The proposals for a ‘Super Foxhound’ that made the rounds a few months back are interesting chiefly because it suggests that there is still a perceived need for such a high performance aircraft. Or it could just be MiG trying to get some more work, or a Russian politician having a brain fart. Who knows?

right now, all three have equal chances of being true. I think MiG have only themselves to blame for not coming out even (via independent funding on small scale, proof of concept type of thing) with anything remotely resembling a “5th” generation fighter.

Good find, thanks for posting. It is hard to tell with complete certainty due to resolution; but the nozzle looks a lot like the one on 117. Which lends proof to what a possible insider told a while ago; that Izd.30 will use 117’s nozzle. Either way, once again more proof Izd.30 nozzle will be round, not flat. I wish they would stick some teeth on it tho…

Never thought there would be changes to how the T-50 looks. Zoomed in on the nozzle and it looks like something teethy at the end

Anti-ship missiles do not exactly make hard maneuvers. On the contrary, P-550 P-700 missiles are known to make evasive maneuvers, and any subsonic missile that I know doesn’t.

simply google Udav-1 to see how wrong you are.

True, I simply wanted to avoid missile specific calculations. If you want so much precision, also count in the time required for a volume scanning search radar in interleaved PRF to detect an incoming missile.

You assume wikipedia quote wrong. P-700 cruises at around M1.6, accelerates to M2.5+ only at the terminal phase which occurs (at least for P-700) sea skimming.

LOL, even by the meaning of the words, “interrupted CW illumintation” means SPG-62 interrupts its CW beam to guide different missiles to different targets; for a long range shot, it puts a missile on course, interrupts the beam, sets second missile on course and so on. Then re-illuminates target if target maneuves or missile weers off course. Its still the responsibilty of SPG-62, SPY-1 isn’t even capable of forming continious wave illumination.

BS on both views. 1- At 20-30 kms, RCS is totally irrelevant for an overly powerful radar like SPY-1 or MR-800. Even a metal marble will shine proudly on the radar screen. What matters is the radar is not exactly looking at the point missile will appear on the horizon. Be it, electronically or mechanically scanned, time will pass before detection. SA-N-9 on fully automated mode has 8 second response time, for example. If SPY-1, -scanning at least 900 times greater volume than SA-N-9- also miracilously has the same response time, it has already wasted half the time it has to launch SAMs at it. Slower subsonic missile againist a higher mounted radar means time elapsed is relatively much less in percentage.
2- Even if 50 times range reduction is true -which really is doubtful to me- it would only mean 2.6 times reduction in detection range, a P-700 missile doing short pop-ups can detect target ships at 300+ km away. Does it matter that it detects burke at 110 km? Or a Zumwalt class with alleged 250 times reduction at 75 km?

MR-800 or MR-710 or SPY-1 are all capable of tracking 100+++ targets. Difference is SPY-1 is faster and is much network centric, offset by the lower radar horizon. SPY-1 should also excel in resolution and detection range, but all those qualities are irrelevent at 20-30 km.

And its totally irrelevant how many targets a search radar tracks. Engagement is achieved by SPG-62, which provides illumination to 1 target at a time. For such short range, SPG-62 is relieved only after ARH seeker has its target lock, and unfortunately there isn’t enough time to steer it to another target so another missile is launched. Kirov uses different radar sets to achieve it with numbers I’ve stated above.

Do you really think SM-6 doesn’t rely on one? That it leaves VLS tube and readily flies into a coming anti-ship missile? You fail to understand what they are designed for: A Burke will provide excellent air defense with SM-6s, 20 aircraft detected by SPY-1 at 100+ km, 20 SM-6 missiles guided by SPG-62 with short intervals to their targets, and ARH of SM-6 makes succesful terminal tracking. Combining SA-N-4/6/9/11 systems, kirov can guide 42 missiles 26 different targets at the same time, at point blank range, which burke can’t,. And no, it cannot share illumination (at least in time), when targets are shot at so close range.

You are talking about a modern missile, lets talk about current Petr Veliky then. Lets see, MR-800 is rated 200 km againist fighter sized targets, lets assume its 10m2. At 20 km range, it could detect 10m2 / (200km/20km)^4 = 0,001 m2 targets just as easily. New tomb stone radar can guide its missiles to 3m2 targets at 150 km, which also means it can also guide its missiles to 3/(150/20)^4 =0,0009 m2 uber-VLO targets at 20 km. Admittadly a VLO missile will be more troubling to air defenses, but speaking of 4 missiles againist kirov? Assured target lock at 20 km followed by each incoming missile engaged by a pairs of 5V55 or 48N6E2s, and then one or two pairs of 9M338, then 1 or 2 missiles of SA-N-11 system, then the artillery of the Kashtan system. I see perfectly clear how a kirov survives JSM.

All in all you are comparing success of a) 1.6 tons ordnance againist 28000 ton ship, which is primarily designed to defend itself from saturation AShM attacks, with b) 28 ton ordnance aganist a 8400 ton ship, which is designed as an escort to carriers. 58 less payload weight compared to target displacement, and polar opposite in design philosophy. No alleged technological edge gained in mere 8-10 years will offset such difference.

Kirov class ships are especially hard targets. Any ship is a very hard target -but also the Falklands war showed that at the same time it isn’t.

Saturation is the key to successfully hit a capable target such as an AA cruiser or destroyer or even carrier.

Is this an aviation forum, or a political one?

Well this question crops up a lot.. if you think about it in this particular incident there is pretty much nothing more to discuss, not to mention that the entire thing has political backdrops.

besides the remaining topic is blame, the rest have been exhausted. Missile hit plane, plane went down, period. If nothing more is to be discussed then this thread might as well get locked down.

As in my comment reflects reality. Thanks.

No as in this as good an example of bias as one is ever gonna get.

Supersonic impacts add a different dimension of damage as they pass through a structure. Strictly speaking of the Falklands War, the iron bombs passing through generally refer to the outer skin. I thought it was a single one passed completely through the ship because it hit above deck and went through a hollow compartment. If the Argentinians had engineered their impact fuses specifically for soft skinned targets the war may have ended differently.

A supersonic missile will do tremendous amounts of damage to any structure it hits, one has to remember that modern ships are not the ironclads of yesterday. These ships will be shredded to pieces by anything that hits them. The USS Stark incident teaches us that even when the missile fails to detonate, the damage is catastrophic.

Two missiles hit the Stark and only one detonated. The frigate survived, as these missile hits are almost never going to sink the ship outright. They will all hit sideways and relatively high above the waterline so the hull may remain afloat. What happens to the superstructures however is an entirely different issue.

One only has to look at test firings were obsolete ships become targets. These are rarely sunk by the missile hits, but usually by gun fire or torpedoes. Had they been active though, they would have lost the ability to fight from hit 1.

Hhmm. so in your book putain doing what he wants covertly or overtly is ok is it? You seem to be implying that it doesn’t matter whether the activity is overt or covert it’s ok either way. Do you really believe putain has grounds for any action in Ukraine? If you do i will not bother continuing the discussion as i cannot see how anybody can defend putains actions.

Putin alone has no more rights than anyone else. Russia as country has the (same as other countries) right to protect its interests. I don’t see how some people miss this fact.

Ok so terrorist suicide bombs and rocket attacks don’t count. I get it, you are one of the cosseted westerners who feel sorry for the poor innocent iranian sponsored hamas people. Tell me, if the gaza strip is so impoverished how can hamas manage to build quite sophisticated tunnels out of concrete and steel reinforcing? They would never prioritise killing Israelis over succor for their own people would they.
Again i don’t think i’ll bother continuing the discussion thanks.

I believe humans have had the ability to build tunnels for thousands of years. It really isn’t a luxury.