PeeDI get some values that look too high with the calculator. You already said that it is not fully applicable to ground based radars but I wonder what the penalty would look like?
Here is a example T/R module for a S-band radar such as the Ground Master: http://micro.apitech.co.uk/pdf/aesa/dual_s-band_transmit_receive_module_TRM.pdf
With 100µs pulsewidth and a duty cycle of 20%, we get a resulting, possible PRF of 2 khz. Now anything between 3000-5000 modules at 100w, the resulting range is in the range of 3000km (RCS 2m², dwell time 0,1s).
I’m sure operation at max. module performance level is not the usual operation regime. But even at half the performance parameters, the range is still 1700km. These performance levels would result in very high range performances, especially against VLO assets.
PeeDVery insightful, thanks.
I have some general questions:
– How applicable is the use of the spreadsheet for PESA? Can we take the peakpower, divide it by amount of phaseshifters and put it in a T/R modules? Would the result be representative or are there some effects for AESA that are considered and hence this would deliver false results?
– How would the parameters of a hypothetical AESA 92N6 S-400 engagement radar look like? Since just a single array is used, we can exclude a continuous wave operation (although many sources for some reason state that the SA-6 with its single engagement antenna is a CW system)? So how would the parameters (PRF, pulsewidth) for a pulsed illumination look like approximately?
– A general question on AESAs for illumination role I always had is, whether a part of the array could use transmit-only elements with higher peak power per element, and the other part normal T/R modules. I see much higher power levels for transmit-only modules which may could compensate the lower number of receive-capable modules. Even if there would be no benefit for the range performance due to the lower receive modules; in SARH (bi-static) operation, the missile seeker would receive higher RF energy.
PeeDWhen I reduce the radar scan sector angles I would expect a rather proportional increase of detection range, but sometimes there is even an decrease. Is the aperture gain included in the spreadsheet so that there is a limit from which on no increased detection range can be achieved by confining the scan angles?
PeeD@Bayar
Your link is good and it’s a good to have capability to manufacture spools blinks of the cold end. Does that mean that they produce them for the F100 or does this mean that they produce blisks/spools for a foreign engine manufacturer, or does this mean they have a facility that has demonstrated this capability? I doubt any F100 versions use blisks so, no, this has nothing to do with Turkey producing F100 or any engines. Maybe PW has given them the licence to produce spools for the F100? Possible but this is a rather easy bit in the huge puzzle of a turbofan engine of F100 class.
Look, Turkey is certainly a industrialized country and they have achieved quite much but why do you think they could produce a F100? USA, UK, Russia and France are the only countries in the world who could produce it and except for Russia and some extend France, the others have outsourced component production to aboard (some also to Turkey).
You want something that is one of the hardest task in technology in general and expect Turkey to have catch up to these leading countries with at least 50 years each experience in that field? You demand miracles, be happy if Turkey “produces” 20% of the F100 and 5% of the critical parts (and this is nothing to be ashamed of).
Your problem are such false impressions. In general the Turkish defense industry which is existing in your mind is what is to happen in 2019, 2021. This is no offense, try to be more critical to get a clearer picture.
@Andraxxus
Even positioning itself against the Saudi alliance in such a direct form like deploying 3000 troops requires political soft and hard power. There is not much Turkey has at hand today that it could deploy and hope to deterrence the Saudis, as you said not even 30.000 troops.
_____________________________________
Here is my accidentally deleted post to which Bayar replied, for the sake of completeness:
So Edrogans talk about 3000 soldiers to Qatar was serious? Is is just a few APC or will he (can he) stay by his promise for 3000 troops especially if the deadline is in 6-7 days? Bayar, do you think he will provide the troops?
In total Bayars pro Turkish stance is welcomed, as well as JSR’s unconventional pro Russia stance.
However there is a difference: JSR is a typical Russian and has unconventional ways of thinking like: “all your western export equipment is useless in a real conflict with serious/robust Russian weapons, so change and go for Russian”. This way of thinking is strange but in detail JSF could argument in detail about it with pro-Russian argumentation.
Bayar not just has believed pro-western argumentation about western weapons, he also overestimates Turkish capabilities. He really has false impression that e.g Turkey is capable of producing F100 engines, under license but it’s still producing it. He might even think in case the US stops its license support, Turkey could in some months, not decades start its own production of F100 if necessary.
I have worked with Russian and Turkish engineers. JSR is typical Russian in that regard but the Turkish engineer was very sober and would have never claimed Turkey “produced” the F100.
So Bayar pro Turkey stance is informative but he has an unrealistic understanding of the current capabilities, what is really at hand.
In the case of Qatar, I doubt Turkey has enough geopolitical power to provide the 3000 troop until the ultimatum.
Iran for example could provide a asset like shown here: https://youtu.be/Pro4rigIslw
Everything you see in that video is produced completely in Iran, all the designs are owned by Iran and many design solutions were interpreted from the Russians, some from the Americans ( just the Kasta-2E is a direct copy and the Resonanz-NE). But more importantly: this equipment is operational, no detail about them is known to any foreign country and them being send to Qatar could have a real military value/effect. However Iran lacks the geopolitical power, and in case of Qatar will to go alone against the middle east and risk a armed conflict. In terms of military industry Iran has chose the Chinese way of development (copying where necessary), while Turkey goes the Indian way –> license production, ToT and time consuming development from scratch.
As Turkey is still not a big player, I doubt it would send anything substantial, not even 3000 infantry to Qatar.
Turkeys defense products look good, almost fancy but the question is when they will be developed, when fielded and then in what numbers? Lets see when the military useful projects will enter operational service and then we can judge about its geopolitical power.
PeeD@Andraxxus
I never claimed that Turkey would not be able to deploy 3000 troops, maybe JSR did?
What I did was questioning Turkey’s political power, with all its implications to do it. Erdogan more or less promised it but with all the political weight of the Saudis and their allies, I doubt he is poweful enough to do it.
But maybe he is strong enough to do it until the ultimatum.
PeeDI accidentally deleted my initial post in the keypub smartphone mode (wanted to correct the yourtube broken link)… murphies law. I will add it back later. But just to make it complete: this is the video I was talking about
Current existing capqbility and indegenous.
PeeDThe guy who uploaded the video regarded 70km range air defense systems as short range.
But this is a ideal example: Iran shows operational units with two 70km medium range SAM and all radar and command equipment. This is ready to be deployed to Qatar tomorrow if there would be a political will.
Your show me the website of a SAM project which is far away from a operational capability that could be deployed to Qatar until the ultimatum. This is a good example of power you think is available, but is not.
Turkey could never “produce” the F100. It might be granted the license to produce 3 or 100 major/critical parts and the rest would be imported and assembled in Turkey. If they are lucky all subsystems are broken down to component level for assembly, not whole imported subsystems. Same for F-16 license production.
Your problem is that your view is in the future, not now. You talk about things that do not exist on the ground.
But I appreciate that you inform us about those future projects and things like your indigenous UAV’s are of course a useful developing capability. However to make geopolitical statements like you do, you need to take the present into consideration. Syria and Qatar are now, not 2019 or 2022.
PeeDOff-topic but what happend to Turkeys force deployment to Qatar? They have 8 days left for the Saudi ultimatum, has Turkey enough geopolitical power to do the deployment in the remaining 8 days or is the whole thing cancelled?
I think this case is a good indicator fur Turkeys current geopolitical strength in the region.
PeeDIt’s basically a lost game to try to beat fuel efficiency of geared fans such as the PW1400 via by-pass ratio/fan diameter or thermal efficiency/turbine inlet temperature. PW is just a step ahead of the others at the moment.
If the PD-14 family wants to beat the PW1400 they need to concentrate on the PD-18, a geared fan variant.
PeeD@garryA
I told you already, nose pointing is not the same as turning. You cannot consider G load from deceleration the same as G load from changing in direction.
Moreover, your calculation based on CN not CL, so you will have to divide that total force into drag and lift components since they are not the same things. Otherwise you will reach the same conclusion that missiles are most manuverable when their body is at 90 degrees with the airflow. Or the conclusion that all deceleration is the same as changing in direction.
No problem garry. Then, for you, Mr. Fleeman, his book and me are wrong on this. Fleeman counts the total G load, as we did for the Iskander, against the total G load of a aircraft in his AAM vs. aircraft scenario.
Admittedly you did find the mistake in stealthflanker sheet by yourself (or with his help ..idk)
as said by myself… ask him if you don’t believe it…
The side gas system is not the same as real TVC. For once TVC will provide thrust toward direction of travel.
In mechanics it’s the same minus the forward thrust.
you can’t expect a single stage ballistic missiles with solid propellant to have much fuel or any fuel at all for terminal stage. Because the burn rate of solid propellant can’t be changed. Unlike a jet engine ( or to a very lensser extend liquid fuel rocket ). In other words, while different design can have different burn rate, the burn rate for a specific design remain the same, always end after a certain time T. To get the Iskander out of atmostphere, reach speed of Mach 6, thrust will be very high with short burn time. Furthermore, missiles reached terminal velocity at burn out so while there could be some improvement in agility added from the TVC, there are reduction from the fact that missiles didn’t reach their terminal speed=> less lift to perform maneuver. One reason for TVC on short range AAM is that they can turn right after leaving the rail, before they reached required speed. On the otherhand,most long range AAM don’t use TVC as their motor would be burned out before they reach target most of the time.
Yes and the Iskanders gast system is a small liquid restartable one.
Anyway, coming back to my estimation, if i used your new value: 1234 kg instead of 2307 kg ,5 G instead of a 30 G, wing area of 0.32 m2 instead of 0.11 m2
Lift = CL* air density* 0.5*velocity^2 *wing area
1245*9.8*5 = CL * 0.046*0.5 * (297*6.5)^2 * 0.32
61,005 = CL* 27429.4706
CL = 2.22
As you can see, the required CL change significantly when you don’t have extreme value like 30G at 24 km
Fortunately you admit mistakes like number of fins, same as I admit mistakes. However in this case you should compare that “mild scenario” Cl with the complete airframe, twice higher, Cl of the Su-27 (1,2), don’t you?
Not all anti ballistics missiles are faster, many of which are slower. Before you say how can you intercept something going faster than yourseft. Remember that ABM is like throwing a stone in front of the car running so the car will colide with it, the intercetor doesn’t actually chase their targets. Also , how do you come up with changing direction of 2 km per second ?
You told this and it sounds reasonable against non maneuvering targets, I have the same theoretical thinking. What do you think happens if the Iskander does a mild turn with low G at 40km altitude that equals to a 5G hard turn at a delta of speed of mach 3,5 and a distance to interceptor of 50km?
This is like the fastest WWII propeller aircraft trying to intercept a MIG-25 which did a lets say 2G turn at 50km distance. Would the WWII fighter be able to meet with the mach 3 MIG-25 after the 50km or would the resulting position change at the rendezvous point be too high for it to catch up? If it would be able to catch up, how much of its range/kinematic potential would have to be used for that task and how much would be left for its range capability i.e motion directly towards it?
Would the active thrust be sufficient to compensate the speed losses due to reactive course changes in denser atmosphere?
These are some of the problems a slower interceptor would have to face against the Iskander.
(regarding your question: I said position change at 2km/s (Iskander) not of 2km/s)
This F-16 lose 1200 Ps every second at 4G, Mach 1.85. AoA limit of F-16 is 15° so quite similar with AoA you used for Iskander. The Iskander move at 3.2 times faster than F-16 (Mach 6.5) and doesnot have any thrust to counter excess drag. How much speed do you think Iskander will lose consider that drag force raise with speed (proportional to square of velocity) and deceleration is proportional to resultant force ?.(which is why thrust is needed).
Which imperial dimension would P be? You mean FPS? If yes a turn of 4G for a second would cause a loss of speed from mach 1,85 to mach 0,85? I’m not familiar with speed losses due to to turns but that one would sound like nonsense.
I honestly don’t get your logic. You think Interceptor with very high T/W will depleted of their kinetic energy if their targets making maneuver as low as 1.5G , while at the same time you think that ballistic missiles with no thrust can continously make 11G maneuver without worry about significant decrease in kinematic energy.
No. I said the course correction losses of the ABM interceptor would be higher due to the atmosphere, and the thrust you want to use to compensate those losses must come from somewhere –> range/altitude performance will decrease.
I proposed a Iskander with continuous course changes of 0,5-1,5G and now due to the data basis I have, several up to 10G maneuvers to evade a endo-atmospheric ABM interceptor. As said I’m open for a representative formula which estimates speed losses due to certain turn rates.
The funny thing is that any country with offensive TBMs/BMs also needs a ABM capability and I challenge you to get a picture of ABM potential/physics.
PeeD@garryA
It isn’t useless, the equation should work in all situation unless stated otherwise. The way the equation and their graph is presented, missiles will be able to generate more and more G as it approaching 90°, which is nonsense as lift should start reduce at 45°. I used extreme value only because it would be easy to see
The equation works now with the F-16 and can be regarded as benchmarked. Your objection confusing. The formula uses Cn (not Cl), the normal force coefficient. You surely know what that is at 90°? Sit as a passenger in a driving car and put you hand out of the window. The moment your hand palm faces flow direction you will experience the biggest force. For G load direction does not count, a strange missile at 90° to the flow will experience the biggest decelerating G loads possible.
a/ Our dead mass and AoA for missiles are very different. You have your reason, i have mine, and i can’t really be bothered to argue about that now. But the different even if only around 50% is rather big
So you get 50% lower results with your Iskander input and don’t want to talk about? Good, however in a discussion about max. G of Iskander my input is withing max. possible condition and hence applicable. But well if you want to apply favorable inputs to get ~6 G max. and call that low G capability, good.
b/ In atmostphere the off center gas system won’t add much for any other purpose rather for nose pointing. Same case on all missiles. So it doesn’t really belong to the discussion
The TVC system at the rear of the R-73 AAM gives it large G pulling ability. We don’t know enough about the capability of Iskanders gas system to dismiss it…
c/ 11g at 24 km is very different from 30 g at 50 km or 92 g at 28 km that you proposed earlier.
I proposed wrong values earlier due to a identified error in an else very good spreadsheet of a member here of a post of this forum. Your objections made me suspicious and the problem is solved now.
However 11G is quite good for your claim that:”For comparision, the flanker airframe ( with LERX, blended body, negative stability and what not) has CL of 1.2 at Mach 1 and AoA of 18 degrees
In short, the Iskander will need the lift coefficient around 70 times bigger than Su-27 for it to be able to pull 30G at Mach 6 and altitude of merely 24 km .”
Now we have 11G (or 5,5 with your unknown input) instead of 30, but we are far away from a capability “70 times bigger than Su-27”. With that 70 times claim your probably should have expected 0,1G for the Iskander…
Moreover i havenot done the calculation, but 11g at Mach 6.5 seem like missiles change direction very slightly
Change of direction maybe, but how about change of position at 2km per second? Whats really important is what a even faster ABM interceptor will need in G’s for the same direction change…
It really depend on how many interceptors you launched and at what point does Iskander started its maneuver. But generally without thrust ( or with much lower T/W ),very high G maneuver is not exactly the game to play.
One game are hard G’s one is a continuous position change to force course corrections to a ABM interceptor. Under the same input conditions, at 45km altitude, just 5km below midpoint apogee, the Iskander would still be able to do 0,6G continuous “bleeding” maneuvers.
Since you will lose most of your speed after the first turn.
I have proven in this thread that the Iskander must loose something like 3,5 mach numbers until impact by either heating only or additional maneuvering, while you have never proven that the Iskander would loose most of its speed after one high G maneuver. 3,5 mach numbers excess speed sure sound like a good maneuvering margin available.
PeeDI have found the error in stealthflankers spreadsheet. He has counted dynamic pressure as pascal or N/m² into the last part, the G calculation where he counted it (N) against kg. Hence the final values are wrong by the factor of 9,81, (too high).
So let me turn back to you initial claim for too high Cl @ 24km altitude.
Here are the corrected max. G results for Iskander @24km altitude:
2,12G for the fins @22° AoA (twice higher results can be reached for higher AoA)
8,9G for missile body at 15° AoA consistent with a shallow dive of a terminal stage at a depressed trajectory
TOTAL: 11G (This number is for evasive maneuvering for an endo-atmospheric interceptor, without the use of the gas system)
The question if the interceptor is faster than the mach 6,5 Iskander-M and how much faster it is for successful interception. The faster it is the higher G it must pull for a high PK, to match the turn performance of a target that need less G load for the same turn performance. How much that is is disputed sources vary from higher G by factor 3 to 5, however I think that the higher speed compensates a low turn performance, 0,5 to 1 as additional factor might thus be enough for a high interception PK.
This is the Iskander-M input I used with the corrected spreadsheet of stealthflanker:
dia 0,914
length 7,28
weight 1254kg
missile body AoA 15°
control surface deflection 20°
control surface area 0,16m² *2
control surface aspect ratio 0,66
speed mach 6,5
Edit: For a double check: the F-16 calculation the numbers also make sense now. It would be able to do about 2G under the 45k feet mach 1,85 conditions. Your 4G from the manual would be likely reached with all the other stabilization surfaces, flaps etc.
Hence double check is also consistent and conservative.
PeeDOk I accept your values for the F-16 you input is reasonable and conservative.
So we have a problem here with the formulas and manuals. I can’t identify the problem, stealthflankers spreadsheet seems alright, the F-16 manual is real. Its possible that they talk about different things e.g instantaneous turn and sustained turn. Or some more complex problems. Surely fight tested manual data is more useful than formula generated calculation data.
Maybe Fleemans book and his presented formula is wrong. Who knows, but you certainly raised doubts.
Missiles generated the most lift to pull high G when their body is at 90 degrees with the airflow
Yet, you see nothing wrong with it ? are you even serious ?
I don’t know why you made that graphics with missile at 90° to flow, complete nonsense. But its of course true that missile at 90° would create max. body Cn at 90°, but why this useless exercise?
So why wouldn’t the FCS let the missiles fly past that ?
kinematic clearly wasn’t the problem as all standard missiles can easily reach that altitude ( SM-3 used the same MK-104 motor and MK-72 booster can even reach 500 km altitude )
According to your own calculation even the Iskander with its tiny fin and tube body can generate enough lift to pull 94g at 28km with the only limiting factor being airframe structure G limit. Airframe g limit doesnot change with altitude .So how is there any decrease in aerodynamic maneuverability at all for SM-2, SM-6 ? They will both be able to reach their maximum G limit at 28km just like they do at sea level since the lift generated will be far bigger than airframe limit
Agreed, you can blame me for sticking to open source max. altitude data. I told you that you could do the exercise for them and I will be happy to see then, no problem.
However the problem is that the interceptor always needs excess G capability to intercept with reasonable PK. So if the Iskander does 30G at 34km what would the interceptors be able to do if aerodynamic capability is not the limiting factor but the airframe? 50G? Is that 60% extra margin enough for a solid PK? There are inertia effects and that extra margin should be lower for two objects of similar speed but for SAM vs. aircrafts, extra margins of 300-500% are proposed instead of 60%. A big question is whether THAAD or any other ABM system must have roughly equal G capability or a vastly superior one.
This game is much simpler for the Iskander.
____________
Ok now I will try to find a mistake in stealthflankers spreadsheet.
PeeD@garryA
Are you sure that the whole rear fin can’t be deflected ? 100% positive that they are fixed ?
Mind telling me what are in those photos ?
Well they move, I was wrong about that old relikt. Your spreadsheet input is right and it can theoretically pull 25G at that speed and altitude if the airframe would be able to endure it. Absolutely no hint that anything is wrong with that formula. But I wonder how your friend calculated the F-16 with its conventional wings?
Before you babbling about how all 4 surface need to move they give an example of an AGM-65 where only 2 fin moves
I took 2 fins for my spreadsheet calculation, check again… furthermore 2 can move or all four can move but 2 is also representative for 4 as the difference in negligible.
Furthermore if the model is completely unsuitable for aircraft like configuration then how come they gave Storm shadow and AGM-86 as example ?
Try to calculate a F-16 with that spreadsheet like your friend did, want to se how you want to do it…
Nice try but as usual, wrong. Flight manual indicates machines performer, not pilot limitation. If pilot is the limit factor then how come the manual show that F-16 can pull 9G at sea level?. So far it wasn’t airframe G limit. It wasn’t AoA limit.It sure as hell wasn’t pilot limit.But your sheet clearly shown that F-16 can some how generate enough lift to pull more than 28G with little more than 5 degrees AoA, not even one third of its AoA limit. You said the values make sense, so explain it then :what caused the reduction from more than 9G at sea level to 4G at 50k feet if not lift ?
You have some logic problems here… A G load of 28 wont be reached by the F-16 ever, because the air frame would disintegrate first. Similarly the pilot will pass out at 12G before structural limit of lets say 15 is reached.
So what are you talking about???
Secondly show be how you put the F-16 into that spreadsheet…
Point is, in reality, the agility of missiles, aircraft are not high above 30 km. That why it is often regarded as altitude limit. However, if we take your calculation as correct (in other words maneuverability was never a problem) then SM-2 , SM-6 can both easily intercept target above 30 km as both of them will easily reach that altitude and more. SM-3 used the same MK72 booster and MK-107 dual thrust rocket motor as SM-2 and SM-6, added a small third stage, yet it reached altitude more than 500 km.
Yes. If the FCS allows it to fly past 25km altitude it will fly past, SM-2 (SM-3 anyway) and PAC-2 have the necessary kinematic power. However due to decreased PK due to low aerodynamic maneuverability this might be outside their operation regime, at least all sources talking about their max. altitude tell that. You are welcome to calculate their maneuverability at 28km, why not, it’s possible that they have such a special operation mode hidden somewhere or that all sources are disinformation by the defense agency.
No problem, let talk about airframe limit then, why flight manual indicates that F-16 can’t pull 9G at 50K feet while at the same time shows that it can pull 9G at sea level ?
… Good god… First present a adequate F-16 input for that spreadsheet. Logically the reason is the thin air which cause stall at high AoA and likely also stability problems with nose pointing/flight safety.
Why have I always to go so off-topic in discussions with you? Now we are talking about the F-16…
PeeD@garryA
Too bad when your models given result 7 bigger than it actually is, and completely different in what way? do you think aircraft aren’t affected aerodynamic force or missiles with aircraft like airframe such as Tomahawk, Kh-20 ,AGM-129 does not exist?.
If F-16 is so complex why don’t you put the numbers for Kh-20 in and check the result? Unlike you, i only used 5 degrees AoA and 12 degrees tail deflection, both are extremely small value.
Look garry, you have grave understanding problems here and I bet your or your friend did the same nonsense for the F-16:
What you put into the spreadsheet for Kh-20 is simply wrong! You assumed that the complete rear wing/stabilizer deflects… Thats not the case, its a conventional wing surface with flaps. This calculation model does not work in this case. Even if you would just calculate the flaps, you would have to skip the wings.
Hence if the Kh-20 would deflect the whole rear stabilizer (like the T-50/J-20 deflect the whole vertical one) it might be able to pull those numbers. But this is nonsense as this model is completely unsuited for such a aircraft-like case. However you can try it with the Tomahawk, that would be a representative case.
Nice try but F-16 airframe can sustain over 9G, wrong excuse. Try again . With your calculation an F-16 will be able to pull 9G at all altitude with the only limiting factors be the airframe G limit. Flight manual data shown that clearly not the case
Ok next try and this one might open your eyes: The most important limitator is the pilot, so even if airframe could do 15Gs, the human can just do 9 for limited period. So what G’s a manned airframe can do via its aerodynamic design comes at the 3 place after the two other limits…
So you pumped up the speed and wing area while reduced the dead weight, no wonder why you wouldn’t want to show people your values, but whatever.
My values are for the Iskander-M… i.e what the Russians would use against THAAD. What’s your wing area again? Something that would change the results with a tolerance of more than 10%?
Since when Wiki is considered a reliable source?
SM-6 is SM-2 with active seeker while retain all the control surface and motors, how exactly does it have different operating celling ?
not even LM products card has celling and max range values for PAC-3MSE, yet you somehow think such information will be available on wiki ?
So no one can know the max. altitude of those systems because they are classified and wiki numbers are wrong. The vlaue of 15km for PAC-3 is wrong too and the PAC-3MSE somehow improved that to 28km (i.e twice)?
Look I have no problems if you state that those wiki numbers are for disinformation, but also other endo-atmospheric systems around the world do not go beyond 28km (e.g S-300PMU-2 with TVC). So what kind of discussion do you want here?
The only system with altitude above that (via wiki) are the SM-6 and the Buk-M3 (TVC), both have 34km. So we could do a calculation for the SM-6 yes but not for those missiles I stated.
High speed is what help you generate lift, so it always matter for a missile.
And Iskander pulling 30G at 32 km ( actually 94G according to your own previous calculation) ? in the same way that F-16 will pull 28G at 50.000 feet as well ? So accurate.
As said there is a structural strength limit of the airframe. We don’t talk about 94G for the Iskander or 28G for the F-16, both are beyond airframe limits.
The Iskander might do 30G maneuvering at maximum and the THAAD KV might be able to survive 50G max.
However I doubt you get that.
Sign In
