Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Aviation News - Part Deux

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
  • Sens
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 12277

    Originally posted by RSM55 View Post
    Please substantiate your totally uninformed claims.
    It's probably because Chine has "indigenous components of high quality" that they "refused Russian kits" by just ordering the Russkies more than a hundred new engines and begged them for software support.
    The J-11B is a milestone indeed, but it just means that the Chinese have matched the level of the late 70's USSR - without the engine technology.
    LOL.
    It is the late 80s - without the engine technology. But that is a general claim and in some other areas they are much more to the state of art. Even in Russia the computer controlled manufactoring was introduced in a wider scale from the 90s only.

    Comment

    • RSM55
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2005
      • 416

      Originally posted by Sens View Post
      It is the late 80s - without the engine technology. But that is a general claim and in some other areas they are much more to the state of art. Even in Russia the computer controlled manufactoring was introduced in a wider scale from the 90s only.
      So what - does CAD/CCMD think and draw for you? Does it build parts? Does it learn you how to put them together?
      Ever wondered why everyone (incl. Western manufacturers) were flowing to TsAGI with their windscale models?
      Re Su-27:
      T-10-1 first flight : 1977
      T-10S-1 (first serial): 1981
      First operational batch for the AF: 1984.
      The fact that it was "officially" accepted into service only in 1990 does not make it a "end of 80s" tech.

      PS: some often tend to forget that metallurgy is less a hard science than alchemy For ex., bronze alloys manufactured by the ancient Greeks is a tech that is totally lost now, and no one knows how to duplicate it. Manufacturing polymetallic and semi-metallic structures that can withstand the dynamic and thermal stresses of a modern 4 gen. fighter engine is high alchemy Some recipes just work, and no scientist can actually explain why, only describe how and because it might be the right solution. Besides, it necessitates a vast amount of experience, the right tools and the right access to the alloy compounds and components. That's why it's almost impossible to jump over a gen. in fighter engine design, like the Indians are learning the hard way now.
      Last edited by RSM55; 27th March 2009, 12:23.

      Comment

      • dionis
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Sep 2004
        • 1877

        Originally posted by J-7 Hotdog View Post
        lol and where's your real evidence? what happened to those promised numbers you speak of?

        or more like that you never had them to begin with and are too lazy to bother with it

        its quite clear you never even researched one flanker. if you did, you would realize that the MKM is basically the MKI with Israeli components replaced with French, and that the MiG-29K is not like the SMT, and is more like the MiG-29M..
        The irony here is great.

        Then you must know the MiG-29M is like the MiG-29SMT, but with new airframes . . .

        The MKI avionics are in fact better than the MKM ones, by a little bit.

        Zzzzz..

        Comment

        • dionis
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Sep 2004
          • 1877

          Originally posted by RSM55 View Post
          Yes, with some differences due to climatic/operational differing requirements.
          .
          The Su-27SM engine has significantly more thrust, just no TVC.

          It's a midway thrust between the AL-31F and 117S.

          Comment

          • UAZ
            UAZ
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2007
            • 574

            Video: Visit to MiG factory.

            -Showing the new simulator for the Indian Navy's MiG-29K.
            -The Phozatron guy showing operations of their radar.
            - The AESA radar for the Mig-35 (at 13:58)

            etc.etc.

            http://www.aviapedia.com/videos/figh..._MiG-Smotr.wmv
            Last edited by UAZ; 27th March 2009, 19:12.

            Comment

            • swerve
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2005
              • 13587

              Originally posted by RSM55 View Post
              PS: some often tend to forget that metallurgy is less a hard science than alchemy For ex., bronze alloys manufactured by the ancient Greeks is a tech that is totally lost now, and no one knows how to duplicate it.
              I find that hard to believe. I've often seen it said that such-and-such is a lost technology, e.g. the unrusted, over 1500 year old iron pillar at Delhi, but a little investigation has always revealed that it was a lost technology, but can now be duplicated. Or at least, we can duplicate the product, though not necessarily by quite the same method. In the case of the Delhi pillar, it could be duplicated in 19th century (but I think not before) Europe, for example, though it was expensive.

              I suspect these Greek bronze alloys are much the same. We don't know exactly how they did it, so we can't duplicate the process - but we can duplicate the end result.
              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
              Justinian

              Comment

              • Sens
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 12277

                Originally posted by RSM55 View Post
                So what - does CAD/CCMD think and draw for you? Does it build parts? Does it learn you how to put them together?
                Ever wondered why everyone (incl. Western manufacturers) were flowing to TsAGI with their windscale models?
                Re Su-27:
                T-10-1 first flight : 1977
                T-10S-1 (first serial): 1981
                First operational batch for the AF: 1984.
                The fact that it was "officially" accepted into service only in 1990 does not make it a "end of 80s" tech.

                PS: some often tend to forget that metallurgy is less a hard science than alchemy For ex., bronze alloys manufactured by the ancient Greeks is a tech that is totally lost now, and no one knows how to duplicate it. Manufacturing polymetallic and semi-metallic structures that can withstand the dynamic and thermal stresses of a modern 4 gen. fighter engine is high alchemy Some recipes just work, and no scientist can actually explain why, only describe how and because it might be the right solution. Besides, it necessitates a vast amount of experience, the right tools and the right access to the alloy compounds and components. That's why it's almost impossible to jump over a gen. in fighter engine design, like the Indians are learning the hard way now.
                Correct and wrong in the same instant. State of the art is composite or a mix of different materials. Civil- and military-production does not differ significantly any longer. The Chinese are lucky, that they can stick to dual use technology in most cases.
                They are freed by that not to explore all the related developments on their own with all the related possibilities and failures. Pioneers do have always the higher risk of failure, when the other can follow a given path much faster. Engine and aerodynamic technology are related to personal knowledge and experiences to a high degree and some stuborness and a long breath is in need. To generate something like the RD-33 or AL-31F Russia was in need of three decades of hard work and the related experiences or France with the M88.
                The Chinese do show a clever behavior. They do not built the fast ageing technology at hand in big numbers like the former SU, but do follow the US way, by building a limited number to replace that in shorter cycles with something new. For the luck of the Chinese the capabilities of weapon-systems are more and more related to the avionik and system integration.
                Brute force is surpassed by being smart. China has the money, personal and facilities to built more than 120 Su-27/J-11 per year with ease since the 90s, but did not so for many good reasons.

                Comment

                • Sens
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 12277

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_TF30
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56

                  The both ways of France to get the expertise for the M88.

                  Nothing unusual to procure advanced civil engines, when buying an innocent airliner in small numbers to learn the related technology.
                  Sweden did so and many more. But we keep in mind, that Sweden did pay the related fees to do so, when other did not.

                  Comment

                  • Sens
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 12277

                    Originally posted by RSM55 View Post
                    S
                    Re Su-27:
                    T-10-1 first flight : 1977
                    T-10S-1 (first serial): 1981
                    First operational batch for the AF: 1984.
                    The fact that it was "officially" accepted into service only in 1990 does not make it a "end of 80s" tech.
                    The T-10-1 is no Su-27 nor had it an AL-31F. The official claims in the race of systems are aside. After the Cold War we can have a much more relaxed view about that.
                    Even in the SU fighters were built in blocks, which do differ by advances in technology. Within every block new technolgy did replace older parts by something new. Nothing new and well known by car production and many more items. Every engine does get a new stepping a.s.o. When China did receive its first Su-27s, that were not built in the 70s.
                    All the later batches were no longer produced to the same standard of the 80s, because by learning systems of the Su-27/30 more and more improvements find their way into the production run. Externally such fighters do look the same, but nearly all did change under the skin. Being it just a better sealing-ring for example or longer lasting parts. Where does the rising TBO of the egines do come from? Some other things may not to better in a useful way and do stick to the technology of its time, like the rear-looking mirror or a certificated tyre.
                    In a fighter every single item has to be certificated. That is time consuming and costly. So several "outdated" items were kept to save money. The MiG-29 f.e. does incorporate technology from the 50s. Nothing wrong about that, when it does not affect the fighting performance and does allow to channel the scarce money to improve critical parts. Here are the Russians much more pragmatic in a useful way.

                    Comment

                    • haavarla
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2008
                      • 6492

                      Originally posted by Sens View Post
                      The T-10-1 is no Su-27 nor had it an AL-31F. The official claims in the race of systems are aside. After the Cold War we can have a much more relaxed view about that.
                      Even in the SU fighters were built in blocks, which do differ by advances in technology. Within every block new technolgy did replace older parts by something new. Nothing new and well known by car production and many more items. Every engine does get a new stepping a.s.o. When China did receive its first Su-27s, that were not built in the 70s.
                      All the later batches were no longer produced to the same standard of the 80s, because by learning systems of the Su-27/30 more and more improvements find their way into the production run. Externally such fighters do look the same, but nearly all did change under the skin. Being it just a better sealing-ring for example or longer lasting parts. Where does the rising TBO of the egines do come from? Some other things may not to better in a useful way and do stick to the technology of its time, like the rear-looking mirror or a certificated tyre.
                      In a fighter every single item has to be certificated. That is time consuming and costly. So several "outdated" items were kept to save money. The MiG-29 f.e. does incorporate technology from the 50s. Nothing wrong about that, when it does not affect the fighting performance and does allow to channel the scarce money to improve critical parts. Here are the Russians much more pragmatic in a useful way.


                      From what i got, the T-10-1 had AL-21F engines..

                      Actually i reminds me a bit of the development of the PAK-FA prototype!

                      It will fly on existing engines, probably because the new engine isn't anywhere near completion.
                      And like the T-10-1, the first PAK-FA prototype will be dedicated to aerodynamics performance with the same new flight controller thats on the Su-35..
                      Lets hope the PAK-FA prototype fares better than the history of T-10-1 development..
                      Thanks

                      Comment

                      • J-20 Hotdog
                        Senior Member
                        • Mar 2008
                        • 3476

                        wow where did echonine run off to? :diablo:

                        Comment

                        • Otaku
                          Senior Member
                          • Jun 2007
                          • 1410

                          SSJ-100 gets Su-35 escort into Zhukovsky for tests & certification:

                          http://zvezdanews.ru/video/day_events/0028838/

                          Comment

                          • CommanderJB
                            Rank 3 Registered User
                            • Nov 2008
                            • 700

                            This was from the link to an interview with Mikhail Pogosyan posted by medal64 in the PAK FA thread, but is of significance here as well:
                            Today will be presented the latest models of equipment that we create for our country and the Air Force to supply for export. This is Su-34 aircraft, which they have already started mass-produced military aircraft. We have a long-term contract with the Air Force. The first of these. The contract to supply 32 aircraft.
                            Is this the first news of a hard-and-fast contract for a regiment of Fullbacks? Even if it isn't, it's certainly encouraging to have this sort of confirmation. He goes on to discuss them further:
                            We have done a whole range of activities re the Novosibirsk plant and to date he is ready to manufacture aircraft Su34. In addition, today the Komsomolsk-on-Amur, connect it to cooperation with the Novosibirsk plant and use the full potential of the company Sukhoi to implement this program. The second task that we face - this building functions of aircraft through the use of modern aircraft destruction, which in combination set of airborne equipment can improve the efficiency of military complex. At the initial stage of serial production of aircraft, it certainly is constantly evolving. And we have agreed with the Air Force set of characteristics that we must build on this year. They primarily relate to as I have said, the integration of new weapons and build the program software. These changes allow minimal changes to refine those machines, which we previously had. Therefore, the aircraft of course are always evolving. This is a living organism.
                            Last edited by CommanderJB; 4th April 2009, 00:29.

                            Comment

                            • CommanderJB
                              Rank 3 Registered User
                              • Nov 2008
                              • 700

                              Airliners.net also has an absolutely superb gallery of photos from the President's Review at Kubinka:
                              http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true
                              Of interest was this one of Su-34 '03'. What's she carrying under her starboard intake? Is it some kind of target designation pod?

                              Comment

                              • Twisted
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Apr 2008
                                • 89

                                Whoa, good shot.

                                Comment

                                • Flanker_man
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 3665

                                  Originally posted by CommanderJB View Post
                                  Of interest was this one of Su-34 '03'. What's she carrying under her starboard intake? Is it some kind of target designation pod?
                                  I also noticed that pod.....

                                  It wasn't fitted when the two Su-34's arrived - look at the underneath shot of the two of them together.

                                  I wondered if it was some sort of comms link pod - bort 'Red 03' was the same aircraft that President Medvedev flew in.

                                  I also noticed that red 03 has a different aerial fit from red 02 - you can see it in the underside view of the both of them.

                                  Red 03 has a grey panel just behind the nosewheel door - and a redish panel under the tailboom - neither of which are on red 02.

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

                                  Comment

                                  • CommanderJB
                                    Rank 3 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2008
                                    • 700

                                    Very good point - I'm ninety-nine percent sure the pod was on the aircraft for the duration of Medvedev's flight, as I think I can just see it as the aircraft is taking off in this video from Russia Today, which does suggest it's not a combat-oriented payload. Maybe even a camera pod for publicity? Also, is the fixed 'bump' on the outward side of that intake part of the Platan targeting system?
                                    With regards to the antennae, perhaps these are simply incremental upgrades? The snippet from Pogosyan above suggests that they're still adding new features as aircraft start coming down the production line.
                                    Last edited by CommanderJB; 4th April 2009, 09:53.

                                    Comment

                                    • Trident
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2004
                                      • 3944

                                      Originally posted by Flanker_man View Post
                                      I also noticed that pod.....

                                      It wasn't fitted when the two Su-34's arrived - look at the underneath shot of the two of them together.

                                      I wondered if it was some sort of comms link pod - bort 'Red 03' was the same aircraft that President Medvedev flew in.

                                      I also noticed that red 03 has a different aerial fit from red 02 - you can see it in the underside view of the both of them.

                                      Red 03 has a grey panel just behind the nosewheel door - and a redish panel under the tailboom - neither of which are on red 02.

                                      Ken

                                      The red stuff is the countermeasures dispenser, might not be loaded with expendable decoys in 02 while it is in 03. The grey panel would be the Platan designator system, I think.

                                      The video downlink explanation is the best one I've seen regarding the mystery pod under the intake, makes a lot of sense!
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • CommanderJB
                                        Rank 3 Registered User
                                        • Nov 2008
                                        • 700

                                        Ah, of course. Here's the Platan box behind the nosewheel in closer detail:

                                        Wonder why the window on Red 02 is apparently painted over? Perhaps it doesn't have it installed for some reason?

                                        Comment

                                        • Otaku
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Jun 2007
                                          • 1410

                                          Stick a Damocles on this and who needs Su-34?! (confirmed order for 32 for the latter).

                                          Click image for larger version

Name:	1505700.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	280.9 KB
ID:	3607328







                                          Last edited by Otaku; 4th April 2009, 11:57.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X