Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ike 2K# on April 16, 2003, 02:15:24 AM
-
can you translate this for me? need to know what it says
(http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/R-73.gif)
-
Looks like a MiG-31 using an off-bore sighting missile. The diagram shows it killing an F-16 on its 6.
Sorry, I don't read Russian, but this technology definately exists.
-
I can translate the title:
Wishful Thinking.
-
Old news, Clint did this in Firefox back in the 80's!
plus, the firefox systems were controlled by electrodes in the pilot's helmet !
Wishful thinking at its best !
-
Its pretty much self explanertory(sp?). (No time to translate now)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Aircraft used in test is either Su-27P or Su-30M
Taking another look at it... it does look like a flanker.
-
A missile launched in backward direction
with combined aerodynamical/gas-dynamical controls.
A missile is being developed, based on R-73, for use on the fighter, bomber, transport and anti-submarine planes. Provides the protection of rear hemisphere. Launched in the direction opposite to the direction of flight.
Scheme: Trajectory of the "backward" start missile. From left to right: carrier, missile, target.
Next paragraph:
Missile provides the destruction of aerial targets in day and night time, in presence of natural and organized interference, against earth or water surface. No limitations for special launch conditions, works as "fire and forget" missile.
Technical parameters:
Launch mass: 115kg
Length: 3.2m
Diameter: 0.17m
Wingspan: 0.404m
Target altitude range: 0.05 - 13km
Range: 1-12km
Targeting (homing) method - passive infrared
Targeting angles: 60 degrees
Warhead mass: 7.4kg
Locks on target according to targeting information from rear-hemisphere onboard radar.
Special features:
Controlled flight with angle of attack 180-90 degrees at Vx<0 with gas-dynamical controls. Launches from rail.
Analogues not known.
Development status: experimental stage.
Launches performed from Su-27 at M<0 and M>0.
-
hmmmmmm, i saw the ASRAAM missile video being launched from the F/A-18 and it did could do the same as the experimental R-73 missile.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
hmmmmmm, i saw the ASRAAM missile video being launched from the F/A-18 and it did could do the same as the experimental R-73 missile.
Where did you get this leaflet? Looks like some advertisement from an airshow in early-90s. Or even some classified report for brass-hats from 80s. Language is extremely official (if I can use this words together :))
I don't follow news on modern jet aviation, but the only place where I saw a backward-fireing missile was Ocean's "F-22 Retaliator". BTW, was a beautiful game, I still have printed manual and mission descriptions somewhere. :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Where did you get this leaflet? Looks like some advertisement from an airshow in early-90s. Or even some classified report for brass-hats from 80s. Language is extremely official (if I can use this words together :))
I don't follow news on modern jet aviation, but the only place where I saw a backward-fireing missile was Ocean's "F-22 Retaliator". BTW, was a beautiful game, I still have printed manual and mission descriptions somewhere. :)
can a normal R-73 (the one that is being used in MiG-29s and Su-27s) "Archer" fire and kill the target at the rear?
-
Can't the F-22 Raptor perform this now? I know the Russian's have had this "kind" of capabitlity for a while now.
-
Didn't the MiG-35 "Firefox" carry these?
-
IMHO, rear firing missiles are not that difficult to develop if you think about it. I think the question or should we say answer is how each side resolved to develop its weapons systems based on forcasting its own threats during wartime or encounters with an enemy opfor (hehe, learned this new term from playing that AA game). Alls you got to do for rear firing missiles is have a missile pointing backwards, rear area radar cone that generates numbers for the computer, slave that info for initial data to the puter/system in the rear aspect missile (where to start and go I guess?), fire that sucker in at the bandit at your six. All this extra equipment takes weight though so in my opinion its really a question of, will our pilots need this in war time? I guess the Russions felt they did.
Ehem, just my own opinion, I have zero credentials in any real world air combat stuff. Closest I've been to a real mig is 1/2 a mile standing on the ground with my jaw wide open.
EDIT: Add to that the increase power output of modern day fighters in development and you got the potential to add some new powerfull capabilities to your energy fighters of today.
-
Now that I think about it, even if the rear aspect capabilities of a fighter system sucked, it would probably make a bandit turn offset to his original path to avoid a hit from a missile. This would allow the rear aspect missile capable fighter to quickly reverse and fire a more or at least another equally accurate shot at the original shooter. Hopefully he doesnt have rear aspect capability as well. Im imagining this sort of fight and sort of laughing, lol.
-
Need to add this bit of thought as well. In the encounter above, if its BVR I assume the bandits turn then unload and go mach speed or head for the hills or something. However if its a close range encounter then I guess the bandit might not turn opposite or at least too hard (save enegry for the break?) but would still sort of head towards the incoming missile then break at a given distance? I guess the above applies to BVR then.
-
Ehem, ok so since Im "extended" in this thread might as well add that the tango above then becomes a:
bandits...
1 vs 1 <-- incoming 1 ?
2 vs 2 <== incoming 2 ?
Thats not fun, that sort of sucks then. Ok my ranting is done.
-
I can think of 17 reasons why you are wrong in some of the things you say.
1) Yor not a real fighter pilot.
2) You learned that stuff playing AH or EF2000 or something.
3) You made up most of that balony.
4) Yor not a real fighter pilot.
*
*
*17) Its all based on luck, ok.
Go buy yourself a cup of coffee.
-
Unless the missile can reach a velocity significantly higher than a launchig aircraft by the time it leaves the rail, it'll flip over and shoot a launching plane.
Anyone knows what kind of acceleration a missile can achieve?
-
Ike, I doubt that Russian VVS has rear-fireing missiles now. In fact most of the weapons that you see in "Su-27 Flanker" game are officially adopted by VVS, but never were bought in significant numbers. At least it's as it was about 5 uears ago. Now the situation have changed when Putin gives some support to the military, and due to situation after 09/11.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Ike, I doubt that Russian VVS has rear-fireing missiles now. In fact most of the weapons that you see in "Su-27 Flanker" game are officially adopted by VVS, but never were bought in significant numbers. At least it's as it was about 5 uears ago. Now the situation have changed when Putin gives some support to the military, and due to situation after 09/11.
Are the VVS pilots well trained to use BVR missiles, ACMs (air combat manuvers), and that rear firing missile? I heard that fuel shortages there lowers the flight hours of Su-27 and other aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
Are the VVS pilots well trained to use BVR missiles, ACMs (air combat manuvers), and that rear firing missile? I heard that fuel shortages there lowers the flight hours of Su-27 and other aircraft.
Again: I doubt that a rear-fireing missile reached the VVS regiments.
Planes like MiG-31 are specially designed for BVR combat.
Flight hours are significantly increased in past few years, but I can't give you exact numbers. I am not a jet aviation enthusiast, I can ask at http://www.sukhoi.ru board, but frankly speaking I am too lazy.
The whole situation in VVS is very strange now, after it was united with PVO (aircraft defence). For example: MiG-31s are PVO interceptors. At college military department we studied some things about PVO aircraft and SAM/Radiotechnical corps cooperation. BVR combat was not very important when the hostilities take place in the zone of friendly aircraft defence, echeloned and coordinated with early warning radars and planes, all ranges and altitudes covered by different classes of SAMs, from short-range low-alt S-125 (capable to intercept a 76mm artillery shell) to S-200 with it's range of 250+km.
The best BVR weapon is an S-300 SAM brigade on undiscovered position, getting targeting information from AWACS planes, sattelites and the radiotechnical corps grid.
BTW, S-200 long-range stationary SAM brigades were the first targets for your Minuteman ICBMs.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW, S-200 long-range stationary SAM brigades were the first targets for your Minuteman ICBMs.
You have ABMs??? (anti-balistic missiles) LOL it takes more than 100 billion dollars in the united states just to develop a useless ABM missile and i cant dig that you guys have it.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
You have ABMs??? (anti-balistic missiles) LOL it takes more than 100 billion dollars in the united states just to develop a useless ABM missile and i cant dig that you guys have it.
in russia, abm=3 guys on the coast with rpg's
-
Originally posted by Martlet
in russia, abm=3 guys on the coast with rpg's
This is the S-300 missile. An anti-ballistic/anti-cruise missile
(http://www.tribulation.com/images/russ-300.jpg)
This is the equivalent of the Patriot missile (oh pleeese dont even tell me that they copied it)
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
This is the S-300 missile. An anti-ballistic/anti-cruise missile
(http://www.tribulation.com/images/russ-300.jpg)
This is the equivalent of the Patriot missile (oh pleeese dont even tell me that they copied it)
The russians come up with all kinds of neat crap. Too bad it's just that.....crap.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
You have ABMs??? (anti-balistic missiles) LOL it takes more than 100 billion dollars in the united states just to develop a useless ABM missile and i cant dig that you guys have it.
First ICBM itercept was performed in USSR on March, 4th, 1960 :p
Now we have a second generation ABM shield over Moscow, deployed in late-80s. First generation ABM system was deployed in early-70s, that's why US insited on 1972 ABM treaty, now wasted as useless.
In early-70s first ABMs had 1 megaton warheads, intercept alt 5-300km. A megaton explosion below 5km makes the whole concept useless :) Around 1975 they solved the problem of target selection (recognizing the real warhead in a "cloud" of decoys), and switched to conventional warhead.
My Uncle worked in a PVO research center in Priozersk, Kazakhstan, after his "missions" in Vietnam and Middle East. He retired in 1990, he was a leader of the "combat algorythms department". They worked with Elbrus supercomputers, probably the last original Soviet calculating system.
He told me that this ABM compex can reliably intercept up to 10 warheads aimed at Moscow. It's more of a protection from an occasional launch then from a full-scale attack. US developes it's "NMD" system only because Russia is supposed to scrap (according to SORT, that probably will be never ratified after the recent affairs) it's MIRV ICBMs that can penetrate almost any ABM shield. More then 50% of their load are fake targets and active ECM jammers.
BTW, I meant that S-200 positions were the targets for ICBMs, but I don't know if this monster can intercept them. Maybe yes :) That SAM's main target was B-52 formations, the "special" warhead was a 10kiloton nuke. The "ordinary" warhead is able to shred B-52 literaly into little pieces if it explodes at 60m distance. It's a system of a "first strike" defence, it has only 2-3 ready missiles per launcher, others are stored assembled, with compressed air, but not fueled. Technical division has to fuel them as they are spent. If it's not destroyed in first few hours - we have to assemble missiles out of factory containers... The damn thing is 11m long, launch thrust is over 160 tons, warhead is 300kg (60000 steel balls of different diameter), capable of mach 4+. Semi-active radar homing, new 5V28m missiles are rumoured to have IR and active radar homing too, capable to hit the target after the illuminating station is turned off or destroyed. Very resistable to ECM interference. Simple as a 3 kopeyka coin. Great design for late-50s. The Soviet klystron tubes were only 0.5 meter long, while American ones with the same output were the size of a refrigirator ;)
S-300 can be used as a ABM point-defence, but it's not a main target for this SAM.
"Optimists invented airplanes, pessimists invented parachutes, cynics invented surface-air missiles" ;)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
in russia, abm=3 guys on the coast with rpg's
In america - "city" is a village of 2 houses and 1 pig-sty
:D
Only bright American engineers could launch a Minuteman missile so that it have fallen to Cuba. Delivered to USSR it made our designers laugh their prettythanges off. They called it a "stone-age" design.
-
actually Russia had some great weapons.. their gov't spent all the money on the military instead of balancing it out and helping out their economy, people, etc..
but Boroda is right.. they defiantely had some great hardware.
scared the hell out of us for a while ..specially the mobile stuff
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
actually Russia had some great weapons.. their gov't spent all the money on the military instead of balancing it out and helping out their economy, people, etc..
but Boroda is right.. they defiantely had some great hardware.
scared the hell out of us for a while ..specially the mobile stuff
The key word in your entire post.......had.
Now, they can't even clean out a group of rebels.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
actually Russia had some great weapons.. their gov't spent all the money on the military instead of balancing it out and helping out their economy, people, etc..
but Boroda is right.. they defiantely had some great hardware.
scared the hell out of us for a while ..specially the mobile stuff
The whole economics was working for military-industrial compex... more then 60% of budget... More then 90% of industry was producing non-consumer goods... :(
Balancing was impossible, since late-40s it was clear that we will be attacked as soon as the "possible enemy" will find any weakness :(
Only the Bomb costed us almost as much as War. Post-war development was unbelievable. 12 years after the Victory we were in space. In late-50s/early-60s we have beaten "possible enemy" in almost any technological field. But such tension couldn't be sustained any longer.
-
Balancing was impossible, since late-40s it was clear that we will be attacked as soon as the "possible enemy" will find any weakness
hmm.. I think your country men (and yourself) belived we would invade given the chance... thing is though, we didn't want to.. all we wanted to do was make sure we weren't taken over by communism..
(and back and forth....)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The key word in your entire post.......had.
Now, they can't even clean out a group of rebels.
JFYI: we still have manned spaceships and cheapest space launch vehicles per kilogramm. We still can build long-time space life-support systems, that you are unable to design for 30 years.
About cleaning the "group of rebels" - in 1944 they were cleaned in one night. We still can do it, but we do care about human lives.
Our goals are completely different from yours. Your "victory conditions" in Afghanistan were achieved in less then one week in 1979, by "partizans", reservists dressed in WWII uniforms with three-line rifles and PPSh-s (pronounced: "Pe-Pe-ShA). Your "victory conditions" (what is called a "victory" in Iraq) was achieved in one week of hostilites in 1999 in Chechnya.
The problem is that we come not to murder and steal, not to support civil disorder - but to enforce law and stability.
Mratlet, I understand that you are pissed-off by my avatar, but it's not the reason to refuse from employing your brain tissue (if you have some).
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
hmm.. I think your country men (and yourself) belived we would invade given the chance... thing is though, we didn't want to.. all we wanted to do was make sure we weren't taken over by communism..
(and back and forth....)
It's a minimax.
I hope you know about plans of nuclear attack on USSR like "Charioter" and so on.
Both sides said they want peace.
The whole damn thing started in 1946, and both sides are guilty.
Europe was turned into a possible battlefield of two superpowers.
We had to live in fear of a nuclear attack. Frankly speaking this fear is still deep in my mind. The first thing I thought about when I heard about 09/11 attack was "damn they will strike us!!!", and I started to look for ICBM warhead trails in the sky :( In 1999 I thought that the result of an agression against Yugoslavia will be a full-scale nuclear release...
About Communism - I think for any sane person it can be no more then a religion. In this angle of view I can be called a Communist. I don't believe in social revolutions, working class dictatorship and other crap, I only know that if everyone (me at the first place) will start doing something good for everyone, without any material motivation, the world will be much better. That's what I can call my "personal Communism".
Linux community is a great example of Communism.
-
yes I know.. and agree with you.
part of this fear that you still feel today was caused by the governments (your and mine) instilling this fear..for their own purposes..
I admit that for many years, especially after serving during the cold-war, I was fearful and couldn't get it out of my head.
too much info for me at the time.. I was overloaded.
I only know that if everyone (me at the first place) will start doing something good for everyone, without any material motivation, the world will be much better.
and to that I drink!!! (it is Friday here after all)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
JFYI: we still have manned spaceships and cheapest space launch vehicles per kilogramm. We still can build long-time space life-support systems, that you are unable to design for 30 years.
About cleaning the "group of rebels" - in 1944 they were cleaned in one night. We still can do it, but we do care about human lives.
Our goals are completely different from yours. Your "victory conditions" in Afghanistan were achieved in less then one week in 1979, by "partizans", reservists dressed in WWII uniforms with three-line rifles and PPSh-s (pronounced: "Pe-Pe-ShA). Your "victory conditions" (what is called a "victory" in Iraq) was achieved in one week of hostilites in 1999 in Chechnya.
The problem is that we come not to murder and steal, not to support civil disorder - but to enforce law and stability.
Mratlet, I understand that you are pissed-off by my avatar, but it's not the reason to refuse from employing your brain tissue (if you have some).
Why would I be pissed off by your avatar?
I'm just amazed that you actually believe every thing you write. It's sad to think someone can get that brainwashed. I'm glad it isn't indicative of all Russians.
-
Man look at these "DICKHEADS":D
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/icbm_1.jpg)
*note that the "white" missiles are US (small) and "black and gray" ones are the USSR (bigger)
For americans, they dont have to worry because we can E-BOMB (Marlett's wonder weapon) their (russian) nuke silos or the S-300 S.A.M. instalations in the future.
The E-Bomb is under testing phase in the U.S.A. and it makes EVERY electronic equipment from Televisions to Defence instalations USELESS. HEY!!! dont forget to lock the vault to prevent from other countries (like russia) from stealing it.
Check out the E-BOMB technology
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm
-
Hmmm, i wonder if E-bomb warhead can be placed in an air-to-air missile? Instead of obliterating the MiGs into pieces, the E-BOMB will will send signals 5 miles away from the target and "fry" the electronics equipment in the MiGs and make those MiGs offenseless as a force and they will be like a flying "glider" after their systems are "fried".
-
this e-bomb will make marlett happy:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
For americans, they dont have to worry because we can E-BOMB (Marlett's wonder weapon) their (russian) nuke silos or the S-300 S.A.M. instalations in the future.
The E-Bomb is under testing phase in the U.S.A. and it makes EVERY electronic equipment from Televisions to Defence instalations USELESS. HEY!!! dont forget to lock the vault to prevent from other countries (like russia) from stealing it.
Check out the E-BOMB technology
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm
What does E-BOMB offer over nuclear warhead? It propably creates much weaker EMP than a nuclear warhead, against which the installations are protected.
-
Originally posted by mora
What does E-BOMB offer over nuclear warhead? It propably creates much weaker EMP than a nuclear warhead, against which the installations are protected.
BUT! the E-bomb it will fry (kill) the guidance systems of the sov-errr russian ICBMs if it launched while the E-bomb is sending waves to fry their system and the ICBMs will fall back to their country:D :D :D
-
U.S. B52s wouldn't have lasted a minute over Russian airspace.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
U.S. B52s wouldn't have lasted a minute over Russian airspace.
B-52 just have to launch Cruise missiles with EMP warheads to their silos so the B-52 wont have to risk being "electronically fried".
-
Looks like something Kongsberg is working on, a surface launched AMRAAM (that is alreay in use called NASAAMS MK2) that has a "re-attack" mode so it can engage attack helos behind hills in oposite direction of launcher facing..
If that made any sence :)
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
For americans, they dont have to worry because we can E-BOMB (Marlett's wonder weapon) their (russian) nuke silos or the S-300 S.A.M. instalations in the future.
The E-Bomb is under testing phase in the U.S.A. and it makes EVERY electronic equipment from Televisions to Defence instalations USELESS. HEY!!! dont forget to lock the vault to prevent from other countries (like russia) from stealing it.
Check out the E-BOMB technology
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm
"E-bomb" is called "Explosive magnetic generator", and was tested here in late-50s. It was one of the works by Andrey Sakharov. We studied such things in college, but noone showed us working models, or given any model names or numbers. Maybe beacause we had the lowest possible classified access, "form three". I was lucky to quit college before I was granted higher access level ;)
Anyway, it's muuuuch less powerfull then nuclear weapon EM impulse, and most of strategic equipment is immune to such attacks. ICBMs are designed using mechanical relays and electronic tubes, at least critical parts. Modern SAMs use transistors and ICs, but many of them (like S-200) use mostly tubes. BTW, it's one of the reasons why Americans were so surprised by Belenko's MiG-25. The problem is to find the right balance between combat effectiveness and protection.
"For every smart prettythang there is a dic|< with a screw" ;)