tphuangthe issue isn’t whether or not J-10 can be modified for it, but whether or not PLA wants to use a single-engined fighter for carrier operation.
People who have seen this plane said it can take off in its A2A configuration in about 10 fighter length (<200m), that should give you an idea.
tphuangNope, I’m simply questioning your faith in the accuracy of that strategycenter article, since it also mislabels the Zhuk AESA designation, for instance. Never mind though, as per soyuz’ comments the part about Rif-M is actually correct, you just misunderstood it. The Chinese variant is downgraded and does not have the capability, while the Russian one does (unlike your interpretation, the article actually does not make any comments that refer to the Russian version, although it is admittedly easy to take it that way).
so, you misunderstood me again. I said that Chinese one does not have it according to the article and that they need to show me some evidence that the ones on kirov/slava do, since rif system can clearly be denied of that capability.
Surely it is not too much to ask to run the paragraph I posted through any decent Russian/English online translator? The result should be quite legible enough.
See above, you’ve already been given a source saying exactly that as about as clearly as it gets.
Didn’t I just agree your source is good enough? What’s the point of this?
Fort is the domestic version of Rif, Fort-M is the counterpart to Rif-M. The introductory paragraph I posted (the second in the article I linked) does not give any reason to assume the anti-missile capability is restricted to the latter and it specifically mentions sea-skimming missiles.
Again, misunderstanding what I’m saying. I said I was questioning rif not rif-m. Meaning -> I was questioning it before you made your first post. So, I very readily accepted the first source I got. So, why are you butting in with more accusations?
This just show the depth of ur understanding. S-400 was developed during 90s. the worst period in modern Russian history. alot of things were slow to operationalize like Su-34. Now they have budgeted 5 Trillion Roubles ($192B) untill 2015. and the way rouble is appreciating it is not hard to imagine that it will be equivalent to $400B by 2015 and again convert this into PPP terms it is equal to $1 trillion in arms procurement. so 5th generation SAM with Antisatellite/ABM capability is perfectly under economic means. Remember they have unlimited intellectual capital.
with this kind of financial knowledge, I wouldn’t even admit you into business studies at University of Alabama.
tphuangI have not retracted my statements. My statements were of my opinion which obviously was not in the original article. Your problem is that you are taking my opinion as if it was in the article. That is your problem, not mine.
Let’s see, I said that the Richard Fisher article stated no anti-missile capability (it’s just too obvious that it doesn’t have ATBM capability), but you continued to have the “opinion” that it doesn’t have ATBM capability. Didn’t say, but not admitting that it doesn’t have anti-missile capability. Now, you are finally agreeing with me that it has neither. Now, I’m actually not happy about it, because I’m a PLAN supporter, but that’s another story.
tphuangI just laugh at ur understanding. I was just giving logical explanation instead of direct spoon feeding . I already have the exact article where Russian sources said that they are losing money on all export dollar exports contracts because of 40% rouble appreciation. and than u add the CHEAPNESS factor that China demands[see another example IL-76]. it makes the contract wholly unprofitable. they want excess to commodities in contacts.
you don’t use logic, you only have one debate strategy, that is straying off the topic. See, you are doing it again by bringing IL-76 into this. You are doing this again by bringing things that are not immediate to the argument into the argument.
and i already know about S-400. the said the first operational regiment. it takes alteast 5 years to operatinalalize such complex system. [training crews, writing operational manuals, creating mass production, location of sites]. it has nothing to do with S-500. that will be operationalize in and around 2012.
Yeah, and how long did it take to go from the first deployment of S-300 to S-400?
why u need sources for something so obvious. just look at land based S-300 of Russians.
well, I got a source stating the other way. Here is the thing, you have 25 m as your minimum altitude, yet most modern AShM fly below that.
I have already posted that 48N6Ye missile is interchangeable with older one but is internally completely different missile. dont u think in past 20 years there the older has run its shelf life and only newer one is produced just like land based. and u even older one has antimissile capbaility after all who is going to stop tomhawk.
so now you are saying that the Russian system can intercept missiles because it got the upgrade? We were discussing the anti-missile capability of rif before the upgrade, remember? Like the baseline rif.
tphuangNo offence intended, but what you have shown is a single, ambigous quote from an unnamed source, in an article that has several other factual errors in it. Something interesting to ponder and research maybe, but certainly nothing to be so adamant about.
hey, if you think the article is wrong and 051C does have anti-missile capability, then good for China.
Seriously, many misconceptions about Russian (and other non-Western) weaponry boil down to a comment from a native source being mistranslated or taken out of context. For example, it’s the easiest thing in the world for ‘theatre ballistic missiles’ to become just ‘missiles’ if a second-hand source such as yours misses (not necessarily on purpose though) part of the original ‘story’. Infact, this would be a classic case, because specialised terminology and definitions like theatre ballistic missile might be completely different or even absent in foreign military jargon. You only need to look at how the Russians designate their warship classes, translated literally they are completely different from their accepted Western equivalents and sometimes it can be hard to find a good translation at all! Another example would be that Russian convention does not really make a distinction between an ATBM system and a full-blown ABM system, as far as I’m aware (someone correct me if I’m wrong, not sure on this one).
For what it’s worth, here’s a Russian source that implies an anti-missile capability (including sea-skimmers) for the original Fort system:
(http://pvo.guns.ru/s300f/index.htm)
And if you really want to take every word in that strategycenter article at face value, then the line above the paragraph you quoted clearly says that the Chinese variant of the Rif-M is downgraded 😉
see, all I asked for was a good source (not one of star49’s bs sources) that says original rif has anti-missile capability and then I got a bunch of claims like SM-2 travels like Scud, rif having ABTM capability, S-500 is ready (when I got an article saying first S-400 regiment is only coming online now).
As for rif-m downgraded, so what? Russians downgrade everything they sell. Now, it seems at least you and soyuz have some sources starting that the original rif have anti-missile capability, so I will accept it. But just because a downgraded version does not have anti-missile capability, that does not mean a previous non-downgraded version does have it.
RIF-M has anti-missile capability the Russians extorted the Chinese by not providing them with the software add-on for it and demanding extra money for it. It was simply an extra piece of software nothing more that was required. There was a whole long article on it in one of the major defense journals about a year ago. Anyone with access to Lexis or some other database can find it very quickly by just searching for RIF-M, I’d copy the article for you but its Saturday and Im lazy.
I see. You should make a note, I’ve been questioning rif’s anti-missile capability not rif-m’s anti-missile capability.
tphuangur figures are irrelevant as far as domestic russian stuff is concerned. Export customers might not be interested in version of Rif for engaging antiship missiles which can done with cheaper shorter range antiship missiles.
they already have Tor M 1.5 which will be released this year for export. S-300PM2 was cleared for export in 1997. It is more than a decade old technology.
if they can advertise 9M317’s anti-missile capability, then they can do the same with rif.
first S-300 went into service around 1978 for land use. In sea use it is mostly mid to late 80s and by that time it was already perfected. and ur incorrect in describing it again as we dont know real capability about domestic version of S-300s
again, find anything that shows the older rif has anti-missile capability.
thats why China bought 28 systems of S-300 and Korean consider it the only system that is effective against both against aerodynamic and billistic targets.
what? They can’t buy S-300 for its effectiveness against other aerial targets now? I’m not talking about the real ABM S-300V here.
Russians only boast stuff which is allowed for export. S-400 is allowed for export thats why u hear boasts about it openly but u will not hear about S-500.
lol, S-500? S-400 has finally officially joined service and you are raving about another design that’s still on the drawing border?
u have only shown that system exported to China does not have anti missile capability which has practically nothing to do with Russian domestic stuff which will use completely different capability radar, electronics, algorithms, ECCM, Speed etc. practically nothing in common.
My interpretation was that the missiles sold to china did not have anti missile capability but that with software and hardware upgrades they could have it or they could upgrade to the newer models based on the SA-20 (ie small and large missile).
I have shown that a newer version of rif using tombstone (instead of top dome) and longer ranged S-300 missiles (than the original) does not have anti-missile capability. Now, you two are trying to tell me that older version, using less capable missiles and a previous generation radar does have it. Maybe you should show some evidence?
SM-2 would fly a ballistic path to its target when used in the surface to surface role. Its max range will not exceed a scud and S-300s produced in the 80s have been used in tests against scud type weapons successfully.
how do you know what kind of flight path SM-2 takes? How do you know it can’t do what other anti-ship missiles do in attacking a ship? Actually, why don’t you show some other cases of using a ballistic path to attack a fast moving target?
Only their stuff for export. You hear a lot about Yakhont and BrahMos, but very little about Onyx. Lots about Iskander-E, but little about Tender. etc etc.
you can expect better specs, but in this case, you are talking aobut additional mission profile, which is different.
No. That article discussed versions that China had bought of Rif. It mentioned nothing about in service Russian or Soviet missiles.
I love how you have retracted from your earlier statements.
tphuangdo u think Russians are that stupid to disclose the operational capabilities of there systems?. u will not find exact capabilities of there ground S-300 systems let alone Naval systems. and that isnt hard for them to upgrade with time
i just gave a link to general guidelines for S-300 where both aerodynamic and billistic targets are mentioned. there sytems are multipurpose but some are strong in one areas compared to others.
I have figures telling me exactly the range 9M317 has against anti-ship missiles. But not with Rif, they are selling both systems aren’t they?
Anti missile capability and anti theatre ballistic missile capability can be considered the same thing in this case. An SM-2 will not be fired from more than the range of a Scud and most S-300 land based missiles can easily engage such targets. The Rif is based on the S-300.
huh? That doesn’t make any sense. We are talking about the rif that China got not having anti-shipping capability here. Even the alway obnoxious star49 has conceded that point.
First of all it says nothing about Rif and Rif-M in Russian service. Only that the Chinese Rif-M did not have a certain capability but that this capability could be added with a hardware and software change. Sounds like that capability is already developed… who would it have been developed for I wonder.
Just interpreting from English alone (without preconceived one way or another), it seems that 9M96 or an upgraded version of 48N6 missile + upgraded software is needed for this capability. It doesn’t say anything about rif on those Russian ships from the 70s and 80s have it.
S-300PMU-1 essentially has same ability in terms of speed like Mach 10 intercept. and note every one is giving approximate capability including General Designer and that is more for media.
how many times do I need to tell you? Don’t keep on posting random links. Should i start quoting random sources too now? The business people can boast as much as they want, but I can tell you S-300 had a hell of time trying to intercept ballistic missiles in China.
Show me something that lists the current in service Russian air to air missiles…. is the R-77 in service? Is the R-37 in service? We don’t know because stuff in service in Russia is secret… rif is in service…
Rif is intended to knock down at long range launch platforms and aircraft before they release their missiles. An SM-2 used as an anti ship missile would be used with a ballistic path to get max range etc. Not very similar targets but even a Patriot could hit ballistic targets without the correct software and hardware upgrades or adaptation for the role. Unfortunately for the users of patriot although it scored hits on the engines of the scuds the sheer mass of a scud including its engine meant proximity fused patriots detonating all round it just filled it full of holes or caused the warhead to seperate and fall roughly on its original path. The much smaller SM-2 would likely be ripped apart by the 150kg directional fragmentation warhead of the Rif rather than just peppered with holes.
Russians hiding their stuff? They constantly boast about their systems to try to get sales. Now they are telling China that a newer version can intercept missiles. Again as mentionned above, they advertise the anti-missile capability of their other naval SAMs all the time.
We are not asking for exact number but just missions that it can do or not do.
So now you are moving onto Scud vs Patriot from the 90s? You mind sticking with rif? I have already shown you that an early version of rif-m doesn’t have anti-missile capability, you have yet to show that other than the later version of rif-m, other rif systems also have anti-missile capability.
tphuangAgain what has export model missiles have anything to do with russian versions in service?
what does that have to do with anything? Show me something that actually says rif on kirov or slava have anti-missile capability.
tphuangIt Clearly says Chinese version does not have Anti missile capability. but what it has to do with any Russian domestic version?.
China does not have this system also which has been part of Russian airdefence network and it is now released for export.
what it’s saying is that the earlier versions of rif did not have anti-missile capability. That you would only get anti-missile capability with 9M96 or with upgrade to rif-m. And at this moment, I don’t pretend to know if Kirov or Slava have upgraded to that level.
tphuangYes, quite clear.
Chinese Rif-Ms don’t have ATBM capability. Russians ones do, and that the Chinese are wanting to upgrade to a modified version of the missile they use to add ATBM capability.
With 48 missiles being potentially replaced by 4 times more smaller missiles they should be potent vessels… 192 missiles is a lot… wonder what ratio they will be of 45km and 150km missiles. I guess in all likelyhood they will probably have a mix of 45km, 150km and 200km models… say 10 x 200km models, which would leave space for 152 smaller missiles, perhaps half of each, 76 + 76.The Kirov class vessels had 96 SA-N-6 missiles, would be interesting looking at the armament combinations of that vessel… a max of 384 x 150km and/or 45km range SAMs. That is impressive.
Do you speak English at all?
It’s say no anti-missile capability, not no ABTM.
tphuangCorrection, does not have anti ballistic missile capability. An SM-2 would be an aerial target that manouvers just like a very fast aircraft. For max range of 100km + its terminal velocity will not be greater that the original Rifs top speed limit of about mach 3.5-4. (ie 4,500km/h). I would expect Rif-M to do better than Rif.
let’s see now
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.126/pub_detail.asp
Russian sources at Euronaval claimed that Altair’s RIF-M naval SAMs employed on China’s two new Type 051C destroyers are not capable of anti-missile missions. They would require both software and hardware upgrades in order to perform that mission. However, these sources did indicate that discussions are underway with China regarding the sale of more capable versions of the RIF-M. These sources also noted that China has not been sold the latest modifications of the RIF-M with employ the latest 45km range 9M96E and the 150km range 9M96E1 SAMs. Both of these, in addition to a version that would incorporate the naval version of the S-300PMU-2 FAVORIT, are anti-missile capable These two missiles can be carried four to a launch tube that would carry but one 150km range 48 SAM. The Type 051C carries 48 launch tubes for its RIF-M system.
I think it’s pretty self-explanatory there.
tphuangIt carries over all the flaws of the mediocre f-18 hornet. New != good. New in this case is still crappy and bad design.
they signifcantly reduced the RCS of super hornet, used a more power engine and really increased the payload. At the same time, it still has an extremely strong airframe due to its role as a naval fighter. It’s not at the same level as NATF or ST-21, but still the premier naval fighter out there until F-35 becomes available.
tphuangHi star49 , what is the basis for your argument in saying that export Rif-M and the one used by Russian Navy has some kind of generational gap . Do you have any info on it which you can share with us on this ?
AFAIK the the only system fielded by Russian Navy on one of its Principle Ship think Peter The Great has a advanced 200 Km range version of Rif the rest are all similar in service RuN
I wouldn’t take anything star49 say for real at this point.
tphuangPL-12 or PL-11?? Looks quite big and fin is wide too. PL-11??? But the color scheme of the missile is very nice! 😉
looks like PL-12 to me.
tphuangRif-M could probably engage an incoming SM-2. Equally with satellite based radars the Granit would be a useful antiship system out to its max range.
hmm, the rif-m system that China got for 051C does not have anti-missile capability. I wouldn’t be so confident about it engaging SM-2.
Sign In
