Missiles will go through hangars like a hot knife in butter. You can expect a drones with a hardened warhead and a booster for a final attack to pierce into the hangar too.
UAE have a small territory, they can't use a strategical deapth to hide their planes further away like Russia or Saudi arabia. Such country are easy to overwhelm.
The key is to punish that sort of behavour, so first of all stopping any shipping going past that is supplying oil to the countries that are going to attack you and steal their oil, secondly invest in decent modern air defence systems... Pantsir, TOR, SOSNA, even missile systems like Kornet-EM with HE warheads are good for use against small aerial targets. And thirdly discover where these drones are being launched from and destroy that location with ballistic missiles like Iskander and new export missiles with three or four times the range now the INF treaty is gone.
Of course the planes themselves would be useful in the latter case too of making any country attacking you pay a price that makes others not want to try.
Ah, I thought you were talking about the two pictures I had posted, my bad. I thought I was going blind for a second there but sounds more like senility instead!
All good. I make mistakes myself often enough to not walk around with a T Shirt saying I am god....
Plus looking at the image again I only just noticed the pink outline showing the main engine nozzle pointed down for VTOL.
What does have me perplexed is the fact that the forward engine is not aligned vertically for vertical lift, which makes me wonder if the installation allows its use in forward flight.. or if its engine exhaust is angled for vertical lift and possibly can be shifted for forwards thrust too, but that would add a lot of complication.
Yeah the F-35's entire forward lift fan & rotating nozzle combination is the exact duplicate of the Yak-141.
Not as far as I know... I am sure Mir and Alamo will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the core problem with the Yak-141 was that the lift jets... amazing as they are... they are tiny and only about 300kgs each and put out the same power each as the engines in the Su-25 (each). The problem is that no matter what surface you operate on jet engines directing their thrust down onto the surface reflects the engine blast back up to the belly of the aircraft, meaning belly mounted weapons are a no no. You also need screens to stop that hot air flowing forward into the main air intakes because that air is hot and most of its oxygen has already been consumed so if it goes in the main intake and goes to the main rear engine you will lose thrust because the fuel wont burn so well because of the lack of oxygen and the air is already hot and thin so the volume of the air going through is reduced... remember this happens when you are close to the ground in hover mode where you really don't want to lose main engine thrust... for takeoff you accelerate forward so the chances of hot air going in the front air intake is low but when landing you slow down by angling the thrust forward which angles the air spillage forward too... which is where your main air intakes are. Maybe an auxiliary air intake on top of the tail for landings and takeoff might have been the solution.
I believe the solution the Americans envisaged was to get rid of the lift jets and replace it with a large diameter fan that was powered by the main rear engine... that means the airflow is oxygen rich and cold and dense so it offers good thrust force that can go in the front intake and you can cover the belly with weapons as long as they are not in the way of the large fan or the undercarriage.
The problem with the fan is that it is huge and it takes up an enormous amount of room, and needs empty space above for the air to come in and below for the air to flow through so it is a big chunk of the aircraft you can't use for anything else really. Part of the problem with its size is to do with aircraft shaping... most supersonic aircraft have a sort of body shaping... sometimes called the coke bottle shape that reduces drag and makes supersonic speed more practical... the fan prevents the F-35 having a good F-16 like shape so despite having an enormously powerful engine it does not accelerate well and it is not particularly fast.
Other factors are important too of course... the F-16 is a mach 2 only plane because it has a simple air intake. If they added half a ton of complexity to the air intake it easily has the engine power to go mach 2.2-2.3, but they wanted to make the plane simple and cheaper and didn't think the extra speed would matter enough.
So selling engine technology to the Americans led to them making the F-35 the way it is. It was Yak technology that allowed them to create a thrust vectoring nozzle that could handle the full power afterburner thrust of that very powerful engine. Remember the Harrier never had an afterburner.
In many ways that technology enabled the F-35 to go forward and for Yak to make a bit of cash which they likely spent on the Yak-130, so they will be happy.
Looking at this design it does not appear that the front engine is connected to the rear engine... perhaps the front engine is electric and sucks/blows cold air which is vectored downwards with nozzles and it is horizontal to not take up much room but still share the airflow through the normal air intakes of the aircraft.
Or, as I said it might just be fan art.
The problem with a two engined Su-75 like this is that two engines in a VSTOL design reduces safety rather than increases it because failure of either engine during landing will likely lead to the loss of the aircraft.
But speaking of the X-32's gaping pelican intake, notice any similarities to a certain new Russian prototype?
But notice the American intake is larger in area because it is sucking in air for two engines in the hover (where airspeed does not assist air flow into the intake).
Large aircraft like the Tu-22M3 have suction relief doors to allow more air to get to the engine at takeoff when the forward speed of the aircraft is slow, so it s like breathing through a straw... putting holes in the straw near your lips allows more air to flow into your mouth.
The obvious question is why have such a long "straw" in the first place, and that is because when the aircraft is flying at 10km altitude and is moving at near top speed that straw reduces airflow nicely... in fact the intake edges narrow to further reduce the amount of air going into the intake and reaching the engine slower than it went into the intake.
Obviously the pelican's is gigantic by comparison, but in general the Su-75 seems to be following in the same lines as the X-32 including the absence of the H-stabs. Great payback as far as I see it.
The X-32 was sabotaged from the start and I think they just used the money for the programme to work a bit more on stealth for their other projects.
Remember just because an aircraft loses a competition does not make it a bad aircraft... it just didn't meet the requirements of the time.
The Mi-28 lost to the Ka-50, but later it won the role again and was put into production... Kamov had argued that a single seat attack helicopter was possible if the systems were automated enough and their Shkval system was pretty interesting for the time. A pilot in an Su-25 didn't need a second crewman so why should a helicopter they argued. Of course flying at low altitude in a helicopter is a full time job at night so they decided their helicopters needed two crew so we got the Ka-52.
Helicopters are safer operating at night.
Wait, weren't you saying how it would cost 5,000 euros to build a quick cheap hangar to protect an IL-76s from the Urkrainian drones?
Actually the best defence would be 10,000 aircraft shelters where you can move aircraft between shelters so the shelter they went into might not be the shelter they are in and wont be the shelter they leave... and of course proper air defence systems... but buying fighters from Russia you might as well by air defences to protect your investments.
Ironically with Su-75s being 40 million dollars each the Europeans could do more financial damage to them by blowing up any AH64s they operate which cost more... or their Chinooks which are almost double that price... It is ironic that the most valuable targets are sold by the west...
They seem to think the next best thing out there is between the two aircraft they seem to have purchased, at least one we know of for sure which is the 80 Rafales with the NEON UCAVs and the other appears to be the Su-75.
Ironically by the time they have Su-75s their air defences might consist of AI controlled suicide drones that operate on their airfields destroying any potential threat including birds.
Light hangars can protect against drones. But not against something that has a hardened warhead coming at mach 1 or mach 2, designed for destroying hangars.
Light interconnected hangars to stop drones and confuse the enemy regarding which hangar they need to hit, and air defence missiles and guns and drones to stop those supersonic threats.
Same fan art with an elevated plane should explain it better perhaps?
Interesting, so I am guessing they feed air from the main air intakes which are likely bigger on that model, so do they have a flexible nozzle for directing the air downwards for vertical operations... it would be far enough forward from the centre of the wing (presumably the centre of gravity of the aircraft)...
A light fighter in the hi-lo mix is there to provide persistent, round-the-clock air cover without burning your heavy fighters. The bulk of the capability is provided by the heavy fighters the light fighters you just really need to have jets in the air at any given moment.
Once your big more capable fighters have cleared the skies of the enemy aircraft the smaller fighters can fly around finding targets on the ground and dealing with them...
If you look at how aircraft are actually armed in real combat... a couple of bombs... dumb or guided that are precision delivered and these days a guided glide kit makes the plane even safer.... usually four air to air missiles... two medium or long range and two short range, and an anti radiation missile if a radar lights you up... with every aircraft carrying that it does not matter if 10 radars turn on because when 6 of you launch ARMs at them they will quickly turn off and your MAWS will pinpoint their location so drones and recon aircraft and suicide drones can all start heading for those locations. Of course some of you might accelerate and climb and release a few 250kg guided glide bombs to hit those other radars too.
Sweeping the battlefield with your AESA radar and IIR optics pods and sending the data to platforms on the ground is useful too.
Two engines running is two engines that need maintenance.
When an aircraft is down for maintenance you can have two teams working on two engines so it wont take a lot longer.
Certainly different engines require different levels of maintenance, and the engines for single engined fighters tend to be rather more powerful than engines designed for twin jets. This means the single engines are often more expensive to buy and to operate... even more significantly in a single engined design where the maintenance wont be the same as for that same engine in a twin jet aircraft. the consequences of losing an engine in flight in a single engined aircraft are rather more dire than with a twin engined aircraft... so maintenance would be more conservative and thorough.
And the lethality of modern IADS as they are, stealth is an absolute requirement so you can't really get away with legacy light fighters nowadays. All they're good for is target practise.
I don't like to suggest it but I suspect many of the Russian aircraft that have been shot down have probably been friendly fire... they did change the organisation of the air defence forces...
If this plane really has a maximum take-off weight of up to 18 tons, then with the "izdeliye-30" it would be a beast.
I would say most of the time it will carry internal weapons only which means it will not be carrying its full payload potential so not only will it be lighter than that most of the time but internal carriage of weapons means low drag because no external weapons or ordinance.
You know its not gonna be super special when Russia offers to work with external partners.
Well cooperation with India on the Su-30 actually made the Su-30MKI much more expensive because they wanted expensive French and Israeli components that ramped up the price. In this case though, this is the UAE working with Sukhoi... and I suspect they wont want foreign gear in the aircraft simply because of the risk of sanctions... the UAE made the Pantsir a great system and spent the money to make it a much better system than it could have been. Hopefully they will do the same with this fighter.
Some Su-75 customers might want other gear from other makers but they will have to pay for that themselves, but that will of course ruin the low cost feature of the aircraft so I suspect no one is going to be that stupid... but sadly I could be wrong.
Russia has a way of beating Americans with something half the price and with 90% of the tech which is what the SU75 will do (At least the price, Tech not so much, the SU75 might be innovative in some aspects)...
Very true, but with the F-35 they could make the Su-75 out of pure gold and it would still be cheaper... the American MIC is just taking the piss now and don't care how obvious their greed has become. The Pentagon seems to have decided the way to deal with thieves is to throw more money at them and it is not working in the taxpayers interests.
Part of the problem is that Pentagon officials retire to jobs in the US MIC so of course they ignore theft because that is their retirement nest egg they are protecting.
The Pak-DP is entirely secret and Russian. Its gonna be Russia's F22.
The US and west have no equivalent to the MiG-31/PAK DP, because they don't have large numbers of bombers and cruise missiles threatening their borders 24/7.
The development of scramjet engines means cruise missiles with sufficient ranges that don't have ballistic paths so ABM systems are not effective, become rather interesting and the US and west will have to develop an interceptor able to deal with large numbers of threats at one time.
Unfortunately, whilst this is true for Russia (Su75s are expected to cost the MoD $40-60 million a piece with the whole weapons suite IF the MoD placed an order) it isn't true for external customers (The SU75s intended target market). The Su75 is likely gonna cost $110 million a piece with the full weapons package (Still a bargain considering you have to pay $120 million for a F35 alone before the AIM120s and all other Jammers and electronics are added at which point you easily pay $180-220 million a piece for your F35)..
The prices bandied around for the Su-75 are the export costs and they were saying 40-50 million per aircraft and less than $10K per flight hour in maintenance... which is a fraction of the price of the F-35 in every regard. I am not sure Russia would get it a lot cheaper, but the point is that it will massively undercut the price of the F-35 and Rafale and Typhoon and any new 5th gen fighter they might get into serial production... this aircraft is all about arming the rest of the world to make the colonial white west less able to bully other countries.
But whilst its a bargain, its gonna fit in with certain air forces that can almost afford a F35 but cant (Indian Airforce, Vietnam, Iran, Egypt, Brazil etc)..
They mentioned an impact on F-35 sales but they talked about a modern 21st Century MiG-21... an affordable modern fighter that anyone can afford that is actually stealthy. (as stealthy as anything else really).
The lower budget ones it was made for just wont afford to buy 1(Uganda, Ethiopia, Algeria, Iraq etc).
The IMF will likely bully any country that owes it money not to buy it but even poor countries should be able to afford it if it is politically acceptable.
For instance New Zealand wont be allowed to consider it. But Argentina might to defend its territory if you understand my meaning.
For 10 SU75s you could get almost 30 Su30SMs in their latest export configuration ($30 million for a SU30SM without the full weapons package and jammers, it rises to $50 million once those are added.)
Adjusted to the correct prices you can reverse that... you can get 30 stealthy 5th gen light fighters for the price of 10 Su-30 heavy 4th gen fighters... bargain.
And I bet you most would be SU75 buyers are looking at that instead (Africa and less wealthy sides of Asia). I heard that it was considered to have Zhuk-AEs (AESAs used on Mig29s and their derivatives) redesigned for a new Su30Sm variant in the future (Not the SM-2, that only gains AL41F1s vs the AL31s and keeps the same archaic PESA). I can bet you many African countries are looking for this..
There was an article not that long ago that stated that their Su-30s would be upgraded to Su-35 standard with all the same stuff... radars, IRST, engines, etcetc... to reduce costs and improve commonality and simplify support and maintenance and reduce the numbers of different aircraft and radar and systems they have in service.
There is nothing archaic about PESA... for most of the 1980s and 1990s the PESA radar in the MiG-31 was the most capable radar in an aircraft... bar AWACS types.