Russia claims HYPERSONIC fighter

a reply to: Zaphod58

it would be nice if America ever developed that ability. well, we still got our f35 and a few f22s. maybe a super hornet here and there to run tactical interdiction.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

We have Icbms.

Hi altitude, hypersonic, fields decoys, time to target anywhere on the globe, less than thirty minutes.

Firther: To the thread, any hi speed hi altitude threat approaching a fire fight is going to show up on radar and instantly become the target of choice for every enemy fighter.

Oh look, here comes Roger Ramjet, everyone shoot missiles at him…

On the way in

on the way in

on the way in…

a reply to: intrptr

uh no, the terracotta warriors werent decoys. they were intended to guard empereror Qin Shi Huang in the afterlife. the workman ship on each individual one is exquisite. but they are also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BASSPLYR

We have Icbms.

Hi altitude, hypersonic, fields decoys, time to target anywhere on the globe, less than thirty minutes.

how'd we go from talking about fighter interceptors against bombers to pgs?

anyhoo, icbms are no fun and a bit flashy. besides why advertise your intent with big rockets. you saw how much attention just launching one outside los angeles got a few months ago. if it were me I'd do away with the flashy kung fu moves and throw a sucker punch. hard to detect. hard to avoid. almost always effective. that's how I'd like to see America's pgs abilities to be.

but again not sure what icbms got to do with Russia advertising a fake and improbable fighter interceptor.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

i was talking about the OTHER green....thats why the red white and blue made me lol

a reply to: intrptr

I didn't agree with you. The SR was never considered as a fighter, at any point. An interceptor is a fighter in that it carries missiles, and is generally a similar size. A fighter is designed to turn and fight, where an interceptor is designed to stop bombers and other aircraft from performing their mission. Interceptors are designed to get to an area fast, and launch missiles at targets. If they were to get into a turning fight, like fighters do, they would lose fast. Their missions are completely different. Fighters can be used as interceptors, but interceptors make horrible fighters.

a reply to: penroc3

zooom!!! Sorry penroc, but that one went over my head.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

uh no, the terra-cotta warriors weren't decoys. they were intended to guard empereror Qin Shi Huang in the afterlife.

Thats bulls***. He used them as decoys to put fear into the hearts of any potential threat.

Kings buried their wealth so nobody else would get it.

Modern day show of force includes the same principle of decoys, more to my point.

General Patton had a fake army, too.

Rubber tank

a reply to: intrptr

Why Were the Terracotta Warriors Made?
xian the terracotta warriors and horses They were modeled on Qin Shihuang's soldiers.
First Emperor Qin (/chin/), from whom China gets its name, ordered the creation of this army of terracotta statues. It was made to be buried with him, it is said:

as a show of his glory,
to remember the army that triumphed over the other Warring States to unite China, and
because it was believed that objects like statues can be animated in the afterlife, and Qin Shihuang required an after-death army.

www.chinahighlights.com...

It had nothing to do with decoys.

Qin Shi Huang, founder of the Qin dynasty, ruled a unified China as its first emperor from 221-207 B.C. Among the many massive building projects he ordered during his reign was the earliest version of China’s Great Wall, which ran along the country’s northern border and was designed to protect against barbarian invasions. But Emperor Qin’s most memorable project was the massive mausoleum complex he had constructed for himself near the ancient city of Xi’an. Guarded by an army of more than 6,000 life-size terra cotta soldiers, the emperor’s tomb would remain hidden for more than 2,200 years after his death. Now, 40 years after its historic discovery, explore some surprising facts about the Terra Cotta Army.

www.history.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

sooo off topic.

any one see that return of the mummy, those guards came to life.


www.youtube.com...

funny techno Russian ICBM display, mute for a cool show or listen to it i dont care.

PGS have different tracks then normal ICBM's and would probably come from aircraft or sub launched IRBM's. Lets not even talk about orbital bombardment

a reply to: Zaphod58

what about air superiority fighters. the f15 for instance could it be considered both a interceptor and a dog fighter.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Sub launched cruise missiles were demonstrated aptly enough when the Russians salvo fired them at insurgent targets in Syria. They were hypersonic too, and every one hit their target. The US always opens any shooting war with them as well.

Given the nature of hi tech interception methods including anti air missiles like the Patriot for instance, it becomes clear that a hypersonic fighter isn't going to be needed. Sub launched cruise missiles, but a few minutes to target won't be interdicted either.

Thats also my point behind the fallacy of the Russian super fighter, there is no need for such an aircraft. Its a paper tiger. Sorry for the round about, it became necessary for those who get all riled up about future Russian super planes.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

There have been a couple of instances of aircraft designed as interceptors that worked out as great fighters, such as the Tomcat and the Eagle, but the general rule is that pure interceptors suck as fighters. They are designed to go fast in a straight line to get to the target area, and have issues with turning at high Gs like most fighters can.

a reply to: intrptr

Really? You don't think that being able to prevent a bomber from launching its missiles is needed? Cruise missiles aren't only launched from subs. An interceptor that can go out fast, and get near bombers before they launch would be a big advantage.

No cruise missile is hypersonic, or has a 100% hit rate. There are supersonic cruise missiles, but not hypersonic.

a reply to: intrptr

do you have a link for these hyper sonic Russian missiles ?? 100% accuracy by whos assessment?

i know about the sunburn systems but that is antiship if i remember correctly

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: intrptr

do you have a link for these hyper sonic Russian missiles ?? 100% accuracy by whos assessment?

i know about the sunburn systems but that is antiship if i remember correctly

If the US patriot batteries in Turkey had shot down even one Russian cruise missile fired from the Caspian sea, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

Not one was interdicted, they all made their targets. If they had been launched at US bases in the ME and gulf fleets armed with nukes, who knows?

a reply to: intrptr

Back on topic. So I heard this new russian hypersonic fighter has a new and improved heads up display. The straw leading to the vodka dispenser is longer allowing more freedom of movement. Also, the targeting systems has been adapted to users with spinning and or double vision. It's very sophisticated I heard.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It was my understanding the F-15 was developed as an air superiority fighter with a high top speed so it could work as an interceptor.

Back in the 60s we had dedicated interceptors in the Delta Dart/Dagger series. The could maybe be a dogfighter if the opponent were a Tu-128. Maneuverability wasn't a requirement like today.

a reply to: Flipper35

It was originally going to be an interceptor, but they realized they needed a better air superiority fighter than the F-4, so they went for both in one platform.