I didn't get a single word of the above!
Novator K-100 (AWACS killer)
- Thread starter inferno
- Start date
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
hey listen i m not here to give u explanation on Red Flag & Bison performance in Cope India , i know that American kicked u pretty well, i m sick & tired of ppl discussing red flag & Indians cant stand any bad thing about their MKI plz try to digest some criticism n facts, if u have guts answer criticism with facts dont just keep saying 'lol' after every line , its a fact that during red flag IAF did made friendly kills & do this pathetic 'lol' stuff some where else & improve ur English
no doubt u were the person who was telling me that IAF will get F-35 with ToT
Now Buzz off
Last edited:
paritosh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,363
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
from...
Assessing Russian Fighter Technology
"Type vs Type Comparisons
In terms of type vs type comparisons, the most problematic issue is the vast range of variants, subtypes and unique configurations across the US, EU and Russian made fighter fleets. Asking whether a Flanker is better than an F-15 raises the question of which Flanker and which F-15? Su-27S, Su-27SK, Su-27SKM, Su-33, Su-30, Su-30M, Su-30MKK, Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM, Su-35, Su-35BM or Su35-1 vs F-15A/B, F-15C/D, F-15E, F-15I, F-15J, F-15K, F-15SG, and all of the specific blocks and configurations thereof?
If we compare a late model AESA equipped F-15K/SG subtype against the late model Su-35BM/Su-35-1, both likely to be rolled off a production line at the same time, these Flankers will outperform these F-15s in much of the flight envelope, especially at transonic speeds. With the AL-41F engine the Flanker will be able to sustain decent supersonic speed on dry thrust, giving it an energy advantage throughout the envelope. How much supercruise capability the hybrid AL-31F-117 series engine will provide remains to be seen. With conformal fuel tanks the F-15 will have comparable range to the Flanker with external PTB-2000 drop tanks. Equipped with the Irbis E the Sukhoi will achieve a first look / shot capability over the F-15 with an APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. In terms of EWSP capability, the Sorbstiya jammers will deliver better EIRP than the legacy ALQ-135 series, and the Khibiny-M will be comparable to the ALR-56M series. An area of uncertainty is how much of their newer radar signature suppression technology the Russians will incorporate in export Flankers.
In performing an overall summary, the Flanker will outperform or match the F-15 in most cardinal parameters and capabilities.
The other production Boeing fighter is the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet with its much vaunted APG-79 AESA radar. The Su-35BM/Su-35-1 outperforms it on all cardinal parameters, including radar range, but excluding the somewhat academic measure of clean radar signature – academic since in combat external stores must be carried by both fighters.
Lockheed's F-16E / Block 60 subtype with AESA and conformal fuel tanks is not competitive against the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 on any parameters, the Sukhoi cleanly outclasses it across the board.
The Lockheed-Martin F-35 JSF will be outclassed in all cardinal performance parameters, with the exception of radar signature when the JSF is flown clean with internal stores only. That advantage may also be entirely academic if the Flanker is networked with low frequency band radar to cue it to the JSF. It is also not entirely clear whether the radar signature of the export variants of the JSF will be low enough to deny lock-on by the powerful Irbis E at useful missile ranges.
The Eurofighter Typhoon with AMSAR will compete with the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 in terms of close combat agility and dash speed, but it does not have a decisive advantage in systems and sensors and cannot match the radar range of the Irbis E, and will not match a supercruise engine equipped Flanker.
The Dassault Rafale share many qualities with the Typhoon, but is smaller, and much the same comparisons apply to the Su-35BM/Su-35-1.
A key advantage the Flanker will possess against all but the conformal tank equipped F-15 is combat persistence, which provides far more flexibility in choosing engagements and the opportunity to run an opponent out of gas.
The smaller MiG-35 shares the high agility of the Su-35BM/Su-35-1, but lacks its brute force in raw performance, combat persistence, radar range, and internal volume for mission avionics. All of the Western fighters will compare more favourably against the MiG-35 series, but this may be another entirely academic comparison given that none have been ordered as yet.
The only Western fighter which offers a decisive advantage in all cardinal parameters over the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 is the Lockheed-Martin F-22A Raptor. On internal fuel and subsonic profiles the Flanker will outrange the F-22A slightly, and it is likely that in high alpha low speed manoeuvre the Flanker may perform better. However, in the classical high altitude high speed long range missile combat regime the Raptor will beat the Flanker every time due to the generational advantages of all aspect wideband stealth and supersonic cruise. "
Assessing Russian Fighter Technology
"Type vs Type Comparisons
In terms of type vs type comparisons, the most problematic issue is the vast range of variants, subtypes and unique configurations across the US, EU and Russian made fighter fleets. Asking whether a Flanker is better than an F-15 raises the question of which Flanker and which F-15? Su-27S, Su-27SK, Su-27SKM, Su-33, Su-30, Su-30M, Su-30MKK, Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM, Su-35, Su-35BM or Su35-1 vs F-15A/B, F-15C/D, F-15E, F-15I, F-15J, F-15K, F-15SG, and all of the specific blocks and configurations thereof?
If we compare a late model AESA equipped F-15K/SG subtype against the late model Su-35BM/Su-35-1, both likely to be rolled off a production line at the same time, these Flankers will outperform these F-15s in much of the flight envelope, especially at transonic speeds. With the AL-41F engine the Flanker will be able to sustain decent supersonic speed on dry thrust, giving it an energy advantage throughout the envelope. How much supercruise capability the hybrid AL-31F-117 series engine will provide remains to be seen. With conformal fuel tanks the F-15 will have comparable range to the Flanker with external PTB-2000 drop tanks. Equipped with the Irbis E the Sukhoi will achieve a first look / shot capability over the F-15 with an APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. In terms of EWSP capability, the Sorbstiya jammers will deliver better EIRP than the legacy ALQ-135 series, and the Khibiny-M will be comparable to the ALR-56M series. An area of uncertainty is how much of their newer radar signature suppression technology the Russians will incorporate in export Flankers.
In performing an overall summary, the Flanker will outperform or match the F-15 in most cardinal parameters and capabilities.
The other production Boeing fighter is the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet with its much vaunted APG-79 AESA radar. The Su-35BM/Su-35-1 outperforms it on all cardinal parameters, including radar range, but excluding the somewhat academic measure of clean radar signature – academic since in combat external stores must be carried by both fighters.
Lockheed's F-16E / Block 60 subtype with AESA and conformal fuel tanks is not competitive against the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 on any parameters, the Sukhoi cleanly outclasses it across the board.
The Lockheed-Martin F-35 JSF will be outclassed in all cardinal performance parameters, with the exception of radar signature when the JSF is flown clean with internal stores only. That advantage may also be entirely academic if the Flanker is networked with low frequency band radar to cue it to the JSF. It is also not entirely clear whether the radar signature of the export variants of the JSF will be low enough to deny lock-on by the powerful Irbis E at useful missile ranges.
The Eurofighter Typhoon with AMSAR will compete with the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 in terms of close combat agility and dash speed, but it does not have a decisive advantage in systems and sensors and cannot match the radar range of the Irbis E, and will not match a supercruise engine equipped Flanker.
The Dassault Rafale share many qualities with the Typhoon, but is smaller, and much the same comparisons apply to the Su-35BM/Su-35-1.
A key advantage the Flanker will possess against all but the conformal tank equipped F-15 is combat persistence, which provides far more flexibility in choosing engagements and the opportunity to run an opponent out of gas.
The smaller MiG-35 shares the high agility of the Su-35BM/Su-35-1, but lacks its brute force in raw performance, combat persistence, radar range, and internal volume for mission avionics. All of the Western fighters will compare more favourably against the MiG-35 series, but this may be another entirely academic comparison given that none have been ordered as yet.
The only Western fighter which offers a decisive advantage in all cardinal parameters over the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 is the Lockheed-Martin F-22A Raptor. On internal fuel and subsonic profiles the Flanker will outrange the F-22A slightly, and it is likely that in high alpha low speed manoeuvre the Flanker may perform better. However, in the classical high altitude high speed long range missile combat regime the Raptor will beat the Flanker every time due to the generational advantages of all aspect wideband stealth and supersonic cruise. "
Regarding APG-66 detection ranges, this was given a long time ago in a General Dynamics report (drawing reproduced in F-16 Aerofax)
Measured ranges
Lookup:
T-38: 27nm
F-4 40nm
Lookdown:
T-38: 19nm
F-16: 24nm
F-4: 29nm
F-111: 40nm
Predicted ranges
Lookup:
MiG-23: 40nm
MiG-25: 49nm
Tu-95: 75nm
Lookdown:
MiG-23: 29nm
MiG-25: 35nm
Tu-95: 56nm
http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/ab/ba0245.htm
Measured ranges
Lookup:
T-38: 27nm
F-4 40nm
Lookdown:
T-38: 19nm
F-16: 24nm
F-4: 29nm
F-111: 40nm
Predicted ranges
Lookup:
MiG-23: 40nm
MiG-25: 49nm
Tu-95: 75nm
Lookdown:
MiG-23: 29nm
MiG-25: 35nm
Tu-95: 56nm
http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/ab/ba0245.htm
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
well Russians dont follow that Peter(i hope thats what they call it)model of stealth reduces RCS. soviets rejected the idea of airframe shaping and RAM methods of stealth because they found it vulnerable to their radar systems which probably explains how a f117 got shot down by a late 1950s missile (if you ignore 1000s of rubbish excuses, no offense ok)
About russian claims thats another story how they claim it when they dont have a genuine stealth fighter & i say again that this numerical superiority + hard points can work pretty well, the report that Mr Paritosh posted is a must read...
Righteous_Fire
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 0
Just wanted to post some facts about the K-100
===================================
Type air-to-air missile
Place of origin India/Russia
Production history
Manufacturer NPO Novator
Specifications
Weight 748 kg (1,650 lb) (KS172)1
Length 6.01 m (19.7 ft) + 1.4 m (4.6 ft) (KS172)1
Diameter 40 cm (16 in) (KS172)1
Warhead HE fragmentation (KS172)1
Warhead weight 50 kg (110 lb)
Engine Solid-propellant tandem rocket booster (KS172)1
Wingspan 61 cm (24 in) (KS172)1
Operational
range At least 200km,2 possibly 300400 km (160-210 nmi)
Flight altitude 3 m (9.8 ft)30,000 m (98,000 ft) (KS172)1
Speed "up to" 4,000 km/h (2,500 mph) (KS172)1
Guidance
system inertial navigation with midcourse guidance and active radar for terminal homing (KS172)1
Launch
platform Su-27, Su-30, Su-35,3 Su-30MKI1
The Novator K-100 is a Indian/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer"4 at ranges up to 300400 km (160-210 nmi). The missile has had various names during its troubled history, including Izdeliye 172 ('Article 172'), AAM-L (RVV-L), KS172, KS-1, 172S-1 and R-172. The airframe appears to have been derived from the 9K37 Buk surface-to-air missile (SAM) but development stalled in the mid-1990s for lack of funds.4 It appears to have restarted in 2004 after a deal with India, who wants to produce the missile in India for their Su-30MKI fighters.
Contents
Development
Modern airforces have become dependent on airborne radars typically carried by converted airliners and transport aircraft such as the E-3 Sentry and A-50 'Mainstay'. They also depend on similar aircraft for inflight refuelling (eg Vickers VC10), maritime patrol (eg CP-140 Aurora), reconnaissance and electronic warfare (eg Tu-16 'Badger' E & J) and C4ISTAR (eg VC-25 "Air Force One"). The loss of just one of these aircraft can have a significant effect on fighting capability, and they are usually heavily defended by fighter escorts. A long-range air-to-air missile offers the prospect of bringing down the target without having to fight a way through the fighter screen. Given the potential importance of "blinding" Western AWACS, Russia has devoted considerable resources to this area. The Vympel R-37 (AA-13 'Arrow') is an evolution of their R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') with a range of up to 400 km (220 nmi), and there have been persistent rumours - if little hard evidence - of an air-to-air missile with a range of 200 km (110 nmi) based on Zvezda's Kh-31 anti-radar/anti-shipping missile or its Chinese derivative, the YJ-91.
NPO Novator started work in 1991 on a very long-range air-to-air missile with the Russian project designation Izdeliye 172.3 Initially called the AAM-L (RVV-L), it made its first public appearance at the International Defence Exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1993,5 followed by the Moscow Air Show later that year.3 It was described as having a range of 400 km (220 nmi); the mockup on display had a strong resemblance to the 9K37M1 Buk-M (SA-11 'Gadfly'). Apparently some flight-testing was done on a Su-27, but it appears that the Russians withdrew funding for the project soon afterwards.
The missile resurfaced as the KS172 in 1999,5 as part of a new export-led strategy6 whereby foreign investment in a 300 km (160 nmi)-range export model5 would ultimately fund a version for the Russian airforce.6 Again it appears that there were no takers.
In late 2003, the missile was offered again on the export market as the 172S-1.3 In March 2004, India was reported to have invested in the project and to be "negotiating a partnership" to develop the "R-172"7. In May 2005 the Indians were said to have finalised "an arrangement to fund final development and licence produce the weapon" in a joint venture similar to that which produced the successful BrahMos cruise missile.8 Since then the missile has had a higher profile, appearing at the 2005 Moscow Air Show3 on a Su-30 as the K-172,4 and a modified version being shown at the 2007 Moscow Air Show designated as the K-100-1. This name first appeared in a Sukhoi document in 2006,3 and sources such as Jane's now refer to the missile as the K-100.3
Design
The mockup shown in 1993 had a strong resemblance to the Buk airframe, but since the Indians became involved there have been some changes. An Indian magazine gave the specifications of the KS172 in April 2004 as a core 6.01m long and 40 cm in diameter with a wingspan of 61 cm, with a booster of 1.4m, and 748 kg total weight.1 It had a solid fuel tandem rocket booster capable of speeds up to 4,000 km/h (2,500 mph), 12g manoevring, and an adaptive HE fragmentation warhead.1 Development would concentrate on the seeker head, autopilot, resistance to jamming and a steering system with 3D thrust vector control (TVC).1
In May 2005 it was reported that there were two versions, with and without a rocket booster, with ranges of 400 km and 300 km respectively.8 At the MAKS airshow in August 2005, a range of 300 km was quoted for a streamlined missile with a small booster and fins on both booster and fuselage.4 However the model shown at the 2007 MAKS airshow under the name K-100 was closer to the original 1993 mockup in the photo above, with different-shaped fins that were further up the fuselage, and an even larger booster with TVC vents.9 At the same show it was shown under the wing of a Su-35BM, implying that at least two could be carried by Flanker-class aircraft rather than just one on the centreline.
Guidance is by inertial navigation until the missile is close enough to the target to use active radar for terminal homing.1 The K-100 has an enlarged (350 mm (14 in)) derivative of the Agat 9B-1103M seeker used in the Vympel R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo').2 It has a lock-on range of 40 km (22 nmi), described by an Agat designer as "one fifth or less of the overall range".2
Operational history
As India is the main investor in the K-100, it would first see service on her Su-30MKI aircraft. Russia might be a customer, depending on funding. No in-service date has yet been suggested.
Variants
Photos of the K-100-1 at the 2007 Moscow airshow9 suggest that India is proceeding with the "big booster" long-range variant under that name. A shorter range version without the booster (K-100-2?), as proposed for the R-172 in 2005,8 might be used on smaller planes than the Su-30.
Similar weapons
=====================================
References:
1) Information on Novator_KS-172_AAM-L
2) Information on Category:Russian_and_Soviet_Anti-aircraft_weapons
3) www.ausairpower.net/Evolved-F-111-DP-V.5-S.pdf
4) Hard Kill Counter-ISR Programs
5) The Russian Philosophy of BVR Air Combat
6) Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles
7) International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Chinese Dimensions of the 2005 Moscow Aerospace Show
8) F-22A Raptors for the Marine Corps
=========================================
===================================
Type air-to-air missile
Place of origin India/Russia
Production history
Manufacturer NPO Novator
Specifications
Weight 748 kg (1,650 lb) (KS172)1
Length 6.01 m (19.7 ft) + 1.4 m (4.6 ft) (KS172)1
Diameter 40 cm (16 in) (KS172)1
Warhead HE fragmentation (KS172)1
Warhead weight 50 kg (110 lb)
Engine Solid-propellant tandem rocket booster (KS172)1
Wingspan 61 cm (24 in) (KS172)1
Operational
range At least 200km,2 possibly 300400 km (160-210 nmi)
Flight altitude 3 m (9.8 ft)30,000 m (98,000 ft) (KS172)1
Speed "up to" 4,000 km/h (2,500 mph) (KS172)1
Guidance
system inertial navigation with midcourse guidance and active radar for terminal homing (KS172)1
Launch
platform Su-27, Su-30, Su-35,3 Su-30MKI1
The Novator K-100 is a Indian/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer"4 at ranges up to 300400 km (160-210 nmi). The missile has had various names during its troubled history, including Izdeliye 172 ('Article 172'), AAM-L (RVV-L), KS172, KS-1, 172S-1 and R-172. The airframe appears to have been derived from the 9K37 Buk surface-to-air missile (SAM) but development stalled in the mid-1990s for lack of funds.4 It appears to have restarted in 2004 after a deal with India, who wants to produce the missile in India for their Su-30MKI fighters.
Contents
Development
Modern airforces have become dependent on airborne radars typically carried by converted airliners and transport aircraft such as the E-3 Sentry and A-50 'Mainstay'. They also depend on similar aircraft for inflight refuelling (eg Vickers VC10), maritime patrol (eg CP-140 Aurora), reconnaissance and electronic warfare (eg Tu-16 'Badger' E & J) and C4ISTAR (eg VC-25 "Air Force One"). The loss of just one of these aircraft can have a significant effect on fighting capability, and they are usually heavily defended by fighter escorts. A long-range air-to-air missile offers the prospect of bringing down the target without having to fight a way through the fighter screen. Given the potential importance of "blinding" Western AWACS, Russia has devoted considerable resources to this area. The Vympel R-37 (AA-13 'Arrow') is an evolution of their R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') with a range of up to 400 km (220 nmi), and there have been persistent rumours - if little hard evidence - of an air-to-air missile with a range of 200 km (110 nmi) based on Zvezda's Kh-31 anti-radar/anti-shipping missile or its Chinese derivative, the YJ-91.
NPO Novator started work in 1991 on a very long-range air-to-air missile with the Russian project designation Izdeliye 172.3 Initially called the AAM-L (RVV-L), it made its first public appearance at the International Defence Exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1993,5 followed by the Moscow Air Show later that year.3 It was described as having a range of 400 km (220 nmi); the mockup on display had a strong resemblance to the 9K37M1 Buk-M (SA-11 'Gadfly'). Apparently some flight-testing was done on a Su-27, but it appears that the Russians withdrew funding for the project soon afterwards.
The missile resurfaced as the KS172 in 1999,5 as part of a new export-led strategy6 whereby foreign investment in a 300 km (160 nmi)-range export model5 would ultimately fund a version for the Russian airforce.6 Again it appears that there were no takers.
In late 2003, the missile was offered again on the export market as the 172S-1.3 In March 2004, India was reported to have invested in the project and to be "negotiating a partnership" to develop the "R-172"7. In May 2005 the Indians were said to have finalised "an arrangement to fund final development and licence produce the weapon" in a joint venture similar to that which produced the successful BrahMos cruise missile.8 Since then the missile has had a higher profile, appearing at the 2005 Moscow Air Show3 on a Su-30 as the K-172,4 and a modified version being shown at the 2007 Moscow Air Show designated as the K-100-1. This name first appeared in a Sukhoi document in 2006,3 and sources such as Jane's now refer to the missile as the K-100.3
Design
The mockup shown in 1993 had a strong resemblance to the Buk airframe, but since the Indians became involved there have been some changes. An Indian magazine gave the specifications of the KS172 in April 2004 as a core 6.01m long and 40 cm in diameter with a wingspan of 61 cm, with a booster of 1.4m, and 748 kg total weight.1 It had a solid fuel tandem rocket booster capable of speeds up to 4,000 km/h (2,500 mph), 12g manoevring, and an adaptive HE fragmentation warhead.1 Development would concentrate on the seeker head, autopilot, resistance to jamming and a steering system with 3D thrust vector control (TVC).1
In May 2005 it was reported that there were two versions, with and without a rocket booster, with ranges of 400 km and 300 km respectively.8 At the MAKS airshow in August 2005, a range of 300 km was quoted for a streamlined missile with a small booster and fins on both booster and fuselage.4 However the model shown at the 2007 MAKS airshow under the name K-100 was closer to the original 1993 mockup in the photo above, with different-shaped fins that were further up the fuselage, and an even larger booster with TVC vents.9 At the same show it was shown under the wing of a Su-35BM, implying that at least two could be carried by Flanker-class aircraft rather than just one on the centreline.
Guidance is by inertial navigation until the missile is close enough to the target to use active radar for terminal homing.1 The K-100 has an enlarged (350 mm (14 in)) derivative of the Agat 9B-1103M seeker used in the Vympel R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo').2 It has a lock-on range of 40 km (22 nmi), described by an Agat designer as "one fifth or less of the overall range".2
Operational history
As India is the main investor in the K-100, it would first see service on her Su-30MKI aircraft. Russia might be a customer, depending on funding. No in-service date has yet been suggested.
Variants
Photos of the K-100-1 at the 2007 Moscow airshow9 suggest that India is proceeding with the "big booster" long-range variant under that name. A shorter range version without the booster (K-100-2?), as proposed for the R-172 in 2005,8 might be used on smaller planes than the Su-30.
Similar weapons
- Vympel R-37 (AA-X-13/AA-13 'Arrow') was developed from the the Vympel R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') and is intended for the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E, Su-37 Flanker-F, MiG 1.42 MFI and other future fighters.8 According to Defence Today the range depends on the flight profile, from 80 nautical miles (150 km) for a direct shot8 to 215 nautical miles (398 km) for a cruise glide profile.8 Jane's reports two variants, the R-37 and the R-37M; the latter has a jettisonable rocket booster that increases the range to "300-400km" (160220nmi).3 Work on the missile appears to have restarted in late 2006,3 as part of the MiG-31BM programme3 to update the Foxhound with a new radar and ground attack capability.
- Kh-31 (AS-17 'Krypton') - the Chinese have licensed the anti-radar version (Kh-31P) of this Russian air-to-surface missile, and may be working on an "AWACS killer" variant of their YJ-91 derivative.8 The Russians claim the anti-shipping version, the Kh-31A, can be adapted for use as an AWACS killer.8
- AIM-54 Phoenix - Now retired, a 100 nautical miles (190 km)-range missile that was carried by the US Navy's F-14 Tomcat.
=====================================
References:
1) Information on Novator_KS-172_AAM-L
2) Information on Category:Russian_and_Soviet_Anti-aircraft_weapons
3) www.ausairpower.net/Evolved-F-111-DP-V.5-S.pdf
4) Hard Kill Counter-ISR Programs
5) The Russian Philosophy of BVR Air Combat
6) Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles
7) International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Chinese Dimensions of the 2005 Moscow Aerospace Show
8) F-22A Raptors for the Marine Corps
=========================================
There are a number of factors that played into this:
1) The same route was used multiple times.
2) EA-6B support was pulled to cover a B-2 that was in bound.
3) The Aircraft may have been backlighted against cloud cover and spotted visualy. Stealth works only to a point and if you get close enough to the radar source you will be seen.
4) The plane may have "lost" its stealth. The F-117 depends on its shape and according to Ben Rich even a screw that is not tight enough or bird droppings can change its radar signature.
5) Not as confirmed: There may have been a mechanical failure that required the pilot to eject. Once the canopy was gone it would be easily picked up and perhaps they downed a plane already on the way down.
Righteous_Fire
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 0
Friggin slow due to my post with too much pix friggin friggin calm down buddy!
let it loadPS: and dont curse me for too much pix postage it was about the facts
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
According to the articel by Paritosh
Most AIM-120 AMRAAM kills to date have involved 1980s export variants of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, with mediocre electronic warfare fit and often inoperative systems. These are not representative targets in the current Pacific Rim environment.
The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular. Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent.
It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions
My earlier post in which i said that 'BVR threat is over rated' is based on these facts that uptil now the kill probability by a AIM-120 is low & that too when Jamming is pretty low(I know uptil now R-77 hasn't been used in real combat) but i must say that tactic of using two BVRs with different seekers can work pretty well & the numerical superiority is another factor... Lets see what AIm-120D can do 
& more from that article..
A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics
I will like to know Gambits View on this
Most AIM-120 AMRAAM kills to date have involved 1980s export variants of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, with mediocre electronic warfare fit and often inoperative systems. These are not representative targets in the current Pacific Rim environment.
The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular. Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent.
It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions
My earlier post in which i said that 'BVR threat is over rated' is based on these facts that uptil now the kill probability by a AIM-120 is low & that too when Jamming is pretty low(I know uptil now R-77 hasn't been used in real combat
) but i must say that tactic of using two BVRs with different seekers can work pretty well & the numerical superiority is another factor... Lets see what AIm-120D can do & more from that article..
A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics
I will like to know Gambits View on this
Whats the use of discussing AIM-120D's? We are getting the C-5 and 9.
I say fire the 120 and then fire the SD-10. Though their seekers are same about they will increase the probability a little bit as compared to firing all the salvos of the AIM-120!
I say fire the 120 and then fire the SD-10. Though their seekers are same about they will increase the probability a little bit as compared to firing all the salvos of the AIM-120!
DaRk WaVe
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
well i was just discussing it without reference to what we are getting
How exactly?
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Really?
I doubt you understand what you copied/pasted from wherever it came from.
First...the receive path use individual per element (slot) low noise GaAs uses receiver chips, providing them with the sidelobe and sensitivity advantages of the AESA, enhancing its range and jam resistance.
Second...US, Israelis and EU would not provide access to the GaAs power transistor technology needed to build a genuine AESA.
So it is implied here that the transmit side of the module is different than the receive side.
WRONG...!!!
Welcome - Microwave design articles, applications, and high-frequency design techniques for microwave and wireless engineer
Passive ESA is a natural first design in an ESA system. The problem with evolving a PESA system into an AESA system is the fine grain control process on the transmit cycle of the module, nothing to do with its construction. Basically...If you have a T/R module, you have in hand the base foundation of an AESA antenna. Your problems, if any, lies downstream in the system.
The only advantage a PESA system can have, not inherently have, is power output, and like the classical dish antenna, output power is dependent upon antenna size. So a larger AESA antenna will outpower a smaller PESA. Else an AESA antenna and related system is far superior in multitasking; target related issues such as acquisition, tracking and targeting; communication and even ECM. An AESA antenna using subarray partitioning, and I have posted that information elsewhere here, using different frequencies can produce superior target resolutions than a PESA no matter what the target is doing. Without fine grain control subsystems like power, cooling and softwares, all items the Russians are inferior to US, a PESA system is the limit.
And why the hell are we obliged to give anything to the Russians? Quit making sorry excuses for the Russians and the Chinese for their backwardness.
Similar threads
