VVS Russian Air Force: News #1

Expected but still very important. 

SOUTH receive about 30 combat aircraft and helicopters before the end of the year

Another Mi-26 Russian Air Force

In pictures. New Mi-28N and Mi-35M

Viktor wrote:Expected but still very important. 

SOUTH receive about 30 combat aircraft and helicopters before the end of the year

Another Mi-26 Russian Air Force

In pictures. New Mi-28N and Mi-35M

I wonder if those Su-30M2 in South will replace naval Su-24 in Sevastopol.

Interesting read  

We need a light fighter

Viktor wrote:Interesting read  

We need a light fighter

Possibility of single engine PAKFA ?

My "MiniPakfa"

Aside from Russian attitude toward single engine craft..i wonder whether any exception can be given.. mainly for logistical thoughts.. it would be convenient if PAKFA and the light fighter can share same engine.

Actually I think a twin engine aircraft would be superior in this case as two engines increase frontal drag by increasing the area, but also increase internal volume to allow internal weapons and fuel to be increased over a single engined aircraft.

Assuming a MTOW of 15-18 tons a single engine in the 18 ton class would be a little under powered while two 12 ton class engines would give it excellent power and growth potential as increasing the thrust of two engines doubles the power improvement.

I rather suspect any light 5th gen fighter will be developed with MiG at the lead as Sukhoi is already very busy and according to the UAC boss the MiG plans for a light 5th gen fighter are very advanced... just waiting for the PAK FA to be mature and sorted.

I rather suspect Sukhoi might focus on an unmanned PAK FA and of course naval PAK FA which will result in a 6th gen fighter and a naval 5th gen fighter.

Would be useful but not totally necessary for the PAK FA and light 5th gen fighter to share an engine... Saturn and Klimov both need production roles...

CIAM: at the forefront of aviation science

http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/defense/2013/0809/145511481/detail.shtml





What does the chart say ?

Viktor wrote:Interesting read  

We need a light fighter

I suspect with the new 20T UCAV under development and Pogosyan mentioned at MAKS 2013 that it will be based on PAK-FA design and likely means a supersonic UCAV then there is no need for LFI or light fighter program.

Assuming 20T is its MTOW that would make it into a F-16 class MTOW fighter , with modern fuel effecient engine and no pilot cockpit it would have an intercontinental range for sure.

Russia to See 20-Ton Combat Drone ‘by 2018’ – Industry Source

Austin wrote:

Viktor wrote:Interesting read  

We need a light fighter

I suspect with the new 20T UCAV under development and Pogosyan mentioned at MAKS 2013 that it will be based on PAK-FA design and likely means a supersonic UCAV then there is no need for LFI or light fighter program.

Assuming 20T is its MTOW that would make it into a F-16 class MTOW fighter , with modern fuel effecient engine and no pilot cockpit it would have an intercontinental range for sure.

Russia to See 20-Ton Combat Drone ‘by 2018’ – Industry Source

I dont expect that any future UCAV will and can replace fighter with pilot in air-superiority role.

I believe it can and its a cost effective option over spending huge amount on LFI.

Can you translate CIAM graphic says in Russian ?

Austin wrote:I believe it can and its a cost effective option over spending huge amount on LFI.

Well until I see Mach 2+ UCAV, LFI makes sense. 

No UAV/UCAV has any impact on the battlefield between two countries of approximately equal strenght. Any airforce will just wipe the floor with them. All of them. 

Austin wrote:Can you translate CIAM graphic says in Russian ?

Unfortunately I dont speak Russian.

If you see Europe , they have skipped the 5th Gen fighter and moved over to UCAV and that too subsonic one. Infact Europe does not have any thing that cannot even match a Su-35 in couple of parameters.

US is moving to an all F-35 fleet , Only china is investing in two 5th Gen program and we dont know which one will be successful.

A UCAV of 20T has all the potential to replace an LFI types , specially if its supersonic design and is F-16 class.

To give you an example the Mig SCAT was 10T UCAV , Subsonic had a range of 3000 km and internal payload of 2 T , The new UCAV is twice the capacity of SCAT.

We can assume for 20T UCAV , Supersonic type will atleast have a range of > 3000 Km and can carry payload of atleast 3.5 T

Still no one is producing M 2+ UCAV. Every single UCAV up to now and the ones planed in the future are subsonic and useful only for bombing but not air superiority missions. 

In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not 

laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots. 

Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.

I wouldn't say Europe has skipped anything, they just have barely brought their advanced 4th gens in service, and have no money/will to dive into a 5th gen platform right now.

TR1 wrote:I wouldn't say Europe has skipped anything, they just have barely brought their advanced 4th gens in service, and have no money/will to dive into a 5th gen platform right now.

Yep, I find their claims on being able to skip the 5th generation a little hard to believe.

The height of European fighter technology are now the Eurofighter, Saab Gripen and the Dassault Rafale.

And now they want to create a competitive 6th gen offering with both stealth and unmanned capability, not to mention matching all the other parameters of other country's 6th gen fighters such as range, speed, payload, etc...

What's the plan - sponge off the F-35 and other US technology?

Viktor wrote:Still no one is producing M 2+ UCAV. Every single UCAV up to now and the ones planed in the future are subsonic and useful only for bombing but not air superiority missions. 

In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not 

laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots. 

Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.

Well if you want a UCAV that would be able to supercruise at Mach 2+ than you might have to wait a while yet.

But an unmanned version of the PAK-FA should be able to supercruise at Mach 1+ and reach Mach 2+ with afterburners; same as the PAK-FA can. Perhaps even slightly faster than the PAK-FA if they remove the cockpit and associated systems, and thus reduce weight and optimise the aerodynamic design yet further.

They could add structural weight to make it even heavier than the manned PAK FA... the unmanned model might end up slower than the manned version but being able to pull sustained 20-25g turns would mean no manned fighter would be able to out turn it in a dogfight and outturning enemy missiles becomes a possibility too.

Oh baby!

And another good one ... 

Interesting they are designing an unmanned PAK FA as a UCAV... the design of any aircraft is fairly compromised in its design as it needs to accommodate a pilot and all the pilots support equipment which upsets the design.

Put it this way... if you are designing a human being the main reason for having a head is to enable the sensors within it turn independently to detect danger... you put the brain so that the communications channels to the brain is short.

If you are building a battle robot however you might still want to retain the basic human form so it can pretend to be human from a distance, but there is no advantage in putting anything in the head as important as the brain... you would put that within the chest under the heaviest armour protection... ironically most people who don't know any better would waste ammo shooting your robot in the head to stop it and would of course be wasting their ammo.

The point is however that basing a UCAV on an existing airframe is not usually a great idea unless you want to reduce costs or use them for deception purposes... ie black painted canopies and who knows how many PAK FAs and UCAVs there are... even when you are in air combat with them...

The vast majority of UCAVs and UAVs revealed don't look anything like existing manned aircraft.

Of course old aircraft fitted with remote control equipment and used for realistic target practise tend to improve in performance.

Because they are disposable they tend to expand the envelope in terms of allowed performance... for instance the M-23, which is the remote controlled model of the Mig-23 fighter can fly faster than the manned model both at altitude and at low level... not because of reduced weight, but because they are not trying to conserve airframe hours by limiting top speed or g load.

If i may pose a question to the more knowledgeable gents here. Remember the order for 16 Su-30M2 disclosed recently? Well, there was also internet talk about an undisclosed number of extra Su-27SM3 too. Now we have seen in the news that one, there should be a squadron of Su-27SM3 stationed in Belarus this year, and two, that the Southern Military District will receive this year over 30 new or modernized aircraft, including Su-27SM3. I think it's pretty sure that there are no Su-27 upgrades going or planned at the moment, so the SM3s should be new (possibly assembled from kits left from the chinese order?).

So given all that in my mind i thought there should be at least 12, and possibly- if the belarussian deployment does not involve the squadron already operating SM3s- even 24 Su-27SM3s to be delivered to VVS in the near future (actually, at one point , i was going by the simple logic that if the last order was for 12 SM3 and 4 Su-30M2, then since there are 16 Su-30M2 in the 2012 order, there probably would be 48 extra SM3 too!). Am i completely off the mark here regarding these supposed new SM3 deliveries, or there's something to it? Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

From Russian forums, what I have gathered is people don't know how much of the "Chinese kits" are even left over. The order is just to keep Knaapo busy, but one wonders why they could not just order more Su-35s at this point....

flamming_python wrote:

Viktor wrote:Still no one is producing M 2+ UCAV. Every single UCAV up to now and the ones planed in the future are subsonic and useful only for bombing but not air superiority missions. 

In any scenario of air combat LFI would without a single loss annihilate every UCAV from the sky. Thats why it makes sense. As you see even US (which has the most money) is not 

laying off their pilots because UAV/UCAV showed but is using them as an useful add on for specific missiles that UAV will do for less money than fighters with pilots. 

Those missions are surveillance and some bombing and thats it.

Well if you want a UCAV that would be able to supercruise at Mach 2+ than you might have to wait a while yet.

But an unmanned version of the PAK-FA should be able to supercruise at Mach 1+ and reach Mach 2+ with afterburners; same as the PAK-FA can. Perhaps even slightly faster than the PAK-FA if they remove the cockpit and associated systems, and thus reduce weight and optimise the aerodynamic design yet further.

Earlier, the President of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Mikhail Pogosyan, reported RIA Novosti that Russia is developing an unmanned aerial vehicle shock-purpose weighing about 20 tons on the basis of the technical solutions of the fifth-generation fighter T-50. 
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20131003/967441340.html#ixzz2he0xtYr3


Thing is that 20 t UCAV is being developed on the basis of 5th generation (PAK-FA) TECHNOLOGIES not PAK-FA itself.

If it is just based on PAK FA technologies then it could easily be the Mig Skate or something like it.

I suspect however it will be a PAK FA design adapted for unmanned use.