Military Review

HPV-2020 is weak in aircraft weapons

29
Behind the scenes were the development of high-precision systems of destruction and systems of intelligence and target designation


Of course, one of the main events in the field of military construction in Russia that took place in the second decade of the 21st century was the adoption of the State Armaments Program (LG) for the period up to the 2020 of the year. This system document, as the name suggests, creates the basis for re-equipping the Armed Forces (as well as other law-enforcement agencies) with new equipment in order to bring its indicator to 70 percent to 2020. Despite the fact that the first three years of the program were distinguished by unprecedented expenditures on the development of the army by post-Soviet standards, the structure of the program cannot but raise questions.

Let us leave behind the internal contradictions of the program and its relatively “loose” appearance, as well as the fact that it is already not being implemented in an obvious way and the deadlines for its implementation are being rolled “to the right”. Not to mention the fact that the development of its "changer" - LG for the period up to 2025 year.

But perhaps equally important is the content of the program. Of course, the open data reflects only a part of the nomenclature of the developed and purchased equipment, but even the voiced information leaves many questions. Obviously, the primary task that the current SPO was solving was the earliest possible saturation of the troops with equipment, since the one in service was rapidly becoming obsolete both physically and morally, while the level of threats did not become lower. One of the priorities today is the re-equipment of strategic nuclear forces and military space forces, which is also beyond doubt (although the question of the correctness of the chosen paths remains open, for example, the active development of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces and the creation of new types of intercontinental ballistic missiles).

HPV-2020 is weak in aircraft weapons

But in terms of the procurement of conventional weapons, the discussion field is much wider. It seems that the developers of the HPV-2020 went a special way, taking into account current trends abroad a little and without taking into account the numerous conflicts that the Western armies went through. Perhaps, this was most apparent in the area of ​​purchasing equipment for the Russian Air Force.

Indeed, at first glance, the numbers are amazing. Be procured 60 fighter T-50, 120 Su-35S, 60 Su-30SM, 37 MIG-35, 24 ship MiG-29K / KUB to 140 the Su-34 to 80 combat training Yak-130, not less 60 military transport Il-76MD-90, 60 An-70, 30 L-410, 20 An-148, 10 An-140, to 100 light military transport aircraft. No less ambitious plans and helicopters: 167 combat helicopters Mi-28N / NM, Ka-180 52, 49-35M Mi, Mi-38T 26 to 500 Mi-8MTV / AMTSH, Ka-100 62, 70 «Ansat- U ", 36 Ka-226, etc. And this, apart from the modernization of Tu-160 bombers, Tu-22М3, Su-24М, MiG-31Б fighters, Su-25 attack aircraft, military transport aircraft An-124 and Il-XNXX .

As can be seen, considerable emphasis has been placed on the purchase and modernization of new platforms. Without denying the very fact of the need to update the aircraft fleet, one can ask about its adequacy to modern realities in the light of foreign trends.

So, some doubts are caused by the purchase of such a significant number of highly specialized aircraft as the Su-34. Against the background of the fact that the leading countries of the West are striving to reduce the heterogeneity of aircraft and to a large extent focus on expanding the multifunctionality of a specific platform (F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale), this largest air force procurement program for today actually reproduces the concepts and approaches of 80. when a technical assignment was issued for the bomber modification of the Su-27 airborne assault fighter. It seems that in modern conditions such an expensive aircraft with an armored cabin, presented as one of the main advantages of this type, looks redundant for most tasks that easier and cheaper platforms can handle. In this regard, I would like to remind you that even the United States is currently considering the cancellation of such highly specialized aircraft as the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft and the B-1B strategic bomber.

The fate of the latter type of American aircraft is very indicative precisely in the light of modern Russian realities. This strategic bomber, after removing the AGM-86 missiles from its armament and equipped with a Sniper hanging container, turned into a carrier of guided and free-falling bombs, becoming the largest direct support aircraft in the world, for which it was appreciated by the US troops in Afghanistan. But still, the use of such an aircraft for tactical purposes is very expensive, and the B-1B in modern conditions has turned into a "suitcase without a handle" for the United States. This forces us to carefully look at what is happening in Russia with a strategic and distant aviation. Thus, an expensive modernization of strategic Tu-160 bombers is underway so that they can use free-falling bombs on tactical targets as well. The purpose of this event is more than unclear, given the sad experience of using long-range Tu-22M3 bombers in the Russian-Georgian conflict. And at the same time there are doubts about the possibility of bringing modern strategic missiles X-160 and X-101 into the missile compartments of the Tu-102. A similar program exists with respect to the Tu-22M3 long-range bombers, which would just more naturally look like domestic counterparts of the B-1B, but in the absence of analogues of a hanging target designation container, the capabilities of these aircraft will be incommensurable.

This example is very eloquent, as it shows the real weakness of the LG-2020 in the field of aircraft weapons. It seems that having paid considerable attention to the platforms, behind the scenes, at least in the public field, there were questions of the development of high-precision destruction systems and systems for intelligence and target designation.

When listing the planned to purchase aircraft platforms, we deliberately did not mention unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The situation with this type of weapon in Russia is not optimistic, and the recent exhibition of available samples in Alabin once again showed the sad state of affairs in this area. However, the absence of not even the platforms themselves, but the weapon systems for them (if we are talking about shock machines), is no less of a concern. As you know, at the end of 2012 - the beginning of 2013, Transas CJSC received a technical assignment from the military to create a drone BLA. However, it became known that the heavy impact drone will also be developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Even if we omit the potential problems with the development of the platforms themselves, it remains unclear what these vehicles will be armed with. In Russia, there are no light guided missiles similar to those of the American AGM-114 Hellfire or the British Brimstone, launched on the principle of "Let me go and forget." Our “Attack” and “Whirlwind” anti-tank missiles produced by us need a massive and heavy guidance and target designation system, therefore their actual use is limited to a narrow range of helicopter platforms.

The situation is similar with guided bombs similar to those of the American GBU-39 (SDB) and JDAM. Only in 2011, the State Research and Production Enterprise Region presented the Russian equivalent of SDB - the KAB-250 guided bomb, but the status of the program is unknown for today. However, even the presence of light guided bombs can do little in the absence of a suspension target designation container, of which there is no serial sample in Russia at present. It was only in July of 2013 that it became known that OJSC PO Ural Optical Mechanical Plant had begun factory testing of such a container, and it is unclear when it will be put into series.

Obviously, the exact defeat of the target is impossible without intelligence and target designation. In this area, HPV-2020 also does not provide answers to questions.

During local conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Western countries gradually tended to purchase relatively cheap aircraft platforms for reconnaissance of the battlefield and electronic reconnaissance (US MC-12W, British Sentinel) based on business jets and light passenger aircraft. They turned out to be better adapted to local conflicts than the EU-130, E-8 JSTARS or Nimrod MR2 heavy systems, which, despite the presence of more powerful reconnaissance systems, were very expensive to operate.

In Russia, it was only in 2013 that the development of the first Tu-214Р radio engineering and optical electronic reconnaissance aircraft was completed, which is a crude analogue of the American E-8 JSTARS. But before he passed the final tests, he was reportedly not satisfied with the Ministry of Defense, primarily on such indicators as the duration of the flight, and, apparently, on the price and performance of the onboard complex. Most likely, the series of these aircraft will be limited to two copies, and at this time the Russian Air Force is engaged in the overhaul and modernization of the honored veterans Il-20, again relatively large and heavy aircraft.

Nothing is known about the potential order of reconnaissance systems on the basis of lighter platforms (An-140, An-148, L-410) except for the fact that the order of the Defense Ministry is An-140 for the ROC "Tenant" (in fact, for photo scout).

Thus, even a cursory analysis of the available data on the filling of the LG-2020 in terms of aircraft armament suggests that it again focuses on the purchase of strike platforms. In the absence of high-quality and operational reconnaissance for them, outboard sighting containers, as well as guided weapons, they will have to enter the zone of the enemy’s tactical air defense and incur higher losses, despite the presence of sophisticated airborne defense complexes.

This seems to be a rather serious disadvantage of the existing LG, which, hopefully, will be corrected in the LG-2025 being developed.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. shpuntik
    shpuntik 12 September 2013 15: 30 New
    0
    Despite the fact that the first three years of the program’s implementation were distinguished by unprecedented expenditures on the development of the army by post-Soviet standards, the structure of the program cannot but raise questions.

    All expenses must be taken into account with inflation. The numbers are growing, and in commodity terms, not everything is so rosy.
    http://www.rosbalt.ru/business/2013/09/12/1174780.html
    http://www.rosbalt.ru/business/2013/09/12/1174780.html
    If you put in a bank at 12%, approximately the same schedule will be.
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 12 September 2013 15: 33 New
    +3
    As it is chaotically stated. Comparison of the Su-34 and Thunderbolt, how highly specialized aircraft are correct?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 13 September 2013 06: 00 New
      +1
      in general, it’s dangerous to focus on a foreign army, you never know what the Amers have! aviation is a serious thing, and there are no superfluous types of aircraft, each has its own task with which it must handle perfectly and not anyhow, and it will never replace other types of su-34, it worked clearly in Georgia, it was he and not su-27 or su-25, because it is imprisoned for such tasks.
  3. amp
    amp 12 September 2013 15: 40 New
    +3
    As for attack aircraft, I agree: it is a thing of the past. With the development of precision weapons, including such as guided artillery shells, attack aircraft are losing their niche. Then, drones will be able to perform its tasks. I think the emphasis in the development of aviation should be made on 2 types of aircraft: a highly maneuverable fighter to gain dominance in the air, and also to revive the concept of a long-range interceptor fighter. Well, what used to be MIG 31. The first type of fighter would be the main one, and would carry out a wide range of tasks, from air defense to delivering missile and bomb attacks, the second; - It would carry out the task of intercepting the IOS at distant frontiers, such as the Arctic, the Pacific Ocean, the Barents Sea. It could also be used to launch missile - bomb strikes at a considerable distance from the bases. For example, targets in the Pacific.
    1. shpuntik
      shpuntik 12 September 2013 16: 01 New
      +6
      amp RU Today, 15:40 PM New
      As for attack aircraft, I agree: it is a thing of the past. With the development of precision weapons, including such as guided artillery shells, attack aircraft are losing their niche. Then, drones will be able to perform its tasks.

      I disagree. In the front-line zone, yes, there is a Grad, but will you bomb Berlin from Akatsia? Tu-22m generally stands alone, a workhorse on which you can hang anything if you want.
      second; - It would carry out the task of intercepting the IOS at distant frontiers, such as the Arctic, the Pacific Ocean, the Barents Sea. It could also be used to launch missile - bomb strikes at a considerable distance from the bases.

      The long-range interceptor will not be able to carry the required missile-bomb load, it needs a lot of fuel. MiG-31 with two long-range missiles, the best option. A long-range interceptor fighter cannot replace the Tu-22M. In my, marine-convex look. Let the Air Force specialists correct, if that.
      1. amp
        amp 12 September 2013 16: 23 New
        -3
        Well, I just meant exclusively front-line bombers, which are now SU 24 and new SU 34 in the Air Force. SU 24 is planned to be written off by 2020, hence the large number of SU 34 in the defense order.

        Mig-31DZ equipped with a system of refueling in the air and could perform missions to cover strategic aviation.

        In general, MIG 31 was also intended to destroy satellites.

        It’s a pity they don’t do it anymore, but those that were, as I understand it, were cut into scrap metal. Therefore, in my opinion, such a machine needs to be developed. And instead of SU 34, it would be better if combat drones were created.
        1. shpuntik
          shpuntik 12 September 2013 17: 06 New
          +1
          amp RU Today, 16:23 ↑ New

          In general, MIG 31 was also intended to destroy satellites.

          It’s a pity they don’t do it anymore, but those that were, as I understand it, were cut into scrap metal.

          The sad picture, in general. Developments are certainly needed, but when the outflow from the country is 80-90 billion dollars, what can I talk about.
        2. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 12 September 2013 19: 06 New
          0
          What nonsense, now there are about 250 mig-31.
          It is planned to repair and upgrade approx. 120.
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 12 September 2013 19: 26 New
            +1
            Quote: chunga-changa
            What nonsense, now there are about 250 mig-31.
            It is planned to repair and upgrade approx. 120.

            It would be desirable to resume production of spare parts for the MiG-31 and carry out restoration with the modernization of all available units.
            1. Andrey Yuryevich
              Andrey Yuryevich 13 September 2013 05: 51 New
              +1
              near me regiment 31, flies in full .... soldier
    2. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 12 September 2013 19: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: amp
      As for attack aircraft, I agree: it is a thing of the past.

      Did you think that too at the time? And what did this lead to?
  4. Zomanus
    Zomanus 12 September 2013 16: 09 New
    +2
    The reconnaissance and target designation system needs to be developed unambiguously. Then it will be possible to shoot missiles beyond the horizon and you can go over to the ballistic anti-ship missiles. You need to start from the bottom: communication, reconnaissance, target designation. And that all this would work starting from the soldier and to formations.
    1. the polar
      the polar 12 September 2013 16: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Zomanus
      You need to start from the bottom: communication, reconnaissance, target designation. And that all this would work starting from the soldier and to formations.

      ========================
      That's right, communications and intelligence are the foundation of the basics.
      And with the types and types of weapons can be determined only by relying on the state military doctrine wherever a potential adversary is determined.
      Therefore, it is not clear why the author analyzes the weapons program, comparing it with the results of the Iraqi and Afghan operations of the United States. Most likely because there is no potential adversary in the Russian military doctrine, and the whole defensive concept is smeared with snot on paper.
      In reality, the enemy of Russia, like the USSR, was and remains so; This is the Anglo-American military blockbase of NATO. And the most likely options for military expansion towards Russia in the near future will develop from the region of Central Asia and the Caucasian ridge. So, the SU-34 will also go into business and strategic aviation. And of course, it will be economically more profitable to use high-precision and guided ammunition of all types and classes.
  5. karal
    karal 12 September 2013 16: 24 New
    0
    Still, Russia has a powerful combat potential! Taburetkin managed to put everything under the hammer!
  6. Rosomaha67
    Rosomaha67 12 September 2013 16: 29 New
    11
    amp As for attack aircraft, I agree: it is a thing of the past. With the development of precision weapons, including such as guided artillery shells, attack aircraft are losing their niche.

    .... but I don't agree, several times during the reconnaissance and search activities they acted in isolation from the coverage areas of the "native" artillery, and there we were saved by Crocodiles, and 2 times by Rooks, not a transmitted feeling when up to our 100 km. over the mountains, the spirits zagged, and then their own arrive and begin their deadly dance, there is nothing more inspiring than to see and feel this support and help !!! Maybe when we have a bunch of UAVs, they will be able to take on this role, but so far there is nothing to replace assault aviation, besides, why is the question of whether it acts in direct contact with the enemy and is under fire, everyone knows about the survivability of our Rook, but about armored UAVs I have not heard something.
    1. amp
      amp 12 September 2013 16: 37 New
      -1
      Because you were armed with weapons of the 20th century .... in the future it will be something like this: the spirits pinched you, you highlighted their positions, and were beaten by them. If it’s 100 km from its position, it means they were beaten from fighter-bombers, which, of course, will not enter the zone of destruction of small arms of spirits.
  7. silver_roman
    silver_roman 12 September 2013 16: 31 New
    10
    the author in this article, as for me, makes a classic mistake by comparing our army and the approach to building it with the American one. As always, we had different tasks. We have never been aggressors, have not projected our forces in the form of AUGs, although later even such projects began to be implemented under the onslaught of historical facts - being. Syshya is surrounded by two oceans, they themselves do not need A-10. we, in the conditions of plains and plateaus (and this is the West Siberian and East European plains), reliable stormtroopers are simply necessary.

    And regarding the "dubious moments" in GPV-2020, Moscow was also not built right away. Raising the military-industrial complex, drawing the right conclusions and taking the right course the first time is beyond the power of any state on the planet. And again, you should not compare us with syshya: they quietly scooped up their loot overseas with shovels after two world wars, organized by them, fed by lend-lease, and we rebuilt our country CONSTANTLY !!! So the conditions are different and the conclusions should be different. You shouldn't impose yourself under someone's standards, we remember from history where the arms race comes from! The Russian Federation has always had its own path and we must follow it!
  8. yanus
    yanus 12 September 2013 17: 04 New
    +2
    All the while missing one important point - the purchase of high-precision ammunition. Constantly discussing the number of aircraft bought, and ammunition for them? The SU-34 with free-falling bombs and NURSs is, of course, a heap of scrap metal, but not super. Not super at all.
    Similarly, suspended electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance, etc.
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 12 September 2013 18: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: yanus
      All the while missing one important point - the purchase of high-precision ammunition. Constantly discussing the number of aircraft bought, and ammunition for them?

      The Dubna plant was loaded as never before in the last 20 years. OK, everything is done.
    2. evil hamster
      evil hamster 12 September 2013 21: 27 New
      0
      And where did you actually get that these ammunition is not purchased according to the GPV? The fact that they don’t write about them in Murzilka is not a problem of GPV - it is a Murzilka problem.
  9. Sirs
    Sirs 12 September 2013 17: 34 New
    +1
    Article +, there are problems and they cannot be eaten, they must be solved.
  10. Army1
    Army1 12 September 2013 17: 41 New
    +1
    Yes, the hackneyed question is how many high-precision missiles we have, is it better to ask how many of them can be produced per year?
    Commercial output

    For the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation: 146 X-31, 55 X-35 in 2009, 75 X-31 and 57 X-35 in 2010.

    Exported 67 X-31 and 17 X-35 in 2009 and 64 X-31, 24 X-35 in 2010.

    Information on the release of any other missiles for 2009-2010 is not contained in the KTRV report.
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 12 September 2013 18: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Army1
      Yes, the hackneyed question is how many high-precision missiles we have, is it better to ask how many of them can be produced per year?

      According to Shoigu, the number of winged packages in the coming years will be increased significantly.
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 12 September 2013 19: 35 New
        0
        If you believe the words of Shoigu, the number of winged packages in the coming years will be increased significantly. [/ Quote]
        Are aviation guided missiles considered cruise?
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 12 September 2013 19: 23 New
      +1
      Suppose (conditional numbers) we have 100 carriers for x-31, b \ k 5pcs. and 20 for x-35 b \ k 5pcs. The General Staff considered that in the case of a b \ d, it is required to have 5 b \ k x-31 and 3 b \ k x-35 on the carrier. In peacetime, 1 b / c per year is allocated for training on a carrier. Estimate how much rockets should be produced in peacetime per year, how much to lay in warehouses, if the warranty storage period is 5 years. What should be the mobilization stock of rocket parts at the plant with a shelf life of 10 years, where is all this to be stored. How to plan to make 100.000 missiles in a year, the plant would not close due to the lack of orders for 100 years in advance.
      In general, there are still a lot of questions of all kinds, including related issues, but now, by the way, it is not socialism; for 10 years ahead, nothing really can be calculated. The last rearmament program began in 2011, already this year they are adjusting with a shift to the right.
  11. alone
    alone 12 September 2013 18: 37 New
    +3
    they plan to cut back on the amount that was launched at GPV-2020. so the whole focus is still ahead. It is not known what the army, aviation and navy really can get
  12. de bouillon
    de bouillon 12 September 2013 19: 32 New
    0
    the problem of shortage or even lack of precision munitions is an eternal problem of the domestic air force
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. dizelniy
    dizelniy 12 September 2013 21: 32 New
    0
    In front-line aviation at the airfield there are six ammunition. Some include guided missiles and adjustable bombs. Part of the nomenclature was produced in Kiev at the Arsenal. In the memorable years, this industry suffered the greatest losses due to the difficulty of combining civilian and military nomenclature. The article correctly reflects the state with which we have mass production of modern means of destruction and saturation of troops with them, as well as with the inability to use them from existing aircraft. The impression is that there is no concept and we don’t know what we need.
  15. Vanya2013F
    Vanya2013F 12 September 2013 21: 33 New
    0
    Anyone who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's!
  16. npu3pak
    npu3pak 12 September 2013 22: 47 New
    0
    I agree with the author in the conclusion that the procurement program does not meet the needs of the Air Force in hypothetical conflicts. But with a specific nomenclature, no. The purchase of attack aircraft is not a whim, but a necessity, the decommissioning of the Su-24 has long been necessary. Assault aircraft were needed to combat armored vehicles in a major war. Now there is no need for it. WTO purchase and survey. equipment - yes, I need it. But they apparently decided to compensate for the bomb load in local conflicts and nuclear weapons in non-local ...
    The purchase of the T-50 is stupid, firstly, they won’t solve such serious problems, and secondly, it’s better to use these funds to develop shock UAVs. Aircraft development-strike complexes (type E-8) are needed, again needed in major conflicts, not critical.
    It is bad that few modern transport aircraft are being procured. For helicopters optimally.
    Claims for highly specialized aircraft are not justified - such aircraft are cheaper (it is irrational to push several systems into one aircraft), the Western experience is caused by the Air Force structure in which there is no dedicated air defense aircraft and serves to increase the flexibility of aviation when performing tasks on a global scale, with relocation. We are not faced with such a task.
  17. KononAV
    KononAV 12 September 2013 23: 11 New
    0
    Everything is going right. We need aircraft such as Su 34. to strike at remote targets. UAVs can interfere. And through normal air defense he cannot break through, they are good at shooting at the Taliban.