Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    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??


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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).

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    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.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    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??

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:52 am

    How effective will Iglas-S be in bringing down a jet of the size of 747 class , Will it only manage to damage the jet or can it bring it down , considering it has proximity fuse ?

    Here is a nice video of Igla-S


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:03 am

    How effective will Iglas-S be in bringing down a jet of the size of 747
    class , Will it only manage to damage the jet or can it bring it down ,
    considering it has proximity fuse ?

    Depends on the situation and where exactly it hits the aircraft.
    Most of its flight time is spent well out of range of shoulder launched missiles so a 747 sized aircraft will only be vulnerable during take offs and landings.

    A fully loaded fully fuelled aircraft taking off is probably the most vulnerable to the loss of power a missile hit would cause.
    A MANPAD would actually be most lethal if it misses the engines and hits the wing of the aircraft because due to flight range requirements most 747 sized aircraft have wings full of fuel, so there is a chance of fire or secondary explosion and of course a full pressurised tank contributes to wing stuctural integrity, where a ruptured flaming fuel tank does not.

    I would have said a small missile like igla would not likely totally destroy a very large military aircraft, but aircraft based on civilian models are not as damage resistent as some military aircraft.

    The aircraft would certainly not be able to continue doing what they were doing.

    I have seen video of early Igla blow the tails completely off Mig-15 drone target aircraft so I think destroying one engine completely and damaging the other is definitely possible and during a takeoff that would be a serious emergency. If it hit the wing however that would not give the crew the chance to dump fuel and turn around and try to land.

    The proximity fuse is for using the system against small targets like UAVs and cruise missiles.
    A big 747 like target it will most likely hit something.

    If you look at this vid:



    It includes a lot of stuff in the vid you posted but includes shots of the missile shown in animation form exploding further forward of the engine nozzle. This is part of the guidance algorithm that prevents the missile going for tailpipes and hitting the body of the aircraft instead (where it can do more damage).
    If that makes it hit the body or wing of a large aircraft it will make it more lethal.


    Legendary Aerospacee engineer Kelly Johnson said:" if it looks good, it flies good."

    Yes he did, but to be clear he said if it looks good it will fly well... he didn't say if it looks bad it will not fly well, nor did he say if it flys well it must look good.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:32 pm

    Nice videos about Igla and Igla-S. With all additional equipment like electronic planchete, IFF and night sight, they represent very sirious air defense, specially against helicopters, which could not fly over them.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:52 pm

    Nice video Garry but there occurs some questions from my side:
    1] The 6 nozzle booster; when did it separate. I mean just after the launch or only at terminal potion
    2]For coarse correction; the gas dynamics nozzles are situated only at the front just besides the fins of the missile plus is also located at the tail side of the missile. In action the former can be seen but what abt the latter one?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:23 am

    1] The 6 nozzle booster; when did it separate. I mean just after the launch or only at terminal potion

    Looking at it closely it seems to be about the size of an ice hockey puck and the central nozzle is straight but the ones around the edge are angled.

    I rather expect this is a booster charge that has two main purposes... to blow the rocket out of the launch tube and clear of the firing position before the main rocket accelerates the missile to the target, and to impart an initial spin to the rocket to stabilise it initially while it is moving relatively slowly to prevent it veering off course one way or another. At such low speeds the small fin controls would lack the force to keep the nose pointed up at the target area so by giving it some spin it makes sure it doesn't belly dive into the ground straight after launch.

    2]For coarse correction; the gas dynamics nozzles are situated only at
    the front just besides the fins of the missile plus is also located at
    the tail side of the missile. In action the former can be seen but what
    abt the latter one?

    If you look at about 2 minutes in the video I posted there are actually four fins near the front of the missile that pop out after launch. One main pair of two fins that are also on the older Igla missiles and a smaller second pair of fins there too to assist in steering the missile to the target.
    The four fins at the very rear of the missile are fixed stabilising fins, they fold out on launch and then do not move and provide stability to the missile in flight. The fins at the nose steer the missile toward the target.
    The rocket nozzles near the nose are used in the terminal phase of the interception to improve hit probability to shove the missile on target and reduce miss distance.

    The video above in the first few seconds shows a missile destroying a drone aircraft with the missile zapping through at supersonic speed... such a weapon is not that easy to dodge as it is moving very fast. A last minute turn by an aircraft can be compensated for by the force of a side thruster rocket firing to shift the missile onto the new target position and as the missile is spinning several times a different thruster can be fired in the same direction to move a significant amount to reduce the miss distance.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:47 pm

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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...

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:48 am

    GarryB wrote: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...

    I was told its not digital and not reprogrammable on field by Russian rep during AeroIndia

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:00 am

    I was told its not digital and not reprogrammable on field by Russian rep during AeroIndia

    Did he say that was the same for both export Igla-S he was showing and the domestic Igla-S missiles being produced for Russian forces?

    I hope they start spending money on the Russian electronics industry because such systems should be digital by now... I suspect it is the lack of investment in the electronics industry in Russia and the problems of getting modern foreign electronics imported into Russia that will be the problem.

    Their new AAMs are digital (ie RVV-MD and RVV-SD) including those for export...

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Austin on Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:55 am

    GarryB wrote:Did he say that was the same for both export Igla-S he was showing and the domestic Igla-S missiles being produced for Russian forces?

    I hope they start spending money on the Russian electronics industry because such systems should be digital by now... I suspect it is the lack of investment in the electronics industry in Russia and the problems of getting modern foreign electronics imported into Russia that will be the problem.

    Their new AAMs are digital (ie RVV-MD and RVV-SD) including those for export...

    Yes the Igla-S are analog there is no digital Igla/Igla-S , there is some advantage in keeping it analog for this small missile and some disadvantage.

    The verba will be digital , for most part Igla-S should work unless some one figured out how to decoy its seeker , like they figured out with Stinger used in afganistan.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:42 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:42 pm