Talk:Kh-31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.


[edit] U.S. Tech used to improve Kh-31

Several accounts can be found on Google showing that U.S. Navy and American Engineers improved the Kh-31 only to have it sold on the open market. Yes, WorldNet Daily is a rabid right wing web site, but non-rabid information can be found. Lyta79 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The info is very clear, and if there was no US tech in the missile, why did the PRC buy and revese engineer the missiles in the first place? Lyta79 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Read my summary of those articles below. They represent the distilled NPOV facts that are left, as opposed to "rabid right wing" additions. We won't mind if you want to add a section based on facts salvaged from the article, but leave the opinions of what you admit as a "rabid right wing web site" out of it and take only the "non-rabid information". --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This information isn't very clear. What changes did thay made? What those flaws were, why is it dangerous, what does it mean "overweight" - if it is so then why American militarys choose it? The truth may be mixed with false or twisted here - may be it wasn't completely compatible American electronics or aircraft and this's what makes it dangerous to launch... So I decide to remove it untill more facts credible & clear facts will be found.--Oleg Str 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They did twist it. Apparently, the safety problem was with the lanyard. During emergency jettison, sometimes the lanyard will stay with the plane and not the missile. Perhaps it is a aerodynamic compatibility problem, perhaps not. It is certainly not dangerous to fire because the lanyard should rip off the missile during live launch as one of the arming mechanisms. In the jettison case, apparently other safeties (electronic and the like) kept the rocket from firing, but that wasn't safe enough for the Americans, so they advised a change of lanyard and jettison method Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The "overweight" claims is probably from twisting the failure of Krypton to meet up with the USN's range requirement. This is really a problem with differing requirements. Krypton was a 600kg weapon primarily designed to defeat Patriot (~70km) as a ARM. 110km (~60NM) high altitude launch range was certainly good enough for this (counting in a reasonable improvement margin), as is the 15NM low altitude range mentioned in the article (consider the earth's horizon in NOE flying and so forth). The Americans wanted a Sunburn emulator with a NOE range of 50 miles. The old Vandal emulator (based on 7800 pound Talos) was much heavier (hushed by up the article) but met that requirement and the MA-31 could not. To be fair, a Talos sized missile was probably a better emulator for the 10000-pound Kh-41...
The Americans merely proposed aerodynamic and engine refinements (some of which may be optimizations because a drone does not have to compromise b/w several different seeker types), but the big one was probably the extra fuel. IIRC, the improved Kryptons have 200km range, which jives reasonably with a 42NM low alt range. This kind of prototype is very convenient for the Russians, who no doubt indeed took the work for a reference in creating the second-generation Kryptons. That's just business - sometimes the other side gets the last laugh... Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Then, people, someone should incorporate this into the article. Until so I will remove that part - it sounds toooo biased. --Oleg Str 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bha, that version even isn't called Kh-31.

Someone who is making mindeless back reverting, would he be SO kind to discuss it first?--Oleg Str 11:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)