Will C-400 cope with the super-maneuverable version of HARM? Starting from a ground-based PU is not a problem for it.

Wide enough resonance in the Western and Russian expert and amateur circles was provoked by the information from the military analytical portal defence-blog.com, which refers to sources in the defense department, as well as the Air Force and the US Navy, to provide the Northrop Grumman 322,5, a million contract to develop AGM-88G AARGM-ER promising anti-radar missile, designed to replace outdated AGM-88C / D Block 6 and E PLLRs, with an impressive radar signature (EPR about 0,08 — 0,1 square meters), low flight speed in 2,2 and radius actions of order 150 — 160 km. Such a keen interest of specialists to the project is caused by the mass of advanced design, hardware and software options embodied in AARGM-ER in comparison with the usual “Harms”.

In particular, if we consider the design features, the exclusion from the aerodynamic scheme of developed aerodynamic rudders ("turning wings") with a span of 1130 mm allowed the developer not only to achieve a partial increase in speed and range qualities of the AARGM-ER as well as reducing its effective reflective surface, but also to realize the further integration of this anti-radar missile into the ammunition kits of the X-NUMX F-5A / C multipurpose fighter with the displacements in the internal weapons bay. In essence, this solution can only be considered as preparation for the “long arm” of the Lightnings to give operational combat readiness, which opens up unique opportunities for the destruction of not only remote radio-emitting objects (in the anti-radar mode) before the flight personnel of the Air Force, Navy and the US Marine Corps , but also radio-contrast targets (in the mode of a long-range multipurpose aeroballistic missile) without increasing the EPR of the fighter-carrier.

The latter mode is realized thanks to the equipment of the AGM-88G with an advanced modification of the WGU-48 / B multi-band active-passive radar seeker with an active millimeter-wave Ka-band sensor (frequency from 26,5 to 35 GHz). Moreover, starting from the information provided on October 23, 2018 by the notorious British militarynews and the analytical publication janes.com, citing sources in Nortrop Grumman, we can conclude that in parallel with the development of the airborne anti-radar missile AGM-88G AARGM-ER, the company is making maximum efforts to implement SLAARGM (“Surface- Launched AARGM "), which provides for the development of anti-radar / multi-purpose missiles AGM-88E Block 1 / G ground launch.

Judging by the statement of the curator of the SLAARGM project, Jacob Krimberg, as well as the technological sketch-demonstrator attached to this news on janes.com, the first flight prototypes and early versions of SLAARGM will be presented by ordinary AGM-88E Block 1, placed on the beam launchers of the SAM type SL -AMRAAM, and only later modifications can get AGM-88G AARGM-ER HRD placed in modular transport and launch containers. Given the fact that the AGM-88E1 / G missiles in the SL-AMRAAM version will be forced to spend most of the solid fuel charge and kinetic energy to overcome dense layers of the troposphere and enter the stratosphere on a ballistic trajectory, their range will decrease from 160 and 320 km (for air-based modifications) to 40 and 120 km, respectively. At the same time, the presence of developed aerodynamic influx ribs along the hull will provide the AGM-88G 20 — 30 missile with a 100% range preservation (when launched from a ground launcher) in relation to the performance of the AGM-88E Block 1 version.

Scrupulously summarizing most of the information known from the SLAARGM project, it can be concluded that in the foreseeable future, the units of the Ground Forces and the United States Marine Commissariat can receive a kind of multifunctional and interference-proof “supplement” to M142 HIMARS high-precision multiple launch rocket systems. Markedly higher target value missiles AGM-88G AARGM-ER (compared with 127-mm guided missiles M31A1) will be more than compensated by the possibility of destruction of moving ground targets harnessing active millimeter-channel radar vectoring (recall that the defeat of moving objects by Ursova M31A1 GMLRS systems HIMARS is difficult due to the presence of only GPS / INS-guidance module).

Technical demonstration sketch of the AGM-88G AARGM-ER rocket adapted for launch from a ground mobile launcher as part of the SLAARGM project

To send AGM-88G “into milk”, it will be necessary to neutralize not only the GPS channel (as is the case with HIMARS rockets), but also the millimeter RL homing channel (“Ruby” and SPN-2 / 4 in this range do not work) . As a result, the only method of countering anti-radar / multipurpose missiles AGM-88G AARGM-ER, both in the "air" and "ground" versions, is their interception through modern anti-aircraft missiles.

Numerous state and Western European analytical portals have already rushed to christen AGM-88G AARGM-ER as another “C-400 hunter”. But is this true? Of course, it will be much more difficult to intercept this rocket than the standard low-speed AGM-88C HARM or AGM-88E AARGM. According to the portal www.reddit.com, referring to open sources in the Pentagon, the speed of the promising "heir" HARM can reach 5370 km / h (1491 m / s) at the time of burning a solid fuel multi-mode pulsed solid propellant rocket (on the ascending branch of the trajectory). At this stage of the flight, it cannot be intercepted by means of the C-300PS air defense missile system, which has a speed limit of the target being hit in 1300 m / s. On the final part of the trajectory, the speed of AARGM-ER is reduced to 3,5 — 2,5M, which theoretically makes it vulnerable to most types of our air defense missile systems (including troop self-propelled complexes Tor-M1, Tor-M2, Buk-M2 / 3, and also ZRPK "Pantsir-С1"). The presence of a 150 — 180-millimeter array of active-passive WGU-48 / B active multi-pass radome XGNUMX under a multi-band radiotransparent radome — brings the EPR of the rocket to 300 — 350 — 0,05 — 0,07 — 96 — m, which only facilitates the process of its detection and capture using 6L92 high-altitude radar and 6H400E radar of the C-XNUMX “Triumph” radar.

Meanwhile, there is also a “dark” side of the capabilities of the new AGM-88G, which experts will not be able to “see” until the first baptism of the product. According to www.reddit.com, the aerodynamic influxes, which increase the lifting properties of the AARGM-ER rocket body, are intended not only to increase the flight range, but also to more effectively perform intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers immediately after direction finding with the WGU-48 / B “shooting” mode the attacked radar backlight. Looking at the weight and dimensions, as well as the design features of this rocket, it is easy to assume that the calculated overloads can reach 25 — 30 units. at the time of the dive to the enemy radar.

As a result, full-time unit of fire anti-aircraft missile systems S-300PM1 and C-400 "Triumph" in a position interceptor missiles 48N6E / 48N6DM can not cope with the AGM-88G, because to destroy "vortkoy" goals congestion around 30G antimissile must maneuver with overload order 60 units In this case, the latest C-350 Vityaz air defense missiles, armed with the super-maneuverable 9М96DM missile with gas-dynamic transverse control engines, are capable of saving the situation. As it is known, their large-scale production starts three years earlier than the start of deliveries of AARGM-ER / SLAARGM to the air force and USMC units.

Information sources:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalPowers/comments/5dqqix/rd_agm88fg_aargm/
http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=22525
http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=23873
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/c300ps/c300ps.shtml
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-633.html

Comments

[Joseph]

What kind of nonsense?
C300 are designed for rockets with a speed of up to 1300 m / s.
A 1400 with a penny will not intercept?

This is not the problem.
There will be interference on the radar.
When an anti-radar missile is already fired at it and if the EPR of this missile is true 0.05-0.07 sq m, it is not at all a fact that it can be detected at a distance exceeding that which this missile has time to go until the c300 missile turns from a vertical path and exits to the terminal section.

And the radio command rockets of the torus and the Shell will have low noise immunity.
The Swedes refused domestic complexes with BAMSE radio command missiles

[Telakh]

And I am always amazed by the arguments about the use of long-range air defense systems on ammunition. Yes, it’s technically possible to shoot down a tomahawk, a ballistic target or a planning bomb from c300 or c400, but how do you imagine a single plane ailnet with a single missile? With a preemptive strike, NATO uses hundreds of cruise missiles at the same time, but how many C300 regiments are deployed and ready to fire? And surely they will be primarily used to cover more priority goals than their own radar, however paradoxical it sounds. And more likely against missile carriers than against missiles.
And designed to work on maneuvering warheads. Does the 350 seem to only cover Moscow?

[Joseph]

The real range of air defense systems for small-speed targets 30-50 km.
Source: articles by Alekseev and Mizrokh with the NGO Torch.

But not 100, 150 or 400.
So far, an air defense system can only shoot at aircraft jammers and DLRO.
The fight against carriers is the task of aviation.

[prodi]

the exclusion from the aerodynamic scheme of developed aerodynamic rudders (“rotary wings”) with a span of 1130 mm allowed the developer not only to achieve a partial increase in speed and range qualities of the AARGM-ER (by reducing the speed of ballistic braking), but also to reduce its effective reflective surface, but and implement further integration of this anti-radar missile into the ammunition of the 5th generation F-35A / C multipurpose fighter with deployment in the internal arms bays.

how can she be a screwdriver after that? The maximum is a well-established turn with a heavy load, and even that is not too steep

[mad max]

I immediately determined who the author was from one article title.

[Vol4ara]

The only analyst involved on this site

[riwas]

OJSC "Defense Systems" and OJSC "Design Bureau" Kuntsevo "have developed simulators-emitters of air defense radars. Each emitter is a mini-transmitter with a power of at least 4 kW per pulse. Its weight is about 80 kg, it operates on powerful batteries in standby mode for 24 hours, for radiation - 3-4 hours. During testing of the protection system, six domestic anti-radar missiles were fired on the operating radar. All of them were removed from the radar by an average of 400 m. The station did not receive a scratch. The product is manufactured in series.

[Joseph]

I don’t know what you are talking about.
But for a long time there is a newspaper.
And it will be heavier than 80 kg.
And in any case, when the Newsboy is working, the radar of the SAM system should be turned off.
So, in the case of the correct calculation of the forces and means involved for the air offensive operation, even defense in depth can be broken through without loss

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: iosif

in any case, when the Gazetteer works, the radar of the air defense system should be turned off.

There is a developed system with DII (additional radiation sources) that protects the radar, without shutting it down ...

[Joseph]

What principle does it work on?

There is a radiating target - a real radar.
There are several imitators of her radiation around her and nearby.
Turning them on and off the radar, you can only reduce the likelihood of damage to the radar.
And only if it is attacked by a single PRR.
And if there are several PRRs and they exchange information on what purpose each is aiming for, then you will not reduce the likelihood without turning off the radar.

[Basalt]

If I remember correctly, Gazetchik is a complex defense system, in addition to simulators working in conjunction with the S-400 control center, it includes aerosol jamming and grid-type engineering structures covering the complexes from the sides, as well as shots with a huge number of damaging elements, like active tank defense, only abruptly.
In general - again the opposition of the sword and shield, and all hope of a retaliatory nuclear strike.

[rocket757]

Numerous US and Western European analytical portals have already rushed to christen the AGM-88G AARGM-ER another "S-400 hunter." But is this true?

According to normal, means of attack will be created, means of counteracting them will be created!
Does anyone doubt this?
While our arguments are vigorous, restrain Wishlist of all sorts of different, from trying to implement them! This is not forever, you have to work!
But on the question of whether we can do it, there are many questions to the "responsible" and "effective" ones, those at the top!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rocket757

According to normal, means of attack will be created, means of counteracting them will be created!
Does anyone doubt this?

And here, you don’t really need to create anything - you need a regular ZAK with good accuracy, knocking down everything that flies in the direction of the positions of the main missile forces in a radius of 2 km. Shell - fragmentation with self-destructive.

[rocket757]

Quote: Alexey RA

And here, you don’t really need to create anything - you need a regular ZAK with good accuracy, knocking down everything that flies in the direction of the positions of the main missile forces in a radius of 2 km. Shell - fragmentation with self-destructive.

If the target is low-flying, "slow-moving"!
There is only an integrated approach, because the opponent has all sorts of different things!
The boom comes from the fact that our opponent is shy !!! Was the Arabs a lot of different techniques? And anti-aircraft identity.
History has proved, so far, only one thing - the only reliable air defense, so far, is its tanks at tsuzuy airfields !!!
That's when it will be proved that something else, a boom to see and maybe change our mind!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rocket757

If the target is low-flying, "slow-moving"!

Initially, ZAK was designed to counteract supersonic anti-ship missiles.

[rocket757]

Quote: Alexey RA

Initially, ZAK was designed to counteract supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Supersonic, floor concept extensible .... from 330 m \ sec. to somewhere far away!
ZAK, this is the last frontier, the extreme .... too close, too small coverage !!!
Read the test results by the Americans of their ship ZAK, against missiles! Learn a lot of interesting things.
I repeat - an integrated approach! Many frontiers, many different systems !!! In short, VERY EXPENSIVE! Those. we cannot afford it, not for other resources! Therefore, only "tanks on enemy airfields" !!!
I hope you understand that under "tanks" I encode a whole range of measures of influence and various arguments, even vigorous ones.

[Joseph]

In the murders.

[Grigory_78]

M-dya. The fact that American promising missiles will be effective against the S-300PS being withdrawn from service is of course epic.
The fact that they will be effective against the guidance systems of the Carapace and Tori is a question, because it is already known that in the air defense system, short-range air defense systems can use target designation from a long-range radiation system.
If developed aerodynamic rudders are excluded from the missile control system, where will overloads of 30 units come from? Epic nonsense.

[Joseph]

Theoretically, if the speed is high, small rudders are sufficient to create a large overload.
The Mika rocket at the end of the booster section, approximately 4 seconds after the launch, has a disposable overload of 70 g.
With not very large steering wheels.
And at the end - for the anti-aircraft variant about 20 km from the launch point - only 6.
Watching how fast it goes

[alaarsen]

Well, yes, the value of overload even with a small deviation at high speed will be significant .. but this will not speak of the super-maneuverability of the rocket ..

[Joseph]

Theoretically again
Not in relation to this particular rocket, but in general.
Super-maneuverable missiles have both aerodynamic and gas-dynamic rudders.
Simultaneous action of both provide supermovement.
For an anti-radar missile, it is probably more important that its EPR is low.
Under cover of interference, it is detected at a shorter distance.
The signal-to-noise ratio is still negative in decibels, the radar does not detect it.
When it finds out, there is not much time for counteraction.

[malyvalv]

The gas-dynamic steering wheel is good while the engine is running. If the engine is off, then a missile’s turn will only slow it down and no more.

[Joseph]

Any maneuver slows the rocket, regardless of what type of steering wheel it is carried out

[malyvalv]

Yes, only in the case of aerodynamic rudders when the engine is off, the rocket changes the flight path, and in the case of gas-dynamic ones it just flies sideways along the previous path.

[Joseph]

In the air there is the resultant of the resistance forces still applied in the “center of pressure“.
And two forces that do not coincide in direction create torque.

[malyvalv]

That is, it’s not just flying sideways, but also spinning. It may very well be. This is how to apply a gas-dynamic impulse. With opposition on the opposite side or not.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! You are a little wrong! The signal-to-noise ratio is not negative and is not measured in dB - you confuse this with the sensitivity of the receiving path! Try to interfere with the S-300V4 or S-400. And who will set and at what distance ... the jammer himself will fall under the anti-aircraft missile. Moreover, for this it is necessary to fly up to the range of the use of the anti-radar missile, and it is less than the range of the surveillance radar of the air defense system ... And all this when layered defense with the use of AWACS and control aircraft A-50U (A-100).

[Joseph]

Signal to noise ratio is measured in decibels.
And there is a logarithmic function.
When the signal intensity is less than the noise / interference intensity, the logarithm is negative.
I can’t try anything.
But there is a classic formula for radar.
The detection range is not a constant value.
And if the EPR of the target is small, and the level of interference is large, the detection range of the target will allow it to approach unnoticed at the line of use of its guided weapons
However, the jammer may be out of reach.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Horror! What are you writing!? For people like you - carefully study the RPU (Radio Receiving Devices) ... In decibels, the sensitivity of the receiving path, the antenna gain and so on are measured. The sensitivity of the receiving path is real at a signal-to-noise ratio of 2: 1 or extreme - at a signal-to-noise ratio of 1: 1 and don’t be silly ... You probably haven’t encountered radar technology?

Quote: iosif

When the signal intensity is less than the noise / interference intensity, the logarithm is negative.

In this case, the radar (we do not take the processing of noise-like signals) will not see anything, but in reality it will be much different. Knowing the direction to the source of interference - you can get an anti-aircraft missile by the jammer from the air defense system. Moreover, you do not take into account systems in the air defense system, which can suppress interference or reduce their level in the receiving path. The level of interference with a greater distance will fall more, and the level of the reflected signal from the AGM-88C / D Block 6 and E will increase as the rocket approaches the air defense radar!
The carrier of the anti-radar missile will need to approach the launch line of 88 km (6-160 = 400 km) to launch the AGM-160C / D Block 240 and E missile (240-300 = 4 km. That means the carrier will be already in the affected area for 400 km before the launch). the actions of the S-400B50 and S-100 (in the above data) is XNUMX km - this is in the presence of the A-XNUMXU or A-XNUMX in the air (in our example), so that the air defense system can receive target designation on a low-flying anti-radar missile ...

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! You can calculate the distance at which the AGM-88C / D Block 6 and E anti-radar missile will be detected by the S-300B4 SAM in ideal conditions in free space!

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! If the signal-to-noise ratio is less than 1, this indicates either the absence of the signal or its disguise against the background of noise ... but you won’t be able to measure it, much less talk about the logarithmic scale!

[Joseph]

All your information is taken from murzilka.
In reality, if the detection range, for example, F15 is 400, and f16 300, then f35 the same radar will not detect beyond 50 km.
The values ​​are certainly inaccurate, but close to the real picture.
And they are true in the absence of interference.
The presence of active noise interference dramatically reduces these distances.
That will allow even a plane with an EPR comparable to F15 to go unnoticed at the launch line of this rocket - 160 km.
You can launch a missile pointing at a source of interference.
But she, for example, will fly 400 km for 8-10 minutes.
And the jammer during this time can turn off his country of interference and go to a low altitude.
In short, in NATO this task is assigned to aviation.
And the monsters shooting allegedly for 400 km are not fooled.
And the signal-to-noise ratio is measured in decibels.
Check before speaking with me in a mentor tone

[malyvalv]

In all areas where I came across the signal-to-noise ratio, it was just a ratio without any logarithm. Acoustics, electronics, etc. He just is not needed there. Either above 1 may even be a multiple or lower. You can certainly imagine in decibels as 2 signals are compared, but it makes no sense if it is about the signal-to-noise ratio.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! This is your children's information taken from Murzilki and not only! Sheer illiteracy! You can't even prove or disprove about the signal-to-noise ratio ... because you don't know the parameters of the radar receiving path. And ambition with expressions - "Grandma said so" - above the roof! Therefore, I could not answer my questions and calculate the detection range of the AGM-88C / D Block 6 and E anti-radar missile using the example of a radar receiver at least an S-300 ... Storyteller and not only! One illiteracy! It's a shame to behave like that. Therefore, your Israeli leaders often visit Russia when it was decided to deploy the S-300 in Syria - they are afraid of the consequences after the use of Russian air defense systems.

[Joseph]

be healthy

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Mutually!

[malyvalv]

Now there are many ways to highlight a useful signal against a background of noise far exceeding the signal. Multiple measurements and a device on computers allow this to be done.

[And Vasya.]

malyvalv (Valery)! Yes, many of these methods have the radar paths of receivers - in this direction, Russia has gone far. And to put various kinds of obstacles to the S-300, S-400 air defense systems is very problematic, therefore, NATO countries are developing various types of tactics to suppress such air defense systems.

[Joseph]

Gee gee
Went forward
A French company Thales
And the Israeli Elta
Who held the championship?

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! You forgot about US scientists! Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, Raytheon, and so on!

[Joseph]

As the director general of NPO Gradient said, if the level of interference exceeds the level of the useful signal by 30 decibels, any radio device is useless.
Low ESR of the target gives a low level of the useful signal.
The attacking side, if aviation does not oppose it, has the ability to create the necessary level of interference by bluntly attracting the necessary number of interference stations.
You are in the clouds, believing that the Russian Kraukha, Lever and other stations can work wonders, while others do not know how
One EW Proler plane gives 35 kW of directional radiation

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Baby talk! Calculate what level of interference signal you will receive at a distance of 400 km - the radio signal is attenuating, and the law of attenuation changes with distance. It doesn't matter to me what you write about the general director of NPO Gradient, he is not an authority for me - "grandmother said again" ... You yourself can imagine what 30 dB is - this is 1000 times the power of the interference level over the signal and imagine this from a distance of 400 km - complete nonsense, your electronic warfare Prowler will be tortured to put such interference and not only! Even the square root, replacing the root of the fourth degree, will not help you ... Your Prowler will simply not reach you yet!

[Joseph]

A distance of 400 km for a direct radiation source of 35 kW and a double distance of 160 km = 320 km for a signal reflected from a target with low EPR and it is impossible to exceed the useful signal level by 30 dB by interference?
Do you believe in fairy tales.
Reality is somewhat different from murzilka.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Where is your calculation! How much will the interference signal decay from a distance of 400 km? And how much it will exceed the reflected signal voltage after the antenna!

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Again false data resulted!
Grumman EA-6 “Proler” 5 × ALQ-99 containers with output power up to 6,8 kW each, frequency range from 30 MHz to 18 GHz [4]. Five containers contain up to 8 jamming transmitters and allow you to cover the frequency range from 30 MHz to 18 GHz. There is no addition of power in space. This means that the output power in open printing does not exceed 6,8 -11 kW (being developed), and not 35 kW.
EW EA-6V “Proler” aircraft is intended for electronic warfare and fire destruction of ship and ground radars and disruption of the operation of radio communications networks of enemy air defense systems. In carrying out the tasks of covering naval groups, air strike groups, it provides effective jamming of enemy electronic equipment at ranges up to 250 km.

[Joseph]

How is there no addition of power in space?
Two containers emitting white noise will not give more intense interference than one?
Explore while the radiation parameters of the ground station.
On Proler put the right range of containers.
There is no need to cover the range from 30 MHz to 18 GHz.
And the interference signal for 400 km attenuates according to the same law, according to which the radar signal for 320 km also attenuates.
And it’s illiterate just to talk about fixed ranges - at least about the detection range of a ground-based radar, at least about the range at which Proler operates.
The prowler will simply follow the strike aircraft approaching the ground radar — the signal reflected from the target will increase for the radar, but the interference intensity will increase at the same time.
The signal-to-noise ratio will be kept at the right level.
At the turn of 160 km, a strike aircraft will release PRR.
One Proler isn’t enough, so two will be hanged.
Question breakthrough PVO is only a matter of planning the number and composition of funds raised.

And you have progress - google, you no longer deny that, as a rule, the signal-to-noise ratio is measured in decibels

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Regarding the signal-to-noise ratio, we talked about different things, in the radar parameters, when measuring the sensitivity, the signal-to-noise ratio is taken 1: 1 or 1: 2, greater or less than 1. You mean the ratio of the interference signal / reflected signal, and not signal-to-noise (although with noise interference - the signal-to-noise ratio decreases and can be equal to 1 or less - it makes no sense) In the dispute, we did not touch on the noise of amplifiers, various devices, telecommunication channels, etc. ... where the signal / noise in dB.

Quote: iosif

The signal-to-noise ratio is still negative in decibels, the radar does not detect it.

.
However, your expression is wrong, it makes no sense less than 1 and does not correspond completely to reality - there are devices that reduce the level of interference (so that there is no overload of the receiving path) and emit a useful signal by processing the signal when it is at the interference level and even lower ... therefore NATO countries have become sad about the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems - their suppression!
For information, the law of attenuation of electromagnetic waves changes from a cubic dependence to a linear one - you were able to calculate the level of the interference signal EA-6 “Proler” at the radar input. He still needs to fly up to a distance of 250 km in order to interfere, and this will end badly for him ...

Quote: iosif

On Proler put the right range of containers.
There is no need to cover the range from 30 MHz to 18 GHz.

Here you are completely wrong. AN / ALQ-99 station is located in 5 containers, 4 of which are suspended on underwing pylons, and one under the fuselage. Each container contains 1-2 interference transmitters (depending on the overlapping subband). A set of 5 containers includes 8 transmitters and allows you to cover the frequency range from 30 MHz to 18 GHz. Monitoring and control of radio-electronic suppression equipment (REP) of the EA-6V aircraft is carried out by three operators. And there is no addition of transmitter powers. It means that the output power in open press does not exceed 6,8 -11 kW (being developed), and not 35 kW, regarding your statement Pryvyh = 35 W is not true.

[Joseph]

This system is flexible and, if you do not need such a wide range of 30-18,000 MHz, it allows you to focus power in a narrower range.
And the addition of capacity is.
Imagine that you do not have enough brightness for a single bulb.
You turn one, the other, the third to an acceptable level.
This is how it works.
At shorter ranges, a noise power level of 300 W / MHz is sufficient to completely suppress the radar.
At 400 km - I do not know.
I think that experiments with 300 were carried out in Greece, for example.
In any case, if the task is to provide an inconspicuous approach to an aircraft with an EPR of F15 level at the line of 160 km from the S400 radar, this task is feasible.
In this case, the F35 will be able to come under the cover of the same interference an order of magnitude closer.
That in Proler, the interference station is served by 3 operators, this information is redundant.
They hold the proler because it ensures the fulfillment of the tasks of strike aircraft.
I wouldn’t like it, they didn’t keep him b.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! Do not write non-real data in children's language! Note to you - when adding powers in space, first of all, phasing of signals is necessary, otherwise you will not get effective addition in space and a sufficient signal level. And it is impossible to receive an interference signal from an aircraft at a level of 300 W / MHz, for example, in the range from a few megahertz to hundreds ... 20 W / MHz is still real. Figures from the ceiling? Joseph! What is your real image intensifier (EPR) F-35? But only without "patriotism" towards the United States.

[Joseph]

And then, patriotism towards the United States?
Why do you need a range of width "from units to hundreds of MHz?
Is the C400 so wide?
And what is the "phasing" for an incoherent noise signal?
You had an analogy: thermal radiation is like noise.
Two bulbs do not give a brighter light than one?
And as for the EPR F35, it is so low that in a non-combat environment so that the plane is visible to the air traffic control radars, they put a Luneberg lens on it

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Read carefully and do not show your next illiteracy. This is for people like you, the Grumman EA-6 Proler has 5 × ALQ-99 containers with an output of up to 6,8 kW each, a frequency range from 30 MHz to 18 GHz. You will never get 300 W / MHz - can you calculate ?, I wrote to you how much you can get in the range included in the range of Proler! Finally, you understood about your incorrect example about light bulbs - learn on the go ...

Quote: iosif

And what is the "phasing" for an incoherent noise signal?

Learn the theory of radio signals and phasing techniques, don't forget about the components! You are still trying to "humiliate" the Russian S-400 equipment - this is not given to you, with knowledge from the Internet it is simply impossible ... And learn to answer questions, and not try to dodge!

[Joseph]

I answered you.
Incoherent noise signals add up without phasing.
The concept of phase there is generally meaningless.
And I'm not trying anything
This is your exaggerated expectations.
As if Russian laws of physics are different than for the rest of the world.
And the example with light bulbs is just correct.
And I have a very physical and mathematical education

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! How much can you lie and dodge ?!

Quote: And Vasya.

Do not write in childish language is not real data! Note to you - when adding powers in space, first of all, phasing of signals is necessary, otherwise you will not get effective addition in space and a sufficient signal level.

Where did I tell you in the expression about the addition of interference signals ?! These are your inventions and no more ... You are in your expression

Quote: iosif

Incoherent noise signals add up without phasing.
The concept of phase there is generally meaningless.

disprove the effective addition of power in the equipment of EA-6 Proler! Therefore, it does not apply there!

[Joseph]

Well, since you do not want to admit that the phase of the noise signal does not exist at all and, nevertheless, the intensity of the signal from two sources from more than one, these are not my problems.
But reality is different from your ideas

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! You lie again and cannot calm down! Trying to wriggle out! I didn’t talk about adding noise interference. Take it easy! You said that. Therefore, your addition cannot exceed 35 kW - again you missed. Apparently you do not understand the meaning of Russian words or are you gnawing at a complex ...? Or the inhabitants of the Promised Land are not accustomed to "losing" - the truth is born in a dispute (truth) ... if you think that this is a game - I do not think so! And you do not know my ideas, but only try to guess and are wrong. This is ugly of you.

[Joseph]

Be healthy.
I really don’t understand what you are trying to prove.
They said that noise interference in space does not add up.
And it is taking shape.
They said that it is necessary to cover the range from units to hundreds of megawatts.
But in fact, less.
Good luck to you.
You will not be able to change reality through your efforts.
The reality is that aviation, with proper planning of the funds used for the air offensive operation, can easily pass through any air defense system.
Will she be Russian or Chukhon

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Take it easy and don't write lies! I didn’t speak at all about the noise interference addition. But I realized that you do not know this question at all. Do not attribute to me what I did not say. Read the above carefully and do not write "nonsense" - another opinion, unfounded. And regarding the S-300V4 and S-400 - I did not advise the Israeli Air Force to attack - it will simply end in disaster for Israel and not only. There is no need to hope for something that actually does not exist ...

[Joseph]

I do not command the Israeli Air Force.
And your advice is pointless.
I’m talking about the technical ability of aviation to undergo any air defense.
And this is not a lie, but the truth.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! You can go through any air defense, but with what losses ?! Let Israel try to pass the S-300B4, S-400. Everything will be disastrous for him and not only ... No wonder Netanyahu goes to Russia, and not vice versa ...

[Joseph]

Without losses, you can go, Mr. window in the plasma at the hypersonic apparatus

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! Learn to Count, Mr. Illiteracy! And learn Radar! And read more, maybe you will become more aware, and so your knowledge is outdated and not only ... And do not show your complexes! Stop jumping already!

[Joseph]

Or do they not have carriers for heavy missiles?
If everything is as you say, and it’s impossible to approach the C400 in any way closer than 400 km?

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Are you healthy or do you have complexes !? No need to write articulate and without meaning! I am not conducting a dialogue with you!

[Joseph]

And you can’t say anything.
"Phasing noise interference"
"Window in the plasma created by aerodynamic heating, in which the GOS stands"

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! Can't you still calm down? Then calculate what frequency range will go through the window in the GOS, if the window size is 10 cm ... You have a physical and mathematical education! Weak? It takes quite a bit of time.

[Joseph]

I say - approx.
Not familiar with radar.
Let's say.
The post was lost.
And there was a question.
If everything as you say and it is really impossible to approach the C400 closer than 400 km, then why are Americans creating today a PRR with a range of 160 km, and not for example a heavier one with a range of 450?

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! Write the lie again that you are unfamiliar with radar? Are you also unfamiliar with the SDS (TWS) system? Why then the expression about coherent oscillations? You are completely lying!
About PRR - you need to contact the designers of the United States, not me. After all, I can only assume and make mistakes, according to my knowledge and no more. Moreover, I am not a mentor!

[Joseph]

Suppose not familiar.
And moreover, the selection of moving targets.

Let's get some general definitions to begin with.
The radar detection range in a noise-free environment is the range at which the intensity of the signal reflected from the target exceeds the background noise by an amount sufficient to isolate it.

In the case of deliberate noise interference that is many orders of magnitude higher than background noise, there can be no talk of any detection ranges of 600, 400, etc., usually given in the cell.

And only this can explain that their latest anti-radar missiles are not designed for ranges of hundreds of kilometers.
Due to uselessness.
Light weapons are better than heavy ones.

Another confusion
Noise - Incoherent
Radar Radiation - Coherent
The radar signal reflected from the target and changed due to the Doppler effect is not completely coherent.
It’s not quite coherent and it’s completely clogged with noise.

This is a universal way that works against any radar.
There are others - more complex and not so universal.

Good luck to you.
Tranquility
And, if you really want to understand what is happening in this area, I advise you to read the theory, and not the comments on it, published on the Internet by not quite competent people

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Keep your advice to yourself! And do not advise a person to read a theory if you yourself do not know it. Moreover, not knowing who is in front of you. And it's ugly to lie, again stating:

Quote: iosif

Suppose not familiar.
And moreover, the selection of moving targets.

They could even decipher what SDS (TWS) is ... Contradict yourself! And your expression:

Quote: iosif

In the case of intentional noise interference, many orders of magnitude higher than background noise, about any detection ranges of 600, 400, etc.

It says that your knowledge is very outdated and before you put it, you need to fly and not only ... And what is your expression:

Quote: iosif

And only this can explain that their latest anti-radar missiles are not designed for ranges of hundreds of kilometers.
Due to uselessness.
Light weapons are better than heavy ones.

These statements of yours have no "grounds" ... completely illiterate! This is what I advise you to read the theory, and not prescribe labels for me and write a lie, as if self-gratified:

Quote: iosif

And, if you really want to understand what is happening in this area, I advise you to read the theory, and not the comments on it, published on the Internet by not quite competent people

It was you who showed complete illiteracy, the inability to apply your "knowledge" in practice - and you are trying to advise something to specialists in the field of Radar ... A specialist with a physical and mathematical education (this is about you, in your words) will never be able to show his own meaningful knowledge without working in the field of Radar.
Therefore, teach you Radar - although you don’t need it anymore?
Good luck and peace, and most of all - reassurance!
You, moreover, are not a mentor ...

[Joseph]

Out of date - so out of date.
Good luck

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! The level and value of a specialist is determined by his ability to put his knowledge into practice, otherwise it is just a reader!
Good luck!
Someone comes back - good luck not to see ...

[Joseph]

Many letters that say nothing

[malyvalv]

Eco, you parted here. Proler radio and positioning can and suppress at a great distance. Not 400 km of course but decent. For the S-300 with a change in operating frequencies and interference filtering, such a number will not work. Or you’ll have to put pressure on the whole range, but there will be a competition for someone with more powerful sources. And something tells me that the S-300 they will be more powerful.
And this Proler is such a coveted and bold goal for the S-300 about which any air defense specialist is simply dreaming.

[MrFox]

What nonsense is this? The signal-to-noise ratio is measured in dB, and it can be negative. In a passive radar, for example, they work with a signal to noise ratio of minus 80 dB or more. Negativity only means that the signal power is lower than the interference power.
Decibel - relative unit as opposed to absolute units of dBm and dBV, in which the sensitivity is measured by the way.

[Joseph]

For passive radar and interference is a useful signal
What can not be said about the active.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! As always! Justify.

Quote: iosif

For passive radar and interference is a useful signal
What can not be said about the active.

[Joseph]

I will justify.
Read the theory
As I once read
At least
And do not make me explain the basics to you - for example, signal / noise is measured in decibels

[And Vasya.]

Iosif! You do not know the theory! Do not know the basics of radar! And you confuse the signal-to-noise ratio and the signal-to-noise ratio / reflected signal, or vice versa ... without considering the types of interference. And you do not know the basic equation of radar and do not know how to count! And do not know the types of interference. You have knowledge from the Internet. Therefore, you can not justify your claims.

[And Vasya.]

MrFox (Mr. Fox)!

Quote: And Vasya.

Iosif (Iosif)! Regarding the signal-to-noise ratio, we talked about different things, in the radar parameters, when measuring the sensitivity, the signal-to-noise ratio is taken 1: 1 or 1: 2, greater or less than 1. You mean the ratio of the interference signal / reflected signal, and not signal-to-noise (although with noise interference - the signal-to-noise ratio decreases and can be equal to 1 or less - it makes no sense) In the dispute, we did not touch on the noise of amplifiers, various devices, telecommunication channels, etc. ... where the signal / noise in dB.

Quote: And Vasya.

In decibels, the sensitivity of the receiving path, the antenna gain, and so on, are measured. The sensitivity of the receiving path is real at a signal-to-noise ratio of 2: 1 or extreme - at a signal-to-noise ratio of 1: 1 and do not be silly ...

Read carefully! What are you talking about!
!

Quote: iosif

Under cover of interference, it is detected at a shorter distance.
The signal-to-noise ratio is still negative in decibels, the radar does not detect it.

Moreover, interference is not only noise ... and so on ... The ratio of the interference signal to the reflected signal is correct!

[And Vasya.]

MrFox (Mr. Fox)! Justify!

Quote: MrFox

In a passive radar, for example, they work with a signal to noise ratio of minus 80 dB or more. Negativity only means that the signal power is lower than the interference power.

This does not happen! You apparently confuse the radar parameters? Exceeding the interference signal by a signal of 100000000 times or more is not realistic! Your radar will not work! You are confused with the sensitivity of the receiving path at a signal-to-noise ratio of 1: 1-limiting sensitivity or 2: 1 - real!

[MrFox]

Everything is real. Read what Passive Radar, Passive Coherent Location. It is with such a low signal to noise ratio that it works

[And Vasya.]

MrFox (Mr. Fox)! Give the full name of the radar parameter that you mentioned. Otherwise, it's just chatter and no more ... or your erroneous statement. If this level of interference is placed, the radar cannot work! This is 100 million times the interference signal exceeds the reflected signal - this does not happen in nature!

[MrFox]

Stop trolling. Learn materiel

[And Vasya.]

MrFox (Mr. Fox)! You have shown complete illiteracy in the field of radar! You need to study the materiel! And you can not justify your false statement! And look at the meaning of the word troll - you must first know the meaning of the words, than to express them ...

[And Vasya.]

MrFox! For people like you and Joseph!
P limit = k • T • Nsh • P,
P before = ... to 10 ^ -15. That will come from 80 dB at mr = 1, where mr is the distinguishability coefficient equal to the signal-to-noise ratio = 1. There can be no other! So - you are wrong.

[And Vasya.]

MrFox! For people like you and Joseph!
P limit = k • T • Nsh • P,
P before = ... to 10 ^ 15. That will come from 80 dB at mr = 1, where mr is the distinguishability coefficient, equal to the signal-to-noise ratio = 1. There can be no other! So - you are wrong.

[And Vasya.]

Squishy! I missed the - sign, right 10 ^ -15.

[dirk182]

the astronaut also has overload during take-off, but this does not mean that he performs any maneuvers

[Simferopol]

Cope, and with a margin - the S-400 has super-maneuverable hypersonic missiles

[Joseph]

I love the word “hypersonic“

[Avior]

you follow fashion
Nano is no longer in trend.
this season everyone switched to hyper.

[Simferopol]

Ну так если она действительно гиперзвуковая. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1-400#%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B

Missile defense 48N6E / 48N6 and 48N6E2 / 48N6M - maximum anti-missile speed up to 7560 km / h
Missile defense 48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM - maximum anti-missile speed up to 9000 km / h

In addition, Russia is the only country in the world that possesses not only hypersonic aerodynamic weapons, but also the ability to shoot down

[Joseph]

Well, since they write in newspapers like that even on Wikipedia, it probably is.
It is useless to argue with you.
Surprise, American and Chinese intercontinental missiles also enter the atmosphere at a speed of about 25 M.
And knocking them down is just as difficult as the Russians.
And in Syria it was shown that two missiles of either the Carapace or the Buka are disoriented under the influence of interference and miss on a subsonic target.

[Simferopol]

Quote: iosif

Surprise, American and Chinese intercontinental missiles also enter the atmosphere at a speed of about 25 M

Especially for fools wrote:

In addition, Russia is the only country in the world that has not only hypersonic aerodynamic weapons

But still past the ears

[Joseph]

I got it.
As the missiles of the C400 complex you attributed to this class.
And so, all of these with planning blocks, their effectiveness is doubtful.
For example, anti-ship Zircon.
How will it be induced?
The Space Shuttle, for example, lost touch with the earth after entering the atmosphere.

[Simferopol]

Quote: iosif

How will it be induced?

GOS, of course. Plasma does not transmit radio waves of only certain ranges

[Joseph]

And what range does it miss?

[malyvalv]

I can assume the classic - when the wavelength is 2 times greater than the obstacle.

[Joseph]

Assume further.
But the conductive substance is opaque to radio waves with any wavelength.
Plasma is opaque.
An active radar head on a hypersonic missile will not work.

[malyvalv]

Grounded yes, opaque. Not grounded no. This is the main problem with foil caps. Without grounding, they pass the same signals from aliens.

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! Can you show your knowledge when calculating the wavelength of radio waves that can pass through the homing head with a window in a plasma of 10 cm. Weak?

[And Vasya.]

Iosif (Iosif)! It is not necessary to assume what you do not know ... It was said that they are being induced, then it is so! Your knowledge is outdated. Everything flows and everything changes!

[Joseph]

Yes, induced once said
And the Space Shuttle lost contact when entering the atmosphere

[malyvalv]

Judging by the video, the shell was not struck by the rocket that recorded the video. So there a whole bunch of missiles attacked at the same time. It is not a fact that the missiles of the Shell, missed precisely for this purpose, were disoriented. Maybe it’s just that for other real purposes, the Shell was thrashed.

[Joseph]

There is no such thing there.
About the "pack of missiles" these are only assumptions.

[malyvalv]

As well as the fact that the Shell missed as many as 2 times, too, assumptions.

[Joseph]

I see two rockets launched from below.
I see one missile flying directly at the target firing those missiles.
And I suppose that the video from the second rocket, also flying on the same target, is shown.
The first rocket hits, the object with the camera also ends its video at the point of impact of the rocket.
And if one radio command missile is disoriented due to interference from the command channel, all missiles will be disoriented.
I repeat - the Swedes abandoned the BAMSE domestic complex with radio command missiles similar to Shell shells in favor of the German short-range complex.
Due to the low noise immunity of BAMSE

[malyvalv]

What is the problem with the Swedes, I do not know. These are their problems. If the source of the interference is the attacking rocket itself, then it is deliberately weak to withstand commands from a much more powerful shell emitter. If this is external interference from a remote source, then the rocket from the Shell would generally not fly towards the attacking rocket. But in order to put such interference it is necessary that something powerful be near a type of aircraft. What was not. It is also not so simple to set up interference in such a way as to drown out an interference-protected channel.

[Joseph]

Until it shoots, it is not a problem for anyone.
But not Syrian victorious reports, but real fragments of ammunition shot down by the Syrians, did someone demonstrate?
Territory Well them?
Could show
One faulty Tomahawk struck his belly on the ground and remained there.
It was demonstrated by adding that they shot down either 50 or 70 or 120.
Are there debris somewhere?
According to information published by the Israeli Air Force, they did not particularly hunt for the Carapace.
And the last video is the publication of his destruction in response to an attempt to counter the shell.
So does the Shell have no problems at all?

[malyvalv]

Well, the information of the Israeli Air Force has always been distinguished by exceptional honesty and truthfulness. Since they said so, it is.
But the pictures of the airdrome according to which, according to information from the most honest media, 60 tomahawks flashed and also the pictures of one destroyed building into which, according to the same information, as many as 30 tomahawks got hinted.
Maybe it was about some sort of microtomahawks? Well, in order to reduce the EPR, for example, maybe they were made so completely toy-like?

[Joseph]

And the Israeli military doesn’t need to annoy anyone.
If they did not have technological superiority in this hostile environment, they would be crushed by the number

[malyvalv]

The Israeli military must first and foremost deceive the Israelis themselves. Like all the rules, we won’t be defeated by quantity because we have technology. In general, we are cool.
But the Arabs do not stand still either. It is known that a warring army always has an advantage over a non-warring one. The civil war in Syria has seriously raised the level of command and control of the Arabs. Just look at how ISIS fought. But these are the same Arabs.

[Joseph]

I have a rather cynical attitude towards everything.
Israel arranges for the civil war in Syria to last as long as possible.
And in Israel, a rather expensive life due to the maintenance of a large and high-tech army.
Not everything can be perfect.
But, information about air attacks in Syria began to be published only after the collapse of the Il20 in response to a stream of sometimes very funny tales.
Prior to that, neither truth nor untruth was published.
Syria was bombed by aircraft of an unknown country.
Maybe Liechtenstein.
General Benny Gantz, a competitor for the upcoming elections of the incumbent prime minister, reproaches Nataniaga for these "reality shows".
Unnecessary, in his opinion.

[malyvalv]

Of course, the Israeli civil war in Syria suits. Because after finishing the internal squabbles and recovering Arabs will begin to remember what is Israel? So your Beni is a very intelligent person.

[Joseph]

None of the politicians speaks about this aloud.
Beni Ganz only said that it was unacceptable to make a reality show out of military operations for election purposes.
The usual practice of the Israeli military is not to publish anything at all.
I mentioned this in response to your remark about the "truthfulness" of the Israeli statements.
They do not publish the truth.
And a lie too.
The publication of the destruction of the Shell was more, in my opinion, a signal to Russia that Israel was quite capable of making anti-advertising Russian SAMs.
In response to not quite friendly then actions of Russia.
Another signal at that time was the visit of the Minister of Defense to Georgia. Military technical cooperation with which ended in early 2008 at the request of Russia

[malyvalv]

Trying to make anti-advertising by Russian air defense systems there is a strong risk of making anti-advertising to American aircraft. Therefore, Israel is acting very carefully and very thoughtfully. But no matter how much rope you curl ......
And the signals in the form of a trip to Georgia may be the answer in the form of Shoigu's trip to Iran. Russia has more than enough leverage for influencing Israel and much more than Israel leverage over Russia. Israel should not run up and try to resist Russia while it is kind.

[Joseph]

No
Not therefore.
Both have pressure arms on each other
But for some reason, after the destruction of the Shell for the second time, the Russian deputy foreign minister suddenly began to say how important the security of Israel is to them.
And Iran is not an ally at all, but a situational partner.
There is no danger to American aircraft.
Even when they killed people from the Wagner PMC, chasing each Apache and AC130 for 4-6 hours, Russian fighters sat peacefully at their base Hmeimim.
You overestimate the capabilities of Russia.
And much

[malyvalv]

Well, suppose that the Deputy Foreign Minister did not say anything new. This has been said repeatedly before. And the destruction of the Shell is not a reason to change anything. Here the destruction of the IL was an occasion and much has changed.
In the case of Wagner, not everything is clear there. It is only clear that even if we assume that the version with the death of many of our mercenaries there is correct, then it was the jamb of our command in Syria, which itself gave the go-ahead to the destruction of the group, telling the Americans that there were no Russians there.
And the matter is not in the capabilities of Russia. There are just no problems with this. We often have problems with political will.

[Joseph]

Political will
If they decide to really block the skies of Syria for Israel and do not create a fighter aviation group comparable to all of Israel’s aviation, they just poke a few extra batteries, we’ll have to agree.
Which is happening now.

[malyvalv]

If it comes to closing the sky, then the sky will be closed over Israel and not over Syria. And for this, Russia has more than enough funds. The best air defense is the supersonic Syrian caliber destroying enemy aircraft on earth. As the next step after the supply of S-300. Well, if it does not reach the Israelites, then what should I do?

[Joseph]

There is a joke about a Caucasian in Cherkessk with a dagger behind his belt, placed in a knee elbow pose and over which some sexual actions are carried out.
It turns out he has a dagger.
Half of the calibers from the Caspian Sea hit the road

[malyvalv]

The main thing to believe.

[Joseph]

I believe what they say.
That the Russian-speaking Israeli dating site is full of Russian women who want to get married in Israel and thus escape from poverty.
For them, these rockets are definitely "not the best gift for the New Year."
And Russia is seen in noisy advertising presentations of non-existent weapons.
Armata is a company in an attempt to attract a foreign investor in the hope of saving Uralvagonzavod from bankruptcy.
SU57 - his presentation in Syria probably did not impress the Indians.

Distinction
The recently declassified Perakh missile tank in Israel, which allows one to destroy an entire tank company alone, while remaining outside the line of sight for its own purposes.

I believe that all of these presented by Putin weapons exist.
Just explain how Zircon will be aimed at the enemy ship

[malyvalv]

On Russian-speaking dating sites in Russia there are many more women who want to get married. Do they want to stay in poverty? No, they just want to get married. Why there are also many Russian women on Israeli sites because there many know Russian and it is easier to establish contacts. Jews in Israel, of course, live well due to the exploitation of Arabs, but you have to pay for this with a hectic life.

An attempt to attract a foreign investor to a key defense enterprise in Russia - I have never seen more delirium. In the 90s there were certainly purchases of defense assets with a view to their subsequent ruin, sometimes even successful ones, but now we are not in the 90s.
Hindus are generally very difficult to impress with anything. The French and Americans are also not very impressive. They want not just SU-57, but technologies that are not cheap.

With missile tanks dabbled a lot in the USSR. They recognized the projects as stupid. The volley of hail also destroys a tank company. And actually, why do missiles have tank armor if they are not on the line of fire? Jews clearly drive hutspu.

No one knows exactly how Zircon will be induced, but there are a lot of options. Now to direct a rocket into a ship is not a problem at all. A ship is not a swirling missile. Moreover, from the point of view of the speed of hypersonic Zircon, the ship will be an almost motionless target. Dipoles and aerosols will not save.

[Joseph]

Back in 1973, in the Doomsday War, not one of the 54 anti-ship missiles launched hit the Israeli ship
This is for you how "easy" to get into it.

[malyvalv]

In the Falkland War, the Argentine Exocetes missed if the English ship set up dipoles and aerosols. Then it saved. Now there is no. Now rockets have their own means of calculation. The missile will still go to the target without turning to interference on a route calculated in advance, given the course and speed of the target. An example of 73 years with nothing.

[Joseph]

Especially if you shoot hundreds of miles

[Joseph]

Back in the Yom Kippur War, not one of the 54 anti-ship missiles launched hit the Israeli ship.

A volley of hail cannot even temporarily deprive a tank company of combat readiness.
According to PSiOu for this you need to shoot 3000 shells of caliber 152 mm each weighing about 45 kg.
The tank Perakh does not suppress, but destroys 12 tanks from a closed position.
And neither in the Soviet Union, nor in Russia there were and were no anti-tank missiles comparable to Spike.
Soviet missile tanks could not shoot from closed positions

[malyvalv]

In the war in the Donbass, it was well demonstrated what a Volley volley with a tank company could do. Not at all a temporary deprivation of combat capability. Thermobaric ammunition is no joke.
The Israelis can and should shoot 3000 shells of 152 mm caliber. We now have one Coalition guided projectile - one tank. Of course from a closed position. Rate of fire 10-12 rounds per minute. How long does it take to destroy a tank company? Only the Coalition is an SPG and not a tank. Thinking of stuffing a rocket launcher into tank armor is lol. Jews are no longer a cake.
In the USSR, the first ATGMs Baby flew with wires like Spike. But it was expensive and limited range and did laser guidance. At Spike, these minuses also remained. And the tanks have to defend themselves against laser guidance, which from the visual, including thermal, like Spike and Javelin have something to do.

[Joseph]

I have to stop going to this site where people think that Spike and Baby are rockets comparable in capabilities, that with a barbaric ammunition you can damage a tank that has an ionic filtering system and internal overpressure.
And they, not knowing the principle of operation of the GOS missile, still claim that it is easy to get into the ship from a distance of 1000 km.
And they explain to me that now there are improved algorithms for processing the signal given by this unknown GOS.
They do not know what PSiOU is, and claim that Krasnopol shells fire at a rate of 10-12 rounds per minute.

[Joseph]

But, in fact, according to the PSiOU, at least 30 Grad battery shots are needed to suppress - temporarily deprive a tank company of combat effectiveness - this is 7200 shells.
Or 3000 caliber 152 mm
No, you can shoot with the western 155 mm Bonuses, in each of which there are two self-aiming combat elements.
And with a rate of not 10-12, but "only" 6-10 rounds per minute.
And no backlight needed

And the Indians refused the second batch of Krasnopolyanskaya.
When they carried out control firing and revealed low reliability of the shells in the first.

[turbris]

And that our S-400 is already working on the air-to-ground missile launcher and missile defense system? What is this nonsense, with such an EPR? It is designed to destroy the carriers of these weapons, and for the destruction of such missiles in flight, the possibilities are limited, unless the "Pantsir" will work, and even then, if it detects such missiles in time. There is no need to invent tasks for the S-400 that it was not intended for. As for the new AARGM-ER / SLAARGM missile, you can say anything you want, but to put it into practice is much more difficult, while we declare that there is

[Simferopol]

According to the portal www.reddit.com, which refers to open sources in the Pentagon, the speed of the promising “heiress” of the HARM can reach 5370 km / h (1491 m / s) at the time of burning out a solid fuel charge of a multi-mode pulsed solid propellant solid propellant rocket engine (on the ascending branch of the trajectory). At this stage of the flight, it cannot be intercepted by means of the S-300PS air defense system

In service with Russia there was no S-300 version of the PS. The most minimal versions are the S-300 PM-1 and S-300V. All S-300 PS have been upgraded to version PM-1

[Tektor]

As a result, the standard ammunition of the S-300PM1 and S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems with 48N6E / 48N6DM missile interceptors may not be able to cope with the AGM-88G, because to destroy a target with overloads of about 30G the anti-missile must maneuver with an overload of about 60 units In this case, the latest S-350 Vityaz air defense systems are capable of saving the situation, armed with a highly maneuverable 9M96DM SAM with gas-dynamic transverse control engines.

The S-400 kit includes 9M100 missiles, which are needed just in case of counteraction to HARMs.

[Nikolaevich I]

Well, here ... ash-tree stump! Not only the "future", but also the "present" (should be, at least ...) SAM is the "universal" equipment of anti-aircraft ammunition with blocks of impulse missile (or BG ...) micromotors! ... ("super maneuverability mode" "...). Moreover, such a mode should be possessed not only by medium, long-range zoos, but also short-range, short-range zoos ... for example, "Pantsir" zoos - for sure! (As I mentioned earlier ...). The Russian RCIC technology (impulse correction) was also used in the development of such small-caliber ammunition as 57-80 mm missiles of the "Threat" complex ... There have already been reports of the imminent entry into service of the Pantsir air defense system of small-caliber zur (anti-aircraft "nails" .. .) in a caliber of approximately 57 mm ... Well, it is clear that we need to try to make 57-mm zurs with the "super-maneuverability (impulse correction ...) mode and not only" small-caliber "ones ... This is the 1st" feature. "! 2nd" trick "is the improvement of warheads (warheads) in order to form a fragmentation flow exactly towards the target with the inclusion of 100% of the fragments in the flow. 3rd" trick "is the use of a two-stage scheme ... Moreover, the first (starting ) the stage can be equipped with a ramjet engine, and the second (marching) stage-solid propellant rocket engine on detonation-capable rocket fuel, as a result of which the solid propellant rocket can "work" both as a warhead (main or additional ...) ... or a warhead "to work" as a solid propellant. .. (However, I already wrote about all this ...) I also wrote that modern air defense systems should have "built-in yu "self-defense system (a kind, KAZ air defense missile system ...) To protect the air defense system from anti-missile missiles, it is also possible to use" compact "short-range air defense systems, but" integrated "into the air defense system ... preferably, having a guidance system as compatible as possible with the control system "main" air defense system.
It is necessary to introduce "revolutionary innovations" into the radar systems of modern air defense systems ... For example, radars (antenna arrays) integrated into "heavy" multicopters (helicopters) ... unmanned aerial vehicles with a cable. There may be other solutions, which are modifications of the previous options ... but about that, maybe another time ... otherwise the "volume" of the comment will turn out to be too large ...

[Prahlad]

Against such missiles, the most effective are false targets simulators. The main thing is to rivet them more. Then quickly and secretly break through the air defense will not work.

[Joseph]

It will come out to break through the air defense without loss if the air defense is equipped with radar radiation simulators.
Anti-radar missiles are not the only means of influencing air defense.
The only question is the ratio of funds between the attacking and the defending sides.
If the air defense is well explored and the right amount of means of influence is involved, the aircraft undergoes air defense without loss.

[The seventh]

Yes, it seems that ground-based air defense degenerates into a banal rudimentary atavizm! Well, as they say - Amen! The Era is coming .. PACK - s air defense ...) ..

[certero]

If you let the adversaries shoot rockets as much as they want, not a single C 400 or 500 will help.
The example of Syria illustrates well that an attack will always defeat a defense. Therefore, first calibers and iskander should fly to enemy airfields, and then C400 on carriers. Yes, and drying should take part
.

[Robin - Bobbin]

VO is increasingly turning into a science fiction site.