ZareThe sheer difference between manhour/material prices in USA and Russian Federation would render PAK-FA project a lot more cheaper. Keep in mind, that a lot of 5th gen elements have already been tested and implemented, or will be in near future.
ZareMiG-31, is MiG-31DZ/01DZ, original production Foxhound, without/with the aerial refuelling probe. When Phazotron chief sold information to USA, the MiG-31DZ/01DZ production was halted, and was switched to improved MiG-31B standard (R-33S missiles, SBI-16A radar, new ECM/EW/navigation/comm equipment). MiG-31BS is just MiG-31DZ/01DZ converted to MiG-31B standard.
Production of MiG-31B and conversion to MiG-31BS started in 1988, and im presuming that a lot of aircraft were produced/converted till 1993 (when economy collapsed).
Since nearly 50% of produced Foxhounds is in storage, my assumption is that all in-service aircraft belong to B/BS standard. You wouldn’t mothball modern versions, if you have “old” also…
MiG-31BM is dead. It wasn’t expected to carry R-37 like MiG-31M, just improved computers/internals giving a A2G capability to the radar, as well as capacity for AGM’s and R-77/73 AAM’s.
MiG-31BM is alive. Yup, but not the one from paragraph above. Official Russian sources stated that VVS is confirming the design parameters given by RSK MiG, and that program will get state-funding. It will be the “deep-modernization” to extend the potential of the interceptor fleet till 2020. System-wide upgrade, computers, cockpit, sensors, weapons. Engines not probable. Missiles; R-77E/M for long range, R-72/37M for ultra long range (whoever wins the tender), and AGM’s for mid-range radar strike, SEAD and antishipping role.
That’s everything that’s known and confirmed about it. No pictures, or further specifications, yet.
ZareI agree with your assessment Zare, but I thought that the ‘internal’ VVS version was Su-27BM – with ‘Su-35’ being used for export versions??
Yes, Su-35 is the export designation (Su-35/Su-27M in service for VVS).
Actually, Su-27SM is M’ed Su-27S. Serial version, modernized. So the Su-35BM should be Su-27M2 in service, because Su-27M was already adopted for ’80s SuperFlankers, and this is the second version of the SuperFlanker (if we don’t count bort 711 TVC’ed Terminator).
But, it’s hard to tell. Platypus should have been Su-27IB, but pressure from Sukhoi rendered it into Su-34.
If i was to ask, the Su-35BM should bare a designation of Su-37M and a codename of “Terminator II” :). It’s more close to Su-35(711) than to rest of the bunch.
Su-37 and S-37 (later changed to Su-47).
S-37 is a project name, for forward-swept wing designs, just like T-10 is the project name for Su-27. When project came to heavy prototype stage, it was given an OKB designaton of Su-47.
Do you have the sources that say this? How can you tell the AE version from the standard version?
None so hard, and others could be in Chinese, which i don’t understand. I can tell the difference by length. AE is a bit longer, and has a differently shaped nose a bit. I’ll post some charts later, and try to see if i can find those picture i was talking about.
The Adders already have a home on jam feature so a seperate passive homing model might not be necessary… perhaps just a software upgrade would do…
Don’t think so. USAF would do that already with AIM-120, especially when an PRM would be so fine in conjuction with ALR-94. They have excellent EW equipment, but still lack the adequate PRM.
ZareHow long the Su-27 will remain in Russian service?
All types of Flankers will be decomissioned somewhere near 2020. That doesn’t include Su-32, of course.
Su-27S are being upgraded to Su-27SM, and Su-35BM project is funded by the state, it will enter service to raise the VVS capabilities before PAK-FA goes into initial service (given current project status, we’re still years from that). Su-35BM has only 4+ gen airframe, everything else is 5th gen. It will probably be the last Flanker upgrade/version VVS will pursue.
I’ve heard about Vympel developed a model of the AAM R-27 in active radar homing guidance. Is it true? Is it in Russian service already?
R-27AE is the model, developed in 80’s, with Avtomatika 9B-1103M seekerhead, for terminal AR guidance. Inertial/midcourse on the intial stage of flight. 80 km engagement range. The missile is essentialy long-burn R-27ER with changed seekerhead.
It lost competition with R-77 for VVS. R-27 family has 8G limit, and are a lot more heavier and bigger than Adders. However, i’ve seen pictures of PLAAF Su-27SK with R-27AE on them. Several sources claim that China purchased these missiles.
They aren’t in active service, but Vympel has every state certificate to sell them out to potential buyers. On the other hand, R-27ER1 can be upgraded to R-27AE, so R-27ER1 users could just purchase seekers from Avtomatika.
Radar seeked R-27’s are a thing of the past. Altrough they have a nice range and are rather fast, nobody will purchase SARH missiles nowadays. R-27AE won’t sell at all, since RVV-AE has took it’s export field.
R-27ET1 could score possible market hits, until heat-seeking R-77 rolles out. Especially if MiG-35 wins the Indian tender, R-27ET1 can be used in a number of scenarios, conjucted with that excellent OLS-35 optronics from NII-PP. That’s the same situation with R-27EP1, passive radiation homed, as far as i know, it’s the only PR-AAM certified for export.
Since R-77 family is also modular, R-27’s would become totally obsolete in terms of export, once Adders get heatseeking and antiradiation seekerheads.
ZareKUB should be two-seat K variant…as for MiG-35, it’s a mixture of M/M2 technology, together with 3D TVC system from MiG-29OVT.
MiG-35 is surely attractive, it’s agility is fantastic, has a much greater payload than MiG-29A/S, more fuel on-board, true-multirole, two pairs of eyes, and 5th gen electronics (AESA radar, OLS-35 optronic complex)…
ZareI’m pretty much positive that i’ve seen information about additional rocket booster fit on both R-73 and R-27. Booster was used to leave the missile in V=0 in the air, from where missile used it’s onboard thruster to progress in opposite direction.
R-27 was unsuccessful because of it’s heavy reliance on control surfaces, but i’ve also read the R-73 passed the tests good.
Garry, any clues about the R-73RDM2?
ZareProper stealth requires a from scratch design. The Tu-160s are already being upgraded, and no doubt will continue to be upgraded while in service, but there is a limit to what you can modify in an existing design before you say you have reached the limit and it makes more sense performance wise to start from scratch.
Of course. I was just agreeing with ink, who said : “The fact is that, from a purely military point of view, designing and building a new strategic bomber that will not add capabilities that go beyond what the current Tu160 fleet offers will be a gross waste of time!”
Therefore, if the new bomber requirements doesn’t add many capabilities, it would be better to just upgrade Tu-160. However, new bomber has new requirements that Tu-160 airframe cannot fulfill.
ZarePVO is air defence and has been incorporated into the Russian airforce. The service this new bomber will be operational with would probably be the DA or long range aviation. Either way it will certainly be primarily a cruise missile carrier.
Typo, Garry. I was reffering to DA.
Very unlikely to be global… the Russians wouldn’t care to have the capabilities the US lusts after… you know… destroying targets world wide within hours of an event with conventional weapons. With their submarine forces however they do have a global strike capability and with conventional weapons added to existing bombers that were previously purely nuclear armed it makes sense that their replacement bomber will also have that capability.
Agreed. Main point on defence, for global stikes there are submarine forces and strategic missile forces.
The fact is that, from a purely military point of view, designing and building a new strategic bomber that will not add capabilities that go beyond what the current Tu160 fleet offers will be a gross waste of time!
Well, it would be logical to just upgrade Tu-160 if you just want to give it a capability or two 🙂
Lets not beat about the bush here, realistically speaking, a Russian strategic bomber has to be able to threaten the continental United States and othe US interests (such as ABM bases for e.g.) worldwide. To do this it must not only have an inter-continental un-refueled range but must be as stealthy as it is possible to make it. One of the reasons that Blackjacks aren’t much of a threat to the CONUS is that they are likely to be detected so that, even if they cannot be intercepted, an attack will not come as much of a surprise. Furthermore, the new Russian strategic bomber must be able to effectively strike at US carrier groups – for this a high degree of stealth (as much as is possible) is also a must. Stealthy bombers firing stealthy, passive homing missiles will have a much greater chance of success against a carrier group.[
That shouldn’t be a big problem; likely generation ahead of NK-321 engine technology, more fuel. And RCS could be heavily suppressed in front and dorsal aspects, because hostile emitting platforms from those battle groups will always be well below. Thing like flat dorsal profile of F-117.
The third main role of a Russian strategic bomber would be to precisely strike ground targets with large numbers of guided munitions in a local or low-scale conflict.
Russians already shown with Su-34 that they want to produce future aircraft with heavy multirole usage. It maybe complex to develop, but it would be quite cheaper for the air force on the end. That’s why i don’t like comparing this thing to B-2. I’m pretty confident that it would handle bit of CAS and low-pass ground striking.
ZareBecause that’s the markstone. And the requirements are not sooo different: Theatre (and global) power projection, a political big stick.
What’s the markstone? B-2? It can’t be markstone, because it will fill different roles. It will be a guided cruise missile carrier, to serve the roles of former PVO. There is no global power projection, since Russia is not interested in projecting power anywhere. As i said before, they are only occupied with their own defence, and to keep the “technological step” with rest of the world (to be competent on the world market).
But basically a strategic bomber airframe doesn’t care if it has conventional or nuclear bombs/missiles in the belly or if it is label “multirole”. Just a few wires different and some more software code.
To be labeled multirole means that it could do low-altitude precision strikes, as well. Possibly SEAD. Tell me, how does B-2 behave in those? I’m not retorical here, i really don’t know.
Plus they have to work on tanker support.
For what? It’s not about projecting power anywhere. Their bombers will remain inside their own airspace, they aren’t building them with an remote bombing requirement in mind at first place, like Americans do. With all bombers operating in Russian airspace, tankers are pretty much irellevant. Even Su-34 has 4,500km range, let alone Tupolev bombers…
military still underpaid and delays in programs like the Su-34, I wonder why they think now is a good time to start work on a new bomber.
At one point of time, there are going to be a lot of Su-34’s in service, and at same point of time, there are going to be PAK-FA’s in service, and at same point of time, Flankers are going to be completely upgraded to SM/SM2 (possible drawback from Su-35BM technology, not sure about that, but Su-35BM is going in, in either form). We are looking at cca year 2013 here, that means still 5 years to complete the bomber, and since the new fighter has been developed, older fighters have been upgraded, new fighter-bombers are steadily coming in, there are going to be allocated funds for the prototype development and first flight and all that comes afterwards.
They are going to need 10 years of time to develop a new bobmer, be it started at year 2008 or year 2018. As every month passes by, new technologies are coming, and requirements change. You would need maybe an six months to develop an prototype of 2nd gen fighter nowadays, from scratch, but who would do such a thing? Thus, you can design something now, freeze it, and restart the development 15 years after, with that design unchanged. It would be a lot cheaper, a lot easier, but you’ll be spending resources on a obsolete thing.
And again, i see that America/USAF supporters tend to look things from their narrowed point of view. Everything is ruled by how it’s done in USA. I will say it again – USAF and VVS are two completely different airforces, and i ain’t speaking about numbers or functionality. I’m speaking about doctrine and requirements. To judge VVS or it’s aircraft from an USAF perspective just won’t do. You need to put yourself in VVS’s point of view, and then judge some design-to-be-developed.
Example : B-2 may be a great bomber for USAF, when you have stealth and everything necessary for enemy airspace penetration and heavy bombing. But you’re attacking someone, and you need that. On the other hand, VVS simply doesn’t need that kind of bomber. So, comparing new Russian bomber to “B-2 markstone” is just flawed. What VVS needs is what B-2 cannot do right; fill in the roles of PVO, missile interception, etc…
ZareThat talk about matching/surpassing the B-2 etc is just putinesque nationalistic hot air.
Why do Americans, or USAF supporters always think that new Russian aerodesign will be used just to match/surpass some US design?
Like everyone seeing the PAK-FA as an distorted Raptor with close/equivalent capability. Doctrines are different, designers are different. If we just count one thing – and that’s USAF using airforce to project power around, and VVS using airforce in purely defensive manner, that brings us to completely different goals.
ZareI also wish they really made a good replacement for the Su-24
Su-34 Fullback?
ZareNo problem Argo, anytime. I expect to have that information within next few days.
BTW, where are you from?
ZareYak-141.
ZareLM-51/MPMB-51 “Korcula” minehunter; discovery, location, identification, and destuction of sea mines via seadivers or remotely operated vehicle.
Dimensions : 25.70m / 6.8 m / 4.04m
Displacement : 180 tons
Draught : 2.64m
Maximum speed : 11 knots
Cruising speed : 10 knots
In-minehunting operation speed : 7 to 9 knots
Range at cruising speed : 1000 nautical miles
Complement : 14
Propulsion : two diesel motors @ 993 hp
Low magnetic signature; fibreglass enhanced polyester + non-magnetic materials hull, devices for automatical compensation of ship’s magnetism. Low acoustic signature; elastics-based propulsion system, low-noise construction parts, in-minehunting operation hydraulics drive system. Shock-resistant, ability to maintain position at any condition inside of 15m diameter circle.
Armament and equipement : monitoring systems, mechanical divergent minehunting parts, M-71 anti-air gun, Strela 2M/Igla anti-air missile system. Port and starboard monitoring sonars (Klein System 2000), bow sonar (Reson SeaBat 6012), minehunting operation control system (MOS CMS 2000), underwater tracking and guidance system (ORE Trackpoint II), navigation and positioning system (Trimble DGPS), underwater vehicle (Benthos Super SeaRover).
ZareTell me, how much Croats participated in Partisan movement?
Let me answer that question for you – 65%.
Sign In
