SOCSo a weapons bay is a virtual guarantee ? Maybe that is why the 1.44 lost out as it had ressesed missiles instead of a bay?
The 1.44 appeared to have recesses for something like an R-77, but the 1.42 would likely have had an internal bay. The intake trunk already had to curve upwards to avoid the nose gear bay, there was certainly room for one.
And the 1.42/1.44 didn’t lose, the MFI was cancelled and superceded by the PAK-FA.
SOCWhy didn’t he just use his cannon?!! D’Oh!!
Because the HERMES is a small aircraft (about 6 meters long) with a 95 knot cruising speed. Not a very good target for a gun pass, if you want to make sure you obliterate the thing. The MiG-29 (and Su-27 for that matter) have a stupid accurate cannon, but expecting this might be a bit of a stretch given the intercept dynamics involved.
SOC[color=red]OK, I missed this one, blame me for any rampant thread degeneration. But now that I have noticed it, you all would be wise to just take a minute and think about what you’re about to say before you hit the reply button. There is no reason we can’t have a sensible discussion on this or any other topic. Anyone who cannot do so, I can deal with.[/color]
SOCNope. Guam & Alaska are as far as CONUS.
Just quit it with that one, you obviously missed his point or aren’t willing to grasp it.
PAK-FA will contribute to Russian economic and military muscle in direct way as they are going to use it. US cannot use F-22 to decrease Oil prices but Russia will use PAK-FA to increase Oil prices. this is just one example.
What, is Russia going to bomb OPEC now? :rolleyes:
SOCthat 200KM range missile is in airforce inventory. It is not the same as R-37 which is not operational but has 280KM range. why would they disclose data of most top secret weopon?
Yeah, they’ll release images of brand-new ICBM flight tests, but keep AAMs which aren’t even the best performing weapons they have secret. Sure. The only reason we have never seen the R-33S before someone brings that up (and there is one image available actually) is that the weapon may not have been fully tested or fielded before the USSR broke apart.
why seekers should be such big deal when they are upgrading aircrafts along with engines.? even for SARH it is logical to upgrade the missles.
Seekers are not plug-and-play. You can’t change the seeker without considering a change in the CG of the weapon (see the R-33S), and you’ll have to then integrate the new weapon with the aircraft’s guidance system. Russia produces a bunch of interesting products, like your seeker line, that they intend to market abroad and not necessarily procure for home use. The old stale argument that “Russia keeps the best stuff for itself” is a bunch of BS to an extent anyway. A lot of those seeker upgrades are targeted not only for AAMs but for SAMs as well, of which there are tons of users abroad who might be potential customers.
SOCI can see the J-10 replacing the J-7 and Q-5. I can see the J-11B replacing the J-8, with the two seat version replacing the JH-7 down the line. That’d effectively make them a two fighter force, until the XXJ is available to begin replacing the Su-27. 15-20 years from now I can see a PLAAF/PLANAF with J-10s, J-11Bs, and XXJs having began to replace the single-seat Su-27s/J-11s in the inventory.
SOCR-33 built in 1970s is not the same as built 25 years later.
You’re right, and the R-33S had different aerodynamics tailored to counter the CG issues with the new guidance assembly, not improve maneuverability. So unless you can prove otherwise, the Russian source data should still be accurate insofar as maneuvering is concerned.
I have clearly shown 350MM active seekers.
…but not where those seekers have been retrofitted to the R-33. The R-37 is another thing entirely and is supposed to be part of the ongoing MiG-31BM upgrade. R-33 and R-33S missiles, however, remain SARH weapons.
SOChe clearly said long range missles. not medium or short range missiles. It is the long range missile that is advantage. offcourse no missle is going to be effective at maximum range.
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html
Max range: 120km
Target g load: 4
Fighter kill probability: 0.65
Anything pulling over 4gs can, according to Russia, have a good chance of avoiding the R-33.
350MM seeker has more than twice the lock on range of 200MM seeker (R-77) which is twice of 150MM (R-73) active seeker. so there is more autonomous operation with larger missile.
When you find data on the seekers actually fitted in the R-33, which are semi-active, it’ll make a difference.
SOCThey hang the LITENING pod there:
SOCAnd where does he say that they’ll kill fighters at the maximum range of the R-33? You’re extrapolating things that simply aren’t there.
SOCNo dummy, now get back to posting Rafale pictures for me 😀
SOCI think even older R-33S are perfectly capable of taking out fighter aircraft. R-37 should be even more why it shouldnt be as even larger SAM missiles are used for shooting fighters at long distances.
Missiles loose kinetic energy and therefore the ability to maneuver against non-cooperative targets (like highly maneuverable fighter aircraft) the longer they fly. A large missile like the 48N6 uses aerodynamic controls and high-impulse motors to get to very high velocity, giving it more kinetic energy. That’s how a big Mach 6 missile retains a lot of maneuvering capability to hit a fighter jet. You also have to consider that a SAM can be far less maneuverable than an AAM as it will carry a much larger warhead with a corespondingly larger kill radius.
R-37 is believed to be more maneuverable thanks to the refined aerodynamic control layout, but at maximum range it won’t be taking out a fighter pulling a 9g turn to evade. Maximum range is one thing, but is ultimately basically useless in combat unless you’re firing head-on at a cooperative target like a B-52 or 747. If you want to measure body parts using missiles, you need to have the no-escape range of the relevant weapon system calculated against a non-cooperative target.
R-33? Not designed to shoot down fighters, and while it could be used in such a role it’ll likely be just as effective in RusAF service for that purpose as the USN’s AIM-54 proved t obe in DESERT STORM. R-33S aerodynamic improvements were only tailored to fixing CG problems due to the new guidance system.
SOCCheck this out. It’s a trailer for a new game coming out this fall, and there’s some serious Rafale action:
SOCWell, the point is the the plane was locked with the radar
Which is irrelevant because no-one with any intelligence uses “stealth makes planes totally invisible” in their arguments. And it’s also irrelevant if you look at the aspect angle in the gun camera video. The radar in the Hornet would have been pointing directly at the top of the Raptor. Figure it out.
u know pilots are trained with a lot of dependence of radar guidance
Irrelevant. They started the engagement with a separation of 9,000 feet. Add to that the fact that Raptors do carry radar reflectors in peacetime like the F-117As used to do to ensure that they showed up on ATC radar, so…
how the f-18 managed to reach the 22s six
Look at the images. How is that “the 22s six”?
And we have these rules…they are playing with rules, sometimes these rules are “follow the straight line, and leave raptors to kill u”, and then come the press and say “wow raptors rules”…i dont know what went wrong to that hornet pilot that didnt went on the straight line, but im sure that to search a plane, to avoid to reach it ur six and to lock down on a gun , isnt a 0.5 mile maneouvre
And your source describing your “rules” is found where? When Russia reports that the PAK-FA is defeating legacy Russian aircraft in air combat evaluation on a regular basis, will you have the same amount of skepticism? Or are you ignorant of the fact that even in American military technology, advances do happen?
provide incredible insight into the stealth performance (RF AND IR) of F-22 within “pilot’s eyeball” distances
Lol, tell that to that hornet pilot, ha! another codeone pearl 😉
Refer to the radar aspect angle and peacetime radar reflectors above.
Ha. Another uninformed non-Western aviation fanboy pearl.
The quantity is too small that it will exclusivly be deployed outside.
You aren’t understanding his point. The F-22A will spend it’s combat life outside the United States. When was the last time there was an air combat event in US airspace? He is telling you that the F-22A will deploy outside of the United States for combat sorties. Just like every other combat aircraft in the inventory.
SOCI don’t buy the Q-5 or H-6 replacement theories. The twin-stick variant of the J-10 should replace the Q-5 in the attack role, and the H-6 seems to still be going strong with the recent variants becoming public. Yes, they need a survivable bomber if they want to do anything other than fling ALCMs off of it, but the only real reason for that would be to fly to the USA. Don’t see that being a major priority. Q-6? Sounds like a possible L-15 derivative. That one might be legitimate.
Sign In
