Overcoming the lag. UAV for Russian maritime aviation

The basis of the sea aviation naval fleet Russia consists of manned aircraft and helicopters of various types. A few years ago, the first units equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles appeared in naval aviation. To date, a similar technique is available to all fleets and is used both on shore and on ships. At the same time, the development process of the unmanned part of the naval aviation continues and in the future should lead to new results.



Preparing for the departure of the UAV "Outpost" from the MA of the Baltic Fleet. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru


Units and squadrons


From the point of view of forming units with UAVs, the Russian fleet to some extent lagged behind the ground forces. The formation of the first detachments and squadrons with new equipment started only a few years ago. Nevertheless, over the past time, it was possible to solve a number of tasks and create a significant reserve for the further development of the unmanned part of the Navy's MA.

The first detachment of unmanned aerial vehicles was formed in 2013 in the Northern Fleet based in Severomorsk. It consisted of only two dozen military personnel who were to operate several sets of UAVs. In 2014, a detachment of drones appeared in the Pacific Fleet. In the same year, similar units were formed as part of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets.

Almost simultaneously with the formation of the last units, their restructuring began. By 2015, UAV units were transformed into squadrons subordinate to the MA airbases. The great importance of these units soon led to new transformations. Since 2016, squadrons are expanding, and they are also supplemented by new units.

More recently, fleet drones have ceased to be exclusively land-based equipment and replenished carrier-based aircraft. Last year, UAVs began to operate on ships of one of the latest projects. It is expected that in the near future other ships will become carriers of such equipment.

Material part


According to open sources, to date, unmanned aerial vehicles of only two types have entered operation in the Navy MA. Previously, the equipment of the same models entered service with the aerospace forces and ground forces and has established itself well.


Outpost in the air. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru


Forpost UAVs, which are the Russian version of the Israeli IAI Searcher II, were the first to enter the fleet. An aircraft weighing up to 500 kg is capable of carrying 120 kg of payload in the form of various surveillance or reconnaissance equipment. Maximum speed reaches 200 km / h, flight duration - 15-18 h. Work is provided at a distance of up to 250 km from the operator.

“Outposts” are operated only at land aerodromes. This technique is intended for reconnaissance, search for targets and the issuance of target designation. Also, the device is used to monitor the results of the shooting. Using similar UAVs, the fleet can search for surface and coastal targets, and then strike at them using any available weapons.

Almost from the moment the Navy “Outposts” entered service, they provided effective artillery fire. Last year, the successful joint use of such UAVs and the Caliber and Onyx naval missile systems was reported. Using a barrage aircraft in real time, tracking of the found target was carried out with the simultaneous issuance of target designation.

The number of Outposts in maritime aviation is unknown. To date, about 50 unmanned systems have been built for the Russian army, each of which includes three UAVs and related equipment. The supply of serial samples to the Navy continues. So, recently it became known that a separate squadron equipped with Forpost complexes appeared in the 318 mixed air regiment of the MA of the Black Sea Fleet.

The second UAV model in the naval aviation units is Orlan-10. Previously, such equipment was supplied to other branches of the army, but in recent years the fleet also began to master it. A number of characteristic features and advantages helps to expand the range of tasks. First of all, all this allows the Eagles-10 to operate both on land and on ships.

The Orlan-10 product is an UAV weighing no more than 14 kg, capable of carrying 5 kg of payload. The maximum flight speed reaches 150 km / h. Duration - up to 15 hours. The device is capable of moving 120 km from the control complex. There is also an offline mode that provides a range of up to 600 km. The drone is capable of carrying optoelectronic, radio engineering or other equipment for reconnaissance, signal relay or electronic warfare.


Preparation of the Orlan-10 UAV at the landfill. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru


When operating by land units, Orlan-10 is launched from a catapult and lands with a parachute. Not so long ago, the use of such UAVs on ships of the Navy began. The carrier ship receives a full-time catapult, as well as a special landing device based on the mesh. A flying UAV must fly into the grid and literally get tangled in it, which allows you to safely return it to the deck.

So far, the Orlan-10 UAV is used only on small missile ships of the 22800 Karakurt Ave. The ship with the appropriate equipment was first shown to the public at the naval parade last year. Apparently, all of the following "Karakurt" will also be able to use multi-purpose UAVs, for which they will receive the appropriate equipment. Recently, information has repeatedly appeared about the possibility of using the Orlan-10 on frigates of 11356 ave. There are already three such ships in service, but not one of them, as far as is known, carries UAVs.

The number of UAV Orlan-10 in the Russian Navy is unknown. To date, more than a thousand such products have been built, and some of them could come at the disposal of naval aviation. In this case, it can be assumed that so far only a few drones have mastered the role of a ship scout.

Unmanned perspectives


In recent years, important steps have been taken to introduce and develop UAVs in the Navy MA. However, while the results of such work look modest enough and leave a lot of room for further activities. Unmanned vehicles are available on the coastal parts of all fleets, as well as on individual ships. Moreover, their total number is not too large, and in addition, only two types of complexes are in service.

This leads to obvious conclusions about the possible ways for the further development of the UAV MA group. First of all, we should expect the purchase and delivery of new Forpost and Orlan-10 devices, due to which the fleet will be expanded and updated. Such measures will provide quantitative results.


RTO "Hurricane" Ave. 22800 with UAV "Orlan-10" on board. Photo by Twitter.com/saidpvo


Qualitative growth should be ensured through the commissioning of new unmanned systems for various purposes. In the near future, the appearance of a modernized Outpost-M UAV with enhanced characteristics is expected. It is known about the development of a future replacement for the Orlan-10. Also, various enterprises offer numerous projects of other aircraft and helicopter-type UAVs designed to solve various problems.

The specifics of the MA allows us to consider it necessary to adopt a medium or heavy class helicopter UAV. A similar machine with one or another target equipment can become an addition or even a replacement for manned helicopters. She will be able to solve her problems, without making any special requirements for take-off and landing. An unmanned helicopter will be able to work from a regular flight deck.

With a view to the long term, the issue of creating a heavy reconnaissance and strike UAV of an aircraft type should be explored. A similar technique is just being created for the airborne forces, but in the future it may be useful for the Navy MA. Such drones can be used in land-based aviation and as part of the air group of a promising aircraft carrier.

Gradual development


It should be recognized that in matters of adoption and development of UAVs, the Russian Navy noticeably loses the Navy of other developed countries. There is a lag in the size of the unmanned fleet and in the number of its carriers. A smaller number of samples in operation should also be noted. Finally, existing domestic models lose to individual foreign products in the performance characteristics.

At the same time, it should be noted that over the past six years that have passed since the formation of the first UAV detachment, a fairly long way has been done and real results have been obtained. Dozens of drones are in operation, and all fleets have such equipment. New ways of basing and using UAVs are being developed.

Naturally, the development of the unmanned part of naval aviation of the Navy does not stop there. The appearance of new models of equipment and methods for its application is expected, which will increase the potential of not only MA, but the fleet as a whole. In fact, the unmanned fleet of naval aviation of the Russian fleet is still in the early stages of its development, but in the future it will have a great future.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Radikal 16 August 2019 18: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Why do RTOs need an UAV? Especially - Orlan-10?
    1. Thrifty 16 August 2019 19: 29 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Well, yes, they need a helicopter-type UAV for quick take-off and landing on the deck of a ship!
    2. Vlad.by 16 August 2019 22: 22 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      It is Orlan, only as a fact of the presence of a UAV. Well, except that the ice conditions in the winter to explore.
      We need large drones with side-scan radars, magnetometers, and other search equipment to expand the field of view of surface and underwater targets, and indeed as an extension of the air defense detection zone.
      We need devices to reset search buoys and ammunition of the Corral type for searching and attacking submarines in remote areas. But both that, and another assumes a considerable load.
      So far, perhaps, a tethered balloon with a radar, with a lift of 500-700 meters at least, would be more useful. But also the task is not trivial for a speed of 20 knots.
      1. bayard 17 August 2019 02: 16 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        We experimented with a radar on a balloon. Not even for the ship, but stationary - on the shore. In Kamchatka, if memory serves. Suffered with this - there are gusts of wind. And if the storm? Will the cyclone come? In general, they abandoned this initiative and then changed their minds with airships - they need giant hangars, wild sailing with a weight lighter than air, any gust of wind during landing can lead to an accident. Aircraft AWACS more reliable.
        A side-view radar needs a UAV with a payload of at least 2 tons. Then you can catch a regular container - with a phased two-way radar (for Su-34 and Su-30 developed), electronic intelligence ... For this, Altair would do, but it still won’t be brought to mind. On the engines.

        And “Orlan” at MRK will have to. Let the range is small - 120 km. but these are eyes beyond the horizon, which cannot be seen by the radar. I found the target, gave target designation and the rocket went to the adversary - either the Onyx, or the Caliber with a supersonic head, or the X-35 (if it is an 1234 modernized).
        I would like to run at least 200 kilometers, but here are the issues of communication range.

        And of course we need heavier UAVs with communication via satellite or relay (on another UAV) to increase the reconnaissance range.
        1. Vlad.by 17 August 2019 09: 03 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          With Altair there will be questions on take-off and landing.
          Headache too.
        2. VO3A 18 August 2019 12: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why do you need a balloon? You can place the equipment on a special tower ...
          1. bayard 18 August 2019 18: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They are placed (and always placed) on hills, mountains, bulk hills, placed on towers, raised on the "Unzhe".
            But these are STATIONARY stations. And they have restrictions on the horizon. To detect Ram and low-flying aircraft need air-based radars. Both we and the Americans had experiments with airships and tethered balloons. But while the most reliable option is AWACS aircraft.
            In Russia, they are working on the A-100 and reports have appeared about the planned release of AWACS aircraft based on the Tu-214. But we need heavy UAVs.
            1. VO3A 18 August 2019 18: 13 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              This is not a technical problem, this is an organizational problem, or rather, the stupidity of military leaders and the lack of development concepts in general ... You and I would have done such a system tomorrow ... There are no problems ... We do not have network-centric systems and not even their concept. .. There is no such UAV, because there are no brains and systems for it .... A satellite channel — once, a communication channel through different types of repeaters — two, a safety boat at sea or an island — three ... And let such a UAV hang for days in the right place under the guidance of a control point with operator shifts ....
              1. bayard 18 August 2019 20: 32 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                If Altair takes off with a payload of 2 tons and a barrage time of 48 hours, the carrier of such a system will be ready. On an UAV of this size, it is possible to fully implement a digital channel via satellite and / or repeater. In fact, it is not as difficult as the banal adjustment of the production of suitable engines for him. Moreover, if you unify the radar equipment for it with the reconnaissance radar container for Su-34 \ 30, the problems you specified for it (the container) have been resolved.
                With the competence of the military leadership there really are ... questions, but this is the result of a negative selection of 90's - zero, although ... not all good things are done publicly and publicly. Shadow on the fence in difficult domestic and foreign policy circumstances is often more useful.
          2. Tavrik 18 August 2019 23: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The balloon is a cool thing. Cheap, compact. Can be lifted by a kilometer or more. You can attach a different load. One problem common to all small aircraft is weather restrictions.
    3. Rzzz 17 August 2019 01: 45 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Well, not all of it will fire rockets in Syria. Maybe some other tasks. Saboteurs in coastal bushes look out for. Or some poachers, then reset the data to the fish inspection winked
      Well, and development of technology. Then put on other ships.
  2. Thrifty 16 August 2019 19: 30 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Cyril water in the mortar ceiling, but the topic has not been revealed! negative
    1. rocket757 16 August 2019 20: 08 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      By and large, there is nothing to open there.
      I want to say that everything is still ahead, but it will be too optimistic.
      Offer to catch up and overtake ??? This has already happened.
      Let's wait and see from the side.
      1. Saxahorse 16 August 2019 21: 25 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: rocket757
        Offer to catch up and overtake ??? This has already happened.
        Let's wait and see from the side.

        Why wait then? And so already the Chinese and Persians even overtook. Even at exhibitions, there’s nothing to show, not just weapons.
        1. rocket757 16 August 2019 22: 52 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          At exhibitions, this is certainly good and interesting, the main thing is to fight so far.
          The very, very train called "advanced weapons" is already being dispersed, but there is an opportunity to jump into it!
          1. Saxahorse 17 August 2019 17: 44 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: rocket757
            At exhibitions, this is certainly good and interesting, the main thing is to fight so far.

            This is what? Where the Americans have been using strike UAVs for twenty years, we use the Su-25. And then we reward the pilots. Posthumously.

            The only thing we have is an old Israeli drone. And the miracle that they bought. Somehow the Americans snapped this deal. And this is in the presence of several aviation design bureaus .. The results are still no. For such blunders have long been punished.
            1. rocket757 17 August 2019 18: 12 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Saxahorse
              This is what?

              This is about what we really have, what everyone is afraid of, and it cools ALL the hottest heads over the hill.
              That is, not about drones.
              Drones will not replace AVIATIONS yet, their time is yet to come. So planes are used by everyone who has them, of course.
            2. Constructor68 17 August 2019 18: 19 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Americans have been using shock UAVs for twenty years. We use the Su-25

              Not so often they used them. In any case, the combat sorties of their attack aircraft are orders of magnitude greater than the facts of the combat use of their own UAVs in the strike variant. You reviewed Hollywood movies
              1. rocket757 17 August 2019 19: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Designer 68
                Americans have been using shock UAVs for twenty years. We use the Su-25

                Not so often they used them. In any case, the combat sorties of their attack aircraft are orders of magnitude greater than the facts of the combat use of their own UAVs in the strike variant. You reviewed Hollywood movies

                Drones are used mainly for semi-gang, one-time actions! “Great,” of course, is an achievement compared to what aviation really does.
                The time of drones has not come yet, for objective reasons, by the way.
                1. Saxahorse 18 August 2019 18: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: rocket757
                  Drones are used mainly for semi-gang, one-time actions!

                  What are you carrying!? MQ-1 Predator alone has been released since 1994 in the amount of 360 pieces, 80 pieces have been lost, a total flying time of more than a million hours (!), Tens of thousands of attacks on his account .. Out of production and sent for storage. The replacement came MQ-9 Reaper. The main difference is the range of 5900 km versus 1100 km at the Predator.

                  Drones have come twenty years ago! Enough to hide under a foil hat ..
                  1. rocket757 18 August 2019 19: 16 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    And tell me, if you are so knowledgeable about the massive raids of advanced drones, otherwise we are not in courses like that.
                    Just not about the primitive, disposable, albeit group, type at the base of Khmeimim. This is too noticeable ..... the Palestinians won arsonists balls, what are they now called balloons fleet?
                    If for the replacement of aviation, then at least no matter how similar tasks he should perform.
                    Aircraft can also work on the principle of flying up, launching a rocket and moving from there, but a massive impact is normal for them. Drones, for now, are single shares.
                    1. Saxahorse 18 August 2019 19: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: rocket757
                      won the Palestinians balloons arsonists let out what they now call balloons fleet?

                      Sorry, but you’re already laying out some kind of childish reasoning. A million flying hours is ten times more than all our aviation combined. Drones use both rockets and guided bombs. And the combat load of the same Reaper is 1.7 tons. This is not a balloon ..

                      The only drone problem today is lack of stability in conditions of dense electronic warfare. But for hybrid wars this is not a problem at all, but for a major war, a problem only in the first few hours. Until the suppression of electronic warfare and air defense systems of cruise missiles.

                      Shapkozakidatelstvo did not bring anyone to good, and when they persist in it for twenty years in a row, it completely becomes dreary :(
                      1. rocket757 18 August 2019 20: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Shelving - we have a problem not in hats, but in the absence of everything and a lot, which some were earlier .... the goatlaws destroyed / plundered and will not be restored in any way! The lack of elemental, industrial and scientific BASE ..... this time!
                        The fact that unmanned equipment and everything necessary for it will become a vital problem after a while, they say, they say !!!!! and when they’ll do it, it’s not known .... these are two!
                        Drones cannot yet replace military aircraft for objective reasons !!! Nobody, you look, NOBODY, curtailing programs for the creation and development of aviation technology! And this is BJ Well, not casual .... it's three!
                        Everything is developing and for a long time it will still be, at least in parallel, not mutually exclusive!
                        PS ..... I remind you that we are not considering options for attacking someone with cruise missiles on the Papuans, it is not interesting in any way. And a serious opponent in response to the first ax will flood such an answer !!!!! Specific, in short.
                        In short, this option is also not worth considering, no one needs an armahide!
                      2. Ka-52 19 August 2019 04: 42 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Sorry, but you’re already laying out some kind of childish reasoning. A million flying hours is ten times more than all our aviation combined. Drones use both rockets and guided bombs. And the combat load of the same Reaper is 1.7 tons. This is not a balloon ..

                        What are you nonsense all in here? your supposedly a million hours of flying in the first place, you need to divide into reconnaissance and strike functions! Most of the operations in which American UAVs are involved are reconnaissance or coordination. Secondly, we are opening combat use for each of the drones (and there are essentially only 2 of them for the Americans MQ-1 and its logical continuation MQ-9) and we do not see any hellish bombing. On English resources too. In addition to targeted attacks on specific targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shock missions for all the time typed no more than a hundred. This does not compare in the volume of sorties even with the period of the Chechen company.
                      3. Saxahorse 19 August 2019 23: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Ka-52
                        What are you nonsense all in here? your supposedly a million hours of flying in the first place

                        Let's clarify. This "supposedly a million hours" is just the MQ-1 Predator. Counted at the time of the ceremonial withdrawal from service in 2018. Other strike and reconnaissance UAVs are not taken into account.

                        "Secondly, we are opening combat use for each of the drones (and in fact there are only 2 of them in the Americans MQ-1 and its logical continuation MQ-9)"

                        What are you saying? Only two!? This is in what kind of newspaper they told you this ??

                        The US Air Force has over 1400 UAVs in combat service. The US Air Force UAV fleet consists of medium reconnaissance RQ-20 Puma (1000 UAVs), heavy reconnaissance and strike MQ-9 Reaper (233 UAVs), MQ-1B Predator (145 UAVs) and the RQ-170 Sentinel (10 UAVs made using stealth technology), as well as the RQ-4 Global Hawk (31 UAVs).


                        Separately:
                        The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps included helicopter-type drones MQ-8B Firescout (36 UAVs), RQ-4A Global Hawk (4 UAVs), RQ-7B Shadow (39 UAVs), RQ-2B Pioneer (35 UAVs) and RQ-21A Blackjack (15 UAVs) .. In addition, the US Marine Corps has 1400 small intelligence scouts RQ-14 Dragon Eye and 64 mini-UAVs PD-100 Black Hornet.


                        The US Army has over 100 reconnaissance and strike UAVs MQ-1C Gray Eagle. In addition, there are thirty MQ-9 Reapers and about 5000 small reconnaissance UAVs RQ-11 Raven in the US Army and Special Command


                        Total small devices RQ-14 Dragon Eye, RQ-11 Raven and RQ-20 Puma (6400 units), medium UAVs, there are 1125 units, and heavy - 553 units.

                        Quote: Ka-52
                        Shock missions for all the time typed no more than a hundred.

                        Did Trump personally swear a Bible on you? Since 2007, more than 30 MQ-9 and MQ-1 have been operating on an ongoing basis in Afghanistan and Iraq alone. Combat sorties are not advertised because, even under American law, killing unarmed people without trial is considered a crime.

                        It is extremely naive to consider drummers to be harmless birds. Even in the well-known incident in Syria with the defeat of the Wagner group, the MQ-9 Reaper drums were used.
            3. Tavrik 18 August 2019 23: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              As far as I understand, UAVs operate on targeted targets for adversaries, and manned UAVs operate for significant ones. If, after months of studying his contacts and daily routine, the leader of the Mujahideen needs to be removed, then there is an UAV, if there is any object to bomb, then there is normal strike aircraft.
  3. VO3A 18 August 2019 12: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, the article is zero, some assumptions and speculation, a lot has been written about anything ....
  • Chaldon48 16 August 2019 20: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Unmanned aerial vehicles in combat conditions reduce human losses, only this requires an increase in their number in the troops.
  • Vladimir1155 17 August 2019 10: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    an important area of ​​aviation development, including at sea
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. abc_alex 18 August 2019 09: 36 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: X35
      These 120 - 250km look very sickly,

      Corresponds to the missile launch range. Onyx has just about 300 km.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Tavrik 18 August 2019 23: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To increase the communication range you need satellite channels. Those. we need satellite transponders, compact phased arrays with auto tracking, transmitting and receiving equipment that can be implanted on board. Not so simple. And that’s all - completely different money and the level of decision making.
  • ASASHOKA 17 August 2019 19: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I’m looking at our “Outpost” - it might be a decent car, but why you can’t paint it beautifully, lick the corners or something ... well, I don’t know ... The thing will be more presentable - it will be wanted by “partner” partners, and their money is even better to do ... for yourself already ... well, something like that ... It is clear that this is good in the war, the main thing is that the performance characteristics are stunning, but beauty is also important. So ... thoughts out loud ... Beauty will save the world!
    1. abc_alex 18 August 2019 09: 39 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      It is "square" to reduce radio visibility. :)
      Yes, and why "beautiful" it - this is the expendable material of the war.
    2. VO3A 18 August 2019 12: 15 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Where did you see our Outpost? This Israeli UAV of the last decade will begin to collect from our parts their ancient development at the end of this 2019 ... Uryayayayayayaya ....
    3. 3danimal 19 August 2019 12: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Because the “Outpost” is the Israeli “Searcher”, which was adopted in 1992. Israel ranks second in the world in the development of UAVs, but it would be nice to buy something newer)
  • 3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 34 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    At the moment, it is clear that the lag is overcome by the purchase and operation of vehicles adopted by the Israeli army in 1992.
    Failed to purchase newer models ??
    1. abc_alex 18 August 2019 09: 42 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      But you must? It is not enough to get a drone, it is necessary to train personnel, to develop tactics for its use. And this is not a quick process. Well, would you buy it in a more modern way, (which, incidentally, is not a fact, the Shtatovs do not always click with a bread slicer, and could block it) and would it have been dead weight for 10 years? Outpost was purchased at the end of 888, that is, 10 years ago, and they began to develop it only now.
      1. 3danimal 18 August 2019 12: 57 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Hand face (
        So it was possible to wait 20 years for mastering.
        And still, in 2009 there was nothing fresher, at least 2000?
        IMHO, it is not necessary to insert Israel’s hairpins, supporting Iran and other Islamists, but to closely interact with the developed and advanced (in the first place, medicine, drones, avionics) secular state in the region.
        1. abc_alex 19 August 2019 08: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          It’s not necessary to insert Israel’s hairpins, supporting Iran and other Islamists, but to closely interact with the developed and advanced (in the first place, medicine, drones, avionics) secular state in the region.

          Does it want that? You seem to be captivated by illusions. Israel has long and firmly chosen an ally in the world. This is the USA. No options. And if there is a choice between the interest of Russia and the opinion of the United States, the Israelis will choose Washington without a doubt.
          There is no way today to rectify this situation. No way.
          Even the refusal of all contacts with Arabs in the BV will lead to nothing but the loss of face and interests. Israel, on the other hand, will not go to any full-fledged military cooperation with us, it does not plan to and does not want to. This is the reality.
          1. 3danimal 19 August 2019 12: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Look at the story: most of the time, starting from the moment of its appearance, the USSR all provided significant (and free) support to countries that wanted to destroy Israel.
            In the 90s and early 2000s there was a lull, and now again the same thing: support for Iran, North Korea, etc.
            It never occurred to you that you just have to definitely stop supporting some and developing cooperation with others (by providing guarantees).
            IMHO, I do not consider the United States a "geopolitical" opponent of the Russian Federation. There are no territorial claims (unlike China). They are not interested in decay (what to do with the spread of nuclear weapons in all kinds of terrorist organizations and countries).
            1. abc_alex 19 August 2019 14: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              It never occurred to you that you just have to definitely stop supporting some and developing cooperation with others (by providing guarantees).


              Once again: Israel does NOT NEED cooperation with Russia. It does not matter what we will do or what we will NOT do in BV. You can completely abandon all your interests and projects there, break off relations with Iran and Syria, curtail all troops and bases, withdraw all business. All the same, Israel will not go to military-technical cooperation with us. Just see how we are killing our heads around the corner and move on. The United States does not just support Israel politically, they give it billions of dollars of UNREQUESTABLE military aid. And give up thousands of millions of dollars for the sake of some kind of Russia? Are you seriously?
              Israel does not need guarantees from us, in general! All that he needs, he guarantees himself.

              Quote: 3danimal
              IMHO, I do not consider the United States a "geopolitical" opponent of the Russian Federation. There are no territorial claims (unlike China). They are not interested in decay (what to do with the spread of nuclear weapons in all kinds of terrorist organizations and countries).


              And what are China’s claims to Russia?
              I do not agree with you about the US fear of spreading nuclear weapons. They worked consciously for the collapse of the USSR, and there, too, nuclear weapons were not only in the RSFSR. They did it.
              But what the United States certainly does not want to allow is the flow of US technology into the Russian military-industrial complex. They themselves were convinced themselves what a jerk the connection of two schools gives on the example of their and Israeli military-industrial complex. Therefore, they will not allow the Russians to warm themselves in this process.

              PS. What does North Korea have to do with it?
              1. 3danimal 20 August 2019 05: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Look, you say: “Yes, they still do not want to”, which automatically means the support of the Islamists, Iran in the BV. Investments in which bring only losses.
                I am sure that with a decisive breakdown in relations with fanatics, a more trusting level of relations could be established. And to be able to buy drones not in 1992, but at least 10 years newer.
                1. abc_alex 21 August 2019 08: 16 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  I am sure that with a decisive breakdown in relations with fanatics, a more trusting level of relations could be established. And to be able to buy drones not in 1992, but at least 10 years newer.


                  First, I repeat the question: why. There are critically few specialists in our army who can use this technique. And at the time of the purchase of Outposts they were not at all. A year later, at least three reconnaissance systems based on the Dozor UAV were deployed at a base in Tskhinval. And they all lay dead weight due to the lack of operators. In Russia, one school prepares UAV operators, and until they come to the army and develop tactics for using systems at all levels, they are not required to be particularly sophisticated. Moreover, these old cars are doing their job successfully.
                  And secondly, I write again, the United States will not allow Israel to sell to Russians any modern unmanned vehicles. Just because of the fear of technology overflow. And no actions of Russia will correct this situation.
                  Well, if you want a glaring example, ask why we don’t have microelectronics and modern technology. process.
                  1. 3danimal 22 August 2019 09: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Operators must be trained, it would be possible to come to an agreement with Israel.

                    Do not blame the hand of the United States, when we ourselves give the Israelis grounds for mistrust. The reasoning "yes they are all the same ..." is dead-end. Imagine that someone’s father would reason in a similar way on the subject of dating women))
                    The arguments that I have given are quite logical. And the benefits possible in this case are tangible.
                    Islamists will not give us anything of value. Moreover, there is a chance that they may turn against us in the future (we, like the Jews, are infidels ”).
                    Equipment with a difference of 10 years can vary greatly in performance.
                    1. abc_alex 22 August 2019 19: 02 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      Do not blame the hand of the United States, when we ourselves give the Israelis grounds for mistrust.

                      What do we have to do with trust? Israel has billions of dollars of military assistance from the United States per year, for many decades. We ourselves in any form are simply not interesting to Israel. Generally. Israel will not risk billions of dollars for free for us, and joint defense programs with the United States. Understand on the alliance with the United States the whole concept of Israel’s defense capability is built. It is closed and self-sufficient. Third parties are not needed there. Generally. Neither the evil Russians, nor the good Russians are out there. Therefore, any military contracts with us there will be necessarily agreed with Washington. And you will not only have to become good for Israel, but also become good for the USA. Are you ready for that size?

                      The Islamists, of course, will not give us new technologies. They do not have them. But the Israelis will not give them either. They just don't need it. You can crawl and beg on their knees in front of them, but so far the United States gives F-35s to the Israelis for free, buys KAZ tanks from them, and jointly develops air defense systems, you will not deserve anything but mistreatment. Rosmia is in no way interesting to Israel.

                      It’s pointless to teach operators there. Too different theater of war, and to fight against NATO troops is not the same as against the bearded in slippers. But we need to prepare for such wars.

                      And we will finish the drones ourselves. :)
                      1. 3danimal 23 August 2019 09: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        IMHO, we are unlikely to catch up with the leaders. Wrong budgets.
                        In the war with NATO, the Russian Armed Forces can only have local successes, but the general picture (in conventional confrontation) is against it. Losses will be many times higher than theirs. And society is not ready for this.
                        And for what? “Return” the Baltic countries to their property? Or something else? Not worth it.
                        In the south there is a large and strong (huge ground army and 10 times large economy) China, which has territorial claims (although not voicing them now), with which in 1969 there was a real local clash on this soil.
                        Further. What, in your understanding, does the phrase “become good for the USA” mean?
                      2. abc_alex 23 August 2019 20: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        unlikely to catch up with the leaders. Wrong budgets.

                        Practice shows that large budgets blunt engineering. In the 90s, the US military-industrial complex received a sea of ​​money, just an ocean. At the exit, he has a series of failed projects and a couple of rather controversial. Moreover, even now the US Army does not have enough money even to maintain its own combat-ready equipment.
                        Meanwhile, the example of the same Israel shows that not rich countries can implement the most advanced projects. In any case, with large UAVs, everything is getting better. Already at least three projects are at the stage of flight tests.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Losses will be many times higher than theirs.

                        This is debatable.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        “Return” the Baltic countries to their property?

                        Yes, it may happen that Kaliningrad will have to defend the Crimea ...

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        In the south there is a large and strong (huge ground army and 10 times large economy) China, which has territorial claims

                        China has no official claims to Russia. Estonia, on the contrary, has it, but China does not. The reason is that Chinese culture is introverted, the Chinese are not at all characterized by expansion. Moreover, the Chinese are the southern people, for them Siberia is 12 months of the year in snow and frost. If they begin to expand, then certainly not in the direction of a cold country with 1500 nuclear units. They have an abundance of small states in the south.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Further. What, in your understanding, does the phrase “become good for the USA” mean?

                        The whole complex of current contradictions and contradictions that may arise in the future. At a minimum, this will mean a retreat on all "sanctioned" issues. And then the change in the logic of foreign policy according to the Yeltsin-Kozyrev pattern.
                      3. 3danimal 24 August 2019 02: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        About China’s fundamental inefficiency is funny. Explore history as well as maps for the 10-19th century at your leisure. Just in the 19th, RI, taking advantage of the weakness of its neighbor who was defeated before Britain, forced him to unsubscribe a considerable part of the northern territories that we know as the Far East. And the Chinese perceive time in their own way, and they all remember well. And they want to return theirs, at the level of mentality.
                        About nuclear weapons: it also has (350 warheads), and at the heart of it is medium-range missiles with an extremely short approach time.
                        But this is not necessary. Russia itself "threw herself into the arms" of a neighbor, quarreling with Western countries. (Or rather, its leadership.) As a result, we see gas sold almost at cost, a sale of forests and creeping expansion in the respective regions.
                        Kaliningrad ??? Perhaps, at the head of the Federal Republic of Germany some Fuhrer has established a totalitarian regime and a course towards militarization.
                        (dictators do not reckon with losses in the name of ambition). In reality, all possible benefits are offset by damage. Nobody will fight over Crimea, but economic and technological restrictions will continue.
                        Oh, that "Yeltsin’s logic." In the early 00s, we were quite “good”, IMHO. They didn’t fight with anyone, they collaborated on anti-terror, etc. An excellent period was.
                      4. abc_alex 27 August 2019 00: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Oh, that "Yeltsin’s logic." In the early 00s, we were quite “good”, IMHO. They didn’t fight with anyone, they collaborated on anti-terror, etc. An excellent period was.


                        AND? Everything has degraded in the country. The security forces did not receive a salary for half a year, doctors and teachers ran away to trade in the markets, the army fell apart, the military-industrial complex degraded, entire branches of production disappeared, and "cooperation on anti-terror" did not interfere with the war in Chechnya. Nuclear plant personnel staged hunger strikes. The miners knocked helmets for months before the Duma, and Yeltsin staged a military coup. Indeed, the time was gorgeous. If for the sake of a pair of Israeli drones you need to return all this, then they went to the forest, along with Israel. Let’s do it after 5 years, but it’s better than back to the 90s. I don’t know about you, but then I lived and do not want to go through it again.
                      5. 3danimal 27 August 2019 05: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        In 2003, the military did not receive salaries? Oil has steadily risen in price, currency inflows have increased. And returning this would not be bad.
                        Be ATTENTIVE, we are talking about the beginning of the 00s.
                        After 5 years, we will continue to lag. If you started 5 seconds after Usain Bolt, then you will not be able to catch up with him. Without help
                      6. abc_alex 27 August 2019 07: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        In 2003, the military did not receive salaries? Oil has steadily risen in price, currency inflows have increased. And returning this would not be bad.


                        Yes, I didn’t look at the date. I apologize.
                        But even with this period, goodness does not add up. I recall that in March 2004, 7 states joined NATO: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia. At what the reception was emergency, as they were preparing for war. In 2002 the programs of the Action Plan were scheduled for them, they worked on them for a year and were immediately adopted.
                        And in 2004 in Ukraine there was an orange Maidan.
                        Yes, a period of stable growth in oil prices would not be a bad return. But this period ended badly in 2008 with the crisis in the USA and the war with Georgia.

                        In any case, returning to the topic, even then Russia was not allowed to the hi-tech in full. For example, there was and is an unwritten ban on the supply of lithographic equipment for microelectronics. And it is observed very strictly. So even then in 2003 Israel would not sell its latest technology here.

                        You understand, the world does not begin and does not end with Russia, it exists within the framework of schemes and rules in which the “Russian factor” is most often extremely optional. Are Russians good or bad, but these rules work. And you will never achieve the disclosure of technology from Israel, even if you change your policy and even if you reduce Russia to the borders of the Moscow region. The behavior of Russia does not affect this side of international cooperation in any way; it is controlled by other schemes.
                      7. 3danimal 27 August 2019 10: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        I am sure that no one in the West needs to reduce the Russian Federation “to the Moscow region”. Everyone is unitedly afraid of the spread of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups and regimes.
                        The “Russians” (conditionally, talking about a group that seized power in the beginning of the 20th century) posed a threat for a very long time, with the goal of forcing their political-economic model in a large number of countries. Do you want everything to be forgotten instantly? Steps towards were: humanitarian aid (successfully stolen in St. Petersburg by the office of the current president as part of the city hall), loans, admission to the G8, etc.
                        The countries of Eastern Europe insured themselves to prevent the repetition of a history negative for them. Some politicians and officials still like to “joke,” how easily they would have taken everything back. Membership in NATO makes such an option (even hypothetical) ... too costly. That's all.
                        None of the member countries is going to attack the Russian Federation, IMHO.
                      8. 3danimal 27 August 2019 10: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        About equipment for the production of chips: as far as I know, Intel produces most of them in the USA.
                      9. 3danimal 27 August 2019 14: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In general, “Intel has production and assembly / test facilities in China, Israel, Ireland, Malaysia, Vietnam and the United States of America.”
                        And what is the principal prohibition in question?
                        IMHO, this is due to investor concerns. For the same reasons, China and Vietnam are more attractive.
              2. 3danimal 26 August 2019 15: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Practice shows that large budgets blunt engineering.

                Very comfortable position of a weak player. I have fewer laboratories, good scientists look at where they pay more, the research budget is several times smaller, but this is good. “Hungry” thinks better!
                This is fundamentally wrong. There are small exceptions, but they only confirm the rule.
              3. abc_alex 27 August 2019 00: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                There are small exceptions, but they only confirm the rule.

                Laser Boeing. Helicopter Comanche. Destroyer Zumwalt ... Still throw "small exceptions"?
              4. 3danimal 27 August 2019 05: 40 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                These are just small exceptions. Against the background of all ongoing research.
                Comanch- progressed well. Priorities and funding have changed, amid declining tensions. As the Cold War continued, he went to your units.
                Flying laser, Zumwalt - in the course of work, the corresponding scientific and technical groundwork was obtained.
                And understand, finally, having the appropriate budgets, you can afford such a luxury.
                For us, 15 times smaller, it’s just hard to realize the scale.
              5. abc_alex 27 August 2019 07: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                having the right budgets, you can afford such a luxury.

                As we see, no. In a nearby branch, the fact that the US Navy does not have enough money to repair ships is being discussed. And the fleet is the cornerstone of the entire US defense doctrine.
                Moreover, the usefulness of the obtained backlogs is extremely doubtful. If they are received at all, these are backlogs. The history of the US military-industrial complex is replete with examples of simply dead-end programs. I am afraid that what I have listed applies to those.
  • VO3A 18 August 2019 21: 21 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Anyway, you simplify the task ... UAVs must be integrated into our systems, they must work in these systems, and, most importantly, these systems need to be created ... Any UAV that issues information to the remote control or writes to the CHIP that decrypts after landing, this is a little more toys ....
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. VO3A 18 August 2019 21: 27 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Our army is not ready for a modern war without nuclear weapons ... We do not have modern systems with real-time target designation, destruction of the enemy and control of this destruction in the same real time ..
      I emphasize systems ....
      1. Tavrik 18 August 2019 23: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The system is very complicated. For the totality of the elements and the connections between them. There are not only technical difficulties, but also political ones. Therefore, we are doing elements for now.
        1. VO3A 19 August 2019 12: 23 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          It is impossible to build a system and its elements without a common concept, otherwise this system will fall apart ... Example, ESU TK "Constellation-M." We do not have a concept, we have two anti-concepts ... "Network-centric systems are vulnerable to electronic warfare systems" - this the first ... "They are complex, we cannot build them, and therefore we do not need them" - this is the second ...
          1. Tavrik 19 August 2019 20: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes sir! Although just network-centric systems are most resistant to various influences. For this, they were done in order to maintain control during the suppression (destruction) of channels. Well, another shortening of the management cycle. We just don’t know how to cook them. wink
  • vdm
    vdm 20 August 2019 00: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Aircraft-type UAVs with landing on board such as net fishing and other “dancing with tambourines” are a dead end solution clear to everyone except for their manufacturers. Helicopter-type UAVs have a number of fundamental shortcomings, such as: low wind resistance and controllability under bad weather conditions, limited low speed and range, and high cost. Unless you consider the latter as a plus.
    The most promising solution is an unmanned tiltrotor with the advantages of helicopter and aircraft types. In Korea, successfully sits on the deck.
    In Russia, there is a version of the ERA series tiltrotor, which has long been in production and sale with a total weight of up to 30 kg (taking into account the requirements for "civilian" UAVs), but with the ability to scale. Even with these scales, the flight time is 4 hours at a speed of 120 km / h. , (with variable pitch screw - up to 300). The rotation of the screws against the wind (unlike the models of the copter structure) allows you to take off and land in the wind up to 21 m.s.
    Take-off and landing in automatic mode on a platform moving at a speed of 40 km / h (deck option) can be viewed on the website: http://www.neng.ru/aviacia
    or on YouTube: https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = N44sQjqrJNY & t = 10s
  • vdm
    vdm 20 August 2019 00: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Video fragment of the landing of an unmanned convertiplane in stormy weather:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PjECXHG5k4
  • vdm
    vdm 20 August 2019 00: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Video of automatic landing on a limited platform (deck) in motion: