Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Share
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:02 am

    LMFS existence is on a piece of paper and nothing else.

    And the VVS has ordered the MiG-35, its just MiG is unable to produce the aircraft yet because of all the subsystem delays.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4487
    Points : 4660
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:53 am

    TR1 wrote:LMFS existence is on a piece of paper and nothing else.

    And the VVS has ordered the MiG-35, its just MiG is unable to produce the aircraft yet because of all the subsystem delays.

    Not on paper, on computer to be exact. Wink

    sepheronx wrote:I doubt about lmfs existance. I think after MiG-35, thays it. Just UAV's and subsystems. Lmfs has been discussed for forever. And MiG-35 still has no orders,

    Oh yes drones, we heard that before. Because you know Mig is neck-deep in Skat drone orders.....unshaven

    But in all seriousness, the most technologically advanced drones are in U.S. inventory. One of the most advanced drones in US inventory was the RQ-170, so secretive of a project people doubted it's existence, and claimed Iran was engaging in a grand hoax. People couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that one of the most advanced drones ever created was defeated by Iran's 'Living-Fossil' of aerospace defense network (of course Autobaza made the difference).

    That fact alone is a reason you can't justify replacing a light-fighter with a drone, and just because there's no flying prototypes now doesn't mean there wont be in 5-8 years. Another fact people have to wrap their heads around is that the PAK-FA (and its derivatives) will be expensive aircraft, and only a select few countries could afford to buy and maintain them. A cheaper, lighter equivalent is necessary that will likely sell much better on the export market, and countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, Algeria, etc. could participate financially in the development to mitigate costs. As far as the Mig-35 goes, a large part of the slowing down of that program was the failure to win the highly politicized MRCA tender, but surprise surprise FGFA program is moving at a snails pace even though the majority of the plane has already been developed *cough, PAK-FA, cough* but is that just mere coincidence? Well it's not, just like how the lack of quality control leaves the Sukhoi fighters built in India to be more crash prone...lets stop beating around the bush and just point out that the over-reliance of the Indian export market, and it's hot-mess of a aerospace industry is a large part of the problem. Only a few countries (such as India) could actually afford PAK-FA derivative aircraft, and instead of being overly-reliant on India, they should develop a smaller cheaper alternative and a more diverse export market, so that the Russian aerospace industry doesn't lose the future 5th gen aircraft export market.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:23 am

    The one engine vs two engine debate is a long debate with numerous aspects.

    In a nutshell, one engine means cheaper engine maintainence, generally lower drag because having one engine the aircraft is designed around can be smaller than an aircraft with two or more engines slung underneath. It does however mean that engine needs to be rather more powerful than if two engines were being used and lower thrust settings could be used to keep the aircraft airborne with a twin engined aircraft.

    A direct comparison of the F-16 and MiG-29 show the differences fairly clearly however the maths was muddled because early MiG-29s used Soviet maintainence practises. The replacing parts after x hours reduces inspection time but can lead to perfectly good parts being replaced which can get expensive.

    The SMT upgrades of the MiG-29 included on board testing equipment and diagnostic kit that made inspections cheaper and easier and reduced maintainence costs by a reported 40%... which is huge.

    You can do mathematical calculations in terms of weight and drag and thrust and fuel economy and pretty much unless you are wanting a VSTOL aircraft you either go with one engine or two as an optimum combination of thrust and drag and maintainence problems.

    there are no three engine fighters for a reason, though with scramjet technology that might change where a plane might have two turbojet engines to get it to mach 2 or so and then switch to a scramjet to accelerate to higher speeds.


    the F-16 needs a powerful 12+ ton thrust engine and can only reach mach 2, while the two 8 ton thrust engines on the MigG-29 allow it to get to about mach 2.3.

    With a variable intake ramp the F-16 could probably go rather faster than it does.


    _________________
    “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
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:28 pm

    TR1 wrote:LMFS existence is on a piece of paper and nothing else.

    And the VVS has ordered the MiG-35, its just MiG is unable to produce the aircraft yet because of all the subsystem delays.

    Do we know how many they plan to purchase?

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:03 pm

    medo wrote:Two engines mean better survivability. In case one engine is off or damaged, the plane could be returned with the second engine to the base and than repaired. In single engine plane damaged or off engine mean lost plane. This is the reason RuAF made a decision, that all their planes will be twin engine and they retire all single engine planes, although some were quite new in that time (MiG-23 and MiG-27).
    but how does affect existence of multi engines the capabilities of aircrafts?

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:The one engine vs two engine debate is a long debate with numerous aspects.

    In a nutshell, one engine means cheaper engine maintainence, generally lower drag because having one engine the aircraft is designed around can be smaller than an aircraft with two or more engines slung underneath. It does however mean that engine needs to be rather more powerful than if two engines were being used and lower thrust settings could be used to keep the aircraft airborne with a twin engined aircraft.

    A direct comparison of the F-16 and MiG-29 show the differences fairly clearly however the maths was muddled because early MiG-29s used Soviet maintainence practises. The replacing parts after x hours reduces inspection time but can lead to perfectly good parts being replaced which can get expensive.

    The SMT upgrades of the MiG-29 included on board testing equipment and diagnostic kit that made inspections cheaper and easier and reduced maintainence costs by a reported 40%... which is huge.

    You can do mathematical calculations in terms of weight and drag and thrust and fuel economy and pretty much unless you are wanting a VSTOL aircraft you either go with one engine or two as an optimum combination of thrust and drag and maintainence problems.

    there are no three engine fighters for a reason, though with scramjet technology that might change where a plane might have two turbojet engines to get it to mach 2 or so and then switch to a scramjet to accelerate to higher speeds.


    the F-16 needs a powerful 12+ ton thrust engine and can only reach mach 2, while the two 8 ton thrust engines on the MigG-29 allow it to get to about mach 2.3.

    With a variable intake ramp the F-16 could probably go rather faster than it does.
    well thats because doesnt matter the weight of engines. The 8 tons engine could use different fuel for example.
    And probally the two engine aircraft may be bigger but whit a powerfull thrust can be obtained same speeds inspite drag. Ofcourse that would mean probally more fuel consumption but that is not a problem if you have aircraft carriers or you are close to enemies. Also for a single engine to be more powerfull that two engine aircraft means big one engine which lead also to big aircraft. So the advantage of single engine is not so big.
    I want to ask:can be use two engines one above the other? Like they are vertically mounted?

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:07 pm

    What about having 4 small engines around the single engine? Each of them could turn on for better maneuvers. Or small engines in front. In this the aircraft could do better in dogfights and escape missiles. Even moving angle could be added to those small engines. The engines could be put in x around single engine.

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:09 pm

    Also small engines could be puf in front of aircraft. Mounted in angle so the flame not touch the plane.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:21 am

    but how does affect existence of multi engines the capabilities of aircrafts?

    An aircraft with a long operational life used in harsh environments, and possibly not getting the best maintainence attention on the front line introduces the possibility of engine failure.

    when you only have one engine then an engine failure is fatal to the aircraft and possibly also the crew... which will be expensive. Even if single aircraft only increase the loss of aircraft due to engine failure by a few percent leading to perhaps the loss of 2-3 planes over a ten year period the costs in buying new aircraft outweigh any savings in single engine designs.

    the odds on both engines failing is a small fraction of the chances of one failing... and more importantly the chance of the engine not being able to be restarted should also be included...

    I have read some studies that claim single engine aircraft are worth it because the number lost to engine failure where two engines might have made a difference is negligible.

    Of course the aircraft with the worst flight record in the Soviet military was the Yak-38 VSTOL aircraft which in theory is a single engined fighter but with two lift jets.

    the Russian military has clearly chosen twin engine conventional take off fighters instead of VSTOLs for a range of reasons... on a deck at sea even just flying your Yak-38 through some hot air from the aircrafts own jet exhaust can make engine thrust plummet and the auto eject system throw the crew out of the aircraft.

    the Harrier has killed rather more of its pilots than the Yak ever did because of the auto ejection system on the Yak, but the Harrier is a much more practical aircraft that has been rather more widely produced and deployed in real combat situations.

    Even as good as it is however the Harrier would be terribly vulnerable to MANPADS due to its side mounted engine nozzles offering an IR target from a much wider angle than most conventional aircraft.

    well thats because doesnt matter the weight of engines.

    Of course it does. A heavier engine makes the aircraft heavier and requires more power to move it around the place.

    The advantage of two engines instead of one is that the two engines can reduce demands for high power engines in a lighter over all set up.

    Going back to the F-16... you pretty much need a 12-13 ton thrust engine to get decent performance which makes it a Flanker class engine. In the MiG-29 it uses two engines that a MiG-21 might have used if it was developed a bit later in the 8 to thrust class each... but the point is that with two 8 ton thrust engines the MiG pilot has 16 tons of thrust when he needs it... a 16 ton thrust engine for the F-16 would be possible, but very expensive and likely heavy.

    I want to ask:can be use two engines one above the other? Like they are vertically mounted?

    yes, the British Lightning had that arrangement... it was a very good interceptor.

    What about having 4 small engines around the single engine? Each of them could turn on for better maneuvers. Or small engines in front. In this the aircraft could do better in dogfights and escape missiles. Even moving angle could be added to those small engines. The engines could be put in x around single engine.

    It would be cheaper and simpler to just use a more powerful main engine... for instance in the example of the F-16 then the engine from the F-35 would offer plenty of thrust, or the engine to be fitted to the PAK FA in the 18 ton thrust range would be useful for a single engine light fighter that is heavier than a late model F-16.

    Also small engines could be puf in front of aircraft. Mounted in angle so the flame not touch the plane.

    Such small engines would not add that much thrust, yet would add weight and complication with wiring and fuel lines all over the place.

    If you want to temporarily add thrust then I would suggest a couple of small scramjet engines mounted on the wing pylons taking fuel from the aircraft fuel system... sort of the opposite of an external fuel tank.

    On an Su-35 you could fit them on the wing tips... but at the end of the day I would think it would be better off with jammer pods on the wing tips instead.

    BTW extra thrust wont help evading AAMs or SAMs... you are much better off with a decent ESM suite and DIRCMs system.


    _________________
    “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

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:00 am

    Point is that a missile who engaged you has a slow turn and a aircraft who use small engines for a sudden turn might get faster in the back of a following missile or a following enemy plane. The missile simply has a design which cant make fast turns.

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:03 am

    Also the small engines mounted near the main engine but in angle would not make wiring andnfueling so complicated because you dont have to put them in wings.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3280
    Points : 3366
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:54 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Honesroc wrote:
    medo wrote:Which is a good idea, I can't understand the single engine fetishists, the cost of maintaining a 2nd engine will be minimal compared to an entire plane that has crashed and been destroyed. I really hope Mig's 5th gen Mig-29 replacement isn't a single engine plane. If they make a single engine version than it should only be for export, and not for domestic use.

    What little I can find on the LMFS stipulates a single engine. That being said, I would speculate that a 5th generation MiG aircraft would be designed with naval applications in mind - that means dual engines (which are universally prefered for carrier operations - F-35C not withstanding).

    This is just my opinion, but If the 1.44 can serve as any guide, MiG will retain two engines for the Fulcrum replacement.

    It wont be a single engine, VVS has declared that they will only have 2 engine fighters in the future. Likely Fulcrum's replacement will be 2 engines, however don't rule out a single engine version for export. I should also add that single engine is ok for drones.

    This is little off topic Off Topic , but still good option for export. I have in mind, that Russia could very easily modify Yak-130 trainer into very effective single engine light multi-role fighter with placing 1 RD-33MK engine from MiG-29K. This engine is also good for over the sea operations, as this engine is for carrier based fighter. They need to redesign back part to install 1 bigger engine with afterburner and to enlarge the nose to install radar like Zhuk-M or Zhuk-AE.As Russian air force don't need single engine planes, they could make this version of Yakovljev "officially internationally" together with Novorussia and build a production plant to build or just to put together near Lugansk airport and of course in Russia too. This plane could have same carracteristics like South Korean FA-50 or Indian Tejas or Pakistani JF-17. It could be the basis for new Novorussian air force and could be as well very interesting for other ex-Soviet republics and many other states in Asia, Afrika and Latin Amerika as cheap and reliable plane.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:36 pm

    medo wrote:
    This is little off topic Off Topic , but still good option for export. I have in mind, that Russia could very easily modify Yak-130 trainer into very effective single engine light multi-role fighter with placing 1 RD-33MK engine from MiG-29K. This engine is also good for over the sea operations, as this engine is for carrier based fighter. They need to redesign back part to install 1 bigger engine with afterburner and to enlarge the nose to install radar like Zhuk-M or Zhuk-AE.As Russian air force don't need single engine planes, they could make this version of Yakovljev "officially internationally" together with Novorussia and build a production plant to build or just to put together near Lugansk airport and of course in Russia too. This plane could have same carracteristics like South Korean FA-50 or Indian Tejas or Pakistani JF-17. It could be the basis for new Novorussian air force and could be as well very interesting for other ex-Soviet republics and many other states in Asia, Afrika and Latin Amerika as cheap and reliable plane.

    You're basically describing MiG-33.. an old concept from MiG

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3280
    Points : 3366
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:02 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    medo wrote:
    This is little off topic Off Topic , but still good option for export. I have in mind, that Russia could very easily modify Yak-130 trainer into very effective single engine light multi-role fighter with placing 1 RD-33MK engine from MiG-29K. This engine is also good for over the sea operations, as this engine is for carrier based fighter. They need to redesign back part to install 1 bigger engine with afterburner and to enlarge the nose to install radar like Zhuk-M or Zhuk-AE.As Russian air force don't need single engine planes, they could make this version of Yakovljev "officially internationally" together with Novorussia and build a production plant to build or just to put together near Lugansk airport and of course in Russia too. This plane could have same carracteristics like South Korean FA-50 or Indian Tejas or Pakistani JF-17. It could be the basis for new Novorussian air force and could be as well very interesting for other ex-Soviet republics and many other states in Asia, Afrika and Latin Amerika as cheap and reliable plane.

    You're basically describing MiG-33.. an old concept from MiG


    True and there was also Sukhoy S-55 project more than 20 years ago. But they were only on paper if those projects ever come that far in development. On the other hand Yak-130 is in full production with all needed tools and systems developed. For Yak-130 it is just another version of plane, which could be quite quickly in production. Other option is to install two engines AI-222 with afterburners and it still need to reshape its rear end for longer engines. In this case we have all components already developed. Just to put them together in plane and test it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    One engine vs two engine aircrafts debate

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:34 am

    Point is that a missile who engaged you has a slow turn and a aircraft who use small engines for a sudden turn might get faster in the back of a following missile or a following enemy plane. The missile simply has a design which cant make fast turns.

    Forget hollywood BS... missiles have flight speeds comparable to rifle bullets and zip past their targets often quicker than an eye could follow... and they don't come around for another go at the target or fly with the plane like two planes in a dogfight.

    Even if the missile could do a 180 after missing its target what is to stop it detecting and locking on to the aircraft that launched it and scoring an own goal?

    Also the small engines mounted near the main engine but in angle would not make wiring andnfueling so complicated because you dont have to put them in wings.

    Small engine wont offer much extra thrust... and would need full electronic management systems and fuel lines to get fuel to them. At the end of the day it would be much easier to add extra fuel in the main engines exhaust and increase the thrust of the AB.



    _________________
    “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
    FichtL_WichtL

    Posts : 11
    Points : 15
    Join date : 2014-12-02
    Location : Austria

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  FichtL_WichtL on Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:51 pm

    Are there any new news about the Kazan ansat? scratch

    -------

    http://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7155

    Sponsored content

    Re: VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:01 am