Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 302

Thread: Provisional PAK-FA thread.

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,742
    Interesting.. they are talking about "navigation equipment" and "steering components on the shells".. does that mean the rounds are guided?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Does it really need them?

    We don't see Su-35 with drop tanks ever, and from Pogo:

    "While the Su-27 can do around 600-700km @ supersonic speed, the T-50 manages over 1500km at supersonic speeds. While subsonic range is close to 3500km."
    Is that range with current engine or the future Iz.30 engine?

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Interesting.. they are talking about "navigation equipment" and "steering components on the shells".. does that mean the rounds are guided?
    IMO it could be difficult to guide rounds against an aircraft depending on seeker. Laser wouldn't be a great idea, because round would start homing too early rather than leading target. IIR - very difficult to integrate on 30mm round, ditto for radar. RF CLOS I guess is doable.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    Shells with control in flight have a caliber of 57 mm and more.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    394
    Well the shell cost would rise and.. it would mean whole new ammo which... doesn't suit the logistic it seems as from what i know.. Russia use common AO-18 rounds for almost all of its 30mm autocannon

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    The shell casing/cartridge does not have to change from a older 30mm gun to a new 30mm gun.. meaning you can use both new and old ammo on the new autocanon for PakFa.
    Thanks

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Shells with control in flight have a caliber of 57 mm and more.
    I thought the smallest was 76mm presently (at least operationally).

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Yes, O.T.O. Strales and Vulcano 76mm but others are being developed.
    Still, the Italians ones are discarding sabot, fin stabilized rounds while smaller caliber would be almost surely fullbore.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 21st May 2017 at 14:52.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere
    Interesting.. they are talking about "navigation equipment" and "steering components on the shells".. does that mean the rounds are guided?
    I don't get where that (presumably Thai) blogger got that from? The Russian article it references makes no mention of any steering or anything, only about plastic shells that increase barrel longevity and make higher ROF possible.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    360
    Also, programmable-mode 30mm shells are widely available since a long time, both shells that can be set to different modes by the gunner on the fly and shells with dynamic "laser-controlled" ditto (where the laser dynamically tells the shell when exactly to airburst for instance), but no in-flight control just yet. Sounds like a bit of a stretch given the relatively minute size of 30mm shells that provides little room for control equipment (and that at the expense of their already small warhead/kinetic energy), and their very short time to target in typical usage scenarios.
    Last edited by Dr.Snufflebug; 18th May 2017 at 10:50.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    Guided 30mm shells?

    Here's an idea: fit another K-74M2 instead.
    Last edited by Rii; 18th May 2017 at 11:49.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    @Dr.Snufflebug

    In both those cases there is to deal with dimensional limits.
    Putting a guidance system in a shell under a certain caliber would be detrimental to explosive charge effectiveness.
    The same airburst mode shell are considered effective for 30-35 mm calibers only: above them is better to use a regular proximity fuse while under the 30mm the number of fragments and their terminal effect would be negligible.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    And what is the cost of putting that guidance in a bullet? If it costs the same as a missile then is it really worth it?

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan
    And what is the cost of putting that guidance in a bullet? If it costs the same as a missile then is it really worth it?
    Obviously the guidance would have to be rather rudimentary compared to that of a full-sized missile and thus cost a lot less, but again - this discussion is pretty pointless because not only have the Russians never said anything about any "guidance", it's also practically unfeasable for a host of reasons as I and others have already outlined.

    All this seems to stem from some Thai military blog that have misunderstood its sources, possibly due to bad Google translating or some such.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    +1
    Just one more blogger that is clueless

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,107
    The blogger incorrectly translated the text. On the shell appeared plastic elements to increase the survivability of the gun barrel

    https://rg.ru/2017/02/21/istrebitel-...nariadami.html

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Westren NSW, Australia
    Posts
    262
    I think the Indians are going to cut off their nose in spite of their face with the FGFA negotiations sagas.
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-...lqWG2HfOL.html

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    @Ryan.
    And what is the cost of putting that guidance in a bullet? If it costs the same as a missile then is it really worth it?
    The same because single tube artillery are still more common than MRLS.
    As a missile is basically a rocket with a guidance system, putting the same system on an artillery shell made it a missile also, just without the need to carry its own propulsion system's casing with it after launch.
    Obviously this came with heavy limitations when it came to the overall dimension of the said missiles.
    Conventional artillery actually in use come in a fairly limited number of calibers and not anyone think to call back the Jowa class into service so te field of application of this new tech is fairly limited and it's more an extension of capacity of what those artilleries actually do than an alternative to actual rocked propelled missile.
    So, a Strales 76mm round would be still be used into the same CIWS role than actual SUPERAPIDO gun mount actually perform with unguided (but extremely sophisticated the same) projectiles and the 127/155mm Vulcano rounds (and their american and russian equivalents) would be used for the same roles conventional projectiles actually do, just with vasty increased range and precision.
    An advantage of this approach is that given those artillery pieces already exist you have not to acquire a dedicated missile system to cover those roles, just made same add on to the gun mount and buy the rounds.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,752
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Westren NSW, Australia
    Posts
    262
    Could the Pak Fa be using the screen in combination with plasma stealth across it to shield the intakes and could they be left down during super cruise?


  22. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    That screen is a pressure chock ramp which depress when the jet fly supersonic. If it cover some of the compressor fan.. well its a secondary functionality.

    And FFS pls don't bring up any plasma spam.. There is none nor will it ever on PakFa.
    Last edited by haavarla; 25th May 2017 at 01:36.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    91
    Good visualization of what the shock ramps do. First saw this drawing in one of my favorite childhood books - Bill Gunston's (et al) Great Book of Modern Warplanes.
    Name:  EDiyR.jpg
Views: 1479
Size:  93.4 KB

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Westren NSW, Australia
    Posts
    262
    haavaria #143
    And FFS pls don't bring up any plasma spam.. There is none nor will it ever on PakFa.
    The reason for bringing up the plasma spam is that the gaps in the pressure ramp screen are obviously small and would not require as much power to bridge as would a whole intake.

    @ Privateer
    Thanks for the explanation. Was the Pressure ramp on the F-14 a screen or was it solid?

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,108
    Where did this image (used in that video) come from. I don't remember seeing it anywhere before.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Westren NSW, Australia
    Posts
    262
    Don't know & I always assume such images are photo shops unless shown to be otherwise. The image does illustrate how the ramp screens fit into the intake faceting though.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Westren NSW, Australia
    Posts
    262
    Freddy #145
    @ Privateer
    Thanks for the explanation. Was the Pressure ramp on the F-14 a screen or was it solid?
    The ramp on the F-14 is solid & on the T-50 it is a screen. Will the use of a screen on the T-50 instead of a solid ramp allow for it to be deployed fully at high subsonic speeds??

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    The ramp on the F-14 is solid & on the T-50 it is a screen. Will the use of a screen on the T-50 instead of a solid ramp allow for it to be deployed fully at high subsonic speeds??
    I don't think those screens on T-50 depress before it exceed Mach 1.2, and even then, it will be ever so slightly.
    They would start work more above Mach 1.5 and up.
    Thanks

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    394
    i wish we have weapon release test video soon ;w;

    you know i really want to see PAKFA release R-77-1 or everything else from its internal bay :3

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Westren NSW, Australia
    Posts
    262
    haavaria #149
    I don't think those screens on T-50 depress before it exceed Mach 1.2, and even then, it will be ever so slightly.
    They would start work more above Mach 1.5 and up.
    Then what is the advantage of having the intake ramps made as a screen instead of a normal solid one?

    I did find this from an article posted by Coolieno99 on Russiadefence.net
    "Full Afterburner" 2/6/2017
    The new phase ll airframes incorporates more features like cowling covers on engines and radar blocker meshed screen doors made of composites installed at the air intakes.
    http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/ae...th-gamechanger

    @Falcondude
    The image you were asking about is also in the article above. The author also mentions the Pak Fa as having a radar blocker like the F-18 (I think the Pak Fa uses more than one device).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 11 guests)

  1. Ivan Colorado

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