Russian Stratospheric UAVs La-251/252: The "Stork" We Missed

79 936 102
Russian Stratospheric UAVs La-251/252: The "Stork" We Missed

In the material from November 24, 2024 Stratospheric UAVs – pseudo-satellites: new horizons of high-altitude reconnaissance We talked about the prospects for the development of this area of ​​unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as about the prototypes that are being developed abroad.

In Russia, things are much sadder; the number of stratospheric UAV projects is significantly smaller, and they are inferior in scale to those being implemented in Western countries, and now in the East.



There is a feeling that over the years the topic of stratospheric UAVs in Russia is only deteriorating. Of course, one can assume that the best developments were classified and are about to "take off", but the author is not very optimistic.

Therefore, we will consider projects of domestic stratospheric UAVs in reverse chronological order.

2019


In 2019, the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI) experimented with a large-scale stratospheric UAV demonstrator model, manufactured at a scale of 1:6, which was tested in the institute’s low-speed wind tunnel.

The prospective stratospheric UAV is supposed to use thin-film solar batteries, the flight at night will be carried out due to accumulator batteries for 10-12 hours. The target load is considered to be communication repeaters, photo and video equipment, as well as meteorological equipment.


Image by TsAGI

The aerodynamic design of the UAV provides for the placement of propellers at the ends of the wing, which should ensure lower energy consumption compared to other arrangement options.

According to the head of the aircraft aerodynamics department and missiles TsAGI Alexander Kornushenko, today the assessment of the flight and technical characteristics (FTC) of the demonstrator is preliminary - such parameters as the type of engines, the energy efficiency of the batteries and solar panels, as well as the weight of the structure, may vary as further development takes place.

There is no other information about this stratospheric UAV and the prospects for its development.

2018


In 2018, the dean of the facultyAviation Alexander Efremov, head of the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI) Department of Aerospace Engineering, reported on the first flight tests of a prototype stratospheric UAV being developed for the Irkut Corporation. The prototype, weighing up to 25 kg and with a wingspan of over 5 meters, was tested without solar batteries and has already been manufactured jointly with the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI).

No further information about him appeared in the open press.

2017


The website of the Foundation for Advanced Research (FAR) contains information about the development of a prototype of the stratospheric UAV "Sova".


UAV "Owl"

As part of the work carried out, a prototype with a wingspan of 9,5 meters, powered by solar batteries, was built, and a flight duration of 50 hours at altitudes of up to 8 kilometers was achieved. The "Owl" used a flexible wing, which, under the influence of turbulence, was supposed to bend and then return to its original state without collapsing.

The dimensions of the first prototype corresponded to 1/3 of the expected final stratospheric UAV with ultra-long-term operation and a wingspan of about 28 meters.

The second prototype, a flying laboratory with a wingspan of 28 meters, crashed during testing in 2018 after reaching a maximum flight altitude of 19 kilometers. The second prototype was supposed to be able to fly non-stop for 30 days at an altitude of about 20 kilometers.


Estimated technical characteristics of the stratospheric UAV "Sova":
- wingspan – 28,5 m;
- flight altitude – about 20 kilometers;
- maximum take-off weight – 100 kilograms;
- cruising flight speed – 150 kilometers per hour;
- maximum flight speed: 210 kilometers per hour;
- aircraft engine type – electric;

Apparently, after the accident of the second prototype, the project was closed.

Is that all?

2013-2016


No, back in 2013, the Lavochkin Scientific and Production Association developed and tested the La-251 Aist, an atmospheric satellite with an extremely long flight duration, which uses solar energy for flight.

The experimental La-251 was created as part of the research and development work that began in 2012 and was manufactured in just 9 months. During the tests, the longest flight duration was 72 hours, with a total of three flights.

The La-251 glider included a straight wing of large span (15 m) and a twin-boom tail unit, its power plant included four electric motors with tractor propellers. Solar-powered batteries could store 7 kilowatt-hours of electricity and ensure takeoff and flight in low-light conditions.

The takeoff weight of the La-251 was 150 kilograms, of which a third was the airframe, a third was the solar panel, and a third was the batteries. The payload weight was only 1 kilogram. The La-251 UAV reached its operating altitude of about 10 km on the second day after takeoff, and its cruising speed was 35 kilometers per hour.


Atmospheric satellite of very long duration flight UAV La-251 "Aist"

It was expected that in 2017, NPO Lavochkin would receive technical specifications (TS) and funding for the development and production of a larger stratospheric UAV, the La-252. (at this point, the FPI was already working on the previously mentioned “Owl”).

The La-252 under construction was supposed to be almost one and a half times larger than the La-251, and the same amount lighter, thanks to new photocells with an efficiency of about 24% from the Zelenograd enterprise Telecom-STV (by the way, this enterprise is “alive” and functioning to this day, at least their website is working).


The takeoff weight of the La-252 UAV was to be 116 kilograms, with a wingspan of up to 23 meters and a payload weight of up to 25 kilograms. It was to be kept in the air by a power plant consisting of two electric motors with a total capacity of 2,4 kilowatts.

According to the developer, the La-252 was supposed to be able to continuously stay in the air for up to 5 years (!) at altitudes of 18 to 25 kilometers, moving at a cruising speed of 30 kilometers per hour. The main limitation on the flight duration was the battery life of the UAV; at the first stage, it was planned to achieve an autonomous flight lasting 100 days.

The possibility of adapting existing models of optical and radar reconnaissance equipment, installing communications and relay equipment, and control via direct radio channel and satellite was considered for the Aist UAV.

Conclusions


The situation with Russian stratospheric UAVs looks sad, it feels like it's only getting worse. The Foundation for Advanced Research has closed its projects, some models are being tested at TsAGI, but when will there be a real result - a serial product?

But the same UAV "Aist", apparently, was a quite advanced development, but for some reason it was shut down without any continuation...

Now let's remember how much electric motors and batteries have progressed over the past 5-10 years thanks to electric cars, and the efficiency of solar panels is steadily increasing. Composite materials are becoming lighter and stronger, and the need for independent production of large composite parts for airliners in Russia after the introduction of sanctions allows us to hope for progress in this direction as well.

It can be assumed that the Aist La-252 UAV, if equipped with the most modern commercially available batteries, electric motors and solar panels, could show more than excellent results.

Now these machines could “hover” over the line of combat contact (LBC) in Ukraine, providing our soldiers with communications via repeaters, as well as intelligence data necessary for the functioning of reconnaissance and strike contours.

Such machines would also be useful in Syria, tracking in real time the actions of militants who simply do not have the technical capability to shoot down aircraft at an altitude of about 20 kilometers.

Well, for now all this remains fantasy for us.

There were all the prerequisites for Russia to be among the leaders in the field of stratospheric UAVs; in many ways, time has already been lost, but there is still hope – maybe it’s time to “blow the dust off” the old developments and bring them to serial production?
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    4 December 2024 05: 20
    Maybe it’s time to “blow the dust” off old developments and bring them to serial production?
    Well, our officials don’t think you can make money from this, and therefore -
    all this remains fantasy for us
    1. +5
      4 December 2024 06: 23
      Oops, the officials downvoted me, so I'm right! hi
      1. +9
        4 December 2024 06: 50
        Quote: Good
        Oops, the officials downvoted me, so I'm right!
        You are a long-time user of this site and it is high time to just, excuse me, swear at these minus-takers wink
        1. +15
          4 December 2024 13: 13
          The Russian Armed Forces are being deliberately driven into the Stone Age. Nuclear weapons do not solve tactical problems and serve only as a shield and a blow of retaliation. Why are the Russian Armed Forces backward in terms of waging Modern Warfare? There is a complete lack of modern means of reconnaissance and target designation in real time, which should have been there long ago and which operate constantly.
          We do not have satellite reconnaissance and information transmission systems with high resolution and high information transmission speed.
          We do not have reconnaissance aircraft to monitor positional areas in real time both on the ground and in the air on a permanent basis and in real time. We do not have long-range and medium-range UAVs for reconnaissance and target designation in real time with satellite communication channels and information transfer.
          We do not have ground-based or other radars, and not only them, to monitor the situation on land and at sea at large distances and in real time.
          We do not have, even at the tactical level, permanently operating in real time Combat Systems for monitoring, detecting and destroying the enemy when advancing at a significant distance, which should be a standard part of the fighting units and parts...
          Our leaders at all levels completely ignore the provisions of the Military Doctrine of 2014, where these tasks were finally clearly set 10 years ago... And this article is another example...
          1. +2
            4 December 2024 15: 44
            I would add the need for a reliable, highly secure, high-speed communications system. Those who know better, correct me if I'm wrong.
            In my opinion, the lack of such communication is a more serious drawback than the lack of UAVs.
            Nuclear weapons have not been a shield for a long time (since the sixth nuclear power joined the club). The "strength" of this so-called shield is directly proportional to the enemy's fear of using nuclear weapons first (fear of receiving a retaliatory strike), or, if the enemy is a non-nuclear power, the fear of suffering damage from the use of nuclear weapons on its territory. As long as the "nuclear overton window" is tightly closed, nuclear weapons are only a weapon of intimidation or deterrence (depending on the context).
          2. 0
            7 December 2024 10: 18
            We don't have a person who will tell Putin this straight to his face. Very simply and clearly.
      2. +4
        4 December 2024 14: 58
        Quote: Good
        Oops, the officials downvoted me, so I'm right!

        When you write about Jewish officials in power, it is they who downvote. This has been proven many times.
        1. +7
          4 December 2024 18: 30
          Yes, they are everywhere and all over the place. It wouldn't hurt to dust off not only the old developments, but also the Duma. The Freemasons are only a hindrance
    2. +1
      4 December 2024 10: 42
      Quote: Good
      Maybe it’s time to “blow the dust” off old developments and bring them to serial production?

      This device will blow away. Tests have shown - at this stage of technical development
      Alleged technical characteristics of the stratospheric UAV "Sova":
      - flight altitude – about 20 kilometers;
      - cruising flight speed – 150 kilometers per hour;
      - maximum flight speed: 210 kilometers per hour;

      These indicators are not promising for using the device for military purposes.
      "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines"
      The work is intended for AMSG forecasters and pilots. It introduces readers to such elements as temperature, wind, cloudiness, turbulence and icing as applied to flights at altitudes of 9-12 km
      further down the article with a fantastic mention of the "stratosphere"
      The transition layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere is called the tropopause. The lower boundary of this layer above the polar
      In some regions it is located at an average altitude of 8 km, in temperate latitudes - at an altitude of 10 km, in the tropics - about 17 km.


      At an altitude of about 9 km, the wind speed reaches such a speed that it is called a “jet stream”.
      The speed of such a flow reaches 200-400 km per hour.
      Earth's jet streams are fast, narrow bands of wind high in the atmosphere.
      The fastest jet winds blow from west to east and originate in the upper layers of the troposphere, at an altitude of about 10–12 km above the Earth's surface.
      - from the TV magazine "I Want to Know Everything" laughing
      You hang up repeaters or reconnaissance equipment, and the device "blows away like dust". And you are left without communications and intelligence...
      This is not the banal "non-flying weather" of the lower layers of the atmosphere.
      Quote: Good
      Well, you can't make money from this.

      So they didn’t give a reason to cut into the budget - they closed it.
      1. +6
        4 December 2024 17: 57
        Quote: Serg Koma
        These indicators are not promising for using the device for military purposes.

        The planned altitude of the apparatus is above the tropopause, the thickness of which is small: 2-3 km, and the speed of the jet streams rarely exceeds 30 m/s. I see another reason for the sluggishness of work on this topic. With a mass of 150 kg, 50 kg were batteries with an energy reserve of 7 kW-hour. This is 140 W-hour/kg, which corresponds to zinc-silver batteries, which have a low resource, are expensive and unreliable. We did not have and do not have lithium-ion batteries with an energy of up to 300 W-hour/kg - especially since what is needed here is not Chinese consumer goods, but batteries with good performance at low temperatures. Not everything is well with our high-efficiency, UV-resistant film solar batteries, and composite materials (remember why the Sukhoi-Suparjet program was slowed down). So we see a systemic problem: science was killed for 30 years, now they are setting up Potemkin villages with symposiums and conferences, but scientific schools cannot be restored, even by pouring in solid money. You read some doctoral dissertations - the ravings of a gray mare, with which in Soviet times they would have been kicked out with a dirty broom even from the defense of the diploma. And it must be said that if Rogozin with his Institute of Marxism-Leninism became a doctor of TECHNICAL sciences, then something is clearly wrong with the Russian Academy of Sciences, and with the Higher Attestation Commission, and with the Ministry of Science and Education.
        1. 0
          4 December 2024 20: 51
          Quote: astepanov
          You read other doctoral dissertations - the ravings of a gray mare, for which in Soviet times they would have kicked you out with a dirty broom even after defending your diploma.
          drinks
          Quote: astepanov
          So we see a systemic problem: science has been killed for 30 years
        2. 0
          7 December 2024 10: 23
          but it's a shame about the films: they started developing them in the 80s and there are still problems. It's just a slap in the face. It's time to put everyone involved up against the wall.
      2. 0
        7 December 2024 10: 20
        How scary to live! Everyone is scary.
    3. GGV
      +3
      4 December 2024 11: 30
      Why do only officials saw, and even "ours"? Effective managers saw no less, and sometimes even more. I recently came across a video: a bulletproof vest (on sale) until 2022 and now the difference is 15 times! That's where there was sawing and no conscience at all.
  2. +4
    4 December 2024 05: 47
    Now these machines could “hover” over the line of combat contact (LBC) in Ukraine, providing our soldiers with communications via repeaters,

    Previously, this was called "Manilovism", but now it's time to call it "Mitrofanovism".
    1. +5
      4 December 2024 06: 00
      Quote: Amateur
      Now these machines could “hover” over the line of combat contact (LBC) in Ukraine, providing our soldiers with communications via repeaters,

      Previously, this was called "Manilovism", but now it's time to call it "Mitrofanovism".

      So you think that the Russian Army doesn't need stratospheric rockets? Well, people like you, only at the top, also thought so, a few years ago...
      1. +4
        4 December 2024 06: 06
        people like you,

        People like me have done a lot of real things in my time, not the technical nonsense that the author advertises. In order to use any "thing" as a repeater, it must have a decent power source, which you can't get from panels on wings so easily.
        1. +1
          4 December 2024 06: 17
          Quote: Amateur
          People like me have done a lot of real things in my time, and not the technical nonsense that the author advertises.

          Yes, we see that with communications in the army.

          Quote: Amateur
          In order to use any "thing" as a repeater, it must have a decent power source, which you can't easily get from panels on wings.
          The experimental models already had decent power:
          Solar-powered batteries could store 7 kilowatt-hours of electricity and provide takeoff and flight in low-light conditions.
          ь That is, there was enough energy for takeoff, but horizontal flight requires two to three times less power. Should we continue?
          1. +7
            4 December 2024 08: 19
            Unfortunately, Dilettant is right. A 24/7 multi-channel repeater with a reliable signal range of at least 50 km is a lot of energy. Much more than the motors need. Especially for the channel to be stable in conditions of interference, which is important for the military.
            Reconnaissance, optics and RTR are possible. But the repeater needs to be considered very tightly.
            1. -3
              4 December 2024 09: 19
              Quote: garri-lin
              Unfortunately, Dilettant is right. A 24/7 multi-channel repeater with a reliable signal range of at least 50 km is a lot of energy. Much more than the motors need. Especially for the channel to be stable in conditions of interference, which is important for the military.

              I am a layman in radio, of course, but I am absolutely sure that we are talking about hundreds of watts of consumed power. Because the radio is hanging in the air 20 km above the ground and, accordingly, the terrain is not an obstacle here.
              https://радиосеть.рф/catalog/retranslyatory_repitery/motorola_retranslyator/7427/
              Motorola retro.
              Current consumption
              (in transmit mode at 60W), 24V 8,6A (typ.) 8,2A (typ.) about 200 watts...
              And the stratospheric turbine operates in kilowatts...
              1. +3
                4 December 2024 12: 49
                I'm a layman in radio matters... But the stratospheric radio operator operates with kilowatts...

                For every square meter from the sun comes 1367 watts of energy (solar constant). About 1020 watts (at the equator) reaches the earth through the atmosphere. If we have a solar cell efficiency of 16%, then from a square meter we can get at best 163,2 watts of electricity.
                (https://habr.com/ru/articles/158875/)

                You can calculate the surface area yourself.
                1. 0
                  5 December 2024 03: 14
                  Quote: Amateur
                  You can calculate the surface area yourself.


                  The La-251 glider included a straight wing with a large span (15 m)... ...The batteries, recharged by solar panels, could store 7 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy

                  The takeoff weight of the La-252 UAV was to be 116 kilograms, with a wingspan of up to 23 meters...due to new photocells with an efficiency of about 24%

                  The width of the first wing is at least 1,5 m, even taking into account the frames, this is at least 15 sq. m. of effective surface. Too lazy to count further
              2. 0
                4 December 2024 18: 41
                200 watts for 12 hours of darkness. How much is that?
                1. 0
                  5 December 2024 03: 39
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  200 watts for 12 hours of darkness. How much is that?

                  I don't know. But 7 kW/h (for the experimental model of 2012) is enough for 200 watts for 1,5 hours (according to the calculator). But the thing is that 200 watts is at peak load, and at night the intensity of exchange will obviously be less, with a clearly greater capacity of the battery. Although of course the engines will take their toll, but this price can be minimized by losing altitude, which is common practice.
                  1. 0
                    5 December 2024 08: 53
                    Military equipment must be as efficient as possible 25/8.
                    So at night you also need to give it your all. I do not deny the capabilities of the device voiced in the text. I just want to say that the price-effectiveness is clearly in doubt. The power-to-weight ratio is small.
                    1. 0
                      5 December 2024 09: 56
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Military equipment must be as efficient as possible 25/8. So at night, too, you have to go all out.

                      People are fighting, they can't fight 24/7. Such a retro is just right for radios of low and medium power - infantry tanks BMP. In the end, at night you can raise retros on regular planes, if you really can't sit still.

                      Quote: garri-lin
                      I just want to say that the price-effectiveness is clearly questionable.
                      Taking into account staying in the air for many days without wasting kerosene?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The power supply is low.
                      At least during the day it is sufficient.
                      1. 0
                        6 December 2024 08: 31
                        You are a naive person. In order to achieve success in military affairs, you have to step over your own capabilities. Do the impossible. And the equipment must match.
                        We save kerosene. And what about the battery resource, is it free?
                        How long will a set of batteries last? How much does this set cost?
                      2. 0
                        6 December 2024 08: 45
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You are a naive person. In order to achieve success in military affairs, you have to step over your own capabilities. Do the impossible.

                        Someone's feat is always a consequence of someone's mistake, or incompetence, or evil will...

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        We save kerosene. And what about the battery resource, is it free?
                        Of course, it’s not free, but it’s already a saving on takeoff and landing, both kerosene and the resource of both the turbines and the chassis.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        How long will a set of batteries last? How much does this set cost?
                        Well, for example, Tesla's 85 kW/h battery costs $12 and weighs 000 kg. Lifespan is 540 years with no mileage limit. Even cutting the capacity and weight by 8 times and increasing the price by 10 times, these are still more than acceptable figures. A ton of kerosene costs $2...
                      3. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 37
                        I agree about the feat. But there is a routine. A planned routine. When a person consciously goes for something that seems impossible. A sniper at a good point for several days. Or an artillery spotter. There are many examples. And the equipment must match. In war, weakness is a chance for the enemy. And the number of weaknesses must be minimal. And you suggest leaving units without communication at night.
                        Nonsense.
                        That is, all the stuffing will work for half a day, cleanliness will be maintained in the air of the currently senseless apparatus
        2. +3
          4 December 2024 11: 00
          drinks
          Quote: Amateur
          technical nonsense that the author advertises.

          So on VO nowadays many people trust advertising more than common sense, and that’s why they get minuses.
          What a descending/ascending flow is is not understood in the same way as how this flow affects an aircraft with a wing area of ​​23 meters x 2,5 m (visually) and a mass of 120 kg.
          Minusovshiki - launch a paper airplane into the wind tongue
        3. -1
          7 December 2024 10: 25
          "you won't get it that easily" and refusing to develop it are two very different things, and both are very stupid.
  3. +5
    4 December 2024 06: 09
    We most likely have a problem with these stratospheric UAVs in the electronics. To ensure very long observation and signal transmission, a lot of energy is required. Our electronics are still very far from being as voracious as Western models. If such electronics are installed on an airplane, then there are no problems. There is a lot of energy there. And on such a UAV, it is only enough to fly itself. It will not be possible to hang something serious on it.
    1. 0
      4 December 2024 06: 20
      Quote: malyvalv
      And on such a UAV it is only enough to fly itself. It will not be possible to hang anything serious on it.

      If the power is enough for takeoff, then horizontal flight requires two to three times less power. So, out of 4 kW, 2 kilowatts remain for electronics - this is not a small amount.
      1. +4
        4 December 2024 06: 33
        Takeoff is powered by batteries. The flight itself is powered only by the sun.
        The article says that the payload was 1 kg.
        25 kg is only in the project. And it is not a fact that we have the ability to fit XNUMX-hour good optics and satellite communications in terms of energy consumption into the capabilities of the UAV.
        1. 0
          4 December 2024 07: 05
          Quote: malyvalv
          The article says that the payload was 1 kg.
          25 kg is only in the project.

          Not in the project, but in the device already under construction. So what, should we now only look back at the experimental models of ten years ago? It's like judging modern aviation by the Wright brothers' craft.
          Quote: malyvalv
          Takeoff is powered by batteries. The flight itself is powered only by the sun.

          Nothing of the sort, flight and battery charging. The batteries could provide takeoff with INSUFFICIENT lighting.

          Quote: malyvalv
          And it is not a fact that we have the ability to fit good 24-hour optics and satellite communications into the capabilities of UAVs in terms of energy consumption.

          Well, yes, well, yes, we only just mastered the steam boiler...
          Dial ZAL and Supercam, and find out that the devices fly with FULL weight and half load from the supposed stratosphere and are equipped with stabilized OES with thermal imagers and retros and everything is on electricity.
          1. +4
            4 December 2024 07: 12
            Not in the project, but in the device that was already under construction. So what, should we now only look back at the experimental models from ten years ago?


            It's not just and not so much about weight as about how much this load consumes.
            Dial ZAL and Supercam, and find out that the devices fly with FULL weight and half load from the supposed stratosphere and are equipped with stabilized OES with thermal imagers and retros and everything is on electricity.

            How long do they fly? Are their optics good enough to provide the same quality when viewed from the stratosphere? With satellite communications?
            A stratospheric UAV must be able to fly for days and have satellite communications and optics at the level of satellites.
            1. 0
              4 December 2024 08: 47
              Quote: malyvalv

              How long do they fly? Are their optics good enough to provide the same quality when viewed from the stratosphere? With satellite communications?

              Is it okay that they are tens of times lighter than the stratospheric spacecraft being built, and therefore with tiny batteries, and without external recharge? Is it okay that their OES are a few kilograms, or even hundreds of grams, i.e. tens of times lighter than the expected load, with a consumption of tens of watts? Is it okay that satellite communications are not particularly needed at a distance of tens of kilometers, and even if they are needed, they consume hundreds of watts, using Starlink as an example?
              OES, even heavy ones, like Bayraktar's MX-20, consume at peak, with all cameras, stabilizers and lasers turned on, no more than 1 kW.
              Even if we assume that domestic analogues will consume twice as much, which is obviously nonsense, because physics is the same for all countries, these kilowatts are there.

              Quote: malyvalv
              Stratospheric UAV ... ... and have satellite communications and optics at the level of satellites.
              And the descent module is not needed? Why do we need satellite communications for an aircraft that will not fly further than the front anyway, and hangs not three or four hundred kilometers above the ground, but twenty? Not to mention the repeaters...
              Why is this so incomprehensible?
              1. +2
                4 December 2024 12: 14
                When we have a satellite group similar to Starlink, then we can talk about power consumption of a hundred watts. But for now, our satellites fly much higher and there are much fewer of them.
                If you don't fly behind the front line, then why the hell do you need such a UAV?
                1. 0
                  5 December 2024 03: 54
                  Quote: malyvalv
                  When we have a satellite group similar to Starlink, then we can talk about power consumption of a hundred watts. But for now, our satellites fly much higher and there are much fewer of them.

                  Subscriber terminal "Gonets" mobile unattended "AT-MN-2.1"
                  Peak power consumption no more than, VA 60
                  VA is voltamperes, I don’t know why, but in watts it’s no more than a hundred.

                  Subscriber terminal "Gonets-Avtonomny"
                  Peak power consumption no more than 30 VA.


                  Quote: malyvalv
                  If you don't fly behind the front line, then why the hell do you need such a UAV?
                  Even if we don't consider a stratospheric aircraft as a low-vulnerability retrograde for the battlefield, how ignorant do you have to be to not know that an aircraft with powerful optics ABOVE the battlefield is an excellent reconnaissance aircraft for the enemy's rear to a depth of 30-40 km?!
                  1. 0
                    5 December 2024 05: 36
                    Why are you all pestering me with some repeaters that are completely unnecessary? They shoot down a UAV, and so what? A section of the front without communication? Until another one takes its place?
                    The connection is only satellite with terrestrial Wi-Fi routers. Or on optical cables. Especially since now with the advent of drones on optics, it takes 10 minutes to stretch a fiber optic line for 15 km.
                    Powerful optics is the topic. And even better and more important is high-frequency probing so that clouds do not interfere. But weight. And energy too. The topic is tempting and everyone understands this. But apparently it does not work out yet.
                    1. +1
                      5 December 2024 05: 37
                      Quote: malyvalv
                      Why are you always pestering me with some repeaters that are completely unnecessary?

                      Complete nonsense... Everything is clear with you.
                      1. 0
                        6 December 2024 00: 21
                        This is complete nonsense in your head. If we are talking about repeaters on your territory, then there is a much more interesting topic with tethered balloons. No problems with power and weight.
                        A stratospheric UAV is needed to fly over enemy territory as a reconnaissance aircraft. But so far it hasn't worked out.
                      2. 0
                        6 December 2024 03: 45
                        Quote: malyvalv
                        If we are talking about repeaters on your territory, then there is a much more interesting topic with tethered balloons. No problems with power and weight.

                        No problems, except for the problem of damage to the winch cable platform, which will have to be deployed close to the LBS.

                        Quote: malyvalv
                        A stratospheric UAV is needed to fly over enemy territory as a reconnaissance aircraft.
                        Full... So even hovering over the LBS gives the opportunity to review the enemy's tactical rear, and deepening by 100 km, and operational. And at the same time satellite communication is NOT NEEDED.

                        Quote: malyvalv
                        But not yet.
                        Because it's people like you who make decisions on funding. People who don't understand simple things, like energy consumption and the need for repeaters for tactical communications.
                      3. 0
                        6 December 2024 05: 58
                        Well, how can you compare the fools from the Ministry of Defense with the powerful expertise of the Military Academy?
                        Experts can always determine exactly what needs to be financed and done and who is to blame for what has not been done. Easily overcoming the Herzen-Chernyshevsky uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to simultaneously answer the questions Who is to blame? and What is to be done?
                      4. +1
                        6 December 2024 06: 22
                        Quote: malyvalv
                        Well, how can you compare the fools from the Ministry of Defense with the powerful expertise of the Military Academy?

                        That's exactly it. After a thousand days of the Northern Military District, after the actual withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet from the Black Sea with the loss of several ships, after the loss of Kherson, after the entry of the Khikhla into the Kursk region, after the disgrace with the Baofengs and encrypted communications, after hundreds of episodes of intellectual failure of the Defense Ministry leadership, that's exactly it.
                      5. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 27
                        Remove the filter for nastiness. The invasion of Kursk region is not a military operation but a political one. It is designed specifically for defeatists like you.
                        Well, the rest of the sentences about the Black Sea Fleet (and who would it fight there) and about communications (the West has better communications, that's news) go in the same trash bin.
                      6. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 31
                        Quote: malyvalv
                        Remove the filter for nastiness. The invasion of Kursk region is not a military operation but a political one. It is designed specifically for defeatists like you.
                        Well, the rest of the sentences about the Black Sea Fleet (and who would it fight there) and about communications (the West has better communications, that's news) go in the same trash bin.

                        Yes, it is already clear that you are on the same wavelength with the former Minister of Defense and his clique, including intellectually. It is especially amusing that the Black Sea Fleet lost several ships to a non-existent enemy. Hand face.
                        And the fact that you don’t understand ANYTHING about this topic became obvious after your stupidity about repeaters.
                      7. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 36
                        The Black Sea Fleet lost several ships to a non-existent enemy

                        And the army is in a positional war not because of the enemy's artillery and tanks, but because of thousands of drones. Is this also the MoD's fault?
                      8. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 46
                        Quote: malyvalv
                        And the army is in a positional war not because of the enemy's artillery and tanks, but because of thousands of drones. Is this also the MoD's fault?

                        Oh, who is responsible for the lack of counter-drone units in the States, drone use units, or at least adequate counter-drone weapons in the third year of war?! WHO? You don't monitor the situation at all, except for Solovyov's programs?!
                      9. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 50
                        Have you at least kept track of when drones appeared in our country, how they are used, in what quantities, and how they are integrated into units?
                        I understand that you are watching Solovyov.
                      10. 0
                        6 December 2024 09: 55
                        Quote: malyvalv
                        Have you at least kept track of when drones appeared in our country, how they are used, in what quantities, and how they are integrated into units?
                        I understand that you are watching Solovyov.

                        Well, let's give an example of a regular unit for the use of FPV drones from the Russian Ministry of Defense to the studio!

                        Quote: malyvalv
                        The invasion of the Kursk region is not a military operation but a political one.
                        And what kind of idiocy is this? The fact that it is political is no longer a reason to conduct reconnaissance, expose troop concentrations and inflict fire damage on them in concentration areas and on the march? Are you completely lost?
                      11. +1
                        6 December 2024 10: 08
                        Are you proposing to once again announce a mobilization of 500 thousand people in order to guarantee the closure of 1000 km of the border from any sabotage?
                        A controversial proposal.
                        How our drone operators work is well known. Each division has its own. There are also separate groups in large divisions.
                        Do you also propose organizing orderlies into regiments and divisions?
                      12. 0
                        6 December 2024 10: 11
                        Quote: malyvalv
                        Are you proposing to once again announce a mobilization of 500 thousand people in order to guarantee the closure of 1000 km of the border from any sabotage?

                        Oh yes, the press service of the Russian Ministry of Defense said exactly that about the invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces group into the Kursk region - the action of a sabotage group.

                        You are on the same level as the press service of the Russian Ministry of Defense, and of the 2022 model. This is a fact that you have already confirmed many times.
                      13. +1
                        6 December 2024 13: 00
                        You'd think I wouldn't know what's going on in the Kursk region. A sabotage group or division.
                        What I mean is that on such a front you can only secure the border from sabotage groups. The enemy can undoubtedly concentrate the attack and invade several kilometers practically anywhere. But with great losses and without any military sense. Which is what happened.
                        We can do that too. But if there is no military sense in it, we don’t do it.
                      14. 0
                        7 December 2024 10: 31
                        War is a political event in the end. This is not an argument.
                      15. 0
                        7 December 2024 13: 14
                        What an argument, since politics is ultimately determined by the results on the battlefield and not by far-fetched victories.
      2. +4
        4 December 2024 08: 02
        If there is enough power for takeoff,

        remember the gliding clubs in the country?
        these "troughs" can be lifted into the sky by a tugboat, and then - let them hover above everyone else...
        1. +4
          4 December 2024 08: 25
          Yes, takeoff is not a problem at all. If the strength allows, you can tow it. You can install additional batteries that will work and then drop. The problem is that even at altitudes of 20 km, solar panels will work for about 12 hours a day. And winter? Short daylight hours?
          1. DO
            +3
            4 December 2024 10: 20
            And what about winter? Short daylight hours?

            In winter, especially in polar winter, solar batteries are pointless. Consequently, the winter energy source for a "high-altitude propeller glider" (you can't call such a "classic" aircraft a pseudo-satellite!) should be some kind of liquid energy carrier in a fuel tank, for example, hydrogen.
            1. 0
              4 December 2024 18: 43
              Then the weight will be completely different.
    2. +3
      4 December 2024 06: 23
      Quote: malyvalv
      the problem with these stratospheric UAVs is the electronics

      There is one problem there, it is financing. The country has other priorities now. And one should not expect a quick economic return from a stratospheric UAV.
      1. +2
        4 December 2024 06: 53
        But one shouldn’t expect a quick economic return from a stratospheric UAV
        No weapon can be expected to produce either a quick or long-term economic return. It is just a weapon. wink
        1. +1
          4 December 2024 07: 40
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          No weapon can be expected to produce either a quick or long-term economic return. It is just a weapon.

          I'm shocked belay And what do you think all wars are fought for? Not cheap wars. And what business is second in profit after drug trafficking? Don't you know? Or do you think that the US and the West provoked Russia to start the SVO out of "love for art"? And the record growth of the US national debt and the desire of the BRICS countries to abandon the dollar are also an accident and just money?
          1. +2
            4 December 2024 10: 18
            Vitaly_pvo, economic return, is when you invest a ruble and get two. Or ten. This has nothing to do with weapons. Someone misinformed you wink
            1. +1
              4 December 2024 12: 53
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              Someone has misinformed you.

              In conditions of war, military conflict, as well as banditry and robbery, the economic theory of Karl Marx does not work.
            2. kaa
              +1
              5 December 2024 06: 01
              How many millions were invested in Maidan'13, and how many billions are now circulating in military contracts? There is not even a 10th return.
          2. +1
            7 December 2024 10: 34
            You are talking about different things in principle, starting with the concept of what war is.
    3. +1
      4 December 2024 06: 50
      Quote: malyvalv
      Read more is still very far from Western models in terms of gluttony.

      Read more - a phrase from the list: “our automobile industry”, “our machine tool industry”, “our aircraft industry”...our “banking system”...
      lol
      1. +4
        4 December 2024 07: 06
        What's better, what's worse. The banking system is excellent. Aircraft manufacturing, if you take into account the military, is good. And civil technology too, but the financing issue is a hindrance. Electronics is bad, yes.
        1. +2
          4 December 2024 07: 11
          Quote: malyvalv
          The banking system is excellent.

          That's true. The Russian banking system is different...from others...in terms of refinancing rates and loans...
          There have been successes in specific areas of industrial production, but the growth of GDP, the main parameters of which are achieved by increasing prices for goods and services, is not impressive... As is the lack of money with billions of non-targeted expenditures and offshore manipulations...
          And Russia is also bad with humanity. The main trait of Russian officials, which is more than compensated by their love of money...
          1. 0
            4 December 2024 07: 15
            For people like you, everything you do is wrong. You only see the bad.
            You are not alone in VO. There are many like you.
            1. +2
              4 December 2024 07: 17
              Quote: malyvalv
              For people like you, no matter what you do, it all goes wrong.

              I'm not going to get into an argument with you about "wherever you kiss, everywhere..."
              It's time to grow up and judge people not by their words, but by their actions...
    4. +2
      4 December 2024 11: 43
      There is no problem with Russian electronics - they just don't install them, they install bourgeois ones. At most, they will solder bourgeois parts to a domestic printed circuit board. Our problem is not with stratospheric drones. We have tropospheric ones that are not very good, and ground ones. And we don't need very new pilots either. And the frigates' hulls were formed from cardboard for 4 years. And the rifles, and the artillery. And they couldn't start building hangars for aircraft under Shoigu, the concrete was not of the right type. The problem is definitely somewhere else.
      1. 0
        4 December 2024 12: 29
        Convinced. Tomorrow I'm buying a sheet and a place in the cemetery. I wrap myself up and crawl.
  4. +3
    4 December 2024 06: 43
    There were all the prerequisites for Russia to be among the leaders in the field of stratospheric UAVs; in many ways, time has already been lost, but there is still hope – maybe it’s time to “blow the dust off” the old developments and bring them to serial production?

    I remember there was an advertisement:

    But this video is so topical now that the phrase: “You need to feed them better, or they won’t fly away” takes on new colors even today.
    Only in relation to stratospheric UAVs it should sound like this:
    "Don't allocate money from the budget, it won't fly"...
    crying
  5. -1
    4 December 2024 06: 47
    Probably, the next article about aviation will be titled in the style of Mitrofanov-Skomorokhov "Our combat aviation. Carlson, who flew away, but promised to return." laughing
  6. 0
    4 December 2024 06: 47
    the stratospheric UAV theme in Russia is only deteriorating
    The practical branch has completely degraded, and now the subject itself has begun to degrade wink
  7. 0
    4 December 2024 08: 14
    According to the head of the sector of the aircraft and rocket aerodynamics department of TsAGI, Alexander Kornushenko
    And before there were 2 departments - the department of aircraft aerodynamics and the department of rocket aerodynamics. And now there is optimization, however. One department is enough for everything.
  8. 0
    4 December 2024 08: 43
    The possibility of adapting existing models of optical and radar reconnaissance equipment, installing communications and relay equipment, and control via direct radio channel and satellite was considered for the Aist UAV.

    And this is the main thing. It is not difficult to build an aircraft for flight in the stratosphere, but what it will do there...
  9. +3
    4 December 2024 09: 03
    How do I see the situation?

    The colonels from the Ministry of Defense did not give money, because due to the small series, there were no kickbacks expected. Formally, most likely, they were picking on the "shortcomings": low speed, low load capacity, low resource, insufficient reliability...
    .
    What to do today?
    Hold a meeting with the participation of previous UAV developers, define standards and real requirements for UAVs and divide the task between different design bureaus. Someone makes the wing, someone makes the motors, someone makes the batteries, someone makes surveillance and communications (Roscosmos?). It can be done in a couple of weeks if you want it and don’t demand the impossible.
    .
    Given the capabilities of the enemy, stratospheric UAVs will most likely be disposable. Therefore, there is no point in striving for their perfection and the possibility of round-the-clock flight.

    Secondly, these devices will never be able to maneuver freely and resist air currents at altitude. One UAV will not be able to provide control over a certain point of the front all day. Therefore, they should be used as maneuvering balloons: launched in Bryansk in the morning, landed in the evening in Crimea. A string of UAVs should hang over the entire front.
    Perhaps, by maneuvering at different altitudes in different flows, this disadvantage can be leveled out.

    And finally. If you deliver the UAV to the altitude by some carrier, you can save a lot in the requirements for it. That is, it takes off riding on a gasoline micro-corn plant in the morning, it pulls it to a height of 9 km, and then hello sunshine, it flew on solar batteries. At night it lands at the airfield, where it is prepared for tomorrow's flight. Batteries for night flights and super-autonomy are unnecessary!
  10. +4
    4 December 2024 09: 11
    And in the process of preparing the article, why not call the Lavochkin Design Bureau and ask for a comment on the issue? And do the same by calling the General Staff Directorate and the Ministry of Industry and Trade or another government agency?
    How disgusting this wild, arrogant journalistic unprofessionalism is!! Apparently, I need to take a break again from reading what can't be named on this site, so as not to be banned.
  11. +1
    4 December 2024 09: 27
    Judging by the size, the cavities can be filled with hydrogen before launch, which will provide additional lifting force. laughing
  12. +2
    4 December 2024 09: 50
    Aviation progress is not only fueled by "solar panels"! What were Soviet satellites powered by before? Thermoelectric generators on Peltier elements with radioisotope "batteries"! And why the hell did they create the "eternally flying" nuclear "Burevestnik"? request
    1. DO
      +1
      4 December 2024 10: 30
      Nikolaevich I, radioisotope "batteries"? But the conversation here is primarily about the military version of the device! And this means that the enemy will inevitably shoot down some of these UAVs, and over our territory. At the same time littering our rear with isotopes. There will be no need to make a "dirty bomb" for the Ukrainian Reich, we will make it ourselves.
      1. +1
        4 December 2024 11: 30
        1. Atmospheric satellites are not created so that they can be easily shot down! 2. Atmospheric satellites are designed to fly at high altitude (in the stratosphere)! (Not every enemy will have the "right" air defense systems! Both in altitude and in range!) 3. Containers with radioisotopes can be protected by modern materials and modern methods (ejectable armored containers, for example...)! 4. Thermogenerators (Peltier) are not "the only ones" and can be duplicated by thin-film flexible "solar panels", and radioisotope containers or nuclear power plants in an "alarm situation" can be separated from the system and removed to a "safe" area!
        1. DO
          +1
          4 December 2024 12: 19
          1. Atmospheric satellites are not created so that they can be easily shot down!
          2. Atmospheric satellites are designed to fly at high altitude (in the stratosphere)! (Not every enemy will have the "right" SAM systems! Both in altitude and in range!)

          Naturally, when creating military aircraft, developers take all measures to make it difficult for the enemy to destroy them. But if the actual enemy is not the bogeymen in slippers, but the entire collective West, then NATO countries will find the necessary air defense systems, and will still shoot down some high-altitude reconnaissance UAVs.
          3. Containers with radioisotopes can be protected by modern materials and modern methods (,,shootable,, armored containers, for example...)!

          Armored containers? But the UAV in question is not an airship, and not even a fighter. The weight of the armor matters. And what means can be used to determine the need to shoot? The radar will not lift this UAV.
          4. Thermogenerators (Peltier) are not "the only ones" and can be duplicated by thin-film flexible "solar panels", and radioisotope containers or nuclear power plants in an "alarm situation" can be separated from the system and removed to a "safe" area!

          If solar panels work, why do we need these Peltier devices?
          And again, how do you define an alarm situation? What does it mean to "separate the container and remove it to a safe area? Throw it on the ground, or what?
    2. +1
      4 December 2024 11: 56
      A hundred-watt battery costs five thousand on Ozon, I suspect RTG costs at best a hundred times more
  13. BAI
    +1
    4 December 2024 10: 15
    One gets the feeling that over the years the topic of stratospheric UAVs in Russia has only deteriorated.

    Everything that lacks government funding and the ability to embezzle is degrading.
    In general, there is a lack of basic technologies.
    In Ukraine - there are fields of solar panels. Naturally, Western ones, and aircraft of this type are made in the West, not in Ukraine.
    How many people have seen solar panels fields in Russia?
  14. +1
    4 December 2024 10: 33
    If you hang such an Aist over Kiev for a month, you won't need satellites. You can even control the movement of military personnel, not to mention looking for air defense or pillboxes.
    Maybe SVO will push this topic?
  15. +2
    4 December 2024 11: 10
    "To be" among the leaders does not mean "to be", now.... As they say, in the Russian city of Odessa, - these are two big differences.... But we must try to catch up, because this "gadget" seems to have an impressive future, especially in the "price - efficiency" section....
  16. +3
    4 December 2024 11: 23
    One gets the feeling that over the years the topic of stratospheric UAVs in Russia has only deteriorated.

    I wonder what doesn’t degrade in our country?
    Well, they've started building good roads! Oh, now we need to deal with the fools....
  17. 0
    4 December 2024 12: 20
    It has long been obvious that all projects worth anything are being slowed down and "washed away" except for those that are truly classified. There is an axis, an internal enemy - an external enemy, easily disguised by pseudo-activity without results, it seems that the curators of the projects are all samurai at heart - "a samurai has no goal, only a path, and the path of a samurai (in our case, a project) is death" Money and resources are being drawn, but the result is a pfft and a promise to do much better (and again money/resources)
  18. 0
    4 December 2024 20: 34
    And what is the author surprised about? What tasks will this device be able to perform?
    According to the developer, the La-252 was supposed to be able to stay in the air continuously for up to 5 years (!) at altitudes of 18 to 25 kilometers, moving at a cruising speed of 30 kilometers per hour.
    That is, the wind carries it very high (remember the 30 km/h wind speed at altitude). Okay, let's hope it will be carried where it needs to be. The problems it solves, suggested by the comments:
    1) retransmission. He won't steal the generator and antennas.
    2) optical reconnaissance. The probability that there will be no clouds from the altitude of its flight (18-25 km) to the ground is small. Yes, satellites have the same problems, but the satellite captures a wide band, it will see something. And if the satellite does not see, then this device will not see either.
    3) radar reconnaissance. The radar with the generator will not be carried away.
    4) Radiotechnical reconnaissance. Will not be able to determine the position of the radio emission source. A distributed complex on the ground is better.
    5) Radio reconnaissance. This will do.
    1. 0
      5 December 2024 16: 28
      Quote: bk0010
      4) Radiotechnical reconnaissance. Will not be able to determine the position of the radio emission source.

      Triangulation from two UAVs.
      Quote: bk0010
      A distributed complex on the ground is better.

      Range of action. It was not for nothing that the Yankees, despite the presence of a crowd of RTR ground stations, still supplemented them with army RTR and RR aviation.
  19. 0
    4 December 2024 20: 44
    Sorry, I'm not an expert and I'm not even lying on the couch next to you, but how effective are these means? Doesn't air defense kill high-flying things? And won't air defense see a large wing at such a height from afar? Please, only correctly.
  20. +1
    5 December 2024 19: 37
    Yes, you can whine as much as you like that we don’t have stratospheric spacecraft and long-range UAVs, but it all comes down to one question: Russia doesn’t have long-range communications.
    Suddenly, the big-time old farts learned that over-the-horizon communication stations might be able to transmit a signal, but to get a return signal, you need a transmitter powered by a submarine's nuclear reactor! Not to mention that the best they can transmit are encoded packets of a couple of kilobytes.
    And so now they rushed to increase the group of communication satellites, but got a total failure in the form of a ban on access to microchips. It turned out that Gaidar's precepts do not work as he imagined.
    And here, as in the joke - no legs - no candy... only in our case
    this is - there is no semiconductor industry, there are no active protection systems for armored vehicles, no sighting systems for infantry, no high-resolution cameras...
  21. 0
    5 December 2024 20: 52
    The first project was carried out purely for scientific purposes, practically on the initiative of the institute and was completed somewhere in early 2018. It was aimed more at the idea of ​​​​wingtip engines (disadvantages and advantages) than specifically at stratospheric flight, since the limited span would not allow it to rise high enough to pass through the wind region. Yes, the problems with the supply of equipment voiced in the comments were already relevant
    then (we were considering the option of batteries from the Kokam company, autopilot, panels), so the price tag for a full-scale demonstrator at 14m. was sky-high for a "cloud" aircraft laughing
    At the moment, a dissertation is being written based on calculations and tests, but practical implementation is not planned in the near future.
  22. +1
    7 December 2024 10: 16
    It looks like the cattails have laid their paws on it, or the red-lamped ones at the feeding trough. So as not to divide the places again. It's strange, but the president has some kind of segmental vision, like a dragonfly: I see here, but I don't see there.
  23. 0
    8 December 2024 20: 44
    Before the Great Patriotic War, the creation of radio stations was considered unimportant. The radio industry was pushed far to the side. Tanks and aircraft had poor communication with headquarters and with each other. The poorly coordinated actions of excellent combat vehicles, which led to huge losses, brought the leadership to its senses and only by 43 was the situation improved.
    So why would the leadership scratch and wonder what the enemies are doing there, because everything is fine with them. Although the SVO shows every day that not everything is fine.
  24. 0
    16 January 2025 13: 15
    Quote: Serg Koma

    So they didn’t give a reason to cut into the budget - they closed it.

    It's time to understand that we rarely produce anything new. We've gotten used to catching up with the West. Copying their new products. Let's wait until they do it THERE, then we'll be surprised "what, was it possible!" and then the sawing of billions will begin.

    In 1922, Professor Georgy Botezat, who emigrated from Russia to the United States after the revolution, built the first stable helicopter for the US Army, which was able to rise into the air with a load to a height of 5 m and stay in flight for several minutes.
  25. -1
    31 January 2025 17: 38
    All stratospheric developments of UAVs are money thrown to the wind, since the structures are large-sized, easily detected, tracked and destroyed by modern air defense systems. More relevant are the groups of low-orbit satellites.
  26. 0
    25 March 2025 08: 29
    Why make a stratospheric UAV in the form of an airplane (glider)?
    The Chinese have taken the path of stratospheric UAVs, namely balloons, which are much easier to create (develop) in order to achieve and solve the tasks set for UAVs.
    But shooting down air defense, whether it’s a ball moving at a speed of 10 km/h or a glider moving at 30 km/h, is a simple matter, that is, it makes no difference.