Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Share

    Poll

    Vote (multiple choice allowed) for the aircrafts and helicopters performing well enough to avoid a total decommission by the end of this decade.

    [ 7 ]
    4% [4%] 
    [ 26 ]
    15% [15%] 
    [ 16 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 8 ]
    5% [5%] 
    [ 7 ]
    4% [4%] 
    [ 12 ]
    7% [7%] 
    [ 19 ]
    11% [11%] 
    [ 24 ]
    14% [14%] 
    [ 24 ]
    14% [14%] 
    [ 26 ]
    15% [15%] 

    Total Votes: 169
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:01 am

    eehnie wrote:Specific armament very likely to be incorpored to CAS UAVs would be:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_(rocket)   (variants under 5 Km of range)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket   (variants under 5 Km of range)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-24_rocket
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_(rocket)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-5_rocket
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMGU

    Plus other options of high rate of fire (AGS-17, GShG-7.62, Yak-B 12.7mm,...) or bombs/mines for low altitude.

    The consequence of the Su-25/28/39, Ka-50/52, Mi-28, the most modern variants of the Mi-8/.../24/... family (and maybe others) stop fighting under 5 Km of altitude, is that they will not use more these weapons as Air-Surface weapons, and as consequence, the launchers of these weapons in their pylons will be removed to install others of longer range. Also many launchers can be removed from units of older variants of the Mi-8/.../24/... family to scrappe or to be used as transport helicopters, and surely there are many more stored as spare parts from previously scrapped aircrafts and helicopters.

    Single pylon CAS UAVs to continue using this armament would need to fly under the range of MANPADS, and as consequence would be designed under the philosophy of expendable material. But this would not be a problem because they have the potential of being dirt cheap.

    Reconnaissance UAVs for low distance designed under expendable philosophy would be very light instead. Very small.

    Short missions in time are key in both cases in order to make possible a bigger rate of recovery.

    Over 5 Km of altitude = Over MANPADs range, the history is different.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Sun May 20, 2018 8:27 pm

    https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-12

    After the last update there are 7 Be-6/12 listed as active:

    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33282  <-->  21-02  1970  RF-12010  Nº29
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33345  <-->  26-02  1972  XXxxxxxx  Nº01
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/32991  <-->  28-02  1973  RF-12012  Nº28
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33396  <-->  28-03  1973  XXxxxxxx  Nº76
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/32997  <-->  29-01  1973  RF-12006  Nº10
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33405  <-->  29-02  1973  RF-12007  Nº12
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33411  <-->  29-04  1973  RF-12009  Nº20

    It seems to be still some mechanical reserve for this aircraft, that allowed the return to active service of 2 units (28 and 76). If the mechanical reserve allows still to the return of more units to active service, is likely to happen, because it would not make sense a delay and reserve in the use of this aircraft. The logical model of using of this aircraft would be of fast exhaustion.

    With the war in Syria ongoing, and the difficult situation of the Syrian Air Force, a reinforcement with the last units of these aircrafts would be positive, with a potential use as Maritime Patrol aircraft and as Fighter Ground Attack aircraft, even without spending on a modernization of the aircraft.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 817
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  Hole on Sun May 20, 2018 9:31 pm

    In February 2015 the commander of the Russian Naval Aviation Major General Igor Kozhin said that the Be-12 would be modernised, with Focus on the ASW systems. There are around 17 aircraft in storage.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Mon May 21, 2018 6:29 am

    Hole wrote:In February 2015 the commander of the Russian Naval Aviation Major General Igor Kozhin said that the Be-12 would be modernised, with Focus on the ASW systems. There are around 17 aircraft in storage.

    Even more recently, seems to be a plan to do it:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4343p75-older-warfare-performance-and-short-mid-term-decommissions#214724

    posted in the previous page of this same topic.

    I find this option weak, taking into account somethings:

    - Age of the aircrafts: The production of this aircraft stoped in 1973, and this year the youngest aircraft will be of 45 years old.
    - Only a few aircrafts to upgrade: The development of the upgrade needs to be dirty cheap in order to keep low the cost per unit.
    - Ukranian speciphic engines: Not available more engines and not available more spare parts. Only available what is now in the hands of Russia.
    - Obsolete airframe: The design of the Be-12 is based in the Be-6, with mechanical elements that come from the original design of the late 1940s. Poor range.

    Combined with other detection tecnologies present in Syria, can be useful for Syria like it is, without spending, as sea patrol, to scare submarines and small ships or to keep far drones from hostile powers, while can be used as bomber on land. Always as short-term weapon.

    In my view this aircraft would have been first in line to help Syria in the refered to the air force, with potential spare parts for the MiG-21 remaining in the stocks. Next would be the L-39, that are being intensely restored in/for Syria. To note that the L-39 would be auxiliary aircraft for Russia, but in the case of Syria can be used as combat aircraft.

    Russia would lose nothing with that.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Tue May 22, 2018 11:59 pm

    The war will likely continue long, basically because the US impose war. Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

    The logical decline in the numbers of the oldest weapons in Syria, Russia and Asia can lead to more intense help of Russia and other countries with some weapons:

    AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS

    Fighters: J-2(FT-2), J-5(F-5, FT-5) (from North Korea)
    by declining numbers of MiG-15, MiG-21
    by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

    FGA: Be-6/12, H-5 (from North Korea)
    by declining numbers of more modern aircrafts
    by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

    For other types of weapons, the help is more difficult.

    With the end of the pockets in Syria, the role of the Syrian air force will change. It will be less oriented to ground attack, specially in the southern front, and will be more oriented to air defense roles, specially anti-drone and anti-missile roles.

    The Be-6/12 can have an inmediate total decommission in Russia, to go as help.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu May 24, 2018 3:18 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18067
    Points : 18627
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 23, 2018 8:22 am

    The issue with the Be-12 is that, sure it makes sense to remove it from service because it is old, but it offers something newer options currently in service don't offer... and that is fully amphibious capability.

    Do they have any Be-40 or Be-200s that can perform safe landings on water if needed?

    If not then the Be-12 has a usefulness that makes it valuable...

    Its operating costs would likely be lower than for a jet too.

    I don't think the Be-12 would be very much use to Syria to be honest... certainly not a huge help in the civil war...

    To be honest I think the Russian Navy should decide whether it wants aircraft that can land on the water surface... if they do, buy some Be-42/40/200s and get rid o the Be-12s and if they don't... just get rid of the Be-12s.

    There are plenty of countries they could clean them up and gift them to... lots of asian and pacific countries that could use cheap amphibious aircraft...
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 817
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  Hole on Wed May 23, 2018 2:49 pm

    I guess the Russian Navy plans to buy the Be-200 or A-40, that´s why they decided to Keep the Be-12 for a few years, so their pilots can practise on something.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Wed May 23, 2018 4:30 pm

    It was a previous order, but was cancelled. I do not think a new order will emerge. As commented with GarryB many times, the big potential presence of UAVs in the future of the maritime patrol makes unlikely the purchase of new big and expensive (compared to UAVs) aircrafts now, that can be totally surpassed by the new technologies in about 10 years. The time runs in favor of maritime patrol UAVs and every time is less likely the purchase of big aircrafts for maritime patrol.

    For me, the main potential role of the Be-6/12 aircrafts in Syria would be to keep the US and Israeli drones far of the Syrian coast (and as consequence of the Russian bases), specially the drones of biggest size. Also to keep the hostile submarines and ships away, in order to make them to launch their attacks from bigger distance, allowing with that a better air defense. The hability of landing on sea can be useful in Syria if airfields are attacked and damaged. Finally, also can help in some ground attack operation.

    I think the Russian bases need some maritime patrol in Syria in the short term. To have the Be-6/12 under Syrian flag can help a more agressive answer to drones and potential missile attacks. In addition to this, it would be interesting for Russia in my view to have some Il-38 under the Russian flag in Syria.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11912
    Points : 12387
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  George1 on Wed May 23, 2018 7:27 pm

    Be-12 was built as an ASW aircraft in 60s but later its role became more of search and rescue (And Be-200, Be-12's replacement, that MoD had ordered were mainly for that role). I dont think that can play the maritime patrol role in Syria. Their normal destiny is removal.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11912
    Points : 12387
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  George1 on Wed May 23, 2018 7:32 pm

    Also i dont remember if we have discussed it again, but Ka-52 and Mi-28 are too modern helos to be decommissioned at the end of that decade. I cant understand why they are in poll.
    On the contrary i am surprised that you didnt include Su-24.
    MiG-25 has also withdrawn from service before that decade
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18067
    Points : 18627
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2018 12:27 am

    I guess the Russian Navy plans to buy the Be-200 or A-40, that´s why they decided to Keep the Be-12 for a few years, so their pilots can practise on something.

    Not just pilot training... if they need aircraft that land on the water then at the moment they only have Be-12s so they would have to keep them operational while they are waiting for the replacement to arrive and get into service...

    Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

    The US is already arming Georgia and the Ukraine... I really don't think that will change one way or the other with the Syrian situation...

    As commented with GarryB many times, the big potential presence of UAVs in the future of the maritime patrol makes unlikely the purchase of new big and expensive (compared to UAVs) aircrafts now, that can be totally surpassed by the new technologies in about 10 years. The time runs in favor of maritime patrol UAVs and every time is less likely the purchase of big aircrafts for maritime patrol.

    For many roles a UAV is ideal... long boring missions... recon type missions they are excellent.


    The problem is that with maritime patrol there are lots of very specific aspects to the mission that a UAV is not actually suited too... 10 people on an MPA can get out the binoculars and look through the aircraft windows searching the sea for signs of missing people or boats...

    Plus landing near a stricken yacht is not really an option for a UAV.

    Having said that I am pretty sure there is plenty of potential for manned aircraft AND UAVs... together they tick all the boxes and in the right mix could get most jobs done more efficiently.

    Normally a medium MPA like an Il-38 will drop dozens or even hundreds of Sonobouys to try to find submarines... an A-42 could land and use a much more sensitive and expensive dipping sonar. Even expendible sonobouys are expensive so dropping them all over the place wastes a lot of money (of course if you find and sink a sub it is all worth it...) but being able to use a dipping sonar means you can check down different layers of water and listen for subs... retract and then accelerate and skim the water for a couple of kms and then drop the sonar again.

    For very long range operations then a UAV could make more sense with the support of a subsonic very long range aircraft like the PAK DA...

    In fact a big airship could offer the best of both worlds in the use of dipping sonar and actually being able to land on the water surface, or climb very high into the air to search with radar for periscopes...

    For me, the main potential role of the Be-6/12 aircrafts in Syria would be to keep the US and Israeli drones far of the Syrian coast (and as consequence of the Russian bases), specially the drones of biggest size.

    For shooting down enemy drones I would suggest L-39 trainer aircraft... probably with a pod holding 4 Igla-S missiles on each pylon and a belly mounted cannon pod...

    The Be-12 probably does not have the range to keep enemy vessels out of cruise missile range from Syria either.

    Rather than sending obsolete Be-12s to Syria, I would send them to countries surrounded by water like Indonesia... there are lots of countries in SE Asia and the Pacific that would appreciate an fully amphibious aircraft that has simple maintenance... even if they just use it for transport.

    Also i dont remember if we have discussed it again, but Ka-52 and Mi-28 are too modern helos to be decommissioned at the end of that decade. I cant understand why they are in poll.

    I believe it had to do with all CAS aircraft being obsolete, including attack helos and Su-25s.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Thu May 24, 2018 3:17 am

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:As commented with GarryB many times, the big potential presence of UAVs in the future of the maritime patrol makes unlikely the purchase of new big and expensive (compared to UAVs) aircrafts now, that can be totally surpassed by the new technologies in about 10 years. The time runs in favor of maritime patrol UAVs and every time is less likely the purchase of big aircrafts for maritime patrol.

    For many roles a UAV is ideal... long boring missions... recon type missions they are excellent.

    The problem is that with maritime patrol there are lots of very specific aspects to the mission that a UAV is not actually suited too... 10 people on an MPA can get out the binoculars and look through the aircraft windows searching the sea for signs of missing people or boats...

    Plus landing near a stricken yacht is not really an option for a UAV.

    Having said that I am pretty sure there is plenty of potential for manned aircraft AND UAVs... together they tick all the boxes and in the right mix could get most jobs done more efficiently.

    Normally a medium MPA like an Il-38 will drop dozens or even hundreds of Sonobouys to try to find submarines... an A-42 could land and use a much more sensitive and expensive dipping sonar. Even expendible sonobouys are expensive so dropping them all over the place wastes a lot of money (of course if you find and sink a sub it is all worth it...) but being able to use a dipping sonar means you can check down different layers of water and listen for subs... retract and then accelerate and skim the water for a couple of kms and then drop the sonar again.

    For very long range operations then a UAV could make more sense with the support of a subsonic very long range aircraft like the PAK DA...

    In fact a big airship could offer the best of both worlds in the use of dipping sonar and actually being able to land on the water surface, or climb very high into the air to search with radar for periscopes...

    I personally think the rescue role is more for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters. I do not see a need of making compatible the rescue role with the carriying of weapons unless it is in a combat zone, and in this case likely the most useful option would be some shipborne combat helicopter.

    In other situations a combination of UAVs and Tu-PAK-DA/modernized Tu-22/modernized Tu-160 can solve perfectly the role. One of the main advantages of the UAVs to gain range despite being smaller is that can be easily shipborne with VTOL technologies. Here yes, here the VTOL technologies are very useful.

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

    The US is already arming Georgia and the Ukraine... I really don't think that will change one way or the other with the Syrian situation...

    At this point the effort of the US in Syria seems significantly bigger, and without a need of it, the US would have important amounts of free budget to contine their hostility toward Russia in other places.

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:For me, the main potential role of the Be-6/12 aircrafts in Syria would be to keep the US and Israeli drones far of the Syrian coast (and as consequence of the Russian bases), specially the drones of biggest size.

    For shooting down enemy drones I would suggest L-39 trainer aircraft... probably with a pod holding 4 Igla-S missiles on each pylon and a belly mounted cannon pod...

    The Be-12 probably does not have the range to keep enemy vessels out of cruise missile range from Syria either.

    Rather than sending obsolete Be-12s to Syria, I would send them to countries surrounded by water like Indonesia... there are lots of countries in SE Asia and the Pacific that would appreciate an fully amphibious aircraft that has simple maintenance... even if they just use it for transport.

    Yes of course. The help with the L-39 likely has been and will continue being intense. The effort done to restore Syrian hulls and to keep their numbers seems outstanding. In fact in my previous comment it was a non-explicit reference to this case, now edited to a more explicit reference.

    eehnie wrote:The war will likely continue long, basically because the US impose war. Russia knows that when the Syrian war stops, the US aid to the rebels and Israel will move to rearm Ukraine or Georgia.

    The logical decline in the numbers of the oldest weapons in Syria, Russia and Asia can lead to more intense help of Russia and other countries with some weapons:

    AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS

    Fighters: J-2(FT-2), J-5(F-5, FT-5) (from North Korea)
    by declining numbers of MiG-15, MiG-21
    by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

    FGA: Be-6/12, H-5 (from North Korea)
    by declining numbers of more modern combat aircrafts
    by declining numbers of L-39 auxiliary aircraft used as combat aircraft in Syria

    For other types of weapons, the help is more difficult.

    With the end of the pockets in Syria, the role of the Syrian air force will change. It will be less oriented to ground attack, specially in the southern front, and will be more oriented to air defense roles, specially anti-drone and anti-missile roles.

    The Be-6/12 can have an inmediate total decommission in Russia, to go as help.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:55 pm

    In the case of Novorussia, the intensity of the conflict remains in significantly lower level than in Syria. There is not doubt that Novorussia would have all the necessary material in case of war of bigger intensity. At this point the war seems reduced to some Artillery, Surface-Surface and man-portable weapons duels. Taking it and the new local designs into account:

    AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS

    Likely no new needs on air armament.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:36 pm

    Scrapping report of the 3Q of the decade for the heavy air combat material (January 2016 - June 2018)

    Isolate units and/or broken parts of heavy air combat material to continue:

    Su-27/30/33/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    Su-24: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    Tu-22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    MiG-25/31: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    MiG-29/35: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    Su-07/17/20/22: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    MiG-27: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    Su-25/28/39: Sale and auction of scrap material.

    Low amounts of heavy air combat material to continue:

    MiG-23: Sale and auction of scrap material and spare parts.
    Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177: Sale and auction of scrap material and spare parts.

    Low amounts of heavy air combat material in process of exhaustion for the mid-term:

    .

    Lowr amounts of heavy air combat material in process of exhaustion for the short-term and with exhaustion finished:

    Be-6/12: Sale and auction of scrap material.
    Il-28: Sale and auction of scrap material.

    Liquidation of heavy air combat material which exhaustion was likely completed by the end of 2015:

    MiG-21: Sale and auction of spare parts.
    Yak-28: Sale and auction of spare parts.

    Looking at the reports I tend to think that:

    - The scrapping activity for heavy air combat material in this time has been low, specially in 2017. The biggest activity is in the Mi-8/9/13/14/17/18/19/24/25/35/171/172/177:.
    - The scrapping process of the Be-6/12, seems near the end.
    - The scrapping process of the Il-28 was likely finished in 2015/2016.
    - The scrapping process of the MiG-21 was surely finished before 2016. In 2016 would be the liquidation of the last spare parts.
    - The scrapping process of the Yak-28 was surely finished before 2016. In 2016 would be the liquidation of the last spare parts.

    In the case of the heavy air combat material would not be models for a planned total exhaustion in the mid-term. Aircrafts like the MiG-23, MiG-27 or Su-07/17/20/22 can remain longer despite to be present only in the reserve, thanks to remain relatively modern as military concept.

    To note that in the case of the heavy air material, the scrapping activity is low for both, heavy air combat material and heavy air auxiliary material. In both cases the material for total exhaustion in the short-term seems totally finished at this point, except in the case of the Be-6/12.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Older warfare performance and short/mid-term decommissions

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:13 am