Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share

    Manov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 39
    Points : 48
    Join date : 2015-01-07
    Location : South America

    Missiles procurement

    Post  Manov on Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:58 pm

    Hi guys, im new on the forum, i just wanna thank you for all the valuable information and nice discussion environment.

    My question is

    Do you have some information about the procurement of advanced munitions in the recently delivered jet fighters (SU-35,30,34), if they are already buying them, producing them or fielding it in the new birds. I mean systems like rvv-sd,bd,md and A-G munitions like kh-59m, kh-31, kh-29, smart bombs and possibly the airborne kaliber variants (su-34, mig-29k)

    Thank you

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:07 am

    calripson wrote:What were the final 2014 production/delivery numbers for Su35, Su30SM, Ka52, Mi28, ect ? What about Yars systems mobile and silo ?

    12 x su-35
    21 x su-30sm
    8 x su-30m2
    10 x Mig-29k
    20 x Yak-130
    18 x su-34

    these are the numbers for combat aircraft deliveries in 2014

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1129578.html

    indochina
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 45
    Points : 67
    Join date : 2013-02-07

    RWR, ECM vs FCR, AAM

    Post  indochina on Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:53 pm

    I have a question for the seeker head AIM-120C WGU-44 / B-band operation in the I-band, it can be trapped/jamming by the SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S H / I band ECM

    Another problem, RWR SPO-15LM can alert threat, illuminated operation of APG-81 AESA fire-control radar ? I know it works with PESA radar, Pusple-doppler for AESA but I've never heard

    R-27EP use ARM seeker head, it can attack the F-35 APG-81 radar used with large radar emitters similar AGM-88, Kh-31P used to combat radar of SAM

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Redesigning the PAK-FA

    Post  jhelb on Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:10 pm

    Guys,

    If you had access to the technology portfolio that was invented for the PAK-FA what kind of air craft would you build with it starting with a "clean sheet" design review optimized for a specific and narrowly defined mission?

    Fiber mat stealth. Avionics that will hopefully go from a low-workload hover to forward flight and back again. Distributed aperture Infrared Search and Track. Advanced communications. Advanced engines. Helmet cueing that allows the pilot to look down through their own bodies. Cooperative Engagement Capability via the Combat Cloud.

    For a start what would a single-mission fifth generation aircraft look like for the following roles:

    A 5th gen cargo plane?

    A 5th gen mid air refueling tanker?

    A true 5th generation stealth drone?

    A 5th gen ground attack close air support replacement?

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:00 pm

    If I had any decision, it would be a light fighter aircraft. An advanced aircraft designed around some 4+ gen tech like RD-93 engine. Zhuk-A radar (newest iteration), and using similar avionics to Su-35 like the L band radar on wingtips and new ecm eccm ew equipment. Gotta be cheaper than what is readily available so that it can be fielded in much greater quantity.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:54 pm

    sepheronx wrote:If I had any decision, it would be a light fighter aircraft. An advanced aircraft designed around some 4+ gen tech like RD-93 engine. Zhuk-A radar (newest iteration), and using similar avionics to Su-35 like the L band radar on wingtips and new ecm eccm ew equipment. Gotta be cheaper than what is readily available so that it can be fielded in much greater quantity.
    Well said.

    Upgrade, after upgrade, design after re-design, Russia is going nowhere. PAK FA T-50 is simply a waste of money and waste of energy, a waste of precious ressources.
    Iam afraid with this new cumbersome aircraft with a dubious effectiveness will ruin Russia. We have the definitive proof with US that stealth and heavy fighter bomber's concept does not work. It would be better to develop, to upgrade the Mig-35, and SU-35. This is largely enough.

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  RTN on Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:05 am

    jhelb wrote:Guys,

    If you had access to the technology portfolio that was invented for the PAK-FA what kind of air craft would you build with it starting with a "clean sheet" design review optimized for a specific and narrowly defined mission?

    The replacement for the Mig-31 will borrow technologies developed for the PAKFA. The same can be said about Su-35S.

    So basically we will have to see how mature these technologies are that can be used in a variety of platforms.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:51 am

    [quote="nemrod"]
    sepheronx wrote: We have the definitive proof with US that stealth and heavy fighter bomber's concept does not work. It would be better to develop, to upgrade the Mig-35, and SU-35. This is largely enough.

    Must be why Russia (and China, and others to some degree) are all going with VLO large 5th gen fighters.

    Because they haven't quite caught on to your realization about what works and what does not. Wink

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:58 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:If I had any decision, it would be a light fighter aircraft. An advanced aircraft designed around some 4+ gen tech like RD-93 engine. Zhuk-A radar (newest iteration), and using similar avionics to Su-35 like the L band radar on wingtips and new ecm eccm ew equipment. Gotta be cheaper than what is readily available so that it can be fielded in much greater quantity.
    Well said.

    Upgrade, after upgrade, design after re-design, Russia is going nowhere. PAK FA T-50 is simply a waste of money and waste of energy, a waste of precious ressources.
    Iam afraid with this new cumbersome aircraft with a dubious effectiveness will ruin Russia. We have the definitive proof with US that stealth and heavy fighter bomber's concept does not work. It would be better to develop, to upgrade the Mig-35, and SU-35. This is largely enough.

    PAK FA is doing Russia a major benefit though. Because there is a huge push for tech development in RAM, engines, weapons and avionics. I think using the RAM to greatly reduce the radar cross section, along with shaping, and using the tech learned like in Zhuk Radar AESA tech as well as optronics used for PAK FA, would benefit greatly. Maybe what has been learned from the engine development could be incorporated to reduce costs on the RD-93 as well as increase efficiency. The program is very beneficial but it is an expensive aircraft and in today's economic climate and the demand for more modern aircraft and in numbers needed to help match against NATO/US (or at least be enough) is needed and a cheaper aircraft is very much needed.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:57 am

    Personally I would not change much... the PAK FA is already going to be a very good aircraft for a range of specialised missions, while advanced model MiG-35 and Su-35 and Su-34 and a MiG-31 replacement, plus a fifth gen CAS aircraft, PAK DA, and a naval carrier based PAK FA are pretty much all bases covered.


    No one needs thousands of heavy 5th gen stealth aircraft... a couple of hundred will be plenty when supported by an air defence network plus 4++ gen fighters and interceptors.

    Some might say it is bombers that have been largely redundant in a world with ICBMs and SLBMs,but bombers/cruise missile carriers add a conventional attack dimension ICBMs and SLBMs lack... plus they are a visible system that can be deployed in times of tension, yet stood down when calming down the situation is needed. Other nukes don't have that flexibility.

    With a new generation of AAMs and ASMs the PAK FA will be a very potent fighter bomber aircraft.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:09 am

    Small question: is it possible to apply a anti-bird barriers and mechanisms like MiG-29 into the air inlet of T-50 ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:44 am

    Yes, but I suspect radar blockers would be more likely.

    With modern jet engines the blades are not separate items fitted to a hub, they are often part of a disk which makes them rather stronger and better able to resist the impacts of foreign objects.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wes556
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-04-25
    Location : Holland

    aviation jargon

    Post  wes556 on Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:19 pm

    Unsure if this is the right topic, I have a question. By what name indicate Russian combat pilots an enemy aircraft?

    Onzeker of dit het juiste topic hiervoor is heb ik een vraag. Hoe duiden Russische gevechtspiloten een vijandelijk vliegtuig aan?

    Ivan the Colorado
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 794
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Age : 20
    Location : Colorado, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Ivan the Colorado on Sun May 03, 2015 4:25 am

    GarryB wrote:Yes, but I suspect radar blockers would be more likely.

    With modern jet engines the blades are not separate items fitted to a hub, they are often part of a disk which makes them rather stronger and better able to resist the impacts of foreign objects.
    I am really interested in finding out how common are bird strikes with fighter aircraft then.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 03, 2015 10:20 am

    Most airfields... civilian and military have some sort of anti bird mechanisms in place... in Soviet times it was common to see scarecrows on soviet airfields, and various noise makers to the use of hawks and other birds of prey to scare away birds are used.

    The critical period is takeoff and landing where losing an engine can be critical.

    At the Farnborough airshow a MiG-29 was brought down by bird ingestion, but the fact that the aircraft was flying low and slow at a high angle of attack was the main reason the aircraft was lost... in normal level flight there would have been no problem as the MiG can fly safely on one engine.

    According to the debrief with the pilot the aircraft was flying at an angle and a speed that required two engines to maintain flight... it was steeply pitched up and was relying on engine power to keep it airborne. When one engine shutdown the aircraft banked over towards the ground... the pilot reportedly managed to restart the failed engine but it was too late to save the aircraft. In level flight at normal flight speed well above stall speed there would not have been any problems the aircraft could have maintained speed and altitude on one engine and the other engine could have been restarted safely.

    Obviously for a single engine fighter it would be more of an issue.

    the doors on the MiG-29 air intakes and the Yak-130 are designed to stop stones and dirt entering the intake on rough runways and open when the front tire lifts off the ground so would not work against a bird strike in low level flight.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Ivan the Colorado
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 794
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Age : 20
    Location : Colorado, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Ivan the Colorado on Thu May 14, 2015 9:10 am

    Does anybody have any information about the procurement plan of the VVS?

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  George1 on Thu May 14, 2015 12:31 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Does anybody have any information about the procurement plan of the VVS?

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3912-pov-russian-air-force-capabilities-and-procurement-plans

    Orders include:

    Type        No Ord     Delivered
    MiG-29K: 24   /  14
    Su-30SM: 12   /   3
    MiG-29SMT: 16   /   0
    Su-30М2: 20  /   16
    Su-30SM: 60   /  31
    Su-35S: 48   /  34
    Su-34: 124 / 56

    Ivan the Colorado
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 794
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Age : 20
    Location : Colorado, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Ivan the Colorado on Fri May 15, 2015 1:05 am

    George1 wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Does anybody have any information about the procurement plan of the VVS?

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3912-pov-russian-air-force-capabilities-and-procurement-plans

    Orders include:

    Type        No Ord     Delivered
    MiG-29K: 24   /  14
    Su-30SM: 12   /   3
    MiG-29SMT: 16   /   0
    Su-30М2: 20  /   16
    Su-30SM: 60   /  31
    Su-35S: 48   /  34
    Su-34: 124 / 56
    Thank you George1!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 15, 2015 11:44 am

    @Manov

    I have not heard anything new but there was a purchase of 14 new types of weapons a few years back, and as new weapons become available and more aircraft enter service able to use those weapons then I suspect new purchases will take place.

    I doubt they will buy the new weapons in enormous numbers and any minor conflict with burn through their reserves fairly quickly... most countries don't buy enough of such weapons as they are expensive and have a limited shelf life.

    I have noticed a lot of the new weapons have simulators... ie captive sensors so it can simulate having the real weapon on board without using up rail time on the service life of the weapon.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wes556
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-04-25
    Location : Holland

    more questions

    Post  wes556 on Sun May 17, 2015 8:19 pm

    For my hobby I write a techno thriller. In short, it means that a (civil) war rage between the Russian Federation and the Kaliningrad Oblast, when the last one became independent. The story runs from september 2008 until approximately april 2009 and starts short after the war with Georgia. Unfamiliar with military products and tactics I try to collect on the internet facts that are important to my story. Unfortunately, with reading alone on this wonderful site I can’t get  my questions answered. I hope someone else can:

    In what way operates a Russian Beriev A-50 AWACS? Differed this with a NATO E-3?

    What kind of resources has an AEW aircraft to defend it selve?

    North Korea has an Antonov An-24 transport aircraft equipped with radar of a MiG-29. In my story try the Kaliningraders the Antonov An-71 radar to provide one or more Russian combat aircraft for a rudimentary AEW capability. How much time would pass before anything is implemented in reality?

    Kaliningrad oblast is 15,100 square kilometers, what do you need to cover this entire area with an AEW aircraft? For example, is one plane with a  radar range of 250 kilometers sufficient?

    What kind of tactics are used by the Russian fighter pilots of MiG-29, Su-27 fighter planes in dogfights?

    Are the Chinese using for the Sukhoi Su-27 fighter aircraft and its derived versions same data links as the Russians?

    By what name indicate Russian combat pilots an enemy aircraft?

    Nagumo
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 15
    Join date : 2012-11-06

    Yak-53 light attack aircraft

    Post  Nagumo on Thu May 21, 2015 3:41 pm

    Yak-53 was light attack aircraft? http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=4af1d124-c141-4e8d-923a-ebc19dff8537 any info about it?

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9438
    Points : 9930
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  George1 on Fri May 22, 2015 2:34 am

    Nagumo wrote:Yak-53 was light attack aircraft? http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=4af1d124-c141-4e8d-923a-ebc19dff8537 any info about it?

    It was a single seat aerobatic trainer aircraft produced in the USSR during 1981/2. Only prototypes were produced.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Mid Air Ammunition Loading: Can a mechanism be developed to reload fighter aircraft with ammunition during mid-flight ?

    Post  jhelb on Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:13 pm

    I was thinking on the lines of mid air refueling. Can this be done with ammunition as well? Say I want to reload a Su 30 mid air with ammo, what are the challenges that I will face? And can these challenges be overcome?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:03 pm

    The racks, launching racks and fix points on aircrafts are not automatic but all manual, meaning workers and mechanics have to bring bombs, missiles equipment in position and then have to connect wiring, tighten the screws and connect safety pins from bombs to fixing hardpoint to assure that bombs are working properly and when used and dropped from their pylons that the safety pin gets pulled out.

    If you want to make it all mid-air automated you would need many more devices, equipment on the aircrafts itself, many more cameras to observe Fighter and Reloading tanker, so they do not collide mid air. You would need an extracting mechanism from reloading aircraft and this aircraft would be overexpensive, highly dangerous maneuver and procedure and by the end you would end with higher costs then just using an Aircraft carrier that is used as a mobile airfield and ammunition depot.

    If you really want something like that, yes i would say it would be possible, but unlikely to work like intended and have zero advantages, because such an aircrafts weights alot and needs protection from fighters, which slows down fighters and exposes them to the enemy and only attracts enemy fighters due the immense RCS, just not feasiable.

    zackyx
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-05-05

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  zackyx on Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:25 am

    https://youtu.be/CLkboGcbMaA?t=1m11s

    Is the plane firing the rockets a Su-25 ? if yes what kind of targetting pod is it using ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:30 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:30 am