Irkutsk is correct from a graphical standpoint with his illustration. It’s called Proportional Navigation. Missiles have been using ProNav since the AIM-9.

Start a new thread, and try to play nice, will you?

Sean, sweet title! 🙂

I wonder if your missile needs to power itself off the rail on a rear launch in order to not tumble. That could be dangerous as the buffering material that breaks free in the solid propellant would be striking you.

And weren’t the french the first in theory to be able to launch a missile that actually strikes a target behind the launch aircraft without the rear firing method? Seems like the Israelis, though, were the first to put it into practice.

When the Russians did it they shot an R-73 straight off the rail of an Su-27. It did a 180 in midair and went off behind the FLANKER to find whatever it was after.

You guys are funny. You are starting to see China as the next big boogie man yet continue to buy whole container ships worth of goods worth trillions of dollars from them. :confused: Who supports their economy more than yourself?

You’re absolutely right but that isn’t stopping the politicians in DC from painting China as the next big threat.

For example the USAF/USN and USMC still have aggressor squadrons that use F-5s, F-16s and F-15s that ‘pretend’ to be Flankers, even today.

They emulate the Russian aircraft, not necessarily the Russian pilots. Although they do emulate Russian tactics, as those are still used by other potential targets. If we think China is some big threat, and Russia sells them the FLANKER, then it makes sense to emulate the FLANKER.

Why is it Russia still seem to be ‘the bad guys’

I’m sure constant Russian nuclear bomber flypasts of Alaska and the northeast aren’t helping, but what do I know!

“To cancel this deal would be to attribute terrorist activities to the Pakistani government.”

Then cancel it. Or has the ISI never supported terrorism?

Probably. Has anyone seen a ground-launch image of the Meteorit yet?

Can the Patriot batteries here provide a reliable protection against a coordinated attack of Iskander? The answer is simply “NO”.

The point is that with PAC-3 ERINT, designed in part to tackle MARVs, you can’t be sure it WON’T work. Which isn’t going to stop Russia from doing whatever it wants in Kaliningrad, obviously. What’d be interesting is an ABL over the GBI site.

Anyway, and in spite of Patriot performance in Desert Storm, you can believe you want.

That is an entirely uninformed statement. PATRIOT had issues in DESERT STORM, yes. But the weapon being used by the system now is far different from the PAC-1 and PAC-2 missiles employed back in 1991. Basing the system’s effectiveness on how it performed with different software and with different missiles in 1991 is ridiculous.

The Iranians should have the capability to destroy US cities as A MEANS OF PREVENTION of an invasion.

And the USA should therefore be able to have a capability to prevent destruction of its cities. Not doing so would be criminal on the part of the government. Crispified citizens are not reliable voters (unless you’re a Democrat). Besides, if Iran wants to prevent anything, they just need to mention the words “mine” and Hormuz” in the same paragraph. The amount of trouble Iran could cause is astronomical, considering they could strike Saudi refineries and port facilities as well. If that won’t prevent an invasion (not an air raid) then nothing will.

Regarding installation on foreign territory, things should be different, such action definitely should fall under UN mandate, it is a mistake that it doesn’t. It will bring nothing good but future Russian installations in Cuba or Venezuela (they, too, will come out with some laughable excuse about why they urgently need that) and escalation of another unnecessary conflict. But the idiots in Pentagon and Kreml want that conflict to continue so that cash flow from weapon trade stays steady.

Installations on foreign territory should be between the two involved states. It is nobody else’s business. If Russia wants to put an ABM site in Cuba or Venezuela, it will be thoroughly worthless. And if the Pentagon really cared about keeping the weapons procurement programs ongoing, they’d have figured a way to rig the election. Beyond that, external sales are an issue for the contractors, not the Pentagon.

they have absolutely no reason to execute a first strike on USA.

Who cares? They can use the threat of a strike as a bargaining chip. By removing that chip we turn the bargaining process in our favor.