dark light

Rodolfo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,036 through 1,050 (of 1,190 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Russian ''father of all bombs'' #1794178
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Why to burn fuel to move a Blackjack just to fake a video? Stupid behavior. I will go to the Tu-160 too. Its cargo capacity certainly allow it and much more. In the other hand the Russian bomb is not as political propaganda as it was MOAB. Remember, it was showed just a few days before the invasion to Iraq.

    in reply to: S-400 Battery Components #1794321
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    I think 92N6 should be a Flap Lid follow on radar designed for engagement-guidance purposes. 91N6 may be the western called “GraveStone” designed for surveillance and tracking purposes. No Clam Shell, no Tin Shield anymore. These were part of the S-300 older systems. Both would be “merged” into the new stuff

    in reply to: S-400 Battery Components #1794327
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    How do fit the 64N6 Big Bird radar in this system? Apparently it is not considered into the S-400, so it was limited to be the surveillance radar on the Favorit system.

    in reply to: RAF intercept 8 Russian Bears! #2513795
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Actually, Bears fligths are not related to the ABM site in Polad. If this site is the “target” of fligths, it will have much more sense to move a dozen Tu-22M3 loaded with AS-15 on the Belarussian airspace. Every one knows the pole site will no survive a rain of several tens Kickbacks.

    in reply to: S-400 Battery Components #1794857
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    So, we will no see a 9M82M guided by a Tomb-Stone. Uppps!! 🙁 I looked like a great idea.

    in reply to: S-400 Battery Components #1794957
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Nevertheless, this page is pretty actual (i.e. see that claim “Page last modified: 15-08-2007”). I agree about the info here is really patchy.
    By the way, take a look of this table:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-300-list.htm

    Not very accurate but it gives an idea about the evolution of this prolific family.

    in reply to: S-400 Battery Components #1794962
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Gentlemen, Please, take a look of this paragraph

    It is possible that the 40N6 may never be deployed. Almaz began work on an S-500, described in September 2002 as an improvement of the Phase 2 S-400, with new missiles and radar. As of 2007 it appeared that the merged Antey-Almaz was working on the S-500 Samoderzhets (Autocrat) system, that will include elements from both the S-400 system and the long range S-300VM (Antey 2500).

    Extracted from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/s-400.htm
    Mr Pike didn’t elaborated anymore, nor references cited.
    On the other hand, reports about testing of “nonamed” hypersonic missiles (speeds about 3 km/s) and interceptions around 50 km sometimes appear, so there is something in development but this may not be the original “big missile”. :confused:

    in reply to: The SU35 … #2518157
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Supposedly some techs developed for this bird will be retrofitted into old Flankers (SM2 standard). Do someone know which one? Maybe the radar. The RCS reduction measures seems more difficult to translate to old hardware.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1795106
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Imagine a fictional scenario like ie. North Korean missiles launched to Vladivostok. I mean in a pure anti SRBM scenario.
    Which one will be better to intercept a Scud type missile? A 9M83-Gladiator or A 48N6 Growler? Supposedly the first have a terminal speed of 1.7 km/s and the second a speed above 2 km/s. The advantage of the first might be a higher acceleration.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1795230
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    9M96 are cheaper “Tomahawk-hunters”. Furthermore, I very doubt a cruise missile can be intercepted at 200 km distances. I mean 9M96 are much better suited for cruise missile interception tasks than bigger and larger 48N6.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1795250
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    The missiles are part of the system and have also completed testing (the 40N6 is the one we’re waiting for), but there’s probably no need at this time to actually fit the 9M96s to the Moscow TELs.

    Why not? 9M96 missiles are cheaper lighter and more agile. In such a case, the Triumph already deployed is no more than an “improved Favorit”.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1795277
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    What’s the range of 48N6DM, anyway?

    250 km according Jane’s.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1795285
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    A SS-N-18 was successfully tested today. See RIAN.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1795309
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    40N6 will be added next year. Rigth now, 9M96 and 48N6DM are deployed.

    in reply to: 53T6 “Gazelle” revisited #1796019
    Rodolfo
    Participant

    Against aerial targets a 100-150 kg warhead (Patriots and Grumbles missiles) would have a kill radius around 100 m. But airplanes are “soft targets”. A missile warhead is harder and smaller, so the effective radius will be smaller. Furthermore, considering warheads speeds (2+ km/s during the terminal stage) and interceptor speeds (4+ km/s), the rendezvous spot will be pierced in less than 0.1 second. This raise some doubts. I assume some modifications respect to “usual” SA warheads are made in order to modify the “shrapnel rain” for increasing its effectiveness. Nevertheless, I will put some grains of salt on the average effectiveness of the conventional kill mechanism.

    PD: If I were able to choose :diablo: I would go for a sub-kiloton (~ 0.1 kT) warhead to both minimize collateral damage and assure target disabling.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,036 through 1,050 (of 1,190 total)