dark light

a89

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 349 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2133475
    a89
    Participant

    What a weird roll-out. No factory, no tooling, no operators seen around. Jus a big barn door of an empty hangar opening (on a rather elegantly shaped) plane… Next time I fish my last can of beer in the fridge, I will call it too a “roll out”* !

    I guess that you want to show the aircraft coming from a pristine hangar for PR reasons. In any case, another photo appeared of the same aircraft before. It was also being towed out of a hangar, but the quality of the photo was really low.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2133589
    a89
    Participant

    I had the same first reaction as you, but the more I think about it the more I like it. Tu-160 is one of the most important assets of the Russian military.

    It is hard to reach a conclusion because much data is missing. It is not known how much did it cost to restart the line, but will keep KAPO active and will help to modernise the factory, which is an advantage.

    Also, Tu-95 and especially Tu-22M3 will not last forever. Would PAK DA be ready by the time these types start to be retired? Probably not.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2133749
    a89
    Participant

    I thought the Tu-160M designation was for upgrading the existing Tu-160 with new avionics system, cockpit displays, and rebuilt engines. (Addition- the “M” retains a modernized Obzor-K but the M2 gets a new active array in development?)

    Yes, according to russian sources existing Tu-160Ms will be upgraded to M2 standrd.

    Tu-160M2 would be new build aircraft with NK-32-02 engines.

    And eventually in existing ones. Lack of engines was affecting the fleet availability.

    in reply to: Mirage 2000 #2133751
    a89
    Participant

    The first batch (36) were delivered from 1989, so are coming up to 30 years old. 30 of them were later upgraded to Mirage 2000-9 standard, & 32 new -9 bought, delivered from 2003.

    $350 mn allows maybe $12 mn for each of the second batch.

    That was my impression but I guess it will also depend on the number of hours of the frames.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2139215
    a89
    Participant

    New to me: photo of the Su-25UB upgrade done for Peru by the Belorussians, including Kh-58 capability:

    A year ago Peru was looking for a modernisation for it’s Su-25 fleet. It was mentioned in the blog diana-mihailova, but the post was deleted. Below you will find some information about the Su-25 fleet. It seems that Peru chose the Belorussian option. Kazakhstan is also supposed to modernise it’s Su-25 fleet in Belarus.

    https://alejandro-8.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/condicion-tecnica-y-modernizacion-de.html

    Thanks for the links Jō Asakura.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2140212
    a89
    Participant
    in reply to: Military Aviation News #2146046
    a89
    Participant

    The $676.6 million modification to an existing contract is for the production of six lot 41 F/A-18E and eight F/A-18F fighter jets.

    Is there any reason for this modification? I have had a look and it seems that the contract was for 7 EA-18Gs and 5 F/A-18Es.

    https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1096345/

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2146135
    a89
    Participant

    lol @ anyone who believed the plans that domestic production would be enough by 2017.

    Current goal is to replace imports by 2019. Previous data:

    – 540 in 2015 for 327.5 million $.
    – 250 in 2016 for 145.5 million $.
    – 96 in Jan-March 2017 [16+36+44]

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2147349
    a89
    Participant

    Il-102 static frame

    https://russianplanes.net/images/to218000/217339.jpg

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2154495
    a89
    Participant

    So i uploaded the most interesting pictures from MAKS here;

    Berkut, many thanks for the insight.

    I wonder how this will impact Antonov production in Russia? Russia has for the past couple of years built ten times as many Antonov-branded planes on license at VASO and Aviastar (I think, or does Aviastar only service Ruslans etc?)

    VASO and Aviakor were producing An-148 and An-140, but at a slow rate. The former will complete a contract for the Russian MoD (5 An-148 left) and is very likely that production will cease. Aviakor (provately owned) recently applied for bankrupcy. In the long term these Antonovs will be replaced with Russian models. GLTK has already provided funding for 50 Il-114, and Russian agencies can buy Sukhoi SSJ.

    in reply to: The future of Austrian fighter fleet #2165298
    a89
    Participant

    If looking at the lastest Saab Gripen C/D offer to Bulgaria, a fleet of 18 Gripen C/D would be in the range of USD 1.25 billion. Another western(ish) option for a supersonic low cost fighter would be the KAI golden eagles. Looking at the Iraqi deal, 24 T-50IQ cost them usd 1.1 billion. The Philippines FA-50PH deal was USD 425 million for 12 aircraft. I think those are the only 2 low cost brand new supersonic fighters that is available right now. I don’t think non western types such as the JF-17 or the L-15B would even be considered.

    A while ago Saab stated that it would keep both versions of the Gripen in production. Also, the F-16 production line is still open.

    http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/05/09/saab-three-really-good-opportunities-for-gripen/

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2170042
    a89
    Participant

    Is that Argentinian order realistic?

    IMO it has more chances than other (Mirage, MiG-29s and so on) as several agencies would be involved, but I will only believe it when I see the Berievs landing in Argentina.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172967
    a89
    Participant

    The Chinese order for 2 Be-200 is confirmed, with an option for another 2.

    Argentina would also be keen in acquiring 3:

    https://ria.ru/world/20170621/1497005169.html

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2179845
    a89
    Participant

    No, but rumors floated earlier, now it seems concrete.

    A preliminary contract had been signed on February 2016.

    Any idea if Belarus will ditch the Migs in their Inventory?

    It is too early to say, but the link provided by TR1 states that the Su-30SMs will replace the Mig-29s. I always found the decission to acquire Su-30 a bit strange. Belarus has an upgrade for the MiG-29, and the extra range of the Flanker is not really worth it. Earlier Su-27 were retired because of lack of spares and

    New MiG-29M2s/35Ms could have done the job.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2187069
    a89
    Participant

    It seems that RSK MiG did not drop the M/M2 designation. From the latest take-off magazine:

    In addition, to meet the requirements of some of the customers, there will be production of the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 multirole tactical fighters commonised with the MiG-35 and MiG-35UB in terms of airframe and basic aircraft systems, but featuring somewhat more modest capabilities in terms of avionics and weapons.

    Each pair of the fighters features a 90-per cent or more degree of commonality, with the singleseater and twinseater having the same design of their fuselage forward sections and cockpit canopy with the singleseater’s rear combat station occupied by an extra fuel tank or additional avionics units, if the customer wishes so.

    http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to41.pdf

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 349 total)