RadDisconnectRussia will fly the prototype next-generation strategic bomber in 2019 and develop a new interceptor by 2020 to replace the MiG-31 fleet. Addressing the media on Russian Air Force Day (August 12) the service’s commander Gen. Victor Bondarev also said a new a combat aircraft with forward-swept wings is in development and could emerge soon as a prototype.
Production of the PAKDA strategic bomber will start in 2021-22, with flight tests completing in 2023 so that entry-into-service can take place later that year, according to Bondarev. The commander confirmed that the new bomber is subsonic. It will eventually replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-160.
In a recent interaction with the media, head of Russia’s United Engine Corporation (ODK) Vladislav Mosolov was quoted as saying that the PAKDA’s engine will be developed on the base of the Tu-160’s NK-32 “second edition” motor and use its gas-generator (core). ODK intends to invest $220 million of its own money into the project in addition to the approved governmental funding.
The new interceptor is sometimes referred to as the MiG-41. Bondarev said it forms part of the current Russian armament program ending in 2020. Plans call for replacement of the entire MiG-31 fleet by 2028.
Meanwhile, operational examples of the Sukhoi fifth-generation fighter PAKFA (manufacturer’s designation T-50) will be delivered to the Russian air force in 2016. Today, one industry-owned T-50 already flies with military pilots at the controls in the flight-test and armament trials center (Russian acronym GLITS) at Akhtubinsk airbase in southern Russia.
Bondarev confirmed that earlier this year the Russian MoD placed an order worth more than $470 million for 16 MiG-29SMT multirole lightweight fighters. Delivery is due within “two-three years.” These will supplement 28 such aircraft already in service. Bondarev further stated that the contract for the MiG-35 will be signed later this year. The Russian air force will continue upgrade efforts on the MiG-29 fleet so as to keep them in service for “another 10 to 15 years, maybe more.”
The commander also revealed that earlier plans for a light strike aircraft based on the Yak-130 jet trainer platform have been dropped.
Bondarev expects deliveries of Il-76MD-90A strategic airlifters to commence later this year, with 39 contracted for delivery by 2020. The air force also wants to receive some Il-96 airliners, from the order for 14 placed recently by the Russian government, for delivery by 2024. The military applications would include air tanker, as well as transport roles, according to Bondarev.
The Russian air force continues to build up its presence in the Arctic region. Temp and Rogachevo aerodromes have been re-opened, and work is in progress in Tiksi, Anadyr and Vorkuta. “We must withhold that region. Almost 49 percent of the Arctic territory must belong to Russia, and we shall defend it,” Bondarev said. Plans call for complete radar coverage of Russia’s northern regions.
PAK DA is subsonic, which is basically confirming what we already know. Additional MiG-35 orders as well.
I’m actually curious if they’re planning to base this MiG-41 on the MiG-31. If so, 2025 IOC isn’t unlikely. But if that’s the case, I don’t think the Mach 4.3 speed stated by Anatoliy Kvochur is happening.
RadDisconnectAccording to flateric, it’s T-50-KNS.
RadDisconnectUh, no. You posted
The nozzle will have to be tightened the faster you go to fasten exhaust velocity
which shows you don’t understand the de Laval nozzle and effects of compressibility on pressure and velocity. Did you even bother reading?
RadDisconnectThere are two forces involved here, pressure and velocity, as one goes up the other goes down,
and if the nozzle dont follow this simple principle,
-why don’t you tell me why it is adjustable then ?
Have you ever heard of compressibility? Or how about the de Laval nozzle?
Make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about before making assertions.
RadDisconnectYou should watch the video, at the frame in which the 22 is displaying that huge IR spot, the aircraft is not using AB.
“Actionjack” should watch the video as well.
You guys should understand that all that “supercruiser stealth” is a big fat myth, if you have a engine that has a 5000kgf output at dry, and other with a 5000kgf at AB, both engines will shine at the same bright in the IR specter at 5000kgf of thrust.
Actually, is probably the one at AB will shine less.
It IS using AB. Due to the low quality of the video it’s difficult to see the flame, but just because the afterburner flame isn’t apparent doesn’t mean AB isn’t being used. In MAKS 2013 the T-50 also used a lot of AB, since its nozzles are often fully open. Yet its afterburner flame isn’t very visible either. No only that, same thrust doesn’t mean same temperature. You need to read a few things about engines and nozzles before making such utterly stupid comments.
RadDisconnect?
Absolutely not AB at that frame, look at the source video again. F-22 is a disaster signature wise on AB, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU#t=60
Every plane is a disaster signature wise in AB, I don’t think anyone is denying that.
RadDisconnectThe nozzle will have to be tightened the faster you go to fasten exhaust velocity
Read about supersonic nozzles before posting such crap.
RadDisconnectThe F135 holds the record in turbine inlet temperature (3600 deg F). In short, the engine is huge and runs extremely hot. Even if we don’t have exact data about all parameters, the real IR signature is likely even less in favor of the F-35.
For comparison, some TIT data:
P&W F135 – 3600 deg F
Lyulka Al-31F – 2570 deg F
Eurojet EJ200 – 2780 deg F
SNECMA M88-2 – 2870 deg F
Klimov RD-33 – 2560 deg F
GE F110 – 2750 deg F
P&W F100 – 2460 deg F
And what’s the pressure ratio? What’s the bypass ratio? Simply comparing turbine inlet temperatures is ridiculously simplistic. Not to mention that most of the engines you’ve listed are typically mounted in pairs.
RadDisconnectPicard, do you have any actual hands-on experience with real radars, RWR, and IRST? Have you ever been part of a development team that makes those sensors? Because when you make such definitive statements like “And AESA can be detected by modern RWRs”, I’m wondering just how you would know that. Not only that, you seem to be blatantly cherrypicking your data, and your analysis is full of confirmation bias.
RadDisconnectVague claims.. No details, no data.. Very suspicious.. In this case, let me ask – what is the IR signature of the F135 engine itself? Probably classified.
Do we know the base for comparison? If not, can we substract something from the few data we got?Let us take F-35 vs Gripen vs Typhoon, for example.
Gripen-E – 1x F414 (0.889m diameter) – total exhaust area 0.62 sqm
Typhoon – 2x EJ200 (0.737m diameter) – total exhaust area 0.85 sqm
F-35 – 1x F135 (1.29m diameter) – total exhaust area 1.31 sqmIf we assume roughly the same coeff. of heat radiation for all designs and if I give your nozzle a capability to cut down 25%, then the IR signature of the F-35 is still ~58% larger than Gripen-E and even ~15% worse than that of a twin-engined Typhoon. Oh, but that doesn’t look good on the pdf, does it?
Educating yourself is good. But mere reading without letting the data flow through some rudimentary critical-view filter doesn’t bring you much further.
Oh, and BTW, I just hope it ain’t the same Norwegian report which stated the F-35 was more affordable than Gripen.. 😉
Can you explain this comparison? Not only that, exhaust temperature depends on core temperature and pressure ratio, which is info we don’t know. So I frankly don’t know if your comparison is valid.
RadDisconnectIs the nose of the Su-35S bigger than the Su-27? IIRC, the Su-30MKI had a bigger nose to accommodate the heavy Bars radar. The radar moved the center of gravity forward, which necessitated canards. I think the Irbis-E is lighter than the Bars, which allowed the Su-35S to do away with the canards, but is the nose of the new Flanker still larger than the Su-27’s?
RadDisconnectI’m afraid the best F-35 can do is mach 0.9 at 40k ft without afterburner.
F-35 can’t even fly mach 1.6 at 40-50k ft, let alone turn, lest it drop energy (as in diving
What’s your source for those claims? Because it sounds like you pulled it out of your ass.
RadDisconnectPicard, why are the Russians and Chinese pursuing internal weapon bays then with the T-50 and J-20? Why are they heavily investing in X-band AESAs for those aircraft? Why are they investing in radar stealth? Why does Dassault and EADS and Saab even bother claiming reduced-RCS features? I mean geez, what idiots those manufacturers are, not heeding to your advice. Oh wait, I forgot. Their claims and technology has virtue because it’s not American!
(aside, I’m sick of all the “because America!” “because Russia!” “because China!” “because [country x]” line of reasoning, no matter what the argument is)
You harp on and on about how combat is the only way to gauge a weapon’s effectiveness, and then promptly slam an aircraft on grossly oversimplified paper capabilities. Also, you seem to be implying that all IRSTs are made equal, or that any technology the F-35 or F-22 has is easily equalized by something “equivalent” on paper or even name. As if quality doesn’t mean a thing. And who said the F-22 and F-35 are only low-RCS in the X-band? And aren’t these VHF arrays equally effective against non-stealthy aircraft? Oh, and non-stealthy aircraft has the added bonus of being detectable with X-band as well.
You’re also prone to completely making **** up. 50 F-22s vs 1250 MiG-29s? Uh…what. I mean geez, your strategy of the use of unprepared air strips and passive sensors are so ingenious, all the major defense companies and armed forces would never have thought of that!
Also, is this really your analysis?
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/f-22-analysis/
If so, then wow… :highly_amused:
RadDisconnectThe only official i’ve seen done so far is 45k ft,
and there are a couple of sources claiming F-35 only need itzy bitzy bit of A/B to maintain mach 1
It has reached 50,000 ft in November 2012. In other words, old news. Do you ever bother checking your facts before posting?
RadDisconnectThere was no very agile a/c at the time, and none of the hit had MAWS/MLD
Both missiles and aircraft maneuverability have tremendously increased since Vietnam, so constantly using that conflict as proof of missile’s ineffectiveness is foolish. Right now, no one can say whether countermeasures or missiles have the upper hand. None of the missiles in Vietnam had thrust vectoring, data-links, or dual-pulse motors either.
Like the spartan kings response to persia, IF, -they didnt have MAWS/MLD,
additionally, every missile becomes useless if it is detected & countered well in advance,
supercruise goes a long way to achieve reduced response time
And stealth is a way of reducing response time. Not only that, any aircraft will be carrying multiple missiles. Given that the F-35 will carry as many as 6 internal AMRAAMs, I’m pretty sure its opponent will run out of energy dodging before the F-35 runs out of missiles.
In the real world, F-35 has to activate afterburner to run at mach 1 and its max ceiling of less than 50k ft,
Dude, what are you smoking?
those amraam it launches with the intent of plinking fighters will stall right at launch,
and will have to spend their energy getting speed up before they can turn left and right…
….its a non-starter2-3 sec is plenty for any IR MAWS detection
2-3 sec is plenty for any IR MAWS detection
suitable for high alt maneuver the first 2-3 sec of its flight you mean,
does that sound like a hypothetical BVR missile to You ?
Remind me how you know about the AMRAAM’s, or any other recent missile’s attack and tracking profile again?
Sign In
