“Thunder” over Ukraine: a promising UAV can become the most effective carrier of aerial bombs with UMPC

107
“Thunder” over Ukraine: a promising UAV can become the most effective carrier of aerial bombs with UMPC

Model of the Grom UAV at the Army 2020 forum. Image e-news.su

Growth problems


Russian high-explosive bombs, equipped with unified planning and correction modules (UMPC), are one of the most effective types of weapons used during a special military operation (SVO) in Ukraine. Judging by data from open sources, the intensity of strikes caused by air bombs with UMPC is steadily increasing. At the same time, apparently, at the moment the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) have abandoned a large-scale offensive and switched to active defense.

In this regard, It is becoming vitally important for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to minimize the effectiveness of strikes inflicted by Russian air attack means, including reducing the impact of Russian aerial bombs with UMPC on the positions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the area of ​​the LBS combat contact line and to prevent their use deep in the territory of Ukraine.



To solve this problem, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will most likely use ambush tactics of anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), in addition, it is possible that to solve this problem they will be involved as the remnants of combat aviation Soviet production, and F-16 fighters that the Ukrainian Armed Forces could already receive or should receive in the near future.


High explosive bomb (FAB) with UMPC under the wing of a Su-34

Recently, information appeared on the Internet that the Ukrainian Armed Forces managed to destroy one or more Su-34 fighter-bombers through an ambush organized with the help of a Patriot air defense system. Despite the fact that the information has not received official confirmation, this scenario cannot be ruled out - it is quite difficult to counteract the ambush tactics of using air defense systems, especially in conditions when NATO countries provide full information support to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Another problem is that to carry out generally routine operations, the latest 4+/4++ generation aircraft such as Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35 are used - it was not enough to attach the Su-57 to this task. This happens because there are no alternatives to them yet - it’s all about the concept of multifunctionality, which resulted in the emergence of highly efficient, multifunctional, but at the same time expensive aircraft, which limits their number in the troops.


Even the Su-30SM is redundant in its capabilities for the simple use of aerial bombs with UMPC. Image by Alex Beltyukov

Earlier, in the material Lessons from the SVO: multifunctional weapons systems should complement highly specialized combat vehicles, we talked about the fact that simple, inexpensive, highly specialized combat aircraft can be created on the basis of both decommissioned aircraft with their restoration and minimal modernization, and on the basis of new aircraft with simplified avionics (avionics), for example, on based on the airframe and power plant of the MiG-35, Su-30SM or Su-35.

However, even such a decision will not allow the supply of as many aircraft to the troops as could potentially be required for the use of aerial bombs with UMPC and other aviation ammunition currently produced by the military-industrial complex (MIC) in an intensified mode. Potentially, even aircraft like the MiG-21 or Su-17, which presumably can use the APU, in the event of a hypothetical resumption of their production, taking into account modifications to modern elemental base and technical processes, however, this is hardly realistic.


Even an aircraft like the MiG-21 could cope with the task of dropping aerial bombs from the UMPC on previously reconnoitered targets, and with a significantly lower “delivery” cost than modern 4++ generation fighters

In addition, this will not solve the problem of the Armed Forces using ambush tactics, as a result of which pilots of the Russian Air Force will die, and the complexity of training a good pilot is comparable to the complexity of producing a combat aircraft, even taking into account the fact that both the aircraft and the pilot , will be highly specialized.

By the way, we previously considered the Yak-130 training aircraft as a cheap to purchase and operate carrier of air bombs with UMPC, however, apparently all these machines are used for the active training of pilots for the Air Force ( Air Force) of the Russian Federation, that is, there is no reserve training equipment for use at the front. However, a promising, inexpensive and structurally simple training facility was recently announced, developed by the MiG company, with a payload of up to 1000 kilograms, which is being created on the basis of the reserve remaining after the development of the MiG-AT training facility.


Yak-130 and MiG-AT. Image by Adrian / vpk.name

What alternatives do we have?

Presumably, such an alternative could be jet unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are relatively inexpensive, highly specialized and mass-produced. Moreover, potentially such a UAV is already being developed in Russia - this is the Grom UAV from the Kronstadt group of companies.

UAV "Thunder"


The Grom UAV was first presented at the Army 2020 forum. Its take-off weight is up to 7 tons with a hull length of about 14 meters and a wingspan of up to 10 meters. Its estimated flight range is about 1400-2000 kilometers, which seems quite realistic, given that the Russian Yak-130 trainer, equipped with two AI-222-25 engines, has a stated flight range of up to 2 kilometers. The maximum flight altitude of the Grom UAV is up to 000 meters.


Model of the UAV "Thunder"

The maximum flight speed of the Grom UAV is up to 1000 kilometers per hour, and the payload weight is up to 2000 kilograms. Presumably, the Grom UAV will be equipped with an AI-222-25 turbojet engine, used on the Yak-130 training vehicle, which we discussed above. For the Grom UAV, the use of various air-to-ground (A-G) weapons is announced, up to the KAB-500S adjustable aerial bombs. According to open data, at the end of 2023, work on the Grom UAV was close to completion.

It is characteristic that in many respects the tactical and technical characteristics and flight characteristics of the Grom UAV are comparable to the above-mentioned MiG-21 fighter, except that the approximately two times lower maximum speed is compensated by approximately twice the increased range and payload, which is typical for modern UAVs - almost all of them are not designed to break the sound barrier.

Previously, in a material published in November 2020 - Russian "Valkyrie": slave UAV "Thunder", we have already considered this device as a Russian response to the American “faithful wingmen” programs to work within the framework of a single reconnaissance and strike complex with the Tu-214R radio-technical and optical-electronic reconnaissance aircraft.

“Grom UAVs will be able to operate at a distance of up to 250 kilometers from a Tu-214R aircraft and more, if communication systems allow. A mode of raids in “waves” can be implemented, when the Grom UAVs will be based at the airfield. Automatically or under the control of a ground-based UAV, the Tu-214R will take off and advance on autopilot to the patrol area. Under the control of operators on board the Tu-214R, strike the enemy and automatically return to the home airfield for refueling, maintenance and reloading. In parallel, a second “wave” of UAVs will be deployed from the airfield. It will turn out something like “tank carousel "used by the Russian Armed Forces during the Chechen war.
...
The combination of a reconnaissance aircraft / UAV control aircraft with high-speed Thunder-type UAVs (and other types of UAVs) will make it possible to carry out high-intensity fire impact on the enemy with practically no risk of loss of manned combat aircraft (of course, while providing cover for the control center from enemy aircraft). One of the advantages of the Tu-214R + UAV "Thunder" bundle is that there is no need for high-speed jam-resistant satellite communication channels.

This decision can “close” the era of jet attack aircraft such as the Su-25 and front-line bombers such as the Su-24/Su-34, as well as significantly reduce the need to use complex and expensive fifth-generation fighters Su-57 to attack ground targets.”


As we see, since that moment there have been no more Tu-214R aircraft, so there is simply nothing to implement the proposed scheme, although this does not cancel the very idea of ​​​​an aircraft relaying UAV control signals or even an airborne command post for controlling them. However, in most cases such difficulties will not be required to use aerial bombs with UMPC.

Application tactics


It should be simple and effective - refueling, suspension of one or two FAB-500 with UMPC or two to four FAB-250 with UMPC (of course, this can be RBK, ODAB or other aviation ammunition of comparable calibers, equipped with UMPC), then take off , climb to the optimal altitude, reach the required altitude and flight speed at the release point, then turn, quickly descend and return to the home airfield, and then the cycle is repeated as many times as the equipment can withstand it without maintenance.

To ensure round-the-clock operation of one Grom UAV, it is necessary to have 4-8 operators who will take off and land, and also take control in the event of enemy attacks or other emergency situations. If this condition is met, “shuttle diplomacy” can potentially continue in 24/365 mode; of course, this will be realistic if we have enough “Grom” UAVs themselves and aerial bombs with UMPA for them.

Potentially, the Grom UAV should have a significantly smaller radar and infrared signature compared to generation 4+/4++ fighters. Combined with the absence of the risk of the pilot’s death, this potentially allows us to consider the possibility of using the Grom UAV, including deep in enemy territory, at least even if the enemy destroys our UAV, we will not lose pilots, and material losses will be significantly lower than in in the event of the destruction of a modern multifunctional combat aircraft.


The configuration of the airframe and engine nozzles of the Grom UAV suggests its lower radar and infrared signature compared to generation 4+/4++ fighters

At the same time, the Su-34 and Su-35 will not be left without work either; the Su-34 can be used as radio reconnaissance (RTR), electronic warfare (EW) aircraft and for the destruction of enemy air defense systems. To do this, they must be equipped with appropriate suspended RTR and electronic warfare containers, as well as anti-radar missiles (ARM). In fact, they will become improved analogues of the American Boeing EA-18G Growler, and, being behind the Grom UAV, will cover them from attacks and detect and destroy enemy air defense systems in real time.


Su-34 fighter-bombers with suspended containers for various purposes can significantly increase the effectiveness of the Russian Air Force

Similarly, the Su-35 can not throw “cast iron”, albeit with UMPC, but focus on countering enemy aircraft, which stubbornly does not want to end.

Conclusions


The Grom UAV, like other UAVs, is urgently needed by the Russian Armed Forces. One of the most important tasks that this machine can solve is the use of various aerial bombs with unified planning and correction modules.

At the moment, the compatibility of the Grom UAV and aerial bombs with the UMPC has not been declared; I really hope that by the time these vehicles appear in service, this compatibility will be ensured.

The combination of the Grom UAV and its possible analogues, inexpensive highly specialized combat vehicles made on the basis of restored obsolete aircraft or newly manufactured simplified modifications of modern combat aircraft, as well as light combat aircraft based on training equipment, will ensure the most dense fire impact of aerial bombs with UMPC throughout the entire line of combat contact, as well as deep in enemy territory. At the same time, manned combat aircraft should be used in those areas where there is the least likelihood of being hit by enemy air defense systems, while in the most dangerous areas the Grom UAV and its possible analogues, information about the development of which may currently not be in the open press, should operate .
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +25
    17 January 2024 04: 18
    How all these developments are already happening... Where is all this on the fronts? Let's start with this question. There’s just so much good I’ve seen over the last three years, it’s just darkness, but when you talk to the men from the front, your hair stands on end about what they’re fighting there. It feels like we live somewhere in a parallel universe.
    1. +3
      17 January 2024 11: 56
      The author did not take into account the most important thing: the pilot, unlike a UAV, cannot be “silenced”; he makes his own decision and can choose a target. At a distance, more than a thousand km from the “ribbon”, the UAV has practically no chance of being left without communication. And, either we will lose them en masse, or they will have to fly only at stationary targets in a completely passive mode and we will need to “pump up” their intelligence in case of unforeseen (and foreseen) situations.
      1. +2
        17 January 2024 15: 34
        Quote: Sevastiec
        The author did not take into account the most important thing: the pilot, unlike a UAV, cannot be “silenced”; he makes his own decision and can choose a target.

        It’s funny to imagine Su-34 pilots flying somewhere over Zhitomir, and from a height of ten kilometers looking at the ground below and choosing their targets.
      2. 0
        17 January 2024 18: 56
        Intelligence is being actively upgraded, as are new navigation systems. Bringing them to condition takes not even years, but rather months. What can I say, even if the lancets are already equipped with artificial intelligence, thanks to which they find the target themselves.
      3. +5
        18 January 2024 01: 15
        Quote: Sevastiec
        The author did not take into account the most important thing: the pilot, unlike a UAV, cannot be “silenced”; he makes his own decision and can choose a target. At a distance, more than a thousand km from the “ribbon”, the UAV has practically no chance of being left without communication. And, either we will lose them en masse, or they will have to fly only at stationary targets in a completely passive mode and we will need to “pump up” their intelligence in case of unforeseen (and foreseen) situations.

        By your logic, does a cruise missile make its own decision and choose a target? If you do not understand, then I will explain: such UAVs in the attack version are the same cruise missiles, only reusable. Of course, they can also be shot down, but this does not happen often there. The only problem is that “Grom” is just a model, and almost completely copied from the American promising multifunctional UAV “Valkyrie”. Such systems must be created by serious design bureaus, they require a lot of money, time, research work, testing... In general, you can forget about this and not remember it.
      4. 0
        22 January 2024 00: 55
        the pilot, unlike a UAV, cannot be “silenced”
        Who told you that? Have you forgotten the scandal of how civil aviation pilots were blinded with laser pointers?

        UAV, there is practically no chance of not being left without communication
        Space already? Closed?
      5. 0
        31 March 2024 07: 56
        On the other hand, the author did not mention one important argument in favor of his position in the article.
        Namely: building an airplane is now much faster than training a high-quality military pilot. Training is expensive, the graduation capacity of existing military schools is limited, and it is not easy to quickly create a number of military schools. Therefore, even having built a larger number of highly specialized aircraft, the command will be faced with a personnel shortage. And the attack drones proposed by the author help circumvent this problem. Although it is certainly necessary to increase the training of pilots, on the other hand, I believe that the Ministry of Defense is aware of this much better than us, and is probably taking some measures.
    2. +2
      17 January 2024 12: 03
      Where is all this on the fronts?


      Yes, a lot on the fronts. The same UMPC. T-90 "Breakthrough", which would have remained as a ceremonial tank if not for the SVO. The same with "Coalition" and "Terminator". Lots of different drones. Electronic warfare and guidance systems. New first aid kits, backpacks, and other equipment. New shooting and SV. Even new fabrics for camouflages.
    3. +10
      17 January 2024 14: 16
      The UMPC was developed in 2011. Even a year ago, the Russian Defense Ministry was not even close to introducing them into the troops. And suddenly - “the most effective weapon...”. Here's what you need to deal with. Now the same path is being followed by the introduction of drones, jammers, etc. Officials are completely out of touch, have no appropriate education (they don’t listen to specialists), and, as a result, are unable to predict the situation and make an informed decision.
      1. +1
        17 January 2024 18: 58
        Can you imagine how the element base and our production capabilities in terms of semiconductors have changed over 13 years? What can be done cheaply in hundreds now then cost as much as an airplane wing or more. Everything has its time.
        1. 0
          22 January 2024 00: 58
          Can you imagine how the element base and our production capabilities in terms of semiconductors have changed over 13 years?
          In terms of our semiconductors, more than nothing. In general and completely. I can recall the most amusing incident from the beginning of the SVO, when Sber began to pick out chips from old cards, because no one here could produce them. There were also problems with metro passes.
      2. +5
        18 January 2024 01: 16
        And the Americans first used JDAM on a large scale more than 30 years ago, all this time the Defense Ministry apparently spent in lethargy, having thought of using 4++ aircraft with conventional cast iron in the Il2 style
    4. -3
      17 January 2024 18: 59
      You definitely live in a parallel reality. What is there now at the front is just not there. Including rare unique items in general.
      1. +1
        24 January 2024 08: 31
        Lbs really has a lot of things missing or missing.
        1. 0
          24 January 2024 08: 50
          Lbs are thousands of kilometers away, of course you can say that. Somewhere there is everything and in reserve, somewhere there is not enough.
  2. +3
    17 January 2024 04: 42
    It’s a good concept, but until the SVO implements it, it will end.
  3. +6
    17 January 2024 05: 17
    It’s interesting to read an author writing from a parallel reality... wassat
    1. 0
      17 January 2024 06: 24
      That’s not what Mitrofanov is doing, he should be writing science fiction novels, not publishing them on VO in the “Armaments” section.
    2. +2
      17 January 2024 15: 58
      In addition to everything else stated, I would like to note to the Author that the word “alternative” does not have a plural form. Low general literacy and erudition often devalues ​​the content of the text, causing some kind of rejection. A lot of things are acceptable in comments, but with articles there is a completely different approach!
      1. 0
        17 January 2024 22: 56
        It has. Type “many alternatives” in Yandex, for example.
  4. +3
    17 January 2024 05: 34
    These UAVs will also be ambushed and shot down, but they are too expensive for a “one-off” solution.

    Purely mathematically, either the carrier should be cheaper than the Patriot missile, or it should not enter the affected area.
    1. +3
      17 January 2024 09: 45
      There is one thing. If the UAV is designed taking into account the ability to “wear out” an air defense missile (that is, it can maneuver with an overload of 20-25G), then it will not be disposable. Naturally, if the attack on this UAV took place before the combat load was dropped, then it will have to be dropped into nowhere and evade the missile.
      1. +5
        17 January 2024 09: 49
        I somehow suspect that such a device will be so expensive that it will not take off. The probability of dodging is not 100%, so they will still shoot down, but you can’t do many of them.

        It’s easier to crush air defense with geraniums that are cheaper.
      2. +3
        17 January 2024 10: 39
        You won’t be able to “wear out” a missile, you can only evade it as a result of a certain maneuver. For all air defense systems there are shooting rules where everything is clearly and clearly written out and air defense officers know them by heart, in my time at least they did.. There is such a parameter as the probability of defeat targets with one missile and it is not equal to 100%. But hitting the target with three missiles is already close to 100%. So all UAVs will be affected and you should not expect any special effect from their use.
    2. -1
      17 January 2024 13: 22
      Well, you can turn on the work of the army and respond to the downing of your drone by ambushing such a noticeable target as a patriot. Which, by the way, are produced quite a bit
      1. 0
        17 January 2024 16: 41
        It’s possible. But the patriot is part of the air defense and cannot be considered as a single target. It will definitely be covered by other air defense systems, albeit of shorter range.
        1. -1
          17 January 2024 17: 05
          Well, that means a lot of targets will be hit, not just patriots. You just need to learn to fight as an organism, and not as separate, uncoordinated components. Like a missile hit the drone, and instead of lamenting and telling us that if there was a pilot sitting in it, everything would be fine, we would just send out several dozen lancets and the like to comb the area, then the enemy air defense would quickly end.
          1. +1
            17 January 2024 19: 17
            If everything were so simple, a dozen Lancets and that’s it, the air defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is a skiff, they would have done so. But the fighting is in its third year and the patient is the most alive of all the living, which means this option does not work.
            1. -3
              17 January 2024 19: 50
              Of course, this is not easy; the lancet must be in the right place at the right time. A rocket flew into the drying area - to raise everyone on their hind legs and search before they had time to hide. They say they carry batteries on the railway? We interrupt the piece of iron so that they don’t have time to take it out. And if a missile arrives, we land the planes and keep our heads down, then the air defense will continue to roll here and there. Our whole reaction is this: a missile lands on a cruiser, we hide in the ports of Crimea, and if it lands in a port, we hide in Novorossiysk. Hemars fired at the bridge - there was not a single attempt to catch him, only to shoot down the missiles.
              Our enemies are very brave - the air defense is delivering a very expensive air defense system right to the front line, and they know that our intelligence will screw up. And we are cowardly - what if they shoot us down? How to win if the enemy is strong, rich, united and brave, and we are poor, weak and also cowardly? Well, out of fear, we lost more ships in ports than in battles; planes are already being shot down from our side of the front.
              1. +1
                18 January 2024 10: 08
                The lancet is used to solve other problems and is of little use as a means of counteracting air defense. I wonder who these people are who need to be raised on their hind legs? The situation with the fleet is clear, well, the sailors do not have sufficient countermeasures, so they drove the ships away. Yes, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are not afraid to drag the air defense system to the LBS. They know the capabilities of our reconnaissance, as well as the capabilities of our weapons. I hope the situation will change for the better. We learn as much as we can, but it doesn’t happen all at once. Thirty years of not being involved in the army, what did you want, now we’re catching up as best we can.
                1. 0
                  18 January 2024 12: 22
                  Quote: Uncle_Misha
                  The lancet is used to solve other problems and is of little use as a means of countering air defense.

                  The lancet is used like this - it is issued to some unit where a trained group of fighters with Zala drones acts in the interests of their division. They see tanks landing - they hit them, they see a Ural with shells - they hit it. Has the leopard gone? Rather, now the artillerymen are stealing our bonus! In general, they act at their own discretion. Similarly, airplanes are issued an anti-radiation missile, and so on. The operation is only possible if some commander himself plans something within the framework of his corps.
                  Quote: Uncle_Misha
                  Thirty years without being involved in the army, what did you want?

                  So the main problem is in large headquarters, they were just being dealt with, probably the money was spent on them much more than on tanks and, especially, drones. And they, besides supplying and marking targets for calibration, do nothing else, strategic planning is zero, as it was and remains. And here at VO we compete to see who can come up with the best excuse for them
                  1. 0
                    18 January 2024 17: 28
                    The lancet is an operator-controlled projectile, that’s all. It’s not a reconnaissance device, not a spotter, it’s a projectile with a cumulative warhead, according to the Internet. According to the information on the Internet, it is not used very often, apparently there are still not enough of them for shooting at single vehicles. I cannot and will not give an assessment of the activities of the headquarters, this is a pointless and thankless task. Headquarters do not exist in a vacuum, they are part of the state machine and I think the general himself does not always like the decisions made, but as military people they carry out these decisions.
                    1. +1
                      18 January 2024 17: 58
                      The lancet is aimed by another drone from the same manufacturer. That there are few of them is a question for the same headquarters. Back in 2016, Zala proposed building a plant for its drones, but the Ministry of Defense realized it only six months after the start of its operation. And previous drone programs have been screwed up, as I understand it, which is not surprising given the amount of funds allocated. A billion rubles were allocated for Orion, an analogue of bayraktar, and bayraktar costs about half a billion. It’s like wanting to create a new tank together with a factory for the price of two Abrams.
                      1. +1
                        18 January 2024 18: 19
                        Zala in 2116 could not build a plant for the production of drones, since at that time, and even now, many, if not most of the components for them are not produced in Russia. We could only talk about the assembly line. There is one more nuance that is not talked about. Russian Lancets and other UAVs have low export potential and therefore private owners, and in our country all military-industrial complex enterprises are private, are not interested and will not invest money in their development and production.
                      2. 0
                        18 January 2024 18: 27
                        Well, now they have built several factories, but then they wouldn’t have been able to? Then the exchange rate was better, and there were fewer sanctions, and these drones would have had time to accumulate
                        Quote: Uncle_Misha
                        Russian Lancets and other UAVs have low export potential and therefore private owners, and in our country all military-industrial complex enterprises are private, are not interested and will not invest money in their development and production.

                        Here Zala is engaged in drones and nothing else. For 20 years, drones have been purchased from them by Gazprom, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in general, anyone except the military. And the fact that Gazprom bought not from some Japanese, but from ours, says something. But I remember how someone else said that the drones should have Russian components, forgetting to allocate money for these components. In fact, this has become a corruption barrier for the supply of drones to the troops, and in order to supply them after this, it is necessary that someone does not find imports for a fee
                      3. -1
                        18 January 2024 19: 02
                        Everything was purchased correctly and continues to be purchased. Let’s just agree right away, it’s made in Russia and assembled in Russia, these are two big differences. Money, of course, could be allocated to feed the Chinese industry, a sacred thing. At the present stage, money does not solve problems with the production of components, although quite a lot of publications have appeared that the matter has moved forward. It turned out that we can still do something. But we need time, we need domestic equipment, we need bright heads and much more. And we need money, there is no money! Today I read an article about our electronic components, they turn out to be produced and made here, but they are twice as expensive as Chinese ones.
                      4. 0
                        18 January 2024 21: 17
                        Of course, our electronics are expensive, since we have some kind of vicious circle - you don’t need a lot of electronics, that’s why the series is small, and since the series is small, it’s expensive, and since it’s expensive, they won’t buy much. In 2015, there were many attempts at import substitution. They don’t produce many basic chemicals in Russia and buy them from China. There must be a component for Kevlar. But the military decided that instead of spending a hundred million dollars on a plant, it would be possible to gradually buy this component from the Chinese cheaply for the same hundred million; they once directly invested in the factories themselves. But what if we build a plant, a considerable part of the money will remain in the country and our GDP will increase, and if we buy it, China’s GDP will increase, somehow no one even keeps this in mind.
                        And now it often turns out that even though the company is Chinese, its shareholders are Western, and they refuse our purchases. We'll buy it through resellers, but it will be more expensive. And it turns out that the stingy pays twice. For those three hundred billion that we for some reason hid from our enemies, we could probably compete with Intel and not care about sanctions from a high bell tower. And so, we’ll be storming Sinkovka for six months, maybe in a year we’ll crawl to Kupyansk, and in five years to Slavyansk
          2. 0
            17 January 2024 19: 17
            If everything were so simple, a dozen Lancets and that’s it, the air defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is a skiff, they would have done so. But the fighting is in its third year and the patient is the most alive of all the living, which means this option does not work.
  5. +5
    17 January 2024 06: 59
    Dreams.... dreams... where is your sweetness? The dreams are gone... all that remains is... article by A. Mitrofanov!
    1. -2
      17 January 2024 14: 41
      well, we’re still waiting for engines for the Grom UAV, so riveting composite bodies is not a problem
      1. 0
        18 January 2024 14: 58
        What is the expected cost of such a UAV? I assume that there are several million in dollar equivalent.
        Why do we need them?
        Throw FAB with UMPC at the near and far rear of the enemy at a distance of ... 20 - 30 km. ? After all, the carrier is subsonic, but at 50 - 60 km. such UPABs fly when launched from an altitude of 10 - 14 km. and at a speed of 1500 - 1900 km/h. And at the same time, when bombing over enemy territory, the probability of survival is at best 50/50.
        Now let's look at the alternatives:
        - "Geranium-2" - cost from 15 to 50 thousand dollars, range 1000+ km.
        - Su-34 when working along the front edge and near rear. But if you attach an NUR engine to a bomb, it will fly along the operational rear - 100 - 120 km. quite . In addition, the Su-34 has a fairly powerful defense system (electronic warfare, heat traps, laser blinding of the seeker).
        - CR SD and CR DB of different types of deployment. The cost of the "Caliber" missile system for the Russian Armed Forces is about 400 thousand dollars. , for the rest, plus or minus.
        - remove the Tochka-U missile launchers from storage, bring them into working condition, install the navigation unit of the domestic positioning system (which will ensure very high accuracy) and provide them with massive strikes to a depth of 100 km. . There were 10 such missiles in storage. , if at least 000 units are returned to service. it will be very... VERY good. And it won't cost much.
        Now compare with the calculation of the creation, combat use and cost of losses of this strange pepelats (I’m not saying that it will be useless, but it’s still advisable to calculate the money and time) “Thunder”. And you will see that its effectiveness is as fantastic as “Major Thunder” is effective in the new movie.

        Quote: Romario_Argo
        riveting composite hulls is not a problem

        This is not a CD or a light UAV, it is an airfield-based unmanned aircraft with a payload of 1000 kg.
        If you want to throw bombs from the UMPC further away and from a safe distance, attach an engine from an aviation NUR to this bomb, and you will be happy.
        I didn’t give a minus, but I don’t agree with the thesis about “easy to rivet.”
  6. +2
    17 January 2024 06: 59
    Dreams.... dreams... where is your sweetness? The dreams are gone... all that remains is... article by A. Mitrofanov!
  7. +3
    17 January 2024 07: 25
    In essence, this is the future of aviation in its infancy. Over time, such systems will develop to a level where a pilot will not be needed at all, and the cost will be less than an airplane. Now, of course, it looks kind of ridiculous, but the same Americans have been testing or even using such a technique quite successfully for a long time.
  8. +7
    17 January 2024 07: 42
    Yeah, it's a small matter. Thunder, AU, where are you?? Only in speeches do we grow. We'll get to 5th place soon
  9. +4
    17 January 2024 07: 47
    We are in these “Thunders” as if we are rummaging through rubbish.
    Products of the “Grom” family have serious advantages over a number of existing models. First of all, it is necessary to note the power of the warhead modules. According to KTRV, the combat effectiveness of the Grom-1 is 80% higher than that of the OFAB-250-270 aerial bomb. The Grom-2 bomb with two small warheads is 50% more effective than the OFAB-500U product. The 9-A2-7759 volumetric detonating ammunition is twice as powerful as the KAB-500OD bomb...
    Last year, KTRV announced the completion of the main work on the 9-A-7759 “Thunder” project and its readiness to supply serial products to customers. Bombs and missiles of new types are ready for use in the aerospace forces and for use by combat aircraft of various types.

    The Grom missile and bomb system and its carriers (February 28, 2020)
    https://topwar.ru/168400-kompleks-raketno-bombovogo-vooruzhenija-grom-i-ego-nositeli.html
    And then it rumbles again... It’s not funny anymore...
    The Grom UAV, like other UAVs, is urgently needed by the Russian Armed Forces. One of the most important tasks that this machine can solve is the use of various aerial bombs with unified planning and correction modules.

    Was there lightning?
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 08: 06
      Was there lightning?

      The Kronstadt company continues to develop the Molniya UAV. There was an article about this on VO.
  10. -1
    17 January 2024 09: 08
    It seems to me that a large drone should be more versatile, and not with a turbojet, but with a civilian turbofan engine. For large drones, you can use the existing PS90A, and with the start of production of the PD-8, you can also use it.
    Then there will be a larger bomb load and more time in the air for reconnaissance purposes.
    1. +3
      17 January 2024 09: 55
      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
      For large drones you can use the existing PS90A

      With this engine, such a drone will be able to take off vertically. It has a thrust of 16 tons.
      1. -1
        17 January 2024 10: 01
        The drone will, of course, be large, but with this engine it can be made into a manned version as an additional option.
        I don’t know whether civilian engines are suitable for dropping gliding bombs, or whether the cruising speed is enough for this. But it will be possible to hang a lot of missiles and conventional bombs.
        1. +1
          17 January 2024 10: 09
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          The drone will, of course, be large, but with this engine it can be made into a manned version as an additional option.

          Why such a prodigy? We need an inexpensive drone capable of lifting a ton and a half of bombs. Well, overload - two tons.

          My option, which I have already proposed here, is a vehicle based on the Su-25, with one engine. The R-195 engine, the successor to the engine from the MiG-21, by the way. Simple and cheap.
          1. -1
            17 January 2024 10: 54
            The drone is good where there is no or very weak air defense and for targets of a certain type. Glide bombs, especially the Russian version, are needed as a temporary measure. But now all efforts must be spent on suppressing air defense, thinking and deciding how to do this as quickly as possible, even if not cheaply. If successful, it will be possible to use both “cast iron” and CAB.
            1. +4
              17 January 2024 11: 10
              Quote: Uncle_Misha
              The drone is good where there is no or very weak air defense

              The drone is good where you don’t want to lose another Su-34 to enemy air defense. Because a drone is much cheaper, and it does not have a crew.
              1. 0
                17 January 2024 17: 07
                The use of an SU-34 type aircraft to deliver glide bombs is expensive and ineffective. These bombs explode beautifully, of course, but that’s all. These are single strikes, and the plane itself is not fully loaded. After the air defense is suppressed, it will show itself in all its glory, but that’s still a long way off. You should first understand the concept or term drone. All aircraft controlled by a person , it doesn’t matter whether he is in the cockpit or not, manned. Geraniums are not one of them; they fly according to a given program but are weak like high-explosive FABs and have limited capabilities to hit targets. The point of my previous post is precisely that the complete suppression of Ukrainian air defense is necessary and not to drive pilots under fire from Ukrainian air defense systems.
                1. +1
                  17 January 2024 17: 36
                  Quote: Uncle_Misha
                  The point of my previous post is precisely that the complete suppression of Ukrainian air defense is necessary

                  This is an impossible task. Modern air defense cannot be completely suppressed. Therefore, those tasks that CAN be solved by drones MUST be performed by drones.
                  1. 0
                    17 January 2024 19: 26
                    I completely agree with the last statement, but not with the first. The experience of military conflicts proves the opposite, the enemy’s air defense can and should be suppressed. To do this, you just need to be able to do this and have an abundance of means of suppression.
                    1. +4
                      17 January 2024 20: 06
                      Quote: Uncle_Misha
                      The experience of military conflicts proves the opposite: enemy air defenses can and should be suppressed.

                      No, it doesn't prove it. Even in the past this has not worked out very well. “Completely suppressed” Yugoslav air defense shot down an F-117 from an obsolete S-125. And if Yugoslavia had a land border with Russia, and we supplied them with new air defense systems to replace the outdated and knocked out ones, NATO could lose dozens of aircraft in Yugoslavia, despite all its countermeasures.

                      And in the future it will become even more difficult. For example, missiles are increasingly being used as homing missiles. They do not need constant radar illumination of the target. After the missile launch, it is too late to suppress anything. At best, it will be possible to exchange a downed plane for a destroyed launcher. Not very profitable.
                      1. -1
                        18 January 2024 10: 32
                        At the time of the Yugoslav conflict, the S-125 was not an outdated complex. There is an interview on the Internet about how and how the “invisible” aircraft was shot down by the commander of the air defense system who shot down the plane. But the Yankees beat up the Yugoslav aviation greatly, Yugoslav pilots also write about this. Homing missiles, like missiles of other types, have their advantages and disadvantages and are not some kind of super weapon. For every action there is always a reaction. Our problems in the field of weapons are that the last thirty years can be said to have been wasted, we have been developing “double-barreled guns” and Armat, they sawed off Iskander missiles, resulting in the "Dagger" and other similar things. And the defense industry does not tolerate downtime, they are destructive for it. Perhaps the SVO will make you think again, I really want to believe in it.
                      2. 0
                        18 January 2024 12: 43
                        It is not clear how the possibility of complete suppression of air defense follows from everything written. Especially considering your own words:
                        Quote: Uncle_Misha
                        For every action there is always a reaction.
                      3. -1
                        18 January 2024 17: 40
                        The phrase you cited was taken out of context. We were talking about homing missiles and have nothing to do with the suppression of air defense. I know the history of the confrontation between aviation and air defense systems, or rather knew it quite well, starting with the Second World War and ending with the latest conflicts. In cases where aviation has all the necessary means for suppression , she achieves success although she will suffer losses, without them there are no wars.
                      4. 0
                        18 January 2024 17: 51
                        Quote: Uncle_Misha
                        In cases where aviation has all the necessary means for suppression, it achieves success even though it suffers losses; without them, there are no wars.

                        No, he doesn’t achieve it. I gave you an example.
                      5. -1
                        18 January 2024 18: 41
                        The fact that the Yugoslavs shot down several planes is not an indicator. In the process of suppressing air defense, such cases are inevitable. Further in your post there are only assumptions, if Russia, etc. and talking about the rockets of the future. I won’t argue, I suggest everyone stay with their own opinion. As a successful and, most importantly, well-planned operation to suppress air defense, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the actions of Israeli aviation in the Bekaa Valley
                      6. 0
                        18 January 2024 18: 46
                        Quote: Uncle_Misha
                        As a successful and, most importantly, well-planned operation to suppress air defense, I propose to familiarize yourself with the actions of Israeli aviation in the Bekaa Valley

                        It won't work nowadays. The air defense is already ready for such tactics. And against ambush tactics (like the Serbs shot down the F-117, and how the Ukrainians recently ambushed our Su-34s) this is generally useless.
                      7. -1
                        18 January 2024 19: 11
                        Reconnaissance, reconnaissance and once again reconnaissance and similar cases will be extremely rare. The launcher is not a needle, you can’t just hide it in a haystack, and similar operations are planned, which means information leakage is possible. Somewhere, something didn’t work for the intelligence officers and we lost airplanes. I think the debriefing has already passed and this will not happen again, at least I really want to believe it.
                      8. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 31
                        Quote: Uncle_Misha
                        Reconnaissance, reconnaissance and more reconnaissance and similar cases will be extremely rare.

                        This is a wish from the category “it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.”

                        Quote: Uncle_Misha
                        The launcher is not a needle, you can’t just hide it in a haystack

                        They hide well. We also somehow hide our equipment, despite all the power of American satellite reconnaissance. But we will not bring our intelligence to such a level any time soon.
                2. -3
                  17 January 2024 19: 03
                  The point of my previous post is precisely that the complete suppression of Ukrainian air defense is necessary

                  We must not suppress air defense, but simply defeat the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and that’s all.
            2. +3
              17 January 2024 13: 18
              Where is the powerful air defense, do we need to force pilots there or something? The drone is smaller and cheaper
          2. 0
            18 January 2024 16: 15
            Did you know that the American MQ-9 Reaper has a Honeywell TPE331 turbofan engine, which allows it to stay in the air for up to 27 hours?
            By relying on a turbojet engine, you gain little except guaranteed higher fuel consumption without a significant increase in speed and altitude characteristics. In addition, you obviously have worse resource indicators.
            The problem is that in Russia there are no serial turbofan engines other than the PS90A; if smaller engines appear, then it will be possible to make drones based on them. And based on the PS90A, it is already possible to make a manned reconnaissance aircraft and a drone with a large bomb load.
            1. 0
              18 January 2024 17: 46
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              Did you know that the American MQ-9 Reaper has a Honeywell TPE331 turbofan engine, which allows it to stay in the air for up to 27 hours?

              It has a completely different purpose. Namely, to hang in the air for a long time where there is no enemy air defense or aviation. If he tries to hang in the air over the LBS in Ukraine for 27 hours, he will be able to do it for about a minute or two.

              And its engine, by the way, is not a turbofan, but a turboprop. An excellent cost-effective option, yes. And a turbojet is more powerful. Fuel consumption is higher, but this is not a problem for the proposed application.

              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              And based on the PS90A, it is already possible to make a manned reconnaissance aircraft and a drone with a large bomb load.

              I can't understand, are you kidding or what? PS-90A itself weighs about 4 tons. About the same as the MQ-9 Reaper you mentioned weighs entirely, with fuel and ammunition.

              It is possible to make a drone with a large bomb load with such an engine, but it will not cost much less than the Su-34, and it will still be shot down with one missile.
              1. 0
                18 January 2024 17: 57
                What kind of jokes are there? There is almost no naval aviation left in Russia. Some authors seriously propose using the SU-25 to combat naval drones. So a large reconnaissance aircraft and a bomber are needed at the same time.
                If the PD-8 appears, it will be possible to make a single-engine aircraft from it, if it does not appear, then the PS90A can be used.
                And with a jet engine there is a ready-made Yak-130. It's much easier to make a drone out of it.
                I was actually wrong about the MQ-9 engine. But it’s not for nothing that they have a carrying capacity of 1700 kg.
                1. 0
                  18 January 2024 18: 19
                  Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                  Some authors seriously propose using the SU-25 to combat naval drones. So a large reconnaissance aircraft and a bomber are needed at the same time.

                  Su-25, then you consider it inappropriate to use. And a drone that is approximately twice as heavy as the Su-25 will be quite normal for the same purposes.
                  1. 0
                    18 January 2024 18: 46
                    The AE 3007H (F137) turbofan engine is equipped with
                    RQ-4 Global Hawk.
                    The SU-25 is unsuitable for maritime patrol and attack for the simple reason that it is no longer produced and is much more needed to support ground forces.
                    So, don’t change concepts.
                    Your focus on a turbojet engine was followed by the North Koreans; they simply do not have a ready-made turbofan engine. They installed a jet on their copy of an American drone.
                    1. 0
                      18 January 2024 18: 56
                      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                      The SU-25 is unsuitable for maritime patrol and attack for the simple reason that it is no longer produced and is much more needed to support ground forces.

                      The drone in question is also not being produced.

                      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                      Your focus on a turbojet engine was followed by the North Koreans; they simply do not have a ready-made turbofan engine.

                      If you want a turbofan on principle, I'm not against it. The author of the article suggests this. But it seems to me that the turbojet R-195 will be cheaper, although it is heavier. It has more thrust and can provide greater load/speed.
                      1. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 13
                        Again, that's not what this is about. If you throw glide bombs from a drone, then you need to throw large bombs, 250, 500, 1500 kilograms. Smaller bombs can be delivered in another way, either using an MLRS with an accelerator like the American 100 kg gliders, or simply using missiles like Caliber and Iskander.
                        Therefore, the drone must also be large in a manned version to save money and must be single-engine. And the manned version must be reliable; reliability can only be ensured by a civilian turbofan engine.
                        Here we can return to the beginning of the discussion and to the question of whether an aircraft with a turbofan engine is fast enough to drop gliding bombs.
                        And about the fact that the drone under discussion is not being produced, but the Yak-130 is being produced, which is already an almost ready-made attack drone, but it cannot be a full-fledged carrier of reconnaissance equipment.
                      2. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 26
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        If you throw glide bombs from a drone, then you need to throw large bombs, 250, 500, 1500 kilograms.

                        Right.

                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Therefore, the drone must also be large... and must be single-engine.

                        That's why I propose installing the R-195. Its thrust should be enough for a combat load of several tons, and even at a decent speed (at least 500 km/h).

                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        And the manned version must be reliable

                        A manned version of a drone is something beyond my comprehension.

                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Reliability can only be ensured by a civilian turbofan engine.

                        It’s strange how all combat aircraft fly without civilian engines.

                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        And about the fact that the drone under discussion is not being produced, but the Yak-130 is being produced, which is now almost a ready-made attack drone

                        It has two engines, which is an unnecessary luxury for a drone.
                      3. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 28
                        Please read carefully. I proposed to create simultaneously unmanned and manned versions. Because there is also a high demand for AWACS aircraft. For this, high reliability and long-term stay in the air are needed.
                      4. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 37
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Because there is also a high demand for AWACS aircraft. For this, high reliability and long-term stay in the air are needed.

                        These are completely different tasks. It’s one thing to transport heavy bombs to the LBS, drop them and return back to the airfield for a new portion. It's another thing to hang in the air and provide reconnaissance for many hours. There is not much point in combining the solution of such problems in one design.

                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        I proposed to create simultaneously unmanned and manned versions.

                        And neither the first nor the second task requires a manned version.
                      5. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 44
                        It makes sense to combine tasks because aircraft, like large drones, are not available, or rather, they are wearing out.
                        And in the USA these tasks are somehow combined, but for some reason it seems incompatible to you. They have reconnaissance drones and at the same time carriers of missile and bomb loads.
                        And early on you bury manned aircraft, including patrol and reconnaissance aircraft.
                      6. 0
                        18 January 2024 19: 54
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        And in the USA these tasks are somehow combined, but for some reason it seems incompatible to you. They have reconnaissance drones and at the same time carriers of missile and bomb loads.

                        Who at the same time? The Hawk you mentioned is purely reconnaissance.

                        The Reaper can conduct optical reconnaissance and can carry ATGMs or light bombs (up to 500 pounds). He will not lift the FAB-1500. And if you hang a pair of FAB-500s, well, maybe it will take off, but very slowly and not very high.
  11. KCA
    +3
    17 January 2024 10: 06
    Grom has never flown before, which one is the carrier of aerial bombs? You should write some thoughts about the use of Hunter, Orion and Sirius, at least they fly
  12. +4
    17 January 2024 10: 55
    The latest development under the code “Hangar” would also not hurt. Shelters for all planes and helicopters at airfields.
  13. Eug
    +1
    17 January 2024 12: 25
    So, is the AI-222-25 already being produced in Russia? It seems they used to release them in Zaporozhye.
    1. 0
      17 January 2024 13: 20
      It’s been a long time since they started moving production back in 2004 to the fireworks
  14. -1
    17 January 2024 13: 40
    The proposed concept is good in one case. If this heavy drone manages to complete combat work during its life, sufficient to justify its cost. The survivability of a drone is several times lower than that of a combat aircraft with a trained pilot, and the cost is quite comparable (it is much easier to talk about a cheap heavy drone with a combat purpose than to create one). But there is an obvious plus - the life of a pilot. And here, no matter how cynical, you have to count. Without having up-to-date military statistics, this is impossible to do. Thunders will undoubtedly be tested in the role proposed by the author, but their effectiveness in this role does not seem indisputable. There are more pitfalls here than meets the eye
    1. +2
      17 January 2024 18: 14
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      The survivability of a drone is several times lower than that of a combat aircraft with a trained pilot.

      Why did it happen? The drone is smaller in size and, purely statistically, fewer fragments will hit it
      1. 0
        18 January 2024 13: 37
        Quote from alexoff
        Why did it happen?

        The pilot can, if necessary, patch up the plane on the fly. Plug the hole in the tank with a chopstick, wrap the fuel line with electrical tape, and twist the broken wires.
        1. 0
          18 January 2024 17: 05
          And if the wing falls off, he can stick his hand out and start waving it violently. It will make it to the airport
  15. 0
    17 January 2024 15: 00
    If about 300 of these drones operate simultaneously under the cover of Su-35 with anti-radar missiles, in a single territory, then you can safely suppress any air defense, the Ukrainians, except for Kiev and the Kiev region, do not have such strong air defense everywhere, and in general, in any case, the future is drones, they can be controlled even by a legless disabled person, that I don’t understand why, with every missile strike, we smear missiles all over Ukraine, why don’t we take out the entire infrastructure in turn, first in the Dnepropetrovsk region, and so on, taking into account the number of missiles and geraniums used, not a single one a single region of Ukraine will not be able to cope with such a raid, and while the air defense is being reloaded, destroy the launchers, and so, in turn, each region will demolish the entire infrastructure to zero
    1. -1
      17 January 2024 17: 22
      Neutralizing the air defense system of Ukraine is a very difficult task, we need pilots, we need planes, we need air defense systems, we need precise work of all types of reconnaissance and the same planning of operations. Perhaps we have certain problems with this, when I read the list of flight and technical aviation schools that have been closed recently, I felt a little sick.
      1. 0
        17 January 2024 18: 19
        Quote: Uncle_Misha
        precise work of all types of reconnaissance and the same planning of operations are necessary

        Everything is bad with this one, especially with the last one. That is, other than gostomel, nothing at all can be called an operation. Air defense can generally be crushed with lancets, geraniums and tornadoes along the entire front line, but somehow in our country each division fights for itself, whoever wants to fights, whoever they want, shoots a missile at
  16. 0
    17 January 2024 22: 08
    This has been written many, many times already.
    And a little better, with calculations.
    And much worse, with clearly unreasonable projects.
    AND? Nothing.
    The once-raised Yaks, for example, did not show themselves at all...
    It says right here - they don’t exist. Just enough for studying..
  17. 0
    18 January 2024 01: 39
    A short excursion, without mathematics, into the length of the “path” of a beautiful model of the next “funderwaffe” at the next forum “Army 20...” to its embodiment in “bronze and marble”, in every linear regiment, battalion, company, platoon, department, suggests that this path will last the life of an entire generation, if this “wunderwaffe” does not have a solid “lobby” in “respectable offices” or solid financial “support” according to the Indian version... Let's wait and see... As they say: “It’s not evening yet.”...
  18. DO
    0
    18 January 2024 02: 12
    I completely agree with the concept outlined in the article.
    However, I have some notes on the paragraph
    Su-34 can be used as radio reconnaissance (RTR), electronic warfare (EW) aircraft and for the destruction of enemy air defense (air defense) systems. To do this, they must be equipped with appropriate suspended RTR and electronic warfare containers, as well as anti-radar missiles (ARM).

    Yes, for emitting reconnaissance systems (suspended container radars Sych, electronic warfare systems), the Su-34 carrier is advisable, which has a chance to evade a long-range enemy missile, and pilots can eject if necessary. By the way, even better than the Su-34, an old Su-27, modernized into a drone, would be suitable as a carrier here - because a drone, in principle, is designed for risky combat missions, and can bring a radar emitting hundreds of kilometers closer to the LBS, for reconnaissance on greater depth of the enemy rear.
    But for passive reconnaissance - in the radio range, in the optical and infrared ranges, long-loitering aircraft-type UAVs are much better suited, which can be, depending on the weight of the reconnaissance equipment, from large (Altius), to medium (Orion) and small.
    A typical target that a radio reconnaissance aircraft must detect is the Ukrainian Armed Forces' air defense radar that is turned on for a short time. Therefore, an anti-radar missile must be launched immediately after detecting a target. However, an aircraft-type reconnaissance UAV cannot withstand heavy long-range anti-radar missiles weighing about half a ton. He should pick up reconnaissance equipment, which includes a heavy antenna for electronic reconnaissance. Therefore, anti-radar missiles must be carried by another aircraft operating in conjunction with a reconnaissance UAV. Which aircraft should carry anti-radar missiles? For the first time, this is, of course, an existing manned fighter, for example, the Su-27/30/35. But in the future, the use of a heavy UAV, for example Altius, with increased carrying capacity, is not excluded.
  19. 0
    18 January 2024 06: 24
    Interesante artículo e interesante , destruir la defensa aérea en su totalidad es algo complejo y quizás imposible pero no por eso deberíamos dejar de intentar al menos destruir lo más posible de sus baterias, siempre he pensado en una bandada de drones geran con algunos modificados con sistemas de radar pasivos para la destrucción del radar guia o mediante ia dotar alguno de estos drones de sistemas de radar activo, pasivo y optico para designar a otros drones este objetivo
  20. 0
    18 January 2024 09: 50
    These are all the author's wet dreams! Only the US MQ-9 Reaper has such a UAV! It carries bombs of the UPMK type weighing up to 500 kg! Creating such a UAV completely from scratch will take at least 5 years! And GROM is generally an empty platform, there are no corresponding electronics on it, nothing!
    1. 0
      18 January 2024 16: 18
      They've already copied it in North Korea. There was already an article about this for you.
      https://topwar.ru/222670-kndr-predstavila-tjazhelye-bpla-sjetbel-4-i-sjetbel-9.html?ysclid=lrj8jk4rue259359008
  21. +1
    18 January 2024 13: 00
    Where is all this on the fronts? Promising, must, supposedly can, planned.... Sick of these expressions!
  22. 0
    18 January 2024 20: 51
    In order for a bomb to plan, a speed of 1500-2500 km/h is needed, so in my opinion this drone is “crap”
    1. 0
      22 January 2024 04: 44
      Quote: mixa7591
      for a bomb to plan, it needs a speed of 1500-2500 km/h

      Where do you get this?

      Here's an American photo. Do you recognize the plane? Does it reach 1500 km/h?


  23. 0
    22 January 2024 11: 20
    "Oh, these storytellers..." When the system, instead of saturating the front with elementary solutions, for the second year hovers in clouds of illusions and dreams, with nothing good, this cannot end, by definition. And, most importantly, it is completely clear why this is happening and will continue to happen. Because 99,9%, LBS has everything...
  24. 0
    22 January 2024 21: 36
    Maybe it’s worth dispersing those who were “sitting”? Why the hell do we need a General Staff if there are people sitting there who are only able to hold parades and compare the tags on the underpants of military personnel with the recommended ones?? Where are the analysts? Who should watch the trends in the development of weapons and tactics of use?? Why do people in Russia ALWAYS remember that it is necessary to rearm the army precisely at the moment of the outbreak of hostilities? And not only to rearm... Every time, like an opening! Oh!....then we frantically catch up...as always.
  25. 0
    23 January 2024 01: 16
    What UAV is Grom? JSC Kronstadt still cannot make simple orions in any tangible quantity. There the prosecutor's office and investigative authorities need to take a serious look at the activities of this organization. It looks like they are engaged in deception and sabotage.
  26. 0
    25 January 2024 08: 10
    "Thunder" over Ukraine:
    promising UAV
    may become the most
    effective carrier
    air bombs with UMPC

    Dreaming is not harmful - it is harmful not to dream!
  27. 0
    26 January 2024 15: 16
    Don’t boast about going to the army, but rather boast about going from the army (c)
    What I mean is that our balabols are fed up with their fairy tales, but reality shows something completely different, alas...
  28. 0
    26 January 2024 22: 47
    Where are these thunders, altiuses, hunters? For how many years they have been talking about them and showing them at exhibitions, but they never existed in the army. And it is not known whether there will be any at all. I recently read that the Americans launched their new long-range bomber B-2023 on the first test flight at the end of 21 and are planning to launch it into series this year. This is who we need to learn from to quickly implement our projects. We still cannot really organize the production of the old Tu-160 and Il-76.
  29. 0
    16 March 2024 06: 16
    Just a mockup?
    How to understand it?
    Will the model fly?
  30. 0
    25 March 2024 16: 46
    "May" is a modal verb. Those. maybe yes, maybe not.
  31. 0
    31 March 2024 16: 19
    The author did not mention one important argument in favor of his position in the article.
    Namely: building an airplane is now much faster than training a high-quality military pilot. Training is expensive, the graduation capacity of existing military schools is limited, and it is not easy to quickly create a number of military schools. Therefore, even having built a larger number of highly specialized aircraft, the command will be faced with a personnel shortage. And the attack drones proposed by the author help circumvent this problem. Although it is certainly necessary to increase the training of pilots, on the other hand, I believe that the Ministry of Defense is aware of this much better than us, and is probably taking some measures.