Taiwan to mass-produce antiship missile.

MIG-31BM and PAK-FA is clearly designed for that purpose. . Not sure about Su-35.

Okay…well, I guess that tells me all I need to know about you. I’ll stop wasting my time.

How many years to replicate Sizzler? We haven’t been trying to. Like I’ve said several times – if we don’t NEED something we’re not going to build it just because we feel like it. Consider ASALM. It was progressing in testing and then we cancelled it because the cost/benefit wasn’t there. And that proved to be a good call. Sure, NOW it might be useful but for 20+ years Tomahawk has been just fine.

Why u dont need. This sizzler technology has been around long time. whey all of sudden start replicating when it is already inducted to various countries. Very late . Tomhawk is fine for not speed sensitive and no hardened structures.

So? I don’t recall that being a problem so far and the AIM-120D is on the way. Granted it’s not a Phoenix but then if we’d NEEDED it (there’s that word again) we’d have just kept on with the AAM program.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html

AIM-120D is more in R-77 (project 180) class. U need ultra long range with much higher speeds and long burn time. When one side is clearly have developed and other one just wait decades u lose all the capability and it become costly to restart again.

I must have missed that. Russian fighters are shooting down targets in space now huh? :rolleyes:

MIG-31BM and PAK-FA is clearly designed for that purpose. . Not sure about Su-35.

Uh, you’re aware R-37 weighs about three times as much as an AIM-120D aren’t you? And you won’t be fitting six of THOSE INSIDE PAK-FA.

It is the same weight class like Kh-58 etc. I dont see why 6 cannot be carried internally and we havent seen P-810 missile yet. Likely to lighter materials with more advanced electronics. there is clear need of ultra-long range BVR missile just like hypersonic Ashm. Even India recognize it.

The point is if u dont continously produce those missiles in various sizes. u will not be able to train on them and it will be very costly for transition to hypersonics. Just look at how many years it takes to replicate sizzler.

How many years to replicate Sizzler? We haven’t been trying to. Like I’ve said several times – if we don’t NEED something we’re not going to build it just because we feel like it. Consider ASALM. It was progressing in testing and then we cancelled it because the cost/benefit wasn’t there. And that proved to be a good call. Sure, NOW it might be useful but for 20+ years Tomahawk has been just fine.

The same happened to Phoenix.

What same thing?

There is no follow up for large size AAMs.

So? I don’t recall that being a problem so far and the AIM-120D is on the way. Granted it’s not a Phoenix but then if we’d NEEDED it (there’s that word again) we’d have just kept on with the AAM program.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html

which u may need in some time for hitting higher speeds targets in space.

I must have missed that. Russian fighters are shooting down targets in space now huh? :rolleyes:

Russians continue transition towards R-37M and Project 810 with PAK-FA. There approach is less costly and continous. Navy Chose F-18 so it must be best approach by enlarging F-18 but Russians created more capable from MIG-29KUB from 1980s MIG-29K. higher speed missiles have more energy so smaller size warhead is needed for much bigger impact and gives more range for the size.

Uh, you’re aware R-37 weighs about three times as much as an AIM-120D aren’t you? And you won’t be fitting six of THOSE INSIDE PAK-FA.

Add to that Condor (air-launched Mach 2.8 antiship missile with 600lb warhead- to be carried by Intruders, Corsairs, and Tomcats). That was back in the 70s. As for ramjets there’s Talos, Bomarc, and Typhon of course and a plethora of other projects that the need just wasn’t there. Anybody interested in US ramjet projects ought to take a look through here:

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td1802/waltrup.pdf

I’d also add to your list Fasthawk and RATTLRS. True, RATTLRS isn’t a ramjet but it’s being looked at as a possible land-attack/antiship missile. Fasthawk had potential but it got cancelled because even better things are coming down the pipe and the need hasn’t been great enough to say “okay let’s produce something”.

The point is if u dont continously produce those missiles in various sizes. u will not be able to train on them and it will be very costly for transition to hypersonics. Just look at how many years it takes to replicate sizzler.
The same happened to Phoenix. There is no follow up for large size AAMs. which u may need in some time for hitting higher speeds targets in space. Russians continue transition towards R-37M and Project 810 with PAK-FA. There approach is less costly and continous. Navy Chose F-18 so it must be best approach by enlarging F-18 but Russians created more capable from MIG-29KUB from 1980s MIG-29K. higher speed missiles have more energy so smaller size warhead is needed for much bigger impact and gives more range for the size.

AWST:
Moscow Air Show

War on Two Fronts for Russia’s Missile Builders
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/10/2007, page 68

Douglas Barrie and Alexey Komarov
Zhukovsky, Russia

Although Tactical Missiles Corp. was able to display some of its ongoing air-to-surface developments at the show, it was not in a similar position in the air-to-air arena. The company had planned to display several improved systems, but the necessary government clearance was not forthcoming.

While an upgraded MiG-31BM Foxhound was on view at the show, Tactical Missiles’ ambitions to display the aircraft’s long-range air-to-air armament was thwarted. The upgraded Foxhound is meant to carry an improved long-range missile rather than the R-33 (AA-9 Amos). This missile is likely the K-37M, a further development of the K-37 (AA-X-13). Again, this weapon is said to be in flight test.

Add to that Condor (air-launched Mach 2.8 antiship missile with 600lb warhead- to be carried by Intruders, Corsairs, and Tomcats). That was back in the 70s. As for ramjets there’s Talos, Bomarc, and Typhon of course and a plethora of other projects that the need just wasn’t there. Anybody interested in US ramjet projects ought to take a look through here:

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td1802/waltrup.pdf

I’d also add to your list Fasthawk and RATTLRS. True, RATTLRS isn’t a ramjet but it’s being looked at as a possible land-attack/antiship missile. Fasthawk had potential but it got cancelled because even better things are coming down the pipe and the need hasn’t been great enough to say “okay let’s produce something”.

FYI:

Actually there are quite a number of US Ramjet programs as well as several scramjet programs…..The experience/knowledge of US cannot be denied…

But, they either end up in the garbage bin or as target-drones :rolleyes:… There were several never ending debates about supersonic Vs. subsonic ASCM. Just ask jonesy and garry 😀

Thanx to the great work by: Andreas Parsch

Here’s one:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/asalm.html

Newer One:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hyfly.html

Plus:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-51.html

More on LTV/Vought ALVRJ
http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/products/html/alvrj.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=135.0

more…

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/USA/Missiles-Munitions/X-Projects/LTV-ALVRJ/ltv-alvrj4.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/USA/Missiles-Munitions/X-Projects/LTV-ALVRJ/ltv-alvrj3.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/USA/Missiles-Munitions/X-Projects/LTV-ALVRJ/ltv-alvrj5.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/USA/Missiles-Munitions/X-Projects/LTV-ALVRJ/ltv-alvrj1.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/USA/Missiles-Munitions/X-Projects/LTV-ALVRJ/ltv-alvrj2.jpg

If they are around possibly. They aren’t likely to be.

Why they wouldnt be. Landbased AWACS are bigger Radar size and have more range. so provide better situational awarness.

Of course Russia does. The US does not, it has carriers.

Show me one decent war without Land bases from friendly countries and huge sum built up before invasion. carrier by itself hardly can fight a war against medium size enemy.

They do if you want your hypersonic Flankers and Foxhounds to be able to protect your navy. :rolleyes:

They fly higher and faster and have longer range weopons and range on internal fuel has IRST. Without F-22 no other aircraft can challenge them and there arent that many F-22 and location is known.

Even your magic aircraft need fuel so yeah, tankers matter for Russia. You still didn’t say how many Russia has. So how many do they have?

Why Russia needs tanker for thirld world enemies. It can do without it.

Yeah and the future Death Star the US is building will make those redundant. :rolleyes:

When u put so much money on large ships u have less money left for fighting wars and need to create special budgets for fighting wars. It is bankrupt way of fighting wars.

Yeah and the future Death Star the US is building will make those redundant.

In what kinematic class is future Death star ?
The US mut master hypersonic systems first, light years from achieving that.

They’re already light years ahead of Russia in hyperspace technology.

Yeah and the future Death Star the US is building will make those redundant.

In what kinematic class is future Death star ?
The US mut master hypersonic systems first, light years from achieving that.

So they are likely to release weopons before carrier aircraft.

If they are around possibly. They aren’t likely to be.

u still need friendly airbases/airspace clearance for action against even a third world country.

Of course Russia does. The US does not, it has carriers.

So tankers dont matter.

They do if you want your hypersonic Flankers and Foxhounds to be able to protect your navy. :rolleyes:

They matter more carrier aircraft but not so for Su-27SM/MIG-31.

Even your magic aircraft need fuel so yeah, tankers matter for Russia. You still didn’t say how many Russia has. So how many do they have?

and future missiles hypersonic missile systems of strategic bombers and Su-34 will make it completely redunt

Yeah and the future Death Star the US is building will make those redundant. :rolleyes:

So?

So they are likely to release weopons before carrier aircraft.

:rolleyes: As long as the target is in range of your land bases. If not you’re SOL. And as long as you have tankers. How many does Russia have in operation? So basically what you’re saying is that as long as the nine or ten Russian surface ships that can fire these uber missiles stay out of harm’s way they’ll be okay? Well I’m all kinds of impressed.

u still need friendly airbases/airspace clearance for action against even a third world country. So tankers dont matter. They matter more carrier aircraft but not so for Su-27SM/MIG-31. and future missiles hypersonic missile systems of strategic bombers and Su-34 will make it completely redunt

All these Harms/LGBs/SLAMs have shorter range than long legs and weopons systems of Su-27SM/MIG-31.

So?

They can provide decent fleet cover with ET and air refuelling. Su-27SM alone has 4000km range on internal fuel. Whats the point of large navy when ur using airpower for the job. Just built large number of supersonic bombers from land bases is more efficient that can saturate the target.

:rolleyes: As long as the target is in range of your land bases. If not you’re SOL. And as long as you have tankers. How many does Russia have in operation? So basically what you’re saying is that as long as the nine or ten Russian surface ships that can fire these uber missiles stay out of harm’s way they’ll be okay? Well I’m all kinds of impressed.

It hasn’t really needed them at all. Think about it. A Burke or Tico is never going to go off alone and go toe-to-toe with a Slava, Kirov, or the Kuznetsov. They’d either get hit by Mk48s in the gut or clouds of HARMs followed up by LGBs, SLAMs, or what have you. And Harpoons and SM-2s do just fine against missile patrol boats. No doubt someone will say “what about missile patrol boats with Sunburn?” What about them? If they come close enough to be able to provide targeting info for their Sunburns they’re going to be in range of SM-2s.

All these Harms/LGBs/SLAMs have shorter range than long legs and weopons systems of Su-27SM/MIG-31. They can provide decent fleet cover with ET and air refuelling. Su-27SM alone has 4000km range on internal fuel. Whats the point of large navy when ur using airpower for the job. Just built large number of supersonic bombers from land bases is more efficient that can saturate the target.

Regarding US supersonic ASCM well….

LTV-ALVRJ (From the early to mid seventies)
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/alvrj.html

But the US doesn’t seem to like supersonic ASCM

It hasn’t really needed them at all. Think about it. A Burke or Tico is never going to go off alone and go toe-to-toe with a Slava, Kirov, or the Kuznetsov. They’d either get hit by Mk48s in the gut or clouds of HARMs followed up by LGBs, SLAMs, or what have you. And Harpoons and SM-2s do just fine against missile patrol boats. No doubt someone will say “what about missile patrol boats with Sunburn?” What about them? If they come close enough to be able to provide targeting info for their Sunburns they’re going to be in range of SM-2s.

Plenty of info: http://www.tdreview.com/free2.html
CSIST: http://www.csistdup.org.tw/english/index.asp

Sky Spear: Short ranged BM
Hsiung Feng I: Subsonic ASCM
Hsiung Feng II: Subsonic ASCM (Advanced version of above including Air-Launch capability)
Hsiung Feng III: Supersonic ASCM
Hsiung Feng IIE: LACM
Kun Wu 1: ATGM
Kung Feng 6: MLRS
Thunderbolt-2000: MLRS
Sky Bow I: SAM
Sky Bow II: SAM (Limited ATBM)
Sky Bow III: ATBM
Sky Sword I: IR-AAM
Sky Sword II: ARH-AAM
Sky Sword IIA: ARM

Older Images

Early testing of HF-3:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/ROC/Missiles-Munitions/hf-3_flight.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/ROC/Missiles-Munitions/1_hf-3_missle_on_ground.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/ROC/Missiles-Munitions/hf-3_launch.jpg

HF-3/HF-2 Combo:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/ROC/Missiles-Munitions/HF-2-3.jpg

TK-3:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/ROC/Missiles-Munitions/_44167461_tien-kung3416_afp.jpg

TK-3 Launch Truck:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/ROC/Missiles-Munitions/Sky_Bow_III_Missile.jpg

and TK-3 ATBM…

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75028

HF-3 figures vary from source to source…

Speed: Mach 2.0 – 2.5
Range: 150km to 300+km (depending on flight profile)

but not much is known. Supposed to have certain “classified” capabilities…

Taiwan has an interesting range of missiles…

TC-2
TC-2A
HF-2
HF-3
HF-2E

HF-3, was said to be a mystery missile having some interesting capabilities (unofficially speaking)

——

Regarding US supersonic ASCM well….

LTV-ALVRJ (From the early to mid seventies)
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/alvrj.html

But the US doesn’t seem to like supersonic ASCM

Given the size of that beast, I doubt whether they will be able to “ramjet-ise” their local AAMs. IMO, they’ll have to launch an entirely new program with more advanced propellants & what not to do so, plus invest in new fire control radars for their CK’s to make use of it. Till date they havent shown much interest in making their own radars, so it doesnt seem very likely that the ROC will get new ramjet AAMs anytime soon. Besides the fact that the Russians have more or less given up on their R-77 PD, and that the Meteor despite decades of experience from its developing firms, is taking so long to develop should also confirm that its going to be a tough slog.

The status quo does benefit the US to some extent, but based on talks with US folk, they’d rather the ROC took far more responsibility for its defence than it is currently doing. One example cited was of the politicians in the ROC, of which one party is pro-mainland, so it has scuttled a large US arms package on offer to the ROC for several years.

The AShM, if they can produce it in number and develop suitable launch platforms, could actually make a cross straits invasion more bloody.

IIRC there was talk of the ROC developing two more missiles,

A LACM/ALCM and an ARM – wonder what happened to those?

The ARM is a TC-2 variant and appears to have already been trial tested. The problem with this is that it depends on the improved CK fighter program, which apparently may have been scuttled, leaving the missile with no launch platform at all.

The LACM which is based on the HF-2 airframe, was displayed in the military parade last year. No news other than the display last year.

Who said they were?

For Russians they are cheap to develop so dont mind sharing technology with India/China for Brahmos/Kh-31 as they can develop newer versions faster and cheaper without fear of technlogy falling out.

Yeah, that’s why we’re buying 5000+ JASSMs. :rolleyes:

JASSM is more in Kh-59MK2 class than Brahmos/klubir/Sizzler. I will not put in newer Kh-58E class. Dont confuse russian missile ranges with MTCR regulation in mind.
U can see the price. it is way more than any conventional missile system and that is Russian pricing. So for mass producing this kind of weopon cheaply in West is practically hopeless.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
On 06 July 2006, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approved the purchase of 28 Klub-S (3M-14E variant) land-attack cruise missiles at a cost of USD $184 million.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=68832&highlight=club&page=3
Mazurkevich, who heads international cooperation department of the Russian defence ministry, said that one of the reasons for not Russia not keen to export this weapon, “highly lethal for potential enemies”, is that its range could be easily extended from the current 300 km, allowed under Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
“We are not worried about it as we have nuclear weapons, but this (unauthorised extension of range) may pose threat not only to India but also to our other friends and allies,” Mazurkevich underscored. He said Brahmos is initially an anti-ship cruise missile and Russia is closely cooperating with India in the development of its other variants including land and air based.
“Coupled with Sukhoi Su-30MKI it makes a highly potent weapon system,” General Mazurkevich said.

However, the trial of this system requires heavy financing and Russia would help India in this, he said.

“Two-three trials of Brahmos air force version would equal the cost of a SU-30MKI fighter, but we have expertise, how to do this at much lesser cost,” Mazurkevich said adding that “unveiling and enhancing” the hidden potential of new weapon systems like Brahmos cruise missiles, Su-30MKI fighters and T-90S main battle tanks would be one of the thrust areas Indo-Russian military-to-military cooperation

Dec 27, 2003,The Economic Times)
A. Shivathanu Pillai, chief controller (R&D), DRDO and BrahMos Aerospace CEO-cum-MD, told The Times of India on Thursday that with the successful development and trials of the anti-ship version, BrahMos is now ready for production. “We’ve completed six successful tests from mobile autonomous launcher and warship to sea targets. The results of land-to-ship missions are remarkable. BrahMos warhead can hit the target nine times more powerful than a subsonic-class cruise missile,” Pillai said
BrahMos will certainly be a force multiplier to the navies of India and Russia and the results confirm it as a superior lethal weapon available in the world today. With a range restricted to 290 km due to control regimes, BrahMos has the most-advanced guidance system of Indi an origin, that would give the Navy an edge over others

Who the hell said anything about supersonic bombers?

Maintaining 200 supersonic bomber is alot more costly than subsonic.

That’s because that’s all we’ve needed. And a missile that you can put dozens at a time of on scores of different platforms is a HELL of a lot more useful than something that requires a ship class of it’s own.

All version of Brahmos are developed from Air/Land/Naval at fraction of cost to what JASSM/Tomhawk/Harpoon etc. It is cost vs capability. Russian R&D can produce more with less and end product is more effective through various iteration.

WTF are you talking about? Who said anything about developement costs? Do you even read what you’re typing?

It is the cost that constrained alot of things.

This things arent cheap to develop and produce.

Who said they were?

If u havent produce during coldwar in mass number. I doubt u can afford it now.

Yeah, that’s why we’re buying 5000+ JASSMs. :rolleyes:

The same is true for supersonic bombers.

Who the hell said anything about supersonic bombers?

Most of US missiles are variants of low cost subsonic harpoon/tomhawk.

That’s because that’s all we’ve needed. And a missile that you can put dozens at a time of on scores of different platforms is a HELL of a lot more useful than something that requires a ship class of it’s own.

ur confusing development costs between different countries. It is like trying to imitate BMW.

WTF are you talking about? Who said anything about developement costs? Do you even read what you’re typing?