America's Future Interceptor

thanx a million waynos, grunt 2, and ground zero, i hope i don't get into any arguments ith u guys, wow, this has turned out to be so peaceful, i'm glad that some people know that at least some of my info isn't bs, well, u guys are awesome, thanx a lot, seriously, relieves the pressure, i'll try to be more open-minded to all things, hey, engineer, do u have any links regarding that test where the Kh-31's didn't even fullfil half their range, i think that was a lie, but i'll try to be open-minded

Originally posted by Dima
... hey, engineer, do u have any links regarding that test where the Kh-31's didn't even fullfil half their range, i think that was a lie, but i'll try to be open-minded

Dima, I don't care whether you think it was a lie or not, it means nothing to me. I am only concerned with FACTS. The circumstances surrounding the project were WELL KNOWN in some circles in the US.

In May 1995, Boeing/McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $4.7 million contract to evaluate four Russian built Kh-31 ramjet cruise missiles under the foreign comparative test program. That contract included an option for the procurement and target presentation support of up to 20 targets. The titanium Kh-31 was built in 1988 by Zvezda-Strela for the former Soviet Union. In 1997, the U.S. Navy test-fired the four kerosene Kh-31 cruise missiles. In 1998, the Clinton administration gave Boeing/Douglas and Zvezda-Strela engineers additional funding to improve the Russian missile range to over 100 miles. The Clinton program to improve the Russian missile also requires the U.S. Navy to employ Russian engineers on board American ships to observe attempts to shoot it down.

Despite the Boeing claims of 50 to 100 nautical miles the real MA-31 performance is poor at best. According to the actual test results obtained from Boeing, the Russian MA-31 can fly only a mere 16 miles. In fact, one test conducted by Boeing recorded the MA-31 ran out of fuel and fell into the sea after traveling only 8 miles. The Russian missile falls far short of U.S. Navy requirements for a target missile with a minimum low altitude range of 50 miles. The short-range problem forced Boeing/Douglas to use a F-4 Phantom to carry the missile close enough for firings against Navy ships. Such a mission also places the F-4 and pilot at great risk. The risk of losing a pilot was apparent to Boeing engineers. Boeing and Zvezda converted the Navy launch plane into a radio-controlled drone (QF-4) to carry the Russian target missile. The QF-4 will be flown by remote control from a safe distance using either a chase plane or ground base. The QF-4 radio controlled launch adds to the cost of the project by adding ground crews and support vehicles. There is only one QF-4 attached to the project. The MA-31 can only be fired from a single site and only one at a time.

As I mentioned previously, the failure of the KH-31 project caused the Navy to go back to the Vandal

Sea Snake is a 1990s version of the U.S. Navy Talos/Vandal ramjet powered missile produced by Allied Signal at Mishawaka, Indiana. The Talos missile was deployed as the number one surface to air defense missile for the Navy during the Cold War. Some versions even carried nuclear warheads. Talos is a battle proven weapon. Talos had a long and successful career filling Navy air defense needs until it was retired from service in the late 1980s. During the Vietnam War a single Talos destroyed two MiGs at a distance of over 65 miles. Talos was also used to strike North Vietnamese radar sites on the ground over 75 miles inland. Allied Signal Director for New Business Development Mike Boies noted that the Talos story did not end with its retirement from active service.

"When Talos was retired we modified and successfully fired over 500 missiles as Navy target drones called Vandal," stated Boies. "The Navy has nearly used up all the Vandals so we propose to build the Sea Snake. Sea Snake was designed to take advantage of our years of experience with Talos and Vandal. Sea Snake combines the best features of Talos ramjet with the latest American technology such as GPS and a programmable guidance computer," stated Boies. "It can be fired from nearly every Navy test range. Sea Snake was designed to meet the specifications of the Navy's Aerial Target Launch Ship (ATLS)."

Allied Signal claims that Vandal was merely "successful" are modest indeed. The Vandal/Talos target drone was so fast and maneuverable that it frequently outperformed the Navy anti-missile defenses intended to replace it. The proposed Sea Snake is more than a son-of-Talos/Vandal; it is a super-Talos. It can fly at over 1,500 miles an hour, skimming over the sea at only nine feet above the surface. Sea Snake is not a short distance sprinter but a long distance, air-breathing monster. The missile can maintain that blazing low altitude speed for over 50 miles. The American built Sea Snake is as fast as a rifle bullet and has the range needed to safely test future Navy anti-missile systems, including lasers.

www.wealth4freedom.com...

What people fail to understand is that the US has been developing defences against supersonic ASM's since the 50's. This is nothing new to us. The decision to try to use the KH-31 as an SSST was a political one, and a stupid one at that.

personally, i think the experiment was rigged by engineers on the ships, it would look extremely bad for america to use russian made missiles, so i think they made them seem extremely inferior, i mean, they upgraded they're range to 100 miles, and the longest it went was 16 miles, i mean, even if the missile is a bad one, that is absudrly and extremely underacheiving its projected results of 100 miles, like 80 miles i understand, but 16, no, its was rigged, it was a set-up, yes it was all political

Two weeks ago I was reading Flight International in WHSmith (cheapskate ,lol) and I saw the headline "USN to buy Russian Missile". Unfortunately I didn't have time to read it but as this was only two weeks ago does anyone know any more of the story?

Yes, yes Dima, everything is a conspiracy. The KH-31 project had political support at the HIGHEST level in the US. The simple fact is that it couldn't meet the performance requirements. The missile was not designed to fly at low altitudes, period. It couldn't operate in the thick air at sea level.

The proof is in the pudding. The simple fact that the Navy ditched the missile and went back to the Vandal. If the Russian product was better, we would have used it, as better representing the actual threat. Very simply, the Vandal was a much better missile, plus we can tune it to emulate a Yakhont or a Moskit.

KH-31

PAYLOAD - 100 KG. - 220 POUNDS
RANGE - 16 MILES LOW ALTITUDE SEA SKIMMER
DIAMETER - .36 METERS (1.2 FEET)
LENGTH - 4.7 METERS (15.4 FEET)
WEIGHT - 600 KG. (1,320 LB.)
ENGINE - KEROSENE RAMJET
GUIDANCE - ACTIVE/PASSIVE R/F SEEKER - ARM VERSION
SPEED - MACH 2.7 (1,785 KEAS OR 3,010 FPS) AT 30 FEET MACH 3.5+ AT ALTITUDE

www.softwar.net...

You see Dima, it doesn't matter if you think everything is a conspiracy or propaganda. I could care less. And you may have noticed that I have very little tolerance for smart a$$ kids who think they have all the answers.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by waynos
Two weeks ago I was reading Flight International in WHSmith (cheapskate ,lol) and I saw the headline "USN to buy Russian Missile". Unfortunately I didn't have time to read it but as this was only two weeks ago does anyone know any more of the story?

Waynos, the US bought a S-300PMU system from Croatia earlier this year. It wasn't reported in the press until about 2 weeks ago, so I am sure that's what the article was referring to.

Originally posted by Dima
personally, i think the experiment was rigged by engineers on the ships, it would look extremely bad for america to use russian made missiles, so i think they made them seem extremely inferior, i mean, they upgraded they're range to 100 miles, and the longest it went was 16 miles, i mean, even if the missile is a bad one, that is absudrly and extremely underacheiving its projected results of 100 miles, like 80 miles i understand, but 16, no, its was rigged, it was a set-up, yes it was all political

Did you not read what was posted? The engineers were on the ships that were trying to shoot them down. Did they bring remote control units with them in order to cause the missiles to fail?

i don't have all the asnwers, so i don't know what u're taking about, but a missile falling 84 miles short of its maximum range is just way too much, i mean, i could understand if it fell 20 miles short, but 84, thats obsurred, it was obviously rigged, i don't care what u guys think is a fact, but it would be just embarassing for america to buy a russian missile, think about that

Dima do you have something to add to a "tech" thread other than speculation? Poorly contrived at that?

Originally posted by COOL HAND


Did you not read what was posted? The engineers were on the ships that were trying to shoot them down. Did they bring remote control units with them in order to cause the missiles to fail?

hu cares, the russian engineers were on the ships, what does that do, it doesn't mean they were able to look at the missile prior to its launch, it was rigged, because 84 miles short, there is no other explanation

Originally posted by Dima
i don't have all the asnwers, so i don't know what u're taking about, but a missile falling 84 miles short of its maximum range is just way too much, i mean, i could understand if it fell 20 miles short, but 84, thats obsurred, it was obviously rigged, i don't care what u guys think is a fact, but it would be just embarassing for america to buy a russian missile, think about that

What are you talking about? I think it would be great to get our hands on Russian equipment so that we can better learn how to defeat or defend against it.

If the Russians could do it cheaper and better than we could, I am sure that we would have no problems using their equipment. Time will tell if they ever can be cheaper or better.

yes, i know its an awesome advantage if u can have the enemires military toys, but a nation like america wouldn't want to acually incoporate a russian missile in their navy, it would make everyone interested why america is doing that, not using their own "superior" technology, its all about publicity, like buying MiG-29's from my country, yes, it was a good idea, they want to test their abilities, but u don't see them actually fighting, they're not incoporated into the USAF because it would give them a bad image, u choose another countries toys instead of your own, it just makes yourself look bad, thats why i think this was rigged, to make the russians look bad

Originally posted by Dima
yes, i know its an awesome advantage if u can have the enemires military toys, but a nation like america wouldn't want to acually incoporate a russian missile in their navy, it would make everyone interested why america is doing that, not using their own "superior" technology, its all about publicity, like buying MiG-29's from my country, yes, it was a good idea, they want to test their abilities, but u don't see them actually fighting, they're not incoporated into the USAF because it would give them a bad image, u choose another countries toys instead of your own, it just makes yourself look bad, thats why i think this was rigged, to make the russians look bad

You just answered your own question. We use American products because of their superior technology. If the Russian technology was superior and cheaper we would be using that.

BTW the Migs are incorporated into the USAF. They use them for DACT as well as test platforms for weapons. Ever notice how many of the users of Migs and Sukhois are trying to get western equipment refitted to the aircraft?

didn't u notice, i put "superior" in quotes, as in, i'm being sarcastic, or as in thats what many people say, if i actually meant superior, i would have just said superior, and not put it in quotes, and the MiGs are used as test experiments, u don't see them actually flying in Iraq, they're just testing different things with them to see the effectiveness of the product, i'm glad u haven't gotten mad at me lol, i'l try to keep an open mind

so far i haven't said that u're missiles are crap, thats a good sign

Originally posted by Dima
didn't u notice, i put "superior" in quotes, as in, i'm being sarcastic, or as in thats what many people say, if i actually meant superior, i would have just said superior, and not put it in quotes, and the MiGs are used as test experiments, u don't see them actually flying in Iraq, they're just testing different things with them to see the effectiveness of the product, i'm glad u haven't gotten mad at me lol, i'l try to keep an open mind

so far i haven't said that u're missiles are crap, thats a good sign

Why would we want to use the Migs in Iraq? That would be a waste of time to deploy them and all of the support items that they need. Why would we need to test them under combat conditions anyway? We know what their capabilities are already.

Think whatever you will of US equipment, their record speaks for itself. Too bad the same cannot be said for ex-soviet stuff.

You just answered your own question. We use American products because of their superior technology. If the Russian technology was superior and cheaper we would be using that.

YOU THINK SO? Bush warned allied nations NOT to buy Russian stuff because they should buy the US stuff or ELSE...

Remember when some country in South America (I can't remember which one but i'll look it up) wanted to considder MiG-29's instead of the US F-16s? the US threw a major fit!

Ever noticed how the German ex-coldwar Soviet equipment is being faced out rapidly?

Our soldiers would love to use Russian stuff, they already love AKs in Iraq, and not only because they are more plentiful, they are much more reliable.

I'm sure American pilot's would love to fly MiG's/Su's in combat at times, they can atleast take off from a crappy runway...

Hell, you could throw a rock in a running Su-25 engine and it will still run...
I wouldn't want to try that with an A-10...

If I had my own country, I would have both Russian and American stuff, European too, they all have pro's and con's...

As for the Kh-31, why would the Russian over-estimate the range on that thing? that would only make them look bad...

What kind of guidance system does it use? maybe that failed instead...

Engineer, you didn't work on this, so you have about as little proof as Dima, the reports don't seem to come from any mainstream sites...

I don't know what the grudge is against russian equipment, they have been known to make the world's best missiles...I know you are out for the "facts" but who really knows the facts? the USG isn't the most reliable for "facts", like WMD in Iraq was one of their "facts".....

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
YOU THINK SO? Bush warned allied nations NOT to buy Russian stuff because they should buy the US stuff or ELSE...

Your proof of that is where?

Remember when some country in South America (I can't remember which one but i'll look it up) wanted to considder MiG-29's instead of the US F-16s? the US threw a major fit!

Only because they backed out of a verbal agreement to purchase the F-16s.

Ever noticed how the German ex-coldwar Soviet equipment is being faced out rapidly?

Yes, because the Germans are not satisfied with the sortie rates and know that they can get better western equipment that does not require modification to operate with allied countries.

Our soldiers would love to use Russian stuff, they already love AKs in Iraq, and not only because they are more plentiful, they are much more reliable.

Then where are all the pictures of US soldiers walking around with AK's? I haven't seen any.

I'm sure American pilot's would love to fly MiG's/Su's in combat at times, they can atleast take off from a crappy runway...

Why take off from a crappy runway when you don't have to?

I don't know what the grudge is against russian equipment, they have been known to make the world's best missiles...I know you are out for the "facts" but who really knows the facts? the USG isn't the most reliable for "facts", like WMD in Iraq was one of their "facts".....

You would know that the USG is lying about weapons performance beacause......?

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Your proof of that is where?

Dude even i remember it.
It was some country in indonesia area i believe.

Only because they backed out of a verbal agreement to purchase the F-16s.

Yet america walks out on written agreements?

Then where are all the pictures of US soldiers walking around with AK's? I haven't seen any.

There was a vid on weapon forum of them using AK's in a fire fight.
The AK is well know as the most reliable weapon series in the world.

Why take off from a crappy runway when you don't have to?

yeah but what happens when you DO have to?
I mean the air force is restricted to the rungways it can use, although you can mid air refuel that needs a tanker etc.

You would know that the USG is lying about weapons performance beacause......?

.......there are none in iraq or ever where after 1991.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Dude even i remember it.
It was some country in indonesia area i believe.

Hmm, might want to get that memory checked:
U.S. Advises Venezuela Against Purchase of Russian Fighter Jets

Yet america walks out on written agreements?

What are you talking about? If you are going to make these wild claims, at least post some evidence to support it.

There was a vid on weapon forum of them using AK's in a fire fight.
The AK is well know as the most reliable weapon series in the world.

Maybe they were just checking them out? The US soldiers are responsible for the M-16s and I doubt they would let them out of their sight. Othewise they can be made to replace them.

yeah but what happens when you DO have to?
I mean the air force is restricted to the rungways it can use, although you can mid air refuel that needs a tanker etc.

No **** sherlock. The US does a better job at securing and maintaining their runways. That is why they do not have to worry about using crappy runways. However, in the unlikely event that they would have to use one they would default to using the OA-10/A-10 or the Harrier. Both are designed to operate from runways in less than ideal condition.

You would know that the USG is lying about weapons performance beacause......?

.......there are none in iraq or ever where after 1991.

I am assuming that you are referring to the WMD claim that Zero made. Have you found conclusive proof of the lack of weapons? Last time I checked they were still searching for them. Have you already done this for them?

If you think warning someone off of buying Russian planes is bad then how about when Singapore was going to buy Typhoons from BAE, from, of course, Americas 'oldest and most trusted ally' Britain. How did that nice Mr Bush react to the news that the F-16 was going to be passed over? He told the Singapore Govt "You are either with us, or against us." Thanks pal

That was a couple of years ago and it still gets my dander up!