Altius UAV program

GarryB wrote:which means it is likely going to be an MPA type platform that looks for and keeps track of enemy ships... the attack weapons will likely be deployed on a third party platform like a Yasen or upgraded Oscar or even a corvette or land based missile battery....

In a recent exercise they used the Forpost UAV in that role, passing targeting data to attack aircraft and subs / surface ships

https://iz.ru/1041658/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/dron-ukazuiushchii-bespilotniki-vpervye-naveli-udary-morskoi-aviatcii

Russian Defense Ministry will receive the first batch of new attack drones

The Russian Ministry of Defense has signed a contract for the supply of a pilot batch of reconnaissance and strike unmanned aerial vehicles "Altius-RU". Information about this was made public in the materials of the final board of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Tatarstan.

As follows from the documents, a separate subdivision No. 2 of the Ural Civil Aviation Plant JSC (UZGA) in Kazan successfully defended and closed the "Technical Design" stage. A batch of drones is due to be manufactured this year.

"Altius-RU" is the final appearance of the "Altius" drone, which has been developed since 2011 and was created by the Simonov Design Bureau in Kazan by order of the Russian defense department. Flight tests began in 2016, and in 2018, the project was transferred to the Kazan division of the UZGA.

According to reports, a reconnaissance and strike apparatus weighing about six tons can carry up to two tons of combat load. The flight range is about 10 thousand kilometers. The drone is equipped with satellite communications and artificial intelligence capable of exchanging information with manned aircraft.

That is a serious fighting asset for places like Syria and should allow Russia to cut their expenses there substantially, improving at the same time the effectiveness of the SAA against terrorists.

A version with radar (or working with the Helios drone?) and AA missiles would be nice for the Arctic.

Contract for pilot batch of Altius-U strike-reconnaissance drone signed.

Moscow. February 20th. INTERFAX.RU - The Ministry of Defense has signed a contract for the supply of the first batch of Altius strike drones weighing six tons. This is stated in the materials for the report of the Minister of Industry of Tatarstan Albert Karimov.

"As part of the implementation of the state contract for R&D (development work)" Altius-RU "for the development of UAVs by a separate subdivision No. 2 of JSC" Ural Civil Aviation Plant "(UZGA) in Kazan, protection and closure of the" Technical project "stage was successfully completed. a state contract for the manufacture and supply of a pilot batch of UAVs, "the materials read..

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/751915

Hole wrote:A version with radar (or working with the Helios drone?) and AA missiles would be nice for the Arctic.

Or a R-73 armed one over the Donbass, if the ukies ever gather the money to buy more than one Bayraktar's wheel

Against 4th gen fighters it would be deadly. S-70 with its stealth would go closer to them and launch r-77 missiles while su-57 (or su-35) would scan the targets with its radar 150km behind. They wouldn't even need r-77M.

And they can stay airborne for hours and hours without pilot fatigue, which is most important in vast, empty areas.

LMFS wrote:That is a serious fighting asset for places like Syria and should allow Russia to cut their expenses there substantially, improving at the same time the effectiveness of the SAA against terrorists.

A very important and underappreciated direct result of effective drone use.

The_Observer wrote:A very important and underappreciated direct result of effective drone use.

Operating those UAVs is peanuts compared with fighter jets, they can have two dozens Altius / Orion there with several units permanently on station, following every movement and smashing any terrorist beard that dares to get out of their holes in the ground. So it should be from now until they become an extinct species in Idlib.

The_Observer wrote:

LMFS wrote:That is a serious fighting asset for places like Syria and should allow Russia to cut their expenses there substantially, improving at the same time the effectiveness of the SAA against terrorists.

A very important and underappreciated direct result of effective drone use.

I disagree. In Syria they already use mainly drones for surveillance. And Orlan 10 is way cheaper than Orion.

In terms of bombing drones don't bring anything new. They can use 2-4 small atgm (less powerfull than a kornet). This isn't really needed since they have kornet on the ground frontline and krasnopol guided by their drones to hit deaper.

Bombing will always be made with big bombs from sukhois.

Advantage of armed drone is opportunity targets in the rear of the enemy. But even then, I saw on twitter that they usually follow the target until its base and then blow it up for which atgm are not good.

Against a conventional enemy their missiles however can destroy high value targets like tanks or AD. But in Syria they don't really need armed drones.

Isos wrote:

The_Observer wrote:

LMFS wrote:That is a serious fighting asset for places like Syria and should allow Russia to cut their expenses there substantially, improving at the same time the effectiveness of the SAA against terrorists.

A very important and underappreciated direct result of effective drone use.

I disagree. In Syria they already use mainly drones for surveillance. And Orlan 10 is way cheaper than Orion.

In terms of bombing drones don't bring anything new. They can use 2-4 small atgm (less powerfull than a kornet). This isn't really needed since they have kornet on the ground frontline and krasnopol guided by their drones to hit deaper.

Bombing will always be made with big bombs from sukhois.

Advantage of armed drone is opportunity targets in the rear of the enemy. But even then, I saw on twitter that they usually follow the target until its base and then blow it up for which atgm are not good.

Against a conventional enemy their missiles however can destroy high value targets like tanks or AD. But in Syria they don't really need armed drones.

Exactly. A very expensive way to do something that the Russians do without spending as much. As you said, artillery is a good example where the drones act as artillery, while fighter jets do accurate, high impacting bombing runs. Drones are mostly good for as you said, surveillance and or taking out VIP's with a guided bomb. Maybe later on they will have a drone that carries a much bigger bomb but even then, dunno if that will be as cost effective.

Maybe later on they will have a drone that carries a much bigger bomb but even then, dunno if that will be as cost effective.

S-70 or the this one can do that :



But they are just as expensive a su-25 and carry just a fraction of su-25 payload.

Orion or Altius can't carry big bombs far away and do long surveillance work. Payload impacts them too much.

For low intensity conflict where you face tanks however they are very good as shown by Turkish drones but even then if you face a real AD they will be just like trowing your money through the wondow.

Speed also is a big factor. A su-25/34 will scan the area at 600-700km/h. Those cheap drones can barely go at 200kh/h. So going to help a ground unit at 300km away with a su-34 will take 20 minutes when the drone will take 2 hours if you have a good weather.


Drones looks like mighty products because they whmere used successflly in illegal mass murders by US in defenceless Iraq/Afghanistan and by Turley against weak enemies. But in real war they would of no value if you don't have an airforce and air defence that can protect you from enemy air force jets.

The other consideration is Electronic Warfare.

We saw how Iran, with the use of a Soviet P-18 radar, hacked and landed an RQ-170 (stealthy, $2B aircraft) and landed it safely in their territory.

I would say that Iranian experience should have been replicated and maybe Armenia would have a bunch of free Turkish drones to sell. But they were so poorly prepared and poorly organized, it was easy pickings. But against a competent foe like Iran, I think turkey would have lost more or less its entire from fleet quickly.

Orlan can see a target (with the limitations of the carried equipment) but do nothing about it other than call a sortie if it is deemed worth it. And it has short range and endurance, low altitude, comparably poor surveillance equipment, low level of automation etc. A high altitude drone like Altius can remain on station two days avoiding any force to assemble and covering very big areas because of their operational altitude, in fact big UAVs can use SAR and detect targets over even bigger territories. Of course that makes a lot of difference on the ground if time critical targets are hit in a matter of seconds instead waiting for a bomber to get ready, take off and fly from Hmeimim. Enough UCAVS would mean terrorists would be pinned down in their holes instead of roaming freely in Idlib. And they would cost a fraction of what an hour of a Su-34 costs, with zero risk for pilots. Such technology will strongly discourage the West from starting new wars, since Russia will be able to easily and safely crush their monkeys on the ground with the flick of a switch. And of course, you do not need a 500 kg bomb to roast some jihadi in their pickups, a couple kg warhead is more than enough for that

They don't use 500kg bombs against pickup. Either use Krasnopol if the target is near the frontline or follow that pickup and find the operating base and blow it up with a big bomb.

Attacking pickups inside enemy territory is useless and will push them to use adapt.

Against a conventional and well equiped enemy orlan 10 has more chances to be used. Orion would be just as easy to shoot down as US drones.

The weapons used by drones are less powerfull than a Kornet. You can't hit building or underground targets and reloading them would take 10 hours.

A bomber like a su-25 will attack 10 different targets being monitored by 10 orlan 10 or cheap forpost in 1 sortie that will take 1h. For a single Orion it will take 3 sorties with 4 atgm that can attack only vehicles or terrorists on foot and would take more or less 10h (flying at 120km, target at 100km, means 2h of flying multiply by number of sorties). And that's for close targets get 100km further and it becomes 20h.

If the enemy has an AD your drones are dead meat.

miketheterrible wrote:The other consideration is Electronic Warfare.

We saw how Iran, with the use of a Soviet P-18 radar, hacked and landed an RQ-170 (stealthy, $2B aircraft) and landed it safely in their territory.

I would say that Iranian experience should have been replicated and maybe Armenia would have a bunch of free Turkish drones to sell.  But they were so poorly prepared and poorly organized, it was easy pickings.  But against a competent foe like Iran, I think turkey would have lost more or less its entire from fleet quickly.

It wasn't a p-18 but an 1L222 Avtobaza.

Russia was also said to have done the same with another US drone in Crimea.

But it's not easy to do. First because you need to jamm GPS then use exact command guidance to control the drone. Jamming is easy you just spoil the frequencies used randomly at high power so that it gets many signal it can't recognize and listen to the real signal. But for sending the right signals you need to know them first. Signal for turn left, turn right... IMO they got some intel about drone's specification. Without it it's not really possible unless they listened for days to the commands signals with ELINT stuff and followed the drone on radar at the same time and then deduced what signals does what... and then just used that at high power to control the drone.

But modern drones have INS systems and don't use GPS or command signals frol the ground for the "travel". If they detect jamming they will just go towards their homebase alone. It's easier to just jamm their communication and GPS and let them crash or run out of fuel while going home (INS isn't really precise). They just become useless.

LMFS wrote:Orlan can see a target (with the limitations of the carried equipment) but do nothing about it other than call a sortie if it is deemed worth it. And it has short range and endurance, low altitude, comparably poor surveillance equipment, low level of automation etc. A high altitude drone like Altius can remain on station two days avoiding any force to assemble and covering very big areas because of their operational altitude, in fact big UAVs can use SAR and detect targets over even bigger territories. Of course that makes a lot of difference on the ground if time critical targets are hit in a matter of seconds instead waiting for a bomber to get ready, take off and fly from Hmeimim. Enough UCAVS would mean terrorists would be pinned down in their holes instead of roaming freely in Idlib. And they would cost a fraction of what an hour of a Su-34 costs, with zero risk for pilots. Such technology will strongly discourage the West from starting new wars, since Russia will be able to easily and safely crush their monkeys on the ground with the flick of a switch. And of course, you do not need a 500 kg bomb to roast some jihadi in their pickups, a couple kg warhead is more than enough for that

I still remember some 12 to 18 months back, seeing lots of terrorist drone videos of their "offensives". They'd launch relatively big offensives with columns of vehicles and their very own drones overhead recording videos for their glorious nasheeds...and I would wonder, "where's the VKS when you need them". But jet fighters and bombers don't have the luxury of hanging around in the air, waiting for the targets to pop up. Attack drones are perfect for this theater, active but low intensity. They can easily stay off Manpad range and still do their job like it's nobody's business.

Isos wrote:Attacking pickups inside enemy territory is useless and will push them to use adapt.

Yes, they can keep their heads inside their holes unless they want to get them smashed. Constant surveillance and immediate destruction of the targets renders the jihadists powerless to assemble the smallest offensive.

Against a conventional and well equiped enemy orlan 10 has more chances to be used. Orion would be just as easy to shoot down as US drones.

So what. I am talking about the means of war on the cheap US uses against Russia and her allies. Now Russia can also play that game...

The weapons used by drones are less powerfull than a Kornet. You can't hit building or underground targets and reloading them would take 10 hours.

You are precisely seeing what is probably a Kornet being launched from the Orion. I recommend you to check the caliber of weapons an Altius can carry, it has more than a ton payload...

A bomber like a su-25 will attack 10 different targets being monitored by 10 orlan 10 or cheap forpost in 1 sortie that will take 1h.

No it will not, because targets are not getting in line for you to kill them asap, that is what makes the use of high payload planes in such low intensity conflicts very uneconomical, unless they can stay on station for hours or days.

For a single Orion it will take 3 sorties with 4 atgm that can attack only vehicles or terrorists on foot and would take more or less 10h (flying at 120km, target at 100km, means 2h of flying multiply by number of sorties). And that's for close targets get 100km further and it becomes 20h.

My friend, Orion stays one day on station and Altius 2 days. The number of sorties they need is a low fraction of the number of sorties big jets would need, and each of them at a low fraction of the cost. See for yourself CPFH data from USAF where you can compare the cost of operating UCAVs vs fighter jets. Or look how many bombs the planes used in Syria carry, they do not attack 10 targets per sortie as if they had carefully made appointments with the terrorists.

If the enemy has an AD your drones are dead meat.

Nobody is talking about high intensity conflicts here, on the contrary, making the point that UCAVS are ideal for protracted low intensity ones like Syria.

The_Observer wrote:I still remember some 12 to 18 months back, seeing lots of terrorist drone videos of their "offensives". They'd launch relatively big offensives with columns of vehicles and their very own drones overhead recording videos for their glorious nasheeds...and I would wonder, "where's the VKS when you need them". But jet fighters and bombers don't have the luxury of hanging around in the air, waiting for the targets to pop up. They are perfect for this theater, active but low intensity. They can easily stay off Manpad range and still do their job like it's nobody's business.

Exactly. Such are also my thoughts when I notice VKS is there only sometimes and at some spots, while a constant presence of much cheaper air power assets would make the simple assembling of troops impossible.

My friend, Orion stays one day on station and Altius 2 days. The number of sorties they need is a low fraction of the number of sorties big jets would need, and each of them at a low fraction of the cost. See for yourself CPFH data from USAF where you can compare the cost of operating UCAVs vs fighter jets. Or look how many bombs the planes used in Syria carry, they do not attack 10 targets per sortie as if they had carefully made appointments with the terrorists.

And you reload them in the air maybe ?

The planes used to makes tens of sorties per day in the begining. Same work with drones would take months...

Now there isn't that many targets out there.

Monitoring 24/7 in Syria isn't necessary and Orlab 10 can do the work for cheaper if you only need to spot pick up in the desert. That's what russian do. Then they attack the base by following it with a su-34 armed with big bombs that comes there in 10 minutes while orlan 10 is looking for them.

Close to the frontline they will just use artillery help by Orlan 10.

Altius is huge and won't be cheap. US counterpart like rq-4 cost 222 million. Su-25 cost 15 million. Maybe you should also check the numbers.

Range usually decrease when you put payload on drones. What is the range of an Orion armed with 4 kornet ? What is it speed with 4 containers increasing the drag ?

I think the best use of Altius will be maritime surveillance ala RQ-4 global hawk. I'd be very interested to see Altius with 2tonne of radar and optics for ISR duties and targeting for stand-off weaponry.

Operational cost of flight for Altius and Orion is lower than that of Su-25. They don't have a pilot inside and have longer loitering flight time over given area. They have powerful optics and they could also carry ELINT sensors. Having weapons to do immidiate strikes, when needed is just a bonus. They have their worth in air battlefield, but depend on situation. In some situation you will use Su-24 with recce pods and self defense weapons and in others you will use Altius and Orion and keep Su-34 for other tasks.

In situation like in Chechnya, Orions and Altius would be very effective with constant monitoring forests from higher altitude day and night and doing immidiate strikes when needed. Jets and helicopters from that time as well as ground patrols could not do that.

In the future combat we could now imagine combination of work with Orion/Altius MALE/HALE UCAVs constantly loitering over area, Orlan and Eleron drones for closer observation, Lancet kamikaze drones and Uran-9 ground robots.

Up until the enemy destroys your entire Airforce fleet with EW. Which is growing in use (see all the advancements Russia made in anti drone warfare).

Relying on them is stupid. Using them isn't though and they make for easy recon and a quick strike when needed. But in the end, it isn't smart to rely on them.

The critical thing is loiter time... for a medium altitude drone it can stay in the air for a day and do so at 300km/h using very little fuel.

The fact of the matter is that these drones don't replace anything... because of the altitude they operate you could load them up with guided 20kg bombs that home in on laser target marking beams... the drone itself can mark its own targets... the point is that instead of dropping 250kg or 500kg bombs a drone is eyes in the sky all the tiime so it will likely see rather more targets and often being able to hit those targets fast is critical, but sometimes it isn't.

A 5kg or 10kg or 20kg bomb could be carried for use if needed urgently but if not urgent then other platforms could be called in to engage.

For instance a drone detects a huge group of ISIS approaching a Russian or Syrian base... well keep watching them with the drone, warn the base and launch attack helicopters and Su-25s with lots of rocket pods, and get the local artillery ready to hammer them and watch the results with the drone that spotted it in the first place.

Conversely the drone might spot an enemy mortar or rocket launcher being set up... drop a small bomb on them and kill the crew and set off the ammo truck and send troops to recover the weapon so they can't use it again.

These drones don't replace bombers or helicopters they are long endurance eyes and ears... remember in addition to cameras they can carry antenna to detect cell phone traffic... find the building in the ISIS held town with 60 cell phones working continuously with calls to other Syrian towns and Washington numbers and that building might be worth a heavy bomb... especially if there are white helmets out front...

These drones will just allow better monitoring of enemy and friendly territory for idiots that need to be cleansed from the gene pool.