Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 606

Thread: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Philly PA, USA
    Posts
    792
    Is it true the back-seater is the aircraft commander?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    Quote Originally Posted by edi_right_round View Post
    Griffon he's got flight controls,stick,gas and pedals.Berkut posted a vid where u could see that.Seems around 2008 they were given priority and ranks were filled with young pilots,straight from L-39 and flying quite some hours.Russian guys here say fighters fly smhow 80-100 hours a year depending on type i recall reading
    More now- pilots @ Kursk (MiG-29SMT) recorded 150 hours through November 2012 - and numbers keep steadily creeping up.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/27200/

    Izvestia caught making **** up, yet again
    Recently they had an article that made its rounds in Russian media, that NAPO's work on Su-34s left a lot to be desired, and the plane had many deficiencies. They quoted a member of a MOD commission investigating the issue.

    The MOD was contacted, and they made an official response - by a NAMED, existing polkovnik, Vladimir Drik: " Such a commission is made up, as are the "findings" ". He also stated that much of the facts presented in the Izvestia article were false.

    Take Izvestia articles with an An-124 load of salt from now on. I suspect they will be @ an-225 levels soon though.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    Why the heck do they do that ?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    109
    HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL, lots of great news to come. Growing pains are always going to happen with any plane put into production. Be those pains exaggerated or not, somewhere in the middle is the truth. Lets hope Su-35, Su-34, PAK-FA and others continue to strengthen in numbers and quality.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    109
    Moscow - The Novosibirsk aircraft plant of the Sukhoi Holding (NAPO) will increase the output of Sukhoi Su-34 multirole bombers in 2013, a source in the defense sector told Interfax-AVN on Saturday.

    "In 2013 the Su-34 production at NAPO will be larger than in 2012," the source said.

    "While setting off batch production of Su-34, NAPO is constantly enlarging their output," he said.

    NAPO made two Su-34 aircraft in 2009, four in 2010, six in 2011 and ten in 2012, the source said.

    NATO is executing two state contracts: one to make 32 aircraft before 2013 and the other to make 92 aircraft before 2020. "The total order is 124 aircraft," the source said.

    "The introduction of new cost saving technologies and equipment, the so-called smart manufacturing, is a token of a larger output of Su-34," he noted.


    Article on Su-34, sorry if already posted

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,586
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/27200/

    Izvestia caught making **** up, yet again
    Recently they had an article that made its rounds in Russian media, that NAPO's work on Su-34s left a lot to be desired, and the plane had many deficiencies. They quoted a member of a MOD commission investigating the issue.

    The MOD was contacted, and they made an official response - by a NAMED, existing polkovnik, Vladimir Drik: " Such a commission is made up, as are the "findings" ". He also stated that much of the facts presented in the Izvestia article were false.

    Take Izvestia articles with an An-124 load of salt from now on. I suspect they will be @ an-225 levels soon though.
    Ah, just like Soviet days, when they used to say "There's no pravda in Izvestia, & no izvestia in Pravda". :diablo:
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,682
    Ok, some news thats very real.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=BjLpTYOHxlU

    Kaan AB(Far East) has fully replentish its rank with upgraded Mig-31BM.


    And Happy new year all
    Thanks

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,136


    https://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.c...growing-pains/

    Early this month, Izvestiya’s Aleksey Mikhaylov and Dmitriy Balburov published on “growing pains” in Russia’s procurement of the Su-34 strike fighter. The aircraft is ”not combat capable” according to them.

    A few English-language sites mentioned their story, but didn’t render it completely or accurately.

    According Izvestiya, the Defense Minister may soon sign out a report on defects in the Su-34 that interfere with its “full combat employment.” Each of the 16 Su-34s received over six years reportedly has its own “individual problems.”

    The authors say the Defense Ministry already won an 80-million-ruble suit against the Novosibirsk Aviation Plant named for Chkalov over undelivered aircraft. They insinuate this Defense Ministry report could be the basis for more litigation against the airplane’s manufacturer.

    A Su-34 pilot told Izvestiya radar and targeting-navigation system problems interfere with flight training in the aircraft. Malfunctions, he says, are the result of both programming problems and technical flaws. A maintenance officer said each aircraft has “its own characteristics,” for example, an auxiliary motor located in different places on different borts.

    Two Su-34s delivered to Lipetsk in 2006 are allegedly non-operational, and sit at the airfield for show. However, the best airframes are the last three borts sent to Baltimor / Voronezh last summer, a VVS Glavkomat officer told the authors.

    OPK representatives expressed surprise at the military’s complaints, noting that the early production run of any aircraft entails problems. Some blamed a low level of training among VVS pilots and technicians for difficulties with the Su-34.

    The Izvestiya report seems at odds with the recent announcement that delivery of a second Su-34 squadron is beginning. In fact, the media reports five more aircraft arrived at Voronezh from Novosibirsk just days ago. Practically the same day, Defense Minister Shoygu visited the city, airfield, and other VVS institutions. It may be that his predecessor Serdyukov was inclined to criticize the OPK and the Su-34′s quality. So maybe Shoygu won’t approve the Su-34 report. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t real problems with the aircraft.
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    See above regarding Izvestya Deino.

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to95000/094228.jpg

    MiG-31 HUD
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,136
    o.k ... THANKs !
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Why the heck do they do that ?
    I think they got new ownership a while ago, and decided sensational yellow press would be a good way to get viewership up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=I3pF376-3Zs#!

    Great 1080p footage of Long Range Aviation.
    Last edited by TR1; 1st January 2013 at 10:21.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,398
    The Blackjack is certainly an impressive aircraft.

    What is the stautus of the Blackjack?

    I recall there was an announcement that some more Blackjacks were being procured.

    Is this the case?
    If so, was it ever discovered if these were new builds, or previous incomplete examples that were to be finished?

    Wiki says that a new build Tu-160 was delivered in 2008, and that a new Blackjack is to be built every 1 or 2 years until the fleet reaches about 30 or more aircraft in the 2025-2030 timeframe.

    I know wiki is not the best source, but is this happening? it seems this was based on a 2008 report, so has anything along these lines transpired in the last 5 years?
    Last edited by wilhelm; 1st January 2013 at 12:29.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Ok, some news thats very real.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=BjLpTYOHxlU

    Kaan AB(Far East) has fully replentish its rank with upgraded Mig-31BM.


    And Happy new year all
    Only shame that those news are not real.

    No, more Blackjacks won't be bought. Atleast 10 of them will undergo modernization where they will get Irbis radar and other stuff.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,398
    Okay.

    I've had a look and apparently the NK engines for the Tu-160 are to go back into production, in upgraded form.

    There are apparently incomplete airframes from when Yeltsin stopped production, that could concievably be completed.

    So definitely no further Tu-160's?

    Will the upgraded new production engines be for the new bomber being developed?

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    I think the first priority is to ensure the Tu-160s (which have a potential to serve many years) do not find themselves grounded when the current engines inevitably reach an end to their service lives.
    KAPO is gone as an aircraft manufacturer within a short time (after they finish last several Il-114s) so thats not happening.
    Last edited by TR1; 1st January 2013 at 15:23.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    285
    thank you for the link friend. it confirm my suspicions.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,447
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    KAPO is gone as an aircraft manufacturer within a short time (after they finish last several Il-114s) so thats not happening.
    What's the Il-114 (*T*APO) got to do with KAPO and the Tu-160? KAPO will be around for a long time, what with Tu-22M/Tu-160 upgrades, military Tu-214 derivatives and SSJ components - IIRC they are also tentatively planned to build the PAK-DA, when and if it happens.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    Been drinking ok, mixed up the names .
    Thought something sounded off...
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    73
    I'm not sure if this question has been asked before, but was there any particular reason for not keeping the single piece windscreen seen in a MiG-31M for the MiG-31BM program?.


  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,447
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Been drinking ok, mixed up the names .
    Thought something sounded off...
    Yes, I expected there had to be an explanation

    Quote Originally Posted by soyuz1917 View Post
    This contract only concerns 105 new built "people movers." Additional contracts for specialized aircraft like refuelers and ELINT jets for the MoD are planned.

    The MoD will get -- 39 An-148's, 2 Tu-214's, 11 Tu-204SM's.

    The Presidential administration, which is charged with ferrying about VIP's will get -- 6 An-148's, 6 Tu-214's, 8 Il-96-300's, and 1 Tu-204-300.

    The FSB will get -- 4 An-148's, 2 Tu-214's, 1 Il-476, and 2 Tu-204-300's.

    The MVD will get -- 6 An-148's 2 Tu-204SM's, and 2 SSJ's.

    The Ministry of Emergencies (commie FEMA) will get -- 2 An-148's, 4 Il-476's and 1 Tu-204-300.

    Roscosmos will get -- 3 Tu-214's, and 3 SSJ's.
    100 airliners with at least 75 seats each - what the hell do they think they need that for?! Anyone want to work out how many people they'd have to fly annually for that fleet to make sense? I have a strong premonition the result is not going to be reconcilable with any conceivable level of demand from the agencies that are supposed to need these aircraft...

    Clue: in total, these government departments have about 3 million employees. With a fleet 60% the size of the above by standard one-class seating capacity, S7 moves about 6 million passengers annually.

    Sure, certain high-ranking officials and their staff are going to fly very frequently indeed, and seating would be reduced for some aircraft due to VIP interiors, but chances are this still represents a ridiculous capacity oversupply. Especially bearing in mind that at least part of the current Rossiya fleet will continue to be utilised and has not been counted in yet - neither have the 60 An-140s recently ordered!

    This order could easily be slashed by 70% and still leave the various agencies very well-equipped, with the savings spent on acquiring aircraft Russia actually needs - like tankers, AWACS and MPAs based on the Il-96/Tu-204. I mean, there is nothing wrong with a make-work programme if it results in something that is of real use, but just throwing money away for no gain is just wasteful. There is a fair chance this contract will never be fully implemented because it would be plainly unsustainable, so I would not hold my breath.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Somewhat a continuation of what was discussed in J-20 thread. I always assumed that stinger was same length of Su-35S as on Su-27, but that doesn't seem to be the case! With some help of a friend of mine and after lots of pictures:



    So Su-35S is a bit longer than Su-27.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,447
    Note that #01 has a non-standard, longer stinger, possibly containing a drag chute as on T-50 #051! I would expect a fully production representative airframe to be the same length as a vanilla Su-27.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Note that #01 has a non-standard, longer stinger, possibly containing a drag chute as on T-50 #051! I would expect a fully production representative airframe to be the same length as a vanilla Su-27.
    Hmm now that you say it i am reminded of that shiny metal ring that is seen on S-1 "nekkid" pictures. I think that one is extra on S-1 only vs prototypes and later models. So yeah, that explains it, Su-35S length is same as Su-27 then!

    Notice S-1 doesn't have actuators for cone to open, so if it has chute, then it is activated same way as on "51". If it is, then than means S-1 have done stall tests and extra length comes from extra big parachute or something related.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    I think the cone length is the same on the Su-35Ss, only that on S-1 there are no antennas or CHFL dispensers or the chute.

    Regretably, when Knaapo put their high-rez images up , i got lazy downloading the Su-35S-2 pics bar one image (which i will post), which unfortunately does not seems to be part of the gallery anymore (i don't think anyone saved the Su-35S galleries in their original form by any chance -before the bandwidth issue? )

    You can compare this pic of S-2 to S-1 pretty well i think.


  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    14
    First Happy New Year and marry Christmas!
    I got this picture:

    About Миг-31БМ
    We see on the picture search radar range is 240 km. but on the video below pilot has say that new Миг-31БМ increase radar range double, or if new Миг-31БМ has radar range 240km, what about basic Mig-31 , his radar range should be 120km.! The myth about 400km. radar range is fake?
    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le-8aoWovhc[/youtube]
    Last edited by stambe_mig; 2nd January 2013 at 19:52.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    Isn't the detection range for a fighter size target about 120km for the "legacy" Zaslon? Guess we don't know yet for what target size that 240km figure refers to.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    I think the cone length is the same on the Su-35Ss, only that on S-1 there are no antennas or CHFL dispensers or the chute.

    You can compare this pic of S-2 to S-1 pretty well i think.
    Nah, with some comparing i found exactly what panels to remove to shorten the S-1 stinger, and then it is about same length as Su-27 (just some pixels short, but that is ok). I have all S-2 pics in high res, but there is not proper side on.

    S-2 is shorter for sure. Besides, if one counts the panelines there is future proof. 4 lines on S-2 vs 6 (because of metal plug) on S-1.

    All high res pictures are available if you go to russian version of the site.
    Last edited by Berkut; 2nd January 2013 at 20:40.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    Well either i need an eye check , or the pic of S-2 i posted above is not in the high-rez KnAAPO gallery. Anyway, just a small item, perhaps it's been posted somewhere else (or i accidentaly entered the KnAAPO computers )

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Well either i need an eye check , or the pic of S-2 i posted above is not in the high-rez KnAAPO gallery. Anyway, just a small item, perhaps it's been posted somewhere else (or i accidentaly entered the KnAAPO computers )
    I don't see picture in your post. However, if i quote it, i do see the link. I do have that picture as well, but it isn't side on. And it is on the site, it is just that thumbnail doesn't reflect it. Click on second picture.

    http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/eve..._ser_su-35.wbp

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