FBWI’ve broken down Dassault Rafale PAUC equivalent several times, searching back on what I’ve previously posted:
212 million in 2011 dollars. That obviously does not include RBE2 AESA backfitting, and was based on 286 aircraft produced for France.
FBWYeah, what BIO was showing Sanem (and what should be obvious) is that the weapon system cost for the MQ-9 (or any ground control UAV) is high. The individual MQ-9 are relatively cheap (15-20 million), but they are useless without the control stations, comms and guidance systems, and the various sensor payloads.
FBWbecause they develop a fighter aircraft that can dodge missiles and gun down an F-22 through sheer maneuverability, high G tolerance and superhuman reflexes. probably at a fraction of the price of a Raptor
Even if you disregard the fact that a fully autonomous UCAV in air to air combat would require massively complex algorithms to locate, ID, and engage aerial targets, the consequences of an error in programming could leave a target unengaged (or worse engage the wrong target). There would still need to be constant communication with the UCAV to be able to waive off, retarget, respond to the extremely dynamic environment. The consequences of a jammed downlink, limited bandwith, would be the stuff of nightmares. A pilot can make decisions based on training and rationalize when to pull, or not pull the trigger.
capable AI will never disobey orders. it won’t rape you, murder you, torture you, or seek bloody revenge if you just blew up its wingman… unless it’s ordered to do so. it’s also way less likely to make mistakes
Nothing to do with some “Terminator” scenario. There should be some ethics even in warfare. A human should always be in the loop when making the decision to end other human’s life. The minute we outsource our killing to autonomous machines using computer algorithms to “decide” when to kill, we’ve abandoned the moral responsibility. Think about the Nazi defense at Nuremburg, who do we hold responsible for atrocities if the future of warfare is autonomous machines? As they are “only following orders” as programmed. Horrible.
FBWiven that the weapon in question was presented just five days ago I think that is too early to pretend to know how exactly it work and what tprocedure and tactics it will use.
@Marcellogo -no it’s impossible to know the exact characteristics, but you can get rough idea of what it is and what the weapon isn’t. Certainly a economic use of existing technology to add another threat dimension to Russia’s impressive Anti-Ship capability, that is undeniable.
@sepheronx– It is an unfortunate common occurrence on here that when someone disagrees, they claim the other person has no idea what they are talking about (usually followed by childish insults). Now I am no expert on ballistic missiles, nor in any particular defense field (though in my profession I do read up on the latest research as both a hobby and because I use it from time to time).
Now, to get to the point…. If you are going to call out someone and say something stupid like “prove the kinzhal isn’t carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle” I would suggest that you do two minutes of requisite reading before committing fingers to keypad. So:
If you’ve ever noticed, most ICBM and SLBM have a relatively blunt shroud even before introduction of MIRV. They actually dissipate heat better and slow reentry for the higher trajectory of those missiles, not to mention the added volume (Minuteman is an interesting deviation for detection reasons). The Pershing II and Iskander do not (the Iskander has a relatively flat trajectory), they have a rather sharp pointed nose . They don’t have the same thermal stresses, don’t carry MIRV. You are looking at the Re-entry vehicle on the front of the missile. Yes, they are capable of maneuvering (and they are shaped accordingly) to both evade defenses and locate their target. Now look up the shape and design of a hypersonic glide vehicle (arrow shaped to not only perform a pull up maneuver, but glide a considerable distance at high speed with controllability). So, looking at the current weapon Kh-47M2 as depicted, how are am I sure it does not contain said HGV? Because it would have a large blunt shroud with sufficient volume to contain the vehicle and not the current MaRV. Maybe Russia is working on one for it, and we will know if they fit it because the missile will have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHAPE in front.
FBWSo care to provide the evidence then DF-21 has hypersonic glide and doesn’t fly ballistic trajectory? You are the one saying that it may be comparable to the Khinzal, when I figure it sure isn’t.
Khinzal does not have a HGV payload. Whatever gave you the idea it does? DF-21 is the same for now, but the Chinese have tested their HGV and plan on arming their New ASBM with them (maybe even retrofitting the DF-21D) No mention of that on the current Khinzal.
Good lord man, look at the shaping of the front, it’s shaped that way for a reason (just like on parent Iskander, or Pershing). That is a maneuverable reetry warhead, not the same.
FBWWait, I should know better as I know whom I am talking to.
As do I. And I believe you were speculating on how the DF-21D isn’t comparable to the Kinzhal as far as RV maneuverability.
But of course, that’s China not RUSSIA. Right? Odd that they seem to have by far the most hypersonic wind tunnels.
So has Russia through project 4202
Wonderful, and when are they fitting that to the Kinzhal to make that point relevant to the conversation? Everyone is working on HGV, not the point myself or anyone was making. The difference, which is why I pointed it out, is that China is currently planning on fitting their ASBM with HGV.
FBWA 10 Mach weapon that doesn’t fly at standard BM flight path, is somehow easy to intercept? What?
Easy? no. But considering the current focus on BMD capability in Western Navies, it presents less of a threat than a cruise missile with high mach capability at sea level or a hypersonic air breather.
A missile launched on a ballistic flight path with a 2000 km range allows for detection at significant range (even if detected halfway through flight that allows roughly five minutes to deploy countermeasures and engage when warhead gets within range).
From the looks of the current missile, I would temper expectation on maneuverability in endgame. The Pershing II’s MaRV exhibited a pull up maneuver that subjected the system to 25g due to high mach at terminal phase.
Yes, likely the Kinzhal (being derived from the Iskander- armed with a MaRV) performs a similar maneuver to locate it’s target. It certainly complicates intercept geometry, but it’s not like the Missile is performing sharp zig zags at mach 10 to avoid missile defenses.
ballistic path like the DF missiles
-For the majority of flight, it very likely does at maximum range. The DF-21D also has maneuverable reentry vehicle, and I doubt you could reliably say that of the Kinzhal is more maneuverable than that of the Chinese ASBM (and they are working on HGV for their missiles).
FBWHow many F-35B will fly from the USS Wasp?
Typically 6. That is the usual detachment assigned to LHD/LHA.
The ACE assigned to an MEU is flexible based on mission though.
FBWX-2 Shinshin is getting the axe. Disappointing……
FBWI think the point is that future iterations of the system could feature a boost glide system upfront like what DARPA is doing with the TBG. Such a thing will add target ambiguity if it is used against a land based target in a tactical sense given how much time the HBGV will spend inside the atmosphere.
Yes, DARPA’s TBG would appear to be a very different weapon from what the Kinzhal video depicted. The Iskander (which the Kh-47M2, looks like and is stated to be derived from) is rumored to be equipped with a MaRV warhead. If the Kh-47M2 is, in essence, an Iskander modified for aircraft use, it would present a threat similar to the DF-21D. That is not exactly the same capabilities as attributed to the Kh-47M2 Kinzal from description and video. Perhaps something lost in translation.
FBWI fail to see how the Kinzhal is a game changer. A lot of “flash” but little substance. This isn’t a hypersonic air breathing missile. It is a large rocket powered anti-ship missile. If it reaches the speeds quoted, that is in a ballistic trajectory, not exactly a novel concept. With many ships already possessing ABM capabilities, the mach 10 speed of this missile is largely irrelevant, it will be coming down on a largely predicable ballistic arc (not at all buying the video showing endgame approach at low level. A missile turning low altitude will bleed energy massively.)
This weapon may have the potential to attack at low level at very high velocity, or attack at long range on a ballistic trajectory, but it’s not going to fly 2,000km at mach 10 and then maneuver to defeat a layered missile defense. Considering the hype, I’m not convinced this weapon adds another dimension to the already impressive Russian AshM threat.
FBWSanem- as myself an others have said to you before, if you keep repeating this for the next 20+ years, eventually you will be right. UCAV will gradually assume a wider role in air combat. They will not be taking over air superiority anytime soon, possibly (hopefully) never. Not to mention, one can only hope that the moral/ethical decision to take lives will always rest on a human rather than AI.
FBW……..even more, BAE developed subsystems (An/alr-94)for the Raptor……
Pretty common for defense companies. BAE Systems US is firewalled from U.K. They don’t share technology or products they develop. Anyway the AN/ALR-94 was developed by Sanders. Must have been bought by BAE.
FBW@TR-1
No disagreements there….. Nor am I finger pointing solely at Russia. We have a current situation of two egotistical narcissists in control of nuclear arsenals. Maybe it’s time to start a new round of arms limitation negotiations.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles should be the first to go. They are potentially the most destabilizing. No one wants to play “guess the payload” when cruise missiles start flying in theater. Failing that, categorize cruise missiles by payload, I.e only air launched missiles can carry nuclear warheads (specific types), ban missiles that can carry different payloads. May impact Russia more at first, but they are in the process up upgrading all their delivery systems, so that would be temporary.
FBWWell at least you proved you don’t read the posts, you just default to “Yay Russia”
Look at NKVD’s post, see the phrase “second strike” regarding Russia?
If your thinking for yourself, I hope you have someone else living with you. What is the number for social services where you live? Hate to see you go without supervision.
Let me connect the dots for you:
No TLAM-N in service, no easy way to convert current ones to nuclear capable.
No reason to put a couple of conventional tomahawks at a BMD site.
No violation of intermediate range treaty because there are no tomahawks there.
Referring to former concerns about strike warnings and “second strike”.
Don’t you get how propaganda works? Fear mongering a specter of nuclear capable cruise missiles in Romania. Notice how the article never mentions that there aren’t any nuclear capable tomahawks?
Sign In
