MadRatS-300PMU-2 belong to early 90s technology at best and is exported product. . Infact they are directly going into S-500.
I’m not sure the S-500 even exists at this point beyond the drawing board. The S-4000 is the interim modification of the s-400 missile defense utilizing the 40N6 missile. (Every subsequent system is designed around using new fire control and command bunkers with older missiles until the newer missiles come online.) For a missile that can be directed 400 km down range they wanted a unified search and tracking system of 600km tied into their missile command center, otherwise what was the point of 40N6? This radar capability just recently came online around Moscow and its only half a decade later than originally envisioned. The Russians aren’t really doing all that bad for the amount of money perennially in their budget.
the same way S-400 can use S-300 missiles in way that S-300 system cannot use it.
Yes, I do understand this. But s-300 was really like 4 completely different objectives when you got down to the meat of the design. Between 1998 and 2000 they went through quite a few leaps of capability, especially in regards to software. So although the s-400 could use S-300PMU-1 and S-300PMU-2 – as well as the 9a82, 9a83, 9a84, and 9a93 – it was this time made to use the newer missile (9m96) with the older s-300 system. So in that respect it wasn’t just backwards compatible with the missiles but the newer missiles could be back fitted to a good chunk of the older tel’s and command centers.
So these kind of things don’t seem to fit your original argument.
MadRatThe B-1’s engines share the same core as the F-15’s engines, so he couldn’t of been that far off.
And the U-2 wasn’t that visible. It had ram coatings and infrared suppression for good measure. You sort of needed that stuff when you operated within 40km slant range of their well-guarded telescopic focal points.
MadRatC’mon, SOC, everyone knows the Tomcat crews weren’t allowed to get optimal shots off.
MadRatPersecution of Jews is not the same as the prosecution of Israel. The Jews did not have an Israel back in their hands until 1948. Since that time old Christian beliefs have been resurrected. The Book of John is very precise what happens to the enemies of Israel. The crux of the matter is that a Christian can still be a bigot in relation to Jews yet still openly support Israel.
MadRatAbsolute correct. But De Gaulle did teach Israel, that the “special” relation-ship does not mean, that France will not sell similar weapons to Arab countries and known enemies of Israel at the same time. See Mirage for Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, … f.e.
Similar thing with the USA, look here at the weaponry of Jordan from the 60s till today, just to name a single example.
I’m not sure what you are trying to bring to the table with these comments. France did not sell any hardware that remotely threatened the dominance of Israel over its neighbors. And when it comes down to it they are only interested in hedging friendly neighbors of Israel, which is why Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon are treated so well by the West as a whole. (These countries are a necessary buffer around Israel.) And when it gets to the heart of the matter both Libya and Lebanon are hardly in positions to threaten. Israel props up the Lebanese government as much as possible because a strong Lebanon is a peaceful Lebanon. I’m not so sure you are familiar with the special origins of Lebanon and their unique role in the Middle East if you consider them a threat to Israel.
You also have to realize the culture of France is deeply entrenched in Roman Catholicism. And this faith holds a firm belief that you either stand with Israel or you are an enemy of God. Its not just Roman Catholicism that holds this belief, the majority of Christians that hold a literal translation of the Bible also belief this to be true. In this respect, a quarter of the world is backing Israel.
MadRatYes they are the same just like S-200 and S-300 are the same system. ofcourse there is no such think as Su-27M, Su-27K, Su-27UB,SU-27SM,Su-27BM etc.
S-200 is a gigantic missile on the scale of Nike-Hercules and the only modern SAM anywhere near its size is the S-4000/SA-21 Triumf. S-300 comes in several sizes and shapes, the biggest which is only two-thirds the size of an S-200. So its kind of hard to say the S-200 and S-300 are related other than the fact the S-300 replaced the S-200. The S-300 and S-400 use interchangeable radars and fire control command centers simply because they wanted to make a slow transition possible for the replacement of the entire system. Hell, they didn’t even have radars capable of aiming the S-4000 beyond the S-300MPU-2’s fire control until the year 2007. There just hasn’t been enough money put into the effort.
And its disingenuous to say the F-22 uses the F-15C’s weapons. In reality as the more modern Sidewinder comes into quantity there is zero need for the older missiles. F-22 will use AMRAAM and AIM-9X in ways the F-15C simply was not capable of using them. It would probably steal funding from the F-22 program if one wanted to back fit such capability, which doesn’t make much sense really.
MadRatWhith the right alloys and treatments, as cold stretching and laser cutting, stainless steel is not more prone to fatigue than ordinary carbon steel, rather less. As my knowledge on fatigue versus titanium is limited I searched the web and found a document about fatigue on titanium versus stainless steel. It is from 1964 and investigates the use of titanium and stainless steel in a potential mach3 transport aircraft. What I can read from it both are sufficient, but titanium is more weight efficient.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA393940
AM-350 is a fairly dated concoction. Stainless just refers to carbon steel doped with at least 1/9th (approx. 11%) chromium by content. You can alloy steel with all sorts of metals to vary its properties, including giving it more flexibility or less. However, you are not modifying its heat characteristics in a significant way. Titanium’s flexibility can also be modified in the same way, but it is lighter and holds its form under more adverse conditions. Stainless is better in one way, as it self heals when corroding. Unfortunately its characteristics when subjected to corrosion has little to do with its flexibility.
MadRatI’ve always wondered if they ever got around to replacing either of the D30’s with a tvc-modified Lyulka yet.
MadRatPutin already withdrew from the conventional arms treaties and Bush pretty much withdrew from the ABM treaties. Adding a refueling capability is not going to ruffle feathers in the West any more than the previous actions.
MadRatI doubt that the melting point of steel of about 1400 deg C is a problem outside the engines. The critical issue is probably the degradation from oxidation at even moderat temperatures. But there are types of stainless steel that can whithstand much higher temperatures, theoretically up to 1100 deg C.
But stainless steel is also more difficult to work whith than ordinary steel and much heavier than titanium.
Not to mention stainless steel is extremely prone to fatigue. Stainless steel is a brittle metal due to the nature of its other components in the alloy.
MadRatYou cannot get steel to behave differently at its melting temperature. Titanium in pure form is less prone to fatigue, too.
MadRatA MiG-29 twenty years early? You’re overly optimistic…
Those two wide-apart engines aren’t a good idea. Engine reliability was still very much an issue with 1960s engines, and a single engine failure will give some serious yaw in such a design. And I mean serious.
Extensive LERXes as you have drawn weren’t really chartered territory either.
It’s a good thing Yakovlev didn’t know about the engine spacing when they designed their -25 through -28 family. Obviously a pilot that flies a jet fighter, especially one oriented around dominance, is going to understand the situation when it occurs.
Besides, there are no LERX in front of the engines. The engines of the era were too underpowered to take advantage of the LERX, therefore its inlets are where you think were the LERX. These are long turbojets, in my fantasy jet, requiring a lot of fuselage space which isn’t going to be realistically overcome for another decade. This is a 50 foot long fighter as opposed to the 70-80 foot monsters that dominated the late sixties and early seventies.
If you look at the F.6 Lightning of that time period then you’ll see my weights and performance targets are pretty conservative.
MadRatAn illustration of my perfect fighter (left) in the 1960s…
MadRatMadRat the AWG-9 was available in 1964 the same is for the AIM-54, the Phantom AN/APQ-120 radar and AIM-E were also avialable in 1969, however it was impossible politically speaking in 1969 to fit a MiG-25 with F-111B`s weaponry and avionics or a MiG-23 Flogger A with F-4`s weapons and radar
Sorry I initially jumped to conclusions; I mistook the AN/APQ-120 radar in your post for a more current one. I edited my reply after looking them up. 🙂
Multirole-
Mirage IV may have been pretty large, but there is no reason it could not have been a standoff range interceptor. That is if the French had come up with a radar and missiles for it.
MadRatKC-45A Boom Buddy KC-45A Euro Boom KC-45A Soy Boom
KC-45A Boom Boom KC-45A Euro Boob KC-45A Soy Boob
KC-45A Boom Pipe KC-45A Euro Pipe KC-45A Soy Oiler
KC-45A Boom Pump KC-45A Euro Pump KC-45A Soy Pump
KC-45A Sky Boom KC-45A Super Boom KC-45A Chevron
KC-45A Sky Boob KC-45A Super Boob KC-45A Amoco
KC-45A Sky Pipe KC-45A Super Pipe KC-45A Standard
KC-45A Sky Pump KC-45A Super B-P KC-45A Superior
KC-45A Sky Mobil KC-45A Marathon KC-45A Esso Expresso
KC-45A Jet Mobil KC-45A Mellon KC-45A Speedway
KC-45A Jet Boom KC-45A Pratt KC-45A Pennzoil
KC-45A Jet Boob KC-45A Rockefeller KC-45A Citgo
KC-45A Jet Lube KC-45A Jiffy Lube KC-45A High Carbon
Sign In
