fftThats what i wonder as well when i see such LONG ranges (1000 km) being cited for the LRASM, and SCALP..I guess with an integrated net-centric approach it may be possible in the 2020+ environment to effectively bring ISR and SA to a level where such long ranges could be tactically possible. Or it could simply mean that the developers are pre-empting and leaving plenty of growth space for future capability…Given that the USN has insisted on the ISR centric capability of the UCLASS, one can deduce that they are looking for persistent 24×7 ISR around 1000nm from a carrier….Perhaps this along with SAT based assets, Triton and other onboard and offboard sensors can help in gaining enough SA to lob missiles at those stand off ranges.
I gather from the above discussion that the main challenge is to identify the target – when the missile is fired from long distance.
– How does the China’s “carrier-killer” missile works then?
– Also is it possible to track/identify the target from space, especially given that ships have huge sizes and move very slowly? Can drones be used for this purpose also.
– What is a reasonable range for naval missiles in today’s state-of-the-art?
fftwhy this carrier was not designed with nuclear propulsion? Russian ice-breakers and Kirov have one.
By they way, are the nuclear ships too expensive to buy and maintain?
fftI with my own hands built MiG-31 to 1994 plant “Sokol” stopped. In the shops of the plant remained 5 MiG-31B and 1 MiG-31M. Theoretically they can finish. Really – it is unlikely that it will do. MiG-31M – will not finish, that’s for sure.
T-50 will replace the MiG-31 after 2017. There is no point in starting a new program of modernization. Prior to 2018, if my memory serves me, modernize the remaining MiG-31B in the MiG-31BM. In the near future a number of aircraft to alter in a different version and the case closed.
Good to hear that you built Mig-31 with your own hands. Do you mind sharing some of your experiences with us. Compared to Su-27 was it really a complex aircraft to build.
fftRussia will not be buying the Y-20.
It has designed, under the guise of being by far and away the largest, most powerful entity in the Soviet Union, some of the most successful transports in history, including jet transports.
Yes, I’m including Antonov here, as although based in Ukraine, much of the staff was Russian.
Apart from the USA, no other nation comes close.
The problem perhaps is that they have plenty of airframes, such as over 100 Il-76’s.
There is not a purpose designed jet airlifter that comes close to the numbers of around 1000 Il-76’s built. It has been operated by about 40 countries globally, in civil and military guise.
The oldest is under 40 years old, with most probably about 30 years old and younger. This is not old for a transporter.
The closest I think is the C-141, with about 280 built.
The Il-76 is head and shoulders the most successful purpose-designed jet transporter/freighter in history.
And I think this is also part of the problem, from a replacement point-of-view.
It is in Russia’s favor to buy Y-20 from China and sell them their engines. The money and time it will save this way, it can use to improve it’s engine technology which though ahead of china is still behind west. This way it will still have an edge over a China in engine technology. Else, it will find itself in a situation – in a few years time – with an engine tech that Chinese can also produce. This will greatly diminish Russia’s prospects in export market.
fftCan china improve D-30 at its own. In the engine-making business do the big vendors (e.g. RR, PW or GE) provide consultancy services to 2nd-tier makers. I suppose India hired some consultants for its kaveri.
Or Russia may buy Y-20 fuselage from China, and China may buy engines from Russia resulting in a win-win situation.
fftHow does a kaveri equipped LCA compares against the Mig-21s (that India is still using) both the upgraded (BVR capable Bisons) and non-upgraded ones.
fft1. By outsourcing the work.
2. By accepting a drag penalty.
3. For such special purpose aircraft normal standards of economy don’t apply.
I think aside from these factors, engineering prowess also matters. It seems to me Russia is far behind west, not only in engine technology but also in fuselage/wing area. After all, just how complex (relatively speaking) all-metallic wings and fuselage can be? A western manufacturer in the same amount of time that russians spent on il-476, would have a new wing and wider fuselage.
fftHow Boeing was able to convert an existing 747 to dream lifter in such a short period of time. It has quite an internal volume. Can such a thing be done to il-476
fftWhile it may be time consuming and cost to increase the diameter of fuselage for il-476. Why the wings were not modernized (apart from just strengthening them). It does appear to be a relatively easy thing given Russian expertise in aerodynamics.
fftEngagement of an enemy aircraft using an integrated defence system is a multi-stage process:
1 Detect the presence of the target
2 Track the target and try to identity its nature
3 Determine the target’s position and course with the accuracy needed to…
4 …assign the target to a weapon system
5 Acquire the target using the weapon system
6 Track the target using the weapon system
7 Establish a firing solution
8 Fire at the targetThis process is known as the ‘kill chain’. When the F-117 was designed, the goal was not to create a totally radar-invisible aircraft able to prevent every stage of this process, but to disrupt one or more stages of the kill chain, thus making the engagement impossible. A workable anti-stealth solution would have to ensure that all stages of the kill chain remain viable.
What about a modern VHF/UHF radar. The general consensus is that while at these frequencies, the presence of the stealth target may be established, however the detection data cannot be used for firing solution due to high-degree of error (ambiguity about the target position) in the data. Has the modern technology allowed any improvements. Is it possible to get a rough-estimate of the stealth target using VHF/UHF radar, then launch an intercepting aircraft in the “guessed zone”, which can then use its own radar to further “fine-tune” the targets position and launch a missile.
fftThe question was about capability and not the need pre se, nonetheless An-124 may use this engine.
fftBy how many years (or decades) Russia is behind in civilian turbofan technology compared to finest that west can offer.
Does it has the capability tp produce something in the league of GE-90 115B.
fftIt’s not a question of difficulty but money, really. I’m certain it COULD be done, but why would you go there when the Il-96 is already available, with no additional investment? Costs for modifications to take the radome, as discussed, apply pretty equally to the Il-476, especially if the wing is changed even more, so turning it into a worthwhile AWACS/tanker would take more money than for the Il-96. Even as is, the business case for using the actual, minimally modified Il-476 rather than the *better performing* Il-96 for AEW/refuelling is pretty much non-existent – if you spend even more it’s still going to be a lost cause.
Additionally, unless you also design a new, larger fuselage the modified Il-476 will remain a relatively mediocre airlifter (though with superb range, if the Il-96 is anything to go by). So to make sure it can outperform the An-70/Il-96 combination (which could be brought into service comparatively cheaply) in all roles, you’d have to develop an essentially all-new aircraft for a huge load of money.
If they are optimizing an existing platfrom, then why do it just halfway i.e. improve the engines only, why not also optimize the wing to realize better efficiency. This engine plus wing combo can then also be applied to all the old il76 to recoup some of the investement. As for the cost to do all this, (pardon my ignorance of economics), isn’t it just a matter of printing more rubles, since every thing will be done by local engineering companies. it’s not like that the country has to spend precious foriegn exchange to get this additional capability.
What is it with the Il-96 and so many people here, has it attacked your children or something 😉 It’s available today and makes a very good AEW/refuelling platform, so why go out of your way to avoid it in favour of solutions which are either worse, more expensive or both?
I guess some folks here have a dislike for il-96 due to it’s more efficient and modern form/function, these two attributes do not merge well with the Russian background :).
On a more serious note, perhaps it is due to the inability of the il-96 to use rough airfields, a capability that seems to be etched in the minds of the country’s military planners.
fftRegarding the poor aerodynamics of il476, is it too difficult to make the improvements to the wing.
Alternatively, can An-70 be fitted with turbofans instead of 4 propfans.
fftMiG-31BM’s Zaslon modification is said to have detection range of 320 km and tracking range of 280 km against a 5m2 RCS target.
These numbers are quite impressive, but how effective is zaslon in an ECM environment. There used to be a forum member called RSM55 (if I remember correctly) he appeared to be quite informed about the Russian hardware, he once commented in one of his posts that in one of the RuAF exercise in which Tu22M and the Mig31 were involved, Tu22 employed jamming against mig31, by the time zaslon was able to detect (or lockon) to Tu22; it was so close to the mig31 that the pilot could visually see it.
Nonetheless I guess that phase arrays are not only better at multi-target tracking but their beam agility also allows them to better deal with jamming.
Sign In
