Page 45 – Key Publishing

dionis

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 1,704 total)

← 1 2 3 … 44 45 46 … 112 113 114 →

Author

Posts
March 15, 2010 at 8:23 pm in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2005496

dionis
Participant

Impressive quantity of weapons. 😮

I assume this Project will replace Kirov and Slava classes. Rigth?

Hard to tell, this ship will replace the Udaloy and Sovremenny classes into one platform.

Whether a new nuclear or conventional cruiser will be developed remains to be seen. I would wage that both the Slavas and Kirovs have another 20 years left in them.

Weapons wise, this thing will dwarf any other destroyer out there.

Just like Yasen will be a hell of an attack sub.

March 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2005504

dionis
Participant

Russian Navy Destroyer Project 21956

March 15, 2010 at 6:47 am in reply to: The PAK-DA Saga Episode I: The beginning. #2425271

dionis
Participant

Maybe the Russians envisage it as a Backfire replacement to get well within missile range of a USN CBG using stealth? A super quiet sub could probably do the same job.

Ideally both would do it.

It’ll likely be around the size of the Backfire, maybe slightly larger.

Most likely overall LO and supersonic.

March 15, 2010 at 4:45 am in reply to: The PAK-DA Saga Episode I: The beginning. #2425279

dionis
Participant

They probably let long range weapons like Kh-101 LO signature do the talking , rather than develop a VLO aircraft which is very expensive and technically not within Russia design and industry ability to build.

Please. . . :rolleyes:

This isn’t 1980.

March 15, 2010 at 3:04 am in reply to: The PAK-DA Saga Episode I: The beginning. #2425292

dionis
Participant

Sooner or later the ‘Bulava’ will start behaving itself and in the medium term Russia will retain a formidable seaborne & land-based nuclear arsenal- a more than adequate deterrent. Why go through the expense of developing a new strategic (stealth) bomber? We’re not talking the nuclear triad’s numbers’ games of the USSR V. USA anymore. The Russian defence posture is totally different from the USSR. Costs of new warplanes, PAK-FA & UCAV development, warships, submarines, tanks etc. not to mention professionalising the services- will render PAK-DA largely ‘vapourware’ (imho).
[/IMG]

Non-sense. There is no way that Russia is giving up its strategic bomber ability. Especially since it’ll be about a decade worth of financing. The combined Tu-160 / Tu-22M3 / Tu-95MS approach that they are taking is a great idea. They should definitely give it the ability to carry both internal and external weapons loads – so that massive missiles like the Kh-32 and Kh-101/102 can be carried in large numbers for defense saturation.

March 15, 2010 at 2:46 am in reply to: Su-24 Fencer strike stores #2425300

dionis
Participant

Hi, hoping someone can clarify. For SEAD with Kh-58, what’s the typical/generic weapons load out?

My guess being one Kh-58 under the fuselage, the targeting pod under the fuselage, two drop tanks on the inboard pylons and two AA-8s on the outboard. Or can it carry multiple Kh-58s without sacrificing the drop tanks?

Any pics much appreciated.

Planeman

1 centerline drop tank, and 2x Kh-58U would make the most sense.

March 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2005656

dionis
Participant

Russia developing new generation destroyer.

http://www.militarynews.ru/EMAIN.ASP

Useless link?

March 12, 2010 at 6:32 am in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2005746

dionis
Participant

If Meteor has a low max range, it will be relatively inferior to missiles with higher ranges. Mission kills by scaring off enemy aircraft are success – and at long range, keeps the firing jet alive.

80KM kill range is hardly impressive either way for the longer-range proposed “medium range” A2A missiles. (RVV-AE-PD, AIM-120D).

March 11, 2010 at 5:48 am in reply to: Defending Mother Russia #2426860

dionis
Participant

Briefly skimming this, which was very nice, I can say I found an error:

The MiG-31’s AA-9 Amos is SARH.

March 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2427040

dionis
Participant

I’m not saying that on the T-50 intakes won’t be hidden, but IMO there are two options:
1. Hidden but not in 100%.
2. Hidden in 100% + degraded engine efficiency.

3. Hidden 100%, full engine efficiency (aka the option called “thousands engineers worked on this”).

March 9, 2010 at 12:55 am in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part Deux #2427728

dionis
Participant

Sea Raptor? 😀 Where the hell did they find any reason to even mention it…

March 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm in reply to: Gripen NG beats SU-35 in a2a #2428630

dionis
Participant

Well if by intelligently, you mean not emitting at max power, then the advantage of having all that detection range is put into perspective, and the odds are much more even.

More like using it when you have a fix from another less-detectable source (like IRST) or from other ground-based supporting radars, or other aircraft.

March 6, 2010 at 7:50 pm in reply to: Gripen NG beats SU-35 in a2a #2428639

dionis
Participant

It doesn’t have to. If a Flanker is flying around with its radar emitting at max power, the Gripen will know it’s location before it becomes visible on the Flanker’s radar.

That’s why it has to use its radar intelligently?! Which is kind of a given. . . :rolleyes:

March 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm in reply to: Gripen NG beats SU-35 in a2a #2428646

dionis
Participant

We will see the real prowess of western jets only when it takes on a big enemy. Even then the overhwelming numbers would be winning the war at the end of the day than any ‘tech’ superiority.

Bombing the **** out of Afghans and Iraqis and Air superiority over a nation with a hand full of fulcrums is not really the ideal test for any aircraft.

Radar-less Fulcrums at that! 😀

The loaded Gripen is hardly “stealthy” either, not to mention I would doubt its AESA will come even close to the range of the Irbis.

March 6, 2010 at 7:37 pm in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2428648

dionis
Participant

I tried to put up some data on the 3 generations of engine within AL-31 family , the data on the new 117 ( sfc/service life etc) is not known

AL-31FP —> Su-30MKI ( 4 + ) link

AL-31FP specifications:

T/W ~ 8:1

AL-31 ( 117C ) —> Su-35S ( 4++ ) link

AL-31(117S) specifications:

Full afterburning thrust,kgf 14,000 Normal / 14,500 Combat mode
Specific fuel consumption.min.kg/kgf.h 0.67
Weight,kg 1520
Length,m 4.99
Inlet diameter,m ~ 0.93
T/W ~ 9:1

AL-31 ( 117 ) —> PAK-FA( 5th Gen )link

AL-31(117) specifications:

Full afterburning thrust,kgf 15,000
Specific fuel consumption.min.kg/kgf.h 0.67
Weight,kg 1370 (1)
Length,m 4.99
Inlet diameter,m ~ 0.93
T/W ~ 10:1

How about the Su-27SM and Su-34 engine?!
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 1,704 total)

← 1 2 3 … 44 45 46 … 112 113 114 →