I think RuAF is after something… New (or a sensible upgrade from present tech).
– double sensor missile (rad and Ir)
– Concatenated range categories (BVR + WVR)
– Dogfight with gun (and high alpha/sustainable turn rate (turn on alpha (as opposed to turn on G’s))
– MW for off-Boresight (?) and range b/w close and WVR (probably 3 mi).
That way, there is no need carrying a collection of diverse missiles. This will explain also the Mig31 NG with larger missiles.
Notice that this is very similar to the USAF:
– double sensor
– doubly collapsed range engagement zone: WVR with flare/chaff and BVR with WVR (already initiated with the AMRAAM and the AIM9X ER
– Dogfight with gun on High alpha rate (sustainable – look at Nth F35)
– Laser…
Laser needs more precision in targeting but less power. MW are more dispersive (less kin effect and range at equal power).
I sincerely think that this could explain why they are weapon testing in inhabited area as opposed as before to ensure that the path of MW is well understood.
Oh… And to repeat my old theory, those canoes are MW guns. Big ones 😉
Notice:
If the reader adhere to the above theory, it comes easily that for the US side, sheer power and large magazine of small missiles are equally as capable to lead to as many aerial victory since a survivable close-in knife fight is soon to be a non-survivable idea (what an irony? Dogfight kill itself!).
Obviously, there is always a grain of sand in all perfectly set mechanism and it is probable (as it exists reasonably a non-negligible probability) that something (an air force or a design bureau) will find a third way, more efficient or resilient in a domain of the engagement. Extreem sea skimming, hyperstealth? That is my today’s (cheap) prevarication…
TomHAL 9000
Sign In
