Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vnomad
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2011
    • 2859

    Originally posted by haarvarla
    Its not about manueuvering hard. It doesn't have to. Some minor course correction is enough going at that speed.
    That also what a MaRV deployed by a (DF-21 type) ballistic missile does. The principle remains the same as does the likely response vector (SM-2ER/SM-3).

    Very different from the kind of end-stage jinxing that a conventional (throttleable) air-breathing missile engages in.

    Comment

    • Levsha
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2006
      • 2821

      Comparing Kinzhal to glide bombs? Seriously?
      MGM-140 ATACMS is not a glide bomb - it's something in the same category as Iskander, except smaller and with less range.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS
      Last edited by Levsha; 17th March 2018, 17:44.

      Comment

      • TR1
        TR1
        http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
        • Oct 2010
        • 9804

        See Madrat's post.

        This whole discussion is moot until we have more info re. Kinzhal.
        Last edited by TR1; 17th March 2018, 17:47.
        sigpic

        Comment

        • Levsha
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2006
          • 2821

          See Madrat's post.
          You were actually referring to this post? Ok.

          The hypersonic missile is tactically irrelevant on any scale beyond small niche work. You're honestly going to lob one missile per sortie while the enemy is dropping a dozen glide bombs with precision per sortie. It makes about as much sense as their giant land-based cruise missiles being launched at Syria from within Russia. Sure they are big and scary, but they did virtually nothing in effect.

          Comment

          • haavarla
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2008
            • 6647

            See Madrat's post.
            Or lets not.. his posts here of lately, has become erratic. Hard to make heads and tails out of them..

            That also what a MaRV deployed by a (DF-21 type) ballistic missile does. The principle remains the same as does the likely response vector (SM-2ER/SM-3).
            Very different from the kind of end-stage jinxing that a conventional (throttleable) air-breathing missile engages in.
            I'm not sure we are on the same page here..
            the kind of manuvereing we are talking about here, is as i said only small course corrections in the start and mid-flight phase. And that is not for taking any evasing manuever against any incoming anti-air missiles.
            Its before that.. its about manuvere around those Ani-air missile sphere's.

            When the Kinzhal is at the termal phase, is in no condition to manuvere.
            Last edited by haavarla; 17th March 2018, 18:12.
            Thanks

            Comment

            • Marcellogo
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2014
              • 1824

              @ Levsha

              In which case you could consider the S-300,S-400 and S-500 as sitting ducks as well? An air-launched version of the MGM-140 ATACMS could do the trick - dirt cheap as well
              And so let's them do it.
              No one are forbidding them to try, right the contrary...

              P.S.
              All of this was generated by the above post of Mad Rat that never like in this case demonstrate the truth of the saying Nomen, omen.
              So trying to use it as a proof of anything is actually not a good move IMHO.
              Last edited by Marcellogo; 17th March 2018, 18:34.

              Comment

              • Vnomad
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2011
                • 2859

                Originally posted by haarvarla
                I'm not sure we are on the same page here..
                the kind of manuvereing we are talking about here, is as i said only small course corrections in the start and mid-flight phase. And that is not for taking any evasing manuever against any incoming anti-air missiles.
                The flight like I said is similar to a MaRV - course corrections and such without any significant terminal stage maneuvering.

                Its before that.. its about manuvere around those Ani-air missile sphere's.
                Assuming we're talking about attacking a Aegis-type naval target/flotilla/fleet I don't believe its possible to go around the anti-air missile sphere.

                Comment

                • haavarla
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 6647

                  Assuming we're talking about attacking a Aegis-type naval target/flotilla/fleet I don't believe its possible to go around the anti-air missile sphere.
                  Last time i checked, Russia is open only in Barent Sea and far-East Well North of Japan(Black Sea too, but its kind of constricted there).
                  So if you want to do a Strike elsewhere, then you most likely are going to launch the Kinzhal over lots of Land area. Reports state a range of 2000km..
                  Well if we say 1200km i think its Fair, launched from High flying Mig-31.
                  Thanks

                  Comment

                  • Vnomad
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • May 2011
                    • 2859

                    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                    Last time i checked, Russia is open only in Barent Sea and far-East Well North of Japan(Black Sea too, but its kind of constricted there).
                    So if you want to do a Strike elsewhere, then you most likely are going to launch the Kinzhal over lots of Land area. Reports state a range of 2000km..
                    Well if we say 1200km i think its Fair, launched from High flying Mig-31.
                    The exchange was in the context of soyuz1917's post about the missile being a "carrier-killer" (scroll up to post #5114). If we're talking about conventional targets - again.. ballistic missiles are capable of attacking them too.

                    Comment

                    • Jō Asakura
                      多聞天
                      • Jan 2011
                      • 1300

                      I don't know what the fc#k's going on in the mind of Voldemort Putin and his cronies lately - but for one I'm wincing with embarrassment. Could the hubris and willy-waving be more misplaced?!

                      If they'd have shown test launches of the hypersonic 'Zircon' or first flight of the 'Ohotnik' UCAV - then people in the know (or with understanding) would've sat up and taken notice, but an air-launched 'Iskander'? A "nuclear powered" cruise-missile? WTF??! Seriously?!

                      All this on the back of *deploying* [zero-combat capable] T-50 prototypes to Syria touted by a media who actually believe the MiG-35 & Su-35S are more than a match for the F-35...

                      A twenty-year abject failure to turn 'swords into plough shares' is one thing, but to present those swords as futuristic super-weapons when they're anything but - is pure comedy. N. Korea's Kim is starting to look sane in comparison.

                      (+1 MadRat).
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • St. John
                        Rank 4 Registered User
                        • Jan 2018
                        • 568

                        Any word on what guidance the Kinzhal uses?

                        Comment

                        • panzerfeist1
                          Rank 6 Registered User
                          • Feb 2018
                          • 334

                          "You're honestly going to lob one missile per sortie while the enemy is dropping a dozen glide bombs with precision per sortie" Depending on the payload the Kinzhal delivers its usage as conventional or nuclear it can still wipe out mobile defense assets worth billions of dollars. They say the Zircon was tested at mach 8, Iskander-m at mach 6-7 and supposedly based off of wiki (using a references of sources that are no longer available) an ex-british general reports the iskander-m having a 2m accuracy with specifications of going from 20 to 30gs avoiding other ballistic missiles trying to intercept it.

                          If you look at interception tests by the USN and THAADs based defenses(had one successful interception) you will realize a high failure rate for intercepting MRBMs. Since its air launched I am sure it will be smaller and harder for a radar to detect in interception. And the maneuvering tech will throw off guidance systems trying to intercept the missile.

                          But the Kinzhal will still be useless in the future. 1.It will be obsolete by powerful radars like the an/spy-6 using GaN(in the mid 2020s) to detect its small size. 2. applying AESA sensors they say the K-77m can create a 40 mile lock on using its own sensor to follow their targets(without transmission from aircraft radar) on their own which will work great against responding to different trajectories of the missile your trying to intercept. The US is relying on Japan and Britain for JNAAMs so I dont know how long this will take to be applied on mobile defense systems.

                          So will India get Brahmos-2 before US gets a waverunner missile or no? Anyone making bets on who gets a hypersonic cruise missile 1st?
                          I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                          Comment

                          • bring_it_on
                            2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 12480

                            If you look at interception tests by the USN and THAADs based defenses(had one successful interception) you will realize a high failure rate for intercepting MRBMs.
                            THAAD began engaging MRBM or longer ranged targets around 2012, and successfully demonstrated performance against that class of weapons. Since then, it has engaged an IRBM class (Air-Launched) target as well. So far, THAAD is 2 for 2 with MRBM-IRBM class weapons and has engaged more than half a dozen other Short Ranged Missile targets succesfully. It hasn't really failed a test (unless there was a target anomoly) since the final operaitonal configuration was sealed. More tests are planned in the coming years against all three class of targets the system is designed to engage (SRBM, MRBM and IRBM). The US Navy's SM6 has also intercepted two MRBM class targets. The exoatmospheric interceptors of the USN (Mid Course SM3 I/IA/IB) have had more than two dozen tests over the years so the exact perceptages filtered for MRBM or longer ranged missiles would need some work but most of those tests have significant data on the target range available.

                            With that as a base, perhaps we also need to see how many floating targets (and simulating what capabilities) has the ballistic missile in question sunk.
                            Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 02:33.
                            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                            Comment

                            • St. John
                              Rank 4 Registered User
                              • Jan 2018
                              • 568

                              I agree with the above. You would probably need about 20 Kinzhals to land one hit.

                              Comment

                              • bring_it_on
                                2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                • Jun 2004
                                • 12480

                                That was not my conclusion at all and is most definitely not what I was saying. I pointed to the misrepresentation of Intercept test data and was trying to point out that if one were to analyze that and use it as a measure of the defensive capability of a Carrier Strike Group (it is not the best way to look at this at all since missile testing usually focuses on intercept or sensor preformance, not the entire spectrum of offensive and defensive capability a strike group will show up with) then one must also weigh this against equally detailed data from the missile testing and evaluation. It is rather pointless to say that 2 of 10 missiles,(or 4 of 10 or 10 of 10) will get past a particular interceptor unless we know the other variable in this equation i.e. how many of the offensive weapon will actually find, fix and succesfully strike a defended target at sea. Any long range ballistic missile has to first network with long range sensors, and command & control, evade exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric interceptors, succesfully operate in a cluttered environment where Electronic Warfare capabilities are being used against its seeker and navigation concepts, find its target, verify that it is the correct target, and then finally strike that target. If one is going to analyze the abilities of the interceptors to succesfully engage a MR or IR Ballistic Missile in space or inside the atmosphere, then it is also reasonable to present similar performance and flight test data on the performance and test data from the offensive system in question as well.
                                Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 01:00.
                                Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                Comment

                                • sepheronx
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Jun 2015
                                  • 320

                                  Originally posted by Jō Asakura View Post
                                  I don't know what the fc#k's going on in the mind of Voldemort Putin and his cronies lately - but for one I'm wincing with embarrassment. Could the hubris and willy-waving be more misplaced?!

                                  If they'd have shown test launches of the hypersonic 'Zircon' or first flight of the 'Ohotnik' UCAV - then people in the know (or with understanding) would've sat up and taken notice, but an air-launched 'Iskander'? A "nuclear powered" cruise-missile? WTF??! Seriously?!

                                  All this on the back of *deploying* [zero-combat capable] T-50 prototypes to Syria touted by a media who actually believe the MiG-35 & Su-35S are more than a match for the F-35...

                                  A twenty-year abject failure to turn 'swords into plough shares' is one thing, but to present those swords as futuristic super-weapons when they're anything but - is pure comedy. N. Korea's Kim is starting to look sane in comparison.

                                  (+1 MadRat).
                                  This makes no sense.

                                  First off, a nuclear powered cruise missiles is quite something. Being able to launch such missiles unlimited range is indeed impressive and important.

                                  Secondly, the Su-57 prototype was in Syria to test onboard electronics/avionics. That's about it.

                                  Thirdly, Kinzhal is rather impressive in terms of it's speed, characteristics. While it isn't a Zircon or that it flies like a cruise missiles, it does give Russia quite the capabilities needed to strike at Navy targets far from the enemies AD systems. Could also be good as a method on hitting ground targets too.

                                  I think the most ideal system presented was Avangard, which has been confirmed ordered. Oh, and that submarine launched drone.

                                  Kinzhal is still I guess the most interesting to most people and thus getting most attention.

                                  Comment

                                  • KGB
                                    KGB
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Mar 2016
                                    • 1426

                                    ^The translation to English wasn't very clear apparently.

                                    Russia started working on all of these weapons in 2004 after it failed to talk the US back into the ABM treaty. But some people seem to think that Russia is just starting on them now.

                                    Comment

                                    • MadRat
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Aug 2006
                                      • 5033

                                      Ironically the same hypersonic super weapon flies at an altitude where command links would be a rather difficult engineering feat. So basically its launch and fly a pre-programmed course, which consequently must use something other than GLONASS for tracking position and for obvious reasons. Just how pinpoint has Russia's non-GLONASS bombs been?
                                      Go Huskers!

                                      Comment

                                      • Austin
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Oct 2003
                                        • 6463

                                        In one of the interview I posed from Tactical Missile Bureau , He mentioned that Kh-101 can fly accurately to the target even without Glonass or GPS , its designed to do so with a highly accurate INS and other aided navigation built in , Considering Kinzal flight time is likely 1/10 of that Kh-101 and the accuracy would be quite good as its aided by RF seeker and even Optical one

                                        In the end it depends on the type of INS you use and how much one would like to spend on it a strap down INS would be less accurate compared to Laser INS but from a mass deployed weapon strap down INS would be cost effective choice.
                                        "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                        Comment

                                        • MadRat
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Aug 2006
                                          • 5033

                                          Laser gyros are pretty neat technology. Unfortunately they aren't the perfect solution for high speed weapons that fly on the edge of space.

                                          The Russians also have a far different threshold for consideration to be labeled 'precision'.

                                          And let's consider the ramifications of using this weapon in proximity to U.S. forces and its allies. If it's flight is indistinguishable between conventional and nuclear roles, then basically deploying it says something to the effect 'it may be an offensive nuclear launch'. Not the message they should send.
                                          Go Huskers!

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X