dark light

echonine

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 496 through 510 (of 723 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: SU-35 , how will it sell? #2469270
    echonine
    Participant

    It is clearly special to create such low cost upgrade with increase thrust and engine life and still can be applied to exiting aircraft without modification and that without taking single dollar from national budget. All through export contracts. When Russia do invest there own money. Expect to see 18 to 20 ton engine for PAK-FA with 15 to 1 TWR.

    Expected to be 18 tons with 12 – 12.5:1 TWR. What other info do you have on the Al-41 that’s concrete?

    http://www.royfc.com/news/apr/1404apr02.html

    in reply to: SU-35 , how will it sell? #2469309
    echonine
    Participant

    Wow they finally introduced a 800 kg stronger version of an engine which is in service since more than 20 years. The F100 which was originally a 10.8 t thrust engine achieved that figure in the early 90s, meaning more than 15 years earlier and the thrust increase was 2.4 t.

    Yeah you think? The upgrade program only started within half a decade ago.

    in reply to: SU-35 , how will it sell? #2469337
    echonine
    Participant

    I think star just schooled some fan boys :dev2:

    The irony . . .

    Nice find, I’ve never seen that test info before.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion Thread #2069712
    echonine
    Participant

    Interesting, but I’m talking about the SS-N-19, the Granit anti-ship missile!

    6 hours of sleep . . .

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion Thread #2069736
    echonine
    Participant

    Forget PAK-FA, anything new on the Su-33UB? Has the second prototype ever flown? Will the Russian Navy modernize the Su-27Ks at any point?

    I find Podvig’s site very useful for some things, and not so much for others. But his book on Russian nuclear forces is very well done, even if it is starting to become a bit dated at this juncture. Kommersant’s article appears to be the standard journalistic reporting on something they don’t quite understand.

    Now someone convince the Russians to stop being asinine and let Veliky make a port call in New York City so I can go get some pictures πŸ˜€ More seriously and to the point, will Russia turn Venezuela into the new Cuba? With all of these major exercises, one has to wonder if basing agreements aren’t in the back of Russia’s mind.

    I keep hearing you guys mention some sort of improved SS-N-19, is there any sort of evidence out there to suggest this thing exists?

    Well SOC, with size in mind, the RS-24 is the SS-19 replacement in terms of warhead size/range.

    Some military people did keep saying they want a heavy follow-on also, development/testing starting 2009? Aka, the SS-18 replacement.

    Leaving the forces with:

    Sineva (light – mobile / underwater)
    Bulava (light – mobile / underwater)
    SS-27 Mobile (light – mobile)
    SS-27 Silo (light) (replace SS-25)
    RS-24 Silo (medium) (SS-19 out)
    SS-XX Silo (the heavy follow on of SS-18)

    This kind of logic?

    in reply to: SU-35 , how will it sell? #2470367
    echonine
    Participant

    Back to the original topic…

    The Russians are excellent engineers and SU-35 is a fine airplane.

    The one factor that could detract from its sales potential is spotty after sale support from the Russians. Will the buyer be able to get spare parts three years after purchase? How much of the buyer’s fleet will be cannibalized to keep a handful of airplanes flying at 10 years? How about product upgrade packages for obsolete avionics 15 years after purchase?

    What are you saying man?!

    Why would you think the Flanker production line would close anytime soon?!

    in reply to: SU-35 , how will it sell? #2470931
    echonine
    Participant

    I second that. It’s great. It makes it really easy for us to detect and to lock on and shoot down Russian aircraft. Allegedly it’s also good for killing (microwaving) rabbits ( and personnel) if the radar is activated on the ground. πŸ˜‰ It could be used to erase bulk hard drives and videotapes; that is if they don’t fry. πŸ˜‰

    Thanks for using radar that screams out “I’m here, I’m easy to shoot down, come and get me.”

    Sometimes sensitivity and precision can be more important than raw power. πŸ˜‰

    Yeah, what good is your RWR and own radar if it can’t get a lock on in time?

    in reply to: BLACKJACKs In Venezuela #2471151
    echonine
    Participant

    Nice find!

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1785327
    echonine
    Participant

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080919/116955401.html

    Russia to adopt Bulava in 2009.

    in reply to: BLACKJACKs In Venezuela #2472126
    echonine
    Participant

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080919/116949143.html

    Bigger article on the return home.

    Seems that all 16 are modernized, or are there a few more? 18?

    Modernization

    In 2006, the Russian Air Force was expected to receive five modernized and one new-built Tu-160 [12]. The Russian Air Force will receive a further five modernized Tu-160s each year [13], which means that modernization of the fleet could be achieved within three years if the schedule is kept up.

    Changes announced as follows:

    * completely digital, multireserved, neutron and other nuclear emissions resistant avionics
    * full support of cruising and steering through GLONASS global satellite positioning system
    * updated version of NK-32 engines with increased reliability. [13]
    * ability to operate new nuclear/non-nuclear GLONASS-navigated cruise missiles (Kh-555). [14]
    * ability to handle missiles that launch military or civil satellites [15]
    * ability to bear laser-guided bombs [16]
    * advanced radar emissions absorbing covering [17]

    In January 2007 Army General Vladimir Mikhailov announced that the VVS would receive two new-built Tu-160s every three years, and that it would start a new program to upgrade the avionics on its current fleet of 16 bombers.[18]

    Yes, then use GLONASS now.

    in reply to: BLACKJACKs In Venezuela #2472202
    echonine
    Participant

    Um, you know for sure its not anti flash paint like v bombers used? :confused:

    Of course it’s anti-flash paint.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1785338
    echonine
    Participant

    Topol as a solid-fueled missile made sense as it was going to be road mobile. Same goes for Bulava where missile dimensions and storability were critical. But, solid fuel missiles typically have much more plume radiation in both the IR and UV bands. That makes them far easier to detect and track. If you want to hide a missile launch or make it more difficult to locate, liquid fuel is usually the way to go due to lower radiation signatures.

    There should be a follow on missile to the SS-18 in development.

    The RS-24 is more like an SS-19 replacement.

    in reply to: BLACKJACKs In Venezuela #2472319
    echonine
    Participant

    Yes or, as it came to be known, stand-out-like-a-sore-thumb paint…

    Like I said, years behind the times.

    Yeah, might wanna email the Russian MoD with that crap, surely you know better and they can’t afford “better paint.”

    in reply to: Su-34 vs F-15E – design and performance #2472322
    echonine
    Participant

    Are there not only 3 or 4 Su-34’s available to the RuAF at the moment? :confused:

    Over a dozen at least, with serial production going on for almost a year now.

    in reply to: BLACKJACKs In Venezuela #2472612
    echonine
    Participant

    Are these bombers being upgraded to carry something other than the Kh-55 and Kh-55SMs? Will the Kh-101 fit in the bays? What about conventional weapons?

    They should fire the upgraded “Kh-555” right now for sure, which is an extremely precise longer ranged Kh-55, and probably the Kh-101 also.

Viewing 15 posts - 496 through 510 (of 723 total)