And what about the threat from S-200 family?
Too right!
We’ve had lots of SR-71 v MiG-25 threads were it has often been pointed out that SR-71s were never allowed to enter Soviet airspace, with some people on this forum implying that the Americans were afraid of the big bad FOXBAT, which frankly, theoretically cannot catch an SR-71 (and probably not the B-70 either). I think the USAF probably had more respect for the S-200, which theoretically should be able to catch a ‘Habu’ (or B-70). It was a missile after all, which eventually shot down Francis Gary Powers.
Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SR-71 has in fact, already survived S-200 protected areas. I have in mind countries like Libya, which has had the S-200 for many years, N. Korea, Syria and Iran. Anyone with more info?:confused:
Proposed cockpit of the Airbus A400 military transport.
From the Airbus website.
This is more or less extreme rather than weird:
Convair NB-36H Atomic powered Experimental Aircraft
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ClassicAC/B36.htm
Found out about this Soviet research aircraft only last night – a nuclear powered version of the Tu-95, the Tu-119 .
Yes… they are lovely desings but there was al least one real Flying Submarine…
Reid Flying Submarine RFS-1
Also from the same Russian forum I found another of Dan Reid’s “projected”
flying sub designs – “the Aeroship”.
The first A/C to exceed Mach 4, 5, & 6 and exceed altitude of 100,000ft, 200,000ft, & 300,000ft: North American X-15
The X-15 could also be considered the worlds first re-usable spacecraft – it twice exceeded the altitude that is the FAI definition for the boundary of outer space (100km/62.1 miles).
7 Americans went into space in the 1962/63 period, not 6. Both of Joe Walker‘s X-15 flights may have been suborbital but then again, so were 2 of the Mercury programme launches.
One of my favourite research aircraft of the 1950/60s…
I wonder if the stainless steel Bristol 188 could have been developed in to an interceptor type aircraft… it certainly had the looks to be one?
BTW, I read somewhere, that a lot of the stainless steel (welding)technology
of the MiG-25 was derived from the stainless steel tech of the Bristol 188!
Is there any substance to this?:confused:
All this talk of weird seaplanes and amphibians
General Dynamics Submersible Fighter: A what????!!!!!
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/J-Sea/J-Sea.htm
Here’s a weird one if ever there was – A flying submarine from the Soviet Union.
It had a crew of 3, and was to be armed with 2 x 18 inch torpedoes and 2 paired machine guns.
Aerial thrust was provided by 3 x AM-34 radial piston engines of 1200 hp each, which would give the aircraft a maximum speed of 100kts (200km/h), a maximum altitude of 8500ft (2500m) and a range of 500 miles (800km)
Maximum takeoff weight was to be 15,000 kg.
Underwater, propulsion was provided by a 10 hp electric motor which gave the “vessel” (shall we call it) a max speed of 3 kts and a range of only 5-6 miles.
The outer skin/hull consisted of 6mm duralumin.
The project was first proposed in the mid-thirties by a Naval Engineering academy student called Ushakov.
I wonder why they never gave him his own Design Bureau like all the other talented designers/constructors such as Tupolev and Mikoyan at that time?:D 😀
ALR-94 is a self-defense system and nothing like a wild weasel or SEAD capable aircraft. Otoh F-22A plan to use the radar for some SEAD business.
Well I don’t see any reason why the ALR/94 can’t be used against ground based radars, bearing in mind just how much more capable it’s supposed to be. Sure, all earlier RWRs were usually optimised only for other air threats and there may indeed be a great difference between the normal wavelengths, bandwidths etc, emitted by AI radars and those emitted by ground based radars which would force any aircraft mounted EW receivers to be optimised for either one or the other, but not for both, but the system on the F-22 is supposed to capable against a much much greater range of radio emissions than is usual.
Maybe someone on this forum could clarify just what are the precise roles/capabilities of the avionics of the F-22, as regards SEAD Wild Weasel missions, I ‘m not sure myself??
If we can agree that the Raptor has a reasonable SEAD capability, well then that would answer Sealord’s original question. The F-22 is indeed a very capable A2G aircraft – after all, how capable are the inbuilt avionics of the F-15E or Eurocanards for the SEAD role (unless you hang on the necessary pylon mounted pods etc)??
I should think that the F-22’s main A2G role is always going to be SEAD, once the air defences have been dealt with the less stealthy types can then wade in to carry out the other types of aerial strikes. I take it that the ALR-94 gives the F-22 a certain “Wild Weasel” ability – does it? Can the F-22 detect, identify, and locate precisely, the emissions from the search radars from the likes of a S-300 or a Tor-M AD system and them pass on the coordinates to the SDBs onboard?
Because the idea of the F-22 being able to charge through a heavily defended zone at M1.5 and 55,000ft to ripple firing a half dozen or so SDBs has a lot of appeal. They say that the S-300/Tor-M can attack even small targets like bomb munitions such as JDAM and obviously the best solution to that would be overwhelm these AD systems with as many SDBs as possible. 5 to 10 SDB armed Rapters should be enough to overwhelm even the most modern SAM network erected.
Incidently, will there ever be a ‘LO’ stealth version of such munitions as the SDB or the normal sized JDAM? If the F-22 has the RCS of a pigeon, what would the RCS of a SDB be if it had the very latest stealth technology applied to it… a wasp perhaps? I can’t see any radar being able to detect such a LO target except at the last few kilometres or so, by which time it will be too late to respond.
I know it would be expensive, but it would only need apply to those munitions used for SEAD (presumably only a minority of all SDB/JDAMs used in any compaign).
btw..aha.ru link is not opening.
Just slam this sentence (or any part of it) into the Google search engine.
It should give you the right link.
“State Governmental Scientific-Testing Area of Aircraft Systems” (FKP “GkNIPAS)
That picture is from warfare.ru
Yes, but originally from Paralay’s excellent website (I should think).
By the way, shall I stick on these photos I found on the http://www.forums.airbase.ru forum, just in case they haven’t been shown before (I hate starting new threads)?
They appear to depict a Su-32 (as it was then called) undergoing survivability testing – having all sorts of munitions used against it and whatever else. In the first pic you can see the damage been inflicted upon it, especially under the cockpit canopy.
In the second and third pictures we can actually see the aircraft actually undergoing the testing process, the third pic been quite enigmatic, what’s that going by in front of the aircraft – imitating a MANPADS perhaps?
I believe these photos came from the website of the organization below
State Governmental Scientific-Testing Area of Aircraft Systems” (FKP “GkNIPAS)
http://www.aha.ru/~leokon/eng/index.htm
Excellent website and it has an English language version too!! Check out the rocket propelled sled for testing the Su-32’s ejection seat system.
Sending men to the moon is pointless, except for ego…
Well, if sending men to the moon is pointless, what’s the point of sending people into Space into the first place – I don’t see any other good reason for sending people into Space in the first place, other than for some sort of attempt to visit the moon or the planets.
In which case, if sending people ito space is such a wasted effort one would have to say that a major proportion of the Soviet Union’s/ Russia’s space programme was a waste of time – what were all those manned space stations for? :rolleyes: :confused:
The spaceshuttle can’t even get up the ground. It costs $500million per launch.
Does it make economics sense. It is not reliable with it its disasters. The Russian Soyuz is the most reliable vehicle in modern times.It costs $20million launch and it makes economic sense, the shuttle crew still fly on them instead of their own presently. The Russians also built a superior one but got rid of it due high running costs.
Believe it or not the Space shuttle is quite a reliable launcher.
There has been ‘only’ 2 unsuccessful launches of the space shuttle (a catastrophic launch explosion and an ‘abort to orbit’)- out of a total of 117 launches, and I believe there have been more manned Shuttle launches than manned Soyuz launches. Strictly speaking, the Soyuz capsule system has had more failed launch attempts and more failed reentry attempts than the US’s Space Shuttle. Many of the manned Soyuz missions have been operational failures… they often failed to dock with the space station they were supposed to rendevous with!
Check out this link…
what are your reasons for putting the Iranian and Algerian AF’s above the EAF?im not saying you are wrong but im just wondering how you came to this conclusion!
Coz it’s all those Soviet/Russian aircraft that those 2 countries operate, you know, those MiG-25s/29s Su-24s and Mi-24s that either Iran and Egypt operate – would give these countries a definite advantage – or so Star would have it.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sorry, I misunderstood. But I haven’t seen the claim that the Israelis fitted the Soviet R-3 on their Mirage IIIs anywhere else and would like to know the sources of this claim.
The capture of R-3 missiles by the Israelis was well discussed on the http://www.acig.org website some time back.
If you can’t connect to the links below, just enter the acig forum index, select Air-launched weapons then choose the ‘Israeli AAMs: Shafir/Python Series’ thread – lots of info on the subject there (you may have to log in though).
http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1249
http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1249&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Shafrir I was a copy of the Russian missile??? And the Israelis captured the Russian missile intact? Could you please cite your sources?
He never said the Shafir was a clone of a Soviet missile. I think he meant that the Soviet R-3 missile was the clone – which is true (copied from the AIM-9B Sidewinder).
I believe the Israelis captured quite a lot of R-3 missiles from the Egyptians when they overran an Egyptian airfield in, I think, 1967.
There was an attempt to fit these missiles to Israeli aircraft afterwards, and I believe the Israelis also fitted Sidewinders or Shafirs to some of the MiGs they captured from the Arab air forces as well, but I’m not sure.