SS-26I think you’re proving my point quite nicely.
Trying 2 get the last laugh in with this remark, doesn’t poove anything, but that U LOST!!HAHA!!!:D;):cool:
SS-26The guessing of the PAKFA’s shape is interesting, some people think it will be a “Raptorsky”, other say it will be a “black widowsky” others (like me) think it will be based on the Flanker layout (which could ending looking like the black widow, anyway)…
Now there is an interesting question, about the bomb bays that supposedly were tested on the su-47…why to test them on that plane?..why the doors and bays were not tested in a su-27?
If we are looking for hard evidence, this could be the “hardest” one :), anyway, is a pakfa feature (the bomb bays), but then of course , is just a speculation.
So probably the pakfa will have the su-47 intakes/airframe , probably with separated engines, with engine cones acting as radar blockers (why not?, no s-duct), and a su-34 nose (based on the aesa shape)
But scince the Su-27 came out before the Black-widow, wouldn’t it make scense to say the Blackwidow looks like the 27?:D
SS-26Just for the record, the second-person singular pronoun is spelled “you”.
I find it hard to believe that you do not understand what the two Jane’s titles I cited are. Both are available on-line, but only to subscribers. But if you do not trust me to accurately copy data into my internet posting from the book versions of both titles, or from the conference papers I consulted, then I fear I cannot be of further help in answering your questions.
The S-300VM is a variant of the S-300V, so I think that a reasonable person would assume that my comment on the sources of the quoted data applied also to the –300VM.
Much to my surprise, I have managed to locate some of the information that I received in two briefings by the Antey 2500 (S-300VM) chief designer. Much of the material concerned the overall system rather than the missiles. So it does not add anything relevant to the data contained in my earlier posting.
shut-up!!
and admitt YOU were wrong I was talkin bout the VM and you “THOUGHT” I was talking bout the V, END OF ARGUMENT.
SS-26Desert Storm lessons were considered in the design of S-300PMU1 and follow on systems as well as in the S-300VM ATBM system. The blast is directed to the warhead of the incoming missile rather than the gravity center. No different from PAC-3 and THADD but with a “shrapnel rain” in place of a “bullet”.
PAC-3 will b another failed US System, while Rus’s will kick a@# as usual, (and I’m NOT being sarcastic!!)
SS-26http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml
Most can only go in a straight line. None of the rest can follow a target that turns. Of course the fact that SS-26 thinks it’s designed to shoot down planes like the AIM-9X is amusing all by itself. 😉
I never said in anyway shape or form it can down planes, U LOST!!:D:D:cool:;)
SS-26The S-300V figures were taken from Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems, Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence Systems, and checked wherever possible against information from Almaz-Antey.
The Aster Block 2 data came from several papers presented at a missile-defence conference.
Is what u said a link or just what u say:D
I said S-300VM NOT V!!
SS-26HUD videos of Lipetsk Su-27s during training dogfights.
You got those links from “MilitaryPhotos.net” didn’t you?
SS-26With no stronger stimulus than good college port to inspire me to a spot of late-night research, I offer the following facts:
The maximum effective range and altitude of the 9M83 ‘Gladiator’ against a ballistic-missile target are 25 km and 25 km respectively. It has a maximum velocity of 1,700 m/s.
The maximum effective range and altitude of the 9M82 ‘Giant’ against a ballistic-missile target are 40 km and 25 km respectively. It has a maximum velocity of 2,400 m/s and can engage targets with ranges of up to 1,000 km.
The improved VM round in the Antey 2500 has not increased these range and altitude figures, but is claimed to be effective against 2,500 km range threats. I have not seen a reliable figure for burnout velocity.
The Aster Block 2 is being promoted as able to engage ballistic-missile targets at ranges of up to 150 km and altitudes of 20-60 km. It would have a maximum velocity of about 2.5 km/sec and be able to engage targets with ranges of up to 1,500 km. To judge from information given at a conference several years ago, it could have some capability against longer-ranged threats.
I haven’t seen anyh reliable sourses showing that, care to post em:rolleyes:
SS-26SS-26 is a troll. That’s really all the clarification you need. 😉 (He certainly won’t cough up any facts.) A prime example is at the end of the AIM-9X thread were he states that a sub-launched AIM-9X is simply a rip off of a Russian unguided torpedo. 😀
When you stated thagt Skvall is “unguided” that should be the FIRST tell-tail sign you are the blind leading the blind,:D:D:D
“Originally Posted by SS-26
Your regards are usless this IS a copy/build-on of Russky tech”LOL
SS-26Care to clarify that?
That link explains better than I can if ya can’t read and understand it, then there’s no way of helping ya:rolleyes:
SS-26This is a capability that is long, long, long overdue and I would say neglected by the U.S. Navy
It will be very interesting to see if this program can be kept on time and within budget – or even kept in want by the U.S. Navy!I also can not work out why it is that the likes of such a weapon system would not be kept secret?
I think the US Military and US arms industry are more concerned about share prices than national security – when they promote to the world such systems or capability – which encourages other potential adversary country’s to either develop their own system or countermeasures!
Let’s see how long it takes for the PRC/PLAN (or even Russia!) to ‘acquire’ this technology – which mysteriously looks like and smells like a copy of the U.S system????Regards
Pioneer
Your regards are usless this IS a copy/build-on of Russky tech: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
SS-26Good find! Block 2 approximates the performance of the S-300VM/Arrow2 missile families then, albeit with a lighter THAAD-style missile and probably naval deployment capability.
Lay off the drugs, it’s no were near the VM’s performance: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html
SS-26As i said “i’m presuming,” that implies that i might be wrong…:rolleyes:
What that demonstates with regard to intellectual ability is rather difficult to conclude.Not sure how events of 1853 impact on the recent Chechan desire to split from Russia, i presume that they weren’t given much choice back in 1853 either…:rolleyes:
When you attack a nations carrovans and your warnned not to, and you keep doing it you’ll pay the price for that, and nations annexed lands of concured lands, especially if you (Chechens) started the conflict.
As to Native Americans i agree entirely, it was largely genocide in one form or another.
Your point?
Thats the reason the U.S/U.K. was supporting the Chechen independance not because they cared for them, thats why U.S./NATO supports other wars (independance or not) not because they care but because they have economic wants of thier (U.S./NATO) own.
My understanding is that the people who occupy the breakaway part of Georgia aren’t originally from there, they and their immediate ancestors were imported Russians that the Kremlin sent there.
Thus Georgia is merely trying to retain territory that has been forceably re-settled Georgians, not quite the same as the Balkans or Chechnya.[/QUOTE]
No http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia[quote]
SS-26Although dated the Kirovs could become superb flagships if updated. Their size and scope for the instalation of modern hardware would make them formidable.
12 x Naval S-400 launchers with 96 missiles
6 x SA-N-11 Grisom/Kortik (Kashtan) Systems with 192 missile incl reloads
20 x Quad packed launchers for SS-N 26 Yakhont/Oniks SSM – 160 incl reloads
1 x Twin 152mm based on the prototype twin 2s19 Msta
3 x HelicoptersI am not sure of the capabilities of the S-400 but given the ability of the Russians to obtain other peoples secrets having a system near to or equal to the USN Aegis is surely a possibilty. Give it and the other vessels in the taskforce a networked capabilty and put a carrier in and it takes thins to a new dimension. Give the SS-N-26 a land attack capabilty or swap up to half for conventional SS-N-21 Sampson cruise missiles. Not invulnerable by any means but no ship is but definitely worth having and updating IF the money is there and I would like to see it.
The Russians didn’t dteel any secrets for the building of the S-300PMU1/2/400 you just can’t fathom Rus beeing able to do it.
BTW did you know themain-gun of the M1A1/2 in designed & built in Germany(Basically a German gun)
SS-26You can’t really compare the ageing Su-33 with the ‘new’ MiG-29K/KUB – they are generations apart – clearly the new MiG is a better all-round machine.
But if the Su-33 were to be given the same upgrades as the Su-27SM……. 😮
Ken[/QUOTE]
I thought the only ungrade on the SM was the Pero Radar (which I read is a small upgrade from the N001) and Look Down Capabilities and ECM pods:confused:[quote]
Sign In
