There isn’t much detail on the Su-33 upgrade except some general points: the Al-31FM1 engine, new avionics which in turn enables the use of a wider spectrum of weapons…..AFAIK, that’s it so far.

…….

I don’t think this has been mentioned here….

On the 10th of September, the 70th anniversary of the Kazan Helicopter Plant the second Mi-38 prototype (OP-2 / registration No: RA-38012) was unveiled.

translation of the main points of the report…

KHP celebrated its 70th anniversary by rolling out the second Mi-38

– The prototype was completed on the eve of the anniversary in August, after which it was rolled out at the airfield and ground tests of on-board systems undertaken. It is expected that the first flight could happen as soon as this autumn.

– The helicopter is for the first time equipped with a new integrated suite of avionics – IKBO-38 developed by Transas which unifies the main components of the complex IBKV-17, intended for the upgraded Mi-8 (Mi-17). Unification allows for optimization of operations and maintenance, while pilots can easily be retrained in the transition to the new type of helicopter -> (description of the IKBO-38 follows)

– The first prototype of the Mi-38 (OP-1, RA-38011) performed during 2003-2008 within the framework of factory flight tests a total of 86 flights.

– The second prototype is equipped with a pair of Canadian turbo-shaft engines PW127 / 5.

– The third prototype (OP-3) which is currently being assembled is planed to be equipped with domestic TV7-117V (BK-3000) engines.

– The use of more powerful Russian engines would raise the maximum takeoff weight of the Mi-38 to 16 200 kg (the first Mi-38 with PW127 / 5 it was 15 600 kg) and the maximum weight of cargo carried in the cabin raised up to 6000 kg (on the outside suspension – up to 7000 kg).

– With a normal takeoff weight of 14,200 kg the helicopter will have a maximum speed of 310 km / h and cruising speed of 285 km / h.

– Hovering ceiling – 3,840 meters, and dynamic – 6400 m.

– Range with 30 minutes fuel reserve will amount to 880 km (excluding ANZ – 1000 km).

– The time frame for the testing of the third MI-38 depends on the willingness of the “Klimov” firm to supply the TV7-117V engines. It’s expected that this could happen in 2011.

– A second avionics set IKBO-38 has already been ordered for the 3rd prototype OP-3

– At last year’s show HeliRussia 2009 it was reported that the certification program for the Mi-38 is scheduled for completion in 2014 after which the helicopter could be launched into production.

Source: http://www.take-off.ru/news/98-sent-2010/510-mi-380-09-2010

Like I wrote it’s speculation but it’s not completely impossible.

Would you have said Turkey would be backing Iran/Syria and turn against Israel 2-3 years ago?

The world is changing pretty fast these days.

Some reports claim that the Mig-29s were Hungarian. And there’s speculation that they might have been even from Syria or Iran.

——–

News…

PLAAF thought to be the customer for the newly developed passive seekers for R-27ET (AA-10 Alamo-D) missiles.

The new AZ-10 (or AS-10) IR seeker is developed by “Arsenal” (Ukraine) as an upgrade for R-27ET missiles.

According to the company, the AZ -10 seekers are interchangeable with the original seekers, which allows potential customers to upgrade existing stocks of missiles and eliminates the need to purchase new ones.

The AZ-10 was first presented as a concept during MAKS-2009 and then shown in Kiev in August this year.

The company reps would not say who the customer for the AZ-10 is but it’s believed that China is interested in purchasing the licence for domestic production (already produces the R-27)

The R-27ET with a more powerful propulsion system compared to the standard version has a max range of 100km. The new seekers are claimed to be able to lock on to a target at 30 km

Source (Russian):
http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2010/0910/14005775/detail.shtml

How about the engines?
How much of Thrust are the Su-33-D engines rating now?

13500kg (AL-31FM1 engines).

The upgrade is probably similar to the Su-27SM upgrade.

That demand has existed for quite a while, but the An-124 hasn’t gone back into production to meet it. Maybe this time it will (& personally, I hope so), but I won’t hold my breath. There have been too many cries of ‘Wolf!’ for me to take this one seriously until I see some fangs.

Until recently the political situation between Russia and Ukraine wasn’t exactly favourable for any joint ventures…..we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

As far as the Air Force goes, the contract with Aviastar is for refurbishment and upgrade of the existing 20 or so An-124s by 2015. Brand new ones only after that.

But there might be civilian ones built earlier since there is a demand for them.

RCS isn’t based solely upon the physical size, so whether or not it looks thinner/more squashed, has little bearing. Shaping and design, are the most important aspects.

To achieve the thinner/squashed shape the depth of the weapons bay is reduced. In other words it’s a compromise done for a reason.

…..BTW, structurally, the PAKFA/T-50 seems to be way more advanced than the F-35/F-22, the pakfa structure is based on pretty large panels assembled on well determined areas so the same panel does have many riveting lines, while the f-22/35 structure is based on small panels all around the airframe, with independent assembling, ie. the conventional way.

I don’t know if this has to do with stealth or not, i don’t care, but is a clear sign of superior engineering, large structural panels with many accesses….

Not to mention the fact that the T-50 is significantly thinner and more “squashed” than either the F-22 or F-35 so I for one can’t understand where this notion of superior (at least structural) RCS comes from?

I guess people only see what they want to see

……

Came across the following at Paralay’s forum….

Possible IR jammer housing on the T-50

Perhaps for one of these or something similar

L370-5