Russian attack drone - between myth and reality
To begin with, we'll talk about shock UAVs in general. It is not important yet whether we have them or not.
Recently, including through the efforts of our neighbors from Ukraine, interest in attack UAVs has been pretty much fueled. Interest in this new, but seemingly promising type of weapons has received additional acceleration. Many experts have paid attention and disassembled the topic of the UAV piece by piece, producing the most controversial results. Some UAVs had the status of "miracleweapons", Others have nothing more than auxiliary weapons. The truth, I think, is somewhere in between.
In the twenty years that have passed since the first combat launch of the Hellfire missile from the Predator UAV, the world is expectedly carried away by the creation of this type of weapon. The fact that Russia is a clear outsider of this race is, of course, sad. But we will return to this below.
Successful missile launches and the use of bombs were followed by the development of tactics for using UAVs on the battlefield.
Time has shown that drones there are strengths, for example, less visibility when approaching a target and a high response rate when receiving a combat mission. An UAV located at a short distance from the front line is able to get within striking distance of a suddenly appearing enemy much faster than aviation, and thereby influence the operational environment.
The UAV also has drawbacks. Since the aircraft simply cannot carry on itself the observation and aiming complex, like an aircraft, in order to deliver an accurate bombing strike, the UAV must significantly decrease. And at low altitudes, any device is a target for enemy anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems. In addition, UAVs cannot yet carry a large combat load.
But drones have found application on the battlefield.
In all armed conflicts in recent years, UAVs have been used with varying degrees of success. It depended very much on the devices themselves and on those who used them.
In 2020, Chinese-made strike UAVs were very actively used in Libya. Who heard about their successes? That's it. For the sake of justice, it should be admitted that the use of Turkish "Bayraktar" was not marked with loud results. True, there were fewer "Bayraktar" than the Chinese "Pterodactyls" ("Wing Loong"), but in principle, there is nothing to brag about for either Turkish or Chinese vehicles.
The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Karabakh (I would like to say - another) was an attempt to organize the cult of "Bayraktar". Yes, we must pay tribute to the Azerbaijani side, the UAVs were used very competently and intelligently. Therefore, it turned out to inflict with their help sensitive damage to the enemy.
However, all these videos, massively uploaded on YouTube, are not at all evidence that Bayraktar is a perfect weapon capable of drastically changing the course of the conflict. Yes, the work of UAVs on vehicles, artillery, and infantry was generally very successful, but the heavy armored vehicles demonstrated a fair amount of resistance to Bayraktar strikes.
In addition, a hit on a tank filmed on camera is not yet evidence of the complete destruction of the vehicle. It's like a camera gun in World War II. A shot hitting an enemy plane is not yet a guarantee that the plane will be shot down.
In addition, having watched a decent number of videos, I want to note one more point: it is far from always clear who was shooting at the target. The shot hit is the result of an UAV attack or the result of another means of destruction, and the UAV just successfully filmed the hit?
However, the UAV as a "roof-boy" was quite successful and was recognized as a real new anti-tank weapon capable of operating on the battlefield and, perhaps, even very successfully. Of course, we cannot talk about the effectiveness of a UAV, like that of an attack helicopter, but it should be admitted that a drone is much cheaper.
Bayraktar costs about $ 10 million. Apache - 52 million. The T-90AM tank "weighs" $ 4,5 million. To recoup the loss of one striking agent, "Bayraktar" must destroy two tank... "Apache", respectively - more than a dozen. Which is more likely?
The UAV seems to look more preferable, but the use of the same Bayraktars during the last Karabakh conflict near Karaköllu showed that not everything is so happy. Thoughtful analysis of the data showed that 7 of the 6 attacked tanks received hits, but only one tank was definitely destroyed.
However, a hit that did not even destroy the tank could put it out of action, or disable the crew, which, in principle, is no worse. What will happen after the battle / raid ends is already secondary. The tank will be repaired or a new crew will be delivered - it makes no difference if the strike is delivered immediately before the battle, then the tank will not go into it in any case and will significantly weaken its side.
In any case, the roof-boy is a dangerous weapon if used correctly.
And here one more nuance arises, which I would like to pay attention to. Since an attack UAV is much smaller in size than an aircraft or a helicopter, it is rather difficult to detect it optically and visually. The simplest example: an ordinary drone with a camera, which are sold in stores today, you stop seeing from 50 meters, and from 100 you can no longer hear. Finding a large apparatus like the Bayraktar in the midst of the noise of a battle or a column on the march is no less difficult.
Accordingly, all means of confrontation such as large-caliber machine guns of tanks, small-caliber cannons of BMP / armored personnel carriers and installations of the type ZU-23-2 become completely useless. A “hand-operated” weapon will not pose a threat to a relatively small and high-speed target.
But the value of BMPTs, armed with universal rapid-fire cannons and detection systems, and divisional air defense ("Shilka", "Tunguska", "Wasp"), capable of hitting targets such as UAVs, immediately increases.
There is one more moment in which the UAV has no equal. This is intelligence. Since it is not easy to find the device, it can (as the Azerbaijanis have perfectly shown) fly at a distance of 10-30 km, that is, outside the zone of operation of the divisional air defense and broadcast a complete picture of what is happening on the ground. And the UAVs of the Azerbaijani army observed objects located at a greater distance (up to 60 km) from a completely safe distance, but very effectively.
Yes, from such a distance, the drone cannot independently attack the target or illuminate it with a laser. But it is quite possible to observe a significant amount of the area occupied by the enemy. Accordingly, to observe the work of the enemy's artillery and MLRS, give their coordinates for counter-battery combat, adjust the work of their own artillery, and so on. It is possible that the UAV can approach and attack on its own.
In general, the unmanned strike apparatus has taken a certain place in the niche of weapons. It is still elite, since only six countries in the world produce full-fledged UAVs. But there is no doubt that these weapons have a future.
Moreover, today it is necessary to develop countermeasures and protection for some potential UAV targets. For example, for tanks. We have already spoken on this topic, and the KAZ will be the best protection for the tank, which will protect the vehicle not only in the front-to-side projection, but also from above. Yes, it is very expensive. But a tank is more expensive, especially when it solves its tasks on the battlefield, and does not stand waiting for repairs as a result of the damage received.
And what about Russia?
Everything in Russia is far from ideal. If you look without rose-colored glasses, then there is something to object to opinions such as this: From "Orion" to "Okhotnik": the most powerful drone UAVs in Russia
If you take this review, then (quote):
“The success of the Russian Federation in the development of attack unmanned aerial vehicles has become a fait accompli. If earlier such machines were only in the plans, now it is clear that the same Orion may well be used in battle. "
The key word is "may." If certain conditions are met. In general, this review is nothing more than an examination of hypothetical prototypes, of which, perhaps, only Orion is more or less similar to an apparatus that is ready for mass production.
Moreover, Orion is offered for export. But there is one reason why the sale in the near future of Orions and other devices, both to the Russian army and to foreign customers, is not yet possible due to the trivial lack of weapons for the UAV.
"Can" be used in combat does not mean that it will be used. There are many nuances in this word.
The question will arise: well, of course, there is still footage of how "Orion" launched missiles at targets and so on. What's wrong? How then did "Orion" smuggle warehouses with weapons of terrorists in Syria and everything else?
I don’t know, to be honest.
Here is one of these "cartoons".
And, by the way, it is honestly said: “we have SUCH missiles ... But we will not show them to you”.
In fact, there is simply nothing to show. Shown at exhibitions. Layouts, layouts and layouts again.
Something incomprehensible is going on about a certain "X-50 rocket". Either it is a missile specifically for UAVs of the appropriate size, or it is a cruise missile for strategic bombers, weighing more than one and a half tons. In general, the client is completely confused in the testimony.
Rocket X-50
About various bombs in the media there is a rewriting of one topic, what they are. No evidence suggests that these bombs, especially guided bombs, exist only on paper.
Since it was urgently needed to demonstrate the next "successes" of the Russian military-industrial complex in mastering the production of the latest weapons systems and thereby once again frighten the whole world, everything went on as usual. That is, they created a "beautiful picture" and showed it. In fact, it is necessary to look for sane filming of launches from the Orions. Basically, only "cartoons" from state TV channels.
So the container with the Kornet ATGM suspended under the Orion is probably the best we could do in such a situation.
The solution is not the most adequate in terms of aerodynamics, but at least the Kornet is not the worst ATGM. But there are nuances.
The second way is to adapt helicopter ATGM “Vikhr-M” for use on UAVs, which the company-developer OJSC “Kronshtadt” showed at the air show in Dubai this year. Naturally, also in layouts.
The problem is that Orion cannot carry more than two Whirlwinds. And this, excuse me, is the level of the 1994 "Predator". Looks ridiculous in 2021. In addition, the "Whirlwind" is focused on a helicopter, from which the missile will be removed by a maximum of 10 km. Plus, the target for "Whirlwinds" must be illuminated with a laser, along the beam of which, in fact, the rocket is moving.
Do you understand what this is about? The UAV armament operator will simply not be able to control the missile directly, at such a distance, when the drone is at a considerable distance from the operator. Nothing supernatural, but keeping the target in the laser beam located on the UAV is not an easy task. Plus, all modern tanks like our T-90, Chinese Type 99, Israeli Merkava are equipped with laser detection and countering systems. And "Type 99" can blind anyone with its lasers in response.
In general, laser guidance is the last day today. More than enough protection and countermeasures.
In addition, the laser perfectly unmasks the device itself.
So, despite the fact that "Vikhr-M" is a very effective weapon, albeit quite expensive, it was created for very specific tactics of attack anti-tank helicopters and the use on UAVs may simply not work out precisely because of the specifics.
"Kornet", more precisely, its version "Kornet-P" (9P163M-1), can be placed on the UAV, but it has the same "weakness" - the rocket must go to the target in a spiral, in the laser beam. Yes, the aiming is automatic, but someone somehow still has to keep the target in the beam.
As many understanding people say, the best weapons for UAVs are third-generation ATGMs, which work on the "fire-forget" principle. With these anti-tank missile systems, the operator does not have to keep the target constantly in sight, the rocket is guided by itself. Plus, target illumination with a laser can be carried out from the side, not from the aircraft. And anti-tank missiles of this generation have their own homing heads, infrared, passive and active radar. Yes, this ATGM is somewhat less resistant to interference than representatives of previous generations and much more expensive, but nevertheless, their use is much simpler.
We know these complexes. American Javelin, Israeli Spike and LAHAT, German PARS 3 LR, Indian Nag, Chinese Hongjian-12.
There is no talk of Russian representatives of this generation yet. "Javelin" will soon celebrate its 25th anniversary, there is no Russian analogue, and when it will be is not entirely clear.
But the two anti-tank missiles on the UAV, which the operators will direct along the laser beam, are the level of the forerunner, that is, the Predator.
What could be an interesting and useful concept for using a UAV in an anti-tank strike version?
Yes, in that it is a missile platform with 8-10 missiles, which can "hang" for hours almost imperceptibly near the front edge or be based on an impromptu "jump" airfield in anticipation of the enemy. But in any case, this is a flying weapon capable of controlling a certain area and hitting enemy armored vehicles.
And in general, what is a UAV? This is a flying platform, practically invulnerable to small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery and MANPADS, but capable of hitting armored vehicles no worse than an attack helicopter. At the same time, the cost of an hour of UAV flight should be at the level of a bomber of the Second World War, that is, minimal.
And if the combat load is at least equal to the planes of the Second World War ... However, the most common bomber of the Red Army Air Force, the Pe-2, took only 600 kg of bombs in a normal flight. So the time is not far off when the UAVs will be overtaken and overtaken.
Bombs, which we also practically do not have, are a very peculiar weapon. In development (models were shown at exhibitions) bombs weighing 20 and 50 kg. Time will tell to what extent they will be manageable or adjustable.
However, even today the use of bombs has shown the weaknesses of the UAV. The UAV will not be able to take heavy bombs (over 250 kg) (Orion at least), and the use of light bombs weighing up to 50 kg is associated with the problem of accurate bombing. There will be no navigator on board the drone who can accurately calculate the drop point. Accordingly, it will be necessary to use the tactics of dropping bombs from low altitudes for light ammunition.
Sorry, but the Orlan is not a Su-25 or an Il-2. There is no armor, and work from a low altitude, where the device will become noticeable and vulnerable to the most archaic weapons such as small arms, negates all tactics of use.
Well, if the enemy has a more or less modern air defense system, then the threat from the attack UAVs will simply be leveled out due to the destruction of the vehicles.
It turns out that such UAVs, focused on the tactics of using almost a century ago, and even armed according to the standards of the Second World War for outdated aircraft (Po-2 level and Heinkel He.59), will be effective only against an enemy that does not have the ability to provide proper resistance.
That is, the level of suppression of uprisings and the fight against terrorists.
Here it is worth asking a very unpleasant question: against which enemy (and for whom for export) such UAVs are being created in Russia?
Indeed, in battles with a normal regular army, such "shock" UAVs will be completely useless. Orion, armed with FAB-50, will regularly shoot down, UAVs with the same Whirlwinds and Cornets will create an imitation of seething activity, spending most of the flight time on flights replenishing ammunition from two missiles.
How effective such UAVs will be is a question.
And the second question: the fact that our Russian developments in UAVs are significantly inferior to the world ones is an unpleasant, but a fact. You can talk as much as you like about the fact that Russian drones "at the level", but in fact such UAVs that are only suitable against terrorists or lightly armed insurgents - this is the real level of the Russian military-industrial complex.
In practice, what is happening today in the development and use of UAVs in the Russian army speaks first of all that if the command and understand the value of attack UAVs and the tactics of using these devices on the battlefield, then the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex negate all these understanding.
For the full use of UAVs on the battlefield, tomorrow it is necessary to have high-precision weapons, which Russia does not have today. It is modern weapons that are fighting, and not propaganda videos and articles that tell about the nonexistent achievements of the hypothetical "Bayraktar killers".
The present day testifies to the fact that the Bayraktars are the real weapons, and the Orions are nothing more than the "larva" of a real strike UAV. Yes, Russian vehicles MAY become full-fledged strike UAVs. But for this they need to be given such an opportunity.
And it is worth remembering that manufacturers of similar equipment abroad simply do not want to stop at the achieved milestones.
Information