MarcellogoUpdate on follow on Mig-31 program , Looks like it will have incremental update over Mig-31 and would be netcentric
http://rg.ru/2016/04/06/perehvatchik-na-baze-mig-31.html
New fighter-interceptor based on the MiG-31 will receive an improvement of almost all important parameters, said in an interview with TV channel “Star” President and General designer of Ramenskoye design Bureau (RPKB) Givi Janjgava.
– Fighter will be a continuation of ideas and technologies MiG-31: slightly increase the speed, the range of the radar, range of weapons. But the fact that it modernization is modern: its main feature is that it initially was a network plane, and this is very important, – said the expert. – In the modern world, planes don’t fly solo: it is the complexes that include dozens of cars, and this significantly improves combat effectiveness. Now, the MiG-31 at a time when no one talked about network groups, had the avionics, which allowed to coordinate the group.
I think it’s a good choice, despite the claim about far greater velocity attainable that exited before, an incremental path is much more of a realistic choice.
Obviously this only if it would not reduce itself to be a simple update but instead an actual technology-wise redesign of a very valid but aged design.
Lighter but more resistent materials, new radars and engines, LO measures implementation and so on would increase dramatically its effectiveness in a relatively brief time, so to be able to restart production of it as soon that the BM update program would end.
MarcellogoB-2A rarely flies above 40K, the same altitude as airliners. There is no reason for B-2.1 to fly at 60K+. Survivability is about stealth and operation above contrail altitude is not stealthy.
The more you fligh high, the more distant ground based radar can spot you.
For the rest i didn’t see how penetration mission that were envisioned for B-2 can be performed at all against even actual defences, less even against the ones that we can expect to be operative for when the b-21 woud be ready, no matter how stealthy a future plane can be.
MarcellogoYes, problem was that it was not possible to convert the ka-50 into a classic tandem cockpit for problem of balance and that going twin-seat as it was the chosen solution implied to reduce its protection level, hence the initial preference for Mi-28.
Probably it was better so: Mi-28 can fit well its intended role, while Ka-52 add a new array of possibilities to the armed force as a whole.
MarcellogoThey are supposed working on pair, one as a classical AT assault helicopter the other as a scout/ reconnoissance .
Fact is that Ka-52 is something that far exceed capabilities of all others used until now in such a role and can replicate the most of performances of the same mi-28 in attack role, while the other doesn’t apply.
It means it would eventually supersede it? It would depend about a lot of consideration but it seems me not likely to happen, almost in the RuAF.
Unless the Ka-52 would prove itself considerably less costly to buy and above all to operate than Mi-28NM there is not any need for it, it would be better instead to raise up itsproduction of it in order to operate with Mi-24 also or as an escort for transport helos.
MarcellogoYes but the true long-range sea-based analogue to the S-400 will only be fielded by a couple of navies (US, Japan, Australia) with the SPY-1D(V) [GaN based AMDR in the AB Flight III ships] and SM-3+SM-6 combination.
Passive radar is just another name for RWR , and OTH radar are very inaccurate , have huge blind area ( blind area of sky wave radars can be from 500-1000 km in radius in front of them ) , in my opinion the best kind of radar that can be used again stealth platforms are multi static radars ( transmitter and receivers are not at the same location ).
But i agree with you that the combination of different systems does help alot again VLO assets , what i critise about these articles is that they only consider one side of the equation.
for exmple :
” other ground-based radars might have collected intelligence data needed to “characterize” the F-22’s signature at specific wavelengths.”
what if the F-22 carry luneberg lens ?”Kolchuga Radar, the system is not really a radar, but an ESM system comprising three or four receivers, deployed tens of kilometres apart, which detect and track aircraft by triangulation and multilateration of their RF emissions”
what if stealth aircrafts using directional datalink and high gain radars ?” Low frequency OTH radar can detect stealth aircraft as easy as normal platform ”
but these OTH radars have massives size and practically stationary so how about threat from long range cruise missiles ?and so on ,but i think you get my point : both sides will use suitable tactics to achieve advantages,another point people forget is that one of the most important characteristics of air assets in general are their mobility , with air assets you can concentrate all of your forces in one location and move on to the next one in mater of hours, while ground forces have to be evenly distributed
Well, it seem that the thread has grown some good wings now and that we actually agree, the more the less, on many points.
Just a precisation for GarryA, maybe its just a different way to call things but i’ve checked : passive radar is actually used for multistatic radar also and it was actually those ones I was referring about.
Kolkhuga and czech LERA are not radar at all, just (very advanced and effective) ESM triangulation system, so they still rely on detecting enemy emission.
Developer of early VLO aircraft was very well aware of this and envisaged to operate them in strict no emission regime.
Maybe ever TOO strict regime : F-22 had not any of Nato data link and was though to send data trought its AESA radar, problem was that it worked only toward other F-22 and so no clearance given by other alliance members for it take part in common operations until a (receive only) link 16 was added…
MarcellogoGiven the links is wikipedia , i suppose the writer simply lack knowledge about electromagnetic field hence he made that ridiculous statement .
While there are counters against stealth fighters and they have existed for decades, it not as one sided as being potrayed in these articles, a ground RWR system ( Kolchuga) doesnt eliminate targeting problems again modern VLO assets
GarryA, it is EXACTLy the same thing I have written in the post you have cited! ESM is not a viable counter stealth system as it is not work in a continuative way and does not give any reliable spatial reference.
Passive or better said not-cooperative multistatic radars however are much more effective and several of them are already operative, OTH radars works, metric band radars are a well consolidate reality.
As I have repeated ad nauseam in several threads and repeated also in the post you have cited not one of them would render VLO technologies useless but thinking that situation is the same of thirty years ago is also a wishful thinking and far greater that the one Falcondude impute to BlackAdam.
MarcellogoYes, not just our CBG, several navies have it, also several single major ships have it: my own country’s navy for an instance was always a natural in this.
They however had this from much more time before introduction of stealth itself because of sea skimming missiles.
I was talking about land based ones, something that seems me to have been quite neglected in the west after the end of cold war.
MarcellogoNo, it’s not wishful thinking, several countermeasures against Stealth have been developed in the decades passed from when F-117 entered service.
Some, like Kolchuga itself were very partial or not worth the cost, other work just fine.
All of them are the more or less partial: no one cover the engagement sequence from the beginning to the end all by itself but the sum of several of them combined with all the probability will.
For the rest, we can’t have a definitive proof of it until there would be real operative missions made by stealth planes against an up-to-date multilayer and multisensor AD system, something that actually just an handful of nations have…
Better said just Russia and China for sure.
MarcellogoIMHO the main problem is always the same: CAS (the real one, not launching glide bombs from fifty miles away) is something USAF do not want to do at all but in the same time it will never accept that it and the related fundings would go to the Army.
USMC had never this problem: it does CAS as a primary mission with its AV-8 and will do it the same with F-35B.
The “operate in a contested environment” is a limitation than can apply to legacy A-10 but not to a CAS platform in itself.
Nothing bar them to be stealth or to have a fairly decent ECM protection suite at all: essential for the role is instead to have good low speed/low altitude handling and the ability and roughness to operate from forward bases so to give a round o’clock cover to ground forces.
MarcellogoWhat? The range is showed in huge letters, it fluctuates based on where the lock is at. When they get a good lock at the target it is at ~5km and there is even a counter til target hit above the range after firing.
My bad , so the number i was referring to was probably altitude.
MarcellogoCome to think of it, the fast moving vehicle in the first vid IMO is the one getting away in the second vid.
Some static target shooting:
In such a case it is the range not making any sense, 194 mtrs and it take more than ten seconds to reach target.
Maybe it just use another scale range?
MarcellogoSo much confusion here… The MiG-31M program continued beyond 1991 and the record of shooting down the Tu-16 drone at M2.35 and 200+km range happened in 1994 iirc. There were talks few years ago about restarting MiG-31 production but MoD doesnt want to do it and are perfectly happy with BM modernization. It was basically just commies whining, it wont happen. MiG-41 is not even a paper project at this point.
R-33S is not used “instead” of R-37 or “instead” of anything. MiG-31BM will be getting new missile known as RVV-BD in export designation and R-37M as the internal code. It will have atleast as good range as the old R-37 and be able to go after targets turning at double the G’s. (up to 8G’s) There are over 80 MiG-31’s upgraded to BM/BSM standard.
What are the capabilities of MiG design bureau ATM in your opinion: it is possible for it to build a completely new aircraft of such a complexity while carrying on also Mig-35 further developement or it would need additional fundings?
MarcellogoNot exactly, all the time they are talking about F-18 (of course with AESA) but they put the picture of an F-16 and label it as F-18.
It speak volumes about the quality of such a programme, and also on this what F-16 and F/A-18 are they talking about, there are huge differences between the firs and latest series of both.
MarcellogoI was refering to the charts about range and radar range between the different jets.
Yes it seems to invent performances and above all ranges of various planes in order to made appear f-16 always second but far from Su-35.
Marcellogosomeone didnt send the serbs the memo
LMAO!
Seriously stealth is around from almost november 1988 when F-117 was made public, B-2 made its firs flight less than one years after it means that there was more than 25 years to think about countermeasures against them.
So expecting that their performancesw are the more the less than when they were introducted at first is an absurdity.
Sign In
