Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Tirdent said:

N


The thing is, you have in fact been given proof that is as credible as it is ever going to get with such military matters. If you think that's still not good enough you are of course free to disagree, but you can't blame more reasonable people for starting to suspect lack of interest, or an agenda.



There's obviously no obligation to adapt your opinions to suit others, to maintain credibility it would be an idea to make them suit the facts, however.

Click to expand...

Then grab a ticket and wait in line, I have been call anti Chinese, Russian and American by people who just can seem to accept that I dont automatically drink whatever Kool Aid they are offering to me without asking why, and I am bloody proud of it. Accusing someone of having an agenda is the lowest form of ad hominem there is, I don't blame them but I do pity them.
But I do admit that there is certain hyperboles in posts, but the core matter of it still stands : That the R-37M or whatever you did like to call its "successor" has yet to be presented with credible proof of it's existance, you can bring up as many other Russian systems as you like and I can point to as many Russian systems that sputters out in the end. But if you can present to me a single credible proof of it existing instead of point to other stuffs I did gladly accept it, until then my point still stands.
The credibility is not resting on me to prove that the R-37M does not exist, but it is on the one that insist that it does.

Tirdent said:

Overall progress of Kh-59MK2 development (beyond perhaps noting that it is WAY further along than anyone could have expected based on the above "conventional wisdom") is not what we are talking about, however. My point is strictly about what it means in terms of the payload size which can demonstrably fit in the Su-57 bays. Stop moving the goal posts.

Click to expand...

However my contention also includes the question of whether the R-37M derivative could fit into the J-20 weapons bay as Inst suggested, for it to be operational is another issue that I raise as well. I never question the issue of the Su-57 weapon's bay depth, but that of weapons integration.

As the Kh-59MK2 demonstrates, we are almost totally in the dark on the progress of Su-57 weapons testing. We do know that the heaviest and largest missile intended for internal carriage has in fact been dropped successfully, so it's not unreasonable to expect that testing of smaller (and, for a fighter, much more relevant) AAMs has at least started too. Conservative extrapolation.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It’s often the case that Legacy platforms are upgraded and retained for some time due to the fact that new fighters have kinks to be ironed. Where the existing system has the problems fixed and is getting elements of the same technology retrofitted. However after a point in time the performance upgrades gain smaller and smaller returns for the investment.
You and I will have to agree to disagree and leave any more of such to the F35 Thread where in we have long hashed that argument out.

Click to expand...

But the point is that we have seen real life examples of how over zealous declarations of obsolescence are often put out too soon and too rigidly. And I did add the caveat that apart from the RAM and stealth design, a lot of attributes 5th gen fighters have can be integrated into legacy fighters as well. Alone they might not account much but as the sum of all units they are worth the buck. But I agree that this is veering far away from the OT at hand.

Tirdent said:

As the Kh-59MK2 demonstrates, we are almost totally in the dark on the progress of Su-57 weapons testing. We do know that the heaviest and largest missile intended for internal carriage has in fact been dropped successfully, so it's not unreasonable to expect that testing of smaller (and, for a fighter, much more relevant) AAMs has at least started too. Conservative extrapolation.

Click to expand...

Except we have no evidence of the R-37M's successor, or indeed even the original missile being fielded or test fired. This is not conservative extrapolation but a extreme leap of faith.
The only evidence we have is a report stating that the original variant was tested back in 1996, but no much else, and surely no other corroborating evidence from the Russians.

Viktor Jav said:

And yet somehow both the US, China and Russia deign to apply RAM on the entirety of the aircraft, included the non angled parts. As we can see with the recent F-22 pictures of it's coating being degraded on the upper part of the nose.
So either these 3 nations with their team of scientist are doing something very wrong, or RAM function is independent on how the angle works.

Click to expand...

Because not only the wings has edges, but the access doors, weapon bays, metal sheets and rivets of the airframe and so on.


See the bump around the access door ? That is the ram.

The other method is to cover the door with metallic , inductive tape, and cover it afterwards with same ram, like in the case of F-22 and F-117.

Wing edge :

Anlsvrthng said:

Because not only the wings has edges, but the access doors, weapon bays, metal sheets and rivets of the airframe and so on.
View attachment 53193

See the bump around the access door ? That is the ram.

The other method is to cover the door with metallic , inductive tape, and cover it afterwards with same ram, like in the case of F-22 and F-117.

Click to expand...

Actually no, as the current most used RAM in the world the iron ball paint absorber requires it to be applied evenly for it to work best, in a progressively thicker layer towards where the radar is most expected to come from, no it bumps here and there. So the correct application would see the paint being thickest at the nose and then continuing along the whole length of the plane. And without proper treatment it degrade leaving us with F-22s looking like this

See that, that is RAM applied on non edges. Only a small part of that is actually some sort of hinge or door to get to the camera thing. The rest is smooth.

Viktor Jav said:

Except we have no evidence of the R-37M's successor, or indeed even the original missile being fielded or test fired.

Click to expand...

80th anniversary of the unit operating MiG-31s at Kansk (so not a trade show and a normal combat squadron, not a test unit such as at Akhtubinsk or something) in June 2018. Several R-37Ms get plenty of air time mounted on a MiG-31BM and on trolleys, for example @19:17min and 41:14min. Good enough?

Tirdent said:

80th anniversary of the unit operating MiG-31s at Kansk (so not a trade show and a normal combat squadron, not a test unit such as at Akhtubinsk or something) in June 2018. Several R-37Ms get plenty of air time mounted on a MiG-31BM and on trolleys, for example @19:20min and 42min. Good enough?

Click to expand...

For 42min the missiles are too far away for me to get a clear view off, and at 19.20 the missile looks more like a novator with some sort of rocket booster at the end. A very similar missile but a abandoned project as far as I know off.

The R-37M purported by the Russians look more like this

Overall a much sleeker looking design.

Also as a word of caution, the R-33 also shares very similar external looks to the R-37M but was an earlier predecessor which afaik has not seen any newer variants in active development. It is also used on the Mig-31. But it is a missile that is still in active service with the Russians.