Military Review

Russia patented deck "flying radar"

50
Taganrog aviation Beriev scientific and technical complex received a patent for the invention of a carrier-based long-range radar survey aircraft with reduced radar visibility. The device is supposed to be equipped with a system of antennas of all-round visibility. According to the patent, the aircraft will be able to take off from the springboard of an aircraft carrier.


Russia patented deck "flying radar"


According to the patent, the aircraft of the radar survey can be made according to the traditional aircraft scheme with a wing of a normal sweep and a V-shaped tail unit. The wing has massive root flows, in which it is planned to place radar antennas.



Placing antennas in overflows makes it possible to abandon the traditional placement of antenna modules in a radio-transparent radome above the aircraft fuselage. The refusal of the upper placement, in turn, provides several advantages, including unhindered and safe ejection of the crew up, and not under the plane, as well as simplified access to the antennas in the conditions of ship maintenance.

The patent states that the aircraft must be equipped with two jet engines with the placement of air intakes at the edges of the fuselage above the wing. Airplane dimensions not listed. It is assumed that he will receive folding wing consoles for compact parking on the deck of an aircraft carrier or placing it in a hangar.
Photos used:
PJSC "TANTK them. G. M. Beriev"
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Herculesic
    Herculesic 25 December 2017 12: 52
    +5
    They would have choked less, they would have fulfilled the previously concluded contracts, otherwise they already regret in Irkutsk that they transferred production of seaplanes on their own head to Taganrog! fool Patents, this is also necessary, only we will not build an aircraft carrier for at least another 30 years!
    1. just exp
      just exp 25 December 2017 12: 56
      +2
      What did you want? it’s Taganrog, the Yuryevich Biryukov Series live and work there.
      therefore for a long time.
      1. Omskgasmyas
        Omskgasmyas 9 January 2018 07: 29
        0
        Like Belyakov, no?
  2. Mihanishche
    Mihanishche 25 December 2017 12: 53
    +3
    Wow!!!!!! They gave the Berievites a light!
    Spectacular appearance, excellent aerodynamics. Well done our!
    1. Spez
      Spez 25 December 2017 13: 37
      15
      You can determine the coefficients. aerodynamic drag? So why are you sitting here, you must urgently disperse TsAGI and bring you the sketches for approval. We will save months, if not years.
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 December 2017 12: 54
    +6
    The device is supposed to be equipped with a system of antennas of all-round visibility.

    It remains only to find out, did anyone patent the antennas for this aircraft?
    1. avt
      avt 25 December 2017 13: 07
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It remains only to find out, did anyone patent the antennas for this aircraft?

      request And they are in nature, how is a sample? Staked out just a scheme. I would ask about something else, because I don’t know what the fate of the Soviet Copyright Certificates was, which generally were not accepted outside the USSR. And where, in which countries is the patent registered? Grandmas for registration in $ are not sour, but for the Beriev Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex they are simply astronomical in their current financial condition. Have you decided to get someone a patent for the scheme? I don’t taste it, fuckers! bully
  4. just exp
    just exp 25 December 2017 12: 54
    +1
    stealth AWACS? and what else will they shoot not on their own radars, but on the radiation of what will be on this plane?
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 25 December 2017 13: 18
      +6
      Quote: just EXPL
      stealth AWACS? and what else will they shoot not on their own radars, but on the radiation of what will be on this plane?


      Do not believe it, but on AWACs - a huge amount of passive equipment ...
      He simply does not notice before the "main caliber" - Surveillance radar ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 December 2017 16: 16
        +2
        Quote: ZVO
        Do not believe it, but on AWACs - a huge amount of passive equipment ...
        He simply does not notice before the "main caliber" - Surveillance radar ...

        Poor Hokai in the 80s was supposed to work as a "plate" in the mode: 1 revolution 1 time in a couple of minutes, at irregular intervals. And the rest of the time, he listened to the air in passive mode, along with the "promler" who worked with him in tandem.
  5. Hagalaz
    Hagalaz 25 December 2017 12: 55
    +1
    Going forward along the course of the dead zone? Otherwise, the crew is exposed to microwave radiation.
    1. svp67
      svp67 25 December 2017 13: 03
      +2
      Quote: Hagalaz
      Going forward along the course of the dead zone? Otherwise, the crew is exposed to microwave radiation.

      You can and "snake" on the course to walk or in circles, not great science ....
    2. Andy
      Andy 25 December 2017 13: 09
      +1
      top drawing position number 14 bow radar
    3. pvv113
      pvv113 25 December 2017 13: 09
      +1
      In my opinion, in the LFF antenna at number 14
    4. ZVO
      ZVO 25 December 2017 13: 17
      +1
      Quote: Hagalaz
      Going forward along the course of the dead zone? Otherwise, the crew is exposed to microwave radiation.


      Does position 14 in the figure say anything?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 December 2017 16: 20
        0
        Quote: ZVO
        Does position 14 in the figure say anything?

        The aperture is small. Onboard antennas can be smudged at least throughout the fuselage, and the nose should fit into the cross section.
    5. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 December 2017 16: 19
      0
      Quote: Hagalaz
      Going forward along the course of the dead zone? Otherwise, the crew is exposed to microwave radiation.

      The big problem is that ordinary "plate" AWACS have the same dead zone back down the course. And for new AWACS with conformal headlights on the sides of the fuselage of the radar's surveillance sector - only to the left and to the right.
      A snake, an eight and a circle to help them. smile
  6. svp67
    svp67 25 December 2017 13: 02
    +2
    How do I "Beria" always liked. Worthy followers of Bartini. May God grant them good luck and most importantly, finance ....
  7. True
    True 25 December 2017 13: 07
    +1
    It was awesome to begin ... before the election, but no.
  8. Lester7777
    Lester7777 25 December 2017 13: 10
    +5
    There would still be a deck to it - there would be no price.
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 25 December 2017 13: 14
    +3
    According to the patent, the aircraft will be able to take off from the springboard of an aircraft carrier.

    Yeah ... the matter was left to the small-build aircraft carrier. wassat Let me remind you that in the program of new rearmament up to the year 27, emphasis will be placed on the construction of interregional missile systems of various types aimed at strengthening the coastal zone.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 26 December 2017 03: 29
      +5
      And what, besides an aircraft carrier, a small AWACS aircraft is not needed anywhere else? In the air force? For the border service? For the Navy from coastal airfields? For the ground forces?
      For example, the Yak-44 project had several directions:
      Yak-44E - carrier-based long-range radar detection aircraft, built layout.
      Yak-44PLO - anti-submarine ship and base versions of the aircraft.
      Yak-44E ground - a modification of the aircraft for early warning radar and control for airdrome-based. It was supposed to deliver to the Air Force of the USSR. The aircraft project was defended in the fall of 1991. The aircraft has a significantly increased patrol time, the tactical and technical characteristics of the radio-technical complex have been improved.
      Yak-44 patrol / border - modification for border control. The design of this aircraft in terms of the design bureau was listed until 1994 ...


      In our commodity quantity there are coastal anti-ship complexes. Aren't they such a plane to the court?
  10. ZVO
    ZVO 25 December 2017 13: 18
    +2
    It remains only to hope that by that time our people will have learned to combine data from different paintings of the PHAR into a single whole ...
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 26 December 2017 03: 31
      +1
      But doesn’t Polyment work? There are 4 paintings.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 26 December 2017 16: 23
        +1
        Quote: abc_alex
        But doesn’t Polyment work? There are 4 paintings.


        By the way, no ... Until now, as I understand it ...
        10 years can no longer cross the hedgehog and hedgehog ...
  11. Pacifist
    Pacifist 25 December 2017 13: 19
    +2
    The idea, by the way, is very good. This arrangement provides many advantages for ship placement.
    Research and patenting is a separate activity. Production here is not always close by. It is not a fact that even if they take it into production, they will do it there. They can pass to someone quicker and more reliable.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 25 December 2017 15: 02
      0
      Quote: Pacifist
      This arrangement provides many advantages for ship placement.

      What are the advantages then? and? Small wingspan? high parking position? large width in parking condition? A small percentage of the use of parking space?
      Yes SHIT it, and not "AWACS"! all of these "places for antennas" can be made on ordinary airplanes due to the suspended equipment.
      The best aircraft scheme for ship-based AWACS is a scheme with an upper rotary or folding wing, because such a scheme can make the maximum wingspan with a minimum parking volume with the highest percentage of use of parking space.
      1. Pacifist
        Pacifist 25 December 2017 15: 58
        +1
        It is assumed that he will receive a foldable rear wing console for compact parking

        And this scheme is very well worked out, unlike the one you mentioned
        with upper swivel or swivel wing

        And to the question
        high parking position?

        The indicated scheme is just below the standard one used in AWACS aircraft.
        As for hanging containers ... they are several times more expensive to manufacture and have no advantages in this case. They are good only in the variant when you need to turn a fighter or fighter-bomber into an AWACS aircraft. For specialized aircraft, the internal layout is preferable.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 25 December 2017 16: 39
          0
          Quote: Pacifist
          And this scheme is very well worked out, unlike the one you mentioned

          The wing scheme I have been describing has been used for many years on the Bell V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. (Pacifist further is not for you) I’ll immediately explain to all couch experts that the problems are not in the rotary wing, but in the engines, so there’s no need to yell about cost, reliability, etc.
          Quote: Pacifist
          For specialized aircraft, the internal layout is preferable.

          I agree, but you do not take into account the creation of special suspension systems integrating into the aerodynamic design of an aircraft. (I don’t remember the name but according to the same scheme they make fuel tanks for some military aircraft)
          Quote: Pacifist
          And to the question
          high parking position?

          The indicated scheme is just below the standard one used in AWACS aircraft.

          And what's the point that it is lower if we do not get a wing with maximum wingspan? What is the use of lowering it if the aircraft does not fit more than LA?
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex 26 December 2017 04: 07
            0
            The wing scheme I have been describing has been used for many years on the Bell V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. (Pacifist further is not for you) I’ll immediately explain to all couch experts that the problems are not in the rotary wing, but in the engines, so there’s no need to yell about cost, reliability, etc.


            But doesn’t it bother you that the 21 ton Osprey has a wing area of ​​28 squares, and the 23 ton Hokai has 65 squares? Do not you think that the rotary wing of the Osprey is therefore rotary, because it is not small in the plane. And is this whole scheme advantageous only for a tiltrotor? If the Hokai wing is also “deployed”, then “suddenly” it turns out that the plane has become much longer.
            And Osprey cannot take off in an airplane, without vertically turned motors.

            I agree, but you do not take into account the creation of special suspension systems integrating into the aerodynamic design of an aircraft. (I don’t remember the name but according to the same scheme they make fuel tanks for some military aircraft)


            Conformal?

            And what's the point that it is lower if we do not get a wing with maximum wingspan? What is the use of lowering it if the aircraft does not fit more than LA?


            And why with such a scheme the maximum swing? Here the maximum area is needed and developed mechanization. You estimate the dimensions of this concept to the length of the MiG-29, you will see that the latter has a much shorter wing.

            And by the way, in the Osprey scheme you advertise, the wing is completely stingy, as I showed you.

            In the picture concept, during development, the wing can be made by another extension, root inflations are designed to increase lift, the fuselage is made bearing.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 26 December 2017 04: 57
              0
              Hokai has a wingspan of 17,5m with a length of 24,5m, and this is its maximum size, no matter how hard you try to increase it. When implementing the scheme with a swivel-folding wing, we get a 17,5 * 3 = 52,5 m span, which almost doubles the bearing area relative to the hokey. Moreover, this scheme, together with the AFAR allows you to place 3-4 times more AWACS aircraft relative to the hockey layout Well, or this space can be used for other aircraft.
              Everything seems to be obvious hi
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 26 December 2017 23: 08
                0
                But is it a little expensive? You need a rotary system, a system of "casting" of the end segments, and a system of folding screws. It will be heavy construction. It's not just that the Osprey propulsion system is 12300 hp Then, like in Hokai - a little more than 10000. While the normal take-off mass at Osprey is 2 tons less. The plane will turn out to be more compact, of course, but will it be worth it? Is it worth it to complicate the design so that instead of 4 cars take on board 5?
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 27 December 2017 03: 24
                  0
                  God again, these ospreys in the heads of sofa analysts. Head think weakly? Why make folding screws like a osprey? The length of the screws is the same as that of the hokai, the engines are the same as the hokai, all the equipment like the hokai only has a different wing design and a different parking scheme.
                  In general, I am more inclined towards AWACS based on a convertiplane, (I’m specifying specifically for sofas, based on a convertiplane, and not challenging! And yes, this is not the same thing!) But the wing is also beneficial for catapult and springboard aircraft, so the essence is not changes.
                  1. abc_alex
                    abc_alex 29 December 2017 14: 05
                    0
                    Why make folding screws like a osprey? The length of the screws is the same as that of the hokai, the engines are the same as the hokai, all the equipment like the hokai only has a different wing design and a different parking scheme.


                    But because you would not otherwise deploy the wing along the fuselage. The plane of the screws will not allow you, they will rest in the fuselage and tail. See for yourself, especially if the screws are complex.




                    It’s not just that folding screws were made.


                    Well, or you need to make a very high plan.

                    In general, I am more inclined to convertrotor-based AWACS


                    Something like this?

                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 31 December 2017 13: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: abc_alex
                      But because you would not otherwise deploy the wing along the fuselage

                      Everything unfolds perfectly, I just didn’t specify that the screws are divided into groups of 2 pieces and put one after the other, that is, instead of folding blades (like the Osprey), rotary blades are made, it is difficult to explain, you need to draw, the bottom line is that on one shaft the gearbox is seated, screw blocks are connected to this gearbox, there are two blades in each block, and these blocks can be shifted around the longitudinal axis of the shaft (around the axis of rotation), but they can only be shifted during parking, the shift occurs or due to a separate drive from the inside of the aircraft , or outside by a technician with a ladder and a key stuck in a special hole in the gearbox. Well, or just do not bathe and put the jet engines (and actually they should stand because the thrust is higher) and place them in the same way as on the Be-200. You can also place the engines in the wing. It is possible under the wing, but then there will be another fuselage wider but shorter. In general, I lead to the fact that there are many options, but the essence is not changed.
                      Quote: abc_alex
                      Something like this?

                      no, the photo shows an electric drone, which is no use in aviation, yet. And in general, this drone will not fly more precisely, but like a brick with an attached engine. laughing Here I am more inclined to two projects. The first one is the analogue of the osprey but with the solved problem of the engines and the wing rotation system, I will immediately mention the keyword "analogue", because the machine is higher and bigger, and the only thing with the osprey is the rotary wing and the type of aircraft " tiltrotor ". The second option is already on a fundamentally new type of engine, the model of which he himself invented, and I don’t intend to describe it here, because maybe in the distant future I can make money on it.
                      1. abc_alex
                        abc_alex 4 January 2018 04: 40
                        0
                        Understood thanks.
  12. omit
    omit 25 December 2017 13: 23
    0
    A very loud statement. But what really is? But in reality, a patent is a piece of paper issued to applicants.
    Patent holder (s): Public Joint-Stock Company "Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex named after G.M. Beriev" (PJSC "TANTK named after G.M. Beriev") (RU)

    CLAIM

    1. Aircraft of low radar visibility deck and ground based with a system of all-round antennas, comprising a fuselage, wing, tail, powerplant, landing gear and a system of all-round antennas, characterized in that the central part of the wing is made with radiotransparent front and rear edges and has a larger narrowing than the end parts of the wing, and the central part of the wing is made so narrow that installed in its front and rear edges of the antenna provide a circular view.

    2. Aircraft of reduced radar visibility deck and ground based with a system of antennas of circular view according to claim 1, characterized in that on the lower surface of the Central part of the wing in front of the rear radiolucent edges installed simple shields.
    http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2572366
  13. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 25 December 2017 13: 26
    +1
    So .., now AWAKS with plates seem to be a thing of the past?
    AFARs are built into ordinary small planes (even fighters) under the fuselage and they can work like AWACS aircraft.
  14. fa2998
    fa2998 25 December 2017 13: 27
    +1
    Quote: Mikhanishche
    Wow!!!!!! They gave the Berievites a light!
    Spectacular appearance, excellent aerodynamics. Well done our!

    But the air intakes will not be obscured on takeoff? Yes, and the size, the size of a fighter, how will it hang for hours, as it should. Yes, and we will not see an aircraft carrier for 20-30 years, we are not building destroyers anymore, we manage with corvettes and boats .Need to build what the country and the fleet need, and not run ahead of the engine! request hi
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 25 December 2017 13: 45
      0
      Quote: fa2998
      Yes, and dimensions, the size of a fighter, how will it hang for hours, as expected.


      Well, sizes are not a direct limitation ..
      The same deck Viking (if without a combat load) could hang for 6-7 hours ...
      And he is relatively small ...
  15. amr
    amr 25 December 2017 13: 35
    0
    Cool, I don’t understand, but did Armata also patent it?
  16. vovashturman
    vovashturman 25 December 2017 13: 36
    0
    [quote] [/ quote] What did you want? it’s Taganrog, the Yuryevich Biryukov Series live and work there.
    You do not respect others, at least respect yourself. chatterbox, write off ...
  17. omit
    omit 25 December 2017 13: 39
    +1
    I’m giving a tooth that nobody will build this plane. This is a patent for the sake of the patent. I cooked the same ones because there is a patent department at the enterprise that has an annual plan for the number of patents, well, etc. Is that clear?
    1. NN52
      NN52 25 December 2017 19: 59
      +8
      OK, the tooth is accepted.
      For a long time you probably cooked something ...

      And it all builds up for a small av
  18. Berkut24
    Berkut24 25 December 2017 13: 44
    0
    But is the Beriev factory going to carry out the main task of producing aircraft equipment?
  19. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2017 14: 46
    +2
    Well, it would be better if the same Yak-44 or its receiver (if any) were brought to the series. They would have carrier-based and not only deck-based, but also conventional airfield-based AWACS aircraft that are quite efficient and relatively inexpensive. So that you don’t have to drive the same A-50 each time, when you could do with a smaller aircraft
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 26 December 2017 03: 39
      0
      There is nothing to bring to mind. The Yak-40 did not go beyond the bounds of the overall layout. There is virtually no airplane; its assembly technology has not been developed. In addition, the engines were made by Motor Sich.
      We need a new motor, a new avionics, and the development of a technological assembly line. Well, the plane needs to be done from scratch.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 26 December 2017 11: 33
        0
        There is nothing to bring to mind.

        It is a pity that it happened with the AN-71, if I am not mistaken by the time the program was closed, it passed the first stage of flight tests.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 7 January 2018 14: 40
        0
        Quote: abc_alex
        The Yak-40 did not go beyond the bounds of the overall layout.

        The Yak-40 has been flying with us for over fifty years.
  20. Taoist
    Taoist 25 December 2017 16: 18
    0
    Interesting layout. in principle, it is possible to do WRC