What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Uncle Rubick's Russian military media and news thread.

Wouldn't be that more expensive in the end, is available now rather than later and, most importantly, has enough performance to be a deterrent by existing. Look at it this way: would you consider sending F-35 in an area that has Su-57 around without a huge escort package, knowing that Felon probably has anti-VLO radars, range and speed to lolnope the Pigeon? There, by being around, the plane makes mission planning way more complicated.

Rufus, but how you want to send F-35 into fight when it is burning on the ground?
 
That's a huge IF. Su-57 answers pretty much all Russian needs while this new plane probably doesn't.

Yeah, that's the thing I don't see RuAF being warmed up by this. But from the Q&A that happened 30 + minutes back. Which I have not yet fully listened there apparently a costumer from what Is said.


Here's the promotional video.



The translation is not quite right. The English translator mentions it's capable maneuvering up to 8g. The Russian version of the video. It's 8g with a payload.


Edit


I'll try to do the Q&A but the audio is terrible. But first I'll go cook and relax
 
The US has too much money to show resourcefullness and initiative. These qualities belong to cash-strapped militaries like ours.

Yeah, looking on how they have wasted billions on RnD and develepement of capabilities on a basisc "tech will be avaiable in x decades" in search of revolution that was de facto an evolution shows it.
 
Yeah, looking on how they have wasted billions on RnD and develepement of capabilities on a basisc "tech will be avaiable in x decades" in search of revolution that was de facto an evolution shows it.
Or simply this: a military that seriously envision to use the Abrams as its Main Battle Tank in high intensity warfare CANNOT be called resourceful and initiative-minded, considering the logistics trail of the thing would make 1914 planners commit suicide.
 
My favorite nickname the F-35 is referred to this days is simply as "the patient."


But anyway.



After 11:05 minutes mark.

Basically thanks everyone for coming. From journo's to colleagues in his field.

Says the project is a bit more then 1 year old made possible in such short time due (and this is something he also says. "We said that a lot. But this time it really was" )to supercomputers mathematical modelling and virtual reality.

The idea of the plane was born out of economics. In their view. Right now on the market a lot of single engine fighter jets. And there is also a 5th gen single engine fighter. But there is no cheap 5th gen multirole combat aircraft. To fill the niche for Asian, Latin, African and European countries. Countries that need a cheaper configurable/customizable plane. that can be tailored for their needs. Which they would not able to tailor themselves.

Anyway at this point @13:02 he hears background noise and it interrupts him. And says Chinese colleagues as, as always are loud.

Anyway this personification of the plane is part of the bullet point/mark/outline of a modern fighter plane. The plane will have an open architecture. Anyway further goes on to explain what open architecture is. (Which we all know so no going to bother)


Moving on part of the economics isn't only the price he says. But also fuel and basicly maintenance. Something a single engine fighter is more economical at. They also offering a integrated logistic system named "Matryoshka"

Further talks about the characteristic of the plane, how much payload, range, etc (You probably know already. so not going to bother.)

Then says the plane will fly in 2023 (Prototype obviously) and that the mockup we see now isn't just a mockup. This is what will be flying in the air. It still will need to be fitted out and made ready. And finish it's ground testing before it fly's. They hope the plane will be ready for serial production in 2026. And to take that market it's vital to finish the plane as fast as possible.

Anyway now the Q and A


@17:02 ( I can't make out what the guy asks. crueldwarf help! ) But the response to that question is "I cannot answer this question right here right now."


@17:11 somebody asks what STOL means. Which the guy answers is the same as on the Su-57 450 meters. then the bold guy comes and explains why. which I'm not going to bother with.

@17:44 A lady asks please tell us about the about the engine. The bald guy says in the 14 ~ 16t range. It's a relatively new engine. It's been in service for few years already and is well worked out. (in other words 117 will be probably uprated)

@18:07 Asked about the number 75 on the fuselage. Bald guy says 7 and 5 are lucky numbers for the Sukhoi design bureau historically. All the most successful planes had that either one of this numbers. That and they see it as a complementary plane to the Su-57 so should have reverse numbers to it. But so far don't take it that it will be it's official designated as such.

@18:57 (Not audible enough to hear what is asked) Answer: This project is financed by our own initiative " We financed it" We do expect rightfully help from the government and they promised they would. But he says likely the help will only involve in marketing/exploitation of the plane in the market. The amount of funding they cannot talk about now. ( still fairly certain they are getting extremely generous loans backed by the government)

@19:27 (Once again not audible enough to hear what is asked) Answer: They are hoping RuAF will show interest. Especially since it will be a platform for a pilotless version.


@19:52 Why checkmate. Answer: It's a marketing ploy, a buzz word. In their view competition is growing And this plane is basicly. A answer, a move towards that competition. (I don't know how to translate this directly)


@20:23 (Again not audible enough to hear what is asked) Answer: The project is our own initiative we don't have any requirements from the government. We are in talks with the government as our potential clients. We are hoping and we are sure the plane and all it's modifications. Will invoke interest from them.

@20:50 What's the goal/aimed production numbers or something along those lines. Answer: 300, according to our business plan 300. We are assume/figure going by our business plan within 15 years.

@21:02 A lot of people are compering this to Merican fighter plane. What are the big differences. Answer: The bald guy says it's a completely different plane if you are talking about the F-35. Even in size they are not comparable.. It's a different plane with different requirements Faster, longer range, bigger payload. (Payload no) and stealthier. This is Sukhois vision of light fighter jet. High supersonic, cheap, long legged and ability to perform it's job with a large payload housed internally. It's not correct to compare it with other plane. It's a unique plane, with a unique scheme.

@22:17 (Again not quite audible enough for me) Answer: Yes, in regards to additional equipment. Like i said we have a open architecture which allows for quick placement or adaptation of equipment like communication, radar, etc As far as the engine. We are currently busy with a new engine as some of you know. And this plane like a platform can be used for installation of the new engine. But for now for this platform it's not critical.


@23:18 Will there be naval variants Answer: Naval, pilotless, two-seater. Is talked about.

@23:28 Would that require a new chassis Answer: Bald guy says the plane is made by a modular scheme. We started the project already with in mind of a pilotless and two-seater and everything else the other guy said. So adaptation of all this version will be minimum. It was earlier modification ( as in past days with older planes) , now it's modularity.(with this project for example)

@23:56 Still can't hear shit clearly. Answer: We haven't had any talks with anyone. The project was a secret.. So we didn't position it let alone had talks with our aimed costumers. We did do research on the international market with Rosoboronexport. What's the size of the market and the niche and theoretically possibilities of orders placed. 300 wasn't simply a number pulled out of our dreams. We took into account regions, countries, demand, functionality, budgets, current aviation fleet decline/decay, etc. We examined the market thoroughly. The numbers we are saying we are saying with assurance.

Was also asked about Maintenance /flight cost. He says he won't go into details right now or comparisons with 35, Raffy, that Swedish turd or the Chinese. Just basicly keep the cost as small as possible is the aim. Says also the plane will be very client orientated. Back in the day he said we always showed the client what we got and then tried to accommodate any addition wishes the client had. Now let him combine whatever he wants within his budget.


@25:35 Did Putin rike it. Answer: Yes. (there is more to this but whatever)

@26:15 What's with all those nationalities in the promo trailer Answer: It's our traditional buyers.


And that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Moving on part of the economics isn't only the price he says. But also fuel and basicly maintenance. Something a single engine fighter is more economical at. They also offering a integrated logistic system named "Matryoshka"
Definitely depends on the engine. A single F135 will cost a shitload more fuel and maintenance than a pair of M88, just saying. That engine MIGHT cost less than other twin engines, but it isn't just because it's single.
@23:28 Would that require a new chassis Answer: Bald guy says the plane is made by a modular scheme. We started the project already with in mind of a pilotless and two-seater and everything else the other guy said. So adaptation of all this version will be minimum. It was earlier modification, now it's modularity.
And on this I kinda call bullshit. Unless they have made the stuff from day 1 with the various frames in mind, going for a twin-seater or a pilotless version is going to be a huge mess, same for the navalized variant. Duckie was designed with naval and twin-seater from the start, so it worked, but Typhoon, for example... isn't. And the least said about the Pigeon-C's adventures in working out on CVN, the better. For RCS and EW management, changing the frame isn't going to be cheap or easy if you want to keep good performance.

Ask the Colonials how the Hornet => Super Hornet transition went for aerodynamics.
 
Sorry they did take that into account day one. The "It was earlier modification, now it's modularity." was referred to as in the past planes, in the old days. Compared to now with modularity taken into design day one.


I'm one thing skeptical about. Modularity usually adds cost to whatever. So strange choice for a cheap fighter plane project.
 
Sorry they did take that into account day one. The "It was earlier modification, now it's modularity." was referred to as in the past planes, in the old days. Compared to now with modularity taken into design day one.


I'm one thing skeptical about. Modularity usually adds cost to whatever. So strange choice for a cheap fighter plane project.
Yeah, software modularity can and does work if done properly. Mechanical one, particularly on a fighter jet... yeah, not so much.
 
Yeah, software modularity can and does work if done properly. Mechanical one, particularly on a fighter jet... yeah, not so much.
Have faith, Russians were not long ago considered incapable of making nuclear bomb, not mentioning artificial satelites or sending man to space.

On the other hand, they can always just make more versions out of it. Assuming RuAF will be interested. If not, they will go with Su-35 and Su-57 (or it's descendant).
 
Have faith, Russians were not long ago considered incapable of making nuclear bomb, not mentioning artificial satelites or sending man to space.

On the other hand, they can always just make more versions out of it. Assuming RuAF will be interested. If not, they will go with Su-35 and Su-57 (or it's descendant).
Yeah, no. This doesn't make much sense as an argument, you could say it for everybody, and that doesn't make silly design decisions suddenly sensible.
 
Yeah, no. This doesn't make much sense as an argument, you could say it for everybody, and that doesn't make silly design decisions suddenly sensible.
It is a perfectly good argument when we're talking about a westerner assessing Russian capabilities or decisions - the capacity for underestimation in this case is legendary, to the extent that it needs to be taken into account as a real, persistent phenomenon.
 
It is a perfectly good argument when we're talking about a westerner assessing Russian capabilities or decisions - the capacity for underestimation in this case is legendary, to the extent that it needs to be taken into account as a real, persistent phenomenon.
This isn't about Russia's capabilities, I would say the same for any other country: making a physically modular plane would be quite nonsensical when it comes to the airframe, because every single configuration would need completely reworked flight command dynamics, EW management, RCS calculations, etc. Modularity works for avionics and software in a plane, not for the airframe itself.

So, yeah, if Russia announced it was making an underwater flying hypersonic aircraft carrier for 500 thousand rubles, I would roll my eyes just as when LM pretended it would make a truck-sized fusion reactor within five years. Mother Russia isn't above being called on nonsensical claims just because it's Mother Russia.
 
This isn't about Russia's capabilities, I would say the same for any other country: making a physically modular plane would be quite nonsensical when it comes to the airframe, because every single configuration would need completely reworked flight command dynamics, EW management, RCS calculations, etc. Modularity works for avionics and software in a plane, not for the airframe itself.
AFAIK the usual practice here is to make the airframe from the start with the ability to house the different configurations. That's why some airplanes have better upgrade/modification potential than others. That is why the presenter specifically said that they've accounted for the different versions from the start of the modeling process. I'm not saying that they did it right, only time will tell, but it's not something impossible.
 
AFAIK the usual practice here is to make the airframe from the start with the ability to house the different configurations. That's why some airplanes have better upgrade/modification potential than others. That is why the presenter specifically said that they've accounted for the different versions from the start of the modeling process. I'm not saying that they did it right, only time will tell, but it's not something impossible.
If the modifications are internal, then yes, no real issue with this, but it's not exactly what 'modular' implies for construction. Warships or submarines are modular, because in the end, you can add or remove sections for a new one compared to the previous, the US Virginia SSN being a good example of it. It's more practical for construction and updates, plus doesn't require too much additional work. For planes? Not so much when you start playing with their shape itself, so modularity remains in the realm of avionics, electronics and the stuff.

But if that's it, it's a complete non-news since everyone does it already, Russia included I believe with the Felon.

EDIT: hell, current Flankers and Fulcrums are already sold to other countries with Israeli or French avionics and armaments, for example.
 
If the modifications are internal, then yes, no real issue with this, but it's not exactly what 'modular' implies for construction. Warships or submarines are modular, because in the end, you can add or remove sections for a new one compared to the previous, the US Virginia SSN being a good example of it. It's more practical for construction and updates, plus doesn't require too much additional work. For planes? Not so much when you start playing with their shape itself, so modularity remains in the realm of avionics, electronics and the stuff.
I don't get your argument. Are you saying that they cannot make the airframe strong enough to house carrier-capable landing gear, and then just swap the landing gear based on whether they're producing a land-based or a naval version? Seems elementary to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom