VVS Russian Airforce Force: News #2

Singular_Transform wrote:<img src="http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/small_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/06/f14.jpg?itok=IIo17nPC" >
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-06/diy-synthetic-aperture-radar-system-250

From close proximity the details of the plane visible quite well by a radar.


So I don't think that the lenses/ prisms help too much to hide the  shape / characteristic of the plane.

Isos wrote:

Just stuff of this sort: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/113970/20170505/f-22-35-stealth-fighters-evade-detection-device-makes-visible.htm

It's says the developement of such things for their 5th gen fighters started in 2010 so before F-22 didn't have them. They can always try to analyse its signature with a small radar imported in US by spies

But I think the main reason for using reflletors is because US are aware that they are not as stealth as they said. The main advantage for them of having F-22 is they can say what they want untill someone has the chance to analyse it. It's more a psychological weapon than a true fighter, it's main weapon is it's secracy not it's stealth or radar ... I mean it's 80s technology and they pretend that today's technology can't compete against it. Even the F-35 which cost 100 times more to develop ( with dev tools of today which are million times better than in the 80s as a computer today can make billions of operations per sec while in the 80s humans had to do all by themselves...) is less effective than the F-22. For me it's bullshit.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-06/diy-synthetic-aperture-radar-system-250

From close proximity the details of the plane visible quite well by a radar.


So I don't think that the lenses/ prisms help too much to hide the  shape / characteristic of the plane.

Emm... reflectors...radar...reflectors...

Isos wrote:PS: Reagan was the one who ordered the "star wars" plan which was a big fake. Patriot PAC-3 was meant to be a part of it and look how it is bad compare to S-400.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:<img src="http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/small_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/06/f14.jpg?itok=IIo17nPC" >
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-06/diy-synthetic-aperture-radar-system-250

From close proximity the details of the plane visible quite well by a radar.


So I don't think that the lenses/ prisms help too much to hide the  shape / characteristic of the plane.

Emm... reflectors...radar...reflectors...

Electromagnetic radiation on different wavelength.

miketheterrible wrote:I also think it has a lot to do with the modular mentality of the Russian military development. Where a jet like Su-27 has a huge potential upgrade path and evolution, while the US jets are pretty damn closed with a few exceptions. Same goes for their ground based systems like the S-300 AD and the T-72 tanks.  Lots of massive potential to them in their upgrade paths.

The idea also of building a be all end all fighter jet like F-35 was the same mistake as the F-4 was. Not saying F-4 was a bad jet. Contrary it was a good jet. Problem is it wasn't really amazing at anything. Jack of all trades, master of none. F-22 is a superior fighter jet/interceptor than F-35. F-35 though is a better strike jet because it can do it while F-22 is specific to its roll like MiG-31 is.

I don't think the day of specific task jets is over yet. Su-34 does a far better job striking and bombing than a Su-30 or 35 while Su-35 is by far a better air superiority jet than a Su-30 or Su-34. Su-30 is pretty damn good at both striking /bombing and air superiority. Just not as good as the Su-35 is at air superiority or Bombing as the Su-34.  Tools for the right job. I am a fan of the Su-30 because a nation like lets say Bangladesh, Bealrus, Iran or even Syria needs a jet that is good on all accounts and thus making it cheaper than to have multiple types of jets. But for a nation like Russia, the Su-30 is a good system for operations in Syria. But for a potential grand scale war, a Su-35 and Su-34 would be far better choices.

Of course Su-30 still hasn't reached full potential and next upgrade path with India will push the system further.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-06/diy-synthetic-aperture-radar-system-250

From close proximity the details of the plane visible quite well by a radar.


So I don't think that the lenses/ prisms help too much to hide the  shape / characteristic of the plane.

Emm... reflectors...radar...reflectors...

Electromagnetic radiation on different wavelength.

Readings of this kind with this type of sensor are close to being literally useless.

"...As far as a strategic bomber goes, we have completed unique work at the Kazan Aircraft Plant, reestablished, but on a new technological basis, electron beam welding that is needed to develop the titanium fuselage on which the technology of the Tu-160, our great strategic bomber, was always based. And we will recreate this aircraft, undoubtedly, on a new technical basis, with new electronics, new weapons, but this doesn’t mean that we have abandoned plans to develop the future aviation system of long-range aviation [PAK DA]. Work on it is beginning, as on the future aviation system of military-transport aviation [PAK VTA], and on a medium military-transport aircraft. Decisions were made recently in Sochi. We will produce it, and we’ll have it around 2023-2024. At the end of this year, we are planning for a small, light transport aircraft to fly. For our army, which is compact, it’s important to have the possibility of being instantly redeployed to another theater of military operations where some threat is growing. In this way we’ll repulse any aggression by potential enemies not with great numbers, but with the great skill and mobility of our Armed Forces.”

At the end of this year, we are planning for a small, light transport aircraft to fly.

The armaments program could accelerate or slow development of the future Tupolev PAK-DA strategic bomber as Tupolev begins reviving production of the 1981-vintage Tu-160 “Blackjack” supersonic heavy bomber. The Russian defense ministry plans to order 50-60 units and upgrade the existing fleet to the new Tu-160M2 standard. http://aviationweek.com/defense/maks-airshow-spotlights-russian-aerospace-industry-transition?NL=AW-05&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001576407&utm_campaign=10764&utm_medium=email&elq2=55d98ae42c504495acf7045ecb64c027

Tsavo Lion wrote:In 2014, more than 100 Tu-22Ms were in use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

Military still have not abandoned the production of IL-96 in the version of the tanker?

No, the project is on the agenda. The development of this project involves the creation of a whole multifunctional complex. This project is interesting for us, besides, this is an extension of life to the Il-96 family.

What about the contract for the IL-76MD-90A in the interests of the RF Ministry of Defense? It is known that there were problems with calculation and calculation materials (RCM).

The serial contract was signed before the signing of the contract for development work. In the process of clarifying the technical appearance, it became obvious that the price set in the serial contract does not cover production costs and minimal profitability. Now we are introducing the new RCM. The customer was given three cars under a serial contract, but so far in a simplified form. OCD is over in 2019. In 2018, we will connect the fourth car to testing. At the beginning of next year, we will hand over a promising tanker, next year we intend to produce three cars, in 2019 - five, and then together with the refuellers should reach the level of production to 12 aircraft per year. There is an additional interest on the part of customers from those countries where the IL-76 is currently in operation.

What can you say on the basis of the operation of Su-35S fighters and Su-34 bombers in Syria?

There were requests from the military for further improvement. We appreciate this because we have a unique opportunity to formulate concrete questions on the basis of the results of operation in real combat conditions, we are working on solving them. But the main thing that I can say calmly and confidently is that the planes have confirmed the inherent characteristics. They showed themselves not at the test site, but in real conditions. As a result, Su-34 and Su-35 already have an interest in foreign customers.

Program PAK FA in what state?

Nine flight copies are made, we will produce three more - and we will execute the contract for ROC. In 2019 we have to supply the first sample to the troops.

Under the new state armaments program, what types of combat aircraft will be procured?

MiG-35, Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-35S - all of our advanced line.

A MiG-35 in the ship version will be?

It all depends on the customers.

An additional order for a ship MiG-29K military do not want to do?

So far, the existing composition is sufficient. But if the military raise the issue of expanding the aircraft carrier group, we are ready to participate.

The resumption of production of the Su-33 in principle is not planned?

A number of ideas are being discussed. But it seems to me that light decked fighters could fully provide the functionality that was previously provided by heavy ones.

Prospects for the Be-200 amphibious aircraft as you see it?

Within the framework of the current contract with the Ministry of Emergency Situations, we have a firm order for six aircraft, plus six they still want to order. There are foreign customers: Thailand, Indonesia, signed a contract with Argentina, signed a contract with China. China ordered two aircraft, two more are provided with an option. We are negotiating with the Chileans. Although, as I was taught by experienced people, advance payment is the best confirmation of strong friendship. Approximately for the next few years there is an order for 10-12 cars.

Is the military machine interesting?

Yes, we are updating the contract now. I hope that the whole order will be for five or six aircraft. In general, the Be-200 is a unique machine: it would be possible to make a squadron that will fly around the world, extinguish fires, save people, improve the ecology. This is a weighty reputational plus, when Russian aircraft help save people and nature. It is clear that it will cost money and talk about full self-sufficiency is difficult. A similar idea, incidentally, was discussed jointly with the French, we had a joint venture where we were engaged in the European certification of the Be-200. Unfortunately, all this was suspended, but in the conditions of the renewal of Russian-French relations, maybe we will really return to this. For us, an additional order for such machines would be very useful. Be-200 is not a suitcase without a handle. This is a unique aircraft, this is the development of the competence for hydroaviation, this is, finally, the loading of the enterprise in Taganrog.

What about the replacement of the Ukrainian engine with the Be-200? The French said that they are interested in participating in such a project, putting on the Be-200 "pop-up" version of the SaM-146. But they have no money for this project: that is, they only hope for the Russian budget.

While we are discussing different options with the United Engine-Building Corporation and foreign partners. It is important to minimize the potential costs of time and money.

miketheterrible wrote:https://sputniknews.com/russia/201707231055799517-russia-aerospace-forces-new-aircraft/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

So the airforce is going to receive over 100 aircraft next year.  And the understanding for 2018-2025 is that the airforce is going to take precedence.  Meaning more emphasis on modernizing and expanding the airforce.