F-16.net

China has started to build a clear technical lead over Russia in most aspects of combat aircraft development. Moreover, Russian industry is unlikely to be able to regain areas of competitive advantage once lost, due to deep structural industrial and budgetary disadvantages compared to the Chinese sector.

The effects of this trend can be seen in the fact that even in the case of the archetypal Russian fighter line, the Flanker, the most capable variant currently in service is Chinese. Compared to Russian equivalents, the J-16 features a more modern cockpit layout, more advanced use of structural composites, access to more advanced and longer-ranged missiles, an AESA radar and operational targeting pods for more efficient and flexible employment of modern PGMs. The only area where Russia retains a lead in Flanker development terms is in engines, with the AL-41F series powering the Su-35S still providing superior thrust and reliability compared to the WS-10B series.

mixelflick wrote:Honestly, who would be surprised by this?

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

mixelflick 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

No, and its been said that this is one of the most sensitive programs in all USAF (and probably all of DoD). There was at one time talk of it being operational in 2021

marauder2048 wrote:

It is a Special Access Program so you aren't likely to see it anytime soon which is helped by the fact
that it's only going to be internal carriage for the AF and a war reserve asset for the Super Bug out at sea.

I'm guessing the testing is going to be done strictly out at sea.

I don't expect this missile to have a large warhead. In fact, I would think Lockheed would trade warhead for
less inert mass and greater agility in conjunction with a multi-mode seeker. It's not really
possible to equip a high loadout A2A missile with a warhead big enough to hit the aircraft if its
pulled off by a towed decoy.

wrightwing wrote:

marauder2048 wrote:

It is a Special Access Program so you aren't likely to see it anytime soon which is helped by the fact
that it's only going to be internal carriage for the AF and a war reserve asset for the Super Bug out at sea.

I'm guessing the testing is going to be done strictly out at sea.

I don't expect this missile to have a large warhead. In fact, I would think Lockheed would trade warhead for
less inert mass and greater agility in conjunction with a multi-mode seeker. It's not really
possible to equip a high loadout A2A missile with a warhead big enough to hit the aircraft if its
pulled off by a towed decoy.

Where did you read that the AIM-260 was only for internal carriage in the USAF, and a war reserve asset for F-18s, or was that just a hunch?

marauder2048 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

marauder2048 wrote:

It is a Special Access Program so you aren't likely to see it anytime soon which is helped by the fact
that it's only going to be internal carriage for the AF and a war reserve asset for the Super Bug out at sea.

I'm guessing the testing is going to be done strictly out at sea.

I don't expect this missile to have a large warhead. In fact, I would think Lockheed would trade warhead for
less inert mass and greater agility in conjunction with a multi-mode seeker. It's not really
possible to equip a high loadout A2A missile with a warhead big enough to hit the aircraft if its
pulled off by a towed decoy.

Where did you read that the AIM-260 was only for internal carriage in the USAF, and a war reserve asset for F-18s, or was that just a hunch?

Because the Air Force only mentioned F-22 and F-35.
And there is MILCON expenditure to build new JATM storage facilities because it's a Special Access Program.

SAP doesn't change at sea so these weapons would be in the special weapons spaces on the CVNs.

Well given that the AIM-120 production line will be shutting down in ~2025, and F-15/16/18s will be in service till 2040 or later, I suspect that's not the case, especially if they plan on having parity/superiority to Su-30/35, J-10/11/16 armed with K-77/PL-15/PL-21.

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

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?

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

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/

madrat wrote:You can scratch AIM-260. Budget is a target come January.

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.

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.