Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 120 of 121 FirstFirst ... 2070110116117118119120121 LastLast
Results 3,571 to 3,600 of 3626

Thread: RuAF News and development Thread part 15

  1. #3571
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Well in all the contracts for the Egyptian birds they were referred to as MiG-29M2. And of course the exterior fit, at least, seems identical to the MiG-35 prototypes to date.

    Which, barring radar, is a good thing as far as the Egyptians are concerned. Quite a more comprehensive electronics fit than MiG-29K/KUB.
    Last edited by TR1; 15th June 2017 at 18:48.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  2. #3572
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Table of the VMF helicopters and planes located @ the 72nd airbase in the Baltic. Add to this table the recently repaired Su-27UB, and two Su-30SMs:

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

  3. #3573
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,727
    Russia and Iran Cooperate on UAVs, UCAVs
    by Vladimir Karnozov
    - June 15, 2017, 9:48 AM

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ate-uavs-ucavs
    Iran is sharing its experience of operating UAVs with Russia, including three years of operations over Iraq and Syria. The cooperation started in October 2013, when Russian air force commander Gen. Victor Bondarev visited Tehran and was presented with a local copy of the Scan Eagle UAV. Both Iran and Russia have operated small UAVs over Syria, but a new dimension to Iran’s activities there became apparent on June 8, when a U.S. Air Force F-15E shot down an Iranian-made UAV “similar in size to the MQ-1 Predator.”

    This medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) vehicle was later identified as a Shahed 129 UCAV. Operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC), the drone had attacked Syrian rebels operating around At-Tanf who are trained and supported by the U.S. The Shahad 129 has a claimed range of 1,700 km and a 24-hour endurance, and can carry various air-launch munitions including guided missiles. It was not the first Iranian UAV to be shot down by rebel fire, but all previous incidents involved relatively small and inexpensive Ababil and Mohajer series drones for close-in tactical reconnaissance and surveillance.

    The Russian expeditionary forces in Syria are also operating a total of 80 small UAVs, such as the Orlan-10, Granat, Eleron, Zala-426-16 and Forpost (which is a licensed copy of the IAI Searcher Mk.2). Some time after Bondarev’s visit to Tehran, the Russian MoD stated that Iranian drones, along with those from Israel (IAI Bird Eye-400, I-View Mk150 and the like acquired in 2012), were being used for evaluation and for the training of Russian UAV operators. Recently, Russian media has reported the testing of a United 40 Block 5 UCAV with claimed 100-hour endurance that was acquired from the UAE’s Adcom Systems.

    Although there is no information on whether Moscow has acquired any MALE UCAVs from Tehran, practical experience of operating such equipment, especially in a war zone, is of great interest to the Russian military and industry as they are in the early phase of testing new drone types.

    No UCAVs are known to have entered service with the Russian military yet. RAC MiG demonstrated the Skat UCAV back in 2009, but the Russian MoD opted for proposals from other makers. In 2011 the ministry awarded contracts. Last year, Gromov’s Flight Test and Research Institute (local acronym LII) began flight trials of the Orion made by RET Kronshtadt. It has a gross weight of just over one tonne. Also undergoing testing is the five-tonne Altius-M developed by Sokol design bureau.

    Deputy defense minister, procurement, Yuri Borisov said that four Russian UCAV projects “that solve their tasks in tactical, operative and strategic depth” are nearing completion, while “we have closed down several other projects.”

    The Sukhoi design bureau has been working on heavyweight UAVs, including one with an mtow of 20 tonnes that is expected to fly next year. The Yakovlev design bureau is developing a pilotless version of the Yak-130 armed trainer.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  4. #3574
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,129
    If Okhotnik actually happens next year i will be very very surprised.

  5. #3575
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    488
    It seems that RSK MiG did not drop the M/M2 designation.
    They're also separate in RSK MiG web page. AIUI, MiG-29M has basically same avionics set as MiG-29K and -SMT, whereas MiG-35 has an improved "fifth generation" avionics set. Whatever that means, they're pretty nebulous about the details.

  6. #3576
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Berkut:

    Nice find, so is he talking about the replacement of the old push-pull rods with electro-hydraulic actuators? Wonder why they decided to go with the effort at this point.
    If they are going to such lengths, any possibility of bottom being modified for 6 missile conformal pylons? Also, is that a satcom antenna in the photo you posted?
    Why the talk of an engine upgrade, and any specifics? Another curious decision.
    Any info about the BM3 designation, or is that just for another prototype...and finally what are the chances the MiG-41 name will be tacked on to the new, fleshed out modernization?
    I have not followed the project very closely, seems pretty exciting however.

    Fresh pic of 06:
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  7. #3577
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057


    Couple of new AMTSh:



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

  8. #3578
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057


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

  9. #3579
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,727
    What are the current or future radar under works that would use Ga/N TR module ? Big Small radars for Navy Airforce and Army ?
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  10. #3580
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,129
    If they are going to such lengths, any possibility of bottom being modified for 6 missile conformal pylons? Also, is that a satcom antenna in the photo you posted?
    Why the talk of an engine upgrade, and any specifics? Another curious decision.
    Any info about the BM3 designation, or is that just for another prototype...and finally what are the chances the MiG-41 name will be tacked on to the new, fleshed out modernization?
    I have not followed the project very closely, seems pretty exciting however.
    I will be very very surprised if they modified the belly to fit 6 missiles. If they wanted to stick on more R-37M's on it, pylons would be the way to go. The wings are designed to handle such weight considering fuel tanks and Kh-58/Kh-31 they tried to stick on original BM. Satcom would be my guess too, but yours is just as good as mine. As to MiG-41 designation, very unlikely imho. He used BM2 himself previously and said he didnt remember the izd designation. BM2 would be more likely. I would assume they are uprating the engines (i mean, it was done for 31M so) but i have no idea what to think about the "new" radar.

  11. #3581
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    389
    i guess.. we won't see the 1.4 m Zaslon M aperture on BM-2 eh ?

  12. #3582
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,727
    Interview with Russian Airforce Chief Viktor

    Taking into account the combat experience


    http://redstar.ru/index.php/2011-07-...-boevogo-opyta
    - Viktor, at what rate will continue to supply new technology in the VCS?

    - In accordance with the state program of armaments Aerospace forces receive a sufficient number of aircraft and helicopters. To 2025 will be updated fleet of aircraft up to 80-90 percent. Thus serviceability bring home up to 95 percent. This also applies to military aircraft and anti-aircraft missile troops, radar troops, as well as spacecraft.

    - Is it true that the pattern in which the PAK FA several moves to the right?


    - We do not need a party of two or three cars, and much more. We want to get as many planes that could complement their squadron. And then gradually increase the number of planes required to thereby attain a qualitatively new level.

    - What is the situation with the strategic bombers Tu-160m2?


    - Here we are on schedule. It is planned that the first aircraft will fly reproduced in March next year. We hope that our long-range aviation in the future will receive three to four aircraft per year.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  13. #3583
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,790
    Wut!? 3-4 Tu-160 a year?? Is not even with the overhaul Airframe can they reach that.. this is bs
    Thanks

  14. #3584
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,461
    Why not?
    It's an huge plane but it's still a plane, if the plant is big enought to handle it and there is enough money allocated why producing/overhauling 3/4 four-engined 110 tons bombers each year would be more complicated than 50 twin engined Flanker/ Fullbacks like actually happen?
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 19th June 2017 at 19:24.

  15. #3585
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Minor event coming up - 100th Su-30SM will soon fly.

    Nice pic of another SM, and the MS-21 with landing gear raised:

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

  16. #3586
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Hmmmm.

    http://www.ato.ru/content/ilyushin-v...link=mai&pos=4

    Il and Pratt& Whitney Canada have signed a memorandum to began studying the fitting of the PW127H engines to the Il-114.

    https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/6/20/9001/

    20 L-410s are planned to be produced domestically by 2020.
    Last edited by TR1; 20th June 2017 at 08:21.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  17. #3587
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkut
    I will be very very surprised if they modified the belly to fit 6 missiles. If they wanted to stick on more R-37M's on it, pylons would be the way to go.
    Yeah, I wouldn't bet it's a feasible modification without some structural changes to the airframe. Otherwise, it probably would have been considered for the original BM upgrade.

    I can't find any bottom fuselage shots of the 051 Blue, but I don't see any mention of it being modified to fit 6 missiles either so probably only the new built M airframes have those.

  18. #3588
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,129
    Well, i didnt say they will be doing it. I said it would be easier/better to do it that way than modifying the whole underside. And as said, clearly the wings are structurally up for it since original BM could carry Kh-58/Kh-31 not to mention fuel tanks. They didnt consider it for BM because that upgrade was more aimed towards ground capability. Either way, more missiles is pure speculation for BM2.

    051 was a frankenstein between vanilla and M as i remember it, so yeah, probably normal belly.

  19. #3589
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    https://lenta.ru/news/2017/06/20/byelorussian/

    Belarus is buying 12 Su-30SM.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  20. #3590
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,790
    Have they recieved any so far?
    Thanks

  21. #3591
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    No, but rumors floated earlier, now it seems concrete.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  22. #3592
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,790
    Right.. so that is 6+6 Yak-130 and 12 SM'S.
    Any idea if Belarus will ditch the Migs in their Inventory?
    Thanks

  23. #3593
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Aviadarts:



















    Unrelated but neat photo:

    Last edited by TR1; 20th June 2017 at 22:47.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  24. #3594
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    331
    No, but rumors floated earlier, now it seems concrete.
    A preliminary contract had been signed on February 2016.

    Any idea if Belarus will ditch the Migs in their Inventory?
    It is too early to say, but the link provided by TR1 states that the Su-30SMs will replace the Mig-29s. I always found the decission to acquire Su-30 a bit strange. Belarus has an upgrade for the MiG-29, and the extra range of the Flanker is not really worth it. Earlier Su-27 were retired because of lack of spares and

    New MiG-29M2s/35Ms could have done the job.
    History and Military Technology blog

    alejandro-8en.blogspot.com

  25. #3595
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    They are also buying Protvnik-GE radars:

    https://www.belnovosti.by/politika/b...u-protivnik-ge

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

  26. #3596
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkut View Post
    Well, i didnt say they will be doing it. I said it would be easier/better to do it that way than modifying the whole underside. And as said, clearly the wings are structurally up for it since original BM could carry Kh-58/Kh-31 not to mention fuel tanks. They didnt consider it for BM because that upgrade was more aimed towards ground capability. Either way, more missiles is pure speculation for BM2.

    051 was a frankenstein between vanilla and M as i remember it, so yeah, probably normal belly.


    In fact, the Kh-58/Kh-31 missiles were added with prototype MiG-31F in the 80's or even the MiG-31BM in the 2000's, still the MiG-31B/BS/Dz had been equipped with up 06 BRV( Beyond Visual Range) with SARH( Semi Active Radar Homing) and IRH( Infra Red Homing) missiles: 04 R-33 (490 Kg) SARH missiles on the ventral supports and 02 R-40 IRH or SARH missiles (675 Kg) on ​​the wing pylons, however after 2010 the R-40 were removed from service.

    While the MiG-31M these could have been equipped with up 10 BRV with ARH ( Active Radar Homing) missiles: 06 R-37 (600 kg) missiles on the ventral support and 04 R-77 (RVV-AE) on the pylons on the wings.

    However, the MiG-31M never went into service since the program had been canceled in 1994 after the construction of 07 prototypes while another 03 prototypes were left unfinished since1992, when in fact the program were suspended due to lack of financial resources.

    Such fact about MiG-31M were that two prototypes (Blue 056 and 057) had been used in the development of the R-37 missile until 1998, in fact in the 90s those missiles were improved into version R-37M , whereas none R-77 missile (RVV-AE ) should have been tested by MiG-31M until 1998.

    The curious explanation for this fact would that: it will be the futility testing the R-77 with MiG-31M, once the only versions available from R-77 could not support the tactical conditions (flies under extended time in Mach 2) with MiG-31 (B/BS/M), as well as the R-77 would not be able to exploit the kinetic advantages (Mach 2.5 velocity and altitude of 20,000 m) from MiG-31 at the launch of the missiles, since the available version of the R-77 in the 90's will not withstand the thermal and mechanical stresses with such extended range by more than 50% due at the MiG-31.

    Just like it had been happened with the anti-radiation missile Kh-58 that equipped the former MiG-25BMs in the 80s, once it was necessary to develop a specific version of the Kh-58 to equip the MiG-25BM. The same principle has been applied with MiG 31, then to equip the MiG-31 with R-77 it has been necessary to develop a specific version of R-77 , other wise it would be necessary to limit the performance of MiG-31. Anyway, it were not possible in the 1990s to create this new version of the R-77 due to the lack of resources for this.

    The MiG-31BM program has been launching since1999 , it has been announced that MiG-31BM/BSM will be equipped with a specific version of R-77 (RVV-AE) and later the R 77-1 (RVV-SD), so it would be like 08 BRV missiles : 04 R-37M in the ventral support and up 04 R-77 in the wing pylons.

    Speculations could have been suggest a range of over 160 km for the R-77-1 with the MiG-31BM / BSM, or even up to 200 km, in this case only as comparative R-33 with SARH ( Semi active radar homing) has a range limited to 125 km.

    Another rumor that has been emerged few years later could indicate that the MiG-31BM will be equipped with a version of R-77-1 with folding fins, then 02 missiles R 77 could be transported in place of 01 R-33 or R-37M in the ventral supports, which could total Up to 08 R-77-1 instead of 04 R-37M. This supposed fordable version of the R 77-1 could have been proposed to decrease the aerodynamic drag while it has been mounted on the wing pylons from MiG 31 too, in this case the MiG 31BM could be equipped with up to 12 R-77-1, or a combination between : R-37M, R-77-1 and R-74 (short range WVR).

    However, the simple addition in tactical condition's from 02 R-77-1 with 04 R-37M should be formidable increasing about the capabilities of MiG-31BM / BSM while it has been compared to MiG-31B / BS with 04 R-33, once the R-77-1 does not decrease significantly the performance of MiG-31BM in the wing pylows.

    After reading the post from Berkut about the suppose MiG 31BM2 maybe another possibility instead of adding those supports for 02 R-37M (600 kg) with hydraulic actuators in the belly of the MiG 31BM / BSM, that same place could be used to carry 02 pylons more simple for the R 77-1 (175 kg) between the 04 R 37M , In this case we would have 06 BRV missiles (04 R-37M and 02 R-77-1) in the belly of the MiG 31BM, without even using the wing pylons.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if the MiG-31M had been used hydraulic actuators for those additional 02 R-37M in the center of the belly , this system has been necessary with the 04 semi-conformable supports of the R-33 from MiG-31B/BS/Dz as well with R-37 from MiG 31M, since those missiles can be launched at the Mach 2.5 velocity from MiG-31.

    If it is not necessary to install supports with hydraulic actuators to add 02 R-37M in the MiG-31BM / BMS, then it would more feasible once it make necessary only pylons in the center of the fuselage, although that each R-37M missile has been described with mass of 600 kg and this must be added with aerodynamic drag at speeds of Mach 2.5 from MiG-31.

    Interesting times that we are living in these days, just like it has been supremely interesting to observe the photos taken during the modernization of the MiG-31BM with apparent consent, still the information's about the MiG-31 has been remained as hazy as it were in the 80's.

  27. #3597
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Bad couple of days for Yak-130s:

    Emergency landing after nose gear retraction failure:



    And another incident, unsure of details:





    New frame for Myanmar:

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

  28. #3598
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,057
    Interesting filter effect:



    So looks like Belarus is getting 12 Su-30SMs over 3 years.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  29. #3599
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    135 metres from Boscombe Down
    Posts
    1,901
    What is the frame over the front pilot's head inside the cockpit?
    If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!

  30. #3600
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,129
    Interesting filter effect = literally cancer.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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