Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 24 Oct 2014 19:23

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3987 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 100  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2008 14:22 
Offline
Webmaster BR

Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 1246
Location: Planet Earth
Last Page of Previous Thread


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jun 2008 19:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Su-35. The names of 5 new missiles are still classified: 1 VLRAAM, 2 AGMs, 1 LRARM, 1 AShM:
Image

Internal look:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2008 13:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11
Posts: 186
here's the brochure

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/News/maks2007/35_eng.zip


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2008 14:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
Posts: 277
Igorr wrote:
Su-35. The names of 5 new missiles are still classified: 1 VLRAAM, 2 AGMs, 1 LRARM, 1 AShM:

I am guessing the VLRAM is R-37 or KS-172
1 LRARM is R-77M ?
Kh-58 could be one of the remaining missiles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2008 14:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11
Posts: 186
here are some images of the VLRAAM from secret projects . they were taken at Maks 2007 by Flateric. Credit also goes to Overscan.


Image



In the second image the AAM-L is visible along with other missiles.

Image


so as we can see , it is clearly derived from The KS-172


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2008 01:18 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Mar 2008 15:46
Posts: 35
Location: Kuwait
sauravjha wrote:
here are some images of the VLRAAM from secret projects . they were taken at Maks 2007 by Flateric. Credit also goes to Overscan.


Image



In the second image the AAM-L is visible along with other missiles.

Image


so as we can see , it is clearly derived from The KS-172


Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?

Regds, Clay


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2008 16:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35
Posts: 588
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?


You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2008 16:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Posts: 632
Location: Bangalore
rkhanna wrote:
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?


You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.


KS-172 is in which stage? Is it inducted in service?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2008 19:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 996
I think India should order another 300 upgraded Su-30MKI to be manufactured between 2014-2023 with AESA, new engines, better IRST, conformal fuel tanks and semi conformal weapon carriage to take over the role of DPSA/SEAD from Jags, Mig-27s etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2008 23:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Nitesh wrote:
rkhanna wrote:
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?


You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.


KS-172 is in which stage? Is it inducted in service?
It adopted another name for sure since they were even silence about it at Moscow Airshow 2007. Also Su-35 imminent induction into Russian service is determined thing, it'll be the first Russian fighter with an ultra-long range AAM, being it KS-172 derivate or another. The parameters of its radar (Irbis) well say about intention for 300+ km range air to air weapon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 02:47 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Mar 2008 15:46
Posts: 35
Location: Kuwait
rkhanna wrote:
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?


You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.


Is it still under development or has it been operationalised? Will the IAF procuring them?

What are the returns India is getting for the funding?


Regds, Clay


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 15:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Posts: 632
Location: Bangalore
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl ... birds.html

Candid words from a top gun instructor, who now commands roughly half the airborne striking force that the US Navy has over the Pacific. More than that, these are words of any American pilot who's heard all the Sukhoi stories. Captain Hal Murdock, commodore at Lemoore Naval Air Station, California, is a Tomcat ace who now spends his time effecting the foundations for the next generation of American naval aviation, a.k.a. the F-35 Lightning-II.

To be honest, I'm yet to find a US pilot (and most defence correspondents have met a whole bunch in the last three years) who wouldn't give something really valuable to get behind the stick of a Su-30MKI. The young US Navy lieutenant Matthew "Bloody" Stoll, who flew me in an F/A-18F Super Hornet in February last year at Yelahanka, said, "Hook me up with a Flanker ride, and I'll get you another F/A-18 flight!"

Anyway, during the briefind we got from Captain Murdock at the Lemoore base, the discussion inevitable shifted to a comparison between the Super Hornet and the Su-30MKI. You can always trust a real pilot to be honest about his gear, and stuff used by his purported adversaries. For starters, he was candidly and unambigiously clear that if a Super Hornet and Su-30MKI went head to head, one on one, it would be an incredibly good fight.

One thing he said outright -- it would be imperative for the Super Hornet to keep the engagement BVR to keep its advantages peaked. The Super Hornet, he said, would be able to paint the MKI with its AESA minutes before the reverse could happen, giving it precious minutes to act. Secondly, in a BVR engagement, the electronic warfare environment made possible by the Super Hornet's integrated EW systems are "far superior to anything known to exist on the best Russian fighters". But, he said, you allow the Su-30 to get into a close-combat engagement with the Super Hornet, and "it's gonna be a very different story, I'm afraid."

For starters, the Super Hornet will be almost hopelessly outmanouvered by the MKI, Murdock says. "We've seen these fellas at air shows. It ain't funny. That thing can swing." Even the Super Hornet's turbo nose-down feature (something pilots love) wont allow it to dodge. And probably most importanty, Murdock indicates that in any engagement, if the Super Hornet doesn't make its kill quickly, it's going to almost ruin the odds of winning. The Su-30 has immensely more endurance and survivability in the air than a Super Hornet, and by the simple virtue of being able to stay in the air longer, has a critical one-up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 15:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
Posts: 277
The BARS were never switched on so how does he know Shornet will paint the MKI first? The KS-172 and Irbis or AESA upgrade during MLU should effectively wipe out Shornet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 17:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1088
clay wrote:
rkhanna wrote:
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I do recollect reading somewhere that India was funding/part funding the development of the KS-172?


You are correct. The KS-172 project had been lying dead since the 90s due to lack of funding. India gave the funding to revive the project in the early 2000s.


Is it still under development or has it been operationalised? Will the IAF procuring them?

What are the returns India is getting for the funding?


Regds, Clay

Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 17:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
Posts: 277
I agree, it doesn't look like GOI spent anything on it. But it might be bought later as part of MKI MLU and PAK-FA armament.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 17:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Posts: 632
Location: Bangalore
ranganathan wrote:
I agree, it doesn't look like GOI spent anything on it. But it might be bought later as part of MKI MLU and PAK-FA armament.


For confirmation kindly refer to the mil scenario by shakarosky :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008 23:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35
Posts: 588
Quote:
Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us


I actually remember reading this in Milparade some time back. The Article was saying that Indian R&D Funding is actually going to Russia and not the Indian Military-Industrial Complex and the KS-172 , Brahmos , etc are examples of that. will try to dig it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 00:34 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
ranganathan wrote:
The BARS were never switched on so how does he know Shornet will paint the MKI first? The KS-172 and Irbis or AESA upgrade during MLU should effectively wipe out Shornet.


No one knows anything for sure but conventional knowledge and RMA in radar technologies points towards general superiority of AESA radars over passive ones. He is stating obvious that the best AESA would paint his opponent’s aircraft before his opponent can see him with his best PESA.

Even after this you may be right since you can't rule out that a massive PESA may have longer range than a smaller AESA.

We should try and get one for our MKIs. Even if it doesn’t add much real value to aircraft still the perceived deterrence value alone would pay for the cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 02:32 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Mar 2008 15:46
Posts: 35
Location: Kuwait
rkhanna wrote:
Quote:
Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us


I actually remember reading this in Milparade some time back. The Article was saying that Indian R&D Funding is actually going to Russia and not the Indian Military-Industrial Complex and the KS-172 , Brahmos , etc are examples of that. will try to dig it up.



Even I remember reading something similar. Do not remember where though. :( Luck with the digging. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 12:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Aug 2001 11:31
Posts: 109
We must get some Russian JDAMs for our Bisons, Mig-27s and Jaguars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 14:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Katare wrote:
No one knows anything for sure but conventional knowledge and RMA in radar technologies points towards general superiority of AESA radars over passive ones. He is stating obvious that the best AESA would paint his opponent’s aircraft before his opponent can see him with his best PESA.

Even after this you may be right since you can't rule out that a massive PESA may have longer range than a smaller AESA..

In potention AESA has better future due to less signal loss on the waveguides (they are just shorter on AESA). AESA also can have longer time between filure, but costing more than PESA, so lifecicle cost may be comparable in the future when big serial production will push AESA cost low. In other aspects PESA can do the most things AESA can do including LPI. Regarding allocation of AESA resources between two modes simultaneously, I cannot say if it's practically enough in real air battle. It seems to me as only theoretical possibility at least now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 22:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1088
clay wrote:
rkhanna wrote:
Quote:
Discussions were held 4 years ago i don't believe it went further than that. Since i have not seen any money appropriated for R&D by us


I actually remember reading this in Milparade some time back. The Article was saying that Indian R&D Funding is actually going to Russia and not the Indian Military-Industrial Complex and the KS-172 , Brahmos , etc are examples of that. will try to dig it up.



Even I remember reading something similar. Do not remember where though. :( Luck with the digging. :)

But should have seen some money trial, i think IAF backed out once they realized the missile is limited to just one platform and its more than likely that MRCA or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 22:31 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Mar 2008 15:46
Posts: 35
Location: Kuwait
John wrote:
But should have seen some money trial, i think IAF backed out once they realized the missile is limited to just one platform and its more than likely that MRCA or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.


OIC. Is it because of a limitation of the radar on different platforms or size/weight of missile.

Can you elaborate please? Thanks in advance.


Regds, Clay


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 22:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
Posts: 277
clay wrote:
John wrote:
But should have seen some money trial, i think IAF backed out once they realized the missile is limited to just one platform and its more than likely that MRCA or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.


OIC. Is it because of a limitation of the radar on different platforms or size/weight of missile.

Can you elaborate please? Thanks in advance.


Regds, Clay

The Pak-FA will be Su-30 sized and should be able to carry it. Anyways with 230 Su-30 MKI I don't see IAF being stupid enough to reject this missile. It can neatly take out the *deleted* awacs and tankers thus proving to be a real force multiplier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2008 23:18 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14074
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
may be the silence is due to fears of upsetting the MTCR cabal. this missile could well have a 400km range though some reports have also claimed 300 km.
could be like the brahmos, India would say it got one within 300 km while the real story is a bit different.

I agree ranganathan, the IAF is certainly not foolish enough to let this opportunity pass.

Quote:
........or even PAK-FA won't be able to carry it.

John, what the heck, the k-100, ks-172 whatever is being designed for the pakfa and you think it won't be able to carry it ?? :shock:

haven't you read the earlier posts ??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 01:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1088
ks-172 is k-100, unless they reduce the size i do not see how it can fit into Pak-fa Hardpoints unless it is much bigger than what current CGIs are showing, perhaps on the external ones'. I think the role of long range AAM for Pak-fa will be filled by Izdeliye 810.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2008 03:39 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14074
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Quote:
ks-172 is k-100.....


something like that, or could be that the new ultra long range AAM is a derivative of the ks-172. the russians are muddying the waters as much as they can WRT pakfa and its armaments. I don't believe we have seen a definitive version of this missile yet.
to add to that, we have no info/pics of the PAKFA.
that means we are talking about fitting a missile of unknown dimensions on an a/c of unknown dimensions !! :D

a little premature, if you ask me ! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 16:02 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Mar 2008 15:46
Posts: 35
Location: Kuwait
As per Defence Technology International (DTI) issue May 2008 the KS-172 has an appx. range of 400 kms. and is likely to be fielded on the upgraded Mig-31 BM & the SU-35.

Image



Regds, Clay


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 16:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 1088
F-22 can only accommodate missiles that are less than 4 meters in length in its internal hardpoints if PAK-FA can equip missiles upto 5 meters long it will be pretty advantage (R-37 etc).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 17:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33285
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
pakfa was supposed to be smaller than su35bm, and weigh in around 15 tons empty and 22 tons mtow - similar to the F22. su35bm mtow would be a obese 30+ tons probably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 17:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Posts: 189
Location: USA
Singha wrote:
pakfa was supposed to be smaller than su35bm, and weigh in around 15 tons empty and 22 tons mtow - similar to the F22. su35bm mtow would be a obese 30+ tons probably.


Su-35

Weights, kg
empty 18,400
Normal 25,700
Maximum 34,000


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 19:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 415
Will the engines be upgraded as to provide the thrust ratio as it was with the baseline Su-27s before the heavier avionics were added?

The problem with MKIs is that their engine thrust ratio is significantly less than the baseline Su-27s and the F-15Es had upgraded engines to retain the engine thrust ratio in light of the addition of heavier avionics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2008 21:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11424
Singha wrote:
pakfa was supposed to be smaller than su35bm, and weigh in around 15 tons empty and 22 tons mtow - similar to the F22. su35bm mtow would be a obese 30+ tons probably.


Singha PAK-FA from all accounts will have a MTOW of ~ 30 Tons.

The 22 T was a proposed Mig single engine design , which perhaps may be selected as JSF equivalent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 00:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Hitesh wrote:
Will the engines be upgraded as to provide the thrust ratio as it was with the baseline Su-27s before the heavier avionics were added?

The problem with MKIs is that their engine thrust ratio is significantly less than the baseline Su-27s and the F-15Es had upgraded engines to retain the engine thrust ratio in light of the addition of heavier avionics.
It 's bit early to speak about MLU upgrades for MKI. The thrust of current two Al-31F is still gives better thrust to weight ratio then F15 of any variant has. Between Saturn and Salut both have their options for Al-31 upgrade with more thrust. May be then IAF will chose something different (5th gen engine?) who know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2008 00:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 983
well IMHO, IAF shouldn't even think of MKI MLU before

1) First two batches of LCA are smoothly inducted paving way for following batches.
2) MRCA & Phalcon AWACs inducted & operational.
3) Make significant progress on PAK-FA project beyond initial stages.

After these have been settled, it can decide on how many MKIs it want to upgrade and what kind of upgrade it wants to apply. Before issuing any order of MKI upgrade they need to have a "solid idea" of what the future force will look like of which MKI will be just one node.

Of course technology developed for PAK-FA and/or LCA can be re routed to MKI MLU.

That being said of course little upgrades like adding HADF, weapons like Sagem's ASSM etc.. will be applied in following years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2008 00:12 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
Not MLU but seamless and continuous upgradation of newer batches is a good idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2008 02:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Katare wrote:
Not MLU but seamless and continuous upgradation of newer batches is a good idea.
You dont mean continious upgrading of engine, do you :shock:
Software upgrade for radar and avionics one time in 5-6 years and DSP reinforcment, datalink bandwidth widening are more than enough IMHO. It's For all MKI fleet of course, to not lose multiplying factor of unification. Something more deep needs prolonged tests that can only deteriorate induction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2008 11:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Posts: 571
Location: On a roller-coaster.
Re: KS-172

Bhai logs, I remember the days when nobody on this forum was convinced that MKI's had A2G capability but now we know better (Kh-25MP, Kh-29L/T, Kh-31A/P and Kh-59/59M). I most certainly do not remember the party the IAF threw when it inducted all this kufr A2G armament. I was not invited so I didnt invite the air-chief to my last b-day either. Anyway...

So, if evil yindoos funded the KS-172, I bet my grapes they got something out of it. And yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I would expect them to keep under wraps, if it ever materialized. I am not saying everything is kosher, I am only saying there is a good chance that it is and/or that it will be kosher soon.

Shalom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2008 12:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Posts: 1905
Location: wai -maharastra
Quote:
ayan Majumdar reports that after successful joint-development of the BrahMos ASCM (anti-ship cruise missile) the Indo-Russian scientists and defence manufacturers had again teamed up to resurrect the formidable Russian Novator KS-172 ultra-long-range AAM (air-to-air missile) project. Novator design bureau unveiled its mock-up KS-172 AAM, a projected 6 metre long, 750 kg, 400 km range AAM in early 1993 at an air-show in Abu Dhabi. It also made a short and sudden appearance at the Moscow Air-Show in late 1993, in anticipation of a very high-level military delegation.

The mock-up of the KS-172 underwent refinement and in the Moscow Air-Show appeared in many ways similar to the Buk (SA-11 Gadfly) SAM (surface-to-air Missile). Russian officials later hinted that air-carriage tests of SAMs had been carried out using a Sukhoi-27 “Flanker”. They were speculated to be SA-11s by foreign media used for form-and-fit tests.

Designed to fulfill the BVR (beyond visual range) role for “outer-air battles”, an aircraft usually of Sukhoi-27/30/35/37 “Flanker/Super Flanker” family, equipped with KS-172 (also referred to as Article 172) would be able to engage ultra-high-value airborne platforms like AWACS (airborne warning and control system), IFR (in-flight refuelling) and LRMP (long range maritime patrol) platforms, without necessarily having first to deal with their fighter escorts. Development of powerful radar like the formidable NIIP N-011M "Bars" (Snow Leopard) for the Sukhoi-30MKI “Super Flanker” of the IAF, would provide the necessary guidance to the ultra-long-range AAM. The Bars radar is capable of detection of airborne platforms with “generous” RCS (radar cross section) at ranges in excess of 300 km.

It is possible that an optimum combination of command, inertial and active-radar guidance would be used in the various phases of flight. Whereas IFF (identification friend or foe) remains a problem because of incorrect and absent returns and "spoofing", friendly AWACS platforms like Phalcon may be deployed for reconfirmation of enemy airborne targets at extended ranges. In the long term, development of Electro-optical seeker technology coupled with on-board threat database will let the KS-172 missiles themselves determine the legitimacy of a target.


Surely IAF will get KS-172 for its flankers .I will not be surprised if this is a part of sukhoi later on packages itself .There is no point in funding a project unless you are a part of the project .Brahmos was manufactured in India ,KS 172 is being developed and manufactured in Russia thats it . It is an identical association


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2008 12:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Posts: 1905
Location: wai -maharastra
Quote:
Novator KS-172 AAM-L

The Novator KS-172 AAM-L (also known as R-172) is an extremely long-range air-to-air missile developed in Russia to arm CIS Sukhoi Su-27 and Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' aircraft.

The KS-172 was first shown as a mock-up at an air show in Abu Dhabi in 1993, but the poor financial situation of the post-Soviet CIS meant that it was not funded, although flight testing was reportedly done. Revival of development has been broached at several points, in 1997 as a purely Russian project, and more recently with discussions taking place in 2004 with India to launch an Indo-Russian co-venture to produce the missile, which would then arm Indian Su-30MKI aircraft.

The KS-172 may have been based on the airframe of the 9K37M1 Buk-M ( NATO reporting name SA-11 'Gadfly') surface-to-air missile. It used a two-stage rocket engine with a flight speed of about Mach 4 and a claimed maximum range of 400 km (250 mi). The AAM-L flies to the vicinity of the target by inertial navigation, then activates its own active radarThis article is about the device. For the fictional character in M A S H see Corporal Walter (Radar) O'Reilly. antenna (approximately 40m (130ft) in diameter) rotates on a track to observe activities near the horizon. Radar is an acronym for ra dio d etec for terminal homing.

The AAM-L missile is intended for use against AWACS, tankerA tanker is usually a vehicle carrying large amounts of liquid fuel. The most common use of the word is when referring to a large ship, carrying petroleum products. Apart from pipeline transport, tankers are the only method of transporting large quantitie, and maritime patrol aircraft, giving an air force the ability to attack these vital assets without having to engage their fighterA fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft. Compare with bomber. Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and highly maneuverable, and have been fitted with increasingly sophisticated tracking and weapons syst escorts. Enhanced-range versions have also been suggested as possible anti-satellite weaponAnti-satellite weapons (ASATs) are weapons designed to be used against artificial satellites. The development and design of anti-satellite weapons has followed a number of paths. The initial efforts by the USSR and the USA were using air-launched missiless.

The weapon is planned for carriage by Su-27/Su-30, Su-35, and Mikoyan MiG-31The Mikoyan MiG-31 ( NATO reporting name Foxhound is a high-speed interceptor developed to replace the MiG-25. It was the most advanced interceptor fielded by the Soviet Union before its collapse. Development The MiG-25 Foxbat despite Western panic about aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3987 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 100  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group