Military Review

Combat use of unmanned aerial vehicles

132



In 1933, in the UK, the biplane based Fairy Queen created the first remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle of multiple action, called the H.82B Queen Bee.

H.82B Queen Bee


It was then that the era of drones began. Subsequently, this device was used as an aerial target of the Royal Navy. navy From 1934 to 1943, a total of 405 units of target aircraft were manufactured.

The first combat unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was a German aircraft - a projectile (cruise missile, according to modern terminology) Fau-1 ("Fizeler-103"), with a jet pulsating engine that could be launched from the ground and from the air.

Fau-1 projectile


The projectile control system is an autopilot that keeps the projectile at the course set at the start and height during the entire flight.

Flight range control is carried out using a mechanical counter, at which a value corresponding to the required range is set before the start, and the blade anemometer placed on the nose of the projectile and rotated by the incoming air flow twists the counter to zero upon reaching the required range (± 6 km accuracy). In this case, the warhead fuses are cocked, and a dive command is issued.

A total of about 25000 units of this “miracle weapons". Of these, about 10000 was launched across England, 3200 fell on its territory, of which 2419 reached London, causing losses in 6184 people killed and 17 981 injured. The blows of V-1 could not affect the course of the war, however, they had not a small moral effect and demanded great efforts to counter.

In the United States launched the production of UAV-target Radioplane OQ-2 for training pilots and anti-aircraft gunners. Also in 1944, for the first time in the world, the classic shock drone of multiple action, Interstate TDR, was used.

Interstate TDR UAV


Cheapness predetermined low flight characteristics - the car's speed on the tests did not exceed 225 km / h, and the range - 685 km.
The car took off from a normal airfield or from an aircraft carrier with the help of a wheeled drop landing gear. In the nose part of it there was a transparent fairing covering the control camera. Located in the bow, the Block-I camera had a viewing angle of 35 degrees.

The aircraft was controlled by radio from the board of the control plane following the drones. The operator with the help of a disco screen saw the image transmitted by the camera of the machine. A standard joystick was used to control the direction and angle. The flight altitude was set remotely using a dial-up disc, as was the landing gear dropping and torpedo or bomb shooting.

Practice has shown the impossibility of the intended aiming bomb dropping from an airplane. It was decided that, in order to simplify the already prolonged development and training program, the pilots would only attack targets by dropping torpedoes or by ramming a plane into a dive. A number of problems with equipment and with the development of new technology led to the fact that interest in unmanned aircraft began to fall.

In total, more than 100 drones of this type were produced, some of them took part in combat operations in the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, there were some successes, there were attacks of ground-based anti-aircraft batteries on Bougainville, in Rabaul and on Fr. New Ireland. The most successful were the last two attacks on New Ireland, which completely destroyed the strategic lighthouse at Cape St. George. In all, 26 aircraft from the 47 aircraft available were spent in these attacks, and 3 crashed for technical reasons.

After the end of the war, the main efforts of developers were focused on the creation of guided missiles and bombs. UAVs were considered only as training radio-controlled targets for air defense systems and fighters.

The interest in the UAV began to revive, as the troops were saturated with anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) and the improvement of detection tools. The use of UAVs made it possible to reduce the losses of manned reconnaissance aircraft, while conducting aerial reconnaissance, and to use them as false targets.

In the USSR, unmanned reactive reconnaissance aircraft were created in the 60-70-ies: Tu-123 “Hawk”, Tu-141 “Strizh”, Tu-143 “Reis”. All of them were quite large and heavy vehicles.

Tu-143 was released around 950 pieces, shipped to Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq and Syria. Where he took part in the fighting.

Tu-143 as part of the BP-3 complex


After serious losses aviation in Vietnam, the United States also revived interest in drones. Basically, they were used for conducting photo reconnaissance, sometimes for electronic warfare purposes. In particular, UAV 147E was used to conduct electronic reconnaissance. Despite the fact that, in the end, the UAV was shot down, it transmitted to the ground station the characteristics of the Soviet S-75 air defense system throughout its flight, and the value of this information was commensurate with the total cost of the unmanned aerial vehicle development program. It also allowed many American pilots to save their lives, as well as aircraft over the next 15 years, until 1973. During the war, American UAVs made almost 3500 flights, with losses of about four percent. The devices were used to conduct photo reconnaissance, signal relay, reconnaissance of electronic equipment, electronic warfare, and as false targets to complicate the air situation.

Subsequent events and technical advances have caused significant changes in the understanding by the leadership of the US Department of Defense of the role and place of UAVs in the weapons system. From the middle of the 1980-ies, US aircraft manufacturing companies began to develop and build automated tactical and operational-strategic unmanned systems.

In 1970 – 1990 and the following years, Israeli military specialists, scientists and designers made a significant contribution to the development of unmanned vehicles.

For the first time, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) encountered unmanned aerial vehicles during the “War of attrition” (1969 – 1970). Static hostilities took place simultaneously on three fronts: against Syria, Jordan, but first of all against Egypt. Then the demand for aerial photography of ground objects sharply increased, but the Israeli Air Force found it difficult to satisfy all requests. Often, the subjects were covered with a powerful air defense system. In 1969, a group of Israeli officers conducted experiments on installing cameras in the case of commercial radio-controlled models. With their use, photographs of the Jordanian and Egyptian positions were obtained. The leadership of military intelligence demanded a UAV with higher tactical and technical characteristics, primarily with a longer range, and the Air Force command was preparing for the purchase of jet unmanned aircraft in the United States at that time on the recommendation of the “buy UAV” group.

In March 1970, the Israeli Air Force delegation left for the United States. At the end of July of the same year, a contract was signed with the American company Teledyne Ryan for the development of the Firebee Model 124I (Mabat) reconnaissance UAV and the production of such vehicles for 12 for Israel. After 11 months, the cars were delivered to Israel. 1 August 1971 was created a special squadron for their operation - 200-I, the first UAV squadron in the Israeli Air Force.

Notable developments and models ordered by the Israeli Air Force in the USA were modifications of unmanned aircraft of the Firebee family - Mabat reconnaissance (Model 124I, Model 147SD) UAVs and Model 232, Model 232B UAVs manufactured by Teledyne Ryan, a also UAV-traps (false targets) to combat the enemy's MQM-74A Chukar company Northrop Grumman, which received the name "Tel" in Israel. In 1973, these vehicles were used by Israel during the Arab-Israeli conflict (“Doomsday Wars”) for observing, reconnaissance of ground targets and setting false air targets. Unmanned reconnaissance aircraft "Mabat" made aerial photographs of dislocations of troops, anti-aircraft missile batteries, airfields, carried out reconnaissance of objects before air strikes and assess the results of these strikes. Shortly after the end of the 1973 war, the Israeli Air Force made a second order for the Mabat 24. Approximate cost of the UAV of this type with additional equipment was 4 million dollars, the aircraft itself cost about 2 million dollars. Unmanned aircraft of the type "Mabat" and "Tel" were purchased before the 1990 of the year and were used as part of the Israeli Air Force in 1995 inclusive; targets "Shadmit" consisted in service with the Air Force 2007 year.

UAV "Mastiff"


Along with orders and purchases of UAVs from US manufacturing firms, Israel’s own powerful base for the design and construction of unmanned complexes was created in Israel over several years. The most active and far-sighted in the strategy of the UAV was the Israeli firm - manufacturer of electronics "Tadiran." Thanks to the initiative of its director Akiva Meir, in 1974, she bought from AIRMECO the rights to an improved UAV Owl and from that moment became the first industrial manufacturer of unmanned vehicles in Israel. Since 1975, Israel has moved to the development and production of its own UAVs, the first of which was Sayar (the Mastiff export name is Mastiff) of the Tadiran manufacturer. This unmanned aircraft was first introduced to the public in 1978; he and his advanced models were in service with military intelligence. By order of the Israeli Air Force, the IAI company developed and created Scout-type devices (“Scout”), in Hebrew - “Zahavan”. The first combat sortie of the Scout-UAV performed 7 on April 1982 of the year to Lebanon, after Operation Peace for Galilee (Lebanon’s war on 1982 of the year).

UAV "Scout"


In 1982, Israeli-made unmanned aerial vehicles were used during the fighting in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. IAI’s small-sized “Mastiff” UAV “Tadiran” and “Scout” carried out reconnaissance of Syrian airfields, air defense system positions and troop movements. According to information obtained using the Scout, a distracting group of Israeli aviation before the strike of the main forces initiated the inclusion of the Syrian air defense missile radar, which were hit by self-guided anti-radar missiles. Those air defense weapons that were not destroyed were suppressed by interference. The press reported that during the 1982 war of the year, the high point of the IDF’s anti-radar weapons arrived. 9 June in the course of Operation Artsav-19 against the Syrian air defense missile system in Lebanon, the Phantom fighter jets launched a new type of standard-type guided missile (AGM-40 Standard ARM) on the 78 air defense system, and Kakhlilit was simultaneously hit. and Keres. In the course of the operation, false air targets — Tel, Samson and Dalila — were also widely used.

The success of Israeli aviation at the time was really impressive. Syria’s air defense system in Lebanon was crushed. Syria has lost 86 combat aircraft and 18 SAM batteries.

The military experts invited by the Syrian leadership from the Soviet Union at that time concluded: the Israelis used a new tactic - a combination of UAVs with television cameras on board and missiles being launched with them. This was the first such spectacular use of unmanned aircraft.

In 1980 – 1990-s, many aircraft building companies and firms became involved in the development and production of UAVs, not only in the United States and Israel, but also in other countries. Separate orders for the development and supply of UAVs acquired an interstate character: American companies supplied the Israeli Air Force with the Mabat, Shadmite and Telim unmanned aerial vehicles; The Israeli company IAI concluded contracts and supplied the US armed forces with the Pioneer and Hunter systems, and the armies of Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and India — Searcher devices. The serial production and conclusion of contracts for the purchase of UAVs, as a rule, were preceded by long-term work on the selection of models and complexes with the study of the characteristics, test results and experience of combat use of unmanned vehicles. For example, in the Republic of South Africa, Kontron developed a Seeker unmanned reconnaissance aircraft (“Seeker”) with a range of up to 240 km. He received baptism of fire during the war in Angola in 1986.

Remote-piloted aircraft and autonomous UAVs were used by both sides during the Gulf War 1991 of the year (Operation Desert Storm), primarily as a surveillance and reconnaissance platform. The United States, United Kingdom, and France have deployed and effectively used systems such as Pioneer, Pointer, Exdrone, Midge, Alpilles Mart, CL-89. Iraq used Al Yamamah, Makareb-1000, Sahreb-1 and Sahreb-2. During this operation, the tactical coalition UAV carried out more than 530 sorties, the raid was about 1700 hours. At the same time, 28 devices were damaged, including 12, which were shot down.

Intelligence UAVs were also used in the so-called peacekeeping operations by UN forces in the former Yugoslavia. In 1992, the United Nations authorized the use of the NATO air force to provide Bosnia with air cover and support ground forces deployed throughout the country. To accomplish this task, round-the-clock reconnaissance with the use of unmanned vehicles was required. American UAVs flew over the territory of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia. To conduct aerial reconnaissance in the Balkans, several Hunter vehicles from Israel bought the Belgian and French Air Forces. In the 1999 year, in order to ensure the actions of NATO troops and the bombing of objects in the territory of Yugoslavia, American MQ-1 Predator UAVs were mainly involved. As reported by the media, they made at least 50 reconnaissance missions.

Combat use of unmanned aerial vehicles
UAV MQ-1 Predator


The United States is a recognized leader in the design and manufacture of UAVs. By the beginning of the 2012 of the year, UAVs accounted for almost a third of the fleet of aircraft in service (the number of UAVs in the armed forces reached 7494 units, while the number of manned vehicles was 10767 units). The most common device was the reconnaissance RQ-11 Raven - 5346 units.

UAV RQ-11 Raven


The first drone of the UAV was the reconnaissance MQ-1 Predator, equipped with AGM-114C Hellfire missiles. In February, 2002 of the year, this unit first struck a blow at an SUV that supposedly belonged to Osama Bin Laden's accomplice, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

At the beginning of the XXI century, the Middle East became the main combat region of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles. In operations of the American armed forces in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, medium-height UAVs, in addition to intelligence, carried out laser targeting of weapons of destruction, and in some cases attacked the enemy with their airborne weapons.

With the help of the UAVs, a real hunt for al Qaeda leaders was organized.



During the 2012 year, at least 10 shots were struck, some information became known:

12 March 2012, allegedly American, by UAVs, attacked the military warehouses of the Al Qaeda terrorist group in the area of ​​the town of Jaar (Abyan province in southern Yemen). Six missiles were fired. Victims and destruction are not reported.

7 in May 2012 in Yemen, as a result of an air strike inflicted by an American UAV, killed one of the leaders of the Al Qaeda wing in Fahd al-Kus, who was considered by the US authorities to be responsible for organizing the detonation of the destroyer Cole.

4 June 2012 in northern Pakistan, as a result of an airstrike by an American UAV, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was considered the second person in Al-Qaida, was killed.

December 8 2012 in Pakistan as a result of air strikes by American UAVs, Abu Zayed was killed, who was considered to be the successor to Al Qaeda Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in June 2012.

The American MQ-9 Reaper drones were based in Pakistan, at Shamsi airfield.

UAV MQ-9 Reaper


However, after making erroneous attacks on “civilian” objects and the death of “civilians”, at the request of the Pakistani side, they left it.


Satellite image of Google Earth: American drones at Shamsi airfield


Infrastructure is being equipped and equipment is being installed to use Global Hawk’s strategic high-altitude reconnaissance RQ-4 in different parts of the world.

UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk


At the first stage, the task is set, on their effective use in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. For this purpose, it is planned to use the US Air Force base on the island of Sicily, on the territory of the Italian WWF Sigonella.

The choice of the Global Hawk type RQ-4 UAV as the primary means of conducting aerial reconnaissance and surveillance, including in the zone of Europe and Africa, is by no means accidental. At present, this drone with a wingspan reaching 39,9 m can be called, without exaggeration, the actual uncrowned “king of UAVs”. The device has a takeoff weight of about 14,5 tons and carries a payload of more than 1300 kilograms. He is able to stay in the air without landing and refueling up to 36 hours, while maintaining a speed of about 570 kilometers per hour. BLA ferry range exceeds 22 thousands of kilometers.

Satellite image of Google Earth: RQ-4 Global Hawk at the home base


According to the estimates of the Northrop Grumman development company, Global Hawk can cover the distance from the Sigonella VBB to Johannesburg and back at one gas station. In this case, the drone has a truly unique characteristics for the air spy and controller. He is able, for example, to collect information using a wide range of special equipment installed on board - a radar station with synthetic beam aperture (developed by Reyteon), a combined optical-electronic / infrared intelligence system AAQ-16, electronic intelligence systems LR-100, other means. At the same time, Global Hawk UAVs are equipped with a set of navigation and communications equipment that allows unmanned aircraft of this family to perform tasks assigned to them with high efficiency (there are satellite communication and navigation systems, radio communication systems, data exchange systems, etc.).

In the US Armed Forces, the Global Hawk RQ-4 UAV is seen as a substitute for high-altitude, a strategic intelligence officer, U-2S, Lockheed. It is noted that in terms of its capabilities, the UAV, in particular in the field of electronic intelligence, is superior to the latter.

French Air Force used in Libya unmanned aerial vehicle "Harfang". The UAV was transferred to the Italian Air Force Sigonella (Sicily) base. It is used for reconnaissance flights in the airspace of Libya in the framework of Operation Harmattan (Harmattan). This was reported by the French Ministry of Defense, which assigned the name "Harmattan" operations of its armed forces in Libya.

The maintenance and support of the UAV flights in Sicily is occupied by a crew of 20 military personnel. Daily UAV spends in the air over 15 hours. On board are installed optoelectronic cameras around the clock.


UAV "Harfang"


The obtained intelligence data is immediately transmitted via satellite and other communication lines to the ground control station, where they are processed in real time.

The use of the Harfang UAV increased the intelligence capabilities of France, which are provided by the five Rafale fighters based on Sihonella, equipped with new-generation digital reconnaissance containers.

Prior to that, they were in Afghanistan after performing 511 flights with a total duration of 4250 hours.

The closest combat use of the UAV took place during the operation of the French forces in Africa.

Two weeks after the start of Serval's operation, two medium-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles of long duration Harfang, which are based in neighboring Niger, flew more than 1000 hours during 50 flights in Mali. These devices, used by the 1 / 33 Belfort squadron (Cognac, France), are used not only for reconnaissance and surveillance, but also for laser targeting of Atlantic-2 Navy aircraft and Air Force fighter-bombers. They turned out to be really necessary in each critical phase of Operation Serval , whether it is the observation of cities occupied by jihadists or in the landing of the 2 th parachute regiment of the foreign legion in Timbuktu. One of the “Harfangs” even managed to break the record, having spent more than 26 hours in the air, thanks to a new configuration with smoother forms of devices.

The Israeli army widely used reconnaissance UAVs with video equipment in operations against neighboring Arab countries and the Hamas movement in the Palestinian enclave, primarily during the bombing and operations in the Gaza Strip (2002 – 2004, 2006 – 2007, 2008 – 2009). A vivid example of the use of UAVs was the second Lebanese war (2006 – 2007).

UAV Heron-1 "Shoval"


Unmanned aerial vehicles of Israeli and American production have the armed forces of Georgia. One of the most well-known and illustrative facts of the armed confrontation of Georgia with the unrecognized republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was the use of Georgian remotely piloted aircraft (RPNA) of the Hermes-450 type produced in Israel. Until a certain time, the Georgian military-political leadership rejected the fact that the power structures of this UAV were at its disposal. However, the 22 case of April 2008, when Hermes-450 was shot down during the flight, forced Saakashvili to admit this fact.

RPV "Hermes-450"


The complex with the RPV "Hermes-450" (Hermes 450) is a multi-purpose complex with a reconnaissance remotely piloted aircraft (RPV) of a long-range flight. It was created by the Israeli company Silver Arrow (a subsidiary of Elbit Systems) and is intended for conducting aerial reconnaissance, patrolling, adjusting artillery fire and supporting communications in the field.

The Russian armed forces were very limited during the “counterterrorist operation” in the Caucasus, using the “Bee” UAV of the Stroy-P complex. Which today is considered obsolete. With its help, operational interaction with the means of fire destruction of the MLRS "Smerch", "Grad", barreled artillery is carried out.

UAV "Bee"


However, there are no open source application details. Given the small resources of Bees and the extremely limited number of complexes, the effect of their use was most likely not large.

Admission to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of new reconnaissance complexes with short-range UAVs of domestic production "Orlan-10" is planned for 2013 year.

In July, 2012, the company "Sukhoi" was selected by the developer of the project of heavy impact UAVs take-off weight, most likely from 10 to 20 tons. Possible technical characteristics of the future apparatus are not disclosed yet. In late October, it became known that the Russian companies Sukhoi and MiG signed an agreement on cooperation in the development of unmanned aerial vehicles - MiG will take part in a project, the tender for which was previously won by Sukhoi.

Sources:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2009-09-11/1_bespilotniki.html
http://topwar.ru/123-bespilotnyj-prismotr-za-kontinentami.html
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadiran_Mastiff
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bpla/pchela.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bpla/rq4.html
http://pentagonus.ru/board/evropa/francija/vvs_francii_rasshirjajut_primenenie_bespilotnykh_letatelnykh_apparatov_quot_kharfang_quot/77-1-0-1246
Author:
132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 09: 03
    +8
    The first combat unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was a German aircraft - a projectile (cruise missile, according to modern terminology) Fau-1 ("Fizeler-103"), with a jet pulsating engine that could be launched from the ground and from the air.

    Controversial statement. So any KR can be called UAV.

    Article plus. good
    1. tm70-71
      tm70-71 4 May 2013 09: 21
      0
      I also noticed this blunder, as well as the article plus definitely.
    2. Army1
      Army1 4 May 2013 12: 34
      +3
      Whatever the vulnerability of the UAV, we need them in large quantities and are more resistant to interference and hacking. Based on the fact that we have a vast territory, difficult climatic conditions, we need more than a likely enemy. And we can do better.
    3. Bongo
      4 May 2013 13: 49
      +8
      The V-1 unmanned aerial vehicle is probably still))), though without remote control and disposable. American UAVs Interstate TDR were also used mostly as "flying bombs". Why the Germans did not use remote control on the V-1, I do not understand, in any case they could do it.
    4. Joker
      Joker 4 May 2013 14: 06
      +2
      Professor, have you gotten sick again?
  2. runway
    runway 4 May 2013 09: 20
    +4
    Very informative. It would be desirable to publish the comparative characteristics of modern UAVs, then the article would greatly benefit.
    1. Bongo
      4 May 2013 13: 52
      +6
      There is not a lot of delivery information about the characteristics, besides, the article would be too voluminous.
      You can ask the Professor to share data on the Israeli. )))
  3. IGOREK
    IGOREK 4 May 2013 09: 30
    +2
    Personally, I like Israeli UAVs, especially SKYLARK
  4. SPACE
    SPACE 4 May 2013 09: 42
    -4
    Well, do not fly to foreign countries and UAVs will not be needed, militarists angry, but in general that the plane that the UAVs are pointless against countries with good air defense. But against small countries and against terrorism, of course, necessary. And for statistical tasks, satellites on GSO with good optics are needed.
    1. Professor
      Professor 4 May 2013 09: 46
      13
      Quote: SPACE
      but in general, that the plane, that the UAV are pointless against countries with good air defense.

      In the same Abkhazian direction, Georgian drones regularly flew over the positions of our troops, and in most cases we had to put up with this. These Israeli-made Hermes UAVs circled the paratrooper camp for hours with impunity for hours because military air defense systems “didn’t take them”: ZU-23 anti-aircraft missiles didn’t penetrate, and MANPADS did not fly due to insufficient heat radiation from drones.
      Interlocutor: Vladimir Shamanov: “Sharpen the army structure for today's wars”
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 4 May 2013 10: 32
        -5
        oh well georgia it helped them a lot laughing , and you forgot about planes? they weren’t specially shot down, paratroopers scared the Georgians with fear angry
        1. Professor
          Professor 4 May 2013 10: 53
          10
          The shameful behavior of the Georgian army has nothing to do with this. The fact remains, with all desire and air defense the general admits that they could not cope with sufficiently large UAVs.
          I hope you will not deny that Russia has the best air defense?
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 4 May 2013 13: 07
            +1
            no, I won’t, I hope you and the general will not argue that it’s absolutely impossible to bring them down. Failure does not mean that it is impossible.
            1. Professor
              Professor 4 May 2013 13: 34
              +7
              No, I won't. However, this is not as simple as many people think, and belching about "takeover of control", "EMP ammunition", "jammers" is generally nonsense. To combat the UAV, special equipment is needed which is not yet available.
              1. IGOREK
                IGOREK 4 May 2013 13: 40
                -1
                need aviation in the air, and a radar on the ground for guidance
              2. SPACE
                SPACE 4 May 2013 14: 45
                0
                Quote: Professor
                "EMP ammunition", "jammers" are generally nonsense

                Sorry, this is just nonsense, you can really drown out any electromagnetic signal, this is physics and even your computers will not emit a signal. And on the bill simply, no one argues, although the main thing is to detect it, and then it's a matter of technology, the very instant 29 will land a couple of salvos from the cannon.
                1. Bongo
                  4 May 2013 14: 49
                  10
                  You simplify a little, electronic warfare is not limited to simple jamming, and guns are not the most effective type of aircraft armament.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 4 May 2013 15: 01
                    +5
                    Quote: Bongo
                    You simplify somewhat, electronic warfare does not boil down to simple jamming, and guns are not the most effective type of aviation weapons.

                    Your suggestions?
                    1. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 15: 05
                      +9
                      You are not a stupid person, you should know that the use of noise signal is usually not effective. In addition, there are necessarily spare frequencies and control channels.
                  2. SPACE
                    SPACE 4 May 2013 15: 27
                    +5
                    Quote: Bongo
                    You simplify a little, electronic warfare is not reduced to simple jamming

                    Of course, but that’s not the point, the task is to prevent the enemy’s actions by means of a UAV in the tactical and strategic depth of defense, the life time of the UAV will tend to zero.
                    In general, gentlemen, if you read my comments, then I am not an opponent of UAVs, I just try to soberly assess their capabilities, and I do not intend to make a hype about their absence. Of course, they are needed, but I think it makes no sense to speak of a larger strategic-tactical front for the battlefield and the immediate operational depth of the front. Satellites will do what. This is my opinion and I do not impose it on you.
                    1. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 15: 35
                      11
                      Frankly speaking, I wrote this review especially for you, after your comments in the article "Sea Power of the XXI Century". I myself do not think that these devices can solve all problems, but they can be very useful, and not only "the task of finding and eliminating terrorists and smugglers." Everything must be in the complex, including satellites.
                      1. SPACE
                        SPACE 4 May 2013 15: 51
                        +8
                        hi Thank you very much for this, I really liked the article. Well for mutual understanding drinks
                2. Professor
                  Professor 4 May 2013 14: 57
                  +8
                  Quote: SPACE
                  Sorry, this is just nonsense, you can really drown out any electromagnetic signal, this is physics and even your computers will not emit a signal. And on the bill simply, no one argues, although the main thing is to detect it, and then it's a matter of technology, the very instant 29 will land a couple of salvos from the cannon.

                  This is not nonsense, but a harsh reality.
                  No, unreal drown it any electromagnetic signal, but only in theory. In practice, you need to know which channel to jam, but no one knows. There isn’t enough power to jam everything. Again, Georgian UAVs, for example, did not drown out, could not.

                  Each time you will be putting the MiG-29 under fire when you spot such a bird?
                  1. SPACE
                    SPACE 4 May 2013 15: 41
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    In practice, you need to know which channel to jam, but no one knows. There isn’t enough power to jam everything.

                    This takes time, but with narrowly focused data transmission to the satellite, it’s easier to shoot down.
                    Quote: Professor
                    Each time you will be putting the MiG-29 under fire when you spot such a bird?

                    as a way out of the situation, you can use an airplane, irrationally, well, what can you do, in general with such a small size it makes sense to use electronic warfare.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 15: 43
                      +5
                      It takes time

                      As I saw the calculations, that even on modern computers it will take about 100 years to crack codes.
                      1. Bongo
                        4 May 2013 15: 48
                        +8
                        Yes, no one canceled cryptography.
                      2. SPACE
                        SPACE 4 May 2013 16: 07
                        +5
                        Quote: Professor
                        it will take about 100 years to crack codes

                        Codes need to be cracked when you want to take control, but to suppress the signal, time is only necessary to determine the frequency or frequencies at which data is being transmitted.
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 4 May 2013 16: 21
                        +7
                        You are mistaken, a useful signal jumps from a frequency to a frequency hundreds of times per second using an encrypted algorithm. To find out at what frequency in the next millisecond the signal will pass is almost impossible.
            2. Roll
              Roll 4 May 2013 20: 00
              -1
              crying Special equipment for fighting drones is Messerschmitt 109. Many advantages are cheap in production, pilots can be planted by pensioners, they can barrage in the air for a long time, and a decent machine-gun volley. And shooting down drones with dryers or instantly is expensive.
        2. Bongo
          4 May 2013 13: 43
          +7
          Today's air defense of Russia is a pale shadow from the Soviet. The number of air defense systems decreased by several times, there is no uniform radar field.
          1. Professor
            Professor 4 May 2013 14: 46
            +3
            Quote: Bongo
            Today's air defense of Russia is a pale shadow from the Soviet. The number of air defense systems decreased by several times, there is no uniform radar field.

            Russia's air defense today is beyond competition, the rest (except China) do not even try to reach.
            1. Bongo
              4 May 2013 14: 58
              +8
              It depends on how you count it, if by the number of deployed air defense missile systems, then I agree with you. But compare the size of the territory of Israel and the Russian Federation, I think that Israel is covered much better. In addition, the main part of the С-300 family air defense systems was made in the USSR and produced a resource in a large part.
              Now only Moscow is adequately covered in Russia.
              1. Professor
                Professor 4 May 2013 15: 02
                +2
                Why do you compare with the USSR? Compare with all other countries. No one has such air defense systems as Russia.
                1. Bongo
                  4 May 2013 15: 07
                  +5
                  So I compare with Israel. What is the amount of air defense missile systems in Israel and Russia per square kilometer?
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 4 May 2013 15: 18
                    +3
                    You should not compare the air defense density, compare the performance characteristics.

                    Quote: Bongo
                    You are not a stupid person, you should know that the use of noise signal is usually not effective. In addition, there are necessarily spare frequencies and control channels.

                    And what are the suggestions?
                    1. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 15: 24
                      +5
                      Professor, I do not understand you about the proposals?
                      As for the performance characteristics of the air defense missile system, here you can compare the Arrow-1/2, Patriot and Iron Dome with the S-300PS, which form the basis of the RF air defense.
                    2. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 15: 29
                      +3
                      Quote: Bongo
                      You simplify a little, electronic warfare is not limited to simple jamming, and guns are not the most effective type of aircraft armament.

                      I’m talking about how we will fight UAVs. What thoughts are there?

                      As for the performance characteristics of the air defense missile system, here you can compare the Arrow-1/2, Patriot and Iron Dome with the S-300PS, which form the basis of the RF air defense.

                      Let's not compare air defense systems with missile defense systems. No one has such a nomenclature of air defense systems as Russia.
                    3. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 15: 40
                      +7
                      Fighting them is not an easy task. Spending a rocket at a drone comparable in cost is extremely wasteful. Perhaps it is necessary to create interceptor drones with weapons on board.
                      And which of the above systems relates to a pure missile defense system, in the sense that it is not capable of performing air defense tasks?
                    4. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 15: 45
                      -1
                      Aerrow-1/2 and Iron Dome are purely missile defense and I doubt their ability to compete with air defense systems.
                    5. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 16: 01
                      +2
                      Are you sure about that?
                    6. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 16: 06
                      +2
                      I am sure that in their current execution they are sharpened strictly as a missile defense system. The Americans and their competitors give money for their development to their air defense systems.
                    7. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 16: 13
                      +5
                      I think that they are capable of carrying out air defense tasks, although this is not a priority task, by analogy with C-300B.
                    8. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 16: 23
                      0
                      No, at the moment they are not capable. There are no corresponding algorithms. It is theoretically possible, but in Russia this has already been put into practice.
                    9. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 16: 28
                      +7
                      Ie you want to say that everything depends on the software?
                      Somehow I don’t really believe it, considering how talented and pragmatic people live in this country lol
                    10. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 16: 30
                      0
                      While the American taxpayer pays for these systems, no one even thinks of writing a new code.
                    11. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 16: 33
                      +6
                      Doubted, climbed into the so disliked by many "Wikipedia", it is argued that the "iron dome" is able to fight aircraft, a hundred to talk about "Aerrow"?
                    12. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 16: 38
                      +2
                      For aircraft, Raphael has another and much more expensive missile (not even one).
                    13. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 16: 52
                      +6
                      Professor, the Patriot air defense system alone is more than enough on the territory of the State of Israel. They are in the photo in red squares. Where in the Russian Federation, besides the Moscow region, can you find such density?
                    14. Professor
                      Professor 4 May 2013 17: 19
                      +5
                      So Israel has never bent anyone. laughing
                      For such a small state and the current degree of threat, the existing air defense is enough.
                    15. Bongo
                      4 May 2013 17: 21
                      +8
                      Who would argue smile to such a territory is quite enough.
  5. queen
    queen 4 May 2013 15: 46
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    extremely wasteful

    But the war in general is wasteful, even at that price, the cost of human life is incommensurable with pieces of iron.
  6. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 15: 48
    +9
    It is not a matter of wastefulness, but the availability of these funds. It is necessary that they are at hand.
  7. Bongo
    4 May 2013 15: 51
    +7
    The criterion "cost-effectiveness" has not been canceled, it was the drones that depleted the ammunition of the Arab air defense systems on the launchers. There was nothing to repel the raids of attack aircraft
  8. queen
    queen 4 May 2013 15: 55
    +3
    Quote: Bongo
    it was drones that drained the ammunition

    It is one thing that they purchased, another thing that we ourselves produce.
  9. Bongo
    4 May 2013 16: 18
    +7
    And how many rockets for the air defense system we have made recently?
  10. Bongo
    4 May 2013 16: 34
    +5
    This is not only about production, it may happen that in battle, at the right moment. There will be no missiles on PU.
  11. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 15: 29
    +1
    Less nonsense to broadcast. Even if it comes from Shamanov.
    Russia has vehicles capable of hitting drones, Strela-10 and its descendants
  12. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 15: 36
    +6
    Quote: Spade
    Less nonsense to broadcast. Even if it comes from Shamanov.
    Russia has vehicles capable of hitting drones, Strela-10 and its descendants

    Shamanov has experience in combat, in particular against UAVs. Arrow-10 how many UAVs shot down?
  13. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 15: 39
    +6
    Not at all. Because it was not in the area of ​​hostilities. Why? We must ask Shamanov.

    By the way, the same thing happened with electronic warfare equipment, which was introduced and started to be used only at the very end, we managed to practically make a heady analysis.
  14. Bongo
    4 May 2013 15: 47
    +7
    I'm not sure that Strela-10 is capable of effectively dealing with light drones like the Israeli Hermes-450. The heat signature is not very noticeable. In addition, Strela-10 has no special advantages, except for the powerful warhead, over Igla MANPADS in terms of combating UAVs.
  15. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 15: 52
    +2
    Capable of. GOS missiles have three channels: infrared, photo-contrast and interfering with logical target selection against the background of optical interference by spectral and trajectory characteristics.
  16. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 16: 03
    +6
    Against such a miracle with an electric motor, all this is useless.
  17. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 16: 36
    +2
    Does it have a contrast ratio against the sky?
  18. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 16: 40
    +8
    You look at its dimensions, it has a contrast ratio below the resolution of the GOS. IMHO
  19. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 16: 45
    +2
    That's it, that IMHO

    In addition, it is precisely these low-speed low-altitude devices that can quite normally be hit by regular ZSU-23-2
  20. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 17: 20
    0
    Quote: Spade
    That's it, that IMHO

    Do you have any facts? Share, otherwise everything you said is also "IMHO".
  21. Know-nothing
    Know-nothing 4 May 2013 20: 18
    +2
    Will he visit a mountain eagle? what
  22. Professor
    Professor 4 May 2013 20: 39
    +6
    Quote: Dunno
    Will he visit a mountain eagle? what

    If only that pea soup would eat plenty. wink
  23. Bongo
    4 May 2013 16: 16
    +7
    When was the last modification of the Strela-10 developed and when did it enter the troops and are missiles produced? Currently, it is planned to convert 10-ku missiles from the "Needle", this gives the unification and an increase in ammunition.
  24. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 16: 37
    0
    Airborne vehicles arrived in 2010
  25. Bongo
    4 May 2013 16: 44
    +4
    The needle does not possess, but a new modification of the Needle-C, this is not required.
    In the Airborne Forces based on MTLB, she became airborne? We can’t talk about new ones, air defense systems and missiles have not been produced for a long time, at best, thoroughly repaired.
  26. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 16: 51
    -3
    And where is the "Igla-S"?
    We installed Strela-10M3, which was very different from the original sample.
    Landing? Why not? She per tonne with cents is lighter than BMD-4M
  27. Bongo
    4 May 2013 16: 56
    +5
    The fact of the matter is that rockets for Strela-10 have not been produced for almost 20 years. As part of the repair and modernization, they are equipped with Igla-S missiles. Performance is not worse than the mass of warheads.
    And if it doesn’t bother you, please find MTLB photos parachuting the airborne assault.
  28. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 17: 06
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    The fact of the matter is that rockets for Strela-10 have not been produced for almost 20 years. As part of the repair and modernization, they are equipped with Igla-S missiles. Performance is not worse than the mass of warheads.

    You confused "Arrow-10" with "Archer-S"




    Quote: Bongo
    And if it doesn’t bother you, please find MTLB photos parachuting the airborne assault.

    So far, such tasks have not been set. Nevertheless, this kind of landing is not a particular problem.
  29. Bongo
    4 May 2013 17: 09
    +6
    I did not confuse, this is an option for upgrading Strela -10, with the replacement of missiles. As for the problem, you are mistaken .... this is a very difficult task, and the presence of this machine in the composition of the Airborne Forces is doubtful.
  30. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 17: 16
    -1
    Have you noticed that the "Archer" has no radar? Only one base remained from Strela-10.

    The task is simple
  31. Bongo
    4 May 2013 17: 17
    +1
    And on Arrow-10 was a radar?
  32. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 17: 59
    +1
    Yes, she stands on her.
  33. Bongo
    5 May 2013 01: 25
    +5
    You do not distinguish radar from a passive reconnaissance station?
  34. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 01: 42
    -3
    And you? This "saucer" is the antenna of the zone estimation equipment. Nothing passive.
  35. Bongo
    5 May 2013 02: 01
    +6
    One of the four vehicles that are part of the fire unit (9A35MZ) is additionally equipped with a passive direction finder for detecting and moving objects equipped with airborne pulse radio systems in the operator’s field of vision. Direction finding objects may include radar bomb sights, aircraft front-view stations, and other radiating means. The passive mode of the direction finder reduces the likelihood of detecting the complex and eliminates the possibility of exposure to enemy anti-radar missiles.
    In any case, this plate is not a radar, radar range finder.
  36. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 02: 35
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    In any case, this plate is not a radar, radar range finder.

    Here it is ...
    Then it is necessary to use radars of the SNAR type (ground artillery reconnaissance station) to deprive the proud rank of the radar, since they also do not show pictures, but give only the speed of the target and range. Let now be called radar range finders.
  37. Bongo
    5 May 2013 02: 47
    +5
    Don't confuse one with the other ... radar is for detection, and rangefinder determines distance. Or are you saying that Arrow uses it to detect?
  38. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 02: 51
    +1
    Not detection. Range and speed of the target. To know the moment when a start can be made.
  39. Bongo
    5 May 2013 06: 14
    +5
    For this, the range finder also serves.
  40. Bongo
    4 May 2013 17: 38
    +5
    Maybe simple, only it has not yet been decided on with respect to the BMD-4.
  41. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 17: 43
    0
    "Sprut-SD weighs 18 tons in general. One and a half times more. Do you need a video of its landing?
  42. Bongo
    5 May 2013 01: 26
    +3
    and that "Sprut" is an air defense system?
  43. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 01: 44
    0
    No, it's an eighteen-ton machine that is being parachuted.
  44. Bongo
    5 May 2013 01: 48
    +3
    We kind of spoke about the Strela-10 air defense system, I’m sure I didn’t drop it by the parachute method and will not.
  45. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 02: 25
    0
    It will be necessary, they will drop. There are no obstacles to this.
    Well, besides your opinion. I hope Shamanov persuades you to give permission
  46. Bongo
    5 May 2013 02: 42
    +3
    Let's talk about what is ...
  47. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 02: 53
    0
    But what we have is that in combat conditions the airborne landing gear never parachuted.
    Right?
  48. Bongo
    5 May 2013 06: 15
    +4
    In combat or training, MTLBs were not dropped by parachute.
  49. Bongo
    5 May 2013 01: 47
    +2
    This plate is designed to fix the radar radiation of aircraft.
  50. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 02: 28
    +1
    Strange, but why is she then present in all the photographs? Photographing exclusively "one of the four cars"?
  51. Bongo
    5 May 2013 02: 43
    +4
    No wonder, one parabolic antenna is used, visually they do not differ.
  52. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 May 2013 02: 56
    +1
    Strange, but in the photographs on some cars there are rectangular boxes above the rails, but not on others. Something tells me that these are the direction finders that are on "one of the four"

    Speaking of birds, this direction finder clearly enhances the capabilities of the complex to detect drones.
  53. Bongo
    5 May 2013 06: 18
    +6
    They work for one antenna. along different contours. the direction finder will be able to detect the drone. only if it "shines" in the HF range.
  54. Bongo
    4 May 2013 17: 01
    +3
    In my opinion, not bad:
  55. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 17: 07
    0
    This is not "Arrow-10"
  56. Bongo
    4 May 2013 17: 12
    0
    Maybe it's not MTLB?
  57. Lopatov
    Lopatov 4 May 2013 17: 17
    +3
    Of course not. This is MT-LB
  58. StolzSS
    StolzSS 4 May 2013 19: 30
    +1
    Apply the Jedi Master, let him use a force to land a bird to study))) Will such an offer suit ?? )))))
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 4 May 2013 11: 59
    +2
    a good article, Russia is far behind in development here, you need to catch up, cooperate with leading countries in this regard, UAVs are necessary for any modern army, and if they still have not too impressive capabilities as a striking means (although there is enough bombing in the mountains seriously) , then as scouts they should be an indisputable priority, here they have many advantages
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 4 May 2013 13: 04
    +6
    A good article showing the scale of the use of "drones", which many still underestimate in our country. By the way, in the PRC, which has the strongest land army in the world, UAVs are also actively developing.
    1. Shawnee
      Shawnee 4 May 2013 15: 58
      +1
      Quote: Odyssey
      scale of use of "drones"

  • atalef
    atalef 4 May 2013 18: 07
    -2
    Israeli portal Israel Defense claims that the unmanned aircraft, shot down by the Israeli Air Force in late April near Haifa, may have been launched not by Hezbollah or Iran, but by the Russian Navy.

    Journalist Ron Solomon reports that, according to the Israeli Air Force pilots who flew to intercept, the downed drone was visually identified as a tactical reconnaissance UAV "Pchela-1T" or a more modern UAV "Dozor" (apparently - "Dozor-85" approx. ed.) of Russian production, having easily identifiable external features.

    The aircraft could be launched from a Russian base in Tartus or from one of the Russian warships. The Israeli journalist recalls that in the week when the drone was shot down, a detachment of the Russian Navy was located off the coast of Lebanon.

    According to Solomon, it is impossible to completely discard the version that Hezbollah or Iran is behind the launch of the UAV, since Russia supplied the Bees to the Middle East (in particular, to Syria). However, if Russia really is behind the launch, then, most likely, it was a response to the discovery of Israeli devices off the coast of Tartus for tracking a Russian naval base.
    1. smile
      smile 4 May 2013 19: 47
      +2
      atalef (2)
      Well, you probably don’t believe yourself that we launched this unfortunate bjela in Haifa? On hr..na we need it there? Why could she peep there so terribly important for us that we would risk this not the most unbreakable miracle of technology to send to you? :))) Something comrade Solomon got it right here ... sensationalism hungry, adnaka ... :)))
    2. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 4 May 2013 20: 00
      +1
      Quote: atalef
      really worth Russia, then most likely it was a response to the discovery of Israeli instruments to track the Russian naval base off the coast of Tartus

      Was there really reconnaissance equipment ?!) What kind of nonsense) The professor will slap a minus for you right now!) But in fact, why should our Navy scout Haifa ?!) It’s easier from satellites.) So it’s foolish to substitute.)
      1. Professor
        Professor 4 May 2013 20: 42
        +3
        From companions is easier.

        Please advise what they write on foreign forums about the resolution of Russian spy satellites.
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 4 May 2013 21: 37
          +1
          You better go to Lubyanka, ask for a list of foreign agents.)
          It’s ridiculous to look at such information on forums, no one there will write the truth or will write a gag. For this, they are the military, in order to be classified. Yes, about the resolution) If it were all so bad they would not be built, by the way about the fact that some components are bought abroad is not news, maybe parts are bought here.) And the conversation on this topic will be pointless, as if we started talk about the characteristics of Israeli ballistic missiles;)
          1. Professor
            Professor 4 May 2013 21: 51
            +1
            And then, asks, are you going to better from satellites if you can’t even imagine what kind of resolution they have? What about cloud cover? Not prevent?
            1. Phantom Revolution
              Phantom Revolution 4 May 2013 22: 12
              +1
              If they exist and they are being built, then they are completely fulfilling these tasks, otherwise they would not have been bought, just like the same examples from the back of the window in which they forced to redo the outputs on the sides, etc. I don’t think that fools are sitting there and will buy things that do not fulfill the assigned tasks. I do not produce these satellites and, roughly speaking in this topic, I can’t give an exact answer, can or can’t, it is cloudy every day over Israel?) London is direct) For the sake of a meaningless launch, which would not give anything, because they would have shot down, for what?) Probably the evil Russian matzo wanted to know the recipe?)
              Let's talk about the characteristics of Israeli missiles, so I read on one forum about the fact that they are so outdated that they can’t overcome the c-300 complex.)
              1. Professor
                Professor 4 May 2013 22: 30
                +2
                If they exist and they are being built, then they are completely fulfilling these tasks, otherwise they would not have been bought, just like the same examples from the rear-view drive in which they forced to redo the outputs on the sides, etc.

                "Strong argument" laughing
                Read at your leisure Earth Ground after we continue with the materiel.
                However, those satellites you mentioned use capsules dropped from orbit?
                Let's talk about the characteristics of Israeli missiles, so I read on one forum

                Throw a link to that forum, so we get a substantive conversation.
                1. Phantom Revolution
                  Phantom Revolution 4 May 2013 23: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Read at your leisure, Earthing heaven after continue with the hardware.
                  However, those satellites you mentioned use capsules dropped from orbit?

                  This article is not very informative, the level of rumor and speculation based on contracts. I wrote below, provide at least the pictures, then we'll talk about the resolution options) I don't know which ones you mentioned, you have to choose what they discard and what they don't.) But for now I can repeat your phrase "Strong argument" laughing
                  If everyone knows how with satellites and their characteristics, then I don’t think they can’t provide these photos) About the forum, it was sarcasm if you did not understand.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 5 May 2013 08: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: Phantom Revolution
                    About the forum, it was sarcasm if you did not understand.

                    Of course I realized that this is sarcasm like this: "Unlike you, I am also on foreign forums, where many are unhappy with the deceitfulness of the media, especially shown in the article about the comments on "Explosions in Boston", so alas, again you draw conclusions for everyone in a hurry".

                    Why Russia still uses film in its reconnaissance satellites
                    I wrote below, provide at least pictures, then we'll talk about resolution options
                    1. Phantom Revolution
                      Phantom Revolution 5 May 2013 10: 00
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Of course I realized that this is sarcasm like this: "Unlike you, I am also on foreign forums, where many are dissatisfied with the falsity of the media, especially shown in the article about the comments on" Explosions in Boston ", so alas again you draw conclusions for everyone hastily. "

                      Dear, with your bravado about your competence, you have already earned "the noble order of the balabol, who is sure that he speaks the truth, providing links to resources that are filled with content", providing similar links you would laugh at them.) About my knowledge, go back on the topic, there was everything is written.) And then I remember your chatter about the intelligence equipment.)

                      About the picture, thank you, but below you look at the article they threw off, there are photos and analysis of photos.
                      http://neogeography.ru/rus/news/main-news/russian-satellite-snap-israel-airbases
                      -and-damascus.html
                      So it’s easier to take a picture from the satellite.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 5 May 2013 10: 29
                        +2
                        And then I remember your chatter about the account, intelligence equipment.

                        Can not wait. wink

                        So it’s easier to take a picture from the satellite.

                        You are joking? The free Google Earth resource gives you better resolution images. Canopus-B has a maximum resolution of 2,1 m. It will not replace the UAV.
                        What about capsules? What do they write about this in foreign forums?
                      2. Phantom Revolution
                        Phantom Revolution 5 May 2013 11: 30
                        0
                        An UAV is needed for reconnaissance of the purely deployment of troops, and even near the borders, but he does not scout other objects in the interior of the country, do not smack nonsense, he will be shot down faster than he reaches and takes a picture. And the satellites are indispensable in this regard, no one will bring them down, and there will be no incident, no one will prove it. So, it makes no sense to use UAVs for reconnaissance in a country that has good air defense. Do not start a dispute that is meaningless and merciless. And the fact that 2,1 is not a problem, if we need to, then everything will be covered;)
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 5 May 2013 11: 57
                        +2
                        Quote: Phantom Revolution
                        An UAV is needed for reconnaissance of the purely deployment of troops, and even near the borders, but he does not scout other objects in the interior of the country, do not smack nonsense, he will be shot down faster than he reaches and takes a picture of something.

                        Nonsense? This papelats is intended for "purely reconnaissance of the deployment of troops and then near the borders"

                        and this one too

                        and this one


                        they will bring him down faster than he will fly and take a picture of something

                        Many have beaten such? One fell himself, but where are the others?

                        So, it makes no sense to use UAVs for reconnaissance in a country that has good air defense.

                        Now you will begin to rant about "good air defense". Russia has the best air defense in the world. Does Shamanov know what he is talking about?

                        And the satellites are indispensable in this regard, no one will bring them down, and there will be no incident, no one will prove it.

                        Already interchangeable. Solar-powered UAVs can be at an altitude unattainable for air defense systems for months and they cost much less satellites. By the way, even China has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down satellites.


                        And the fact that 2,1 m is not a problem, if we need to, then everything will be covered;)

                        Who will cover? In Russian formulate this sentence pliz.
                      4. smile
                        smile 5 May 2013 13: 11
                        +1
                        Professor (
                        Yeahhh ... Professor, are you all for nothing to the fact that we still sent this taratayka to you? And can you imagine and voice the reason why our nosebleed needed to spy something under Haifa, and even at the risk of running into a scandal?
                      5. Professor
                        Professor 5 May 2013 13: 45
                        +3
                        Quote: smile
                        Yeahhh ... Professor, are you all for nothing to the fact that we still sent this taratayka to you?

                        Of course no. Russia has nothing to do with sending UAVs to Haifa, all the more a couple of days before the visit of Azov.
                      6. smile
                        smile 5 May 2013 14: 55
                        +1
                        Professor
                        say business +++++ ...
                  2. Phantom Revolution
                    Phantom Revolution 5 May 2013 13: 28
                    +1
                    You respected in the steppe ran away) i.e. we sent according to your words the aforementioned drones?) I grieve with the desire to clap my hands.)

                    About shooting down, read about Amer drones in Iran, they already have a whole collection of them.) If you want to talk that the reaper is unbreakable or something like that, then I hasten to disappoint you) And the fact that it’s a mini UAV is not intended for reconnaissance over long distances. But let's not run away into the steppe).

                    About solar panels. Prufik can) And how many of these are configured?)

                    Who will cover, but the Russian Federation if necessary, even without nuclear weapons will be covered by Iskanders, Tornadoes and other systems if necessary.)
                  3. Professor
                    Professor 5 May 2013 13: 57
                    0
                    Those. We sent you the above drones according to your words?

                    And where did I say that?

                    About shooting down, read about Amer drones in Iran, they already have a whole collection of them.

                    Show us a reference to this collection. Weak? wink

                    If you want to talk that the reaper is unbreakable or something else like that, then I hasten to disappoint you

                    You would have supported at least some of your words with evidence, otherwise all words and words. Do you not believe General Shamanov?

                    About solar panels. Prufik can) And how many of these are configured?)

                    And you take an interest in the "foreign forums", and if they do not cope then I will enlighten you, I have information.

                    Who will cover, but the Russian Federation if necessary, even without nuclear weapons will be covered by Iskanders, Tornadoes and other systems if necessary.)

                    Now everything is clear. laughing Will cover without proper intelligence? Aren't you afraid that you’ll cover your mistake? After all, with a resolution of 2.1 meters it is impossible to determine what kind of tank in the picture ...
                  4. Phantom Revolution
                    Phantom Revolution 5 May 2013 14: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    And where did I say that?

                    Those. do you confirm that you cannot read? Then the meaning of this stuffing?)

                    Quote: Professor
                    Show us a reference to this collection. Weak? wink


                    Enough for you in YouTube for the eyes, it’s good that you can see it in the news and in person. You seemed to oversleep all this).

                    Quote: Professor
                    You would have supported at least some of your words with evidence, otherwise all words and words. Do you not believe General Shamanov?

                    Sorry, but in order to require a reference, you must first provide them yourself.) In YouTube you will find about how a drone knocks down a moment.
                    Quote: Professor
                    Now everything is clear. laughing Will cover without proper intelligence? Aren't you afraid that you’ll cover your mistake? After all, with a resolution of 2.1 meters it is impossible to determine what kind of tank in the picture ...

                    laughing and who said that they will introduce tanks?) It will be enough to bomb the entire infrastructure) Yes, and for this there are other ways of reconnaissance, or does it throw you to the extreme that everything is purely on satellites?) fellow

                    Quote: Professor
                    And you take an interest in the "foreign forums", and if they do not cope then I will enlighten you, I have information.

                    Again) The approach of double standards, how much you poke in your own answers, to no avail, I once again got to the Jewish forum) laughing
                  5. Professor
                    Professor 5 May 2013 14: 53
                    +2
                    Those. do you confirm that you cannot read?

                    I reacted to your cue: From companions is easier. Or have you already changed your mind?

                    Enough for you in YouTube for the eyes, it’s good that you can see it in the news and in person. You seemed to oversleep all this).

                    It follows from this that you cannot confirm your words about "Amer drones in Iran, they already have a whole collection of them." Again blah blah blah.

                    Sorry, but to require a reference, you must first provide them yourself

                    Open eyes and links and photographs of the UAV and even satellite photos at your request, I provided, and you send me to YouTube. Somehow childish it is. You are not even able to throw off links to "foreign forums" that you, unlike me, visit.

                    The approach of double standards, how much you poke in your own answers, to no avail, I once again got to the Jewish forum)

                    And you do not poke, but at least once support your answer with a link to information (not from my answers and links) and a link to "foreign forums" you have not provided.

                    So back to the source. Is it better with satellites? Do you think the hero of Russia, General Shamanov, is lying?
  • Phantom Revolution
    Phantom Revolution 4 May 2013 22: 16
    -3
    Better so, show me the pictures from these satellites)))) having driven into the gogl I did not see anything)
  • Know-nothing
    Know-nothing 4 May 2013 23: 33
    +4
    In the 2012 year, for the first time in many years, three satellites were launched in Russia with Earth imagery equipment: a short-lived spacecraft detailed exploration "Cosmos-2480" type "Cobalt-M" (Russia has remained the only satellite operator in the world with film cameras); the long-awaited mini-satellite for detailed Earth survey “Canopus-V” and the experimental scientific mini-satellite “Zond-PP”.

    The long-awaited success of the national remote sensing program was the commissioning of the Kanopus-V spacecraft together with the BelKA spacecraft of the Republic of Belarus of the same type. Despite the relatively limited performance of the survey equipment, the satellites demonstrated high quality images with a resolution of up to 2,1 m in the panchromatic channel of the MSS camera (23 km band) and 10 m in the four spectral channels of the visible and near IR ranges of the MCC camera (20 km capture band).

    http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2013/02/27_a_4990217.shtml

    Kanopus-V Pictures
    http://neogeography.ru/rus/news/main-news/russian-satellite-snap-israel-airbases
    -and-damascus.html
    (how to embed the link?)

    Today it became known that Belarus and Russia plan create a new satellite constellation with resolution 1 m.
    [...]
    In the future, the current satellite constellation will be expanded by one Belarusian and two Russian satellites.

    http://it.tut.by/343091

    In general, the main problem of Russian satellite imagery is not low resolution, but the lack of satellites themselves.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 4 May 2013 21: 00
    +3
    Americans will soon put drones on aircraft carriers. and we all chew snot. our generals do not yet understand where to put the drone. although it can be put in brigades and armies. a kind of universal strike complex from the air. but they are effective in areas with good weather. but as with low clouds, they are not very effective.
  • Acid
    Acid 4 May 2013 21: 41
    +1
    Do we have at least one military unit combat attack drones that can immediately fly into place ???
    1. Joker
      Joker 4 May 2013 22: 22
      +2
      You yourself are not funny to ask such a question? We have a few UAVs, and there aren’t any drones in my opinion.
    2. dmi32167
      dmi32167 5 May 2013 21: 12
      0
      it seems like this year the dry ones will be thrown aside as a fiftieth and they will make something shock-drone
  • Tourist Breakfast
    Tourist Breakfast 5 May 2013 12: 46
    0
    The French UAV "Harfang", as it turned out, is the same "Heron" produced by IAI.