BlitzoFantastic images, thanks for posting. J-20 has a lot of good angles, albeit some ugly ones as well, e.g. head-on.
I think head on is one of the best angles of the plane tbh; I think the forward 20-45 degree angle is the more unflattering angle for it.
BlitzoCanopy doesn’t seem to be tinted.
Hard to say; some photos of earlier J-20s had obvious tint, which then disappeared for other photos of the same aircraft…
I imagine the presence may depend on lighting conditions.
BlitzoAntonov documents behind the Y-20 project:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2100325.html
From the original post:
http://www.aviaport.ru/conferences/18875/675.html#p407978With some comments regarding what was achieved from the intended design.
This is from the same guy who broke the An-178 ballast-weight-problem story.
Interesting, goes back to 2004.
I wonder how Antonio’s involvement went from there…
BlitzoBuk-M3 is taking the naval 9M317M missile. ME is just the export designation of the naval round, but it has not been sold/seen until we saw admiral Grigorovich testing what is clearly the 9M317M (from arms-expo mockups previously seen, the layout was identical).
Buk-M3 has been delayed for many years and has been in testing for quite a few as well so it using a land-variant of the same round is unsurprising, plus we don’t really know if 9M317M for VLS Shtil was even ready for production when the first export brochures appeared almost a decade ago.
Back in 2006 (around time 9M317M for Shtil started being advertised) the 9M317M was identified as intended for the Buk-M3 complex:
http://www.rosprom.org/news1198.htmlSuccesful interceptions with the 9M317M were completed in 2011:
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/42566/So the 11356s are certainly using the naval flavor of the same missile intended for Buk-M3.
Range is more than just missile performance, so I am speculating a bit about the 70km range of the VLS Shtil complex, but the missile certainly has the capacity for it.
Right — in that case, do you know where the designation of 9R31M came from in relation to Buk-M3? Mistranslation?
And are there any more recent reports (in Russian?) about Buk-M3 tests confirming the designation of the missile? A search in English has turned up no results — and the second link you listed does not seem to mention 9M317M as the missile, only that the Buk-M3 was tested?
(In essence, I’m wondering if there is a possibility that the 9M317M designation for the Buk-M3’s missile may have changed between 2006 and 2016)
BlitzoShtil-1 is the name of the complex. The predecessor was Uragan (both Naval Buk basically), also just called Shtil for export. I have seen Shtil-1 refer to the arm-launcher and VLS complex both, but we are dealing with mostly export brochures from almost a decade ago, hence my bet the domestic VLS shtil with 9M317M can reach out farther.
9K317 refers to the complex, the missile is conventionality enough the 9M317M. Don’t be fooled by the closeness to the 9M317 round, the actual missile is completely new in construction.
I see.
So if the Buk-M3/9K317 really does use the 9M317M missile, then what does that mean for the 9M317ME? Because, based on designation, I was under the impression that 9M317ME is the export version of 9M317M… but I’ve also read that Buk-M3 is meant to be using a missile of a different designation (I’m not familiar with Russian designations, but I’ve come across everything from 9K317M to 9R31M for Buk-M3).
Also, Buk-M3, as far as I understand, is only meant to start to be fielded with land based systems this year. Considering that the 9M317ME was offered for export in the mid 2000s (?) along with the Shtil-1 VLS complex, if Buk-M3 really is using the domestic variant of the missile (9M317M) first offered about a decade ago, then is it using literally the same missile or merely the same airframe with more advanced internals/guidance? (And if it’s using more advanced guidance to achieve the significantly greater performance of Buk-M3, wouldn’t that warrant a new designation for the missile?)
Furthermore, in regards to the Project 11356 FFGs — considering they were first laid down in 2010, well before the Buk-M3 had finished development or begun being fielded with land based systems, is it reasonable to conclude that the ships are using the domestic version of the 9M317ME missile instead of the Buk-M3’s missile in their VLS?
Or putting it another way, has there been any indications to suggest that there is a naval-compatible Buk-M3 missile intended for the Shtil-1 VLS complex?
BlitzoWell, the VLS Shtil uses the new 9M317M missile, which is also slated for Buk-M3, where it achieves a 70KM range.
The actual performance of the VLS Shtil on domestic ships is not publicized, and we have debated on her as to the radar/range capacity of the unit, but the missiles can reach out to 70km.
The 9M317 was able to reach 50km in its variants, so I would wager the newer round improves on it.9M96/E2 range is routinely quoted as 40km/120km, but the domestic variants are known to reach out to 60km/150km. So all in all, hard to say
Thanks for the reply.
I was under the impression that Shtil-1 is the name of the missile though? That is, 9M317ME and Shtil-1 are the same thing?
From a quick search, most places say that Buk-M3 is meant to be fielding the 9K317M… different to 9M317M/9M317ME/Shtil-1?
edit: or is Shtil-1 the name of the VLS or perhaps the naval SAM system itself and that the missile it uses is different? However, most of the brochures and advertisement online for Shtil-1 only associates it with the 9M317ME missile, not the Buk-M3’s 9K317M?
BlitzoNice pic of 4 ships under construction. The ships are Petr Morgunov (Project 11711), Admiral Butakov (project 11356), Admiral Istomin (project 11356) and oceanographic research ship Yevgeniy Gorigledzhan.
The ship in the 2nd pic is the 6th ship of project 11356 (Admiral Kornilov).
Are those three Project 11356 FFGs still going to go to Russia, or are they the ones recently proposed to be exported to IN? (or putting it another way, are those three of the second batch of Grigorovich class FFGs the ones affected by the Ukraine powerplant issue?)
Also, does anyone know what Shtil variant the Project 11356 actually uses? Over in the IN thread a few weeks back there were mentions that the class would be using a new 70km variant, but an article on Jane’s about Admiral Essen’s commissioning quoted an official sounding fellow (Navy Shipbuilding Department chief Vladimir Tryapichnikov), that the ship fielded Shtil-1 instead (50km)… with the quote being repeated on a number of other sites as well, TASS, Navyreco, among others.
http://www.janes.com/article/61116/russian-navy-receives-admiral-essen-frigate
BlitzoInteresting video. At around 39minutes in.
Is this the first real look at the cockpit of the Pak-fa. I know there has been mock ups for testing which always look like Su-35 cockpits. Two large LCD screens. But this video seems to show one large screen, or possibly a better layout of two screens with almost invisable border line. Looks more like F-35 large screen. What do you guys think.
Unfortunately, that part of the clip is depicting the F-35’s cockpit :/
See the first few seconds of this clip, and compare with the 39min mark of that one.
BlitzoIt’s not really reclamation. There’s nothing being reclaimed: it’s newly built.
Yes, I think virtually all of the reclamation that was going to be done has been done by this point… at least by China. Vietnam might try to have a go themselves.
BlitzoJangbogo should be happy to hear this..:)
India to acquire 3 Admiral Grigorivich class frigates from Russia
I imagine these would have the VLS version of Shtil, which would be a nice upgrade in SAM launching capability compared to the single arm launchers of the initial Talwar class.
BlitzoWhen a Grippen (or even relatively obsolete blk30 F-16 or F-15C) fires its AIM-120, radar automatically selects appropirate PRF, and there is a time to impact counter on the HUD. When that counter reaches 0, pilot will know target is either hit, or missile missed its target.
When a basic Su-27S fires its R-27RE, pilot is still responsible to watch target vector (shown on the left bottom side of the hud) and switch between MED and HI pulse-repetition frequencies when closure rate changes as target maneuvers. If an approaching target, for example, makes a sharp turn, and if target is far enough, Su-27 will lose its radar lock as it will still be scanning for an approaching target.
And Su-27 pilot has to guestimate how long it will take for missile to travel to its target, and use the chronometer on the instrument panel to guesstimate if missile has reached -and missed- its target, hit it, or still on its way towards it.
Other than that, RLPK has pretty good IFDL and in 4 vs 4, I am pretty confident Flankers’ SA will be just as good as the Grippens’, and even in STT mode, each Flanker tracking a Grippen will share all its data with other Flankers. With good pilot training to manage the RLPK with its user unfriendliness, its not really suprising to see baseline Su-27S still could stand up pretty well againist modern Grippens with AIM-120Bs in BVR; and I would put my money on Su-27S if it comes to WVR combat.
I’d be interested in knowing which BVR missiles each side had access to simulate.
From what I understand the RTAF only has AIM-120Cs as their only AIM-120 variant in service, which I presume is fitted with their Gripens… though I could be wrong
I think only a few Chinese Su-27SKs and J-11As have been upgraded with active radar homing R-77s, and most still rely on R-27 variants, but the situation is murky. Overall, I think compounding the superior avionics of Gripen (likely including radar performance) with their likely superior missiles, I think the Flankers in this case would’ve found BVR pretty rough.
More interesting would have been if J-11Bs were sent instead of Su-27SKs and J-11As… but that’s never going to happen, not in the foreseeable future.
Blitzoi sort of assumed that, apart from russian show-off test pilots, west has the best regular pilots,
and i didnt expect china would put such emphasis on quality training
They’ve been pretty insistent on increasing the realism of their exercises for the last few years, and for the air force in particular they made some large gains that began since the mid 2000s.
Tphuang wrote a fairly comprehensive blog post about it a few years back, and while some parts may not be 100% accurate and is not up to date, it does give some good background as to what the state of training was in the mid to late cold war up to now.
So increased pilot competency, especially for 4th gen planes, shouldn’t really be that much of a surprise.
Blitzodid anyone else take note on this part: “Chinese appear to have sent their best pilots, Thais said they had never seen anything like it from western air forces”
how many hours do chinese pilots get ?
Specific numbers are hard to come by, but it’s generally accepted that flying hours have been increased substantially since the mid 2000s, especially for 4th generation aircraft.
I’m more interested in why the Thai pilots think the Chinese sent their best pilots, for all they know their past exercises with western air forces didn’t have their pilots show their stuff, or maybe they’d underestimated the Chinese pilots quality to begin with.
I imagine the Flankers would’ve lost quite badly in BVR, considering they’re very early Su-27SKs/J-11As, so that is probably where the 4-0 came from.
BlitzoHere’s a scan of the relevant part of the article itself…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246999[/ATTACH]
BlitzoYeah, seems pretty quiet as of late. How about that X-47 sized drone? Havent seen anything about it since the taxiing tests i believe.
It made its maiden flight in November, 2013. Early this year they said they’d finished their testing they were doing for that particular airframe — i.e.: they’ve obviously done a lot of testing that we just didn’t know about, which is about par for the course.
There may or may not be an updated variant of that drone that will emerge some time this year, but unsure.
Sign In
