SOC[color=red]You’re both right, and both wrong. Qsaark has valid points, but this is not the proper place to air them. Take that stuff to the General Discussion board unless it directly and specifically impacts the discussion at hand.[/color]
SOCErrors? Or ‘thought-to-be-errors’?
Errors. Like referring to the S-300PM-1/2’s engagement radar as BIG BIRD/64N6 instead of TOMB STONE/30N6-1/2. Or still using SA-10C/D. I could list a bunch of them, but that’d take a while and my point has been made.
The S-300 gives a classic example of the limits of secondary sources. We may have our own personal views on which radar has the reporting name ‘TOMB STONE’ or ‘FLAP LID’ and whether late-model S-300 SAM systems are SA-10 variants or SA-20s, but this is a field where facts are in short supply.
The difference being that in my case, personal view has nothing to do with what terminology I use. I can tell you for a fact that the radar system used as the brigade-level EW asset for an S-300PM battery is referred to by the Russians as the 64N6, and that the asociated Western codename is BIG BIRD, for example. I can also tell you for a fact that the introduction of the new missile guidance radar, the 48N6 interceptor, and some reprofiled components resulted in the change of designator from SA-10 to SA-20 for those new systems. And as an amusing aside, the term GRUMBLE or GARGOYLE only refers to the 5V55 or 48N6 missile itself; SA-10 or SA-20 refer to the system as a whole. Professional experience helps, and relates to the next point:
Can anyone point to an official source where US designations and NATO reporting names they may be found – a NATO or US DoD website where a definitive listing may be downloaded?
I would respectfully suggest that no such source exists – these designations remain classified. The forms used in the public domain are leaked, and may or may not be correct. In cases where they are wrong, constant republication in the unclassified press does not make them correct.
I don’t know of any place official that has a list of them, but for the most part they are not, in fact, classified, with the exception of when they’re brand new. I’ve seen enough of them in unclassified (as in marked “unclassified”, not open source) documents to pretty much guarantee that all the codenames I’ve been known to throw about are not state secrets or anything absurd like that.
Sometimes those guesses are gloriously wrong. Obvious examples are the early 1960s Russian ‘Beauty’ supersonic bomber and the SA-5 ‘Griffon’ surface-to-air missile.
GRIFFON wasn’t a guess. The codename was assigned to the Dal SAM system.
As for the SLBM issue…SS-N-8 is SAWFLY. Want some designators? Download the spreadsheet I ave to Andreas, here at the top of the page (it is a bit outdated by now, I’m working on an update along with various other projects such as the S-300P article rehash):
http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html
is there such a thing as a directed nuclear explosive analogous to a shaped charge?
A nuclear device designed to produce a specific pattern of detonation…while the technical issues have to be simply staggering, yes, I do seem to recall hearing something about such a system.
SOCI can summurise that Su-24 was more or less equal in capability to F-111 except for the range. Two reasons for that. One – thirsty AL-21 turbojets and two – less internal fuel.
Obvious questions are why these shortcomings were not fixed.
The fuel issue was addressed by adding IFR capability to the Su-24M series, they were capable of using buddy refuelling pods as well as Il-78 support (the former being more likely in wartime as the limited number of Il-78s were primarily tasked to support Strategic Aviation).
SOCBut western borders were steel traps…
ADC/NORAD/etc was a pretty effective deterrent to the Soviet bomber force during the Cold War. Clearly the USSR had a more robust defensive network, but to suggest that US airspace was swiss cheese is a real stretch!
The reality is that lots of B-52s probably would have gotten through…
That is, of course, debatable. We seem to be forgetting the massive SA-5 network that was in place over much of the nation at the time. One thing the Soviets did that was very intelligent in my opinion was to place a lot of the GAMMON sites in isolated areas (download the GOogle Earth file from my blog, I should have every single former SA-5 site position marked in the former Warsaw Pact, including the USSR). If you hit Murmansk and the Kola SSBN bastions with a good bit of megatonnage, for example, there were a lot of SA-5 sites dispersed throughout the area that you may or may not have affected which could then still cause problems for your bombers.
Western solutions to third world poverty don’t seem any more effective now than they were during the cold war when the west was supposedly busy fighting for the survival of demcracy. :rolleyes:
Again, I never said one method was better or worse than another, I was commenting on a specific facet of the argument!
SOCmilitarism was not only a Soviet sin
And I never said it was. But only Soviet militarism is relevant to the context of the point I was making. Talking about third-world poverty changes none of that.
SOCAccording to AFP, Pakistan tested the Babur/Hatf-7 today. A guy from the defense ministry claimed the missile has a range of 700 kilometers.
SOCComing from you, I’ll take that as high praise 😉
SOCThere is of course the infamous GAO report describing the SH as nowhere near the improvement over the basic model required to justify the costs…
SOCTechnically they could but I imagine it would be a problem from a training perspective. CVN crews aren’t trained for STOVL operations. Don’t know what it would take to bring them up to speed.
My only question regarding the suitability of the F-35B for CVN operations would be the obvious need for vertical recovery due to the lack of arresting gear. No major issue there, but I do wonder if the carrier decks can withstand constant blasting by F135 engines in vertical flight mode. Being strong enough structually to withstand constant carrier landings is one thing, being heat-resistant enough to withstand constant exposure to an engine that will probably deliver a hotter footprint than the Pegasus in the Harriers is another entirely.
SOCAnd to add to that, the sarcastic comment was directed towards the frst posters english skills whom according to his userdate is from france…
I didn’t read it that way, the original poster seemed to think that this is what Dassault referred to it as, and Schorsch was therefore referring to Dassault’s viewpoint.
Apart from that, F4? Interesting, but where is the market? The reason the project seemingly disappeared is probably due to the failure of the Rafale to achieve export success along the lines of legacy Dassault Mirage designs. If the AdA and Aeronavale are happy with F3, then F4 is probably wishful thinking at this point due the apparent lack of a market.
SOChas been huge speculation on weather the tests meet operational conditions, or have been “rigged” in some sort of way.
Well, some of them certainly won’t be under “operational” conditions, in order to prove that the system works, but I’m assuming that’s not what you’re referring to.
Some tests themselves have gone fine, but I have read some reports stating that the decoys have had significantly different IR signatures than the warhead
There are a few reasons for that which I can think of but won’t go into here.
As for explosive warheads (as in the arrow) or KW’s (as in the THAAD or SM-3), which do you think is more effective for BMD? I have my opinion, but I will share it later
Nuclear for an all-out ABM system like Safeguard or System A-135, but directed energy HE for a limited system like THAAD or SM-3.
SOCBuilding 1400 Su-24s shows you that the Soviet and Russian engineering was very adaptable and practical
Or, that they paid more attention to military buildup than, say, unscrewing their agricultural issues…
And before you go on any more about the Su-24’s IFR capability, it is only the Su-24M that enjoys that feature.
SOCBeing used as a source for a prestigious publication like that is very cool, it gives my work a great deal of credibility I’d think.
If you are interested in reading something on Russian missile technologies, check these pages out:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/sary-shagan-birthplace-of-abm.html
The first one is a three-part piece on Russian strategic air defenses, but the way it’s ordered has part one at the very bottom, so watch out for that 😀 The second link is on Sary Shagan, probably the most important historical site from the Cold War that few people have heard of.
Do partly ignore the articles on the S-300 though, they are getting seriously reworked and expanded thanks to a great deal of Russian-language source material I have gotten my hands on. I’ve seen some people on other forums discussing my site and complaining about how I seem to have screwed up on the S-300P insofar as what systems use what components; I think they’re wrong and didn’t comprehend what I was saying (i.e., saying the S-300PM-1 introduced the 48N6 missile doesn’t imply that it only used the 48N6), but I understand where they’re coming from and as such am working to make things a bit clearer as well. The end result should be what I hope is the penultimate open-source reference piece on the S-300P SAM family available on the WWW.
And there’s always the Google Eart hSAM site file you can download on the right side of the page if you really want to have some fun :diablo:
SOCRussia’s S-500 is intended to work with the S-400 in a unified capacity. This is what Samoderzhets was all about, it was a research program aimed at identifying requirements for future SAM systems intended to operate together on a national level: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/samoderzhets-decloaked.html When the S-500 appears in 2015, the integration of the S-400 and S-500 will provide a national air defense umbrella the likes of which has never been seen before, and one that will offer unparalleled technology and capability.
And as for seeing anything published, check out Jane’s Missiles & Rockets in January or February. Doug Richardson has inquired about using me and my website as a source after reading my latest bit on the KS-1A for a related article on the status of the system. Don’t know how involved his piece will be, but you will see my name in print inside of a Jane’s publication 😀
SOCDon’t let the order of the designators confuse you…remember, the FOXBAT’s R-40 came before the FOXHOUND’s R-33!
As for a 45T6 derivative being a THAAD-type system, look at Sprint. Sprint would’ve been a similar system to THAAD had it been fitted with a conventional warhead and not been conceived as the short-range part of Safeguard. Both of them were endoatmospheric interceptors. With the axing of the ABM treaty, a 45T6 type weapon would be a decent choice for a short-range ABM/ATBM system. S-500 is sometimes mentioned as having an ASAT capability as well, and again a 45T6 type weapon may be a good starting point for that system in that regard as well.
Sign In
