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.

 

Russia unveils scary new air to air missile that "can't miss"

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If the missile performs as claimed then its a game changer. One that would demoralize our pilots were they to meet this in battle knowing they had little chance of anything but a one way trip.

As wrabbit mentioned about larger numbers of combat aircraft being put on wayside by fewer sophisticated aircraft as a problem, I'm not at all sure losing huge numbers of aircraft and pilots to get a few through is much better. Kind of would remind me of Japanese efforts off Okinawa in WWII where thousands were expended to let hundreds through.

In a near term sense I'd wager this enhances the use of drones in warfare which in my view opens another Pandora's box of issues. Drones could concievably flood defenses to point of degradation and could be made where cost of production is not so far off cost of the missile production.

Pulse energy weapons, microwave beam and directed EMP counters come to mind but are not here in a practical form that can be carried on an agile aircraft.

I do think some form of less costly combat aircraft should be inventoried for lower threat environments while reserving the most sophisticated for the high threat environment. A balance between numbers and technology.

Again I use WWII history as an example where less able or even obsolete aircraft performed admirably and effectively in theatres of battle where the latest and greatest enemy aircraft were not present in numbers.

In a way an able opponent would not have as much chance to observe the use or tactics of the more sophisticated aircraft by observing use in other areas over time either as they'd be reserved for limited use.




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by GuidedKill
 


Yeah, this is definitely a game changer. Especially with it both coming out in time for the T-50 to use, and probably being sold to China.


They may not sell it to China.

The Chinese habit of ordering a few, copying it and selling knock offs has not endeared them to the Russians. They may keep this for themselves.

Its a pity Meteor integration was removed from the F-35. It looks like its going to need it.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



I read that on one of those shop talk military blogs/info/news sites back about 8 years ago. Who knows with these optics you are talking about maybe this new heat seeking tech is obsolete. This thing was said to be able to distinguish heat temps and had preprogramed settings that kept the missile on the track to know jet fighter thrust temp range. I guess the old method was to baffle the missile with very high temp flairs.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
You mean skunk works and other cutting edge R&D bases can make the world's best planes by far, but can't design a missile on par with the latest Russian system? Where is the logic?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Yeah, the only real way to decoy an IR missile anymore is a laser jammer, that burns out the optics.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Lockheed is an aviation company, they don't develop weapons systems like missiles. Raytheon and other companies like them do that.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Phoenix


Again I use WWII history as an example where less able or even obsolete aircraft performed admirably and effectively in theatres of battle where the latest and greatest enemy aircraft were not present in numbers.



The "Stringbag" state of the art wood framed biplane/torpedo bomber that took out the Bismarck's rudder. Ships radar couldn't read the things to give accurate range for ships AA plus they moved to slow.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
claims are easy to make - results are what count



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Raytheon then. How can their Russian counterparts be so far ahead? I'm surprised at the level of science and funding at their disposal to create this.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


With an AESA radar though, the claims are going to be pretty close to the reality. AESA is a game changer in all aspects.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I don't think the AESA is going to be a "game changer" at all. New counter measures will just be established. And anything digital can be fried.

But you can't fry a cannon round. Once fired, that's were it goes.

We might just see the return of old fashioned dog fights.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The problem with AESA is you can't tell where it is, so how do you fry it? AESA is a dispersed beam, unlike older mechanical radars, which just used the brute force approach. That's why it's so hard to jam an AESA system. You have to know where to look before you can start jamming it.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
sounds like a simple russian plan...why spend billions making expensive planes when you spend a few million designing a missile that can probably be mounted on a cheap plane by the score and then get in range..launch and leave possibly causing all sorts of havoc as you have pilots all over the place doing their dam best trying to dodge this missile instead of what they should be doing possibly allowing them time to do all sorts of mischief



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The problem with AESA is you can't tell where it is, so how do you fry it? AESA is a dispersed beam, unlike older mechanical radars, which just used the brute force approach. That's why it's so hard to jam an AESA system. You have to know where to look before you can start jamming it.


Again, countermeasures. A plane can be stealthy, but I haven't seen anything in regards to stealthy AA missiles. Missles take up space that can be detected. Once detected, fry the electronics with a EMP pulse or a laser.

We do have the tech for that.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Why is Russia having a weapon that seems purely defensive in nature scary?

Why do Americans think only America should have advanced weaponry?

America had its chance to be the worlds police, like all people or organisations that get too much power they have abused it and the world no longer has any faith in you. Expect many other countries to be upgrading their systems and catching up to you guys based on the fear they have of your rogue military



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Where did I say that Russia having this missile is scary? I said the MISSILE is scary, so don't even try putting words in my mouth.

Russia and China both have advanced weapons systems, all countries do. And I'm sure their pilots are just as scared of US systems, as US pilots are of their systems.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


You don't detect the missile, it's too small. You detect the radar coming from the missile. That's why IR missiles are so deadly, there's nothing to detect once it's fired.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

IkNOwSTuff
Expect many other countries to be upgrading their systems and catching up to you guys based on the fear they have of your rogue military


To me, this is normal. Maybe we have to fear other countries rogue militaries.

Alliances are fleeting after all.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


That's how the game is played. Someone unveils something that makes the white world sit up and go "Oh crap!", so they start scrambling to find a counter to it. They find a counter to it, that makes the original weapon designers go "Damnit!" so they start a counter to the counter.

I guarantee you that right now the EW guys are crapping themselves over this, and will spend billions over the next 7 years trying to develop a counter to it.
edit on 12/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


We have quite a bit to counter just recently, it seems. Russia has been busy.

This covers a big piece of Air-Air. They also have a super-cavitating torpedo that is fast enough to make counter-measures pointless in the timelines of ships in the water. (if they can ever handle it without sinking their own submarine, of course..) and the S-500's are supposed to be equally comfortable in an Air engagement, Ballistic Missile encounter or ..some speculate..even things orbiting a bit higher. Add to that, their Cruise Missile/Anti-Ship Missile (Yakhont), and they've not fallen behind at all, IMO.

Meanwhile, our defense contractors make obscene profits in the 10's of billions a year collectively, and we hear little more than stories of failing systems, blown timelines and adjusted expectations ...when programs aren't just cut outright of course, mid-run and with all the waste that brings.

I think the scale is tipping in a bad direction here....Maybe more than one scale.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join