There is a least one:p

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1304767&tbl=MILITARY

Does not make it operational and if you scan through the below link you will notice that that aircraft is actually parked in what appears to be an open air museum- note the aircraft and missiles either side of it and that the wheels are sat on lumps of concrete in the middle of what is essentially a field and the information sign in front of the forward undercarriage.;)

http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/mos2007_day04.html

I’ve just asked you to elaborate on why you think the Kh-65 has NOT entered service, especially after what GarryB said on page 5. You chose to ignore it. :rolleyes: All you’ve said is “I don’t see it in service with my own eyes so it must be not there…”

Also, all sferrin did was talk about the Tomahawk and its guidance. Tomahawks aren’t Kh-101, I’m sorry to inform you. 🙁 And no one is creating any fantasy dedicated anti-ship Kh-101s, but I’m just not ruling out the possibility they could hit something the size of a huge building on water. Cause that’s what a carrier is. Does your theory mean the Kh-101 can’t hit an oil rig that’s stationary because it’s on water? But if an oil rig started being dragged to another spot, it would all of a sudden become unhittable.

More importantly, I’m glad you finally see that the capabilities of the Kh-101 and Kh-65 were merely icing on the cake in terms of Russian anti-shipping. You may have hope. 😉

GarryB said nothing about Kh-65’s being in service.:rolleyes:

Now prove that there are Kh-65s in service and that the Kh-101 has an anti-shipping capability or accept the fact that America has a Death Star (after all you can not prove that they do not have one:rolleyes: ) and stop posting. If you can not prove there existance then you are just a pathetic fantasist.

Oh yeah a US carrier can make 30 knots, so its a bit different to an oil rig.:rolleyes:

I really should just post things to keep you busy on irrelevant stuff some more so you don’t mess up the main discussion, but replying to you has become better than most comedies on TV 😎

So considering you are so thick that you fail to see why the tangents you went on are irrelevant, let me try to explain this to you like I would to a 10 year old. Kh-65s and Kh-101s were just another possible variable to add to the anti-shipping equation that could be delivered by Russia, but the most irrelevant because of the subsonic speed, leaving it probably the easiest to shoot down targets for the USN, so it was completely irrelevant to the entire discussion. Can you understand this or no?

As far as the Tu-95K22 was concerned, last I read decomissioning started in the late ’90s, so if they scrapped them all in a few years.. then wonderful. But if they didn’t..

All sferrin explained was that it would be dangerous to move bombers close to a CVBG, so he didn’t explain much about Kh-101 seekers targetting huge, slow moving objects.

In terms of replacing the parts of the Kh-55, care to tell me why the Russians haven’t potentially done this already to some of their own missiles, and just not cared to report it to the rest of the world? That must be absurd right, cause Jane doesn’t know about it. :rolleyes: 😉

Care to explain why you think a new seeker and guidance system is so hard to install, especially since the parts obviously exist? Engines are probably irrelevant since they likely update those anyway, to keep the missiles in shape? Your fuel system comment is interesting, and I’d like you to elaborate on that.

Once again, you have no evidence of Kh-101’s having any AShM capability, also read post 158 by Sferrin.:rolleyes:

You also have no evidence of any Kh-65’s existing or being service, or of any program to make any or that it is possible to convert Kh-55’s to the same standard.

Anti-shipping Kh-101’s and available Kh-65’s are nothing but fantasy weapons that you have created.

Oh yeah and your attempt to explain the irrelevance of what you are talking about actually just explained why it is relevant.:rolleyes:

No you just completely failed to discuss a more specific scenario than the rather silly question of the original poster 😮 which you proceeded to answer with babble about ESSM or something.

There was nothing “wrong” about me mentioning Bears potentially launching Kh-22s, since their decomissioning may not have been completed 100%. Also irrelevant to the main point at hand, just like the potential deployment/reconfiguring of the Kh-55 into Kh-65s instead of scrapping a perfectly fine missile.

So what you did instead, was totally ignore all the fully functioning Russian anti-ship platforms in the discussion as a potential threat, and started ranting on about things that weren’t even that important (ie, decommissioning of Bears and Kh-55/65s) :rolleyes:

If you are so close minded that you can’t talk about potentially variable uses of a very advanced new missile, then just leave the discussion.

I’ve already pointed out why the Kh-101 can possibly attack a sea target based on older Soviet/Russian tech. Now it would be great to see some input from others, and no, your “You are wrong about irrelevant other points” comments don’t help. But thanks anyway.

😀 😀 😀 Seriously stop posting I dont actually know how you can keep doing this to yourself!:D 😀 😀

1) It was you who raised the idea of Kh-65’s and Anti-ship Kh-101’s, not me so, now what you are saying is that you raised an irrelevant point!:D Not to mention the fairly obvious question as to how discussion of potential AShM’s is irrelevent to a discussion about sinking aircraft carriers.:rolleyes:

2) Bears Launching Kh-22’s, all those aircraft were ‘eliminated’ by 2000….8 years ago.:D

3)Care to explain how you think a Kh-55 can be turned into a Kh-65, it would need a new warhead, a new fuel system, a new guidance system and if its over nine years old it will need a new engine as well. Then we need to add to that the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that it can be done.:D

4) It has just been explained to you by two other posters why a Kh-101 can not target a moving ship yet you have chosen to ignore them.:D

Your posts here are laughable due to your complete lack of knowledge on this subject. You have no idea what you are talking about and are utterly ignorant of reality. The fact that you have now resorted to calling your own points in this subject irrelevant and the discussion of anti-ship missiles in a thread about sinking ships pointless just shows what a joke you really are.:D

Hahahahaahha I love how this is the only thing you respond to… 😀 😀 😀

What’s the matter, the Kh-101 that threatening to your American fanboy self?

Garry what do you think?

Building vs warship too much for a seeker?

If its the only thing you post then it will be the only thing that gets responded to.:rolleyes:

The Kh-101 is a very impressive land attack missile, but it is just that, a land attack missile. It is a shame that they cancelled the propfan version (just becouse I think it would have been cool really). This is not a fanboy thing this is an issue of you being wrong, like you were wrong about Kh-65’s being in service and like you were wrong about current Bears being able to launch Kh-22’s. All these mistakes were becouse you do not know what you are talking about.:p

Sferrin and Djcross have sufficiently answered your question.

Not if they cant operate Su-33’s from it it wont Garry?. Time for them to dust off the old Freestyle plans?

Or just buy Mig-29K’s.;)

BAE once again shows how good it is at selling lemons to India! There are so many more advanced and better fighter trainers that india could go for and they end up plonking for this old hag!

How good a trainer is is defined far more by whats inside it than how old the basic design is. The Hawk is still more than capable of being at the top of the field. After all it is essentially a completely different aircraft to the original now any way. Just becouse it does not look as ‘cool’ as some of the newer ones it does not mean that it is not as good.

Considering the Kh-101 is rumored to have to TV guidance capability, after guiding them into the vicinity of enemy surface ships, I’d be surprised if you couldn’t lock the seeker onto them.

Anyone ever know if this has been done?

No sources, no evidence, no nothing, get over it.:rolleyes:

The TV/IIR capability is for scene matching in the terminal phase, not too dissimilar to Scalp/Storm Shadow.