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%] 
    [ 25 ]
    15% [15%] 
    [ 15 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 8 ]
    5% [5%] 
    [ 7 ]
    4% [4%] 
    [ 12 ]
    7% [7%] 
    [ 18 ]
    11% [11%] 
    [ 23 ]
    14% [14%] 
    [ 24 ]
    15% [15%] 
    [ 25 ]
    15% [15%] 

    Total Votes: 164
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:22 am

    eehnie wrote:Interesting. Both counts seem to be very coincident.

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

    Listed as active:

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

    To the reserve in 2016.

    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/32991  <-->  28-02  1973  RF-12012  Nº28
    http://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33396  <-->  28-03  1973  XXxxxxxx  Nº 76  RESERVE/REPAIRS

    The difference seems to be that very recently the Nº28 rejoined the base of Sebastopol after some paint and repair. If you see the link now there are very recent photos of the aircraft painted that were not at the time of my previous comment. Surely the web will be updated to include the return of the aircraft to active service, but until now they updated the new pictures with the aircraft painted.

    The last of the links is just about the Nº76 about which you commented that have not be seen in fly for several years and is probably in repair plant. Just the link also says the aircraft is in Yevpatoria (Crimea), in the repair plant, but really I do not know if it is for repairing or to become spare parts.

    In fact if you check every link for the Russian Be-12 listed by russianplanes.net as in the reserve, there is a reference of where the aircraft is or was sometime ago.

    The last aircraft that gives me some doubt about if can be recovered or not is this one, in the reserve since 2008. Maybe you know something about it:

    https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/33009  <-->  Nº15

    About the overall replacement of the Be-12, my guess is that in the short term maybe done with some of the upgraded Il-38. If I'm not wrong, the contracted number of Il-38 to upgrade is a little bigger than the current number of Il-38 in active service. The surpluss maybe to take also the position of the Be-12 in Sebastopol. The last Be-12, I think they can go to Syria, maybe to work under Russian flag in the Russian base there, or maybe to work under Syrian flag. It would work a little more, but the aircraft seems almost exhausted.

    About the last paragraph, it seems the unit where the Be-12 were seving in Kacha, Sebastopol (Crimea) was disbanded in 2009.

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/318oplap.htm

    Not sure about in which unit are serving the Be-12 of Kacha now. Maybe this one?

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/859uts.htm

    Despite to be not updated in the link, this unit has some Il-38 and received some of the upgraded units. These would be the other 3 units where the Il-38 is serving today, that also received some of the upgraded units:

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/289oplap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/403oplap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/317osap.htm
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:20 pm

    https://slavasev.ru/2017/12/06/memorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev/

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fslavasev.ru%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2Fmemorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev%2F&sandbox=1

    There is a new memorial with a Be-12 in Mirny, Yevpatoria, Crimea.



    It seems a well restored unit, keeping even its engines (rare). Time to find which unit is this one.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2915
    Points : 2949
    Join date : 2010-08-17

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

    Post  franco on Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:11 pm

    eehnie wrote:https://slavasev.ru/2017/12/06/memorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev/

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fslavasev.ru%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2Fmemorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev%2F&sandbox=1

    There is a new memorial with a Be-12 in Mirny, Yevpatoria, Crimea.



    It seems a well restored unit, keeping even its engines (rare). Time to find which unit is this one.

    318th Naval Aviation Mixed Regiment... last information that I have is 5 Be-12's still active with the unit.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2449
    Points : 2463
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

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

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:51 pm

    The Hokum A has been procured in such low numbers that hardly qualifies as production-level platform. It can go by early 2020s (and will do so).
    But the Hokum B can most definitely stay and serve for another 2 decades at the very least.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:12 pm

    franco wrote:
    eehnie wrote:https://slavasev.ru/2017/12/06/memorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev/

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fslavasev.ru%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2Fmemorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev%2F&sandbox=1

    There is a new memorial with a Be-12 in Mirny, Yevpatoria, Crimea.



    It seems a well restored unit, keeping even its engines (rare). Time to find which unit is this one.

    318th Naval Aviation Mixed Regiment... last information that I have is 5 Be-12's still active with the unit.

    Thank you, there is some report about this unit disbanded in 2009 (check the first comment of this page). Has been the unit recovered or something?

    Also interesting to identify which aircraft wold be exactly used for the memorial, maybe one of the last remaining active?
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2915
    Points : 2949
    Join date : 2010-08-17

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

    Post  franco on Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:39 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    franco wrote:
    eehnie wrote:https://slavasev.ru/2017/12/06/memorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev/

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fslavasev.ru%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2Fmemorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev%2F&sandbox=1

    There is a new memorial with a Be-12 in Mirny, Yevpatoria, Crimea.



    It seems a well restored unit, keeping even its engines (rare). Time to find which unit is this one.

    318th Naval Aviation Mixed Regiment... last information that I have is 5 Be-12's still active with the unit.

    Thank you, there is some report about this unit disbanded in 2009 (check the first comment of this page). Has been the unit recovered or something?

    Also interesting to identify which aircraft wold be exactly used for the memorial, maybe one of the last remaining active?

    My first response was that this unit never disbanded but then it clicked in. During the Serdyukov reforms, the Aviation regiments were all changed to Airbases. But under Shoygu, they reverted back to being called Regiments. So they always were active... just the name was different.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:00 am

    franco wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    franco wrote:
    eehnie wrote:https://slavasev.ru/2017/12/06/memorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev/

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fslavasev.ru%2F2017%2F12%2F06%2Fmemorialnyiy-be-12-v-pamyat-o-podvige-flotskih-aviatorov-chernomortsev%2F&sandbox=1

    There is a new memorial with a Be-12 in Mirny, Yevpatoria, Crimea.



    It seems a well restored unit, keeping even its engines (rare). Time to find which unit is this one.

    318th Naval Aviation Mixed Regiment... last information that I have is 5 Be-12's still active with the unit.

    Thank you, there is some report about this unit disbanded in 2009 (check the first comment of this page). Has been the unit recovered or something?

    Also interesting to identify which aircraft wold be exactly used for the memorial, maybe one of the last remaining active?

    My first response was that this unit never disbanded but then it clicked in. During the Serdyukov reforms, the Aviation regiments were all changed to Airbases. But under Shoygu, they reverted back to being called Regiments. So they always were active... just the name was different.

    Then at the begin of 2018 they will celebrate their first century, with a memorial with one Be-12.

    The environment seems perfect for a total retirement with honors of the Be-12 and an upgrade to the unit to modernized Il-38.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:27 am

    https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/january-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5875-russian-navy-to-upgrade-its-soviet-era-be-12-asw-amphibious-aircraft.html

    Russian Navy to Upgrade its Soviet-era Be-12 ASW Amphibious Aircraft

    January 2018 Navy Naval Defense Industry News

    POSTED ON SUNDAY, 21 JANUARY 2018 16:57

    The main Russian Navy command decided to upgrade antisubmarine amphibious Be-12 aircraft. They will be able to take off and land both on ground airfields and on water. The modernization will give Be-12 a completely new targeting system and modern arms. Be-12 are the oldest aircraft operational in the Russian armed forces, the Izvestia daily reported.

    Beriev Be 12 Chayka ASW MPA amphibous aircraft russia 1The Beriev Be-12 Chayka ("Seagull", NATO reporting name: Mail) is a Soviet turboprop-powered amphibious aircraft designed for anti-submarine and maritime patrol duties. Picture by Romanoff via airforce.ru.

    The Navy command told the newspaper the decision to modernize Be-12 had been adopted. At present the technical assignment is drafted, as well as documents to launch R&D to upgrade onboard equipment of the aircraft.

    Be-12 will radically modernize all the three sets for obtaining reconnaissance information on adversary submarines: hydro-acoustic (detects the submarine noise), radar and magnetic (finds submarines by magnetic emission of the hull). The upgraded aircraft will have modern antisubmarine torpedoes and depth bombs.

    Be-12 made its maiden flight in 1960. It has a V-shaped arched wing to facilitate takeoff from water. The lower part of the fuselage has a ship outline which allows Be-12 to land and take off from water in three-force storm. The speed is over 500 km/h. Fuel reserve allows the aircraft to fly over 4 thousand km or conduct a patrol mission for several hours. The plane is armed with mines, torpedoes and bombs.

    Beriev Be 12 Chayka ASW MPA amphibous aircraft russia 2The Beriev Be-12 Chayka ("Seagull", NATO reporting name: Mail) is a Soviet turboprop-powered amphibious aircraft designed for anti-submarine and maritime patrol duties. Picture by Romanoff via airforce.ru.

    Expert Oleg Panteleyev said the examination of the existing Be-12 fleet showed the amphibious aircraft still have sufficient resource of the glider and the power plant and an upgrade will keep them operational.

    "Combat effectiveness of Be-12 can be considerably increased by upgrading submarine-detecting equipment and other systems, mostly communications which will integrate the aircraft into the common contour of antisubmarine warfare control," he said.

    Expert Alexander Mozgovoy said Be-12 upgrade will enhance antisubmarine capabilities of the Navy in coastal areas. "It was a very successful aircraft for its time. With upgraded equipment it will effectively control coastal waters. Be-12 is necessary for small water areas, for example, the Black and Baltic Seas. It is not intended for long-term patrol over the ocean or operations in rough seas," he said.

    143 Be-12 were produced in 1960-1973. They were operational in all Soviet fleets. In the Pacific fleet Be-12 operated in the 289th separate antisubmarine and 317th combined air regiments. The Black Sea and Northern fleets had one antisubmarine amphibious aircraft regiment each. The 49th separate squadron of Be-12 of the Baltic fleet was deployed in Kaliningrad.

    Practically all Be-12 were decommissioned in 1993-1998. The last six aircraft are operational in the 318th air regiment of the Black Sea fleet. Close to a dozen are kept at the air works in Taganrog and the Ostrov airfield, the Izvestia writes.

    ©️ Copyright 2018 TASS. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    This new seems to confirm that there is still some mechanical reserve in the last active aircrafts and in the spare parts from canibalized aircrafts.

    The Be-12 was developed from the Be-6 and as consequence is part of a mechanical development which production begins in 1949. The Be-6/12 and the An-2, auxiliary aircraft which serial production begins in 1950, are the most veteran aircrafts in active service in Russia at this point. Not casually both are the most WWII looking aircrafts still active in the Russian Armed Forces. But this is anecdotal, the worst part is that the aircrafts look what they are now.

    Despite to be a good aircraft some decades ago, at this point the Be-6/12 is a model of heavy combat equipment fairly less modern, less capable and less powerful than the rest of the heavy armament present in the Russian Armed Forces. If there is a mechanical reserve of use still, the logical path for this combat aircraft would be the same applied after 2010 to all the remaining armament of its age and level: decommission and intensive use in the war of Syria, as help to the Syrian gouvernment. Syria needs help still, the war will be long.

    The update and upgrade of aircrafts around 25-30 years old makes sense, but the update and upgrade of aircrafts over 45 years old is a less attractive option, with low potential of economic use/exploitation. With only 6 units active, the cost per unit in the development of the upgrade is likely to be high. This option is weak by nature. Another example, if today would be some fatal accident of one of the last units, it would be very difficult to see the Be-6/12 flying again.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:19 pm

    I commented previously about the CAS fighting style as an obsolete fighting style. To add something new...

    The problem with CAS is that in presence of MANPADS, the aircrafts are losers. Neither the advanced systems saved some helicopters from a hit. Manned CAS is a loser because the development and production of MANPADS is far cheaper than the development and production of manned aircraft and helicopters for CAS, and the loses on pilots are worse still.

    High altitude is the solution for manned aircrafts and helicopters. The problem at this point is not in the aircrafts or helicopters, even if are not modernized. The Su-25, Ka-50/52, Mi-28 have still some margin over the current generation of MANPADS (designed by Russia to give them a chance still). In the case of the Mi-8/.../14/.../24/... have a lower chance (if I remember well would depend of the variants), but if they become not useful for combat, always can be used as auxiliary helicopters.

    The use of these aircrafts and helicopters must continue in a different but even more intensive way, taking into account their difficult future, because very likely they will be unable to survive to the next generation of MANPADS.

    Today the problem to abandon permanently the CAS fighting style would be more in the remaining stocks of CAS ammunition. Here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_(rocket)   (only some variants)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket   (only some variants)

    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

    Is not far the time when the material of the second group gets totally out of the inventary of the manned aircrafts and helicopters.

    But taking into account that succeed as CAS ammunition, this only would mean that these ammunitions likely will become a very important part of the armament of future CAS UAVs.

    It means that today is perfectly possible to abandon permanently the CAS fighting style.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1695
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:43 pm

    eehnie wrote:I commented previously about the CAS fighting style as an obsolete fighting style. To add something new...

    The problem with CAS is that in presence of MANPADS, the aircrafts are losers. Neither the advanced systems saved some helicopters from a hit. Manned CAS is a loser because the development and production of MANPADS is far cheaper than the development and production of manned aircraft and helicopters for CAS, and the loses on pilots are worse still.

    High altitude is the solution for manned aircrafts and helicopters. The problem at this point is not in the aircrafts or helicopters, even if are not modernized. The Su-25, Ka-50/52, Mi-28 have still some margin over the current generation of MANPADS (designed by Russia to give them a chance still). In the case of the Mi-8/.../14/.../24/... have a lower chance (if I remember well would depend of the variants), but if they become not useful for combat, always can be used as auxiliary helicopters.

    The use of these aircrafts and helicopters must continue in a different but even more intensive way, taking into account their difficult future, because very likely they will be unable to survive to the next generation of MANPADS.

    Today the problem to abandon permanently the CAS fighting style would be more in the remaining stocks of CAS ammunition. Here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_(rocket)   (only some variants)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket   (only some variants)

    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

    Is not far the time when the material of the second group gets totally out of the inventary of the manned aircrafts and helicopters.

    But taking into account that succeed as CAS ammunition, this only would mean that these ammunitions likely will become a very important part of the armament of future CAS UAVs.

    It means that today is perfectly possible to abandon permanently the CAS fighting style.

    You can't win a war without loosing some hardware.

    CAS are usefull for conventional wars. When they decided to build the A-10 Americans were expecting to loose all their fleet after some months against the Soviets but they would have destroyed enough ground forces to stop an invasion (that's what US though at the time).

    It should be the same with su-25. The plane will probably engage first and destroy lot of vehicle before it is engaged by the ground forces.

    Manpads are not known to be that dangerous. Pk is very low and engagement zone is small. If you know it is lunched, some flares and some evasive turns will be enough to escape the missile.

    Against a conventional opponent manpads will be covered by some BUKs or other long range systems so if you fly high you will be engaged by more dangerous systems.

    Su-25 can survive a hit of manpad, pilot will survive anyway. S-300 missiles are big and chance of surviving close to 0 for a Su-25 or A-10. Better go against the manpad.

    Drones are shit technology. You can jam all of them and they are easy targets for aviation.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:46 am

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:I commented previously about the CAS fighting style as an obsolete fighting style. To add something new...

    The problem with CAS is that in presence of MANPADS, the aircrafts are losers. Neither the advanced systems saved some helicopters from a hit. Manned CAS is a loser because the development and production of MANPADS is far cheaper than the development and production of manned aircraft and helicopters for CAS, and the loses on pilots are worse still.

    High altitude is the solution for manned aircrafts and helicopters. The problem at this point is not in the aircrafts or helicopters, even if are not modernized. The Su-25, Ka-50/52, Mi-28 have still some margin over the current generation of MANPADS (designed by Russia to give them a chance still). In the case of the Mi-8/.../14/.../24/... have a lower chance (if I remember well would depend of the variants), but if they become not useful for combat, always can be used as auxiliary helicopters.

    The use of these aircrafts and helicopters must continue in a different but even more intensive way, taking into account their difficult future, because very likely they will be unable to survive to the next generation of MANPADS.

    Today the problem to abandon permanently the CAS fighting style would be more in the remaining stocks of CAS ammunition. Here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-25_(rocket)   (only some variants)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket   (only some variants)

    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

    Is not far the time when the material of the second group gets totally out of the inventary of the manned aircrafts and helicopters.

    But taking into account that succeed as CAS ammunition, this only would mean that these ammunitions likely will become a very important part of the armament of future CAS UAVs.

    It means that today is perfectly possible to abandon permanently the CAS fighting style.

    You can't win a war without loosing some hardware.

    CAS are usefull for conventional wars. When they decided to build the A-10 Americans were expecting to loose all their fleet after some months against the Soviets but they would have destroyed enough ground forces to stop an invasion (that's what US though at the time).

    It should be the same with su-25. The plane will probably engage first and destroy lot of vehicle before it is engaged by the ground forces.

    Manpads are not known to be that dangerous. Pk is very low and engagement zone is small. If you know it is lunched, some flares and some evasive turns will be enough to escape the missile.

    Against a conventional opponent manpads will be covered by some BUKs or other long range systems so if you fly high you will be engaged by more dangerous systems.

    Su-25 can survive a hit of manpad, pilot will survive anyway. S-300 missiles are big and chance of surviving close to 0 for a Su-25 or A-10. Better go against the manpad.

    Drones are shit technology. You can jam all of them and they are easy targets for aviation.

    CAS UAVs will be very cheap. Only enough to carry some weapons like the cited before and/or some bombs. Really, the loses of UAVs are far less important and a lot easier to afford. The hability to jam them is not something that all the countries have, only is in the hand of the most advanced military forces.

    Also, for countries with advanced military forces, the time where they cared not about the life of their soldiers passed, and more in a country like Russia, with limited population compared to other contries, including potential adversaries. I do not expect Russia to mantain tactics with important human costs like CAS. It makes not sense.

    Manned CAS is almost dead at this point in a country like Russia, that has alternative way to use the armament used until now for CAS (aircrafts and helicopters), and has or will have in a few years an alternative use for its arsenals of specific CAS ammunition (cited in the previous comment).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:32 am

    UAVs are never cheap... the datalinks and the sensors and the weapons they carry will mean they are never cheap, but unless you spend even more on countermeasures and self defence systems they will be incredibly vulnerable to even the oldest SAM platform... meaning dreadfully easy to shoot down...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1695
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:49 am

    GarryB wrote:UAVs are never cheap... the datalinks and the sensors and the weapons they carry will mean they are never cheap, but unless you spend even more on countermeasures and self defence systems they will be incredibly vulnerable to even the oldest SAM platform... meaning dreadfully easy to shoot down...

    Totally agree.

    Computer are faster than human brain for computing. But nothing will replace a human brain for taking decisions. The front line where the CAS fighters are will be in heavy jamming so drones will be useless. Autonome drones which take decisions by themselves are dangerous because they can shot at your own forces. Human eyes combined with human brains is much better than any good camera with any computer. Pilots in su-25 are safe even if hit, the big armour will protect them.

    The price is also competitive against modern armed drones. First generation su-25 were something like 10 million $.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:00 pm

    Isos, this price is of the 1980s.

    The cost of Mi-8 family combat helicopters seems to be now over 250 Millions of Rubles.

    Safe enough to say that almost all the CAS UAVs will be under the price of a Mi-8 family combat helicopter. Without taking into account the costs of human loses.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1695
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:24 pm

    eehnie wrote:Isos, this price is of the 1980s.

    The cost of Mi-8 family combat helicopters seems to be now over 250 Millions of Rubles.

    Safe enough to say that almost all the CAS UAVs  will be under the price of a Mi-8 family combat helicopter. Without taking into account the costs of human loses.

    Now it is Mi-17 not Mi-8. Much newer and better so it is more expensive. Give the price in dollars I have no dea what is the vale of Rubles.

    The price of a Su-25 would be higher today, still lower than that of bombers and fighter, but the cost/effictivness ratio is much better than UAV's. Cheap UAV can't carry what Su-25 can carry just look at pictures of it full loaded.

    Su-25T which is what they should have put in service instead of the normal SU-25 is the best choice for CAS. modern UAV like predator will have couple of missiles while Su-25 can carry ARM, anti tank missile (pod of 8 missiles), bombs, rockets and fuel tanks.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:37 pm

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Isos, this price is of the 1980s.

    The cost of Mi-8 family combat helicopters seems to be now over 250 Millions of Rubles.

    Safe enough to say that almost all the CAS UAVs  will be under the price of a Mi-8 family combat helicopter. Without taking into account the costs of human loses.

    Now it is Mi-17 not Mi-8. Much newer and better so it is more expensive. Give the price in dollars I have no dea what is the vale of Rubles.

    The price of a Su-25 would be higher today, still lower than that of bombers and fighter, but the cost/effictivness ratio is much better than UAV's. Cheap UAV can't carry what Su-25 can carry just look at pictures of it full loaded.

    Su-25T which is what they should have put in service instead of the normal SU-25 is the best choice for CAS. modern UAV like predator will have couple of missiles while Su-25 can carry ARM, anti tank missile (pod of 8 missiles), bombs, rockets and fuel tanks.

    Mi-8 and Mi-17 actually. And both of the Mi-8 family, variants of the same product.

    I live in €. I know not which the exchange from Rubles to dolars is. If you need to know in $ you can look at it yourself.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:14 am

    The problem Eehnie, is that if air defences make CAS manned aircraft obsolete then that makes all CAS aircraft obsolete...

    Even if you could get 100 UAVs for the price of one Su-25, even small arms fire will bring down a UAV.

    To protect your UAVs from enemy attack means armour and self defence suites of ECM equipment and guess what... the cost of those UAVs just went up 500% and all of a sudden you can only get 5-10 UAVs for the price of one Su-25.

    Now show me the UAV that is as effective in combat as an Su-25?

    There is a reason they continue to use them and continue to upgrade them and plan for replacement models of CAS aircraft...

    I would love to see a remote control UAV that can deal to the terrorists yet risk no pilot... that would be fantastic... but at the end of the day the terrorists the Russians are fighting are supported by the US and Israel and Saudi Arabia who have deep pockets and lots of high tech kit... the Russians seem to be able to deal with all the UAVs that have been used against them so far... do you think Israel or the US would do worse against Russian UAVs?

    UAVs are great for surveillance, but not so good for combat... they have no self preservation capacity...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:02 am

    GarryB wrote:The problem Eehnie, is that if air defences make CAS manned aircraft obsolete then that makes all CAS aircraft obsolete...

    Even if you could get 100 UAVs for the price of one Su-25, even small arms fire will bring down a UAV.

    To protect your UAVs from enemy attack means armour and self defence suites of ECM equipment and guess what... the cost of those UAVs just went up 500% and all of a sudden you can only get 5-10 UAVs for the price of one Su-25.

    Now show me the UAV that is as effective in combat as an Su-25?

    There is a reason they continue to use them and continue to upgrade them and plan for replacement models of CAS aircraft...

    I would love to see a remote control UAV that can deal to the terrorists yet risk no pilot... that would be fantastic... but at the end of the day the terrorists the Russians are fighting are supported by the US and Israel and Saudi Arabia who have deep pockets and lots of high tech kit... the Russians seem to be able to deal with all the UAVs that have been used against them so far... do you think Israel or the US would do worse against Russian UAVs?

    UAVs are great for surveillance, but not so good for combat... they have no self preservation capacity...

    Most of this argument is right, but there is also a component in the nature of the unmanned vehicles of every type, that makes them expendable. Unmanned vehicles are not like the manned heavy warfare, something to keep as long as possible. With this type of warfare there is always a conservative use, while in the case of the unmanned material other options can be previewed.

    Unmanned vehicles make also sense between the material expendable (basically ammunition until now). This is what makes a real option to talk as example about suicide unmanned vehicles, and UAVs between them. CAS UAVs would be mostly designed under this philosophy of more expendable material, doing them as cheap as possible, doing them for a fast use in most of the cases, and assuming very likely low recovery rates. Only those that can fly approximately at 3000m of altitude would have some loitering capabilities and higher survival rate. But in overall terms high rate of loses on CAS UAV would be previewed. Loses would not be a problem, like is not a problem the use of ammunition or like is not a problem to lose a robot defusing explosives.

    In term of costs, 100 CAS UAVs on par of 1 Mi-8, can be a realistic rate in some cases.

    Obviously, for it, UAVs need still some technological improvements.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:35 pm

    Another aspect however is part of their expendability means you don't put very expensive sensors on them, or risk losing high tech stuff to the enemy... especially in peace time.

    A further aspect is that during peace time the life expectancy of a UAV is nothing like the thousands of hour of a conventional manned aircraft.

    Also unmanned UAVs become obsolete too and so need to be replaced or upgraded, with the older models perhaps used as aerial targets... the point is that the life cycle of an unmanned aircraft will be much shorter than with a manned aircraft that will likely remain operational for much longer.

    There are some roles an unmanned aircraft is excellent for, and other roles it is totally useless for.

    Sometimes they are the same roles... the difference is whether the sky is contested or not.

    US UAVs over Yemen or Pakistan were not shot at by an opposing air force... US UAVs over South Ossetia or Crimea would be shot down very very easily.

    That means that the one advantage of them actually makes them useless depending on enemy action.

    A manned aircraft would likely be forced to land, but would likely never be sent on such a suicide mission anyway.

    Because a UAV is expendible it is more likely to be used and lost... the value of losing it is a gamble against what information it might collect if it is not shot down.

    UAVs are not mature enough for the fighter role and for many other critical roles including CAS.

    A bomber operating at 10km altitude dropping dumb bombs is safer from all ground fire than a UAV flying low and using bombs and rockets and accuracy is pretty good too... just a question of getting target data to the bomber for the attacks.

    A UAV at 5km altitude with powerful optics and radar could find targets for the bombers yet be small enough to be largely unseen and untargetable by MANPADS, but flying low and supporting troops with gun and rocket and bombs needs a manned aircraft still.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:18 am

    I do not see as easy the obsolescence of the CAS UAVs, if are designed with a logic of continuity from the current CAS work.

    In terms of armament, The CAS weapons have bee stable in decades. And is likely that future CAS UAVs use the same arsenals. Basically the first CAS UAVs that I expect with real success, very likely will be a flying CAS helicopter/aircraft pylon where different CAS weapons, likely from the stocks of armament removed from old CAS helicopters and aircrafts, can be attached depending of he mission. As example if a load of S-8 rockets is necessary somewhere, the operator would select a S-8 launcher system to put in the CAS UAV pylon. Take off, fire and return if possible.

    In terms of sensors, CAS UAVs would have very likely minimal charge in agreement with a more expendable nature. A small system for the authomatic use of the weapon carried, a camera, some thermal sensor in some variant, and little more.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:43 am

    Hovering targets are too easy to hit...

    A UAV helicopter would be a very fragile aircraft... fitting it with 80mm rockets would seriously upset its stability... not to mention the risk of exhaust gas stalling the engine.

    Personally I would split the roles... a large UAV flying at 10km altitude away from any small arms threats or MANPADS, and a very small UAV flying at half that altitude with lots of camera turrets under its belly with normal optics and thermal optics and radar and laser target markers... guys back at base can control the belly mounted turrets and be in direct contact with troops on the ground who can mark targets with smoke or flares or tracer ammo or laser beams... the guys in the van can then look closely at the targets and determine a suitable weapon to use against it and then mark it with their own laser... the UAV carrying these optics just flies in a slow orbit around the hot zone. When targets are selected the higher flying UAV opens its bomb bay and releases laser guided bombs from 5kgs up to about 100kgs depending upon the target and the problem... a decent sized UAV could orbit for a day with hundreds of small bombs ready to provide direct support... and of course the lower flying UAV will have GLONASS so it will know where it is and with the angle of the laser and range to the target can generate the coordinates on the ground of the target so when there is no bigger UAV support then they can pass the data to local artillery units firing Glonass guided shells....

    Good communication is critical however from the ground forces and artillery to the UAV "pilots" and "gunners".


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:54 pm

    I expect a new design of unmanned high speed combat helicopter, but also I expect far less expensive and lighter CAS UAVs that instead of 8 pylons have a single pylon just under a small engine and the minimum main structure of the UAV (helicopter of aircraft configuration). Looking at the picture is not difficult to imagine it.



    CAS UAVs need to use effective weapons and ammunitions. With the years there is a series of armament in some cases specific, and in other cases shared with other situations of combat, that emerged as the most effective CAS armament. CAS UAVs must incorporate these weapons and ammunitions. This is key for their success.

    Actually the armament installed in the pylons of the CAS helicopters and aircrafts (Su-25/28/39) are solid designs well designed and balanced in terms of stability. Plus the use of the current pylons assures the option of interchangeablity of weapons for different missions. Also there is a high availability of these types of launchers from old decommissioned aircrafts and helicopters.

    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.

    Other smaller CAS UAVs with lower firepower are also possible, but likely would require design of new launchers and ammunition, becoming surely more expensive.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:18 am

    You talk about light less expensive UAVs and then you talk about large loads of lots of weapons...

    UAVs are good for loitering for long periods and allowing a good view of the battlefield, but if you want them to launch rockets then they have to get within 1-2km of the target... which means they are in range of ground fire... how long will they last?

    Better off having larger more expensive UAVs at medium altitude with small guided weapons and simple guided missiles and bombs like command guided ATAKA missiles that are cheap and compact...

    Any helicopter will lack range and speed and capacity and will spend most of its time rearming and refuelling.

    Some big glider on the other hand can loiter for days with hundreds of 2kg bombs and large numbers of 50kg bombs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2081
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:48 pm

    The commented rockets are the surviving specific material for CAS. In some cases there is a kit to make them guided. This is the current material that only can be used on CAS, except in the case of the S-13 and S-25, that have more modern variants with range over 5 Km that can continue being used by manned helicopters and aircrafts from outside of the range of the MANPADS. The current ATGM (AT-6,...) and Air-Surface missiles (guided) have a range of at least 5 Km too and can continue being used from longer distance by manned aircrafts from outside the range of MANPADs.

    Also the weapons of high rate of fire and the bombs/mines commented would have more applications. But the rockets need to be integrated in the future unmanned CAS otherwise the current stocks would be useless. And no-one in Russia wants it.

    It would leave the weapons commented in the previous comment for CAS. There are many weapons but not to be used at same time.

    A single pylon UAV would have interchangeability like current pylons, but would carry only one weapon, the selected weapon, in the mission. This type of UAVs would be of around 150-250 Kg full armed, like a 1-2.5% of the weight of a combat helicopter.

    Also it would be more options.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17957
    Points : 18531
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:37 pm

    Rockets and bombs are the core weapons of CAS aircraft because they are cheap and the CAS aircraft will get low down and slow and therefore deliver it accurately.

    If you want to protect the launch platform you need stand off range... for both UAVs and CAS aircraft.. laser homing kits for rockets or light bombs to improve lethality and allow weight reductions without making them a lot more expensive.

    If they update their communications systems to the point where the commander on the ground can see the pilots view of the target area and can himself mark the enemy positions for the pilot to then attack I think CAS will be fully mature and very capable...

    If you want unarmoured unprotected UAVs flying high that makes sense too, because there is little point in putting a CAS aircraft up at high altitude and then use magnifying optics to find targets... you might as well use UAVs and lots of men in vans looking at video feeds for targets... it is cheaper and easier.

    However the role of flying in there and taking out an enemy when there are no friendlies on the ground nearby then CAS make sense.

    Those new Bulat short range missiles look interesting... depending on their guidance options and warhead options being launched from high altitude could make them a useful glide weapon that is not so expensive and can be carried in numbers...

    Kornet is not that big or heavy and can fly 10km from a ground based launcher... which should allow rather greater range from 5km alt.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 26, 2018 12:56 pm