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.
Home
FAQ
Register
Log in
On other hand i dont think they will ever do such update on TU95s and TU142s, at least not making it 2 engined. They might overhaul current design with some changes etc but replacing totally i dont see that happening.
