LMFSMaking some numbers, 2 already ordered serial planes + 76 of the upcoming contract make 78 units, which would result nicely in three regiments with two squadrons each, being the squadrons 12 + 1 (reserve) strong. Makes sense?
[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]
Yep, broadly agree
[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
Sure they are working on it, and will be producing technological demonstrators in next 5 years, with luck a prototype in the next 10. But technological steps like this are quite complex and big, and advance quite slowly. Industry does not jump into the void selling devices that have long term issues and send them bankrupt, and I am not talking out of thin air here. Military are even more restrictive. And Russia does not depend on silver bullets like ROFAR to save the motherland, their defence depends on many redundant elements where air force is not even remotely the most important one. On top of that, Byelka will be their first AESA. All the investments done on the technology and all the GaAs MMICs need to pay out. Then all those with GaN, then ROFAR will come. It will come, just don’t hold your breath until then!
LMFS[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]
They have been preparing for this for a while. The pilot run is already long, two years for two planes. And besides, ten planes per year is not asking the moon. It is within their normal procurement quantities per year, so I guess they should be capable of delivering close to that number relatively soon.
[USER=”64730″]Marcellogo[/USER]
Would also think the supposed contract for 13 additional planes will be superseded by this bigger one, Putin is saying the initial quantities as foreseen in the SAP were increased. BTW, when he says “until 2028” it means this will happen within current SAP
LMFSSo, it seems Putin’s visits of the week resulted in some decisions… I can only imagine the faces of so many prophets of Russian apocalypse now, among them our resident Nostradamus.
In the end the doubts expressed by officials about the serial production of the Su-57 were probably more a bluff to press the industry to reduce prices (mission accomplished) than an admission of failure of the program, but Western “experts” swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Should teach a lesson about documenting themselves a bit before starting to sell their propaganda, they look now as full of crap as it gets and have discredited themselves for good.
In retrospective:
> The leak by TASS some days ago about the signing of a further contract for the Su-57 turned out to be true
> Contract would be biggest one for fighter jet in recent times in Russian industry
> We should have like 10 planes per year until 2028, probably starting in 2021 after the pilot run is over.
> As stated by the KnAAZ guy, all those planes are expected to be retrofitted with second stage engine
> Putin confirmed some of us here right when we expected a finished plane to be produced at least in line with other existing jet procurement contracts and not to be left rust. Seems obvious now, I know, but the ones thinking the plane was a mild failure at best were seriously discussing about its demise.
> Russia is surely reacting to the increasingly confrontational attitude from US. Probably those three regiments will be placed in air bases in near the most conflictive points around Black Sea, Caucasus and Western border. IIRC Crimea was already named as the place where operational planes would go first.
@Panzerfeist: no ROFAR by now. I cannot see this even in the making, it will be at best be retrofitted to the planes in the distant (>>10 years) future. By now they still need to learn how to use and service Byelka
LMFSApparently, the Russian President is in Akhtubinsk right now, so something’s up. When he arrived, six (!) T-50’s were escorting the Il-96…
That sends a message doesn’t it?
Putin was going to dedicate this month of may to make personal visits to institutions and companies relevant for the modernization of the VKS. They are part of a new format of oversight of the military to ensure fulfilment of contracts and proper development of the military.
LMFSSource: the second sub – carrier “Poseidon” will be launched in the spring of 2020
According to the source, the ammunition “Poseidon” submarine “Khabarovsk” will be six units
MOSCOW, may 14. /TASS/. Second staff bearer of underwater uninhabited vehicles “Poseidon” – nuclear submarine “Khabarovsk” – will be launched in the spring of 2020, the fleet submarine to be transferred in 2022. This was announced on Tuesday, the TASS source in the military-industrial complex.
“The second regular carrier “Poseidon” submarine “Khabarovsk” (project 09851) – it is planned to launch in the spring of 2020,” – said the Agency interlocutor.
He said that to convey “Khabarovsk” Navy after completion of all tests is planned in 2022. “Ammunition “Poseidon” on “Khabarovsk” will be six units,” – said the source.
TASS has no official confirmation of the provided source of information.
Submarine “Khabarovsk” was founded in July 2014. The submarine, as the first bearer of underwater uninhabited vehicles “Poseidon” – nuclear submarine “Belgorod” (project 09852) – was developed in Central design Bureau for marine engineering “Rubin” (St.-Petersburg). About the technical data of the boat to date unknown. Submarine “Belgorod” was launched on the “Sevmash” (Severodvinsk) on April 23. It is planned to transfer to the fleet at the end of next year.
Created in RF devices “Poseidon” have a nuclear power plant and is able to go deeper than 1 km to unlimited range. Underwater drones are armed with a nuclear warhead.
LMFSAMRAAM missiles on F-35 are not attached to the doors, they have a rotating pylon on the flank of the bomb bay, once the doors are open they flip and expose the missiles that are ejected on a diagonal not vertical path.
It was just a quick reference to that type of rotating installation, I didn’t bother representing the hinging mechanism but that was the intended arrangement:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tf35-bay.jpg Views:t0 Size:t38.3 KB ID:t3862197″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3862197″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”f35-bay.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tFigure01.jpg Views:t0 Size:t111.0 KB ID:t3862198″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3862198″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”Figure01.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
Su-57 have almost perfectly rectangular bays not an irregular, weapon tailored ones like on F-35.
“Tailored” is a very fancy word for the F-35 bays. LM designers had to work with an irregular, low quality space due to central installation of a very big engine and they made the most out the situation with that clever arrangement. And under pressure to deliver greater internal payload they came up with a new arrangement for 3 AMRAAM per bay. I see no reason why such optimizations could not be executed in the Su-57 to be honest. In any case 4 missiles per bay would be already a very nice amount.
Main problems is that being on a tunnel its own doors cannot be opened very wide.
Neither F-35 doors open very wide, they reach roughly vertical position only. It should be enough for the release, aero effects in the tunnel allowing and with the necessary restrictions of flight envelope.
Given that however seems to be enough space to host two rows of smaller ordnances (R-77, KAB-250 and Kh-38) why not to try a two floors,triangle installation: 2 forward and 1 back in the space between the other two like in post #1505 in the upper floor and a specular 1 forward and 2 back in the lower one (or also vice versa if more expedient…) ?
With the amount of space available there are many thinkable approaches. See above my comments to the triangular layout.
LMFS[USER=”7524″]paralay[/USER]
See below a clumsy and gross violation of your drawing with my proposal 😀
> Two top R-77 sized missiles (with folding wings) hanging from a modified pylon that occupies the same position than the current one but has double ejecting mechanism.
> Eventually two additional missiles could be hung from door-mounted mechanisms like in the F-35, see also below.
It does not look the ultimate madness to me…
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”weapons_bay_1_mod006.png”,”data-attachmentid”:3862184}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”f-35-inside-4.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3862185}[/ATTACH]
LMFSYes, Rofar it can have a wide band than traditional radars, but do not change what i told. It works like a laser beam.
With this technology you have 2 big problems, if it works on a big frequency (better resolution) wil be big attenuation atmospheric ergo you need very big power, and problem with a laser beam. It is usuless for searching on a long range.:apologetic:
Laser is coherent radiation, so different to the kind of radiation a radar produces. I agree certain high frequency components of ROFAR would be attenuated harder than others according to atmospheric absorptivity, but the information will be spread in the spectrum so a good part of it could be preserved. I cannot imagine designers choosing discrete frequencies where attenuation is maximum either. And of course, if your noise floor is reduced more than the atmospheric attenuation dampens the signal, then the loss is recoverable. We would need to know exact values to make a judgement but we don’t have them ATM.
[USER=”7524″]paralay[/USER]
cool drawing thanks! It is still not clear to me:
> how the front fins at the R-77 match the available space left by the missiles at their sides
> the two most external pylons seem out of the previous position and moved towards the side walls of the bay (y axis), could they still carry the bigger weapons in the arsenal of the Su-57?
> the same compatibility problem between big and small ordnance would appear in the x axis, as the anchoring points on the big and small missiles would need to be so that the right and left R-77 can be carried as forward as possible while still holding bigger missiles at their CoG. This looks difficult to ensure.
Have you managed to reliably guess the width of the bays with some precision? I saw a drawing of yours indicating 1021 mm, but I would think the doors could be brought closer to the nacelles by some centimeters. This could give a usable width of ca. 110 cm, given the R-77 is 20 cm wide there would be space for four missiles + 5-6 cm clearance on each side. But only if folding wings could be implemented, of course…
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”weapons_bay_1.JPG”,”data-attachmentid”:3862172}[/ATTACH]
LMFS[USER=”76365″]RALL[/USER]
we are not talking about a laser but about a wide band radar.
LMFSInstead of wasting money on Tu-160, they should put that into PAK DA.
Besides the need for bringing Tupolev up to speed as explained by XB-70 above, I don’t think investing in the fastest and most powerful strategic bomber in the world in the times we live in could be wasting money. It serves a critical purpose for Russia and will probably keep doing so for quite a while after PAK-DA is in service, given both programs run in parallel to a great extent. In fact as a part of the nuclear triad, Tu-160 is a probably more effective and survivable than a subsonic bomber. PAK-DA will cover many other roles, among them probably many conventional ones where the Tu-160 would be a complete overkill, and other newly developed ones where a big plane with big endurance, power generation and payload capability would be a great advantage. It will probably be a generalist while Tu-160 will remain the strategic bomber specialist.
LMFSPutin: the order for the Tu-160 bombers may be increased
At the moment signed a contract to build ten cars, and ten aircraft needs to be upgraded.
The Ministry of defence does not exclude the possibility of increasing the order of the strategic bombers Tu-160. The corresponding statement was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin during a visit to the aviation plant named after Gorbunov in Kazan.
The President noted that the Tu-160 is getting a completely new car, with a huge need for the Ministry of defence capacities, and in this regard, the Ministry of defence does not preclude the extension of the order for these aircraft.
tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/2019513177-iRHh8.html
These statements come amidst new personal inspections by Putin and other high-ranking officials of MIC installations and performance. The aim is to guarantee theeffectivenes of the armed forces’ modernization considering growing US military budget and threat level without allowing costs to soar.
LMFSConfirmation regarding the 250 kg bomb:
Su-57 fighter is able to use absolutely all types of corrected aerial bombs (CAB). This was stated by Igor Krylov, Director General of the Region State Research and Production Enterprise.
“One of its peculiarities lies in the fact that the small-caliber CAB – 250 kg – can be used from the inside-body compartment of the aircraft”,” he said in an interview with Interfax.
tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/20195131018-qYLH8.html
The whole interview:
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=2&nid=507766&lang=RU
LMFS[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
Just add the concept of gain to your sources about SNR for better comprehension. A weak signal (like the radar return of a low RCS object) will be amplified internally by the radar’s electronics in order to be discerned as a target. The limitation is your internal noise, because being intrinsic to your electronics it will grow during your signal amplification. So a low noise figure of your circuitry will automatically allow you to discern much smaller signals.
Regarding ROFAR: I essentially agree stealthflanker that we don’t even know what is exactly this device, that is, where the radio-photonics take the place of traditional RF electronics. I think reading quite a bit and searching many sources could allow us to get a relatively good understanding, but that would take time and effort not everyone can devote to the task. To my understanding, they substitute some part of the carrier to intermediate frequency conversion circuits from electronic to photonic. From one source you posted above I got the idea where those comments about the wide band of the ROFAR can come from, namely from intermodulation and creation of fundamental frequency harmonics that, if effectively transmitted and received, could add informational depth to the radar readings. But until now as said is all speculation (and I am not even really knowledgeable on standard radars to start with…)
[USER=”20563″]haavarla[/USER]
agree with paralay’s opinion regarding the weapons that would fit in the WBs.
Regarding the single big weapons to be carried in the bays, the limitation would be the depth. It is apparently designed to carry two weapons of max. 40 cm diameter inside, one bigger would fit in the width but probably not in the z axis.
[USER=”7524″]paralay[/USER]
in your drawing the middle missile would not fit, due to the cut and wall in the weapons bays designed to reduce turbulence and allow for high-speed release. So I think the weapons bays are shorter, or do you have new information that allows you to think the missiles could be interleaved that way? I don’t know if the front and rear fins on the R-77 missile would fit that good either, I think the front fins on one missile are slightly longer than the space between the front and rear fins on the ones placed next to them. But maybe we see something similar, in the end any small modification of the missiles would allow to fit bigger quantity of them in the bays, which I have to think is a desired feature. In particular folding wings and double pylons on each of the already existing ones would allow 4 R-77 sized missiles per bay. Depending on the exact depth of the bay, maybe a suspension point at the bays’ doors like that in F-35 could be used too. I of course agree on the need of reducing the fins of weapons or making them foldable. The bays in the Su-57 are very big and that must be used to get maximal carrying capacity possible, I assume there is a weapons and bays development roadmap in place.
LMFSA more relevant question is whether Russia even needs such a capability, they do not seem to have any strategic interests which would warrant aircraft carriers. Thanks to a sizable force of decent strategic bombers with long-range cruise missiles and the immense size of their country, practically the entire northern hemisphere is within reach from domestic bases (most of it without inflight refueling even). Take Syria (and the same can be said about the entire strategically important Middle East…), the Kuznetsov was unable to offer anything that VKS long-range aviation could not do better, as djcross says. Hell, with a decent tanker based on the Il-96 or CR929 and the reported 15000km ferry range of the PAK-DA, the reach of future Russian airpower is potentially global.
The money would be better spend on maintaining and expanding the world-class submarine capability.
I respectfully beg to differ here. This is an old discussion but I think it still deserves some words. Naval development strategy is indeed plainly stating that Russia needs to develop their blue water navy to foster their interests abroad. Also officials from lowest to highest ranking confirm this approach, which implies simply that Russia perceives the same reality than the rest of world powers in blue water navy being central to power projection and hence capability to defend interests abroad. One could argue that Russia can get most of their natural resources internally, which is a very convenient hedge, and so needs no blue water navy, but the capacity to expand their economy and influence depends directly in their capacity to defend their relationships with other countries. I will not go to list what has happened to Russian allies in last decades but their fate has not been very nice. A power that cannot jump in to defend their allies is no power at all and will end up isolated and ultimately impoverished. Russia explicitly wants to prevent that from happening.
You submit the long range aviation could take the role globablly, but in any situation of escalating conflict they would have big difficulties and be IMHO simply inadequate in most of the relevant parameters:
> Incapacity to gather long term intelligence about targets and enemy forces
> Too distant to meet time sensible goals
> Very low volume and intensity of ordnance delivered
> Attacks easy to predict and to intercept
> Very risky (and expensive) employment of scarce and valuable assets, since USN/USAF/allies could intercept undefended bombers or tankers along thousands of km of routes
In contrast a fleet deployed at the spot represents a self-sustained and defended asset that allows to understand what is going on and command and execute any necessary actions in a permanent and timely manner. This in turns provides a big conventional deterring capacity and prevents conflicts from escalating, which is the ultimate goal in the end.
Though long range aviation was indeed used (briefly) in Syria, its application far from the borders of Russia as exclusive means for conventional missions is not really effective and safe IMO and not enough to address all military needs involved. So, for an application up to 2000-3000 km around the borders of Russia I agree with you, carrier fleet is not really needed since Russia can get information and short time reactions to any possible events with assets based on its territory, but in distant spots the navy is your only reliable footprint and enables a great deal of options to your military that cannot be met any other way.
LMFS[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
I do think they refer to the internal noise too. If you need to detect a very small target you need very high gain, if your electronics would produce no noise, you could theoretically raise that gain arbitrarily and detect essentially any signal, no matter how small. Limitation is the unavoidable noise you have in your signal path. If they manage to lower it significantly due to optic components, they can improve their noise figure and hence increase gain correspondingly. But this ROFAR topic is IMHO still a bit too theoretical and hidden for us to understand it in depth, so I would take any claims and sources carefully.
Sign In
