Defense Ministry is developing an attack drone to support helicopters

The Ministry of Defense plans to adopt a helicopter-type attack drone for joint combat operations with manned helicopters. UAV development is already underway. This is stated in the materials of the Research Center of the Central Research Institute of the Air Force (Research Center of the Central Research Institute of the Air Force), published during the Army-2020 forum.

According to the materials, the military department is developing a helicopter-type attack UAV, designed to work in conjunction with manned Russian helicopters. According to the plan of the military, the new drone should operate in tactical depth at a distance of 20-30 km. Other details of the development have not yet been reported.

An unmanned helicopter is being developed to interact with the army aviation... It is planned to conduct joint combat operations of manned and unmanned helicopters, which will solve reconnaissance and strike missions

- says the materials.

In addition, the drone being created will be in demand in the Naval navy to issue target designations. In the version for the Navy, according to the studies, the drone should weigh about 2,5 -3 tons and solve problems at the required distance from the ship.

Comments

[Victor_B]

Unmanned aerial vehicles are now the most "fashionable" direction.

[Coconut]

Unmanned aerial vehicles perform their assigned tasks ... saving the lives of our pilots ... I'm only FOR

[stalki]

Unmanned aerial vehicles are now the most "fashionable" direction.

Rather, the most popular of the newest.

[Wwk7260]

In terms of the development of funds, with the issue of zilch to the mountain, it is also the most promising.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Victor_B

Unmanned aerial vehicles are now the most "fashionable" direction.

And you ask the Chinese: is it fashionable or necessary! (In China, UAVs have been developed for arming helicopters ...)

[mark1]

Tactical depth of 20-30 km ... - not enough?

[Grazdanin]

Rather a misprint.

[Interlocutor]

Tactical depth of 20-30 km ... - not enough?

Almost any ground operation is fine.

[vVvAD]

No, not enough: now helicopters are at such distances, and they work (in terms of the range of the missile launchers used - even less), the UAVs themselves will already allow it to be expanded - this time. We are not talking about the KR "product 305" with a 100 km range, because, firstly, it is being developed for the Ka-52, and it is not known whether it will be fundamentally adapted for the cheaper and more massive Mi-28, and for which other tasks are assigned in comparison with the Ka-52, and secondly, it has a different purpose: you will not start firing at jeeps and tanks with it. In addition, regardless of the chosen concept (unmanned slave or the so-called parasite), such a UAV will have a small combat load, in the first case, due to the need for a large supply of fuel, in the second - the minimum mass, therefore, a priori, an even smaller hitting distance. And they should work with a command helicopter or a carrier helicopter jointly, complementing each other (i.e., the UAV can work on the control center from the helicopter, hitting small targets that are difficult to reach, and vice versa - issue and refine the control center to the helicopter for targets that are not capable of hitting independently) ...
The US Air Force uses the concept of light reconnaissance and attack helicopters in the form of modifications of the AH-6 Little Bird and Bell OH-58 Kiowa and percussion helicopters in the form of AH-64 Apache, etc. And they intend to keep this concept in the future by holding tenders within the FVL: FARA, FLRAA, ALE and others. The latter, by the way, is a companion UAV to FARA. So we should definitely carry on development in this direction also because of the weak side of the concept of universal reconnaissance and attack helicopters that we have adopted: to substitute an expensive car with a pilot for reconnaissance in combat is not only suboptimal, but simply stupid. And this function should be taken over by just the cheaper uninhabited reconnaissance and strike UAV satellites, i.e. increasing the survivability of helicopters on the battlefield is two.
And finally, thirdly, in addition to increasing situational awareness on the battlefield, such UAVs will make it possible to increase the effectiveness of reconnaissance and attack helicopters on the battlefield in conditions of modern low-intensity conflicts, hitting more small targets per flight, incl. helicopter-hazardous.
Such UAVs, probably, could have the ability to suspend a machine gun or AG, an NAR unit or RVP-MD.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: mark1

Tactical depth of 20-30 km ... - not enough?

Well, is it really not enough if the UAVs are intended to operate in conjunction with helicopters? If you want more, then ask for "independent" UAVs .... not "tied" to helicopters! (By tactical depth, most likely we mean the distance of control of the UAV by the helicopter ... the distance of the "operation" of the UAV in conjunction with the helicopter ...)

[venik]

Quote: mark1

Tactical depth of 20-30 km ... - not enough?

=========
Why? Quite normal! In general, the concept of "tactical defense zone" is not a constant. This is the distance from the front line to the second line of defense or the location of reserves (military unit) - can be either less or more than the specified value. This depends on many parameters ... Take, at least, the military units of the LPNR! For them, 20-30 km of TZO is quite normal!
Although, of course, at the present time (due to the increase in the firing range of barrel artillery and MLRS) - the range of 20-30 km, indeed, at first glance seems too small ...

[mark1]

Quote: venik

the range of 20-30 km, indeed, at first glance seems too small ...

This is exactly what I meant - to double ..., at least ... (unless the term really means the distance from the leader)

[Livonetc]

Quote: mark1

Tactical depth of 20-30 km ... - not enough?

Perhaps this is when used as a striking weapon with a combat load.
In the reconnaissance version and as a target designator, it is more likely asego.
For example, in 19, a helicopter-type drone was demonstrated, with a deadweight of more than 300 kg with a range of up to 100 km.

[mark1]

Quote: Livonetc

range up to 100 km.

This is just what

tactical depth 20-30 km

I think the tactical depth of the drone should be the same as that of the helicopter since they are in a "bundle"

[vVvAD]

Do not confuse the range (probably referring to the range) and the depth of penetration along the front in relation to the command helicopter. Such a UAV should have a radius corresponding to the helicopters with which it has to work, including, and probably primarily, the Mi-28, Ka-52 (i.e. about 400 km), or be transported by helicopter. The cargo compartment of the Mi-28 could probably be used to transport 1-2 "parasites", which are returned for use on board or to the airbase on their own (which reduces the required fuel mass in comparison with the slave by almost half and, accordingly, the required power of the SU and overall dimensions, provided they are sufficient to accommodate the required avionics complex.

[Ryaruav]

Well, yes, the drone cannot speak in which case the equipment fails and everything is under the waves

[Zaurbek]

In theory, it should be Orion.

[Doccor18]

According to the materials, the military department is developing a helicopter-type strike UAV designed to work in conjunction with manned Russian helicopters ...

It's time.

the new drone should operate in tactical depth at a range of 20-30 km.

In conjunction with manned helicopters, and the radius is very small. If already in a bundle, the characteristics of the aircraft should be, as far as possible, comparable.

[APASUS]

There is a UAV and a pair of attack helicopters. The UAV calls fire on itself, then it's a matter of technology

[Doccor18]

The drone calls fire on itself, then it's a matter of technology ...

Only now

is developing an IMPACT drone ...

Impact, not live bait ...

[garri-lin]

Nobody will spend on empty live bait. Who needs that elusive Joe. The drummer will unambiguously react thereby revealing themselves.

[tralflot1832]

There was not, there was no UAV. And then they took it and appeared. Maybe the young people in the design bureau pulled themselves up. But I dare not say this.

[Grazdanin]

The United States began to develop the topic, we need to keep up. Their Army Recently rolled out a new concept for the passage of air defense, using helicopters and UAVs.

[tralflot1832]

Well, this is a focal and not an echeloned air defense. Where are the enemy's fighters. You can certainly try to cover the regimental one, but I doubt the divisional one with helicopters and UAVs. You can blow the defense center node away.

[Grazdanin]

This is an army program, not an air force.

[Alexey-74]

UAVs of various types are the future. Development should be constant, and I'm sure in 10 years the concept of air combat will change, and with the further development of drones and their improvement in general, in 20-30 years they will take them to the first role.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Alexey-74

10 the concept of aerial combat will change

Already in 23-25, the slave UAVs will go into series

Quote: Alexey-74

improvement in general in 20-30 years will bring them to the first role.

By the end of this decade, the beginning of the next.