VympelOriginally posted by milavia
I guess this “Russian Military Aviation Directory” will also be a reproduction of WAPJ and IAPR articles?
I’m not sure- I don’t think WAPJ/IAPR would’ve covered the current Russian military aviation OOB and TO&E that well …
VympelWhere were the Soviet
AWACs or Ground based radars or Fighter radars.
I was unaware the Mujhadeen had fighters to make it necessary for Russia to deploy it’s MiG-29s and A-50 AWACS, or it’s myriad of ground surveillance radars. You make it sound like Russia was at war with Pakistan. It was not.
In recent Gulf
war US new that Irak does not have any credible airforce or SAMs
but still they brought all their tech might.
Which is a completely differnet issue, considering Russia was not at war with anyone like Iraq- and Iraq *did* still have SAMs and aircraft and a smart offensive takes that into account to keep casualties low.
And your putting simple
assumption that because opposition to Soviet did not had the
tech so Soviet donot use their own tech which is obviously
wrong. So it proves that i am interested in this topic. [/B]
This paragraph is incomprehensible.
VympelOriginally posted by flex297
[B]I think they should have renamed the radar to something else than Zhuk. The name still reminds the original N-010 design
The N011M got away with it, didn’t it? Though, admittedly, it’s a PESA rather than just an improved Zhuk like the MiG-29Ks Zhuk-Meh.
VympelOriginally posted by crobato
[B]Who says the C-803 is supersonic? Any article that says the C-803 is supersonic is wrong in that detail. The C-803 is a clear evolution of a subsonic missile; otherwise they won’t call it “803” for nothing after the subsonic 802 and 801. The turbojet and the blunt shape of the head is further proof of that. I believe some articles are confusing the C-803 with the supersonic ramjet YJ-12, which is already on advanced stages of testing and will be used on the 052C class destroyers when the destroyers are put into service soon.
It seems SD-10 did exactly that, teaches me to take something at face value.
As for the actual range of the C-802, given the actual tracked range of a test C-803 vs. the advertised figures, yes that leaves some room for doubt as to the actual range of the C-802 in air launched form. Causing your enemy to vastly underestimate the actual range of a missile is a good way to put him into a trap.
I doubt they were undertaking a deliberate deception plan- you don’t shoot off missiles to the limit of their range for all to see if deception is your objective.
When the T-98 was first shown, it was indeed ready for service, albeit in limited numbers. It didn’t take long for the T-98 to appear in shots in various exercises.
Yes, but it wasn’t ‘in service’- it’d be like me saying the Khrizantema-S was in service because it passed state acceptance tests in Russia. Regardless, as I said, I don’t see why ‘in service’ matters that much- I can’t think of a single case where whether it’s in service or not has a bearing on it’s performance characteristics, and whether they’d be wrong or not.
If it’s just for show, they would be showing the missile instead in a mockup where you can see the entire missile, not within a launcher, and not certainly in a battalion form. There is another picture inside a factory that shows C-803s being assembled, and this is based on a TV scan. I deleted files off my PC so I can’t find it right now, but it should be in the CDF. [/B]
You delete your pictures? Why?
VympelHuh? I didn’t see that ever mentioned in that report, and from what I gather the air launched version (Yakhont M) is only due for testing this year. It is only the ship launched version that was commissioned in September 23 of 2002.
Yeah I was wrong about that, I had the article on me to check. Regardless, Yakhont-M is only the newest air-launched version, with the land attack option.
As for the C-802 and the C-803 weights, mockups of the C-803 in display next to C-802 indicates a very similarly sized missile—which is why it uses the same launch tubes. The two missiles are almost identical, which means all changes are only within, with a datalink antenna being visible with the C-803, indicating midcourse guidance, while the C-802 relies on inertial guidance in the midphase.
So the C-803 is supersonic, has double the range, but is the same weight as it’s predecessor? Come on.
As for the C-802’s “120km”, which is the advertised range, it’s probably as true as the C-803’s advertised range of “160km”, which as events have shown isn’t true.
That’s inneuendo- what about something concrete?
Those ranges are probably only low flight profile, ship to ship trajectories, and are not the air launched versions, which could greatly increase range. Note that the proposed air launched Uran was supposed to be 250km, when the base Uran is 135km.
Now that’s what what I was hoping for. We don’t even know what altitude the C-803 was launched at, or it’s flight profile to the target- two things that significantly effect how useful the missile will be in combat.
As for the C-803 being in service, you don’t truck it around in parades if it’s not.
The Soviets did it all the time in fact (if these are indeed C-803 launchers)- as do the Chinese; i.e. their first Type 98 tank parade was before the type was ready for service IIRC. And as I said: what difference does it make if it’s ‘in service’ or not?
VympelOnly in a boat, but it’s not air launched as of yet since the air launched version is still in development.
EDIT: mistake removed. Are you going to tell me C-803 is “in service”? If so, why does this matter?
So is that your answer? [/B]
That is why I typed it. It’s not very intellecutally honest to assume the exact specifications of your ‘favorite’ missile in a question asking which missile is best now is it?
VympelOriginally posted by crobato
Since edited- read again.
VympelThe articles are regurgitated from previous World Airpower Journals.
The Bear section is not an in-depth piece about the Tu-95 series – it only covers the ‘new’ Tu-95MS and Tu-142 airframes.
It is a cynical exercise on the part of Airtime to screw the punters into purchasing a book that is no more than a collection of already published articles.
If you don’t already have the aforesaid articles, then it is fine, if like me, you do, then you end up feeling somewhat cheated.
Ken
Yeah, I don’t have access to those articles, so it’s a good purchase for me- I missed out on all those WAPJs. I’ve missed out on every aviation mag. And besides, having it in book form is a bonus.
VympelOriginally posted by crobato
[B]Tell me which one has actually been caught testing with that range.
“Actually been caught testing”? There are very few missiles where news articles bother to mention it’s been caught testing- the only reason the C-803 was mentioned was because it’s a China vs Taiwan issue. I see no reason to doubt the range given for the NSM or Harpoon Block II, for example.
Oniks/Yahkhont both have 300km range (Oniks more, as it is not restricted by the missile export treaty). They also have a larger warhead, one of the advantages of greater weight, and different flight profiles.
Which one is now in service
Oniks, accepted in 2002 by Russia.
and which ones are in the same size and weight class (500-700kg). [/B]
What kind of qualification is that? What’s the point of even asking what the ‘best’ air-launched anti-ship missile is if you’re going to constrain it to weight? IThe thread didn’t ask for “which anti-ship missile in the same weight class as C-803 is the best”
Also, how do you know the C-803 is 700kg? The C-802 weighs 715kg. Considering the range of the C-802 is 120km, I’d be very surprised if the C-803 weighed anywhere near that.
VympelAwesome article. I don’t see how other Russian contractors can poach MiG’s work though- what do they know about the MiG-29K?
VympelI doubt it. Regardless, what I said about its specs and performance stands- there’s nothing spectacular there to differentiate it from the competitors in its class, and I find calling it “the best” based on precisley zilch extremely sad.
VympelNice cockpit pictures- very rare!
VympelI think only 14 Tu-160s now survive at Engels after the crash of bort 01, and for the crash investigation one of the stored airframes at Zhukovskii also met it’s fate in a destructive test.
15 aircraft by my count, including the one that was just delivered last year. Assuming no more crashes, 18 aircraft seems to be the end result when the three at Kazan are finished unless the plan for that second regiment (and 25 aircraft total) goes through. Could the remaining four airframes at Zhukovksy (assuming that of the 5, one really was ‘destroyed’- Surely the ‘destruction’ of that stored airframe was controlled?) be refurbished? I also heard that as many as four aircraft could be in the Ukraine.
Add to this the crashed prototype and the fact that i think only one of the Zhukovskii Blackjacks is still flying
Yes, a flying testbed, and four non-flying at Zhukovsky; one of the non-flying ones was probably the one ‘destroyed’.
you’ll see that in fact less than half of all Tu-160s built still fly. Which is far too low.
Bugger.
Here is one of the original 5 machines at Engels, before they got names and Russian heraldry on their tails and noses. Note the Bisons in the background. [/B]
Nice.
VympelOriginally posted by matt
so basically even if they got intercepted they would have a high chance of firing of a missile with high likely hood of it nuking atleast a border town..
Border town? If it was operating from the Far East, it could target major cities with ease- or more likely, military installations
This is all moot though; a Tu-95MS could do the same job- there’s no need for the Tu-160s deep penetration capability when you’re targeting someone at your border.
VympelOriginally posted by flex297
[B]Errr, first, nothing like production MiG-29M2 exists yet.
I know, but MiGs plans for the four aircraft are well known.
Second, a maritime upgrade of the airframe ain’t that simple even if external looks might be similar. To make your structure withstand thousands of hard deck landings and salt water corrosion you need more than just to add arrestor hook and new ILS.
You’ve got it backwards- the MiG-29M1/M2 will be based off the MiG-29K, not the other way around. The work on the MiG-29K was done a decade ago, for the most part.
The only thging that comes into my mind would be that the MiG will be doing things just like Boeing with their Bugs and Superbugs, e.g. every aircraft possess the strenghtened structure and is virtually maritime capable. But this requires use of unnecessarily advanced materials for the MiG-29M2 and could make this design more heavy and more expensive…
It was the more advanced materials of the original MiG-29M, in particular the aluminum-lithium, that made the MiG-29K develop cracks and such in the structure during carrier landings over a decade ago while it was competing agaisnt the Su-27K; the new MiG-29K isn’t as exotic. Not to mention that the aluminum-lithium was also too expensive but didn’t yield the promised weight savings. This *was* a decade ago, and as an article I read said, new techniques of manipulating this material may change that, but I don’t know.
Sign In
