Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Share
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 886
    Points : 903
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:49 pm

    Militarov wrote:...One of main reasons why Switchblade is becoming so popular in NATO armies is that they were often using Javelin, Milan, TOW or similar fairly expencive ATGMs to attack fortified positions or even men behind dirt cover, so they decided to make Switchblade which is few times cheaper and still will manage to neutralise same target in over 85% of cases.

    This in itself is a nonsense. Heavy ATGM usage on asymmetrical targets comes down to individual training and unit cohesion, with the random factors of battle thrown in for good measure. US squads often had access to an AT-4 and Javelin, but instead would use a Javelin simply because it was there. Giving them a suicide drone isn't going to change the failed training regime that leads to the firing off of the nearest munition or calling in the largest ordinance you have available at a target, irrespective of what that target is. Most Iraq combat cams demonstrate this thinking explicitly.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5535
    Points : 5576
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:19 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    Militarov wrote:...One of main reasons why Switchblade is becoming so popular in NATO armies is that they were often using Javelin, Milan, TOW or similar fairly expencive ATGMs to attack fortified positions or even men behind dirt cover, so they decided to make Switchblade which is few times cheaper and still will manage to neutralise same target in over 85% of cases.

    This in itself is a nonsense. Heavy ATGM usage on asymmetrical targets comes down to individual training and unit cohesion, with the random factors of battle thrown in for good measure. US squads often had access to an AT-4 and Javelin, but instead would use a Javelin simply because it was there. Giving them a suicide drone isn't going to change the failed training regime that leads to the firing off of the nearest munition or calling in the largest ordinance you have available at a target, irrespective of what that target is. Most Iraq combat cams demonstrate this thinking explicitly.

    In their defence its not always easy to use AT4/Matarod/M80/RPG26 on battlefield without exposing yourself to way to high risk of having your head blown off. Many AT4s were not even used in direct combat, but to breach walls too. I just stated what is the idea behind Switchblade, how, when and if they will use it stays for some other discussion.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:10 am

    No, that is showing the sorry state of that industry branch. This thing 1/1 i can personally make if you feel like borrowing me 10.000USD.

    You are clearly not listening... why is simple and cheap a bad thing?

    Plus how sophisticated is it actually... all we have seen is a test video... what are its actual performance specs and capabilities?

    No. Drones always have to communicate with satelite to transmit data, or they are useless, otherwise they fill buffer memory which you can later empty but what would be the point of that, this is not WW2.

    They transmit the data they collect but there does not need to be a command channel that can be hacked to take over the drone. With a datalink sending data back to Washington the enemy can listen in or even try to jam it but if you design it properly (ie encrypted datalinks) they wont be able to make it land or take control or even see the data it is collecting.

    On other hand most of UAVs do not even have really big buffer memory to save weight, so its used only to store data long enough to it to get "uploaded".  

    A drone developed right now could easily be fitted with 3-4 portable hard drives with 2-4 TBs each... unless you are 3D mapping for a half a world flight in and back that should be plenty of space for video and location data as well as telemetry.

    Are you now serious here? "Wtf does it matter"? It matters alot, its crucal for items like this.

    Crucial?

    The UK is not produced a modern fighter plane on its own for some time... I would think such a technology would be rather more crucial than something you admit yourself can be bought off the shelf online.  Russia does not have bottomless pockets and has to be selective on what it pisses its money away on.

    I would suggest recon UAVs are more valuable than UCAVs... simply because UAVs can direct conventional fire on target which is generally more effective than anything a small UCAV could carry.

    Its called technological advance. Do you know how many technolgies that relate to drones are in use today by civilians? Some were even first time developed for drones, various drones not only UCAVs as they are after all very specific product.

    Technological advance makes no sense unless it fulfils a purpose and is cost effective. There is no point developing a brand new drug that might have serious side effects and be enormously expensive when a generic drug already solves the problem. Beware gold plating.

    Do you have any idea how much Israel earned on drones production, servicing and acompanying technologies? Billions. Also war in Georgia would look alot different if they had suitable recon platforms. Georgians had only small tactical Israeli UAV-s themself too.

    I doubt the Russian military will develop capabilities based on what they can later produce for the civilian market. That is an opportunity for the MIC to exploit.

    4. "Kornet missile launcher is quite complex too.. making something modular is making something simple.." - That depends. When i said modular, i was refering to fact that it can be assembled and disassembled with no or little tools in field so it can be transported in backpack, as this is where this would be used, on squad lvl, mayybee on a long shot on company lvl. That thing cant be easily disassembled, let alone without tools.

    I am impressed you think you can tell just by looking at it.  I have seen a few of those types of UAVs fold up to take up less space... even the main rotors of the Kamov series coaxial rotor families of naval helos fold up... the folding mechanism can be quite complex but the folding and unfolding procedure is not.

    5. "And for the love of god that is a GOOD THING. Cheap, Mass produced, already half developed, disposable." - Cheap is good, true. However not THAT cheap. You for an example praise SU35S...but its 30% more expencive than SU30 variants... why is it expencive? Coz its more capable hence the price increase is legit. I never said you should turn tactical quadcopter into 2 million USD per piece Mumakil, however it should not be that junk either. Sure, use commercial electronics and optronics in it or partially, just dont fkn do what they did there.

    If it wobbled like Fk or had bits falling off or it crashed a couple of times in the video I would support your view, but to me it seems to be able to do what they want it to do so I don't care what they make it out of. Being cheap makes it better for me not worse.

    If they can buy 50 of these for the price of the western 1 equivalent then that is a huge advantage... if two of them wont take off and are just thrown away... who cares.


    6. "Blades on a Hind and V-22 are unprotected too..." - Yes, truly they are not, however they have couple hundred hp engines and few m long composite rotor blades that cant really be damaged by grass or even thin branches, unless you really try to by throwing a log on it or you run into a tree. On other hand this is probably 90+ cm drone in diameter and its supposed to land in grass, hopefully you see the point.

    The fact that it is designed to operate from grass suggests to me that if they intend to use it for this they might have adapted it for the role.

    I appreciate that sometimes the environment has the last word... I remember a Russian UAV that uses a bungee cord for launch instead of a rocket motor to get it airborne... a clever and simple solution... but when taken to minus 20 degrees C Siberia the cord failed and the drones could not be launched because the cord was no longer elastic and just disintegrated. The solution I believe used compressed air.

    7. "Looks like it is too visible and an easy target to me." - I dont see how its easier target than the thing in video above. Various paintjobs can be applied to "sleeves" (which help with thrust vectoring and protect rotor/engines from smaller items damaging them) so its not much of an issue, they anyways fly quite low you will see them eventually. From engineering aspect its far better solved than thing in the video but needs again some work as i assume sleeve is not modular but casted (cant say for sure), which makes it bulky. That surely can be solved fairly easy.

    Horizontally it has a larger aspect... it is easier to see and to hit.

    For small arms that makes it easier to hit. For light missiles or cannon shells a miss means the drone lives, while a hit with a HE round would destroy the entire drone.

    I have yet to see anyone besides Israel produce such impressive unmanned ground vehicles and most of all the UAV's in Russia are surveillance, probably for a good reason.

    And little things like the unification of weapons... that robot you pictured has the turret of the new APC vehicles... the flying UCAV in question uses standard shoulder fired infantry weapons... practical, cheap, and simplifies training and supply in the field.

    Things are going forward and that is good. Altius-M has potential to be great platform and few other designs that i am looking forward, these smaller drones are oh well, good enough for the roles they are ment to perform. What i expect to see in future is MALE drone. Reason is that surveiliance drones are needed asap, and in huge quantities. Israelis know their shit when its about electronics no question about it, there is reason why even Lockeed Martin runs to Elbit for assistance whenever they are stuck in some their endless loop project.

    I agree that surveillance drones should be the priority, but they are also spending money on their new satellite network too, and most exercises I have seen in video recently not only operate drones but are also filming their videos using drones.

    the number of drones operational in the Russian military has exploded, but not armed or heavy long range drones... yet.

    there are other drones that have no western equivalent that I know of... like two part drones for delivering weapons and ammo and water and provisions and other equipment to troops in the field where the whole drone flys to the location of the troops to be supported and the payload of supplies is released as a glider to land as close as possible to the troops to be supplied without making noise while the UAV that delivered it flys back to base for another glider.

    Also the UAV designed to be carried in large boxes on the pylons of a helo (shown in artwork on a Ka-52) where large flat UAVs can be released in flight and flown over a hill or through a gorge or into enemy air space to look for threats. I seem to remember it has a warhead so if a threat is found is can get the target coordinates and fly into it when it runs out of fuel.

    One of main reasons why Switchblade is becoming so popular in NATO armies is that they were often using Javelin, Milan, TOW or similar fairly expencive ATGMs to attack fortified positions or even men behind dirt cover, so they decided to make Switchblade which is few times cheaper and still will manage to neutralise same target in over 85% of cases.

    And while useful, that shows why such systems would not be such a huge priority for the Russian military that not only has an abundance of RPG like infantry rockets with anti armour and HE warheads, but they also have ultra cheap missile systems like Metis, and large stocks of old weapons like AT-3, AT-4, and AT-5 to use up that are very cheap too.


    In their defence its not always easy to use AT4/Matarod/M80/RPG26 on battlefield without exposing yourself to way to high risk of having your head blown off.

    So if your unit is in one walled compound and you are getting fire from the next city block down having a small cheap simple UAV that I don't know... could carry an RPO-A to 500m up in the air and shoot down and accurately at a target a few hundred metres away might be a good thing?  Razz


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4490
    Points : 4663
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:28 am

    GarryB wrote:
    No, that is showing the sorry state of that industry branch. This thing 1/1 i can personally make if you feel like borrowing me 10.000USD.

    You are clearly not listening... why is simple and cheap a bad thing?

    Plus how sophisticated is it actually... all we have seen is a test video... what are its actual performance specs and capabilities?

    The article I posted earlier seems to suggest several different kinds of helicopter drones, the spec's are surprisingly better then you would expect, apparently helicopter range (with a combat load) of a few hundred km's, and a flight ceiling of several km's with GLONASS guidance. A universal drone command post (which could be used with the helicopter drones) was developed on the KAMAZ-43116 platform called 'Vega', which can control '10' UAV/UCAV/UGV/UCGV's at the same time. The command post can operate autonomously non-stop for 7 days straight, and time to deploy the mobile command post is under 15 minutes.

    CMO presented a draft impact multikopternogo complex
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:12 am

    Thanks for that response Magnum, but my main point was asking certain people who have been exceedingly negative about this new system what they actually know about this specific system... what it is expected to do and what it can or cannot do.

    If there is a military requirement for a writing implement that can write on dry paper only but can write from any angle... you can spend 2 billion dollars to develop a ballpoint pen that can be used upside down or in zero gravity, or you can go to a local shop and spend 50c and get some pencils.

    Assuming the pencils meet all the requirements andcan do everything required of them why bother developing a specialised piece of equipment that is expensive yet does not solve the problem any better than a simple cheap off the shelf solution...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2969
    Points : 3000
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  max steel on Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:14 pm

    Hire this guy Laughing



    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5535
    Points : 5576
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Militarov on Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    No, that is showing the sorry state of that industry branch. This thing 1/1 i can personally make if you feel like borrowing me 10.000USD.

    You are clearly not listening... why is simple and cheap a bad thing?

    Plus how sophisticated is it actually... all we have seen is a test video... what are its actual performance specs and capabilities?

    No. Drones always have to communicate with satelite to transmit data, or they are useless, otherwise they fill buffer memory which you can later empty but what would be the point of that, this is not WW2.

    They transmit the data they collect but there does not need to be a command channel that can be hacked to take over the drone. With a datalink sending data back to Washington the enemy can listen in or even try to jam it but if you design it properly (ie encrypted datalinks) they wont be able to make it land or take control or even see the data it is collecting.

    On other hand most of UAVs do not even have really big buffer memory to save weight, so its used only to store data long enough to it to get "uploaded".  

    A drone developed right now could easily be fitted with 3-4 portable hard drives with 2-4 TBs each... unless you are 3D mapping for a half a world flight in and back that should be plenty of space for video and location data as well as telemetry.

    Are you now serious here? "Wtf does it matter"? It matters alot, its crucal for items like this.

    Crucial?

    The UK is not produced a modern fighter plane on its own for some time... I would think such a technology would be rather more crucial than something you admit yourself can be bought off the shelf online.  Russia does not have bottomless pockets and has to be selective on what it pisses its money away on.

    I would suggest recon UAVs are more valuable than UCAVs... simply because UAVs can direct conventional fire on target which is generally more effective than anything a small UCAV could carry.

    Its called technological advance. Do you know how many technolgies that relate to drones are in use today by civilians? Some were even first time developed for drones, various drones not only UCAVs as they are after all very specific product.

    Technological advance makes no sense unless it fulfils a purpose and is cost effective. There is no point developing a brand new drug that might have serious side effects and be enormously expensive when a generic drug already solves the problem. Beware gold plating.

    Do you have any idea how much Israel earned on drones production, servicing and acompanying technologies? Billions. Also war in Georgia would look alot different if they had suitable recon platforms. Georgians had only small tactical Israeli UAV-s themself too.

    I doubt the Russian military will develop capabilities based on what they can later produce for the civilian market. That is an opportunity for the MIC to exploit.

    4. "Kornet missile launcher is quite complex too.. making something modular is making something simple.." - That depends. When i said modular, i was refering to fact that it can be assembled and disassembled with no or little tools in field so it can be transported in backpack, as this is where this would be used, on squad lvl, mayybee on a long shot on company lvl. That thing cant be easily disassembled, let alone without tools.

    I am impressed you think you can tell just by looking at it.  I have seen a few of those types of UAVs fold up to take up less space... even the main rotors of the Kamov series coaxial rotor families of naval helos fold up... the folding mechanism can be quite complex but the folding and unfolding procedure is not.

    5. "And for the love of god that is a GOOD THING. Cheap, Mass produced, already half developed, disposable." - Cheap is good, true. However not THAT cheap. You for an example praise SU35S...but its 30% more expencive than SU30 variants... why is it expencive? Coz its more capable hence the price increase is legit. I never said you should turn tactical quadcopter into 2 million USD per piece Mumakil, however it should not be that junk either. Sure, use commercial electronics and optronics in it or partially, just dont fkn do what they did there.

    If it wobbled like Fk or had bits falling off or it crashed a couple of times in the video I would support your view, but to me it seems to be able to do what they want it to do so I don't care what they make it out of. Being cheap makes it better for me not worse.

    If they can buy 50 of these for the price of the western 1 equivalent then that is a huge advantage... if two of them wont take off and are just thrown away... who cares.


    6. "Blades on a Hind and V-22 are unprotected too..." - Yes, truly they are not, however they have couple hundred hp engines and few m long composite rotor blades that cant really be damaged by grass or even thin branches, unless you really try to by throwing a log on it or you run into a tree. On other hand this is probably 90+ cm drone in diameter and its supposed to land in grass, hopefully you see the point.

    The fact that it is designed to operate from grass suggests to me that if they intend to use it for this they might have adapted it for the role.

    I appreciate that sometimes the environment has the last word... I remember a Russian UAV that uses a bungee cord for launch instead of a rocket motor to get it airborne... a clever and simple solution... but when taken to minus 20 degrees C Siberia the cord failed and the drones could not be launched because the cord was no longer elastic and just disintegrated. The solution I believe used compressed air.

    7. "Looks like it is too visible and an easy target to me." - I dont see how its easier target than the thing in video above. Various paintjobs can be applied to "sleeves" (which help with thrust vectoring and protect rotor/engines from smaller items damaging them) so its not much of an issue, they anyways fly quite low you will see them eventually. From engineering aspect its far better solved than thing in the video but needs again some work as i assume sleeve is not modular but casted (cant say for sure), which makes it bulky. That surely can be solved fairly easy.

    Horizontally it has a larger aspect... it is easier to see and to hit.

    For small arms that makes it easier to hit. For light missiles or cannon shells a miss means the drone lives, while a hit with a HE round would destroy the entire drone.

    I have yet to see anyone besides Israel produce such impressive unmanned ground vehicles and most of all the UAV's in Russia are surveillance, probably for a good reason.

    And little things like the unification of weapons... that robot you pictured has the turret of the new APC vehicles... the flying UCAV in question uses standard shoulder fired infantry weapons... practical, cheap, and simplifies training and supply in the field.

    Things are going forward and that is good. Altius-M has potential to be great platform and few other designs that i am looking forward, these smaller drones are oh well, good enough for the roles they are ment to perform. What i expect to see in future is MALE drone. Reason is that surveiliance drones are needed asap, and in huge quantities. Israelis know their shit when its about electronics no question about it, there is reason why even Lockeed Martin runs to Elbit for assistance whenever they are stuck in some their endless loop project.

    I agree that surveillance drones should be the priority, but they are also spending money on their new satellite network too, and most exercises I have seen in video recently not only operate drones but are also filming their videos using drones.

    the number of drones operational in the Russian military has exploded, but not armed or heavy long range drones... yet.

    there are other drones that have no western equivalent that I know of... like two part drones for delivering weapons and ammo and water and provisions and other equipment to troops in the field where the whole drone flys to the location of the troops to be supported and the payload of supplies is released as a glider to land as close as possible to the troops to be supplied without making noise while the UAV that delivered it flys back to base for another glider.

    Also the UAV designed to be carried in large boxes on the pylons of a helo (shown in artwork on a Ka-52) where large flat UAVs can be released in flight and flown over a hill or through a gorge or into enemy air space to look for threats. I seem to remember it has a warhead so if a threat is found is can get the target coordinates and fly into it when it runs out of fuel.

    One of main reasons why Switchblade is becoming so popular in NATO armies is that they were often using Javelin, Milan, TOW or similar fairly expencive ATGMs to attack fortified positions or even men behind dirt cover, so they decided to make Switchblade which is few times cheaper and still will manage to neutralise same target in over 85% of cases.

    And while useful, that shows why such systems would not be such a huge priority for the Russian military that not only has an abundance of RPG like infantry rockets with anti armour and HE warheads, but they also have ultra cheap missile systems like Metis, and large stocks of old weapons like AT-3, AT-4, and AT-5 to use up that are very cheap too.


    In their defence its not always easy to use AT4/Matarod/M80/RPG26 on battlefield without exposing yourself to way to high risk of having your head blown off.

    So if your unit is in one walled compound and you are getting fire from the next city block down having a small cheap simple UAV that I don't know... could carry an RPO-A to 500m up in the air and shoot down and accurately at a target a few hundred metres away might be a good thing?  Razz

    You do not have to transmit to get it hacked, if you have adequate equipment that will "try" enough times, but that is fairly sophisticated. Drones rarely use hard drives due to weight and their lack of resistance to mechanical damage and plenty of moving parts, memory modules are prefered, but drones lose their value if they go back to WW2 era photo cameras on aircraft fuselage which you can view upon aircraft return, i dont think that is common practice anywhere these days.

    UK participated in design and production of F35 and EF2000, and produces parts and equipment for quite a few more. And their aerospace industry equipment is installed in huge amount of aircraft, probably almost every civilian aircraft in the world has some component built by UK. They opted for joint production of EF2000, i doubt it would be much of a problem for them to develop fighter on their own, this way it was far more convinient.

    That is all nice and dandy, i am fine with propper drones using helicopters as launch platform, MLRS rockets, i am fine with transport drones (actually West has some equivalents Israelis most notably i belive even started whole thing) i am just not fine whith this thing in video, its simply not good enough, and you will see that this thing will go nowhere, they will fly them around abit, MoD will laugh at it and they will start making something that actually has a chance of being fielded. This can be at the best issued to MVD/FSB.

    I would actually prefer faster suicide drones, which we mentioned above, on Zala platform, you would need one hell of a luck to hit that thing.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:07 am

    You do not have to transmit to get it hacked, if you have adequate equipment that will "try" enough times, but that is fairly sophisticated.

    To hack something you need to know what frequencies it operates at and it also needs to be able to receive commands... in this case Hack does not mean just listen in, it means be able to take control over.

    A UAV with preprogrammed flight path that is intended to overfly enemy territory and observe does not need to receive flight commands so can be set to ignore all external commands. The only way you could then bring it down would be to damage it directly...

    Of course if you had any brains you could use a coded communications system that would be unbreakable... it is called a one time pad and has unique command codes that are only used once so even if your commands were intercepted and decrypted there is no way to anticipate what commands would control the aircraft because they are unique and change over time.

    Past evidence has shown some US drones don't even encrypt their data so anyone can intercept and read the data even if they can't take control of the vehicle.

    I suspect the security is therefore pathetic so it is little surprise Iran was able to hack their system and capture it largely intact.

    Drones rarely use hard drives due to weight and their lack of resistance to mechanical damage and plenty of moving parts, memory modules are prefered, but drones lose their value if they go back to WW2 era photo cameras on aircraft fuselage which you can view upon aircraft return, i dont think that is common practice anywhere these days.

    Off the shelf 2.5 inch laptop hard drives are very light... memory modules are no more resistant to physical damage than hard drives... if we are talking about battle damage or a crash.

    Storing information on onboard storage devices and burst transmission of data reduces its chances of being intercepted. Encryption reduces the chances of any intercepted data being used straight away.

    UK participated in design and production of F35 and EF2000, and produces parts and equipment for quite a few more. And their aerospace industry equipment is installed in huge amount of aircraft, probably almost every civilian aircraft in the world has some component built by UK. They opted for joint production of EF2000, i doubt it would be much of a problem for them to develop fighter on their own, this way it was far more convinient.

    But the fact of the matter is that they would struggle to make a fighter on their own now.

    I would actually prefer faster suicide drones, which we mentioned above, on Zala platform, you would need one hell of a luck to hit that thing.


    And I am of the opinion that such a thing would be a total waste of money when they have supersonic Kornets already able to hit point targets 10km from launcher with a HE payload. What can these suicide drones do that a Kornet-M can't already do for a fraction of the cost and is already in service.

    Or do they need it because it would be cool?

    Just copying what the west makes is a waste of money and time... Russia actually has to have a use for these things first.

    The system in the video makes sense because it can be used on the front line to hit targets with cheap unguided munitions (RPG, RPO, etc) from the safety of cover. As an alternative you could do the same from a few kms back with Ataka or Kristantema or Kornet that are also already in service and available for use.

    The actual weapon system (kill mechanism) is no where near as important as the ability of front line soldiers to be able to find targets and call in support... whether this big UCAV finds targets and launches rockets at them or a hand held UAV is launched and also finds the targets and another weapon system (ie that palm launched UAV with a laser target marker allows local mortar or tube artillery to engage the target or a Kornet armed vehicle further back opens up on the target doesn't really matter) engages the target. Having a larger UCAV on the front line would be cheaper as an RPG or RPO is cheaper than a laser guided 120mm mortar shell or a Kornet or Krisantema and as it is on the recon platform that finds the target it would also be quicker... and not doing another fire mission for a different group.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:43 pm

    Apparently tiltrotor performed flight in Singapor and sdelanounas posted it.  I would link it but since my daughter broke my phone, I cant seem to paste now.

    Austin

    Posts : 6270
    Points : 6668
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:37 pm

    Russia unveils two new Orlan unmanned aerial vehicles
    Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

    http://www.janes.com/article/58072/russia-unveils-two-new-orlan-unmanned-aerial-vehicles




    Two new members of Russia's Orlan family of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were unveiled at a Russian Defence Ministry-sponsored conference on robotics on 11-12 February.

    The Orlan-30 and Orlan-50 are scaled-up derivatives of the Orlan-10 already in Russian service. Both have the same external dimensions (2.43 m long and 3.8 m wingspan), and both have an operating radius of 500 km, an operating altitude of 5,000 m, and an endurance of 8 hours.

    The main difference between the new UAVs is that the Orlan-30 is single-engined and the Orlan-50 is twin-engined. This allows the Orlan-50 to have a higher maximum take-off weight (50kg) and payload (15 kg) than the Orlan-30 (27 kg and 8 kg respectively). Both have a cruising speed of 90 km/h, though the 180 km/h maximum speed of the Orlan-50 is also higher than the Orlan-30's (150 km/h). Both are launched by catapult and land by parachute.



    Each UAV can carry three or four mission payloads at any one time. Payload options for the Orlan-30 and Orlan-50 include an 80 megapixel photo-reconnaissance camera; a gyro-stabilised electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) video system; signals intelligence devices for monitoring radio traffic or direction finding; radiation monitoring sensors; and others. Both are equipped with a secure datalink with a 120 km range and a 2-16 Mb/s transfer rate. A single Orlan-30 or Orlan-50 unmanned aircraft system (UAS) includes a ground control station and up to four UAVs, with one UAV able to use its datalink to act as a relay for control of the other three.

    The Orlan UAV family is designed and manufactured by the Special Technological Center in St Petersburg.

    Austin

    Posts : 6270
    Points : 6668
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:41 pm

    Russia creates SIGINT payloads for Granat-4 UAV
    Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

    http://www.janes.com/article/58075/russia-creates-sigint-payloads-for-granat-4-uav



    Russia has designed new payloads for its Granat-4 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to allow it to act as a signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform.

    Currently the tactical UAV is used for photo reconnaissance and artillery spotting/targeting. The new payloads allow the Granat-4 to conduct SIGINT roles such as radio monitoring, signals collection, and signal direction, as well as the ability to act as a radio relay for friendly forces.

    A Granat-4 unmanned air system (UAS) comprises two UAVs, a set of replaceable payload modules, a starter, a charging and refuelling station for the UAVs, a ground control post on the basis of the KAMAZ-4350 truck with the 4350D-11 van-type body, two transportation containers, and a demountable catapult.

    The Granat-4 UAV has a maximum take-off weight of 30 kg, a maximum payload weight of 3 kg, a length of 2.4 m, a wing span of 3.2 m, a cruising speed of 90 km/h, a maximum speed of 145 km/h, an operational range of up to 70 km, and a maximum flight altitude of 11,500 ft.

    Izhmash Unmanned Systems is the designer and manufacturer of the Granat UAV family and has been developing and supplying UAVs to the Russian Armed Forces since 2007. Alongside the Granat family, the Russian Army also operates the Izhmash Mukha micro-UAV and Takhion UAV families.

    Izhmash is keen to export its UAV technologies, with Yevgeny Zaitsev, the company's development deputy director, saying at a recent Russian robotics conference that, "CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization] member states are taking interest in our Granat-1E, Takhion-E, and Granat-4E unmanned aerial vehicles.

    "Other countries are also interested [in our UAVs]. We have been approached by representatives of Asian and African countries. Talks with certain foreign customers are at a pre-contract stage," Zaitsev said.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 912
    Points : 1074
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:29 am

    Militarov wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:

    Hence why Russia is building all types of unmanned ground systems.

    Suicide drones make a lot of sense, especially if said drones are cheap.  Eleron and Orlan are not cheap so it would make sense to use something cheaper.



    One of Zala Aero variants was mentioned as "suicide" drone. One of main reasons why Switchblade is becoming so popular in NATO armies is that they were often using Javelin, Milan, TOW or similar fairly expencive ATGMs to attack fortified positions or even men behind dirt cover, so they decided to make Switchblade which is few times cheaper and still will manage to neutralise same target in over 85% of cases.

    just a thought but couldn't older UAV systems be turned into suicide drones?? as most are now either out of service or recently phased out, and i think Syria could be a nice test bed Very Happy systems such as Yakovlev Pchela, La-17K, Tu-141, and Tu-143, Russia must still have quite a few in storage it could adapt and use in Syria. I understand some have been used for target drones, another option would be to use tired old L-39 Very Happy Very Happy and couldn't anti air systems such as SA-4 be turned into suicide drone shouldnt be too hard basic camera and guidance system and with a fairly big payload of Frag-HE 135 kg (300 lb) missile firing this into a crowded group of scum would be pretty nice, although i suppose you could still use this as a ballistic missile as well.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10347
    Points : 10818
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:34 am

    i see a lot of small UAVs but not a strategic one


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:54 am

    I would suspect strategic UAVs and UCAVs would be kept secret as they likely would not be for export.

    There are photos of Soviet recon aircraft but not that many and the information was kept fairly restricted.

    They are spending a lot of money on their satellites, so I suspect their first priority wont be UAVs that largely duplicate that capability.

    Which is not to say they wont be working on things.

    their operations in Syria clearly show they know how to get intell on enemy positions and to use that information to plan and manage air attacks on targets on the ground... I really don't see what armed drones would add.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1943
    Points : 2060
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:25 am

    Guys, guys, guys,

    Here is a link to one of my posts from 20/10/2013 Scalegarian.

    Arrow http://www.russiadefence.net/t161p210-uavs-in-russian-military-forces-news#38701

    The post is about the Mach 3++ Tu-139, Yatreb-2 strategic UAV of the 1960s (incorrectly and "officially"), and correctly of a long time before that.

    For the convenience of some of the forum members, I have repeated the images of this UAV below.

    Do I have to say more?




    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10347
    Points : 10818
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:22 pm

    The armed forces of Russia's Eastern Military District (EMD) have received five Orlan-10 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), which are able to operate for up to 18 hours and at high altitudes, the district's spokesman, Alexander Gordeev, said Wednesday.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160309/1035996311/russian-orlan-high-tech-drone.html#ixzz42RIKi0jR


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  x_54_u43 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:33 am













    Apologies if posted before

    victor1985

    Posts : 705
    Points : 742
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:37 pm

    i have a question: some drones , small ones can be maked to fly around a base and act like a wall against missiles? ofcourse you will say that is a lot of sky to cover but the drones could have video or IR and would estimate the speed and direction of missile and gets near by ....and explode .....
    i know missiles are fast ...but they cant maneuver like a quadcopter for example..... and establish rationally the number of drones to what space to cover ....may be a better solution....
    think like this fuel is expensive ....for rockets .....and always someone can get a faster and stealthy missile ......but drones are cheap , fueled with solar panels and battery, and have long time of function ....
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5535
    Points : 5576
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Militarov on Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:51 pm

    victor1985 wrote:i have a question: some drones , small ones can be maked to fly around a base and act like a wall against missiles? ofcourse you will say that is a lot of sky to cover but the drones could have video or IR and would estimate the speed and direction of missile and gets near by ....and explode .....
    i know missiles are fast ...but they cant maneuver like a quadcopter for example..... and establish rationally the number of drones to what space to cover ....may be a better solution....
    think like this fuel is expensive ....for rockets .....and always someone can get a faster and stealthy missile ......but drones are cheap , fueled with solar panels and battery, and have long time of function ....

    That would be sort of waste of time, as you have point defence modular SHORAD systems like Skyguard, Skyshield, Rapier... even Tor and Pancir S can be used that way, and just towed on trailer when needed. And they will outperform any kind of UAV in such roles.









    Chinese TY-90:


    Austin

    Posts : 6270
    Points : 6668
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Austin on Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:40 am

    Do we know what is this 3 , 5 and 10 Ton UAV is ? As in Specs and who is the owner of program ?

    The 10 T UAV sounds more interesting


    In Russia began testing three types of heavy drones

    Drums unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) long-range began testing specialists United aircraft Corporation (UAC), told reporters on Thursday in the Russian delegation at the aerospace exhibition FIDAE-2016 in Santiago.

    "It is the drones of three projects in dimension three, five and ten tonnes," Interfax-AVN representative of the military-industrial complex.

    According to him, "machines are in varying degrees of readiness: some have already flown, others are preparing for the first flight.
    "The Ministry of defence were set theme, and work is underway on them s priority. Demonstrators have already been established, which confirmed the correctness of the decisions taken. Based on the results of the manufactured product samples»,-said the expert.

    http://vpk-news.ru/news/30021

    victor1985

    Posts : 705
    Points : 742
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Apr 02, 2016 7:11 am

    1 and if the enemy has a faster missile?
    2 if he jam? how you guide your things to the missile? .....ofcourse i dont know if it used to make it like this but i suppose you can mark a target with a laser same way that usa laser (LAWS or so...) works ...from the ground ....and make the missile to recognize the own laser from others ....
    3 talking about kinetic projectile ....well here is something wrong....a kinetic projectile fall from speed and his penetrating power meanwhile he travel throught air .....so they cant intercept really far away....and destroy a missile at close to you ....isnt a good option ...... think that we can have a enemy missile closing to you ......you do that rheinmetal ....then let say enemy missile explode and launch few separate projectiles at very high speeds..... how you gonna stop them?
    4 we talking here also about the price of every style of defence ....drones are cheap ....compared to missiles..... because of the fuel.....in practic really dont matter if you hit a missile far away or relatively close .....so why need a 400 km missile... when you can have a simple drone that do patrol ......
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 02, 2016 12:28 pm

    1 and if the enemy has a faster missile?

    Doesn't matter... the faster it goes the straighter it flies the easier it is to intercept.

    2 if he jam? how you guide your things to the missile? .....ofcourse i dont know if it used to make it like this but i suppose you can mark a target with a laser same way that usa laser (LAWS or so...) works ...from the ground ....and make the missile to recognize the own laser from others ....

    How would he jam SAMs?

    Launch an S-400 with a range of 400km and destroy his jamming aircraft.

    What sort of jamming will jam a laser beam riding missile like SOSNA-R, or command guided TOR or Pantsir?

    3 talking about kinetic projectile ....well here is something wrong....a kinetic projectile fall from speed and his penetrating power meanwhile he travel throught air .....so they cant intercept really far away....and destroy a missile at close to you ....isnt a good option ...... think that we can have a enemy missile closing to you ......you do that rheinmetal ....then let say enemy missile explode and launch few separate projectiles at very high speeds..... how you gonna stop them?

    Use S-400 and destroy the aircraft carrying the missiles before they launch the missiles.

    New model Pantsir can intercept targets about 40km from the launcher.

    4 we talking here also about the price of every style of defence ....drones are cheap ....compared to missiles..... because of the fuel.....in practic really dont matter if you hit a missile far away or relatively close .....so why need a 400 km missile... when you can have a simple drone that do patrol ......

    because a drone needs target detection sensors and weapons to intercept targets... it makes more sense to keep these drones inside missile containers inside a turret of a TOR system with radar and EO systems scanning for targets and then launching those drones at targets as they appear than have them flying around and around your base... those drones wont be cheaper than missiles because they will be burning fuel 24/7 and their onboard sensors wont be anywhere near as capable as the sensors on a TOR vehicle... and 64 drones flying around your base continuously would use up lots of fuel compared with 4 TOR launchers which could sit still with radars going plugged into the local power supply to run EO and radar continuously.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin

    Posts : 6270
    Points : 6668
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:28 am



    Obzor-1 High-altitude reconnaissance UAV from Myasischchev


    Russia developing new high-altitude stealth drone

    Russia is developing a high-altitude attack drone with stealth technology.

    According to a report prepared by the Myasischev Experimental Engineering Factory, the project, code-named Obzor-1, is being carried out by the Professor Zhukovsky Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute in collaboration with the Myasischev Experimental Engineering Factory.

    The Obzor-1 has received an extended wing with high-impact weight, which will increase the unmanned aerial vehicle's aerodynamics. R&D for the drone will be completed in 2016 and work on the first prototype will then begin.

    Further details of the UAV are not being disclosed. As is known from the Russian State Armament Program, the UAV's flight duration will not be less than 24 hours and the flight altitude will be no lower than 33,000 feet.

    Currently, Russia does not posses high-altitude attack drones with long flight duration. The Orion-2, a drone produced by the Kronstadt Company, can fly for 20 to 60 hours, but was developed for middle-altitude usage.

    Original Link :- http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/136687.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:13 am




    Old post... this shows a 1 ton and a 5 ton and a 20 ton spec sheet...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin

    Posts : 6270
    Points : 6668
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:


    Old post... this shows a 1 ton and a 5 ton and a 20 ton spec sheet...

    I wonder what's the 10T UAV or is it UCAV

    5 T is Atlis-M UAV

    I suspect Gonsheckek UCAV is 10T and not 5

    Sponsored content

    Re: UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:27 pm