The wreckage of the newest Russian drone "Okhotnik" may have fallen into the hands of Western intelligence

50

The wreckage of the newest Russian drone S-70 "Okhotnik" if it falls into the hands of Western intelligence, could become an important and valuable find for them, said Tyler Rogoway, the author of the portal The War Zone.

He suggested that the drone was already in the hands of Western specialists. According to Rogovey, the S-70 fell near Konstantinovka in the DPR, on territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The video of the falling debris confirms that it shows the Okhotnik, which was fired at from close range by the aircraft.



Rogovey suggests that the S-70 was used in combat as part of its ongoing development. As for why it was shot down by its own aircraft, the author suggests that the operators may have lost control of the drone and it deviated from its course over territory controlled by Ukraine.

There could be a failure in the systems, and here we are talking about a very dense electronic warfare environment.

– Rogovey noted.

He recalled that shooting down one's own drones if their loss poses a security threat is "commonplace" and that the US has done this many times.

A drone like the S-70 lost in Ukrainian territory in a semi-intact condition would be a huge problem for Russia, so it seems the decision was made to destroy it. It would be a big deal if large parts of it fell into the hands of Western intelligence

– says Rogovey.

He pointed out the rapid removal of the drone's parts from the crash site. The loss of the newest drone by the Russian Armed Forces became known on October 5.
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    7 October 2024 19: 17
    Oh, come on! They said that Iskander flew over the fallen Hunter, with whom the Banderites were picking around!!!
    1. 0
      7 October 2024 19: 40
      Yesterday they discussed that it would be a good idea to send an Iskander to the crash site of the S-70 Okhotnik. So, an Iskander was sent. The team of engineers who studied the wreckage received the package, the Telegram channel "Revenge of Good Will" reported.
      1. +2
        8 October 2024 08: 19
        Engineers don't have to crawl around the field collecting debris. Ordinary soldiers can do that, and then the finds can be sent to Kyiv and examined there.
  2. +3
    7 October 2024 23: 02
    Speaking about the reasons why it was shot down by its own plane, the author suggested that the operators could have lost control of the UAV and it deviated from its course over territory controlled by Ukraine.

    He knocked it down so calmly, just like that. over territory controlled by Ukraine...But for some reason the FABs are dropped without entering the airspace over this territory controlled by Ukraine? I wonder why? request
    If we take into account its practical subsonic speed (which means the speed of the aircraft that shot it down was the same), its low altitude... - then a vague feeling arises a throw-in or a duck ...Well, the Ukrainians couldn't have shot down a stealth toy, but we have everything under control! laughing
  3. +1
    7 October 2024 23: 03
    We tested ourselves to the end - how much money and time we spent and it all went down the drain.
    1. -1
      8 October 2024 15: 34
      You speak as if this is the first time in history! And who said it was down the drain? Reasoning about nothing, despite the fact that you do not have full information about the incident and the project as a whole.
      1. -1
        8 October 2024 19: 22
        This is even more disgusting because it is not the first time - you are arguing as if you are the owner of the US Federal Reserve, or not? - do you print the money yourself or do you get it from the budget, where it comes from the taxes of citizens? - and this money went down the drain - to spend so much money and time for it to go down the drain - is this the right use of money??? - yes, you are an ignoramus who does not appreciate the work of others, - and the fact that there is no complete information is my fault??? - you are a talentless person who sucks any pfft out of your finger!
        1. 0
          9 October 2024 06: 11
          No, I'm just an inventor of sorts and I understand that human errors are inevitable at all stages from the beginning of design to the operation of complex equipment. So there's no need to throw ashes on your head. There's a version that the drone was "landed" with the help of electronic warfare, then what are we even talking about here?
        2. 0
          9 October 2024 06: 16
          As I understand it, the vehicle is undergoing combat testing. Surely, design changes will be made in connection with the incident. This will only be beneficial. And no cat tails. The modernization process is currently underway for many lines of weapons, including old models of equipment. So I want to ask again what are we discussing here and why panic? There are no victories without losses.
          1. -1
            9 October 2024 06: 23
            Nobody is raising a panic, and the losses may be in combat and not experimental equipment - the hunter must first be brought to mind, and only then sent behind the front line - did I say something wrong?
            1. +1
              9 October 2024 06: 37
              Don't you understand that in war conditions (especially) the line between combat and experimental equipment is erased! It is not for us to judge when to raise a bird into battle. On the other hand, any prepared machine can be shot down/exposed to enemy influence. It is precisely through use in combat conditions that the shortcomings of equipment are quickly identified, so as not to rest on our laurels in warm design bureaus ahead of time.
              1. +1
                9 October 2024 06: 50
                And there is no need to erase any boundaries - until the bird is launched into production, it is an experimental, one-off specimen, and when this bird is launched into production, then launch it under influence, and that under someone's responsibility, but while it is in the development stage, risking it so irresponsibly is a crime.
                1. 0
                  9 October 2024 06: 58
                  Of course, it is possible to do it the way you say, to launch them into production with possible shortcomings (which are not yet known, I emphasize). However, I don’t know if it will be a crime if they start to fall en masse after they go into production in the conditions of a technology war. You know better.
                  1. 0
                    9 October 2024 07: 50
                    I don't agree with you here - I'm not at all calling for sending secret objects into production with unfinished products - they, of course, need to be finished, but too much time has been spent on finishing - it's time to finish the hunter, otherwise it will become obsolete before it reaches the conveyor belt!
                    1. 0
                      9 October 2024 08: 52
                      How did you determine that too much time was spent? Are you an expert in this field? Is it okay that the Hunter concept is implemented in hardware for the first time? No one else has this yet. Maybe then we can compare how painfully long and with flaws such complex modern products come out into the world using the example of the American F-35? Again, I urge you not to judge what we do not know and do not understand.
                      Besides, thank God, the times when colossal amounts of money were poured into military developments, at any cost, are gone.
                      1. 0
                        9 October 2024 09: 00
                        The F-35 mattress makers were made not so much for themselves as for sale, they made the F-22 for themselves and they are not going to sell it to anyone, as for the Hunter - they have been making it for many years, and it is high time to improve it, I have already said - it can become morally obsolete, and this will not bring us an advantage at the front - after all, it is not Gaudi's cathedral in Barcelona.
                      2. 0
                        9 October 2024 12: 36
                        And what difference does it make to the capitalist himself or not? We are talking about a technically complex product!
                        F-35A
                        first flight December 15, 2006
                        commissioning on August 2, 2016

                        Su-50
                        first flight on January 29, 2010
                        commissioning December 2020

                        Hunter
                        first flight August 3, 2019
                        commissioning ....
                      3. 0
                        9 October 2024 13: 14
                        Well, there is a difference - after all, our Sukhois and MiGs are better, and the Americans themselves admit this, but they just need to look competitive, especially against the backdrop of a Boeing flying over Paris like plywood.
                      4. 0
                        9 October 2024 14: 01
                        once again about your message:

                        how much money and time was spent and it all went down the drain

                        Now look at the commissioning dates for other projects. Maybe it's too early to find fault with the deadlines?
                      5. -1
                        9 October 2024 14: 09
                        If you don't find fault, the work won't move forward. Stalin gave several months to develop the necessary models of equipment, and this was during the war, for factories transported to the Urals from the territories of central Russia - was it necessary then, but not now? - there is no war now?
                      6. +1
                        10 October 2024 06: 25
                        Under Stalin, there was a different technology, much simpler, and people were also different, simpler in some ways. There are special competent bodies for nitpicking/control. I admit that there are forms of public control, but not in social networks and comments on topcor. Well, of course, you can talk on topcor, but I am offended by such categorical judgments, which, as you say, nullify the work of designers. Bulava was also criticized by everyone in the same tones, but in the end it flies! And the Okhotnik will fly, I have no doubt.
                      7. -1
                        10 October 2024 07: 47
                        You are wrong, it is not correct to compare those times with ours - the conversation may not be about the simplicity of people, but about their poor education, weak scientific base, incomparable machine park - evacuated factories brought their machines and set them up, and did not install them on foundations, right in the open field, and people started working on them immediately in the rain and snow, and can you imagine what the percentage of defects will be from a machine not installed on a foundation and at unstable temperatures outside the production facility? - now you can build quickly erected workshops from sandwich panels, but back then they didn’t even know such words, and by the way, if I give some information from topcor, then I know what I’m writing, and there is no need to question it.
                      8. +1
                        10 October 2024 13: 47
                        It seems I'm starting to get confused during our conversation... you yourself started comparing with Stalin's times, and now I'm proven wrong) I hinted at exactly this above, that it is not correct to compare due to the difference in the level/complexity of technologies. And that is why the implementation periods have become longer. And the fact that the product is still being finalized is normal. You can't jump above your head. I agree only with the fact that there may be different visions of approaches to testing (which is what we encountered), I gave my arguments above.
                      9. 0
                        9 October 2024 23: 31
                        Quote from bda-lng
                        Maybe it's too early to find fault with the deadlines?

                        And there is no need for you to look under our cat’s tail, because even under the most beautiful peacock tail there is the most ordinary chicken’s ass.
        3. +1
          9 October 2024 06: 21
          And I appreciate the work of others that has already been done. The more of these "everything is lost" people, the more likely it is that the project will be closed. I hope it won't come to that.
          1. -1
            9 October 2024 06: 57
            You don't understand the line between "everything is lost" and responsibility - this is inappropriate verbiage.
            1. 0
              9 October 2024 07: 23
              I am leading to the fact that it is not for us to judge responsibility from our bell tower, you and I do not know the level of readiness of the product! And all discussions on this topic are simply speculation, and therefore empty talk. And I urge you not to do this, to choose your expressions carefully.
              1. -1
                9 October 2024 07: 46
                I try to choose my expressions, but you ask them, but to the point - "our bell tower" must be taken into account, because our money - taxpayers - has been invested in this business, and our labor has been invested, and not to take these factors into account is disrespect for your people.
                1. +1
                  9 October 2024 09: 08
                  Perhaps an attempt to bring it to mind in combat conditions before entering series production is a real way to take into account/save taxpayers' money. It seems to me that there is logic in this, isn't there?
                  Well, if we put it simply: it’s better to lose a couple of experimental cars than to have a massive problem in production later.
                  1. -1
                    9 October 2024 10: 13
                    I disagree - it would have been possible to test the Hunter with electronic warfare systems at the testing ground before getting into trouble and destroying it ourselves.
                    1. +1
                      9 October 2024 12: 14
                      No problem - the main thing is to know what to feel with. I yield in the dispute with the expert. You certainly know that it was the EW that "shot down" the Okhotnik and on what frequencies.
                      1. -1
                        9 October 2024 13: 18
                        No, the hunter was not shot down by electronic warfare, it was shot down by a missile from our Su-57, but the Ukrainian Armed Forces tried to intercept it with electronic warfare and they succeeded, but it’s good that our Su-57 shot it down - that’s what we’re talking about.
                      2. +1
                        9 October 2024 14: 09
                        Do you see the quotation marks in my message? :) They didn't shoot me down literally. And that was sarcasm.
                        Have you seen the Defense Ministry's report on the causes of the incident? The versions of SVO correspondents and retired military personnel about electronic warfare cannot be considered the official position and cause. And the fact that they shot it down was right, given the risk of intercepting secrets.
                      3. -1
                        9 October 2024 14: 17
                        The reasons for the incident are the withdrawal of a secret facility behind the front line, this can be understood from different sources and compare all the information, but the media and the Ministry of Defense will not provide all the information, keeping silent about their miscalculations, so it is not worth referring to them, the best way to assess the events is to analyze all the aggregate information, then it will be clear who is not telling or keeping silent about what, although mistakes are possible.
                      4. +1
                        10 October 2024 06: 20
                        The characteristics of the Su-57 are also classified, so the argument is weak. It is not serious to draw conclusions based on what the old war correspondents wrote. Only the readings of objective control devices and the readings of the pilot flying the drone can provide accurate information. The rest is from the evil one. Another thing is that the public does not necessarily need to know this. Soviet people learned about our achievements in the Pravda newspaper.
                      5. +1
                        10 October 2024 07: 04
                        ...Soviet people learned about our achievements in the newspaper Pravda. Soviet/Russian citizens, for example, learned about the existence of the Caspian monster only in the 90s, the project was closed by decision of the party, that was a total waste of time. Maybe it would be better to talk about this?
                      6. -1
                        10 October 2024 07: 59
                        And isn't the newspaper "Pravda" part of the media??? - the data on the Su-57 is classified - true, but comparing it with the FY-35 is not correct, at least because our Su-2 has XNUMX engines, which give it phenomenal speed and maneuverability - for mattress-makers this is unattainable - and even the public can understand this.
                      7. +1
                        10 October 2024 13: 56
                        It is part of the media. That's not what I'm talking about. Read between the lines, why are you so literal :) I meant that mechanic Vasya from the garage couldn't talk about airplanes in chats back then, there was only the newspaper Pravda - one point of view. And now every Vasya can express his opinion and millions can read it.
                        You didn't understand about the Su-57 again, the F-35 has nothing to do with it. It was said in continuation of your phrase:

                        The reasons for the incident are the removal of a secret facility behind the front line.

                        The Su-57 is also still secret, but it is being deployed to the front, and you apparently have no questions about this. And therefore, the fact that the Okhotnik is secret is not an argument against its deployment. If you need to develop a new technology or test an old one, the best place is at war. This is stated on both sides of the barricades.
                      8. -1
                        10 October 2024 14: 05
                        Regarding reading between the lines - many will say this here, and you sit and think, what did he bend, what did he want to say? - that's why I don't read between the lines - write specifically what you want to say, - and regarding the Su-57 - it was launched into production, it is made by a plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and it is delivered to the troops in the North Military District.
                      9. +1
                        10 October 2024 14: 27
                        You were probably born in the post-Soviet era, that's why you didn't understand about the Pravda newspaper :)

                        Su-57 - it was launched into production, it is manufactured by a plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and it is delivered to the troops in the North-Eastern Military District

                        Everyone knows this, I didn't ask about it

                        The reasons for the incident are the removal of a secret facility behind the front line.

                        Everyone has their own opinion, but I mean that secrecy is not an argument not to deploy to the front, like the Su-57.
                      10. -1
                        10 October 2024 15: 04
                        The article is about the Hunter, let's talk about it - it hasn't gone into production yet, it's an expensive one-off - what's the point of taking it beyond the front line and wasting it there? - just don't talk about testing - it needs to be tested at the training ground in a mock battle.
  4. +5
    8 October 2024 08: 22
    I highly doubt that Western intelligence will discover anything new in the downed Okhotnik. Unless they read the batch number on the American chips and use them to track the delivery routes of sanctioned goods.
  5. +1
    8 October 2024 15: 37
    Although specialists do arrive at the landing site, conduct an initial inspection and give instructions on collecting the “valuable debris,” they are not the ones collecting and loading it.
    Since everyone already knows that it could “fly in” again, the “bosses”, having “checked in at the scene (like, we are here with the people)”, prefer to leave immediately.
  6. -2
    8 October 2024 15: 56
    Every hour a rocket should have been launched at the crash site, that would have been fun am
  7. +3
    8 October 2024 18: 11
    In general, the Hunter should have an option if he loses connection. He automatically rises up and flies towards our territory. But, something went wrong.
    1. -1
      8 October 2024 23: 30
      So the connection might not have been lost, it’s just that the crests (NATO) took over control and this could be the result of betrayal on our side.
      1. 0
        10 October 2024 13: 00
        astonishing conclusions
  8. -1
    9 October 2024 04: 46
    Even if it had fallen into their hands intact, it would hardly have mattered much. All the electronics were imported, the only new developments were the gas turbine engine and various alloys. But this knowledge is neither hot nor cold. To produce copies of such turbines, knowledge alone is not enough, you need a bunch of factories and an established production process. Therefore, even the theft of a whole, undamaged machine would hardly have been a big problem.
    1. 0
      10 October 2024 12: 59
      Don't talk nonsense to the people. The Radioelectronic Technologies concern has its own factories for the production of microelectronics.
    2. -1
      28 October 2024 07: 37
      Quote: Kuramori Reika
      All electronics are imported

      Definitely not. You probably don't know that aviation uses different electronics than smartphones.