DARPA LongShot program enters new phase

Early LongShot UAV concept from GA-ASI, 2021

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA continues to implement the LongShot program. The goal of the work is to create an unmanned aerial vehicle with the function of carrying and using air-to-air missiles. Over the past few years, the program has been at the stage of competitive design development, and now the Agency has selected a contractor who will continue the work.

Stages of the project

The launch of the LongShot research program first became known in February 2020. Then the drafting of the military budget for the next fiscal year began, and in connection with this, some of the Pentagon’s needs were revealed, incl. in the context of advanced developments. The first phase of work, scheduled for FY2021, required $22 million.

A year later, in February 2021, DARPA officially launched the Longshot program and identified its participants. Contracts for the creation of preliminary designs were awarded to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. The cost of the work was not disclosed at that time. Apparently, the previously requested 22 million was divided between the contestants.

The goal of the LongShot program is to create an aircraft-type UAV suitable for suspension on existing and future tactical platforms. aviation. Such a drone must carry guided air-to-air missiles of existing types and have a set of equipment for their use. The Longshot must launch from a carrier aircraft and deliver missiles to a remote launch site, increasing the overall combat radius of the aircraft complex.

Already in 2021, LongShot participating companies showed the first concepts of promising technology, and subsequently published new materials more than once. At the same time, projects were developed and revised. Thus, GA-ASI presented two options for the appearance of the UAV. Concepts 2021 and 2023 differ noticeably from each other.

The winner of the contest

To date, DARPA has received documentation from the competitors, compared the submitted projects and selected the most successful one. On September 7, GA-ASI officially announced that it had received a contract to continue developing its version of Longshot. The cost of the work has not yet been disclosed.

New option drone by GA-ASI

The management of the winning company notes that in recent years a lot of research has been carried out, during which a number of options for a promising UAV have been studied and tested. The best result was submitted to the competition and won it. Now it is planned to complete the design and move on to a new stage.

Apparently, the LongShot UAV project from GA-ASI is highly developed or even completely ready. Judging by the latest reports, the development company is already building experimental equipment and preparing to test it. The first flight tests are scheduled for December this year. It will probably start with a carrier aircraft, with drops, solo flights and rocket launches in the more distant future.

As work continues, costs for the LongShot program increase. So, in FY 2021 its budget was $22 million, and in 2022-23. 36 million were allocated for the work. For the new fiscal year 2024, starting October 1, spending is planned in the amount of just over $44 million. This will be enough to complete the assembly of the prototype(s) and start testing.

New look

After the start of work within the LongShot program, GA-ASI revealed its views on the appearance of a promising UAV. In total, three concepts were published with different features and significant differences. The last of them was attached to a recent press release about winning the competitive part of the program. This is probably the last version of the project that the customer is interested in, and it is this that will receive further development.

The picture from GA-ASI shows an unusual type of unmanned aerial vehicle with a “longitudinal triplane” design. It has a wide and flat fuselage with “unobtrusive” lines and a protruding upper air intake. The nose section has a trapezoidal front horizontal tail. In the center, shifted towards the tail, there is a forward-swept wing with high aspect ratio consoles. Perhaps the consoles are folding. The tail includes a small fin ridge on top and an L-shaped stabilizer.

Obviously, LongShot will be equipped with a turbojet engine with the required combination of dimensions and thrust. What flight characteristics it will provide is unknown. Perhaps the UAV will be trans- or supersonic. The combat radius is tens or hundreds of kilometers.

General UAV concept from DARPA

In the picture, LongShot launches an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile. It flies out from under the bottom of the drone, but the method of transportation and launch cannot be determined. The ammunition load of such an aircraft also remains unknown. Judging by its size, the UAV can only carry a few missiles.

Independent flight and combat mission performance must be ensured by an autopilot. How exactly and on what components it will be built is unknown. The required functions and capabilities were also not specified.

The latest modification of the F-15 fighter is shown as the carrier of the UAV with missiles. There remains one more drone under its wing, ready for use. Judging by the dimensions of all elements of the complex, such a carrier can use no more than two or three LongShot products - one under each plane and, possibly, one under the fuselage. At the same time, the aircraft retains the ability to carry a certain number of missiles for independent use.

The performance characteristics of the LongShot UAV from GA-ASI are not disclosed. So far, the development company has limited itself to only the appearance of the product and “demonstration” of its main capabilities. Probably, in the future, the customer and the project implementer will publish the calculated characteristics and data from the tests, which will allow us to draw the first conclusions.

promising concept

GA-ASI received a Pentagon contract to complete the development, assembly and testing of the prototype LongShot UAV. The first flights on the carrier may take place as early as this year, but full-fledged tests with testing of all capabilities and functions will take considerable time and will only be completed in the indefinite future. However, it is already clear what the new drone could be, and why DARPA and the Air Force are interested in creating it and bringing it into operation.

The main idea of ​​the project is quite simple: after being dropped from a carrier aircraft, the Longshot product must fly to a given point and use suspended aircraft weapons. This approach to using weapons has several advantages. First of all, this is an increase in the combat radius of the entire complex, because The radius of the UAV is added to the range of the aircraft and missile. Depending on the characteristics of the latter, the total radius can increase by hundreds of kilometers.

AIM-120 missiles under the wing of an F/A-18 fighter. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

The use of the LongShot UAV should reduce the risks for the carrier aircraft. To attack the intended target, he will not have to approach it within missile launch range - this will be done by a drone. It can be hit by the enemy, but the damage or loss of the aircraft will be more sensitive.

Perhaps, within the framework of the LongShot program, the issue of group use of unmanned aerial vehicles is being explored. In this case, several UAVs could jointly search for air targets, distribute them and launch missiles. Such a unit, depending on its size, can be launched and controlled by one fighter.

So far we are talking only about the possibility of using air-to-air missiles. However, in the course of further development, UAVs may receive weapon for hitting the ground. In this case, the unmanned system will retain all the main advantages and will be able to show high efficiency.

Additional link

Thus, the Pentagon, DARPA and their contractors continue to search for new ways and methods to improve the capabilities of combat aviation. As part of the ongoing LongShot program, they have looked at the possibility of introducing an additional "link" between the aircraft and the rocket. This idea has already undergone preliminary development, and in the foreseeable future it is going to be tested in practice.

It should be noted that the Longshot project is currently being created under the leadership of DARPA. This means that we are only talking about a technology demonstrator and testing new solutions. The creation of a full-fledged combat-ready UAV based on the program’s developments remains a matter of the distant future. How soon the development of such a drone will begin, and what it will be like, will become clear only after the completion of the main part of the testing of the current LongShot.

Comments

[rocket757]

What will it be, what do they want to create???

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: rocket757

What will it be, what do they want to create???

“They want to” create a “CC.” More precisely, to take your pilot out of the zone of destruction by our plane, and for this, to increase the range of destruction of your missile. Well, they don’t have a stone flower!

[Blackmokona]

Quote: rocket757

What will it be, what do they want to create???

Range booster for missiles. So that you can use the AIM-120 for both 180 km and 400 km, depending on the task. Optional additional stage for rocket.

[bayard]

Quote: rocket757

What will it be, what do they want to create???

A carrier of additional ammunition for combat aircraft, a kind of “faithful wingman.” If for a strike on ground targets, so that the MFI does not enter the affected area, this is all right, although there are gliding bombs for this purpose, but as a carrier of an additional RVV SD ammunition ... looking at the capabilities of the F-15X suspensions, questions arise. The radar will still be on the MFI, for guidance/target designation, so the darling will light up and cause fire on itself, even if it is “stealth”. Maybe this is how they want to compensate for the small volumes of weapon bays on the 5th generation? Well, again, the radar will give itself away and cause fire not on the drone, but on your loved one.
... It's a muddy idea, I wouldn't be particularly interested in it in this capacity. Expensive, difficult, vulnerable. KR and UPAB, as well as the cheap but mass-produced attack drones "Geranium-2" - that's what you need for happiness.
But there should be a LOT of planes. Including inexpensive, simple and cheap to operate attack aircraft, capable of performing 6+ combat sorties per day. But adapted for the use of UAB and other guided weapons. For them, it would make sense to make not only UPAB-250 and UPAB-500, but also UPAB-100 - for a massive impact on the enemy’s front line and near rear when breaking through defense lines. UPAB-100 even the Yak-130M could take one and a half to two dozen at a time.

We, too, have been infected with this craze - the S-70 “Hunter”, and now they are sculpting an analogue of American fantasies. And if the same “Hunter” could be adapted, say, for flights over the sea and for launching attacks on enemy ships (I would never let this happen over enemy territory), then the latter (what’s his name, “Molniya” or something) christened?) this is just nonsense, a diversion of resources and the scarcest design personnel. We need CR in LARGE quantities, of all types and for various purposes. We need SAM in MASSIVE quantities. We need light fighters (where is the MiG-35S, now it would just get into the flow, and on two ASZ they will immediately go into mass production), light attack aircraft, attack aircraft (Su-34M, we don’t have any others) and heavy fighters themselves: Su-30SM2 for Naval Aviation, Su-35S\SM (preferably with avionics, BRLC and weapons from the Su-57) and Su-57 (as aviation special forces, because no matter how many of them are built now, there will still be few, but they are needed everywhere ) .

[DenVB]

Quote: bayard

We need CR in LARGE quantities, of all types and for various purposes

CR in large (no, LARGE) quantities is a ruinous endeavor. It just makes economic sense to make an attack drone that could carry gliding batteries far beyond the front line and throw them there. It should be a) cheap, b) inconspicuous.

Yes, they will still be shot down. Here we need to provide simple mathematics. If S is the cost of the drone, and N is the number of sorties it will make before it is lost, M is the number of bombs (let’s take 500-kilogram bombs) delivered in one flight, then S divided by the product of N and M should be less the cost of one KR. If this condition can be met, a reusable drone will pay off (although this calculation does not take into account the cost of bombs).

Quote: bayard

KR and UPAB, as well as cheap, but mass-produced attack drones "Geranium-2" - that's what you need for happiness.

By the way, it is possible to create a cheap competitor to both “Geraniums” and “Calibers”. The prototype is known: V-1. The engine there is as simple as three kopecks. Warhead - about a ton. The speed is lower than that of Caliber, but significantly higher than that of Geranium. The range is lame (something in the region of 200-300 kilometers, EMNIP). Nowadays, such a heavy warhead is hardly needed often; it can be reduced, thereby increasing the range.

Germany, which was in a dire situation, produced about 1 V-100s per day. We, with our resource luxury, should, in theory, be able to produce at least a thousand. If only there were enough chips for navigation systems.

[bayard]

Quote: DenVB

CR in large (no, LARGE) quantities is a ruinous endeavor.

Let's count?
The export (!) cost of the Caliber-E missile system in the middle of the last decade was stated (in advertising brochures) in the region of 600 - 650 thousand dollars. Therefore, for the RF Ministry of Defense the cost of such a missile (Caliber, R-500 Iskander-K) will not exceed 400 thousand dollars. ten years ago, when their production was just getting started. Due to the mass/serial nature of their production in the last decade, it has naturally led to a reduction in their cost, and therefore the purchase price for the Moscow Region. Let us carefully assume that the current purchase price is no more than 350 thousand dollars. But most likely - around 300 thousand.
Think about this number.
Now let's compare this missile system with... the Geranium-2 attack UAV.
Warhead - about 50 kg. (versus 450 kg for "Caliber" and R-500).
The cost is estimated at 30 - 50 thousand. But in our realities, taking into account the complexity of delivering components, we estimate (cautiously) the cost of a serial "Geranium-2" at 35 - 40 thousand dollars.
Oops... And in recalculation of the cost of 1 kg. combat unit, we have already reached parity. But the cost of production of the Kyrgyz Republic will continue to fall in price. Due to the mass production and payback of fixed assets/production lines. I wouldn’t be surprised if the purchase cost of these CDs over time (or already?) will be about 250 thousand dollars.
Now let’s look at your proposed UAV with a warhead of 500 kg.
Can you imagine its dimensions? At a multiple lower speed, it (the UAV) will need wings with a multiple larger area. And the engine... Which one? Piston? Is this one available? Turboprop? So it will definitely not be cheaper than a low-resource turbojet engine for the Kyrgyz Republic.
Now let's compare. What does a CD and a UAV consist of and how do they differ?
Engine type, speed and airframe design. The navigation blocks on them can be almost identical.
And what do we see?
UAV with warhead 450 - 500 kg. will have an engine of the same cost as that of the Kyrgyz Republic, a much larger airframe and wingspan, more noticeable to radar and more vulnerable to air defense systems and fighters.
Which means???
This means it definitely won’t be cheaper and definitely won’t perform its tasks better!
So what for the button accordion?
But as a carrier of a 50 kg warhead. , with a range of missiles and small sizes... and a price tag of 35 - 40 thousand dollars. - this is the very thing! To ensure massive use, for a more flexible distribution of targets for missile defense and such UAVs, to create constant combat tension for the enemy’s air defense and maximize their consumption of much more expensive missiles and missiles against cheap “Geraniums”.

Quote: DenVB

V-1. The engine there is as simple as three kopecks. Warhead - about a ton. The speed is lower than that of Caliber, but significantly higher than that of Geranium.

Are you talking about... "V-1" or something? Our military abandoned it in the second half of the 40s. Due to low efficiency and extreme vulnerability. Why do we need something new if we have Geranium?
And UPABs already fly at a distance of 40 to 100 km. Screw a small cheap engine into their ass, they will consistently fly 100 - 150 km. They are cheap, there are plenty of these FABs in warehouses, and mass production can be achieved quickly and inexpensively.
And that’s it - all positions in terms of range, power and diversity of application have been resolved. The only question is their NUMBER and the rate at which they enter the troops.
So return to the first lines of my post and make sure that the production of the most massive (and easy to produce) CDs is not at all wasteful, which is why they are not running out, and the economy is still not torn to shreds.
Now more and more “geraniums” will be entering the troops every day, their production is expanding not even by multiples, but by orders of magnitude, UPAB - too, the production of CDs is growing as well as their range is growing. New formations, air regiments and front-line aviation brigades are being deployed, resources are being accumulated for a long war not at all with “Ukraine”.
By the way, production of T-80 tanks from scratch is starting/resuming in Omsk. And this is in addition to the fact that it was decided to modernize all T-80s from storage and return them to service.
What is this talking about?
Under conditions of victorious capitalism?
And this means that “just like that” in the Russian Federation, such expenses and long-term programs would not be allowed. Since money is being spent and such production is being developed, it means the war/confrontation will be long, uncompromising, and we are ready for this and therefore are preparing.
Therefore, there will be not just a lot of CDs, but a lot. Like UAVs, airplanes, tanks, shells, cartridges... This is already our reality.

[DenVB]

Quote: bayard

And what do we see?
UAV with warhead 450 - 500 kg. will have an engine of the same cost as that of the Kyrgyz Republic, a much larger airframe and wingspan, more noticeable to radar and more vulnerable to air defense systems and fighters.

Yes, that’s exactly what I thought, that in essence we should make a returnable CD.

I don't agree about the "much larger size". Why will it be so much larger? The weight of the warhead is the same. You will have to take more fuel to make it enough for the return trip, yes. But the UAV will fly back without a bomb, and much less fuel will be required. He will also need landing gear for landing, but this is not that much weight. Maybe a hundred kilograms. You can take the same engine, just install two of them. Weight is another plus 80 kg.

In general, the starting weight of our reusable CR can be estimated as approximately one and a half times greater than that of a pure CR. The wing area will have to be increased by approximately the same amount. Nothing extraordinary, as we see. The cost can be estimated to be approximately two to three times greater. Thus, if you managed to run it three times, it has already paid for itself.

However, startup costs are not taken into account here. But with just one and a half weight gain, they shouldn't get much bigger. Launch, of course, from an aircraft carrier.

Another option is a completely new attack UAV design. Unnoticeable. That is, a flying wing. Here, of course, the “pipe with wings” will be more expensive. Approximately - by an order of magnitude. Then, for an economic effect, a survival rate of at least 10-20 sorties will be required. How realistic this is, I don’t know.

Has anyone checked the effectiveness of Ukraine's air defense systems against a stealth target with EPR, like the F-117? I do not know.

Quote: bayard

Are you talking about... "V-1" or something? Our military abandoned it in the second half of the 40s. Due to low efficiency and extreme vulnerability

Low efficiency - due to the missing guidance system. The Germans simply launched them “around London”.

Extreme vulnerability - excuse me, due to what? Yes, once upon a time the British knocked them down in droves. Again, because they flew like a flock of geese along the same route, without changing either course or altitude - straight to London. Nowadays, they can maneuver no worse than Geraniums and Calibers. And the vulnerability will be at the same level.

The advantage over Caliber is its low cost. The engine is not much more complicated than a blowtorch.

The advantage over Geranium is a more powerful warhead. Conventionally, from 100 to 500 kg. If necessary - even up to a thousand. By the way, it is possible that it will be cheaper than Geranium. Again due to the engine.

The advantage over UPAB is range. Approximately - 500 km. But it depends on the warhead. With a 100-kilogram warhead you can fly further than Geranium.

Quote: bayard

make sure that the production of the most massive (and easy to produce) CDs is not at all wasteful, that’s why they don’t run out

The multiple increase in the number of starts is not noticeable. That is, it was not possible to scale production in a year and a half. Most likely - precisely because of the high cost.

Quote: bayard

Now more and more “geraniums” will be entering the troops every day, their production is expanding not even by multiples, but by orders of magnitude, UPAB - too, the production of CDs is growing as well as their range is growing. New formations, air regiments and front-line aviation brigades are being deployed, resources are being accumulated for a long war not at all with “Ukraine”.
By the way, production of T-80 tanks from scratch is starting/resuming in Omsk. And this is in addition to the fact that it was decided to modernize all T-80s from storage and return them to service.
What is this talking about?

That all this may be unjustified optimism. Last year in the spring we were told that the Orion plant was working in three shifts and they were about to start flying in flocks. We're still waiting.

This summer they said that the Lancets would very soon (literally in August) begin to be produced en masse, and they would fly almost in volleys. We are waiting again.

I don’t believe about the T-80 at all yet. And I even think this is a stupid idea. KAZ is what we need to produce in large quantities. KAZ, and not tanks defenseless against ATGMs and drones. Does anyone really think that we can produce tanks faster than the West and Ukraine produce FPV drones?

[RondelR]

It is not expensive, such media is approximately 5-10 times cheaper than MFI. Target designation for US missiles can go through the link 16 network, and they can be indicated by AWACS aircraft, which have radars much more powerful than fighter radars. Such UAVs can emit the EPR of a full-fledged fighter, thereby taking on enemy fire, and losing one is much cheaper than f15/16/35. For the price of one f35, it will be possible to purchase 5 of these, if each carries 4 medium-range missiles, then this is immediately 20 missiles, such UAVs will be able to come forward and literally flood the enemy with missiles, and even if there is no AWACS in support (which is extremely unlikely) and target designation will come from the fighter's radar, then in any case, the enemy will first encounter these UAVs. And given Starlink, perhaps such devices will not need MFIs at all, they will be controlled from the ground thousands of kilometers away, and AWACS will give target designation.
Such UAVs are the future.
The S-70 is different, it is much larger and heavier, its cost is most likely close to the light / medium MFIs.

[RondelR]

We need AWACS, refuelers, RER UAVs and just with good ECOs, Su-57s with Su-75s (with great unification between them), and these are UAVs that are winged. The attack aircraft did not show themselves in any way in the SVO, maximum roll-up strikes, fab500 with UMPC are much more effective in this regard. The Su-34 is now busy bombing with the UMPC, which can be done by ordinary MFIs, while the Su-34 fighters cannot perform the functions. Why the Su-35 is needed when there is a Su-57 is not clear, now the 35ka occupies the production line in Komsomolsk, the sooner we switch to large-scale production of the 57x, the cheaper it will be to buy them and the cheaper it will be to operate. the su-75 is needed as a cheap version of the 57, given the declared unification, that is, it will be relatively easy to master the production of 75k, and 57 will benefit from this as there are many identical components. We need to strive for this pair in front-line aviation. And to help them, here are such faithful followers, as simple as possible, just flying containers with weapons.
AWACS needs dozens, under fifty.
There are hundreds of refuelers.
MFI (su57, su75) over a thousand.
Loyal followers need a lot like other UAVs.

Affordable:
- First of all, you need a data exchange network, like link 16 in the USA. And in the future, create a satellite one like Starlink.
- Next, we need reconnaissance equipment, as I wrote above about AWACS and UAVs, in addition to them, containers with good optics are needed for current fighters. Apparently they are already planning to install a good EOS on the Su-75.
- After you need decoys like MALD in combination with good reconnaissance, this will allow you to destroy enemy air defenses, thereby dominating the air over enemy territory.
- In terms of means of destruction, everything seems to be not bad with URVV, although instead of R37 it is possible that R77PD is better, but this is a moot point. URVPs also don’t seem to be bad, we just need more of them. More PRRs are needed and they should be satellite-guided, so that in case of signal loss, fly not along the inertial but along the satellite. UMPCs relatively solved the problem of bombs, but we still need UMPCs with laser guidance for moving targets.

All this can be created in 15 years if there is a strong-willed decision and they start relying on aviation, and not on the fleet and air defense systems.

[bayard]

Quote: RondelR

We need AWACS, refuelers

So back in 2010, a purchase program for 50 units was approved. A-100, 50 pcs. Il-78MD-90A and 200 pcs. Il-76MD-90A for VTA. 13 years have passed... serial production of the Il-76MD-90A has not begun (what exists is piecemeal, not serious), the A-100 was never born. Even the program for modernizing the Soviet A-50 to the A-50U degenerated into nothing in the form of 6 - 7 modernized aircraft... over 15+ years.
If "Vega" has been quietly mastering the budget all these years, and the Moscow Region (and in the Moscow Region this is the Logistics Service was engaged) did not control, did not finance properly, did not punish saboteurs... what could have happened?
Today, in matters of AWACS and fuel tankers, there are two main problems - there are no actual aircraft in production on the basis of which these machines can be implemented, and there is no actual AWACS complex for such an aircraft. The talk that it is now wiser to use the Tu-214 as a base rather than the Il-76... remains just talk. Refuelers... In fighter and front-line aviation, this issue could be temporarily resolved by retraining the Su-24M2 with remaining service life into such refuelers, each of which can refuel one heavy fighter per flight. This already happened at one time with the Tu-16 and M-4. And for some time this issue may be removed for TA. Although in our country it is not particularly acute - our fighters and FB have a very large on-board fuel supply and, for the most part, have enough.

Quote: RondelR

The attack aircraft did not show themselves in any way in the North Military District, maximum pitching strikes

Don’t confuse minimum with maximum, attack aircraft in the Northern Military District work very hard. And who is to blame for the fact that they did not integrate the possibility of using guided weapons? They can throw the same attack bombs no worse than the Su-34. Also, UPAB-250 in their design would be very appropriate and effective. And if UPAB-100 also appears (and there are simply heaps of such FABs in warehouses), then this is even more so - work for an attack aircraft. But the Su-25 fleet is already old, there are not many of them and they are very closely involved in the air defense. So their modernization is now hardly possible. But the Yak-130M with new engines, which is now being projected as a light attack aircraft, needs to be made immediately with the ability to work with UABs. And give them custody of the front line and near rear areas for the operation of UPAB-250 and UPAB-100. And for the Su-34, leave the heavier UPAB-500\1500\3000.

Quote: RondelR

The Su-34 is now busy bombing with UMPC, which conventional MFIs can do,

Surely no one can do this better than the Su-34. there is no need to distract fighter aviation with something that is not typical for it and that it will obviously make worse. And it seems that the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff understand this. For out of NINE newly deployed air regiments, only ONE will be fighter. All the rest are drums. And since we have only one strike aircraft in production, it means that all 8 (or 7, if one regiment is to be formed for YES) will be on the Su-34M, which you so dislike. Think about why exactly THIS decision was made.
And by the way, pilots highly praise the Su-34. And his armored cabin too. But the main thing is the composition of the avionics, which is suitable for all types of strike missions. And there is no need to demand an air battle from them. Of course he can, but it’s better to let them be accompanied on a mission by a Su-35S or Su-57. As it should be.

Quote: RondelR

Why do we need a Su-35 when we have a Su-57?

Is he really there?
How many ?
Squadron?
When there are at least 2-3 full-fledged regiments, it will be possible to say that THERE IS. In the meantime, we only HAVE Su-35S, Su-30SM (with their outdated avionics) and... Su-27SM3.

Quote: RondelR

Su-75 is needed as a cheap version of 57, given the declared unification

I would not count on this aircraft in the next 7 - 10 years. It simply doesn't exist...except for the plywood mockup. There is no full-fledged engine for it (AL-41F-1S is for this purpose... only suitable for the “first stage”), and with the existing one it will not sparkle with all the colors it deserves. During war, take such risks...death and the like.
Are you ready to play with death on the scale of the entire Country and the entire People? I would not .
Therefore, the solution here and now is serial production of the MiG-35S at both MiG factories, which have all the equipment for this. And with them they will cover the LFMI niche, thereby ensuring the mass production of military aircraft. Heavy vehicles alone certainly cannot fight a long war. Therefore, on an equal basis with the Su-34M, Su-30SM2 (for Naval Aviation), Su-35S\SM (until the Su-57 is finalized) and the Yak-130M (as a light attack aircraft), it is necessary at all the capacities available for this (and these are two ASZ MiGs) to launch production of the MiG-35S with AFAR. And everyone who interferes with this should be dragged to the Tribunal.

Quote: RondelR

instead of R37, perhaps R77PD is better,

No. A ramjet engine for an RVV of this class is too expensive. that is why they abandoned it and stopped work. The United States also wanted to take the French missile into service, but they calculated how much they needed and how much it would cost and... refused. It is easier to bring a dual-mode turbofan engine of a conventional RVV SD to the same parameters. And the R-37 is a missile for completely different tasks - defeating AWACS aircraft, missile carrier bombers, tankers, RTR, and PLO aircraft. Those. low-maneuverable targets at ranges of 300 - 400 km.

Quote: RondelR

We also need UMPC with laser guidance for moving targets.

For this purpose, the ASAPs must be of a lighter “caliber”. Let's say UPAB-100. With the possibility of planning for 50 - 70 - 100 km. And you can even get a head for such guidance from Krasnopol.

Quote: RondelR

All this can be created in 15 years

It needs to be done quickly and without unnecessary fantasies and cunning schemes for enriching those involved. Otherwise it will be like in WWI and REV - with the same end result.

[DenVB]

Quote: bayard

It’s now wiser to use as a base

L-410.

Quote: bayard

and there is no actual AWACS complex for such an aircraft

Fighter radars of previous generations can be adapted as an ersatz. PFAR are quite suitable. One per board. The main thing now is not the F-35 detection range records, but constant control of the airspace in the front-line and border zone.

[bayard]

Quote: DenVB

L-410.

It is no longer produced in Russia, and the engines for it were imported. The Moscow Region will not even consider this. It won’t be due to limited performance characteristics - the plane is too small and cannot patrol for a long time.
In order to place on board a sufficiently powerful radar with a large (at least 650 km) detection range, and at the same time maintain combat duty long enough to place on board at least 8 guidance operators/navigators + an RTR group, the base must be an aircraft of at least a class Tu-214. They are even available in the settling tanks of Aeroflot and UAC; they can be taken and converted... if only this equipment existed.
"Vega" is all about....loved it.

Quote: DenVB

Fighter radars of previous generations can be adapted as an ersatz. PFAR are quite suitable.

Such radars can operate continuously for no more than several tens of minutes. And in addition to the radar itself, you also need a complex of automated control systems, topographical mapping, secure communications... The whole complex is needed there.
If you need a paleo, you can simply borrow the modernized Ka-27M from the Navy; it has a fairly powerful side-view radar. But there are also few of them and the Fleet can be left without PLO helicopters.
If Vega and the Beriev plant are still alive, then we urgently need to do what they are capable of. At least launch the modernization complex for the A-50U like a crazy printer and install it on the existing Tu-214. If you work hard, you can get a couple of dozen for yourself. It won’t fit on the Tu-214 (well, you never know, although it should... if it doesn’t work out with the mushroom), put it on the Il-76 - restore, modernize and install it. After all, there were plans for 2015 - 2016. drive 100 Il-76MD through restoration and modernization. So maybe now at least a couple of dozen will be possible?
The most difficult thing there is not even the radar for AWACS, but the entire complex of equipment and software. And so far, at the very least, we have produced such a complex for the A-50U. So we need to drive them out - either from scratch, or at least modernize the remaining ones. And at a frantic pace.
But we live in the Russian Federation... where everything is “like under Nicholas 2”.

[DenVB]

Quote: bayard

No longer produced in Russia

In principle, it is produced at UZGA. True, as Wikipedia writes, production has been stopped since last year due to sanctions. I don’t think it’s that difficult to localize the production of components. VK-800S engines are already produced individually. In general, the problems do not seem unsolvable. In the meantime, you can simply buy them second-hand, even abroad.

Quote: bayard

To place on board a sufficiently powerful radar with a large (at least 650 km) detection range, and at the same time maintain combat duty long enough to place on board at least 8 guidance operators/navigators + an RTR group

“I don’t care about fat, I wish I was alive.” Hawkeye somehow works without all this luxury.

Quote: bayard

Such radars can operate continuously for no more than a few tens of minutes.

They'll probably just need some extra cooling. Again, the task does not seem insurmountable. There should be enough space on the L-410; it is not a fighter.

Quote: bayard

you can simply borrow a modernized Ka-27M from the Navy, it has a fairly powerful side-view radar

By the way, this is also a good option. Just don’t take helicopters, of course, but make radars the same as on this helicopter.

Quote: bayard

And so far, at the very least, we have produced such a complex for the A-50U. So we need to drive them out - even from scratch

First of all, this is unrealistic. Compare the production capabilities of the L-410 (twenty units per year at existing facilities) and the Il-76. Secondly, how far from the LBS will you risk sending the A-50U? I wouldn't risk it closer than 200 km. But it is necessary to detect, among other things, UAVs flying almost between the trees.

[RondelR]

I wouldn’t blame everything on VEGA; for starters, we have huge problems with the component base. And secondly, there was a moment when they waited 2 years for the IL-76 to install a radar for work on the A-100. They simply are not given any money. As for the factories, we have problems with AVIASTAR, they were on the verge of bankruptcy, managers at the factory need to be changed.
Without refuelers it will be impossible to carry out long-term operations to break through air defenses; we really need refuelers.

The Su-25 has a ceiling of 7000 meters, for maximum range the UMPC is dropped from a height of about 12 km, and its speed is less than 1000 km per hour, it will simply throw these UMPC at a range several times less, the Yak130 then has 12.5 km and a speed of about 1000 km per hour , that is, it will literally have to go beyond its limits and will not reach the maximum range. It's not stormtroopers that have outlived their usefulness.

Quote: bayard

Surely no one can do this better than the Su-34

What can the Su-34 do that others can’t? for example Su-30? The Su-34 is incredibly heavy, it is more difficult for it to reach the required speed parameters, and its engines are weaker. He is simply not maneuverable and in case of emergency it is more difficult for him to make an evasive maneuver. On the contrary, it is worse than the same 30s for similar purposes.

Quote: bayard

And it seems that the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff understand this. For out of NINE newly deployed air regiments, only ONE will be fighter. All the rest are drums.

Well, that’s cool, what can I say) always when the Ministry of Defense goes against world trends, it works out so well, for example, hephaestus, and not bomb correction modules... but no, they crap there and after heavy losses they came to the UMPC, well then they can hammer a bolt on the UAV did it help us? As they told us there, that a UAV is only good against some weak countries, but no, that was also a mistake, and we have huge problems with reconnaissance due to weak UAVs. Whenever the Defense Ministry goes against world trends, this is a question... there in China, in the USA, in these Europes, they are not fools, and it was not for nothing that they abandoned front-line bombers. MFIs can also drop guided bombs, and they will do this even better than specialized front-line bombers, because they are more maneuverable, they will be able to evade and will reach the given speed and altitude parameters more easily. And most importantly, MFIs can shoot down enemy aircraft. And for example, if we imagine a hypothetical conflict where there are two sides, one has 100 Su-30 fighters, and the other has 50 Su-30 and 50 Su-34. Then the first side will quickly destroy the fighters of the second and will simply mock the Su-34, and then start bombing. Front-line aviation should be represented only by small aircraft, not attack aircraft, not bombers, all this is not needed.

Quote: bayard

Is he really there?
How many ?
Squadron?

Yes, there are, 6 pieces, and until we start switching en masse and relying on them, they will remain expensive and in small series.

Quote: bayard

I would not count on this aircraft in the next 7 - 10 years. It simply doesn't exist...except for the plywood mockup. There is no full-fledged engine for it (AL-41F-1S is for this ... only suitable for the “first stage”),

There should be very high unification with the Su-57, one radar (only a smaller number of PPMs), the same engine (al-51, apparently at the end of the tests), there is even a compartment one to one. With such unification and the will of the authorities, it can be adopted into service before the end of the 10th anniversary.
I won’t even consider the Mig-35; it will still take a couple of years to put it into production and it won’t have time for any SVO. The Zhuk-A radar is still not ready and is raw, Mig-35 still needs to be improved. Plus, again, there is no point in making a light/medium fighter without unification with a heavy one, but the MIG has everything else, a different engine, a different radar.

Quote: bayard

No. A ramjet engine for an RVV of this class is too expensive. that is why they abandoned it and stopped work.

Where is it expensive? MBDA Meteor is sold for 2 million euros in Brazil, and their AIM 120C7 is sold for export for 1.8 million dollars, the difference is not great. And a conventional solid propellant rocket engine will never compare with a ramjet, not in range, not in energy. In one, the engine runs for more than minutes, in another, 15 seconds maximum, well, on the R-37, probably 30 seconds. The ramjet engine will fly further and in the final segment will have great energy.
On the other hand, the advantage of the R-37 is its fantastic speed, which reduces the enemy’s reaction time.

Quote: bayard

For this purpose, the shock absorbers must be of a lighter “caliber”

For what? and 250 will do. The same Pavey kits were installed up to mk84, which are under a ton.

Quote: bayard

It needs to be done quickly and without unnecessary fantasies and cunning schemes for enriching those involved.

This will not happen, of course) because Putin is in power, and he is the guarantor of cunning schemes and the enrichment of those involved)

[DenVB]

Quote: RondelR

The Su-25 has a ceiling of 7000 meters

The value of sine in wartime is known to reach four. And about the Su-25 there are stories from Afghan pilots that they climbed on it to almost 15 thousand, and from there they dived with bombs. Only for this you need a high-altitude suit.

[bayard]

Quote: RondelR

I wouldn’t blame everything on VEGA; for starters, we have huge problems with the component base.

This parable has been heard on the tongue for the last 15 years. After all, we have all the other equipment on the hodgepodge, but the issues are being resolved. We produce air defense systems, combat aviation flies, missile defense, ICBMs, etc. - we somehow cope, but it’s the component base for AWACS aircraft that is a problem... Maybe it’s not the “reel”? Could this be sabotage?

Quote: RondelR

Regarding factories, we have problems with AVIASTAR, they were on the verge of bankruptcy

And who brought their poor fellows to this?
Isn't the Knight of Malta using cunning payment schemes through bank loans? With delays in payment for delivered products and the contractors being subjected to fines through the courts?
That is, the reasons are again subjective. Based on lack of control and permissiveness.

Quote: RondelR

Without refuelers it will be impossible to carry out long-term operations to break through air defenses; we really need refuelers.

In fact, all of our combat aviation is based on heavy fighters with a very large radius and no PTB. So for tactical aviation, the issue is not so pressing for us. In the end, you can use Su-24s for some time as tankers for them, which are adapted for this, they also have sets of outboard equipment for this. We should now have about 200 Su-24s in service. They will no longer be allowed into battle, but they can still serve in this capacity until the Il-78MD-90A goes into service with the troops. Tankers are more important for YES.

Quote: RondelR

The Su-25 has a ceiling of 7000 meters

They can go higher with an oxygen mask. But for UPAB attack aircraft to work mainly along the front line and near rear, even if the range is shorter, the main thing is to be accurate and thick at the moment of the offensive. Another thing is that no one will modernize the Su-25 now, they need to work. But the same Yak-130M should have this capability from the very beginning.
And it wouldn’t hurt to attach a small accelerator to the UPAB so that it could be thrown from medium heights, and at transonic speed.

Quote: RondelR

It's not stormtroopers that have outlived their usefulness.

May they not become obsolete, front line aircraft for organizing a massive strike, for stopping breakthroughs, for quick reaction in threatened areas, high-performance, unpretentious, easy to operate and base locations will be needed for a long time.
But this does not exclude or diminish the outstanding role of attack and reconnaissance UAVs. And attack helicopters.

Quote: RondelR

What can the Su-34 do that others can’t?

That's what he's doing now. And both the pilots themselves and the command are satisfied with his work. And they work very actively. Those they work on tell me.

Quote: RondelR

. He is simply not maneuverable and in case of emergency it is more difficult for him to make an evasive maneuver.

It is now difficult for an aircraft to maneuver to avoid a modern missile; here the electronic warfare system and heat traps give a chance. But its composition of avionics for its tasks is head and shoulders above that of the MFI.

Quote: RondelR

Front-line aviation should be represented only by small aircraft, not attack aircraft, not bombers, all this is not needed.

The US Committee of Chiefs of Staff and the command of their Air Force categorically disagree with this. That is why in the USA there were, are and will continue to be specialized attack aircraft based on the F-15 airframe, incl. and based on the F-15X airframe - a complete functional analogue of our Su-34, only without an armored cabin. And in Deck Aviation they have a clear division into strike and purely fighter F-18s.
I understand that you want unification, but in the modifications of the Su-34M, Su-30SM2 and Su-35S this is exactly what they were striving for - unification in the engine, unification in the avionics, and in the airframe they had unification from birth. There is no need to rush to extremes, the Su-34s are in service, they are fighting, they are happy with them, they are in production and quite a lot of them have been ordered.
Now, if the Su-30SM had appeared before it, then most likely they would have decided to be satisfied with it, perhaps making two different modifications, but it appeared later, they are produced at different factories, and the Su-30SM\SM2 will be used in Naval Aviation. This is where they reveal their potential. They carry the same X-35 and X-31 and can even beat up ships.
Or will you propose to remove the Su-34 from service?
You don't even have to think about it. And don’t blame the armored cabin; it has already saved the lives of many crews, as has the armoring of critical places in the lower part of the fuselage. And with the new engines, they will gain both maneuverability and dynamics.
Economically, technically, logistically and functionally, the Air Force/Aerospace Forces must have a fleet of at least 200 aircraft of the same type. Otherwise, there will be problems with their maintenance, repairs, modernization and generally maintaining functionality. Tested by practice.

[RondelR]

According to rumors, they wanted to install a PPM based on gallium nitride (GAN) on the A-100; such technology did not exist in the Russian Federation; after the sanctions, all this became much more difficult to do. Therefore, this is not the same as for air defense. Now they will probably make it based on gallium arsenide (GaAs). It is precisely this component base that we lack.

In the first hours of Operation Desert Storm, some MFIs were in the air for 10 hours. This cannot be achieved even with a PTB, and given our distances, we need refuelers as much as in the air, the same Su-57 takes off from the Astrakhan region and by the time it reaches it it will have already spent half a tank. As for the Su-24, I don’t know if it’s real.

Quote: bayard

May they not become obsolete, front line aircraft for organizing a massive strike, for stopping breakthroughs, for quick reaction in threatened areas, high-performance, unpretentious, easy to operate and base locations will be needed for a long time.

That is, literally suicide bombers, given the saturation of air defense. If you manage to give them a UMPC with a range of 50 km, then you can still try to pull them out, if not, then they are suicide bombers.

Quote: bayard

And it wouldn’t hurt to attach a small accelerator to the UPAB so that it could be thrown from medium heights, and at transonic speed.

To lose all meaning? The main feature of umpk bombs is their low cost. Trying to install an “accelerator” is immediately much more expensive, then it would be better for the Su-30 to fly out and drop it further away, it would be cheaper.

Quote: bayard

That's what he's doing now. And both the pilots themselves and the command are satisfied with his work. And they work very actively. Those they work on tell me.

It can’t do anything special) the Su-30cm2 can bomb the UMPC much better.

Quote: bayard

It is now difficult for an aircraft to maneuver to avoid a modern missile; here the electronic warfare system and heat traps give a chance. But its composition of avionics for its tasks is head and shoulders above that of the MFI.

The main way to avoid medium-range missiles is to turn around as quickly as possible, the range of the aim120s5 in the front hemisphere is 120 km, in the rear hemisphere 40 km. In this case, there is a chance to completely leave the range of the missile’s seeker during a quick maneuver; in the rear hemisphere, the detection range drops significantly. And the Su-30 is much lighter; it will simply make the maneuver faster and begin to pick up speed faster.

Quote: bayard

The US Committee of Chiefs of Staff and the command of their Air Force categorically disagree with this. That is why in the USA there were, are and will continue to be specialized attack aircraft based on the F-15 airframe, incl. and based on the F-15X airframe - a complete functional analogue of our Su-34, only without an armored cabin. And in Deck Aviation they have a clear division into strike and purely fighter F-18s.

Either the F15 strike needle or the F15EX is a typical MFI; in comparison with the Su-34, the difference in curb weight is huge; the Americans are about 24 tons, the Su-34 is about 38 tons. The F15EX has a very powerful AFAR, which is designed to fight fighters, while the Su-34 has an extremely weak radar.
The F15EX is rather closer to the Su-30SM2. The last American front-line bomber is the F-111, then they no longer need front-line bombers because cheap high-precision bombs have appeared, and fighters can drop them in the same way as front-line bombers. The only thing in which the Su-34 is better than the Su-30 is bombing like grandfathers with unguided bombs. This is where perhaps this armored cabin is needed, only in this case. But now we have the UMPC, and then I hope laser bombs will appear, and we will finally follow the path that the United States has taken since the 80s.
No one in the world makes front-line bombers, the last ones are from the 80s, except for the Russian Federation, of course, we have our own special way as usual)

Quote: bayard

Or will you propose to remove the Su-34 from service?

First, replace it with the Su-30cm2, and then it depends on whether the Su-57 and 75 can be quickly adjusted to the flow.

Quote: bayard

You don't even have to think about it. And don’t blame the armored cabin; it has already saved the lives of many crews, as has the armoring of critical places in the lower part of the fuselage.

Yeah, and the UMPC is saving even more now; since the beginning of the year, front-line aviation has become much less likely to be shot down. Because now you don’t need to fly under MANPADS. And to bomb the UMPC, you don’t really need this reservation, because a missile defense system or air-launched missile that can fly to a height of 12 km usually has such a warhead that it doesn’t give a damn about this reservation, and alas, we have already witnessed this in the Bryansk region.

[bayard]

Quote: RondelR

MFIs can also drop guided bombs, and they will do this even better than specialized front-line bombers, because they are more maneuverable,

We do not have LFMI in service, only heavy ones. And there are not many of them. So their use (and sometimes they are used) will only be to the detriment of their main tasks.

Quote: RondelR

And most importantly, MFIs can shoot down enemy aircraft.

So let them shoot it down. And at the same time they hunt enemy air defense systems and radars using the X-31. This is what they do successfully. There is no need to overload pilots with too different functionality; ground strikes and air combat require completely different training, knowledge and instincts. Back at the turn of the 80s and 90s, it was realized experimentally both here and in the USA that it was possible to make a multifunctional aircraft, although it would be much more complex and much more expensive. But a multifunctional pilot, so that he could work equally well on the ground and conduct air combat... it won’t work. At best, the result is a mediocre all-rounder who will always be inferior to a specialized professional.
And yes - about the price.
Apparently it seems to you that the larger and heavier Su-34 costs more? After all, it has an armored cabin weighing 2 tons, an armored belly, a large double cabin and a bunch of avionics...
But this is not the case.
At prices of the last decade (I don’t have more recent ones, and even those prices are in dollars), for the Russian Defense Ministry the Su-35 cost $35 million. , Su-30SM - 30 - 32 million dollars. , and the huge, heavy Su-34 ... only 28 million dollars.
Surprised?
But this is a fact.

Quote: RondelR

yes there are, 6 pieces

Regarding the Su-57, your information is outdated. At the end of last year there were 12 units in service. This year they should transfer from 8 to 12 pieces. Next year we expect from 15 to 24 pieces. Taking into account that the construction cycle of the Su-57 from laying down to delivery is about 2 years, all these aircraft are already on the stocks or development bases.

Quote: RondelR

There should be very high unification with the Su-57, one radar (only a smaller number of PPM)

As for the Su-75, no matter the degree of unification with the Su-57, this is a completely new airframe... which does not exist yet. Until they teach him to fly, get rid of childhood illnesses and integrate all combat systems... 10 years will pass. So betting on him now is a huge risk. For the middle of the next decade - yes.
What before that?
And this is at a time when TWO aircraft manufacturing plants with equipment for the construction of the MiG-35S are idle.
Is there something wrong with AFAR? But you said that the radar for the Su-75 is already ready, that it is based on the Belka canvas?
They said.
Well, welcome!! We’ll install it on the MiG-35S, and at the same time we’ll work it out properly for the Su-75.
The MiG-35S can be built here and now. In sufficiently large quantities, and it will definitely not be superfluous either in the SVO or in what follows. It has excellent performance characteristics, powerful, smoke-free (!) and very durable engines. And it is much cheaper to operate than heavy machines.
So they keep releasing them all these 10 years until the Su-75 is born and reaches the standard. And when it reaches, it proves its maturity, it will be built at the same factories - the Su-75... Which, at conception, was actually a MiG... it was simply stolen through the merger of two design bureaus.
And if it really turns out to be as good as is expected of it, buy them already, and gradually... sell the MiG-35S to the allies. Or use it in lower priority areas.
In addition, I am sure that as soon as the MiG-35S enters the VKS, there will be demand for it among foreign buyers.

Quote: RondelR

MBDA Meteor is sold for 2 million euros to Brazil, and their AIM 120C7 is sold for export for 1.8 million dollars

Here are the features of pricing and export margins. The United States itself wanted to adopt the Meteor, but after becoming familiar with its cost (they wanted to produce it locally), and that the ramjet engine uses granulated Beryllium... they abruptly changed their minds. It’s like heating a stove with emeralds. Expensive and rare metal. We were rejected for a similar reason - it was expensive. And there should be many such missiles.

Quote: RondelR

The advantage of the R-37 is its fantastic speed, which reduces the enemy’s reaction time.

And range. Moreover (as it turned out) it is quite possible to work with them even against fighters at such distances (up to 300 km).

Quote: RondelR

Quote: bayard
For this purpose, the shock absorbers must be of a lighter “caliber”

What for?

Firstly, much more of them will fit on the gimbals of one aircraft. And with high accuracy, 100 kg will be enough. JAP for the destruction of point targets. There are many such bombs in warehouses, so why not use them with maximum benefit and accuracy. In one flight, you can release 20-30 of these drop-down bombs... and - voila - the leading edge is cleared.

Quote: RondelR

This will not happen, of course) because Putin is in power, and he is the guarantor of cunning schemes and the enrichment of those involved)

Do not overestimate the role of the individual. Moreover, the extent of his power became obvious to almost everyone during the “pandemic”. This is the talking head of the hivemind. And this mind has now gone into aggravation with another similar, but older collective mind. Old age is not always wisdom... sometimes it's just insanity. Therefore, their struggles and antics are very entertaining... If only they weren’t so bloody at our expense.

[RondelR]

Quote: bayard

Back at the turn of the 80s and 90s, it was realized experimentally both here and in the USA that it was possible to make a multifunctional aircraft, although it would be much more complex and much more expensive. But a multifunctional pilot, so that he could work equally well on the ground and conduct air combat... it won’t work. At best, the result is a mediocre all-rounder who will always be inferior to a specialized professional.

As a result, they only have MFIs for service)
In the USA, pilots flew almost twice as much per year as ours; they have about 2 hours; we have about 200. So you just need to train pilots well.

Quote: bayard

Surprised?

No, there seems to be even more of a difference.
By the way, here’s what’s funny: they take the Su-30 for export, they take the Su-35. And the Su-34.... hmmm no one needs it, I wonder why))) well, I already wrote the answer.

Quote: bayard

As for the Su-75, no matter the degree of unification with the Su-57, this is a completely new airframe... which does not exist yet. Until they teach him to fly, get rid of childhood illnesses and integrate all combat systems... 10 years will pass. So betting on him now is a huge risk. For the middle of the next decade - yes.

It is not clear how much work there is. The Chinese spent 20 years on the J-6, from the first flight to adoption. But 75ku is not made from scratch, so in theory, with the right will, it can be done faster.
If it is impossible, then for now a combination of Su-30/Su-35. I don’t see the point in the moment, for the reasons mentioned above.

Quote: bayard

Is there something wrong with AFAR? But you said that the radar for the Su-75 is already ready, that it is based on the Belka canvas?
They said.

Well, obviously I don’t know whether the N036 is ready at all, and whether the N036 will be widespread, maybe the Su-57M (which looks like it will be a real Su-57) will have a different radar.

Quote: bayard

Well, welcome!! We’ll install it on the MiG-35S, and at the same time we’ll work it out properly for the Su-75.

I doubt that it will fit there) and again, setting up the production of an MIG is not easy, and I don’t think it will be cheaper than making the Su-30 en masse.

Quote: bayard

We were rejected for a similar reason - it was expensive. And there should be many such missiles.

I don’t think that ours used any special alloys. And we are not talking about replacing the R77 with the R77PD, since the R77 can be launched from any speed and any height, while the R77PD requires higher speed. I mean that the R77PD should be our “long arm” instead of the R37, but I repeat, I don’t know what’s better, this option is only hypothetical. In general, as I wrote earlier, our URVVs are not bad.

Quote: bayard

And range. Moreover (as it turned out) it is quite possible to work with them even against fighters at such distances (up to 300 km).

Well, according to rumors, 200 km, and the planes were landing. That is, they were near the ground. The P37 has radio correction of 100 km, and then either guidance in a semi-active mode or capture of the seeker, so the figures of 300 km are only possible for some bombers or AWACS. But this data is for a simple P37, I don’t know about the P37M.

Quote: bayard

Do not overestimate the role of the individual. Moreover, the extent of his power became obvious to almost everyone during the “pandemic”. This is the talking head of the hivemind.

It was the pandemic and the situation with Prigozhin that showed his tactics: when the situation goes badly, he hides and doesn’t show himself and pushes everything onto his subordinates. This is a tactic to retain power, he does not interfere in the affairs of those below him, in return they can rob the country and will be loyal. As long as the majority of the so-called elites are on his side, he retains power; if someone rebels, well, it’s clear what. In order for the situation to change, many people need to change, and this is a violation of the interests of most groups of elites, which leads to a loss of their loyalty, which means the throne may shake.

[bayard]

Quote: RondelR

As a result, they only have MFIs for service

Look at the roster of their Air Force. They actually have a fair portion of their fighter aircraft fleet based on the F-16, but initially they were put into service in such numbers (up to 2/3 of the fighter aircraft fleet) as a light maneuverable fighter, and actually for the sake of mass production of the Air Force, because the F-15 turned out to be too expensive. and the strength of the Air Force had to be maintained. The first F-16s even had no radar, with only thermal Sidewinders. Then a modification with a radar appeared. Then they were tried for impact functions, mainly for export vehicles. Do not forget that the United States supplies its fighters to dozens of countries whose air forces are small and they cannot maintain heavy and light fighters + attack aircraft and fighter-bombers at the same time. So this paleotiv appeared for the sake of the allies. And advertising brochures do not always correspond to reality. The United States has always greatly inflated the tabulated characteristics of its combat aircraft.
Examples?
Yes, as much as you like.
There is such a textbook case - the famous F-111, which made a lot of noise in its time. Do you know how much was prescribed for him in the speed column, from the first exhibition and continued to be stated in all reference books until removal from service... and until removal from service not at home, but... in Australia (the only foreign operator), which filmed them out of service much later?
2650 km \ h !!! It’s mind boggling... with engines with a thrust of less than 10 t.p. ... with such weight ... with a heavy wing rotation mechanization unit ... with an ejection cabin ...
Despite the fact that the much lighter F-14 fighter with the same engines (the same ones!!) produced only 2530 km/h in afterburner, and even then in a lightweight version to set its own record...
And the casket simply opened - in reality, the F-111 at altitude gave out only 2000 km/h in a lightweight form and that's it. The rest is postscripts.
The same postscripts at the speed of the F-15. In order to achieve such speed, they made a special lightweight version of it. No radar. Instead of a heavy nose cone there was a light duralumin spinner... Everything that could be removed was removed. Fuel was added only for 20-30 minutes of flight. Takeoff, acceleration, landing with empty tanks. But in all reference books to this day 2650 km/h is proudly displayed.
So don't be fooled by their reference data and brochures. It is much more difficult to find more reliable information, but I had such an opportunity. Although they even fooled Soviet intelligence in this way. So the RVV DB "Phoenix" for the F-14 in the reference books had a range of 165 km. At that time it was pure fantasy... That's what it turned out to be. The actual range into the front half-sphere at 10 m, on absolutely head-on courses, at a closing speed of 000M+... was as much as... 2 km. In the rear hemisphere at an approach speed of 120 km/h - no more than 600 km. And this is under ideal conditions... a spherical stake in a vacuum, and hobbled at that.
So the idea of ​​a universal MFI was invented precisely as a trade enticement and to bind the maximum number of clients to itself... for the same F-16s... and a little for the F-18. At the same time, they were supplied mainly abroad as MFI configurations. And they mostly built specialized machines for themselves. The F-15 in the guise of a pure fighter (gaining air supremacy) and in the guise of a strike, two-seater, tailored specifically to defeat ground targets. All his avionics are designed for this very purpose. And pilots also prepare only for strike missions.
So the myth about MFIs is a commercial trick. And we definitely didn’t fall for it - our own experience showed the same thing - only specialization is the path to success. But specialized machines can and should be made on the basis of a single platform.
So don't be fooled by propaganda. Listen to the reviews about the Su-34 from the pilots of these wonderful machines.

[RondelR]

Can you find out where this division into specialization of pilots in certain types of fighter comes from? Where can I read about this? This is not in the pilot training program, not in Iraq 1991, not in Iraq 2003, I didn’t see any division.
About the F15EX, its weight is approximately the same as that of the Su-35. And the figures for speed and ceiling are approximately similar. The engine thrust of the EX is 13.5 tons.
What else will the Su-34 pilot say? No, he will say that the plane is not needed and MFIs are needed?) bees against honey?)

[bayard]

Quote: RondelR

By the way, here’s what’s funny: they take the Su-30 for export, they take the Su-35. And the Su-34.... hmmm no one needs it, I wonder why))) well, I already wrote the answer.

No wonder . After all, the buyers of our aircraft are relatively small, not very rich and not very ambitious countries. They need something more universal - so that they can be a Swede, a reaper, and a guitar player. And we have created just such a product - the purely export Su-30MKI (and all its variations for different countries). Moreover, due to delays in fine-tuning the Su-35S, we even began to purchase such fighters for our own aerospace forces... AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE. It’s just that the fleet urgently needed to be updated, but the Su-35S was delayed.
Later they decided to assign this station wagon to Naval Aviation to work over adjacent water areas.
But ! Even in this case, these aircraft in one regiment began to be divided according to specialization!! When one squadron prepares and specializes only in gaining air superiority (air combat), and the second only in searching for and destroying surface and ground targets. For at least some kind of unification (you never know what happens in life), the teaching time is distributed like this - 80% main specialization, 20% related specialization. Because strikers must be able to engage in air combat if the cover suddenly fails, and fighters must be able to hit the ground/ships if there is no one else left. But it’s still a SPECIALIZATION. This is the only way to prepare real Masters and Sniper Pilots.
And the Chinese Air Force is exactly the same. Pay attention to this, look at the composition of the Air Force by type and specialization.

Quote: RondelR

The Chinese spent 20 years on the J-6, from the first flight to adoption.

Most likely from the first show. But do not forget that China has no problems with financing, sabotage, corruption, theft of budget funds, and there is very strict control over the performers. We don't have all this. But there are Shoiga, Manturov and other geniuses of impunity.

Quote: RondelR

75ku is not made from scratch, so in theory, with the right will, it can be done faster.

Never ! Firstly, it is made from scratch - the airframe itself is made exclusively from scratch. About avionics is a different story, the plane must first be taught to FLY. And only then deal with the integration of the entire avionics complex and work out variants of combat missions.

Quote: RondelR

If it is impossible, then for now a combination of Su-30/Su-35. I don’t see the point in the moment, for the reasons mentioned above.

Not this way . In the Aerospace Forces there is a combination of Su-35S\SM and Su-34\34M, in Naval Aviation there is a Su-30-SM\SM2. And as a LFMI and carrier-based fighter - the MiG-35S.
We are at war. And this is for a long time. The aircraft fleet urgently needs to be increased by at least 2 times (preferably 3 times, but these are already dreams and prospects), and it is simply impossible to do this exclusively on heavy aircraft. Firstly, it is expensive, and secondly, there is not enough production capacity.
But there are TWO factories with ready-made equipment for the construction of the MiG-35S, both in a single-seat and a double-seat version. The plane is ready. The plane is good. All previous problems inherent in modifications of the MiG-29 have been eliminated. And the operation of the MiG-35S will be much cheaper than the cost for heavy vehicles. In war, QUANTITY with acceptable quality is important. The T-34 was recognized as the best not because it was really better than the German ones. No - there were a LOT of them, but they were simple and cheap to produce, easily repaired and restored in the field. The Big Battalions always win.
And we have already tried to fight with a “small but well-prepared army.” Last year . So the experience is taken into account.

Quote: RondelR

Well, obviously I don’t know whether H036 is ready at all, and whether H036 will be mass-produced

Quote: RondelR

Quote: bayard
Well, welcome!! We’ll install it on the MiG-35S, and at the same time we’ll work it out properly for the Su-75.

I doubt she'll fit in there)

If it is there, it will definitely fit in. look at the nose cone of the Su-75... I’m actually in doubt about what will fit in there. And for the MiG-35S, therefore, there is now a choice of AFAR radar.

Quote: RondelR

is N036 ready at all, and will H036 be mass-produced?

Will . It is now being prepared for the Su-35SM, tested, and will soon be put into production.

Quote: RondelR

setting up instant production is not easy,

And it’s very simple - TWO factories are waiting for an order. In peacetime mode, they were ready to issue at least 36 aircraft per year without strain.

Quote: RondelR

The R77 can be launched from any speed and any height, while the R77PD requires greater speed.

For this, there is an accelerating booster or the solid propellant rocket engine itself inside the ramjet channel (like the Moskit, X-31).

Quote: RondelR

I mean that the R77PD should be our “long arm” instead of the R37

200 km instead of 280 - 300 km (minimum) for the R-37M?
What kind of “long arm” is this if the latest modifications of the R-77 fly 170+ km. ? Without any ramjet? According to some reports - up to 200 km.

Quote: RondelR

Well, according to rumors, 200 km, and the planes were landing. That is, they were near the ground. The P37 has a radio correction of 100 km

Radio correction up to the point of capture of the seeker, there are no restrictions with it, this is a radio channel.

Quote: RondelR

according to rumors, 200 km, and planes that were landing.

According to American intelligence - at least 280 km. And it didn’t matter whether they were landing. These missiles were originally developed to intercept low-flying missiles - for interception over the expanses of the Arctic.

Quote: RondelR

figures of 300 km are only possible for some bombers or AWACS.

At maximum range, yes - against large, low-maneuverable targets. But as it turned out, the MiG-29 (and this target is by no means a large target) is too tough for the R-37M at such a distance. Or do you doubt the capabilities of the MiG-31 radar?

Quote: RondelR

The pandemic and the situation with Prigozhin showed his tactics: when the situation goes badly, he hides and doesn’t show up, pushes everything onto his subordinates.

This is because in a stressful situation requiring instant decisions, the collective mind... freezes... it needs time to “think”, gather as a team and discuss... The Kremlin should not be perceived as a pyramid... it consists of towers.
But if the towers have a common goal and the range of tasks is defined... they can act quite effectively.

[RondelR]

35ku will also not make it to the Northern Military District in time.

I only know about being shot down at a distance of 200 km by about an R-37 (and that’s just rumors). This is where they were shot down at 280 km? When?

[Prisoner]

First of all, cut down on the budget, if you are lucky enough to get the opportunity to hit and avoid replies. That is, if you're lucky.

[Amateur]

As work continues, costs for the LongShot program increase. So, in FY 2021 its budget was $22 million, and in 2022-23. 36 million were allocated for the work. For the new fiscal year 2024, starting October 1, spending is planned at just over $44 million.

For 36 lemons of greenery, the American military-industrial complex, at best, will make a cartoon and/or release a colorful booklet advertising future products.
But you will never make at least a “technology demonstrator” for such ridiculous money. There, real work starts with at least a billion.

[spirit]

This is DARPA. and not some kind of Boeing. The financing schemes there are all murky and hidden because they are developing advanced ones. 36 Lyams is for the purpose of showing a piece of paper to Congress no more.

[boriz]

"Vakhmistrov's Circus" 2.0. Only instead of the I-16 there is a drone.

[Mikhail3]

It would be reasonable to take something like a passenger Boeing as a carrier. Heroic military pilots are completely excluded from combat. Problems:
1. UAV control. In order to hit a UAV with an air-to-air missile in a straight line, you will have to actively maneuver.
2. UAV engines and its maneuvering system. Apparently they have to be no worse than an airplane, otherwise you won’t get in. Launching such a cadaver from an air launcher is still fun.
It's interesting that they will even come out of this...

[Shtrek]

It is unclear what happens to the LongShot UAV in the future. So he separated from the carrier, flew, completed the task. What next? Will it return to the carrier aircraft (why?), land on its own at the planned location, or is it disposable and dies after the missiles are dropped? .....

[Omega options]

Hi!
The main thing here is that pilots do not die when breaking through enemy air defenses. Inconspicuous due to the use of composite materials. Cheaper than fighters, so you can make a dozen UAVs than one fighter.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote from Omega option

The main thing here is that the pilots don’t die when breaking through enemy air defenses.

The main thing here is to read and understand correctly.

The goal of the work is to create an unmanned aerial vehicle with the function carrying and using air-to-air missiles.

[Omega options]

It is necessary to create a UAV with a jet engine - which flies around the terrain of the earth at an altitude of 30-50 meters.
This will give an imperceptible breakthrough in the enemy's air defense zone.
And the instantaneous destruction of an air defense echelon and enemy command posts.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote from Omega option

This will give imperceptible breakthrough of the enemy's air defense zone.
And the instant destruction of an air defense missile system and enemy command posts.

Smiled, thanks. Grade 10?

[Prisoner]

You have endurance I actually laughed.

[Prisoner]

And even better is Babau Yagu in a mortar with “Bumblebee”-A in unlimited quantities.

[Conjurer]

Additional link...

Or fifth wheel. This bullshit reminds me of the American fuss around Star Wars - creating hype so that everyone buys it.
If you want to shoot down a plane at a longer range (i.e. without pushing the fighter closer to the enemy), simply add fuel to the rocket. How to build a nesting doll with inevitable increases in weight on intermediate links, i.e. loss of efficiency. You can not. Because your missile doesn’t reach the target that far. How will a gasket help you? It doesn’t have its own locator (at least one that can give target designation to the missile drawn there).
This idea makes sense if the drone itself detects the target and fires at it with a cheap short-range missile (that is, light and small, of which several can fit in it), and several such drones are delivered to the area and patrol there for quite a long time (otherwise the idea will be too expensive for the expected effect - they will never come back).
Only then what does the F-15 have to do with it, it won’t lift that much, here the TU-22 is needed.

[DenVB]

Quote: Conjurer

How will a gasket help you? She doesn't have her own locator.

First of all, we don't know if it has radar. Even if not, the "pad" can theoretically receive remote target designation from the leading fighter. Or even from an AWACS aircraft. Immediately before launch, it can "capture" the target by means of the OELS and transfer the "capture" to that very cheap missile.

[Rumata]

Everything is very correct. This is the future. It is archival that the Russian Federation does not lag behind in the development of similar systems, as it shamefully lagged behind in the development of UAVs.
The problem of the RF Armed Forces is the main focus on strategic weapons, all the rest are fighting for leftovers from the table of the Strategic Missile Forces.
This is many years of personal experience in the military-industrial complex.

[shakespeare58]

Well, how to keep up if there are no state orders? Seriously moved in the direction of the UAV only when it was known who pecked in one place, and even then with what problems. As far as I know, development is constantly underway, but you won’t get far on test samples alone.

[bk0010]

The Longshot must launch from a carrier aircraft and deliver missiles to a remote launch site, increasing the overall combat radius of the aircraft complex.

This is due to what? The plane will now have to carry not only the missile, but also the UAV, which does not contribute to an increase in range.

[Beaver]

Taking into account the fact that airplanes now serve as a truck - a launching platform for missiles and glide bombs, pilots are not needed anywhere.

[Maize]

The dispute between the pilot and the rocket scientist in our country ended in the form of Khrushchev’s army reform, which was well justified and, with a radical reduction in the army and military spending, increased defense capability many times over.
Looking at the current development of world weapons, we can conclude that corporations of the military-industrial complex around the world are ravenously cutting through budgets and therefore have lost the competence and even interest in the production of effective weapons systems.