Military Review

Perspective and mysterious drone "Altius-M"

48
It is no secret that our country lags behind the leading states of the world in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles. In order to reduce this backlog, in recent years several projects have been launched, the purpose of which is to create UAVs of various classes and for various purposes. Some time ago it became known that among the promising UAVs there will be some experimental device with a long range. The first information about this project appeared in 2011 year.




A little more detailed information on the Altius-M project began to come in early February of the current 2013. During the visit of Minister of Defense S. Shoigu to Kazan aviation The production association, among other exhibits, demonstrated a model of a promising unmanned vehicle. Almost immediately it became known that it was created in accordance with the current status of the Altius-M project. Then, in a number of sources, approximate information about the new UAV appeared. Unfortunately, there is little data so far, but some conclusions can be drawn from them.

Back in the fall of 2011, a joint project of the Kazan design bureau Sokol and the St. Petersburg-based Transas company called Altius-M won the competition of the Ministry of Defense. He was able to circumvent a similar project of the Russian Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation "MiG". The projects submitted to the competition had similar parameters: take-off weight of up to five tons, the possibility of carrying a certain amount of payload, as well as a long range. The exact characteristics of the UAVs of both projects were not reported, but from the results of the competition it follows that the military recognized the apparatus from Sokol and Tranzas more interesting. According to the results of a competitive comparison, Kazan and St. Petersburg organizations received a contract for one billion rubles, the purpose of which is to complete the development. In addition, prior to 2014-15, the Falcon must build and fly the first Altius-M prototype.

Available information on the requirements of a relatively long range is fully confirmed by the appearance of the new drone. It has a relatively short fuselage, as well as a high wing of high elongation and low sweep. In the tail section of the Altius-M, a V-shaped tail assembly is installed, the two rudders of which are used for pitch and yaw control at the same time. Due to the insufficient quality of photographic materials, it is difficult to speak about the design of ailerons and other wing mechanization. Therefore, for the time being it is necessary to limit oneself to only assumptions: two aileron on the wing consoles and a “clean” center wing. Due to the large lengthening of the wing of the drone, apparently, may not need the means to increase lift.

Interesting power plant of the new UAV. It consists of two turboprop engines located on the center section. Obviously, when choosing such a power plant, several goals were pursued. First, ensuring relatively low fuel consumption (compared to turbojet engines), and secondly, sufficient thrust. In addition, the use of two engines on the wing instead of one in the fuselage may indicate measures taken to reduce vibrations transmitted to the target equipment of an unmanned aerial vehicle, or the banal impossibility of simultaneously entering a power plant and electronics into the fuselage volume. One way or another, this arrangement has its advantages. This is the already mentioned isolation of equipment from vibrations, as well as smaller propellers in comparison with a screw of one engine, the power of which is equivalent to the two used. In this case, you can achieve some weight and overall savings on chassis units.

As for the control systems and target equipment of the Altius-M UAV, almost nothing is known so far. At the stage of completion of the competition, it was said that a number of systems would be unified with a lighter (take-off weight of about one ton) the Pacer, the UAV created by the Sokol design bureau. It is difficult to speak about the target equipment for the reason that it has not yet been announced what the five-ton apparatus is intended for. Judging by the appearance, he must perform reconnaissance tasks, patrolling at a relatively high altitude. This assumption is also supported by the requirement of long range and, as a consequence, the duration of the flight. Thus, as a result, Altius-M can get a stabilized platform for an optical-electronic system and related equipment.

It is worth noting there is another opinion. So, “Vedomosti” quotes an expert in the field of UAVs D. Fedutinov. In his opinion, the main purpose of the Altius-M is to strike at ground targets, which makes it in some way a competitor of foreign cars like the MQ-1 Predator or the MQ-9 Reaper. In this case, in addition to the reconnaissance equipment, the unmanned vehicle will receive a number of means intended for carrying and using weapons. Thus, the payload issue may come to the fore. For example, the American reconnaissance-impact UAV MQ-9 Reaper with a maximum take-off weight per 4700-4800 kilogram can carry over one and a half tons of weapons. What and in what quantity will carry the shock "Altius-M" - is still unknown.

And yet it is still too early to talk about the combat load or the intelligence capabilities of the new drone. At the moment, it seems to exist only in the form of design documentation and one or several layouts. Flight tests will start at least in the 2014 year, which means that the assembly of the first prototype has not even started yet. Moreover, according to the terms of the contract, Transas and Sokol companies should, by the deadline, build and lift into the air only a prototype and technology demonstrator. This nuance of the agreement transparently hints at the fact that, in its current form, Altius-M is just a kind of trial platform designed for the installation of targeted equipment. Perhaps, the customer will decide on the specific composition of the latter only after the first tests, if, of course, the characteristics and prospects of the new UAV will suit him.


On the materials of the sites:
http://lenta.ru/
http://vedomosti.ru/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://okb-sokol.ru/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-719.html
Author:
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 18 March 2013 07: 58 New
    +5
    I don’t understand why I’m fooling around with new gliders; in Russia a sea of ​​data has been accumulated in the construction of aircraft. what is a drone remotely controlled aircraft, and why then take the liberty to take any promising aircraft to install control electronics in it. I can’t understand why come up with problems where they don’t exist, although there seems to be one reason, budget money, because not only millions, but even billions can be squeezed out of the budget for the development of a drone. and create a mediocre apparatus
    1. seed
      seed 18 March 2013 08: 53 New
      +7
      Apparently there are differences in the glider, if in other countries all drones are not made on the basis of existing aircraft. The drone does not need to twist dead loops and barrels. No need to dive with large angles and overloads.
      And about the billions. It’s not free for people to work as before “on instructions from the party and the Soviet state.”
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 18 March 2013 10: 49 New
        +5
        Of course, based on the concept that a drone is a one-time aircraft, you can agree with you. flew bombed and flew away if allowed. Only this can happen in Afghanistan or elsewhere, under normal combat conditions, such a plane, with permission, will be shot down very quickly. If we already make a remotely controlled strike aircraft, then it should be a normal combat aircraft and not a target with a bomb load. for millions. As before, people worked not for you to judge, but worked better than now and much
        1. seed
          seed 18 March 2013 11: 14 New
          +9
          "As before, people worked not for you to judge"

          How people used to work, I know. And in the defense industry too. Managed to work in Soviet times. I can judge, not a boy. So you are wrong.

          "but they worked better than now and much more"

          And here they are right.

          I will not argue about the glider and generally the characteristics of the drone, not a specialist. All knowledge from Paralaya. I sincerely want our UAV to fly like PAK FA and also embroider with a cross. But you yourself know that any technique is a bunch of compromises to achieve those. tasks.
    2. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 18 March 2013 10: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: vladsolo56
      I don’t understand why I’m fooling around with new gliders; in Russia a sea of ​​data has been accumulated in the construction of aircraft. what is a drone remotely controlled aircraft, and why then take the liberty to take any promising aircraft to install control electronics in it.


      Yeah, and get an absolutely unnecessary complex with disastrous characteristics. And what platform do you plan to use, for example, if we make an analogue of RQ-4? Let’s take the M-55 glider. It is necessary to put a satellite communications antenna - the midsection is increasing, balancing crawls and other "joys". It’s easier and cheaper to make a new glider, using modern technologies.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 18 March 2013 11: 04 New
        +1
        As it is known in aviation, a glider is called not only sports models without an engine, but also any design of any aircraft without an engine, for a simple airplane body there is a glider. So, you can take as a basis any combat attack aircraft or a bomb carrier, install a remote control on it to carry out modernization by using the space of the cockpit.
        1. Zerstorer
          Zerstorer 18 March 2013 12: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: vladsolo56
          As it is known in aviation, a glider is called not only sports models without an engine, but also any design of any aircraft without an engine, for a simple airplane body there is a glider. So, you can take as a basis any combat attack aircraft or a bomb carrier, install a remote control on it to carry out modernization by using the space of the cockpit.

          I will say it again. Too much revision of the manned version into unmanned. It’s easier and ultimately cheaper to create a new glider. And the cost of developing a new airframe is not as sky-high as it seems. There, not only the control system is being finalized.
          I don’t understand the concept of an impact UAV. They cannot replace the attack aircraft yet. You can certainly try to break into the niche of a fighter-bomber - but these are different speeds. At one time, shock UAVs were positioned to strike at previously explored and well-defended targets. BUT (!) This task is cheaper to perform with cruise missiles.
          1. Tourist Breakfast
            Tourist Breakfast 18 March 2013 16: 25 New
            +1
            I don’t understand the concept of an impact UAV. They cannot replace the attack aircraft yet. You can certainly try to break into the niche of a fighter-bomber - but these are different speeds. At one time, shock UAVs were positioned to strike at previously explored and well-defended targets. BUT (!) This task is cheaper to perform with cruise missiles.


            Impact UAVs can be in the air much longer than the CR or manned aircraft. This is their main plus.
    3. Suhov
      Suhov 18 March 2013 11: 06 New
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      what is a drone remotely controlled aircraft, and why then take the liberty to take any promising aircraft to install control electronics in it

      All right. But the problem is the lack of an element base, in particular microelectronics.
      The Union did not manage to solve this problem. But in modern Russia - it was not before that.
      Remember the joke. Ours made a copy of the American chip. But the American microcircuit had 16 legs and ours had 20. Where did the 4 extra legs come from? In order for our chip to be portable.
      It is necessary to create a modern production of microelectronics. It is necessary to solve this problem here and now, otherwise we will rest against it constantly.
      1. Justme
        Justme 18 March 2013 18: 54 New
        +1
        Like it or not - but in the center of a modern airplane there is a man, hence the size of the glider comes to some extent, and the fact that the value of the aircraft is linked to the life value of the pilot ...
        At the drone - everything is possible there differently ..
        As a developer, I can’t stand it when I have to “dance” from something old (albeit in my own good) and inadequate to the current task ..

        And now the most important thing is to build up experience, develop special mathematics for managing such systems ..
        The next design iteration should go immediately after one design iteration ...

        At the expense of chips - there is no need to bathe and portray super-pride.
        It is trivial to take Automotive gradation processors (which is very close in characteristics to Military) from behind a hillock and do this ..
        Now it costs a penny ...
        And tomorrow, the technology of these processors will cost a penny ..
  2. Castor oil
    Castor oil 18 March 2013 08: 19 New
    +4
    An excellent school of aircraft modeling was created in the USSR and then continues to develop in Russia, so much has been accumulated there, so it’s interesting whether this experience is used or not, otherwise the billionth pushing into a “pure field” begins again.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 18 March 2013 15: 19 New
      +1
      Small domestic drones are actually 1 in 1 combat vehicles :)
  3. JonnyT
    JonnyT 18 March 2013 08: 58 New
    -3
    The mythical miracle of technology will not pull mythical money! They don’t want to follow the path of the least costs using an already prepared base, they want to collect from scratch with huge costs ....... It seems like a drain of money from the budget
  4. Apollo
    Apollo 18 March 2013 09: 04 New
    +1
    The Russian military-industrial complex has a unique chance, without investing a lot of money, to create a fundamentally new UAV. Why go down the beaten path, why reinvent the wheel.?!
    UAVs have long been created, the creation of analog UAVs is useless, an extra waste of money, but the creation of a fundamentally new economical, armed and more cost-effective UAV is possible and necessary.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 18 March 2013 10: 26 New
      +6
      Quote: Apollon
      UAVs have long been created, the creation of analog UAVs is useless, an extra waste of money, but the creation of a fundamentally new economical, armed and more cost-effective UAV is possible and necessary.


      Here, the main task facing our scientists and designers is not glider and armament, but actually creation completely autonomous UAV. . that is, one that is able to be controlled not only remotely as modern acting analogs but completely automatically out of touch with the base station, in almost any weather conditions. It’s precisely this way of UAV control that is currently the most demanded by unmanned system operators, since makes the least demands on personnel training and ensures the safe and efficient operation of unmanned aerial vehicle systems.
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 18 March 2013 10: 52 New
        +2
        Quote: Ascetic
        Here, the main task facing our scientists and designers is not glider and armament, but actually the creation of a fully autonomous UAV.


        1) The task is to create a complex, and not its separate part or property.

        2) Reconnaissance UAV must transmit information in real time. Therefore, we need a decent satellite constellation to organize this transmission of information. Otherwise, the range over which the transfer of information can be organized will not be very large. And communication should also be provided for the possibility of changing the flight route. so the UAV is not so autonomous.

        3) If we are talking about the strike version, then the detection and recognition of the target should be provided. While each infantryman and civilian are not equipped with their own or someone else's defendants, questions arise about the automatic (without operator intervention) destruction of targets.
        1. seed
          seed 18 March 2013 11: 21 New
          0
          I am grateful for the decoding of the amount of work to create a UAV. And then something rested - a glider, a glider.
        2. Suhov
          Suhov 18 March 2013 14: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Zerstorer
          When it comes to the shock version

          I would like to add. No matter how autonomous the UAV is, he must know, always hear and unquestioningly execute the command: - Fu! laughing
          1. crambol
            crambol 18 March 2013 16: 19 New
            +2
            implicitly execute the command: - Fu!


            And also FAS!
      2. Suhov
        Suhov 18 March 2013 14: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Ascetic
        creation of a fully autonomous UAV.

        Shock autonomous UAV? belay
        Recently, just such an pepelats flew over Chelyabinsk - unmanned, shock and autonomous. wassat
        Or shock - or standalone. hi
        1. Zerstorer
          Zerstorer 18 March 2013 14: 25 New
          0
          Quote: Sukhov
          Recently, just such an pepelats flew over Chelyabinsk - unmanned, shock and autonomous.

          And according to the plan, it should be 10 times more and will land in the United States.
  5. Backbone
    Backbone 18 March 2013 09: 07 New
    +1
    Behind specifically. Flight tests will begin only in the year 14. This is despite the fact that many countries already have working apparatuses. In order not to be in the role of a chasing one, you need to reconsider those decisions that took shape to please someone on the shelf.
  6. fenix57
    fenix57 18 March 2013 09: 11 New
    0
    Quote: vladsolo56
    not only millions, but even billions can be squeezed out of the budget. and create a mediocre apparatus

    And “successfully” mastering them is alarming. hi
    1. seed
      seed 18 March 2013 11: 31 New
      0
      And “successfully” mastering them is alarming.


      Who knows how much it costs to develop and create a flight model. If less than a billion, then the residues are likely to be "mastered" by the manufacturer. Practice shows (for example, F-35) that the cost of new developments grows with time
  7. Alikovo
    Alikovo 18 March 2013 10: 41 New
    0
    50-100 shock drones will be enough.
  8. Megadan
    Megadan 18 March 2013 10: 56 New
    0
    The largest U.S. UAV trade association (AUVSI) released a study last Tuesday that says drones could create about 70 jobs in the US over the next three years and drive $ 000 billion into the economy.
    These rather pathetic statements come amid widespread debate in the United States over the Obama administration’s plans to allow the use of drones in the United States.
    I am sure that discussing whether UAVs are needed or not is already pointless. Ammunition drones are definitely needed, and the larger the range, the better.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_dnU-tF-Ps
  9. Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 18 March 2013 10: 57 New
    +2
    It was smooth on paper, but ravines tortured! This is not the first project around which there is a lot of noise, but on the "exhaust" what? They will master the money, but will this device be? It is enough to recall the t-90s, BTR-90, etc., they proudly exist in a single copy! Somehow our hookers didn’t really like it, it’s cheaper to send old ones for thorough repairs! And remember the Yak-144, which has no analogues in the world, has already rotted in the territory of the plant, which is useless to anyone! angry
  10. Kazbek
    Kazbek 18 March 2013 11: 01 New
    +2
    The Buran landed automatically than not a drone.
    1. seed
      seed 18 March 2013 11: 25 New
      0
      From space, of course, further visible. But damn it, run it every time ...
      1. seed
        seed 18 March 2013 11: 47 New
        +7
        Launch of the Russian UAV "Buran"
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 18 March 2013 13: 43 New
          +6
          Soviet *
          1. seed
            seed 19 March 2013 10: 31 New
            0
            Yes, I know that the Soviet.
            Kazbek proposed Buran as the new Russian UAV. Well, I pinned. wink
            1. Phantom Revolution
              Phantom Revolution 19 March 2013 23: 28 New
              +1
              I already imagined how the border guards will launch them at their outposts)
  11. lechatormosis
    lechatormosis 18 March 2013 13: 26 New
    +3
    OUR main problem is lagging behind the stupidity of political leadership.
  12. Astartes
    Astartes 18 March 2013 15: 20 New
    0
    I’m wondering, do drones create because it is possible or because they have developed their place in the military command system ?? Something I did not hear about the new tactics of the troops using UAVs. But in it lie great prospects. It’s easier to develop for specific tasks and equipment.
  13. abc_alex
    abc_alex 18 March 2013 15: 31 New
    +3
    But we have such an pepelats - the Yak-130. Training aircraft, it’s a light attack aircraft. His trick is that his control is more computerized than other machines, since he must imitate the behavior of other aircraft in flight. So, on its basis (though with a 60% modification), Yakovlev Design Bureau offers UAVs.

    What does a reputable community think on this subject?
    1. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 18 March 2013 16: 32 New
      0
      For strike and reconnaissance UAVs, there are certain requirements in terms of low visibility and flight duration. It is unlikely that these requirements can be met on the basis of a reactive UBS.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 19 March 2013 15: 31 New
        0
        Visit the website of Yakovlev Design Bureau. Glider promising UAV based on the Yak-130 is very different from the plane. This is a deltoid flying wing. Accordingly, there will be low radio detectability even if exposed from below.
    2. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 19 March 2013 05: 08 New
      0
      This is exactly what I wrote about, a little revision and the attack plane is ready. Someone claimed that we do not have electronic filling, so this is a fallacy, in Belarus there is a fairly strong industrial base for this, because we don’t need a thousand drones, at least for now. And even our electronics are capable of creating even a couple of hundred computers, and as for software, this is generally an empty question.
  14. crambol
    crambol 18 March 2013 16: 24 New
    +1
    long-range experimental apparatus


    A very large lengthening of the wing suggests that in the photograph presented a model of a long-range high-altitude reconnaissance. Colleagues, what is your opinion?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 March 2013 22: 29 New
      0
      Not necessarily far. And not necessarily a scout. This is a device with a high flight duration. And how to apply it is up to the customer. it can be repeaters, reconnaissance devices, AWACS devices, radio reconnaissance, etc.
  15. fzr1000
    fzr1000 18 March 2013 21: 09 New
    0
    A small UAV "Seeker" adopted or not?
  16. Appiann
    Appiann 18 March 2013 22: 09 New
    0
    Probably the main function of UAVs in a military conflict will be an air defense breakthrough, which is associated with large losses. Therefore, their price should be minimal, with enough (but not more) functionality to destroy air defense systems. Whether it is advisable to remodel old planes and helicopters into such UAVs or to create based on the models used can very well be.
    On the other hand, if “peacetime” UAVs are being created, it is necessary to have an expensive and as “advanced” filling as possible, ie reconnaissance, data transmission systems, positioning accuracy, flight duration, the possibility of using high-precision weapons, etc. These UAVs are not shot down by all possible means, they do not need "survivability", as can be seen in the picture, when any shell hits it, it will immediately "fold".
    The presented model is most likely an apparatus of "peace" time.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 March 2013 22: 25 New
      +1
      The main function of drones in a military conflict will remain intelligence. Because there is practically no alternative to them in this area. So no "peace", no "military", each device should be designed for its task.
      1. Appiann
        Appiann 18 March 2013 22: 38 New
        +1
        Reminds the First World:
        At first the planes were used only as scouts, and then everyone realized that it was possible to drop a bomb and destroy another plane.
        They put machine guns, made "Ilya Muromets" and off it went.
        No need to prepare for the last war, it is necessary to draw conclusions from it and apply the results.
        PS "Each device should be designed for its own task" - I completely agree!
  17. Nayhas
    Nayhas 19 March 2013 07: 47 New
    +1
    Stout up to 5 tons of Elbit Hermes 1500?
  18. Ilya Gurenko
    Ilya Gurenko 19 March 2013 21: 39 New
    0
    Undoubtedly, you need to build up your military potential. Drones can help our army. But all this is somehow familiar ( sad
  19. Zahard
    Zahard 27 October 2013 23: 45 New
    -1
    A UAV is not a glider, but the only way to save a pilot’s life. The pilot doesn’t need to be in the aircraft himself. The purpose of piloting and the priority in the value of life determines the importance of development in this direction. As for the development itself, today the military-industrial complex is trying to make equal or slightly superior means that This is a mistake in managing the military industrial complex. This is a mistake in managing the military industrial complex. The development tools themselves started. And it’s a supercomputer. The products produced by KB show that there are simply no fantastic Skynets. KB are people. Today, only artificial intelligence can revolutionize the military-industrial complex The biological cluster from scientists is at a standstill compared to the potential power of the ultimate supercomputers. The human brain is 23 TFLOPs of 10 billion neurons. Any artificial intelligence will have no chance for a human inventor or scientific group because mathematical logic is faultless and a human is slow and limited. A supercomputer-controlled remotely destroys any human-driven target.
    In short
    First of all, it is necessary to develop high-availability systems and set tasks for them, and not to do useless work, which, in its approach concept, is today losing practice
    1 upcomputers with AIs more powerful than the human brain themselves will develop weapons superior to all that the enemy has
    2 Provide management
    And we are not doing what we need. All of this will be useless when supercomputers appear that make all existing weapons useless in modern for the near future, on the battlefield.
  20. reibert
    reibert 8 February 2018 11: 01 New
    0
    Engines are only fascist))) and that’s all))) sanctions ......