I’m mulling about starting in the next future a dedicated thread for Tupolev, following both the mise en place of the new versions of the old birds than PaK-Da development.
Surely more bones to chew there a.t.m. than the almost absolute nothing we are actually getting about Su-57.
Not trying to underscore actual buildup of forces, just to note how the total number of 160 refers to a sum of a lot of different things, both planes than helicopters, both jets than propellers driven, both new planes than refurbished ones.
Said so an healthy growth of an air force needs all kind of planes, so everyone’s welcome, just let’s not gave the idea of a sudden boom or a sudden fall of nyear on year order just looking at the said gross number.
Seems a lot but it usually envisage anything they would get from Ka-226 and Yak-152 to Tu-160, new and refurbished…
Annddd if it weren’t for ignorant comments like that above that are devoid of fact, threads probably wouldn’t degenerate into chest thumping stupidity and get erased.
Frankly, FBW, this is the pot calling the kettle black.
All we have on western side is the declaration of the Pentagon that all of 104 missiles has hitten their objective and some picture taken well after the strike occurred.
And that lack of more complete data is perfectly to be expected as they have launched those missiles from great distances , well deep into enemy controlled territories and at a very low cruise quote, so no way to get a direct feedback from them.
This, and the blind, lemming like trust of the usual suspects on everything their masters said…
Last time I’ve checked, democratic regimes and utter lack of critical inquiry toward what authorities say and do were just considered not compatible one with the other.
So,precisely, what is changed on your side of Atlantic in those last years?
People, maybe many of you will disagree with me but did we really need to keep a separate thread for Su-57?
That was surely justified when development programme was still unfolding and so there will be a whole lot of discussion about its final outcome.
Even the last thread suffered badly from a relative but noticed by many. lack of fresh and reliable information about the program in itself, now we are at the brink of the start of its own serial production, so why not to treat it as just another plane between the many that RuAF are actually putting into service?
Sure, it would be without any doubt the most important of all them, but the overall situation of russian planes acquisition is not the same of the west with the F-35 taking all the stage time with instead an ” USAF non F-35 thread” sadly made mostly of vaporware about new futuristic programmes to be finalized well ahead of the new decade and news about updates of planes made mostly during the two Reagan’s presidencies.
Again. The term in service meant something different according to the development procedure of the different states.
Even the same Su-35S have been ufficially declared “in service” according to russian procedure, regardless being produced by years, tested in combat and exported and operative in China itself.
I would say awesomely self contradictory.
It doesn’t mean that you cannot use some of its component for engine and landing gear for an UCAV, just that the requisites are completely different.
Ucav need max autonomy, good payload and have to be stealth while in a trainer all those are redundant.
Refuelling rod? Paint me VERY SKEPTICAL about this.
It would mean to have it rebranded as a strategic bomber and be counted in START total.:applause:
@J-20
looks like something the USAF would use.. in the 1990s.
Jep. Like the F-16 block 50, you mean i.e. the only thing (partially) new that the Usaf introduced in the ’90s.
The USN introduced the Superbug about the same time and, surprise, surprise they are still acquiring them also now.
J-10 is a delta with canard however i.e. the same tech level of Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen while both the j-20 and the j-31 are actually close to completion.
So all the actual difference between them and the whole West is in those 187, pardon 185 now White Elephants that have spent more time grounded than in actual operations, right?
Yes, also because of the six new systems presented by Putin the first of march just one, the Khinzal, is aviation related.
Other two are pertinence of strategic rocket forces, one is navy, one is a land/sea launched cruise missile and the last is an AD laser.
@ Levsha
In which case you could consider the S-300,S-400 and S-500 as sitting ducks as well? An air-launched version of the MGM-140 ATACMS could do the trick – dirt cheap as well
And so let’s them do it.
No one are forbidding them to try, right the contrary…
P.S.
All of this was generated by the above post of Mad Rat that never like in this case demonstrate the truth of the saying Nomen, omen.
So trying to use it as a proof of anything is actually not a good move IMHO.
To avoid another trollfest:
Russian have developed even before large air-launched AShM missile and put them on fighters.
Kh-41 Moskit is possibly even larger than Khinzal still Su-33 can carry it, together with Yakhont/Bhramos.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]259451[/ATTACH]
What probably change it’s just the type of vector plane, until now we have seen it just on specifically modified Mig-31 but no one forbid that they could put it on other ones, maybe with a larger booster to compensate for an inferior speed/quote launch or even modify the standard Foxhound to carry it as an alternative to their usual load.
Even this more restrictive option would mean an hundred of possible vectors from day one.
So the main question would remain the necessity or not of a specific MiG-31 version to use such a weapon.
One thing is the possibility of use it on already existing or just minimally modified planes, as you get about 100 carrier vehicles in a short span of time.
Having instead to introduce an ad hoc version just for this role, without the possibility to install the usual A2A load as an alternative, would be just another matter, in terms of both cost and efficacy.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]259356[/ATTACH]
The ones that published this on Twitter claim it use standard AKu-410 ejector rack.
Can someone with better knowledge than mine confirm this?
Given that the weapon in question was presented just five days ago I think that is too early to pretend to know how exactly it work and what tprocedure and tactics it will use.
For what we surely know:
it’s a derivate of Iskander but sport more than a difference from it, allegedly also in the overall dimensions.
Has both radar than IR terminal guidance
Trajectory is mainly ballistic but can maneuver.
It was tested on a specially modified Mig-31, so even if presented as in service and ready for production it actually lack a suitable carrier.
So, maybe it’s not the wunderwaffe that they advertise it to be but surely it’s a weapon of very high performances and lethality developed by an already existing item, so surely it was a smart move to get it, given that they have not renounced to any of their other project of advanced antiship missiles for it