Really, is a 1,000 lbs class anti-ship missile really needed? Seem like a smaller missile would be more effective. Especially, if carried in greater numbers and similar range…………….

Remember, most modern warships have little or no armor!:eek:

Small missiles have smaller range, and that puts you in danger of any decent SAM systems.

You idea of a missile with a 40lbs warhead sinking anything is quite – err – half baked. You’d need quite a lot of them. With HE warheads preferably.

US are unsurpassed when it comes to array of weaponry. But many types overlap in terms of capabilities as they come from different producers. I wonder whether an Air Force like IAF really needs a dozen of different available GBUs and BLUs. Three/four types of various calibers should do the job and that is what Russia or France, too, easily can offer. US has some advantage here but I am not sure how decisive it will be in the decision making process.

Respectfully…

It’s not an advantage then is it? Merely a larger selection. Handy? Maybe. Real advantage? Not exactly.

The KAB comes in 250,500, 1000 KG variants (550lbs, 1100lbs, 2200lbs) respectively, with GLONASS, TV/IR, LASER variants.

Then you compare the SLAM-ER @ $700,000 a piece – which I bet costs 3x that of a new Kh-59MKxx

Russia doesn’t have nearly the PGM Types available that the US has nor the West in General. With many of the latter already for use on American types like the F-16. Yet, Russia does have some excellent weapons nonetheless. Like the ARM’s and AShM’s types you mentioned……………Overall, the US clearly has a advantage.

Respectfully……..

Yeah, nice BS talk. According to you everything the US has is better.

Not a single actual weapon listed.

The KAB series offers everything any Paveway or JDAM can. India has no business bombing defenseless countries (cough cough), so the Russian stand-off precision weapons like Kh-59MK2 are going to offer massive advantages, along with the Kh-31PM/Kh-58MK.

Really, in the “Strike Role” I think its hard to beat either American Types (i.e. Viper or Super Hornet) As both are much more mature than the competition and would be available with the vast US Arsenal of Weapons.

They have nothing the MiG-35 can’t offer.

In fact, they probably have worse weapons in terms of ARMs and AShMs.

No, because the B-1B is only 2/3rds the size and power of the Blackjack. That says something even if the significance escapes you.

Ermm.. ok … so…

B-1B : 30Tons @ 5,000KM

Tu-160: 40Tons @ 10,500KM

—

B-1B wins? ….

One major Plus in my book is its deterrent value. Imagine the Pakistanis getting block 52 mechanically scanned F 16s and us Indians Block 60 AESA ones, that too in higher number. And we all know how the Pakistanis pride themselves over their f 16s.

Another plus is that its proven, single engined, can be integrated with ASRAAM the IAF is getting with their Mirage upgrades. Can also be integrated with israeli missiles i believe, which are being considered for the LCA as well. Also the progression to F-35 would be a nice backup option if the PAK FA disappoints.

😀

You can just as easily pride yourself with AESA equipped MiG-35s.

The SS-N-16 is a 650mm size type weapon no matter where you use it AFAIK.

Ship or sub, that is.

This whole topic does seem to be a little sketchy.

Interesting, thanks. I was well aware of the Kh-22’s power but I wasn’t aware they’d been doing upgrades to it. What are the differences between Kh-22, Kh-22M and Kh-32? Also thanks for the info on the Kh-15 – would Backfires have been armed with these regularly or only in missions where Blackjacks were unavailable?
Still I do have to think that even if Kh-22 has been modernised it would surely be efficient to at least have the option of replacing them with multiple smaller ones. I doubt you’d want to waste a Kh-22 on a frigate or patrol boat or something after all if you had the option of carrying two or three Klubs that could fit on the same pylon instead. While I’m aware that’s not what the Tu-22M3 was intended for, times have changed, and future export possibilities would seem to demand some versatility in loadout.
At any rate that’s probably an off-topic point, though I do have one question remaining, which is whether PAK DA will draw on Tupolev’s strategic experience or Sukhoi’s ambitious concepts – or, as they’re now both part of UAC, will it be a joint effort?

Well a frigate isn’t too “small” of a target, but for patrol boats you could use anything else smaller that carries anti-ship weapons. Be it Su-24s, Tu-142s, Su-34s, other multi-role Flankers/Fulcrums with anti-ship or anti-radar weapons.

The Kh-22 was supposedly upgraded to the Kh-22M in the 70s, and the current one you would hear about has a range of 440KM and an improved attack profile over the predecessor, and a datalink for mid-course updates.

The Kh-32 missile is believed to be either turbojet or ramjet powered, with an active radar seeker, digital avionics and a new warhead. Kh-32 is believed to have a maximum range of 500 km when released from high altitude. The missile is believed to have both anti-ship and land attack capabilities, and possibly nuclear and HE warhead options.

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/delivry/raduga.htm
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jswsa034.html

The upgraded status in total is not know, but we do now know that this year the there is a large bomber upgrade program that will be complete, so maybe we’ll have more info as this year goes on.