An image of a new attack drone based on the CP-10 trainer appeared on the web

An image of a new promising heavy drone "Argument", developed on the basis of the training aircraft CP-10.

The image was presented at the presentation of LLC KB "Sovremenny aviation technology ", writes dambiev.livejournal.com.

Judging from the image, the drone is basically similar to the basic manned aircraft SR-10, it has the same characteristic forward-swept wings. The UAV is being developed by the Modern Aviation Technologies Design Bureau. Other details about the progress of development and at what stage the work on the UAV is not reported.

As follows from the presentation, the length of the drone is 9,7 meters, the wingspan is 8,4 meters. The declared payload is 680 kg with a maximum take-off weight of 3850 kg. The drone is supposed to be created subsonic, the maximum speed is 910 km / h, the cruising speed is 800 km / h. Service ceiling - 11500 m. Range with outboard tanks - 2100 km, range - 950 km, flight duration - 6 hours.

The development of a heavy attack drone "Argument" in the Design Bureau "Modern Aviation Technologies" (Design Bureau SAT) announced back in 2017. It was reported that the future UAV will be designed to break through the defense, intercept enemy drones and strike at ground targets.

Recall that the basic CP-10 aircraft was developed in the SAT Design Bureau on its own initiative and took off for the first time in 2015. It was planned that the aircraft with a forward-swept wing would be used for training pilots and taking part in competitions. However, the development project was not received.

Comments

[OgnennyiKotik]

Older infographic, from 2017. Really interesting and promising project. Hopefully they will give him a green light.

[venik]

Older infographic, from 2017. Really interesting and promising project. Hopefully they will give him a green light.
========
In my opinion, have you posted this infographic either today or yesterday (in an article about American UAVs - "slave")? Or I'm wrong?
PS Actually, the idea is good! Cheaper than the "Hunter", but the performance characteristics, although worse than the "Hunter", but quite at the level!

[OgnennyiKotik]

Yeah, there is also infographics from the news, in principle, this presentation was on Thursday. VO publishes such news with 2-3 days delay.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: venik

PS Actually, the idea is good!

The main thing is that this machine can be made in a short time, it can be useful here and now. Reconnaissance aircraft, light attack aircraft, UAV and CD fighter guided to the fighter, etc., etc.
It can be launched from a poorly prepared airfield, it will definitely take 3-4 FAB-250 or analogs. This is already a weighty argument and is definitely much better than the Su-24/25/34 being driven.

Combined with the Probe, they would work perfectly. On the Probes, reconnaissance, AWACS and signal relaying. CP-10 direct strikes.

[dauria]

Scout, light attack aircraft, UAV and CD fighter guided to the fighter, etc.

Stop it. And so it is understandable. People invested their money, did not beg from the state, created an excellent training desk to replace the same Czech L-39. For once it turned out to be a worthwhile thing. After all, the influx in combination with a moderate backward sweep is its highlight, it does not lose control at large angles. And after all, the solution is elegant - on a larger aircraft it is difficult to do this - the torsional rigidity will gobble up all the advantages.
And now they are forced to adapt it at least somewhere, except for the place - where it is really needed - the desk of initial training.
One to one story of the Yak-30.

[OgnennyiKotik]

One does not cancel the other. We need both a training vehicle and a UAV. Due to the mass scale and unification, the entire production will be cheaper. CP-10 and AR-10 both need to be launched in series. As well as a pair of Yak-130 and Probe-1/2.

[dauria]

We need both a training vehicle and a UAV.

Want to make it cheaper? So why the hell are the UAVs the same standards of strength, resource, requirements for redundancy, laying and everything, everything that knits the creators of manned aircraft?
The Americans quickly realized that an unmanned F-35 was an unaffordable luxury.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Therefore, they take the F-5/18 as the base, and for the cheapest, limited reusable cruise missile base.

[NEOZ]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Therefore, they take the F-5/18 as the base, and for the cheapest, limited reusable cruise missile base.

so F5 is a follower of a cruise missile (the same engines).

[The eye of the crying]

The F-5 is a descendant of a training vehicle, not a cruise missile.

[NEOZ]

Quote: Eye of the Crying

The F-5 is a descendant of a training vehicle, not a cruise missile.

initially the General Electric J85 engine was created for a cruise missile, and then ... then !!! The engine has increased its resource and began to be used in small jet aircraft, including the Northrop T-38 Talon, Northrop F-5, Canadair CT-114 Tutor, and the light attack aircraft Cessna A-37 Dragonfly.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: NEOZ

initially the General Electric J85 engine was created for a cruise missile, and then ... then !!!

It doesn't matter what the engine was created for. It was about the F-5, and it is a descendant of a training aircraft.

Quote: NEOZ

and the light attack aircraft Cessna A-37 Dragonfly.

Also a "follower of a cruise missile"?

[NEOZ]

Quote: Eye of the Crying

It doesn't matter what the engine was created for. It was about the F-5, and it is a descendant of a training aircraft.

whatever is convenient for you ..... I don't care what you think ....

[Victor_B]

Somehow our development of UAVs is going in other directions compared to "probable friends".
The problems for the Hunter and the Argument are poorly visible from my sofa.
They can turn out to be both breakthrough (lacking analogs) and dead-end branches of UAV development.
On the other hand, there is Altius analogue of Global Hawk or Reaper (?), That is, the tasks are already well defined.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

The problems for the Hunter and the Argument are poorly visible from my sofa.

The tasks there are painfully simple - the maximum possible replacement of manned tactical aviation.
Loitering drones occupy completely different niches.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Nestor Vlahovski

The tasks there are painfully simple - the maximum possible replacement of manned tactical aviation.

Only for some reason the composition of manned tactical aviation is increasing, not decreasing.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

Where is it growing?
In comparison with the 80s, the number of tactical aviation has decreased by 4 times around the world, if not more.
The end of the Cold War played a significant role, but drones also did their share.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Nestor Vlahovski

Where is it growing?

China, USA.

Quote: Nestor Vlahovski

Compared to the 80s

And compared to the 40s ...

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

China, USA.

This is not true. The number of tactical aviation in the foreseeable future will be reduced by a third.

And compared to the 40s ...

you can compare and 40, if you so want. Themselves on the "build-up" declared, no one pulled the tongue.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Nestor Vlahovski

you can compare and 40, if you so want.

You want to compare this with the times of 40 years ago.

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

How do I know what I want if I haven't mentioned anything like that?

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Nestor Vlahovski

How do I know what I want

Also to me, binomial of Newton. Once you do it, it means you want it.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Victor_B

Somehow our development of UAVs is going in other directions compared to "probable friends".

Nothing like this. Their bet is also on jet UAVs. Propeller-driven UAVs have reached their limit of perfection, they are good for certain tasks. But the future belongs to jet engines.

[garri-lin]

Both have a future. And both directions need to be developed. And also helicopter and multicopter.

[Lipchanin]

About the development of a heavy attack drone "Argument"

Named promising
Good luck in fine-tuning and putting into service. Moreover, the sounded characteristics are impressive. but what really and what they kept silent about ...

the length of the drone is 9,7 meters, the wingspan is 8,4 meters. The declared payload is 680 kg with a maximum take-off weight of 3850 kg. The drone is supposed to be subsonic, with a maximum speed of 910 km / h and a cruising speed of 800 km / h. Service ceiling - 11500 m. Range with outboard tanks - 2100 km, range - 950 km, flight duration - 6 hours.

[Destiny]

I agree, the name is correct.

[Tektor]

The name is as a name, but the mass-size is the most optimal for an impact drone. Therefore - what you need.

[TerraSandera]

What can he do that is not already undergoing tests and other projects? 6 hours in my opinion is very small in comparison with others.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: TerraSandera

What can he do that is not already undergoing tests and other projects?

Well, who will tell you this. This is not a massive vehicle for sale to the public

6 hours in my opinion is very small in comparison with others.

Well, it probably depends on the tasks for which it was created

[Nestor Vlakhovski]

It is built on a fairly cheap and already serial base.
This alone makes it a good option in Russian realities.
He also knows how to transonic flight, has a radar, therefore, unlike his patrolling counterparts, it is potentially suitable for air interception of simple targets and low-altitude breakthrough.
I think there is a sense of development.

[rocket757]

... However, the development project did not receive

And why not?
If you look closely, this is again a weapon against the "Papuans" because wherever there is air defense, it is just a convenient target!
Those. the question of price-efficiency in the first place.

[OgnennyiKotik]

That's just a great car against air defense. It is possible to implement a full-fledged stealth, low-altitude breakthrough, additional reconnaissance and strikes on radar and launchers.

[rocket757]

For starters .... and complete "stealth" is what it is, where is it and what is it with?

[OgnennyiKotik]

I don't know how to do full stealth, do you know? Here's how to make a full-fledged stealth more than understandable and calculated. If you want to see, above 3 photos posted

[rocket757]

In the photo, the aircraft was originally designed for the task of MINIMUM RADAR SECURITY, as it relates to an aircraft designed according to the standard method.
If you look closely, there is no "full-fledged stealth", just "at hand" there is no suitable locator.
Oh yes, it DOES NOT HAPPEN, this is all BUT ... science does not stand still and the "game" STEALTH - RADAR will go on forever. Most likely with varying degrees of success.

[Insurgent]

Quote: rocket757

а full stealth what is this

Apparently it's like - lean stealth, just the opposite

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

It is possible to implement a full-fledged stealth

Are there stealths with a forward-swept wing?

[Aviator_]

Does this mean that as a training aircraft it did not take place, therefore it is being converted into a drone? Previously, I saw him several times over the LII airfield.

[Genry]

Quote: Aviator_

Does this mean that as a training aircraft it did not take place, therefore, it is being converted into a drone?

While frozen.
We need money for the production of several factory samples for static tests (now the flying ones are just prototypes).
Launching production (and components), with little demand, is also a problem. If drones are added, the chances will increase significantly.

[Aviator_]

Clear. No money, but you hold on.

[Souchastnik]

If drones are added, the chances will increase significantly.

I will diminish my optimism a little, but it was made under the AI-25 (Ukrainian). We have a problem with the engines. And only the lazy do not develop UAVs. Therefore, there is tough competition, and there is not enough money to buy everything. Again, there is such a word unification.
Someone will win, either the best or the most connected and influential.

[mvg]

There is no radar station, we have not mastered the aiming container, how will it use high-precision weapons? The carrying capacity is negligible, taking into account the hanging tanks - none. The 39 L-1968 looks just as good.
PS: No wonder the UBS project was closed. Plus the engines of Zaporozhye, it seems, have been replaced by imports.

[rocket757]

Ha, from it they also offer to implement "full stealth" ???

[Genry]

Quote: mvg

The carrying capacity is negligible, taking into account the hanging tanks - none.

You are from Russia ?
Suspended tanks are used only for moving vehicles.

You are fixated on the stupidity of Western aircraft manufacturers, where the customer is given the development of a lightweight aircraft with potentially high speed and maneuvering characteristics, and then it is disfigured with outboard tanks due to its small combat radius.

[mvg]

on the stupidity of Western aircraft manufacturers,

I looked at the sign of 4 classmates. Wed-10, Yak-130, L-39 and someone 4th. there on the Zaporozhye AI-25, the freak has a range of 1500. And the cruising speed is not 800, but 500. There is no radar, the height is the smallest of 4, 6000. It is only used as a kamikaze. There is no question of loitering.
It is necessary to cram a radar, an aiming and navigation container, communication equipment into it, a camera is the minimum. And what remains?
PS: And what do you have against the F-15/16/18, Rafale, Mirage III these are cars that have always won. Chinese J-10D. somehow it does not seem like stupidity.
The whole world flies with tanks, only in the Russian Federation 12000 liters are poured into the plane

[lopuhan2006]

They want to add something to the stillborn project. A drone is effective when it is created initially as an unmanned one without loss of mass per crew.

[Genry]

Quote: lopuhan2006

A drone is effective when it is created initially as an unmanned one without loss of mass per crew.

Compare the CP-10 and the AP-10 and you will see ... how much you were wrong.

[mvg]

The drone has the main hardware ... it's not there. The project was stopped several times, but someone strongly lobbied for it. Out of despair, they did it and remade it. Nowhere in the world have forward-swept aircraft entered production.

[Genry]

Quote: mvg

The drone has the main hardware ... it's not there.

The pacer is. I see no obstacles ...

Quote: mvg

The project was stopped several times, but someone strongly lobbied it.

He did not lobby but put sticks ... This reduced orders for the Yak-130. And there was a stupid hype about the MiG-AT, which is in the Yak-130 class, which has already blown.

Quote: mvg

Nowhere in the world have reverse-swept aircraft entered production.

You are on the principle: "Nobody wears this anymore."

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Genry

The drone has the main hardware ... it's not there.

The pacer is. I see no obstacles ...

At least what the Pacer does at the other office.

[Genry]

Quote: Eye of the Crying

what pacer does another office

And do they make electronics?
Can you say the same about composites?
What about other components?

[The eye of the crying]

What are you talking about, where are the composites.

[Genry]

Quote: Eye of the Crying

What are you talking about, where are the composites.

It doesn't even reach you that the avionics are made by a third company, as well as composites, so this equipment can be installed on the AR-10.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Genry

It doesn't even reach you that the avionics are being made by a third company

You don't see the difference between hardware ("hardware") and components.

Quote: Genry

like composites

Composites are materials. And for an airplane, you need products made of these materials.

[lopuhan2006]

You probably don't understand. It was originally a manned aircraft, with its initially weighted structure for ekpage. Despite the fact that the glider does not imply a long stay in the air. Accordingly, under equal conditions, it will lose to the originally created unmanned vehicle. And there are nuances with the forward-swept design.

[Vadim237]

Despite the fact that the glider does not imply a long stay in the air. Maybe not the glider itself, but the volume of fuel in the tanks at maximum refueling.

[lopuhan2006]

The gliding properties of a glider of such a design will be inferior to a straight wing. Why do you enter into an argument if you do not understand? I repeat once again that this is a stillborn project with absolutely illiterate management and project defense. Created for the Ukrainian engine, backward sweep for initial training! It's like TVS to replace An-2 with the same grief managers. And the option with a drone is just a desire to attach at least somewhere. Well, I think that Kronstadt and Kalashnikov will still not give him a move, which will be correct.

[Genry]

Quote: lopuhan2006

The gliding properties of a glider of such a design will be inferior to a straight wing.

Will not. Aerodynamics is determined by the laminarity of air flows, and for a given wing, at low speeds, it is better than for a straight or swept wing, and at high speeds, it makes no difference.

Quote: lopuhan2006

Why do you enter into an argument if you do not understand?

How do you know what I understand or don't understand?

Quote: lopuhan2006

I repeat once again that this is a stillborn project with absolutely illiterate management and project defense.

This does not mean that the aircraft / drone itself is bad.

Quote: lopuhan2006

Created for the Ukrainian engine,

There is an AI-55, though not yet serial.

Quote: lopuhan2006

backward sweep for basic training!

Again you have a reality shift. Reverse - very good for takeoff and landing. The lower the speed and the higher the stability and safety.

Quote: lopuhan2006

It's like TVS to replace An-2 with the same grief managers.

You are even worse. Simply utterly. And An-2 is just a completely outdated concept that does not fit into modern aviation rules in terms of dimensions.

Quote: lopuhan2006

Well, I think that Kronstadt and Kalashnikov will still not give him a move, which will be correct.

What do you have to do with them? Working out your relationship with the press ???

[Genry]

Quote: lopuhan2006

You probably don't understand.

But you are completely different.

Quote: lopuhan2006

It was originally a manned aircraft, with its initially weighted structure for ekpage.

Show that in AR-10 is the same as CP-10 (except for the wings).

Quote: lopuhan2006

Despite the fact that the glider does not imply a long stay in the air.

You will freeze him on the ground, and drive him into battle ...

Quote: lopuhan2006

Accordingly, under equal conditions, it will lose to the originally created unmanned vehicle.

This is if you will not use it for flights.

Quote: lopuhan2006

And there are nuances with the forward-swept design.

There are no obstacles, but there are a lot of advantages.

[iouris]

Yes, this is a typical UAV.

[APASUS]

The reverse sweep of the wing for the UAV does not carry any load, but if we have another complex of UAVs for striking, then I am only FOR