Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • haavarla
    started a topic RuAF News and development Thread part 15

    RuAF News and development Thread part 15

    We reached 70 pages and we entered a new year, time for a fresh start.

    Old thread here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...Thread-part-14

    Is the latest VVS contract for Su-35S confirmed?

    Perhaps a little status of current units delivered and on contract is due.

  • panzerfeist1
    replied
    http://tass.com/defense/1039344

    Tass basically referencing China's SRBM and now referring a 2nd test that at an aircraft was intercepted 250kms. Than seeing the THAADs performance in X-band RCS targets compared to the S-400 is putting me under suspicion that they are setting up a venus fly trap to draw flies(aircrafts) more closer to the system. Russians never announce what targets they have intercepted while the Chinese give ranges for both aircrafts and missiles and of course it can be a brochure specification for both. I am going to keep an eye out if India or Turkey make announcements on their interceptions if possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • St. John
    replied
    Sounds like they got a story of a missile intercept and then applied parts of the brochure specification liberally.

    Leave a comment:


  • stealthflanker
    replied
    The SCMP seems to have mixed the range against typical airborne target which is 250 Km for 48N6E3. Against ballistic missile, the envelope for S-400 with 48N6E3 is 60 km.

    and the RCS value corresponds to its Warhead and from frontal aspect. the missile itself when launched at boost will have much larger RCS and being exposed from side aspect during its boost. Regarding the difference of RCS value, you have to understand that there is relationship between wavelength and RCS. RCS of an object will exhibit increase when exposed to lower frequency, until the point is reached where the wavelength is far too big to cause any resonance effect. Thus the RCS will fall sharply. The rate of RCS increase is depending on shape where wedge shaped object, for typical aircraft would exhibit wavelength dependency in their RCS. while conical object, consistent with ballistic missile RV RCS increase would exhibit squared wavelength dependency.

    Leave a comment:


  • panzerfeist1
    replied
    Something has been bothering me lately about the RCS values of the fire control radars of the S-400 in which I need to have clarified if anyone has info on.

    http://aviationweek.com/technology/n...tection-claims
    It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.


    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili...defence-system

    "
    PLA Rocket Force reportedly shot down a simulated ballistic target almost 250km (155 miles) away and moving at 3km (1.9 miles) per second"


    2007 fire control radar 4m2 at 390kms, 2015 nebo-m 1m2 at 480kms. However these 2 quotes from those sources have really mindf**ked me. I am not doubting that a SRBM would have a .002m2 RCS in X-band because of its size, less exposed surface area than an aircraft and possibly aerodynamic design but what bothers me is that sources have suggested they have intercepted a SRBM like target from about 250kms away.
    anti-ballistic missile is part of its description and it meets the 250km description(china said almost 250km which can be 241250kms they would have said simply said 240km if it was below but they did not) So we have our missile and it has the speed of mach 6.5 2.2295km/s and the SRBM they tested was able to travel 3km/s.

    110 seconds and multiply 2.2295km/s and I got 245.245kms. Multiply 110 seconds with 3km/s we get 330kms than add that to 245kms to determine where it was tracked before it got intercepted at 245kms. An/tpy-2 made in 2008 was said to be able to track .01m2 at 600kms it operates in megawatts like the S-400s fire control radars but yet S-400s are said to intercept IRBMs and MRBMs like THAADs. I am sure that if the S-400 having a 2015 1m2 value at a 480km range would not be strong enough to intercept a SRBM target from far away or even offer way less performance than THAADs. Can someone better clarify this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    I did a quick write up on Hypersonic Glide Vehicle and Avangard Program , Feedback welcome , Thanks.

    Hypersonic Glide Vehical

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr.Snufflebug
    replied
    And the Tu-22M3M has flown:
    https://uacrussia.ru/ru/press-center...l-pervyy-polet

    Leave a comment:


  • archangelski
    replied
    Firt runway test for the Il-112V :

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    How is that MC-21-300 Maximum Payload at 49.8 T is higher than Max8/9 ,A320/321 NEO but its fuel capacity is lower than others ?

    Have they traded payload for fuel capacity and what would be the reason for this ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    AirInsight publishes MC-21 Report

    https://airinsight.com/airinsight-pu...-mc-21-report/


    Leave a comment:


  • Dr.Snufflebug
    replied
    Funny. I was going through various old documents/presentations from the Russian Academy of Science, and found the MiG-31+Kinzhal being referenced in 2016. So that "surprise" this spring really wasn't much of one.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSR
    replied
    It is not just developing product but creating firms like Aeroflot-Volga-Dnepr and UTair to support it. and transport helicopter share engine and components with attack helicopter.

    https://heli.utair.ru/en/informatsiy...n-of-mi-171a2/
    UTair is Authorized for Commercial Operation of Mi-171A2

    "Mi-171A2 is a fundamentally new helicopter. We saw value in the innovations implemented in it: digital complex of aircraft equipment, new more powerful engines, efficient lifting system with composite blades and X-type tail rotor. These and other technical solutions have not only influenced performance of the aircraft in the best possible way, but also reduced the load on the crew", stressed Dmitriy Streltsov, Vice-President - Flight Director of UTair - Helicopter Services.

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    IL-96M will cost $120m even with low production rate.

    http://tass.com/economy/1036287

    Prototype of Russias new wide-body airliner to cost over $150 mln
    Production cost would be around $70-80 million , Out of the $150 million half of that money is spent on design documentation new systems etc.

    I think with IL-96-400M they will develop new cockpit more use of Wide Angle LCD more Glass cockpit keeping 3 man crew ( not sure if they may go for 2 man crew as they have tested this on Tu-204SM )

    Plus the engine is not the PS-90A1 but more advanced variant called PS-90A3M

    In the IL-96-400M will be installed upgraded engines PS-90A3M

    http://perm.rbc.ru/perm/freenews/58b...794707befa8af4

    Perm "Aircraft Engine" will upgrade the PS-90A1 engines for wide-body long-haul aircraft IL-96-400M. This Perm RBC said the head of the enterprise Alexander Inozemtsev.

    Passenger ship will be based on IL-96-400T cargo. Its production will Voronezh aircraft factory. Remodeled board must be powered by four turbofan engines PS-90A3M, maximum take-off mass must not be less than 270 tons and range with a payload of 41 tonnes - at least 9 thousand. Km. These characteristics allow the new car to become a cruise on a par with foreign "shirokofyuzelyazhnikami". Currently Permian aircraft designers are working on the feasibility study of this project.

    "The President has set a task to make a batch of 6-10 aircraft and begin their operation in Russia. By the time when there will be PD-35, the aircraft is expected reentine a twin-engine variant. This happens in about 10-15 years ", - said the managing director-general designer of JSC" UEC-AVIADVIGATEL "A. Inozemtsev

    Last autumn edition of "Vedomosti" reported that the KLA is planning to raise in the sky the first prototype passenger IL-96-400M in 2019. to modernize the program will cost about 53 billion rubles, of which a little less than 10 billion will be spent on development work. In addition, it was reported that the aircraft will be used for government agencies, first of all, for the "Russian" special flight detachment.
    PS-90A3u, PS-90A3u1, PS-90A3u-76 turbofans

    http://www.pmz.ru/eng/advanced-devel...ps-90a/PSA3u_/





    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    PD-35 is a scaled up, evolved version of the core. They are upscaling the PD-14 design and adding in some new technologies such as CMCs and a carbon fiber epoxy fan. It's not a "from the ground up" new design. PD-10 likely will not happen, at least not any time soon. The Russian aerospace engine industry has a full plate with continued PD-14 teething support (if needed), and then Izdeliye 30, NK-32 series 2, PD-12V, PD-35, etc. development.

    Bypass ratio is not as closely correlated with fuel efficiency as you suppose. You have three main sections in a turbofan - the fan, the compressor, and the turbine. (You got to take the different characteristics of the HP and LP sections of the turbine and compressor too.) Each of these have their individual "ideal" point for rotational speed to yield maximum efficiency. Trouble is, you got only one main shaft that they are all coupled to. You can divide this into two or three spools to provide for a little bit of optimization between them, but not much. (Unless if you put a hefty gear mechanism between the fan and the compressor, because the fan has the largest difference in optimum rotational speed).

    So, to make use of a larger diameter fan - a greater bypass ratio - you need to design a compressor and turbine that can operate with a slower rotational speed. In practice, you might lose a little bit of efficiency in the turbine and compressor. Taken together, you generally still see a slight gain. Try to compare all factors (if you can find them) - fuel consumption, noise emissions, NOX emissions, and electrical power provided - and you will likely see the LEAP getting the leg up by just a little everywhere. But both designs are so efficient that you are going to have to look at everything to see much difference.
    Thanks XB-70

    I read they will make PD-10/9 for SSJ-100R replacing SaM 146 with it , The French Hot Parts of SaM146 is facing reliability issue as well. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...estern-content

    The Thales-integrated avionics package would give way to one from local manufacturer KRET. The airplanes PowerJet SaM.146 engines would be replaced by the Aviadvigatel PD-9, effectively a scaled version of the PD-14 developed for the Irkut MC-21 narrowbody jetliner. Apart from indigenization, this, coupled with a new composite wing, would reduce fuel burn by between 5 percent and 8 percent.
    So the fuel consumption between PD-14 and LEAP would be minimal at worst and equal at best.

    What is the growth path for current PD-14 in the sense how can they improve fuel effeciency of PD-14 and make it competetive for next 20-30 years of its operation , Currently they claim 15 % over PS-90 series for fuel effeciency can they increase it to 20 % or more in its life cycle ? Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • JSR
    replied
    The cost and technical advantage of Russia aviation industry so huge that small differences in product operational efficiency not matter.
    you can add C929 and further modification of Superjets.
    Introduced EASA pilot so early in programme.


    http://aerocomposit.ru/ispytateli-easa-vypolnili-polety-br-na-samolete-ms-21-300/
    EASA testers have completed flights
    on aircraft Ms-21-300

    IL-96M will cost $120m even with low production rate.

    http://tass.com/economy/1036287

    Prototype of Russias new wide-body airliner to cost over $150 mln

    Leave a comment:


  • XB-70
    replied
    PD-35 is a scaled up, evolved version of the core. They are upscaling the PD-14 design and adding in some new technologies such as CMCs and a carbon fiber epoxy fan. It's not a "from the ground up" new design. PD-10 likely will not happen, at least not any time soon. The Russian aerospace engine industry has a full plate with continued PD-14 teething support (if needed), and then Izdeliye 30, NK-32 series 2, PD-12V, PD-35, etc. development.

    Bypass ratio is not as closely correlated with fuel efficiency as you suppose. You have three main sections in a turbofan - the fan, the compressor, and the turbine. (You got to take the different characteristics of the HP and LP sections of the turbine and compressor too.) Each of these have their individual "ideal" point for rotational speed to yield maximum efficiency. Trouble is, you got only one main shaft that they are all coupled to. You can divide this into two or three spools to provide for a little bit of optimization between them, but not much. (Unless if you put a hefty gear mechanism between the fan and the compressor, because the fan has the largest difference in optimum rotational speed).

    So, to make use of a larger diameter fan - a greater bypass ratio - you need to design a compressor and turbine that can operate with a slower rotational speed. In practice, you might lose a little bit of efficiency in the turbine and compressor. Taken together, you generally still see a slight gain. Try to compare all factors (if you can find them) - fuel consumption, noise emissions, NOX emissions, and electrical power provided - and you will likely see the LEAP getting the leg up by just a little everywhere. But both designs are so efficient that you are going to have to look at everything to see much difference.
    Last edited by XB-70; 17th December 2018, 18:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    They said PD-35 will be a new design not a bigger PD-14. There is PD-9/10 being mentioned for SSJ-100R and PD-12V for Mi-26 , If MS-21-400 project gets green light then will see PD-14M

    Was wondering how does PD-14 has same fuel consumption as LEAP even though latter has higher bypass ratio of 12 compared to 8.5 for PD

    Leave a comment:


  • XB-70
    replied
    Any specific advantage PD-14 have over LEAP or GTF engine ?
    Probably not. It's a close competitor that keeps them from falling far behind, but it's not state of the art. But they can compete on price.

    That being said, the PD-14 engine core has a lot of potential for future development - unlike the PS-90, which was, unfortunately, kind of a road to nowhere. But the new core will have cousin designs servicing large airliners (PD-35) and heavy lift helis (PD-12V). So there are lots and lots of opportunities to incrementally improve and evolve the design. It sets the Russian aerospace industry up for continuing to compete in modern airliners and next generation transports and helicopters. And that is something they really, really want to tap into before the Chinese gain the technical ability to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    How does PD-14 Engine compared with CFM LEAP. Engine , The latter seems to have higher byratio compared to PD 14 8.5

    Still PD-14 claims to have similar fuel consumption compared to LEAP or even GTF engine of P&W

    Any specific advantage PD-14 have over LEAP or GTF engine ?

    http://www.avid.ru/en/pd14/

    Leave a comment:


  • Austin
    replied
    Inside Look: Russias Air Force is Best in the World, Constantly Innovating and Reaching New Heights

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X