The same Radar appears to have been shown back in 2014 designated as FGA-29.
and regarding the quality of the mockup.. i think they also crammed the radar way too deep. giving false impression of compactness. In my view That will leave no space for any edge treatment for radome signature reduction or lobe shaping. The fliying demonstrator of MiG-35 is more likely the “real” way on how the radar supposed to be mounted (i.e antenna part is in radome).
This link lists out all those Zhuk series radar
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Zhuk_(radar)
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/guk-a/
Also came across this KERT pdf from 2014 which shows the radar, haven’t read it full…
https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/8d…70be505daa.pdf
I’d somehow missed this unit until now. But I don’t think the radar is crammed inside to give a false impression, the unit as such is compact – both the front and the rear end compared to the earlier displayed model. You can guesstimate the depth of this radar unit from the side view of radome I posted earlier.
I’m not able to get a proper side profile pic or side by side image of the two units, but hope you can make out the difference in the antenna size and the overall size.
The older unit which was showcased in 2008 on a MiG-35 demo
Is the one recently displayed even a real flying airframe ?
It is a full scale mockup. But they displayed it poorly, particularly the front fuselage/radome. They copied the same stuff that was on the 2008 MiG-35 demo aircraft.
But that doesn’t hide the fact regarding the new Zhuk AESA model displayed. The new version is much more compact and its a larger unit with around 1017T/R modules. Last year it was mentioned the trails were to start in early 2019, so hopefully something might have progressed.
.
One interesting thing to note on the MiG-35 is that its radome is smaller than that of the MiG-29M2 sold to Egypt and the MiG-29K. Looks like they weren’t able to fit the full size AESA into the MiG-29M2 or MiG-29K radome, possibly due to a large back end?
Reality will evade anyone who doesn’t look at it properly, courtesy pathetic display and promotion by RAC MiG
Below are some of the units displayed till now. The first one displayed more than a decade ago at Aero India with 680 t/r modules.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”Zhuk-AE-Aperture-1S.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3873650}[/ATTACH]
The more recent one, same as the one displayed at Zuhai airshow 2016, had around 896 t/r modules
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”p1734696_main.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3873648}[/ATTACH]
The new one showcased on MiG-35 has around 1017 t/r modules on my rough counting
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”59701b49725fbc30f1bef42acb19979c_900.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3873652}[/ATTACH]
Cooling capacity.
The original Zhuk-A or AE was intended to have some 1100 TR Modules. But the cooling requirement is somewhat beyond the MiG-29’s capacity. While the one we have now the current scaled back Zhuk-AE does not really meet the expectation.
If I remember correctly, the plan was to have around 1064 t/r modules or 1016 t/r modules. And the Zhuk AESA radar installed on MiG-35 has around 1017 t/r modules on my rough counting. Don’t get fooled by the same airframe and radome, its completely different. You can see how much the backend has changed and how far inside the radar has gone inside,
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”MiG-35%2BMAKS%2B2019-10.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3873651}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”59701b49725fbc30f1bef42acb19979c_900.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3873653}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”DuQ4MtFXgAAlrho.jpg:orig.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3873649}[/ATTACH]
US has carried out Tomahawk cruise missile test from land based Mk-41 launcher.
https://twitter.com/mattkorda/status/1163503849707118593
The real kicker here is the Mk-41 launcher. Russia has said for years that those deployed in Europe could launch Tomahawks, and therefore violate INF. US denied it. 16 days after the INF Treaty died, what does the US do? Launch a Tomahawk from a ground-based Mk-41 launcher.
This shows why Russia needs Pr.11441 upgraded Kirov class and (follow it up with) Pr.23560 Lider class cruisers more than ever before. The only solution to US deployment (which the Russians already foresaw) is by having a 24×7 presence off the DC coast with cruise missiles. Nothing else will do.
I will leave this striking pic here…. a winner alongside a wasteful design!
There was one more pic that I came across from a different angle/side, but cant find it now.
Full displacement of Cayman ships will make 8,000 tons, length is 150 meters, beam is 19.5 meters, draft is 4.5 meters. The ship will accelerate up to 18 knots, the crew will include 120 men.
Cayman’s air group will consist of ten assault transport helicopters and two search and rescue ones. In addition, the ship will accommodate up to six landing boats lifting at least 45 tons each.
As a reminder, two landing ships were keel-laid at Yantar Shipyard in April 2019; both are of the second series of Project 11711 named Vladimir Andreev and Vasily Trushin. The ships are to join the Russian Navy in 2023 and 2024, respectively.
After nearly half a decade, an updated 11711E design comes out. But I feel for the years they invested into this new design, an optimised 1174 design would have served better, which had larger capacity of around 40+ tanks or 80 APCs. Anyways better than nothing,
Pr.1174
Turkish Bayraktar class LST, similar to the 1174 Ivan Rogov class, but around half its tonnage. A modernised/upgraded/optimised 1174 design could have looked similar.
But the intermediate carrier has not been shown… the one with 76 kT that was expected on Army, then on IMDS. In the meantime, media has gone silent about it…
Shouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be an optimised 11435 design.
Thanks for the picture of the hull, the best one I have seen until now of the semicatamaran layout. A breakthrough in shipbuilding.
The amphibious model displayed above the carrier showcased similar layout among recent Russian designs.
The carrier has a bigger flight deck than Kuznetsov with 70% of the displacement. But the conventional propulsion and somewhat limited air wing are the downsides. VMF wants a bigger vessel, with more aircraft and nuclear propulsion. This was the intermediate carrier mentioned above and in your article, but it has not been shown. This would be the one that is most promising IMHO.
To be honest this is the best design that have come out. A medium sized carrier with absolutely no “shortcomings” that was attributed to the Russian STOBAR designs like – lack of simultaneous t/o and trap, lack of deck space for aircrafts etc. It shows what a properly optimised 40-45k t carrier would look like. Its much much better than the Cavour based IAC-I, Charles DeGaulle, current 11435/Kuznetsov design and rival the newer QE class carrier.
It would be good if Russian Navy build few of them (after all they had 4 x 1143) and I would surely love to see this design for Indian Navy. Other potential customer could be Brazil among others.
But a slight dissapointment is the twin shaft layout. I would have loved to see a 4 shaft layout. Thrust from 4 props at lower rpm will be missed.
BTW the “well deck” is just the space for the stern elevator, as far as I see
I meant the port side cutting, not s/b opening for elevators.The original 1143 series also had those cuttings in those area.
Came across few more clearer snaps when the model was first displayed and there is no well deck. But the overall things looks good, Very satisfied to see an optimised 11434/11430 successor/medium sized carrier design.
As to the Manatee, it is nothing but a hack. The same old Ulyanovsk model with names changed and the superstructure of project 23000E from 2015… embarrassing.
Basing a new design on 11437 is not at all bad.
Some eye candy stuff from IMDS 2019
Some background info from Army-2019
http://mil.today/2019/Navy55/
Krylov State Research Center (KSRC)
In his interview to Mil.Press, director of KSRC Pavel Filippov said the ‘mid-sized’ aircraft carrier held an intermediate position between the ‘heavy’ Project 23000E ship (displacement 95,000-100,000 tons) and Storm-KM multirole carrier (displacement 44,000 tons). It is planned to have a combined powerplant: nuclear plant similar to that of the Project 855 Yasen submarine will act as a sustainer, and the gas turbine based on M90 engine will serve as a booster.
Designers told Mil.Press Today that the model of ‘mid-sized’ aircraft carrier has already passed a range of trials in the testing basin of the Krylov center.
Project 23000E ship (displacement 95,000-100,000 tons) — we have already seen it, so not posting
Storm-KM multirole carrier (displacement 44,000 tons) — Somewhat my fav among the three.
This is exactly how project 1143 optimised as a true aircraft carrier would have looked like, Its like a wish come true. Almost as I visualized for a 45,000 tonne carrier,
The design retained the two deck elevators, in addition to an additional deck edge stern elevator. The design even have a sort of well deck for docking is available at stern.
Sign In
