
Edit: they technically defeated the U.S. in getting a missile hard kill APS 1st before the F-35 was to get MSDM since this bomber is in service with this feature. Wow
thegopnik wrote:ahhh so I feel like I stand corrected that the EW facing on the back of the Su-57 having active detection besides passive detection was correct from KRET's official statement. I mean this feature is more important to have for a multi-role aircraft than a fucking bomber where its missions are more prioritized for air to ground operations. great news
Edit: they technically defeated the U.S. in getting a missile hard kill APS 1st before the F-35 was to get MSDM since this bomber is in service with this feature. Wow
GarryB, Big_Gazza, JohninMK and thegopnik like this post
An interceptor merely has to catch up to the missile - with a high explosive warhead it really doesn't matter if the closing velocity is 3000 m/s or 3 m/s. The rear firing missile would still be burning forward it only has to be slightly slower than the missile for the latter to catch-up.GarryB wrote:
Regarding the missile in question it sounds like Morfei... or 9M100 which might be ARH or IIR or have both... the core feature is its two way datalink with the launch platform so the missile is launched without a lock on the target. On land or at sea that means the missile can be stored vertically and launched and will fly in the direction the target is detected to be... for S-350 or Redut that means 360 degree engagement performance, but for aircraft it means the missile can be carried in an internal weapons bay in full stealthy mode... when a target is detected the location and information about the target is fed to the missile which would then be thrown out the weapon bay... it fires up its rocket motor and turns and accelerates towards the target location and starts looking for the target either with an ARH seeker or an IIR sensor or perhaps both. If it has trouble finding the target it can communicate with the launcher to establish what might have happened to the target and chase it down.
thegopnik likes this post
Where will they store AA missiles?
An interceptor merely has to catch up to the missile - with a high explosive warhead it really doesn't matter if the closing velocity is 3000 m/s or 3 m/s. The rear firing missile would still be burning forward it only has to be slightly slower than the missile for the latter to catch-up.
Edit: what would be really cool is if they were small Tor missiles that eject underneath, have their orienting charges point thr missile in the right direction while the missile engages its motor like the tor missiles usually do. Though I think a Tor type missile system might have issues since it not IR or semiactive/active radar homing.
GarryB wrote:
We have seen patents for vertically stacked missiles launched vertically from an aircraft in flight... for an aircraft the size of the Tu-160 or PAK DA you could have a large cell array of them on the upper surface of the aircraft that could launch up and then towards the target in normal forward flight... firing vertically while flying forward would mean less energy wasted doing a 180 degree turn most of the time... it would normally be a 90 degree turn...
Mir wrote:The concept is not that new. In the early 90's the Russians revealed a rear firing missile based on the R-73. It was slightly longer at 3.2m and was also heavier at 115kg.
The missile - facing rearward - was launched by a gas ejection charge from a special rail launcher. The rear control surfaces are locked and the rocket motor was covered by a cone plug.
Once launched the missile continues ass first for a short distance and is stabilized by four gas actuators. It also slows the missile down to near zero. Only then are the control surfaces activated and the rear plug for the rocket motor is ejected.
At the time it was said to be experimental but it was probably a concept dating back from Soviet times. The system was successfully tested on a Su-27 but it was never intended for air superiority fighters - only for bombers, maritime patrol and strike aircraft.
I would think that this concept is not only restricted to IR seeker missiles.
magnumcromagnon wrote:
Were you talking about this?
Mir wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:
Were you talking about this?
Exactly that yes.
Backman wrote:Lennox wrote:So no one's gonna talk about the rear facing radar on the new Tu-160M? It's rather weird tbh
What's weird about it ? The su 34 has it. The su 57 has it.
Safer firing down, to avoid the tail? Wouldn't the slipstream would force a 90 degree turn?
The fact that it's on the Tu-160, which I've always thought to be a standoff platform (with fighter escorts) that can throw missiles thousand of kilometers away instead of dropping bomb. Who can even attack it. Then again, they could be testing that for the PAK DA. But if that's the case, why put it on a serially produced aircraft instead of a test bed
GarryB, Big_Gazza and Finty like this post
lancelot and Finty like this post
Rodion_Romanovic wrote:There is a Tu160 (the only one that was not cut by the ukroamericans) in an air museum in Poltava. Do you believe the Russians could reactivate it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltava_Museum_of_Long-Range_and_Strategic_Aviation
There is also a Tu-95MS and a Tu-22M3
Finty likes this post
GarryB, dino00, Hole, Finty, Mir and Broski like this post
It is debatable. For one the B-1 comments he makes are kind of BS. B-1 was the most cost effective bomber aircraft in the War on Afghanistan campaign.Tsavo Lion wrote:Does he have a point? https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/01/22/letet-to-mozhno-no-kuda
Mir likes this post
it was also too vulnerable to the Soviet PVO; the B-1B can still go supersonic, but it's a tactical low level penetrator & stand-off LR missile/bomb truck, not a strategic bomber. It's most direct counterpart is the Tu-22M3.The B-1 was also converted from a supersonic to a subsonic aircraft for cost reasons not stealth like he insinuates.
The B-1 was also converted from a supersonic to a subsonic aircraft for cost reasons not stealth like he insinuates.
Therefore, it will only be used for strikes on the most important targets — for example, on the territory of the United States or aircraft carriers.
Due to the fact that the visibility of the Tu-160 is many times higher than the visibility of the B-1B, enemy air defense radars will detect it at any range up to the radio horizon, which at an altitude of 10 km is 400 km.
The probability that the missiles will fly through the air defense 5000 km (which will take six hours) and remain unaffected is extremely small. Accordingly, the efficiency of an expensive operation is also low.
Hole likes this post
The second task of the Tu-160-attack of the carrier strike group-is also not solved. It will not be possible to reach the range of 450 km from which the Tu-160 radar can detect an aircraft carrier — the carrier's fighters controlled by the Hawkeye long-range detection aircraft and the Aegis air defense system will not be allowed to approach.
To fly at a speed of more than 2000 km / h, the Tu-160 must rise to an altitude of 14-16 km, where the air density is five times less than that of the ground. But at such altitudes, fuel consumption increases by two to three times compared to flying at the optimal altitude at subsonic. As a result, out of a typical total flight range of 10 thousand km, the length of the supersonic section will not exceed 300-500 km.
With the same bomb load, the Tu-160 is 60 tons heavier than the B-1.
Any long-range bomber is an easily hit target due to its large size and low maneuverability.
At ranges of up to 1000 km, it is better to use not the Tu-160, but the Su-34 front-line bomber, since it is much less noticeable and more maneuverable.
If you really want to have a long-range bomber, then you need to develop a new subsonic one.
Well, it is best to completely close the Tu-160M program and use the money saved to develop several types of drones, for which we have a large backlog.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, LMFS and Hole like this post
GarryB, Gomig-21 and Broski like this post
GarryB, mnrck, Gomig-21, Hole and Belisarius like this post
|
|