Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:04 am

    Plenty of NV equipment for helo pilots, but most of that is being replaced by EO turrets with stabilisation.

    For most fighter pilots their radar and IRST is rather more effective and much longer ranged night and all weather equipment...

    Rescue helicopter pilots where I live use Russian Night Vision goggles... similar performance to US models but a fraction of the cost...


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:41 am

    hy garry
    i have some questions.
    as far as i know in a turbine jet engine when the temperature is high efficiency is low. same whit pressure.
    is that true also for ramjet or scramjet?
    can be a tank filled with some cold substance like freon and pulverized near the nozzle so that the thrust can increase? because i know that thrust increase when the cold air from above and below surface of turbine jet meet the hot air.
    that can be done at a aircraft too?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:12 am

    as far as i know in a turbine jet engine when the temperature is high efficiency is low. same whit pressure.

    No.

    A normal gas turbine tries to compress air and then adds fuel to super heat that air so that it leaves the rear very hot and very fast... the more you heat it the more it expands and the faster it leaves the rear of the engine... more gas and faster gas means more thrust.

    You want the gas to get as hot as you can possibly make it, but you can't make it too hot or the internal parts of your engine will melt.

    is that true also for ramjet or scramjet?

    Really the same for all types of jet engine, though a turbo prop engine uses the gas turbine to spin a propeller and it gets its thrust from that propeller so the exhaust gas temperature and speed is not important... it is just the mechanism that turns the blades to generate thrust.

    A turbo fan uses a turbojet to turn a large fan to move cold air to produce thrust too but that cold air goes through the afterburner and is much more efficient than a turbojet because a large volume of air that is cold and oxygen rich can burn more fuel and heat up a lot more making more thrust in a turbofan engine than a pure turbojet.

    If you want high subsonic cruise a big turbofan like on a Boeing is best but for supersonic speed the high exhaust gas speed of a turbojet or low bypass turbofan is best.

    A scramjet or ramjet is for high speed flight so very high temperature and high speed gas exhaust is best.

    can be a tank filled with some cold substance like freon and pulverized near the nozzle so that the thrust can increase?

    You want to add heat and volume, not reduce it. the main exception is for very fast aircraft where the heat of the air flowing into the engine can overheat the parts of the engine.

    The two main types of engine injection systems is a water injection system... usually used on bombers during takeoff to add mass to their exhaust... it tends to lower exhaust temperature and not burn very well (so you get a lot of very black smoke) but the added volume of what rapidly turns to steam adds a lot of thrust.

    The other injection system is like the MiG-25 that uses alcohol injection, but this is injected into the inlet to cool down the front compressor blades/fan. the liquid is of course flammable and ignites and adds weight but also adds to combustion... it means the engine can operate at higher speeds and higher temperatures which allows the aircraft to fly faster for longer.

    Of course an after burner is a fuel injection system that injects raw fuel into the exhaust to increase thrust... it has more effect in a turbofan as there is more oxygen rich air from the bypass air (air that does not go through the core high pressure turbojet core) so it burns better.

    because i know that thrust increase when the cold air from above and below surface of turbine jet meet the hot air.

    The thin cold air at altitude allows much higher flight speed because there is less friction with the air and very cold air expands more when heated than warm or hot air. The fact that is thinner is compensated for by flying faster so more air is scooped up, so when heated it expands more and slows down the aircraft less than thicker warmer air nearer the sea surface/ground level.

    BTW hi there... hope you are well. Smile


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:29 am

    i'm doing fine. altought winter is coming and i'll be freezing Laughing
    so basically don't work....i have taken example from the storm formation clouds when two fronts one cold other hot meet each other .....

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:32 am

    another question would be if you can make some sort form of propulsion from a gas bring to plasma state like in tokamak devices then guided out with the help of a magnetic shield?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:48 am

    That is the basis of an ion engine, where material is ionised (ie strip off electrons to give the material a magnetic charge and then accelerate them in a magnetic field in a loop to very very high speed and then direct it out the rear of the engine to produce thrust.

    Mostly useful in space as the amount of material going through the engine is tiny but its enormous velocity can still provide effective thrust.

    Compared with a chemical rocket it produces a tiny amount of force, but its advantage is that it could be run for months rather than minutes or seconds for a chemical rocket.

    Also because the exhaust velocity is enormous the potential top speed is vastly higher... but takes weeks to achieve...

    No good for aircraft, but fantastic for space craft in orbit or long range missions.

    The main problems heating material to the temperature of a plasma is that it will melt most materials engines are made of. Of course using ceramic materials that can sustain high temperatures and still retain strength is one solution but also using magnetic fields to keep the plasma from touching the lining or components of the engine would be another idea.

    Of course the whole purpose of high temperature is high speed and volume of air flow through the engine. A scramjet allows supersonic flow through the engine and has no theoretical upper speed limit in the air... so it could operate as a jet engine on the runway and then use bypass air as a scramjet from about mach 2 up to orbital speed. It would use air from the atmosphere while flying inside the atmosphere so it would need to just carry fuel for operating inside the atmosphere, but if you went into space then a supply of oxygen to burn with the fuel could mean use of the engines from stationary on the runway, to scramjet in the air and fuel and o2 in space...

    EM technology will likely advance and allow better control of exhaust and also allow different materials to be used.

    Of course an anti grav system would be the best... a huge ship that has no weight (weight is mass times gravity...) if you can counter gravity then you can accelerate your craft easily to any speed you want... You can also counter the effects of acceleration like the do in spaceships depicted in hollywood movies and TV shows.

    Accelerating from zero to light speed like they do in Star Trek would crush the crew and the contents of the ship to a pulp.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:52 am

    does artificial gravity anulate itself with the earth gravity?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:55 am

    We really don't know how gravity actually works right now... is it a beam or is it a field...

    Information I know about black holes suggests it is a field emitted by particles with mass but that obey the laws of this universe... ie cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Just a brief summary... a black hole is actually a point of infinite gravity where normal matter is crushed out of existence.

    That means for any given time the actual matter mass of a black hole is close to zero, but because the mass "field" created by matter cannot exceed the speed of light once matter crosses the event horizon the field assumes the matter is still there and so continues to effect other matter as if the matter is still there.

    In actual fact the actual matter moves past the event horizon and eventually meets the point of infinite mass... the singularity where it is totally destroyed... crushed out of this universe.

    As matter passes the event horizon the "mass field" of the black hole gets bigger but the actual mass eventually returns to zero when the matter is destroyed.

    The fact that the gravity continues as if all the mass that entered the black hole is still there suggests that gravity is a field but a field that cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Yes... I know it is weird...

    If you could generate a gravity field or even reverse it then propulsion could simply by gravity field... counter the gravity of the earth and the gravity of the moon and the Sun will help you take off... not just counter the gravity of the earth but repel it and you can take off with only air resistance to worry about.

    There are very few places in this universe with no gravitational fields as the gravitational field of all matter extends infinitely... though it is dramatically effected by distances so the gravity of the earth that is closest to you effects you rather more than the gravity of the dirt on the other side of the earth.

    If you compress the earth to the size of a small coin all of that mass acting together would create a small black hole. By spreading the mass of the earth to the size of the earth it is much less powerful... but fortunately powerful enough to hold a breathable atmosphere...


    _________________
    “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

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Isos on Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:30 am

    I didn't know where to put this, so I put it there. Lot of really nice pictures from Maks 2011 with all the modern equipement of russian army

    http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7771

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:43 am

    GarryB wrote:We really don't know how gravity actually works right now... is it a beam or is it a field...

    Information I know about black holes suggests it is a field emitted by particles with mass but that obey the laws of this universe... ie cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Just a brief summary... a black hole is actually a point of infinite gravity where normal matter is crushed out of existence.

    That means for any given time the actual matter mass of a black hole is close to zero, but because the mass "field" created by matter cannot exceed the speed of light once matter crosses the event horizon the field assumes the matter is still there and so continues to effect other matter as if the matter is still there.

    In actual fact the actual matter moves past the event horizon and eventually meets the point of infinite mass... the singularity where it is totally destroyed... crushed out of this universe.

    As matter passes the event horizon the "mass field" of the black hole gets bigger but the actual mass eventually returns to zero when the matter is destroyed.

    The fact that the gravity continues as if all the mass that entered the black hole is still there suggests that gravity is a field but a field that cannot exceed the speed of light.

    Yes... I know it is weird...

    If you could generate a gravity field or even reverse it then propulsion could simply by gravity field... counter the gravity of the earth and the gravity of the moon and the Sun will help you take off... not just counter the gravity of the earth but repel it and you can take off with only air resistance to worry about.

    There are very few places in this universe with no gravitational fields as the gravitational field of all matter extends infinitely... though it is dramatically effected by distances so the gravity of the earth that is closest to you effects you rather more than the gravity of the dirt on the other side of the earth.

    If you compress the earth to the size of a small coin all of that mass acting together would create a small black hole. By spreading the mass of the earth to the size of the earth it is much less powerful... but fortunately powerful enough to hold a breathable atmosphere...
    i saw that in SF movies ships have a artificial gravity sistem based on a rotational thing around it. can something like that be made on a normal balistic rocket? be it externally or internally. maibe nuclear powered rotational thing or something.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:12 pm

    That is just creating artificial gravity through inertia.

    Gravity is simply acceleration of matter towards mass... it can be simulated in a large ring by spinning that ring at a rate where the physical vector change feels like gravity... think of a rock being swung around your head on a string... if the string breaks the stone will travel in a straight line but while the string remains holding the stone the stone continues to orbit around you being constantly pulled off a straight course into an orbital course by the string... replace the string with a ring and spin the ring... once you get up to a certain speed things on the inside of the ring will remain against the inside the ring...


    _________________
    “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

    A1RMAN
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  A1RMAN on Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:33 am

    I have a question about 5-th generation aircrafts.

    It seems that everything is going well with PAK-FA and Russia soon is gonna get 5-th generation fighter. What about other roles?
    Light fighter, bomber, interceptor - when Russia should develop 5-th generation aircrafts for these classes? Do they need, at all, to be stealthy? What can they do to increase bomber's payload and keep it stealthy?

    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.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Isos on Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:55 pm

    What are te radars used by RuAF in their 4 and 4+ gen fighters ? There are Zhuk and Bars developped for Mig's and Sukhoi's, How did they choose between them ?

    Will they upgrade them with Biyelka and FPG-35 3d (Zhuk AE) in the future ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:29 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    A1RMAN
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  A1RMAN on Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:11 pm

    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?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:23 am

    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...


    _________________
    “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

    A1RMAN
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  A1RMAN on Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:33 pm

    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?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:57 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    A1RMAN
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  A1RMAN on Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:26 am

    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.

    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    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
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    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.

    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:15 pm

    i have a question.
    can be made a type of radar by inserting into air in a section of sky some heat (no matter how much but to be same everywhere ) and whatch with a IR ? i mean a plane even if have IR signature reduce materials still offers a different temperature to the air around. so maybe by plug some heat into air (or light or whatever) you could see the plane like a "different spot compared to the nearby air"....or like a "black hole" or something .....
    same with a laser

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:33 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:33 am