Russia Russia VS XYZ Thread

blackjack

Contributor
Messages
782
Reactions
474
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
I had to make another thread because most of my other threads were on a different forum, so I made all the threads here with a new thread.










Sorry if there were responses from the deleted thread but if anyone wants to bring them up than go ahead. Examples of this thread could be like.

  • Russia Navy vs UK, France, Japan or US. giving examples of how many ships, submarine missiles and torpedoes can sink Russia's fleet but with factual numbers or discussion.
  • Why Ukraine casualty sources are better than Russian casualty sources in the Ukraine war or vice versa.
  • how one country's drones are better than the other like Russia.
1673046773620.png


basically, all those threads I made will make anyone here read my mind or how I would present my own arguments, I could even change my threads later if new significant information comes out for one of their military projects. Negative or positive feedback is highly recommended here for example I would accept some negative feedback on how much Russia sucks in MMIC technology regarding their radars or positive feedback on some of their weapons like missiles, etc.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
4,877
Reactions
2 8,091
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
  • Russia Navy vs UK, France, Japan or US. giving examples of how many ships, submarine missiles and torpedoes can sink Russia's fleet but with factual numbers or discussion.

The naval balance is so lopsided, US and Japan shouldn't even be mentioned. Maybe a more equal one, like RF Navy V Marine nationale or Royal Navy V RF Navy.

A peacetime US CSG (1xCVN, 2x DDG, 1xCG, 2xSSN) is probably enough to pick one of RF navy 3 fleet and win.
 
Last edited:

blackjack

Contributor
Messages
782
Reactions
474
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
The naval balance is so lopsided, US and Japan shouldn't even be mentioned. Maybe a more equal one, like RF Navy V Marine nationale or Royal Navy V RF Navy.

A peacetime US CSG (1xCVN, 2x DDG, 1xCG, 2xSSN) is probably enough to pick one of RF navy 3 fleet and win.
hmm i wonder what makes the US and Japan so great, please elaborate, that is what this thread is for after all.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
4,877
Reactions
2 8,091
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Dont get me wrong I would not choose a fight I know I would lose in any kind of arguements especially when I say the west is ahead of Russia in MMICs.BUT...you know that there has to be a reason why I would start something like this right lol? RTI and KRET in their own articles have stated they are 10-15 years behind the west in MMICs, meaning even if Russia gets a new MMIC radar in 2022-2024 in the avionics upgrade time frame with and better high performing modules it will surpass the F-22 but the F-35 will so surpass it as block 4 aircrafts using an/apg-85 since I have no proof just how much Russia's modules have improved to the latest U.S. probably form Qorvo. Well to cut to the chase sorry that I gave you an open present from the last paragraph but there is a high possibility that the radars the Su-57 would be a photonic one.

I dont think I am being a cheater if say photonic radars on a Su-57 makes any 5th gen combat with the aircraft as good as screwed. Hoping 6th gens don't go with a GaN design.

Ahhh yes, the photonic radar again, how could I recover from this ?

You see, I’m not dismissing the potential of what a Quantum radar could do. But again just quick glance of the potential of a quantum radar, then glance for a moment at why many still go with the development traditional radar. There should be questions asked.

The potential of a quantum radar is enormous, but unless it could be tactically harnessed, at best it’s a science project.

Could I kill you with a Mehmet gun ? The word here is “could” but “would “ I ? Theoretically sure I can, but would it be tactical ? probably not. At best you would’ve killed me before I manage to set up the gun and “compel” you to just stand steady right in front of the gun barrel.
When I said the word compel, I mean that I’m aware that certain factor will force things not to work our way. If the photonic radar is so good, the US, not Russia that will field it earlier.

The US is not new to the science of quantum radars.

trio of researchers from the University of Rochester in New York, has created a radar system based on polarized photons that they describe as jam-proof.

https://phys.org/news/2012-12-quantum-properties-jammer-proof-radar.html


The science is there, but that’s just it, the science in which its probably tested inside a “clean and perfect” laboratory lab. Applying it to become useful in a military synonym with chaos is another matter.

DARPA has their own quantum projects for a while now.

https://idstch.com/technology/elect...-electronic-warfare-radar-and-communications/


When transistors came around the scientist working on it knows the full potential once its harnessed, but real life obstacle would prevent them to fully harnessed it for the time. It would took the massive capital (human and fund) on top of a market needs for more and more advanced transistors and decades of R&D and widespread commercial uses that we are now able to enjoy what the scientist working on early transistors imagine it can do. Does Russia has anything close when it comes to Photonics R&D ?

Again knowing how much Russian media boast about its quantum radars, I would bet the guy in Lockheed Martin would’ve known earlier and start developing countermeasures. The F-22 will be retired soon and before Russian quantum radars finally worked, the NGAD might have made it obsolete. Please remember that Lockheed Martin designed its aircraft with technological development forecast , real and imagined.

I mean back in early 2010s, I’m aware that Bi static radar “could” make stealth obsolete. Didn’t happen. LOL

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/radar-detects-stealth-aircraft

So yeah have fun with photonic radars.


Current K-77M missiles are said to have 193km ranges and from the looks of it there were tests of a ramjet version with an even longer range than the K-77M, than there is work on a 400km K-37M.
The gist of many military enthusiast (including you) assessment on the effectiveness of the missile is its range. Because that is what could be visibly sell to boast about.

Put a long enough burning solid rocket motor and a missile will fly 200 or more kilometres .

Just like the Photonic radars earlier, this might work in theory. In real life, there’s more to worry such as the loss of energy inflight, onboard radar resistance to jamming and clutter etc.

When the AIM-120A came around in 1991, Russia has just inherit the Soviet Union and the R-77 are just a military project because Vympel did not have adequate funding during the 1990s and the first part of the following decade to support further evolution of the R-77, either for the Russian air force or the export market. The basic version of the R-77 is not thought to have entered the Russian air force inventory in significant numbers.[3]

The Malaysian air force fielded the R-77 earlier than the VKS, and even to this day, its not rare to see Russian/Belarusian planes flying with the R-27 instead.

Since that time the AIM-120 has had 4 major different increments (AIM-120B, C5, C7 and D) with the D variant itself has 3 increments (D1,D2 and D3) in each of those increments the motors burn time are extended equating longer flight hours, its physical body has changed and enhanced to cope with increased flight performance and its seeker are constantly improved from time to time.

The R77 has only one improvement since then, and with questionable performance.

The upcoming AIM-260 JATM promises an even increased performance with a body the same size and weight with the AIM-120. If there’s a close competitor to the US’s AIM-260 it’s the Chinese.

(F-35s are still working on increasing to 6 air to air missiles)

F-35 works in group, even if they carry just two, you'd be overwhelmed.

Russia already beat the F-35 with their internal hypersonic air to ground missile Gremlin in development.
Haha ...this only happens in your dream, I don’t even understand how the Russians “beat” the F-35 using single weapons carriage. This is akin to me stating that the Mig-23 has beaten the F-15 with (insert whatever weapons you want here).

If anything, the F-35 weapons load is already impressive and its block 4 upgrades would upped that performance by quite a margin. I am yet to see a Russian answer to the Storm breaker why would I believe the Gremlin will be operational before SiAW or HACM ?
I know that the F-35 does not have 360 degree radar coverage like the Su-57 or TFX, but does it have UV 360 degree coverage if no than the Su-57 will have the broadest 360 degree coverage possible with sensor fusion collecting across many different spectrums.
It does not, because it has something better. I quick glance on what the DAS provide to the pilots will tell you that whatever radio based warnings system out there is clearly behind when it comes to situational awareness.


and please don't talk sensor fusion here...the F-35 does that better than everyone else.

Again having an S-duct is nothing as exclusive as having a stealth ships the Su-47 had S-ducts but since they do not want to kill engine performance like how they tested square nozzles on the Su-27 they found an alternative. the alternative is that the Su-57 uses mesh screens, composite blades, blockers and has a curvature, use of S-shaped air inlet channels and their covering with radio absorbing materials, anti-radar grille is installed relative to the axis of the air channel, and is not considered straight the number of countermeasures it used to achieve a stealth reduction is something that has to get through to your head which is not comparable to how other aircrafts have their ducts using blockers. It is ridiculous to immediately assume that. S-duct will have a lower signature if they have not disclosed what the RCS is using their patented method. Unless you are going to go with the trust me bro approach like you have in your 1st paragraph?

No its not, if that's the case every engineers from Lockheed Martin to Chengdu will go with Russian solution of radar blockers. It seems like the laws of physics works differently in Russia.
Tell me the internal max range for the F-35s(without Advent) or the F-22 and how they compare to the Su-57 1st stage engines?
Why fixated with range, do you know the MTBO of such engines ? the thrust given, and thrust to weight ratio etc ? In each and everyone of those the F119 rules, and the F135 just upped the ante.

The 1st stage engine (I assume this the Al-41F1) are closer to the General Electric F110-GE-132 used in UAE Vipers.

if anything the lack of range from the two is a design treadeoff for their VLO characteristics, Russia otoh chooses to reduce observability for range. Very funny
So you posted a questionable design picture of the 1st stage but not the 2nd stage engines that are covered with RAM around the engines. the 1st photo still seems to show the engine nozzles on the side like the bottom, I dont get it? longer tails still offer an increase in RCS.
look again. the nozzle of the F-22 are hidden deep while the Felon protruded so far back.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Messages
782
Reactions
474
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
Ahhh yes, the photonic radar again, how could I recover from this ?

You see, I’m not dismissing the potential of what a Quantum radar could do. But again just quick glance of the potential of a quantum radar, then glance for a moment at why many still go with the development traditional radar. There should be questions asked.

The potential of a quantum radar is enormous, but unless it could be tactically harnessed, at best it’s a science project.

Could I kill you with a Mehmet gun ? The word here is “could” but “would “ I ? Theoretically sure I can, but would it be tactical ? probably not. At best you would’ve killed me before I manage to set up the gun and “compel” you to just stand steady right in front of the gun barrel.
When I said the word compel, I mean that I’m aware that certain factor will force things not to work our way. If the photonic radar is so good, the US, not Russia that will field it earlier.

The US is not new to the science of quantum radars.


https://phys.org/news/2012-12-quantum-properties-jammer-proof-radar.html


The science is there, but that’s just it, the science in which its probably tested inside a “clean and perfect” laboratory lab. Applying it to become useful in a military synonym with chaos is another matter.

DARPA has their own quantum projects for a while now.

https://idstch.com/technology/elect...-electronic-warfare-radar-and-communications/


When transistors came around the scientist working on it knows the full potential once its harnessed, but real life obstacle would prevent them to fully harnessed it for the time. It would took the massive capital (human and fund) on top of a market needs for more and more advanced transistors and decades of R&D and widespread commercial uses that we are now able to enjoy what the scientist working on early transistors imagine it can do. Does Russia has anything close when it comes to Photonics R&D ?

Again knowing how much Russian media boast about its quantum radars, I would bet the guy in Lockheed Martin would’ve known earlier and start developing countermeasures. The F-22 will be retired soon and before Russian quantum radars finally worked, the NGAD might have made it obsolete. Please remember that Lockheed Martin designed its aircraft with technological development forecast , real and imagined.

I mean back in early 2010s, I’m aware that Bi static radar “could” make stealth obsolete. Didn’t happen. LOL

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/radar-detects-stealth-aircraft

So yeah have fun with photonic radars.
photonic radars and quantum radars are completely different as optical computers are from quantum computers or how quantum integrated circuits https://3dnews.ru/1036467/rossiyski...ompyutera-v-rossii?ysclid=ldb0bojtfc810229817 are different from photonic integrated circuits. The I am sure that the lockheed has created countermeasures for it has yet to be seen or proven. But regardless the background noise levels on photonic radars are far lower than just standard MMIC radars.I am rasing my eyebrows because the photonic radar magazines from KRET, RTI and VEGA got purged. They gave specifications like how a mobile radar can have the same capability of tracking targets as a ground radar building, so this kind of information is significantly ground breaking. Russia does have a history of making breakthroughs like two skunkwork engineers praisng Ufimtsev that his stealth equation was the Rosetta stone of stealth or the U.S. randomly capturing a Hind from operation mount hope 3. But the point remains russia has tested photonic radars and have set a production line for the modules giving this a possibility to what radars the Su-57 might have or there later gen aircraft.

The gist of many military enthusiast (including you) assessment on the effectiveness of the missile is its range. Because that is what could be visibly sell to boast about.

Put a long enough burning solid rocket motor and a missile will fly 200 or more kilometres .

Just like the Photonic radars earlier, this might work in theory. In real life, there’s more to worry such as the loss of energy inflight, onboard radar resistance to jamming and clutter etc.

When the AIM-120A came around in 1991, Russia has just inherit the Soviet Union and the R-77 are just a military project because Vympel did not have adequate funding during the 1990s and the first part of the following decade to support further evolution of the R-77, either for the Russian air force or the export market. The basic version of the R-77 is not thought to have entered the Russian air force inventory in significant numbers.[3]

The Malaysian air force fielded the R-77 earlier than the VKS, and even to this day, its not rare to see Russian/Belarusian planes flying with the R-27 instead.

Since that time the AIM-120 has had 4 major different increments (AIM-120B, C5, C7 and D) with the D variant itself has 3 increments (D1,D2 and D3) in each of those increments the motors burn time are extended equating longer flight hours, its physical body has changed and enhanced to cope with increased flight performance and its seeker are constantly improved from time to time.

The R77 has only one improvement since then, and with questionable performance.

The upcoming AIM-260 JATM promises an even increased performance with a body the same size and weight with the AIM-120. If there’s a close competitor to the US’s AIM-260 it’s the Chinese.
Aim-260 is estimated at a 200km range, I already gave the K-77M 193km missile range and the ramjet version being even longer.

F-35 works in group, even if they carry just two, you'd be overwhelmed.
only overwhelmed if the Su-57 runs out of missiles if the new missiles will have a CUDA kind of design.

Haha ...this only happens in your dream, I don’t even understand how the Russians “beat” the F-35 using single weapons carriage. This is akin to me stating that the Mig-23 has beaten the F-15 with (insert whatever weapons you want here).

If anything, the F-35 weapons load is already impressive and its block 4 upgrades would upped that performance by quite a margin. I am yet to see a Russian answer to the Storm breaker why would I believe the Gremlin will be operational before SiAW or HACM ?
I mean if you are talking about glide bombs they technically do have two answers. 1. They have grom-e1 and grom-e2 although cant fit much they offer very heavy payload damages. 2. molinya drones with several hundred kilometers in range smaller payload than stormbreaker at 5-7kg but can fit way more in the Su-57 internal compartments that I discussed earlier. SiAW has a 300km range with mach 4 speeds about almost comparable to the 2007 kh-58 missile that has a 250km range and mach 3.6 speeds but keep in mind the AGM-88 had a 68kg warhead while the Kh-58 has a 149kg warhead so if russia just traded the warhead weight for fuel they would have their own SiAW. Is HACM like external carry when launched? Gremlin can have two placed inside the Su-57.

It does not, because it has something better. I quick glance on what the DAS provide to the pilots will tell you that whatever radio based warnings system out there is clearly behind when it comes to situational awareness.
So its just basically 360 degree infrared coverage?

No its not, if that's the case every engineers from Lockheed Martin to Chengdu will go with Russian solution of radar blockers. It seems like the laws of physics works differently in Russia.
Chengdu would go with the lockheed design because there were reports about chinese hackers that have copied information about the F-35.

your the same dude that thinks this is comparable to the F-18. https://findpatent.ru/patent/262/2623031.html

Why fixated with range, do you know the MTBO of such engines ? the thrust given, and thrust to weight ratio etc ? In each and everyone of those the F119 rules, and the F135 just upped the ante.

The 1st stage engine (I assume this the Al-41F1) are closer to the General Electric F110-GE-132 used in UAE Vipers.

if anything the lack of range from the two is a design treadeoff for their VLO characteristics, Russia otoh chooses to reduce observability for range. Very funny
if you looked at my other thread the 2nd stage Su-57 has nearly twice the range of the F-22 and with higher supercruise performance, i just posted the info awhile ago.
look again. the nozzle of the F-22 are hidden deep while the Felon protruded so far back.
longer tails still offer considerable RCS returns. Also the vertical stabilizers of the F-22 are bigger on the sides offering higher RCS returns than aircraft with smaller ones like the Su-57. more surface area = bad.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
4,877
Reactions
2 8,091
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
They gave specifications like how a mobile radar can have the same capability of tracking targets as a ground radar building, so this kind of information is significantly ground breaking. Russia does have a history of making breakthroughs like two skunkwork engineers praisng Ufimtsev that his stealth equation was the Rosetta stone of stealth or the U.S. randomly capturing a Hind from operation mount hope 3. But the point remains russia has tested photonic radars and have set a production line for the modules giving this a possibility to what radars the Su-57 might have or there later gen aircraft.
Ufimtsev equation does help solve the problem of low observability, but hie didn't write it with the intention to use it for stealth. Its exclusively civilian intention but some guys at skunk works find his equation helpful.

While working in Moscow, Ufimtsev became interested in describing the reflection of electromagnetic waves. He gained permission to publish his research results internationally because they were considered to be of no significant military or economic value.[4]

A stealth engineer at Lockheed, Denys Overholser, had read the publication and realized that Ufimtsev had created the mathematical theory and tools to do finite analysis of radar reflection.[5] This discovery inspired and had a role in the design of the first true stealth aircraft, the Lockheed F-117. Northrop also used Ufimtsev's work to program super computers to predict the radar reflection of the B-2 bomber.

This is like crediting Phytagoras as the father of all applications with triangles on it lol. Sure Phytgoras theorem will be useful for some engineering purpose with a triangle. But he's not to be credited with the final products.
644db1b5b488206bbf2a7e86540be875.jpeg


So no Ufimtsev and Russians are not to be credited with stealth.
Aim-260 is estimated at a 200km range, I already gave the K-77M 193km missile range and the ramjet version being even longer.

And ? Does this somehow tells us if one is better than the other ? We don't know.

But what we do know is:

1. There has been more improvements over the year for the AIM-120 (and by quite a lot) than the R-77
2. US electronics (and military) industry is far ahead of Russia
3. Russian MIC suffers after the end of CW and has since not yet recovered fully

So while we never know the real deal, but there some hint above.

AIM-260 is not capped at 200km, no official US document has ever said that. What we know is, it is a US answer to the PL-21 missile which reportedly shoot as far as 300km and the US wants to exceed those.

and the AIM-120 is no slouch with its range

previous longest kills are scored by Iranian F-14 at 212 km
  • In training, the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix hit a target drone at a range of 132 miles (212 km) (in January 1979, in Iran).
I mean if you are talking about glide bombs they technically do have two answers. 1. They have grom-e1 and grom-e2 although cant fit much they offer very heavy payload damages. 2. molinya drones with several hundred kilometers in range smaller payload than stormbreaker at 5-7kg but can fit way more in the Su-57 internal compartments that I discussed earlier. SiAW has a 300km range with mach 4 speeds about almost comparable to the 2007 kh-58 missile that has a 250km range and mach 3.6 speeds but keep in mind the AGM-88 had a 68kg warhead while the Kh-58 has a 149kg warhead so if russia just traded the warhead weight for fuel they would have their own SiAW. Is HACM like external carry when launched? Gremlin can have two placed inside the Su-57.
The Grom are no storm breaker , neither in quantity or quality. Its more like the SDB I, and the SDB is a more compact product with the same lethality.


Why is this insistence on range ? again I put an emphasis in this, put a long enough rocket motor the thing will fly to the hundreds of kms. There's more important stuff like target discrimination, ability to hit moving targets, seeker tech, data link etc.

SiAW is comparable in range to the Kh-58 in flight range ONLY, the rest the SiAW kills the competition the same way why GMLRS kills the competition with the 300mm Russian rockets fired from Smerch and Uragans.

As Ukraine war shows us, VKS lacks any of these in its arsenal.


So its just basically 360 degree infrared coverage?
The more adequate answer would be an IR based situational awareness suite.
Chengdu would go with the lockheed design because there were reports about chinese hackers that have copied information about the F-35.
And they should be ashamed of that ? There's off course the option to do industrial espionage with the Russian one (and I'm sure they did just that) but somehow choses US design. Maybe because its simply superior ?
your the same dude that thinks this is comparable to the F-18. https://findpatent.ru/patent/262/2623031.html
I never said its comparable, the underlying problems stays no matter Russian modifications.
if you looked at my other thread the 2nd stage Su-57 has nearly twice the range of the F-22 and with higher supercruise performance, i just posted the info awhile ago.

The F-22 supercruise comfortably at M1.8 while using a flat nozzle. Don't really understand what's the point even with 2nd stage engine. The Felon’s Izdeliye 30 engine with circular nozzle is supposed to produce 38,600 lbf thrust, which is comparable (actually lesser) to Raptor’s 20 year old F119 with rectangular nozzles (37–39,000 lbf). That means if the US wanted it they could replace those flat nozzle with a circular one and we probably would have a 45.000lbf class thrust Raptors.

Add this to the fact that F-22 uses the S-duct which sacrifice inflow of air instead of traditional inlet like the Felon.

for me the most amazing things is the simple fact that Russia has yet to beat the F119 despite the F119 being 20+years old.
longer tails still offer considerable RCS returns. Also the vertical stabilizers of the F-22 are bigger on the sides offering higher RCS returns than aircraft with smaller ones like the Su-57. more surface area = bad.

Larger but they don't rotate as a whole compared to the Felon's rudder. And larger surface =/= larger RCS. The B-2 has larger surface area than the F-16...

Remember the 3 laws of observability ?
 

blackjack

Contributor
Messages
782
Reactions
474
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
So no Ufimtsev and Russians are not to be credited with stealth.
let me rephrase it, modern stealth. since you like using abhirup i will quote mindstorm from Russia defense net BTFOing the secret projects.co.uk admin that joined our forum who did not want to continue the discussion with mindstorm when he made this response.

"That is completely false.

For one PTD has been much more fundamental for B2 Spirit program than for F-117; in facts ,as anyone can easily understand, capability to compute re-radiating cones both for shadow boundaries and caustic diffracting regions (where OTD mostly fail) was literally critical, above all for designs incorporating asymptotic curved edges, including the subsequent US fighter type designs.

As said by the same Kenneth Mitzner (the Northrop theoretical seminal and development mind, togheter with F. Oshiro, behind B-2 and Tacit Blue) B-2 program would have been practically impossible without the PTD:

"I cannot imagine the B-2 having been designed without the influence of his work," Dr. Mitzner added. "Let me put it this way: without Ufimtsev, today's stealth aircraft would probably have looked the way the speculative artists portrayed them, before their real shapes were publicly disclosed"
Also today the most advanced solution system of equations for computing diffraction fields generated by, so called, VLO and ULO aerodynamics objects are kept in Federation's Institutes, not US ones , with a theoretical understanding edge that in those decades even widened.
What US brands can instead surely boast is the large scale production mastering, with all the related making and maintenance engineering know-how cumulated, of similar complex LO vehicles.

The ridiculous story, likely created, from thin air, by part of some westener with very small knowledges and instead a very big grudge about the fact that this true "allowing" technology for all western stealth designs was coming from directly Soviet Institutes (a thing that deeply worry them......and at reason i can add) circulating about how the, supposedly, "less evolved" F-117 faceted design was created using PTD because of the limits in processign capabilities of computers of the times while the "most advanced" B-2 ,F-22 and F-35 designs has been created using different, unspecified, "US-developed theoretical basis" is a true offense to human intelligence.

П. Уфимцев works was deeply examined in two instances by two different Soviet military Scientific Commissions and rightly considered publicly releasable .
Hard radar data (in the latests years coming also from Syrian airspace control) most than 50 years later, give today perfect reason to the correctness of the scientific assessment of the time."

About instead its importance for, at the time, the over-ocean scientifical community of the field it WAS much more than merely what you define 'the book on stealth' (at least for western approach to aircraft designs with reduced area of dispersion in high frequency radar regimes) it was the true "Rosetta Stone breakthrough for stealth technology" as said directly by Ben Rich -the Director of the team at SkunkWorks charged to carry on the XST program-.


So technically yes work on stealth was being done before his equation came to light but if we compare the B-2 design to the F-117 than we would see a significant difference of the RCS reduction. honeslty the soviets dont get enough credit. I wonder where the U.S would be without Ufimitsev or the kholod project design to see how far they would actually make it in better steallth or scramjet technology.

And ? Does this somehow tells us if one is better than the other ? We don't know.

But what we do know is:

1. There has been more improvements over the year for the AIM-120 (and by quite a lot) than the R-77
2. US electronics (and military) industry is far ahead of Russia
3. Russian MIC suffers after the end of CW and has since not yet recovered fully

So while we never know the real deal, but there some hint above.

AIM-260 is not capped at 200km, no official US document has ever said that. What we know is, it is a US answer to the PL-21 missile which reportedly shoot as far as 300km and the US wants to exceed those.
The PL-21 missile is 5.5 meters in length with a range of 300-400kms so you mean the PL-15 with 200km-300kms with a 4 meter length. But the thing is how is it that the K-37M has a range of 400kms and to fit into the internal weapons bay of the Su-57 which is estimated at 4.2-4.6 meters while the chinese have the same range but a bigger missile? One thing is not like the other because if they are claiming 300kms for R-77 sized missiles beating the Russians K-77M 193km range than how come their bigger sized air to air missile cant beat the K-37M in range but be equal to it? I read the article and they did not saying anything about exceeding the PL-15 range other than it was the reason the JATM program began. But the problem is mixed reports but lets get back to our modernization Su-57 where they talked about having new weapons, new avionics and new engines.


We are already familiar with the range of 193kms for K-77M and the ramjet having range that is longer. In the 2021 article they state a new class of hypersonic missiles one of them is the Gremlin and the other is stated to be shorter, hypersonic, longer range, more maneuverable in defeating aerial targets. The folding fins with smaller size version would give a load out of 10 air to air missiles thanks to the huge internal weapons bays and rocket/missile wizards the Russians have they are able to make the best of their storage.

1) Aim-120D does not beat the K-77M or ramjet version in range. And there is already a new class of air to air missiles that are smaller with longer ranges, so this already raises certainty that if most long range missiles are 20 cm in diameter and russia's weapons bay is like 1-1.2 meters wide and depending just how much shorter the new missiles are to make them fit with some space clearance than the 10 missile air to air load would be possible.

2) 3) I provided all those photonic radar sources for a reason, they have had Zhuk, VEGA, RTI and KRET talking about them and stating they have working prototypes and the youtube video of the head designer stating they are working with photonic radars to operate in the terahertz range. Not only that but I have a source about when the serial production of the PICs would be stated and they said those PICs would be used for aviation and telecommunications. But the difference is I have not heard anything about U.S. aviation radar companies testing photonic radars or have a set date for launching PICs. Last time I heard about photonic radar prototype being tested was in Italy known as the PHODIR project but it sort of failed because they could not get the performance specs to work better than a conventional radar and in the source the U.S. Naval research facility stated that they had the same hurdles. PICs and MMICs are like apples and oranges to not be compared. Just like Ufimtsev and the kholod projects the U.S. will have to find this out on their own.
https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/760838-stels-tehnologii-radar-rti It seems they have also found a new way to track stealth aircrafts by tracking their shadows so since its 2020 and they said seven years we will find out soon.

previous longest kills are scored by Iranian F-14 at 212 km
did anyone beat the 1994 mig-31 300km target hit?

The Grom are no storm breaker , neither in quantity or quality. Its more like the SDB I, and the SDB is a more compact product with the same lethality.


Why is this insistence on range ? again I put an emphasis in this, put a long enough rocket motor the thing will fly to the hundreds of kms. There's more important stuff like target discrimination, ability to hit moving targets, seeker tech, data link etc.

SiAW is comparable in range to the Kh-58 in flight range ONLY, the rest the SiAW kills the competition the same way why GMLRS kills the competition with the 300mm Russian rockets fired from Smerch and Uragans.
The Grom-E1 and Grom-E2 have comparable ranges to the SDB without rocket engines which is why I am stating these glide bombs are like SDBs but russians like pumping their air to ground weapons to have bigger payloads. And if the specialty of the glide bombs is how much they can fit into an aircraft to overwhelm air defenses than the Molinya drones has that role because their size and length and depending on various sources have 200-300km range- several hundreds km range, fligth speed 700km/hr and they have a stealth design with RAM but with smaller payloads of 5-7kg.

The SiAW is basically AGM-88 but increasing the diameter and size which is comparable to the Kh-58, and if payload was traded for fuel and speed the Kh-58 would be comparable SiAW. We know that the Gremlin missile length wise will be at or smaller than 4.2 meters and that it will acquire hypersonic speed https://topwar.ru/180286-okr-gremli...icheskoj-aviacii.html?ysclid=lddak56fi7241218 and unconfirmed reports of a 1,500km range so based on speed and range I am guessing it will have a scramjet design. I dont think GMRLS is comparable to Tornado systems and they are being frequently used as of lately.

As Ukraine war shows us, VKS lacks any of these in its arsenal.
Artillery is good enough, I dont think the azeris used an airforce on armenians in the border conflict since it all looked like drones and artillery to me. bombs being dropped are sufficient no need to wast stockpiles on air to ground missiles.

And they should be ashamed of that ? There's off course the option to do industrial espionage with the Russian one (and I'm sure they did just that) but somehow choses US design. Maybe because its simply superior ?
The Su-57 design came later with some patents, the chinese were even booing the Su-75 when it came out with its price and design because if they want to start a 5th gen market they will need something cheaper or better to sell.I think you already gave the chinese too much credit a while ago when they were purchasing russian air to air missiles before but doubtful they would leap past the U.S. and Russia based on the ranges they gave.

I never said its comparable, the underlying problems stays no matter Russian modifications.
explain why all those modifications will not make it better? Daily reminder that they have tested S-ducts on the Su-47 which was prior before the Su-57 program even began. Its better to have new stealth ideas than sticking with ones that have old ideas and we have seen this many times like using square nozzles, than jumping to round serrated engines and now jumping back to square nozzles because there is a way it can be configured to adjust itself in flight. The problem with americans is they think their stealth designs must be the standard all countries have to follow in making their own stealth designs and are quick to criticize someone else having a different idea.

The F-22 supercruise comfortably at M1.8 while using a flat nozzle. Don't really understand what's the point even with 2nd stage engine. The Felon’s Izdeliye 30 engine with circular nozzle is supposed to produce 38,600 lbf thrust, which is comparable (actually lesser) to Raptor’s 20 year old F119 with rectangular nozzles (37–39,000 lbf). That means if the US wanted it they could replace those flat nozzle with a circular one and we probably would have a 45.000lbf class thrust Raptors.

Add this to the fact that F-22 uses the S-duct which sacrifice inflow of air instead of traditional inlet like the Felon.

for me the most amazing things is the simple fact that Russia has yet to beat the F119 despite the F119 being 20+years old.
As impressed as i am with the thrust the range performance of F-22 does not even beat the 1st stage engines because of the high and low bypass ratio engine designs. The F-35s have round nozzles and higher thrust than the F-22 and if we convert its range by increasing its fuel to be similar to the Su-57 the Su-57 1st stage engines would still beat it in terms of range but the only difference is that the 2nd stage will keep those ranges or have slightly better fuel efficiency with the fact it can super cruise in supersonic speeds without the need of spending fuel on after burners with a near 4,000km range. The purpose of 3 stream cycle engines is to combine both high and low bypass ratio advantages without the disadvantages while increasing the performance on top of it.

Larger but they don't rotate as a whole compared to the Felon's rudder. And larger surface =/= larger RCS. The B-2 has larger surface area than the F-16...

Remember the 3 laws of observability ?
more than likely they optimized the B-2 for low frequency measurements and aircrafts like the F-22 for high frequencies like X-band since it is optimized for air to air roles only.

F-117 RCS.jpg
 

Gary

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
4,877
Reactions
2 8,091
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
let me rephrase it, modern stealth. since you like using abhirup i will quote mindstorm from Russia defense net BTFOing the secret projects.co.uk admin that joined our forum who did not want to continue the discussion with mindstorm when he made this response.

"That is completely false.
This basically confirms my earlier statement no ?
The Russian have their role in the problem solving of stealth. But they're not to be credited with VLO aircraft. Ufimtsev equation sure helps, but the rest its all Lockheed's

This is from you:
"Let me put it this way: without Ufimtsev, today's stealth aircraft would probably have looked the way the speculative artists portrayed them, before their real shapes were publicly disclosed"
What US brands can instead surely boast is the large scale production mastering, with all the related making and maintenance engineering know-how cumulated, of similar complex LO vehicles.


The Russians are not to be credited with the end product, end of story

The PL-21 missile is 5.5 meters in length with a range of 300-400kms so you mean the PL-15 with 200km-300kms with a 4 meter length. But the thing is how is it that the K-37M has a range of 400kms and to fit into the internal weapons bay of the Su-57 which is estimated at 4.2-4.6 meters while the chinese have the same range but a bigger missile?
The JATM will be superior to that with the size of the AIM-120.

One extreme example of the US lead in rocketry could be seen in the BUK v ESSM. Two SAM system with a similar role and class

The BUK 9M38 missile has more than twice (690kg) the weight than the ESSM (286kg) with almost twice its length (5.5 vs 3.5m ) and almost twice the diameter (400mm vs 254mm) meaning a larger motor

yet the ESSM achieve more or less the same altitude and range.

We are already familiar with the range of 193kms for K-77M and the ramjet having range that is longer.
That's nice but the AIM-120D is in the range of 200+km range
1) Aim-120D does not beat the K-77M or ramjet version in range. And there is already a new class of air to air missiles that are smaller with longer ranges, so this already raises certainty that if most long range missiles are 20 cm in diameter and russia's weapons bay is like 1-1.2 meters wide and depending just how much shorter the new missiles are to make them fit with some space clearance than the 10 missile air to air load would be possible.

Yes they very likely do, and range is not the only factor to see here. AIM-120 family is continuously upgraded and more often. Their flight kinematics, electronics will be superior to the RUssians. AIM-120D has HOBS capability which kinda make the DIRCM that you boasted about redundant.

Engineering is that few thing that you can't solve just by luck or sheer will. It'll need money, feed backs and continuous update to enhance its performance. In this 3 field the Russians lose by a huge margin to US MIC. So until you can explain how on earth the K-77M is better after only a SINGLE update compared to the AIM-120 seven major increments is beyond me.

The last update is last year BTW.


did anyone beat the 1994 mig-31 300km target hit?

That would be the AIM-120D


And consider that the AIM-120D is a lot smaller, thinner than the R-33/37 that the MiG-31 carried, I'm very excited about the potential of the AMRAAM AXE , basically AMRAAM ER in air launch config.

The Grom-E1 and Grom-E2 have comparable ranges to the SDB without rocket engines which is why I am stating these glide bombs are like SDBs but russians like pumping their air to ground weapons to have bigger payloads.

If payload is the issue the US will just use the JDAM or Paveways, there's a reason why the SDB and SDB II are developed with lighter warhead in mind.

I think you already gave the chinese too much credit a while ago when they were purchasing russian air to air missiles before but doubtful they would leap past the U.S. and Russia based on the ranges they gave.

That time has passed, China is the closest competitor to the US sorry. In everything from cars, phones, space rockets, missile etc.

If rocketry (overall including space rocket propulsion and tech ) to be ranked I'd say.

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. France
5. Japan
6. India
 

blackjack

Contributor
Messages
782
Reactions
474
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
This basically confirms my earlier statement no ?
The Russian have their role in the problem solving of stealth. But they're not to be credited with VLO aircraft. Ufimtsev equation sure helps, but the rest its all Lockheed's

This is from you:
"Let me put it this way: without Ufimtsev, today's stealth aircraft would probably have looked the way the speculative artists portrayed them, before their real shapes were publicly disclosed"What US brands can instead surely boast is the large scale production mastering, with all the related making and maintenance engineering know-how cumulated, of similar complex LO vehicles.

The Russians are not to be credited with the end product, end of story
B-2s, F-22 and F-35s use PTD thus they use his equation. Ufimtsev cant be credited for the F-117 since PTD was not done on this aircraft. Now you can go classify whatever is VLO but I am just stating PTD treatement is still being done after the F-117 atleast for the B-2 and stealth design aircrafts, he had a contribution to the U.S. that is all.

The JATM will be superior to that with the size of the AIM-120.

One extreme example of the US lead in rocketry could be seen in the BUK v ESSM. Two SAM system with a similar role and class

The BUK 9M38 missile has more than twice (690kg) the weight than the ESSM (286kg) with almost twice its length (5.5 vs 3.5m ) and almost twice the diameter (400mm vs 254mm) meaning a larger motor

yet the ESSM achieve more or less the same altitude and range.
Alright got the wiki page reference 1 for range, states the 50km range can be inaccuratehttp://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html . Since I know you just did a simple wikipedia search but the missiles reference for specifications are the 9М38, 9M317 missiles, but the thing is BukM3 uses 9M317M missiles https://missilery.info/missile/bukm3?ysclid=lddl0anqsj939134034 in which length is 5.18 meters, diameter 360mm 70km range but a heavier warhead than ESSM.

If your looking at Russian SAM missiles than you must know right now that I will compare pantsir-sm next to this missile range is 40kms, length 3.16 meters diameter 90mm with booster, 76mm with sustainer. Diameter wise it is 1/3rd shorter than ESSM while length is .4 meters shorter while just being 1/5th the range shorter based on the ESSMs unspecified but highly rumoured 50kms by reading your wiki reference source. Lets make it more fun and that is the "domestic" 9m96DM missile that has a 150km range with a 5.5 meter length and diameter size of 240mm. of course the missile diameter is 14 meters shorter while its length is 2 meters longer but the range is 3 times the amount of ESSM and bumping the additional 2 meters for fuel wont get the 150km on the 9m96DM missile. you can bring THAADs in the arguement but size and range wise it is between the 9m96dm and 48n6 missile even though it has no warhead. Dont think we will bother with the SM-6 because they have still yet to prove those higher ranges claims while Russia moved on to the S-500.

That's nice but the AIM-120D is in the range of 200+km range
is it? when I type Aim-120D max range i get like the 1st 5 results saying 160km.

Yes they very likely do, and range is not the only factor to see here. AIM-120 family is continuously upgraded and more often. Their flight kinematics, electronics will be superior to the RUssians. AIM-120D has HOBS capability which kinda make the DIRCM that you boasted about redundant.
Wait I am sorry do you thinks HOBS means something? let me make a joke 1st before explaining the joke in case you dont get it. What good is it to have a blind fold on looking for a pinata in the forest when there is a death metal concert nearby blocking out the voice of the person telling you the directions of where the pinata is at? infrared guidance from enemy air to air missiles gets blinded by DIRCM although you might think the missile will still follow the target because of the aircraft but the aircraft either uses IRST or radar which takes us back to square one which we discussed the stealth and the EW capabilities of the Su-57. As stealth aircrafts get very close the one with better manueverability might get the upperhand. Russians and Turks use the DIRCM for their 5th gens for a reason and this is one of them.

Engineering is that few thing that you can't solve just by luck or sheer will. It'll need money, feed backs and continuous update to enhance its performance. In this 3 field the Russians lose by a huge margin to US MIC. So until you can explain how on earth the K-77M is better after only a SINGLE update compared to the AIM-120 seven major increments is beyond me.

The last update is last year BTW.
https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/news/2022/07/18/first-live-fire-test-of-amraam-f3r
There was a radar on the K-77M that had 64 radar T/R LTCC modules but i cant really compare either specs but I already know electronic wise american missiles will be better unless Russia wants to stick PICs later to their missiles.
That would be the AIM-120D
You do realize I read your articles, right? The funny part is that the article you are referencing gives the AIM-120D ballpark ranges of 75 miles to 100 miles which contradicts your own previous statements lol. But jokes aside I do not see anywhere the ranges of the AIM-120D being test fired to beat 300kms.

And consider that the AIM-120D is a lot smaller, thinner than the R-33/37 that the MiG-31 carried, I'm very excited about the potential of the AMRAAM AXE , basically AMRAAM ER in air launch config.
Your not the only one that is excited here considering I am looking forward to the upgraded Su-57 and its new air to air missiles that have not been disclosed yet.

If payload is the issue the US will just use the JDAM or Paveways, there's a reason why the SDB and SDB II are developed with lighter warhead in mind.
I dont want to be an asshole again JDAMs range and payload is still lesser than either of the GROM variants. Paveway has payloads that match the GROMs but an even lesser range than JDAM. the PBK-500 Drel is russia's heaviest glide bomb with a 30-50km range and uses 15 self-targeting anti-tank SPBE-K submunitions with a twin-band (3–5 µm and 8–14 µm) infrared seeker and a millimeter-wavelength radar seeker with an identification of friend-or-foe (IFF) system. Russia might be tempted to use these bombs on ukraine's western MBTs or they would rather save them for NATO. But yeah i think Russia has an amazing arsenal of air to ground weapons.

That time has passed, China is the closest competitor to the US sorry. In everything from cars, phones, space rockets, missile etc.

If rocketry (overall including space rocket propulsion and tech ) to be ranked I'd say.

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. France
5. Japan
6. India
lets see phones they have the Yota phones, dont trust NFKRZ this dude hates Russia with a passion more than Abhirup, if they get that PIC production going on a large scale in 2024 than they might transition to 6G cellular networks. Cars they have the E-Neva, plans of making flying cars like the cyclocar, of course they do gas vehicles as well.


missiles we discussed and will have a disagreement on later I bet. BUT ROCKETS you just signed your own death warrant in wanting to start this with me but before we get into the discussion of rockets show me where the U.S. or China exceed Russia in these rocket projects?

Aerospike engines
Telegram: Contact @korolevrat

Scientists from the South Ural State University (SUSU) have tested a demonstrator of a new rocket engine powered by an oxygen-hydrogen pair.


On October 7, 2022, a successful demonstration launch of a rocket engine based on oxygen-hydrogen components took place at the site of JSC "Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering" in the city of Nizhnyaya Salda, Sverdlovsk Region. Work on the project to create a reusable rocket propulsion system with a central body is carried out under the program of the national project "Science and Universities," the ANO "Regional Infrastructure of Education and Science" reported. At the site of the Scientific Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering, demonstration launches of a propulsion system with a central body were made, consisting of 16 rocket engines, which are combined into a single system. The rocket and space complex demonstrator for the returnable reusable launch vehicle includes control and monitoring systems with artificial intelligence and has no analogues in the world. This year, after a large amount of theoretical and design work, the demonstrator of the first stage engine was successfully tested on the oxygen-hydrogen fuel pair, which provides the maximum energy performance for the launch vehicle.

This is a big and exciting step in our project, because the oxygen-hydrogen fuel pair is a very explosive mixture, few people in the world know how to work with such engines: Russia, the USA and China {Big_Gazza edit: and India}. Now we are moving to a new stage, only this fuel pair will ensure the fulfillment of all the tasks. Therefore, we initially set the task of switching to oxygen and hydrogen, there were many doubts, because it is very difficult. Not everything worked out right away, but the launch took place, the central body, cooled, has already worked. Without exaggeration, this is world class. There is not a single scientific publication that would describe the launch of an engine demonstrator with a cooled central body running on oxygen and hydrogen, so we can say that these two launches, which took place, are the first in the world. The challenges we face now”, says Sergey Vaulin , SUSU Vice-Rector for Scientific and Educational Centers and Complexes.

Work on the project is supported by the Governor of the Chelyabinsk region Alexei Teksler . The regional government allocated 50 million rubles, another 5 million were sent by South Ural State University and 10 million by the Ural REC. The project is being implemented jointly with the State Rocket Center named after Academician V.P. Makeev (Miass), JSC Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering (Nizhnyaya Salda).

The demonstrator of a liquid-propellant rocket engine with a central body is similar to that which will be used in a promising reusable launch vehicle, which is being created today at the State Rocket Center named after V.P. Makeev. It is ten times smaller than a real engine ,” said Vladimir Degtyar, Director General and General Designer of the State Rocket Center named after V.P. Makeev, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Work on the carrier rocket "CROWN" Since the 90s of the XX century, the SRC has been conducting initiative design work on a reusable single-stage vertical take-off and landing launch vehicle KORONA (Space Orbital Rocket - Single-stage Spacecraft Carrier). All LV engines use oxygen/hydrogen components. Most KORONA launcher systems are designed as modular. The launch vehicle provides for a high degree of autonomy in the performance of a flight mission, up to the independent completion of the flight in the event of a loss of communication with the control center. The design life of the design of the launch vehicle elements, most of its instruments and units is at least 100 flights, the OM and SOPP engines are at least 50, individual, especially energy-intensive units are at least 25.

Sources:
South Ural State University
National Projects.rf
Further on the aerospike demonstrator, here is the 2021 public trial (apparently using low flow rates of hydrocarbon fuel ?) compared to this recent test with hydrolox propellents.

Telegram: Contact @korolevrat

Huge difference. Those are some robust propellent lines.


1666921847377-png.179057

1674790024496.png

nuclear space tug
1666922016390-png.179059

https://naukatehnika.com/mnogorazov...u-parashyuta-dlya-vozvrashhaemoj-stupeni.html

The development will be able to reduce the cost and availability of Russian launches. Roscosmos State Corporation has placed a preliminary order for the development of technical requirements for the parachute system of the return stage of space rockets. The development of the system, which in the future will help to compete with reusable rockets Rocket Lab and SpaceX, will be engaged in the holding "Thermodynamics" (part of the state corporation "Rostec"). Return of the rocket stage Rocket Lab Electron by parachute. Photo: Rocket Lab. According to the general director of "Thermodynamics" Igor Nasenkov, a pre-order from Roscosmos was received last month. This year they plan to start research work. At the same time, the timing of the creation of the system is still unknown, Nasenkov emphasized. "Eagle" and "Amur" The parameters of the parachute system for rockets are unknown, but their scale can be assumed using a similar system for a spacecraft. So, Igor Nasenkov told about the features of the parachute system for the promising spacecraft "Eagle". The system will receive three domes with an area of 1200 square meters. m each. This will allow the system to ensure the descent of cargo weighing up to 9535 kg. Now Technodinamika is working on prototypes of parachutes, and complex tests are planned for 2023. Testing will continue by dropping a full-size capsule from space, Igor Nasenkov added. Parachute system PBS-950. Such landing systems can become a reserve for the creation of return stages of missiles. Photo: Russian Defense Ministry Recall that in Russia since 2013, a reusable carrier rocket "Amur" has been developed. It is planned that in a reusable version, a rocket with a launch weight of 360 tons will be able to carry up to 10.5 tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). For comparison, the Soyuz-2.1b rocket can take only 8.2 tons for LEO. Amur will also receive an automated launch preparation system. All this will make launches cheaper. The estimated cost of launching a reusable Amur rocket (excluding the upper stage) will be $ 22 million - against about $ 45 million in which the launch of Soyuz-2.1b costs. The development of a reusable rocket will allow Roscosmos to reduce the cost of launch, which can attract new customers, and strengthen its position before private companies developing reusable rockets. Theory and example There are several systems that provide a soft landing of the first stage. So, on Falcon rockets, a complex complex is used, including three brake engines, rudders, a navigation system, and an orientation system. This provides an accurate landing, but significantly reduces the mass of the rocket's payload. Another example is the hard-wing return system (Energia-2), developed in the late 1980s by Soviet engineers. On the one hand, this would allow the stage to land at any airfield, and on the other hand, such a system also gives the rocket an excess share of additional weight. In 2001, a mock-up of the reusable accelerator of the first stage of the Angara rocket was shown. Model of the apparatus "Baikal" on which alternative ways of returning the stage were worked out But there are solutions that do not take the expensive mass of the rocket. These are air pick-up systems, and parachute landing. In the first case, you also need a parachute of a small area. Its goal is to reduce the speed for picking up the device by helicopter. Last year, the rocket Lab Electron rocket stage was returned in this way. In turn, a full-fledged parachute landing requires large-area systems to absorb the impact from landing. The development of synthetic fabrics made it possible to reduce the mass of large parachutes, which made it possible to create heavy-duty systems. For example, the military system PS-950 can "land" up to 13 tons of cargo, while the share of the system itself will be only about 12%. This allows you to take more cargo into orbit, while maintaining the possibility of reuse. However, this method requires an extensive platform of alienation, because such a landing system is uncontrollable.

Russian scientists have proposed sending a helicopter to Venus.

Scientists of The Moscow Aviation Institute offers to send an unmanned helicopter to Venus to research its surface and volcanoes.

In the spring, the Korolyov's Cosmonautics Readings opened in Moscow. The day before, a collection of abstracts based on the results of the readings was published.

"As a result of the development of aviation technologies, unmanned aerial vehicles are becoming more widely used. Currently, their application is being considered as part of the lander of interplanetary stations for research missions on the surface and inside the calderas of Venus ' volcanoes," one of the theses says.

The helicopter will have the shape of a sphere, the materials say.

Researchers note that the main problem in the development of Venus is the high temperature (467°C). In this regard, in the helicopter, the outer titanium layer with a diameter of 700 mm will have a wall thickness of 2.5 mm and is covered with screen-vacuum insulation-a material that is used for a large temperature difference between the insulated system and the environment.

In addition, it is planned to use aerogel, which has the lowest thermal conductivity.


Source:
https://m.gazeta.ru/science/news/2021/07/08/n_16214636.shtml

Russia has tested a record-breaking long-running rocket engine - ВПК.name (vpk.name)

Russia has tested a rocket engine that can run for more than three thousand seconds (50 minutes), making it a record-breaking long-running engine. This is reported by TASS .

When compared with other products, it works almost 10 times more efficiently, since a conventional third-stage rocket engine usually runs for about 280 seconds.


"We conducted such a long test, and the engine worked not only for 750 seconds per launch, but worked for more than three thousand seconds, "said Viktor Gorokhov, chief designer of JSC" KB Khimavtomatiki".

He also stressed that the new oxygen-kerosene engine is the most economical, as it is arranged according to a closed circuit.

Earlier it was reported that the US Navy conducted the first fire tests of a solid-fuel engine designed for hypersonic missiles. In May, Popular Mechanics magazine wrote that the LRHW, launched from London, is capable of hitting Moscow during a military conflict.


Roscosmos Starts Preparations for Landing First Russian Cosmonaut on Moon, 23/09/2021.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The Russian State Space Corporation Roscosmos has launched a tender to study problematic issues related to organising manned Moon flights, requirements for space equipment for the manned missions should be developed, according to Roscosmos' materials published on the state procurement website.

"Objectives of the research work: development of proposals, recommendations and requirements for prospective technologies, elements and systems of rocket and space technology products that ensure reliable implementation of manned Moon flights and cosmonauts' work in lunar orbit and on the Moon surface," the document read.

The contract value totals 1.7 billion rubles ($23.3 million).

For the first time ever, Roscosmos indicated in an official document that the Angara rocket will be used for the first manned Moon flights.

The document also provides for the development of requirements for a small lunar take-off and landing vehicle, for the design of a new spacesuit and creation of an experimental model, for development of a super-heavy rocket and a manned transport vehicle.

The first results should be presented by the end of 2022, while the entire program should be finalized by mid-November 2025.

Also on Thursday, Roscosmos placed a tender to develop the requirements for a new space station, the Russian Orbital Service Station (ROSS), which is planned to replace the International Space Station (ISS), according to the state procurement website.

The development will be conducted within the scope of an "applied study into the problematic issues of implementation of manned Moon missions, creation of key elements and technologies including medical-biological ones, enabling cosmonauts to safely stay and work in lunar orbit and on the Moon surface in the part of work for 2022-2025."

The materials published imply, that the tactical and technical projects specifications for the ROSS and its seven modules are expected to be designed for as much as 1.735 billion rubles ($23.85 million). The research will be conducted till November 2025.

Russia plans to complete the operation of the Russian segment of the ISS and construct a new national station instead. The station is not going to be a habitation module, but crews of two to four cosmonauts will come there periodically. The launches to the ROSS will be carried out the Vostochny spaceport in the Russian Far East and the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.


https://sputniknews.com/20210923/ro...rst-russian-cosmonaut-on-moon-1089337073.html

[h2]The Ministry of Defense has published the appearance of the Irkut ultralight space rocket [/h3]

https://iz.ru/1233205/2021-10-09/minoborony-opublikovalo-oblik-sverkhlegkoi-rakety-irkut

1666923620285-png.179062

The Russian Ministry of Defense has published the appearance and technical characteristics of the new Russian ultralight launch vehicle Irkut for space purposes. This became known on Saturday, October 9th.

It is planned to launch it from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region in 2024. This was reported by the head of the cosmodrome Nikolai Bashlyaev, his deputy Alexei Nikolaev, the cosmodrome researcher Vadim Duga and the head of the department of the Mozhaisky Military Space Academy Dmitry Mosin.

“On the issue of the development of domestic ultralight launch vehicles, it is worth mentioning the project developed by the specialists of TsNIIMash to create an ultralight launch vehicle of the Irkut class,” says the article “Space Engineering and Technology” of the scientific journal of the Energia rocket and space corporation.

Additionally, the article notes that the rocket will exist in two versions: one-time and reusable. The weight of the first option will be 23.6 tons, the second - 25 tons. The first type will deliver 584 kg of cargo to near-earth orbit, while 84 kg to geostationary orbit. As for the reusable option, the weight of the supplied cargo is estimated at 398 kg and 60 kg, respectively.

The oxygen-methane vapor in the rocket will be used as fuel, and heptyl with amyl will be used in the upper stage.


https://tass.com/science/1532197

Samara students test stabilization system prototype for picosatellites
According to specialists, it is quite difficult to develop a system for such spacecraft due to its limited mass from 100 grams to 1 kilogram

SAMARA, November 2. /TASS/. Students of Samara National Research University (Samara University) have developed and tested a prototype stabilization system for picosatellites - spacecraft with a mass between 100 grams and 1 kg, the university's press service told TASS. The design was found to stabilize the orientation of the vehicles in flight.
"After the rocket has taken the picosatellite to the target altitude, a sensor is triggered and a miniature electric motor with a flywheel on the axis is launched inside the spacecraft for one minute at a certain rate of rotation. This provides uniaxial stabilization of the satellite in space so that it is less wobbly in flight and so that it can, for example, take a video or photo, as it did during these tests, and get sharper, smoother footage. That is, stabilization is obtained by creating torque of spinning weight, like in a bicycle wheel - the faster you ride a bicycle, the easier it is to keep your balance. The tests showed that this idea turned out to be quite viable for a pico-satellite," said Alexei Kumarin, head of the Cosmic Gradient Club of the Korolev University of Samara.
The atmospheric tests were held during the Space Gradient launch campaign on the territory of university's yacht club on the Volga island of Proran. A total of three homemade experimental rockets were launched into the sky, which took three pico-satellites assembled by club members to a hundred-meter altitude into the Earth's atmosphere.
Without a system of orientation and stabilization the satellites would not be able to perform their tasks - to monitor the Earth's surface, to transmit and retransmit signals. The university noted that an effective system for orientation and stabilization of a pico-satellite is quite difficult because of its limited size. For this purpose it is necessary to fit various sensors, systems and payloads into a case the size of a can. Students from Samara have so far developed a stabilization system that helps keep the hull stable along one axis during the flight.

One of the students at the Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Engineering at Samara University, Polina Yakovleva, created three rockets from scratch for the launch, as well as a launcher, an initiating console for remote fuse ignition, and successfully conducted test launches. "The rocket launches at the Intensive were a very demanding endeavor, because without the rockets, the satellites would not fly. Modeling the rockets, building them and building the launch equipment started back in the summer and lasted until mid-October. For me as a member of the launch team, the launches themselves were very exciting: the results of the entire intensive depended on our work. And we managed to do it: none of the participants' vehicles crashed," the press service quotes Yakovleva as saying.


Russia is creating a super-powerful plasma rocket engine that will allow you to fly to the borders of the solar system (ixbt.com)

Russia is developing a new heavy-duty rocket engine that will ensure the flights of spacecraft into deep space. This was announced by the director of the Kaliningrad enterprise OKB "Fakel" (part of Roscosmos) Gennady Abramenkov.

«OKB Fakel, under the scientific leadership of the Kurchatov Institute Research Center, is developing a very high-power electric rocket engine, the so-called BPRD [Electrodeless Plasma Rocket Engine]. It will need a nuclear power source. Its tasks will include interplanetary flights, and in the future - flights to the edge of the solar system, "said Abramenkov.

«The entire central channel [of the engine], if it is not protected in any way, will either burn out quickly or the whole will be "eaten up". The walls must be effectively cooled and inside the central channel create such a magnetic field density that the plasma goes without touching the walls, "he added.

When there will be at least a demonstrator of such an engine, it is not reported. But, as Gennady Abramenkov noted, this will take a lot of time, since the engine will use physical principles with which the company's engineers did not work before.

https://ria.ru/20221210/korabl-1837708153.html

MOSCOW, December 10 – RIA Novosti. Immersion of the crew of the Martian mission in artificial sleep would facilitate the interplanetary spacecraft by 50-70%, said Yuri Bubeev, deputy director for research at the Institute of Medical and Biological Problems (IBMP) of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"According to preliminary estimates, the periodic "shutdown" of the crew will reduce the total mass of the ship by 50-70%, reduce the flight time, provide more reliable protection against radiation, due to the slowdown in metabolism," Bubeev said.
According to him, artificial sleep would allow during the expedition, "for example, to Mars and back" to refuse to provide the crew with tons of cargo for about a year and a half.

Earlier it was reported that "Roscosmos" and IBMP have entered into an agreement according to which by 2025 the possibilities of immersing astronauts in artificial sleep during flights to other planets will be studied. In the course of this work, as the director general of the Institute said in an interview with RIA Novosti, it was planned to study "psychotechnologies that induce altered states practiced in the traditional cultures of the peoples of Asia."


Alright now put Russia back to 1st place on rockets or you are going to have to show me something significant from China or the U.S.
 
Top Bottom