F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,463
Likes
4,371
Country flag

WASHINGTON: Following the latest review by the Government Accountability Office, DoD is expected to again push back the schedule for the sprawling F-35 modernization effort.

The new report is yet another slap for the Joint Strike Fighter, which is already in DoD’s budget-cutting cross-hairs due to the plane’s exorbitant maintenance costs. Key members of Congress, including the Democratic Chair of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith, are also looking askance at the program, which is expected to cost nearly $2 trillion over its lifetime.

The GAO report found that the current 2027 goal for finalizing the Block 4 modernization is “not achievable.” GAO said that costs of the effort had ballooned by $1.9 billion between 2019 and 2020, bringing the overall cost to about $14.4 billion. Software development has been the primary driver of the problems, the report said — including the fact that about a quarter of the software being delivered by prime contractor Lockheed Martin was found to have defects after it had already been integrated into the aircraft.

The most insidious potential result of the GAO’s findings, sources say, is that continued issues in software delivery could delay integration of key subsystems, such as radar enhancements, to keep pace with the growing threats from adversaries. (The current 2027 deadline for Block 4 completion already represents a three-year delay from the 2024 deadline DoD set in its 2018 baseline for the effort.)
 

Kchontha

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2017
Messages
765
Likes
1,156
Country flag
While we r talking about modernisation ruskeis are illiciting with fc 31 to produce a single engine iligal cloned love child of f35. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
Bro, thanks I was feeling bad when I heard that the Sukhoi LTS was using the same old radars from the N036 but running comparisons on the warhead weights, speeds and maneuverability of the Klevok-D2 and Kinzhal to that missile made me feel better.
Klevok-D2 is just a simple missile that follow ballistic arcs , the way it operate is pretty much similar to how rocket artillery operate, it is a tactical weapon, not a strategic weapon like Kinzhal or ARRW. It can't fly as far or maintain high speed for as long. That is assuming it will go into production
Kinzhal is an air launched iskander, which mean it is an air launched ballistic missile, just like Rocks, Blue, Silver sparrow or Skybolt. The way it will maneuver is also similar.
Whereas ARRW is a boost glider system similar to LRHW and Avangard (yes it is much much smaller, because it is intended to be air launched from fighters and bombers but the working principles is the same).
Compare to ballistic missile of any kind, a boost glider will normal have smaller warhead because the glider need to be designed in away to let it glide inside atmosphere, however a boost glider will fly at lower altitude, so the radar horizon is shorter and because it glide in atmosphere , it will have better maneuverability because you can use aerodynamic force to turn. Of course , you can get even better agility on something like Zircon or HACM but they are also slower than boost glider
P/s: Also Kinzhal is 7.3 meter long and weight 8,400 lb and ARRW is only 5.8 meters long and weight 5000 lbs, in other words, Kinzhal is 41% heavier and 21% longer than ARRW so they aren't exactly comparable in term of size
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
256
Likes
361
Country flag
Klevok-D2 is just a simple missile that follow ballistic arcs , the way it operate is pretty much similar to how rocket artillery operate, it is a tactical weapon, not a strategic weapon like Kinzhal or ARRW. It can't fly as far or maintain high speed for as long. That is assuming it will go into production
Kinzhal is an air launched iskander, which mean it is an air launched ballistic missile, just like Rocks, Blue, Silver sparrow or Skybolt. The way it will maneuver is also similar.
Whereas ARRW is a boost glider system similar to LRHW and Avangard (yes it is much much smaller, because it is intended to be air launched from fighters and bombers but the working principles is the same).
Compare to ballistic missile of any kind, a boost glider will normal have smaller warhead because the glider need to be designed in away to let it glide inside atmosphere, however a boost glider will fly at lower altitude, so the radar horizon is shorter and because it glide in atmosphere , it will have better maneuverability because you can use aerodynamic force to turn. Of course , you can get even better agility on something like Zircon or HACM but they are also slower than boost glider
P/s: Also Kinzhal is 7.3 meter long and weight 8,400 lb and ARRW is only 5.8 meters long and weight 5000 lbs, in other words, Kinzhal is 41% heavier and 21% longer than ARRW so they aren't exactly comparable in term of size
warhead weight 150Lbs, the klevok D-2's warhead weight is almost comparable to this with 125.6 lbs, extra sources told me of the two D-2 patents one of them can be used for air to ground with foldable wings, you can stuff a shit load of these with a stealth profile in your aircraft. https://www.researchgate.net/figure...nch-followed-by-gliding-flight_fig5_268469692 The problem with HGV also is that they lose speed after the re-entry, the Klevok-D2 has a ramjet with mach 5.62 speeds during its last 40 seconds with a lower altitude profile for almost the same warhead weight and the speed stays constant because of motor until it hits its targets. HGVs just seem to vertically up and down in maneuvers while thrust vectoring ballistic missiles and air breathing missiles can change in all directions. Kinzhal has 500kg warhead, way longer distance, more directions for maneuverability.... The true beauty of the D-2 is they bumped up the warhead weight twice by pushing more weight in the back while keeping the same original diameter size and length meaning you have a stupidly small missile that is barely noticeable by radar, I don't even think it is possible for a radar to know the D-2 existed when your getting targeted because of its RCS from size.

Try to Imagine paying 13 million dollars for this, having a 926kms launch distance meaning you will have to be very lucky avoiding any fighter aircrafts that are currently in the air in case you run into them or attack and they immediately go after you. There is no way that you would not be getting noticed by satellites while you take off heading to your adversary's territory. Only good news is that the size of this missile is a little smaller at 5.9 meter length with 24 inch diameter than the kinzhal, but not even the option to go nuclear warhead? Talks of putting it on fighter aircrafts. Its also only used for fixed targets(cant confirm this with D2) while the kinzhal is for mobile targets like ships. stealth, fighter or giant ass aircraft carrying that thing will make you glow beautifully on radar if another aircraft happened to have some nice BVR missiles. Cant do this on land if enemies have a huge territory with OTH radars seeing a target 1000s of kilometers in which command will send fighter aircrafts your way. Even if you are in NATO territory satellites and OTH radars will watch your aircraft leave territory runway and give strike coordinates to that location in case there was a sudden change like plasma on speeds where ionization in the atmosphere would be noticed by HF frequencies that a hypersonic target is heading their way. Better to do it at a farther location launching a Kinzhal where your adversary will have a lesser reach to strike back which depends but better chances. There is even a possibility that after you launch it 926kms away a Russian aircrafts have better chances to tail you with air to air missiles or air to ground missiles when you go land back than launching it from distances used by Kinzhal

13 million dollars to deliver a 150lb payload on fixed targets. I would only present this as a joke to laugh at than be serious about in missile technology. This is a fucking abomination :shoot:. Is this missile wrapped with paper thin photonic radar antennas all around its cylinder body that was displayed by Vega with the combination of artificial intelligence where the missile sees an interceptor missile coming at it from a certain distance to say ohh shit I am going to go this direction to avoid it and still hit my ground target? I just cant stop laughing at this shit thinking how the hell are you keeping a straight face presenting that image? Even if China's D-21 does not have the maneuverability to hover up and down like a HGV at least they have a bigger warhead with sensors to go target targets that are not fixed.

Here is something you will also find in common with iskander, kinzhal and Yars.

Iskander against the maritime threat. New weapons to fight NATO ships - RIA Novosti, 03.03.2020

Solid-fuel single-stage missile 9M723 complex "Iskander-M" is made by technology "stealth". It is controlled throughout the flight path, constantly maneuvering. The speed is more than two thousand kilometers per hour. The warhead weighs about half a ton and is equipped with cluster fragmentation, cumulative, penetrating, incendiary and other destructive elements.

Russia’s Aerospace Forces Prepare Training for Kinzhal Hypersonic Missiles - Jamestown

he Kh-47M2 Kinzhal is a nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) with a claimed range in excess of 2,000 kilometers, achieving Mach 10, with the ability to perform evasive maneuvers at every stage of its flight. It can also be armed with a conventional high explosive fragmentation warhead. By introducing the Kinzhal to the VKS regiment in Kansk, it offers the capability to cover potential threats in all strategic directions across the Russian Federation. Flight crews of the 712th Fighter Aviation Regiment, based in Kansk, will train in their MiG-31K aircraft to master the Kinzhal ALBM. The commander of the Central MD, Lieutenant General Alexander Lapin, confirmed that the rearmament of the fighter regiment to hypersonic missile systems is scheduled for completion in 2024 (Izvestia, May 10).


And here is a Yars missile for a bonus.

Radius of destruction of yars. Full review of the domestic missile complex "Yars" (lom-s.ru)

We continue to find out further what the Yars (rocket) is. Its characteristics deserve close attention. The adoption of this projectile in the conditions of America's build-up of missile defense systems became likely, since the START-1 agreement expired in 2009, which allowed the development of ICBMs only with a monoblock leading part.


And what was The second asymmetric response of Russia to U.S. missile defense initiatives? Rocket "Yars" flight speed was very effective. In addition, it was struck by its excellent stability when passing through the orders of the promising US missile defense system. And it was not influenced by the damaging factors of nuclear explosions (PNW).

Many experts say that the yars-M missile has remarkable characteristics. Thus, the active area of the trajectory of these weapons is reduced. Instant speed dialing provides a more efficient mixture charge of the rocket's solid fuel main engines (RDTT). The projectile at the start can make a program maneuver. It is necessary to penetrate through the cloud of a nuclear explosion of an attacking missile.


1627109584398.png

Its the red line not the green line of the path the missile follows. Now that this subject is at hand does the Rocks, Blue, Silver sparrow or Skybolt have thrust vectoring control? Someone that likes aviation I know that you know what that is and what it does with aircrafts right?

How does klevok follow ballistic arcs when the 40 second time mark goes at 7000kms an hour and its a ramjet which by default does maneuvers like their onyx missiles? I only agree for the 1st stage

P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile) – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

The P-800 Oniks anti-ship cruise missile is a supersonic cruise missile with variants that can be deployed from land or air. Its development began in 1983, and it became operational in 2002. The missile launches from a vertical position and uses angular thrusters located near the nose to reposition itself horizontally and begin its flight path toward the target. The missile then flies at supersonic speeds, can maneuver to avoid air defense, and is resistant to electronic countermeasures. Its ground-based variant, the Yakhont, is placed on a Bastion-P road-mobile launcher as part of a coastal defense system. The Bastion-P, or a TEL vehicle, can carry two of the Yakhont missiles, which can be launched within five seconds of each other. The P-800 Oniks is primarily an anti-ship missile, but has been seeing more use against ground forces in Russia’s ongoing fight against Syrian rebels.

"Klevok-D2": almost hypersonic missile: aryja - LiveJournal

Launch of the Hermes rocket developed by JSC "Design Bureau of Instrumentation named after Academician A.G. Shipunov"According to the terms of reference for the development of the components of the complex, the new ammunition can be used from various platforms, including air. The launch mass of the ammunition in the transport-launch container will not exceed 150 kg. The caliber taken from Hermes will not change - 207 mm. The warhead weighing 57 kg should be enough to destroy both armored vehicles and light shelters or individual buildings. The missile will be equipped with wings folding out after launch. After launching the rocket with the help of a detachable launch stage and giving initial acceleration, its flight will continue already on the marching ROMD. On it, the rocket in 40 seconds should reach a speed of up to 5 Mach numbers, which is the threshold for hypersound.

Christ at least launch a scramjet like GZUR at your targets.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
warhead weight 150Lbs, the klevok D-2's warhead weight is almost comparable to this with 125.6 lbs, extra sources told me of the two D-2 patents one of them can be used for air to ground with foldable wings, you can stuff a shit load of these with a stealth profile in your aircraft.
I shouldn't have to explain something so obvious like this
Let me give you an example:
AGM-86 warhead is 908- 1362 kg, the whole missile is 1430 kg
Kinzhal warhead is 480-700 kg, the whole missile is 3800 kg
Can you figure you why Kinzhal is heavier but carry lighter warhead than AGM-86?
Still no?, let try with another example
AGM-130 warhead is 907 kg, the whole missile is 1323 kg
KEPD 350 warhead is 481 kg, the whole missile is 1400 kg
Can you figure out why KEPD 350 is heavier but carry a lighter warhead than AGM-130?
Because to fly long distance or to fly fast, you need more fuel. The further your missile fly, the faster it go, the more fuel fuel it will need. And that extra amount of fuel is what drive up the size and weight of the missile. ARRW is a strategic weapon that can fly more than 1000 km and reach speed of Mach 10, so of course it will be much bigger than theoretical klevok D2 which has range around 100 km and top speed at most around Mach 5


https://www.researchgate.net/figure...nch-followed-by-gliding-flight_fig5_268469692 The problem with HGV also is that they lose speed after the re-entry, the Klevok-D2 has a ramjet with mach 5.62 speeds during its last 40 seconds with a lower altitude profile for almost the same warhead weight and the speed stays constant because of motor until it hits its targets. HGVs just seem to vertically up and down in maneuvers while thrust vectoring ballistic missiles and air breathing missiles can change in all directions. Kinzhal has 500kg warhead, way longer distance, more directions for maneuverability.... The true beauty of the D-2 is they bumped up the warhead weight twice by pushing more weight in the back while keeping the same original diameter size and length meaning you have a stupidly small missile that is barely noticeable by radar, I don't even think it is possible for a radar to know the D-2 existed when your getting targeted because of its RCS from size.
Firstly, hypersonic boost glider doesn't just go up and down, they can maneuver in yaw axis as well. Boost glider are not as maneuver as scramjet missile but they will maneuver better than any ballistic missile with side thruster since boost glider can rely on the aerodynamic lift, which is pretty high when you fly fast.
Secondly, Klevok-D2 ramjet engine only has 12 kg of fuel and can operate for a maximum of 42 seconds, even if we assume that it move at Mach 6 for the whole 42 seconds duration, that is only equal to 85 km in range, which is pathetic compared to the range of ARRW which is more than 1000 km, heck, it does not even match the range of simple rocket missile like AARGM-ER which top out at 300 km. And that was a very generous estimate for Klevok-D2 because we actually assume that it can fly at maximum speed with minimum fuel flow rate. Which is in fact not realistic at all. In reality, fuel flow and speed are proportional,so for any given missile or plane, if you fly faster , you will consume more fuel. So the maximum operation time of 42 seconds is likely for much slower cruising speed at around Mach 2.5-Mach 3, which mean realistically speaking, Klevok-D2 will spend around 42 km at Mach 3, then it will decelerate , and at much faster rate than ARRW (or any boost glider) since it fly at low altitude where the air is thick. Of course any comparison between , Klevok-D2 and ARRW are already very silly given that they are not even in the same class in term of range, speed, targets, weight
klevok-D2.PNG

Thirdly, Kinzhal carry bigger warhead? sure, Kinzhal has longer range? sure. It is kinda obvious given that Kinzhal is 41% heavier than ARRW. I don't think you realize that 41% heavier is a lot, for example, AIM-120 is 152 kg , AIM-132 ASRAAM is 88 kg, that mean AMRAAM is only 43% heavier than ASRAAM, but one of them can even reach 180 km while the other one hardly reach 30 km in range.
But Kinzhal won't be more agile than ARRW, that for certain (I will explain at the end)



Try to Imagine paying 13 million dollars for this, having a 926kms launch distance meaning you will have to be very lucky avoiding any fighter aircrafts that are currently in the air in case you run into them or attack and they immediately go after you. There is no way that you would not be getting noticed by satellites while you take off heading to your adversary's territory. Only good news is that the size of this missile is a little smaller at 5.9 meter length with 24 inch diameter than the kinzhal, but not even the option to go nuclear warhead? Talks of putting it on fighter aircrafts. Its also only used for fixed targets(cant confirm this with D2) while the kinzhal is for mobile targets like ships. stealth, fighter or giant ass aircraft carrying that thing will make you glow beautifully on radar if another aircraft happened to have some nice BVR missiles. Cant do this on land if enemies have a huge territory with OTH radars seeing a target 1000s of kilometers in which command will send fighter aircrafts your way. Even if you are in NATO territory satellites and OTH radars will watch your aircraft leave territory runway and give strike coordinates to that location in case there was a sudden change like plasma on speeds where ionization in the atmosphere would be noticed by HF frequencies that a hypersonic target is heading their way. Better to do it at a farther location launching a Kinzhal where your adversary will have a lesser reach to strike back which depends but better chances. There is even a possibility that after you launch it 926kms away a Russian aircrafts have better chances to tail you with air to air missiles or air to ground missiles when you go land back than launching it from distances used by Kinzhal
13 million dollars to deliver a 150lb payload on fixed targets. I would only present this as a joke to laugh at than be serious about in missile technology. This is a fucking abomination :shoot:. Is this missile wrapped with paper thin photonic radar antennas all around its cylinder body that was displayed by Vega with the combination of artificial intelligence where the missile sees an interceptor missile coming at it from a certain distance to say ohh shit I am going to go this direction to avoid it and still hit my ground target? I just cant stop laughing at this shit thinking how the hell are you keeping a straight face presenting that image? Even if China's D-21 does not have the maneuverability to hover up and down like a HGV at least they have a bigger warhead with sensors to go target targets that are not fixed.
Firstly, ARRW range is not 500 miles (926 km), if you pay attention the the graphic they deliberately use the >500 miles symbol. Normally this would let us assume that ARRW range is roughly 510-520 miles, but it has been revealed before that ARRW can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so obviously the limit isn't at 926 km
1000 miles.PNG

Secondly, what sort of plane can attack from 926 km? there isn't any. What sort of anti aircraft missile can attack from 926 km? there isn't any. And light up on radar? let say if you are at height of 11 km, the enemy radar mast is 50 meters tall, then the radar horizon is only 462 km, so even 926 km will let you stay outside the radar horizon in most case. On the other hand, the kind of OTH radar that let you see a few thounsand km away aka sky wave OTH radar, also have the blind radius of 1500-2000 km around them so they aren't always usesable
Thirdly, DF-21 is 32,400 pound, ground launched while ARRW is 5,000 pounds and can be launched by fighter. DF-21 is 64 times bigger than ARRW, so to compare them is a like comparing the AK-47 rounds with the battleship cannon and say the 7.62 mm round is bad because it can't carry as much HE as the battleship round.


Here is something you will also find in common with iskander, kinzhal and Yars.
Iskander against the maritime threat. New weapons to fight NATO ships - RIA Novosti, 03.03.2020
Solid-fuel single-stage missile 9M723 complex "Iskander-M" is made by technology "stealth". It is controlled throughout the flight path, constantly maneuvering. The speed is more than two thousand kilometers per hour. The warhead weighs about half a ton and is equipped with cluster fragmentation, cumulative, penetrating, incendiary and other destructive elements.
Russia’s Aerospace Forces Prepare Training for Kinzhal Hypersonic Missiles - Jamestown
he Kh-47M2 Kinzhal is a nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) with a claimed range in excess of 2,000 kilometers, achieving Mach 10, with the ability to perform evasive maneuvers at every stage of its flight. It can also be armed with a conventional high explosive fragmentation warhead. By introducing the Kinzhal to the VKS regiment in Kansk, it offers the capability to cover potential threats in all strategic directions across the Russian Federation. Flight crews of the 712th Fighter Aviation Regiment, based in Kansk, will train in their MiG-31K aircraft to master the Kinzhal ALBM. The commander of the Central MD, Lieutenant General Alexander Lapin, confirmed that the rearmament of the fighter regiment to hypersonic missile systems is scheduled for completion in 2024 (Izvestia, May 10).

And here is a Yars missile for a bonus.
Radius of destruction of yars. Full review of the domestic missile complex "Yars" (lom-s.ru)
We continue to find out further what the Yars (rocket) is. Its characteristics deserve close attention. The adoption of this projectile in the conditions of America's build-up of missile defense systems became likely, since the START-1 agreement expired in 2009, which allowed the development of ICBMs only with a monoblock leading part.
And what was The second asymmetric response of Russia to U.S. missile defense initiatives? Rocket "Yars" flight speed was very effective. In addition, it was struck by its excellent stability when passing through the orders of the promising US missile defense system. And it was not influenced by the damaging factors of nuclear explosions (PNW).
Many experts say that the yars-M missile has remarkable characteristics. Thus, the active area of the trajectory of these weapons is reduced. Instant speed dialing provides a more efficient mixture charge of the rocket's solid fuel main engines (RDTT). The projectile at the start can make a program maneuver. It is necessary to penetrate through the cloud of a nuclear explosion of an attacking missile.


View attachment 101606

Its the red line not the green line of the path the missile follows. Now that this subject is at hand does the Rocks, Blue, Silver sparrow or Skybolt have thrust vectoring control? Someone that likes aviation I know that you know what that is and what it does with aircrafts right?
They don't use thrust vectoring control, they use something called the 3D gas thruster.

b.PNG



Thrust vectoring generally referring to the ability to pitch the nozzle or divert the thrust of the main engine, so that you can pitch or yaw the nose of missile/aircraft. Then the propulsion system will propelled the aircraft/missile toward the new direction where their nose point at. This is a common method of controlling for aircraft/missile inside atmosphere, because you can have your engine continuously generating thrust, and the aerodynamic force attack on the fuselage after you point the nose will also help the missile/aircraft turn
In space however, there is no air, that mean you can't use efficient engine that can operate for a long time like turbofan, turbojet, ramjet , scramjet or anything similar. You can only use rocket engine,because these things carry their own oxidizer. But rocket engine consume fuel very very quickly and generally speaking, for solid rocket propellant like Iskander, Kinzhal you can't really control their rocket burn rate, that mean if your rocket produce X pound of thrust then it always produce X pound of thrust, you can't reduce the thrust to improve the rocket burn time, at most you can have a boost-sustain rocket engine, but even for that, you will have the boost part produce X pounds of thrust and the sustain part produce Y pound of thrust, but not a range from X-Y like with an air breathing engine. If you use the thrust vector control on a ballistic missile, it only help the missile change direction while the main rocket motor still running, and that is actually very short amount of time. So instead, on ballistic missile, especially the ICBM one, they often use 3D side thruster (that mean separate thrusters perpendicular to the body of the missile), the effect is that it can change missile lateral position, and unlike thrust vector control, they don't share the same thruster with the main engine, so they can operate for longer time because they don't need to produce the same amount of thrust.
2.PNG


I expect that you will start to think that a ballistic missiles with both side thruster and thrust vector control will be much better than hypersonic boost glider because they can change direction in all phase and they are not slow down in mid phase like these hypersonic boost glider. But it isn't simple like that, for any kind of engine, you always have the relationship between thrust and fuel consumption. If you want to produce more thrust, then you will use more fuel. A side thruster can be made to operate much longer at the cost of reduced thrust while thrust vector control on main engine can produce good amount of thrust but only for a short time. In short TVC let you make hard turn for very short period after launch and 3D side thruster let you make slight maneuver in mid phase. A boost glider vehicle solve this issue because it change direction by aerodynamic force, at hypersonic speed, the aerodynamic force is huge, so that allow hypersonic boost glider to make hard turn even in mid phase. This is something that ballistic missile can't do,they only do hard maneuver after re-entry. That why Russian invested in Avangard, US invested in ARRW, LRHW instead of simply using their traditional ballistic missile like Yars, Trident..etc
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
256
Likes
361
Country flag
I shouldn't have to explain something so obvious like this
Let me give you an example:
AGM-86 warhead is 908- 1362 kg, the whole missile is 1430 kg
Kinzhal warhead is 480-700 kg, the whole missile is 3800 kg
Can you figure you why Kinzhal is heavier but carry lighter warhead than AGM-86?
Still no?, let try with another example
AGM-130 warhead is 907 kg, the whole missile is 1323 kg
KEPD 350 warhead is 481 kg, the whole missile is 1400 kg
Can you figure out why KEPD 350 is heavier but carry a lighter warhead than AGM-130?
Because to fly long distance or to fly fast, you need more fuel. The further your missile fly, the faster it go, the more fuel fuel it will need. And that extra amount of fuel is what drive up the size and weight of the missile. ARRW is a strategic weapon that can fly more than 1000 km and reach speed of Mach 10, so of course it will be much bigger than theoretical klevok D2 which has range around 100 km and top speed at most around Mach 5
Did you check my link, hell did you actually remember being the user at secretprojects that was stating how HGVs after a re-entry profile begin to lose speed(I just cant find that thread maybe you know what Im talking about)? I just find it goofy that it costs 13 million dollars to deliver such a small warhead payload. How much speed the HGV loses after re-entry at a certain distance begins to drop. I will be personally surprised if the AGM-183A would continue getting news updates after its costs and warhead weight have been disclosed. Atleast for the Klevok-D2 I am ballparking somewhere at a 150-200km range.

Firstly, hypersonic boost glider doesn't just go up and down, they can maneuver in yaw axis as well. Boost glider are not as maneuver as scramjet missile but they will maneuver better than any ballistic missile with side thruster since boost glider can rely on the aerodynamic lift, which is pretty high when you fly fast.
Secondly, Klevok-D2 ramjet engine only has 12 kg of fuel and can operate for a maximum of 42 seconds, even if we assume that it move at Mach 6 for the whole 42 seconds duration, that is only equal to 85 km in range, which is pathetic compared to the range of ARRW which is more than 1000 km, heck, it does not even match the range of simple rocket missile like AARGM-ER which top out at 300 km. And that was a very generous estimate for Klevok-D2 because we actually assume that it can fly at maximum speed with minimum fuel flow rate. Which is in fact not realistic at all. In reality, fuel flow and speed are proportional,so for any given missile or plane, if you fly faster , you will consume more fuel. So the maximum operation time of 42 seconds is likely for much slower cruising speed at around Mach 2.5-Mach 3, which mean realistically speaking, Klevok-D2 will spend around 42 km at Mach 3, then it will decelerate , and at much faster rate than ARRW (or any boost glider) since it fly at low altitude where the air is thick. Of course any comparison between , Klevok-D2 and ARRW are already very silly given that they are not even in the same class in term of range, speed, targets, weight
klevok-D2.PNG

Thirdly, Kinzhal carry bigger warhead? sure, Kinzhal has longer range? sure. It is kinda obvious given that Kinzhal is 41% heavier than ARRW. I don't think you realize that 41% heavier is a lot, for example, AIM-120 is 152 kg , AIM-132 ASRAAM is 88 kg, that mean AMRAAM is only 43% heavier than ASRAAM, but one of them can even reach 180 km while the other one hardly reach 30 km in range.
But Kinzhal won't be more agile than ARRW, that for certain (I will explain at the end)
Its just how all HGVs are visually presented when missiles with warheads that are not HGVs give different manuever options as shown your 2nd to last example but with different picture
Ballistic missiles well some cant say that about the U.S. can change nozzles and directions, HGVs require only control surfaces to manuever. The original Hermes had a 100km total range, while this missile is to exceed that range. previous missile had a 80km booster range and 20km sustainer range, so adding the booster with the ramjet sustainer stage that is 160km+ and as the source state 1st stage is for mach 3 than the ramjet accelerates for 42 seconds until hitting its target. AARGM-ER they are adding value to the volume of the missile and not to further bust your balls but in regards to ranges was your two times the amount source, from the SiAw was currently cancelled for the AARGM-ER? if AARGM-ER is a seperate project than this is what I am getting. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...issile-into-high-speed-critical-strike-weapon "We don’t know the exact for the Air Force’s SiAW and those same details regarding the AARGM-ER are classified, but previous reports have suggested the latter missile would have between 20 to 50 percent greater range than the existing AGM-88E." The Klevok-D2 in terms of diameter for both boost and ramjet sustainer are way smaller than AGM-88E, AARGM-ER they have only increased the volume size which I dont even know would barely give it between mach 2-3 with barely any manueverability while bumping up the RCS thats depressing.

1627184264868.png


Kinzhal does offer manueverability at all stages like its other two cousins so I would like to know your excuse for later which you will explain to me.

Firstly, ARRW range is not 500 miles (926 km), if you pay attention the the graphic they deliberately use the >500 miles symbol. Normally this would let us assume that ARRW range is roughly 510-520 miles, but it has been revealed before that ARRW can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so obviously the limit isn't at 926 km
1000 miles.PNG

Secondly, what sort of plane can attack from 926 km? there isn't any. What sort of anti aircraft missile can attack from 926 km? there isn't any. And light up on radar? let say if you are at height of 11 km, the enemy radar mast is 50 meters tall, then the radar horizon is only 462 km, so even 926 km will let you stay outside the radar horizon in most case. On the other hand, the kind of OTH radar that let you see a few thounsand km away aka sky wave OTH radar, also have the blind radius of 1500-2000 km around them so they aren't always usesable
Thirdly, DF-21 is 32,400 pound, ground launched while ARRW is 5,000 pounds and can be launched by fighter. DF-21 is 64 times bigger than ARRW, so to compare them is a like comparing the AK-47 rounds with the battleship cannon and say the 7.62 mm round is bad because it can't carry as much HE as the battleship round.
Thats why you got to include a source if you disagree with the image, which was the only thing I visually saw here lol. Flying within a 926kms with a external carry adversary aircrafts can start heading towards the HGV carriers way and if the weapon is launched the adversary aircrafts can quickly tail said aircraft than launching a weapon from 2000km+ ranges and OTH radars can have blind spots covered by other OTH radars placed at a farther distance(god that was simple). Third that was a joke on me being depressed with that small warhead weight for 13 million dollars when aircrafts can get the same job done with way less money.

They don't use thrust vectoring control, they use something called the 3D gas thruster.

b.PNG



Thrust vectoring generally referring to the ability to pitch the nozzle or divert the thrust of the main engine, so that you can pitch or yaw the nose of missile/aircraft. Then the propulsion system will propelled the aircraft/missile toward the new direction where their nose point at. This is a common method of controlling for aircraft/missile inside atmosphere, because you can have your engine continuously generating thrust, and the aerodynamic force attack on the fuselage after you point the nose will also help the missile/aircraft turn
In space however, there is no air, that mean you can't use efficient engine that can operate for a long time like turbofan, turbojet, ramjet , scramjet or anything similar. You can only use rocket engine,because these things carry their own oxidizer. But rocket engine consume fuel very very quickly and generally speaking, for solid rocket propellant like Iskander, Kinzhal you can't really control their rocket burn rate, that mean if your rocket produce X pound of thrust then it always produce X pound of thrust, you can't reduce the thrust to improve the rocket burn time, at most you can have a boost-sustain rocket engine, but even for that, you will have the boost part produce X pounds of thrust and the sustain part produce Y pound of thrust, but not a range from X-Y like with an air breathing engine. If you use the thrust vector control on a ballistic missile, it only help the missile change direction while the main rocket motor still running, and that is actually very short amount of time. So instead, on ballistic missile, especially the ICBM one, they often use 3D side thruster (that mean separate thrusters perpendicular to the body of the missile), the effect is that it can change missile lateral position, and unlike thrust vector control, they don't share the same thruster with the main engine, so they can operate for longer time because they don't need to produce the same amount of thrust.
2.PNG


I expect that you will start to think that a ballistic missiles with both side thruster and thrust vector control will be much better than hypersonic boost glider because they can change direction in all phase and they are not slow down in mid phase like these hypersonic boost glider. But it isn't simple like that, for any kind of engine, you always have the relationship between thrust and fuel consumption. If you want to produce more thrust, then you will use more fuel. A side thruster can be made to operate much longer at the cost of reduced thrust while thrust vector control on main engine can produce good amount of thrust but only for a short time. In short TVC let you make hard turn for very short period after launch and 3D side thruster let you make slight maneuver in mid phase. A boost glider vehicle solve this issue because it change direction by aerodynamic force, at hypersonic speed, the aerodynamic force is huge, so that allow hypersonic boost glider to make hard turn even in mid phase. This is something that ballistic missile can't do,they only do hard maneuver after re-entry. That why Russian invested in Avangard, US invested in ARRW, LRHW instead of simply using their traditional ballistic missile like Yars, Trident..etc
I dont mind the disagreement at all but you got to explain in the disagreement on where are you getting that the kinzhal, iskander dont use thrust vectoring while I have sources that say other wise. You cant just explain how the missiles work to fit your own narritive when the explanation of what the missiles are using has already been done for you. Excluding SLBMs when was the last time the U.S. had any new ICBMs like Cedar, Sarmat, Barguzin, Yars-S? It would make sense why you prefer it to be 3d gas thrusters but these missiles have TVCs and TVCs use nozzles to change directions and if your changing directions I take it that you can manuever. Using more fuel for more thrust is not a problem dependint on technology,

I dont know if you follow rocket technology(NASA, space X, roscosmos) but there was recent news that they got an upper stage rocket engine to go from 300 to 3000 seconds of burnout with the same acelleration if your interested in that news? HGVs use control surfaces while these missiles use both. Yars is still considerably new despite getting replaced by Cedar but you can see it just does not manuever only the warhead stage but even before than along with kinzhal and Iskander saying TVC control while manuevering at all stages, so thats like 3 missiles all saying the same shit which was never said before about their older designs which is something I want to your hear thoughts on why that is? The only thing I cant prove of those 3 missiles to HGVs is the G-load manuever capabilities such as pulling 5, 10 or 15 Gs.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
Did you check my link, hell did you actually remember being the user at secretprojects that was stating how HGVs after a re-entry profile begin to lose speed(I just cant find that thread maybe you know what Im talking about)? I just find it goofy that it costs 13 million dollars to deliver such a small warhead payload. How much speed the HGV loses after re-entry at a certain distance begins to drop. I will be personally surprised if the AGM-183A would continue getting news updates after its costs and warhead weight have been disclosed. Atleast for the Klevok-D2 I am ballparking somewhere at a 150-200km range.
Yes, I was the one who explained to you that boost glider reduce speed gradually while they glide inside atmosphere, that why average speed of a boost glider is generally slower than a ballistic missile of similar size. The advantage of boost glider is that they are much more agile than any ballistic missile and they fly at much lower altitude to reduce radar horizon.
150 lbs warhead isn't heavy, but it move at hypersonic speed, even a normal APDSFS round from MBT with speed roughly Mach 5 can penetrate 500 mm of solid steel, so a 150 lbs warhead moving at Mach 7-8 at terminal phase will have devastating effect even at such small size.
Klevok-D2 hypersonic range won't get anywhere even remotely close to 200 km given that the sustainer burn for only 42 seconds (for comparison, even Meteor sustainer can burn for 3 minutes). With 42 seconds burn times, even if it somehow move at Mach 6 for the whole duration, that only work out to 85 km. But for that to happen, we need to assume some magical propulsion system that allow it to move at top speed while spend minimum amount of fuel. Which like I said, not quite realistic at all. A more realistic assumption would be the maximum burn time associated with minimum thrust. Meaning Klevok-D2 can spend 42 seconds at Mach 2-3 which work out to about 28-42 km

The original Hermes had a 100km total range, while this missile is to exceed that range. previous missile had a 80km booster range and 20km sustainer range, so adding the booster with the ramjet sustainer stage that is 160km+ and as the source state 1st stage is for mach 3 than the ramjet accelerates for 42 seconds until hitting its target. AARGM-ER they are adding value to the volume of the missile and not to further bust your balls but in regards to ranges was your two times the amount source, from the SiAw was currently cancelled for the AARGM-ER? if AARGM-ER is a seperate project than this is what I am getting. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...issile-into-high-speed-critical-strike-weapon "We don’t know the exact for the Air Force’s SiAW and those same details regarding the AARGM-ER are classified, but previous reports have suggested the latter missile would have between 20 to 50 percent greater range than the existing AGM-88E." The Klevok-D2 in terms of diameter for both boost and ramjet sustainer are way smaller than AGM-88E, AARGM-ER they have only increased the volume size which I dont even know would barely give it between mach 2-3 with barely any manueverability while bumping up the RCS thats depressing.
I don''t think you understand what is boost phase, and what is sustain phase.
Boost phase is the phase where missile accelerate as much as possible, the rocket stage in boost phase often generate a lot of thrust to get the missile to very high speed,but to generate a lot of thrust, you need a lot of fuel. So boost phase last for very short amount of time.
Sustain phase is designed to extend missile range, so they produce very little amount of thrust. Because you produce minimal thrust, you use much less fuel. And therefore you can extend missile range.
For Hermes, you can look at the speed/range diagram.
Right after launch, missile accelerate rapidly to 1300 m/s - roughly Mach 3.7
But then the boost stage depleted just as quick as it accelerate the missile, after 10 km, it decelerates to 800 m/s - roughly Mach 2.3. After 20 km, the missile decelerates down to 500 m/s - roughly Mach 1.4 and sustain that speed for about 50 km. Then the missile decelerate further as the sustainer also out at this point and the missile just coasting.
So you can see that the booster range of Hermes is 15-20 km at most, and the sustainer work for about 50 km, then you have missile just coasting without thrust.
If you switch the sustainer of Hermes with the ramjet engine to make Klevok-D2 , then in best case hypothetical scenario, you still only have 100 km with thrust, but that it.
Hermes -K missile.jpg


Regarding AARGM-ER, it more than double the range of AARGM while keeping the time of flight the same, since speed =distance/time. If you double the range and keeping time the same. That would mean you need to double the speed.
AARGM-ER1.PNG

Also from ATK previous slide presentation
AARGM-ER load out.PNG

Furthermore, SIAW was not cancelled, AARGM-ER is a Navy program while SIAW is an Airforce program, previously, USAF plan is to modify AARGM-ER giving it a different warhead to make SIAW. However, that planned was later changed. They wanted a different design for SIAW so instead of giving the contract for OTK, they run a different competition for SIAW
EwsWcjoWEAUyXZU.jpg


If I have to guess, then the most likely winner of SIAW competition would be THOR-ER, as the test vehicle already has the same dimension as AARGM
Thor-er.png

Thor-er 2.PNG

Thor-er 3.PNG


Its just how all HGVs are visually presented when missiles with warheads that are not HGVs give different manuever options as shown your 2nd to last example but with different picture
Thats why you got to include a source if you disagree with the image, which was the only thing I visually saw here lol. Flying within a 926kms with a external carry adversary aircrafts can start heading towards the HGV carriers way and if the weapon is launched the adversary aircrafts can quickly tail said aircraft than launching a weapon from 2000km+ ranges and OTH radars can have blind spots covered by other OTH radars placed at a farther distance(god that was simple). Third that was a joke on me being depressed with that small warhead weight for 13 million dollars when aircrafts can get the same job done with way less money.
Pictures can be appealing but you need to understand the working principles of a system, picture is only a 2D visual aid. It is actually much easier to go side to side than to go up then down.
If you think any aircraft with 926 km range missile is somehow easy to intercept, then that would make all others weapons carry by aircraft fighter much useless. How often do you see weapon with range greater than 1000 km on fighter jet?. Even JASSM-ER only top out at around 950 km and JASSM-XR at 1600 km, but they are not exactly popular.

Ballistic missiles well some cant say that about the U.S. can change nozzles and directions, HGVs require only control surfaces to manuever.
Kinzhal does offer manueverability at all stages like its other two cousins so I would like to know your excuse for later which you will explain to me.
I dont mind the disagreement at all but you got to explain in the disagreement on where are you getting that the kinzhal, iskander dont use thrust vectoring while I have sources that say other wise. You cant just explain how the missiles work to fit your own narritive when the explanation of what the missiles are using has already been done for you. Excluding SLBMs when was the last time the U.S. had any new ICBMs like Cedar, Sarmat, Barguzin, Yars-S? It would make sense why you prefer it to be 3d gas thrusters but these missiles have TVCs and TVCs use nozzles to change directions and if your changing directions I take it that you can manuever. Using more fuel for more thrust is not a problem dependint on technology,

I dont know if you follow rocket technology(NASA, space X, roscosmos) but there was recent news that they got an upper stage rocket engine to go from 300 to 3000 seconds of burnout with the same acelleration if your interested in that news? HGVs use control surfaces while these missiles use both. Yars is still considerably new despite getting replaced by Cedar but you can see it just does not manuever only the warhead stage but even before than along with kinzhal and Iskander saying TVC control while manuevering at all stages, so thats like 3 missiles all saying the same shit which was never said before about their older designs which is something I want to your hear thoughts on why that is? The only thing I cant prove of those 3 missiles to HGVs is the G-load manuever capabilities such as pulling 5, 10 or 15 Gs.
Firstly, I didn't tell you Iskander and Kinzhal don't have thrust vector, of course they do. But they have these thrust vector control for the same reason that the SCUD missile which was made decades ago also have thrust vector control. The purpose is to change their direction right after launch (since after they are launch upward they need to fly toward enemy direction very quickly). But that only effective for a very short amount of time while the main motor still burning. For mid phase maneuver of ballistic missile, you will need the side gas thruster.
scud.jpg


Secondly, Unlike short range ballistic missile like Kinzhal and Iskander, all ICBM whether they are Cedar, Sarmat or Yars-S has many stages, just because you see the thrust vector control at the tail end. Doesn't mean the third or fourth stages don't use side gas thruster instead.
bulva missile.jpg


Thirdly, while technically SLBM and ICBM can maneuver in mid phase with the side gas thruster, you can't reach any where even close to the maneuvering capability of a hypersonic boost glider which can rely on aerodynamic force. That why something like Avangard , LRHW, ARRW are developed.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
I dont know if you follow rocket technology(NASA, space X, roscosmos) but there was recent news that they got an upper stage rocket engine to go from 300 to 3000 seconds of burnout with the same acelleration if your interested in that news?
Frankly I don't believe that you can increase burn time by 10 times while keeping the same acceleration as before. Energy dont just come out of thin air.
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
256
Likes
361
Country flag
Yes, I was the one who explained to you that boost glider reduce speed gradually while they glide inside atmosphere, that why average speed of a boost glider is generally slower than a ballistic missile of similar size. The advantage of boost glider is that they are much more agile than any ballistic missile and they fly at much lower altitude to reduce radar horizon.
150 lbs warhead isn't heavy, but it move at hypersonic speed, even a normal APDSFS round from MBT with speed roughly Mach 5 can penetrate 500 mm of solid steel, so a 150 lbs warhead moving at Mach 7-8 at terminal phase will have devastating effect even at such small size.
Klevok-D2 hypersonic range won't get anywhere even remotely close to 200 km given that the sustainer burn for only 42 seconds (for comparison, even Meteor sustainer can burn for 3 minutes). With 42 seconds burn times, even if it somehow move at Mach 6 for the whole duration, that only work out to 85 km. But for that to happen, we need to assume some magical propulsion system that allow it to move at top speed while spend minimum amount of fuel. Which like I said, not quite realistic at all. A more realistic assumption would be the maximum burn time associated with minimum thrust. Meaning Klevok-D2 can spend 42 seconds at Mach 2-3 which work out to about 28-42 km
https://vpk.name/news/208462_kinzhalnyi_ogon.html Apparently the Kinzhal does not leave atmosphere which sounds like it takes advantage of lower altitudes as well.

"According to the commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces Sergey Surovikin, the missile is aeroballistic. A powerful main engine (most likely, RDTT) within a few seconds accelerates it to hypersonic speed. A typical flight profile was depicted in the presentation. After separation from the carrier, the missile moves along a ballistic trajectory, gaining a height of several tens of kilometers, and then dives to the target. Such a profile allows you to achieve high speed and long range (since a significant flight intensity takes place in the stratosphere, where the air density is small), reduces the likelihood of destruction by air defense systems. It can be assumed that the missile is capable of flying and not on a ballistic trajectory. But in this case, the range is less."

The dimensions on the kinzhal is 7 meters in length and .8 meters in diameter. https://www.aerosociety.com/media/12850/3-paul-dack.pdf The manuevering G-loads of HGVs are pointing at 10G while I remember giving you a source at the Kasputin Yars test range where they were intercepting targets with higher G-load manuevering capabilities than this. So far Avangard is their only HGV project AFAIK and the reason its used is for biggernuclear payloads and to be carried on larger ICBMs like Sarmat. More mass and size make manuevering at higher G-loads is more difficult which is why they proposed an HGV with next gen ICBMs with faster 1st stages before the HGV gets released at a 100km flight ceiling. Also why re-invent the wheel when it has been re-invented for you when they give the booster speeds and the speeds of the 2nd stage on the patent? Not only that but you give no sources for such a claim while there are plenty of sources that show cruising speeds of ramjets before speeding up on their terminal stage.

I don''t think you understand what is boost phase, and what is sustain phase.
Boost phase is the phase where missile accelerate as much as possible, the rocket stage in boost phase often generate a lot of thrust to get the missile to very high speed,but to generate a lot of thrust, you need a lot of fuel. So boost phase last for very short amount of time.
Sustain phase is designed to extend missile range, so they produce very little amount of thrust. Because you produce minimal thrust, you use much less fuel. And therefore you can extend missile range.
For Hermes, you can look at the speed/range diagram.
Right after launch, missile accelerate rapidly to 1300 m/s - roughly Mach 3.7
But then the boost stage depleted just as quick as it accelerate the missile, after 10 km, it decelerates to 800 m/s - roughly Mach 2.3. After 20 km, the missile decelerates down to 500 m/s - roughly Mach 1.4 and sustain that speed for about 50 km. Then the missile decelerate further as the sustainer also out at this point and the missile just coasting.
So you can see that the booster range of Hermes is 15-20 km at most, and the sustainer work for about 50 km, then you have missile just coasting without thrust.
If you switch the sustainer of Hermes with the ramjet engine to make Klevok-D2 , then in best case hypothetical scenario, you still only have 100 km with thrust, but that it.
Hermes -K missile.jpg


Regarding AARGM-ER, it more than double the range of AARGM while keeping the time of flight the same, since speed =distance/time. If you double the range and keeping time the same. That would mean you need to double the speed.
AARGM-ER1.PNG

Also from ATK previous slide presentation
AARGM-ER load out.PNG

Furthermore, SIAW was not cancelled, AARGM-ER is a Navy program while SIAW is an Airforce program, previously, USAF plan is to modify AARGM-ER giving it a different warhead to make SIAW. However, that planned was later changed. They wanted a different design for SIAW so instead of giving the contract for OTK, they run a different competition for SIAW
EwsWcjoWEAUyXZU.jpg


If I have to guess, then the most likely winner of SIAW competition would be THOR-ER, as the test vehicle already has the same dimension as AARGM
Thor-er.png

Thor-er 2.PNG

Thor-er 3.PNG
The speeds have been given for you, Why re-invent the wheel when its re-invented for you?

“Klevok-D2” will receive wings that unfold after launch and a ramjet engine. “On it, it will accelerate to several thousand kilometers per hour in 40 seconds,” the newspaper writes." You could keeping coping about the hermes here for all I care.

Not only have you presented me one missile laugh at but now another? There is a key difference to what stewart expects of the missile, than what it is done with the missile, like how the nauka module was expected to be launched on its 1st attempt. That was a 2017 Janes article source where even he did not have an aft actuator solution. Fast forward to 2019 Northrup awards the contract with a 10% increase in volume which even a user like Spudman their gave his estimates that seem to align with the 20-50% increase in range. and they have found the aft actuator solution https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55090&start=30 there are so many 2021 aviation website article sources going, "It reportedly increases the range over the AGM-88E by 20-50%, which would result in the AGM-88G's range being around 96–120 nmi (178–222 km; 110–138 mi)." Look if we were to do a voting poll here between 1. is it considered an upgrade to bump up your volume to increase range and speeds. 2. is it considered an upgrade multiplying your warhead weight with twice the amount, keep same diameter/length with folding wings as previous missile design, bump up the speed and range. Everyone here would vote for option 2. If I remember correctly did you agree before that the AGM-183A was to have mach 20 speeds? See how that changed with the present image here? This would be a perfect, what I expected, but what I got meme only difference is that the klevok-D2 is ongoing with purchased patents with design layouts. It could or not be as expected similiar to agm-88G. These missiles look on par spec wise with this http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-58ushke/ even from the looks of it if they lowered the kh-58s warhead weight and just the diameter since both their lengths look nearly identical the thrust claims by Spudman and range estimates would be nearly identical.

Pictures can be appealing but you need to understand the working principles of a system, picture is only a 2D visual aid. It is actually much easier to go side to side than to go up then down.
If you think any aircraft with 926 km range missile is somehow easy to intercept, then that would make all others weapons carry by aircraft fighter much useless. How often do you see weapon with range greater than 1000 km on fighter jet?. Even JASSM-ER only top out at around 950 km and JASSM-XR at 1600 km, but they are not exactly popular.
Not really from the looks of it the cost of that HGV would be almost equal to the cost of an Su-70 if you go from 1 billion rubbles to USD with after production costs. I would prefer to overwhelm an IAD in a short notice with plenty of hypersonic manuevering small RCS with almost comparable warhead sizes of a 13 million dollar HGV. From the looks of these weapons and Brown's statements it questions the purpose of a 5th gen aircraft.

Firstly, I didn't tell you Iskander and Kinzhal don't have thrust vector, of course they do. But they have these thrust vector control for the same reason that the SCUD missile which was made decades ago also have thrust vector control. The purpose is to change their direction right after launch (since after they are launch upward they need to fly toward enemy direction very quickly). But that only effective for a very short amount of time while the main motor still burning. For mid phase maneuver of ballistic missile, you will need the side gas thruster.
scud.jpg


Secondly, Unlike short range ballistic missile like Kinzhal and Iskander, all ICBM whether they are Cedar, Sarmat or Yars-S has many stages, just because you see the thrust vector control at the tail end. Doesn't mean the third or fourth stages don't use side gas thruster instead.
bulva missile.jpg


Thirdly, while technically SLBM and ICBM can maneuver in mid phase with the side gas thruster, you can't reach any where even close to the maneuvering capability of a hypersonic boost glider which can rely on aerodynamic force. That why something like Avangard , LRHW, ARRW are developed.
One thing is not like the other, Scuds go back to the 1960s with only warheads doing the manuevering as the missiles you have demonstrated, but even a simple demonstration like YARs has show manuevering capabilities before even entering the midphase.

1627409409102.png


Gas dynmaic steering with TVCs similiar to an aircraft is what I mean and not just TVCs, above is an example of the Iskander launch. 2:43 to 3:03 is the beautiful part of after they launch the missiles, you got any ballistic missiles that can do this? They showed the iskanders in the beginning. Based on the G-loads they seem higher than HGVs, But for them they only weant for a major HGV project because any huger class ICBMs would be difficult to manuever.

Frankly I don't believe that you can increase burn time by 10 times while keeping the same acceleration as before. Energy dont just come out of thin air.
You have to be a believer.

В России испытали ракетный двигатель с рекордной длительностью работы - Наука - ТАСС (tass.ru)

he new rocket engine was able to work on tests for more than 3 thousand seconds, which is a record figure. This was announced by the chief designer of JSC "KB Khimavtomatiki" Viktor Gorokhov on the air of the program "Military acceptance" on the TV channel "Zvezda".

"We conducted such a duration of testing, and the engine worked not only 750 seconds in one start, but worked for more than 3 thousand seconds," Gorokhov said.

According to him, the new product is arranged according to a closed circuit, which makes it the most economical in the world among all oxygen-kerosene engines.

At the moment, at the first stages of rockets when launched into space, the engines work for about 140 seconds, and the resource tests of the engines of the third stages of the rockets usually do not last more than 280 seconds.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,038
Likes
6,038
Country flag
Why We Know F-35 Support Costs Will Fall In The Future

After two decades of struggling to meet the performance requirements for the F-35 fighter and getting the production cost down to acceptable levels, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has discovered the plane supposedly costs too much to fly.

This latest installment in the long-running chronicle of criticism assailing the most successful military aircraft development effort in modern times is summarized in a recent report by the GAO entitled “DOD Needs To Cut Billions In Estimated Costs To Achieve Affordability.”

You would never guess from reading the report that the most common variant of F-35 is already outperforming all other tactical aircraft in reliability, mean time between failures, hours of maintenance needed per flight hour, time required to repair, and percentage returning from missions in a still-capable state.

Somehow, GAO managed to generate 50 pages of dense analysis without mentioning any of this.

It also omitted the fact that F-35 is several times more effective at air dominance, ground attack, suppression of hostile defenses and collection of intelligence than legacy fighters in the joint fleet—while costing roughly the same amount to build.

So key members of Congress are outraged at what seems to be a searing indictment of the Pentagon’s biggest weapons program.

Obviously, this begs the question of why countries like Switzerland keep deciding to buy F-35 rather than other fighters.

The explanation is that Switzerland and the dozen other allies purchasing F-35 have a more balanced understanding of the program than GAO does.

But because GAO is at base an honest and thoughtful organization, you can find the solution to the fighter’s current affordability concerns embedded in the report itself.

You just have to read between the lines.

So here are several reasons the operating and support costs of the F-35 fighter, also known as the sustainment costs, are sure to fall in the future.

I should mention up front that my think tank receives funding from several of the biggest industry players on the program, including airframe prime contractor Lockheed Martin and engine prime contractor Pratt & Whitney.

Supply chain issues will ease as the fleet standardizes. GAO says that the supply chain for spare parts is a key impediment to lowering support costs. That’s true, but it results from the fact that spare parts have been under-funded and the fighter is not yet mature.

Specifically, GAO reports that various iterations of the fighter are operating with “at least 39 different part combinations.” Furthermore, F-35s in training and operational squadrons are using three different versions of mission software—with each version “requiring unique sustainment needs.”

These issues will gradually disappear as all F-35s are modified to the latest configuration, substantially reducing the need for diverse parts and software support.

Air Force proficiency at repairs will improve. The Air Force faces a bigger affordability challenge than the sea services in operating its version of F-35, the most common variant of the fighter. However, Air Force maintenance and support procedures for the fighter are in their infancy, and costs per plane are predictably elevated.

For instance, challenges with the fighter’s engine are concentrated in a component called the power module, which GAO says accounts for 30% of spare parts needs. The defense department concedes it is not adequately staffed to keep up with engine maintenance and therefore it will establish five additional depots for engine support.

As the Air Force and other services build out support infrastructure, train up maintainers, and fully fund spare parts accounts, the improving level of proficiency will drive down sustainment costs.

Support equipment and technical data will become more available. GAO says “flight-line level repair capabilities, though improved, remain problematic due to a lack of technical data and support equipment.

These are not hard problems to solve. The program simply needs to get necessary technical data and support equipment into the hands of maintainers, over 10,000 of whom have been trained. Such problems are common when new aircraft are being fielded, but once adequate resources are made available, flight-line support will improve markedly.

The ODIN data network will enhance tracking and prognostics. The Autonomic Logistics Information System that supports F-35 operations and support functions is 15 years old, and not capable of fully exploiting information generated by the fleet. A new Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN) referenced in the GAO report is being developed that will make more effective use of information to predict problems before they occur.

F-35 was conceived to be the most maintainable tactical aircraft in the world, and one facet of that effort was the creation of a global network to report sustainment information. This system collects data from every F-35 in the force, which ODIN will be able to analyze to maximum effect. So sustainment data will be better utilized in the future—assuming Congress stops slashing funding for the new system.

Digital tools will optimize support efficiency. Airframe prime contractor Lockheed Martin has spent $400 million over the last several years to develop a suite of digital tools that can provide fleet analytics, parts management, maintenance scheduling, and the like. GAO appears unaware of the progress this effort has made.

For instance, a new system called Medusa provides deployed signature management and analysis for assuring the aircraft’s stealth features. Creating a fully digital sustainment architecture will make F-35 sustainment easier and cheaper.

The defense accounting system will better capture costs. Although there is abundant evidence F-35 will be less expensive to sustain than legacy fighters, the military services are not adept at comparing the cost of F-35 with older aircraft. The main reason is that all facets of upkeep and repair on F-35 are charged to the aircraft, whereas pods and munitions removed from legacy aircraft for support are not.

This anomaly results from the fact that F-35 is an integrated airframe on which all equipment is carried internally. On an F-15 or F-16, much of the equipment is carried externally and removed for maintenance.

So even though F-35 is typically much easier to repair—maintainers change a card rather than removing the system—it appears more costly in the accounting system. Cost tracking will presumably become more accurate as F-35 populates the fleet. It is curious that GAO, an organization known for its accounting, seems oblivious to the disparities in the current accounting system.

The services will embrace performance-based logistics. The GAO report makes it sound as though reliance on contractors to do maintenance is a major cost driver. Some of the contractor costs are associated with upkeep of the data system that ODIN will replace. However, the Air Force in particular has a long track record of claiming it is more efficient than the companies that built combat systems at sustaining hardware and software.

That isn’t likely, and probably reflects a failure to capture all costs associated with an organic sustainment system. Over time it will become apparent that the kind of performance-based logistics contracts favored by commercial aircraft operators are less costly than trying to prove socialism can work in a military setting. The Air Force is taking steps in that direction with F-35, and will realize major savings as the process unfolds in the future.

 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,038
Likes
6,038
Country flag
Meanwhile Canada just paid another $71.1M to remain a partner in the F-35 program... This is another military procurement hostaged by nasty politics.

 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
https://vpk.name/news/208462_kinzhalnyi_ogon.html Apparently the Kinzhal does not leave atmosphere which sounds like it takes advantage of lower altitudes as well.

"According to the commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces Sergey Surovikin, the missile is aeroballistic. A powerful main engine (most likely, RDTT) within a few seconds accelerates it to hypersonic speed. A typical flight profile was depicted in the presentation. After separation from the carrier, the missile moves along a ballistic trajectory, gaining a height of several tens of kilometers, and then dives to the target. Such a profile allows you to achieve high speed and long range (since a significant flight intensity takes place in the stratosphere, where the air density is small), reduces the likelihood of destruction by air defense systems. It can be assumed that the missile is capable of flying and not on a ballistic trajectory. But in this case, the range is less."

The dimensions on the kinzhal is 7 meters in length and .8 meters in diameter. https://www.aerosociety.com/media/12850/3-paul-dack.pdf The manuevering G-loads of HGVs are pointing at 10G while I remember giving you a source at the Kasputin Yars test range where they were intercepting targets with higher G-load manuevering capabilities than this. So far Avangard is their only HGV project AFAIK and the reason its used is for biggernuclear payloads and to be carried on larger ICBMs like Sarmat. More mass and size make manuevering at higher G-loads is more difficult which is why they proposed an HGV with next gen ICBMs with faster 1st stages before the HGV gets released at a 100km flight ceiling.
I don't think you understand the difference between a boost glider vehicle and a ballistic missile .
In principle, they are both warhead propelled by very powerful rocket booster that would allow them to escape the atmosphere. The key different is that a ballistic missile will spend the mid proportion of its flight outside the earth atmosphere and only re-enter it at final phase, while a boost glider will re-enter the atmosphere at very early phase of flight and glide in atmosphere to target. That is why a ballistic missile does not decelerate in mid phase and also why a boost glider is more maneuver. Because aerodynamic force which make up both lift and drag is a function of air density. If you has more drag, then you also have more lift to turn. If you have no drag to conserve your speed, then you also lost your ability to turn. In short, if you want Kinzhal to never leave atmosphere so that it can be maneuver, then it will also decelerate gradually just like a boost glider, in fact, it will decelerate even quicker due to much greater size compared to a boost glider vehicle. You can either have the maneuverability or the constant speed, but not both at the same time. On a separate note, as Kinzhal is a single stage missile and the glider vehicle of ARRW is much smaller than Kinzhal, it will also has much smaller RCS
hyp-offense-1_turbosquid_promo.jpg

Also, just so you know, the ability to not completely follow ballistic trajectory is nothing new, it has been done by AGM-69 several decades ago
SRAM 2.jpg


Secondly, Kinzhal (aka air launched Iskander) is a 4 tons, 7.3 meters long single stage missile (meaning it can't eject a stage to be smaller) while Avangard is a 2 tons, 5.4 meters long, so if we consider mass and size alone, then Kinzhal is actually bigger than Avangard since Kinzhal is a full missile while Avangard is just a glider vehicle on top of a ballistic missile. The issue is not mass, but rather the fact that gliding inside atmosphere will give you much better agility.
You did talk about Kasputin Yars test range, but the thing is, they didn't test their missile against boost glider vehicle, they tested their missiles against decoys SAM which fly much slower speed than a boost glider vehicle, and also decelerate much quicker since they fly in thick air.

Also why re-invent the wheel when it has been re-invented for you when they give the booster speeds and the speeds of the 2nd stage on the patent? Not only that but you give no sources for such a claim while there are plenty of sources that show cruising speeds of ramjets before speeding up on their terminal stage.
The speeds have been given for you, Why re-invent the wheel when its re-invented for you?
“Klevok-D2” will receive wings that unfold after launch and a ramjet engine. “On it, it will accelerate to several thousand kilometers per hour in 40 seconds,” the newspaper writes." You could keeping coping about the hermes here for all I care.
I didn't reinvent any wheel, klevok-d2 is basically the booster of Hermes system integrated with a ramjet engine second stage. It is also the fact fact that the ramjet stage of klevok-d2 can only operate for 42 seconds. Even if we consider klevok-d2 engine is so magical that it can operate at maximum thrust while using minimum amount of fuel. That only work out to 85 km at Mach 6. But frankly , that not how ramjet work, that not how any engine work, you don't get to produce maximum thrust at minimum fuel consumption. So a reasonable and logical assessment would be the 42 seconds operation of klevok-d2 ramjet engine will be done at minimum thrust aka minimum speed possible. Furthermore, your source doesn't give anything concrete on the speed of klevok-d2 to counter my argument either, the only thing they said is that the missile will accelerate to several thousand km per hour. But how much is several?, 3000 km/h can also be called several thousand km per hour and it work out to around Mach 2.8, even 4000 km/h is only around Mach 3.7, assuming klevok-d2 can move at 4000 km/h for 42 seconds that work out to around 46 km, which is tiny compared to ARRW range, they are not even in the same class.


Not only have you presented me one missile laugh at but now another? There is a key difference to what stewart expects of the missile, than what it is done with the missile, like how the nauka module was expected to be launched on its 1st attempt. That was a 2017 Janes article source where even he did not have an aft actuator solution. Fast forward to 2019 Northrup awards the contract with a 10% increase in volume which even a user like Spudman their gave his estimates that seem to align with the 20-50% increase in range. and they have found the aft actuator solution https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55090&start=30 there are so many 2021 aviation website article sources going, "It reportedly increases the range over the AGM-88E by 20-50%, which would result in the AGM-88G's range being around 96–120 nmi (178–222 km; 110–138 mi)."
No right from the start from the start, Orbital ATK (which is now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems) proposal for AARGM-ER already used the 11.5 inches motor and the aft actuator solution for AARGM-ER, that has never been change, like ever. It has always double the range and speed of AARGM.
AARGM-ER.PNG

Spudman estimation of AARGM-ER vs AARGM based only on the change in diameter between the two missile,
AARGM rocket motor diameter is 254 mm
AARGM rocket motor diameter is 292 mm
If the length of the rocket motor section is equally long, AARGM-ER will only carry 29% more rocket fuel. But he forget the massive different between AARGM and AARGM-ER aka the mid body actuator.
The mid body actuator on AARGM was removed leaving more space for fuel on AARGM-ER, in short, the rocket booster section on AARGM-ER is much longer than the on AARGM.


aargm-er2.jpeg

aargm-er1.jpeg

agm-88.png


Furthermore, the mid body wing removed also mean the missile reduce significant amount of wing wave drag which is very significant compared to body wave
Stright-Wing-Drag-Rise_Coefficient.jpg




Look if we were to do a voting poll here between 1. is it considered an upgrade to bump up your volume to increase range and speeds. 2. is it considered an upgrade multiplying your warhead weight with twice the amount, keep same diameter/length with folding wings as previous missile design, bump up the speed and range. Everyone here would vote for option 2. If I remember correctly did you agree before that the AGM-183A was to have mach 20 speeds? See how that changed with the present image here? This would be a perfect, what I expected, but what I got meme only difference is that the klevok-D2 is ongoing with purchased patents with design layouts. It could or not be as expected similiar to agm-88G. These missiles look on par spec wise with this http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-58ushke/ even from the looks of it if they lowered the kh-58s warhead weight and just the diameter since both their lengths look nearly identical the thrust claims by Spudman and range estimates would be nearly identical.
The problem is your second option is asking for contradicting requirement.
For example: the folding wing is for subsonic gliding, while the ramjet is for supersonic - near hypersonic flight. I'm not saying using ramjet is a bad idea, it is not. But klevok-d2 is no where as magical as you seem to think.

Not really from the looks of it the cost of that HGV would be almost equal to the cost of an Su-70 if you go from 1 billion rubbles to USD with after production costs. I would prefer to overwhelm an IAD in a short notice with plenty of hypersonic manuevering small RCS with almost comparable warhead sizes of a 13 million dollar HGV. From the looks of these weapons and Brown's statements it questions the purpose of a 5th gen aircraft.
S-70 can't fly toward target at hypersonic speed, it cruising slowly at subsonic speed, also you know that the OTH radar you mentioned earlier can also be used against things like S-70 right?. ARRW purpose is literally in its name already Air launched Rapid Respond Weapon, the purpose is to respond Rapidly. If economy is your concern, you can easily load things like THOR-ER, AARGM-ER, SACM on a stealth aircraft and make them get close to threats area. But you can't respond rapidly like if you were to use ARRW or HACM.

One thing is not like the other, Scuds go back to the 1960s with only warheads doing the manuevering as the missiles you have demonstrated, but even a simple demonstration like YARs has show manuevering capabilities before even entering the midphase.
View attachment 102156
Gas dynmaic steering with TVCs similiar to an aircraft is what I mean and not just TVCs, above is an example of the Iskander launch. 2:43 to 3:03 is the beautiful part of after they launch the missiles, you got any ballistic missiles that can do this? They showed the iskanders in the beginning. Based on the G-loads they seem higher than HGVs, But for them they only weant for a major HGV project because any huger class ICBMs would be difficult to manuever.
If SCUD can't start maneuvering right after it was launched, then why do you think it has a thrust vector control at the rear?. The rocket motor sure as hell doesn't burn till terminal phase
All ballistic missile can change direction in boost phase, how else do you expect them to fly toward target direction if they can't change direction right after launched?
trident I.jpg

Look at this video of Rampage between 1:11 and 1:2, the missile first fly horizontal flight path then make a turn to climb up

But as I mentioned earlier, ballistic missile are intercepted in mid phase and terminal phase rather than boost phase. Because it hard to get an interceptor to the area right next to the ballistic missile launcher to catch it while it boosting. The purpose of thrust vector control you see on ballistic missile such as Iskander, Scud, Kinzhal ..etc is not to dodge interceptor, the purpose is to orient the ballistic missile so that they can climb out of atmosphere and toward the target direction.
The important part where the maneuverability of missile matter to the interceptor is the mid phase and terminal phase. The problem is that for TVC, it only work while the main rocket motor is still burning, and since rocket motor burn very rapidly , you only have them operating at the start of the flight in boost phase. That why ballistic missile must rely on side thruster in mid phase. However, side thruster can never give you the maneuverability of hypersonic boost glider, which can rely on the much greater aerodynamic force to change direction
Capture.PNG

 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
You have to be a believer.
В России испытали ракетный двигатель с рекордной длительностью работы - Наука - ТАСС (tass.ru)
he new rocket engine was able to work on tests for more than 3 thousand seconds, which is a record figure. This was announced by the chief designer of JSC "KB Khimavtomatiki" Viktor Gorokhov on the air of the program "Military acceptance" on the TV channel "Zvezda".
"We conducted such a duration of testing, and the engine worked not only 750 seconds in one start, but worked for more than 3 thousand seconds," Gorokhov said.
According to him, the new product is arranged according to a closed circuit, which makes it the most economical in the world among all oxygen-kerosene engines.
At the moment, at the first stages of rockets when launched into space, the engines work for about 140 seconds, and the resource tests of the engines of the third stages of the rockets usually do not last more than 280 seconds.
At what part do they say it keep the same amount of thrust and acceleration?. If you turn down the thrust, you can extend the operation time, just like how a ramjet engine operate . Furthermore, he was talking about oxygen-kerosene engines aka liquid fuel rocket engine for spacecraft, a completely different animal from the solid fuel rocket of Kinzhal.
On a liquid fuel rocket engine such as Saturn V ,Soyuz-5 you can control the burn rate of the engine, because the compartment for fuel and liquid oxygen are separate and you can control the flow rate with pump.You can increase the burn time by reducing the thrust, the principle I told you since start. On a solid fuel rocket engine such as Kinzhal/Iskander , the fuel and oxidizers premixed together, once it burn, you can't control the thrust and it burn up very quickly
Liquid-fueled-rockets-top-use-two-separate-tanks-one-for-the-fuel-and-one-for-the.png
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top