Russia going to war? What would cause them to

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 05:35am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Thats only HARM level then. I dont want the radar dead, I want to take part of the site with it while turning the control van into a crater.

Is that really necessary?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-12 05:57am

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Thats only HARM level then. I dont want the radar dead, I want to take part of the site with it while turning the control van into a crater.
Is that really necessary?

Its preferable I would think. The more damage you can do to your enemys equipment, and better yet, his trained personal, the better.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 06:07am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Its preferable I would think. The more damage you can do to your enemys equipment, and better yet, his trained personal, the better.

Yeah, but to trade performance for it- meh not wise. I'm glad it got cancelled.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 06:11am

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Thats only HARM level then. I dont want the radar dead, I want to take part of the site with it while turning the control van into a crater.
Is that really necessary?

Why blow up the radar Antenna from 20 miles when you can blast half the site while forcing it to engage at max range?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 06:13am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Why blow up the radar Antenna from 20 miles when you can blast half the site while forcing it to engage at max range?

You only like it for TGOD effect

Besides- at that size, too few aircraft would be able to carry it to make procurement worthwhile.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 06:14am

Vympel wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Its preferable I would think. The more damage you can do to your enemys equipment, and better yet, his trained personal, the better.
Yeah, but to trade performance for it- meh not wise. I'm glad it got cancelled.

Its not trading performance, its superior to HARM in basically every respect except weight, it would need a B-52. However, the USAF is already considering an electronic warfare B-52. So while there at it the wing pylons could be rebuilt to take several of them. Things like S-300 are going to become more common, and they're mobile enough that you can't count on killing them with cruise missiles. That leaves us with traveling well into their lethal range to launch JSOW's, HARM or other tactical weapons.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 06:16am

Sea Skimmer wrote: Its not trading performance, its superior to HARM in basically every respect except weight, it would need a B-52. However, the USAF is already considering an electronic warfare B-52. So while there at it the wing pylons could be rebuilt to take several of them. Things like S-300 are going to become more common, and they're mobile enough that you can't count on killing them with cruise missiles. That leaves us with traveling well into their lethal range to launch JSOW's, HARM or other tactical weapons.

Hence why I'm glad it got cancelled. Keep those puny American aircraft in their place- within GRUMBLE range.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 06:17am

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Why blow up the radar Antenna from 20 miles when you can blast half the site while forcing it to engage at max range?
You only like it for TGOD effect

Besides- at that size, too few aircraft would be able to carry it to make procurement worthwhile.

US used up somthing like a thousand of the orginal Talos target drones. So the engines and airframe and part of the guidance system would be bought in large numbers.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 06:20am

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Its not trading performance, its superior to HARM in basically every respect except weight, it would need a B-52. However, the USAF is already considering an electronic warfare B-52. So while there at it the wing pylons could be rebuilt to take several of them. Things like S-300 are going to become more common, and they're mobile enough that you can't count on killing them with cruise missiles. That leaves us with traveling well into their lethal range to launch JSOW's, HARM or other tactical weapons.
Hence why I'm glad it got cancelled. Keep those puny American aircraft in their place- within GRUMBLE range.

GRUMBLE will be able to enjoy fighting off a swam of these soon...

Each one could be hundreds of percent over budget and still cost less then a heavy SAM while bring to small and slow for most air defences to engage.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 06:28am

Each one could be hundreds of percent over budget and still cost less then a heavy SAM while bring to small and slow for most air defences to engage.

Bah. LOCAAS range is only around 100km, well within range of GRUMBLE systems to destroy the launching aircraft.

Not to mention that turbojet will mean Iglas will have a field day.

And the other systems in the air defense tiers.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2003-03-12 07:40am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Thats only HARM level then. I dont want the radar dead, I want to take part of the site with it while turning the control van into a crater.

900m/s is 2017 miles per hour. Mach factor is dependant on altitude, but that would be around mach 2.8 at sea level I think.

Along with your other quote, let's suggest a weapon that must make you happy. We'll take a Kh-22 or -26 (AS-4 or -6.) That already supposedly has variants with passive radar or antiradiation homing. We modernize the seeker to new standard (and the larger missile may even allow more room to put a more capable seeker for any tech level.) They'll have a range of 350 (-26) and 550 (-22) and it can go with a Mach 3 high ability (-26) and even higher for -22 (4000km/h, and IIRC 1200km/h is about a Mach at sea level.) This huge increase in effective standoff range comes only at the price of about 1800 pounds (-26 weighing just under 4000kg,) albeit more for the -22 in exchange for even more range and speed

How about it, Sea Skimmer? They come complete with ONE TON warheads too for enhanced kill capability

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-12 09:28am

In the current climate, Russia would go to war against any small nation that was actively supporting terrorism against Russia.

Russia would not be likely to perform pre-emptive strikes/invasions against nations, as their previous strikes/invasions are the action that triggered their current terrorism problems.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 09:35am

Vympel wrote:
Each one could be hundreds of percent over budget and still cost less then a heavy SAM while bring to small and slow for most air defences to engage.
Bah. LOCAAS range is only around 100km, well within range of GRUMBLE systems to destroy the launching aircraft.

Not to mention that turbojet will mean Iglas will have a field day.

And the other systems in the air defense tiers.

An Iglas costs about 35000 dollars however, being shot down is a victory for the attacker anyway. And if course, I can deploy LOCAAS muntions from a 200 kilometer range powered JSOW

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 09:38am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Thats only HARM level then. I dont want the radar dead, I want to take part of the site with it while turning the control van into a crater.

900m/s is 2017 miles per hour. Mach factor is dependant on altitude, but that would be around mach 2.8 at sea level I think.
Along with your other quote, let's suggest a weapon that must make you happy. We'll take a Kh-22 or -26 (AS-4 or -6.) That already supposedly has variants with passive radar or antiradiation homing. We modernize the seeker to new standard (and the larger missile may even allow more room to put a more capable seeker for any tech level.) They'll have a range of 350 (-26) and 550 (-22) and it can go with a Mach 3 high ability (-26) and even higher for -22 (4000km/h, and IIRC 1200km/h is about a Mach at sea level.) This huge increase in effective standoff range comes only at the price of about 1800 pounds (-26 weighing just under 4000kg,) albeit more for the -22 in exchange for even more range and speed

How about it, Sea Skimmer? They come complete with ONE TON warheads too for enhanced kill capability

Actually, those missiles already have ARM variants.

However accuracy is poor and their huge size means no aircraft in existence can carry more then three, and for any sort of long range mission its just one. Sea Snake is far more compact, a B-52 could easily carry six while still having its internal bomb bay for other munitions, and do so over quite long ranges.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-12 11:29am

Sea Skimmer wrote: An Iglas costs about 35000 dollars however, being shot down is a victory for the attacker anyway.

Not if the target they're attacking is saved- notice also that the estimated price for LOCAAS now is around $30k. That'll go higher.

And if course, I can deploy LOCAAS muntions from a 200 kilometer range powered JSOW

Getting more expensive now, yes?

Of course, powered JSOW too, will be cancelled in all liklihood

How many LOCAAS could you fit in there tho?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-12 03:45pm

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: An Iglas costs about 35000 dollars however, being shot down is a victory for the attacker anyway.

Not if the target they're attacking is saved- notice also that the estimated price for LOCAAS now is around $30k. That'll go higher.

The price has always been that because its been a required threshhold for the design. And atrittion says it still a victory.