star49Or it means that India isn’t planning to fire Brahmos at anyone who has ESSM capability?.
So you can judge India intentions for next 10 to 20 years. Earth has finite resources if India infrastructure and living standard follow the way of China it will create massive commoidities inflation and that will create huge interest rate problem for debt ridden developed world.
Brahmos is long term investment as they building hypersonic follow on.
Why do I have more credibility…I am certain I dont, but I am equally certain that, for all the time I stuidied the operation, repair and maintenance of guided missiles, nothing would encourage me to believe that a circa M2 air vehicle would be able to transit over a mobile surface at an altitude of a ‘few dozen’ cm. I am also equally certain that the manufacturer would have no compunction about exaggerating the capabilties of his system.
So playing around with obsolete and cheap missiles gave u the certainity of knowing Onyx/Yakhont capabilities. this thing is the job of Scientist/Engineers.
It will cost a fortune to build that class of missiles in West. Have u seen this report from december 2006. One Customer of Club will not know the capability of club missile offered to another one. I am not even going into domestic variants.
During a recent defence expo in Indonesia, BrahMos Aerospace displayed a poster comparing the characteristics of its missile with those of other missiles available in the international market, the report said.
The BrahMos, named after the Brahmaputra and Moskva rivers, is described by India and Russia as an example of the cutting edge defence hardware that can be created through cooperation. The missile has been inducted into the Indian Navy.
The BrahMos poster was virtually an “anti-ad” of the Russian anti-ship missiles, said the report, which also virtually accused “Indian specialists” of lying as characteristics quoted by them are supposed to be Russia’s “top secrets” to which they could never have any access.
If you can Star watch the video kindly provided by DJCross and then assess the value of BrahMos’s ‘S-shaped manoevers’.
DJCross, please accept my deepest appreciations sir.;)
I have asked question about that S shaped maneovers of Brahmos. Do u think it is a random act?. Its good that u drop that Space lauching/Satellite. u cannot hide anything now from latest T/R module based Satellites.
star49Quite what India has to do with this I dont know seeings as we’re talking about US CVBG vulnerability to Russian missiles. If you are saying that test data exists of an Indian Navy test of Brahmos against a Barak defended ship I’d be interested in seeing the results. I’d expect Barak to perform quite well.
India is independent third party customer and has PHD Scientist/engineers involved in designing and building the missile in two factories. More over they are inducting the system in Air/Navy/Army. It takes supreme confidence on system to be inducted in Tri-service.
Onyx is not flying centimetres over anything so please do not embarrass yourself on that score. ‘Low RCS’ is a meaningless statement – its low compared to what? a truck, the Golden Gate bridge, Mount Etna?. If its a low RCS compared to, say, a Harpoon then thats something, but, if its low compared to a P-700 then thats a different issue isnt it?.
Why u have more credibility than the manufacturer who are saying centimeters.? U works only beliefs like X- is expected to perform well against Y. why do u think Brahmos do S-Shaped manevouers?
]
star49The higher drag from ETs aside and less range from that, no reserves left the rough calculation gives for the Su-34:
114000 kg internal for 4000 km or 2,85 kg of fuel per km, that is (~0,78 specific fuel weight)
14615 litre internal for 4000 km or 3,35 litre of fuel per km
Even a fictious 3000 litre ET with zero drag and weight itself gives 2340 kg of fuel.
What gives a theoretical + of ~820 km or 4820 km with a 3000 l ET added.
In reality that gives ~4500 km, when the ET is dropped, when empty.
All that is ferry range without any weaponsload under optimum conditions.
To reach a ferry range of 5500 km the Su-34 is in need of three ETs of 3000 litre each or 7020 kg of extra fuel. Add to that the weight of the ETs and the external load of that is ~8100 kg. What is the MTOW of the Su-34?!
how it can go 4000KM on 11400KG fuel? it NTOW is 12 tons heavier than Su-30.
star49Well, erm, Star that appears to be a newspaper clipping dated some 7 years ago that repeats the advertising material thats been around for a while. It actually, IIRC, predates the ESSM/Vandal testing.
so what they are doing in past 7 years? I am sure India would have tested export this thing against Barak.
So….since that newspaper piece we find that supersonic skimming is really not the invulnerable attack profile it was advertised as being. We also find that, to get its 300km range, Onyx must fly an altitude cruise phase exposing it nice, early, detection by its target vessel. In otherwords, since your advertising piece from Itar-Tass was published, we find that Onyx is not as impressive as we were led to believe.
Newspaper is saying Artificial intelliegence, Group action mode, flight in dozen of centimeters not in meters, low rcs. and there is alot more than that they are not revealing for export. There was Putin visit to the plant.
If you can Star just be objective for a few minutes and tell me you can see the difference between the report of the official testing of a weapon system in a representative threat environment and a newspaper piece that, pretty much, regurgitates the manufacturers advertising?.
Newspaper clipping was given by manufacturer and manufacturer works for Government. u will soon find out in coming decades.
star49How are these MY facts Star?.
The NAVSEA test really did happen and ESSM really shot down a Vandal target that was simulating Yakhont profile…i.e supersonic skimming. The GWS 30 test intercepted a Petrel rocket on an aeroballistc trajectory, simulating a diving supersonic weapon, according to the weapon profile we were given at HMS Collingwood.
These are objective facts and no amount of your conspiracy theories will change them.
So what are these facts for next couple of decades?.
MOSCOW, December 29 2000(Itar-Tass)
The Yakhont anti-ship missile enters the new century as a superb weapon against aircraft-carrying vessels and escort ships.
It won’t have rivals on the world arms market in the first half of the 21st century, a source in the machine building company that designed the Yakhont has told Itar-Tass. Not a single fleet will have means of combat against the Russian weapon in the next few decades.
The missile has an artificial intellect and exclusive combat characteristics. Its flight speed is comparable to the velocity of a super-modern fighter jet in the stratosphere, and the height over the sea surface in the approach to targets is only dozens of centimeters. A combination of high speed, a shooting range of up to 300 kilometers and an insignificant reflecting surface make the Yakhont invulnerable to the ship air defense. A volley launch of the Yakhont is the most efficient. In that case each of the missiles concentrates on a particular target and designs a plan of the attack
star49Unimportant in context. The point was made that shipboard defensive systems could not cope with Yakhont/Onyx or, presumeably, Kh-22. I countered that belief citing factual example. Simple as that.
The problems of Onyx and Kh-22 are manifest anyway, and well documented on this site, for a kick-off you need a profile that keeps you out of your principal targets sensor envelope in the first place. Onyx, on its maximum standoff range profile, is an altitude cruiser before dropping to sea-skim in the terminal phase….whoops!. Kh-22 is a bloody great diver….whoops!.
Neither system needs just a ‘simple improvement’ to give it a chance of defeating current and near-term generation shipboard air defence.
Your putting only your own facts. There was arms show where Russian publicly ask Raytheon they are willing to live test there Brahmos/Yakhont but they refused. and that is down graded export oriented model. I didnot saved that report.
star49Your point is somewhat elusive!.
What difference does it make if the Russians test their missiles or not?. Do you think that alters the fact that ESSM and Sea Dart performed as they did one bit?.
NAVSEA’s tests are recorded quite clearly. I know personally of the Sea Dart tests. Both happened and both systems were capable of coping with representative performance targets that is simple fact.
why it is elusive. it is simple point. If they feel there system cannot perform they will simply improve it to deal with new reality. They can create new facts. there are plenty of examples of it.
star49ESSM has already been proven against a Vandal target simulating the Onyx/Yakhont profile under NAVSEA testing. SeaRAM should be capable against those weapons as much as against any other active radar weapon…as will conventional softkill decoy/jamming techniques. ONYX I’m afraid is old news.
SS-22 was, I thought, a 900km ranged liquid-fuelled SRBM that was dispensed with under the INF treaty?. As such it shouldnt present too many problems for a US battlegroup!. I will assume therefore that you mean Kh-22 (NATO: AS-4 Kitchen) which is pretty much the weapons system that the SPY1/SM2 radar/missile combination was designed to defeat. The British GWS30 Sea Dart system was quite capable of intercepting Kh-22 as well.
Could you provide some indication of the source of your confidence in Onyx and Kh-22 perhaps?
Do u think those Russian missile manufacutres does not test there missiles against missile defence or simulate western systems?
Your reasoning is the same as sealordlawrence.
star49If so, the Bars was judged better than the mechanical APG 73 (which is not surprising). Because in 2001, that’s what the F 18 had.
Bars was not fully developed in 2001 either. And any way Russia has far better radars in MIG-31/Su-34 so chances of IRBIS for Ruaf are not that high and Su-27SM can do most of roles.
star49I am not assuming anything about anything. Actually try reading the whole thread before posting in it.:rolleyes: Usual pointless rubbish from you.
All your posts are full of assumptions. X will not survive in front Y without any reason or historical evidence. I am not going into costs and sustainability of conflict. simple scientific reason.
star49I dont know whay you qouted me for that as I am well aware of it, but do not get carried away with this idea of lots and lotd of missiles. [The intention behind the doctrine was always to swamp the target with incoming missiles.[ A Kirov does not carry twenty Granits to sink twenty ships, it carrys them becouse it expects very few of them to get through. Each CVBG would have dozens of missiles targeted at it.
He is quoting you becuase u are automatically assuming alot of things. like Club/Granit performance against ADGES system or intention behind doctorine. if u go by claims than there is claim about SU-34 that it is completely immune from missiles/Guns so it can fly over the top of the target. there is no point of defending.
star49I think Survellance capability is better than what Soviet union. that era satellites have short life. and Space radar satellites lacked T/R modules.
this year they owned 16 out of 94
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070629/68049176.html
Russia is reportedly operating a network of about 60-70 military reconnaissance satellites.
star49You don’t understand; in another article, it was a claim that the weight (total weight of the plane) was reduced thanks to using advanced materials).
That article has nothing to do with this article. Each article is separate depending on the kind of information the author gets. This author is stating lighter weight of internal equipment.
That pure, genuine BS! First, in 2001, the APG 79 wasn’t ready yet. The IOC was in 2005! Also, RMAF did not tested the AESA-equiped F 18 E/F!
In 1998 F-16E AESA was ready? There was JED report about RMAF Su-30MKM purchase decision. The radar exceeded what was offered with F-18E in 2001 even taking into account future as RMAF deliverd schedule was any way into 2007-2008 period.
star49Despite the fulminant claims, typical for Russians saling stuff, one little info is deductible. If the thrust increased with 16 % (14,500/12,000=1.16), and the T/W ratio increased with only 15%, it resulted that there is no weight reduction for the 35… :p (remember, they say that thanks to new materials they achived a 25 % weight reduction) :diablo:
I think u should read a little bit carefully. They say the weight of Equipment inside Su-35 is ligher than Su-27 and Engine thrust is 16% more. So the thrust to Weight ratio is improved by More than 15%. It is more than 15% atleast. It can be any figure above 15%. They havent touched anything about aircraft materials yet. So no need to go there.
It is the same as BARs MKI radar advertizement like range is not less than 140KM against Fighter size target. Now it can be any figure above 140KM. But RMAF found out that it was more than F-18E offered radar with even assume equal to F-18 AESA in 2001.
star49you increased 3250 kg and that doesn’t dramatically decrease the combat radius? Are you kidding me? There is a difference between increasing weight as part of the air frame and then increasing weight as part of external attachment. You obviously get additional drag factor when you hang missiles on the outside. And have you ever seen how much the range of a C-130 class transport decrease with even 1000 kg difference in weight?
What about the Drag factor of raised canopy? Missiles are not that dragy as the raised profile for the whole aircraft and canards. C-130 is underpowered transport and has no relevance to this discussion. I am not even going into weight issues.
as for your weight comparison, ubk is 17.5 t empty and mki/mkk are 18.4 t empty. Big difference, huh?
u are just assuming weight. MKI has canards, TVC engine and Radar that is almost 400 KG heavier in the nose. how can it be the same as Su-30MK?
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su27SKM.wbp
there is 5 tons Maximum takeoff difference.
huh? J-10 came out to be lighter than the requirements despite using less than 10% composites at the time. If you can reduce weight with better design rather than using composites, then you do it.
this J-10 story has no credibility. Since J-10 has been publicly declared give the link to manufacture website that has some data.
Sign In
