Missile Discussion

[GGTharos]

you said RVV-AE has been designed to be a 50km range missile, and that RAF will put that inside a T50 and that is completely absurd.

So actually I feel fine and fortunetely fine enough to understand your BS.

 

You can feel fine, but you're still the BSer :D

 

You're still not getting it: The RuAF will put WHATEVER THEY HAVE in the T-50. Currently, that's their 50km RVV-AE. They have a new RVV in development, whenever that bears fruit. It doesn't matter what you think they'll put in there, all that matters is what they have, and what they have is definitely not your wishful thinking.

 

 

apparently, BVR was diabled after the USAF required that (top secret data protection or bad advertising protection ?)....anyways there is no RWR conclusions to get from that...however and as I have told you before the score Rafale-Raptor was 0-1 only.

Apparently, no one knows what happened and no one can agree on what went on. So as I will tell you again, it is very hard to come to any conclusions from such exercises. If USAF didn't want to play 'sniff the trons' with the French, that makes sense to me. I'm with RIPTIDE's take on this ;)

[FLANKERATOR]

You can feel fine, but you're still the BSer :D

You're still not getting it: The RuAF will put WHATEVER THEY HAVE in the T-50. Currently, that's their 50km RVV-AE. They have a new RVV in development, whenever that bears fruit. It doesn't matter what you think they'll put in there, all that matters is what they have, and what they have is definitely not your wishful thinking.

 

WHAT THEY HAVE, you will probably NEVER know :D

it takes way more then being selfproclaimed specialist...a.k.a BSer...

Edited December 21, 2010 by FLANKERATOR

[GGTharos]

I'm sorry. You're making up missiles in inventory and calling me a BSer? :)

 

WHAT THEY HAVE, you will probably NEVER know :D

it takes way more then being selfproclaimed specialist...a.k.a BSer...

[Frostie]

"Although French aviators showed off a great deal about the "beatings" inflicted by their Rafales on British Typhoons during the last ATLC exercise in the United Arab Emirates, very little was said about the confrontation between Dassault's delta-wing aircraft and the American F-22As. In out-of-visual-range engagements, the American Raptors did not even condescend to turn on their radars, remaining invisible to the Rafale's RBE2 [radar system] and Spectra [self-defense system] while precisely locating the electromagnetic waves from the French fighter, thus securing their AMRAAM [missile] launches from a secure distance. On two occasions at least, the F-22As also "tangled" with the Rafales in close combat, securing a "gun kill" each time without much difficulty."

I've looked into this story and found some interesting stuff.

 

Lt Colonel Grandclaudon revealed that during ATLC itself, Rafale and Typhoon were always on the same side (as EF GmbH had claimed), and that there were no engagements between the two types during ATLC itself.

 

He claimed that on one occasion during the CT phase that took place before the ATLC exercise, two Rafales fought four Typhoons , and that in two engagements the Rafales won – gaining a 4:0 score on one occasion, and a 3:1 score on the other.

 

He made it clear that the Rafales were flying as ‘red air’, simulating a generic threat carrying two AA-10C each, in single target mode) while the weaponload for the four ‘Blue’ Typhoons and the RoE were not specified. These were, obviously, BVR kills using simulated AA-10C. “We were training assets for RAF pilots, still growing on Typhoon” he said.

 

Interesting to note that Airforces around the globe consider the Alamo AA-10C a very real BVR threat, while some on these forums choose to question its abilty against fighters.

[GGTharos]

Because it is a missile anticipated to be in inventory in greater numbers. The ones who question it's ability against fighters are actual users, but this may just be due to inventory levels. They say 'R-27ER good against bombers, not so much against fighters' but they never explain why.

 

As for the active version ... there is no (known to us anyway) example of it being used in the wild. They may as well say they are training against KS-172, it doesn't mean much.

 

Interesting to note that Airforces around the globe consider the Alamo AA-10C a very real BVR threat, while some on these forums choose to question its abilty against fighters.

Edited December 23, 2010 by GGTharos

[combatace]

I've looked into this story and found some interesting stuff.

 

Lt Colonel Grandclaudon revealed that during ATLC itself, Rafale and Typhoon were always on the same side (as EF GmbH had claimed), and that there were no engagements between the two types during ATLC itself.

 

He claimed that on one occasion during the CT phase that took place before the ATLC exercise, two Rafales fought four Typhoons , and that in two engagements the Rafales won – gaining a 4:0 score on one occasion, and a 3:1 score on the other.

 

He made it clear that the Rafales were flying as ‘red air’, simulating a generic threat carrying two AA-10C each, in single target mode) while the weaponload for the four ‘Blue’ Typhoons and the RoE were not specified. These were, obviously, BVR kills using simulated AA-10C. “We were training assets for RAF pilots, still growing on Typhoon” he said.

 

Interesting to note that Airforces around the globe consider the Alamo AA-10C a very real BVR threat, while some on these forums choose to question its abilty against fighters.

 

You say some and you found one. Good you even did had to go far to search.:megalol:

[FLANKERATOR]

SOURCE : http://www.janes.com/

 

RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCE: IHS Jane’s won the Publisher of the Year Award at the Digital Publishing 2010 Awards held by the Data Publishers Association (DPA).

 

ARTICLE:

 

The R-27 (Izdeliye 470, NATO codename AA-10 'Alamo') is Russia's fourth-generation beyond visual range (BVR) missile system, designed to equip the Su-27 'Flanker' and MiG-29 'Fulcrum' generation of combat aircraft. The R-27 was developed by the Vympel State Machine-Building Design Bureau and has evolved into a highly capable family of modular missiles with a combination of different motor and seeker systems. Work on the R-27 (K-27 in development) began in the 1970s and three basic versions were initially produced - the semi-active radar homing R-27R (AA-10 'Alamo-A'), the IR-guided R-27T (AA-10 'Alamo-B') and the passive RF homing R-27P (AA-10 'Alamo-E'). The R-27P variant was not identified by Western intelligence until long after it had been completed.When a new enlarged rocket motor was developed in the mid-1980s, the so-called 'long Alamo', extended range R-27E (E, Energitisheskaya) versions of the missile were fielded as the R-27ER (AA-10 'Alamo-C') and the R-27ET (AA-10 'Alamo-D'). For the export market missiles have been given a '1' suffix, leading to the R-27R1, R-27ER1, R-27T1 and R-27ET1.The baseline R-27 variants were all in Russian Air Force service by around 1982. It is not clear if the R-27P entered service at the same time, but Vympel describes this highly classified variant as one of the three original R-27 standards. Most reports indicate that the R-27P did not enter service until the 1990s. Russia's missile makers have long pursued a policy of fielding active and passive variants of their BVR missiles. This gives pilots a 'stealthy' engagement capability.

 

[GGTharos]

Do you have a source like say, ah, for example the PVO listing them as being in inventory? That's the real metric.

 

RIPTIDE tried to make an inquiry with nearly the only source that matters, and they ain't talking. So far various AF's using Russian equipment have shown up using R-27R/T and RVV-AE, but never any other R-27 seeker variant. So, do you have any sources that might possibly show that a real airforce is using them, or is all you have a bunch of marketing and one or two sources that have definitely been wrong before?

 

So far there has not been a single reliable sighting of report of these variants.

Rosoboronexport brochure does not even mention the alternative variants: http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html

 

I don't need a source to deny it, you need a credible source to prove it is being used, because so far all indications are that it is not. Even those who have contacts in the RuAF don't seem to think these missiles are in use ... so what better sources than that do you have?

 

any better source to deny it? or is it ANOTHER personal opinion??

Edited December 25, 2010 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

The R-27A variant? As far as it is known, it was ditched by the RuAF for two reasons: They had the RVV-AE coming (Active, better, newer, hello?) and they weren't able to upgrade their FCRs at that time to use the missile - that came with the Su-27 upgrade.

 

Shall I start campaigning for ramjet AMRAAMs now, because 'you never know'? How about AIM-54C on F-15, since it's been done already and 'you never know' ... how about PAC-3's on F-15C's since it's been proposed and ... 'you never know'?

 

People just because there are no pictures or because people aren't talking about it doesn't mean that the Russian active missiles don't exits. Taking a " No it is not possible; it does't exist" position is a mistake.

[Pilotasso]

any better source to deny it? or is it ANOTHER personal opinion??

I think the question is the other way around, you cannot make a point by just having an assumption waiting for the proof of contrary. Instead you must first prove it to be accepted. Thats the proper logic.

[Groove]

[This thread is a essence from another thread which was derailed by this side discussion plus personal attacks. I have decided to let this discussion continue but obviously everyone have to behave.]

[Groove]

Sorry, i had forgotten to re-open the thread.

[nscode]

It might look like it might be dangerous, but modern fighters aren't using STT much anymore, and they frequency-hop like mofos. That's not so bad for a stationary target, but a target that's moving at mach 2 in three dimensions... Yeah... ;)

 

Modern signal detection and location isn't standing still either. By introducing frequency hopping, you have only added another dimension to an already multidimensional problem (more precicely, you can no longer ignore a dimension that was there, but constant). If you can solve any problem in two dimensions, you can solve it N-dimentionally. It's by no means easy, you do need alot more processing power, and you would need to put it all on a tiny missile, but the way things are progressing.. soon the only sensors you're gonna be fooling are the ones from tha last millenium.

 

In the end, turning your radar off is the only sure way of it not being detected, much like the only sure way of not getting infected on the Internet is to disconnect. It's up to you how you will manage the risk.