UAVs in Russian Armed Forces: News #2

GarryB wrote:A super tucano type light turboprop aircraft armed with twin MANPADS under each wing pylon could fly around for fairly long periods taking out such UCAVs... a proper airforce is the easiest solution to UAVS.

With the extensive air defence network of radars of all types in Russia it would just be a question of selecting the method to take down that drone... an Su-25 with old obsolete AA-2 and AA-8 missiles from old stocks could be used up shooting down drones on the cheap... when old stocks run out then Igla-S missiles have proximity fuses and can shoot down drones easily enough and would be relatively cheap.

The newest model of Kornet can hit targets at altitudes of 10km easily enough and of course TOR and Pantsir can hit targets at 15km.

Deterrence is the cheapest weapon, enemy should know they will get 20 times any silly action like Israel does.....most except the "nothing to lose" gang will respect deterrence. If it still occurs then all tools are available after you declare limited war. This is like designing buildings to keep cockroaches out as the main goal.

Drones are a great way for a small weak country or group to get some of the abilities of a much bigger power... having a surveillance drone to see where the enemy is is useful, having suicide drones to attack targets as you spot them is useful too.

With the really big long range armed drones that is more a case of a superpower or major power being able to project and attack targets cheaply.

Most of these heavy drones with enormous range just fly around for very long periods watching and collecting information. Eventually they might spot a target for which they can deploy a weapon and get an immediate kill... in many ways it is like sending a sniper into enemy territory to collect intel... if a high ranking enemy target appears he can take them out, but most of the time it is the data he collects that is valuable.

The thing is that small countries can use them to attack other small countries because drones are a difficult target for most air defences... even looking at the most powerful countries, really only Russia has systems proven to be effective against cruise missiles and drones in numbers... didn't happen by accident... it was experience and modification and adaption of SAM systems, not to mention EW weapons Elint equipment for location of control centres, and of course a few of their own drones are being developed to hunt enemy drones too.

The really big long range drones... the ones the US flys over Pakistan and African countries to spy and to occasionally kill people would be a trivial target for a MiG-21 to shoot down... in a full scale war they wouldn't last long against a competent enemy, and the measures you would use to protect them... jammer aircraft and fighter escort... it stops being the cheap option it was.

Satellite datalinks means orgs like ISIS are unlikely to operate such systems anyway, but medium range SAMs like BUK and S-350 and even the 40km range Pantsir would clean them up easily enough.

They do have uses and are cost effective for many jobs, but the also have serious weaknesses as well and would never be a war winner against a peer enemy.

Russia could shoot down any 10+ ton drone operating over the Ukraine without entering Ukrainian territory...

Not saying they don't make sense a few such kill bots over Syria would be useful... India should buy some or make some too because long high altitude borders it is a good relatively cheap way of monitoring land that is not populated normally.

GarryB wrote:A super tucano type light turboprop aircraft armed with twin MANPADS under each wing pylon could fly around for fairly long periods taking out such UCAVs... a proper airforce is the easiest solution to UAVS.

Missiles expend all of their thrust on accelerating/climbing and very little in sustaining flight. However, missiles like the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow for example, had a bimodal rocket motor that had a high thrust on launch & a lower sustaining thrust at combat speed.

GarryB wrote:Drones are a great way for a small weak country or group to get some of the abilities of a much bigger power... having a surveillance drone to see where the enemy is is useful, having suicide drones to attack targets as you spot them is useful too.

With the really big long range armed drones that is more a case of a superpower or major power being able to project and attack targets cheaply.

Most of these heavy drones with enormous range just fly around for very long periods watching and collecting information. Eventually they might spot a target for which they can deploy a weapon and get an immediate kill... in many ways it is like sending a sniper into enemy territory to collect intel... if a high ranking enemy target appears he can take them out, but most of the time it is the data he collects that is valuable.

The thing is that small countries can use them to attack other small countries because drones are a difficult target for most air defences... even looking at the most powerful countries, really only Russia has systems proven to be effective against cruise missiles and drones in numbers... didn't happen by accident... it was experience and modification and adaption of SAM systems, not to mention EW weapons Elint equipment for location of control centres, and of course a few of their own drones are being developed to hunt enemy drones too.

The really big long range drones... the ones the US flys over Pakistan and African countries to spy and to occasionally kill people would be a trivial target for a MiG-21 to shoot down... in a full scale war they wouldn't last long against a competent enemy, and the measures you would use to protect them... jammer aircraft and fighter escort... it stops being the cheap option it was.

Satellite datalinks means orgs like ISIS are unlikely to operate such systems anyway, but medium range SAMs like BUK and S-350 and even the 40km range Pantsir would clean them up easily enough.

They do have uses and are cost effective for many jobs, but the also have serious weaknesses as well and would never be a war winner against a peer enemy.

Russia could shoot down any 10+ ton drone operating over the Ukraine without entering Ukrainian territory...

Not saying they don't make sense a few such kill bots over Syria would be useful... India should buy some or make some too because long high altitude borders it is a good relatively cheap way of monitoring land that is not populated normally.

Small country with drones vs Large country with military means is never going to start something like that unless its terror land type sand bagged country that has nothing to lose. LArge vs Large usually act predictably. Armenia and Azeri conflict is not a barometer to guage their use but one has to factor them for sure now a days as military planners. Even an igla is close to half million$ per pop?

Missiles expend all of their thrust on accelerating/climbing and very little in sustaining flight. However, missiles like the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow for example, had a bimodal rocket motor that had a high thrust on launch & a lower sustaining thrust at combat speed.

This is true, so fitting a MANPADS to an aircraft and launching it in forward flight at the same altitude as the target a missile like Stinger or Mistral or Igla or Verba will become much more powerful and effective as an air to air missile than they would as a MANPAD fired from the ground.

With a ground launch a MANPAD would not be much use against a drone flying at 10,000m, but get into a light plane or even a not light plane like an Su-25 jet it cold climb up to the altitude the target is operating at so the missile can use all its fuel to accelerate and chase the drone target, which means it should easily kill the target because it does not have to climb 10km to reach it and can be fired from a closer range too.

A MANPAD missile is much cheaper than most AAMs and also much lighter so you can afford to use 10K missiles against a 1-2 million dollar Turkish drone, as opposed to firing a million dollar long range AMRAAM missile from an F-35 that costs 70K per hour to operate.

Firing a more expensive air to air missile like Sparrow or Amraam.... it would probably be cheaper to use a medium range SAM like SA-6 or SA-11 missiles from old stocks to use them up before they expire.

Having a cheap light plane and a cheap light missile is the important part of dealing with drones which the enemy might have in large numbers.

Even an igla is close to half million$ per pop?

From the SIPRI international trade register:

India ordered Igla-s Portable SAMs in 2008. They were delivered from 2008 to 2012. The order was for 250 missiles and 250 missiles were delivered.

It was a 26 million dollar deal.

250 missiles for 26 million dollars makes the cost per missile in this instance... about $104K each.

Of course there is an earlier deal for Igla missiles from 2001, that were delivered from 2001 to 2003, this is the shoulder fired missile and the deal was for 50 million dollars for 2,250 missiles... this missile does not have the proximity fuse for dealing with very small targets but would be fine in an air launched model for shooting down drones like the Turkish ones from an aircraft and it works out at $22K per missile which would be quite reasonable I would think.

More recently India has ordered a lot of Igla-S missiles and they will probably cost more than 104K each but that is because they are making them in India so you have to build a factory...

GarryB wrote:

India ordered Igla-s Portable SAMs in 2008. They were delivered from 2008 to 2012. The order was for 250 missiles and 250 missiles were delivered.

It was a 26 million dollar deal.

250 missiles for 26 million dollars makes the cost per missile in this instance... about $104K each.

Of course there is an earlier deal for Igla missiles from 2001, that were delivered from 2001 to 2003, this is the shoulder fired missile and the deal was for 50 million dollars for 2,250 missiles... this missile does not have the proximity fuse for dealing with very small targets but would be fine in an air launched model for shooting down drones like the Turkish ones from an aircraft and it works out at $22K per missile which would be quite reasonable I would think.

More recently India has ordered a lot of Igla-S missiles and they will probably cost more than 104K each but that is because they are making them in India so you have to build a factory...

I honestly did not know the pricing of igla and did not look up and based on kornet pricing for a launcher with 10 missiles and estimated. Electronic warfare is the most efficient means or z23 style guns with proper detection and planning and training.

I honestly did not know the pricing of igla and did not look up and based on kornet pricing for a launcher with 10 missiles and estimated.

I wasn't sure myself and looked it up to find out.

I was certain it wasn't hugely expensive because they are making them in very large numbers and are using them with hand held launchers as well as ship based and vehicle based systems as well as aircraft mounted multi-pylon systems (normally quad launchers but sometimes twin tube arrangements).

One order for Kornet missiles suggests the price per missile was 5K dollars which is peanuts.

The optical beam riding guidance sensor is very cheap to make and the electronic brain it has to remain in the centre of the beam in flight is simpler than the cheapest cellphone electronics.

For a very long time I read and believed that the Kornet missile was expensive and not widely deployed, but in actual fact they do have plenty of them, and many countries have them in licence production... they are actually very affordable, but they still use older missiles they have large stocks off in exercises presumably to use them up before their fuel and batteries expire.

Electronic warfare is the most efficient means or z23 style guns with proper detection and planning and training.

With the variety of drones around I would think having as many solutions as possible would be the best approach... hard and soft kill.

GarryB wrote:
I wasn't sure myself and looked it up to find out.

One order for Kornet missiles suggests the price per missile was 5K dollars which is peanuts.

I read it was 800k for one launcher with 10 missiles, that 5k is not real. These days even ammo costs so much for going to range but who knows. Large and big customers probably do get domestic pricing or close to it along with other deals that tey transact.

With the variety of drones around I would think having as many solutions as possible would be the best approach... hard and soft kill.

Agreed

Internet claims that one missile costs roughly 6.000 Bucks for export (data: 2012). In todays dollars maybe 8.000.

Hole wrote:Internet claims that one missile costs roughly 6.000 Bucks for export (data: 2012). In todays dollars maybe 8.000.

Not sure how reliable these costs as arms deals notoriously secretive as it involves brokers and all sorts of other opaque things. This says as of 2003 $60k to $80k unit price which probably includes launcher and not sure if its one missile or 10 as kornet.

military.wikia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla

The thing is that the launcher is expensive... it includes a high quality thermal imager... especially on the current models which reach air and ground targets out to 10km, so including the price of launchers mixed with missiles distorts the price and is often used to make it appear like the system is more expensive than it is.

The launchers are not cheap but you only buy them once.

In comparison the launchers for Javelin are expensive, but the missiles are also expensive so it is expensive to buy and expensive to use.

When you are talking about a weapon that can be used against a variety of targets at extended ranges you want something that is cheap to use, because using it makes you safer... by killing the enemy.

Most soldiers don't care how much something costs, but if it is very expensive then they will find once they use their supply up that replacements are just not there or questions start getting asked about what they are using them for.

Using a Javelin to hit a MG or sniper position that is 300m away... well it would be cheaper to use an AT4.

A target 1,200m away it is cheaper to use an SPG-9 which the Russians are learning in Syria.... they will give you plenty of SPG-9 HE rounds which will be ideal for hitting stationary point targets... it also means you can save your Kornet missiles for much harder moving targets.

I read it was 800k for one launcher with 10 missiles, that 5k is not real.

Most importantly, Russian arms companies selling to the Russian military can only make like a 3% to 5% profit on sales, but with exports can make 20-30%... which is a good way for them to improve their business by investing in new production equipment and tooling etc.

They often sell at a good price to some allies, but these days never at a loss unless it is old kit for sale they are just making money on by upgrading for the sale.

GarryB wrote:The thing is that the launcher is expensive... it includes a high quality thermal imager... especially on the current models which reach air and ground targets out to 10km, so including the price of launchers mixed with missiles distorts the price and is often used to make it appear like the system is more expensive than it is.

The launchers are not cheap but you only buy them once.

Using a Javelin to hit a MG or sniper position  that is 300m away... well it would be cheaper to use an AT4.

A target 1,200m away it is cheaper to use an SPG-9 which the Russians are learning in Syria.... they will give you plenty of SPG-9 HE rounds which will be ideal for hitting stationary point targets... it also means you can save your Kornet missiles for much harder moving targets.

Agreed, kornets and konkurs have proven their worth in variety of situations. Cheap compared to western ones and equally effective

Most importantly, Russian arms companies selling to the Russian military can only make like a 3% to 5% profit on sales, but with exports can make 20-30%... which is a good way for them to improve their business by investing in new production equipment and tooling etc.

They often sell at a good price to some allies, but these days never at a loss unless it is old kit for sale they are just making money on by upgrading for the sale.

Yes although Chinese and Iranian clones have entered market in hot spots. Export pricing is as expected competitive to other products with Russian branding discount and western branding premium regardless of effectiveness....apple vs Xiomi like feature to feature atleast as of now.

As far as drones threat is concerned, manpads still sit somewhere in 4th decile perhaps in terms of cost vs getting the fighter in air on the other extreme or launching a sam

The thing is that dealing with drones part of the problem is getting to the drone, so for instance shooting down a drone does not require a powerful gun... even a rifle calibre weapon can bring down a drone but if the drone operates at 4km altitude then a 23mm cannon lacks reach from the ground, but a drone with a 12 gauge shotgun weapon that is brought to within 10m of the target can kill the target for a few dollars of fuel and a few cents worth of shotgun shells.

So called cargo rounds for the 30 x 165mm round explode at between 1,100 and 1,800m and are optimised for use against troops on the ground or soft targets and have been in standard production for decades and are cheap and simple... loading such rounds into the cannon of the Su-25 it could be flown up to any altitude including beyond 12km altitude in an Su-25 with their upgraded IR optics and used to bring down any drone from tiny to huge fairly easily and efficiently and effectively.

Add some quad mounted MANPADS, as well as laser guided 80mm or 57mm rockets with HE Frag warheads, some cannon shells with airburst rounds commanded by laser, and of course cheap command guided and detonated HE ATGMs like Shturm and Ataka missiles on light aircraft and helicopters and a wide range of drones can be wiped out quickly and efficiently without spending a lot of money.

Ground based radar are able to detect the smallest drones and allow a selection of weapons to be used to neutralise them cheaply before they do any damage or harm... not to mention jamming systems and EW weapons that can locate control sites and enemy launch locations.

MOSCOW, May 28. /TASS/. Russian unmanned aerial vehicles will be outfitted with a unique strapdown inertial navigation system produced by KRET Group within the state tech corporation Rostec, the Rostec press office reported on Friday.

"The system’s advantage is that it features high accuracy and offers a possibility of autonomous operation: it can determine coordinates and parameters of the movement of objects even in the absence of ground, sea or space reference points," the statement says.

Initially, this system was used in aircraft-making. Subsequently, it was adapted for drones. Strapdown inertial systems are lighter and smaller compared to platform-based versions and can operate at considerable loads, the Rostec press office said.

"Navigational systems feature the option of operation based on GPS or Glonass in the combined mode or autonomously. At the same time, the systems’ margin error is less than 1% in the normal mode of operation and less than 2% in the autonomous mode," the press office quoted KRET Group CEO Nikolai Kolesov as saying.

The new system was successfully tested on drones in 2020, Rostec said.

"The first prototypes of the latest navigational systems will be delivered for their use on Russian drones already in 2021, the Rostec press office said.

https://tass.com/defense/1295177

Hole wrote:

If armed these UAVs can be used by Russia to target enemy rocket artillery.

Since it hasn't been posted yet, an Orion-E with satellite navigation and possibly new EO systems in the center of the fuselage .



Edit: Drone projects by Orion manufacturer Kronshtadt



https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1408357711348002820

Rasisuki Nebia wrote:Since it hasn't been posted yet, an Orion-E with satellite navigation and possibly new EO systems in the center of the fuselage .

That's what I'm talking about

Now we are cooking with oil  

Rasisuki Nebia wrote:...Edit: Drone projects by Orion manufacturer Kronshtadt

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4uAc9EVIA0qrnO?format=jpg

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1408357711348002820

Here is slightly larger image:

...looks like a supersonic drone

...looks like a supersonic drone

That is most likely the Kh-22/22M/32 based drone that has been offered for testing at high altitudes and mach 4-5 speeds for the last 20-30 odd years.

Photos from the construction site in Dubna of the first Russian plant for the serial production of UAVs of the Kronstadt company.

The start of production is scheduled for November 2021.

Investments in the project will amount to more than 4 billion rubles, the plant will provide permanent work for more than 1.5 thousand people. It is assumed that the production will be environmentally friendly and silent. The total area of which will be 45 thousand square meters.

Developed in Belarus, but nevertheless...

Is called Hunter.

Why must every piece of equipment be called hunter, shkval, or grom.