Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Try re-reading the last paragraph I wrote. Some understanding of the limitations of suvh systems you propose would also be good. As would how opposing systems are operated.
Russian Air Force News & Discussion
- Thread starter Haavarla
- Start date
Haavarla
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,682
Main problem there is that Russia still rely on R-37(33M). Those are old missile design. If we Descard the R-77-1, then most missiles in VKS are old design in which have been applied some lip stick on.
So i'm not sure which new missile for Interceptors it should be..
I find it strange that Russia are comfortable advanced is the SAM and Ballistic missile game.
But when we look at AAM, then it seem Russian knowhow has vaporised sinse Soviet times..
We know Russia has several new AAM missile in the development, but they are mostly Connected with PakFa . So a new R-37 class AAM or anything with better Range of R-77-1 is doubtfull.
So i'm not sure which new missile for Interceptors it should be..
I find it strange that Russia are comfortable advanced is the SAM and Ballistic missile game.
But when we look at AAM, then it seem Russian knowhow has vaporised sinse Soviet times..
We know Russia has several new AAM missile in the development, but they are mostly Connected with PakFa . So a new R-37 class AAM or anything with better Range of R-77-1 is doubtfull.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is also the issue of offboard supporting systems, or the lack thereof. Just how many systems does Russia have, that could detect an inbound object, provide target-quality data, and then relay said data to a platform which intercept and/or make a killshot.
OTHR might be able to detect an object, but cannot provide the required level of data to target. Russia does have some AEW's, but as I understand it, Russia has not developed a platform independent datalink system like Link 16 which makes relaying targeting data more difficult and cumbersome. Assuming the AEW could get the target data in the first place. Given Western deployment of terrain-hugging standoff munitions, and now versions with LO features, the strike packages will get harder to detect. The munitions will be more easily lost in background clutter, and the launching platforms (which might also be LO) can launch from further away. Russia IMO would need to step up it's game in terms of both quantity and quality of detection systems, and the datalinks to relay and make use of those systems. Until that manifests, discussion of intercepting modern air forces is largely irrelevant.
I wonder at what range the radars on the F-15, F-22 or F-35 would detect these lumbering steel coffins at? And then what is the plan, pray that two AMRAAMs miss? Good luck with that.
I don't think creating a big turkey shoot is what the russian strategists have in mind. In fact, their overreliance to SAM systems and the way they integrate high-tech autonomous short-range anti-air systems into their ground forces tells me they accept they will lose air superiority against NATO forces after the initial Tomahawk barrage and lopsided air battles against US aircraft, Rafales, Typhoons etc. And their ground forces will have to be able to operate in such an environment till the end of hostilities.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
Even as "missile trucks", they got decent cruise speed & would likely be escorted by fighters, so I wouldn't call them "lumbering steel coffins". On coastal vectors of attack, the patrolling/exercising ships' radars would spot strike packages as well & add to the overall picture. To defend against CMs, the most effective way is to engage them from the air, from their detection to destruction. During the Desert Storm, Soviet A-50s were flying over the Black Sea in case any stray CMs were heading North past Iraq & Turkey.
Last edited:
"beating the brushes" as an aviation tactical construct for the russians died in the 80's for a very good reason....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You still do not seem to understand. That or you are being deliberately obtuse.
Modern warfare is a system-level response, it is no longer platform-centric. This is why modern Western forces are focusing on the most efficient means of munitions delivery to target, with less concern about who/what the actual shooter is. This is why what traditionally been strategic bombers have been used to provide CAS in Afghanistan. One of the required enablers for that to work is the comms and datalink systems have to be able to talk to each other.
Right now, Russian systems are years behind NATO and major allied nations, at both a comms/relay and detection level, especially when factoring in RCS reduction and other LO methods routinely used by the West. Just fitting missiles to another Russian aircraft will not make it effective in air combat against a modern air force. Without adequate numbers of effective C4ISR assets then those missile carriers you keep proposing are little more than large resource money pits, at best. At worst they are coffins, either on the ground or in the air.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
To further follow up. There are approximately 16 A-50U AEW aircraft in Russian service at present, this latest variant having been announced in 1995, but not entering testing until 2008 or entering service until 2011. This suggests that some portions of the design and required capabilities could be out of date.
Contrast that with just the USN FAA, which is now replacing the 75 E-2C Hawkeye AWACS with the new E-2D, which has greater capabilities than the upgraded E-2C's.
With so few A-50U's in service, the RuAF likely would not have one when needed, where it was needed, except around certain strategic targets.
The question remains about the effectivenesd of the sensors, comms, and datalinks.
Then there is the issue of the comparatively giant signatures in-service RuAF combat aircraft have to most Western frontline combat aircraft. One result of that is that Russian combat aircraft can be easier to be tracked and targeted, assuming the Western systems are as capable as those of Russia. The reality I strongly suspect is that the Western systems are both significantly more capable, and Western operators are more familiar with them, including how to make the best use of such capabilities. This could be to the point of providing an order of magnitude more impact.
Contrast that with just the USN FAA, which is now replacing the 75 E-2C Hawkeye AWACS with the new E-2D, which has greater capabilities than the upgraded E-2C's.
With so few A-50U's in service, the RuAF likely would not have one when needed, where it was needed, except around certain strategic targets.
The question remains about the effectivenesd of the sensors, comms, and datalinks.
Then there is the issue of the comparatively giant signatures in-service RuAF combat aircraft have to most Western frontline combat aircraft. One result of that is that Russian combat aircraft can be easier to be tracked and targeted, assuming the Western systems are as capable as those of Russia. The reality I strongly suspect is that the Western systems are both significantly more capable, and Western operators are more familiar with them, including how to make the best use of such capabilities. This could be to the point of providing an order of magnitude more impact.
Haavarla
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,689
Il-76MD-90A’s First Flying Prototype Arrives at Zhukovsky for Trials
The ever so slooow progress on Il-76-90A.
Sub 40 test flight counted and 12-18 months until complete.
This program is very important for other follow ups like IL-476, A-100 program.
I would say that it is equal important as PakFa program..
It is a Do or Die program for Russia's military aviation prospect.
The ever so slooow progress on Il-76-90A.
Sub 40 test flight counted and 12-18 months until complete.
This program is very important for other follow ups like IL-476, A-100 program.
I would say that it is equal important as PakFa program..
It is a Do or Die program for Russia's military aviation prospect.
I disagree. The program borders on make-work for the design bureau and the factory. There are huge quantities of surplus Il-76s both in storage and on the private market. They're proceeding with a current upgrade program for the existing fleet of Il-76s and some of the first new Il-476s went for re-equipment as special purpose aircraft. The only thing they really need large new numbers of Il-76s are tankers.
Haavarla
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,691
I find that a bit short sighted Feanor.
Much if not all of the upgrade of existing Il-76MD fleet does not even have any new PS-90A engine with them.
Yes they could fly around for perhaps a decade more, but then what? You are back to square one again with no new airframes.
The new Il-476 is surly not a stellar achievement compared to other transport program. But then again This is all that Russia has going for them. There is no other alternative within the next +10 years and with a limited funding the transport fleet grow even more problematic..
Getting new engines and a lighter Il-476 airframe is vital for VKS.
It should do wonder for short take-off among other requirements.
And i'm pretty certain that the A-100 will be build upon the Il-476.
Don't see any harm of building a Il-486 tanker as well.
Haavarla
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,692
Now this is strange..
ПермÑкий «Ðвиадвигатель» модернизирует продукцию :: ОбщеÑтво :: РБК
They talk about putting a derivative of PS-90A engine the Il-96-400 body.
How about produce enough PS-90A engines for a starter.
ПермÑкий «Ðвиадвигатель» модернизирует продукцию :: ОбщеÑтво :: РБК
They talk about putting a derivative of PS-90A engine the Il-96-400 body.
How about produce enough PS-90A engines for a starter.
It's the new Il-96-400M project. So it'll be some time before this materializes.
Peculiar choice. Why not PD-14 for the new aircraft?
Two of them are planned to carry the MS-21. Presumably the much larger Il-96 couldn't use 2 and 4 would be excessive. But honestly, I don't know. It might have to do with availability.
Hm not an engine expert but weren't the PD-14 and PS-90A engines supposed to be in the same thrust class 15000-16000 kgf but with a significant fuel savings advantage for PD-14?
I thought the prospective PD-30 based on NK-32 engine core would have around twice the thrust and replace the 4 engines layout of Il-96 400 or the future russian chinese widebody with 2.
It is a larger engine by dimensions that may require changes but I don't think it is heavier.
Haavarla
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,699
Without checking, chances are its heavier.
Eighter way, its will require lots of redesigning of the main wings.
configurated to support two engines, and then opt for a larger singel engine on each wing.
Lots of re-wirering, re-piping, re-structure support bars etc.
Its lots of work.
Easier to just go with the same configuration of two new engine(four) on wings.
It appears you are correct. Mostly. It's baseline planned at 14000 kgf with different variants to follow.