Unstoppable - Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Unstoppable - Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles.

There is a lot of talk on ATS about supposed lack of military funding of Russian forces, that Russians are only selling of their Cold War era tech to anybody willing to pay just to keep the boots on their soldiers and so forth, yet every single fact (including CIA 2006 fact book) points to exactly the opposite, and the reality is that Russian army has been going through dramatic military buildup and high tech rearmament.

Immense oil dollars alone have been pumping up Russian military budget for over a decade.

Russian industrial military has been rapidly growing and the newest cutting edge technologies are being regularly put in serial production.

This is not anything new, and a plethora of such information has been available for years.

As an example, I'll focus on cutting edge Russian cruise/anti-ship missile programs.

The old debate on NATO "dancers" and Soviet "streakers" was never objective since Soviets always used both approaches, and while US/NATO failed to develop supersonic and hypersonic platforms to this day, Russians keep increasing the gap.

We all know that Kegler/Moskit/Yakhont/Bazalt/Granit etc are already becoming absolute by Russian development stage standards, even though report after report states that to this day US/NATO Navy does not have a adequate defense against such weapons.

While in US ramjet/scramjet and hypersonic flight is still in the realm of classified technology which borderlines with science fiction (Aurora test bed for example), and that slick looking 3D models are suggesting futuristic hypersonic space bombers, Russians have been successfully fielding battle ready ramjet and hypersonic weapons for years.

Raduga R&D bureau already began tests of hypersonic ramjet/scramjet engines back in 1973. By 1985 all test phases were completed, and in 1989 experimental hypersonic cruise missile entered testing as a prospect replacement for X-55. The new weapon had minimum sustained cruise speed of Mach 5 with engine burn of 57 minutes (!) and 3000km range delivering a twin nuclear or conventional warhead.

The project was designated X-90 GELA (Kh-90), NATO code name AS-19 Koala (not to be confused with AS-X-19 Meteor/SS-N-24 SCORPION)



After successful testing, the project was halted in favor of a conventional subsonic approach, and by 1995 Х-101 stealth cruise missile entered testing. X-101 is similar in concept to AGM-129, reaches out to 5500km range with 5 meter on target accuracy assured by multi-channel targeting sensors.

In October of 1999 both the X-101 and X-55 (AS-15 Kent) successfully completed all testing phases and entered serial production.

In US the situation looked a bit different. After cancellation of civilian NASP (National Aerospace Plane) X-30 program in November of 1984, only in 1997 did NASA contract MicroCraft to continue development of the X-43A project.

X-43 is an unmanned hypersonic experimental vehicle designed to reach Mach 10, and is a progression of the X-15 program which goes back to 1967.

Two years prior Russians already openly displayed the Х-90 at MAKS 1995, a fully tested design dating back to yearly 70s.

I'm not going to get into Hiper-X, NB-52, Pegasus, X-43A etc. They all fall into the category of specialized flying laboratories, while Russians already had a fully working system (launch mountings, folding wings, booster, navigation/targeting, etc) since 1992, which was test fired from TU-95.

The weapon was to be fitted on Tu-160/ Tu-142

Officially, we are to believe that ever since 1992 the project is dead, just like many other Soviet era projects, yet the trends are obvious. Just about every frozen program has been "resurrected" under Putins' administration, and there is no wonder to why over 54% of Russian national budget for 2007 is classified, and that even CIA does not publish the amount of Russian military spending.

In reality, while after the break up of USSR the funds for Russian industrial military complex were drastically cut, given the sheer size of Soviet system, what they were really doing was consolidating and restructuring the entire industry.

This is where X-90 GELA comes in, and I bet that it's far from being a dead project. Russians have been actively retrofitting their TU-160, restarting serial production of new units, and in 1999 they accepted 8 Blackjacks from Ukraine as payment for natural gas.

In any case, Tu-142s are already able to carry two X-90s, and the only question is how many GELA type cruise missiles Russians already have.




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
1. There is effective defense against supersonic antiship missiles - Sea Ram. It eliminated all weaknesses of the Phalanx in this regard.

2. Stealth technology is incompactible with high speed ,ESPECIALLY concerning cruise missiles. Fast cruise missile flying low in dense atmosphere produces a huge amount of heat by friction and it would be easily visible by all IR sensors in area. Not to mention that RAM materials are very heat sensitive.

3. US didn't make super and hypersonic cruise missiles, because they didn't need them. Russian surface Navy was so weak that it could be easily dealt with conventional Harpoons. Fast missiles are unsuitable for land attacks, because of their short range and payload - there was simply no need for US Navy to have them.

4. I don't believe any hypersonic ramjet could make 3000 km at Mach 5, you'd need to provide some evidence for this claim, because the longest ranged supersonic missiles are Shipwreck with +/-500 km and those weight 8 tons. The longest ranged ramjet equipped missile is Yakhont/Brahmos with range less than 300km, however this is only achievable if missile flies more than half of it's range at high altitude.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I see where this is going longbow. I'll do my part anyway, in hopes that something gets the point across.


1. There is effective defense against supersonic antiship missiles - Sea Ram. It eliminated all weaknesses of the Phalanx in this regard.


RIM-116 uses the motor and warhead from Sidewinder and a IR seeker from the Stinger. It's an EMERGENCY band-aid kit pushed out do to complete and repeated failure of the Phalanx.

If in your opinion a beefed up Stinger constitutes a high performance supersonic interceptor missile, then reality will just have to disagree with you.


2. Stealth technology is incompactible with high speed ,ESPECIALLY concerning cruise missiles.


Wrong. On all parts. Do the work and look up AGM-129 before making baseless statements. 129A was fielded in 1994 for use in B-52/B-1/B-2. Out of original 1460 units planed, 460 were produced.


3. US didn't make super and hypersonic cruise missiles, because they didn't need them. Russian surface Navy was so weak that it could be easily dealt with conventional Harpoons. Fast missiles are unsuitable for land attacks, because of their short range and payload - there was simply no need for US Navy to have them.


I'm sorry but you are so fundamentally wrong in every single statement that I don't even know where to begin. Please take the time to educate your self on the general topic before presenting us with your baseless opinions. It's the "deny ignorance" forum after all.


4. I don't believe any hypersonic ramjet could make 3000 km at Mach 5, you'd need to provide some evidence for this claim, because the longest ranged supersonic missiles are Shipwreck with +/-500 km and those weight 8 tons.


longbow, this is not some story I'm pushing on people, what I've stated is a mater of a historical fact.

X-90s model;



And an actual picture of X-90 at MAKS 97. You do know what MAKS is right?



X-90 Gela;

Length - 12 m
Wing span - 7 m
Weight - classified
Warhead - twin, nuclear/conventional
Speed - Mach 5 (hypersonic)
Launch altitude - 7,000 m
Max alt - 20,000 m
Range 3,000 km
Navigation - internal/command


The longest ranged ramjet equipped missile is Yakhont/Brahmos with range less than 300km, however this is only achievable if missile flies more than half of it's range at high altitude.


Well there's a whole world of information out there, all one has to do is grab it.

Naturally speed depends on the altitude, and varies between M2 to M5 from 8,000 to 27,000 meters. As I said before the engine burn time of X-90 at cruise speed is 57 minutes, so do the math.

Similar engine is currently being developed by Alliant Techsystems under FASTT program (Freeflight Atmospheric Scramjet Test Technique), be it couple of decades late.

DARPA and Navy are picking up the bills.

The problem here is that even after a decade, we know little about Soviet/Russian X-programs. While we all know about Chuck Yeager, Aurora and area 51, when it comes to Soviet/Russian programs we just say that they don't exist because there was no movie or History Channel special about it.

The reality is that Soviets/Russians have been and still are actively working on hypersonic propulsion.

For example, American hypersonic program is based on Russian research, and it's a historical fact. Х-43A Hiper-X program is based entirely on test results collected form testing of Russian "Cholod" (Cold) hypersonic test vehicle. The tests were contracted by NASA in 1998 in order to purchase test data results.

Apparently Russians already learned what they needed and have done so a long time ago, because they are firmly proceeding with their NEXT generation of hypersonic vehicle, the "Igla" (Needle).

Seriously, let's take a glimpse into Russian hypersonic adventures, which have been going on for over 30 years.

Cholod;





Officially it's designated as a flying lab, but it sure looks like it's designed to be fitted on something, like a tip of a ICBM maybe? Think what kind of a AMB system one will need to counter a re-entry vehicle which is free too choose where to enter the atmosphere, and then it transitions right into controlled hypersonic flight to evade defenses.

The roots;



Moving on, what does this look like?;



All one has to do is to see it mounted on its rocket booster, and then things get very clear.

A very interesting diagram of flight stages here. Feel free to substitute images of happy space tourists with payloads of various warheads.



A self explanatory comparison between NASP and Igla;



To give an idea of how small that thing is, and how difficult it will be to intercept it;



Here are close ups of its 440 pound (!) scramjet power plant which produces 14.7 tons! of thrust for 50 seconds;



To give an idea of how small it is;



Imagine it in a cruise missile as a hypersonic terminal stage booster for example.

More detail;









Intake shot;



So yes, to the Russian X-90 is already HISTORY, all while we doubt the fact of its very existence. Unfortunately it seems like nothing has changed. We get fed propaganda of how we're the best in everything, and then emergency hearings are held in order to approve enormous amount of tax payers dollars to be spent on "gap closing".

Then the program turns into a cash cow, and a decade or two later another hearing is held to determine just how much money was stolen, and how much more will it take to show something to the taxpayers.

Same old, same old, the only difference is that these days we can just buy what we need from the Russians, and we already have been doing just that and on regular bases ever since 1991.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
the one thing we can count on is by the time anything russian is ready for production, the electronics are out of date. I checked out the missile database and the as-19 does go 3000km and has no pictures. However, russia and its "safety" polocies keep them out of the final picture everytime. Even thier cold war weapons still leak as with thier subs. thier not even close to our caliper. And supersonic jets dont need stealth as because speed is the stealth. so whoever made that claim is right and wrong. the sr-71 never needed stealth and it was capable of m3 declassified in vietnam. modern missiles travel the same speed as supersonic jets. thats the point of speed. m5 is like 1 mile per second. think what that looks like.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

RIM-116 uses the motor and warhead from Sidewinder and a IR seeker from the Stinger. It's an EMERGENCY band-aid kit pushed out do to complete and repeated failure of the Phalanx.

If in your opinion a beefed up Stinger constitutes a high performance supersonic interceptor missile, then reality will just have to disagree with you.


It is not beefed up stinger it is beefed up Sidewinder. Stinger seeker is used because it's better for this purpose. In tests it works great, and I see no reason why it shouldn't work in reality. It is fast can do over 50Gs and has range almost 10km with 20kg explosive warhead. Certainly it is enough against every antiship missille.


Wrong. On all parts. Do the work and look up AGM-129 before making baseless statements. 129A was fielded in 1994 for use in B-52/B-1/B-2. Out of original 1460 units planed, 460 were produced.


My dear, but AGM-129 is SUBSONIC. I was talking that stealth is incompactible with high speed (mach 2-3 cruising missiles). Supersonic planes have problems to SURVIVE temperatures and those are flying over 15 000 meters high. And you are trying to tell me that Sunburn will not emit a lot of heat when flying mach 2.5 10 meters over sea? It's nose would glow like Christmans tree.


This missile you described doesn't seem to be low flying - although fast it will be very visible on radars. No wonder russians cancelled it. Probably because of the same reason why XB-70 was cancelled and why future US hypersonic bomber will never be sucessfull.


I agree that Russians had their black projects too, but don't overestimated their techological abilities. After all they were not capable to place man on moon to send decent probes on Mars or top outer Solar system- they sent some but not very capable compared to american ones. They were not capable to make stealth plane, nor produce more than 50 Su-27 until the end of Cold War - at this time when US had over 500 F-15. They were not able to make their submarines equal to US ones, their AWACS were worse, etc., etc. Surely many of their technological achivements were impressive but don't make them look like some superman nation which led tech reseach in every area. Also don't think all US black projects were featured on discovery.

mod edit: Added quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 1-10-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

the one thing we can count on is by the time anything russian is ready for production, the electronics are out of date.


Really? That just shows how much (little) you know about Russian equipment. Look in to how flexible any given Sov/Russian system is when it comes to modernization.

Serbs shot down F-117s with what exactly? They did ad a camera though, I wonder if it was ordered from a catalog.


I checked out the missile database and the as-19 does go 3000km and has no pictures.


Which data base would that be? fas? The pictures I posted are not enough for some reason? What's your point? I'm not following you here.


However, russia and its "safety" polocies keep them out of the final picture everytime. Even thier cold war weapons still leak as with thier subs.


What? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I sure hope its not more of the typical "Russians are poor", "Russians can't make anything", "Russians copy everything", "Everything Russians make is old and rusty", "Russian electronics are made out of hammers and sickles", and other such ignorant nonsense.


And supersonic jets dont need stealth as because speed is the stealth. so whoever made that claim is right and wrong. the sr-71 never needed stealth and it was capable of m3 declassified in vietnam. modern missiles travel the same speed as supersonic jets. thats the point of speed. m5 is like 1 mile per second. think what that looks like.


Oh I see. Nice talking to you. Feel free to contribute further when you'll learn something.


It is not beefed up stinger it is beefed up Sidewinder. Stinger seeker is used because it's better for this purpose. In tests it works great, and I see no reason why it shouldn't work in reality. It is fast can do over 50Gs and has range almost 10km with 20kg explosive warhead. Certainly it is enough against every antiship missille.


longbow, wrong again. Such classifications go from HEAD down, not the other way around. When you actually find out what exactly FPA IIR seekers are all about (S-RMP Block-II), why RAM does not use one, and what exactly is involved in passive RF homing on a supersonic target, why "IR-all-the-way" mode was added, and then we can continue.

Here's something to get you started;


The RIM-116 RAM is a joint U.S./German lightweight ship-borne self-defense system for use against anti-ship cruise missiles.

In the mid-1970s the U.S. Navy ships had no adequate defense against low-flying cruise missiles. A program to develop a 5-inch missile was begun in 1975, and in July 1976 an agreement was signed with Germany for joint development of the RIM-116 weapon system. The missile was later called RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile), because it was spinning during flight. To save costs, the RAM was designed to use several existing components, including the rocket motor of the MIM-72 Chaparral, the warhead of the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the IR seeker of the FIM-92 Stinger. The XRIM-116A first flew in 1978, and a full-scale development contract was awarded to General Dynamics in June 1979. Experimental training rounds were designated XRTM-116A at that time. Numerous development problems were encountered during the 1980s, and although several successful test intercepts were made during 1982/83, it took until 1987 that RAM was finally approved for continued development to production status. After operational evaluation in early 1990, the RIM-116A (also known as RAM Block 0) was finally declared ready for operational service with the U.S. Navy in 1992.


www.designation-systems.net...

The bottom line is that RAM is a BUDGET stop-gap band-aid measure which eeked through testing program while running in "IR-all-the-way" "hot fix" mode, in which the seeker has to physically lock onto the target.

Look into that one.


My dear, but AGM-129 is SUBSONIC.


What are you my wife? Please address me accordingly, sir will do just fine.


I was talking that stealth is incompactible with high speed (mach 2-3 cruising missiles). Supersonic planes have problems to SURVIVE temperatures and those are flying over 15 000 meters high. And you are trying to tell me that Sunburn will not emit a lot of heat when flying mach 2.5 10 meters over sea? It's nose would glow like Christmans tree.


Stick with the program, I was talking about Х-101, which was chosen over X-90 in 1995. If you know of a IR sensor which can track a hypersonic target at 3000km let me know. I know all about Moskit, entirely different platforms/generations here.


This missile you described doesn't seem to be low flying - although fast it will be very visible on radars. No wonder russians cancelled it. Probably because of the same reason why XB-70 was cancelled and why future US hypersonic bomber will never be sucessfull.


Feel free to leave out all "maybe's", "i thinks" and "could Be's" out of this one. As to thew choice of X-101 over X-90, it's a simple and logical one. Post 1991 budget cuts along with a need for heavy investment into fundamentally new and industry wide manufacturing culture, verses a mature and long established capacity which quickly and cheaply cranked out a stealth modification of an already existing subsonic platform.


I agree that Russians had their black projects too, but don't overestimated their technological abilities. After all they were not capable to place man on moon to send decent probes on Mars or top outer Solar system- they sent some but not very capable compared to american ones. They were not capable to make stealth plane, nor produce more than 50 Su-27 until the end of Cold War - at this time when US had over 500 F-15. They were not able to make their submarines equal to US ones, their AWACS were worse, etc., etc. Surely many of their technological achivements were impressive but don't make them look like some superman nation which led tech reseach in every area. Also don't think all US black projects were featured on discovery.


Oh please, for god sakes take the time and do your self some justice.

Here's some homework for you, which I've by the way done decades ago.

1.) What was the designation of the Russian moon landing module and what year was it completed?

2.) Why didn't it go up?

3.) Who first envisioned and calculated what exactly is actually involved in getting into orbit?

4.) Who went into space first, who put a man into orbit first, who built the first space station, who to this day has the highest orbit lifting capacity, what is the extent of Soviet/Russian space/science exploration, the list goes on.

5.) Who first calculated RCS values and why was stealth concept rejected by the Soviets? Yes they carefully examined the stealth concept before it was even considered in US, and chose not to proceed, while certain future Skunk Works folks read all about it in a publicly published Soviet science magazine. Look into that one too.

6.) Why was stealth concept rejected by Soviets in light of MAD doctrine?

7.) Look into T-10 and then talk about Avro Arrow/MiG-25/F-15/SU-27 and especially MiG-31 (R-33/37 AND Kh-58)

8.) AWACS worse? Look into the original stealth of Tu-95 300km radar shadow ghosting and what kind of a commotion it is still stirring up 5 decades after the fact of its use. To help you out, miniaturization and cold plasma. Look into Woodpecker, over horizon radar, Yuri Gagarin class radar, comm, and space mission control/exploration/science super ships and especially into what apparently to this day is one and only fully integrated multi force SA/targeting network. A lot of very educational material to dig into there. Knock your self out. When you get up to speed on Yuri Gagarin class and the fact that all of them were scrapped, look into what actually replaced such invaluable and unique systems. Before I figured that one out I was dumb founded to why they would cut the legs right from under them. If fact they simply developed a less conspicuous and much better approach (both in cost and effectiveness).

9.) Look into the ENTIRE scope of financial and cultural commitment Soviets invested into sciences, and find out for your self what exactly is their share of fundamental breakthroughs. Nuclear pulse reactors, supercolliders of the 70s (which Clinton supposedly shut down in the 90s here btw ), 3 dimensional optical multiprocessors and so forth.

10.) It's true, not all black projects are showcased in our media, but they sure try their best to assure all of us that US is the modern Rome which resides on the absolute pinnacle of modern science, which is so far from the truth it's disturbing and depressing. We literally farm everything out, and what we actually do domestically, for the most part is done by foreign brains, and they simply go back to their home countries after they got what they needed.

Just look how many Russians/Germans/Indians/Koreans/Chinese etc. are working for the TOP R&D companies. Boeing, Ratheon, P&W, Microsoft, all kinds of pharmaceutical research, and simply every other branch regardless of how specialized it is. The bulk of cutting edge research in universities is done by guys on student visas, and we don't get to know about it because its their bosses who take all the credit for it.

This I know personally, so I guarantee you, not a single argument can be made here because I KNOW how it is. The clear and present danger here is that we are RAPIDLY loosing our intellectual capacity, and for the last decade all the trends show it crystal clear. When looking at combined statistics of any given project development trend, increasingly we fail time and time again to deliver WORKING solutions, and doesn't matter how much of tax payers money will be thrown at the problem, it only provide better ski-lodge accommodations for the project managers at charge.

Incompetence, indifference, corruption, misappropriation of funds and out right sabotage is what causing this situation, and not the lack of good old American talent and drive for innovation.

The sooner we face it, the sooner we'll realize that we are not in fact invincible, and that other nations are working hard to tip the arms race balance and drive their own geo-political agendas.

Lebanon/Iran/Syria are just some such examples. All this loud talk that we are the only superpower and can wipe out butts with them any time we want, but the reality is that we're overextended, our troops are even suffering from AMMO shortages. In case of Lebanon, Hezbollah was able to successfully defeat Israeli armor advances with the use of what proved to be EXTREMELY effective Russian ATGMs, and on top of that they managed to hit and take out of service two of the most modern IDF ships.

Iran is so well armed, that all this talk of war is just a bunch of hot air, because US simply can not afford to loose even a single ship, much less to risk 45 hundred souls of a carrier.

As citizens we fail by allowing our leaders to drag us into their private business ventures which end up taking the lives of out men, and by historically allowing our military industrial complex to DEFRAUD our entire nation ever since the 60s, which again puts the lives of our serviceman on the line because they end up being armed with weapons that are NOT FIT for warfare.

I'm not trying to portray Russia as some "superman nation", It's just that when it comes to warfare, the weapons they make simply WORK, and for them warfare is not a BUSINESS, it's a matter of life and death, and as soon as one cares to scratch the surface of our system, they will quickly find out that the entire culture is based on the concept of "free money", which for the hard working Americans is blood and sweat tax dollar payed out from every paycheck.

That is precisely why I get perturbed when time and time again these crooks dupe our people by preaching patriotism and dazzling us with some new and fantastic super high-tech wonder weapon, when in reality it's just another ploy to fleece our tax dollars, and is simply a bag oh hot air.

When a high ranking DOD official mingles with a major defense contractor and tells him that "It's not the stake it's the sizzle", it just makes me want to vomit, while most people line up on the sidewalk and waive red white and blue.

Do we have anything to show in terms of hypersonic cruise missile of hypersonic re-entry vehicle? Nope. What we can show is test data purchased from the Russians and test vehicles based on that very data. Do Russians have anything to show? Every damn arms trade show, and that's a fact.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
You have voted iskander for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

awsome post mate......i like what you posted ...and most of what you said is true



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
A laser could shoot it down



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Brilliantly said iskander.

The capitalist/corporate system doesn't mix very well with national security. A company has a responsibility to make a product with as little cost as possible, and then sell it for as much as possible. Add to this a strict timeframe meaning they have to do it in as little time as possible also and, well the result is obvious.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Russian weapons work? The nations equipped with russian weapons tended to loose their wars. You may say that in all those conflicts the countries using american equipment had better trained soldiers and such excuses,but you cannot state that russian weapons work, if it is not based on empirical evidence. I certainly don't think that russian weapons are crap, and US is superior in all aspects. I just think that since communism Russians have much bigger tradition than US to overrate their weapon systems, especially those "secret" ones that are not in service. Especially famous "plasma stealth" claims. Just beacuse they say something doesn't mean it's true.

The USSR scientists were very good indeed, and US scientific education has huge problems, I agree, but look at it from other side - those scientists working in US private companies EMIGRATED from USSR after Cold War and most of them are NO LONGER available for Russians, thats clear loss for them and US gain. That's together with lack of money is the reason why I think Russia is slowly loosing it's competitivnes even in this area. All their current weapon systems are upgraded Cold War designs and they have huge problems to come with something really new. You said russian economy is improving, but that doesn't mean it is powerfull. Certainly it is more stable than during Yeltsin, but I was in Russia and aside from Moscow it still looks like some 3rd world country. Situation is stabilized and Russia's pride was restored but this "stable" level is quite low.

And if you really think Hezbollah "won" because of ATGMs, well OK. It is easy to fire at tank if you're hiding behind civilians and you knows that enemy is not very keed to risk their lives in roder to get you.

Mr_albest the problems of capitalist/corporate system were very actual during communism in USSR era too. They too had problems with costs, resources, timeframe etc. Add to this much bigger problems wit beaurocracy and inflexibilty of planing system. And the results were in many cases obviuous too, just look at their submarines safety record for example.

But stop talking about it, this thread was about the threat of stealthy hypersonic missiles. I still think stealth is incompactible with high speed until some fundamental technologic breakthrough. Iskander there is no need to detect fast flying missile at 3000 km - it is over the horizon anyway, but I think it is extremely easy to detect it 400 km away and that's more than enough. And because it needs to fly high to have longer range it would be easy prey. SA missiles will be ALWAYS faster and more manuvrable, it is stupid to try to compete with the in speed. It only makes sense with antiship missiles. Also please note how big it is, I mean 12 meters long? That's not missile that's already small aircraft. I wonder how many of them could be really carried by bomber. That said I'd always prefer subsonic stealthy low cruisng missile like AGM 129. It has better chance to "come through", and what's more important you can carry 10 of them instead of one hypersonic missile - all with same range and payload. I certainly think 10 AGM 129 have better chance to destroy the target than 1 X-90.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
quote]I certainly don't think that russian weapons are crap, and US is superior in all aspects. I just think that since communism Russians have much bigger tradition than US to overrate their weapon systems, especially those "secret" ones that are not in service. Especially famous "plasma stealth" claims. Just beacuse they say something doesn't mean it's true.

I fail to see what you are basing you opinion on here. How do Russians exactly "overrate their weapon systems"? Please provide factual examples. While Cold War annalists were forced to repeatedly speculate on capabilities of Sov weapons, since the break up and enormous Russian arms trade sector, Russians openly provide actual test data to their potential costumers. All kinds of claims claims has been proved by repeated and open tests. It's just a fact and I would like to know where you get your information from.



The USSR scientists were very good indeed, and US scientific education has huge problems, I agree, but look at it from other side - those scientists working in US private companies EMIGRATED from USSR after Cold War and most of them are NO LONGER available for Russians, thats clear loss for them and US gain. That's together with lack of money is the reason why I think Russia is slowly loosing it's competitivnes even in this area.


longbow you seem to be stuck in the 90s, and we're in the 21st century now. It is true that young Sov scientist flocked to US in the early 90s, and back then it was a situation of so called Russian "brain leak", but for the past decade the situation is exactly the opposite. Not only Russian, but Indian, Chinese etc. scientists are in fact going back to their countries. For some time now media has been ringing the bells of alarm and stressing the point that now US is suffering the so called "brain leak".

It's in the news, look it up. Also the fact that less Americans are graduating and that we're already suffering from a shortage of qualified professionals. It's just a fact.

The lack of money is a myth. Russians are sitting on a sky high pile of oil, natural gas and arms export money. As I said before, over 54% of their budget for 2007 is classified and CIA 2006 fact book does not even post what their military budget is, because we just don't know.

Russian is not only "loosing it's competitiveness", but on the contrary they are increasing the gap. Europe runs on Russian propane, Russian arms trade export already surpassed that of US, and given the extraordinary levels of Russian cooperation with Europe, they build standardized systems which are easily integrated.

Basically they have been raking in the money for over a decade, and who knows what they've been spending it on. I'm sure you know that most of the propane/petroleum is consumed by the industrial sector and not by consumers, and as long as the price per barrel doesn't drop below $60, they will only be in the plus, and we all know that oil price will only go up.

Russians bought out Airbus by the way, which I'm sure you know is the only competitor to Boeing. They already paid out their post Soviet dept, and have been paying out their Soviet era dept left and right.

How people still figure that Russians have no money I have no idea, because all they have to do is just look for them selves instead of choking on propaganda.


All their current weapon systems are upgraded Cold War designs and they have huge problems to come with something really new. You said russian economy is improving, but that doesn't mean it is powerfull. Certainly it is more stable than during Yeltsin, but I was in Russia and aside from Moscow it still looks like some 3rd world country. Situation is stabilized and Russia's pride was restored but this "stable" level is quite low.


Get out of the old in get into reality longbow. This is what I recommend, seriously, start with going to CIA.gov and take a good long look into their 2006 fact book, then we can continue.



you really think Hezbollah "won" because of ATGMs, well OK. It is easy to fire at tank if you're hiding behind civilians and you knows that enemy is not very keed to risk their lives in roder to get you.


Hezbollah did win. IDFs goal was to destroy their infrastructure, and they failed. Hezbollah remained active to the very last day of the conflict, and by default that is their victory. The hiding behind civilians talk is again propaganda, and if you find any factual documented occurrences of that happening let me know.

The fact is that Hezbollah took out of action enough Israeli armor to halt their push into Lebanon, which prevented IDF to run ground operations. Special forces were being inserted in various areas by helos, but with out support they had minimal effect.

In this particular case, an armed MILITIA was able to fend of the strongest regional power in the area, deny it the use of armor and ground forces through the use of Russian built RPG-29s and ATGMs.

This goes to prove that your earlier statement that Russians some how "overate" the capabilities of their weapons is misguided at best.

Russian RPGs and ATGMs performed as advertised, and were able to repeatedly defeat what is considered by some as the best armored tank in the world, the Merkava.


Mr_albest the problems of capitalist/corporate system were very actual during communism in USSR era too. They too had problems with costs, resources, timeframe etc. Add to this much bigger problems wit beaurocracy and inflexibilty of planing system. And the results were in many cases obviuous too, just look at their submarines safety record for example.


longbow if your interested I can bring to\you up to speed on the topic of Soviet military complex, but in another thread. Just to throw in some starters, their system always had a very peculiar duality. While end product was (and is) always the appitamy or reliability, functionality and simplicity, the system behind it was exuberant in comparison to the west. Western annalists have always said the same thing; "How do they justify (and afford) all those calibers and custom systems!?".

So on one end we see a very robust, reliable, cheap and effective approach based on numerical superiority, while on the other a gigantic system comprised of high tech, specialized custom design solutions.

Just looking at their conventional arsenal, they got a weapon for every occasion, and probably something for the officers to fend of their moms in law.

Submarine safety records are a mirror image of how hard they've been pushing the envelope. I'm not going to bring it up, I'll just say that to this day Russian subs enjoy a level of automation which allows them to cut the crew number in half in comparison to US designs.

They have green houses, gyms, rec rooms and pools on their subs. When US sailors took a look at Typhoon class, they said it's like a luxury cruise ship, and not at all what they've expected, especially when it comes to the much lesser work load of Russian sailors.


But stop talking about it, this thread was about the threat of stealthy hypersonic missiles. I still think stealth is incompactible with high speed until some fundamental technologic breakthrough.


Good deal. So you think F-22 on super-cruise is incompatible with stealth? In your opinion the most expensive flying supercomputer in the world is just one big mistake on the part of USAF?


Iskander there is no need to detect fast flying missile at 3000 km - it is over the horizon anyway, but I think it is extremely easy to detect it 400 km away and that's more than enough.


Why do you think it's "extremely easy to detect it 400 km away", got some numbers we all can take a look at? The RCS of a modern subsonic cruise missile is in the hundreds of a m2. A shallow dive directly at the radar emitter is what creates the blind spot in the first place, and given hypersonic speed with low RCS, it's pretty much it.


And because it needs to fly high to have longer range it would be easy prey.


So which missile in US arsenal can intercept a hypersonic target? Just curios, because I for one don't know of any, that works anyway.


SA missiles will be ALWAYS faster and more manuvrable, it is stupid to try to compete with the in speed. It only makes sense with antiship missiles.


Man, longbow, I hate keep saying this, but please be sensible and look things up first. This forum presents an opportunity for us all to learn from each other, but it doesn't hurt to do some homework, especially considering that this is not a chat and you have all the time in the world to do so.

SAMs top out at +/- Mach 7, and that's only for a short period of time because they just burn out. Sustained hypersonic speeds present an entirely new set of challenges for SAMs.

When the target is traveling just as fast as the intercepting missile, the margin of error becomes increasingly small because there is simply no room left for corrective maneuvers, and that's while putting aside the enormously difficult task of tracking the target do to incredibly short reaction time.

Do some math, figure it out for your self. Start with Naval defenses, and you'll quickly find out that already today, supersonic anti-ship missiles simply overwhelm the defenses because they take away the reaction time.


Also please note how big it is, I mean 12 meters long? That's not missile that's already small aircraft.


longbow, again, Google Redut, Bazalt, Granit, etc. Main Soviet/Russian anti-ship missiles ARE supersonic, automated kamikaze type craft, and that is precisely why it only takes ONE to take down a carrier. It's almost like Russians picked up right after Japanese. Granit weighs in at SEVEN tons, it's powered by a ramjet which pushes it to Mach 2.5 (!) and gives it 500km range.

Before you said that you were not aware of any ramjets which have range over 300km, so live and learn ha? Granits' US designation is "shipwreck", which is pretty damn accurate I would say.

By the way talking about Russian sub safety record, just before Kursk went down in 2000 it was conducting live fire tests of Granit, and 22 missiles which were still aboard were salvaged in 2001.


I wonder how many of them could be really carried by bomber. That said I'd always prefer subsonic stealthy low cruisng missile like AGM 129. It has better chance to "come through", and what's more important you can carry 10 of them instead of one hypersonic missile - all with same range and payload. I certainly think 10 AGM 129 have better chance to destroy the target than 1 X-90.


Tu-95 carried two X-90, each having two warheads, for the total of four warheads per load.

Stealth AGM-129s are very effective, no doubt there, and that's precisely why Russians fielded their own stealth Х-101 in 1995 (5000km range/5 meter accuracy), 12 of which are carried at a time by Tu-160.

At the same time, Sov/Russian SAM systems are much more effective against stealth cruise missiles by default, simply because we don't even HAVE a SAM system whit similar capabilities. Don't say Patriot, please, because I'll just direct you to other threads where it all has been discussed already.

So what is better, having BOTH stealth (low RCS) subsonic cruise missiles AND low RCS hypersonic missiles, along with already existing SAM systems which are capable of intercepting such weapons (S-400/500), or having only stealth cruise missiles with out having your own SAMs which can intercept them, that's the question here.

Direct energy weapons are decades away from being able to intercept fast and highly maneuverable targets. What we have now only works against slow and non maneuvering targets, and works by setting of fuses or liquid fuels. They don't cut holes in metal.

Boeing chem laser literally has to heat up the liquid fuel of a SCUD to the point of combustion, which naturally takes a long time and the SCUD has to be in the "sweet spot" to begin with. SCUDs don't maneuver and fly on a predictable path, thus allowing enough time for the laser to heat up the fuel, but it the target is able to maneuver, all bets are off and back to the drawing board.

It's like lighting a leaf with a magnifying glass from a Swiss army knife, and if that's not hard enough, try it on a running ant.

Solid state lasers that intercept mortar shells heat up the fuse until it blows. It only takes a temp resistant fuse and the party is over.

Both in Iraq and Afghanistan lasers are regularly (and very successfully) used to clear mines, but it takes minimum of seven minutes to heat one up for it to go off, and the mine has to be exposed in the first place.

Shooting down a hypersonic craft with a laser is still in the realm of science fiction. Hypersonic vehicles are built from exotic materials to withstand extreme temperatures (titanium, ceramic composites, etc), and in flight they create a layer of superheated gasses which act as a natural insulation against laser beams.

Hypersonic anti-ship/cruise missiles? Big problem. Kinetic hit-to-kill approach? Yet to be proved in any sort of fashion even against non maneuvering warheads. Variable atmospheric conditions, ECM and maneuverable target make it highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Solutions? Well, we haven't even raised the questions yet, so we're far from getting to that point, not to mention the long time threat (2-3 decades) of Mach 2.5 vehicles for which we still don't have a countermeasure.

So what's the deal as of now? We're 8 trillion in dept, which the children of our children will still be paying of, our hand is out to anybody who's willing to loan us money, that includes not only China but MEXICO as well, we're stuck in a quagmire both in Iraq and Afghanistan and we can't even supply our troop with enough ammunition while PMCs are rolling in luxury, all while we still don't have tested and proved defenses against Soviet era weapons.

We can indulge in ignorance and denial all we want, but to this day not a single test against a low altitude Mach 2.5 target was carried out because we don't even have drones that go that fast.

We officially had to buy Kh-31s from Russia for "testing" purposes, and if they were indeed conducted, the results were naturally not disclosed.

That's how it is any way you spin it, and until we can openly display our ability to counter existing threats, we can't even begin to approach hypersonic generation of weapons which exist since the late 80s.

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Different weapons for different strategies.

The Russian Navy develops and employs cruise missiles because, lacking CATOBAR carrier capabilities, that's their only long range strike option. And I will agree Russia's cruise missile options are quite impressive.

The problem is targeting. Firing a missile 1000 - 2000 miles isn't terribly difficult, once you've got the cash, GPS, and miniturized turbojets/ramjets... it comes down to larger fuel tanks. But a ship on the ocean can't see much beyond the curve of the earth, so you either attack nearby targets or fire million dollar missiles with no idea what (or if) they're going to hit.

This is the huge advantage of a carrier airwing based Navy: you can fly a radar to high altitude (much broader horizon/detection range) and fly it 300 - 400 miles forward of your surface combatants to look around for targets. And you can cover such distances much *much* faster than surface ships can. From what I've read, the USN's strategy focuses on HARMs to disable enemy radar followed by LGBs and JDAMs to break the hull.


I believe the success of either strategy depends entirely on the circumstances of the attack. Should a Russian sub or surface vessel get close enough to target a USN ship, the fight will probably go to Russia. If the USN's CAP holds, they'll harrass and destroy the Russian fleet via. airpower long before anyone gets close enough to figure out which direction to send the cruise missiles in.

On that note, a fun article on hiding a carrier battle group: www.navweaps.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Good points RedMat.


The Russian Navy develops and employs cruise missiles because, lacking CATOBAR carrier capabilities, that's their only long range strike option. And I will agree Russia's cruise missile options are quite impressive.


Kuznetsov STOBAR ramp is not at all a problem for high thrust-to-weight MiGs and SUs. US pilots that took a ride unanimously commented that SU launches do not have the "dead air" effect of the F-14/18 CATOBAR launch, and the alt climb is much faster just from the engine thrust even with full load.


The problem is targeting. Firing a missile 1000 - 2000 miles isn't terribly difficult, once you've got the cash, GPS, and miniturized turbojets/ramjets... it comes down to larger fuel tanks. But a ship on the ocean can't see much beyond the curve of the earth, so you either attack nearby targets or fire million dollar missiles with no idea what (or if) they're going to hit.


All of that has been thought out long time ago.


Capable of striking targets 500km away, Granit was developed as part of a wider reconnaissance and strike system that assimilated and integrated intelligence and targeting data from various sources.


www.janes.com...

Meaning that targeting is accomplished by gathering data from independent sources, which naturally further increases accuracy and greatly improves ECM resistance.


This is the huge advantage of a carrier air wing based Navy: you can fly a radar to high altitude (much broader horizon/detection range) and fly it 300 - 400 miles forward of your surface combatants to look around for targets. And you can cover such distances much *much* faster than surface ships can. From what I've read, the USN's strategy focuses on HARMs to disable enemy radar followed by LGBs and JDAMs to break the hull.


That is true, but Soviet/Russian carrier group is never deployed with out a dedicated A-50 mainstay cover. Then there is a serious threat from the Slava/Kirov class flagships. Slavas 300km radar reach, with a highly customized derivative of S-300PMU, the SA-N-6 Grumble (Russian designation S-300PMU Rif/Fort), with max range of up to 200km, pose a serious threat to all air power. Not only the system is tuned for dedicated intercept of agile sea skimmers of all kinds and anti-radiation missiles (AGM-88 as well), but can also provide cover for air wings by intercepting AIM-54s launched by Tomcats.

That's a significant force multiplier because it greatly increases the effectiveness of the air wing (standard compliment is 24 SU-30s, or a maximum of 36).

Since F-14 has been officially retired and will not have a replacement, it only further increases Slava/Kirov/Kuznetsov group defensive capabilities by significantly reducing the work load.

Chinese are already manufacturing their own S-300PMU / SA-N-6 SA-10 GRUMBLE under license.

Further more, the new Pyotr Velikhy Kirov class already deployed the new SA-NX-20 Gargoyle (S-400 Triumf) with 400(!)km range of 48N6E2 missile.


I believe the success of either strategy depends entirely on the circumstances of the attack. Should a Russian sub or surface vessel get close enough to target a USN ship, the fight will probably go to Russia. If the USN's CAP holds, they'll harrass and destroy the Russian fleet via. airpower long before anyone gets close enough to figure out which direction to send the cruise missiles in.


US carrier group no longer has the reach of the Tomcat, F/A-18 just doesn't have the reach, and already deployed S-400 reaches out to 400km thus providing a very effective SAM cover to Kuznetsov air wings.

Further more, SU-30s carry semi-active R-27ER/EM missiles with 130 km max range, and active radar R-77s with 100km max range. Such combination gives BVR superiority over 50km reach of the AIM-120, all while under SAM cover.

The tracking of semi-active R-27ERs can be handed of in a "chain saw" pattern so SUs don't have to enter AIM-120s engagement range, R-27EMs are specifically optimized for long-range low-level interception of small targets (missiles) over water, and R-77s for fire-and-forget area denial.

What complicates matter even further, are the new active radar R-27AE variants, and what's even worse, a dedicated anti-AWACS Passive Radar Homing (PRH) R-27PE.

To top that of, a new active dedicated AWACS killer is on the way, the Novator KS-172 AAM-L (R-172), a 400km range internal/active guided missile which is probably based on 9K37M1, which naturally brings an incredible reach to Russian land/naval area denial capabilities.

Since the break up of USSR and the ill fate of the Soviet nuclear super carrier, which Ukrainians looted and chopped for scrap after it was over 80% completed, naturally Russians took offense and under direct orders from Putin the new super carrier dry docks have been relocated to St. Petersberg.

Putin is determined to build a fleet of Russian nuclear power super carriers, and the first one is supposed to be completed in 2010. I have to seriously doubt that, but given that Russians never seem to fail pulling of the impossible when they absolutely have to, I'd sure like to know how bad the want a new carrier.

This again bring us to the same question to why would Russian invest so heavily in super carriers when they them selves know how vulnerable they are to the weapons they had since the 70s.

This is where it gets interesting, and this is something you won't find on the net or in your local library, so don't ask me for links.

As standard practice, when Russians are developing offensive weapon systems they're developing countermeasures at the same time, but do not deploy them until the arms race cause-and-effect cycle takes its place.

SAMs will inevitably be overwhelmed by a swarm of attacking missiles striking from multiple directions, and while Kashtan (Tunguzka) type gun/missile complex is effective against subsonic missiles which penetrated SAM/ECM cover, it simply can not be relied upon for defense against maneuverable supersonic ramjets.

Active radar seekers give away the approach even though reaction time is severely cut by the sheer speed of supersonic AShMs, passive seekers are not accurate enough for sea-skimming even with search pattern approach and command guidance, and it's the IR seeker of small AShM that poses the biggest threat.

Such AShMs are small, fast, and extremely hard to detect.

Everybody these days reduces IR emissions by mixing cool air with exhaust, ducting the exhaust into water, etc, and active countermeasures still play a vital role.

Traditional flare bursts, IR "dazzlers" etc, all have been tried, but again, they simply do not provide a level of protection needed against a coordinated swarm attack.

This is where thermobaric and fuel air warhead come into play. High speed medium range for thermobarics, and low speed short range for the much bigger fuel air explosion, and such implementation has dual use as well.

Do to large detonation and its resulting shock wave, the accuracy margins are naturally much looser, and if the detonation does not destroy the AShM, the shock waive will literally tumble it out of control, so fusing must be set to detonate ahead of the target.

Secondary effect. Huge fireballs from such detonations act as giant flares, and momentary blind the IR seeker even if its not in the line of direct fire.

Modern solid state IR seekers are very good in discriminating a flare from the targeted heat source, but a giant fireball simply blankets the entire field of seekers LOS.

Thermobaric/fuel air explosions also have an adverse effect on ramjets (Mach 2). Even if the explosion does not have a direct effect on the AShM, massive air pressure change and oxygen burn off forces the combustion chamber of the ramjet to starve and the engine simply stalls.

It's a similar effect to when Supersaber engines would stall when the gasses form the .50 cals were sucked into the compressor.

Now picture this. A fully articulated, twin quick load GRAD MLRS pack (entire set is switched out for a fresh one under the deck), loaded with thermobaric/fuel air warheads on programmable time delay fusing, firing a spread of 80 122mm rockets in 20 seconds out to 20km away, and literally putting up a multi-layered wall of fire between the AShM swarm and the carrier group.

What do we got? Other then aging medium range RIM-66, a Stinger on steroids (RAM) and Phalanx which so far only managed to hit friendly ships in its own group.

The future is now, and it's not all about flashy gadgets, mountains of silicon and flat screen touch panels.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Good deal. So you think F-22 on super-cruise is incompatible with stealth? In your opinion the most expensive flying supercomputer in the world is just one big mistake on the part of USAF?


F-22 flies much higher. Also temperatures start to be problem over mach 2. Just look at the difference between Blackbird and any fighter. Conposites and stealth materials are sensitive to speeds over mach 2 too, so you must use metals=big radar returm.



Not only Russian, but Indian, Chinese etc. scientists are in fact going back to their countries. For some time now media has been ringing the bells of alarm and stressing the point that now US is suffering the so called "brain leak"


I've heard about Korean, Chinese and Indian scientists. But not about Russian ones. Their salaries back home still suck big time.


The lack of money is a myth. Russians are sitting on a sky high pile of oil, natural gas and arms export money. As I said before, over 54% of their budget for 2007 is classified and CIA 2006 fact book does not even post what their military budget is, because we just don't know.


Really? So why they have still unupgraded Su-27 while selling Su-30 to other countries? Why they were capable to make just 2 Tu-160 in 10 years? Why cannot they replace their obsolete Delta class SSBNs? Why cannot they afford more than few Ka-50 Hokums? How many of their aircrafts have AESA radars? You are forgetting that they must maintain huge nuclear arsenal equal to US one and this task taks a lot of money from their budget.


Russian arms trade export already surpassed that of US


Again it's all just cold war technology. For example Su-30 is indeed equal to latest F-15 but now all western nations are fielding new designs. What have the Russians? F-22, Eurofighter, or Rafale are HERE, they are not some Pak-Fa which is still on paper. They are also selling a lot to the countries where US and EU doesn't want to export.


Russians bought out Airbus by the way, which I'm sure you know is the only


So now they have Airbus? I'd like to see some source for this claim.



Why do you think it's "extremely easy to detect it 400 km away", got some numbers we all can take a look at? The RCS of a modern subsonic cruise missile is in the hundreds of a m2. A shallow dive directly at the radar emitter is what creates the blind spot in the first place, and given hypersonic speed with low RCS, it's pretty much it.


Again huge IR signature. F-14 Tomcat could detect such temperatures with it's IR and it was freaking fighter. Now give AWACS those lightweight all around IR sensors - and your missile has problems. Again don't you think there is a reason why Russians cancelled this hypersonic concept and not the subsonic one? They simply realized what's more effective. And RCS of Tomahawk is not "hundreds of m2", wake up, that's the RCS of B-52.
I hope it was just typo. Tomahawk has RCS in 1-5m2 range. Also again - the size you can carry 12 subsonic stealthy missiles with the same range and payload instead of one X-90.

And in your praise about S-300 you forgot about jammming. And the simple fact that if missile or plane flies low, it's radar capability won't be much help - it will still see it 20-maybe 30 km away.

mod edit: Please read your u2u's at the top right of your screen, it'll be flashing red
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 2-10-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

F-22 flies much higher. Also temperatures start to be problem over mach 2. Just look at the difference between Blackbird and any fighter. Conposites and stealth materials are sensitive to speeds over mach 2 too, so you must use metals=big radar returm.


Much higher then what? 27,000m? (90,000ft). Not sure where you're going with this. SR-71 is not a fighter. Ceramic composites are specifically designed for high temp resistance (Space shuttle tiles for example). F22 is made out of METAL by the way, and it's the way you shape the metal that creates low RCS returns.

Here's a question for you, why does radio comm goes out when shuttle/capsule re-enters the atmosphere? Why is it more difficult to radar track such re-entry targets?


I've heard about Korean, Chinese and Indian scientists. But not about Russian ones. Their salaries back home still suck big time.


Good God are you wrong. Much better pay, lower cost and higher standard of living, is precisely why Russia professionals are going back. In high-tech sector, Russia pay rates are double what is payed in US.

Hell, I was already supposed to be working in Russia, but I still have loose ends to tie up, and hoping get everything done by the end of the month.


Really? So why they have still unupgraded Su-27 while selling Su-30 to other countries? Why they were capable to make just 2 Tu-160 in 10 years? Why cannot they replace their obsolete Delta class SSBNs? Why cannot they afford more than few Ka-50 Hokums? How many of their aircrafts have AESA radars? You are forgetting that they must maintain huge nuclear arsenal equal to US one and this task taks a lot of money from their budget.


longbow, why don't you make an effort and look into it for your self. The effort which you will invest in such research, will pay of as appreciation for the time you've spent.

I've done that some time ago.


Again it's all just cold war technology. For example Su-30 is indeed equal to latest F-15 but now all western nations are fielding new designs. What have the Russians? F-22, Eurofighter, or Rafale are HERE, they are not some Pak-Fa which is still on paper. They are also selling a lot to the countries where US and EU doesn't want to export.


longbow, reach out, explore, learn, that's the fruit of life, grab it, so google away and find out what's out there on the topic of Russian 5th gen.


So now they have Airbus? I'd like to see some source for this claim.


They don't "have" Airbus, but they are buying their way into its parent company (EADS) in order to gain control.

Some quick google work, and I would really appreciate if you can do it for your self in the future;

www.iht.com...

www.iht.com...

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...



Again huge IR signature. F-14 Tomcat could detect such temperatures with it's IR and it was freaking fighter. Now give AWACS those lightweight all around IR sensors - and your missile has problems.


Nope. IRSTs have tracking speed limitations. Not my missile btw, and it's a manner in which a very young person would put it.


Again don't you think there is a reason why Russians cancelled this hypersonic concept and not the subsonic one? They simply realized what's more effective.


Nope, you're just assuming, while I've already explained the elements involved here. Budget, bills, checks and balances, stuff like that.


And RCS of Tomahawk is not "hundreds of m2", wake up, that's the RCS of B-52. I hope it was just typo. Tomahawk has RCS in 1-5m2 range. Also again - the size you can carry 12 subsonic stealthy missiles with the same range and payload instead of one X-90.


Fractions bud. Kind of like this, 1/100 of m2. And it was not about the Tomahawk, but the X-101. Read again, two X-90s at a time and each carrying twin warheads. Speed is life, four hypersonic warheads a pop, end of story.


And in your praise about S-300 you forgot about jammming. And the simple fact that if missile or plane flies low, it's radar capability won't be much help - it will still see it 20-maybe 30 km away.


Wrong. Again, you're just assuming while there's an entire world of fact out there, and it's right under your own fingertips. Press them buttons and fish the net for how things really are.

This I just copied from my other post; "1R13, 55Zh6, 76N6/FA-51MU - 40V6MD/40V6M, 64N6E, 30N6E, FA52MU/F52MU, when up to speed, then come back and feel free to "revise" your statement."

Have fun.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I wouldn't say we know a lot about the US projects. In fact, we know very little considering the billions of dollars that are unaccountable. The best secrets are the ones that we don't know about. Considering the fact that lots of retire military personell claims that the States works on black projects and spacecrafts. You can't really compare what u don't know.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

I wouldn't say we know a lot about the US projects. In fact, we know very little considering the billions of dollars that are unaccountable.


It's true. We were warned about our industrial military complex by our own president. Let me put it this way, a black project budget is like if you work for a bank, you are handed a key to the vault, and nobody will EVER ask you about it, or look in your bag when you're on the way out.

Pretty tempting, wouldn't you say? Billions, trillions of dollars, all there for the taking.

By the end of Bushes first term, Pentagon did not account for 1.2 trillion dollars, two weeks after premature resignation of the chief accountant. Money just went missing, you know, apparently in the days of modern banking, 1.2 TRILLION dollars can just disappear like loose change into the couch.


The best secrets are the ones that we don't know about. Considering the fact that lots of retire military personell claims that the States works on black projects and spacecrafts. You can't really compare what u don't know.


I'm not comparing anything, I'm just presenting the facts on Russian hypersonic aircraft, two of which have been flying to some time now, and one in the form of a militarized cruise missile with dual warheads.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
I wouldn't say we know a lot about the US projects. In fact, we know very little considering the billions of dollars that are unaccountable. The best secrets are the ones that we don't know about. Considering the fact that lots of retire military personell claims that the States works on black projects and spacecrafts. You can't really compare what u don't know.


Exactly.

The F-117 was completely unknown, and speculated to be a spacecraft interceptor before being revealed as a bomber with no air defense capability beyond stealth.

With the military budget as high as it is, I have to say I will be downright disappointed if the US doesn't have a major black aircraft project.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

The F-117 was completely unknown, and speculated to be a spacecraft interceptor before being revealed as a bomber with no air defense capability beyond stealth.


Actually not really. Years before the official unveiling of the F-117, tourists were regularly taking detailed day light snap shots (even with disposable cameras) at Tonopah base.

Such pictures were openly published in various magazines.


With the military budget as high as it is, I have to say I will be downright disappointed if the US doesn't have a major black aircraft project.


That I agree with absolutely. Russian answer to Aurora, the “Ajax”, is still being funded, three modifications are to be delivered by 2013.

Unmanned Igla by the way, is a dramatically scaled down version of the "Ajax" concept, and it flies just as advertised. On the other hand, with all that black project budgeting, we are yet to see even a official model of the Aurora.

Hypersonic aircraft are useless for recon, because do to such high speeds, the craft is surrounded by highly ionized air which naturally interferes with optical/electronic recon gear.

Cold plasma on the other hand not only reduces air friction, but also absorbs radar emissions. Since at Mach-5 the leading edges of hypersonic craft literally glow red from reaching temps of up to 930 degrees, Cold Plasma Cavity Active Stealth approach is the ticket to reducing air resistance and RCS all at the same time.

Exotic composite metals are also catching up with modern requirements. Various metallic glass and liquid metal composites are making substantial breakthroughs.

It's also interesting that both the first new Russian nuclear powered super carrier, and the Ajax are slated for 2013. Coincidence? Don't think so.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Russian weapons work? The nations equipped with russian weapons tended to loose their wars. You may say that in all those conflicts the countries using american equipment had better trained soldiers and such excuses,but you cannot state that russian weapons work, if it is not based on empirical evidence. I certainly don't think that russian weapons are crap, and US is superior in all aspects. I just think that since communism Russians have much bigger tradition than US to overrate their weapon systems, especially those "secret" ones that are not in service. Especially famous "plasma stealth" claims. Just beacuse they say something doesn't mean it's true.


1)Russian weapons work
2)Wars have been won with Russian weapons when employed efficiently
3)Russians overrate their weapons while marketing, maybe...
4) The area of concern is the servicability of Russian weapons and maintenance concerns like MTTF, MTBF etc..
I don't know how good this in Russia, but its not that good elsewhere. Having said that, I woudl like to add that this is only for soviet era equipment and the newer stuff is much more reliable; comparable to western standards.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join