GoldenDragonThat’s an interesting picture but it is almost certainly a Kilo. The general shape and the torpedo tube placement is exactly that of the Kilo.
The only oddity is the placement of the diving planes on the fin.
Probably PSed, if not then a new version of the Kilo?
GoldenDragonThis is so unlikely its probably is not worth actually speculating about. The air combat capability is gone, and the Kiwis need not worry about invasion. That is the reality.
They shouldn’t and neither should Australians.
The truth is the US is the guarantor of both nations. There is little doubt that the US would fight if any attack on Australia or NZ occurs.
NZ and Australia are Western outposts on Asia’s doorstep and they would be defended as such by the dominant Western power.
Australians don’t want to be part of Asia and Asians haven’t bothered sending them an invitation.
“The East is East and the West is West and the twain shall never meet.”
Rudyard Kipling said this many moons ago in the same Victorian age when Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand was being stripped of its native populations by whites.
GoldenDragonquit using the British-related Thesaurus, because most of us got no idea about your Beanos, Ladybirds and Dandys, and no real interest in those, whatsoever..
Beano sounds like a fun read …
GoldenDragonDear Jin Long, domestic and defense problems are two different things. Who runs the government, Hu Jintao and who runs the military, Jiang Zeming. Do they think the same? NO. Are they good friends? NO.
Thanks for using my Chinese name 🙂
GoldenDragonNew uniforms is key–what can any air force do without new uniforms?
Can someone identify a likely opponent for Vietnam’s MiG-21s, upgraded or not? Particularly one against which they can actually do something useful?
China is out–they will use Su-27/30s. US is out–nobody can seriously think that the MiG-21 can survive against an F-18 or F-14. Laos? Cambodia? 😀
A fighter force isn’t only there to fight some apocalyptic war with a China or an USA.
It’s main duty during peace time is to enforce sovereignty and chase UFOs.
Vietnam, unlike many other smaller nations, doesn’t allow foreign planes and spaceships to violate its air space with inpunity.
Now with the WTC attacks, intercept capability is even more important in peacetime.
GoldenDragonAh, the good old days of commie mass production 😀
Here, the Q5 being made by the hundreds. I believe it is circa 1980s.
A crop of this picture (featuring the Q5 in the middle) serves as illustration for many a Fantan entry for Salamander books.
GoldenDragonExcept that to do that, your range must be pretty close. Take the 16km figure for the R-77 as a reference. You don’t have a big receiver, and you don’t have a big emitter.
Yes, but ARH is not autonomous when fired beyond those ranges, which is the primary mission role for those missiles.
Okay let’s drop the semantics debate on whether an ARH like AMRAAM or R-77 is really fire-and-forget or not. We know that within range of their seekerhead, they operate without any input from the parent plane’s radar, therefore fire-and-forget. But at extended ranges, it needs the parent radar to direct it at a target, therefore not fire-and-forget at this point.
No. Echoes are still echoes. Regardless what is the direction of the source of the emitter, the reciever stil recieves the signals that are still *directed* at it by the angle of reflection.
There is no difference between emissions and echoes save for the doppler effect. In fact, every missile reaches some point in its path where the emissions and the echoes are exactly the same.
Imagine a tape recorder started a clicking sound in a precise pattern and the canyon walls are reflecting the echoes. And now imagine yourself in a part of the canyon far away enough from the emitter where the strength of the emissions (sound volume) is equal to the echoes coming off a canyon wall near you.
You would have a very hard, if not impossible, time figuring out which of the constant stream of sound coming from different directions are the emissions and which are the echoes.
It’s not an easy solution for a SARH, especially if you switch its parent radar to something else. But a much easier solution for the ARH which has its own receiver and emitter even when transferred to another system.
IR Ash and Alamo are true fire and forget, and they are meant for extreme ranges, so long you’re facing the target. The IR Alamo does not work with a datalink.
You sure on the IR Alamo? I thought R-27ET is just the R-27ER with a IR seeker for the terminal phase. The datalink should be there for both.
We don’t know enough about the early Russian twinned IR versions for some very long range missiles like Ash and Acrid in the 1960s and 70s. But it could be assumed that these missiles had pretty good range in an age when the average IR acquisition range was not only very small but it was entirely rear aspect.
So the IR Ash and Acrid almost certainly had some form of control that allowed them to be fired way beyond the small cone then available to IR seekers. Otherwise, the carrier aircraft would be better off with AA-2s instead of the heavy load of the IR Ash or Acrid. You don’t need missiles of their size unless you’re loading enough propellent needed for long range otherwise it would be a debilitating waste of space and drag.
Radar degrades quickly on the other hand, the closer your are to the ground or if your radar is pointing to the ground.
True. Radar degrades from ground clutter and which is why we have lookdown/shootdown sets for mainly strikers and some interceptors like the F-14 (to deal with sea skimming cruise missiles.)
But radar deteriorates much less in comparsion to IR over long distances in air for most fighter combat and interception. There is simply no comparison between IR and radar aquisition and tracking ability, no matter how quickly IR has developed (actually radar development is coming along just as quickly if not faster.)
Discerning faint energy at distance from sun, reflections of glare on water or ice or cloud that come between the seeker and target is much harder than a radar wave actively striking a target and gaining a signal.
The ARH will have a longer acquisition range than an IR one for the same diameter. Even if the target lit up its afterburner and has its arse facing your missiles.
The seeker acquisition range of the new ASRAAM is supposed to be 15km (or 9 miles. ) There shouldn’t be anything close today even though a AIM-9 or Python has a listed range of 9 or 10 miles. That’s flight range, not seekerhead acquisition.
It is the J-7E and J-7H that you are talking about with the configuration you described. The reason why the PL-5 exists is that the PL-8 is a heavy and draggy missile, which limits its use on small fighters and for use on wing tip rails. That’s why fighters with wing tip rails use PL-5s like the JH-7 and the FC-1. In the JH-7A, the pylon next to the wing tip rail is actually for the PL-8.
You know, you’re right on the J-7E. I probably have seen the PL-8/PL-5 repeatedly on the J-7E and not the J-8II.
But it’s the same argument. The PL-8 has greater range and it needs to be cued from a radar. It is large and heavy because it is intended for a greater flight range than other IR AAM. It has a 15km range. But its seeker’s acquisition is nowhere near 15km.
Why the J-10 does not use wingtip rails with PL-5s boggles the mind. They would have easily added two hardpoints on the plane with this.
Different discussion but perhaps because of aerodynamics?
Some refresher on SARH missiles.
There are two kinds of SARH missiles. The first and earlier one does not have a datalink.
………………..
PL-11A belongs to the first group.
PL-11B belongs to the second group.
PL-11C is another beast, the same airframe fitted with the AMR-1 ARH seeker, so it’s not really part of the discussion on SARH.
The FD-60 China is proposing to Pakistan may belong to the second group.
The SARH AA-10 Alamo which has a datalink, appears to be on the second group, but functionally according to some people, the datalinked INS does not work that well, so it works more like the first group. However, one cannot rule out that later blocks of production AA-10R to have improved datalink INS which can make it work more like the second type.
A good explanation, Crobato.
But just remember, datalink is nothing more than a modern RC. It’s still radio waves. The difference being that in today’s world of processors we can give the missile a whole lot more information to figure out where it’s going and what it needs to do to get there.
Now, there is a lot of conjecture concerning the PL-11. I can’t really say whether there is a PL-11A, -B or -C. I could say that there is a PL-11 and there had been one for sometimes. Long enough for an export version.
It would be very interesting to see what happens to the FD-60, Crobato. On whether it is able to be integrated into PAF F-16s or even Iranian F-4s and F-14s or Egyptian F-16s 🙂
GoldenDragonIs this variant of the R-27 still being developed or even being considered?
How far did it go in development? :confused:
It would seem like a VERY deadly weapon, an active radar guided long range missile would really boast the MiG-29 and Su-27s BVR performance, having a greater rrange than the R-77. (I think the range is supposed to be 80 Km?)
The keyword is seems 🙂
In practice, the R-27 family has not performed well at all. The East Africa conflict shows a score of about 25 odd launches with a single possible hit. This was year 2000 in a low ECM/ECCM environment.
GoldenDragonIf Russia is outside this discussion and the UK/France nearly equal, I think the deadlock at the top could be broken by the fact that the UK has a far better airlift capability in the C-17s and the C130Js.
French paratroop operations overseas depend on contracting US and Russian transports.
I think this forum forgets that lift capability is very important too in assessing the ability of an air force.
GoldenDragonNo need for that 🙂 its ok. Well certain things are not discussed with the media you know. Do the chinese leaders want their people to know they are edgy with so many carriers near them? That would make them look weak right?
How does anyone know they are “edgy”? You usually see lots of stupid commie stuff like “You are hurting the Chinese people’s feelings” or other inane propaganda talk from the People’s Daily when they are feeling edgy.
I haven’t seen any of this concerning the carriers.
Of course, you could have an opinion that it would make them edgy.
But I have an opinion that the things that is really making China edgy is 1) how to slow down an overheating economy, 2) the massive flooding in south China and 3) the scary and potentially devastating problem of runaway industrial growth overwhelming China’s powergrid which is leading to chronic blackouts and brownouts which never happened in China before (and is consider one of the major infrastructural advantages China has over other low-cost nations.)
The difference between the tabloidish China being “edgy over carrier exercises” and China being scared sh$tless by the three problems I mentioned is that the former has a few unnamed “analysts” assuming “edginess” but no Chinese news reports and the latter having massive volumes of Chinese officials and state propaganda organs sounding off in comments and in attempts to put a positive spin on “soft landings” for the economy along with reports from every western economic mag from the WSJ to the Economist.
GoldenDragonRice woos China over US naval buildup
BEIJING—China is getting edgy over a new US military strategy aimed at projecting force around the globe and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s visit last week was an attempt to calm Beijing down, analysts said.
There is nothing in the Chinese press that said China is edgy or that they actually talk to Condi Rice about the upcoming exercises.
The above story is predicated soley on “analysts” saying that China is edgy.
“China is getting edgy over a new US military strategy aimed at projecting force around the globe and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s visit last week was an attempt to calm Beijing down, analysts said.”
They could quote nothing to say that Rice actually talked to China about the exercises. Except that the trip happened while reports of the show of force is surfacing.
What we do know about that trip are discussions over Taiwan and N Korea.
GoldenDragonFunny thing is, in another decade or so it might China trying to reassure the US of the same thing.
I would doubt it. The last time China had a great navy, it was destroyed by its own royal court under the Ming 🙂
But the whole exercise might be interesting.
The last time there was a major exercise conducted by the US on China’s eastern seaboard, a Chinese Romeo submarine surfaced in the Osumi Strait after running underneath American and Japanese forces exercising nearby.
GoldenDragonYes but the same mindset that drove Japanese leadership in the first half of the 20th century (and indeed the later part of the 19th) is not there now, not after 50 years of living by a dictated constitution. If the Japanese launched a sneak attack today it would pre-emptive defence, not expansionism. I am sure, and would hope Japan has learned from the utter waste World War II was for them.
As a student of naval history, Glenn, you should know that Pearl Harbor was considered “pre-emptive defense.”
They didn’t want to invade the US, just knock it out of a war that everyone knew was coming with a classic pre-emptive strike.
Anyways, Vortex was the one who brought up surprise attacks 🙂
I’ve no idea why he brought it up but when he did we need to look at history. It’s really just bantering between the two of us.
GoldenDragonNo. It stops it from being true fire and forget. True fire and forget do not need the parent radar to tend to the missile once the missile is released from the rail. Currently only IR missiles are true fire and forget.
For much of its flight path, the ARH missile has to be command guided by the parent fighter radar. Only in its final destination is that command released. Thus the real difference between ARH and SARH with INS is only in the final short seconds of flight.
Again that depends on when you fire the missile. The AMRAAM is entirely autonomous within range of its radar seekerhead just like an IR AAM is within the range of its infrared seeker.
Now is an extended ranged IR missile like the IR versions of the Ash and R-27 fire-and-forget?
Its only a marketing term. In reality it does not work out that way. Like I said only passive missiles (IR and ARM) are true fire and forget missiles.
Precisely. But this is only fire and forget with WVR. and not true fire and forget in BVR.
If its fire-and-forget in WVR then it’s fire-and-forget just like a Sidewinder is fire-and-forget in WVR. Is the AIM-9 not fire-and-forget because it’s not fire-and-forget in the BVR regime?
Marketing is a something to consider, I guess. But then calling any IR AAM that requires radar cuing to use their range fully fire-and-forget is just marketing too.
Before it is ever launched, those frequency and pattern are already built both into the design of the missile seeker and the parent radar through software.
Again, that is why it is much harder to integrate a SARH missile with a new radar that the SARH was not originally paired with. The ARH uses its own illumination.
The only difference between SARH and ARH is the location of the illuminator. SARH means “Semi-Active Radar Homing”. Not really “Active Radar Homing” but “Semi-Active” like halfway through the same concept.
That is actually a very large difference who requires very different solutions.
One (SARH) needs to pick echos off a target from a different illuminating device that could be above, below, to the side and, most of the time, behind the missile’s receiver. The other (ARH) has its own illuminator that is always at an exact position relative to the receiver. The problems posed by the two systems are very different.
No. Both ARH and SARH/INS are tightly coupled to the parent radar because the parent radar continues to give command instructions via datalink after launch. The parent radar must track the target and give instructions to guide the ARH or SARH missile. No difference here.
I think we arguing about semantics here. Both IR and ARH are autonomous seeker type and are fire-and-forget missiles when fired within their respective seekers’ acquisition ranges.
If you insist that an AMRAAM or R-77 is not fire-and-forget at their extreme ranges, then okay, that is a point that could be made. But an IR AAM with extended range like a IR Ash or Alamo is not either under that same definition. Nor is a long range, heavy IR AAM like the Python series which need radar cuing.
The SARH beam rider system is actually the easiest because you never have command guidance with datalink protocol in the first place. There is no need for the radar to “talk” to the missile as we have with ARH and SARH/INS. The moment it is launched off the missile’s seeker is already live and following the reflections. The target is already lighted up from the get go as the missile is launched. All the parent radar is track the target and keep its illumination at it.
Beam riding is very actually very different from SARH though people often mix the two.
Beam riding like the AA-1 is where the AAM follows the focused radio beam whereever it points. The missile really does ride on the beam which at first is wide to allow control of the missile and then narrowed until the AAM is flying in a straight line at the target. Beam riders like the Akali is usually very short ranged because it’s basically line of sight and arrow straight.
The true beam riding missile is entirely dumb and depends on the guidance beam to intersect its path with the target.
A SARH missile as already stated is semi-active. It’s not “dumb” when its parent plane has its radar on. It actively tries to follow a maneuvering target by homing on the radar frequency being bounced of the target by its parent radar. But it does go “dumb” when the radar is shut off (hence semi-active.)
Why do you think beam riders are the first kind of BVR AA missiles to be introduced in the first place?
True beam riders (the dumb missile variety) were the first AAMs of any kind 🙂
IMO, ARH is overrated.
That I fully agree with. I’ve argued the same many times before. You eventually needed to get in WVR range to check. But between ARH and SARH, the difference is large.
It is certainly not like 5 times. More like 1x.
Range between SARH/BVR and IR had always stayed constant at around the factor of four or five. When the Sparrow B in Vietnam had a range of 18 miles, the AIM-9 was at 2.6 miles.
IR degrades quickly over distance because of things like sunlight, reflections from bodies of water, clouds, etc. compared to radar. The IR seeker head itself needs to be cooled than the surroundings.
If it is 1x then why bother going through the expense of building ARH AAMs?
I don’t think we have a true figure for the AMRAAM seekerhead’s acquisition range. I’ve heard anything from 10 to 15 miles (25km.)
The acquisition range of the average IR is not 15km. The PL-8 has a range of 15km but it can’t acquire a target without a radar at 15km.
A setup we see often is J8II with two PL-8s and two PL-5s. That is basically using the PL-8 in the same role as a shorter-legged AMRAAM. The terminal stage when the IR seeker could acquire is probably 5-8km for the PL-8. But its engagement range is greater than the PL-5.
the J-10 fighter will also be quipped with the Russia made R-73, R-27 air-to-air missiles introduced in together with S-27. The electronically scanned phased-array radar installed on J-10 could track 24 targets at the same time and launch attacks on four of them.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/13/eng20021213_108423.shtml
Thanks for reposting that article, Crobato.
It would be something if we could see the J-10 with R-27s. We’ve already seen it with PL-11.
GoldenDragonAs to Chinese military, surprise attacks, blah blah blah, the point is how these “things” work in China as in comparison to the US or Japan. The Iraq war at least took a few months, if Chinese leaders want you got your war tomorrow. Nevermind the strategic situations, that’s the nature of the power structure of the CCP. No one can deny that.
Vortex, no one can deny that the Japanese are historically prone to sneak attacks, including the two most well-known ones in the past century, Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor.
The commie Chinese actually warned the US first before collapsing the American 8th Army in Korea (MacArthur declared he dared the Chinese to attack because he would turn the assault to a massacre the “like of which the world has never seen”) 😉
Historic precedence predicts a Japanese sneak attack not a Chinese commie one.
Sign In
