Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AVANGARD MISSILE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    By whom ? The most successfull pilot of Iran-Iraq war piloted a MiG-25.
    So? That's like a Formula 1 driver who won one race saying he's the most successful...

    13 Feb 1981: Two IAF F-15 shoot down one of two Syrian MiG 25 with AIM 7 missiles. The second plane escaped. Israel suffered no losses.
    29 July 1981: A MiG 25 was shot down by an IAF F-15 using AIM 7. A second MiG 25 tried to shoot down the Israeli plane firing 4 B-40 missiles all of which missed.

    In the Iran-Iraq war, the MiG did better shooting down, 2 C-130's (tough target there), 2 or 3 F-4E, 2 or 3 F-5A, for an unconfirmed loss of up to 10 MiG 25 to F-14A's using AIM 54. Only 3 losses were confirmed by Iraq.

    In Desert Storm 1, a MiG 25 shot down a single F/A 18 using R-40RT missiles. 2 MiG 25 were shot down by US F-15's. There were about a half dozen other encounters between the MiG 25 and US planes that resulted in no losses, usually the MiG's missiles missed and the US ones usually weren't able to reach the target as the Iraqi pilots would tend to flee at high speed.

    17 Dec 1992, an Iraqi MiG 25 entered the UN "No fly" zone and was shot down by an F-16 using an AIM 120 AMRAAM.

    Not exactly a stellar combat performance...


    The discussion was about hte rnage of the missiles.

    MiG-25 had a range of 2400 km which is neough. If your plane is too far, it doesn't matter if it has a good range or not. It will be too late.
    Wrong. The MiG 25 has a ferry range at subsonic speed of about 1200 km and a miniscule combat radius of 300 km (about 190 miles).

    As for the R-40 Vympel, it is specific to the MiG 25 (and follow-on MiG 31). Range is 50 to 80 km depending on the exact variant.
    There's IR and semi-active radar variants and the normal firing procedure is to use the two in pairs, similar to how the F-106 uses AIM 4. The R-40 is the largest AAM ever produced (not counting some very early prototype test AAM's like the US Navy Gorgon II and III of the late 40's which really don't count). This size and weight makes the missile a poor one versus maneuvering targets, one reason it performed poorly against such, after all it was designed to take down large non-maneuvering bombers...

    On the whole, it is a specialized missile, fitted to a specialized aircraft, that was as a whole optimized to intercept and shoot down large fast bombers like the B-58, B-70, or older "strategic" bombers like the B-47 and B-52.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      So? That's like a Formula 1 driver who won one race saying he's the most successful...

      13 Feb 1981: Two IAF F-15 shoot down one of two Syrian MiG 25 with AIM 7 missiles. The second plane escaped. Israel suffered no losses.
      29 July 1981: A MiG 25 was shot down by an IAF F-15 using AIM 7. A second MiG 25 tried to shoot down the Israeli plane firing 4 B-40 missiles all of which missed.

      In the Iran-Iraq war, the MiG did better shooting down, 2 C-130's (tough target there), 2 or 3 F-4E, 2 or 3 F-5A, for an unconfirmed loss of up to 10 MiG 25 to F-14A's using AIM 54. Only 3 losses were confirmed by Iraq.

      In Desert Storm 1, a MiG 25 shot down a single F/A 18 using R-40RT missiles. 2 MiG 25 were shot down by US F-15's. There were about a half dozen other encounters between the MiG 25 and US planes that resulted in no losses, usually the MiG's missiles missed and the US ones usually weren't able to reach the target as the Iraqi pilots would tend to flee at high speed.

      17 Dec 1992, an Iraqi MiG 25 entered the UN "No fly" zone and was shot down by an F-16 using an AIM 120 AMRAAM.

      Not exactly a stellar combat performance...
      1. Evaluate tech used by kebabs doesn't count. It should be compared in hands of similar trained troops.
      2. Even less when compared with planes of another generation.

      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Wrong. The MiG 25 has a ferry range at subsonic speed of about 1200 km and a miniscule combat radius of 300 km (about 190 miles).

      As for the R-40 Vympel, it is specific to the MiG 25 (and follow-on MiG 31). Range is 50 to 80 km depending on the exact variant.
      There's IR and semi-active radar variants and the normal firing procedure is to use the two in pairs, similar to how the F-106 uses AIM 4. The R-40 is the largest AAM ever produced (not counting some very early prototype test AAM's like the US Navy Gorgon II and III of the late 40's which really don't count). This size and weight makes the missile a poor one versus maneuvering targets, one reason it performed poorly against such, after all it was designed to take down large non-maneuvering bombers...

      On the whole, it is a specialized missile, fitted to a specialized aircraft, that was as a whole optimized to intercept and shoot down large fast bombers like the B-58, B-70, or older "strategic" bombers like the B-47 and B-52.
      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25.html

      1730 km at subsonic speed for the first version.

      2400 km for PD modification.

      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25pd.html
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Emtos View Post

        1. Evaluate tech used by kebabs doesn't count. It should be compared in hands of similar trained troops.
        I included the Iran-Iraq war... Kebab to Kebab as you put it. The MiG was not a stellar performer and may well have had more losses than shoot downs.

        2. Even less when compared with planes of another generation.
        Sounds more like an excuse to me.

        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25.html

        1730 km at subsonic speed for the first version.

        2400 km for PD modification.

        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25pd.html[/QUOTE]

        Doesn't change that the combat radius was miniscule... That's what counts when the plane is trying to intercept a target, not it ferry range at low speeds.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          I included the Iran-Iraq war... Kebab to Kebab as you put it. The MiG was not a stellar performer and may well have had more losses than shoot downs.
          Who was then ?

          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Sounds more like an excuse to me.

          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25.html

          1730 km at subsonic speed for the first version.

          2400 km for PD modification.

          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig25pd.html
          Doesn't change that the combat radius was miniscule... That's what counts when the plane is trying to intercept a target, not it ferry range at low speeds.
          [/QUOTE]

          1250 km at Mach 2,3 is still enough.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Emtos View Post

            Who was then ?
            The Iraqi - Iranian war. Iranian F-14's with AIM 54 shot down 3 to 10 MiG 25 while the MiG's shot down 4 to 6 F-4 and F-5.



            1250 km at Mach 2,3 is still enough.
            But, it isn't 1250 km at Mach 2.3. It's more like 600 km at most, and that's total distance, not a radius of action.

            Comment


            • #51
              Interesting that what was originally a enquiry about the latest weapon in the Russian inventory has devolved into a discussion about a generation-old Soviet aircraft.

              That’s the way it goes.
              "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
              Samuel Johnson.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                The Iraqi - Iranian war. Iranian F-14's with AIM 54 shot down 3 to 10 MiG 25 while the MiG's shot down 4 to 6 F-4 and F-5.
                Not really a bad score. F-14 was a more recent plane and not designed as an interceptor.


                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                But, it isn't 1250 km at Mach 2.3. It's more like 600 km at most, and that's total distance, not a radius of action.
                It's.
                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                  Not really a bad score. F-14 was a more recent plane and not designed as an interceptor.

                  Or you could look at it the other way and say the MiG could only shoot down older, less capable planes like the F5.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                    Or you could look at it the other way and say the MiG could only shoot down older, less capable planes like the F5.
                    F5 wasn't much older than MiG-25. Both sides also didn't left much reliable data.
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                      F5 wasn't much older than MiG-25. Both sides also didn't left much reliable data.
                      The F-5 is a low cost fighter aircraft that wasn't designed to operate in a high threat environment. It's electronics suite is minimal and it is / was armed with just cannon and short range IR homing missiles for aerial combat.

                      It's clear from what information is available that the MiG 25 didn't perform in some stellar manner in that war. It shot down about a half dozen aircraft for a half dozen losses, give or take. That's not much of a record.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                        F5 wasn't much older than MiG-25.
                        ...and the F14A wasn't much younger. See, two can play this game.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I was under the impression that the Phoenix missiles carried by the F-14's degraded after a lack of US maintenance. No matter what the movies tried to say, the F-14 was an Interceptor and not an air superiority Fighter. It was supposed to bring a bunch of long range radar guided missiles to take out bombers before they got in range to launch antishipping missiles. They could carry other missiles but they would not have the same range.

                          The older F-5's only carried two 50 caliber guns in the nose. The aircraft could carry a variety of other munitions.

                          Pruitt
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                            I was under the impression that the Phoenix missiles carried by the F-14's degraded after a lack of US maintenance. No matter what the movies tried to say, the F-14 was an Interceptor and not an air superiority Fighter. It was supposed to bring a bunch of long range radar guided missiles to take out bombers before they got in range to launch antishipping missiles. They could carry other missiles but they would not have the same range.
                            Hence the Iran-Contra deal and some black market operators selling parts for them to the Iranians so they could use them on the Iraqis.... But, the F-14 can also carry AIM 7 in various models too.
                            The F-14 was designed to be a 'fleet defense' fighter. That is, it could intercept aircraft, particularly bombers and maritime patrol planes, at very long ranges from a carrier task force and engage them. The AIM 54 was also intended to take down Soviet ASM's which were mostly large and supersonic at the time, including being able to counter a saturation attack hence the multiple targeting capacity. The F-14 was also given some ability to successfully operate as an air superiority fighter but this wasn't it's primary role.

                            Historically, the F-14 was just the latest, and possibly last, version of a dedicated fleet defense fighter. Previous examples would be the (failed) F-111 navalized version, the F-4 Phantom, the F3H Demon, and the F2H Banshee. The USN had been developing air-to-air missiles for the long range shoot down of attacking bombers since 1943 and the AIM 54 was just an iteration of that. Today, the AMRAAM AIM 120 can do the same job and doesn't require a specialized aircraft platform to use it.

                            The older F-5's only carried two 50 caliber guns in the nose. The aircraft could carry a variety of other munitions.
                            Pruitt
                            No, all F-5 fighters came with 2 x 20mm Pontiac M39 revolver cannon (a mid 1950's development) standard.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                              Interesting that what was originally a enquiry about the latest weapon in the Russian inventory has devolved into a discussion about a generation-old Soviet aircraft.

                              That’s the way it goes.
                              Actually the MIG-25 as a plane designed for an opponent might actually be a decent analogy for the new Russian Avangard-system.

                              Yes, it's fast – maybe it can manouver? – but it doesn't significantly change the US-Russian nuclear deterrence situation. Both sides can hammer the other like nobody's business.

                              In fact I'd say that the Avangard – even if it works as advertised (not entirely certain, and probably not at the MO since the Russian have a habit of rolling out things declaring them all finished while still working out kinks) – is a weapon's system intended to solve a potential Russian problem that has yet to actually materialize, i.e. the hypothetical US "missile shield" that would render the Russian legacy nukes more or less completely ineffective. And that's not really there, much as Russia has talked up the possibility. Except they have now gone one better and introduced a partial solution to this as-yet hypothetical problem.

                              Nice effort, but... why? Considering the shortages in the Russian arsenal that are not being solved, one does end up with the sneaky suspicion that this was something Russia could build, and so did build in order to distract from other problems of what it can't quite build – and so mostly done for domestic Russian consumption, and general bragging rights internationally (for those that might be impressed for not paying attention to the rest of the situation).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                classic kidnapping of a thread here....ah...back in old days when i frequented these here hallowed halls years ago a thread like this would have a page count in the 100's..!

                                No nation has achieved more with less...than Russia.

                                Im pretty confident too that this hypersonic design is mostly indigenous; i dont beleive its stolen form the US or China or anything like that..

                                So they would have to overcome their own design problems..

                                Develop their own solutions...

                                Arguably have little to no input from any foriegn country with expertise...

                                More than likely its still an advanced stage prototype, with the political mouthpieces doing their best to make everyone else think every second weapon platform in the Russian arsenal has one..

                                in 10 years or less half the entire globe will be armed with them....of one form or another....

                                And then the next great arms race of developing effective countermeasures to them will commence...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X