crobatoNot ballistic ones.
Pershing II’s radome didn’t have any problem at all with reentry speeds. BTW the ballistic antiship missile was tried (SS-NX-13) and it got far enough along that the USN planned on using nuclear-equipped Terriers to deal with them. Obviously it didn’t go into service but it was tried and that was over 20 years ago. As far as course corrections there’s no reason you couldn’t provide the thing with adequate updates to get it “in the basket” using offboard sensors.
The Pershing II uses a radar mapping system. It’s not accurate to say it’s actually a radar homing system. It takes a radar scan of the ground, compare it with maps, then make its course adjustements.
While I do agree that the radome remark was offmark, the Pershing is taking a radar image off the ground and making its course. That’s a much different system than what you would need to attack moving targets like a ship.
The SSNX-13 is a nuclear missile. It only needs a CEP less than a nautical mile to blow up things. For that matter, the Pershing II with the MARV and radar system also has a thermonuclear warhead. Where is your antiship SSM with a conventional warhead?
crobatoin that case u are talking about obsolete missiles not fit for tactical strikes.
Lol. SSMs are hypersonic.
speed can also works against u. incase the target slows down. and it is not necessary for interceptor to be faster than target.
Lol. Overshooting only happens in a dogfight. If the target slows down, the interceptor can correct itself. The target does not have the capability of knowing where the interceptor is to judge a timed response to suddenly slow down.
unless ur missile is stealth, control flight, fast reaction time. it is just simple target for advance ATBM
If you have one. ATBMs are expensive. The economics favor the SSMs, as each SSM will be cheaper than the ATBM. Not to mention the SSMs are capable of using decoys, or multiple warheads.
crobatoIn this case we might see some additons to satellites: RWRs, MLDs, jammers and a couple of AMRAAMs for self-defense…:p
Now tell me how an AMRAAM can steer in space…
crobatoSee i wont go in details, we already did a BM HTK interception, and if you know ANYTHING you wouldnt doubt what ISRO says, just check its track record.
peace.
Save it when you can actually demonstrate it.
crobatowhat speed u have in mind here.? I really gave example of light bulb. or insurgent in jungle.think about modern.
We are talking of hypersonic speeds, exceeding mach 4.
Again self established rule. not surprizing.
Tell me of an interception device that works and is slower than the target. You say you can anticipate by prepositioning? That does not give you an allowance once the target starts doing evasions. Speed is what gives the margin to counter evasions. There is a reason why interceptors, whether its a plane or a missile, must have the sheer speed.
I like to see someone actually do a terminally guided PGM accurate SSM. Even the Chinese are said to be developing on one. Such a missile would have terrific implications in any region’s balance of power.
crobatoAll it has to do is be at the right place at the right time.
A faster object can always control that situation.
That would be a surprise to all those antiship missile manufacturers. The only reason you don’t have ballistic missiles chasing ground targets is because they’ve got cheaper stuff to do the job. The US, China, India, and Russia (among several others) could easily make ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving targets if they really thought it was worth the money. How much modification do you think it would have taken to make an antiship version of the Pershing II with it radar guided manuevering RV?
Excuse me? it must be a surprise to antiship missile manufacturers if you plan to use radar guidance to hit ground moving targets. The ground produces too much reflection, too much clutter; a junk car half buried in the mud will show up in the screen. When you’re dealing with ground targets, you’re dealing with targeting via imaging, and imaging regardles if you use TV/EO, infrared/FLIR or SAR.
Now if you want to make an antiship ballistic missile, guess what. No one has even tried one yet and put it in service. Here is the problem. At a high altitude you really cannot image a moving ship, and by the time you do, you’re descending too fast. A higher speed means less time to do corrections, less time and opportunity for maneuver. Let’s also talk about what reentry speeds can do against conventional radomes.
It’s got more to do with tradition than anything. The munition doesn’t care what kind of aircraft dropped or fired it. You could easily modify the B-1 to self-designate and plink moving targets all day long. Thing is it’s better used elsewhere where you can take advantage of it strengths.
Big jet, looking for targets, mountains around. You’re not exactly the most maneuverable and survivable of all choices when a SAM is fired up your belly.
crobatoOne thing though, it looks like—very credible indeed—that not just the first five, but indeed, the first ten prototypes of the J-10 were equipped with the WS-10A’s immediete predecessor, the WS-10. Somehow after 1009 was built, and before 1011, the first J-10 prototype with the AL-31FN was made, and the superior power and response of the engine blew the WS-10 away.
So if CAC wants to put the even more powerful WS-10A to the J-10, it would be fast and easy, the structural legwork is already there and waiting.
As mentioned before J-11Bs are supposedly prioritized with the WS-10A but plans can be changed, if someone decides, you know, if I got 60 engines, I would rather build 60 J-10s with it than 30 J-11Bs. With the PLAAF sensing the superiority of the J-10 over the J-11, its the J-11B coming as the underdog when it comes time to face the J-10 in mock wargames to prove its viability to the PLAAF and CMC brass.
I don’t think the FC-1 can really get off the line with the RD-93. The problem isn’t just the Russian politics, but the engine quality itself. It blows. 33% rejection rate is absolutely horrible. The RD-33 isn’t the best engine known for reliability, and putting it in a single engined fighter gives you less assurances. And it still smokes. It is good to nip this problem off the bud right off before it becomes a much bigger problem. Anyway, FC-1 or not, the Taishan engine may have been meant for another project, perhaps the much talked about twin engined heavy fighter CAC had been cooking up. So the engine is killing two birds with one stone here.
J-7 vs. J-8II in export markets. This wasn’t a question what’s higher or not. Its just that the J-8II blows when it comes to handling and agility over the J-7E. Its maintenance is going to be worst still, and eats twice as much gas as the J-7E. I think there is no question for visiting pilots who when they drove the respective prototypes, which they would prefer.
I find the question of FC-1 vs. J-10 much more like the issue of F-20 Tigershark vs. the F-16. And of course, you know the answer to that. The market decided already. There are also a number of “cheap” fighter proposals that didnt’ work, including an F-16 powered by the GE J-79 turbojet. No one wanted the F-16/79 when they could either get the F-16A or the F-16C. You think Taiwan likes their little IDF more than their F-16s? Guess which one they planned to add to their existing fleet. And the Gripen continues to struggle against not just like the likes of the F-16 but also the Typhoon. And lets not forget another famous big vs little sister squabble for the market that had worked mostly in favor of the bigger and more fabulous sister—Flanker vs. Fulcrum.
The CCCP politicos may be hesitant towards selling J-10 to another country. They should not be worried about other people being able to accurately gauge its aerial performance. Sooner or later people will find out anyway. once they have accurately modeled your plane in a wind tunnel and determined its lift drag ratios. What they would be worried about is the radar and EW systems, but then are you selling those anyway with the FC-1?
crobatoOther than Pakistan, I have not seen real firm orders. Interest maybe, like from Egypt, not but not firm orders like you can put your money on. And such interest were done before the J-10 official announcement.
How much of this “interest” would have changed their minds since then? The FC-1 is like a pedestrian little sister compared to the “sexy” J-10. Politicians are not smart and know zilch about aircraft technology but here, they can see one aircraft that looks like an F-5, then another that looks like a Typhoon. So which is it? F-5 or Typhoon? Whatever CAC’s official main export product is, potential buyers are going to ask, what about the J-10?
crobatoIts still very hard for a SAM to shoot down an SSM, and even PAC-3 isn’t very secure on that. One problem with most SAMs is that their flight control devices are still aerodynamic, so the higher they are in the atmosphere, the less control. Another problem is that SSMs are just too fast, as they are in effect, hypersonic vehicles. As a rule, the killing device has to be faster than the target device, not the other way around.
SSMs don’t hit moving targets. I should have mentioned stationary ground targets, infrastructure with strategic significance. Bases, ports, supply depots, that sort of thing.
Smaller moving targets, that is the work of strike aircraft, but even bigger bombers have a hard time with them. You need smaller CAS type strikers, supported by JSTARS like surveillance aircraft to spot the targets.
crobatoWorks for me. Might potentially lead to the cancellation of the less than stellar FC-1 outright, leaving Chengdu with sensible things to work on like the J-10.
Too bad Chengdu builds the jet and not Shenyang though. It might be amusing to see Shenyang approach it like this:
Shenyang: “Let us put RD-93 engines in the FC-1 for Pakistan.”
Russia: “Bite us.”
Shenyang: “Good luck competing with the J-11B on the open market then!”
😀
Works for me too. Looks like the new Taishan engine has better thrust (especially the dry thrust) and better fuel economy. I have grave doubts on the RD-93 after 5 of the 15 engines recieved so far have to be rejected for quality reasons; the relative smokiness of the engine, and the exorbitant high price being paid for them (almost as much as an AL-31FN).
I am guessing that the original customer for this engine, was probably not the FC-1 at all, but a twin engined canard delta project.
They finally quoted an official’s name with the statement. Undoubtedly this will knock back the delivery date of the first eight limited series aircaft in 2007 no matter how far along the WS-13 is.
Given that the J-10 has officially, and probably fatally, stolen the JF-17’s “thunder”, whether it came out in late 2007, 2008 or 2009, will probably never matter anymore.
crobatoStill, a ground target is a non moving target. Ground speed is obvious; a complete zero. All it needs is a referential position. And yes, you can see the ground with electro-opticals (contrast imaging), IR imaging and SAR radar. Furthermore unlike in space, you can compensate with a proximity blast. In space, you cannot have proximity blast due to the lack of atmosphere. Shrapnel only damages satellites, which tend to be huge. Hence direct kinetic contact must be made to make a kill and blow it to smithereens.
crobatoso hitting some thing in air is the the same as hitting on the ground.
key part of latest tactical SSM is unpredictable trajectory, stealth operations (engine turned off) and sharp maneouvers in terminal stage with vertical attack. It is not simply going from point A to Point B.
Hitting something in the ground is definitely easier than hitting something in the air, much less in space at orbital speeds.
crobatoFC-1Domestic productMelted engine – WS-13 (the RD-33 domestically produced advanced version) already to carry on for 3 years. Should start the aircraft commander 4.14 meters, biggest outside diameter 1.02 meters, payment operating weight 1,135 kilograms. Thrust ratio 7.8, thrust augmentation thrust force 86.37000 cows, oil consumption 2.02 kilograms/ten cows hours. Biggest condition middle thrust force 56.75000 cows, oil consumption 0.73/ ten cows hours. Cruise thrust 51.2000 cows, oil consumption 0.65/ ten cows hours. 进气量 80 kilograms/seconds, a letter ratio 0.57, in front of the turbine wheel temperature 1650K, the total pressure compares 23. The overhaul is separated for 810 hours, the total life is 2,200 hours. (The editor pours: This engine overhaul gap and the total service life target by far surmounted the RD33 engine)
The WS-13 prototype Russia makes the RD33 涡fan engine.
This engine uses three levels of axes to flow the type width string solid titaniumAlloyThe fan blade, after the two-pole electro-chemical treatment overall leaf plate structure, in front of the ventilator has the computer to control 可变弯度 the stator vane, expands the ventilator steady work scope. 8 levels of axes flow the type high pressure air compressor (first three levels for to be possible to adjust stator vane) the single stage low pressure turbine to use the hollow air cooled rotor blade, the single stage high pressure turbine for the unit crystal turbine blade and the stator blade, the annular chamber combustor, has the tip clearance control the air heat interchanger, synthesizes the digital entire jurisdiction control system. The gear box and the appendix are located the engine underneath, the performance advanced miniature turbine wheel auxiliary power unit.The WS-13 majority of spare parts may use RD-33, partial only must slightly improve, small are partial is the new development. 外廓尺 inch close, after introduced the improvement RD-33 majority of productions process unit to carry on the technological transformations to a WP-13 production line, the Russia side is responsible to train the technical personnel and the partial workers, trained one group of workers to link the equipment to ship back together, installs the debugging to carry on the production, reasonably arranged various parts production progress, alternately parallel carried on. By Chinese and Russian both sides in the RD-33 design foundation, will carry on the improvement to the partial structural design, WS-13 is named as “Tianshan -21”. (C001)
How is the engine above described looks like an RD-33?
Design
axial compressor
WS-13 3 fan
RD-93 4 fan
secondary supercharging compressor
WS-13 8 stage
RD-33 9 stage
Bypass Ratio
WS-13 0.57
RD-33 0.49
Inlet temperature
WS-13 1650c
RD-33 1953c
Pressure ratio
WS-13 23
RD-33 20
Dimensions
Diameter
WS-13 1.02
RD-33 1.04
Dry weight
WS-13 1135kg
RD-33 1055kg
Length
WS-13 4144mm
RD-33 4250mm
Afterburner Thrust
WS-13 8630kg
RD-33 8300kg
Dry Thrust
WS-13 5675kg
RD-33 5098kg
crobatoThe end result is that the U.S. Air Force now flies 45-year-old aerial refueling tankers using a plane retired by commercial airlines a quarter-century ago
I have to take this article with about a pound of salt based on the above statement alone……
To my knowledge, no airline ever operated a KC-135 (excuse me….the ORIGINAL Model 717)…..and from what I understand the 707 was actually in use with a fair amount of third-world airlines at least up through the 90’s and a couple are still in use today….civilian operators, both freight & passenger that is.
I don’t know about this guy….
Most of the old planes—707s, 727s, DC-9s, even early 737s with that screamy PW turbojet—are forced out of the country and most other G7 nations due to noise level requirements. If they’re not scrapped, they may probably operating in places where there are not much noise restrictions like in small countries.
crobatoTruth be told a direct ascent system is not as complicated as a coorbital system insofar as vehicle design and intercept dynamics are concerned.
But it is exponentially more complex when it comes to the accuracy and precision of the INS, navigation and seeker systems. A direct ascent KKV feat at roughly 850km with a CEP that’s under what, 0.5M, against a moving object that happens to be moving in a transversal position at orbital speeds? Imagine what you can do with an accuracy like that with SSMs. That’s a direct impact too, and not with saturation.
Sign In
