DF-25 has a throw-weight of 2000kgs I read somewhere?. ‘SDB bus’ could be just another warhead fit theoretically as the actual cross-range terminal phase stuff would be handled by the munition itself. Lilkely they’d be down a bit from M10 by the lower atmosphere!.

Possibly but I’m still not sure a diamond-back wing-set would work under those conditions and even a strategic bomber would struggle to carry a single DF-25 like missile. Even a DF-21 weighs more than a MOP and is almost twice as long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

I think something like a Pershing II with a modernised version of RADAC and up-to-date propulsion system could work as a bomber deployed or ground launched AShM with 1800km range. With modernisation the weight and size could probably be reduced too, or the Pershing IB would work as a shorter ranged version (750km). I’m actually sat here questioning whether a Pershing II or the proposed would work even in its original state. The RADAC was programmed to recognise and home in on specific targets to within 30m CEP. That’s accurate enough for an aircraft carrier strike.

I agree to some extent but, in the end we have a mix of dB return, antenna size, filtering, sensitivity and power output that will determine if the missile seeker will be capable to distinguish the target from clutter.

Radars will be able to track stealth aircrafts, the question is at what range.

Manufacturers claim for Vostok radar.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]221017[/ATTACH]
350km in un jammed environment and 57 jammed environment.

The radars designed in the 90s are designed in an era where stealth isnt the same unexpected element as it was for systems designed in the 60s, and yet these old systems where capable of tracking the F117. So now stealth has evolved along with the radars and all of a sudden stealth will be even more effective than before.

Im sorry. I dont by that sort of logic.

ps sorry for using apa as a source. Im on my cellphone.

72km under slightly worse ECM conditions here.

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausairpower.net%2FAPA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html&sandbox=1

Of course, the internal carriage is nothing new. We have seen that with F-102s and F-106s back in 50s. There are no decisive advantages the fanboy clan is claiming. Internal carriage comes with some advantages (negates the drag of missiles and pylons) and also with some trade-offs (the supporting structure is much larger, adding weight and cross section). All in all I think that the overall result is roughly the same depending on aerodynamics and loadout (from slightly better with pure A-A load to slightly worse with large heavy bombs and wet bags).

I think with a few AAMs each, a Eurofighter on dry thrust would probably give a flat-out F-35 on reheat a fairly good run for its money. The top speed in that configuration would be around Mach 1.5 for both aircraft.

The thing that confuses me is that most people talk about internal weapons carriage as a performance advantage. Unless you’re carrying a whole shed load of fuel and air-to-ground weapons regularly (a la F-111) it just isn’t. If it was then fighters would have been exploiting internal carry long before stealth became an issue. However, nobody wanted an F-15 that weighed as much as an F-22 except with F-15 engines.

Air-launched ballistic missile with terminal guidance and manoeuvring RV? Terminal guidance sensors shielded until after re-entry then shield is ejected.

Smaller supersonic missiles would be harder for CWIS to hit and could be carried in greater number, which would deplete air defence missiles if nothing else. They could also be more manoeuvrable.

Retiring the Vulcan was a mistake. An evolved design based on the Vulcan with new flight control, engine, avionics and integration with modern weapons arsenal would be an awesome platform (even mroe effective than the TSR2, I’d say)

Only bomber to do an Immelmann turn and a loop-the-loop at an airshow as far as I know.

There is a way to make the missile both mach 4 and useable for small fighters,
HARM would work well, Meteor with new seeker better.
Ships today arent armored, you can obliterate electronics and manpower with mere shrapnel,
and you can fling 6 of them at a time,
…and as option drop some iron bombs on it once defenseless

If you can pop one in the VLS, that’ll be all the warhead you need. Meteor with MWR terminal seeker pre-programmed to look for and attack enemy VLS. One small missile could set off a few dozen cruise missile warheads with a combined explosive power greater than a MOAB.

The maximum range would probably roughly correspond to the kinematic range for a surface attack role. Maybe around 300km. A small missile would be really hard to hit too.

Smaller Subsonic weapons are much easier to deliver from multiple platforms, have better range within size constraints, are generally cheaper to procure..All of this makes them favourable for swarming attacks against very well defended targets. How much would a 1000 km Fast supersonic weapon cost and how large would it be? I guess it all depends upon what targets you are looking to take out, how protected that target is in terms of Onboard and offboard – Beyond LOS sensors and what the Defensive loadout is as far as OTH ability is concerned…The ultimate solution would be a missile that can combine both…i.e. Preserve signature (IR and Radar) while cruising for around 80% of its flight profile and then make a supersonic/sea skimming dash in the last 40-50 km of its mission..

You mean like an air-launched version of the 3M-54?