GoldenDragonThis is becoming pretty funny. The J-10 is popping up everywhere but it can’t be officially acknowledged 😀
Closeup of Hyperwarp’s post.
GoldenDragonNo, the one you mentioned is named 039G (G means GAI in chinese pinyin) indeed. The real 039A is believed to be the above new sub.
039G …
How can you name something 039A when it’s not a derivative of the base class, 039? This one looks nothing like a Song and if it’s real would be a derivitive of the Kilo.
If true, this would mean four different SSKs in the PLAN (Ming, Song, Kilo and this new one – actually five, if you include the old Romeos too)! It’s like the fighter programs. It would seem there are way too many of them.
GoldenDragonYeah, that’s a fast one from Gertz 😀
They’ve already named it the “Yuan”?
We have so far Han, Song, Yuan and Ming. They’re missing the Tang dynasty between Han and Song.
None of them are the Chinese designations for these classes, FYI.
GoldenDragonCould this be the Chinese answer to Brahmos? Whatever it is, it is BIG!
The answer they’re looking for is the one for US CVNs, not another anti-ship missile 🙂 And it’s not big in comparision to the other new AShMs at .52m diameter and 6m length if the Janes report is correct. In fact, it is much smaller.
GoldenDragonUhh, I thought the Kh-22 was something like 500kms++
Also what about the KSR-5/N/P with 400kms?
Both air launched. Didn’t consider them.
Umm……P-700 is 550+ km and around mach 1.7-2.5
I did miss this one though. I totally overlooked the older gen Sandbox and Shipwreck. Those were/are part of the nuclear arsenal and are strategic weapons as well as a tactical anti-ship missiles. They’re HUGE. Can’t be fired except from giants like the Kutnetsov CG, the Oscar SSGN. etc.
I was thinking in terms of the modern supersonic anti-ship missiles like Sunburn and Brahmos.
But you’re right, hyperwarp. The SS-N-12 and SS-N-19 are weapons in a class of their own. The Sandbox at 12 m long is twice the size of this new Chinese weapon.
GoldenDragonNo. ARH and SARH missiles do not use doppler. They use continious wave illumination, same techniques used by old aircraft before doppler was used.
Basically the analogy is more like a flashlight in a dark room. If I shine a spot with a flashlight, the lighted spot is the same whether or not you hold the flashlight or someone else’s. It should still give you the bearing.
Late model Sparrows use pulse doppler illumination.
Anyways, continuous wave illumination is just the process of pointing at a target. The ability to discern echo from source is what were talking about.
If you don’t use a doppler method then you are dependent on a directional receiver. It can’t receive anything except in the direction its facing so it can never confuse echo with source.
Now, remember, the flashlight analogy only works because you, as a human being, is smart enough to discern the spot from the flashlight. It’s not so simple with devices.
How do you program something sensitive to light to go to the spot on the wall? If it homes it on intensity then it could home on the source. Or if you program it to move away from light to then it could go in any direction as long as it is away from the source but not necessarily at the spot on the wall.
Each solution is dependent on methods that a system used and they’re different from system to system.
Infrared (heat) released from the engines is at the order of magnitudes greater in radiant energy than reflected radar. The difference is much greater than a firecracker against a stick of dynamite.
Heat attenuates, it dissipates quickly in air. IR is very also iffy in cloudy conditions.
A plane could have a huge IR signature up close but it drops off very quickly in the distance. Otherwise an IRST would be used for MRAAM and BVRAAM. It just isn’t the case. An active radar antenna would always have better acquisition range for the same seeker head diameter, in today’s technology anyways.
Wrong here. ARH missiles like SARH are not superior to IR ones in rear aspect attack. The difference in radiant energy between reflected radar vs. heat is like a bonfire vs. Mt. Krakatoa. Guess which one makes a far more reliable and stronger signal source.
It’s like Mt. Krakatoa for two miles and it drops off very quickly even with rear aspect. Heat attenuates and dissipates. If it didn’t, you could build a missile that can track the heat trail of planes (like a wake homing torpedo.)
Again, it close, heat is great. In close, you can use an IR missile from all aspect.
The flight range of the Python 3 or PL-8 is said to be around 22km. Maybe 25km. Depending on your frontal aspect and how hot the target is, it’s only between 5 to 10km for the seeker, in the front. But there is no fixed rule here. It can acquire the target at 15km or even 20km if the target is hot enough. It can also depend on how long the seeker may be ‘staring’ at the target, or the contrast of the target against the background. If I’m locking against the target in an upward attack and the target is set against a clear blue sky, I may get a better lock. There are so many factors at work here.
I’ll agree on that. Unlike, say the range of a naval gun in engaging targets, that of the AAM is highly conditional.
GoldenDragonThere have been very few successful BVR engagements and the reason US takes most of them is because they are constantly attacking someone. If it was the Russians who were attacking others, I am sure they’d have notched up many kills.
Also what do u call some of the BVR kills in Arab-Israeli wars? Iraq-Iran where there was quite a few I believe too.
Well, starting wars is a good way to test weapons and tactical theories 🙂
But it all comes down to experience in getting highly complicated concepts to work correctly.
The US as I said had a huge headstart with the AIM-7 in Vietnam. And then the Israelis used the Sparrow effectively in the MidEast and then the Gulf War I, then the no-fly-zone over Iraq, then Bosnia, then Kosovo and now Gulf War II. That huge wealth of information is not shared with the Russians.
The R-27 and the R-77 are still weapons with concepts and abilities that are not quite proven in combat.
It could be that Year 2000 in East Africa for the R-27 is the same as 1965 was for the Sparrow. A teething period for a untested weapon. If that is the case, it might take a while before the R-27 could even match the experience and operational thought processes that was engineered into the AIM-7F in the 1980s.
As far as the Iraq/Iran war, there isn’t a lot of records and the whole thing is left to conjecture. There might have been several bvr kills by French missiles but we hear of far more claims by Iranian AIM-54 (25 kills) than the handful of claims by the R530. I’ve no idea how the AIM-7E on the F-4s performed.
But the Iranians from what I read used the F-4 mostly for ground attacks which means the F-14 probably handled much of the air superiority tasks.
Unless we get more information from the Iran-Iraq conflict, we could only guess. But if it’s bvr, the F-14 would always get the first shot in because of its radar.
GoldenDragonVery interesting.
400km would make it the longest ranged supersonic anti-ship missile anywhere. Warhead at 410 would be bigger than that for the Moskit arming the Sovremnies but at 6 m is about 1/3 smaller.
I haven’t come across anything in the boards to even speculate what it might be called.
GoldenDragonI don’t think range or training is a problem in the East African experience. They were mainly mercenary Russian and Ukrainian pilots. You don’t have a lot of greenhorn mercenaries. These tend to be people who’ve been career soldiers.
There were at least 4 kills by Flankers against MiG-29s with IR AAMs so at least those occasions they followed up BVR firings by closing in for the kill.
But I wouldn’t doubt the Sparrow 7 analogy. It took the Vietnam war with hundreds of AIM-7 launches to work out the technology and doctrine.
Russian (and the rest of the world) use of BVR even in year 2000 was still working out the kinks in BVR usage.
The US has a 3 decade old head start and wealth of experience that includes about 96% of BVR kills recorded in history (and the 4% left over are faint rumors of French bvr kills in the Iran-Iraq war and a few Russian “possibles.”)
BVR is a sure thing only in US hands or US weapons.
GoldenDragonIt probably is faked but you can’t tell by blowing up the photo like you did.
The mirage-like lines that happen when in compressed formats like JPEG when the picture is blown up don’t signify fake. This happens when the program exporting the compressed photo attempts to deal with edges.
GoldenDragon039A is the 039 with a reworked sail.
It looks like a Kilo and has the same torpedo tubes arrangements with rows of two and four in the bow as well as the hump.
But the sail even without the stabilizers seems different. A little bit taller and slimmer than a Kilo’s but that could be just the angle.
The background also seems a little busy to pull off a PS job without some obvious indicator.
So a very interesting picture indeed. But I would have to lean towards a kilo because the bow looks exactly like one.
GoldenDragonHere’s a couple of Y12s from the Mauritanian and Kenyan air forces
GoldenDragonThe L159 is still first and foremost a trainer.
The AMX is designed as a light attack craft.
For COIN, the second is obviously better.
GoldenDragonYou want to take the chance with a wide open airspace?
Also, the bombing in Bali killed 200. That’s a figurative stone’s throw away.
GoldenDragonI am glad that doesn’t apply to me personally. I am planning to marry a Japanese girl.
Personal relations are different, GDL.
And I think you know this already 🙂
Intermarriage and dating between East Asians and causcasians happens on a large scale whereever the two populations mix. You see it in California, Singapore and Shanghai. Rupert Murdoch and a Prince of Denmark married women of Asian extraction.
But politically, this isn’t the case. Especially in international bodies where Asian states are dominant. Most Australians, I imagine, would find it hard to see themselves in an Asian confederation, unless it’s led by the US.
Sign In
