Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    psg

    Posts : 21
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2011-02-19
    Location : united kingdom

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  psg on Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:27 pm

    from left to right, outer wing pylon to inner wing pylon.

    R-73, AA 11 Archer
    R-77, AA 12 Adder
    Kh-29T, AS 14 Kedge
    Kh-31p, AS 17 Krypton
    Kab 500/1500L. not too sure as to size of the bomb.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:51 am

    I agree with psg, and would add that based on the size of the bomb compared with the R-77 I would say it was definitely a KAB-1500L-F.

    The KAB-1500L-Pr is more compact, and the KAB-500 are much smaller.

    Note the KAB-1500L-F is bomb that is guided (KAB) and has an overall weight of 1,500kgs (-1500), and is laser guided (L). The F means it is a HE Fragmentation warhead so the warhead has a lot of HE and a prefragmented shell to spray fragments around the place when it goes off.

    The KAB-1500L-Pr is also guided and 1,500kgs and is also laser guided but the Pr means it is a penetrating round so the warhead still has HE but it also has a thick steel nose to penetrate into the target before a delayed fuse detonates the high explosive. Because it has a lot of steel in its nose it is much smaller... as you can imagine that 1 ton of HE takes up more space than 1 ton of steel... so the penetrating bomb weighing the same as a HE Frag bomb will look much slimmer and smaller because the steel penetrator is much denser.

    This is interesting as it suggests the Mig-35 can now carry 1,500kg bombs which the Flanker can but the older model Fulcrums couldn't.

    Such a bomb would be devastating to something like a ship... the smaller size of a penetrating munition like this further improves its ability to penetrate... for example if the target is in the basement of a tall building this is the sort of bomb you might want to use with the correct delay to hit it.

    In the 1980s these sorts of weapons could only be carried by the Fencers. With the upgrades these weapons will be useable by Fencers, Backfires, Fullbacks, Fulcrums(35s), and Flankers(SM, 35s) and the big bombers... Blackjack and Bear.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:53 pm

    Will Russians be enraged by F-35 firing a BrahMos??

    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:36 am

    I don't see any reason why Russia would be?

    If India is looking for a good combat capabilities over good politics than whatever they choose to be their line of aircraft is the right choice.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:41 am

    Will Russians be enraged by F-35 firing a BrahMos??

    It would kill Brahmos in Russian military service.

    You don't buy an F-35, you rent it, and any missile you want integrated into the F-35 system requires handing the electronic side of the system over to the US. Not even the UK or Australia or Israel are allowed the software for the F-35 so I rather doubt India or Russia would be allowed to integrate the BrahMos themselves.

    From Indias perspective the market within NATO F-35 users might be more lucrative than the Russian market and it might make financial sense, but it will likely strike a lethal blow to Brahmos, which Russia will simply update the new bits that improved it and apply that to the Oniks which was a higher performing version regarding hardware anyway. (Longer range and heavier warhead).
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:30 am

    nightcrawler wrote:Will Russians be enraged by F-35 firing a BrahMos??

    US would never give us the source code to install it. Nor would it fit in the weapons bay.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:33 am

    nightcrawler wrote:
    Name of middle missile??

    That is for MiG-35? It would never hold that configuration.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:12 am

    Likely an example of the range of what can be carried rather than what would be carried.

    I find it interesting that the inner pylon carries a 1.5 ton bomb, but then I believe they have developed a 1,800ltr fuel tank so it would have to be able to support over 1.5 tons to carry that.

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:44 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:That is for MiG-35? It would never hold that configuration.

    Why not ? The production Mig-35 will have 11 HP and can carry a total weapon load of 6.5T.

    The above weapon load is possible , I estimate each wings carries not more then 2.5T of weapons , so that weapon is doable with a 2000L Central Drop tank.

    Ofcourse a fully loaded weapons has bearing can stress the aircraft and reduce its service life if its done often.

    The thumb rule for most mission will be half payload and half fuel , you can tank it up on way/return from mission.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:35 am

    Why not ? The production Mig-35 will have 11 HP and can carry a total weapon load of 6.5T.

    I think he means that the variety of weapons would be unlikely to be carried... the air to air missiles would be useful for self defence on any surface attack mission but the mixture of (from left) two AAMs, a TV guided missile, either an anti radiation missile or anti ship missile, a heavy laser guided bomb and an either antiship or land attack cruise missile, and anti ship missile, a smaller laser guided bomb, and two AAMs... it is a very strange mix.
    If the target was a defended ship or SAM site or what ever it was would require a narrower range of weapons and likely more of them. For example attacking a SAM site would likely involve more ARMs and LACMs. Attacking a heavy bridge would mean more TV guided missiles and/or LGBs. Etc etc.

    Of course having said all that I remember a photo of an F-16 with 7 tons worth of bombs on it... it never took off and during its entire service life would never have needed or wanted such a load out... the handling performance with such a load would have been terrible. It was purely for a publicity shot. Any mission that required that sort of load out they would have sent an F-15E instead.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:34 pm


    Which is the third missile [relative to wing tip] is it Israeli or Russian??
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:48 am

    The aircraft is an Su-34 and none of the weapons on it are Israeli.

    From the top wing tip the missiles are:

    R-73 (black stripes indicate it is a dummy training missile representing the weight and drag of a real missile but with no warhead, seeker, or rocket motor).
    R-77 white
    R-27ER or EP Red
    Kh-31 Red
    Kh-31 Red
    Kh-31 Red
    R-27ET1 Red
    R-77 White
    R-73 white with black stripes.

    The R-27ER or EP has a pointed nose and either a SARH seeker or a passive anti radiation seeker.
    The R-27ET has a rounded optical port nose and an IR seeker (based on that fitted to the R-73).

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:41 pm

    APA has released some updates on its website today , got this via email

    link http://www.ausairpower.net/notices.html#TOP

    4. Add 2008 - 2010 Defence Today journal articles entitled:

    1. Identification underwater with towed array sonar,
    2. Evolving Naval Antiship Weapons Threat,
    3. Evolving Shipboard Air and Missile Defence Systems,
    4. Modern Laser Guided Bombs,
    5. Close Air Support in COIN Operations,
    6. Soviet Heavy Lift Helicopters,
    7. Evolving Weapons and Sensors for Rotary Wing Platforms,
    8. New Rotary Wing Technologies,
    9. Technological Impact on Close Air Support,
    10. Artillery in the Digital Age,
    11. Hardening Land Force Vehicles,
    12. Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar Futures,
    13. Advanced ISR for Land Warfare,
    14. UAVs versus Manned LRMP Platforms,
    15. Evolving ASW Sensor Technology,
    16. Evolution of Guided Torpedoes,
    17. Air Independent Propulsion - Now a Necessity,
    18. Sukhoi Fighters Evolve Potent Capability,
    19. Russian Strategy to Defeat US Air Power,
    20. Operation Igloo White.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:12 am

    ^^ I would agree visual and asthetic appeal would be one key factor , I
    recollect reading how a pilot would look at Boeing version of JSF and
    would find it ugly compared to Lockheed F-35.

    And yet beauty and appeal are different for different people.

    Some ones knowledge can change ugly to beautiful.

    A pilot finding the Boeing aircraft ugly compared to the F-35 is a good example if the pilot worked for Lockheed. The features of the Boeing version were not to make it look pretty, they were the solution to a problem. The questions then become did the solution solve the problem. Did the F-35 have the same problem and what was their solution, or did they not bother with a solution to the problem they didn't think was a problem?

    For instance the A-10 is considered by some to be ugly and strange, but its features are optimised to carry a big heavy gun and lots of ordinance on the wings.
    The Mi-28 has been called nasty things, but the wide separation of the engines makes it safer than a Hind and its thimble nose means it can control ATAKA missiles from a much wider range of angles with no chance of the other sighting systems or the gun getting in the way.

    Fashion has as much to do with aircraft design as anything else. For a while jump jets were in, then swing wing, canards, deltas, now it is stealth and flying wings.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  medo on Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:13 pm

    Anyone know, how project of Su-25UBM is going on? It was said, Ulan Ude will build new planes, but nothing is heard that Su-25UBM are ordered.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:28 am

    Anyone know, how project of Su-25UBM is going on? It was said, Ulan Ude will build new planes, but nothing is heard that Su-25UBM are ordered.

    I have read an article that has confused me on the issue.

    Here is the article... with the relevant section in red

    What Will GPV 2011-2020 Buy?



    Posted on October 4, 2010 by Russian Defense Policy| Leave a comment


    Russian military procurement policy is an obvious focus of what you read here, and there’s lots to write about on this score lately – the GPV, defense budget, OPK modernization and innovation, etc.  It’s not possible to capture it all at once.  Here’s a start, and hopefully it will lead to broader insights later.
    Writing for his latest project – the Center for the Analysis of the World Arms Trade (TsAMTO or ЦАМТО), Igor Korotchenko addressed what the new GPV might buy.  His article was picked up by VPK.name, and then a somewhat truncated version ran in Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye.
    He uses the 22 trillion ruble figure rather than the 19 trillion for the armed forces specifically.  Not that it matters since it’s a wag at best anyway.
    In his first broad swipe, Korotchenko forecasts that Russia will buy 500 new aircraft, 1,000 helicopters, and 200 air defense systems among other arms and equipment over the 2011-2020 period.  He admits, even with a fairly generous procurement budget [if approved and fully disbursed every year], it will be impossible to buy everything each
    service and branch will need after 20 years of very small-scale procurement.
    And this is exactly, of course, the point that Popovkin’s deputy, General-Lieutenant Oleg Frolov was making when he argued for 36 trillion . . . .
    So, they can’t have everything and will have to prioritize.  
    Korotchenko gives it a whack, maybe not satisfactory, but it’s a start:

    • Strategic nuclear forces;
    • Precision-guided weapons;
    • Automated command and control systems (ASU);
    • Aircraft;
    • Air and missile defense (PVO / PRO).

    Korotchenko doesn’t talk specifics about his first two priorities. On the third, he calls for a unitary military C2 system to enable Russian netcentric warfare.  On aircraft, he somewhat surprisingly emphasizes transport aircraft to move Russia’s million-man army between strategic axes as needed.  And Korotchenko lists PVO / PRO without further
    commentary.
    He supports efforts to overcome Russia’s lag in UAVs, ships, individual protective equipment and soldier systems, and armored vehicles through cooperation with Israel, France, Germany, and Italy.
    Then Korotchenko turns back to aircraft, saying they are the thing that will indicate what kind of armed forces Russia will have in 2020.  
    Based on what’s been said publicly, he counts:

    • An-124 Ruslan — 20
    • An-70 — 50
    • Il-476 — 50
    • Il-112B — ??
    • Su-35S — 48
    • Su-27SM — 12
    • Su-30MK2 — 4
    • PAK FA — 60
    • Su-34 — 32, possibly 60-80 more
    • Su-25UBM / Su-25TM — 10, possibly 20 more
    • MiG-35 — 30
    • MiG-29SMT / MiG-29UB — 20-30
    • MiG-29K / MiG-29KUB –26, possibly 22 more
    • Yak-130UBS — 120
    • New airborne early warning aircraft — 2-3
    • Be-200PS — 8-10

    In all, he summarizes, about 500-600 aircraft by 2020.
    Korotchenko doesn’t talk money, so we’ll have to think about what this would cost.  In terms of what’s covered, he’s only talked only about RVSN and Air Forces’ requirements.  You can be sure the Ground Troops, Navy, VDV, and Space Troops have their own lists.  Maybe Korotchenko will address them.
    Beyond what they say they need, there are two issues.  Can they buy it all, or at least how much of it?  And, second, can the OPK produce it?  Korotchenko doesn’t get us too far into any of this.
    source: http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/what-will-gpv-2011-2020-buy/Now this suggests to me that they are going to spend the extra money and pay for Su-25TM aircraft instead of the cheaper but lower performing Su-25SM upgraded aircraft.I certainly hope so, though with improvements in electronics since the Su-25TM was first offered and improvements in optics and night vision and mmw radar should allow for a Su-25TMM upgrade that is not too expensive... perhaps with the Mantra DIRCMs system as fitted to their Ka-52s to protect them from the only thing really threatening them on a modern battlefield (MANPADS).
    Interesting I didnt knew Igla-S has side thrusters , I hope they bring a digital version of Igla-S soon while the expensive Verba keeps getting inducted.

    A digital version would allow them to reprogram for newer countermeasures on the field , beyond the only weakness Igla-S
    seems pretty good.
    What makes you think the Igla-S is not digital? The only countermeasures likely to be effective against the Igla-S would be DIRCMS and they are really not that wide spread in use these days.There is a reason NATO aircraft stay as high over Libya as they did over Kosovo...
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:08 am


    This is an image Garry posted; but something is weird here the nozzle perforations aren't symmetrical?? or these perforations aren't what they seem to be
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:34 am

    It is just perspective.

    When I first posted it I thought the visible engine rocket nozzles were of the front two missiles but looking down the centre of the two missiles visible you can see two sets of control surfaces so this is the rear pair of four missiles.

    Basically the alignment of the missiles is more important relative to the pair of missiles in front of them than it is to each other as they are like cyclists in a bike race... as long as they are inside the disturbed air from the one in front they will have much less drag (and RCS).

    The noses of the missiles look like they come together because of distance perspective, while the centres of the rocket nozzles are where they should be... when you look into a cone from one side then the centre of that cone seems to be closer to the side you are looking from because the angle means that the cone side you are looking from the cone is seen at a steeper angle and appears to be the shorter distance to the centre.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:06 pm

    Perspective of T-50 air to air launch of BrahMos:
    brahmos length is 8.4 m (27.64 ft.)
    width is 0.67 m (2.20 ft.)

    Now where is a missile that size going to be fitted? it doesn't fit in the internal bays. and if it goes in between the engine intakes then the T-50 losses access to it's internal missile bays. Which I suppose they could do but then the T-50 becomes defensless along with a larger radar cross section. It defeats the purpose of the T-50 design. An air launched Brahmos is better suited for Su-30

    Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know. Please prove me wrong though I am always open to learning something new.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:17 am

    Brahmos is Yakhont with new electronics.

    Both are short range models derived from the Onix design that replaced the Moskit in Russian service. (Moskit being the air launched version of the SS-N-22 Sunburn).

    The Moskit is a 4.5 ton missile that was tested with the Su-34 and Su-27M and was to be carried centrally.

    The Onix is a much smaller missile that is 2 tons lighter but of similar speed and longer range... the Su-35 should be able to carry 3 Onix or Brahmos or Yakhont type missiles, and I agree it makes rather more sense for them to carry them than a stealth aircraft.

    However on a heavy strike mission carrying one large missile centrally it can still use four external weapons pylons and of course the suspected wing mounted short range IR missile bays.

    The main weapon will be launched up to 300km from the target which means internal bays can then be used by the now stealthy aircraft to engage any threats and thwart any attempts to deal with the incoming missile.

    Personally I would think two or three Su-35s with 3 large missiles each plus long range AAMs like KS-172 and R-77 and R-73 with a flight of 3-4 PAK FAs with internal weapons only in full stealth mode makes more sense with the Flankers firing from max range and the Pak Fas getting in closer and taking advantage of aircraft dodging missiles to fire close range shots with more terminal energy...

    I rather suspect the ability to fire Brahmos is an Indian requirement so that it can if it needs to.

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:08 am

    nightcrawler wrote: Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know. Please prove me wrong though I am always open to learning something new.

    That one should be tested soon , IAF has sent 2 MKI to Irkut to be modified and strengthened for Air Launch Brahmos , they were initially suppose to carry 3 but was settled for one as it needed lots of strengthning of Wings and central carriage.

    So now they settled for just one brahmos on the centerline , compared to ground launched Brahmos Airlaunched with be 500 kg lighter as they need to carry shorter booster.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:28 am

    Also there is no air to air Brahmos version as far as I know.

    Air to air Brahmos?

    No.

    Brahmos is optimised for ground and sea targets, not aerial targets.

    For very long range air to air it makes more sense to go for two stage missiles to make the missile low drag.
    avatar
    ahmad_elsharkawy

    Posts : 7
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2011-06-02

    any info

    Post  ahmad_elsharkawy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:42 am

    [b] is there is adifference between su-35 and mig 35

    and why algerian government returned their fighters back to russia ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:27 pm

    There's a big difference between Su-35s and MiG-35s, the biggest being, in simple words, "The Su-35 is better".

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16535
    Points : 17143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:40 am

    In many ways the Mig-35 and Su-35 are comparable to the F-16C and F-15C.

    The bigger aircraft on paper appears better in every measure because it can carry more weapons, it can carry heavier weapons, it has a larger radar, it has longer flight range.

    When you get offered both for the same price then it simply makes sense to buy the bigger aircraft... especially when you have already ordered some of them.

    In the case of Algeria however they already had 50 odd Mig-29S aircraft and ordered about 34 more Migs in the shape of Mig-29SMTs. About 6 of those were two seaters.
    At the time they also ordered some Su-30s and the Sukhoi design bureau basically offered to sell Su-30s at the price of the Mig-29SMTs they had ordered.

    Algeria decided that was too good an opportunity to miss and took it.

    The Mig-29 is highly underrated by most people and would be an excellent multirole fighter bomber.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:35 am