It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Is Russia's Next Project?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
but if you think about, it is impossible for us to know, non of us are actually involved directly with Russain military developments, so for us to even be having this conversation, it's absurd, we're all at fault on this one.

Shattered OUT...



Never heard a bigger truth than that.
The sad thing is we might never know until its out of the black.



Maybe someone with more inside knowledge could help? Intelgurl, you there?

[edit on 8-5-2006 by vorazechul]




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
ElTiante,


man, and all that what have to do with the pakfa project, these guys were worse in the past now are better, but again what have to do with the project??, the americans developed the f22 and f35 coz was a project that was already started and the Boeing and Lackhead asses were -and are- in risk, look i wont satrt these same stupid arguments like "now the ruskies controls gas and oil" but the point is that there isnt a need to hurry, there wont be many f22/35 (that also arent the super wonder stuffs) and now there isnt the market

[edit on 8-5-2006 by grunt2]

[edit on 8-5-2006 by grunt2]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
okokok, i understand the warning,my words were tought, i accept it ,but realy must accept that some guys love to live in the past the seekerof report is from 1998 jesus christ!!,is well known that the things in russia are better now, but noooo they repeat the same crap, over and over again
, also the miitar spending and the research spendng are very different and also you cant mesure that only by money

[edit on 8-5-2006 by grunt2]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
ElTiante,


man, and all that what have to do with the pakfa project, these guys were worse in the past now are better, but again what have to do with the project??, the americans developed the f22 and f35 coz was a project that was already started and the Boeing and Lackhead asses were -and are- in risk, look i wont satrt these same stupid arguments like "now the ruskies controls gas and oil" but the point is that there isnt a need to hurry, there wont be many f22/35 (that also arent the super wonder stuffs) and now there isnt the market

[edit on 8-5-2006 by grunt2]

[edit on 8-5-2006 by grunt2]


I’d love to reply to this, but frankly I can’t make sense of what you've written. Would you mind translating it to English?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Darkpr0,

For a fighter, single engine and under 20,000lbs empty weight seems the best you can hope for. Throw in a 10-15,000lb internal fuel load (consequential to Russia's internal expanses of nothingness) and a 4-6,000lb (realistic) payload of 4 missiles or 10-20 small smart bombs and you have a 30-40,000lb airframe which, 'all things being equal', should cost about 10-20% less than an F-35, before you add the VLO and schedule modifiers.

i.e. A decent jet which ran between 27 and 45 million, _honestly_ while doubling the F-16's internal fuel load and carriaging stores 'the old fashioned way' could do very well right now for those nations which don't want a JAS (without AMRAAM) and cannot afford the EADS/Dassault twins.

Unfortunately, the Russians will view this as a MiG-21 reinvention rather than anything worthy of their 'vaunted status' (in their own minds) as makers of big-fighter Sukhois.

Myself, it looks to me like the Russians are taking all the start up money seeded by Western companies in the 1990's to purchase infrastructure and, as soon as the relavent industry is stable, immediately 'federalizing it' back under State Control.

They've already done it with the fledging petrogas companies and now they are doing it with diamonds and metals (titanium is up 500% last I heard). Which are sure signs that an 'unregulated' globalization economy DOES NOT necessarily mean lower costs. Only increased profits from unrestricted market access.

Whether this is to keep the mafia out or to legitimize it under the notional label of central government and a krulyik (IIRR, it's been awhile) economy of 'equals' industrial group business' doesn't really matter for what you are defacto-seeing is the recreation of an elite aristo class in a nation of ever encroaching poverty where the average man is ever closer to becoming a serf straight out of the old Tsarist days.

I'm sure Lenin would laugh.

>>
I (for some reason) feel a particular attatchment to Russian aircraft. Their planes are (and always have been) a large contender in any wars they are in.
>>

This is moronic.

Because what we are seeing the first signs of are the realities that /war as business/ is a failing industry in comparison with business-as-war. If the F-22 dies it will be because it was criticized for being 'too good' in a world scene where controlling resources through diversity of money and barter exchange currency formats (effectively setting 'dollar value' by the nature of the goods under immediate exchange rather than letting it be engraved in stone based upon the _threat_ of sword-as-pen artificial value inducement) is destroying the older 'Imperial' measurements of economic security through physical force.

At the same time, you look like utter morons with ongoing genocidal wars over Chechnya being held from ultimate separatist resolution by airpower. While financing your world policy of strategic resource encroachment through residual sales of arms.

Thus ANYTHING military becomes _self defeating_ as the ugliest of regressive social norm behaviors.

If Russia could get some of the bigger tank and tractor complexes to turn out a better (more fuel efficient) hauler or tractor or combine that they _gave away_ to developing nations in trade for 'futures' leans on fish-agro-mineral-oil resource compositing (under a unified marketing scheme) they would not only make the U.S. look like heavy handed has beens but they would /rapidly/ out develop both the U.S. and the Far East as principle drivers in a world dedicated to feeding some 10 billion people likely by 2100.

The sadness then being that, while tractor technology can be bought and copied fairly cheaply using EU technology inserts; fighter technology is itself about to be invalidated by megawatt class DEWS and so the Russians are looking to compete dead last in _the last_ generation of manned platforms, either way.

Because the EU is now a bigger threat to U.S. military technical dominance than anything anyone else (including China, IMO) is doing. And the Russians are so far behind the EU that it's pathetic.

T'wer it me, I would concentrate on computing and netcentrics as an overarching (and traditionally Russian weakest-link) means to simply continue the process of starving out the Russian military system as a hollow giant backed by nukes as the only real means necessary to secure borders.

Under such a policy of deliberate 'drawdown by non payment', a UCAV which can drop IAMs at 1/10th the cost of a Su-24 for 4 times the loiter-at-radii 'persistent endurance' can be not simply bought but /flown/ with the intention of 'no training necessary!' locking down all insurgencies with 1/10th the inventory number of aircraft available flying 4 times as LONG or 25% as often.

Until the threat literally cannot move to marshal, resupply or maneuver.

Such is how you beat Chechnya. Such is how you KEEP Chinese irregulars from causing border problems. It is also how you legitimize a military which 'cannot possibly threaten' the vaunted USAF. Because everything you have is dedicated to solving internal security matters in an age where directed energy systems will otherwise rule the skies (in main force hands) anyway.


KPl.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
.....that some guys love to live in the past the seekerof report is from 1998 jesus christ!!,is well known that the things in russia are better now, but noooo they repeat the same crap, over and over again
, also the miitar spending and the research spendng are very different and also you cant mesure that only by money

Hey grunt2, any time that you want to post up or link anything--a news source, a report, etc.--to counter my 1998 report citing that Russian pilots are only geting 20-30 hours of inflight training per year, do so, because quite frankly, taking your word on this is something I am not willing to do, thus, please feel free at any time to produce your sourcings to counter that 1998 article and mention. Have a good one.






seekerof

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
come on sekerof, posting a 1998 link!!! looool, already you had give me the "good one"


ch1466,well what i know -from press, since i dont have any russian friend that works in that industry- is that actually the russian designer rigth now arent so ambitious with the new design

i think that all this topic have nothing to with gas , oil and diamonds, titanium, steel, geopolitics etc, etc, etc, is more about the market and sales, russian companies isnt worried about the f22, they are more worried about the f35

about the "last manned plataform" you shouldnt be so sure, what is the use of these vehicles if you have a huge army of hackers that can use easely all the electronic infraestructure in the future?, UAVs will be usefull for special tasks , but still will stay limitated


[edit on 9-5-2006 by grunt2]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Grunt2,

>>
ch1466,well what i know -from press, since i dont have any russian friend that works in that industry- is that actually the russian designer rigth now arent so ambitious with the new design
>>

They can't avoid some basic problems Grunt. To be valid for their own national strategic and economic state, they need a jet with a fuel fraction more akin to that of the F-35 than any export 'intercept only' aircraft will likely require.

At the same time, all the PAK-FA stuff continues to mention twin engine installations which will _ruin_ the economics of the program (as well as maintenance and the like) with what amounts to 'two of everything' determinative costing factors.

If you go to a single engine airframe with a fuel fraction of .3 or better (so that the Russians can shift forces within their massive outback and fragmented CIS dependents), even with AL-41F in the 40,000lb range, you will be lucky _on burner thrust_ to achieve the kinds of performance that the F-22 does on military.

THAT being the 'real reason' why they continue to look at twins, IMO. Because, between their higher TSFCs, less comprehensive structural design competencies and what can only be deemed to be a 'purely slavic' obsession with the absolutes of performance rather than the subtle blending of same, they cannot match the Raptor as a mano-a-mano Air Dominance platform.

And the tactical reality remains: If you cannot match the Lead Sweep, you cannot /get to/ the strikers. Assuming that is your desire as a client-state owner of the Russian Gen-5 whatever.

>>
I think that all this topic have nothing to with gas , oil and diamonds, titanium, steel, geopolitics etc, etc, etc, is more about the market and sales, russian companies isnt worried about the f22, they are more worried about the f35
>>

The F-22 has almost twice the titanium in it's structure as the F-35 which is shockingly conventional. Since Aluminum pricing (which is admittedly sourced from outside the FSU as well) is also up 200% the question then becomes whether this is an attempt to 'punish' U.S. SWA/PG adventurism as an effort to secure dollar values through occupation of the oil-guarantor states.

Or if it is an admission "Hey, we can't afford and don't have the technology base to /build/ a Gen-5 platform so we will do the next best thing which is deny you the materials pricing indexes to build your own, affordably."

Like I hinted at before, it _doesn't matter_ because as long as the world is driven by a perceptual emphasis of a 'Global Super Power' ethic, smart people will do what they have to to skirt or ride the skirts of Uncle Sugar WITHOUT buying into massive-militarism as our last remaining power-export.

And so the world will get rich while the U.S. serves a beggars banquet of military hardware that nobody feels they have to sit down to. And Russia is thus STUPID for thinking that they need to match or deny our predilection for nationalistic 'size of our sword' identification with military power as a dominant strategic force.

>>
About the "last manned plataform" you shouldnt be so sure, what is the use of these vehicles if you have a huge army of hackers that can use easely all the electronic infraestructure in the future?, UAVs will be usefull for special tasks , but still will stay limitated
>>

Nonsense.

A. Fighter pilots will become a lot less full of themselves when they realize it's 'worse that WWI' odds on whether they fly over a DEWS sight (or within range of a relay mirror) that can flash vaporize them in an eyeblink with NO chance of a miss.

B. If you use directional comms between LO platforms (can't see the sender unless you are inline with the lobe, can't see the receiver at all) and moat the weapons systems on a reasonably intelligent, 3 level (Bomb Aimpoint X --> 'Apple' --> Bomb Aimpoint X) secure crypt, the best that can happen is that the enemy hears the word Apple without knowing who it was sent to or what Apple means. And that will only apply for one mission for one drone.

C. Contemporary microelectronics packages allow for reasonable ELS systems designs with fully automated baseline and doppler slide location techniques to be employed without any human intervention, provided only you have the software for a signals database sufficient to know what you're looking for. If it lights up, it gets smoked then applying to any ground transmitter (say GPS/GLONASS jammer as much as a LINK hacker) as it would to an airborned one with the exception that the surface unit HAS TO transmit over a broader spatial arc to be successful.

D. Indeed if push comes to shove, you can _pretarget_ drones and kill as cruise missiles do, based on overhead inserted mission targeting.

CONCLUSION:
If I wanted to kill any manned airframe, I would size and cost the 'interceptor' to the level at which NUMBERS of them could defeat the MRM at detection threshold X for MY SIDE. i.e. If the enemy can see/kill at 50nm FOUR times before I can reach the 20nm by which my own side can detect and close for a 'maneuvering' (formating) kill. Then I need 4+2 _for each target in the enemy formation_ to ensure that enough get through to have a residual section-vs.-singleton odds in their favor. Divide the cost of a 50 million dollar Flanker by 6 and you come up with an 8.3 million dollar interceptor.

THAT FACTOR ALONE (ignoring pilot cowardice and lack of training factors on a suicide mission) rules out any hope of a manned counter air capability becasue we haven't built an 8 million dollar fighter since the late 70's.

THIS FACT OF LIFE is what the Russians should be looking at if they wish to continue to sell military hardware to monkey forces that will never have the 'electronic infrastructure' to form a fully functional IADS.

If you fight like hillbillies you'd better be prepared to die like them and that is something which, typically, primitives do not do as well as advertised.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
ch, please could you make your ideas more specific??, is a poainto read such huge posts

about the 2 engines , guess that you dont understand , the cost of development of 1 high power engine is a lot higher than 1 small one, the problem that the russian have are the research development costs not the production ones, these are bussisness, now russians try to open in new markets they need that plane, not to match US nationalism, but just for bussisness, a plane saled isnt only the initial cost, all the infrastructure and manteanance give you money

that "UAV is the future" sounds exactly like "m3 is the future" or "dogfight is the past", i mean looks nice in magazines, but serious analists have other opinion, the corporations sells that idea to the public, but that isnt the reallity, i dont see how your ABCD arguments cant be overpassed, man software always can be jammed, that stuff is just 0 and 1, the problem here is if you circuit is open -UAV commanda- or closed -FBW commands- , and the UAVs needs a very open ones to operate even if they have a effective AI (that dont seems near), the other things like "codes over codes" or "modern electronics", sorry man, but that looks nice in a magazine, but isnt the reality you can easely find the source code with iterative loops, actually i wouldnt be surprised if they use some kind of assembler as harware code

you are wrong with that su-27/8, coz some technologies havent linear relation costs, so isnt so simple to keept a performance of the su27 and divide into 6 small intercetors

about "monkey" nations, hmm guess tha you have the opinion that every country that isnt in th US side is a "monkey nation"??such attitude is pretty despicable, since these "monke nations" -as you said- sometimes are the best payers,there is a good market in these -as you said- "monkey" nations and others -that arent monkey?
- by the new international policy of the US

"they cannot match the Raptor as a mano-a-mano Air Dominance platform"

hmm, and what makes the raptor so special??, the stealth?? if you want stealth go to see the f23, the maneoverability???, yeah with the problems of competent turning that the plane have??, supercruiser??? by the reduction of the performance by the changes of the design and the practical loaded SC of arround M1.1-1.3??, better keept subsonic to increase the range, air dominance??? yeah with so few missiles in the air, you know what? missile launched isnt missile hitted...ahhh yeah i forgot the over inflated cost and the huge marketing campaing, that is what it makes so special???, besides the supersonic maneuverability is very good, the russians can match or ever make better stealth and agility, what i see very hard to reach is the SC, but i dont see any good use of the f22s practical SC , what i think they wont match is the supersonic maneouverability

the whole project looks like the f4, if you cant do a good thing in short time this isnt good anymore -and dont say that the f4 was a succese because wasnt-, instead the f16 was done in very short time with new techs and concepts, that was a very sucefull project, the f15 is inbetween -was upgrated with the C version-

to the russians the f35 is the real market and military threat not the f22

[edit on 9-5-2006 by grunt2]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   


And Russia is thus STUPID for thinking that they need to match or deny our predilection for nationalistic 'size of our sword' identification with military power as a dominant strategic force.


Ah, but they are far less stupid than the United States. The United States has put out the F-22 Raptor and the F-35. They are expecting to SELL these aircraft. Now I'm not saying that they ain't gonna sell any. They'll probably give away a few F-35's to Canada or something, and maybe even a few F-22s to a couple countries. But have you seen the price tags on those things? If the US doesn't meet its expected selling amount its gonna hurt.

Russia doesn't want to sell the Su-47 (or S-37 as it is still called) or the MiG 1.44. It ain't producing them. It is using them as a demonstration platform for advanced theories and such. Take the Su-47 Berkut. Forward-Swept wings. Who woulda thunk it woulda sprung up, just like in a comic book? And who woulda thought it would work so well?

In case you haven't noticed the US doesn't NEED all these new planes its putting out. It doesn't need to replace the F-14 Tomcats (Best interceptor around IMHO). It don't need the new F-16 XL (fancy though it is). It don't NEED the R-22 Raptor. It don't NEED the F-35. Russia doesn't NEED the Su-47. It doesn't NEED the MiG 1.44. It doesn't NEED the PAK-FA.

But where would the world be if all people cared about was what they NEEDED?

Stone age.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

What bearing the mention has is that why keep working on or contemplating "future projects" when you cannot get anyone but a relative handful of pilots that will be able to ADEQUATELY and EFFECTIVELY fly them?



Proverbs are swell and all, but they do not pay Russian pilots and they do not maintain and upgrade funding of aircraft.

Furthermore, Russia has existing "future projects," such as the Berkut (Su-47 Firkin), the Mig/Mikoyan 1.42-44 Project, and the alleged PAK-FA. ALL of which are and have been LACKING FUNDING.

As I indicated, Russia next project had better be to pay and train existing and future pilots, while maintaining what remains of their Air Force and aircraft, adequately and effectively.



Why are you lot all fixated with the idea Russia needs an airforce now?

With the current political climate, it would be in 10 years time Russia needs an Army/Navy/AF to maintain control over its highly desireable oil/gas supplies. So they RuAF will be working with that in mind.

So its no use having trained pilots in obsolete machines - they will get the machines - then get the pilots for them.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Who knows for sure what the wacky Russians are up to ? They have always been right up there with US. One thing for sure is they do make the most photogenic aircraft & now with the finance from Oil & Gas, money should not be a problem. I tend not to believe any media about Russia; Since I was little the media told me it was a dark, cold, poor place where everyone dressed in black.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join