Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
+58
Viktor
chicken
Mike E
AbsoluteZero
POKL
RTN
mutantsushi
Morpheus Eberhardt
magnumcromagnon
Vympel
collegeboy16
zino
macedonian
Werewolf
flamming_python
a89
calripson
zg18
mack8
Mindstorm
SOC
Rpg type 7v
xeno
Austin
ali.a.r
eridan
AlfaT8
Hachimoto
Sancho
TR1
Sujoy
Shadåw
KomissarBojanchev
Zivo
Mr.Kalishnikov47
George1
TheArmenian
Firebird
Kysusha
medo
Bthebrave
Cyberspec
Corrosion
Pervius
Wan2345
GarryB
Andy_Wiz
KRON1
ahmedfire
nightcrawler
Russian Patriot
milky_candy_sugar
Farhad Gulemov
Vladislav
sepheronx
Stealthflanker
Turk1
Admin
62 posters
VVS Russian Air Force: News #1
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Expected but still very important.
SOUTH receive about 30 combat aircraft and helicopters before the end of the year
Another Mi-26 Russian Air Force
In pictures. New Mi-28N and Mi-35M
SOUTH receive about 30 combat aircraft and helicopters before the end of the year
Another Mi-26 Russian Air Force
In pictures. New Mi-28N and Mi-35M
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
I wonder if those Su-30M2 in South will replace naval Su-24 in Sevastopol.Viktor wrote:Expected but still very important.
SOUTH receive about 30 combat aircraft and helicopters before the end of the year
Another Mi-26 Russian Air Force
In pictures. New Mi-28N and Mi-35M
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Interesting read 
We need a light fighter
We need a light fighter
Stealthflanker
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1459
Points : 1535
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
Possibility of single engine PAKFA ?Viktor wrote:Interesting read
We need a light fighter
My "MiniPakfa"
Aside from Russian attitude toward single engine craft..i wonder whether any exception can be given.. mainly for logistical thoughts.. it would be convenient if PAKFA and the light fighter can share same engine.
GarryB- Posts : 39671
Points : 40167
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Actually I think a twin engine aircraft would be superior in this case as two engines increase frontal drag by increasing the area, but also increase internal volume to allow internal weapons and fuel to be increased over a single engined aircraft.
Assuming a MTOW of 15-18 tons a single engine in the 18 ton class would be a little under powered while two 12 ton class engines would give it excellent power and growth potential as increasing the thrust of two engines doubles the power improvement.
I rather suspect any light 5th gen fighter will be developed with MiG at the lead as Sukhoi is already very busy and according to the UAC boss the MiG plans for a light 5th gen fighter are very advanced... just waiting for the PAK FA to be mature and sorted.
I rather suspect Sukhoi might focus on an unmanned PAK FA and of course naval PAK FA which will result in a 6th gen fighter and a naval 5th gen fighter.
Would be useful but not totally necessary for the PAK FA and light 5th gen fighter to share an engine... Saturn and Klimov both need production roles...
Assuming a MTOW of 15-18 tons a single engine in the 18 ton class would be a little under powered while two 12 ton class engines would give it excellent power and growth potential as increasing the thrust of two engines doubles the power improvement.
I rather suspect any light 5th gen fighter will be developed with MiG at the lead as Sukhoi is already very busy and according to the UAC boss the MiG plans for a light 5th gen fighter are very advanced... just waiting for the PAK FA to be mature and sorted.
I rather suspect Sukhoi might focus on an unmanned PAK FA and of course naval PAK FA which will result in a 6th gen fighter and a naval 5th gen fighter.
Would be useful but not totally necessary for the PAK FA and light 5th gen fighter to share an engine... Saturn and Klimov both need production roles...
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
CIAM: at the forefront of aviation science
http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/defense/2013/0809/145511481/detail.shtml
What does the chart say ?
http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/defense/2013/0809/145511481/detail.shtml
What does the chart say ?
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
I suspect with the new 20T UCAV under development and Pogosyan mentioned at MAKS 2013 that it will be based on PAK-FA design and likely means a supersonic UCAV then there is no need for LFI or light fighter program.Viktor wrote:Interesting read
We need a light fighter
Assuming 20T is its MTOW that would make it into a F-16 class MTOW fighter , with modern fuel effecient engine and no pilot cockpit it would have an intercontinental range for sure.
Russia to See 20-Ton Combat Drone ‘by 2018’ – Industry Source
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
I dont expect that any future UCAV will and can replace fighter with pilot in air-superiority role.Austin wrote:I suspect with the new 20T UCAV under development and Pogosyan mentioned at MAKS 2013 that it will be based on PAK-FA design and likely means a supersonic UCAV then there is no need for LFI or light fighter program.Viktor wrote:Interesting read
We need a light fighter
Assuming 20T is its MTOW that would make it into a F-16 class MTOW fighter , with modern fuel effecient engine and no pilot cockpit it would have an intercontinental range for sure.
Russia to See 20-Ton Combat Drone ‘by 2018’ – Industry Source
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
I believe it can and its a cost effective option over spending huge amount on LFI.
Can you translate CIAM graphic says in Russian ?
Can you translate CIAM graphic says in Russian ?
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Well until I see Mach 2+ UCAV, LFI makes sense.Austin wrote:I believe it can and its a cost effective option over spending huge amount on LFI.
No UAV/UCAV has any impact on the battlefield between two countries of approximately equal strenght. Any airforce will just wipe the floor with them. All of them.
Unfortunately I dont speak Russian.Austin wrote:Can you translate CIAM graphic says in Russian ?
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
If you see Europe , they have skipped the 5th Gen fighter and moved over to UCAV and that too subsonic one. Infact Europe does not have any thing that cannot even match a Su-35 in couple of parameters.
US is moving to an all F-35 fleet , Only china is investing in two 5th Gen program and we dont know which one will be successful.
A UCAV of 20T has all the potential to replace an LFI types , specially if its supersonic design and is F-16 class.
To give you an example the Mig SCAT was 10T UCAV , Subsonic had a range of 3000 km and internal payload of 2 T , The new UCAV is twice the capacity of SCAT.
We can assume for 20T UCAV , Supersonic type will atleast have a range of > 3000 Km and can carry payload of atleast 3.5 T
US is moving to an all F-35 fleet , Only china is investing in two 5th Gen program and we dont know which one will be successful.
A UCAV of 20T has all the potential to replace an LFI types , specially if its supersonic design and is F-16 class.
To give you an example the Mig SCAT was 10T UCAV , Subsonic had a range of 3000 km and internal payload of 2 T , The new UCAV is twice the capacity of SCAT.
We can assume for 20T UCAV , Supersonic type will atleast have a range of > 3000 Km and can carry payload of atleast 3.5 T
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Still no one is producing M 2+ UCAV. Every single UCAV up to now and the ones planed in the future are subsonic and useful only for bombing but not air superiority missions.
In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not
laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots.
Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.
In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not
laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots.
Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
I wouldn't say Europe has skipped anything, they just have barely brought their advanced 4th gens in service, and have no money/will to dive into a 5th gen platform right now.
sepheronx- Posts : 8672
Points : 8932
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 35
Location : Canada
UCAV's have been used in effectively areas that are pretty much incapable of even defending themselves, nothing technologically advanced military. As evident with Iran, even the newest stealth drone RQ-170 was indeed incapable of even getting far without being intercepted and ended up in Iran's hands. That is with a very advanced and expensive drone. Relying on technology is very dangerous, as a pilot can still fly the plain and keep it in manual mode if in case in heavy EW environment, which solid state component based equipment (drones are just filled to the brim with it), are not safe.
Don't knock on European jets either. Typhoon and Rafale are very strong jets and are very good competitors to Su-35, F-18S/H and alike. Even proved useful against F-22. As TR1 said, just not in numbers.
Don't knock on European jets either. Typhoon and Rafale are very strong jets and are very good competitors to Su-35, F-18S/H and alike. Even proved useful against F-22. As TR1 said, just not in numbers.
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
Yep, I find their claims on being able to skip the 5th generation a little hard to believe.TR1 wrote:I wouldn't say Europe has skipped anything, they just have barely brought their advanced 4th gens in service, and have no money/will to dive into a 5th gen platform right now.
The height of European fighter technology are now the Eurofighter, Saab Gripen and the Dassault Rafale.
And now they want to create a competitive 6th gen offering with both stealth and unmanned capability, not to mention matching all the other parameters of other country's 6th gen fighters such as range, speed, payload, etc...
What's the plan - sponge off the F-35 and other US technology?
flamming_python- Posts : 9284
Points : 9346
Join date : 2012-01-30
Well if you want a UCAV that would be able to supercruise at Mach 2+ than you might have to wait a while yet.Viktor wrote:Still no one is producing M 2+ UCAV. Every single UCAV up to now and the ones planed in the future are subsonic and useful only for bombing but not air superiority missions.
In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not
laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots.
Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.
But an unmanned version of the PAK-FA should be able to supercruise at Mach 1+ and reach Mach 2+ with afterburners; same as the PAK-FA can. Perhaps even slightly faster than the PAK-FA if they remove the cockpit and associated systems, and thus reduce weight and optimise the aerodynamic design yet further.
GarryB- Posts : 39671
Points : 40167
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They could add structural weight to make it even heavier than the manned PAK FA... the unmanned model might end up slower than the manned version but being able to pull sustained 20-25g turns would mean no manned fighter would be able to out turn it in a dogfight and outturning enemy missiles becomes a possibility too.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Oh baby!
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
And another good one ...
GarryB- Posts : 39671
Points : 40167
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Interesting they are designing an unmanned PAK FA as a UCAV... the design of any aircraft is fairly compromised in its design as it needs to accommodate a pilot and all the pilots support equipment which upsets the design.
Put it this way... if you are designing a human being the main reason for having a head is to enable the sensors within it turn independently to detect danger... you put the brain so that the communications channels to the brain is short.
If you are building a battle robot however you might still want to retain the basic human form so it can pretend to be human from a distance, but there is no advantage in putting anything in the head as important as the brain... you would put that within the chest under the heaviest armour protection... ironically most people who don't know any better would waste ammo shooting your robot in the head to stop it and would of course be wasting their ammo.
The point is however that basing a UCAV on an existing airframe is not usually a great idea unless you want to reduce costs or use them for deception purposes... ie black painted canopies and who knows how many PAK FAs and UCAVs there are... even when you are in air combat with them...
The vast majority of UCAVs and UAVs revealed don't look anything like existing manned aircraft.
Of course old aircraft fitted with remote control equipment and used for realistic target practise tend to improve in performance.
Because they are disposable they tend to expand the envelope in terms of allowed performance... for instance the M-23, which is the remote controlled model of the Mig-23 fighter can fly faster than the manned model both at altitude and at low level... not because of reduced weight, but because they are not trying to conserve airframe hours by limiting top speed or g load.
Put it this way... if you are designing a human being the main reason for having a head is to enable the sensors within it turn independently to detect danger... you put the brain so that the communications channels to the brain is short.
If you are building a battle robot however you might still want to retain the basic human form so it can pretend to be human from a distance, but there is no advantage in putting anything in the head as important as the brain... you would put that within the chest under the heaviest armour protection... ironically most people who don't know any better would waste ammo shooting your robot in the head to stop it and would of course be wasting their ammo.
The point is however that basing a UCAV on an existing airframe is not usually a great idea unless you want to reduce costs or use them for deception purposes... ie black painted canopies and who knows how many PAK FAs and UCAVs there are... even when you are in air combat with them...
The vast majority of UCAVs and UAVs revealed don't look anything like existing manned aircraft.
Of course old aircraft fitted with remote control equipment and used for realistic target practise tend to improve in performance.
Because they are disposable they tend to expand the envelope in terms of allowed performance... for instance the M-23, which is the remote controlled model of the Mig-23 fighter can fly faster than the manned model both at altitude and at low level... not because of reduced weight, but because they are not trying to conserve airframe hours by limiting top speed or g load.
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02
If i may pose a question to the more knowledgeable gents here. Remember the order for 16 Su-30M2 disclosed recently? Well, there was also internet talk about an undisclosed number of extra Su-27SM3 too. Now we have seen in the news that one, there should be a squadron of Su-27SM3 stationed in Belarus this year, and two, that the Southern Military District will receive this year over 30 new or modernized aircraft, including Su-27SM3. I think it's pretty sure that there are no Su-27 upgrades going or planned at the moment, so the SM3s should be new (possibly assembled from kits left from the chinese order?).
So given all that in my mind i thought there should be at least 12, and possibly- if the belarussian deployment does not involve the squadron already operating SM3s- even 24 Su-27SM3s to be delivered to VVS in the near future (actually, at one point , i was going by the simple logic that if the last order was for 12 SM3 and 4 Su-30M2, then since there are 16 Su-30M2 in the 2012 order, there probably would be 48 extra SM3 too!). Am i completely off the mark here regarding these supposed new SM3 deliveries, or there's something to it? Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
So given all that in my mind i thought there should be at least 12, and possibly- if the belarussian deployment does not involve the squadron already operating SM3s- even 24 Su-27SM3s to be delivered to VVS in the near future (actually, at one point , i was going by the simple logic that if the last order was for 12 SM3 and 4 Su-30M2, then since there are 16 Su-30M2 in the 2012 order, there probably would be 48 extra SM3 too!). Am i completely off the mark here regarding these supposed new SM3 deliveries, or there's something to it? Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
From Russian forums, what I have gathered is people don't know how much of the "Chinese kits" are even left over. The order is just to keep Knaapo busy, but one wonders why they could not just order more Su-35s at this point....
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Earlier, the President of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Mikhail Pogosyan, reported RIA Novosti that Russia is developing an unmanned aerial vehicle shock-purpose weighing about 20 tons on the basis of the technical solutions of the fifth-generation fighter T-50.flamming_python wrote:Well if you want a UCAV that would be able to supercruise at Mach 2+ than you might have to wait a while yet.Viktor wrote:Still no one is producing M 2+ UCAV. Every single UCAV up to now and the ones planed in the future are subsonic and useful only for bombing but not air superiority missions.
In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not
laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots.
Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.
But an unmanned version of the PAK-FA should be able to supercruise at Mach 1+ and reach Mach 2+ with afterburners; same as the PAK-FA can. Perhaps even slightly faster than the PAK-FA if they remove the cockpit and associated systems, and thus reduce weight and optimise the aerodynamic design yet further.
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20131003/967441340.html#ixzz2he0xtYr3
Thing is that 20 t UCAV is being developed on the basis of 5th generation (PAK-FA) TECHNOLOGIES not PAK-FA itself.
GarryB- Posts : 39671
Points : 40167
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
If it is just based on PAK FA technologies then it could easily be the Mig Skate or something like it.
I suspect however it will be a PAK FA design adapted for unmanned use.
I suspect however it will be a PAK FA design adapted for unmanned use.
|
|
|