Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
There isn't a whole lot of that in the article to be honest, I'll accept "broadly similar to the X-45" as a fairly non-judgemental, purely descriptive statement of similarity. What's truly exasperating though is the stubborn delusion that Sukhoi somehow only figured out these improvements after the first prototype, almost insinuating that it is a response to their criticism. I could maybe forgive The Drive this nonsense, but you got the same kind of tripe in more specialist publications like Aviation Week.

I mean, all these supposedly post-hoc changes were already in evidence on our very first public glimpse of Okhotnik (that blurry still of a full-scale mock-up). Wouldn't logic then dictate that the lumpy prototype was a demonstrator for non-LO design aspects? You know, just like - oh, say the equally workman-like US X-47B? One AvWeek article went so far as to acknowledge the existence of the mock-up, but still lapsed into the narrative that the new air show model with flat nozzle and clean lines must reflect a recent change in plans! How do you come up with such a contrived leap of logic that contradicts information published in your own piece?

Mindboggling. To say nothing of the fact that Okhotnik first flew about 3 months after the Western press had gleefully reported that its first flight had been delayed by a year - the accuracy of their writing on this project is catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Tirdent said:
There isn't a whole lot of that in the article to be honest, I'll accept "broadly similar to the X-45" as a fairly non-judgemental, purely descriptive statement of similarity. What's truly exasperating though is the stubborn delusion that Sukhoi somehow only figured out these improvements after the first prototype, almost insinuating that it is a response to their criticism. I could maybe forgive The Drive this nonsense, but you got the same kind of tripe in more specialist publications like Aviation Week.

I mean, all these supposedly post-hoc changes were already in evidence on our very first public glimpse of Okhotnik (that blurry still of a full-scale mock-up). Wouldn't logic then dictate that the lumpy prototype was a demonstrator for non-LO design aspects? You know, just like - oh, say the equally workman-like US X-47B? One AvWeek article went so far as to acknowledge the existence of the mock-up, but still lapsed into the narrative that the new air show model with flat nozzle and clean lines must reflect a recent change in plans! How do you come up with such a contrived leap of logic that contradicts information published in your own piece?

Mindboggling. To say nothing of the fact that Okhotnik first flew about 3 months after the Western press had gleefully reported that its first flight had been delayed by a year - the accuracy of their writing on this project is catastrophic.
Click to expand...

Much of military reporting is emotion driven instead of fact driven. This is to be expected given the targeted audience.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
At The Drive? Sure. Dedicated aerospace/defence publications like Flight and Aviation Week generally do better though. With Russian or Chinese developments they may tend to overdo the journalistic circumspection when estimating their future potential, but they don't typically miss the mark by a country mile like this. Especially not with the kind of consistency that the reporting on Okhotnik has in being so dead wrong! I'm not sure what it is about this particular project that makes it such an outlier, but it's definitely uncharacteristic.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Tirdent said:
ou know, just like - oh, say the equally workman-like US X-47B? One AvWeek article went so far as to acknowledge the existence of the mock-up, but still lapsed into the narrative that the new air show model with flat nozzle and clean lines must reflect a recent change in plans! How do you come up with such a contrived leap of logic that contradicts information published in your own piece?
Click to expand...
USA MIC following a high risk, front cost loaded design philosophy.

Means they try to spend the biggest possible part of the design budget as soon as possible, and refine details of the aircraft that could be changed after the first prototype testing.

IT is very risky and expensive for the pentagon, but very profitable for the supplier.


The russians follow a low risk / low cost design method, doesn't start to design details like the inlet/exhaust if the structural details of the aircraft could change, making all refined details waste of money.
 
P

pmc

Major
Registered Member
They give 5 years overtaking NVIDIA. Rosatom going direct participation in chip design after entering Lithium.
My previous theory stand correct. Its Physics/Chemistry fundamental research that is foundation.

​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I. Vittel - If you look at your processors, or rather, how to market it. Who are our manufacturers dominating the Russian market? Where is the place of your company, and where are we in the world in terms of technology?

A. Mokhnatkin - Yes, from the point of view of developing final solutions, Russia is quite competitive, and those solutions that are submitted by Russian developers, they have a very powerful import potential, and are well promoted abroad. If we talk about hardware solutions, then we are really lagging behind, both the Russian market and the entire world market are currently occupied by American manufacturers, this is one company, this is NVIDIA, it has more than 80% of the entire world market of hardware solutions for artificial intelligence ...

I. Vittel - How about you?

A. Mokhnatkin - We are interested, it strongly encourages us. Therefore, we plan to catch up and overtake our respected partners and colleagues from abroad, in the next 5 years, let's say.

I. Vittel - I've already heard this somewhere, about catching up and overtaking.

A. Mokhnatkin - Well, that's why I am quoting.
Click to expand...



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
That is kind of pointless. The maker of Elbrus was doing a fine job as is. Folding them under a giant megacorp like Rosatom will likely only make things worse, rather than better, due to lack of management focus. The main issue Russia has is lack of fabrication facilities and that is something Elbrus themselves can't solve, they don't have the capital, neither does the government seem to be willing to do anything about it. Otherwise they would have funded expansion of existing facilities at the two/three existing fabrication facilities. The government has been on a nationalization binge, and while some of the efforts make sense, I think this one does not.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's certainly a bit odd, but I'm not sure it's such a bad idea.

Rosatom seems to be one of those rare islands of management competence and non-interference by authorities in Russian industry. They seem to get stuff done that other (state) corporations fail to achieve because of corruption, nepotism and in-fighting. It was Rosatom - of all unlikely alternatives - that saved UAC/Irkut's bacon on the MS-21 composite wing sanctions while the more obvious sources Rostec and Rosnano foundered. Possibly their uranium enrichment centrifuge expertise is what put them in a position to have the required composite know-how. If so, a similar kind of synergy might come into play here - Rosatom would be a Russian centre of excellence in high-performance computing for obvious reasons.

Let's just say I'd be a lot more worried if it were Roscosmos taking over Elbrus!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top