“Izdeliye-53”: how the Lancet UAV has changed, taking into account the experience of its use in combat operations in Ukraine

During the SVO in Ukraine, the Russian army uses advanced weapons systems. At the same time, the latter are constantly being improved based on the experience gained during battles.

Thus, one of the real discoveries of the current special operation was the Russian kamikaze UAV “Lancet” from ZALA (part of the Kalashnikov concern). This loitering munition created huge problems for the manpower and equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Meanwhile version drone Lancet 3 did have its drawbacks. In particular, low armor penetration and frequent failure of the fuse.

In the new drone ZALA “Izdeliye-53” or Z-53 all these shortcomings were eliminated. So how has the Russian kamikaze drone changed given the experience of its use in combat operations in Ukraine?

Among the external differences, it is worth noting the four large wings at the front, which, unlike previous versions of the Lancet, do not have an X-shaped configuration, but are installed at an angle of 45 degrees.

But the main highlight of the Z-53, of course, is the filling. After all, one of the main advantages of this drone is the automatic guidance system, which allows the kamikaze drone to recognize and hit a target with minimal, or even no operator intervention.

The UAV launch system has also changed. Now it is produced not through pneumatic guides, but from compact launchers that resemble a mortar and do not require assembly directly on the battlefield.

Finally, regarding the correction of the above-mentioned shortcomings of Lancet-3. The Z-53 received increased armor penetration due to the optimal focal length and shape of the cumulative funnel, as well as an improved fuse with the ability to remotely detonate the warhead.

Comments

[kind]

Modernization for good, this is the main thing!!!

[Nikolaevich I]

The Lancet is also interesting in “product 55”! True, having learned from a message that this was a “product” with 4 motors on the wings, I assumed that it was a “vertical”; I've been imagining this option for a long time! But it turned out to be “somewhat” wrong, but with control via fiber optic communication lines (10 km)! (By the way, in the “wild West” prototypes were created with control via fiber-optic communication lines up to 15-30 km! The French swore by their mother that they would make their “Polyphemus” with fiber-optic communication lines up to 60 km, but they didn’t! They made excuses that it had become unfashionable! The Serbs reported about the adoption of an aircraft missile with a 25-km fiber-optic link, but I have not monitored the situation with this missile for a long time. I will not mention the Jews...). And finally, at the end of the last century, the magazine “Foreign Military Review” more than once mentioned UAVs controlled by fiber-optic communication lines as a possible “trend” of the near future!

[Nikolaevich I]

PS Perhaps NATO members have become disillusioned with fiber-optic control of “long-range” missiles due to insufficient reliability! But things should be better with UAVs! So, maybe we’ll “hear” about “fiber optic drones” with a distance of up to 30 km, or even up to 60 km... and maybe more!

[the same doctor]

Loitering ammunition is good. But they are expensive, few in number and therefore ineffective.
The Army does not have enough guided munitions to hit targets that are within sight of the frontline fighter. These kind of simplified ATGMs with an enlarged high-explosive warhead, launched from disposable launchers from a trench or fold of terrain without the presence of personnel nearby...
.
They should be produced not instead of lancets, but in addition to them. And they will be cheaper, because they don’t need optics.
.
In the meantime, we need to clear out all the old ATGMs from warehouses and give the order to use them without sparing. One ukro-head for one ATGM is considered an acceptable result.