Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (0 members and 14 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • haavarla
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2008
    • 6652

    The Beast and Kinzhal combo is just as much a strategical as a Tactical weapon system
    Thanks

    Comment

    • LMFS
      Rank 4 Registered User
      • Feb 2018
      • 472

      Tomahawks wouldn't remain intact even if they lost power and fell to earth by themselves. They disintegrate mostly on impact.
      Yes, I guess 100% intact makes no sense, only that the missile somehow did not explode, this should allow to preserve many of the components and quite probably the ICs. We have no proof whatsoever that this has in fact happened but I tend to believe that many missiles did not reach their targets (100 missiles for 3 small, non-hardened targets seems simply insane to me), either because of interception, jamming or simply failure. Some estimates point to only 7 missiles hitting their targets and 71 out of 103 being intercepted, that would leave 25 left, some of which may have not exploded

      Comment

      • paralay
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2005
        • 1396

        Would be very interesting to know what manoeuvrability the RV has and how it affects the range
        What is RV?

        The parameters of the flight of a ballistic missile are very simple to calculate. There is a free program "Sputnik"

        Click image for larger version

Name:	sputnik.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	247.6 KB
ID:	3680184

        Comment

        • stealthflanker
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Sep 2015
          • 1007

          RV is :"Re-entry Vehicle" or the warhead of the missile that re-enter the earth.

          Comment

          • LMFS
            Rank 4 Registered User
            • Feb 2018
            • 472

            What is RV?
            I mean reentry vehicle, warhead. Not sure if this is the most adequate term for a ballistic missile with a trajectory's apogee of 200 km, now that I think more about it.

            The parameters of the flight of a ballistic missile are very simple to calculate. There is a free program "Sputnik"
            Cool program! But I meant, the manoeuvring, if done through aerodynamic surfaces, is going to detract from the kinetic energy of the warhead and therefore affect its range / speed at the point of impact, it would be nice to know how extensively it will be manoeuvring and what method is used to modify its trajectory (aerodynamic surfaces or propulsive devices). This feature is probably similar to the one on Iskander but it is not clear to me if it impacts significantly on range / speed

            Comment

            • paralay
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2005
              • 1396

              If you shoot at a shorter range, the missile will fly along a quasi-ballistic trajectory at an altitude of 40 to 80 km. Today, the range of American deck aviation does not exceed 1600 km (F/A-18E/F - 1580 km, F-35C - 1240 km)

              Comment

              • Austin
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2003
                • 6463

                paralay , the Kinzal like Iskander does not fly a pure ballistic trajectory as your diagram shows its incorrect , It does not fly a quasi-ballistic trajectory ( there is no such thing as quasi-ballastic trajectory its media creation ) , They follow a tailored dynamic trajectory based on multiple factors.

                This is based on interview with Iskander system maker who mentioned that even he does not know how the missile will fly next since it is not pre-programed to fly a tailored trajectory but it flies based on its on-board system that will make it fly , change direction and its trajectory depending on rage and target it flies too and other factors , It has on board ESM system that would alert to it getting targetted and would change it flight profile accordingly .....this is not your BM or so called quasi ballistic missile.
                "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                Comment

                • LMFS
                  Rank 4 Registered User
                  • Feb 2018
                  • 472

                  paralay , the Kinzal like Iskander does not fly a pure ballistic trajectory as your diagram shows its incorrect , It does not fly a quasi-ballistic trajectory ( there is no such thing as quasi-ballastic trajectory its media creation ) , They follow a tailored dynamic trajectory based on multiple factors.

                  This is based on interview with Iskander system maker who mentioned that even he does not know how the missile will fly next since it is not pre-programed to fly a tailored trajectory but it flies based on its on-board system that will make it fly , change direction and its trajectory depending on rage and target it flies too and other factors , It has on board ESM system that would alert to it getting targetted and would change it flight profile accordingly .....this is not your BM or so called quasi ballistic missile.
                  But for maximum range the missile must fly roughly a ballistic trajectory, is that not established? I mean, the exact deviations around the ballistic path can be maybe random or based on the missiles sensing threats, but as long as you want to maximize the range you should stay as close as possible to the ballistic trajectory. When 2000 km maximum range are stated, this would logically relate to a non-manoeuvring, purely ballistic launch.

                  I can imagine the developer not wanting to describe exactly how the missile dodges threats and also that its path is not 100% determined before launching, but in the end trajectory for maximum range is just physics. Of course, if range is not an issue, I agree the missile's path may abandon any resemblance with ballistic trajectory

                  Comment

                  • Austin
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Oct 2003
                    • 6463

                    Why do you assume that the range of ~2000 km cannot be established by non-ballistic trajectory ? I dont think they would have achieved a speed of Mach 10+ from Mach 6 which is a claimed speed of Iskander without using Solid Propellent of high Isp and if that is the case that would impact even its trajectory
                    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                    Comment

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

                      Probably because the Kh-32 is a lot bigger and has a dual propellant engine and using a non-ballistic trajectory only manages 1,000km.

                      Comment

                      • paralay
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Aug 2005
                        • 1396

                        Why do you assume that the range of ~2000 km cannot be established by non-ballistic trajectory ?
                        This is possible if the detachable second stage of the missile is equipped with wings

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	cM88u.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	161.5 KB
ID:	3680191

                        Comment

                        • LMFS
                          Rank 4 Registered User
                          • Feb 2018
                          • 472

                          Why do you assume that the range of ~2000 km cannot be established by non-ballistic trajectory ? I don't think they would have achieved a speed of Mach 10+ from Mach 6 which is a claimed speed of Iskander without using Solid Propellent of high Isp and if that is the case that would impact even its trajectory
                          I am assuming that 2000 km is the maximum range and that would imply optimal trajectory, being that the ballistic one (I meant at least when no more thrust is applied, which would be the longest part of the flight). I am not an expert in rocketry, maybe you could explain why the specific impulse of the propellent would affect the trajectory?

                          Thanks

                          Comment

                          • Austin
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Oct 2003
                            • 6463

                            Right now there is no official information on Weight , Warhead Mass the only known factor is Speed and if they managed to increase the known speed from Mach 6 to 10 then it is possible using higher energy solid propellent keeping all things equal even then Iskander does not follow a ballistic trajectory see no reason why Kinzal should , probably Kinzal flies at far higher altitude compared to Iskander ~ 40-50 km that would impact its range.
                            "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                            Comment

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

                              Should be some good unmanned stuff showcased this year, but this thing looks kinda Iran float parade-esque:



                              sigpic

                              Comment

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

                                Well, it seems that the mods got fed up with crap and crossed the T-50 thread, right after I clicked submit on a response to Vnomad, so crossposting here:

                                Russia didn't emerge out of the ether in 1991.
                                Obviously not, and it shares many geopolitical concerns that the USSR did due to hard factors, but ignoring the ideological factor (that dissipated) in guiding its foreign policy is nuts. Hell, the warmth of relations with China ought to show that.
                                As far as government aims were concerned, decades of spreading an internationalist ideology was dumped overnight, and not replaced.
                                The USSR tried hard to cultivate India along its global objectives (and given India being prominent in the non alligned movement, clearly not with great success) as part of its third world Cold-War policy, something that again, barely exists today (past trying to steer economic and mil contracts its way, something everyone does).

                                It inherited its place in the UNSC from the USSR, as did it relationships with countries like Vietnam, Cuba, Algeria, Iran and especially India.
                                Relations with Vietnam droped off post 1991, even Cam Ranh base was lapsed in 2002, and in fact large scale deliveries (and use of military facilities) only really re-started in the past decade, which doesn't align with a notion of a larger Russian-Chinese strategic engagement.
                                Cuba basically dropped off Russia's radar since 1991, the vast Soviet aid completely dried up.
                                Yeltsin largely acquiesced to American demands to stiffle mil and civie ties with Iran in the 1990s.

                                Legacy Indo-Soviet ties are the very basis for modern Indo-Russia ties so of course its relevant.
                                Yes, but without the ideological aspect that characterized Soviet interest in India, we are left with economic ties, and strategic interests.
                                Economically, trade hasn't fallen off to indicate a cooling off.
                                Strategically, Russia and India are not competing in anything directly, they are not going against each other in key issues critical to one party or another, Russia is not the primary cause of China's economic and subsequent military growth (especially going foreward, where Russian mil exports won't continue driving Chinese mil capabilities).
                                So where is the cool off, or reason for India to make it a political point to avoid Russian arms? Is India that desperate to curry political favor with the US?


                                I suggest more important factors are what Russia can offer relative to the competition, financing terms, etc will judge which of the modern Russian arms India will end up buying in the next decade.
                                They also don't come with strings, something that we might see India discover with American deals.

                                it was at its core driven by a mutual threat from/opposition to the US & China in the 70s and Pakistan in the 80s.
                                70s I'll give you, but for all the relationship building, how did warm relations help either with Pakistan? Neither assisted each other in practical terms (past UNSC symbolic voting) in A-stan or Kashmir. With the shift in Russian international posture in 1991, there was even less to say about the relationship compared to real alliances like NATO.

                                The older generation of Russophiles in the Indian military & political establishment, grew up in the 70s and spent their formative professional years in heyday of Indo-Russian/Soviet ties. Many of them studied or trained in Russia. The current reality that China is much more important to Russia both economically and strategically, is a fact more easily palatable to their successors, the next generation. Therefore, its to some extent inevitable, that the passage time would lead to (relative) cooling of Indo-Russian relations.
                                Fair enough, that influence might fade, but if Indian industry catches up and can offer true co-development benefits in a large defense program, that might be something attractive to both sides in a decade+ from now. That is grounds for interpersonal exchange.

                                The INSAS has been in service for 20 years with some 800,000 units delivered. An eventual introduction of a newer generation weapon was always on the cards. The MoD issued an RFP for assault rifles to 12 vendors on March 23. While it may eventually be awarded to Izhmash, at the moment its an open contract.
                                Well, there have been many rifles adopted for national service (FAMAS, G36) that were mass-produced, and found to have technical defects and need replacing well-before their time. INSAS problems are fairly well known, and its not a gun looked at with much love by pretty much any gun enthusiast community. Latest news I read indicated India was leaning towards straight AK-103 adoption.

                                $3bn for S-400s too but fair enough.
                                I actually completed spaced on that one, but China hasn't even been number 2 on the destination lists for Russian arms exports for much of the past decade.

                                Recent Russian statements on Pakistan & Afghanistan are just words as well. But if the language has changed, that's usually a result of changing attitudes.
                                With respect, you can find statements and intentions and meetings similar with random African nations, and it means about as much.
                                https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/62356575.cms Look, strategic ties!

                                What has Russia's and Pakistan's relationship amounted to? 4 Mi-35s? They have bought Mi-17s before. Plus, if we compare it to American aid to Pakistan...well......
                                Russian-Taliban claims are nothing but American agitprop to date.
                                Though personally were I in Putin's shoes, it would a good place to prick the US, plus "liberated" A-stan has become one big opium den....but that is off topic.

                                Follow-on P-8s (upto 12) and AH-64s. F414s (for the Tejas Mk2). Sea Guardian UAVs. EMALS-AAG. Possibly more C-130Js. Super Hornets for the IN? (I hope not.) The big get would a potentially $8 bn deal for 100 Avenger UCAVs.
                                An awful lot of those things are exactly where Russia is either noncompetitive at the moment, or a US equivalent was just better. Which goes back to my theory...
                                sigpic

                                Comment

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

                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • stealthflanker
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Sep 2015
                                    • 1007

                                    Nose open pls :3

                                    Comment

                                    • Mercurius
                                      Cantabrigiensis
                                      • Sep 2007
                                      • 1375

                                      TR1 wrote: "Well, it seems that the mods got fed up with crap and crossed the T-50 thread"

                                      So another useful (despite the high signal-to-noise ratio) thread has vanished? It and the equally high S/N thread on the Russian Syria deployment were the main reason that I visit this forum. Both contained enough items of 'hard' information to make it worth shovelling though the rubbish.
                                      Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

                                      Comment

                                      • FBW
                                        FBW
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2011
                                        • 3290

                                        Like to ask the mods if they can restore the Su-57 thread, cleaned up of whatever got it axed in the first place.

                                        It was one of the more active and interesting threads.

                                        Comment

                                        • haavarla
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Dec 2008
                                          • 6652

                                          +1 Berkut.

                                          Its like they are lazy and can't be bothered with the "moderator" part. And just delete whole threads. It has happend before too.
                                          And on this note, i post a link to another Aviation Forum.
                                          Atleast the Moderators there are very much on top of things.

                                          https://www.defencetalk.com/military....10781/page-88

                                          And they do not tolerate posters like the very pro National tools that post here.
                                          Last edited by haavarla; 25th April 2018, 18:23.
                                          Thanks

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X