dionisFrom Otaku’s post above:
Also known as the AL-35 :p 😉
dionisOh, so that’s what they’re putting in Su-34s these days. Thanks for the info, most informative.
Hhmmm??
AFAIK, the Su-34 has the AL-35? Al-31FM? (Same thing?)
No TVC, improved thrust AL-31 from the Su-27 basically.
Same as Su-27SM?
———
Curiously enough, the Su-37 Terminator flew with the AL-37FU with 3D TVC? This is the same engine as the 117S – or a predecessor?
dionisHey guess what, after checking a recent Andrei Formin article on the Su-35/117C, it claims the 117C entered flight testing aboard Su-27M (710) in March’04- the same time as the scaled-down AL-41F (41F-1A), sooooo…I wager the AL-41F-1A is the 117C redesignated (maybe co-developers weren’t happy with the AL-41 label being used).
Yeah, that sounds right. Al-41F-1 was the 117S, while the higher power expected 5th gen engine should be the Al-41.
dionisFirst thing first ,I dont know if Yakhont exist , for what ever best existed of Yakhont , has been translated to Brahmos, which can be termed as Yakhont plus.
Russia has made a commitment to India that they will go for Brahmos as well , starting with Groshkov class.
So we should stop bringing Yakhont into picture henceforth , unless proven that it operationally exist and not on paper.
Now comparing Klub with Brahmos , I think Brahmos is one notch above Klub.
In terms of Speed and Accuracy even in a Land Attack Role in complicated target environment , Brahmos was able to hit the target with zero CEP.
In terms of Low RCS , contrary to popular believe a non-turbofan , ramjet engine which has low RCS in frontal view , so RCS of Brahmos will be equal or less than Klub , the heat signature will be higher but the heat signature is just of academic interest considering the limited range the IR sensors will be effective , specially if this missile is flying low and fast.
In terms of intelligence the Brahmos is more intelligent system than Klub , co-ordinated attack like that of Granit is possible in Brahmos besides multisensors is being worked on as we speak.
Besides the whole thing is software programmable in Brahmos which means new upgrades and algo are possible through out its entire life cycle.
Lethality wise Brahmos will be better than Klub.
IMO the Brahmos should be a system which is atleast 1 to half a generation ahead of Klub
The Klub has a far lower attack profile, so low it’s kind of ridiculous. Would make radar detection virtually impossible with it being 3m above waves.
dionisThe Indian version of PAK FA is not scheduled to fly in 2009 anyway its like 2014 the first flight. It will be tailor made for the IAF with a two crew cockpit etc.
Bingo.
dionisWhatever happened to the Alpha?
As for the other two I’d have to say it depends. If you can hit it a ways away then Klub is just a subsonic cruise missile which is relatively easy to hit assuming you see it. On the other hand if you can’t attack it until the end game I’d give it the advantage over Yakhont/Brahmos because it’ll be going faster and it’s smaller.
Specs – flying low I’d assume the subsonic –> supersonic phase happens right when it approaches radar horizon.
Yakhont: 120 – 300KM / 250KG warhead / 5-15m attack altitude / Mach 2.5 / 8.9m length
Klub (3M-54E): 220KM / 200KG warhead / 3m attack altitude / Supersonic / 8.2 m length
Klub (3M-54E1): 300KM / 400KG warhead / sea-skim / Subsonic / 6.2m length
Relatively similiar systems if you compare supersonic – supersonic.
dionisYes you have made many posts full of baseless propaganda and mindless cheering for RuAF and the PAK-FA even whilst all recent sources would indicate it is not what you think it is and the project is certainly not going to plan. The way its going you are going to be left extremely red faced, much like the RuAF will be.
What recent sources? Western chauvinist experts who are Russophobic like yourself, and have no access to any Russian inside sources due to the heavy secrecy of the matter? :rolleyes: My “baseless” propaganda is what I gather from Sukhoi interviews. Much better than anything you’ve (not) provided.
Real sources, or GTFO!
dionisIn all politness i must ask how the hell do you know that? You have absolutly no better picture of the program then the next person believe it or not and all recent reports would suggest it is infact you who is misguided and over-awed by this project and not the western commentators who are wrong. Suck it up and live with it instead of making a fool out of yourself.
You have anything to support any of this crap from actual Russian MoD or Sukhoi sources? I think not.
I have been using nothing except material from Sukhoi or high up Russian officials to make my claims – links included.
You, however, are talking out of your posterior.
I’m not even going to repeat my claims, and I’ve posted them over and over, with links.
dionisNot claims but apparently painful facts for some.
That’s what you’d like them to be. :rolleyes: There is no shortage of funding or personnel at Sukhoi for this project.
With computing tech today, and Pogosyan’s statement about how they have been doing extremely heavy research in stealth, there’s nothing that will stop Sukhoi from making a first rate airframe.
dionisWhat’s he using as sources lol? There’s an 8 ton weapon payload that’s been released by Sukhoi, so it’s approximately in the Raptor class.
I think it’s time I repost about the most official interview on the PAK-FA out to date.
The other being the Pogosyan talk at the F-22 demo in the UK. If someone could pull that up it would be great. It’s here he mentioned it would compete with the Raptor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlCHYwIxgeE&feature=related
The captions are about the 5-th gen fighter – don’t confuse it with the Su-35 footage from the test flight. It’s considered a tech prototype for the T-50.
dionisI am not aware of any 533 mm tube which can be retrofitted to fire 650 mm weapon , what they do is they use liners for 650 mm tube so that they can fire 533 mm weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-16
Could be a mistake. Might be worth some googling.
dionisOnix’s diameter is over 650mm, around 700 mm so it’s psysically impossiple it to be fired on any TT in any submarine. So you can drop that arguing out. And again and again if wikipedia or some other western (read english language) site gives some “data” on some russian or soviet system which is based on estimation, don’t get too hanged upon it.
Well I don’t see any Russian encyclopedia links around.
If a 533mm tube can be retrofitted to fire 650mm weapons, the same can be done to a 650mm tube. I would assume this is some kind of modification to fire a larger diameter weapon.
dionisWhat scenario are you using? An attack on Moscow? You’re using a 1 vs 1 analysis -plane vs. SAM. Any attack on a sophisticated air defense is going to be a major effort and involving F-22/F-35/EA-18G/F-18E/F(and if a coalition force is involved- Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens,etc..), EW aircraft, ESM aircraft, cruise missiles/AGM-130/AGM-84/AGM-88D/E/ALARM/GBU-39/40/stealthy stand off weapons(i.e. JSOW-ER/JASSM-ER, decoys), to say the least. To say that a lot of confusion will be going on for the SAM operators is an understatement.
Ah right, it’s about Iran right? Using a couple good SAM systems to stop one of the most heavily armed air forces in the world? That’s a bullsh1t comparison from the start, the US doesn’t need any F-22s or F-35s for that. None. Zilch. A bunch of B-52s and F-18Es will do the job.
Cause you know, any formidable DEFENSE will have multiple batteries of S-300PM/S-400/TOR/Pantsyr/Buk-M2/Su-35/PAK-FA/MiG-31/A-50/Tu-160/Tu-95MS/Tu-22M3 employing Kh-101/555/31P/31A/29/35/38/36 bla bla bla.
If you want to get off on the wonderous USAF destroying 1960 era SAMs in the Middle East or a few batteries of the S-300, you are well, easy to please. :rolleyes:
Just like with SAMs and Fighters, EWLRS is going to be detectable before it can detect. Assuming it does detect, it can’t provide precise information about the F-22/F-35, just that they’re in the area. In any event these sites will be high priority targets, as will cell networks.
EWLRS is as you guessed – long range. Good luck flying right to it.
An IADS with overlapping coverage for legacy fighters is far less problematic than when having to deal with targets where you have perhaps a 1/10- 1/100th the detection range. You need A LOT more radars, and A LOT more missiles/launchers, to achieve the same coverage. Not even Russia can afford to have overlapping coverage of the entire country, much less every possible target.
But America can afford to just do anything they like? I don’t think so.
They are never going to touch anything that Russia will directly protect.
Which makes the problem much easier, as most allies are of much smaller size, which means you can have some serious overlapping defenses.
It’s not a matter of the signal being detected. It’s a matter of the signal being recognized. The way LPI works is by not looking like a search radar to a foe’s RWR/ESM systems. This doesn’t mean that it’s invincible or undetectable. It does mean that it’s not a certainty that a foe will be alerted in time to implement defensive tactics. Remember- F-22s have flown against aircraft with very good ESM/RWR systems in training, and been very successful.
Right, as is with the S-300PM/S-400 LPI radars. Fact is, you don’t need specifics. Altitude is all nice, but once you know the coordinates of the enemy, you problem just got 10 times simpler.
These “great” aircraft have been F-15s – hardly new line technology.
dionisSome sphere not all , if you need global reach and capability a conventional submarine is not what it can do.
Any ways a diesel submarine has it own disadvantage even in littoral operation specially when its snorkling.
Snorkeling can be a minor annoyance for the Kilo without AIP.
This simply calls for better planning of operations.
I will also remind you, Russia does NOT need global reach. They aren’t going to defend Venezuela from US invasion – because no such thing will happen.
This is from Rubin Website
The special feature of the submarine “Amur 950” is the arrangement of missiles in vertical launchers and its readiness to be used fast, including salvo firing. The ammunition of the “Amur 950” submarine consists of:
* 10 vertical missile containers with cruise missiles: anti-ship missiles 3М-54E1 and/or missiles 3М-14E against land targets; missile launchers are of universal type;
* 4 torpedo tubes with universal torpedoes (plus 2 extra torpedoes) providing the capability to attack submarine targets or surface targets from close range.The submarine “Amur 950” is capable of striking massive missile blow in salvo of up to 10 missiles during not more than 2 minutes. For self-defense the small size sonar decoys are provided located in the launchers in the submarine superstructure. As a result, during patrol the submarine can perform efficiently any combat task.
The Lada or Amur 1950 has AIP system and no VLS tube , the TT cannot launch a 650 mm Brahmos
I see nothing here about the Yakhont, which is not exactly a Brahmos.
Most of the links suggest TT fired Yakhonts to be a possibility.
Again, the Amur is irrelevant, as it’s a monkey model Lada.
Bastion strategy can offer a good protection , but its not a substitute for acoustic quietening and qualitative submarine , one of the key reason why Russia is going for a new class of qualitatively better subs and majorly upgrading Delta 4
Dont mix strategy of employment/deployment with submarine quality and performance viz a viz the enemy she is facing.
They need new submarines no matter what the strategy is. Clearly, they aren’t just going to build more Delta 4 or Typhoon subs, so they are going to get the Borei class now. With this being said, bastion strategy is in no way in danger right now.
8 – 12 Yasen will be a dream run …… lets see even if it crosses 5
This isn’t 1991 or 1999 – it’s 2009.
If they can operate 8 – 10 Oscar II, 8 – 10 Akulas – they can get that many Yasen.
If the core is to be:
Borei
Yasen
Light SSN
Lada
It only makes sense to have at least a dozen heavy Yasen subs, which will pack far less firepower than even an Oscar II. I personally think the Russians are simply monitoring the US naval activity and responding directly to it. Being half a step behind merely saves money and offers you no real disadvantage.
Numbers do matter , quality , number and delivery on time matters , in case of russia its hampered with limited resource and the number of project that resource has to feed.
What limited resources? New shipyards are being built, money is more available than ever post USSR period, new systems are being put in place on ships, and the ships are actually being built.
dionisThe key problem was Tu-142M was it was maintenance nightmare , so any any point of time only 4 out of the 8 were operationally available.
Every 3 – 4 months they had to go through maintenance ,we had this lengthy discussion at BRF and the conclusion we reached was ” the benefits of P-8I over modernized Tu-142M will be in terms of reduced maintenance efforts and costs, operational costs and most importantly, availability that was sorely lacking in the Tu142. The money saved can pay for more sorties or planes, depending on how it is invested ( tsarkar )”
Avionics wise comparing any P-8I with modernized Tu-142M is comparing Apple to Oranges , but P-8I will take atleast half a decade to get operational in IN.
Wow is that so? The Tu-95 has never had any maintenance issues in Russia. Might be Indian shenanigans (of which there are plenty, having lived there for a decade myself) – or might be Russian 50 year experience with the Bear.
Probably a bit of both.
Sign In
