KoTeMoRe wrote:This is like, you're the actual dumbest motherfucker I've ever read. I could be from fucking Nauru and still call you out for being a dumb cunt.
Once again. Eleron on your own clip is at best at 1KM altitude, usual altitude because of sensor limitations is around 1000/1500 m, Shahed operates at twice that alt without trouble. The CH at about 3km alt.
Your own source shows those drones to be used in purely tactical role with very small FoV. I cannot belive I'm discussing this. Russia is looking for a domestic UCAV for half a decade now. Why is this so difficult to understand.
You could cram a ton of sensors on the ORLAN/Eleron they've been both shown at risk because of the low altitudes they operate. Both in Ukraine and in Syria.
The Orlan's sensors are rather sophisticated, at this altitude:
They got this on their screens, note the shadows of the people, the furthest one was actually moving, and you could discern the movement of their shadow.
Now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the Orlan can operate at an altitude of 5500m, giving it plenty of distance from any threats in Syria, as well as a nice radius of 140km datalink range.
So, with the high altitude involved for observing large detonations, no need to climb down for a closer look. We are looking for bomb blasts, not camouflaged snipers, the high wind speeds at that altitude causing the buffeting seen in some of the videos, and the degradation of the video quality by the recording software(look at the crosshair), I am thinking that we are looking at Orlan footage.
Ya'allah, this density in only matched by unobtanium. If the Orlan could operate from 5,5K it wouldn't have been picked off at least 8 times by Ukropithecus. The sensors on both Eleron and Orlan are best used at the 500/1000 alt. This is how they work best. BDA is only a very little task those UAV's are going to be employed for. If you think that drones are best employed for recording fireworks, then you haven't got the slightest clue about area interdiction and survey.(AIS).
Ukraine got Russian drones with American help.. by their own Ukraine cant do nothing..
Drones are very vulnerable weapons , so jamming.. iranians too can be captured.. the fact
that Russia is not using Iranian drones but theirs.. shows they have more confidence in their technology than IRANIAN one. and im not discrediting Iranian drones... somewhere i read Russia bough them.. but the way Russia use drones is for spying ,to become the first eyes of their airforce.. they also used for artillery precision attacks. and Again the question of money comes to the discussion.. Russia will not use attack big drones ,that cost millions if they could use a cheap one backed by Artillery or Airforce. The discussion about Iranian vs Russian drones
is a discussion of tactics.. in the case of IRAN.. that it doesn't have a strong airforce.. or strong anti missile jamming capabilities like Russia or electromamgnetic weapons ,in their case developing attack drones could make more sense to compensate for the lack of a strong airforce and lack of high precision artillery. In the case of Americans.. Attack drones makes sense since they use them in third world nations with poor air defenses and they do lots of operations in foreign nations territory.. In Syria , Iranian drones makes sense.. since ISIS have next to none
Imagine that Russia develops an attack drone..like American predator?
where are they going to use that? they are not cheap.. Since RUssia have precision long range
artillery and strong airforce they dont have really a need for a major attack drone fleet. This is like the question of sniper weapons about why Russia did not developed as much in that area vs the west.. And the answer is the same..thing again and again.. Russia develop the military hardware they will need.. and just that.. very long range sniper weapons like the ones used by western special forces there is not really a need for that in Russia army.. because Russia is not a nation that invades other countries seeking to assassinate presidents in secret. In a real war.. such weapons are useless.. they are more for infiltration and stealth killing missions.. Russian Army don't need that. in real wars ,you don't need to be stealth.. you need to be very noisy
and scare the hell of your enemies with big bombs.. a western pro sniper rifle could have a range of 3km.. but good luck to any US navy forces using a sniper rifle against and army with tanks.. his position will be blow away from 5km away. by any tank or bmp... Such weapons are useless in war.. they are only special time use for stealth secret missions.
Why people think Russia don't use flashing modern looking assault rifles ,like the west?
it is because they don't know how to do that? no.. simply Russia don't need that. America is not at risk of being invaded ever.. So they don't need strong simple weapons that could last months without cleaning and have very few pieces and that you could literary repair with a hammer .
Russia philosophy is one ,of developing weapons that can survive for a decade ..easy to produce ,easy to repair ,easy to replace..easy to clean..and cheap to produce.. . it was this easy to do thing.. what helped Russia to defeat nazi germany when invaded Russia.. that allowed Russia to quickly produce tanks and planes and weapons in big numbers with very little money and with next to no training.
USA don't need such philosophy because America is safe from any invasion.. don't have enemies near.. But this is not the case of Russia.. that have Turkey ,Baltics ,Poland and now Ukraine and potentially Georgia.. then Russia have a large muslins population.. something that USA don't have.. so the possibilities of Chechen like wars are there.. In short Russia military doctrine.. based on its geographical location and its needs to defend a very large continent..and
its economy limitations .