ChromThe problem with RCS figures is that they’re overwhelmingly subjective. When you see an RCS figure, it is typically going to be the smallest figure for the object. That is typically only going to be achieved from one angle, and in the case of the F-22A it is probably from a head-on aspect, which is what it needs being designed as a fighter anyway. Put a radar directly above an F-22, F-117, or B-2, and I’d bet you’ll get a significantly higher figure due to the much greater surface area and the more favorable aspect angle for the antenna. The F-22 is equipped with what it needs to take the most advantage of the low head-on RCS of course, all of the radar and ESM gear will tell the pilot where the targets are so he can act accordingly and put himself in the best position to get a first shot opportunity.
So yes, the F-22 could have an RCS as low as 0.0001m2, but it’s not going to be an overall, every aspect angle figure.
Given the fact what pilot glass in F-22 is fairly open, i’m very sceptical about that figure. For example, a single metallic button/wire/tooth/medalion/whatever on pilot dress will already provide much large RCS than that. There are also some other problems, and anyone with basic understanding in physic can see why F-22 RCS cant be less than 0.01m2 even in ideal condions (frontal area, x-band, etc).
ChromThere are actually two “Flanker B”s, the Su-27P and the Su-27S. The latter will be (partially) upgraded to Su-27SM, but what about the P model?
Both could be upgraded to SM version without any difference. The actual number of upgraded aircrafts will depend on available funds and possible upgrade options – i.e. in 3 years there could be another, say SM2 upgrade invented, and all unupgraded aircrafts will be upgraded to that version.
ChromAll 6 will be upgraded for carrying R-29UTTH Sineva missile. Borei will go to Pacific Fleet first, replacing Delta3
(Quite) reliable information what 50+ Sineva missiles were already produced in last 2 years without much hype.
ChromI believe that the Vikhr has considerable launch constraints. The missile goes ballistic if it can’t find the laser beam early in its flight, before the beam spreads out (hence the depressible launchers). In addition if the launch platform moves laterally the missile will no longer be in between the launcher and the target (and out of the beam).
Laser beam field have quite large volume, so in fact it is hard for missile to miss it. Addidionally, missile doesnt have to be between launch platform and target – the exact traectory is up to launch platform. The very fact what russians used such method instead of much simpler and already quite reliable radio-command method speaks volumes about reliabilty of laser beam riding guidance.
Btw. I was under the impression that the Hermes was planned to be dual radio command guided and laser beam rider (allowing two missiles to be fired – one using each system).
Hermes is unified project for a whole family of missiles with different ranges and guidance. Saying “Hermes” without specifications is like saying “F-15” without mentioning if it is F-15A, C or E.
ChromToday russian Vladivostok guard regiment recieved 6 brand new Su-27SM from KNAAPO.
How does it compare against benchmark Su-30MKI and possible regional rivals F-2,F-15J of Japan; F-15K of South Korea; J-10,Su-30MK2 of China?
Su-30MK2 – probably about equal in A-A combat to Su-27SM. Su-30MKI should be somewhat better due to newer radar and airframe. F-15J – last upgraded ones should be somewhat better, but it lack some vital techs like HMS and off-boresight missiles.
F-15K – same here. No AESA radar, so no big advantage.
J-10 , F-2 – hard to tell, little reliable info. Might be slightly better due to radar or slightly worse due to varios reasons.
Basically, Su-27SM is a cheap upgrade of Su-27. It adds new electronic and weapon options, but retain old radar – allthought in upgraded form. As such any fighters with PESA/AESA will have advantage against Su-27SM.
ChromThe fact that both aircraft looked nearly identical is simply the result of the laws of physics being identical on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and of both teams finding that: identical physics + equal materials tech + equal design understanding = very similar concepts of ideal solution.
Addiditionaly, earler in the development French and Russian teams exchanged results. It was sort-of joint development.
ChromThat must be a US system, which explains a lot of stuff.
The 6mm beam should be no more than a metre after 15km high UNLESS as you say there is a lot of moisture in the air.
If it was 50m wide, no SMART would find it, let alone lock it.
The main cause of a beam spread is however an unstable airframe, not unstable for flight, but a vibrating structure makes the designation pod wobble a lot. The most stable airframe (In this sense) ever made is the EE Canberra, it wasn’t built or designed for this purpose of course, just a quirk of design features.
On some modern airframes, the camera or the FLIR/IR in the pod can’t even focus due to inherent vibrations. Obviously, these platforms do not carry the pods!
Never heard of such pronounced problem. There are proven methods of stabilizations. At least aircraft lasers useally works well up to 10km regardless of airframe – be it Mig-29 , F-15 or F-117. Modern tank and helo lasers have about same range – dont think it is coincedence.
ChromPretty much, but with a different warhead design solution. For some reason the makers of Starstreak seemed to think three dart projectiles would hit harder than one heavier one. Perhaps they wanted to increase the hit probability.
They listed several advantages, the key ones:
1. Afterarmor effect. 3 darts have higher chances to hit something vital once penetrated even if each of them is weaker.
2. APS system – it would be much harder to affect 3 darts instead of just 1.
3. (Potencial) ability to hit multiple targets at once.
ChromThanks for the responses! Cost isn’t an issue, not is the amount of mass that each can move; I’m looking at whether the IL-76MF is a more rugged, dependable, easier to maintain, and has laxer landing location requirements.
Thanks!
Kurt
All of that, allthought “easer” doesnt always mean “cheaper”.
For example, C-17a need about 2500m for full take off, IL-76MF around 1500m. Landing run are quoted about 900m for both in normal case.
ChromEven that ridiculous prices were not enough to cover the operating costs of BA or Air France only.
Aeroflot never charged ticked prices for all the other flights to cover the related costs even.
See the present scope of air-travelling in Russia, but keep in mind that some vital routes and services are still subsidized.
Aeroflot always operated with profit margin. There was cross-subsidizing when less used routes (like flying to god forgotted village) was subsidized by profit made with more used routes (like Moskwa-Leningrad), and also partially directly by state as part of “social” program to help develop far away territories. This is standard practice in all countries, included USA and West European ones.
For example, a bus at 11 PM hardly make any profit driving just 2 passengers inside – but losses at 11 PM are subsidized from profit at 17 PM.
ChromIf Soviet style Socialism was so great why has Chinese economic growth exploded since embracing Capitalism and dumping the much lauded socialism and why did the USSR implode at the end of the 90’s when their less successful rivals who used the inferior Capitalist system went on as usual?:confused: The USSR produced some superb military/aerospace technology but it was at the expense of the rest of their economy and their non-military technology lagged massively behind, and it is on non-military technologies that most peoples lives depend.
Soviet-style socialism wasnt great. Chinese-style was even less so. But you also cant deny what both have its merits. Chinese economic grow at this amazing rate EXACTLY becouse it is hybrid between socialism (and planned economic) and capitalism. USSR imploded mainly becouse of internal ideological conflict and corruption rot within ruling party – again, hardly new thing for any goverment be it democratic or whatever. The living standard within USSR, allthought certainly somewhat lower than in best West European countries, still wasnt bad by general standards. For example, it was higher than in such countries as Italy or Spain – and these are fully capitalistic, “democratic” countries.
We cant deny cruicial deficiences of USSR system. But we also cant present it as general failover example for socialist or communist system, some as 19th century USA with racism, sexism, regular economical crisis, and thousands dead from hunger peoples – is hardly an example of modern democratic, capitalistic country.
Also, as again – keep note. There are NO pure capitalistic countries left. These were proven to be very ineffective. Right now ALL succesfull countries (USA, West Europe) are hybrid between socialism and capitalism – with large share of state propery, very strong state influence on ecomical development, and high social protection (like free education, (almost) free medicine, rent, wealthfare, etc.)
P.S. Either way, this have nothing to do with technological achievments of USSR. As i said, general economical rules still applied there. Tu-144 failed becouse Aeroflot couldnt charge such ridiculous prices as Concord, and for average ticket price Tu-144 was not economically viable.
ChromHahahaha… excellent.. what makes you think communism precludes capitalism? It precludes democracy, but as China proves capitalism and communism are not opposites.
Actually, theoretically, communism includes democracy (as democracy is only form of goverment, and communism can emply democratic goverment), and is opposite to capitalism (as capitalism employ different form of property regardless of goverment form). Both forms can mutate to dictatorship capitalism or communism. Moreover, neither USSR or China claimed what they had communism. They had SOCIALISM, with communist PARTY as main ruling force. The difference here is economic – under socialism propery mostly belonging to state, but basic economic tools and rules like money, profit, etc are still retained. Under communism there is completelly different form of economic, which doesnt include money at all. Current Western Europe society is a hybrid between socialistic and capitalistic one. There is one coincidence – the most rich and pleasent to live countries in Europe are also most socialistic ones. Example being Scandinavian countries , Sweden, and Swiss.
ChromDo we wanna get in bean-counting here?
To the Russkis their certifications might be the decisive issue. That’s why we need to certify each Airbus type with some special Russian rules (if it flies in Russia). Still, here (= the West) western rules apply, which have proven to be the world standard (and accepted as those). Hence: if it wasn’t certified to western standards, I don’t call it certified. That’s it. GarryB and the other whiners will cry out, but I’ll give a $%+# about it.
I call it BS here. 1st, “western standards” had any meaning only in selected west countries. Socialist block (which btw exceed West in world economical share) had own standards, other 3rd world countries – own. And well, you know, Boing 737 was only certiefied like 15 years ago, and before that it flew 15 years uncertiefied, due to very bad and dungerous flaws…
“Revenue” is a fun word in a planned economy. The Tu-144 was a huge cash-burn program, exceeded the Concorde by far.
And, are there any statements from FAA concerning the Tu-144?
Again – BS. Even planned economic still follow common economical rules. And profit/revenue – one of basic rules. If you dont understand how planned economic work – then please keep silence.
ChromYes but don’t forget the USSR fielded a MBT that was ahead of any the West had. The only trouble was they had to remove the only really advanced piece of kit on it to make it effective. I’m talking about the T-72. The auto loader for the main gun had a habit of trying to stuff the right arm of the guy who positioned the round in the tray up the breach as well. Consequently the autoloader was removed and they reverted to manual loading. Maybe they’ve got it sorted on later MBTs so that it doesn’t try to load members of the crew into the gun as well as ammunition.
Sorry to go off topic. but I’m just trying to point out that no country is totally infallible and that sometimes even the best ideas don’t work.
This is myth. MYTH! Ask anyone who served T-64 / T-72 – and you know it. Moreover, the chance to wound loader arm in autoloader was about as big as chance to wound loader arm with Abrams ammo compartment.
P.S. I just wonder how peoples believe any slightest and dumbest rumors if its only serve they habbits…
ChromChrom…
Where did I mention PR? And what relevance is it? I said, read carefully, that the shooting down of an SR would send a message to the West. This is entirely different to PR.
The message sent, as I explained, is that “even the best technology that you can deploy can be defeated.. and here is an example”.
WHAT MESSAGE? What USSR dont respect any rules??? UNNESSARY dont respect? This is just stupid. You view SR-71 as some super-holy-technological grail. It wasnt. From ANY point of view SR-71 was much less important than SSBN’s, CBG or even E-3. Be it special “military PR” or whatever else. As such, no sane message could be send by shooting down unarmed recon plane in international airspace.
As the West’s adopted philosophy in the Cold War was Quality over quantity then it poses a fundamental challenge to that. Joe Public could give a hoot whether its a A a B or a C that was shot down but you can bet your life that it would have sent the right message to those who were looking at the reality of what had been done.
.
This is another common misconception – either side employed best it can in sufficient numbers. Else USA wouldnt build such overhelming numbers of carriers. Else USSR wouldnt be MORE advanced in tank development, and later even in aircraft development.
Sign In
