Drone for the Russian soldier: needed or not?
You know, so much has already been written and with such diverse emotions on this topic that I will take the responsibility to create a kind of summary regarding UAVs. Indeed, it is worth combining all these “everything is lost, everything was stolen” and “everything is in perfect order with us”, and calculate a certain truth, which, as always, hangs somewhere in the middle.
All this was prompted by the increasing number of publications on the topic “The Russian army is not enough drones". They write, or rather, yell in such a way that the ears are pawned from the squeal. But we really need to put everything on the shelves: who lacks UAVs, which ones are missing, why they are missing. What are the norms in general, if they exist, and who should develop them if they do not exist. There are many questions, and all questions are to the point.
So the thesis: drones not enough, volunteer assistants swept "Aliexpress" almost clean, the army is blind without drones.
Where and what is the truth?
The truth is that UAVs exist in the Russian army and are used for their intended purpose. Yes, we have a problem with heavy impact devices, but more on that below.
In fact, if there is a shortage of drones somewhere, it is in the armies of the republics. There, of course, funding is not like in Russia, so if someone supplies UAVs there, it will be domestic Chinese drones from volunteers. As for serious reconnaissance (I'm just silent about drums) devices, of course, there is a complete zero there. Although if at one time they had paid attention to the work in some serious institutions such as Lugansk University, perhaps the problem would not have been so acute.
But let's be honest: if someone is to blame for the fact that the army of the LPR (I don’t know for the DPR) turned out to be without drones, the leadership of the LPR is to blame, which simply banned UAVs in the republic. Any. Accordingly, there was no way to train pilot operators, because it was strictly forbidden to fly.
Therefore, today, in this regard, the LPR army is a poorly organized mess, where, however, UAVs began to penetrate through the same voluntary assistants. That is, the saturation of the army structures of the LPR with devices occurs from the bottom up and unsystematically.
As far as the situation is in terms of education and training of operators, I will simply modestly keep silent.
But for now, let's leave this class of UAVs and start vice versa, from top to bottom.
Heavy strike UAVs.
These are giants like our "Hunter" or the Turkish "Akinchi". Really heavy, in comparison with which the “heavy” and shock American MQ-1C “Grey Eagle” looks like a sort of small car that weighs as much as these monsters take bombs and missiles.
Are they needed?
Oh sure. Moreover, we will not listen to the fairy tales of those who enthusiastically broadcast about artificial intelligence, on the basis of which these UAVs will have brains. Everything that we saw in the movie "Stealth" - that's not going to happen yet. We have, at least. Until we restore our microelectronics and at least start making microcircuits ourselves.
In general, competent experts in this industry say that real AI, which will be able to assess the situation and make decisions, moreover, having a modest size, is the business of future generations of technology.
But these hefty vehicles will still have their place in the sky. And in order to describe it, let's look at the artillery. There is such a thing as MLRS. The car leaves for the position, shoots its ammunition and goes to reload. A TZM vehicle drives up and loads another series of shells. This is typical for all large-caliber MLRS. Day yesterday.
Today is TPU, transport-launcher instead of TZM. That is, in fact, the same machine, with launch containers, with hydraulics and a turntable, but without brains. The TPU simply approaches the main machine, connects to its network and, following commands from the main launcher, directs its trunks and performs another launch. In fact - a spare self-propelled cassette with shells, only cheaper.
Approximately the same situation with the "Hunter". Flying ammunition for the Su-35 or Su-57. The aircraft can be hung with air-to-air missiles, and the UAV with an air-to-surface kit. And work accordingly. And if you attach it to the Su-34, where there is a dedicated gunner operator, then it will be hot on the ground in general where such a sweet couple will arrive.
In areas where there is air defense - it is relevant, because it saves the flight crew. The main thing is that there is someone to look after the UAV, but we'll talk about this a little lower.
Reconnaissance UAVs.
Yes, today intelligence is our everything. And of course, it is much more convenient to launch an unmanned miracle that will circle over the area and broadcast live data on the situation. These are very useful devices, which they have proven by participating in more than one conflict.
Our army is equipped with such devices like "Orlan" and "Forpost". In sufficient quantities? Well, sorry, at war weapons is never enough. But at the level of brigades-divisions, there are air reconnaissance units and they are working.
And, as I understand it, the snag is not at all in the number of such devices. The essence of the cries about the absence of UAVs comes again from a much lower level.
Spotters and scouts for artillery
A separate subspecies, and here's why. Ukrainians are very actively using drones to correct artillery fire on the same columns of equipment, when possible. Plus a very nice bonus in counter-battery combat. But - a bonus, not a panacea.
The UAV can detect the place where the shooting comes from. Both visually and with coordinates. Further headache for operators in terms of transferring to available numbers for gunners. Fine? Quite.
However, if we talk about counter-battery firing, then initially our army was ready for it. And until recently, UAVs were not even thought about in this regard. Why nurture semi-fantastic ideas, if even in Soviet times there was a perfectly acceptable ARK-1 Rys counter-battery firing station, which detected cannon artillery from 10 km, and MLRS from 20 km. Yes, it burned out everything alive within a radius of half a kilometer, but it worked. And this is in the seventies.
Today is the portable counter-battery station "Aistenok" and the mobile "Zoo-1M".
"Zoo-1M" perfectly detects mortars at a distance of 13-17 km, cannon artillery from 10-12 km, and MLRS - 15-22 km. And these stations should quite regularly supply the gunners with data for firing back.
And intelligence, ordinary army intelligence, should also not sit in the rear and wait for UAVs to fly and collect all the information necessary for the regiment-division. This is not about dashing RDGs walking behind enemy lines and collecting information, but about reconnaissance structures that use, in addition to UAVs, also Aviation, radar, radio interception and so on.
Those who are interested in the numbers can look in more detail, but back in February, about 500 Ukrainian artillery pieces were operating against about 1100 Russian artillery pieces. Then, as the Russian grouping strengthened, the number approximately equalized, and recently they have already started talking about the multiple (up to 20 times) superiority of Russian artillery.
Question: where did the Ukrainian artillery go? Why are calls to the West for the supply of any artillery systems sounding louder and louder? Is everything broken? Shot a resource? Or (it's hard to admit, of course), do Russian gunners know their job and Ukrainian guns just knock out?
And this, I note, despite the fact that the Russian army is fighting practically with its hands tied, minimizing losses among the civilian population. Unlike the Ukrainian army, which easily begins to shoot down its yesterday's cities, which included the troops of Russia, the LPR and the DPR.
What is the merit of drones in this - it will be possible to calculate only after everything is over. But it is clear that God knows what. "Zoos" have been integrated into the military structure of artillery for a long time, unlike UAVs. The new one should still fit in.
Let's take a critical look at our unmanned "wonder weapon". Let's criticize. Yes, it is clear that a UAV is cheaper than an airplane, yes, it does not need a pilot, and the operator can, like the American Reapers, sit for several thousand kilometers and control via satellite. Quiet, economical, cheap, unobtrusive - we have already learned all the strengths of the UAV by heart.
What's in the weak? In the weak, we have complete defenselessness. The operator, no matter how he swears at the remote control, but he won’t be able to keep the situation under control. And the all-round radar, on the testimony of which the operator will be able to count - it will be, but later. Tomorrow. And on huge devices like the same "Akinchi". The rest, excuse me, are teddy bears.
And, besides, break the umbilical cord connecting the operator and the drone - and that's it, finita. And how to break it, everyone understands perfectly. Clog the communication channel, for which there are appropriate electronic warfare systems - and that's it, the drone goes for spare parts.
And this is such a big, beautiful device. What about the little ones? Yes, with the very ones that were discussed in the published cries?
Yes, there is a sacred meaning in small drones. And, it is very deep. The practice of SVO has shown that a small UAV is very good in urban areas: drop around the corner, rise above the block and show if there are mortars and machine guns on the way of the group, and yes, if necessary, it can also throw a grenade at the enemies.
But there is also a downside. Which was perfectly applied by the Ukrainians, who had everything more or less decent with the UAV and who dug and studied the topic.
And when the cries began that without drones there was nowhere and nothing, when the volunteers unanimously dragged armfuls of Chinese drones, that's when the Ukrainian military began to joyfully rub their hands. Because with the help of completely simple devices and manipulations, it is possible to very accurately calculate the location of the latter from the exchange signals between the UAV and the operator. More precisely, his smartphone, which is used as a transceiver. And send a few dozen mines or shells there.
What is the difference between an experienced operator and an experienced pilot? Nothing. And the destroyed operator is no less sensitive loss than the pilot.
While they figured it out, while they understood what and how to reflash, both Russian and republican fans suffered losses. I don’t know how many lives were taken by the Chinese Maviks that fell into the war against their will, but I have repeatedly heard about the losses caused precisely by the use of civilian drones on the front line.
Every drone has its own flight path. Yes, small assistants, so to say, at the company level, can take their rightful place in the troops. A small apparatus that works in the interests of a company commander or tactical group commander is normal. But for everyone to have a personal disposable drone in their backpack is too much. Namely, many are shouting about this today, saying that "there are no drones in the troops."
The question of the need for such quantities remains open. The issue of quality is even more topical than mass production.
Let's be honest: we can't have any mass production of drones yet. At best, it will be an assembly of Chinese designers with all the ensuing consequences. Such "mass" UAVs are harmful, because they are created for absolutely different purposes for which we want to use them.
Not so long ago, a retired lieutenant colonel ran around Voronezh, introduced himself on behalf of the command of the 20th Army and was looking for those who could buy a "drone with a night vision camera." The army command really needed such an apparatus. Why is another question, but one must understand that Comrade Lieutenant Colonel did not find anything with such a technical assignment.
But if you look at the bacchanalia that was going on "on the air", then only one conclusion could be drawn: the UAV's fashionable hobby and the desire to make noise. I won’t give examples, but there were quite a few “volunteers” who rather unscrupulously put forward “they don’t supply the army, we do it.”
Of course, there are also questions about the supply of the army, but why did the colonels and lieutenant colonels, who by hook or by crook began to get drones for themselves, calmly signed all the necessary requirements during their service, without mentioning such a problem? Good question, right?
It turns out that everything was calm and fine, everything suited everyone, and suddenly, as always, there was a war, but we were not ready! There are no drones, there is nowhere to take it, it is not included in the budget, there are no orders! Hey people! Throw yourself on the UAV of the invincible and legendary!
In general - so-so solution.
And, of course, the media. Only they are responsible for the fact that UAVs suddenly began to play such an important role on the battlefield. How the “Bayraktar” was promoted, which destroyed half of the army of Nagorno-Karabakh with its bombs and which now does not fly up to the front line in Ukraine - they, the media disinformation, are solely to blame for this.
But already in the NWO, the Turkish drone showed that not everything is so perfect. And the percussion apparatus has many problems and many opponents. And in general, NWO is really an operation that is very different from a “normal” war.
Judge for yourself: the operation is proceeding according to the scenario of maximum preservation of the population and its places of residence. The infrastructure is not violated, the bridges across the Dnieper are not blown up, along which reinforcements and equipment from the West easily and naturally pass, in general there are questions about a car and two platforms. The air defense system was not cut down and not destroyed, contrary to all the statements of the Ukrainian Air Force. There is a war going on, sorry, really at the level of the First World War, when artillery plays the main role.
It turns out that we need not just attack drones, but devices capable of penetrating through the enemy’s layered air defense and delivering high-precision strikes on targets almost autonomously.
I'm sorry, but the wheel has already been invented. All such data have cruise and ballistic missiles. And some strike drone, or kamikaze drone, which will loiter somewhere for hours, so that when he sees the target, the operator gives the command to destroy - sorry, this is not serious. This will work only where this device will not be hit by a rocket or a beam of simulated radiation that turns the control equipment into trash.
If we are talking about control satellites, then modern electronic warfare systems today calmly block signals from satellites, preventing positioning and control of vehicles. Not to mention the fact that Russia seems to have S-500 missiles capable of "removing" global positioning system satellites from low orbit. Moreover, for this it is not necessary to launch hundreds of missiles, just a dozen or two are enough. The rest will be done by a swarm of fragments from destroyed vehicles.
And yes, there are good old rockets equipped with an inertial positioning system. And new hypersonic ammunition, which is still too tough for air defense systems. But for now.
UAVs in this system do not occupy a proper niche. So far, processors are too imperfect, unable to provide artificial intelligence with at least target recognition with an acceptable threshold. Therefore, it is not yet possible to exclude an operator from the combat crew, who can be located at a great distance from the device and not have an operational impact on the situation.
Of course, when the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper in Afghanistan are controlled via satellite from a command post located at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. Yes, it is safe for operators to be 12 thousand kilometers from the scene, but in order for the UAVs to work quietly, real air superiority is necessary.
In the same Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, NATO troops had overwhelming air superiority, however, there were losses from drones.
So what devices do the Russian army really need today and tomorrow?
Well, obviously not for the squad leader in each platoon to "fix" the road with the help of such an apparatus. This is utter nonsense, at least until the moment when we really have our own inexpensive reconnaissance UAVs that will not unmask those who use them. Chinese household drones adapted for military needs are wrecking. We don't need this.
All these rather stupid arguments about drones that “hack” enemy air defense systems should also be dismissed as unnecessary. Air defense systems are perfectly handled by cruise missiles and anti-radar missiles. No need to reinvent the wheel, everything has already been invented. These are “kamikaze” drones, carrying a small explosive charge, often simply unable to cause proper harm. Unlike a cruise missile, which flies several times faster, and its charge is quite decent.
Yes, a cruise missile can be shot down, it can be processed with an electronic warfare system. But absolutely the same applies to UAVs. It is difficult to say why some have decided that the drone is a kind of imbalance and has a great future behind it.
Armadas of hundreds of drones that will break into air defense defenses are also not our way. We have a kind of defensive doctrine. Let's leave all this to the Americans and everyone else, we have no need for such things. Therefore, we do not need to invest fabulous money in the development and construction of the so-called mass UAVs, because they are too vulnerable to modern electronic warfare and air defense systems.
And what the “experts” write today, who already demand to overwhelm the troops with some kind of UAVs, is actually a lobby. Yes, let's face it - the interests of those who can organize the so-called "production" of UAVs in Russia are being lobbied. That is, the purchase of drones in China and the re-gluing of labels, which has already happened more than once in terms of UAVs in our country.
Even by such methods, as voiced by our Deputy Prime Minister Borisov, who promised to start flooding the army with drones in the near future, apparently in order to shut up the most vocal "experts", the problems cannot be solved.
A drone, even for every fighter in his backpack, will not solve the problem that after three months of military service, a fighter who has signed a contract does not know how to do anything. Zero in terms of topography and ability to use a map and compass, zero in terms of survival, zero in terms of orientation. They are all zero now, no matter who you poke at. Medicine is also zero. But - give them UAVs and they will not fight as they should.
In fact, the losses are not due to the lack of drones, but due to the reasons for the lack of proper organization in everything, from the offensive to the movement of columns in the rear, which was shown by the NWO in full. The lack of proper preliminary reconnaissance, violation of the secrecy regime during the preparation of equipment and personnel for marches in front of enemy observers from the local population, the inability to organize observation on the march and prepare personnel to repel possible enemy attacks - this is what kills people.
Well, plus the use of unprotected reconnaissance equipment such as civilian UAVs
Answering the question posed at the very beginning, for the sake of which, in fact, everything was written, the UAV, working in the interests of the Russian soldier in the army, should have its place. It should be.
But it must be the "correct" drone, with the correct, trained operator, acting in accordance with the orders of the command. What some "experts" say about the presence of UAVs in the "squad-platoon" line is nonsense. And the presence of such devices in the field, with untrained operators, and even without meeting the standards and requirements, is harmful.
You should not turn the assistant device into some kind of ability to stand out. We will go so far: each fighter has a purchased drone, commanders have better drones, commanders higher up even better, and so on. Stupidity.
Of course, some people want to compensate for their unpreparedness with a drone. “Oh, we will not go on the attack on the farm, so the enemy dug in. We saw it from a drone. call Tanks, aviation and artillery. This is instead of developing a smart plan and implementing it.
In general, the use of drones should be under clear and strict control. Without excesses, as it was in the LPR, but without a mess.
UAVs are a good assistant in terms of obtaining information. Perhaps a way to deliver a small charge somewhere. BUT this is a very weak device both in terms of protection and in terms of combat capability. So first of all it's just a helper. The Ministry of Defense is obliged to develop Russian devices, but allowing incomprehensible non-military UAVs into the army structures is an unnecessary luxury.
The Russian soldier needs an UAV that will work in his interests. But it should not be a device that every tenth person will have. This is too much, the soldiers have their own functions, which they must perform properly and without the help of personal drones.
Information