lukosРИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140228/997594625.html#ixzz3B37IlMxN
In Russia, a new fighter, the MiG-41 on the basis of the heavy fighter-interceptor MiG-31, the rate of which was 2.8 Mach.
MOSCOW, Feb. 28 – RIA Novosti. newest Russian fighter-interceptor MiG-41 should have a speed of at least Mach 4-4.3, told RIA Novosti Russian hero, test pilot Anatoly Kvochur.
He was commenting on a State Duma deputy Alexander message Tarnaeva that in Russia, a new fighter, the MiG-41 on the basis of the heavy fighter-interceptor MiG-31, the rate of which was 2.8 Mach. Tarnaev said at a meeting of experts of aerospace defense that the Chief of Staff, signed an order of deep modernization of Soviet fighter-interceptor MiG-31.
“This upgrade was to be held even twenty years ago. However, this did not happen, so now demands increased. They are including in the (increasing) speed interceptor to Mach 4-4.3,” – said Kvochur.
Currently, the Russian fifth generation fighter developed the T-50. Its mass production is scheduled for 2016.
lukosCountry x Russia
Country y China or Israel, no not China as they won’t be giving hardware tours at a US venue that is secret and US only!Of course i could be very wrong.
I’m going with Russia and China. The MANPADS gave away Russia because of Verba.
Wonder what ‘EP’ refers to?
lukosI’ve seen something like this somewhere a while back. Ah here we are:
lukoslukosI am sure light interceptors will use their kinetic advantage in a dogfight. /captain obvious
I was talking more about launch speed for firing MRAAMs and LRAAMs like the R-77, R-37M and 810 and then escaping. High speed maximises missile Pk and increases the chance of successful escape. Slower, lighter interceptors may not do this as well.
lukosSigh, really must remember to log on before reading threads.
The issue with your revised argument is that you did not know “at least 1,000 people had been killed by mambas per year” when you started posting your conclusions.
Yes I did, I just didn’t have the information to hand with sources, there’s a difference. Like most I’ve been following the news and knew that aircraft were going down at a significant rate.
Your whole theory was based on “oh look some aircraft have been shot down, that means the F35 must be the answer;” you didn’t have any numbers or real data and were asking people how many aircraft had been shot down on this very thread some time after i initially asked you for some data.
My requesting of information actually forced you to start looking for data to support your conclusion!
You’re still not understanding the whole sensible qualitative logic thing.
As for the “counter argument” of how well trained are the SAM operators, that is exactly the point i am making. Just as you didn’t / don’t have the answers to any of the questions i asked you re the activities of the Ukrainian airforce. You don’t know.
The point therefore being that you are coming to a conclusion whilst still missing large elements of data from both sides.
Know unknows to quote a certain money grabbing warmonger.
Any conclusion drawn from such “data” is highly likely to be flawed. It might of course not be, it might by some fluke be right on the money.
Experience tells me that is an unlikely eventuallity.
It’s a shame experience didn’t tell you how to spell ‘eventuality’ too. A bulk of post-WWII data (Vietnam onwards), which I had at the back of my mind, says it’s right.
When looking to gain knowledge and understanding it is rather unhelpful when opinion is presented with such conviction yet is actually based on very unsound foundations.
Unsound foundations, like keeping up with current affairs and 1100+ aircraft lost to ground fire post-WWII, making it more deadly that enemy fighters.
The A-10 was a great aircraft and everyone loved it but persisting with the mindset that it wouldn’t get shot down like the SU-25 in similar circumstances is delusional.
lukossorry , my bad , i was mean to say SARH is the same as ARM
Kind of in that they are both Rx seekers. However the SARH seeker is designed to home in on the launch aircraft radar bouncing off the target, whereas the ARM’s passive seeker is designed to home in on the actual radar of the enemy radar, which is usually a SAM radar but I believe there has been a passive homing version of the R-27 (R-27P/EP) and at least an experimental version for the R-77.
Not all ARMs are passive seeker only. AARGM (AGM-88E) uses active MWR for terminal homing, which helps if the enemy radar shuts down mid flight.
lukosSounds like it. “Ground-based capability trials to fit”. Checking physical & electrical connections: it may have electronics inside so they can check that the aircraft talks to the missile & vice-versa. But nothing to suggest more than that so far.
Possibly DSMS integration work too?
lukosMust remember to log in before opening threads.
At least you have started to put some data in your comments now. Progress!
No problem with your vague numbers as long as you accept that vague numbers add up to vague conclusions.
Thus your opening assessment and conclusion being based on vague data inevitably means it is pretty worthless.
Go ask some Ukrainian pilots how vague it was for them.
It may be correct it may not. Without solid data, which you have clearly shown you do not have and cannot provide, that is impossible to determine.
As many of your ilk do, you did not present your thoughts as purely speculative but made an absolute claim and then got upset when that conclusion was challenged.
As for me providing data, i’ve not made any claims which rely upon knowledge or data so why would i need to?
You seem to think that discussion is some sort of competition. For me it is not. I’m interested in finding out information and knowledge. When somebody posts something and makes statements with absolute certainty i’m interested in knowing on what basis they came to that conclusion.
Being prepared to base an opinion on vague data that you spin to fit your pre-formed opinion is not a rigourous or honest method.
Many people today are apparently incapable of comprehending that having an opinion does not equate to knowledge or understanding.
Right… so by your logic, if I know that ‘at least’ 1000 people are killed by mambas per year but the actual number is north of 3000 then I’m not entitled to conclude that mambas are deadly?
You certainly haven’t provided any claims, you’ve just made out that I’m incorrect in my conclusion by throwing in one-sided arguments without the logical counter. E.g.:
How well trained were the Ukrainian pilots?
How well trained were the SAM operators?
Did the planes have the latest EW?
Were they facing the latest SAMs + SAM radar?
You’ll find that we live in a world of grey rather than black and white. Many, if not most things in science, particularly theoretical physics and astronomy, don’t have complete data and can’t be proven to the nth degree, but that shouldn’t stop people from developing theories that fit the data which has been collected.
As regards ‘full data’, this is as good as you’re likely to find – you’ll note that the majority of losses have been to ground fire since WWII:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records
lukosIs it an actual flight test article or is it just for static trials?
If its for flight trials then I suppose we could see such trials pretty soon, providing the £5 million funding covers that aspect also.
Aren’t flight trial ones usually yellow and black?
lukoswasnt SARH basically a ARH missiles but with very limited radar homming seeker ( limited in radar band that it cover , have low sensitive gain)
ARH is a Tx/Rx antennae. SARH is Rx only.
lukosi understand what you mean , but why is IIR more complicated than radar , radar guider missiles dont know what they looking for either ? , also MMW radar can see the 3D picture of target exactly like IIR so the target recognition likely to be the same
how come a small missiles like AGM-114 is LOAL while AGM-65 isn’t
I think radar guided missiles do know what they’re looking for, at least some do. Radars provide range more accurately, so they can compare exact position and size of the return etc. An IIR seeker has to visually compare the object with a database of targets, which isn’t as simple as it sounds when you talk about trying to program a computer to do that.
lukosSome information on the R-40 at 30:15.
lukosBlah blah blah
Guess what, I don’t know exactly how many people have been killed by mambas either, but I know it’s a lot, and I know they’re poisonous and deadly. Your logic is incomprehensible. Not knowing comprehensive figures doesn’t prevent me from making a rational judgement based on a decent set of information. What’s the alternative? Tell people that mambas are harmless?
How many MANPADS were around in Afghanistan, since that was the original challenge after which all your spouting began? Come on! I want exact numbers!
If you want exact answers, go waste your own time. Some of the questions you’re asking are impossible to quantitatively answer and you know that full well, but they can all be answered qualitatively to arrive at a well judged conclusion. E.g.:
1) More than 6 fighters and 3 large aircraft.
2) Su-25, MiG-29, IL-76, An-26 and An-30.
3) Does Ukraine have a large air force? Do they have a lot of money?
4) Go ask Kiev. What do you think I am, the Ukrainian military planner?
5) Go ask Kiev. All I know is that all the aircraft mentioned routinely carry ECM in most instances. Have I inspected each one before take-off? What do you think?
6) Yes, even before MH17 they knew that an aircraft was lost above 20,000ft and they’ve known about the MANPADS threat since well before then.
If you don’t like my qualitative answers I suggest you stop posing the questions, because whilst you do I’m going to continue answering them qualitatively.
lukosI just wanted to make it clear that the image i posted is a real test article. Just in case anyone wants to find fault with posting an image of dummy weapons 😀
Hey it’s a nice picture. There are good reasons not to bring live missiles to a public event.:D
Sign In
