Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and Development Thread part 11

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • medal64
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2007
    • 1120

    Russia to test hypersonic missile this year

    Russian Defense Ministry to set a date first full test launches promising hypersonic missile capable of speeds up to Mach Five (about 5.8 thousand kilometers per hour). According to the newspaper "Izvestia", the tests are scheduled for July and August 2013, and will be produced at the site in Akhtubinsk Astrakhan region.

    The project to create hypersonic missile secret, so neither its code, no problems, no performance characteristics are unknown. The first test launch took place at the site in Akhtubinsk in 2012, but they can not be considered full. The inspections rocket separated from the suspension plane runs its own engine, fly a few miles to subsonic speed and landing.

    The purpose of the preliminary tests was to check the throwing of control rocket in flight and its interaction with the system start-up and on-board equipment of the aircraft carrier. In the new test launch parameters will be expanded: the rocket will carry longer flights already at hypersonic speeds, and the engine will run ammunition in several modes.

    The development of hypersonic missiles actively conducted in the USSR in the 1970s, but in the 1990s, has practically disappeared. In particular, "the NGO engineering" to develop missiles "Meteorite" and the late start of work on the machine with the code "4202". ICB "Rainbow" in 1980 launched a project GELA X-90. In the 1970s, based missile system S-200 missile was created "Cold", which was able to develop a speed of six thousand miles per hour.

    Currently, "NPO engineering" is involved in a joint development with India hypersonic cruise missile "Brahmos" is capable of speeds up to five Mach numbers. In addition, the Corporation "Tactical Missiles" is engaged in the creation of missile capable of a speed exceeding the speed of sound in the 12-13 times.

    In September last year, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that the country plans to create a "superholding" which will develop hypersonic technologies. The holding company is expected to enter the corporation TEV "NGOs engineering."

    Comment

    • Trident
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • May 2004
      • 3965

      Originally posted by haavarla View Post
      Great! Call the VVS and tell them they better cancle the Su-34 deal.
      Seriously, are the prod rate on the Su-35S any better? It has not even passed State Trials, nor has Su-30SM.
      Of course, they were developed/ordered MANY years later than the Su-34, so what do you expect? And when no common production configuration has been settled on, it is a bit hard to say the Su-34 passed trials other than on paper only.

      Originally posted by martinez View Post
      To me it is more interesting to speculate what kind of pains those Su-34 are going through. I`m just one of those technical kind of guys, not a Big-picture thinker as you seems to be, never bothered what the Russian VVS could achieve by cancelling the Su-34 while investing into Su-30 multirole, I`m just thinking it is a beautiful aircraft and it deserves to live and fly.... so keeping fingers crossed for NAPO to fix those issues ASAP.
      It's a cool looking thing to be sure, and probably the world's best aircraft for what it was designed to do, but it is also an expensive extravagance for a post-Soviet VVS and will face survivability issues early into its delayed service life. It took so long to mature that it was overtaken by events and no longer really fits the environment.
      sigpic

      Comment

      • Tu 160
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2013
        • 157

        Su 34 should have no problem with survivability and Su 34 long range air to air capability is no worse than a Su 30 and short range air to air is comparable to an Su 30 as well but Su 34 has much more powerful jamming capability.
        Su 34 is capable of M1.8+ and fighters like F35 or F18 won't be able to even intercept it effectivelly.
        Originally posted by Trident View Post
        Of course, they were developed/ordered MANY years later than the Su-34, so what do you expect? And when no common production configuration has been settled on, it is a bit hard to say the Su-34 passed trials other than on paper only.



        It's a cool looking thing to be sure, and probably the world's best aircraft for what it was designed to do, but it is also an expensive extravagance for a post-Soviet VVS and will face survivability issues early into its delayed service life. It took so long to mature that it was overtaken by events and no longer really fits the environment.
        TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

        Comment

        • haavarla
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2008
          • 6700

          Trident;1978581]Of course, they were developed/ordered MANY years later than the Su-34, so what do you expect? And when no common production configuration has been settled on, it is a bit hard to say the Su-34 passed trials other than on paper only.
          It seems to me that you blame the Su-34 design, rather than the unfortune time it was designed in.. pls try and seperate these two issues. The Su-34 was heavily delayed, but that has to do with the 90's break-up of SU.
          The Su-34 has also seen multiple requirements changes due to its long period of State Trials. A2G Weapons was also a big factors in this.
          Its nothing wrong with the Su-34 platform. But its systems and related software.


          It's a cool looking thing to be sure, and probably the world's best aircraft for what it was designed to do, but it is also an expensive extravagance for a post-Soviet VVS and will face survivability issues early into its delayed service life. It took so long to mature that it was overtaken by events and no longer really fits the environment.
          What do you know of the price of Su-34?
          For all we know, the Su-35S is even more costly, and we have seen some reports that the Su-35S is not free of its own development problems and delays..
          As i said above, the Su-34 system is the problem, not its design. If you have an open architecture driven computers, then its system can be upgraded or enhanced through later stage upgrades.

          Its a moot point attacking the Su-34 platform and role design. Its to late and unfair to compair the Su-34 with any stealth design in its class, cause there aren't any on the market, until the Pak-Da comes around. And even then its will not be in the same role and ballpark.

          The Su-34 is a formidible niche platform unit, and once they have cleared out the problems, whatever they might be. The Su-34 will serve as a good Striker unit.

          If the Su-34 is an absolete design by now is debateble but a moot point. If we go that way, then both Su-35S and Su-30SM is just as much absolete designs
          What is important is this; both Su-35S and Su-34 is not absolete for VVS requirements and role, that's what is important at the end of the day.
          Last edited by haavarla; 21st January 2013, 13:25.
          Thanks

          Comment

          • TR1
            TR1
            http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
            • Oct 2010
            • 9821

            Why have the Su-35 either, just make more Su-30s!

            RuAF invested into getting both the Su-34 (waited a long time for it!) and the Su-35, clearly because it sees the investment and their capabilities as worthwhile.
            sigpic

            Comment

            • Tu 160
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2013
              • 157

              Su 35,Su 34 and Su 30 are not stealth but very far from obsolete.
              Su 35 is more advanced and capable than the Typhoon and Rafale, F22 is stealth design but because of its many problems in still not combat dependable with more than half being not combat ready and F22 air to ground capability is negligible.
              Su 34 is the most advanced interdiction tactical strike fighter bomber in the world currently.
              Su 30 is a good mix of capabilities of Su 34 and Su 35.
              TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

              Comment

              • Snow Monkey
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Feb 2009
                • 839

                Originally posted by Trident View Post
                Alternatively the variable ramps and auxiliary doors are merely a band-aid to assure the required supercruise capability with the interim engine, to be replaced by fixed caret intakes once the definitive power plant is available.
                Originally posted by Jō Asakura View Post
                Variable intake ramps & auxiliary intakes are an integrated solution for the intake notwithstanding the incorporation of sub & supersonic flow diffusers- this is apparent in the official patent. Hence, I think one can rule out the CARET intake.
                What is really known about the intended role/service of the 'interim' engine though?
                If PAKFA will enter service with several units with this 'interim' engine, I wouldn't say that the supporting measures to enable it's performance are at all 'ad hoc' (for testing develpment only), but are in effect definitive of the first block of production PAKFA. That would justify full dedication to systems development and attendant patents.
                This kind of goes along with the question about nozzles for 2nd engine, as well as rear engine housing area.
                Performance with the 'interim' engine is supposedly meeting performance goals on it's own, so putting it into service with this engine for the first block doesn't seem problematic. That would leave the new engine architecture (possibly bringing along different related intake/exhaust systems) as a later block, essentially closer to the timeline of NGAD and later Chinese developments.
                ...???

                Comment

                • TR1
                  TR1
                  http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 9821



                  64th serial Mi-28.
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • Acatomic
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2010
                    • 121

                    Interesting video

                    Comment

                    • Belethor
                      Rank 1 Registered User
                      • Dec 2012
                      • 175

                      Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                      Su 34 is capable of M1.8+ and fighters like F35 or F18 won't be able to even intercept it effectivelly.
                      On egress it' be tricky to catch (depending on where the intercept geometry) however when ingressing it cannot go that fast due to having to carry its weaponry externally. I would imagine its limited to around Mach 1 when carrying an A-G load.

                      Comment

                      • haavarla
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 6700

                        Well, can the F-35 spot it with its jammer transmitting. Can it get a good enough vector to possible get an efficient intercept in the first place.

                        Who runs out of juce first, etc etc.
                        Thanks

                        Comment

                        • Belethor
                          Rank 1 Registered User
                          • Dec 2012
                          • 175

                          Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                          Can it get a good enough vector to possible get an efficient intercept in the first place.

                          Who runs out of juce first, etc etc.
                          That all depends on the geometry of the intercept. Sometimes you might not have a hope in hell of catching it but other times you will. Much depends on mission planning of the attacking aircraft.

                          Comment

                          • Sintra
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2007
                            • 3849

                            Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                            Su 35,Su 34 and Su 30 are not stealth but very far from obsolete.
                            Absolutely true

                            Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                            Su 35 is more advanced and capable than the Typhoon and Rafale
                            More "advanced"?! In what way? And more capable? In what way?
                            Be carefull on claims, while the SU-35 is a fantastic aircraft, the two eurocanards are entirely competitive, are flying in active sqns, have combat missions under their belt and last time ive checked the SU-35 had not entered sqn service, so claiming any kind of superiority might be a bit off the mark...

                            Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                            , F22 is stealth design but because of its many problems in still not combat dependable with more than half being not combat ready
                            Where did you got the idea that "more than half" of the Raptor fleet was not "cpmbat ready"?
                            Last time ive checked there are around fifty airframes that are not "combat coded" and are targeted for training and QRA over mainland USA, but they are more than capable to be used in anger. And by the way, the USAF fields 18X more Raptors than the VVS fields SU-35s.

                            Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                            and F22 air to ground capability is negligible.
                            Correct

                            Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                            Su 34 is the most advanced interdiction tactical strike fighter bomber in the world currently.
                            The South Koreans, the Singaporeans and even the French might disagree, with some very good reasons.

                            Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                            Su 30 is a good mix of capabilities of Su 34 and Su 35.
                            Capabilities of the SU-35?!

                            Everyone is entitled to a bit of nationalistic bragging, and undoutebly that the Flanker family is something that Russians should be proud, but dont over exagerate. Fantastic aircrafts, true, but not Luke Skywalkers X Wing.

                            Cheers
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • J-31 Burrito
                              Senior Member
                              • Nov 2012
                              • 295

                              Originally posted by Trident View Post
                              Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let's be honest, as the world's only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it's not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.

                              More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.
                              you make the most sense, too bad some people get too defensive about their favorite airplanes and try to justify its existence. The MiG-31 is one airplane everyone keeps mentioning is needed and whose role can't be replicated by another or a mix of systems, yet these same people don't oppose the T-50 which will eventually replace it and the Flanker. Standardizing on a few models doesn't seem to be going well.

                              Comment

                              • Sens
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jan 2000
                                • 12298

                                Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                                Su 34 should have no problem with survivability and Su 34 long range air to air capability is no worse than a Su 30 and short range air to air is comparable to an Su 30 as well but Su 34 has much more powerful jamming capability.
                                Su 34 is capable of M1.8+ and fighters like F35 or F18 won't be able to even intercept it effectivelly.
                                Wrong. Intercepts are head-on in general modern AAMs in mind. To stay well above Mach 1 for a dash at least the Su-34 has to be operated high-up and becomes very vulnerable in doing so. Going into burner reduces range/endurance in a severe way and will be avoided whenever possible. Whatever some people like to belief all fighters are limited to the same physic and the restrictions from that. Performance-wise nothing is for free and every fighter is the best compromise for its weapon-system and main mission whenever possible.

                                Comment

                                • haavarla
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2008
                                  • 6700

                                  Originally posted by J-31 Burrito View Post
                                  you make the most sense, too bad some people get too defensive about their favorite airplanes and try to justify its existence. The MiG-31 is one airplane everyone keeps mentioning is needed and whose role can't be replicated by another or a mix of systems, yet these same people don't oppose the T-50 which will eventually replace it and the Flanker. Standardizing on a few models doesn't seem to be going well.
                                  It has nothing to do with ones favorite jet.
                                  It has to do with common sense.
                                  The Mig-31 is a tad older vs Su-34 don't u think? So its only natural that it will eventual be replaced, but with what.. VVS have to wait for the Pak-Fa to Mature and enter a solid production line.

                                  As for the Su-34. What does it replace, the Su-24.
                                  The VVS structure was left with over 300 Su-24 after SU collapsed.
                                  There are not many baseline Su-24 left in servic, if any at all..
                                  If you think VVS can just wait for the Su-35S to finnish State Trials and finaly enter full rate production, well you have to wait until end of 2014.
                                  There is no doubt that the Su-34 is a far more suitble platform to do deep strike mission vs any Sy-35S or Su-30SM.
                                  Now stop and think about it, why do VVS see the Su-34 enter service after all these years with delays?

                                  And the Su-35S, Su-34 and Su-30SM share a lot of the same service maintanace pool. If they should ditch something it would be the Mig-29, Su-24M And all base line Su-27.

                                  As for Su-34 production rate, well NAPO did deliver 5+5 units at the and of last year. I'd say it will improve over the next years.

                                  I'd see the need for Mig-29K for RuN though..
                                  Last edited by haavarla; 22nd January 2013, 09:50.
                                  Thanks

                                  Comment

                                  • Trident
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2004
                                    • 3965

                                    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                                    It seems to me that you blame the Su-34 design, rather than the unfortune time it was designed in.. pls try and seperate these two issues. The Su-34 was heavily delayed, but that has to do with the 90's break-up of SU.
                                    I do acknowledge that the Su-34 is a great strike platform - reread my post. However, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter WHY it ran into delays and problems, the point is that in the meantime circumstances changed significantly enough to render it inefficient (as opposed to ineffective!).

                                    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                                    What do you know of the price of Su-34?
                                    For all we know, the Su-35S is even more costly, and we have seen some reports that the Su-35S is not free of its own development problems and delays..
                                    The Su-34 is going to be more expensive - count on it. It is larger, has more extensive airframe differences compared to the basic Flanker and schedule delays go hand in hand with budget overruns - just because Russia doesn't publish such figures doesn't mean cost didn't blow out. Do you think the factory re-tooling came free (BTW, despite this, fit and finish still looks pretty disappointing compared to Irkut and KnAAPO)?

                                    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                                    Its a moot point attacking the Su-34 platform and role design. Its to late and unfair to compair the Su-34 with any stealth design in its class, cause there aren't any on the market, until the Pak-Da comes around. And even then its will not be in the same role and ballpark.

                                    The Su-34 is a formidible niche platform unit, and once they have cleared out the problems, whatever they might be. The Su-34 will serve as a good Striker unit.

                                    If the Su-34 is an absolete design by now is debateble but a moot point. If we go that way, then both Su-35S and Su-30SM is just as much absolete designs
                                    It is entirely fair however to point out that a combination of multi-role Flankers and upgraded Tu-22M3/Tu-160 could have offered the same strike performance for less money and likely a lot earlier. Why spend more money on a solution that doesn't deliver a commensurate increase in capability? As you say, the problem is not so much with what the Su-34 can do as a platform, but that the project dragged on for so long that other solutions could have provided the same performance with less time and money.

                                    If it had been available 10 years ago, the picture would have been rather different, but nowadays there is no need to let an aircraft stumble into service that costs a lot more but doesn't offer a quantum leap over a Su-30SM/Su-35S. Nowadays, there is more than one way to skin the long-range strike cat, and the Su-34 is no longer the cheapest means to that end.

                                    Originally posted by TR1 View Post
                                    Why have the Su-35 either, just make more Su-30s!
                                    As I said, *ideally* it would have worked out a bit like that - the Su-30MKI should have been a joint Indo-Russian procurement programme with a lighter single-seat airframe variant for air superiority. With a production total of 500+, economies of scale would have been dramatic compared to what is now happening, with no appreciable loss in strike capability (recouped by comprehensively & quickly upgrading the bomber fleet).

                                    Originally posted by TR1 View Post
                                    RuAF invested into getting both the Su-34 (waited a long time for it!) and the Su-35, clearly because it sees the investment and their capabilities as worthwhile.
                                    That doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake - the US thought designing the F-35 to fulfill 3 conflicting roles while demanding affordability was a great idea, the UK decided to remanufacture a late-1940s design for ASW/patrol (resulting in an aircraft that was not as good but every bit as expensive as a new design), Germany fitted out its Tiger attack helos in a way that makes them unsuitable for practically any conceivable post-Cold War role and so on and so forth. The list is endless, and Russia is not exempt from making such mistakes, although the Su-34 is perhaps more innocent in how it came about than the Il-476.

                                    Now, you might argue that if everybody does it, why are such mistakes a problem for Russia? The answer is that it's by no means less of an issue for the US or Europe (about the only country which is in a position to afford that kind of waste is China), but not only is that a childish excuse, this is also the *Russian* air force thread!
                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • J-31 Burrito
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Nov 2012
                                      • 295

                                      Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                                      It has nothing to do with ones favorite jet.
                                      It has to do with common sense.
                                      The Mig-31 is a tad older vs Su-34 don't u think? So its only natural that it will eventual be replaced, but with what.. VVS have to wait for the Pak-Fa to Mature and enter a solid production line.

                                      As for the Su-34. What does it replace, the Su-24.
                                      The VVS structure was left with over 300 Su-24 after SU collapsed.
                                      There are not many baseline Su-24 left in servic, if any at all..
                                      If you think VVS can just wait for the Su-35S to finnish State Trials and finaly enter full rate production, well you have to wait until end of 2014.
                                      There is no doubt that the Su-34 is a far more suitble platform to do deep strike mission vs any Sy-35S or Su-30SM.
                                      Now stop and think about it, why do VVS see the Su-34 enter service after all these years with delays?

                                      And the Su-35S, Su-34 and Su-30SM share a lot of the same service maintanace pool. If they should ditch something it would be the Mig-29, Su-24M And all base line Su-27.

                                      As for Su-34 production rate, well NAPO did deliver 5+5 units at the and of last year. I'd say it will improve over the next years.

                                      I'd see the need for Mig-29K for RuN though..

                                      Simple, do as the US did.. take a tandem two seater heavy fighter and turn it into a striker with the right avionics upgrades. The only thing lost is the mythical toilet and microwave.

                                      Comment

                                      • haavarla
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2008
                                        • 6700

                                        Trident@
                                        About the Su-34 vs Su-35S cost. Do we have anything to go by?
                                        Thanks

                                        Comment

                                        • Tu 160
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2013
                                          • 157

                                          Su 35 is in a different class its a heavy fighter with heavy fighter capabilities while the Rafale and Typhoon are medium fighters with medium fighter capabilities about the same as a Mig 29M2. Heavy fighter capabilities are>then medium fighter capabilities. Su 35 is a much more powerful fighter and a larger fighter than the Rafale or Typhoon which are about the size and weight of Mig 29. Su 35 for instance has 2 31,900lbf engines vs only 2 17,000 lbf for the Rafale which is less than baseline old Mig 29 engines and and 20,000lbf for Typhoon which is same as Mig29M2 or Mig 29K
                                          Su 35 OLS 35 IRST is superior and more powerful to the Rafale and Typhoon OLS which are about the same in capability to old Soviet IRST on original Su 27.
                                          Su 35 Irbis E radar while Pesa as is on the earlier Typhoon, Irbis E is much larger and much much more powerful and capable then the small Rafael and Typhoon radar,Rafale and Typhoon don;t have even close to the engine power necessary to operate such a powerful radar as Irbis E on Su 35 or the Su 50 new AESA radar.
                                          Su 35 laser optical system is far superior to anything fielded on the Rafale or Tyhoon.
                                          Su 35 fuel capacity,range and payload is also much greater on Su 35 than the Rafale and Typhoon.
                                          Su 35 with thrust vectoring and 8,700 lbf more thrust than baseline Su 27 is much much more manuverable than the baseline Su 27 or the Rafael or the Typhoon.

                                          Yes you are right in that Rafale and Typhoon have very limited combat experince in Afganistan and Lybia which are cra*holes as adversaries without proper militaries but that says nothing about their capability vs Su 35, their earlier service entry is because they are earlier older systems and their electronics,computures,avionics are also older and less advanced than on the Su 35. So unfornutally for the Rafale and Typhoon they and they're capabilities are not in the same league as Su 35.
                                          Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                          Absolutely true



                                          More "advanced"?! In what way? And more capable? In what way?
                                          Be carefull on claims, while the SU-35 is a fantastic aircraft, the two eurocanards are entirely competitive, are flying in active sqns, have combat missions under their belt and last time ive checked the SU-35 had not entered sqn service, so claiming any kind of superiority might be a bit off the mark...
                                          Last edited by Tu 160; 23rd January 2013, 04:11.
                                          TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X