Forum: Technology

That_Engine_Guy
looks like tv-shop Smile

all parameters must be taken into account to issue serious analysis. furthermore, to say of f22 & f35 has no sense: f22 has run for everything, but not for real battle; f35 has not been completed so far, and is likely to share shameful fate of dozens of modern projects Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

quote="BDFBut how long do the -117 engines last?

They have not said. [Still a secret or they have not tested them enough yet.] All that matters is they are gradually but surely increasing there engine life.
They now have got to a stage where it is not all that relevant. There engines generally cost about 50% of what a Western Engine costs. Just keep a few more spares.
I have been to Russia a number of times. One conversation I had with a Russian Physicist that had been working in the USA for 5 years was very interesting. When he got onto aircraft he said. " I get sick and tired of the crap I keep getting thrown at me in the USA about our technology. In many cases it is not we can't build better quality it is because we often find for our purposes it is better to build a cheaper more or less disposable engine etc. e.g. The Mig29 - it was never meant to be a "Ferrari".
It did not have fly by wire. Far easier for the avearge [grease monkey] to maintain at a remote base in minus 10 degrees. Its engine life was not great but
most times at a remote base it is far easier to simply drop a new engine in. In USA terms it was meant to be a "hotted up Chevy" - cheap but went like a Ferrari. Maybe for not as long. The SU27 and Mig31 are more like a Ferrari.

rkap

he's hella right! too different service staff's level, too wide range of climatic zones. it's prime cause why pak fa has been just paper warrior. multirole battlecraft is pure crap Exclamation

from 4th generation to 5th degeneration Smile

Quote:

[quote="That_Engine_
Meanwhile our Russian jet engine brothers are bragging about 1K hour TBOs and 4K Hour service lives?

Who is bragging????
The USSR and Russia have always worked on gradual improvement.
Even if they could I doub't they would want to make jet fighter engines that lasted 10/20,000hours if they cost the same as a Western Engine. [2-3 times as much].
They build there newer Aircraft for continual improvement through there life. They build there airframes strong and to last with plenty of room for upgrade. Most are designed so engines can easily be removed and replaced at remote airfields. They are now puting new improved engines into there older SU27's bringing them up close to the SU35 in terms of engine and avionics. The NK-12 turboprop engine in the T95 Bear has a life up to 40/50,000hours.[They can build engines that last]. It will outlast the airframe most times [30,000hours]. On fighter aircraft they tend to trade performance and light weight for a shorter engine life. A "Nascar" in USA terms.
Nobody can deny there Aircraft overall perform well. USA Pilots who flew the "old" West German Mig29's liked there responsiveness.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

quote="BDFBut how long do the -117 engines last?

They have not said. [Still a secret or they have not tested them enough yet.] All that matters is they are gradually but surely increasing there engine life.
They now have got to a stage where it is not all that relevant. There engines generally cost about 50% of what a Western Engine costs. Just keep a few more spares.
I have been to Russia a number of times. One conversation I had with a Russian Physicist that had been working in the USA for 5 years was very interesting. When he got onto aircraft he said. " I get sick and tired of the crap I keep getting thrown at me in the USA about our technology. In many cases it is not we can't build better quality it is because we often find for our purposes it is better to build a cheaper more or less disposable engine etc. e.g. The Mig29 - it was never meant to be a "Ferrari".

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this assessment.I too have experience with Russian high tech industry, and I came away with the exact opposite view. Broadly speaking, dilapidated infrastructure, mediocre investment and an aging workforce are the key themes that I've seen. Two decades of stagnation is very evident when you look behind the glitz of programs like T-50. I think that is most true for industries involved in the arms production, which has remained highly centralized over the past two decades compared to most other areas.

Arguments like "well its just cheaper to build a more disposable X" in my view is often simply an excuse for putting up with poor quality. It doesn't help in the long run. Constantly spending money on disposable equipment is just cash that could be better spent on researching or buying new equipment. And like it or not, warfare IS becoming more technologically driven and the Russians are being left behind.

As a friend put it, if the United States lost 60% of its GDP overnight, would it be a leader in development? of course not. And Russian research funding has suffered immensely over the past two decades and it shows. Claiming that mediocre performance is a virtue just masks the reality of Russian military production.

hb_pencil wrote:

rkap wrote:

Quote:

quote="BDFBut how long do the -117 engines last?

They have not said. [Still a secret or they have not tested them enough yet.] All that matters is they are gradually but surely increasing there engine life.
They now have got to a stage where it is not all that relevant. There engines generally cost about 50% of what a Western Engine costs. Just keep a few more spares.
I have been to Russia a number of times. One conversation I had with a Russian Physicist that had been working in the USA for 5 years was very interesting. When he got onto aircraft he said. " I get sick and tired of the crap I keep getting thrown at me in the USA about our technology. In many cases it is not we can't build better quality it is because we often find for our purposes it is better to build a cheaper more or less disposable engine etc. e.g. The Mig29 - it was never meant to be a "Ferrari".

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this assessment.I too have experience with Russian high tech industry, and I came away with the exact opposite view. Broadly speaking, dilapidated infrastructure, mediocre investment and an aging workforce are the key themes that I've seen. Two decades of stagnation is very evident when you look behind the glitz of programs like T-50. I think that is most true for industries involved in the arms production, which has remained highly centralized over the past two decades compared to most other areas.

Arguments like "well its just cheaper to build a more disposable X" in my view is often simply an excuse for putting up with poor quality. It doesn't help in the long run. Constantly spending money on disposable equipment is just cash that could be better spent on researching or buying new equipment. And like it or not, warfare IS becoming more technologically driven and the Russians are being left behind.

As a friend put it, if the United States lost 60% of its GDP overnight, would it be a leader in development? of course not. And Russian research funding has suffered immensely over the past two decades and it shows. Claiming that mediocre performance is a virtue just masks the reality of Russian military production.

let's sort it out: CCCP time had no any stagnation with military techs; situation what you're saying about is post -perestroika sh*t, gorbachev-like scum have betrayed & ruined own country. if to say of weapon quality, just recall WWII (CCCP vs. Nazi German) -- German had more complex weapon, but it was too hard to produce and to service at the battlefields. now, give me any example of good weapon from lm-like and darpa - like morons. Afghan, Libya ain't so good show to be amazed of nato and pentagon clowns Wink

sark0y wrote:

let's sort it out: CCCP time had no any stagnation with military techs; situation what you're saying about is post -perestroika sh*t, gorbachev-like scum have betrayed & ruined own country. if to say of weapon quality, just recall WWII (CCCP vs. Nazi German) -- German had more complex weapon, but it was too hard to produce and to service at the battlefields. now, give me any example of good weapon from lm-like and darpa - like morons. Afghan, Libya ain't so good show to be amazed of nato and pentagon clowns Wink

I completely agree with you that Pre-1991 Soviet equipment was good. Even today we look at stuff like the N001 radar and its highly reliable. Unfortunately these systems are starting to get outdated and outpaced by contemporary American and European developments.

Also its not a question of low tech vs high tech. Its a question about reliability, capability and cost. On a range of platforms, we have ample evidence that newer systems suffer from reliability issues. We know that there has been very little investment on electronic systems since 1991. There have been some serious development failures in the Defence industry that illustrate its limitations.

Since 1991 the US has invested tens of billions of dollars into avionics and radar system development and it shows by how advanced its current systems are. Moreover these systems have over a decade of combat usage in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that show they are sustainable and effective.

As I said in another thread on this forum, it can't add up: Low cost, low investment = excellent performance & great reliability. It doesn't work like that.

Also what does the experience of Libya show of anything? Was there some sort of major failing by any US military capability?

hb_pencil

Quote:

Moreover these systems have over a decade of combat usage in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that show they are sustainable and effective.

Afghan is Kalashnikov-armed militants, Iraq was betrayed by own generals + outdated weapon ain't something good to fight versus new systems, Libya has no new military toys too. In short, there're no battlefields of suitable players. + just look at how new military/space projects have fallen one-by-another, it's well-representative sign of deep stagnation in the West. frankly to say, modern Russia has suffered the same sh8t, but reasons are different.

sark0y wrote:

hb_pencil

Quote:

Moreover these systems have over a decade of combat usage in places like Afghanistan and Iraq that show they are sustainable and effective.

Afghan is Kalashnikov-armed militants, Iraq was betrayed by own generals + outdated weapon ain't something good to fight versus new systems, Libya has no new military toys too. In short, there're no battlefields of suitable players. +

I think you have misunderstood my point.

Combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq show the ability of the United States to operate its equipment in semi-austere environments with high levels of reliability. Who you fight against is only part of the issue. Being able to generate a major force with relatively high levels of serviceability across the globe and then sustain them for over ten years is the point.

Another point that is relevant is how the United States has been able to adapt their forces to the battlefield and field new equipment based on their need. MRAPs, UAVs, Counter IED sensors, Counter Artillery Sensors, and advanced intelligence gathering equipment. that does not take into account the intellectual shift combat forces had on Counter insurgency operations.

sark0y wrote:

just look at how new military/space projects have fallen one-by-another, it's well-representative sign of deep stagnation in the West. frankly to say, modern Russia has suffered the same sh8t, but reasons are different.

What programs have failed because of technological failure?

Last edited by sark0y on Sep 20, 2011 - 02:08 AM; edited 1 time in total

hb_pencil

Quote:

Combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq show the ability of the United States to operate its equipment in semi-austere environments with high levels of reliability.

that's only 1st side of coin, another is the more powerful opponent, the more frequently equipment has been used in most severe manner.

Quote:

What programs have failed because of technological failure?

f22, x-30, x-33 etc. & so on.

His point is that every time Russian weapons fail it's the fault of the user, not the weapons.

shingen
it's not my point Smile

sark0y wrote:

that's only 1st side of coin, another is the more powerful opponent, the more frequently equipment has been used in most severe manner.

Usage rates are usage rates, as are statistics on reliability. As The_Engine_Guy made very clear in his posts, Russian engines are nowhere near as reliable as their Western counterparts based on their stated publicly performance figures. They don't get magically better in combat operations. They get worse... far worse.

Furthermore just to refute your point, US Army and Marines ground units saw very high levels of combat too and most of their equipment worked just fine. Systems that did not work were upgraded or replaced.

That stands in contrast to the Russian experience in South Ossetia. If what you are saying is true then the Russia's proven "low technology" equipment should have been very reliable and effective in the operation. That wasn't the case however. They had very serious reliability issues which hampered their ability to carry out the campaign.

sark0y wrote:

f22, x-30, x-33 etc. & so on.

How is the F-22 a "failure?" Last I checked its operational and able to take on any aircraft in the world.

The X-30? You're reaching back to a 1980s era project to make a mach 6+ hypersonic spaceplane as a sign of the stagnation of the west?

hb_pencil

Quote:

US Army and Marines ground units saw high levels of combat too and held up just fine

where it was, for example?

Quote:

That stands in contrast to the Russian experience in South Ossetia. Even the supposedly more reliable low technology units of the Russian army had extreme reliability issues which hampered their ability to carry out the campaign.

examples, please.

Quote:

How is the F-22 a "failure?" Last I checked its operational and able to take on any aircraft in the world.

where it was operated on the battlefields?

Quote:

The X-30? You're reaching back to a 1980s era project to make a mach 6+ hypersonic spaceplane as a sign of the stagnation of the west?

constellation was too many yrs ago too? http://www.space.com/12607-darpa-launch ... light.html it's too, right? nasa cannot build new rocket, even resurrect saturn 5 -like.

sark0y wrote:

hb_pencil

Quote:

US Army and Marines ground units saw high levels of combat too and held up just fine

where it was, for example?

Are you seriously suggesting that the US combat arms have not faced high levels of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq? Just say yes or no.

Remember you're the one who loves to claim how useless American high tech equipment is.... I thought you'd be happy to point out how much of a failing they had vs a low tech enemy.

sark0y wrote:

examples, please (on Ossetia)

Sure... you can read about them here:

http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/con ... _ed_ks.pdf

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... pubid=1069

sark0y wrote:

where it was operated on the battlefields?

I guess because Soviet ICBMs were never used they are also a failure?

sark0y wrote:

constellation was too many yrs ago too? http://www.space.com/12607-darpa-launch ... light.html it's too, right? nasa cannot build new rocket, even resurrect saturn 5 -like.

The failure of high technology high concept space exploration vehicles that serve very little domestic needs is hardly the sign of the stagnation of the west. If anything it shows the opposite. Actually you argued here that the " CCCP had conducted shuttle-like projects, but fortunately voice of engineers stopped this wrong idea. to advance space techs is very expensive thing even for cost-effective projects and we must be very careful to choose way." So when the NASA realized that constellation was not cost effective and cancelled the project, you claim that its a sign of national weakness?

Forum: Technology

Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA