Attack UAVs changed the course of hostilities in Syria and Libya


В previous article we raised the question of how drones became one of the main means of waging modern warfare. This was done through the prism of confrontation between Turkish UAVs and the Pantsir-C1 air defense system. In this article, the author will try to talk more about the practice and tactics of using shock drones as an example of conflicts in Syria and Libya, as well as analyze the possibilities of air defense to counter them.


Turkish UAVs in battles in Idlib


The contribution of the Turkish mid-altitude drones Bayraktar TB2 and Anka to the conflict in Idlib, of course, was decisive. Their use led to the loss of initiative by Assad troops and the disruption of their further offensive.

The main task of Turkish UAVs in Idlib was to scan the front line in order to provide real-time intelligence and adjust artillery fire both on positions and on Syrian columns along the front line and in the front line. On the basis of data obtained by drones, strikes were also made by Turkish air forces (without crossing borders). The result was the depletion of Syrian troops, constantly subjected to targeted strikes and deprived of full supply.

Turkish UAVs were also used to strike. Bayraktar TB2 with four missiles on the suspension can be in the air for more than 12 hours. They carried out constant duty in the air and, after identifying targets, quickly advanced to the front line for launching missiles. The reaction time was much longer than aviation, which made it possible to effectively hit targets accessible only in a narrow time corridor.

In Idlib, UAVs were also used by Turks to suppress air defense systems, in particular, due to the “patchwork” deployment of Syrian air defense systems, which made them vulnerable. Turkish ground-based EW stations and containers on Anka UAVs, according to the Turks, managed to “completely blind” the air defense systems of the air defense systems in Idlib, allowing Bayraktar TB2 to fly almost close to the “Shells” and shoot them at point-blank range. This information is not in doubt due to the fact that the radar from PFAR to Pantsir-C1 scans with only one beam and is vulnerable to electronic warfare equipment.

As a result of the fighting in Idlib, Turkey brought the use of drones to a new level. First, for the first time, shock drones were used against the regular army, not partisans. Secondly, for the first time they were used in large numbers, “squadrons”. The press called this tactic "swarms", and therefore erroneous assumptions appeared that did not mean the medium-high Bayraktar TB2 and Anka, but the kamikaze mini-drones (which were also involved). Thirdly, for the first time UAVs suppressed air defense systems. They turned from game into hunters, having suffered minimal losses in Syria: two Anka and three Bayraktar TB2. The Turks then fully applied all these innovations in Libya.

Chinese UAVs in the civil war in Libya


The first drone drones in Libya began to be used by supporters of Marshal Haftar. From the UAE, they delivered Chinese Wing Loong II UAVs (hereinafter referred to as WL II), which underwent significant refinement: they were equipped with Israeli OLS and Thales communications system.

The practical flight range of the WL II is up to 1 km, the ceiling is 500 m. Control is carried out by satellite from the UAE. These UAVs are used very actively and with a wide range of bombs and missiles. WL II can carry on the suspension up to 9 bombs and missiles with a total mass of up to 000 kg, including the Chinese "Jdam" Fei-Teng (FT). The WL II cannot use the FT-12 with a jet accelerator (range up to 480 km), like another Chinese UAV, CH-12, but it can carry the FT-150 with a launch range of up to 5 km. The LJ-7 ATGMs were actively used and plans were announced to provide the WL II with air-to-air missiles. To this UAV, Haftar was largely indebted to his successes.

WL II worked from the highest possible heights, inaccessible to air defense assets opposing the Haftaru armed forces of the Government of National Accord (hereinafter - PNS), therefore, from 2016 to August 2019, only two such machines were lost. The most successful operation of these UAVs was the destruction of the hangar with Turkish drones in the summer of 2019.

Everything changed when the Turks clearly appeared on the scene in Libya - at the end of 2019. They used Hisar and Hawk air defense systems, as well as Korkut air defense systems and Koral electronic warfare systems. The Turks managed to shoot down four WL IIs (as well as a couple of lightweight WL I strikers), including using the AWACS E-7 aircraft, the latest complex with radar with AFAR. By the way, the US Air Force will receive these aircraft only in 2035, which clearly shows the technological level of military equipment from the American arsenal available to the Turks. One cannot speak of any “backwardness” here. It is also symptomatic that for the fight against the "corncrackers" a whole Boeing was needed with modern electronics. According to the press, Chinese UAVs were shot down in Libya by Hisar air defense systems, a laser system and an electronic warfare station.

At the moment, WL II continues to be actively used by Haftar, and the Turkish air defense systems only created A2 / AD zones on the part of the territory controlled by the PNS and closed access there. Prior to this, Haftar UAVs flew everywhere and even appeared over the main strongholds of the PNS Tripoli and Misurata. WL II, because of their small number, were not massively used; attempts to suppress them by air defense systems are unknown.

Turkish UAV in Libya


The first Turkish strike UAVs came to Libya in the summer of 2019. These were Bayraktar TB2, ordered by Turkey's ally Qatar and then transferred to the PNS. They did not make a significant contribution to the course of the fighting, the turning point came only with the arrival of additional batches of these vehicles and the Turkish military. It was the massive, as in Idlib, introduction of Turkish UAVs into the battle (at the peak the UAV group could number up to 40 units) predetermined the outcome of the decisive battle for Tripoli.

During the fighting, Haftar’s forces lost a significant amount of Pantsir-C1 air defense systems destroyed by Bayraktar TB2, which, in turn, lost 19 units, which is certainly a lot compared to the Idlib campaign. The reason for the high losses is that, unlike Syria, Bayraktar TB2 was used in Libya without the support of Anka UAVs (with CREB and SAR radar) and in most cases also without the support of ground-based EW stations. The Turks had to delegate UAVs to destroy the identified targets (and, probably, simply to “attack”), which in Idlib often solved with the safe removal of artillery and aircraft. Successfully operating in Idlib self-propelled guns Firtina in Libya are very rarely captured in the frame, and the Sakarya MLRS were first noticed only recently. The Turks involved in Libya "limited contingent." Given these circumstances, the work of Bayraktar TB2 in Libya should be evaluated positively, especially since this is a lightweight drone with a limited range of weapons and its use in Libya limited the lack of satellite communications control. The Turks had to place repeaters on a very extensive theater. Due to the lack of such a “long arm” as the Chinese WL II, Bayraktar TB2 was sent to missile support missions at low altitudes so that they could not be detected by air defense systems. The result was loss of UAVs even from machine-gun fire. Tripoli was blocked by Haftar and surrounded by a chain of air defense systems, and the only Mitig airfield was attacked by WL II drones in an attempt to destroy Turkish UAVs that had to be launched from the highway. The Turks did not try to attack the air defense systems without the support of electronic warfare. Nevertheless, despite the losses, Bayraktar TB2 did its job, and as a result, the PNS forces broke through the ring and occupied Al-Vatiy base, from where WL II was launched). Here, the Turks took advantage of the holes in the air defense of the Haftar army and destroyed a large number of Pantsir air defense systems using UAVs. According to press reports, Turkish drones shot down in Libya the Pantsir air defense missile system, the MZA and the Israeli anti-UAV complex.

Anti-aircraft UAV capabilities


To analyze this issue, we will take the characteristics of the air defense systems available in the troops of the RF Armed Forces, and the characteristics of medium-altitude UAVs, their OLS and radar, we will set in the reference book “Introduction to modern electronic warfare systems” (DeMartino, Introduction to modern EW systems). The book is fresh, the second edition was published in 2018, but the technique is improving very quickly, and probably these numbers are somewhat outdated.

It should be noted right away that military air defense has serious limitations in countering UAVs. The reason for this is very simple: OLS and UAV radar can scan the surface and conduct ground targets at a considerable distance.

Using SAR radar, UAVs can scan from distances of 55 to 75 km, which allows UAV reconnaissance aircraft to comfortably barrage in the rear over the antennas of their ground-based electronic warfare stations. Unlike aviation, which occasionally appears in the air, UAVs can “hang” there constantly. Troops constantly need supplies, trucks go to the front lines, military equipment moves, and UAVs allow to control all these movements. In this situation, it does not matter which ESR the UAV has. You can take the EPR used in Idlib drone Anka in configuration with EW and radar containers for 4 square meters. m (according to data from the source mentioned above), and this will not affect the ability to destroy it. Even the Buk M55 (not to mention the Shell, Torah and older versions of the Buk) with missile range up to 3 km (taking into account the placement of the latter in the depths of defense , trajectories of missiles and EW). You can develop the idea further to the S-70V and even to the S-300, and then offer to use the SBN to dazzle the electronics of the “adversary,” but it is worth stopping in time. We are talking about confrontation at a tactical level. At the same time, the Buk M400 air defense system is in the army in the amount of several tens of PUs, and by the time it is purchased in large quantities, the enemy will already increase the capabilities of his equipment.

OLS UAVs can scan at a distance of up to 38 km (depends on the time of day, atmospheric interference, etc.). You can watch a video on Youtube where a Wescam station, similar to the one installed on Bayraktar TB2, captures and drives a column of smuggling trucks with a day camera at a distance of 20 km. The resolution is excellent and you can consider the smallest details. The range margin is clearly considerable.

It’s easier to bring down an optical reconnaissance UAV, because it must come closer to the front line. But this is also a difficult task, given the distance to the goal of tens of kilometers. Even if we accept the EPR entirely made of Bayraktar TB2 composites (configuration with OLS) for only 1 square meter. m (DeMartino’s book gives an average value of 1 sq. m for medium-altitude drones with OLS), it will not become an easy target, because it will be supported by the ground-based REB and CRAB UAVs from the depth of defense.

Light UAVs used to strike are the most vulnerable category for air defense, but it is by no means easy to bring them down. Light vehicles like Bayraktar TB2, when working along the front edge, can go at a low height (several hundred meters), while remaining invisible to the radar. At the front line they can be countered by Tunguska, Strela-10, Osa, MZA and MANPADS. Low-altitude flight is always a risk, and losses are inevitable here, but in some situations, such as in the case of Bayraktar TB2 in Libya, in the absence of other options, such a risk is inevitable and justified.

Unlike light ones, heavy strike UAVs can carry several EW containers and high-precision bombs with a long launch range (like the Chinese CH-5 mentioned above). The promising Turkish UAV Akinci has the ability to use both conventional MK-82 bombs equipped with the KGK ASELSAN kit, as well as high-precision ones, planning from a distance of up to 100 km, as well as KR with a launch range of up to 250 km. It’s extremely difficult to shoot down heavy UAVs with the help of air defense systems.

However, all these calculations relate only to the scenario of the limited use of drones, when the adversary phlegmatically watches his UAVs one at a time shooting down air defense systems. If the enemy acts decisively and uses UAVs in a massive, “squadron” manner, strives to destroy the air defense systems by creating a large numerical superiority, a number of problems arise, one of which is the limited air defense system of the air defense system. Here it is appropriate to recall the "Shell" destroyed in Syria, which has exhausted its BC. The situation is no better with anti-aircraft artillery systems, since the BK there is only enough for several tens of seconds of continuous fire. That is why in different countries laser installations are actively being developed to repel drone attacks.

To suppress air defense, an adversary during a massive attack can launch false targets with integrated ADM-160 electronic warfare, small-sized drones, fire radar with anti-radar missiles (HARM), and simply “bomb” together with groups of medium-altitude and high-altitude UAVs (including UAVs equipped with CRAB). Turkish F-16s in Idlib used bombs from a distance of 100 km. After spending the BC to destroy the air defense system is no problem. In this situation, attack drones can go at altitude, invulnerable to many air defense systems, for example, anti-aircraft artillery and MANPADS.

Financial issue


In the above conflicts involving UAVs, the Chinese WL II apparently “paid off” the fastest, because their cost before modernization did not exceed $ 2 million. Bayraktar TB2 cost the Republic of Turkey about 4 million (this includes ground equipment, and drones themselves are cheaper), which is also inexpensive compared to American "classmates". As a result, the cost of this model drones shot down in Libya is at the level of one fourth-generation fighter.

The operation of drones is also much cheaper than that of manned aircraft. For example, Bayraktar TB2 is equipped with a technologically simple and economical engine with a capacity of 100 hp, the cost of a flight hour is very low. For comparison: in the US Air Force, the flight hour of an MQ-1 UAV (with an engine similar in power) is 6 times cheaper than that of the F-16C.

In our opinion, it makes no sense to count how many UAVs were shot down or destroyed by air defense systems, and only the outcome of the battle is important. As a result, in Syria, Turkish drones deprived Assad of the initiative, and in Libya they were able to seize the initiative from the enemy completely

Conclusion


Attack UAVs came to the battlefield seriously and for a long time. It can be confidently stated that:

- UAVs will be used in large numbers with the support of electronic warfare, aviation and artillery, including against a high-tech enemy;

- SAMs alone can not solve the problem of fighting UAVs. Their capabilities can be significantly improved due to the use of electronic warfare stations, noise-protected radars with AFAR with full-scan multiple beams (and ideally with stealth mode LPI), both ground-based and on AWACS (capable of guiding missiles beyond the radio horizon), but all the same, it will not be able to completely neutralize the operation of an air defense UAV;

- the use of fighter manned aircraft to destroy drones will give an advantage to enemy aircraft and cannot be considered as an effective measure;

- any modern army cannot do without such a tool as mid-altitude and high-altitude strike drones, which give significant advantages to the side that uses them;

- the collision in the air of shock UAVs of the opposing sides will inevitably lead to the appearance of UAV fighters capable of destroying enemy drones. We can draw an analogy with the WWI, in front of which the planes were considered as reconnaissance and only during the fighting did fighters appear as a response to an obvious need. Even today, UAVs are equipped with powerful radars with AFAR, similar to fighter radars, and air-to-air missiles.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

251 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. sen
    sen 23 June 2020 05: 36 New
    • 8
    • 13
    -5
    allowing Bayraktar TB2 to fly close to the Shell and shoot them at point blank range. This information is not in doubt due to the fact that the radar from PFAR to Pantsir-C1 scans with only one beam and is vulnerable to electronic warfare equipment.

    The modification of this SAM system used by the Armed Forces of Russia and its export version are different. In particular, the second is equipped only with an optical control system, while the first has a three-coordinate target detection station with a semi-active phased array antenna and a dual-band centimeter-millimeter radar tracking system for targets and missiles.
    To destroy the "Shell" in Libya, Bayraktar TV2 used a "dead funnel", that is, they hit the SAM system directly from the top, "where they are not able to see the all-round station or missile guidance station. Moving in a small circle, the drone can calmly aim and strike with precision weapons. ”
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Demagogue 23 June 2020 06: 41 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      Bayraktar TV2 used the "dead funnel", that is, they strike at the air defense system directly from the top

      In Libya, the Bayraktars have been waiting for almost a year for the Armor to begin to destroy, because the "funnel" did not come out? They were brought in in the summer of 2019, and the case of Haftar air defense began recently.
      1. sen
        sen 23 June 2020 07: 00 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        In this article in the "Star" there is a subsection "Dead Funnel" over the Libyan "Carapace" dedicated to this problem
        https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20206151625-rTG2W.html
        1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 07: 21 New
          • 5
          • 4
          +1
          She does not answer my question in any way.
          1. VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 11: 14 New
            • 13
            • 2
            +11
            I’ll try to answer you (I apologize for the tactlessness ...- the question was asked not for me).
            Bairaktara Saraj - equal to Haftar’s WLs were used in the “free hunting” mode - that is, in isolation from reality (in Ur) expressed in aimless barrage in the hope of finding a significant target ... and only the altitude of Wlov and
            the complete lack of funds (MANPADS and gunners in this case is not about anything). The air defense of Saraj gave a surplus to these UAVs.
            But the appearance of the Turks simultaneously changed the situation.
            Where did the Turks start? :
            1. They led their advisers to the camp of Saraj.
            2. They brought in their proxies with the experience of obedience and coordination, knowing a lot about intelligence and its value.
            The main thing that the Turks excelled is their understanding that intelligence, and only intelligence, multiply increases the chances of success.
            Well, now the answer itself ...
            The Turks in Libya against the air defense systems (and not only) use a clear combat organizational system (this system is controlled by Turkish-developed software) - Bayraktars are only part of it ...
            In the fight against the Papuans' aircraft, even isolated Pantsyrs are a formidable weapon. But against an advanced opponent in isolation from the standard means included in the air defense system - a whipping boy ...
            What do Turks use?
            Aerospace reconnaissance equipment.
            Ground reconnaissance equipment.
            Means of electronic intelligence.
            EW tools.
            Means of destruction (hired, air, sea-based)
            And all this is fully automatic.

            The very principle of destroying the Shell is simple:
            Entered into combat mode, the Shell is detected by means
            Radio-electronic reconnaissance, location data are transmitted to satellites and UAVs ANKA taking it (or rather them) to optical, radiolocation, etc. escort. The same ANKA and KORAL are ready for electronic suppression. Bayraktary
            they are waiting in the wings. Now the Armor can sign off for itself to sign off ... From now on, it doesn’t matter either a change of position, no movement, no radio silence, no hangars, no full ammunition ... - he is already a corpse.
            An automated control system begins (its servers are located in Turkey, which by the way explains the inactivity of the Russian Federation’s electronic warfare systems in Syria), which tracks the location of air defense systems and directs BAYRAKTAR to the target, bypassing (passing around) possible air defense positions, actively using electronic warfare systems.
            There is nothing to counter this Haftar.
            1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 13: 39 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Everything would be fine, but the shells held back the UAVs of the Turks for about five months, inflicting losses on them. While they stood tight. But they could not be completely neutralized and allowed to strike at infantry. The main conclusion of this article is: Air Defense cannot solve the UAV problem alone. Sooner or later, as a result of the work of drones, the infantry will run, and here the UAVs will crumble also the air defense systems.
              1. VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 13: 58 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Everything would be fine, but the shells held back the UAVs of the Turks for about five months, inflicting losses on them.

                To inflict losses on Haftar's shells is not to inflict losses on Russia.
                To inflict losses on the Bayraktaras of Saraj is not to inflict losses on Turkey.
                Shells destroyed with crews mourn in the UAE ...

                The main conclusion of this article is: Air Defense cannot solve the UAV problem alone.

                I completely agree with you - if you certainly don’t mean the air defense system of the country ... Faraj’s case is not observed even in hint !!
                I almost forgot !! -And how many UAVs belonging exactly to the Turks, and not Saraj, were shot down.?
                1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 15: 45 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Turkish air defense in the region of Tripoli and Misurata is. I wrote about this. With the support of AWACS and ground-based electronic warfare more than that. And it didn’t always help.

                  And what does the Gulchatay from the UAE have to do with it? I did not understand at all.
                  1. VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 16: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Turkish air defense in the region of Tripoli and Misurata is. I wrote about this. With the support of AWACS and ground-based electronic warfare more than that. And it didn’t always help

                    Yes it is (Turkish air defense), - it was announced there not long ago ...- and since as if the Haftar aviation had died out ...
                    And what does the Gulchatay from the UAE have to do with it? I did not understand at all.


                    And despite the fact that, unlike the Turkish UAVs transmitted
                    Saraju - the death of crews in a place with shells, for the UAE - irrevocable losses!
                    1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 17: 37 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Yes it is (Turkish air defense), - it was announced there not long ago ...- and since as if the Haftar aviation had died out ...


                      The Turks brought air defenses on New Year's Eve, and Haftar aviation, after the recent loss of the runway on Al-Vatiya, was puffed up in western Libya. It was quite a fly and bombed. Tripoli Airport was bombed.
                      Irrevocable LOSS!


                      It’s not a fact that all 200 are there or just someone. A truck got caught fire from an ATG, and people fled.
                      1. VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 19: 02 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        It’s not a fact that all 200 are there or just someone. A truck got caught fire from an ATG, and people fled.

                        In Libya, the Pantsyri were presented as wunderwafers, the Turks and focus on the rollers with their destruction. In Syria, the situation was different - it was necessary to show the demoralized barmel men,
                        that the Turks are stopping a mediocre threat - massively destroying Assad’s land. Shells were a by-product.
                        In Libya, the destruction of the Carapace of those who have no chance of survival is sacred (how many other equipment in the relocation of one Carapace were made by the Turks does not matter): -
                        1. A blow-warning to Arab sponsors is for itself a step towards achieving air superiority.
                        2. For Faradzhevtsev, the psychological effect is a feeling of vulnerability from air attacks, which leads to UAVs
                        With Syria.
                        The Turks brought air defenses on New Year's Eve, and Haftar aviation, after the recent loss of the runway on Al-Vatiya, was puffed up in western Libya. It was quite a fly and bombed. Tripoli Airport was bombed.

                        If it’s not difficult, please remind me: since what year in Syria
                        air defense forces and fighter aircraft of the Russian Federation are stationed ???
                        And that Israel and others like it stopped bombing all of Syria, airfields and Damascus itself ????
                      2. Demagogue 23 June 2020 20: 33 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        In Libya, the shells to the heap filled the father of Haftar during the flight of troops. He just didn’t have much noticeable technology. Some carts with machine guns. The tanks are old. Here are the shells and new armored personnel carriers from the sponsors.
                        In Syria, I realized that Assad’s offensive was blown away when I read excerpts from Facebook whining hezah in Serakib. On the subject of Turks in the air and seats in burrows and expectations of a furry animal. Immediately in my head was the phrase of General Harrison in Mogadishu: We have just lost the initiative.
                        And that Israel and others like it stopped bombing all of Syria, airfields and Damascus itself ????


                        Israel bombed from Damascus fighters, they have different speeds. They can jump out due to the radio horizon and go back quickly. And here the UAV is insolent.
            2. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 14: 08 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Demagogue
              Air defense cannot solve the UAV problem alone.

              There is no desire to write an article about current and promising ways to combat UAVs? A very interesting topic, a new challenge to which the air defense is not ready.
              1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 15: 57 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                This topic has been raised in this article. These are the first conflicts where the UAVs fought with modern technology, there is not much information yet. Parties to the conflicts are not eager to disclose details about the capabilities of technology. Based on the individual fragments, the picture is collected, but approximate.
                1. Dmitry V. 2 July 2020 13: 46 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  An interesting analysis. Thank.
                  There is something to ponder.
          2. sivuch 23 June 2020 14: 00 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            It is you who have set forth half the reality, and I completely agree with it. But the second is the state of affairs on the other side. For the time being, we are talking only about Haftar Libyans.
            And it was worth starting with the fact that the Carapace in its current form is not air defense at all. In its place is supposed to be the Torah, or at least the Wasp. But, since the Shell had to puff, it should be used, as is customary in the air defense of normal countries. First of all - not one at a time. For the same Os and Torov, combat work is carried out in battery, i.e. 4-6 BM + 2-3 TZM + BPU. Moreover, the BM does not stand on the hill and rotates its SOTS, but receives radar data from the 19C6 control room, and that, in turn, comes from the radar station (for example, 1RL123) or the command post of a superior or from neighbors. In extreme cases, the duty BM is working. But both the control room and the on-duty BM allow for competent target allocation.
            Further, in addition to the main position for each BM, it is supposed to say 2-4 spare and, if time permits, false. Simulators of BM’s work are also exhibited (for the Wasp it was OU-1), I don’t know if there is something similar for Thor. Naturally, BM and BPU are supposed to be masked (modern means allow this to be done in almost all ranges, including radar), and after combat work - to change position. Including - using aerosol curtains, which, oddly enough, also work in the radar range. Naturally, this does not guarantee complete security, war is generally dangerous, but it allows you to increase efficiency and reduce your losses.
            Well, of course, it is very desirable that the electronic warfare was used not only by the enemy, but this is a separate huge topic. If there are specialists of this profile here, it would be interesting to listen.
            1. VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 18: 18 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              This topic is worthy of an article about the sustainability of air defense systems ...
              I do not know the literary genre ...- but this is also not what ...
              Most people on this site are confident in not fallible.
              Air defense (and Russian pace).
              I set out very superficially the fact that the Shell (with all its outstanding qualities) in Libya is doomed to beating.
              Yes, my comment is half and exaggerated to a minimum ....
              I omitted the fact that it is working no less vulnerable than being in the hangar ....
              I did not mention either the AWACS, nor the ground reconnaissance systems of both the Turkish, the US, and the Israeli. I did not mention the Ukrainian Kalchug acquired specifically for Libya ....
              In general, as a Soviet air defense, I can only say one thing - air defense is suicide bombers, consumables ...- turned on ...- the report went for minutes ...- either you, then you ...- or immediately you!
              Moreover, any mksking for the advanced opponent is the best demos! ... You either fight and try to spoil the enemy at any cost, or he will iron you on marches, reserve positions, during combat work ....
              A living example of idiocy is Yugoslavia, dismembered,
              destroyed, bloodless, having signed all conceivable and conceivable humiliating treaties as a result of only NATO air attacks - proud to be able to SAVE its air defense and fighter aircraft (which many NATO countries would envy).
            2. Uncle Izya 23 June 2020 20: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yak-130 would bring all these Bayraktars there
          3. makasan34 29 June 2020 10: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            thanks for the lecture, I chewed everything now it became clear
      2. sivuch 23 June 2020 13: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Honestly - the article is crazy. They write about only the optronic guidance system and next - photographs of the Emirate’s Shell with a full body kit. To indicate all the reasons you need to roll a similar article, but I, unfortunately, do not have such an opportunity.
    3. Constructor68 23 June 2020 09: 41 New
      • 8
      • 9
      -1
      Comrade author, stop misleading readers with such nonsense:
      The contribution of the Turkish mid-altitude drones Bayraktar TB2 and Anka to the conflict in Idlib, of course, was decisive. Their use led to the loss of initiative by Assad troops and the disruption of their further offensive.

      The stop of the attack was caused by the only reason - the very fact of the start of military operations by the Turkish army against the SAA. At that moment, both Turkish and Syrian forces suffered losses and Russia had to urgently introduce a timeout and start negotiations. Turkish UAVs acted as one of the means of attraction and they needed to attribute miraculous properties to them. With such nonsense you from the first lines set the article level
      1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 24 New
        • 7
        • 5
        +2
        UAVs gave a qualitatively different approach to combat. Naturally combined arms combat includes all kinds and types of troops. But UAVs gave a fundamentally different quality. Intelligence, speed of strikes, demoralization of the enemy. All these indicators have improved qualitatively.
        1. Constructor68 23 June 2020 10: 29 New
          • 12
          • 13
          -1
          But UAVs gave a fundamentally different quality.

          What is the quality? What kind of immature fantasies? Defeat the target guided munition from an aircraft carrier was carried out in the 60s. An UAV is just the carrier of such weapons. I do not understand the stupid excitement in relation to the UAV. And if the armored vehicles of the Syrian army would have been struck not with UAVs, but for example using Turkish F-16s? Would a worldview collapse?
          UAVs as a carrier of guided weapons have both pros and cons. He can complete the task as part of tactical tasks. But this is not a prodigy, as you rave, changing the concept of war
          1. sivuch 23 June 2020 13: 40 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            It would be better if the minusers wrote, with which they disagree. But I'm afraid we won’t wait.
            1. Constructor68 23 June 2020 13: 43 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              For this they will have to think. And they are not used to it))
        2. Lopatov 23 June 2020 10: 54 New
          • 11
          • 1
          +10
          Quote: Grazdanin
          UAVs gave a qualitatively different approach to combat. Naturally combined arms combat includes all kinds and types of troops. But UAVs gave a fundamentally different quality. Intelligence, speed of strikes, demoralization of the enemy. All these indicators have improved qualitatively.

          Wunderwaffe ...
          Five years ago, gentlemen from Israel here with foam from the mouth proved that UAVs cannot be shot down. laughing

          I am afraid that the modern use of UAVs in armed conflicts against a knowingly weaker enemy under the conditions of many restrictions misleads their true capabilities.
      2. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 11: 01 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        I generally support your point of view.
      3. Demagogue 23 June 2020 13: 43 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Well, you definitely didn’t read the article if you are writing this. Or didn’t understand what they were reading about. It is about different ways to use UAVs, and not just shock capabilities.
        1. Constructor68 23 June 2020 13: 48 New
          • 4
          • 6
          -2
          I didn’t read, I admit. But I indicated the reason. After the above conclusion, she lost informational value for me
          1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 13: 55 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            I will not give you the argumentation from the article a second time here.
            1. sivuch 23 June 2020 16: 39 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              So you do not perceive arguments, incl. one of the main: solitary armor is not a normal army air defense.
              1. alexmach 23 June 2020 18: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                solitary armor is not a normal army air defense

                The argument is reasonable. But there is a counter question, and which army has this normal air defense?
                1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 18: 25 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  A dozen countries will be typed, no more. To pass deep, layered air defense, other UAVs exist / are designed.
                  1. alexmach 23 June 2020 18: 27 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    A dozen countries will be typed, no more

                    A dozen countries? With a strong military air defense? That's honest - I strongly doubt the validity of this statement.
                    1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 18: 45 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Let's try to count, said offhand. Israel (military?), Russia, USA, China, India (?), Pakistan (?), France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Japan, South Korea.
                    2. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 19: 45 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Pakistan minus. Post-Soviet countries forgot. There are a lot of things left and postovlyaetsya. Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Saudis. 2-3 dozens will be recruited from almost 200 countries.
                    3. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 20: 24 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      A couple of remarks
                      - Israel (military?),

                      Rather, the object of missile defense / air defense.
                      - Poland,

                      Upgraded S-125?
                      - Norway,

                      Is it?
                      Saudi

                      Come on. There is also a focus on object-based air defense and missile defense
                      Iran

                      It’s very difficult here. In fact, there is a mixture of all times and peoples, to what extent all this is workable is an interesting question, and most importantly how to manage it all ...
                    4. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 22: 00 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Norway produces NASAMS, a very interesting complex.

                      In general, military air defense is clearly in crisis. In most cases, the production of 60 ~ 70 years, in an incomprehensible condition. New air defense systems are measured in dozens.

                      Once again I was convinced that Libya is an example of a pressing regional conflict. Those. this is the norm.

                      Yes, and it is clear air defense with a radius of 10 km in height, 14 ~ 20 in range it is no longer relevant. The entire MALE class at or near the border of this radius works. Not to mention manned missiles. Or ground based.
                    5. alexmach 24 June 2020 10: 25 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Post-Soviet countries forgot. There are a lot of things left and fasted

                      But is it left, is it in sufficient quantity and in technical readiness?
                      In general, military air defense is clearly in crisis

                      Yes, and it is clear air defense with a radius of 10 km in height, 14 ~ 20 in range it is no longer relevant

                      Here I am talking about ... and in addition to this,
                      Eagles or Harops
                      with which you still have to fight at close range and preferably for cheap.
          2. sivuch 24 June 2020 09: 39 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Do VD countries at one time. Israel and NATO member countries relied more (and now too) on their superiority in aviation, for which, by the way, the Bayraktars and Anki are relatively easy targets.
            But to shoot down Orlanes or Haropas from aeroplanes - on the contrary, the task is not trivial.
            1. alexmach 24 June 2020 10: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              At the time of the VD countries

              The key word here is "in due time," and under the threat of that time.
              to its superiority in aviation

              For some reason, our author proceeds from the assumption that it is not profitable to use manned aircraft against drones, although in my opinion it is the most against the reconnaissance reconnaissance and electronic warfare vehicle at a depth of 70 km.
              1. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 11: 22 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: alexmach
                But is it left, is it in sufficient quantity and in technical readiness?

                Somehow he took KShM from the warehouse, suffered for a couple of weeks and could not start communication equipment. Completely dead everything. Although the conservation of the late 80s was not stolen, it was in the late 00s.
                In the countries I have indicated, there is at least something similar to military air defense. We are blinded by the fact that in Russia this is a very developed type of troops. In the world, on the contrary, count the producer countries on the fingers, a little more operators.
                Quote: alexmach
                For some reason, our author proceeds from the assumption that using manned aircraft against drones is not profitable

                It means on the front line, during an attack the plane is extremely vulnerable and can easily be shot down from the ground or by an enemy fighter. And there are no problems in the rear, the pilot has fun)
              2. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 12: 43 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                So a multi-functional fighter of the Su-30cm type will take something along the Bayraktar type to accompany about 70 kilometers from 100 in the presence of interference. You can shoot roughly from the deep rear.
              3. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 12: 48 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                What rocket will shoot down?
              4. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 15: 30 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                R-27R for example or R-77-1
              5. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 17: 34 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                We shoot down TB2, drying needs to detect this UAV, transfer data to the rocket, and launch it. In case 27, shine before the defeat; in case 77, until the missile’s homing missiles capture the target itself. It seems that at 77 ghs, it fixes a target with epr 3 at a distance of 20 km. What do you think about TB2 EPR? All this time, Su glows like a Christmas tree and can be hit by an airplane or another UAV, in the case of Turkey with the C400. And this is with MALE. I am silent about promising complexes.
              6. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 18: 03 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Let's get to the point. Target with EPR = 2-3 sq.m. Bars-R will take from about 180-210 km, in a no-noise environment. Bayraktar has a minimum ESR = 1 sq.m., probably higher. BUT God be with him. Under such interference conditions, Bars-R will take a target with escorts from the indicated distance with W = 0.8. Further, in the part concerning the R-27R, there is a radio correction channel there, that is, it must be highlighted by the radar not from the moment of the shot, but from the moment the RVV reaches the distance of confident capture of the PARGSN.
                Now about the time. The flight time of the P-27/77 is 60-70 seconds., Of which the P-27 will be highlighted from this time 10-15 seconds.

                And this is with MALE. I am silent about promising complexes.


                It is not yet visible even in the long run, because the radar will not be able to fight effectively in terms of speed and energy. Do you know what effective launch distance will be for RVV SD? That distance at which the aircraft will not be able to evade at speed. This distance is approximately equal to 0.5 x the maximum tolerance. An UAV capable of conducting an effective battle with 4th-generation MFIs will cost no less, or even more than this MFI
              7. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 18: 38 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                We start the game in probability, what distance, what missiles and UAVs, from which directions, how many of them. But the probability of defeat in response appeared, further as the card lies.
                Price is a problem of the poor. 4th generation is more expensive than 3, 5 is more expensive than 4, UAVs “fighter” will be more expensive than 4 and 5, I think, a platform like Akinchi or MQ9 is cheaper than 4k, but they are already comparable. When only 4k appeared, there were a huge number of scandals, articles about their inferiority, that 3k is not much worse, that 4 is not wildly reliable, slow, etc. Everything is the same as now with the F22, F35 and UAVs. Yes, current UAVs larger than MALE are very controversial because they climb into someone else's clearing. All that is smaller than Male does not even cause a dispute, there simply are no better intelligence systems.
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Not yet visible even in perspective

                Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie, Boeing Airpower Teaming System
              8. Demagogue 24 June 2020 19: 16 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                A man raves heavily, why answer him?
                Turks put their "national afar" on Akinci: Bayraktar AKINCI will be equipped with multifunction AESA Radar system for air to air, syntetic, meteorology estimation. From the manufacturer’s website. Power radar 20 kilowatts. Armament: Air to Air Missile Gokdogan and Bozdogan. From the same site.

                The Chinese are putting ty-90 missiles on drones now. This is not the level, but still.
              9. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 20: 03 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                I respect and value people who have an opinion and they reasonedly, correctly prove it. Whatever it is.
                In these discussions, another thing strikes me; people beyond the trees of the forest do not see. For the first time in history, UAVs played one of the key roles in combined arms combat during two regional conflicts. Everyone ran into TB2, the shell, how many were knocked out, how many millions each cost. As if this is of fundamental importance. The same Akinchi as in the series will go, zero all issued Shells. UAVs provide capabilities that were not there before. An example as with the first iPhone, in itself it was not very, but its output reset all other phones that were before it. By the way, it’s very funny to read comments about him at that time, especially from the head of Nokia.
              10. Demagogue 24 June 2020 20: 21 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                This is the standard approach of the military in all countries. Until they personally see how UAVs bring down each other, progress will not come. "The Soviet fighter will hit any enemy with the Mosin rifle." How many stories of new weapons when their creators could not convince the military to introduce them. And how much the other way around? The trouble is that we don’t seem to dilute the military with civilian analysts, scientists. The level of expertise is low. There is a wonderful video where Bayraktar in 2005 shows a small, several kg, UAV to the military and tells how UAVs will dominate in the future. Through hardship to the stars.
              11. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 20: 44 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The problem is different. I am a radio engineer by education, I work in software development. By the way, in theory, I could participate in the development of Altair.
                We do not have an elementary base and engine building. In order for the pseudo AI to work, large capacities are needed, in 2010 it was a dozen servers with a total mass of 500 kg and that would not be enough, in 2020 it is 1 server weighing 30 kg, well, a backup one yet. I’m talking about civilians. Not in Russia, not in China, there are no such servers nearby. There are no compact engines at all. Those. Russia is not able to create a serial analogue of Bayraktar, I am silent about MQ1. It does not matter the desire of the generals, there is simply no way. Why do you think Altair has not gone into production since 2011? It’s just that in 2014 they closed access to technology, the project died. For this reason, we buy Israeli UAVs of the development of the late 80s and make the C70. We can make radio-controlled cars and super-heavy wunderwaffles.
              12. Demagogue 24 June 2020 21: 05 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                All this is true, but not quite. To begin to solve a problem, you must first recognize it. The patient does not understand that he is sick. The problem has two aspects: there are no countermeasures and there are no actual drones. It is clear that we can’t do the serious thing: here the Chinese cannot reach the required level. But some asymmetric answer needs to be worked out. We can make an analogue of the same drones kamikaze Turkish 5 kg weight. There civil components come down. Radar SAR can do if you want. No OLS, let it be radar at least. Engines, seriously invested, can be done really. But no one will do this all.
              13. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 21: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                As Comrade Marx said, economics is the basis of everything else in a superstructure. Within half a year before the pandemic, I had 6 friends who went abroad, I write to colleagues I haven’t talked with for a long time, and find themselves in other countries. Naturally the most intelligent.
              14. Demagogue 24 June 2020 21: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, an analogue of Akinci to do is not to send a person to Mars. This is a real task, might be enough power. It’s just that we have priorities in a strange way. 5th generation fighter and stepson UAV, and strange wunderfals are funded.
              15. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 22: 50 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                I read more carefully about Akinchi and his weapons, I did not appreciate Turk, a suitable machine. waiting for a reality check)
        2. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 21: 24 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Grazdanin
          Why do you think Altair has not gone into production since 2011?


          I think the problem is in the motors .... The rest is not so significant. And precisely because of this, Altair with 2xRed of 500 horses, and the Yak-152, which was planned in the series, were inhibited in the series.

          Those. Russia is not able to create a serial analogue of Bayraktar, I am silent about MQ1.


          We'll see. In principle, Orion took off, and military trials began. Zatyk you understand what. On Orion stands the famous Rotax. But there is no motor. They write, -
          For serial production, the Agat company, in cooperation with TsIAM, is developing the Russian APD-110/120 engine.

          and motor industry.


          It depends on what. We have serious competence in the development and construction of jet engines for combat aircraft, it is clear that with a 30 product we can finally overtake the American F-119 (on the F-22 Raptor fighter). Not even 15 years have passed. We restored the production of gas turbine engines for helicopters. Almost restored the possibility of producing ship gas turbines. Naturally, we have failures, but in principle we have not been engaged in the last 60 years with XNUMX engines for light-engine aviation, from where we had a failure with an UAV (or remotely piloted aircraft, which is closer to the truth)
      4. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 21: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And about the US UAV I mention in passing. There is literally and figuratively the cosmos. Their UAV regularly flies into Earth orbit, dozens, if not hundreds of projects in the metal of atmospheric UAVs, the first training battle between the fighter and the UAV is planned in a year. In short Unbelievably.
      5. alexmach 24 June 2020 21: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Soviet soldier will hit any enemy with Mosin rifle

        And what's wrong with this quote? At the beginning of World War II, Mosinka was quite an adequate weapon.
      6. Demagogue 24 June 2020 21: 47 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        It's not about adequacy. It is clear that light and reliable self-loading is better. It makes no sense to flood in this thread, discussing the shooting.
      7. alexmach 24 June 2020 23: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nevertheless, all the armies participating in the war had store rifles in service at its beginning. And some of them were critically lacking.
      8. Demagogue 25 June 2020 07: 27 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Someone ran with sticks to attack. And the soldiers, when there was a choice, wanted to fight with Garand.
  2. Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 08: 29 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    We had self-exercises in very small numbers at the beginning of the Second World War. But the Germans and conceptually the main weapon of the infantry squad was a machine gun, the rest of the store.
  3. alexmach 25 June 2020 09: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And the Germans and conceptually the main weapon of the infantry squad was a machine gun

    which does not negate the fact that 80 percent of the personnel were armed with magazine rifles. And yes, the Soviet army had more self-loading rifles.
    But really, we split up something about rifles here.
  4. sivuch 24 June 2020 21: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Are you sure that others behind the trees do not see the forest? The role of the drone UAV was not so great and in no way key. As for the other functions - reconnaissance, target designation, correction, LC - this is indisputable and has long been known. Personally, I am sure that the UAV strike will have very limited use, it seems to me much more promising to use UAS, guided MLRS missiles, which will be guided by cheap light UAVs, plus also cheap UAB, plus the same Harops - in short, there are many options.
    And how much it costs - the same is fundamentally important.
    Akinchi, when he appears, will also not reset anyone. The maximum, as a more priority goal, will easily be lost by more long-range zur-mi and explosive missiles.
    By the way, that explosive missiles launched from aircraft will always have a huge advantage in energy - this is also a holy truth.
    Until tomorrow, if you are interested.
    P, S,
    I'm glad that you do without it
    A man raves heavily, why answer him?
    Moreover, basically he is just right.
  5. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 21: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Grazdanin
    The same Akinchi as in the series will go, zero all issued Shells.


    By the way, I don’t think so, the goal for any air defense system is, in principle, without a problem. Well, then, as usual, in order to evaluate thoroughly, you must already know the nuances. Starting from the power of the on-board generator, the power consumption of the radar, the noise immunity of communication lines, etc. etc.
  6. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 22: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The affected area of ​​the Shell shells that are now in service are 15 km in height and 20 in range. We draw an oval where R1 = 15, R2 = 20 (Very simplified), we look at Akinchi’s parameters and what he can use, we get that Akinchi can destroy the Shell without entering the affected area.
  7. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 22: 26 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The question here is the range of detection and / or the issuance of target designation, the most important one is not the range of application of weapons at all.
  8. sivuch 25 June 2020 08: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    See above - to a large ship - a large torpedo. Then they will bring down Buk or a rocket of VV.
    And then, a well-camouflaged Thor (because there is nothing to do for the current Carapace of the mind in the Air Defense Forces) Akinchi simply will not notice, and when he does, it will be too late.
    The point is that UAVs are, in principle, more sensitive to air defense than, for example, the F-16 + SDB
  9. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 21: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    At you, I look burns. It can be seen from the fact that your nonsense was dismantled by bones and found out that the king is naked (p.)
  10. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 22: 06 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    There was not a single argument that refuted the article, everything was at the level of "take a word" and "if the grandmother would have ...". Respect to the author, he is clearly interested in this topic, so it turned out a little enthusiastically. It infuriates you if everything was the same, but Russia stood in place of Turkey, you would criticize the author even more, because he underestimates the role of UAVs, air defense systems were destroyed more and all UAVs were not shot down, but went to ram ( !) ground targets!
  11. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 22: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Do not say nonsense. This time.
    Secondly, it was Afftaar who decided to why go beyond the scope and be a naughty man. But the boors should be immediately put in place.
    Thirdly, it’s the author’s arguments from the category “but take my word for it,” “I don’t understand how a conventional radar works, but I think that AFAR steers, and I believe in a holy drone, etc. etc.,”
    Further information on UAV losses, damage caused in Libya was not given, although it all lies on the surface, well, etc. etc. Even if only partially. There is a subject for event analysis ..
    Four, this "It infuriates you if all the same was" you evaluate apparently on your own
    Fifth, behave yourself, I didn’t get personal with you. The dialogue was more than adequate, however.
  12. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 23: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I did not go, YOU / YOU in the plural, in relation to Runet commentators and this site. It is on your part that everyone is adequately, very skeptical, no more. The UAV theme is extremely interesting to me, childhood films begin to be implemented
    "Cars rose from the ashes of nuclear fire ..."
    It is fun to read the comparison between the T90 and the Abrams, where Abrams is a huge machine, a rocket launcher's dream.
    Comparison of t14 and abrams, where t14 has a unique layout.
    T14 is larger than Abrams, just as Abrams is larger than T90. Which in both cases does not matter.
  13. sivuch 25 June 2020 09: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The arguments were, just neither you, nor the author (even to an even greater extent) are willing to accept them.
    Here is just one - a slowly floating, non-maneuverable and quite visible UAV, in principle, is in a losing attitude to manned aviation and to the air defense system. And since the title of the article says that the drone UAVs have changed ... then I am writing about the present time and about the data of the aircraft, and not about the abstract bright future. And, I'm sorry for the tediousness, so which UAVs are now armed with BB SD missiles?
    In general, one can think of a BB DB missile on an UAV with a shudder - so far there are only such ones in Russia (R-37M), and it seems the Chinese are sculpting PL-15. And your confidence is not clear that if there is a radar with the explosive mode, then it is easy and simple to install it on the UAV and then fasten the medium / long range missiles to this UAV. On airplanes, such integration takes years, and then Allah alone knows what problems will come up. And yes, even with VV SD missiles, such an UAV will be inferior to a fighter (which already exists)
    Last - it’s better not to think up for the opponent who is infuriating and who will criticize what.
  14. sivuch 24 June 2020 20: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    just take a word - for a 4th generation fighter, a target such as a bayraktar or anka is far from the most difficult. Moreover, the fighter itself will launch over its territory, i.e. being in relative safety.
    And to transfer data to the rocket - sorry, nothing. And the drying light (or rafal or anyone) will not - there is such a thing as escort on the aisle. The UAV so far has no medium-range missiles and is not expected, and the S-400 will be out of business - no one will put it near the front line and the notorious curvature in this case will play against it.
  15. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 20: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Demagogue
    Turks put their "national afar" on Akinci: Bayraktar AKINCI will be equipped with multifunction AESA Radar system for air to air, syntetic, meteorology estimation. From the manufacturer’s website. Power radar 20 kilowatts. Armament: Air to Air Missile Gokdogan and Bozdogan. From the same site.

    The Chinese are putting ty-90 missiles on drones now. This is not the level, but still.


    1. I don’t believe a word to anyone.
    2. At least mid-range missiles are placed on UAVs (how can one take a word after that?)
    3. To put long-range missiles is also not a problem. Akinchi raises 1,35 tons.
    4. Wake up in the yard 2020, all your arguments are from 2010.
  16. sivuch 24 June 2020 21: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Sorry, but it would be better without such an aplomb.
    What drones now have at least short-range missiles? even sidewinders on a few
    As for Buzdogan, this is for fighters -
    The first air-to-air weapons developed by Turkish industry, they are intended to meet the Turkish fighter (TF-X) program requirements. The larger Merlin (Bozdogan) has a range of around 65km (40 miles)
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/bozdogan.htm
    Do you seriously think that an intermediate-range missile with radar guidance can be easily and simply attached to anything?
    Gokdogan is a replacement for pollock. It is quite possible to fasten it to a drone, unlike a medium-range missile. and he just finished the tests now - Gökdoğan (Peregrine) missile - one of two missiles domestically developed under Turkey's first air-to-air missiles project - successfully completed a test by fully engaging the target. BY DAILY SABAH
    ISTANBUL DEFENSE JAN 10, 2020 7:20 PM GMT + 3
    https://www.dailysabah.com/defense/2020/01/10/turkeys-homegrown-air-to-air-missile-hits-target-with-pinpoint-accuracy
  17. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 21: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree. That is how things are .....
  18. alexmach 24 June 2020 14: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    That's right, but the flight hour of the Su-30 and the drone is completely different. Unmanned drones can be kept in air on duty for a long time.

    The idea that drones will hunt drones, in my opinion, is also some kind of difficultly realized fantasy. The maximum of what is actually realized is the organization of a constant radar watch.

    And for the destruction, in my opinion, ground-based weapons are needed, with a wide range of missiles, while capable of operating according to external target designation in radio silence mode.
  19. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 16: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: alexmach
    drones will hunt drones, in my opinion also some kind of difficultly realized fantasy.

    I don’t see any particular problems, the question is a couple of years. The first training real battle of UAVs and manned aircraft is planned for June 2021 in the United States. At work, I came across machine vision and training, a big date was developed. Generally no problem. Previously, everything was limited by the size and performance of iron, now this problem is not worth it. ground equipment will not be able to deal effectively with aviation. I am sure of this, I do not remember cases when air defense defended itself after losing air superiority.
  20. alexmach 24 June 2020 20: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I don’t see any problems

    Big date worked out. No problem at all

    Do not see? I'll tell you them. The problems are the same as without the drones-hunters.
    Detection is the first problem. How to detect their hunter? Carry a complete airplane radar with you? And how much will it cost and whether a slow drone will be unmasked. (we are still talking about a hunter who will be comparable to prey at the price of use and will be able to stay in the air for a long time). Or will this hunter shoot according to external directions? Why then is it needed? Why, in the presence of this external target designation, do not launch a rocket from a ground installation? Or from some manned "flying arsenal"?
    And yes, big date - no problem. Pull your OpenSiVi onto Hadoup or wherever else.
  21. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 21: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    1. The same Turks radar put on Akinchi. 1,35 tons allow. One drone bait, the other with radar, two with missiles. As soon as they begin to scan the bait, the radar in passive mode fixes the target, transfers data to the armed ones, they open fire, if necessary a drone with a radar "exposes" the target. Ground-based air defense also works, you can’t imagine anything fundamentally new. And all this does not detect.
    P.S. Israel has a radar with AFAR Export up to 300 kg, On Akinchi, just put it and 2 medium-range air-to-air missiles
    2. Ground-based air defense is not very mobile, vulnerable, highly specialized, and as it turned out, few people have it.
    3. UAVs only appeared at the theater of real military operations. We expect high-speed UAVs from the USA, they are pioneers, Turkey is so weaving in the tail))
    4. And who told you that UAVs should be cheap? They have other advantages, full UAV fighters will be more expensive than the 5th.
  22. alexmach 24 June 2020 21: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    2. Ground-based air defense systems are slightly mobile, vulnerable, highly specialized, and as it turned out, few have

    Yes, the aircraft wins in terms of mobility, but ground-based air defense has a big plus - they can be in constant readiness. The fact that it is few people is true. If at all, anyone has it.

    As soon as they begin to scan the bait, the radar in passive mode fixes the target, transfers data to the armed ones, they open fire, if necessary a drone with a radar "exposes" the target. Ground-based air defense also works, you can’t imagine anything fundamentally new

    And the very opposite can do exactly the same thing at the same time.

    Well, I’m writing about it by the way above - Bait, yes, a step idea. Radar patrol - yes, also a great job for the drone. Where to launch a rocket without damaging the aircraft does not matter much, even from the Drone, and even from a piloted aircraft.
  23. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 21: 48 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: alexmach
    the plane wins mobility, but ground-based air defense has a big plus - they can be in constant readiness

    Aircraft for mobility at the current stage wins further situation change.
    UAVs can be kept constantly in the air, rotating machines. They can be quickly transferred to the desired site, regardless of the terrain. In the mountains, ground-based radars are useless. And this is the whole northeast of the same Turkey.

    Quote: alexmach
    And the very opposite can do exactly the same thing at the same time.


    War is the way of deception, deceit is the way of war.
  24. alexmach 24 June 2020 23: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Aircraft on mobility at the current stage wins further situation change

    Aircraft, I mean.
  25. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Israel has a radar with AFAR Export up to 300 kg, On Akinchi just put it and 2 medium-range air-to-air missiles

    Are you sure that the stations will be sold to the Turks?
  26. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 22: 22 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    This is an example, this radar of 2005, the Turks themselves have.
  27. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 22: 38 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    radar in the above configuration is fresh. As for the Turks, can I have more details?
  28. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 23: 53 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    It is necessary to rummage, but it seems from someone bought. Maybe Israel has South Korea, they did AESA Radar with Indonesia. Turkey and Indonesia also have many joint programs. That would be from scratch, the Turks made a suitable radar with afar I do not believe anyone buy and put in their case
    The author wrote that he is 20 kW, maybe where he dug more information.
    Infa from the site of the Bayraktara site.
    Bayraktar AKINCI will be equipped with multifunction AESA Radar system for air to air, syntetic, meteorology estimation.
  29. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 00: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Maybe Ukrainian. They had groundwork. What is logical, Akinchi’s engines are Ukrainian. In short 3 options Israel, Ukraine, Korea.
  30. Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 08: 24 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The radar is definitely not Ukrainian. We, too, have come up against technological problems. And another moment there is a tricky advertising stunt - instrumental range. This is not nearly equivalent to the detection range. And I have suspicions for power. In the Radar Equation, power is one of the main components. Yes, AFAR has a serious advantage in my opinion. - higher sensitivity of the anti-missile system, in contrast to passive arrays, but not even many times naturally. The second advantage is that there is no need for additional equipment such as an electronic warfare station. The third formation of multi-frequency signals. But there are enough specific problems.
  31. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 08: 58 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    They could modify it, the Turks have access to technology and money is available.
  32. Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 10: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Is there anyway? It can, of course, and more than ours, but of course not everything can be taken away.
  33. sivuch 24 June 2020 16: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Of course, the cost of a flight hour for a fighter (even for a helicopter, which can also shoot down UAVs) is much higher. It just doesn't make sense to compare them. The fighter will take off on call, bring down and return to a / e. At this, the drone’s flight hour will end. But knocking down every little thing like Orlan from a fighter will be problematic, especially. when it is a lot.
  34. alexmach 24 June 2020 21: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes. But only after that the aircraft will have a +1 take-off and landing cycle. He will need the maintenance prescribed by him, And what if at this very time another drone is spotted on the horizon? In any case, there will be more cheap drones than aircraft.
    Further, it was written above that by attacking a drone the plane itself unmasks itself and can become the prey of an already more serious enemy. And this despite the fact that the enemy also has its own modern manned aircraft ...

    No, I agree that for the miracle of Akinchi or even Anka, described above, you can also drive a manned aircraft, but for a trifle like bairaktar this, in my opinion, is clearly overkill, and this can only be done from the absence of other options.
  35. sivuch 24 June 2020 21: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    So I’m about this. To a large ship - a large torpedo. And with a trifle like Orlanov everything is much more complicated and in my opinion, they are much more dangerous.
  36. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 21: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: alexmach
    a trifle like bairaktar this in my opinion is clearly a bust


    Bayraktar is a police UAV, who argues with this? BUT he performed the functions of machines superior to him, what will happen when these cars go into series?
  37. alexmach 24 June 2020 23: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Bayraktar is a police UAV, who argues with this? BUT he performed the functions of machines superior to him, what will happen when these cars go into series?

    So who is it, not a trifle, those same Akinchi of yours? Well, as they said above - a big torpedo is a big ship, it would be advisable to raise a fighter to fight such an enemy. Or do you mean these very "Valkyries" in mind?
  38. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 23: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In particular, Akinchi. Communication Anka, TB2, Akinchi + F16 will be extremely dangerous. Yes, against Akinchi, we need fighters or something equal in capabilities of the C300. 1,3 tons of weapons. Radar, cruise missiles, medium-range air-to-air missiles.
  39. Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 08: 37 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    A normal army Buk in battle formations on the one hand, on the other hand a banal Needle from an ordinary infantry. And by the way drew attention to the Yemeni air defense?
  40. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 09: 14 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    What kind of theater? What kind of strength? What kind of battle is going on? The game is in probability. The main thing on the one hand is people on the other machine. Even I do not want to sit in the kung and wait until it arrives it is not clear where.
  41. Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 10: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On the other hand, people are also, AND ALSO SIT IN KUNG.
    And so everything is true. This is all fortune-telling on coffee grounds.
    On the other hand, it was not in vain that I focused on the Yemenis. In fact, today they have an extremely mobile air defense system slap on their knees (Apparently with the help of the Ukrainians, at least they offered some 10-15 years ago). This air defense system uses the R-27 RVV, does not have a radar, and according to my estimates it can be transported in packs / carts / porters, in a truncated form, of course ...
    Here is an early sketch
  42. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 10: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    https://topwar.ru/142479-v-yemene-zamechena-neobychnaya-puskovaya-ustanovka-pvo.html Такое ещё было.
    In a purely Arabian showdown, the shaitan will break his leg. There are no countries in our understanding. It is rather a patrimony. The cavalry aristocracy boarded planes, mercenaries of all stripes. Middle Ages with rockets. What is happening there seriously I can not consider.
  43. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 11: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    On the other hand, people are also, AND ALSO SIT IN KUNG.

    So this kung is at least 100 km from the front line, and air defense needs to be kept for 10-20, There the shell will fly.
  44. Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 12: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    He who seeks will always find, and during the fighting between roughly comparable opponents, it may well fly in even with less probability ...
  45. Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 21: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The problem is not to bring down a trifle, the main problem is the detection of small UAVs. These are not the Bayraktars, the dimensions of which fully correspond to the dimensions of the fighter of World War II with the corresponding consequences. A trifle just may well correspond in size and speed to the birds.
  • Constructor68 24 June 2020 15: 01 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Dear, when I read an article in which it is stated that the Sun rotates around a flat Earth, then all the "arguments" in favor of this begin to interest me little. Didn't I explain it clearly enough? You thought it was the UAV that stopped the Syrian offensive, and this is nonsense at the level of a minor schoolboy. Is it worth poking around in your “arguments”? Yes, do not worry, sofa experts rated your efforts in the analysis)
  • Oquzyurd 23 June 2020 22: 27 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Do not read lol Yes, then what are you talking about?
  • Civil 23 June 2020 09: 31 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    Our generals did not take UAVs seriously until 2010 ..
    1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 28 New
      • 14
      • 4
      +10
      Yes, and now does not seem to accept. There are no normal shock drones, there are very few reconnaissance drones. Development is slow, at the level of the western early 90s.
      1. Constructor68 23 June 2020 10: 36 New
        • 7
        • 12
        -5
        You always know better from the sofa. Another "all gone." The group of Russian reconnaissance UAVs in Syria is about 60 units.
        1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 48 New
          • 9
          • 3
          +6
          60 units is just nothing. Freelancers and our specialists are forced to buy Chinese civilian drones.
          1. Lopatov 23 June 2020 11: 08 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Quote: Grazdanin
            60 units is just nothing.

            Well, prove that this is not enough for the aviation and artillery group existing there.
          2. Constructor68 23 June 2020 12: 49 New
            • 8
            • 3
            +5
            60 units is just nothing

            "nothing" is the level of your knowledge. One UAV level Orlan-10 with a combat radius of 600 km can control (according to conservative estimates) an area of ​​2500 square kilometers. 60 of these machines - 60 * 2500 = 150 sq. Km. With the entire area in Syria of 000 sq. Km (even without taking into account the more local zone of responsibility of the Russian group), this puts you with your statement in the category of either fools or liars. Choose what is more convenient for you.
            1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 12: 53 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              But what about the curvature of the earth?)) As you know, it so affects the theoretical calculations)))
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 11: 03 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        There was a problem in the motors. the motors we needed for the UAV in 100-150 hp, and 500 hp, had to be developed from scratch.
        1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 11: 09 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          Yes. 2 key industries that create major problems in engine building and microelectronics. The blow from the closure of access to Western technology and components is extremely sensitive.
        2. alexmach 23 June 2020 18: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          the motors we needed for the UAV in 100-150 hp, and 500 hp, had to be developed from scratch

          Again ... And here too.
    2. Lopatov 23 June 2020 10: 49 New
      • 11
      • 9
      +2
      Quote: Civil
      Our generals did not take UAVs seriously until 2010 ..

      Fierce game.
      The first Soviet UAV was adopted on May 23, 1964
      1. Lopatov 23 June 2020 16: 12 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Cool.
        A vivid example of the struggle with reality.
        Seven people decided that putting a minus will cancel the fact of the existence of DBR-1 "Hawk"
        laughing laughing laughing
  • VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 09: 42 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    To destroy the "Shell" in Libya, Bayraktar TV2 used a "dead funnel", that is, they hit the SAM system directly from the top, "where they are not able to see the all-round station or missile guidance station. Moving in a small circle, the drone can calmly aim and strike with precision weapons. ”


    The fact that any air defense system has dead zones (prohibition sectors, minimum launch range, ... etc.) is known. For cover purposes, in this case, funds are usually used in the form of MANPADS or small-caliber installations. I just want to ask you a question: - And the Turks TELEPORT the chtoli to their UAVs in this "dead crater" ??? - or is it still much, much more complicated ???
    1. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 11: 14 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1


      There are also such armor, and the upper one is directly of Syrian origin. And to make there a rotating OVC radar, for me personally it’s 1-2 hours, subject to access to a car dump.
  • lekalpan 23 June 2020 13: 13 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    why is the carapace approaching the drone to a dead funnel and cannot detect and bring it down at the approach.
  • no one 24 June 2020 01: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To do this, you first need to get into this funnel.
  • Andrey VOV 23 June 2020 05: 56 New
    • 16
    • 9
    +7
    Tonight, the Khmeimin base was subjected to a massive attack by Drones, all drones were destroyed by shells and tori, is it not a bobbin? But the crews and the correct application? Damantsev thought in style, But no, his clone just appeared
    1. mdsr 23 June 2020 07: 22 New
      • 18
      • 9
      +9
      Have you been sitting in VO for five years and don’t understand basic things? I doubt it. Rather, specifically pull the owl on the globe, calculated on the audience of complete ignoramuses.
      A person who understands everything is understandable that, on the one hand, the protection of one stationary object, the Khmeimim airfield, covered by many air defense systems of various types, electronic warfare complexes, fighter aircraft, and, if necessary, by AWACS, and, on the other hand, cover the battlefield In small quantities, only short-range air defense systems are tasks of a completely different level. Of great importance is the fact that various detection radars are located not only at Khmeimim, but are also located at a distance from it, allowing air defense systems to have a reserve of time to prepare for reflection and to select the best means for destroying targets.
      On the battlefield, and even more so on the march, the calculations of the air defense systems are in incomparably worse conditions. It is there that the true capabilities of weapons are determined, and not their booklet characteristics.
      1. Andrey VOV 23 June 2020 07: 27 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Dear, if it doesn’t bother you. Look at how the columns should hide behind and the columns on the march and at the location ... then, as the Syrians do, this does not fit into any framework, it’s clear that they don’t have the strength and means to do as it should, but nevertheless, their slovenliness is obvious and often precisely because of it they fail ... and I’m not going to pull an owl on the globe, I love animals
      2. sivuch 24 June 2020 09: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        At the expense of a small number of air defense systems and radars in air defense, you are very mistaken (I'm not talking about Libya)
        This is the answer mdsr (mdsr) Yesterday, 07:22
    2. alma 23 June 2020 08: 17 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      in style Damantsev thought

      Eugene usually has a lot of numbers in his articles and the “terminal section” is used
    3. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 31 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      Tonight, a massive attack by Drones


      Feel the difference between remade Chinese civilian drones and serial, army strike reconnaissance UAVs?
      1. sivuch 24 June 2020 09: 46 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Yes. The first are harder to detect
        1. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 10: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          :) Civilian drones operate at standard civilian frequencies, you can re-read them on your fingers, pinpoint them and drown out more easily. They have a short range and low altitude :)
          1. sivuch 24 June 2020 11: 20 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            These structures made of d and sticks have very low speed and EPR. Therefore, even a problem arose - how to distinguish them from birds. In one of the raids on the Shell even it was said that he does not see self-made drones, but at the same time he brings down birds. But in other discussions there was a more logical assumption - that the control system of the Armor classified such targets as false, but Thor, along with real goals, was thinning out the number of birds.
  • The leader of the Redskins 23 June 2020 06: 17 New
    • 16
    • 12
    +4
    I agree with the author. He himself spoke out several times in the comments that Turkish UAVs are not money down the drain. But in the beginning I was minuscule with sentences, saying "they’ve been hit by hundreds already" ...
    Then they minus less, but were justified by the unprofessionalism of the air defense crews.
    1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 06: 51 New
      • 13
      • 7
      +6
      First phases: denial, then anger. Then the bargaining begins. This is normal.
      1. Lopatov 23 June 2020 11: 03 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        We continue the "bargaining" ...
        There are Turkish UAVs in battles in Idlib, there are Chinese UAVs in the civil war in Libya, and there are Turkish UAVs in Libya

        Where is the "Iranian UAV in Syria and Israel"?
        Or is it not interesting, because everything quickly ended? For the Israeli Armed Forces did not bother with the question "The capabilities of the SAMs to counter the use of UAVs", but began to bluntly hit their control points.

        Wunderwaffe does not exist, it is a fairy tale.
        1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 13: 49 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Wunderwaffe does not exist, it is a fairy tale.


          Absolutely right. But here we are talking about the fact that UAVs are becoming one of the main means of warfare. It is one of but important.
          1. Lopatov 23 June 2020 16: 05 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Demagogue
            UAVs are becoming one of the main means of warfare.

            laughing
            And an example of Iranian UAVs in the Israeli sky can guarantee it?
            Everything is much more complicated, and the golden years of the UAV have passed.


            UAVs are good only when they are practically not opposed, when the enemy is weak and technically behind.
            1. prodi 23 June 2020 16: 20 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              the problem may already be that the cost of counteraction (and even without taking into account the possible damage they cause) will be more than the cost of the attack
              1. Lopatov 23 June 2020 16: 22 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Quote: prodi
                that the cost of counteraction (and even without taking into account the possible damage they cause) is greater than the cost of the attack

                Why?
                A strike at the airfield and a strike at the control center of the UAV. And the problem is solved. Cheap and cheerful.
                1. prodi 23 June 2020 17: 12 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  and I wouldn’t consider the UAV control center so vulnerable, most likely it will only be a repeater, and airfields with long UAV time in the air can be both deep in defense and well protected, and the UAV itself can be delivered by trailer to any section of the highway
                  1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 08: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Repeaters only need light UAVs. Heavy are controlled by satellite.
      2. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 12: 03 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Demagogue
        First phases: denial, then anger. Then the bargaining begins. This is normal.

        Before experimental models appear in Russia. Then begins ...
      3. sivuch 23 June 2020 12: 51 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Under the conditions of normal air defense of an UAV, in the first place, drums are really money down the drain. But under abnormal conditions (as in Libya), it is a perfectly competent and correct investment.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 35 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      You also need to understand that this bayraktar TB2 is very average in UAV quality, very far from the same MQ1, made more likely for police and counter-terrorist operations. On the approach of the same Turks, UAVs are qualitatively better and designed specifically for warfare.
    3. sivuch 24 June 2020 09: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Watching for what. Bayraktars were created for actually police operations - to drive the Kurds. It worked in Syria - the first two days, when the Syrians did not dry out and tighten their air defense, after which the encroachment began and the counterattack collapsed. And in Libya they already wrote. what was - the army (one of the instruments of which were UAVs) against the same armed formations. It is possible that the Egyptians assisted the Haftarist, but the degree of involvement was completely different.
      reply to the post The leader of the redskins (Nazarius) Yesterday, 06:17
  • The comment was deleted.
  • prodi 23 June 2020 06: 58 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    apparently, the fight against drones is the most real area of ​​application for the laser
    1. Shopping Mall 23 June 2020 08: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: prodi
      apparently, the fight against drones is the most real area of ​​application for the laser


      Yes, but only with small UAVs, at a range of up to 10 km, but rather 3-5 km. More importantly, the laser can destroy attacking means with optical and infrared seekers. No homing head can withstand a few kilowatts of power applied to it. Most likely, the sensitive elements of guidance on the reflected laser beam will also burn out. For PMSM this is enough LO with a sensitivity of 5-15 kW.

      There remains only guidance on GPS and ARLGSN. EW funds can counteract them.

      By the way, according to ARLGSN in the context of LO, there will also be questions, it will be necessary to make a massive protective radiolucent radome that does not change its properties when heated - the dimensions of the rocket will increase, they will be smaller on the carrier.

      And when the lasers of 100-150 kW come on the scene ...
      1. prodi 23 June 2020 09: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Even without waiting for more powerful lasers, there is always the possibility of irradiating a target with two or three installations; so, probably, today they are needed in commodity quantities
      2. VyacheSeymour 23 June 2020 12: 39 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And when the lasers of 100-150 kW come on the scene ...


        Already the use of high-power laser target illumination
        business oh what is not safe !!! And as applied to 100-150 kilowatts, you can only say one thing: - “The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls !!” - For every tricky nut ...
  • rocket757 23 June 2020 07: 38 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    What can be summarized ... any sluggish conflict becomes more expensive due to the need to increase the air defense component, especially when one of the parties to the conflict takes advantage of the muddy situation ... a ceasefire, de-escalation, and other things that distinguish such WARS from real combat operations using all available means, the entire arsenal of weapons!
    All this will be expensive and not everyone can afford it.
    Moreover, the accelerated development of attack means, drones, requires an increase in methods and means of combating this "flying infection" !!!
  • Angrybeard 23 June 2020 07: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Any generals are preparing for past wars. Nowhere without a multi-layered air defense network, and besides this, you need a lot of high-quality drones, for a variety of purposes.
  • mdsr 23 June 2020 08: 05 New
    • 15
    • 10
    +5
    Quote: Andrey VOV
    if it doesn’t bother you. see how the columns should hide behind and the columns on the march and at the location ... how the Syrians do it

    Still, it is more correct to speak the Syrians and the Russians. Since 2015, hundreds and thousands of our officers have been in Syria for training the Syrian army, developing and commanding operations. Moreover, our MTRs and PMCs are directly involved in them. So, all your claims must be presented to them too. In general, if we speak as objectively and honestly as possible about the reasons for the current situation in Syria, then the reason is complex. The first, most important reason is the lack of advantages of our weapons over their competitors. The second, no less important reason, the backwardness of our military science. We all see that our military are fighting in the old fashioned way, and when the enemy uses new tactics and new weapon systems, they immediately begin to bear it. That's how we learn from our losses. There is plenty of evidence for this. One of them is the stupid loss of our silt over the Mediterranean Sea. Or another example - the loss of our Su-24 with Oleg Peshkov, and then the Mi-8 with one infantryman on the same day. The enemy is teaching us new lessons all the time. In such a situation, blaming absolutely all the mistakes on the Syrians is stupid, although this factor is present. Nothing to blame on others, since their faces are crooked.
  • Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 08: 33 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    Turkish ground-based EW stations and containers on Anka UAVs, according to the Turks, managed to “completely blind” the air defense systems of the air defense systems in Idlib, allowing Bayraktar TB2 to fly almost close to the “Shells” and shoot them at point-blank range.


    True, no such case is confirmed, but the right is such trifles !?

    This information is not in doubt due to the fact that the radar from PFAR to Pantsir-C1 scans with only one beam and is vulnerable to electronic warfare equipment.


    The author does not want to think in principle !?

    Even today, UAVs are equipped with powerful radars with AFAR, similar to fighter radars, and air-to-air missiles.


    Eeee, interesting examples will be?

    Bayraktar TB2 cost the Republic of Turkey about 4 million (this includes ground equipment, and drones themselves are cheaper),


    Since the author acts according to the principle: “I remember, I don’t remember there, but here I wrapped the herring,” then I will remind the price of the Ukrainian contract, and this is the only reliable figure - 69 million bucks.
    This price includes 6 Bayraktarov, management complex, 200 TSA. So even if we do something stupid by assuming that UAVs were supplied very cheaply for the Turkish army, this is just the price of an UAV, although it is very doubtful.
    1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 43 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      We do not know the structure of the contract. What it includes, what additional conditions, what services, etc. It is foolish to judge the price / cost of a unit of equipment under a contract. The price for a foreign customer is practically independent of cost, too many factors. The fact that the price of 3 bayraktars with a Management Complex of 10-14 million agrees.
      1. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 10: 50 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        We do not know the structure of the contract. What it includes, what additional conditions, what services, etc. It is foolish to judge the price / cost of a unit of equipment under a contract.

        I agree. I was guided by the officialdom of the Ukrainian contract - and there are 6 UAVs declared there, the Control complex - from two sets, 200 TSA + personnel training.

        The fact that the price of 3 bayraktars with a Management Complex of 10-14 million agrees.

        Management complex should cost a lot more.
        Well, but if you take the Turkish officialdom, then they declared the price of one drone at 4 million bucks for the Turkish army ... And here, too, there may be eeee nuances.

        It is foolish to judge the price / cost of a unit of equipment under a contract.

        And yet, they do not have our pricing system. I don’t think there is a big difference between domestic price and import.
        1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 11: 04 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Management complex should cost a lot more

          In principle, this is a finger to the sky. What configurations, what modifications are not known to us. Based on this contract, indirect information, prices of analogues of other countries, I assume that the price of a flight unit (without weapons, additional equipment, ground equipment) in a fork is 2-3 million for their own.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          They are not our pricing system. I don’t think there is a big difference between domestic price and import.

          I agree)) For free they will not give anything to anyone for sure. For their own less wrap, for strangers much more. For Ukraine, they just threw 2-3 ends.
          1. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 11: 09 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Grazdanin
            In principle, this is a finger pointing to the sky.

            May be so. There is no objective data.
            Quote: Grazdanin
            the price of a flight unit (without weapons, additional equipment, ground equipment) in a fork is 2-3 million for its own.

            Let's take a different approach to how much a new plane costs with a comparable engine and similar dimensions, such as some kind of Tsesny-172, etc.
            1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 11: 25 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Looked at Cessna Skyhawk write: Cessna Skyhawks start at $ 265,500 for a base model or $ 297,000
              My friends brought an old model 172 from the USA for about 3 million rubles, laziness for dollars at that rate was counted.
              1. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 12: 26 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Roughly speaking, the glider itself with a motor and remote control in the area of ​​a lemon bucks + avionics, but for him the price tag can jump well. And somewhere I came across the price for Anka in the region of 30 lyam bucks. I will not argue. 2 Ankas pinned the Syrians.
                1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 12: 46 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  The price for MQ1 is 3-4 million according to open data, TB2 is definitely not higher. MQ1 per head superior to TB2 in all respects. Given inflation, there are a lot of foreign components, but they are produced in Turkey, a bayraktar of 2-3 million should be stacked. We will scatter the contract for Ukraine based on my assumptions.
                  Take the average price of 2,5 for Ukraine x2: 2,5 * 2 * 6 = 30 million. Ground stations 5–6 million, overtake a margin of 100%; their minimum is 2: 6 * 2 * 2 = 24 million. 69-30 -24 = $ 15 million remain for 200 missiles, simulators, training, after-sales service, etc.
                  1. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 13: 06 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    MQ1 3-4 million according to open data,

                    For 2010, At the same time, it is the Predator that should be considered the flight technical and functional analogue of Bayraktar. (At the same time, the figure of 4 million bucks is exactly what the Turkish officialdom is. Avionics are not cheap there)

                    The subsequent Ripper now costs 16-17 million bucks
                    1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 13: 34 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      The predator surpasses the bayraktar, but the Turks made an analogue, but so far the original is far away. You need to understand that MQ1 is done in the USA where a cleaning lady cannot get less than $ 1300 (90 rubles) per month (in Turkey, the minimum wage is about 000 rubles). MQ22000 is another class of UAVs. Bayraktar is equal to the western UAV in the best case of the late 9s.
    2. Demagogue 24 June 2020 16: 14 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I’ll leave information here: the Ukrainian contract included 6 UAVs, 3 stations and 200 mam missiles. www.yenisafak.com/amphtml/ekonomi/ukrayna-bayraktar-iha-icin-69-milyon-dolar-odeyecek-3431086

      Turks bought 6 UAVs + 3 stations for 36 million in 2016. As a result, approximately 4 million UAVs were purchased. There could be more repeaters, etc. in the kit. https://www.turkishminute.com/2016/12/16/turkey-paid-36-million-dollar-erdogans-son-laws-company-6-uavs/
  • sivuch 23 June 2020 08: 42 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    In some questions there are changes for the better, and some the author has not answered. For example, the author is clearly not familiar with the tactics of air defense systems.
    . This information is not in doubt due to the fact that the radar from PFAR to Pantsir-C1 scans with only one beam and is vulnerable to electronic warfare equipment.
    This information, for example, is very doubtful.
  • Grazdanin 23 June 2020 10: 18 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Great article. Without bias in one direction or another. For UAVs, the future is clear.
    1. sivuch 23 June 2020 15: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Of course, UAVs have a future, including - at the drums. But excuse them as a prodigy as an author - sorry .. UAV drums have their drawbacks (as already mentioned) and other means may simply be more effective.
      1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 15: 49 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        I do not see anything prodigy in the article. A bit enthusiastic, but no more. It is clearly seen that a new type of weaponry has finally appeared, which nullifies the old ones. Yes, not perfect yet, but the potential is huge. Here the question is not about specific models, but about tactics in general. At one time, tanks also perceived: expensive, capricious, useless. “Battle on the Somme River” for UAVs occurred in Syria and Libya.
        1. sivuch 23 June 2020 16: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The analogy is not proof. I, too, can recall the means that turned out to be ineffective and lost in the competition.
          And the main drawback of the article is that the author completely ignores the capabilities of air defense (with their normal, not Libyan organization)
          1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 17: 03 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: sivuch
            with their normal, not Libyan organization

            The problem is that in Libya, just normal air defense. The vast majority of countries in the world have such air defense. Only Israel has a deeply layered anti-aircraft defense, a dozen countries can do it. It is possible to protect an object, but it is very difficult and expensive. And then this is a defense rather from a "fool", an equal opponent will open without any problems. And to defend an army that maneuvers is almost impossible. The sword surpasses the shield. The UAV is an extremely difficult target for air defense, and it’s stupid to shoot down manned aircraft.
            1. sivuch 23 June 2020 17: 20 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Just in Libya - absolutely abnormal air defense. In principle, I already wrote about this (today, 14.00 p.m.). So far I will repeat the main thing - 20 BMs that stand and scorch on their own and one SRP with 20 BMs are completely different things. And, poaleulyusta, do not confuse the country's air defense and SV air defense. The shell in its current form refers to the first and this is one of its problems.
  • Grading 23 June 2020 10: 40 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Quote: Grazdanin
    UAVs gave a qualitatively different approach to combat. Naturally combined arms combat includes all kinds and types of troops. But UAVs gave a fundamentally different quality. Intelligence, speed of strikes, demoralization of the enemy. All these indicators have improved qualitatively.

    1. sivuch 23 June 2020 12: 53 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And what did you want to say?
  • Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 10: 53 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: sivuch
    the fact that the radar from PFAR to Pantsir-C1 scans with only one beam and is vulnerable to electronic warfare.
    This information, for example, is very doubtful.


    Yes, there is no relationship. And with the formation of pulses of a radar with AFAR, not everything is so simple.
  • Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 10: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Andrey VOV
    and in crews and proper application


    All right. The question is about the art of the command for managing the CC, the tactics of reconciliation on the battlefield and the training of crews.
  • Nikolaevich I 23 June 2020 12: 34 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    What did the Turks take to praise? Turks, maybe, and ,, examples ,,; but not ,, pioneers ,,! If, indeed, a pioneer is an example to all the guys ..., then it’s, comrade Jews, ... who are Israelis. ! It was they who routed the Arab air defense in 1982 with the help of drones! It would be then, the Soviet military, to pay attention to this! Alas! The military, having learned to fight in any war, in every possible way, dream of, fighting like this, always,! ,, Carapace ,,, of course, it’s a pity ... but we are adepts, TORA, ... and ,, critics ,, ,, Carapace ,,! It may even appear ,, topic ,,: ,, a bunch of, air defense systems ,, Shell-SM, and. ,, Tor-M2 ,,! In principle, SAM, Tor, it is possible to equip TPK with ,, small ,, missiles, like MNTK. ! ,, Carapace ,, clearly strives for the next ,, weight ,, category! Duc, and let him leave the former ,, category ,,! And it will take ,, Thor ,,! Well, and let it be, a bunch of ,,: ,, Carapace-Tor ,,! ,, Carapace-SM ,, will work against UAVs ..., overall, ... high-altitude at a distance of tens of kilometers ... planes, helicopters ... aviation missiles, air-to-surface, on the same. .. ,, decent ,, distance! Well, and, Thor, will take, everything else is the same,; but closer!
    1. sivuch 23 June 2020 12: 55 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      But how the Torah would manifest themselves is really interesting. I strongly suspect that in the paws of the Libyans there would not be much difference.
      1. Nikolaevich I 23 June 2020 14: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: sivuch
        But how the Torah would manifest themselves is really interesting. I strongly suspect that in the paws of the Libyans there would not be much difference.

        It’s quite possible ... as in Obraztsov’s play: “premonitions didn’t deceive him!” ... But, “by and large” ... “TOR” worked effectively at the time when “Shell” wiped the snot, !
        1. sivuch 23 June 2020 14: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, it’s also not entirely accurate. The problems were with one, quite definite type of TSA - i.e. self-made UAVs made by the fecal-dendroid method. And even then, only after Babaev someone decided to reduce the speed of the Pepelians and their BN. and for MLRS and other purposes there were no special problems.
          1. Nikolaevich I 23 June 2020 16: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            Well, it’s also not entirely accurate. The problems were with one, quite definite type of TSA - i.e. self-made UAVs made by the fecal-dendroid method.

            Well, I had in mind not only ,, incidents ,, Hmeimim district!
  • iouris 23 June 2020 13: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what, noticeably? And how is this reflected in the “guidance documents”?
  • 5-9
    5-9 23 June 2020 13: 34 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Some kind of UAV hutspa ... nonsense straight from Idlib ... nothing there shock UAVs with 4 maaahonkimi rackets did not solve the word at all (about the destruction of the shells and they have nothing to say) .... the threat of Syrian aircraft from F -16 Turkey, Turkish artillery and, most importantly, the threat of direct and massive intervention by the regular Turkish army in the war, "Patamustataknakogovoryali" .... after this beginning did not even read the opus.
  • Termit1309 23 June 2020 14: 08 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Turkish UAV destroys a convoy of equipment. Witnesses of the coming of the Holy Drone, did you watch the payload of these Pepilats on Wikipedia?
    1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 16: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, a very small column))
  • gregor6549 23 June 2020 15: 00 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    The article is interesting, although it contains a lot of controversial points.
    1. Yes, UAVs, as they develop, develop their on-board equipment, weapons, as well as the corresponding infrastructure (ground and air command and control posts, data lines, etc.) play an increasingly important role in the conduct of hostilities. But this role is far from decisive.
    In addition, unmanned aerial vehicles (air, land, sea) are not completely new types of weapons. The first samples of this technique appeared in the pre-war era. Another thing is that they were based on the knowledge and elemental base of that time and their performance characteristics as well as combat capabilities were very limited. Now the performance characteristics of the drones and their combat capabilities have improved significantly, but so far they still have to walk and step (fly and fly, crawl and crawl, etc.) to the level expected from them.
    It is also worth mentioning that in the Soviet Union not only UAVs (light and heavy) were developed, but also automated control systems for units (up to the regiment) equipped with UAVs.

    2. The author in his article emphasized the operation of modern UAVs and their avionics in automatic mode, forgetting that in military systems ALL key decisions were made, are and will be made by a person (system operator, commanders of various levels, etc.) but not a bad machine. Naturally, certain operating modes of drones are and will be carried out in automatic mode, but only within the framework of man-made "liberties."

    3. Both the Shell and its predecessor Tunguska made (in my opinion, an old developer of air defense systems), one serious mistake: combining missile and artillery weapons, as well as active (emitting radar in one bottle, that is, on one chassis.
    First, to control missile and artillery weapons, various initial data and control algorithms are used and their combination does not always benefit the complex.

    Secondly, targets that are optimal for affecting them with missiles can be at different azimuths, elevation angles and ranges than targets that are optimal for impacting artillery fire on them. But the trick is that both the PU SAM and the guns are rigidly mechanically interconnected and it is impossible to separate them for firing at their optimal targets.

    Thirdly, all this mechanical bundle has a decent weight and in order to deploy it to the desired azimuths and elevation angles at an acceptable time and with the right accuracy, very serious and heavy servos with appropriate power supply are required.

    Fourth, radar in the radiation mode is a good beacon for anti-radar missiles, and radar is detected by their carriers much earlier than the radar detects the carrier. And with the destruction of the radar, alas, the entire Shell is destroyed.

    O "dead" funnel in which UAVs can allegedly frolic. Yes, the problem of dead craters exists (and has long been solved) to counter air attack with ballistic throw, but not for aerodynamic purposes, especially for such as UAVs. So let’s leave the passages of the article about the dead funnel and the wreckage of the UAV on the conscience of the author.

    And the last one. The rudeness of some commentators (I will not call them nicknames) "kills" me in relation to other commentators who have expressed opinions that do not coincide with the opinions of the boors. Let's not forget the great Russian classic A.N. Ostrovsky, who once remarked that "For every sage is quite simple" in the play of the same name. And he was right.
    1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 16: 09 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      But this role is far from decisive.


      UAVs provide real-time full information about the enemy and his movements. If this is not a decisive role, then what? Information is all about war. And UAVs can also strike.

      On the remaining points I have no fundamental objections.
      1. gregor6549 24 June 2020 14: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        UAVs, in principle, can ensure the collection and delivery to the user of a large amount of intelligence, the volume and quality of which can to some extent affect the success of hostilities. They, in principle, can, in addition to transmitting intelligence to the user, use this information to strike at their own reconnaissance targets, realizing far from the new concept of “Intelligence Assault Complexes (RUK)”.
        The trick is that not all types of UAVs can perform reconnaissance operations and / or deliver effective attacks on ground and other targets. You have to pay for everything (the size, weight of the UAV, etc.) and this board does not always provide the expected result. For example, the installation on UAVs of synthetic-aperture side-view radars, which are very effectively used by manned aircraft, requires significant volumes of UAV compartments for installing such radars, and the corresponding equipment for processing and transmitting radar information to the consumer in real time and much more. In this case, the radar in question will become a very serious unmasking factor, the presence of which greatly facilitates the enemy’s task of detecting the destruction of UAVs.
        In addition, the enemy can have a very wide range of methods and means of disguising their objects, and it is not a fact that the information obtained by the technical reconnaissance equipment installed on the UAV is reliable, and not false even if these tools work in different wavelength ranges.
        Therefore, if "underdeveloped" countries such as Libya oppose the armed forces of a technologically developed country, to which Turkey can be attributed, then even with the help of light and relatively primitive Turkish UAVs, the Turks, too, supported by modern electronic warfare systems, often very effectively achieve the set BZ
        And finally. Yes, intelligence plays an important role in hostilities, but this role is far from always decisive, as shown by the experience of all previous wars, local conflicts and major exercises. I was taught this at one time at various commanding courses, and this was often spoken about at very high meetings in the Defense Ministry with the participation of representatives of several ministries and departments. And this fully applies to UAVs.
        1. Demagogue 24 June 2020 15: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Therefore, if the "underdeveloped" countries such as Libya are opposed to the armed forces of a technologically developed country, to which Turkey can be attributed.


          It is no accident that in the article I gave an example of the work of Chinese UAVs against the Turks as well. With reb, drloiu, zrk. And all one of them was bombed by drones. It was not easy to deal with them.
          And intelligence in modern warfare is all because the enemy’s reaction time has been reduced to a minimum. The drone UAV is just one of the quick response tools.
    2. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 16: 24 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      1. You can not break away from technological progress. The computing power and size of computers over the past 10 years have changed revolutionary. It affected everything. AI elements are used everywhere.
      2. It is rather an ethical issue. Already, some UAV systems can independently detect and hit targets. But who is responsible for friendly fire? This is like an accident with autopilot cars. Every crash rattles the whole world, although there are 1000 common accidents.
      3. I agree. Crossed a hedgehog with a snake.
      PS Always struck toxicity ru segment. When you read and discuss articles in English there is no such thing. And the attitude to the military. As soon as someone writes that he is a soldier, comments immediately go thank you for your service. We are ashamed to admit this.
    3. alexmach 23 June 2020 18: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      3. Both the Shell and its predecessor Tunguska made (in my opinion, an old developer of air defense systems), one serious mistake: combining missile and artillery weapons, as well as active (emitting radar in one bottle, that is, on one chassis.

      This is a very interesting thought. I would rather not agree about Tunguzka, it is still an old complex and in those years such a solution could have been justified, but in our time the requirements for each component of the system have grown significantly, and it may really be more appropriate to place them on different machines. All of the above is only the opinion of a layman.
    4. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 20: 35 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Both the Shell and its predecessor Tunguska made (in my opinion, an old developer of air defense systems) one serious mistake: combining missile and artillery weapons, as well as active (emitting radar in one bottle, that is, on one chassis .

      Partially, I agree with you on the issue of combining missile and artillery weapons. But each short-range machine must be autonomous and have an SUV with active and passive systems ...

      Fourth, radar in the radiation mode is a good beacon for anti-radar missiles, and radar is detected by their carriers much earlier than the radar detects the carrier. And with the destruction of the radar, alas, the entire Shell is destroyed.

      And what do you suggest doing interesting to me here? An artillery or missile combat module (with an SUV, of course) on one chassis seems to be a more reasonable option. It is another matter that they really need to be provided with both RTR and electronic warfare equipment.
      1. Grazdanin 23 June 2020 22: 07 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        I basically do not like the idea of ​​combining radar, missile and guns in one machine. Any radiator of a radio signal purpose No. 1.
        1. sivuch 24 June 2020 09: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So no one expects to shine with them constantly.
          1. Grazdanin 24 June 2020 10: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: VyacheSeymour
            Entered into combat mode, the Shell is detected by means
            Radio-electronic reconnaissance, location data are transmitted to satellites and UAVs ANKA taking it (or rather them) to optical, radiolocation, etc. escort. The same ANKA and KORAL are ready for electronic suppression. Bayraktary
            waiting in the wings. Now the Armor needs to disconnect itself to sign a sentence ... From now on, it doesn’t matter either a change of position, no movement, no radio silence, no hangars, no full ammunition ... - he’s already a corpse
            1. sivuch 24 June 2020 10: 30 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yes, I read it. Only in real life is something a little different (I'm using the Wasp as an example). BM receives radar data from the BPU, includes SOTSK for additional search. BPU, by the way, also makes a target allocation so that several BMs do not make fun of one goal. Whether the Haftarovites had them was a big question. At the same time or a little earlier, the OS-1 is turned on. According to reviews, they imitate the radar radiation of the Wasp quite reliably. Is it possible to suppress SOC? - In principle, everything is possible, regardless of the type of antenna, including AFAR. Mainly, it depends on the distance between the REB station and the radar antenna. But the energy for this should be rather big. Then capture on A / C and subsequent operations. Quenching CHR is an even more non-trivial task.
              The Shell, by the way, with all its shortcomings as the air defense of the SV, has an advantage - more developed optronics, by the way, are better than the ones of Thor. So he can detect targets without glowing like a Christmas tree - but in the sector. After firing, especially since the missiles were used up - at a reserve position and again - hiding behind aerosol obstacles (they, again, work in the radar range) and / or electronic warfare equipment. Another thing is that there is an organizational hole. If grenades with a snowstorm were installed on the same Wasp in some places, then the electronic warfare is another planet. Organizationally, they have nothing to do with the air defense of the SV.
            2. forpost 24 June 2020 20: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              "Neither traffic, nor radio silence, nor hangars," - I wonder how this can track the movement of equipment at large distances in the folds of the terrain or among dense vegetation.
        2. Demagogue 25 June 2020 08: 17 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          If the radar is with the lpi secure mode, then why not? And now, no one else plans.
  • Kostadinov 23 June 2020 16: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    1. Impact UAVs still beat V-1 back in 1944. Their modernization modifications can successfully crush any defense today. Air defense / missile defense in principle will always lose the attack.
    2.
    The contribution of the Turkish mid-altitude drones Bayraktar TB2 and Anka to the conflict in Idlib, of course, was decisive. Their use led to the loss of initiative by Assad troops and the disruption of their further offensive.

    Obviously a false statement. Assad's offensive in Idlib stopped the reluctance to go to full-fledged war with Turkey. No drones, by themselves, could stop and did not stop the Syrian offensive.
    3. Manned aircraft today may be a bit cheaper and smarter than unmanned aircraft. What prevents filling the sky with thousands of light and cheap manned aircraft, which can be shot down not only by enemy drones, but also by super-expensive super-fighters.
    The main advantage of the drone is that it is a cheap car, and not that unmanned.
    1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 18: 17 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      No drones, by themselves, could stop and did not stop the Syrian offensive.


      That's right, artillery, UAVs and aircraft stopped together. Well, dushmans helped a bit. This is not my opinion, Turkish military ideologists spoke in this vein.

      And people pilots go too expensive. And this excess mass is large, with a person a small machine with a low EPR will not work.
  • Alexander Samoilov 23 June 2020 17: 48 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The contribution of the Turkish mid-altitude drones Bayraktar TB2 and Anka to the conflict in Idlib, of course, was decisive. Where are the statistics? How many sorties were completed, how many targets were destroyed, missile consumption, own losses? With the same success, one can declare the decisive contribution of the mules used by the Turkish army. Turkish ground-based EW stations and containers on Anka UAVs, according to the Turks, managed to “completely blind” the air defense systems of the air defense systems in Idlib, allowing Bayraktar TB2 to fly almost close to the “Shells” and shoot them at point-blank range. The only confirmed case of the destruction of the "Shell" in Syria (May 2018) on the account of Israeli aviation. The record clearly shows that the air defense system was not in a combat position. I did not begin to read further - science fiction, and not even scientific. laughing negative
    1. Demagogue 23 June 2020 19: 25 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      What arrogant we are. In Idlib, even the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that two of the Shells were “damaged” as a result of a massive drone attack. The Turks said 8. Here is our number by 2 times, and divide them)))
      rg.ru/amp/2020/03/10/minoborony-v-sirii-povrezhdeny-dva-panciria-a-ne-unichtozheny-vosem.html
      1. Alexander Samoilov 25 June 2020 08: 17 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        As long as there is no photo confirmation, there is nothing to divide or multiply. This is all called in one word - propaganda. Only masses of the plebs, unburdened by intellect, can take it seriously.
        1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 08: 22 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          In response to the link to statements by officials, the demotivator picture has not yet been received as a proof. Well, the main thing is that you are confident in your innocence. Good mood to you.
          1. Alexander Samoilov 27 June 2020 17: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Nowadays, unconfirmed statements from any person can be wiped. The most officials of Ukraine for 6 years annually annihilate all Russian special forces and airborne forces in the ATO. bully
    2. Cyril G ... 23 June 2020 20: 57 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Once again, I will provide data from Lost Armor, and Aviation Security Network ...
      This is actually confirmed
      Application Pantsir S1E An Nuqat al Khams 2020-05-18. Captured .. filmed in a hangar, the machine does not bear visible signs of combat damage. Smoked. With rocket firing it happens.
      The question arose of why the diaphragms in the non-fired TPK were broken.
      Application Pantsir S1E Al Marqab 2020-05-20. Out of order. The defeat of the ASP hangar was removed. Then the Pantsyr damaged in a hangar is removed. Naturally, 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 well-known video shooting, 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, it means we are 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 by the way is clearly better.
      Libya
      The downside is the application for the Pantsir S1E Tripoli 2020-02-28, which is why 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 of the way? Does anyone else believe that this is Armor? it's funny!
      Less - Application for Pantsir S1E Misratah 2020-05-20. Nothing. For what they shot it is not clear reliable identification and defeat 9K96 no. 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.
      Less - an 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
      Less - an 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 ....
      However Pantsyrya there are such.

      Now GNA UAV losses in 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 possess information on the course of battles 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 confrontation with bayraktara does not mean anything at all. On points and won.
      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. forpost 24 June 2020 20: 52 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        If the carapace suddenly explodes in a mine, is that also interesting, they’ll write down the exploits of the UAV?
  • tralflot1832 23 June 2020 18: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Can the Russian Army fight this unmanned misfortune? Otherwise, drones describe it as a “wunderwaf.” What do we have against them?
    1. alexmach 23 June 2020 23: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And for the Russian Army there is no such data on the facts of military use as for the Syrian or Hataf.
      In general, the recent series of articles on air defense systems should answer this question well.
      https://topwar.ru/167633-mnogo-li-u-nas-sistem-pvo-zenitnaja-artillerija-i-pzrk.html
      https://topwar.ru/167803-mnogo-li-u-nas-sistem-pvo-zrk-strela-10-zrk-bagulnik-i-zak-derivacija-pvo.html
      https://topwar.ru/168049-mnogo-li-u-nas-sistem-pvo-zprk-tunguska-i-zrpk-pancir.html
      https://topwar.ru/168260-mnogo-li-u-nas-sistem-pvo-zrk-osa-i-zrk-tor.html
      https://topwar.ru/168498-sistemy-pvo-v-rf-zrk-buk.html

      In short, the old systems are rapidly becoming obsolete, the systems require modernization a little newer, there are new developments but not in the troops. And the total amount of funds is rather insufficient, especially modern ones.
  • Kostadinov 24 June 2020 10: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Demagogue
    That's right, artillery, UAVs and aircraft stopped together. Well, dushmans helped a bit.

    I think that the offensive stopped the presence of Turkish troops and their considerable loss. No one wanted an escalation of the conflict.
    Quote: Demagogue
    And people pilots go too expensive. And this excess mass is large, with a person a small machine with a low EPR will not work.

    A pilot is expensive if it’s a pilot of a 5th generation fighter. And if it is a pilot Fizeler-156, Yak-50 or something even easier, I think that it will not be more expensive than the control system at Bayraktar or Anka and the EPP can also beat no more. And the pilot is still much smarter.
    We are talking about drones of the middle class, not about Karg or similar mini-drones.
    1. Demagogue 24 June 2020 15: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      A pilot is more expensive than an operator. With a UAV pilot like Bayraktar is impossible in principle. One catapult seat with a pilot is all its payload. Fuel consumption will increase, 27 hours in the air you can forget. In general, nothing works with the pilot. And the pilot will not survive 27 hours in the air, crouching.
  • gregor6549 24 June 2020 15: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    Partially, I agree with you on the issue of combining missile and artillery weapons. But each short-range machine must be autonomous and have an SUV with active and passive systems ...


    Dear Cyril,

    The desire for autonomy of anti-aircraft combat vehicles, especially anti-aircraft air defense, is understandable, but the result of such a desire may be that these "autonomous" vehicles together with crews can be put out of action very quickly precisely because they are trying to cram into them what these vehicles contraindicated for the reasons listed by me above,
    But already the war in Vietnam showed that you do not want to, but it’s time to switch from autonomous air defense systems to air defense systems if you want to stay in battle longer and not go to the churchyard.
    And with the advent of even primitive ASUV by the current standards of the type “Air 1P”, “Air 1M” and their analogues, the systematic approach to the organization of air defense became predominant. Moreover, in similar systems of later developments (Maneuver, Etalon, etc.), autonomous operation modes were also envisaged with a transition from automated data processing modes to old manual modes that were tested by life on the principle of “at least something than nothing”. Even handwritten tablets began to be pushed into some objects of such systems, for example, in PORI P2. But at the same time, a number of organizational and technical measures were developed that made it possible to use the advantages of automatic control systems over "autonomous" machines, including for centralized control of radiating technical systems of automatic control systems (radars, radio stations, etc.), with the aim of their optimal use and protection against premature demise.
    1. sivuch 24 June 2020 16: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Can I have a little more information about the Standard? Honestly, I have not heard anything about him. And the first question, of course - is it a system?
      1. gregor6549 25 June 2020 05: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        ASUV "Etalon" is an automated control system for units and subdivisions of fighter, fighter bomber, attack and reconnaissance aircraft (manned and unmanned) and also consists of a number of launchers and command posts of various levels (regiment, division, army). This system system was developed from the beginning of the 70s by the Research Institute of Automation Tools (NIISA) in Minsk in collaboration with a number of other research institutes of the Union, including the Research Institute of the Air Force.
        ASUV Etalon was conceived as an integral, but relatively independent part of the ASU by the troops of the Maneuver front, the development of which was carried out by the same NIISA.
        When developing the automated control system "Etalon", the experience gained during the development of automatic control systems "Air-1M", "Impact" and a number of other systems was widely used.
        Information about the air and ground conditions in the areas of responsibility of the system came to the ASUV "Etalon" objects from ground, air and space reconnaissance equipment, including those provided by radars, radar information processing posts, AWACS and U aircraft, etc.
        Unfortunately, the dashing 90s put an end to both the completion of the development of this system and the completion of the Maneuver automated control system, although many components of these systems successfully passed all the required tests, were put into service, put into serial production and began to enter the USSR Armed Forces before only in the GSVG, whose fate also turned out to be sad.
        NIISA with difficulty, but survived, although "horns and legs" remained of him. But at the peak of his heyday in the mid-80s, he was the head research institute of the USSR for the development of mobile automatic control systems for all types of front-line troops and levels of command and control and was part of the Agat NGO, whose total number of employees was then about 25 thousand people.
        1. sivuch 25 June 2020 08: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Thank you.
          But, as far as I remember, the Maneuver, incl. its pompous component still managed to enter service, and even to the allies - the Czechs and Dederons. Naturally, at the tactical level - no higher than the division. Laughter and sin - in the well-known training manual on the Wasp, it is MP-22 and MP-25 that are mentioned.
          1. gregor6549 25 June 2020 11: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I wrote about this above, but I won’t begin to list what exactly went into service and what was under development, and I don’t remember everything already, I started to get old.
            But I confirm that the former allies got something. And not only got it. Some of them, for example, in Poland, were already ready for large-scale production of individual objects of the ASUV Maneuver. And the training was deployed not only for the military personnel of the USSR Armed Forces, but also for the military personnel of these allies.
            Many elements of this ASUV were tested at exercises at various levels, including the exercises WEST 81, which were attended by the military leadership of all the Warsaw Treaty countries, including the Minister of Defense of the USSR D.F.Ustinov, teachers of military academies, the leadership of almost all sectors of the USSR defense industry, etc. the distinguished guests were focused on the latest types of weapons and military equipment, including elements of the ASUV Maneuver. In the forest near Novopolotsk (Belarus), even a huge amphitheater was built for these guests with remote workstations of the Front Front from the ASUV Maneuver and large projection screens that displayed the entire course of the exercises. All civilian specialists who provided the work of new technology were dressed in military uniforms so that they would not shine and irritate the high authorities. In general, the show was delivered at the highest level.
            1. sivuch 25 June 2020 11: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In general, the show was delivered at the highest level.
              from a joke -
              Rabinovich, look what a beautiful sunset!
              Yes, they know how.
              Then in the air defense there was still some Tangent.
  • Kostadinov 24 June 2020 17: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A pilot is more expensive than an operator.

    Will the Fizeler 156 / Po-2 pilot be more expensive than the operator + an intelligent Bayraktar UAV control system? Count carefully. With this, Fizeler 156 / Po-2 cannot be captured by interception of communication.
    With a UAV pilot like Bayraktar is impossible in principle. One catapult seat with a pilot is all its payload. Fuel consumption will increase, 27 hours in the air you can forget. In general, nothing works with the pilot. And the pilot will not survive 27 hours in the air, crouching.

    Example: Czech Eurostar - max. take-off weight 450 kg. (less than Bayraktara), the price of 57 thousand euros. not the best, but an example that a plane with a pilot is possible and easier than Bayraktar.
    Of course, the pilot does not hold 27 hours in the air, but is not necessary for most tasks.
    1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 08: 13 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Eurostar, slw, will have 200 kg of payload left, but they will be eaten by an ejection seat and an ols. It will not be able to hang for a long time and the ceiling is only 6, and this is not enough. The UAV should hang in the air all the time - real-time intelligence is needed.
      And send pilots on this corn for slaughter, as in Libya Bayraktar, will not work. Political factor: every downed pilot is a scandal. The problem of EPR is that it is expensive to cover the flashlight, the contours are not at all for stealth.
  • Cyril G ... 24 June 2020 18: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Grazdanin
    Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie


    About the possibility of intercepting air targets is silent.
  • Eug
    Eug 24 June 2020 20: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As for me, we need rockets of the MLRS type with BG, which generate EMP in an air blast. If a power supply unit "hangs" over its electronic warfare stations, then an air blast of several electromagnetic warheads in the area of ​​the power supply barrage will damage both the electronic warfare and power supply systems. Well, its own radio intelligence to identify PU BP and suppress them on the ground.
  • Kostadinov 25 June 2020 10: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Eurostar, slw, will have 200 kg of payload left, but they will be eaten by an ejection seat and an ols.

    Do not need an ejection seat for an airplane with a maximum speed of less than 200 km / h.
    In addition, this aircraft has 200 kg. smaller take-off mass than Bayraktara. If you make a plane with a take-off masa of 650-700 kg. like Bayraktar, then he will have everything.
    And send pilots on this corn for slaughter, as in Libya Bayraktar, will not work. Political factor: every downed pilot is a scandal. The problem of EPR is that it is expensive to cover the flashlight, the contours are not at all for stealth.

    Why is it possible to kill infantrymen and crews of armored vehicles for slaughter, but will there be a scandal? These will be crews from local pilots - they do not need expensive and long training. Instead, the crew of the Shell will be 2-3 pilots with their aircraft - I think it’s cheaper to see.
    Bayraktar is also not a stealth. What is wrong when dozens of such airplanes arrive at the Bayraktarov command post? By the way, they can also be armed with needles for knocking down Bayraktar.
    1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 12: 00 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      1) You ignore altitude and time in the air. It is very important.
      2) You will not have enough pilot. Need an operator. There is no place at all. And still, curled up, they do not fly for a long time.
      3) The loss of the aircraft is the loss of the pilot, and when the UAV is destroyed, the operator is alive.
      4) Public opinion is very keen on the loss of manned aircraft. It is a fact. Both the fact of the loss of the aircraft and the death of the pilot.
      5)
      By the way, they can also be armed with needles for knocking down Bayraktar.
      The Chinese put ty-90 on drones, pilots are not needed. Impact drones hang in the air 24/7, and quickly strike occasionally for strikes. They should be confronted by something that is also in the air 24/7 and with long-range missiles. And the UAVs are growing longer hands, the cornman does not fight back. There are radars with afar, and long-range missiles cc already
    2. Demagogue 25 June 2020 12: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Bayraktar is also not a stealth.


      If not stealth, then close. It can be seen that they flattened him to reduce EPR.
  • Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 10: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Grazdanin
    The cavalry aristocracy boarded planes, mercenaries of all stripes. Middle Ages with rockets.


    Well noticed. Nevertheless, the idea is good. And most importantly, unlike MANPADS, it provides target destruction over the entire range of heights.
  • Kostadinov 25 June 2020 11: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Here is another combat training airplane - Laz-7. It was produced in the late 40s.
    The maximum take-off mass - 1130 kg., Speed ​​- 220 km / h, bombs - 120 kg. and 2 for 7,62 mm. machine gun. Of course, now you can do much better. In the Bulgarian Air Force in the 50s, two divisions of such nightly stormtroopers were beaten.
    If they were hit today with weapons from the OLS, ATGM and MANPADS, they could smash the PNS or Haftar army with all their drones to pieces.
  • gregor6549 25 June 2020 11: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An interesting anti-UAV system was developed by the British company Bliter https://www.blighter.com/
    Details here https://www.blighter.com/products/auds-anti-uav-defence-system/
    In short, the system includes a multi-sensor subsystem for detecting and tracking UAVs, as well as a system that allows using radio frequencies to remotely hack (hack) UAV control systems and intercept this control.
    1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 13: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Any self-respecting electronic warfare station should be able to do all this. And in Libya, many complexes were reportedly used from different countries, but there were reports of units shot down by them.
      1. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 22: 06 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        EW measures do not provide for control interception, these measures are provided for in the game cyberpunk 2077.
        1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 22: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, your untruth.
          You can trick a satellite UAV receiver and change its course. You can upload the virus to some drones. Another thing is that in real combat conditions, infrequently UAVs can shoot down. A large UAV, if it loses control over the satellite, simply leaves toward the base, leaves the interference zone, and communication is restored.
          1. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 22: 55 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            All this can be done only in one case, if the intelligence obtained the sources of encoding and encryption systems. Other ways will take years, if not decades. You can jam the signal, give false beacons, interfere. Those. so that the drone goes into error or loses touch, but this cannot be done already on good civilian drones. But to get into the control system, in fact, no. Before sending data, encoding takes place, and several (!) Times, in order for the data to be transmitted as small as possible as quickly as possible and without loss, then this data is encrypted and then only sent. It’s impossible to decode without knowing the protocol; it takes hundreds of experiments to work years. I am silent about encryption. I studied this for 5 years, this is my specialty. All the stories about hacking military UAV tales of the Vienna forest. To break the military data with the current equipment, the equipment sent in the 60s will take years. Civilian UAVs are not difficult to crack; they operate according to standard protocols with minimal, and usually without encryption.
            1. Demagogue 26 June 2020 06: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              There is a gps receiver to which you can send false coordinates. But in fact, it is possible to intercept fully control from civilian drones, this is true.
              1. Grazdanin 26 June 2020 09: 10 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Demagogue
                There is a gps receiver to which you can send false coordinates

                Yeah, works for civilians, maybe for the first military. But not modern.
                1. Demagogue 26 June 2020 10: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yes, that’s understandable. Almost books have already been written on how to deal with this.
                  1. Grazdanin 26 June 2020 10: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    The more I read about UAVs, the more I like the topic, the more confidence becomes that by the end of the decade, UAVs will become the main attack aircraft. It will supersede most manned vehicles, except for transporting people.
                    About books, it is very important for the development of any weapon the experience of its use, the Turks received excellent combat experience, which virtually no one in the world has. No one else has massively used strike reconnaissance UAVs in combined arms combat. Turkish military analysts have probably written several volumes of War and Peace on this subject.
                    1. Demagogue 26 June 2020 10: 45 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Turkish military analysts


                      The Turks have at least analytics)) you can get clear estimates from them. As a result of the events in Idlib, the Turks were really inspired. I am not talking about propaganda for the masses, but about the mood of the leadership. UAVs showed themselves very well. The Turks understood how "things are being done"))

                      By the way, the Bayraktars hit the Haftar airbase. UAVs are the future without question.
                      1. Grazdanin 26 June 2020 11: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        All this was done by Anka and TB2. With 55 (4 mines 120mm) kg payload. What would MQ1 and MQ 9 do under the same conditions? It is amazing.
                      2. Demagogue 26 June 2020 12: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Experience with Wing loong in Libya has shown that powerful ammunition is rarely needed. So in terms of load, these UAVs are quite adequate for their tasks. Against mq-9 it would be harder of course, but here the tactics decided everything more and the massed raids. Team game.
        2. Grazdanin 26 June 2020 01: 08 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Because of the Star channel, people began to turn EW into a prodigy of magical origin with a reality that has nothing to do.
          The main task of electronic warfare is electronic protection, first of all, it is necessary to prevent the possibility of interrupting communications in the troops, jamming your radars and transmitters, preventing them from being detected, preventing them from interfering with operation, preventing electromagnetic radiation from being destroyed, etc. This is very boring and tedious, with a bunch organizational and technical measures. Having applied which the probability of detection decreases by several times, it is likely to be suppressed tends to 0. But it is used in few places, because there is no way to take selfies and put them into stories. Hi Dudaev.
          Electronic suppression. It can be done in an extremely limited area, if you know the exact parameters of the radio signal, it is extremely energy consuming and easy to detect. Ground radar Suppress perfectly, it works on radiation and reception, all parameters are known, does not move. There is a problem with an airplane or UAV, it has various data reception and transmission systems, it moves in 3 planes, can work autonomously and can send a missile to the side of the interference source. Making an interference zone with a stationary or moving object greatly unmasks, complicates the operation of the object itself, and works on the most likely types of weapons. For modern missiles, this is not a problem, just part of the missiles will switch to the destruction of jammers. Those. jamming more or less modern systems is impossible, only "simple" radars. But on the other hand, the television picture is juicy, missiles fly off in different directions, UAVs fall flat on top, a direct energy shield appears from Lukyanenko’s stories. All this is nonsense.
          There are hundreds and thousands of ways for electronic protection; they are limited for suppression. KSHM from the 80s cannot be drowned out, unless of course everything works there, which is not so in my experience))
          There is also Electronic Intelligence, Comprehensive Technical Control, Electromagnetic Damage (also fun to show on TV how to learn how to deal with it in the 60s)
          And the stories about the seizure of control (unless of course the developers were recruited or the full complex was not captured, we watch the movie "Enigma"), viruses (first ask if there is an operating system there) are just violent fantasies born of the Star channel and games.
          1. Demagogue 26 June 2020 07: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here above they threw a link to the Star, which claimed a magical funnel, thanks to which Bayraktar could destroy the shell. As you can believe this statement, the mind is incomprehensible. Moreover, in the same text they write that the Turkish naval artillery was driven away from Tripoli by Haftara.
            1. Grazdanin 26 June 2020 09: 16 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              For 15 years I have not had a TV, Zvezda channel transmissions, I stopped watching just after the plot, when, supposedly because of electronic warfare, the 2nd generation ptur went sharply away from the tank.
            2. Grazdanin 26 June 2020 09: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              All this electronic warfare for the game in probability reduced the range of the radar interference, the probability of flying closer and destroying the station increased. You change the frequency and time of radio communications, reduce the likelihood of finding yourself, getting a rocket in the transmitter. The plane dropped radio traps, there is a chance that the rocket will take them to the "sight". EW is a very important component of hostilities, but you need to understand what it is. Turning off your smartphone at a position is also an electronic warfare system and is a thousand times more important than all Rubella.
  • Grazdanin 25 June 2020 22: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: gregor6549
    using radio frequencies to remotely hack (hack) the UAV control system and intercept this control.

    Fantazer, you called me (s)
    Decoding is extremely hard work if the developer did not merge the source code for you. And all this after decryption needs to be made.
  • Grazdanin 25 June 2020 23: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: gregor6549
    An interesting anti-UAV system was developed by the British company Bliter https://www.blighter.com/

    I read and where is there about the interception of control? We are talking about the discovery of CIVIL drones converted into terrorist or with cameras, with the further "jamming" of their signal. A thing necessary and important, but for the celebrity, whose officials Navalny got, the protection of objects in the city. The Kremlin has long been guarded by a similar system. But this does not apply to military affairs, but rather to counter-terrorism.
  • Kostadinov 25 June 2020 14: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Demagogue
    And the UAVs are growing longer hands, the cornman does not fight back. There are radars with afar, and long-range missiles cc already

    But this is already another class of drones: weighing a few tons and the price is ten or more millions of dollars. Against them will be other pilots with a similar weight and also with afar and long-range missiles and with pilots who are somewhat smarter than the automation of a drone.
    The whole essence is that, for today, replacing the pilot with an automatic pilot, you don’t get the plane cheaper and at the same time it will be with limited abilities. Today, the pilot is smarter than automation and will be able to do not only everything but also more and better than automation does.
    The pilot is superior to the drone in aerial combat and, therefore, all fighters are still manned.
    The same thing on land and at sea - the time has not yet come to replace tanks and riflemen and ships with land and sea drones.
    1. Demagogue 25 June 2020 15: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Such planes are expensive: from 10 million. There is an analogue of what you described - the same ahrlac.

    2. Grazdanin 25 June 2020 22: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is for now. The capabilities of manned aviation are limited by human capabilities, unmanned by the laws of physics.
  • Alien ... 26 June 2020 19: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, it is strange that with this nature of the hostilities in Libya, the Armor was at least shot down without burying itself in bulk and retail ...
  • Alien ... 27 June 2020 22: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    According to the UAV, in principle: in a modern war, the fate of helicopters awaits them.