ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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...

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?

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.