Military Review

Why Hunter May Be a Bad Idea

158

Instead of "Predator" and "Reaper"


Even ten years ago it seemed to the whole world that manned combat aircraft were going “no”, and unmanned aerial vehicles would take their place very soon. Which will perform not only reconnaissance and strike missions, but also be used as fighters, strategic bombers and attack aircraft. “The F-35 could be the last manned fighter,” broadcast the British Discovery.




Such forecasts have a solid foundation. Back in the distant 2014 year, the US military exploited more than a thousand medium and heavy UAVs, which in many respects were not inferior to manned aircraft. It seemed a little more and the final change of epochs would come.

In 2013, the heavy American multipurpose X-47B took off for the first time from the deck of the George Bush aircraft carrier, and also successfully landed on it. In addition, the UAV showed the world the possibility of refueling in the air. But soon the program was closed, finally demonstrating its experimental nature and building only two samples. At that time, its price exceeded 800 million dollars.

Europeans who abandoned their fifth generation also really wanted to have a heavy, unobtrusive strike UAV. However, the fate of the French Dassault nEUROn differs little from the fate of the X-47B, despite seemingly acceptable characteristics (earlier Dassault engineers even confirmed the stealth of the UAV). In fact, it’s just a flying stand - an experimental machine on which the French work out certain solutions.

But what about the British counterpart in the face of Taranis UAV? In 2016, BAE Systems equipped the promising Taranis drone with improved software, allowing it not only to take off and land, but also to perform an autonomous flight en route. Since then, almost nothing has been heard about this device.

It is worth recalling, however, that in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-French contract announced in 2014, the experience gained in the design of Taranis will be combined with the achievements of Dassault nEUROn as part of the program for creating the future European heavy multi-purpose UAV.

But these are only plans. Recall, last year, Great Britain around the world announced the beginning of the development of a sixth-generation manned fighter Tempest. Even assuming very optimistic forecasts, Misty Albion will not have enough resources for two mega-projects. As, however, the French from Dassault, now engaged in the development of the sixth generation fighter New Generation Fighter. The chances of creating a future strike UAV are not added by the planned exit of the UK from the EU, although this is a separate topic for discussion.



The Lone Hunter


Russia is far behind the West in terms of creating its own UAVs, especially heavy and multi-functional ones. The "dead" and never born "Skat" and the new "Hunter" only confirm this thesis: if the X-47B made its first flight in 2011, the Russian S-70 - only in 2019. “The main volume of flight tests is planned to be carried out in the period 2023-2024, including in the shock version with various aviation means of destruction, ”TASS said in August 2019 in the office of the deputy chairman of the government, Yuri Borisov. At the same time, serial deliveries to the troops, as stated in the deputy chairman’s apparatus, should begin in 2025.

It is difficult to comment on this kind of statement: most likely, they simply do not correspond to reality. Indeed, now the “Hunter" is also just a demonstrator of technologies, on the basis of which a prototype can be created, and then pre-production and serial devices.

As we can see from the example of fifth-generation fighters, about fifteen years can pass from the first flight of an aircraft until it is put into service. So for 2025 we can at best expect the first flight of the prototype of the future UAV, but not the appearance of the production version.



Wrong concept?


Finally, we come to the most important thing - is it worth Russia to create a large, inconspicuous UAV? The main problem is that he will most likely never replace manned fighter jets.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, UAV operators are faced with delays in control: even if they are seconds, this can become a critical shortcoming in a real battle. Do not forget about “information hunger” when the visibility spectrum of a UAV operator is limited by the display in front of it and is incomparable with the spectrum of visibility and sensations of the pilot.

It can be argued that the UAV operator does not face overloads and does not risk dying. However, as practice shows, a modern pilot has a relatively low chance of dying or getting injured during a combat mission. And aviation weapons allow you to operate outside the coverage area of ​​enemy air defense, minimizing the role of the human factor.

There is another, more significant problem. Recall that in the 2011 year, Americans lost their newest UAV - Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel over Iraq, after which the Iranian authorities showed it safe and sound. This gave rise to a whole stream of discussions in the media about the impossibility of effectively protecting UAVs from electronic interception means, even if the enemy is seriously inferior in technical equipment.

If someone takes control of the MQ-9 Reaper, this will not be a big problem for the United States (although there is little good, of course). But if the enemy gets the latest stealth technology, this can turn into big problems. Up to the loss of technological leadership in certain industries. Such a risk is completely unnecessary.

You can try to make the drone as autonomous as possible. However, the use of neural networks for UAV control, which experts have been talking about in recent years, could turn into even greater difficulties. Nobody wants to see the "revolt of the machines." And even think about such a development of the situation. And indeed, is it possible to entrust the killing of people to automation - a complex and controversial issue.



It turns out an interesting situation. Such devices as X-47B, nEUROn, Taranis or "Hunter" have excessive potential for a counter-guerrilla war: the more so because their price can be comparable to the cost of a fighter. If not the fifth, then the fourth generation. In this case, probably, no one dares to use such an apparatus in a conventional big war. Due to the fear of losing control over it, excessive technical complexity or simply not meeting the price / performance criterion.

В stories there are many examples of how areas that were once considered promising ultimately showed their complete failure. It is appropriate to recall the North American XB-70 Valkyrie ultra-high-speed bomber and the Soviet Sotka.

This, of course, does not mean that we need to abandon the creation of drones. It’s just a lot wiser to follow a proven path, in particular, to develop analogues of MQ-1C or MQ-9. Which have long been proven effective. And they will really be in demand for many years, if not decades.
Author:
158 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Strashila
    Strashila 11 October 2019 06: 23
    +10
    "Soviet" Sotka "", the car was run over purely for political reasons, if the USSR had not done this then, perhaps the aviation would have been different.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 11 October 2019 08: 39
      +13
      Tupolev Design Bureau was in its repertoire. Crushed a competitor.
      1. umah
        umah 12 October 2019 01: 38
        +8
        Such devices as X-47B, nEUROn, Taranis or "Hunter" have excessive potential for waging counter-guerrilla warfare

        Only a dumb (DULL) does not understand that a new world war is brewing. Everyone is preparing, and the author considers the main threat of partisans and terrorists.

        Engineers are fools, and with them the Russian Defense Ministry. We must listen to the author, and then we will win! (Sarcasm)
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Archon
          Archon 12 October 2019 07: 31
          +2
          perhaps then it is worth spending money not on experimental equipment, but on the restoration and cleaning of bomb shelters from rocking chairs, shops and just rubbish, and also on the construction of new anti-nuclear bunkers?
          1. Oden280
            Oden280 12 October 2019 10: 24
            +3
            And how can bunkers and shelters help you? Agony stretched out? This is to that. that they were never enough at all.
            1. Chaldon48
              Chaldon48 13 October 2019 03: 32
              -3
              ... After WWII, only wealthy private traders began to build bomb shelters, mainly for reasons of prestige, they are like children: "Hey, I have something!" and in those states where officials wanted to portray concern for people. And then for the people in large factories, small and almost dummy and more or less real for themselves.
              1. Oden280
                Oden280 13 October 2019 07: 32
                +6
                Apparently, you do not have the slightest idea about the USSR civil defense system. And as for the "rich private traders" so this is generally from the field of delirium of a madman. It was only in the matrastan and his henchmen had this.
                1. Chaldon48
                  Chaldon48 13 October 2019 09: 21
                  -1
                  Oden280, I’m not in view of the USSR, but just the United States and, as you put it, their henchmen, if you decide to comment, then read carefully what you are commenting on or how I do not comment at all.
                  1. Oden280
                    Oden280 14 October 2019 08: 14
                    0
                    Make more competent comments. With specifics
          2. Old Skeptic
            Old Skeptic 12 October 2019 15: 40
            0
            Quote: Archon
            maybe then it’s worth not spending money on experimental equipment, but on restoring and cleaning bomb shelters


            Yeah. To huddle like rats into the far corner and tease in fear that they will find you ....
            1. Archon
              Archon 13 October 2019 09: 30
              0
              If we are talking about a world war, and not about local conflicts, then bomb shelters are more useful than drones. And it's better to wait out the bombing like a rat than to turn into fertilizer.
              Yes, even if you don’t hide yourself if there is not enough space, you need to ensure minimal security, at least for family and children.
          3. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 14 October 2019 20: 27
            0
            or maybe it’s worth developing weapons that preclude an attack on Russia?
        3. Sevastiec
          Sevastiec 14 October 2019 04: 00
          -1
          Calm down young man and drink some water: there will be no world war. And if it does, it will last half an hour, after which, as you know, we will fight with sticks and stones, and not "hunters".
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 12 October 2019 15: 57
        +5
        And who crushed Valkyrie? Also Tupolev?
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 October 2019 09: 16
      +9
      If aviation wanted and could do it in 3-fly machines, it would have received them, not from Sukhoi, but from someone else, but in fact, it had just approached supersonic flight without afterburner, as a mandatory requirement, and MiG-25 derivatives will soon retire.
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 October 2019 11: 34
      +14
      Thank God that they crushed, the "golden" plane is capable of performing only one task and only theoretically (the missiles were not made for it). Tu-22M is much more appropriate, the USSR did not collapse, this machine could have evolved for a very long time. It is still relevant now, and if the production continued, it would be relevant somewhere until the 2040s.

      And "weaving" outside the mission of a missile strike simply cannot do anything, technically.
      1. yehat
        yehat 11 October 2019 13: 34
        +12
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And "weaving" outside the mission of a missile strike simply cannot do anything, technically.

        a hundred part solved a number of tasks that Tu-22 could not solve
        1. advanced much faster in the strike area
        2. she, unlike the Tu-22, required much less protection from fighter jets
        3. Weaving could be an excellent platform for stratospheric multi-purpose launches
        4. finally, at the time of its creation, the hundredth could solve the issues of the destruction of AWACS as well. anti-aircraft missiles were still not sufficiently advanced.
        Moreover, it was enough to keep 10 pieces throughout the country, approximately as they are now operating swans. The case is titanium - nothing will be done to him. In addition, the operation of the weave would give a lot of information for the further development of high-speed aviation.
        Why it was required to completely destroy the project is not clear.
        Unlike the Valkyries, weaving was much less demanding to operate.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 October 2019 14: 27
          +7
          a hundred part solved a number of tasks that Tu-22 could not solve
          1. advanced much faster in the strike area


          No, on the contrary, it’s slower, because of the lack of refueling in the air, she would have to land where Tu would simply refuel in flight and that’s all.

          2. she, unlike the Tu-22, required much less protection from fighter jets


          When launching the UR explosives into the front hemisphere, speed does not really help. But the ability to go at extremely low altitude - it helps a lot. Tu could go on a radio altimeter. The future Air Force Commander Deynekin commanded a training flight at a distance of more than a thousand kilometers at an altitude of 40-60 meters above water. Weaving did not know how.

          3. Weaving could be an excellent platform for stratospheric multi-purpose launches


          And what are you going to run from it?

          4. finally, at the time of its creation, the hundredth could solve the issues of the destruction of AWACS as well. anti-aircraft missiles were still not sufficiently advanced.


          Americans from Hawk took the ballistic target back in 60, what else must be promoted to get on a huge high-altitude aircraft?

          Moreover, it was enough to keep 10 pieces throughout the country, approximately as they are now operating swans. The case is titanium - nothing will be done to him. In addition, the operation of the weave would give a lot of information for the further development of high-speed aviation.


          Tu-22M could strike at surface ships with both supersonic X-22 and bombs, it could also use anti-ship missiles based on X-15, they could attack stationary targets with bombs of 250-9000 kg caliber, X-15 rockets, radio-contrast type bridges and tanks could get X-22, with subsequent modernization could use any type of weapon.

          When changing in Afghanistan, in the feather of Chechnya, Syria.

          Where are weaving nearby? Nowhere. Speed ​​experiments could be put on the MiG-25.
          Losing money in its pure form, it was cut down correctly.
          1. yehat
            yehat 11 October 2019 14: 39
            -1
            for some reason, you think that the functions of a frontal bomber (which the Tu-22 performs BAD)
            - this is what should be on a hundredth and I do not understand why.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 12 October 2019 18: 30
              +2
              I believe that highly specialized countries can afford highly specialized weapons systems, or rather one incredibly rich country.

              We were not and are not in this list.
          2. yehat
            yehat 11 October 2019 16: 15
            0
            "But the ability to walk at an ultra-low altitude helps a lot."
            Tu-22 does not fly on the very small. you are confused with su-xnumx.
            precisely because Tu-22 cannot repeat the spectrum of possibilities characteristic of f-111 or su-24,
            this is a weak bomber jacket. And the downing of this car in Georgia only confirmed what I said.
            1. Nick
              Nick 11 October 2019 19: 32
              +6
              Quote: yehat
              "But the ability to walk at an ultra-low altitude helps a lot."
              Tu-22 does not fly on the very small. you are confused with su-xnumx.
              precisely because Tu-22 cannot repeat the spectrum of possibilities characteristic of f-111 or su-24,
              this is a weak bomber jacket. And the downing of this car in Georgia only confirmed what I said.

              The collapse in Georgia confirmed that the bomber should be used as a bomber, and not as a reconnaissance aircraft.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 12 October 2019 10: 11
                +1
                You just need to know if there is air defense in the conflict zone or not. And then intelligence spoiled.
                1. yehat
                  yehat 14 October 2019 12: 21
                  0
                  no, no matter who slap something
                  aircraft safety is provided at several levels
                  this applies to intelligence, and the aircraft itself and the elementary preventive shooting of traps. And according to you, the Tu-22 without intelligence is zero. This speaks of his partial correspondence to the role of a front-line bomber.
            2. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 12 October 2019 18: 32
              +1
              Tu-22 does not fly on the very small. you are confused with su-xnumx.


              I didn’t confuse anything, I even brought you an example of such a flight, and the commander. The Tu-22M does not have a system of enveloping the terrain, like the Su-24, so it cannot fly in this mode. But over a flat surface, such as the sea, it can automatically maintain a given height by radio altimeter. Even 40 meters.
              1. Lozovik
                Lozovik 13 October 2019 07: 35
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But over a flat surface, such as the sea, it can automatically maintain a given height by radio altimeter.

                By barometric.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Even 40 meters.

                SNP-145? At least 200. Below only on hand. Yes and above too - the management forbids.
            3. Lozovik
              Lozovik 13 October 2019 07: 26
              0
              Quote: yehat
              Tu-22 does not fly on the very small.

              Of course it does not fly - such a concept does not exist at all.

              Quote: yehat
              precisely because Tu-22 cannot repeat the spectrum of possibilities characteristic of f-111 or su-24,
              this is a weak bomber jacket. And the downing of this car in Georgia only confirmed what I said.

              Textbooks tactics of long-range aviation and front-line bomber aviation at least in their hands?
          3. Lozovik
            Lozovik 13 October 2019 07: 19
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            No, on the contrary, it’s slower, because of the lack of refueling in the air, she would have to land where Tu would simply refuel in flight and that’s all.




            Quote: timokhin-aa
            When launching the UR explosives into the front hemisphere, speed does not really help.

            To get started, learn how to target a fighter when attacking high-speed high-altitude targets, which detection lines should be provided.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            could attack stationary targets with bombs of caliber 250-9000 kg

            Take an interest in carrying capacity BD6-105.
        2. Strashila
          Strashila 11 October 2019 15: 46
          0
          "at the time of creation, the weaving unit could also resolve issues related to the destruction of AWACS, since anti-aircraft missiles were still not sufficiently advanced.", which was perfectly confirmed by the MiG-25R.
        3. Lozovik
          Lozovik 13 October 2019 08: 01
          0
          Quote: yehat
          a hundred part solved a number of tasks that Tu-22 could not solve
          1. advanced much faster in the strike area

          С estimated hourly consumption in cruise mode (H = 24, M = 2,83) 38000 kg / h?

          Quote: yehat
          2. she, unlike the Tu-22, required much less protection from fighter jets

          Due to what? According to the test results, the characteristics did not even reach Tu-22M0.

          Quote: yehat
          4. finally, at the time of its creation, the hundredth could solve the issues of the destruction of AWACS as well. anti-aircraft missiles were still not sufficiently advanced.
          Moreover, it was enough to keep about 10 pieces throughout the country, about the way swans are now being exploited.

          Aiming at a target of a non-maneuverable aircraft with low acceleration characteristics do you imagine? And the provision of IAS combat duty? Relocating?
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 12 October 2019 10: 10
        +3
        Now they are bashfully calling the new Tu-22M3 aircraft, which has nothing in common with the original Tu-22, except for the name. And the name was retained for political reasons. After decades of refinement, a decent plane really appeared. Except for the fact that the accident Tu-22 source had no equal at all.
    4. Pavel57
      Pavel57 11 October 2019 15: 34
      +5
      "Soviet" Sotka "", if you look, was built in an erroneous concept:
      1. 3 flywheel aircraft with external missile pendants.
      2. Titanium - the degree of technical risk is very high, the plane is very expensive.
      3. While the deal with technology, the concept is outdated.

      In general, the project was part of the Khrushchev idea of ​​aviation uselessness. From here the idea was born to push Tupolev with the stillborn project of Sukhoi. Khrushchev was no longer in power - everything was back to square one.

      As a plane, it’s very interesting, but not really needed by the country.
  2. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 11 October 2019 06: 28
    +49
    You will decide: either we are on the verge of a "revolt of machines" or we cannot even create a primitive machine that would level control flaws due to the lag of the radio control signal.
    A modern pilot is not afraid to die? Well yes. smile When "Birch" beeps, warning of an approaching missile, his composure is at the level of a drone operator. You know, I readily believe.
    technology is gained not only by landing drones. You can, for example. recruit a pilot. Well, what now?

    Article sucked from a finger. Could not read
    1. Sergey269
      Sergey269 11 October 2019 07: 40
      +2
      I agree with you 100 percent! And Russia's lateness, the so-called, can be explained by the study of the nuances, the experience of using UAVs by our Western "friends". I hope that their mistakes were calculated and taken into account ...
      1. Nick
        Nick 11 October 2019 19: 35
        -1
        Quote: Sergey269
        I agree with you 100 percent! And Russia's lateness, the so-called, can be explained by the study of the nuances, the experience of using UAVs by our Western "friends". I hope that their mistakes were calculated and taken into account ...

        Definitely. Okhotnik only confirmed that Russia's lag in the development of UAVs has been largely overcome.
        1. KrokodilGena
          KrokodilGena 11 October 2019 21: 08
          -1
          Quote: Nick
          Definitely. Okhotnik only confirmed that Russia's lag in the development of UAVs has been largely overcome.

          An UAV is not only a glider with a dviglom, but also a means of observation, target designation, communications and destruction. In these disciplines, the Russian Federation is decades behind. In addition, the Hunter still does not know how to fly, and whether he can manage the big question, since such aircraft only with the help of powerful computers keep stability.
  3. Amateur
    Amateur 11 October 2019 06: 44
    +37
    Russia is far behind the West in terms of creating its own UAVs, especially heavy and multi-functional ones.


    Perhaps Mr. Legat has never heard of Buran.
    1. Arturov
      Arturov 11 October 2019 09: 22
      -11
      Quote: Amateur
      Perhaps Mr. Legat has never heard of Buran.

      Could Buran perform combat missions? There was an autopilot, there was nothing special about him, he was also installed on Boeings of that time ...
      1. Nick
        Nick 11 October 2019 19: 16
        +15
        Quote: Arturov
        Could Buran perform combat missions? There was an autopilot, there was nothing special about him, he was also installed on Boeings of that time ...

        Autopilot installed, yes. Only a fully automatic landing could only be carried out by a Soviet autopilot. No one else in the World, at that time, could.
    2. qQQQ
      qQQQ 11 October 2019 11: 07
      -18
      Quote: Amateur
      Perhaps Mr. Legat has never heard of Buran.

      Unfortunately, Buran did not reach the Americans very much. And most importantly, he was never brought to a working state. Again an attempt to compare a working sample with a sample on paper (despite one flight).
    3. Tavrik
      Tavrik 11 October 2019 22: 50
      -5
      And what does "Buran" have to do with it? "Buran" was created in another country, in another century and by completely different people. And it has nothing to do with New Liberal Russia.
      1. anykin
        anykin 11 October 2019 23: 31
        +1
        Quote: Tavrik
        And it has nothing to do with the new liberal Russia.

        Ivan doesn’t remember kinship?
    4. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 11 October 2019 23: 06
      +2
      Quote: Amateur
      Perhaps Mr. Legat has never heard of Buran.

      Some kind of tin .. It seems the author of the comment claims to be the troll of the 80th level. laughing

      What does this space shuttle have to do with combat atmospheres? Does the author want to tell you something important about some kind of multifunctionality of this monster? The car is gorgeous but has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Dumb trolling.
  4. Aviationism
    Aviationism 11 October 2019 07: 30
    +13
    This author's sources are not the most reliable in the world.

    Recently he was told that the MiG-35 is heavier than the F-15, that it’s a gross untruth (the MiG is more than a ton lighter); now they tell him about the X-47B which is no longer in this world. And his projections of the Hunter obviously show a crude demonstrator for cheap refinement of individual technologies. Deriving any conclusions from them would be absurd.
    1. Arturov
      Arturov 11 October 2019 09: 24
      -2
      Quote: Aviationism
      Recently he was told that the MiG-35 is heavier than the F-15, that it’s a gross untruth (the MiG is more than a ton lighter)

      is it a success for a "light" fighter? winked
      1. Igor Aviator
        Igor Aviator 11 October 2019 10: 51
        +13
        Quote: Arturov
        is it a success for a "light" fighter?

        Give it a try! Design an MFI easier, and we'll see! And not capable, not a scribble!
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. il-z
          il-z 11 October 2019 13: 36
          0
          I think it was necessary to promise that we would applaud while standing)))!
        3. Arturov
          Arturov 11 October 2019 14: 26
          -2
          Quote: Igor Aviator
          Quote: Arturov
          is it a success for a "light" fighter?

          Give it a try! Design an MFI easier, and we'll see! And not capable, not a scribble!

          can you go to laces to iron? Try to turn on the brain and compare with F16.
          1. vadimtt
            vadimtt 12 October 2019 07: 43
            +2
            And what, has the Fu-16 already got a second engine and attached a UVT?
      2. Nick
        Nick 11 October 2019 19: 45
        +5
        Quote: Arturov
        Quote: Aviationism
        Recently he was told that the MiG-35 is heavier than the F-15, that it’s a gross untruth (the MiG is more than a ton lighter)

        is it a success for a "light" fighter? winked

        Well, the MiG-35 is more of a medium fighter? but its cost of $ 40 million is more than two times "lighter" than the F-15 of the latest modifications.
      3. Aviationism
        Aviationism 14 October 2019 00: 42
        0

        Arturov: “Is this a success for a" light "fighter?"

        This is a lie that the author uncritically took from Wikipedia.

  5. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 11 October 2019 07: 41
    +37
    The technique that the author uses in the article in psychology is called "imposed opinion", or manipulation of opinion. More precisely, this is an attempt. Not very successful, but an attempt.
    Comparisons and conclusions in the article are far-fetched. I will dwell only on two points.
    1 The key advantage of the Hunter is not even mentioned, is his ability to act in tandem with a manned aircraft. This is a completely different concept compared to alternative designs.
    2 I do not know what the X-47B, nEUROn, Taranis are for. But Hunter is definitely not for counterguerrilla warfare. The author claims the opposite, this is a vivid example of his complete incompetence in this matter, and he squeezed an article about him.)
    .
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 11 October 2019 10: 42
      +11
      [quote = Alexey Sommer] The technique that the author uses in the article in psychology is called "imposed opinion", or manipulation of opinion. More precisely, this is an attempt. Very unsuccessful, but an attempt. [/ Quote I totally agree with you! good Moreover, in my opinion, the author set himself the task of crying, and slandering the development of the HUNTER as a concept, convincing others of its uselessness and wasted resources! The author works for the State Department, not otherwise!
      1. sgrabik
        sgrabik 12 October 2019 12: 29
        +2
        This opus was written not from a great mind, but with a clear and concrete purpose to sow doubt about the capabilities of our Russian military-industrial complex, and today they, in general, are in no way inferior to the West, the author is clearly sick of the liberal ideas of the 90s, according to him In our opinion, we do not need to spend money on national defense and resist the attempts of the West to destroy Russia as an absolutely independent, sovereign and self-sufficient state, and thereby subordinate it to our will.
  6. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 11 October 2019 07: 42
    +23
    dumb article ... it’s a pity the author cannot be filled with dislikes (put a cross next to the star) ... a kind of thinly liberal half-truth with a twitch of meanings in order to sow doubt ...
    but for me it’s necessary to create domestic stealth drones and to develop technologies ... you need to work on AI and neutron networks (although there are no major breakthroughs in the world ... and experts admit that increasing computing power gives a greater gain) .. need to go forward ...
    Well, the fact that the 100-ku considers it an insolvent direction ... well, for this, in general, it’s not enough to fill the face ... let Ilyushin’s notes (his son and test pilot) read ...
  7. Monar
    Monar 11 October 2019 07: 47
    +11
    The main problem is that he will most likely never replace manned fighter jets.
    But is there such a task today? Supplementing the filmmakers is their main task today. In my humble opinion.
    By the way, what does "never" mean? What is the problem? Overload 15-25g - yes please. Weight and dimensions with the same filling and combat load - the UAV is ahead.
    One thing remains. Power and reliability of computer technology. And here it’s generally interesting. A unit with a wardrobe 30 years ago was considered slower than your phone today.
    And (full UPS) modern planes are crammed with electronics no worse than UAVs. There is only one difference. A person or computer makes a decision.
  8. sentaniel
    sentaniel 11 October 2019 07: 57
    +6
    Firstly, UAV operators are faced with delays in control: even if they are seconds, this can become a critical flaw in a real battle
    They are designed to control AI, not the operator. Similarly, the SU-57 itself can fly without a pilot or in case of loss of consciousness by the pilot.
  9. KCA
    KCA 11 October 2019 08: 04
    +11
    Why does the author think that the Hunter flew only in 2019? He was not informed about the flights of other UAVs and was not shown a video of their tests? They didn’t show me either, but I don’t think that the same "Hunter" flew just now and there were no other prototypes, and this one immediately took off on camera and immediately showed the whole world
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. KCA
        KCA 11 October 2019 11: 19
        +6
        The latest weapons developments show not when I want it, not when you want it, they won’t ask us
  10. NEXUS
    NEXUS 11 October 2019 08: 37
    +10
    Russia is far behind the West in terms of creating its own UAVs, especially heavy and multi-functional ones. The "dead" and never born "Skat" and the new "Hunter" only confirm this thesis: if the X-47B made its first flight in 2011, the Russian C-70 - only in 2019.

    The X-47 program has been closed. The decision to create a Hunter, that is, a heavy strike UAV, I think is very true. For mattresses this idea may be utopian, but this does not mean that it is not true at all.
    I recall the development of mobile railway complexes with ICBMs. The mattresses tried to sort of develop something similar to our Pioneer, but nothing came of it. However, when they began to destroy our strategic forces in the 90's, the mattresses set a clear condition for the removal of the BZHRK Pioneer from service, since at that time considered these complexes one of the most dangerous for themselves.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. silberwolf88
      silberwolf88 11 October 2019 12: 19
      +5
      Pioneer ... it was a medium-range mobile soil complex ... more accurately with the terms ... and the BZHRK can be called for example Well done on a rocket))
  11. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 11 October 2019 08: 42
    +8
    I don’t understand where to move?
    ... is it worth Russia to create a large, inconspicuous UAV?
    и
    it’s much wiser to follow a proven path, in particular, to develop analogues of the MQ-1C or MQ-9
    somewhat contradictory. Unless developing the proven "maize" or TU-95, we would have built AN-22 and AN-225, Tu144 and TU-160. Unconvincing!
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 11 October 2019 10: 47
      +10
      Quote: Vladimir61
      I don’t understand where to move?

      Katz offers to give up! (with) lol
  12. Forest
    Forest 11 October 2019 09: 52
    +4
    Baby reasoning (
  13. abc_alex
    abc_alex 11 October 2019 09: 57
    +4

    However, the use of neural networks for UAV control, which experts have been talking about in recent years, may turn into even greater difficulties.




    For a drone fighter, neural networks are not necessary. In the sky, each plane is equipped with a friend or foe system. For air combat, the order "go and kill the enemy" is relatively easy to implement. The volumes of modern data storages make it possible to record "samples" of any number of maneuvers and link them into tables of dependencies on the readings of the rvdar.
    Fighter drones do not need intelligence, their tasks are simple.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 October 2019 11: 36
      +4
      You are right, moreover, the Americans have already developed such algorithms for a long time, their program of live pilots tore in air battles even in 2005 like.
    2. bar
      bar 11 October 2019 11: 44
      +3
      For fighter drone neural networks do not need

      It seems that a fighter from a drone is unlikely to succeed. This is how an inconspicuous weapon carrier on ground / surface targets is quite.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 11 October 2019 22: 30
        +3
        Quote: bar
        It seems that a fighter from a drone is unlikely to succeed. This is how an inconspicuous weapon carrier on ground / surface targets is quite.

        Just the opposite. Ground targets are much more difficult to identify, and today there is no reliable algorithm for recognizing enemy, say, tanks. I'm not talking about infantry. Therefore, the state UAVs are remotely piloted.
        In the air, the identification of the enemy is extremely simple due to the friend-foe system. The fighter pilot only needs to bring the slave drones to the point of combat contact and give the command "hit the aliens". And then - the radar sees, the computer selects, the "friend or foe" responder determines the enemy.
        1. riwas
          riwas 12 October 2019 07: 52
          +1
          No, real-time reconnaissance of ground targets is carried out from satellites, E-8C aircraft of the Jistars system, RC-135V / W Rivet Joint aircraft and the lead aircraft's own reconnaissance means. Further, through a secure channel, since the slave UAV is nearby, this intelligence in the form of an action program is put into the memory of the UAV. In fact, a UAV is a reusable rocket that allows you not to risk a manned lead aircraft.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex 12 October 2019 10: 52
            +2
            Quote: riwas
            E-8C aircraft of the Jistars system, RC-135V / W Rivet Joint aircraft and the leading aircraft's own reconnaissance assets

            No, and the war with a technically advanced enemy, all this luminous fraternity is not viable. And it will either be destroyed at the airfields, or shot down in the early days of the war. Such targets will be destroyed first.
            Information exchange as part of a link is a good thing and the Russian Federation has such a system based on 4 Mig-31 boards. It is possible that UAVs are also being implemented.
            But I said that it is impossible to distinguish between objects on earth, to confidently identify them. And in the air it’s easier to do.
          2. riwas
            riwas 14 October 2019 06: 28
            +1
            Did the satellites forget to mention?
            In the stealth aircraft, reconnaissance assets are mainly in a passive mode.
            On board RC-135V / W two sets of equipment are installed: radio reconnaissance type 55, which includes ES-000 AEELS (automatic reconnaissance of radar targets), CS-400 Raven Hawk (manual reconnaissance of the same targets) and ES-2010 MUCELS (automatic reconnaissance of radar targets), CS-182 "Raven Hawk" (manual reconnaissance of the same targets) and ES-2010 MUCELS (multichannel reconnaissance of VHF radio stations); automated data processing type 182 (it is based on 85 processors and a network of automated operator workstations connected to them). And they are all passive.
  14. Basarev
    Basarev 11 October 2019 10: 05
    -8
    In my opinion, we are smoothly prepared for the failure of the Hunter. Not mastered. And the maximum that we can do is create a worsened analogue of the Reaper. Not that technical level with us.
    1. Alex Fox
      Alex Fox 11 October 2019 11: 18
      +3
      Quote: Basarev
      In my opinion, we are smoothly prepared for the failure of the Hunter. Not mastered. And the maximum that we can do is create a worsened analogue of the Reaper. Not that technical level with us.

      You don’t have a level at all .... everyone collapsed. here we are sort of ourselves without Galushkintsev
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 October 2019 11: 37
      +1
      Why's that? Soft to write, under which this aircraft will conduct an air battle is never a problem, if that.
      1. Vladimir_8
        Vladimir_8 11 October 2019 13: 38
        -2
        I think you are mistaken.
        "soft write" is not a problem for a car flying with a PILOT, when you can take real-time readings of the car's behavior in flight, depending on certain flight conditions or the pilot's actions. In another case, software is created and improved only by thousands and thousands of raids over the years. The hunter is a serious, heavy machine with a claim to some kind of combat functionality, and simulating the flight of a conventional UAV (speed, altitude, course) will not work. Now, this is an expensive flying blank, poorly controlled by the operator from the ground. I think she will remain so.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 October 2019 14: 28
          +2
          Purely theoretically, the Americans solved this issue in the middle of the 2000's. I see no reason why we could not do this.
          The fact that it is now clear, but who said that we need to stop there.
      2. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 12 October 2019 15: 34
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Soft to write, under which this aircraft will conduct an air battle is never a problem, if that.


        My God, you are also a specialist in software. "Writing software" for an unmanned fighter is such a problem that no one has yet solved. Its complexity can be imagined by the fact that the Americans have been writing software for the F-35 for 15 years and still have not finished (and hypothetically, the software for an unmanned fighter is strictly more complicated).

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Purely theoretically, Americans solved this issue in the mid-2000s


        "Purely theoretically", for example, the problem of thermonuclear fusion was solved 50 years ago. There is still no stable operating reactor - the engineering tasks are very complex.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 12 October 2019 18: 26
          0
          For Americans, live pilots poured out the fighting program on simulators. We are definitely not dumber than they are, that before the F-35 software, this is software for programmable control units for actuators, and this is completely different. And the problems there are completely different.

          By the way, they are also waiting for us, with no options. Unless, of course, we want to cut back on the functionality of the Su-57.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 12 October 2019 19: 51
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            For Americans, live pilots poured out the fighting program on simulators.


            And you can share a link, how they "leaked" and on what "simulators"? Because the "drain" I know took place not in 2005, but in 2016, and not on a "simulator" (that is, not on something official), but on a certain simulator: https://magazine.uc.edu/ editors_picks / recent_features / alpha.html

            And if you follow the link and see the document https://www.longdom.org/open-access/genetic-fuzzy-based-artificial-intelligence-for-unmanned-combat-aerialvehicle-control-in-simulated-air-combat- missions-2167-0374-1000144.pdf, it becomes clear that ALPHA is at best a proof-of-concept, but not even a prototype of the control software of a real fighter.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            We are definitely not dumber than they


            Without discussing who is dumber, "you" (if I mean Russia) is simply 2.5 times less, and resources are less than 5 times.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            as far as software for F-35 is concerned, it is software of programmable control units for actuators


            Firstly, not only (I think that there are megatons of a non-trivial DSP), and secondly, all this software is also needed by an unmanned fighter. The complexity of developing this software is quite obvious, add the development of AI to replace the pilot (I’m not even talking about joint development).
    3. sgrabik
      sgrabik 12 October 2019 14: 34
      +2
      It’s just that lately there have been too many commentators and bloggers who are either completely incompetent in the issues they cover or who work to the tune of Western curators who sponsor their activities, diligently printing outright nonsense and very dubious distorted information, the main goal is to cause others to doubts about the capabilities of our country, to diminish the capabilities of its military-industrial complex and exceed the capabilities of the military-industrial complex of our adversary, and to be more precise, constantly wishful thinking.
  15. egor1712
    egor1712 11 October 2019 10: 35
    +5
    bullshit, not the conclusions of a "specialist"
  16. Alex Fox
    Alex Fox 11 October 2019 11: 17
    -1
    Quote: TARS
    When will you eradicate the words "Mattresses" from your vocabulary? You give the impression of a brainless urapatriot.

    I look at you directly bombed, go on lick the boots on the mattresses :)
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Slon379
        Slon379 11 October 2019 21: 18
        +4
        Is your style different from them? They at least propagandize patriotism, but you chew the liberal-striped gum.
  17. bar
    bar 11 October 2019 11: 40
    +4
    The author thinks narrowly, in terms of yesterday and today. The "hunter" UAV is quite capable of operating in conjunction with an attack aircraft / fighter by its characteristics, interacting with it, exchanging information, and receiving commands from it. And they will perfectly complement each other - the command post and the protection of the UAV on the plane, and the weapon on the unobtrusive drone. A kind of "long arm" of the aircraft. And this aircraft does not have to be a strike, even better if it is a fighter. The joint flight of the "hunter" and the Su-57 has already been shown. I hope this is not casual. This will be a real breakthrough already in the "6th generation".
    By the way, recently there was a discussion of the "squall" torpedo and methods of delivering it closer to the target. "Hunter" is quite capable of carrying away such a missile and imperceptibly approaching in the same aircraft carrier on a tip from a manned aircraft accompanying it from afar. These are crazy thoughts.
    1. VO3A
      VO3A 11 October 2019 12: 20
      +5
      Your thoughts are not delusional, they are simply formulated in a childish way ...
      The author is not at all in the subject ... You need to start with concepts that aren't there ... Let's start with the fact that there is no clear concept for the 5th generation airplane ... Right now the dummies will explode and they will begin to list the signs of the 5th airplane generations ... A 5th generation airplane is an element of a network-centric system and becomes such only as part of a network-centric system ... For it to work successfully as part of this system, it must have already known features ... more interesting ... China and Russia have truncated systems that they identify with air defense systems .. These systems do not work by land or sea ... Therefore, the United States does not consider their planes as 5th generation planes, but consider these planes as planes with signs of planes 5 -th generation ... Russia and China, in turn, stupidly project secondary features on American planes and claim that they do not fully correspond to the 5th generation ... A 5th-generation aircraft is a universal element of a network-centric system ... it has advantages and not fully realized capabilities ... Realization of these capabilities will lead to a 6th generation aircraft, within which the aircraft will become a key element of network-centric systems ... The role of UAVs in network-centric systems is also very large ... They, both UAVs and aircraft 5th generation, interconnected within the framework of network-centric systems, and compete in most cases ... A 6th generation aircraft will violate this competition and become more important, and will be manned ... Here's an opinion for you .. I want to add that the requirements for UAVs are formed depending on the composition of which network-centric systems it works ... We do not have network-centric systems for operation of heavy UAVs in them and we cannot expect ... to put it mildly ...
      A bunch of heavy UAVs and an airplane is not the 6th generation. But a common element of a modern network-centric system ... And besides, we need a 2nd operator on board. To close this bunch, and not use a remote control and analysis center ...
      1. Kettle
        Kettle 11 October 2019 22: 49
        +1
        That schaz shameful about dummies ...
        Kettles didn’t lean on the formal features of the fifth generation, but rather bothered to portray the idea that the main thing for classification was the technology of their use, these very fighters.
        But let it be. That is why you say that systemic network-centricity is the main attribute of a fifth-generation fighter? Is this the same set ..., pah, network-centricity, for example, among the same Americans, does not combine into the system combat vehicles (airplanes, tanks, radar, fighters) of different generations, of different advancements, if only the necessary equipment / avionics is integrated into this system etc. Are F-35/15/16 fighters participating in their experiments with F-18, certainly, in this case, network-centric, becoming the 5th generation?
        The fifth generation is invisibility, in the sense - stealth. And network technologies only help the poorly visible stealth aircraft in itself to receive information from more informed comrades, as little as possible "shining" for the enemy; or use "stealth" as an inconspicuous passively observing reconnaissance-leading avant-garde for other comrades, etc.
        And where did the Americans not recognize, even in advance, the fifth generation Su-57 and J-20? They recognize themselves quite well.
        The fact that there is no clear concept of the fifth generation aircraft - I do not agree. All other generations, by the way, were called the first ... the fourth - after the fact, just when the debate about "stealth" and the fifth generation was going on twenty or thirty years ago. So the concept of the fifth generation just exists and is generally well described, after the appearance / application / completion of programs even - F-117, F-22, B-2, F-35. All fighter (and even bomber) builders, as we can see, including ours, despite the previous criticism of "stealth", accepted this concept.
        1. bar
          bar 12 October 2019 07: 53
          -1
          The fifth generation is invisibility, in the sense - stealth.

          It's striped so decided. And for the sake of this invisibility, speed and maneuverability were killed. And the use of a UAV in combination with a fighter will save everything. And the invisibility of the UAV for striking, and the maneuverability of the fighter, to gain air superiority and protect the low-maneuverable "invisibility". Such a pair will have properties not achievable in individual aircraft. This is what I consider to be a breakthrough, and not what the striped people think of, obsessing over one thing. They may well be wrong.
          1. VO3A
            VO3A 12 October 2019 13: 50
            0
            What kind of breakthrough are we talking about? Both UAVs and airplanes are connected within the framework of modern network-centric systems ... These systems are already more than 10 years old ... Yes, they are elements of these systems ... If you want to take the UAV-airplane link out of the scope of such systems, or provide such an option outside the framework If necessary, the system is another matter ... Then additional equipment on board the aircraft and a second crew member are necessary and not necessarily a 5th generation aircraft ... In our version, the Su-30 is suitable .... And still, the connection with the system will be it is envisaged ... and channels of duplicate control and communication with UAVs and aircraft ... Why then should he be able to start such a heavy UAV from an airplane too ... And striped ones began to make mistakes more often in global projects too ....
            1. bar
              bar 12 October 2019 18: 02
              -4
              If you want to take out a UAV-airplane combination outside the framework of such systems, or to provide such an option outside the framework of the system, if necessary, then another thing

              It is beyond the scope. Existing UAVs are not able to directly accompany airplanes due to low speed and poor maneuverability. Aircraft are of no use to them because of the insignificant payload.
              "Hunter" is another matter. Its speed is higher than that of traditional UAVs, and its carrying capacity is greater, I hope that everything will be fine with stealth. In fact, this is a normal strike aircraft. And when paired with an escort fighter, you will get an excellent universal tandem.

              Quote: VO3A
              Then you need additional equipment on board the aircraft and a second crew member and not necessarily a 5th generation aircraft

              I agree with the second crew member, for the period of "artificial intelligence" training it is quite possible. As for the Su-30, it has problems with stealth. He will not be able to accompany the "hunter" close enough to the target to provide him with reliable protection. And there can be problems with the installation of additional equipment in a non-intended Su-30. I hope the Su-57 has foreseen this in advance.
              That something like this.
              1. VO3A
                VO3A 12 October 2019 22: 50
                -2
                Hope ... This hunter and the dances around him are nothing more than an information file .... We do not have coverage and systems for controlling it in real time over a long distance, so they rush about with a bunch of Su-57 .... These are scientific fantasies no more ...
              2. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 12 October 2019 23: 07
                -1
                Quote: bar
                In fact, this is a normal strike aircraft.


                Is this statement based on any facts or, for example, the Defense Ministry's statements that the "Hunter" carries a weapon?
          2. bar
            bar 16 October 2019 09: 46
            -5
            By the way, the striped hike also ate their fill with this "invisibility". Boeing is set to release the "world's deadliest fighter" F-15EX.
            https://youtu.be/a_hV1jhPk4M
            As you can see from the video, "invisibility" is far from its most important feature.
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 12 October 2019 19: 42
        0
        Segregation seems to be a common information field, management and communication. And here is the main sign of the fifth generation? And if this system is broken, is all this rubbish of the second?
        1. VO3A
          VO3A 12 October 2019 22: 51
          -1
          Wiki, at least read, before you carry nonsense ...
          1. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 12 October 2019 23: 57
            0
            Well, read it yourself:
            "Network-centric warfare is focused on increasing the combat capabilities of promising formations in modern wars and armed conflicts by achieving infocommunication superiority, uniting participants in military (combat) actions into a single network."
            Unified information field, communications (communications) management.
    2. Vladimir_8
      Vladimir_8 11 October 2019 12: 23
      -1
      The hope of the youths nourishes.
      What "fighter", what kind of work in pairs? You estimate the thrust-to-weight ratio of the Hunter, at least offhand (I think 0,5-0,7) aerodynamic scheme, dimensions.
      I agree with the author - the purpose and fate of the Hunter is foggy.
      1. bar
        bar 11 October 2019 13: 54
        +1
        If you are talking about using the "hunter" as a fighter, then you do not understand me. Because of those "0,5-0,7" work in _pair_ with a fighter is not at all stupidity. The combination of invisibility of the "hunter" for delivering weapons to ground / surface and other targets and the speed and maneuverability of an escort and control fighter can give a good overall effect.
    3. Chaldon48
      Chaldon48 12 October 2019 00: 50
      -1
      This "Hunter" is just a test, and no one knows when it will go into production. It would be better to continue riveting the SU-34 as before.
    4. bar
      bar 14 October 2019 20: 11
      -5
      "hunter" in its performance is quite capable of acting in conjunction with a strike aircraft / fighter

      By the way, striped cabbage soup also doesn’t slurp over. Information appeared on their XQ-58A drone, which will be paired with the F-22 and F-35
  18. bar
    bar 11 October 2019 11: 52
    +4
    Quote: Basarev
    Not that technical level with us.

    Katz again offers to surrender ...
  19. Constructor68
    Constructor68 11 October 2019 11: 53
    +8
    The article is not meaningful and is crammed with far-fetched "arguments". The basic principle of writing such "analyzes": we take a burning topic, throw in a heap of unrelated information, maybe the reader will not enter (the topic is fried) and he will think out and understand everything himself. Icteric reception
  20. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 11 October 2019 11: 54
    +3
    Tashchemta, do not re-write stupid things after others.

    1. The effectiveness of the drone is evaluated purely economically. It delivers a hit element to a target cheaper in certain conditions. And these conditions for the Russian Federation are completely different from those for NATO.

    2. The fact that for the USA is counterinsurgency, for another state is a conflict of medium intensity.

    3. The heavy drone will perfectly perform the function of a fighter as a carrier of long-range missiles and, in combination, a false target for the conventional Su-57.
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 14 October 2019 20: 43
      0
      I’ll add .. There are a couple of important points .. to prepare a pilot, you need 5 years of university + 2-3 years of practice in part, to produce an UAV you need a couple of months .. that is. technically, taking a two-seat fighter and giving it a few UAVs with weapons is much cheaper than making several fighters and preparing pilots for them ..

      Regarding weapons, it’s even simpler .. there are missile compartments, and what they place there depends on the task, it will be necessary to place anti-ship missiles, they will be placed, they will need cruise missiles and they will be placed .. It will be necessary to place explosives and they will be placed ..

      Regarding AI, at the moment they were "theoretically able to do this", but this does not prohibit the development of an expert system-autopilot, say, moving in formation, searching for a target and launching a rocket ... this is the whole point ... well, the commands will be given either from the plane -leader either from the ground ..
  21. stels_07
    stels_07 11 October 2019 12: 01
    +1
    It seems to me that it’s better to send a couple of Hunters first for reconnaissance and suppression of air defense than conventional fighters.
    1. bar
      bar 11 October 2019 12: 06
      +1
      They can be sent together, a strike "hunter" and a command fighter for support and escort.
    2. sgrabik
      sgrabik 12 October 2019 14: 55
      0
      Provided that the "Hunters" will be invisible and will not be reflected on the enemy's radar screens.
      1. stels_07
        stels_07 14 October 2019 09: 57
        0
        In any case, the UAV detection range will be less than that of an airplane
  22. eagle owl
    eagle owl 11 October 2019 12: 12
    0
    F-35 may be the last manned fighter

    With flyers like the USA ...
    https://afirsov.livejournal.com/488531.html
  23. ultra
    ultra 11 October 2019 12: 18
    +4
    Quote: Arturov
    There the autopilot stood, there was nothing special about it, it was also installed on Boeings of that time ..

    If you are not in the subject of what was standing there, then it’s better to keep silent, maybe you’ll pass for a smart one.
  24. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 11 October 2019 12: 43
    +2
    American UAVs are capable of carrying nuclear weapons (otherwise the Yankees would not have rested like that). In order to have something to talk about, the Russian Federation should also have a similar opportunity. Therefore, the Hunter has all the rights to life in a multifunctional version.
  25. MrFox
    MrFox 11 October 2019 12: 43
    +2
    Neural networks have come to mean. Do you know a lot of domestic studies of neural networks in biology? The neural network of the C.Elegans worm, which has been studied for decades, consists of 302 neurons, all of them are rewritten, all connections between neurons are. But by what principle this network still works, no one knows.

    Therefore, do not laugh when foreign nerds study butterflies. These butterflies will still say their word in arms
    1. sgrabik
      sgrabik 12 October 2019 15: 01
      0
      Well, why only overseas nerds, for those who are not in the know, we have also been conducting similar research programs for several years in a row.
      1. MrFox
        MrFox 13 October 2019 13: 54
        0
        Programs for the study of neural networks in biology? Give a couple of links to work if you are so knowledgeable
  26. Nikolai
    Nikolai 11 October 2019 13: 16
    +6
    A strange stream of consciousness, some kind of slowed down. Does the author know nothing about work on analogues of MQ-1C or MQ-9 in the country? Strange ... The author does not know anything about the S-70 as a weapon platform SU-57? Strange .. The author is not aware of the strategic and strike UAVs of China and even Iran? Then what is all this about - bewilderment. It's time to wake up.
  27. Klingon
    Klingon 11 October 2019 13: 29
    +4
    Quote: Arturov
    Quote: Amateur
    Perhaps Mr. Legat has never heard of Buran.

    Could Buran perform combat missions? There was an autopilot, there was nothing special about him, he was also installed on Boeings of that time ...

    so Buran, among other things, was suspected of being a potential space bomber, so in vain you were talking about an autopilot and at that time the autopilot did a great job of what it was supposed to be for, which the shuttle couldn't
  28. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 11 October 2019 13: 42
    +2
    a stream of discussions about the impossibility of effectively protecting UAVs from electronic interception means, even if the enemy is seriously inferior in technical equipment.


    To prevent UAV control interception (navigation difficulties, suppression of channels of radio altimeters and beacons) is a solvable task, by introducing inertial navigation systems, duplicating barometric altimeters, navigation programmers - i.e. those means which it is impossible to deliver radio interference or cause difficulties in their work.
    Commands for the use of UAV weapons, it is possible to give a channel with a dynamic change of passwords, this channel will not be used to control navigation and therefore cannot be suppressed until it is detected.

    The development of shock unmanned platforms is necessary - this is the future of combat aircraft.
  29. Corn
    Corn 11 October 2019 13: 46
    +3
    Ten years ago it seemed to the whole world that manned combat aircraft were going “no”, and unmanned aerial vehicles would take their place very soon.
    Even 10 years ago, drones seemed like children's toys of dubious utility, now without them it’s just nowhere, and in the future the role will only grow. If someone said about 10 years ago that a pilot is the “fifth wheel” of an airplane, then people around would just twist their fingers at their temple, or would begin to violently “minus” (when it comes to the Internet), and now into the future of manned aviation few people believe in major industry players.
    First, UAV operators face delays in control: even if they are seconds
    milliseconds, even when it comes to transmitting a signal to the other end of the planet. This is more than enough for sending commands.
    incomparable with the spectrum of visibility and sensations of the pilot.
    professional pilots will not agree with you, because the same simulators are capable of almost completely transmitting as an information environment, up to re-creating the effect of overloads.
    X-47B, Dassault nEUROn, Taranis
    I won’t be surprised if this trinity is built on the same elementary base, from which their indescribable problems grow. Nobody is in a hurry to abandon the very concept of shock stealth drones, and the United States, China and Russia are actively joining in this direction.
  30. Strashila
    Strashila 11 October 2019 13: 51
    +2
    "Why" Hunter "can be a bad idea", any idea is not bad, everything depends on implementation and further application.
    Make stealth, then the question of control, low reflectivity. If the electronic equipment will constantly work in the mode of transmitting information, then this is no longer a stealth and the possibility of external influence ..
    It turns out the machine takes off, goes on the machine to the target, works automatically and if it fails, then the operator briefly intervenes to clarify the task, then returns to the machine again.
  31. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 11 October 2019 15: 02
    +1
    And why does not the drone act in conjunction with the main fighter? Protect it from air defense systems, or other fighters.
  32. Pavel57
    Pavel57 11 October 2019 15: 39
    +2
    To create an UAV, as well as an autonomous unmanned tank, or a robot, the killer must first create artificial intelligence. In the meantime, the UAV works according to the program or on the command of the operator and the idea of ​​autonomous unmanned weapons is realized only from the side of iron.
    In the current formulation, UAVs make sense either as drums (working according to commands or given programs) or as a remote platform with weapons controlled by a leading command post. and the latter may be located outside the zone of defeat of the enemy.
  33. cdrt
    cdrt 11 October 2019 15: 42
    +2
    The essence of the article is defined by the word shit, smart coprophagy.
    If there are no such improvements, we write "Russia is critically lagging behind the latest Western developments in flying shock robots, having cut through the polymers."
    If there are, we write "Russia is critically behind the latest Western developments in flying shock robots, then what has been done is a mistake, having cut through the polymers."
    But in principle, the problem is not in fact, and not in the situation, but in the fact that the author is old, stupid and poorly informed, but talkative.
    No more
  34. VVS85
    VVS85 11 October 2019 16: 45
    +2
    I think since ours later tackled this topic, we took into account the mistakes of Europeans and states.
    Recently, a hunter flew with a Su-57. I think the application concept will be different, as the option of using a drone as a slave paired with the Su-57, as for me the ideal option, the tail of the Su-57 will be reliably covered.
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 12 October 2019 08: 36
      +1
      I think that on the Hunter there will be artificial intelligence operating in accordance with the scenarios transmitted by the pilot from the Su-57.
      Scenario 1: is at a distance in the back ??? and with excess ???
      Scenario 2: going forward and provoking someone else’s air defense under the attack of the Su-57.
      Well and so on. And let the AI ​​independently work out these scenarios by unloading the pilot.
  35. loki565
    loki565 11 October 2019 16: 50
    0
    MQ-1C or MQ-9. Which have long been proven effective

    they are effective against banana republics that do not have air defense, aviation. Even artisanal air defense based on air-to-air missiles land them quite successfully.
  36. armata_armata
    armata_armata 11 October 2019 16: 51
    +1
    Finally, we come to the most important thing - is it worth Russia to create a large, inconspicuous UAV? The main problem is that he will most likely never replace manned fighters

    And why should he replace the manned fighter? But replacing them with the ancient su-25s, the resource of which has been exhausted by a very good idea, is to get a cheap drone as a result, moreover, training the operator is cheaper than a pilot, and maintenance is many times easier 25
    1. Vladimir_8
      Vladimir_8 11 October 2019 18: 41
      -3
      If there was less manilism in the Moscow Region, the UAV based on the Yak-25 could replace the SU-130. You can create such an UAV in a couple of years. And it would be a real, necessary and formidable car. But managers from the aviation industry and the Ministry of Defense have other priorities.
  37. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 11 October 2019 16: 56
    +2
    The main problem is that he will most likely never replace manned fighter jets.
    Analysts! This word is already strongly associated with something that is abundantly shown on sites of a certain orientation. Who would explain to us from this fraternity - WHY to replace a manned vehicle with a drone ?!
    The natural combat application of the described UAVs is to work with a manned leader as his slave and strike forces. That will allow you to "save" the life of a living follower, and to raise the combat power of the formation by orders of magnitude, and to diversify the use of weapons, and to do much more that modern combat aircraft are still, in principle, not capable of.
    A small example: A UAV can execute figures at such a speed that a living pilot simply can not stand. Imagine the possibilities? That's how it is.
    Another thing is that for such work it is necessary to apply the leading achievements of world electronics ... and we gradually steal from the enemy what is accidentally caught. Moreover, our pathetic thieves now and then come across.
  38. Berkut24
    Berkut24 11 October 2019 18: 00
    +5
    The author has somewhat overlooked recent events, namely, the first joint flights of the Su-57 and F-35, paired with drones. Let me remind you that about 10 years ago, the Americans did give birth to the concept of air combat, when, when attacking by a group of fighters, the target was illuminated with their radars by older aircraft and transmitted its coordinates to the F-22 or F-35, which did not turn on their radars for camouflage purposes. Actually, they were supposed to approach the enemy like invisible ones and silently attack. However, at the same time, the same F-15 and F-16 themselves gave the enemy the intention to attack. Now, apparently, they decided to delegate the task of primary detection to another "invisible" - a drone working in tandem with an aircraft. This is where solitaire develops.
    I want to draw your attention to the protruding engine of the Hunter. Over which we all joked together. But here's the thing. At the time of the attack, the engine is behind him, in the front projection it is still "stealth". And he doesn't really need a disguise. at the moment of turning on the head radar, it will glow like a Christmas tree. And after striking from the side of the SU-57, how much the back part of the "Hunter" will be firing at the exit from the zone will no longer matter.
    Perhaps we think that our UAV is a strike, and in fact, a new concept for conducting air combat is being worked out.
    1. bar
      bar 12 October 2019 18: 15
      -5
      Now, apparently, they decided to delegate the task of primary detection to another "invisible" - a drone working in tandem with an aircraft. This is where solitaire develops.

      Not quite. For "target highlighting" the "hunter" has excessive carrying capacity, and for attacking the "highlighted" target he has insufficient maneuverability and speed. After such an attack, he will no longer return, and although he is a drone, he is expensive, and was hardly designed as a disposable one. But as an attack UAV, and even under the cover of an escort fighter that will ensure its withdrawal, the "hunter" is quite suitable. And here the solitaire develops completely.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 12 October 2019 19: 19
        0
        Yes, he does not need to attack anyone. Its task may be to monitor the situation and transmit information to the fighter without entering the engagement zone of enemy fighters. Which, in radio silence mode, should approach the missile launch range and strike. As for the carrying capacity of the "Hunter", it is never superfluous. Who knows how long to hang in the allotted area.
        1. bar
          bar 12 October 2019 20: 16
          -5
          without entering the affected area of ​​enemy fighters, monitor the situation and transmit information to the fighter.

          Monitor with what? Radar? And broadcast by radio? Then all the "invisibility" down the drain. What were you fighting for? The meaning of invisibility is to fly quietly, without noise and dust, strike and dump. And it is not at all about flying into the midst of the enemy and shining radar in all directions, merging data with the fighter.

          Who knows how much he should hang in the designated area.

          To "hang in the zone" you need completely different devices with completely different aerodynamics. For example the same Global Hawk.
          1. Berkut24
            Berkut24 12 October 2019 21: 30
            0
            Monitor with what? By radar? And transmit over the air?

            Yes, just imagine what it is. The Americans have developed a system where the F-35 detects an enemy and transmits data to the F-22, which does not include radar. The essence of the system is the exact synchronization of the radio signal when data is exchanged in packets in a matter of milliseconds. And thus, the signal source is not direction finding.
  39. The comment was deleted.
  40. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 11 October 2019 18: 49
    +5
    "Firstly, UAV operators face control delays:
    even if they are seconds, this can become a critical flaw in a real battle "///
    ----
    The fight is supposed to be offline.
    Why is there an operator? If a "stranger" is met and the command "fas!"
    an unmanned war dog fearlessly attacks itself.
    According to the algorithms of its software.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 11 October 2019 23: 14
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Why is there an operator? If a "stranger" is met and the command "fas!"
      an unmanned war dog fearlessly attacks itself.
      According to the algorithms of its software.

      The first common thought. Obviously, the main problem of UAVs is the absence of their AI. Today they are afraid to transfer powers to the decision on the attack. Only this prevents the use of heavy UAVs in the role of fighters for example. The devil knows who he will bring down there .. However, in fact, these humanistic considerations will probably quickly erode. and the decision to attack will end up on the side of the AI ​​of the unmanned vehicle. Then they will be called the 6th generation fighters. :)
  41. gcn
    gcn 11 October 2019 18: 57
    +3
    I am for a piece of iron on our borders that can fly more than half a day on the machine and is hardly noticeable.
  42. Nick
    Nick 11 October 2019 19: 29
    +5
    Another "smartest" author. wassat Just in case, I’m reporting: our inconspicuous Su-57 was adopted nine years after the first flight, and not fifteen.
    It is difficult for the author to comment on the plans of Deputy Prime Minister Borisov, but for some reason the author decided that General Borisov was verbiage, and his plans could not be trusted. And in my opinion, this is the author of the above "opus" is engaged in verbiage. Because this article cannot be called analytics. Conjectures, assumptions, assumptions of the author are not analytics.
  43. Tavrik
    Tavrik 11 October 2019 22: 54
    0
    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    The key advantage of the Hunter is not even mentioned, is his ability to act in tandem with a manned aircraft. This is a completely different concept compared to alternative designs.

    What does "ability to act in a spark" mean? Can the pilot control it? Or can he give information to the pilot? Duc, they have been able to receive information from UAVs on various carriers for a long time.
    Can anyone say what is the maximum distance of the Hunter from the base? Compared to a fighter?
  44. Alexey G
    Alexey G 11 October 2019 23: 00
    +1
    Good night all! I read all the comments. It was curious. One day, in a shooting range, my instructor said don't interfere with the gun doing its job. It is a mechanism, and you are an organism; together you are poorly compatible, but try to work as a mechanism. Do not freak, do not jerk, do not rush too much, hold tight and so on. Previously, a weapon was an extension of man, and now that it has become complex, man has become an extension of weapons, but together we are a hybrid! Perhaps the future is in arms without a man! Launched it and do not bother to work!
    Yes! We lag behind amers in many ways, especially in electronics! What do we want? We ourselves lost our positions in the 90s. Now you need to catch up and you need to start somewhere. Our engineers are great! They plow at their own country as they can and cannot! This direction needs to be developed, it is promising both for reconnaissance and for fighting militants and for attacking a serious enemy, and here it’s not so pitiful to use technology as people. Remember the pilots who died in Syria? Were there drone drone and people would be more whole. Not to develop this direction as the author suggests is stupid!
  45. Tavrik
    Tavrik 11 October 2019 23: 01
    +1
    Quote: Corn
    milliseconds, even when it comes to transmitting a signal to the other end of the planet. This is more than enough for sending commands.

    These are not exactly milliseconds. The delay through the satellite channel can be significantly longer. But this requires satellite constellation.
  46. Lexus
    Lexus 11 October 2019 23: 26
    -2
    Large UAVs must receive a flight mission. And that’s it. Further management should take the neural network and artificial intelligence. It's time to implement two protocols.
  47. AKS-U
    AKS-U 12 October 2019 00: 27
    0
    Have you considered conducting a military operation? (from the movie "The Moment of Truth").
    Why am I, but work in a pair of aircraft-UAVs. The aircraft distracts and trains air defense systems, and the Hunter attacks the target, given that the operator is limited in view by a small display. Or a fantastic option - an airplane + 2 UAVs from different directions to the target.
    Red military missions, of course, should think more than infantry.
  48. certero
    certero 12 October 2019 03: 29
    +1
    The future is for drones, and it is for autonomous drones. I am sure that Russia will play a leading role in this area, since we have strong positions in this area of ​​programming.
  49. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 12 October 2019 08: 26
    0
    New technology requires new tactics. A new tactic appears as a result of painful trials and mistakes. But in Russia, they suggested using Hunter and Su-57 in a pair, where apparently the Su-57 will be the leader in fact and led by location. So I would like to read the author’s thoughts on this subject.
    1. Aviationism
      Aviationism 12 October 2019 19: 56
      0
      This is exactly what everyone wants: an intellectual led / hard worker. Everyone is planning it for the sixth generation, but Russia is already testing it and will develop it for 5+ and 6 generations. Great castling.
  50. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 October 2019 16: 02
    0
    The apparatus has many such professions: refueller, scout, drummer. And it is necessary to dig in this. These are both "mogi" and sensors and software and reduction of air pressure for pilots and research on PAKDA.
    And it is not always necessary to fight with the United States and there is a bunch of local conflict. For example, we lost Su24 and Su25 and 2 pilots died ....