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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The AESA radar on the launch aircraft is the main problem with LPI you will need to detect it on radar or IR. The LPI radar on the missile is bad but even the standard R-77 if it gets close enough to turn on it's radar and track you it's usually too late anyway.
The F-22 shouldn't have too much of a problem with first look first shot. I think there is a ramjet AMRAAM with longer range.




posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

JimTSpock
The AESA radar on the launch aircraft is the main problem with LPI you will need to detect it on radar or IR.


And you're going to have a problem tracking an F-15 or a legacy aircraft? Because that's almost the entire West air fleet.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Not following you there but good talking to you. The F-15 has a big powerful radar and is a big RCS for a fighter. The F-16 radar is not the best but it has a smaller RCS.

Su-27 derivative with the latest missiles vs F-15C with AMRAAM? Hmmm.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


The F-15 and F-16, as well as the rest of the Legacy fleet around the world all have large RCSs, where the T-50 is quite stealthy. It would be like the F-22 v F-15 exercises, only in a real fight. The T-50 wouldn't have any problem finding them, while they wouldn't have any idea it was there. And if the K-77 has an LOAL feature, then an existing legacy Russian fighter could fire without the warning going off in the target aircraft that it had been fired upon.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hypothetically speaking, what are our EW avenues to counter AESA?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


There are a couple, but they require very fast reactions. I don't want to say too much about them though.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


The F-15 and F-16, as well as the rest of the Legacy fleet around the world all have large RCSs, where the T-50 is quite stealthy. It would be like the F-22 v F-15 exercises, only in a real fight. The T-50 wouldn't have any problem finding them, while they wouldn't have any idea it was there. And if the K-77 has an LOAL feature, then an existing legacy Russian fighter could fire without the warning going off in the target aircraft that it had been fired upon.


T-50 with K-77 vs F-15C or F-16C with AMRAAM the T-50 has the advantage but factor in AWACS and EW support for the USAF.
F-22 with AMRAAM vs T-50 with K-77 gets interesting but I think the F-22 has the advantage. F-22 with longer range faster ramjet AMRAAM, F-22 has even more of an advantage.
F-35 with AMRAAM vs T-50 with K-77 ??



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Exports to Egypt and Iran in 5,4,3,2



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
This is interesting. Hughes FMRAAM. A ramjet powered AAM based on the AMRAAM. Looks better than the K-77.

www.hughesmissiles.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Again, ramjet powered air to air missiles are neat. Until they have to turn to keep up with the target. Then they're going so fast that they tumble and go out of control. The ramjet AMRAAM also hasn't even started production yet.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


With all due respect I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. You believe the article in the OP then you should believe this also which I have no issue with.


An integral rocket liquid fuel ramjet engine gives FMRAAM combustion at all altitudes and high angles of attack and provides superior kinematic performance, including:
higher average velocity
greater fly-out range
expanded no-escape zones
lower smoke, which reduces the enemy's chances of sighting the launch and evading the missile
capability for launch at lower speeds
extreme agility at intercept


www.hughesmissiles.com...

I'm inclined to take Hughes Missile Systems as a credible source.

www.hughesmissiles.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Even so, there is no ramjet AMRAAM. One of (if not the only) the only ramjet air to air missiles is the Meteor. And since that is operational, the chances of there BEING a ramjet AMRAAM went down to almost zero.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The above Hughes FMRAAM is close enough. A ramjet AAM based on the AMRAAM. Hello. If needed I'm sure it could be used by the US military. And I think it looks much better than the Russian K-77. Equip the F-22 and F-35 with the FMRAAM might be a good idea. But that's just my opinion.
edit on 10-12-2013 by JimTSpock because: add



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


There is no FMRAAM. That's the ramjet based AMRAAM. The Meteor is a totally separate missile. The FMRAAM never entered development, since it lost the competition. Meteor will be able to be fielded on UK and Italian F-35s, but not the F-22, or US F-35s.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well I'm sure the US will come up with something to replace the AMRAAM eventually. The FMRAAM may never enter service but I wouldn't write it off completely yet. It is an example of what can be done and so is the Meteor. Technology which could be ready fairly soon if needed.

I believe there is a classified extended range AMRAAM in service with the F-22, whether or not it is ramjet or not I don't know. I think they might have a few things we don't know about wink wink.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


I know they do, but at the same time guys in the EW field are scared silly by this missile.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Don't the stealth aircraft usually go in first and target all the radar installations, then the non-stealth go in an fudge everything up? Or am I missing something?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


It's all about numbers. We have 185 F-22s, that have an extremely limited ground attack role, and can't target radar sites, except with Small Diameter Bombs, which won't do much against them.

That means that F-16s are going to have to go in, in the Weasel role beating for SAM sites. And F-15s are going to have to backstop the F-22s in the air superiority role. Which means we're going to have a LOT of non-stealthy aircraft in the area that are going to be extremely vulnerable to this missile.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


It's all about numbers. We have 185 F-22s, that have an extremely limited ground attack role, and can't target radar sites, except with Small Diameter Bombs, which won't do much against them.

That means that F-16s are going to have to go in, in the Weasel role beating for SAM sites. And F-15s are going to have to backstop the F-22s in the air superiority role. Which means we're going to have a LOT of non-stealthy aircraft in the area that are going to be extremely vulnerable to this missile.


Cruise missiles can be fired a long way off shore. Also B2's, F-35's, and I'm sure they still have some F-117's sitting in a boneyard somewhere.

Do the ruskies even have a stealth fighter yet?
edit on 11-12-2013 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


Cruise missiles can be shot down. The F-117s are technically in flyable storage, but would have to be put back together. And that only gets you something like 59 airframes, also not really set up for Weasel work, and certainly not for fighter work. This is an air-to-air missile, so B-2s, cruise missiles, and F-117s don't get you any advantage. You need a fighter, which means F-22s, F-15s, and F-16s.

They have the T-50 in development, and the Chinese currently have two in development.
edit on 12/11/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join