Question Thread: Soviet Military

Were there ever experiments in the USSR to create engines for civil use that had a similar low noise level compared to western engines? Did the soviets even have any kind of sound reduction technology for jet engines or was it virtually unknown and only appeared in the newest Russian built engines?

Seriously?

Soviet turbojets of similar power had similar noise to Western turbojets.

What a silly question.

TR1 wrote:Seriously?

Soviet turbojets of similar power had similar noise to Western turbojets.

What a silly question.

Then all those wetsern publications have been absolute BS. However I've heard that the EU since a few years has forbiden all soviet or russian aircraft to use EU country airports, noise concerns being one of the reasons. And really recently I haven't seen any An-26s, Tu-154s or Il-96s landing or taking off from in my EU member country's airports. Is this actually true?

Il-86 uses older turbojets.
Same with Tu-154.

They will both ofcourse have unfavorable characteristics compared to modern jets.

I have been always interested by the tail configuration of the Russian cargo planes, like the An-12 and Il-76.
1) The tail turret proved to be useful in real combat situations?
2) Is it possible to hit also incoming missiles?
3) Are there also different purposes of the turret like observation and load management?
Thanks.

Giulio wrote:I have been always interested by the tail configuration of the Russian cargo planes, like the An-12 and Il-76.
1) The tail turret proved to be useful in real combat situations?
2) Is it possible to hit also incoming missiles?
3) Are there also different purposes of the turret like observation and load management?
Thanks.

1) Well, i have no actual reports on it but from the various ammunition and defensive ammunition it can carry i would say it has its usefullness.

2) Yes, in different ways. Theoratical it could be firing dozens of rounds towards incoming rounds to create a wall of bullets like Kashtan,CIWS systems do, but right now the best way for at least IR/Radar guided missile at least to some extent it can fire Flares and Chaffs.

http://russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_25mm.html

Type Designation (IK) Flare, Bullet Weight - 174 g, Muzzle Velocity 700 m/s,   With base expelled flare pellet, powder delay fuze, for bomber defence cannon

Type Designation (PRL) Chaff, Bullet Weight - 184 g, Muzzle Velocity 700 m/s, With base expelled chaff particles, VU-23U powder delay fuze, for bomber defence cannon

Type Designation (UB) TP-Airburst, Bullet Weight - 175 g, Muzzle Velocity 700 m/s,  HE filled airburst shell for aerial target practise, light blue fuze tip, powder delay fuze without impact action

The last one Airburst bullet is just a training/practise round but could be designed in same way todays airburst ammunition is designed which calculates the targets distance and speed and feeds each bullet with data of time of interception so each bullet detonates on right spot to be effective.

Also the Flares and Chaffs, even tho for such big bird a 23mm Flare is not much but when you create a wall almost like a dragons breath of fire that should be helpfull to distract most missiles from the Engines, except for IIR-seekers that is still a better solution to deal with DIRCM or airburst ammunition.


3) For observation there is a backwards facing Radar and the load management, not really sure what you mean by that.

The all round view of most cargo planes is poor so having someone in the rear able to see the rear hemisphere is often useful... especially for watching for ground fire on takeoff and landing.

The very high rate of fire of the twin barrel 23mm cannon mean a burst of 50 shells can set up a cloud of IR and radar decoys rapidly to one side of the aircraft or the other.

Equally despite its relatively low velocity it would be theoretically possible to engage a missile closing from the rear... even development of shells with corner reflectors to prematurely set off proximity fuses in missiles and shell threats.

It is also used as an observation position for inflight refuelling on the Il-78 midas tanker version.

The Il-102 competition for the Su-25 had a rear gunners position with a rear facing gun to suppress enemy ground fire as the aircraft left the area. there was a version of the Mi-24 Hind that also had a rear facing turret for the same purpose... when aircraft fly in and shoot the place up it is natural to duck and cover but as it passes it is also natural to stand up and shoot at the rear of the retreating aircraft. Having a tail mounted twin barrel 23mm cannon in the Il-102, or 4 barrel gatling HMG in the hind variant would allow those engaging the aircraft as it leaves to be fired upon more accurately than simply fitting wing mounted gun pods backwards under the wing hard points.

Interestingly the el cheapo Hind with the Zevaro Thermal sight in the nose had to have 60kgs of ballast fitted to the rear to counter the weight of the system in the nose. I always thought a rear fuselage mounted gatling with a gunner in the rear cabin and a few thousand rounds of ready to fire ammo would have been more useful than just dead weight ballast... the gun itself could counter the weight of the nose mounted equipment while the ammo and extra gunner could be mounted in the cabin near the centre of gravity so even firing all the ammo would not unbalance the aircraft.

Thanks to all. Do you know if the gunner in the tail turret can re-enter in the aircraft, or he must remain in the tail turret for all the time?

Giulio wrote:Thanks to all. Do you know if the gunner in the tail turret can re-enter in the aircraft, or he must remain in the tail turret for all the time?

Well from searching for the tail gunner pictures i came across of this one.



I don't think the door is for no reason there, so i think he must stay at the gunner position.
But maybe the door is there for easier access to the inside when some hardware,software for the gun or the aperatures inside have to be changed or fixed, instead of walking through the entire plane with all the equipment several times.

I think she is for the entrance in the gunner position, or, maybe, she is also for an emergency egress from the airplane, but that door I think can not be opened in flight by the gunner from the inside with naked hands, because she opens against the wind of the flight, so or just the internal pressurizing (5 tons/m2) is enough for the door jettison, otherwise she needs of explosive charges. May be that the gunner is the only one which could abandon the aircraft in flight.
I wanted to know if the gunner could leave its turret and return back in the cargo bay. If the environment is pressurized, then it needs a pressurized link between the turret and the cargo bay.
On the Il-76 I think it is certainly pressurized.

On the Il-76 most of the part of the lower tail between where the gunner sits and the rear floor of the cargo bay is large doors... I don't think there is a walkway above, so I would expect the gunner to be an isolated position...

BTW the Tu-160 was one of the first Russian/Soviet bombers with no tail gun. though the Tu-22 and Tu-22M had remote guns with no tail gunner position.

Note in the picture below the twin gun arrangement on the Il-76 is quite potent... two twin barrel cannon firing about 3,500rpm each... so about 7,500 rpm... which is almost double Phalanx at 4,500rpm.... not as high velocity but larger calibre and much heavier projectile with a good HE payload,

Hello. If possible, I wanted to know if the two great wings of the Mi-6 could act like on a tiltrotor: the flow of the main rotor struck the two wings, creating lift on them during the hovering? If yes it seems to me very similar to the V-22. Thanks.

Giulio wrote:Hello. If possible, I wanted to know if the two great wings of the Mi-6 could act like on a tiltrotor: the flow of the main rotor struck the two wings, creating lift on them during the hovering? If yes it seems to me very similar to the V-22. Thanks.

If you mean that they are moveable to reduce the downwash from main rotor on them during hovering or start, no they are not moveable they are rigid and only there to reduce the load on the main rotor from internal cargo weight and increase the lifting during forward flight which reflects positive on the fuel consumption and life span on the rotors and rotor hub.

If you mean using the wings for explecite for Tiltrotor function, then no, they are far to close to the fuselage and could not use any big enough rotors to produce lift for the helicopter alone not to mention the cargo weight it would still need to lift.

The last part you wrote is physically impossible an object can not generate more lift on its own object than the already occurend force (Downwash) in this case that is pushing the body down.

Ok, so the Mi-6 wings were generating lift only in horizontal flight, not in hovering; (actually they are too short to be under the rotor blades), but I had assumed that the downwash hit the wings and generated lift on them.

No, they don't generate lift from the rotor downwash, they are set at the wrong angle and the rotor downwash is vertical so lift in the conventional sense is not practical.

As Werewolf states the purpose of the wings is similar to the purpose of the wings on the Mi-24 Hind, they generate lift in forward flight reducing stress on the main rotor hub and blades to improve performance in forward flight.

the area of both wings would reduce lift in the hover.

the wings on the newest model hinds are smaller to reduce the reduction in lift in the hover.

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?

I know the Soviets worked on future tanks like the "Object 477", "Object 187/T-88", "Object 209", but can anyone help me with finding future Soviet SPH's, particularly those that have fully automated systems like today. The closes I found were an "Object 203" chasis that would have been used similar to Armata as a multi-platform chasis for other vehicles(tank, sph, supply vehicle, apc, ifv, recon, etc...), but I can't find the old information on this. The other vehicle is the "Object/Product 327 washer", had some connections to WWII and was also in competition with 2S19 MSTA but lost out to it. Does anyone have any information?

glory to Russia,

dear admins, i have just finished an article from the blog war is boring about the Georgievich Tolkachev, who was accused of leaking all sensitive data of Russian fighter air crafts to Yankees. I would like to know how the USSR/ Russia could repair the alleged damage. Thank you.

After Belenko fled to Japan with his MiG-25P and after Tolkachev was exposed as a spy, MiG developed new versions of the MiG-25P and the MiG-31: the MiG-25PD (PDS for modernization of already built P) and MiG-31B (BS for modernization of existing frames). In the case of the MiG-25PD, a completely new radar replaced the old one, and in the MiG-31B an improved version was hastily developed.

They are cowards... if you don't love your country then leave... that is fine... but betray that country to try to get into another country... you are scum.

Such a selfish bastard should never be trusted by their adopted country... use them and then discard.

Ironically in both cases mentioned above the information leak led to vast improvements of the betrayed system... the MiG-25PD was rather better than the old model and the MiG-31 got rather better systems too.

It helped that the west was rather arrogant... they looked at the 1950s technology valves in the MiG-25 (which was developed in the 1950s) and decided it was rubbish... they had gotten a scare with that aircraft and developed the F-15 to be what they thought the MiG was.

As usual they over estimated it when it was first revealed but when they learned more started underestimating it.

they knew about the R-73 and helmet mounted systems in the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the 1980s but it was no until they tested their aircraft against them in the 1990s in Germany that they found how effective they were... they were confident their training and individual pilot skill would prevail in close combat... but after realising their pilots would not last long they switched emphasis to AWACS controlled slashing interceptions from as greater range as possible and started spending real money on the AMRAAM which had been in limbo for some time as they thought BVR was a waste of money and all their kills will come from Sidewinder and guns. R-73 changed all that... but learning it from information from the other side was not enough they had to test it themselves and be on the receiving end of the whole system to find out how far behind they were... it only took them a decade for some of their new fighters to get the same capability.

I am Interested in Soviet Navy

Indian Navy`s the project 61 destoryer have P15 ASM,
but I don`t fand it on Soviet Navy`s project 61
Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashin-Mod_class_destroyer

Six ships were modernised in the 1970s as the Project 61M or 61MP, by being fitted with four SS-N-2C Styx anti-ship missiles, new towed-array sonar, a raised helipad and four close range AK-630 Gatling guns.

what makes you think it was forbidden?