Soviet Armed Forces / Soviet Army (1946-1991)

And here's a ZIL-135 one : each side powered by an engine (side and up views) :

But therefore the Zil-135 or the BTR60 could run also with a single engine only and with the wheels of one side only???

they were pretty much connected via shafts so if an engine failed the other could propel the vehicle... but it would be like a single engine vehicle with cylinders not firing properly... ie greatly reduced power.

the complex arrangement on the BTR was to make the vehicles cheaper... not simpler.

By using a smaller less powerful engine widely used in trucks of the period they saved money and time... which are both critical when trying to get troops out of trucks and into armoured amphibious vehicles.

From memory the BTR-70 also had two engines, but they were diesels of greater power, better fuel economy... and reduced fire risk... it was the BTR-80 that introduced a more powerful single engine diesel arrangement that simplified its design.

(note add to the BTRs complex gearing system a system of centralised tire pressure regulation system and the BTRs would keep you busy in terms of maintainence... but mobility was considered very good.)

Il-38 with clone companion P-3 :

1953. Turkestan military district
http://humus.livejournal.com/3592532.html

from pilot's album. 1965
http://humus.livejournal.com/3399408.html

Really great posts, as always DTA. Thanks.

DTA wrote:from pilot's album. 1965
http://humus.livejournal.com/3399408.html

Hello! if possible, what is that thing under the wing??

Giulio wrote:

Hello! if possible, what is that thing under the wing??

If you're talking about the "cigar shaped" one, it's an ORO-57K pod for S-5 rockets :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-5_rocket#/media/File:F-6_fighter_underwing_rocket_pod.jpg
http://www.lietadla.com/vyzbroj/s-5/oro-57-01.jpg
http://www.lietadla.com/vyzbroj/s-5/oro-57-02.jpg
http://www.lietadla.com/vyzbroj/s-5/oro-57-03.jpg

23-11 prototype from MiG :

Armed An-2 :

Tu-16 :

How to remove mines with a turbojet :   Progvev-T :

Kamov Ka-15G :

Impressive picture of a Typhoon class.
Could someone explain to me the the meaning and the difference between these two signs. I only know that they mean: "Soviet aviation excellence banner". Correct? And what's the difference between the first and the second with dashed lines? Thanks.

Giulio wrote:Impressive picture of a Typhoon class.
Could someone explain to me the the meaning and the difference between these two signs. I only know that they mean: "Soviet aviation excellence banner". Correct? And what's the difference between the first and the second with dashed lines? Thanks.

I only see one picture. But it's correct, the badge means "отличный самолёт", an aircraft perfectly maintained :



with stencils marks.

Afaik the Yak-38 has been tested also in Afghanistan, where it was easily beaten by the Su-7/17 and Su-25, above all because of the payload. During the ground-based operations the Yak-38 computer control had to be disconnected, because of the takeoff and landing speeds on the runways, higher than those of the VTOL operations. If the Yak-38's computer did not understood very well the situation, it could eject automatically the pilot. This system saved many lives during VTOL (unlike the Harrier), but during normal takeoff and landing it had to be disconnected.

I would say a lack of payload was a problem for the Yak, but really in the CAS role it was actually the total lack of armour together with fragile design... a VSTOL aircraft like the Yak is full of high pressure gas piping to carry puffer jets to the wing tips, nose and tail to aide flight control at very low speeds and in the hover to allow yaw and pitch control as well as roll control when there is little or no airflow over the wing and tail mounted flight control surfaces.

The requirement to have more thrust than weight means heavy armour protection is not an option and all those vulnerable high pressure pipes also make the aircraft rather too fragile for CAS roles.

In terms of MANPADS the side mounted engine nozzles means even primitive IR seekers can get solid locks from most side and rear angles... whereas a conventional jet aircraft is best targeted from the rear 25-40 degrees the Yak had a clear IR signature from most angles including near front angles due to the engine nozzle positioning and front mounted lift engines.

Cost was also a factor... the Su-25 was much more agile, had a better payload in terms of weight and variety, was cheaper to buy and maintain, had better range, and was armoured with twin engine safety.

The Yak was tested because the british used the Harrier for CAS roles.... it was found wanting and was not used in that land role.

It was given a basic anti ship role with light air to ground missiles like Kh-25 missiles and a limited capability with R-60M AAMs.

Ironically the Yak-38M with more powerful engines actually made things worse as the more powerful engines allowed better payload but higher fuel consumption meant shorter range and less flight time on target without making the aircraft any faster.

The Yak would have been better if they accepted it would be subsonic and given it a much bigger higher lift wing... dropped the lift engines and gone for rolling takeoffs only with a big wing and thrust vectoring rear engines to allow short takeoffs from ski jump equipped carriers.

Fortunately the MiG-29 and Su-33 in slightly larger carriers have shown much better performance from much more capable aircraft that are land based designs with modest modifications.

Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS

anti gay-wolves weapon for Syria?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS

anti gay-wolves weapon for Syria?

Oplot-MO is probably more suitable for protecting against forces from Andromeda; no earthly threat would really require this.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS

What is this, and how does it work?