“Russians gave Americans 10 years of odds”: Poles discuss the latest Orion UAV

April 27 2020

The Russian Ministry of Defense received the first Orion reconnaissance-UAV of the MALE class (Medium Altitide - Long Endurance), which is an analogue of the American MQ-1 Predator. The Polish edition of Defense24 told their readers about this.

A development company from St. Petersburg provided the customer with a control station and three unmanned aerial vehicles, the length of which is 8 meters, the wingspan is 16. Orions are capable of flying at an altitude of up to 7500 meters at a maximum speed of 200 kilometers per hour. The duration of their flight will be 24 hours, the payload is up to 200 kilograms, including weapons.

The device has two pylons for guided bombs and light missiles under the body and two under the wings. At the moment, the drone is not armed, work on weapons for the Orion is underway. Planned production of 7 UAVs per year, in the future - an increase of up to 30 vehicles.

The most attention is drawn to the conflicting comments of the Poles on this informational message.

Well, 20 years after the Americans created the Predator UAV, its Russian counterpart appeared. Quickly...

- the reader writes with the nickname “Peacemaker”.

And they did this “miracle” hardly a quarter century after the Americans!

- echoes another Pole.

The Predator has been used by Americans online since 1999 - this indicates technological backwardness of Russians for over 20 years

- confirmed a clear connoisseur of the issue.

An interesting version was given by the fifth portal reader:

Such drones are not used in modern combat operations, because they will be immediately destroyed. These are instruments of terror and monitoring a defenseless society. The United States loses its UAVs when they approach Iran.

The United States received 10-15 years of odds when the Soviet Union collapsed, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroyed industry. For 10 years, they have restored design bureaus, industry and agriculture ... These “backward Russians” are currently world leaders in nuclear energy, they have restored the aviation industry

- another reader stood up for Russia.

53 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Offline 123

123 (123) April 27 2020 16: 38

+6

8

2
It remains to wait for the appearance of the Polish drone
1. Offline Arkharov
  
  Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) April 27 2020 18: 36
  
  -5
  
  2
  
  7
  
  And why not?
  1. Offline akarfoxhound
    
    akarfoxhound April 27 2020 19: 07
    
    +3
    
    5
    
    2
    
    Polish own developments in their own design bureaus ended in the 60s with the production of a training Spark. In the countries of the Internal Affairs Directorate, in addition to the Pshek, they adopted the L-29. Do you want to insist on the question "Why not?"
    1. Offline Arkharov
      
      Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) April 28 2020 09: 26
      
      -8
      
      0
      
      8
      
      But this thing, about which they write that it is an analogue of the oldest MQ-1 Predator, it seems to me that even its analogue somehow does not pull, either in range or in load. It looks a bit (of course, I can only say it outwardly and purely for my taste) to the craft of the aircraft model club of the Pioneer House. Israel, with half of the Ryazan Oblast, rivets such masterpieces in this regard, I think that Poles of this level could well be instructed by the apparatus.
  2. Offline 123
    
    123 (123) April 27 2020 19: 42
    
    +1
    
    4
    
    3
    
    How do I know why not? Ask the Poles.
2. Offline Batka Makhno
  
  Batka Makhno (Batka Makhno) 1 May 2020 22: 47
  
  +1
  
  2
  
  1
  
  You think? As for me, they prefer to buy used traitors, but the Americans don’t sell their UAVs in particular, too vulnerable technologies are put together there.
Offline sgrabik

sgrabik (Sergei) April 27 2020 18: 21

+5

7

2
It is all done in fairy tales easily and quickly, to wag a tongue in vain - you don’t have to mind a lot, but to create an unmanned aerial vehicle from scratch, turn it into metal and set up serial production, it takes brains, time and money.
Offline beeper

beeper April 27 2020 19: 16

+5

7

2
The United States received 10-15 years of odds when the USSR collapsed, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroyed industry. For 10 years, they have restored design bureaus, industry and agriculture ... These “backward Russians” are currently world leaders in nuclear energy, they have restored the aviation industry - another reader has come forward for Russia.

I would write the same thing, but our Polish comrade was ahead!
Offline boriz

boriz (boriz) April 27 2020 19: 26

+6

9

3
Until 1991 The USSR was the recognized leader in drones. You can even see the data on our drones on Wiki.
You can recall that Buran was put in unmanned mode. The Americans somehow did not get it.
But, when surrendering the country to the West, there were certain agreements. For example, the Russian Federation stopped working on combat lasers, hypersound, and much more. Including drones. We fulfilled our agreements, and the West wanted to spit on our part of the promises.
Putin in Munich recalled he was not heard.
1. Offline Cyril
  
  Cyril (Kirill) April 27 2020 21: 59
  
  -7
  
  3
  
  10
  
  You can recall that Buran was put in unmanned mode. The Americans somehow did not get it.
  
  Only now the Shuttle was created 10 years before Buran. Moreover, the shuttle was again taken as the basis of Buran.
  
  But, when surrendering the country to the West, there were certain agreements.
  
  Is it possible to see these "agreements"? And so that there was a point to stop work on combat lasers, hypersound and much more, yes.
  1. Offline boriz
    
    boriz (boriz) April 27 2020 22: 16
    
    +4
    
    7
    
    3
    
    Only now the Shuttle was created 10 years before Buran. Moreover, the Buran was again based on the Shuttle. "
    First, we discuss unmanned flights, not space priorities.
    Secondly, speaking of shuttles, why not recall our early work on similar military vehicles.
    Thirdly, why did they stop using them? Maybe we didn’t have to?
    As for the agreements, they were, even Macron recognized this, immediately after taking office. The composition of these agreements is indicated by people who are quite competent and trustworthy. Not all agreements are publicly disclosed; some do not exist in paper form at all. The authors of these agreements are well aware that their announcement is a political death. And, well, there was a missile defense agreement on paper. So what? You can at least get some reading.
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) April 27 2020 22: 37
      
      -2
      
      3
      
      5
      
      First, we discuss unmanned flights, not space priorities.
      
      But you yourself said about the Shuttle - they say that the Americans did not provide him with an unmanned option (although why it is not clear to him).
      
      Secondly, speaking of shuttles, why not recall our early work on similar military vehicles.
      
      Because our "Spiral" (if you mean it) had no effect on the Shuttle. On the Dream Chaser - yes, on the Shuttle - no.
      
      Thirdly, why did they stop using them? Maybe we didn’t have to?
      
      Shuttles honestly plowed for 30 years, flew a total of 135 times (of which 2 crashes). They closed it because after the construction of the ISS there was no suitable load for the undoubtedly expensive orbital shuttle. Launching it only for the delivery of 3-4 people to the ISS is too expensive a pleasure. Plus, at the time of closure, they are already morally and financially outdated.
      
      As for the agreements, they were, even Macron recognized this, immediately after taking office. The composition of these agreements is indicated by people who are quite competent and trustworthy. Not all agreements are publicly disclosed; some do not exist in paper form at all. The authors of these agreements are well aware that their announcement is a political death.
      
      Ah, got it.
      1. Offline boriz
        
        boriz (boriz) April 27 2020 22: 41
        
        +4
        
        6
        
        2
        
        But nothing, what is the post about drones here? Let's discuss the Su-57 or gas with oil?
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) April 28 2020 10: 54
        
        -4
        
        2
        
        6
        
        Again. You, it was you yourself who mentioned that the Americans did not manage to make the possibility of automatic flight in the Shuttle.
        
        I explain - a manned shuttle does not need such an opportunity. He was conceived as a means of delivering goods and people into orbit. That is, he, by definition, had to fly with people on board, always.
        
        Offline boriz
        
        boriz (boriz) April 28 2020 17: 22
        
        +3
        
        4
        
        1
        
        ... with people on board, always.
        
        Where such confidence? Did you attend the meeting of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee?
        Unmanned flight and landing is, at a minimum, concern for the lives of people when testing a completely new technique, and at a maximum is generally unmanned delivery of satellites into orbit. We could afford it. The experience of unmanned aerial and space vehicles gave us such an opportunity. How many Americans were killed on their reusable pelvis?
        And how many of our people lost during this time, starting with the shuttle flights?
        Well, you don’t care about people, you turn over global categories. Strategist, not otherwise ...
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 13: 53
        
        -3
        
        0
        
        3
        
        Where such confidence? Did you attend the meeting of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee?
        
        But why?
        
        Unmanned flight and landing is, at a minimum, concern for the lives of people when testing a completely new technique,
        
        So the Americans, testing the Shuttle, worked out the entire process step by step on the Enterprise prototype. And they worked fine.
        
        as a maximum - generally unmanned delivery of satellites into orbit.
        
        Why for delivery only cargo into orbit to use "Buran"? It could put into orbit a little more than the "Proton", and it cost much, much, much more.
        
        The experience of unmanned aerial and space vehicles gave us such an opportunity.
        
        - The Americans had such experience no less.
        
        How many Americans were killed on their reusable pelvis?
        
        But "Buran" did not ditch at all. True, he put 0 people and 0 tons of cargo into orbit. But he didn’t kill anyone. By the way, the Shuttle disasters were related to control .... uhh .... no way.
        And the Americans in the Shuttles put so many people into orbit that Roskosmos just recently exceeded this figure. Moreover, taking into account the Soviet launches too.
        
        And how many of our people lost during this time, starting with the shuttle flights?
        
        And how many people were taken out during this time? Well, if we compare the number of accidents with the death of the crew, then the Soyuz had the same number as the Shuttle - 2 accidents.
        
        Well, you don’t care about people, you turn over global categories. Strategist, not otherwise ...
        
        Why do you attribute to me your speculations?
  2. Offline Ibuprofen
    
    Ibuprofen (Novel) 1 May 2020 00: 06
    
    +2
    
    3
    
    1
    
    Quote: Cyril
    Moreover, the shuttle was again taken as the basis of Buran.
    
    You are not in the subject. Their similarity is only external. Like a Kalashnikov assault rifle and other well-known topics "Russians stole".
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 13: 35
      
      -4
      
      0
      
      4
      
      No, you are not in the subject. The fact that the Shuttle was taken as the basis for Buran is said by the leading developer of Buran, Lozino-Lozinsky.
      So it goes.
      1. Offline Ibuprofen
        
        Ibuprofen (Novel) 7 May 2020 18: 54
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        It could not be taken as a basis, the concepts themselves are different. At least in terms of engines - the Shuttle takes off on its own engines, while Buran does not have them at all, but there is an Energia launch vehicle. And four boosters on the sides, each, consider, a separate Zenit launch vehicle.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 18: 58
        
        -1
        
        0
        
        1
        
        Argue with the creator of "Buran".
  3. Offline 123
    
    123 (123) 2 May 2020 06: 37
    
    +3
    
    3
    
    0
    
    Only now the Shuttle was created 10 years before Buran. Moreover, the shuttle was again taken as the basis of Buran.
    
    Frank stupidity. They created a device with similar characteristics, but to say that the Buran was created on the basis of the Shuttle is beyond. The Concorde was also taken as the basis for the Tu-144?
    
    Is it possible to see these "agreements"? And so that there was a point to stop work on combat lasers, hypersound and much more, yes.
    
    Extremely naive childish question. Ask the appropriate organization for a request, maybe you will not be refused.
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 13: 16
      
      -3
      
      0
      
      3
      
      Frank stupidity. They created a device with similar characteristics, but to say that the Buran was created on the basis of the Shuttle is beyond.
      
      Tell that to Lozino-Lozinsky, Buran's lead developer. Here are his words:
      
      An alternative version by us (NPO Molniya) was worked out in a shape that repeats the appearance of the orbital plane "Spiral", however, the general designer Glushko considered that by that time there were few materials that would confirm and guarantee success at the time when the flights of the Shuttle "proved that a configuration similar to the Shuttle works successfully and here there is less risk in choosing a configuration, therefore, despite the larger useful volume of the Spiral configuration, it was decided to execute the Buran in a configuration similar to that of the Shuttle. Although the lack of propulsion engines on the "Buran" noticeably changed the centering, the position of the wings, the configuration of the influx, and a number of other differences.
      
      And more:
      
      Copying, as indicated in the previous answer, was, of course, completely conscious and justified in the process of those design developments that were carried out and in the process of which, as already indicated above, many changes were made to both the configuration and the design. The main political requirement was to ensure the dimensions of the payload compartment, the same as the payload compartment of the Shuttle.
      
      So, no - Buran was similar to the Shuttle not just because of the similarity of tasks and characteristics, but because the Space Shuttle was taken as the basis of this project. Of course, the copying was not 100 percent - and still.
      1. Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 2 May 2020 14: 50
        
        +4
        
        4
        
        0
        
        Tell that to Lozino-Lozinsky, Buran's lead developer. Here are his words:
        
        Perhaps I have vision problems, but I did not see the phrase "Buran was created on the basis of the Shuttle". The opinion of A.V. Panova, perhaps, is the ultimate truth for you, but I prefer to get acquainted with the primary sources and draw conclusions on my own. You cited a quote from Popov's book "The Great Space Deception of the USA". I tried to find the words of the constructor without distortion and interpretation of the author. Although even he does not say that Buran was created on the basis of the Shuttle.
        
        27. Alternative projects considered at the stages of preliminary design and preliminary design: attempts to create the Buran OK based on the Spiral OK - what was proposed (options and technical solutions) and what was accepted, what was not accepted, how and why.
        Answer: Alternative us, (NGO "Molniya"), worked out in the guise of repeating orbital plane appearance "Spiral", however, the general designer Glushko considered that by then there were few materials that would confirm and guaranteed success at a time when the Shuttle flights have proven that a Shuttle-like configuration works well and there is less risk in choosing a configuration, therefore, despite the larger useful volume of the "Spiral" configuration, it was decided to carry out the "Buran" in a configuration similar to that of the "Shuttle". Although the lack of marching engines on "Buran" noticeably changed the alignment, the position of the wings, the influx configuration, well, a number of other differences.
        28. Was the copying of "Space Shuttle" more or less deliberate when creating Buran, or were there "directives"?
        Answer: Copying as indicated in the previous answer, былоdefinitely absolutely conscious and informed during the design developmentswhich were carried out and in the process of which many changes were made, as already mentioned above, to both the configuration and the design. The main political requirement was to ensure the dimensions of the payload compartment, the same as the payload compartment of the Shuttle.
        
        That is, a "political decision" was made, in other words, the designer was demanded "our answer to Chamberlain" the dimensions of the compartment like the Shuttle, which in fact determined the Buran's dimensions, then the question arose of determining the aerodynamic appearance of the apparatus. The designers were faced with a choice, to "finish" the Spiral for the new project, or to copy the shape of the Shuttle.
        
        2. What political, technical and economic reasons prevented the implementation of the Spiral program?
        Answer: Technical - that the issues of creating orbital aircraft and hypersonic aircraft were in their infancy and required very great scientific, engineering and design efforts and solutions, respectively, the cost of creation was significant. The general political situation did not favor the creation of such a large and at the same time very new and, therefore, risky project, and therefore the work was stopped.
        
        Since the Spiral's funding had by that time been discontinued due to lack of funding, it was necessary either to carry out long and expensive developments, or to copy the "hull contours" from an already working apparatus. He had flown by that time and in practice confirmed his efficiency. And even then it was not a complete copy, if you remember the differences in the main engines.
        That's all. If you think that the photographs are enough to create a similar spacecraft, try looking into the courtyard, select any car and repeat. Or do you have evidence that Lozino-Lozinsky had access to the Shuttle or its drawings or other documentation?
        Tu-4 was created based on the B-29, yes. Talking about Buran is also stupid.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 16: 31
        
        -3
        
        0
        
        3
        
        The opinion of A.V. Panova, perhaps, is the ultimate truth for you, but I prefer to get acquainted with the primary sources and draw conclusions on my own. You cited a quote from Popov's book "The Great US Space Deception".
        
        No, I quoted from this site
        
        - http://www.buran.ru/htm/archivl.htm
        
        Actually, these same quotes you allegedly gave me in response.
        
        Perhaps I have vision problems, but I did not see the phrase "Buran was created on the basis of the Shuttle"
        
        You have not vision problems, but something else. Let me give you a quote from Lozino-Lozinsky again:
        
        "it was decided to carry out the" Buran "on a configuration similar to the configuration of the" Shuttle "
        
        "Configuration" is not "ship lines". A configuration is a design (including a shape), a launch scheme, a flight profile, landing, etc. The Spiral had a completely different launch scheme than the Shuttle or Buran - it assumed the use of a hypersonic aircraft. a booster, not a rocket. And the Buran and the Shuttle had a rocket launch scheme. The difference between them consisted only in the fact that the Shuttle was launched with the help of its propulsion engines and side boosters, while the Buran was launching a launch vehicle that could be used separately.
        
        And even then it was not a complete copy, if you remember the differences in the marching engines.
        
        And where did I say that "Buran" is full copy Shuttle? Why do you once again ascribe to me what I did not say?
        Can't you see the difference between "based on" and "full copy"? It is sad.
        
        Or do you have evidence that Lozino-Lozinsky had access to the Shuttle or its drawings or other documentation?
        
        The first prototype of the Buran, the OS-120 orbital plane, was almost a complete copy of the Shuttle. Including had sustainer engines, which were later abandoned.
        Naturally, the USSR had access to drawings and other documentation - nevertheless, our intelligence was one of the best in the world at that time.
        
        https://www.buran.ru/htm/os-120.htm - вот здесь можно прочесть.
        
        Tu-4 was created on the basis of the B-29, yes.
        
        No, the Tu-4 was exactly a complete copy of the B-29. And "Buran" was created on the basis of the "Shuttle".
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 2 May 2020 17: 00
        
        +4
        
        4
        
        0
        
        "Configuration" is not "ship lines". A configuration is a design (including a shape), a launch scheme, a flight profile, landing, etc. The Spiral had a completely different launch scheme than the Shuttle or Buran - it assumed the use of a hypersonic aircraft. a booster, not a rocket. And the Buran and the Shuttle had a rocket launch scheme. The difference between them consisted only in the fact that the Shuttle was launched with the help of its propulsion engines and side boosters, while the Buran was launching a launch vehicle that could be used separately.
        
        Are you raving What is the flight and landing profile?
        Since the issue under consideration is close to aviation, I think a definition from this area will suit us. I found this definition of aircraft configuration:
        
        The combination of the provisions of the mechanization of the wing, landing gear, external suspensions and other parts and assemblies of the aircraft, determining its external shape
        
        And even here the coincidence is not complete.
        
        And where did I say that "Buran" is a complete copy of the "Shuttle"? Why do you once again ascribe to me what I did not say?
        Can't you see the difference between "based on" and "full copy"? It is sad.
        
        Is it sad? I'm already funny. You cannot explain what you think is "built on the basis" and since you are so meticulous, it is advisable to indicate where this definition comes from and what the evaluation criteria are based on. Your personal opinion is not enough for this.
        
        The first prototype of the Buran, the OS-120 orbital plane, was almost a complete copy of the Shuttle. Including had sustainer engines, which were later abandoned.
        
        First, we talked about Buran, not prototypes. Secondly, even the presence of engines does not confirm your version. Perhaps they tried such an option, since they refused it, which means they considered the other configuration more acceptable, this is an independent development.
        
        Naturally, the USSR had access to drawings and other documentation - nevertheless, our intelligence was one of the best in the world at that time.
        
        I am surprised to hear from you such words. As recently as an hour ago, you accused a person of incorrect comments, where he referred to secret treaties. Want to try your own "weapon" for yourself? Have you seen them - this intelligence data? Where can you see them? And then turn it as it suits you, here we read, here we do not read, here we wrap the fish.
        
        No, the Tu-4 was exactly a complete copy of the B-29. And "Buran" was created on the basis of the "Shuttle".
        
        This is your personal opinion based on sectarian faith and no more.
        If you do not have specific facts, do not write more, do not persuade me.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 17: 53
        
        -3
        
        0
        
        3
        
        Since the issue at hand is close to aviation, I suppose. a definition from this area will suit us.
        
        The issue we are considering is as far from aviation as you are.
        
        You cannot explain what, in your opinion, is "based on" and since you are so meticulous, it is advisable to indicate where this definition comes from and what the evaluation criteria are based on. Your personal opinion is not enough for this.
        
        To create on the basis is to take the design of another product and adapt it to your own capabilities and needs, while maintaining the basic technical solutions.
        
        Copy - this is to fully reproduce the design of the product without any changes at all or with their minimum number.
        
        Criteria? Of course have:
        
        - Orbital launch scheme - rocket;
        - lateral fastening of both shuttles;
        - the general constructive and visual similarity of both shuttles.
        
        The only fundamental difference between the Buran and the Shuttle was that it did not have its own propulsion engines - they were transferred to Energia.
        
        Want to try your own "weapon" for yourself? Have you seen them this intelligence data? Where can you see them? And then turn it as it suits you, here we read, here we do not read, here we wrap the fish sad
        
        Yes Easy. Here is a quote from an article about the development of Buran from Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official publication of the Russian government:
        
        The US leadership announced the creation of the Shuttles in 1972. Three years later, thanks to intelligence, Soviet engineers already had drawings and photographs of the American "shuttle"..
        
        The same is said by this article on "Topvar"
        
        - https://topwar.ru/37901-buran-i-shattl-takie-raznye-bliznecy.html
        
        Quote:
        
        The leadership of the armed forces of the USSR insisted on almost complete copying of the "shuttle". Soviet intelligence was able to get a lot of information on the American spacecraft by this time. But it was not so simple. Domestic hydrogen-oxygen rocket engines were large in size and heavier than American ones. In addition, they were inferior in power to overseas. Therefore, instead of three rocket engines, four had to be installed. But there was simply no place on the orbital plane for four marching engines.
        
        This is your personal opinion based on sectarian faith and no more.
        If you do not have specific facts, do not write more, do not persuade me.
        
        I have specific statements from Lozino-Lozinsky that during the development of Buran a number of technical solutions of the Shuttle were copied.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 2 May 2020 18: 11
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        The issue we are considering is as far from aviation as you are.
        
        Weren't you blamed for switching to personalities 5 minutes ago?
        That is, aviation determination of the configuration of the aircraft does not suit you? Suggest rummaging in tank building? However, you yourself do not offer any definition. That is, these are just your fantasies, he himself came up with, he decided.
        
        To create on the basis is to take the design of another product and adapt it to your own capabilities and needs, while maintaining the basic technical solutions.
        Copy - this is to fully reproduce the design of the product without any changes at all or with their minimum number.
        
        Have you come up with? I'm tired of repeating, your fantasies do not interfere with me.
        
        Criteria? Of course have:
        - Orbital launch scheme - rocket;
        - lateral fastening of both shuttles;
        - the general constructive and visual similarity of both shuttles.
        The only fundamental difference between the Buran and the Shuttle was that it did not have its own propulsion engines - they were transferred to Energia.
        
        Cyril, I’m not even funny anymore. The orbit launch scheme is used by almost all spacecraft. Launches from an aircraft carrier, I think, is not worth considering. So, the shuttle is based on the FAA? Side mount shuttles? Where can they be attached? In front? Can you imagine the length of the device? Maybe behind? The general constructive and visual similarity of both shuttles? I will not even discuss this nonsense.
        Also, are you inattentively reading or intentionally missing out on inconvenient information? What. I repeat.
        
        You cannot explain what you think is "built on the basis" and since you are so meticulous, It is advisable to indicate where this definition comes from and what the evaluation criteria are based on.. Your personal opinion is not enough for this.
        
        I do not intend to discuss your teenage fantasies.
        
        I have specific statements from Lozino-Lozinsky that during the development of Buran a number of technical solutions of the Shuttle were copied.
        
        When there will be the words of Lozino-Lozinsky that Buran is made on the basis of the Shuttle, please, discuss.
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 2 May 2020 19: 21
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        Quote: Cyril
        "Configuration" is not "ship lines". A configuration is a structure (including a shape), a launch pattern, a flight profile, landing, etc.
        
        Cyril, configuration is not a design. You're lying.
    2. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 13: 18
      
      -4
      
      0
      
      4
      
      Extremely naive childish question. Ask the appropriate organization for a request, maybe you will not be refused.
      
      No. Extreme childishness and naivety is referring to some supposedly secret treaties, which are so secret that some commentator on the "topcore" knows about them and is still alive.
      1. Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 2 May 2020 15: 07
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        No. Extreme childishness and naivety is referring to some supposedly secret treaties, which are so secret that some commentator on the "topcore" knows about them and is still alive.
        
        It is not for you to judge this.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
        The comment was deleted.
2. The comment was deleted.
3. The comment was deleted.
4. The comment was deleted.
5. The comment was deleted.
6. The comment was deleted.
7. The comment was deleted.
8. The comment was deleted.
9. The comment was deleted.
10. The comment was deleted.
11. The comment was deleted.

Online

Binder (Miron) April 27 2020 21: 56

-7

The province went to write! Again, the Russians will tell you that they are ahead of everyone on the globe - the Su-57 are already surfing the Bolshoi Theater in squadrons, the Armata regiments are roaring with motors, the elusive Zircons are aiming at American AUGs, and this breakthrough miracle Yudo has been assembled in a single copy. The late M. Zadornov involuntarily comes to mind - "Well, stupid ..."

Offline sgrabik

sgrabik (Sergei) April 28 2020 11: 10

+2

3

1
Stop flogging nonsense. On the topic of UAVs, can you give out something clever, or are you capable of only sarcasms ???
1. Online Binder
  
  Binder (Miron) April 28 2020 13: 43
  
  -6
  
  2
  
  8
  
  Quote: sgrabik
  On the topic of UAVs, you can give out something smart
  
  On the subject: the only real drone in service with the RF Armed Forces is the Forpost, a licensed copy of the old Israeli Searcher, produced in Russia from Israeli components using the screwdriver assembly method, everything else is pure show-off.
  1. Offline Ibuprofen
    
    Ibuprofen (Novel) 1 May 2020 00: 12
    
    +2
    
    3
    
    1
    
    Quote: Bindyuzhnik
    the only real drone in service with the RF Armed Forces
    
    "Orlan" is still there. It is, however, small and not combat, but our own and produced serially.

Offline

Cyril (Kirill) April 27 2020 22: 01

-3

The USA got 10-15 years of odds when the USSR collapsed, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroyed industry

Strange otmaza.

For 10 years they have restored design bureaus, industry and agriculture ...

Yes, not all, but much. The nuclear industry in our country is really up to par.

Offline Zenon Zenon

Zenon Zenon (Zeno Zeno) April 28 2020 10: 40

-2

1

3
Why otmaza?
Offline sgrabik

sgrabik (Sergei) April 28 2020 11: 26

+7

8

1
This is not an otmaza, it is a well-known fact that Humpbacked surrendered the USSR with all his guts and did not even bother to sign an agreement on not expanding NATO eastward. I decided to take the word amers, for all his naive stupidity we are now paying. And Yeltsin, along with his liberal gang, only continued the work begun by Gorbaty and, under the guise of the so-called liberal-democratic transformations, destroyed Russia almost to the core !!!
Offline 123

123 (123) 2 May 2020 06: 45

+3

3

0
The USA got 10-15 years of odds when the USSR collapsed, and Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroyed industry
Strange otmaza.

This is not an excuse, but a perfectly reasonable explanation of the reasons for the lag.
1. Offline Cyril
  
  Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 13: 30
  
  -3
  
  0
  
  3
  
  No one is to blame for the runner, that his leg turned up before the fall.
  1. Offline 123
    
    123 (123) 2 May 2020 15: 15
    
    +4
    
    4
    
    0
    
    What does wine have to do with it? Is someone apologizing or making excuses? The reason is explained and all. Who is to blame for you that you do not understand elementary things?
    You take care of yourself, otherwise seizures will soon begin against the background of worries about "denigrating" the bright image of overseas designers. Be closer to reality so that later you will not be so disappointed
    If you grow up, you will understand that a unicorn emerging from the fog, upon closer inspection, may turn out to be an ordinary regimental horse.
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 16: 39
      
      -3
      
      0
      
      3
      
      Is someone apologizing or making excuses?
      
      Precisely what is justified. A favorite excuse for any fact of lagging behind is "they didn't have the 90s."
      
      Get closer to reality so you don’t get so disappointed later
      
      - I'm already much closer to reality than you.
      
      Grow up - you will understand that a unicorn emerging from the fog, upon closer inspection, may turn out to be an ordinary regimental horse
      
      Are you projecting your childhood traumatic experience on me? In vain.
      1. Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 2 May 2020 17: 10
        
        +4
        
        4
        
        0
        
        Precisely what is justified. A favorite excuse for any fact of lagging behind is "they didn't have the 90s."
        
        1. Do you deny that in the 90s there was virtually no funding for this industry?
        2. Do you deny that there were no such problems "there"?
        2. Is the lack of financing a factor affecting the development of the industry and can it explain the technological lag?
        These are three simple questions about objective things, perhaps they will help you figure it out.
        And excuse is this or an explanation, your subjective opinion, to which I honestly do not care. Your child’s punctuation is not interesting, further I do not see the point in the discussion.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 19: 21
        
        -3
        
        0
        
        3
        
        Do you deny that in the 90s there was virtually no funding for this industry?
        
        Of course not. So what? How does this justify Russia's lag?
  2. Offline plabu
    
    plabu 2 May 2020 15: 21
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    Quote: Cyril
    No one is to blame for the runner, that his leg turned up before the fall.
    
    Especially when that "runner" was stimulated both before and after that ... well, no one at all.
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 2 May 2020 16: 40
      
      -3
      
      0
      
      3
      
      well, nobody at all
      
      Oh, another excuse.
      1. Offline plabu
        
        plabu 2 May 2020 18: 07
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        No one doubted that you would write something like that - now I’ll drop everything and I will Russophobes, like you, I don’t provide the texture, you see it yourself, at least you finally know something — you don’t only you, it’s time.

shadow April 28 2020 23: 09

-1

The drone can be planted, as Iran did with the American device. Well, why is he so needed?

Offline Ibuprofen

Ibuprofen (Novel) 1 May 2020 00: 09

0

2

2
Quote: Shadows
UAV can be planted

Do not land you drone. In Iran, he himself fell, and local propagandists presented it as a victory.

Saiger (Cg) April 29 2020 12: 44

Poor camera quality. Lord, against the background of the cost of the drone, they would put cameras for ten, at least from SjCam, and optics from CCTV cameras for 300 rubles. lens, at different angles. At least with OEM-nodes for 10 thousand copies, until you get familiar with your own. And so, everything is fine, but the picture is soapy, what will you see there?

Offline Batka Makhno

Batka Makhno (Batka Makhno) 1 May 2020 22: 55

0

0

0
What are you talking about?

Cat (Sergei) April 29 2020 19: 17

Yes, let them tremble as they want! Why listen to them at all! A useful thing, no matter how they say it. It can also be based on UDC, and Kuznetsova, let them fly for days and give the necessary information beyond the horizon. It would be nice to pack something like this in the UKKS, to use it on our ships, or from inclined launchers, in order to look beyond the horizon for a whole day.

Syoma_67 (Semyon) 6 May 2020 21: 07

The Russians gave the Americans 10 years of handicap.

- you don’t even know whether to cry or laugh.
Robot Fedor did all the US robotics, with the help of three operators he hammered a nail, the yotafon lowered Steve Jobs below the skirting board, the ё-mobile put an end to the work of Ilon Mask, and the domestic, ultramodern Baikal-M processor outperformed the third generation Intel Core i3 - cheers, proud.

sgrabik (Sergei) 29 December 2020 18: 03

And what if the Poles have already learned how to independently create and mass-produce any types of UAVs, that I have not heard anything about it anywhere !!!