star49The problem is that you set your RCS requirements before you begin to design and build the jet. You won’t really know how much you’ll have to screw with it until you get it onto a pole. If they aim for a 0.01m2 RCS in the requirement, then that’s what they’d design for and therefore be paying for from the outset
O.01m2 RCS is illogical design objective to begin with. when there own statements said Exported oriented Irbis can detect 0.01m2 target at 90km and similar is export S-300PMU-2 of 1m2 target at range exceeding 300KM. why would they aim for a system that even current exported oriented products can deal with it let alone some thing in future. 5th generation are for next 5 decades. and will be tested against all modern X- band Aesa and multistatic radar. which i doubt were available in current performance in 80s for B-2 and F-117 and even in the 90s for F-22.
so aim is more likely in 0.00001m2 to begin with and progressively improved with each prototype. deign objective is to provide Stealth in all three spectrums. and they are using extensive composites instead of titanium.
star49So far I can not see customers queing for the Su-34 alias Su-32FN/FM. It is big and it is cheap. A lot of aircraft by that. So what is wrong with the Su-34?! The people in several AFs around are no idiots, when not picking up the Su-34 as first choice and even the Russians do hesitate to do so.
Su-34 is not clear for export untill 2010. and it isnt cheap either. ur comparing export price flanker to domestic price Su-34. this is from Strike Force Video.
Over video of planes dropping bombs, people working at various research centres, the documentary said satellite systems for precision bombing from planes started developing in Russia in the mid-1990s. It praised the Su-34 as the most advanced bomber created at that time. The film said this all-weather bomber is provided with a multi-functional radio electronic system and can fire at four air and 10 ground targets at the same time.
The documentary lasted over 45 minutes and also showed Sergey Zheltov, director-general of GosNIIAS (State Aviation Systems Research and Development Institute), talking about the possibility of robots replacing pilots in the future. On the whole he was optimistic about the prospects of Russia making progress in this field.
star49No, those launched in 2000 were the best. They lasted longer than those launched in 2001 & 2002. You can’t blame the deterioration in 2001 on the Soviets. All the satellites launched in 2001 & 2002 have ceased operating. The oldest satellites now operating were launched on 10-Dec-2003.
Odd how this “temporary reduction” has lasted about 15 years. New satellites keep being launched, but old satellites fail so fast the operational number doesn’t go up.
even in 2001 and 2002 they were still lauching the old Glosnas versions. than they went into Glosnass-M and after that Glosnass-K. again the M and K version are just recent and old satellites have no bearing on how the system performed will perform in future.
and its funny that u change ur arguement. u started by saying it is a leftover Soviet system. and i have proved u wrong on that one. and it is still temprory thing. i am yet to see India money for Glosnass system just like Pak-FA.
show me some thing from EU nations that they have done some thing alone.? even Rafale tested with F404 engine. what would have happened without F404?
star49For me it’s interesting that it is stated that the MiG-35 will have larger wings and 10 hardpoints, but that’s at least for this prototype which was derived from the MiG-29M No.154 not the fact.
MIG-29K has larger wing and it has flown. there will be 90% commonality with MIG-35. it is one of MIG press relaease. so airshow fighter is older one.
star49“Operationalize in 1993”? But it’s still incomplete! It’s never had anywhere near a full constellation. Look at the launches, & the number of operational satellites (all listed on the Glonass website). It’s clear that they’ve had stop-start funding, & quality control problems. Some of the satellites have failed very quickly. That 7 years is a dream so far, not a reality.
Currently (from Glonass website, today) there are only 9 satellites operating, which is nowhere near enough to provide full coverage. 3 are commissioning (launched 25-Dec-06), & 7 “temporarily switched off”. From past experience, they rarely return to service. The oldest operational satellite is 37.5 months old. The oldest satellite listed worked for 68.7 months, & hasn’t worked since 12-Sep-06. Second longest functioning satellite listed was for 65.6 months, & went off on 16-Mar-07. The oldest listed was launched 13-Oct-2000, the oldest functioning on 10-Dec-2003.
The satellites are lasting longer than a few years ago, when some failed in days or weeks: the shortest active life listed is 36.1 months. But still, that’s puny compared to Navstar. 30 satellites operational, oldest active for 186.6 months (launched 1991). 15 have been active for over 100 months.
Glonass is not a good example of how Russian things work well. I suspect it still suffers from the Soviet “never mind how long they last, just make more” principle. Because of the short lifetime of the satellites, many more must be launched to complete & maintain the system than for Navstar, & that’s expensive: Russia can’t afford it. That’s why Indian money is needed: because otherwise, Glonass will probably never be finished, as at present, it’s like building a wall which bricks fall off of as fast as new ones are added.
The rest of what you posted is equally inaccurate.
where u get this Russia is waiting for Indian money? they havent asked or received yet. and how can India spent so Much to complete some one else systems? they have 19 satellietes. It is temproray reduction.
u are again putting example from year 2000. when build quality was still at Soviet standards.
and how is my rest of information inaccurate?
EU cannot afford Galileo without Russian luanches. It simply does not have the will and money to do it.
Moscow, on March, 22nd. (ITAR-TASS). In Russian system GLONASS only nine satellites from 19 being on orbits now work. As have informed ITAR-TASS in ФГУП the Russian scientific research institute of space instrument making (РНИИ КП), ” with time(temporary) deducing(removing) from operation of the next satellite the number of working devices in system GLONASS was reduced up to nine “.
” Now all nine КА systems GLONASS precisely give out to consumers navigating signals “, – have added in scientific research institute.
Started from Baikonur on December, 25th, 2006 satellites ” Космос-2424 “, “Космос-2425” and “Космос-2426” are at a stage of commissioning, have informed in РНИИ КП.
In view of three new satellites in structure of ГЛОНАСС now 19 КА. Seven from them are temporarily deduced(removed) from operation.
That the system has provided with the navigating information of users in territory of Russia, 18 operating(working) satellites are necessary for work on a global scale – 24 КА.
Start of three more satellites is planned for the end of 2007.
the newer one use T/R modules like AESA and its history started in Soviet Union. quite old research.
САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГ, on March, 21st. (ITAR-TASS). Russia considers(counts) inexpedient from the point of view of safety to buy(purchase) components of electronics of military purpose(assignment,destination) abroad has informed on March, 21st, opening the exit session ВПК, the first vice-premier Sergey Ivanov.
As he said, ” major of new directions in creation modern ” stuffings ” electronics of military purpose(assignment,destination) is development and manufacture of solid-state MICROWAVES-ELECTRONIC of components “. ” On their base the active phased antenna lattices for ЗРС are constructed and perspective complexes of front aircraft, – Ivanov has explained. – these components provide functioning РЛС of various purpose(assignment,destination) “. The similar element base is widely applied in systems of satellite navigation, including in system GLONASS. ” Here the big market of production is looked through, as allows to pass from skilled to a batch production “, – Ivanov is assured(confident).
” I think, all present well understand what to buy(purchase) such components abroad in quantities(amounts) necessary for us it is extremely undesirable from the point of view of maintenance of national safety “, – the first vice-premier has emphasized. ” As the separate enterprises managed to keep and develop a necessary technological scientific reserve for expansion of a batch production of similar elements “, – it(he) has told. On one of such enterprises – Open Society ” Svetlana ” where passes(takes place) session, ” we have seen samples of the domestic equipment which allows to make materials for a MICROWAVE-DEVICES, not conceding to a world(global) level “, Ivanov has specified.
It(He) has noted, that in Russia, ” and earlier in the USSR, did(made) in individual copies unique products, but, unfortunately, and could not finish them to industrial manufacturing “. ” Now the situation changes for the better, – vice-premier ascertained. – at enterprise ” Svetlana “, for example, this problem basically to solve it was possible “.
star49THey upgraded the avionics. And they aren’t building brand new Tu-160s, they’re merely completing incomplete airframes inside the hall at Kazan that were left over from when the line was closed down.
There are only two left to be completed. so if they continue untill 2015. they have to build more but this report is from 2005. alot of things changed after that.
http://www.royfc.com/news/jun/2805jun01.html
According to the CinC, besides the upgrade of the aircraft on hand, obtaining of new ones is being looked at. “There are reserves for two more Tu-160 airplanes, but how deep these reserves are is unknown,” says the deputy director of the Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Konstantin Makienko.- “The cost of a new Tu-160 bomber is not less than 100 million dollars.”“As a result of the upgrade of the Tu-160 missile carriers, the air force will receive a bomber with the most modern digital aircraft equipment which will allow using space to the maximum and change the system for carrying out a strike,” says the 37th Air Army commander, General-Lieutenant Igor’ Khvorov.- “The airplane will be so upgraded that only the shape will remain from the old
star49Oh dear.
Glonass: developed under the USSR. Russia has been unable to complete it alone. Now has Indian money to help.
Operationalize in 1993.
Satellites have 7 years expiry life. All satellites are Russian. Indian money hasnt been receieved yet. and this year they are already testing 14 years life Glonass-K and complete in next 2 years. Indian things are slow to act upon.
Kliper: Good example of a completed project. 😀 I think not. Seeking foreign money.
Alteast they started ambitious. Not to mention made a launching pad inside Russian. in addition to Baiknour and another one at French Guiana. half of world lauches are russian.
Sukhoi SSJ: partners include Boeing & SNECMA. the engines are built by PowerJet, a Russian/French (SNECMA) 50:50 joint venture. Ooops!
$1.2B is Sukhoi money. $500m is Saturn Money. 25% sold to Alenia of italy at $300m of Sukhoi Civil aviation part. Boeing is merely a marketing consultant because there are 1500 Russian engineers working on B787. Illusian is doing the certification. Boeing get sidelined when the chose side stick control like Airbus from thales because they want to enter Airlines who operate A320 for smoth transition.
Tu-160: developed by the USSR. Minor upgrades since.
Minor upgrade? how do u know. and 2 new every three years. EU cannot make even a singe one.
An-124: developed by the USSR. A lot of talk about a new version, but not much action. Seeking foreign money.
do u think its that easy to develope upgrade from 120ton capacity to 150ton with same fuel consumption. who in the west can do it with only Volga Dnpr money?
Il-76: developed by the USSR. An upgraded version. Marvellous! An upgraded 30 year old transport. :diablo:
and C-130 is not 50 years old which is EU work horse? u just upgrade like C-130 with present times. the key thing is every thing is with in the cost.
Russia inherited most of the Soviet military industrial complex. Great skills, but the economy can’t support them all. Hence all the stalled projects, & the hunt for foreign investors.
Economy can support them. thats why u see newer IL-76/IL-96-400/Tu-204/Backfire/Blackjack/MIG-31upgrade/Flankers upgrades. and newer projects like Sukhoi SSJ/TU-334/MS-21/MTA/An-148. there are other things like Floating Nuclear reactor, 5th generation air/space defence system. these things are beyond the political will, financial and technical capacity of the above nations alone.
BAE cannot make even a single fighter by its own. It is just a contractor of pentagon. Buying US firms with money it gets from Arabs.
EADS will not exist without Chinese market thats why they sold the license. A-350 cannot become profitable unless significant work is outsource to Russians and license to Chinese. and it will be its final mistake. Remember my prediction about A-380 from 2004.;)
star49Afraid not. From 1990 (your baseline) to 2005 Germany (including the east, & its crash in 1991) & Japan both grew over 20%, which is slow but positive, while Russia was still slightly below its 1990 level that year. Both German & Japanese economies have picked up recently (Japan first, recording respectable growth every year since 2004), & are now growing quite a bit faster than the average of the last 15 years. If they all sustain their current growth rates (unlikely), it will take until about 2020 for Russia to catch up with Germany, & at least until 2040 to catch up with Japan. That’s too far ahead to predict what might happen.
Ukraine started poorer than Russia & crashed further. It’s not in sight of Poland or Turkey yet.
Russias limits on what it can afford are currently about the same as those of Italy. Because Russias economy is growing fast, that’s changing, & it’ll soon be able to afford as much as France. That doesn’t put it in the same league as the USA, or the co-operating W. European countries, or China (which is behind them but catching up very fast). Russia spends more proportionately than any W. European country, probably more than the USA, & can probably afford to (though remember that they could increase spending if they chose), but if it tries to match the USA – or even the lower-spending combined W. Europeans – it will ruin its economy.
Superpower dreams don’t suit a medium powers economy, what is what Russia has. Let’s get back to reality, shall we?
Reality check?
can any of EU big nations like UK/France/Germany or for that matter Japan. make Glosnoss/Galilieo like system alone? the ansewer is no for cost and technical reasons. just look at space launches and read Klipper like project.
neither any of these countries can make supersonic intercontinental bomber for $100m. and i doubt they can even afford modern versions of IL-76 or An-124 alone.
they cannot even afford a Regional jet like Sukhoi SSJ alone now with completely new engines and industrail plant.
Russia has unique scientific/military industrial capabilities that enable it to develop and afford systems that no one else can do with that kind of money. France is not at same league.
star49What!!!!
So let me get this straight.
Because the Russian Federation is a significantly less well off country, with workers’ salaries and national GDP being only a fraction of America’s, along with Russian military spending being only around 5% of America’s, you really believe that the Russian air force should be able to take delivery of 200 fifth generation fighter aircraft when the time comes – as opposed to America being only being able to afford 180 (so far)!
Where did you learn your Mathematics and Economics…?:confused: :confused:
Look at US military burden. just oversees commitments in permanent and temprory bases make a big part of defence expenditure. Not to mention Naval presence.
the rest i just simply converted known figures of Russia GDP per capita. and i already mentioned that alot of things that were not matured at F-22 time area already there like 3D TVC engine, AESA, fibre optic etc. and I think there is no other commitment to JSF like new project.
and Russia still manages to produce budget surplus of $50 to $100b each year which West simply cannot and Industrial production only Asia is growing. the rest are just Service economies.
star49and look who is behind newer An-124. they have as much new civillian projects under belt as Boeing/Airbus. MS-21/SSJ/Tu-334 and newer versions of older planes.
Within the framework of the JV Motor Sich, jointly with the Progress Design Bureau, is responsible for upgrading and manufacture of D-18T engines to be installed on the An-124-100M-150 aircraft. The D-18T engine is slated to be modernized into D-18T4 series, as well as reverse and engine control systems with using FADEC control system, and the design of fan and turbine is planned to be upgraded which, in turn, would allow for thrust to be increased to 25.000 kg-force with preservation of fuel rate at the same level. According to president of Motor Sich Vyacheslav Boguslayev, the D-18T engine consists 80% of Russian materials and units and 100%-Russian science-intensive.
The building of the aircraft will be carried out at Uliyanovsk-based Aviastar-SP aircraft plant capacities in accordance with requirements specification, worked out by the Antonov Aviation Research and Technological Corp.
star49Apart from that JSF/F-22 mixup. the article accurately sums the reality. if F-22 total project costs are around $65B. there is no reason to doubt that Russians cannot achieve 200 PAK-FA under $20B assuming PPP values.
which is well under there financial means for next 10 years.
the cost of processors, T/R modules, Fibre optics, LCDs, advance manufacturing techniquies, computer aided designs, engine technology were much higher when F-22 was started in early 90s.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/88404-1/
According to different assessments at different periods the designers totally needed from 5 to 10 billion US dollars to reach the stage of serial manufacturing. Today this sum seems like peanuts. So there are no serious reasons to doubt that by 2010 there will be several experimental PAK FAs flying.
EU can only theorectically make a Fifth generation fighter. It does not have the political will and funding commitment for a single project not to mention spiralling cost of any project under taken.
star49here we are comparing figures for export oriented products so figures are released. Not like some hearsay for domestic variants which in EF case is german.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18cd.htm
The F/A-18C radar is the world’s most advanced for a fighter aircraft. Two radars in one, the Hughes APG-73 has the ability to detect airborne targets at more than 100 miles, distinguish low-flying or slow-moving targets “on the deck,” pinpoint ships at sea, map the contours of the ground, and track ground targets
about bars
http://www.irkut.com/en/news/news_archives/index.php?id48=127
The third phase Su-30MKI fully implements all navigation and combat modes according to contract commitments. The fighter is capable of employment of the whole nomenclature of aerial weapons, including simultaneous attack of up to 4 targets by guided missiles into front and rear hemispheres, corrected aerial bombs 500 and 1500 kg with designation from laser designation pos. all aerial weapons can be applied with designation from the radar. The third phase aircraft ensures simultaneous operation on a surface target with retention of air space search and attack of an aerial target as well as group action mode
star49The exact details were of course not reveiled except that in that test at all 20 MiG-29s and F-4F of the Luftwaffe were tracked by the Captor (DA5 deployed from Laage airbase). The various comments I heared from the people involved there said the Captor is able to track multiple targets at such distances. Your question is of course valid.
If it was Mig-21/F-16A type aircraft than 5 sqm is reasonable. older MIG-29/F-4 are in 10 to 25 sqm range.
http://www.etranger.org.uk/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm
there is 300 to 400% RCS reduction with MIG-29K.so that one should 1 to 2 sqm. than there is agian 10 times improvment with MIG-35.
star491.) N-035 Irbis is neither operational NOW, nor is it AESA
It does not need to be an AESA. As long as it meets the performance like range, ultra sar modes, powerful ECCM. u should understand russian test various components of end product on different test beds before it is put in final product (like Su-35). it is available for export as of today just like 117C/AL-31FM-1 engine.
2.) The APG-79 did not exist in 2001/2002
surely but Malaysian were looking at 2007 induction schedule and what Boeing can provide. so Boeing may have provided some future specification
3.) Captors range is claimed to be superior to that of the APG-73 too
again it is a claim without independent verification from third party customer.
4.) Arcording to my information the N-011M is able to detect 20 targets and engage up to 8 of them (with mk3 radar computer), in comparison the Captor can track at least 20 targets (probably even more) and engage 6 or maybe even 8 of them within full azimuth coverage with its MSA only
but it does not prove it has the same range. Zhuk-MSFE for Su-27KUB tested in 2003 provided 30 track and 8 engage. u can endlessly upgrade the system as long u spend money on it. nothing special about it.
star49That’s indeed an achievement, but you have to consider that these aircraft are using an overall coverage RAM coating. The Typhoon still seems to offer a lower RCS with only some RAM coatings on the leading edges of Canards, wings, the fin and airliftintakes. Imagine the potential reduction if an overall RAM coating would be used. The Typhoon has still some potential for RCS reduction, while its basic design is already stealthier than upgraded MiGs and Flankers.
Interestingly many PESA radars seem to offer not a significant advantage over Typhoon’s MSA. Look at the N-011M Bars. Comparing the available data the Bars does neither offer a longer detection/tracking range against fighter sized targets, nor is it able to track more targets simultanously and that while being significantly larger. heavier and using PESA.
Typhoon’s AESA is scheduled to be in production by 2011, if required. Work in Europe is underway since more than a decade and the europeans have already experience with ground and sea based platforms.
available data does not support ur statement. BARS MK-1 that Malaysian evaluated in 2001-2002. they declared that it has greater range than F-18E APG-73 and possibly equal to APG-79. it was not disclosed how much greater.
It is in JED online. Now compare Irbis range from 2005/2006 to Captor AESA of 2011. Ur alteast 1 decade behind.
http://www.royfc.com/news/jun/1004jun05.html
The ‘Zhuk-MSEh’ radar being developed for the SU-30MK3 ((sic)) airplane is distinguished from the basic ‘Zhuk-MEh’ radar by a large diameter antenna. (It has been increased in the ‘Zhuk-MSEh’ from 624 millimeters to 980 millimeters – Interfax-AVN.) Tests performed this year have shown that the new radar fully supports the characteristic announced. With its help one can detect aerial targets at a distance up to 200 kilometers and receive radar maps with resolution that exceed all domestic airplane radars on hand and in development,” Yu. Gus’kov said
Source: 10.06.04, Voenno-Promyshlennyy Kur’er
http://edefense.blogspot.com/2006/04/ex-german-mig-29s-operational-in.html
The NIIP Tikhomirov claimed so, but recently I learnt from Indian sources that it is probably overstatement. Taking opprotunity I would like to clarify that N011M radar can detect 15, track 15 and engages 4 (with R-77s) and 2 (with R27s). I previously said that can detect 15, track 6 and engage 4/2, which I hereby correct.
Russians intensively works on the various RCS reduction techniques and according Russian sources some of those techniques were recently made available for export products, to India and China. Usually it does mean that Russians developed more advanced solutions, when they release anything for export. But in this area, when a fogg of mystery and secrecy is very dense, nobody can say anything firmly in open sources. Even official statements can be deliberate disinformation. I personally believe after many talks with well informed people (from Russian side) and some official statements that (RCS treatement) is true
http://www.xignite.com/xWorldNews.aspx?articleid=CEP20070216950105
The Russian section demonstrates also the Nebo-SVU mobile VHF radar with an active phased-array antenna system featuring unique capabilities to detect stealthy aerial targets
Sign In
