ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

GarryB wrote:

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.

It is obvious that the cost of an aircraft as a mechanical structure of the size of the Il-112, is bigger than the cost of an unmanned aircraft of 5 tons that need not to meed the requirements of habitability.

It means not that the aircraft will not have sensors, navigation hardware and software and the rest of the things, but its cost was considered in other points of my comment.

The role of the MPA will continue being of high technological level, but the computers related to this work need not to travel inside the aircraft with the sensors. If you have a competent system to send the information of the sensors, to lose the aircraft means not to lose the data, like in the case of the current big MPA aircrafts. This is how the satellites and other spacial material works today.

It is not efficient (economically) to mix the maritime patrol with other roles more related to combat. It is not necessary to have a big amount of weapons traveling constatly with the sensors while them are doing their job, and also it is not necessary to risk the expensive sensors involved in combat operations that are not of a "fire and run" nature. The work of the sensors is "to see", not to get involved in combat operations.

In the 50s of the previous century it was necessary to mix both roles (maritime patrol and antiship/antisubmarine war) because it was no way for other long range attacks and it was not the chance of coming to the place of the threat in a reasonable time. But the things changed, and other ways to do this work must be considered.

GarryB wrote:

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.

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.

I mean if it is necessary to put people inside the satellites to do their current work, not for maritime patrol work, since the satellites are in fact unmanned aircrafts working at high altitute and we see as obvious and natural that they have not a crew inside. The proposed solution for the MPA role is basically the same. It is to apply the philosophy of the satellites to the aircrafts that need to do the maritime patrol work. This is something technically doable and it is coming.

The proposed solution to do this work is not to use fighters or satellites, it is to use a mix of unmanned aircrafts for maritime patrol and weapons based on ships, based on other available shipborne aircrafts, and on strategic bombers based on land to do the combat operations related.

GarryB wrote:

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.

It would be a small relocation in relative terms (for ships of big size like these). I would not expect that it would affect to the endurance of the ships. I would expect an important benefit for the ships in their capabilities of maritime patrol, but I would expect a minor effect on the life of the ships in other issues.

GarryB wrote:

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.

Today it is necessary to think in a solution that can remain the next 50 years. The aircrafts of the size of the Il-38 have a long life of service in part because they are expensive. Today the complete role of maritime patrol is not being done entirely by unmanned aircrafts, but we are not far from it. It can come in 5-10 years. I do not think we are at 20 years from this even in the case of the research and development going slow (it is going fast). A new maritime patrol aircraft based on the Il-112/114 adopted as a solution to close the gap, would be still in the armed forces long time after the new solution comes and the gap exist not. It has a big risk of becoming redundant and unuseful in early stages of its service life.

eehnie wrote:
It is obvious that the cost of an aircraft as a mechanical structure of the size of the Il-112, is bigger than the cost of an unmanned aircraft of 5 tons that need not to meed the requirements of habitability.

obvious for whom? I am interested how do you calculate this cost for unmanned and manned platforms?

eehnie wrote:
Today it is necessary to think in a solution that can remain the next 50 years. The aircrafts of the size of the Il-38 have a long life of service in part because they are expensive. Today the complete role of maritime patrol is not being done entirely by unmanned aircrafts, but we are not far from it. It can come in 5-10 years. I do not think we are at 20 years from this even in the case of the research and development going slow (it is going fast). A new maritime patrol aircraft based on the Il-112/114 adopted as a solution to close the gap, would be still in the armed forces long time after the new solution comes and the gap exist not. It has a big risk of becoming redundant and unuseful in early stages of its service life.

tiny but....you not gonna survive 10 years without investing in economy especially in high tech goodies lik e Il-114/Il-112? i appreciate your elaboration on topic.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
It is obvious that the cost of an aircraft as a mechanical structure of the size of the Il-112, is bigger than the cost of an unmanned aircraft of 5 tons that need not to meed the requirements of habitability.

obvious for whom? I am interested how do you calculate this cost for unmanned and manned platforms?

eehnie wrote:
Today it is necessary to think in a solution that can remain the next 50 years. The aircrafts of the size of the Il-38 have a long life of service in part because they are expensive. Today the complete role of maritime patrol is not being done entirely by unmanned aircrafts, but we are not far from it. It can come in 5-10 years. I do not think we are at 20 years from this even in the case of the research and development going slow (it is going fast). A new maritime patrol aircraft based on the Il-112/114 adopted as a solution to close the gap, would be still in the armed forces long time after the new solution comes and the gap exist not. It has a big risk of becoming redundant and unuseful in early stages of its service life.

tiny but....you not gonna survive 10 years without investing in economy especially in high tech goodies lik e Il-114/Il-112? i appreciate your elaboration on topic.

About the first question the most obvious part of the lower cost of the mechanical structure of the aircraft of 5 tons compared to aircraft of 20 or 50 tons comes from the size.

Lower size means less material by aircraft, means also less energy to give them the right forms, and means lower requirements for the line of production (smaller machines, lower number of workers,...). All them is reflected in the prize by unit of the aircrafts of every size. Manned aircrafts.

The effect of being unmanned only makes cheaper the mechanical structure of an aircraft, basically thanks to need not to meet the requirements related with the habitability of the platform. As example, in an unmanned aircraft it is not necessary to keep the internal temperature in the necessary range for humans. Other example, the unmanned aircrafts need not to meet the strong requirements related to the safety of the crew, like crash tests. And one example more, the aerodynamic balance of the aircraft is easier since the aircraft needs not to keep internal space with human dimenssions for the crew.

About the second question, the Russian armed forces are involved today in a good number of projects with high need of investment. I like the projects of the MiG-41, the Tu-PAK-DA, the Yak-135 (for training purposes), the IL-PAK-TA and the entire bench of land and sea warfare of every type that is under development. I like all these projects and the overall philosophy that is being applied.

Also I expect heavy investment on navigation hardware and software for unmanned warfare, that in their air variants are useful for unmanned aircrafts, helicopters, satellites, guided missiles and other guided ammunition.

About the first question the most obvious part of the lower cost of the mechanical structure of the aircraft of 5 tons compared to aircraft of 20 or 50 tons comes from the size.

I don't agree, an aircraft can be as complex as you want to make it and size or weight does not really come in to it.

For a record breaking aircraft for long endurance flights an aircraft could be very large but mainly consist of one really big heavy fuel tank full of fuel, while a much smaller aircraft might have lots of different roles requiring lots of different components.

I would suggest a UAV designed to perform the roles of an MPA would need to be every bit as complex as an MPA... just minus the human support components and some of the redundancy of systems.

That reduced redundancy will lead to more loses which should make it more expensive, not less so to operate.

Lower size means less material by aircraft, means also less energy to give them the right forms, and means lower requirements for the line of production (smaller machines, lower number of workers,...). All them is reflected in the prize by unit of the aircrafts of every size. Manned aircrafts.

Using less material to build does not make it cheaper to operate when it is 100 times more likely to crash in peace time and 1,000 times more likely to get shot down in combat because its evasive manouvering capability is limited.

The effect of being unmanned only makes cheaper the mechanical structure of an aircraft, basically thanks to need not to meet the requirements related with the habitability of the platform. As example, in an unmanned aircraft it is not necessary to keep the internal temperature in the necessary range for humans.

Performance requirements for electronics are generally not that much different from those for people.... the US lost lots of UAVs in Afghanistan because of electronics getting wet at ground level and that moisture freezing at altitude.

[qutoe]Other example, the unmanned aircrafts need not to meet the strong requirements related to the safety of the crew, like crash tests. [/quote]

Reduced redundancy means higher attrition rate... which is expensive with the sort of electronics and sensors an unmanned MPA would need to do a decent job.

And one example more, the aerodynamic balance of the aircraft is easier since the aircraft needs not to keep internal space with human dimenssions for the crew.

Generally fuel levels are used to maintain cg balance... the impact of a human crew on cg would be minimal... having them at the front of the aircraft moves the cg closer to the centre of the aircraft, which is a good thing for balance.

About the second question, the Russian armed forces are involved today in a good number of projects with high need of investment. For the long term, the Tu-PAK-DA and the IL-PAK-TA (Il-106) seem to be the most innovative projects. I like both in their most technologically advanced versions, and I like the new variant of the Tu-160 that is being designed as gap closer to the Tu-PAK-DA.

For shorter term I like the projects of the MiG-41, the Yak-135 (for training purposes) and the entire bench of land and sea warfare of every type that is under development. I like all these projects and the overall philosophy that is being applied.

Also I expect heavy investment on navigation hardware and software for unmanned warfare, that in their air variants are useful for unmanned aircrafts, helicopters, satellites, guided missiles and other guided ammunition.

I agree generally with what you say, but disagree in specific areas... I think PAK DA should be a subsonic, or at most super cruising mach 1.6 tailed flying wing design that will be the low cost bulk of the fleet with low RCS but low running costs so it can be afforded in large numbers.

I would love to see the Tu-160M2 being a modified aircraft with much more powerful engines and a more efficient wing design to allow smaller swing or no swing wing design that can also super cruise or with variable cycle turbofan/ramjet engines travel at much higher speeds... the mach 2 to mach 3 barrier is the difference between turbofan and ramjet propulsion... new turbofan engines that use bypass air the way a ramjet works would allow them to continue to generate thrust at much higher air speeds.

I would like to see the first hypersonic cruise missiles go into service and MiG-41s benefit from scramjet technology to double the speed of the MiG-31 to mach 4+, and of course carry scramjet powered AAMs of exception range and speed.

From these stepping stones scramjet powered bombers and civilian airliners by 2030... without breaking the bank.

GarryB wrote:

About the first question the most obvious part of the lower cost of the mechanical structure of the aircraft of 5 tons compared to aircraft of 20 or 50 tons comes from the size.

I don't agree, an aircraft can be as complex as you want to make it and size or weight does not really come in to it.

For a record breaking aircraft for long endurance flights an aircraft could be very large but mainly consist of one really big heavy fuel tank full of fuel, while a much smaller aircraft might have lots of different roles requiring lots of different components.

I would suggest a UAV designed to perform the roles of an MPA would need to be every bit as complex as an MPA... just minus the human support components and some of the redundancy of systems.

That reduced redundancy will lead to more loses which should make it more expensive, not less so to operate.

Lower size means less material by aircraft, means also less energy to give them the right forms, and means lower requirements for the line of production (smaller machines, lower number of workers,...). All them is reflected in the prize by unit of the aircrafts of every size. Manned aircrafts.

Using less material to build does not make it cheaper to operate when it is 100 times more likely to crash in peace time and 1,000 times more likely to get shot down in combat because its evasive manouvering capability is limited.

The effect of being unmanned only makes cheaper the mechanical structure of an aircraft, basically thanks to need not to meet the requirements related with the habitability of the platform. As example, in an unmanned aircraft it is not necessary to keep the internal temperature in the necessary range for humans.

Performance requirements for electronics are generally not that much different from those for people.... the US lost lots of UAVs in Afghanistan because of electronics getting wet at ground level and that moisture freezing at altitude.

Other example, the unmanned aircrafts need not to meet the strong requirements related to the safety of the crew, like crash tests.

Reduced redundancy means higher attrition rate... which is expensive with the sort of electronics and sensors an unmanned MPA would need to do a decent job.

And one example more, the aerodynamic balance of the aircraft is easier since the aircraft needs not to keep internal space with human dimenssions for the crew.

Generally fuel levels are used to maintain cg balance... the impact of a human crew on cg would be minimal... having them at the front of the aircraft moves the cg closer to the centre of the aircraft, which is a good thing for balance.

You can make it as complex as you want, you can make it with gold, but it is not a requirement for unmanned aircrafts. If you pay attention to what we see in the reality, is that the mechanical structure of unmanned aircrafts is very cheap because the navigation technology is not mature enough. When the navigation technology be fiable enough, and that will come in a few years, the unmanned aircrafts will become less fragile, but even then will not be as robust as the manned aircrafts.

One of the main advantages of the unmanned technology vs the manned technology is that allows to reduce costs in chapters like the mechanical structure of the aircrafts. To have persons inside the aircrafts makes the aircrafts significantly more expensive.

Taking the example of the temperature that you discused. It is known that Russia is designing almost all its electronic material able to operate in a range of temperature between -50ºC and +50ºC. This is not a valid range of temperature for human life inside the aircrafts. Do you think it is the same to keep the internal temperature of an unmanned aircraft around -10ºC than to keep all the human cabin for a crew of 8 persons of a 50 tons aircraft around 15ºC? Obviously is not the same, there is a big difference.

Also, to pass not the crash test for the safety of the crew, means not that the aircraft will have more crashes. It means that when there is a crash the aircraft will be more destroyed, which can be even good, in order to save the secrets of the technology of the sensors. The number of crashes of unmanned aircrafts would depend more of the navigation technology than of the mechanical structure of the aircraft. In fact to pass the crash tests means a decent effort on the development of the structure of the aircrafts for a limited result, because in many cases is not enough to save lifes in case of accident. The costs in accidents become significantly higher when there are human loses, this is another advantage of the unmanned solution for maritime patrol.

GarryB wrote:

About the second question, the Russian armed forces are involved today in a good number of projects with high need of investment. For the long term, the Tu-PAK-DA and the IL-PAK-TA (Il-106) seem to be the most innovative projects. I like both in their most technologically advanced versions, and I like the new variant of the Tu-160 that is being designed as gap closer to the Tu-PAK-DA.

For shorter term I like the projects of the MiG-41, the Yak-135 (for training purposes) and the entire bench of land and sea warfare of every type that is under development. I like all these projects and the overall philosophy that is being applied.

Also I expect heavy investment on navigation hardware and software for unmanned warfare, that in their air variants are useful for unmanned aircrafts, helicopters, satellites, guided missiles and other guided ammunition.

I agree generally with what you say, but disagree in specific areas... I think PAK DA should be a subsonic, or at most super cruising mach 1.6 tailed flying wing design that will be the low cost bulk of the fleet with low RCS but low running costs so it can be afforded in large numbers.

I would love to see the Tu-160M2 being a modified aircraft with much more powerful engines and a more efficient wing design to allow smaller swing or no swing wing design that can also super cruise or with variable cycle turbofan/ramjet engines travel at much higher speeds... the mach 2 to mach 3 barrier is the difference between turbofan and ramjet propulsion... new turbofan engines that use bypass air the way a ramjet works would allow them to continue to generate thrust at much higher air speeds.

I would like to see the first hypersonic cruise missiles go into service and MiG-41s benefit from scramjet technology to double the speed of the MiG-31 to mach 4+, and of course carry scramjet powered AAMs of exception range and speed.

From these stepping stones scramjet powered bombers and civilian airliners by 2030... without breaking the bank.

I think advanced projects can be finished without breaking the bank. The standards in Russia to adopt new warfare and to order them for the Armed Forces are being exigent, and I agree with them. I like every project that is reaching the Russian armed forces. The alone thing that Im missing is new modern ammunition (missiles) for the SA-4.

Just what Russia is doing is to rule out the weakest projects technologically. As example, the 2S31, is one of the few that was adopted but was not ordered. Other cases of lower technological level even have not been adopted. I do not think that a downgrade of the technological level in projects like the Tu-PAK-DA or the Il-PAK-TA (Il-106) would pass the current standards to reach the active service. And also I do not think that a new maritime patrol aircraft done from the basis of the Il-114 following the old mold would pass today's exigent standards for the new warfare.

Russia as the rest of the countries, need weaker vehicles for air and land military transport. The light armoured or unarmoured land transport vehicles and the subsonic air transport vehicles are not necessarily exposed in contested areas as the warfare, but I even doubt that the Il-112 designed for air transport based on the same Il-114 can reach the level to pass the current Russian standards of quality for their Armed Forces.

You can make it as complex as you want, you can make it with gold, but it is not a requirement for unmanned aircrafts. If you pay attention to what we see in the reality, is that the mechanical structure of unmanned aircrafts is very cheap because the navigation technology is not mature enough.

The Russians don't have a track record of over complicating things or over engineering them.

the navigation accuracy of their Kalibrs has shown they can send unmanned vehicles to points in space accurately enough.

Taking the example of the temperature that you discused. It is known that Russia is designing almost all its electronic material able to operate in a range of temperature between -50ºC and +50ºC. This is not a valid range of temperature for human life inside the aircrafts. Do you think it is the same to keep the internal temperature of an unmanned aircraft around -10ºC than to keep all the human cabin for a crew of 8 persons of a 50 tons aircraft around 15ºC? Obviously is not the same, there is a big difference.

Actually keeping the inside of a pressurised aircraft warm is not that hard when you have excellent sources of heat in the engines. the cost of a pressurised area is a one off cost and that adds to the structural integrity of the aircraft.

The alone thing that Im missing is new modern ammunition (missiles) for the SA-4.

SA-4 and SA-5 were replaced by the S-300 which are now to be replaced by S-350 and S-400.

they need an upgraded SA-4 like they need an upgraded Mosin Nagant rifle.

As example, the 2S31, is one of the few that was adopted but was not ordered.

Actually it was a case of a successful system used by airborne forces (NONA) being adapted for ground forces. I would say the adoption of the 2S34 where 120mm gun/mortar barrels replace the 122mm howitzer barrels is a better example of using available resources without a prior requirement or order.

the 120mm gun mortar is rather more flexible in the range of ammo types it can use while its range is similar to the 122mm gun it is replacing, so a calibre can be removed from the inventory without losing much in the way of performance.

I think that is just good management as the next generation vehicles will likely include a gun/mortar vehicle with a 120mm gun/mortar but would likely not include a 122mm gun.

And also I do not think that a new maritime patrol aircraft done from the basis of the Il-114 following the old mold would pass today's exigent standards for the new warfare.

I doubt the Il-114 on its own can perform the mission the Il-38 performs... I suspect a large long range.... land based UAV would be used to support its operations together with coastal Il-114s and satellites and surface and sub surface vessels.

The Il-112/114 will replace the older machines like the An-26, the An-32, and the Yak-40 in the light transport role and will become a very useful short range regional transport type.

GarryB wrote:

You can make it as complex as you want, you can make it with gold, but it is not a requirement for unmanned aircrafts. If you pay attention to what we see in the reality, is that the mechanical structure of unmanned aircrafts is very cheap because the navigation technology is not mature enough.

The Russians don't have a track record of over complicating things or over engineering them.

the navigation accuracy of their Kalibrs has shown they can send unmanned vehicles to points in space accurately enough.

Then would you agree that unmanned technology means not to increase the cost of the mechanical structure of an aircraft?

GarryB wrote:

Taking the example of the temperature that you discused. It is known that Russia is designing almost all its electronic material able to operate in a range of temperature between -50ºC and +50ºC. This is not a valid range of temperature for human life inside the aircrafts. Do you think it is the same to keep the internal temperature of an unmanned aircraft around -10ºC than to keep all the human cabin for a crew of 8 persons of a 50 tons aircraft around 15ºC? Obviously is not the same, there is a big difference.

Actually keeping the inside of a pressurised aircraft warm is not that hard when you have excellent sources of heat in the engines. the cost of a pressurised area is a one off cost and that adds to the structural integrity of the aircraft.

The temperatura is one of the factors of the habitability requirements that makes to increase the cost. The pressurization is other factor that makes to increase the cost of the mechanical structure. And there are more.

GarryB wrote:

And also I do not think that a new maritime patrol aircraft done from the basis of the Il-114 following the old mold would pass today's exigent standards for the new warfare.

I doubt the Il-114 on its own can perform the mission the Il-38 performs... I suspect a large long range.... land based UAV would be used to support its operations together with coastal Il-114s and satellites and surface and sub surface vessels.

The Il-112/114 will replace the older machines like the An-26, the An-32, and the Yak-40 in the light transport role and will become a very useful short range regional transport type.

If even you doubt it...

Then would you agree that unmanned technology means not to increase the cost of the mechanical structure of an aircraft?

Of course it means life support systems can be removed and it does not need to be pressurised or heated to the same degree, but it could also be structurally strengthened to allow much heavier manouvering if needed. Things like displays and control stations and seats etc can also all be removed plus no need for canopies and walkways for crew to move around the aircraft.

The temperatura is one of the factors of the habitability requirements that makes to increase the cost. The pressurization is other factor that makes to increase the cost of the mechanical structure. And there are more.

Yeah, but you need to be realistic... saving $5 because the airframe can be heated to 12 degrees C instead of 20 degrees C is not much of a saving. And if the damn craft crashes half the time it tries to land then there is a bigger problem at stake here.

The An-124 has a pressurised section above the wing that goes from the front of the aircraft right to the tail. That was not because they needed that much pressurised space, but because that pressurised space forms the back bone of the aircraft when it is carrying a payload in its cargo bay.

Pressurised sections are useful not just for manned aircraft.

If even you doubt it...

The platform is going into production and service... might as well use it.

When the role of MPA came up and someone said lets use a civilian aircraft... a modified Il-18 I am sure a few people suggested that the long range jet replacement Il-62 would be a better aircraft... of course we will never know...

GarryB wrote:

Then would you agree that unmanned technology means not to increase the cost of the mechanical structure of an aircraft?

Of course it means life support systems can be removed and it does not need to be pressurised or heated to the same degree, but it could also be structurally strengthened to allow much heavier manouvering if needed. Things like displays and control stations and seats etc can also all be removed plus no need for canopies and walkways for crew to move around the aircraft.

It is something. Aditiona maniouvering capabilities over the big maritime patrol aircrafts would not be bad, but as said are not a requirement of the unmanned technology. Something to think about.

GarryB wrote:

The temperatura is one of the factors of the habitability requirements that makes to increase the cost. The pressurization is other factor that makes to increase the cost of the mechanical structure. And there are more.

Yeah, but you need to be realistic... saving $5 because the airframe can be heated to 12 degrees C instead of 20 degrees C is not much of a saving. And if the damn craft crashes half the time it tries to land then there is a bigger problem at stake here.

The An-124 has a pressurised section above the wing that goes from the front of the aircraft right to the tail. That was not because they needed that much pressurised space, but because that pressurised space forms the back bone of the aircraft when it is carrying a payload in its cargo bay.

Pressurised sections are useful not just for manned aircraft.

To be realistic $5 would be consummed to pay the first 10-15 minuts of work of one of the engineers in charge of designing it Some years ago the climatizator was an option in the new cars of low price for sale, maybe you remember the prize of the option, and in an aircraft is is far far more expensive.

GarryB wrote:

If even you doubt it...

The platform is going into production and service... might as well use it.

When the role of MPA came up and someone said lets use a civilian aircraft... a modified Il-18 I am sure a few people suggested that the long range jet replacement Il-62 would be a better aircraft... of course we will never know...

Unlike in other cases of existing transport and training aircrafts and helicopters that are being ordered for the Russian Armed Forces after years being around (Il-96, Yak-54/152, Ka-226, Yak-130, Ansat, Ka-60/62 and maybe the Mi-38) the expected new versions of the Il-114 require major changes in the design of the aircraft, something that makes it significantly more expensive in relative terms, and that makes more difficult the success of this aircraft in the Russian Armed Forces for the new roles of transport and maritime patrol roles. Plus, like the current Il-114, neither the An-140 (of the same class) and An-148 (a little bigger) have been a success in recent years (small number of units produced).

It is something. Aditiona maniouvering capabilities over the big maritime patrol aircrafts would not be bad, but as said are not a requirement of the unmanned technology. Something to think about.

In terms of tracking subs I am thinking of flying low and slow, or covering large areas at medium to high altitude. Not anything like dogfighting.

To be realistic $5 would be consummed to pay the first 10-15 minuts of work of one of the engineers in charge of designing it Smile Some years ago the climatizator was an option in the new cars of low price for sale, maybe you remember the prize of the option, and in an aircraft is is far far more expensive.

So you agree that some of the savings made by removing human crew are negligible.

Most of these options would be inside of the meaning of my comment. I would like a solution where existing ammunition (missiles) is adapted to the launcher of the SA-4 system or the launcher is adapted to existing ammunition. The question would be to put them on use without high spending.

Well a 2S3 battery uses the same base vehicle with the same engine and components so ammo support vehicles for them could be an option, but also BUK-M3 with the missiles in two rows of four launch tubes could also be an option...

the expected new versions of the Il-114 require major changes in the design of the aircraft, something that makes it significantly more expensive in relative terms, and that makes more difficult the success of this aircraft in the Russian Armed Forces for the new roles of transport and maritime patrol roles.

To be fair the digitisation of the design should allow improvements to be made more easily and should make production much easier... especially with robot assembly and C&C machine tools producing components.

The upgrade and brand new engines should result in rather better performance as well.

It is not like they are putting the Il-114 back into production so it can be an MPA... they are putting it back into production because they can use an aircraft like that for several different roles and to replace several different foreign designs.

Sounds OK to me.

GarryB wrote:

To be realistic $5 would be consummed to pay the first 10-15 minuts of work of one of the engineers in charge of designing it Smile Some years ago the climatizator was an option in the new cars of low price for sale, maybe you remember the prize of the option, and in an aircraft is is far far more expensive.

So you agree that some of the savings made by removing human crew are negligible.

The development of a system for internal control of the temperature in an aircraft of this size may cost likely in the order of $M (not talking of cost by unit in this case). Not as negligible. If you add this to other factors of habitability and to other questions like the size of the aircraft, it is significant.

GarryB wrote:

the expected new versions of the Il-114 require major changes in the design of the aircraft, something that makes it significantly more expensive in relative terms, and that makes more difficult the success of this aircraft in the Russian Armed Forces for the new roles of transport and maritime patrol roles.

To be fair the digitisation of the design should allow improvements to be made more easily and should make production much easier... especially with robot assembly and C&C machine tools producing components.

The upgrade and brand new engines should result in rather better performance as well.

It is not like they are putting the Il-114 back into production so it can be an MPA... they are putting it back into production because they can use an aircraft like that for several different roles and to replace several different foreign designs.

Sounds OK to me.

In the case of the maritime role I would not go this way. The sea can become easily a contested are, and I see this concept old for the role as explained until now.

For other non combat roles like the air transport in no contested areas, I see well to take civil aircrafts and to adapt them for military use, when only minor changes are needed. In this case would be the aircrafts cited in the previous comment and it also applies for land transport in no contested areas. I also see well to help developing new aircrafts for a class where there is not a civil alternative, something more likely to happen with aircrafts of big size like the Il-214 or bigger.

For small transport aircrafts and helicopters, if there is not an initiative for civil use it is a sign of warning. Also it is a sign of warning if the civil initiatives of the recent years in the same class failed. If it happens the entire class maybe in question for civil use despite to be more difficult to pack the loads than in the military transport.

The development of a system for internal control of the temperature in an aircraft of this size may cost likely in the order of $M (not talking of cost by unit in this case). Not as negligible. If you add this to other factors of habitability and to other questions like the size of the aircraft, it is significant.

Such systems are already developed for similar sized aircraft, and the use of the aircraft for cargo transport, VIP transport and civilian uses means that making a system for a MPA version is already paid for.

An unmanned aircraft would still require temperature control of its many avionics bays and sensor arrays so it is not like the manned version needs a custom built system and the unmanned model can go without.

For other non combat roles like the air transport in no contested areas, I see well to take civil aircrafts and to adapt them for military use, when only minor changes are needed. In this case would be the aircrafts cited in the previous comment and it also applies for land transport in no contested areas. I also see well to help developing new aircrafts for a class where there is not a civil alternative, something more likely to happen with aircrafts of big size like the Il-214 or bigger.

Civilian cargo and military cargo are totally different... military cargo tends to use rear ramps for loading and unloading, while civilian cargo tends to be side loaded in pallets.

Smaller aircraft are cheaper to buy and maintain and with enlarged fuel tanks can have extended range easily enough.

For small transport aircrafts and helicopters, if there is not an initiative for civil use it is a sign of warning. Also it is a sign of warning if the civil initiatives of the recent years in the same class failed. If it happens the entire class maybe in question for civil use despite to be more difficult to pack the loads than in the military transport.

In the past there were no economic sanctions that effected parts and support... and you simply can't use foreign transport in your military just because your civilian airlines use them.

The main point of introducing the Il-112 and Il-114 is to remove foreign transport types from the inventory. the fact that the digitisation of design and upgrade of systems and new efficient engines is all paid for by the military is just a bonus to civilian uses. Western civilian airlines get the same subsidy perk when their military buys a whole lot of aircraft and reduces the costs for the factory with large orders they would otherwise not get.

GarryB wrote:

The development of a system for internal control of the temperature in an aircraft of this size may cost likely in the order of $M (not talking of cost by unit in this case). Not as negligible. If you add this to other factors of habitability and to other questions like the size of the aircraft, it is significant.

Such systems are already developed for similar sized aircraft, and the use of the aircraft for cargo transport, VIP transport and civilian uses means that making a system for a MPA version is already paid for.

Despite it. There are lots of specific components for every different model of aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

For other non combat roles like the air transport in no contested areas, I see well to take civil aircrafts and to adapt them for military use, when only minor changes are needed. In this case would be the aircrafts cited in the previous comment and it also applies for land transport in no contested areas. I also see well to help developing new aircrafts for a class where there is not a civil alternative, something more likely to happen with aircrafts of big size like the Il-214 or bigger.

Civilian cargo and military cargo are totally different... military cargo tends to use rear ramps for loading and unloading, while civilian cargo tends to be side loaded in pallets.

Smaller aircraft are cheaper to buy and maintain and with enlarged fuel tanks can have extended range easily enough.

For small transport aircrafts and helicopters, if there is not an initiative for civil use it is a sign of warning. Also it is a sign of warning if the civil initiatives of the recent years in the same class failed. If it happens the entire class maybe in question for civil use despite to be more difficult to pack the loads than in the military transport.

In the past there were no economic sanctions that effected parts and support... and you simply can't use foreign transport in your military just because your civilian airlines use them.

The main point of introducing the Il-112 and Il-114 is to remove foreign transport types from the inventory. the fact that the digitisation of design and upgrade of systems and new efficient engines is all paid for by the military is just a bonus to civilian uses. Western civilian airlines get the same subsidy perk when their military buys a whole lot of aircraft and reduces the costs for the factory with large orders they would otherwise not get.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet#157943

Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

nothing at the moment afaik. The promising could be the one based on IL-114 or Yak-242...

max steel wrote: Are Russians planning to revive nuclear anti-sub depth bombs also ?

why not? one depth charge can "clear" bigger area. The will be used to sink not all subs th.

AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

I belive Tu-142s are still in service with Naval airbases in Fedotovo and Mongokhto, probably around 10, those are the only long range ASW fixed wing aircraft Russia atm fields. Il-38 modernisation is still underway, those are expected to serve another 10-15 years after modernisation.

Atm Russia does not really have anything in same class as P-8. There were proposed few replacement for current ASW aircraft. Mostly not materialised by now, those were supposed to be based on Tu-204, Be-200, Be-40...

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

I belive Tu-142s are still in service with Naval airbases in Fedotovo and Mongokhto, probably around 10, those are the only long range ASW fixed wing aircraft Russia atm fields. Il-38 modernisation is still underway, those are expected to serve another 10-15 years after modernisation.

Atm Russia does not really have anything in same class as P-8. There were proposed few replacement for current ASW aircraft. Mostly not materialised by now, those were supposed to be based on Tu-204, Be-200, Be-40...

How capable are the TU-142s and IL-38s?

VladimirSahin wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Apparently Vietnam is shown some interest in acquiring P-3s from the U.S, i looked it up and i find the Tu-142 and Il-38, the Tu is pretty much retired and the Il-38s recently got modernized, but i can't find anything on whether there's an export variant or not, and what is Russia's answer to the P-8?

I belive Tu-142s are still in service with Naval airbases in Fedotovo and Mongokhto, probably around 10, those are the only long range ASW fixed wing aircraft Russia atm fields. Il-38 modernisation is still underway, those are expected to serve another 10-15 years after modernisation.

Atm Russia does not really have anything in same class as P-8. There were proposed few replacement for current ASW aircraft. Mostly not materialised by now, those were supposed to be based on Tu-204, Be-200, Be-40...

How capable are the TU-142s and IL-38s?

We do not know much about their capabilities as probably even Russians themself are not sure due to their specific operation nature. But we know that latest version of Tu-142 was able to detect and track Oscar subs in trials that took place in late 80s. Naturally today their capabilities are not really to be compared with latest ASW aircraft.

When its about IL-38 with this upgrate from what we could read around it should be near capabilities of other modern medium range ASW aircraft, i say near as not all of its original equipment was not replaced but rather improved or overhauled.

But we all hope for new fixed wing ASW-maritime patrol variant to come in upcoming years, two variants actually would be the best, one based on Be-200/Be-40 and another on turbofan platform for longer ranges.

From the information I have read the domestic version of Sea Dragon should actually be pretty state of the art, and that there are versions for the Il-38 and Tu-142.

The only problems I have read about regarding the Bear is that its high speed design... ie swept wings make deploying ULW or ultra low wave antennas for communications with subs is difficult as the low flight speeds needed to deploy the several km long cables that have to be deployed near vertically means flying at close to stall speed for the Bear... which is an issue of course.

GarryB wrote:From the information I have read the domestic version of Sea Dragon should actually be pretty state of the art, and that there are versions for the Il-38 and Tu-142.

The only problems I have read about regarding the Bear is that its high speed design... ie swept wings make deploying ULW or ultra low wave antennas for communications with subs is difficult as the low flight speeds needed to deploy the several km long cables that have to be deployed near vertically means flying at close to stall speed for the Bear... which is an issue of course.

well the problem with export of ASW aircrafts in Russia is that there are no suitable platforms anytime soon. Tu-204 might be but for other reasons is dead...

I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

VladimirSahin wrote:I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

I see problem abit different, problem is the number of platforms that Russia has. There are very few ASW and maritime patrol aircraft in Russian inventory in general.

Atm in US there are like 100 P3 Orion variants, about 40 or so P8A with 120ish in total on order. Japan for an example also has almost 150 maritime patrol/ASW aircraft and nearly 100 P3s...

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:I see, so basically not capable enough to find modern US subs as in the way US ASW air craft can find Russian subs.

I see problem abit different, problem is the number of platforms that Russia has. There are very few ASW and maritime patrol aircraft in Russian inventory in general.

Atm in US there are like 100 P3 Orion variants, about 40 or so P8A with 120ish in total on order. Japan for an example also has almost 150 maritime patrol/ASW aircraft and nearly 100 P3s...

F*** sanctions

Boeing's P-8 Poseidon can cast close to $256.5 million each.P-8 does not have Magnetic Anomally Dectection sensors.US Navy chooses not to use it. Navy assumes it'll use P8 at high altitude.P-8 is designed to operate at higher altitudes. Navy will probably realize it needs the MAD and they'll have to SLEP the P-3's, or give in and put the MAD on the P-8.

They probably use a mass spectrometry based system to detect exhaust fumes. Unsure what that'll do against a nuclear powered submarine.my guess is they'll go for sonobuoys from above. I hope they can carry enough sonobuoys. The next alternative is to use a MAD on a reel, but one that won't snap at the cruising speed of a P-8? Might be tricky.

The acoustic detection system of a P-8 is 2x as effective as that of the P-3, and this is used to advance the claim that the MAD is not necessary. Unsure how I feel about this, especially since it is not an aircraft capability, but that of its sonobuoys (which cannot be retrieved and re-used, which limits the "fishing" capability of the P-8; it must be reasonably sure before it drops buoys into the water).


Vladimir Sahnin don't overestimate US ASW skills . I don't know why many people carry the preconceived notion that US ASW skills are extraordinary.




Surprised to know Russian ASW planes are limited in number let alone any future export model

But what I've read ( can be wrong also) that Russian Sonar systems(Acoustics) are quite efficient and capable to track enemy subs in littoral waters and maybe around arctic. Is it true ?