The dates of the launch of radar for landing aircraft with failed navigation are announced

Serial production of new aerodrome radar stations capable of landing an aircraft with a failed on-board navigation system will begin at the end of next year. This was reported by TASS with reference to the press service of the developer of the station holding Roselektronika.

Work is on schedule. In the third quarter of this year, we plan to begin preliminary tests of a prototype landing radar, which is part of the complex, and at the end of 2021 - go to mass production of finished radars

- stated in the holding, adding that in the landing locator a fixed system of active phased antenna arrays was used.

As explained in the "Roselectronics", the new radars can accurately determine the deviation of the aircraft from a given trajectory of descent and transmit information to the crew and ground services. With their help, you can land aircraft in which one or more onboard navigation systems have failed.

The new precision approach system was designated RSP-2ST. It consists of two radars: dispatch (survey) AORL-1AS and landing PRL-2ST. Aircraft are detected at a distance of 350 km, after which the equipment monitors and monitors the parameters of the trajectory of movement.

New stations will be produced at the Chelyabinsk Radio Plant "Flight" of the concern "Vega", which is part of the holding "Roselectronika".

Comments

[Amateur]

able to land a plane with a failed on-board navigation system,

The system is able to give recommendations to the crew of the aircraft with

failed on-board navigation system

And she can’t land a plane, because there are no corresponding executive mechanisms on the plane (except for pilots).

[Insurgent]

Serial production of new aerodrome radar stations capable of landing an aircraft with a failed on-board navigation system will begin at the end of next year.

And you need to understand that for the implementation of such a landing, only a stable connection with the board will be enough? Moreover, any available ...
And so that the rest of the systems also work stably ...

[Aerodrome]

finally update the CPD, and then the last century is somehow.

[Flex]

New-well-forgotten old

[sinoptic]

Quote: Aerodrome

finally update the CPD, and then the last century is somehow.

In fact, it is believed that we in this area (airfield equipment for landing) are ahead of the rest. ;)

[Flex]

By the way, why does the author refer to the RADIOTECHNICAL LANDING SYSTEM as a radar for landing aircraft with failed navigation? Is this the height of ignorance or amateurism? Previously, this system stood at all Soviet airfields and was removed only in Russia due to the development of the resource and the reduction of security costs. The fact that the new RSP is based on a new element base and a new antenna. Doesn’t say that it is something new in navigation and air traffic control, it’s just a restoration of the necessary standards

[Insurgent]

Quote: Amateur

she cannot land the plane, because there are no corresponding executive mechanisms on the plane (except for pilots)

But it’s not necessary. Otherwise, you get the ever-falling Boeing 737 Max 8.

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Insurgent

Otherwise, you get the ever-falling Boeing 737 Max 8.

Do not remember in vain what you don’t quite understand: in spite of the jambs allowed during creation, both aircraft could be saved.

[Flex]

I agree with you. nedopiloty tripled a lot of fun

[Pete mitchell]

I would not labelbut even if you take a superficial look at what was happening, no one controlled the planes: no one took turns, nobody left the control from the left, with idle devices, no one transferred to the right ... NYT had a very sensible article, simple

[Flex]

I may be wrong. But my personal opinion is that in Kazan, after pressing the exit button, no one controlled either

[Pete mitchell]

I agree with you: Kazan and the crash in Rostov is an erroneous departure, plus incorrect work with a trimmer. Most likely, in both cases, at speeds below the minimum, a speed window opened, and the crews continued to remove the flaps, maintaining the pitch angle according to the director ... they lost sight of the automation

[Vita vko]

Quote: Amateur

there are no relevant actuators on the plane

But what about autopilot? As experience shows, situations are most often encountered when it is necessary to take control from pilots altogether, especially in cases where their actions create the prerequisites for flight accidents.

[vadim dok]

Does this system have no analogues in the world, or only in the Russian Federation?

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: vadim dok

Does this system have no analogues in the world, or only in the Russian Federation?

Well, judging by the article, this system is not really needed at all, there are more modern systems. And if you look at the statistics of a complete navigation failure, then all this will be storm in a glass

[Flex]

This system was standard equipment for most Soviet airfields.

[Pete mitchell]

Only the approach itself, many do not even know how to perform it. I’ve got two eagles here for the purpose of the experiment - and the test will be repeated

[Flex]

The question is a little perpendicular --- "Chinese" in your office can be employed?

[Pete mitchell]

You got the mail, take a look

[Flex]

If possible, please duplicate [email protected]

[iouris]

I don’t understand anything ...

[rocket757]

What as always I want to say - DO and install! - that's all.

[Petruha1]

Quote: Strategic Stock

...and at the receiving airport the instrumental landing system is installed (lighthouse system, allowing the aircraft to navigate, find the runway and even align in its center).

Strategic reserve! Are there no instrumental landing systems installed at Russian airports? Do not write nonsense! To get started, learn what a directional radio beacon and glide path radio beacon are. Another illiterate strategist is a storyteller ... from the Navalny family and other Russophobes!

[Flex]

That's right .leg. the article is ignorant. but most readers have nothing to do with aviation and therefore can’t correctly evaluate the article’s pearls as well, it’s like rocket ships plowing the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater

[askort154]

Strategic reserve ... So what is the article about?

Apparently in this:
Aircraft are detected at a distance of 350 km, after which the equipment monitors and monitors the parameters of the trajectory of movement.

[gregor6549]

There is a lot of fog in the article, starting with a picture that shows PRV17, P12 / 18 radar and a couple of ground-based NRZs. These radars do not belong to air traffic control systems in any way, although in the 70s the ATC system "Trassa" was created in which, along with purely ATC radars, military radars of the P37 and P18 types can also be used
Secondly, it is not clear why the landing system needs an aircraft detection range of 350 km and expensive AFARs, when the zone of responsibility of such systems is usually limited to a couple of tens of kilometers.
Of course, morally obsolete landing systems need to be changed from time to time, but counting people's money at the same time is not unnecessary
And the last one. Automatic landing systems have long been developed both in the USSR and over the hill, integrated with aircraft avionics and have been successfully applied and are used in difficult conditions.

[Ruby]

The Union did not produce landing locators, at least for civil aviation. All landing radars were made by Czechs. Tesla RP-3G and RP-4G. They all wrote off them in the nineties, the land of zero due to the development of a resource and not a great need. They mostly stood at airfields equipped with ILS and were used occasionally to support pants. Moreover, in the world such systems are not particularly common. ILS and cheaper to operate and more reliable and more accurate. In the nineties, infa slipped about the development of PRL for civil aviation based on the military system, but that's all at the level of conversations. I suppose I don’t see the need for such a system at all, especially at the current level of development of both ground and space navigation systems.

[Pete mitchell]

Simple and easy to understand, hard to disagree