Su-27: How to beat F-14 in BVR?

[GGTharos]

So far a pk or .625 or so then?...

 

That's about double that I heard quoted for the AIM-7 in GF1.

[D-Scythe]

So far a pk or .625 or so then?...

 

That's about double that I heard quoted for the AIM-7 in GF1.

 

That's somewhat misleading. Look again at the statistics. Eight of the ten AIM-120 kills were SSKs. Furthermore, if you take away the 3 botched Foxbat shots, the pK rises up significantly.

 

Hornit at SimHQ said that the AIM-120 should be near a deathray at 8 nm or less. It's combat record reinforces this. All known WVR engagements ended up in SSKs.

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure why I should discount any of the shots though ... they're all 'part of the combat record' basically.

[Rysi]

Rysi, the poor perforance of the F-18E is legendary! Even slower and less acceleration than the 18Cs ... itself not a stela performer.

 

It is slightly poorer than the F/A-18C… and I really don't see why you think the F/A-18C is not a "stela" performer? Sure it's no MiG-29, but for a maritime fighter it is sufficient. And the "poor" (underpowered) performance of the F-14 is also legendary… so what's your point? All the data shows that while it might be a touch slower (questionable vs. an F-14 with a max AIM-54 load) it is more agile.

 

And surely the larger blast radius of the 54 IS important in bringing down supersonic SSMs in that it increases you miss distance and still get a kill?

 

It is important, but far less important than having superior maneuverability. Remember we're talking about target speeds of 600+ meters per second here; the margin for a 'miss distance' is huge.

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

 

Note the following:

 

"Data presented on this list was obtained during extensive research by T. Cooper and F. Bishop, the results of which can be found in the following publications:"

 

All by two individuals... with no independent confirmation. Judging by some of their other claims (such as the alleged IDF MiG-29 shootdown which even the Israelis have denied) and some of Mr. Cooper's quite bluntly biased posts on the other boards (like Key Publishing) several years back I'm quite doubtful of some of their claims. You can believe what you want.

 

Rysi, you're starting to make some claims I don't agree with here.

Bursting the missile has ALWAYS been a good choice for the destruction of an incoming vehicle. The fuze IS important. That a hit-to-kill missile is better, simply because it -will- hit is not in doubt, but the point is that a missile passign within lethal range IS adequate. That the other target is travelling fast doesn't matter - fuzes are set up to ensure timely detonation against a target of just about any velocity.

 

You are talking about something different than I am. We are in no way discussing a "hit to kill missile."

Let me put this another way… given the choice between utilizing two missiles with identical performance parameters but with one having a larger warhead, I would without hesitation select the one with the larger warhead. However, in the AIM-54 vs. AIM-120 situation we have one missile that appears to have a decent pk. and adequate warhead against highly maneuverable small targets vs. the former where that is in serious doubt.

 

Why do you think USN warships employ the RIM-7 and not the AIM-54?

 

Why do you think the USN is going with the SEARAM (an AIM-9 derivative with a tiny warhead)?

 

The Stark was a Falklands war thing, right? In that case if you're talking modern weapons, this incident has no place here - it involved poor use of equipment which wasn't completely up to par anyway.

 

No. The Stark was a US AEGIS cruiser that was hit by a pair of Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage in 1987.

 

As for 'maneuvering SSMs' .. you aware of what maneuvers they make, if any? Or is it just a terminal homing phase thing where they'll do a pop-up or some other interesting thing to make themselves a little tougher to hit? 'Cause that's the only 'maneuvering' i've ever heard any missile doing.

 

Various. Some involve programmed maneuvers, others maneuver during final approach, still others perform extremely violent pop-up maneuvers. Look up the P-700 or 3M80, for example (and these are a generation behind Brahmos).

 

And no, those Su-27's aren't all going to be able to avoid the Phoenix, which is -likely- to be coming down on top of them from a hundred and sixty THOUSAND feet. In a dive like that, you're not going to be killing its speed very well, let alone detecting it.

 

I'm not getting into an argument on the alleged effectiveness of the AIM-54 vs. modern fighters. I've already presented my points above… I think the real world evidence is in my favor.

 

As for RWRs detecting datalinks - that's nice, but how do they have a clue as to whom the datalink is for? They don't ... and if we're talking group on group, there are -so- many signals that the RWR s ae gonan go nuts trying to figure out what's going on.

 

You seriously underestimate the capabilities of modern electronic warfare equipment. They are designed to work in situations where "there are -so- many signals that the RWR s ae gonan go nuts trying to figure out what's going on."

 

Lastly, the Phoenix -does- outrange the R-77 and R-27 ... if the enemy deployed MiG-31's then it's an entirely different ball game, sure.

 

No doubt range is an advantage. I've already stated that before, and countered with the disadvantages.

 

Doesn't look muhch different than what's already out there ... 'low radar signature' also doesn't mean 'stealth'.

 

The Brahmos site is quite devoid of information unfortunately. Many sources claim it is "stealth" because it has a 'low radar signature' for a missile. Considering even dated 70's era cruise missiles had RCS values well below 0.5 m^2, and the Brahmos has been said to have an order of a magnitude lower RCS, you end up with something around a bird-sized RCS -- definitely classifying it as "stealth."

 

There's a pretty big difference - the US already had one of those in the works, but it was cancelled. Wonder why?

 

The US has never (to my knowledge) put into service any supersonic ASMs. They haven't really felt a need to, as the only opponent with a powerful enough surface fleet to possible justify them was the USSR… and then the primary threat from them was submarines, not surface vessels. Russia / USSR have had various types of supersonic ASMs for decades.

 

By the way, I've yet to see any reports of MiGs dodging AMRAAMs over Kososvo...I'm sure it's true, but where the heck are they?

 

See some of the stories of the Serbian pilots who got downed, for example.

 

And yes, the enemy fighter / bomber group WILL be detected quite early...that's what all the early warning measures are for on a carrier group, you know.

 

How early is early? Before those sea-skimming fighters can launch their 200+km ranged ASMs?

[Kula66]

No. The Stark was a US AEGIS cruiser that was hit by a pair of Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage in 1987.

Wrong ... see the link http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ffg-7.htm

half way down ... USS Stark.

 

James

[Kula66]

Sure it's no MiG-29, but for a maritime fighter it is sufficient. And the "poor" (underpowered) performance of the F-14 is also legendary… so what's your point? All the data shows that while it might be a touch slower (questionable vs. an F-14 with a max AIM-54 load) it is more agile.

Sorry Rysi ... credability now equls zero ....

 

James

[Vati]

That's somewhat misleading. Look again at the statistics. Eight of the ten AIM-120 kills were SSKs. Furthermore, if you take away the 3 botched Foxbat shots, the pK rises up significantly.

What you had written is also misleading... you forgot to take into an account in how many cases target even knew it was fired upon. Getting kill on evading target and on nonevading is not the same. Things are a bit more complicated than quoting numbers...

[GGTharos]

That's somewhat misleading. Look again at the statistics. Eight of the ten AIM-120 kills were SSKs. Furthermore, if you take away the 3 botched Foxbat shots, the pK rises up significantly.

What you had written is also misleading... you forgot to take into an account in how many cases target even knew it was fired upon. Getting kill on evading target and on nonevading is not the same. Things are a bit more complicated than quoting numbers...

 

Actually this isn't a real issue. You have to consider both targets that know they're being attacked and targets that don't ... while it's useful to know each case separately also, the overall combat record consists of everything.

 

At the same time, what you're asking for is something we don't know anyway, and it's only amrginally ebtter than asking 'well, how were the pilots trained?'

 

I think the fact that no F-15C has gone down in air to air combat speaks volumes.

[Rysi]

Sheffield? Stark? None of them were Aegis - they were only equipped with the short range Sea Dart SAMs. Moreover, I think only one of them were sunk by missiles - the other iron bombs. This point is wrong.

 

Your point is wrong. Both were hit by Exocets. And the Stark was armed with modern US Antiship missile defenses.

 

I've yet to see a cruise missile break into a 5 g evasive manuever...because they DON'T. They may follow waypoints, but for the most part, they go straight.

 

Then you haven't seen anything. Modern ASMs are not Harpoons. And you're still not adding this to the difficulty of hitting a Mach 2+ sea-skimming, low-rcs target.

 

Again, your point is moot. NMD currently is for SPACE defense. Nice try.

 

My point is completely relevant. NMD is a high-speed vs. high-speed missile defense system.

 

And the AIM-120 is not going to go Mach 4 at sea level either. Your point?

 

Please state where I made the point that the AIM-120 will be going Mach 4 at sea level…

 

How is it not relevent at supersonic speeds? If anything, the increased momentum in the missiles would just make a warhead more effective at either destroying it, or knocking it off its flight path.

 

Provided you hit. And if you miss by even a fraction of a second the missile is already several hundred meters away. Again, USN warships utilize RIM-7, not AIM-54 for a reason...

 

Standard CAP loadout for the F-14 is 4 AIM-54Cs, 2 AIM-7s and 2 AIM-9s.

 

Not operationally it wasn't. This is a well documented fact.

 

You seem to forget that the AIM-54 has almost triple the range of the AMRAAM.

 

Not from what I've seen… slightly more than double. It still doesn't change anything that I've said.

 

You are underestimating AEGIS. A lot.

 

And you are seriously overestimating AEGIS, and forgetting that newer ASMs are designed to defeat it. If NMD or Patriot success vs high speed targets are anything to go by, then I'm not optimistic of it's potential success rate vs. a Brahmos in the least.

 

What are a few Flankers going to do to an CVBG? Aegis (and the F-14) were designed to engage and destroy a dedicated anti-carrier force composed of 50-70 Tu-22M3 bombers with 3 Kh-22Ms each, escorted by a similar force of enemy fighters.

 

Whether something is "designed" to handle a threat and whether it can actually succeed at this are two different things altogether.

 

Take away the bombers, and add a single anti-ship cruise missile (that's MUCH smaller than a Kh-22/15) to the fighters, and you do not expect the F-14 and the Aegis to handle it? That's just nonsense.

 

That missile is much more modern and deadly. And a Su-30 will definitely be able to carry at least two Brahmos. Four is being considered as a serious possibility.

 

And Aegis have come a long way since the 70s. Expect anything its radars can see to die. Quickly.

 

And ASMs have come a long way since the 70s. Expect anything shot at by a Brahmos to die. Quickly.

 

Sorry Rysi ... credability now equls zero ....

 

And your credibility is also zero as you have failed to present any evidence or argument to counter what I've said.

[D-Scythe]

I only have 3 things to say to you:

 

1. Prove what kind of 'evasive manuevers' modern anti-ship missiles employ

2. The number of R-77s in service is negligible in the VVS - what makes you think Brahmos will be in service anytime soon?

3. The Stark is a Oliver Perry FRIGATE. Not an Aegis cruiser (Tico) or destroyer (Burke). Huge difference in defense - about the only thing they share in common is the 5 in gun and the CIWS. And believe me, I'm probably underestimating Aegis instead of over-estimating it.

 

The Patriot PAC-2 in Desert Storm was NOT initially designed to take out missiles. Raytheon thought that with a few software adjustments, they'd be able to make it into a SCUD interceptor - they were wrong. That's why they miss. PAC 3 solved this, featuring hardware, software and missile changes. Like the SM-2MR/ER, it was designed from the outset to kill enemy missiles, and it did that in OIF - very well.

 

Oh, BTW, there are newer versions of the SM-2 now, and they kill. Very well. But you probably don't know that, spending all your time looking up this 'Brahmos' missile, that really doesn't exist and will not exist anytime soon, like the SA-20, or MiG-1.44, or Su-35/37.

 

And the supersonic missile thing? It's a function of the fuze, not the guidance section, and not the warhead. Try again.

 

Oh, and prove that the F-14 is underpowered (BTW, it isn't).

[GGTharos]

Rysi, the poor perforance of the F-18E is legendary! Even slower and less acceleration than the 18Cs ... itself not a stela performer.

 

It is slightly poorer than the F/A-18C… and I really don't see why you think the F/A-18C is not a "stela" performer? Sure it's no MiG-29, but for a maritime fighter it is sufficient. And the "poor" (underpowered) performance of the F-14 is also legendary… so what's your point? All the data shows that while it might be a touch slower (questionable vs. an F-14 with a max AIM-54 load) it is more agile.

 

You're not very informed about the F-14 then. It definitely -did- have problems with its engines, but that thing was designed toand -would- launch its missiles from a lofted profile going mach 2 at 50k feet. Underpowered my foot. The F-14 engine stagnation troubles are as legendary as the F-15A's, but things have been worked on and fixed up.

 

And surely the larger blast radius of the 54 IS important in bringing down supersonic SSMs in that it increases you miss distance and still get a kill?

 

It is important, but far less important than having superior maneuverability. Remember we're talking about target speeds of 600+ meters per second here; the margin for a 'miss distance' is huge.

 

Speed doesn't infer maneuverability, nor is there any indication that the Phoenix lacks accuracy against a high speed target - on the contrary, IT WAS DESIGNED TO DESTROY PRECICELY such targets.

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

 

Note the following:

 

"Data presented on this list was obtained during extensive research by T. Cooper and F. Bishop, the results of which can be found in the following publications:"

 

All by two individuals... with no independent confirmation. Judging by some of their other claims (such as the alleged IDF MiG-29 shootdown which even the Israelis have denied) and some of Mr. Cooper's quite bluntly biased posts on the other boards (like Key Publishing) several years back I'm quite doubtful of some of their claims. You can believe what you want.

 

You can't dispute their claims just because - they'veprovided more biblio than you have. But ya know, I can do the same, if youw anna do that way, and I'll do it at the end - you'll catch it, i'm sure.

 

Rysi, you're starting to make some claims I don't agree with here.

Bursting the missile has ALWAYS been a good choice for the destruction of an incoming vehicle. The fuze IS important. That a hit-to-kill missile is better, simply because it -will- hit is not in doubt, but the point is that a missile passign within lethal range IS adequate. That the other target is travelling fast doesn't matter - fuzes are set up to ensure timely detonation against a target of just about any velocity.

 

You are talking about something different than I am. We are in no way discussing a "hit to kill missile."

Let me put this another way… given the choice between utilizing two missiles with identical performance parameters but with one having a larger warhead, I would without hesitation select the one with the larger warhead. However, in the AIM-54 vs. AIM-120 situation we have one missile that appears to have a decent pk. and adequate warhead against highly maneuverable small targets vs. the former where that is in serious doubt.

 

Why do you think USN warships employ the RIM-7 and not the AIM-54?

 

Why do you think the USN is going with the SEARAM (an AIM-9 derivative with a tiny warhead)?

 

The SEARAM is a short range 'last chance' defense. The more potent naval anti-air weapons are the standard series, SM-1 through 3, not the RIM-7. Why they never converted the Phoenix? SM-1/2/3. It does the same job, AFAIK. The RIM-7 is really stop-gap, IMHO.

 

Now, you mention that the 120 has a higher pk than the 54. Fair, because the 54 is dated by comparison (allegedly - I knwo for a fact that it has gone through some interesting upgrade programmes) ... but not THAT much better, and the 120 isn't hit-to-kill either. If it hits, the 54 would have as well. They're not attacking a particularely heavily maneuvering target, no matter what your imagination would like to make up ;)

Nonwithstanding, there are no pk figured from the 54, and to doubt just how deadly that thing is would be foolish.

 

The Stark was a Falklands war thing, right? In that case if you're talking modern weapons, this incident has no place here - it involved poor use of equipment which wasn't completely up to par anyway.

 

No. The Stark was a US AEGIS cruiser that was hit by a pair of Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage in 1987.

 

As for 'maneuvering SSMs' .. you aware of what maneuvers they make, if any? Or is it just a terminal homing phase thing where they'll do a pop-up or some other interesting thing to make themselves a little tougher to hit? 'Cause that's the only 'maneuvering' i've ever heard any missile doing.

 

Various. Some involve programmed maneuvers, others maneuver during final approach, still others perform extremely violent pop-up maneuvers. Look up the P-700 or 3M80, for example (and these are a generation behind Brahmos).

 

In other words, nothing that would really cause a problem for an AAM - as in, their hope to survive is to get under the missile barrage ASAP and hope that radar clutter will help'em evade, combined with some maneuvering. It's a speed bump (which may be enough)

 

And no, those Su-27's aren't all going to be able to avoid the Phoenix, which is -likely- to be coming down on top of them from a hundred and sixty THOUSAND feet. In a dive like that, you're not going to be killing its speed very well, let alone detecting it.

 

I'm not getting into an argument on the alleged effectiveness of the AIM-54 vs. modern fighters. I've already presented my points above… I think the real world evidence is in my favor.

 

You HAVE no 'real world evidence'. Real world evidence shows nothing one way or another. If the Iranian experience isin question, then there's precicely zero evidence to prove or disprove the effectiveness of the long-range AAM, and that of the 54 in particular.

 

As for RWRs detecting datalinks - that's nice, but how do they have a clue as to whom the datalink is for? They don't ... and if we're talking group on group, there are -so- many signals that the RWR s ae gonan go nuts trying to figure out what's going on.

 

You seriously underestimate the capabilities of modern electronic warfare equipment. They are designed to work in situations where "there are -so- many signals that the RWR s ae gonan go nuts trying to figure out what's going on."

 

No, the other way around. You seriously OVERestimate them. Detecting a datalink is ambiguous - it could be a datalink guiding the missile to you, it could be guiding it to someone else, or it could be something different entirely. In addition, if youv'e got just 8 F-14's guiding six missiles each, banging away with their radars, going at their comms, plus AWACS, seaborne radars and datalinks, your RWR -will- go nuts. It might save itself by prioritizing, but issues DO existing and they DO get exploited. This isn't new, this goes ALL the way back to when RWRs first started getting used.

 

Lastly, the Phoenix -does- outrange the R-77 and R-27 ... if the enemy deployed MiG-31's then it's an entirely different ball game, sure.

 

No doubt range is an advantage. I've already stated that before, and countered with the disadvantages.

 

Which there are none to speak of. You have a highly accurate, supersonic AAM designed to hit fast, low-flying targets as well as long-range, high-flying targets, and probably just about everything in between. You can't just assume it has 'disadvantages' when no one has managed to credibly claim any - not against SSMs anyway. The missile's purpose WAS to defend a fleet in an era where suddenly 20-50-70 SSM's would pop out of nowhere (sub-launched) and go right for your CVBG. Any doubt in the AIM-54C's ability to nail those suckers is misguided. That was its purpose, ASIDE from the fact that you would see bomebrs with the same type of weaponry coming at them.

 

Doesn't look muhch different than what's already out there ... 'low radar signature' also doesn't mean 'stealth'.

 

The Brahmos site is quite devoid of information unfortunately. Many sources claim it is "stealth" because it has a 'low radar signature' for a missile. Considering even dated 70's era cruise missiles had RCS values well below 0.5 m^2, and the Brahmos has been said to have an order of a magnitude lower RCS, you end up with something around a bird-sized RCS -- definitely classifying it as "stealth."

 

There's a pretty big difference - the US already had one of those in the works, but it was cancelled. Wonder why?

 

The US has never (to my knowledge) put into service any supersonic ASMs. They haven't really felt a need to, as the only opponent with a powerful enough surface fleet to possible justify them was the USSR… and then the primary threat from them was submarines, not surface vessels. Russia / USSR have had various types of supersonic ASMs for decades.

 

I'm sorry, i should have specified. The US did commission a (subsonic) stealth cruise missile, which was produced in small quantities and subsequently cancelled.

 

By the way, I've yet to see any reports of MiGs dodging AMRAAMs over Kososvo...I'm sure it's true, but where the heck are they?

 

See some of the stories of the Serbian pilots who got downed, for example.

 

Right, and anything coming out of there regarding that war has been known to be nothing but pure propaganda. Where are those stories anyway...I really am interesting in seeing them.

 

And yes, the enemy fighter / bomber group WILL be detected quite early...that's what all the early warning measures are for on a carrier group, you know.

 

How early is early? Before those sea-skimming fighters can launch their 200+km ranged ASMs?

 

 

Try 500-600km? Those are some SERIOUSLY powerful radars sitting on the ships and E-2's.

[GGTharos]

I've yet to see a cruise missile break into a 5 g evasive manuever...because they DON'T. They may follow waypoints, but for the most part, they go straight.

 

Then you haven't seen anything. Modern ASMs are not Harpoons. And you're still not adding this to the difficulty of hitting a Mach 2+ sea-skimming, low-rcs target.

 

I'm curious now ... what have -you- seen?

 

Again, your point is moot. NMD currently is for SPACE defense. Nice try.

 

My point is completely relevant. NMD is a high-speed vs. high-speed missile defense system.

 

No, it isn't. 10+km/s collision speed is far far different from 2km/s.

 

 

 

How is it not relevent at supersonic speeds? If anything, the increased momentum in the missiles would just make a warhead more effective at either destroying it, or knocking it off its flight path.

 

Provided you hit. And if you miss by even a fraction of a second the missile is already several hundred meters away. Again, USN warships utilize RIM-7, not AIM-54 for a reason...

 

Who says the RIM-7 will hit? It's a pretty crappy missile, actually, the AIM7 has a history of missile mroe than it hits. :P

There are other factors. USN warships use the RIM-7 as a last-chace defense, or for air defense. Teh AEGIS /shield/ ships use the quite nasty SM series.

 

You seem to forget that the AIM-54 has almost triple the range of the AMRAAM.

 

Not from what I've seen… slightly more than double. It still doesn't change anything that I've said.

 

Then you haven't seen much - try minizap. Witht he correct profile, an AIM-54 can strike target 140nm away. Sometimes farther.

That however is a max ragne, and you're better off going after things at about 60nm with a less aggressive (and easier to fly) launch profile. In particular, I imagine that against an SSM you wouldn't be shooting farther than 20-30nm (clutter and target RCS issues)

 

You are underestimating AEGIS. A lot.

 

And you are seriously overestimating AEGIS, and forgetting that newer ASMs are designed to defeat it. If NMD or Patriot success vs high speed targets are anything to go by, then I'm not optimistic of it's potential success rate vs. a Brahmos in the least.

 

Patriots routinely hit other patriots in tests. That's 3-4km/s collision speed, and Brahmos isn't going to able to compete with this sort of speed profile.

 

What are a few Flankers going to do to an CVBG? Aegis (and the F-14) were designed to engage and destroy a dedicated anti-carrier force composed of 50-70 Tu-22M3 bombers with 3 Kh-22Ms each, escorted by a similar force of enemy fighters.

 

Whether something is "designed" to handle a threat and whether it can actually succeed at this are two different things altogether.

 

Absolutely ... also, wether you want something to not be able to hit something else, and wether it can, are also two things altogether (and of course, vice versa)

 

Take away the bombers, and add a single anti-ship cruise missile (that's MUCH smaller than a Kh-22/15) to the fighters, and you do not expect the F-14 and the Aegis to handle it? That's just nonsense.

 

That missile is much more modern and deadly. And a Su-30 will definitely be able to carry at least two Brahmos. Four is being considered as a serious possibility.

 

Where are you getting this? :shock:

 

And Aegis have come a long way since the 70s. Expect anything its radars can see to die. Quickly.

 

And ASMs have come a long way since the 70s. Expect anything shot at by a Brahmos to die. Quickly.

 

Not very likely. I mean, by tthe time Brahmos enters service it'll be two generations behind ;)

 

Sorry Rysi ... credability now equls zero ....

 

And your credibility is also zero as you have failed to present any evidence or argument to counter what I've said.

 

:shock:

 

Dude, you're not actually doing any better. And neither am I, but in fact, everyone should stop throwing -that- exucuse around for claiming zero credibility. People make mistakes or misinterpret data ... that goes for everyone in this discussion.

[D-Scythe]

Yeah, but some of the things this guy got completely *wrong*. For one, the USS Stark was not Aegis. Worst of all, he *claims* to have seen/know things we haven't, and has provided absolutely zero evidence that he does besides his attitude.

 

Anyway, GG, have you checked out the flight characteristics of the 'tweaked' SAMs in the V1.1 demo? i.e. the SM-2, the Patriot and the S300 series? They modified the boost phase of its flight much more accurately now, and they *loft*. I guess it's an interim step for better missile flight dynamics :)

[Rysi]

Oh, BTW, there are newer versions of the SM-2 now, and they kill. Very well. But you probably don't know that, spending all your time looking up this 'Brahmos' missile, that really doesn't exist and will not exist anytime soon, like the SA-20, or MiG-1.44, or Su-35/37.

 

Nice flame. Brahmos is real and is entering service with the Indian Airforce. This is a fact. The S-400 is also real and has already entered service. Maybe you should stop spending all your time drooling over AEGIS and check the news. This is where our discussion ends.

 

Right, and anything coming out of there regarding that war has been known to be nothing but pure propaganda. Where are those stories anyway...I really am interesting in seeing them.

 

I'm not going to argue with someone who believes 100% of what the USAF says and believes that anything the Serbs said was propaganda.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, but some of the things this guy got completely *wrong*. For one, the USS Stark was not Aegis. Worst of all, he *claims* to have seen/know things we haven't, and has provided absolutely zero evidence that he does besides his attitude.

 

Anyway, GG, have you checked out the flight characteristics of the 'tweaked' SAMs in the V1.1 demo? i.e. the SM-2, the Patriot and the S300 series? They modified the boost phase of its flight much more accurately now, and they *loft*. I guess it's an interim step for better missile flight dynamics :)

 

Yes, I have, and I'm pleased :)

 

However, there is -still- work to be done...eg they won't loft much at all against low-flying targets (in fact it seems you still get missiles flying intot he ground this way) and their pursuit trajectory is not optimized in the vertical (eh, missile lofts up to you, you point the nose down, it dives straight down too and hits the ground) ... however they -do- work much better now than before despite these shortcomings, and it's nice to see this first step towards fixing missiles up taken! I'm very pelased! :D

[GGTharos]

 

Right, and anything coming out of there regarding that war has been known to be nothing but pure propaganda. Where are those stories anyway...I really am interesting in seeing them.

 

I'm not going to argue with someone who believes 100% of what the USAF says and believes that anything the Serbs said was propaganda.

 

So you didn't catch it. Look, you're doing the same thign from the other side. Now, where the heck do I find those stories?

[D-Scythe]

Nice flame. Brahmos is real and is entering service with the Indian Airforce. This is a fact. The S-400 is also real and has already entered service. Maybe you should stop spending all your time drooling over AEGIS and check the news. This is where our discussion ends.

 

Like the Su-30MKI is in service? With their vaunted R-77s? Let me tell you now, neither is in service with the Indian Air Force, and won't be for some time to come. The Su-30s currently in service with the IAF are really nothing more than just the basic two-seat Su-30s.

 

The S-400 is also real and has already entered service.

 

Oh, you mean the one untested battery defending Moscow? That's hardly what I call "entering service."

 

The question isn't whether these weapon systems do reach IOC, it's when. And by the time that happens, the planned SM-6 active radar/IIR, TVC Standard SAM would likely be in service, with over-the-horizon targetting capability and 360+ km range.

 

Look up the definition of "IOC," get your facts straight, then come and talk.

 

I'm not going to argue with someone who believes 100% of what the USAF says and believes that anything the Serbs said was propaganda.

 

First, it was just not the USAF. A LOT of other sources from NATO and non-NATO nations confirmed these records. Second of all, did you even know the Serb political/military strategy during Allied Force? There is absolutely no way for them to defeat NATO militarily. Thus, propaganda was a major part of their war, because they have so much more to gain from it than NATO.

 

For example, these guys claimed that several - not one, but several - B-2s were shot down. Ridiculous. There are only 21 B-2s in existence. You can COUNT them. The loss of a B-2 would not be missed by ANYONE - I mean, who can miss the loss of a billion dollar plane?

 

Moreover, note that they were quick to broadcast footage of the downed F-117 and F-16CG over Serb, but provided absolutely zero evidence for all their other claims? I mean, after a stunt like that, all credibility just goes down the drain. So excuse me for being partial to NATO/U.N. claims because of common sense and good reason.

[Alfa]

D-Scythe,

 

Your information is dated. The Su-30MKI is very much in service with the Indian airforce - so is the R-77.

 

It is correct that the initial batch of Su-30Ks were little more than Su-27UBs with IFR probes, and that the following batch of Su-30MKs were more or less the same, but since then the Indian airforce has recieved the "real deal" Su-30MKIs with TVC engines, N011M "Bars" radars and R-77s :)

 

For clarification the "BrahMos" is actually the same missile as the P-800 "Yakhont". The BrahMos will not enter service with the Russian armed forces(atleast not under that name), because it is a joint venture project between India and Russia - the correct spelling is "BrahMos"(with the uppercase "M" in the middle) and is a name subtraction of the home cities ("-Mos" for "Moscow") of the companies involved in the joint-venture.

 

Both the "Yakhont" and the "BrahMos" derrivative have already been live tested and the latter is scheduled for arming the converted Admiral Gorshkov aviation cruiser.

 

- JJ.

[D-Scythe]

D-Scythe,

 

Your information is dated. The Su-30MKI is very much in service with the Indian airforce - so is the R-77.

 

It is correct that the initial batch of Su-30Ks were little more than Su-27UBs with IFR probes, and that the following batch of Su-30MKs were more or less the same, but since then the Indian airforce has recieved the "real deal" Su-30MKIs with TVC engines, N011M "Bars" radars and R-77s :)

 

For clarification the "BrahMos" is actually the same missile as the P-800 "Yakhont". The BrahMos will not enter service with the Russian armed forces(atleast not under that name), because it is a joint venture project between India and Russia - the correct spelling is "BrahMos"(with the uppercase "M" in the middle) and is a name subtraction of the home cities ("-Mos" for "Moscow") of the companies involved in the joint-venture.

 

Both the "Yakhont" and the "BrahMos" derrivative have already been live tested and the latter is scheduled for arming the converted Admiral Gorshkov aviation cruiser.

 

- JJ.

 

But are the rest of the original, non upgraded batch of Su-30s updated to MKI standard yet? If they are, then I stand corrected. Thank you JJ. Can you tell us more about these advanced, multi-g evasive manuevers of the BrahMos that Rysi seems to be so fascinated by? I would like some information on this.

[EvilBivol-1]

Line up of the Indian Air Force No.20 Squadron, flying the Su-30MKI...

 

 

Different picture, but note the TVC nozzles and canards...

 

 

 

Here's also a tid-bit from another page on the same (excellent) website:

 

As per the annual United Nations (U.N.) conventional arms register, the Indian Government reported that it had purchased 30 R-77RVV-AE missiles in 1999 and 120 R-77RVV-AE missiles in 2000. These numbers suggest that the R-77RVV-AE is operational with the IAF, at a minimum with the upgraded MiG-21s and the Su-30s. In October 1998, a locally-upgraded MiG-29 test-fired a R-77RVV-AE air-to-air missile.

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/index.html

[Alfa]

But are the rest of the original, non upgraded batch of Su-30s updated to MKI standard yet? If they are, then I stand corrected. Thank you JJ. Can you tell us more about these advanced, multi-g evasive manuevers of the BrahMos that Rysi seems to be so fascinated by? I would like some information on this.

 

No the majority of Indian Su-30s are not updated to the same level as the -MKI. However, it should be mentioned that the Su-30MKI isnt the only type in Indian service to carry the R-77 - India also operates a number of upgraded MiG-21s and some MiG-29S both capable of supporting this missile.

 

As far as the BrahMos is concerned, I dont know all that much about it other than it is a Russo-Indian derrivative of the Yakhont.

 

The Yakhont is a "mini Granit"(basically same design - only smaller) - a supersonic ram-jet powered anti-ship missile with a ~300km range. It is a very advanced weapon that comes with a satellite for initial targeting/midcourse guidance, has onboard computers for target recognition/selection and an active jammer. Terminal homing is done via active/passive radar and IR.

 

Both Granit/Yakhont and Moskit ASMs reportedly perform random evasive manouvering at terminal stage of flight - perhaps not so much to evade SAM and AAA defences directly as to disrupt the targeting systems ability to compute proper firing solutions for them.

 

Personally I see no problem in such manouvres being performed - at Mach 2.5 a few "curves" to their flight path will make them very difficult to intercept - not least considering the short reaction time available to the defenders.

 

It should be mentioned that the Yakhont/BrahMos can undertake a secondary role as auto-piloted land attack missile and carry a nuclear warhead.

 

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Hi Evil,

 

These numbers suggest that the R-77RVV-AE is operational with the IAF, at a minimum with the upgraded MiG-21s and the Su-30s. In October 1998, a locally-upgraded MiG-29 test-fired a R-77RVV-AE air-to-air missile

 

Beat me to it :)

 

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

Sounds about right...last-moment evasion to throw off CIWS, straight in otherwise to minimize time to target.

[D-Scythe]

Point is though, these curves are going to do nothing to throw off a Phoenix launched at it BEFORE the terminal phase. If I understood JJ correctly, these evasive manuevers (which don't seem to be very elaborate in any case) are executed within several miles of its target during the end game, rather than over BVR where they would be engaged by Standard SAMs or fleet air defense aircraft. It's more a counter to short range defenses, if I'm correct in assuming so.

 

So the point still stands - during the likely point of interception by SM-2 Standards and fleet air defense, the main defense cruise missiles have is either stealth or speed. And back to the original point, the advantages the AIM-120 has over the Phoenix is meaningless as speed and range is more important than agility.

[Alfa]

Sounds about right...last-moment evasion to throw off CIWS, straight in otherwise to minimize time to target.

 

Yes most CIWS have a tremendous firing rate, which in turn means that their fire is concentrated in short intense bursts of only a few seconds duration followed by a cool-off time. Since they need to know in advance where the target will be by the time the rounds reach a particular point in space, it is very important that the supporting radar can predict this accurately. The evasive "spasms" performed by the missile could be just enough to "over-load" the target-processing of the defender and cause the CIWS to exhaust its burst time - firing its "cloud of led" in the wrong direction.

 

- JJ.