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

[DarthAmerica]

I have offered up several cursory analysis and descriptions of CONOPs in addition to referencing real world data and current events in support of my post. Your reply's are assertions which you claim to be fact without proof. A good example is your assertion that GLONASS will be fully operational by 2008. If you believe these things but offer no facts to support your position then I will simply agree to disagree. I'll leave you with the following to ponder...

Real time current GLONASS coverage:

http://www.glonass-ianc.rsa.ru/pls/htmldb/f?p=202:25:4969607893141445194

As you can see, its very limited which placed operational limits on Skat unless it is allowed to use GPS which as you know is up the the United States.

Also See this which acknowledges the vulnerabilities to seletive availability:

http://www.programs-gov.ru/ext/117/content.htm

A Russian Analysis Opinion that acknowledges deficiencies n GLONASS and put the fully operational date out past the 2-3 year estimate you gave for Skat FOC:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070427/64555110.html

So while it may be the goal to have complete GLONASS coverage. It is by no means a guarantee based on past Russian schedules and the current state of Russian space programs. What implications does this have for Skat? Limited to RPV until Russia gets reliable NAV and COM SATs with adequate coverage.

Also, the USA, which is much further along in UAS technology has fielded much more simple UAS from an operational point of view than Skat. Lets use the MQ-1 as an example which is a development of the GNAT which is spawn of Amber UAS. From the initial LSI contract to first flight of the Amber prototype took two years. This is a much simpler system which evolved into GNAT and then Predator(MQ-1). It was discovered that using relay aircraft severly limited the capability of this system and the system evolved into a SATCOM based GPS assisted UAS over a period of 10+ years that saw its first operational use in 1995. I find it highly improbable that the much more ambitious Skat would be capable of that timeline. Moreover, if it was and like the Amber used a system of relays to facilitate communications. That would make it extremely vulnerable to EW because as an EWO I would have an idea on where I needed to concentrate my assets geographically to defeat Skat units.

Remember Skat is designed to penetrate into hostile airspace. That places your relay aircraft near fighters and IADs and allows standoff jammers a huge power advantage over the Skat Datalink and the benefit of friendly airspace. Skat needs SATCOM and GLONASS to operate NLOS while penetrating threat airspace and I think the Russians understand this. They will take the time necessary to field an operationally sound UCAS. That puts an operational Skat or a derivative at least between 10 to 20 years out.

Two more things. Jamming GPS may not be as easy as you seem to think. I'll remind you that a GPS jammer was destroyed by a JDAM not too long ago and the DoD has a lot of investment in anti-JAM GPS technology like (AGTFT). Russia needs similar robustness for its datalinks and GLONASS systems to effectively use Skat. I'm going to just pass on discussing production issues and the Su-27 because it appears to me that you dont understand what I was trying to explain and I dont want to go on a tangeant.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

I have offered up several cursory analysis and descriptions of CONOPs in addition to referencing real world data and current events in support of my post. Your reply's are assertions which you claim to be fact without proof. A good example is your assertion that GLONASS will be fully operational by 2008. If you believe these things but offer no facts to support your position then I will simply agree to disagree. I'll leave you with the following to ponder...

Real time current GLONASS coverage:

http://www.glonass-ianc.rsa.ru/pls/htmldb/f?p=202:25:4969607893141445194

As you can see, its very limited which placed operational limits on Skat unless it is allowed to use GPS which as you know is up the the United States.

Also See this which acknowledges the vulnerabilities to seletive availability:

http://www.programs-gov.ru/ext/117/content.htm

A Russian Analysis Opinion that acknowledges deficiencies n GLONASS and put the fully operational date out past the 2-3 year estimate you gave for Skat FOC:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070427/64555110.html

This analyst only speculate about possible problems and shortcomings, he dont give any facts. I have more reason to believe russian goverment which officialy assure own and internatinal users what GLONASS will be fully operated toward end 2008 / brginning 2009. Either way, even with reduced capability GLONASS will provide enouth coverage most of the time. With some time-planning it will be possible to use it.

So while it may be the goal to have complete GLONASS coverage. It is by no means a guarantee based on past Russian schedules and the current state of Russian space programs. What implications does this have for Skat? Limited to RPV until Russia gets reliable NAV and COM SATs with adequate coverage.

As you see, technical capabilty is definitly here. Given army interest and not-so-much money both GLONASS and COM SAT's could be launched even sooner. Of course, if goverment lose interest in both GLONASS and COM SAT then they will not be launched... but this have nothing to do with technical capabilty.

Also, the USA, which is much further along in UAS technology has fielded much more simple UAS from an operational point of view than Skat. Lets use the MQ-1 as an example which is a development of the GNAT which is spawn of Amber UAS. From the initial LSI contract to first flight of the Amber prototype took two years. This is a much simpler system which evolved into GNAT and then Predator(MQ-1). It was discovered that using relay aircraft severly limited the capability of this system and the system evolved into a SATCOM based GPS assisted UAS over a period of 10+ years that saw its first operational use in 1995. I find it highly improbable that the much more ambitious Skat would be capable of that timeline. Moreover, if it was and like the Amber used a system of relays to facilitate communications. That would make it extremely vulnerable to EW because as an EWO I would have an idea on where I needed to concentrate my assets geographically to defeat Skat units.

It is not first time when USA got behind in some sensitive tech. HMS, ATGM's, ERA, APS, PESA, APFSDS, ariborne datalinks, composite armor - to name only few. It is not like russians only yesterday started to think about UAV/UCAV - they develop it for 40 years already.

Remember Skat is designed to penetrate into hostile airspace. That places your relay aircraft near fighters and IADs and allows standoff jammers a huge power advantage over the Skat Datalink and the benefit of friendly airspace.

Remember what i said about GPS/GLONASS ECM resistance? It is MUCH, MUCH worse than any datalink. So if someone is able to jam datalink - he will have exatly zero problems to jam GPS/GLONASS.

Skat needs SATCOM and GLONASS to operate NLOS while penetrating threat airspace and I think the Russians understand this. They will take the time necessary to field an operationally sound UCAS. That puts an operational Skat or a derivative at least between 10 to 20 years out.

Two more things. Jamming GPS may not be as easy as you seem to think. I'll remind you that a GPS jammer was destroyed by a JDAM not too long ago and the DoD has a lot of investment in anti-JAM GPS technology like (AGTFT). Russia needs similar robustness for its datalinks and GLONASS systems to effectively use Skat. I'm going to just pass on discussing production issues and the Su-27 because it appears to me that you dont understand what I was trying to explain and I dont want to go on a tangeant.

-DA

As i'm aware, no professional GPS jammers was ever used. No technology will cover one simply fact: ABYSMALL low power of satellite GPS transmitters and VERY wide reciving angle for recivers. These 2 unavoidable deficiences what cant be covered no matter what. Also, it is one of main reasons why russians do not hurry with JDAM-like ammunition. It will be useless against any half-competent enemy.

 

[DarthAmerica]

This analyst only speculate about possible problems and shortcomings, he dont give any facts. I have more reason to believe russian goverment which officialy assure own and internatinal users what GLONASS will be fully operated toward end 2008 / brginning 2009. Either way, even with reduced capability GLONASS will provide enouth coverage most of the time. With some time-planning it will be possible to use it.
As you see, technical capabilty is definitly here. Given army interest and not-so-much money both GLONASS and COM SAT's could be launched even sooner. Of course, if goverment lose interest in both GLONASS and COM SAT then they will not be launched... but this have nothing to do with technical capabilty. It is not first time when USA got behind in some sensitive tech. HMS, ATGM's, ERA, APS, PESA, APFSDS, ariborne datalinks, composite armor - to name only few. It is not like russians only yesterday started to think about UAV/UCAV - they develop it for 40 years already.
Remember what i said about GPS/GLONASS ECM resistance? It is MUCH, MUCH worse than any datalink. So if someone is able to jam datalink - he will have exatly zero problems to jam GPS/GLONASS.

As i'm aware, no professional GPS jammers was ever used. No technology will cover one simply fact: ABYSMALL low power of satellite GPS transmitters and VERY wide reciving angle for recivers. These 2 unavoidable deficiences what cant be covered no matter what. Also, it is one of main reasons why russians do not hurry with JDAM-like ammunition. It will be useless against any half-competent enemy.

Chrom,

That analysis is higly credible based on a huge amount of OSINT data and past Russian performance. You may disagree which is fine but you are offering NOTHING to support your weakening arguement. Show me something that suggest Russia will have GLONASS fully operational by 2008. Russia also claimed they would have PAK-FA, S-400 their new SLBM operational too by certain times. The USA and other governments are not much different either in some cases. Look at the F-35 dates! Also, simply stating that GLONASS coverage will be enough as is, is not credible considering we can log onto the official Russian REAL-TIME GLONASS coverage and see huge gaps. A Skat UCAS flying within the next 2-3 years would by severly limited by little or no autonomy and availability.

What I'm trying to convey to you is the "s" in UCA(S). Unmanned Combat Aircraft "System". Building the actual Skat aircraft may be a fairly simple process for an aircraft manufacturer with Migs history but integrating that aircraft into a fighting CONOPs depends on a lot of other systems that are at various stages of readiness. 2-3 years is not realistic for an operational Skat. In two to three years you may see a Skat prototype, probably manned or remotely piloted because of the technical limitations I described.

I'm not going to waste time discussing who "got behind in sensitive tech" because I don't see how thats relevant to the discussion and if the tech is "sensitive" nothing meaningful would be discussed unless both parties were knowledgeble.

As far as the ease of degrading GPS/GLONASS and operational jammers. I know the United States has anti-JAM capability from personal experience. You can look into NAVWAR, G-STAR and SAASM...

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...tory/01-14-2003/0001872070&EDATE=Oct+10,+2002

These are technologies but there are also techniques as well. Like physical destruction of jammers...

"GEN RENUART: Let me go to your second question first maybe, and then I'll come back to the first question.
We have noticed some attempts by the Iraqis to use a GPS jamming system that they have procured from another nation. Actually, we have been able to identify the location of each of those jammers, and I'm happy to report that we have destroyed all six of those jammers in the last two nights' airstrikes. As to have they had an affect on us? I'm also pleased to say they had no affect on us. In fact, we destroyed one of the GPS jammers with a GPS weapon. Ironic."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2042

...Or the use of GPS-Psuedolites. This concept has been validated by Hunter UAVs. The Russians will or already have developed their own counter measures. Also, they don't use satellite guided bombs because they don't have the capability. No one does except the United States and allies who recieve exported JDAMs from the USA. Again, back up further replies with sources please so we can avoid going in circles. Thank You.


-DA

 

[Chrom]

Chrom,

That analysis is higly credible based on a huge amount of OSINT data and past Russian performance. You may disagree which is fine but you are offering NOTHING to support your weakening arguement. Show me something that suggest Russia will have GLONASS fully operational by 2008. Russia also claimed they would have PAK-FA, S-400 their new SLBM operational too by certain times. The USA and other governments are not much different either in some cases. Look at the F-35 dates! Also, simply stating that GLONASS coverage will be enough as is, is not credible considering we can log onto the official Russian REAL-TIME GLONASS coverage and see huge gaps. A Skat UCAS flying within the next 2-3 years would by severly limited by little or no autonomy and availability.

I dont deny what GLONASS programs MIGHT run into problems - mainly becouse of low priority and not any technical difficulties. It is no problem to lauch 20 GLONASS satellites instead of 10. It dont require THAT much money and certainly affordable for Russia given enouth need. But even in worst case by the end 2008 GLONASS will provide nearly full-time coverage for ex-SU territory and global part-time coverage. If everything will go as planned - GLONASS will provide full global coverage.

What I'm trying to convey to you is the "s" in UCA(S). Unmanned Combat Aircraft "System". Building the actual Skat aircraft may be a fairly simple process for an aircraft manufacturer with Migs history but integrating that aircraft into a fighting CONOPs depends on a lot of other systems that are at various stages of readiness. 2-3 years is not realistic for an operational Skat. In two to three years you may see a Skat prototype, probably manned or remotely piloted because of the technical limitations I described.

Of course it will require appropriate infrastructure. But why you dont believe what such infrastructure has been developing/deploying already? One important part - GLONASS - as you see already started to rise from the grave. Other parts require much less public attention.

I'm not going to waste time discussing who "got behind in sensitive tech" because I don't see how thats relevant to the discussion and if the tech is "sensitive" nothing meaningful would be discussed unless both parties were knowledgeble.

As far as the ease of degrading GPS/GLONASS and operational jammers. I know the United States has anti-JAM capability from personal experience. You can look into NAVWAR, G-STAR and SAASM...

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...tory/01-14-2003/0001872070&EDATE=Oct+10,+2002

These are technologies but there are also techniques as well. Like physical destruction of jammers...

"GEN RENUART: Let me go to your second question first maybe, and then I'll come back to the first question.
We have noticed some attempts by the Iraqis to use a GPS jamming system that they have procured from another nation. Actually, we have been able to identify the location of each of those jammers, and I'm happy to report that we have destroyed all six of those jammers in the last two nights' airstrikes. As to have they had an affect on us? I'm also pleased to say they had no affect on us. In fact, we destroyed one of the GPS jammers with a GPS weapon. Ironic."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2042

...Or the use of GPS-Psuedolites. This concept has been validated by Hunter UAVs. The Russians will or already have developed their own counter measures. Also, they don't use satellite guided bombs because they don't have the capability. No one does except the United States and allies who recieve exported JDAMs from the USA. Again, back up further replies with sources please so we can avoid going in circles. Thank You.


-DA

You want to compare Iraqis EWAR expertise with russian EWAR expertise? You want to compare 6-7 weak god know by whom made GPS jammers with true EWAR network? With powerfull devices? Covered by SAM's, aviation, etc?

And, while we are at it, you even believe so-called USA military expert when he say what something didnt affected USA weapon? Imagine he saying something in the line "GPS/JDAM are crap! Several home-made Iraqi jammers rendered all our most modern weapon useless! ". Impossible. Even if it was indeed the case. So, his article carry exactly ZERO information.

And now to why russian do not use JDAM's. Here you mistake cause and consequence:
"Russian didnt developed JDAM/GPS ammunition (and aborted GLONASS) BECOUSE it is very vulnerable."
It is NOT: "Russians didnt devoped GPS/JDAM becouse they cant develop it".

 

[KGB]

The short-lived Buran shuttle project had an interesting feature. It was completely unmanned during its first (and unfortunately only flight). That was quite remarkable, especially considering that that was a long time ago.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I dont deny what GLONASS programs MIGHT run into problems - mainly becouse of low priority and not any technical difficulties. It is no problem to lauch 20 GLONASS satellites instead of 10. It dont require THAT much money and certainly affordable for Russia given enouth need. But even in worst case by the end 2008 GLONASS will provide nearly full-time coverage for ex-SU territory and global part-time coverage. If everything will go as planned - GLONASS will provide full global coverage.

Well they have already missed a few launch dates already. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Of course it will require appropriate infrastructure. But why you dont believe what such infrastructure has been developing/deploying already? One important part - GLONASS - as you see already started to rise from the grave. Other parts require much less public attention.

It's not that "I believe" anything. I know where to look for verification. Then there is common sense. How many GLONASS devices do you see for retail? I provided a link earlier directly to the official GLONASS site. If you review it you will see missing Satellites. For your convinience I'll post it again...

http://www.glonass-ianc.rsa.ru/pls/htmldb/f?p=202:20:8605467485354765163::NO

You want to compare Iraqis EWAR expertise with russian EWAR expertise? You want to compare 6-7 weak god know by whom made GPS jammers with true EWAR network? With powerfull devices? Covered by SAM's, aviation, etc?

Yes I do compare them. So did the DoD and the NAVWAR program. Which is why during OIF I all 6 of them were destroyed and had little effect on operations.

And, while we are at it, you even believe so-called USA military expert when he say what something didnt affected USA weapon? Imagine he saying something in the line "GPS/JDAM are crap! Several home-made Iraqi jammers rendered all our most modern weapon useless! ". Impossible. Even if it was indeed the case. So, his article carry exactly ZERO information."

I KNOW HE WOULD NOT SAY THAT because I've seen the work of JDAMs. But better yet, when I move in areas that have been attacked by JDAMs the collateral damage to local infrastructure(roads and buildings) is such that bomb accuracy was spot on. Again, I dont want to go off on a tangent. The only reason why I'm mentioning this is because I know techniques and technologies exist to make SATCOM and NAV reliable in high ECM environments. In fact GPS has never been put out of action by enemy activity and there have been legit attempts. Skat or its competitor from Sukhoi will have to use these to be relevant and not tied to short ranged LOS communications range.

And now to why russian do not use JDAM's. Here you mistake cause and consequence:
"Russian didnt developed JDAM/GPS ammunition (and aborted GLONASS) BECOUSE it is very vulnerable."
It is NOT: "Russians didnt devoped GPS/JDAM becouse they cant develop it".

OK, let me make sure we understand each other. I am saying, the Russians did not possess the capability to make their own GLONASS guided munitions or UAS because of the effects of the break up of the Soviet Union which persist today. They dont have a reliable or accurate enough satellite navigation system to ensure coverage for these weapons unless they wanted to drop them on Russian soil where they may get coverage 40% of the time. I dont think so. For obvious reasons they would not procure mass quantities of a GPS guided weapon.


-DA

 

[qwerty223]

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

Remember how they came up with the MiG-29? Just a few years time, from sketch. And time changed, Russia's military industry is now wide open to foreign partners, and it helps a lot in development progress. For example, the MKI, which was a quite a successful intermediate development of the Flanker series was practically funded by India. And through this, I believed the Russians tested and proven many equipments intended for the present 35.

No matter this is a model or a prototype, they are intended for the same reason; to get attention thus attracts potential investment.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Remember how they came up with the MiG-29? Just a few years time, from sketch. And time changed, Russia's military industry is now wide open to foreign partners, and it helps a lot in development progress. For example, the MKI, which was a quite a successful intermediate development of the Flanker series was practically funded by India. And through this, I believed the Russians tested and proven many equipments intended for the present 35.

No matter this is a model or a prototype, they are intended for the same reason; to get attention thus attracts potential investment.

Are you kidding? It took about decade of development and testing to get the Mig-29 into operational service. Building the airframe and engines does not make an operational aircraft. AND THEY ARENT EVEN AT THAT STAGE with Skat. Skat is a full scale engineering mock up only. The engine choice is tentative and still needs to be integrated. An avionics package needs to be completed as well as takeoff, mission and landing control elements. The prototype will need to validate it's LO qualities. Weapons will need to be integrated and tested. A competition held with AT LEAST one other competitor. The comms and nav technologies will need to be improved. And production lines and support infrastructure set up. Then they have to create and validate an entirely new CONOPs because they have no experience with a UCAS of this complexity.

We are talking about a huge task unprecidented in Russian aviation history. Not just some new Mig but an unmanned long ranged strike/ISR platform. Please research these things more because its very informative. Take a look at your favorite modern fighter aircraft. Look into what it took to bring that platform to operational service. You will find that these aren't trivial task. If done improperly, Russia could lose big money. They aren't going to throw together something like this in 2-3 years. Read some post on other threads about technologically advanced weapons systems or ask other defense professionals if you think I'm telling you wrong. Research, research and research.

regards
-DA

 

[qwerty223]

Are you kidding? It took about decade of development and testing to get the Mig-29 into operational service. Building the airframe and engines does not make an operational aircraft. AND THEY ARENT EVEN AT THAT STAGE with Skat. Skat is a full scale engineering mock up only. The engine choice is tentative and still needs to be integrated. An avionics package needs to be completed as well as takeoff, mission and landing control elements. The prototype will need to validate it's LO qualities. Weapons will need to be integrated and tested. A competition held with AT LEAST one other competitor. The comms and nav technologies will need to be improved. And production lines and support infrastructure set up. Then they have to create and validate an entirely new CONOPs because they have no experience with a UCAS of this complexity.

We are talking about a huge task unprecidented in Russian aviation history. Not just some new Mig but an unmanned long ranged strike/ISR platform. Please research these things more because its very informative. Take a look at your favorite modern fighter aircraft. Look into what it took to bring that platform to operational service. You will find that these aren't trivial task. If done improperly, Russia could lose big money. They aren't going to throw together something like this in 2-3 years. Read some post oner defense professionals if you think I'm telling you wrong. Research, research and research.

regards
-DA

DA, you sound arrogant and rude. I am not sure what exactly it means "professional analyst", but your analyst seems out of sense, or at least lack of sense in modern engineering. As I am working in a related field, I am pretty sure what am I talking about, but dont think that you are in the same situation.

You didn't get my point before you start your firepower. My 1st point was that the Russian's fundamental research is not in that tragic situation as you presume. And engineering design had been successfully practiced module design concept, incorporates foreign components is not that difficult in compare to the old days. And I believes that Russian can build a flying platform anytime. The only problem here is the stealth and some of the avionics.

2nd point. The demonstration obviously emphasized the aircraft in recon and precision strike ability. As you mention earlier, recon mission required the aircraft to act pretty common as a cruise missile, and given the high altitude, the flight condition is much more simple than a surface cruise cruise missile. As of precision strike, the last guidance always rely on optical. Plus the UCAV, "C" here doesn't resemble the meaning of "a Fighter" but rather a bomber. Hence flight control is not that sophisticated in compare of military standards. For basic navigation and guidance purpose, even the half dead GLONASS can handle it pretty good if it sums up its remaining capacity. Overall, I believe 2~3 years is possible to put a model in the air at a limited capability of 70%, as what the USAF did; introduce 22 then later 22A.

Anyways, if you insist that only the American and their dearest allies are at the top of the world, you wont accept any of them.

 

[Oryx]

I have to agree with qwerty223 here. I think DA badly overestimates the time and the difficulty of getting this kind of system working. One of the advantages of unmanned vehicles is that during the engineering phase, you can accept a lot more risk than on manned aircraft. That means you can often introduce experimental technologies before they have become 100% mature, which in turn dramatically cuts down on development time. You lose an experimental UAV/UCAV during its first few flights, and you barely hear about it. Usually loosing a few airframes during development is built into the risk management of the project. The same cannot be done on manned aircraft.

When developing manned platforms, often a lot of the time is consumed in minimizing risk - testing every possible situation the aircraft may encounter in operation. Lets pick just one example: a spin campaign on a new manned fighter. This is usually one of the highest risk parts of the testing phase of any manned aircraft, and it is often followed by major changes to the control system and sometimes even aerodynamic changes. On an aircraft such as this Russian project, here is already one element you can completely remove from your test program resulting in a six months to a year reduction in development time right there. And that was only one example.

These types of unmanned aircraft often become operationally usable long before development is complete. So, the product in its final form may take 10 years+ to get there, but often the basic capability is there not long after the airframe flies - 2 to 3 years from project initiation is not unheard of.

It would be a little involved to go through each of DAs arguments, but this one caught my eye: "A competition held with AT LEAST one other competitor." All I can ask is why? I think the US is only about the only country that has these competitions on virtually all their projects. Other countries occasionally do so, but very seldom as a matter of policy.

One final comment: disregarding funding for now, a countries capability to develop new technology is often not measured by the hardware that you can see, but by the knowledge and experience of the people working in their industry. I often go to international aerospace sciences / engineering conferences to find out what my peers across the globe are up to, and there is always a contingent from Russia and they almost never fail to impress me with the level of the work they are conducting. The knowledge is certainly not lacking in their industry. Be very careful not to look at, lets say the sophistication of their avionics 10 - 15 years ago, and using it to draw conclusions about current work. New engineers graduate, many with degrees from overseas universities, etc. The level of knowledge in their industry is not stagnant. And just to get back to the funding issue - it seems Putin is quite keen to get things going again in Russia. It may just not be the problem it was ten years ago anymore.

 

[DarthAmerica]

DA, you sound arrogant and rude. I am not sure what exactly it means "professional analyst", but your analyst seems out of sense, or at least lack of sense in modern engineering. As I am working in a related field, I am pretty sure what am I talking about, but dont think that you are in the same situation.

You didn't get my point before you start your firepower. My 1st point was that the Russian's fundamental research is not in that tragic situation as you presume. And engineering design had been successfully practiced module design concept, incorporates foreign components is not that difficult in compare to the old days. And I believes that Russian can build a flying platform anytime. The only problem here is the stealth and some of the avionics.

2nd point. The demonstration obviously emphasized the aircraft in recon and precision strike ability. As you mention earlier, recon mission required the aircraft to act pretty common as a cruise missile, and given the high altitude, the flight condition is much more simple than a surface cruise cruise missile. As of precision strike, the last guidance always rely on optical. Plus the UCAV, "C" here doesn't resemble the meaning of "a Fighter" but rather a bomber. Hence flight control is not that sophisticated in compare of military standards. For basic navigation and guidance purpose, even the half dead GLONASS can handle it pretty good if it sums up its remaining capacity. Overall, I believe 2~3 years is possible to put a model in the air at a limited capability of 70%, as what the USAF did; introduce 22 then later 22A.

Anyways, if you insist that only the American and their dearest allies are at the top of the world, you wont accept any of them.

OK forgive me if what I'm about to say sounds arrogant and rude but if they are having "avionics" and "stealth" problems with a stealthy UCAS, do you think that makes its more or less likely that they will have an operational Skat in 2-3 years. Nowhere did I ever say they could not make a prototype. If you see otherwise show me and let this post clear any confusion. In fact, I pointed out their first prototype would be manned. Kind of makes one wonder where they are with UCAS technology. Anyway, My arguement was against the suggestion that Russia could have an operational Skat within 2-3 years. Now, when I say professional analysis, I am refering to my long experiece with military service/programs as well as my civilian engineering background. I've personally been through new equipment fielding and have seen how long it can take when you are actually set up to do it. Now you can choose if you like to disagree with me but I don't think you will see Skat flying around anytime soon. This program is no small thing and Russia would be lucky to get it in service by 2020.

-DA

 

[nevidimka]

I find it had to believe that Russia wouldnt be able to fly the skat pilotles on the 1st try. It is very underestimating the capability of the Russia's design houses to say so.

Look at their space achievements. They have automation all over, n those were achievd so many years ago.

 

[Mercurius]

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

According to RSK-MiG, each weapon bay on the Skat measures 0.65 x 0.44 x 4.4m.

However, a cutaway drawing released at MAKS showed the 4.7m long KH-31P mounted in the bay...

According to Jane's Missiles & Rockets, if the drawing is correct, the UCAV should also be able to carry the new Kh-58UShKE anti-radiation missile that was shown for the first time at MAKS.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Skat!!nfloorl: thats the dumbest name I ever herd in my life, what they can't come up with a better name. Does not sound too threatning to me, they could if called it a couger, viper, raptor, razor or something thats sounds at leat halfway decent. I mean Skat you gotta be kidding me!!nfloorl:

Mod edit:
Whatever you think of it, it's doubtless a perfectly respectable name in Russian. No need for gratuitous rudeness of this kind. I'm sure that there are plenty of Icelandic words which sound ridiculous to speakers of other languages.

PJI

 

[Mercurius]

The Russians have their own traditions for naming military hardware, and these can be very different to those in the west. According to Aviation Week, Skat is the Russian for Skate. I suppose that the UAV does look a bit like a bottom-hugging flatfish.

In 1993 a representative of one of the Russian shipyards tried to explain to me the name of a nuclear submarine. It was called ‘Bars’, and the best he could manage was to say with his limited English (my Russian being non-existent) was that the Bars was an animal that lived in Russia. The entire class was named after Russian animals, he said.

It was the Akula-class, and Bars is the Russian for Snow Leopard.

The names of semi-precious stones are often used to name Russian companies, so I’m guessing that a similar scheme resulted in the N019 radar being the Topaz, and the RP-21 being the Sapfir.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis