The Russian "flying radar" A-100 challenges the American E-3

Russia is working to improve its AWACS aircraft. Military Watch magazine reviewed new projects and appreciated efforts in this direction.

Russia is actively investing in the development of military aircraft of various classes. Increasing attention is also being paid to technology designed to provide combat aviation. The most important component of air fleet are airborne early warning and control aircraft.

Since 1989, the Russian Air Force has been operating A-50 type AWACS aircraft with sufficiently high performance characteristics. However, in size and capabilities, the A-50 is noticeably inferior to the American E-3 Sentry aircraft. In 2013, the aircraft A-50У, which has more advanced electronic equipment, was adopted. In the early twenties, the promising A-100 will be commissioned.

Using a modern component base allows you to make avionics more productive, but compact and light. An aircraft with such equipment can accompany a greater number of targets and more effectively control aviation. This reduces the load on the air platform, and increases the duration of the flight. The A-50U aircraft, carrying the new avionics, compares favorably with the A-50 in all major respects. Without refueling in flight, it can remain in the air for up to 9 hours - at 15-20 percent. longer than A-50.

The aircraft carries an upgraded Bumblebee radar with enhanced performance. Fighter detection range increased by a third; at the same time accompanied by 300 targets with the issuance of target designation on 40 of them. Missile launches are detected at a range of 1000 km. Enhanced ground tracking capabilities. Avionics includes satellite communications.

Aircraft AWACS A-50U. Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

A-50U differs from its predecessor in improved survivability and stability. New means of shooting false targets, a modern complex of electronic warfare, etc. are used.

In case of a long flight, living conditions have been improved. Five pilots and ten operators can use the kitchen and seating area. Due to this, the duration of the patrol can exceed 24 hours.

Aircraft AWACS E-3 Sentry. Photo: Air Combat Command

Nevertheless, it is believed that the A-50U is inferior in its characteristics and capabilities to the American E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft. Russia plans to catch up with the United States in this area through the new A-100 aircraft. This model looks promising and is quite capable of competing with foreign technology.

Information about the A-100 so far is only the most general. This aircraft is planned to be built on the IL-76MD-90A platform with improved flight performance and new avionics. A-100 will receive a new radar with AFAR, capable of detecting air targets at a distance of 600 km. Perhaps A-100 will be able to find and accompany stealth aircraft.

Thus, the promising Russian A-100 AWACS aircraft can count on leadership in its field and, in fact, challenges the American E-3. The United States will certainly respond to the emergence of such a technique. They can force the development of new AWACS aircraft, as well as upgrade existing equipment.

Comments

[Thrifty]

I am more than sure that the real target detection range of the A50U is higher than the declared one, but this is good, in case of war, as one comedian said, "there will be a surprise"!

[FenH]

Quote: Thrifty

I am more than sure that the real target detection range of the A50U is higher than the declared one, but this is good, in case of war, as one comedian said, "there will be a surprise"!

Still, the number would coincide with the needs

[Greg Miller]

But what about the number of A50Us themselves, and their extremely small flight range, coupled with a tanker fleet that has shrunk to several units for air refueling? It was not necessary to create the A-100 on the basis of the IL-76 modifications, but on the basis of the IL-96 ... and air tankers should also be created on the basis of the IL-96 ...

[Monar]

And how many airfields in Russia are ready to accept IL-96?

[Sling cutter]

Quote: Monar

And how many airfields in Russia are ready to accept IL-96?

And what does the IL-96?
A-100 on the Il-76MD-90A platform

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Stroporez

And what does the IL-96?

And despite the fact that in the original post they suggested making the A-100 just on the basis of the IL-96:

Quote: Greg Miller

It was necessary to create the A-100 not on the basis of the IL-76 modifications, but based on IL-96

[Sling cutter]

Alexey RA (Alexey)
And what is it that the 96th cars are still being assembled?
I remember a couple of years ago, aviation experts, who have no reason not to trust, said that the IL-96 rested in a Bose, and those 4 pieces that stood at the walls were redone in 96-400

[Monar]

What's the difference? Under 96th we need airfields. Their take-off is longer. What the Russian Federation can’t boast of.

[Sling cutter]

Monar (Alexey I agree.

[Maz]

This is all great, but with us these planes can be counted by the fingers of the hand, and the US Air Force has more than 88 pieces. This is only the USA. There are still NATO countries.

[Sky strike fighter]

Quote: Thrifty

I am more than sure that the real target detection range of the A50U is higher than the declared one, but this is good, in case of war, as one comedian said, "there will be a surprise"!

National Interest compared the Russian A-100 AWACS aircraft with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry.

Journalists of the American edition of National Interest decided to conduct a comparative analysis of the capabilities of the Russian A-100 long-range radar detection aircraft, which is currently only undergoing the first tests, with the E-3 Sentry reconnaissance aircraft,

The main advantage of Russian technology, according to the authors of the material, is the presence of AFAR (active phased array) in comparison with the passive array E-3 Sentry, reports “Word and deed”.

It is alleged that the antenna array of the Russian A-100 is capable of outputting several rays at once for scanning space and searching for targets, instead of one that is used in American counterparts. In addition, the antenna of the Russian AWACS aircraft also rotates twice as fast, thereby doubling the speed at which the results are displayed on operator monitors.

https://www.armiya.az/ru/news/149964

[KVU-NSVD]

Nevertheless, it is believed that the A-50U is inferior in its characteristics and capabilities to the American E-3 AWACS aircraft

Well, it’s considered, okay, but according to people, this airplane using the service is not so simple. A hundred are waiting for a long time in the VKS and other military branches, but so far unfortunately everything is as it is .. I hope for a short while.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Honestly, it's pretty hard for me to understand how A-50 is so inferior to Sentry

[Town Hall]

The same than Lada inferior to Mercedes

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Specify, please. And, preferably, at least a little more reasoned than in the dispute over the Mistral :)

[Town Hall]

Self-praise - a promotion paid for by vanity

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Very self-critical

[Lexus]

Andrey, technically unlikely. The approach to use is different. The American has dozens of airbases all over the world to accommodate the Sentry and a tanker fleet of several hundred sides.

[yehat]

than the A-50U is so inferior to Sentry
about 5-8 times inferior to the productivity of iron, which processes information.
It is not a full-fledged coordination center and uses information received poorly
not widely integrated to assist other combat arms
Well, the radar is weaker than that of the E3G

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

5-8 times inferior in performance? Modification U? :) Will there be any evidence? With pleasure I will get acquainted. I would understand if it was a basic version ...
What is the inferiority of coordination? And especially interesting about the radar

[Monar]

And about the radar can be more?

[vladcub]

Andrey, you and I know that there is a stamp: "for official use", and there is a detailed description of what the A-50U can or cannot

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quite right, I personally can only judge by open information. Like my opponents. And foreign analysts also do not have access to the secret. And here it’s interesting to me, on the basis of what open data it was concluded that A-50U is losing the sentry

[bayard]

Andrey, the main problems (in the base model) were not only in range and performance, but also in data transfer and (which is very important) in continuous topographic location. He practically could not transfer his data to ground control posts and worked only as an independent air command post. In any case, it was not possible to establish work with a full-fledged data exchange in the middle of the zero ... I hope these problems are gone in the modernized version.
The pace of modernization of the A-50 and the refinement of the A-100 are depressing, there are apparently problems with the component base after the sanctions. But there are many such aircraft, with our liquid liquid radar field from ground-based radars ... And so far there is little (open) information.
Here, in addition to the qualities of the AWACS aircraft itself, communication channels are important to ensure continuous data exchange with the CPSU. Via satellite? Do you have enough of these satellites? You can use an airplane \ you repeaters, but it is more complicated and more expensive ... Our satellites are not updated (GLONAS, etc.) due to the lack of a component base ...
So apparently (for all factors) the A-50U is still inferior to Sentry, but still not fatal. And mainly in the number of serviceable and combat-ready sides.

[Ryaruav]

when one and the other was done and generally takes an example from official media like we are strangling the usa with our bare hands

[Sling cutter]

Ryaruav (Ryaruav)
netanalagafvmire)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Why not? There is. But according to the data known to me (which may be incomplete, I agree) A-50U and Sentry are approximately equivalent. If someone brings an argument (you understand the difference between arguments and slogans) against A-50U - I read with interest. But while I do not see one

[Ryaruav]

and I am an ordinary Russian aviation aircraft mechanic on the Su-15 fleet and the disadvantages are not mine

[yehat]

Thus, the promising Russian A-100 AWACS aircraft can count on leadership in its field and, in fact, challenges the American E-3.

how?
maybe the radar can really compete with E3G, but the filling of information processing is on a completely different level. In order for the A100 to compete, it still needs to be finalized and finalized.

[Zaurbek]

1. Why not put AFAR on the A50U
2. Whatever part of the A100 does not do based on IL96-400. Everyone will not figure out where to shove it. And in the army, that’s it. And the range and comfort are much higher than on the IL76 ....

[Flurry]

Quote: yehat

Thus, the promising Russian A-100 AWACS aircraft can count on leadership in its field and, in fact, challenges the American E-3.

how?
maybe the radar can really compete with E3G, but the filling of information processing is on a completely different level. In order for the A100 to compete, it still needs to be finalized and finalized.

"What is your evidence"? C. Iron based on "Elbrus" is not inferior to Western ones based on military versions of processors. Moreover, there we are not talking about a real-time simulation of a nuclear explosion. The energy of the radar is exactly comparable; the West has no particular advantages there.

[vadimtt]

I wonder what process technology is now used on military sides. In my days, it was strictly limited to 125 microns for air and 250 microns for space.
And this is with all sorts of circuitry and material science tricks to increase radiation resistance.

[yehat]

in my topic there is no conclusion that our radar is worse or better.
I focused on equipping the aircraft with data processing tools.
and about those ignoramuses who think that reflecting a red or green dot on the map is enough, I would ask you to learn a little, because this is a complete misunderstanding of the problem.
I think it’s not a secret for anyone who the contact has a history or a telemetry loop.
But for its analysis, as well as other operations, computing power is needed, as well as an adequate team on board.
The problem is that even on the A-50 it was crowded and did not fit everything that was needed in order to compare in functions with E3. And on the a-100 the same problem.
if they do on the basis of IL-96-400, I think it will be possible to put everything necessary there.

[gregor6549]

As far as I know, A-50U can accompany up to 40 air targets and up to 500 ground (non-air) targets.
A common drawback of the A50U and E3A is the limitation of the speed of viewing the space in azimuth during flights at high altitudes (due to the low temperatures affecting the performance of the massive support bearing of antenna systems).

[yehat]

I think not a critical minus. In addition, lattice technology can significantly level this feature, increasing sensitivity at sharp angles due to range.
I think the temporary narrowing of the review for the period of the plate cycle is not so critical.

[rocket757]

Russia is working to improve its AWACS aircraft.

That's when we find out about INCREASING the composition of our AWACS, then the boom !!! all sho need a boom!

[Dzafdet]

Can spot Fu-22 and Fu-35? They are also detected by the A-50U. Most likely, the A-100 will be integrated into a single air defense system. Iron will be made on the basis of the Elbrus ....

[gregor6549]

What is "picks up". Low air target to detect. It is also necessary to carry out a number of procedures for each of them.
For example:
1. Making a decision is a goal or is it a false alarm
2. Carry out state identification
3. Put on escort
4. Keep track of trails / trajectories of tracking targets and filter out false trajectories.
And it all takes multiple radar antenna views. And unobtrusive air targets are so "harmful" that in one survey they can be seen, and on the next one can be lost. Providing stable stealth tracking is a very difficult task, especially in radars with mechanical scanning of the antenna, and without such tracking, the task of controlling the actions of your aviation can be very difficult, if not impossible.

[yehat]

it’s like a radar array, there is no mechanical scan
The problem you described most likely relates to extreme distances. but I don’t think that continuous stealth tracking for 800 km from an AWACS aircraft is critically necessary
I think this mode is relevant only from 200-300 km. And at such a distance, all targets are already clearly distinguishable, even with low ESR.

[gregor6549]

There is just a mechanical scan there, in azimuth. An elevation scan electronically.
It is mechanical scanning in azimuth that makes continuous tracking of moving targets problematic because the time between surveys (scans) is quite significant, especially at minimum antenna speeds at low temperatures. In addition, the movement of the radar carrier (aircraft) itself affects the tracking process.
And further. Target tracking is an integral and integral part of the entire detection process, without which making a decision "true target / false target" is very difficult, and if there is a large number of targets in the radar's area of ​​responsibility, it is simply impossible, no matter how far from the radar these targets are. This is a classic of modern radar techniques. There is simply no need to confuse target tracking carried out by surveillance radars and weapons guidance radars. Unfortunately, it is more than difficult to explain this in detail on this forum.

[ZVS]

Where is the A-100? What year in the Russian press bred show about this aircraft AWACS, but it is not yet in the army.
A strange tendency has developed in Russia to give praise to weapons that are not yet in the troops and it is not known whether they will. How many enthusiastic splashes of Armata were there? Where is he? He is not here. There is also Kurganets, Su-57, Burevestnik, the latest torpedoes to replace the "Shkvalu" and much more.
One gets the impression that all these laudatory articles in the press are intended for domestic consumption - for the Russian layman who has forgotten how to think. In order to do this, the people should stop asking about the effectiveness of money invested in the defense industry. And what to ask about this issue is the number of aircraft and helicopters lost in Syria. And not only.

[SOF]

Quote: SU

How many enthusiastic splashes of Armata were there? Where is he? He is not here. There is also Kurganets, Su-57, Burevestnik, the latest torpedoes to replace the "Shkvalu" and much more.

.... and do you not receive a weekly report on the implementation of the state defense order by e-mail? ...
... voice your address - I'll throw it to you .... yes .... you still need to call the MO .... and scold them, negligent, for the untimely dissemination of information ....

Quote: SU

One gets the impression that all these laudatory articles in the press are intended for domestic consumption - for the Russian layman who has forgotten how to think.

..... share your experience (otherwise I do not know) in which newspapers of the Union .... (of course, even before the moment when they forgot how to "think") sang "enthusiastically enthusiastic"articles and told in detail"on the effectiveness of money invested in the defense industry"? ..... where did you read something like that and how did you check what you read so that you do not forget how to think, but make sure of its effectiveness ...?
..... and I would also very much like to know .... what then ..... when they have not forgotten how to think ..... they said "the number of lost in Afghanistan aircraft and helicopters. And not only.".?....
... Well, for a snack, the question is: ......... how much you need to be torn from reality, what should be carried pseudo-patriotic nonsense .....?

[ZVS]

You are cut off from reality. For reasons of this, I have to daily analyze on the Internet all the information on weapons in Russia for the site. Therefore, I say what I know. And you are an outspoken talker, because They have not refuted any of my allegations on armaments.

[SOF]

Quote: SU

For reasons I have to analyze daily on the Internet

..... ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...

Quote: SU

frank talker

..... I am returning to you your well-deserved epithet ...... analyzer ....

[yehat]

Quote: Rafale

Iron on the basis of "Elbrus" is not inferior to Western

blah blah blah
Iron equal to the American Processor-9 just started to be released in the 18th year.
A100, as you know, had already been created by this time.
if we are talking about its modernization, then you can talk about elbrus, but for now it’s only your imagination and the iron is weaker there.
I don’t have data on what the filling of the a100 is, but even the Elbrus-4C of 2014 is not sure that I got into the machine’s package, not to mention the elbrus 8s and 16s.
Before arguing, study a question.
I am not at all against our machines being better, but it would be nice to remember what industry we have and what it can do.

[Flurry]

Studied, discussed with one of the developers of avionics KB "Ramenskoye". Imported military grade chips lagged behind civilian versions in performance. The Boeing E3C Sentry has been produced since 1991. At that time, only 80386 "military" ones from Intel and slightly better performance from IBM, installed in the Sentry, were available. Here you can learn more about the software and architectural features of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/370.
If there is "no data", then you really should not "express your fantasies", but study the issue a little. Believe me, not only Americans know how to change racks with equipment on an AWACS aircraft.

[orionvitt]

I'll tell you a secret that the speed of the "prots" in the military theme is not the main thing. The third "stump" perfectly recognizes all targets. It's all about the technical solution of the main directions. But the new generation of young and “well-informed” iPhone lovers, thinks differently, and this is why there is a major clamor on the topic of the “backwardness” of Russia in the field of radio electronics.

[yehat]

you just have to remember that performance always comes close to software quality
and if the software sucks, no power will help. Due to the quality of programming, the USSR did not lag behind NATO until the 90s, but now the situation has changed.

[orionvitt]

Quote: yehat

performance always comes next to software quality

You have never worked at a defense enterprise. I dare to assure you that the programmers are the best there. I tell you, about production in general. So, nothing has changed. For some reason, in the world, the turn is behind Russian modern weapons. Myself, do not contradict.

[yehat]

I’m actually working now))) and I know these best programmers.
do not experience illusions. Programming technology has changed radically and not for the better for optimization. Now the quality of the code in NATO and we have about the same.

[orionvitt]

Quote: yehat

Now the quality of the code in NATO and we have about the same

Then what doesn't suit you? Maybe you do not have access? Maybe you don’t know something.? When I worked at defense enterprises (there were them in our city, heaps, including during the Union), I didn’t know much either. Then, I learned a lot. With the collapse. And now, something works, but the privacy mode has not been canceled.

[yehat]

secrets are secrets, but the complexity of the work speaks well of that. how and what they do.
if earlier you could lick 40 lines of code for a week to make everything work perfectly, now quality mainly concerns the predictability and functionality of the algorithms.
capitalism rules.

[orionvitt]

Damn, you turned me on, for some reason. I have a specialty at the institute "design and technology of radio electronic means", and you will tell me stories. I know perfectly well the general trends in the field of radio electronics in the world.

[spectr]

The third pentium will not be enough for the requirements that are laid down in the statement of work for new products.

[yehat]

Quote: Rafale

80386 "military" from Intel and slightly better performance from IBM, installed in Sentry.

after E3C there were E3D and G, and in addition, the G model in 18 underwent a major upgrade to block48.
and there are, to put it mildly, far from the 386th chips.

[Flurry]

E3A / B / C more than 30 pieces in operation, according to Wiki and Bongo. They underwent modernization in the late 90s and early 2000s and need to be compared with the A50U, 2003 onwards in which there are also far from 386th chips. And for A100 there really is no data, as for G, but in a first approximation we can talk about comparable characteristics of the computing complex. Given the miniaturization, this ceases to be a bottleneck, and we are far from using Argon-16 there. Much more important are the characteristics of antennas, transceivers, amplifiers, if there are long-wave antennas. At least I would give one side of the plate for AFAR and interrogators, the other for the DV antenna.

[yehat]

the problem is not in the dimensions of the computers, although they too
the problem is the total capacity, which allows you to carry e3 almost twice as many staff
accordingly, the functionality of the entire complex is increased.
for comparison, during the inauguration of Trump, e3 hung over the city with 14 operators who regulated all the air.

[orionvitt]

A-50 noticeably inferior to American E-3 Sentry aircraft

Anyone who is in the know knows that the Americans cannot fight without the Awax. Enough to knock down, and tryndets. But Russia can. The model of war is not the same.

[yehat]

they can like in Egypt, when even an instant of the 25s was beaten from ambush.

[orionvitt]

And how many of them shot down MIG-25 in Egypt? Teach history .. Teacher pancake.

[yehat]

fragments of one were stored in our city museum next to fragments of mirages and phantoms.
I know about 3 cases of shooting down. all 3 come from a well-organized trap.

[orionvitt]

It's like Poroshenko, showing the remains of some buses. Yes, I will provide you with so many artifacts to maintain the "national spirit" that "Mama do not grieve."

[yehat]

we had the anti-aircraft part, from where everything got to the museum
and you watched too much TV

[Alexey RA]

Quote: orionvitt

Anyone who is in the know knows that the Americans cannot fight without the Awax. Enough to knock down, and tryndets. But Russia can. The model of war is not the same.

Yeah ... how the domestic air defense system without AWACS can fight well showed the 1982 war. The Israelis knocked out the Syrian advanced OVC radars - and the Syrian air defense system, built on the Soviet principle and controlled by Soviet specialists, immediately began to give critical glitches. For the horizon of view has sharply decreased.
No radar - no data on the KP air defense - no control of the air defense and air defense missile defense.
And the inability to "look beyond the radio horizon" of ground-based radars regularly led to the fact that the Syrian fighters entering the target were themselves attacked by Israeli fighters invisible to the Syrian air defense radar (due to the low altitude or folds of the terrain).

[Dzafdet]

Quote: gregor6549

What is "picks up". Low air target to detect. It is also necessary to carry out a number of procedures for each of them.
For example:
1. Making a decision is a goal or is it a false alarm
2. Carry out state identification
3. Put on escort
4. Keep track of trails / trajectories of tracking targets and filter out false trajectories.
And it all takes multiple radar antenna views. And unobtrusive air targets are so "harmful" that in one survey they can be seen, and on the next one can be lost. Providing stable stealth tracking is a very difficult task, especially in radars with mechanical scanning of the antenna, and without such tracking, the task of controlling the actions of your aviation can be very difficult, if not impossible.

We can not do non-mechanical scanners. Either the brains are not enough, or the technologies. But as I understand it, AWACS alone does not work. A complex of stations should work.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dzafdet

We can not do non-mechanical scanners.

Hmmm ... but didn’t the electronic S-300 scan in the 90-degree sector?
EMNIP, the problem was different - in the coordination of the work of several PARs and the transfer of targets from one antenna to another. That is why, instead of several conformal PARs with a common sector of 360 degrees (our answer is AN / SPY-1), prs 1164 and 1144 received "boobs" with combined electronic-mechanical scanning (90-degree sector - electronically, sector rotation - mechanically).
However, now they seem to have solved this problem:

[gregor6549]

It’s not a matter of brains, and they learned how to do radars by electronic scanning in azimuth and elevation in the USSR for a long time.
For example, in the preliminary design of the S300 air defense system, a radar was proposed, the antenna of which represented a cylindrical passive HEADLIGHT with electronic scanning of the beam in azimuth and elevation. But calculations showed that the energy of such an antenna does not allow achieving the required performance characteristics of the air defense missile system. A cylindrical PAR was also made for one of the Soviet aircraft-carrying ships "Baku".
Then they abandoned such antennas and preferred to integrate a radar all-round view with mechanical scanning in azimuth and electronic scanning in elevation
from a sector survey radar with electronic scanning of a beam in a particular sector in azimuth and elevation and the possibility of electro- or hydro-mechanical turning of a sector radar antenna to the desired azimuth
Now the bourgeoisie has several types of AWACS and U that have from one to several fixed antenna arrays that provide electronic scanning of airspace in azimuth and elevation, in certain (and rather large sectors), Their main drawback is that they have 360 viewing angles in azimuth they cannot provide, which to some extent is compensated by special flight profiles of the aircraft. Such radars are produced, as far as I remember, in Israel and Sweden and exported to a number of countries. Their advantage is that the weight and size characteristics of such radars make it possible to install them on small aircraft, as well as in the sectors where there is an electronic scanning of the beam, higher performance characteristics are provided in terms of detecting and tracking targets.

[yehat]

Quote: gregor6549

It’s just not necessary to confuse the tracking of targets carried out by surveillance radar and guidance radar

I understand some difference, although I suspect not all.

[yehat]

Quote: orionvitt

I know perfectly well the general trends in the field of radio electronics in the world.

there was a time, about 10 years, when only in the USSR they decided what trends in the world of electronics,
and when the USSR collapsed, hundreds of our specialists immediately received abroad gorgeous offers in the field of science and practice related to electronics.
we couldn’t do everything, but we invented it for everyone at once.
Intel 15 years after the collapse of the USSR introduced technologies that were published in the reports of 2 academies of sciences and called it their ultramodern developments.
all modern caching architectures were formulated in the USSR in the 80s