VKS Russian Aerospace Forces: News #2

flamming_python wrote:

Berkut wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
''Russia Developing Fifth Generation Lightweight Fighter Jet''

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150825/1026159304/russia-aircraft-mig-pakfa-jet-stealth.html

Says it'll be based on MiG-1.44?

It isn't clear to me he was actually talking about a light fighter at all. It is most likely he was talkig about PAK-DP. But we need a video of his statements because his statements as reported by the media has been completely all over the place.

He did say that it would be based off work done for the MiG 1.44, and it's not a co-incidence they rolled it out this year either; the prototype strike fighter that lost out to the T-50.

I doubt the PAK-DP would need stealth or canards either.

They will be using knowledge gained from the MiG 1.44. I doubt that it will be based off the MiG 1.44 because that is quite a large aircraft. If anyone wants to see a finished but flawed MiG 1.44, look at the Chinese J-20 (blatantly stolen).

Methinks that it might be based on the MiG-35. It is a small fighter already and it is a great fighter already with further potential still (i.e. 3D TVC engines). To bring it up to a 5th generation level, some aerodynamic changes can be made in order to reduce the RCS or even adding RAM.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Berkut wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
''Russia Developing Fifth Generation Lightweight Fighter Jet''

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150825/1026159304/russia-aircraft-mig-pakfa-jet-stealth.html

Says it'll be based on MiG-1.44?

It isn't clear to me he was actually talking about a light fighter at all. It is most likely he was talkig about PAK-DP. But we need a video of his statements because his statements as reported by the media has been completely all over the place.

He did say that it would be based off work done for the MiG 1.44, and it's not a co-incidence they rolled it out this year either; the prototype strike fighter that lost out to the T-50.

I doubt the PAK-DP would need stealth or canards either.

They will be using knowledge gained from the MiG 1.44. I doubt that it will be based off the MiG 1.44 because that is quite a large aircraft. If anyone wants to see a finished but flawed MiG 1.44, look at the Chinese J-20 (blatantly stolen).

Methinks that it might be based on the MiG-35. It is a small fighter already and it is a great fighter  already with further potential still (i.e. 3D TVC engines). To bring it up to a 5th generation level,  some aerodynamic changes can be made in order to reduce the RCS or even adding RAM.

I said it would be based off work done for the MiG 1.44; not on the aircraft itself, and MiG themselves said as much.

It won't be the size of the MiG 1.44; but in its capacity as a tech demonstrator or prototype, it did prove the viability of a highly-maneuverable delta-wing configuration stealth fighter. It used features MiG didn't try before, such as canards and internal weapon bay.
There's a good chance that they will attempt to work with such a configuration, IMO. Canards will remove the need for the more expensive thrust-vectoring.
It's also possible that they might try to evolve the MiG-29 airframe further and radically rethink its design for stealth and internal weapons bays.
And then they could just try something new, like we've seen with their Skat UCAV prototype.

flamming_python wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Berkut wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
''Russia Developing Fifth Generation Lightweight Fighter Jet''

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150825/1026159304/russia-aircraft-mig-pakfa-jet-stealth.html

Says it'll be based on MiG-1.44?

It isn't clear to me he was actually talking about a light fighter at all. It is most likely he was talkig about PAK-DP. But we need a video of his statements because his statements as reported by the media has been completely all over the place.

He did say that it would be based off work done for the MiG 1.44, and it's not a co-incidence they rolled it out this year either; the prototype strike fighter that lost out to the T-50.

I doubt the PAK-DP would need stealth or canards either.

They will be using knowledge gained from the MiG 1.44. I doubt that it will be based off the MiG 1.44 because that is quite a large aircraft. If anyone wants to see a finished but flawed MiG 1.44, look at the Chinese J-20 (blatantly stolen).

Methinks that it might be based on the MiG-35. It is a small fighter already and it is a great fighter  already with further potential still (i.e. 3D TVC engines). To bring it up to a 5th generation level,  some aerodynamic changes can be made in order to reduce the RCS or even adding RAM.

I said it would be based off work done for the MiG 1.44; not on the aircraft itself, and MiG themselves said as much.

It won't be the size of the MiG 1.44; but in its capacity as a tech demonstrator or prototype, it did prove the viability of a highly-maneuverable delta-wing configuration stealth fighter. It used features MiG didn't try before, such as canards and internal weapon bay.
There's a good chance that they will attempt to work with such a configuration, IMO. Canards will remove the need for the more expensive thrust-vectoring.
It's also possible that they might try to evolve the MiG-29 airframe further and radically rethink its design for stealth and internal weapons bays.
And then they could just try something new, like we've seen with their Skat UCAV prototype.

Well it is quite expensive drawing up a clean sheet design even when incorporating previous lessons learned. I haven't seen the VVS begging MiG to develop something like this either. So an evolutionary design upgrade of the MiG-29 just may be the most financially sound option.

Russian MoD ordered 2 Il-76 and 1 Tu-204

KLA and the Emergencies Ministry signed an agreement to supply two Il-76 and Tu-214

Viktor wrote:Russian MoD ordered 2 Il-76 and 1 Tu-204  

KLA and the Emergencies Ministry signed an agreement to supply two Il-76 and Tu-214

ΕΜΕRCOM not MoD

So as of now not new orders for Tu-204SM and just one Tu-214 order ? Sad

is it true that usa pgm bombs are unjammable ? i mean they don't rely on gps for precision guiding even if sats are down they can do their job?


Secondly is it true that usa has made some new navigation and precision technique and their military doesn't rely solely on GPS ? I doubt it .

thanks for the heads up . someone said west has huge number of unjammable PGM bombs and missiles

My another doubt : Is it true that usa has a high-volume surge rapid satellite launch capability for military satellites and an arsenal of SAT constellations pre-built and waiting to go.

Prototype currently under construction:

Inside The Roc's Lair
Feb 25, 2015 by Guy Norris in On Space
http://aviationweek.com/blog/inside-rocs-lair

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJFKUiuDBE

sepheronx wrote:People say a lot of stuff. Doesnt make them true. Laser guided munitions are neaely impossible to jam, so they could be talking about those. Radar guided are jammable. Optical guided are not. So on so forth.

ok but does usa uses laser guided munitions ? I heard they use gps guided munition .


Your thoughts on my 3rd doubt ?

kvs wrote:

Militarov wrote:

kvs wrote:Bombs are so obsolete.  Having 4 of them is just inane.  It would be better if they mounted some cruise missiles instead.  
Hypersonic or subsonic.

It does not look like those mounting points could hold 500 kg or higher bombs.  

Price of cruise missile 0,8-2mil USD, 500kg bomb - 10.000 + GPS/laser guidance 10-20k. Amount of smart ammunition used in war, even modern one is just a fraction of total gravity bombs dropped.

Those are US prices and totally irrelevant.   Also, what sort of idiots would use hard points to mount four small bombs.
If they are going to use such bombs then they need a proper bomb bay where they can have dozens of them in cassettes.
Even some sort of cassette system on the hard points would make more sense but it would be too heavy if it held a
good number of bombs.  An aircraft like that truly requires missiles on its hard points.

That depends alot on enemy that you fight, cruise missiles are expencive no matter the origin and you will try to preserve them to be used aganist high value targets, while i do agree that mounts for multiple bombs should be used on such platform and bombs should be of gliding design. US is using triple-ejector racks for a B-52 to drop GBU30s for an example applying one 250kg bomb per hardpoint doesnt make much sense but thats what Russians mostly do, i still havent seen multiple ejector racks on Russian platforms in widespread use meanwhile on the West they use them on almost every platform.

During WWII the British and Americans would send 1,000 bombers day and night over several days just to hit one factory... quite often the nearby town was devastated but the factory sustained only minor damage and could continue production within hours and another attack needed to be mounted.

With PAK FA the four bombs would be used against four separate targets and would hit the specific part of the target most vulnerable and therefore also the most difficult to fix/repair/replace.

Modern aircraft wont need lots and lots of bombs... they will just need accurate ones.

In comparison in the early 1980s the low level strike capability of the Soviet Union would consist of Su-17s, MiG-27s, and Su-24s. Today that same role could be performed by a single MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 or Su-35 or Su-34 or Su-30.

In a few years time it will be a single PAK FA.

The difference is that dozens of Su-17s would be sent to deal with a problem like a bridge... and today a single MiG-29SMT with a guided missile like Kh-29 could take out that same bridge. The PAK FA will take out the bridge and the bridge further down the river with its two Grom missiles in its front weapons bay, and also two enemy radars using two Kh-58s in the rear weapon bay and also shoot down a couple of enemy aircraft with its two AAMs in the wing mounted weapon bay...

GarryB wrote:During WWII the British and Americans would send 1,000 bombers day and night over several days just to hit one factory... quite often the nearby town was devastated but the factory sustained only minor damage and could continue production within hours and another attack needed to be mounted.

With PAK FA the four bombs would be used against four separate targets and would hit the specific part of the target most vulnerable and therefore also the most difficult to fix/repair/replace.

Modern aircraft wont need lots and lots of bombs... they will just need accurate ones.

In comparison in the early 1980s the low level strike capability of the Soviet Union would consist of Su-17s, MiG-27s, and Su-24s. Today that same role could be performed by a single MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 or Su-35 or Su-34 or Su-30.

In a few years time it will be a single PAK FA.

The difference is that dozens of Su-17s would be sent to deal with a problem like a bridge... and today a single MiG-29SMT with a guided missile like Kh-29 could take out that same bridge. The PAK FA will take out the bridge and the bridge further down the river with its two Grom missiles in its front weapons bay, and also two enemy radars using two Kh-58s in the rear weapon bay and also shoot down a couple of enemy aircraft with its two AAMs in the wing mounted weapon bay...

Right.

Actually it's not a well-known fact, but much of the devastation seen in Nagasaki was due to that same inaccuracy. The Americans were targeting a military factory of some kind; however the bomb landed several km's from its target... smack in the middle of the most populated area of the city.

In comparison in the early 1980s the low level strike capability of the Soviet Union would consist of Su-17s, MiG-27s, and Su-24s. Today that same role could be performed by a single MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 or Su-35 or Su-34 or Su-30.

In a few years time it will be a single PAK FA.

Mig29/35, Su-35/30 and especially Su-34/24 already can destroy several bridges with guided and unguided weaponary, no need for a PAK-FA, actually they can destroy more bridges than a PAK-FA ever could if its internal bay weapons limit.

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:During WWII the British and Americans would send 1,000 bombers day and night over several days just to hit one factory... quite often the nearby town was devastated but the factory sustained only minor damage and could continue production within hours and another attack needed to be mounted(...)

Right.

Actually it's not a well-known fact, but much of the devastation seen in Nagasaki was due to that same inaccuracy. The Americans were targeting a military factory of some kind; however the bomb landed several km's from its target... smack in the middle of the most populated area of the city.

Rather than technical issues named "accuracy", the core problem which caused the tragedy of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Khâm Thiên, Bạch Mai... is the inhuman and savage doctrine of killing as many human as possible, to instill terror and fear into the people's heart by causing unimaginable war crimes and mass killing.

That is the reason why the U.S. continued to use carpet bombing in Vietnam, while in the USSR people started to put guided missile on strategic bombers.

It is clear, carpet bombing is ineffective against military fortification due to the high scattering and inaccuracy. Even A-shape tunnels can be designed to withstand the power of carpet bombing. But civillian settlements are vulnerable and countless amount of civillians are killed by carpet bombing.

In other words, the Pentagon was using the tactics which is ineffective to destroy fighting positions, but very effective in killing normal civillians and causing horrible war crimes.

GarryB wrote:During WWII the British and Americans would send 1,000 bombers day and night over several days just to hit one factory... quite often the nearby town was devastated but the factory sustained only minor damage and could continue production within hours and another attack needed to be mounted.

With PAK FA the four bombs would be used against four separate targets and would hit the specific part of the target most vulnerable and therefore also the most difficult to fix/repair/replace.

Modern aircraft wont need lots and lots of bombs... they will just need accurate ones.

In comparison in the early 1980s the low level strike capability of the Soviet Union would consist of Su-17s, MiG-27s, and Su-24s. Today that same role could be performed by a single MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 or Su-35 or Su-34 or Su-30.

In a few years time it will be a single PAK FA.

The difference is that dozens of Su-17s would be sent to deal with a problem like a bridge... and today a single MiG-29SMT with a guided missile like Kh-29 could take out that same bridge. The PAK FA will take out the bridge and the bridge further down the river with its two Grom missiles in its front weapons bay, and also two enemy radars using two Kh-58s in the rear weapon bay and also shoot down a couple of enemy aircraft with its two AAMs in the wing mounted weapon bay...

But you still have to agree that for prolonged CAS missions you will want to carry 3x250kg laser guided bombs on one hardpoint rather than just 1, amount paired with high accuracy of the platform (whatever that platform is, PAK FA if you like it) would increase efficiency couple times. That way instead of sending 6 SU34s on CAS mission you can send 2 coz they are not flying with half of max warload due to hardpoints being taken by single warheads (whatever they are bombs, missiles, gliding bombs).

But you still have to agree that for prolonged CAS missions you will want to carry 3x250kg laser guided bombs on one hardpoint rather than just 1, amount paired with high accuracy of the platform (whatever that platform is, PAK FA if you like it) would increase efficiency couple times. That way instead of sending 6 SU34s on CAS mission you can send 2 coz they are not flying with half of max warload due to hardpoints being taken by single warheads (whatever they are bombs, missiles, gliding bombs).

Would never send Su-34s on CAS missions.

Personally I think the solution on the Su-25TM with two wing pylons carrying 16 Hermes guided missiles with 20km range and 30kg HE warheads would be an ideal option for a range of point targets...

GarryB wrote:

But you still have to agree that for prolonged CAS missions you will want to carry 3x250kg laser guided bombs on one hardpoint rather than just 1, amount paired with high accuracy of the platform (whatever that platform is, PAK FA if you like it) would increase efficiency couple times. That way instead of sending 6 SU34s on CAS mission you can send 2 coz they are not flying with half of max warload due to hardpoints being taken by single warheads (whatever they are bombs, missiles, gliding bombs).

Would never send Su-34s on CAS missions.

Personally I think the solution on the Su-25TM with two wing pylons carrying 16 Hermes guided missiles with 20km range and 30kg HE warheads would be an ideal option for a range of point targets...

SU25s wont be around forever, there will be most likely a stopgap where SU34 will be the only platfom for CAS till new dedicated CAS platfom appears (if any, since many people argue now if pure platforms like that are needed anymore due to drone expansion), also SU34 is partially made to be used for CAS same as F15E, US used it very often to suplement A10 in such missions.

You know, Herme's has been talked about and mentioned for years, and we have not seen a single piece of its existence. I am starting to doubt its existence and think that it is an abandoned project. Heck, I think mention of Hermes has been around longer than PAK FA's.

Oh yeah of little faith...

http://www.kbptula.ru/en/productions/multi-service-weapon-systems

SU25s wont be around forever, there will be most likely a stopgap where SU34 will be the only platfom for CAS till new dedicated CAS platfom appears (if any, since many people argue now if pure platforms like that are needed anymore due to drone expansion), also SU34 is partially made to be used for CAS same as F15E, US used it very often to suplement A10 in such missions.

I don't know of any Army Aviation units operating Su-34s at the moment.

The Su-25s are all getting upgrades and there are plans for a replacement aircraft, so i rather doubt they will transfer Su-34s to Army Aviation any time soon.

The Su-34 would be too fast to operate with Mils and Kamovs anyway.