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.

 

Tupolev Tu-160 pair make first transatlantic flight

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Some ASM's (Soviet) can and do achieve Mach 2 on the deck. They have the aerodynamics and propulsion to do so.


You put forth a good point, but the fact is that a Su-33 Sea Flanker is a little bit aerodynamically different than, say, a missile. They've also got more mass, so it's a little bit harder to push the entire jet to Mach 2 on deck that it would be for a missile to do so.




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Yeah, I dont deny there are fast anti ship missiles. I believe the USN even bought some of those in the 90s from Russia for testing.

But the whole premise some of sea skimming Su-33 flying at Mach 2.2, sneaking up on a carrier battle group, is utter bullocks.

Also, I would not be surprised if some Russian weapons were used on the USS America. From time to time, USAF and USN have gotten ahold, by various means, of Soviet/Russian weapons and used them in testing projects.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Yeah, I dont deny there are fast anti ship missiles. I believe the USN even bought some of those in the 90s from Russia for testing.

But the whole premise some of sea skimming Su-33 flying at Mach 2.2, sneaking up on a carrier battle group, is utter bullocks.

Also, I would not be surprised if some Russian weapons were used on the USS America. From time to time, USAF and USN have gotten ahold, by various means, of Soviet/Russian weapons and used them in testing projects.




What does that mean, that they know everything? cus it doesn't, what they mostly got a hold off is export versions that were'nt as good as the domestic ones, btw can you post a link to exactly which anti-ship missiles your talking about the USN got hold of.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Sorry I got cut off before I could finish the post:

I do agree that the notion of an SU-33 etc, going 2 times the speed of sound a low altitude is nonsence period.

THe aerodynamics alone do not allow this airframe to overcome the friction of the air. The top end for aircraft is always achieved at high altitude and in a clean configuration for less drag. The record breaking F-15 "Streak Eagles" even went without paint for weight savings.

Also most aircraft's top speed is in a full afterburner dash anyway and they are unable to sustain that speed for extended periods secondary to fuel consumption. Airframes that could were in effect huge flying fuel tanks like the XB-70 or the SR-71 / A-12

So unless the CBG is sitting 20-30 miles off the cost of Iran its unlikely its going to get that close.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantawanta
, btw can you post a link to exactly which anti-ship missiles your talking about the USN got hold of.


There are quite a few if you search

Navy to get Russian 'Sunburn'



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantawanta
btw can you post a link to exactly which anti-ship missiles your talking about the USN got hold of.


Hmm...


What makes them out of range a Su-33 can fly at mack 2 at about 10 ft. from the suface of the water


You first.

It's speculation to say that the USN might have procured Russian weapons to test. And not entirely surprising given the sheer amount of nations who use them. Of course, they'd never admit to exactly how many they have (In the event that the number is greater than zero) , or the effects thereof unless the results are enormously in favour of the USN. Given the lack of people who have posted such massive victories versus Russian weapons, it is thus unlikely that you will find any links to documents proving his statement, hence why we call it "speculation".

The reason that you won't find much evidence proving the capability of Su-33's to surpass Mach 2 at 10 feet ASL is a little bit different, depending less on Public Relations and more with Physics.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The USN is taking the data and other information that they got from the Kh-31s they bought, and making the MSST. First flight is expected in about 18-20 months.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   


It's speculation to say that the USN might have procured Russian weapons to test. And not entirely surprising given the sheer amount of nations who use them. Of course, they'd never admit to exactly how many they have (In the event that the number is greater than zero) , or the effects thereof unless the results are enormously in favour of the USN. Given the lack of people who have posted such massive victories versus Russian weapons, it is thus unlikely that you will find any links to documents proving his statement, hence why we call it "speculation".


Actually, not its not at all speculation. The USN fired four of those KH-31s in 97, it was all public knowledge.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

The Russians were hoping the USN would buy a lot more of them.


[edit on 29-9-2008 by firepilot]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join