Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (1 members and 13 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Marcellogo
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2014
    • 1838

    Originally posted by Austin View Post
    Developers defined preliminary design of a new strategic bomber

    https://rns.online/military/Razrabot...sa-2017-02-23/
    Help!
    Saying something like this:
    This strategic bomber, and operational-tactical missile bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for spacecraft launches

    Means that the various design bureaux are actually working to four different models?

    In the case being, the strategic bomber is the PAK-DA, the long range interceptor is the so called MiG-41 but about the other two? With the platform for spacecraft launches I can figure a variant of the long rang interceptor but the same definition operational-tactical missile bomber puzzles me...

    Also because they said that the PAK-DA would take also the place of Tu-22M3.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 24th February 2017, 23:33.

    Comment

    • Rii
      Rii
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2010
      • 3449

      Well if they are going to re-start Tu-160 production, might as well make PAK DA a smaller flying wing powered by 2x NK-32 sans afterburner. That would give it about as much thrust as a B-2, probably with better SFC courtesy of higher bypass ratio.

      Comment

      • medo
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2010
        • 326

        [QUOTE=TR1;2376585]I am curious as to what setting the 10% fuel consumption reduction is at.

        [url]http://diana


        Considering, that production of Russian helicopters didn't went down, this only means that Russia produce more and more engines domestically.

        Comment

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

          they built new plant 50,000 sqm.

          http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/3/2017/1/24/123/print/

          Comment

          • SergeyL
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2012
            • 150

            Comment

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

              [QUOTE=medo;2376730]
              Originally posted by TR1 View Post
              I am curious as to what setting the 10% fuel consumption reduction is at.

              [url]http://diana


              Considering, that production of Russian helicopters didn't went down, this only means that Russia produce more and more engines domestically.
              It did go down, both production in 2015 and 2016 was somewhat lower than the peak of 2014. However it did not decline by enough to account for 290 less engines imported, so part of that was an increase in domestic production.
              sigpic

              Comment

              • maurobaggio
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jul 2008
                • 521

                Originally posted by Marcellogo View Post
                Help!
                Saying something like this:
                This strategic bomber, and operational-tactical missile bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for spacecraft launches

                Means that the various design bureaux are actually working to four different models?

                In the case being, the strategic bomber is the PAK-DA, the long range interceptor is the so called MiG-41 but about the other two? With the platform for spacecraft launches I can figure a variant of the long rang interceptor but the same definition operational-tactical missile bomber puzzles me...

                Also because they said that the PAK-DA would take also the place of Tu-22M3.
                Maybe it's the translation, but I got the impression there are not 4 aircraft, only the PAK-DA that would be able to carry out those missions:'strategic bomber, and operational-tactical missile bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for spacecraft launches.'


                In the 80s most likely 11 among 10 NATO strategists could have been swearing that Tu-22M3 and even the Tu-22M2 were equipped with such secret AAM ( Air-Air Missiles). Even after the end of the Soviet Union had been still published in the West in the 90's that the Kh-15 (AS-16 kickback) missiles that could have been created an air-air version with ARH seeker, which in fact has never happened like another 'secret' AAM for the Tu-22M.

                This 'paranoid thinking' from NATO strategists in the 80 with the Tu-22M2/3 were not random in all aspects, once the Tu-22M2/3 program had been of the most important from Soviet Union. Otherwise the Soviet Union had been already developing the Tu-22M4 with NK-32 engines from Tu-160 and also another new version that were only described as Tu-22M5.

                Probably the Tu-22M4 prototype should have been stocked in Russia, however about the Tu-22M5 from Tupolev there were not further information's on the features of this project, as well as about the T-60 from Suckhoi that were revealed in the 90's for the replacement of the Tu-22M3.

                In fact Tupolev had been developed such interceptor project the Tu-22P in the 70's that were based over in the Tu-22M2 as replacement of the long range interceptor Tu-128, however the Soviet Union chosen to develop the MiG-31.

                Such aircraft's with size and capabilities like the Tu-22M3 or even the Tu-22M4 could have been capable to launch such spacecraft ( rocket) as the Pegasus XL class if the same were modified for it, as well as such Russian rocket like the Pegasus XL were created too, then for the new PAK-DA this task could be one of its missions.

                However, even Mr. Fedosov has been stated some goals does not necessarily mean that this will occur in this way...

                Comment

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

                  http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2456638.html

                  Some interesting photos out of KumAAP of the first serially modernized Ka-27M, as well as a couple repaired Ka-29- sometimes in December, before being handed over.
                  In 2013 KumAPP and the MOD signed a contract for the modernization of the first 8 Ka-27M, to be completed by November 2014; the date was extended to 2015, and in the end the helicopters were handed over only in December 2016.
                  KumAPP signed another contract with the MOD for another 14 Ka-27M, the first 12 of which were supposed to be handed over in 2016, but apparently this has been shifted to 2017.
                  The Ka-27M has the Kopyo-A AESA radar from Phazatron- according to Phazatrons plan envisage 46 Ka-27PL to be modernized.
                  The modernization costs between 348 and 379 million rubles.

                  In addition, 6 Ka-29 were repaired and handed over recently, with a unit cost of 72 million rubles.





                  sigpic

                  Comment

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

                    the need of SAMs radar will be getting less.
                    http://www.defenseworld.net/news/112...A#.WLJ2UvPTl9A
                    The new A-100, equipped with powerful panoramic surveillance radars and computers will be capable of scanning the airspace for hundreds of kilometers in every direction, identifying targets and sending complete targeting data to anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems enabling them to shoot down the targets.
                    its claimed this system has active electronic warfare capability. there are pods on wings with ability of detecting new class of targets.

                    Comment

                    • Austin
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Oct 2003
                      • 6471

                      A query on Russia Civil Engine

                      I see the PS-90A2 engine are built & certified to ETOPS 120 standard http://www.pmz.ru/eng/products/civil/PS-90A2/

                      Tu-204-300 approved for ETOPS-120 http://www.rusaviainsider.com/tu-204...-by-etops-120/

                      PS-90 class engine or its modern variant has not been certified beyond ETOPS-120 to say ETOPS-180 any reason ?

                      Only the latest PD-14 Engine are compliant for ETOPS 180

                      http://pmz.ru/eng/advanced-developments/pd-14_/


                      Does it mean a fully loaded Tu-204-300 can fly for 2 hours on a single engine as they are certified for ETOPS-120 ?
                      "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                      Comment

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

                        Finally, at 2:55 you can see the Gefest MDF in the upgraded Su-33:

                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • Austin
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 6471

                          Longish Interview , Must Read

                          Scientific director of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS),YEVGENY FEDOSOV ABOUT THE PROSPECTS OF MILITARY AVIATION


                          https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2017/02/27/422309.html
                          "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                          Comment

                          • Scar
                            Senior Member
                            • Nov 2015
                            • 682

                            Originally posted by Austin View Post
                            Longish Interview , Must Read
                            LOl. Better do NOT. This interview has killed all my respect towards Fedosov.

                            Comment

                            • FBW
                              FBW
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 3295

                              Is this Fedosov old? He alludes to comparative tests that never happened (unless he is confusing COPE INDIA 2004), but those were exercises. The Indians never had comparative tests between the F-22 and Su-35 either. I don't know what he is talking about with the F-22, 2 out of 6 squadrons are based in Alaska not "almost all".

                              He is wrong on the F-35 too, the design didn't lose volume for weapons and fuel, as the requirements changed the weapons bay grew to incorporate the 2,000 lb bomb (not going to comment on his comparative analysis between the F-22/35 and their Russian counterparts, except to say that some of his assuptions are off base).

                              Is this guy the Russian Pierre Sprey?
                              Last edited by FBW; 27th February 2017, 13:26.

                              Comment

                              • Sintra
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2007
                                • 3849

                                Originally posted by Austin View Post
                                Longish Interview , Must Read

                                Scientific director of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS),YEVGENY FEDOSOV ABOUT THE PROSPECTS OF MILITARY AVIATION


                                https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2017/02/27/422309.html
                                Face meets palm
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • Austin
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Oct 2003
                                  • 6471

                                  Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                  Is this Fedosov old? He alludes to comparative tests that never happened (unless he is confusing COPE INDIA 2004), but those were exercises. The Indians never had comparative tests between the F-22 and Su-35 either. I don't know what he is talking about with the F-22, 2 out of 6 squadrons are based in Alaska not "almost all".
                                  IIRC when MKI participated in Red Flag exercise the F-22 were there , where there any DACT against them is unknown , There were also some news report of Malaysian Su-30MKM having DACTD against F-22

                                  On Su-35 versus F-22 these were also claim from Sukhoi about simulated combat against each other and having their own claims to it.
                                  He is wrong on the F-35 too, the design didn't lose volume for weapons and fuel, as the requirements changed the weapons bay grew to incorporate the 2,000 lb bomb (not going to comment on his comparative analysis between the F-22/35 and their Russian counterparts, except to say that some of his assuptions are off base).
                                  The jury is out of a single design can do all these roles well , I read report of US Airforce stating their new generation combat aircraft wont repeat the F-35 mistake of trying to get every thing out of one design
                                  "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                  Comment

                                  • Marcellogo
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jun 2014
                                    • 1838

                                    Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                    Is this Fedosov old? He alludes to comparative tests that never happened (unless he is confusing COPE INDIA 2004), but those were exercises. The Indians never had comparative tests between the F-22 and Su-35 either. I don't know what he is talking about with the F-22, 2 out of 6 squadrons are based in Alaska not "almost all".

                                    He is wrong on the F-35 too, the design didn't lose volume for weapons and fuel, as the requirements changed the weapons bay grew to incorporate the 2,000 lb bomb (not going to comment on his comparative analysis between the F-22/35 and their Russian counterparts, except to say that some of his assuptions are off base).

                                    Is this guy the Russian Pierre Sprey?
                                    It would actually be better that it was like he said.
                                    Actually the F-22 are based in Virginia, Florida, Hawaii i.e. thousands of miles from any possible adversary, almost in Alaska they would be able to see Russia from afar...

                                    For the rest as any automatic translation from russian to english, half of the phrases turns into riddles, so better to stay on the general meaning of the whole discourse instead of looking at the single points .

                                    Certainly an heavy dose of RussianSTRONKism is present there but i found really interesting some points, almost as a reconstruction of the lines of through lying underneath contemporary russian designs.
                                    So, not the russian Pierre Sprey at all given that the russian planes are really designed following the guidelines he is describing...
                                    Last edited by Marcellogo; 27th February 2017, 21:40.

                                    Comment

                                    • Austin
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Oct 2003
                                      • 6471

                                      Russian manufacturer creates first full-size model of future strategic bomber source

                                      More:
                                      http://tass.com/defense/933391

                                      MOSCOW, March 1. /TASS/. The first full-size model of Russias future long-range bomber PAK DA, being developed for the Aerospace Force, has been created by the Tupolev company, a source in Russias defense-industrial complex told TASS.

                                      "Several scale mock-ups of the PAK DA bomber have been made of composite materials. Also, there is a full-size mock-up made of wood. All models are based on the flying wing concept," the source said.

                                      Its airframe will be made of radar-absorbent material. All weapons will be placed inside the fuselage.

                                      "Also, PAK DA is to be equipped with the latest radioelectronic warfare equipment of domestic manufacture, unparalleled in terms of effectiveness," the source said.

                                      Another source in the Russian defense industry said the first test sample of a future bomber will perform its first flight by 2025. The plane will have a subsonic speed.
                                      "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                      Comment

                                      • Austin
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Oct 2003
                                        • 6471

                                        ILyushin IL-96 : Comparision IL-96-300 IL-96-400T(Cargo)

                                        http://www.ifc-leasing.com/fleet/aircraft_2.html

                                        The new IL-96-400T performance will be closer to IL-96-400M under works may be with some changes like CAT 3 landing

                                        This page has more detailed information on IL-96-400M program

                                        http://www.aviainteriors.ru/en/planes-55.html
                                        Last edited by Austin; 1st March 2017, 17:22.
                                        "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                        Comment

                                        • maurobaggio
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jul 2008
                                          • 521

                                          In fact, I have found out the Commander Viktor Bondarev comment much more interesting than that of Mr. Evgeniy Fedorov about the PAK-DA:

                                          "It is impossible to build a missile-carrying bomber invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time. This is why focus is placed on stealth capabilities. The PAK DA will carry AI-guided missiles with a range of up to 7,000 km. Such a missile can analyze the aerial and radio-radar situation and determine its direction, altitude and speed. Were already working on such missiles," Bondarev was quoted as saying by the Russian newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta."

                                          https://sputniknews.com/military/201...tealth-bomber/
                                          The emphasis of the commentaries are about STEALTH capabilities as this new missile with AI( Artificial Intelligence) and such range over 7000 Km( 3,778 NM), which it would be such phenomenal improvement over the Kh-101/102 around the 4,500 Km ( 2,430 NM) with Tu-95MS and Tu-160 today.

                                          For this new 7,000 km( 3,778 NM) missile there are two alternatives: the first this new missile should large hypersonic missile that will be carried internally by PAK-DA, after all the PAK-DA should remains STEALTH until the moment of launch of those hypersonic missiles.


                                          However, if the PAK-DA will be a flying wing all aspect STEALTH, and it could have been equipped with long range hypersonic missiles with range of 7000Km( 3,778 NM) , as well as it were not all aspects STEALTH missiles, then it will not make much sense at all about the emphasis in the STEALTH and AI subjects in those commentaries.

                                          Once the proof of this has been the interceptor MiG-31 and the SAM S- 300 that were developed in the 70's with the main mission of intercepting the AGM-86 ALCM and AGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of the B 52 H and B-1B bombers itself.

                                          The other alternative should be such subsonic STEALTH cruise missile with a range of more than 7.000 Km( 3,778 NM) it seems quite difficult task to reconcile parameters of compactness with the capabilities, once the same should have been transported internally and in high numbers, as well as to obtain all aspects STEALTH capabilities too.

                                          May be this new missile with range up 7,000 km( 3,778 NM) will be like flying wing with all aspect STEALTH capabilities, then instead such cruise missile the same shall be a UCAV.

                                          In this hypothetical case this UCAV would have not been transported internally and externally by the PAK DA, since the PAK DA could have been used for escorting and air-air refueling from those UCAVs.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X