plawolfHere goes.
1. Israel produced the Nesher (100% Mirage V), the Kfir (60% Mirage V) and the Fouga Magister jet aircraft before the Lavi. Before the Lavi we had over 20 years of jet aircraft building behind us, so it would be idiotic to claim we can’t mass produce airplanes. And that’s without mentioning the Arava, the Astra and Galaxy. In short, the Israeli Aircraft Industry was and still is building aircraft for about 40 years now. Only a few weeks ago the IAI G-150 was unveiled.
Between the Kfir, which is clearly a Mirage development, and the Lavi, there was the Arye project. From 1974 to 1979, the IAI was developing its next generation fighter. Some of the Arye designs were almost Mirage look alikes and enlarged and redesigned Mirages, and some of them were more advanced. All shared the same single concept – a canard delta configuration. Conceptual design #33 of the Arye was chosen in the year 1980 to be the Lavi.
yes, aircraft BUILDING experience. even today, israel has zero experience in independly DESIGNING a successful fighter.
the LAVI was an israeli upgrade of an existing airframe, just as all provious israeli fighters have been modified foreign designs.
its funny that part of your reasoning behind why the J10 cant be chinese is the assumption that china couldnt make such a big leap from ‘merely copying and modifying’ russian and soviet designs. yet israel apparently has no such problems.
if the LAVI DESIGN was what china wanted, wouldnt it seem illogical that china would turn to a country that has even less aviation design experience then itself?
2. The Lavi was designed in Israel. It made use of American technologies such as engine and fly-by-wire. Despite this, the airframe design and the majority of systems were Israeli developed, such as avionics, radar and and the plane’s overall design. How could the Lavi, developed as concept #33 of the Arye between the years 1974-1979 be based over the F-16, which Israel got only in 1981, and without having the Americans involved in the Arye project?
so, you look at a picture of the J10 and LAVI and can be absolutely sure that the J10 is based on the LAVI, yet when you look at a picture of the LAVI and F16, you are equaly sure that the LAVI airframe design is not based on the F16?
euqlly, the J10 project started before the alleged LAVI tech transfer and the J10 is still supposed to be based on the LAVI. the same thing happens with the LAVI in regard to the F16 and the LAVI cant have benefitted from F16 design?
Moreover, some people try to claim that the Lavi was all American financed. In fact, only 40% was American financed. The program costed 2.2 billion dollars when it was cancelled – no more than the development costs of other airplanes in the world in the Lavi’s class. In 1987 the US removed its share of the cost of Lavi project. Since development was near completion, the US made clear it will not participate in the cost of building 300 Lavis for the Israeli airforce. In other words, they let us bring the plane’s technology to maturity but killed the plane. Why? because they had a perfectly good idea that this plane could directly compete with their own F-16s and F-18s. Why would they finance a plane that will hurt their sales? everyone here agrees that it makes no sense. Israel alone couldn’t bear the cost of production of the Lavi. The project was also canelled due to the fragile political climate of Israel at the time, and was cancelled in the vote with 12 for and 11 against, with the 12th voice persuaded in the last minute as a political move.
if the LAVI cost 2.2bn, the US only contributed 40% (0.88bn), and china was supposed to have paid over 1bn for the LAVI tech, the irsaelis still didnt have enough funding to complete the plane?
if israel had the tech and china had the money, what was stopping co-opertation like that with the Python, Harpy and many other weapons systems? could it be that the LAVI was basically a modified F16 with israeli avionics that couldnt be built with US components and the tech couldnt be shared without permission?
4. The Lavi is considered a technological success, and as witnesses we can see many of its systems, avionics, ECM, computers and radar mostly, being used in many of today’s Israeli airforce fighter planes, in other IAI made upgrade projects, which are known for their high quality, and even in the Arrow. That’s all came from the Lavi.
avionics, not the airframe. had you suggested that the J10 radar and avionics might have benefited from israeli help, i might have been inclided to agree with you on the possibility of that happening. but the suggest that the J10 benefited from LAVI airframe design is pure fantasy and plainly doesnt make sense.
The answer to your question is simple – we simply couldn’t bear the cost of producing the Lavi alone.
The post Lavi IAI was near total loss in 1988. I’m opining that the IAI and Israel couldn’t care less about the US, and according to the Ha’aretz newspaper from 1994, the Chinese paid over 1 billion dollars for the Lavi technology.
i repeat my previous question, if china had the money and israel had the tech, why couldnt the two have carried on with the LAVI project without the US? (just look at the Phalcon, it might have failed ultimately, but it proves that israel was willing to co-operate with china on aviation projects)
also, do you know how much money the US gives israel annually? israel would be willing to risk that for a mere 1bn? please. :rolleyes:
Moreover, when the newspaper asked an American government official about the subject he said “we are a aware of the Israeli technology transfer from Israel to China, but the US doesn’t feel a need to be afraid, since the Lavi is based over technologies from the 1980s, that will be very old when the plane will enter service around the years 2000”.
even less reason for china to buy the LAVI then, since the design was old and china had access to far newer western tech at the time (pre-tiananmen).
also, more evidence that the LAVI was based on the F16.
A few weeks before David Ivri, former airforce commander and the then CEO of the ministry of defense said something like “we did transer military technologies to China, and still do, including aviation technologies, but they are fully Israeli and therefore has nothing to do with the American embargo over China”.
well that pretty much rules out airframe design transfer since thats not israeli tech.
plawolfplawolf, please keep a civilized level of language, as I do with you.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do expect mutual respect between us and our opinions.
oh please! :rolleyes:
did i use abusive language try to make it personal instead of topic oriented?
you yourself have said you have nothing new to bring any more credibility to your claims, so the ‘repeating yourself’ bit is accurate.
since you have zero new ‘evidence’ to bring to support your case, what other reason apart from excessively repeating yourself can you achieve from bring this up again? and since this is clearly another attempt to draw in support your your baseless claim, the ‘repeating yourself’ bit is accurate as well.
the only thing that might have been slightly harsh is ‘shut up’, but that is far from an unsuitable term.
respect is earned, and not something you can just ask god for when it runs out. just as your words can earn you respect, it can also loose you it. i have treated you like i have everyone else in that i have given you the same clean sheet i have given to everyone else i have replied to. if i seem a little less patient with you compared to others, it is because your stubberness to cling onto unproven theories regardless of logic and evidence does not strike me as worthy of much more serious consideration.
plawolfcome on GD, you know that everyone who advocates the Lavi-J10 link dispite having ZERO hard evidence to support their claims, while having both offical government denials and logic against them is not interested in what is most likely to haven been the case.
its either a case of overinflated ego or a desire to find ‘evidence’ of the chinese aviation industry being not as good as all the EVIDENCE is suggesting.
there is just no need to waste time and bandwidth arguing with such people. anyone who demands that their hairbrained theories be proved wrong while rejecting the strongest and most obvious evidence (the offical governmental denials of both irsael and china and the fact that the vast US intellegence apparatus have found zero evidence of Lavi tech transfer) is clearly on some sort of mission.
so Erez, instead of repeating the same tired old lines over and over again trying to convince yourself that if you repeast something enough times it becomes true, why dont you take your own ‘advice’ and shut up about it till you can find something resembling hard evidence to back up your claims?
plawolfa proper shaped ball? 😉
plawolfthat J-10 pic first showed up about 3 years ago, though it didn’t have this kind of quality.
unfortunately there still isnt enough detail to have a good look at the intake layout.
hope we dont have to wait another 3 years to find out. 🙁
plawolfFew Questions:
How would one classify the Mirage-2000 as 3rd or 4th gen fighter , most of the writings classify the Mirage-2000 airframe as 3rd generation airframe with fourth gen avionics , is that so ????
http://caea.free.fr/en/coll/mirage2000b.html
The above links says this on Mirage-2000“Mirage 2000 B belongs to the 3rd generation of Dassault fighters to bear this famous name; it continues the uninterrupted success of its predecessors, Mirage III and Mirage F1.”
http://www.scramble.nl/gr.htm This says
“Modernization came relatively late, only in 1988 were the first third generation fighters delivered, forming 2 Mirage 2000 squadrons and 2 F-16 squadrons.”
So with respect to AirFrame does the F-16 airframe is more advanced than the Mirage-2000 airframe design, Is the Unstable Nature of Mirage Airframe and FBW make it a 4th gen design.
well i’d class the mirage2000 as a 3rd gen/boarderline 4th gen fighter. the difference between 3rd gen and 4th gen really only boils down to avionics. if it has swing-role capacity, then in my book it just makes the grade as a 4th gen (assuming the airframe meets at least 3rd gen standards).
the much flaunted ‘supermanoverablity’ phrase only really applies to two, maybe three ac types today. these being the F22, Su37/30MKI and maybe the F35.
only a flighter with thust vectoring capacity as well as advance areodynamic design and high thrust-to-weight ratio can claim the title of ‘supermanoverable’. the eurocanards might have superior manoverability compared to the older 3rd gen airframes, but the difference is not large enough to warrent such a lofty title.
Also Both the LCA, J-10 and Lavi can be classified as a 4.5 gen aircraft along with Rafale, Grippen and Typhoon because of its advanced Design , Digital Avionics and use of composite , Although no official info is available on J-10 I assume it has all the features of a 4.5 gen design aircraft.
the lavi is a dead project, and even when it was still active it would have been stretching to reach 4th gen standards.
as for the LCA, well much is still left in question since neither its engine (final) or avionics have been completed. so while the planned capacities approach 4.5 gen standards, it still remains to be seen whether the actual thing will live up to those expectations.
as for the J10, well there is so little about the ac that it can be anything from 3rd gen to 4.5 gen. just not enough info to tell for sure.
but off what we do know so far, its looks like its shaping out to be a 4th gen bird with 4.5gen potential (maybe slightly more if the planes for thrust vectoring engines are ever realised).
plawolfObviously the J-10 prototype is short on power. China is short on everything but humans. 🙁
lol, whats that all about?
so the J10 doesnt have its engines on at the time. big deal. :rolleyes:
if the plane can fly, im sure it has the thrust to taxi about on its own power if it was so desired.
plawolf😮 😮
Just got this from CDF….
Any comment, translations, summarizations??
United States: will sink all Chinese ships in the event of attack (in Chinese)
another example of the press making a meal out of very little just to creat a ‘shocking’ headline to sell more paper. :rolleyes:
an US general was answering a question saying that IF a conflict broke out across the straits, AND the PLA tried a blockade, AND the US got dragged into it, AND if the US managed to gain air superiority, then they would sink PLAN ships to break the blockade.
which is another way of stating the obvious.
plawolfThis is nice!
actually its been posted already, along with is, which is nicer. 😉
plawolfI am under the impression that you think they will use these weapons as operational systems. I disagree. I think 6 is no where near enough to warrant operational deployment. After studying these weapons for a few years they should be able to reverse engineer a weapon that might not have the range or flight performance of the Kh-55 but will certainly do the job they want it to. This is no doubt not the only thing they have gotten hold of from the various former soviet republics and indeed I wouldn’t doubt they are aquiring new skills all the time either through hard work or espionage.
4 or 5 missiles is better then zero. there is nothing more the iranians can learn from taking 6 missiles apart compared to 1 or 2.
I do understand that, but I don’t think they will use any of these operationally in the near future. These 6 will be stripped and examined very carefully and put back together several times by technicians and one or two might even be tested to check the performance. From what they learn they will be able to make their own missile that they control. For all we know all Soviet missiles might have a failsafe mechanism… where if a coordinate inside the USSR is selected as a target then it will fail, or generate some small error that seems to be a glitch but isn’t.
considering the way the US has been eyeing iran, i think iran’s leader’s top priority is to make sure their government can last until the new weapons become operational. they dont have the luxery of being able to say, ‘we got time, no rush.’
No it isn’t. Payloads can be very small in fact if it is a nuclear weapon. A 200kt nuke the Kh-55 normally carries is less than 80kgs in weight.
Equally for the Russians 3,000km was necessary to cover the necessary targets from the standoff range the missiles would be launched from. Who knows what range the Iranians might decide they need.
well it is import in this case. even if iran could develop a nuclear weapon, chances are it will be heavy, so they’ll need a missile with a big payload. equally, range is important in that it can give them more targets to aim at, and more places the enemy will need to defence, thus thinning out their defence and increasing the chnce of missiles getting to their targets.
No, it doesn’t. We are not talking about SAMs performance but radar performance. Even if it is on the water it will be seen on radar simply due to its speed. If there are mountains to fly behind then a course can be planned to avoid most known radar sites so that the enemy won’t know what has hit them till it has hit them.
Mountains and hills would rarely be flown over… more likely flown around. We are talking nap of earth flying.
SAM, radar, both nees to work for a successful intercept.
in ‘difficult terrian’, i was refering to forested areas, where th trees will not always so up so precisely on the primitive ground avoidence radars many cruise missiles have.
But the major part of the guidance of a cruise missile are computer parts and computer programmes…
which can be checked independently.
So why bother with flight testing at all? Missiles or aircraft? If all the parts work individually then the whoel system should work right?
you only flight test something when you first develop it and you are unsure of how everything is working together. the KH55 is a tried and tested missile. the system configuration works, and if all the parts are in good condition, then the missile will do what it was designed to do.
Yes, and it all passes with flying colours but when it is actually needed you use the weapon but none of them hit their targets. Later on you find out that in the real world there are things called sand storms. You also find that at the altitude you programmed the missile to fly for the first part of the attack makes the control surfaces freeze and the time for them to unfreeze is less than the time it takes to hit the ground, or the vibration from the engine make the gyro out by 10km for every minute of operation, or the fuel lines easily become clogged or come loose etc etc etc… maybe you never find out what is going wrong and you just have to start again from scratch. Maybe a enemy spy puts a bug in the guidance computer so that if it ever crosses onto a particular country it crashes.
again, only of real concern when dealing with new and untest technology, whereas the KH55 has already been perfected and its design has already solved all of the above problems and more.
No, I am suggesting that the 6 missiles that the Iranians got might have been altered on their trip to their destination. I have a nice amusing video of a group of Chechens what are test firing some recoiless rifle rounds (SPG-9 rockets) and strangely enough the whole weapon explodes, killing the firer and the guy standing next to him. (I assume they are dead… there doesn’t seem to be too much left). Doesn’t pay to buy weapons from the FSB…
again, confusing the issue. in that case, and many other like it, it was a ‘sting’ operation conducted by the FBS with PRIOR knowledge. in short, the sabotaged the weapons because they knew where they were going.
not the case with the missiles, since both the russians and ukrainans (most of them anyways) thought the missiles were heading back to russia.
had the FSB or any other security org had any idea of the missile transfer to iran and china, they would have just stopped it, if they wanted to. there is zero reason for them to sabotage the missiles since there was still a major risk of tech transfer.
Iran calls the US the great satan, the US calls Iran an evil empire. Since when did name calling mean anything?
since the US invaded iraq, which puts them a stone’s throw away from iran.
But without testing how will they know the ideal height for detonation?
equations. they know the desity and weight of the chemicals, just find something none-toxic with the same properties and use a crop duster to spray a bit of the dessert and find out.
doesnt have to be inch perfect you know.
If you want bio weapons or nuclear weapons capability for this cruise missile then accuracy is no needed… in the case of the nuclear weapon anywhere in the city will do, in the case of the chem or bio weapon… just fly it at minimum altitude releasing the stuff when it gets near a city or urban area.
since iran doesnt seem to have either operational at the moment, chemical agents seem like the only likely candiate, which the Kh55’s accuracy is ideal for.
No. Once it has reached cruise speed it uses no where near full power to maintain speed. The two engines effectively doubles the power at the cost of slightly more fuel consumption due to extra weight. If they can keep drag down then there is no reason for double the fuel to be needed.
its all down to maths, and better mathmetitions then you or i have done their best. if two engines really were as good as u suggest, why isnt anyone actually using it? the sums just dont add up, plain and simple.
The Kh-55 was constrained in size because it had to fit in a weapon bomb bay. There is no reason why the Iranians couldn’t make a 4 ton model that was simply longer but otherwise the same dimensions even with a far less fuel efficient engine and still get a range better than the Kh-55.
fitting the orginal KH55 on F14s is already hard enough, fitting an even bigger missiles would be boarding on the impossible. and if you try to launch the thing from the ground, then you’ll probably have to add a BM booster to the back to get it airborn since the turbofan engines were just design to keep the thing in the air and has nowhere near the thrust to lift it off the grouud.
But modern airliners travel rather more than 3,000km, and modern airliners don’t have radar to update their nav computers like the cruise missiles do.
and what makes you so sure iran has the ability to make such radars small enough to fit in a cruise missile?
you’d need a fairly good radar to get good enough ground mapping.
And when was that tested and proved?
it doesnt need to be. GPS sats are just signal broadcasting devices. so they can broadcast electronic signals. doesnt take a major re-fit to allow them to broadcast signals on a slightly difference frequency.
Hahahahahaha…. sorry there is something very ironic about a Chinese person saying that….. :diablo: (no disrespect)
indeed, but true, since even the chinese have occassionally found things they cant digest easily or quickly.
plawolfi think the original article went off a little between 2nd gen and 5th gen.
second gen fighters, IMHO, includes the broadest array of combat ac since this ,generation’ lasted the longest.
its basicly after jets started going supersonic. then you had gradual improvements and modifications, but nothing so dramatic as to set one fighter out from the rest so much as to warrent being classed as a generation ahead.
2nd gen fighters tend to have the shared charateristic of either relying on high speed while having poor subsonic handling. as examplified by the likes of the starfighter, F4s, F5, Mig21, Mig23/27, Mig25, J8II etc.
these fighters also tended to have radars and radar guided AAMs as opposed to merely the IR guided weapons of some late 1st gen fighters, and some like the F4 were even supposed to have ‘multirole’ capacity.
however, because of the shortcomings of the technology at the time, 2nd gen fighters were often proved to be little better then 1st gen fighters in AA combat as a result of the poor performance of the electronics that were supposed to have set them apart.
a major breakthrough was only achieved with the introduction of the no-expense-spared F15 anf F1 fighters, the technology pioneered in the development of these ac also sporned other similar capacity ac in the form of the F16 and F17/18. the arrival of such high performance wester fighters forced the USSR to develop fighters of similar capacity in the form of the Su27 and Mig29.
the exception to this trend was the french mirage F1+, which was actually a gradual evolution from MirageIII (which in my opinion was the first 3rd gen fighter to enter service, but is often classified as a 2nd gen because of the earliness of its introdution).
3rd gen fighters were worthy of the term as they incoporated the best of both gens that came before them by achieving supersonic flight while not compramising on subsonic handling.
you might have noticed that up to this point i have focused also exclusively on airframe and not discussed avionics and radar development. this is due to three main factors.
one is the fact that avionics and radar development has been far more gradual meaning that the avionics of the last of one gen was often only slightly inferior if not the same as the first fighters of the next gen; the second reason is that up to this point, because of the primitiveness of radars and avionics, they tend to only offer a marginal advanatge; the thrid, and purhaps most important, is that avionics can always be upgrades, which is especially true in today’s world of ever improving miniturisation (as examplified by the Mi21 Bison’s new found BVR capacity). so, if you put the F22’s radar and avionics suit into an F4 or J8II, does that mean that the F4 and J8 can now pass off as fifth gen fighters?
but midway through the 3rd gen o jet fighters, radars and avionics started to play a much more important role with the introduction of the AMRAAM, MICA, R77 etc ARH AAMs, and the maturing of the PGM technology first tested in vietnam.
radars and avionics really only become essentual at this stages, as the difference between 3rd and 4th gen fighters mainly boils down to their avionics, with 4th gen fighters having a true multi-role capacity, whereas 3rd gen tended to be omi-role with only a fairly weak secondary ground attack capacity (examplified by the F16s of the first gulf war, the bulk of which could only drop dumb bombs).
examples of 4th gen fighters include the F15E, Su30/34/35/37, Mig29SMT, F16Blk50+, F18C, Mirage2000-5/8, Rafale F1, Typhoon trench1 etc.
the term 4.5 gen is, IMHO, somewhat manufatured by the european aviation industry, since their ‘next gen’ fighters could not offer the kind of quantum leap in capacity as to warrent being classed as belonging to the 5th gen, but they need to make their planes sound better as to justify the massive investment in them (and thats why some tend to class all of my ‘4th gen’ fighters as ‘3rd gen/ 3.5 gen’ and save the term 4th gen just for the eurocanards).
the only noticable difference between 4.5 gen and 4th gen is that 4.5 gen fighters are supposed to be ‘swing role’, and purhaps also the limited ‘stealth’ charateristics.
4.5th gen fighters include the gripen, rafale, typhoon, F18E and maybe a few others.
well thats how i class them anyways.
plawolfAn interesting note on PLAAF recruiting. The PLA is supposedly conscript but is really all-volunteer since you have to apply in order to be “drafted.” The Army is seen as a way out of the countryside for many of China’s rural youth.
The problem is attracting and keeping educated men and women. This was actually helped by the mandatory military training for college students put in place shortly after the 1989 Tianenmen Square debacle. (After, a failed student uprising, the PLA decided to teach the students more about using assault rifles and hand grenades. Seems counterproductive but actually worked out in instilling respect for the armed forces among the educated,)
actually, the so called ‘military training’ is far more about formation marching and standing in really neat lines. 😉
its mainly designed to promote disapline and mental toughness (believe me, having stood out in the open sun in the middle of the summer for hours on end tend to make many other things seem easier), and i guess having military drill sargents take up a position of authority so early in life does tend to have ‘positive’ impact on the mental development of the young (in the chinese authority’s prospective of course).
you only get to shoot a bult action rifle after you get to high school, and even then its only ten rounds per person. its treated more like entertainment then real military training (not saying safety is taken lightly during shooting practice, merely that the activity itself is more fun then work). i supose its also a kind of recruiting excerise for the military in case some of the kids gets a real liking for the feel of a gun.
plawolfPS:….
Peepol…..Could you ID these subs……pls….. 😮
caption of the one on the left says its a chinese ordered kilo. the one on the right looks like an SSN/SSBN, and its looks kinda american.
plawolfYou are forgetting we are talking about a country that put a few hundred people in a building with all the shredded documents the Americans left behind, gave then as much sellotape as they needed and left them to reconstruct thousands or hundreds of thousands of shredded documents… no matter how long it took!
They already have had access to all sorts of sophisticated military equipment… access to working cruise missiles is not going to set them back a few years.
i never said it would be impossible. just implausable given the time frame we are talking about (1~2 years).
And do you know how much less time it would have taken if someone had supplied them with 6 complete examples?
same as above, possible but not probably.
and anyways, didnt i already point out that iran will be studying and trying to reproduce the missiles anyways?
im just saying that the 6 missiles will not all be for accidemic study, with the emphysis now on using them to form some sort of deterance capacity to buy time for iran to improve its overal miliatry capacity.
what you dont seem to understand is that the KH55s, old as they may be, offer a quantum leap for iran in terms of the strategic strike capacity it now offers them.
and you cant just diejest it all in a year or two and make something equivilant, no matter how many people you lock in a room to try it.
on the other hand, alot of the things you are suggesting would already be doable for iran. the kinda basic short range cruise missiles like the ones you are decribing can be easily converted from C802 AShMs, provided iran has the capacity to develop decent low level nav systems, termal guidence and maybe a better turbofan engine.
however, none of that will come close to matching the KH55 without anything short of a quantum leap in the tech level of iran atm (judged by the stuff they are making right now).
so, to sum up again. anything iran tries to make using the methods you have descirbed so far will not come anywhere near the range or payload of the KH55 (and with cruise missiles, thats really whats most important). anything they might be able to cook up in time would not be significantly better then a re-fitted C802, and thus would not be worth the trouble.
Not strictly true anymore. The same guidance features that make cruise missiles accurate can be used in BMs to make them just as accurate.
and has anyone actually made a BM that accurate? remeber that with BMs, you have the added difficulties of the massive heat caused during flight (which tend to fry delicate optical sensors), and the massive speeds involved (meaning final course adjustments have to be far more accurate and made much more quickly).
That depends upon terrain. The S-300 series is desigined to engage cruise missiles as well as BMs. It even has radars especially designed for low targets.
it kinda works both ways. for difficult terrain, the cruise missile would be forced to fly higher, but then there will be more interferance for the targeting radars of the SAM. for flat, open terrain, cruise missiles can drop close to the mininum engagment altitude of SAMs.
generally long range SAMs are only useful if they can catch the cruise missiles during the ‘economy’ flight phase where they are high up (and even then only some missiles do that while others go nap-of-the-earth all the way).
Whether they are mountains or buildings is irrelevant. The flight plan for the weapon will be prepared in advance with the known performance of the weapon in mind. They aren’t going to try to get a weapon to fly 9g manouvers all the way to the target.
well having a missile that can only go in a straight line at a fixed speed is going to majorly limit your planning options.
remeber that cruise missiles ‘like’ to weave in between mountain ranges to minimise the risk of detection. having a ‘one speed only’ cruise missile pretty much takes that option off the table.
Both are made of many parts that need to be able to work together. Testing them in isolation means nothing if they don’t work together.
wrong. cruise missiles will always have far fewer parts then there are lines of code in a computer programme. even then many of the parts are redundency units.
then there is the operational realities. for computer programmes, the programme tend to only work as a whole, making it hard to test things bit by bit. with a cruise missile, there are many functional units (nav computer, engines, control surfaces) which can be tested on their own. then if all the circits and wires joining all these parts work properly, there is no reason why the missile wont work.
of course, there is also the option of testing the missile without firing it.
having a turbofan engine means that you can drain most of the fuel tank and test the engine much the same way you test a fighter’s jet engines. if that is working, you just top up the fuel and its ready to go.
its a similar case with the control surfaces and nav computers and terminal guidence sensors.
Yes, it is only those devious russians that have intelligence services. There is no equivelent to the FSB or KGB in the Ukraine. Everyone knows the Ukrainians trust everyone and would have nothing to do with her evil neighbour in the post cold war period…
huh? :confused:
are you suggesting that the ukrainians sabotaged their own missiles on the off chance they might be stolen?
you can possilble beleive that!
The FSB was the KGB. The KGB had control of all nuclear warheads. Whether they were Ukrainian KGB or Russian KGB or Belorussian KGB.
and all the warheads were shipped back to russia. the fact that the missiles remained meant that the russian had no direct control of them.
Iran WAS a US ally. Pakistan doesn’t even have oil… it is an ally of convenience at the moment. Such things change rapidly.
come on, thats just being stubben. iran never was a US ally, rather the US liked the oil reserves that was under the place and made the government in iran pro-US by means of a coup de tart, which backfired and now iranians hate the US more then ever.
iran has lots of oil, but there’s no chance in hell that the US will get the kinda sole access deal on it through negotiations when the likes of china and india are getting so oil hungry. hence the US’ desire to find a way to get at the oil through other means.
Great Satan, Evil Empire… are you trying to suggest a difference between these countries?
huh?
But the obvious response will be devastating and will include nuclear weapons. How many infidels do they think they could get with such an immature weapon? (Have you seen evidence of real world tests performed by the iranians?)
i never said it was about jihad to wipe out infidels. rather as a means to try and make sure the ‘infidels’ keep their hands to themselves.
in the world of nuclear weapons, there can never be the kind of absolute military victories of the past, hence its not common for nuclear powers to have a go at each other, and there lies the goal of todays would-be nuclear wannabies – a nuclear weapon = US military action free card.
Many are so fine they would take hours to descend to ground level, by which time they would be so diluted they would have little effect. Also wind speed and direction would have a huge influence on the result. In the end I doubt it would justify the retaliation for the agressor… but don’t think that will stop the victim from launching a nuclear strike in return.
well you are forgetting the accuracy of the KH55. you can air burst the thing a couple dosen, a couple hundred metre or a couple thousand metres above the ground to maximise effect, and the missile will deliver the missile to a couple of metres of the optimum height, which is good enough to achieve maximum effect (wind effect is a double edged sword, and can be used to the attacker’s advanatge since info on whether patterns are easily accessed via any number of internation websites like CNN. if the attacker cant take advanatge of that, he can just programme the missile to go off at a low altitude where wind affect is neglagable).
also, remeber that this is meant to be a DETERANT. even if iran had nuclear weapons they would still only be a deterant. in effect, even the US’ massive nuclear capacity is only a deterant against any of the established nuclear powers.
the idea is to tell the bush administration, ‘we have the means to hurt you badly, and if you invade, then there’s not much reason for us not to use it is there? so hand off.’
Even if the missile is 4 tons… twice the weight of a Kh-55, just fit two engines.
and you double the fuel consumption, halving the range, at least.
as i said before, iran can easily get a ‘cruise missile’ like UAV airborn, but the range and payload wont be anything like that of the KH55 no matter how many engines you slap on.
A bit like suggesting AMRAAM has a max range of 20km isn’t it?
Most modern cruise missiles use inertial guidance to get them to a place where they can use their onboard sensors (optical or radar) to find the target area. Even ballistic missiles do the same.
sounds easy, but if your missiles does any kind of complex fight pattern on the way in, your going to be in big trouble. even mordern airliners with state-of-the-art laser gyros and flying a pretty simple flight plan regularly have a couple to dosens of miles difference between where their inertial guidence systems tell them they are and where they are in reality. thats why airliners all have GPS navegation with the gyro pretty much acting like a backup in case the GPS packs in.
And when such signals flood the airways the missile will just continue to use inertial guidance and use Glonass signals. BTW the power and proximity of the jamming signals means you’d either have to spend trillions and have active jammers every few kms along the flight path… and have them operating all the time… which no doubt will make civilian and military use of such systems impossible… I wouldn’t doubt the Iranians have a few specimins of US military GPS systems already from failed cruise missiles and UAVs.
what are you talking about? the infrastructure in already in place. US GPS sats can jam recievers on the ground by broadcasting doggy Glonass signals or just sending out interferance signals to scramble the russian sat transmissions.
If they have Kh-55s then they have the inertial system it used.
All they need to do is upgrade their current Mig-29s to SMT standard and they will certainly get Ring laser gyro technology.
er, having an example doesnt automatically mean you can make a copy.
You can download DTMs (digital terrain maps) from the internet if you have a credit card. It doesn’t need a map of the planet… just the ME.
i was refering to info about the world the cruise missile is in so it can compare with its maps to find out where it is.
oh, and another thing, im not sure if its still being done, but in the past, nations had a habbit of releasing slightly inaccuract maps. not much of a problem when you are driving a car or walking or even flying in a comercial jet. but its kinda big issue when you are trying to programme a missile to navigate using those maps.
plawolfthanks.
Sign In
