Reinforcements will not come: A-100 will not replace A-50 in the sky
Some time ago, namely in 2020, we already touched on the topic of the Russian AWACS aircraft, as “hot” and sick at the same time. Russian Premier: on the verge of a dream
Today we will talk about a topic that is a direct continuation of what we started four years ago, because it received a continuation, and what a continuation! The A-50 planes are leaving, and quite quickly, but in terms of replacing them, everything is not so beautiful. The situation is not very good: today the Aerospace Forces has 7 AWACS aircraft left, plus 1 in major restoration. Total 8 cars.
For comparison, the US Air Force has 31 similar aircraft. China has 28. EuroNATO has 27. Japan has 17 vehicles. Israel - 7 cars.
In general, the comparison is clear. Both about quantity and about quality. It is clear that with both criteria everything is ambiguous, but the main thing is that the A-50 has been in service since 1985 with one global modernization to the A-50U, which boiled down to replacing the on-board computer center, modernizing the receiving and transmitting devices, and replacing the information display system for operators. And to the arrangement of recreation areas with the creation of a kitchen block.
And is it worth worrying too much that the service life and capabilities of the A-50 are coming to an end? This is a completely natural process, another question is where is the A-100? And the second question, no less interesting: can the A-100 become a modern detection device?
The questions are strange, but only on one side.
Let's look at the A-100 the way we looked back in 2020
From the point of view of the fact that this aircraft is not just needed in theory, the AWACS aircraft has proven its critical role in a modern military conflict in practice. And he did this not in Syria, where it was necessary to drive in infantry with small arms, but in the Northern Military District, where the enemy has a completely well-equipped and trained army. With the air force and missile forces.
We won’t say much about how relevant such an aircraft is, everything is clear. But how modern the A-100 will be when it appears is a question.
Also in 2020, there was an interview in which, according to the general designer of the Vega concern, V.S. Verba, with the new equipment, the aircraft surpasses all foreign analogues, including the American Boeing E-3 Sentry. This was said in the Izvestia article (link at the end of the material).
We have learned to make brilliant forecasts, but in this case for some reason it becomes uncomfortable. “Better than Sentry, that’s right. That is, the A-100 will be better than the American air complex, which made its first flight in 1972? And went into service in 1977? And it only went through two upgrades? Seriously?
It is clear that the United States uses 33 aircraft, another 17 operate in NATO, and another 16 are scattered across different countries. But who said that AWACS is something new and modern and we must strive to overtake it?
In fact, we should look not at the planes of the last century that are celebrating their half-century anniversary, but at the new ones. And make technology that will be much better than these new ones.
But here everything is not so simple. In general, an interesting trend is emerging, caused by scientific and technological progress. AWACS aircraft are becoming smaller in size. Brazil, Sweden, Israel, and China began using either business jets or twin-engine aircraft for their AWACS aircraft.
Very reasonable: less take-off weight, since the electronics have become more compact, less fuel for the same 6-8 hours of flight, less engine depreciation... Cheapness is a very important factor today.
But the main thing is that phased array antennas appeared, which made it possible to get rid of the huge “mushroom” of radars with energy-intensive drives. And all this no longer weighed 40 tons, as in the last century.
And then in THOSE countries they realized: if we have compact equipment, then why not expand the capabilities of aircraft precisely by increasing the capabilities of the equipment? And little by little, with the help of the Swedes and Israelis, the planes that were AWACS yesterday began to really become multifunctional.
If you don’t need a huge and bulky antenna with a heavy drive system, then why not add electronic reconnaissance systems to the equipment of such an aircraft? Why not install a decent optical-electronic complex? Instead of ballast, which compensates for the raised center of gravity due to the antenna, shouldn’t we install, say, a magnetometer?
And this is what we get? But it turns out that instead of one huge Boeing 737-700 weighing 160 tons and 80 million dollars, you can take FOUR Embraer ERJs (18 tons and 20 million dollars), add on them Swedish radars with Erieye AFAR and some other extras equipment and at the end we get, for one cost, instead of an AWACS aircraft, an entire unit capable of keeping a certain area of the earth’s territory or ocean surface under control for a day. No refueling, just replacing each other.
Yes, the ocean, there is no mistake here. The latest models of AWACS aircraft are capable of working in the interests of fleet, detecting not only surface ships, but also submarines. Yes, not as successful as anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters, but nevertheless they can.
And these are small in size, which means more maneuverable aircraft. Many people probably saw a video last month where some very large and slow aircraft tried to avoid anti-aircraft missiles using air defense missiles. One was confused, but the other was not. As a result, the aircraft fell to the ground.
At this time, we will not discuss the chances of success in surviving in a similar situation with a smaller aircraft, we will only note that such an aircraft is cheaper and is built more quickly. And this is its main advantage. Well, yes, his visibility is also less. But the main thing is that such aircraft are really easier to compensate in case of loss for any reason.
It is clear that installation and debugging of equipment takes 2-3 years, but let’s look from a different angle.
What is A-100? In principle, this is the same IL-76 base with individual new components inside. Between A-50 through A-50U and up to A-100 – FORTY years! Well, or a little more, but we won’t find fault.
That is, after forty years, we get a new aircraft, which in its characteristics should surpass the fifty-year-old American aircraft Boeing E-3 Sentry. In fact, the A-100 is already obsolete if compared to the Sentry. But they cannot even build this complex. After all, if you start tracking the statements of respected decision-makers, you can clearly trace the entire “combat path”: the A-100 “Premier” was supposed to go into production back in 2016. But something went wrong, and 2018 was called. Then 2020. Finally - 2024.
And now we have the end of the first quarter of 2024, and peace and grace. In general, the year 2024 has been mentioned very often in our aircraft industry, so throughout the year we will remember who promised to do what by this year. But with regard to the A-100, it was said: start serial assembly. Where is she? Silence for now.
I am sure that, according to the new bad Russian tradition, the deadlines will once again be “shifted to the right.” Why not move them if the only copy of the A-100 cannot cope with the test program?
The second copy, which would have joined the first in testing, was supposed to take to the skies in 2023. But something obviously went wrong.
And here’s the time frame: building an IL-76 is not fast. If you look at the chronicles of VASO, they produced an average of one aircraft every two years. And there was a certain reason for this: the plane is huge and not so easy to assemble. Plus just gigantic work afterwards, stretching kilometers of cables and installing equipment in Taganrog.
That is, if an A-50 was made from an A-50 in two years, then at a minimum, the assembly of one A-100, even at an accelerated pace, will take at least five years from the moment of laying.
And yes, you understood everything correctly: if suddenly a miracle happens and in 2025 factories rush to mass-produce the A-100, then the first aircraft will be produced by 2030. And this is in the most optimistic and most beautiful case. And this case is unlikely to happen, because the state testing program has not been completed as of March 2024. And you know how long the tests can take.
And here's a question: how many A-50s will we have left by 2030?
One can only guess, because modern conditions do not imply any clear forecasts at all, starting with the reasons for the reduction of the A-50 list.
However, we can draw a definite conclusion that the program to replace the A-50 with the A-100 has actually failed right now. And here the key point is not even that the A-100 still cannot pass state tests, the point is that there is no second copy and, apparently, if there is one, it will not be soon. And for normal tests you need at least two aircraft, and preferably three.
But now it's about the IL-76. This is a huge piece of aircraft. Last year, only five units out of six were manufactured according to plan. And the plane is in demand for more than just transport aviation, air tankers, aircraft of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, special aircraft. But in general, the first two categories are more than enough to understand that “the third is odd.” Well, it’s not that this third one is superfluous, difficult - AWACS.
A huge aircraft, with a huge cost, under 5 billion rubles (without equipment, of course), with small-scale production. Another disadvantage is the four not-so-modern PS-90A engines, which, although as reliable as the AK-74, have simply insane fuel consumption, which determines the very high cost of a flight hour.
Let's look at the other side
We won’t look at business jets stuffed to the brim with electronics; their functionality remains to be learned and assessed. As an example for us, we can take this creation: the E-7A Wedgetail based on the Boeing 737-700.
It was created at the beginning of the 400s by order of the Australian Air Force, but the machine turned out to be so successful that despite the price of 500-5 million US dollars per aircraft, the Wedgetail was ordered by Great Britain (4 units), Turkey and South Korea (6 units each). ) and, in fact, 26 aircraft for Australia. Well, so as not to offend itself, the US Air Force also did not stand aside, ordering 6 vehicles and 3 more for NATO to replace the decommissioned E-XNUMX Sentry. Next up are Qatar, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates.
Boeing 737AEW&C or there is another designation, Boeing 737-7ES, is a completely different story. If our IL-76’s competitor is primarily the Boeing 707, then our 737’s counterpart is the Tu-204. You understand the difference in weight category, don’t you? An aircraft weighing from 160 to 190 tons (in the case of the S-3/A-50) or 60-80 tons (737/Tu-204) - there is a difference, right?
What made the design so easy?
That's right, radar.
The main working element of the new aircraft is the MESA radar from Northrop-Grumman, fixed, of course, with AFAR. It “sees” over a range of 400 km, and is capable of detecting and classifying up to 3 targets per cycle. The station has three operating modes: scanning airspace, scanning surface space and frame shooting for detailed viewing of a given area.
It was the absence of any moving mechanics in the antenna design that made it possible to significantly reduce the weight of the entire aircraft. AFAR consists of a whole complex of gratings, one of which “looks” in sectors +/- 30 degrees forward and backward, and two gratings “look” along the left and right sides, providing almost all-round visibility.
Could the Americans not be so ostracized and just add another rotating antenna in the shape of a “mushroom”? Yes, easily! But, excuse me, they don’t manage budgets in the USA!
And now the icing on the cake: money and time.
Yes, actually, but what about money? The 737 is a medium-haul commercial airliner. There are only two engines, they are not as voracious as the PS-90A, maintenance of an AWACS aircraft is at a price. Serialization... Well, the fact that the 737 is the most common passenger aircraft in the world says something, doesn’t it? To date, more than 11,5 thousand aircraft have been manufactured and another 4,5 thousand are in production and are in the pipeline. That is, there is a sea of specialists. There is an ocean of spare parts. There are no problems with the cost of maintenance.
What can I say if Boeing's factories around the world produce 26 aircraft per month! That is, 312 per year. And compare this with 5 (five) of our IL-76s...
A very smart move, I must admit.
Who would be surprised today that the new NATO P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft is being produced on the basis of the 737? Nobody? So I’m not surprised, but meanwhile, an anti-aircraft defense aircraft, into which they have crammed everything possible, costs only 120 million dollars!
By the way, this is the cost of an “empty” transport Il-76MD-90A.
And here it should be boldly noted that “Poseidon” is not exactly anti-submarine. In fact, there are more than enough functions, otherwise what have the Poseidons forgotten in the Black Sea, where they are observed almost every day? Are our submarines looking? Why did they surrender to them at all?
Here it is clear that the Poseidons are not at all interested in boats. Using the equipment on board, intelligence officers study our ports, coastal defense line, and so on. Depending on the task.
And so it turns out that an AWACS/reconnaissance aircraft based on a commercial airliner is easier to maintain and cheaper than a similar aircraft made on the basis of a heavy transport aircraft. This means that the E-7 and P-8 can make more sorties, since they do not have to worry about the fact that every hour of the aircraft’s flight is gold or platinum. We need to fly - take off!
The only question is the qualifications and training of flight crews and technical personnel.
What can be said as a result?
1. Components
The A-100 program is frankly a failure and is 90% incapable of replacing the imported components that were originally included in the A-100 design. How reasonable it was in general to count on purchasing components from foreign manufacturers for a military aircraft - let those who have to do it judge.
And in Rostec, the head of which on March 1 announced the resumption of production of the A-50, thereby only indirectly confirming the impossibility of producing the A-100.
That is, they will try to produce the old A-50 using the same component base.
2. Base
Due to its high cost and slow production, the IL-76 is not a normal base for an AWACS aircraft. But apparently, since the component base of the last century will be used, there will be no need to dream about smaller aircraft.
Or it would be possible to copy the Western principle and take the risk of developing an AWACS aircraft based on the same Superjet, of which, at the very least, more than 200 of them were produced and actually mastered production. Moreover, Rostec promises a “New Superjet” in unimaginable quantities, entirely made from Russian components.
Well, even if all production plans are disrupted, even if they produce 20 or 30 airliners a year, it will still be significantly more than 5 unfortunate IL-76s.
3. Radar
If the promised A-50 again contains the same “mushroom” with an old-style antenna, there will be nothing to comment on at all. This design cannot be called a masterpiece, but this is exactly the situation when everything is better than nothing at all.
And our opponents have antennas with AFAR in lightweight and, most importantly, fixed structures at the top of the fuselage. No extra weight for hydraulic motors, hoses, mechanisms. Frankly more reliable, giving aircraft multifunctionality - what many people dream of today.
Who is to blame and what to do?
Those who planned the A-100 using imported components and thereby failed the project are frankly to blame and deserve appropriate “rewards.” Of course, it’s easier to buy than to make it yourself; we have been implementing this vicious practice for quite a long time. And here’s the result: there is no AWACS aircraft.
Mr. Chemezov answering a question from TASS said “Of course, this plane is needed. Of course we will do it. Not only does our army need it, it also goes very well for export.”. It is exported well - these are six aircraft sold to India and four Il-76 for China. A big deal, where are the Americans with their planes... Those who want to will line up... But alas, the factories will not give more than 5 Il-76s.
Therefore, at best, the Russian Aerospace Forces will receive their first aircraft in 2-3 years. And it will continue to do so, drop by drop. And they will wait for rare flights of these planes, like manna from heaven, where they were needed around the clock the day before yesterday. But alas, this is the situation.
But in fact, the Russian Aerospace Forces need a small, modern and cheap AWACS aircraft, similar to the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. Based on a commercial airliner. If, of course, we have these airliners.
In general, in theory, any of the existing projects Tu-204, Tu-214, SSJ-NEW, MC-21 - any aircraft is suitable for such a role. If it stays on stream and is a Russian aircraft made from Russian components with Russian engines. Well, if the Russian manufacturer represented by UAC can mass-produce it.
The same seemingly absolutely Russian MS-21 can lift 20 tons, the payload of the Boeing 737 is also 20 tons, and this was enough for the Americans to create a new AWACS aircraft and for the maritime Poseidon.
Are we so much worse that all that Rostec is capable of is 40+ tons on the Il-76? Sorry, but there’s just not enough lamp equipment yet.
Don't have your own? Well, you can ask/exchange for something the Chinese AFAR system for AWACS aircraft, which they clearly ripped off from the best system in the world, the Swedish “Erieye”. At least the Chinese have a modern fixed radar, albeit based on the “licensed” An-12, but we do not. But it is necessary.
If you look at how many AWACS aircraft non-belligerent countries (or partially at war, like Israel) have, the thought arises that 20-25 AWACS aircraft is the minimum that the Russian Aerospace Forces need. That is, we are talking about the fact that it will be necessary to produce about 20 aircraft. Approximately because it is unknown how many aircraft will not be able to perform their roles by the end of production.
I already wrote above what 20 Il-76 aircraft are. This is “only” 4 years of plant operation. No transport workers, no tankers. And plus there is still time to produce AWACS aircraft. In total, the first aircraft can enter the Aerospace Forces in 4-5 years, the last...
Unfortunately, there is a very strange situation in our military-industrial complex; by the way, this is probably not the case in any other country. On the one hand, there is a complete disregard for the experience of other countries, on the other, the principle of “take what you have.” And if you can somehow still put up with the first, like “we have our own school, we have our own way,” then with regard to the second...
There is no “Coalition”, which was worn out at exhibitions and never put into production - take the T-55. There is no and there will not be an A-100 (and there won’t be one, otherwise why would there be talk about the A-50) - here’s an A-50 for you and do what you can.
Let this be a personal opinion, but today, in light of the fact that the A-100 will never exist, it makes sense to throw all our efforts into creating a really new AWACS aircraft on the cheaper base of a commercial airliner.
The A-50/A-100 based on the Il-76 has absolutely no future for several reasons that were voiced today. No matter what the representatives of our military-industrial complex say on camera.
Information