dionisThese missiles are optimized for AWACS/Tankers/ISR, etc…
They aren’t going to be fired at 300-400km against a fighter, as the NEZ against a fighter would be much smaller than the aforementioned aircraft, and secondly, the launch aircraft isn’t going to detect a fighter at 400km.
NEZ or not, the larger missile can be fired to get a mission kill against the enemy, which is more than acceptable.
I seriously doubt you’re going to cram a 24′ missile inside of a fighter that is smaller than the F-22, much less more than one of them. You’d have to carry them externally, and you’d still be limited in how many you could carry.
Were I the Flanker/T-50 pilot, I’d rather go into A2A combat with 8-12 smaller missiles, than just a few large missiles.
Again, you have aircraft launched with various load outs.
There is also no evidence to suggest T-50 is going to be (significantly if at all) smaller and/or have smaller bays. We shall soon find out.
When you have one VLO foe fighting another VLO foe, most likely your going to have to be much more reliant on your passive sensors, as you’ll both have greatly minimized detection ranges. The foe with the lower RCS will still have the advantage, when using radar though. As for the Irbis E vs. legacy fighters- having a powerful radar has some advantages, but if the Flanker is emitting, every ESM system within many hundreds of miles will know it’s there, before the Flanker sees them, allowing them to change headings to take advantage of that.
This is the new Keypublishing fantasy eh? Radars are basically worthless, it’s all about passive detection perversion. The lower RCS foe will have hardly advantage whatsoever when he uses his radar, as it will alert the enemy’s RWR, especially if the foe has jamming and a good radar/EOS system in return.
As for Flanker vs legacy, it’s not going to matter what advantages you can make when you know where the Flanker is, especially if he’s already tracking you. You are mission dead probably, if not falling out of the sky.
dionisI am aware of Shipwrecks capability is second to none in its class , but then the Oscar/Shipwreck is not dealing with PLAN.
They are dealing with a Navy who has been on a path of constant innovation , whose Maritime Domain Awareness is enormous , whose sub , surface fleet and air capability is top class and its integration achieved across all the spectrum of war is unchallenged. The USN stands today as a force which has reach and capability are second to none.
I am quite sure the shipwreck if it hits the deck of Nimitiz will sink it , the million dollar question is will Oscar get a chance to fire it.
The only way RuN can effectively be able to stand up against USN is to qualitatively and quantitatively build up its force , Yasen is a good quality leap , I am not sure if she will be armed with Yakhonts or something else , what ever it may be the new missile should have long range , speed and stealth.
The sub itself should be as quite as any newer USN subs something the RuN will achieve with Yasen SSGN and should be well connected with all assets of air and space , then the fight will be on equal turf.
The current fight between a Oscar vs CBG/Virginia + the entire chain logistics of USN for air and space is an equal game very heavily tilted in favour of USN
LOL oh come on, there are a HANDFUL of anything but Los Angeles subs in service. In time you can compare the Virginia to the Yasen.
You can’t leave out all of the modern Russian subs, be they Akulas or Kilos, Oscars or Sierras. Not to mention the ultra long range naval aviation assets. In a defensive role, all of these assets are something the US Navy has never really faced, merely practiced against. Then again, the RuN and Soviet Navy weren’t oblivious to the US Navy either. 😉
A Shipwreck will definitely not sink a Nimitz from a deck hit unless it’s nuclear, but it will disable the flight deck. That’s just as good really. With a saturation attack, even a 5% chance of a missile hitting works.
dionisHas anyone heard or read news concerning the KS-172? Some like to wave it about like a magic wand that will reduce opposing air forces to ruins, but I have yet to see any information concerning its testing or production. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers all!
After you leave your chauvinism back home, I suggest you tune in to MAKS 2009 when we expect the PAK-FA to be revealed, with, if we are very lucky, fifth-gen armaments that are in development for the aircraft.
dionisThe flipside of that equation is that the SAM battery isn’t going to be very effective if it’s not emitting. You’re also using a scenario where you’d be attacking a country like Russia. The reality of the matter is that there aren’t many likely countries that would have anything approaching the IADS/interceptor force, that Russia has. Not even Russia can guarantee zero gaps in coverage for the entire country. If one is betting that a bunch of riflemen with binoculars is going to negate the capabilities of the F-22/35, they are likely in for a big disappointment, as they’re designed to operate in areas protected by S-300/400s.
While invading Russia is out of the question in any case, I’d still not rule out the possibility of Russia backing up a country in a surrogate conflict. This could mean a hell of a defensive force.
Which number are you disputing? The 50km figure? The IRBIS-E can only see .1m^2-.01m^2 targets at 90km, so 50km is probably a very generous figure. What range in a head on engagement do YOU believe that detection will occur for targets in the .001-.0001m^2 targets? F-15s couldn’t detect the F-22, even when the pilots could see the F-22s with their eyes. Do you think a Flanker is going to do significantly better?
From what I’ve heard, the T-50 will be a smaller plane than the F-22, which currently only carries 6 AIM-120s internally with 7 inch diameters and weighing in at 335lb.
How many KS-172s/R-37s can the T-50 carry? I highly doubt the KS-172 is going to be able to fit in the internal weapon bay being over 24 long, and 20 inches in diameter. Additionally it weighs 1,650lbs. At that size you’re not going to be carrying very many of them. The R-37 while being considerably shorter >13feet, it is 15 inches in diameter, and 1,320lbs.
What do you suppose the relative manueverability of these missiles will be compared to the AIM-120 being longer and 5x the weight?
OFFICIAL Sukhoi interviews talk of an 8 ton load on the PAK-FA. Smaller than the F-22 or not, that’ll just show airframe superiority of design. I have linked them AND translated them numerously in the SAGA threads.
The relative maneuverability means squat – how heavy is a S-300 missile? Warhead size and kinetics (raw speed in this case) alter the effectiveness equation as well, not just how maneuverable the missile is. And certainly more maneuverable than any Raptor or PAK-FA.
While I personally doubt also that the KS-172 can be carried by the PAK-FA by some degree, Piotr Butowski seemed to think pretty well that it could be. The bays could well be elongated and possibly have room for 2 of the missiles. The internal pylon setup will be the key engineering challenge.
The 50KM – 100KM is all speculation, from the radar capabilities to the RCS of the aircraft. The Irbis-E is also of 4th generation, and it really spells the doom of any legacy fighter. The Irbis-AE variants for the T-50 is what you have to worry about. And guess what, Sukhoi engineers aren’t oblivious to the fact that stealthy aircraft are going to be facing the T-50, and so – guess what? They might just be developing radars and EOS systems that will locate stealth much better. I mean, how much more logical can you get? Considering that the project is 10 years younger than the Raptor and 20 years younger than stealth, and the radar is still not even revealed.
dionisWell conservatively 30 Knots and they can also change direction , for a Nuclear Powered carrier sustained speeds should not be a constrain.
I have grave doubts about the ability of Oscar/Granit ability to do serious damage to a US CBG in this age and time ( I am not referring to 80’s ) , now with Virgina/Sea Wolf class SSN and the CBG itself going far ahead in weapons system , EW and Net Centric capability , the Oscar 2 looks like an aged system.
All the more reason they need the multipurpose Yasen SSGN and in numbers if they want to effectively prosecute US CBG in open ocean and littoral env.
The Yasen won’t pack nearly the punch that an Oscar II can. Do you have any idea what a Shipwreck would do to ANY naval vessel? Saturation works – 80s or today. It’s really math. Heavy missiles with a low chance to get through – really works out ok because a single SS-N-12/19 or Kh-22M/32 hit will crack a cruiser in two or disable a Nimitz flight deck. Do know how much firepower is packed into a Mach 2-4 750 – 1000KG warhead?
What exactly is this serious damage you talk about? Floating chunks of scrap metal? This is a silly idea no matter what time frame you look at.
Packing a LOT of Yakhonts on to a Yasen may make it as effective to deter a carrier group.
dionisThose S-300/400/Tor M1/etc.. sites are going to be able to detect/track/engage F-22/F-35s at even 100km(probably more like 50km), much less 300km. Even SDBs will be able to engage outside of the SAM launch envelopes, not to mention JSOW/JASSM. A foe would have to have a LOT of SAM batteries to ensure overlapping coverage against VLO targets.
I guarantee you a F-22/F-35 on a SEAD/DEAD mission will be using EMCON, using ESM/IRST/and LPI SAR, along with information/imagery datalinked from other ISR assets.
You need to know where those radars are before you can attack them, and if they aren’t emitting no F-22 or F-35 is going to see them before they are spotted with probably a pair of binoculars by a couple men with assault rifles 100KM away from the SAM site. Or an EWLRS system, or another SAM battery, or any other countless asset any well defended nation can employ. Whatever the hell the F-35 can use to find its foes, I can assure you the enemy can use in reciprocal in any scenario that doesn’t involve bombing countries with 1960s era SAMS.
dionisHere’s the takeaway- the launch aircraft can’t fire its missiles until it knows there’s a target. The R-37M/KS-172 could have a 5000km range, and it wouldn’t matter, if the launch aircraft can’t detect a target until its closer than 50km. The other important takeaway is that these are large/heavy missiles, which limits the number that can be carried, and when carried externally the speed and range of the launch aircraft. The F-22 and F-35 on the otherhand can take much greater advantage of their missiles, because they’ll be able to detect any 4th Gen fighter at extreme ranges.
Page 4 top right corner is what I’m getting at-
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/norway/45384/pdfs/F35Overview.pdf
I’ll ignore the fact that you are pulling these numbers for detection ranges out of your posterior, and simply mention the fact that there has been a lot of talk that the T-50 will be able to carry Kh-58Ux size weapons, which means it will carry any R-37M variant and even a K-172 possibly. This means that is can take any “advantage” of these missile you talk about, only at the cost of carrying less, and other friendly aircraft could carry smaller missiles.
dionisI hope you are aware that the EW system can geolocate the radar position and show it on the display on the F 35?
Right, back to the dummy SAM operators who are blindly emitting. No no, I think it’s the F-35 that’s emitting and getting painted. What sort of stupid assumptions are these? :rolleyes:
There could be 3 (or any number) of sites, of which 2 or 1 are emitting, or they could be awaiting AWACS information from a hundred kilometers away.
And I wish any aircraft without standoff weapons of 300KM + a LOT of luck getting into a site protected by multiple S-300/400 batteries with short/mid range SAM cover and AWACS / other friendly interceptors on station.
dionisThose numbers are irrelevant against a VLO aircraft. You can’t fire at a target unless you know it’s there, and the PAK FA isn’t going to detect the F-22 or F-35 at hundreds of km, hence- the primary targets are AWACS/Tankers(i.e. large RCS, slow, ARM profile).
In that case there’s the R-37M/KS-172 derivatives, and even then, a 25KM difference is a matter of a approximately a minute.
dionisYes, they are immobile while they are emitting! Any “modern & mobile” radar, be it Tomb Stone, Grave Stone, Big Bird, you name it, are immobile as long as they emit. Or did the Russians invent a method of using them while traveling on a highway?
Right, and when they (SAMs) are set up the Air Force of the aggressor is automatically informed of their location right right?
dionisThe R-77M1 of which you speak is in the ~175km range according to the numbers I’ve seen. The AIM-120D/D+ are allegedly in the 180-200km range(and perhaps further when fired from an F-22). Of course we’ll have to wait and see, as neither weapons are in service yet.
175 vs 200 is almost nothing in real terms.
What is going to be more interesting is the new weapons for the PAK-FA.
dionisWell for the full range of 500 Km inspite of it being supersonic , it will need a midcourse update , the CBG is a fast moving target as well.
Certainly the sonar cant provide an accurate bearing to fire on at those ranges , for 500 Km I dont think its a fire and forget system.
Just how fast is this CBG moving?
There are also such things are predicting where they would be according to the direction they are moving.
dionisWell, the Russians along with the Chinese have a credibility problem. With all of this unnecessary secrecy. Which, could inturn be mitigated with a little openness……….;)
Wahahaha 😀
Right, their credibility with American flag waving fan boys.
Sukhoi’s credibility with the Russian Govt. is perfectly fine I assure you, as the people who NEED TO KNOW have seen the jet plenty I’m certain.
dionisNot really..
The Georgian conflict did show several weakness in the RuAF..
But they did get a leason to learn, and i’ll bet they smarten up a bit.
What might those be?
A weakness that is not beating their own rather very good SAMs?
dionisAre the Greek airspace exercises over?
Sign In
