Product 55: what the new Lancet family UAV is capable of

The ZALA group of companies presented their latest development - a UAV of the Lancet family, called Product 55.

The new kamikaze drone or loitering munition is equipped with four motors and continues the line of devices created according to the X-wing aerodynamic design.

According to the developer, Product 55 is extremely easy to use and safe for the operator. This loitering ammunition is launched from a special container.

The equipment installed on the UAV provides images with Full HD resolution in real time until the target is hit. In this case, the operator has access to the function of selecting the optimal angle of approach to the target.

ZALA representatives note that new technical solutions give the Product 55 an advantage over previous models. In particular, the new Lancet, as the developer claims, is absolutely invulnerable to enemy electronic warfare systems.

It is worth recalling that the previous version, called “Product 53,” which is now actively used by the Russian military in the Northern Military District zone, gained the ability to independently identify a target, capture it and attack it. At the same time, “Product 55”, resistant to electronic warfare, will make Tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns and other equipment of the Ukrainian army are absolutely helpless on the battlefield.

What is important, in addition to the improved version of the Lancet, the ZALA group of companies has also created a special simulator for training operators in data management drone, which should increase the efficiency of its use.

However, recently not only Russian but also foreign media often write about the effectiveness of the work of our Lancets. Data drones-kamikazes became a real nightmare for the equipment and artillery systems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Against the background of the above, special attention is drawn to the plans of the Russian authorities to allocate about 100 billion rubles in the next three years for the creation of drones. As Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov put it, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of FPV drones and dozens of heavy UAVs.

Comments

[Mikhail Ivanov]

Perhaps the Lancet is our most successful development.
Enemies openly admit that they do not know how to fight these weapons!

[Aerodrome]

Product 55: what the new Lancet family UAV is capable of

good thing...how many of them are needed for LBS per thousand km? hundreds and hundreds on all fronts.

[Alexey Lantukh]

how many of them are needed for LBS per thousand km? hundreds and hundreds on all fronts

Of course, the question is quantity.

[I'm mine]

. how many of them are needed for LBS per thousand km?

Exactly as much as ukrov has equipment and artillery. And that's not much. For the rest of geranium and fpv

[Aerodrome]

here's Vital... just don't write without thinking, ok? no one knows anything for sure...(except Roshydromet)

[DO]

Quote: I am mine

. how many of them are needed for LBS per thousand km?

Exactly as much as ukrov has equipment and artillery. And that's not much. ...

Well, that’s if you are guaranteed to hit every piece of equipment with one Lancet. But in reality this is not the case - Lancets are shot down, they may miss or make a cumulative hole in the wrong place on the target, they may not be delivered to the launch site due to the work of enemy drones and artillery.
It is advisable to throw autonomous Lancets into the deep rear of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in order to destroy military cargo vehicles - therefore, it is necessary to consider not only the enemy’s equipment directly at the front, but also vehicles behind enemy lines (diesel locomotives, wagons, trucks, ...). Delivery of autonomous Lancets behind enemy lines is an additional risk of “undershooting” due to the operation of enemy air defenses.
Therefore, the real need for Lancets is two to three orders of magnitude higher than what you calculated here.

[Repellent]

Quote: DO

real need for Lancets by two or three orders of magnitude above

100-1000 times? Exactly?

[DO]

Quote: Repellent

100-1000 times? Exactly?

If you work as autonomous Lancets against mobile targets (military transport), delivered deep behind enemy lines by UAV carriers, then yes. Because enemy equipment and ammunition delivered to deployment sites work and cause considerable losses until their possible destruction by Russian counter-battery weapons. Therefore, the costs of working on the rear transport of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will certainly be justified by a reduction in losses of the RF Armed Forces.

[Repellent]

Quote: DO

If you work with autonomous Lancets on mobile targets (military transport), delivered deep behind enemy lines by UAV carriers

What "UAV carriers"? Excuse me, what are you saying?

You pulled the numbers out of thin air, and the numbers are really moronic. Demagogy as a justification doesn’t work, let’s give statistics on the application (although where will you get it, except from the same finger?), or at least some kind of mathematics, or something...

[DO]

Quote: Repellent

Demagogy as a justification doesn’t work, let’s give statistics on the application (although where will you get it, except from the same finger?), or at least some kind of mathematics, or something...

Dear man, this is an open resource that is read by both sides. Here it is permissible to discuss only obvious sofa-level ideas, and without details.
By the way, where do you get such a burning interest in statistics and mathematics? What if in order to formalize them as a justification for the requirements of the corresponding NATO supplies for the Armed Forces of Ukraine? If so, look elsewhere for simpletons.

[Repellent]

Quote: DO

Here it is permissible to discuss only obvious sofa-level ideas, and without details

Your nonsense about “two or three orders of magnitude” does not apply to ideas. From the word "in general".

Covering up your inability to prove that you are right (or admit that you are wrong) with patriotism is everything. Chatterbox.

[DO]

Quote: Repellent

Your nonsense about “two or three orders of magnitude” does not apply to ideas. From the word "in general". Covering up your inability to prove that you are right (or admit that you are wrong) with patriotism is everything. Chatterbox.

As I noticed, you were very excited by my call to increase the production of Lancets, large and small, by two or three orders of magnitude. And judging by your hysteria, you are not at all a Russian who feels sorry for the sovereign’s money. It looks like you are on the side that these Lancets will fly towards. However, for some reason I don’t even want to sympathize with you.

[DO]

PS
Drones for work in the rear unarmored transport of military cargo of the Armed Forces of Ukraine can be an autonomous version of the small Lancet-1, immobilizing the target. Finish off - with Geraniums (in the future, new long-range drones from ZALA with turbojet engines or internal combustion engines).

[Vlad2012]

If I’m not very mistaken, the record for using Lancets is a little over 140 per month. But on average, maybe 100. At the same time, Donetsk is shelled every day and repeatedly.

[Alex Nevs]

The main thing is to have time to take off your pants, otherwise they will be full. There is no other option. There is only one way out - call Volga. Everything else will be "input".

[nightwolf1991]

Well, not only is it the most successful development) Many of our weapons performed very well on the Northern Military District fronts. The same T-90M and T-80BVM, T-72B3, Ka-52 and MI-28, Caliber, Kinzhal, Iskander missiles, Kornet ATGMs, etc. In general, it’s not for nothing that we preserved our defense industry)

[qQQQ]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

Perhaps the Lancet is our most successful development.

There is one drawback that is common to all kamikaze drones. This is quite a long time between the detection of the target by the scout and the arrival of the Lancet there. During this time, the scout can be shot down, suppressed, and the target will leave. In addition, we need a heavy high-altitude attack drone capable of instantly attacking a target with its weapons.

[DO]

Quote: qqqq

There is one drawback that is common to all kamikaze drones. This is quite a long time between the detection of the target by the scout and the arrival of the Lancet there. During this time, the scout can be shot down, suppressed, and the target will leave. In addition, we need a heavy high-altitude attack drone capable of instantly attacking a target with its weapons.

Medium and heavy returnable attack drones have not taken root in the Northern Military District. For such drones, the ratio of the mass of warhead ammunition to the mass of the carrier is much less than that of a kamikaze drone. Therefore, to carry ammunition that poses a threat to armored vehicles, a reusable attack drone must really be heavy and very visible both on radar and visually. However, the saturation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with modern Western air defense systems and MANPADS nullifies the effectiveness of heavy loitering drones.

The arrival time of autonomous Lancets to the required square can be reduced significantly if a version of the Lancets delivered by MLRS missiles is developed.

[qQQQ]

Quote: DO

However, the saturation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with modern Western air defense systems and MANPADS nullifies the effectiveness of heavy loitering drones.

This is all offset by a systematic approach. We don’t take MANPADS into account, the height is wrong. The problem of air defense missile systems would be solved by the presence of anti-aircraft missile systems in the UAV's ammunition load and (or) aviation support with such missiles. The whole point of heavy UAVs is to immediately react to an emerging target. There is no delay time for transmitting, processing information and launching a kamakaze drone and for its approach to the target. The artillery will not have time to fire off the ammunition, etc.

[DO]

Quote: qqqq

This is all offset by a systematic approach. We don’t take MANPADS into account, it’s not the right height. The problem of air defense missile systems would be solved by the presence of anti-aircraft missile systems in the UAV's ammunition load and (or) aviation support with such missiles.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have not kept their air defense missile systems constantly on for a long time. Using NATO intelligence information, they turn on the SAM radar only to fire. Heavy UAVs are perfectly visible to NATO reconnaissance equipment. Therefore, with the mass approach you propose, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will simply try to fire from the air defense system after the target.
In any case, the approach you mentioned will cost the Russian Armed Forces a number of downed heavy UAVs, which simply is not available in any army in the world. We won’t even talk about manned aviation in this context - we won’t have enough pilots, who are already in short supply.

Quote: qqqq

The whole point of heavy UAVs is to immediately react to an emerging target. There is no delay time for transmitting, processing information and launching a kamakaze drone and for its approach to the target. The artillery will not have time to fire off the ammunition, etc.

The same could be achieved if there were returnable VTOL Lancets used as reconnaissance aircraft. A bonus is the low visibility of the Lancet on radars, unlike a heavy UAV.

[qQQQ]

As for chasing after, it will not work very well when the UAV is operating at a tactical depth, since they are not so close to the LBS. Although the losses would not be small. War in general is an expensive business. Aviation would cover them in the same way as it does now over its territory. The range of the PRR allows. I agree about the Lancets being returned. This option would significantly simplify the maintenance of the CSC and, to some extent, would offset our lack of attack UAVs.

[DO]

Quote: qqqq

As for chasing after shooting, it will not work very well when the UAV is operating at a tactical depth, since they are not so close to the LBS.

Air defense missile systems of the Ukrainian Armed Forces do not stand, but drive. Not so long ago they even risked bringing the Patriot to the LBS, damaging the Russian Il-22 over the Sea of ​​Azov.

Quote: qqqq

Aviation would cover them in the same way as it does now over its territory. The range of the PRR allows.

However, there are still Su-34 losses from the Patriot in an ambush at the LBS, despite the cover you mentioned.

Quote: qqqq

I agree about the Lancets being returned. This option would significantly simplify the maintenance of the CSC and, to some extent, would offset our lack of attack UAVs.

Impact reusable loitering UAVs are good against barmaleys armed only with small arms. But for the Northern Military District, it seems that the command does not order them due to the ineffectiveness of their use against an enemy saturated with modern air defense systems and MANPADS. It was in the conditions of the North-East Military District that the Lancets turned out to be effective against equipment, including economically, compared to other UAVs.

[qQQQ]

Unfortunately, there are no wars without losses. But the air defense problem still needs to be solved and will have to be solved. As for the strikers against the barmalei, I agree, but simple aviation doesn’t seem to be anything either. We don’t have them in the Northern Military District zone more because of the lack of them (prototypes don’t count), and not because of fear of losses. The UAVs themselves are in single copies, and for them the SD is only at exhibitions in the form of a model. In general, I haven’t seen a single example of the use of our strike UAV, although the Armed Forces Baratrayker has shown more than one video, and our air defense is an order of magnitude better, but nevertheless it was used. Although they were knocked out quickly, not a single one of ours showed up. Therefore, the question of their survival is purely theoretical. And so the proposal for a returned Lancet may well, to some extent, replace the drummers.

[DO]

Quote: qqqq

We don’t have them in the Northern Military District zone more because of the lack of them (prototypes don’t count), and not because of fear of losses. The UAVs themselves are in single copies, and for them the SD is only at exhibitions in the form of a model. In general, I haven’t seen a single example of the use of our strike UAV, although the Armed Forces Baratrayker has shown more than one video, and our air defense is an order of magnitude better, but nevertheless it was used. Although they were knocked out quickly, not a single one of ours showed up.

Here, most likely, the logical sequence is very simple. The Ukrainian Bayraktars were easily knocked out at the very beginning of the Northern Military District, so they assumed that our counterparts would knock out in a similar way. And they did not insist on the creation of ours and the purchase of Iranian heavy loitering UAVs. Although Lancets/Scalpels were spent on kamikazes, and also on Geraniums - due to their comparative effectiveness, which was revealed experimentally.
However, heavy loitering UAVs would be very useful for hunting Ukrainian Ukrainian air defense systems, as follows. Take a pair of heavy UAVs like Altius connected by a radio channel. The Sych electronic reconnaissance container is suspended from one, and a pair of anti-radar missiles are suspended from the second. The pair patrols at high altitudes outside the engagement zone of medium-sized air defense systems. As soon as the enemy's radar is turned on, a missile is immediately launched at it. And without such aviation cover, do not approach the LBS. Thus, it is difficult to say how many enemy air defense systems will be exposed and destroyed, but we can confidently assume that fewer of our glide bomb carriers will be lost.

[qQQQ]

Quote: DO

However, heavy loitering UAVs would be very useful for hunting Ukrainian air defense systems

You see, and you have come to the conclusion that heavy attack UAVs would be very useful. They are not a panacea, but every weapon has its own niche, and such pepelats obviously will not be superfluous. And if you approach the issue wisely and creatively...

[DO]

PS
Yes, and as noted on some resources, with the help of heavy loitering UAVs with a container radar (in addition to suspended balloons/airships), it would be possible to quickly close the holes in the air defense radar field of our deep rear areas (around Moscow, for example), through which today malicious Ukrainian kamikaze drones are flying, and cruise missiles cannot be ruled out tomorrow.

[Fluk54]

There was a message that the Ukrainians had made an analogue of our Lancet. I hope our people, when creating this weapon, already have an idea of ​​how to deal with it.

[South Ukrainian]

Without a doubt, the Lancet is an excellent product and, in particular, its noise immunity is a very important function. I want to say that the Lancet is not a cheap ammunition for “special” purposes. And for the vast majority of “simple” drones, a regular FPV drone consisting of a civilian copter and a cheap RPG grenade is suitable.

[Alexey Lantukh]

And for the vast majority of “simple” drones, a regular FPV drone consisting of a civilian copter and a cheap RPG grenade is suitable.

Apparently, the era of conventional FPVs and copters is coming to an end. Electronic warfare will simply crush them.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

Apparently, the era of conventional FPVs and copters is coming to an end. Electronic warfare will simply crush them.

People say: You can’t put a scarf on every mouth! And the military can say: You can’t “throw” an “anti-drone” on every UAV!

[Alexey Lantukh]

You can’t put an “anti-drone” on every UAV!

It is clear that nothing happens 100%, especially in air defense, especially in the battle of technology and, especially in the human factor.

[atos_kin]

loitering ammunition is equipped with four motors

something happens a lot

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: atos_kin

something happens a lot

This is normal for obtaining a vertical take-off and landing UAV (VTOL, tailsitter)! And such “4-engine” UAVs are already being produced... (as well as 6-engine and 8-engine ones...)!

[atos_kin]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

This is normal for obtaining VTOL UAV

So the Lancet doesn’t seem to be a quadcopter, and its landing is worse.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: atos_kin

So the Lancet doesn’t seem to be a quadcopter, and its landing is worse

For the inattentive, I repeat once again (!)!Vertical take-off and landing UAV (VTOL, tailsitter)

[DO]

Nikolaevich I (Vladimir), vertical takeoff and landing can be provided by two pulling counter-directional propellers connected through a gearbox and driven by one electric motor. Equipment (possibly including warheads) that needs to be placed in the head of the drone can be separated from the body of the drone by a thin neck carrying connecting cables, and screws can be placed on the neck through bearings. The drive screw of the gear-gear counter-directional linkage can be driven by an offset electric motor, or from a non-biased motor through another gear connection.
Therefore, it appears that the purpose of introducing four engines instead of one is primarily to improve the maneuverability of the drone, and not just for vertical take-off. Although why the Lancet needs additional maneuverability, against the backdrop of super-maneuverable Chinese quads, is not obvious to me from the sofa.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: DO

vertical takeoff and landing can be provided...

To ensure “vertical takeoff and landing” there are many different designs and designs of UAVs! All this belongs to the VTOL type ("subtype" -Tailsitter) But I especially like the "4-engine" 2X scheme for tailsitters! Although others are not bad!

[Piramidon]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: atos_kin

something happens a lot

This is normal for obtaining a vertical take-off and landing UAV (VTOL, tailsitter)! And such “4-engine” UAVs are already being produced... (as well as 6-engine and 8-engine ones...)!

We are talking about four-engine "Lancets" that take off from guides, and you are talking about something that takes off vertically.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Piramidon

We are talking about four-engine "Lancets" that take off from guides, and you are talking about something that takes off vertically.

I read it...I was surprised by the “guide”! I assumed that this was done to increase: a) speed; b) loads; c) other... I am more impressed by the fact that such a scheme allows you to have a VTOL type UAV, and specifically a tailsitter! That is, without any “guides”! (In any case, I “had this in mind” for a long time for the “Lancets”! You can give an “alternative” as an example...)

[DO]

Nikolaevich I (Vladimir), regarding the Lancet with vertical take-off.
To launch a drone, you need to take it out of a dispersed shelter and place it vertically on the ground in an open place (of course, not in deep mud or snow), and then launch
Disadvantages of launching existing Lancets, which VTOL drones do not have:
1) The Lancet launch guide, detected by a drone, satellite or enemy avax, indicates that the launch position is located here and the Lancets are stored nearby and personnel are working (unless, of course, the launcher serves as a decoy). Wait for the arrival.
2) Powder accelerators are visible to enemy infrared reconnaissance systems and unmask the launch position. If the enemy's launch has been detected, wait for the arrival.
3) At half the range of the potential target from the maximum, the Lancet, having not found anything, can return “home” according to the coordinates stitched into memory.

What you need to pay for vertical take-off:
1) Additional battery consumption, which reduces the range and loitering time of the Lancet compared to the classic version.
2) An increase in engine power, correspondingly an increase in its weight, which will not affect the performance characteristics of the drone for the better.
3) Complication of the design of the drone, therefore, some increase in the cost of its configuration and manufacturing.

Summary
Vertical take-off drones from the ground have a shorter range, but allow you to organize a more secretive position, closer to the LBS.
Vertical take-off and landing drones are more expensive than classic ones, but you can save on returning drones that have not found a suitable target.
You can use a vertical take-off and landing drone as a reconnaissance drone, with the function “if it sees a worthy target, it immediately attacks.”

[Nikolaevich I]

Well... you still often have to live on “compromises”! For, as the Fox said to Antoine de Saint-Exupery, having learned that on the Prince’s planet there are no hunters, but there are no chickens either...: “There is no perfection in the world!”

[I'm mine]

. Against the background of the above, special attention is drawn to the plans of the Russian authorities to allocate about 100 billion rubles in the next three years for the creation of drones

It is worth noting that this is not for purchase. This is for development and capacity expansion. And that's a lot

[Krilion]

sooner or later, the ukrov will have something similar... we need to end this war quickly... before a full-scale nightmare occurs in our armed forces...

[Piramidon]

Quote: Krilion

until a full-scale nightmare came to our Armed Forces..

"Yours", which one? The Ukrainian Armed Forces are already approaching it.

[Carlos Hall]

This weapon surprisingly turned out to be the deadliest on the battlefield.

[MBRSS]

The title does not match the content. What he is capable of is just not told.