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.
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
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
And the missile has warhead as well as control guidance section
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
Secondly, able to intercept something and able to intercept something with high PK are very different matter, nevermind the added issue of jamming
Is that how you treat all sources???
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.
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
