VVS Russian Airforce Force: News #2

Tsavo Lion wrote:Upgraded Su-25SMs will be deployed to the AB Kant in Kyrgyzstan  
https://riafan.ru/1087472-modernizirovannye-su-25sm-postupyat-na-bazu-vks-rf-v-kirgizii
http://newstes.ru/2018/08/12/modernizirovannye-su-25sm-do-konca-goda-postupyat-na-bazu-rf-v-kirgizii.html

They may be sent to bomb the ISIS now in Afghanistan, many of whom came from Syria &/ Iraq.
https://sputniknews.com/science/201608281044705045-su-25-flying-tank/

Or they maybe upgrading and replacing the regular Su-25's stationed there. They are there to assist Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan if any Jihadist come across their borders.

Good news regarding the MiG-AT... it seemed the thoughts at the time the Yak was selected that they both would do the job, the MiG would be cheaper, but the Yak had potential to be further developed into a light strike aircraft and various other planned models... none of which ever made it to service.

Having two jet fighter trainers might sound wasteful, but if the Su-35 and Su-57 are going to be single seat aircraft then an extra training stage would be valuable.

I liked the idea of the SR-10, but clearly it is not good enough.

GarryB wrote:Good news regarding the MiG-AT... it seemed the thoughts at the time the Yak was selected that they both would do the job, the MiG would be cheaper, but the Yak had potential to be further developed into a light strike aircraft and various other planned models... none of which ever made it to service.

Having two jet fighter trainers might sound wasteful, but if the Su-35 and Su-57 are going to be single seat aircraft then an extra training stage would be valuable.

I liked the idea of the SR-10, but clearly it is not good enough.

In every case i quite a good news: it will reply the trhee plane model used by AMI with its "diverse twin" M-346.

SF260T (i.e. with turboprop)-M-345-M346

SR-10 would have been better in this sense as it would be of the same class of M-345 while MiG-AT is heavier than former M-339.
M-346/Yak-130 are very costly to operate but they are a must if you want to replicate performance of a 4++ gen plane so the idea is to use it just for advanced phase + a part of the syllabus previously made on OCU/ U version of fighter itself
Turboprop plane would in the same way take a part of the basic training made previously with the former jet trainer and a lighter, more economical trainer would close the gap between the two.
Overall result is consistent savings and a way smoother transition between different phases.

Jhonwick3 wrote:

This video, which shows the infamous slogan "Putler Kaput" painted on the belly of a Tu-160, hasn't been taken in September 2018 during any "routine readiness exercise".

It has been taken during rehearsal of the 2013 Victory Day parade (see Youtube video Ywxfnist714).

The most recent news seem to rule out again the option of the MiG-AT as basic trainer auxiliary aircraft.

http://mil.today/2018/23182/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=rss&utm_campaign=miltoday

If mig wants to to sell a trainer jet to russia, they need to make it between yak-152 and yak-130.

IMO it must be a jet, without weapons, without advanced cockpit, simple, reliable and cheap.

Once pilots are trained on yak-152 and basics of flight, the new trainer should train them to fly a jet. Then yak-130 trains them to fly a jet with advanced avionics, weapon use, dogfight ... and then UB versions of their future fighters.

It should also dicrease the number of yak-130 crashes ...

Having two jet fighter trainers might sound wasteful, but if the Su-35 and Su-57 are going to be single seat aircraft then an extra training stage would be valuable.

New trained pilots won't fly in su-57. They will go first on mig-29/35 and su-27/30.

A new runway was built at the Belbek airfield in the Crimea

As the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported on November 22, 2018, the first all-weather aircraft of the military transport aircraft An-148 landed at the military airfield Belbek in the Republic of Crimea.

On the eve, the specialists of the Military Building Complex of the Ministry of Defense of Russia completed the construction of a new runway (344 meters).

The construction of a strategic facility was carried out at the direction of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Russia President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3424304.html

Photo report from the 55th separate helicopter regiment in Korenovsk

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3437193.html

Why is this guy harassing the poor helicopter?

Weird looking Tu-214.



Testbed for new radar/systems for Tu-160M2?

Hole wrote:Weird looking Tu-214.



Testbed for new radar/systems for Tu-160M2?

Or pak da.

Isn't such noise more dynamic for civilian planes (so more fuel efficiant) ? The plane looks awsome like that.

New trained pilots won't fly in su-57. They will go first on mig-29/35 and su-27/30.

Of course not, what I mean is that in the early 1980s an experienced pilot who flew MiG-21 and MiG-15 and MiG-23 and who is now assigned to fly a MiG-29 could fly in the MiG-29UB to learn its foibles and strange features before being left alone in the single seat model MiG-29.

With the Su-35 and Su-57 being single seat only the best they can do is fly in an Su-30 to see what it is like, but it is not really the same...

The Yak-130 has a special flight control system to allow the aircraft to simulate different flight characteristics from heavy transports to light or medium or heavy fighters/fighter bombers.

Getting used to different types during training would help pilots get used to adapting to different types....

Or pak da.

Probably both, though likely Blackjack as it is going to need it first... by 2025 when they start production of the PAK DA then they might need to get the radar right then.

Isn't such noise more dynamic for civilian planes (so more fuel efficiant) ? The plane looks awsome like that.

It is clearly the nose of a supersonic or transonic aircraft... most likely Blackjack, though it could just as easily be Backfire for the new model nose incorporating the inflight refuelling probe like the Blackjacks.

It is clearly the nose of a supersonic or transonic aircraft... most likely Blackjack, though it could just as easily be Backfire for the new model nose incorporating the inflight refuelling probe like the Blackjacks.

I was asking if the nose would make a civilian plan like the one on the picture more fuel efficiant.

If it would, all civilian airliners would look like this. This nose form is only needed on supersonic planes.

No.

With subsonic items the front is not really hugely important, it is the rear that determines a lot of the drag.

At supersonic speeds the nose is critical, while the tail is not so important.

Take a look at bullets... high velocity rifle bullets have pointy noses, while low velocity pistol bullets tend to have flat rounded noses.

Of course even for a high velocity rifle bullet the rear end might not be important at the start of the flight at high supersonic speed, but a more aerodynamic tail can make a huge difference in flight range... with a flat tail a 308 rifle bullet might travel 3-4km, while with a boat tailed bullet (ie gets narrower at the back like the rear of a boat) can reduce drag while the bullet moves at subsonic speed extending ballistic range to 5-6km.

Isos wrote:

It is clearly the nose of a supersonic or transonic aircraft... most likely Blackjack, though it could just as easily be Backfire for the new model nose incorporating the inflight refuelling probe like the Blackjacks.

I was asking if the nose would make a civilian plan like the one on the picture more fuel efficiant.

Yes! It would make the plane more fuel efficient, but only a little little bit at subsonic speeds.

The reason why nose of regular airliners don't look like this is simple...pilots couldn't see the runway, they would see only the nose. That's why the Concorde and Tu-144 had a lowerable nose ("droop-nose"). Requirements for civilian airplanes and military airplanes are different! A civilian aircraft should also be able to land without instruments, only by sight.

Hole wrote:Weird looking Tu-214.
Testbed for new radar/systems for Tu-160M2?

and PAK DA,offcially



https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/400185

Good interview about the future of VVS:

https://uacrussia.livejournal.com/83886.html

Do not find a specific thread for this, but the news are relevant: Tactical Missiles Corporation finishing R&D in no less than 14 new missiles this year:

http://tass.com/defense/1041562

"This year, we have serious plans: we need to complete a total of 14 [R&D] works," the chief executive said.

"Several works are linked with ‘air-to-air,’ air-to-surface’ and air-to-ship’ weapons. And about a third of works are related to coastal missile systems and underwater naval weapons," Obnosov said.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bv0qedJH6Ih/

Interesting comment from a real russian pilot. But bad translation. I think he is suggesting of intruducing cheap single engine fighters.

Can anyone translates ? Maybe Vlad79 ?

That guy is not a pilot. He knows pilots. And he's been known to spew bullshit before. Like not being able to tell apart F-15 and F-22.