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
  • Flanker_man
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 3679

    Originally posted by TR1 View Post
    http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=1...&postcount=172

    Some nice photos of Hellducks @ Baltimor.
    Bort Red 02 is the first one I have seen with APU & wing fences that isn't camouflaged aubergine......

    Or am I forgetting ??? (it's an age thing!)

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

    Comment

    • paralay
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2005
      • 1409

      Originally posted by Dr.Snufflebug View Post
      So why on earth do the Russians nowadays call Voronezh-B Балтимор/Baltimor? Is there any historical reason for this? Was it coined recently, for fun? Or is the name completely unrelated to the Irish and English ones?
      Meaning of the word in modern Russian, is not obvious. I would translate it as the "Dance of Death". "Baltimore" - radio call sign of the airfield "Voronezh-B"
      Last edited by paralay; 21st March 2013, 16:42.

      Comment

      • Berkut
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2011
        • 2216

        Originally posted by Flanker_man View Post
        Or am I forgetting ??? (it's an age thing!)

        Ken
        You are It was delivered with 05 and 10 and is the only frame with APU+Fences and in camo.

        Comment

        • HappyFag
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2009
          • 21

          Originally posted by paralay View Post
          I would translate it as the "Dance of Death".
          Hah-hah-hah
          That's hilarious.

          Балтимор/Baltimor is a Russian abreviation of Балтийское море/Baltic sea.

          Comment

          • paralay
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2005
            • 1409

            You're absolutely right!
            This word can also mean: "a person who lives on the shore of the Baltic Sea." In the modern Russian language - "Прибалт"
            Last edited by paralay; 21st March 2013, 19:46.

            Comment

            • Curious
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Feb 2004
              • 367

              I was wondering whether IL-76 used for AWACS are modified to reduce the excess weight and strength which would be built in the normal aircraft for rough field performance and for carrying heavy density loads??

              Comment

              • sheytanelkebir
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Feb 2013
                • 783

                I always found the choice of Il76 strange for AWACS work, a converted airliner would have been a better choice IMHO... but the Il76 seems to be popular with everyone for AWACS and a whole load of other things.

                Comment

                • Trident
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2004
                  • 3965

                  It is popular only with those who have (for whatever reason, generally in some way political in nature) no better alternative.
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • haavarla
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2008
                    • 6695

                    The Il-76 does have a wide body and high lift wing configuration compaired to other Airframesout on the Market. So there might be some Cons following it as AWACS role.
                    But has by now proved itself far beyond the roles that Ilyushin design bureau dreamed of.. it started out as a medium Cargo Hauler.

                    With the new engines and other improvments, it should be more than enough for AWACS role.

                    Even with the old A-50 airframe, they manage to shedd off several tones with the A-50U upgrade. Proves there is room for further enhancment on new build airframes.

                    Edit:
                    Besides, if there only is a marginal market for A-50/100, why go the extra billions to design a new AWACS, when you can get one on the cheap Brilliant and sober solution.
                    Last edited by haavarla; 23rd March 2013, 14:49.
                    Thanks

                    Comment

                    • Curious
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Feb 2004
                      • 367

                      Soviets/Russia had/have a number of Civilian Airliners, so using the IL-76 design for AWACS does seem odd. Also there is no easily available open source info to indicate that they got rid of excess weight from IL-76 platform for its use as AWACS. Indians seem to be looking for western platform to replace IL-76 for future AWACS. IL-76 would have heavy landing gear, re-enforced floor and high wing set up which would add to range penalties.
                      Last edited by Curious; 23rd March 2013, 18:00.

                      Comment

                      • Rii
                        Rii
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2010
                        • 3449

                        Rough field capability? Shorter take-off roll? Logistics commonality? Have to remember that Russia designs for real war, not NATO-style white collar 9-5 'war'.
                        Last edited by Rii; 23rd March 2013, 18:13.

                        Comment

                        • TR1
                          TR1
                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                          • Oct 2010
                          • 9817

                          X2 Rii.
                          sigpic

                          Comment

                          • Trident
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2004
                            • 3965

                            Originally posted by Rii View Post
                            Rough field capability? Shorter take-off roll? Logistics commonality? Have to remember that Russia designs for real war, not NATO-style white collar 9-5 'war'.
                            If we limit ourselves to Russia, the Il-76 was chosen as an AEW platform on two occasions, first back in the 1970s and just recently. There is no indication that rough-field capability or STOL figured prominently as criteria in either selection, this seems to be largely a case of rationalising by Western sources. They appeared to be asking themselves, "Why would you pick the C-141 over the 707 for AEW?", thereby completely ignoring that the Soviets did not really have anything that would have been as suitable as the 707.

                            The fact of the matter is, in the 1970s the Soviet Union chose the Il-76 according to conventional metrics as applied in the West - given the same airframe options, the outcome would have been no different this side of the Iron Curtain. More to the point, if Russia had selected the successor to the A-50 by those criteria, they would NOT have ended up with the Il-(4)76 but the Il-96.

                            So how did the Il-476 acquire the AEW role again? My guess is that it was politics - the (specious) commonality argument provided welcome ammunition to bolster the weak case against the far more capable An-70 in favour of the Il-476 for the transport role.
                            Last edited by Trident; 24th March 2013, 00:06.
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • Trident
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2004
                              • 3965

                              Originally posted by Curious View Post
                              Soviets/Russia had/have a number of Civilian Airliners, so using the IL-76 design for AWACS does seem odd.
                              They do today, but back in the 1970s nothing they had (and was not compromised by other considerations) could beat the Il-76 even in terms of range and endurance, strange though that may seem.

                              Il-86? Delayed too long in development and actually demonstrated range performance no better than the Il-76. Even so it must have been a fairly close call, it did (later) get selected along with the Il-76 for the rather similar airborne command post role. Tu-154? Too small and short-ranged. Il-62? Same, just not quite as bad - certainly any range advantage it had in airliner form over the Il-76 would evaporate immediately once it was loaded down with 20 tons of radar equipment. Tu-95/114/142 or An-22? Excellent in theory, but the props had already proved incompatible with radar clutter-requirements on the Tu-126. Tupolev went so far as to propose a D-30 turbofan powered derivative with a Tu-154 cockpit section, but the Soviet military sensibly (and in noteworthy agreement with Western practice!) insisted on a platform that was in mass production. M-4? Well, the "in production" requirement kind of excludes it too, and where would you put the radar operators anyway?

                              Given the above, why would you NOT use the Il-76 even if you couldn't care less about STOL and rough-field capabilities?

                              As for why the Il-96 was shunned when it became time to settle on a successor, it just goes to show that it is a fallacy to believe Russian military procurement is immune to spectacular mistakes brought about by political factors.
                              Last edited by Trident; 24th March 2013, 00:08.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • JSR
                                JSR
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2011
                                • 4976

                                Originally posted by Rii View Post
                                Rough field capability? Shorter take-off roll? Logistics commonality? Have to remember that Russia designs for real war, not NATO-style white collar 9-5 'war'.
                                strong airframe to carry heavy weight antenna. The Antenna on IAF A-50EI is biggest i think for this size of aircraft. you dont want too long aircraft that create hinderance in war time airbase. no need for extensive aerodynamic testing on new plane.
                                Common cockpit design with IL-476 transport. so much larger pool of pilots and more reduce maintainance cost. It is spacious aircraft without being slow.

                                Comment

                                • TR1
                                  TR1
                                  http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                  • Oct 2010
                                  • 9817

                                  http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2...799_34%201.jpg

                                  Not something you see every day, MiG-31BM with IRST deployed.
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

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

                                    How many Mig 29K are planned to be manufactured for Russian Navy this year?
                                    TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

                                    Comment

                                    • blackwood
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2011
                                      • 314

                                      So the contract for Su-35s seems to be true after all. Lots of yes no yes no on this topic. Only buying 24 of them, but that is a start. Whats others thoughts on this

                                      Comment

                                      • TR1
                                        TR1
                                        http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                        • Oct 2010
                                        • 9817

                                        I'm waiting for confirmation.

                                        I was convinced as soon as that Rosoboronexport official made an official statement during a Chinese airshow, that talks had been underway. Was unclear if they ever came to fruition though.
                                        sigpic

                                        Comment

                                        • TR1
                                          TR1
                                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                          • Oct 2010
                                          • 9817

                                          http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...0&d=1364047557

                                          Interesting little chart.
                                          Confirms that that Vietnam is joining the list of Yak-130 and Pantsir-S1 exports.
                                          Further I did not know Vietnam bought Buk and S-300PMU2.

                                          Pretty comprehensive stuff all in all.
                                          sigpic

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X