We are back to AoA.
So what you are suggesting is that if bullets were stabilised with a nose up attitude then they would fly straight and level all the way to their targets?
All bullets are lofted into the air towards their targets via the sighting systems on most firearms and guns, so they start with their noses pointing upwards anyway...
Thrust goes in line with the axis of the missile therefore it does not produce lift, this is a misconception.
So flaring on takeoff of course massively increases wing lift, but you then have to ask why Harriers vector their engine nozzles to 45 degrees on takeoff... you try to tell me canards generate lift but tail surfaces detract from lift...
This is all off topic.
1. The 40 cm available do not allow to stacking missiles with 20 cm diameter + fins
What 40cm available?
Take the 2 main suspension points, crate double ejectors for each of them and you get the same number of missiles with much simpler mechanics that if you stack two up and two down.
The mechanics are not different... four missiles needs four ejectors... whether they are all together in the same plane or staggered in two layers.
That is always substantially cheaper than 1 modern fighter with a pilot that has required years long training.
A much smaller lighter aircraft that is essentially all fuel and radar could find air targets and hand them off to ground based missiles even more cheaply.
And as said targets are hardly alone, you keep ignoring that, but the kinematic architecture of the multimissile allows to attack even targets that are relatively distant from each other, so even tactics countering them (spreading the planes in a wing) would be difficult to implement practically.
You seem to expect there to be thousands and thousands of targets in the air all the time needing each launch to take down the enemy four at a time sounds like you think western plans for Swarm drones are something that will actually happen...
The thing is though, that if that is a reality then Russian swarms will be cheaper and probably produced in much greater numbers... and probably actually effective so they fighters might not even be needed.... Russian swarm drones take down western swarm drones and then wipe out their air forces which they base their defence and attack capacity on.
Russia already has an enormous ground based air defence advantage over HATO, with HATO tanks and aircraft outnumbered 50 to one by Russian missiles... do you think making lots of drones will suddenly render an air defence system based on fighter planes and AWACS aircraft omnipotent and all powerful.... while a properly designed and layered fully integrated air defence network with networked in fighters and strike missiles and aircraft and drones is suddenly vulnerable and weak?
But if you are in the middle of high intensity fighting this is what provides the best capability, by far.
History tells us that the Afghans and ISIS don't have the aircraft for high intensity fighting, and in the case of HATO, well it is going to go nuclear soon enough that it wont matter.
Anything launched from land has a booster way bigger than it would be ultimately needed with air launching, so you could get by with smaller missiles, since range requirements are completely undemanding,
Quite true but if you are launching 9M96 sized missiles from an R-37 sized launch booster the R-37 will lose most of its range because 9M96s are much bigger and heavier than the normal payload of that missile... so while the range of the 9M96 in such a situation will likely double at least or perhaps quadruple like the Iskander did in the version of the Kinzhal, the boost range the R-37 reaches will also be dramatically reduced as well... so it wont be a case of R-37 = 350km plus 9M96 middle missile is 60km times say 3 is 180km so about 530km range total range.
The R-37 range will reduce quite a bit to maybe 100km but good altitude and speed for launching the 9M96 missiles... the max range wont be much different to the 300-400km range of the original but obviously with the advantage of 3-5 mini missiles each able to target something on its own.
I would think the best choice for carrier booster would be a rocket ramjet design that can climb and cruise at an efficient speed and then as it gets closer to targets accelerate to give max energy to released guided missiles.... but releasing them close to their targets they will have plenty of energy anyway.
Maybe the new anti-UAV ones designed for Pantsir would be of application too.
The long solid rocket booster would be a bit redundant, perhaps the new TOR minimissiles... though they might be much smaller and two stage as well.
The point is that the 9M100 is already very small and slim and with a TVC rocket motor with likely multiple stages and an IIR seeker and two way datalink and lock on after launch capacity it is already a good contender for self defence missile for air ground and naval vessels... I would think it would actually be a very potent weapon for submarines as a last ditch effort against MPAs and enemy helicopters...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
thegopnik
