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

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Sat Nov 11, 2023 10:00 am


    Until the VK-650 turboprop engine is available, or they get the APD-500 engine of the Aurus certified for aircraft use, this project is going nowhere.

    But the Yak-52 aircraft it is replacing is in service and is Russian, so it would be nice to have the Yak-152 enter service right now but not actually essential.

    My understanding was that the VK-800 engine was being developed for the job of replacing the German engine.

    Neither would they need to train for thrust vectoring -

    I would think preparing for thrust vectoring flight controls in a LIFT is better than coming across it in operational trainers in service... even if it is just a taste.

    Besides it's going to make the trainer way too expensive and add unnecessary weight.

    The new engines for the Yak-130 are 20% more powerful and all Russian made... do you think articulated engine nozzles are too heavy?

    I would think they would last longer and need rather less maintenance on a LIFT with no AB capacity.

    The F-22 has 2D TV as well as the J-20 (later variants should have 3D) and let's not forget about the F-35B.

    And the only ones that really matter are the Harriers... everyone wants to forget the F-35B.

    The difference is that the MiG-35 and Su-35 and Su-30s upgraded with Su-35 equipment, as well as the new 5th gen stealth fighter Su-57 will all have thrust vectoring engines... so it is not an exception... most fighters they fly with will have it... the only aircraft likely to not having it is the MiG-31 heavy interceptors.

    That means most fighters will have thrust vectoring capacity and fighter training without thrust vectoring is not going to be the same... you would basically need to relearn how to dogfight when getting into an aircraft with thrust vectoriing engines.

    Only ONE Mig was ever fitted with TV - the Mig-29OVT, which incidentally is also one of my favorite Migs. It was rebuild from the Mig-29M prototype (Blue 156).

    The MiG-35 is supposed to get it as standard... and it has real 3D TVC unlike the Sukhoi models with 2.5D.

    So do you believe these Western "experts"?

    Why would I start now?

    The MiG prototypes were clearly described as the flying model and the static stealth model by MiG.

    Nothing in this business is ever a smooth ride but for the most part - YES!

    They are different aircraft, and just because they made it appear easy does not mean it was. The new materials and level of build precision likely went up multiple times to achieve what they achieved, which is why "western" experts claimed they couldn't make a stealth fighter and that the Su-57 wasn't stealthy at all...

    So it seems that this only applies to the Mig-1.41 but not the S-37!

    The problem with the S-37 is not the canards, it is the forward sweep of the wing... like a radar dish it captures and directs forward radar waves... the exact opposite of what a stealth aircraft would want.

    an experimental aircraft known for testing all sorts of new materials to be used in future Sukhoi aircraft?

    And never claimed by Sukhoi to actually be stealthy.


    To be honest, in this instance they made the correct decision to pick the Su-27 family of fighters instead of Mig-29's. The Su-27 was far more advanced with it's FBW controls and the aircraft offered much greater operational flexibility.

    I disagree, the Su-27 is great in the far east and the far north where distances are bigger, but in European Russia the MiG would have been a better aircraft and cheaper to operate once it got SMT upgrades that dramatically reduced operational costs.

    Instead they went for an all Flanker fleet and how many can they afford?

    How can it be better as "an advanced trainer" if it had very basic aerodynamic properties and manual controls vs the Yak's FBW and it's far superior aerodynamics?

    The MiG-AT was FBW and could simulate the aerodynamics of 4th and 5th gen fighters.

    But all that fancy advanced air to air combat shit they can learn on operational trainers... there is no point training to kill enemy aircraft in a Yak-130 and then getting in to an Su-35 and all the fighting techniques you learned don't work or don't work well when the enemy is also in a TVC fighter.

    The decision, as I remember it was that they chose the Yak-130 with its Ukrainian engine over the MiG-AT and its French engine, because the payload of the Yak of 3 tons would make it a more useful armed light combat aircraft if they needed one than the 2 ton payload of the MiG-AT trainer.

    Personally I would have said the most suitable and affordable (at the time) jet trainer would make more sense.

    The french engine it used was the same as that fitted to the Alpha jet.

    There were a couple of Russian engines in development that could have replaced the French engine if needed... and it is not like the Yak-130 didn't need the same...

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5335490

    29 June 2018, 21:55,
    updated 30 June 2018, 06:31
    Production of the MiG-AT aircraft can be resumed in Russia
    The Ministry of Defense is considering the possibility of using this aircraft for basic training

    MOSCOW, June 29. /tass/. The MiG-AT training aircraft, created in the early 1990s, may begin to be delivered again to the Russian Defense Ministry. This was announced on Friday by the General designer - Vice President of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Sergey Korotkov.

    "The Ministry of Defense is considering the possibility of using this aircraft as a base for basic training. There are no old planes, there are resource indicators of the aircraft," he said.

    In turn, the head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev clarified in an interview with TASS that the proposed date for the resumption of production of this aircraft is 2023. "We are talking about the fact that this aircraft can begin to enter the aviation units in 2023," the senator explained, noting that the existing backlog for the MiG-AT program could accelerate its resumption.

    The MiG-AT is a basic training aircraft of unified training. It can be used for the combat use of unguided weapons against land and sea targets. The MiG-AT lost to the Yak-130 in the tender for the selection of the main combat training aircraft of the Russian Air Force, after which work on it was curtailed in 2010.

    Left the date on.

    "The conceptual designs of the Sukhoi and Mikoyan design bureaux do not meet the specifications requirements", suggesting that "the development and mock-up manufacture of the UTK-Yak (Yak-130) and Myasishev UTK-2000 be continued". However, Mikoyan cried like a baby and insisted they should be allowed to carry on with their bidding, with the result that the VVS awarded contracts for both the Yak and the Mig. Talk about bad politics!

    That was in 1990 when the process was started...

    In July 1992, the Air Force's scientific and technical committee summed up the outcome of the trainer conceptual design competition and took a decision worthy of Solomon: "The trainer's initial designing shall be conducted on the competitive basis by the Yakovlev design bureau in cooperation with the Myasishchev experimental plant and Mikoyan design bureau." However, the Air Force awarded only two contracts in late 1992 - one with Yakovlev and the other with Mikoyan. They were to submit their initial designs in the fourth quarter of 1993.

    The MiG-AT didn't fly first till early 1996, and the Yak-130 slightly later that same year.

    They were proposals that were evaluated and evaluated badly by the VVS, which is why they decided to look at the MiG-AT design again in 2018 because the Yak-130 is too expensive to completely replace the L39s and so they need something simpler and cheaper to replace the L39...


    The Yak-130 unit price is given at around $15 million on the open market. The very basic Mig-29 was around $20 million per unit at the time. The SMT is far more advanced and the cost of a current generation Mig-29 is close to $30 million.

    For Russia 40 million for the MiG-35 and 30 million for the MiG-29M which would be vastly better than any model Yak-130 in the light fighter role.

    These planes were never advertised as light fighters. Outside the training role they can take COIN tasks meaning very light strike/recon/air support.

    The sales pitch includes this normally:

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Yak-1310

    Just like the modern fridge has a web browser, doesn't mean anyone is buying them for web browsing.

    When part of the sales pitch suggests if you buy this fridge you wont need a desktop computer any more then yes it is a factor.


    Since 2005 I've claimed publicly that MiG-31 is able to mission kill F-22 without any issues and I still stand by that.

    Even if it couldn't shoot down stealth aircraft, it can reduce inflight refuelling aircraft to ash, seriously limiting the flight range of all HATO aircraft... and by hitting AWACS platforms too you make them blind as well.

    We won't find out anytime soon. The MiG-41 may appear in two decades.

    They are talking about initial service entry 2029-2030, so no probably not.

    The orcs will be getting desperate and the talk of letting Ukraine join HATO are hilarious... it would have to be unanimous and Hungary and Turkey will say no even if the rest say yes because the US tells them to say yes.

    The much funnier thing is that the US and EU are going to start telling Zelensky to negotiate and Putin is going to demand terms Zelensky never thought of... Z wants everything back without realising he is about to lose everything.

    It is not a stalemate, it continues to be a meat grinder with Kiev eagerly sending its troops to be killed... when they stop then the meat grinder will move forward to find more meat to grind up and the "stalemate" will turn into a route.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:55 pm

    @GarryB
    This discussion has become a bit bloated so I suggest that it should be continued in a more appropriate thread. I can suggest this one perhaps?
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t8617p825-vvs-russian-airforce-force-news-2

    GarryB wrote:The new engines for the Yak-130 are 20% more powerful and all Russian made... do you think articulated engine nozzles are too heavy?

    I was actually referring to a supersonic TV trainer when I said it's going to make the trainer way too expensive and add unnecessary weight.

    GarryB wrote:And the only ones that really matter are the Harriers... everyone wants to forget the F-35B.

    Harriers are no longer in service though. There are a great number of aircraft designs that used TV.

    GarryB wrote:The MiG-35 is supposed to get it as standard... and it has real 3D TVC unlike the Sukhoi models with 2.5D.

    2.5D? That's a new one!  Laughing
    Anyway the Mig-35 with TV is only optional. The 6 Russian Mig-35's did not take up this option.

    GarryB wrote:The MiG prototypes were clearly described as the flying model and the static stealth model by MiG.

    There was only ONE prototype and it made 2 flights. Then it got cancelled. Do you have reference of these prototypes you refer to?

    GarryB wrote:which is why "western" experts claimed they couldn't make a stealth fighter and that the Su-57 wasn't stealthy at all...

    Once again you refer to these "western experts", despite you not believing them  scratch
    But as I've said it was definitely stealthy!

    GarryB wrote: The problem with the S-37 is not the canards

    Clearly you did mention those canards as a problem!

    GarryB wrote: those forward swept wings acting like a radar reflector in the forward hemisphere... not to mention those canards.

    GarryB wrote:The problem with the S-37 is not the canards, it is the forward sweep of the wing... like a radar dish it captures and directs forward radar waves... the exact opposite of what a stealth aircraft would want.

    Well here is some important news about the S-37's FSW from Yefim Gordon;

    "It had been known for many years that the FSW has important aero elastic advantages over the traditional backswept wing but an FSW for a fast jet was thus very difficult to make until the technology of composite structures enabled the wing to be designed with skins formed from multiple layers of adhesive-bonded fibers of carbon or glass. With such skins the directions of the fibers can be arranged to give maximum strength. Structurally it is described as '90 per cent composites'."

    We all know by now how radar absorbent those composites can be!

    GarryB wrote:And never claimed by Sukhoi to actually be stealthy.

    Here is another quote from Yefim Gordon;

    "Sukhoi has stressed that this aircraft incorporates radar-absorbent and beneficially reflective 'stealth' features, though again the objective is research."

    I think with all the contacts inside the different OKB's Yefim is far more qualified as these so-called "Western Experts" you keep on referring to.

    GarryB wrote:I disagree, the Su-27 is great in the far east and the far north where distances are bigger, but in European Russia the MiG would have been a better aircraft and cheaper to operate once it got SMT upgrades that dramatically reduced operational costs.

    The SMT was an attempt at a multi-role aircraft but it did not do to well. The Algerians actually ordered the SMT but was promptly rejected and returned to Russia. It entered service in the VVS but it's not very popular - much like the Mig-21 SMT.

    GarryB wrote:The MiG-AT was FBW and could simulate the aerodynamics of 4th and 5th gen fighters.

    Digital FBW controls were only introduced in 1999 on the second Mig-AT prototype. This prototype was originally developed for the Russians and was only to have manual controls. By 1999 the Mig-AT design was allready rejected and no longer funded by the Russian government. The digital upgrade was funded privately in order to improve the design to be competitive in the open market.

    It was marketed extensively but all came to none - even with French engines and avionics.

    On the other hand the Yak-130 not only entered service with the VVS, but it had considerable export success. The same goes for the Italian copy of the Yak.

    GarryB wrote:The decision, as I remember it was that they chose the Yak-130 with its Ukrainian engine over the MiG-AT and its French engine, because the payload of the Yak of 3 tons would make it a more useful armed light combat aircraft if they needed one than the 2 ton payload of the MiG-AT trainer.

    You did mention earlier that the Yaks engine is manufactured in Russia for some time now. Besides the one ton payload difference, the Yak-130 is also ASM capable as far as I know.

    GarryB wrote: Left the date on.

    This announcement was made 2018 and according to Korotkov it was possibly going to be used as a basic trainer. It may well be the case, but he also said that it can enter service in 2023. There is no need to develop this aircraft any further as it was completed years ago. All that is required is space for production. We have seen nothing concrete so far and the year is almost done. Well at least by now a pre-series unit or two should have been up and flying.

    GarryB wrote: They were proposals that were evaluated and evaluated badly by the VVS, which is why they decided to look at the MiG-AT design again in 2018 because the Yak-130 is too expensive to completely replace the L39s and so they need something simpler and cheaper to replace the L39...

    I still think the Yak-152 is the next gen basic trainer. We'll see.
    avatar
    zare


    Posts : 61
    Points : 61
    Join date : 2013-05-31

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  zare Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The sales pitch includes this normally:

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Yak-1310

    It's not that bad.

    An unarmored subsonic aircraft with 0.7 T/W ratio and 3 ton weapons clearance depicted as multirole jack-of-all-trades. Pretty obvious that mission impact for each role is very low.

    Certainly way less of a fabrication and fantasy than USA MIC's promo material.

    GarryB wrote:
    When part of the sales pitch suggests if you buy this fridge you wont need a desktop computer any more then yes it is a factor.

    Did Yak's or any other Ru company sales pitch claim otherwise?
    If you're talking about Americans then yes it's a problem to claim F-35 can replace A-10, F-18 and F-15/16 all at once but they don't act on that claim. They merely reiterate it so their international customers are held firmly in the sales trap while A-10, F-18, F-15 and 16 are still highly operational and valuable in US service and F-35 won't replace them.

    GarryB wrote:
    Even if it couldn't shoot down stealth aircraft, it can reduce inflight refuelling aircraft to ash, seriously limiting the flight range of all HATO aircraft... and by hitting AWACS platforms too you make them blind as well.

    Just making F-22 turn around is enough.

    jon_deluxe likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15439
    Points : 15576
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  kvs Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:22 pm

    Why use a trainer platform to replace the Su-25? Supposedly there are not enough resources for actually serious projects, but this variation is
    plausible?
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:25 pm

    In my opinion the only aircraft capable of replacing the Su-25 is another Su-25.

    This was not a bad first attempt.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Su39-c10

    GarryB, franco, psg, Manov, zardof, Sprut-B, Hole and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2843
    Points : 2881
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  mnztr Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:27 am

    zare wrote:
    Arrow wrote:

    We won't find out anytime soon. The MiG-41 may appear in two decades.

    Yeah. In this situation they need to do it in secrecy. And that raises the effort massively.

    Modern processes and full secrecy do not go well together. If it takes the same security effort to handle data as in a secure military installation, that will massively hamper the speed of the development and the number of potential people that can work on this project in any capacity. MiG-41 needs to fly faster and higher and shoot more lethal weapons than anything deployed anywhere in the world after its projected operational date, and years to come after. So throughout the already long project no data leaks can be tolerated because they will provide countermeasure information to the adversary. And that further moves the operational date.

    Simply put they can't afford the MiG-31 leaks this time around.
    If UAC pulls this off it will be just like building the Yamato but in 21st century, very impressive.

    Its not really possible to keep such a plane a secret. As soon as they fly that mofo in near space at M4, everyone will know about it.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3752
    Points : 3732
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:57 am

    Indeed long as it stays in the hanger sure, but once its out in the open everyone will know.

    Yama was during a different time, no cameras etc, and the workers weren't even allowed to leave the dockyard at all and if someone was caught saying anything welp off with your head
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Offtopic stuff from Ukraine war thread.

    Post  GarryB Sun Nov 12, 2023 10:19 am

    I was actually referring to a supersonic TV trainer when I said it's going to make the trainer way too expensive and add unnecessary weight.

    I would agree with that, but would suggest that most dogfighting will occur at subsonic speeds and that being able to use thrust vector engine nozzles in a training aircraft would allow concepts of TVC in dogfighting to be included so they don't waste time on learning to fight a way they wont actually be fighting in service.

    It would be like training basic tank stuff on a T-34 before going to the T-14 for your service vehicle. Would massively impress the student about how far technology has come, but a bit of a waste to learn things you don't need to worry about in your service time.


    2.5D? That's a new one!

    That is what they call it when you only have up and down 2D thrust vectoring but the vertical path the nozzles can be moved is rotated at an angle so you can get semi 3D movement on your thrust vectoring. Not full 3D but more flexibility than 2D only.

    Anyway the Mig-35 with TV is only optional. The 6 Russian Mig-35's did not take up this option.

    The ones bought so far seem to be going to the Swifts, so they might not want TVC.

    If they decide to get MiG-35s for the AF in numbers then they might adopt TVC engines to make them better dogfighters.


    There was only ONE prototype and it made 2 flights. Then it got cancelled. Do you have reference of these prototypes you refer to?

    They were described as MiG-1.44 and MiG-1.42 AFAIK, where one was the flying model that initially had MiG-31 engines but the in service model was supposed to have AL-41s. The other was the stealth prototype that was used for testing for RCS and IR signature. I don't remember any photos of the stealth version ever being released.


    Once again you refer to these "western experts", despite you not believing them

    It is what I am used to, not having access to Russian experts.

    But as I've said it was definitely stealthy!

    I don't doubt it, but Sukhoi has actually already said that the main focus was not stealth, but manouver performance because the issue of stealth is governed by the law of diminished returns... the more stealth you want the more expensive to buy and to operate an aircraft becomes and the increase is logrithmic...

    Clearly you did mention those canards as a problem

    A problem... well not ideal, but the main problem is the wings acting like a radar dish returning radar reflections to a source at the front.

    Like a corner reflector.


    We all know by now how radar absorbent those composites can be!

    Of what frequency?

    "Sukhoi has stressed that this aircraft incorporates radar-absorbent and beneficially reflective 'stealth' features, though again the objective is research."

    The French say the same about the Rafale, which is not a stealth aircraft.

    You need internal weapons carriage and design from the outset for stealth... stealth features can be applied to an existing type but an F-15 or F-16 or MiG-29 or Su-35 will never actually be stealthy.

    The SMT was an attempt at a multi-role aircraft but it did not do to well.

    The SMT was an attempt to make the aircraft multirole and more affordable to operate... before that the MiG-29 was designed for war so for a period of a war time you put in fuel and lubricants and you loaded up weapons and you flew it into combat... after X hundred hours you withdrew it from service and gave it an overhaul.

    The SMT changed the way it was supported to a more western regime of inspect and replace things when they need replacing, which made it much cheaper.

    It entered service in the VVS but it's not very popular - much like the Mig-21 SMT.

    Of course they rejected it, they didn't want or need a multirole fighter so why pay extra for stuff you are not going to use.

    Algeria rejected the MiG-29SMT because Sukhoi offered to sell them Su-30s for the same purchase price.

    Digital FBW controls were only introduced in 1999 on the second Mig-AT prototype. This prototype was originally developed for the Russians and was only to have manual controls. By 1999 the Mig-AT design was allready rejected and no longer funded by the Russian government. The digital upgrade was funded privately in order to improve the design to be competitive in the open market.

    It was marketed extensively but all came to none - even with French engines and avionics.

    The Yak-130 didn't enter service until 2010, there was plenty of time to upgrade the MiG-AT to suit the job, just as the Yak was upgraded too... or are you suggesting the Yak didn't change for 20 years?

    On the other hand the Yak-130 not only entered service with the VVS, but it had considerable export success.

    And if they had decided that the Yak was too expensive and rejected it do you think it would have the same export success?

    You did mention earlier that the Yaks engine is manufactured in Russia for some time now. Besides the one ton payload difference, the Yak-130 is also ASM capable as far as I know.

    Such jet trainers are terrible for ground attack against anything but COIN type operations, and even then would be horribly vulnerable to MANPADS... the extra payload capacity just adds weight and cost.

    This announcement was made 2018 and according to Korotkov it was possibly going to be used as a basic trainer. It may well be the case, but he also said that it can enter service in 2023. There is no need to develop this aircraft any further as it was completed years ago. All that is required is space for production. We have seen nothing concrete so far and the year is almost done. Well at least by now a pre-series unit or two should have been up and flying.

    Have you not been paying attention?

    The MiG-AT lost so I doubt work on it continued because that would be spending money you would be unlikely to get back. The MiG-AT was created and developed in cooperation with the French... even in 2018 that would be pretty stupid, so essentially they would have to find new engines and new avionics and systems and equipment for the aircraft... if they are working on that then it probably will take a bit more than a couple of years to sort out... and you would need to make sure it didn't end up costing rather more than the Yak-130s are costing... otherwise it would just make more sense to have a stripped down perhaps single engined Yak-130 for the job as a cheap simple basic lead in fighter trainer.

    I still think the Yak-152 is the next gen basic trainer. We'll see.

    It is the propeller driven basic trainer, but they need to sort out its engine... so until it is ready they will keep using Yak-52s for the job. When it is ready the Yak-52s will likely be sold and Yak-152s will replace them, but they need another aircraft as a step between the Yak-152/52 and the Yak-130 because pilots are struggling with the step up. Currently they use L39s but they are running out of those.

    The SR-10 was suggested and the MiG-AT is another option as a basic trainer... they could make the MIG a simplified cheaper version to keep costs low and the purchase price down... perhaps even a single engined model... who knows... single engine aircraft seem to be considered to be OK now with the Su-75 and new MiG light stealth fighter.

    An unarmored subsonic aircraft with 0.7 T/W ratio and 3 ton weapons clearance depicted as multirole jack-of-all-trades. Pretty obvious that mission impact for each role is very low.

    The percentages indicate how much the new type differs from the Yak-130 LIFT... the unmanned drone being 60% different while the carrier based trainer is 5% different... probably tail hook and perhaps folding wings.

    The suggestion of flexibility was made to make it more attractive... even if none of the options were realised... and they haven't been.

    The MiG-29KR can be a two seat so no need for a dedicated trainer aircraft for the Kuznetsov.

    Why use a trainer platform to replace the Su-25? Supposedly there are not enough resources for actually serious projects, but this variation is
    plausible?

    Most aircraft companies think Su-25s and A-10s can be replaced by modern multirole fighters with standoff weapons, but that ignores the role of the CAS aircraft.

    The Su-25 doesn't just hit targets... it often finds them too, which means flying low and slow and right on the front line where the targets are... where A-16s and other multirole fighters would get shot down or damaged.

    How many Su-27s did they lose in Chechnia flying low and slow looking for ground targets?

    The Yak-130 was not suitable to replace the Su-25 because the whole point of a CAS aircraft is to find the target and engage it themselves.

    In my opinion the only aircraft capable of replacing the Su-25 is another Su-25.

    This was not a bad first attempt.

    I have to agree but there are some very interesting aircraft designs intended to replace it from MiG and from Sukhoi...

    Will move some of the posts on this thread to a more suitable place.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Sun Nov 12, 2023 2:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:Will move some of the posts on this thread to a more suitable place.

    I would like to continue our conversation but with respect this threat has no relevance to the subject matter - Various Russian combat aircraft programs?
    So I humbly request that admin change this threat to a more appropriate heading in this section.

    Thanks thumbsup
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Mon Nov 13, 2023 5:11 am

    Was going to change it but couldn't decide which topic to call it.

    There is stuff about the MiG-41 and stuff about the MiG-AT and Yak-130, and there is stuff about the Su-25.

    What would you like the topic to be?
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:41 am

    How about something like "Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond"?

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Tue Nov 14, 2023 6:58 am

    Just posted a video in the Altius UAV drone thread about how the engines are now in production and it is moving forward, which suggests the VK-800 engines should als be available for the Yak-152 too.

    Replacing the Yak-52 is not super critical but would be useful.

    Mir likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Tue Nov 14, 2023 3:55 pm

    @ GarryB

    Thanks for fixing it. thumbsup


    GarryB wrote:I would agree with that, but would suggest that most dogfighting will occur at subsonic speeds and that being able to use thrust vector engine nozzles in a training aircraft would allow concepts of TVC in dogfighting to be included so they don't waste time on learning to fight a way they wont actually be fighting in service.

    ...and that is why I mentioned OC units. The fighter squadrons and regiments also have 2-seaters for that purpose.

    GarryB wrote:That is what they call it when you only have up and down 2D thrust vectoring but the vertical path the nozzles can be moved is rotated at an angle so you can get semi 3D movement on your thrust vectoring. Not full 3D but more flexibility than 2D only.

    "The nozzles themselves vector in only one plane; the canting allows roll and yaw moments by vectoring each nozzle differentially, thus enabling the aircraft to produce thrust vectoring moments about all three aircraft axes, pitch, yaw and roll."

    That makes it 3D.

    GarryB wrote:They were described as MiG-1.44 and MiG-1.42 AFAIK, where one was the flying model that initially had MiG-31 engines but the in service model was supposed to have AL-41s. The other was the stealth prototype that was used for testing for RCS and IR signature. I don't remember any photos of the stealth version ever being released.

    GarryB wrote:It is what I am used to, not having access to Russian experts.

    Again I think Yefim is far more qualified as a credible source. According to him there was the wooden mockup of what the prototype should look like. There were also several pieces of different sections of the aircraft that was used for static testing. There was no complete airframe for that purpose. Mig was awarded the contract for a single flying prototype. There was no separate "special stealth version",  but you are welcome to provide credible evidence to the contrary.

    The program started off as MFI and LFI. The two concepts morphed into Mig-1.42 and finally as Mig-1.44.

    Here is a picture of the front section that was used for ejection tests for example.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Mig14110

    GarryB' wrote:You need internal weapons carriage and design from the outset for stealth... stealth features can be applied to an existing type but an F-15 or F-16 or MiG-29 or Su-35 will never actually be stealthy.

    That's one of the reasons why the S-37 had an internal weapons bay. The one and only Mig-141 prototype had no such feature - it was far from being a fully fledged stealth design at that stage, although "stealth" was one of the requirements in the original contract.

    GarryB wrote:Algeria rejected the MiG-29SMT because Sukhoi offered to sell them Su-30s for the same purchase price.

    Not exactly so!  Laughing
    Mig OKB's deal turned out to be crooked. The Algerians soon discovered that the SMT's were not new construction, but rather upgraded machines from old airframes!

    The contract for the 28 SMT's was signed in 2006 and was part of a much bigger deal that included 28 Su-30MK's, 16 Yak-130's and 4 Mig-29UB's.

    GarryB wrote:And if they had decided that the Yak was too expensive and rejected it do you think it would have the same export success?

    Fact is they selected it. Besides the Italians liked it and also turned their version into a success story.

    Such jet trainers are terrible for ground attack against anything but COIN type operations, and even then would be horribly vulnerable to MANPADS... the extra payload capacity just adds weight and cost.

    COIN operations may well become a major part of the VVS in the near future. It already is to some extent. Then the Yak can be quite useful.

    GarryB wrote:Have you not been paying attention?

    The MiG-AT lost so I doubt work on it continued because that would be spending money you would be unlikely to get back. The MiG-AT was created and developed in cooperation with the French... even in 2018 that would be pretty stupid, so essentially they would have to find new engines and new avionics and systems and equipment for the aircraft... if they are working on that then it probably will take a bit more than a couple of years to sort out... and you would need to make sure it didn't end up costing rather more than the Yak-130s are costing... otherwise it would just make more sense to have a stripped down perhaps single engined Yak-130 for the job as a cheap simple basic lead in fighter trainer.

    I think you are the one not paying attention.

    Even after they lost against the Yak-130, they continued with the program. The Mig-AT was aggressively marketed all over the world till about 2006. In 2010 Mig OKB finally pulled the plug on it.

    Even in the TASS article you posted they clearly indicated not much was needed to get it into production as the groundwork was already done. They even claimed it could enter service in 2023. Just by saying that would imply that the aircraft is basically ready for production.

    The 90's was tough on the industry and they had to look for outside sources for funding and that included Yak who worked with the Italians for a while. The Mig-AT had two prototypes. The second one was for the VVS with Russian avionics but with a French engine. A possible change to a Russian engine was part of the contract. That part shouldn't be too difficult?

    The SR-10 was suggested and the MiG-AT is another option as a basic trainer...

    ...and the SR-10 lost to the Yak-152. Nice plane though I quite like it.

    Mir wrote:In my opinion the only aircraft capable of replacing the Su-25 is another Su-25.
    This was not a bad first attempt.

    GarryB wrote:I have to agree but there are some very interesting aircraft designs intended to replace it from MiG and from Sukhoi...

    Like what?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 15, 2023 6:46 am


    ...and that is why I mentioned OC units. The fighter squadrons and regiments also have 2-seaters for that purpose.

    They will have a basic trainer in the form of the Yak-152, currently a jet fighter trainer in the form of the L39 which might get replaced by a basic model MiG-AT, or perhaps an SR-10, and an advanced jet trainer with the Yak-130 and you think they don't need to learn about thrust vector engine controls and dogfighting until they are sent to their operational units?

    That makes it 3D.

    Having two 2D nozzles cannot completely replicate 3D nozzles just by being angled, which is why the phrase 2.5D is coined.

    Again I think Yefim is far more qualified as a credible source.

    In his book "Unflown Wings" He mentions that the development concept used a formula called SSS, which was Super Cruise, Super Manouverability, Stealth... in that order. Being able to supercruise and being supermanouverable were considered more important than stealth for the MFI programme.

    They made 4m long 500kg models of the Izd 5.12 design that were instrumented and radio controlled and carried into the air by helicopter and released as a gider. Tests were in Akhtoobinsk and were done when no American or western surveillance satellite was passing over head, and the models were retrieved within minutes of touchdown and were given camouflage markings. They changed the inhouse code from 5.12 to izd 1.42. They were going to use 2D vectored nozzles on the Al-41 engines, but by 1991 they had mastered 3D vectored nozzles which they decided to use instead.
    The wings look old fashioned compared with the wings of more modern aircraft, but that is because super cruising and super manouverability benefited from a rear centre of gravity so canards... a tail forward design improved lift with an upward force from the canards instead of a downward force with tailerons was deemed to be better.

    Canards with a dogtooth created the energising vortexes that leading edge root extensions created, which made LERX redundant.

    The leading and trailing edges of the wings had surfaces that could be changed to change the lift of the wing for short field take off and high speed low drag flight.

    He then mentions that MiG first considered a dorsal weapon bay where missiles were ejected upwards, but realised it would be too problematic to reload on the ground...

    And I quote."Therefore the OKB settled for a ventral weapons bay on the centreline."

    The MiG izd 1.44 Was a technology demonstrator that was used to verify the novel aerodynamic layout, the power plant, and a number of systems that came to be used  later in the MFI demonstrator., which was built and tested.

    The one and only Mig-141 prototype had no such feature - it was far from being a fully fledged stealth design at that stage, although "stealth" was one of the requirements in the original contract.

    The 1.44 didn't have an internal weapon bay, but it was a technology demonstrator to prove the aerodynamics.

    Super cruise first, super manouverabilty second, and Stealth third, but the list of TSAGI suggestions included internal weapon bay which it would have if it won the competition.

    Or are you suggesting Sukhoi didn't change the S-37 design to make the Su-57?

    Mig OKB's deal turned out to be crooked. The Algerians soon discovered that the SMT's were not new construction, but rather upgraded machines from old airframes!

    No. The airframes they used came directly from the factory they were made from, but had been made a few years before and had not been needed. The Algerians got upset because they wanted brand new production... which is ironic because the SMT was always sold as an upgrade and not a new aircraft build.

    Their fake objections allowed them out of the contract they had signed leaving them free to accept Sukhois offer... I would say Sukhoi were the crooks.

    Part of the reason for UAC ( OAK) was to stop Russian companies sabotaging deals with other Russian companies to get work themselves... ironic they will play nice in competition with western companies but will stab each other in the back.

    Fact is they selected it.

    On false pretenses that it might make a good light fighterbomber, which has not turned out to be the case.

    COIN operations may well become a major part of the VVS in the near future. It already is to some extent. Then the Yak can be quite useful.

    Too expensive to lose but not capable enough to be useful. Drones or Su-25s would make more sense.


    Even after they lost against the Yak-130, they continued with the program. The Mig-AT was aggressively marketed all over the world till about 2006. In 2010 Mig OKB finally pulled the plug on it.

    Why would any country buy an aircraft its home country has already rejected?

    Conversely if Russia had adopted it then I am sure a few of those countries that rejected it would not have rejected it so easily.

    Even in the TASS article you posted they clearly indicated not much was needed to get it into production as the groundwork was already done. They even claimed it could enter service in 2023. Just by saying that would imply that the aircraft is basically ready for production.

    That article was from 2018, which means the current war in Ukraine was not a thing yet, so any french or even foreign components remaining would need to be replaced and of course those components needed to make the MiG-AT would have to be made by companies not currently rather busy putting on extra shifts to make other more urgent things for the current situation.

    A possible change to a Russian engine was part of the contract. That part shouldn't be too difficult?

    Well engines are made by companies that make other engines too and right now making a new engine for a new plane might not be as high a priority as servicing and making new engines for helicopters that are being used rather intensively in the current conflict.

    Engines need to be tested and certified before putting them into serial production and fitting them to aircraft as you are well aware.


    ...and the SR-10 lost to the Yak-152. Nice plane though I quite like it.

    It did, but that was probably because they preferred a prop aircraft for basic trainer. In the role of cheap simple jet between the basic prop and the advanced jet trainer, it might be better placed for the job of replacing the dwindling numbers of L39s they have.

    Have seen a few exercises where the targets are L39 aircraft for bombing and rocket attacks...

    Like what?

    Well also from Unflown Wings:


    Lengthy efforts aimed at developing a next generation successor to the Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot attack aircraft had shown that creating a high performanceaircraft that would be cheap, suitable for mass production in wartime and easy to operate at the same time was unrealistic. Either performance or low cost had to be sacrificed. Therefore the Soviet Air Force called a contest  for a strike aircraft that would have a lower speed and a smaller ordinance load. This was seen as an acceptable tradeoff for being a lot cheaper to build and operate, easy to repair in the field - and, most importantly, being suitable for mass production in wartime at whatever factory was available, including non aviation plants. Sukhoi was eliminated from the competition early and proposals from MiG and Ilyusion were considered because of the potential for creating specialised versions.

    The MiG proposal was the izd 101... you will love this... it would be powered by two TV7-117S turboprops driving 6 blade propellers.

    Sukhoi of course had the double headed T-12 jet which would not be cheap, but they also developed a range of turboprop aircraft with twin engines in the wings or a single engine in the tail pusher or puller types... many looked a bit like OV-10 Bronco types.

    Interestingly it does not mention Ilyusions designs so I am guessing they actually flew.


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:32 am; edited 1 time in total
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2539
    Points : 2706
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Wed Nov 15, 2023 8:28 am

    GarryB wrote:

    ...and the SR-10 lost to the Yak-152. Nice plane though I quite like it.

    It did, but that was probably because they preferred a prop aircraft for basic trainer. In the role of cheap simple jet between the basic prop and the advanced jet trainer, it might be better placed for the job of replacing the dwindling numbers of L39s they have.

    Have seen a few exercises where the targets are L39 aircraft for bombing and rocket attacks..

    Well the SR-10 and the yak-152 are two different classes of aircrafts.

    Of course the SR-10 did not fit as a basic trainer.
    It should have been proposed as an intermediate trainer and as L39 replacement, covering the same role that the single engine jet M345 (modern development of the siai marchetti S211) in the Italian air force pilot training.


    New pilots will go on to the SF260 which has a single piston engine,
    Then the next phase is done either in the MB339 or in the M345

    And finally the advanced trainer MB346 (parallel development to the yak-130.

    At the moment Russia does not have its own intermediate trainer in production (I believe that they are still using the old L39 in that role.

    They need a new aircraft as intermediate trainer. I thought that the SR-10 could have been perfect in that role but apparently it is not a priority for the russian air force.

    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 655
    Points : 661
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  marcellogo Wed Nov 15, 2023 12:16 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    ...and the SR-10 lost to the Yak-152. Nice plane though I quite like it.

    It did, but that was probably because they preferred a prop aircraft for basic trainer. In the role of cheap simple jet between the basic prop and the advanced jet trainer, it might be better placed for the job of replacing the dwindling numbers of L39s they have.

    Have seen a few exercises where the targets are L39 aircraft for bombing and rocket attacks..

    Well the SR-10 and the yak-152 are two different classes of aircrafts.

    Of course the SR-10 did not fit as a basic trainer.
    It should have been proposed as an intermediate trainer and as L39 replacement, covering the same role that the single engine jet M345 (modern development of the siai marchetti S211) in the Italian air force pilot training.


    New pilots will go on to the SF260 which has a single piston engine,
    Then the next phase is done either in the MB339 or in the M345

    And finally the advanced trainer MB346 (parallel development to the yak-130.

    At the moment Russia does not have its own intermediate trainer in production (I believe that they are still using the old L39 in that role.

    They need a new aircraft as intermediate trainer. I thought that the SR-10 could have been perfect in that role but apparently it is not a priority for the russian air force.

    Small correction here:  we use the turboprop version of the SF260 not the piston one.

    The advantage is that a more capable version of the basic trainer allow it to shift to the left the moment the trainee would need to pass to a jet powered plane. M-345 only cover a small part of what was the syllabus once made on MB-339 BUT it is very cheap to operate AND allow a "smooth passage" toward the high performance but costly M-346.
    Also with it however, there has been a consistent saving of resources as it actually take a great part of the flight hours once made on a OCU version of the frontline fighters.
    Now the Yak-152 is surely much more performing of any version of the SF-260 so the "shift on the left" would be even more impressive than the one the AMI has got, up to the point to eliminate the need to adopt a "bridge" trainer.
    Still the SR-10 could still mantain a role IMHO but IN PARALLEL with the Yak-130 and as a companion trainer not as an even partial substitute.

    Rodion_Romanovic likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Wed Nov 15, 2023 5:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:and you think they don't need to learn about thrust vector engine controls and dogfighting until they are sent to their operational units?

    Yes. Even helicopter pilots don't get to fly actual helicopters during basic training. They will have to wait until they complete advance training and only then move onto helicopters training- or OC units.

    ”GarryB\" wrote:Having two 2D nozzles cannot completely replicate 3D nozzles just by being angled, which is why the phrase 2.5D is coined.

    A phrase you coined I guess... Laughing

    GarryB wrote:In his book "Unflown Wings" He mentions that the development concept used a formula called SSS, which was Super Cruise, Super Manouverability, Stealth... in that order....

    BUT more importantly - still no hidden 2nd stealth prototype mentioned - as you claimed?

    ”GarryB\" wrote: "The 1.44 didn't have an internal weapon bay, but it was a technology demonstrator to prove the aerodynamics.”

    .....and hence not as stealthy to start with....as I've mentioned.
    The Soviet brief was very clear. Design a 5th gen stealth fighter. Mig was awarded the contract as the sole OKB to build a single prototype.
    The prototype had some stealthy features but was not a fully fledged stealth fighter design.
    ”GarryB\" wrote:Super cruise first, super manouverabilty second, and Stealth third, but the list of TSAGI suggestions included internal weapon bay which it would have if it won the competition.”

    As I’ve said - It already won the competition. It was then tasked to build a 5th gen stealth fighter prototype.

    GarryB wrote:Their fake objections allowed them out of the contract they had signed leaving them free to accept Sukhois offer... I would say Sukhoi were the crooks.

    Yeh right!  Laughing  Laughing

    GarryB wrote:Too expensive to lose but not capable enough to be useful. Drones or Su-25s would make more sense.

    ....and that is why I say only another Su-25 can replace the su-25.

    ”GarryB\" wrote:Well also from Unflown Wings:
    Lengthy efforts aimed at developing a next generation successor to the Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot attack aircraft had shown that creating a high performanceaircraft that would be cheap, suitable for mass production in wartime and easy to operate at the same time was unrealistic. Either performance or low cost had to be sacrificed. Therefore the Soviet Air Force called a contest for a strike aircraft that would have a lower speed and a smaller ordinance load. This was seen as an acceptable tradeoff for being a lot cheaper to build and operate, easy to repair in the field - and, most importantly, being suitable for mass production in wartime at whatever factory was available, including non aviation plants. Sukhoi was eliminated from the competition early and proposals from MiG and Ilyusion were considered because of the potential for creating specialised versions.

    The MiG proposal was the izd 101... you will love this... it would be powered by two TV7-117S turboprops driving 6 blade propellers.

    Sukhoi of course had the double headed T-12 jet which would not be cheap, but they also developed a range of turboprop aircraft with twin engines in the wings or a single engine in the tail pusher or puller types... many looked a bit like OV-10 Bronco types.

    Interestingly it does not mention Ilyusions designs so I am guessing they actually flew.

    This was a Soviet project from the 80's known as Sh-90. The project was  launched to replace the Su-25 and was part of part of a larger plan that also included a bomber and the MFI [Mig-1.44]. The OKB’s that participated were Mig’ Sukhoi and Yak (not Ilyusion).

    However the project was soon cancelled because they decided to rather modernize the Su-25 into several new variants, such as the Su-25T, Su-25TM and the Su-25KM.

    Sukhoi indeed had their own unique double fuselage proposal but both the offerings from Yak and Mig was based on their new trainer designs - i.e. The Yak-130 and the Mig-AT. They were known as the Yak-133 and the Mig-AC. None of them progressed beyond the drawing board - including your Mig fantasy as per “Unflown Wings”. In more recent times rumours and proposals around both The Mig-AC and the Yak-133 have re-surfaced.

    The Il-102 is an ancient design and was competing against the Su-25. It lost but was briefly revived after the USSR collapsed. Mig also had two proposals. One was based on Mig-21 and the other on the Mig-27. Both were rejected outright in favour of the Su-25, which in hindsight was yet another excellent choice by the VVS.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Screen10

    However I’m pretty sure that you referred to some future program? English is your first language - right?

    GarryB wrote:I have to agree but there are some very interesting aircraft designs intended to replace it from MiG and from Sukhoi...

    You are obviously free to respond but I’m not going to take this conversation any further as most of it is based on fantasy, hearsay and what if’s. It’s pretty pointless and far removed from actual reality.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 16, 2023 1:53 am

    Well the SR-10 and the yak-152 are two different classes of aircrafts.

    Well of course they are but I rather doubt they defined the class of aircraft for the role, or would reject an aircraft class if if could perform the role.

    Plenty of countries use Super Tucano turboprop powered light aircraft for light and lead in fighter trainer and also CAS type in their air forces.

    Can you think of any reason the SR-10 might not be any good at being a basic trainer if it is cheap enough to buy and cheap to operate?

    Is it critical for the basic trainer to be a propeller driven aircraft?

    I would think if the SR-10 met all the criteria then it would have gotten the job, but clearly the Yak-152 was better... at the time both had problems with engines being foreign, both were single engine types.

    [quote]Of course the SR-10 did not fit as a basic trainer.


    Well it wasn't selected. Maybe they made it too basic. The Yak-152 is supposed to have a cockpit layout rather like the Yak-130s, so it was largely already developed and offers good transition from one aircraft to the other. They might also make it in the same factories that made the Yak-52 so there is continuity that a new design wouldn't have.

    [quote]It should have been proposed as an intermediate trainer and as L39 replacement, covering the same role that the single engine jet M345 (modern development of the siai marchetti S211) in the Italian air force pilot training.

    As far as I know they had a competition for the Yak-52 replacement (which the Yak-152 won and the SR-10 lost) and a competition to replace the L39 which the Yak-130 won and the MiG-AT lost (and a few others lost as well). At the time they didn't think they needed a plane in between the two.

    After the Yak-130 entered service and theYak-52 continued to operate they found they kept using the L39 to fill the gap in performance between the two.

    Perhaps they actually think the gap will disappear when the Yak-152 enters service as it is rather more powerful, but talk of the SR-10 again and the article about bringing the MiG-AT into production as a gap filler so the L39s could all be withdrawn suggests there is a gap that is worth filling... presumably students are struggling with the transition from Yak to Yak so they are using the remaining L39s to fill that gap but they will be running out of L39s so they need something else.

    With that picture showing the different variants of Yak-130 you would think they could make a simplified basic trainer that was cheaper to operate and buy.

    They need a new aircraft as intermediate trainer. I thought that the SR-10 could have been perfect in that role but apparently it is not a priority for the russian air force.

    That is a major problem with following the Russian military, their might be a lot of talk about some things and then silence for a while and then more talk and then silence, and what happens is that you forget about somethings or are not informed of others. Upgrades for their strategic aircraft was talked about for a very long time before they even started, so I was surprised when they talked about the first aircraft getting upgrades because I had assumed they had already happened.

    When they publish information about a problem, they often don't mention the solution or how long the solution would take.

    Waiting for an engine for the SR-10 or MiG-AT might have been what was holding them back... now they are making their own version of the engine the Yak-130 uses it would make sense to modify the single engined SR-10 and the twin engined MiG-AT to use that as well, but will they mention that too?

    The Yak-152 was waiting for an engine which now seems to be in serial production so that can probably move forward and that might actually help narrow the gap between the Yak-52 with a 300hp engine and the Yak-152 with the VK-800 engine which will likely generate rather more power.

    Still the SR-10 could still mantain a role IMHO but IN PARALLEL with the Yak-130 and as a companion trainer not as an even partial substitute.

    A cheaper simpler light aircraft you can put hours on that is available at most airfields as the hack plane that wont matter immensely if it has an incident would be a good use for the SR-10 if they can get it to where they want it.

    Forward swept wings suggests composites, but Russia is now making its own composite wings in significant volumes and experience in making and using should have increased over the years and costs should have come down too.

    Yes. Even helicopter pilots don't get to fly actual helicopters during basic training. They will have to wait until they complete advance training and only then move onto helicopters training- or OC units.

    Having an advanced trainer that does have thrust vectoring engines wouldn't be expensive or difficult.

    A phrase you coined I guess...

    Taking two 2D vectored thrust engines and rotating them in their mounts so they can effect yaw and roll and pitch is very clever but it does not give complete control in the way 3D vectored thrust engines can manage... yet it gives more control than 2D vectored thrust engines conventionally mounted could manage.

    So something between 2D and 3D... yes... I invented that term so every time someone on the internet mentions it I get a red star and a small financial royalty that has to be paid by everyone who reads it... Rolling Eyes


    BUT more importantly - still no hidden 2nd stealth prototype mentioned - as you claimed?

    Scale model prototypes count don't they? They made a gliding prototype to test its ability to glide and recover from extreme manouvers... do you not think they had prototype to be raised up and spun around to test the RCS in one of their test facilities too? They have shown on Combat Approved that they make models of western aircraft to test for IR and radar signature in 3D, do you think they would not test their own designs to make sure they were actually stealthy?

    As already mentioned the aircraft shown was an aerodynamic model to test the aerodynamics... do you think they wouldn't bother testing a stealthy model to make sure their calculations are correct with real radar?


    .....and hence not as stealthy to start with....as I've mentioned.

    They were testing the aerodynamic layout... why the **** would they make it stealthy... so passing US AWACS aircraft can't track it?

    The prototype had some stealthy features but was not a fully fledged stealth fighter design.

    The S-37 wasn't stealthy either, they were testing more than just stealth. As Yefim stated in his book SSS... stealth was not the top priority... they knew their own radars can detect and track stealth aircraft and they knew when presented with stealth aircraft on the Russian side that the west will be able to develop the same capabilities soon enough. Stealth was to delay detection and complicate interception rather than sneak around like a ghost.

    They had a realistic view of stealth and still do.


    As I’ve said - It already won the competition. It was then tasked to build a 5th gen stealth fighter prototype.

    You said.

    So what was the S-37 for if MiG had won?

    ....and that is why I say only another Su-25 can replace the su-25.

    Pretty unlikely they will put it back into production.

    The OKB’s that participated were Mig’ Sukhoi and Yak (not Ilyusion).

    So Yefim isn't perfect... just writing what it said in his book.

    However the project was soon cancelled because they decided to rather modernize the Su-25 into several new variants, such as the Su-25T, Su-25TM and the Su-25KM.

    Which improved survivability but also cost.

    In more recent times rumours and proposals around both The Mig-AC and the Yak-133 have re-surfaced.

    Maybe because proposals are put forward for good reasons so when a requirement resurfaces then old proposals get taken out and reevaluated to see if they can be modified for purpose.

    The Il-102 is an ancient design and was competing against the Su-25. It lost but was briefly revived after the USSR collapsed.

    It is funny that the west pisses all over the Il-102 as archaic and backward but it is bigger and heavier and actually looks more like the A-10 than the Su-25. The tail gunner is a bit excessive a remote automatic gun would be smaller and more precise I would think... perhaps even a 23mm cannon firing flare and chaff dipoles would be a useful thing even today.


    However I’m pretty sure that you referred to some future program? English is your first language - right?

    Well logic suggests that if the Su-25 is currently in service it is hardly going to be replaced by something that is not from the future, but it seems the Russian military seems to prefer its attack helicopters and that a faster attack helicopter with a heavier payload and better endurance might be their preference moving forward.

    Some of the interesting designs in Unflown wings includes what looks like the Su-25 cockpit and front fuselage as a pod with a large straight wing and two turboprop engines leading back to a, well you don't want to discuss it so why bother...

    You are obviously free to respond but I’m not going to take this conversation any further as most of it is based on fantasy, hearsay and what if’s. It’s pretty pointless and far removed from actual reality.

    So if it is not 7th gen VSTOL super CAS plane you are not interested. I understand now.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Thu Nov 16, 2023 9:07 am

    Now I am obliged to respond as you don't seem to know the history around the MFI (I-90) program.

    GarryB wrote:So what was the S-37 for if MiG had won?

    (A summary from Gordon's book Red Star 01)

    The MFI (I-90) program was initiated by the Soviets on the traditional competitive basis between Mikoyan, Sukhoi and Yakolev.

    Sukhoi however was not interested in the program as they believed - rightly so - that the Su-27 would be superior to any other fighter designed before the end of the century.

    The Soviet Ministry however insisted that they participated. Suhoi's proposal was a FSW design known as S-32. The S-32 had an interesting design feature. It had a common 2D TV nozzle for both engines.

    Yak had a very stealthy concept with a single 2D TV engine. The single engine concept was rejected as the VVS felt that for safety reasons it should have two engines.

    The Mig TV concept utilized a delta-wing, twin-tailed, canard layout. It offered certain advantages in supersonic cruise, but could not match the FSW layout in maneuverability at transonic speeds.

    At this early stage the VVS selected Mikoyan as the "first choice" as Mig was considered a fighter specialist whilst Sukhoi developments were much wider - from fighters to attack aircraft and tactical bombers.

    Whilst the Sukhoi FSW design was a ground braking development, the Mig design was more conventional and presented a lower technical risk.

    The decision was also heavily politically motivated.

    Mikoyan then got the funding to produce a single prototype. Sukhoi continued development with their own funding and Yak abandoned their concept entirely.

    After the disastrous 90's when the MFI(I-90) program was cancelled, Sukhoi revived and modified their FSW design and renamed it S-37. This was in response to the fact that Mig was going ahead with the development despite it being canceled. Sukhoi built the prototype in record time and it' made it's first in September 1997. The Mig prototype made it's first flight in February 2000.

    They constructed a single prototype with their own funding (no state-funding), which was later re-named the Su-47.

    The Mig 1.44 design and development was a protracted one, characterized by repeated and lengthy postponements due to a chronic lack of funds after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The MiG 1.44 made its maiden flight in 2000, nine years behind schedule, and was cancelled later that year after it made 2 very brief flights.

    Gordon himself believe that there were some problems during those two unusually short flights despite what the then test pilot described the aircraft's performance as "docile". Meaning everything went ok.

    The MFI (I-90) program was replaced by the more modern and affordable PAK FA program, which resulted in the Sukhoi Su-57.

    I do hope that the above makes it more clear and that it has answered your question.


    GarryB wrote:Scale model prototypes count don't they?

    No. Scale models and gliders is an age old method of proof of concept and is far removed from what you claimed.

    GarryB wrote:The MiG prototypes were clearly described as the flying model and the static stealth model by MiG.

    GarryB wrote:The other was the stealth prototype that was used for testing for RCS and IR signature."

    lancelot likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 16, 2023 10:22 am

    The Mig TV concept utilized a delta-wing, twin-tailed, canard layout. It offered certain advantages in supersonic cruise, but could not match the FSW layout in maneuverability at transonic speeds.

    The forward swept wing design has limitations at supersonic speeds in terms of manouver performance AFAIK, which means when supercruising a FSW aircraft would not be the best choice.

    The decision was also heavily politically motivated.

    Which has not changed since...

    Gordon himself believe that there were some problems during those flights despite what the then test pilot described the aircraft's performance as "docile". Meaning everything went ok.

    You could say it had the same issue that the Su-57 has... wasn't it using a modified MIG-31 engine instead of the 3D thrust vectoring Al-41 engine the final aircraft was supposed to use.

    No. Scale models and gliders is an age old method of proof of concept and is far removed from what you claimed.

    The scale model would be all they needed to test the RCS and 3D IR signature. The full sized model was used to test the aerodynamics which obviously don't always scale well... so you need a 1:1 scale model for testing.

    Sukhoi was the only Russian company that had money and funding and working subcontractors that could handle the only 5th gen fighter project outside of the US and China. MiG could do it too and Yak could probably do it as well but would need rather more government money invested into the project.

    MiG was palmed off with the promise that they could start the light 5th gen fighter project when Su-57 was in serial production, but no word of that so far so I guess they got stiffed by Sukhoi again.

    lancelot likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Sat Nov 18, 2023 12:03 pm

    One of the most interesting programs for me was the Ka-50 single seat attack helicopter. Not only was it the very first single seat attack helicopter but it was also the first of it's kind to have an ejection seat. A true no-analogues machine! Here is a very rare picture of the first prototype - the V-80 when it was painted with a second window to fool unauthorized eyes.  Smile

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 V80-0310

    A small batch together with the Ka-29's took part in the Chechen war to test the helicopter's capabilities in a real world scenario. Mostly in the recce and spotters role.

    Rare picture of at least 10 production samples being put together.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Ka50-c10

    A squadron size made it into VKS service but I have no idea if they still serve? They could make for good helicopter- and drone hunters with a little upgrade. Nice picture of a pristine looking machine in Russian service.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 0_315b10

    kvs and lancelot like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Sat Nov 18, 2023 1:12 pm

    It's competition was a far more conventional design - the Mi-28. Despite that the Ka-50 won the competition it was eventually decided to adopt both these helicopters for service. Pictured here is the very first prototype on a demo flight. Notice the initial upturned exhaust that was changed downward on the third prototype. The third prototype also featured a new tail rotor design.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Protot10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Protot11

    Early on a all weather night fighting variant with a mast mounted MMW radar was proposed. This is similar to the current export version.
    This mast mounted radar is not a feature on the current Russian "N" model, but something similar is mast mounted on the trainer.

    A  good looking Mi-28N prototype on the tarmac.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Mi28n-10

    kvs likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3477
    Points : 3479
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Mir Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:21 pm

    Yet another spillover from the Soviet era was the MiG-31 M Interceptor(Izdelye 05). Not exactly a competing design but definitely worth mentioning!  Smile

    (A summary from Yefim Gordon's book MiG-25 'Foxbat'/MiG-31 'Foxhound' published in 1997. )

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Mig-3110

    A heavily modified version of the MiG-31 emerged in 1985. The MiG-31M had a new weapons system featuring an even more powerful "Zaslon-M" radar and six ultra-long range R-37 AAMs with a range of up to 300km! The R-37 missile developed by Vympel had not only much better performance that the R-33 carried by production MiG-31 s but a totally different guidance system. An active radar homing system was used on the final stage of the missile's trajectory.

    In addition  four R-77 (RVV-AE) AAMs rated for 12g manoeuvres and with a range of around 100km could be carried on four underwing
    pylons. The gun was deleted as it was considered unnecessary and probably saved some significant weight in the process.  The  Mig-31M was also fitted with a new IRST and a laser range finder.

    Several structural changes were made to accommodate the new weapon's system and to improve visibility  from the cockpit. It also featured an enlarged spine and uprated D-30F-6M engines were installed. The LERX's were enlarged and had a curved leading edge. Large cigar-shaped ESM pods fitted with small triangular stabilizing fins at the aft end could be installed at the wingtips and the refueling probe was moved to starboard.

    It featured many important avionic upgrades, including four rectangular multi-function displays in the WSO's cockpit.

    The stated performance figures was very impressive indeed, surpassing everything then in service with the PVO. The aircraft could track and destroy a great number more targets in a single sortie than a regular MiG-31. Needles to say it's command capabilities was also much better that the older Mig-31's.

    A test batch of MiG-31Ms was put together at the Gorkii plant. The first was a static test airframe. The first prototype had the bort number "Blue 052", but unfortunately crashed during a test flight.  "Blue 053" became the second prototype, but due to the crash a company Mig-31 "Blue 503" was converted into a cross between a standard Mig-31 and a full blown Mig-31M. All in all, seven aircraft were built.


    In March 1992 the latest Russian/CIS combat aircraft were shown to the military and government figues at an airbase near Minsk. The static line-up included the final MiG-31 M - prototype, "Blue 057". In August 1995, the same aircraft made its very brief public debut at the MAKS-95 airshow in Zhukovsky.

    A short while earlier, in April 1994, the Mig-31M demonstrated the world's first instance when an interceptor had destroyed a target flying more than 300km away with an R-37 missile.

    According to Yefim Gordon the Mig-31M actually entered production but the Russian government was unable to fund the program. In the end the program was terminated but much of the Mig-31M's advanced technologies found its way into the somewhat less capable Mig-31BM and BSM variants.

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 20286310
    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 24609510

    George1, kvs and zardof like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2850
    Points : 2848
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  lancelot Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:03 pm

    I doubt the MiG-31BM is "less capable". For one it uses a flight computer similar to the one in the Su-35. Which is way more modern than anything the Soviet Union could produce in 1985. The avionics are probably a lot more improved. And I wouldn't be surprised if they miniaturized the radar in the R-37 to make the R-37M either. Which means they could then put more fuel in the missile and increase its range further. The MiG-31BM also uses LCDs, while those MFDs from 1985 would have been CRTs.

    Of those upgrades, I only haven't heard of the IRST and engines being upgraded in the MiG-31BM. But who knows.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39616
    Points : 40110
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  GarryB Mon Nov 20, 2023 6:44 am

    One of the most interesting programs for me was the Ka-50 single seat attack helicopter.

    I seem to remember that Kamov justified it by saying the Su-25 only needed one pilot so why need two in a helicopter.

    The upgraded versions of the Su-25, the T and the TM had the Shkval targeting system, which was also fitted to the Ka-50 which automatically found targets and marked them.

    the V-80 when it was painted with a second window to fool unauthorized eyes.

    Most of the drawings in the west showed side by side twin seat aircraft because who would make a single seat attack helicopter?

    It's competition was a far more conventional design - the Mi-28. Despite that the Ka-50 won the competition it was eventually decided to adopt both these helicopters for service.

    The selection was made in the late 80s but watching the US use their attack helicopters in Iraq in Desert Storm the Russians realised that using helicopters at night made them much safer and they realised that flying at night in a helicopter is a full time job so they restarted the competition to replace the Hind and Kamov made their Ka-52. Both helicopters had deficiencies but both also had advantages.... the Havoc had windows that would stop 14.5mm HMG rounds fired from less than 10m range... no other helicopter has that level of protection....

    The night vision equipment on the early Havoc and Hokum was rather primitive and nothing like the sort of stuff on the Apache for instance, but Russian helicopters didn't roam enemy airspace looking for armour and targets to engage, they were more like Su-25s that flew in and hit some targets and flew back to base.

    Notice the initial upturned exhaust that was changed downward on the third prototype.

    It was supposed to mix the hot air coming from the engines with the rotor downwash and reduce the IR signature of the aircraft. What it actually did was heat up the main rotors and made them glow on IR equipment.

    The third prototype also featured a new tail rotor design.

    The new tail rotor was much quieter and generated more push offering better control.

    Early on a all weather night fighting variant with a mast mounted MMW radar was proposed.

    Expensive for a helicopter, but when operating at night would be well worth it.

    A heavily modified version of the MiG-31 emerged in 1985.

    I have read that the original MiG-31 is a pain to trim as it speeds up and slows down and if you don't do it right you can end up having to play with the trim all the time, which is distracting. The LERX apparently solve that problem.

    Lots of countries remove the guns from their aircraft as it saves weight and space and also a lot of maintenance and simplifies training because when you train to use it the gun needs to be cleaned and checked... it is not just a case of putting in more ammo.

    I remember reading about it in the 1990s thinking how cool it was... they were easy to spot because the front windscreen is one piece and does not have a big oval frame through it, which you can see in the bottom image above... but alas they decided they could not afford it.

    I remember seeing speculative drawings of it in western magazines showing cockpits looking more like the two cockpits on a Tornado than the MiG-31... the rear cockpit window of which has always been a bit of a day night indicator (not big enough to see a lot from... because the crewman there spends most of his time looking at the radar and IRST display...)

    I doubt the MiG-31BM is "less capable".

    Less ambitious and cheaper is probably a better description... the new ZASLON-M radar was quite impressive, but mainly because the previous ZASLON radar didn't have the processing power to do the radar antenna justice...

    Sponsored content


    Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond - Page 2 Empty Re: Competing Aircraft Designs of the 90's and Beyond

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:55 am