ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

Pretty much all the electronics is from western companies. Even their S-400 had Texas Instruments chips.

Only recently they had their own chips but yet they are far behind what west produces. Nothing new.

What don't you understand when I say Russia isn't USSR.

An 8, an10, an 12 proves soviets managed to create them.

USSR and its engineers are gone. Russian civilian aircraft industry is barely existant since 1991 and they barely can just upgrade old soviet design. Creating new planes is a total challenge for them.

They can't make a small il-112 and you think they will make a modern an-12 by upsizing the il-114 in few months easily. Again, get real.

Even back in Soviet times the electronics quite often were just analogues of Western ones. The fact is Russia does not put chips into military electronics for which they do not have an analogue. So even if they use a Texas Instruments chip, there will be a chip from a Russian supplier which provides the same functionality to ensure supply in case of disruption of supply. Companies like NIIET and Milandr make such chips. And the Su-57 uses Elbrus2K CPUs with NeuroMatrix DSPs, so it certainly does not use Western design chips at its core at all.

As for the situation with transport aircraft, in my opinion this is a vestige of the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Antonov ended up in Ukraine, a lot of Ilyushin aircraft were assembled in Uzbekistan, and the industry which remained in Russia was consistently underfunded to buy Western aircraft instead. So you have like an almost two decade gap with no real new designs. The Sukhoi Superjet is one of the exceptions and the MC-21 is another. As for the Il-114 there is nothing wrong with the design. It is being manufactured in Russia as is the Il-76. The only problem is in the Il-114 is that the engines are unreliable but that isn't anything which cannot be fixed I think.

Who cares if Russia has the companies and is the successor of USSR ?

The soviet engineers are dead or retired. The engineers in those companies have not created new aircraft since 1991.

Engineering science and science are not magy or legacy or thoughts. Either you have them and work them everyday or you loose them.

France's Airbus produce new planes for basically the world. Last in date is A350, then you have the masterpiece of engineering A-380. The a-320 family. You have the ATR turboprop family bought all around the world. You have Dassault Falcon jets also being the best private jets bought all over the world too. The first russian civilian plane, the ssj-100 uses french engines. Airbus produces hundreds of planes every year. Don't compare it to Russian aircraft industry.

Even russian companies use more french planes than russian ones.

The A320 is about as old as the Tu-204.

And none of those large aircraft use French engines. The only thing French about CFM engines is the low pressure stage, which is the same parts the Russians make in the SaM engine in the Superjet under Powerjet engine venture, the core is GE. And the French designed part of the engine is the main reason for its low reliability. French designed injectors made by US subcontractors.

Isos wrote:What don't you understand when I say Russia isn't USSR.

An 8, an10, an 12 proves soviets managed to create them.

USSR and its engineers are gone. Russian civilian aircraft industry is barely existant since 1991 and they barely can just upgrade old soviet design. Creating new planes is a total challenge for them.

They can't make a small il-112 and you think they will make a modern an-12 by upsizing the il-114 in few months easily. Again, get real.

You should know that a large part of the supply chain for passenger and transport aircrafts found itself in foreign lands and .the politicians and managers in the 90s managed to almost kill the rest.

Ilyushin until 2013 was understaffed, with little resources and the average pay was quite lower than any other job in the same sector (and much lower than in the IT sector).
they did not have any new project for ages (also due to pro western and pro-ukrainian lobbies that removed a lot of possible Investment)

Irkut by the way, was paying way better.
The situation of Ilyushin 10 years ago was comparable to what was Antonov in Kiev before the start of the SMO.

After that there has been a slow influx of money and request for restarting old stillborn projects.

Many competencies had to be relearnt from scratches and many mistakes were made. Now the situation is much better than that.

The SSJ100 and the MC21 are new projects that started much after 1992. It is true that there was involvement of some foreign firms, but was mainly in the.supply of various internal systems (Boeing acted initially as consultant for the SSJ100, but I believe it was mainly to restrict them to a niche that was not dangerous to them (as it was covered by embraer and bombardier aircrafts, not Boeing). And finally those foreign internal systems are in the verge of being replaced.

Furthermore there is a  centre for small aircraft development in Ekaterinburg (Ural civil aviation). The plant managed to survive the fall of soviet union and after 2013 started initially with assembly of foreign small aircrafts (first the small diamond Da-42 a twin engine training aircraft for aircraft schools and then the Let L-410). Now they have their own design centre and developed the Baikal (An-2 successor) and the TVRS-44 (An-24 successor, a derivative of the stillborn Let L610 ). They have also an engine department and also managed to finish the development of the Klimov VK-800 (engine for the Baikal and for the russian version of the L-410).

It is true that the old soviet engineers are dead or retired, but there are also new russian engineers that worked on SSJ100 or in MC21 and also many engineers of designers from the fighter jet sectors.
I know it is not the same, but they have the right competences and they can adapt to a different product.
Furthermore I believe that several russian aerospace engineers working in the west will start thinking about coming back home.bringing other competencies.

Anyway also in the west there were not many new projects in the same time, almost only upgrades of old projects.
A320 and  A330 were developed in the 1980s (and both A330 and A340 are a derivative of the A300 that first flew in 1972). Boeing 777 entered service 29 years ago. And the Airbus A380 is already out of production.

The only new projects were basically the A350 and the Boeing 787.

By the way please tell me a new passenger plane made in UK. The last was the BAe146, which production started in1981. After that the wings for Airbus are built near Bristol and in Belfast (Norther Ireland) some parts for Bombardier business jets are built. That's all.

If you remove airbus (which is mainly a French German joint venture with some minor Spanish participation and the now foreign UK making some important parts) there are only minor players left.
Dassault make some good business jets, but many of the components are imported, and the last projects do not even use french engines, they were deemed too bad.

And most of these projects require participation of 4 or more countries. Soon America will start sanctioning also EU countries and after a while in EU only France will have a semi independent aerospace industry, if they can live without wings and large engines.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Their industry suffered too much during the 90s and now they have to painfully restore it and can't create plane so easily like Mir think by just taking an il-114 and upsizing it. I'm not saying thry can't make new planes but that it will take much more time than during soviet times.

Airbus is the main seller of civilian planes. A320Neo family is the best and constantly updated. Safest aircraft. A350 is formidable. A380 was too big to succeed but is a masterpiece and some talk about its restart.

Boeing suffered from b737Max.

I agree they use foreign components but quite normal France is too small to produce all by iyself. But even then they could have engines from Safran. It is just that customers wants safest engines so they go for Rolls Royces or GE.

The most important is that french invest a lot in those companies and they have kept the know-how. Russia not really, like you they were understaffed and they didn't produce anything new. They will bring it back but not easily.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Their industry suffered too much during the 90s and now they have to painfully restore it and can't create plane so easily like Mir think by just taking an il-114 and upsizing it. I'm not saying thry can't make new planes but that it will take much more time than during soviet times.

And what Mir and others are trying to say to you is that they went to the trouble of digitising the Il-114 and are going to produce it as an aircraft to replace obsolete Antonovs and stretching the aircraft is easier and quicker than trying to create a whole new plane from scratch which would be more work and more time and more money to create something a stretched model Il-114 could do just fine.

The already had a maritime patrol version of the Il-114 that had two engines and a 10 hour patrol time with all the bits needed to make it an MPA... pretty clear they want to extend the range and endurance and weights so a four engined heavier version seems to be what they want.

As he pointed out, modifying existing types is a common practise and often transforms a rather ordinary aircraft into something more useful much faster and with historic data you can use for design changes etc.

You know.... a bit like buying a helicopter carrier based on a proven design would have been faster than designing and building their own.

Of course after examining someone elses inside and out and making parts of them it means you can take all the bits you didn't like and add them to a new design with better prospects of being a good design after looking at a good design and adapting it to your requirements.

I really admire the way they are pushing the agenda forward

Just take a look at the graph.

It does admit that Russie defense spending is on pair with France or Germany, YET leaves an anchor that in PPP it is triple that.

Sure it is.

And because of much better control and lower corruption, those PPP adjusted numbers give even higher leverage at the end of a day.

And who is guilty here?

Russkie!

TO ISOS...

Russia is no longer the USSR in terms of quantitative weapons production, and I agree with that.
Russia is no longer even a competitor to China, no matter what the members of this military forum think, but that's how it is..
Desperate results have been shown only in the matter of the Russian Navy, and literally everything is late in relation to the plans that have been set, whether it is the modernization of inherited units or the production of new surface ships and SSN submarines. Those problems do not exist only when it comes to SSBN submarines, while there could be problems with SSK submarines, because only the inherited 636.3 platform, which is a modification of the 877 submarines, is mass-produced.
To my great regret, I am convinced that the Russian Navy will be even smaller than it is now because I think the number of SSN/SSGN submarines will decrease further. On the other hand, the number of strike platforms that did not exist before will increase - carriers of cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons.
.

On the other hand, although the Russians often talk a lot and the results are hardly visible, the Russians still have the Su-75 heavy fighter, which is more or less a ready-made aircraft, as well as some other air platforms in the pipeline - such as the Su-75, PAK-DA, etc.. The same applies to the ground army and to combat systems such as T-14, 2S38, VPK-7829, Kurganec, etc. The same applies to air defense and anti-missile defense systems.

Therefore, the Russian military industrial complex is still capable and mostly effective, except for the navy, although I think that the speed of construction of SSN submarines suffers not because of the inefficiency of SEVMASH shipyard (30000 employees), but because of insufficient funding. Savings have to be made somewhere and cuts have probably been made to the Navy for years.

France has a hunting society of an army with a military budget that is almost the same as the Russian military budget - so much for efficiency.
France also manufactures platforms that are 40+ year old projects, whether it's fighter aircraft or ground forces. The French Navy, on the other hand, is relatively small but respectable.
As much as the Russian military industrial complex has flaws, and there are many of them, the biggest ones are pompous announcements about the production of new systems that often do not produce any results for years. On the other hand, Russia, with a smaller military budget than France and the UK military budget combined, certainly has a much more efficient army than those two countries combined.

The inefficiency of the military industrial complex in Europe is an ideal example, the Russians are fortunately far from that.

The Yasen-M has turned out to be a replacement for the Oscar class. If you look at the specs in terms of VLS cells and the like they are pretty much similar or better in terms of capabilities. The Yasen-M has much smaller displacement than the Oscar but the weapon systems are basically miniaturized so there is no loss in terms of performance. It is the Laika which will be a replacement for the Shchuka-B I think. And I expect production to increase significantly at Sevmash once that comes out.

Not really. Oscar are modernized and kept in service. It's just that VLS are bringing so much more that you will have them on all new nuclear powered subs.

Laika will also come with VLS.

Drawback is that you need longer subs to put VLS than a same sub with no VLS. A yasen without the VLS would be a SSN of 100m easily. As small sub thry ha e Kilo class so no need for a small SSN IMO.

Better to have them all with VLS.

As a military force Russia has suffered the loss of many of its core producers that are now separate countries, so the process of localisation started in 1991, but with the disintegration of the Soviet Union at first they decided that if for example Georgia and Ukraine and Belarus all want to be paid in US dollars for the Soviet systems they built then why not buy French thermals instead of inferior thermals from Belarus, plenty of other items they set up their own production facilities...

Things like light training aircraft and light helicopters became sore points because although the Mi-2 was a Soviet design the L-39 was not and neither was in production in Russia and nor were their engines, so as things deteriorated they had to put such things into development and then into production... in the mean time western light helicopters were bought and used with foreign engines too because they could be bought cheaper and faster than they could be developed in house.

The main problems are actually close to being solved with new engines approaching maturity and serial production, but many problems were simply sabotage... foreign aircraft being bought using Russian subsidies that were supposed to boost the use of local aircraft designs, 5th columnist CEOs of Russian companies no doubt accepting large bribes to demand western companies provide avionics to even new Russian aircraft programmes... the excuses given of course to make their aircraft more appealing to western customers, which of course turned out to be meaningless anyway.

Would be interested to see your source for Texas Instruments chips being used because they have been banned for export to Russia for decades, it was new digital chips that turned the awful air launched Sparrow into the reasonable ship launched ESSM.

Such chips are not 7nm, they are more like 120 nm and the sort that Russia can produce for itself in large numbers... maybe they print TI on them to hide the fact that they are no longer dependent on western stuff, or maybe your source is just western bullshit propaganda as usual.

BTW if an Indian T-90 was captured they would find it doesn't have Russian Thermals in it... they are very nice French ones... does that mean Russia can't make thermals?

Isos Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:33 pm
Not really. Oscar are modernized and kept in service. It's just that VLS are bringing so much more that you will have them on all new nuclear powered subs.

None of them are "modernized", don't write nonsense. The submarine K-132 "Irkutsk" is the first submarine to be modernized to the 949AM standard, while the second submarine is the K-442 "Chelyabinsk", although I honestly think that if all this continues, it will be released in a year or two according to the old Russian custom of the last couple of years next "Modernization is not cost-effective and the submarine is decommissioned".

Laika will also come with VLS.

There is no information about it, there are only guesses. The official name of the future project has not been confirmed anywhere, except that it was first called "Husky" and then 545A "Laika". Lots of talk and HORRIBLE results - it's the Russian Navy.

Arrow Tue Mar 07, 2023 9:21
Yes the new SSNs that have much more striking power than the older 971s. Russia is currently building more nuclear submarines than France and England combined. Even more than the USA, which is currently building Virginia. Faster than Russia with its Yasen-M, but Russia is also building a fleet of SSBNs, new Poseidon carrier ships and conventional submarines. That's more than the US. The time will come when they will increase the pace in surface ships as well.

Great, just tell me now how many SSN/SSGN submarines Russia is building if Russia "builds more submarines than the US builds", which is what you wrote ?
I would rather sacrifice the construction of 955A submarines in favor of 885M submarines because Russia has always given priority to the land component of strategic troops - silos and MZKT trucks.
Submarine K-564 "Arkhangelsk" (885M) has been under construction since March 2015 and has NOT been launched yet, while "Khabarovsk" has been under construction since July 2014.
[b]AND YOU WRITE how everything is fine?
Arrow, the Russian fleet of SSN/SSGN submarines is approaching the END of its operational life and it is enough to write that K-150 "Tomsk" (1996), K-157 "Vepr" (1995), as well as K-295 "Samara" are among " the youngest" submarines.
At this rate of construction, Russia will have as many SSN/SSGN submarines as England and France combined (if those two countries don't increase their numbers in the meantime), which is ridiculous for the coastal borders that Russia has. I like the navy the most, but the Russian navy is just a headache, headache, headache...

Friend Arrow, it doesn't matter how many Virginia-class submarines the US builds, it matters how old the project 971 and 945A submarines are that MUST be replaced.
It doesn't matter how many submarines Sevmash builds, it matters which submarines it builds, and it's obvious that "Borei-A" submarines are a priority and that's why the money was given for their construction - while the construction of the 885M submarine is delayed and a lot.
I wrote that in the best case, Russia will have 9 885/885M submarines in 2030, while all other submarines will have over 35 years of active service.
That is a lot and replacing those submarines is important. Therefore, the fleet of SSN/SSGN submarines is rapidly aging and replacement of those submarines is NECESSARY.

To Arrow....

The USA plans to have over 80 SSN/SSGN submarines, so it is clear that Russia must have at least 4 divisions of 6 submarines each, that is a total of 24 SSN/SSGN submarines. USA currently has about 50 active L.A. , Virginia and the Seawolf submarines. Although the speed of construction of the Virginia class submarines is not going at a convincing pace at the moment, I am convinced that it will be very difficult for the US to reach the figure of over 80 submarines. I don't even care about the US, I'm just giving my opinion on what Russia must do.
I don't know how much the special military operation affects the already slow construction of the Russian Navy, but I know that the "Borei-A" submarines are the reason why the construction of 885M submarines is slower. Your story of 20 - 25 submarines of project 545A (Husky/Laika) is hardly feasible considering the construction trend of the past few decades. I will be overjoyed if Russia manages to maintain the current number of 24 SSN/SSGN submarines.