SOCPAC-3 engages TBM targets to 40-45 kilometers. The range for aircraft targets is around 20 kilometers. TBM ranges are going to be greater due to different flight profiles and energy requirements for intercept.
9 seconds to 3,5 minutes is the TOF for PAC-2. The first nine seconds are what is required for TVM guidance initiation.
Patriot batteries are assigned to certain sectors and the radar array, deployed as a fixed asset, scans 120 degrees in azimuth. As they are dual-hatted as ATBM systems, they will rarely not be emitting. Yes, you’ll have to deal with fighter caps to get to a site in some cases, but the system is meant to operate autonomously.
SOCAm not belittling the ASRAAM, it may suits RAF criteria for intercept at long range, but not “perfectly fine” WVR highly maneuverable dogfight Missile as SOC portrays it.
If it pulls over 30 gs, it’s “perfectly fine”, because you can’t avoid it in a physical sense. Anything beyond 30 gs is overkill or meant for envelope expansion in the vein of attempting over the shoulder shots.
Germans did not find it “PERFECTLY FINE”.
When they left the program.
I don’t find India amusing (don’t put words, which are not mine), but just “talk” about ASRAAM persuaded you to mention here as a kind of endorsement amusing, as India talks to everyone all the time.
You didn’t use the phrase “It is amusing”? As for the rest of it, you claimed that ASRAAM was a product of British ego which had no confidence outside Britain. That’s either wrong or a lie, as the RAAF has already inducted the missile into service, and other nations (India was the first example I found, if that happens to bother you for some unknown reason, it’s your problem) have looked at it seriously as well.
SOCSo ASRAAM underwent no development and no alterations since the Germans departed, is that what you’re saying?
ASRAAM is perfectly fine for dogfighting. Recent RAAF over the shoulder firings reinforce that point.
And why do you continually find India amusing…
SOC[color=red]Thread closed as the 20 page cap has been exceeded. Start another one.[/color]
SOCthey say f-22 is degraded and loosing its stelth carakteristics during time ,especialy now showing on first examples ,and even with super expencive maintaining its now visible to radars from 40 miles away.:eek:
OK, anybody who didn’t at least believe this might have been a possibility should be reminded of the fact that: F-117 and B-2-kept in nice hangars, F-22A-often parked right out in the open on the ramp. Not saying I believe an unsubstantiated statement, but past examples do seem to give it a hint of credibility on its own.
SOCASRAAM and IRIS-T are both maneuverable enough to hit a target behind the launch aircraft, and that’s no mean feat of physics. ASRAAM evolved after the Germans and the USA left, and all three weapons are, basically, equally dangerous, thanks to different performance factors and ECCM systems.
And Australia does operate the ASRAAM, by the way. India also talked about acquiring the missile for a Mirage 2000 upgrade back in 2007.
SOCThe USAF was lobbying for more until they were basically told to sit and swivel a few years ago. Firing the CSAF over trumped-up nuke incidents helped shut the pro-Raptor crowd up, too.
I will say that if the DoD and USAF came out, which they did, and stated that any jets past the 187 were no longer required, the House should be investigated for criminal misappropriation of funds by adding in aircraft surplus to standing requirements. That kind of crap is getting old.
SOCMore likely would be the A- and T-Darters. R-Darter appears to have died, I don’t think it’s going to be integrated with Gripen, so…
SOCIt’s KILTER. KILTER! Why do people not understand that the codenames are meant to be capitalized?
/rant off 😀
SOCAmericans also judging that their ancient Missile is good enough with a new seeker, puts question mark on the ASRAAM frame!!!
Why? They both have basically the same seeker. ASRAAM and IRIS-T emphasized different requirements. IRIS-T emphasizes agility, ASRAAM emphasizes range.
SOCOn a side note..
How does the NASAMS stack up to Russian built G2A missile systems?I know the Range of those AMRAMM missile aren’t that great compairing to larger Russian missile systems, but still..
NASAMS haven’t proved it’s self in any conflict yet, but those test exercises proved promesing.In terms of integation & mobillity i would imagine it perform well?
NASAMs is a good, cheap mid-range SAM system. It won’t have the same reach or kill power of a Buk due to the smaller missile and smaller warhead, but it is a good solution for nations on a budget, or who already have stocks of AMRAAMs.
Are you speaking in terms of the engagement envelopes, or in terms of the hit probability? I certainly wouldn’t want to be flying towards a target that had PAC-2/3s defending it.
Both, but primarily in terms of system performance, as kill probability is determined through testing and can always be fooled with to make the system look more potent on paper. And PAC-3 is overrated as of now, until they get the newer missiles with bigger motors. Until then the range is what, 30 kilometers?
Secondly, a Patriot battery most likely isn’t going to be broadcasting its position,
Yes it is, the radar array emits for both search and track functions. If you want to have a chance in hell of killing any sort of TBM in the area, you have to be radiating in search mode.
Unless you were in a simple Su-24M with Kh-58 armament.
You’ll have a lot more luck with a MiG-25BM. Then you can take advantage of the speed and altitude to get the maximum kinematic performance from the Kh-58. A FENCER is likely going to have to approach at low level, which means high subsonic speed, and that’s going to seriously degrade the range of your ARM.
All the Russians need to do to give Aegis a run for its money now is mount the S-400 system on their new destroyer class that will be built starting in 2012.
Or not. The S-400 can’t blow up satellites to impress the Chinese.
This matters what when the Patriot can’t even hit the Su-24, but the Su-24 can hit it due to range of the Kh-58U/E.
Kh-58U-160 km or 200 km depending on the user (Chinese weapons were reportedly developed for the latter figure). Kh-58E-120 km. PAC-2 has a range of 160 km. Now, SAM range will decrease to a degree depending on target altitude, for a variety of reasons (radar horizon, etc). So will your ARMs. Kh-58U/E, looking at the 160 and 120 km figures, are basically at the edge or within PAC-2 range already. A jet flying the maximum range profile for the Kh-58 launch will be fast and high. That gets you either to the edge of Patriot range (Kh-58U) or within the engagement range (Kh-58E). If you want to survive long enough to get near enough to a SAM site to kill it, you’re flying low. So your range figures commentary doesn’t wash.
Su-24s against Patriots is, msot likely, a way to rid yourself of surplus Su-24s. There are much better tools for the job. Patriot can certainly be attacked and killed, but an Su-24 with a Kh-58 is a pretty suicidal way to go about trying it.
SOCRussian land-based SAM systems have no serious equals, IMO. Yes, AEGIS is the best sea-based system, but Patriot doesn’t hold a candle to the S-300PM, let alone the S-400. Mind you, the gap is narrowing. Medium-range systems like MEADS or even VL-MICA are just as effective as advanced Russian offerings like the 9M96 or Buk-M2, but nobody has really matched what the S-300PM offers, or the S-300V series for that matter.
SOC[color=red]You guys should start playing nice. I’m going to clean up a lot of the junk from this thread, and then start tossing people who decide to ignore the forum’s rules from this point forward.[/color]
SOCSu-37? I’m confused…what was wrong with it? All they did was re-engine a T10M prototype and rename it the Su-37 (possibly to hijack the designation from the “other” Su-37 project…). The problem with the T10Ms, from an appearance standpoint, was that some were conversions and some were new-builds, so a few of them were going to look a bit “shabbier” than their stablemates.
SOCI wonder how much attention Sukhoi will pay to appearances. Do they realise the potential for causing what will be, in essence, a national disgrace if they roll out an obviously hastily put together, hand built prototype a la Su-37/MiG 1.44?
The 1.44 and Su-47 weren’t hastily assembled. The 1.44 wasn’t even an actual prototype, just an aerodynamic and engine demonstrator. The Su-47 was built with some FLANKER parts, but that was because it was a company funded demonstrator. It did display better construction than the MiG.
I’m hoping that they realise how much hype there has been around this aircraft and that they put as much effort as possible in making sure the thing looks right.
If the first jet is not intended to undergo RCS testing, it won’t need to be built to the same standard as the rest of the fleet. It can still serve as an aerodynamic and engine testbed.
DISCLAIMER: Obviously I’m aware that, in the long run, how the PAK-FA looks is really not important at all but I hold firm that cosmetics are more important than just about anything else for the official public roll-out. In short, they have to be able to show the Russian aviation industry in the best possible light.
The Russian aviation industry puts on an impressive show at airshows every year, and they’re selling Sukhois around the world. Ignorant posters may latch on to the appearance of the aircraft to mean something, but in the end the appearance of the very first aircraft makes very little difference.
Sign In
