Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TomcatViP
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2011
    • 6122

    Or simply a cueing repere. The wedge, as viewed from the IRST ball draw an arrow that can be used to align/re-align the ball in flight.

    Comment

    • TR1
      TR1
      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
      • Oct 2010
      • 9826













      sigpic

      Comment

      • Scar
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2015
        • 682

        Originally posted by ijozic View Post
        It doesn't seem to be present on all the Su-33 photos, so perhaps it's a field-mod of sorts.
        You can see the same "field-mod" on Su-30MKM which served as a base-model for Su-30SM.

        Comment

        • ijozic
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2014
          • 613

          Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
          Or simply a cueing repere. The wedge, as viewed from the IRST ball draw an arrow that can be used to align/re-align the ball in flight.
          AFAIK, on the Su-27/33 you can't see the direct IRST output in flight (e.g. like on the Tomcat); just the contacts which are presented on the HUD/HDD in the same way as the radar contacts.
          Last edited by ijozic; 11th April 2017, 13:15.

          Comment

          • Austin
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Oct 2003
            • 6506

            Ilyushin Il-96-400M Widebody Taking Shape
            by Vladimir Karnozov
            - April 11, 2017, 10:55 AM

            http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...y-taking-shape
            The Ilyushin design house has issued its first official presentation of the Il-96-400M, a four-engine design meant to fulfill Russia’s aspirations to develop a new indigenous widebody as a contingency in the event a planned joint Russian-Chinese program fails to materialize. Ilyushin general designer Nikolai Talikov presented the details during a recent conference of Il-96 operators organized by the Russian civil aviation authority Rosaviatsiya. Plans call for the latest iteration of the widebody quadjet to carry a 90,000-pound payload as far as 4,860 nautical miles. Officials expect the first prototype to fly in 2019 and become factory standard the following year.

            Designed for a maximum takeoff weight of 595,000 pounds, the Il-96-400M incorporates the same fuselage used on the Il-96M/T stretch that won U.S. FAA shadow certification in 1997. It will go into production at United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) plant in Voronezh (VASO), which has so far assembled 103 Il-86s and 30 Il-96s—the only commercially available widebody passenger jets of Russian origin. Three Il-96-300s remain in service with Cubana de Aviacion, and about a dozen with Russian government bodies.

            The Kremlin instructed UAC to boost Il-96 production to guarantee air links between the European part of the country and big cities in Siberia and on the Pacific coasts in case escalation of East-West relations further limit the use of imported jets. The Russian government has approved construction of an initial batch of six to ten quads for government structures as a first step to revive widebody jet production at VASO.

            Talikov said the factory could boost Il-96 production from one to two airframes in recent years to the eight to 10 it used to build during Soviet times. “I believe that, responding to the call to buy Russian having considered the new capabilities of the Il-96-400M, the airlines will place their orders,” he concluded.

            Last year the Russian government allocated 53 billion rubles ($925 million) for the program, of which half will go to a leasing company—IFC or GTLK—that would place newly built airplanes with airlines on operating lease terms. The remaining half will go to the industry, including 10 billion rubles ($175 million) to the Ilyushin design house for modifications to the already certified Il-96 platform.

            Ilyushin won a formal contract for -400M development on December 29 of last year. Officials expect a short flight-test program given that earlier versions had already won a number of certificates, including the 1997 U.S. FAA shadow certification of the Il-96T/M. Talikov told AIN designers have begun a special effort to replace old wiring as a weight-saving measure, promising to cut operating empty weight (OEW) by one to two tons.

            Planning to limit Western content to an absolute minimum, Ilyushin will consider only Perm-based Aviadvigatel engines. The PS-90A1 has won certification and became operational on the stretched freighter, whose maximum takeoff weight exceeds that of the baseline Il-96-300 by some 45,000 pounds. Polet operated four Il-96-400Ts between 2009 and 2013, before going bankrupt. Polet’s operational experience, however, allowed the industry to find and fix teething problems associated with the PS-90A1 and subsequently reach average time between removals of 10,000 flight hours, generally considered a good figure for a Russian engine.

            Since Cubana took deliveries of the last Il-96-300 airliners in 2007, design of a completely reworked interior has begun. Ilyushin has invited completion companies to compete in an associated tender.

            Although designers have settled on a specification, Talikov said the terms aren’t so firm that the winner will not enjoy room for creativity. However, he said the Il-96-400M must come with a central luggage bin, which neither the Il-86 nor Il-96-300 feature because their designers wanted to create “spacious” impression. However, passengers now tend to bring more hand luggage into aircraft cabins, requiring more space than available with the existing left- and right-hand bins.
            "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

            Comment

            • Lt Anderson
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2013
              • 278

              Originally posted by TR1 View Post












              Прекрасная!

              Comment

              • Deino
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 4228

                Originally posted by Deino View Post
                Harpia's latest Book on Russian weapons ... IMO a must-have.

                http://www.harpia-publishing.com/gal...ALW/index.html


                And here's the cover !
                Attached Files
                ...

                He was my North, my South, my East and West,
                My working week and my Sunday rest,
                My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
                I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

                The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
                Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
                Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
                For nothing now can ever come to any good.
                -------------------------------------------------
                W.H.Auden (1945)

                Comment

                • Austin
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Oct 2003
                  • 6506

                  Take Off Mag March Issue

                  http://www.en.take-off.ru/index.php/...article/45/431
                  "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                  Comment

                  • TR1
                    TR1
                    http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                    • Oct 2010
                    • 9826

                    Some stuff has piled up @ RP.net.

                    Geophysica has been flying:



                    Rare Su-25SM3 pic:



                    Pakistani Il-78Ms arrived in Russia for repair:





                    SSJ in Brussels Airlines colors:



                    Mi-35Ms:



                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • Austin
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Oct 2003
                      • 6506

                      Interview with Yuri Slusar UAC chief

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpF1UYNF7Jw

                      Any Russian speaking member can translate key points ? Thanks
                      "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                      Comment

                      • TR1
                        TR1
                        http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                        • Oct 2010
                        • 9826

                        http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2549401.html

                        And the latest Mi-35M customer will be Bangladesh apparently. They are buying 6 helicopters, with another 6 to come after.
                        They were also looking at AH-1Z, T-129, and the Z-10. Also, supposedly they are looking at acquiring Mi-28NE down the line.
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • maurobaggio
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 521

                          Originally posted by Scar View Post
                          You can see the same "field-mod" on Su-30MKM which served as a base-model for Su-30SM.
                          Thanks to Austin posted the link for the Take-off magazine that 'mystery' has been partially solved so far.

                          'For instance, the Su-30MKM mounts an advanced French-made IFF system , with its 'plates' situated on top of he nose section fore of the cockpit.'
                          Take-off Magazine, page 20. March 2017.
                          http://www.en.take-off.ru/index.php/...article/45/431

                          In the case of the Su-30MKM from Malaysia it seems from my interpretation of the above description that device front of the IRST are antennas of the French IFF( Interrogator Friend Foe) system.

                          However on the Su-30SM from Russia I do not think that Su-30SM has been using the French IFF system.

                          Otherwise, such advanced IFF systems could have been executing other functions such as ELINT (Electronic Intelligence), and the location of the antenna so close to the IRST, or even in front of it, may suggest that both systems has been working together in the same way the radar and the IRST since its legacy Su-27S/P.

                          Comment

                          • TR1
                            TR1
                            http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                            • Oct 2010
                            • 9826

                            http://altyn73.livejournal.com/1135106.html

                            25 years ago the first Irkut Su-30 flew.

                            Fresh looking attack helos practicing for the May parade.

                            Ka-52s:



                            Mi-28s:



                            Mi-35M:





                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • Trident
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2004
                              • 3970

                              Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                              Thanks to Austin posted the link for the Take-off magazine that 'mystery' has been partially solved so far.

                              'For instance, the Su-30MKM mounts an advanced French-made IFF system , with its 'plates' situated on top of he nose section fore of the cockpit.'
                              Take-off Magazine, page 20. March 2017.
                              http://www.en.take-off.ru/index.php/...article/45/431

                              In the case of the Su-30MKM from Malaysia it seems from my interpretation of the above description that device front of the IRST are antennas of the French IFF( Interrogator Friend Foe) system.

                              However on the Su-30SM from Russia I do not think that Su-30SM has been using the French IFF system.

                              Otherwise, such advanced IFF systems could have been executing other functions such as ELINT (Electronic Intelligence), and the location of the antenna so close to the IRST, or even in front of it, may suggest that both systems has been working together in the same way the radar and the IRST since its legacy Su-27S/P.
                              Oh for crying out loud - it's just a particle deflector that has been present on various Flanker variants almost right from the start:

                              https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...UB_cockpit.jpg

                              https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ba4c1ee0a8.jpg

                              https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...428c8b1b2a.jpg

                              http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarou...SU-27-0015.JPG

                              As for the IFF on the MKM, one look at an actual photo of that version would have told you its aerials are something entirely and very obviously different:

                              http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FQ4uhtFJ0q...7224_large.jpg

                              https://su27flankerfamily.files.word...u-30mkm-19.jpg

                              http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/ima...5/5/208356.jpg
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • maurobaggio
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2008
                                • 521

                                Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                Oh for crying out loud - it's just a particle deflector that has been present on various Flanker variants almost right from the start:

                                https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...UB_cockpit.jpg

                                https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ba4c1ee0a8.jpg

                                https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...428c8b1b2a.jpg

                                http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarou...SU-27-0015.JPG

                                As for the IFF on the MKM, one look at an actual photo of that version would have told you its aerials are something entirely and very obviously different:

                                http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FQ4uhtFJ0q...7224_large.jpg

                                https://su27flankerfamily.files.word...u-30mkm-19.jpg

                                http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/ima...5/5/208356.jpg
                                At least you had been noticed that photos you posted here, but surely you did not read what I wrote before, maybe because you were already with your eyes full of tears from crying about my post.So if you think it is a simple particle deflector this is a good conclusion.

                                However to show that you are right about the particle deflector that its my simple explanation about this issue: when particles has been reaching the protective dome of the IR in subsonic or supersonic air flow speedy that will creating friction with outside dome,then its friction will increase IR signature of the outside dome. So an aerodynamic deflector can reduce the air speed over the dome from IRST and that could reduce the outside temperature( IR radiation) of dome, possibly increasing the sensitivity of the IRST both with IR sensor and the laser rangefinder, in addition this deflector could avoid the occurrence of grooves by particles in the dome, which would disrupt both the IR sensitivity and the emission of the laser beam from IRST.

                                Otherwise the particle deflector could have been used as heat deflector from radar dome of the Su 30MKM/SM too.

                                So there are my the questions once I have doubts: Are you sure even in the Su 27 or Su 33 this device in front of the IRST are only such particle deflector either?

                                If the design of the Su 30MKM particle deflector are so efficient, why it has not been used on the Su 35S?

                                Does other versions of the Su-30MKK/MK2/MKI/MKA has been used this particle deflector with the same design as the Su 30MKM/SM?

                                Still the designs of these devices has been show some different aspects among the photos between the Su-27 and the Su-30SM/MKM, then it could have been suggesting that the old device in the Su-27 were not effective, or this new in the Su-30SM/MKM could have other functions as an antenna.

                                If you notice the photos that you posted from Su-30MKM the antennas of the French IFF has not been symmetrically distributed along the axis of the Su-30MKM, in fact these are to the left of the pilot, while the IRST and the device in front of this are on the right.

                                Therefore I do not think that it is absurd that device in front of the IRST are an antenna too. In the case of Su-30MKM from Malaysia could be part of the French IFF system to extent the cover in the right side of the fighter, once that advanced IFF systems has been performing functions like ELINT.

                                If you reply to this post please do not cry, since you will surely waste your tears.

                                Comment

                                • Trident
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2004
                                  • 3970

                                  Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                  So there are my the questions once I have doubts: Are you sure even in the Su 27 or Su 33 this device in front of the IRST are only such particle deflector either?
                                  Occam's razor says so - there is no good indication to the contrary (you can't use the assumption that it's an aerial in later models to prove that it is anything else but a deflector in the older version, and then use that to "prove" your original hypothesis - that's circular logic).

                                  Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                  If the design of the Su 30MKM particle deflector are so efficient, why it has not been used on the Su 35S?
                                  I believe TR1 answered that one recently - the Su-35S IRST is made by a different manufacturer and uses a more modern, erosion resistant transparency. It doesn't need a deflector.

                                  Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                  Does other versions of the Su-30MKK/MK2/MKI/MKA has been used this particle deflector with the same design as the Su 30MKM/SM?
                                  Yes, all of them - do you need me to google for you again?

                                  Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                  Still the designs of these devices has been show some different aspects among the photos between the Su-27 and the Su-30SM/MKM, then it could have been suggesting that the old device in the Su-27 were not effective, or this new in the Su-30SM/MKM could have other functions as an antenna.
                                  The design is different because the IRST location is different - the Su-30 device is asymmetric because the IRST is offset.

                                  Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                  If you notice the photos that you posted from Su-30MKM the antennas of the French IFF has not been symmetrically distributed along the axis of the Su-30MKM, in fact these are to the left of the pilot, while the IRST and the device in front of this are on the right.

                                  Therefore I do not think that it is absurd that device in front of the IRST are an antenna too. In the case of Su-30MKM from Malaysia could be part of the French IFF system to extent the cover in the right side of the fighter
                                  IFF is typically a relatively low band like NATO L, a slight offset such as this isn't going to affect coverage much. If even the IRST itself gives acceptable coverage when offset like that, IFF isn't going to be a problem.
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • maurobaggio
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jul 2008
                                    • 521

                                    Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                    Occam's razor says so - there is no good indication to the contrary (you can't use the assumption that it's an aerial in later models to prove that it is anything else but a deflector in the older version, and then use that to "prove" your original hypothesis - that's circular logic).
                                    I agree that if there isn't any indication in the contrary, then the best hypothesis should be that device at the front of the IRST in the Su-27/33/30 are in fact a particle deflector or even heat deflector from the radar dome.

                                    Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                    I believe TR1 answered that one recently - the Su-35S IRST is made by a different manufacturer and uses a more modern, erosion resistant transparency. It doesn't need a deflector.
                                    I think that the innovation that TR1 has been pointed out in replacing the glass for the crystal (eg:quartz, synthetic sapphire) in the IRST from Su-35S has been deeply associated with the best properties of light transmission (IR, laser) through the crystal dome from IRST.

                                    Such crystal dome could reduces the light reflection (IR, laser beam) on the outer and inner surfaces, in this case it has been reducing the loss of light( IR, laser beam) that crosses the dome, as well as reducing the refraction of light( IR, laser beam), which in turn should reduces the distortion in the capture of light( IR, laser) , in fact it allows such great improvement in IRST range and accuracy for both the IR sensor and the laser telemetry.

                                    In any case, the best properties of the crystal in relation to the glass also allow reducing the dome temperature gradient between the outer and the inner surface, in this case the external temperature (IR signature of the dome) could have been decreased by cooling system from IRST, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the IR sensor and its range.

                                    In this case I agree that a crystal could have been more resistant, then it would make this particle deflector less necessary, however this crystal dome should also be more expensive than the previous glass, and a simple particle deflector would be an aid in increasing the useful life , as well as it is possible that the Su-30SM has been also equipped with crystal dome on the IRST.

                                    Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                    Yes, all of them - do you need me to google for you again?
                                    Thanks for this information, after all this has been saved me a lot of time to research and observe such detail in the Su-30.



                                    Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                    The design is different because the IRST location is different - the Su-30 device is asymmetric because the IRST is offset.
                                    I agree with your assessment in the case of Su-27 and Su-30, but in this case I have been noticed that MiG-29A (9.12) had been already shifted the IRST to the right like the Su-33 and Su 30 in the 90's, and in all the photos tha I have observed on Google I did not identify any particle deflector like: MiG-29A, MiG-29C, MiG-29S, MiG-29M, MiG-29K and MiG-35.

                                    Since the MiG-29A (9.12) from 80 it has not been equipped with particle deflector in the IRST such as the Su-35S from 2008, however I think such particle deflector to protect the IRST were quite necessary in the MiG-29A from Frontal Aviation, as it were in the Su-27S , as well as in the MiG-29K in relation to the Su-33.

                                    In fact, both MiG-29A ( 9.12) and Su-27S has been quite different fighters , as well as MiG-29K and Su-33, but the absence of a simple particle deflector in all MiG-29 seems to me that same has been unnecessary at all, whereas Su-27 / Su-33 / Su-30 those device has been necessary as the same had been modified over time until it has been eliminated on the Su-35S.

                                    In any case this is not such proof that the particulate deflector in the Su-30SM / MKM could be an antenna for some sensor of the same as IFF.


                                    Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                    IFF is typically a relatively low band like NATO L, a slight offset such as this isn't going to affect coverage much. If even the IRST itself gives acceptable coverage when offset like that, IFF isn't going to be a problem.
                                    It has been a long time since the IFF system has been added the radar antenna from fighters in the West, since this allows the IFF to obtain the same angle of view of the radar.

                                    In the case of the former Soviet Union the MiG-31 has been the first fighter with the IFF system integrated into the N007 radar, but the MiG 29M (radar N010) and Su-27M (N011) also introduced it in the late 1980s.

                                    As far as I know the IFF system has been integrated with the N011M Bars radars from Su-30SM , in the case of the Su-30MKM the option to equip with the French IFF system at the top left, it does not seem to be recommendable, since I think there is a considerable loss In the angle of view of this sensor in relation to the radar, however I do not know if the Su-30MKM has been keep the original IFF on the N011 Bars radar, anyway it seems to me that the Su 30MKM could have been equipped with both systems, while this can create an important sensor of ELINT with Su-30MKM.

                                    Comment

                                    • SergeyL
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2012
                                      • 150

                                      Comment

                                      • TR1
                                        TR1
                                        http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                        • Oct 2010
                                        • 9826

                                        https://lenta.ru/news/2017/04/15/cirkon/

                                        Zircon AShM speed- Mach 8 during testing.
                                        sigpic

                                        Comment

                                        • stealthflanker
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Sep 2015
                                          • 1027

                                          any official design picture/image yet for Zircon :3 ?


                                          im curious how it looks.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X