soyuz1917there was one very successful relatively long legged Western interceptor and that was the Mirage III. It slaughtered old obsolete MiG-17’s and 19’s 6:1 during the 6 day war. The Mirage was the fastest bird in the theatre by far.
In the Gulf War Iraqi MiG-25’s would go up, see that they were being totally jammed and then they would turn around and land because they knew they were done then and there. American jets were a generation removed, american electronics were a generation ahead and the Iraqis couldnt even take off with working radar.
The arabs as a whole had poor pilots and old and downgraded jets, that they managed any kills at all is the surprise. Were we really supposed to be surprised that Mirage III’s were dowing 6 MiG-17’s for every lost Mirage? Or that Syrians MiG-21F’s were losing 50:0 against F-15’s?
soyuz1917That it actually added momentum and didnt take any away is still a major accomplishment. Before this scramjets were basically eating energy and here for the first time you have a scramjet that added at least nominal thrust and this was 10 years ago. The thing generated thrust for 77 seconds according to some sources 10 years ago….
As for them not testing anything since, the fact is you dont know this and its actually doubtful that they’ve tested nothing. The common belief is that their new ICBM RV’s are actually scramjet powered. There are various sources (including a clip on vesti after the RS-24 was tested) that claim this.
At every arms show they display various scramjet proposals too so work has certainly not halted. They fly a lot of things in Russia that we dont know about until one magic day when they are up for sale at MAKS.
The GLL Igla is supposed to have its first test launch in 2009 so a second generation Russian scramjet is certainly in the works.
soyuz1917the funny thing is you are both wrong. The article you cite says the russian scramjet did provide some acceleration to the missile, it just wasnt a lot, 340lb of additional thrust according to the American sceptic himself.
This was more than 10 years ago so they’ve probably made similiar progress to nasa which now has scramjets that can go for 2 minutes adding thrust the whole time. We are still decades away from truly useful designs be they American or Russian.
soyuz1917russia isnt in a weaker economic position. Its easier for China to produce 10% growth rates when the per-capita GDP in China is 1/2 that in Russia.
soyuz1917all we need is for somone to link to the that PDF I mentioned 😎
In that PDF they clearly said the problem was the computer being too slow.
soyuz1917the 1088 module zhuk at MAKS wasnt a mockup, it was “functional” but with a bad computer and they flew it. The prototype utilized no light weight magnesium or cutouts in its body so it came away weighing at an incredible 450kg’s. The current prototype is down to 200 something kilograms and this mostly due to them not putting the thing in a giant heavy steel body.
The MiG has a good bit more than 575mm worth of room in its nose, they plan on increasing the size of the antenna, the prototype antenna is smaller because there simply isnt enough processing power for more modules. The Zhuk-Meh has a 625mm antenna I believe and there is still a bit of room left after that. They arent utilizing at least 50mm that are clearly available to them. The older Zhuk-M was actually a 700mm design I believe, so they might have a good 125mm they arent playing with.
There was a PDF of a handout given out at one of the arms shows linked to on this very forum where the developers talked about the radar and development. Module technology is not the problem, they’ve said it themelves, the problem is they have an old computer.
One reason the modules arent a problem is because they are made by Mikron not the radar manufacturer and Mikron is swimming in money today.
soyuz1917they’ve already built and flown a 1000+ module antenna, the reason why they moved back down to 690 modules isnt because they couldnt fit more modules, but because they dont have the processing power in the computer to handle 1000 modules. They flew with a 1000+ module prototype to test for overheating and it apparently wasnt a problem.
What they want from India is a processor for the computer, not module miniturization tech. There are 5 new fabs being built in Russia now, as someone said earlier in the thread, so if you wait a year they will probably have a Russian processor for the radar with or without India.
soyuz1917Russia is the same way or do you think all that help from Boeing on the RRJ isnt going to come back to kick the American’s in the ass when Russia starts building wide body jets again? Orders for the “failed” Il-96-300’s and 400’s are up a lot this year (20 airframes on order now) and the Tu-204 isnt doing that badly either again. This will encourage them to try a larger design if the RRJ sells even remotely well.
soyuz1917it says work on the ALPHA missile has stopped even though the Su-34 continues to be displayed with a mockup of that missile.
That probably means they are looking for a foreign buyer to help fund the completion of development.
soyuz1917even upgraded its a dated and obviously obsolete radar that gives the Su-30 roughly the same ability to detect targets as a block 52 F-16 even though it has a MUCH larger nose and radar. Its good enough to guide the R-77 out to its maximum range against your typical unstealthy fighter, but thats about it. For ground attack its as good as you really need. 2 meter SAR resolutions and 300km ranges are arguably tremendous overkill and rarely ever going to be necessary. Considering what jets make up the bulk of air forces (including the vast bulk of the US air force) its all you really need, especially since there is no Russian A-A missile for the flanker IN SERVICE that has a range larger than the R-77. Its good enough to guide the R-77 out to its maximum range and give the plane decent air to ground capability, day or night, without the need for targeting pods against most targets which is all they seem to want the “cheap” flankers to be able to do.
soyuz1917I have to say Im amazed at the “hate” for the Yak-130. The M-346 has lighter electronics? What decade are you living in? There are no obsolete gauges on the yak, it has flat panel displays and fairly modern computers (aviation everywhere = 10 year old processors anyway) throughout. If the Italians put in faster computers thats one thing, but lighter wtf? Wrong generation my friend.
The Russians are not going to use DV-2 engines, the AI-222-5 will be used instead. The Yak production bird and the M-346 have identical wingspans and the production version of the Yak is actually just a few centimeters shorter lengthwise than the M-346. Both production birds are lighter and smaller than the original demonstrator. The takeoff weights are also identical or the M-346 weighs 10kg’s more depending on the source you look at. The max weight is 9,000kg’s for both aircraft.
The only major difference is really the engine, the American engine gives off some 300 or 350 (my memory isnt 100%) kg’s more thrust than the new russian-ukrainian engine which means a lot. This gives the M-346 a much higher ceiling for one. The AI-222-25 is still “young” and they may end up getting another 100 or 200 kg’s of thrust out of it.
The avionics are comparable in terms of capability and weight is not an issue. The Russians also have a pod mounted version of the kopyo radar they are pitching for the Yak to give it a SAR ground attack capability like the one on the Su-39.
soyuz1917that 300-350 number includes SLBM’s and lets say you have the ability to intercept just 60 of them. How many are going to be left after a US first strike? Something tells me they’ve done the math and its so few that an American capability to intercept 60 missiles freaks them out A LOT.
Missile defense is also so insanely expensive that were proliferation really the danger you were concerned with it would be far wiser to spend just a fraction of that money buying up all the nuclear fuel sitting in warheads in Russia that have been removed from missiles but not taken out of the undeliverable or tactical warhead count. That fuel is a far bigger threat than some Iranian ICBM which doesnt exist.
The rationale for missile defense is hallow. Pavel Podvig arguably makes the best argument for why its a bad idea and his argument is very, very simple it “doesnt work” but it instills an additional element of instability into the strategic decision which is the very thing you dont want to do.
soyuz1917the A-135 system is basically a joke today kept in place almost entirely for its early warning radar capability and not its missile interception capability. With the long range interceptor out of service the continued rationale for keeping the obsolete short range missile around is growing fainter by the day. Its a bargaining chip at best. No Russian general seriously expects it to reliably intercept anything.
Around 2012 or 2015 the Russian will be down to 300 or 350 ICBM’s if you dont see the threat of a 100 interceptor or a 60 interceptor system to such a small arsenal I dont know what to tell you. I realize they intercept the warheads and not the missiles themselves, but thats today and who knows what the future will bring.
soyuz1917in all honesty the hardest thing to is to design and integrate all the electronic goodies that go into a fighter. Sukhoi and its various subcontractors has basically unveiled all the 5th gen avionics that will be placed on the PAK-FA you already have the vast majority of the components known, working and flying in prototype as we speak. That they’ve yet to put an airframe in the air shouldnt bother anyone much. As I see it the “metal” is really the easy part. Look how quickly the RRJ has come along once all the funding problems were worked out. Making the air frame is not as challenging as getting a working a 1000+ module AESA working without any bugs.
soyuz1917The real problem the Russians have with missile defense has more to do with Russian weakness than American strength. By 2012 or 2015 at the latest the Russians will be down to 300-350 missiles that will be able to delivers 1000-1200 warheads. A 10 missile ABM battery in Poland can then theoretically take out 1/30th of the Russian arsenal. The Russians also will have about 100 interceptors in Alaska to worry about (or so they think) that’s 1/3 of their future delivery capability potentially threatened. They also dont believe that the 10 interceptors in Poland will stay at just 10. The Russian arsenal is shrinking VERY, VERY quickly and by 2015 (whether the treaty of Moscow is extended or not) it will be so small that even a limited ABM system will be a serious worry. Of course the ABM system may never work, but if you are a Russian general you are paid to assume the worst and the worst is an American system that can intercept your missiles before the warheads come loose.
If the US wants missile defense the Russians want the US warhead count to go down at the very least that will mean extending the Moscow treaty. If the US and Russia both go down to 1,000 warheads the world will be a safer place and if the Russians get a strong US committment to continued disarmament then they wont worry so much about missile defense, but today the Moscow treaty is set to to expire and the whole arms control regime is breaking apart.
So, it doesnt matter if the system is indeed meant to counter Iran the point is its a serious worry for Russia given the current reality and you have to be blind not to see why. The Americans are talking about new warheads and missile defense at a time when the Russian deliverable count is plummeting.
Sign In
