Page 2 of 2

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2020, 16:59
by milosh
jessmo112 wrote:This strat page article got me thinking (watch out).
https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia ... 01105.aspx

If the Chinese decided that they wanted to take back what was stolen in the past, are they advanced enough to succed over Russia?
If the wanted to take Vladivostok by force could the Russians stop them? Is Russian airpower a threat to China?


Very little benefits even if Russia decide it isn't not worth of fight and lot of problems.

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2020, 22:56
by marauder2048
edpop wrote:
milosh wrote:Is there any info when we will see AIM-260?

I mean we even saw R-77M not so ago:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjiG3dkVgAU ... =4096x4096


2022 according to this article (
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... -air-force


Which just lifted from the AFA article without attribution.

https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-developing-amraam-replacement-to-counter-china/

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2020, 03:27
by madrat
You can scratch AIM-260. Budget is a target come January.

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2020, 03:47
by jessmo112
This man seem like a far out fantasy, but thete is history here.

https://eurasiantimes.com/fact-check-ha ... adivostok/

At this point in time, and under XI, anything that Han Chinese lived on could be on Chinas list.
They seem obsessed with digging up past wrongs real or imagined.

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2021, 12:20
by basher54321
Everything you always wanted to know about Chinese air power (but were afraid to ask) – Interview with Andreas Rupprecht

Few have written more on the subject of Chinese air power than Andreas Rupprecht. We grilled him on the hottest topics in that most dynamic of subjects, Chinese warplanes.

https://hushkit.net/2021/01/11/everythi ... rupprecht/

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2021, 03:57
by element1loop
madrat wrote:You can scratch AIM-260. Budget is a target come January.


What amazes me is AMRAAM-ER has not been adopted if longer burn for greater speed and higher apogee with much higher terminal energy and greatly reduced flight time was the aim of AIM-260.

Oh, with much greater range as well.

Plus has same length as AIM-120, just 3 inches more diameter, and less than twice the weight. That will fit inside an F-35 or F-22A bay. Better gliding body and control fin area in thinner air. I struggle to see how AMRAAM-ER would not be a major step up from the AIM-120D. Terminal speed plus continuous target data is what kills in long-range BVR. And AMRAAM-ER would certainly be a hypersonic glider past apogee, and probably all the way past 200 km to terminal phase as well. Will another A2A missile be faster or more deadly at longer-range?

I suppose for 5th gen verses 5th gen other important factors will need to be included in design, but an AMRAAM-ER can't be adapted to that too?

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2021, 06:24
by boogieman
I think the goal is as much about the guidance/seeker stack as kinematics. An AESA seeker with complementary/backup IIR ought to do nicely.

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2021, 08:47
by element1loop
boogieman wrote:I think the goal is as much about the guidance/seeker stack as kinematics. An AESA seeker with complementary/backup IIR ought to do nicely.


You'd think so, but I'm doubting it's IR.

First, more range is not better than say an average 1,500 knots higher fly-out speed than AIM-120D, to shorten the time and prevent the target moving too far (thus prevent forcing the missile to loose too much energy leading it, at long-range).

Second, even if bled at long range, a much faster missile has a lot more energy to bleed, and can also fly higher to lose less energy in gradual turns against jinks. Plus a really fast heavier missile can come down almost vertically and much faster than the AIM-120D could, with a lot more energy stored. Especially if it dropped the engine and fuel section just before terminal phase.

Third, to be worth pushing much past the radius of the AIM-120D the replacement missile will need to coast at a hypersonic speed and close to hypersonic at terminal range, with little loss of velocity in the descent.

Fourth, this makes for a very heat-soaked nose cone material (glowing hot) and an IR emissivity/transmissivity window in the nose material may still impair IR sensitivity.

Fifth, the initial target tracking can not be IR, it would have to be a very capable fighter radar.

The plan is to go on 4th gens first after the F-22A. So how many combat-loaded 4th gens can get the altitude and speed to hit past 200 km? Or could lock and guide a missile that far against lower RCS, and against a long-range counter-launch? Few, to none.

So I'm doubting that the range advantage is as important as the speed advantage, for 4th gens. And IR will be even more affected at lower altitude, of a high parasitic-drag 4th-gen launcher.

So I'm thinking this is more about a faster initial radar-guided self-defense for shorter or else same range as AIM-120D's range limits, with a very fast missile at even shorter loft ranges, especially when using an IRST-cued shot, and datalink guidance, for a 4th verses 5th defense.

Obviously I'm missing important considerations here, but overall this seems to be more about kinematic performance and the datalink, than a possible IR sensor for terminal redundancy. I'm wondering if a high sensitivity short-range LIDAR terminal guidance sensor against a transonic J20 with a hypersonic missile would not make more sense than IR? Both are affected by WX, but hard to see how IR can work well with such a fast missile. And I can't see why an AMRAAM-ER couldn't be adapted to this also.

Or has it been?

But then again, if the premise is A2A missiles are expensive, and money is tight, so new missiles will be cut. Then the same logic applies to producing AIM-120Ds in numbers. So I doubt anyone will be cutting A2A missiles with J20s in growing numbers.

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2021, 10:11
by boogieman
You may well be right. I think I remember marauder talking about using the dual pulse SRM to:

boost -> coast & slow for IIR volume search -> acquire -> handover to onboard AESA -> boost again to impact

...or something to that effect.

Re: China is Superior to Russia for Combat Air

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2021, 16:06
by wrightwing
element1loop wrote:
boogieman wrote:I think the goal is as much about the guidance/seeker stack as kinematics. An AESA seeker with complementary/backup IIR ought to do nicely.


You'd think so, but I'm doubting it's IR.

First, more range is not better than say an average 1,500 knots higher fly-out speed than AIM-120D, to shorten the time and prevent the target moving too far (thus prevent forcing the missile to loose too much energy leading it, at long-range).

Second, even if bled at long range, a much faster missile has a lot more energy to bleed, and can also fly higher to lose less energy in gradual turns against jinks. Plus a really fast heavier missile can come down almost vertically and much faster than the AIM-120D could, with a lot more energy stored. Especially if it dropped the engine and fuel section just before terminal phase.

Third, to be worth pushing much past the radius of the AIM-120D the replacement missile will need to coast at a hypersonic speed and close to hypersonic at terminal range, with little loss of velocity in the descent.

Fourth, this makes for a very heat-soaked nose cone material (glowing hot) and an IR emissivity/transmissivity window in the nose material may still impair IR sensitivity.

Fifth, the initial target tracking can not be IR, it would have to be a very capable fighter radar.

The plan is to go on 4th gens first after the F-22A. So how many combat-loaded 4th gens can get the altitude and speed to hit past 200 km? Or could lock and guide a missile that far against lower RCS, and against a long-range counter-launch? Few, to none.

So I'm doubting that the range advantage is as important as the speed advantage, for 4th gens. And IR will be even more affected at lower altitude, of a high parasitic-drag 4th-gen launcher.

So I'm thinking this is more about a faster initial radar-guided self-defense for shorter or else same range as AIM-120D's range limits, with a very fast missile at even shorter loft ranges, especially when using an IRST-cued shot, and datalink guidance, for a 4th verses 5th defense.

Obviously I'm missing important considerations here, but overall this seems to be more about kinematic performance and the datalink, than a possible IR sensor for terminal redundancy. I'm wondering if a high sensitivity short-range LIDAR terminal guidance sensor against a transonic J20 with a hypersonic missile would not make more sense than IR? Both are affected by WX, but hard to see how IR can work well with such a fast missile. And I can't see why an AMRAAM-ER couldn't be adapted to this also.

Or has it been?

But then again, if the premise is A2A missiles are expensive, and money is tight, so new missiles will be cut. Then the same logic applies to producing AIM-120Ds in numbers. So I doubt anyone will be cutting A2A missiles with J20s in growing numbers.


For extremely long range shots, the sensor and shooter need not be the same platform. As for speed, the AIM-260 should have plenty of that, while still allowing for a 6 missile load out.