For those that don't know, PPV was a co-author of Flanker Bible and have contacts within Sukhoi as he often posts small pieces of news and updates. So everyone is free to trust Wikipedia, but i think i will trust PPV...
By: calimero
- 20th January 2013 at 08:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is much better than nothing at all. Prove the information therein wrong, and change it. That's the cool thing about Wikipedia.
x1000. I'm getting realy tired of this Wikipedia bashing. The same time it takes to write a bad comment about Wiki could be used to improve the article.
By: totoro
- 20th January 2013 at 08:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That sort of measurement is terribly unreliable.
New planes get heavier than old ones. That is a fact that's been around forever. Even a plane of othe same model, like f16, gets heavier throughout its life in various versions. Mig29 also got heavier through its life. F15 too. New materials matter little there. Various other equipment and subsystems always end up adding quite a bit more than the new, lighter materials shaved off.
Then there is the need for today's planes to fly twice the hours compared to older planes. That also means bulkier structure and more weight. They need to be multirole, "not a pound for air to ground" doesn't fly anymore. 13 tons for early f15 is an anomaly that will not happen again.
Then there is the biggest jump in weight called low observable requirements. Added structure around the weapon bays. Everything gets bigger and wider. Fuel requirements keep growing and much more of the fuel needs to go into the fuselage, compared with yesterday's designs. Then there are the radar absorbing structures and materials. Depending on their purpose, they need thickness, they add weight.
It is perfectly normal that a modern plane like f22 weighs over 19 tons. That f35a, a plane of f16s perfomance, weighs over 13 tons. That is a 40% increase over the modern f16s.
IF t50 is made to carry substantial air to ground weaponry inside its weapon bays and IF it is made to match su35 range with such internal loadouts, it will need to carry more fuel than su35. Which also means more internal fuel tanks, piping etc. IF it is designed to be effective against S or even L wavelengths, it will need certain thickness and weight for its RA materials.
In the end, it is impossible to say how much will t50 weigh empty but, if i must offer a number, i will use previous and similar aircraft for comparison, rather than compare area in 2d drawing and trying to get a volume then assume the density will not increase.
My guess for t50 would be somewhere between 17 and 18 tons.
By: Anonymous
- 20th January 2013 at 15:55Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
FFS dude. I used like an hour to find the damn quote, so if you want to discredit C-in-C of AF and someone that played instrumental part in "TTZ" for PAK-FA, you are going into my ignore list.
The quote says "cruise speed" rather than "maximum speed" though, does it not? In which case Mach 2.0 is still ruddy fast, reheated or dry - almost MiG-31 territory.
New
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut
- 20th January 2013 at 16:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The way i read it it is about top speed.
Logically: Why would it matter to the plane/frame if it is propelled (not entirely correct word i guess, but you get the point:)) with afterburner or not? Measures to squeeze out those 0.15 mach need to be taken anyway, whether it is super cruising or not.
Also, find that damn quote was a b!tch, so i mixed up what i wanted to put in the post. The quote i put is from the infamous "Hurr durr T-50 will disintegrate at 500 km/h", that whole flutter ordeal. The quote i wanted to actually put in is this:
В.Михайлов сообщил, что снизил на 0,15 число "М", заданные в тактико-техническом задании характеристики скорости нового самолета".
"К примеру, задана характеристика 2,15М, чтобы самолет летал с такой скоростью, однако это число - 0,15 влечет за собой необходимость усиления киля, увеличение веса самолета", - сказал главком.
По его словам, "анализ эксплуатации самолетов типа Су-27 и МиГ-31 показывает, что эти самолеты, хоть и способны ходить примерно на этих скоростях, но редко на них выходят".
"Зафиксировано всего лишь несколько полетов летчиков-испытателей на таких скоростях, это влечет сотни проблемных вопросов по усилению хвостового оперения и плохо сказывается на других характеристиках самолета", - сказал В.Михайлов.
Mikhailov said that the number was reduced with 0.15 "M", set in the tactical and technical characteristics of the job rate of the new aircraft. "
"For example, given a description of 2.15 m, so that the aircraft was flying at such a rate, but the number - 0.15 leads to the need to strengthen the keel, increased weight of the aircraft," - said the commander in chief.
According to him, "the analysis of aircraft such as the Su-27 and MiG-31 shows that the aircraft, though able to walk around at these speeds, but they rarely go out."
"Lock only a few test pilots flying at such speeds, it involves hundreds of problematic issues to strengthen the tail and has a bad effect on the other characteristics of the aircraft," - said Mikhailov.
By: haavarla
- 20th January 2013 at 19:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting, and quite logical.
Didn't the early test flight of F-22 show weakness with the Vertical Stabz as well and that it had to be addressed several times before LM got it right.
And that this had an impact on the top speed on the F-22?
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th January 2013 at 19:23Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
The way i read it it is about top speed.
Logically: Why would it matter to the plane/frame if it is propelled (not entirely correct word i guess, but you get the point:)) with afterburner or not? Measures to squeeze out those 0.15 mach need to be taken anyway, whether it is super cruising or not.
To a first order reheated or dry does not matter, but reheated flight is naturally time limited (due to very high fuel consumption), so thermally it is not as critical an issue as sustained flight in dry thrust at the same speed.
Also, find that damn quote was a b!tch, so i mixed up what i wanted to put in the post. The quote i put is from the infamous "Hurr durr T-50 will disintegrate at 500 km/h", that whole flutter ordeal. The quote i wanted to actually put in is this:
A bit different wording here as you see.
Yup, doesn't explicitly clarify the maximum speed question though. I don't even want to exclude the possibility that the red line is indeed Mach 2.0, but look at it this way: you don't need variable intakes to momentarily hit M2.0 flat out, afterburners blazing - not in an aircraft with such a high T/W ratio and aerodynamics so carefully optimised for low supersonic drag. As good as the F-16 was by the standards of the day, it is now a 30 year old design and yet it managed to do so with a less advanced engine, a configuration emphasising transonic fighting and one of the simplest inlets imaginable. No moving parts whatsoever, not even auxiliary inlet (Su-47) or by-pass doors (F-22) to enable either adequate subsonic performance from a fixed capture area biased toward supersonic flight or improve off-design capability of an intake sized for subsonic speeds.
Thus chances are that the T-50 is either designed to routinely operate at or very near its top speed (as the Raptor demonstrates, a caret intake does fine for speeds around Mach 1.5) or its actual top speed is beyond Mach 2.0. In the former case, Mach 2.0 is likely to be a thermal/structural limitation rather than the point were thrust equals drag. Alternatively the variable ramps and auxiliary doors are merely a band-aid to assure the required supercruise capability with the interim engine, to be replaced by fixed caret intakes once the definitive power plant is available.
By: Jō Asakura
- 20th January 2013 at 20:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Variable intake ramps & auxiliary intakes are an integrated solution for the intake notwithstanding the incorporation of sub & supersonic flow diffusers- this is apparent in the official patent. Hence, I think one can rule out the CARET intake.
I do agree that MiG-31 & Su-27 experience may call into question the tactical usefulness of all out AB topline speed substantially in excess of M2, and instead regular & sustained top-end supercruise is far more valuable, especially given Russia's vast expanses.
That the T-50 is designed specifically to fly, fight & manoeuvre @ these speeds is impressive in itself, and it's not like the Vmax came down from M3 to M2 or anything- it's pretty incremental.
Having said that, now that they're required to undertake something they wanted to avoid- structural reinforcements and associated weight gain, maybe this offers a window to nudge up the speed limit a little further (I doubt that though).
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th January 2013 at 20:44Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Thanks, finally some good photos of the new Su-34 aircraft batch. Immediatelly I noticed something strange in front of the cockpit, seems to be a temporary solution, maybe an additional short range navigation antenna???? Well, well, a week ago you were complaining about Russian media spreading lies about "Su-34 growing pains"....:)
Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let's be honest, as the world's only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it's not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.
More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th January 2013 at 20:53Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
That sort of measurement is terribly unreliable.
New planes get heavier than old ones. That is a fact that's been around forever. Even a plane of othe same model, like f16, gets heavier throughout its life in various versions. Mig29 also got heavier through its life. F15 too. New materials matter little there. Various other equipment and subsystems always end up adding quite a bit more than the new, lighter materials shaved off.
Then there is the need for today's planes to fly twice the hours compared to older planes. That also means bulkier structure and more weight. They need to be multirole, "not a pound for air to ground" doesn't fly anymore. 13 tons for early f15 is an anomaly that will not happen again.
Then there is the biggest jump in weight called low observable requirements. Added structure around the weapon bays. Everything gets bigger and wider. Fuel requirements keep growing and much more of the fuel needs to go into the fuselage, compared with yesterday's designs. Then there are the radar absorbing structures and materials. Depending on their purpose, they need thickness, they add weight.
It is perfectly normal that a modern plane like f22 weighs over 19 tons. That f35a, a plane of f16s perfomance, weighs over 13 tons. That is a 40% increase over the modern f16s.
IF t50 is made to carry substantial air to ground weaponry inside its weapon bays and IF it is made to match su35 range with such internal loadouts, it will need to carry more fuel than su35. Which also means more internal fuel tanks, piping etc. IF it is designed to be effective against S or even L wavelengths, it will need certain thickness and weight for its RA materials.
In the end, it is impossible to say how much will t50 weigh empty but, if i must offer a number, i will use previous and similar aircraft for comparison, rather than compare area in 2d drawing and trying to get a volume then assume the density will not increase.
My guess for t50 would be somewhere between 17 and 18 tons.
I would go so far as to say the bracket is 18 to 20 tons - i.e. definitely heavier than the likely weight of the Su-35S. Bear in mind also that the F-22 is slightly smaller than the F-15, yet considerably heavier than even the Strike Eagle.
By: haavarla
- 20th January 2013 at 21:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let's be honest, as the world's only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it's not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.
More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.
Great! Call the VVS and tell them they better cancle the Su-34 deal.:rolleyes:
Seriously, are the prod rate on the Su-35S any better? It has not even passed State Trials, nor has Su-30SM. There should not be any problem with the Su-34 service since it share many of the overall Flanker layout, role, capability and then some.
I would not be surprised to find out that the Su-34 has longer life hour vs both Su-35S and Su-30SM
By: martinez
- 20th January 2013 at 22:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated,.........
To me it is more interesting to speculate what kind of pains those Su-34 are going through. I`m just one of those technical kind of guys, not a Big-picture thinker as you seems to be, never bothered what the Russian VVS could achieve by cancelling the Su-34 while investing into Su-30 multirole, I`m just thinking it is a beautiful aircraft and it deserves to live and fly....:D so keeping fingers crossed for NAPO to fix those issues ASAP.
By: medal64
- 20th January 2013 at 22:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia to test hypersonic missile this year
Russian Defense Ministry to set a date first full test launches promising hypersonic missile capable of speeds up to Mach Five (about 5.8 thousand kilometers per hour). According to the newspaper "Izvestia", the tests are scheduled for July and August 2013, and will be produced at the site in Akhtubinsk Astrakhan region.
The project to create hypersonic missile secret, so neither its code, no problems, no performance characteristics are unknown. The first test launch took place at the site in Akhtubinsk in 2012, but they can not be considered full. The inspections rocket separated from the suspension plane runs its own engine, fly a few miles to subsonic speed and landing.
The purpose of the preliminary tests was to check the throwing of control rocket in flight and its interaction with the system start-up and on-board equipment of the aircraft carrier. In the new test launch parameters will be expanded: the rocket will carry longer flights already at hypersonic speeds, and the engine will run ammunition in several modes.
The development of hypersonic missiles actively conducted in the USSR in the 1970s, but in the 1990s, has practically disappeared. In particular, "the NGO engineering" to develop missiles "Meteorite" and the late start of work on the machine with the code "4202". ICB "Rainbow" in 1980 launched a project GELA X-90. In the 1970s, based missile system S-200 missile was created "Cold", which was able to develop a speed of six thousand miles per hour.
Currently, "NPO engineering" is involved in a joint development with India hypersonic cruise missile "Brahmos" is capable of speeds up to five Mach numbers. In addition, the Corporation "Tactical Missiles" is engaged in the creation of missile capable of a speed exceeding the speed of sound in the 12-13 times.
In September last year, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that the country plans to create a "superholding" which will develop hypersonic technologies. The holding company is expected to enter the corporation TEV "NGOs engineering."
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 19th January 2013 at 13:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your word against PPV.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 19th January 2013 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You surely have some numbers to support that. From what I have found the Irbis is lighter but you probably know better...Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 19th January 2013 at 19:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is PPV saying again? Thanks.:)
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 19th January 2013 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think he is wrong on that. Based on memory i think it should be heavier.
We discussed it here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1915566&postcount=233
For those that don't know, PPV was a co-author of Flanker Bible and have contacts within Sukhoi as he often posts small pieces of news and updates. So everyone is free to trust Wikipedia, but i think i will trust PPV...
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 20th January 2013 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Better than nothing
It is much better than nothing at all. Prove the information therein wrong, and change it. That's the cool thing about Wikipedia.Posts: 65
By: Geo - 20th January 2013 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good job, Paralay! Thank you.
Can you make similar comparison T-50/F-22? It would be very interesting...
Posts: 196
By: calimero - 20th January 2013 at 08:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
x1000. I'm getting realy tired of this Wikipedia bashing. The same time it takes to write a bad comment about Wiki could be used to improve the article.
Posts: 1,010
By: totoro - 20th January 2013 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That sort of measurement is terribly unreliable.
New planes get heavier than old ones. That is a fact that's been around forever. Even a plane of othe same model, like f16, gets heavier throughout its life in various versions. Mig29 also got heavier through its life. F15 too. New materials matter little there. Various other equipment and subsystems always end up adding quite a bit more than the new, lighter materials shaved off.
Then there is the need for today's planes to fly twice the hours compared to older planes. That also means bulkier structure and more weight. They need to be multirole, "not a pound for air to ground" doesn't fly anymore. 13 tons for early f15 is an anomaly that will not happen again.
Then there is the biggest jump in weight called low observable requirements. Added structure around the weapon bays. Everything gets bigger and wider. Fuel requirements keep growing and much more of the fuel needs to go into the fuselage, compared with yesterday's designs. Then there are the radar absorbing structures and materials. Depending on their purpose, they need thickness, they add weight.
It is perfectly normal that a modern plane like f22 weighs over 19 tons. That f35a, a plane of f16s perfomance, weighs over 13 tons. That is a 40% increase over the modern f16s.
IF t50 is made to carry substantial air to ground weaponry inside its weapon bays and IF it is made to match su35 range with such internal loadouts, it will need to carry more fuel than su35. Which also means more internal fuel tanks, piping etc. IF it is designed to be effective against S or even L wavelengths, it will need certain thickness and weight for its RA materials.
In the end, it is impossible to say how much will t50 weigh empty but, if i must offer a number, i will use previous and similar aircraft for comparison, rather than compare area in 2d drawing and trying to get a volume then assume the density will not increase.
My guess for t50 would be somewhere between 17 and 18 tons.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 20th January 2013 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A comparison of the F-22 / T-50:
area of a side view 34 / 27.8 square meters
area of the top view 110.65 / 115.6 square meters
area of the front view 9.25 / 9.47 square meters
volume 65.3 / 62.45 cubic meters
http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
By: Anonymous - 20th January 2013 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
The quote says "cruise speed" rather than "maximum speed" though, does it not? In which case Mach 2.0 is still ruddy fast, reheated or dry - almost MiG-31 territory.
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 20th January 2013 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The way i read it it is about top speed.
Logically: Why would it matter to the plane/frame if it is propelled (not entirely correct word i guess, but you get the point:)) with afterburner or not? Measures to squeeze out those 0.15 mach need to be taken anyway, whether it is super cruising or not.
Also, find that damn quote was a b!tch, so i mixed up what i wanted to put in the post. The quote i put is from the infamous "Hurr durr T-50 will disintegrate at 500 km/h", that whole flutter ordeal. The quote i wanted to actually put in is this:
A bit different wording here as you see.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 20th January 2013 at 19:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting, and quite logical.
Didn't the early test flight of F-22 show weakness with the Vertical Stabz as well and that it had to be addressed several times before LM got it right.
And that this had an impact on the top speed on the F-22?
By: Anonymous - 20th January 2013 at 19:23 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
To a first order reheated or dry does not matter, but reheated flight is naturally time limited (due to very high fuel consumption), so thermally it is not as critical an issue as sustained flight in dry thrust at the same speed.
Yup, doesn't explicitly clarify the maximum speed question though. I don't even want to exclude the possibility that the red line is indeed Mach 2.0, but look at it this way: you don't need variable intakes to momentarily hit M2.0 flat out, afterburners blazing - not in an aircraft with such a high T/W ratio and aerodynamics so carefully optimised for low supersonic drag. As good as the F-16 was by the standards of the day, it is now a 30 year old design and yet it managed to do so with a less advanced engine, a configuration emphasising transonic fighting and one of the simplest inlets imaginable. No moving parts whatsoever, not even auxiliary inlet (Su-47) or by-pass doors (F-22) to enable either adequate subsonic performance from a fixed capture area biased toward supersonic flight or improve off-design capability of an intake sized for subsonic speeds.
Thus chances are that the T-50 is either designed to routinely operate at or very near its top speed (as the Raptor demonstrates, a caret intake does fine for speeds around Mach 1.5) or its actual top speed is beyond Mach 2.0. In the former case, Mach 2.0 is likely to be a thermal/structural limitation rather than the point were thrust equals drag. Alternatively the variable ramps and auxiliary doors are merely a band-aid to assure the required supercruise capability with the interim engine, to be replaced by fixed caret intakes once the definitive power plant is available.
Posts: 1,286
By: Jō Asakura - 20th January 2013 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Variable intake ramps & auxiliary intakes are an integrated solution for the intake notwithstanding the incorporation of sub & supersonic flow diffusers- this is apparent in the official patent. Hence, I think one can rule out the CARET intake.
I do agree that MiG-31 & Su-27 experience may call into question the tactical usefulness of all out AB topline speed substantially in excess of M2, and instead regular & sustained top-end supercruise is far more valuable, especially given Russia's vast expanses.
That the T-50 is designed specifically to fly, fight & manoeuvre @ these speeds is impressive in itself, and it's not like the Vmax came down from M3 to M2 or anything- it's pretty incremental.
Having said that, now that they're required to undertake something they wanted to avoid- structural reinforcements and associated weight gain, maybe this offers a window to nudge up the speed limit a little further (I doubt that though).
By: Anonymous - 20th January 2013 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let's be honest, as the world's only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it's not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.
More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.
By: Anonymous - 20th January 2013 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I would go so far as to say the bracket is 18 to 20 tons - i.e. definitely heavier than the likely weight of the Su-35S. Bear in mind also that the F-22 is slightly smaller than the F-15, yet considerably heavier than even the Strike Eagle.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 20th January 2013 at 21:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Great! Call the VVS and tell them they better cancle the Su-34 deal.:rolleyes:
Seriously, are the prod rate on the Su-35S any better? It has not even passed State Trials, nor has Su-30SM. There should not be any problem with the Su-34 service since it share many of the overall Flanker layout, role, capability and then some.
I would not be surprised to find out that the Su-34 has longer life hour vs both Su-35S and Su-30SM
Posts: 65
By: Geo - 20th January 2013 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Great! Thanks and regards to RF.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 20th January 2013 at 22:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To me it is more interesting to speculate what kind of pains those Su-34 are going through. I`m just one of those technical kind of guys, not a Big-picture thinker as you seems to be, never bothered what the Russian VVS could achieve by cancelling the Su-34 while investing into Su-30 multirole, I`m just thinking it is a beautiful aircraft and it deserves to live and fly....:D so keeping fingers crossed for NAPO to fix those issues ASAP.
Posts: 1,114
By: medal64 - 20th January 2013 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia to test hypersonic missile this year
Russian Defense Ministry to set a date first full test launches promising hypersonic missile capable of speeds up to Mach Five (about 5.8 thousand kilometers per hour). According to the newspaper "Izvestia", the tests are scheduled for July and August 2013, and will be produced at the site in Akhtubinsk Astrakhan region.
The project to create hypersonic missile secret, so neither its code, no problems, no performance characteristics are unknown. The first test launch took place at the site in Akhtubinsk in 2012, but they can not be considered full. The inspections rocket separated from the suspension plane runs its own engine, fly a few miles to subsonic speed and landing.
The purpose of the preliminary tests was to check the throwing of control rocket in flight and its interaction with the system start-up and on-board equipment of the aircraft carrier. In the new test launch parameters will be expanded: the rocket will carry longer flights already at hypersonic speeds, and the engine will run ammunition in several modes.
The development of hypersonic missiles actively conducted in the USSR in the 1970s, but in the 1990s, has practically disappeared. In particular, "the NGO engineering" to develop missiles "Meteorite" and the late start of work on the machine with the code "4202". ICB "Rainbow" in 1980 launched a project GELA X-90. In the 1970s, based missile system S-200 missile was created "Cold", which was able to develop a speed of six thousand miles per hour.
Currently, "NPO engineering" is involved in a joint development with India hypersonic cruise missile "Brahmos" is capable of speeds up to five Mach numbers. In addition, the Corporation "Tactical Missiles" is engaged in the creation of missile capable of a speed exceeding the speed of sound in the 12-13 times.
In September last year, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that the country plans to create a "superholding" which will develop hypersonic technologies. The holding company is expected to enter the corporation TEV "NGOs engineering."