alexkvaskov
New Member
Russia to Scrap 3 Mln Tons of Munitions by 2014 | Defense | RIA Novosti
Does anyone have any info on the state of PGMs in the RuAF?
Does anyone have any info on the state of PGMs in the RuAF?
Russian Air Force News & Discussion
- Thread starter Haavarla
- Start date
The VDV are a separate service. Their airwing used to be part of the VDV, but has since the collapse of the USSR been subordinated to the VVS. There is now talk of returning it to them.
Just some interesting pictures of the Su-34, if you look at borts 07 and 09 red they are both carrying Sorbtsiya jamming pods on the wingtips. As far as I can tell none of the other aicraft are, including the later bort 10.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-8.html
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-8.html
Haavarla
Active Member
Awsome Link Feanor! Thx
Here we can read pretty much the whole history and time-line from the first prototypes and Pre-production T-10B-*.
And the final Serial production T-10B-9(b/n red 01) in 2006.
Oh and you were right, all those recent photos are from 7000th Airbase Baltimore(Voronezh).
Here we can read pretty much the whole history and time-line from the first prototypes and Pre-production T-10B-*.
And the final Serial production T-10B-9(b/n red 01) in 2006.
Oh and you were right, all those recent photos are from 7000th Airbase Baltimore(Voronezh).
Is it the third prototype or the third serial plane?
alexkvaskov
New Member
Roughly how capable is the Su-34 as a fighter relative to the Su-35 in an air superiority role?
Well it has a large PESA radar (Leninets V004) and can carry the R-77, R-73, and R-27 AAMs. It should be inferior to the Su-35S, which is optimized for Air Superiority, but in general it's performance should be comparable to other upgraded Flankers.
EDIT: Some news on the Tu-160 upgrades. Apparently 10 are planned to be completed by 2020, to a new variant titled Tu-160M. They will get new avionics, and the capability to carry new types of guided munitions. It's likely they will be upgraded to make them more efficient in conventional conflicts. The first aircraft is being upgraded right now
http://lenta.ru/news/2012/02/08/tu160/
What's completely unclear is whether they are going ahead with an engine upgrade. At the very least an engine replacement is necessary, but there was persistent talk about upgraded engines. Here nothing is mentioned on the subject.
Last edited:
After taking a whole day to research the Mig-31......someone has to tell me why was this bird ever made???
Its officially an Interceptor however it can do much more then that....but everything it can do, other planes can do better. Lets just single out its main role: Interceptor. It has a poor avionics(compared to other fighters in its class around the world), from looks it has almost no maneuverability....and its price tag is higher than any other fighter in the VVS.......what is honestly the point of that expensive ineffective plane??
Someone please prove me wrong and explain to me why this plane ever went into production.
Its officially an Interceptor however it can do much more then that....but everything it can do, other planes can do better. Lets just single out its main role: Interceptor. It has a poor avionics(compared to other fighters in its class around the world), from looks it has almost no maneuverability....and its price tag is higher than any other fighter in the VVS.......what is honestly the point of that expensive ineffective plane??
Someone please prove me wrong and explain to me why this plane ever went into production.
Haavarla
Active Member
There was several reasons for developing the Foxhound.
Some of em might have something to do with the US U2 and later the SR-71.
But if we even disregard those, SU allways opted for Interceptors role jet along with its Air-superiority fighters as well.
You are aware that Interceptors role do have difference to an multi role fighter!
Interceptors are design for speed and high altitude regime, it does not need large wings for 'turnin & Burnin'..
The Mig-31 is the last of the great interceptors ever build, its fast, packs a huge load of fuel and armament, even if its design and role are quite outdated for todays global threat picture.
It still has its usage with its upgrade programs in place.
And VVS don't have that many other platform to choose from anyway, so their are stuck with em eighter way.
Those Mig-31 airframes are low G-load designs, which mean they live longer in flying hours compaired to 9G fighters.
The Mig-31BM still pack uniqe capability today, with its powerfull Zalson-M radar. And its been wired and innstalled with option for new missiles as well.
Some of em might have something to do with the US U2 and later the SR-71.
But if we even disregard those, SU allways opted for Interceptors role jet along with its Air-superiority fighters as well.
You are aware that Interceptors role do have difference to an multi role fighter!
Interceptors are design for speed and high altitude regime, it does not need large wings for 'turnin & Burnin'..
The Mig-31 is the last of the great interceptors ever build, its fast, packs a huge load of fuel and armament, even if its design and role are quite outdated for todays global threat picture.
It still has its usage with its upgrade programs in place.
And VVS don't have that many other platform to choose from anyway, so their are stuck with em eighter way.
Those Mig-31 airframes are low G-load designs, which mean they live longer in flying hours compaired to 9G fighters.
The Mig-31BM still pack uniqe capability today, with its powerfull Zalson-M radar. And its been wired and innstalled with option for new missiles as well.
What do you mean last of the great interceptors ever built? How was it great?
Just for the record I am not trying to do a country vs country debate AND I am Russian just for the record, however I would take an F-14 Tomcat over the Mig-31 Foxhound....
it may be able to fly very fast, very high altitude, and for a long period of time, however just by looking at it the Foxhound just looks like it gives off a LOT of RCS and it has pretty weak avionics which makes that part of it pointless since missiles fly faster and higher...
BTW what are the performance specs of the Zalson-M radar?
Just for the record I am not trying to do a country vs country debate AND I am Russian just for the record, however I would take an F-14 Tomcat over the Mig-31 Foxhound....
it may be able to fly very fast, very high altitude, and for a long period of time, however just by looking at it the Foxhound just looks like it gives off a LOT of RCS and it has pretty weak avionics which makes that part of it pointless since missiles fly faster and higher...
BTW what are the performance specs of the Zalson-M radar?
You're wrong because of the time frame. The MiG-31 was developed in the 70s and entered service in the 80s. At that time it had some of the best avionics in the world, iirc the worlds first digital on-board computer, a powerful PESA radar, and a datalink (something rather rare for the time). It also had very long range missiles.
The point of this plane is to intercept a massed wave of strategic bombers coming from the US. This is far less relevant in the modern world, given that the Cold War is over. But as China is on the rise, and relations with the US are far from perfect, the VVS wants to retain this capability, and even upgrade on it to keep the MiG-31 relevant.
Extremely fast, carried some of the longest range weapons at the time, and was technologically very advanced.
At the time sensors weren't that advanced, and its huge RCS mattered little because it outranged most fighters of the time. It could fly in, fire off missiles at the bombers, and disengage without ever getting engaged by the escorts.
Thanks Feanor, I understand a lot more now..
However explain to me how it could fly in, fire off missiles at the bombers, and disengage without ever getting engaged by the escorts?
Wouldn't it get tracked long before it comes close to the escorts?
Especially if there is an AWAC nearby?
However explain to me how it could fly in, fire off missiles at the bombers, and disengage without ever getting engaged by the escorts?
Wouldn't it get tracked long before it comes close to the escorts?
Especially if there is an AWAC nearby?
I've just come from the J-20 thread where some members were discussing the possible role for the newest Chinese aerial combatant under development, specifically
"There are some who seem to believe one of J-20s primary missions will be to take out awacs and aerial refueling capabilities BVR."
This struck me as interesting as it could mean a paradigm shift from the Cold War ideal of interceptors targeting waves of strategic bombers to that of fast, high flying interceptors conducting hit and fade operations on the enemy's battlefield support aircraft like fuelers and early warning craft, as mentioned above.
taken in a real world context, this possible shift in the role and targets of contemporary interceptors would make sense for countries like Russia and China to maintain (or develop) specialized interceptor craft to even the playing field against a technologically superior, network-centric, adversary by eliminating those threats mentioned above. Could be an interesting development
"There are some who seem to believe one of J-20s primary missions will be to take out awacs and aerial refueling capabilities BVR."
This struck me as interesting as it could mean a paradigm shift from the Cold War ideal of interceptors targeting waves of strategic bombers to that of fast, high flying interceptors conducting hit and fade operations on the enemy's battlefield support aircraft like fuelers and early warning craft, as mentioned above.
taken in a real world context, this possible shift in the role and targets of contemporary interceptors would make sense for countries like Russia and China to maintain (or develop) specialized interceptor craft to even the playing field against a technologically superior, network-centric, adversary by eliminating those threats mentioned above. Could be an interesting development
Long range AA weapons. And bombers are a much larger target then even the MiG-31. It might get tracked. But it would move in very very rapidly, fire off and disengage using its speed to avoid the exports.
Are we talking Cold War Era or Modern Day?
Because wouldn't modern day fighters/escorts track the Mig-31 miles before it gets in weapon range?
Haavarla
Active Member
Feanor talks about both Cold War Era and present.
The Mig-31 Would face thougher adversarys today no doubt.
However, in a defencive role The Mig-31 capability in the Far-East of Russia were the territory it are patroling are Huge!
Seriously, take a look at world map.
The Mig-31 are a perfect assets for this, allthough there are allways the Service Cost to consider.
It gobbles a lot of fuel thats for sure.. But as i said earlier, VVS do not have any other jet in their pool that can do the patrol missions.
Even the Flanker which have exellent 'on station' time cannot cover the same area of air space as the Mig-31.
And one more thing to consider, the Mig-31 tactic would possible include an typical quad wave flying abreast at an high & fast altitude were it have weapon range advantage, get into the R-33 missile NEZ , let rip, guide the R-33 to its target. Then turn on AB and back to base. And they will allways have Flankers in the air to cover the Mig-31 Flanks, in any situation.
Consider the R-33 range, what good does it do for the enemy to track the Mig-31 if their own missiles cant reach the Migs in time.
This tactic was some of the Cold war era, used against Enemy bombers. But its a tactic that can be used to day against AWACS & Tankers too.
It will be very interesting to see the new Russian missiles spec as they enter service.
The Mig-31 Would face thougher adversarys today no doubt.
However, in a defencive role The Mig-31 capability in the Far-East of Russia were the territory it are patroling are Huge!
Seriously, take a look at world map.
The Mig-31 are a perfect assets for this, allthough there are allways the Service Cost to consider.
It gobbles a lot of fuel thats for sure.. But as i said earlier, VVS do not have any other jet in their pool that can do the patrol missions.
Even the Flanker which have exellent 'on station' time cannot cover the same area of air space as the Mig-31.
And one more thing to consider, the Mig-31 tactic would possible include an typical quad wave flying abreast at an high & fast altitude were it have weapon range advantage, get into the R-33 missile NEZ , let rip, guide the R-33 to its target. Then turn on AB and back to base. And they will allways have Flankers in the air to cover the Mig-31 Flanks, in any situation.
Consider the R-33 range, what good does it do for the enemy to track the Mig-31 if their own missiles cant reach the Migs in time.
This tactic was some of the Cold war era, used against Enemy bombers. But its a tactic that can be used to day against AWACS & Tankers too.
It will be very interesting to see the new Russian missiles spec as they enter service.
Haavarla
Active Member
Sure, and they do cover large area from their respective locations, but in a real conflict they are soft targets for strike and cruise missiles..
The Data-link on Mig-31 can to some extend work with land based Hq and radar installation, which only improve the mig-31 situational awareness, but i'm not sure how far Russia has come on the net-sentric battlespace capability today.
The Data-link on Mig-31 can to some extend work with land based Hq and radar installation, which only improve the mig-31 situational awareness, but i'm not sure how far Russia has come on the net-sentric battlespace capability today.
Last edited: