Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920
Results 571 to 585 of 585

Thread: RuAF aviation, news and development thread

  1. #571
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    973

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    ]http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6112/81237179.b3/0_75b60_b03bf67_XXL.jpg[/IMG]

    ]http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6213/81237179.b3/0_75b69_2b68f66b_XXL.jpg[/IMG]
    fantastic.....


  2. #572
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,500
    Yup, the scenery in the Caucasus is something else! BTW, #38 is the airframe which took part in the Indian attack helo evaluation and was later seen at MAKS 2011 in light grey with MAWS sensors. If you look closely you can make out the corresponding fairings on these pictures, showing that it was already (or still?) so equipped at the time. There's even a third picture from the same series around (not nearly as high-quality though, sadly).

  3. #573
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,870
    Those pics show such a sad reality..
    I've been in North-Caucasus on holiday(2011). It is such a beautiful landscape and so diversed as well. On some places it looks like Norway with all the high mountains Ridges.

    Why so sad? Its a place of undiscovered beauty, and will remain so for the rest of the world due to political unrest.

    I did not see any presents of Russias army in the area though.
    However, on my way to the Airport, Putin was there on official visit. I never seen so many police along any highway in my life
    Last edited by haavarla; 9th June 2012 at 16:23.
    Thanks

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    Not currently, but in the not so distant future, UCAV will have everything that manned aircrafts had and then some. Even B2/Tu95 is not supersonic but they launch missiles.
    distant future 50 years? or 100 years?. supersonic lunch of compact missiles more for fighters in class of Su-35. you need all this speed if you are dealing with antiship missiles against moving ships or armour.
    Not a single UCAV can lunch 3000lbs cruise missile. even if you put reduce range/weight cruise missile. the range UCAV will be less than few hundred kms with speed of a helicopter. UCAV are good if your dealing with tulibans that have no information that UCAV is even coming.
    . that was my theory when i wrote that ground forces will play more importance in any EU conflict.
    Airdefence is getting stronger that difficult for Airpower to shape conflict so new weopons are needed to penetrate it.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...vities-371910/
    Russia to resume hypersonic missile activities
    Rogozin describes this decision as "a treasonable act to our national interests", and claims that the USSR at that time had a lead over the USA in many areas of hypersonic research.

    "Sadly today we see Russia lags noticeably in this sphere," he says. "Hypersonic missiles have significant advantages in terms of reaction times, invulnerability to existing and future air defence systems, long range and high altitude and kinetic energy.

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    i was skeptical about An-70 but if they managed to built new multifunctional bomber/trasnport factory than it can be built in reasonable quantity. but it will come after IL-476 as IL-476 already have factory.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_06_09/77672775/
    PM Medvedev approves new bomber for Russian Air Force

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120609/173943458.html
    PM Medvedev Orders Building New Aircraft Plant in Kazan

  6. #576
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    distant future 50 years? or 100 years?. supersonic lunch of compact missiles more for fighters in class of Su-35. you need all this speed if you are dealing with antiship missiles against moving ships or armour.
    Not a single UCAV can lunch 3000lbs cruise missile. even if you put reduce range/weight cruise missile. the range UCAV will be less than few hundred kms with speed of a helicopter. UCAV are good if your dealing with tulibans that have no information that UCAV is even coming.
    . that was my theory when i wrote that ground forces will play more importance in any EU conflict.
    Airdefence is getting stronger that difficult for Airpower to shape conflict so new weopons are needed to penetrate it.
    Lots of bombers are not supersonic. Saying UCAV cannot do bombing role just because it is not manned is naive.
    Even the USAF is considering optionally manned for the Next Gen Bomber. http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...uy-175-Bombers
    The tech can be developed if the need arises that too within the next 20 years or so from Program kickoff not 100 years.

    Also according to this news below, the bomber is already in pre development stage and can fly with or without the pilot
    http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/ar...20c02c03d.html


    Edit:
    To avoid confusion, by UCAV I meant all unmanned aircrafts that serves as weapons launch platforms.
    Last edited by WinterStars; 9th June 2012 at 23:51.

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    337

    Arrow Duplicate post

    Last edited by WinterStars; 9th June 2012 at 23:48.

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glarus/ Switzerland
    Posts
    236

    Russian PAK-DA Long-Range Bomber In Doubt

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glarus/ Switzerland
    Posts
    236

    PM Medvedev approves new bomber for Russian Air Force

    Russia is going to build a brand-new strategic bomber, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has said at a Kazan meeting on strategic aviation. It will be developed alongside the fifth-generation fighter. Medvedev stressed it wasn’t enough to maintain and revamp the existing strategic bombers.

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    Lots of bombers are not supersonic. Saying UCAV cannot do bombing role just because it is not manned is naive.
    Even the USAF is considering optionally manned for the Next Gen Bomber. http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...uy-175-Bombers
    The tech can be developed if the need arises that too within the next 20 years or so from Program kickoff not 100 years.

    Also according to this news below, the bomber is already in pre development stage and can fly with or without the pilot
    http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/ar...20c02c03d.html


    Edit:
    To avoid confusion, by UCAV I meant all unmanned aircrafts that serves as weapons launch platforms.
    20 years? Even F-22 and B-2 that are basically single role took more than 20 years to put into service. when economic conditions were good with right labor & project skills.
    UCAV are way more risky due to high crash rate. see there is no UCAV version of JSF. since it is optionally unmanned. it means cockpit and pilot training will be done anyway. unless there is doomsday scenario of using it unmanned for one way mission. but in that case sending stealty cruise missile is more efficient from large supersonic bomber.

    see this example.
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...h-strike/all/1
    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...ext-Gen-Bomber

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    20 years? Even F-22 and B-2 that are basically single role took more than 20 years to put into service. when economic conditions were good with right labor & project skills.
    UCAV are way more risky due to high crash rate. see there is no UCAV version of JSF. since it is optionally unmanned. it means cockpit and pilot training will be done anyway. unless there is doomsday scenario of using it unmanned for one way mission. but in that case sending stealty cruise missile is more efficient from large supersonic bomber.

    see this example.
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...h-strike/all/1
    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...ext-Gen-Bomber
    Appearance in 20 years sound more reasonable than not appearing for the next 100 years.
    To assume that since UCAVs crashes now they will therefore continue to crash is downright lame. Manned aircrafts crashes too.
    The X47B/Phantom Ray are in a different league from the Avenger/Predator which are used to fight the Taliban.
    To assume that the X47B/Phantom Ray will remain just that for the next 20 years is unreasonable. They will evolve.

    These are not the years of the F22 where people code in Ada. When people had to design parts using a drafter. When the maximum computing prowess they can put inside the F22 is a cluster of i960MX and later PPC G5. Things moved on, people use Rapid prototyping tools, object oriented language, CAD/CAM etc for speeding up development. Today Intel processors(embedded options) are more than 1000x that of i960MX(a stone age ~66 MIPS) all within an envelop of 100W with passive heatsink, No fancy cooling needed, in a space of less than 300mm2. The computing power evolved exponentially.

    Money is another thing, but if the necessity arises it will be done.

    Sorry for derailing thread.
    Last edited by WinterStars; 10th June 2012 at 11:00.

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    Appearance in 20 years sound more reasonable than not appearing for the next 100 years.
    To assume that since UCAVs crashes now they will therefore continue to crash is downright lame. Manned aircrafts crashes too.
    The X47B/Phantom Ray are in a different league from the Avenger/Predator which are used to fight the Taliban.
    To assume that the X47B/Phantom Ray will remain just that for the next 20 years is unreasonable. They will evolve.

    These are not the years of the F22 where people code in Ada. When people had to design parts using a drafter. When the maximum computing prowess they can put inside the F22 is a cluster of i960MX and later PPC G5. Things moved on, people use Rapid prototyping tools, object oriented language, CAD/CAM etc for speeding up development. Today Intel processors(embedded options) are more than 1000x that of i960MX(a stone age ~66 MIPS) all within an envelop of 100W with passive heatsink, No fancy cooling needed, in a space of less than 300mm2. The computing power evolved exponentially.

    Money is another thing, but if the necessity arises it will be done.

    Sorry for derailing thread.
    X47B are not as capable as JSF for Strike. Neither the engine power nor the speed & verstallity of weopons on same scale. JSF is still consider cheap due to numbers. There is no such volume for high end UCAVs.
    funding will be issue as cheap money from creditors like China/Japan/Arabs dries up due to ageing & overpopulation. Another 20 year programe will not survive funding. here we are talking about bomber that will be stealthier than B-2 and possibly faster with 1/20 production rate of JSF.
    Private contractors for such complex project needed certain volume per year to stay in business.
    see An-70 & bomber building at same factory in Russia.

  13. #583
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    X47B are not as capable as JSF for Strike. Neither the engine power nor the speed & verstallity of weopons on same scale. JSF is still consider cheap due to numbers. There is no such volume for high end UCAVs.
    funding will be issue as cheap money from creditors like China/Japan/Arabs dries up due to ageing & overpopulation. Another 20 year programe will not survive funding. here we are talking about bomber that will be stealthier than B-2 and possibly faster with 1/20 production rate of JSF.
    Private contractors for such complex project needed certain volume per year to stay in business.
    see An-70 & bomber building at same factory in Russia.
    I wonder why BAe/Boeing/Dassault/Northrop even bothered with their Taranis/Phantom Ray/nEUROn/X47B. Clearly the USN is retarded to support UCAVs like X47B and Phantom Ray and MQ8C. The USAF as well is retarded with their misinformed decision to make a super stealthy next generation bomber which can fly without a pilot, since it is clear that UCAVs won't ever have the funding , take 100 years to develop, not capable, neither its speed nor payload will ever improve after development. They can put any Engine, or scale up the airframe but at the turn of the century what they will get is subsonic speed and 2000lbs payload. Add to that ageing and over population and the airframe might even struggle to stay airborne.

  14. #584
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,870
    SSJ 100, VVS new patrol aircraft?

    http://barentsobserver.com/en/securi...russian-arctic
    Thanks

  15. #585
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterStars View Post
    I wonder why BAe/Boeing/Dassault/Northrop even bothered with their Taranis/Phantom Ray/nEUROn/X47B. Clearly the USN is retarded to support UCAVs like X47B and Phantom Ray and MQ8C. The USAF as well is retarded with their misinformed decision to make a super stealthy next generation bomber which can fly without a pilot, since it is clear that UCAVs won't ever have the funding , take 100 years to develop, not capable, neither its speed nor payload will ever improve after development. They can put any Engine, or scale up the airframe but at the turn of the century what they will get is subsonic speed and 2000lbs payload. Add to that ageing and over population and the airframe might even struggle to stay airborne.
    These are not VW group vehicles that can readibly sold in millions to Chinese. All of the above projects have to compete for public funds. and in mean time LM with JSF is going to get biggest slice for next 20 years.
    and there is long term reliability issue with UCAV/UAVs. see B-52/Tu-95 or P-3C/IL-38 example. .
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...174377,00.html
    I am not saying there role will not expand but the quantity (hence cost will never come down) & capability of UCAV will considerablly less than 5G fighters/Bombers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES