Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 108 of 110 FirstFirst ... 85898104105106107108109110 LastLast
Results 3,211 to 3,240 of 3300

Thread: RuAF News and development Thread part 15

  1. #3211
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2549401.html

    And the latest Mi-35M customer will be Bangladesh apparently. They are buying 6 helicopters, with another 6 to come after.
    They were also looking at AH-1Z, T-129, and the Z-10. Also, supposedly they are looking at acquiring Mi-28NE down the line.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  2. #3212
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Scar View Post
    You can see the same "field-mod" on Su-30MKM which served as a base-model for Su-30SM.
    Thanks to Austin posted the link for the Take-off magazine that 'mystery' has been partially solved so far.

    'For instance, the Su-30MKM mounts an advanced French-made IFF system , with its 'plates' situated on top of he nose section fore of the cockpit.'
    Take-off Magazine, page 20. March 2017.
    http://www.en.take-off.ru/index.php/...article/45/431

    In the case of the Su-30MKM from Malaysia it seems from my interpretation of the above description that device front of the IRST are antennas of the French IFF( Interrogator Friend Foe) system.

    However on the Su-30SM from Russia I do not think that Su-30SM has been using the French IFF system.

    Otherwise, such advanced IFF systems could have been executing other functions such as ELINT (Electronic Intelligence), and the location of the antenna so close to the IRST, or even in front of it, may suggest that both systems has been working together in the same way the radar and the IRST since its legacy Su-27S/P.

  3. #3213
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    http://altyn73.livejournal.com/1135106.html

    25 years ago the first Irkut Su-30 flew.

    Fresh looking attack helos practicing for the May parade.

    Ka-52s:



    Mi-28s:



    Mi-35M:





    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  4. #3214
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,712
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    Thanks to Austin posted the link for the Take-off magazine that 'mystery' has been partially solved so far.

    'For instance, the Su-30MKM mounts an advanced French-made IFF system , with its 'plates' situated on top of he nose section fore of the cockpit.'
    Take-off Magazine, page 20. March 2017.
    http://www.en.take-off.ru/index.php/...article/45/431

    In the case of the Su-30MKM from Malaysia it seems from my interpretation of the above description that device front of the IRST are antennas of the French IFF( Interrogator Friend Foe) system.

    However on the Su-30SM from Russia I do not think that Su-30SM has been using the French IFF system.

    Otherwise, such advanced IFF systems could have been executing other functions such as ELINT (Electronic Intelligence), and the location of the antenna so close to the IRST, or even in front of it, may suggest that both systems has been working together in the same way the radar and the IRST since its legacy Su-27S/P.
    Oh for crying out loud - it's just a particle deflector that has been present on various Flanker variants almost right from the start:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...UB_cockpit.jpg

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ba4c1ee0a8.jpg

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...428c8b1b2a.jpg

    http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarou...SU-27-0015.JPG

    As for the IFF on the MKM, one look at an actual photo of that version would have told you its aerials are something entirely and very obviously different:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FQ4uhtFJ0q...7224_large.jpg

    https://su27flankerfamily.files.word...u-30mkm-19.jpg

    http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/ima...5/5/208356.jpg

  5. #3215
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Oh for crying out loud - it's just a particle deflector that has been present on various Flanker variants almost right from the start:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...UB_cockpit.jpg

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ba4c1ee0a8.jpg

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...428c8b1b2a.jpg

    http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarou...SU-27-0015.JPG

    As for the IFF on the MKM, one look at an actual photo of that version would have told you its aerials are something entirely and very obviously different:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FQ4uhtFJ0q...7224_large.jpg

    https://su27flankerfamily.files.word...u-30mkm-19.jpg

    http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/ima...5/5/208356.jpg
    At least you had been noticed that photos you posted here, but surely you did not read what I wrote before, maybe because you were already with your eyes full of tears from crying about my post.So if you think it is a simple particle deflector this is a good conclusion.

    However to show that you are right about the particle deflector that its my simple explanation about this issue: when particles has been reaching the protective dome of the IR in subsonic or supersonic air flow speedy that will creating friction with outside dome,then its friction will increase IR signature of the outside dome. So an aerodynamic deflector can reduce the air speed over the dome from IRST and that could reduce the outside temperature( IR radiation) of dome, possibly increasing the sensitivity of the IRST both with IR sensor and the laser rangefinder, in addition this deflector could avoid the occurrence of grooves by particles in the dome, which would disrupt both the IR sensitivity and the emission of the laser beam from IRST.

    Otherwise the particle deflector could have been used as heat deflector from radar dome of the Su 30MKM/SM too.

    So there are my the questions once I have doubts: Are you sure even in the Su 27 or Su 33 this device in front of the IRST are only such particle deflector either?

    If the design of the Su 30MKM particle deflector are so efficient, why it has not been used on the Su 35S?

    Does other versions of the Su-30MKK/MK2/MKI/MKA has been used this particle deflector with the same design as the Su 30MKM/SM?

    Still the designs of these devices has been show some different aspects among the photos between the Su-27 and the Su-30SM/MKM, then it could have been suggesting that the old device in the Su-27 were not effective, or this new in the Su-30SM/MKM could have other functions as an antenna.

    If you notice the photos that you posted from Su-30MKM the antennas of the French IFF has not been symmetrically distributed along the axis of the Su-30MKM, in fact these are to the left of the pilot, while the IRST and the device in front of this are on the right.

    Therefore I do not think that it is absurd that device in front of the IRST are an antenna too. In the case of Su-30MKM from Malaysia could be part of the French IFF system to extent the cover in the right side of the fighter, once that advanced IFF systems has been performing functions like ELINT.

    If you reply to this post please do not cry, since you will surely waste your tears.

  6. #3216
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,712
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    So there are my the questions once I have doubts: Are you sure even in the Su 27 or Su 33 this device in front of the IRST are only such particle deflector either?
    Occam's razor says so - there is no good indication to the contrary (you can't use the assumption that it's an aerial in later models to prove that it is anything else but a deflector in the older version, and then use that to "prove" your original hypothesis - that's circular logic).

    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    If the design of the Su 30MKM particle deflector are so efficient, why it has not been used on the Su 35S?
    I believe TR1 answered that one recently - the Su-35S IRST is made by a different manufacturer and uses a more modern, erosion resistant transparency. It doesn't need a deflector.

    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    Does other versions of the Su-30MKK/MK2/MKI/MKA has been used this particle deflector with the same design as the Su 30MKM/SM?
    Yes, all of them - do you need me to google for you again?

    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    Still the designs of these devices has been show some different aspects among the photos between the Su-27 and the Su-30SM/MKM, then it could have been suggesting that the old device in the Su-27 were not effective, or this new in the Su-30SM/MKM could have other functions as an antenna.
    The design is different because the IRST location is different - the Su-30 device is asymmetric because the IRST is offset.

    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    If you notice the photos that you posted from Su-30MKM the antennas of the French IFF has not been symmetrically distributed along the axis of the Su-30MKM, in fact these are to the left of the pilot, while the IRST and the device in front of this are on the right.

    Therefore I do not think that it is absurd that device in front of the IRST are an antenna too. In the case of Su-30MKM from Malaysia could be part of the French IFF system to extent the cover in the right side of the fighter
    IFF is typically a relatively low band like NATO L, a slight offset such as this isn't going to affect coverage much. If even the IRST itself gives acceptable coverage when offset like that, IFF isn't going to be a problem.

  7. #3217
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Occam's razor says so - there is no good indication to the contrary (you can't use the assumption that it's an aerial in later models to prove that it is anything else but a deflector in the older version, and then use that to "prove" your original hypothesis - that's circular logic).
    I agree that if there isn't any indication in the contrary, then the best hypothesis should be that device at the front of the IRST in the Su-27/33/30 are in fact a particle deflector or even heat deflector from the radar dome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    I believe TR1 answered that one recently - the Su-35S IRST is made by a different manufacturer and uses a more modern, erosion resistant transparency. It doesn't need a deflector.
    I think that the innovation that TR1 has been pointed out in replacing the glass for the crystal (eg:quartz, synthetic sapphire) in the IRST from Su-35S has been deeply associated with the best properties of light transmission (IR, laser) through the crystal dome from IRST.

    Such crystal dome could reduces the light reflection (IR, laser beam) on the outer and inner surfaces, in this case it has been reducing the loss of light( IR, laser beam) that crosses the dome, as well as reducing the refraction of light( IR, laser beam), which in turn should reduces the distortion in the capture of light( IR, laser) , in fact it allows such great improvement in IRST range and accuracy for both the IR sensor and the laser telemetry.

    In any case, the best properties of the crystal in relation to the glass also allow reducing the dome temperature gradient between the outer and the inner surface, in this case the external temperature (IR signature of the dome) could have been decreased by cooling system from IRST, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the IR sensor and its range.

    In this case I agree that a crystal could have been more resistant, then it would make this particle deflector less necessary, however this crystal dome should also be more expensive than the previous glass, and a simple particle deflector would be an aid in increasing the useful life , as well as it is possible that the Su-30SM has been also equipped with crystal dome on the IRST.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Yes, all of them - do you need me to google for you again?
    Thanks for this information, after all this has been saved me a lot of time to research and observe such detail in the Su-30.



    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    The design is different because the IRST location is different - the Su-30 device is asymmetric because the IRST is offset.
    I agree with your assessment in the case of Su-27 and Su-30, but in this case I have been noticed that MiG-29A (9.12) had been already shifted the IRST to the right like the Su-33 and Su 30 in the 90's, and in all the photos tha I have observed on Google I did not identify any particle deflector like: MiG-29A, MiG-29C, MiG-29S, MiG-29M, MiG-29K and MiG-35.

    Since the MiG-29A (9.12) from 80 it has not been equipped with particle deflector in the IRST such as the Su-35S from 2008, however I think such particle deflector to protect the IRST were quite necessary in the MiG-29A from Frontal Aviation, as it were in the Su-27S , as well as in the MiG-29K in relation to the Su-33.

    In fact, both MiG-29A ( 9.12) and Su-27S has been quite different fighters , as well as MiG-29K and Su-33, but the absence of a simple particle deflector in all MiG-29 seems to me that same has been unnecessary at all, whereas Su-27 / Su-33 / Su-30 those device has been necessary as the same had been modified over time until it has been eliminated on the Su-35S.

    In any case this is not such proof that the particulate deflector in the Su-30SM / MKM could be an antenna for some sensor of the same as IFF.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    IFF is typically a relatively low band like NATO L, a slight offset such as this isn't going to affect coverage much. If even the IRST itself gives acceptable coverage when offset like that, IFF isn't going to be a problem.
    It has been a long time since the IFF system has been added the radar antenna from fighters in the West, since this allows the IFF to obtain the same angle of view of the radar.

    In the case of the former Soviet Union the MiG-31 has been the first fighter with the IFF system integrated into the N007 radar, but the MiG 29M (radar N010) and Su-27M (N011) also introduced it in the late 1980s.

    As far as I know the IFF system has been integrated with the N011M Bars radars from Su-30SM , in the case of the Su-30MKM the option to equip with the French IFF system at the top left, it does not seem to be recommendable, since I think there is a considerable loss In the angle of view of this sensor in relation to the radar, however I do not know if the Su-30MKM has been keep the original IFF on the N011 Bars radar, anyway it seems to me that the Su 30MKM could have been equipped with both systems, while this can create an important sensor of ELINT with Su-30MKM.

  8. #3218
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    146

  9. #3219
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    https://lenta.ru/news/2017/04/15/cirkon/

    Zircon AShM speed- Mach 8 during testing.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  10. #3220
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    377
    any official design picture/image yet for Zircon :3 ?


    im curious how it looks.

  11. #3221
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthflanker View Post
    any official design picture/image yet for Zircon :3 ?


    im curious how it looks.
    I'm extremely curious as well, I know there was a "patent" showing a dual stage missile with the latter being the maneuvering part, which would match with the rumor that Zircon was dual-stage.

    I'll try to find the patent photo but I think the only real choice we have is to wait.

    EDIT: Here it is.

    Name:  02-41710.jpg
Views: 771
Size:  32.6 KB





    Grain of salt.
    Last edited by Sab3r329; 16th April 2017 at 02:45.

  12. #3222
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,100
    It's not Zircon
    Last edited by paralay; 17th April 2017 at 04:45.

  13. #3223
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,105
    Could someone identify what is the faceted system on the undernose of this Sukhoi, from the cover page of the latest review of Air International, thank you ....



    from here : http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...-issue-OUT-NOW!

  14. #3224
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    345
    Looks like a Su-30MKM, albeit in a Sukhoi in house livery (pre-production prototype, is my guess).

    In that case, that's the MAW-300 by SAAB.


  15. #3225
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,100
    For the Malaysian deal, Irkut was the main contractor, but canards, stabilizers and fins were manufactured by India’s HAL Nasik under a $25-30 million value subcontract, and India plays a role in helping the RMAF to maintain their fleet. The main difference between the MKI and MKM versions is the replacement of Indian and Israeli avionics, ECM (electronic counter-measures), and LITENING pods with Russian, French and South African equipment. This includes original Russian equipment, Thales of France’s HUD, NAVFLIR, and Damocles surveillance and targeting pod; Avitronics South Africa missile approach warning sensors and laser warning sensors. India’s SU-30MKI Mk3 is also be equipped with an on-board mechanical health-and-usage monitoring system (HUMS) from South Africa’s Aerospace Monitoring And Systems (Pty) Ltd (AMS), but there is no announced word on whether the Malaysian SU-30MKMs are equipped with a similar system

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...u30mkms-03336/

  16. #3226
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Snufflebug View Post
    Looks like a Su-30MKM, albeit in a Sukhoi in house livery (pre-production prototype, is my guess).

    In that case, that's the MAW-300 by SAAB.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    For the Malaysian deal, Irkut was the main contractor, but canards, stabilizers and fins were manufactured by India’s HAL Nasik under a $25-30 million value subcontract, and India plays a role in helping the RMAF to maintain their fleet. The main difference between the MKI and MKM versions is the replacement of Indian and Israeli avionics, ECM (electronic counter-measures), and LITENING pods with Russian, French and South African equipment. This includes original Russian equipment, Thales of France’s HUD, NAVFLIR, and Damocles surveillance and targeting pod; Avitronics South Africa missile approach warning sensors and laser warning sensors. India’s SU-30MKI Mk3 is also be equipped with an on-board mechanical health-and-usage monitoring system (HUMS) from South Africa’s Aerospace Monitoring And Systems (Pty) Ltd (AMS), but there is no announced word on whether the Malaysian SU-30MKMs are equipped with a similar system

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...u30mkms-03336/
    Thanks for quick answers gentlemen.

  17. #3227
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    345
    Three mittens:



    A Tupolev Tu-144 (s/n 77107) that's been collecting dust (and lichen) since its last flight in 1985 was finally disassembled and moved out of the Kazan Aviation Institute backyard its been sitting in for these 32 years:



    It will be put together again and renovated to become an exhibit. Cool stuff.
    Last edited by Dr.Snufflebug; 16th April 2017 at 15:23.

  18. #3228
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Snufflebug View Post
    Three mittens:


    Such a cool pic, thx.

    PS.. and arrogantly overkill on S bend air-intakes
    Thanks

  19. #3229
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Such a cool pic, thx.

    PS.. and arrogantly overkill on S bend air-intakes
    Many stealths! So low-observability!

    Funny thing is, one of the early Yak-130 protoypes (43130, borts 296 & 01, that's currently featured at the open air display at Monino) had a super stealthy chined forward fuselage too, plus these S-quacks of course. Much amazing. So steel marble.

    OK, I'll stop.

  20. #3230
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,712
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    https://lenta.ru/news/2017/04/15/cirkon/

    Zircon AShM speed- Mach 8 during testing.
    How reliable is the original source? Mach 8 cruise would be... impressive indeed. Probably a record in fact, since Zircon is generally acknowledged to be an airbreather (= definitely scramjet, at this speed) and a weapon (= almost certainly storable hydrocarbon fuel). I don't recall any other hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet achieving that kind of speed in actual flight.

  21. #3231
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    How reliable is the original source? Mach 8 cruise would be... impressive indeed. Probably a record in fact, since Zircon is generally acknowledged to be an airbreather (= definitely scramjet, at this speed) and a weapon (= almost certainly storable hydrocarbon fuel). I don't recall any other hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet achieving that kind of speed in actual flight.
    Agreed. A pinch of salt is required..
    Thanks

  22. #3232
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    How reliable is the original source? Mach 8 cruise would be... impressive indeed. Probably a record in fact, since Zircon is generally acknowledged to be an airbreather (= definitely scramjet, at this speed) and a weapon (= almost certainly storable hydrocarbon fuel). I don't recall any other hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet achieving that kind of speed in actual flight.
    TASS sourcing someone from "military industrial complex". Reliability.....Meh.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #3233
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    How reliable is the original source? Mach 8 cruise would be... impressive indeed. Probably a record in fact, since Zircon is generally acknowledged to be an airbreather (= definitely scramjet, at this speed) and a weapon (= almost certainly storable hydrocarbon fuel). I don't recall any other hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet achieving that kind of speed in actual flight.
    X-43. But yeah, Mach 8 is shifting.

  24. #3234
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    X-43. But yeah, Mach 8 is shifting.
    LH2. Very different ball game.

  25. #3235
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    First Nigerian Mi-35Ms:



    Apparently they use their transport capability:

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  26. #3236
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    Rogozin visited VASO, and in his own words, not the most pleasant conversations were had. Il-112 definitely behind initial schedule.



    Thank **** he is there to fix the situation.





    A few photos from Aerocomposite (sited @ Aviastar plant):





    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  27. #3237
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,932
    Altius!

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  28. #3238
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,660
    Is there any worthwhile specs on this UAV?
    Thanks

  29. #3239
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Is there any worthwhile specs on this UAV?
    It's powered by two aviation diesels (the model they showcased a few years ago had two German RED A03's if I recall correctly but perhaps they're domestic Russian ditto now), it's supposed to have a 40k foot service ceiling and some 48h loiter time. That's about it, I think.

  30. #3240
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    How reliable is the original source? Mach 8 cruise would be... impressive indeed. Probably a record in fact, since Zircon is generally acknowledged to be an airbreather (= definitely scramjet, at this speed) and a weapon (= almost certainly storable hydrocarbon fuel). I don't recall any other hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet achieving that kind of speed in actual flight.
    Didn't experimental variant of Kh-22 achieve Mach 6 already some 40+ years ago? Though that is of course rocket engine.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 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