When will personal air mobility equipment appear during a special operation?

11 071 135
When will personal air mobility equipment appear during a special operation?


The future has come


The special operation taught us that even the most daring projects, which seemed fantastical just yesterday, are taking on real shape. About FPV-drones Few people even mentioned them as sources of mortal threat before 2022. But now they are the primary precision-guided munitions in special operations. The so-called "gray zone" is filled with remotely controlled ground platforms—wheeled and tracked. They are trained to fight and are capable of delivering supplies to the front lines. Incidentally, walking robots, or "mechanical mules," have not achieved fame in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, although attempts at combat use have been noted. The next stage in turning science fiction into reality is the widespread use of strike systems powered by artificial intelligence. First, Russia integrated electronic brains into kamikaze drones, and then Ukraine deployed software from the American company Palantir. As difficult as it may sound, there is no limit to perfection in armed conflict.



Combat is the best engine of progress. Currently, the key challenge on the line of contact is quickly breaching the so-called kill zone. Until now, assault troops have used a wide range of vehicles, from electric scooters to quad bikes and motorcycles. These aren't the best solutions, but unfortunately, there are no other options. Unless you're on foot, perhaps. The "gray zone" during a special operation has become the most dangerous place on the planet—it's where mines, drones, bullets, and shrapnel are used to try to kill you.

In this regard, the main question is how to quickly deliver infantrymen behind enemy lines? Or at least within striking distance. All previously known airborne methods have become obsolete. Air transport within range Defense They are invariably shot down. Infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are burned or blown up by mines. Heavy (or rather, "super-heavy") multi-rotor drones appear to be the most rational choice in this situation. It's worth noting that we're not talking about the now-boring "Baba Yaga" drone, but more powerful machines. These can be roughly divided into several classes. The simplest and relatively inexpensive are those similar to the six-rotor lumberjack drone from Sweden.


A Swedish prototype drone for cutting and moving tree trunks

The machine was created by AirForestry. This innovative UAV The 6,2-meter diameter carbon fiber tractor is transforming logging: its electric propulsion system allows it to silently navigate tree canopies, eliminating soil compaction, root damage, or wheel tracks.

The felling process is robotic from the top down: a drone hovers over the selected tree, secures its crown with a specialized manipulator, and glides under its own weight to the base, cutting off all branches and limbs along the way. At the final stage, the device cuts the trunk at ground level and quickly transports the cleaned log by air directly to the logging road, ensuring absolute environmental friendliness and high-speed logging. The drone can handle a considerable weight – up to 200 kg.

Upon closer inspection, there's nothing extraordinary about the design. It's a well-scaled version of agricultural drones. Preliminary estimates put the cost of a "super-heavy" drone in the range of 10-12 million rubles. Expensive? Considering its combat potential, the figures are quite reasonable. It's 10-12 times cheaper than an infantry fighting vehicle, whose mission is to deliver personnel to the attack line. Currently, no combat vehicle is up to the task—the crew, the troops, and the vehicle itself are all lost. Super-heavy drones with one or two soldiers on board are capable of not only quickly navigating the gray zone but also approaching a staging area from any angle. A stream, a swamp, or a minefield—all of these can be quickly traversed by air.

Given the extremely sparse defense density of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, individual airmobility assets can bypass strongpoints, entering the enemy's rear. Manned drones are not affected. EW, and with proper planning of an airborne operation, losses from small arms fire (and other drones) can be minimized. Let's clarify again: flying platforms can overcome natural and artificial obstacles, which are usually the last thing an enemy defends. The use of super-heavy drones for air evacuation of the wounded appears to be in demand. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been testing such systems since the spring of 2026. Similar innovations have not yet been heard of in the Russian Army. Meanwhile, units often have to fight in complete or operational encirclement, and an airlift of heavy drones allows soldiers to be supplied with everything they need. However, the wounded must be evacuated by land, which carries the risk of heavy losses.

Development Options


In addition to the experimental AirForest, there's the Griff 300 octocopter on the market. This 75-kilogram, 20-kilowatt drone can carry up to 235 kilograms. Its top speed is 65 km/h, and its range is 15 kilometers. It can stay airborne for 45 minutes. The next in line is the Volocopter VoloDrone, with a 200-kilogram payload. There are plenty of military-grade solutions on the market. Moreover, militarizing production by stripping away all unnecessary components will inevitably reduce the final cost. And we could be talking about 8-10 million rubles per unit, rather than 10-12 million. But the options don't end there.


Griffin300

There's another class of drones capable of carrying people: hoverbikes, or sky motorcycles. These haven't been seen in heavy-duty work. They're more like expensive toys for the rich, and perfectly suited for combat. Back in 2017, the Russian company Hoversurf unveiled the Scorpion-3 quadcopter, a single-rider vehicle. The vehicle can reach speeds of up to 100 km/h in the air, and its battery lasts for 30 minutes.


Dubai police once tested the Russian Scorpion-3

Almost ten years have passed since the premiere, but actual orders have yet to be placed. Technology has advanced significantly since 2017, and it's safe to say that component prices have dropped and performance has improved. All that remains is to cover the copter's exposed rotors with covers and move them to the front. Dubai police tried several Scorpion-3s, but the venture was unsuccessful. Hoverbikes are approximately two to three times more expensive than super-heavy drones, with prices starting at 20-25 million rubles. The feasibility of such an investment can be discussed above. These hoverbikes are far from disposable – after the pilot dismounts, the vehicle can automatically return home using its navigation system. Similarly, hoverbikes can pick up soldiers after completing their mission.

Jet-powered hoverbikes represent the ultimate in aircraft performance. For example, the Airbike from Volonaut. It weighs 30 kg and can propel a 95 kg pilot at a top speed of 100 km/h. It's very expensive—around 60 million rubles—and has numerous limitations. First, it's noisy. Second, it can't return to its home base. Third, Russia lacks the technology to create small-scale turbojet engines.


Airbike by Volonaut

Finally, personal jetpacks, or jetpacks, are beyond the pale. Each one is as heavy as a cast-iron bridge, requires courage (and even desperation) from the pilot, and is difficult to control. They fly very fast, but not for long—you can't carry much fuel for a pair of jet engines. The likelihood of such personal airmobility being used in special operations is extremely uncertain, but certainly not zero.
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    4 June 2026 04: 38
    These are hoverbikes, or sky motorcycles.
    1. +1
      4 June 2026 11: 14
      No, it was even earlier...
    2. 0
      4 June 2026 11: 14
      No, it was even earlier...
      1. + 11
        4 June 2026 11: 50
        They stole from us. The first female pilot was Baba Yaga, and she used both light apparatus (a broom) and heavy ones (a mortar). The mortar, by the way, had a decent load-bearing capacity. wink
        1. +1
          4 June 2026 12: 02
          Quote: NIKNN
          By the way, the mortar had a decent load-bearing capacity.
        2. +4
          4 June 2026 12: 49
          As one boy, smart beyond his years, said: “Technology on the verge of science fiction!”
    3. +3
      4 June 2026 17: 45
      And so, look, we'll get a prototype of "Karlson".
      1. +1
        15 September 2026 05: 20
        we'll get a prototype of "Carlson".

        No longer a prototype, and a passenger on my lap. There was a flaw: "Don't put pressure on my neck!"
  2. + 16
    4 June 2026 04: 52
    At the same time, militarizing production by cutting out all unnecessary parts will inevitably reduce the final cost of the product. And we'll be talking about 8-10 million rubles per unit, not 10-12 million.

    The author apparently doesn't know how to run a modern business with the Ministry of Defense - respectable people will buy it for 10, stick a nameplate on it, and sell the morph for 20 (or 30, if they're really respectable).
  3. +3
    4 June 2026 04: 56
    We can have backpacks like the space marines have.
    1. +4
      4 June 2026 09: 20
      They're for jumping: to jump a certain distance. Or to cushion a fall during parachuting (which is less common). Although, for the realities of the air defense, such backpacks are probably more useful.
    2. 0
      4 June 2026 10: 52
      I've written about a similar idea before. The paratroopers are delivered, the infantry disembarks, and the backpacks are automatically charged. There's a wounded man, they call for a backpack, attach him to it, and automatically send him to the hospital. Routes can be planned in advance.
      1. 0
        4 June 2026 14: 50
        You can't get away with a backpack! Your device will be no smaller than a small helicopter.
        1. 0
          4 June 2026 15: 41
          Well, why not? A backpack is enough.
          [media=https://vkvideo.ru/video-436597_456241438]
          1. +1
            4 June 2026 16: 17
            The backpack will fly, at most, a few hundred meters. And not everyone can survive on it, without falling and burning. Otherwise, they would already be in mass production—and this type of backpack was invented over 60 years ago...
            1. +1
              5 June 2026 09: 28
              Are you serious? You've never used a quadcopter with a gyroscope?

              60 years ago, they made a backpack powered by fuel and oxidizer. I'm talking to you about a backpack powered by electric fans.
              1. -1
                5 June 2026 11: 57
                All these copters of yours are dangerous, far more dangerous than the classic single-rotor design with tail rotors, or coaxial. Especially at the front. Ground fire can knock out at least one rotor and/or engine, sending your valiant pilot tumbling to the ground. That's why multi-rotor designs never caught on in "big aviation," even though the first helicopters were built with a multi-rotor design. Plus, there's no autorotation, if you've heard of that. 50-60 years ago, there were backpack helicopters with classic and coaxial designs, but no one really made them. Not even for the amusement of the rich. Maybe there's a reason for that? What do you think?
                And electricity, in general, won't fly far
                1. 0
                  5 June 2026 12: 54
                  Imagine the size of the electric motor for such a propeller and its inertia as it spins. Electric quadcopters have one undeniable advantage: they're quieter than gasoline-powered drones. With a gyroscope, learning to control one won't be difficult. As for safety, I'd like to point out the following:
                  1) war and security are generally different poles;
                  2) a fighter with such a backpack should not rise above the landings.
                  Now let's talk about the pros:
                  1) Individual mobility of fighters when delivering to the front line (no more problem of having to infiltrate 1-2 people at a time. Concentrating forces for several days, weeks, months)
                  2) The mine problem will only bother soldiers at the final stretch, when they dismount. The problem of quickly crossing water obstacles has also been solved. And it's possible to launch a surprise assault on a building not from below, but from the roof, landing on it.
                  3) a relatively quiet means of transportation. Nowadays, the diesel engines of armored vehicles or the engines of buggies and motorcycles can be heard far away. Here, however, the vehicles are much quieter, and the enemy has significantly less time to react and prepare for an assault.
                  4) Such a backpack can be used as a 300x evacuation device. Even if the patient is unconscious, they can be strapped to the backpack, and it will automatically transport them to the nearest medical aid station (especially since NATO forces are currently practicing evacuating the wounded using large agricultural drones).

                  We need to look a little wider and not be skeptical.
                  1. -2
                    5 June 2026 13: 53
                    You should first try piloting any aircraft yourself, even with an instructor, where its flight depends on your stick and pedal movements, and then start thinking about it. And while you're at it, read and look up all the rules on how to safely perform maneuvers, etc. Everyone is brave and skilled on the couch!

                    If there is a gyroscope
                    Your understanding of aircraft and the dynamics of their flight is too primitive.

                    War and security are completely different poles.
                    This doesn't mean you should overwhelm the enemy with corpses. A skilled commander isn't the one who wins, but the one who wins with living soldiers!

                    should not rise above the landings
                    Yeah, and cover all the trees and bushes with incompetent pilots. Also, you clearly don't watch videos from the front. They just blow away the greenery there. All that's left is a lunar landscape. Are you planning on flying through craters?

                    individual mobility of fighters when delivering to the front line
                    Any Shilka, Tunguska, ZU-23, and even a couple of machine guns will provide you with a clearing of human mincemeat.

                    from the roof
                    First, you have to get to the roof. And landing on it is a real challenge. Look for videos of helicopters flipping over and falling off rooftops. There are plenty of them!

                    quiet means of transportation
                    Are there no electric buses in your town? No trams, commuter trains, or metro? Or even trolleybuses? Are they very quiet? A flying machine would be audible throughout the entire area!

                    as a means of evacuation 300x
                    Well, yes, he'll bring the 200th, no need for treatment, very practical

                    he will deliver it himself
                    Or maybe straight into the hands of a sabotage and reconnaissance group with electronic warfare that they will encounter along the way.

                    We need to study the material, and not engage in empty and meaningless chatter!
                    1. +1
                      6 June 2026 20: 49
                      Why do I read nothing but whining from you? Aren't you really CIPSO? Ira. The major clearly needs to take a closer look at you.
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      Your understanding of aircraft and the dynamics of their flight is too primitive.

                      Keep your opinions to yourself. I spent the whole day playing with the DJI Neo 2. It flies beautifully on its own. And it only took me 40 minutes to learn how to fly it.


                      Quote: futurohunter
                      This doesn't mean you should overwhelm the enemy with corpses. A skilled commander isn't the one who wins, but the one who wins with living soldiers!

                      It's just in your overwrought brain. Once again, I think the services will take a closer look at you.
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      Yeah, and cover all the trees and bushes with incompetent pilots. Also, you clearly don't watch videos from the front. They just blow away the greenery there. All that's left is a lunar landscape. Are you planning on flying through craters?

                      I'm too lazy to even respond to this nonsense. Judging by your answers, you're completely crazy.

                      Quote: futurohunter
                      Any Shilka, Tunguska, ZU-23, and even a couple of machine guns will provide you with a clearing of human mincemeat.

                      Of course. We're all stupid. They'll send fighters 50 kilometers beyond the ribbon, but these little boxes don't get any closer to the ribbon. They're burned by FPV, and quite successfully.
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      First, you have to get to the roof. And landing on it is a real challenge. Look for videos of helicopters flipping over and falling off rooftops. There are plenty of them!

                      Total nonsense. What do helicopters with their inertia and the backpack idea have to do with it? You're on the topic of swimming like sewage in an ice hole.
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      First, you have to get to the roof. And landing on it is a real challenge. Look for videos of helicopters flipping over and falling off rooftops. There are plenty of them!

                      I live in Moscow, where there are plenty of electric buses, and guess what? Electric buses are dozens of times quieter than their diesel counterparts. But your knowledge of electric transport stops at the noise of the Svarz trolleybus.
                      You do NOT know the topic.

                      I won't even respond to the rest of this nonsense. This conversation with you is over, as I have a strong feeling you're a plant.
                      1. -2
                        7 June 2026 08: 20
                        I'm already a major, look at my shoulder strap. laughing And a major will find a common language with a "major" belay Moreover, I am on friendly terms with your "majors"))
                        Any schoolchild can pilot a computerized toy. Visit an airfield with real helicopters, spend a few thousand rubles on a flight, talk to the instructors, and your ideas will change. Believe me, it's worth the money!
                        In Russia, there are regularly a whole bunch of "enthusiasts" like you who are too frivolous about the air element, and it does not forgive frivolity!
                        Further, judging by the foul language and spelling errors, you've clearly run out of arguments and communication skills. All that's left is a torrent of emotional filth, in which one can only discuss the overall development and maturity of the writer.
                        And go to the airfield. This is not like stomping on a keyboard!
            2. 0
              15 September 2026 05: 28
              Otherwise they would already be in mass production.


              Sometimes, looking out from the porch onto the courtyard and the pond, he would talk about how wonderful it would be if an underground passage were built from the house or a stone bridge were built across the pond, with shops on either side, where merchants could sit and sell various small goods needed by the peasants. His eyes would become exceedingly sweet and his face would take on a most contented expression, though all these projects ultimately ended in mere words. In his study, there was always a bookmarked on page fourteen, which he had been reading constantly for two years now.
        2. 0
          4 June 2026 15: 44
          And our neighbors are already doing it
          1. -4
            4 June 2026 16: 18
            Well, they don't feel sorry for "human material" for experiments... Especially "material" without brains.
  4. 0
    4 June 2026 04: 57
    Ah... I wish we could use these things for fishing, hunting, at the dacha... dreams, dreams... with our prohibitions, it's still a utopia.
    I wonder if Geranium jet engines could be installed on air motorcycles?
    1. +1
      4 June 2026 05: 41
      I wonder if Geranium jet engines could be installed on air motorcycles?

      Do I have a wire?
      Do you have...
      Can I not!
      In my opinion, it's impossible due to the excessively coarse thrust control required for stability in jet or piston engines. A combined system for vertical movement using quad-electric engines, and horizontal movement using piston or jet engines, is possible.
      Kennedy was shown a jetpack once, but nothing more happened.
    2. 0
      4 June 2026 07: 14
      In the West, craftsmen have long been installing "model aircraft" jet engines on just about anything.
      Odon even put a couple of them on his hands and they fly.
      1. -2
        4 June 2026 14: 47
        He's already departed for the next world. And a couple of his followers are heading there too!
    3. -2
      4 June 2026 14: 48
      Well, some people, excuse the language, build planes out of sh... and sticks, and then... fall on them! It's possible, but why?
      If you have a lot of money, buy a Robinson R-44 helicopter and you will be happy!
    4. 0
      15 September 2026 05: 48
      Land-based motorcycle with jet engines.
      Guaranteed Darwin Award for LBS
      Engine: Rolls Royce-Allison 250 Series Gas Turbine
      Torque: 425 ft/lbs at 2000 rpm
      Power: 320 hp at 52,000 rpm (286 hp at the rear wheel)
      Output speed: 6000 rpm
      Compressor: 54,000 rpm

      Weight: 500 lbs / 226,80 kg dry
      Frame: Aluminum alloy
      Fairings: Cabon fiber
      https://nrmotoco.com/ru/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B9/%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4-mtt-y2k-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D1%82%D1%83/
    5. 0
      17 September 2026 12: 24
      If you don't mind frying your legs and back, then it's possible. Or you should wear an asbestos suit. The roar and whistle will scare the neighbors at the dacha, and the game while hunting. Landing will create quite a whirlwind. And if the engine suddenly stops for some reason, the fall will be quite rough. Jetpacks have already had a ton of enthusiastic fans over the 60 years of their existence. In short, a good toy, but only for show.
  5. +8
    4 June 2026 05: 01
    "We started off well, but ended up... as always." (Chernomyrdin in s)
    The author began optimistically, but then condemned himself for the cost of the "delivery means" and the advisability of using them in the given conditions.
    According to Russian soldiers who have encountered "Baba Yaga" drones on numerous occasions, heavy copters operate only at night during special operations. Ukrainians deploy them at this time of day because such drones are easy to spot during the day – they are massive and very noisy. These characteristics are likely the reason the UAVs have earned their folkloric name.
    The drones mentioned in the article are much larger, heavier, and more "visible" on radar than the notorious "Baba Yaga." How will they help? unnoticed, or more or less covertly, during the day, deliver an assault engineer, an observer, a medical officer, etc., or (God forbid) evacuate the 200th or 300th from the LBS - it's not entirely clear... Well, in a pinch, quickly throw in some heavy ammunition... And even that's questionable... what
    1. +5
      4 June 2026 06: 34
      The experience of the Air Defense Forces demonstrated the near impossibility of using helicopters in combat—they proved to be extremely vulnerable. Now the author proposes using the same helicopters, only smaller and lower-flying ones. Same nose, just a side view!
      1. +3
        4 June 2026 10: 04
        Of course, if you use it in the wrong place and when it's not needed (referring to helicopters), you could end up crashing the Death Star into a bump.
      2. +3
        4 June 2026 12: 38
        The experience of the First World War showed that tanks were extremely vulnerable and generally useless, as they could be destroyed by a transverse artillery shell or mine.
        We don't even realize that operations might involve concentration, reconnaissance, and suppression of enemy drones.
        1. -1
          4 June 2026 14: 44
          You probably think that modern tanks are no different from the tanks of the First World War?
          1. +2
            4 June 2026 14: 51
            Tanks in all wars were never capable of defeating a single enemy with the command "fight there." Under incompetent leadership, they would be outgunned by artillery, to which all tanks have always been highly vulnerable. In the wrong hands, a balalaika becomes a reproductive organ.
            1. +1
              4 June 2026 16: 14
              This applies to any weapons and equipment, and it has always been this way.
              1. +5
                4 June 2026 16: 30
                Well, I mimicked that experience with the Air Defense Forces showed that practically everything is ineffective. For example, the active protection system, which isn't installed because it doesn't help against drones. True, no one has tested it. Or the air force is useless because the air defenses can't be suppressed. True, no one tried to suppress them, just saw an S-300 Orlan in a free search—that's when something might fly in. And enemy artillery can't be suppressed because they can't even come up with excuses. Let the three attack aircraft storm the landings themselves.
                1. 0
                  4 June 2026 16: 50
                  APS simply doesn't work because it's designed for much faster projectiles than drones. And drones have a different flight path. In fact, the future lies with APS, which will learn to detect and shoot down drones. Nobody has abandoned aviation, after all. And again, air defense suppression and aircraft protection systems are also developing. Artillery is suppressed using counter-battery warfare and those same drones. Everything is evolving; don't listen to the doomsayers anymore.
                  1. 0
                    4 June 2026 17: 11
                    The APS simply doesn't work, as it's designed for much faster projectiles than drones.
                    Where does it fail? Who tested it and where? These are all just excuses for impotent people.
                    And the flight trajectory of drones is different.
                    So what? The only programmer was fired?
                    In fact, the future belongs to the KAZ, which will learn
                    install them on tanks en masse and send them into battle, not to film shoots
                    And again, air defense suppression and aircraft protection systems are also developing.
                    But where is all this? When was the last time you heard about our planes destroying enemy air defenses? It's just that the LBS is dangerous, we don't fly. request
                    Artillery is suppressed using counter-battery fire and the same drones.
                    Where are the counter-battery radars or passive search systems? Where's the penicillin? Where there's an attack, no one is deploying artillery for suppression. If anyone finds it during a free drone search, they'll destroy it. And there's no systemic work.
                    1. 0
                      5 June 2026 11: 23
                      Where does it not work? Who tested it and where?
                      We checked. There was even an article about it here. Keep searching and you'll be happy.

                      In fact, the future belongs to KAZ
                      install them on tanks en masse and send them into battle, not to film shoots
                      Everything takes time. People work... And don't shout like some... You'd better do something useful than beat around the bush...

                      When was the last time you heard about our planes destroying enemy air defenses?
                      I hear it... regularly... You can't destroy every yellow-blue with a stinger...

                      and where
                      It's always easy to reason from the couch... Only "couch generals" don't go on the attack...

                      there is no systematic work
                      That's another matter... But, again, people are working and aren't obligated to report to everyone except their superiors. And, again, war is always about who gets ahead of the enemy...
                      1. 0
                        5 June 2026 12: 33
                        We checked. And there was even an article about it here.
                        There was no such thing, there were only fantasies on the level of why the bridge couldn’t be demolished.
                        Everything takes time. People work...
                        A tank with a KAZ instead of a SVO was sent to a film shoot, and then to an exhibition. That's it. More than a year has passed. Apparently, the work with the derivation coalition has gone smoothly.
                        I hear... regularly...
                        in fantasies like about kaza?
                        You can't destroy every yellow-blue with a stinger...
                        What nonsense, the destruction of air defense opens up great heights inaccessible to MANPADS
                        It's always easy to reason from the couch... Only "couch generals" don't go on the attack...
                        And you are probably writing from a trench?
                        But, again, people work and are not obliged to report to everyone.
                        I remember my boss telling me how busy he was with paperwork. He'd initially shoved almost all the bureaucracy onto me, leaving himself only with the responsibility of issuing salaries to his subordinates. winked
                        And again, war is always about who gets ahead of the enemy...
                        As we can see, there are no results yet.
                      2. 0
                        5 June 2026 13: 42
                        As far as I know, the APS has never been used anywhere, although the Drozd APS was implemented on the T-55. The Americans and Israelis have also never used the Trophy APS. Apparently, there are problems.
                        I've never heard of the use of the Afganit active protection system either...

                        Destroying air defenses opens up greater heights inaccessible to MANPADS
                        The air defense problem has been around since Vietnam, if not earlier, and hasn't been fully resolved. The only way to effectively penetrate air defenses is through targeted penetration, using specialized anti-aircraft aircraft, like the American Wild Wiesel. But an antidote for this has long been discovered. And we don't have enough aircraft to risk them needlessly... Therefore, they use them reliably, whenever possible, without exposing themselves to attack.

                        I remember my boss told me
                        People who work don't have time to tell. When the time comes, they'll tell you everything.

                        there are no results yet
                        Well, why not? Have you heard of AI in drones, and drones powered by fiber optics? And you'll hear about other results... eventually...
        2. +1
          4 June 2026 21: 11
          operations may involve concentration

          "Why? We can just hammer away at Kupyansk. wassatAnd no one needs all this concentration and maneuvering, tactical retreats, and all that. So, first of all, grab your machine gun and storm Kupyansk! And secondly: what if we win?" - the commander of the Civil Defense ****** from his cottage in the Moscow region (the villa in Spain was confiscated due to sanctions)
      3. 0
        4 June 2026 14: 45
        The author suggests flying corpses. But modern attack helicopters are quite usable. They just need further improvement.
    2. +1
      4 June 2026 14: 46
      The author proposed "personal lethality measures" and then ruined them himself.
  6. +4
    4 June 2026 05: 19
    I bet that if anything happens, the enemy will come up with such jokes much sooner.
    1. +2
      4 June 2026 21: 19
      Most likely, maybe when the enemy has tested everything thoroughly and supplied the troops with a sufficient quantity of such goods, then our "honest" hands will be itching to finance at least something.
  7. + 10
    4 June 2026 05: 57
    When will personal air mobility equipment appear during a special operation?


    Everything needed to conduct military operations on the LBS will appear when SOMETHING or SOMEONE forces the Russian elite to work for the good of the country Russia.
    In the meantime ...
    Warriors fight so that merchants and bankers can hold their luxurious economic forums.
    I wonder how much money was spent on holding this forum?
    I wonder how many fighters could be equipped for combat if the money earmarked for maintaining elite football clubs were used?
    1. 0
      4 June 2026 11: 17
      Russian elite

      This is scale
    2. 0
      4 June 2026 14: 43
      "Individual lethality" weapons will not appear on the front lines for the next 10 years, and perhaps even longer.
      1. +2
        5 June 2026 14: 09
        They say there's something slightly more powerful than the "Baba Yaga"! It's used for flying OVER minefields, rivers, ravines, and swamps. It's low, low, and very, very quiet. A rocking seat underneath, a joystick with a wire (electronic warfare isn't a problem), and you fly where you need to go. It either stays at the entry/exit point or automatically flies back along a recorded track. It's a great thing, much more convenient than a peddler or a quad.

        P.S.: But it’s very expensive... That’s why it’s expensive, because it’s good.
        1. 0
          5 June 2026 15: 56
          It's unclear what kind... No matter how quietly and low it flies, it will attract all the drones in the area and all the nearby shooters. And for it to lift a fully equipped soldier, with weapons and supplies—and that's 100-120 kg—it would have to be quite large and very noticeable. It definitely won't be quiet.
    3. +1
      4 June 2026 18: 28
      For this, the slogan should work:
      "EVERYTHING FOR THE FRONT, EVERYTHING FOR VICTORY!"
  8. +4
    4 June 2026 06: 36
    The Geranium is quite a capable motorized hang glider, provided it has landing equipment, including an emergency one.
    1. -3
      4 June 2026 09: 49
      It would be good to increase the payload, for example, to develop a twin-engine Geranium. The payload would be around 120-130 kg—a fully equipped and equipped fighter—at a flight altitude of at least 7 km—the ceiling of electric interceptor drones.
      1. +3
        4 June 2026 09: 59
        Quote: Dmitry Eon
        A fully equipped and equipped fighter, with a flight altitude of at least 7 km - the ceiling of electric interceptor drones

        This fighter at such a height will turn into an icicle, lifeless.
        1. -1
          4 June 2026 10: 25
          Let's say this is just a development of the ideas in the article under discussion, and it's extremely difficult to foresee all the risks and dangers, including finding people "willing" to fly such a device. But objectively, according to ventusky.com, at an altitude of 5500 meters near Kramatorsk, it's currently only -16 degrees Celsius, while at 9000 meters it's already -44 degrees Celsius. Many climbers spend dozens of hours at such altitudes, with all their gear and sometimes even without oxygen.
          1. +2
            4 June 2026 12: 40
            Mountain climbers spend weeks climbing. If you fly 7 km in half an hour, your lungs will fall off before you even turn into an icicle.
            1. -1
              4 June 2026 13: 06
              Well, it seems like cabin pressurization began after WWII, but during the war they used oxygen masks and fought at altitudes of around 5-6 thousand meters.
              1. 0
                4 June 2026 13: 35
                Basically, I'm going to quickly make high-altitude airplanes on my knees for landing troops one at a time...
                1. +1
                  4 June 2026 14: 36
                  There were many projects for individual aircraft and helicopters for paratroopers in the 40s and 50s. None were ever built. And high-altitude ones are simply a death sentence for paratroopers...
              2. +1
                4 June 2026 14: 40
                Pressurized cabins appeared even before the Second World War
          2. +1
            4 June 2026 14: 37
            I've never heard of a single climber climbing higher than 7 km without oxygen. And you're right about the extreme cold...
          3. +1
            4 June 2026 20: 21
            Have you tried driving in an open truck bed in freezing temperatures at 250 km/h?
            I was amused by the climbers - they go there wearing special equipment, not just unloading gear. wink You've already been told about the sudden change in oxygen levels.
            1. +1
              5 June 2026 10: 14
              Of course not. I've only driven a motorcycle at 180-190 km/h, and the instructors at the motorcycle club even mentioned 240-250.
              Special forces practice jumping from altitudes of up to 10 kilometers with preliminary training and specialized equipment. They also fly tens of kilometers using parachutes in a thin atmosphere at extremely low temperatures.
              1. 0
                5 June 2026 17: 02
                Quote: Dmitry Eon

                Special forces practice jumping from altitudes of up to 10 kilometers with preliminary training and specialized equipment. They also fly tens of kilometers using parachutes in a thin atmosphere at extremely low temperatures.

                I think these were isolated experiments, not regular practice. In any case, special forces aren't meant for mass airborne operations. So the idea of ​​using geraniums at altitude as a method for airborne operations is a bit of a stretch. wink
                1. +1
                  6 June 2026 11: 35
                  These aren't exactly experiments, since after such landings, the fighters operate in hostile territory, having removed their high-altitude equipment. The Americans have announced such operations in Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There was a story about our special forces as far back as 10 years ago.
                  Well, pipeline "landings" also cannot be called a daily routine, just like the crawling operations that suddenly became the basis of assault groups' operations.
                  1. +1
                    6 June 2026 12: 55
                    Everything you've listed is a mass landing, not a special forces unit, and over distances far shorter than the range of a geranium. So what's the point of a geranium as an airborne assault vehicle? It's easier to fly over in autogyros. There was already an article about this, by the way. The Gostomel incident is a good reminder of the fate of long-range airborne assaults. A long-range airborne assault without a counter-offensive in large forces is doomed to failure. A large-scale offensive isn't in sight yet; no one wants a second Somme.
      2. +2
        4 June 2026 14: 40
        If you do what you want, and even add a pressurized cabin to ensure the "paratrooper" survives, you'll end up with something resembling a piston-engine fighter from World War II, with all the ensuing consequences. Specifically, it'll be a juicy target for most air defense systems.
      3. +1
        5 June 2026 03: 01
        Quote: Dmitry Eon
        It would be good to increase the payload, for example, to develop a twin-engine Geranium. The payload would be around 120-130 kg—a fully equipped and equipped fighter—at a flight altitude of at least 7 km—the ceiling of electric interceptor drones.


        7 km, however, means of supporting the life of the person being transported are required (at least a breathing apparatus and heating).

        Well, they will shoot them down in batches.

        Tg'ko at very low altitudes and it is highly desirable with a very low noise level (like on electricity)
    2. +2
      4 June 2026 14: 42
      The Geran is not a motorized hang glider, but a rigid aircraft-type craft with a "flying wing" aerodynamic design. The Geran is controlled by aerodynamic rudders, not by adjusting the center of gravity, as with a motorized hang glider.
      1. 0
        5 June 2026 03: 22
        Quote: futurohunter
        The Geran is not a motorized hang glider, but a rigid aircraft-type craft with a "flying wing" aerodynamic design. The Geran is controlled by aerodynamic rudders, not by adjusting the center of gravity, as with a motorized hang glider.


        I know that hang gliders are frame structures made of soft materials.

        If we think more abstractly and according to the name.

        Hang glider = delta wing.

        This is not a reason for argument, this is my attempt to invite everyone (except you, of course) to look at geraniums from a slightly different angle.

        The rigidity of geranium, proven technologies and commercial quantities could potentially allow the development of a high-speed personal transport vehicle (aircraft-type, if that makes you feel any better)
        1. +1
          5 June 2026 11: 49
          Not so. The Geranium and the Delta are fundamentally different aircraft, similar only in that they fly. There's no point in trying to turn a dump truck into a racing car when racing cars already exist. The Geranium is a very primitive aircraft, incapable of carrying a person. Meanwhile, for decades now, proven designs for light and ultralight manned aircraft have existed all over the world that would cost less than your Geranium and wouldn't be more difficult to manufacture—they could be assembled in a village barn. Incidentally, both here and in Ukraine, there are plenty of such designs. For example, the Aeroprakt-22, of which at least 600 have been produced in Kyiv (half sold to Russia), and which, conversely, the Ukrainians are converting into drones. I personally know the creators of this A-22.

          You simply haven't flown ultralight aircraft and have no idea what ultralights are. You can't launch them from a container like Geranium. At least a minimum of comfort and convenience must be provided! There must be at least some semblance of a cockpit with flight instruments, and the pilot must be trained, even if the controls are automated. For takeoff, a flat area at least 100 meters long is required, with no obstacles on the glide path. A similar area is needed for landing. Of course, you can land the plane with a parachute, but with all the same risks as landing with a regular skydiver, and an airplane parachute is uncontrollable.
          And speed is detrimental to such a craft. The higher the flight speed, the worse the takeoff and landing performance, requiring wing mechanization, and making it more difficult to control the aircraft in flight.
          1. 0
            6 June 2026 03: 51
            Quote: futurohunter
            Not so. The Geranium and the Delta are fundamentally different aircraft, similar only in that they fly. There's no point in trying to turn a dump truck into a racing car when racing cars already exist. The Geranium is a very primitive aircraft, incapable of carrying a person. Meanwhile, for decades now, proven designs for light and ultralight manned aircraft have existed all over the world that would cost less than your Geranium and wouldn't be more difficult to manufacture—they could be assembled in a village barn. Incidentally, both here and in Ukraine, there are plenty of such designs. For example, the Aeroprakt-22, of which at least 600 have been produced in Kyiv (half sold to Russia), and which, conversely, the Ukrainians are converting into drones. I personally know the creators of this A-22.

            You simply haven't flown ultralight aircraft and have no idea what ultralights are. You can't launch them from a container like Geranium. At least a minimum of comfort and convenience must be provided! There must be at least some semblance of a cockpit with flight instruments, and the pilot must be trained, even if the controls are automated. For takeoff, a flat area at least 100 meters long is required, with no obstacles on the glide path. A similar area is needed for landing. Of course, you can land the plane with a parachute, but with all the same risks as landing with a regular skydiver, and an airplane parachute is uncontrollable.
            And speed is detrimental to such a craft. The higher the flight speed, the worse the takeoff and landing performance, requiring wing mechanization, and making it more difficult to control the aircraft in flight.


            You are right as always.
        2. +1
          5 June 2026 12: 20
          I'll add. I already wrote in another post that manned ultra-small aircraft have long been developed. Their optimal dimensions are well known, among other things. For such a plane to be able to take off from a lawn and land in a field, and for a pilot of limited skill to handle it, the wingspan must be at least 7-8 meters, and the length at least 2.5-3 meters. This makes it a very visible and effective target. It's also highly dependent on the weather. In strong winds, it's impossible to fly at all.
          Below are two photos: the smallest domestic microplane E-12NK and a Ukrainian drone based on the Aeroprakt-22 aircraft attacking Grozny and
          1. +1
            6 June 2026 04: 07
            Quote: futurohunter
            I'll add. I already wrote in another post that manned ultra-small aircraft have long been developed. Their optimal dimensions are well known, among other things. For such a plane to be able to take off from a lawn and land in a field, and for a pilot of limited skill to handle it, the wingspan must be at least 7-8 meters, and the length at least 2.5-3 meters. This makes it a very visible and effective target. It's also highly dependent on the weather. In strong winds, it's impossible to fly at all.
            Below are two photos: the smallest domestic microplane E-12NK and a Ukrainian drone based on the Aeroprakt-22 aircraft attacking Grozny and


            You are right as always
  9. 0
    4 June 2026 10: 08
    Once we buy from the Chinese, it will appear.
  10. -3
    4 June 2026 10: 16
    What vegetable are humans needed for in a robot war? AI opens a Pandora's box of combat robots that can walk, fly, crawl, and swim underwater, both kamikaze and reusable. This wonderful world is already pounding on our door.
    1. 0
      4 June 2026 14: 35
      It's a struggle, yes! But who will benefit from the results when all these cyber-creatures kill each other?
      1. 0
        4 June 2026 15: 14
        They'll kill people first when things really get tough. Homo's adaptability to the wild is zero.
        1. +1
          4 June 2026 16: 15
          You're wrong! Look at all those poor and primitive countries—people live in all sorts of conditions. These cybers of yours will be beaten down with sticks and stones.
  11. 0
    4 June 2026 11: 33
    Have you tried solving the thermal signature and noise issues of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? Installing electric motors on them?
    1. +1
      4 June 2026 12: 42
      Modern thermal imagers see stones against the ground and trees against the grass; objects made of different materials at the same temperature appear differently in the IR range.
      1. +1
        4 June 2026 17: 27
        However, the thermal insulation poncho for fighters was popular even recently.
        1. 0
          4 June 2026 18: 15
          If you're walking under the trees, it'll be hard to spot; after all, the front end is brighter than a poncho. But for cars on the road, the forecast isn't great.
    2. 0
      4 June 2026 14: 34
      To charge the batteries of these electric armored personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles of yours, you'll have to maintain power stations...
      1. +1
        4 June 2026 15: 58
        They've learned how to make and charge electric buses—they'll learn how to make and charge electric armored personnel carriers and BMPs if it's justified by tactical necessity.
        1. 0
          4 June 2026 16: 20
          Electric buses are charged from the city's power grid, or more precisely, through power substations. Are you going to drive to substations to charge? And how wonderfully these commuter trains burn! The larger the battery, the better they burn! About 90 years ago, there were many electric tank projects, but none were made of metal...
          1. 0
            4 June 2026 16: 30
            Should they be designed for quick battery replacement, or is that really difficult again? Is replacing batteries in the field longer and more difficult than refueling?
            1. +1
              4 June 2026 16: 57
              The battery in an armored vehicle will be no smaller and heavier than the engine it houses, and replacing it will be roughly the same as replacing the engine—meaning you'll need a crane or some other lifting equipment, and it'll probably take at least an hour. You'll also need somewhere to store and charge the spare batteries, which requires another vehicle—one with a generator. Considering you probably have more than one armored vehicle... In short, the generator will be blaring, emitting smoke and heat 24/7. Refueling is actually quite simple: just pull up a tank, hook up a hose, and turn on the pump...
              1. +1
                4 June 2026 17: 02
                If such technology doesn't exist now, it doesn't mean it can't be created.
                1. 0
                  4 June 2026 17: 07
                  Time will tell... Every technical device has its own field of application. Electricity is good for small forms—scooters, motorcycles, ATVs, and even buggies, as well as small copters. Aerostats and high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft powered by solar panels are also quite good. But leave the big, heavy, long-range, and rough stuff to powerful fuel-powered engines... even gas, if you don't like gasoline or diesel. Incidentally, armored vehicles now have multi-fuel engines—they can burn almost any fuel.
          2. 0
            4 June 2026 16: 49
            It would be optimal to have a hybrid power plant
            1. 0
              4 June 2026 16: 51
              Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
              1. +1
                4 June 2026 16: 55
                How do you think the enemy detects approaching vehicles if not by the thermal signature and engine noise?
                1. 0
                  4 June 2026 17: 00
                  Not only that. Moving objects, you know, are generally detectable, especially from the air. Even the mere appearance of a new object will be immediately detected by aerial and ground reconnaissance (cameras and reconnaissance teams). And your electric scooter base near the LBS will be so noticeable that it will become a prime target for all flying objects.
                  1. 0
                    4 June 2026 17: 06
                    The enemy is launching its reconnaissance drones into the air, which are in sleep mode near roads where vehicles are moving. Are you even watching enemy videos?
                    1. 0
                      4 June 2026 17: 09
                      I know about that. And not just reconnaissance ones, but strike ones too. And usually, "according to the picture." So what's the question?
                      1. +1
                        4 June 2026 17: 14
                        And do you think there's an operator behind each of the thousands of sleeping drones, carefully monitoring the road? They react to noise 100%.
                      2. 0
                        8 June 2026 09: 37
                        There are numerous sensors and detectors that can react to a wide variety of changes in the external environment: microphones, magnetometers, electromagnetic field sensors, visible and infrared cameras, etc. Drones can be networked together and controlled by an operator using a neural network. The operator can receive a message about changing conditions from a specific drone and command it to engage the target. After that, the operator may not have to control the drone themselves. And this is just one embodiment of the network-centric warfare model.
                        You've strayed far from the topic. If a video camera—whether mounted on a drone, hanging from a tree or cell tower, or even just lying in the roadside bushes—uses machine vision software to detect a change in the image, it can identify the newly appeared object, with all the subsequent consequences.
                        An example from 40-50 years ago, when neural networks were only in laboratories. The Strela-10 anti-aircraft missile system. Its seeker was a simple television camera. It contained a simple electronic circuit that highlighted a contrasting object against the sky. Such an object could even be a free-falling bomb, which emits no physical field. Strela-10s are still used on the front lines by both Russia and Ukraine.
                        Since then, target detection capabilities have increased tenfold. So, all your tinkering with electricity wouldn't have changed anything, but would have only complicated the infrastructure and maintenance of the equipment, increasing its vulnerability. Electric trains are, at most, ATVs and electric buggies, but nothing more. Hybrids are completely unnecessary on the front lines.
  12. -2
    4 June 2026 12: 06
    For nearly twenty years, there has been talk of a breakthrough in aviation flight technology. The talk was about replacing—specifically, replacing propeller blades, propellers, and any turbines with a new type of propulsion system. The phrase "it will happen sooner or later" was quickly coined, as the information was neither absorbed nor garnered interest. But times have changed, and the need for such fundamental changes has become clear. A new type of propulsion system, as a continuous-flow energy conversion system, virtually eliminates all the shortcomings of the propeller conversion process. This device has integrated all knowledge of the physics of the process and, based on new analytical and mathematical methods, has enabled a breakthrough in propulsion applications beyond just propulsion systems.
    1. 0
      4 June 2026 14: 32
      What have you written about, other than a jumble of incomprehensible words? And what's this engine? Tell us how it works! Everyone's already eagerly awaiting it! Or is it just another jumble of empty, meaningless words?
      1. -2
        4 June 2026 17: 18
        Don't make me laugh with your gypsy talk. I'm not writing this for comments. I don't work with people who need explanations, but with those who already know the ropes.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. 0
          5 June 2026 11: 27
          I don't work with those who need explanations, but with those who are already in the know.

          Those "in the know" are doing things, not "writing on forums"!
          1. -1
            6 June 2026 11: 51
            The question is about the ability to analyze the consequences. A forum is an opportunity to say something, but hidden in a mass of comments and a small chance. Moreover, saying A doesn't mean saying B. And the demand for our product is only growing.
            1. 0
              7 June 2026 08: 10
              So what did you say here? That you're incapable of anything other than meaningless, empty nonsense? Yes, judging by the downvotes you're getting, "the demand for your product is extremely high."
    2. +1
      5 June 2026 14: 35
      As a fairy tale.

      I've seen this. It's not a turbine on an axle that spins, but an external CYLINDER with intricate blades inside. I'm not an expert in aerodynamics, but they explained it in a "popular way for the ignorant" that it creates horizontal "tornadoes" that pull.

      The designer said that if the helicopter blades were made with a "cunning" wave-like shape and "looped" inside a cylinder with a certain ratio of the height of the "ribbon" to the length of the blade, a very interesting effect would result, greatly increasing lift and stabilizing flight dynamics.

      Where did you see it? In a dream...
      1. 0
        6 June 2026 11: 41
        In fact, you're essentially right on target. But to design this process and device correctly, you need to understand how to connect multiple processes at their positive extremes. The result is a seemingly simple device, but with profound implications. I'm taking advantage of people's inability to be deep analysts to see the implications of this new technology. The very idea that it will replace screws and propellers should give many pause. Your designer simply needs to introduce a new water feature, and the result will be achieved.
        1. 0
          6 June 2026 15: 35
          Remember "Well, Guess!" from the Soviet cartoon? There, too, they were dragging a cow up a ladder to the hayloft. And then they were asked to lower the hay down.
  13. 0
    4 June 2026 12: 39
    The toys are interesting, but strategically flawed. We should be working toward the complete absence of living people on the LBS, not on how to remove their corpses with drones.
    1. 0
      4 June 2026 14: 33
      You can't do it without people. People must come to the cleared areas.
  14. +1
    4 June 2026 14: 14
    In the 1980s, MAI students designed and built an aircraft: two impellers on each side, a boom with a seat and a rigidly attached handle between them, and a V-shaped tail on the boom at the rear. The engines were assembled using eight cylinders (each) from a Druzhba chainsaw. Vertical control was achieved by shifting the center of gravity (the seat with the pilot along the boom). Turns were achieved by tilting the body (like a hang glider). The aircraft was tested by a professional pilot (who, for some reason, did not receive the Hero of the Soviet Union award for this). smile )
    Of course, in its current form, it was a very dangerous device. But it could have been equipped with a single engine and generator and added batteries to provide enough power for an emergency landing with maneuvering. And for war, you need to maximize the use of your legs for control, so you can fire in flight...
    1. 0
      4 June 2026 16: 22
      It was a transverse-configuration micro-helicopter. A perfectly functional design if equipped with proper controls, the propeller shrouds removed, autorotation enabled, and an internal combustion engine installed. Electrics are a curse for such helicopters! But in today's skies, one like this wouldn't last long. It's fine for fishing trips, or visiting friends, but nothing more.
      1. +3
        4 June 2026 18: 45
        I saw a photo. The impeller diameter was much smaller than the propellers typical of a helicopter. Electrics in this design are the best choice; otherwise, synchronizing the engines' power would be a pain. As for vulnerability, it's no more than that of a person in body armor, and even then, you'd be hard-pressed to get hit. And not everyone survives an attack, either. But the speed is incomparable, plus the safety when crossing minefields, and the overall maneuverability is also excellent—no water, no swamps, no bushes or trees are an obstacle. Hence the element of surprise. It should work perfectly in a mass attack. At the very least, it's no worse (and in many ways, well, except for the price, even better) than the motorcycles they use now...
        1. 0
          5 June 2026 11: 34
          otherwise you'll have a hard time synchronizing the engines' power
          How about installing a single internal combustion engine with gears for both propellers and RPM control for each using a simple transmission? Your electric car needs to be synchronized too!

          try to hit it again
          When 10 or more people are firing from the ground, especially in bursts, there's no question of hitting a target. On the ground, a person can take cover in holes and behind obstacles, but in the air, they're in full view!

          The speed is incomparable, plus the safety when navigating minefields
          Have you heard of barrage fire and aerial mines? And drones will be chasing your "pilots"

          neither water, nor swamps, nor bushes and trees are an obstacle
          What if it lands in a swamp, simply without noticing it? It's not possible to land anywhere, even if the spot seems suitable!

          In case of a mass attack
          There's a high probability that a mountain of corpses will arrive.

          no worse than on motorcycles
          It's worse in every way. On a motorcycle, you can drive somewhere, hide, or, in a pinch, jump off. With your broom, you can only fall to the ground. It's nothing but flaws.
          1. +1
            5 June 2026 12: 17
            Two shafts from a single motor would significantly increase the weight and complexity of the apparatus. Electrics are more reliable, lighter, and there are no synchronization issues. If used solely for assault, the batteries would be more than sufficient.
            Where are you going to find "10 people, or even more" these days? Things are different now. Successfully shooting at an aerial target requires specialized training or at least tracer rounds. And you can shoot from above, too, and with much greater success, since the trajectory will be much flatter.
            There are anti-helicopter mines, but they are few in number, their price is comparable to this device, and they will need to be redesigned, as this device's sound signature is very different from that of a helicopter. Moreover, one mine is one device.
            The speed of such a device is higher than that of FPV drones, which are usually used in LBS, and it is designed for rapid flight to strongholds.
            Regarding the swamp, sir, you're going too far. lol
            The disadvantages are offset by the advantages: surprise, maneuverability and speed.
            1. 0
              5 June 2026 12: 34
              Two shafts from one engine will significantly increase the weight and complexity of the apparatus.
              Nothing more than another electric motor. You're thinking in terms of lightweight copters, but the motor's mass increases proportionally to the cube of the aircraft's mass.

              To shoot successfully
              I'll repeat about the barrage—find out what it is. A shotgun will do, too. Practice is essential for any "successful shooting."

              You can also shoot from above and much more successfully.
              On the contrary, it's much more difficult, and the accuracy is lower. You still have to manage the controls, and keep an eye on the instruments and your surroundings to avoid falling or colliding with anyone. Just watch a single video on flying an airplane or glider. And that's without shooting! Not to mention that successful flying and accurate shooting require comprehensive training, no worse than that of a ground-attack pilot or a combat helicopter pilot!

              There are anti-helicopter mines
              Everything is being redone, and all available drones will be chasing your flyers.

              Electrics aren't any more reliable... a bullet can knock out wires and that's it... An internal combustion engine might still last a while. And attacking a helicopter is like running at full speed and shouting "Hurray!"

              Where are you going to find "10 people, or even more" now?
              They are everywhere there, behind every bush and in every ruin.

              The speed of such a device is higher than that of FPV drones.
              Below. Try piloting a real glider, airplane, or helicopter, and then judge for yourself!

              The disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages
              There is nothing but a disadvantage here, and not a single advantage!
            2. 0
              5 June 2026 12: 41
              I'll add. Stingers and Javelins—and there are plenty of them in Ukraine—will also fly at your pilots. And they won't miss.
              1. 0
                5 June 2026 18: 48
                Okay, further discussion is pointless, in my humble opinion. You're starting from the wrong premises. In my opinion, all your arguments are, at the very least, naive; in your opinion, mine...
                1. 0
                  6 June 2026 00: 16
                  You can argue with me all you want, but have you ever built a single machine that has carried a human? I've built one, and flown one, and built more than one. That's the whole argument...
                  1. -1
                    6 June 2026 11: 33
                    It's human nature to hang around. You just weren't hanging around in the right place (or, judging by your comments, you weren't building the right devices). There's a saying called "survivorship bias"—and to some extent, it applies to you...
                    1. 0
                      7 June 2026 08: 08
                      Let me ask you again: have you built even one manned aircraft? Have you studied aerodynamics and flight dynamics? Then why are you arguing about anything if you don't know the subject?
                      Yes, you are right, forums are not the place to hang around.
                      And as for the "survivorship bias" - it's better than the "non-survivorship bias", isn't it?
                      1. -1
                        7 June 2026 12: 41
                        All your devices were of a different type, so your experience places strong cognitive limitations on you. wink
                      2. 0
                        7 June 2026 17: 39
                        Based on the principle of generating lift in flight, there are only two types of heavier-than-air aircraft: airplanes and helicopters (helicopters), and no amount of cognitive madness will help you invent another. The laws of aerodynamics and flight dynamics were discovered many decades ago, and no others are in sight.
                        And your "cognitive infinity" is presented with a simple problem. Almost all the first manned helicopters were multi-rotor designs, including the first Soviet manned helicopter. Why hasn't a single manned helicopter since then used a multi-rotor design? Just don't give me stupid answers about the "limited thinking" of aircraft designers!
                      3. -1
                        8 June 2026 12: 13
                        Your answers demonstrate a limited understanding. I wonder why this aircraft designer has no idea what "survivorship bias" is? And how, I wonder, could it be any better than "survivorship bias"? wink
                      4. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 59
                        What does "survivorship bias" have to do with the laws of aerodynamics and flight dynamics? This is the third time I've asked this question! And you still don't understand it.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
  15. +1
    4 June 2026 14: 31
    The author seems to have answered his own question, "Why...?" Too expensive. And also unreliable and dangerous. And not even because of ground fire. Any coaxial or conventional helicopter can land in autorotation. If the engine and/or propellers of any multicopter are damaged, it simply flips over and crashes due to thrust asymmetry. Jetpacks are extremely dangerous even in civilian conditions—many enthusiasts have crashed and burned on them, and the idea, by the way, is over 60 years old.
    The main reason drones and multicopters aren't used to transport people to the front lines is that there's a greater than 50% chance they'll land dead. The frontline, and the immediate area, is a vast gray zone, teeming with groups and armed personnel, shooting at anything flying. While a sufficiently large helicopter can be protected with armor, electronic warfare, and jamming, allowing airborne troops to fire at the ground, none of this is possible with a small multicopter.
    There's a cheaper alternative, used by Hamas: motorized paragliders, used to transport troops at night. It's cheaper than the "crosses" in the sky. And "personal lethality" weapons are certainly no alternative to tanks and armored vehicles, which carry armor, barbecues and nets, a host of weapons and protective equipment. And they're less visible than something from the sky. People would certainly survive in them than in "personal lethality" weapons.
    Therefore, their role is limited to transporting small sabotage groups or individual saboteurs, preferably at night. For transporting more serious units, there is no alternative to ground vehicles or helicopters!
  16. 0
    4 June 2026 14: 37
  17. +2
    5 June 2026 05: 20
    The widespread deployment of such systems will also lead to the development of countermeasures. AI-powered interceptor drones, hypothetical "aerial minefields," and the like. An operation employing them will require ensuring local dominance in the "small skies." Each "manned drone" would have to be escorted by a flock of "loyal wingmen" (autonomous AI-powered drones) that would deflect threats and literally shield it from attack.
    1. 0
      5 June 2026 15: 59
      In fact, there is no need to invent anything, all these manned ones will attract all the drones in the area, including “friendly” ones, as well as the fire of everyone with weapons
  18. -1
    5 June 2026 13: 28
    Let's look at the issue systemically. Individual air mobility vehicles (IAM)

    First, we need to determine what missions can be accomplished using individual airmobility assets. Then, based on the list of missions, we can determine the vehicle classes. Based on these vehicle classes (their approximate technical parameters), we can categorize the different vehicle classes within the army's organizational hierarchy. This will then set certain boundaries and requirements for the performance characteristics of the vehicle models.
    Some models will operate at the company level, some at the regiment level, and some at the individual rifle cell or, conversely, division level. Some models will be part of the standard equipment of a dedicated group, while others will be used for the command reserve groups.

    One thing is clear: we don't just need SIAMs; we need standardization in both their design and their equipment and implementation in the army.
    For example, SIAM models that lift one or several fighters can be useful both for the marines (as one of the means of transportation when capturing a ship) and for mountain troops (for aerial overcoming of natural obstacles)
    1. 0
      5 June 2026 16: 06
      If you look at it systematically, you'll come up with one of two types of aircraft, like those pictured below. Are any other "systemic views" needed? An incompetent person's article has sparked a flurry of incompetent and empty fantasies.
  19. 0
    9 June 2026 00: 32
    For years now, I've been offering everyone 4-6 babas_yezhoks (a pair of hedgehogs) on top of a parachute frame, a wounded man on a platform below, and a low flight. Nobody needs it. request