Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Whoa...wait a min, I did not make those statements. At least I don't ever remember making them, and I couldn't find them anywhere on this thread. In fact, this is the first time I replied in this thread.
It's a misquote. They seem to be happening more and more often... Those statements are actually Garry's.
That was the flow of conversation. I went back to the one who told me about delay and got better reply. My source was misinformed. He wrongly assumed the low rate production as the start of serial production. And low rate production was scheduled for 2000 according to the schedule below. The comparison there is a bit inadequate as it compares AIM-9X to older version of R-73 which was fielded in 1985. Since then it was upgraded to off-boresight of 60 degrees, and the next is in development with 90 degrees.
Originally posted by Garry
But there are only few AIM-9x Sidewinder available now. It was launched into production with delay, in mid 2005. The replacement/upgrade of old Sidewinders would take up to 2010. So you are comparing older version of A-11 with a newest version which is just to be fielded. While there is an upgrade of A-11 which will see its test completed in 2008.
Am I correct here?
Originally posted by canoe
Not sure where your got the delay information but according to Raytheon they were in limited production in 2000 and reached full production in 2004. In March 2005 they deleivered their 1000th missile to the airforce/navy. There remaining in full rate production so I'd assume the military is getting about 600-700 a year. I'd estimate the current inventory is probably around 2000 missiles at present.
The US Navy and the US Air Force plan to buy 10,080 missiles. AIM-9X foreign military sales could be 5,000 units according to US government sources.
On November 18, 2004, Raytheon was awarded a $158 million contract to exercise an option for more than 550 AIM-9X missiles, 167 captive air training missiles and 170 missile containers. The work is expected to be completed in April 2006. This AIM-9X missiles were distributed as follows: US Air Force (178), the US Navy (93), and the Governments of Poland (178), Denmark (60), South Korea (41), and Switzerland (quantity classified). It represents the first full rate production contract awarded to Raytheon for the AIM-9X program.
Raytheon delivered the 1,000th AIM-9X Sidewinder missile to the US Navy and the US Air Force on March 29, 2005. The Navy and the Air Force have commitments to take delivery of up to 10,142 missiles worth $3 billion including development costs.
Presumably because the comparison was made to measure against a more realistic scenario. There's not much chance that an AC armed with Aim-9x would be opposed by an AC armed with Python.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
Aiy... i get what you mean. Don't wanna make the sidewinder x look bad unecessarily. But I have to say, the paper details do make the sidewinder x look very impressive.
Aiy... i get what you mean. Don't wanna make the sidewinder x look bad unecessarily.
It's a manufacturer's brochure. Hughes is not in the business of marketing Pythons. If you want a nice cartoon of the comparative engagement envelopes of Python, AIM-9x, and AA-11, you would probably have to make it yourself (though Rafael might make one for you, lol.)
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
It's a manufacturer's brochure. Hughes is not in the business of marketing Pythons. If you want a nice cartoon of the comparative engagement envelopes of Python, AIM-9x, and AA-11, you would probably have to make it yourself (though Rafael might make one for you, lol.)
Heh! I think i'll wait for Rafael. =D
I'm quite impressed with the 9x's capability to engage of boresight by up to 90 degrees either side. Thats what the picture showed right? Hope no one shoots down any friendlies with those... Kinda remember an accident with the Iraqi air force where a wingman was shot down by a high off boresight missile. =/
You mean that MiG-29 who shot down his MiG-23 wingman and then flew into the ground trying to evade an F-15? Well, a high off-boresight missile may have been the cause for the downing of that Fulcrums wingman, but then nosediving straight into the ground makes no sense, that too, in daylight, without a jammed radar altimeter. As does burying MiG-25s under the sand.
The radar was tested as an weapon and it turned that a focused high power beam may completelly and unrepairably disable unshielded electronic curcuits of a 4th Generation aircraft at range of 5km. The testing was done on ground in 2003 by Tishin Institute with a modification of Zaslon-M radar........ They also made analysis of the damage and potential protection measures. The conlcusion - comlete shielding of all circuits would add 20-30% of wight to 4th generation aircraft.......
This would be particularly bad for fly by wire... ;)
As i understand it, vacuum tube tech is not susceptible to EMP? Recall the west laughing at some russian aircraft (mig25 perhaps?) for using tubes until they discovered that....
This would be particularly bad for fly by wire... ;)
As i understand it, vacuum tube tech is not susceptible to EMP? Recall the west laughing at some russian aircraft (mig25 perhaps?) for using tubes until they discovered that....
Lucky for us, the F-15 can fly independent of it's digital flight control system, so EMP shielded circuitry (and vacuum tube transistors) isn't necessary.
I heard of this rumor abt the Su-27s old slotback I think. Somehow the safety system that prevents the radar from activating on the ground failed. And the radar went from standby to emit. Suddenly a fried rabbit was ejected from a nearby grass patch the radar was facing.
my friend wanted to know which is better overall, the Su-27 Flanker or the F-15 Eagle
I think this question was actually already answered by the US Air Force.
Back in 2002, the results of a USAF air combat simulation were leaked to the press:
David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie, "Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'", Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 24, 2002.
According to this article:
The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.
In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.
What this should tell you is the following:
The F-15 still has an advantage over the Su-27 (which was why the USAF wasn't concerned until the Su-30 arrived on the scene)
The Su-30 out-performs the F-15
The F-15 has a whopping big radar signature (which is why the Su-30 can fire-off two shots before the Eagle can respond)
Please note that this F-15 versus Su-30MK study was performed by Boeing (which had absolutely no interest in convincing the USAF that it needed more Lockheed F-22s, which is essentially the conclusion that the USAF came to).
I think this question was actually already answered by the US Air Force.
Back in 2002, the results of a USAF air combat simulation were leaked to the press:
David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie, "Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'", Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 24, 2002.
According to this article:
The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.
In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.
What this should tell you is the following:
The F-15 still has an advantage over the Su-27 (which was why the USAF wasn't concerned until the Su-30 arrived on the scene)
The Su-30 out-performs the F-15
The F-15 has a whopping big radar signature (which is why the Su-30 can fire-off two shots before the Eagle can respond)
Please note that this F-15 versus Su-30MK study was performed by Boeing (which had absolutely no interest in convincing the USAF that it needed more Lockheed F-22s, which is essentially the conclusion that the USAF came to).
Um, I work for Boeing, and that is a complete load of crap.
Tweet
Comment