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

    Earlier it was reported that VVS is going back from the bluish grey monotone paint scheme to the previous lighter blue camo as on Su 35 01-04 and other variations but latest production units from all plants are still coming out in the bluish grey monotone paint scheme so the reverse to previous camo was a rumor?
    Also when will the new planned pre 1943 style all red star going to be implemented?
    TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

    Comment

    • FoxbatRU
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2010
      • 31

      Old car. Su-25 taxies to the takeoff position, for fulfilment of night sortie. Underneath the wing two fuel drop tanks (2x800 litres) and two 20-round pods (B-8M1) of 80-mm folding fin unguided rockets (S-8).

      Comment

      • a89
        a89
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Sep 2011
        • 376

        Russian Air Force has approved new strategic bomber configuration, which will be designed by Tupolev. It will be a stealth flying wing. It will not be supersonic. This was mentioned a few months ago as an issue because NK-32 engines are no longer in production and it will take years to restablish production line.

        http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/3/5/1552/
        History and Military Technology blog

        alejandro-8en.blogspot.com

        Comment

        • Rii
          Rii
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2010
          • 3449

          ^ I am surprised about the subsonic decision tbh. T-50 had seemed to indicate that Russia did not have faith in VLO alone as a 'silver bullet' solution. Further, I would have thought that the Russian '80% of the capability for 30% of the cost' approach would preclude the ability to reliably penetrate sophisticated IADS and loiter and would thus favour a 'shoot and scoot' model which would in turn favour supersonic design. Finally, I would've thought it would be quite advantageous to have a bomber that was faster in many cases than fighters sent to intercept it.

          Originally posted by Austin View Post
          Whats good about this new shelters ?
          Originally posted by TR1 View Post
          It exists.
          This is funnier than it should be.
          Last edited by Rii; 5th March 2013, 14:40.

          Comment

          • Jō Asakura
            多聞天
            • Jan 2011
            • 1302

            Why? It's just the Russian version of the USAF's NGB. I'm still not totally convinced if anything will come of the Russian next generation bomber, given that they already have credible seaborne and land based nuclear delivery systems, it seems like an incredible waste of money.

            This stealth bomber has more to do with the T-50 than you may think, particularly regards RAM and the engines ('Type 30' derivative).I'm not sure about the 80/30% capability-price ratio. IIrc, that was a figure last used by MiG chiefs in a flawed comparison with the F-22, when they were desperately trying to sell the MiG 1.44 programme to the Yeltsin government.

            I don't think speed is an issue as it will have hypersonic missiles, like an air-launched version of 'BrahMos 2'.

            In other news, yesterday Pogosyan stated that MiG and Sukhoi design teams are collaborating on a strike UCAV:

            http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/03/05/250468.html
            sigpic

            Comment

            • Rii
              Rii
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2010
              • 3449

              Originally posted by Jō Asakura View Post
              Why? It's just the Russian version of the USAF's NGB. I'm still not totally convinced if anything will come of the Russian next generation bomber, given that they already have credible seaborne and land based nuclear delivery systems, it seems like an incredible waste of money.
              NGB isn't about nuclear deterrence but rather about China where a mere 20 B-2s aren't going to cut it in conducting strikes against the mainland. As a nuclear deterrent alone both NGB and PAK DA would be a waste of money when SSBNs already cover that so effectively, but the bombers are far more flexible than that.

              I do question whether Russia needs another Tu-160 class aircraft given that theatres of interest are relatively nearby in China, Central Asia, Middle East, Balkans, etc. It seems to me that an aircraft between Backfire and B-1 size would be sufficient and that lack of extreme range/endurance requirement further reinforces the case for a supersonic design.

              I'm not sure about the 80/30% capability-price ratio. IIrc, that was a figure last used by MiG chiefs in a flawed comparison with the F-22, when they were desperately trying to sell the MiG 1.44 programme to the Yeltsin government.
              The exact numbers don't matter, just the general concept. Russia has sensibly refrained from investing in areas of marginal return. The lack of frameless canopy on T-50 is a good example of this conservative approach. I think we can all agree that avoiding B-2/F-22 like nightmare in terms of cost and maintenance requirements is in Russia's interest.
              Last edited by Rii; 6th March 2013, 03:53.

              Comment

              • JSR
                JSR
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2011
                • 4978

                Originally posted by Rii View Post
                .

                I do question whether Russia needs another Tu-160 class aircraft given that theatres of interest are relatively nearby in China, Central Asia, Middle East, Balkans, etc. It seems to me that an aircraft between Backfire and B-1 size would be sufficient and that lack of extreme range/endurance requirement further reinforces the case for a supersonic design.
                hypersonic missiles will reduce the need for speed. but more important is developing space-sensor network that will give more time to respond so less need for last minute quick dash.


                The exact numbers don't matter, just the general concept. Russia has quite sensibly refrained from investing significantly in areas of marginal return. The lack of frameless canopy on T-50 is a good example of this conservative approach. I think we can all agree that avoiding B-2/F-22 like nightmare in terms of unit and maintenance cost is in Russia's interest.
                frameless canopy maynot be strong enough for T-50 speed without alot of weight. and this bomber speed reduction is old news and Putin himself said task is scientifically challenging. He never said that developing Pak-FA is challenge. so i presume it is more advanced.

                http://weapons.technology.youngester...ll-not-be.html
                PAK-DA, currently under development, will not be hypersonic, Lt. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
                The first prototype PAK-DA is due to enter service around 2020, he added
                In June, President Vladimir Putin ordered initial development of the new long-range bomber for strategic aviation. Speaking during a conference on defense orders, Putin said: We have to develop work on the new PAK-DA long-range bomber aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. The task is not easy from a scientific-technical standpoint, but we need to start work.

                Comment

                • Rii
                  Rii
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 3449

                  Originally posted by JSR View Post
                  and this bomber speed reduction is old news and Putin himself said task is scientifically challenging. He never said that developing Pak-FA is challenge. so i presume it is more advanced.
                  I agree with the quote that hypersonic should be out the window on cost/risk grounds, but Mach 1.4 supercruise / 2.3 dash doesn't strike me as unreasonably ambitious and would be enough to provide useful advantages over subsonic design when facing e.g. F-35. And it certainly strikes me as a more impressive use of the mighty Type 30 engine than a Russian B-2.
                  Last edited by Rii; 6th March 2013, 06:43.

                  Comment

                  • JSR
                    JSR
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2011
                    • 4978

                    Originally posted by Rii View Post
                    Well I certainly agree that hypersonic should be out the window on cost/risk grounds, but Mach 1.4 supercruise / 2.3 dash doesn't strike me as unreasonably ambitious and would be enough to provide useful advantages over subsonic design when facing e.g. F-35. And it certainly strikes me as a more impressive use of the mighty Type 30 engine than a Russian B-2.
                    subsonic low g platform will be lighter and more longer life. so ability to carry more fuel/weopon load and hence more loiter time. loiter time is the most important criteria as you want significant strike capability patrolling continously for target of oppurtunity with most powerfull sensors/weopons. for example Fighter/tranport/air refueler aircraft on runway or launching barrage of missile on ships/sam installations.
                    Tu-22/Tu-160 are sufficient after there upgrades. I am not sold on stealth fighter planes concept as stealth fighters are too small for strike weopon carriage and too short range

                    Comment

                    • ink
                      ink
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 3575

                      I have to say I'll be sorely disappointed if the PAK-DA ends up being a sub-sonic intra-continental bomber, more like a Backfire replacement than a Blackjack replacement. If you're going to make a strategic bomber it needs to be able to threaten all of your potential strategic threats and for Russia that means the continental US.

                      Ideally, PAK-DA should be able to fulfil the following roles:

                      1. Strategic nuclear deterrent (whether this is with cruise missiles or not is immaterial) - able to threaten any strategic opponent in the northern hemisphere
                      2. Tactical nuclear strike - for those times when harsh language doesn't get the message across
                      3. Long-range maritime strike/interdiction (nuclear or conventional)
                      4. Precision tactical strike (in low and mid intensity conflicts such as with Georgia or any of the other potential upstarts in Russia's near abroad)
                      5. Bomb truck (guided/unguided) for low-tech, low-intensity conflicts such as the US intervention in Afghanistan - this last requirement is the least necessary in my opinion but USAF B-52s did a wonderful job and there's no reason not to emulate that

                      Obviously, that's a big ask but make it survivable and give it a great big payload and you've done half the job. A whishy-washy, medium range, subsonic stealth platform with a tiny bomb bay will be a disappointment. The RuAF needs a Bear and Blackjack replacement.
                      Last edited by ink; 6th March 2013, 13:09.
                      Regards, Ivan

                      Comment

                      • obligatory
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 7043

                        "5. Bomb truck (guided/unguided) for low-tech, low-intensity conflicts such as the US intervention in Afghanistan - this last requirement is the least necessary in my opinion but USAF B-52s did a wonderful job and there's no reason not to emulate that"

                        Whats wrong with Tu-95 ? you cant get it cheaper

                        Comment

                        • Rii
                          Rii
                          Senior Member
                          • Oct 2010
                          • 3449

                          Originally posted by ink View Post
                          If you're going to make a strategic bomber it needs to be able to threaten all of your potential strategic threats and for Russia that means the continental US.
                          That's what ICBMs and SSNs are for.

                          Comment

                          • ink
                            ink
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 3575

                            That's what ICBMs and SSNs are for.
                            Partly, yes. All out nuclear war can, however, be more complex than that and maintaining a diversified deterrent is worthwhile. Otherwise Northrop Grumman wouldn't have needed to bother designing the B-2 in the 1980s (when ICBMs and SSBNs were already well established elements of the US arsenal).
                            Regards, Ivan

                            Comment

                            • Rii
                              Rii
                              Senior Member
                              • Oct 2010
                              • 3449

                              Originally posted by ink View Post
                              Partly, yes. All out nuclear war can, however, be more complex than that and maintaining a diversified deterrent is worthwhile. Otherwise Northrop Grumman wouldn't have needed to bother designing the B-2 in the 1980s (when ICBMs and SSBNs were already well established elements of the US arsenal).
                              So ... you foresee the need (if ever there was such) for Cold War-level nuclear antagonism between United States and Russia? The ability to erase most of the country isn't enough, one needs to make sure that capability is robust enough that it can't be degraded by ABMs etc. to merely killing 100 million people or so?

                              For what it's worth I think US should get rid of its land-based missiles too. The nuclear triad is a relic of a thankfully by-gone era.

                              Comment

                              • JSR
                                JSR
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2011
                                • 4978

                                Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                "5. Bomb truck (guided/unguided) for low-tech, low-intensity conflicts such as the US intervention in Afghanistan - this last requirement is the least necessary in my opinion but USAF B-52s did a wonderful job and there's no reason not to emulate that"

                                Whats wrong with Tu-95 ? you cant get it cheaper
                                5G engine power for all those electronics/radar and large internal bays for saturation attack. Much higher uptime for continous operations.
                                I still think it will be supercruise or high subsonic. This thing has very strong support for obvious reasons. Airforce equipment budget increased to 5T rubles from 4T rubles untill 2020.

                                http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/pak-da/
                                “If we don’t start promptly, I have the time frames for completing separate elements of this program in mind, we could miss the chance, because it’s impossible to extend the service life periods of existing equipment forever.”

                                Comment

                                • ink
                                  ink
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 3575

                                  So ... you foresee the need (if ever there was such) for Cold War-level nuclear antagonism between United States and Russia? The ability to erase most of the country isn't enough, one needs to make sure that capability is robust enough that it can't be degraded by ABMs etc. to merely killing 100 million people or so?
                                  Pretty much!

                                  The Cold War is over, this is true. Its end was, however, sudden and unforeseen. Relationships between powers can change quickly and nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. Besides, the US is still by far the world's most potent military power, has a history of using said power beyond its borders and, as though that were not enough, is still working on ballistic missile shields that could one day, theoretically, make it immune to a counter strike.

                                  If I was directing Russian defence policy, I wouldn't take my eye off the US for a second.
                                  Regards, Ivan

                                  Comment

                                  • mack8
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2009
                                    • 2114

                                    Some nice shots from LII
                                    K/KUB
                                    http://russianplanes.net/id100117
                                    http://russianplanes.net/id100071
                                    http://russianplanes.net/id100066

                                    9-53 testing the Super Fulcrum's CHFL dispensers.
                                    http://russianplanes.net/id100111
                                    --------------
                                    NO to NATO
                                    NO to WAR!

                                    Comment

                                    • Geo
                                      Geo
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2007
                                      • 67

                                      Originally posted by mack8 View Post
                                      Nice! Thank you, mack8

                                      Comment

                                      • Berkut
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Nov 2011
                                        • 2216

                                        Originally posted by mack8 View Post
                                        9-53 testing the Super Fulcrum's CHFL dispensers.
                                        http://russianplanes.net/id100111
                                        Not only that, look closer.

                                        Comment

                                        • DrPepper
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Aug 2010
                                          • 290

                                          Has the RuNavy started taking delivery of the KUB yet? Is will be this year correct?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X