Israeli know-how boosts Russia's armed UAS project

[JGXL836]

Better to say - soviet culture. russian and soviet cultures are quite different.

Valid point.

[Camera]

Like I mentioned before, it's a question of doctrine. Russia doesn't have the same global requirements as the United States. It just doesn't need to bomb anyone in Yemen. And using X-47B is not a very relevant example, since USN is the client. When Russia has the kind of navy that US has and the same kind of global reach requirements, then we can talk about suitability.

I am a firm believer that strategy precedes hardware. Getting a UCAV and then figuring out what you are going to use it for is a wrong way to do things.

The UAVs have a huge advantage as they can remain on observation mission for dozens of hours, while illuminating moving or static targets for planes and ground forces that would fire munitions out of visual range from the targets.

[Spezz]

The old pharaoh had many native slaves in his realm, not only Jews.

And yes, I lived in USSR.

So how can you have bitter feelings towards Russia when you had it as good if not better than the "natives" (funny I thought you guys were native too, living there for centuries and all). When the "slavery" was a product of the times and in no way exclusive to your peoples.
I won't reply any more it's not really on topic.

On topic: UCAVS are not the future as long there's a chance of them being hacked. There will always be at least 50% manned fighters imho. But if you do get it right, it's a powerful weapon indeed. In certain scenarios it will be unbeatable by manned aircraft. Speed, small size, stealth, agility...

[artjomh]

So? Doesn't change the fact that, "UAVs are close to pointless against a technologically competent opponent." is factually incorrect.

I think you are making too big of a deal out of a comment I made.

I think in general, the peacetime utility of any kind of long-range aircraft against a competent opponent has suffered a mortal blow in 1960.

Yes, UAV will always be relevant in asymmetrical conflicts (for one thing, it gives US a benefit of not getting embarassed again by a captured pilot), but as some sort of revolutionary wunderwaffe? No, never again.

I thought it was a strategic bomber first and foremost.

That Georgian Hermes 450 that was shot down could fly higher than a Tu-22 and there are UAVs with a longer range as well.

What? No. Tu-22M has a ceiling of 13,5 km. Hermes 450 has a ceiling of 5,5 km. Buk-M1, unfortunately, has a ceiling of 14 km (26 km for M2).

So, like I already said, the tactical utility (i.e. they will both get shot down) is the same. The only relevant factor is loss of life (which is very important).

[MUSHROOM123]

In some time in the future-UAVS will replace warplanes.

[C.Puffs]

I think you are making too big of a deal out of a comment I made.

I think in general, the peacetime utility of any kind of long-range aircraft against a competent opponent has suffered a mortal blow in 1960.

Yes, UAV will always be relevant in asymmetrical conflicts (for one thing, it gives US a benefit of not getting embarassed again by a captured pilot), but as some sort of revolutionary wunderwaffe? No, never again.

I think, for the US anyway, it will give back the range (and then some) lost with the retirement of the A-6s in the strike role. I do think the notion that unmanned aircraft are going to replace all manned aircraft is absurd.

[JGXL836]

So how can you have bitter feelings towards Russia when you had it as good if not better than the "natives" (funny I thought you guys were native too, living there for centuries and all). When the "slavery" was a product of the times and in no way exclusive to your peoples.
I won't reply any more it's not really on topic.

For centuries antisemitism flourished in Russian Empire and later in the Soviet Union - an exclusive form of hatred kept to us.

[C.Puffs]

In some time in the future-UAVS will replace warplanes.

Sometime after the heat death of the universe perhaps.

[MUSHROOM123]

Sometime after the heat death of the universe perhaps.

Within 40-50 years UAV'S will consist at least 40-50% of the planes overall.

[Az_esm]

Namely Syria.

This reexport of Russian arms to terrorists doesn't seem to bother Russia, while Russia goes on and sells even more arms to Syria.

If it was not bothering at all-there would be been some S-300 already.

Within 40-50 years UAV'S will consist at least 40-50% of the planes overall.

Only if future planes would costs as F-35 in compare with previous generations. So in case of USA-probably yes.
In ours I guess there would be some renovated Su-25 AND strike UAVs for example.

[C.Puffs]

Within 40-50 years UAV'S will consist at least 40-50% of the planes overall.

Doubt it. 123456

[EITAN88]

What? No. Tu-22M has a ceiling of 13,5 km. Hermes 450 has a ceiling of 5,5 km. Buk-M1, unfortunately, has a ceiling of 14 km (26 km for M2).

So, like I already said, the tactical utility (i.e. they will both get shot down) is the same. The only relevant factor is loss of life (which is very important).

I stand corrected.

Heron TP (Eitan) is claimed to have a ceiling of 14km, a range of over 7,000km and an endurance of 70 hours.

My point is that UAVs have already caught up with manned aircraft (when it comes to intel gathering) and are surpassing them as we speak.

[JGXL836]

If it was not bothering at all-there would be been some S-300 already.

S-300, K-300 - it keeps the bitter feelings towards Russia in the same level.

[MUSHROOM123]

If it was not bothering at all-there would be been some S-300 already.


Only if future planes would costs as F-35 in compare with previous generations. So in case of USA-probably yes.
In ours I guess there would be some renovated Su-25 AND strike UAVs for example.

Who can say that Syria doesn't have the S-300?...anyway,i'm pretty sure that in a war the Israeli Air Force will manage to deal with the S-300 with EW or something like that.

[MUSHROOM123]

Doubt it. 123456

Why not? They are cheaper and you don't risk someone's life.