Small UAS / Drones and related general thread - NOT Swarming ones.

Josh_TN said:
Any idea what turbojet it uses? Is it an off the shelf product or does Cummings print it? The latter would be pretty revolutionary - there are some research projects going that route but I have not heard of one entering production or regular use.
Click to expand...
Not sure - their website isn't a 100% clear: https://cummingsaerospace.com/

That said, a one use drone such as this would be a candidate for a 3D printed engine using simple materials.
 
Last edited:
Nothing beats a million dollar container-tent workshop disguised as a meth lab ,that can manufacture less than 2 units per day.And its only actually manufacturing the simplest cheapest part of the drone ,the airframe components .Everything else is same manual labor assembly as in conventional drone building

Two 20-ft containers or one 40-ft container form factor
50 unit / month production capacity
Deploy to remote locations or disguise and hide in plain sight

2025-05-24_11h13_46.png


1741306791230.jpg
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsXE3LpHdBQ


continuous front lines go poof~

Perhaps the correct line of thinking is that the point of operations is not to push the infantry up but to increase efficiency of drone forces with better sites for drone teams, improved ability to strike at opponent weaknesses and so on.
 
Last edited:

Confirmed Losses Of Russian Aircraft Mount After Ukrainian Drone Assault​

https://www.twz.com/air/firm-evidence-of-russian-aircraft-losses-after-ukrainian-drone-strikes
Subsequently, Andriy Kovalenko, an official with Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said that “at least 13 Russian aircraft were destroyed.”

Among those aircraft, the new video confirms that several of the Tu-95MS bombers were already loaded with Kh-101 conventionally armed cruise missiles, ready for launch against Ukraine, as seen in the image below. This fact underlines how big a threat these aircraft are to Ukraine and reinforces the fact that they are legitimate targets.
Click to expand...
Now, with new satellite imagery from Maxar, we can clearly see the remains of three destroyed Tu-95MS and four destroyed Tu-22M3 bombers at Belaya.
Click to expand...
Now, additional satellite imagery from Airbus Defense and Space, Maxar, and Planet Labs provides a better understanding of the destruction at Olenya, with telltale burn marks on the tarmac consistent with the destruction of five aircraft, at least three of which can be confirmed as Tu-95MS bombers.
Click to expand...
Clear satellite imagery that might definitely show damage to aircraft at Ivanovo has yet to emerge, although a video released today by the SBU shows two A-50 being targeted. The location was presumably Ivanovo, where these radar planes are home-based.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1cQa1bOJRg
 
Last edited:
Note that a number of aircraft on the vids from the attack, incl. the Tu-95 Bears, Tu-22M3 Backfires, and A-50 Mainstays, sported old tyres on the wings or other rubbish. Would this indicate that these aircraft have already been decommissioned...?

https://t.me/intelslava/75418
 
shin_getter said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsXE3LpHdBQ


continuous front lines go poof~

Perhaps the correct line of thinking is that the point of operations is not to push the infantry up but to increase efficiency of drone forces with better sites for drone teams, improved ability to strike at opponent weaknesses and so on.
Click to expand...
Might as well just dedicate most resources towards strategic airpower at that point if the battlefield is just some no-man's land of drones killing drones. But as C-UAS solutions mature I think we'll see a more sober analysis.
yahya said:
Note that a number of aircraft on the vids from the attack, incl. the Tu-95 Bears, Tu-22M3 Backfires, and A-50 Mainstays, sported old tyres on the wings or other rubbish. Would this indicate that these aircraft have already been decommissioned...?

https://t.me/intelslava/75418
Click to expand...
I think that's just a cheap attempt at providing some protection from kamikaze drones and the like. Shows that these far-off airbases were indeed aware that they could be targeted, but still not taking the situation seriously enough where effective measures are taken which would be items like hardened aircraft shelters and modern short-range air defense systems. I don't know if Russia can presently afford to take such measures while also continuing the sort of slow and costly progress they've made in Ukraine.
 
It´s also the sign of a failure from the C-UAS industry as a whole that has failed to offer a system strictly based on the needs raised by the threat. How many years lost with rapid fire canons, rocket/jet powered interceptors, unfit lasers, unrealistic MW guns, Spider webs and even falconry... (All while tailored systems offering superior sensing, persistence and low kinetic kill effect with a matching cost approach were offered more than a decade ago.)
 
Among those aircraft, the new video confirms that several of the Tu-95MS bombers were already loaded with Kh-101 conventionally armed cruise missiles, ready for launch against Ukraine, as seen in the image below. This fact underlines how big a threat these aircraft are to Ukraine and reinforces the fact that they are legitimate targets.
Click to expand...

So these drones caught the Tu-95MSs being armed for another terror-raid with AS-15 Kents, assuming each of them were fully loaded that's eight multi-million dollar AS-15s per bomber gone up in smoke, I wonder how many AS-15s and AS-4 Kitchens were destroyed, damaged beyond repair or just damaged in the raid?
 
I do not think Kh-22/32 has been used much recently. Likely old stocks were used up and Kh-32 upgrades limited, leaving Tu-22M3 without a viable weapon.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not thing Kh-22/32 has been used much recently. Likely old stocks were used up and Kh-32 upgrades limited, leaving Yu-22M3 without a viable weapon.
Click to expand...

Some good points there about not much of the old Soviet-era AS-4 stockpiles left (I suppose the Kh-32 would be the AS-4B), the Tu-22M3 might be a better carrier for that particular missile I suspect.
 
NMaude said:
Some good points there about not much of the old Soviet-era AS-4 stockpiles left (I suppose the Kh-32 would be the AS-4B), the Tu-22M3 might be a better carrier for that particular missile I suspect.
Click to expand...

AFAIK Kh-22/32 is the only weapon Tu-22M3 can employ outside free fall bombs. Tu-22M3M apparently adds a lot of new weapons but I think this upgrade is far and few between and AFAIK Tu-22s have only used Kh-22 and free fall bomb missions limited to Mauripol for this conflict (additional free fall missions in Syria).
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Might as well just dedicate most resources towards strategic airpower at that point if the battlefield is just some no-man's land of drones killing drones. But as C-UAS solutions mature I think we'll see a more sober analysis.
Click to expand...
Drones is also, strategic airpower (as seen with the other event)

In any case, no ground based solution ever "solved" airpower as airpower have the natural attribute of mobility and mass that ground based systems can not match. The counter to airpower is greater air power, and the counter to micro-air power would be air power with higher performing vehicles in greater numbers.

There really should be layers of air power from hypersonics down to bee sized vehicles with everything in between. Comprehensive defense and offense covers everything within those scales with combined arms between them.

Its pretty basic to drop hibernating/perching/etc drones out of penetrating assets for persistent sensing and interdiction. Higher tier air power can also influence lower tier drone fights by killing force multipliers with likes of anti-radiation, anti-logistics strikes. While lower tier air can infiltrate and attack high value assets. One can easily imagine high-low mix where SEAD efforts from high cost assets enables low cost aircraft access...and so on.

Finally, even small aircraft can have strategic ranges too:
flight_canada_ireland.gif

The playbook have yet to be written.
Colonial-Marine said:
but still not taking the situation seriously enough where effective measures are taken which would be items like hardened aircraft shelters and modern short-range air defense systems. I don't know if Russia can presently afford to take such measures while also continuing the sort of slow and costly progress they've made in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
The converse thought is that such legacy aircraft isn't decisive in the conflict and resources are better spent on war winning assets like fiber FPVs and infantry shotguns.

TomcatViP said:
It´s also the sign of a failure from the C-UAS industry as a whole that has failed to offer a system strictly based on the needs raised by the threat. How many years lost with rapid fire canons, rocket/jet powered interceptors, unfit lasers, unrealistic MW guns, Spider webs and even falconry... (All while tailored systems offering superior sensing, persistence and low kinetic kill effect with a matching cost approach were offered more than a decade ago.)
Click to expand...
Perhaps we can say its a sign of failure that no nuclear weapon proof armor have been developed despite nearly a century of the threat. (or that CRAM have failed to be developed so make ramming the primary means of ship combat)

Or alternatively the sensing and fire control problem against the smallest independent vehicle on the battlefield is harder than that of other targets. Consider how huge and slow a infantry man is compared to a drone that fits half a dozen in a backpack while moving orders of magnitude higher speed with an extra degree of freedom while concealed under the same ground clutter with good pilots.

Do talk about what solution you are referring to, though.
 
Last edited:
yahya said:
Note that a number of aircraft on the vids from the attack, incl. the Tu-95 Bears, Tu-22M3 Backfires, and A-50 Mainstays, sported old tyres on the wings or other rubbish. Would this indicate that these aircraft have already been decommissioned...?

https://t.me/intelslava/75418
Click to expand...
Tyres have been used for protection against small drones.
 
Last edited:
yahya said:
Then, what was the idea behind placing these old tyres on the airframes? Expedition of cheap recycling?

These sites claim that the tyres disrupt the DSMAC signature.

https://www.twz.com/air/russia-cove...-image-matching-seekers-u-s-military-confirms
https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-covering-aircraft-rubber-tires
Then why retired Russian aircraft were also covered by these tyres? Who would care to protect them this way unless there was something deeper of the maskirovka.
Click to expand...
Saw speculation that it was to make it more difficult for computers to detect them with image recognition. Wouldn't stop a human with an FPV drone, or a GPS guided munition but if you had a satellite looking for planes it might help. (Unless you were using human photo-interpreters I suppose.) If the idea is to break up the edges they should train their troops better.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom