Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

UAV thread


Toxn
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, barbaria said:

It does make it more difficult for Russia to employ its 'little green man' tactic. It would need to escalate things to neutralize the TB-2 in a way which would trigger article 5.

 

This a nice deterrence for a small and weak country such as Latvia. 

You clearly didn't followed Ukrainian events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mr.T said:

All the east european Rusophobes seem to think TB2 is some sort of magical anti russian kyptonite that could actually fight Russian army ! Based on experience against rag tag 3rd world militias with limited or no AD

I'd say it's simply an attractive platform, a combat proven armed drone that is being pushed by fellow NATO ally turkey without exporting issues like the american and israeli drones (the latter never exported an armed drone which is not a LM iirc) and isn't as expensive. The other options are chinese, or russian... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems some testing for stealthier nozzles for flying wing ither C-70 Okhotnik UAV or some other project like Pak DA bomber

 

Looks kinda long setup for C-70 

4652887_1000.jpg

 

 

Update It seems its not a nozzle for the UAV but so something supersonic

 

Tests under the project "Supersonic Civil Aircraft" (code "SDS / SPS") on the plane - flying laboratory Il-76LL.

4653108_1000.jpg

4653542_1000.jpg

4653719_1000.jpg

4653896_1000.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Reta said:

I'd say it's simply an attractive platform, a combat proven armed drone that is being pushed by fellow NATO ally turkey without exporting issues like the american and israeli drones (the latter never exported an armed drone which is not a LM iirc) and isn't as expensive. The other options are chinese, or russian... 

 

Yet it's very debatable for what country like Poland could use it. It's very effective for figting a guerilla or a weak military with terrible AD and no airforce but I fail to find an enemy like that for Poland. Countries with modern AD, EW means and airforce are not really vulnerable to slow drones like TB2. People tend to see the success of Azeris through the sexy videos from TB2 but it was loitering munitions and EW which cleared them way. The rest is quality marketing from Turkish side. 

 

As for the little green men. In Europe those have been operating stricly in close proximity of Russian borders and Russians didn't really hesitate to decimate the Ukrainean airforce even by cross-border fire. I bet that shooting down combat jet planes is much harder than TB2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Yet it's very debatable for what country like Poland could use it. It's very effective for figting a guerilla or a weak military with terrible AD and no airforce but I fail to find an enemy like that for Poland.

It's also a great ISR platform which can see dozens of miles away. It has its use in both peace and war in a modern army.

 

37 minutes ago, Beer said:

People tend to see the success of Azeris through the sexy videos from TB2 but it was loitering munitions and EW which cleared them way.

While loitering munitions where used against radars and SAM's, more then 50% where destroyed by TB-2's:

Afbeelding

 

41 minutes ago, Beer said:

The rest is quality technology from Turkish side. 

I corrected it for you if you don't mind.

 

42 minutes ago, Beer said:

As for the little green men. In Europe those have been operating stricly in close proximity of Russian borders and Russians didn't really hesitate to decimate the Ukrainean airforce even by cross-border fire. I bet that shooting down combat jet planes is much harder than TB2. 

Ukraine is not in NATO but Latvia with 25% ethnic Russian population is. Russia cannot use the same force against Latvia as it would invoke article 5. Russia can use hybrid tactics like little green men and supporting ethnic Russian rebels, but faced with a UCAV capability, this becomes very difficult to implement if not outright impossible. And thus some sort of a deterrence has been achieved for Latvia in this case. 

 

These tactical UCAV's are not wonder weapons, but in the right circumstances they can tip the balance in favor of the user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Yet it's very debatable for what country like Poland could use it. It's very effective for figting a guerilla or a weak military with terrible AD and no airforce but I fail to find an enemy like that for Poland. Countries with modern AD, EW means and airforce are not really vulnerable to slow drones like TB2. People tend to see the success of Azeris through the sexy videos from TB2 but it was loitering munitions and EW which cleared them way. The rest is quality marketing from Turkish side. 

 

As for the little green men. In Europe those have been operating stricly in close proximity of Russian borders and Russians didn't really hesitate to decimate the Ukrainean airforce even by cross-border fire. I bet that shooting down combat jet planes is much harder than TB2. 

 

Well yeah like you said we have yet to see a true large scale pear 2 pear fight involving UAV operations against modern EW, air defence and of course a capable airforce. In that case I doubt we'll see the same kind of incidents we saw in NK, syria or north africa, and MALE sized drones or above (essentially airstrip based) would probably be kept at a standoff from threats if they would even survive. And yet I think there's still merit to have that capability in your toolbox, intelligence gathering wise, and poland might still need that armed capability for low-intensity operations especially as a NATO member 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, barbaria said:

I corrected it for you if you don't mind.

   There isn't much Turkish tech in TB2s. It is Viasat-made datalink, Canadian optics, etc. It is rather mediocre military drone. Difference is that it was used in combat in big enough numbers, thanks to Turkish rather aggressive foreigh politics in few places. 

 

1 hour ago, barbaria said:

Ukraine is not in NATO but Latvia with 25% ethnic Russian population is. Russia cannot use the same force against Latvia as it would invoke article 5. Russia can use hybrid tactics like little green men and supporting ethnic Russian rebels, but faced with a UCAV capability, this becomes very difficult to implement if not outright impossible. And thus some sort of a deterrence has been achieved for Latvia in this case. 

   Keep this stupidity somewhere else. "Hybrid" tactics and other "hybrid" shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

There isn't much Turkish tech in TB2s. It is Viasat-made datalink, Canadian optics, etc.

The majority is and the rest is the best tech NATO can provide ;)

 

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

It is rather mediocre military drone.

Tell that to those at the receiving end of the TB-2:D

 

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

thanks to Turkish rather aggressive foreigh politics in few places.

But what enabled the Turks to be aggressive though? Could they've done it with the F-16 or F-4? With the T-129? Impossible

 

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Keep this stupidity somewhere else. "Hybrid" tactics and other "hybrid" shit.

Tell it to the Russian general staff. They seem to like the 'shit' very much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, barbaria said:

The majority is and the rest is the best tech NATO can provide ;)

Like?

 

13 minutes ago, barbaria said:

Tell that to those at the receiving end of the TB-2:D

-"T-72A is an outdated tank"

-" TeLL tHaT tO THoSe aT tHe RecEivInG EnD"

 

13 minutes ago, barbaria said:

But what enabled the Turks to be aggressive though?

Their politicians

 

13 minutes ago, barbaria said:

Could they've done it with the F-16 or F-4? With the T-129? Impossible

Yes, they could, question is will.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Like?

 

 

40 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

-"T-72A is an outdated tank"

-" TeLL tHaT tO THoSe aT tHe RecEivInG EnD"

 

Strawman. What about the Pantsirs, radars and EW systems?

 

41 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Yes, they could, question is will.

 

The TB-2's were used during a geopolitically sensitive period for Turkey. If it used its fighter aircraft and attack helicopters in Libya and Azerbaijan it would receive much more flak than it did with the drones. The TB-2 made the Egyptians deploy armored formations along their borders, the Russians scrambled MiG-29's to Libya and the Frenchies wetted their pants. And what abut the already present UAE fighters and their Chinese drones?

This is what a remote controlled airplane the size of a Cessna accomplished together with some supporting elements. It forced the adversary to escalate by bringing huge and expensive weapons systems because they couldn't cope with it and thus lost the escalation initiative. It is never good to be the one who escalates, because it means you couldn't cope with the lesser threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, barbaria said:

   Don't speek turkish. Drone tech isn't exactly hard to do this days anyway, even rather heavily sanctioned Iran is producing their own drones of several classes and used them in conflict in Yemen/Saudi Arabia. Few of their remote birds are quite capable according to what is known, like Shahed-129 and Kaman-22.

 

Quote

Strawman. What about the Pantsirs, radars and EW systems?

   It is not strawman. This argument about "receiving end" is dumb in its core. Every weapon is deadly for a human, swords, arrows, bullets for Taurus pistols, Kind tiger shells and so on. Trying to claim that weapon is good based on simply the fact it can kill misses the point completely.

 

Quote

The TB-2's were used during a geopolitically sensitive period for Turkey. If it used its fighter aircraft and attack helicopters in Libya and Azerbaijan it would receive much more flak than it did with the drones.

   It could be any other drone, bought from China for example. There is nothing special about TB2s. Turks could organise their own shadow PMC like we did, create their own Foreign legion, pay somebody else to fight, like Saudis did with Sudanese soldiers and so on.

 

Quote

The TB-2 made the Egyptians deploy armored formations along their borders, the Russians scrambled MiG-29's to Libya and the Frenchies wetted their pants. And what abut the already present UAE fighters and their Chinese drones?

   It wasn't TBs, it was escalation of action from one side that needed to be matched.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, barbaria said:

While loitering munitions where used against radars and SAM's, more then 50% where destroyed by TB-2's:

 

Those AD systems were neutralized by EW means or they were short-range system not capable to reach TB2. TB2 knocked them down when they werfe defenceless. Of course it's useful but any other aircraft or combat drone could do the same job. 

 

  

21 hours ago, barbaria said:

I corrected it for you if you don't mind.

 

I do mind. 

 

  

21 hours ago, barbaria said:

Ukraine is not in NATO but Latvia with 25% ethnic Russian population is. Russia cannot use the same force against Latvia as it would invoke article 5. Russia can use hybrid tactics like little green men and supporting ethnic Russian rebels, but faced with a UCAV capability, this becomes very difficult to implement if not outright impossible. And thus some sort of a deterrence has been achieved for Latvia in this case. 

 

Do you know what is written in article 5? I seriously doubt you do. Article 5 doesn't specify in any way how NATO countries shall react, that is entirely on them to choose. They can send a train of medical equipment or strongly condemn the action and that's it... and in the real world this is exactly what will happen if local Russians in Latvia start insurgency. 

Quote

 

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Beer said:

Those AD systems were neutralized by EW means or they were short-range system not capable to reach TB2. TB2 knocked them down when they werfe defenceless. 

 

I've yet to see footage from inside Armenian SAMs where their radars where jammed. I've seen more footage of them using their radars successfully to detect, track and even shoot at drones, ones even smaller than the TB-2. I've also seen more than once where the tracking radars where aimed at the TB-2's but they still got hit.

 

 

15 hours ago, Beer said:

Of course it's useful but any other aircraft or combat drone could do the same job. 

Not with the same effectiveness and cost-efficiency. The Azeri's lost 1 Su-25 with its pilot and two TB-2's. I'm sure they would've have traded more than one TB-2 for an Su-25 and its pilot.

 

15 hours ago, Beer said:

Do you know what is written in article 5? I seriously doubt you do. Article 5 doesn't specify in any way how NATO countries shall react, that is entirely on them to choose. They can send a train of medical equipment or strongly condemn the action and that's it... and in the real world this is exactly what will happen if local Russians in Latvia start insurgency. 

You lack reading comprehension. Latvia is protected by NATO membership against a direct Russian attack. Against a hybrid attack involving an ethnic Russian rebellion not so much, similarly to what happend in Ukraine. Would NATO countries jump in to help Latvia in such a case? Sure, even if they are not obliged to since it is de jure Latvian citizens who are rebelling.  But with these drones, Latvia can suppress such an ethnic Russian rebellion mostly by themselves, without breaking the bank. Perfect for such a small and weak country with serious security issues.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, barbaria said:

I've yet to see footage from inside Armenian SAMs where their radars where jammed. I've seen more footage of them using their radars successfully to detect, track and even shoot at drones, ones even smaller than the TB-2. I've also seen more than once where the tracking radars where aimed at the TB-2's but they still got hit.

 

Basically all of that footage is from Osa which is outranged by TB2+MAM-L (comparison of engagement envelopes clearly shows that). That is a case which I described before. The key which allowed that was supressing the alrerady weak medium-high altitude AD. That was done mainly by Harops (mainly that 40 years old S-300PS battery) and partially by Armenians themseves (having their Su-30 in non-mission capable state). 

 

  

9 hours ago, barbaria said:

Not with the same effectiveness and cost-efficiency. The Azeri's lost 1 Su-25 with its pilot and two TB-2's. I'm sure they would've have traded more than one TB-2 for an Su-25 and its pilot.

 

The Su-25 was shot down during low-altitude mission. We don't know if its mission could have been carried out by TB2. Maybe not. TB2 has tiny payload (30x less than Su-25) and it can't be used to attack number of targets which Su-25 can. Logically the Azeris probably used the Su-25 in missions for which TB2 was useless. TB2 can not engage buildings, hardened shelters or undeground tunnels for example. 

 

  

9 hours ago, barbaria said:

You lack reading comprehension. Latvia is protected by NATO membership against a direct Russian attack. Against a hybrid attack involving an ethnic Russian rebellion not so much, similarly to what happend in Ukraine. Would NATO countries jump in to help Latvia in such a case? Sure, even if they are not obliged to since it is de jure Latvian citizens who are rebelling.  But with these drones, Latvia can suppress such an ethnic Russian rebellion mostly by themselves, without breaking the bank. Perfect for such a small and weak country with serious security issues.

 

You wrote about the article 5 in relation to the little green men and I reacted. That was not about direct Russian state attack hence why I don't know why you start with it now. I'm sorry but comprehension issue is on your side or you intentionally derail the topic you started yourself. 

 

Anyway if Russians attacks directly, having few TB2 changes nothing. If the Russians use local insurgency instead they won't let them unsupported. The key is that if they decide to start such local conflict they will do that in a way which can succeed. The rebel slaughter through drones is completely predictable scenarion which means that anyone with half of his brain would start such operation only if preventive actions are taken already during the planning. In other words they didn't hesitate to wipe out the Ukrainean air force in support of the rebels and if they do apply such rebelion again they will give it necessary support again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mother of all shifting the goalpost reaction...

 

 

Let me break it down for you:

 

Latvia vs Russia:

Russia could beat Latvia by merely farting at it->

Latvia enters NATO and Russia is deterred from direct military action ->

Russia needs to find another way to endanger Latvia ->

Latvia has 25% ethnic Russians who could instigate a rebellion ->

Latvia understands this and seeks the best COIN weapons their money can buy ->

Latvia gets armed drones ->

Russia now has one less tool in its toolbox to militarily threaten Latvia

=Russia deterred until the next threat comes up.

 

Is there any other way Russia can militarily threaten Latvia? Perhaps, but the two main military threats against Latvia are deterred by:

1 NATO membership

2 UCAV capability

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words you believe that shooting down unmanned drones in support of "poor opressed ethnic Russians" would trigger article 5 in a way which would lead to a NATO military action against Russia. You can believe in that, let's leave it that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Latvian COIN capability make it harder or impossible for Russia to instigate such a rebellion knowing that they would need to take direct military action against a NATO members' asset in NATO airspace and thus triggering article 5?

 

Yes -> Russia is deterred (for now at least)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ADC411 said:

An interesting budget loitering munition concept was presented at the latest Ukrainian arms expo, utilizing PG-7VL warhead.

 

E4-FFNb-HXw-AEe-V57.jpg

 

 

Presumably, other types of RPG-7 warheads could be used as well.

   Kalashnikov concern (ZALA to be precise) is also working on squad-level loitering munition using WW2 AT hand grenades with HEAT warhead (like RKG-3) for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...