"Shell-C1" will take part in the battle for Sirte

In Libya, at any time, a decisive battle for the city of Sirte can begin between the forces of Marshal Haftar and the PNS (Government of National Accord). Haftar is strengthening its position and preparing to defend itself, while the PNS is preparing an offensive.

Aviation PNS represented by Turkish drones Bayraktar TB2 is actively involved in the preparation of the offensive and, among other things, struck at the Al-Jafra airbase.

Earlier, Haftar aviation in early June managed to stop the advance of PNS forces in central Libya, but with the arrival of additional Turkish air defense systems and UAVs, the situation began to change. Direct Turkish intervention and the sending of F-16s to Libya are not ruled out.

In this regard, it is not surprising that information appeared that Haftar had pulled a large number of Shell-S1 air defense systems to Sirt. Today appeared rumor-proof video, which shows two air defense systems on trailers heading towards the front line.

It is curious that these machines cannot be from a batch ordered by the UAE: the chassis is KamAZ, and not MAN. The shells at KamAZ trucks were also exported, so the origin of this equipment is difficult to determine. Earlier in Libya, only MAN air defense systems were seen, and KAMAZ was shot only once.

In the video on one of the air defense systems, a radar is operating during transportation. Even in the deep rear, at a distance of almost 400 km from Sirte, the personnel do not relax.

Everything suggests that the next round of confrontation between Turkish UAVs and Russian air defense systems will soon take place in central Libya.

Comments

[The leader of the Redskins]

If I am not mistaken, does it not have the ability to fire on the move at the KAMAZ base? Therefore, will they be used only as stationary, periodically changing firing positions, points?

[Siberian 66]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p2z5CXliZk на 0:58 в роде как с ходу ракетой работает. Ходили разговоры, что научат его так работать. В базовой версии он так не мог.

[Demagogue]

stationary, periodically changing firing positions, points

Probably yes. Constantly moving an air defense system in an open area means giving drones a chance to detect it.

[Insurgent]

"Shell-C1" will take part in the battle for Sirte

To know what modification ...
The definition "on a KAMAZ chassis" does not give an idea of ​​the characteristics and capabilities, and therefore, it is difficult to assess the prospects for use.

But, in any case, the calculations of ZRAK - "Break a leg", in the hunt for birds of prey ...

[Alexander Samoilov]

Yes. But moving TB2 can work with only 8 km. At such a distance, you can only approach the disarmed S-1.

[Demagogue]

And who said that they will generally work now on the Shells? And not how in the battle of Tripoli they will smash the whole front to Haftar, and then finish off the air defense when the retreat begins?

[Alexander Samoilov]

Even if they operate along the front line of 8 km, the air defense systems located 5-7 km behind it will easily destroy them.

[Alexander Samoilov]

The base does not matter. It depends on the modification. All types with radar can work on the go. Only with OLS are truly effective, only on a fixed one.

[Demagogue]

But what can the truck roll over when shooting due to the high center of gravity is nothing?

[Alexander Samoilov]

2A38 30-tonne machine is definitely not upside down. But missiles are dynamo-reactive weapons and have no recoil.

[Civil]

I hope the operators - the Arabs will be, not vacationers.

[Siberian 66]

Infa passed about the transfer to Libya as many as 11 complexes. The most interesting is where the trained calculations were taken. It is no less interesting what means of electronic warfare and electronic warfare will ensure the work. Otherwise, "Shells" will be uselessly burned

[Demagogue]

Judging by the radar operating during transportation in the deep rear, people have been there.

EW against modern drones is ineffective. Haftar has some ground stations. The Belarusian Thunderstorm seems to be. But how can you stop her from айs Bayraktara detecting the Shell? They can still detect and crush the enemy radar, but there are no serious UAVs to fight with the military.

There was talk that they would teach him how to work like that.

They went, but whether these specific machines can do so is unknown.

[Siberian 66]

EW can do a lot of things) and Bayraktar is not a self-sufficient wunderwafer. Communication and control lines, command centers, radar, avionics of everything that flies and moves on the earth - what is the purpose for electronic warfare?

[Demagogue]

EW can do a lot of things) and Bayraktar is not a self-sufficient wunderwafer.

Not self-sufficient, but, like all modern UAVs, it is well protected from the effects of electronic warfare. If it were otherwise, then there would simply be no sense in such UAVs.

[outsider]

- And if the control is carried out through a satellite, antenna pointing upwards? And your EW station - on earth ?! And his command center - for 500 km, under the radio horizon? Everything, there is no way to suppress it ...

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Outsider

satellite antenna pointing up

Why so hard? Normal radio control is not suppress. With multiple backup channels. Spray UAV to change course to find a stable signal. And the very source of "suppression" is destroyed easily and naturally.

[outsider]

“Even the little American Predator had TWO satellite dishes. In an era when a satellite phone can be carried in your pocket, this is not a luxury at all, but a guarantee of your UAV's noise immunity.

[Grazdanin]

What am I against?) I want to say that the importance and capabilities of electronic warfare in the Russian segment of the Internet are greatly exaggerated and turned into something magical, which has nothing to do with reality.

[outsider]

- Big boys should not believe in fairy tales ...

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Outsider

In an era when a satellite phone can be carried in your pocket, this is not a luxury at all, but a guarantee of the noise immunity of your UAV.

hmmm .. the phone can be carried in your pocket and a communication jammer that cuts down communication within a radius of 10-20 meters in the form factor of a pack of cigarettes also fits in your pocket ...
What conclusions can be drawn from this?

[Alexander Samoilov]

Quote: Demagogue

EW against modern drones is ineffective.

Modern EW can easily cope with both control channels and weak UAV radars. Confirmation of this is the repeated forced landing of the latest American MALE Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and even Iran, much more perfect than the Turkish.

[Demagogue]

Well, there would be links to the studio right away.

Iran extreme times for some reason from its counterpart Buka shot at UAVs))

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Demagogue

Well, there would be links to the studio right away.

https://iz.ru/849001/2019-02-22/iran-vzlomal-sistemy-kontrolia-amerikanskogo-bespilotnika

Quote: Demagogue

Iran extreme times for some reason from its counterpart Buka shot at UAVs))

I didn’t shoot the last time. article for 2019, as it were ...

[Demagogue]

Well, an article in Izvestia is good, but in fact it is not known why he fell. This happened in 2016, and not in 2019, moreover, when the Iranians actually shot down rq-4 with their "beech". The official version is operator error. There is no certainty that he was put straight. But it doesn't matter. American UAVs fly along the Iranian border every single day and more than once. They fly over the Iranians in Iraq and Syria. Once the ancient version of the UAV was dropped in 2011. If there was a second case in 2016, great. But not a little over 10 years? If they can, let them drop something right now))

[Sanichsan]

knock down of course more. all the same, electronic warfare is exotic and high-tech which only serious states have in adequate form. UAVs are not used against serious powers .. yet there are cases in Iraq, in Iran, but I agree that this is particular.

Quote: Demagogue

If so, let them drop something right now))

so on the way to Hmeimim regularly drop! Of course, these are crafts made of sticks and plastic, but the Turks won’t go there .. and the Jews, too ... check it out
and missiles out there any number! Yemen alone did what statistics on the Saudis did! again, the Syrians claim that 14 shot ...

[Demagogue]

Iran has electronic warfare quite at the level. And it really works for some tasks. This is not exotic. But UAVs cannot intercept the modern one. Jam signals yes. But here it must be borne in mind that UAVs can sigint and there is a chance to detect the station position. Such chess is played in modern eb.
Beech, in any case, is more accurate)) A UAV and just like that fall, like planes, and not rarely. But as a tool to get a video stream of enemy territory 24/7, they are great. And for this they can all be forgiven.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Demagogue

Iran has electronic warfare quite at the level.

Yes. at the level. approximately at the level of the USSR of the 80-90s when actually from the USSR they received their air defense and electronic warfare maybe not so categorically, but very close ... this is still the last century adapted to the technical level of Iran's production.

Quote: Demagogue

Beech in any case rather))

if we talk about Libya, I completely agree with you. EW of that level so that it is more convenient than the Buk will not give them. not only by Beech, but by Carapace

Quote: Demagogue

And UAVs just fall like planes, and not rarely.

"A ship is sinking somewhere right now. Do you know why? because there are too many ships in the world!" Grishkovets (c) but this is not about drone drone. it's still almost a piece of goods. there are thousands of planes, and not all have dozens of these.

Quote: Demagogue

But as a tool to get a video stream of enemy territory 24/7, they are great.

not everything is so simple .. if we are talking about Papuans who do not have air defense then yes, but if the opponent has experience in creating a layered air defense structure and of course the air defense systems themselves then you can’t hang on top of them. good example Iran. even the USA at the border can fly, but if they cross the air border they get a rocket.
By the way, the fact that in Russia they focus specifically on reconnaissance UAVs, and not on strike ones, is interesting.

[Demagogue]

Yes. at the level. approximately at the level of the USSR of the 80-90s when actually from the USSR they received their air defense and electronic warfare

If they remained at that level, then this is the 60th. The USSR in electronics was 20 years behind the leaders then. Today we have the level of the USA 80s. We hardly make the first primitive radars with afar.

As for the Papuans and air defense, the nonsense is complete. UAVs are dangerous for any enemy today. The United States takes this threat very seriously, by the way, with its technological level. Open any modern book on EW, the same Martino De Martino and enlighten.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Demagogue

If they remained at that level, then this is the 60th. The USSR in electronics was 20 years behind the leaders then. Today we have the level of the USA 80s. We hardly make the first primitive radars with afar.

Well, nonsense, why write? even the United States recognizes that in the area of ​​electronic warfare it is 10 years behind Russia. Again, AFAR differs from PFAR not only better, but different. in the field of PFAR, the US is how much behind Russia? 20? 40 years?

Quote: Demagogue

The United States takes this threat very seriously, by the way, with its technological level.

Well this is understandable. with their missile defense that still shoots barrels on a parachute and the Patriots who distinguished themselves at the refinery, of course they need to be afraid. when air defense and missile defense is just a brand, there is every reason for fear. with their technical level
Of course, shock UAVs are a threat. it's still a weapon. but Russia has something to stop this threat, China most likely has, the United States is very bad at it.

[Demagogue]

Well, nonsense, why write? even the United States recognizes that in the area of ​​electronic warfare it is 10 years behind Russia. Again, AFAR differs from PFAR not only better, but different. in the field of PFAR, the US is how much behind Russia? 20? 40 years?

You don’t even know how to comment.
1) According to electronic warfare - why not immediately for 50 years?))) Let's reference.
2) What can be the achievements in completely outdated PFAR technology? Without LPI mode and with single-beam scanning without noise immunity. Just for understanding: the US Air Force received a fighter with a digital radar in the mid-70s, and the Russian Air Force in 2012. Have you improved the PFAR well? Another 40 years and everything will work out? When a technique is evaluated, one must sort the propaganda from the facts. And the facts are, for example, whether the radar can be in tws, ram, nctr, acm, sagm / dbs, etc. In general, for general education I recommend reading serious literature, and not Soviet newspapers before meals.

According to the UAV, you simply did not fully understand what it was about. This is a necessary attribute for any modern army, like aviation. Neither aviation nor air defense UAVs can be suppressed. You can only limit the effectiveness of their work. In general, in a previous article, I dwell on this in detail. Repeat no sense.

[Demagogue]

1) By afar article is nonsense. Comments looked a couple of first and they are dumber than the article. What is an article about afar without lpi mode? Interference immunity is not reflected at all. Of course, all the fools in the world make afar, and we are smart with Pfar. This plate will spin until we start changing Pfar to Afar))
2) Air defense has become our all due to the weakness of aviation and the lag in this area. And it's a stupid policy to rivet air defense. It is necessary to develop aviation, which is the main means of warfare with the WWII. Air defense is a passive defense that will always lose to aviation. Aviation is a means of winning the initiative, and air defense is a "transport bastard," as Peter 1 would say.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Demagogue

This plate will spin until we start changing Pfar to Afar))

building any equipment is a compromise. or a little AFAR or a lot of VLDF. in terms of characteristics, the difference is not at all as colossal as you depict here, but for the price yes, and the load is the cooling system for the AFAR.

Quote: Demagogue

What is an article about afar without lpi mode?

another wunderyaf in the load to the stealth that "no one sees"? let's get a little more serious

Quote: Demagogue

Air defense became our all due to the weakness of aviation and lag in this area.

weaknesses? the fact that in an amount less than in NATO combined is yes, but about the weakness ... in Europe we are not even inferior in quantity Do you have bouts of self-abasement or do you live in the USA?

Quote: Demagogue

And this is a stupid policy to rivet air defense.

Yeah. very. Here is the aircraft that could not stop even the Boeing crashed into skyscrapers and the Pentagon, this is power! yes!

Quote: Demagogue

Air defense is a passive defense, which aviation will always lose.

yes you! but during the Doomsday War, Egyptian troops successfully sent Israeli aircraft to the ground. whom to sit at the airfields, and whom at all. if it were not for the alternative giftedness of the Egyptian generals who opened the flanks, then everything could have turned differently, but the fact is that Israeli aviation dropped out of the event on the first day of acquaintance with mobile air defense.

Quote: Demagogue

Aviation is a means of winning the initiative, and air defense is a "transport bastard," as Peter 1 would say.

mdya .. you disappoint me ... aviation without air defense is as much damage as air defense without aviation. but the United States managed to make aviation with incapacitated air defense and this is their serious problem. aviation is a strike weapon, air defense to protect its strike potential.
By the way, who are you going to attack with aircraft? and how to defend against cruise missiles without air defense and missile defense? or just shout "aaa !!! they have tamahawks !!! we surrender !!!"

[Demagogue]

You stubbornly do not want to see a large picture. Afar gives noise immunity plus a stealth mode. Scanning time is much higher than that of PFAR. Everything, finita, the enemy is better informed on the battlefield than you. He decides how and when to destroy you. May create a local superiority in forces. Everything you write about worked until the 70s. Then there was a breakthrough in the development of electronics and the scheme using a large number of low-tech weapons against a technologically superior opponent does not work. Absolutely.
And to give as an example the Arabs beaten-killed by Israel is generally naive.
You give me all the possible myths of Runet and apparently are a witness to tube electronics))) write nonsense about this stealth. In general, read what low visibility is. I give a hint: the lower the EPR, the easier it is to apply interference and interfere with the guidance of enemy missiles. And it’s more difficult for the GOS to cling to the plane. No invisibility is needed, only less noticeable than the enemy’s visibility is needed.
And whose cr do you want to intercept? American? This will not be, this is a nuclear war.
In general, read the literature, and not runet, and then, if there are questions, I will answer.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Demagogue

Afar gives noise immunity plus a stealth mode.

PFAR does not have interference immunity, in your opinion?
stealth mode from NATO's same RWR ??? this is an achievement! I would even say victory! the Germans and the French on a short leash .. the Turks have something to row about ...

Quote: Demagogue

And to give as an example the Arabs beaten-killed by Israel is generally naive.

an example of how beaten killed Arabs smashed ground-based air defense the best aviation in the region is it naive? well, OK. close your eyes and think that no one sees you, this is also an option, not very progressive but an option ..

Quote: Demagogue

You give me all the possible myths of Runet and apparently are a witness to tube electronics))) write nonsense about this stealth.

OU. it looks like you are a stealth adept

Quote: Demagogue

I give a hint: the lower the EPR, the easier it is to apply interference and interfere with the guidance of enemy missiles.

great! but you don’t believe all kinds of runet tales Please be a historical example of how stealth saved a plane from a rocket. or your arguments at the level of theoretical calculations based on articles by journalists writing about a reflecting surface of 0.001 meters?

Quote: Demagogue

And whose cr do you want to intercept? American? This will not be, this is a nuclear war.

great! and what will aviation do in this war? Do you need a lot of planes to try to stop the ICBM warheads? success

[Ali]

Demagogueѣ (Andrey. For your development, so as not to write fables about the LPI mode:

LPI mode for detection distances has nothing to do with the maximum or working radar detection distances. because it is determined by other parameters (processing noise-like signals).
The maximum distance in theory is up to 55 km, in real life less than 50 km. in the complete absence of jamming from the enemy, because this mode is very sensitive to the noise component.
This distance is on the border of the detection distance of an aircraft operating in LPI by means of optoelectronic target search. For fighters of the last generation, it approaches 60-70 km. for subtle targets in the infrared range.
This mode is convenient to sneak up to the enemy’s newest aircraft, while remaining invisible. When meeting a plane that has a modern OEC detection. as well as during the operation of electronic warfare systems, all its advantage is reduced to zero.

[Ali]

Quote: Demagogue

Afar gives noise immunity plus stealth mode. Scan time is much higher than that of PFAR... Everything, finita, the enemy is better informed on the battlefield than you. He decides how and when to destroy you.

Demagogueѣ. Do you know very little about radar? You do not take into account what determines the scan time and why it is bad? Write to compare the absurdities about the LPI mode? And especially about noise immunity, not knowing the principle of operation of the radar. Can you tell me how the interference on the radar with PFAR and with AFAR is removed. Maybe then you will understand your numerous bloopers! Weak, as is the comparison of radar? Or can you just put the minuses on the sly, like the Israelis (though not all)?

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Demagogue

You give me all the possible myths of Runet and apparently you are a witness of tube electronics))) write nonsense about such stealth. In general, read what low visibility is. I give a hint: the lower the EPR, the easier it is to apply interference and interfere with the guidance of enemy missiles.

And you, my dear, write nonsense about that - in anything with an ear or a snout. (from.)
I have already dipped you into waste products for illiteracy.

[Demagogue]

Бггг))) This is from a person who did not understand that afar can operate at different frequencies at the same time and wanted to destroy the aug of the United States with 80 aircraft, of which half are su-34. The only thing that this individual can dip into is his own bullshit behavior.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Demagogue

and wanted to destroy the aug usa 80 aircraft, of which half are su-34.

At least I, unlike you, have studied such a "smart" tactical guidance of the naval and somehow know what is possible and what is not. and what is not real in principle

This is from a person who did not understand that afar can work at different frequencies at the same time.

Damn, you deservedly appropriate the nickname demagogue. I, unlike you, just know this, but you, dear, how the radar works with SHAR, with passive HEADLIGHT, with bent sheet metal and what are the differences you have no idea. Some of your fresh pearls about the fact that PFAR is not protected from interference clearly shows that you are just a cookie ...

The only thing a given individual can dip into is

You look, clown, spit out all the poop already and a voice cut through or what?

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: SanichSan

or a little AFAR or a lot of PFAR. in terms of characteristics, the difference is not at all as colossal as you depict here, but for the price, yes, and the cooling system for AFAR is in use.

Exactly

another wunderyaf in the load to the stealth that "no one sees"?

To detect an aircraft, it is necessary that a sufficient amount of energy reaches it, so the physics will not be fooled. Even analyzing the direction of the received signals, the SPO is quite capable of identifying a signal smeared over the operating range of the radar. Well, do not forget The LPI range drops several times, and not at all as the Americans claim in part of the 77th station

aviation is a strike weapon, air defense to protect its strike potential.

The sword and shield are important in combat.

[Ali]

Quote: Demagogue

If they stayed at that level, it would be the 60s. The USSR in electronics lagged behind the leaders by 20 years then. We have the US level of the 80s today. We hardly make the first primitive radars with afar.

USSR in 60-70 years lagged behind by 8 years maximum and not in all in radio electronics. And in the field of radar it was superior to the West. An example is the Don-2N radar (Do not forget to remember the Oderax project).
Demagogueѣ. Before writing a lie, compare the radar with AFAR N036 "Belka" and the radar with AFAR AN / APG-77 (81) in terms of detection range, resolution ... Weak? And writing lies is easy!

[Demagogue]

I’m just not weak. But you write utter nonsense with a clever look, comparing the incomparable.
In the USSR, the lag is not 8 years, of course. The Americans launched the F-15 with a radar with the ability to fully "look down" in 1975. There was no answer in the USSR until 1985, and then after the Iranians let the F-14 radar study in the early 80s. The answer was extremely limited in scope. And there could be no other, given the lag in electronics. From 1975 to 1985, there was no chance at all against American aviation. The 21st and 23rd MiGs are the technology of the late 50s. Analog radars, and Americans have digital processors since 1979. The Soviet radar for a moment23 weighed 450 kg more than the American one. Just for understanding. And it is not surprising that the losses were enormous. Israel simply crushed the Syrian air force in 1982, and the Iranians in F14 stuffed Soviet fighters with Iraqis a comparable number. Here, the "stupid" Arabs cannot be attributed to the defeat.
Enlighten yourself a little and don't waste my time.

[Ali]

Demagogueѣ. You have not fully answered the questions:
2. Compare the radar with AFAR N036 "Belka" and the radar with AFAR AN / APG-77 (81) in terms of detection range, resolution ... Weak?

[Ali]

Quote: Ali

Demagogueѣ. You have not fully answered the questions: 2. compare the radar with AFAR N036 "Belka" and the radar with AFAR AN / APG-77 (81) in terms of detection range, resolution ...

Demagogueѣ. What is the critical lag, and is it there, and what, except for the quantity?

[Demagogue]

And what has the squirrel or arrow? When there will be serial aircraft with this product and will give its real parameters on the air, or rather, close to real ones, then we will evaluate. By asking, you show a lack of knowledge. The catalog detection range means nothing. For example, the apg-59 could detect the 21st in 80 km, if you know where to shine. But in practice it was about 25, no more. In general, you can calm down, in 20 years you will find out what a squirrel could.

[Ali]

Demagogueѣ8. Judging by your answers, then you shouldn't write fables about "Pantsir-C1" if you are not able to make a simple comparison by radar, taking into account the parameters of the radar.

[Ali]

Demagogueѣ. With your answers, you show not only your ignorance ... but also your inability to conduct a dialogue. And you have countless blunders, write about noise immunity, and you cannot give examples of jamming suppression systems and suppression principles! Deliberately underestimating the image intensifier of Turkish UAVs, without citing literature and sources of parameters!

[Ali]

Quote: Demagogue

The same detection range means nothing. For example, the apg-59 could detect the 21st in 80 km, if you know where to shine.

Demagogueѣ. You shine, and the radar is sounding!

[Alexander Samoilov]

Please https://theaviationist.com/2011/12/15/gps-spoofing/ But that's not the whole joke. Iran, far from being a super cyberpower, took only 2 years to decrypt data from its hard drive. https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/06/footage-sentinel/ Although before that, all cryptanalysts in the world unequivocally argued that the so-called. public keys require decades of supercomputer operation. Last year they planted the "Reaper" and the "Gray Eagle". True, for the first time, the Americans managed to destroy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqsYDiOc9ms https://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/515211-rossiyskiy-reb-smog-posadit-amerikanskiy-dron-ne-povrediv-ego.html An American reconnaissance and strike MQ-5B was intercepted in Crimea. The vehicle belongs to the 66th military intelligence brigade, which was transferred from Bavaria to the Ukrainian Kirovograd in early March 2014. The vehicle, traveling at a height of 4000 meters and almost invisible from the ground, was detected by the Avtobaza electronic warfare complex. His connection with the operator was severed, and the MQ-5B made an emergency landing, leaving the Crimeans almost intact. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/stariy_khren/36132260/187402/187402_original.jpg Вообще, раз уж вы взялись за БПЛА, крайне рекомендую внимательно изучить следующий документ, особо обратив внимание на параграфы 3.1 и 3.3. https://info.publicintelligence.net/USAF-RemoteIrregularWarfare.pdf

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Alexander Samoilov

repeated forced landings of the latest American MALE

Well, well, occurring once every few years, single UAVs. If at least 2 in a row are planted, then we can talk about the use of some kind of electronic warfare. And so several UAVs simply fell due to technical problems or operator errors. I think half of TB2 is lost because of them.

[Tatyana Sementsova]

Hmm ..... It will be either a chic advertisement for the Shell, or anti-advertising due to inept actions of the personnel and improper use of weapons .... Then the Turks will begin to praise their drones as the destroyer of the Shell.

[NDR-791]

Yes. It depends on the results. Maybe they will also order the Carapace for the S-400. Hopefully this time the "correct" calculations will be in the cars.

[Tatyana Sementsova]

Turkey will tear its lower back so as not to face its faces in front of the Shells ...... Calculations must pass exams in Russia, including on proper integration into the air defense system.
Well, I think so!

[Foxmara]

They have already boasted of the same. This is the past stage.

[cniza]

Everything suggests that the next round of confrontation between Turkish UAVs and Russian air defense systems will soon take place in central Libya.

Technique is good, but the quality of trained operators is fundamental.

[outsider]

- "Carapace" lacks just a few things for complete happiness:
1. Normal radar target detection - up to the smallest and most inconspicuous, such as: https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-2084-mmr
2. Normal firing radar on the "Pantsir" itself, with the ability to perform target tracking and firing at an elevation angle up to 90 °, so that there are no "dead zones", like the Aegis air defense system.
3. Normal seeker for missiles - active millimeter-wave radar, as is now accepted, or even better - combined: AR seeker + thermal imaging seeker "in one bottle", like the SAM "David's Sling": https: //en.wikipedia. org / wiki / David% 27s_Sling
Otherwise, even the Papuans won't take it after such "commercials":

[Cyril G ...]

Cool. These are the Arabs. And they all have smartphones. Two months have passed and not a single photo confirmation of the burned and damaged Libyan Armor has been and is not. Exactly two - one was captured and taken out, the second was hit in the hangar. And then it's already getting ridiculous - there are cartoons, but there were no photos of the victims of the fire. What about the Ukrainians? "And then my smartphone batteries ran out" !!

Quote: Outsider

Normal seeker for missiles - active millimeter-wave radar, as is now accepted, and even better - combined: AR seeker + thermal imaging seeker "in one bottle"

This is not the right solution for short-range air defense systems because it will blow the price to heaven for SAM.

[outsider]

- One of two things: either reliably hit targets, or save money. There is no third.

[Cyril G ...]

No not like this. Trite, we will have many goals in the near zone. We need a lot of missiles. They should cost at a minimum. SAMs with a radio command guidance system for missiles at ranges up to 10-12 km demonstrate high efficiency. There is also a minus - a limited number of targeted channels. It is necessary to reduce the channel busy time by increasing the speed of missiles. SAM from Thor with its bells and whistles such as vertical launch is already more expensive than Pantsyrevskaya every two, two and a half., And a missile with ARGSN every 5-10. I found the price of the Pantsyr and Thor missiles, how much they cost 9M96, but I heard the price of our rocket with ARGSN. Something like this will come out ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Papuans don’t have enough coconuts to pay for missiles with GOS! (Moreover, the rumor was that coconuts were cheaper for some time!) ... But for the rest, I support your opinion, for a long time, I have been speaking out for zuras with GOS for ,, Carapace ,,! But I’m not speaking out, freaking out, but at. ,, in the spirit ,, of Kartsev’s pop art with its crayfish! (Remember? Yesterday, crayfish of 5 r. And large ... and today, 3 crayfish, but small!) There are zuras, “telecontrolled”, so let them go! But with improvement. ,, weapons ,,, we should expect the appearance of dawns with gos! So that there were ,, crayfish ,,, although small, but 3 rubles ... and ,, large crayfish, 5 re ....

[Grazdanin]

It is generally strange to me that the Shells are considered as a means of combating UAVs of the MALE class. It is created for other purposes and tasks.

[D16]

Normal radar target detection - up to the smallest and most inconspicuous,

The carapace is being modernized. Rolled out SM with a new survey and firing radar.

the ability to perform target tracking and firing in elevation up to 90 °, so that there are no "dead zones", like the Aegis air defense missile system.

This problem is solved by the competent use of SPRAK as part of the unit. A single complex is still not a tenant.

GOS for missiles - active millimeter-wave radar, as is now customary, and even better - combined: AR GOS + thermal imaging GOS "in one bottle", as in the SAM "David's Sling":

The shell is built according to a fundamentally different scheme. Let the Jews knock down water pipes with such missiles .

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider

- "Carapace" lacks just a few things for complete happiness:
1. Normal radar target detection - up to the smallest and most inconspicuous, such as: https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-2084-mmr

Outsider. Minimum image intensifier of the UAV target, which will be detected by Pantsir-C1 equal to EOP = 0,0002 m2 or 2 cm2 at a distance of D = 3,6 km.
The tactical multifunctional air defense missile system "Iron Dome" was developed taking into account the resolution of the main Israeli problem associated with constant shelling from the Gaza Strip with artillery systems and homemade NURS, for which the complex needed a high-potential radar based on the phased array, capable of tracking and issuing target designation for ultra-small targets with Image intensifier about 0,01-0,02 m2 ... It can be seen that the Pantsir-C1 detection radar is superior in this parameter to the Israeli p / elm-2084-mmr radar, in addition to this:
- the third drawback, oddly enough, concerns MRLS EL / M-2084, its area of ​​view in the elevation plane only 40 degrees., which is very small for systems classified as anti-missile. For example, the "Tor-M1" and "Pantsir-S1" radar target designation in elevation "hold out" up to 64–85 degrees. With such a drawback, the "Iron Dome" becomes almost defenseless in front of SVN (UAV or PRLR like a "smart" ALARM), attacking from heights of more than 10 km at a right angle of dive to the complex - 90 degrees, and about auxiliary optical-electronic means for this system no information.
Outsider. Can you refute and give other data together with the source of information?
Otherwise, you are wrong!

[outsider]

Outsider. Can you refute and give other data together with the source of information?

- Certainly can. But you give the stupidest false "data", comparing the EL / M-2084 and the "Pantsir" radar, although the data is everywhere. Nevertheless, you manage to declare that EL / M-2084 is "worse"! Just "like peas against the wall" ...

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider

- Certainly can. But you give the stupidest false "data", comparing the EL / M-2084 and the "Pantsir" radar, although the data is everywhere. Nevertheless, you manage to declare that EL / M-2084 is "worse"! Just "like peas against the wall" ...

Outsider. But you do not see that according to the data that I have cited, the Pantsir-C1 detection radar is much superior to the Israeli EL / M-2084 radar in detecting ultra-low-signature targets - UAVs and in terms of the size of the funnel of the radar antenna radiation pattern, which has " Pantsir-C1 "is much smaller ... although it is a bit incorrect to compare.

[outsider]

Radar detection "Pantsir-C1" is much superior to the Israeli radar EL / M-2084 in the detection of ultra-low-signature targets - UAV

https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-2084-mmr
Detection range of up to 256 NM for Air Surveillance purposes or up to 100 km for Weapon Location purposes
Detection range up to 256 nautical miles [474 km] for aerial surveillance purposes or before 100 km for the purpose of locating weapons.
......................
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C-%D0%A11
For targets with an effective scattering area of ​​2 m², the detection range is 32-36 km. Longest detection range 80 km.
==========
- How can you compare an ELEPHANT - with a Pug ?! This Israeli radar station sees an artillery shell TEN kilometers away! Which EPR from the front hemisphere - zero point, horseradish tenths!

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider

Detection range up to 256 nautical miles [474 km] for aerial surveillance purposes or up to 100 km for weapons location purposes.

Quote: Outsider

- How can you compare an ELEPHANT - with a Pug ?! This Israeli radar station sees an artillery shell TEN kilometers away! Which EPR from the front hemisphere - zero point, horseradish tenths!

Outsider (Michael). I assumed that you are a decent person and will not write nonsense from sites where semi-literate specialists write these nonsense ... carefully again:
1. Detection range for what image intensifier target is given for the EL / M-2084-mmr radar? ,
2. Radar EL / M-2084 for detecting ultra-low-signature targets - UAV, what is the minimum image intensifier of a UAV that can track and issue target designation for ultra-small targets with image intensifier tubes (about 0,01–0,02 m2 according to my data).
Outsider (Michael). "Pantsir-S1" detects targets and destroys them with an image intensifier = 0,0002 m2 or
2 cm2, which is less than the image intensifier tube of an artillery shell.
And do not write other bloopers without knowing the physical fundamentals of radar ... including about the pug! So far, that pug is a radar EL / M-2084-mmr

[Ali]

Sorry, there was a failure! The comment below is correct and complete.

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider

Detection range up to 256 nautical miles [474 km] for aerial surveillance purposes or up to 100 km for weapons location purposes.

Quote: Outsider

- How can you compare an ELEPHANT - with a Pug ?! This Israeli radar station sees an artillery shell TEN kilometers away! Which EPR from the front hemisphere - zero point, horseradish tenths!

Outsider (Michael). I assumed that you are a decent person and will not write nonsense from sites where semi-literate specialists write these nonsense ... carefully again:
1. Detection range for what image intensifier target is given (about radar EL / M-2084-mmr)? ,
2. Radar EL / M-2084 for detecting ultra-low-profile targets - UAV, what is the minimum image intensifier of a UAV that can track and issue target designation for ultra-small targets with image intensifier? (about 0,01-0,02 m2 according to my data).
Outsider (Michael). "Pantsir-C1" detects targets and destroys them with Image intensifier = 0,0002 m2 or 2 cm2, which is less than the image intensifier tube of an artillery shell.
And do not write other bloopers without knowing the physical fundamentals of radar ... including about the pug! So far, that pug is a radar EL / M-2084-mmr from your words. Do not try to count - you will not be able to, but give the parameter from your Israeli sites. Apparently you cannot, not in the open press. I gave you the parameters, but can you refute them with your sources? Otherwise, I am completely right about "Pantsir-C1".

[outsider]

"Pantsir-S1" detects targets and destroys them with an image intensifier = 0,0002 m2 or 2 cm2, which is less than an image intensifier tube of an artillery shell.

- This is the same as 2 m² from a distance of 36 km. The maximum range is 80 km.
EL / M-2084:
Detection range up to 256 nautical miles [474 km] for aerial surveillance purposes or before 100 km for the purpose of locating weapons.
........................
This means that from a distance of at least 50-60 km EL / M-2084 sees an artillery shell, its RCS ~ 0.001 mXNUMX
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%9B%D0%A1_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B1%D1%8B
artillery mine: 0,01 m²
cannon / howitzer artillery shell: 0,001 mXNUMX
light rocket (caliber 122 mm): 0,009 m²
heavy rocket (caliber 227 mm): 0,018 m²
..........................
Now we compare: EL / M-2084 - 50 km - 0.001 m², "Pantsir" - 36 km - 2 m². At a distance of 36 km, she will see a target with RCS = 0.001 / (50:36) ^ 4 = 0.000269 m². So how much better is the EL / M-2084 "Pantsir" radar ??

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider (Michael)

Quote: Ali

And do not write other bloopers without knowing the physical foundations of radar ... including about the pug! So far, that pug is a radar EL / M-2084-mmr from your words. Do not try to count - you will not be able to, but give the parameter from your Israeli sites.

Outsider (Michael)! I warned you, however, you showed your ignorance of radar ...
The basic equation of radar does not take into account the attenuation of electromagnetic waves in spaceand some features of the radarso you couldn't calculate correctly.
Dear, learn radar! You not only failed to calculate, but also made a gross mistake by not specifying the distribution conditions! To do this, I asked you to specify the parameter for detecting an ultra-low-signature target - UAV, namely its image intensifier.
Therefore, the EL / M-2084-mmr radar may not detect a UAV with an image intensifier tube = 0,0002 m2 or 2 cm2.

[outsider]

- I don’t know how else to answer you so that I don’t get banned ... Once again, slowly:
Radar number 1 detects at a distance 36 km target with EPR = 2 m² (Radar "Pantsir").
Radar number 2 detects at a distance 36 km target with EPR = 0.000269 m² (EL / M-2084).
Question: which one is better, more perfect, more powerful ?!

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael). You can't read Russian ?! I pointed out your shortcomings to you, and you continue to "write about Thomas when they write to you about Erema!"

Outsider (Michael)! I warned you, but you showed your ignorance of radar ...
The basic radar equation does not take into account the attenuation of electromagnetic waves in space, as well as some features of the radar, so you could not calculate correctly.
(You calculated incorrectly, you cannot count that way!, Not taking into account the attenuation of em waves in space)Dear, learn radar! Not only could you not calculate, but also made a gross mistake by not specifying the distribution conditions! To do this, I asked you to specify the parameter for detecting an ultra-low-signature target - UAV, namely its image intensifier.
Radar EL / M-2084 for detecting ultra-low-profile targets - UAV, what is the minimum image intensifier of a UAV that can track and issue target designation for ultra-small targets with image intensifier?(about 0,01-0,02 m2 according to my data).
Therefore, the EL / M-2084-mmr radar may not detect a UAV with an image intensifier tube = 0,0002 m2 or 2 cm2.

[outsider]

Radar number 1 detects at a distance 36 km target with EPR = 2 m² (Radar "Pantsir").
Radar number 2 detects at a distance 36 km target with EPR = 0.000269 m² (EL / M-2084).
Question: which one is better, more perfect, more powerful ?!

[Ali]

Outsider. Not tired of writing and dodging? You understand Russian well. Radar Tutorial to Help You! The Israeli EL / M-2084 is inferior to the Pantsir-C1 detection radar in detecting small targets, you could not provide any other data!

[outsider]

- You are an illiterate layman and an ignoramus. Wild ignoramus! Not understanding the most primitive elementary things. This is the best case. But perhaps you are just a fool. It happens. Otherwise, your misunderstanding is simply inexplicable.

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael) - are you about yourself, an illiterate, write. Learn Radar - 5 years ago I even forced you, Israelis on the VO website to learn to count a little, but many of you could not master radar ... Remember me at least. Your warrior remembers me well!

[outsider]

- Test # 1: Here is an American standard target with RCS = 1 m².
The APG-63 radar sees this target at a range of 96 km;
The APG-81 radar sees this target at a range of 160 km;
The APG-77 radar sees this target at a range of 225 km;
Which one is the best, which is the middle and which is the end?
=============
in case of successful completion
Test number 2:
Radar EL / M-2084 (LCD) sees a target with RCS = 1 m² at a distance 281 km;
Radar 1PC1-1E ("Armor") sees a target with RCS = 1 mXNUMX at a distance 30 km.
Which radar is the best?
Ali, answer simple questions, do not confuse the Caucasus ?!

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael) you didn't understand anything! Why have you put Israel to shame by your ignorance ?! Trying to calculate the maximum range equation which does not take into account the attenuation of electromagnetic waves and while trying to determine the minimum possible target - a UAV that can be detected by the radarwithout understanding the physical essence, namely, the signal-to-noise ratio when receiving reflected signals and the attenuation of these signals ... A tutorial on receiving devices will also help you!

[outsider]

- Eh, poor fellow! Tell a secret: How much did you buy a MAI diploma?

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael), I won't even ask you about it, you have no diploma and knowledge, including rams ... Learn Radar!

[outsider]

- I taught it for 7 years, in the Chelyabinsk VVAUSH, in the 4th year ... Department of Aviation Radioelectronic Means. But so that someone there does not understand things so simple - I don’t remember a single such cadet, the most stupid! ..

[outsider]

- Just imagine: two people are standing next to each other, the assistant takes an open book and in turn slowly increases the distance between each of them and the book. One person can read the text at a distance of 1 meter, then he cannot see the letters, the other reads the same text at a distance of 3 meters! Can't go on ...
Who has better eyes?

[Ali]

Your children's examples, also leave yourself! Your result is obvious - ignorance of radar, RPU (radio receivers). For example, the S-300 detection radar has D = 600 km for targets with an image intensifier = 4 m2, but can detect a TARGET with a minimum image intensifier = 0,02-0,04 m2 , and not infinitely small, as you tried to calculate - your stupidity is visible from afar:

S-300PM2 "Favorite" (air defense index - 35R6-2; NATO classification designation SA-20b Gargoyle) - export version of the S-300PMU2. It was introduced in 1997, in the same year it was put into service as an update for the S-300PM (S-300PMU1) with an increased range of up to 195 km. EPR minimum 0,02 mXNUMX[68]. A new rocket 48N6E2 was developed for it.
Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1-300

Outsider (Michael, you showed your complete illiteracy. Even, your beloved, Wikipedia speaks about this! You were asked to indicate a similar value for the Israeli EL / M-2084, from Israeli sites - you could not do it!

[outsider]

- I am deeply convinced that any of the flocks of sheep, for which you bought your MAI diploma, knows the basics of radar much better than you. You are not only an ignorant layman, you are also a malicious demagogue.

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael), I proved to you that you have no knowledge of radar, RPU. You don't know the basic basics. So leave your fairy tales to yourself!

[outsider]

- So who's eyes see better: who reads a book at a maximum distance of 1 meter, or who reads the same book from 3 meters away?

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider

- So who's eyes see better: who reads a book at a maximum distance of 1 meter, or who reads the same book from 3 meters away?

Outsider. Even here you write nonsense, not understanding the essence of radar ... Radiation and reception of radio signals, and confuse the root of the 4th power with the square root!

[outsider]

- Stop wagging, "proud Caucasian", have the courage to clearly and honestly answer simple, childish questions ?!
Here is the radar formula, if you never knew it, and even forgot it:

By the way: where is the coefficient of absorption of radio waves in the atmosphere that you tried to talk about in the formula ?! Is there an urgent need for it - first of all? Secondly: two, or three radars operating in completely identical conditions - naturally, the atmospheric conditions for them are identical.
So which radar is better:
US standard target with RCS = 1 m².
The APG-63 radar sees this target at a range of 96 km;
The APG-81 radar sees this target at a range of 160 km;
The APG-77 radar sees this target at a range of 225 km;
============
A simple question, answer, do not wag ?!

[Ali]

Quote: Outsider

By the way: where there in the formula the absorption coefficient of radio waves in the atmosphereabout which you tried to tryndet ?! Is there an urgent need for it - first of all? Secondly: two, or three radars operating in completely identical conditions - naturally, the atmospheric conditions for them are identical.

Outside, Again, write some nonsense? No need to pretend ... Where in your given formula, absorption coefficient? Trying to write lies again. I AM I do not see the absorption coefficient in the formula given by you.! One illiteracy! So they didn't understand anything!

...trying to make a calculation using the maximum range equation that does not take into account the attenuation of electromagnetic waves and trying to determine the minimum possible target - a UAV that the radar can detect, without understanding the physical essence, namely, the signal-to-noise ratio when receiving reflected signals and the attenuation of these signals ...

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael). Do not forget to calculate the maximum radar range using your own formula, taking into account the underlying surface! Weak? After all, according to your statements - the conditions are the same.
Outsider (Michael). Learn radar and do not tell lies! "The further into the forest, the more firewood!"

[outsider]

- What a "underlying surface" - two planes are flying at an altitude of 12 kilometers and are looking for each other through the radar! What is the "underlying surface", tundryuk ?!

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael). Don't you understand Russian?

Quote: Outsider

Where is the absorption coefficient in your given formula?

You cannot distinguish between refinements.

Quote: Outsider (Michael)

This is not MY formula! This is a STATE formula.

For the illiterate, there are no state formulas in nature ...

[outsider]

- You unfortunate shame! Ignorant and illiterate fool. You try all sorts of nonsense, you are not able to answer the simplest, most elementary questions, and when you are "pressed against the wall", you start to get out, "wag your ass" and carry stupid nonsense ...
Shame! It is good that your fellow tribesmen do not read this forum, otherwise they will come - they will blurt out! You have disgraced the Caucasus!

[Ali]

Outsider (Michael). For you and about you:

Whatever the child is amused with, as long as it does not cry ...

[Zaurbek]

Without the involvement of the MiG29 and Su24, it is unlikely that something will happen.

[Sahalinets]

At least give the Arabs no sense.

[Nikolaevich I]

SAM ,, Pantsir-C1 ,, - this is one thing! Whatever it was ("so and so" ... but it is currently necessary to improve it! As they say, "Pantsir-SM" is intended (for now! ...) exclusively for the Russian Armed Forces! But, intelligence reported exactly, that there is already a complex ,, Pantsir-S1M ,, with hypersonic zuras with a range of up to 30 km ... Most likely, it will go, first of all, for export ... Unfortunately, conclusions ,, on ,, Armor-S1M ,, to do ,, early ,, (!) ... information is not enough! Participating in disputes: ,, and which is better? ,, TOR ,, or ,, Armor ,,? ... sometimes you want exclaim ...: "Oh, well, everything is in byaku! Where did the Morphine go? I mean, Morpheus!" , the disadvantages inherent in both the TOP, and the Armor! And, leave, more, pluses!

[parusnik]

And who will be the operators? Li-Si-Qing, Ga-Li-Ina, etc., or someone else?

[Grazdanin]

No, of course, the same "Arabs" who liberated Palmyra and the floor of Syria.

[alone]

The Turks first raise a high-altitude BLPA, which suppresses the entire area of ​​the DB, and then TV2 and other drones begin a massive attack .. "Roy BLPA" .. In this situation, one air defense system cannot do anything .. it will knock down one or two .. and there are thirty of them in the sky ... In addition to TV 2, there is a massive use of kamikaze drones ... I'm not talking about ANKA-S yet

[Grazdanin]

Quote: lonely

raise high-altitude blpa

Yeah, which they do not have in service.

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

Yeah, which they do not have in service.

Who told you that? Israeli and American BLPAs were in service with the Turkish Armed Forces before they began to produce their own .. They are certainly not shock, but are carriers of EW containers .. So, learn the materiel

[Grazdanin]

High-altitude is above 10-12 km. Akinchi has not yet been adopted. The Turks so far have only medium-high UAVs

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

High-altitude is above 10-12 km. Akinchi has not yet been adopted. The Turks so far have only medium-high UAVs

The Turks are armed with at least 4-5 MQ-9Reaper, which have a practical ceiling of 13000 meters ..
So to say that they are not, is not worth it

[Grazdanin]

As far as I remember, Congress refused to supply this UAV. Proofs please.

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

As far as I remember, Congress refused to supply this UAV. Proofs please.

The first 4 BLPA non-strike version (designation Al-Tair) entered service 10 years ago .. Congress refused to sell the strike version .. All Turkish medium shock BLPA were developed on the basis of mq-9 and Israeli "Herons", which the Turks have 9 pcs (Also non-striking options) ..

[Grazdanin]

This is a Schrodinger UAV, whether it is or not. No mention of them over the past 5 years. Most likely they are already gone. That modern UAVs of Turkey are made on their basis, yes, but they are already moving away from them.
Turkey is not armed with high-altitude UAVs, even those that in theory can play no role.

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

Turkey is not armed with high-altitude UAVs, even those that in theory can play no role.

I see no reason to argue with you .. Therefore, you persistently continue to repeat the same thing .. But they have these BLPs and they took part in military exercises with one country bordering Russia, where it performed the functions of a high-altitude jammer.

[Grazdanin]

Proofs please. All your statements that about 10 years ago there were some deliveries. Well were, then what? Have they been put into service? Were they used in battle? No information. The probability that these UAVs did not reach the army is high. And the fact that they are no longer extremely high was delivered too long ago and there is no news at all about them in recent years.

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

Have they been put into service?

Armed

Quote: Grazdanin

Were they used in battle? No information.

There is a country where the Turks used them during exercises with the armed forces of this state. Used as jammers ... Then, when I was still serving ... on a contract .. 2-3 years ago

[Cyril G ...]

This could work a group of American special services or army men, squinting under the Turks. They fulfilled their task and evaporated. And the Turks do not have Ripers, I looked at a pair of Military Belans for several years. FIG.

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

It could work a group of American intelligence agencies or army men, mowing under the Turks

Do you seriously think that we cannot distinguish between Americans and Turks?

[Cyril G ...]

You are naive and do not understand how life works.

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

You are naive and do not understand how life works.

There are things that are impossible in life .. I personally will never be able to confuse a Turk with an American .. There are dozens of reasons not to confuse them .. You can get confused, but I don’t ..
You do not know the way of life of the Turks .. And I know how 5 of your fingers

[Grazdanin]

hangi ulkeden geliyorsun?

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

hangi ulkeden geliyorsun?

Azerbaijanbaycan..7 yıl Türkiyede yaşadım

[Grazdanin]

Anladim. So Turkey is doing better than I thought.

[alone]

Quote: Grazdanin

Anladim. So Turkey is doing better than I thought.

A lot of my friend .. I studied there for 7 years, went through an internship and saw a lot of things. Therefore, I affirm what I am saying. They work very seriously on the military-industrial complex, even too seriously

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: lonely

I personally will never be able to confuse a Turk with an American .. There are dozens of reasons not to confuse them .. You can get confused, but I don’t ..

I know a lot about what, you even have no idea. And just in case, remember there are specialists whom you naturally confuse, this time. Secondly, if we were talking about a special group, it could be legitimized in different ways. And the talk is quite likely about them, because there is no information about the purchases of the Ripers by the Turks, there is a much more interesting fact: 4 Ripers allegedly emerge from the Turks in 2012, a worthy source is Vicki. And then silence. They do not flicker anywhere else. In the directories they are not ...
There is a more mundane option, however - the Turks rented them. Do you remember?

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Remember?

Indicate what I do not fall within your competence. You are trying to prove to me what I saw in my country and in Turkey, where I studied and worked for 7 years, where I did an internship several times .. Provide evidence that this is nothing in the Military Balance .. Do all purchases and sales of military equipment fall into this report? If you think so, then everything is already clear ..

Quote: Cyril G ...

I know a lot about what, you even have no idea. And just in case, remember there are specialists whom you naturally confuse, this time.

I repeat that I don’t ever confuse a Turk and an American .. These BLPAs are part of the Turkish Armed Forces ..

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: lonely

I repeat that I will never confuse a Turk and an American ..

Do not understand what it is about? It happens.

Quote: lonely

These BLPAs are part of the Turkish Armed Forces ..

They are, but no one has seen them for 8 years. But you believe that they are. What a funny you are.

Give evidence that there is nothing about this in the Military Balance .. Do all purchases and sales of military equipment fall into this report?

Everything that is larger than a Kalashnikov assault rifle was officially sold. This is much more serious evidence than your blah blah blah ...

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Do not understand what it is about? It happens.

Can you confuse a Russian with an American?

[Cyril G ...]

Sure. And experience is such in practice. If an American is adequately prepared and knows the language and nuances of behavior ... Horseradish is excellent. In five minutes, such personnel cannot be prepared naturally. + Do not forget the American army is now that hodgepodge.

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Sure. And experience is such in practice. E

Willingly I believe .. But the Turks and we are almost one nation .. There are things that no one will ever do except a Turk .. there are small nuances that a person betrays

Quote: Cyril G ...

If an American is adequately prepared and knows the language and nuances of behavior

And you would sit with him ... Would drink and have a bite ... At once you would understand that he is not yours ...

[Cyril G ...]

I see no reason to argue with you .. Therefore, you persistently continue to repeat the same thing .. But they have these BLPs and they took part in military exercises with one country bordering Russia, where it performed the functions of a high-altitude jammer.

With you too, you don’t own the question, and you don’t want to.

[Demagogue]

Quote: Grazdanin

High-altitude is above 10-12 km. Akinchi has not yet been adopted. The Turks so far have only medium-high UAVs

High-altitude ceiling is at least 16 m, and better 000 m. Akinchi is "almost high-altitude".

[Ali]

Quote: Demagogue

Quote: Grazdanin
High-altitude is above 10-12 km. Akinchi has not yet been adopted. The Turks so far have only medium-high UAVs

High-rise is a ceiling of at least 16 m, and better 000 m. Akinchi is "almost high-rise".

Quote: Demagogue

And what has the squirrel or arrow? When there will be serial aircraft with this product and will give its real parameters on the air, or rather, close to real ones, then we will evaluate. Their
by asking questions, you show a lack of knowledge.

Demagogueѣ. You contradict yourself. Akinci is currently not in service in Turkey, and you sing praises, and at the same time write a lie.

Akinchi. Practical ceiling: 12 192 m.
Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayraktar_Ak%C4%B1nc%C4%B1

[Oquzyurd]

6-10 units of high UAV scouts from the Turks.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Grazdanin

raise high-altitude blpa

The nuclear reactor in the diagram is not conventionally shown. C.

[meandr51]

Moreover, this one SAM will be a little inflatable. And then the real ones come out ...

[WOLF330]

Turkey’s Defense Ministry today officially announced 23 destroyed Shells (Syria + Libya).

[Sanichsan]

Quote: KURT330

Turkey’s Defense Ministry today officially announced 23 destroyed Shells (Syria + Libya).

Ukrainians bit them?

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: lonely

high-altitude BLPA, which suppresses the entire entire database area,

Power UAVs will not allow corny. EW is not a child prodigy, it is a way to somewhat reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s RES. And very lucky if a quarter.

[Grazdanin]

It is not necessary to destroy the magic of “EW”, or else remember that there are laws of propagation of electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere, common sense, technical limitations. Why is this? I turned on the button and within a radius of 100 km the radars do not work and the UAVs do not fly, that’s cool!

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Power UAVs will not allow corny. EW is not a child prodigy, it is a way to somewhat reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s RES. And very lucky if a quarter.

For your information, there is even a BLPA DRLO .. And a BLPA EW is even in our country’s armament .. extremely effective .. If Russia does not have it, this does not mean that it is not and this is impossible

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: lonely

And BLP EW is even in our country’s arsenal .. very effective ..

Fairy tales are good. Tales raise morale. I know what you mean by the way. Only physics can not be fooled. Smoke the radar equation.

[alone]

Quote: Cyril G ...

Fairy tales are good. Tales raise morale.

Well, I don’t know who they are raising ... In my country are armed ... I saw them during the exercises ... When I served under the contract

[Flurry]

EW works, and it's not a fairy tale. RL guidance disrupts, blocks the operation of the GSN KR, presses communication channels. Naturally, electronic warfare is not a panacea, in combination with other means. The minimum stable configuration is + Buki and + at least the minimum fighter cover. In all other cases, even super operators will not save.

[agond]

The rocket-cannon complex Shell should be divided into two cars, one with missiles and the second with guns, then the dimensions will be sharply reduced and the machine can be effectively masked

[Cyril G ...]

Good idea.