VVS Russian Airforce Force: News #2

post by Kiko above

We keep hearing about the MiG-41 as being a newer faster MiG-31, but they might be going more radical and it might be more of an SR-71 like platform with a much larger aircraft to allow internal weapons and a large internal weapon supply that is designed to fly very fast and be a Tu-22M3 sized aircraft...

It could also be the first reveal of the PAK DA, but equally there are lots of other things it might be that they have managed to keep secret.

They seem to be talking about something entering service which means the MiG-41 and PAK DA are less likely because it will take some time for testing.

Maybe they are talking about an airship that can operate at enormous altitudes rather than enormous speeds, that can carry heavy payloads over enormous ranges... but not very quickly.

Most airships move at a top speed of about 100km/h at best so they don't win any speed records, but their ability to carry very heavy weights of unusual shapes and sizes perhaps without disassembly, from where it is made to where it is needed without roads or rail lines, runways or ports... imagine building that arctic base using an airship to deliver 1,000 tons of equipment at a time direct from Russia...

Conversely you could have an airship operating over a battlefield at 30km or higher altitude with radar and IIR sensors and optical sensors monitoring things and being a communications repeater for units and even controlling drones of all types using line of sight communications that would be tricky to jam or interfere with.

If you made it big and flat topped like a flying wing you could have an landing strip on top for operating UAVs from, and of course its capacity to carry guided bombs with glide kits would be enormous... you could carry 20 tons of ordinance as ballast and operate for a month and as you spot targets you can hit them... as you use up your ballast you operate higher in the air and safer... when your ordinance ballast is used up you can run some of the hydrogen keeping you in the air through fuel cells to generate electricity and the byproduct will be water which you can capture as more ballast, so loss of lift from consumed hydrogen and added water ballast would compensate for the used ordinance.

Equally you could compress some hydrogen gas so it is not a lifting gas any more and you could use it as fuel for a gas turbine engine for electricity. Solar panels giving more energy into the system and of course burning compressed hydrogen will generate water ballast too which can be put through a fuel cell with electricity from the solar panels to release they hydrogen for more lift if you need more.

Solar panels are becoming more efficient and lighter all the time and batteries and gas turbines and electric motors are all improving too, plus fuel cell technology and composite materials and computing power etc etc... the age of the airship will return.

Long range aviation means the strategic bombers, so it is something quite puzzling.
AFAIK the DA also have tankers at its disposal but you have to consider how in (post-) Soviet Russia it is the mission performed that made the aviation (in its meaning of an organized troop of the VKS) and not the contrary.
So, it's the mission effectively performed that decide what aviation would actually manage a plane or a version of it.
As an example, you had some Mig-23 versions enlisted in the IA, some other versions in the IBA and others in the same PVO.

I would so bet on a version of an already existing plane modified to perform some mission pertaining to the DA.

The MiG-31 K or I versions? the Mya-55 (long range recon/battle management)? An Il-78/90? a long range drone?
Let's wait and see.

All the reports mention:

“These will be completely new aircraft, based on new principles, with new aerodynamic and combat qualities,” he said.

So I don't think it will be an upgraded or modified existing aircraft.

The last time they promised a new aircraft they showed the Su-75... so I am looking forward to this.

Not getting my hopes up too high...

marcellogo wrote:Long range aviation means the strategic bombers, so it is something quite puzzling

Not really puzzling at all. If it's strategic aviation it means it will be most likely be the PAK-DA's reveal.
The PAK-DP should not be part of long range aviation but I do expect a reveal quite soon as well.

The BIG question remains - will it be a "MiG-41" or will it be a "T-67"? Either way I'll be happy!

A-100

A-100 is not brand new, though it is the most likely of the three to be going into serial production next year.

Maybe it is a PAK xx that is a new recon design for a long endurance AWACS/comms aircraft... perhaps airship based, perhaps drone (Sukhoi S-62) or maybe a new modification of the M-17/M-55 with all composite structure and new engines... perhaps still subsonic but using a ramjet when at altitude?

Something to look forward to.

Arrow wrote:And when is this supposedly mysterious plane supposed to be revealed?

its also mystery

I would like to see the anti-aircraft defense numbers.... as no one in the world has produced so many of these types of systems.

franco wrote:During the SVO, Russian troops have set a number of records in the use of certain types of weapons over the past few months. For example, in August 2024, the Russian Armed Forces used 792 Geranium family attack drones against the enemy, and in September, 1,339 such UAVs (almost 45 units per day), beating the previous record.

Over the past September, the Russian Armed Forces used more Geraniums than in the first quarter of 2024 or in the whole of 2023. This is due to the fact that the manufacturing plant in Alabuga has increased production. In October-December 2024, the Russian Armed Forces are expected to receive about 4.7 thousand more Geraniums, which means that they will be able to use them in quantities of more than 50 units per day.

An equally impressive record is the use of various guided aerial bombs. According to Ukrainian statistics, in June 2024, the Russians used 2,305 such munitions, in July - 3,091, in August - 3,046, and in September a record 3,381 KAB (for most of the month, the daily use was 117 pieces). It can be assumed that there will be a new record in October.

Another record is the number of MLRS attacks. According to Ukrainian statistics, in September 2022, the Russian Armed Forces carried out strikes 81 times per day. In March 2024, 113 daily strikes were recorded, in August - 119, and in September a record 153 MLRS attacks per day. This indicates an increase in the production of the necessary ammunition.

https://topcor-ru.translate.goog/52175-vs-rf-pobili-tri-sobstvennyh-rekorda-po-primeneniju-sistem-vooruzhenij-v-svo.html?utm_source=warfiles.ru&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

This is all good but I think they should increase production numbers for the Su-57 and build an actual flying prototype of the Su-75 before venturing to another aircraft design. Also, accelerate development of unmanned wingman drones like the S-70 Okhonik and Grom

Su-75 is just Sukhois initiative.  There isn't any buyers.

I think the Russian government is kind of looking back at the advantages of the older designs and will incorporate advantages of newer.  In this regard, it may very well be a Su-75 that will fill the roll and they are just now going to have a plan to incorporate that plane.

Like the MiG-25 design itself and the further improvement in the form of MiG-31, the MiG-23/27 lines were retired way too early and had a lot of future potential.

However much I like the Mig-23 - the "revived" or reworked Mig-23 is just fake news - or even trolling.

The small carrier project above was one of two possibilities and was developed in parallel with the Yak-41.
Very interesting but it all fell apart with the demise of the Soviet Union.

This is all good but I think they should increase production numbers for the Su-57 and build an actual flying prototype of the Su-75 before venturing to another aircraft design.

From a Russian military perspective the Su-75 is being funded by Sukhoi and is not costing them anything, they have nothing invested in it.

This is basically talking about the new MiG single engined 5th gen fighter... or possibly the light twin 5th gen fighter... depending on what the Russian AF decides it wants. The light twin jet might be for Carrier use only, or they might make an aircraft that is used on carrier and on land so an equivalent to the Su-57 which is also likely to have a carrier based version.


The MiG-23 is a long range fighter so would not be the ideal basis for this new fighter.... they want it small and light and cheap and easy to mass produce, so a stealthy Yak-130 is essentially what they are making.

It wont have enormous range and it wont have an enormous payload but it will carry modern weapons and be small and light and able to operate from stretches of motorway and be easy to support and operate... it will likely have modern AESA radar and EO systems and modern self defence avionics.

It is a cheap simple numbers aircraft that can serve in large numbers and fill the gaps between the more capable larger heavy fighters and heavy strike aircraft.

This video is wrong, they are not going to upgrade MiG-21s and MiG-23s, what they are realising is that heavy Sukhois are too expensive to operate in large numbers so they need a lighter single engined fighter to make up the numbers and fill the gaps... operate from smaller airfields closer to the front line.

This means more time on target and more modern sensors scanning enemy forces finding targets and threats and passing the information to the network.

Near the frontline this information can be shared with commanders of ground forces who can look at AESA radar scans in real time of the battlefield in front of them as well as high res IIR images and digital imaging of enemy positions so they can find and select targets to be dealt with by air power or artillery...

Real coordination between air power and ground forces and of course drones too.

Su-75 is just Sukhois initiative. There isn't any buyers.

I would say there will be plenty but the Russian AF is likely not one of them at the moment.

Mig-23 is the shitiest plane they had.

The F-16A is a shitty plane too, but the late model MiG-23s were actually rather good.

Many trash the swing wings because they had fixed positions and were manual, but really they were just super flaps.

Minimum sweep was for takeoff and landing and long range ferry cruise. Fully swept back allowed top speed flight at altitude and top speed at very low altitude without your eyeballs being shaken out of your head. The mid sweep offered the best manouver performance and was used when dogfighting...

No need to change angles most of the time a straight wing or fully swept wing would be useless in a dogfight and for takeoff and landing or ferrying the straight wing was the only option, and unless you wanted your eyeballs shaken out max sweep for top speed at any altitude and amazing acceleration too.

They didn't make Yak-141s because they keep crashing and are tricky to fly and can't carry very much in the way of payload to any great distance at any great speed.

Claims for performance were contradictory so max range could only be achieved without weapons and not flying supersonically, max speed could only be achieved without payload. The supposed payload was difficult to achieve with four wing pylons and an internal 30mm cannon.

They are not digging up their old fighters, they are recognising that they had single engined fighters and they were good for numbers and cheap and simple to operate... which is what they want now...

They are wanting a MiG which means this:



Not an upgraded MiG-21 or MiG-23/27.

However much I like the Mig-23 - the "revived" or reworked Mig-23 is just fake news - or even trolling.

I think they are taking reports that the Russian AF wants a single engined fighter and they turned to MiG and the makers of this video have not heard of the above MiG-5th gen light single engined fighter project.

Late mig-23 versions were totally outclassed by su-27/mig-29 even if they could be used as good interceptors.

Not strictly true, if you put newer AAMs on the late model MiG-23 and gave it a decent radar you would have quite a good aircraft.

Its acceleration was better than either later aircraft and in terms of manouver performance it was actually better than the 29 or the 27.

The real problem is that the western view of the MiG-23 was coloured by the export model which had downgraded systems that weren't a lot better than those fitted to the MiG-21. In fact the last MiG-23s exported actually had better IRSTs and comparable radar to the export model MiG-29s but accelerated better.

The MIG-29 and Su-27s have much more sophisticated wings that allow short field operation as well as mach 2+ flight with the extra weight and complication of swing wings and I am not suggesting they should be put back into service except by countries currently operating them.

With new radar and IRST and missiles and a new engine it has significant potential for growth, but so does the MiG-29 and Su-27 and with the same upgrade expense and effort you would get a better aircraft with the later designs, but that does not mean the MiG-23 is bad.

If Argentina had MiG-23s instead of Skyhawks and Mirages the British might not have succeeded in that conflict in 1982... the much better flight range and BVR missiles would have made the job of the Sea Harrier much more difficult... the Argentine pilots could fire from outside Sidewinder range and just keep launching missiles at the British aircraft till they smacked them down. Actually I would say the R-23 in the IR guided model would be ideal for shooting down Sea Harriers because the engine nozzles stick out sideways and are visible from almost every angle except directly in front making them horribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles.

Technically speaking mig-23 were not bad but it's not an aircraft to base your air force on when you have much better su-27 or even mig-21 that used to also have very good upgrades.

Well that is the point. They are talking about a light cheaper aircraft that is not as wonderful as the Su-35 or the Su-57, but can do a good job with new radar and new engines and new missiles.

The MiG-23 was not meant to be their only fighter, they had MiG-25 interceptors and MiG-21 short range interceptors and dog fighters... essentially the MIG-23s were replaced by Su-27s and the MiG-21s by MiG-29s, but the MiG-29s are being withdrawn... there are some MiG-35s being made, but they clearly are open to a single engined aircraft. Previously the main single engined aircraft they operate are the Yak-52 and soon Yak-152, and now potentially Mi-34.

Yak-141 was still a r&d program. It crashed during testing. With modern technology it would be a russian f-35. I agree it is shit for an air force but for naval use it is very good (long range interceptions with r-77M and antishipping missions).

Its performance was worse in every category to the MiG-29KR... in some cases by significant margins, and it would be expensive if they only operate from one and then up to perhaps three aircraft carriers...

VSTOL fighters is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Unless Yak can come up with an amazing new aircraft.. perhaps with electric lift jets that don't lose trust when the jet exhaust enters an air intake during landing or takeoff leading to a guaranteed crash because of an engine surge or engine stall.

With those carriers you easily multiply your naval power by 10. Facing 3 Gorshkov is 10 times easier than facing 3 gorshkov plus a little carrier that bring 3 ka-27 and 10 updated Yak-141.

I agree that carriers are force multipliers... they help threats be detected earlier and make threats easier to deal with, but tiny carriers are not value for money... which is why only small or poor countries have small carriers because that is all they can afford. Most navies go bigger where they can because bigger costs a little more but is worth it.

Sure you won't invade a country with it but that's not the mission of most navies around the world. China and India would rush to buy such ship. Egypt may be interested. Brazil too. Countries with big waters like Peru also.

The only useful purpose for such tiny carriers would be drone bases... sailing with ships carrying an enormous number of drones, including MALES and HALEs with landing recovery and launch options to further extend their range. A HALE launched from Russia flying to the middle of the Pacific could land and refuel and rearm if needed and they fly to places in central or south America. A flight the other way from the Northern Fleet base and it could meet a ship in the mid Atlantic and visit places in Africa and Central and South America too... but developing and producing a few hundred fighters that are that fragile and prone to crashing is not value for money.

Even if they do what they say they do it is less than a normal aircraft can do most of the time.

Unless they can fix the basic problems... like large internal fans or internal engines that are only used for takeoff and landing, and of course all the high pressure piping for puffer jets to the tail and wing tip and nose for stability in the hover... not to mention the very very hot engine exhaust directed at the flight deck and also reflecting up on the underside of the aircraft... which limits what sort of ordinance you can carry... I don't think it is anything other than an airshow toy.

A tiny drone carrier could make sense.... it could carry suicide drones for hitting ships and enemy drones and enemy aircraft and also to hunt down sea surface drones... but they have already said that of the two 40K ton helicopter landing carriers they are making now they will be fitting out one to carry drones.

If they eventually make CVNs the Kuznetsov might revert to Drone carrier too... maybe...

Who knows... in 10 years time they might decide an airship with its internal structure designed to act as a radar antenna could replace aircraft based AWACS platforms... normally the heat the big radars generate is a problem but on an Airship there is room for an enormous antenna and the heat it generates while operating is actually useful.

More importantly the ultra low frequency antenna for communicating with subs 500m under water is essentially a 3-4km long cable that works best when it hangs vertically. A Tu-142 has to fly at very close to stall speed to deploy it and keep it as straight as possible... an airship can just roll it out and leave it hanging all the time.

Modern composite materials that are light weight and strong and not flammable, hydrogen is cheap and can be used to power fuel cells and an electrical current from solar panels and gas turbines burning hydrogen can be used to generate heat and create water ballast and create hydrogen from water to create lifting gas as needed... plus electric drive engines to move around the place... it could stay airborne searching for targets for days.

Hell... you could bring an airship down to a container ship and attach the aircraft to the airship and then lift off up 5km and then drop the plane with its engines running to launch it into the air if you need to...

GarryB wrote:Its acceleration was better than either later aircraft and in terms of manouver performance it was actually better than the 29 or the 27.

The Mig-23's acceleration was quite something - which is a good thing for any interceptor, but it was never great as a dogfighter, and it's "manouver performance" was never better than the Mig-29 or the Su-27 as you'd like to claim.

Early Mig-23's could pull about 7 G's and the late MLD managed 8.5 G's. Both the Mig-29A and the Su-27P/S could do well over 9 G's.

Instantaneous turn rate is another good measure of dogfight performance. Turn rates are measured with a 50% fuel load. If you look at the instantaneous turn rate of the Mig-23 - the Mig-23M was around 16 deg/s, the later ML was around 18 deg/s and the MLD around 20.

Now if you look at the Mig-29A - the instantaneous turn rate was greatly increased over the Mig-23 to over 27 deg/sec. The Su-27P/S was even better at over 30 deg/s! The Su-27's figure ranks at the top of the list of all 4th gen fighters.

Power to weight ratio is another important factor. The Mig-23 MLD came quite close to the One to One mark at 0.9, but both the Mig-29 and the Su-27have a thrust to weight ratio of well over ONE.

Another performance factor in a dogfight to consider is the climb rate and here the Mig-23 is way off the mark when compared to the Soviet 4th gen fighters.

So when it comes to close combat performance the Mig-23 is eating dust.

GarryB wrote:They didn't make Yak-141s because they keep crashing

So how many crashes were there?

The Mig-23's acceleration was quite something - which is a good thing for any interceptor, but it was never great as a dogfighter, and it's "manouver performance" was never better than the Mig-29 or the Su-27 as you'd like to claim.

You are correct, but dogfighter is a loaded word. On paper the late model F-16s are better dogfighters than early model MiG-29s, but during tests in the 1990s the helmet mounted sights and radars and IRST and fire control systems along with the R-73 meant although in tests the F-16 got on the tail of the MiG-29 62% of the time they lost every engagement because they were ruled to have already been shot down by the MiGs.

With R-73s the requirement to dogfight is massively reduced, and considering its main opponent wouldn't be a MiG-29 or Su-27 but a Tornado or F-16 then its advantage would be BVR missiles rather than the ability to turn and fight... where the R-23 and later R-24 would give them an advantage over the Sidewinder only armed F-16s.

The later R-27s further improved their advantage over Sparrow armed F-15s.

AMRAAM changed this of course, but had the cold war continued the R-77 would have filled the gap. In fact without the end of the cold war and the west getting access to MiG-29s and R-73s and R-27s the US probably would not have rushed through the AMRAAM project and they would be operating Sparrows for much longer.

Power to weight ratio is another important factor. The Mig-23 MLD came quite close to the One to One mark at 0.9, but both the Mig-29 and the Su-27have a thrust to weight ratio of well over ONE.

That is funny, because I have been lectured to for years about how the MiG-29 is too high drag with two engines and a single engined aircraft would be much better.

Another performance factor in a dogfight to consider is the climb rate and here the Mig-23 is way off the mark when compared to the Soviet 4th gen fighters.

Most of HATO lost interest in dogfights when they got their hands on R-73s... there is no value in having a slightly faster acceleration and turn rate when the other guy just looks at you and launches a missile at you before you can get onto his tail and do the same.

So when it comes to close combat performance the Mig-23 is eating dust.

You could say the same of all the aircraft of that generation, but loaded with a new engine and new missiles and new modern radar it is going to be better than an F-35 while being a fraction of the operational cost.

If I didn't know about the MiG single engined 5th gen fighter or the Su-75 then putting the MiG-23 might be interesting, but it is obviously not really much of an option considering what is on the way.

The simplest solution for numbers of light fighters would be serial construction of MiG-35s right now and advanced development of the new single engined replacements so they can both be evaluated... MiG has one and Sukhoi has one and dare I say Yak might have one too... test them all and pick the one that fits the job best.

BTW Flying at top speed at low altitude through mountains, the MiG-23 is vastly superior to later aircraft with much bigger wing areas... for the same reason the F-111 is better at low altitude and high speed than the F-15E. It is the reason the Su-34 needs canards... bump dampners.

When the cold war ended the late model MiG-23s tended to have better radar and IRST than exported MiG-29s.

Su-27 has serious limits on G when the fuel tanks are full. The MiG-29 has limitations when carrying the centreline fuel tank.

So how many crashes were there?

Just one, but the cause of the crash could not be fixed... which would make it useless.

Hot gas ingestion into the air intake causing an engine stall as it comes in to land or if it is taking off is a serious fundamental problem they had no quick fix for.

The F-35 went for a large internal fan driven by the main engine so the downward thrust at the front of the aircraft was cold air that has not had the oxygen content removed through combustion of fuel, but the internal volume that fan takes up inside the aircraft... along with of course the internal weapon bays makes the aircraft a bit of a dog.

The Yak-41 has similar weapon capacity to a MiG-21. One centreline and two pylons under each wing. Even the base model MiG-29 has six wing pylons.

GarryB wrote:Just one, but the cause of the crash could not be fixed... which would make it useless.

Oh so it's just ONE crash. Another case of bad grammar and/or disinformation then?

The Harrier development program was marred by several accidents yet they were produced in fairly large numbers?
The SINGLE accident did not help much but the Yak-41 program was terminated when the Soviet Union was dissolved - DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS.
This fate was shared by MANY projects at the time. Period.

As for the Mig-23: It would have been pointless to try and develop 4th gen fighters that are inferior to the 3rd generation.
Fortunately the Soviets managed to avoid that embarrassing bit by developing 2 vastly superior machines compared to the previous generation!