Sukhoi PAK FA

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
you sure about that? https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidh...-for-miniature-self-defense-missile-for-jets/ That is not the only source that has said one meter. Also I do not know if you got the memo yet but there is a 2nd variant Su-57 conducting tests based on new avionics, new weapons and new engines.
I know MSDN is a program of record, the problem is that you don't actually know the load out arrangement or how it actually look like, so it is pointless to talk about it. Just because there are some source that said 1 meter doesn't mean you know how they stack it on F-35, F-22 weapon rack
Take for example, the load out of MSDN might be extremely high if it stack like this, but the problem is that we don't know if the arrangement is like that, so any guess is worthless
AAA.PNG

weapon_1033.jpg



I was still talking about the Su-57 but of course you cant determine what new missiles are either of if or the time and date without delay if those missiles will even be fielded. Go click on the russia defense net link to see that discussion. I am only giving a 10 air missile option but your still not explaining why that is not feasible.
Why would I want to read about speculation of a system that isn't even exist on paper yet and purely forum wish?. Even in case of MSDN and SACM, which are actual funded programs, there is little point to discuss them since there are no technical information to discuss. Now you are talking about mini missiles and new rack for Su-57 which doesn't even exist on paper yet.


No I like my chances on the range estimates of the K-77M versions in comparison to Meteor missile. I am well aware of the Meteor's missiles range from one of your own sources. Don't mix up the K-77M to me referencing the range of K-37M.
Iam talking about K-77ME the ramjet version, likely have similar range as Meteor, not K-77M. K-77M won't even come close to Meteor range.



It gives no option for a internal weapons bay placement despite being the same range as the K-37M. Unless the Chinese and the U.S. with the HAWC program are all like fuck stealth.
PL-21 should have better range or speed than R-37 given its aerodynamic shape
HAWC range probably is about 800-1000 km or more, at that distance, you dont really need stealth because no SAM fly that far
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
I know MSDN is a program of record, the problem is that you don't actually know the load out arrangement or how it actually look like, so it is pointless to talk about it.
Take for example, the load out of MSDN might be extremely high if it look something like this, but the problem is that we don't know if the arrangement is like that, so any guess is worthless
The Su-57 has a pretty big weapons bay and have publicly shown the quad missiles they are working with if there has been any physical appearance of the MSDN. Examples you gave of downsizing projects can also apply to this aircraft since these missiles are new designs that have not been disclosed yet. One country likes to talk about projects before putting in tests, the other likes to put in tests at times before talking about them and I guess we sort of know which is which in this case.

Why would I want to read about speculation of a system that isn't even exist on paper yet and purely forum wish?. Even in case of MSDN and SACM, which are actual funded programs, there is little point to discuss them since there are no technical information to discuss. Now you are talking about mini missiles and new rack for Su-57 which doesn't even exist on paper yet.
Forum wishes sort of belongs at F-16.net those are just multiple articles that gave that size reference. There have been miniature missiles already displayed by pantsir for drones. Even I worry if the mentioned programs will be operational like the DIRCM proposals for the F-35. I am considering smaller missile designs at option that can be integrated to the newer Su-57.

am talking about K-77ME the ramjet version, likely have similar range as Meteor, not K-77M. K-77M won't even come close to Meteor range.
What makes you think they will be the same range? when 193km+ is estimated for just the K-77M and an unpowered glide for Meteor at best was shown at 220kms when have not even gotten to ranges on the K-77ME.

PL-21 should have better range or speed than R-37 given its aerodynamic shape
HAWC range probably is about 800-1000 km or more, at that distance, you dont really need stealth because no SAM fly that far
Yeah but K-37M is given 300-400km based on sources and the PL-21 is given 240-400km ranges based on sources. If what you say is the case based on you don't need stealth for HAWC than the F-35 program would have been cancelled a long time ago and I am starting to see concerns about its development based on F-15 and F-16 production plans along with different hypersonic air to ground project plans

Now you were someone that likes to put so much emphasis to every little detail on stealth that you even get accused in multiple forums by different users to stop spamming images but all of a sudden likes having a stealth aircraft take a non-stealth approach. Its better to launch a hypersonic air to ground missile from 80kms away giving the adversary less notice than launching it 800kms being warned an attack is coming.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
The Su-57 has a pretty big weapons bay and have publicly shown the quad missiles they are working with if there has been any physical appearance of the MSDN. Examples you gave of downsizing projects can also apply to this aircraft since these missiles are new designs that have not been disclosed yet. One country likes to talk about projects before putting in tests, the other likes to put in tests at times before talking about them and I guess we sort of know which is which in this case.
Which quad missile? You mean Kh-59MK2? That is basically the same thing as Spear, and quite a massive different from a quad pack air to air missile. And seriously, how is MSDN which is a US program, in any way related to a hypothetical quad pack missiles for Su-57 which at this point literally only exist on forum?
Depend on programs, both Russia and US sometime talk about them before they test and sometime after they test. There isnt any standard to which country talk about program before or after test. Take for example: literally nothing was known about US sea dragon

Forum wishes sort of belongs at F-16.net those are just multiple articles that gave that size reference. There have been miniature missiles already displayed by pantsir for drones. Even I worry if the mentioned programs will be operational like the DIRCM proposals for the F-35. I am considering smaller missile designs at option that can be integrated to the newer Su-57.
You still don't understand. MSDN at least a program of record. Meaning it is funded and it exist. Talking about its size and capability isn't very helpful because all details are currently classified, but at least we know they are developing it. On the otherhand, there isn't any program of record for 10 internal MRAAM for Su-57 so talking about it is just boderline wishful thinking at this point. Even if it supposed to get that in the far future , there is little point to discuss it when about 99% is speculation and you won't even know what the adversary will probably have



What makes you think they will be the same range? when 193km+ is estimated for just the K-77M and an unpowered glide for Meteor at best was shown at 220kms when have not even gotten to ranges on the K-77ME.
Firstly, the 193 km estimate for K-77M is the same type of 185 km estimate for AIM-120D, those are the maximum kinematic range and a world different from what a ramjet missile achieved since ramjet can be powered for major proportion of its flight.
Secondly, the 220 km that you saw wasn't belong to Meteor, it is the estimation of range for a ramjet missile that has the same diameter as AIM-120 but use ramjet.And don't just look at the number, read the text. It isn't "at best" because the launch aircraft and the target are both at 6 km altitude, which is only medium altitude, when you raise the altitude the range will grow significantly because air is thinner and missiles get more potential energy. The maximum turn down ratio of the missile they simulated is 10:1 while the turn down ratio of Meteor is 12:1, that mean Meteor can reduce the fuel flow to even lower rate. And the minimum altitude requirement of that missile is sea level while for Meteor is 6 km. Lower altitude requirement increase booster size and reduce sustainer size so Meteor will have bigger sustainer for longer range.

Yeah but K-37M is given 300-400km based on sources and the PL-21 is given 240-400km ranges based on sources.
And?, most sources don't even care about aerodynamic and just give generic value.

If what you say is the case based on you don't need stealth for HAWC than the F-35 program would have been cancelled a long time ago and I am starting to see concerns about its development based on F-15 and F-16 production plans along with different hypersonic air to ground project plans

Now you were someone that likes to put so much emphasis to every little detail on stealth that you even get accused in multiple forums by different users to stop spamming images but all of a sudden likes having a stealth aircraft take a non-stealth approach. Its better to launch a hypersonic air to ground missile from 80kms away giving the adversary less notice than launching it 800kms being warned an attack is coming.
Firstly, what do you think the purpose of stealth is? To get detect enemy and attack them before they can attack you. What is the purpose of extremely long range weapon? .To attack the enemy before they can attack you by having longer reach. They aim to do the same thing, by different mean.
Stealth advantage is that you can get closer to detect and identify targets better. Standoff weapon advantage is that you can attack targets with further strategic deep.
Secondly, if you aim to attack at close range then there is no need to use standoff hypersonic weapons, you can use weapons with shorter range. Take for example: at close range F-35 can use AARGM-ER, SIAW, THOR-ER ..etc , no need to use HAWC
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
Which quad missile? You mean Kh-59MK2? That is basically the same thing as Spear, and quite a massive different from a quad pack air to air missile. And seriously, how is MSDN which is a US program, in any way related to a hypothetical quad pack missiles for Su-57 which at this point literally only exist on forum?
Depend on programs, both Russia and US sometime talk about them before they test and sometime after they test. There isnt any standard to which country talk about program before or after test. Take for example: literally nothing was known about US sea dragon
I think I have repeated myself multiple times already that I was referring to the quad missiles on pantsirs designed to engage small drones. Kh-59MK2 is like the JSM but a way heavier payload. U.S. talks about projects that have yet to be tested Borisov head of KTRV
which is in charge of the new weapons for the su-57 seems he would want them tested before giving them any names. https://en.topwar.ru/179443-novaja-...a-nachala-postupat-na-vooruzhenie-vmf-rf.html "Obnosov noted that in Soviet times there were electric torpedoes, but in comparison with the new one, they had worse tactical and technical characteristics. However, he refused to divulge the name of the torpedo. Earlier, Obnosov explained such a refusal by the continuation of work on the torpedo.

The fact that KTRV received permission for serial production of a new promising torpedo was reported at the end of August 2020. Then it was not mentioned at all that the torpedo was electric; the KTRV only stated that its tests were completed in February 2020."


You still don't understand. MSDN at least a program of record. Meaning it is funded and it exist. Talking about its size and capability isn't very helpful because all details are currently classified, but at least we know they are developing it. On the otherhand, there isn't any program of record for 10 internal MRAAM for Su-57 so talking about it is just boderline wishful thinking at this point. Even if it supposed to get that in the far future , there is little point to discuss it when about 99% is speculation and you won't even know what the adversary will probably have
True but we do not dismiss something we do not know about because of ones own repeated bias. I do not want to think of myself as angel but do you even care about your own reputation or image online? I am not the only one that finds your behavior abnormal with your conflicting interests with everyone else besides me. I think it can house 8-10 air to air missiles for future you think it is at best 8 what is their to discuss at this point?

Firstly, the 193 km estimate for K-77M is the same type of 185 km estimate for AIM-120D, those are the maximum kinematic range and a world different from what a ramjet missile achieved since ramjet can be powered for major proportion of its flight.
damn google search keeps giving me 160km for AIM-120D https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwi02uW5z7_uAhUUWs0KHX5VBXEQ4dUDCAk&uact=5

Secondly, the 220 km that you saw wasn't belong to Meteor, it is the estimation of range for a ramjet missile that has the same diameter as AIM-120 but use ramjet.And don't just look at the number, read the text. It isn't "at best" because the launch aircraft and the target are both at 6 km altitude, which is only medium altitude, when you raise the altitude the range will grow significantly because air is thinner and missiles get more potential energy. The maximum turn down ratio of the missile they simulated is 10:1 while the turn down ratio of Meteor is 12:1, that mean Meteor can reduce the fuel flow to even lower rate. And the minimum altitude requirement of that missile is sea level while for Meteor is 6 km. Lower altitude requirement increase booster size and reduce sustainer size so Meteor will have bigger sustainer for longer range.
W-w-wait, hold on, so what you are telling me is that was not real data as in the Meteor missile itself? You want to what kind of results I am getting when I put Meteor missile max range? Oh god I am embarrassed thinking that was the real data of the Meteor missile. I feel like I will no longer have my hopes up next time for any air breathing ait to air missile from the west,

And?, most sources don't even care about aerodynamic and just give generic value.
Because they are more favorable to my opinions than yours?

Firstly, what do you think the purpose of stealth is? To get detect enemy and attack them before they can attack you. What is the purpose of extremely long range weapon? .To attack the enemy before they can attack you by having longer reach. They aim to do the same thing, by different mean.
Stealth advantage is that you can get closer to detect and identify targets better. Standoff weapon advantage is that you can attack targets with further strategic deep.
Well the Su-57 can go with the HAWC kind of approach by attaching a GZUR missile but other aircrafts in airspace, radars from below will find the aircraft more noticeable than a stealth approach. F-16Is still get put into danger along with one getting shot down from S-200s even when those F-16Is all have weapons at max range to give itself a safe distance from an S-200 with delilah missiles. I would rather be the air defense unit engaging SPEAR or GBU-53 glide bombs than being the one to engage klevok-d2 missiles.

Secondly, if you aim to attack at close range then there is no need to use standoff hypersonic weapons, you can use weapons with shorter range. Take for example: at close range F-35 can use AARGM-ER, SIAW, THOR-ER ..etc , no need to use HAWC
different radar sources such as taking notice that something fast is flying, plasma changes in HF frequencies from speeds or even future infrared satellites from space can immediately notify an attack is coming. It will also more than likely stop the adversary from mistaking it as a nuclear strike from doing something drastic back. If the F-35 was able to shove a HAWC inside, long range air defenses will have a huge risk of getting destroyed. This is not counting the newer modern air defense in short range like the pantsir-sm or Buk-m3 that are to engage hypersonic missiles, so more unique air to ground weapons have to be created. But based on the purpose of the F-35 not every country is like Russia so the aircraft is not entirely a bad investment.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
I think I have repeated myself multiple times already that I was referring to the quad missiles on pantsirs designed to engage small drones. Kh-59MK2 is like the JSM but a way heavier payload. U.S. talks about projects that have yet to be tested Borisov head of KTRV
which is in charge of the new weapons for the su-57 seems he would want them tested before giving them any names. https://en.topwar.ru/179443-novaja-...a-nachala-postupat-na-vooruzhenie-vmf-rf.html "Obnosov noted that in Soviet times there were electric torpedoes, but in comparison with the new one, they had worse tactical and technical characteristics. However, he refused to divulge the name of the torpedo. Earlier, Obnosov explained such a refusal by the continuation of work on the torpedo.

The fact that KTRV received permission for serial production of a new promising torpedo was reported at the end of August 2020. Then it was not mentioned at all that the torpedo was electric; the KTRV only stated that its tests were completed in February 2020."
The way they quad pack the mini missile for Pantsirs (which is a ground SAM) is completely different from the way they could quad pack for a stealth aircraft because missile of Panstsir is fired straight a head while missiles of stealth aircraft are dropped from their weapon bay before launch. So I don't think their arrangement is the same in anyway.
Secondly, how is a completely unrelated electric torpedo program is anyway affect the weapon load of Su-57?. Su-57 doesn't even carry a sonobouy launcher or magnetic abnormally detector so giving it torpedo would be useless. And there are plenty of things that was given name before they are tested, such as internal Kinzhal or K-77ME


True but we do not dismiss something we do not know about because of ones own repeated bias. I do not want to think of myself as angel but do you even care about your own reputation or image online? I am not the only one that finds your behavior abnormal with your conflicting interests with everyone else besides me. I think it can house 8-10 air to air missiles for future you think it is at best 8 what is their to discuss at this point?
We do not treat something that doesn't even exist yet even on paper as actual system just because of someone own repeated bias. That the issue. AIM-120, Meteor, R-37 ...etc are talked about because they are actual missiles. Side kick, BRU-61 are talked about because they are actual rack and weapon arrangement that were funded and referenced by the weapon manufacturer. On the other hand, we don't have any clue if the internal quad pack for K-77ME will even be studied, not even Vympel ever talked about them, it literally only some guys on forum who draw the weapon bay cross section of Su-57 and think these number of missile will fit inside. That is a huge different compare to actual funded program of record like MSDN and SACM and people don't even talk about MSDN and SACM much because they aren't that certain





I'm sure if AIM-120D is a Russian missile, you will jump at higher value immediately, but , it doesn't matter both way 160 km or 180 km or etc, I already told you before, the range of air to air missile is highly depending on the launch speed, launch altitude and target altitude. And simply solid fuel rocket can't compete with ramjet missile of similar size for range because they doesn't have the same level of specific impulse and they can't reduce fuel flow by over 12 times to extend range.


W-w-wait, hold on, so what you are telling me is that was not real data as in the Meteor missile itself? You want to what kind of results I am getting when I put Meteor missile max range? Oh god I am embarrassed thinking that was the real data of the Meteor missile. I feel like I will no longer have my hopes up next time for any air breathing ait to air missile from the west
:doh:Is that how you treat all sources???
By separate them into source for Western missile and source for Russia missile?
Have you read the study? it is a study of ramjet propulsion system of a missile with same size as AIM-120 with a certain booster size, certain turn down ratio. And from that, you can estimate the range of varius ramjet missile with the same size, depend on their altitude and turn down ratio requirement. It doesn't matter where your system came from.
Think of it like a study about study about lift coefficient and drag coefficient of a specific wing shape, which then can be extrapolate to wing used on fighter.
Don't just read the number


Because they are more favorable to my opinions than yours?
No, because they couldn't give 2 fuck about the physics or the launch condition. That the issue for about 99% sources about missile range


Well the Su-57 can go with the HAWC kind of approach by attaching a GZUR missile but other aircrafts in airspace, radars from below will find the aircraft more noticeable than a stealth approach. F-16Is still get put into danger along with one getting shot down from S-200s even when those F-16Is all have weapons at max range to give itself a safe distance from an S-200 with delilah missiles. I would rather be the air defense unit engaging SPEAR or GBU-53 glide bombs than being the one to engage klevok-d2 missiles.
Firstly, what make you think F-16I was carrying Delilah missile or even attacking the S-200 battery when it was attacked?
Secondly, how is klevok-d2,which isn't even an air to ground system, is anyway related to su-57? That like referring to SM-6 or Prsm as missile launched by F-35

different radar sources such as taking notice that something fast is flying, plasma changes in HF frequencies from speeds or even future infrared satellites from space can immediately notify an attack is coming. It will also more than likely stop the adversary from mistaking it as a nuclear strike from doing something drastic back. If the F-35 was able to shove a HAWC inside, long range air defenses will have a huge risk of getting destroyed.
The thing is, why do you need to shove a HAWC inside, when you can use smaller missile like THOR-ER, AARGM-ER, SIAW ? What the point ?
Thor-er.PNG

AARGM-ER.png


This is not counting the newer modern air defense in short range like the pantsir-sm or Buk-m3 that are to engage hypersonic missiles, so more unique air to ground weapons have to be created. But based on the purpose of the F-35 not every country is like Russia so the aircraft is not entirely a bad investment.
There are quite a massive different between: able to intercept something and able to intercept something with high PK and able to intercept something with high PK is heavily jammed environment.
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
The way they quad pack the mini missile for Pantsirs (which is a ground SAM) is completely different from the way they could quad pack for a stealth aircraft because missile of Panstsir is fired straight a head while missiles of stealth aircraft are dropped from their weapon bay before launch. So I don't think their arrangement is the same in anyway.
the miniaturization is the same for me along with engaging small targets as an APS.

Secondly, how is a completely unrelated electric torpedo program is anyway affect the weapon load of Su-57?. Su-57 doesn't even carry a sonobouy launcher or magnetic abnormally detector so giving it torpedo would be useless. And there are plenty of things that was given name before they are tested, such as internal Kinzhal or K-77ME
That the corporation has many air to ground missile projects that only get disclosed when completed compared to air to ground projects being disclosed by the US which have not been completed yet?

We do not treat something that doesn't even exist yet even on paper as actual system just because of someone own repeated bias. That the issue. AIM-120, Meteor, R-37 ...etc are talked about because they are actual missiles. Side kick, BRU-61 are talked about because they are actual rack and weapon arrangement that were funded and referenced by the weapon manufacturer. On the other hand, we don't have any clue if the internal quad pack for K-77ME will even be studied, not even Vympel ever talked about them, it literally only some guys on forum who draw the weapon bay cross section of Su-57 and think these number of missile will fit inside. That is a huge different compare to actual funded program of record like MSDN and SACM and people don't even talk about MSDN and SACM much because they aren't that certain
Well I wonder why you consider 8 missiles when I consider 8-10 missiles, its not that hard to see the bias there? Yet you brought up SACM to increase loadout possibilities(blaming me for giving size reference on MSDM) to increase the loadout on the F-35 so I bring up smaller missiles in assumptions that there might be new air to air missiles that would increase the loadout of the Su-57, but of course we can all see that does not fit your agenda.

I'm sure if AIM-120D is a Russian missile, you will jump at higher value immediately, but , it doesn't matter both way 160 km or 180 km or etc, I already told you before, the range of air to air missile is highly depending on the launch speed, launch altitude and target altitude. And simply solid fuel rocket can't compete with ramjet missile of similar size for range because they doesn't have the same level of specific impulse and they can't reduce fuel flow by over 12 times to extend range.
I google search the 1st thing I find with plently of sources, how many do you post with your range estimates? Also I hope you have not forgotten the upgrades india and Russia got on new ramjet missiles with the same exact information, and of course the heads of both their respective companies already disclosed it. I can re-iterate the information for you just in case you forgot which still contradicts what you say as your own rules.

:doh:Is that how you treat all sources???
By separate them into source for Western missile and source for Russia missile?
Have you read the study? it is a study of ramjet propulsion system of a missile with same size as AIM-120 with a certain booster size, certain turn down ratio. And from that, you can estimate the range of varius ramjet missile with the same size, depend on their altitude and turn down ratio requirement. It doesn't matter where your system came from.
Think of it like a study about study about lift coefficient and drag coefficient of a specific wing shape, which then can be extrapolate to wing used on fighter.
Don't just read the number
Yeah but I do find range estimates based on the name of a missile, but you are pulling information from a non-existent missile which is not even close to what the Meteor is :lehappy: So this is a waste of my time because I thought this missile was given a name like Meteor. If those were actual test results than the U.S. or whoever the hell came up with those graph ranges would have that missile already operational by now but that is still not the case.

No, because they couldn't give 2 fuck about the physics or the launch condition. That the issue for about 99% sources about missile range
Do the Vietnamese have a close relationship to the Chinese? What if I told you Chinese sources have claimed those ranges or their military officials stating that?

Firstly, what make you think F-16I was carrying Delilah missile or even attacking the S-200 battery when it was attacked?
That not everything is fired at the max range when there have been many opportunities that Israel could have avoided close encounters with the missiles.

Secondly, how is klevok-d2,which isn't even an air to ground system, is anyway related to su-57? That like referring to SM-6 or Prsm as missile launched by F-35
It fucking is, there are two different klevok-d2 missiles unless that is my fault for not bringing it up you that their is a air to ground version?

There are quite a massive different between: able to intercept something and able to intercept something with high PK and able to intercept something with high PK is heavily jammed environment.
As many other users have accused you in the past in different forums, what is with your acronym soups like PK? Long range air defenses are not limited to being the only systems to deal with hypersonic missiles because that role is being transferred to newer generation small range air defense systems as well.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
the miniaturization is the same for me along with engaging small targets as an APS.
The new quad pack for mini missile on Pansir-S1 is definitely not the same as the one that can be used for Su-57. Even when ignore the obvious problem that Pansir-S1 is a ground system and Su-57 is an aircraft and they will have different requirement. Pantsir launch missile forward while Su-57 eject missile out of its main bay before launch ( the side bay for short range missile can launch forward but stacking a double rack for medium range missile is rather impossible) . The arrangement on Pantsir can't even be used on Su-57. Your argument is like saying the quad pack of ESSM in a VLS cell can be used on F-35 and F-22.


That the corporation has many air to ground missile projects that only get disclosed when completed compared to air to ground projects being disclosed by the US which have not been completed yet?
both side sometime disclosed weapons before the test is completed and sometime after, for example internal Kinzhal , K-77ME , Ramjet R-77 for example were disclosed quite long before test started


Well I wonder why you consider 8 missiles when I consider 8-10 missiles, its not that hard to see the bias there? Yet you brought up SACM to increase loadout possibilities(blaming me for giving size reference on MSDM) to increase the loadout on the F-35 so I bring up smaller missiles in assumptions that there might be new air to air missiles that would increase the loadout of the Su-57, but of course we can all see that does not fit your agenda.
What the fuck?. How am I bias?
In the comparison of missile load, I literally only talk about medium/long range missile like K-77ME, AIM-120D, Meteor, R-37 and short range missile such as AIM-9X, R-74 . I made no mention of mini missile like SACM, MSDN. When you brought them up I literally told you that I don't talk about them, because the characteristic and arrangement wasn't disclose , their fate isn't 100% certain and there is nothing to talk about. I don't talk about AIM-260 for literally the same reason
Why I only talk about the 8 missiles load for Su-57? because there isn't even a program of record for 10 missiles on Su-57, you know, not even something on study like MSDN, so really, there is even less reason to talk about them, and there is no reason to treat them the same as actual missiles that 100% get mass produced like R-37 , Meteor, AIM-120



I google search the 1st thing I find with plently of sources, how many do you post with your range estimates? Also I hope you have not forgotten the upgrades india and Russia got on new ramjet missiles with the same exact information, and of course the heads of both their respective companies already disclosed it. I can re-iterate the information for you just in case you forgot which still contradicts what you say as your own rules.
I told you before, it is not about how many sources you can put up, but how much sense they actually made, especially physically speaking. For example I can bring up like 100 magazine sources saying that plasma stealth is effective at all frequency, but that not even remotely close to how a plasma barrier absorb radar wave
It is not that I didn't see your sources salads last time, I just can't be bothered anymore to explain further why increase speed will increase fuel flow and therefore reduce range,


Yeah but I do find range estimates based on the name of a missile, but you are pulling information from a non-existent missile which is not even close to what the Meteor is :lehappy: So this is a waste of my time because I thought this missile was given a name like Meteor. If those were actual test results than the U.S. or whoever the hell came up with those graph ranges would have that missile already operational by now but that is still not the case.
:pound:Double standard at its finest here, I can't believe that you don't see the irony in your statement:pound:
I remember when they talked about an internal Kinzhal, you were finding source about a university claiming that they can increase the burn rate of rocket fuel by 5 times by adding some metals. Then you concluded that internal Kinzhal will fly just as fast and far as the one launched by Mig-31, even though there are no direct connection between the study about fuel and the manufacturer of Kinzhal.
Then just above, you were comparing the stack arrangement of a quad pack short range missile for Pansir-S1 with your hypothetical missile on Su-57, even though they can't even use the same stacking arrangement.
And now you have the gut to criticize me of talking about an aerodynamic and propulsion study of ramjet missile? :doh:. No one said the missile in the study is Meteor, that is a study of how speed, altitude and velocity of a ramjet air to air missile will change with different requirement regarding turn down ratio, minimum altitude and fuel composition. Because we know the minimum altitude, turn down ratio of Meteor so the result of that study can be used to extrapolate to what Meteor capable of (or any ramjet missile ).
For example: if you have study of CLmax of NACA 64A-204 at high AoA then you can estimate F-16 performance even without EM charts.



Do the Vietnamese have a close relationship to the Chinese? What if I told you Chinese sources have claimed those ranges or their military officials stating that?
I told you before, I don't judge the valid and reliability of a source based purely on who given the number, but also on how they acquire the number and does the number make sense physically speaking.


That not everything is fired at the max range when there have been many opportunities that Israel could have avoided close encounters with the missiles.
I don't understand what you mean. How do you know the F-16 that was shotdown actually carry Delilah ?

It fucking is, there are two different klevok-d2 missiles unless that is my fault for not bringing it up you that their is a air to ground version?
Alright, show me the klevok-d2 version that is capable of air launched from Su-57 weapon bay then?
I want to remind you again that Hermes (the missile that klevok-d2) is a forward launching missile
and Su-57 eject missiles out of its main bay before launch

As many other users have accused you in the past in different forums, what is with your acronym soups like PK? Long range air defenses are not limited to being the only systems to deal with hypersonic missiles because that role is being transferred to newer generation small range air defense systems as well.
I wasn't accused by many users in multiple forums for using acronym soup, I was blamed in Spacebattles for using a bit too many technical terms, but that about it. But then, I never got the ban so despite going again the herd there, so I am sure I doing fine.
Long range missiles aren't the only system that can deal with hypersonic target, medium range missile might have some chance of intercept them, just that the possibility isn't high
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
The way they quad pack the mini missile for Pantsirs (which is a ground SAM) is completely different from the way they could quad pack for a stealth aircraft because missile of Panstsir is fired straight a head while missiles of stealth aircraft are dropped from their weapon bay before launch. So I don't think their arrangement is the same in anyway.
Secondly, how is a completely unrelated electric torpedo program is anyway affect the weapon load of Su-57?. Su-57 doesn't even carry a sonobouy launcher or magnetic abnormally detector so giving it torpedo would be useless. And there are plenty of things that was given name before they are tested, such as internal Kinzhal or K-77ME
Lets not nuke this, is this a miniature missile? does this engage small aerial targets? If both questions give you a yes than there is no reason they could not create a miniature missile APS or even a 2 meter size missile to meet the requirement of a short range air missiles. Also why are you bringing up the ESSM when that cant fit inside either F-22 or F-35 in comparison to this miniature size missile for the Su-57?

Also is your English comprehension really bad or you keep forgetting what we are discussing at this point? I brought up Borisov because the company that has designed the electric torpedo also is in charge of the Su-57 air to ground missiles, and even though the torpedo has been tested he does not want to give it a name because he wants additional tests, in which the disclosure of air to ground weapons projects of the Su-57 are different from the F-35.

both side sometime disclosed weapons before the test is completed and sometime after, for example internal Kinzhal , K-77ME , Ramjet R-77 for example were disclosed quite long before test started
Yeah but that is not the case for KRTV now is it? when they head director states, "I will give a name after I do additional tests", in this case disclosure of Su-57 weapons are different from the F-35.

What the fuck?. How am I bias?
In the comparison of missile load, I literally only talk about medium/long range missile like K-77ME, AIM-120D, Meteor, R-37 and short range missile such as AIM-9X, R-74 . I made no mention of mini missile like SACM, MSDN. When you brought them up I literally told you that I don't talk about them, because the characteristic and arrangement wasn't disclose , their fate isn't 100% certain and there is nothing to talk about. I don't talk about AIM-260 for literally the same reason
Why I only talk about the 8 missiles load for Su-57? because there isn't even a program of record for 10 missiles on Su-57, you know, not even something on study like MSDN, so really, there is even less reason to talk about them, and there is no reason to treat them the same as actual missiles that 100% get mass produced like R-37 , Meteor, AIM-120
well its simple, did you forget that you said 8 missiles when I said 8-10? Also did you forget you wrote this post on this day? "Wednesday at 10:33 AM" you are talking about taking into account the CUDA and SACM. You brought this missiles up 1st it was not me which I am trying to find out why you are accusing me of being the 1st one to bring it up? Also since you said 8 there is no record of that either as much as my claim saying a 8-10 missile loadout. Jesus Christ is someone else using your account?

:pound:Double standard at its finest here, I can't believe that you don't see the irony in your statement:pound:
I remember when they talked about an internal Kinzhal, you were finding source about a university claiming that they can increase the burn rate of rocket fuel by 5 times by adding some metals. Then you concluded that internal Kinzhal will fly just as fast and far as the one launched by Mig-31, even though there are no direct connection between the study about fuel and the manufacturer of Kinzhal.
Then just above, you were comparing the stack arrangement of a quad pack short range missile for Pansir-S1 with your hypothetical missile on Su-57, even though they can't even use the same stacking arrangement.
And now you have the gut to criticize me of talking about an aerodynamic and propulsion study of ramjet missile? :doh:. No one said the missile in the study is Meteor, that is a study of how speed, altitude and velocity of a ramjet air to air missile will change with different requirement regarding turn down ratio, minimum altitude and fuel composition. Because we know the minimum altitude, turn down ratio of Meteor so the result of that study can be used to extrapolate to what Meteor capable of (or any ramjet missile ).
For example: if you have study of CLmax of NACA 64A-204 at high AoA then you can estimate F-16 performance even without EM charts.
Ahh so this is why you are famous for creating bottomless pits on other forums and threads by bringing up different matters from the past to newer existing arguments here. Tass is a new source that gets approval on what their military industry decides to publish or not publish meaning if they speak multiple times on the missile its an ongoing project. Do you want that 5 times thrust and speed source again? If a 1st stage booster gets the speed required immediately for the scramjet engine to operate in this can cause a size reduction for the 1st stage booster that a scramjet missile design can have they have test fired GZUR before there are any plans yet until the HAWC gets test fired which I would like to see what the size comparison is of the HAWC. Also the Kinzhal has a pretty long range, so such a range can be cut down for a shorter distance using this fuel.
Hey this comparison sounds better than attaching a huge missile on a stealth aircraft according to what you said, so cut me some slack. I am also more concerned on how you repeatedly show medical conditions of Alzheimer's because I refuse to believe that someone that studied U.K. would have this bad of an English comprehension. And I do have a right to criticize you on missile designs like ramjet because I hate hearing about people that pretend to know what they are talking about. So back to our last discussion on Meteor, you have no official data on the particular missile is what you have admitted to me and you are still not disclosing if that information either came from the U.S. or the U.K., etc for all I know. the U.S. could be further ahead in ramjet missile designs than the U.K. If you do know if that information came from the U.S., U.K. or any other country than there is nothing to further discuss here.

I told you before, I don't judge the valid and reliability of a source based purely on who given the number, but also on how they acquire the number and does the number make sense physically speaking.
This is the same repeated problem I am having with you in which you are making up so many assumptions based on physical appearance, but have no idea if one country is ahead of the other in missile technology. K-37M has a slightly bigger diameter than said than PL-21 but the length of that missile exceeds the K-37M. Whats funny is how this missile also contradicts what you posted before. Read the 4th paragraph below the title ramjet https://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-ramjet-engine-triple-range-missiles/ The original R-37 is still a record holder with the mig-31 hitting a target at 300kms back in 1994 so 30 years later a newer version to have 400 km by Russian sources would make sense and according to article Chinese military officials state 400kms to beat the mig-31 record. Only difference is PL-21 is 300kg heavier.

I don't understand what you mean. How do you know the F-16 that was shotdown actually carry Delilah ?
Your acting oblivious on purpose I forgot that is another trait about you(you really have Alzheimer's do you?). I am stating that even though Israel has the capability of having air to ground missiles that have longer ranges than the S-200, the s-200 with a shorter range is still able to shoot down these aircrafts.

Alright, show me the klevok-d2 version that is capable of air launched from Su-57 weapon bay then?
I want to remind you again that Hermes (the missile that klevok-d2) is a forward launching missile
and Su-57 eject missiles out of its main bay before launch
https://en.topwar.ru/176806-kakim-budet-giperzvukovoj-raketnyj-kompleks-klevok-d2.html "Within the framework of the second component of the research work with the code "Airplane", aeroballistic design of the sustainer stage with a ramjet engine should be carried out. It is necessary to find the optimal contours of the sustainer stage and the shape of the protruding parts, as well as to determine the rational flight paths to the maximum range." One is called caliber the other is called airplane, guess which purpose is which.

I wasn't accused by many users in multiple forums for using acronym soup, I was blamed in Spacebattles for using a bit too many technical terms, but that about it. But then, I never got the ban so despite going again the herd there, so I am sure I doing fine.
Long range missiles aren't the only system that can deal with hypersonic target, medium range missile might have some chance of intercept them, just that the possibility isn't high
Its not just space battle forum. I do browse secretprojects from time to time when I saw LMFS say that to you I used that term here as well lol. Also where are you getting the idea that the possibility isn't high? have you checked the newest radars, homing radar tracking ranges on missiles or even the speeds of these new missiles. I already get it that your a fan of SEAD operations, but at least have some awareness on newer SAM designs because they have critical importance to future missions of the USAF.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
Lets not nuke this, is this a miniature missile? does this engage small aerial targets? If both questions give you a yes than there is no reason they could not create a miniature missile APS or even a 2 meter size missile to meet the requirement of a short range air missiles. Also why are you bringing up the ESSM when that cant fit inside either F-22 or F-35 in comparison to this miniature size missile for the Su-57?
You don't get my point.
It doesn't matter that the new additional missile for pansir-s1 is a mini missile that can engage small aerial target. You can't just assume that there is a new hypothetical missile with the same size and arrangement will be used on Su-57. Because size and role is only one part of a missile, there are many other requirement for operating temperature, vibration, drag and arrangement collision. For example: AGM-114 is a small anti tank missile that can be quad packed on helicopter, it is was first produced in 1984. Now is 2021, 37 years later, do you see any fighter jet use the quad pack for missile with the same arrangement as AGM-114 launcher on helicopter?. You don't because the arrangement of AGM-114 on helicopter and the missile itself doesn't satisfy the requirement for fighter jet. Or the 9K121 Vikh missile, a single weapon pylon on helicopter can carry 6 of these missile, do you see any fighter jet use the same arrangement ? You don't, because the pylon arrangement and the missile itself doesn't satisfy the requirement for fighter jet launch.
It is the same case for the mini missile on Pansir-S1, just because you can launch something from the surface at stand still doesn't mean you can do the same from 50k ft at Mach 1, where the temperature is completely different, the vibration is completely different ,and there is very important fact that you keep ignoring, the mini missile on Pansir-S1 go forward at launch , while whatever you wanted to put inside Su-57 has to be drop down before launch. That isn't a minor thing. Remember that AIM-9 and AIM-132 both can't be used on the weapon bay of F-35 and the main bay of F-22 for pretty much the same reason, they are designed to launch forward, not released then launch
I brought up ESSM as an example of quad pack. Just because you can quad pack something for surface system doesn't mean you can do the same for aircraft.




Also is your English comprehension really bad or you keep forgetting what we are discussing at this point? I brought up Borisov because the company that has designed the electric torpedo also is in charge of the Su-57 air to ground missiles, and even though the torpedo has been tested he does not want to give it a name because he wants additional tests, in which the disclosure of air to ground weapons projects of the Su-57 are different from the F-35.
Yeah but that is not the case for KRTV now is it? when they head director states, "I will give a name after I do additional tests", in this case disclosure of Su-57 weapons are different from the F-35.
Let me make this clear here, you think that there is some hidden unknown missile for the Su-57 program because Borisov said that he will name an electric torpedo after more testing is done? even though the torpedo itself isn't in anyway related to the missile program for Su-57?. So if I use the same logic as that, I can also claimed that there are some magical black program for F-35 because Sea dragon program started since 2012 and we only knew about its existence due to the Chinese hack scandal ?


well its simple, did you forget that you said 8 missiles when I said 8-10? Also did you forget you wrote this post on this day? "Wednesday at 10:33 AM" you are talking about taking into account the CUDA and SACM. You brought this missiles up 1st it was not me which I am trying to find out why you are accusing me of being the 1st one to bring it up? Also since you said 8 there is no record of that either as much as my claim saying a 8-10 missile loadout. Jesus Christ is someone else using your account?.
I just looked back on this thread, I didn't even wrote anything on Wednesday at 10:33AM, what are you talking about?
And yes, there is no record of 8 missile on Su-57 either, the current configuration is 4 missiles in main bay and 2 in side bay



Ahh so this is why you are famous for creating bottomless pits on other forums and threads by bringing up different matters from the past to newer existing arguments here
Given that you contributed a fair amount in these bottomless pits yourself with your constant spamming about photonic radar, you aren't innocent by any mean. And I rarely bring up matter from the past, most of the time, I mostly discuss the technical aspect, not the poster. You do the nagging and play victims far more than I ever do.



Tass is a new source that gets approval on what their military industry decides to publish or not publish meaning if they speak multiple times on the missile its an ongoing project. Do you want that 5 times thrust and speed source again? If a 1st stage booster gets the speed required immediately for the scramjet engine to operate in this can cause a size reduction for the 1st stage booster that a scramjet missile design can have they have test fired GZUR before there are any plans yet until the HAWC gets test fired which I would like to see what the size comparison is of the HAWC. Also the Kinzhal has a pretty long range, so such a range can be cut down for a shorter distance using this fuel.
Hey this comparison sounds better than attaching a huge missile on a stealth aircraft according to what you said, so cut me some slack. I am also more concerned on how you repeatedly show medical conditions of Alzheimer's because I refuse to believe that someone that studied U.K. would have this bad of an English comprehension. And I do have a right to criticize you on missile designs like ramjet because I hate hearing about people that pretend to know what they are talking about. So back to our last discussion on Meteor, you have no official data on the particular missile is what you have admitted to me and you are still not disclosing if that information either came from the U.S. or the U.K., etc for all I know. the U.S. could be further ahead in ramjet missile designs than the U.K. If you do know if that information came from the U.S., U.K. or any other country than there is nothing to further discuss here.
Firstly, I don't need your 5 times thrust and speed sources, I read them last time. It is the product of your assumption that 5 times faster burn rate lead to 5 times faster missiles. The thing is when you increase the burn rate, you get higher thrust, but you also depleted your fuel faster. It doesn't mean you can reduce the size of booster to get to a given speed. For example: let say you need 1000 MJ to accelerate your missile from Mach 1 to Mach 5, the 1000 MJ is produced from chemical reaction of 1 tons of fuel. With old formula, this 1 tons of fuel burn 50 seconds, with the new formula, this 1 tons of fuel burn in 10 seconds. That mean your missile accelerate to speed faster. It doesn't mean you need less energy to get to a given speed. And it doesn't mean your fuel generate 5 times more energy per kg of fuel mass. In short, it doesn't mean you can reduce the booster by 5 times.
Secondly, given that you don't know the dimension, the mass, the length, the type of propellant or the speed and range of internal Kinzhal, you don't actually have the right to criticise me even if I don't give you the official data of the particular missile. Because, at worst, my analysis is only as bad as your :pound:
With that said ,like I said before, the study is not about any particular missile, but about how the minimum altitude requirement, fuel composition and turn down ratio will affect the range of a ramjet missile. In their study, they use a notional ramjet with similar size and weight as common BVR missile
2.PNG

study 1.PNG

The study came from UK, not US
Missile study.PNG







This is the same repeated problem I am having with you in which you are making up so many assumptions based on physical appearance, but have no idea if one country is ahead of the other in missile technology. K-37M has a slightly bigger diameter than said than PL-21 but the length of that missile exceeds the K-37M. Whats funny is how this missile also contradicts what you posted before. Read the 4th paragraph below the title ramjet https://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-ramjet-engine-triple-range-missiles/ The original R-37 is still a record holder with the mig-31 hitting a target at 300kms back in 1994 so 30 years later a newer version to have 400 km by Russian sources would make sense and according to article Chinese military officials state 400kms to beat the mig-31 record. Only difference is PL-21 is 300kg heavier.
Firstly, physical appearance and size is quite an important indicator of aerodynamic performance. At least, with shape and size, you can make assessment whereas with intangible comparison like "which country has better missile technology" you come down to the national chest thumping which I couldn't give 2 fuck about. You come to Russian forum and they will say they are the best, you come to US forum and they say they are the best, You come to China forum and they will tell you that they are the best. I couldn't care less about these sort of statement
Secondly, an internet magazine isn't exactly a good source when it came to technical matter. And no, ramjet engine doesn't have higher top speed than rocket motor, they have better cruising speed and terminal speed because that what they are designed for. But not top speed, and the longer the range, the higher the turn down ratio will be needed because you need to reduce fuel flow. As a result, speed is lower.
Meteor.PNG


Ramjet 2.PNG


Thirdly, there is very big different between a missile launched from Mig-31 cruising at Mach 2.5 , 70k ft and a missile launched from Su-57 cruising at Mach 1.5, 50k ft



Your acting oblivious on purpose I forgot that is another trait about you(you really have Alzheimer's do you?). I am stating that even though Israel has the capability of having air to ground missiles that have longer ranges than the S-200, the s-200 with a shorter range is still able to shoot down these aircrafts.
The problem here is that, just because Israel has Delilah missile in their inventory doesn't mean that specific F-16 that was shootdown actually carry Delilah




https://en.topwar.ru/176806-kakim-budet-giperzvukovoj-raketnyj-kompleks-klevok-d2.html "Within the framework of the second component of the research work with the code "Airplane", aeroballistic design of the sustainer stage with a ramjet engine should be carried out. It is necessary to find the optimal contours of the sustainer stage and the shape of the protruding parts, as well as to determine the rational flight paths to the maximum range." One is called caliber the other is called airplane, guess which purpose is which.
:pound:
They called one version "airplane" because that version has glider wing for extended range (look at the drawing in your own source). It doesn't mean this missile will be launched from airplane, let alone the internal weapon bay of Su-57






Its not just space battle forum. I do browse secretprojects from time to time when I saw LMFS say that to you I used that term here as well lol. Also where are you getting the idea that the possibility isn't high? have you checked the newest radars, homing radar tracking ranges on missiles or even the speeds of these new missiles. I already get it that your a fan of SEAD operations, but at least have some awareness on newer SAM designs because they have critical importance to future missions of the USAF.
Both you and I were in that same thread, I don't remember LMFS complain anything about word salads
Also, the possibility of short range system intercept hypersonic missiles isn't high because they don't have enough fuel for long range divert maneuver. The hard part about intercepting a maneuver hypersonic missile lie in their ability to change course, most long range missiles can change course, but because hypersonic missile move very fast, the rate they change position overtime is also very high. For example: your interceptor missile flew to coordinate X to intercept a hypersonic missile, but the hypersonic target change direction while your interceptor fly to coordinate X, so now your interceptor need to fly to coordinate Y instead. For long range interceptor, they have a lot of fuel to waste for these maneuver, but short range system doesn't have this benefit
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
You don't get my point.
It doesn't matter that the new additional missile for pansir-s1 is a mini missile that can engage small aerial target. You can't just assume that there is a new hypothetical missile with the same size and arrangement will be used on Su-57. Because size and role is only one part of a missile, there are many other requirement for operating temperature, vibration, drag and arrangement collision. For example: AGM-114 is a small anti tank missile that can be quad packed on helicopter, it is was first produced in 1984. Now is 2021, 37 years later, do you see any fighter jet use the quad pack for missile with the same arrangement as AGM-114 launcher on helicopter?. You don't because the arrangement of AGM-114 on helicopter and the missile itself doesn't satisfy the requirement for fighter jet. Or the 9K121 Vikh missile, a single weapon pylon on helicopter can carry 6 of these missile, do you see any fighter jet use the same arrangement ? You don't, because the pylon arrangement and the missile itself doesn't satisfy the requirement for fighter jet launch.
It is the same case for the mini missile on Pansir-S1, just because you can launch something from the surface at stand still doesn't mean you can do the same from 50k ft at Mach 1, where the temperature is completely different, the vibration is completely different ,and there is very important fact that you keep ignoring, the mini missile on Pansir-S1 go forward at launch , while whatever you wanted to put inside Su-57 has to be drop down before launch. That isn't a minor thing. Remember that AIM-9 and AIM-132 both can't be used on the weapon bay of F-35 and the main bay of F-22 for pretty much the same reason, they are designed to launch forward, not released then launch
I brought up ESSM as an example of quad pack. Just because you can quad pack something for surface system doesn't mean you can do the same for aircraft.
1st of all why dont you think they are capable of creating a small sized missile equivalent to CUDA or SACM when they are the only country that has physically shown a miniature size missile? Also why do you keep bringing up different missiles such as a air to ground role missile when I am talking about miniature size missile with a interceptor role.ESSM ,agm-114 is there any other missile you find that is comparative to this missiles role?
Also the performance of the MIRES and even a better avionics upgrade(my hopes are becoming high with the Yakhroma radar capabilities) with better tracking precision than traditional AESA fire control radars. Temperature and different vibrations, what? you sound like your being desperate at this point. does the aircraft have some kind of 2000 celsius oven the pantsir has when carrying missiles, aircrafts carry missiles all the time with vibrations whats so special about them now, dude your making me feel more sorry for you the longer you want to keep responding to me, but I am OK with that as a sadist.

Let me make this clear here, you think that there is some hidden unknown missile for the Su-57 program because Borisov said that he will name an electric torpedo after more testing is done? even though the torpedo itself isn't in anyway related to the missile program for Su-57?. So if I use the same logic as that, I can also claimed that there are some magical black program for F-35 because Sea dragon program started since 2012 and we only knew about its existence due to the Chinese hack scandal ?
Dont sperg out on me, his corporation is responsible for not dealing with just torpedo's but also air to ground missile projects for the Su-57. US missile projects get names disclosed, before tests get disclosed. Should I translate this to Vietnamese for you to better understand, no offense?

I just looked back on this thread, I didn't even wrote anything on Wednesday at 10:33AM, what are you talking about?
And yes, there is no record of 8 missile on Su-57 either, the current configuration is 4 missiles in main bay and 2 in side bay
I am talking about your righteous tone with me saying, "ohh how dare you talk about smaller size missiles like the MSDN when you dont even know the size" by making yourself look further as a hypocrite for being the 1st person and not me to bring up smaller size missiles to increase the loadout of the F-35 and since I thought it was OK that you did it, I can do that myself, but I guess I am not allowed to apply the same logic to you? Do you get what I am trying to say? Yet you gave a loadout of 8 air to air missiles and now you are saying 6. Dude, come on.

Given that you contributed a fair amount in these bottomless pits yourself with your constant spamming about photonic radar, you aren't innocent by any mean. And I rarely bring up matter from the past, most of the time, I mostly discuss the technical aspect, not the poster. You do the nagging and play victims far more than I ever do.
I have my own containment threads, and if such projects are associated with aviation I will talk about them because they are of strategic importance against an adversary nation of the U.S. and even with me having threads about it, I barely had any scuffles to the amount you have. But the problem is you got some issues which I might suggest are probably mental in a way like you being upset that some user dangman4ever who is also Vietnamese like you had a disagreement that he favored TR1s information(my mind is vague but I am sure you know what I am talking about at space battle). Than of course the multiple users at secretprojects in the Su-57 RCS discussion and than hocum (OK this I will let slide). Any random new user or guest we be like what the hell is wrong with this guy? I had my fair share of shit with Neptune but of course that was very temporarily here, I had some scuffles with Whiskey, dangman4ever in regards to naval warfare at spacebattle but they have different interests from mine while their can be multiple cases with you way more than me in which you cant go along with people that have the same interests as you. Me and LMFS do get along the most with our favoritism of the Su-57 most of the time but our only disagreements were about engine design comparisons in terms of speed and range.

Firstly, I don't need your 5 times thrust and speed sources, I read them last time. It is the product of your assumption that 5 times faster burn rate lead to 5 times faster missiles. The thing is when you increase the burn rate, you get higher thrust, but you also depleted your fuel faster. It doesn't mean you can reduce the size of booster to get to a given speed. For example: let say you need 1000 MJ to accelerate your missile from Mach 1 to Mach 5, the 1000 MJ is produced from chemical reaction of 1 tons of fuel. With old formula, this 1 tons of fuel burn 50 seconds, with the new formula, this 1 tons of fuel burn in 10 seconds. That mean your missile accelerate to speed faster. It doesn't mean you need less energy to get to a given speed. And it doesn't mean your fuel generate 5 times more energy per kg of fuel mass. In short, it doesn't mean you can reduce the booster by 5 times.
Secondly, given that you don't know the dimension, the mass, the length, the type of propellant or the speed and range of internal Kinzhal, you don't actually have the right to criticise me even if I don't give you the official data of the particular missile. Because, at worst, my analysis is only as bad as your :pound:
With that said ,like I said before, the study is not about any particular missile, but about how the minimum altitude requirement, fuel composition and turn down ratio will affect the range of a ramjet missile. In their study, they use a notional ramjet with similar size and weight as common BVR missile
I mean the source says 5 times thrust and 5 times speed I agree that fuel is depleted faster but I would rather have a solid fuel booster that gets the speed necessary for the scramjet engine to kick on in 6 seconds than having to wait one minute for the 1st stage to begin to speed up before the scramjet stage kicks in, hence a smaller design for booster stage. Are we on the same page?
But I do have the right to still criticize you because the difference is that we know the kinzhal type based internal weapon is a project they are pursuing compared to some random data that has not been tested yet or even considered a ramjet missile project. This notional missile is not even any missile project with or without a name. I have seen the waverider scramjet design and in that design there was no room or even a warhead conventional or nuclear in it? How can we know that they are just talking about the missile design or one without warheads or avionics that can effect the performance of the missile based on what their hypothetical guesses will be or if their hypothetical guesses even match up to the actual data of the Meteor missile(is it even operational)?

Firstly, physical appearance and size is quite an important indicator of aerodynamic performance. At least, with shape and size, you can make assessment whereas with intangible comparison like "which country has better missile technology" you come down to the national chest thumping which I couldn't give 2 fuck about. You come to Russian forum and they will say they are the best, you come to US forum and they say they are the best, You come to China forum and they will tell you that they are the best. I couldn't care less about these sort of statement
Secondly, an internet magazine isn't exactly a good source when it came to technical matter. And no, ramjet engine doesn't have higher top speed than rocket motor, they have better cruising speed and terminal speed because that what they are designed for. But not top speed, and the longer the range, the higher the turn down ratio will be needed because you need to reduce fuel flow. As a result, speed is lower.
Your not even paying attention anymore maybe this is the reason why I think you have alzeheimers or dementia. Sure physical appearance is important to range and speed, BUT so is new engine technology or new fuel or material technology, etc. The Indians and Russians will even tell you how an existing physical design ramjet gained more range and speed(indian and russian sources exactly match on the new speed and range that exceed its predecessor design.) Head corporate CEOs and head directors are making these same exact statements(never mind you have dementia because I am sure I repeated this multiple times already and included the sources before here) Do you want those sources again where the head designers of both different corporations and countries(which of course work together) say mach 5 for their ramjet designs or you still want to be in denial and continue being a mindless drone with no artificial intelligence to just spout the same shit over and over and over again? The thing is I am sure the heads of those missile corporations of those two countries hold more weight in their field of air breathing missile technology, than the degree you have shown off. Its like a car mechanic he could do surgery better than the surgeons holding PHDs Please try something else to make this conversation better to save you from further embarrassing yourself.


Thirdly, there is very big different between a missile launched from Mig-31 cruising at Mach 2.5 , 70k ft and a missile launched from Su-57 cruising at Mach 1.5, 50k ft
huh? https://web.archive.org/web/20090126154153/http://ausairpower.net/DT-Missile-Survey-May-05.pdf Where are you getting the altitude launches?

The problem here is that, just because Israel has Delilah missile in their inventory doesn't mean that specific F-16 that was shootdown actually carry Delilah
Thats my point, long range air to ground weapons are not everything because if they were there would be no point designing stealth aircrafts to penetrate long range air defenses when very long range air to ground missiles can get the same job done. Better to give air defenses a less reaction time with stealth and air to ground weapons

They called one version "airplane" because that version has glider wing for extended range (look at the drawing in your own source). It doesn't mean this missile will be launched from airplane, let alone the internal weapon bay of Su-57
Atleast read the entire article or do you want a Vietnamese translation? All I did was give a random quote on the project "The hypothetical hypersonic missile system Klevok-D2 may be of great interest to the Russian army, both independently and in combination with the existing Hermes. Such systems will make it possible to deliver fast and high-precision strikes against various targets at a great depth of defense. The complexes are interspecific, which allows them to be used in the ground forces, in the Air Force and the Navy - in the appropriate configurations with various differences."

Both you and I were in that same thread, I don't remember LMFS complain anything about word salads
Also, the possibility of short range system intercept hypersonic missiles isn't high because they don't have enough fuel for long range divert maneuver. The hard part about intercepting a maneuver hypersonic missile lie in their ability to change course, most long range missiles can change course, but because hypersonic missile move very fast, the rate they change position overtime is also very high. For example: your interceptor missile flew to coordinate X to intercept a hypersonic missile, but the hypersonic target change direction while your interceptor fly to coordinate X, so now your interceptor need to fly to coordinate Y instead. For long range interceptor, they have a lot of fuel to waste for these maneuver, but short range system doesn't have this benefit
I dont even want to bother where going to that thread to go quote what someone else said, screw it. Also the fuel is increased on the pantsir with a slightly bigger diameter as its engine with a way smaller nose than the previous pantsir missile design.

1612069560171.png


the new one is on the left which has twice the range and speeds at 2km/s(sources before gave 3km/s) and the radar performance is nearly twice the range of the previous one. The newer Buk missiles have a 70km range, where two additional interceptors make it go from 4 to 6, ,newer radar and if I remember correctly the radar homing heads autonomously can track 0.3m2 targets at 35kms on their own. They can deal with hypersonic targets on their own, or be integrated into newer S-400 and S-500 systems but performance of new SAMs have to exceed the performance of new air to ground weapons.
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
1612070208372.png


PAK FA / T-50 / Project 701 (globalsecurity.org) Different snip shots of the graph in using yandex image translate are shitty but sources suggest 70% of it is made of aluminum or titanium. And because of this new discovery I am sure the thrust to weight ratio will be greatly improved as a possibility for newer generation aircrafts.

Ученые из Ярославля разработали инновационный полимерный материал (runews24.ru)

"Specialists from the Yaroslavl Research Institute of Space and Aviation Materials (NIICAM) presented their innovative polymer material aristide. According to the creators, its weight is 10 times less than aviation aluminum, and it is also able to withstand temperatures up to 1300 degrees.

The innovative development is positioned not only as a potential replacement for aviation aluminum and epoxy polymers used in the space industry, but also can have a wide military application. So, according to the Yaroslavl authorities, the new material is able to withstand a hit from a small-caliber combat weapon and "gradually regenerate".
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
1st of all why dont you think they are capable of creating a small sized missile equivalent to CUDA or SACM when they are the only country that has physically shown a miniature size missile? Also why do you keep bringing up different missiles such as a air to ground role missile when I am talking about miniature size missile with a interceptor role. ESSM ,agm-114 is there any other missile you find that is comparative to this missiles role?
Also the performance of the MIRES and even a better avionics upgrade(my hopes are becoming high with the Yakhroma radar capabilities) with better tracking precision than traditional AESA fire control radars. Temperature and different vibrations, what? you sound like your being desperate at this point. does the aircraft have some kind of 2000 celsius oven the pantsir has when carrying missiles, aircrafts carry missiles all the time with vibrations whats so special about them now, dude your making me feel more sorry for you the longer you want to keep responding to me, but I am OK with that as a sadist.
Firstly, I have never said they can't make small size missile, I told you, very specific that, just because they made some small missile for ground to air system doesn't mean you can just assume that they will do the same for air to air system. And the arrangement of the Pansir-S1 mini missile simply doesn't work for Su-57, because Su-57 need to eject missile from his weapon bay while Pansir-S1 launch missile forward. This isn't a minor issue like you seem to think. Keep in mind that they can't even load AIM-132, AIM-9X in the main bay of F-22 , F-35 for that very same reason, and AIM-9X and AIM-132 aren't even that new, they are also air to air weapon. On the other hand, you are talking about integration of a completely different ground to air system.
Secondly, I brought up ESSM, 9K121 Vikh and AM-114 to show you that just because you have something that can be launched from ground or rotary wing assets, doesn't mean you can just assume the same weapon can be launched from fast jet. And just because some weapon load out arrangement can be used on ground or slow moving vehicle, doesn't mean you can use the same arrangement on Jet fighter. There are many factors that will affect carrier of the missiles. Temperature and vibration aren't minor issues, they are only trivial if you want to make some science fiction, but if you want them to work in real life, you need to take care of those problem. Aircraft doesn't have 2000 degree Celsius over Pansir-S1, but the ambient air temperature at 50kft is -56 degree Celcius , the lateral G that the missile will be subjected to can be 9G or higher (the sideway G, not the longitude G), that a massive different condition from ground launched missiles. You can't just pretend like these problem doesn't exist. If integrating ground launched missiles to fighter jet was that simple like you made it out to be, then we would have AMRAAM-ER launched from fighter jet already. Even the decades old AGM-114 can't be launched from fighter jet and they needed to make a completely new missiles for the role. Sure, sometime you can integrate ground launched missiles to fighter jet, some example are Israel Rampage or Russian Kinzhal, but it is very lengthy process and not always possible with all type of missiles.
https___api.thedrive.com_wp-content_uploads_2019_07_asdasddasdc.jpeg




Dont sperg out on me, his corporation is responsible for not dealing with just torpedo's but also air to ground missile projects for the Su-57. US missile projects get names disclosed, before tests get disclosed. Should I translate this to Vietnamese for you to better understand, no offense?
Iam not sperg out on you, Iam describing your logic in words so everyone can better see what you are implying.
So basically, you think that there is some hidden unknown missile for the Su-57 program because Borisov said that he will name an electric torpedo after more testing is done even though the torpedo itself isn't in anyway related to the missile program for Su-57. But you still think there are some secret program for Su-57 because Borisov's company also make missile for Su-57. I don't think you realize how super random and all over the place that type of logic sound. That basically like saying, because US tested and used a stealth black hawk in the raid against Osama bin Laden's compound before we know about its existence therefore, there must be some super secret missile program being developed for F-35 :pound:
And for your information, sea dragon program was tested and eating budget before we know about it, the only reason we know about its existence is due to the China hack scandal

I am talking about your righteous tone with me saying, "ohh how dare you talk about smaller size missiles like the MSDN when you dont even know the size" by making yourself look further as a hypocrite for being the 1st person and not me to bring up smaller size missiles to increase the loadout of the F-35 and since I thought it was OK that you did it, I can do that myself, but I guess I am not allowed to apply the same logic to you? Do you get what I am trying to say? Yet you gave a loadout of 8 air to air missiles and now you are saying 6. Dude, come on.
I get what you are trying to say, the problem here is that: I DID NOT BRING UP POTENTIAL FUTURE MINI MISSILE (SACM, CUDA, MSDN ..ETC) TO INCREASE THE LOAD OUT OF F-35. That the problem, if by mini missile , you mean Spear, then that one is completely different from SACM, CUDA..etc, because we actually have a physical version of it tested already, it is quite different from the type of missile which we know absolutely nothing about like MSDN and SACM. Let alone a hypothetical mini missile on Su-57 that isn't even mentioned by manufacturer as a development program.




I have my own containment threads, and if such projects are associated with aviation I will talk about them because they are of strategic importance against an adversary nation of the U.S. and even with me having threads about it, I barely had any scuffles to the amount you have. But the problem is you got some issues which I might suggest are probably mental in a way like you being upset that some user dangman4ever who is also Vietnamese like you had a disagreement that he favored TR1s information(my mind is vague but I am sure you know what I am talking about at space battle). Than of course the multiple users at secretprojects in the Su-57 RCS discussion and than hocum (OK this I will let slide). Any random new user or guest we be like what the hell is wrong with this guy? I had my fair share of shit with Neptune but of course that was very temporarily here, I had some scuffles with Whiskey, dangman4ever in regards to naval warfare at spacebattle but they have different interests from mine while their can be multiple cases with you way more than me in which you cant go along with people that have the same interests as you. Me and LMFS do get along the most with our favoritism of the Su-57 most of the time but our only disagreements were about engine design comparisons in terms of speed and range.
Firstly, the main different between you and me is that: I don't consider a person reliable or unreliable based on whether he has the same interest as me or that he has different interest from me. I have no problem call out BS from pro US user, just like I would call out BS from pro Russian user. Unless I feel too lazy and don't want to talk with them. This is the same way I treat the source that I found, I don't automatically think a source is reliable just because it show a good number for the weapon system that I like, I consider also the quality of the source and whether the physics make sense. So yes, I argue against both pro Russia and Pro US users, and this isn't a bad thing. That how all debate should be, you judge the value and reliability of information or reliability based on its own merit and not on whether it fit your predetermined preference or not.
Secondly, if you don't remember how it all went, come back and read before you tell the story. Don't lie. My problem with dangman4ever wasn't that he favored TR1 information, my problem with him was that he was being a hypocrite. On one hand, when I represent by evidences, he asking quite unanswerable questions like: "what if the cannon rounds in the video are just CGI" ,"what if the crew wasn't trained", "What if the drone maneuver but that part wasn't show on video"...etc basically a bombarding of questions, many of which he know for sure can't be answered trying to discredit the video. On the other hand, he immediately take TR1 statement as absolute truth without any demanding of evidences. Which is ok up to that point, because Iam quite used to people letting their opinion cloud their judgement, especially at SB where it kinda like an echo chamber most of the time. But then he has the gut to say that I wasn't debate in good faith. That why I called him out on his double standard.
Thirdly, regarding the Su-57 RCS discussion, there were many users against me, such as Scar, Dev, LMFS, Cool ice, you. But there are also many users have the same opinion as me, such as Overscan, BLACKMAMBA, kaiserd, Quellish. But that isn't important, I don't judge the quality of the argument based on how many user agree and how many users disagree. I judge the quality of the argument by itself. Because, it really simple to change the number of supporter and opponents of the same argument by changing the forum.




I mean the source says 5 times thrust and 5 times speed I agree that fuel is depleted faster but I would rather have a solid fuel booster that gets the speed necessary for the scramjet engine to kick on in 6 seconds than having to wait one minute for the 1st stage to begin to speed up before the scramjet stage kicks in, hence a smaller design for booster stage. Are we on the same page?
The red part doesn't lead to the blue part.
The amount of energy that you needed to get to a given speed is the same, so the faster burn booster still need to generate the same amount of energy. So it isn't smaller.


But I do have the right to still criticize you because the difference is that we know the kinzhal type based internal weapon is a project they are pursuing compared to some random data that has not been tested yet or even considered a ramjet missile project. This notional missile is not even any missile project with or without a name. I have seen the waverider scramjet design and in that design there was no room or even a warhead conventional or nuclear in it? How can we know that they are just talking about the missile design or one without warheads or avionics that can effect the performance of the missile based on what their hypothetical guesses will be or if their hypothetical guesses even match up to the actual data of the Meteor missile(is it even operational)?
I don't think you understand what the study is about.
It isn't about any missiles, but how changing turn down ratio, altitude requirement, fuel composition will affect the range of missile. The simulation in the study was developed by USAF Wright laboratory. Thisis not the same as your laymen hypothetical guess, it is actual simulation data by people working with air to air weapon
1.PNG


And the missile has warhead as well as control guidance section
Capture.PNG



Your not even paying attention anymore maybe this is the reason why I think you have alzeheimers or dementia. Sure physical appearance is important to range and speed, BUT so is new engine technology or new fuel or material technology, etc. The Indians and Russians will even tell you how an existing physical design ramjet gained more range and speed(indian and russian sources exactly match on the new speed and range that exceed its predecessor design.) Head corporate CEOs and head directors are making these same exact statements(never mind you have dementia because I am sure I repeated this multiple times already and included the sources before here) Do you want those sources again where the head designers of both different corporations and countries(which of course work together) say mach 5 for their ramjet designs or you still want to be in denial and continue being a mindless drone with no artificial intelligence to just spout the same shit over and over and over again? The thing is I am sure the heads of those missile corporations of those two countries hold more weight in their field of air breathing missile technology, than the degree you have shown off. Its like a car mechanic he could do surgery better than the surgeons holding PHDs Please try something else to make this conversation better to save you from further embarrassing yourself.
new engine technology and material still have to obey physics, there is no way around that.
You can have very high top speed for ramjet, but at long range, it will need higher turn down ratio, and therefore, cruising speed for long distance will reduce
Sure these CEO and directors are very smart, but they don't give you their test data, they give you a statement, that for example their new missile will reach Mach 5 and 700 km while the old version can only reach Mach 3 and fly 300 km, so the new version is both ramjet is both faster and longer range than the old ramjet.
But what iam telling you here, is not related to that statement.
What iam telling you is that:
1- with equal size, a solid rocket will reach higher top velocity than a ramjet and it accelerate faster. With the down side is that solid rocket can't maintain high speed for very long like ramjet
2- all modern ramjet rocket has throttle back ability. This is a function to control fuel flow depend on mission requirement to optimize terminal speed. For example: imagine your missile carry 100 kg of fuel, it has 3 set for fuel flow rates , the first consume 10 kg/minute, the second consume: 20 kg/minute and the third consume 50 kg/minute. The more fuel missile consume, the higher the thrust, and the faster your missile will go. But it will also consume fuel quicker and once fuel are fully consumed, it will decelerate very quickly. So the auto pilot system on ramjet missile will optimize the fuel flow rate, depend on distance to target. If at launch, you lock the target from 1000 km, then the auto pilot system will choose low fuel flow , low thrust to ensure the missile still have enough fuel in terminal phase. On the other hand, if the target is at 10 km from your aircraft, then the auto pilot system choose maximum fuel flow rate for highest acceleration and fastest cruising speed to target because it can be sure even at max flow rate, missile still haven't run out of fuel once it reach target. That why the throttle ratio is extremely important indicator of any ramjet missile


In the past R-37 is only used by Mig-31, where did you think they test that missile launch from?


Thats my point, long range air to ground weapons are not everything because if they were there would be no point designing stealth aircrafts to penetrate long range air defenses when very long range air to ground missiles can get the same job done. Better to give air defenses a less reaction time with stealth and air to ground weapons
I never said long range air to ground missiles are everything, I told you that if you want to launch missile from stealth aircraft weapon bay then you don't need very long range system like HAWC, you can use shorter range weapon like AARGM-ER, THOR-ER ...etc


Atleast read the entire article or do you want a Vietnamese translation? All I did was give a random quote on the project "The hypothetical hypersonic missile system Klevok-D2 may be of great interest to the Russian army, both independently and in combination with the existing Hermes. Such systems will make it possible to deliver fast and high-precision strikes against various targets at a great depth of defense. The complexes are interspecific, which allows them to be used in the ground forces, in the Air Force and the Navy - in the appropriate configurations with various differences."


Firstly, the earlier part that you quoted about "airplane theme" actually mean there are a version with glider wing
Secondly, read the paragraph that you quote very carefully
"The hypothetical hypersonic missile system Klevok-D2 may be of great interest to the Russian army, both independently and in combination with the existing Hermes. Such systems will make it possible to deliver fast and high-precision strikes against various targets at a great depth of defense. The complexes are interspecific, which allows them to be used in the ground forces, in the Air Force and the Navy - in the appropriate configurations with various differences.
Thirdly, just because it might get some interest and used by airforce doesn't mean it can be used by Su-57.
for example: 9K121 Vikhr can be used by helicopter and Su-25, but have you ever seen fighter jet like Su-27, Su-30 or Su-35 carry it?



Or the new Hermes missile, which can be used on ground vehicle and helicopter, but you never see any fighter jet carry them either.


This come back to the problem I said at the start: ambient air temperature, lateral G issue are a bitch to deal with. Moreover, missile launched from Su-57 weapon bay must be ejected down before launch. That a very important issue

I dont even want to bother where going to that thread to go quote what someone else said, screw it. Also the fuel is increased on the pantsir with a slightly bigger diameter as its engine with a way smaller nose than the previous pantsir missile design.
the new one is on the left which has twice the range and speeds at 2km/s(sources before gave 3km/s) and the radar performance is nearly twice the range of the previous one. The newer Buk missiles have a 70km range, where two additional interceptors make it go from 4 to 6, ,newer radar and if I remember correctly the radar homing heads autonomously can track 0.3m2 targets at 35kms on their own. They can deal with hypersonic targets on their own, or be integrated into newer S-400 and S-500 systems but performance of new SAMs have to exceed the performance of new air to ground weapons.
Firstly, you confused between the maximum speed of the target that Buk-MK3 can intercept, and the maximum speed of the SAM itself. These two thing are not the same. Anti ballistic missile SAM can intercept target much faster than themselves, because ballistic missile fly a predicted course.
for example: Israel David's sling stunner can intercept target moving at Mach 7.5, but the interceptor missile isn't any where as fast
DBUG9-MXYAI397b.jpg


Secondly, able to intercept something and able to intercept something with high PK are very different matter, nevermind the added issue of jamming
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
Firstly, I have never said they can't make small size missile, I told you, very specific that, just because they made some small missile for ground to air system doesn't mean you can just assume that they will do the same for air to air system. And the arrangement of the Pansir-S1 mini missile simply doesn't work for Su-57, because Su-57 need to eject missile from his weapon bay while Pansir-S1 launch missile forward. This isn't a minor issue like you seem to think. Keep in mind that they can't even load AIM-132, AIM-9X in the main bay of F-22 , F-35 for that very same reason, and AIM-9X and AIM-132 aren't even that new, they are also air to air weapon. On the other hand, you are talking about integration of a completely different ground to air system.
Secondly, I brought up ESSM, 9K121 Vikh and AM-114 to show you that just because you have something that can be launched from ground or rotary wing assets, doesn't mean you can just assume the same weapon can be launched from fast jet. And just because some weapon load out arrangement can be used on ground or slow moving vehicle, doesn't mean you can use the same arrangement on Jet fighter. There are many factors that will affect carrier of the missiles. Temperature and vibration aren't minor issues, they are only trivial if you want to make some science fiction, but if you want them to work in real life, you need to take care of those problem. Aircraft doesn't have 2000 degree Celsius over Pansir-S1, but the ambient air temperature at 50kft is -56 degree Celcius , the lateral G that the missile will be subjected to can be 9G or higher (the sideway G, not the longitude G), that a massive different condition from ground launched missiles. You can't just pretend like these problem doesn't exist. If integrating ground launched missiles to fighter jet was that simple like you made it out to be, then we would have AMRAAM-ER launched from fighter jet already. Even the decades old AGM-114 can't be launched from fighter jet and they needed to make a completely new missiles for the role. Sure, sometime you can integrate ground launched missiles to fighter jet, some example are Israel Rampage or Russian Kinzhal, but it is very lengthy process and not always possible with all type of missiles.
The MIRES already functions well enough to operate a DIRCM than the current DAS on the F-35 which is probably why we still dont see a DIRCM on the F-35 since talks of that go all the way back to 2006(hopefully the next gen DAS solves this). The newer pantsir systems alone have radars sufficient enough in use engage hypersonic targets, the MIRES has better capabilities than thi. I could be a spergy like you and say the F-35's MSDN wont work because it has to eject missile from his weapon bay. Than by your defintion now small size minature missile will ever work even though there is a country pursuing it? If the MSDN eventually works than I see why not a pantsir quad sized missile?
MSDN can be launched from a fast jet, why do you think the U.S. is pursuing this project? Do you even know what you are arguing about anymore? wait vibrations and temperature are trival now? You made a big deal out of it not too long ago. Its like your making up 100 excuses right now(your the walking urban definition of what you call a sperg-out) but the purpose of the MSDN in regards to speed of an aircraft with the speed of an incoming air to air missile needs the situational awareness to engage hypersonic targets no different from what the newer pantsirs are designed to do.

Iam not sperg out on you, Iam describing your logic in words so everyone can better see what you are implying.
So basically, you think that there is some hidden unknown missile for the Su-57 program because Borisov said that he will name an electric torpedo after more testing is done even though the torpedo itself isn't in anyway related to the missile program for Su-57. But you still think there are some secret program for Su-57 because Borisov's company also make missile for Su-57. I don't think you realize how super random and all over the place that type of logic sound. That basically like saying, because US tested and used a stealth black hawk in the raid against Osama bin Laden's compound before we know about its existence therefore, there must be some super secret missile program being developed for F-35 :pound:
And for your information, sea dragon program was tested and eating budget before we know about it, the only reason we know about its existence is due to the China hack scandal
Borisov có phải là người chịu trách nhiệm giải quyết các dự án tên lửa đất đối không cho Su-57? Các quyết định của ông ấy về bất kỳ dự án vũ khí liên quan nào có liên quan đến việc phân loại các dự án vũ khí nào dù là ngư lôi hay tên lửa đất đối không? Tôi biết bạn không phải sinh ra ngày hôm qua khi tôi đã ném rất nhiều nguồn ở đây rằng anh ấy đang nghiên cứu về vũ khí mới trên không và không đối đất Did this help? Do you work at an airport ? How are these secret programs, when he has announced the amount of new weapons projects for the Su-57?

I get what you are trying to say, the problem here is that: I DID NOT BRING UP POTENTIAL FUTURE MINI MISSILE (SACM, CUDA, MSDN ..ETC) TO INCREASE THE LOAD OUT OF F-35. That the problem, if by mini missile , you mean Spear, then that one is completely different from SACM, CUDA..etc, because we actually have a physical version of it tested already, it is quite different from the type of missile which we know absolutely nothing about like MSDN and SACM. Let alone a hypothetical mini missile on Su-57 that isn't even mentioned by manufacturer as a development program.
take your pills, they help you with dementia. "Wednesday at 10:33 AM" so have I made any mentions earlier than this with talks of CUDA or SACM to increase the loadout of the F-35? The answer is no. You gave a 8 missile loadout, than wanted to increase the loadout of the F-35 with CUDA or SACM. Looking forward to Borisov announcing new from scratch tested weapons later which can increase loadout. If you keep squealing no no, than your the definition of a hypocrite.

Firstly, the main different between you and me is that: I don't consider a person reliable or unreliable based on whether he has the same interest as me or that he has different interest from me. I have no problem call out BS from pro US user, just like I would call out BS from pro Russian user. Unless I feel too lazy and don't want to talk with them. This is the same way I treat the source that I found, I don't automatically think a source is reliable just because it show a good number for the weapon system that I like, I consider also the quality of the source and whether the physics make sense. So yes, I argue against both pro Russia and Pro US users, and this isn't a bad thing. That how all debate should be, you judge the value and reliability of information or reliability based on its own merit and not on whether it fit your predetermined preference or not.
Secondly, if you don't remember how it all went, come back and read before you tell the story. Don't lie. My problem with dangman4ever wasn't that he favored TR1 information, my problem with him was that he was being a hypocrite. On one hand, when I represent by evidences, he asking quite unanswerable questions like: "what if the cannon rounds in the video are just CGI" ,"what if the crew wasn't trained", "What if the drone maneuver but that part wasn't show on video"...etc basically a bombarding of questions, many of which he know for sure can't be answered trying to discredit the video. On the other hand, he immediately take TR1 statement as absolute truth without any demanding of evidences. Which is ok up to that point, because Iam quite used to people letting their opinion cloud their judgement, especially at SB where it kinda like an echo chamber most of the time. But then he has the gut to say that I wasn't debate in good faith. That why I called him out on his double standard.
Thirdly, regarding the Su-57 RCS discussion, there were many users against me, such as Scar, Dev, LMFS, Cool ice, you. But there are also many users have the same opinion as me, such as Overscan, BLACKMAMBA, kaiserd, Quellish. But that isn't important, I don't judge the quality of the argument based on how many user agree and how many users disagree. I judge the quality of the argument by itself. Because, it really simple to change the number of supporter and opponents of the same argument by changing the forum.
Spacebattle is by no means an echo chamber, its more like F-16.net but with users that are way less ass-hurt when other users mention russian related weapons, its just strict as hell(cant crack a single joke about kardishians in a azerbaijan vs armenia thread) that is more related to sino, india, russia and f-16.net forums. The only difference F-16.net has from those 3 forums is that it deletes user accounts that have a pro-Russian bias in weapons. I had two user accounts there recently and ironically both accounts get banned without any warnings despite my good behavior but the ban starts when I hit 19 posts for both because that would escalate me to posting more than 3 times or having to wait for admin approval probably because I am better at raisng people's blood pressure better than Hocum.

The red part doesn't lead to the blue part.
The amount of energy that you needed to get to a given speed is the same, so the faster burn booster still need to generate the same amount of energy. So it isn't smaller.
A DXL-5 sniper in development is being made to reach close to or at hypersonic speeds with increased range and speed resulting in better precision than the original gun powder that gives the latest snipers supersonic speeds. Or a V-12 engine with a 1/4th of fuel can achieve a faster start than a toyota with a full tank. All a scramjet engine cares about is the 1st stage getting it to the required speeds it needs. There is also technology to allow fuel burn rate to last longer. The Yars-S is more smaller in size than the original Yars with same range, payloads and speeds.

I don't think you understand what the study is about.
It isn't about any missiles, but how changing turn down ratio, altitude requirement, fuel composition will affect the range of missile. The simulation in the study was developed by USAF Wright laboratory. Thisis not the same as your laymen hypothetical guess, it is actual simulation data by people working with air to air weapon
Wait so now you are bringing up another research paper and thats OK, but whats the range and size of the air to air missile they are talking about? Although I get how this works, this does not answer the question of how countries compare with ramjet air to air missile projects, unless you have some kind of wishful thinking that everyone is on the same level of missile technology?

And the missile has warhead as well as control guidance section
What do you mean as well? did your last source from the UK include a warhead with a guidance section? where is it than? You are bringing up one source with theoretical ranges and another without theoretical ranges. This spergery is mind boggling.

new engine technology and material still have to obey physics, there is no way around that.
You can have very high top speed for ramjet, but at long range, it will need higher turn down ratio, and therefore, cruising speed for long distance will reduce
Sure these CEO and directors are very smart, but they don't give you their test data, they give you a statement, that for example their new missile will reach Mach 5 and 700 km while the old version can only reach Mach 3 and fly 300 km, so the new version is both ramjet is both faster and longer range than the old ramjet.
But what iam telling you here, is not related to that statement.
What iam telling you is that:
1- with equal size, a solid rocket will reach higher top velocity than a ramjet and it accelerate faster. With the down side is that solid rocket can't maintain high speed for very long like ramjet
2- all modern ramjet rocket has throttle back ability. This is a function to control fuel flow depend on mission requirement to optimize terminal speed. For example: imagine your missile carry 100 kg of fuel, it has 3 set for fuel flow rates , the first consume 10 kg/minute, the second consume: 20 kg/minute and the third consume 50 kg/minute. The more fuel missile consume, the higher the thrust, and the faster your missile will go. But it will also consume fuel quicker and once fuel are fully consumed, it will decelerate very quickly. So the auto pilot system on ramjet missile will optimize the fuel flow rate, depend on distance to target. If at launch, you lock the target from 1000 km, then the auto pilot system will choose low fuel flow , low thrust to ensure the missile still have enough fuel in terminal phase. On the other hand, if the target is at 10 km from your aircraft, then the auto pilot system choose maximum fuel flow rate for highest acceleration and fastest cruising speed to target because it can be sure even at max flow rate, missile still haven't run out of fuel once it reach target. That why the throttle ratio is extremely important indicator of any ramjet missile
1612135736053.png


Yes that is if you assume countries can't progress with in air breathing missile technology and have wishful thinking that they are all on the same level, but that does not change what two head directors or CEOs of their respective missile companys have kept same dimensions with increased speeds and range. Even the YARs comparison above has shown that you can keep sperging out dimensions, phsyics and physical appearance, but it does not change how better one country is in missile technology compared to the other.

Firstly, the earlier part that you quoted about "airplane theme" actually mean there are a version with glider wing
Secondly, read the paragraph that you quote very carefully
"The hypothetical hypersonic missile system Klevok-D2 may be of great interest to the Russian army, both independently and in combination with the existing Hermes. Such systems will make it possible to deliver fast and high-precision strikes against various targets at a great depth of defense. The complexes are interspecific, which allows them to be used in the ground forces, in the Air Force and the Navy - in the appropriate configurations with various differences.
Thirdly, just because it might get some interest and used by airforce doesn't mean it can be used by Su-57.
for example: 9K121 Vikhr can be used by helicopter and Su-25, but have you ever seen fighter jet like Su-27, Su-30 or Su-35 carry it?
Hey its just air to ground missile project that has been disclosed by Tula, just like the HAWC, MSDN and Cuda. Size seems small enough to fit inside a Su-57, I dont understand why you think it wont. Your logic with the Su-25 sounds as goofy as saying the F-16 cant externally carry HAWC because it was not shown like the F-35 carrying it externally. Now I just can help myself calling a you a sperg.

This come back to the problem I said at the start: ambient air temperature, lateral G issue are a bitch to deal with. Moreover, missile launched from Su-57 weapon bay must be ejected down before launch. That a very important issue
dont want to interrupt your sperg moments but they have ejected missiles before, your not explaining what is so special that one cant eject but the other can.

Firstly, you confused between the maximum speed of the target that Buk-MK3 can intercept, and the maximum speed of the SAM itself. These two thing are not the same. Anti ballistic missile SAM can intercept target much faster than themselves, because ballistic missile fly a predicted course.
for example: Israel David's sling stunner can intercept target moving at Mach 7.5, but the interceptor missile isn't any where as fast
Secondly, able to intercept something and able to intercept something with high PK are very different matter, nevermind the added issue of jamming
So the missile has slightly smaller speeds just like the SM-6 but for some reason they are able engage hypersonic targets. Russian Air Defense: Showcasing Achievements, Silencing Problems (Part One) - Jamestown

" The Buk-M3 medium-range SAM system: This air-defense complex is currently being deployed to Orenburg Oblast and Altai Krai, and it will fortify the 41st Combined Arms Army, stationed in the Central Military District (Pravda.ru, March 11). The new Buk-M3, which is capable of carrying 12 missiles (in comparison with 8 normally carried by older versions of the system), considerably differs from its previous iterations. The main difference is that the Buk-M3 is equipped with a new missile—the 9M317M—with is said to be much lighter, faster and with a longer striking range than the missiles (the 9M38 and 9M317) used in earlier Buk models. Russian sources claim that the modernized Buk-M3 can strike various aerial and naval targets (aircraft, helicopters, tactical and cruise missiles)—including those featuring so-called “stealth technology” and traveling at speeds of up to 3 km per second. The striking range is reportedly up to 70 km away and at an altitude of 10 m–35 km (Vestnik-rm.ru, April 14). "

Can you stop talking in acronym soups as many have mentioned before and actually explain high PK? Its like you dont want to talk to me anymore. air to ground missiles and aircrafts can get jammed as well so I guess it evens out.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
The MIRES already functions well enough to operate a DIRCM than the current DAS on the F-35 which is probably why we still dont see a DIRCM on the F-35 since talks of that go all the way back to 2006(hopefully the next gen DAS solves this). The newer pantsir systems alone have radars sufficient enough in use engage hypersonic targets, the MIRES has better capabilities than thi. I could be a spergy like you and say the F-35's MSDN wont work because it has to eject missile from his weapon bay. Than by your defintion now small size minature missile will ever work even though there is a country pursuing it? If the MSDN eventually works than I see why not a pantsir quad sized missile?
MSDN can be launched from a fast jet, why do you think the U.S. is pursuing this project? Do you even know what you are arguing about anymore? wait vibrations and temperature are trival now? You made a big deal out of it not too long ago. Its like your making up 100 excuses right now(your the walking urban definition of what you call a sperg-out) but the purpose of the MSDN in regards to speed of an aircraft with the speed of an incoming air to air missile needs the situational awareness to engage hypersonic targets no different from what the newer pantsirs are designed to do.
Firstly, MIRES is the multi functional radio system which consist of Radar and IFF array on Su-57, it is quite a big different from DAS, which is an IIR system.
fgfasensors1.png


Secondly, I didn't sperg out, I am explaining to you some very obvious fact that you are willing to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative. Unfortunately you can't use the "MSDN won't work because it has to be launched from weapon bay" argument. Because from the start, MSDN is designed to operate on F-22, F-35 from their weapon bay whereas the quadpack mini missiles on Pansir-s1 is not designed from ground up to operate on aircraft, let alone the weapon bay. It doesn't matter how many times you try to ignore it, Pansir-S1 mini missile is designed to launch forward, whereas anything launched from Su-57 bay must be designed to be ejected before launch. So they can't use the same arrangement and highly unlikely to be the same missiles. Your argument is basically like arguing that Su-35 can carry Vikhr and Hermes
And to be frank, I didn't even bring up MSDN in the first place

Thirdly, read my post carefully. I didn't say "vibrations and temperature are trivial issue", I said "Temperature and vibration aren't minor issues, they are only trivial if you want to make some science fiction, but if you want them to work in real life, you need to take care of those problem". Work better on your English comprehension next time, I hope by then you understand the word " science fiction"



Borisov có phải là người chịu trách nhiệm giải quyết các dự án tên lửa đất đối không cho Su-57? Các quyết định của ông ấy về bất kỳ dự án vũ khí liên quan nào có liên quan đến việc phân loại các dự án vũ khí nào dù là ngư lôi hay tên lửa đất đối không? Tôi biết bạn không phải sinh ra ngày hôm qua khi tôi đã ném rất nhiều nguồn ở đây rằng anh ấy đang nghiên cứu về vũ khí mới trên không và không đối đất Did this help? Do you work at an airport ? How are these secret programs, when he has announced the amount of new weapons projects for the Su-57?
:pound:It is quite funny that you think doing that will help improve the quality of your argument in any sense
Once again there isn't any program for mini air to air missile on Su-57 yet and there isn't any program to increase its main bay load to 10 missiles either. You can hope for some hypothetical programs, but as of yet, they don't exist. If I was to use the same argument as you, I could have claimed "because US tested and used a stealth black hawk in the raid against Osama bin Laden's compound before we know about its existence therefore, there must be some super secret missile program being developed for F-35". But honestly, that just ways too ridiculous




take your pills, they help you with dementia. "Wednesday at 10:33 AM" so have I made any mentions earlier than this with talks of CUDA or SACM to increase the loadout of the F-35? The answer is no. You gave a 8 missile loadout, than wanted to increase the loadout of the F-35 with CUDA or SACM. Looking forward to Borisov announcing new from scratch tested weapons later which can increase loadout. If you keep squealing no no, than your the definition of a hypocrite.
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, I have never added the load of Cuda or SACM in my comparison. I even go as far as saying I do not count SACM and CUDA, so where do you get the idea that I count CUDA and SACM in the load??. The very reason that I do not count SACM and CUDA is due to their uncertain stage at the moment
Capture.PNG





Spacebattle is by no means an echo chamber, its more like F-16.net but with users that are way less ass-hurt when other users mention russian related weapons, its just strict as hell(cant crack a single joke about kardishians in a azerbaijan vs armenia thread) that is more related to sino, india, russia and f-16.net forums. The only difference F-16.net has from those 3 forums is that it deletes user accounts that have a pro-Russian bias in weapons. I had two user accounts there recently and ironically both accounts get banned without any warnings despite my good behavior but the ban starts when I hit 19 posts for both because that would escalate me to posting more than 3 times or having to wait for admin approval probably because I am better at raisng people's blood pressure better than Hocum.
Spacebattle, F-16.net, Russian defense are all echo chamber, the only different the country they pro.
Secretproject, Keypublishing aren't echo chamber unfortunately Keypub doesn't have pilots or operator like F-16.net, so it sort of a forum where anyone can post anything. F-16.net is bias but it made up for it by the sheer number of actual pilots which can contribute insight. Secretproject is currently best of the bunch due to the variety of argument and there are many knowledgeable members.
You were not banned because you are better at raising people blood pressure than Hocum, you are banned because your content is not good enough to make up for the irritation that you cause. Both of you, Milosh, Hocum are heavily pro Russian, so why only you get the ban stick repeatedly?. Because your argument isn't good enough, and very often shows lack of physics understanding so to Mod, it looks like you are spamming. Your newest account in F-16.net wasn't banned until you decided to do an unrelated story telling jab. The other users, even though the have different opinions, still give thought to their argument. Similarly, I didn't get the ban stick in SB even though, I also pissed them off sometimes, because again, my arguments is always technical based, most people would be more compelled to read technical stuff



A DXL-5 sniper in development is being made to reach close to or at hypersonic speeds with increased range and speed resulting in better precision than the original gun powder that gives the latest snipers supersonic speeds. Or a V-12 engine with a 1/4th of fuel can achieve a faster start than a toyota with a full tank. All a scramjet engine cares about is the 1st stage getting it to the required speeds it needs. There is also technology to allow fuel burn rate to last longer. The Yars-S is more smaller in size than the original Yars with same range, payloads and speeds.
I don't think you understand my argument at all.
It is not about whether a new system can excess the old one in range and speed. It is about the balance of range vs speed.
For example: F-4 top speed is Mach 2.23, combat radius is about 840 km, for comparison F-15 top speed is Mach 2.5 and combat radius is about 2037 km. So F-15 can fly faster and it can fly further than F-4. But that doesn't mean F-15 can fly 2037 km at Mach 2.5, when you fly long range , you will reduce your thrust to reduce fuel flow . A ramjet missile is very similar. You can make a ramjet missile that has higher top speed and range than the previous version, but for any given shot of a ramjet missile, it is a trade off between range and speed, you can either have long range shot or very high speed shot, but not both at the same time. Because when target at long range, missile must throttle back to save fuel, that affect speed.




Wait so now you are bringing up another research paper and thats OK, but whats the range and size of the air to air missile they are talking about? Although I get how this works, this does not answer the question of how countries compare with ramjet air to air missile projects, unless you have some kind of wishful thinking that everyone is on the same level of missile technology?
What do you mean as well? did your last source from the UK include a warhead with a guidance section? where is it than? You are bringing up one source with theoretical ranges and another without theoretical ranges. This spergery is mind boggling.
Yes that is if you assume countries can't progress with in air breathing missile technology and have wishful thinking that they are all on the same level, but that does not change what two head directors or CEOs of their respective missile companys have kept same dimensions with increased speeds and range. Even the YARs comparison above has shown that you can keep sperging out dimensions, phsyics and physical appearance, but it does not change how better one country is in missile technology compared to the other.
Firstly, I didn't brought up another research paper, it is the same one. The study in UK, using simulation developed by USAF laboratory.
Secondly, you still don't understand, this is a study of how turn down ratio, fuel composition, loft angle, minimum altitude requirement will affect missile range. Things like technology level is what dictated the turn down ratio and fuel composition. Country A might only able to develop a ramjet missile with 6:1 turn down ratio while country B able to develop a ramjet missile with 12:1 turn down ratio (because this is affected by the valve design and the material used). Then that mean ramjet missile developed by country B can fly further as it can throttle down lower. This kind of study is similar to how much lift can be generated by a wing with a given aspect ratio, thickness and sweep angle. Now to fabricate such wing is another matter.



Hey its just air to ground missile project that has been disclosed by Tula, just like the HAWC, MSDN and Cuda. Size seems small enough to fit inside a Su-57, I dont understand why you think it wont. Your logic with the Su-25 sounds as goofy as saying the F-16 cant externally carry HAWC because it was not shown like the F-35 carrying it externally. Now I just can help myself calling a you a sperg.
dont want to interrupt your sperg moments but they have ejected missiles before, your not explaining what is so special that one cant eject but the other can.
The main different between Klevok-D2 and HAWC, MSDN , Cuda is the fact that HAWC, MSDN , Cuda was very specifically said be used by F-35, while there is no official source state that Klevok-D2 is designed to be used by fighter jet, let alone to be ejected from Su-57 weapon bay.
The Su-25 example isn't goofy, it is to show you that: just because a missile on ground vehicle or rotary wing aircraft look small enough to fit on jet fighter, doesn't mean it will also satisfy all other requirement to be launched from jet fighter. Have you ever seen any fighter jet like Su-27, Su-30, Mig-29 carry Vikhr, Hermes ?What do you think the reason is?.
To be able to be launched by ejection instead of rail launched, the missiles must be designed from start to sustain the lateral G by the ejection and also properly calibrate itself after ejection so that it doesn't fly up ward into the aircraft. Missiles which aren't designed for that from the start can't beeject launch: very obvious example are short range AAM like AIM-9X or AIM-132




So the missile has slightly smaller speeds just like the SM-6 but for some reason they are able engage hypersonic targets. Russian Air Defense: Showcasing Achievements, Silencing Problems (Part One) - Jamestown

" The Buk-M3 medium-range SAM system: This air-defense complex is currently being deployed to Orenburg Oblast and Altai Krai, and it will fortify the 41st Combined Arms Army, stationed in the Central Military District (Pravda.ru, March 11). The new Buk-M3, which is capable of carrying 12 missiles (in comparison with 8 normally carried by older versions of the system), considerably differs from its previous iterations. The main difference is that the Buk-M3 is equipped with a new missile—the 9M317M—with is said to be much lighter, faster and with a longer striking range than the missiles (the 9M38 and 9M317) used in earlier Buk models. Russian sources claim that the modernized Buk-M3 can strike various aerial and naval targets (aircraft, helicopters, tactical and cruise missiles)—including those featuring so-called “stealth technology” and traveling at speeds of up to 3 km per second. The striking range is reportedly up to 70 km away and at an altitude of 10 m–35 km (Vestnik-rm.ru, April 14). "

You can intercept faster target with slower missiles, because your missile doesn't fly toward the current position of the target, it fly toward predicted position in the future. That why hypersonic missiles are hard to intercept, because they can maneuver and change this predicted future position. So your interceptor missile has to adjust its course


Can you stop talking in acronym soups as many have mentioned before and actually explain high PK? Its like you dont want to talk to me anymore. air to ground missiles and aircrafts can get jammed as well so I guess it evens out.
Firstly PK is probably of Kill. It is rather a common acronym. Whether you spend 1 missiles to shot down 1 target or 20 missiles to shot down 1 target. You still able to defeat the target in both case, but the PK isn't the same.
Secondly, both air to ground and ground to air missile can be jammed but ground targets move very slowly or even stationary, so relying on INS and home on jam function still have some value.
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
Firstly, MIRES is the multi functional radio system which consist of Radar and IFF array on Su-57, it is quite a big different from DAS, which is an IIR system.
Secondly, I didn't sperg out, I am explaining to you some very obvious fact that you are willing to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative. Unfortunately you can't use the "MSDN won't work because it has to be launched from weapon bay" argument. Because from the start, MSDN is designed to operate on F-22, F-35 from their weapon bay whereas the quadpack mini missiles on Pansir-s1 is not designed from ground up to operate on aircraft, let alone the weapon bay. It doesn't matter how many times you try to ignore it, Pansir-S1 mini missile is designed to launch forward, whereas anything launched from Su-57 bay must be designed to be ejected before launch. So they can't use the same arrangement and highly unlikely to be the same missiles. Your argument is basically like arguing that Su-35 can carry Vikhr and Hermes
And to be frank, I didn't even bring up MSDN in the first place

Thirdly, read my post carefully. I didn't say "vibrations and temperature are trivial issue", I said "Temperature and vibration aren't minor issues, they are only trivial if you want to make some science fiction, but if you want them to work in real life, you need to take care of those problem". Work better on your English comprehension next time, I hope by then you understand the word " science fiction"
Its quite a big difference indeed because radars are more accurate than infrared systems, excluding the atoll system.

So.... the MSDN will work on the F-35 but a similiar type missile project wont work for the Su-57? I know you didnt bring up the MSDN by why did you bring up the CUDA missile? the spergout only happened when I mentioned the MSDN and showing that they have minauture missiles. So why not launch a minauture missiles from a different launch method when such missiles were launched before only in bigger size.

Your sperging again if they are not minor than what are they? close to minor, more minor, moderate, difficult?

It is quite funny that you think doing that will help improve the quality of your argument in any sense
Once again there isn't any program for mini air to air missile on Su-57 yet and there isn't any program to increase its main bay load to 10 missiles either. You can hope for some hypothetical programs, but as of yet, they don't exist. If I was to use the same argument as you, I could have claimed "because US tested and used a stealth black hawk in the raid against Osama bin Laden's compound before we know about its existence therefore, there must be some super secret missile program being developed for F-35". But honestly, that just ways too ridiculous
But do new air to air missile, air to ground weapons exist for the Su-57? I only said that smaller size missile projects are a option but for some reason you are sperging out when I give it a considerable option. Remember you brought up loadout numbers and so did I.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, I have never added the load of Cuda or SACM in my comparison. I even go as far as saying I do not count SACM and CUDA, so where do you get the idea that I count CUDA and SACM in the load??. The very reason that I do not count SACM and CUDA is due to their uncertain stage at the moment
Of your course you dont remember what you said, didn't I tell you that you have symptoms of dementia? "And if we truly taking into account these hypothetical load out that isn't mentioned yet, then we must also take into account missile like Cuda or SACM, so really, Su-57 still doesn't carry more AAM than its counterpart like they are implied" Remember you brought this up 1st so why do you think the CUDA will increase the loadout if you say you are uncertain XD.

As of now, sperg, you say up to 8 I say 8-10.

Spacebattle, F-16.net, Russian defense are all echo chamber, the only different the country they pro.
Secretproject, Keypublishing aren't echo chamber unfortunately Keypub doesn't have pilots or operator like F-16.net, so it sort of a forum where anyone can post anything. F-16.net is bias but it made up for it by the sheer number of actual pilots which can contribute insight. Secretproject is currently best of the bunch due to the variety of argument and there are many knowledgeable members.
You were not banned because you are better at raising people blood pressure than Hocum, you are banned because your content is not good enough to make up for the irritation that you cause. Both of you, Milosh, Hocum are heavily pro Russian, so why only you get the ban stick repeatedly?. Because your argument isn't good enough, and very often shows lack of physics understanding so to Mod, it looks like you are spamming. Your newest account in F-16.net wasn't banned until you decided to do an unrelated story telling jab. The other users, even though the have different opinions, still give thought to their argument. Similarly, I didn't get the ban stick in SB even though, I also pissed them off sometimes, because again, my arguments is always technical based, most people would be more compelled to read technical stuff
More than half of my posts got deleted at f-16.net and they were related to air defense matters on air defenses vs airforce. I even had to correct a user over there that the current pantsirs are horrible against small drones or loitering ammunitions but still had managed to intercept nearly all delilah missiles by not just russian sources but an israeli source. I got banned at SB by just straying away from the war room. If secretprojects operates like f-16.net than everyone in the su-57 RCS thread would have their accounts deleted. Ironically the admin at secretprojects created an account at russia defense net but stopped posting there after a user like Mindstorm shut him down something related to the subject of Ufimtsev and skunk work engineers. Hocum is being way more obnoxious me(I didnt even start being obnoxious which is why that admin deletes my accounts before they hit 20 posts for account escalation privilege's for safe measures) and I have slightly better understanding than he does in usage of air defenses.

I don't think you understand my argument at all.
It is not about whether a new system can excess the old one in range and speed. It is about the balance of range vs speed.
For example: F-4 top speed is Mach 2.23, combat radius is about 840 km, for comparison F-15 top speed is Mach 2.5 and combat radius is about 2037 km. So F-15 can fly faster and it can fly further than F-4. But that doesn't mean F-15 can fly 2037 km at Mach 2.5, when you fly long range , you will reduce your thrust to reduce fuel flow . A ramjet missile is very similar. You can make a ramjet missile that has higher top speed and range than the previous version, but for any given shot of a ramjet missile, it is a trade off between range and speed, you can either have long range shot or very high speed shot, but not both at the same time. Because when target at long range, missile must throttle back to save fuel, that affect speed.
The main different between Klevok-D2 and HAWC, MSDN , Cuda is the fact that HAWC, MSDN , Cuda was very specifically said be used by F-35, while there is no official source state that Klevok-D2 is designed to be used by fighter jet, let alone to be ejected from Su-57 weapon bay.
The Su-25 example isn't goofy, it is to show you that: just because a missile on ground vehicle or rotary wing aircraft look small enough to fit on jet fighter, doesn't mean it will also satisfy all other requirement to be launched from jet fighter. Have you ever seen any fighter jet like Su-27, Su-30, Mig-29 carry Vikhr, Hermes ?What do you think the reason is?.
To be able to be launched by ejection instead of rail launched, the missiles must be designed from start to sustain the lateral G by the ejection and also properly calibrate itself after ejection so that it doesn't fly up ward into the aircraft. Missiles which aren't designed for that from the start can't beeject launch: very obvious example are short range AAM like AIM-9X or AIM-132
I dont even think you understand my argument either or remember most of them at all.... oh god damn it what spergery is this?I think I found a solution to make this easier. I will just condense two responses to one. Do you want me to find you some missile projects from the past to the present? I can find ballistic missiles made recently in the present that exceed the ones in the 1950s and 1960s in terms of payload speed and range. Found out that Burevestnik is more downsized than project pluto, and even found out the Zircon exceeds all performances that were once demonstrated by the kholod project. Can you tell me why that is?

The main different between Klevok-D2 and HAWC, MSDN , Cuda is the fact that HAWC, MSDN , Cuda was very specifically said be used by F-35, while there is no official source state that Klevok-D2 is designed to be used by fighter jet, let alone to be ejected from Su-57 weapon bay.
The Su-25 example isn't goofy, it is to show you that: just because a missile on ground vehicle or rotary wing aircraft look small enough to fit on jet fighter, doesn't mean it will also satisfy all other requirement to be launched from jet fighter. Have you ever seen any fighter jet like Su-27, Su-30, Mig-29 carry Vikhr, Hermes ?What do you think the reason is?.
To be able to be launched by ejection instead of rail launched, the missiles must be designed from start to sustain the lateral G by the ejection and also properly calibrate itself after ejection so that it doesn't fly up ward into the aircraft. Missiles which aren't designed for that from the start can't beeject launch: very obvious example are short range AAM like AIM-9X or AIM-132
I am sure the f-16 can carry HAWC and other missile projects like the F-35 can come on who are you trying to BS? Klevok has surface to surface and air to surface development but despite its small size you dont think the Su-57 when the Su-57 has carried different sized missiles, oh come on, your killing me here with your spergery. I got this news just for you today. https://en.topwar.ru/179598-perspek...-kompleks-germes-poluchit-novuju-versiju.html "The special advantage of the new complex is that it can be installed on any platform, and the "fire and forget" system allows you to direct missiles to the target using drones or ships." probably separate from Tula's klevok but newer version seems to include more platforms to use missile.

You can intercept faster target with slower missiles, because your missile doesn't fly toward the current position of the target, it fly toward predicted position in the future. That why hypersonic missiles are hard to intercept, because they can maneuver and change this predicted future position. So your interceptor missile has to adjust its course
Firstly PK is probably of Kill. It is rather a common acronym. Whether you spend 1 missiles to shot down 1 target or 20 missiles to shot down 1 target. You still able to defeat the target in both case, but the PK isn't the same.
Secondly, both air to ground and ground to air missile can be jammed but ground targets move very slowly or even stationary, so relying on INS and home on jam function still have some value.
Yeah but the S-400 has conducted tests against maneuverable hypersonic missiles. The Buk-M3 has actually a very, very high PK than previous Buk systems, they gave it a 99.99% chance of interception compared to the previous versions that gave it a 70-93% chance. Sure to ground missiles can be jammed but an aircraft and a air to ground missile can completely miss their targets where it would be better to be one meter away from your target than 40 meters depending on the payload if its slow moving or not.

Also avoid doing this in your responses Urban Dictionary: Sperging out

When someone goes on a long, in-depth, overly elaborate explanation long after everyone already gets the point, but will not fucking end. You get the point, but the person continues to explain their point, and often times stutters and stammers whilst doing so.
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
261
Country flag
Got some information on the Su-57.

1612286155001.png


1612286225647.png


It seems for the 2nd image that the Su-57's radars were replaced or upgraded with a name like SH-121M instead of the usual Sh-121.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
730
Likes
524
Country flag
Its quite a big difference indeed because radars are more accurate than infrared systems, excluding the atoll system.
Really? Is that how your brain work?
" radars are more accurate than infrared systems, excluding the atoll system"
:pound:let me guess, that because atoll is Russian system, therefore it operate by magic? :pound:
Firstly, radar aren't more accurate than infrared system. Radar can measure range and velocity of target while passive system like infrared generally can't do that by themselves but have to rely on supplementary system like LRF or method like multiship triangulation, so that the main advantage of radar over IIR. However, in term of angular accuracy, radar are far less accurate compared to Infrared system. Case in point, most IIR system would generate enough angular accuracy for you to visually see the target whereas the accuracy of most radar are equal to their beam width and on order of 0.5-1 degrees. Even SAR technique which can generate much better angular accuracy than beam width resolution still can't compete with IIR system in term of angular accuracy.
Secondly, there is nothing special about Atoll that would make it much better than common IIR, at the core, it is basically Russian DAS



So.... the MSDN will work on the F-35 but a similiar type missile project wont work for the Su-57? I know you didnt bring up the MSDN by why did you bring up the CUDA missile? the spergout only happened when I mentioned the MSDN and showing that they have minauture missiles. So why not launch a minauture missiles from a different launch method when such missiles were launched before only in bigger size.

Your sperging again if they are not minor than what are they? close to minor, more minor, moderate, difficult?
But do new air to air missile, air to ground weapons exist for the Su-57? I only said that smaller size missile projects are a option but for some reason you are sperging out when I give it a considerable option. Remember you brought up loadout numbers and so did I.
Also avoid doing this in your responses Urban Dictionary: Sperging out

When someone goes on a long, in-depth, overly elaborate explanation long after everyone already gets the point, but will not fucking end. You get the point, but the person continues to explain their point, and often times stutters and stammers whilst doing so.
Firstly what with you and the obsession with the word "sperg"? :crazy: did you just learn that word and want to show off?. "Look at me, I'm so cool, I can use this meme from 4chan" ?. If the core of your argument is nothing but "sperg this", "sperg that" then it just make you look like an idiot
Capture.jpg


Secondly, I didn't count either MSDN or SACM in the missile load comparison even though they are program of record because they don't have certain fate at the moment, and literally nothing is currently known about them, not the speed, not the range, not even the real shape . And you talking about hypothetical mini missile for Su-57 which isn't even mentioned by manufacturer as development program yet. The mini missile on Pansir S-1 doesn't count because it isn't design from ground up to be launched from weapon bay and it wasn't designed to be launched by aircraft either. Moreover, whether it is possible to make such a missile or not is only 1 problem, the bigger problem is whether they will be made depend alot on budget spending. There are many barrier apart from just the technical one.
For example: In the past, there is a program to basically put the JATCM and a version of on F-16, there is also another program to give F-16 a supersonic missile with submunition. But do you see either of these missile in full production now?. Now consider your argument, you are talking about weapons which aren't even mentioned development timeline yet, it is literally pure forum hypothetical at this point
F-16.jpg

EsuVWj5XIAIANK3.png

T-16.PNG






Of your course you dont remember what you said, didn't I tell you that you have symptoms of dementia? "And if we truly taking into account these hypothetical load out that isn't mentioned yet, then we must also take into account missile like Cuda or SACM, so really, Su-57 still doesn't carry more AAM than its counterpart like they are implied" Remember you brought this up 1st so why do you think the CUDA will increase the loadout if you say you are uncertain XD.
How did you understand that sentence?
Basically what I mean is that, I don't count these mini missiles, because they don't exist, their fate are uncertain and there is nothing to discuss about the technical of a non existence missile. If you count them, then it would be logically to take into account SACM and CUDA because CUDA and SACM is also uncertain.
However, at least in case of SACM and MSND, we know money being pour in to investigate and study the flexibility of the system because they are program of record, whereas, in case of mini missile for Su-57,we have nothing



As of now, sperg, you say up to 8 I say 8-10.
It doesn't matter what number you say if you can't prove, Can you show any development program from Sukhoi saying they make a new quad rack to increase the internal missile load of Su-57 to 10?. If you can't then your number is meaningless, it is the same whether you claim 10 or 1000.


More than half of my posts got deleted at f-16.net and they were related to air defense matters on air defenses vs airforce. I even had to correct a user over there that the current pantsirs are horrible against small drones or loitering ammunitions but still had managed to intercept nearly all delilah missiles by not just russian sources but an israeli source. I got banned at SB by just straying away from the war room. If secretprojects operates like f-16.net than everyone in the su-57 RCS thread would have their accounts deleted. Ironically the admin at secretprojects created an account at russia defense net but stopped posting there after a user like Mindstorm shut him down something related to the subject of Ufimtsev and skunk work engineers. Hocum is being way more obnoxious me(I didnt even start being obnoxious which is why that admin deletes my accounts before they hit 20 posts for account escalation privilege's for safe measures) and I have slightly better understanding than he does in usage of air defenses.
Firstly, in F-16.net, you were free to post until you straying away from technical discussion and start to jab about: this user, that user. You already have a bad history, then don't make bad impression by continues down the same path
Secondly, sorry but you don't know more about air defenses than Hocum. As obnoxious as he is, he did learn the physics to make the discussion interesting enough and he did give thought to his argument. It isn't about being right or wrong, it is about how much effort you spend on your argument. Like I said before, it is a balance of providing good content and being irritating.




I dont even think you understand my argument either or remember most of them at all.... oh god damn it what spergery is this?I think I found a solution to make this easier. I will just condense two responses to one. Do you want me to find you some missile projects from the past to the present? I can find ballistic missiles made recently in the present that exceed the ones in the 1950s and 1960s in terms of payload speed and range. Found out that Burevestnik is more downsized than project pluto, and even found out the Zircon exceeds all performances that were once demonstrated by the kholod project. Can you tell me why that is?
Again, this is not about whether new missile can excess the old one in range and speed. This is about how the range of each missile launch will affect its cruising speed. Read my example again
For example: F-4 top speed is Mach 2.23, combat radius is about 840 km, for comparison F-15 top speed is Mach 2.5 and combat radius is about 2037 km. So F-15 can fly faster and it can fly further than F-4. But that doesn't mean F-15 can fly 2037 km at Mach 2.5, when you fly long range , you will reduce your thrust to reduce fuel flow .
A ramjet missile do pretty much the same thing. If the target is 20 km from you, the missile will operate at max thrust and there you get the maximum speed and acceleration. If the target is 200 km from you, then the missile will throttle back to save fuel so that it can reach target. So you can choose either maximum range, or extremely high speed. But not both at the same time. The very key advantage of ramjet missile over simple solid fuel rocket is its ability to control fuel flow.


I am sure the f-16 can carry HAWC and other missile projects like the F-35 can come on who are you trying to BS? Klevok has surface to surface and air to surface development but despite its small size you dont think the Su-57 when the Su-57 has carried different sized missiles, oh come on, your killing me here with your spergery. I got this news just for you today. https://en.topwar.ru/179598-perspek...-kompleks-germes-poluchit-novuju-versiju.html "The special advantage of the new complex is that it can be installed on any platform, and the "fire and forget" system allows you to direct missiles to the target using drones or ships." probably separate from Tula's klevok but newer version seems to include more platforms to use missile.
Firstly, F-16 and F-35 are both jet fighter, so they have similar operating condition. It is massively different from getting a weapon that intended to be used by ground vehicle, helicopter or drone and try to put them on fighter aircraft. It is not about the physical size, it is about others issue like temperature range, vibration , lateral G.
Secondly, "any type of platform" is a big exaggeration from that website, hermes simply can't be used by jet fighter, it is also highly unlikely that it can be used by submarine. If you want to prove me wrong?. Show me a single photo of fighter jet like Su-30 or Su-35 or Su-57 carrying that missile. I don't even need the photo of real aircraft just show me a mock up from manufacturer would be enough


Yeah but the S-400 has conducted tests against maneuverable hypersonic missiles. The Buk-M3 has actually a very, very high PK than previous Buk systems, they gave it a 99.99% chance of interception compared to the previous versions that gave it a 70-93% chance. Sure to ground missiles can be jammed but an aircraft and a air to ground missile can completely miss their targets where it would be better to be one meter away from your target than 40 meters depending on the payload if its slow moving or not.
So what type of so called "maneuver hypersonic missile" that Buk-M3 were tested against? and how many hypersonic targets at the same time?
Also all test have high PK result, in development AIM-7 had around 90% PK in test, yet in war condition, it get around 3% PK

View attachment 76404
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top