Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+16
Mir
GarryB
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Scorpius
marcellogo
Rodion_Romanovic
SeigSoloyvov
kvs
Arrow
zare
lancelot
sepheronx
Pincus Shain
mnztr
Podlodka77
Isos
20 posters

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3473
    Points : 3475
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:25 pm

    The Mi-8 is by far the most produced helicopter in the world and needless to say it's an extremely popular workhorse. Back in 1997 I had the pleasure to meet a Russian pilot that was on contract to fight fires in Cape Town and surrounds.

    The occasion was during the 75th anniversary of the South African Navy. Many ships from all over the world came to celebrate and one such ship was the Russian Sovremenny class destroyer - NASTOYCHIVY.

    Anyway long story short we met on the ship and ended up having a couple of beers with the Ka-27PS's navigator at The Waterfront in Cape town harbour. We had a great time and I was duly invited for a pleasure trip in the Mi-8 around Cape Town the following day.

    Two years later tragedy struck and the Mi-8 was lost in the CBD when they installed some air-conditioning unit on top of building. It was quite windy (they aborted the previous day) and the tail rotor slammed into a billboard. The pilot lost control and nosedived into the street below. Sadly there were no survivours.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 00061710

    Now this is where the role of the Ka-27 or rather the Ka-32 comes in. During the same period in 1997 a Ka-32 was also actively used as a firefighter in Cape Town. The coaxial rotors on these helicopters not only makes it a very compact helicopter, but it is also one of the most stable helicopters  around.

    The lack of a tail rotor and associated tail boom facilitates maneuvering near obstacles and insures exceptional accuracy when hovering in heavy smoke, dust and heavily built up areas.

    The civil Ka-32 was developed from the military Ka-29 variant which differs somewhat from the slightly narrower cabin of the Ka-27. The Ka-31 AEW helicopter was also developed from the Ka-29, and this variant had some considerable export success. Several units were acquired by both China and India for use on their aircraft carriers.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Ka31_210

    A Ka-29 was tested against the Mi-24 attack helicopter where both launched rockets against ground targets. The results proved that the Ka-29 was more accurate than the world famous Crocodile!

    Around 60 Ka-29's were build for naval use, but numbers dwindled to a mere handful in the 90's. However there seems to be a renewed interest in this helicopter and a number of these are currently refurbished for the Russian Navy.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Ka29-210

    Just out of interest - the navigator on the Ka-27PS's son was a Il-38 pilot at the time.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39611
    Points : 40105
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:39 am

    Regarding the MiG-31E


    The aircraft attracted a lot of foreign interest but unfortunately no firm orders for it ever materialized.

    Actually there were reports that the Chinese wanted to buy some, but as they only ordered 2 the request was denied.

    Perhaps after its performance in the SMO Iran might consider a purchase of MiG-31s, or perhaps even joint development of the PAK DP? Twisted Evil

    Now this is where the role of the Ka-27 or rather the Ka-32 comes in. During the same period in 1997 a Ka-32 was also actively used as a firefighter in Cape Town. The coaxial rotors on these helicopters not only makes it a very compact helicopter, but it is also one of the most stable helicopters around.

    We had some Ka-32s here for logging... the Russian pilots flew the helicopters most of the time but we had some local pilots who were long line specialists who took over when they were picking up and carrying wood.

    The Kiwi pilots loved the Kamovs, they said they handled like Hughes 500 helicopters and their top speed was limited and they could probably fly much fast than they do. This despite being 12 ton helicopters. They also had very good lifting performance.

    (note in forestry, being able to selectively log in very rough country without needing to put in roads or get trucks in an out means you can fly in and cut down the tree you want and cut it up into chunks that your helicopter can carry and fly them out without having to build roads all over the place or damage a lot of the rest of the forest.)

    Mir likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3473
    Points : 3475
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:02 am

    Tu-160 White Swan - the best heavy strategic bomber of the 90's and beyond.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Tu160-13

    A summary from the first chapter of Yefim Gordon's 2003 publication on the  famous Tu-160 White Swan strategic bomber.

    The Great Contest - You Win Only To Lose

    Mainly due to Khrushchev's obsession with missiles the third arm of the Nuclear Triad - Strategic Bombers - was heavily neglected, and many outstanding strategic bomber projects never made it into service - these included the T-4 and the M-50.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 T4-20210

    Personally I regard the M-50 as the most beautiful Soviet design EVER!

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 M50-2010

    With Brezhnev taking over the reigns of the Soviet Union, the situation started to change, but it was not until the AMSA (B-1A) program in the USA was launched  that the development of a new aircraft was planned.

    In November 1967 a directive for the development of a "strategic intercontinental aircraft" was issued. Initially the aircraft was to have outstanding performance parameters - but it quickly turned out that the bar was set a bit too high!

    Cruising speed was set at 3200-3500 km/h at an altitude of 18 000 meters. At this cruising speed the aircraft was supposed to have a reach of around 13 000 km! The speed parameters was possible at that time but the required range would have been "mission impossible". Armament included 4 Kh-45 Molinya missiles that was developed by Sukhoi (not Raduga) for the T-4.

    The two newly reborn OKB's (Sukhoi and Myasishchev) were both tasked to develop the aircraft. The Tupolev OKB - a long range aircraft specialist - was not tasked as it had several important programs running at the time. Both Sukhoi and Myasishchev started working on designs that featured variable geometry wings.

    Sukhoi, by now well familiar with the blended wing design on the T-10, used the same principal on the bomber. The bomber, now designated T-4MS (Izd-200) shared many features used in the earlier T-4, including some important systems and the engines.

    The unique combination of the blended wing and the small outer variable geometry wings gave unprecedented lift - both in supersonic and subsonic modes. The particular combination also gave excellent low level performance.

    On the down side the design proved catastrophically unstable, but the issue was quickly remedied by lengthening the nose and adding additional horizontal tail surfaces. The initial design work was completed by September 1971.

    I would not be one bit surprised if the Pak-DA will share some of the T-4MS design features.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 T4ms-p11

    Myasishchev came up with two different designs. The first was the M-20 that came in several variants. There was a basic strike/recce version - to satisfy the VVS requirements, but there was also an interesting counter-air variant designed to hunt for transoceanic transport- and AWACS aircraft. A third variant was a dedicated ASW aircraft for hunting enemy nuclear submarines.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 M-20-210

    The second project was known as the M-18. It was this design from Myasishchev that featured a blended wing design with a  general layout that is very similar to the current Tu-160 White Swan.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 M18-2010

    The Myasishchev M-18 (and M-20) was an intense study of which design features proved to be the most effective overall. This included a conventional layout with variable geometry wings with twin tails,  a tail first with delta wing and delta foreplanes, and a tailless delta design.

    The study concluded that variable geometry wings offered the best solution. The M-18 settled on the blended wing design and the M-20 prevailed with the tail first design with a conventional fuselage.

    The M-18 was also quite close to the B-1A design and was considered to be the most promising of the two designs - although some considered it the safer route as it was somewhat less innovative than the M-20 design.

    Both OKB's studies produced some outstanding results - however there was a snake in the tall grass!

    Until 1970 the Tupelov OKB's top executives attended all government meetings with regard to the new bomber strictly as "observers" - obviously taking notes as the program progressed. Despite being tasked with numerous important civil and military projects with the likes of the Tu-144 SST and the Tu-22M strike aircraft, the OKB started to develop their own version of the required strategic bomber.

    Initially known as "aircraft 156" it was soon predesignated as the Tu-160 (Izd-70). Although OKB designers generally had carte blanche, Tupelov chose not to redesign the wheel, relying heavily on the design features of the Tu-144 SST as well as the projected follow-up, the Tu-224. Hence the original design was a tailless delta.

    Tupelov also considered variable geometry wings in a separate design but felt that it added a weight penalty and complicated the overall design considerably. The layout resembled a stretched Tu-22M. In the end they settled with the tailless delta layout of the Tu-144 as the final version.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Tu160-14

    The final designs of all three competing OKB's was presented to the VVS/MAP in 1972 - each one very different from the other.

    However it was perfectly clear to the VVS top brass that Tupelov used the civil Tu-144 airliner as the basis of their design. They were also acutely aware of the problems experienced with the design and were not impressed that they now get offered a worked over Tu-144 airliner! The Tu-144 fell short on it's performance requirements, suffered reliability issues and proved very fuel thirsty and difficult to operate. They rejected the design on the grounds that it did not meet any of the VVS requirements.

    Also the excessively high lift/drag ratio unintentionally quoted in the documentation, did not do Tupelov any favours as well!

    In the presentation the general designer actually ripped the main presentation from the display board and immediately apologized for the design - vowing that a much improved design will be ready in the near future.

    Sukhoi's T-4MS design drew very favourable reaction from the military and attracted a lot of attention. Masishchev was less lucky, although the design was highly commended, it was rejected. The reason being that the OKB lacked the technological assets and manufacturing facilities to continue with the program.

    The winner was never officially announced, but the long and short of it was that the Sukhoi OKB was declared the winner. However the Kazan heavy bomber factory was chosen to produce the first prototype of the T-4MS - meaning that the factory was to be assigned to the Sukhoi OKB. This did not sit well within the industry.

    The VVS acknowledged Sukhoi as the winner, but ordered that all project materials be transferred to the Tupolev OKB to take the project further. This also included the Myasishchev OKB's M-18. Unfortunately at the time government decisions had to be complied with and that was that.

    However the Tupelov OKB rejected the T-4MS design (call it professional jealousy) in favour of the M-18. One look at the present day Tu-160 White Swan is enough to see the M-18's origins although the two aircraft does have significant differences.

    The Soviet leadership and the VVS had a lot of faith in this new bomber and the Kazan factory geared up for full scale production long before the Tu-160 had ever flown!

    The unpainted prototype of the Tu-160 made it's first flight on 18 December 1981 - exactly 42 years ago to this day!

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Tu160-15

    lancelot, Backman and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    Gazputin


    Posts : 354
    Points : 354
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Gazputin Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:47 am

    2x versions ?

    1 with ventral fins and one without ? wtf ?
    is the ventral fin version for the navy ? re better stability on landing at steep angles of attack on a carrier ?
    looks very F-14 like

    https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/11/the-su-57-will-have-a-tandem-two-seater-version-aimed-at-combat-drone-control/

    intriguing ....
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3473
    Points : 3475
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:51 pm

    @Gazputin

    Wrong thread...

    Anyway not my best photoshop but I think it will look a lot more like an Su-57 than a F-14 don't you think? Rolling Eyes

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Su57ub10
    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 F14-ca10

    I really hope you don't have trouble to differentiate between your mother and your girl friend?  No

    GarryB, Rodion_Romanovic, Hole, lancelot and Rasisuki Nebia like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39611
    Points : 40105
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:32 am

    The Su-57 is a single seat fighter that is supposed to operate with drones already, not sure a second seat is needed for most roles which are highly automated on these new aircraft with an AI system to do most of the mundane stuff.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2705
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:11 am

    GarryB wrote:The Su-57 is a single seat fighter that is supposed to operate with drones already, not sure a second seat is needed for most roles which are highly automated on these new aircraft with an AI system to do most of the mundane stuff.

    Well in a naval patrol role it can be useful as well to have a second person.

    Furthermore some nations like India were interested in the 2 seats version.

    GarryB likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2849
    Points : 2847
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  lancelot Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:32 pm

    The two seater will also help with pilot training.

    Frankly I think controlling drone swarms without the operator in the back will be kind of difficult. This will require a huge amount of AI optimization for example. Which might end up being suboptimal.

    GarryB and Mir like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39611
    Points : 40105
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:35 am

    I agree that in some situations or some missions having two crew might be more useful... the Su-35 is a single seat aircraft, but their decision to upgrade the Su-30 with radar and engines and systems from the Su-35 essentially is making the Su-30 into the two seat version of the Su-35. The MiG-29M and MiG-29K and MiG-35 are fitted with two seat canopies that means they can be set up for single or twin seat use too.

    I rather suspect that drone swarms will need to be directed but not flown so to speak... they will operate independently but be able to follow a limited set of commands.

    For instance there was an old game called Outbreak, which was a Ukrainian game BTW, where you operated a team of four soldiers in a first person shootemup... the solider you controlled you operated normally but you could set commands for the other 3 soldiers in your group. You could tell them to hold fire no matter what, fire if fired upon, or shoot anything you see when you see it. You could also order them to stick close to you (and protect you), or wander free range, or send them to specific coordinates, or you could get them to defend the location they are currently at. You can also swap into them and take control of them while the other three worked automatically.

    So as a group on weapons hold you could approach an area with the other three looking for enemy (they always saw the enemy before I did and in weapons hold would report the enemy location which would appear in my head up display). You could stop a distance from the target and set two of your soldiers armed with sniper rifle and machine gun to hold this position and fire defensively to protect any member of the team. The remaining two soldiers you can take forward with the other guy spotting targets for me to shoot.

    It was a rather fun game about an alien invasion... the graphics were not great but the weapons were cool as they were multi barrel guns with shotguns and SMGs and sniper rifles and lasers and rocket launchers and grenade launchers built in. The first weapon was a SMG and shotgun I think and as you progressed you added capabilities... the sniper rifle was accurate to a long range and had a powerful zoom. Ironically the best weapon was the SMG because the first round always went to point of aim so firing one shot at a time it was a sniper rifle even if bursts went all over the place...

    Anyway back on topic you could have categories for the drones and set them with commands and they can use their own sensors and fly themselves most of the time.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13364
    Points : 13406
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  PapaDragon Thu Jan 04, 2024 3:32 am

    Mir wrote:@Gazputin

    Wrong thread...

    Anyway not my best photoshop but I think it will look a lot more like an Su-57 than a F-14 don't you think? Rolling Eyes

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Su57ub10
    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 F14-ca10

    I really hope you don't have trouble to differentiate between your mother and your girl friend?  No


    God, I miss F-14...



    TMA1, Rasisuki Nebia and Mir like this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2705
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:11 am

    PapaDragon wrote:God, I miss F-14...
    I believe also the US Navy is missing them.

    Russia should get a few of them to keep in some museums.

    And maybe, if properly maintained and safe, keep some of them operative in order to occasionally fly them from the next russian supercarrier, in a troll move against the US
    (Possibly replacing the old TF-30 engines with The Al-31F3 of the Su-33.).

    I just mean to have 2 or 3 F-14 carrier worthy only to troll the US, not more.

    As far as next Russian naval aircraft I would say a 5th Generation MiG hopefully, unless they decide to do a carrier borne version of the su-57.

    owais.usmani and Mir like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2849
    Points : 2847
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  lancelot Thu Jan 04, 2024 4:33 pm

    I think a naval Su-57 is the aircraft which makes most sense. It is twin engine and is fully modern. Cost to modify it would be minimal.

    Mir likes this post

    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 163
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Swgman_BK Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:07 pm

    Now that UAC is a consortium, we might see that Yak 5th gen project revived.. Not the Yak-141 btw.. The other one that remained a model on a computer screen because the Russian navy turned it down like they did the Shtorm carrier it was supposed to work on..Yak-201 I believe.. VTOL too I believe. Concepts show something that looks like a single engined Su57+F35.. But Yakovlev isnt winning anything if Sukhoi is around and neither will Mikoyan. Sukhoi must be paying some MoD decision makers some nice money to pick their stuff all the time. Mikoyans 5th gen project got turned down only for Sukhois to get approved a year later and it wasnt even ready. Mikoyan was ready to build the thing as far back as 2002. But Sukhoi still got the contract. Frustrates me a little sometimes..
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2849
    Points : 2847
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  lancelot Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:49 pm

    Swgman_BK wrote:Now that UAC is a consortium, we might see that Yak 5th gen project revived.. Not the Yak-141 btw.. The other one that remained a model on a computer screen because the Russian navy turned it down like they did the Shtorm carrier it was supposed to work on..Yak-201 I believe.. VTOL too I believe. Concepts show something that looks like a single engined Su57+F35.. But Yakovlev isnt winning anything if Sukhoi is around and neither will Mikoyan. Sukhoi must be paying some MoD decision makers some nice money to pick their stuff all the time. Mikoyans 5th gen project got turned down only for Sukhois to get approved a year later and it wasnt even ready. Mikoyan was ready to build the thing as far back as 2002. But Sukhoi still got the contract. Frustrates me a little sometimes..
    Sukhoi had money from export sales to fund their own development to a large degree. That is why their projects advanced further. The Russian state didn't want to invest a lot of money for R&D out of their own pocket. Just look at Su-75 development where UAC is developing it out of their own funds and the state isn't even putting one kopeck in it. Plus we have to admit, the Su-57 airframe is way more advanced than the MiG 1.44. Then there is the radar and avionics which are way more modern. The only question is the engine really.
    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 163
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Swgman_BK Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:12 pm

    Plus we have to admit, the Su-57 airframe is way more advanced than the MiG 1.44. Then there is the radar and avionics which are way more modern. The only question is the engine really. wrote:


    Yes, the avionics are on the Su57s side as well as sensors to a larger degree, after all the Mig 1.44 was going to be PESA and not have supercruise capabilities without the afterburners. The engines were slightly weaker than the AL41F1.. But the Mig 1.44 based on those who would know in Russia, is the 1st and Only attempt in the entire world at Plasma stealth encompassing the entire airframe or most of it.. And it appears to have worked. But it was energy consuming.. Otherwise from what I read, we are talking about a near undetectable airplane from 100km up. You can pick up a F22 or F35 at that range even if it wont be a consistent lock. The Mig 1.44 would be entirely invisible at such ranges or return so little a radar signal that it lost energy before reaching the reciever.. Russia later tested this solution on a Su34 prototype for the radar so it keeps it stealthy when not in use.. With a little more panel beating the Mig 1.44 would definitely have been a less manuverable but more stealthy Su57. The SU57s stealth is very conventional. The Mig 1.44 pushed the boundaries of EM wave science..
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39611
    Points : 40105
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:16 am

    As far as next Russian naval aircraft I would say a 5th Generation MiG hopefully, unless they decide to do a carrier borne version of the su-57.

    The plan all along was to have a heavy longer ranged fighter and a lighter shorter ranged fighter on the carrier, which allowed good performance from the heavy fighter (Su-33) but also added numbers with the smaller lighter aircraft (MiG-29K).

    I rather suspect they wont change that and will go for the Su-57K and a carrier based MiG designed 5th gen light fighter.

    But Yakovlev isnt winning anything if Sukhoi is around and neither will Mikoyan.

    Sounds like Yak will be making Yak-130s and Yak-152s, while MiG will be making UTS jet trainers...

    AFAIK MiG will also be working on the single engined 5th gen fighter and a twin engined carrier based light 5th gen fighter... probably to compliment the Su-57K naval heavy carrier based fighter.

    Just look at Su-75 development where UAC is developing it out of their own funds and the state isn't even putting one kopeck in it.

    It is not a funded programme, which suggests that the MiG- single engined light 5th gen fighter project is going ahead and is being kept secret... they did the same with the Mi-28 and Ka-50 where the Mi-28 was advertised for export while the Ka-50 was the replacement for the Hind and was going to go into serial production and was kept secret till they changed their minds about its ability to fight at night.

    The SU57s stealth is very conventional. The Mig 1.44 pushed the boundaries of EM wave science..

    The advantage of actual competition where lots of technologies are developed that other planes don't have... the early versions might not even be very good but over time as they are improved their performance can become adequate and even expand its capabilities to be able to do new things.

    ERA to start with was only effective against HEAT warheads but evolved to allow multiple hits and also being able to reduce the penetration of kinetic rounds too.

    Gun launched missiles allowed moving targets to be hit at long range, but also added the ability to hit enemy helicopters too.

    Plasma stealth does not need to be on all the time... you could essentially just use it as a jammer so if you detect an incoming radar guided threat you can flick it on and disappear... just another tool on the tool belt.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11371
    Points : 11339
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Isos Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:16 am

    Mig-1.44 is for the trash bin. It was developed with old tools, old tech and 30 years ago.

    Like the french say, Mig needs to remove its fingers from its ass and start working. It's not by adding some fancy things to their 40 years old airframes that they will survive.

    Sukhoi does the things right. Win a brand new design for pak fa program and develop the su-57. Use the experience gained to develop alone the su-75. Develop the SSJ-100 by gaining experience with french companies and now will sell its russian made version.

    Mig should see what opportunity it has and focus on it to develop something needed. A big 5th gen twin engine isn't needed since they put everything in the su-57.

    A cheap single engine is what they need, specially for export and increase the numbers in the russian air force because the su-57 isn't gonna fill the needs in terms of numbers.

    Naval variant aren't needed. They have a carrier that can't take more than 10 planes which they didn't even repainted entirely last time for Syria so don't expect them to put so much money for it. Even less now they saw how deadly anti ship missiles are even in the hands of broke enemies.

    Even if a ne carrier is statted it will take 12-20 years before being ready so enough time to navalise any fighter.
    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 163
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Swgman_BK Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:26 pm

    Mig-1.44 is for the trash bin. It was developed with old tools, old tech and 30 years ago. wrote:

    How is Plasma stealth "Old tech". Many have tried it and only ended up with lab demonstrators and no functional examples on an airplane. Only the Mig 1.44 achieved that.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 163
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Swgman_BK Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:32 pm

    A cheap single engine is what they need, specially for export and increase the numbers in the russian air force because the su-57 isn't gonna fill the needs in terms of numbers. wrote:

    The Russian Airforce doesn't want single engined fighters 1st of all. Its against their whole doctrine. 2ndly, Export deals are the last thing on Russia's mind. Especially now that Russia's traditional customers are also making stuff of their own. China is pretty much independent from Russian aircraft designs.. Some of Russia's older customers are now warming up to US hardware as well. This is India, Egypt, Vietnam and a few others. It is frankly stupid to have export deals in mind when building such things. Whoever likes it will come and ask to buy it and whoever doesn't is insignificant to Russia. End of story.. Russia benefits little from arms exports which barely make up $40 Bn in revenue for Russia. And most of Russia's potential customers get threatened by the US and leave to buy US weapons instead.. Its best to quit that game and focus on advancing Russian tech beyond the ideas of any western state.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 163
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Swgman_BK Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:35 pm

    A cheap single engine is what they need, specially for export and increase the numbers in the russian air force because the su-57 isn't gonna fill the needs in terms of numbers. wrote:

    The Su57 can and will fill the need in terms of numbers. Dont know why you think that. The Su57 for export costs around $80 million but for Russia its almost less than half of that..Russia can definitely afford 100s if not 1000s of them. The tooling to pump them out isnt there yet which is why you get the delays..

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 163
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Swgman_BK Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:38 pm

    Sukhoi does the things right. Win a brand new design for pak fa program and develop the su-57. Use the experience gained to develop alone the su-75. Develop the SSJ-100 by gaining experience with french companies and now will sell its russian made version. wrote:

    Sukhoi didnt even have a design at that time!! How did they do anything right? They were the only 1 to bid for the Pak-FA program. Mikoyan and Yakovlev were instantly turned down from the get go despite having proposals that were ready for further development. Sounds like some corruption to me.

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39611
    Points : 40105
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Sat Jan 06, 2024 2:22 am

    Mig-1.44 is for the trash bin. It was developed with old tools, old tech and 30 years ago.

    It is very funny you say this Lsos... what aircraft is France flying at the moment?

    Some brand new super fighter?

    Something made with old tools and old tech and isn't even 5th gen.

    But you still claim it is the best fighter there is...

    Like the french say, Mig needs to remove its fingers from its ass and start working.

    MiG have been working harder than the French and have developed quite a range of different aircraft for their military, some of which have been rejected for various reasons and others have been purchased in very small numbers for testing to decide how to proceed.

    France would need to remove their heads from their arses if they want to also get their fingers free, but there is plenty of room and they seem to like shoving things up there.

    I am sure the muslims who are friends with Charlie Hebdo will be pleased at French official comments about war being war and civilians are fair game when defending yourself from an "attack".

    It's not by adding some fancy things to their 40 years old airframes that they will survive.

    What with putting the F-15 and F-16 back into production perhaps you should be directing that to the US?

    Sukhoi does the things right.

    Sukhoi was lucky to have a product in a niche market that could be cheap because it is Russian but also be a big capable fighter. The Indians did their best to make it horribly expensive by adding French and Israeli components that tripled the price, but the basic aircraft is no more amazing than the MiG-29s airframe... it is just larger and with more weapon and fuel capacity and a bigger radar... otherwise it is almost exactly the same.

    A big 5th gen twin engine isn't needed since they put everything in the su-57.

    They are not making a big 5th gen twin jet fighter, they are making a small 5th gen twin engined fighter.

    Think about the F-35 and then think about the Chinese copy of that aircraft but fitted with two smaller engines instead of one very big engine.

    The Chinese solution is actually better because those smaller lighter engines are a fraction of the price to buy and operate to that big white elephant on the F-35... the damn thing costs 30 million fucking dollars... that is the engine alone. Ridiculous.

    A cheap single engine is what they need, specially for export and increase the numbers in the russian air force because the su-57 isn't gonna fill the needs in terms of numbers.

    They designed single engined cheap fighters at the same time they offered the MiG-29 design in the 1970s and it was rejected in favour of the MiG-29.

    The navy is very unlikely to accept a single engined aircraft for use on their carriers... they make what the customer wants so if they are making a twin engined carrier based plane to replace the MiG-29K then you can be sure that was a requirement from the Russian Navy.

    Naval variant aren't needed.

    The naval model is required because the land based equivalent is probably going to be a very light single engined fighter.

    You have seen the models... I posted them multiple times.

    Even if a ne carrier is statted it will take 12-20 years before being ready so enough time to navalise any fighter.

    Except the light land based fighter is likely to be a single engined fighter which would not be acceptable to the Russian Navy.

    Whether you agree with me that a new MiG single engined fighter is being developed or you think Sukhois checkmate will be adopted... both designs are single engined which would make them unsuitable for carrier use.

    How is Plasma stealth "Old tech". Many have tried it and only ended up with lab demonstrators and no functional examples on an airplane. Only the Mig 1.44 achieved that.

    It is highly likely they developed all sorts of new technologies for their aircraft that would be lost if these types were just written off.

    The Russian Airforce doesn't want single engined fighters 1st of all. Its against their whole doctrine. 2ndly, Export deals are the last thing on Russia's mind

    I completely agree. The Russian AF has said that Checkmate is not an official programme that they are involved with, but later on it might be looked at if other solutions don't pan out. The official word as I understand it is that now the Su-57 is in serial production, funding and support for the light 5th gen fighter will be supplied to MiG to create a numbers aircraft that is sophisticated and modern and capable, but not an Su-57 replacement obviously.

    Something that will work together with Su-57s and S-70 drones and other platforms on various missions and also conduct missions on their own. They will be capable of carrying the full range of air to ground and air to air weapons and be light and cheap and affordable to operate in significant numbers.

    MiG has two light fighter designs, one looks like a stealthy LIFT, which everyone seems to object to despite suggestions that a Yak-130 could do the job instead.

    I have pointed out that a LIFT is designed as a trainer so adding all the systems needed to make it a useful combat aircraft would bring the cost up to probably more than a MiG-29M would cost and would likely not be much cheaper to operate and have less growth potential.

    An aircraft designed from the outset to actually be very small but not as a trainer... as a fighter with a light payload and a relatively short range, but with stealth and excellent sensors and equipment would be a good thing but Sukhoi don't make it so you are not interested.

    I rather suspect MiG will develop the single and twin engined models and let the Russian AF decide... they did it with the MiG-29.

    Even the Americans did it with the USAF choosing the F-16 and the USN picking the F-18...

    Well the F-35 lobby is super powerful so their F-18s are being replaced by F-35s... we will see how that goes.

    Some of Russia's older customers are now warming up to US hardware as well. This is India, Egypt, Vietnam and a few others. It is frankly stupid to have export deals in mind when building such things.

    To be fair most of the American shit being bought was largely because the Russians currently have lots of gaps that the Americans filled in the Indian market with Apaches and C-17s at a time when the Russian aircraft were not really combat proven or could even be made in the volumes required... Klimov were still trying to make replacement engines in volumes big enough to make new aircraft and also support existing types, and the Il-476 has not been fast in arriving and gaps are forming in the An-12 and An-26 categories. The Ka-226 had a French engine too.

    Export potential is not a consideration for the Russian military, but for the Russian MIC it is where they make real money instead of the 4-5% they make from government contracts.

    Whoever likes it will come and ask to buy it and whoever doesn't is insignificant to Russia.

    Promotion is important because many countries are quite frankly ignorant about Russian weapons and systems and were probably surprised at how their armour and artillery and aircraft and systems and equipment has performed in Syria and the Ukraine.

    And it is cheaper too.

    There is a reason Turkey and India and China all bought S-400 SAMs. There are good reasons why China and India bought Flankers.

    Russia benefits little from arms exports which barely make up $40 Bn in revenue for Russia.

    The state does not earn much from such contracts, but the money pumped in to the Russian MIC is very important, and also leads to cooperation with the MIC of other countries which further improves things. Cooperation with the UAE led to the Pantsir going from 20km target engagement range to over 40km and lots of other innovations... not just UAE demands, but the extra funding to implement ideas instead of just showing mockups at arms shows for 20 years.

    And most of Russia's potential customers get threatened by the US and leave to buy US weapons instead.. Its best to quit that game and focus on advancing Russian tech beyond the ideas of any western state.

    Not at all. The fact that the US is openly and directly threatening to damage the economies of countries that trade with Russia show how threatened they are, and how useless their overpriced products really are. They can't play on an even playing field so they try to impose new rules and some countries are bitches and comply, but many others will not, like Turkey and India and China. And over time as BRICS expands and trade gathers momentum more and more countries will be able to say no to the US.

    The Su57 can and will fill the need in terms of numbers. Dont know why you think that. The Su57 for export costs around $80 million but for Russia its almost less than half of that..Russia can definitely afford 100s if not 1000s of them. The tooling to pump them out isnt there yet which is why you get the delays..

    I don't agree, I think the Su-57 is a very cheap aircraft considering what it is, but its operational costs wont be cheap compared with a lighter simpler aircraft to operate with it. The MiG-35 is not a lot cheaper than an Su-35 but it is rather cheaper to operate which is where it makes sense. There are locations you can base them where they don't need to fly 2,000km because the targets they are protecting are nearby... that means they get there sooner and wont wander off and not be there when you need them. They are different vehicles suited to different roles.

    Rodion_Romanovic likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11371
    Points : 11339
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Isos Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:07 am

    Swgman_BK wrote:

    How is Plasma stealth "Old tech". Many have tried it and only ended up with lab demonstrators and no functional examples on an airplane. Only the Mig 1.44 achieved that.

    What plasma ? Wtf are you talking about ?

    The Su57 can and will fill the need in terms of numbers. Dont know why you think that. The Su57 for export costs around $80 million but for Russia its almost less than half of that..Russia can definitely afford 100s if not 1000s of them. The tooling to pump them out isnt there yet which is why you get the delay

    76 till 2027. It's very low. And they still produce the su-30 which is their budget fighter. They don't have the money to buy only su-57.

    The budget fighter should be a single engine jet and mig had plenty of time to design it.


    It is very funny you say this Lsos... what aircraft is France flying at the moment?

    A plane they actually build and sold to even russian traditional clients that bought it over their sukhois.

    Something made with old tools and old tech and isn't even 5th gen.

    But you still claim it is the best fighter there is...

    As a multi role jet, yes it is the best. It's not me who says it but mlst of the armies around the world who tested it.

    But it is too expensive.

    Funny you say that. The bestvtool use to design new planes is Catia, a Dassault software.

    MiG have been working harder than the French and have developed quite a range of different aircraft for their military, some of which have been rejected for various reasons and others have been purchased in very small numbers for testing to decide how to proceed.

    Nope. They made nothing. The mig-35 is just a mig-29M and they are the only 2 products available. But even for it the aesa radar doesn't seem ready even if it was proposed in 2008.

    What with putting the F-15 and F-16 back into production perhaps you should be directing that to the US?

    What with the almost 1000 f-35 produced ? Or the 200 f-22 ?

    The new f-15 are missile trucks to counter the thousands of chinese j-10, j-11 and j-16.

    Sukhoi was lucky to have a product in a niche market that could be cheap because it is Russian but also be a big capable fighter. The Indians did their best to make it horribly expensive by adding French and Israeli components that tripled the price, but the basic aircraft is no more amazing than the MiG-29s airframe... it is just larger and with more weapon and fuel capacity and a bigger radar... otherwise it is almost exactly the same.

    Indians left because they wanted all the techno to be transfered to them for the 6 billion they would incest. The contract was to just help them develop their own su-57 with their own local technology which wasn't ready for a 5th generation aircraft.

    Their was no israeli or french involvement.

    They are not making a big 5th gen twin jet fighter, they are making a small 5th gen twin engined fighter.

    They are making nothing. Sukhoi will be making the big and the small with actually 1 engine because that's enough.

    The naval model is required because the land based equivalent is probably going to be a very light single engined fighter.

    You have seen the models... I posted them multiple times.

    You said just above it is a twin engine. Now it's a single engine.

    Who cares about the toys they present at airshows ?

    Sukhoi presented a real prototype which actually happens when before you build the aircraft. Mig still can't mresent a fonctionning mig-35 let alone a new jet.

    The navy is very unlikely to accept a single engined aircraft for use on their carriers... they make what the customer wants so if they are making a twin engined carrier based plane to replace the MiG-29K then you can be sure that was a requirement from the Russian Navy.

    The navy will accept nothing. They don't have carriers and it's not for the rusty K they will buy new jets. They will keep the 6 mig-29K on it until it sinks.

    The Russian Airforce doesn't want single engined fighters 1st of all. Its against their whole doctrine.

    That's the common doctrine. Twin engine are safer and for new jets with new tech you invest too much in them to loose them because of engine failures, so you put two engines.

    Reality is they fall from the sky even with two engines. So they will reconsidere their position. 1 engine is 5 million dollars. If you save 5 million per aircraft, plus all the hardware you take off for that extra engine, it is very attractive.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2705
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Jan 06, 2024 10:12 am

    First of all: 2 smaller engines do not cost 2 times as much as one much larger engine.

    Furthermore the french over expensive stuff sells also because of corruption (in the case or India) or to buy services from France (or because it was the only possibility if you do not want to buy from the americans but you cannot risk American sanctions buying russian.

    It is not bad but it was never used in a near peer conflict either.
    Furthermore we do not know how it would behave in a real war with a lot of sorties in short time.
    As far as I know, rafale operating and maintenance costs are also very high compared to russian 4++ gen fighters.

    I really cannot understand how you can say at the same time say that mig 35 is old crap and the rafale is much better.

    As far as the Mig-35 radar, we do not have official info about the status and readiness of the AESA radar. The fact that is not present in the first 6 serial production Mig-35 does not mean much.

    And concerning naval fighter or anyway a brand new  light/ medium twin engine multirole fighter from MiG, such development (especially a new engine) lasts at least 10 years, more than the time needed to build a supercarrier.
    If it ends up being a good product it can be sold also to India, by the way, unless you believe than in 15 years the rafale will still be the best plane ever.

    Russia just finished developing and testing the AL-51 engine. Maybe Saturn and Klimov engineer can cooperate to design and develop a new engine with a similar thrust range as the Klimov RD-33. It is not that they have to stop working on modern fighter engines until they will have to do a successor to the AL-51

    Ah. I know Catia, I used it as a student. It is a good (but very expensive) software.
    Russia anyway is developing its own design, modeling and analysis softwares. Maybe they will need some time to get to a similar level than other dedicated software which have decades of experience, but eventually they will get there. Russia has a lot of very capable software engineers and mechanical/aerospace engineers to use and validate them.


    And we do not know the actual plans for the aircraft carrier. Most probably nothing will start before the end of the SMO, but maybe in one year from now they will start rebuilding the black sea shipyard in Nikolaev and slowly prepare the construction of a next generation nuclear powered carrier similar to the Ulyanovsk. (It would be nice if the name was something like Josif Stalin aircraft carrier class, if not also Grigory Potemkin would be a nice name)
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2849
    Points : 2847
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  lancelot Sat Jan 06, 2024 10:37 am

    Isos wrote:76 till 2027. It's very low. And they still produce the su-30 which is their budget fighter. They don't have the money to buy only su-57.
    Jesus man. As a regular in this forum for longer than me I expected you to know things better than this. The Russian state order for the Su-57 might be modified with a further increase in the future. This happens all the time. It could be modified in the next state armament program. This is similar to the claims that the Russian government only had ordered a dozen Su-57 that you saw a couple years ago. Only to see the order further increased.

    As for them still producing the Su-30. It is still being exported. There is a customer base for it. And why do you think it is fine that the US still order the F-15EX, a fighter airframe from the 1970s, while you think Russia can't order the Su-30 airframe, which is over a decade newer?

    Isos wrote:As a multi role jet, yes it is the best. It's not me who says it but mlst of the armies around the world who tested it.
    The Rafale is fine for what it is, an aircraft originally designed in the 1990s. But it has several issues. The MICA missile is totally obsolete for example. There is the Meteor but just not any country can order it. Which nerfs its combat capabilities quite a lot. Its nose radome is tiny. Which means its radar will always be lagging in power behind other radars which use a similar level of technology in similarly priced planes. And its range without the external fuel tanks is pretty much, well, crap. Which is why you never see one without them. Which probably does wonders for its radar stealth and aerodynamics for sure.

    Isos wrote:Nope. They made nothing. The mig-35 is just a mig-29M and they are the only 2 products available. But even for it the aesa radar doesn't seem ready even if it was proposed in 2008.
    The AESA radar is available if it is ordered. They even showed it at MAKS-2019.
    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 28_08_10

    Isos wrote:What with the almost 1000 f-35 produced ? Or the 200 f-22 ?
    200 F-22s... Try checking out how many F-22s the US actually has in service. Or how many they will update to keep them minimally up to date. They plan to trash over half of them for combat duty. You will be lucky to see 85 of them in service. Their next great hope is the NGAD 6th generation fighter. Which might be in production in the 2030s if they are lucky. Because of lack of investment to either produce it or upgrade it the F-22 was a boondoggle. And they have the gall to talk smack about the Su-57 program. About how few orders it has. How it isn't used. Yadayada. Its only claim to fame is shooting down a Chinese balloon. Whoopie do. As usual with these people all they do is projection. They project the F-22's failures on the Su-57 program.

    As for the F-35, whoopie do, they made 1000 single engine fighters. They made over 4x that amount of F-16s.

    Isos wrote:The navy will accept nothing. They don't have carriers and it's not for the rusty K they will buy new jets. They will keep the 6 mig-29K on it until it sinks.
    The Russians replaced all the steam boilers in the Admiral Kuznetsov with new ones in case you did not notice. It won't be retired any time soon. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Su-57K take off from it someday.

    Isos wrote:That's the common doctrine. Twin engine are safer and for new jets with new tech you invest too much in them to loose them because of engine failures, so you put two engines.

    Reality is they fall from the sky even with two engines. So they will reconsidere their position. 1 engine is 5 million dollars. If you save 5 million per aircraft, plus all the hardware you take off for that extra engine, it is very attractive.
    In this one I basically agree with you. The Russian Air Force's idea not to want single engine fighters is just plain bullshit. The MiG-15 and MiG-21 were single engine too and back then the engines were way less reliable. With the huge numbers of F-35 in service it makes zero sense to stick to a pure twin engine setup. Won't be economically effective to make a proper counterforce otherwise. They need some high low mix with a single engine in it.

    GarryB likes this post


    Sponsored content


    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 5 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 18, 2024 1:14 am