Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Giulio

    Posts : 163
    Points : 186
    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 : 16398
    Points : 17011
    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 : 946
    Points : 978
    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 : 163
    Points : 186
    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 : 16398
    Points : 17011
    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 : 5306
    Points : 5412
    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 : 795
    Points : 795
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: General Questions Thread:

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

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/03-08-2016/135198-russia_laser_weapons-0/

    I put that here if there are some F-16.net fanboys Very Happy
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 521
    Points : 525
    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 : 2505
    Points : 2543
    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 : 2505
    Points : 2543
    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 : 2505
    Points : 2543
    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 : 795
    Points : 795
    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 : 16398
    Points : 17011
    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 : 470
    Points : 466
    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?

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:50 pm