It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air to air missiles current..

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
There is nothing wrong with the AIM-9X Block II variant sidewinder.

With an estimated 270 aircraft kills in its history of use there is nothing that matches the sidewinder in kills.

The problem with the AMRAAM and other radar guided missiles is jamming
The Chinese fighters will use their AESA radars as jammers to degrade the AIM-120's kill probability.

The AIM-9X Block II uses thermal IR outside flare range
aviationintel.com...
www.dtic.mil...




posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

I was thinking KAL-007 for the airliner. I know that they forced one down in the 70's, but I think that was with cannon fire. What's the second one?



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Russian missiles are often cited as pretty good, but what's their combat record from (say) 1990? I know it is a simplification, but in the last three decades Russian kit has proven a poor match when faced with Western kit.

Things look good on paper, but when push comes to shove it's the real life outcomes that count.


I have got the impression it's not really the technology that's the problem it's the people in these countries .

Places like Iraq and Libya were we have gone up against such technology keep the technology poorly maintained due to budget problems and sanctions restricting spares. Plus the piolits woefully trained.

If you gave a mig29 to the USA or RAF it would likely be a pretty deadly animal.
edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup, Russian missiles, from their MANPADS to their ICBMs are and always have been a step or two ahead of our tech, and it's nothing short of frightening what their stuff can do today.


True but the USA and nato have tricks up there sleeves.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I would say their tech being better is a no brainer....we use it to get into space....



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I would say their tech being better is a no brainer....we use it to get into space....


Only in some areas.

I'd say the USA leads the world in stealth, carriers,ABM systems, directed enegy weapons and satilites.

The UK and France are leading in Destroyer and nuclear submarine design.


Russia still hasn't cracked stealth, there carrier capability is a joke and there ships and subs sink themselves


I'd say NATO still has the edge overall!




edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The missile is only one part of the equation. The total aircraft system must be considered. The Phoenix missile, at the end of the Tomcat program was quite lethal, but rarely employed. The Pheenie bomb incidents were embarassing and made the stats look bad.
US missiles face bureaucratic challenges that other countries do not, and for no good reason. The "M" in the AMRAAM is a mistake in my opinion and we should have been developing the ALRAAM a long time ago. But since the RAAMer fits the F-16, 18, 22, 35, I think it will be here for a while.
The AIM-9X was behind the times on paper when it was being developed. The Archer was better before the 9X was completed, as well as the Python IV.
That being said, A well trained Super Hornet crew with the HMCS would be a fairly lethal A-A threat. The Raptor and Lightning II, even better.
We need to get some tech up, right quick.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
To me nothing is any good until it has been proven in the field. History is littered with military equipment that looked good on paper and in the slick PR brochures (and now CGI), but that means nothing when it fails.

Everyone seems to think Russian missiles are fab, but is there a reliable combat record?

We that their air to air AAM can shoot down airliners - Flight 007 in 1983 with two K-8 (AA-3 Anab) and that their ground to air have shot down airliners, with a recent tragic example (MH17), but anything else?



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

AIM-120s all aspect and AIMX's AR have both advanced airborne combat equally.Air to air fighting is no fair game any more.
edit on 7-8-2015 by AuroraZ7 because: add word



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

They have a good record in regional conflicts against other Soviet/Russian equipment. Russia is actually slightly ahead in missiles and always has been. The West has the edge in EW thanks to processor speed, but that gap is narrowing quickly.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It seems like the Russian's biggest Achilles heel has always been low-observable technology, likely due to the immense costs and manufacturing complications involved in pursuing it. It's why their subs were always a generation behind ours in terms of noise levels, and it's why they're still struggling today to build a fighter even half as stealthy as a 25 year-old F-22.

That said, just like their historic weaknesses in terms of electronics/avionics drove them to innovate their fighters in other directions (better maneuverability, better missiles), their weaknesses relative to our quiet stuff has driven their sensors in different directions compared to our relatively conservative designs.

Just look at some of their forays into low-frequency radar, IRSTs, and non-acoustic submarine detection and you'll see some fascinating examples of them working around and responding to our comparatively more advanced technology.

It's a fascinating example of yin and yang, where both sides have developed vastly different technologies in response to each other's vastly different strengths and assets.
edit on 14-8-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join