Page 68 – Key Publishing

Rodolfo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,190 total)

← 1 2 3 … 67 68 69 … 78 79 80 →

Author

Posts
November 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm in reply to: Defense against Anti Radiation Missiles #1791471

Rodolfo
Participant

Simply. It was saturated and lacked modern SA missiles. In fact even Russia will be unable to avoid some destruction of civil buildings if NATOtarget them.
This doesn`t cover the fact that NATO was unable to destroy militar equipment.

November 25, 2007 at 3:23 pm in reply to: Defense against Anti Radiation Missiles #1791475

Rodolfo
Participant

NATO was practically unable to destroy any militar stuff. They were able to destroy bridges, hospitals and so on. Not anymore. You know, to bomb the civil infrastructure is easy.

November 22, 2007 at 3:08 pm in reply to: Defense against Anti Radiation Missiles #1791497

Rodolfo
Participant

I assume the main difficulty with mobile land based surveillances radar is the stabilization of the mobile truck with a large rotating antenna. But, how feasible is to build a large 4 faces mobile stuff. I mean a sort of “land Spy-1” or a 4 faces “fixed Big Bird”. I know it is impractical, but is this feasible?
——————
Garry, I wondered why the Serbs didn’t targeted Brindissi from Montenegro with some missiles used previously to attack Zagreb. I am almost sure that the Italians would have started to scream.
—————————

November 20, 2007 at 8:51 pm in reply to: Defense against Anti Radiation Missiles #1791529

Rodolfo
Participant

It’s always better to have echeloned defence.In addition to S-300,you can have Buk for mid to close range and Tor’s to deal with any weapon/attacker that managed to get this close.In this way you can not only intercep attacking aircraft,but also shoot missiles with deployed Buk’s.

Pesho, your proposal is optimal in terms of effectiveness but turn out to be VERY expensive. Just Russia and may be China will be able to build such a multi-level structure. For countries like i.e. Iran…impossible.

Also, as far I know, Russia doesn’t protect its S-300 with Buk. Just Tor and now Tunguska. Buk are a sort of mobile “shortened S-300”, also escorted by Tunguska. For i.e. Iran this seems to be a more rational option.

November 20, 2007 at 3:33 pm in reply to: Defense against Anti Radiation Missiles #1791554

Rodolfo
Participant

How about self-defense. I mean, i.e. 9M96 missiles from S-300pmu2/pmu3 are light enough to launch against and incoming ARM wave. Carlo Kopp claim in one of his papers that these small missiles were designed in order to “trade” against ARM, JDAM and so on.

November 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1791913

Rodolfo
Participant

Gazelle is one stage missile.Only the warhead with small engines used to guide separate.

I mean, it is a rocket with a booster plus a sustainer+warhead, no different from the 9M82 or the Sprint but bigger. I didn’t mean two stages like a SS-20.

Not necessarily. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Sprint video that’s been floating around the net for years that shows it staging. Here’s a photo of Sprint and you can see where it stages and the disintegration just causes a slightly wider trail.

Yes, it seems that in the Sprint flight, the booster separation produced less debris. But, in the Gazelle case, the junk is launched in radial direction. We should expect, in case of stage detonation, tumbling and smoke. This is the usual pattern in far slower rockets, so we should expect a “bigger spectacle” for a failed ABM flight. Also, the sustainer seems to keep climbing after separation.

November 7, 2007 at 8:07 pm in reply to: SM-3 to test against multiple targets. #1791928

Rodolfo
Participant

Aegis/SM-X system seems to be the most efficient and prospective system between all Americans ones. Its evolutionary upgrades seems right to me. On the other hand, for land based systems, it seems that there are many projects (Patriot PAC-X, THAAD, …), many (sometimes diverging) specifications and so on. I wonder if its no better to previously define a unified systems and work around it to evolutionary improve its performance, just like with the Aegis/SM-X. Just an opinion.:o

November 7, 2007 at 2:15 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1791995

Rodolfo
Participant

Also is that the first stage disintigrating followed by a 2nd stage ignition?

I don’t think so. There are some debris arising from the controlled explosion aimed at separating the empty first stage from the sustainer stage that ignites a second later. Just that. If the first stage start to disintegrate, I think, we should expect clouts like the ones of the Challenger disaster.

November 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1792019

Rodolfo
Participant

Ladies and gentlemen… the beast.

In fact, it haves (approximately)10 m length and 2.5 diameter.

November 2, 2007 at 7:15 pm in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued…… #2553648

Rodolfo
Participant

First released pic????? See the picture:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071030/85919342.html

November 1, 2007 at 9:55 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1792091

Rodolfo
Participant

Chakos, it was tested twice in October. It is operational and there are some rumors claiming that the nuclear warhead had been replaced by a conventional one.

I have some doubt about the PK without a nuclear warhead but… who knows.

November 1, 2007 at 6:59 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1792173

Rodolfo
Participant

Dear Pesho, may be you can do something similar with some known videos on Sprint launches.

PD: According to the comments in Russian below the video, the first stage pushed the rocket to circa 5 km/s. Considering that it was launched at time 1:15 and the first stage separated at time 1:21, this imply an average acceleration of (5 km/s)/6 s = 80 g.

November 1, 2007 at 3:23 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1792177

Rodolfo
Participant

It is in the same category of Sprint. Assuming it run faster, then it should have a slower acceleration. If you see carefully, image by image, you can observe its nose.

53t6 is certainly bigger but its warhead can be bigger too. Unfortunately we can’t measure speeds based on these videos. 😮

More information is welcomed.

November 1, 2007 at 2:39 pm in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1792181

Rodolfo
Participant

Video on a 53T6 Gazelle Test (2004)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK6W0OATveQ

October 16, 2007 at 8:15 pm in reply to: Russian Ch-101 cruise missile revealed #1792452

Rodolfo
Participant

Can the Backfires carry some Kh-101? If the answer is “yes”, then the 70s American “nightmare about strategic Tu-22” becomes immediately true. Off course at present days this is not an important subject as it was during the Cold War. In the end such a combination can give a considerable flexibility to the RuAF for missions like i.e hitting targets in the Indian Ocean.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,190 total)

← 1 2 3 … 67 68 69 … 78 79 80 →