It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the one thing we can count on is by the time anything russian is ready for production, the electronics are out of date.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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 arms trade export already surpassed that of US
Russians bought out Airbus by the way, which I'm sure you know is the only
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.
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.
I've heard about Korean, Chinese and Indian scientists. But not about Russian ones. Their salaries back home still suck big time.
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.
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.
So now they have Airbus? I'd like to see some source for this claim.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.