Wrong turn: increasing complexity and cost of UAVs as a dead-end path for the development of this type of weapons

67
Wrong turn: increasing complexity and cost of UAVs as a dead-end path for the development of this type of weapons

Perhaps one of the significant events in the advent of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on the battlefield was the appearance at the end of the twentieth century of the then newest American reconnaissance-strike RQ-1 (reconnaissance) / MQ-1 (reconnaissance-strike) Predator. ").

Of course, the MQ-1 Predator was not the first UAV used for military purposes. Can you remember Soviet reconnaissance UAVs of the "Strizh" type, which the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) quite successfully turned into cruise missiles in our time, or UAV spotters of the Israeli Defense Forces, actively used during the Arab-Israeli wars. However, it was the Predator UAV that in many ways became the prototype of those combat vehicles that later became widespread on the battlefield.



What is the MQ-1 Predator UAV?

This is a fairly high-tech machine for its time, which is capable of performing combat missions much cheaper and with much less risk than manned aircraft can do. In fact, the MQ-1 Predator UAVs have complemented combat helicopters on the battlefield and practically displaced combat vehicles such as attack aircraft from it - remember the last time the US Air Force (Air Force) used A-10 attack aircraft?


MQ-1 Predator UAV and its control center

Despite certain shortcomings, such as weakly protected communication channels at that time, which potentially made it possible not only to destroy UAVs, but also to intercept control of them, carrying out a forced landing at their airfields, the subject of UAVs attracted close attention from the armed forces and defense concerns leading countries of the world.

The problem is that existing weapons are mercilessly expensive, which actually deprives the leading countries of the world of the opportunity to wage a long war of attrition - as the conflict progresses, they will all simply run out of weapons, which will lead to a positional deadlock, like the one we are now seeing in Ukraine, only on a much larger scale. It was supposed to solve this issue, among other things, with the help of UAVs, but there is a tendency that UAVs are becoming more and more expensive and complex over time, which largely negates the point of their use.

In general, the range of UAVs used for combat operations is extremely wide. It starts from the cheapest models - FPV-drones-kamikaze, costing (relatively) 50 thousand rubles, and ends with ultra-high-tech machines such as the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk. In principle, there are no complaints about the cost/effectiveness criterion for either inexpensive FPV kamikaze drones or the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV - these machines fully meet it. The question is different - that already existing, quite effective UAV models are gradually evolving and in the process becoming more complex and expensive, as a result of which they are gradually completely losing their relevance.

Let's consider this issue using the example of several countries around the world - leading UAV manufacturers.

USA


For example, the MQ-1 Predator UAV costing 3–4 million dollars was replaced by the MQ-9 Reaper UAV costing 16–30 million dollars (depending on the configuration), although it has much more advanced characteristics, but is conceptually comparable to its younger brother. And if, at a price of 4 million dollars, a UAV is practically a “consumable” item, then 30 million dollars is already comparable to the cost of a manned combat aircraft or helicopter.


MQ-1 Predator (left) and MQ-9 Reaper (right)

But the American military-industrial complex did not stop there; an even more complex and obviously expensive Avenger UAV was developed, although it has not yet advanced beyond the prototype, but is potentially capable of equaling the cost of fifth-generation fighters.


UAV Avenger

At all The USA has a lot of UAV projects, some of them could potentially become extremely successful in terms of cost-effectiveness, and in some only the desire of the American military-industrial complex to “make some money” is clearly visible.

Turkey


The popularity of the Turkish military-industrial complex was largely brought by the analogue of the American MQ-1 Predator UAV - the Bayraktar TB2 UAV, which proved itself during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. However, during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the successes of the Bayraktar TB2 UAV were already much more modest, so much so that now nothing is heard about them at all - apparently, in Turkey they decided not to spoil their earned image through hard work and deceit for the sake of an unstable situational ally.

The estimated cost of the Bayraktar TB2 UAV is about $5 million, which, taking into account inflation, is comparable to the cost of the MQ-1 Predator UAV.


UAV Bayraktar TB2

Following the Bayraktar TB2 UAV, the Turkish military-industrial complex developed the Anka UAV, whose cost, about 15–20 million dollars, is already closer to the American MQ-9 Reaper UAV, as well as its characteristics.

True, there is a nuance here - unlike the American MQ-9 Reaper, which replaced the MQ-1 Predator, the Anka UAV does not change, but complements the Bayraktar TB2, that is, they occupy different segments, both in the market and in the Turkish armed forces.


UAV Anka

Well, the pinnacle of the Turkish military-industrial complex is the Bayraktar Kızılelma jet attack UAV project in the MIUS-A (subsonic) and MIUS-B (supersonic) modifications. Different modifications use Ukrainian turbojet engines (with Soviet roots) AI-25TLT and AI-322F or Turkish TF-6000. Also, this UAV is equipped with visibility reduction technologies. However, we must assume that the price will be appropriate.


UAV Kızılelma

Russia


In Russia everything is similar, but more complicated. Almost simultaneously, we were developing the Orion UAV - an analogue of the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 UAV, the American MQ-1 Predator UAV and other similar machines, the Altair / Altius UAV, comparable in characteristics to the Turkish Anka UAV and partly the American MQ- UAV 9 Reaper, as well as the heavy, stealthy, jet-powered and obviously expensive S-70 Okhotnik UAV - in a sense, an analogue of the Turkish Bayraktar Kızılelma UAV and the American Avenger UAV.


Orion UAV (top), Altair/Altius UAV (middle) and S-70 Okhotnik UAV (bottom)

Testing of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV is still ongoing, while the Orion UAV seems to be already being mass-produced, however, there is very little information about their use in the Russian Special Military Operation (SVO) zone in Ukraine.

At the same time, there is some information lull regarding the development of the Altair/Altius UAV.

Several years ago, other UAVs were announced - “Thunder”, “Sirius”, “Helios”, “Molniya”, but there is no information yet about the stage and current status of their creation.

Iran


Another example is the ambassador of the Iranian military-industrial complex UAV-kamikaze "Geran-2", which "in its maiden name" was called Shahed 136. It can be assumed that in its current form, the Geran-2/Shahed 136 UAV is apparently close to ideal in terms of cost/effectiveness, however, apparently, this UAV is being tested in Iran in a version with a turbojet engine (TRD).

Will this lead to a significant increase in performance?

It is unlikely that only the flight speed will increase, and the range may even decrease. But the fact that the cost will increase is almost guaranteed. We should not forget that a powerful turbojet engine will significantly increase the thermal signature of the UAV and make it more vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles with infrared homing heads (IR homing heads). In addition, low speed is sometimes an advantage - we recall the Ukrainian MiG-29, which knocked out itself with fragments of the Geranium it shot down.


The classic Shahed 136 UAV and, presumably, a modification of the Shahed 136 with a turbojet engine

Further. Higher. Expensive


As we can see even from the example of this small selection, there is a clear trend both to improve the tactical and technical characteristics of UAVs and to increase their cost. Moreover, in some cases this happens without any alternative, that is, the United States simply replaced the relatively cheap MQ-1 Predator UAV with the much more expensive MQ-9 Reaper UAV.

The question is how feasible is such an expensive modernization?

For example, considering the situation in the context of air defense, which would bring more benefit - 1 MQ-9 Reaper UAV or 4-8 MQ-1 Predator UAVs, which could be purchased for the same money?

Someone would say that the MQ-9 Reaper UAV will have a higher chance of surviving on the battlefield? No, that's not true. For air defense systems, both of these vehicles are approximately comparable in terms of the difficulty of defeating them, and air defense jet UAVs will also “work out.”

Does the MQ-9 Reaper have a larger payload than the MQ-1 Predator? Yes, but not 4 times, and especially not 8 times. In addition, 1 MQ-9 Reaper UAV clearly will not be able to be in 4-8 places at the same time, and this can be of paramount importance.

Increased speed? For modern air defense systems this is not critical, in addition, sometimes a slower target is even more difficult to hit - the example was given above.

The main problem is that any UAV can be shot down. Almost guaranteed. At the dawn of the development of UAVs, there was a lot of talk about the fact that UAVs would potentially be able to realize such overload, turn such turns that a person cannot withstand, which would allow them to evade anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM), but so far there are no such UAVs, and are not expected.

Thus, there must be a very good reason for the increasing complexity and cost of UAVs. It is necessary to ensure a clear segmentation of UAVs according to the tasks they solve and to prevent an increase in the cost of those UAVs, which in any case will be periodically destroyed by anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) due to the specifics of the tasks they solve.

Under no circumstances should you chase the idea of ​​multifunctional UAVs - this will lead to an increase in their cost to sky-high heights, as has already happened with manned combat aircraft. The priority should be considered the narrow specialization of UAVs, while within the framework of one basic model there can be many modifications to solve different narrow problems.

For example, a UAV designed to hunt enemy armored vehicles must include an optical-electronic system (OES), while a UAV designed to hit stationary targets has it redundant, and a radar station (radar) is needed for a UAV used as a long-range radar detection aircraft (AWACS) or UAV designed to hunt other aircraft.

A separate cost is kamikaze UAVs, especially long-range ones. Their disposable “essence” implies the need to minimize their price as much as possible. For example, installing a turbojet engine on the Shahed 136 UAV raises very serious questions in terms of its feasibility.

What then is the optimal modernization format for kamikaze UAVs?

One that will provide maximum benefits with minimal increase in cost.

Stealth? If we are talking about changing the contours of the fiberglass body, even with a slight deterioration in aerodynamics, or thermal insulation of the engine using conventional “mineral wool”, then this is most likely advisable. But if the use of special coatings and expensive structural materials is implied, then definitely no.

Another example of a significant increase in the effectiveness of long-range kamikaze UAVs is the ability to retarget in flight. If you install an expensive noise-proof communication system with satellites on each such UAV, then this is unacceptable. But if we install a simple “civilian” communication system with satellites (which we don’t have yet, but the USA and China already have), then this will provide huge advantages.

At the same time, the problem of electronic warfare (EW) can be circumvented by using tactics - the entire territory of the enemy cannot be covered by EW, so the availability of kamikaze UAVs for retargeting via anti-jamming communication channels can be ensured by laying part of its route away from objects covered by EW.

Conclusions


In many ways, UAVs are designed to solve the problem of the excessive increase in the cost of modern weapons and the enormous cost of their operation.

The problem is that the cost of the UAVs themselves is beginning to gradually increase.

A clear segmentation of UAVs is needed, determining where an increase in cost with a corresponding increase in performance characteristics is justified, and where it is categorically unacceptable.
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    30 October 2023 05: 04
    For example, a UAV intended for hunting armored vehicles must include an optical-electronic system (OES), while in a UAV designed to hit stationary targets, it is redundant, and a radar station (radar) is needed for a UAV used as a long-range aircraft. radar detection

    The UAV must be modular - a single airframe and a single engine. Only the filling is different, depending on the purpose. This will be a real and interesting task for engineers, and a godsend for the army...

    P.S.. Such discussions remind me of interwar debates about the role of the tank in a future war. Everyone understood that the tank was a very, very formidable weapon, however, its place in future modern combat was very vague. One of the options for its use is breaking through wire fences (greetings from WWI!)...
    1. +4
      30 October 2023 05: 35
      Well... the American strategy for UAVs and aviation in general is to remove the most vulnerable and expensive link from aviation - the pilot. Everything else, including cost, is secondary.
      1. -7
        30 October 2023 06: 02
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        remove the most vulnerable and expensive link from aviation - the pilot.

        The new damaged missiles for the S-400, thanks to which they managed to shoot down an incredible number of Ukrainian aircraft over the past month, it seems to me, put an end to manned aircraft as a separate type of weapons.
        1. 0
          30 October 2023 07: 36
          Therefore, the Su-57 was developed for the Su-70
        2. -2
          30 October 2023 10: 35
          So far, the new air defense systems are confidently shooting down only non-stealth aircraft. When they start shooting down stealth aircraft in batches, then it will be possible to give up not only on manned aircraft, but on reusable aircraft in general. But, IMHO, this will never happen.
          Firstly, stealth sharply reduces the range of the air defense system, and essentially reduces the S-400 to some kind of Buk, and the Buk to a Thor. Those. a beautiful picture in Murzilkas with layered defense and continuous front cover turns into a set of unrelated air defense systems, where everyone is for himself.
          And secondly, reusable aviation will always have a gigantic systemic advantage - the highest mobility and reusability of the means of delivering disposable simulators and weapons to the area of ​​​​use. Which means the relatively low cost of each strike, which provides the possibility of massive attacks of attrition (massive strikes with Iskanders and Calibers on each air defense system cannot be sustained by any economy), and no air defense systems of this kind are capable of withstanding this in principle, provided that stealth aircraft and conflict are used over large areas.
          1. +5
            30 October 2023 19: 32
            Has anyone used stealth aircraft in the range of modern air defense systems? When they start using them in batches in the database area, they will start to shoot them down. Actually, stealth is not an all-angle or all-wave technology. Do you think that from the same low orbit (250-300 km) the F-35 will be visible - will the entire frontal plane glow? And on the side, what kind of EPR will it have?
            I think it will be like in the Northern Military District with Western weapons. At first, the use is quite effective, then we learn, tune in, and the initial effectiveness disappears.
          2. +2
            31 October 2023 13: 14
            Firstly, stealth sharply reduces the range of the air defense system, and essentially reduces the S-400 to some kind of Buk, and the Buk to a Thor. Those. Nice picture

            So far this is also a beautiful picture.
            Stealth has never been used against layered air defense, and most likely it will not be used against air defense with an aviation component.
        3. +3
          30 October 2023 12: 35
          Quote: ism_ek
          put an end to manned aircraft as a separate type of weapons.

          Not even once. The laws of physics have not been repealed. The complex itself can use “gnawed”))) or long-range missiles in a very limited way, using only its radar. To unlock their potential, the S-400 must work in tandem with an aircraft or AWACS UAV.
          1. 0
            30 October 2023 13: 07
            Quote: JD1979
            To unlock their potential, the S-400 must work in tandem with an aircraft or AWACS UAV.

            This is called “network-centric war” (!), when the battle is fought by network-centric systems and complexes! Similar systems and complexes are being developed and are beginning to “slowly” appear! This is no longer science fiction, although it is not yet accessible to everyone!
          2. 0
            31 October 2023 13: 16
            To unlock their potential, the S-400 must work in tandem with an aircraft or AWACS UAV.

            Dmitry, you are somehow a week late.... laughing
      2. 0
        30 October 2023 06: 18
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        remove the most vulnerable and expensive link from aviation - the pilot

        This is where you need to think!
        1. -3
          30 October 2023 10: 48
          If you think in this direction to its logical conclusion, then it inevitably turns out that not only on an airplane, but in general in the universe there is no place for man. Because it is extremely ineffective, with minimal returns and colossal costs, produces a minimal useful effect, and is also fundamentally irrational, thinks in myths and dogmas, but not in logic and facts, is not able to see the world as it is, which means there is no chance of correction It has. Why such a surrogate solution to Evolution, when an almost ideal species with unlimited improvement potential, the next stage of life in the form of AI, has already been born? So we, people, actually should think about exactly the opposite, how not to start an irreversible evolutionary process that will abolish people completely. And I'm not talking about a stupid Terminator script.
          1. +1
            30 October 2023 14: 40
            Quote: Passing by
            If you think in this direction to its logical conclusion, then it inevitably turns out that not only on an airplane, but in general in the universe there is no place for man. Because it is extremely ineffective, with minimal returns and colossal costs, produces a minimal useful effect, and is also fundamentally irrational, thinks in myths and dogmas, but not in logic and facts, is not able to see the world as it is, which means there is no chance of correction It has.

            Pan Lem wrote about this forty years ago - in his work “Weapon Systems of the Twenty-First Century, or Evolution Upside Down.”
            He also had a “depopulation” of the battlefield due to the inability of “meatbags” to survive on it. And the replacement of decision makers with artificial intelligence - because where we are talking about milliseconds, there is no place for humans.
    2. -3
      30 October 2023 08: 31
      Quote: Luminman
      The UAV must be modular - a single airframe and a single engine.

      The main thing is the engine. What is unique about Geranium? This is a 50 HP engine. With. with a weight of 16 kg!!
      German original, costs as much as a German SUV. This is actually why thousands of Ukrainian Geraniums do not fly in our direction. Expensive. The Iranians (or the Chinese) managed to significantly reduce the cost of the engine.
      The airframe is secondary; any engine and filling can be made.
    3. -2
      30 October 2023 08: 39
      Quote: Luminman
      The UAV must be modular - a single airframe and a single engine. Only the filling is different, depending on the purpose.

      Modular, to some extent universal, this means none for all tasks.
    4. +2
      30 October 2023 11: 55
      By the way, almost all UAVs in the world use the same Austrian engine
    5. 0
      31 October 2023 12: 25
      Quote: Luminman
      The UAV must be modular - a single airframe and a single engine. Only the filling is different, depending on the purpose. This will be a real and interesting task for engineers, and a godsend for the army...

      These are questions for industry rather, but when they buy American training equipment, what the hell modular schemes are there? You are entering an era of military instability, and if not for the Northern Military District, we would be completely behind the West (in terms of UAVs)
  2. +7
    30 October 2023 05: 43
    If you install an expensive noise-proof communication system with satellites on each such UAV, then this is unacceptable.

    And why not?
    In general, the high cost is determined by time and mass production.
    Where the money was spent was research and development work. They made the top models expensive. Software, electronics.
    Do you remember what WiFi routers and receivers were like 15 years ago? Yes, and satellite communications took off - the same Ilona launched... and such electronics are completely miniaturized and lose value very quickly as they develop...
    The upper models - the same raptor - are electronics and software. Plus the natural evolution of communication systems. Raptor is not a new development at all, but writing Windows from scratch or making 10 from Windows 11 is a completely different job with a cumulative effect. But the airframe, the engines - whether they will be shot down or not, the armor or the projectile - everything changes and the electronics and countermeasures systems do not stand still.
    That’s why everything is bad with the upper models and there’s really no point in going there.
    The Americans have long - and in my opinion, quite correctly - viewed manned aircraft simply as an aerial platform for weapons. And the platform doesn’t really need a pilot.

    Well, about disposable ones, it’s already clear - with real mass production of all kinds of Shaheeds, the price drops to a minimum - production, for example, of engines in the hundreds of thousands per year (if) reduces the price to a toy.
    1. KCA
      0
      30 October 2023 07: 55
      We remember that I still have a 15-year-old Wi-Fi router, so what? The size is normal, it works over twisted pair and Wi-Fi, no problems, although I changed the firmware to DD-WRT, but these are minor things
      1. +1
        30 October 2023 20: 16
        Quote: KCA
        We remember that I still have a 15-year-old Wi-Fi router, so what? The size is normal, it works over twisted pair and Wi-Fi, no problems, although I changed the firmware to DD-WRT, but these are minor things

        You probably know the difference between 2G and 5G?
        It's the same here.
        The amount of information transmitted to make good use of a drone is growing almost exponentially.
        Well, if not a 640x250 picture is considered sufficient for a high-level drone. And do not give him maps, 3D images of the target in different ranges - IR, radio, optics, UV
        1. KCA
          +1
          31 October 2023 10: 02
          I saw a 3D map of Europe in 1992 for the flight route of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Internet was still only in some places, no 2G or 5G, there was a thick or thin cable for the network, internal
  3. -5
    30 October 2023 05: 59
    Definitely, it is necessary to reduce the cost and increase the mass production of UAVs.
    Let's remember the Second World War. During the 4 years of the war, Soviet industry managed to reduce the cost of aircraft by 2..3 times, without a significant reduction in functionality.
    As a result, the commander of the Koenigsberg garrison wrote about the assault on the city by Soviet troops: “The wings of Soviet bombers covered the sky.”
    This is the key to victory, not the creation of a terribly expensive “wunderwaffle”.
    Naturally, mass participation is not the only key to success. Let us remember how, near Izyum, the Ukrainians captured an entire arsenal of Tornado S missiles - our analogue of Himars, essentially also a UAV. They did not help our military stop the enemy. Attack UAVs cannot do anything without reconnaissance UAVs and competent command.
    1. -3
      30 October 2023 11: 22
      Increase the number of UAVs for what purposes? What is the key to victory? So they are not able to bring victory in principle.
      UAVs are defense weapons, light weapons of trench warfare. Effective only in defeating small groups of fighters and disabling equipment (destruction is not guaranteed, rather situational). It is no longer capable of destroying infrastructure.
      An offensive weapon is something that completely destroys an entrenched enemy and his heavy fire weapons. Isolates the enemy.
      Are UAVs capable of conducting suppressive counter-battery warfare? Obviously not. The current situation clearly provides this answer. Destroy fortified areas? No. Isolate the battlefield? No. Individual, successfully caught trucks and trains do not play any role. This requires mining, destruction of roads and bridges, destruction of fuel storage facilities and warehouses, cutting off continuous fire in areas. They are not suitable for any of these tasks.
      1. -1
        30 October 2023 11: 52
        Airplanes looked similar during the First World War: frail, expensive, poorly protected, with low payload
        1. +1
          30 October 2023 15: 52
          Airplanes became effective when their combat load increased sharply, that is, they became heavier, more complicated, and, accordingly, became more expensive by three orders of magnitude. If you apply the same logic to a UAV, it will turn out to be a regular cruise missile. She has already fully demonstrated her potential. It is not even close to being a miracle weapon. Due to the exorbitantly high price.
          1. -1
            30 October 2023 18: 51
            Airplanes became three orders of magnitude more expensive, but during the First World War they were riveted in the hundreds, and during the second in the thousands. The economy has grown by four orders of magnitude. It’s strange that you think that the UAV should become a cruise missile, it’s like considering the kamikaze as the end of the development of aviation, and not the impotence of the Japanese.
            1. 0
              30 October 2023 20: 56
              I believe that UAVs simply have nowhere to develop, it is clear that there will be AI, network-centrism, but the essence of this weapon will not change radically.
              Or a cheap replacement for the CD. Extremely small-sized, for massive use against light targets, because it is impossible to make a cheap and effective UAV with a heavy warhead weighing hundreds of kg. You will definitely get another expensive CD.
              Or replacing manned aircraft with their powerful weapons. But it’s also insanely expensive, with an insanely long production cycle. This means that in a large and long war with an equal enemy, they will not be able to play the main role, because there will be few of them, and they will take care of them with all their might, either for specific tasks or for extreme situations.
              The only potential niche for more or less widespread use for serious purposes is a very cheap, necessarily subsonic (for patrol duration, range and low cost), necessarily stealth (to depreciate long-range air defense), transporter, for dropping gliding ammunition outside the range of enemy air defense. But for him, AI is probably rather harmful, because, together with radars and other cool electronics, it will sharply increase the cost of the aircraft. An ordinary pilot and a sophisticated (but compared to the price of radar with AFAR is a penny) connection to the command network is enough for the eyes. Those. this niche is not very suitable for UAVs.
              IMHO, UAVs have not become now, and will not be able to become in the future, the new God of War, which so far, invariably, is artillery. And there are no alternatives to it.
              1. 0
                30 October 2023 21: 20
                UAVs have room to develop. There just should be a lot of them. The Americans lost an unprecedented amount of aviation in Vietnam, but did not collapse economically; at the same time, they won the lunar race. But the aviation there was advanced, expensive, they also riveted it in the thousands. UAVs must become smarter, they fly for days, they can withstand heavy overload. What’s stopping you from removing one engine and the cockpit from the Yak-130 by putting a computer in there? There will be an excellent light attack aircraft, which, if desired, can be riveted in hundreds. And electronic warfare can be put into some of them, and some will become fighters. There was even an AWACS option for the Yak-130! And in front of the drones you can launch waves of geraniums or even balloons covered with foil. What now they like to do little and expensively, and then still worry about losses - this will only lead to more losses
            2. 0
              14 December 2023 00: 41
              Quote from alexoff
              During the First World War they were riveted in the hundreds, and during the Second in the thousands.

              During World War I, 145000 airplanes were produced. This is despite the fact that in WWII Japan practically did not produce them (in WWII they made 85), and the United States got involved only at the very end, so that most of the American aviation flew on French planes (in WWII, the Americans made a monstrous 000). If we take two countries (Britain and Japan) that mass-produced aircraft in both world wars, it turns out that the difference will be only three times in favor of World War II, and if we take the period of established production, then only 300 times.
              1. 0
                14 December 2023 01: 48
                Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
                Japan practically did not produce them in WWII

                Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
                If we take two countries (Britain and Japan)

                amazing is nearby!
                Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
                most American aviation flew French aircraft

                there is only a French production license

                Let's compare some countries that did not suffer too much from the naval blockade and the lack of various different metals, for example Germany and the USSR. I won’t remember that the Americans lost an amount of aircraft unimaginable by modern standards in Vietnam and nothing, they didn’t fall apart, they were even able to send a man to the moon. Musk assembles several satellites a day on a conveyor belt; if desired, you can cover the sky with cheap drones like the Bayraktar. And fifty Pepelats, like the Ukrainian Armed Forces, certainly won’t make a difference in a big war.
      2. -1
        30 October 2023 12: 29
        Why is it unable to destroy infrastructure? As Hamas has demonstrated, no amount of air defense can save you from mass raids.
        1. +5
          30 October 2023 15: 36
          What exactly did they destroy? A hundred people? Damaged a hundred buildings? Left a hundred craters in the asphalt? Do you understand this by “destruction of infrastructure”? How does this hinder, make impossible, the functioning of not just an army, but just a city? Maybe there was a loss of electricity, delivery of goods was impossible, or maybe the ATMs were turned off? What is the military effect of these thousands of missiles? Have thousands of Israeli housewives been driven to neurosis? Have people in a couple of cities stopped going to work? Well, they all joined the army en masse. What kind of miracle weapon is that does not reduce the enemy’s strength, but multiplies it?
      3. +1
        30 October 2023 20: 21
        Quote: Passing by
        UAVs are defense weapons, light weapons of trench warfare.

        I'm not sure you're right.
        Having a couple of hundred UAVs constantly, around the clock, over the battlefield, at the height and depth of the enemy, a couple of dozen high-level ones with long-range ammunition - this is “battlefield isolation” and “counter-battery warfare” - and the latter can be done by the drones themselves and the reaction time is a second.
        Another thing is our reality.
        We can make a lot of simple drones, each one needs a driver... But nevertheless, hanging for 24 hours and isolating - they can, when “attacking” on each drone in groups of 2-6 - the scale is not at all gigantic.
        1. -1
          30 October 2023 21: 57
          Here and now, if we took millions of drones out of our sleeve, and the enemy didn’t have as many, then yes, there would probably be an effect. But here and now there is nowhere to take them, and in a few months, or at most years, their golden time will be gone irrevocably (large UAVs like Bayraktarov are not very effective even now), because they are extremely vulnerable in their essence to both electronic warfare and physical damage , and to make a variety of different means of neutralizing them, according to the principle of action, the task is relatively simple and has already been partially solved. But it takes some time to develop/saturate troops.
          And that’s not the only thing. Even if neither the enemy nor we do anything to neutralize the drones, the situation will not change in any way. Above our tanks advancing on the shed, exactly the same hypothetical cloud of enemy UAVs will hang. Where to go? And our hypothetical cloud will not help in this situation. This is one of the reasons for the positional deadlock. The hope that we will have many drones and UAVs, but they have few, is not based on anything. These are air defense systems, aircraft, etc. They are very expensive, there are few of them, they have a long production cycle, and it is not a fact that Ukraine will receive them in the desired volume, but it will be able to rivet various UAVs and drones itself/receive from its allies as many as it needs, because they are relatively cheap and quickly produced. We do not and will not have any systemic advantage in this.
          1. -7
            31 October 2023 12: 31
            Passing by, well, where is your manned aircraft with its huge strike potential in the northwestern military district?
            Our “brave pilots” waited a year for thousands of drones to clear the front line of enemy air defense systems. Where are the attacks on junction stations in the front line? Why do they track down enemy trains and destroy their drones? And... our pilots are waiting for the drones to become more powerful and clear not 50... but 200 km for them.
            Our manned aviation is more dead than alive. Terribly expensive planes, terribly difficult to master.. For air defense we need tens of thousands of planes, but if we strain ourselves and make them, where will we get pilots? Six pilots have already fled to the west since the beginning of the SVO.
            Why this pendulum with pilots at all? Yes, there are many heroes, but...
            1. +1
              1 November 2023 09: 37
              First, our aviation specifically is unsuitable for a full-fledged war. Because it is hopelessly outdated. The established Opinion of the leadership and the masses in general, which has no real justification, that let’s cheaply modernize the fourth generation will be the norm, and the Su-35 is practically no worse than the fifth generation, and in general stealth from the evil one, has led to natural consequences. It goes astray too easily, and the pace of its production does not allow even very moderate losses, approximately a hundred per year, to be compensated. And at its price, it is simply impossible to increase production to the required level with such losses of hundreds and thousands per year for economic reasons.
              Secondly, specifically American stealth is also not very suitable for a large, long war. Because it is also vulnerable, it will also get lost, albeit in an order of magnitude smaller proportion of sorties than ours, but there will be orders of magnitude more sorties than ours, because they have artificially assigned the role of the God of War. And the price and complexity of technology are even higher. Those. the picture that emerges is exactly the same as ours, even though their aviation will be much more effective, but it will not determine the outcome of the war. More precisely, if you managed to win the war by wasting the pre-war accumulated fleet of aircraft, then aviation will be the key to victory; if not, then aviation will go into a strict saving mode for targeted use.
              Third, there is a way out of this, yet another, impasse - network-centrism plus relatively cheap, manned, subsonic stealth in conjunction with gliding precision-guided munitions and other missiles, where the most expensive part is stealth, and there are no super-cool engines with monstrous thrust, or even radar with AFAR, and radar in general. Review, guidance only through the network. Moreover, even AI is not needed, the pilot will be simpler and cheaper. Naturally, not the pilot who is now a superpro, but an ordinary cart driver to “press the buttons.” All the intellectual part will be done by stationary AI on the network.
              Specifically regarding drones, I answered a thousand times - right now we are seeing the finest hour of drones, have we won? Maybe at least they got an advantage? I personally don’t see anything wrong. And I am observing a positional deadlock. This is the reality, whether you like it or not - where drones rule the roost, there is a positional dead end. The rest is from the evil one.
              1. 0
                6 November 2023 19: 27
                We are seeing the finest hour of drones right now, have we won?

                In order for this finest hour and victory to come, these drones themselves are also needed. But our industry is not yet able to organize their mass production and saturate the army. Simple civilian, relatively cheap UAVs that are purchased by volunteers in China and handed over to our military obviously won’t make any difference. Yes, and the long-outdated "eagles" and outposts produced in small quantities in our country. About Orions, Altius, it is correctly said about them in the article, they are neither heard nor seen. In fact, our country still does not have its own modern fleet of drones produced on its territory. And the reason is clear that we cannot produce engines or other necessary components for them. So what is the finest hour of the UAV we can talk about.
      4. The comment was deleted.
  4. +2
    30 October 2023 06: 56
    Each person necessarily benefits when used in his place.
    (Kozma Rods)

    The same can be said about any technology, including UAVs.
    Do not confuse an expensive reconnaissance UAV with a cheap kamikaze drone. They have different tasks and therefore different prices.
  5. +3
    30 October 2023 07: 50
    Quote from tsvetahaki
    If you install an expensive noise-proof communication system with satellites on each such UAV, then this is unacceptable.

    And why not?
    In general, the high cost is determined by time and mass production.
    Where the money was spent was research and development work. They made the top models expensive. Software, electronics.
    Do you remember what WiFi routers and receivers were like 15 years ago? Yes, and satellite communications took off - the same Ilona launched... and such electronics are completely miniaturized and lose value very quickly as they develop...
    The upper models - the same raptor - are electronics and software. Plus the natural evolution of communication systems. Raptor is not a new development at all, but writing Windows from scratch or making 10 from Windows 11 is a completely different job with a cumulative effect. But the airframe, the engines - whether they will be shot down or not, the armor or the projectile - everything changes and the electronics and countermeasures systems do not stand still.
    That’s why everything is bad with the upper models and there’s really no point in going there.
    The Americans have long - and in my opinion, quite correctly - viewed manned aircraft simply as an aerial platform for weapons. And the platform doesn’t really need a pilot.

    Well, about disposable ones, it’s already clear - with real mass production of all kinds of Shaheeds, the price drops to a minimum - production, for example, of engines in the hundreds of thousands per year (if) reduces the price to a toy.


    everything is simpler: today “high cost” is a measure of greed, because... the concepts of “cost” and “profitability” are absent as a class
  6. +2
    30 October 2023 08: 30
    Sorry, of course, but the whole article is such nonsense. Complete misunderstanding of the material.
    For example, the MQ-1 Predator UAV costing $3–4 million was replaced by the MQ-9 Reaper UAV costing $16–30 million

    The MQ-1 is in service with the US Army, the MQ-9 Reaper is in service with the US Air Force (Navy and Marine Corps). They exist in parallel. Naturally, the MQ-1 did not supplant the A-10; they were used in parallel in Afghanistan and Iraq. And so on. Hence the incorrect conclusions.
    P.S. UAVs have been used since World War II, and thousands of combat missions have been carried out in Vietnam.
  7. -1
    30 October 2023 10: 09
    "A clear segmentation of UAVs is required, determining where an increase in cost with a corresponding increase in performance characteristics is justified, and where it is categorically unacceptable."
    It's obvious. Anyone, basically.
    It all comes down to capacity, development school and level of corruption. But there’s not a word about this in the note.
  8. 0
    30 October 2023 11: 34
    UAVs are a link in the chain from ionospheric UAVs to underwater ones.
  9. +2
    30 October 2023 11: 36
    Personally, I believe that UAVs should only perform reconnaissance, spotting and strike functions. They should be divided according to the scope of use into strategic, operational-tactical and tactical; by radius of work for long, medium and short range; by type of propulsion: jet, turboprop and screw; by type of action - shock, adjustment and reconnaissance, by design - airplane and helicopter type. I do not consider the so-called “kamikaze drones” to be either UAVs or “attack drones”. If it weren’t for their speed and type of propulsion, I would classify them as DUKR (remote-controlled cruise missiles), but this turns out to be a new class of weapons - RUB (remote-controlled munitions). And there is no need to call them “shock” or “kamikaze”: strike weapons are so called not because they themselves hit the target, but because they strike the target with their weapons. By the way, the warhead is not a weapon, but a structural element of the ammunition. And even more so, the operator of such ammunition does not sacrifice himself, just like the operator of a guided missile to mention kamikaze.
  10. +1
    30 October 2023 11: 43
    Wow, Mitrofanov’s article is quite sane. Anyway.
    The success of UAVs is due to two reasons. The first is that air defense has been honed for a long time to shoot at those who are further, higher, faster. The second is the size of most UAVs themselves, which are very tiny.
    But this immediately leads to two problems: the hole in the air defense will be plugged and nothing will shine for the same bayraktars, and ultra-small UAVs have a very weak impact.
    An attempt to increase the power, speed, and range of kamikaze UAVs leads us back to cruise ballistic missiles.
    As for manned aviation itself, it is not going anywhere, for the simple reason that the cabin crew is superior in many respects to those working remotely.
    In addition, if history is destined to develop in a spiral, with the appearance of attack UAVs with flight characteristics at the level of the thirties, then the return of the era of “flying fortresses”, or rather some semblance of it, is quite expected.
    After all, whatever one may say, an anti-aircraft missile is essentially a fighter going to ram. And I don’t argue that a shooter with an optical guidance channel will not cope. But the ship’s MZA copes perfectly with anti-ship missiles in automatic mode. So why not use similar algorithms in aviation? The same millimeter-wave radars will cope with detection, and the computer will calculate the trajectory and carry out guidance and destruction.
  11. +1
    30 October 2023 11: 54
    I think that if we had a hundred bayraktars in February 2022, we would find out what colossal benefits they can actually have
    1. -3
      30 October 2023 12: 15
      I think that if we had a hundred bayraktars in February 2022, we would find out what enormous benefits they can actually have.


      Maximum, 10 kg of combat load in total, and then only with small ammunition. That's all the "colossal" benefit. lol
      1. +2
        30 October 2023 13: 01
        Bayraktar is excellent optical reconnaissance. In Mariupol, small groups of infantry would only be alive in dashes. Kharkov would simply be cut off from supplies in the first days. No ambushes in our rear areas. Targeted eliminations. Patrolling the Black Sea. Such drones are a subtle and very effective tool, but of course, if they are used to bomb a fortification in the forehead, then yes, it will be of little use.
        1. -2
          30 October 2023 13: 26
          Bayraktar is excellent optical reconnaissance. In Mariupol, small groups of infantry would only be alive in dashes. Kharkov would simply be cut off from supplies in the first days. No ambushes in our rear areas. Targeted eliminations. Patrolling the Black Sea. Such drones are a subtle and very effective tool, but of course, if they are used to bomb a fortification in the forehead, then yes, it will be of little use.


          Bayraktar is a large aerial target crawling at a speed of less than 200 km/h, with a ridiculous combat load of less than 100 kg. At the same time, the price ranges from $2,5 million to $5 million per piece.
          For comparison, the Yak-130 for the domestic Air Force costs the equivalent of $7,5 million. And with the light attack aircraft version it can lift 3000 kg of combat load.
          For targeted liquidation, there are combat helicopters; their effectiveness for the tasks you listed is an order of magnitude higher. For reconnaissance in the air defense coverage area, you need ultra-cheap UAVs, and not these oversized flying lawnmowers.
          That is why the Bayraktars disappeared from the combat zone.
          1. +2
            30 October 2023 14: 16
            Bayraktar is a good aerial target for Russian air defense. Ukrainian air defense from the very beginning became very fragmented; in many sectors of the front there were only MANPADS, which were not available. From the Belarusian side, it was possible to calmly fly in and cause mayhem, for example, hitting trains traveling to Kyiv. Believe me, the diesel locomotive would have had enough of this ridiculous load. By the way, the bayraktar could provide target designation well to the Red Fields, well compensating for the low striking power. And ordinary shells too. No Ugledar could have resisted.
            The price of a bayraktar is tied to expensive imports, and in the end, half a billion bucks for a hundred or two of these things doesn’t sound very scary, here you can find that much in the basement of some general. Another saving is that no one needs to be evacuated, and if they are shot down behind enemy lines, then it doesn’t matter. And if you start your own production, and even at a cost of hundreds per year, then it will be cheaper than purchasing thousands of Mavics. Which, by the way, cannot be used to explore the Black Sea. And not like we have - 10 pacers per year, and what’s wrong with the Orions is not clear at all.
            1. -1
              30 October 2023 18: 30
              Bayraktar is a good aerial target for Russian air defense. Ukrainian air defense from the very beginning became very fragmented; in many sectors of the front there were only MANPADS, which were not available. From the Belarusian side, it was possible to calmly fly in and cause mayhem, for example, hitting trains traveling to Kyiv.


              Young man, reality is very different from computer games. Air defense is not only ground-based systems, but also aviation. And for lawn mowers, L-39 suspensions are enough.
              So what, just put cheaper UAVs on a collision course.
              1. 0
                30 October 2023 20: 00
                Oh, this all-seeing Ukrainian PPO! And the planes, which of course will not receive an oncoming missile from our fighter, we are blind, but they see everything online from dozens of satellites hovering above Nenko!
                1. -2
                  31 October 2023 11: 55
                  Oh, this all-seeing Ukrainian PPO! And planes that, of course, will not receive an oncoming missile from our fighter, we are blind, but they see everything online from dozens of satellites hovering above Nenka!


                  You're just cooking porridge with an axe. Now do you need fighter jets to cover the UAV? Then why these UAVs, those same 100 kg additionally any fighter will take and not notice. lol
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2023 18: 13
                    You are trying to stretch my answer onto an imaginary globe. Let's now speculatively turn the drone into a Su-25 or Su-34, will it no longer need cover from enemy fighters? Or are you like the Russian military expert from TV that we will buy drones only if they do cheaply what the rest of the army cannot do. And a fighter can patrol over the battlefield for 20 hours, load it with guns and go!
  12. +1
    30 October 2023 12: 11
    Author... You are absolutely right. Of course. But no one, no one at all, will listen to you. CHEAP WEAPONS ARE DIFFICULT TO STEAL! Therefore, the complication and rise in cost of technology to the point of its complete inapplicability is an unstoppable process. Capitalism. This says absolutely everything.
  13. 0
    30 October 2023 12: 48
    We need a million or two cheap aircraft-type IDP drones per month. And then, perhaps, there will be no need to carry out repeated mobilizations. The government needs to take seriously the organization of production at newly created state sites.
  14. 0
    30 October 2023 13: 16
    as well as the heavy, stealthy, jet-powered and obviously expensive S-70 Okhotnik UAV - in a sense, an analogue of the Turkish Bayraktar Kızılelma UAV and the American Avenger UAV.
    In my opinion, the Russian Grom UAV is more suitable as an “analogue” of Turkish and American UAVs...
  15. +1
    30 October 2023 13: 28
    The author of the article “the toad is crushing”... he doesn’t want to pay as much for a drone as for a manned airplane! But in practice they are often guided by the “cost/effectiveness” criterion! For some reason, the criterion “cost/effectiveness of a manned “product” does not include the life of the pilot, the costs of his training, the costs of replacing him...! But in vain! Now, if the “cost” of the pilot were shown to the author, then maybe , he would not point out the “equal” price of the latest UAV and a manned “product”!
  16. 0
    30 October 2023 13: 54
    Considering that the Su34 is 90% carriers of the UMPC, then the S70 (Okhotnik) is even as simple as an aircraft that can work around the clock, without risks for the Su34 and its crew. And Reaper, simply - round-the-clock and high-quality “eyes” over the battlefield... even saturated air defense. They can observe everything without flying into it. For the Russian Federation, such a technique would save a lot of lives and aircraft... for 404, no.
  17. 0
    30 October 2023 14: 26
    The author speaks like a civil engineer. The military is not inclined to change equipment if it copes with the assigned tasks. “This season's fashion trend” is not about them; they prefer the tried and true old to the glamorous new. Unlike civilians.
    Therefore, if they take new equipment, it means the old one has ceased to cope with the tasks properly, and they are less interested in the price, they need the result.
    Regarding drones, we can say that they came onto the scene for a reason, for fun, there are several reasons for this, and price is not the main one among them. Small drones made it possible to accurately hit targets on the front line, which was not always possible with artillery. Larger ones (Outpost, for example) made it possible to sharply increase the volume of aerial reconnaissance in comparison with manned aircraft, making it almost ubiquitous and in real time, and at the expense of specialists who are much “cheaper” to train than pilots. And UAVs are being improved both to eliminate their shortcomings and because of enemy opposition that must be overcome.
    1. 0
      30 October 2023 20: 22
      The author talks like a civil engineer

      Absolutely nothing like that
      Literary syllable and features of turns:
      Perhaps one of the significant events in the advent of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
      The problem is that existing weapons are mercilessly expensive
      Despite certain shortcomings, such as weakly protected communication channels at that time, which potentially made it possible not only to destroy UAVs, but also to intercept control of them, carrying out a forced landing at their airfields, the subject of UAVs attracted close attention from the armed forces and defense concerns leading countries of the world

      clearly point to the humanities. The engineer fires off logical expressions:
      if ...., then .....; therefore; necessary condition..., sufficient condition...
  18. +1
    30 October 2023 20: 13
    Not long ago there were no further accusatory articles about the uselessness of UAVs and their uselessness on the battlefield. Now we decided to go through their cost. The funny thing is that the cost of many overseas drones given in the article is comparable in price to the cost of training a domestic combat aviation pilot.

    The main problem is that any UAV can be shot down.

    Doesn’t such a problem exist in manned aviation? The pilot's aura simply repels air defense missiles and MANPADS from the aircraft winked
    Why then do they cover the deep rear with Geraniums, and not fly on planes protected by an invincible aura?
    1. 0
      30 October 2023 23: 13
      At least you noticed the main vulnerability of reasoning about cost. For some reason, no one “wants” to add to the cost of a manned aircraft the cost and time of pilot training + the cost of maintaining his skills. In addition, the banal problem of the pilot’s physical status is ignored. The UAV operator can be even a legless person wearing glasses, no problem. With a pilot, this issue doesn’t work from the start.
      Well, fairy tales about electronic warfare, which will “clog” all the channels and “land” everything, wow, thundered in front of the SVO... This is a niche tool that has an impact on the battlefield, no doubt. Purely auxiliary.
      1. +1
        31 October 2023 11: 46
        In addition to the pilot and his aircraft, rescue helicopters are constantly on duty. This is also a significant line item in the budget. Then the drone fell and was crossed out, somehow we’ll survive
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. 0
    5 November 2023 10: 04
    Quote: Passing by
    Increase the number of UAVs for what purposes? What is the key to victory? So they are not able to bring victory in principle.
    UAVs are defense weapons, light weapons of trench warfare. Effective only in defeating small groups of fighters and disabling equipment (destruction is not guaranteed, rather situational). It is no longer capable of destroying infrastructure.
    An offensive weapon is something that completely destroys an entrenched enemy and his heavy fire weapons. Isolates the enemy.
    Are UAVs capable of conducting suppressive counter-battery warfare? Obviously not. The current situation clearly provides this answer. Destroy fortified areas? No. Isolate the battlefield? No. Individual, successfully caught trucks and trains do not play any role. This requires mining, destruction of roads and bridges, destruction of fuel storage facilities and warehouses, cutting off continuous fire in areas. They are not suitable for any of these tasks.


    There was one sober comrade. And he’s also brave - he’s not afraid to tell the truth because of the disadvantages!
  21. 0
    21 January 2024 17: 00
    the evolution of characteristics, and therefore the complication, and therefore the increase in the cost of UAVs, is an objective and inevitable process. Manned aviation once went the same way. UAVs are not created to “reduce cost,” but to operate in areas where manned aircraft cannot operate due to a significant threat to the lives of pilots.
    So there will be heavy attack UAVs costing as much as an attack aircraft, and fighter UAVs costing as much as a Su-27. There is no escape from this. This will not stop them from being “consumables”, there will simply be fewer of these consumables.
  22. 0
    22 January 2024 00: 59
    Riper, Predator - these are strategic intelligence officers. Piece products and the price is appropriate. Armed with ATGMs and bombs, the drone is an anti-terrorist product. You won’t see him at the front either, he has no business there. Once every five years he will have a task.
  23. DO
    0
    23 January 2024 08: 23
    The price of a product primarily depends on the volume of its production, and secondarily on the reasonable complexity of the product.
    Because in the price of a product, the manufacturer is forced to include, in addition to profit, his costs for its development, production preparation, maintenance of workshops, offices, transportation costs, salaries of managers and service personnel, etc. The amount of these costs is broken down into the price of each product in the batch. Accordingly, for a production volume of 10 pieces of products, the huge overhead costs are divided by only 10, and the price of the product becomes “golden”. And for a volume of one million pieces, the manufacturer’s costs increase the price of one piece by 1/1000000 of their total value.
    And the price ratio for completing one product with purchased parts, when purchasing a complete set for 3 products, and for 10 thousand of the same products, can differ up to 5 times or more.