TinWingAfter some further research I can understand why, this one missile is variously known under the names of: K-SAM, KSAM, Chun-ma, Chunma and Chonma, LOL (no, LOL isn’t another designation 😉 ). Seems like it is basically a South Korean version of Crotale NG (with Thales officially contributing to its development).
As for its size, it looks about right IMHO.
It appear that this smaller Crotale sized missile is indeed called Chun Ma, which translates to the word “Pegasus,” or “winged horse.” This is short range, low altitude system to compliment K-30 Biho SPAAG.
The Korean VLS M-SAM(?) is a far larger missile, perhaps even larger than the Russian SA-10? It is supposed to be a 30-60km Hawk replacement, but it look like it might be large enough to replace the 150km Nike Hercules.
Are the Koreans working on two sizes of M-SAM/KM-SAM? The static display looks bigger than the missile that was test fired? Then there was a smaller missile displayed in a VLS tube? Was this a full sized or scaled down mockup?
TinWingM-SAM/KM-SAM? Although it looks a bit small for that range class. Some googling turned up a project for a 10km-SAM that goes by the name of Chonma, and this photo looks quite similar to Hyperwarp’s pics:
http://vestnik.tripod.com/imagesa/chonma.jpg
The launch tubes account for the foldable wings, too.
I am entirely confused.
I’m not entirely sure if I’ve ever seen a real picture of M-SAM/KM-SAM?
And this missile (Chonma?) is even more confusing?
It looks bigger than a Crotale or Rapier sized missile? Can anyone guess about the diameter and length?
South Korea seem to have a lot of active missile programs, but little information is made public? Is there tremendous secrecy in South Korea, or is it just the language barrier?
TinWingHigh-wingloads do allow long time low level flights, all the others can do that for brief dashes or at reduced speeds only.
This is no longer a major consideration.
TinWingVG wings allowed supersonic fighters and bombers to use smaller landing fields than would otherwise have been possible. This was very important during the Cold War, when fixed airbases in Europe were very vulnerable to attack.
TinWingMax dive speed for the MiG-17, F-86 and Mystere IV A were between Mach 1,05 till 1,2. The MiG-17 started with 1,05 and was freed up to Mach 1,15 to cope with the mentioned Western fighters.
The MiG-15bis was a true subsonic design and unable to pass Mach 1 in a dive.
In 1967 the Arabs enjoyed some technology advantages.
The MiG-15bis surpassed the Ouragan by a good margin.
The MiG-17F enjoyed advantages in the subsonic range against the Mystere IVA.
The MiG-19 surpassed the Super Mystere B2.
The MiG-21 enjoyed advantages in agility in some areas against the Mirage IIIC, when Mirage IIIC does in some others.
The Israeli didn’t enjoy a significant technology edge in the 1967 war. They did employ superior tactics, and Israeli pilots were better trained and motivated than their counterparts.
It could be argued that Israel enjoyed a definitive technological advantage by the time of the so-called “War of Attrition.” Of course, results were also misleading in that conflict because of the human element. Soviet pilots knew that the Egyptians weren’t true believers in communism, and that they weren’t fighting for either their country of ideology. If they died over Egypt, they died over nothing. The Soviet had directly intervened to demonstrate that Egyptian pilots weren’t properly employing their Soviet training and doctrine, and the Egyptians were very much inclined to see the Soviets fail, rather than admit the failings of their own leadership.
It isn’t hard to understand that Russian MiG-21 pilots flew with less determination over the Suez canal than they would have over Eastern Europe.
TinWingThe MiG-17 really wasn’t very maneuverable at high speed. Why? The control forces were apparently too high – especially for North Vietnamese pilots who were smaller in stature and weaker than their Russian instructors. American test pilots would apparently bend the control sticks of MiG-17s during high speed maneuvers.
Despite all of the uninformed propaganda, the MiG-17 was probably inferior to the Grumman Cougar, or even the early, and highly flawed, models of the Hawker Hunter.
The sad irony is that the A-4 Skyhawks used to simulate the MiG-17 in aggressor training were far more capable aircraft than the MiG they were meant to represent.
TinWingDo you have a picture of it?
Regards,
Cliff Barnes
Of course. It looks like a cross between an early swept wing Gripen concept and the cancelled B3LA trainer.
TinWingI found that a little earlier looking for info and have yet to properly translate it. It still leaves the MEKO X a bit hazy, however, and that isn’t the original promo material that used to be out and about in English, but at least it’s very detailed and the couple of years of German is helpful in browsing. Also, it’s nice to have German friends. 🙂
Anyway, can anyone find anything equivelant on the much larger MEKO X? I know what the gist of the design is: a scaled-up MEKO D with much larger spaces, allowing an increase in a number of areas, from number of helicopters and number of weapons to the capability to install a proper air defence radar system.
Still, though, now that I’m aware of the exact weapons fit of a baseline MEKO D, I do want to compare the two and get a good idea of the additional capabilities (systems-wise) of the MEKO X.
Logan Hartke
Here is a .pdf brochure, along with a side profile.
The MEKO X is surprisingly large, with a remarkably wide beam. It would seem to be a very high end export proposal, but I have no idea which country was the intended customer. Australia? I don’t have a clue.
TinWingEmbraer are talking about it as a private venture. Say that because so much of what goes into it is off the shelf, they think it can be done for about USD500 mn. Embraer could raise that from their own resources, but they’re seeking partners (component suppliers, I expect, e.g. the engine supplier) & customers before launch. They’ve successfully competed head-on with US & European firms without export subsidies.
It is far easier to sell regional jets than military airlifters. Military sales have major political considerations.
Incidentally, Embraer has never operated without some manner of government subsidization, but the same could be said of Bombardier or Airbus.
The reality is that this project is merely a fantasy unless the Brazilian government makes a launch order. This proposal sounds just as improbable and grandiose as the FX fighter competition that ended in the purchase of a dozen un-updated Mirage 2000s.
TinWingNot yet formally launched, but could be by the end of the year.
What think ye all? Will it fly? Any chance of it being the new Hercules (i.e. the standard to meet or beat in its class)? Will it sell?
Can Brasil launch this program on its own?
The financial dimension is always more challenging than the technical effort in launching a military airlifter.
Unless the Brasilian government is willing to swallow the entire development cost, make a large launch order on behalf of the Brasilian millitary, and offer subsidized financial to export customers, this airlifter will never make it off the ground.
TinWingFunny, you should say that as Kennedy almost started WWIII with the former USSR and got us in Vietnam. While Ford got us out and put the country back together after Nixon nearly tore it apart with scandal. With Ford giving up the Presidency for the betterment of the Nation……….:p
Ford lost. If Ford hadn’t been a bumbling oaf, Carter wouldn’t have won. He could have survived the pardon of Nixon, who really didn’t do anything terribly wrong. Ford wasn’t even doomed by the final collapse of South Vietnam. Even the economic mess of the mid-70s didn’t spell out election defeat. Ford lost because the American people saw him for what he was….an inept, dimwitted, career politician who didn’t believe in anything.
It is fortunate that most Americans have forgotten the terrible times of the Ford administration – and the even worse times that followed under Carter.
We should all hope that American never sinks that low ever again.
TinWingI was on the USS John F Kennedy many years ago and its her time. That said, she was a great ship named after a great President. Funny, how some don’t like Aircraft Carriers to be named for former Presidents? Seems only fitting to me………………..
Not many people would compare JFK with the failed presidency of Ford.
TinWingWhat public proof ? The IN already operates it on the Talwar class frigate and for the Nth time the Supersonic Dart is operational thing :diablo:
I have no doubt that India has purchased this missile. The issue is whether or not it would work against a large warship.
TinWingTyphoon isn’t intended to be a long range strike aircraft, it’s a swing role tactical fighter with heavy and long range strike capabilities.
You just spelled out the fundimental problem with the Typhoon.
A “swing role tactical fighter” was needed during the Cold War in Western Europe. Initial operations were be defensive air-to-air engagements. After the acquistion of air superiority, the fighters would revert to a strike role.
The Typhoon was meant to carry out the same role as the F-16. In fact, the Typhoon was more of an industrial response to the American F-16 than to any real Soviet threat. Designers desperately sought to make the Eurofighter “superior” to the cheaper American product. They couldn’t offer greater range, or more sophisticated avionics, but “supersonic maneuverability” was a viable selling point in the 1980s – before the Soviet threat melted away.
TinWingBefore anyone gets over excited….
The only public proof that we have that this Klub variant actually works are brochure claims from the manufacturer.
Unlike the United States, and to a less extent in Western Europe, there is no public accountability in Russia.
It is foolish to attribute capabilities which very well might not exist. Assuming that separation can be made between the subsonic missile and the supersonic terminal stage – not an easy thing as extremely low levels – the limiting factor is the very small size of the warhead.
It should be very obvious that this missile doesn’t have the ability to substantially damage a carrier.
Sign In
