Page 83 – Key Publishing

mig-31bm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,231 through 1,245 (of 1,759 total)

← 1 2 3 … 82 83 84 … 116 117 118 →

Author

Posts
January 4, 2015 at 11:45 pm in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240074

mig-31bm
Participant

But it ISN’T what he is advocating, he is talking about some hypothetical dream of his own….that will see the MISSILE itself be the UAV….it isn;t launched by anything else…it just cruises around and MAY eventually find a target……in the meantime, data linked or not, it is an armed missile simply flying around on it’s own..with NO return to base nothing……it would just fly around and IF it didn;t find a target and ran out of fuel, he said it would self destruct!…great scraps of metal falling over populated areas?…..or worse, it doesn;t self destruct, it crashes armed into a school or hospital or whatever…..the shear costs LOST with such a thing would be astronomical…..I mean just having them run out of fuel and blow themselves up?…at what?…a million a piece?…or likely far more…….

having unmanned UAV’s working WITH a manned aircraft?…OK I could see that…….especially for A2G….but for A2A and simply a two stage missile roaming around?…..

and AGAIN, this is a MUNITIONS and MISSILES thread slapped into Aviation…….WHY?……

and what is the sense in having a “STEALTH” Missile?…..there is utterly NO advantages at all…….except that in ones mind, there are “invisible” missiles flying 700 – 800 km’s autonomously seeking a random target…..I mean come on….what kind of sensors and radars is the launch plane going to have to “see” 800 km’s just to identify a “target”..I mean an AWACS can see out to what?…320 KM?….and at altitude…….and then pick out a flying target?…..reality check time I think……If a massive AWACS can only see 320 KM’s…how is a little missile going to “See” 800 km’s, pinpoint a target and fly itself there…the damb “target ” will be long gone….

ok JAY can you read? , or did you bother to read at all? did you even read the part about 2 way datalink and EO seeker? , do you read the part about it coud be used? , or you just want to scream so that it sound like you make a point .?

January 4, 2015 at 11:41 pm in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240076

mig-31bm
Participant

LOL, the U.S. SAGE system in which the pilot was supposedly a last ditch part of the system was found to be a failure shortly after it was put into use, and that system at least had a pilot who could override the distant controller if need be yet you want a unmanned armed thing flying around with nothing to bring it back when the snafu hits, good grief.

People with such ideas are why so many doomsday movies were made in the late fifties and early sixties.

did you read anything? i said EO seeker and 2 ways datalink, basically same concept as SLAM-ER

January 4, 2015 at 10:20 pm in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240161

mig-31bm
Participant

WTF ever…dream on……your mentality is the same as the idiots that strewed Mines all over……”well IF someone comes, then they will ..” ..well guess what……reality is this….NO NATION in the world will spend the money to launch “Speculative” Munitions into the air, than when nothing happens to simply self destruct?…….there is absolutely NO gain to having an A2A missile that flies for hundreds of KM’s….simply because targets cannot be seen that far away with any security and by the time the Missile gets there the target is 500 – 600 km’s farther away…….simply put the missile wouldn;t catch up to a plane flying at speed anyway……

Your using DECOY munitions as a basis for your idea?…….totally different….like I said, before your “stealth” 700 km flying missile goes through two stages and finally gets to where the “Target” was ( how was it located?…) it has now flown 300 km’s farther away and landed and the pilot is having lunch….

A “formation” of Missiles just randomly in the air …IN CASE the enemy fighter tries to close the distance?……your ideas will cost an awful lot of money..and wasted missiles….

Your belief that having an autonomous Munition randomly flying around is seriously scary…..can it tell the difference between a KC – 767 and a commercial 767 or a KC 135 and a Commercial 707? whats the difference…..a couple of hundred dead passengers because a missile can;t differentiate………

Why not speculate on developing a hovering “stealth” aerial mines that could be placed and they just hover in place until activated by radar contacts etc…lets have huge aerial minefields to stop any incoming planes from “Closing” the gap…..hell, they could even have the ability to fire a burst of sub munitions on radar contact with missiles…like an “trophy system” for the airspace……come on……try to be realistic……..

AND AGAIN, this belongs under MISSILES and MUNITIONS…not aviation………

wow, i feel the strong butt hurt in you, is that still from losing argument in f-35 thread? still angry now?

as i have explained the missiles have 2 ways datalink so it not Fully autonomous, it also have EO seeker to help identify enemy aircraft type (working in kind of the same principle as SLAM-ER)
The missiles can be used to attack AWACS, tanker, or launch again enemy aircraft carrier group… etc
and the main use of the subsonic tuborjet is for the missile to have low signature rather than to have long rang ( long range is more like a bonus) e, for example : detect enemy aircraft at 150 km, IFF confirm enemy, they can launch a few of these missiles in enemy direction and turn aways, if enemy chased them whether to get in range for missiles launch or to dogfight, they will fall in to trap.. etc many different use

January 4, 2015 at 6:47 pm in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240341

mig-31bm
Participant

No, he is talking about an actual Munition, a viable Missile that he figures could be launched and it would fly around for some 700 Km, and IF, IF it locates a target it would kick itself into supersonic mode and fly to the kill. It is simply a ridiculous idea, firstly, any live munition flying around for 700 KM?…seriously?…and who is going to stop it from tracking and attacking some other type of aircraft?. Not to mention that it would be HUGE and extremely costly…and if said extremely costly Missile DOESN’T find a suitable target?….it has already been launched, you can’t fly up and re attach it to the aircraft…so that weapon is now lost…dropping who knows where…a school maybe? when it runs out of fuel…..and therefore is lost with NO positive use what so ever… and a huge loss of money…..how many of these do you think could be just tossed away?…..AS WELL….as was already pointed out…do you figure that the “target” whatever, some 700 km’s away would still be around by the time it reached there?…and how the hell are you going to identify “A TARGET” 700 Km’s away?…..

Nice fantasy thread…gotta love people that come up with this stuff….should work for Lucas Films in the Star Wars movies or something. Seriously for people that are self proclaimed “Aviation fans”…the support that gets meted out for these projected ideas that are all DESTROYING aviation, turning it all into unmanned , ugly, classless “Stealth” things…where is the love of Aviation?….the joy of flight, graceful classic lines sliding through the slipstream? Because all that will be gone at an alarming rate….

can you read?
the purpose of the subsonic stage is to let the missiles have very low signature thus harder for enemy to detect = harder to evade, the subsonic stage also allow the missile to cruise for very long times, instead of become useless after dozen of seconds after launch
and when near target it active the second stage for the kill
and obviously the missiles would have datalink, just like almost all long range missiles nowaday, the second stage can have EO seeker thus help in identifying enemy
and no missiles dont have to be huge to have long range, the MALD have range of 920 km, ITALD have range around 380 km, have a second stage on top of them would reduced range by half at most
and as i have explained if enemy fighter try to close the gap to dogfight, they will fly into the formation of these missiles, the missiles can be programmed to self destruct too

January 4, 2015 at 6:33 pm in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240344

mig-31bm
Participant

The most practical system would be to have a Loitering vehicle in an orbit packed with a lot of air to air missiles linked through an advanced tactical data-link. You would need breakthroughs in autonomy, manned-unmanned teaming and data links.

i was think about the system with the same concept as SMACM but instead air to air
i think there used to be a similar program, MALI or sth like that

January 4, 2015 at 6:30 pm in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240347

mig-31bm
Participant

You mean like an AAM launching version of the Minion/Minotaur? Probably already exists. They are re-usable, so the drone could be launched earlier than required so it is on station to attack targets that may pop-up. When they start to run out of fuel they just fly home to fight again the next day.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]234295[/ATTACH]

yeah kind of like this but with smaller airframe suitable for Air to air

January 4, 2015 at 2:53 am in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240688

mig-31bm
Participant

….and your plan is that the target will just circle around during the duration of the transition time, right ?

well let say you have to protect an area, enemy aircraft have to come over to drop bomb or doing CAS, released these loiter AAM in their direction so they either have to abort mission or fly into a trap
or let say enemy want to close in to dogfight, our force release these missiles in their direction, due to the low RCS and IR signature of these loiter AAM, enemy may not able to detect them until it too late

January 4, 2015 at 12:44 am in reply to: Stealth AAM, why not? #2240699

mig-31bm
Participant

a subsonic missile works well on a stationary target,
but who knows if the target of this missile already went back to base and having tea ?

no no it have 2 stage
first stage = subsonic tuborjet engine = very long range 700-800 km + very low signature hard to be detected by IRST or radar
second stage = fast supersonic rocket ( kind of like short range AAM very agile)
so it not only can reach very far, have low signature , but also can be highly maneuver
normal missiles have very short range in tail chased too so if enemy just run away then they wouldn’t hit either, but that mean enemy have to abort their mission

January 2, 2015 at 2:01 am in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2241757

mig-31bm
Participant

what you think matters little, there’s a saying: “facts are stubborn”… when you emit, your power brings you further when you lower the emission frequency… that’s basic wave physics.

.ok but
SMART-L a huge L band , power around several MW radar on destroyer only able to detect LO target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 65 km i doubt that anything on Rafale can be 1/10 as good as Smart-L , physical size and power is a big barrier

as for Rafale’s bad RCS…

horrible compared to F-22/35 obviously , even worse with pylon and missiles , terrible if you put on fuel tank , targeting pod

during the exercises in UAE, when Rafales made some noise beating heavily the Typhoons, one of the reasons for that “victory” was the fact that, despite the Rafales having to simulate Su-27s armed with R-27 missiles (needing continuous illumination of the target), they managed to lock and shoot down virtually the Typhoons that were never able to lock ln the Rafales. Despite the Captor-M being, at the time, one of the best western radars on the market, they simply could not get a lock on the Rafales within their firing range… airframe RCS and SPECTRA combined do not seem to be so bad after all, do they?

Rafale have AESA radar so they continuous illumination of the target wouldn’t make much trouble
also i dont think Captor-M as a medium mechanically scanned radar is as good as AESA radar like APG-80 , APG-77 , APG-63(V)3 or APG-79

What’s more, you say more money = better engineers… but, tell me, who has more money, Boeing or Dassault?

There’s no comparison, yet Boeing guys were unable to deliver a delta design they aimed at with the X-32 up to desired agility specs, adding horizontal stabs at the last moment. Even with 2D thrust vectoring, they simply couldn’t do it… Dassault has been making deltas fir a good 50+ years now, and I challenge anyone to prove the Rafale, or even a M2000 is not agile enough by any standards… money, as such, helps, but is not enough by itself

Stealth + high agility is hard to get , still X-32 loss to X-35 in LO and vertical take off but we dont know how it is in aerodynamic aspect

Also, I submit that nobody without access to a major intelligence service in is a position to compare ASQ-239 with Spectra, so to argue that it’s an F-35 advantage is entirely pointless.

Steath make jamming alot easier

January 1, 2015 at 8:58 pm in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2241949

mig-31bm
Participant

If LM had so much better engineer s than Da ssault as you claim, why didn’t they put their tremendous expertise into aerodynamics, as well?
BTW, Rafale’s main selling point is aerodynamic performance? Where do you get that from?

because if you want both very good stealth+ very good aerodynamic + very good sensor then the aircraft will be extremely expensive ex : the F-22
and yes Rafael , ef-2000 , gripen strong point is aerodynamic ( canard design , small airframes ..etc )

As usual, cheap BS statement without a hinch of evidence..

wasnt that exactly what you usually do when you claim F-35 is useless;);)

It doesn’t really matter bcs the whole reasoning regd. money poured into the program vs. performance is pure BS.

no it not , money make significant different in the performance of end product

January 1, 2015 at 8:00 pm in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2242015

mig-31bm
Participant

Brilliant logic.. Let’s put that into numbers..
Rafale program cost is ~$62.7bil, that of F-35 is ~24 times more ($1.51tril). More money = better engineers, that also includes engineers in propulsion and aerodynamics. If Rafale makes Mach 1.8, then F-35 flies…. let me count.. Mach 43.2..

I like that.. :applause:

again as i said F-35 selling point is not aerodynamic performance but stealth , EW ,SA (it trade aerodynamic to get these ) while rafale main selling point is aerodynamic performance , overall f-35 is the better aircraft

January 1, 2015 at 5:25 pm in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2242046

mig-31bm
Participant

as far as “was designed for” goes, the Rafale was designed to deliver nuclear weapons deep inside USSR… you can’t go more into “integrated air defense network” than that… so, one may consider that it is at least on par with the two on that point.

Rafale was designed to deliver nuclear weapons deep inside USSR by flying low , using nap of the earth tactic ( aka hide behind radar horizon )just like Mirage IV that is very different from F-35 using low RCS to penetrate air defense

Next, about power required: no, it is the opposite: the lower the frequency the further you detect with the same power… thank you for illustrating (once more could be said) your ignorance on the subjects about which you pretend to give lessons to others

SMART-L a huge L band radar on destroyer able to detect LO target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 65 km , IRBIS-E ( Su-35s , may be PAK-FA in future )
detection range for targets with RCS=3m2 is 350-400 km , spot super-low-observable targets with RCS = 0.001 square meters at ranges out to 54 kilometers so i dont think : the lower the frequency the further you detect with the same power , btw i doubt that anything on Rafale can be 1/10 as good as Smart-L
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=smart-L+stealth+missile+km&source=bl&ots=hJRyOS_ZfZ&sig=RqlhsrbEaJmGJ5A4JLFwoLFL8DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ejn2U7nkLujZ0QXXo4Bw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=smart-L%20stealth%20missile%20km&f=false

If you need to provide max power all the time to emit in all directions at once, I think you should hire some better mission planners.

Nic

he want to increase transmiting power + area to overcome stealth ,jamming = more power required , otherwise you have no improvement in detection range just increase FOV

THAT is a scientific evidence!

More money = better engineers , designer = better equipment , also it always known that F-35 focus on stealth , SA,EW than kinematic while for EF-2000 , RAFALE ,JAS-39 it opposite

January 1, 2015 at 3:28 am in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2242299

mig-31bm
Participant

er… as said by MSphere, too many assumptions here…

the F-35 has many thingies others don’t… or at least, they don’t use same acronyms…

you say it has stealth… the rafale program development has turned recently towards another direction: integrating radar into the skin of the aircraft… if one thinks about it: you can get extremely high jamming/detection power, your antenna size isn’t limited by your nose area meaning you can emit even in lower frequencies (if you get down to L-band, your oponents stealth is much less difficult to overcome), detect 360•, have a very high power available for jamming… and so on…

one may say: rafale will be a world beater in BVR combat with it, but in fact, nobody knows… it still has to be developed, but it shows one thing: others keep moving ahead, while the F-35 is stil trying to catch up with developments it was supposed to have long ago already

so, your “optimism” (to stay polite) seems somewhat “over-optimistic”

F-22/35 was designed to be penetrate ground radar of double digit SAM such as S-300/400 so i dont think that the integrated antenna on Rafale body would make much of different, not only would it required more power, it also make the Rafale heavier ( not good for a light aircraft) , it wouldnt increase the Rafale detection range alot because the only think point ahead is the nose and slat, also Lband radar would required more power than X band, so i doubt that it would work again Stealth
also F-35 since it have small RCS, jamming will be alot more effective

December 31, 2014 at 5:26 pm in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2242543

mig-31bm
Participant

Sorry if i derail this thread. But if u cannot understand how a jet of similar shape but with different empty weight, NTOW, MTOW and different wingloading makes out for different performance charts alltogether, even when the T/W ratio roughly is same?

Here is some hints.. firstly compair all the different F-16 blocks.
And then the Su-27S/SK with Su-35S. And then Say F-16 block35 with F-35A. Its all about whats happening when you starts adding additional weight/fuel/ordinance. Which is the important issue.. fighters do need both fuel to stay on AB and higher weapons load/hardpoints to make better survivebility rate.
On top of this, there is the huge improvments of having a highly advanced digital FBW/FCS 😉 it makes shifting CG problems a walk in the park. Imo see jets with large internal fuel tanks..

F=ma
so if T/W stay the same, aerodynamic stay the same, then i think acceleration rate will be more or less the same, sure if the aircraft is significantly heavier then it performance will be less affected when carry heavy bomb

December 31, 2014 at 5:20 pm in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2242546

mig-31bm
Participant

Selling point proves preciously little.. You have to exhibit much more than that for this claim to be taken seriously. Given the fact that most of the EW stuff regd. F-35 or its competitors is classified, I wonder where do you get the info from..

F-35 is Stealth which mean it will detect enemy much earlier than enemy can detect it even if enemy have much stronger radar( and rafale, gripen, eurofighter all have worse radar than F-35)
it will be much harder to detect F-35 in jamming condition ( the common rule is reducing RCS by 50% will make jamming 50% more effective and reduce burn through range by 25%)
F-35 have DAS, DIRCM while Rafale, Eurofighter, gripen dont
F-35 have better EW due to the fact that it the main selling point of it,( unlike 4.5 gen that focus on kinematics) the amount of money spent on f-35 program also significant more than rafale, gripen or ef-2000 =likely to have much better ew equipment ( not to mention that fact that F-35 have a bigger airframe thus more room for equipment)
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,231 through 1,245 (of 1,759 total)

← 1 2 3 … 82 83 84 … 116 117 118 →