The Russian fleet will receive a shipborne version of the kamikaze attack drone

The photo is illustrative

The Ministry of Defense is preparing to adopt a special “ship-based” version of the strike drone-kamikaze, work on drone are at the final stage. According to sources in the military department, the drone can be launched from both ships and boats.

The new ship-borne kamikaze drone is being created to destroy both sea and ground targets; it will be capable of striking boats, including unmanned boats, motor boats used by saboteurs, as well as to support marine units operating on the coast.

According to sources, work on the drone is in its final stages, but there are no details about it. Judging by the publication, it could be something like an FPV drone, although their range is too short for operations at sea. However, we will soon find out everything, since it is planned to put the drone into service as soon as possible. So this fact will not pass by the media.

The main difference between land and sea is that there are no landmarks on the sea surface. And it is very difficult to control flight over water. There’s nothing to grab onto, other navigation is required

- lead "News" words of military expert Dmitry Boltenkov.

It was previously reported that the Zala company has developed a version of the KUB-BLA kamikaze attack drone for use at sea. This modification of high-precision loitering ammunition is specially designed for use from naval platforms, including even small landing assault boats. It was planned that with the help of such drones the fleet would be able to launch high-precision strikes against sea and ground targets, for the destruction of which the use of ship-based missiles would be redundant.

Comments

[Ross xnumx]

it will be capable of striking at boats, including unmanned boats, and motor boats used by saboteurs,

An excellent response to the Nazi BECs.
Just now I showed a factory where there are dozens of these UAVs, ready for use...

[neworange88]

We invented a drone with anti-tank systems.

Western experts discovered a unique Russian drone in the Northern Military District zone, which is absolutely insensitive to Ukrainian jammers. Forbes writes that it was discovered attack FPV drone, which has a completely new technology to overcome radio interference: it has no radio, but it communicates with the operator via a fiber-optic cable that is unwound during flight. In addition to a conventional warhead, the kamikaze drone carries a plastic container in which a spool of fiber-optic cable is wound. It is connected to an optical transceiver used for high-speed communications. The marking on the reel states that it contains 10 km of cable.

Photos of the drone caused a real storm on Ukrainian social networks. Ukrainians simply could not believe that such technology was so reliable. However, they have previously been used for other weapons. Let's say that NATO supplied the Ukrainian Armed Forces with thousands of TOW-2 missiles.

In the early 2000s, the American defense agency DARPA developed a kamikaze drone with an exploding warhead as part of the Close Combat Lethal Recon program. However, NATO also abandoned it in favor of radio control.

Forbes writes that Russian military engineers have now taken the technology that NATO abandoned, improved it and successfully applied it. And, importantly, UAV "Product 55", which is controlled via a fiber-optic cable, is the product of one of many small Russian companies working to develop drones using commercial components. “These drones range widely, from thermal imaging drones to drones that “hibernate” for weeks waiting to be activated, to long-range communications repeaters,” Forbes writes .In fact, “Product 55” means a revolution in the creation of drones: now Russian drones are completely insensitive to jamming, spoofing or interference with radio signals. Ukrainian electronic warfare is no longer operational.

https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/407743/

[Mikhail Ivanov]

It was high time to take care of this. There was an analysis about the materials from which the Ukrainian makes BECs, they are thin metal. Perhaps the most effective means of combating these FPV boats are drones, which can hit them at a distance from the ship’s moorings. We need competent reconnaissance, training of sailors, and the availability of weapons.
Yesterday there was news that Evmenov was kicked out... If this is true, then maybe something will really begin to change... Half of the Black Sea Fleet had to be drowned in order for him to be removed.

[neworange88]

They write that Moiseev, a submariner, was appointed acting.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

I know. What is more important is that Evmenov was removed; he was a rare mediocrity and a corrupt official.

[Goto]

Where does the information come from? Any links?

[Mikhail Ivanov]

Published by Boris Rozhin and military correspondent Yuri Kotenok, these are reliable sources.

[Vitov]

Guys, why does a goat need an accordion? This drone is designed to destroy slow-moving targets whose coordinates have been previously scouted.
Reconnaissance using a UAV, moreover, the latter ensures the withdrawal of the Drone to the target area. We have problems protecting our ships. It is necessary to modify the "Thor" or "Pantsir" so that they fire as air defense and at surface targets...

[neworange88]

Well then, the ground-based Hermes comes to mind, by the way, there is also a ship-based version of it. Its missiles are actually created on the basis of missiles from the Pantsir-S. Another question is how it will work against BECs. Now the ground-based Hermes should already be tested in the North-East Military District zone.

[Kotofeich]

Quote from: neworange88

Another question is how it will work on BECs.

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to use a laser on ships to combat BECs. You don’t need a lot of power, it’s enough to burn out the camera matrix, and only then the blinded BEC can be slowly destroyed. The only problem is with detection and targeting.

[smart_ups]

And the idea is interesting. Something like a curtain can help, just like on tanks. Not to burn out, but definitely to blind.

[Piramidon]

If an attacking drone is detected, then it is better to immediately shoot at it with cannons than to fence the garden with lasers (blind them and then destroy them with the same guns), and lasers have great limitations due to weather conditions. A little haze, which is not uncommon over the sea, and the laser will be ineffective.

[Alex777]

The attacking BEC, by itself, comes in a cloud of water spray...

[Kotofeich]

Quote: Alex777

The attacking BEC, by itself, comes in a cloud of water spray...

BEC is a boat, get rid of all the splashes. Watch the video from BEC. Doesn't the splash interfere with the camera?

[Kotofeich]

Quote: Piramidon

then it’s better to immediately shoot at him with cannons

From the series: “I boiled, I’m boiling, and I’ll boil.” For some reason, guns don’t help much. The BEC is a very small and maneuverable target, the gun cannot keep up.

[bayard]

Quote: Kotofeich

The BEC is a very small and maneuverable target, the gun cannot keep up.

Maybe try ATGMs? Since the guns miss and/or don’t have time.
But the question remains about timely detection. We need UAVs with good optics and a thermal imaging channel. Detect them by their wake and immediately hit them with ATGMs on their own gimbals. "Orion" (aka "Pacer") would be quite suitable for this.
And for a reliable communication channel use... STARLINK - its terminals are freely available all over the world and its network coverage is valid over the World Cup. Well, since you don’t have yours yet.

[Alex777]

Quote from: neworange88

Another question is how it will work on BECs.

With BECs, the question is that before “working out” they need to be detected somehow. In advance. Do you have information on this topic?

[Piramidon]

Quote: Alex777

With BECs, the question is that before “working out” they need to be detected somehow.

Don't radars respond to them?

[Alex777]

Millimeter radars have strong illumination from the surface of the water.
Therefore, we had to install a centimeter on the Pantsir-M.
The interception of anti-ship missiles at 5m from the surface seems to have been ensured, but then the target is not in the air, but must be detected on the surface of the water? The EPR of the BEC is minimal.
And then you also need to aim a missile at him. A separate task.
I don't know if we can do it all? That's why I'm asking.
As for me, optics should be used here. And NVG is a must.
As far as I know, there were no night vision devices on the ships. According to the charter it is not allowed.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

As for me, optics should be used here. And NVG is a must.

We need a heavy/medium UAV with a good OLS and a thermal imaging channel. And ATGMs on suspensions - for independent and immediate destruction immediately after detection and identification. Orion could become one of these.
on his back is the antenna of the STARLINK terminal (they are freely sold around the world) and - for patrolling in several echelons.
So yes - only optics.
For naval artillery systems, when reflecting, it would be good to use shells with remote detonation. And in addition to machine guns on the pedestals on the sides, also install ATGMs with a good heat pack. Maybe it will be possible to hit them faster with ATGMs.
Well, try to mold their optics with a laser (this has already been written about here).
But early detection is only through optics, and only from a UAV.
And while you don’t have your own STARLINK, take it from Musk. And don't be shy.
He will even feel pleased.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote from: neworange88

We invented a drone with anti-tank systems.

With such a range of destruction (10 km), the operator still has at least 5 and a half minutes to defeat...
No one has canceled duty on the ship, nor has the ability to automatically target a target... In any case, they are more effective than machine guns and heavy machine guns.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote from: neworange88

https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/407743/

The free press talked a lot of nonsense in this article! The article keeps confusing “a fork with a bottle”! For example, they “compare” the control of ammunition via fiber-optic communication lines (potentially, control (guidance) is possible over tens of kilometers using optoelectronics...) and control (guidance) of anti-tank guns at a distance of up to several kilometers via metal wires! By wires that were used, for example, in the "Little Red Riding Hood" missile in the forties or SS-10 in the fifties of the last century! The article mentions the American development of a fiber-optic guided missile! But outside of Russia (USSR) they worked on this concept in many countries, except the USA, seriously and they had more results! American FOG-M, Brazilian FOG-MРМ, Serbian ALAS, Israeli Spikes, Franco-German "Polyphemus" .. .(For "Polyphemus" they were going to develop control via fiber optic communication lines up to 60 km! But control (guidance) via fiber optic communication lines was actually tested at 10-30 km!) So the statement that Russian military engineers have now taken technology that NATO had abandoned, refined it, and applied it successfully. , to put it mildly, is not true! By the way, speaking about missiles with fiber-optic communication lines, it should be mentioned that UAVs controlled via fiber-optic communication lines were also developed and designed!

[odometer]

The answer is so-so. They say there are difficulties with navigation. Quite a promising development.

[Voronezh]

Well, of course, the difficulties at sea are due to the lack of landmarks.....And as soon as the ships find their way there, everyone seems to get lost....

[Aerodrome]

first you need the eyes...then the club.

[Alex777]

Quote: Aerodrome

first you need the eyes...then the club.

100%

[odometer]

Experts write. Are you an expert too?

[Voronezh]

If this is a question for me, then I am not an expert. I am a naval navigator in the distant past.

[odometer]

Yes, there was a question for you. And as a navigator, I ask, are the controls of a drone and a ship different?

[Voronezh]

Having experience as the head of a helicopter launch post, we have had this happen, and taking into account the new capabilities of the technology, I can confidently say that I see no problems with launching the drone to the desired point

[Pioneer1984]

This is, of course, good. But is it not possible, first, to get sane ships into the fleet, and not like what is being built for the Black Sea Fleet now? Although it is clear that now the fleet is not the most important thing.

[dummy]

It was long overdue. Not every frigate carries a helicopter, but here you will have such excellent situational awareness. And the defeat of any sabotage bullshit will be more effective.

[solar]

Not every drone is suitable for improving a ship's situational awareness. Wind over the sea is a common occurrence. And the range required is quite large, like for a drone.

[Fluoride11]

It seems to me that it is much easier to train a neural network to identify and hit any objects on water than on land. No natural obstacles. It is not clear why this did not appear in two years, but only now.

[Hariton]

More likely for ground targets, to support the landing. At night, the operator cannot distinguish the sky from the sea.

[alexoff]

In the navy, it would be better if they took care of reconnaissance drones, otherwise reconnaissance there seems to be at the level of a sailboat, where a sailor with a telescope sits on the highest mast.

[Smoked]

Grandfathers used optics, Ka-29 and PFAR and bequeathed them to us. Who are you to exchange this for swarms of drones and AFAR?!

[alexoff]

Apparently our grandfather’s inheritance is not enough for everyone, and we don’t need our new one. The grandchildren will carry on their great-great-grandfather’s

[wladimirjankov]

The main difference between land and sea is that there are no landmarks on the sea surface. And it is very difficult to control flight over water. There’s nothing to grab onto, other navigation is required

For some reason, the sea does not prevent the Nazi BEC from passing 300 km from Odessa to the Kerch Strait, finding our ships there at night and attacking them. Or their KR Neptune can also find our flagship Moscow at night in the open sea and sink it.

[Piramidon]

Quote: wladimirjankov

For some reason, the sea does not prevent the Nazi BEC from passing 300 km from Odessa to the Kerch Strait, finding our ships there at night and attacking them.

But it’s okay that the NATO satellite constellation works on them together with reconnaissance aircraft and UAVs

[Maxim]

I think it must be a new lancet from the launch container. Doesn't take up much space, no catapult needed for launch

[Arkady007]

Honestly, I don’t understand why it’s only now starting to dawn on sailors that they need drones to fight BECs.

[zxc15682]

We need reconnaissance drones, repeaters, and ships can be coated with machine guns.

[nightwolf1991]

Well, that’s already good! It's a pity we didn't do this before, but it's still good