Russia developed own B-2... very small B-2 !

[Chrom]

http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/img_7372_sm.jpg
http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/img_7375_sm.jpg
http://pilot.strizhi.info/2007/08/23/4514


UCAV, rumored with up to 4000km range. The missile seems to be X-31. Something was said about buddy-buddy datalink, etc.

I think in next few years we will see rapid development of UCAV's capable to completely replace manned aircrafts, including fighters. They would have many advantages - be much cheaper, more agile, with greater flight indurance. Most likely less reliable - without human inside you dont need doube and tripple reserve controls, engines, etc.
Another step towards fully humanless wars...

 

[sidewinder2006]

The missile seems too big for this aircraft !!!
It just might be a mock up ~~

 

[nero]

.

I just hope that china does not get any technology of this UCAV from russia.

bcoz china has the surplus cash to buy out russia, this seems a very real possibility.

 

[swerve]

...
It just might be a mock up ~~

It is. See -

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:ec31ccee-c0c2-423a-b2de-3a76c857e8d4
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg....1138631523.Q94jY8Oa9dUAAH90ooI&modele=jdc_34

 

[Chrom]

The missile seems too big for this aircraft !!!
It just might be a mock up ~~

It is full-scale prototype with developed engine. The picture perspective is a bit wrong so missile appears too big, but in reality it is not.

 

[KGB]

Isn't that a serious security concern, an UCAV with a nuclear weapon? It might be near impossible to hack, or steal, or capture, but unlikely things do occur.

 

[Chrom]

Isn't that a serious security concern, an UCAV with a nuclear weapon? It might be near impossible to hack, or steal, or capture, but unlikely things do occur.

It doesnt mean to carry nuclear weapon - at least in peace time. But of course, nothing prevent them to carry nuclear bombs/missiles if need. I dont see any security problem here.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Correction

It is full-scale prototype with developed engine. The picture perspective is a bit wrong so missile appears too big, but in reality it is not.

The Skat is just a full scale engineering model and not a prototype. I think it will be some time before we see that. Also, I've read that the first real Skat demonstrator will not be unmanned. That to me says a lot about where they are with UAS technology. However, this is a considerable step in the right direction for the Russian Military and it is a weapons system that I will certainly be concerned with when it(if) reaches maturity.

It will take away some of the traditional disadvantages Russian aircraft have faced over the years. It will be stealthy which will enhance it's survivability and allow it to conduct offensive operations over considerable distances. It it can be made cheaply and at least as stealthy as a typical modern cruise missile then all but the most advanced IAD using the most developed CONOPS will have great difficulty dealing with it.


-DA

 

[Chrom]

The Skat is just a full scale engineering model and not a prototype. I think it will be some time before we see that. Also, I've read that the first real Skat demonstrator will not be unmanned. That to me says a lot about where they are with UAS technology. However, this is a considerable step in the right direction for the Russian Military and it is a weapons system that I will certainly be concerned with when it(if) reaches maturity.

It will take away some of the traditional disadvantages Russian aircraft have faced over the years. It will be stealthy which will enhance it's survivability and allow it to conduct offensive operations over considerable distances. It it can be made cheaply and at least as stealthy as a typical modern cruise missile then all but the most advanced IAD using the most developed CONOPS will have great difficulty dealing with it.


-DA

Even now Su-34 can do all operations COMPLETELY UNMANNED. Take-off, fly to target area, fire weapons, land. There is absolutely NO problem in adding fire-channel to remote controlled recon aircraft like Pchela.
Skat demonstrated may be manned (or not) for test puposes. Also, knowing usuall MIG leaning toward multi-purpose aircraft we will surery see manned version of this UCAV. Just look at MIG-AT - it is also advertised as possible UCAV variant.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Even now Su-34 can do all operations COMPLETELY UNMANNED. Take-off, fly to target area, fire weapons, land. There is absolutely NO problem in adding fire-channel to remote controlled recon aircraft like Pchela.
Skat demonstrated may be manned (or not) for test puposes. Also, knowing usuall MIG leaning toward multi-purpose aircraft we will surery see manned version of this UCAV. Just look at MIG-AT - it is also advertised as possible UCAV variant.

Flying unmanned is not a problem. Cruise missiles have been doing that for years. Launch, fly, locate a target, dispense munitions then crash or even explode a warhead. A UCAS is a much more complicated set of task because you need a much higher level of C4 and associated infrastructure. Look at what it takes to run a MQ-1 mission and you will know what I'm talking about. The Russians are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars and MANY YEARS away from where the need to be to realise the potential of a platform like SKAT.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

Flying unmanned is not a problem. Cruise missiles have been doing that for years. Launch, fly, locate a target, dispense munitions then crash or even explode a warhead. A UCAS is a much more complicated set of task because you need a much higher level of C4 and associated infrastructure. Look at what it takes to run a MQ-1 mission and you will know what I'm talking about. The Russians are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars and MANY YEARS away from where the need to be to realise the potential of a platform like SKAT.

-DA

I wouldnt be so sure. Russians are also not newcomers in datalink and C4I game.
As i said, launching strike against pre-programmed target even now is no problem. Lauching strike against just reconned target is also not that difficult - all it require is a two-way datalink.
Of course, every weapon need its infrastructure. UCAV are not different here. That is why everyone do not develop just "UCAV", "ICBM" or "SAM". Everyone devolop COMBAT COMPLEX with ICBM or SAM as part.
For example, recon UAV Pchela is only like 1/5 of full complex. The other 4/5 being associated command & control vehicle.
Either way, i dont see any particular reason why Skat couldnt be ready, in say, 2-3 years.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I wouldnt be so sure. Russians are also not newcomers in datalink and C4I game.
As i said, launching strike against pre-programmed target even now is no problem. Lauching strike against just reconned target is also not that difficult - all it require is a two-way datalink.
Of course, every weapon need its infrastructure. UCAV are not different here. That is why everyone do not develop just "UCAV", "ICBM" or "SAM". Everyone devolop COMBAT COMPLEX with ICBM or SAM as part.
For example, recon UAV Pchela is only like 1/5 of full complex. The other 4/5 being associated command & control vehicle.
Either way, i dont see any particular reason why Skat couldnt be ready, in say, 2-3 years.

2-3 years is not realistic. Look into similar flight test programs and their durations. Also look into the infrastructure needed to support this. Again, bandwidth, security, navigation all NLOS and in realtime or NRT. This is not trivial. Its not a matter of competence but rather capability. 10 to 20 years if they are aggressive and thats just to get IOC.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

2-3 years is not realistic. Look into similar flight test programs and their durations. Also look into the infrastructure needed to support this. Again, bandwidth, security, navigation all NLOS and in realtime or NRT. This is not trivial. Its not a matter of competence but rather capability. 10 to 20 years if they are aggressive and thats just to get IOC.

-DA

All that already present - bandwidth, navigation, etc. As i said, russians are quite established in datalink game, i dont see any reason why they should be technologicaly so much behind, and why it should take THAT much time to develop something. I will not bet what this UCAV will be in every division in 3 years, i will not even say it will be definitly developed. But the capability to fully develop such system in 2-3 years and make it ready for service/export is definitly there.

 

[funtz]

well they say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this scat isn’t exactly flying to glory yet, it will some day and then we shall know, as for the Russians selling such technology to any nation (assuming that it does eventually take to the sky and fulfills the role its design suggests it will) I frankly do not think so, for all the cash crunch the Russians are a reasonable bunch and the edge this might give to a nation will be too much.

 

[DarthAmerica]

All that already present - bandwidth, navigation, etc. As i said, russians are quite established in datalink game, i dont see any reason why they should be technologicaly so much behind, and why it should take THAT much time to develop something. I will not bet what this UCAV will be in every division in 3 years, i will not even say it will be definitly developed. But the capability to fully develop such system in 2-3 years and make it ready for service/export is definitly there.

Really? Because all OSINT sources suggest that Russian NAVSATs are only able to offer reliable coverage only ~40% of the time and not global either. Their COMSATs coverage is also deteriorated and only a fraction of what existed in Soviet times is still servicable. How would the Russians manage this platform NLOS?

When you say that the capability is DEFINATELY there. Thats a pretty strong statement considering they are not able to fill current orders for aircraft.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

Really? Because all OSINT sources suggest that Russian NAVSATs are only able to offer reliable coverage only ~40% of the time and not global either. Their COMSATs coverage is also deteriorated and only a fraction of what existed in Soviet times is still servicable. How would the Russians manage this platform NLOS?

When you say that the capability is DEFINATELY there. Thats a pretty strong statement considering they are not able to fill current orders for aircraft.

-DA

1. Sattelite coverage is NOT required in that case. Ground or airborne transmitters would do even better. Moreover, even now GLONASS work nearly 100% of the time over ex-SU territory, and full global coverage is expected next year.
2. Launching communicaton sattelites will not take much time. 2-3 years is more than enouth IF russian army shows interest in this program.
3. What orders they are not able o fill?

 

[DarthAmerica]

1. Sattelite coverage is NOT required in that case. Ground or airborne transmitters would do even better. Moreover, even now GLONASS work nearly 100% of the time over ex-SU territory, and full global coverage is expected next year.
2. Launching communicaton sattelites will not take much time. 2-3 years is more than enouth IF russian army shows interest in this program.
3. What orders they are not able o fill?

Not required? I'm wondering if we are discussing the same CONOPs? In order for the Skat or any derivative to work beyond GCI range at high altitude you need a method of retrans. You can use air breathing platforms but then you will lose some of the advantages of Skat. At an altitude of 36,000ft for both Skat and the controlling xmitter and assuming you have a powerful enough xmitter you will only have a RF range_Max of 864km. While thats fine for some cases. It will tie Skat to its airborne controller which would have to be either large wide bodied aircraft with significant C3 capability or possibly a high endurance unmanned platform tied into a GCI. If it was a high altitude blimp or balloon we could increase the range to 1152 km if the controller was at 100,000ft. Now thats useful however still limited compared to the potential of satellite communications which would cover the entire radius of action for Skat. For a stealthy penetrating aircraft, an airborne xmitter is a poor choice from looking at the possible CONOPs. There is more.

Skat is certainly going to need precise data on target locations. You could always just send it off and tell it fired at this point on the earth. How would you know if you were successful? How would you know what was there? Some kind of IMINT. But during the actual attack the Skat needs to physically be able to identify it's targets with a sensor accurate enough that a human controller in a different location could authorize weapons release without fear of fratricide or collateral damage.

Another thing, GLONASS is not able to provide 100% coverage over the FSU. The Russians had to make adjustments in order to keep coverage over Chechnya. I can appreciate the increase in Russian military capabilties over the last decade. However they are not where they need to be to realise the full potential of Skat.

If you are interested to know about Russia's reliability as a supplier look into the Su-27 deliveries to China.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

Not required? I'm wondering if we are discussing the same CONOPs? In order for the Skat or any derivative to work beyond GCI range at high altitude you need a method of retrans. You can use air breathing platforms but then you will lose some of the advantages of Skat. At an altitude of 36,000ft for both Skat and the controlling xmitter and assuming you have a powerful enough xmitter you will only have a RF range_Max of 864km. While thats fine for some cases. It will tie Skat to its airborne controller which would have to be either large wide bodied aircraft with significant C3 capability or possibly a high endurance unmanned platform tied into a GCI. If it was a high altitude blimp or balloon we could increase the range to 1152 km if the controller was at 100,000ft. Now thats useful however still limited compared to the potential of satellite communications which would cover the entire radius of action for Skat. For a stealthy penetrating aircraft, an airborne xmitter is a poor choice from looking at the possible CONOPs. There is more.

While of course this somewhat limits Skat, you proved what it will be still very usefull. Moreover, with 2-way datalink it will be possible to operate even outside NAV system range.

Skat is certainly going to need precise data on target locations. You could always just send it off and tell it fired at this point on the earth. How would you know if you were successful? How would you know what was there? Some kind of IMINT. But during the actual attack the Skat needs to physically be able to identify it's targets with a sensor accurate enough that a human controller in a different location could authorize weapons release without fear of fratricide or collateral damage.


Another thing, GLONASS is not able to provide 100% coverage over the FSU. The Russians had to make adjustments in order to keep coverage over Chechnya. I can appreciate the increase in Russian military capabilties over the last decade. However they are not where they need to be to realise the full potential of Skat.

If you are interested to know about Russia's reliability as a supplier look into the Su-27 deliveries to China.

-DA

As said , even NOW GLONASS is capable over EX-SU territory. FULL global coverage is planned next year - ask indians if you dont believe russians. I dont see any problem here unless you trying to imply what Skat cant operate over S. America right this month. Sure, it cant.

And what deliveres to China? China didnt ordered addidional batch of Su-27? Bad for very particalar russian plant, but hardly big problem for russian defence industry.

 

[DarthAmerica]

While of course this somewhat limits Skat, you proved what it will be still very usefull. Moreover, with 2-way datalink it will be possible to operate even outside NAV system range.

As said , even NOW GLONASS is capable over EX-SU territory. FULL global coverage is planned next year - ask indians if you dont believe russians. I dont see any problem here unless you trying to imply what Skat cant operate over S. America right this month. Sure, it cant.

And what deliveres to China? China didnt ordered addidional batch of Su-27? Bad for very particalar russian plant, but hardly big problem for russian defence industry.

Thanks but I'm not really trying to "prove" anything. I'm just speculating on a CONOPs that fits within the means Russia has at this time. What that means is that Skat is more like a stealthy RPV rather than an autonomous UCAS like the X-45A demonstrator. Also, that CONOPs could be quite vulnerable to a variety of EW/IW methods and degrades some of the Skats LO potential.

I do not want to get into a general discussion of GLONASS coverage or Su-27s to China that doesn't have direct relevance to the thread topic. However, you have acknowledged GLONASS limits which is sufficient to support the case for more Russian space war infrastructure if Russia wants to use the Skat to the potential of contemporary UAS/UCAS that are operational or in development today or soon to be operational. That does not take anything away from Russia's achievements or capabilities which are impressive.

I feel the same way about Chinese Su-27s. The relevance there is that Russia's actual capacity to produce their more advanced machines doesn't match their ambitions. I wasn't refering to new Su-27's either. I was refering to aircraft already under contract. Fielding an operational aircraft of this magnitude will certainly take longer than 2-3 years as you suggest and thats IF you actually have the ability which Russia doesn't. I would be generous and say it is possible to have a prototype Skat by then. Look it up.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

Thanks but I'm not really trying to "prove" anything. I'm just speculating on a CONOPs that fits within the means Russia has at this time. What that means is that Skat is more like a stealthy RPV rather than an autonomous UCAS like the X-45A demonstrator. Also, that CONOPs could be quite vulnerable to a variety of EW/IW methods and degrades some of the Skats LO potential.

EW/IW methods will work 100 times better against GPS/GlONASS than against any however crappy datalink or ground-based NAV system. It is VERY easy to jam GPS/GLONASS recivers, and i'm not even speaking about GPS satellite vulnerabilty (thanks god, so far only few countries are capable of bringing sattelite down).

I do not want to get into a general discussion of GLONASS coverage or Su-27s to China that doesn't have direct relevance to the thread topic. However, you have acknowledged GLONASS limits which is sufficient to support the case for more Russian space war infrastructure if Russia wants to use the Skat to the potential of contemporary UAS/UCAS that are operational or in development today or soon to be operational. That does not take anything away from Russia's achievements or capabilities which are impressive.

There are no GLONASS limits in the near future. As i said, GLONASS will be fully operational toward the end of 2008 regardless of Skat or anything else. It is FACT.

I feel the same way about Chinese Su-27s. The relevance there is that Russia's actual capacity to produce their more advanced machines doesn't match their ambitions. I wasn't refering to new Su-27's either. I was refering to aircraft already under contract. Fielding an operational aircraft of this magnitude will certainly take longer than 2-3 years as you suggest and thats IF you actually have the ability which Russia doesn't. I would be generous and say it is possible to have a prototype Skat by then. Look it up.

-DA

Well, i could point to USA what also cant produce more than 20- 30 F-22 a year. And what? It is not about capabilty, but rather about basic economical sense. There is no point building huge industrial plant capable of producing 1000 SU-27 every year, let it work 1 year and then scrap it alltogether becouse Russia dont need more than 1000 Su-27 in service. It make much more sence to produce just 100 Su-27 every year for 10 years, and then transfer to next gen aircraft.