Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 Sep 2018, 16:18

milosh wrote:@mixeflick


I can agree with you new engine could be PITA but that doesn't have much with weapon tests. New engine will not increase cruise speed so if you need to test Su-57 weapon separation on max cruise speed you can do it with 117, only it would need to use AB.


There's no question in my mind that any responsible aerospace engineer would re-certify weapons carriage, release and separation with new engines. New engines will result in changes (likely an increase in vibration) in the airframe, and that extends to the weapons bay. Whether that occurs in military power, afterburner. both or not at all is the only question. And that means testing and how said forces affect (or don't) release of weapons from the internal bay. And remember, this will be at supersonic speeds - leading to big risks for the pilot.

Now you may be right - the Russians just won't do it, believing that everything will be just fine. Or there may be political pressure due to the fact it's already late. This situation has been seen before, but the best example is probably cosmonaut Vladimir Kamarov. Party premier Brezchnev was so intent on doing something big in space, he ordered the mission by X date. Problem being, the Soyouz spacecraft they wanted to use was known to have defects. Kamarov himself was so certain of his death that he requested an open casket funeral, so his handlers could see what they did to him. Predictably, his capsule's parachutes failed to deploy properly, and he slammed into the earth and was incinerated in the resulting fire. This is an example of what can happen, when you fail to test things...
Attachments
Kamarov remains.jpg
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 Sep 2018, 16:21

I can agree with you new engine could be PITA but that doesn't have much with weapon tests. New engine will not increase cruise speed so if you need to test Su-57 weapon separation on max cruise speed you can do it with 117, only it would need to use AB.[/quote]

There's no question in my mind that any responsible aerospace engineer would re-certify weapons carriage, release and separation with new engines. New engines will result in changes (likely an increase in vibration) in the airframe, and that extends to the weapons bay. Whether that occurs in military power, afterburner. both or not at all is the only question. And that means testing and how said forces affect (or don't) release of weapons from the internal bay. And remember, this will be at supersonic speeds - leading to big risks for the pilot.

Now you may be right - the Russians just won't do it, believing that everything will be just fine. Or there may be political pressure due to the fact it's already late. This situation has been seen before, but the best example is probably cosmonaut Vladimir Kamarov. Party premier Brezchnev was so intent on doing something big in space, he ordered the mission by X date. Problem being, the Soyouz spacecraft they wanted to use was known to have defects. Kamarov himself was so certain of his death that he requested an open casket funeral, so his handlers could see what they did to him. Predictably, his capsule's parachutes failed to deploy properly, and he slammed into the earth and was incinerated in the resulting fire. This is an example of what can happen, when you fail to test things...

https://i.imgur.com/X0eX4HY.jpg
Offline

project458

Banned

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21

Unread post09 Sep 2018, 22:17

Back to topic

First pics and video of the Altius-M in flight, it has 5000 kg take off weight and 20,000 m ceiling and 25 hour endurance, range is classified but should be least 2000km if not more, with this and and Hunters test flight about to start
what ever lead the West has in drones its about to fade away fast :mrgreen:

P.S Flight tests of the Altius-M have been going on for two years, so these pics and video are probably not recent.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W3mS3KE9hY

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3335511.html
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 00:09

Terrifying!

A draggy old turboprop ... 20,000m (65,617 ft) ceiling ... sure! ... why not ... it's fantasy time ... so why not go big? :doh: :mrgreen:

RQ-4 first flight was February 1998.

Image

MQ-4 spec (wiki)
Maximum speed: 357 mph (575 km/h; 310 kn)
Range: 9,436 mi (8,200 nmi; 15,186 km)
Endurance: 30 hours
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
Last edited by element1loop on 10 Sep 2018, 00:52, edited 1 time in total.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 00:51

Good to know Russian propaganda will severely exaggerate performance, even for UAVs.
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 01:02

That is not turboprop. Looks like V12 turbocharged.

http://imgup.nl/images/2017/04/21/JneAW-800.jpg
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 01:08

You're right! No exhaust horns!

Ah, so 20,000 m was the 'typo' ... it was supposed to be 20,000 ft. :mrgreen:

I hope they're using unleaded in that thing .... :lmao:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 03:28

http://www.deagel.com/Support-Aircraft/ ... 61001.aspx
The Altius or Altius-M is a medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)


This is what is required to reach 20000 meters with props:
Image

The Altius-M definitely can't reach 20000 meters; this is a textbook example of Russian propaganda exaggerating performance of their military products once again.
Offline

project458

Banned

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 03:55

Those who doubt that fact Altius-M can reach 20,000 m, just don't know how big Altius really is , but I will give you a clue :D

Thats a Tu-214 next to it by the way.

Image
Offline

project458

Banned

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 04:04

zhangmdev wrote:That is not turboprop. Looks like V12 turbocharged.

http://imgup.nl/images/2017/04/21/JneAW-800.jpg


The engines will be upgraded in future, the program is barely 7 years old, there are a few more years of development left before its ready for the Military, and in the mean time Russia will continue to launch more military communication satellites, which means by 2022 Russia can deploy drones globally the US does with Global Hawk and RQ-170 !
Offline

project458

Banned

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 04:24

Whole family of guided weapons being developed for UAV/UCAV strikes in the future.
Attachments
4780248.jpg
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 12:31

Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 14:18

knowan wrote:https://southfront.org/russias-altius-m-heavy-uav/

maximum altitude of 12km


Turbos could get it to 30 K feet just, but it would wheeze to get to 39k feet if at all. Maybe with 5% fuel remaining it could struggle to get close to that, eventually, but it would be empty of payload and just about out of juice to do it. Oh, and that link claims it's a "heavy-UAV". The next thing is its miserable available payload and viable range, and high-drag design.

One wonders why they couldn't manage a low-drag single-engine airframe design?

Yeah, I think we all know the answer to that.

project458 wrote: First pics and video of the Altius-M in flight, it has 5000 kg take off weight ...


Good luck with simultaneous useful payload, and useful range.

project458 wrote: The engines will be upgraded in future, the program is barely 7 years old, there are a few more years of development left …


oh right, the non-existent engine thing once again. “Seven years” of development and they couldn’t sort out a PT6-ski? Another lame excuse for having nothing ready to go once more. As for the US/West having only an alleged “small” and temporary lead over Russia in UAVs and UCAV tech you really are well beyond clinically delusional as someone else already suggested.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 14:43

project458 wrote:Those who doubt that fact Altius-M can reach 20,000 m, just don't know how big Altius really is , but I will give you a clue :D

Thats a Tu-214 next to it by the way.

Image



Really? Where are the engines? I blew your image by 400% and no engines, no visible shadows cast by engines and no stinger present, plus no V-tail. Whatever that is it isn't an 'Altius-M', it appears to be just a regular glider.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5554
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Sep 2018, 19:15

element1loop wrote:Terrifying!

A draggy old turboprop ... 20,000m (65,617 ft) ceiling ... sure! ... why not ... it's fantasy time ... so why not go big? :doh: :mrgreen:


Ahem...

"In 1989, the Condor set the world piston-powered aircraft altitude record of 67,028 ft (20,430 m) and was the first aircraft to fly a fully automated flight from takeoff to landing and also setting an unofficial endurance world record in 1988 by flying continuously for more than 50 hours; the flight was not ratified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) and is therefore not considered an official record.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Condor

condor_hero.jpg




:wink:
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests