Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The potential for joint Russian-Chinese collaboration

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sintra
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2007
    • 3849

    #21
    Originally posted by Vans View Post

    Yak did a model of this STOL (not sure if its STOVL) stealth jet 2 decades ago. Would its design still be useful today? looks a bit too small to have a bay

    Click image for larger version  Name:	yakovlev_MFI_2.jpg Views:	261 Size:	32.5 KB ID:	3868858
    It was not a STOL or a VSTOL and it was a quite a big jet, it was the YAK design for the MFI program, the one that Mig took with the 1.42/1.44. The engine was also gigantic, the Sojuz R-179-300 with 200,1 kN of thrust. The aircraft was bigger than an F-35.
    Last edited by Sintra; 26th July 2019, 21:28.
    sigpic

    Comment

    • Multirole
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2000
      • 903

      #22
      Originally posted by LMFS View Post
      Maybe, but what is Tu-142 but a version of strategic bomber Tu-95?

      It depends on whether you see the PAK-DA as an ultra-expensive Russian version of the B-2 or something different. By what we have read, it will be cheap and subsonic, so probably they just want to use the flying wing scheme for broadband stealth and high fuel carrying capacity without focusing on exotic properties. Its big persistence and discrete signature would be very useful for long range maritime patrol.

      In terms of strategic bombers, Russia no only has but is set to produce new Tu-160 with huge payload and speed, and avionics closely related if not identical to those slated for the PAK-DA, so both are going to operate in parallel quite likely. PAK-DA would be smaller, cheaper and more practical for theatre bombing, ISR, maritime patrol and other roles where persistence and LO are more relevant than turn-around time, where it cannot compete with the -160.

      In any case Russia is currently modernizing the Tu-142 too.
      1950s bombers were not all that different from airliners. Tu-95 was even converted into one. Thats not the case now. I dont know what the PAK-DA will end up being, but its unlikely cheap enough to be used for anti-submarine patrols which eats up airframe hours.

      Alternatively they could either base a MPA on existing airliner or design a low altitude aircraft for the purpose. Something like a bigger Kawasaki P-1 with 4X PD-14 engines.
      pb::

      Comment

      • LMFS
        Rank 4 Registered User
        • Feb 2018
        • 520

        #23
        Originally posted by Multirole View Post

        1950s bombers were not all that different from airliners. Tu-95 was even converted into one. Thats not the case now. I dont know what the PAK-DA will end up being, but its unlikely cheap enough to be used for anti-submarine patrols which eats up airframe hours.

        Alternatively they could either base a MPA on existing airliner or design a low altitude aircraft for the purpose. Something like a bigger Kawasaki P-1 with 4X PD-14 engines.
        I don't have a strong opinion in this regard, maybe you are right, I am just pointing out that the plane could be a flexible platform with more missions that just a strategic bomber. That is what Russia is missing now, (i.e. it does not make sense to fly a Tu-160 to bomb ISIS), and if it had two engines (hopefully with high bypass ratio since it will be subsonic) it could be much cheaper to use than current Tu-160 and -22M3. It is supposed to be derived from the NK-32 and is called izd. 80, that is pretty much all we know.

        IIRC there is in fact a new patrol plane in the naval development plan to 2030 or 2035, but no details were given. Airliners are not cheap either and normally the ones with range equivalent to Tu-142 (>10,000 km) are quite big and expensive, their great advantage is low fuel consumption and, for smaller militaries, to save the development of a specific plane. They would probably use 2 x PD-35 instead of 4 x PD-14, would it be based on the CR929? So we would close the circle and be accidentally back on-topic

        Comment

        • Multirole
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 903

          #24
          Originally posted by LMFS View Post
          IIRC there is in fact a new patrol plane in the naval development plan to 2030 or 2035, but no details were given. Airliners are not cheap either and normally the ones with range equivalent to Tu-142 (>10,000 km) are quite big and expensive, their great advantage is low fuel consumption and, for smaller militaries, to save the development of a specific plane. They would probably use 2 x PD-35 instead of 4 x PD-14, would it be based on the CR929? So we would close the circle and be accidentally back on-topic
          Could work. They could also build a four engine version of CR929, like Airbus A330 and A340.

          CR929 has a lot of potential come to think of it, as tanker, AWACS, MPA, etc. If it is the only joint project to come to fruition it would bring highly significant capabilities.
          Last edited by Multirole; 27th July 2019, 01:47.
          pb::

          Comment

          • Inst
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Apr 2009
            • 189

            #25
            Because I like pissing off Chinats on multiple forums, I'll state that the Su-57 in Chinese service is a great opportunity to have an agile, attritional fighter conduct dogfighting duties that the J-20 would prefer to avoid for cost reasons.

            Comment

            • Vans
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2015
              • 155

              #26
              Originally posted by Inst View Post
              Because I like pissing off Chinats on multiple forums, I'll state that the Su-57 in Chinese service is a great opportunity to have an agile, attritional fighter conduct dogfighting duties that the J-20 would prefer to avoid for cost reasons.
              one could argue the J-20 would be good in Russian service too
              but i see them neediing the FC-31 more due to size

              Comment

              • Vans
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2015
                • 155

                #27
                Originally posted by Sintra View Post

                It was not a STOL or a VSTOL and it was a quite a big jet, it was the YAK design for the MFI program, the one that Mig took with the 1.42/1.44. The engine was also gigantic, the Sojuz R-179-300 with 200,1 kN of thrust. The aircraft was bigger than an F-35.
                how practical do you think it would be in reality?

                Comment

                • Vans
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Oct 2015
                  • 155

                  #28
                  Originally posted by paralay View Post
                  Engine R179V-300 belongs to the generation 4+, at the moment it is outdated. In this class the engine "izd.30"


                  ​​​​​​​Examples of similar arrangements
                  http://paralay.world/lfsyak/super_yak.jpg
                  http://paralay.world/lfsyak/41202.jpg
                  ok i see your point! i am surprised its that big

                  Comment

                  • Multirole
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 903

                    #29
                    If theres a need for a VTOL combat aircraft in the 2030s, why would it even be manned? VTOL UCAV would be cheaper, smaller; and as recent events show, when one gets shot down, doesnt drag you into an unwanted war.
                    pb::

                    Comment

                    • J-20
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Jan 2018
                      • 255

                      #30
                      Originally posted by Multirole View Post
                      If theres a need for a VTOL combat aircraft in the 2030s, why would it even be manned? VTOL UCAV would be cheaper, smaller; and as recent events show, when one gets shot down, doesnt drag you into an unwanted war.
                      yeah true. but we're not talking about the US which does innovative experimental research.
                      the other two just follows the lead of what ever the US produces... so unless the US makes a VTOL UCAV for their ships.. the other two won't. especially China. but if they do.. you can bet it will have DSI

                      Comment

                      • J-20
                        Rank 4 Registered User
                        • Jan 2018
                        • 255

                        #31
                        Originally posted by Sintra View Post

                        It was not a STOL or a VSTOL and it was a quite a big jet, it was the YAK design for the MFI program, the one that Mig took with the 1.42/1.44. The engine was also gigantic, the Sojuz R-179-300 with 200,1 kN of thrust. The aircraft was bigger than an F-35.
                        that's shame the Russians had such an aversion to single engine planes back then. the YAK design easily was more 5th gen in shape than the Sukhoi or Mig design. had they produced it, it would have been in service by now.

                        Comment

                        • paralay
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Aug 2005
                          • 1411

                          #32
                          The aversion of Russians to single-engine airplanes appeared on August 31, 1991. When Commander of the Air Force became Deinekin Peter Stepanovich
                          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94...B2%D0%B8%D1%87

                          Comment

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

                            #33
                            Originally posted by Multirole View Post

                            Could work. They could also build a four engine version of CR929, like Airbus A330 and A340.

                            CR929 has a lot of potential come to think of it, as tanker, AWACS, MPA, etc. If it is the only joint project to come to fruition it would bring highly significant capabilities.
                            CR929 does not have any potential developing in current form.

                            new version of IL96 . it can be special mission or simple freight transport. but no AWACS or Tanker.
                            http://www.ilyushin.org/press/news/ev7187/

                            Aircraft on 100% consists of Russian components, that eliminates the risks of the international political situation.

                            In addition, IL-96-400 m is embedded in the investment project on the establishment of a unified service center of the KLA in the Moscow aviation site.
                            -What aircraft will be created on its basis?

                            -Il-96-400 m-this is an interesting and promising program that can find its development as a passenger, special and in freight transport.




                            Comment

                            • Deino
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2000
                              • 4225

                              #34
                              Originally posted by JSR View Post

                              CR929 does not have any potential developing in current form.

                              new version of IL96 . it can be special mission or simple freight transport. but no AWACS or Tanker.

                              so simply since it is not a 100% Russian aircraft, a much more modern and capable aircraff cannot be a tanker or AEW, but an old much outdated airliner that was never successful could?

                              You really should consume less of what you currently smoke.
                              ...

                              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

                              • XB-70
                                Rank 4 Registered User
                                • May 2018
                                • 350

                                #35
                                what about in the case of the J-20 or X-36? or is their canards on a different position
                                @ Vans - It has nothing to do with position. Traditionally, canard designs (such as the current Eurocanards) are not stealthy because of the way they are made. See Rafale

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	RafaleBuild.png
Views:	345
Size:	58.6 KB
ID:	3869199

                                The leading edges of these designs are made of titanium - which has a very high electrical permittivity. This is a problem because electric and magnetic fields are concentrated at sharp edges.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	ElectromagnecticFields.png
Views:	334
Size:	401.9 KB
ID:	3869200

                                In short, you cannot have stealth with metallic leading edges. If you make a blunt leading edge then you can be assured there is a normal vector pointed straight back at the receiver. And, since reflectivity is very high, such a design will not work for stealth. On the other hand, if you create a sharp edge then you get better directivity, but it will be a superb site for surface creeping waves to relaunch out into the atmosphere - again compromising stealth. There is a lot of electrical engineering that goes into these.

                                Actual stealth designs treat all of their edges. The front part of the J-20's canards are made of a low permittivity dielectric (loaded with just enough conductivity - a sheet impedance of 377 ohms - to attenuate the wavefront) and so are suited for stealth.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	J-20 primer.jpg
Views:	330
Size:	225.5 KB
ID:	3869201

                                Rand revealed the build of US stealth designs a long time ago. See pages 7 and 8 on how the edges are always built of low permittivity dielectrics.

                                https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...MR1370.ch2.pdf

                                As for the Yakolev design in particular, there is no way you can judge whether something is stealth or not by looking at a wind tunnel model.

                                Comment

                                • XB-70
                                  Rank 4 Registered User
                                  • May 2018
                                  • 350

                                  #36
                                  The CR929 is likely the best base design for future Russian and Chinese tankers and AWACS. Since the design is shared for civilian passenger service they can built the aircraft in bulk - and thus cheaply. It also provides a starting point for achieving some commonality between the Russian and Chinese militaries.

                                  Comment

                                  • LMFS
                                    Rank 4 Registered User
                                    • Feb 2018
                                    • 520

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Inst View Post
                                    Because I like pissing off Chinats on multiple forums, I'll state that the Su-57 in Chinese service is a great opportunity to have an agile, attritional fighter conduct dogfighting duties that the J-20 would prefer to avoid for cost reasons.
                                    Only to start:

                                    > Su-57 would never be cheaper as a export for China than a locally built J-20. They sold the Su-35 for ca. $85 million IIRC
                                    > There are no modern fighters specialised in dogfighting, this is just a Western narrative used to decry Russian designs
                                    > Su-57 is no "attritional" fighter

                                    Originally posted by Deino
                                    so simply since it is not a 100% Russian aircraft, a much more modern and capable aircraff cannot be a tanker or AEW, but an old much outdated airliner that was never successful could?

                                    You really should consume less of what you currently smoke.
                                    And you should be less rude with other posters, they may be right on what they say.

                                    Il-96-400M is being currently developed, it will be used as a domestic airliner and base for special models for the air force. If they do this effort to be independent with civilian planes imagine what they would not do with their military models.

                                    Il-96 was a great plane with excellent base design which is every bit as good as current ones. They will update its systems and engines and there is even talk about making it twin engine in the future, when PD-35 is available

                                    Regarding AWACS, the talk is rather to make them smaller based on the Tu-214 than bigger than Il-76.

                                    @XB-70: great post (again) about stealth, thanks
                                    Last edited by LMFS; 29th July 2019, 10:10.

                                    Comment

                                    • Multirole
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 903

                                      #38
                                      If the Russians are still interested in huge ground effect aircraft, perhaps Beriev and AVIC can get together on that one.
                                      pb::

                                      Comment

                                      • Deino
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2000
                                        • 4225

                                        #39
                                        Originally posted by LMFS View Post
                                        And you should be less rude with other posters, they may be right on what they say.

                                        Il-96-400M is being currently developed, it will be used as a domestic airliner and base for special models for the air force. If they do this effort to be independent with civilian planes imagine what they would not do with their military models.

                                        Il-96 was a great plane with excellent base design which is every bit as good as current ones. They will update its systems and engines and there is even talk about making it twin engine in the future, when PD-35 is available

                                        Regarding AWACS, the talk is rather to make them smaller based on the Tu-214 than bigger than Il-76.
                                        ...

                                        Pardon if you feel offended, but JSR JSR's poats are rarely coreect. So why should a dated and never successful design be better than a brand new one basen on latesttechnologies?
                                        to develop the Il-96 is nothing but a waste ... it will never be more successful in mind of the lastest Western airliners and only for a handful of special mission birxs fur Russia?
                                        ...

                                        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

                                        • haavarla
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Dec 2008
                                          • 6696

                                          #40
                                          Deino@ What do you think is the point of Russia keep producing Il-96-400?

                                          For me it is because those are very special purpose jets, in both ministry and military sense. Russia would never ever buy foreign jets for those capability. Not to speak of the insane high price for such customized jets, but more cruicial, Russia need to be 100% certain these jets and its supply chain is NOT open to sanctions, etc.

                                          So there is absolutly no point in compair Il-96 with other jets, and use terms like successfull Airliners..

                                          On a long term window, the MC-21 in different sizes could very well replace some Il-96, but we have to wait and see. New PD engines on Il-96 is very much possible as well.
                                          Last edited by haavarla; 29th July 2019, 14:39.
                                          Thanks

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X