Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions

One of the graphic examples of the opposition of the sword and shield can be considered the countermeasures of air attack (IOS) and anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM). From the very beginning of the appearance of air defense systems, they began to pose a huge threat to combat aviation, forcing the planes first to climb as high as possible into the sky, and then cuddle against the ground.

To counter the air defense missile system, specialized aviation munitions such as radar-guided missiles, radar stations were developed, electronic warfare systems (EW) were improved, and finally, combat aircraft and aircraft munitions were created using stealth technology that allowed reduce the range of their detection.

One of the most effective ways to counter air defense missile systems is to exceed its capabilities to intercept air targets. The limitation can be the maximum number of targets simultaneously detected and tracked by the radar, the limitation of the number of guidance channels for anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM), or the limitation of the number of SAM itself in ammunition.

Enhancing the stability of air defense is carried out by creating a layered defense, including complexes of large, medium and short / short range. In view of the fact that the boundaries of short-range / short-range complexes are currently blurred, in the following we will say short-range.

In Russia at the present time is S400 SAM "Triumph" / C-300V4 long-range air defense missile system S350 "Knight" / BUK-M3 medium-range and ZRPK / SAM Carapace-S1 / S2 / Thor-M1 / M2 short range .

Long-range air defense missile system C-400, medium-range C-350, short-range Pantsir-C1

Tasks of different range

The priority task of long-range air defense systems is the destruction of strategic aviation aircraft, tanker aircraft, long-range radar detection aircraft (DRLO), reconnaissance and targeting aircraft of the E-8 Joint STARS type, EW aircraft at the maximum distance from the protected object. Also the priority objectives of long-range air defense systems are operational tactical missiles (OTRK) and cruise missiles (KR).

For medium-range air defense systems, the priority is to destroy tactical aircraft, if possible before launching air-to-ground weapons (air), as well as fired aviation weapons, which represent the greatest threat to the defended object.

Finally, the short-range air defense system’s priority task is to protect the object being defended and its “senior brethren” against destruction by broken aviation weapons.

All this distribution of roles does not imply that the long-range air defense system cannot knock down a planning bomb, and the short-range air defense system should not work on airplanes. The meaning of the division of areas of responsibility is that the enemy does not exhaust the limited ammunition of the long-range air defense system with false targets or the massive use of inexpensive, high-precision ammunition.

The priority targets for long-range air defense missile systems are the E-3 "Sentry" DRLO aircraft, the E-8 "Joint STARS" combat command and control aircraft, the B-1B "Lancer", and the B-2 "Spirit" bombers.

Aviation in air defense

Another means of countering the enemy’s aviation are EW weapons, but they will have to be bracketed for now, since the effectiveness of this weapon against the enemy's EI is not known. Considering that enemy aircraft also use EW facilities to counter the air defense of the attacked object, we will assume that their action has approximately equal effectiveness for both sides.

The main advantage of aviation is the highest mobility, allowing flexible concentration of existing forces to attack an object. Air defense complexes do not have such flexibility. An aircraft that has exhausted its ammunition may return to a remote base, and the air defense system, at best, can be moved to another position, since its mobility is limited by the speed of vehicles and the need to cover a certain object.

The main problem of air defense is that, using low visibility, EW facilities, low flight profile and terrain features, the enemy can reach the line of launching / dropping precision-guided munitions in an amount that with a high probability will overwhelm the capabilities of even echeloned air defense.

One US Air Force F-15 fighter can carry an 28 GBU-53B / SDB II guided bombs (UAB) on seven beam holders of the BRU-61 / A type

The United States and other NATO countries are constantly increasing their range of assets to break through enemy air defenses. Considering that only Russia and China have powerful echeloned anti-aircraft defense from potential adversaries, it is not difficult to guess against whom all these preparations are being made.

The low-profile F-35 fighter can carry in the 8 internal compartments of the air-to-surface SPEAR compact missiles of MBDA

Eurofighter Typhoon fighter can carry MBDA SPEAR 16 missiles

UAV and false targets for a breakthrough

One of the promising areas of air defense breakthroughs is the joint use of manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This significantly reduces the risks for pilots, leaving them the role of coordinators of hostilities. In turn, UAVs may have smaller sizes and smaller visibility than a manned aircraft, and, consequently, greater survivability in confrontation with enemy air defense.

In the framework of the program Gremlinssold by DARPA, a transport plane or a strategic bomber will be able to produce dozens of small-sized reusable UAVs to break through enemy air defenses. In turn, the Gremlin UAVs can be equipped with even smaller-sized guided munitions, for example, JAGM missiles with a multimode homing head (GOS) and a range of 16-28 km.

Image of the launch of the Gremlin UAV from a transport aircraft and the actual testing of prototypes

To increase the likelihood of an air defense breakthrough and reduce the enemy’s own losses, false targets will be used, for example, such as the MALD rocket, capable of simulating 140 radar signatures of US and NATO types of aircraft, as well as jamming the enemy’s radar detection and targeting. The carriers of the MALD rocket are almost all attack aircraft of the USAF.

MALD combat aircraft missile simulator

Presentation of the air defense breakthrough using MALD missiles

The problem of insufficient ammunition

Although the capabilities of long-range and medium-range radars can detect hundreds of targets, they can simultaneously fire at the same time the order of 10-20 targets (for one complex). It is possible to increase the intensity of target firing by using missiles with an active radar homing head (ARGSN), however, the development of missiles of this type in Russia has been delayed, and only recently has reached the finish line. Also, the cost of missiles with ARGSN is higher than that of semi-active-guided missiles, and potentially less resistance to EW facilities.

The number of missiles on launchers (PU) is also limited. At the same time, after the exhaustion of the ammunition, the air defense system becomes useless for a long time, and will restore its combat readiness in the time of the order of 1 hours, provided that spare ammunition is available (there are transport loading machines).


Recharging C-400 "Triumph"

The developers are trying to solve the problem of increasing the ammunition, for example, the new Vityaz C-350 medium-range air defense missile system has an ammunition capacity increased several times in comparison with the C-300PM and BUK-M2 / M3 complexes, which it should replace. Another way to increase the ammunition of long and medium range complexes is to place several missiles (up to four) of smaller range in the transport and launch container (TPC). However, this proportionally reduces the number of long-range and medium-range missiles, turning the air defense system into an essentially short-range complex.

SAM 9М96 with ARGSN and SAM 9М100 thermal guidance on the final segment, quadrant TPK in the background ZUR 9М100 - is installed instead of one “big” TPK for С-400 SAM

Thus, despite the fact that the main striking force of the air defense system is a large and medium-range air defense system, limiting their capabilities in terms of ammunition and the number of guidance channels, shows the importance of short-range air defense systems as a means to counteract attacking enemy ammunition.

The capabilities of domestic short-range air defense systems

What are the capabilities of Russian short-range air defense systems? At present, there are two modern short-range air defense complexes in Russia, these are the Tor-М1 / М2 air defense systems and the Artillery-С1 / С2 air defense systems.

The ammunition of the Tor-М1 / М2 SAMs are, respectively, 8 / 16 missiles and about the prospects for its increase has not yet been heard.

Tor-M2

Ammunition ZRPK Pantsir-С1 / С2 is 12 SAM and 1400 shells caliber 30 mm for two twin anti-aircraft guns 2А38М. As shown by the test results and real use of Zrpk Pantsir-S in hostilities, the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns can be questioned, at least until the appearance of guided 30 mm ammunition, or at least shells with a remote detonation on the trajectory.

Thus, the ammunition of the two ZRPK Pantsir-С1 / С2 is less than the ammunition of one F-15E fighter armed with UAB SDB II, and the ammunition of one Tor-M2 SAM is comparable to the ammunition of the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter armed with MBDA SPEAR missiles. If we consider that the destruction of dangerous or complex targets may require two missiles at the same time, the situation worsens even more.

The disadvantages of the Tor-М1 / М2 air defense system and the Artillery СХNUMX / С1 air defense missile system can also be attributed to the fact that their missiles require control throughout the entire flight, and the number of simultaneously fireable airborne targets is limited to three for the air defense system Artillery-C2 and four for the air defense system Tor-МXNUM . At the same time, simultaneously fired targets must be in the field of view of the guidance radar, i.e. impossible simultaneous work on targets attacking from different directions.

Problem Solving Options

How can I increase the performance of air defense? Entering additional launchers with a large number of short-range missiles into the long-range and medium-range air defense missile systems does not make sense, since the air defense system’s performance will still be limited by the number of channels simultaneously targeting missiles to the target. The dependence on the number of channels of guidance can be reduced by rockets with ARGSN and thermal ghosts that do not require control throughout the flight, but their cost in many cases will significantly exceed the cost of the targets hit.

The problem of exhausting the ammunition of the air defense missile system can be solved by promising short-range air defense systems based on powerful lasersWith conditionally infinite ammunition. However, their ability to repel a massive attack is limited by the need to hold the beam on the target, for 5-15 seconds, necessary for its defeat. In addition, apart from the mysterious “Peresvet” complex, in Russia there is no information about the development of anti-aircraft laser systems, therefore, it is impossible to predict their effectiveness as part of Russian air defense.

Thus, we return to short-range air defense missile systems, the cost of which their missiles should be significantly less than the cost of missiles for long-range and medium-range air defense systems.

The problem of air defense breakthroughs by exceeding its ability to intercept targets is known to the Russian armed forces and defense enterprises, and work is underway to solve it.

In particular, the development of the upgraded Pantsir-SM ZRK / ZRPK is currently nearing completion. The double designation of the air defense missile system / ZRPK is indicated because two versions of the complex, with missile-gun armament - anti-aircraft missile system, and only with rocket weapons - air defense system are supposed to be implemented.

Given the low effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns, a purely rocket version of the Pantsir-SM SAM system is of greater interest.

Estimated appearance of the Pantsir-SM SAM

Due to the refusal of cannon armament, the ammunition missile system in the Pantsir-SM SAM system can be increased to 24 units. Presumably, the Pantsir-SM SAM / ZRPK will receive a radar with an active phased array antenna (AFAR), but it is not yet clear whether AFAR will be used only in the preliminary detection radar, or in the guidance and tracking radar. In the second case, the capabilities of the complex for simultaneous shelling of several targets should increase substantially. In this and in another case, while maintaining the current configuration of the complex, the problem of a limited view of the guidance and tracking radar remains. The target detection range should increase from 36 to 75 km.

The defeat range should increase from 20 km at Pantsir-S to 40 km at Pantsir-SM, the maximum speed of the missile defense will be 1700-2300 m / s, h (5-7М). Also Pantsir-SM will be able to hit targets moving along a ballistic trajectory.

Another way to increase the ammunition of the air defense missile system, as mentioned earlier, is to place several short-range missiles in one container. Considering that the Pantsir-С1 / С2 / СМ air defense system is a short-range complex, but in the last modification it will be closer in characteristics to medium-range complexes, the appearance of such missiles on it is more than justified.

For the Pantsir-SM complex (and possibly for the Pantsir-С1 / С2 complexes) a small-sized high-maneuverable missiles are being developed, which received the unofficial name “Nail”. This rocket is designed to destroy UAVs, mortar mines, guided and unguided ammunition. Compact dimensions allow you to place this missile in the amount of four units in one TPK. Thus, when armed with the Gvozdi missiles alone, the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system can be up to 96 missiles.

Layout of short-range missiles "Nail", placed on 4 missiles in one standard TPK ZRK Pantsir-SM

The rockets of the existing Pantsir-С1 / С2 complex are made according to a bicalyber scheme, the upper stage engine is located in a detachable first stage. After the completion of dispersal and separation of the first stage, the second - combat stage flies by inertia. On the one hand, it reduces the speed and maneuverability characteristics of the rocket with increasing altitude and range, on the other hand, it is possible that the enemy will have problems with detecting the second stage of the anti-aircraft missile system of the Armor-S1 / C2 rocket attack warning systems that operate on the principle of infrared detection (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) radiation from a rocket engine. It is quite possible that the AN / AAQ-37 system of the inconspicuous F-35 fighter will not be able to track the second stage of the Panzir-С1 / С2 missiles after the separation of the first stage.

It is unclear whether the scheme of the Pantsir-SM missiles will change, it is possible that in order to get an increased range of fire up to 40 km, the second stage will also be equipped with an engine. If not, then the advantage of a surprise attack can be retained for Pantsir-SM. At least, based on the appearance of the small-sized Zur "Nail", it can be assumed that there is no engine in the second stage.

The estimated appearance of the air defense missile system / air defense missile system Pantsir-SM probably speaks about one more feature of this complex. On the images there is a rocket-gun version with a surveillance radar and a missile version with increased ammunition without a surveillance radar.

Image of the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system with a surveillance radar and a Pantsir-SM air defense missile system without a surveillance radar

The cost of the survey radar, especially if it is made on the basis of AFAR, should be a significant amount, which is a significant part of the cost of the air defense missile system. Accordingly, developers can implement several variants of the complex - with and without a surveillance radar, and most likely this is possible, both for the air defense system and for the ZRPK. In this case, short-range complexes should operate in a group like long- and medium-range air defense systems.

For example, in a group of four Pantsir-SM cars, only one is equipped with a surveillance radar. The capabilities of the radar with AFAR will allow you to track far more goals than can be processed by one of the air defense systems, especially given the remaining restrictions on the sector of the radar guidance guidance. In this case, the air defense system with a surveillance radar gives target designation to other vehicles that provide tracking and hitting targets. In addition, the Pantsir-SM SAM / ZRPK without surveillance radars themselves are able to search for targets with their own optical-location station (OLS).

A group of four cars will be able to repel an attack of air attacks simultaneously from all directions, or concentrate fire on the most threatened site. Four Pantsir-SM SAMs with missile weapons alone can carry a total of 48 missiles with a 40 km firing range and 192 Gvo missiles with an estimated 10-15 km missile. The combination of 240 ground-to-air missiles and a large number of targeting channels will allow the four Pantsir-SM air defense systems to repel the enemy’s massive fire attack, for example, a link from four F-15E fighter-bombers with UAB GBU-28B 53 on each or eight salvo of eight jet systems M270 MLRS.

Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that the adoption of the Vityaz C-350 medium-range air defense missile system with the 9М96 and 9М100 SAM systems, as well as the completion of the Panzir-SM SAM / Air defense missile system (especially in the purely missile version) with the 40 km missile and small tables. Zur "Nail", will give a fundamentally new capabilities of the Russian air defense to repel massive enemy air strikes.

It remains a "dark horse" projected long-range air defense system C-500 "Prometheus", and one can only guess what opportunities it will provide the Russian air defense.

This material does not mention the interaction of the air defense missile system and combat aviation in the framework of solving the tasks of air defense, but we'll talk about this in the next article.

Comments

[Lopatov]

The author proposes some purely extensive way of solving the problem of "DDoS attacks" on the air defense system.
After all, if you approach it sensibly, you should not start with an increase in the number of missiles on a launcher and a complete transition to the "fire and forget" principle.

We must start with the improvement of the detection system. In order to ensure the selection of false targets.
Then - improving the air defense group management system. Including in terms of the ability to act in conditions of tough electronic countermeasures.
Then the increase in the probability of hitting a target with a rocket.

Well, only then think about the extensive.

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: Spade

it is not necessary to start with an increase in the number of missiles on a launcher and a complete transition to the "fire and forget" principle

This is the uniqueness of the S-350 Vityaz. According to the TTX designers of this complex, he decides without a man where the most threatening targets are, calculates and hits them himself or with the help of other air defense systems working with him, integrated into one system with him defense.And if we take for truth the unification of the promising naval air defense system Polyment Redut with the S-350 Vityaz mobile air defense system of medium radius, then a missile based on 40N6 ammunition is already being developed for it that allows for intercepting targets at ranges up to 400 km. udet things are not so bad.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Mar. Tira

According to the design characteristics of this complex, voiced by the designers, he decides without a person where the most threatening goals are, calculates and impresses

This is air defense. System. There, individual complexes, even the super-duper, are not quoted. A large system works. Consisting of detection tools, from AWACS to observers, ground-based anti-aircraft systems, an aircraft component and a control system that combines all this.

[Vita vko]

Quote: Spade

You need to start with improving the detection system. In order to ensure the selection of false targets

I, too, have always been struck by the self-confidence of specialists in fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft missile forces. One gets the feeling that their self-confidence in organizing combat work in a simple jamming environment is on the verge of criminal self-confidence, and this is without taking into account the huge range of modern anti-radar missiles.
The fact that active radar has long been unable to cope with the tasks of guaranteed and timely detection of targets became clear even during the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia and Iraq, but unfortunately since that time, the only positive shift has become only organizational measures to attach electronic warfare units to air defense units. From a technical point of view, the creation of the radar station is still based on old technological principles. And this is despite the presence of relatively simple and effective developments that make it possible to create a hidden anti-jamming radar field. One gets the feeling that officials from the Research Institute and the Defense Ministry deliberately leave critical vulnerabilities in the air defense and aerospace defense systems, and concentrate all their attention on projects ruinous for the state aimed at increasing missiles, firing channels, "new generation" offensive weapons, etc. the main thing that would be more and more expensive.

[SETSET]

Quote: Vita VKO

And this despite the presence of relatively simple and effective developments that allow you to create a hidden noise-resistant radar field.

What is this? This does not happen in nature and radar.

[Vita vko]

Quote: SETSET

What is this? This does not happen in nature and radar.

This radar method is protected by an open patent for an invention, received a gold medal at the interuniversity competition of the Russian Federation, etc. http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2240576

[SETSET]

Vita VKO, that such a noise-resistant field is not a correct expression, does not happen in nature.

[Vita vko]

Quote: SETSET

noise field

this is when with an increase in the number and power of various radiation sources, the detection range of targets increases. Radiation sources are also understood as jammers.

[Tony]

Vita VKO (Vitaliy). Contradict yourself!

[lucul]

We must start with the improvement of the detection system. In order to ensure the selection of false targets.

Everything is simple here - either a satellite or a detection aircraft (A-50) or to develop a new drone (s) that can hang in the air for a long time, continuously replacing each other.
That is, the higher we hang (within the atmosphere of course) - the farther and more reliably we see. The main difficulty is continuously in the air.

[Lopatov]

Quote: lucul

Everything is simple here - either a satellite or a detection aircraft (A-50)

Everything is a bit wrong here. The more data about the target you receive, the higher the probability of identifying false.
Because it is simply impossible to create a false one with absolutely the same parameters. Even if it will be a UAV based on a real aircraft, it will be possible to calculate it by, let's say, "behavior"

That is, we are talking about, let's say, the maximum increase in "ranges". Moreover, as correctly noted above, in conditions of tough opposition from the enemy.

[lucul]

The more data about the target you receive, the higher the probability of identifying a false

The question is, first of all, in general about finding a target.
First of all, cruise missiles will fly around the terrain, and even planes with missiles / bombs - this is the second tier. And if cruise missiles destroy your air defense, then the selection of false targets will be completely useless to you))

[alstr]

And for this it is necessary to create spatial radars (or as they are called there, which operate in the light. That is, in fact, a controlled field is created from many signal sources - the same cellular communication - and the situation is controlled by changing this field).

[Fan-fan]

This is all good, but where to get the money for it? Where to get the specialists who will design and create this?

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Quote: lucul

The more data about the target you receive, the higher the probability of identifying a false

The question is, first of all, in general about finding a target.
First of all, cruise missiles will fly around the terrain, and even planes with missiles / bombs - this is the second tier. And if cruise missiles destroy your air defense, then the selection of false targets will be completely useless to you))

***
I believe that tactically the side of the attack can work like this:
1st wave: satellite, ground, sea and air reconnaissance and guidance devices long before the operation (with a view to developing it), at the beginning and during its maintenance, and at the end (to determine effectiveness);
2nd wave: in addition to the work of forces and means of the 1st wave, - electronic warfare and blende to deplete the ammunition of the air defense system;
3rd wave: in addition to the work of forces of the 1st and 2nd waves, - cruise and other missiles planning anti-radar bombs and anti-missile defense;
4th wave: in addition to the work of the forces of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd waves, there are airplanes, helicopters, cruise missiles, missiles and planning bombs for specific finishing off according to the results of evaluating the effectiveness of the 3rd wave.
The attacker has much more ways to detect stationary air defense objects, depletion of air defense, a much larger selection of weapons, tactical techniques. It seems to me...
I would like to listen to air defense officers, maybe I'm wrong.

[scientist]

Quote: Lieutenant Colonel of the USSRF Air Force in reserve

I would like to hear air defense officers

Hacking of the air defense system occurs cyclically, reconnaissance-assessment of the situation-electronic suppression-infliction of fire damage, then everything is repeated until information is received that the enemy has practically no air defense means. Only after this does a massive attack begin directly on defensive targets. Massive strikes are also planned, echeloned with additional reconnaissance of targets and cover from suddenly appeared unfinished air defense systems. If we talk about time, the enemy takes up to 30 minutes to break into an air defense system, and only a few hours to deliver strikes. For example, in Yugoslavia, the combat cycle from the detection of a target such as an air defense missile system or a radar station to its destruction was up to 20 minutes. This is usually done without the aircraft entering the affected area or detection. Now the time has probably been reduced by 2 times. Those. If we talk about the stability of a modern air defense system, then it should be understood that with a "one-sided game" its survivability will be at best no more than a couple of hours, and it does not matter which ultra-modern air defense system will be in service.

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Thanks for the comprehensive answer!

[sivuch]

I do not think that the experience of the Yugoslav air defense can be projected to the present. Even for the year 99, it was 90 if not more percent obsolete, especially in terms of ACS. But even with such an absolutely terrible inequality, the losses in the radar and air defense systems were relatively low.
Yes, one more clarification. Such conditions as in Serbia or the Iraqi region are far from always - in both cases it was possible to prepare for democratization within a few months without any opposition from the enemy. But when there are floating bridges over the Suez Canal and they need to be destroyed here and now - everything is much more complicated

[Tahtvjd2868]

You are right. In any case, this is exactly how June 22 broke into all the aviation of the western districts of the USSR. And here it’s the seventh time to strike back at airfields, command posts, enemy radar by means of OTP. Iskanders to help us ...

[SETSET]

Some assumptions about the suppression of air defense and missile defense with unrealistic terms of suppression. The general tactics of using suppression means, without taking into account the use of such means by the enemy Everything is unreal in reality. And about Yugoslavia in general it was not worth remembering.

[uyry]

Approximately true for a limited theater of operations and for performing limited tasks. With a large military conflict, over a large territory, the number of unpredictable events is growing exponentially. And if in Yugoslavia, in Iraq and in Libya, the goal was to simply intimidate and break the will to resist, then in a big war the main task will be to destroy: means of response to the enemy, the economy, the extraction of resources and the political leadership, and only after that interaction with the ground forces. The adversary can achieve success only by concentrating a huge amount of attack means, its diversity and dispersal of control. And the main role in the fight against the air enemy will belong to the IA, and not the air defense of the SV. Very indicative of this issue is the methodology of using tank groups during the Second World War. Their methods of conducting reconnaissance, breaking the enemy’s defense, a sharp change in the direction of the main attack, the ability to quickly and secretly concentrate the main forces, interact with aviation, and a very interesting system of free order. I think something like that, judging by the set of air attack tools, the enemy is preparing us in the air. In WWII, the main striking force was tanks, and aviation acted as a support, today the main striking force is aviation. And only aviation is effectively capable of fighting aviation, so air defense systems will be forced to rise from the ground.

[uyry]

I would like to hope that your alignment is correct. And what can you say about the strike, agreed upon in time and place, of all possible means of an air attack, concentrated in a particular area, concentrating at the lines of attack, not at the initial ones. After all, computerization today allows us to do this. To impose on this: the distribution of responsibilities in groups, a breakthrough into the air defense zone of the ST stealth aircraft, with the transfer of missile guidance to them, using a controlled cloud of drones. And our main task is the destruction of AWACS. And the adversary gave preference to the control of the battle with the highly computerized F-22, F-35 and F117, with high-speed vyfay, resistant to REP. This is called multiple control duplication. I think that the time has come to forget about the waves. There will be something similar to the tank wedges of the Germans in the Second World War, with the difference that it was a war of engines, and there will be a war of artificial intelligence. Regards, Former Air Defense Officer

[SETSET]

Quote: Spade

Everything is a bit wrong here. The more data about the target you receive, the higher the probability of identifying false.

Absolutely wrong. If your system gets more
data about the target and can process this information (otherwise it makes no sense to get more data), also compare all data using probability theory - the probability of false identification decreases, but does not increase, as you write.

[Lopatov]

Quote: SETSET

the probability of false identification decreases, but does not increase

In confused the probability of a false target identification and the probability of identifying a false target.

[tchoni]

Quote: Spade

That is, we are talking about, let's say, the maximum increase in "ranges". Moreover, as correctly noted above, in conditions of tough opposition from the enemy.

Here! and this means, that for processing information and making decisions, you really need supercomputing capabilities. Which we have, alas, no. (well, electronics is not our trump card, alas and ah) In addition, there is a difference in weight coefficients "erroneous identification of a false target as a threat" (the cost of an extra spent missile is bad, but not fatal) and "identification of a threatening ammunition as a false target" (here the cost of an error is an unambiguous loss of the station), while attacks, the short flight time and low radar and low visibility of various kinds of small ammunition in the form of gliding bombs and other "maiveriko and shriko-like" that, as you put it, "dudos attack" is easier and, often, cheaper to repel by the same methods. However, the improvement of the radar continues. An example of this are AFAR antennas, the use of noise-like signals, etc. Only it is expensive. The cost, for example, of an AFAR canvas of a thousand elements is the same as if it consisted of iPhones + cooling systems + computing system + software. in total, there are about 2 evergreen cartoons, while it will not show any outstanding characteristics (range, resolution, etc.). Plus, throw on the manufacturer's "interest". In total, all four will be released.

[Evgeny Savchenko]

Strange ... at the beginning of the 20th century they did not know such complexity ... the airship is quite capable of hanging in the air for a long time and carrying a payload in the form of a radar

[Lopatov]

Quote: Evgeny Savchenko

Strange ... at the beginning of the 20th century they did not know such complexity ... the airship is quite capable of hanging in the air for a long time and carrying a payload in the form of a radar

You will laugh, but at the beginning of the 21st century it continues to be difficult.

This is a "escaped" and crashed in Pennsylvania a tethered balloon with radar from JLENS

[Vitaly gusin]

Quote: Spade

You will laugh, but at the beginning of the 21st century it continues to be difficult.

Relatively complex
There is RT LTA Systems Ltd. in Israel It is the developer and manufacturer of the SkyStar ™ family of balloons.
The company’s erostats provided tactical reconnaissance and surveillance from various points along the border with Gaza during the fighting.
Balloons can work for 72 hours, after which you need to replenish helium reserves. It takes 20 minutes.
The SkyStar 300 aerostat allows you to lift a 50-kilogram payload, which includes ground-based reconnaissance radars and a gyrostabilized optoelectronic system. on-board video cameras for round-the-clock monitoring of territories, a laser range finder - a laser target marker. From a height of 300-500 m. Skystar 300 controls a territory with a diameter of 60 km and makes it possible to significantly reduce the cost of monitoring the terrain.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Vitaly Gusin

Relatively complex
There is RT LTA Systems Ltd. in Israel It is the developer and manufacturer of the SkyStar ™ family of balloons.

These are small balloons. At low altitude. And in JLENS it is 3 tons only a radar antenna. And the height is 3 - 4.5 km. With the increase in size and height, problems also scale.

[Vitaly gusin]

Quote: Spade

With increasing size and height, problems also scale.

All this is true, but developments are continuing to fill the niche between satellites and ground-based radars to combat cruise missiles.

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Thank you, the answer is accepted.

[timokhin-aa]

We must start with the improvement of the detection system. In order to ensure the selection of false targets.

These methods have a limit. If a false target "returns" to the radar antenna the same signal as a real aircraft and has the same flight speed, then there will be problems with selection up to short distances, at which it will be possible to do this not with the help of the radar, but with the help of a specially developed for this optoelectronic system.

And small distances mean a very small time to destroy a real goal, after it has been calculated among the false ones, and this is a very big risk.

In addition, if such methods happen to reach perfection and be introduced into real air defense, then the enemy will have a two-way reserve.
1. Make a real small-sized guided (for example, gliding) ammunition, and "saturate" the air defense with a huge number of real targets. And there it will not make sense to make selection, for example, if the plane carries 10 small-sized gliding bombs, then the American squadron will bring them down on the target in an amount of about 220 units.

And that's a lot.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

If the false target "returns" the same signal to the radar antenna as the real plane

In all ranges? It's impossible.

[Vita vko]

Quote: Spade

In all ranges? It's impossible.

There are relatively simple target simulators that are used at training ranges to simulate a massive strike. They generate synchronous response-pulse signals / interference which are identified by different radars at one point in space as one and the same target.

[sivuch]

Including in the meter and decameter ranges?

[timokhin-aa]

If we talk about generating a false signal, it is possible. Or it is almost possible, the difference in most cases will not be so big to classify something.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

If we talk about generating a false signal, it is possible. Or it is almost possible, the difference in most cases will not be so big to classify something.

I'm afraid this "maybe" will cost like a normal plane

[the most important]

Quote: timokhin-aa

And there will be no point in making a selection, for example, if an airplane carries 10 small-sized planning bombs, then the American squadron will bring them down to the target in an amount of under 220 units

Hence we draw a simple conclusion: there is no need to engage in selection, but it is necessary to destroy the entire squadron at once with special ammunition at a distance of 400 km. Or immediately warn "possible friends" that if something happens .... there will be only straits in their habitats.

[timokhin-aa]

There are easier ways. Thousands of times. Follow the topic, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow the administration will issue an article on the air, it has already been written and uploaded, it just hasn’t been opened yet.

[the most important]

Quote: timokhin-aa

There are easier ways. Thousands of times. Follow the topic, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow the administration will issue an article on the air, it has already been written and uploaded, it just hasn’t been opened yet.

I will definitely read it. I always try to find a completely non-standard solution to any problem. Although, I consider those new approaches to modernizing air defense systems as timely and necessary, but not quite sufficient. Another defense line is needed for massive attacks, and this is Air Defense Derivation with a large (very) ammunition load with programmable explosive shells. I am glad that those problems that seemed to me to be solved a few years ago have now begun to be solved. But one cannot refuse from simple and effective methods. Air defense is a system, like everything else, so the approach should be systemic.

[YOUR]

Quote: Spade

We must start with the improvement of the detection system. In order to ensure the selection of false targets.

Just a question. How do you expect to do this? If a false target has the same characteristics as a combat target, in addition, any false target can carry an ammunition charge or, without any charges, it will stick into the radar or the launcher. So you have to shoot everything. And this is the expense of ammunition. Reload oh what time is needed. The fight will last much less
We will also consider such a question. Organization of an air raid from various directions. I hope you are aware that the affected area of ​​the S-300, 400 ... is limited to 120 degrees. Those. at the same time, air defense systems can fire at targets located only in this sector. A regiment of 2 S-400s will block a sector of 240 degrees, and that is in question. Because they also cover each other and will focus their efforts on the direction of the main attack. The main blow will turn out to be distracting, and the fact that the side and back will just disable the air defense systems.
And there are a lot of such examples of the situation.
Anti-aircraft combat, it is very complex and fleeting.

[Lopatov]

Quote: YOUR

Just a question. How do you expect to do this?

I have no idea. I do not know so well the principles of operation of radar and reconnaissance systems. But I know that multispectral systems are wholesale. intelligence is not fooled by inflatable mock-ups.
The key here is multispectrality. Plus a variety of methods. Moreover, with a reduction of the results.

It’s like a counter-battery. You can fool sound reconnaissance. Imitator type IM-100. You can fool radar intelligence. Using a nomadic gun. You can fool thermal intelligence, you can fool radio engineering.
But one cannot deceive the system of these forces and means, moreover, under the guidance of adequate and competent operators who analyze the results

Quote: YOUR

Organization of an air raid from various directions.

8)))))))))))))))))
Well, again, we fall to the horses in a spherical vacuum. And what will the other centers of air defense do at this time? What will the aviation component do, one of the tasks of which is precisely to cover the gaps between these centers?
They will not be, so that it would be more convenient to discuss "the organization of an air raid from various directions"?

[YOUR]

Surprised. inflatable aerial false targets. What are you talking about? There is no such thing as foci of air defense. That you introduced something new.
Naturally, well-known requirements should be used in air defense planning:
- massing air defense forces and means in the main direction;
- building an air defense system taking into account the location of forces and means of air defense of neighbors, air defense units from the Air Force;
- a broad and decisive tactical and operational maneuver by forces and means, as well as maneuver by fire when changing the direction of concentration of efforts of the covered forces, the importance of air defense objects, the actions of the main forces of the air enemy;
- close and constant interaction of forces and means within the air defense system and between neighboring systems;
- a continuously increasing impact on the air enemy as it penetrates the depth of airspace, which is achieved by the creation of mixed groups to combine zonal and direct cover of troops;
- continuous and flexible centralization of command and control of air defense forces and means in order to maximize the use of their combat capabilities and achieve unity of the air defense system.
But unfortunately I do not see this. Almost all the air defense systems in the airborne forces are the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems, which, due to their small numbers, cannot provide air defense even in half the amount that was in the USSR.
It's a shame annoying, but we can only quarrel here and prove something to each other.

[Lopatov]

Quote: YOUR

Surprised. inflatable air false targets

Where did you manage to find my word "air" ?????

Quote: YOUR

Naturally, well-known requirements should be used in air defense planning:
- massing air defense forces and means in the main direction;
............
- continuous and flexible centralization of command and control of air defense forces and means in order to maximize the use of their combat capabilities and achieve unity of the air defense system.

Uh ... in the elderberry garden, in Kiev, uncle?
We kind of discuss something a little different, namely the possibility of selecting false air targets.

[YOUR]

Quote: Spade

We must start with the improvement of the detection system. In order to ensure the selection of false targets.

Yours
In the next comment, you start talking about

Quote: Spade

But I know that multispectral systems are wholesale. intelligence is not fooled by inflatable mock-ups.

What's wrong?

[Lopatov]

Quote: YOUR

What's wrong?

Read it carefully again. Generally, multispectral optical reconnaissance is used in the overwhelming majority of cases in the air-to-ground direction 8))) That is, to detect and identify ground targets. Including false inflatable ones. Which I was talking about.

[YOUR]

Well, maybe so. Probably it seemed to me that the conversation was about the selection of air targets for military and false.

[Lopatov]

The thing is that in the field of selection of goals on earth there are already very large successes. It is due to multispectrality and various reconnaissance methods. That is what I cited as an example.

[YOUR]

Good. So be it.

[Nikolaevich I]

It is necessary to move on to "everything" (!): Both to multi-charged launchers, and to missiles with seeker on a new element base and new fuel in order to reduce the weight and size characteristics ..., and to improve systems and methods of control, detection!

[Fan-fan]

We need to go over, but what will it give, because the means of attack are always cheaper than the means of defense.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Fan-Fan

what it will give, because the means of attack are always cheaper than the means of defense.

Well ... everything is "relatively relatively"! What do you think ... which is cheaper (?) - "Brimstone-2" with a combined seeker (ARGSN + PL-GSN) or "radio-controlled" 57E6? But this is not the "main thing"! And the "main thing" ... who will be the winner when saving an object "at a cost of 20X-100X" using a "means of defense" at a cost of X, knocking down a "means of attack" costing 2X (3X)?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Fan-Fan

Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions

The ratio of their cost to EOS and Zour is a very important criterion. Therefore, in the article I focused on the importance of short-range air defense systems. And the complexes themselves are much cheaper and the missiles to them.

Mira Pantsir should be relatively cheap due to its simplicity and lack of ARGSN.

[SETSET]

Shovels, you contradict yourself!
The principle "fire and forget" further includes the expression: "The missile itself will find and hit the target." And this is possible only with a high probability of hitting the target.

[Lopatov]

Quote: SETSET

Shovels, you contradict yourself!
The principle "fire and forget" further includes the expression: "The missile itself will find and hit the target." And this is possible only with a high probability of hitting the target.

8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))
Do not confuse soft with hot.
The probability of defeat is one thing, the principle of "fire and forget" is quite another.
Most often, everything is exactly the opposite, switching to "fire and forget" reduces the likelihood of hitting the target

[SETSET]

Lopatov, play on words on your part. The designers always had: "I fired - I forgot, the rocket itself will find the target and destroy it." And about the probability, can you justify? How does it reduce?

[Lopatov]

Quote: SETSET

Shovels, pun on your part.

This is not a play on words. It is a fact. Reinforced concrete. Because a person is currently smarter than a microcomputer GOS. Therefore, in the face of enemy countermeasures, including interference, the probability of hitting a target with "fire-and-forget" ammunition is lower. That's all...

There are, for example, MANPADS with IR seeker. There are MANPADS with laser-beam RBS-70. The probability of hitting a target for the second complex is higher. Because the probability that the "missile will find the target itself" is lower than the "operator will find the target" The operator is simply smarter.

[SETSET]

Shovels, thanks for the answer))))))!
However, I have other reasons. Take, for example, the BUK-M3 air defense system - a complex on the principle of "shot - forget ..." with the probability of hitting the target
0, 9999 (including in conditions of opposition) - without human intervention. Another example is the FGM -148 Javelin - a "fire - forget ..." complex with a probability of hitting a target P = 0,94 and our Russian Kornet - a probability of hitting a target in conditions of resistance P = 0,8.
And if the operator is killed, hypothetically, during the guidance of 10-15 seconds during the battle, the probability of defeat sharply decreases, therefore the further development of the complexes is the complexes of the 3rd generation according to the principle of "shot and forget ..." As for your example, I cannot compare the complexes , due to the lack of data on the likelihood of hitting new Igla-S and Stinger missiles. I can only say unequivocally that the new 9M342 missile of the 9K338 Igla-S complex is not inferior to the RBS-70 (90) missiles in terms of the probability of hitting air targets and noise immunity. Man
smarter, but in this case, the operator does not surpass the microcomputer in the task. Good luck!)))
Sorry for contacting by last name. I work from the phone - therefore I do not see your name.

[SETSET]

Squishy! It will be correct about your example - I can not compare the complexes, due to the lack of data on the probability of destruction by new Igla-S and Stinger missiles.

[sivuch]

Shot-forgot does not mean that by launching a rocket (or 2) for a specific target, you can forget about this target. All the same, you need to look if the target is hit and, based on the results, aim at the same or the next target.

[bmv04636]

The author forgot about the S-350 Vityaz.

[Ⅴ - vendetta]

Or you are inattentive, or have not read to the end. After all, Russian in white (for someone in black) says:

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the adoption of medium-range air defense systems S-350 Vityaz with 9M96 and 9M100 missiles, as well as

[Operator]

AFAR with a reverse synthetic aperture mode plus PantsirSM with "Nails" solve all the problems listed in the article: AFAR selects all false targets, and numerous and cheap "Nails" will shoot down any quantity of guided air-to-ground ammunition.

[Ugolek]

Any air defense also needs interceptor aircraft, which were the MiG-31 and Su-27 in the USSR, significantly relieving the load from ground launchers. And now there are very few of them, several dozen combat-ready MiG-31BM, and even then they fall something often.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ugolek

Any air defense also needs interceptor aircraft

They do not solve "overload" problems

[mark1]

"Shooting" the media before launch is the problem they solve.

[Lopatov]

Quote: mark1

"Shooting" the media before launch is the problem they solve.

They do not solve this problem.
Immediately, not a horse in a vacuum, but hundreds of these carriers.

[mark1]

They solve part of the problem, if you had to do with air defense, remember the system of buildings around Moscow, all solve their part of the problem.

[Lopatov]

Once again, they do not solve the problem. For they cannot be in the air 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Well, duty aircraft take off, well, they will fill up with a dozen of several hundred ... And that’s it.

Another thing is later, when you have to cover the gaps in the air defense system ... And then the thing will be very problematic. Ensuring the normal operation of airfields that are under attack by the enemy is another archigemor.

[mark1]

There is such a thing - barrage interceptors.
Well, if it’s completely honest - not one of the systems, either aviation or ground, can solve the problem. Having found ourselves in the situation in which we are now (and not during the times of the USSR) we are shooting through from all directions (in my time, the main threatened direction was north), the depth of defense sharply decreased (almost none from the western and southern directions) and we have incomparable with USSR resources. Now only a preemptive strike and cutting to exhaustion (also not the most beautiful solution).

[Lopatov]

Quote: mark1

There is such a thing - barrage interceptors.

There is a concept. There are no such aircraft. At least for now.

Or are you talking about airplanes on duty?

[mark1]

Quote: Spade

Or are you talking about airplanes on duty?

About them, air watch is the Tu-128’s barrage.

[Lopatov]

Quote: mark1

About them, air watch is the Tu-128’s barrage.

Simply "loitering interceptors" has long been a term. Moreover, these aircraft were created primarily for air defense control of the country's northern borders. Where to place ground-based anti-aircraft systems was just unscientific fantasy.

[mark1]

So what, I like the term. Does this somehow contradict what I said above? By the way, I served in air defense if you have any doubts. Yaroslavl Air Defense Corps.

[Lopatov]

Quote: mark1

Does this somehow contradict what I said above?

Contradicts. "Loitering interceptor" is a completely different ideology. And we don't have such planes. And if they are needed, they will appear where they used to, in the north.

[mark1]

The ideology is the same - long patrols in the air, and this requires a sufficient amount of fuel and the presence of a refueling system (Su-30, MiG-31 for example)

Quote: Spade

And if necessary, they will appear where they were earlier, in the north.

Do you think they are not there? And why only there?

Quote: Spade

Quote: mark1
Does this somehow contradict what I said above?

I spoke above not so much about loitering interceptors as about the fact that neither airborne nor ground-based air defense systems in the current conditions solve the problem in principle. The same Israeli defense system is based primarily on preventive strikes and then on the Iron Dome, and with all the differences we have one thing in common - a shallow depth of defense in most directions.
But butt, who better interprets a particular term is an exciting but not promising business.

[Lopatov]

Quote: mark1

this requires a sufficient amount of fuel and the presence of a refueling system (Su-30, MiG-31 for example)

And also a high resource, like civilian aircraft. Therefore, the planes you listed do not fit

Quote: mark1

Do you think they are not there? And why only there?

Because there to put ground zen. complexes painfully expensive.

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

And we do not have such aircraft.

If barrage interceptors are needed, now they are needed unmanned, with the ability to hang for days in a given area. But here the question arises of reviving the proper amount of air tankers and working out automatic refueling and conical, on flexible hoses, will not work here.
So, I agree that there is a need for barrage interceptors now. It is better to pay attention to the production of A-50U and A-100, plus increase the load, in the form of more missiles of large and medium range on the suspension of our interceptors

[Sergey Valov]

You confuse the tasks of the country's air defense and military air defense. They have a lot in common, but even more differences.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Sergey Valov

You confuse the tasks of the country's air defense and military air defense.

Do you think that when reflecting a massive air raid during the period of gaining dominance in the air, anti-aircraft units of the ground forces quiet down as if they were not?
By the way, this is also a problem - to force ALL forces and means to work together. Including not only military air defense, but also naval.

[Sergey Valov]

No need to answer a question with a question.
Speaking of the fleet, he always worked in the air defense system of bases.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Sergey Valov

No need to answer a question with a question.

Did you ask anything? No, you claimed. Which allowed me to ask a question. Rhetorical.

Quote: Sergey Valov

Speaking of the fleet, he always worked in the air defense system of bases.

Again the statement. And again my question. But isn't the air defense of the bases naval? Not only that, are not all anti-aircraft units of the coastal forces naval? And these questions are also rhetorical

[voyaka uh]

"Any air defense also needs interceptor aircraft" ////
-----
I totally agree. Active fighter interceptors can easily
to disrupt the raid of fighter-bombers on ground targets.
Either knock down part or just drive away. To fighter-bombers
will have to put forward separate cover groups. Air ties
fights or skirmishes with missiles that interfere with the plan of operation.

[The seventh]

Unfortunately this is not possible! Ground-based air defense will never solve the problem of its own invulnerability, not to mention any other tasks, AFAR will not select a bunch of false targets with the same "radio portrait" .. In the form of broadband active interference, but "nails" ..), no nails will be enough for ammunition for the air defense missile system, if only one shell - the MLRS cluster Smerch can be stuffed with 200 OF elements identical to their carrier (cassette-RS) .. ballistics ..

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: SSEDM

Unfortunately this is not possible! Ground-based air defense will never solve the problem of its own invulnerability, not to mention any other tasks, AFAR will not select a bunch of false targets with the same "radio portrait" .. In the form of broadband active interference, but "nails" ..), no nails will be enough for ammunition for the air defense missile system, if only one shell - the MLRS cluster Smerch can be stuffed with 200 OF elements identical to their carrier (cassette-RS) .. ballistics ..

The issue is controversial. Tornado cassette elements, if you are talking about 9M55K, must be hit before opening. 9M55K1 ammunition carries 5 SPBE "Motiv-3M", and drops them OVER the target when it should have been shot down long ago. All these ammunition must "scatter" a maximum of several kilometers from the point of impact, otherwise all the ammunition will go into "milk". And they have to get off the air defense system for 5-15 km.

[The seventh]

Of course, I didn't mean literally "Tornado cassettes". This meant, first of all, the principle of uncomplicated overloading of any air defense system and any separation of air defense systems. Therefore, it is not without reason that I mentioned the "adequate ballistics" of the MLRS projectile and its sub-elements themselves, so that they do not go into "milk". In addition, and precisely for this reason, in this case, the cassette can be deployed at altitudes of more than 30 km, where it will be inaccessible to the enemy air defense systems .... I think there is no practical impossibility in creating just such a cassette filling, even if the Tornado's shells already have it now does not correspond to it ...

[lucul]

AFAR with backward synthetic aperture mode plus ArmorSM with "Nails" solve all the problems listed in the article

This is not so - the second problem is reloading. This requires at least an hour - this is an eternity for air defense.
The exit routes - development of PLATFORM, where reloading is possible - shot rockets, the container snapped off (as in amer. Rifles to M-16) and a new one immediately replaced it. Here again the question is, but how to coordinate a new container with a radar? (it changes relatively quickly) Only digitalization and wireless interfaces, without this in any way. Which will significantly increase the efficiency of air defense. Such a platform can be placed on the cruiser (if we still had them) and with mine-based air defense.

[g1washntwn]

For short-range missiles, it is quite possible to use the MLRS loading principle, but not missiles, but a TPK with a missile are charged into the tubular guides (for example: Nails in the Grad 122 mm, 9M33 from Wasp - in Tornado - 300 mm). A transport-charging vehicle with ready-made TPK blocks will be able to remove empty TPKs and also recharge all PU cells in a "package". For short-range missiles with a small TPK weight, reloading can be done manually. Refinement of the software and hardware will also be required, but I don't see anything complicated, because MLRS guided missiles already have the ability to receive program data from the remote control using the same GPS, they will be able to receive a wider package of inputs before launching for air purposes. Connection with the control center of the air defense missile system - wired optics or secure wireless channels.

[timokhin-aa]

and numerous and cheap "Nails" will knock down any quantity of guided air-to-ground ammunition.

Sometimes old age comes alone, without wisdom.

We consider.

1 F-15E - 28 SDB. Accordingly, the squadron strike approx. 600 pcs

How many PU "nails" do you need to dump this swarm?

But why am I asking you? Surely you will start now. poseidonit quietly instead of answering

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

We consider

We count. One "Armor" is 48 "nails" Considering that obviously not all can reach a range of 110 kilometers ...

[timokhin-aa]

Having taken 1,5 nails for one bomb, we need 19 "Shells" to cover the object only from this type of attack (and it will not only be this one).

Taking into account the number of enemy attack aircraft and the ability to carry out two combat missions per day at least, the number of air defense and ammunition equipment required to repel such attacks becomes unrealistically large.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

we need 19 "Shells"

Are you so sure that all planes can fly to the line of 110 km?

Quote: timokhin-aa

Taking into account the number of enemy attack aircraft and the possibility of performing two sorties per day

Yeah. That is, you accept as an axiom the invulnerability of their attack aircraft as well as the invulnerability of their airfields. Well, for the discussion of spherical horses, this is quite acceptable. It could be even easier. Accept as a postulate that the "Shell" is one, and cannot shoot, since it is defective. 8))))

[timokhin-aa]

You are in your role.

I understand that not everyone will reach the 110 km mark, but then you will have to complicate the model and add anti-radar missiles to it, a small amount of missile launchers in the first echelon to divert the air defense missile system and radar illumination, etc.

The point is the following - for money it is much more profitable to have mini-bombs than to fence the legions of Pantsyrei with 48 nails each.

There are much more budget options, I even squeezed an article on the topic, maybe sengodnya in the evening or tomorrow VO will publish it.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

I understand that not everyone will reach the 110 km boundary, but then you will have to complicate the model

No, it's you in your role.
Initially, the author suggested a model of a system of long, medium and short range complexes, but you are trying to throw out everything except a small number of "Shells", which must fight off the immortal F-15 squadron. To make it easier to prove your conclusions.

Quote: timokhin-aa

The point is - for money it is much more profitable to have mini-bombs

New joke? Do you also have to abandon the ground component of air defense so that everything is like the (aspirated) Americans? Do we have money for this, taking into account the fact that, in your opinion, all the money should be transferred to the fleet to protect it from Japanese aggression?

[timokhin-aa]

Spade not behave like a clown.

The author is well done, but the concept of long-range, medium and short-range air defense missile systems, working within an integrated air defense system, is nothing new. And there are corresponding ACSs from the Soviet times, and not only the air defense missile system, but also interceptors and AWACS aircraft are integrated into their salaries.

The question is different - at the final stage of the enemy's attack, if he was able to reach the line of this attack with his planes, resisting a swarm of small bombs, exposing hordes of short-range air defense against them is unprofitable for money.

There are other solutions. And they are working on them in different countries. The author did not mention this even in the form of an announcement.

I consider it necessary to correct it a little.

And ape and work as a clown in front of a mirror, go.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Spade not behave like a clown.

Quote: timokhin-aa

And ape and work as a clown in front of a mirror, go.

Again? Without this kind of "argumentation" - no way?

Quote: timokhin-aa

The question is different - at the final stage of the enemy's attack, if he was able to reach the line of this attack with his planes, resisting a swarm of small bombs, exposing hordes of short-range air defense against them is unprofitable for money.

To lose the protected object due to the action of these ammunition is cheaper ???? Well, well ... And this man called me "clown"! ... 8))))))))))))))))))))))))
Attention, the question of backfill: what exactly will the enemy hit at the initial stage of gaining air supremacy? That's right, obviously not those that are economically profitable to lose than to protect.

Quote: timokhin-aa

but the concept of long-range, medium and short-range air defense systems operating within the framework of integrated air defense is nothing new.

But there is something new in the problem raised by the author. The ability to "overload" the air defense system with the number of targets. Including false ones.

[timokhin-aa]

To lose due to the action of these ammunition the protected object is cheaper ????

You do not perceive information through a basin on your head? These attacks must be repulsed in a cheaper way. And there is such a way.
The air defense system just needs to add something, and that's it.
And Russia is even the world leader in this. Until.

And stop ape.

Well, well ... And this man called me "clown"! ...

You, Lopatov, are a bright, memorable person, but only by this quality. It's not my fault, it's you

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

These attacks must be repelled in a cheaper way.

These attacks must be repelled by any means. The measure should be efficiency. And not the cost ... Is it really that hard?
And at the moment, it is missile weapons that are the most effective option. Maybe someday all sorts of ZAK, Penza NURS, laser systems, microwave installations of the "Knapsack" type will catch up and surpass. But not right now.

Quote: timokhin-aa

It's not my fault

Is it that instead of missing arguments you start using insults? Well, it's not my fault that you can't express your "thoughts" otherwise.

However, I warn you, this time I will get tired of your rudeness earlier.

[sivuch]

But you should not go over to personality.
Unfortunately, so far, not everything is integrated into the ACS and it is not easy.
Of course, it will be interesting to read about other solutions.
In my opinion, the author in vain so easily dismisses ZA, at once writing it down as ineffective, but you probably have something else in mind.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: sivuch

In my opinion, the author in vain so easily dismisses the favor, at once writing it down as ineffective ...

The article has a link to my other article about 30 mm guns. An example is given there - in Syria no anti-aircraft guns have been shot down by a single target, and they constantly fake during the tests.

Perhaps the situation will change the detonation of shells in the air (remote blasting on the trajectory), they seem to have been developed with us already. And even better controlled 30-mm shells - 30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development? - https://topwar.ru/154649-zakat-jery-30-mm-avtomaticheskih-pushek-ili-novyj-jetap-razvitija.html

[sivuch]

Yes, I read. So, there are simply no statistics on Syria. It is clear that shelling began with missiles and, quite possibly, it didn’t reach the AU. And on the tests - what, just messed up? They wrote that for 2A42 and 2A72 such shells already exist - but there is selective nutrition. Perhaps for 2A38 they will simply charge 1 shell out of 5-6.
In any case, the carapace-shell carapace is not an ideal base for AC. And in any case, the AU is single-channel and, by definition, it is only intended to have completed the last 1-2 targets (well, a maximum of -3)
Here they wrote about nails - but the question is what their minimum range will be. As it turned out, this is also important. If it is more than half a kilometer, then again you need to add something.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: timokhin-aa

You are in your role.

There are much more budget options, I even squeezed an article on the topic, maybe sengodnya in the evening or tomorrow VO will publish it.

I read with interest.

[timokhin-aa]

By the way, you raised a very important topic, VERY.

[malyvalv]

It is most advantageous to have a dozen other Iskanders so that in the radius of 500-1000 km the F-15 simply had nowhere to take off from. And if the strike is first and unexpected then the attacking planes have little chance of returning.

[SHOPPING MALL]

One Pantsir-CM 96 "nails". Again, not all carriers will survive to the reset.

Layered defense - С-400 (С-500) + С-350 + 4 Armor-СМ will be quite tenacious, but on condition of some subtleties, but about them in the following material.

[ares1988]

Thank you for the article. Andrew, tell me: did you serve in the air defense?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: ares1988

Thank you for the article. Andrew, tell me: did you serve in the air defense?

No, he did not serve in the air defense. If the military department of TulSU can be attributed to the service, then it is "Commander of the ATGM platoon rem."

[flicker]

Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions

Ways of solving: a counter strike on the territory of the enemy and its allies, it is possible nuclear ... we will see how the enemy’s air defense cope
For example, an iron cumpole

[Ugolek]

They do not solve "overload" problems

But they solve another problem - pushing the front line of the enemy’s attack by 150-200 km (or even more, in the case of the MiG-31), which can be considered a comprehensive approach to building a layered air defense.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ugolek

But they solve another problem - pushing the front line of the enemy’s attack by 150-200 km (or even more, in the case of the MiG-31), which can be considered a comprehensive approach to building a layered air defense.

So yes ... But only at this particular moment in time, most planes will be on the ground, and a lot of time will be spent on their rise into the air.
Therefore, the air component is more likely a plus to combat stability. Than to resist "overload"

[Ugolek]

In an endangered period, they are simply obliged to barrage in the air ..

[Ugolek]

But they are essentially nonexistent.

[mark1]

Quote: Ugolek

But they are essentially nonexistent.

I started for health ... It should be what it is to barrage. And you correctly said about the front line of attack - that is, the depth of defense increases. And you need to build a new one.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ugolek

In an endangered period, they are simply obliged to barrage in the air ..

All? 8))))
It's impossible.

[Vladimir 5]

Shimmer. Done agree with you. Now, according to the article, they are determined to "collect" the scattered "nails" by the enemy one at a time, and obviously they will not be able to "collect" everything .... So the first thing to do is to remove the opportunity to scatter nails - missiles and other planning bombs by the enemy. Shoot down to the approach to the launch lines, and if they have already attacked, shoot them down everywhere, right up to base airfields, etc. ... For example, we have a mockery of the Russian air defense in Syria ... the government and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation "swallowed" this aggression against the Russian Aerospace Forces, "forgiven" the death of 20 officers and a piece of a very necessary aircraft and suffer further air strikes on the allies and our equipment in Syria ... ... First, they had to intercept the aggressors, even with our naval air defense systems, and shoot down everywhere, even when landing in Israel, after the attack in Syria ... They did not fight back, the bombing of Syria by Israel continues, as well as the slaps in the face of the Russian air defense in Syria, and as a result, the Russian Federation .. .Either traitors in management and government, or I see no other explanation ...

[Orlov]

Quote: Vladimir 5

Shimmer. Done agree with you. Now, according to the article, they are determined to "collect" the scattered "nails" by the enemy one at a time, and obviously they will not be able to "collect" everything .... So the first thing to do is to remove the opportunity to scatter nails - missiles and other planning bombs by the enemy. Shoot down to the approach to the launch lines, and if they have already attacked, shoot them down everywhere, right up to base airfields, etc. ... For example, we have a mockery of the Russian air defense in Syria ... the government and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation "swallowed" this aggression against the Russian Aerospace Forces, "forgiven" the death of 20 officers and a piece of a very necessary aircraft and suffer further air strikes on the allies and our equipment in Syria ... ... First, they had to intercept the aggressors, even with our naval air defense systems, and shoot down everywhere, even when landing in Israel, after the attack in Syria ... They did not fight back, the bombing of Syria by Israel continues, as well as the slaps in the face of the Russian air defense in Syria, and as a result, the Russian Federation .. .Either traitors in management and government, or I see no other explanation ...

wild tales, due to the fact that the command drove to slaughter the silt and scapegoat the media is trying to expose Israel there is no reason to bomb it, and Israel is suddenly able to respond to such Napoleonic plans with such a counterstroke that you won’t collect the bones

[Lopatov]

Quote: Orlov

Yes, and Israel is suddenly able to respond to such your Napoleonic plans with such a counter strike that you won’t collect bones

Do not forget, Russia is able to make Israel a big funnel.
The guys completely lost the shore.

[Vitaly gusin]

Quote: Spade

Do not forget, Russia is able to make Israel a big funnel.
The guys completely lost the shore.

Do not forget about the account. You are right.
Israel is the fourth country with a nuclear triad.
And history must teach something.
During the Doomsday War, in order to save its allies, an increased combat readiness of 7 divisions of the Soviet airborne troops was declared. In response, a nuclear alert was announced in the United States ..
Yes, and to divide Israel and Russia today is not what.
Therefore, your threats have nothing to do with the military review of equipment but are on a different plane.

[Babai 640]

Israel is the fourth country with a nuclear triad.

Just one, but still very, very insidious question! How much tritium Israel buys and produces do not announce ?! I will have plenty of annual volume!

[Vitaly gusin]

Quote: Babay 640

How much tritium Israel buys

You've probably already heard that there are no nuclear weapons in Israel, but if necessary, it’s applicable,
The following information is freely available that plutonium, deuterium and tritium are produced - that is, the materials needed to create a hydrogen bomb.
tritium production up to 10 gr
If you are interested in more precisely this is in Mossad.

[Babai 640]

And why should I go to MOSSAD if he does not do this ?! For reference. Tritium is the most important component of the charge, or rather its fuse and due to its extreme instability, it must be updated (!!!) once a year, otherwise it will not be nuclear weapons, but just a luminous piece of useless scrap metal. The required amount of tritium, per charge from 3 to 5 kilograms (!!!) and this is a minimum! The world price for it is in the range of $ 30 million / kilogram !!! The annual consumption of all watch factories in the world, producing watches with tritium illumination, is only 0,5 kg. We can add another kilogram here for the production of collimator sights, but this is a minuscule! Just figure out one single thing. Possession of nuclear weapons is not just expensive pleasure, but wildly expensive pleasure and the laws of physics have not yet been deceived by anyone! Even the Jews! In the 80s, Israel was caught smuggling kraitrons from the United States, which means only one thing, without tritium, the charge collected at kraightons or nonsense is simply useless!

[Vitaly gusin]

Quote: Babay 640

and this means only one thing, without tritium, the charge collected at kraightons or nonsense is simply useless!

I started with this:
Golda Meir: “Firstly, we do not have nuclear weapons, and secondly, if necessary, we will use it”

[Horse, people and soul]

Israel is suddenly able to respond to such your Napoleonic plans with such a counterstroke that you won’t collect bones

This is what kind of deep hole will the Jews need to dig themselves in order to survive?

Israel is smaller than Estonia. Jewish bones will not be collected and there will be no Israeli Jews left. From the word "absolutely".

[Horse, people and soul]

Kumpol is only against a water pipe with gunpowder equipped with a hand-armed Arab.

[Cyrus]

And this, by the way, is the only way out.

[D16]

especially in a purely rocket version

Soaps washed chimney sweeps, purely clean, concrete-concrete ...
In general, the article is a bit like a bearded anecdote about the smart Chukchi and the stuck machine of geologists, ending with the phrase: "However, a tractor is needed." .

[Orlov]

and if we take into account the fact that when one missile is not enough for one target, it is guaranteed to be defeated, and it turns out that all this layered air defense is only suitable for cover from attacks by loners and does not solve the problem of the same overload and massive raid ....

[Vovan]

Well, how can you turn everything upside down? "Massive enemy air attacks" without counter opposition from fighters and interceptors? And without a nuclear response? Like a sudden blow? What kind of inner world do you have to live in, what would come to your mind ?!

[The seventh]

In this case (a nuclear screwdriver, counter-reaction of IA and, finally, gaining superiority in the air) .. ground defense .. absolutely no longer needed, well, it’s so clean .. Logically ..)

[Horse, people and soul]

To make nails out of our people - these nails wouldn’t be stronger!

[Operator]

Quote: lucul

problem - recharge

This problem is solved by reducing the size and increasing the number of anti-aircraft missiles on one launcher - for example, 96 "Nails" at the Pantsir-SM air defense system.

[Horse, people and soul]

A breakthrough in solid fuel quality has already occurred?

Otherwise, it would not be possible to reduce the dimensions of the rocket and increase its speed while maintaining the range.

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

The situation is reminiscent of a medieval SPEAR SWORD, A Shotgun, a Rifle, and other means of attack against the SHIELD KIROSI LAPS ... OR ANTI-TANK MEANS against TANKS. It seems that the means of attack win sooner or later ...
Apparently, ground-based air defense systems themselves do not protect themselves, not like some objects ....
A massive surprise attack in a certain area cannot reflect any air defense of any country ...
Air defense is somehow "exposed", its parameters and combat capabilities are being studied, accordingly tactics, forces, means, methods of destruction are being developed, computer versions are being developed.
This is an endless competition of means of attack and defense ... at the expense of taxpayers ....
Vicious circle.

[Dmitry Vyazmenskiy]

If such a meat grinder goes, then the aggressor will not have a guarantee that the conflict will not turn into a nuclear one because for what it is necessary to hit the country's air defense so hard, only for further conquest !! And what follows after the defeat of the army, correctly, the conquest is complete, but what do we do then? That's right, we are working hard! In this case, you are in hell, and we are in paradise, to the virgins)))

[Cyrus]

And if he is ready for a nuclear war and this war will not provide not heaven or hell, but a completely ordinary victory and defeat ...?

[malyvalv]

Here we consider the situation when one is armed with a club and the other only with a shield. And the idea is logically inferred that no matter what the shield, sooner or later it will be finished with his club.
The best air defense is Iskander on the way to the enemy airfield.

[Sergey-8848]

Beat the main target, i.e. AWACS, EW and ABM aircraft. Without their defeat, there is no one to write victorious reports about the heap of downed KR.

[Nastia makarova]

It’s necessary to hit the country from where they took off

[Operator]

Quote: Horse, people and soul

Has a breakthrough with solid fuel quality already occurred? Otherwise, to reduce the dimensions of the rocket and increase its speed while maintaining the range would not work

"Nail" is a short-range anti-aircraft missile and is designed to intercept aircraft munitions, not their carriers.

UAVs, shells and mines are also legitimate targets for Nails.

[NG inform]

At the expense of the high cost of homing missiles - it all depends on the series. If you make a series of 100000 pieces, then each individual rocket will become cheap. Naturally, with the normal organization of production.

[Sergey Valov]

Each, of course, will be cheaper, but all together, together, the country will not be ruined? The USSR has already played this game, and how did it end?

[NG inform]

No, they will not ruin, why suddenly? And the attack on us - the country will not be ruined?
You need to be more proactive. For us, only the Bolsheviks possessed this feature.

[Sergey Valov]

"No, they will not ruin, why all of a sudden?" - Why all of a sudden? With unreasonable costs. There is such a thing - reasonable sufficiency, this is when the answer is, the adversary will be more expensive than profit.
“Only the Bolsheviks possessed” - and what did they end up with?

[NG inform]

They graduated from the most powerful, tolerant and most cultured state on the planet. Next came the goblins.

[Fan-fan]

Well, these goblins were pleased with the system created by the Bolsheviks. I think these goblins are still in power.

[NG inform]

Goblins have always been - the same whites, clergy, hatskrayniki, intelligentsia, etc.

[AAK]

Colleagues-and-and-and-and !! Among you, at least half of the former (and there are even active) professional military men. You, as it were, were taught something at military schools, and some even at academies. In our armed forces, the branches of the armed forces (SV, Air Force, Air Defense, Strategic Missile Forces, Navy, etc.) do not exist on their own, but are managed in a complex by the respective commands and headquarters with their combat command centers.
Turn on elementary logic and don't make funny comments.
Any military action will be carried out by probable adversaries from the appropriate directions, the control over which and the organization of counteraction are entrusted to the appropriate command and control bodies of our troops. The preparation of a surprise strike is always preceded by the concentration of troops, military equipment and MTO items in one or several such areas. At the same time, the concentration areas are located in the reach zone of the corresponding types of weapons (including for the enemy's air force, this is the distance of the flight range to the targets of each type of aircraft used, taking into account the remaining fuel or refueling in the air to return to their airbases). Opening the beginning of such a concentration is a priority for all types of reconnaissance, from space to undercover. Well, imagine that a massive and simultaneous delivery of fuel and aviation ammunition has begun to the airfields of the Eastern European NATO countries, in Alaska, Turkey with Greece and Japan and South Korea, or, at least, warehouses with mobilization supplies of this category have been opened. And this is even before the mass flight of aviation, because the beginning of such a flight by the forces of at least one air army (or the exit from the bases to the sea of ​​at least half of the Ohio with SLBMs and KR, or the raising of at least one air wing of the Air Force SAC ) - this is already an announcement of an alarm in the troops with a transfer to the highest stage of combat readiness, as well as a call on the "red phone" (with his "suitcase" open) from the Kremlin to the appropriate addressee - Donald, is this a war? ...
Therefore, an air raid "like the 41st year" in modern conditions can not be fundamentally, and if the conflict starts with the enemy's strategic nuclear forces, then in response to the enemy's aviation, fleet and ground forces, there will be little left, however, like ours ...

[Sergey Valov]

Absolutely right! Ready to subscribe to any of your words. But! No one has canceled the local conflicts, and the "Syria" in all sorts of options still oh how possible.

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

I agree that in the event of a military confrontation between the United States and NATO with such a power as Russia, the "foe" cannot do with duty forces. The rest will take time, effort and will reveal preparatory actions.
Strategic operations are not done from the bay - floundering, but global, especially ...
Actually, having removed all sorts of shit. TWO theory, Hitler refused to land in B, Britain due to the global strength of this operation, which was unbearable for Germany, and the opening of the 2nd front until 1944 was delayed by the USSR allies for the same reason.
It’s not the armed forces that are fighting, but the states and groups of states, one thing is local conflicts like the Syrian one, another local conflict like the Russian-Georgian one, the third possible local conflict Russian-Ukrainian (I hope it won’t happen!), Well, sucking NATO is another matter .. ..

[Fan-fan]

In a global conflict, almost everyone will fight against us, except probably China, India and Iran. The enemy has many allies, but we do not have allies, we are alone, how it happened - this is a big question, but this is the first question. And the second question is what should we do? Transfer economics to war footing? So we are now unable to produce many civilian goods. Something must be done. In my opinion, it's time for our current rulers to kick in the ass and put in new ones that can intelligently lead. Moreover, there is an example: Stalin was able to make such a breakthrough in 19 years (1922 - 1941) almost on the ruins of the country that so far no one in the world can repeat this. And what did Yeltsin and Putin do during this same time?

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

I think, from words, cartoons and single items, all the same, you will have to go to some real actions ..
But, for some reason, the situation reminds me of Trishkin Kaftan ....
I deeply suspect that the military-industrial complex and the armed forces are not ready to work in modern conditions.
And in general, the state (non) structure ... raises concerns.
When dragged Adm. Kuznetsov in the Mediterranean Sea with these heavy planes, I immediately thought: 1. Which persuaded Putin to do this?
2. And who persuaded this fool who persuaded that fool?
Or maybe, as in the Central Committee of the CPSU, by the year 85 there was no one to choose ....
The system filters "native" and convenient, but useless people for a system in which there is no place for professionals.
The situation with IL-20 all the more showed that the aircraft under the command of a firefighter, hung with orders and medals even from the back, the airborne forces under the command of a land general, it seems to be wrong ...
And so everywhere in the state, the military-industrial complex, the armed forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other structures: relatives, friends, comrades, lovers (ts), accomplices ... oh ....
Carpenters sewed pants .... here are your pants!
Elephants sang a song, here are the sounds for you ....

[Orlov]

Quote: Fan-Fan

In a global conflict, almost everyone will fight against us, except probably China, India and Iran. The enemy has many allies, but we do not have allies, we are alone, how it happened - this is a big question, but this is the first question. And the second question is what should we do? Transfer economics to war footing? So we are now unable to produce many civilian goods. Something must be done. In my opinion, it's time for our current rulers to kick in the ass and put in new ones that can intelligently lead. Moreover, there is an example: Stalin was able to make such a breakthrough in 19 years (1922 - 1941) almost on the ruins of the country that so far no one in the world can repeat this. And what did Yeltsin and Putin do during this same time?

you don’t take into account one thing, since then the production of high-tech products, or rather the equipment and technologies that are needed, have risen ten or more times (and this is not taking into account conditional inflation), for such industrialization we need trained personnel who will not be recruited around the world.

[Cyrus]

Yes, you sho ?? And the guys don’t know that, and therefore, slowly deploying additional forces to the territory of Poland and the Baltic states of Scandinavia. How long does it take for an AUS to suddenly strike? So that the next exercises, under the guise of which concentrated forces went over to hostilities?

[Cyrus]

So this is happening now, NATO is slowly building up its forces at the borders, why aren’t we wacking a wise guy?

[uyry]

Dear Andrey! it can use from oversaturation: 1. BC with TZM, of which there are two or three individual for one air defense system, start up through the PCT, Wi-Fi in closed mode, and guidance from the air defense system. With such work, you will get a conveyor, because when shooting with one of the TZM, at the same time you reload the air defense system itself. 2. Today we have come to a certain milestone in mixed and integrated air defense systems, it may make sense to use anti-aircraft missiles on one machine and missile defense systems on another (at the same time, antenna towers should be used on outriggers and people are safe and expensive equipment will be kept, anti-radar missiles will go to the emitter) . 3. And why not use a well-proven tool, like barrage balloons, because the price of the F-1 grenade, cable and gondola is several times lower than any drone, and if you make them mobile, raise the microwave or radar aerials to them and detection range and jamming. Even such primitive measures are quite enough, without crazy grandmothers and stupid things to build up rockets on launchers. 4. And it is quite true that it is high time to move on to the new physical principles of detecting UHF — all aircraft are powerful generators of electric energy, they interact with the electromagnetic field of the earth, why not measure these disturbances of the electromagnetic field of the earth?

[Narak-zempo]

It would be interesting to read the analysis of the combat work of air defense in Syria in the light of this problem.

[Fan-fan]

I read a lot of things about Syria, there are mostly brave idiots that the Russian air defense installations with the hands of Syrian calculations killed almost all cruise missiles and guided bombs. Those. there is a complete victory for our, even outdated air defense systems, even under the control of poorly trained Syrians.

[simara]

Following the example of cheap guides installed on the ground with Grad's analogues in Vietnam, why can't each additional air defense missile system with vertical launch (they don’t start to the top anyway) additional containers at a cheaper price and without mobility ... that is, in peace everything is as usual and on the order in addition to staffed bk, 3-4 times more missiles in simplified launchers with connection to a common control and target designation system. After shooting the main BC, the calculation simply does not waste time reloading and starts shooting from the rest ... you can drag such guides in a disassembled view and this will fit into stationary air defense.

[g1washntwn]

I don’t know who’s making the minus for you, but the containerized execution of the launcher and the application of the Club-K concept for medium and short-range air defense systems with the aim of temporarily increasing the anti-aircraft ammunition quite have the right to life.
Delivery and placement of such a container in a combat position does not create big problems; on the contrary, it is easier to drop such a container onto the roof of a building than self-propelled launchers. The connection to the control center is wired (optics) or wireless via secure channels. After the ammunition is depleted, it is possible to reload from the end of the container even by civilian militia forces.
Additionally, a container with OLS and its own generator operating independently and a pair of containers with missiles on cars or railway platforms makes it possible to quickly deploy a stationary anti-aircraft position. It doesn’t shoot from the move, but high mobility will be provided by the transport on which these containers are installed. On civilian vessels, such containerized execution provides the possibility of at least some protection from the KR, aircraft and small vessels in wartime.

[simara]

On civilian vessels, it’s probably only tankers and dry cargo vessels where there is a lot of space for the entire ligament such as radar, pu and control cabin ... although I remember the shell can be removed from the wheels and put the roof of the building ... and there is an extra. Install settings. As for reloading by militia forces, I think it’s unlikely ... after the shooting of the bk either the enemy will end or the anti-aircraft guns or the war ... for some reason it seems to me that after shooting the whole bk you can already throw pu if you survive of course

[g1washntwn]

1. On bulk carriers and container ships, the deck is a maximum of 1/3 of the total load. 3 containers and at least some chance of protection is better than nothing. The control center can be combined with the OLS and work to repel air threats completely automatically. A container with a separate launcher and operator (s) does not have to be located on the deck, access to such a container from the inside is sufficient.
2. If the anti-aircraft position is not mobile, the chances of its survival are, of course, lower than that of containers on wheels. But in the case of reflection of the first wave, reloading anyway may be required to repel attacks already at the position itself, and here it already makes sense to quickly reload, put it into automatic mode and shelter personnel. After all, containers with PU can be located covertly, it is not necessary to drag them to an open place where a container with OLS should stand. And if the PU and OLS survived, you can’t abandon the position, you need to quickly take all measures to prepare to repel repeated attacks, which will undoubtedly follow.

[simara]

And why not put them in the same containers? Well, for example, the shell and additional launchers. As a result, in the case of the database it is 1. The disguise is excellent. Though at least on rails, at least throw it along the marinets. 2. Logistics. Civil services and the militia would be easier to transport containers, install, etc. And not only anti-aircraft guns but also the caliber like in containers.

[g1washntwn]

Club-K - this is the container modification of Caliber and Ball.
You can't fit a lot into a standard TEU (sea container 20/40 feet). In a 40-foot with a third-party power source, the entire air defense system at once may be able to be crammed, but transporting such a container by a motor vehicle is quite problematic. It makes sense to separate the container with the detection and guidance system from the ammunition, otherwise the number of "shots" will again be small. A container with only ammunition and a module for binding to the control system of other air defense systems is quite possible and will probably be in demand in certain situations. For example, by abandoning such a TEU with medium-range West-East missiles, it is possible to significantly strengthen the temporary position and tactical link of Barnaul-T, which has only personnel with Verbs, which will be quite sudden for an adversary.

[Edvid]

As an additional, last barrier to protect the object from attack by cruise missiles, aerostats can be used to command obstruction networks, with small detonating ammunition mounted on them, which respond to heat, sound, metal ...
The very first KR - V-1 was shot down with balloons, and about 12% of those shot down in general were shot down. Then they forgot about them, and now, due to the danger of using the CD, they remembered again - at a new level. New materials (kevlar for cables, gas-tight films) make balloon barriers cheap and effective. In the Russian Federation, tests of such a system were carried out, which were successful, and the system was put into service. (called something like "Cheetah"). PS During the tests, they say, the rocket general said in hearts: "Damn what! Two students, a hundred ropes and one inflatable member knocked down a product worth lemon bucks !!!
https://www.liveinternet.ru/users/2129075/post194028441/

[Photon]

Quote: Sergey Valov

“Only the Bolsheviks possessed” - and what did they end up with?

Have you enrolled Yeltsin with Gorbachev?

[Ugolek]

All? 8))))
This is impossible

Lopatov, that is, you say that the enemy in one direction can concentrate 50-60 planes in the air, or even more, and head towards the border, but we won’t see this and we won’t be able to raise the interceptors ahead of time?

[Ugolek]

As an option, for short-range air defense, I propose turret-type installations with drums. Say one drum holds 48 nails. Volley along the swarm and not immediately reload the drum, but to change an already charged drum with missiles. Structurally, this should be a very simple solution, such as inserting a new drum on the pin, reconnecting the plugs and again the fire. All about everything for a few minutes.

[Fan-fan]

Such a drum needs a crane. The weight is rather big.

[g1washntwn]

To do this, there is a TZM and it is more convenient and faster to pack batch recharge or immediately the entire TPK unit.
And when there are massive waves of targets, the reload speed of PU air defense systems is a priority. Manual reloading is possible for Nails or MD air defense systems on Strela / Verba, but it is already problematic to reload 3M33 from Osa manually.

[riwas]

Why does Russia have such a large nomenclature of air defense missile systems, while the United States only has "Patriot" and they do not have to raise the issue of breaking through their air defense by exceeding its capabilities? Because the US is betting on global aviation superiority.
See my article.
http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren11/asimm_otvet1.htm

[Fan-fan]

Because they do not plan to defend themselves, they only plan to attack.

[Cyrus]

No, they are betting on the first blow ... and they are right.

[sivuch]

Actually, it's the same thing. And you can use the term Aggression.

[The seventh]

That's right ..), And therefore, it is purely conceptual, ... the solution of problems ... the breakthrough of ground air defense echelons, the combat stability of tank Armadas with their KAZ, massed formations of MLRS and other land trifles is solved extremely trivial - All this together, rallied and under Mendelssohn's march .. follows to the dustbin of History, like Anachronism and Rudiment. Only the Airborne Forces, Special Operations Forces and other multi-colored spetsnaz berets remain on the "ground". Air defense is lifted into the air on airplanes and helicopters, .. well, and IA, AWACS and "flying fortresses", as carriers of air-to-air missiles and various air defense weapons, as their launchers ... ensure the conquest and retention of air superiority, after which Air works comfortably on the Earth reaching the last centers of ground resistance, the last dugouts and cellars ...))

[astronom1973n]

The best air defense is tanks at the enemy airfield!

[demiurg]

Looking from the couch, I see two solutions to the problem.
1. SAM is engaged only in target designation and guidance, and of defeating particularly important goals. Fixed assets, any barrel artillery, from 30 to 152 mm. In BMP-3 BC, Msta, tanks, and others, it will be necessary to introduce guided ammunition / ammunition with a programmable fuse for hitting air targets.
In addition, armored vehicles should be equipped with at least the simplest optoelectronic stations, for self-guidance after the primary missile defense from the air defense radar.
2. To make specialized 85-152mm smooth-bore anti-aircraft guns, again with adjustable / homing ammunition.

[The seventh]

Shot vertically up to 7-10 km high on carriers that showered the battlefield with miniature means of destruction of various earthmoving equipment from various artillery barrels with UAS and programmed fuses, this, excuse me ... is like ... spitting against the wind. .)

[demiurg]

1. Who will fly OVER the front line for 7-10 km? At such an altitude, it’s dangerous to fly up to the front line of kilometers for 100-150. Even a rocket and more than one from the S-400 or Vityaz can and should be spent on the carrier.

2. In general, what does it spit then upwind? A shell fired by the same hyacinth at an altitude of 10 km will have a speed of 400-500 meters per second. And weigh about 40 kg. Not much worse than the rocket of the same shell. The question is target designation and guidance. Well, the trunk like a hyacinth will need to be lifted. Although Msta can.

[the same doctor]

This problem is solved by hitting the positions and airfields of the attacking side. A palliative solution is the availability of high-speed carriers of anti-aircraft defense: something like the MIG-31, hung with missiles and quickly moving to the breakout point.
.
But the main thing is to understand that the most powerful air defense is only a means to gain time for the oncoming strike. Without a counter strike, any air defense is meaningless.

[The seventh]

And if the attacking side does not have .. airfields, if aviation is dispersed, their logistics is mobile, takeoff and landing is carried out from unpaved sites and suitable sections of federal ..) .. routes, if in fact the "airfield of the attacking side" - the whole country .. (own or already ... occupied)!? ..)

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Quote: Evgeny Savchenko

Strange ... at the beginning of the 20th century they did not know such complexity ... the airship is quite capable of hanging in the air for a long time and carrying a payload in the form of a radar

***
The airship will cost too cheap: this is unacceptable ... for those who eat from the military budget ...
They are, of course, vulnerable, but the very fact of their destruction will already speak of the beginning of an air attack ....
My brother (reserve colonel of the USSR and the Russian Federation) wrote to the Israeli Ministry of Defense a proposal on airships as a means of reconnaissance and strike complex in relation to Gaza and the border territories. I did not receive a response.

[Vitaly gusin]

Quote: Lieutenant Colonel of the USSRF Air Force in reserve

My brother (reserve colonel of the USSR and the Russian Federation) wrote to the Israeli Ministry of Defense a proposal on airships as a means of reconnaissance and strike complex in relation to Gaza and the border territories. I did not receive a response.

A partial answer was written by me today, here at 11:32

[Orlov]

Quote: Lieutenant Colonel USSR Air Force in stock

Quote: Evgeny Savchenko

Strange ... at the beginning of the 20th century they did not know such complexity ... the airship is quite capable of hanging in the air for a long time and carrying a payload in the form of a radar

***
The airship will cost too cheap: this is unacceptable ... for those who eat from the military budget ...
They are, of course, vulnerable, but the very fact of their destruction will already speak of the beginning of an air attack ....
My brother (reserve colonel of the USSR and the Russian Federation) wrote to the Israeli Ministry of Defense a proposal on airships as a means of reconnaissance and strike complex in relation to Gaza and the border territories. I did not receive a response.

over that Gaza, and so drones are able to fly up to 48 hours ....

[Fan-fan]

There has already been an article on Rheinmetall Air Defense's Oerlikon Skyranger air defense system on this site. There is a video there. Just the cannon part works great on drones. The main thing is that they have shells with explosives, by the way the author mentions that our Shell has no such shells and the shell’s guns are practically useless.
Maybe we should follow the Germans' path, they succeeded.

[sivuch]

You are a little late

[lucul]

Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions

You need to start by changing the doctrine - from defensive to offensive.
Because defensive doctrine is idiocy in its purest form. I’ll draw an analogy - imagine two boxers in the ring, but one of them is forbidden to beat first, only in response. And the first boxer (Nato), knowing that the second boxer (Russia) will never hit the first, will become more impudent. Constantly maneuvering and looking for a defense gap in order to strike for sure, in a nakaut, and the second will simply be helplessly watching him.
Or the second analogy, two meet in a dark alley, both have pistols, but one is forbidden to attack first, only a retaliatory shot. His opponent is given complete freedom of action, you can look for gaps in the defense and provoke (like the Israelis) as much as you want, knowing that the enemy will not fire.
And a completely different situation will be when the enemy knows that you can strike first at any moment, a completely different situation.

[Santjaga_Garka]

Due to the abandonment of cannon armament, the ammunition load of the SAM in the Pantsir-SM air defense system can be increased to 24 units.

Thus, when armed with Gvozd missiles alone, the ammunition of the Pantsir-SM air defense system can amount to 96 SAMs.

Four Pantsir-SM air defense systems only with missile weapons can carry a total of 48 missiles with a firing range of 40 km and 192 missiles of the Gvozd type with an estimated firing range of 10-15 km.

The combination of 240 ground-to-air missiles and a large number of guidance channels will allow four Pantsir-SM air defense systems to repulse a massive enemy fire attack ...

Even I did not catch any thoughts or the author miscalculated?

[The seventh]

The combination of 240 ground-to-air missiles and a large number of guidance channels will allow four Pantsir-SM air defense systems to repulse a massive enemy fire attack.

.. "a large number of guidance channels" ... but in fact, only 16 channels for 4 launchers will turn out to be too little (for two cassette RS from MLRS Tornado-G or for one from Tornado-S), almost on ORDER .. )

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Santjaga_Garka

and 192 rockets of the type “Nail” with an estimated range of 10-15 km.

These anti-aircraft "nails" are made in a caliber of approximately 57 mm ... Where does "10-15 km" come from? However, there is "such a trend" - the development of "light (ultralight)" interceptor missiles with a range of 2,5 km-4 km .... These are "foreign" MNTK and "planned" products of "Techmash" ... It is hardly possible expect more from anti-aircraft "nails!" for "Shell" ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: Santjaga_Garka

and 192 rockets of the type “Nail” with an estimated range of 10-15 km.

These anti-aircraft "nails" are made in a caliber of approximately 57 mm ... Where does "10-15 km" come from? However, there is "such a trend" - the development of "light (ultralight)" interceptor missiles with a range of 2,5 km-4 km .... These are "foreign" MNTK and "planned" products of "Techmash" ... It is hardly possible expect more from anti-aircraft "nails!" for "Shell" ...

Perhaps 2,5-4 km. There are no exact data on this yet. But I would like to hope for 10 kilometers, which, in principle, is quite realistic, given that for a "large" missile defense system they achieved a range of 40 km.

[Nikolaevich I]

Oh, I don't believe in "10 km"! I would rather agree to 5 ...

[SovAr238A]

A group of four vehicles will be able to repel an attack of air attack weapons simultaneously from all directions, or concentrate fire on the most threatened area. Four Pantsir-SM air defense systems with missile armament alone can carry a total of 48 missiles with a firing range of 40 km and 192 missiles of the Gvozd type with an estimated firing range of 10-15 km. The combination of 240 ground-to-air missiles and a large number of guidance channels will allow four Pantsir-SM air defense systems to repulse a massive enemy fire attack, for example, a strike from four F-15E fighter-bombers with 28 GBU-53B UABs on each or a volley of eight multiple launch rocket systems M270 MLRS

And the author generally read the characteristics of the 9M311 missile guidance system, and what follows from the rocket - the Shell fire control system?
Just reading these few sentences is all. what the author wrote in his article - just worthy of the bin ...


... 9M311 anti-aircraft guided missile is designed to engage in the visual visibility of aircraft and helicopters ....
... To exclude smoke from a working engine on the optical sighting process of the rocket at the launch site, a program (by radio commands) of an arc-shaped trajectory of the missile launch was applied ...
... Semi-automatic radio command missile control system with optical communication line ...
... The onboard equipment of the SAM included an antenna-waveguide system, an electronic unit, a gyroscopic coordinator, a steering gear unit, a tracer, a power supply ...
... The range of auto tracking (with a meteorological range of 10 km) is: F-16 - 17-26 km; PRR HARM - 13-15km; KR ALCM - 11-14km. ...

What does this give us?
That the system is purely radio command ...
3 simultaneously fired radar targets and a maximum of 1 radar targets.
all...
and it's all at a 120 degree angle.
The GBU-53 / B Small Diameter Bomb II has a diameter of only 0,18 cm and an EPR of about 0,015 m2.
Question: from what distance will the Shell find it? Kilometers from 3? Knowing that the near point is from 1 to 1,5 km. Closer - neither, nor ...
There is only 1,5 kilometers of distance to defeat a cloud of bombs, 3-4 guidance channels ...
and zilch ..
Only 10 GBU-53 / B Small Diameter Bomb II with a large margin completely overload the Shell and with a 100% guarantee it is destroyed ...
Only 10 ... and not 1112, which 4 Strikes can carry ...

[SETSET]

SovAr238A, "Pantsir-C1" will detect GBU-53 / B at a distance of D = 10,6 km and destroy it, not at a distance of 3 km. Therefore, your calculations are completely wrong.

[SETSET]

SovAr238A, "Pantsir - C1" will easily destroy all 10 GBU-53 / B bombs starting from a distance of D = 10,6 km.
The author is right.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: SETSET

SovAr238A, "Pantsir - C1" will easily destroy all 10 GBU-53 / B bombs starting from a distance of D = 10,6 km.
The author is right.

Well, tell us how Shell C1 - cope with 6 Israeli missiles ..

[SETSET]

SovAr238A, watch the video carefully. The Syrian Pantsir-S1 was not in a combat position, but was turned off by an illiterate Syrian crew. Don't write tales about "invincible" Israeli missiles. If it were not for Putin's negative role in the actions of Russian troops in Syria, then Israel's aircraft would not have been able to take off and all died on the ground.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: SETSET

SovAr238A, watch the video carefully. The Syrian Pantsir-S1 was not in a combat position, but was turned off by an illiterate Syrian crew. Don't write tales about "invincible" Israeli missiles. If it were not for Putin's negative role in the actions of Russian troops in Syria, then Israel's aircraft would not have been able to take off and all died on the ground.

You do not drive nonsense - watch the video. where the shell is thrown rockets at in all directions ..


and yes, the Shell completely failed against the drones in the himeim ...
All of his supposedly defeat of goals is the Torah ...
Which hastily brought to hmeimim after the first loss of aircraft ... For the shell is full zilch ...
But Thor turned out to be great ...
And it was Thor who knocked everything down. not shell - shell - complete profanity.



But all the same.
The cost of the Thor rocket is many tens of millions of rubles.
The cost of a UAV with 3 mortar mines is 120 thousand rubles.

missiles consumption - hundreds ...

Teach materiel.

[SETSET]

SovAr238A, learn the hardware yourself - you don't even know how to count ... And the other record looks like a fake, judging by the quality. And do not forget that a completely different "Pantsir-C2" is in service with the Russian troops in Syria, and it has much more capabilities than the first models, especially the export version. And as for the cost - you probably don't know about "nails" and their cost is much less than "cool" drones.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: SETSET

SovAr238A, learn the hardware yourself - you don't even know how to count ... And the other record looks like a fake, judging by the quality. And do not forget that a completely different "Pantsir-C2" is in service with the Russian troops in Syria, and it has much more capabilities than the first models, especially the export version. And as for the cost - you probably don't know about "nails" and their cost is much less than "cool" drones.

There are no nails and there will not be another 5 years ... do not lie. like trotsky
The record is not fake ...
Carapace - C2 - not produced ...

and yes. One company in which I work in fact took these injured carcasses from Khmeimim to Novosib to the capital ...
I saw a photo ...

And you continue to carry nonsense ...

especially for you.
I beg you - read ...
it's almost 10 years ago ...
2012 on the same site ...
Additional Information:
In 2012, at the open scientific and technical conference of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and RARAN, the assessment of the Pantsir-С1 system was announced.
The main advantage of the DPRB database "Armor-C 1" - automatic operation.
The main disadvantages according to field testing:
- low possibility of firing air objects flying and maneuvering with the course parameter 2-3 km;
- the possibility of hitting targets flying at speeds of 400 m / s and more (TTX - 1000м / s) was not confirmed;
- at maximum range, fire is conducted on air objects flying at a speed of less than 80 m / s;
- used bikalibernaya missile has guidance errors for actively maneuvering targets;
- not received confirmation of the possibility of destruction of tactical missiles or their units;
- small-scale targeting of missiles;
- ineffective coordination of elements of missiles;
- a noticeable influence of weather conditions on the detection range of air objects;
- overall characteristics and the complete absence of armor will not allow the use of the complex in the forward order of the covered units;
- dimensions of the BM ZPRK BD "Pantsir-С1" do not allow to move it by rail;
- the time required to transfer the complex to the combat position exceeds the stated time by 1.5 times.
- big time of shipment of ammunition with TZM (up to 30 minutes).
- there is no accurate data on the safety of fire of missiles;
- the existence of the possibility of overturning when firing from artillery weapons;
- dependence on import element base;
- tracked complex costs almost 50 per cent more expensive than the wheel variant

Summarized:
- in terms of cost-effectiveness, the Pantsir-С1 is COST;
- Active X-ray means lead to unmasking of the complex;
- it may take more than three years to transfer the REA complex to the domestic element base;
- for the expediency of using "Pantsir-С1" will require a lot of work on the coordination of various programs.


https://topwar.ru/17841-zenitnyy-pushechno-raketnyy-kompleks-blizhnego-deystviya-pancir-s1-96k6.html

[SETSET]

SovAr238A, it’s ugly to write a clean lie about Pantsir-C1 from the Ukrainian fake portal Life Journal, rewritten by the author of VO Dzherelyko. For military equipment tests, open scientific conferences of the Moscow Region are not held. And you want to introduce an obvious misinformation to me. You are clearly not an expert. And what nonsense is written:
-ineffective coordination of elements of missiles - complete nonsense;
- confirmation of the possibility of defeating tactical missiles or their units is not received - complete delirium, complex
Shell-C1 is not intended to intercept tactical missiles and their units;
- there is no exact data on the safety of firing SAM; complete nonsense, and so on, one nonsense. Aren't you ashamed of such fake stuff?
Complex "Pantsir-C2"stands on the arsenal of the troops of the Russian army. Read Wikipedia - even there it says.
"Nails"already tested.

[TOR2]

The number of missiles in launchers (launchers) is also limited. At the same time, after exhausting the ammunition of the air defense system for a long time, it becomes incapacitated, and will restore its combat readiness in about 1 hour, provided that the reserve ammunition is generally available (there are transport-loading vehicles)

1 hour simply will not be, and the recharge time needs to be reduced to 5 minutes. In order for the task to become feasible, you need to change the medium, or rather, supplement the air defense with new elements.

One option is the conveyor feed of launch containers. Conveyor of 5-7 wagons + motor wagon with which the conveyor will be replenished.
As discussed above, an important task is the selection of targets in the conditions of the enemy's use of a large number of decoys. A laser locator will do just that very well. Its power should be no less than that of the locator that participated in the Terra program.

Several diesel locomotive generator sets will be able to power the locator for quite a long time. No matter how the false target is realized, the locator will remove its outline. In addition, the radiation of this thing on electronics and people is quite interesting. If the "Shuttle" with its protection got off under the radiation equipment malfunctions, then what will happen to the F-35 is not difficult to guess.

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Quote: Vitaly Gusin

Unread

Thanks for the reply.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Military expert Sergey Khatylev called the fake media message that Israeli Rampage missiles allegedly could handle the Russian Armor.

The Internet is spreading information that the Israeli Air Force, during its recent raid on the Syrian city of Masyaf, launched the Rampage rocket, and it allegedly could cope with the Russian reconnaissance station Pantsir. Military expert, ex-chief of anti-aircraft missile forces (ZRV) of the special forces command of the Russian Air Force, Colonel Sergey Khatilev on the pages of the publication "Tsargrad" refuted these data, calling them fake.
...
In order to destroy the "Shell", the rocket must have four systems that would allow it to hit the complex. It must, like the Pantsir, function in the optical, millimeter, centimeter and infrared ranges.. Khatilev noted that he does not know such missiles. Their appearance would be an outstanding achievement and a breakthrough.

https://politexpert.net/149064-khatylev-obyasnil-bespoleznost-izrailskikh-raket-rampage-protiv-pancirya?utm_source=warfiles.ru

What is it? So wildly distorted the meaning of his words by journalists, hard drugs, dementia? What is the relationship between the systems of detection and targeting of an air defense missile system Pantsir and gos missiles?

[Ugolek]

Fully agree with Luculwho loves to play chess and the more serious the player’s level, he knows and understands that they don’t win in this game without counterattack. How many do not lead passive defense by maneuvering, the victims of a pawn or piece will reach the goal - they will win the game. Therefore, in the arsenal of a serious player there is always a plan for a counterattack, that is, an attack, without it you can’t break the enemy’s defense.
Another such concept was demonstrated in the film Pacific Rim. And although this is a fantastic film, it emphasizes the idea very clearly. Lucula.

[tchoni]

Another article-justification for "Shell". But yes, not the point. The author, in my opinion, completely in vain denies the effectiveness of the guns. The fact that "Shell" did not work yet does not mean that it cannot work at all. The point is that the cannons of the "Carapace" give too much dispersion. This is good for a large target like an airplane or helicopter and absolutely disgusting for a smaller target like a glide bomb. In addition, in "Pantsir" the same person is responsible for the guidance of both guns and missiles. And this is not very convenient. Therefore, it is worth spreading guns and missiles on different platforms. The four barrels of the "Pantsir" should be replaced with one "gatling" capable of long-term automatic fire and with good accuracy. At the cost of moving to a smaller caliber, increase the ammunition load. Give the complex a circular view and a high reaction speed.

[serg v stock]

You can come up with an arbitrarily perfect defense against a flying enemy, the passage of a hundred axes plus one hundred small drones will put an end to any defense. Much more effective is the clarification of his plans for the attack - passwords, appearances, time. And a warning blow to the arrogant red face to solve all the problems.

[TOR2]

Quote: serg v zapase

You can come up with an arbitrarily perfect defense against a flying enemy, the passage of a hundred axes plus one hundred small drones will put an end to any defense.

It depends on what principle the defense is organized. Here the classics will definitely not help. But an air defense system working on areas with a flock of drones can easily argue. This concept was first implemented in the "Ranets-E" complex. As is often the case, the first pancake turned out to be lumpy. A small radius of action and a long "recharge" time, these are quite solvable things.

[Snusmumrik]

And how effective can be the creation of the so-called. "zero line" - ground-based air defense drones, armed with an automatic cannon, moving forward and covering the short-range air defense system. Let me explain. Several tankettes on a caterpillar track crawl out 500 meters from the shells and Thors, recline on jacks. Target designation and energy - but at least by cable.

[bk0010]

1) Something the author has forgotten about the "Newspapers". Not only can planes fool the head of air defense with false targets, but also air defense of planes (and much cheaper).
2) You can’t refuse from air defense systems (as someone suggested), even if you have a lot of planes. At 41, the surviving fighters burned the entire resource, trying to cover the troops, after which the enemy stormed and bombed them with impunity.
3) It is necessary to introduce a cheap automatic anti-aircraft anti-aircraft defense cover into the composition of the air defense complex, with a caliber of 76-100 mm (you need to calculate what gives the best fragmentation field - rate of fire or power), which receives target designation from the air defense system (without its own radar or a developed optical system) and uses the full program that moment that we know where the rocket flies (in the SAM, if by, then to hell with it - not her task).

[SovAr238A]

Quote: bk0010

3) It is necessary to introduce a cheap automatic anti-aircraft anti-aircraft defense cover into the composition of the air defense complex, with a caliber of 76-100 mm (you need to calculate what gives the best fragmentation field - rate of fire or power), which receives target designation from the air defense system (without its own radar or a developed optical system) and uses the full program that moment that we know where the rocket flies (in the SAM, if by, then to hell with it - not her task).

First, you need to create programmable fuses for projectiles with the possibility of programming during the "ramming - shot" cycle - otherwise it will be reduced to the level of WWII
In order for the air defense system to be truly controllable, all components must be made on the basis of common standards, the entire control system / communication protocols. data exchange - unified. the architecture is one. That any component could be connected to the system and identified by it and controlled by it.
And defense objects must also be connected to the system.
What would they know - who needs to be protected.
and here it is a complete failure.

[bk0010]

Quote: SovAr238A

First, you need to create programmable fuses for projectiles with the possibility of programming during the "ramming - shot" cycle - otherwise it will be reduced to the level of WWII

Even during WWII, radio fuses were created, which, together with the POISO, made it possible to create the US Navy's air defense system, which was almost impenetrable for aviation of that time, quite resistant even to kamikazes (an analogue of anti-ship missiles of that time). Similar means were created by the USSR, which allowed during the Korean War, using a 100-mm anti-aircraft gun battery, to force the U.S. Air Force to abandon attempts to bomb some important bridge (it was here, on the website, in an article about these anti-aircraft guns). So, everything has already been created, it is necessary to restore the production of anti-aircraft guns, automate the shooting as much as possible, put the gun on a single chassis and ensure that the TsU is received. And, as you rightly noted, with integration we do not have much (Russian Link-16, where are you, ay !!!), then this should be done by the one who does the entire air defense system, which is problematic, since they have not been with artillery for a long time work.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: bk0010

Quote: SovAr238A

First, you need to create programmable fuses for projectiles with the possibility of programming during the "ramming - shot" cycle - otherwise it will be reduced to the level of WWII

Even during WWII, radio fuses were created, which, together with the POISO, made it possible to create the US Navy's air defense system, which was almost impenetrable for aviation of that time, quite resistant even to kamikazes (an analogue of anti-ship missiles of that time).

I did not fully understand the message about radio fuses, but the topic of programmed fuses is the real development of results only in the last 5-8 years ... And that. only selected manufacturers ...

And in view of that. that the use of large-caliber ZA is already complete nonsense, and everyone is moving towards 30/40/57 mm machine guns - that is exactly what the fuses need to be programmed in hundreds of shots in a row to create a cloud of debris in a certain area of ​​space ... And no detonators of a "cloud" of debris at the current speed of goals - you will not achieve.

[bk0010]

Quote: SovAr238A

The theme of programmable fuses is the real development of results only in the last 5-8 years.

A radio fuse is simpler, but it has the same effect: [media = https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%B2% D0% B7% D1% 80% D1% 8B% D0% B2% D0% B0% D1% 82% D0% B5% D0% BB% D1% 8C]. In 42, they were thrust even in 76-mm shells

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: bk0010

1) Something the author has forgotten about the "Newspapers". Not only can planes fool the head of air defense with false targets, but also air defense of planes (and much cheaper).

No, I did not forget, just the format of any article is limited. And so, you can still deploy a false inflatable air defense system. For rockets with optical / active radar homing, it’s quite a goal, and in my opinion they simulate a thermal signature.

[Vasily199]

Quote: flicker

Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions

Ways of solving: a counter strike on the territory of the enemy and its allies, it is possible nuclear ... we will see how the enemy’s air defense cope
For example, an iron cumpole

will you watch from 2 meters depth?

[Kostadinov]

A large number of false or real attacking ammunition can be answered:
1. A large number of real air defense systems on earth. Instead of one SAM with 100 or 200 SAMs, it is better than 200 separate single launchers for SAMs and 200 small and mobile radars, or even better only passive detectors, which are so distant in space that only one target can be destroyed with one attacking munition.
2. Intercepting attacking ammunition only in the last few hundred meters to 1 km from the target, then SAM and radar can be made very small and their cost will be minimal.
3. Strengthen the position of SAM and radar so that they can be destroyed only by a direct hit. SAM will place in small silos.
4. The main means of air defense is not the interception of attacking ammunition, but the taming and strengthening of the protected objects.
5. The best defense is an attack on enemy bases (on land and at sea) with a very large number of attacking ammunition - BR from cluster warheads, thousands of small Raman or drones, thousands of manned light aircraft, etc.

[bird]

once it is impossible to control a projectile of 30 mm. so we need to go back to caliber 57 ... our lamps will fit into it. even without rudders, well, at least with a doppler and a smart detonator. somehow increase the air defense ammunition. In the end, "everything new is well forgotten old." Or maybe we will return the caliber 85 to the stand? he seemed to finish off up to 15 km. in height. We will stuff there g ... smart silicon, we will make it active, we will put the shit.

[Pacifist]

I re-read the article several times and tried to check my opinion on the correctness, and nevertheless I am inclined to think that an air defense system cannot do without a high-performance barrage system of the last frontier. And as such, 30mm automatic machines are completely unsuitable. The caliber is not the same, accuracy for small targets is conditional. In the presence of controlled detonation, the fragmentation field is not enough. There is a normal 57mm gun. For him, and you need to do air defense-oriented ammunition. After that, make an additional art-air defense machine with large ammunition and an all-round radar locator and OLS. And supplement the standard air defense system with these machines, thereby forming the zone of the last frontier. Considering the density of fire and modern filling, this will be a worthy receiver of the infernal thresher, and in a team with TORs and Shell-SM in a purely rocket version it’s just a hurricane in the sky.

[3danimal]

About saving on AFAR for Armor: great, the only one with an RLL will be knocked out by HARM, and the rest will shoot using manual guidance. Bravo
About the "nails", from which many were delighted: at the beginning of the article it was said that the Pantsir air defense system is still limited by the channel in terms of targets and the direction of attack. That is, it will be possible to fire a maximum of the same 4 targets. After all, if the ARL of the seeker was not placed in an "expensive" standard rocket, then the simplest guidance system will be in a cheap craft.