Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MIGs in Space

Old 28th Aug 2017, 04:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dunnunda
Age: 63
Posts: 150
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PersonFromPorlock
I'm not quite clear on what a space-capable interceptor would intercept that wouldn't be more economically intercepted by a conventional interceptor firing a space-capable missile. Anyone?
Asteroids!!
Art Smass is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 06:15
  #22 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
Anyone?
ORAC is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 09:27
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re what a space-capable interceptor would intercept:
Nothing. But it'd be hard to fight; and that altitude would lend those AA-12s remarkable additional range.
Rengineer is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 09:32
  #24 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
It's the fusing with a frontal closing speed of M4+ to allow an expanding rod or fragmentation head to detonate and reach the target before it went past. Probably need a new hittile - or a forward looking fusing system.
ORAC is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 09:34
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,462
Received 135 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by Art Smass
Asteroids!!
TURIN is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 09:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Personally I'd recommend the 'forward looking systems' of the lovely Gabrielle Drake as Lt. Ellis in that UFO clip....

Somehow I don't see those uniforms getting past the misery-guts censors of today's TV....
BEagle is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 13:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rengineer
...and that altitude would lend those AA-12s remarkable additional range.
Additional range, yes, but with no control. The AA-12/R-77 uses aerodynamic control surfaces. No atmosphere, no control. In other words, it'll fly a pointless ballistic trajectory, assuming it's even stable with no control surfaces, which seems unlikely. More likely it will be a greater threat to the launching aircraft than to any target.
KenV is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 14:20
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 980
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Ken, whilst your post is technically correct, perhaps you overlook that the technology which enables the ‘fighter’ to get into a position to fire a missile, should also be available for terminal guidance of the weapon system.
Also if the target was ground based then a strike weapon system might be tolerant to late stage aerodynamic guidance.

The alternative of space-space intercept system would pose more problems, but some of the issues of an air-space operation appear to have been solved.
An exception might be the need to preposition the launch aircraft with respect to the target to be defended - range; thence the discussion of the advantage of increased range. (how to defend a target - sub fleet, without pre positioning a defence so it does not disclose the target's location).
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 18:51
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
Additional range, yes, but with no control. The AA-12/R-77 uses aerodynamic control surfaces. No atmosphere, no control. In other words, it'll fly a pointless ballistic trajectory, assuming it's even stable with no control surfaces, which seems unlikely...
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.

We ignore these potential threats from the East at our peril.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 19:44
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 57
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
MILFs in space.
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 19:56
  #31 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,131
Received 215 Likes on 62 Posts
Short-term memory problem? It's been posted further up the page.
Herod is online now  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 22:42
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 289
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Anything that has Gabriella Drake in it is worth watching again.
k3k3 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 06:52
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Indeed, k3k3 - but her name is Gabrielle.

She was only 25 when UFO was made, incidentally. Nice to hear English spoken in a proper 'English Gel' accent rather than in the sloppy Estuary oik-talk of today.
BEagle is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 15:22
  #34 (permalink)  
 
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  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 18:47
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
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.
You've basically repeated my post in a somewhat less succinct way.

Originally Posted by KenV
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.
The dismissive nature of your post, concentrating solely on the AA-12, certainly gave your post the tone of ignoring the potential threat. It's an all to common attitude, the dismissive one, here sometimes - not necessarily from you that is; shades of Chinese carriers etc.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2017, 13:18
  #36 (permalink)  
 
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
The dismissive nature of your post, concentrating solely on the AA-12, certainly gave your post the tone of ignoring the potential threat.
"Dismissive nature of my post?" "Concentrating solely on the AA-12?" What part of I was replying to a post that made specific claims about the AA-12 is hard to understand? The simple fact is, the AA-12 cannot operate exoatmospherically. There's nothing "dismissive" about stating a simple relevant fact.

As for the "potential threat" and the "tone" of one's post, the tone of your post clearly indicates that you have not thought through the nature of "the potential threat" posed by a fighter than can zoom climb into space. Even assuming someone goes to the huge expense of developing and producing a fighter with such capability (which seems highly unlikely), such an ability has very limited, if any, military utility.

As for the Chinese carrier, I made no mention of that. Me personally, I hope they manage to build a few and it would not surprise me at all if the USN even helped them a bit in the process.

Last edited by KenV; 30th Aug 2017 at 13:30.
KenV is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2017, 14:36
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
....
Even assuming someone goes to the huge expense of developing and producing a fighter with such capability (which seems highly unlikely), such an ability has very limited, if any, military utility.
......

Absolutely agree. Lots of research were done from late 70's through early 90's in USA and SU/Russia on that subject based on real experience gained from the Shuttle and Buran programs, respectively, and their derivatives (smaller spaceplanes). Was involved in that "business" at that time. The conclusions were exactly as you put it.
A_Van is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.