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.

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
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.
That's not exactly modularity, just designing several versions from the get-go. And it's not that elementary either, ask the Colonials about it, lol.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
That's not exactly modularity, just designing several versions from the get-go. And it's not that elementary either, ask the Colonials about it, lol.
It's modularity when you switch different modules - different landing gear for example, but you can do the same with fixed/folding wing and other components. You just need to make the airframe from the start able to hold the different modules. And the colonials aren't a good example for anything nowadays, their engineering processes in the MIC are intentionally made to maximize producer's income, not for sanity or economics. Gone are the days of B-24 or the Liberty ships...
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
It's modularity when you switch different modules - different landing gear for example, but you can do the same with fixed/folding wing and other components. You just need to make the airframe from the start able to hold the different modules. And the colonials aren't a good example for anything nowadays, their engineering processes in the MIC are intentionally made to maximize producer's income, not for sanity or economics. Gone are the days of B-24 or the Liberty ships...
Then it's not really news, this kind of stuff is done by everyone for years to decades already by every plane that isn't called Pigeon.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
Then it's not really news, this kind of stuff is done by everyone for years to decades already by every plane that isn't called Pigeon.
Well, it's not done by everyone and for every plane, but it definitely was done before, and yes it's not news. That is why I was surprised by your "that's not possible" argument. Though, IMO it's new in Russian military aircraft construction. I don't know about Su-57 being modular, and the Soviet-era designs definitely didn't see any modularity, they used the opposite strategy - each weapon was one exactly placed little cog in the big military machine.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Well, it's not done by everyone and for every plane, but it definitely was done before, and yes it's not news. That is why I was surprised by your "that's not possible" argument. Though, IMO it's new in Russian military aircraft construction. I don't know about Su-57 being modular, and the Soviet-era designs definitely didn't see any modularity, they used the opposite strategy - each weapon was one exactly placed little cog in the big military machine.
That's because I supposed the 'modular' was on a frame level, which is why it would have been actual news.
 

Rubick

Well-known member
What the duck says is correct. That kind of modularity isn't possible. Not many got it right on ground based machines let alone marine. On planes! Especially jet fighters no way. And that kind of modularity also doesn't go with cheapness in terms of procurement.


They probably mean that it's been taken into account that the basic frame will be modified into other variants. Which is not new to Sukhoi.
 

Rubick

Well-known member
One out of the three designs by the Tupolev OKB considered as the replacement for Tu-22M. Sukhoi won that competition but Tupolev OKB and ultimately would be looked upon to build the replacement as Sukhoi was busy at that time with other projects. In the end no replacement came to be as both OKB's where busy and then the union fell


 
Last edited:

Rubick

Well-known member
T-4MS was intercontinental bomber. T-60 and later T-60S project were actually the competitor. But besides artists impressions that are according to people that seen the designs are not accurate. T-60S design supposed to be basicly a lot like what you know as the MiG 7.01. As the designers are the same.


It really doesn't help that Sukhoi's people love to give out conflicting info and talk shit about each other never mind other OKB's.


Anyway speaking bombers.



 

Rubick

Well-known member
Well, apparently I'm wrong (Hey, even god made mistakes ) It apparently did go to Sukhoi. With the Izdeliye 54/T-54 design. Which previously the information was that it was a Su-24 replacement. Rather then a successor design to the T-60S.



Edit


Hey, Khathi. Glad you decided to join.


Anyway



State trials of Ka-52M will begin soon.

moving on some short Sprut-SD doing it's test In Ze black sea.

 
Last edited:

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
Looks like the latest incarnation of the Mi-171. Is it like one of the oldest helicopter designs around now? Granted, the latest version was described as having a lot more composites than the older models, and quite a nazzy cockpit too.

 

Rubick

Well-known member
Well, statistically the world safest helicopter unless something has changed. Along being the most produced and probably one of the most longest running.

Alas Mil is but a shadow of what it was. Regarded pretty much at one point Internationally as what McDonnell Douglas was to fixed wing aviation.
 

Khathi

New member
Looks like the latest incarnation of the Mi-171. Is it like one of the oldest helicopter designs around now? Granted, the latest version was described as having a lot more composites than the older models, and quite a nazzy cockpit too.
That's basically a hybrid of Mi-171 and Mi-38.
 

Rubick

Well-known member
So, finally a first floating light tank since PT-76. Still rocks way too much for a useful follow-on shot.

I heard that wasn´t a problem. Not even for the crew inside that enjoyed that ``fun festivity``. However what I did read was that there were signs of deformation and cracks.

Anyway

https://www.aoosk.ru/press-center/n...sportirovke-pervoy-atomnoy-podvodnoy-lodki-k/

Project 627 ``Leninsky Komsomol`` finally going to be transported/towed to Kronstadt to be put on display as a museum ship.

Frankly I'm hoping they will do so with Project 941 also. Would also make a hella good tourist attraction.
 

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member

Is there a reason why they couldn't put a shroud or something around the missile or is the turbofan suppose to stick outside unlike the KH-55 where the turbofan is inside the missile before it is shifted out in-flight?

Does the KH-101 also have the turbofan outside? Is there some reason they couldn't squeeze it in the fuselage for more stealth?
 

Khathi

New member
Apparently, a tandem penetrator (four HEAT pre-charges and then the main charge) takes too much space for the engine to be put inside.
 

Khathi

New member
SCALP/Sea Shadow is as much as a half larger than Kh-59 — it has a fuselage 50 cm wide against 38 cm, and a 1400 kg launch mass against 930 kg, so it has where to fit an engine. Kh-59, OTOH, had an externally mounted engine ever since switching from a solid fuel one to a turbojet. There's been an attempt to make a stealthy version with a boxy fuselage and an inside engine, Kh-59MK2, but it didn't pan out apparently.

 

Wakko

Well-known member

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
There's entire bucket list of missiles that are stuck under the secret tag when it comes to testing or anything for the Su-57 (or any Russian aircraft).
 
Top Bottom