PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - MIGs in Space
Thread: MIGs in Space
View Single Post
Old 29th Aug 2017, 15:22
  #34 (permalink)  
KenV
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Willard Whyte
True, but the, admittedly 'troubled', Novator K-100 "AWACS Killer" uses thrust vectoring - as might any as yet unseen Russian, or Chinese for that matter, AAM. Launched from 100km altitude it would have a significant range enhancement over the design spec >200km.
I was addressing the post that claimed additional range specifically for the AA-12 if it is launched exoatmospheric. My point being that the AA-12 cannot function exoatmospheric. However, a missile with thrust vectoring would likely work in such an environment. Likely, but no guarantee. There are other factors at play in such an environment. In any event, the K-100 / KS-172 currently is aerodynamically controlled, with a thrust vector system in development. Russia has lost interest in it and only India remains interested enough to provide development funding. It is far from operational with no projected in service date.

We ignore these potential threats from the East at our peril.
I'm not remotely suggesting we "ignore these threats." But one must question the nature of that "threat." A fighter that can zoom climb into space us one thing. A fighter that has operable sensors and weapons in space is entirely another. Consider that once in space, it will have to either rely on battery power, or on a hydrazine (or similar) fueled APU. That'll have to be a very massive battery or a powerful APU with good size fuel tankage that can power the radar and weapons systems (not to mention life support) for a reasonably useful time period. And while reaction thrusters can give it attitude control to keep the nose pointed in the right direction and the wings level, it won't be able to maneuver. It will fly an essentially ballistic trajectory. How militarily useful is that? And all that stuff required for space operations will be dead weight during atmospheric operation while simultaneously consuming precious airframe volume. If the intent of flying exoatmospheric is to give the missile greater range, it would be far far simpler to just give the missile a more powerful rocket motor and more fuel. And it could stay below 100,000 feet where it's aerodynamic controls would remain useable.

About that ballistic trajectory. Have you considered what that means when launching a missile? It means the missile will fly the same trajectory as the launch aircraft after release until its rocket motor ignites. But with no aerodynamics, will the missile be stable after release and before engine ignition? Which way will it be pointing when the rocket ignites? The bottom line: exoatmospheric missile launch will be a very sporty affair.

Last edited by KenV; 29th Aug 2017 at 15:52. Reason: added ballistic trajectory paragraph
KenV is offline