Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Giulio

    Posts : 167
    Points : 190
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Giulio on Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:11 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16702
    Points : 17310
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:48 am


    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...


    _________________
    “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

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    What about a VTOL or STOL plane? Better than the F35.

    Post  Firebird on Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:52 pm

    Yes ok, everyone knows the USA's F-35 is shite.

    BUT what about a Russian plane. VTOL or perhaps STOL that wouldn't need a runway. It would have a level of stealth.
    It could be carried on heli carriers or perhaps even large destroyers. It wouldn't need huge aircraft carriers.

    IN other words, it could be used instead of choppers but would be far superior.

    The old Yak VTOL was considered better than its rivals but development ended with the cessation of the Soviet Union.

    Perhaps this project could be restarted. OK it wouldn't be cheap. But you might save money on choppers, on aircraft carriers, on runways and other things. You'd also save on the number of ships need to protect a battle group.

    Mix it with some cutting edge drones and hypersonic missiles and you have the punch of an aircraft carrier battle group. WITHOUT even needing an aircraft carrier.
    avatar
    Giulio

    Posts : 167
    Points : 190
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Giulio on Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:37 pm

    Afaik, STOL and VTOL aircrafts have many limitations. On a ship, the vertical landing could be more attractive than the short takeoff, for saving space, but an airplane that has to carry around the weight of the vertical thrust is too limited in performances All Navy aircrafts of the world can operate also with an engine out, the thrust is enough. The problem is the space for the onboard landing and the space for maintenance, storage, weapons, jet fuel and spare parts. So are the ship's dimensions who are important, not the VTOL performances of the aircrafts. Without big onboard hangars and stores you can not have enough aircrafts onboard and you can not make them to do a sufficient number of missions in the time's unit. Above all you need to launch, recover and resupply a sufficient number of aircrafts, otherwise the whole thing is not convenient, so you need a very big ship, not V/STOL aircrafts. It may be not pleasant, but also the Kuznetsov seems to me a bit 'small.
    A different issue is the close air support for landing troops.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16702
    Points : 17310
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:56 am

    BUT what about a Russian plane. VTOL or perhaps STOL that wouldn't need a runway. It would have a level of stealth.
    It could be carried on heli carriers or perhaps even large destroyers. It wouldn't need huge aircraft carriers.

    IN other words, it could be used instead of choppers but would be far superior.

    The old Yak VTOL was considered better than its rivals but development ended with the cessation of the Soviet Union.

    VSTOL aircraft are fragile and expensive and not high performance aircraft.

    It is not just vectored thrust engines... they need puffer fans to blow air out their noses and tails and wingtips to allow for controlability in the hover.

    Remember a conventional fixed wing aircraft is controlled in flight by deflecting the slipstream of air flowing over the wing and tail surfaces... in a hover there is no air flowing over the wings and tail so all lift comes from the engines and high pressure air blown from the engines to the wing tips, nose and tail... all adding weight and points of vulnerability to battle damage or simple malfunction.

    Mix it with some cutting edge drones and hypersonic missiles and you have the punch of an aircraft carrier battle group. WITHOUT even needing an aircraft carrier.

    The thing is that the choice of building a 20K ton helicopter carrier to carry VSTOL aircraft is not actually that much cheaper than building a decent 50-60K ton carrier carrying aircraft you have already developed for your ground based air fleet.

    The Su-33 and MiG-29KR are vastly superior to anything the Yak-141 could have evolved into and the naval PAK FA will make the difference even greater.

    They claimed the Harrier could take off from anywhere but in reality it had to operate from special PSP (pierced steel planking) surfaces that have been cleared of debris. The idea of taking off from a shopping mall carpark was just bullshit... one high fibre McDonalds burger packet and that plane crashes and burns...

    The MiG and Su-27 get around the issue of debris on the ground with intake covers that prevent material entering the intakes on takeoff and landing. The US has regular flight line marches where personel line up and pick up any small bits and pieces that might damage an aircraft engine... in war time who has time for that crap?

    To take out a US airfield just spread a few tons of old bits of non magnetic metal like washers and bolts and shit... no need for explosives or mines...

    Another aspect that is not often considered is that most VSTOL aircraft have thrust vectored engine nozzles often mounted at the side of the fuselage making for an excellent IR target from most angles including the front...

    A Harrier would be extremely vulnerable to even old model MANPADS... the engine nozzle is an ideal target for such a weapon and because of the position it is visible from almost any angle...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5579
    Points : 5683
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:23 pm


    Question

    Guys can someone tell me how Baltimore Air Base got it's name? Are there connections with the name of US city?

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80_%28%D0%B0%D1%8D%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%29
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 903
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Isos on Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:43 pm

    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Benya on Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:43 pm

    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?
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2655
    Points : 2693
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  franco on Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:57 pm

    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.

    Fer_Cabo

    Posts : 4
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2017-01-19
    Age : 44
    Location : Spain

    UKRAINKA (Far East District) Air Force Base -Heavy Bomber Regiments

    Post  Fer_Cabo on Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:33 am

    Hi folks,

    I'm looking for info. about the number and types of aircrafts currently based in UKRAINKA.

    What i've been able to find in the internet talks about 2 squadrons of TU-95MS (12 x 2 = 24 Bear aircrafts). Can this be considered accurate?

    Any other support aircraft based there or usually deployd to UKRAINKA? All tanker aircraft (Il-78s) seem to be allocated to the 219th Special Purpose Detachment based in ENGELS2, but guess they're often deployed elsewhere whenever needed.

    Thanks!

    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2655
    Points : 2693
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  franco on Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:00 pm

    Probably officially two Bomber Aviation Regiments (182nd & 79th). There is around 30 (give or take a couple) Tu-95MS aircraft in total. I believe there would be 12 assigned per regiment with the rest as spares. May actually be 2 squadrons with 6 aircraft each per regiment. There seem to always be some Il-78's on site along with other transport and support aircraft plus a couple of helo's. A lot of maybe's as Air Force reorganization (names & numbers) take place. Does that help?

    Fer_Cabo

    Posts : 4
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2017-01-19
    Age : 44
    Location : Spain

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Fer_Cabo on Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:19 pm

    Thank you franco, yes, everything helps Laughing

    About the Il-78s, all existing tanker assets seem to be concentrated in the 219th Special Purpose Detachment based at ENGELS-2 (some 20 aircraft), from which they probably deploy to other bases depending on the needs as they arise.

    Anyhow, it's a very low number of tanker aircraft available, even when the Heavy Bomber / Long-Range aviation has been reduced and reshaped. Guess they're working on that.

    I do not know if, as you say, a couple of tanker Il-78s are permanently allocated to UKRAINKA. Can we take that as a fact ?¿ (with a reasonable and justified basis, i mean)
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2655
    Points : 2693
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  franco on Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:02 am

    Fer_Cabo wrote: I do not know if, as you say, a couple of tanker Il-78s are permanently allocated to UKRAINKA. Can we take that as a fact ?¿ (with a reasonable and justified basis, i mean)

    You cannot take anything as fact I'm afraid. A quick look around various Sat Images from different Map websites show from 1 to 5 of them. It would make sense for there to be always a couple available but dunno
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 903
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:51 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16702
    Points : 17310
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:22 pm

    And the new engine needed to fly from carriers.

    Why?

    On the existing Kuznetsov carrier the Su-33... an aircraft bigger and heavier than a PAK FA, with rather less powerful engines than those fitted to the current PAK FA let alone the new engines seems to get airborne just fine from both the short and long takeoff positions on the carrier.

    Surely a smaller lighter aircraft with more powerful engines and the lower drag of internal weapons carriage should be fine as it is... of course with a bit of structural strengthening and a tailhook.

    @Losos

    The Russians don't need to totally jam the radar of the F-22... the F-22 has AMRAAMs, AIM-9X sidewinders, and a gun... jam the little ARH missile seekers, directed energy to defeat the optically guided sidewinders and then it comes down to guns where the superior manouver capability over both the F-22 and F-35 should give it the win...



    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 504
    Points : 500
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    And the new engine needed to fly from carriers.

    Why?

    On the existing Kuznetsov carrier the Su-33... an aircraft bigger and heavier than a PAK FA, with rather less powerful engines than those fitted to the current PAK FA let alone the new engines seems to get airborne just fine from both the short and long takeoff positions on the carrier.

    Surely a smaller lighter aircraft with more powerful engines and the lower drag of internal weapons carriage should be fine as it is... of course with a bit of structural strengthening and a tailhook.

    @Losos

    The Russians don't need to totally jam the radar of the F-22... the F-22 has AMRAAMs, AIM-9X sidewinders, and a gun... jam the little ARH missile seekers, directed energy to defeat the optically guided sidewinders and then it comes down to guns where the superior manouver capability over both the F-22 and F-35 should give it the win...



    The SU-33 and mig -29naval whatever designed to fly with few small rocket and kill anti submarine patrol aircraft in a few hundred km radius, in high altitude.

    Additionally, the SU-33 too big for carrier, it is on borderline to be transportable by the lifts (and every time they risk to drop the plane into the ocean or shave off the radome)


    BY using the wiki data, the pakfa need with same kN engine as su33 can carry 7% more weight, with new engine it is something like 30-40% more.

    Means the pakfa can be used as 500-700km radius attack platform with heavy bomb/rocket load against terrestrial or naval targets from any skyjump carrier , or as refuelling airplane or as mini AWACS.

    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Rmf on Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:35 pm

    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.

    HM1199

    Posts : 50
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2016-07-03

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  HM1199 on Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:39 pm

    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?
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 88
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Ultra highly classafied

    Missiles for political assasination

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:08 pm

    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.
    avatar
    ZoA

    Posts : 35
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  ZoA on Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:00 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16702
    Points : 17310
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:06 pm

    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.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 88
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Ultra highly classafied

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:46 pm

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

    Posts : 35
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  ZoA on Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:00 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16702
    Points : 17310
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:24 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:33 am