General Questions Thread:

I didn't hear anything about new bombers for Russian AF, except Su-34M. I doubt Mig-41 gonna be 5-th generation, they said it's gonna be based on Mig-31.

You are confusing things... not everything needs to be "5th gen"... whatever the fuck that means.

My toothbrush is not 5th gen as it can't supercruise, but it does have an AESA radar and is very stealthy.

The MiG-41 is going to be better than a 5th gen fighter because they are going to be able to afford more than 190 of them and unlike the F-22 they wont sit in hangars all day costing Russian tax payers trillions of dollars with no actual practical use.

GarryB wrote:

I didn't hear anything about new bombers for Russian AF, except Su-34M. I doubt Mig-41 gonna be 5-th generation, they said it's gonna be based on Mig-31.

You are confusing things... not everything needs to be "5th gen"... whatever the fuck that means.

My toothbrush is not 5th gen as it can't supercruise, but it does have an AESA radar and is very stealthy.

The MiG-41 is going to be better than a 5th gen fighter because they are going to be able to afford more than 190 of them and unlike the F-22 they wont sit in hangars all day costing Russian tax payers trillions of dollars with no actual practical use.

That was my question pretty much. Do the need to be 5-th gen? Any reason for bombers and interceptors?

The generation really depends on what has come before it and how you put those aircraft into generations.

One could argue that for the Soviets the first interceptors were Spad types from WWI and that the second genertion were MiG-1/-3s from WWII, but most generation systems go with like types... so jet engined aircraft only... so for interceptors you would have the MiG-9 as the first jet powered interceptor, with the MiG-19 perhaps being the second generation with radar and missiles... then the next standard bomber interceptor from MiG was the MiG-21 as a short range bomber interceptor followed by the MiG-23 with much longer range and better missiles.

The MiG-25 was pretty much a dedicated interceptor followed by the MiG-31... so based on the MiG family the MiG-41 would be the 7th gen interceptor.

In fact in reality you would add the Yak-25 interceptors, and the Su-9/-11 and the Su-15, and of course who can ignore the Tu-128 as a dedicated interceptor... so who really knows what generation it would actually be.

Instead you could divide up the systems to define generations so the first gen had jet engines and primitive radar and guns, and perhaps the second generation had improved radar and higher speed (perhaps supersonic) and missiles, while the third generation..... etc etc... of course you could define an interceptor as being an aircraft with at least two crew... pilot and radar operator which would eliminate the MiG-23 and MiG-21, but would also eliminate the MiG-19 and the MiG-25 which I think is not right...

GarryB wrote:The generation really depends on what has come before it and how you put those aircraft into generations.

One could argue that for the Soviets the first interceptors were Spad types from WWI and that the second genertion were MiG-1/-3s from WWII, but most generation systems go with like types... so jet engined aircraft only... so for interceptors you would have the MiG-9 as the first jet powered interceptor, with the MiG-19 perhaps being the second generation with radar and missiles... then the next standard bomber interceptor from MiG was the MiG-21 as a short range bomber interceptor followed by the MiG-23 with much longer range and better missiles.

The MiG-25 was pretty much a dedicated interceptor followed by the MiG-31... so based on the MiG family the MiG-41 would be the 7th gen interceptor.

In fact in reality you would add the Yak-25 interceptors, and the Su-9/-11 and the Su-15, and of course who can ignore the Tu-128 as a dedicated interceptor... so who really knows what generation it would actually be.

Instead you could divide up the systems to define generations so the first gen had jet engines and primitive radar and guns, and perhaps the second generation had improved radar and higher speed (perhaps supersonic) and missiles, while the third generation..... etc etc... of course you could define an interceptor as being an aircraft with at least two crew... pilot and radar operator which would eliminate the MiG-23 and MiG-21, but would also eliminate the MiG-19 and the MiG-25 which I think is not right...

Thank you for you answer.

Do you think that future bombers and interceptors like Mig-41, could benefit (and it's worth it) from having some qualities of so called 5-th generation fighters? Like "stealthy" airframe, internal weapon bays, supersonic cruise speed?

Do you think that future bombers and interceptors like Mig-41, could benefit (and it's worth it) from having some qualities of so called 5-th generation fighters? Like "stealthy" airframe, internal weapon bays, supersonic cruise speed?

Well each have different roles that place value in different performance capabilities.

For an interceptor a powerful large radar array is valuable... stealth is not that useful as the interceptor will be operating over friendly airspace most of the time and will be scanning with a range of sensors to detect threats and targets.

Supercruise means accelerating to and flying at supersonic speed without using afterburner.

For an interceptor it is not really important to supercruise because interception should be at max speed so ABs will be used most of the time to get to the target as quickly as possible.

For a bomber the ability to supercruise would be rather valuable because when you are flying at supersonic speed an enemy aircraft trying to intercept you from the side or rear needs to fly at supersonic speed with AB to catch you... that greatly shortens their range and ability to shoot you down.

For a bomber stealth is also useful, but long range cruise missiles allowing standoff attacks are just as effective in that the bomber never gets close to enemy air defences so its radar signature is not important.

Internal weapons means lower drag and lower RCS which is good for bombers and interceptors.

The most important things for the interceptor is being able to find their target... that means big radars, IRST, long wave radars, and a net connection to ground and air and space based sensors. It means being able to fly long distances at very high speed. It means carrying a heavy load of air to air weapons.

The most important things for a bomber is being able to hit their target... stealth can assist in this but also long range standoff missiles can do the same job. Long flight range and reasonable speed make it better at its job too.

The Bear is looked down upon by most western media but its low operational costs and its excellent flight range are very big benefits that make it a very capable aircraft.

Its subsonic speed mean very large external loads of big missiles can be carried without reducing performance that much.

Kh-101 and Kh-102 missiles have a range of 5,000km so from 5,000km range the Bear is actually very stealthy...

Having said that a supercruising flying wing bomber that is stealthy but can supercruise at say mach 1.6 would be near impossible for most F-35s to intercept, and the performance of most fighter interceptors in the west is dramatically reduced when they have to accelerate to fly at supersonic speed...

Of course variable cycle jet engines that include a scramjet and your top speed is limited by heat strength of the structure.

GarryB wrote:

The most important things for the interceptor is being able to find their target... that means big radars, IRST, long wave radars, and a net connection to ground and air and space based sensors. It means being able to fly long distances at very high speed. It means carrying a heavy load of air to air weapons.

What about reconnaissance version of Mig? Is there still point in making them?

If understand correctly, the main qualities for Mig-25R were speed and ability to fly very high. Interceptor that is very difficult to intercept.

Altitude, speed and today also the ability to dialogue with ground forces in real time for target informations. A lot of work will be done with drones. A merit of the Mig-25R or of the SR71 was the ability to cover about 50-60 Km in one minute at very high speed and altitude. The Mig-25R could do also low altitude missions, but with "lower" supersonic speed.

What about reconnaissance version of Mig? Is there still point in making them?

If understand correctly, the main qualities for Mig-25R were speed and ability to fly very high. Interceptor that is very difficult to intercept.

Speed makes you harder to bring down... an F-4 with Sparrows could not bring down a MiG-25 operating at speed, but an F-15 could.

Newer aircraft and SAMs and newer missles means there is no longer safety in high speed unless it is very very high speed... ie mach 6-7 or faster.

Enormous speed comes at a performance cost, but new scramjet engines will enable new speeds to become an option... having said that the S-500 system soon to enter service in Russia can defeat targets flying at 7km/s which is about Mach 22... so placing an S-500 battery near something you want to protect from prying eyes will be effective out to a radius of about 800km... that is a circle 1,600km in diameter...

I have some questions about the Mil Mi-26T2 heavy transport helicopter (upgraded variant of the Mi-26).

Is it in service within the Russian Air Force, or is it used by the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MChS Rossii)?

Or maybe it is just an export variant?

Benya wrote:I have some questions about the Mil Mi-26T2 heavy transport helicopter (upgraded variant of the Mi-26).

Is it in service within the Russian Air Force, or is it used by the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MChS Rossii)?

Or maybe it is just an export variant?

Not in service yet in Russia, only overseas (Algeria?) VKS has shown interest but no orders yet nor from the other Russian military's that I have heard. The VKS has received 18 new Mil-26T's over the past few years and are planning to modernize up to 30 of the old -26's. Perhaps they will be done to T2 standard.

Isos wrote:Maybe not the best topic to ask this question but I do it : I just want a quick answer not a debate, thanks!!

I've read somewhere, on a forum I think, that the F-22 radar was totaly jammed by growler with it's big jamming pod. Is it possible that Russia, in the case it needs to fight against them, to make a big jamming area where every X band radar would be jammed thanks to ground equipements which is probably better than a jaming pod, and direct it's Pak fa which have better manoeuvrability and OLS system with Less precise low frequency radars which would take Paf Fa's at a range where its ols would have like 100% chance to see them?

They are making their fighter to win in a dogfight and be able to defeat an attack at long range and they are investing a lot in electronic warefare, so it would be logical idea for them to do that.

its a question of power. if it has enough power to use broadband jamming in x-wavelenghts then it can, infact LPI mode is useless then, and usual full power output with frequency hopping is better.

I heared that khibiny m can severely reduce detection range weather it was lpi or not , by covering the aircraft in an electron cloud according to the website. Any one can explain?

I read that the Chechen terrorist leader was assasinated with a cruise missile why deos Russia not de more of this?

Iskander has 500km range and 10m CEP.

Russians recently made quite conspicuous Open Sky overflights of US civilian government installations like White House, CIA HQ in Langley and so on, and also some private property holdings of hight ranking US politicians such as  Mar-a-Lago resort owned by Orange Clown. This generated ridiculous hysterics among US oligarch and US has de facto exited Open Sky by saying it will no longer allow Russian overflights.

Reason for such hysterical reaction is that those overflights indicate that in case of war Russians intend to use its arsenal of long range cruise missile to target life and property of top US politicians, officials and oligarchs, including their civil property. Close range images generated by those overflights  could be used for high precision terminal guidance of cruise missiles even if GLOSANSS system was jammed or disabled

US oligarchs up to now were usually fine with Russians Open Sky overflights going over sensitive US military installations because they knew in case of war people that will die because of those overflights are only contract soldiers mostly recruited form immigrants and US lower classes. Those new overflights indicate Russians have different targets in mind, namely US political and intelligence leadership themselves, so policy regarding Open Sky overflights has to change to accommodate those cowards are becoming potential targets themselves.

To kill someone remotely, whether with a bomber or a cruise missile or a ballistic missile you need to know where the person is precisely and when exactly too.

With all their much vaunted Satellite system how long did it take the US to get Saddam or Osama... decades in the case of the former and quite some time in the case of the latter... they could have bombed Obama from orbit and killed everyone without knowing for sure if they ever actually got him... but instead they went in and did it personal like.
In the case of Saddam they didn't really get them themselves.... they supported his internal enemies and help them get him they way they promised to so many times before and let them down.

Thank god for live TV broadcasts and public speeches lol its realy not so hard.

GarryB wrote:To kill someone remotely, whether with a bomber or a cruise missile or a ballistic missile you need to know where the person is precisely and when exactly too.

Very true indeed, getting of successful assassination with long range missile is quite a feat. Cruse missiles fly multiple hours to reach their targets, and usually it take more hours to collect intelligence on mark's location, program missile trajectory and transfer that program to missile. Anyone aware of possibility of of such attack can easily avoid it by changing his residence 3-4 times a day, or just by keeping his residence secret, or in some deep underground location.

However engaging in such evasive actions imposes severe lifestyle changes on the mark, lifestyle changes most marks will find deeply undesirable. Furthermore their fixed property will get no protection from such evasive action, so it can be blown up easily.

I would suggest decadent western oligarchs and officials would find such evasive way of life extremity undesirable. They are used to hawing other people die for their ambitions, without any personal risk on uncomfort for themselves. Once they, their families, and their property become targets they are faced with 3 choices of:

1) dying due to to missile attack on their usual residence
2) they and their family spend reminder of their life on the run, or in some deep bunker while rest of their property is systematically blown up
3) concede to whatever demand attackers makes

I would bet my balls that majority of Euroamerican oligarch would pick option 3.

SO TL:DR attempt of targeted assassination with long range missiles even when unsuccessful can be useful political tool.

Just the fact that they realise they are the targets and it is no longer just the families of the poor who are drafted to go to war is enough of a change...

When they were not being targetted war was actually good because most of them made money in war, whether it was making weapons or rebuilding after the war.

Of course in 20 years time it could simply be a case of putting a huge bomb in the back of a driverless light truck and send it to pick up the target to drive them to the airport... boom.

Guys,

Here's a question for you:
What is the average number of flying hours of the VKS/VVS pilot:
- in Long-Range Aviation
- in Transport Aviation
- in Frontal Aviation?

What were the numbers in previous years?

Does the reality meet the theory?

Thanks for all answers and comments!

FulcrumPL wrote:Guys,

Here's a question for you:
What is the average number of flying hours of the VKS/VVS pilot:
- in Long-Range Aviation
- in Transport Aviation
- in Frontal Aviation?

What were the numbers in previous years?

Does the reality meet the theory?

Thanks for all answers and comments!

Tomorrow is the annual meeting of the MoD after which all kinds of information about what happened in 2017 and what is planned for 2018 is released.

FulcrumPL wrote:Guys,

Here's a question for you:
What is the average number of flying hours of the VKS/VVS pilot:
- in Long-Range Aviation
- in Transport Aviation
- in Frontal Aviation?

What were the numbers in previous years?

Does the reality meet the theory?

Thanks for all answers and comments!

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12155999@egNews

"In 2017, the crews of the Air and Space Forces Association fulfilled their plans for 100 percent of the raids, combat training and combat use.

The total flying time was more than 20 thousand hours. The average flight time for the crew is over 120 hours.

During the year, long-distance crews took an active part in the exercises "West-2017", "Combat Commonwealth-2017", CSTO CRRF in the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan, aviation competition "Aviadarts-2017" in the territory of the People's Republic of China, International Military Technical Forum " Army-2017 "and other events

This year within the framework of flight and tactical exercises the crews of Tu-22M3 planes worked for the first time landing at the northern airfields of Anadyr and Vorkuta. For the first time, long-range bombers carried out tasks in the water area of the Bering Sea, "said Lieutenant-General Sergei Kobylash, commander of long-range aviation.

Can we conclude once and for all which twin engine configuration is superior: podded engines like Su-27/Su-57 or in built into the fuselage  like F-15/F-22/EF/Rafale/J-20?

For some reason no western twin engined combat aircraft besides the F-14/F-18 to some extent/A10(but it doesnt count) has used podded engines while the entire Russian 4th generation uses them(departing from the flat belly Su-15/Su-25/MiG-31)
So far these are the advantages that I know of the podded engines:
-Weight saving
-Easier maintenance
-Ability to space them apart to use the full potential of 3D TVC

The supposed advantages for twin engines  blended into the fuselage:
-Much better stealth compared to podded engines
-Much less drag
-Ability to design them with S-ducts


Overall do you think podded engines are a good configuration, or just a crotch to offset disadvantages in Engine thrust? Do you think Russian future fighter and interceptor designs will continue to use podded engines?

In the past and still to this day some armed forces have a dedicated anti aircraft helicopters . Of course some helicopters come with an array of weapons including anti aircraft missiles along with rockets guns etc. What am talking about is a helicopter armed with one gun (30mm) and all pylons armed with anti aircraft missiles. The scenarios it could be used for a fairly wide from accompanying combat helicopters, transport helicopters, protecting convoys, scouting/helicopter/UAV hunting and base protection . Is this something that Russia could adopt or is the concept dead? A Russian ka-52 would be ideal for such task.