ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

Tu-96 <—> NK-16

Tu-95I <—> NK-20

.
.
.

x <—> y

Yeah but TU142s were newly built specialised platform it was worth it, idk if they would throw maybe even couple dozen million USD per TU95 to modernise them i know i wouldnt that is

They will have spent 100 times that over the last few decades upgrading the electronics on those expensive MPAs... an upgrade of the engines would be peanuts compared with the cost of Sea Dragon.

The Tu-95s in service all got upgraded wings too...

They are spending money making an engine for the PAK DA to allow it to fly efficiently very long distances at subsonic speeds... it would not be that hard to make a turboprop or similar bladed fan model like a ducted fan or propfan... such engines could also be used on large civilian and military transports and passenger aircraft.

George1 wrote:A new platform to replace the aircraft IL-38 and IL-20 will introduce up to 2020

Does anyone have info in which aircraft type will be base the new platform?

It is very interesting new. I have not info about how can be the new platform, but this is what I would be looking for (with a long term vision):

- Long range.
- Light compared to the current aircrafts.
- Cheap compared to the current aircrafts.
- Based on ships.
- Able to carry and fire a few short range effective Antiship and Antisubmarine guns.
- Unmanned.
- Subsonic.

Austin wrote:Russian Navy Eyes Il-114 as Future MPA

The article says:

“In my view, the Il-114 is the best choice for the Russian navy”, Georgy Antsev, general director and designer for Morinformsystem-Agat, told AIN. Agat is the system integrator of electronic equipment for the Russian navy and developer of combat-management systems for warships, fire control systems, coastal patrol and protection systems. Antsev said that Agat is cooperating with Ilyushin, Radar-MMS and other partners to promote the Il-114 as an MPA.

While I understand that some contractors want to promote the Il-114 for this role, but I do not think it would be the right option. The Il-114 is an aircraft of near 25 years old, even its production for civil use finished without a big success (20 units produced). In my view it is too old desing to be the basis for a succesful new aircraft that can be in active service 50 years since now. Even today seems to me an outdated concept for this role.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:

- Long range.
- Light compared to the current aircrafts.
- Cheap compared to the current aircrafts.
- Based on ships.
- Able to carry and fire a few short range effective Antiship and Antisubmarine guns.
- Unmanned.
- Subsonic.

Why light? why shipborne?

As for missiles (not guns right?) why short range?

eehnie wrote:
While I understand that some contractors want to promote the Il-114 for this role, but I do not think it would be the right option. The Il-114 is an aircraft of near 25 years old, even its production for civil use finished without a big success (20 units produced). In my view it is too old desing to be the basis for a succesful new aircraft that can be in active service 50 years since now. Even today seems to me an outdated concept for this role.

Lack of commercial success is simple due to US policy of destruction of USSR´s industry. Nothing to do with aircraft qualities.
Of course old design because Western designs like Boeing 777 or Airbus 340 are  cool. although same age :d

and now seriously why iIL-114 is outdated pls?

To be shipborne can help to increase the range very significantly, because you begin to count the kms of range from the ship, that can be at thousands of km from the land.

To be light is necessary to be shipborne and makes lower the cost in case of loses. Also a ship has the necessary space to go with the control posts and to cover the maintenance needs of this kind of light aircrafts. Also it helps to make all cheaper, since the fuel to move light aircrafts is a lot less and it would have more economic benefits for the Russian Navy like a lot lower need of infrastructure on land.

The missiles in the patrol aircraft need to have the range covered by the detecting sensors and radars, not more. Short range missiles are smaller and lighter. To be in a long range aircraft is like to make these missiles of long range. It is better to use the transported fuel to give longer range to the aircraft than to its missiles.

I think the Il-114 would be in serious disadvantage with this posible model that Im looking for. This is why I think it is outdated as a base for the new maritime patrol needs. I think a 2 to 5 tons shipborne unmanned aircraft would be in serious advantage. Plus to be an aircraft of near to 25 years old helps not even to be a base for aircrafts of its own class.

With new engines the Il-114 would be ideal... lighter than Il-38 and Il-20/22 and likely cheaper to operate.

It would be able to carry a range of long range sensors and weapons like the long range models of Kh-31 and Kh-35 in reasonable numbers.

It replace the Il-38 they would need to carry quite a load of sensors and equipment to detect and track targets so I think a shipborne model is out of the question, though it could operate with unmanned drones to support and extend its operations.

I would think a larger aircraft to support it would be good... whether it is an A-42 or Tu-214 modified for the role.

GarryB wrote:With new engines the Il-114 would be ideal... lighter than Il-38 and Il-20/22 and likely cheaper to operate.

It would be able to carry a range of long range sensors and weapons like the long range models of Kh-31 and Kh-35 in reasonable numbers.

It replace the Il-38 they would need to carry quite a load of sensors and equipment to detect and track targets so I think a shipborne model is out of the question, though it could operate with unmanned drones to support and extend its operations.

I would think a larger aircraft to support it would be good... whether it is an A-42 or Tu-214 modified for the role.

Out of question?

Which sensors would not be posible to put inside a 5 tons unmanned aircraft? If necessary the size can be increased in some ton.

The part of the crew that follows the information of the sensors and their equipment need to be moved constantly, with higher risk (of accident or in case of attack) for their lives, and with higher cost?

It is not easier to transfer the info of the sensors of the aircraft to its base, in this case the ship, where would work the people following the info of the sensors? This is just how the satellites operate today, sending the info of the sensors to their bases. What would you think if someone would defend that it is better or even necessary to put a crew for control and their equipment travelling in the satellites?

The alone things that really need to travel constantly are the sensors, the systems to send the data to the base, the fuel, and some missile, not many.

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:With new engines the Il-114 would be ideal... lighter than Il-38 and Il-20/22 and likely cheaper to operate.

It would be able to carry a range of long range sensors and weapons like the long range models of Kh-31 and Kh-35 in reasonable numbers.

It replace the Il-38 they would need to carry quite a load of sensors and equipment to detect and track targets so I think a shipborne model is out of the question, though it could operate with unmanned drones to support and extend its operations.

I would think a larger aircraft to support it would be good... whether it is an A-42 or Tu-214 modified for the role.

Out of question?

Which sensors would not be posible to put inside a 5 tons unmanned aircraft? If necessary the size can be increased in some ton.

The part of the crew that follows the information of the sensors and their equipment need to be moved constantly, with higher risk (of accident or in case of attack) for their lives, and with higher cost?

It is not easier to transfer the info of the sensors of the aircraft to its base, in this case the ship, where would work the people following the info of the sensors? This is just how the satellites operate today, sending the info of the sensors to their bases. What would you think if someone would defend that it is better or even necessary to put a crew for control and their equipment travelling in the satellites?

The alone things that really need to travel constantly are the sensors, the systems to send the data to the base, the fuel, and some missile, not many.

UAV based maritime ASW/patrol platforms can be only used to to complement real manned platforms. They simply cant carry everything that one ASW platform needs, that is out of question, Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton is about 15tons in weight, still it can carry only AESA radar, electro-optic/IR camera and a long range hydrocarbon detector and naturally rest of the UAV regarding equipment like ECM suite, satelite datalink, rangefinders...

But it cannont carry anti ship misisles, torpedos, no real ELINT equpiment, depth charges, missiles, magnetic anomaly detection (sort of redudant due to hydrocarbon detector but still required imo)... Sure, drone based maritime patrol and surv. platform is great idea, but not to completely replace real ASW/ASUW platforms.



Basically in ideal situation 3 fixed wing aircraft should exist platforms for ASW/maritime patrol/ASUW would exist, one on turbofan based liner, one on turboprop platform and one unmanned similar to Triton. Naturally smaller ships would require helicopters or helicopter based UAVs for same roles.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:With new engines the Il-114 would be ideal... lighter than Il-38 and Il-20/22 and likely cheaper to operate.

It would be able to carry a range of long range sensors and weapons like the long range models of Kh-31 and Kh-35 in reasonable numbers.

It replace the Il-38 they would need to carry quite a load of sensors and equipment to detect and track targets so I think a shipborne model is out of the question, though it could operate with unmanned drones to support and extend its operations.

I would think a larger aircraft to support it would be good... whether it is an A-42 or Tu-214 modified for the role.

Out of question?

Which sensors would not be posible to put inside a 5 tons unmanned aircraft? If necessary the size can be increased in some ton.

The part of the crew that follows the information of the sensors and their equipment need to be moved constantly, with higher risk (of accident or in case of attack) for their lives, and with higher cost?

It is not easier to transfer the info of the sensors of the aircraft to its base, in this case the ship, where would work the people following the info of the sensors? This is just how the satellites operate today, sending the info of the sensors to their bases. What would you think if someone would defend that it is better or even necessary to put a crew for control and their equipment travelling in the satellites?

The alone things that really need to travel constantly are the sensors, the systems to send the data to the base, the fuel, and some missile, not many.

UAV based maritime ASW/patrol platforms can be only used to to complement real manned platforms. They simply cant carry everything that one ASW platform needs, that is out of question, Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton is about 15tons in weight, still it can carry only AESA radar, electro-optic/IR camera and a long range hydrocarbon detector and naturally rest of the UAV regarding equipment like ECM suite, satelite datalink, rangefinders...

But it cannont carry anti ship misisles, torpedos, no real ELINT equpiment, depth charges, missiles, magnetic anomaly detection (sort of redudant due to hydrocarbon detector but still required imo)... Sure, drone based maritime patrol and surv. platform is great idea, but not to completely replace real ASW/ASUW platforms.



Basically in ideal situation 3 fixed wing aircraft should exist platforms for ASW/maritime patrol/ASUW would exist, one on turbofan based liner, one on turboprop platform and one unmanned similar to Triton. Naturally smaller ships would require helicopters or helicopter based UAVs for same roles.

All the needed sensors must to go in the patrol aircraft, if not, some variants (operating together) that move different sensors would need to be done. Still, as engineers we know that some time of research and development can help to solve the current limitations. New sensors of smaller size can and will be developed. I would not go to more than 10 tons for this kind of aircraft. Surely a 5 tons unmanned shipborne aircraft with less fuel allows to a bigger effective range than a 15 tons land based unmanned aircraft.

Most of the things that you mentioned are weapons. I think to put together the functions of maritime patrol and Antiship or Antisubmarine warfare is not efficient in terms of cost. I do not see the point to have big loads of weapons traveling together with the sensors of the maritime patrol systems, when most of the times are not used. For a single maritime patrol aircraft the combat goal should be at best to face a single ship, a single submarine, a single aircraft or another single drone, and the right strategy of combat would be to fire and run. For it are not necessary more than three or four advanced weapons (missiles,...) of short range.

If there is a stronger enemy and it is necessary more missiles of longer range, torpedoes, ..., you have them available on different platforms, without a need to have them traveling with the patrol sensors. As example it is possible to have them:

- In the ship where the unmanned aircraft is based, in your own fleet. Time of reaction would be 0 if the operators of the sensors work in the ship, plus the power and amount of missiles would be significantly stronger than what can be carried in a Il-38 or a Il-114.
- In more unmanned patrol aircrafts of the same type based in the same ship or in other ships around.
- In the manned aircrafts and helicopters that operate from the ships if available.
- In land based long range strategic bombers, that knowing where the adversary is, should be supersonic for a fast approach, to move the missiles only if needed, when needed and where needed. If the updated Tu-160 or the new Tu-PAK-DA are designed compatible with sea war, would be perfect for it. Also the Tu-22 can be useful with long range missiles.

For the unmanned maritime patrol aircrafts I would think on VTOL systems that would make them easier to control from outside and would make them useful in a bigger number of ships. I like helicopter type unmanned aircrafts but likely they would not reach as long range. Also some stealth technology would be right for this kind of light, unmanned and subsonic advanced patrol aircrafts.

Russia has one carrier and 5 fleets... even when it introduces its replacements for Mistrals then it will have 3 flat tops.

So when you want to base the replacement for Il-38 and Il-20 with a ship based system no matter how many tons it is are you talking about something that will operate from a carrier or a helicopter landing spot.

If it is the latter then you can deploy them widely but their range and payload and time on station will be seriously limited... to the point of being useless.

I would think the best solution would be a land based aircraft and very long range UCAV and/or Ship based UCAV.

I would use a combination of Il-114 and A-42 because the former would be cheap to operate and would have excellent export value, and the latter would be a capable 6,000km range aircraft with both turobfans and propfan models, but I would also think about short range models operating from ships and also very large unmanned UCAV models flying from Russian airspace in international airspace around the world.

GarryB wrote:Russia has one carrier and 5 fleets... even when it introduces its replacements for Mistrals then it will have 3 flat tops.

So when you want to base the replacement for Il-38 and Il-20 with a ship based system no matter how many tons it is are you talking about something that will operate from a carrier or a helicopter landing spot.

If it is the latter then you can deploy them widely but their range and payload and time on station will be seriously limited... to the point of being useless.

I would think the best solution would be a land based aircraft and very long range UCAV and/or Ship based UCAV.

I would use a combination of Il-114 and A-42 because the former would be cheap to operate and would have excellent export value, and the latter would be a capable 6,000km range aircraft with both turobfans and propfan models, but I would also think about short range models operating from ships and also very large unmanned UCAV models flying from Russian airspace in international airspace around the world.

The point is to have a light unmanned aircraft that can operate from the ships that can operate a Ka-27/.../32, that is an helicopter of 12 tons of maximum takeoff weight. This is why I'm talking of this size betwen 2 to 5 tons with a maximum of 10 tons, and also why Im talking about a VTOL system for landing. I think the size can be enough for advanced sensors, technology to send the information, fuel and some short range weapons.

We would be looking at:

1 Kuznetsov class Aircraft Carrier
3 Kírov class Cruisers
3 Slava class Cruisers
6 Sovremenny class Destroyers
9 Udaloy and Udaloy II class Large Anti-Submarine Ships
6 Admiral Gorshkov class Frigates (under construction)
6 Admiral Grigorovich class Frigates (under construction)

These ships are seriously armed, with some being specifically Anti-Submarine. Over this fleet I think it would be posible to operate about 50 of these light unmanned aircrafts for maritime patrol (some ships with 1, some with 2, with 3,...).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:Russia has one carrier and 5 fleets... even when it introduces its replacements for Mistrals then it will have 3 flat tops.

So when you want to base the replacement for Il-38 and Il-20 with a ship based system no matter how many tons it is are you talking about something that will operate from a carrier or a helicopter landing spot.

If it is the latter then you can deploy them widely but their range and payload and time on station will be seriously limited... to the point of being useless.

I would think the best solution would be a land based aircraft and very long range UCAV and/or Ship based UCAV.

I would use a combination of Il-114 and A-42 because the former would be cheap to operate and would have excellent export value, and the latter would be a capable 6,000km range aircraft with both turobfans and propfan models, but I would also think about short range models operating from ships and also very large unmanned UCAV models flying from Russian airspace in international airspace around the world.

There are 2 points not yet addressed:

1) how much time will taka to build ports, shipyards and finely aircraft carriers? then develop drones ?

2) costs would be exorbitant without real improvement in  functionality justifying even small part of investment

3) Ill-114 or A-42 are not only military asset also large orders to manufacturers help to develop industry (staff, assembly lines, contractors´ network). This boosts chances of export and creates same time high paid jobs.

Besides I see nothing obsolete in Il-114, if so why boeing 737 ASW plane US military introduced in 2013! Boeing is designed in 60´s only improved in time when Il-114 was freshly built...

1) It is not logical to design some aircraft that can not operate in your current plus projected for the short-mid term fleet. No need to build ports, shipyards or aircraft carriers for it. If it will be done it will not be because of the development of a new aircraft for maritime patrol.

2) The point is more to save money than to increase the cost. To save money decreasing very significantly the weight moved constantly for maritime patrol. It means a lot less fuel, less expensive aircrafts, lower loses by accidents, less risk for the life of the crew, lower need of infraestruture on land,...

3) I think Ilyushin has better strengths than this option to go forward succesfully. The Il-76 and its saga is very successful, the future Il-PAK-TA maybe a well funded project, and also I like the future Il-214, that I expect to be a success.

To see the weakness of a project based on the Il-114 for maritime patrol, it is necessary to look at the Triton aircraft included by militarov. I do not think the Russian armed forces will take this way (the Il-114) to solve the replacement of the old maritime patrol aircrafts. It would break the overall doctrine for new warfare of the MoD of the last years. To develop an aircraft from the Il-114 would be a very close case to the 2S31 (developed from the BMP-3). The 2S31 is a good weapon for today, but it is not a weapon that can be in the Russian Armed Forces for 50 years. And the 2S31 is not being ordered. The Il-114, and the BMP-3 are obsolete as a basis for new warfare.

The point is to have a light unmanned aircraft that can operate from the ships that can operate a Ka-27/.../32, that is an helicopter of 12 tons of maximum takeoff weight.

I think you are confusing too many issues here.

I agree that a light unmanned aircraft that can operate from ships able to operate Ka-32 sized helos is a good idea, but we are talking about an aircraft to replace Il-38s and Il-20s... a totally different thing.

This is why I'm talking of this size betwen 2 to 5 tons with a maximum of 10 tons, and also why Im talking about a VTOL system for landing. I think the size can be enough for advanced sensors, technology to send the information, fuel and some short range weapons.

A problem with this is of course where are you going to put all the Ka-32s when you take their place on the ships with unmanned VTOL aircraft... the Ka-32 and related aircraft can already do that job well enough.

If you could manage a 2 ton vehicle that could be operated as well as the Kamov helo then I think it would be even better.

1) It is not logical to design some aircraft that can not operate in your current plus projected for the short-mid term fleet. No need to build ports, shipyards or aircraft carriers for it. If it will be done it will not be because of the development of a new aircraft for maritime patrol.

We are talking about an aircraft that is cheap but has long range that can patrol Russian airspace and shore. The Tu-114 and Tu-214 would be ideal candidates along with a few propfan models of the A-42 to replace the Beriev Mail.

The Il-114, and the BMP-3 are obsolete as a basis for new warfare.

I agree to a point but would argue that an Il-114 is as aerodynamic as any current small turboprop and with new more efficient engines could be perfectly capable of doing the job without needing some from scratch new design. The Il-114 is being upgraded with the intent to use it as a light transport so it will actually be in service.

Your analogy would therefore be that the 2S31 is a successful concept that carries on from the NONA 120mm gun/mortar system and that while the future version wont have a BMP-3 chassis that a 120mm gun/mortar version will be developed for all the future vehicle families... ie armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon. In those forms the 120mm gun/mortar will be in service.

And to be honest I think there is enormous potential for unmanned aerial vehicles to be airship based... made of carbon fibre and synthetic materials that don't burn that will operate at very high heights with excellent views of the surrounding water area with skin surface antenna arrays for enormous radars able to detect and track targets at enormous ranges in a wide range of frequencies using photonic radar.

The point is not to put an unmanned aircraft in the place of a Ka-27/.../32. No. Also the point is not to put an unmanned aircraft over the ship to have it quiet. Unmanned maritime patrol aircrafts are to fly. Taking into account the nature of this kind of aircrafts this would be a minor problem. If there some trouble of space in some ship, is not a question that we can solve from here, but the value of the work of this kind of patrol aircraft for a ship like the listed, would not be small.

GarryB wrote:Your analogy would therefore be that the 2S31 is a successful concept that carries on from the NONA 120mm gun/mortar system and that while the future version wont have a BMP-3 chassis that a 120mm gun/mortar version will be developed for all the future vehicle families... ie armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon. In those forms the 120mm gun/mortar will be in service.

The gun of the 2S31 is like the sensors of the new aircraft based on the Il-114 in my analogy. The gun of the 2S31 is not the reason why is not being ordered. The trouble is in what the 2S31 inherited from the BMP-3. The Russian MoD said it clearly. The same can apply in the case of an aircraft develeped from the Il-114.

As example, also the "ideal" Il-114 would give some trouble. What about the range of the Il-114? It would be a serious downgrade from the current Il-18/38.

GarryB wrote:

The point is to have a light unmanned aircraft that can operate from the ships that can operate a Ka-27/.../32, that is an helicopter of 12 tons of maximum takeoff weight.

I think you are confusing too many issues here.

This comment is not too kind. What I'm confusing in your opinion?

I think you have too many problems to open your mind to different solutions. Most of the times you take the side of the mínimum change, of the minimum technological development and advance for the Russian Armed Forces.

Also I think your respect falls too easily. I will not present here now the entire project complete with all solved, but Im not saying silly things. I'm saying what I would be looking for.

The point is not to put an unmanned aircraft in the place of a Ka-27/.../32. No. Also the point is not to put an unmanned aircraft over the ship to have it quiet. Unmanned maritime patrol aircrafts are to fly. Taking into account the nature of this kind of aircrafts this would be a minor problem. If there some trouble of space in some ship, is not a question that we can solve from here, but the value of the work of this kind of patrol aircraft for a ship like the listed, would not be small.

Then we agree that an unmanned vehicle to operate from even relatively small ships that can carry helos would greatly improve performance and capabilities...

Even if it is an active radar emitter scanning for targets that can be launched and operate up to 200km from the ship it is based on so it does not reveal that ships location... that ship can operate without radars betraying its presence... or with a group of ships with the unmanned vehicle datalinking data back to the ship and even back to HQ via satellite or other platform.

The gun of the 2S31 is like the sensors of the new aircraft based on the Il-114 in my analogy. The gun of the 2S31 is not the reason why is not being ordered. The trouble is in what the 2S31 inherited from the BMP-3. The Russian MoD said it clearly. The same can apply in the case of an aircraft develeped from the Il-114.

As example, also the "ideal" Il-114 would give some trouble. What about the range of the Il-114? It would be a serious downgrade from the current Il-18/38.

I am not sure of the range of the Il-114, but its engines will be very efficient so flight range and flight time probably wont be that much different AFAIK.

Also the Il-114 has been chosen as a future light transport to replace the An-26 and An-24 and of course An-32 so with all new avionics and engines it will have the other advantage of already be in service. The MTA replacement for the AN-12 could be another option for replacement in longer range missions, but as with the Ka-32 I think a lot of the longer range patrolling would be better done with a large heavy long range UAV.

I also think for some regions an A-42 with a propfan would be useful too.

This comment is not too kind. What I'm confusing in your opinion?

I apologise... I was not meaning to offend.

We were talking about a replacement for Il-38 and Il-20 based aircraft in the Navy, but you are talking about ship based replacements with UAVs.

Ie a medium range Land based MPA and land based intel aircraft replaced by all ship based unmanned aircraft.

Ship based MPAs.

I think you have too many problems to open your mind to different solutions. Most of the times you take the side of the mínimum change, of the minimum technological development and advance for the Russian Armed Forces.

I agree I can be very conservative, but I would suggest so is the Russian military... except when they have obviously made plans... an example would be the UKSK launchers making Corvettes and other vessels so powerful... a direct result of their drive for standardisation of weapons, sensors, systems, and propulsion. Not very conservative at all... totally brilliant, but a necessity as they could not afford so many different systems doing very similar things.

I also don't want them to waste money where the returns are not clear.

For instance hypersonic engine technology is something that will be very useful, but trying to make a heavy strategic bomber hypersonic will be enormously expensive, yet it wont make it safe from heavy SAMs. I would say no to hypersonic bombers, but hypersonic cruise missiles will make all cruise missile carriers air and sea based much more powerful without being too expensive.

Experience with hypersonic cruise missiles will lead to breakthroughs in technology that will make hypersonic bombers more attainable... take each step... don't skip steps... skipping steps is dangerous, and very expensive.

Also I think your respect falls too easily. I will not present here now the entire project complete with all solved, but Im not saying silly things. I'm saying what I would be looking for.

I would like to say I am just expressing my opinion and giving reasons for my opinion... I am not judging you or anyone, and if you felt I was then again I apologise.

There is no right or wrong... as the US military shows some countries have blank cheques if they can fool the right people that the results will do as advertised... I just don't want to see Russia spend a huge fortune developing a new technology that is too expensive to deploy in numbers large enough to actually be effective.

I think dozens of hundreds of 2 ton drones that can support ships is a good idea and would be well worth the money spent on it, but I don't think they will replace manned aircraft for the general coastal patrol mission any time soon.

I think the Il-114 is a good idea because it is getting a full upgrade from scratch and will enter service in numbers to replace old model Antonovs.

You are free to disagree with my opinions as I am with yours but I do not want to say you are wrong and I am right or the other way around because quite frankly there is no right and wrong.

GarryB wrote:We were talking about a replacement for Il-38 and Il-20 based aircraft in the Navy, but you are talking about ship based replacements with UAVs.

Ie a medium range Land based MPA and land based intel aircraft replaced by all ship based unmanned aircraft.

Ship based MPAs.

For me here is part of the difference. My habit (it is a need for me) is to look at the work that must be done with open mind to see different options of doing the work.

In a process of design the most important part is the work that must be done. In this case the maritime patrol and the antiship/antisubmarine roles.

For the maritime patrol, the important part is to have the sensors moved by the right places, to be able of analize the information, and to be able of giving answer to the threats. It is possible to assure it by different ways? It is likely, and in the process of design every way must be checked seriously to find the best of them.

For the antiship/antisubmarine role the important part is to have the weapons in the right place at the right moment. This right place and moment are always the same than in the case of the maritime patrol? The answer is no. In this case the weapons (missiles, torpedoes,...) need to be moved where the threat is, when the adversary is, but to have them traveling with the sensors is not efficient economically.

55-60 year ago, without long range missiles that can be fired from the ships, without fast supersonic strategic bombers, without a share of communications that allows to analize the information outside the aircrafts, like si being done now with the satellites, and allows to have a fast answer, and without unmanned aircrafts that allow to small aircrafts to have a lot bigger range, surely it was a need to solve both roles together with the same aircraft, but today maybe not. Then the engineers at charge, need to be open to find separate solutions for the maritime patrol and the antiship/antisubmarine patrol, not only to check the same solution that solved the problem 55-60 years ago. The Il-18/.../38 has been a success, but its way to do the work may not be the best for the next 50 years. The people of the Russian MoD that is in charge of the analisys of the options for new weapons and for the replacement of the oldest warfare can not be conservative by this way, and I think is not being, this people is being audacious and innovative.

If something is considered good and scientifically doable, it is necessary to pursue it. The solution will come, and will come faster if the work begins. The engineers work not always for short term solutions.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote: If something is considered good and scientifically doable, it is necessary to pursue it. The solution will come, and will come faster if the work begins. The engineers work not always for short term solutions.

regardless on costs? then good luck!

The cost affects to the time required to reach the solution. Maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years, maybe 20 years or maybe more. The costs need to be divided in affordable parts and also if the time is very long, the progressive technological advance can be divided in successive generations of military warfare that include improvements that are closer every time to the final result.

in the related to the maritime patol options, we have flying the fist umnanned aircrafts doing maritime patrol (like the land based american Triton), that maybe not able still to do the entire work, but the time expected for them being able to do the entire work of maritime patrol would be less than 10 years in my opinion, maybe around 5 years. Also I expect this kind of vehicles saving costs compared to the way of doing the work used today. Then, I expect this coming fast.

In adition to the big drones based on ships for maritime patrol, also I expect to see multiple models of smaller drones (some very light) that can operate from almost every military ship, with lower ranges and without fire power, only for observation. Doing the things by the right way, surely land based manned or unmanned maritime patrol aircrafts will not be necessary for maritime patrol work in the future.

For me here is part of the difference. My habit (it is a need for me) is to look at the work that must be done with open mind to see different options of doing the work.

There are often several choices available, but if you ignore the cost then you might find yourself out of budget for important things with money spent on things you might like but do not need.

In a process of design the most important part is the work that must be done. In this case the maritime patrol and the antiship/antisubmarine roles.

My view in this regard takes into account the large amount of money spent to create the Sea Dragon ASW system... a system they are finally getting into service with the introduction of Il-38SDs into service now.

I would say it is now a mature and working system that would never fit on any 2 ton platform... land or sea based... horizontal take off or vertical take off.

For the maritime patrol, the important part is to have the sensors moved by the right places, to be able of analize the information, and to be able of giving answer to the threats. It is possible to assure it by different ways? It is likely, and in the process of design every way must be checked seriously to find the best of them.

I agree, and I think a variety of systems cans supply the answer... there are already underwater sensor arrays and land based over the horizon radar, and of course ships and subs and aircraft and satellites. They are planning to replace the Il-38 and Il-20... but I think their replacement will include shifting some of the roles to other platforms, including ship and sub based unmanned aircraft platforms but also under water and surface going unmanned vessels too.

For the antiship/antisubmarine role the important part is to have the weapons in the right place at the right moment. This right place and moment are always the same than in the case of the maritime patrol? The answer is no. In this case the weapons (missiles, torpedoes,...) need to be moved where the threat is, when the adversary is, but to have them traveling with the sensors is not efficient economically.

Well yes and no. with the current and new Corvettes carrying either UKSK or Medvedka then they don't need to get within 40km of the target subs when they are detected... mach 2.5 ballistic rockets will deliver torpedoes to the target location rapidly, but when patroling empty sea with no friendly ships or subs in the area the patrol aircraft needs to carry its own weapons like cheap depth charges or torpedoes.

For surface vessels then the reach of vessels (ships and subs with UKSK launchers) is much better, but it would still be useful for the MPA to be able to fire on targets of opportunity.

The introduction of weapons like Morfei will likely change things a bit... the lock on after launch IIR seeker means the potential for subs to engage air targets while submerged, but as it will also be used as an anti munition weapon against anti ship missiles and guided air to ground weapons it could also be mounted on MPA and UCAVs for self protection from enemy attack via missile.

Fitted with Sea Dragon and President-S an Il-114 would be very well protected from enemy weapons yet able to detect targets at extended ranges and either attack those targets immediately with missiles, torpedoes, and depth charges, or pass the data via satellite or datalink.

For very long range MPA then a UAV would be better suited... even a large tethered airship could be ideal for the role... I would need to see what they can do with the technology.

The people of the Russian MoD that is in charge of the analisys of the options for new weapons and for the replacement of the oldest warfare can not be conservative by this way, and I think is not being, this people is being audacious and innovative.

I agree, but they also have to be practical. An example is supersonic transport aircraft. Air transport is already relatively quick, but making it supersonic just makes it orders of magnitude harder and most importantly even a mach 2 transport is not safe from interception so it doesn't make them safer.

I agree with you that more unmanned platforms need to be integrated into the Russian Navy as a force multiplier, and that ship based UAVs would be valuable... I believe they are very popularly used in the far north to look at the ice ahead of the icebreakers to find the best path to take.

Larger drones would be useful for search and rescue and anti sub work and a range of other roles.

If something is considered good and scientifically doable, it is necessary to pursue it. The solution will come, and will come faster if the work begins. The engineers work not always for short term solutions.

I agree, but you also have to take things in steps... you can't just jump to building death stars... lets perfect hypersonic missiles before looking at using the scramjet technology to make interceptors much faster... and then look at hypersonic bombers and other large aircraft....

In terms of UAVs at sea then add them to the family of systems, but Sea Dragon has been developed and I bet it wont fit on any 5 ton UAV.

Put it in Il-114s and A-42s and use ship based UAVs to extend their views/reach.

Use a super big UAV for MPA to replace the Tu-142s... give it a new propfan engine being developed for the PAK DA, and perhaps adapted to the A-42.

I am all for innovation... but it has to be practical and realistic and part of being practical and realistic is being affordable... and also earning money for export...

In the latter case I would develop a shipborne AWACS aircraft that can be used as a land based AWACS for smaller customers as a force multiplier that does not cost as much as an A-100 or A-50M does.

The PVO could buy a few and gap fillers too.

GarryB wrote:

For the antiship/antisubmarine role the important part is to have the weapons in the right place at the right moment. This right place and moment are always the same than in the case of the maritime patrol? The answer is no. In this case the weapons (missiles, torpedoes,...) need to be moved where the threat is, when the adversary is, but to have them traveling with the sensors is not efficient economically.

Well yes and no. with the current and new Corvettes carrying either UKSK or Medvedka then they don't need to get within 40km of the target subs when they are detected... mach 2.5 ballistic rockets will deliver torpedoes to the target location rapidly, but when patroling empty sea with no friendly ships or subs in the area the patrol aircraft needs to carry its own weapons like cheap depth charges or torpedoes.

For surface vessels then the reach of vessels (ships and subs with UKSK launchers) is much better, but it would still be useful for the MPA to be able to fire on targets of opportunity.

The introduction of weapons like Morfei will likely change things a bit... the lock on after launch IIR seeker means the potential for subs to engage air targets while submerged, but as it will also be used as an anti munition weapon against anti ship missiles and guided air to ground weapons it could also be mounted on MPA and UCAVs for self protection from enemy attack via missile.

Fitted with Sea Dragon and President-S an Il-114 would be very well protected from enemy weapons yet able to detect targets at extended ranges and either attack those targets immediately with missiles, torpedoes, and depth charges, or pass the data via satellite or datalink.

For very long range MPA then a UAV would be better suited... even a large tethered airship could be ideal for the role... I would need to see what they can do with the technology.

My comment compatible with your argument. No reason to say no. The missiles must come to the place where the threat is, when the threat is to hit the threat, of course taking into account the part of the way that them make self propelled.

GarryB wrote:

If something is considered good and scientifically doable, it is necessary to pursue it. The solution will come, and will come faster if the work begins. The engineers work not always for short term solutions.

I agree, but you also have to take things in steps... you can't just jump to building death stars... lets perfect hypersonic missiles before looking at using the scramjet technology to make interceptors much faster... and then look at hypersonic bombers and other large aircraft....

In terms of UAVs at sea then add them to the family of systems, but Sea Dragon has been developed and I bet it wont fit on any 5 ton UAV.

Put it in Il-114s and A-42s and use ship based UAVs to extend their views/reach.

Use a super big UAV for MPA to replace the Tu-142s... give it a new propfan engine being developed for the PAK DA, and perhaps adapted to the A-42.

I am all for innovation... but it has to be practical and realistic and part of being practical and realistic is being affordable... and also earning money for export...

In the latter case I would develop a shipborne AWACS aircraft that can be used as a land based AWACS for smaller customers as a force multiplier that does not cost as much as an A-100 or A-50M does.

The PVO could buy a few and gap fillers too.

My previous comment just is talking about the way to afford long term projects. The Russian MoD has 2 of them now, the Tu-PAK-DA and the Il-PAK-TA. In the case of the first, the Tu-160 is being recovered for production as a gap filler likely, while the new strategic bomber is developed. I defend to pursue both projects with all the expected technological improvements.

But the case of unmanned aircrafts based on ships for maritime patrol is not a project of research and development for the long term. This is only an application of a technology that is real and available today, and need only some improvements to work this way. Today's unmanned aircrafts working on ships are these gap fillers. I expect them (the future models) to assume the entire role in a few years.

GarryB wrote:

For me here is part of the difference. My habit (it is a need for me) is to look at the work that must be done with open mind to see different options of doing the work.

There are often several choices available, but if you ignore the cost then you might find yourself out of budget for important things with money spent on things you might like but do not need.

In a process of design the most important part is the work that must be done. In this case the maritime patrol and the antiship/antisubmarine roles.

My view in this regard takes into account the large amount of money spent to create the Sea Dragon ASW system... a system they are finally getting into service with the introduction of Il-38SDs into service now.

I would say it is now a mature and working system that would never fit on any 2 ton platform... land or sea based... horizontal take off or vertical take off.

I talked in successive comments about cost.

As explained previously I expect a favourable cost analysis for the unmanned aircrafts for maritime patrol vs the manned aircrafts. These are the costs where I see an improvement:

- The cost to develop an aircraft (the aircraft itself) of about 5 tons is significantly lower than the cost to develop a manned aircraft of about 25 tons like the Il-114 or about 50 tons like the Il-38. Even being VTOL.
- The cost by unit of the aircrafts would be significantly lower. The requirements to make the aircrafts habitable make the aircrafts significantly more expensive.
- The cost of the equipment that the crew need to read the sensors would be lower thanks to be more free of requirements of size and weight to be inside the aircraft.
- The operational cost would be a lot lower in the case of unmanned aircrafts, thanks to lower consum of fuel, and thanks to lower loses on accidents (less material ruined)
- Lower costs on the crew. The crew needed would be about the same (the unmanned aircrafts also need pilots and people to analize the information but would travel in the ship instead than in the aircraft). The cost would be lower thanks to have less risk of accident (lower costs of medical assistance, lower cost on pensions by death in accident, lower need of rescue teams, or lower costs in insurance).
- The need of infrastructure on land for the Russian Naval Air Force would be lower in the case of unmanned aircrafts based on ships.

Other costs would remain about the same:

- The technology to send the information of the sensors from the unmanned aircrafts to the ships existing today surely would be enough for the proposed solution.
- The unmanned technology begins not from 0. Surely the current software and hardware for navigation would be enough for this kind of unmanned VTOL aircraft, but surely will be significantly improved in the following years, with this solution for maritime patrol or without it.

And the cost would be increased in:

- It would be needed a bigger effort to develop sensors. what would be very positive, since it is the key question in maritime patrol. The surplus in other chapters would allow to a decent improvement in some years.
- It is possible that this change would require some strategic bombers more in the fleet. Taking into account that there is a good number of them in the reserve (Tu-22 and others), plus the upgraded Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA are coming, surely is not a very expensive requirement.

With this overview I do not expect an unfavourable cost analysis for the unmanned option. Surely it would be favourable.

- The cost to develop an aircraft (the aircraft itself) of about 5 tons is significantly lower than the cost to develop a manned aircraft of about 25 tons like the Il-114 or about 50 tons like the Il-38. Even being VTOL.

I would think the opposite... cramming even part of the capability of a 25 ton aircraft into the frame of a 5 ton aircraft would be extremely difficult and expensive... and giving it a power to weight ratio to allow even basic VTOL capacity would further ruin its potential performance... the obvious conflict of lots of lift and power to get airborne at low speeds conflicts with low power consumption for long range and long loiter time as well as weapons payload...

UAVs are fundamentally more expendable than manned aircraft and will likely not last as long operationally.

Maritime patrol of Russian Naval territory does not need to be ship based... the territory to be patrolled is not going to move away from Russia any time soon.

- The cost by unit of the aircrafts would be significantly lower. The requirements to make the aircrafts habitable make the aircrafts significantly more expensive.

The value of having people on board who can take decisions and indeed save the platform in case of attack is greater than the few dollars saved not needing seats and air supplies and screens onboard.

The redundancy needed to ensure it does not just fly into something means less money is saved than you might think.

UAVs are still not mature enough to replace manned aircraft in some roles.

- The cost of the equipment that the crew need to read the sensors would be lower thanks to be more free of requirements of size and weight to be inside the aircraft.

The lack of onboard interpretation of collected data means there is a need for transmission of raw data to another platform to be processed... which will reveal the location of the UAV.

- The operational cost would be a lot lower in the case of unmanned aircrafts, thanks to lower consum of fuel, and thanks to lower loses on accidents (less material ruined)

Operational costs will actually be higher as no other branch will need such a UAV, and being unmanned the chances of crashes is higher, not lower than a manned aircraft. An Il-114 based aircraft will have commonality with other Il-114s in service used to replace the An-24, An-26, and An-32s currently in service in the light transport role.

- Lower costs on the crew. The crew needed would be about the same (the unmanned aircrafts also need pilots and people to analize the information but would travel in the ship instead than in the aircraft). The cost would be lower thanks to have less risk of accident (lower costs of medical assistance, lower cost on pensions by death in accident, lower need of rescue teams, or lower costs in insurance).
- The need of infrastructure on land for the Russian Naval Air Force would be lower in the case of unmanned aircrafts based on ships.

Actually the costs of operating MPAs from ship would be much higher than from land... anything operating from a ship costs more and adds to the crew size... a ships endurance is generally measured by the amount of food it can carry for its crew... increase the crew size and reduce the endurance of the ship.

More importantly a ship operating in bad weather would not be able to launch or recover aircraft.

- The technology to send the information of the sensors from the unmanned aircrafts to the ships existing today surely would be enough for the proposed solution.

The Ka-31 already performs in such a way, but it is not ideal.

And an Il-114 MPA would be faster than a VTOL 5 ton UAV and have much better operational range.

- The unmanned technology begins not from 0. Surely the current software and hardware for navigation would be enough for this kind of unmanned VTOL aircraft, but surely will be significantly improved in the following years, with this solution for maritime patrol or without it.

AFAIK the Soviets had excellent technology for landing manned VSTOL aircraft on carriers, but as far as I am aware they have no UAVs that use that technology at the moment.

- It would be needed a bigger effort to develop sensors. what would be very positive, since it is the key question in maritime patrol. The surplus in other chapters would allow to a decent improvement in some years.

I suspect technology development in surface radar arrays and photonic radar elements would greatly improve performance while reducing weight and introducing 360 degree arrays which would be optimal for an MPA and indeed AWACS aircraft.

- It is possible that this change would require some strategic bombers more in the fleet. Taking into account that there is a good number of them in the reserve (Tu-22 and others), plus the upgraded Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA are coming, surely is not a very expensive requirement.

Well actually the Tu-142 is still a very capable platform and with two of the new engines being developed for the PAK DA would be a very capable aircraft... it would lose some top end speed but have a huge increase in range and loiter time with plenty of space on board for operators of all sorts of unmanned aircraft operating nearby.

The production of Tu-160s and introduction of PAK DAs means lots of Tu-22M3Ms and Tu-95MSMs will become available... new engines for the new Tu-160s could be adapted to the Backfires and new engines developed for the PAK DA could be adapted to the Bears... the Backfires with hypersonic Zircon anti ship missiles and Bears as MPAs with depth charges and torpedoes and commanding UAVs...

For ships I would suggest the best 5 ton UAV for a ship would be an airship... able to hover... take off and land vertically... make it out of carbon fibre and largely fire proof with a fuel cell on board to produce hydrogen from water so it could operate at very high altitudes with a radar array on its lower skin. Some of the time it could operate tethered to its ship, and other times it could go up to 30,000m or higher and act as a radio relay and scan enormous distances with its radar and electronic equipment.

Make its structure fold down when not filled with hydrogen so it can be very compact when non operational. When needed use the fuel cell and water to fill it with hydrogen...

GarryB wrote:

- The cost to develop an aircraft (the aircraft itself) of about 5 tons is significantly lower than the cost to develop a manned aircraft of about 25 tons like the Il-114 or about 50 tons like the Il-38. Even being VTOL.

I would think the opposite... cramming even part of the capability of a 25 ton aircraft into the frame of a 5 ton aircraft would be extremely difficult and expensive... and giving it a power to weight ratio to allow even basic VTOL capacity would further ruin its potential performance... the obvious conflict of lots of lift and power to get airborne at low speeds conflicts with low power consumption for long range and long loiter time as well as weapons payload...

UAVs are fundamentally more expendable than manned aircraft and will likely not last as long operationally.

Maritime patrol of Russian Naval territory does not need to be ship based... the territory to be patrolled is not going to move away from Russia any time soon.

This point was about the aircraft itself, as a mechanical structure (without sensors, without navigation hardware and software, without the equipment to send the information or without the equipment that can need a crew to read the data of the sensors inside the aircraft. This cost is significantly lower in the case of the unmanned aircraft since it has a lot lower mechanical and safety requirements. Also it has a lot lower size and weight.

Other questions are considered in the following points.

GarryB wrote:

- The cost by unit of the aircrafts would be significantly lower. The requirements to make the aircrafts habitable make the aircrafts significantly more expensive.

The value of having people on board who can take decisions and indeed save the platform in case of attack is greater than the few dollars saved not needing seats and air supplies and screens onboard.

The redundancy needed to ensure it does not just fly into something means less money is saved than you might think.

UAVs are still not mature enough to replace manned aircraft in some roles.

Then it is necessary to put people inside the satellites to see them working well enoug? The satellites are UAVs in fact working at high altitude. I think you are giving too much value to this point. The need to save the platform is a lot lower if it is unhabited, and if it is smaller and cheaper. Also an Il-114 based aircraft or an Il-38 are not the best platforms to scape to attacks.

A big effort is being done, not only in aerial vehicles, also in armored vehicles on land (like the T-14 Armate), to have the mínimum people possible working inside the war machines, because they are not totally safe. This is a constant trend going forward, because arguments against it are not consistent enough.

GarryB wrote:

- The cost of the equipment that the crew need to read the sensors would be lower thanks to be more free of requirements of size and weight to be inside the aircraft.

The lack of onboard interpretation of collected data means there is a need for transmission of raw data to another platform to be processed... which will reveal the location of the UAV.

This is other question that was considered in another of the following points.

GarryB wrote:

- The operational cost would be a lot lower in the case of unmanned aircrafts, thanks to lower consum of fuel, and thanks to lower loses on accidents (less material ruined)

Operational costs will actually be higher as no other branch will need such a UAV, and being unmanned the chances of crashes is higher, not lower than a manned aircraft. An Il-114 based aircraft will have commonality with other Il-114s in service used to replace the An-24, An-26, and An-32s currently in service in the light transport role.

Operational costs are the cost to operate the aircraft. This is not related with the use of the aircraft for other applications, that we can discuss in other point.

GarryB wrote:

- Lower costs on the crew. The crew needed would be about the same (the unmanned aircrafts also need pilots and people to analize the information but would travel in the ship instead than in the aircraft). The cost would be lower thanks to have less risk of accident (lower costs of medical assistance, lower cost on pensions by death in accident, lower need of rescue teams, or lower costs in insurance).
- The need of infrastructure on land for the Russian Naval Air Force would be lower in the case of unmanned aircrafts based on ships.

Actually the costs of operating MPAs from ship would be much higher than from land... anything operating from a ship costs more and adds to the crew size... a ships endurance is generally measured by the amount of food it can carry for its crew... increase the crew size and reduce the endurance of the ship.

More importantly a ship operating in bad weather would not be able to launch or recover aircraft.

The crew of the smaller ships mentioned is 200. Sovremenny destroyers have 350, Slava class cruisers about 500, and we are talking about 6-8 persons by aircraft. The effect would be of about a 2-3%, a 4% at worst. I doubt it would affect to the endurance of the ships. It seems to me that this is in the range of problems that can be solved without a big effort.

GarryB wrote:

- The technology to send the information of the sensors from the unmanned aircrafts to the ships existing today surely would be enough for the proposed solution.

The Ka-31 already performs in such a way, but it is not ideal.

Surely we would find the most advanced of these systems working in the most modern satellites.

GarryB wrote:

- The unmanned technology begins not from 0. Surely the current software and hardware for navigation would be enough for this kind of unmanned VTOL aircraft, but surely will be significantly improved in the following years, with this solution for maritime patrol or without it.

AFAIK the Soviets had excellent technology for landing manned VSTOL aircraft on carriers, but as far as I am aware they have no UAVs that use that technology at the moment.

There are many UAVs that use VTOL systems today. Most of them are unmanned helicopters, but also we begin to see some projects that want to combine the VTOL advantages with the range, speed and altitude that can reach fixed wing aircrafts. This would be one example:



This is another example of bigger size (7.6 tons VTOL). In this case it is a manned aircraft:



The solution proposed would be closer to the first option than to the second in internal and external structure or aerodinamical ballance (without habitability requirements). As you can see it is something becoming real.

I would like to note that the range of the AgustaWestland AW609 is better than the range of the Il-114. Something unmanned would have significantly better range, plus being shipborne does the range begin to count from the ship (that can be very far of the coast) and not from the land base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-114

GarryB wrote:

- It would be needed a bigger effort to develop sensors. what would be very positive, since it is the key question in maritime patrol. The surplus in other chapters would allow to a decent improvement in some years.

I suspect technology development in surface radar arrays and photonic radar elements would greatly improve performance while reducing weight and introducing 360 degree arrays which would be optimal for an MPA and indeed AWACS aircraft.

Both ways will be developed.

GarryB wrote:

- It is possible that this change would require some strategic bombers more in the fleet. Taking into account that there is a good number of them in the reserve (Tu-22 and others), plus the upgraded Tu-160 and the Tu-PAK-DA are coming, surely is not a very expensive requirement.

Well actually the Tu-142 is still a very capable platform and with two of the new engines being developed for the PAK DA would be a very capable aircraft... it would lose some top end speed but have a huge increase in range and loiter time with plenty of space on board for operators of all sorts of unmanned aircraft operating nearby.

The production of Tu-160s and introduction of PAK DAs means lots of Tu-22M3Ms and Tu-95MSMs will become available... new engines for the new Tu-160s could be adapted to the Backfires and new engines developed for the PAK DA could be adapted to the Bears... the Backfires with hypersonic Zircon anti ship missiles and Bears as MPAs with depth charges and torpedoes and commanding UAVs...

For ships I would suggest the best 5 ton UAV for a ship would be an airship... able to hover... take off and land vertically... make it out of carbon fibre and largely fire proof with a fuel cell on board to produce hydrogen from water so it could operate at very high altitudes with a radar array on its lower skin. Some of the time it could operate tethered to its ship, and other times it could go up to 30,000m or higher and act as a radio relay and scan enormous distances with its radar and electronic equipment.

Make its structure fold down when not filled with hydrogen so it can be very compact when non operational. When needed use the fuel cell and water to fill it with hydrogen...

I was not talking about the Tu-PAK-DA as a subsonice aircraft, but well this is other topic.

This point was about the aircraft itself, as a mechanical structure (without sensors, without navigation hardware and software, without the equipment to send the information or without the equipment that can need a crew to read the data of the sensors inside the aircraft. This cost is significantly lower in the case of the unmanned aircraft since it has a lot lower mechanical and safety requirements. Also it has a lot lower size and weight.

By reducing redundancy and safety system on board an aircraft, you do make it cheaper and simpler, but an MPA has the most computer intensive job in the military... collecting and processing enormous amounts of raw data takes a lot of computers and of course large expensive sensors to collect the data in the first place...

The aircraft themselves will be very expensive whether there are people on board, the point is that an MPA will never be disposable, and removing redundancy and safety equipment just makes them less likely to complete a mission in difficult situations.

Sure it means you can send them into more dangerous situations, but if they are shot down or just lost then you might as well have not sent it because when it is lost you get no data and it is the data it collects that you defend yourself with. A crewed aircraft might have made it back and delivered data that might have saved your ships entering a trap, or getting the chance to create a trap for the enemy.

the cost to build might be lower but higher attrition in peace time and war makes them rather more expensive.

Then it is necessary to put people inside the satellites to see them working well enoug?

If satellites could do everything there would have been no role for MPAs.

Satellites are good because only a few things can threaten them, but for finding an enemy sub they are not so useful.

The satellites are UAVs in fact working at high altitude. I think you are giving too much value to this point. The need to save the platform is a lot lower if it is unhabited, and if it is smaller and cheaper

If you could do the same job with a satellite in space that you can do with an MPA then why do all navies of the world today continue to buy MPAs?

MPAs will be expensive whether they have people on board or not. Computers and sensitive sensors are expensive.

Also an Il-114 based aircraft or an Il-38 are not the best platforms to scape to attacks.

But most of the time they just patrol Russian air space looking for problems/threats... something they would not be able to do 500km above the surface.

MPAs have a range of sensors and systems to detect Subs and ships, but some are good for pinpointing subs (MAD) and others can detect their presence from further away (radar/EO).

Sometimes a radar contact... a 6mm bulge in the sea surface attracts the aircrafts attention and it uses sonar bouys to triangulate the likely position of the sub and then the MAD stinger lets it know the precise location for depth charge attack.... can't do that with a fighter or a satellite.

This is a constant trend going forward, because arguments against it are not consistent enough.

I agree unmanned platforms have appeal... but for the moment I think a decent manned MPA that might operate with high flying or low flying unmanned aircraft would be a much better solution to the problem.

An airship could land on the water surface and use a dipping sonar to locate subs... it can check different depths through different layers that a sonobouy would just bounce its signal off of... it could even drop depth charges and torpedoes... disposable sonobouys are very expensive but a dipping sonar can be fully reusable, so while it is expensive too you can just keep using it.

The crew of the smaller ships mentioned is 200. Sovremenny destroyers have 350, Slava class cruisers about 500, and we are talking about 6-8 persons by aircraft. The effect would be of about a 2-3%, a 4% at worst. I doubt it would affect to the endurance of the ships. It seems to me that this is in the range of problems that can be solved without a big effort.

So food and water for an extra 6-8 people, plus at least 2 or more 5 ton aircraft plus fuel and space and ordinance for everything, plus a control deck to operate them from... I don't think that would be nothing, and it would certainly effect helicopter operations too.

Surely we would find the most advanced of these systems working in the most modern satellites.

The Ka-31 is not ideal, but it exists because the data it can collect is useful enough to warrant the cost. If the Kuznetsov had a catapault there would be a proper fixed wing AWACS or at least AEW aircraft and the Ka-31 would not exist.

As technology improves then performance of helos an UAVs will improve but when the next gen Russian carriers arrive with EM cats then a fixed wing AEW will be developed... simply because its time on station, its operating altitude, and flight range and radar performance will be superior to anything a 5 ton UAV or 12 ton helo can manage.

UAVs and Helos will improve but it is always easier to make a heavy fixed wing aircraft more capable... the only advantage a helo has is dipping sonar and airships can do that better too.