

--scruss (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Added, I just put it in the lede. I think they are still being used in the UK, at least the RAF page still refers to them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CRV7&oldid=1206835870"