Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 164 of 164 FirstFirst ... 64114154160161162163164
Results 4,891 to 4,912 of 4912

Thread: RuAF News and development Thread part 15

  1. #4891
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,682
    Marcellogo:
    P.s. and that is the best response to Levsha also: C-141 has done just ferries between USA mainland and main, full standard bases abroad, it was surely efficient in this role but for qualify itself as a real military transport plane like the ones cited above it should have showed almost the ability to operate from forward operating bases if not from rugged, short airstrips like the An-22 proved able to do.
    Well as far as the USAF were concerned the rough field performance of the C-141 and the C-5 was more than good enough - if the USAF thought that such a capability was important designed it into the airframe. Both Lockheed products have more than proved themselves in the last 50 years or so. C-131 was good enough for the rough-field role.

  2. #4892
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,613
    Levsha: nor one nor the other were ever tough for such a role, they were just ferries between Usa and Europe (or Vietnam until the conflict lasted).
    Once arrived to a major hub their load was to be transferred , sometimes by C-130 but in the great majority of cases using the normal road or rail network to the front. The short-sightedness of such an organization was clear even before the end of the Cold War hence the money and the efforts spent on developing that exceptional, hyper-advanced but costly plane that is the C-17.

    Still the damage done by such a gap between strategic lifting and tactical transport is still felt in many legacy NATO equipments, originally conceived with precise dimensional and weight limitation in order to be carried on the C-130 while on the other hand the NATO has still to rent AN-124 and IL-76 to airlift loads in Afghanistan, given that C-17 is damn too costly and scarce in numbers for everyday logistical support while C-141 and C-5 was all merciless retired ASAP.

  3. #4893
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,492
    Good report on that new small engine which was earlier tested.



    From its looks, its an X-configured engine like that (not exact) of the the 12-cylinder 12N360, but with two cylinders in-line.


    ^ 12N360


    AFAIK, 360hp M-14P ("R" for radial?), was to be succeeded by a more powerful 400hp M-14X which did not progress much. It was probably just a more powerful variant of the 9-cylinder M-14P radial engine without any change in configuration or a complete new design? I don't know much details about it. Anyone knows better, please do share.
    But I would like to speculate that maybe it was meant to be a X-configured engine?


    Some specs from the report.
    8-cylinder, 2-stroke, petrol/gasoline engine in X-configuration
    400 hp
    200Kg
    I'm starting to like this little fellow. Hope it succeed well. Though I don't like it being a gasoline.

  4. #4894
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,492
    Nice short video of IL-78M-90A test flight, with shots and voice from control tower it have a nice feel.


  5. #4895
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    607
    FInally

    http://www.janes.com/article/77928/i...ghter-aircraft

    The end hopefully... of the saga since 2007. 2 would be delivered in October, hopefully. and we could realize whatever written in this paper

    Name:  21558577_344981369278024_6819915274093616268_n_by_stealthflanker-dbnt86e.jpg
Views: 1191
Size:  51.8 KB

  6. #4896
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,524
    Great, though to be fair the aircraft wasn't even really ready to be exported until a couple of years ago.

    With all these offset facilities, only make sense to increase their purchase down the line. Will Indonesia be able to offer hard cash/take up a credit offer in the future, or is the near/mid prospect the same commodity/cash mix?
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  7. #4897
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    280
    Isn't the HUD on the Su-30SMs and future SM1 just going to be same HUD on Su-35?

  8. #4898
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    280
    What happened to Take Off.ru? It's been down for a while.

  9. #4899
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,930
    Quote Originally Posted by sepheronx
    Isn't the HUD on the Su-30SMs and future SM1 just going to be same HUD on Su-35?
    The Su-35S is using ИКШ-1М (IKSh-1M) type, the one installed in Su-30SM looks slightly different, most likely ИКШ-1К (IKSh-1K).




    https://engineeringrussia.wordpress....d-up-displays/
    Last edited by MSphere; 16th February 2018 at 11:49.

  10. #4900
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1

    Great, though to be fair the aircraft wasn't even really ready to be exported until a couple of years ago.

    With all these offset facilities, only make sense to increase their purchase down the line. Will Indonesia be able to offer hard cash/take up a credit offer in the future, or is the near/mid prospect the same commodity/cash mix?
    Yes we can. assuming our MOD not making same mistake as before by not actually list the budget with our ministry of finance and they really make the investment in the same manner as our CBG submarine building facility. There are already talks about more sukhoi birds namely the SM variant (as MK2 lines in KNAAPO are closing). We are planning for additional 3 squadrons of fighter aircraft, these 3 squadrons however are still in early concepts.

  11. #4901
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,524
    Ka-62 at Progress:



    Tor-M2DT (Arctic) testing:

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  12. #4902
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,187
    Are those the Max 45km range missiles, or are those only for Tor SM?
    Edit:
    Never mind, i am confusing the Pantsir SA with Tor M2DT..
    Last edited by haavarla; 17th February 2018 at 11:49.
    Thanks

  13. #4903
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    607
    I wonder what change we could expect in future TOR's. I would expect increase in target handling capacity tho, beside fire on the move. because today is the era of mass precision munitions. adversary could be expected to employ large numbers of decoys or bombs.
    ---

    Design wise, tor engagement radar (at least the early version) make heavy use of "thinned array" design with element spacing of 3 wavelengths and about 3000 elements. Electronic scanning ability is thereby limited to 7 degrees. BUT it have like 40Db gain and very narrow beamwidth, suitable for low angle target engagement. and of course very low cost.

  14. #4904
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,187
    STEALTHFLANKER@
    ideal speaking, such army detachement as Tor would operate under larger Anti-air systems coverage, like Pantsir, BUK, Vitaz 450, S-300, S-400.
    If the Counterpart try to jam.. they will also jam themself to a great extent.

    We know the Russians do this in East Ukraine and Syria, and thus their different units has to operate under their own sensor as opposed to their larger network of target ack, since the larger battle picture can be disrupted by noise(enemy and their own).
    Thanks

  15. #4905
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,916
    Some of this new Russian stuff looks custom tailored for museums. Where is the real new stuff?
    Go Huskers!

  16. #4906
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    408
    Just a nice shot, from last year:



    Also, bit random but I've always had a soft spot for the Il-96 (and 86), they have this elegance to them somehow, despite being huge widebody airliners (from 2015):


  17. #4907
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,187
    Some of this new Russian stuff looks custom tailored for museums. Where is the real new stuff?

    Go Huskers!
    Not sure what you are trying to say..
    If it was towards Russian Anti-air systems.
    Then a S-125 just recently shoot down a F-16I.

    Not bad for Museums stuff..
    Thanks

  18. #4908
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,682
    Not sure what you are trying to say..
    If it was towards Russian Anti-air systems.
    Then a S-125 just recently shoot down a F-16I.

    Not bad for Museums stuff..
    I thought I read somewhere it was a Buk system shot down the F-16?

  19. #4909
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,524
    What are you referring to when you say "museum pieces"?

    Su-30SM in Syria:





    And some museum pieces specially for Madrat :

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  20. #4910
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,187
    I thought I read somewhere it was a Buk system shot down the F-16?
    Well the jury is still out on that account.
    But, there are two pointer in S-125 favor.
    1st. There are some wreckage of S-125 rockets inside Israel(or inside Golan..), which mean they had the reach for the F-16I.
    2nd. Yes the reach/range.. Its doubtfully the newer post Cold war Russian produced BUK's was positioned close enough to reach past the Golan heights. Its not the latest BUK M2 with 70km range, but older BUK with 50 km range.
    3rd. The warhead on S-125 is quite large compare to BUK. Its seems on various youtube clips and reported pilot interview, that the F-16 came apart instantly, and pilots ejecting in mere second upon hit. Might have been the S-125 warhead.
    Last edited by haavarla; 18th February 2018 at 00:13.
    Thanks

  21. #4911
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,524
    Re. Ka-52:

    https://ria.ru/arms/20180214/1514588957.html

    Progress plans to make about 25 of the type this year, and 22-25 in 2019. Obviously split between Egypt and VKS.
    In 2017, 27 Ka-52s were produced.

    https://ria.ru/economy/20180214/1514586840.html?inj=1

    As for the long-gestating Ka-62, tentative plans are to start serial production in 2020...

    Couple more SM shots from Syria:









    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  22. #4912
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,682
    Well the jury is still out on that account.
    But, there are two pointer in S-125 favor.
    1st. There are some wreckage of S-125 rockets inside Israel(or inside Golan..), which mean they had the reach for the F-16I.
    It's said that S-125, S-200 and Buk missile types were fired at the Israeli planes that night - the S-125 missiles which crashed on the ground were the missiles which did not shoot down the F-16.

    2nd. Yes the reach/range.. Its doubtfully the newer post Cold war Russian produced BUK's was positioned close enough to reach past the Golan heights.
    why wouldn't they be positioned close to the border like any other missile system might be?

    3rd. The warhead on S-125 is quite large compare to BUK. Its seems on various youtube clips and reported pilot interview, that the F-16 came apart instantly, and pilots ejecting in mere second upon hit. Might have been the S-125 warhead.
    Buk warhead is smaller than that on the S-125 - you sure about that? Wikipedia says otherwise.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES