RMAF Future; need opinions

N

nevidimka

New Member
Its good to know that the MKM deal was made with the R 77. But probably u should also have asked the RMAF pilot if there are any rumours on getting the Ramjet Adder.
 
N

nevidimka

New Member
CUrrently theres no BVRAAM in operation as all major AAM producers are still working on it. So when it becomes operational, the Ramjet Adder is something the RMAF should look to aquire.
 
A

aztechx

New Member
nevidimka said:
Its good to know that the MKM deal was made with the R 77. But probably u should also have asked the RMAF pilot if there are any rumours on getting the Ramjet Adder.
Click to expand...
well..i think theres only so much the pilots know..they seemed a bit clueless at times too..that might be due to the fact that the MkM pilots havent started their weapons training yet..cant blame one of the pilots for telling me the Kh-31 was an antiship missile..and yeap..i got a picture of it up close..it looked huge and i wonder how much bigger can the Kh-41 be..:rolleyes:
 
G

guppy

New Member
Kh-31 is anti-radar similar to the HARM.

The warhead is not likely to be optimized against maritime targets, but could arguably be used to target and disable ship radars.
 
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
qwerty223 said:
and that qualified as an anti-ship missile...
Click to expand...
mmm... no? An anti-ship missile is a missile designed to destroy large elements of an enemy ship to the point of sinking it, or permanently taking it out of action. A system that only does a mission kill is not the same.
 
Q

qwerty223

New Member
Where is the defination of "a permanate kill"? Anti-ship simply means to be used against a naval target, thats all.
 
G

guppy

New Member
It is mainly an issue of terminology. Technically, a M-16 can be used as an anti-ship weapon, but it is not likely to be very effective. A modern anti-ship weapon should have characteristics enabling a reasonable success rate against modern naval targets. Bear in mind that modern naval targets are one of the most heavily defended point (I know some are quite large) targets in the world.

There are several different kill definitions. In layman''s speak, a soft/mission/function kill means that the target cannot longer carry out its primary mission. A hard kill often means that the target is disabled and will not be usable again in the near future.

cheers

guppy
 
Q

qwerty223

New Member
guppy said:
It is mainly an issue of terminology. Technically, a M-16 can be used as an anti-ship weapon, but it is not likely to be very effective. A modern anti-ship weapon should have characteristics enabling a reasonable success rate against modern naval targets. Bear in mind that modern naval targets are one of the most heavily defended point (I know some are quite large) targets in the world.

There are several different kill definitions. In layman''s speak, a soft/mission/function kill means that the target cannot longer carry out its primary mission. A hard kill often means that the target is disabled and will not be usable again in the near future.

cheers

guppy
Click to expand...
thats a narrow sense defination. As u mentioned a morden warfare, you dont need to eliminate ur enemy in order to declare a victory. Disable the enemy is more effective as shown by the US armed force which had won several wars with the same concept. Take for example an Agies ship blacken out by one or more anti radiation weapon. The ship worth nothing even it continues to float on the surface.
 
O

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
nevidimka said:
Getting it from the Russians once its produced and becomes available for export.
Click to expand...
AFAIK R-77M is a long long way from shooting down anything, if it ever see's the light of day.

qwerty223 said:
and that qualified as an anti-ship missile...
Click to expand...
I've read the russian claims of the "Krypton" being an AShM, i think they meant its an ARM that can be used to hit naval radars. Hardly comperable to a dedicated AShM in terms of warhead design and target effects.
 
G

guppy

New Member
qwerty223 said:
thats a narrow sense defination. As u mentioned a morden warfare, you dont need to eliminate ur enemy in order to declare a victory. Disable the enemy is more effective as shown by the US armed force which had won several wars with the same concept. Take for example an Agies ship blacken out by one or more anti radiation weapon. The ship worth nothing even it continues to float on the surface.
Click to expand...
Military terms are necessarily narrow and very well defined.

I am pretty sure the Aegis equipped ships are still very capable even after you damage their radar. Remember that today, nobody fights alone. I speculate that they are still able to launch their weapons using radar cues from other similarly equipped ships. Again, I speculate, but based on current technologies, it is very plausible.

Has america been winning wars lately? Achieving military objectives, doubtful at best. Achieving the political objectives, hmmm.....they are still in Iraq and Afghanistan after how many years?

cheers

guppy
 
Q

qwerty223

New Member
Well, the terms "anti-ship" is more toward a technical term. If an Agies ship had all its radar black out, i wonder, how capable can it be...

And Ozzy did point out something. Each military organization has their own game plan. The Kh-31Ps were recent being adopted by all of its Su-30MK users. And that most of the users, except for India and Algeria used the MK model as a maritime strike fighter. While Kh-31P were always the highlight of these procurements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top