P-800 Onik missile

>>29427702

I dunno, has it been fired at any modern NATO warships? Like Aegis or PAAMS?

>>29427702
Probably can't be detected by shitty Russian radar. Even my low powered bullshit detector picks it up from 10000 miles away.

>>29427740
If it would been shot at shit with aegis, you seen it on wiki by sunk ship list

>>29427889

I don't follow your point.

Are you suggesting that Aegis can or cannot detect this?

>>29427702
How does the kerosene help?

Also I'm thinking it's mostly because of the low alt?

>>29427702
>So how is this Russian cruise missile undetectable by radar?
says who?

>it fueled by liquid kerosene.
so they made a diesel powered missile

>flies at low altitude.
ok

>>29427702
The only way it would be undetectable would be if it were far enough away to be below radar horizon.

>>29427925
Says Russian guy in the Russian documentary of Crimea The Way Home.

LOL

But still Russian stuff is good not shit.
Kalshnikov rifles can take dirt, mud, and sand, most American and western firearms can't handle that shit. Unless its bolt action or AUG, HK G36 etc.

The newest Su30s and SU35s can easily rape newest upgraded F16s(except for thrust vector version), newest upgraded F-18 (excludes thrust vectoring one), newest upgraded F-15 (except for the thrust vectoring stealth one that is Japanese made up that could exists if they hybrid the Thurst vectoring NASA F-15Active with F-15SE)Rafale, Typhoon, Jas 39, and J-10,

>>29427923

Isn't that just because it's a cruise missile?

Kerosene/diesel/some types of jet fuel are pretty similar.

>>29428226
you best be joking nigger

>>29428226
This has to be bait but still.

Su30s and 35s might have an advantage in 1 on 1 but no battle was ever fought 1 on 1 and US kicks Russian ass in combined operation which are part of air combat. If Russia could afford to develop the radar, AWACS, BVR missiles that US has it wouldn't be putting all its eggs in one basket and hopping for a dog fight in 21st century. Plus there is the whole maintenance thing, were you are far more likely to have and keep any US aircraft airborne than you are with a Russian aircraft.

>>29428226
>thrust vectoring determines the outcome of a2a engagements

real life is not ace combat

>>29427918
he's slavposting, just ignore him

>>29427702
It's not undetectable though. It doesn't even have any LO characteristics incorporated into the design.

Maybe you're thinking of radar horizon?

>>29428430
It's supposed to be hard to detect due to it's low profile flight right off the deck, as well as undisclosed EM countermeasures
who knows how much it delivers and how much are vatnik vodka dreams.

>>29427702
Well, it doesn't look like there are any perpendicular surfaces for radar waves to reflect off of.

>>29428466
If you're serious, a curved surface is less stealthy. Flat surfaces reflect in one direction, curved surfaces reflect in every direction.

>>29428456
EM countermeasures don't make it harder to detect, in fact they make it easier to detect, but hopefully harder to target. Effectively the opposite of stealth.

>>29428466
a curved surface will always be perpendicular to the observer, whereas a flat surface can be angled so as to bounce the radar waves in a different direction.