Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Sorry let me say this. Yes it is very true getting it to work in testing is not the same. But it's one step closer to getting it working 100%. Also since neither of us know anything about how effective it works and the depth of the testing and proving, we shouldn't speculate. I brought in the AShBM like Mig-35 with Kinzhal to demonstrate other angles that can be played rather than doing the same old chucking missiles at a target. Actually AShBM is better in concept than the Mig plus missile method too. But yes we shouldnt discuss things we know no specifics about.

Jura yeah we don't know at all. Just used them as examples. I'm sure imaginative minds have so many ideas that can be worked on to defend oceans from USN. I just don't like the ol throw cruise missiles technique. I think the Americans will laugh if China does that. But that's my ignorant opinion.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Jura said:
sounds like you guys were talking Dong-Feng AShBM ... from what I figured, the main challenge would be for the reentry vehicle to acquire the target to be hit (moving relatively fast), but what do I know LOL
Click to expand...
And to consistently update the location of a target that is most likely on the move, a deviation of just 1 degree can very well mean a miss of 100 meters at least.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Let's leave Chinese AShBM out of the Russian forum discussion. Also 1 degree off in even low LEO orbit is kilometers off on the ground. But the warhead is dynamic annd these complex things require very specific knowledge to understand and quantify so we can make any reasonable statements. I just assumed it was a possible method to use given the enormous investments to deploy these BMs after they've been tested. The assumption of potential effectiveness was purely based on the fact these things are deployed (as far as i understand) and Chinese military decision makers have been pretty against new and innovative things. They still operate by the we'll have more men and more firepower and persist until we resist doctrines of the old centuries :p Whether or not this thing actually works in real life is not the discussion. Let's try to leave the AShBM. Replace it with "invest the money and time literally anywhere else" because we have plenty of missiles already. Even spending those billions paying the Americans or bribing the politicians could be more effective. Diplomacy can work.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Viktor Jav said:
And to consistently update the location of a target that is most likely on the move, a deviation of just 1 degree can very well mean a miss of 100 meters at least.
Click to expand...
well what I meant, more specifically (39 minutes ago didn't know if anybody would read what I say LOL):
there would be roughly a half-of-minute reentry phase, during which the target could move by roughly a half-of-kilometer; then the MARV would need to lock on, start homing ... LOL it's a rocket science
ougoah
you're right, let's leave it
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
ougoah said:
I think they're currently the most effective navy at successfully shooting down both arrows and the archers to use your analogy. I doubt such a well armed and experienced navy will be so thoughtless.
Click to expand...
Archers right now are simply out of reach.
Because Superbug is anything but a good interceptor. Slow in both acceleration and supersonic flight, altitude and range-restricted, lacking proper anti-bomber weaponand derived of sufficient tanker support.
They are the most effective navy in shooting down archers only because others can do even less(with gradual maturity of Chinese carrier force it will change, because, well, j-15 is so much more of a plane).

And yes, scaring away Chinese h-6s with modern ASCMs is already challenging enough for them.
Even old Tu-22m/x-22 combo was just barely within reach(and even this thanks to ancient x-22, requiring lock before launch), Tu-22m3m with modern self-defense suite and x-32 is likely to be next to untouchable.
Bugs and lightnings are just wrong planes for the job. Outer air battle is long dead.
If we'll look into typical cold war scenarios, everything will happen just too far away and too fast for current wings.

USN made their choice back in early 1990s.
 
Dizasta1

Dizasta1

Senior Member
Whether China wants to buy Tu-22Ms or not, is entirely China's decision, not anyone else's. And whether Russia wants to sell Tu-22Ms to anyone, is entirely Russia's decision. Any argument, for or against the subject, is irrelevant, speculative and pure conjecture. As every country has it's own requirements, capabilities, limitations and challenges according to which the plan acquisitions, set combat operations and/or implement war preparatory plans.

Missiles do hit their targets, we all know that and have seen it as well. The Germans did it (1943/44) with their Luftwaffe, using Hs-293, damaging the USS Savannah (CL-42) off Salerno, Italy. The Egyptians have done it (1967), using the SS-N-2 Styx (Soviet) missiles which sunk the israeli navy destroyer, Eilat. The Argentinians have also done it (1982), sinking hms-sheffield, using air-launched Exocet missiles. The Iranians have done it (1987), hitting American owned tankers under Liberian and Kuwaiti flags, hit both ships with HY-2 missiles. Also in 1987, USS Stark, was hit by Exocet missiles, launched from an Iraqi Air Force Mirage F1C.

So to say that cruise missiles are not worth the effort to employ on supersonic bombers, is an invalid and ill-thought argument.

Just because you don't hear it on MSM, or social networks, doesn't mean that the capability isn't a successful one. MSM manipulation and control of what news we listen to or read, perhaps one of the reasons why we never heard about the exploits of North Vietnamese Air Force against USAF and USN.

Also, if such an argument was valid, that cruise missiles are useless in today's technological advances. Then many countries wouldn't be investing in them. Such arguments sound more like child talk, "my missile defence is superb, your missiles won't work, so boo hoo!"

Sorry bud, it don't work like that. Real world, has real results and no matter how some may try to dress it up, or cover it up, the truth always comes out and destroys false claims.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Dizasta1 said:
Whether China wants to buy Tu-22Ms or not, is entirely China's decision, not anyone else's. And whether Russia wants to sell Tu-22Ms to anyone, is entirely Russia's decision. Any argument, for or against the subject, is irrelevant, speculative and pure conjecture. As every country has it's own requirements, capabilities, limitations and challenges according to which the plan acquisitions, set combat operations and/or implement war preparatory plans.
Click to expand...
It seems highly unlikely to now jump on a 46+ year old bomber design.
Dizasta1 said:
So to say that cruise missiles are not worth the effort to employ on supersonic bombers, is an invalid and ill-thought argument.
Click to expand...
There are some advantages and disadvantages for a Supersonic launched cruise missile.
If you have a Super sonic missile coming off a Super sonic host, The Missile gets a range boost as it will use less of it's thrust to accelerate to speed.
The US has from time to time looked into using B1B's for a simmilar capacity
Dizasta1 said:
Sorry bud, it don't work like that. Real world, has real results and no matter how some may try to dress it up, or cover it up, the truth always comes out and destroys false claims.
Click to expand...
That cuts both ways. Many claims made by the East have been debunked too.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Dizasta1 said:
Whether China wants to buy Tu-22Ms or not, is entirely China's decision, not anyone else's. And whether Russia wants to sell Tu-22Ms to anyone, is entirely Russia's decision. Any argument, for or against the subject, is irrelevant, speculative and pure conjecture. As every country has it's own requirements, capabilities, limitations and challenges according to which the plan acquisitions, set combat operations and/or implement war preparatory plans.

Missiles do hit their targets, we all know that and have seen it as well. The Germans did it (1943/44) with their Luftwaffe, using Hs-293, damaging the USS Savannah (CL-42) off Salerno, Italy. The Egyptians have done it (1967), using the SS-N-2 Styx (Soviet) missiles which sunk the israeli navy destroyer, Eilat. The Argentinians have also done it (1982), sinking hms-sheffield, using air-launched Exocet missiles. The Iranians have done it (1987), hitting American owned tankers under Liberian and Kuwaiti flags, hit both ships with HY-2 missiles. Also in 1987, USS Stark, was hit by Exocet missiles, launched from an Iraqi Air Force Mirage F1C.

So to say that cruise missiles are not worth the effort to employ on supersonic bombers, is an invalid and ill-thought argument.

Just because you don't hear it on MSM, or social networks, doesn't mean that the capability isn't a successful one. MSM manipulation and control of what news we listen to or read, perhaps one of the reasons why we never heard about the exploits of North Vietnamese Air Force against USAF and USN.

Also, if such an argument was valid, that cruise missiles are useless in today's technological advances. Then many countries wouldn't be investing in them. Such arguments sound more like child talk, "my missile defence is superb, your missiles won't work, so boo hoo!"

Sorry bud, it don't work like that. Real world, has real results and no matter how some may try to dress it up, or cover it up, the truth always comes out and destroys false claims.
Click to expand...

Where have I said that "cruise missiles are useless in today's technology advances?" That doesn't even make sense but what you're trying to say is not something I am claiming at all. You certainly know a lot more about the real world than I do then? That's what you're implying with your real world doesn't work the way I think it does comment. Fantastic. Totally misunderstand all my posts and then put words in my mouth.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
It seems highly unlikely to now jump on a 46+ year old bomber design.

There are some advantages and disadvantages for a Supersonic launched cruise missile.
If you have a Super sonic missile coming off a Super sonic host, The Missile gets a range boost as it will use less of it's thrust to accelerate to speed.
The US has from time to time looked into using B1B's for a simmilar capacity

That cuts both ways. Many claims made by the East have been debunked too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for an injection of reality into this thread.

There is certainly value in supersonic bombers and cruise missile capable supersonic bombers, particularly when conditions can be set up favourably, ie domestic ordinance, cheap prices, quick time to service and performing duties etc. Whether or not China and Russia want to do this is indeed up to certain groups within. All we do on this forum is speculate and form conjecture. Some are of higher quality than others. To suggest China is interested in this is not a quality conjecture especially considering there is no evidence apart from usual BS media claims from anyone and everyone (most tabloid/propaganda media claims on military matters have been incorrect or misleading). Doesn't mean Tu-22 in PLAAF 100% won't happen but let's leave it there. The hardware and strategies involved do not need supporters. USN being able to defend against multiple supersonic threats is not a speculation. How effective the strategy can be against such an advanced opposing force is uncertain to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top