Military Review

Confrontation of the Pantsir-C1 SAM and Turkish UAVs: rehearsal of the wars of the future

202

During the recent battles in Idlib and now in Libya, the outcome of the battles was often decided in the confrontation between Russian air defense systems and Turkish drones. We do not have a complete picture of these events, but we can conclude from individual pieces of available information that the struggle was fought with great stress and loss of equipment on both sides. In this article, we will try to analyze, without focusing on disputes about the number of downed drones or shot down air defense systems, how it happened that yesterday's aircraft models became one of the main means of waging a modern war.


UAV tactics


First of all, you need to understand exactly what technique is used against the "Shell" and what tactics are used.

It is well known that in Syria and Libya, Turkish-made UAVs Bayraktar TB2 and Anka were operating against our air defense systems.

Depending on the practical ceiling, modern UAVs are divided into low-, medium- and simply high-altitude. Bayraktar and Anka occupy a mid-high niche with a ceiling of 8200 and 9 m, respectively. High-altitude UAVs Turks are just preparing to take into service.

Anka UAV is a development of a state-owned enterprise, and Bayraktar was created by a talented engineer, “Turkish Sikorsky”, Bayraktar, the owner of a private company. He created his UAV with an emphasis on stealth. We dwell on it in more detail, since it is produced in large quantities (about 200 units are contracted) and is used much more widely. Anka has more EPR and lower stealth, but more ability to install equipment.

Bayraktar TB2 is a strike UAV that can carry guided missiles (up to 4 pcs.), Which can hit targets at a distance of 14 km. It can be equipped with an OLS module with a thermal imager, several daytime cameras and a laser range finder, or alternatively, radar with AFAR with radar aperture synthesis (obtaining a radar image of the earth's surface similar to a photo). It is likely that capture of ground moving targets is also possible. An EW container on Bayraktar is not installed (but can be installed on Anka).

The Turks use UAVs of many configurations, including Anka with EW containers, effectively using the tactics of a swarm of drones, where roles can be distributed: some of the cars interferes, another carries out reconnaissance of targets, and drummers destroy them. Also, for reconnaissance purposes, a low-altitude (at a height of several hundred meters) flight is used with communication with the monitoring station through an unmanned repeater flying at an altitude at a safe distance. Such a radar target will be detected only at a very short distance, from where the drone can attack it with kamikaze-style missiles, as it will be mutually destroyed. So special kamikaze drones can be used.

Shell-C1 vs Bayraktar TB2


An attentive reader has already noticed that the author has not yet touched on such a key point as the EPR Bayraktar TB2. Indeed, without it, it is impossible to analyze the confrontation with air defense systems. I answer a silent question: we ask the EPR as 0.01-0.1 (depending on the angle) for the drone without missiles on the suspension. We make a reservation that Turkish sources do not provide information on the EPR, only indicating that it is very small. On what grounds then do we take these values?

There are several reasons for choosing them:
- in the EPR directories 0.01-0.1 is given for the generation of new drones made by stealth technology;
- The Greeks, who spotted Bayraktar with their radar, gave information about its EPR at the F-35 level;
- the geometry of this UAV shows that it was designed taking into account the reduction of EPR;
- Turks have access to modern RPMs, producing components for F-35;
- With a large ESR, a Turkish drone could not resist our air defense systems.

So, according to Bayraktar, we have all the necessary information, but what about “Shell-C1”? The detection range of targets with an EPR of 2 m2 is approx. 35 km. This means that the Turkish drone of the Pantsir radar will be detected at a distance of 9,3-16,5 km. The range of missiles at the “Shell” is up to 20 km, and its OLS can accompany such targets as Bayraktar, at a distance of up to 12 km. In disputes over the effectiveness of the "Shell" in Libya, the shortcomings of a specific Emirate modification of this system were often pointed out. In our opinion, the nuance is insignificant, which will become clear after reading the article to the end.

The use of drones involves two main types of tasks: reconnaissance and strike. A typical reconnaissance mission of a medium-high UAV is a flight at an altitude of approx. 6000 m. In this case, the Pantsira-C1 radar can detect Bayraktar at a horizontal distance of at least 7,0 km. With the most successful combination of circumstances - at a distance of 15,3 km.

The range at which the “Shell” will be detected by the drone's OLS is not constant, since it depends on many parameters: the degree of illumination, atmospheric interference, camouflage, the configuration of the OLS cameras, etc. The Wescam CMX-15D US military module is installed on Bayraktar. whose capabilities are widely known. This OLS is used in many countries, civilian and military. On Youtube, you can easily find a video of work indicating the range. OLS daytime cameras have maximum reach: for example, a tank-type target, according to some catalogs, can be detected up to 80 km. It is not necessary for us to prove the veracity of this statement; just watch the video with confident guidance from a 20 km convoy of trucks. The quality almost allows you to see in the driver's cab. Obviously, this OLS is significantly superior to the Pantsira OLS and can detect it from outside the radius of the destruction of its missiles (the detection distance with a thermal imager is much shorter - about 12 km). Most likely from outside the radar detection range as well. The CMX-15D is equipped with laser rangefinders with a range of up to 20 km. Accordingly, from 20 km, that is, from outside the scope of the SAM, the UAV has the ability to accurately determine its location. Of course, the work of the OLS depends on atmospheric factors, the level of camouflage, etc., but on the whole we can see that the reconnaissance drone has a chance to detect an air defense system first, which means taking the initiative. Next, an impact drone is activated, which from 14 km will launch inertial-guided missiles / GPS on the air defense system. Laser target illumination is optional (but possible). Much will depend on the training of operators, but it is clear that the outcome of the confrontation is not obvious. Drones have a chance of a very uncomfortable rapprochement with the air defense system. In addition, the Turks often used drones in Syria in swarms and actively supported the electronic warfare systems KORAL and REDET EW. This is despite the fact that the noise immunity of the Pantsir-C1 radar is weak, unlike the Pantsir-SM radar, it is only VFAR and operates at the same frequency (frequencies vary, but in a predictable range). The interference is especially effective when the drone is inconspicuous. There is a direct proportionality between the interference power and the EPR of the target they cover. To mask a stealth drone, you need interference power that is 50-500 times less than, for example, for the MiG-29 with its EPR of 5 m2. Missiles "Shell" do not have GOS and depend on the radar air defense systems. If the radar receives inconsistent data as a result of interference, it will not work to hit the target, even if the target is visible. It’s possible to get there only when the target approaches very close and a small distance eliminates the interference (as we saw in a recent video with a UAV shooting down in Libya at a distance of 4 km).

As for the use of Bayraktar in the radar version, there are a number of advantages over the OLS. The radar scans the terrain with high resolution, and conventional camouflage, smoke, clouds, etc. are not an obstacle for it. On Bayraktar, of course, you can only place mini radar with AFAR like the French Picosar from Leonardo, which is actively exported. Scanning range with a resolution of 1 m - 20 km. With a resolution of 0,3 m, when it is guaranteed to detect the “Shell”, Picosar scans up to 14 km. Anka UAV is equipped with a much larger and more powerful new Turkish radar with AFAR Sarper, the parameters of which we do not know, but it is obvious that it greatly exceeds mini-radars, at least one and a half to two times.

Also, the Turks are experiencing high-altitude drone Akinci, which "Shell-C1" is unlikely to be able to hit in principle. It has a ceiling of 12 km, that is, missiles can get it only much closer than 20 km declared in the performance characteristics. Akinci will be equipped with a full-fledged AFAR radar capable of detecting ground targets much further than the Bayraktar mini-radar, as well as working on air targets. Akinci will be able to use Jdam bombs with a launch range of 28 km, KR (range up to 250 km) and air-to-air missiles. The OLS will also be there much more powerful, capable of detecting ground targets over several tens of kilometers. This is a threat that should be taken seriously.

conclusions


Obviously, the "Shell-C1" does not meet modern requirements and cannot be used at the forefront against modern weapons. He is too vulnerable. In response to new challenges, we created a new SAM "Shell-SM" with radar with AFAR. In terms of capabilities, it is an order of magnitude superior to the old version - in terms of detection range, noise immunity, firing range and other parameters. At the same time, the air defense system is only a passive means of defense. Passive air defense always loses aviation, since the latter can create an overwhelming local superiority in forces. The threat from the use of drones is not removed by the use of a new generation of air defense systems. The use of radar with synthesizing aperture allows UAVs to detect and hit ground targets from altitudes of more than 15 m (000 m at RQ-18), where they are invulnerable to missiles of the new "Shell" and "Torov". This, incidentally, applies to Bayraktar in the version with a radar: it can rise from the standard 000 m to 4 m of its ceiling, which will reduce the range of missile defense systems.

The war of the 27st century is already at our doorstep. It will be carried out using UAVs, which can be mass-produced, unlike modern aircraft. UAVs from aircraft models have become a formidable force thanks to modern electronics and stealth technologies. They are not stopped by the interference that cost modern communication systems (including satellite) and the placement between the UAV and the control station of the unmanned relay transponder. Drones can hang around the front for days (Bayraktar - up to XNUMX hours), providing reconnaissance of targets (extremely important for targets that can only be hit in a narrow temporary corridor), striking at the enemy, which gives them an advantage over manned aircraft. UAV attacks on air defense systems, regardless of the degree of success, indicate if not air supremacy, then significant presence. This means that other ground equipment was also subjected to numerous blows, and this is unacceptable. The objective of the air defense system is not self-defense, but the protection of ground forces from air strikes. We see that in Libya, pro-Turkish forces are advancing with the support of almost exclusively drones, replacing aircraft. And they come successfully. And in Syria, the predominant use of UAVs foiled Assad’s offensive in Idlib.

There is another important advantage of the use of unmanned aircraft. The attacking side can afford to lose a large number of UAVs during the attack, attacking a swarm of a narrow section of the front. In the event of the destruction of air defense and equipment, the front will inevitably be broken and the losses will be paid off by seizing the initiative and killing the running enemy, as is happening in Libya. UAVs can be produced very quickly, in Turkey only in the aircraft and only Bayraktar TB2 - about 120 pieces. The political damage from the loss of drones is minimal. If even one downed plane is discussed in the society of any state and causes criticism of the leadership, then the loss of even many drones does not have such an effect. The pilots do not die: they shot down "some of our drones there," and okay. To fight off massive raids, you need to create a layered air defense from a variety of air defense systems: it would probably be more cost-effective to use UAVs with explosives, which can also strike at ground forces of the enemy.

Recent events have shown that the development of stealth drone drones, ammunition for them and compact radars with AFAR should be high on the list of priorities in our military construction. Serious attention should be paid to camouflage ground equipment, to introduce RPMs and additional means of camouflage.
Author:
202 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 14 June 2020 05: 16 New
    33
    A good, rare article in VO at the present time in my opinion. Thank.
    From myself I will add on the question. Treat like the like, old Latin wisdom. UAVs need to be fought with UAVs.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 14 June 2020 05: 25 New
      +1
      Obviously, the "Shell-C1" does not meet modern requirements and cannot be used at the forefront against modern weapons. He is too vulnerable. In response to new challenges, we created a new SAM "Shell-SM" with radar with AFAR. According to possibilities on order surpasses the old version - in detection range, noise immunity, firing range and other parameters
      . The author is aware that "an order of magnitude" is 10 times? , and according to the article: I would like clarification on the confrontation between the "Shell" - "UAV", how many real defeats on both sides? data float in different directions, the truth like a snake's legs you will not find.
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 14 June 2020 05: 30 New
        +4
        Quote: Dead Day
        data float in different directions, the truth like a snake's legs you will not find.

        What does it change? More than 20 shells in 2020 in Syria and Libya in total.
        Bayraktar approx. 15 pcs. Anka 2pcs.
        Is this an acceptable loss?
        Let me remind you that there is no crew in the UAV. This should also be taken into account when calculating losses.
        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather 14 June 2020 05: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          Is this an acceptable loss?

          yes not horseradish not acceptable .... request
          1. The leader of the Redskins
            The leader of the Redskins 14 June 2020 06: 33 New
            +8
            To such a conclusion in an article on "shells" right now patriots will come and naminusu shamelessly!)))
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 08: 44 New
          14
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          20 shells in 2020 in Syria and Libya in total.


          This is a Turkish sketch.
          I will provide data from Lost Armor, and Aviation Security Network ...
          Here is what is confirmed
          The defeat is actually confirmed
          Application Pantsir S1E An Nuqat al Khams 2020-05-18, shot in a hangar, the machine does not bear visible signs of combat damage. Smoked. With rocket firing it happens. Captured.
          The question arose of why the diaphragms in the non-fired TPK were broken.
          Application Pantsir S1E Al Marqab 2020-05-20, the defeat of the ASP hangar was removed. Then the Pantsyr damaged in a hangar is removed. Clearly, the pictures could have been taken in different places. However, it doesn’t matter - in the photo there is a crumpled armor, covered in a hangar ....

          The question is whether Kamaz on the Trailer should be attributed to the losses, that is, whether it was captured after shooting on the road or burned, for example, later is unclear, there were no obvious signs of fire and serious damage on it. If it pops up at the GNA or pops up again, then we are counting in loss.

          Further, now what is not currently confirmed ... From the word in general, but in applications and extremely muddy photos and video files there is .... The director and director of the crew of the Jews are clearly better.

          Minus - Application for Pantsir S1E Tripoli 2020-02-28why someone decided that the Pantsyr was knocked out is not clear. But the photo target is not recognizable from the word at all. + photo of two strange blots on a microscope slide .. Photos of debris not confirmed.
          Minus - Application for Pantsir S1E An Nuqat al Khams 2020-05-18. - 3 fragment photos taken at point blank of a strange, clouded design. Where is the general view by the way? Does anyone else believe that this is Armor? it's funny!
          Minus - Application for Pantsir S1E Misratah 2020-05-20. Nothing. For what they fired, it is not clear that there is no reliable identification and 9K96 defeat. Photos of the wreckage are not confirmed.
          Minus - Application for Pantsir S1E Al Marqab 2020-05-20. The photographs taken relate to two different places. In the first photo, 9K96 is clearly identified. For the rest of the years. There are no signs of hitting the target. Photos of the wreckage are not confirmed.
          Minus - Application for Pantsir S1E 2020-05-21. The target in the photo is not recognized from the word at all. There are no signs of hitting the target. What they shot at is not clear. Debris photos not confirmed
          Minus - Application for Pantsir S1E 2020-05-21. The target in the photo is not recognized from the word at all. There are no signs of hitting the target. What they shot at and in this case is not clear. Debris photos not confirmed
          Is there anything else on them? If there are debris the status is subject to review.

          Total troops of Haftar reliably lost 2 Armor of the UAE, questioned Armor in Kamaz. There is no confirmation of the defeat and incapacitation of the remaining 6 Armor. That is the result. No matter how the Turks rode.
          This is the result if you are not guided by a double standard - I see there, I don’t see there, but here the herring was wrapped.
          There is also no reliable confirmation of the fact of the defeat of the Pantsyr combat vehicle in Libya, which would be in a combat-ready state ....

          And recall the loss of a GNA UAV
          Libya
          Turkish TB2S losses in Libya as of 06 jun20
          Total LNA Claim: 78 (w / o; Shutdown)
          (It’s clear that part of the applications is most likely Friendly Fire for their Wing Longs and other flying garbage ..)
          Confirmed Losts (99%): 19
          Probable Losts (90%): 3
          Likely Losts (75%): 4
          Possible Losts: (50%): 7
          Unconfirmed Claims (Probably not realized) (1% -49%): 36
          Fake Claims-Neglected- (0%): 9 (46.2% claims)

          However, all this information for adequate conclusions is still not enough. It is necessary to have information on the course of the fighting and the general losses of the parties. Then, and not earlier, it will be clear whether the air defense of the LNA could solve the tasks or not. The won confrontation with bayraktars does not mean anything in general. Equally, it would be lost.
          Moreover, the claims to Pantsyr were and remain equal in terms of both the concept and, first of all, execution, and, most importantly, the tactical weakness of users ....
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 08: 55 New
            +3
            https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=5A - потери БПЛА в Ливии
        3. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 14 June 2020 11: 40 New
          +4
          Oh, don’t sit on Ukrainian sites, a figure of 23 shells recently popped up from there, and soon they will draw 50, you have hung your ears.
        4. ism_ek
          ism_ek 14 June 2020 12: 38 New
          -2
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          Bayraktar approx. 15 pcs. Anka 2pcs.

          This is according to Turkish data and only in Idlib. According to Syrian data, the BUK-m2e launched 25 missiles on Turkish drones. 20 drones were shot down.
          And the whole article is full of mistakes. Turkish drones without American electronics are nothing. The Turks will be able to release them as much as the Americans allow them, and their Turks will be able to use only where the Americans allow. Also do not forget the control channels. Do Turks have their communications satellites in orbit around the earth?
          1. illi
            illi 14 June 2020 17: 07 New
            +9
            In NATO countries, it is commonplace to buy the most advanced products from each other. The Americans will not put any sticks in the wheel of the Turks in this matter, especially on the holy cause of the struggle with the Russians. And the general control channels are normal for a military structure. If you look at any NATO equipment, such a vinaigrette from the countries of manufacturers pops up, the same F35. So how many Turks want so much and will do it, and there will be no problems with accessories or controls.
        5. Dreamboat
          Dreamboat 15 June 2020 11: 17 New
          +8
          The author correctly subscribed ...
          Article by nothing, a bit of Wikipedia on the "declared characteristics" and GLOBAL conclusions. Let's start from the stove: Shell-C1 is an element of short-range air defense system. That is, this system, in principle, should not play the role of global air defense, detect aircraft at large distances and altitudes. There are other elements of an integrated air defense system for this. For example, the detection of aircraft relates to the functions of powerful specialized radars, firing targets at high altitudes to medium and long-range air defense systems. The carapace must cover these air defense systems and the most important infrastructure objects from the aircraft, breaking into the zone of its operation. And to cover not alone, but as part of a battery (3-5 cars) with early warning radar data and a command post !!! In this system, the need to destroy the Armor instead of hitting the protected object is already a gain!
          Using the Pantsyr alone standing alone in the middle of the desert is idiocy or an extreme emergency measure. With relative proximity to the front, such a Pantsyr after detection can simply be destroyed by artillery fire without the participation of drones. And when moving away from the front, its range is not enough to cover its forces ...
          The misuse of the Shell is the only reason for their loss.
        6. sivuch
          sivuch 16 June 2020 15: 48 New
          0
          Acceptable. Because UAVs are shot down more and less aircrafts are lost, and most of them are not in a duel situation at all.
      2. lucul
        lucul 14 June 2020 11: 47 New
        0
        data float in different directions, the truth like a snake's legs you will not find.

        In fact, the author pointed out the main advantage of Bayraktar over the Shell.
        An American military module, the Wescam CMX-15D OLS, is installed on Bayraktar, the capabilities of which are widely known. Obviously, this OLS is significantly superior to the Pantsira OLS and can detect it from outside the radius of the destruction of its missiles (the detection distance with a thermal imager is much shorter - about 12 km). Most likely from outside the radar detection range as well. The CMX-15D is equipped with laser rangefinders with a range of up to 20 km. Accordingly, from 20 km, that is, from outside the scope of the SAM, the UAV has the ability to accurately determine its location

        That's the whole answer - put on the Shell OLS more powerful than on Bayraktar and that's it, the situation will change exactly the opposite ....
        On the Shell there are reserves of building up the OLS - but on Bayraktar it is not, due to its size.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 12: 17 New
          11
          The armor is corny more and heavier, but it also has more energy at times, which means a more reasonable option is to increase the capabilities of radar detection and CCS to increase the radiation power, and improve signal processing ..
          By the way, the presence of a propeller, albeit obscured on Bayraktar, doesn’t reduce the “invisibility”, but vice versa. Its ESR is clearly no less than that of Harpoon type anti-ship missiles, which in turn is approximately equal to 0.2-0.25 sq. M.
        2. Dreamboat
          Dreamboat 15 June 2020 11: 27 New
          +4
          Quote: lucul
          That's the whole answer - put on the Shell OLS more powerful than on Bayraktar and that's it, the situation will change exactly the opposite ....

          This is neither an answer nor a necessity. If the Shell is used as expected, as part of the battery, then it uses the data of the early warning radar 1RL-123E and the interference screening at the CP. Therefore, the "drone" flies into a precisely calculated sector in the warm embrace of 3-5 combat vehicles. And to bomb a BM standing in the middle of a field without a crew is not an indicator ....
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 15 June 2020 11: 44 New
            0
            Absolutely true!
    2. Demagogue
      14 June 2020 07: 18 New
      21
      Thanks for your kind words. I wanted to open the topic systematically. So that even the sect of witnesses of lamp electronics had a minimum of questions.
      1. ximkim
        ximkim 14 June 2020 08: 29 New
        +4
        Your article turned out good (sober thinking).
        1. Demagogue
          14 June 2020 08: 47 New
          +6
          Thank you for your appreciation)
      2. Oquzyurd
        Oquzyurd 14 June 2020 16: 34 New
        +1
        A rare, objective and truthful article.
        1. Demagogue
          14 June 2020 16: 58 New
          0
          Thank you.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 17 June 2020 08: 54 New
          -2
          Nope, one-sided and with a huge number of mistakes.
      3. janeck
        janeck 15 June 2020 02: 32 New
        +7
        for the sake of such articles .. I registered on the VO site. and then some copy-paste from rambler and Yandex go)
    3. Alex flanker
      Alex flanker 14 June 2020 08: 33 New
      -3
      Slightly better gavnoanalitika than usual.
      What is it worth:
      "This despite the fact that the noise immunity of the Pantsir-C1 radar is weak, unlike the Pantsir-SM, it is only PFAR"

      The author especially did not read anything except the wiki and naturally does not know that 1pc1-1e with AFAR from 20 DOSS.
      They learned the clever words Pfar, Afar, but they don’t understand the essence ...
      Competent moderation of articles would be here.
      1. Demagogue
        14 June 2020 08: 46 New
        0
        Give a reference to these formidable statements?
        1. Alex flanker
          Alex flanker 14 June 2020 09: 03 New
          0
          I can give a scan from the book. You don’t even bring sources.
          There are a lot of technical quibbles to the article. But this at least looks like an article, unlike the rest of the “analyzes” on this resource.
          1. Demagogue
            14 June 2020 09: 25 New
            -1
            I can give a scan from the book.

            I can tell you directly the army messenger, where they say that we had an afar from King Gorokh. So what? They immediately stipulate that under afar they
            understand completely not what the rest of the world. Well, I won't even say that we have a factory for the production of normal transistors
            built only by 2017.
            You don’t even bring sources.

            This is not a scientific work and only a hobby for me to spend time on a full-fledged design. Yes and
            all sources can be easily found. If you have questions, write, lay out the source.
            at least it looks like an article, unlike the rest of the “analyzes” on this resource.

            Thank you, probably))
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 17 June 2020 08: 53 New
              -1
              at least it looks like an article, unlike the rest of the “analyzes” on this resource.
              Thank you, probably))
              only on a very superficial article, with a huge number of errors and inaccuracies.
    4. knn54
      knn54 14 June 2020 08: 56 New
      +5
      The article is clearly "+".
      The fight against UAVs needs to be approached in a comprehensive manner, in addition to the radar, there should be a detection system based on optoelectronic / infrared sensors. "Jammer" certainly does not hurt, but it would be nice to have a GPS simulator. signals.
      Db and false trap targets, especially on the march.
      And without a high-altitude and high-speed UAV fighter, it seems, can not do.
    5. svp67
      svp67 14 June 2020 09: 41 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      Good

      I agree ..
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      From myself I will add on the question. Treat like the like, old Latin wisdom. UAVs need to be fought with UAVs.

      And here I do not agree. The conduct of armed confrontation is not a one-on-one knightly duel. And all issues must be resolved COMPLETELY, with the condition that if one of the elements fails, then the others should work. So with any UAVs and in general with all deadly flying objects it is necessary to fight comprehensively. And this means for Syria and Libya the ability to create a focal integrated air defense system, which should be provided with both UAV strike systems and air defense and electronic warfare systems.
      Obviously, the "Shell-C1" does not meet modern requirements and cannot be used at the forefront against modern weapons.
      And when was it planned to use this complex on our own, and even at the forefront? It has always been considered by us as a system of object air defense, which is included in the general air defense system.
      Now we just need to draw conclusions, in particular such that we need to create barrage UAV-Fighter aircraft, that we need to fully modernize both the Pantsir air defense system and the Tunguska air defense system and turn it into the Zilka air defense system Shilka, bring the ZPU to mind Derivation - CB ".
      What is happening in Syria and Libya is not a full-fledged training of the third world, but only the honing of some of its tools
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 11: 10 New
        +2
        And when was it planned to use this complex on our own, and even at the forefront? It has always been considered by us as a system of object air defense, which is included in the general air defense system.

        Actually, never, and generally I don't like rocket-gun mutants. More appropriate seems to be the decision to make batteries as part of missile armor (up to 18 missiles in launchers, as in the Arctic) and ZSU. As an option, 4 air defense systems and 2 air defense systems as part of the battery. For as regards the application of cannons to the Armor, I have heard negative reviews several times precisely on the basis of the results of the combat application of cannons.
        1. svp67
          svp67 14 June 2020 12: 29 New
          +3
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Actually, never, and generally I don't like rocket-gun mutants.

          Alas, but now this is a necessary measure, our opponents have appeared in the sky a lot of different "flying iron", to reflect which missiles alone, no matter how many they are installed may not be enough, especially for air defense systems of the leading edge. So, the guns here are more for the self-defense of the complex itself, at least for the time when they bring up a b.k. rockets and load it.
        2. Interlocutor
          Interlocutor 15 June 2020 14: 05 New
          0
          Actually, never, and generally I don't like rocket-gun mutants.


          Guns are banging a suicide bomber. You can still drive the sniper on the hill ... You can still throw options.
      2. businessv
        businessv 14 June 2020 16: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        turn into ZPRK ZSU "Shilka"

        Even in Afghanistan, electronics were thrown out of it in order to increase ammunition, and they were often and quite effectively used for ground targets.
        1. svp67
          svp67 14 June 2020 16: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: businessv
          More in Afghanistan

          And there were a lot of "low-flying targets"? And the current level of electronics is noticeably different from what was then, in terms of detection capabilities.
          1. businessv
            businessv 14 June 2020 16: 40 New
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            And there were a lot of "low-flying targets"?
            Therefore, the electronics and threw! smile
            1. svp67
              svp67 14 June 2020 16: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: businessv
              Therefore, they threw electronics

              And now it's time to return ... Otherwise, we will not have time to saturate the troops with more or less modern air defense systems of the front edge.
              1. businessv
                businessv 14 June 2020 16: 46 New
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                Otherwise, we will not have time to saturate the troops with more or less modern air defense systems of the front edge.

                The fact is that the guns are not particularly effective for small targets - recently there was a video here that just the Shell, or rather 4 air defense missiles for one low-flying target, failed. With their crazy rate of fire, they never hit, unfortunately, although the target flew completely linearly.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 14 June 2020 19: 08 New
                  +1
                  Quote: businessv
                  The fact is that the guns are not particularly effective for small targets - recently there was a video here that just the Shell, or rather 4 air defense missiles for one low-flying target, failed. With their crazy rate of fire, they never hit, unfortunately, although the target flew completely linearly.

                  Here the problem is not so much with guns as with shells, if they have a radio fuse, then the probability of destroying the target increases significantly
                  1. businessv
                    businessv 14 June 2020 19: 11 New
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    radio fuse, then the probability of destroying the target increases significantly
                    It is unprofitable to install a radio fuse on a 23 mm projectile - the radius of destruction is too small. And the price of production will increase significantly, especially with such a rate of fire!
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 17 June 2020 08: 58 New
                      0
                      30mm there and, in principle, such shells already exist.
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 14 June 2020 18: 27 New
        0
        Quote: svp67
        that it is necessary to carry out a full-fledged modernization of both the Pantsir air defense missile system and the Tunguska air defense missile system and turn it into the Zilk defense air defense system Shilka air defense complex, and bring to the mind the Derivation - SV air defense system.

        They recently compared the Shell with Thor in terms of the fact that the pancynists in every possible way have obsessed and belittled the possibilities of Thor by promoting their wunderwafl
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 17 June 2020 13: 50 New
          0
          Can I have at least one example? And then the reverse - as many as you want, starting with General Luzan.
    6. sivuch
      sivuch 17 June 2020 08: 51 New
      0
      Well yes - bloopers on bloopers
    7. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 9 August 2020 20: 57 New
      0
      UAVs with air-to-air missiles can be aimed at enemy attack UAVs in the same way as fighters aim at cruise missiles or attack aircraft using powerful radars located in zones safe from enemy UAVs. The article is definitely a PLUS.
  2. Alexander Samoilov
    Alexander Samoilov 14 June 2020 05: 18 New
    +5
    The attempt would be an interesting and useful study if the author was versed in radar and was more attentive to details. negative
    1. barin
      barin 14 June 2020 06: 52 New
      +4
      Well, the author does not claim to be professional laurels. The conclusion is correct - it is difficult to resist the tactics and characteristics of UAVs using the Shell-C1.
      1. Alexander Samoilov
        Alexander Samoilov 14 June 2020 11: 49 New
        +4
        Wrong, because he 1) does not know that the MAM-C and MAM-L ammunition can hit a moving target with only 8 km. Naturally, with the appearance of signs of the presence of UAVs in the area of ​​air defense systems, they should be set in motion. If the crew didn’t do this, what about the “Shell”? 2) most importantly, the EPR UAV is taken from the ceiling and is underestimated by an order of magnitude. Such a radar signature have mini UAVs launched from catapults, but here we are talking about medium ones. The radar 1RS1-1E for the type of missile has a tracking range of 14,5 km. And the EPR of a cruise missile, in any case, is smaller than the Bayraktar, especially the Anka. 3) OLS, or rather TVP, is almost independent of the weather. Only heavy snowfall or tropical rain can hinder its work. What can not be in Libya. On the Arab complexes are French SATIS XLR TVPs with a matrix of 640x512 (optionally 1280x12024). Exactly the same as on the Wescam CMX 15D. 4) Then he talks about the insignificance of the difference between the Arab S-1. But a later version with 1RS2-E radar hits the E95 target without additional reflectors from 23 km. This is 0,15 square meters. m. According to the most rough estimates, TB2 is 3, and Anka is 5 times more. 5) UAB is controlled remotely. He sends radiation every second. Therefore, it is direction-finding in the passive mode of operation of the air defense system at any distance. More precisely, it depends on the radio horizon - the flight altitude of the UAV and the air defense system on the ground. For example, if the height of the air defense system antenna is 5 m, and the flight height of the UAV is 5 km relative to it, then the latter can be detected at a distance of up to 300 km. Thus, anti-aircraft gunners always know the position of the UAV long before entering the active radar area.
        1. Demagogue
          14 June 2020 19: 26 New
          +2
          Well, you write nonsense.

          Naturally, with the appearance of signs of the presence of UAVs in the area of ​​air defense systems, they should be set in motion.


          This is if there are signs. And if the air defense system is set in motion, it will be automatically destroyed. Both the radar and the radar will capture the moving target quickly and naturally.

          And the EPR of a cruise missile, in any case, is smaller than the Bayraktar,


          1m2 EPR cr. Too expensive to reduce their EPR. It’s just a metal pipe, and Bayraktar is entirely made of composites.

          the late version with 1RS2-E radar hits the E95 target without additional reflectors from 23 km

          Go to Tula, the producer of the Shell, visit the site. They do not know about it.

          UAV is controlled remotely. He sends radiation every second.


          This is not so for a long time. Short streams of information transmit.

          Ned, then come to take it))))
          1. Alexander Samoilov
            Alexander Samoilov 15 June 2020 15: 17 New
            +3
            Quote: Demagogue
            Go to Tula, the producer of the Shell, visit the site. They do not know about it.

            Obviously, this is the only source of information for you. laughing It’s a pity only at the KBP office, he won’t even get a journal article about him. A user manual on 488 pages written. Unfortunately, I can’t insert a scan from it, because TSP. Therefore, we read this: The small-sized air target E-95 (as part of the complex) is designed to simulate subsonic remotely piloted aircraft, cruise missiles, planning air bombs, helicopters and attack aircraft. With a starting weight of 60 kg (length 2,1 m, wingspan 2,4 m) and a flight speed of 380-410 km / h, the target can fly according to the program for 22-40 minutes. over a range of 200 km in the altitude range of 200-3000 m. Own EPR of the target is 0,15, with an angular reflector - 1-1,5 and with a Luneberg lens - 7,5 sq.m. And then we watch the video from 0:40.
            Quote: Demagogue
            Short streams of information transmit.
            You don’t even understand the essence of packet data. The second generation has significantly accelerated the sending of data. But if it is transmitted with a delay, then the operator will actually see the picture in the past time. Which is acceptable for reconnaissance, but in no way unacceptable for strike weapons.
            Quote: Demagogue
            and Bayraktar entirely from composites
            I was already sick of explaining to amateurs that stealth is the same fake as non-GMO products. There are no planes and ships invisible to radar. That which can be poorly noticeable at some lengths and frequencies is always perfectly visible at others. The direction of exposure is also very important. As an example, we look at the chart. At a frequency of 2,5 GHz, the difference between metal and plastic almost disappears. Taken from the article "EPR analysis of a mini-drone". I recommend that you familiarize yourself. Of course you will not understand much from it, but something is better than nothing at all.
            1. Demagogue
              15 June 2020 18: 13 New
              -2
              You offered to fly a tick back a tick when a drone is approaching, but then you decided to teach me aplomb. For some reason, already on a working day, when apparently consulted with someone)) but the consultant is rather weak. I hope not from KBP, but it’s a pity our air defense.

              Obviously, this is the only source of information for you.

              Well this is what the manufacturer officially posted. And where they shoot at targeted targets without interference, I don’t care. In the interview, they generally shout that they can only get on TV. And I saw a video where from 4 km on the UAV screen as a pair of pixels. In our 70s, the Horizont TV gave out better. So leave your sacred manuals with you.

              By means of communication, the UAV again passed the cash register. Drummers can be controlled from a remote post on uhf / vhf, as well as have intelligent work algorithms and do not go out for a long time at all. Here whose cow would moo. Carapace-c1 dodges predictably with its radar that it is possible to detect it with a reb without any drones.

              Brad about stealth and GMOs yourself discuss. The whole world is mistaken, of course, that stealth designs.
              1. Alexander Samoilov
                Alexander Samoilov 15 June 2020 21: 07 New
                +2
                Quote: Demagogue
                You offered to fly back a missile at a drone approach, and then you decided to teach me aplomb. For some reason, already on a working day, when apparently consulted with someone
                As I understand it, my remark “to set in motion” is associated with retreat. Have you never heard that the latest generation of air defense systems of the latest generation operate in motion? How is the combat work of the complexes and tactics of object-based air defense? Questions are rhetorical. And so it is clear that no. Or they wouldn’t write such a game. I would gladly consult with a more competent person, but unfortunately, I have not met such people for a long time. It is useless to contact the military. Most of my life I earned by writing diplomas and dissertations for them. These poor fellows do not even have time to lose their brains, "otherwise there is no time to serve." That's how we live. crying
                Quote: Demagogue
                By means of communication, the UAV again passed the cash register. Drummers can be controlled from a remote post on uhf / vhf, as well as have intelligent work algorithms and do not go out for a long time at all. Here whose cow would moo. Carapace-s1 sharashits predictably with his radar, that it can be detected by a rab
                Yes, at least from what post. Moreover, in the VHF and UHF bands, on which almost all government agencies in the world work, it is very difficult to find a free and stable window. Neither can I do an additional search, even already identified targets, much less attack AI so far. The “shell” should not shine the radar at all before launch. For this there is a "Furke" - 0,1 sq.m with 70 km. If it is not, which in itself is a big jamb, one of the battery machines takes over this function. The rest use passive mode and OLS. EW is a separate issue. But since it came in, the SAM, in view of the dimensions, has a much greater potential power to suppress than the UAVs limited in energy. Although, there are stupid people who believe that the container with the "Khibiny" on the Su-24 could drown out the "Aegis" of the American destroyer. With a difference in power ten times in favor of the latter.
                1. Demagogue
                  15 June 2020 21: 49 New
                  -3
                  “Getting in motion” is associated with retreat.


                  Far from it, it is simply safe along the front line that this can only be done while retreating. Modern UAVs of an UAV can detect a moving target for tens of kilometers in the afternoon, radars with sar will also detect a moving target and capture it. There are no good solutions for front-mounted air defense systems against modern UAVs. I will touch on this point in the second part.

                  Neither can I do an additional search, even already identified targets, much less attack AI so far.


                  Turkish kamikaze drones do this. Offline.

                  Furke - 0,1 sq.m with 70 km. If it is not, which in itself is a big jamb, one of the battery machines takes over this function. The rest use passive mode and OLS.


                  What I think about the ols shell mode, I already wrote to you. But Furke will have to cover herself from missiles. You won’t place it near the front; artillery works there. It is necessary to protect from harm and not the fact that it will turn out. But this is not the main thing. The shells are unable to defend the troops at the forefront, in fact, like Thor. The enemy can freely drive drones along the front line, disrupting the supply and destroying equipment, but they can’t reach them. And for 20-30 km they can scan the front end. So the shells already get it when the front is already broken. Therefore, we find them in the hangars and on the march lined. But enough spoilers.

                  As for interference, in the presence of afar shell can crush radar is not afar. But everyone already has afar. And stealth drones need minimal interference power, which I wrote about.

                  What I agree with you only is in assessing the capabilities of the military)
                  1. Alexander Samoilov
                    Alexander Samoilov 17 June 2020 09: 02 New
                    0
                    SAM air defense systems, unlike short-range, are not at the forefront. They are at least 5-7 km from the front line. From the NE they can only be threatened by long-range artillery, but covering its fast-moving target is unrealistic. SARs can really see moving targets, only they do not distinguish a civilian vehicle from a military one, armored personnel carriers from tanks or air defense systems. And on TB2 they are not. OLS is not the best search tool. With a wide field, nothing further than your own nose is not visible, but with a narrow ... Calculate how long it takes to view the area at least 10 square meters. km, if the field is 1 degree at a distance of 10 km. the width of the viewing area is 174 m. I will add, the terrain is not a table. It contains a mass of parts overlapping each other, even when observed in excess. I already wrote that on the export S-1 there is one of the best TVPs in the world - SATIS XLR. He sees a man over 8 km. The IR signature of an average UAV is 3 times higher. For non-targeted interference, namely, those needed to suppress UAV control channels, the type of antenna does not matter. Though whipping. Aviation has no solutions against modern air defense systems. Naturally, with a more or less reasonable parity of quality and quantity of forces and means. Launchers can be masked by terrain and heat-dissipating networks, and aircraft, like a louse on their bald head, are always visible. “Toram”, thanks to the new 9M338 missile with the GOS AR, even the active mode during shooting can be omitted. “We shot five missiles at very complex targets (the Osa-Saman missile complex), of which three were shot down by direct hits of the missile into the missile, that is, head to head. The remaining targets were also hit by a fragmentation stream of missile warheads." EPR “Samana” 0,5 m. Result: “For the whole time of the presence of the Russian military in Syria with the help of air defense systems“ Tor, 45 artisanal drones were destroyed. ” A home-made drone is a small quadrocopter, like a toy helicopter or an airplane the size of an aircraft model. Of course, an early warning radar needs to be covered. And this is task number 1 for the air defense system. Since to think that several single-handed MD complexes can provide serious air defense in combined arms combat can only be crazy.
                    Quote: Demagogue
                    Turkish kamikaze drones do this. Offline.

                    Do not do. Obviously you were misled by journalistic pearls of the type: "The Epoch DUM is capable of independently searching for targets and firing at them until they are completely destroyed." Pure fantasies. According to the most optimistic forecasts of combat cybernetics experts, fully autonomous robots may appear no earlier than the 2030s. UAVs have recently been taught to independently navigate the terrain without control and GPS. And even Russia and China still do not own such software, not to mention Turkey.
                    1. Demagogue
                      17 June 2020 12: 54 New
                      0
                      Wrong, in the second part I will reveal these points. It makes no sense to repeat here.
                      1. sivuch
                        sivuch 17 June 2020 14: 02 New
                        +1
                        And at the same time, where did the 14 km range for the Bayraktar missile system come from, why does a UAV with fixed gear and an external arms suspension have a scanty EPR and a number of other issues on the little things
                      2. Alexander Samoilov
                        Alexander Samoilov 17 June 2020 17: 06 New
                        0
                        14 range for stationary targets, GPS.
                      3. sivuch
                        sivuch 17 June 2020 17: 30 New
                        -1
                        Where does this data come from when all sources talk only about 8?
                      4. Alexander Samoilov
                        Alexander Samoilov 17 June 2020 18: 10 New
                        0
                        From the office of "Roquetsan" https://www.roketsan.com.tr/en/product/mam-l-smart-micro-munition/
                      5. sivuch
                        sivuch 18 June 2020 08: 34 New
                        -1
                        Thank you.
                        It is offered as an option .8 km (14 km with Inertial Navigation System / Global Positioning System Option)
                        And then other questions arise.
                      6. Alexander Samoilov
                        Alexander Samoilov 18 June 2020 09: 52 New
                        0
                        Not fundamentally. There is an opportunity. Any gunsmith on the spot can install the GPS module in a couple of minutes. It's like sticking a RAM into a computer.
                      7. sivuch
                        sivuch 18 June 2020 09: 55 New
                        0
                        Is not a fact . And even if there is one, what accuracy will there be, despite the fact that the warhead is anti-tank? change it too? Not to mention that when using GPS, there are much more efficient means of delivering warheads.
                      8. Alexander Samoilov
                        Alexander Samoilov 18 June 2020 10: 26 New
                        0
                        The installation procedure looks like this: unscrew the electronics compartment cover, screw on the module, connect the power cord, connect the cable to the computer, screw the housing cover back on. All. She has three types of warheads: Cumulative, OFS and thermobaric. The last two have an infantry radius of at least 10 meters. So damage to the OLS / radar is possible at the same range. GPS accuracy available today, even for civilian users - 1 m.
                      9. sivuch
                        sivuch 18 June 2020 10: 56 New
                        0
                        I readily believe, because I was not so interested in it (I suspect that the author, too). If so, is the accuracy of the missile itself equal to the accuracy of GPS? Well, the question remains - is such a rocket (when the laser is not used) the optimal tool?
                      10. Alexander Samoilov
                        Alexander Samoilov 18 June 2020 12: 38 New
                        0
                        Is equal. For stationary purposes, quite. By moving completely ineffective. In principle, it is enough to change the position every 80 seconds. (flight time at 8 km.) at least 15-20 meters.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 22 June 2020 08: 33 New
    0
    Carapace-c1 dodges predictably with its radar, that it can be detected by a reb without any drones.
    Are you firmly convinced that this is normal work for the Shell - is there a lone BM on the slope and is constantly turning its SOTS?
  • sivuch
    sivuch 17 June 2020 09: 24 New
    0
    Sorry, it’s not for you to put a bad luck on someone else.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 17 June 2020 09: 21 New
    0
    The author proceeds from the wrong assumptions and comes to the wrong conclusions. Who would have thought .
  • Strashila
    Strashila 14 June 2020 05: 52 New
    +6
    How long have drones been used in the historical period? As everything new requires working out the counteraction. The carapace was sharpened for one purpose, but he had to confront new challenges.
    It is important to have time to make changes to weapons.
  • Guazdilla
    Guazdilla 14 June 2020 06: 34 New
    +1
    Haftaru would have already delivered Iranian drones, unless of course for the Sunnis this is haraam. Everything is better than nothing at all.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 14 June 2020 06: 38 New
    -1
    A swarm of drones ... why not STA? UAV is that? A bird or an insect? Here is the word drone ... in some slang or dialect of English raven! So, a "bird" ... and where does the "swarm"? Therefore, it is necessary to understand first with terminology, and then with TTX and combat use ... yes Well, be healthy, boyars! drinks
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 08: 50 New
      +2
      There was no swarm there by the new year 20. The Turks in total produced no more than 100 Bayraktar.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 14 June 2020 12: 20 New
        +3
        The swarm was formed by the hag, not the Bayraktars.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 15 June 2020 08: 58 New
          0
          What range of applications do they have?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 15 June 2020 20: 18 New
            +1
            Small. but their infantry can drag it to the front line. There is a platoon, 10 pieces in the load, plus the "team", a pickup rides - another 10.
    2. sevryuk
      sevryuk 14 June 2020 09: 17 New
      +1
      Drohne - drone in German
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 14 June 2020 09: 45 New
        0
        Quote: sevryuk
        Drohne - drone in German
        Not really ... if drone, then English!Drone (English drone - drone) - unmanned aerial vehicle The term "drone" first appeared in English! And there is also a solution ...:
        Drone is an outdated name for raven bird in Kursk, Belgorod and Voronezh regions. Here in my head I got a "mess", for which I ask you sorry, because. Today I celebrate one date! repeat
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 14 June 2020 12: 25 New
      +2
      The pack has a leader, the swarm does not. In a swarm, everything is as one but each on its own, the only way to repulse the attack is to destroy all the attacking units.
    4. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 14 June 2020 21: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      A swarm of drones ... why not STA? UAV is that?

      Definition of ROY the author in this case applied incorrectly. Swarm means a group of autonomous machines that dynamically distribute tasks within their group during the course of a task. In this case, it is more correct to talk about the joint actions of several Turkish drones at the same time, but managed independently, however.

      Just a joint operation of a group of aircraft.
    5. Interlocutor
      Interlocutor 15 June 2020 14: 20 New
      0
      A swarm of drones ... why not STA? UAV is that? A bird or an insect?

      This is the established term, both from various films and from all degrees of analysts. But the first were films. But if your ear hurts - use the "flock."
  • Paul Siebert
    Paul Siebert 14 June 2020 06: 40 New
    17
    The conclusion is - inside the "Shell" - living people. And drones are cans without crew. We’re losing the “Shell” - we’re losing people, but we lost the drone - in a minute you can lift another one into the sky.
    If there is, of course.
    All the ranting about the issue price is unethical. The loss of hundreds of high-tech drones will not "pay off" even one human life.
    Therefore, drones must fight with drones. But during World War I, a division into aircraft types occurred: scouts, bombers, and fighters appeared.
    Why is this so unobvious for drones?
    We need high-speed, maneuverable fighter drones to deal with such Anki and Bayraktar. Fighters with powerful long-range weapons and sensitive radars.
    And a whole class of pilot operators, sharpened to detect, intercept and destroy the inanimate flying aggressor.
    Maybe yesterday’s EGEshnikov from "World of Warplanes" for joysticks to plant?
    At least some benefit to the country will be ... wink
    1. Guazdilla
      Guazdilla 14 June 2020 06: 49 New
      +1
      I’m certainly not a professional, but can explain what makes it difficult to equip a remote control center?
      Maybe yesterday’s EGEshnikov from "World of Warplanes" for joysticks to plant?
      Exactly. A pair of displays, yes a joystick.
    2. VicktorVR
      VicktorVR 14 June 2020 08: 41 New
      0
      In general, probably the destruction of the air defense system (P) K before the destruction of the air defense crew is excessive?
      It’s all tender on the outside, it’s enough to damage the radar / OLS, just a little bit, before the loss of working capacity, and everything else becomes useless ...
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 09: 00 New
        +1
        This is because Pantsyr and in a nightmare did not conceive as military air defense
        1. Interlocutor
          Interlocutor 15 June 2020 14: 22 New
          +2
          This is because the Shell and in a nightmare did not conceive as military air defense


          But his life just throws him there. In any case, a good platform just needs to be built up and that’s it.
    3. Yarhann
      Yarhann 14 June 2020 13: 06 New
      0
      conventional attack aircraft (Su25 and A10) can perfectly fight UAVs with radio command guidance from a ground-based radar.
    4. Metlik
      Metlik 14 June 2020 16: 02 New
      0
      We need to think about the remote control of the armor. Say, having arrived at the place, the crew takes cover and disguises aside, and controls the air defense system over the wire.
    5. businessv
      businessv 14 June 2020 16: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      Maybe yesterday’s EGEshnikov from "World of Warplanes" for joysticks to plant? At least some benefit to the country will be ...
      These are the conclusions I made by reading the article! drinks
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 14 June 2020 07: 20 New
    +1
    Why not use the Shell in conjunction with reconnaissance drones with the radar. Turkish UAVs are very competently used by operators and the Turkish military ... on the ultimate capabilities of the Shell.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 14 June 2020 11: 54 New
      0
      At least with a survey locator ..... and in the presence of aviation, bomb their airfields and fire in the air.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 June 2020 07: 24 New
    +1
    There is a definite tactic to combat aircraft. If you leave the SAM (SAM) one on one with the percussion machine, then it will be destroyed. Violate the time of coagulation and deployment and not change position, also destroyed, move without cover, also destroyed. Shine constantly with your radar, also destroyed when the crew gets tired, and the radar will need to be serviced.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OPAIun5zi8
  • avia12005
    avia12005 14 June 2020 07: 56 New
    +4
    In fact, it is necessary to have strike capabilities for the destruction of UAV deployment bases and control centers. This is the whole solution to the problem.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 14 June 2020 07: 58 New
    +8
    It was necessary to mention nevertheless that:

    1. Anka was used in the version of electronic warfare, hung with antennas, crushed everything that remained after Coral and Redet.
    2. In Libya, at least half of the Carapace was covered in a stowed position, on a march, on trailers, in hangars, etc.

    As for the swarms - Kargu, the kamikaze drones made a serious contribution to all Turkish successes, no more than Bayraktar, and they are launched from the ground. Specifically, in Syria, including from Turkish observation posts that the Syrians did not touch.

    Well, the methods of repelling swarm attacks are out of the question.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 09: 11 New
      -1
      2. In Libya, at least half of the Carapace was covered in a stowed position, on a march, on trailers, in hangars, etc.

      You at least looked at the losses on Lost Armor to draw any conclusions. I watched. Conclusions outlined. See above. Now about Anka. All this gorgeous electronic warfare of 200 kg payload is simply not serious. And does she have corny energy in abundance?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 14 June 2020 12: 29 New
        0
        Now about Anka. All this gorgeous electronic warfare of 200 kg payload is simply not serious. And does she have corny energy in abundance?


        She doesn’t work alone
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 12: 31 New
          0
          So all this needs to be studied, it is likely that the ground-based electronic warfare stations were working on the base of the UAV. And it is clear that such a circus number from the Turks got away with it until Buki and Pantsiri pulled up in a commercial quantity.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 15 June 2020 20: 21 New
            +1
            The ground coral and Redet worked, crushed everything that was choking, Anka modified pointwise on a specific antenna.
            Well, and further Bairaktara, and in the decisive direction, also Karghu swarms.

            Well, another role of Turkish artillery and mass supply of 155 mm, who would illuminate ...
    2. Demagogue
      14 June 2020 11: 01 New
      +4
      In Libya, at least half of the Carapace was covered in a stowed position, on a march, on trailers, in hangars, etc.


      Let's finish your thought: because the enemy, through the UAV, secured air supremacy and constantly hung above the head of the Haftarovites, shooting everything that was moving.
      And who told you that they did not try to cover the transportation of equipment with the same Shells. How successful this could be, see the article above.

      Well, the methods of repelling swarm attacks are out of the question.


      Why out of brackets? My conclusions are unequivocal: to repel the swarm attack, you need your own swarm.

      We come to the situation of the WWII: a lot of light-engine aircraft, from which military air defense will not protect you. Only the struggle for air supremacy.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 14 June 2020 12: 27 New
        +1
        Why out of brackets? My conclusions are unequivocal: to repel the swarm attack, you need your own swarm.


        Not always.

        We come to the situation of the WWII: a lot of light-engine aircraft, from which military air defense will not protect you. Only the struggle for air supremacy.


        This is generally not just from WWII situation.
        1. Demagogue
          14 June 2020 12: 39 New
          -1
          This is generally not just from WWII situation. I agree, and from the PMV. And last time in Korea)
      2. Yarhann
        Yarhann 14 June 2020 13: 01 New
        0
        Dominance in the air is provided by fighter aircraft with the support of ground-based air defense systems, the expert))) The LNA simply has nothing to provide for this. If there were at least hawks and a powerful ground-based radar for radio command guidance, then the number of targets does not play a role. This was also practiced during the Nazi raids on London, so the Vietnamese defended themselves from significantly superior enemy forces.
      3. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 14 June 2020 17: 47 New
        +2
        “War is the way of deception, deceit is the way of war” These statements are always encouraging: there were more of them, they were suddenly, we were still on the march, they had something better. There is a war going on, you need to beat in a war when you have an advantage, when the enemy is not ready. They do so. Of course, I understand that it is customary for us to grow to the full, with breasts on machine guns, but it is better to sneak up on shells, rather than human lives.
    3. Demagogue
      14 June 2020 18: 04 New
      -1
      Kargu, kamikaze drones made a serious contribution to all Turkish successes, no more than Bayraktar


      Overlooked this remark. A hag carries some small grenade. Karg-2 flies 5 km. This is a purely tactical tool. And it weighs 6 kg and everything must be purely kinetic damage. A good thing, but ascribe it directly
      crucial role ....
  • G. Georgiev
    G. Georgiev 14 June 2020 08: 34 New
    -17
    Even without this article, we see that the main Russian air defense systems, the Shell, and the S-300, do not serve anything, and are not adapted for modern combat. Turkey technically humiliates Russia, and in Syria, Israel too. Israeli aircraft interfere and block Russian radars. (They even shot a week ago at a distance of 10 kilometers from the Russian base, without receiving an answer). That is why it is better for Russia to buy CAM from China!
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 14 June 2020 09: 01 New
      +3
      No need to pull an owl on the globe ... in Syria, after UAV attacks, air and rocket attacks on the places of production and control of these devices were delivered to our bases ... it helped a lot ... the attacks stopped.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 09: 04 New
      0
      You would have been kind enough to have read above at least something about real losses that were not sucked from the finger by the Turks.
      Quote: G. Georgiev
      Turkey technically humiliates Russia,

      By the method of losing 19 Bayraktars with 2 Armors? Strong!
      Quote: G. Georgiev
      and in Syria, Israel too.

      Now I ask you, from which day Russia and Israel are at war
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 14 June 2020 12: 06 New
        -1
        I saw a cut with the destruction of three shells, but they were all not in a combat situation. Yes, and the shell should act with more serious means, beech, s-300 or the like. And in Libya, such an interaction, as I understand it, is not adjusted from the word at all.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 12: 13 New
          +3
          the destruction of three shells

          Look closely at Lost Armor. Not a proven fact that they generally shot at the Pantsyryv. And then they happen to be in those Palestinians.

          (and by the way, give me two hours and the ability to dig into the landfill, and the "radar" will rotate.)
          You could clearly identify the Pantsyr in those videos? Are there any debris after hits? And control should be, especially given the level of Hufftar’s air defense.
          1. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 14 June 2020 12: 48 New
            -2
            No, I’m afraid that it was shells, one truth is in question since it was destroyed in the hangar, but there are pictures on the network with the shell burned in the hangar, it looks like this is it, the video on this site was posted.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 13: 03 New
              -1
              Hardly.
              Examine the question yourself.
              https://lostarmour.info/libya/
              Search by tag Pantsir
              Actually there are 4 photo confirmations. Two reliable and two not very
              - almost whole in the hangar. Captured and solemnly dragged away on a trawl.
              - disabled in the hangar.
              - A pile of fragments photographed point-blank, without a general view. I think the event is not reliable.
              - Abandoned in Kamaz almost the whole armor in Kamaz, that is, rolled from Syria. Photos appear on the network once and are not repeated. Apparently, “Khaftarovtsy” then dragged him along.
          2. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 14 June 2020 13: 50 New
            -2
            https://youtu.be/PLgZaxtojwI
            Here is the video.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 14: 02 New
              +3
              Saw.
              I personally see the defeat of the hangar and some kind of truck, and some kind of car at the end of the video slightly resembling Armor. A photo of such a device, see above .... I wrote about this earlier. Where did the destruction of the 5 Armors suck here, this is a great Ukrainian mystery ..
              1. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 14 June 2020 14: 41 New
                -1
                At the beginning of the video, a clear color video of the shell that travels along the road. Yes, the point is not that, not a single one in time to complete a combat mission, only Israel has such a video and that one.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 14: 58 New
                  +3
                  It’s true that there is such a video that is good with a recognizable Armor rolling along the highway, then gluing on black-and-white film, the road changes, and Armor turns
                  something unknowable ... This is something unknowable and plows.
                  And not just one photo or shooting during the performance of a combat mission in Libya.
          3. Interlocutor
            Interlocutor 15 June 2020 14: 26 New
            0
            Look closely at Lost Armor. Not a proven fact that they generally shot at the Pantsyryv. And then they happen to be in those Palestinians.


            The idea is clear. There is a column and in it two originals and 15 parodies. And cover it all with smoke. Perhaps you can confuse. Anyway, kamikaze.
            And many once laughed at inflatable mock-ups ...
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 15 June 2020 16: 35 New
              0
              Inadequate neighing ... And the models of military equipment have always justified themselves on the battlefield, as a means of disinformation of the enemy.
        2. Yarhann
          Yarhann 14 June 2020 12: 51 New
          +1
          there is no air defense as such from the word at all. Short-range air defense systems outside the layered air defense missile defense are as if senseless, they will still be cut out, a matter of time. Because LA aircraft carriers of the PRR and the Kyrgyz Republic are not destroyed, as was the case in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
          1. Outsider
            Outsider 3 July 2020 11: 39 New
            0
            “Short-range air defense systems outside the layered air defense missile defense are as if senseless, they will still be cut out, a matter of time” - This extremely depends on their performance characteristics. And then you look - the SAM will be cut out on FIG aircraft with weapons ... lol wink For example, the mobile version of the Iron Dome:

    3. Yarhann
      Yarhann 14 June 2020 12: 57 New
      +4
      Analetiga level God)))) Israel then warns the Russian Aerospace Forces during sorties if you are not in the know and this is kind of a military secret. Yes, and no matter how one strike of the Israeli Air Force on the troops of the Russian Federation in Syria was not. And for sofa analetefs, jamming radar in all armies of the world is accepted as an act of aggression, followed by an attack on the jammer.
      1. Outsider
        Outsider 3 July 2020 11: 40 New
        0
        - The problem is that the jammer must see and bring down. The big problem ... lol
    4. businessv
      businessv 14 June 2020 16: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: G. Georgiev
      That is why it is better for Russia to buy CAM from China!

      And for you it is better not to write such posts here - look stupid! hi
  • K-50
    K-50 14 June 2020 08: 41 New
    0
    it would be more cost-effective to use UAVs with explosivesthat can also hit ground enemy forces.

    Is it like that? belay
    Really a demagogue. author, explosives, that is, air-air, are used to defeat air targets from air carriers.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 14 June 2020 08: 44 New
    +3
    The article seems to be with claims, but ... Why is only one Shell considered in the fight against UAVs, and where are all the other air defense systems, Where are the AWACS, where are the fighters. One-sided coverage of the problem of the fight against drones, obviously will not lead to the adoption of the correct decisions on this issue.
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 14 June 2020 12: 47 New
      0
      article comparison catalog TTX))) as if what you want
    2. businessv
      businessv 14 June 2020 16: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      One-sided coverage of the problem of the fight against drones, obviously will not lead to the adoption of the correct decisions on this issue.
      It seems to me, colleague, that the author at the end did not identify the problem of the struggle (IMHO, there will not be such a problem with layered defense), but the need to draw the attention of our military-industrial complex to more efficient development and production of UAVs.
  • VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 14 June 2020 08: 46 New
    +1
    Obviously, this OLS is significantly superior to the OLS "Shell"


    Shame on you, no? Given the fact that for the "Shell" plus 100kg is almost not noticeable, but for the UAV very much.
    Those. on a ground vehicle you can have a device much heavier and "powerful"

    Or did the author mean that UAV OLS is easier to detect ZR (P) K, simply at least due to size, than vice versa? But in fact, in terms of performance characteristics, the UAV of the UAV does not at all exceed the OLS of the Shell?
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 14 June 2020 12: 45 New
      0
      The OLS is used not for search, but for aiming weapons - that is, after receiving intelligence the vehicle goes to the specified area and already through the ECO carries out additional reconnaissance at the place (if the target is mobile) after which the weapons are used, this is how attack aircraft (attack aircraft, anti-aircraft, bombers) work ) USA. Conducting ECO reconnaissance over long distances is delusional nonsense - who and what will process the received information? Well this is not GlobalHavk with an awesomely powerful onboard computer.
      As they actually look for air defense systems, as well as 50 years ago - by means of RTR radiation or airborne early warning systems that can detect similar equipment such as a tank or air defense system from a large distance (hundreds of kilometers).
  • rocket757
    rocket757 14 June 2020 08: 51 New
    +2
    Recent events have shown that

    they showed that unfinished / incomplete air defense does not provide adequate protection against new means of attack.
    Conclusion, to form / complete as it should ... still studying, studying, preparing the air defense management structure for how long, and not how and where God will send.
    This, however, is being done here, but somewhere there, in different places, with a mustache and until the roasted rooster pecks them, moves, does not want to think. However, this is also a question of high costs ....
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 14 June 2020 09: 18 New
    +2
    If you tortured a vile, it is foolish to hope only for a fly swatter, you need a variety of means.
  • Alex paritsky
    Alex paritsky 14 June 2020 10: 03 New
    -4
    And Russia so wants to fight, so direct, I want, my hands are shaking. And “the shell of Russia is impenetrable, except that for Turks and Libyans a bit. But that doesn’t count. It’s the“ lumps ”that they don’t know how to fight and they run from the Russians without looking back.
    1. businessv
      businessv 14 June 2020 16: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Alex Paritsky
      But that doesn’t count. These are the same "lumps" and they don’t know how to fight and they run from the Russians without looking back.
      Less poison, more meaning please! hi
  • Alex flanker
    Alex flanker 14 June 2020 10: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Demagogue
    I can tell you directly the army messenger, where they say that we had an afar from King Gorokh. So what?


    Never mind. From your opinion afar Pfar on the shell-s1 will not.
    1. Demagogue
      14 June 2020 14: 45 New
      0
      How do you have Furke Afar radar when it scans with ONE beam?)))
      You accuse me of using Wikipedia, but you yourself didn’t even read it.
  • jovanni
    jovanni 14 June 2020 11: 03 New
    0
    Thanks to the Turkish comrades. Deprived of some illusions. So you can only hope for the carapace when you are fighting with self-made aircraft modellers, such as barmaley. And then with caution. And without its high-quality drones, maybe the "anti-drone - kamikaze" shell will not help ...
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 14 June 2020 11: 57 New
    -1
    If the shell is one or the most powerful weapon in the air defense system, then of course it will not last long, another matter if it works in conjunction with more serious weapons, for example, beech or S-300.
    What are the chances of this swarm of drones then?
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 14 June 2020 12: 31 New
      +1
      Well, who in the article talks about the use of layered anti-aircraft missile defense with an air component (AWACS, RTR, hawks), here is just a classic comparison of a spherical horse in a vacuum. The article is a simple comparison of the TTX catalog numbers.
  • Max Lebedev
    Max Lebedev 14 June 2020 12: 27 New
    +4
    Apparently, the future belongs to unmanned systems. yes
  • Yarhann
    Yarhann 14 June 2020 12: 28 New
    +3
    The author is not aware that the Shell is an object missile defense system and its task is to catch missiles, RSs, etc., and not carriers. That is why the Shell is low noise immunity simply because he does not need it, he should not be in battle formations.
    Next, how to resist UAVs - yes, just layered air defense-missile defense with an air component. Powerful ground-based radars calmly detect such UAVs at a great distance, like F35 type aircraft and fighter aviation enters their interception. That is, everything is old and banal as the world - whoever captures air superiority wins.
    Well, the third would be like the U.S. army was fighting in this case - it’s just like in Iraq and Yugoslavia, it would interfere with battle orders, cut out radars (KR and PRR), destroy fighter aircraft, after which attack aircraft and attack helicopters burst into the clear sky ( which are many times more effective than even American Ripper UAVs). The whole war is over - the main forces of the enemy are broken, the rippers circle 24/7 in the sky in search of lonely unfinished enemy groups.
    In a word - another article examining a spherical horse in a vacuum. UAVs can be used only if domination in the air - otherwise it is a simple target that will be guaranteed to be destroyed by almost any hawk, even 50 years ago.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 3 July 2020 11: 50 New
      0
      "UAVs can be used only if domination in the air - otherwise it is a simple target that will be guaranteed to be destroyed by almost any hawk, even 50 years ago." - So who dominates the air in Syria ?? Su-35 with Hmeimim, or Turkish F-16? Why did the Turkish UAVs defeat the Syrian (Russian) armored vehicles?
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 14 June 2020 12: 31 New
    0
    I have a number of questions in connection with this:
    1) Where is the effective operation of our highly qualified electronic warfare equipment against these UAVs? Are we waiting for something or ...?
    2) A tool designed to deal with UAVs, in general, according to your calculations, it is ineffective against them, and in terms of price to loss the issue can be even more frightening. This despite the fact that the Turks, although they make good UAVs, they have far from perfect competence in this matter and their devices will obviously be inferior to the developments of Israel or the United States.
    3) As far as I understand, the main problem now is not to bring down such a device, but to detect it in time. This will require a more powerful radar, in turn, this will increase the cost of the design with it, and vice versa - the ESR of drones will only decrease, and their price will also decrease, due to serialization and modularity. I already see the impasse of this concept, because the defending side is spending many times more expenses and losing maneuver ..
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 14 June 2020 17: 57 New
      0
      1. The importance and effectiveness of electronic warfare is greatly exaggerated. Protecting your communication channels is one of the components of electronic warfare, and the organization of protection measures is much cheaper and easier than suppression.
      2. Bayraktar is an extremely mediocre UAV at the level of the late 90s, their main plus is that they are.
      3. UAVs a new goal for air defense, with which you need to learn how to deal. It is different from previously created. This is not a fighter, not a rocket, not an attack aircraft, not a helicopter. The UAV has a different performance characteristics from all previously created products.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 14 June 2020 19: 22 New
        0
        It’s hard to call “new” directly, since UAVs have been living since the mid-1970s, they don’t bother, well, if you don’t like this archaic, then at least from the mid-1990s all this exists in a more or less modern sense - with GPS, cameras, avionics.
        Some time ago, it was fashionable for us to paint our electronic warfare systems as the best in the world and as an effective means of combating UAVs and guided ammunition - and I could not pay attention to the fact that they somehow got quiet on this topic.
        There was a lot of noise when Iran intercepted a super modern UAV of the United States (evil tongues used to say that it was not without our help) - when all these laws on civil regulation of UAVs were recently introduced, there was also a lot of mincemeat on how easily it is intercepted and jammed by wondrous domestic van derwafles -and now I see that bullshit, it was all, it should not deliver, but it does. It was not worth running ahead of the engine.
        I understand that in Syria the terrain is difficult from the point of view of the effectiveness of the shells and the proximity of the Turkish border with all the UAV’s support kit - but we also have a lot where the borders are not perfect, a bit annoying ..
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 14 June 2020 19: 37 New
          +3
          1. UAVs appeared in the First World War, were used in the second. But in the form in which it is now and on that scale of the 21st century.
          2. I received a radio engineering education. 9/10 of what is said about electronic warfare is nonsense. Highly exaggerated by those for whom EW is magic. In Iran, the UAV most likely was hit or broken, it simply planned and sat down.
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 14 June 2020 20: 11 New
            +3
            I like it when these pink drool does not flow with a jingoistic patriotic ecstasy, when people write about technology. Safety is a serious matter, and all these hopes for van der wafers are not very cool. Thanks for the detailed comment!
      2. Outsider
        Outsider 3 July 2020 11: 52 New
        0
        "3. UAVs are a new goal for air defense, which must be learned to fight. It is different from previously created ones. It is not a fighter, not a rocket, not an attack aircraft, not a helicopter. UAVs have different performance characteristics from all previously created products." - Yes, he will lie ?! UAV - just a low-speed stealth aircraft. And you don’t need to learn to specifically work on it with an air defense system — a normal air defense system.
  • Scolot
    Scolot 14 June 2020 13: 02 New
    +6
    Absolutely amateurish analysis.
    The ESR of the drone is taken from the ceiling and is assumed to be a constant value, the author calculates the detection range by simple division (that is, he does not know the basic equation of the radar location), as well as any data on the characteristics of the Pantsira radar in the article is completely missing. The author apparently does not know about the multi-channel nature of the complex (including when pointing missiles). And the main argument in the article is the word "Obviously."
    Knowing neither the characteristics of the UAV, nor the characteristics of the "Shell", the author undertakes to discuss something and draws far-reaching conclusions.

    PS Incidentally, the emirate modification of the "Shell C1" just installed radar with AFAR, but this does not mean at all that it is better than the "shell C2", which mounted radar with a passive headlamp.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 13: 18 New
      0
      In general, I agree, but why did you get the idea that the AFAR is on the Emirate's Armor? They were delivered offhand from 2005 to 2012 ...
      1. Scolot
        Scolot 14 June 2020 17: 16 New
        0
        There, as a SOC, radar 1RS1-1E radar was installed, developed by NIIRT. Structurally, it is a station with AFAR - its antenna array consists of transceiver modules.
    2. Demagogue
      14 June 2020 14: 49 New
      -2
      For those who are in the tank: on the Shell of the Furke radar, which scans with ONE beam. In which universe is this called AFAR?
      1. Scolot
        Scolot 14 June 2020 17: 22 New
        0
        Structurally, this is AFAR (I already wrote above). How many rays are used there depends on the algorithms and software.
        Incidentally, there is more than one beam there - transmission in single-beam mode, reception in three-beam.
        1. Demagogue
          14 June 2020 17: 55 New
          -2
          If you had even the slightest idea about radar, you would not have flogged such nonsense. ONE beam scans. What kind of afar? Tell me another radar with afar, which scans with one beam? It is no coincidence that they call this radar with a "semi-active headlight" bashfully. What does semi-active mean? It is like a semi-erect male reproductive organ. No use))
      2. Liam
        Liam 15 June 2020 05: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Demagogue
        For those who are in the tank: on the armor of Furke radar

        Is this also on Gorshkov?
        1. Demagogue
          15 June 2020 07: 09 New
          -2
          Is this also on Gorshkov?

          Of course not. Furke was put on corvettes and there was a lot of criticism. On Gorshkov they put the marine analog s-350 with afar. Scan multiple beams at different frequencies simultaneously. Our most advanced radar.
          1. Liam
            Liam 15 June 2020 08: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Demagogue
            Of course not

            Frigates are installed naval radar 5P27 "Furke-4", Poliment radar with active phased antenna arrays for anti-aircraft fire control, 3K41 Monolit targeting radar, 5P-10 Puma main caliber artillery control radar, three Pal-N1 naval radar, sonar complex Dawn-3 "and towed GAS" Vignette-M ".
            1. Demagogue
              15 June 2020 08: 52 New
              -1
              Directly copy-paste blocks?)))

              Furke-4 there is not related to the shell. And she thank God only gives preliminary data about the goals. And leads the radar station Poliment with afar. Which is also present in your copy-paste.

              On the Carapace, there is only one Furke, who is responsible for everything and copes with everything so-so.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 14 June 2020 13: 16 New
    +1
    Downed in Libya Bayraktara watch here https://lostarmour.info/libya/item.php?id=24555
    and here https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=5A
    Study the materiel of a colleague, especially the author.
  • businessv
    businessv 14 June 2020 16: 05 New
    +3
    Recent events have shown that the development of subtle shock drones, ammunition for them and compact radars with AFAR should be high on the list of priorities in our military construction.
    Great article, IMHO! Many thanks to the author for a fairly comprehensive review! I fully support the conclusions! hi
  • Neutral Neutral
    Neutral Neutral 14 June 2020 17: 26 New
    -1
    Of course, I know better from the couch, but in my opinion the type of UAV that Turkey operates is a dead end and why: these UAVs are capable of influencing the outcome of a battle, but only if they are not opposed by a normal air defense system. Turkey Bayraktar TB2 about 120 pcs, and how much they lost in Syria and Libya? At least a few dozen, which means that a couple of weeks of sluggish hostilities nullify the existence of a UAV fleet in an average European country. On the other hand, there is another concept: a large UAV carrier of planning bombs: such an apparatus is certainly several times more expensive than small and medium-sized counterparts, but it is able to fulfill all the same roles without entering the air defense coverage area. And this feature of them makes them much more promising than the devices that Turkey showed in Syria and Libya.
    T.O. as soon as such a program appears in the Russian Federation with reference to the S-70 "Hunter":
    https://iz.ru/975885/anton-lavrov-aleeksei-ramm/grom-pobedy-udarnye-drony-unichtozhat-raketnye-kompleksy-protivnika - можно будет считать что РФ ликвидирует отставание от лидеров в этой области.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 14 June 2020 18: 13 New
      0
      Weapons are not made in a vacuum. Need to watch TVD. where and with whom will Turkey fight? Kurds and various basurmans on the entire southern border will provide military assistance to various allied countries. All this territory is desert and mountains. Does anyone out there have normal air defense? Only in Israel. Are Bayraktars designed to overcome air defense? No. 50 kg serious combat load? No. Why are bairaktaras made? For police operations, border conflicts, control of impassable and remote territories, counter-terrorism operations, etc. well, certainly not for full-scale wars.
      And the fact that this worthless bairaktar is fighting extremely effectively suggests that another coup in military affairs took place. A new class of weapons has appeared, the worst representatives of which are superior to the best old ones.
    2. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 14 June 2020 18: 28 New
      0
      Different classes of UAVs for various purposes. At the same Turks, Akinci will soon go into service. Here they are for war.
      C70 is another prodigy, pursuit of the United States.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 14 June 2020 18: 01 New
    -2
    Naked math. The Saudis drove the Shell Hufftaru, Turks for PNS UAV. The Turks have Bayraktars 120.
    Plus Anki. Brought out about 20 pieces. Every sixth.
    The Saudis have 50 shells. Even 4 has been put out of action (Are there any of our Shells, until we discuss it).
    What will end faster, UAV or Armor?
    And this, the bairaktar machine is not cheap at all, a million 4-5 greens offhand. That is, the Turks also lose the war of economies, losing 4-5 aircraft per MANPADS.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 14 June 2020 18: 38 New
      +2
      Math is not right. Bayraktars mainly fight there against ground equipment, how many tanks, armored vehicles, vehicles, and people were not counted. Even if you calculate according to your estimates, the difference in money is not big $ 20 million (4 * 20 = 80, 15 * 4 = 60) The ground losses will more than cover the difference. And most importantly, we know exactly how many people were injured when the bayraktars were shot down: 0 two hundredths, 0 three hundredths
  • Alexander Barinov
    Alexander Barinov 14 June 2020 19: 04 New
    -4
    Stop flirting. Future War is not a meeting of musketeers. The Russian Federation has the right to use nuclear weapons of various kinds in terms of power and means of delivery. Turkish UAVs are the weapon of cowards.
    1. Oquzyurd
      Oquzyurd 14 June 2020 21: 16 New
      +4
      "Turkish UAVs - the weapon of cowards." Nuclear weapons of the hero)))? I have not seen such nonsense for a long time, or rather, I have not seen it at all.
      1. Nikanet
        Nikanet 14 June 2020 21: 56 New
        0
        Well, you know, in short, when a cat cannot reach the meat ...
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 14 June 2020 20: 25 New
    0
    The article is good. But it must be admitted that the Carapace was not originally intended to destroy shock UAVs. And its use in this capacity is forced due to the lack of layered air defense. The presence of even a Buk immediately changes the situation despite the low ESR of Turkish UAVs.
  • Prole
    Prole 14 June 2020 20: 44 New
    0
    In the history of the confrontation between Turkish drones and our air defense, one main question is not clear. Why build a Turkish stream. or supply air defense to opponents of Turkey. either remove the cross or put on your underpants. boast of air defense with an empty pipe that cost a pretty penny. Really everything in order to wipe snot Ukraine. Although I am only more concerned about the Turkish resort. Our sucks and catch there fucking.
  • Gust
    Gust 14 June 2020 23: 35 New
    -2
    The article is not bad, but .. if simplified:
    "Private Lee, with one Manliher rifle against a Kuomintang platoon. What you need: give Private Private a machine gun and a French thermal imager, hang up with unloading and modern communications, then he will show them."
    The author, this is not the Shell is so bad, it is used incorrectly. Although AFAR, even ROFAR, the result will be the same. The enemy uses various forces and means and succeeds. If Haftar’s troops likewise would have had electronic warfare, a powerful surveillance radar, and at least Buki in the first echelon and Carapace at the end, UAVs would fall like leaves in the fall until Buk ends in BC.
    Another thing is that at the end of the run Derivation with shells with guided detonation (even unguided), a small radar station (such as a module from "Afganit") and the possibility of using SAM Arrows, or at least Verba, then yes. And so it’s a little expensive to bring down penny UAVs from extras.
  • certero
    certero 15 June 2020 01: 38 New
    0
    The answer is simple, drones should not fly over an army like the Russian one. UAVs require a significantly wider communication channel than any manned vehicle. Therefore, the electronic warfare of a developed army must completely interrupt communications.
    The second way is the creation of fully autonomous unmanned fighters, which these drones must destroy. Having no communication channel with the earth at all
  • Cop
    Cop 15 June 2020 12: 25 New
    0
    Hello, uv. author! I read your article and could not resist .... I have this question for you, for some reason you emphasized the confrontation between air defense systems and controlled UAVs, and why? Are future wars limited to that? Just imagine, the Libyan, well, or the Syrian desert, in which a certain object is located, for example, a refinery or warehouse .... let's say chemical weapons. The object covers, say, 10 air defense systems "Shell-1E", and 10 air defense systems "Buk-M2E". For some, the task is to cover the object, while for others, to destroy it accordingly. Now imagine that those who want to destroy him are driven to this object at a distance of even 120 km. ten MLRS installations with 24 guides, and an ordinary reactive blank is used as the RS in which additional fuel cells are added instead of warheads. The main thing that she flew these 120 km. Before launch, let's say 10 Bayraktar TB2 with a full ammunition load and two Anka-S with EW containers and other nishtyaks rise. Here they raise the rails and release 240 RS-kamikaze. While they are flying, the crews reload the units, after reloading they launch the next batch. The air defense of the object begins to repulse the attack, but Anka-S fixes everything. And then it turns on its electronic warfare system and Bayraktars go on the attack. How do you think will succeed or attackers fail. And if they tolerate, then who do you think will suffer more financially?
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 15 June 2020 22: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Cop
      Now imagine that those who want to destroy him are driven to this object at a distance of even 120 km. ten MLRS installations with 24 guides

      Israel quite successfully destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria with conventional airstrikes
  • remal
    remal 15 June 2020 14: 04 New
    -1
    It was just necessary to fulfill the contracts that had already been concluded before the wars, for the supply of the Yak-130 and MiGs to Syria and other countries. + fit Kuznetsov and shine through the sky without paying attention to liberal seizures about smoke and other things. The backlog on drones has long been obvious, including from Turkey and Iran.
  • remal
    remal 15 June 2020 15: 06 New
    -1
    The article has a lot about the detection range. Optics, etc., but generally speaking, the function of the Carapace-S is to mow everything at close range, to destroy weapons, in the drone it is missiles, or kamikaze drones themselves, and then the Carapace does not cope, something is wrong with it.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 15 June 2020 16: 36 New
      +1
      And who said that he could not cope? Strictly speaking, there is no proven fact of the destruction of Pantsyr in a combat situation with working radars in Libya
  • rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 15 June 2020 18: 11 New
    +1
    It can be used to destroy a swarm of UAV drones, just burn all the electronics
  • Alexey G
    Alexey G 16 June 2020 01: 57 New
    +3
    A very biased article with praise of Turkish weapons in general and praise of unmanned aircraft in particular!
    The article is one-sided, as it extols drones, in particular Bayrakter and does not indicate their shortcomings, so the analysis turns out to be so-so.
    Bayraktar created by a talented engineer, "Turkish Sikorsky”, Bayraktar, owner of a private company. He created his UAV with an emphasis on stealth. We dwell on it in more detail, since it is produced in large quantities (about 200 units are contracted) and is used much more widely.

    Here is an example of praise! Where is the criticism? Sorry, the author did not find! It turns out something in the spirit of Oleg Kaptsov! Only there is all the American flying best, you have Turkish!
    Now essentially.
    1. The author writes that the Bayrakter is noticeable at the F35 level! At the same time, he refers to some kind of data from the Greeks, for whom it is unclear what radar stations and it is not clear at what distance they tracked him!
    To be honest, this statement is in great doubt! Demagogy from the demagogue.
    The bairakter has a larger wingspan than the German Me-109, and the wing geometry is like the military pistons of World War II! Where is the F35 ??? What is stealth based on?


    Where does the Turk have special geometry that scatters radar rays? The weapon weighs on an external sling!
    In general, it is somehow debatable!
    2. The author claims that the OLS of the Turk is better than the OLS of the Shell, but does not clearly explain why this is so! In addition, why is the shell painted in the color of sand standing among the mass of other objects more visible than a piston fly flying in the clear sky? Unclear how? But if the sky is not clear, then how can the UAV from behind the clouds be able to see something below?
    3. The author somehow shies away from the question of comparing radar.
    On Bayraktar, of course, you can only place mini radar with AFAR like the French Picosar from Leonardo
    Here he does not further develop this topic, although it is clear that the ground-based radar in the air defense system is potentially more powerful, since the ground-based station is not limited by the size of the device since the UAV. This means that the air defense system can potentially have a much stronger radar, which will give it an advantage in the battle with drones in any weather.
    4. The author does not take into account that the Carapace is capable of shooting down rockets launched into it, even if the drone caught him aback! What UAV can hardly boast of and having a speed of 220 km per hour, the piston box will be easily shot down!
    5. The author gives the UAV advantage in advance, as it gives them a numerical advantage, organized tactics, support for electronic warfare, but does not take into account air defense responses, the organization of which also provides for mutual cover, separation, and support for electronic warfare. It turns out that the air defense is in the minority and disunity from the beginning, as if they were commanded by dumbasses and UAVs by smart guys. Hollywood and more!
    6. UAV control is carried out at a distance and therefore the issue of intercepting their control and jamming is still relevant! Therefore, it’s too early to praise this pseudo wunderwafel!
    7.
    The war of the XNUMXst century is already at our doorstep. It will be carried out using UAVs, which can be mass-produced, unlike modern aircraft. UAVs from aircraft models have become a formidable force thanks to modern electronics and stealth technologies.
    Such a statement is too far-fetched! What can a swarm of UAVs do if a modern jet aircraft represented by SU35 acts against them ??? They are simply stunned, so UAVs can be used only where there are no modern aircraft, that is, against an initially weak enemy. A piston can’t fight SU 220 or SU 35 at a speed of 30 km per hour! UAV is a means of anti-terrorism or anti-rebel war! No more so far. At least not with the bayrachter.
    8.
    Since the beginning of this year, according to open sources, 54 shock UAVs have been destroyed on the one hand and about nine Armor complexes on the other. Many UAVs were destroyed by the "Shells", and the "Shells", in turn, were destroyed by drone strikes.
    - the cost of one export ZRPK “Shell-C1” is about 14 million US dollars;

    - UAV Bayraktar TB2 has a cost of 5 million US dollars (high minds have calculated this cost per unit from the contract for the supply of these systems to Ukraine).

    Total: LNA allies lost 84 million dollars and the Turkish military lost 270 million dollars. When calculating the maximum losses (54 UAV units) we get absolutely deplorable losses for Turkey.
    https://riafan.ru/1279195-protivostoyanie-v-livii-rossiiskii-zrpk-pancir-s1-vs-tureckii-bla-bayraktar-tb2
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 16 June 2020 08: 11 New
      0
      Well said, essentially ....
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 16 June 2020 16: 00 New
      0
      Sorry, I didn’t notice your post, otherwise I wouldn’t write
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 16 June 2020 19: 06 New
        0
        Write to your health! And then the adherents of drones and Turkish junk of advertisers divorced like fleas in a soldier’s greatcoat after half a year of life in trenches without a bath!
    3. Outsider
      Outsider 29 June 2020 23: 36 New
      0
      1. The bairakter has a larger wingspan than the German Me-109, and the wing geometry is like the military pistons of World War II! Where is the F35 ??? What is stealth based on?
      ================
      It is based on the manufacture of its airframe (wings, fuselage, plumage) from carbon fiber - the same as the ones that make up the skin and most of the F-22 and F-35 gliders.
      2. Where does the Turk have special geometry that scatters radar rays?
      =================
      - Look at least at its tail unit?
      3. The author claims that the OLS of the Turk is better than the OLS of the Shell, but does not clearly explain why this is so!
      =================
      - Somehow historically there was a lag in all types of electronics in Russia, including the optical one. Do you have a Russian TV at home? Computer? Your smartphone Camera? Camcorder?
      4. In addition, why is the shell painted in the color of sand standing among the mass of other objects more visible than a piston fly flying in a clear sky? Unclear how?
      =================
      “Have you seen this picture many times?” Rate it?
      https://youtu.be/DuPjZrEn7Bw
      5. But if the sky is not clear, then how can the UAV from behind the clouds see something below?
      =================
      - Then the IR mode is turned on, it allows you to see through thin clouds.
      6. Here he does not further develop this topic, although it is clear that the ground-based radar in the air defense system is potentially more powerful, since the ground-based station is not limited by the size of the device since UAVs. This means that the air defense system can potentially have a much stronger radar, which will give it an advantage in the battle with drones in any weather.
      =================
      - That's right, the only question is: who made the product and where? Here is the mobile version of the Israeli "Iron Dome", this wounded animal does not leave:

      7. The author does not take into account that the Carapace is capable of shooting down rockets launched into it, even if the drone caught him aback!
      ==================
      - Sure! If in time a) he sees; b) gets.
      8. The author gives the UAV advantage in advance, as it gives them a numerical advantage, organized tactics, support for electronic warfare, but does not take into account air defense responses, the organization of which also provides for mutual cover, separation, and support for electronic warfare. It turns out that the air defense is in the minority and disunity from the beginning, as if they were commanded by dumbasses and smart UAVs.
      ===================
      - Here, again, there are no universal criteria. It all depends solely on the performance characteristics of both the UAV and the SAM. No miracles.
      9. UAV control is carried out at a distance and therefore the issue of intercepting their control and jamming is still relevant! Therefore, it’s too early to praise this pseudo wunderwafel!
      ===================
      a) satellite control of a highly directional antenna - ground-based electronic warfare systems are not choked;
      b) a highly secure cipher control channel.
      10. Such a statement is too far-fetched! What can a swarm of UAVs do if a modern jet aircraft represented by SU35 acts against them ??? They are simply stunned, so UAVs can be used only where there are no modern aircraft, that is, against an initially weak enemy. A piston can’t fight SU 220 or SU 35 at a speed of 30 km per hour! UAV is a means of anti-terrorism or anti-rebel war!
      ====================
      - You are very behind the times: already we are talking not only about UAV-strikers with speeds under 1000 km / h, but also UAV-stealth fighters, which make it possible to establish real dominance in the sky. The Americans are doing this now. The program, which on the simulator allows you to twist any ace in any battle, even in the distant, at least in Dogfight, already exists and works. And the car here is already better than man.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 1 July 2020 13: 44 New
        0
        1.
        It is based on the manufacture of its airframe (wings, fuselage, plumage) from carbon fiber - the same as the ones that make up the skin and most of the F-22 and F-35 gliders.

        Making carbon fiber is not enough to be invisible to the radar. If this were so, then the Americans would simply build all their air equipment in this way, but they combine it with special forms such as a flying wing and make special corners of the body that scatter rays !!! But this is not enough, because the locator even sees a flying bird in the sky! And F 22 and F 35 are visible on our locators, so the Americans could not win in the end in Syria! All they showed were tomahawks volleys, which this time did not bring them victory!
        The tail of the Turk is nothing like the tail of F22, F35 or SU57 !! Here they have it similar, like the fuselage of the plane itself! But the Turk does not!
        In addition, the Turk weighs all weapons on the wings !!! And it’s not made of plastic! All stealth it is inside!
        2.
        Somehow historically there was a lag in all types of electronics in Russia, including the optical one. Do you have a Russian TV at home? Computer? Your smartphone Camera? Camcorder?

        I don’t know what happened there, but everything is changing historically! History is not a frozen mammoth! This is a process. Go to the Schwabe website !!! You are behind the times! Throw old cliches! We have long made a qualitative step forward in optical systems! But most importantly, if our systems are so bad, then why did the Turks buy C400 from us ?? Can you answer?
        3. https://youtu.be/DuPjZrEn7Bw I saw the picture. Cheap Turkish advertising on how to defeat an enemy who has no air defense!
        4.
        This is true, the only question is: who made the product and where? Here is the mobile version of the Israeli "Iron Dome", this wounded animal does not leave:
        Are you an advertising officer for Israeli weapons ?? Is this the hocus pocus?
        5.
        Sure! If in time a) he sees; b) gets.
        That is how it should be! This system is a hunter for flying targets, like a duck hunter! And if she attacks Bayrakter there is no chance! And our system has a chance to bring down a rocket!
        6.
        It all depends solely on the performance characteristics of both the UAV and the SAM. No miracles.

        Not only from technology, but from the one who controls this technology! From the ability to fight, from the amount of this technique, too! You think too narrowly!

        7.
        satellite control of a highly directional antenna - ground-based electronic warfare systems are not choking;

        Why do you think so??? Do you have any evidence? If the signal comes from outside, it can be suppressed! You can not crush the pilot's hand inside the aircraft! Not yet!
        highly encrypted radio control channel.

        8.
        While protected or until we showed everyone that we hacked it!
        You are very behind the times: already we are talking not only about UAV-strikers with speeds under 1000 km / h, but also UAV-stealth fighters, which make it possible to establish real dominance in the sky. The Americans are doing this now. The program, which on the simulator allows you to twist any ace in any battle, even in the distant, at least in dogfight, already exists and works. And the car here is already better than man.

        It was about the article! And it talked about Turkish UAV Bayrakter! And here are the development of supersonic UAVs, which are not yet, but they are being developed? What the Americans do there, you still need to look! You replace the thesis, and this is a logical mistake! The Turk is not American, subsonic is not supersonic! Do not replace the concept!
        That's when in reality such things will be fought then we'll see! I did not lag behind life! I keep up with her, and you try to get ahead of her with your fantasies! Don't say gop until you jump over! We are also working on the UAV Hunter, it is supersonic, but so far this is not a ready-made machine and it will most likely be at war in conjunction with SU 57, that is, under the direction of a man! Soon you, my friend, throw yourself in the trash. Man created the technique, he knows how to destroy it! Do not exaggerate the importance of yourself and technology!
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 1 July 2020 16: 39 New
          0
          Alexey G, "Shell" - a good SAM? Then how can I explain this ?!

          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 1 July 2020 20: 50 New
            0
            The fact that there is no shell on the video, but there are tanks, sau, cars and no air defense! And if they are, there can be a bunch of reasons why they did not work! Home is the human factor!
            https://youtu.be/ahXIHw6e33c
            Look here too!
      2. Alexey G
        Alexey G 1 July 2020 13: 52 New
        0
        Then the IR mode is turned on, it allows you to see through thin clouds.

        That is, you want to say that the shell in an ambush with the engine turned off emits more heat in the infrared engine than a piston aircraft engine working in the sky? Or the UAV created by the future will fly without generating heat and it will not be visible in the infrared ???
        1. Outsider
          Outsider 1 July 2020 16: 04 New
          0
          - The UAV engine a) emits very little heat; b) the exhaust gases are immediately dispersed by the propeller and, due to the speed of the UAV, immediately dissolve in large volumes of air, so its visibility from the ground is extremely low.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 1 July 2020 20: 40 New
            0
            Bayrakter TV 2 is equipped with a Rotax 912 engine - a family of four-cylinder horizontally opposed reciprocating internal combustion engines.

            Here so here!
            And any internal combustion engine is heated during its operation! And it's not about gases !!! He's just hot inside the plane and that's it! Therefore, it is clearly visible in the IR range. Do not soar your ears!
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Alexey G
            Alexey G 1 July 2020 20: 58 New
            0
            Rotax engines Designed for installation on light aircraft, motorcycles, ATVs, maps, snowmobiles, jet skis and boats.
            In general, this is ordinary civil shit! Like corn maize, by the way, dill, by the way, wants to put their own engine in it.
          3. Alexey G
            Alexey G 1 July 2020 21: 09 New
            0

            Here is the UAV that they create as stealth! This is how it should look! But there is no Valkyrie yet, it is only being created! But the Comanche helicopter was also being created and ... sunk into oblivion!
  • Oleg Varyag
    Oleg Varyag 16 June 2020 12: 01 New
    0
    We need not missiles, but electronic warfare equipment. He launched EMP (electromagnetic pulse) and burned all the UAV electronics for nafig. I think the future of air defense is precisely with systems with electromagnetic radiation.
    1. Outsider
      Outsider 1 July 2020 16: 05 New
      0
      - Dreaming is not harmful. But this is not that way.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 16 June 2020 15: 59 New
    0
    the author has inaccuracies and errors - like a flea on a dog. For example, the EPR of Bayraktara was taken from "Turkish sources". They stated a lot of things. The capabilities of OLSs are also doubtful. That the smoke curtain does not work in the RL range - who told him that? 14 km firing range - where is this from? so far they are writing this -. MAM-C: ammunition mass - 8,5 kg; the mass of the warhead is 2,5 kg, length - 1000 mm, diameter - 70 mm. Target hit range: from 500 m to 8 km.
    The high-precision small-sized ammunition (bomb) MAM-L (SMM - Smart Micro Munition) weighing 22 kg, developed by the Turkish company Roketsan specifically for use with UAVs, is actually a “trimmed” version of the Roketsan L-UMTAS ATGM (weight 37,5 kg,) with removal sections of the rocket engine and equipping with a laser semi-active guidance system. Ammunition length 1 m, caliber 160 mm. A warhead weighing 10 kg can be of two types - high-explosive fragmentation or tandem cumulative. It is stated that when dropped from a significant altitude, the flight range of the MAM-L exceeds 8 km.
    Source: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/mam-l-turkey/ MTC "NEVSKY BASTION" AVKarpenko
  • Tom Johnson
    Tom Johnson 22 June 2020 01: 31 New
    +3
    Turks use WESCAM 25D and they can see Pantsir first

  • Tom Johnson
    Tom Johnson 22 June 2020 01: 33 New
    +1
    WESCAM 25 is a COTS technology and is not F-35 DAS.
    1. Demagogue
      22 June 2020 07: 10 New
      0
      MX-25 is too big for Bayraktar and Anka. Not that it means anything. MX-15 is enough.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 29 June 2020 23: 04 New
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    By the way, the presence of a propeller, albeit shaded on Bayraktar, does not at all reduce the "invisibility", but vice versa.

    - You are mistaken: for decent UAVs, the screws are made of fiberglass, radio-transparent in nature. EPR they do not increase ... smile
  • Vlad Serov
    Vlad Serov 10 August 2020 11: 03 New
    0
    I didn't understand: the UAV was made for a million dollars to hit the inexpensive PANTSIR air defense system? The author of the arguments: maybe, most likely, etc. in respect of precision technology, which air defense is, cannot be used. So you will prove that an elephant is less than a fly !!! Study the subject deeper and you will be happy ...
  • uyry
    uyry 22 August 2020 18: 39 New
    0
    Author "Demagogue" Please explain why you are considering a complex of measures of attack, use an overlay on one, the only complex "Shell". Or you can introduce introductions: 1. The setting of air barriers in especially dangerous directions from the composition of ancient tethered balloons with grenades on cables. 2. And if you cover the area with electronic warfare means. 3. And if we use means of destruction of launchers, according to the results of reconnaissance and target designation. 4. And if we use medium and long-range air defense systems, for which "Pantsir" is the last defense. 5. Why not use target designation from RTV means, then suddenly where did they get lost? Without seeing the whole picture, you are like a shitty woman who cuts a new skirt to patch up an old skirt, while you wonder why everything is so bad and behind.
    1. Demagogue
      27 August 2020 11: 33 New
      0
      https://topwar.ru/172367-udarnye-bpla-izmenili-hod-boevyh-dejstvij-v-sirii-i-livii.html
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 23 August 2020 19: 55 New
    0
    And the Shell that fights alone, without reconnaissance means, other complexes? And the means of countering the drone-ground intercepting signal do not exist? The whole article is a tale about the struggle of drones against lonely Shells in the hands of savages.
    1. Demagogue
      27 August 2020 11: 33 New
      0
      https://topwar.ru/172367-udarnye-bpla-izmenili-hod-boevyh-dejstvij-v-sirii-i-livii.html
  • The comment was deleted.
  • qwertyui
    qwertyui 4 September 2020 20: 52 New
    0
    Something I do not agree with the decrease in the range with a low EPR. It seems that the detection range should be even less.
  • Sergey Kovalev
    Sergey Kovalev 9 September 2020 11: 45 New
    0
    The relationship between Russia and Turkey is the personal relationship between Putin and Erdogan. Either they quarrel, or they reconcile, but the budget of Russia and its reserve funds should have nothing to do with this. Turkey has always been an enemy of Russia and will remain so.