)
SOC said:
With what, Kinzhal?
www.flightglobal.com
I was wondering just a couple of days ago why the F-35s that launched strikes into Syria from HMS Queen Elizabeth were carrying external Sidewinders, but when you think about the Russian presence, it's obvious, and flying with external ordnance will completely invalidate any radar data they manage to pick up, whether from ground radar, MiG 31s or other aircraft.
UK F-35s make first combat strikes from HMS Queen Elizabeth
The UK has for the first time demonstrated its restored Carrier Strike capability, with Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightnings operating from the 65,000t vessel HMS Queen Elizabeth striking targets in the Middle East on 18 June.
I dont think the mig-31k has the radar mounted. I think it is just a reminder they have means of potentially sinking the carrier. Same with the UK flexing its might with their new carrier and kit, which could cause havoc to the ruskies.
The MiG-31 is. The MiG-31K is not.
Why? They are not the most capable airframes for that job.
They are not using Zaslon-M tho. It was MiG-31M exclusive, which wasn't produced in any significant numbers.
Wow. Well, here's a lesson for you; Know what you are talking about before being arrogant. MiG-31K carries *only* Kinzhal.
Touché. Still, I find it difficult to believe it has no radar or self-defense capability.
Zaslon-AM(production version of Zaslon-M i guess) mounted on MiG-31BM.
Not really. More like refined and facelifted Zaslon-A. M had bigger array along other things.
Now I wonder how powerful would Zaslon-M with modern signal processing and computers would look like.
Correct. M and AM are very different. IIRC AM has more modifications on the "back-end" and software in general to handle new weapons and targets.
Believe is something one does in the church. MiG-31K doesnt carry R-33, R-60, R-73, R-74 or R-77-1. It carries Kinzhal only. The only self defense it has is the gun, which is technically not allowed to be used since the 90's IIRC. I wouldnt be too surprised if it doesnt have the radar but dunno.
No $hit Sherlock. Maybe I should have just said, "just how much vodka were they drinking when they decided to completely disarm the aircraft".
Re. the Mig-31 I'd have thought they'd have wanted to retain it's base capability. Maybe they had to strip it to give it as much payload as possible. Yeah, I'd have thought the Mig-31 would give it more range as well, when launched from a higher speed/altitude than the Backfire could reach.
No $hit Sherlock. Maybe I should have just said, "just how much vodka were they drinking when they decided to completely disarm the aircraft".
Considering that the armament it is carrying has a range of 1,500-2,000 km, they'd really have to do something very dumb to take it within range of enemy air defenses to launch it.
The thing that has me puzzled it the claimed range of Kinzhal, which is 50% longer when launched from a Tu-22M3 than from the MiG-31K. Does this mean there are two different versions of the missile or is there something really different about the Backfire's launch profile for this weapon?
Are there any picture of Tu-22M3 carry Kinzhal?
No $hit Sherlock. Maybe I should have just said, "just how much vodka were they drinking when they decided to completely disarm the aircraft".
Considering that the armament it is carrying has a range of 1,500-2,000 km, they'd really have to do something very dumb to take it within range of enemy air defenses to launch it.
The thing that has me puzzled it the claimed range of Kinzhal, which is 50% longer when launched from a Tu-22M3 than from the MiG-31K. Does this mean there are two different versions of the missile or is there something really different about the Backfire's launch profile for this weapon?
Just means that both range figures are more or less speculations
Well, that would be the extent and the depth of the analysis i would expect from you indeed. Did you type such an excellent hot take with a hamburger or AR-15 or both?
No $hit Sherlock. Maybe I should have just said, "just how much vodka were they drinking when they decided to completely disarm the aircraft".
Technically AKU and for R-33. Yes, AKU's for R-33's are completely gone as are the hardpoints for pylons. IRST is gone too. The reasons it doesnt carry self defense weapons is the same reason Tu-160 isnt armed with self defense - what is the need when you can literally fire your missile(s) from thousands of km's away from any air defense? Weight and range were the bigger factors than any "need" for self defense capabilities.
A burger in one hand and an AR in the other. My point still stands.Well, that would be the extent and the depth of the analysis i would expect from you indeed. Did you type such an excellent hot take with a hamburger or AR-15 or both?
No $hit Sherlock. Maybe I should have just said, "just how much vodka were they drinking when they decided to completely disarm the aircraft".
