Raduga Kh-101 Cruise Missile

Are we sure that isn’t some other type of decoy? Doesn’t seem bright enough for a flare. Chaff or a disposable jammer? Some kind of disposable IR emitter that doesn’t use combustion?
 
How bright a flare is doesn't really matter, what we see with our eyes is not what a seeker head sees.

elbitsystems.com

SPARC-1 Mini Flare | Elbit Systems

elbitsystems.com elbitsystems.com

at that link they talk about 'low luminance' as a benefit

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BItsf-sW8KI


In this video at 1:05 you can see a C-17 deploying flares with very little visual signature but you can bet they work for the wavelength/band that they are designed for, and remember that is a C-17 not a cruise missile.

Sorry in advance about the links
 
Avimimus said:
Why is it ominous? Because it is overkill for the air-defences available to opponents? IMHO, NATO isn't immune to using low threat combat environments to gain operational experience with new weapon types, nor is NATO immune to using up outdated weapon stocks against unsuitable targets. So, either explanation would work.

The Kh-55 is also one of the few precision weapons readily available.
Click to expand...
My thinking was a little bit of "operational experience" and a little bit of "precision weapon available"



Josh_TN said:
Circling back to the original design as discussed a page ago - what is the advantage of having the entire engine extend downward in a separate pod vice having a ventral air intake and leaving it internalized? I assume it's easier/cheaper to pod mount the entire outside the airframe in fixed design, and a lot of Iranian missiles seem to use that geometery (US UTAP-22 UAV is another example). But once you go to the trouble of internalizing the engine and using up the missile body's volume anyway, why not duck the intake to the engine rather than move the engine out of the missile? I'm sure there's some additional loss of volume for having an air duct, but compared to having the moving parts of shifting the engine outside the airframe, isn't worth just keeping it internal?
Click to expand...
There's quite a bit of volume taken up by an inlet duct. especially if you want stealth ducting. Call it engine diameter and length, if not twice that much volume.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom