Military Review

Soviet aviation in the era of the digital revolution: rise and fall

244

Recently, there has been an opinion in our country that a fighter built on the basis of old mastered technologies will have a good chance in the fight against the enemy's high-tech equipment. It is argued that the technological gap between the 4th generation aircraft in our service and the 5th generation foreign fighters is insignificant and unprincipled. Much attention is paid to ground-based air defense systems, and Russian air defense systems are presented as an insurmountable barrier for the most modern aviation... The doctrine of the combined use of fighter aircraft and air defense systems, which appeared in the 1960s in the USSR, has been adopted. This doctrine was applied in the confrontation with the United States, where, on the contrary, aviation was viewed as an independent force for gaining air supremacy, and little attention was paid to ground air defense systems.


In our opinion, the Soviet theory, although it was relevant for some time, is outdated today. With the development of digital technologies that increased the capabilities of offensive weapons, the role of ground-based air defense has significantly decreased, while the importance of aviation, on the contrary, has increased. Aviation has become the primary means of warfare: technical superiority in this area provides a country with a critical advantage. If in WWII the outcome of battles was decided tank "Wedges", today the function of a "battering ram" in the advanced armies is performed by aviation, and the ground forces, including air defense, play a secondary role. The lag of aviation technology by one generation is now unacceptable and is tantamount to defeat in a conflict with a technologically superior enemy.

We will try to argue our position on the example of the confrontation between the fighters of the USSR and the USA. The time period will be considered from the beginning of the digital revolution in the 1960s, when the explosive growth of military aviation began thanks to the introduction of modern electronics and other advanced technologies, and until the early 1980s, when it became a decisive factor on the battlefield with the introduction of digital processors.

Airborne radar and air-to-air missiles in the 1960s


The combat capabilities of fighters are largely influenced by the capabilities of the radar and weapon systems. The first generation fighters used pulsed radar. Their design can be very simplified as an antenna to which a transmitter and a receiver are connected via a switch. The radar, when scanning space, sends a pulse, and then turns off the transmitter and turns on the receiver to receive the returned signal. This process is repeated cyclically. The main problem with early pulsed radars was ground noise, which prevented them from "seeing" objects at low altitudes or between the radar and the earth's surface. The screen displayed only a "sea of ​​noise". The solution was pulse-Doppler pulse synchronization, which filters the earth's surface from objects in the air and on the ground. This is how the pulse-Doppler radar station appeared, operating on the principle of the Doppler effect.

One of the first "Doppler" radars was the American APG-59. It was a station of a modern type with a mechanical rotation of the antenna to increase the scanned sector. Its fundamental difference from modern airborne radars was primitive computers. In an airborne radar, computers perform many important functions. The main ones are: noise filtering, electronic beam control, as well as process automation (automatic target acquisition, etc.).

Post-war radar initially had light bulbs as an element base. Their computers were also analog and "tube" computers. With the development of electronics, unreliable lamps were gradually replaced by transistors, and in the late 70s, full-fledged processors with digital signal processing would appear. Radars will become programmable with software. All of the above fully applied to missiles with seeker, which had the same evolution to solid-state electronics, and then to digital processors. The first missiles with a seeker (IR and RLGSN) were still "stupid" and unreliable.

Part 1. “Phantoms and MiGs in Vietnam in 1966-73. The golden age of Soviet aviation


The Vietnam War was a great success for Soviet fighters. Simple fighters with primitive electronics were able to withstand expensive and technically complex American aircraft. The main antagonists in the air war were the F-4 Phantom II and MiG-21 fighters, and we will try to find the reason for the success of Soviet technology by comparing these two aircraft and analyzing the practice of their use.

The MiG-21 was a light fighter with an extremely simple and utilitarian design. In contrast, the F-4 was twice as heavy and much more technologically advanced (30 electrical parts and more than 000 km of electrical wiring). The F-20 was a 4rd generation fighter. could use weapons outside visual contact (Beyond visual range, hereinafter BVR). The MiG-3 did not have such an opportunity during the Vietnam War and should formally belong to the 21nd generation, but these nuances are insignificant for the reasons that we will outline below. It is generally accepted to attribute the MiG-2 to the 21rd generation.

We will not go into the numbers of fighters shot down from both sides, because this is not the purpose of this article. It is very difficult to isolate the number of F-4s shot down in aerial battles, and not ground air defense. You can accept the statistics of the US Air Force, according to which for 2 MiGs shot down in air battles they paid with one American fighter, or Vietnamese with about the same ratio of victories, only in their favor. Given the technological gap between the equipment of the parties and the numerical superiority of the Americans, any of these options is unacceptable to them. The modern equivalent of the defeat of American aircraft in Vietnam would be Iraq's repulse of a coalition air offensive during Desert Storm in 1991. To understand how this result became possible, let's compare the capabilities of these fighters.

Comparison of radar


It is always difficult to compare the capabilities of fighter airborne radars. For example, performance characteristics in terms of detection range can be relied on very conditionally. For many radars, the data is classified or made publicly available incorrectly for a low probability of detection (for example, 50 instead of 80+ percent) and when scanning only in a narrow sector. The parameters of the detection range of fighter airborne radars are published only for the "look up" mode (scanning mode of the upper hemisphere), since the range in the "look down" mode (scanning the lower hemisphere) is always shorter due to interference. As a rule, this information is not advertised for on-board radars, since it is this parameter that plays an important role in air combat. If in Vietnam MiGs could attack American aircraft from the bottom up, hiding behind interference from the ground, then with the advent of advanced radar systems capable of "looking down", this became impossible. During Desert Storm, a large number of Iraqi aircraft were shot down on takeoff: the advantage was lost. In this respect, the Vietnam War is rather an exception, since a large amount of materials have been declassified on it and the situation is quite transparent for both Soviet and American technology.

F-4 and MiG-21 entered service almost simultaneously (1959-1960) and both were equipped with the latest radar for their countries. The MiG-21 was initially delivered to Vietnam in two modifications: F-13 and PF. On the F-13 there was no radar, but there was only a semi-active radio rangefinder "Quant", coupled with an optical sight. On the PF was the first Soviet impulse radar "Sapphire-21", which made it possible to detect a fighter-type target at a distance of 13 km and "capture" it at a distance of 7 km. Naturally, we give these parameters for the “look up” mode, because this radar did not have the opportunity to “look down”. Let's make a reservation right away that here are real, and not passport data on the range, according to the application in Vietnam. Performance characteristics in terms of maximum detection ranges for fighter radars do not mean at all that in a combat situation at such a distance a target can be detected. According to the passport, the "Sapphire-21" had a detection range of 20 km.

The F-4 was equipped with a much more advanced, almost entirely solid-state electronics, APG-59 radar, which we already mentioned above. She, in addition to the usual pulse, had a pulse-Doppler mode with the ability to detect low-altitude targets. In the "look up" mode, she could detect the "fighter" at a distance of 26 km. This is a light fighter similar to the MiG-21. According to the passport, the F-4 could detect the MiG-25 heavy fighter at high altitude from a distance of almost 90 km with an 85 percent probability.

Obviously, the parameters of the radar of both fighters are not impressive, and they needed to be aimed at the target using ground-based radars. Having received information from them about the distance to the target and the height, the F-4 could detect it in a combat situation no longer 26, but 46 km away. The radar scanning sector is limited and the possibility of detection at long distances appears only if the ground radar or the AWACS aircraft indicate the correct vector for scanning. In fact, Vietnamese fighters were detected by the Americans mainly from ground-based radars or pilots visually (only 97% of cases). Vietnamese fighters, taking into account the capabilities of their radar, could not be used successfully without information from ground stations.

The American radar was significantly superior to the Soviet one in detection range, including against the background of the earth, although the APG-59 was not without flaws: computers ("filters") of the 50s did not allow filtering out noise and fully working on targets at altitudes below 1300 m , and at an altitude of 300 m APG-59 was "blind". A full-fledged opportunity to "look down" was not realized on it. The MiG-21 radar was already useless below 1 m. When flying at low altitudes, the pilot pressed the "Protect R-300L from the ground" button and the radar switched to the scanning mode of only the upper hemisphere or "looked up". The F-2 engines were smoking heavily (this drawback was eliminated belatedly) and this compensated for the weakness of the MiG's onboard equipment, making it easy to find the enemy.

Comparison of air-to-air missiles


Armament is also superior to the F-4. For close combat, both aircraft were equipped with a Sidewinder missile (in the Soviet version, the P-3C based on AIM-9B, and the Americans have AIM-9D) with IKGSN. The maximum launch range was small, for Soviet missiles in practice it was up to 2.5 km, for American missiles up to 5. The advantage of the AIM-9D was the cooling of the seeker, and, accordingly, the better sensitivity and launch range. The weakness of the Soviet missile was the target acquisition time - infinite 22 seconds, twice as long as even the original AIM-9B. The Soviet rocket had a number of limitations: on launch at overloads above 2g and launches at low altitudes due to interference with the IR seeker from the earth's surface (this drawback was common with the AIM-9D). Both missiles could only be launched from the ZPS (rear hemisphere of the target) so that they could "catch" on the jet exhaust. The overload of the intercepted target from the Soviet missile, unlike the American one, was limited, it was not suitable for firing at maneuvering aircraft. Both missiles were "warm tube" and unreliable. Under certain types of overloads, the lamps tended to fail. As a result, the efficiency of the AIM-9D in Vietnam was 0.18, while that of the P-3C was 0.12.

As you can see, the American Sidewinder had a number of limitations, and the US Air Force pilots in close combat often (40 percent of the time) used their "long arm": the Sparrow AIM-7C radar-equipped missile. The range of this missile exceeded 36 km, that is, it could theoretically hit BVR targets. The rocket had a semi-active seeker. The plane that launched the rocket was then supposed to illuminate the attacked target with its radar, and the rocket was guided along the rays reflected from the target. This was done to save money: without a heavy active seeker, the rocket was cheaper and lighter.

In practice, it turned out to be extremely difficult to use. weapon: It was difficult to highlight the nimble MiGs. In order for the missile to capture the target, it took 5 seconds + 10-20 seconds for the missile to reach the enemy aircraft when launched in close combat (up to 36 km). In total, at least 15-25 seconds of illumination is required, despite the fact that as a result of the experience gained, the US Air Force introduced the "9 second rule", longer than which the aircraft should not fly in one direction in battle, without risking being shot down. IKGSN AIM-9D also needed 5 seconds to lock the target, but it was a fire-and-forget weapon and did not require further guidance.

American pilots used Sparrow "not for a good life." It weighed 250 kg (versus 80 kg Sidewinder) and had a length of 3,6 m, which reduced the maneuverability of the aircraft that carried such missiles. But the Americans still shot them, because Sparrow allowed to fire on a collision course. The F-4 pilots fired a salvo of two missiles at the approaching MiGs in the hope of an easy victory, but the probability of hitting was only 0.08-0.10. Premature detonation of warheads and other problems constantly occurred. The pilots were advised to launch them in pairs (with the Sidewinder this was not possible: the second missile could "capture" the first). But Sparrow still benefits the Americans, because the MiGs did not have missiles to launch from the PPS (front hemisphere), except for the R-21US missiles delivered to Vietnam at the end of the war with the MiG-2PFM with a semi-active (with all the consequences) seeker ( option P-3C). R-2US had a launch range of up to 3,5 km and low efficiency: the MiG-21 radar, due to its placement in the air intake, had a narrow scanning sector, 60x40 degrees, and the capture of a maneuvering target was a problem. The P-2US, like the P-3C, unlike the Sparrow, could not be launched on a steep bend.

Aircraft performance


The key indicators that affect the capabilities of a fighter in maneuverable combat are thrust-to-weight ratio (the ratio of thrust to weight) and wing loading (the ratio of the fighter's mass to the area of ​​the bearing surface). The higher the thrust-to-weight ratio and the lower the wing loading, the higher the maneuverability. In combat with early modifications, the MiG-21 F-4 was more maneuverable: it had a better thrust-to-weight ratio (0.86 versus 0.71) with an identical wing load. The appearance at the end of the war of the MiG-21MF modification with the new R-13 engine improved the situation. Formally, its thrust-to-weight ratio increased only to 0.73, but when the "emergency engine mode" was turned on, it became possible to maneuver the F-4.

The Vietnamese rarely engaged in protracted air battles and tried to inflict losses on the Americans from one approach, and then immediately left (the MiG gun had a small ammo, which allowed no more than 4,2 seconds of continuous fire). They often attacked F-4s with a bomb load or without fuel for air combat. MiGs took off with a small supply of fuel and with outboard tanks, which were dropped before the battle: this made it possible to partially neutralize the difference in thrust-to-weight ratio.

Application tactics


Despite a number of shortcomings, the MiG-21 in Vietnam had the ability to impose close combat on the F-4 and neutralize the enemy's technical superiority. This happened due to the fact that the American pilots had to visually identify the target as an "alien" before the attack, which reduced the combat distance to several kilometers. This trend will continue for a long time, and will continue everywhere: the pilots were afraid to shoot down their planes and did not rely on the "friend or foe" identification system, which had low reliability, as well as a short range. The radars were also not yet perfect enough to detect the enemy in advance and fight outside of visual contact (during the entire war, 2 aircraft were shot down in this way). They, in fact, were needed only to determine the distance to the target and missile guidance. Therefore, the superiority of the American airborne radar gave a minimal advantage in battle. Considering the close detection distances when approaching the MiG-21 on a collision course, there were not many chances to have time to launch the Sparrow. The effectiveness of these missiles was low, and almost nonexistent at low altitudes. Interference from the earth's surface blinded the radar: it was not possible to "shoot down" (launch missiles at targets against the background of the earth).

As a result, in the inevitable close combat, the Americans did not have effective weapons to fight MiGs. The designers of the F-4, who believed in the Sparrow miracle weapon (which showed an efficiency of up to 0.6 on tests), did not equip it with a cannon (it will appear on later modifications). This caused numerous losses due to the fact that the accuracy of firing from a cannon in a hanging container left much to be desired (efficiency 0.26). The F-4 was generally designed to intercept non-maneuvering targets (bombers) with missiles, and the events in Vietnam were a revelation for its creators. The subsonic cannon fights practiced there were considered a thing of the past an anachronism, but in parallel with the Vietnam War, in the Six Day War (1967), the Israelis shot down 80% of Arab aircraft with cannons, confirming the trend. Israeli pilots refused to put Sparrow missiles on aircraft, relying on cannons. The Americans, on the other hand, did not want to tempt fate with suspended containers, and only 15% of Vietnamese aircraft were shot down from cannons, and the rest were half-and-half missiles with IR and RLGSN.

The MiG-21 had a much shorter range than the F-4, and it was used only as an air defense fighter (and in conjunction with ground air defense, which was the main means of fighting enemy aircraft), and the F-4 was very often used for inflicting bomb strikes, for which in the 1960s aircraft were forced to approach ground targets. This made them vulnerable to ground-based air defense. The use of conventional "inaccurate" bombs forced, as in WWII, to carry out a huge number of sorties to destroy targets. A good example of this is the famous Dragon's Mouth Bridge, which the Americans were unable to destroy with conventional bombs after nearly 900 sorties and the loss of 11 aircraft. As a result, it was destroyed by the KAB in one raid of 14 aircraft (then it was restored and finally finished off by two more raids), but it was 1972 and the war was already lost. This operation was the first "bell" for the air defense system, questioning their effectiveness in the context of the use of precision weapons. Now attack aircraft could, without approaching a ground target, attack it from a distance. In this situation, the air defense systems found themselves in the position of extras with the advent of new tactics, when the "strikers", hiding behind the radio horizon, fly up unnoticed at a low altitude at a distance of launching corrected bombs. Then they gain altitude for a short period of time, drop bombs and again go beyond the radio horizon, where, against the background of the ground, the seeker of ground-based air defense missiles has no chance of detecting them.

Ground-based radars are beginning to give way to AWACS aircraft, which in the digital era have become an obligatory attribute of war and gravediggers of Soviet tactics, since in terms of their maximum possible detection range they are twice as high as ground-based radars (due to the curvature of the earth's surface) and, unlike them, can " look "beyond the radio horizon.

Conclusions on the Vietnam War


As a result, the superiority of the American airborne radar was insufficient to give the F-4 an overwhelming advantage in battle, and the unreliable missile weapons let down even more. The first round of confrontation remained with the Soviet fighter, and the Americans failed to realize the numerical superiority in technology. The full implementation and testing by the Americans of the use of modern aircraft weapons in Vietnam were late. The reliable, all-solid-state AIM-9H rocket appeared years earlier, and things could have gone differently in the air. The same can be said about the AIM-7F and a number of other systems.

The F-4 was an excellent all-round tool, fighter-bomber, and the MiG-21 was also successful, but only a highly specialized fighter-interceptor. Unsuitable for air supremacy. In the USSR, they understood the shortcomings of this machine and, even during the Vietnam War, adopted their own "phantom" MiG-23. The Americans drew their conclusions from the battles in Vietnam and created the F-15 and F-16 designed for maneuverable air combat. These aircraft will be the main participants in the largest battle in stories jet aircraft, which we will talk about next.

Part 2. Air battle in Lebanon in 1982


The Lebanese War (it would be more correct to call it the First Lebanese War, but for brevity we will abbreviate the name) is extremely interesting from the point of view of assessing the evolution of aviation technology. Eight years after the Vietnam War, American and Soviet aircraft again converged in the air in a large-scale battle involving hundreds of aircraft (up to 8-150 aircraft simultaneously). We will consider the use of aviation in this conflict, and also supplement for clarity with examples from the parallel Iran-Iraq war.

The Israeli Air Force was equipped with the new American F-15A / B and F-16A / B fighters, which played a key role in this conflict. The Syrian Air Force was represented by both the MiG-21, already well-known in Vietnam, and the MiG-23 and MiG-25. The USSR took an unprecedented step and for the first time supplied its most modern weapons to a third world country.

The situation for Soviet technology worsened by 1982. In Vietnam, the third generation MiG-3 fighter was opposed to the F-21 fighter of the same generation, while in Lebanon the gap widened. Soviet cars of the 4rd generation met with the 3th generation of Americans. The downside of the new technology was the high price. The F-4A cost 15 times more than the F-4E, and many doubted whether it was so much superior to the previous generation to justify such a high price. It was reminiscent of the debate over the cost of 4th generation fighters in modern times. But, as we will see later, the cost was quite reasonable.

Aircraft performance


The F-15A / V and F-16A / B were created specifically for mobile combat. In terms of thrust-to-weight ratio and wing load, they were superior to the Soviet MiG-21 and MiG-23 in service in Syria, possessing a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.19 and 1.02 versus 0.73-0.79 (for different modifications) and 0.87, respectively, with a slightly lower wing load for American fighters. This gave significant superiority in maneuvering combat.

Due to the excessive load on the wing, the MiG-25 was unsuitable for maneuverable air combat and could only be used as a reconnaissance aircraft or air defense interceptor fighter. The famous video with the fall of the downed MiG-25 in Lebanon, which flew around the world in 1982, caused great damage to the reputation of Soviet military equipment, and there was almost no benefit from the use of this "hyped" machine. The MiG-23 and MiG-25 were created to intercept bombers from carriers of nuclear weapons and were not suitable for other purposes. Bombers with nuclear weapons did not arrive, and these vehicles predictably failed in local conflicts. The same can be said about the F-4, but it was saved by its great adaptability. Bombers, vulnerable to air defense, with the advent of precision weapons that could be used by fighters, became an endangered species.

The main participants in the air battle in Lebanon were the MiG-21, which was believed to be outdated, and the MiG-23, on which the main stake was made. At the same time, the Syrian pilots did not like the MiG-23 and believed that it was inferior to the MiG-21. In relation to the MiG-21bis supplied to Syria with a new engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.11 “extraordinary afterburner”, this was certainly true. Moreover, taking into account the greater load on the wing of the MiG-23 (by 40 kg per sq. M).

Comparison of radar and airborne equipment


The main force in the air battles in Israel was supposed to be the F-1976A / B air superiority fighter with the APG-15 pulse-Doppler radar, which was put into service in the United States in 63, with the ability to detect a "fighter" -type target at a distance of more than 90 km (the data is still classified - we give the value by analogy with the French radar of the same generation RDM). The detection range capabilities have been increased through the use of new computers. It was not yet a digital radar, but a kind of transitional type from analog to digital. Its next version (on the F-15S, 1979) will be completely digital, with a PSP (Programmable signal processor or programmable signal processor), and from it the modern period of development of an on-board radar with digital processors and software will begin. For some reason, in our country PSP has been called "open architecture", although besides the possibility of introducing new types of weapons through software updates, PSPs have many other advantages. The main problem of analogue radars was the insufficient detection range in the “look down” mode, including in the synthetic aperture mode (obtaining a radar image of the earth's surface, hereinafter SAR), but this is only the tip of the iceberg. A digital computer can process much more information and perform more operations: track and fire more targets at the same time, correct the trajectory of more missiles, and much more. For example, predict the trajectory of a maneuvering target and tell the pilot where it will be in the future. Analog technology is not capable of such a number of operations. The best American analogue radar AWG-9 had a power twice as much as the APG-63 of the 1976 model and could detect targets much further in the "look up" mode, but in the "look down" mode it lost (while weighing 2,5 , 63 times more). And with each new and "more digital" version of the APG-XNUMX, the gap widened, the digital radar was overgrown with new capabilities. Software and high-speed processors made it possible to obtain SAR images with a much higher resolution: fighters became full-fledged strike aircraft.

The APG-63 was one of the first radar stations with a full look-down capability. To the extent that she could hijack and drive cars on the highway. There is no reliable information on its capabilities (the moment of declassification has not yet come), but by analogy with the French RDM, it can be argued that the detection range in the "look down" mode of the 1976 modification was at least 40 km. For its time, it was a technological breakthrough. Also, the F-15A / V was equipped with a head-up display on the headlight (HUD) and HOTAS buttons on the RUS and throttle controls, which allowed the pilot to control the aircraft without being distracted by the instrument panel and without removing his hands from the grips. On the F-15A, an electronic warfare system integrated into an airborne radar and an electronic warfare countermeasure system were implemented.

On the eve of the Lebanese war, Syria had the MiG-23 in several modifications, the most perfect of which was the MF (on the network you can find "hunting stories" about the participation of the MiG-23ML in this battle, but in reality these machines were delivered to Syria later, as and F-15S Israel), equipped with a pulse-Doppler analog radar "Sapphire-23D-III", which, thanks to 40 analog filters, could track targets against the background of the earth, but transmitted information to the ASP-23D sight only in the form of echo signals ("there is something then it flies "). The target detection distance against the background of the earth did not exceed 10 km. This radar had a limited ability to "look down" without the ability to "shoot down". A target of the "fighter" type in the "look up" mode according to the passport could be detected at a distance of up to 45 km, and with such characteristics the MiG-23 was completely dependent on the support of ground-based radars. "Sapphire-23D-III" had large dimensions and weighed 650 kg. This is 400 kg heavier than the APG-63 F-15A. Due to the lag in technology, the aircraft received an additional load on the wing of 800 kg (the additional mass of the radar had to be balanced with the fuel tank). At the same time, the "Sapphire-23D-III" could accompany one target against eight at the APG-63: the F-15A / V pilot could "save" up to 7 targets displayed on the HUD while the radar continued scanning. The principle of tracking targets during the survey (TWS or Track while scanning) was implemented.

Comparison of explosive missiles


As we have seen earlier, the capabilities of the radar do not matter if there are no good missiles, and the Israelis have them: a new version of the Sparrow AIM-7F (with a range of up to 70 km, better reliability and a limited ability to "shoot down") and , most importantly, new missiles with IKGSN Sidewinder 9L and Python 3.

The entire guidance system of the AIM-9L worked on semiconductors. The sensitivity of the seeker has significantly increased compared to the AIM-9D used in Vietnam. The rocket was equipped with a laser fuse (the rocket was all-aspect, with the possibility of launching at a target from any angle), which was much more effective than passive IR fuses (they could only be triggered when in contact with the jet from the engine). The AIM-9L had a practical launch range of 3-6 km (target acquisition range of the seeker), depending on the launch angle (from the ZPS further) and could fly in a straight line up to 18 km (there was a good margin for pursuing a target). In 1982, the Israelis achieved an efficiency of 0.8 from these missiles (this figure was confirmed by the British in the Falklands War). An important advantage of the American fighters was that the AIM-9L could be launched without aligning the target with the sight (in the "Sight" mode), with a deviation of up to 50 degrees. It was a kind of analogue of a helmet-mounted sight.

After Vietnam, the MiGs received a new rocket with the IKGSN R-60. The missile had a high starting overload and, unlike the R-3S, could be used in maneuverable combat, but a completely insufficient warhead weighing 3 kg, with the possibility of hitting a target only with a direct hit. The practical range of application was up to 2 km (there was no reserve for pursuing a target). The GOS did not allow launching a missile on a collision course, unlike the AIM-9L and Python 3, which also had a much larger warhead. The IKGOS had no cooling, which indicates low sensitivity, but at a distance of 2 km this was not critical.

The MiG-23 could also use a heavy VV R-23 missile with an IR or RLGSN with a passport range of 25 and 35 km, respectively. Reviews about this rocket were bad: the main disadvantage was low maneuverability and easy target loss. This is a recall of the Iranians who bought this missile: according to their statements, it was significantly inferior to the AIM-7E that was in service with them (the Sparrow version improved following the results of Vietnam). The Iranians quickly removed the P-24 (an improved version of the P-23) from service (within a year). There, the P-24 was rated as the equivalent of the early Sparrow, which they also had. Not a single source mentions the R-23 missiles when describing the battles; only the R-60 appears in the stories. Apparently, the Syrians avoided using them, as the Israelis did before the early ineffective Sparrow.

Tactic


In Lebanon, the Syrians (with the participation of advisers from the USSR), according to Vietnam's recipes, prepared a ground air defense position area, which was supposed to interact with fighters. The tactics were tested and honed: they worked in Vietnam and in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, where the Soviet air defense system created huge problems for Israel's aviation. After this war, voices began to be heard in the world that Western fighter aircraft could not achieve air supremacy in the context of the use of layered air defense.

Despite this, Israel in 1982 acted offensively and sought to seize the initiative with the help of new fighters, drones and AWACS aircraft. The Israelis immediately broke all the plans of the Arabs, starting with the defeat of the ground air defense. This became possible due to seemingly insignificant innovations: the emergence of AWACS aircraft with radar with SAR mode, which made it possible to obtain radar images of the earth's surface, and UAVs. Israeli AWACS aircraft continuously monitored the deployment of the Syrian air defense in Lebanon, and based on the images they received from the Mastiff and Scout UAVs, they carried out scanning using OLS and additional reconnaissance of targets, respectively. The Israelis had complete information about both stationary and mobile air defense systems. The Syrians could do nothing with this: AWACS aircraft flew over the sea beyond the missile launch capability, and UAVs made of composites were a difficult target for air defense systems of that time (as they are today), although some of them, of course, were shot down by the Syrians. It was the new level of detection and communication means that ensured Israel's victory. Yes, the new AGM-78D anti-radar missiles (anti-radar missiles), unlike the "tube" AGM-45, which failed in 1973, "remembered" the position of the radar and were able to overcome the protection mode of the Soviet air defense systems (radar on / off), and also appeared improved KAB, but accurate information about the enemy was the key factor. The Israelis chose how and when they would destroy the Syrian air defense: some of the targets were simply shot by artillery.

The Syrian air defense was first suppressed by the PRLR (including ground launch), and then the KAB, UR (UAVs illuminated targets) and conventional bombs from aircraft that broke through at low altitudes were struck, and Israeli aircraft approached the ground targets of the Syrian air defense infrastructure, hiding behind the radio horizon, using the terrain. You can find information that the IDF Air Force used KAB and SD from distances up to 60-80 km, but this is not true. The technology of that time did not have such capabilities: the carriers had to approach the targets by about 10-20 km. This was quite enough to evade the fire of the Shilka ZSU air defense systems covering the air defense system, which proved to be so successful in 1973.

As a result, long-range Soviet air defense systems turned out to be useless, and there were no effective means of engaging low-altitude targets. Even if the Syrians had AWACS aircraft capable of "looking down" and directing fighters to low-flying Israeli aircraft, then there were no fighters with the ability to "look and shoot down". Knowing this, the Israelis did not even cover their "shock workers". Iraq will have the same problem of low-altitude penetrations of Iranian F-4s, which will not be solved until the end of the war. MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery became the only antidotes of any kind, the number of units of which during the war was increased from 1200 to 4000. Note that the Iranians also did not cope well with Iraqi raids at low altitudes. During the "Desert Storm" at least 45% of the losses of American aircraft fell on MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery. For the rest of the losses, there is simply no accurate information, often a surface-to-air missile is simply indicated as a means of destruction, but these could also be MANPADS. Hundreds of anti-aircraft missile systems in Iraq did not show themselves in any way.

If in Vietnam air defense systems were the main trump card against American aviation, then by the early 1980s they ceased to exist not only as a decisive, but as a significant factor. NATO analysts regarded as a threat to their aviation only short-range air defense systems, which could fight low-flying targets. In the USSR, this problem was completely unaware of and one of the conclusions after the 1982 war was made for themselves the need to create even more long-range air defense systems to destroy AWACS aircraft. The conclusion, to put it mildly, is not obvious in the presence of the experience of unsuccessful attacks on the E-2S, when the radar of aircraft much more powerful than the radar of missiles were jammed. Subsequently, the S-200 air defense system will be transferred to Syria, and then the S-300, but the IDF air force will still operate unhindered on Lebanese territory and strike at Syrian territory, and the Syrian air force and air defense will not be able to get there since 1982. Long-range air defense systems make sense only if there are AWACS aircraft capable of directing their missiles beyond the radio horizon (similar to modern E-2D).

After the destruction of the ground air defense, the Syrian aviation had to fight one-on-one with the IDF air force. The result of such a battle was the complete defeat of the Arabs (the Syrians were also helped by the Jordanians and Iraqis) after trying to give a decisive battle. The Arabs used aircraft massively, sought to destroy the Israelis' AWACS aircraft and seize the initiative, but all their efforts failed. It was all over within 3 days. This was affected by the presence of a large number of advisers from the USSR, because the Iraqis and Iranians during their war were unable to independently organize a massive coordinated use of aviation. After the failures of the start of the war, the ayatollahs had to release the pilots of the ousted shah from the prisons and things went better, but no one even dreamed of any large-scale battles.

There are many versions about the losses of the parties in the Lebanese war (including the Israeli "84-0", which in some sources reaches "100-0"), but one thing is clear: the losses of the Syrians were staggering. We are talking about the loss of dozens of aircraft with minimal losses from the enemy. The most reliable version seems to us to be the version about 73 Arab planes shot down by Israeli fighters (some were shot down by ground-based air defense), of which 54 missiles with IKGSN and a small number of cannon fire and Sparrow missiles (the Syrians admitted the loss of 60 planes). Israel did not acknowledge the loss of fighter aircraft. If they were, then they were minimal. In 1973 Israel admitted losses of 102 fighters and several helicopters. 97 pilots were killed or captured; in 1982 in Lebanon we see nothing of the kind.

With the destruction of the ground infrastructure in Lebanon, the chances of success against the IDF air force disappeared, but, contrary to logic, the Arabs threw aviation into battle (before the start of the battle, the Arabs planted all fighters so as not to interfere with the air defense system), when the Israelis were still finishing off the air defense system (suppression of most of the air defense system took several tens of minutes). Without ground-based radars and communications equipment in Lebanon, Soviet fighters were doomed. The Israelis jammed communications and control was completely lost. Arab pilots flew to where the enemy had not been for a long time, and the Israelis approached them from the side and shot down with all-aspect missiles. The surprise factor, which played into the hands of the MiGs in Vietnam, was lost due to the AOI Air Force AWACS and new airborne radars of fighters - the attack from the ground no longer took place.

This is how the IDF representatives described the air battles in official interviews, but in other sources (Soviet and American) you can also find information about predominantly maneuverable battles with the defeat of aircraft with an approach from the ZPS. American sources were confident that the Israelis were visually identifying "friend or foe" and were seeking to launch from a ZPS, for sure. In what proportion these two scenarios correlated is unclear. Probably, if it was not possible to shoot down the MiGs using a simple scheme, a maneuverable battle began, in which, of the Syrian fighters, only the MiG-21bis could oppose something to Israeli planes (on the second afterburner), but for a long time it would “dance” like that with American 4th generation fighters he could not. And even if the Syrians were able to launch from the ZPS, the R-60 missiles were ineffective. There are no exact statistics on them, but a colossal gap with new-generation missiles with an efficiency of up to 0.8 is obvious. The P-60 had a limited flight range and had little chance of catching up with such a thrust-armed fighter such as the F-15. Moreover, it was equipped with an IR warning system and fired off heat traps. Israel's small losses are associated, including with the light warhead of the R-60 missile. There were hits, but the planes did not go astray. Some of the damaged cars could then be written off and it is impossible to obtain accurate data on their number.

The battles were practically only close-range, there were no BVR shootings (according to official statements by the IDF), but the new radars of Israeli aircraft were not useless. They could "see" the Syrian planes against the background of the earth and jammed the radar of the Syrians, who did not have such capabilities. Syrian pilots depended on information from ground-based radars, having lost which as a result of the use of electronic warfare, they were lost and could not act effectively. The obsolete electronics of the Soviet communication systems could not provide control of aviation in the conditions of the enemy's electronic warfare. When approaching Israeli aircraft, MiGs lost communication. The counter-attempts of the Syrians to "jam communications" ran into the jam-resistant radio stations of American aircraft. Foreign military observers in Lebanon watched in amazement as the Syrian planes "twisted the eights" in one place, trying to detect enemy aircraft visually.

The Israelis organized effective control of fighter aircraft using AWACS aircraft, which are becoming an indispensable tool in air warfare. They also used the F-15 AWACS in the role of aircraft to close the gaps in the E-2S coverage. The Iranians, not having AWACS aircraft, used the F-14 in this role with its powerful radar in the war with Iraq to combat low-altitude Iraqi penetrations. Often, the F-14 radar did not yet "see" the Iraqi aircraft, but only activated the PDF with its impulses, and this was enough to make them "run away". The F-14 in terms of scanning capabilities could not even closely compare with the "standard" AWACS aircraft E-2S, used in the Lebanese war, but the tendency to increase the capabilities of fighter airborne radars is remarkable. The growth of the power and quality of signal processing on the radar gives them more and more opportunities. In the Lebanese war, the absence of AWACS aircraft among the Syrians greatly influenced the course of the battle.

Conclusion


By 1982, the air defense missile systems could no longer effectively resist modern aviation and compensate for the increasing technical backwardness of the USSR fighters. Together with MiGs in Lebanon, the Soviet theory of the combined use of air defense systems and aviation burned down. At the same time, the doctrine of using fighters with the support of AWACS received a "start in life". The lagging behind of the USSR took place both at the technological level and at the level of military thought: air defense echelon no longer worked. In Vietnam (for example, in Operation Linebacker II), the Americans allocated a detachment of forces of up to 2 fighters and bombers against 300 fighters and 100 "batteries" of the Vietnamese air defense systems, and in Lebanon, Israel defeated many large Syrian forces, using no more than 14 fighters (only half of which 200th generation). Superiority in aviation technology for one generation is insurmountable and is not offset by a large number of low-tech weapons.

One can object to this by citing arguments that the IDF has AWACS aircraft and a much more trained personnel than the Syrians. That is, to put all the blame on the Arabs. Here our conclusions are confirmed by the statistics of losses in the Iran-Iraq war, where the Iraqis used an aircraft fleet almost identical to the Syrian one, against which the Iranians used the F-14A and F-4 (modifications D and E) with Sparrow and Phoenix missiles. The score in favor of Iran came out if not identical to the Israeli in Lebanon, but still devastating. Iran, unlike Israel, did not have AWACS and there was a "pure" confrontation of fighters. Only the nature of the hostilities was somewhat different: there were no major air battles and the Iranians were actively firing long-range missiles from the radar missile system. In these fights, the MiG-23 (including the MiG-23ML) invariably lost: approx. 45 units against 3 shot down F-14 and F-4. It is difficult here to blame the disastrous results on the level of Arab training. The level of personnel among Iranians and Iraqis differed uncritically.

In 1982, the problems of Soviet military aviation were systemic. Since 1979, a new F-15S with an improved APG-63 radar with PSP went into production in the USA, the first full-fledged fighter of the 4th generation (a highly maneuverable fighter with a full-fledged "look and shoot down" capability) with an VV missile with an active AIM 120. By analogy with the improved RDM radar, it can be argued that the detection range for its radar when looking downward was at least 90 km. Aviation technology has entered the era of onboard systems with software and small-sized computers on missiles, but we will talk about this next time.
Author:
Photos used:
Rob Schleiffert, commons.wikimedia.org
244 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PCA
    PCA 24 October 2020 05: 17 New
    -48 qualifying.
    Demagogue! For starters, you will learn radar and learn how to answer technical questions about your materials - the topics raised! The author, it is somehow ugly to write lonely and offensively, as well as to keep silent about the achievements of our Aviation Industry.
    Praise the US RVV-BD AIM-120, while there is not a word about the Russian RVV-BD
    R-37M with ARGSN, which surpasses the US AIM-120 in range and capabilities! There is not a word about the N036 "Belka" Russia radar, although it is installed on the first samples of the Su-57
    and there is data about its parameters in the open press. Weak? Your goal, apparently, is completely different!
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 24 October 2020 05: 42 New
      40
      It's funny, you mean 1973-1982, and you mean the SU-57.
      1. PCA
        PCA 24 October 2020 07: 05 New
        -38 qualifying.
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        It's funny, you mean 1973-1982, and you mean the SU-57.

        Jacket in stock... Learn to read the article to the endbefore writing your opuses ...
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 24 October 2020 09: 17 New
          30
          I read to the end:
          Aviation technology has entered the era of onboard systems with software and small-sized computers on missiles, but we will talk about this next time.

          Indeed, neither the SU-57 nor the R-37M.
          Just to understand why there should be about them.
          Maybe you are also annoyed when the description of the Battle of Borodino does not mention what wonderful Kalashnikov machine gun made?
          1. PCA
            PCA 24 October 2020 10: 05 New
            -27 qualifying.
            Quote: Jacket in stock (Constantine)
            Indeed, neither the SU-57 nor the R-37M.
            Just to understand why there should be about them.
            Maybe you are also annoyed when the description of the Battle of Borodino does not mention what wonderful Kalashnikov machine gun made?

            Quote: Demagogue
            Since 1979, a new F-15S with improved airborne radar went into production in the USA. APG-63 with PSP, the first full-fledged 4th generation fighter (highly maneuverable fighter with full "look and shoot down" capability) with an explosive missile with an active radar AIM-120. By analogy with the improved RDM radar, it can be argued that the detection range for its radar when looking downward was at least 90 km. Aviation technology has entered the era of on-board systems with software and small-sized computers on missiles, but we will talk about this next time.

            Quote: PPSh
            Praise the US RVV-BD AIM-120At the same time, there is not a word about RVV-BD of Russia
            R-37M with ARGSN, which surpasses the US AIM-120 in range and capabilities! There is not a word about radar N036 "Belka" Russia, although it was installed on the first samples of the Su-57
            and there is data about its parameters in the open press.

            It is useless for the trolls to write something, I can only give glasses to the blind.
            1. Jacket in stock
              Jacket in stock 24 October 2020 10: 42 New
              24
              In the article:
              Since 1979, a new F-15S with an improved APG-63 radar with PSP went into production in the USA, the first full-fledged fighter of the 4th generation (a highly maneuverable fighter with a full-fledged "look and shoot down" capability) with an VV missile with an active AIM- 120.

              You answer:
              there is not a word about RVV-BD of Russia
              R-37M with ARGSN, which surpasses the US AIM-120 in range and capabilities! There is not a word about the radar N036 "Belka" Russia

              So, in an article about 1979.
              The R-37 flew in 1989.
              R-37M was first shown in 2011.
              Which one of us is a troll?
      2. Demagogue
        24 October 2020 08: 25 New
        32
        A person abides in his reality. I never mentioned a single Sukhoi aircraft in the article))
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 24 October 2020 09: 17 New
          20
          In such cases, they say more accurately that the person has "gone crazy."
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 12: 25 New
          20
          Hmm, tore a comrade. Scraps all over the thread.

          And the article is good, thanks. Rarely do you see this now.

          By the way, let me sketch. Taking into account Lebanon, it turns out that the situation in, say, the Central European theater of operations at the time of Zapad-81 was completely different from what domestic fans think of counting tanks.
          1. Demagogue
            24 October 2020 13: 13 New
            12
            Thanks. It is difficult to extrapolate to the European theater of operations. In my opinion, the Americans were inferior to Israel in terms of planning and pilot training. In 1991 in Iraq, they were less effective than Israel. We need to study this issue.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 13: 24 New
              +2
              Quote: Demagogue
              In my opinion, the Americans were inferior to Israel in terms of planning and pilot training. In 1991, in Iraq, they were less effective than Israel.

              )))
              Let us suppose.
              1. Demagogue
                24 October 2020 13: 32 New
                +3
                Small nationally monolithic armies are always more effective than imperial ones. In 1991, the Americans assembled slightly more aircraft in number than in Linebecker 2. Yes, Saddam had a lot of equipment, but our control was not, as in Syria. There are doubts in general.
                1. Doccor18
                  Doccor18 24 October 2020 19: 34 New
                  +8
                  Small nationally monolithic armies are always more effective than imperial ones.

                  Doubtful thesis. It depends on which empire, on the decline or on the rise ...
                  Thanks for the article. I read with interest hi
                  1. unknown
                    unknown 26 October 2020 13: 27 New
                    0
                    Shlomo Sand, professor at Tel Aviv University, author of the book Who Invented the Jewish People.
                    The most artificial people of all: not a single territory, not a single genetics, not a single phenotype (the appearance that everyone takes for "Jewish", in fact, Armenian), not a single language. But there is only one religion.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 26 October 2020 11: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: Demagogue
                  In 1991, the Americans assembled slightly more aircraft in number than in Linebecker 2. Yes, Saddam had a lot of equipment, but our control was not, as in Syria. There are doubts in general.

                  In 1991, the Iraqi air defense could only be helped by multiple redundancy of command and control and communications. Because the Americans first of all knocked out the air defense what makes it a system - a control center and a communications center (well, a couple of early warning radars). After that, the system broke up into separate links.
                  Could ours regain control after this? Or would ours repeatedly reserve the system?
                  1. Demagogue
                    26 October 2020 11: 12 New
                    0
                    Iraq had a problem throughout the Iranian air defense war. They could not organize it into a "network". And again: AWACS aircraft are needed for success: to intercept low-flying targets and conduct the process.
                3. unknown
                  unknown 26 October 2020 13: 23 New
                  +1
                  Imperial?
                  But, the USA is not an Empire.
                  Empire - Russia.
                  USA - Totalitarian Twin of the Empire. Shadow.
                  Although, you are correct that it looks like an Empire.
            2. basmach
              basmach 26 October 2020 19: 00 New
              +4
              Dear, I certainly am not a demagogue, only you, like Lermontov, have mixed up horses, people. Judging by the article, you are a typical "sofa" special. Armchair. You do not understand anything in the tactics of using both SD and KAB. They mentioned the R-3S and it was replaced by the R-60 (then the R-60M). Complete nonsense. The R-3 was replaced by the R-13 (R-13M). The R-60 appeared later and was not a melee missile, as such. It was used as a self-defense weapon at the IBA (Su-17m3-4). On the Su-25. It's like a gun for an officer. And suddenly it will come in handy in battle.
              The R-13M was replaced by the R-73. This is a close-range, maneuverable missile with gas rudders for better maneuvering at the stage of starting and engine operation (since the speed is low and aerodynamic rudders are ineffective). The R-23 (m) missiles, which replaced the R-27 (E), are long-range missiles. AND
              applied on a collision course. 23, as well as 60 we studied at the school, but the main emphasis was 27 and 73. Although on the state ticket I had just the P-23 suspension under the Mig. R-27 (R or T) 2/3 of its path flies in passive mode, receiving target designation from the carrier. When operating in survey mode, the irradiation warning system is not triggered, only when the illumination mode is on. For RGSN R-27, the last third of the way is when the carrier begins to illuminate the target. TGSN grabs itself.
              The MiG-23 also had a TP-23 heat direction finder.
              About the KABs. I am very amused by your suggestion about the method of their application. Get close at low altitude, climb and ... hello. From air defense. You have seen the KAB at least live. This is an adjustable AB. Not a pitch-up. With his GOS. (laser or television). LGSN needs illumination (either ground or from a carrier (we are talking about 60-80). And in order for it to fly 10 kilometers, it must be dropped not from a kilometer. But from 5 kilometers. And while the plane rises from 10m to 3-4 km, will capture the target and will illuminate it - the air defense will grunt with delight. And at an angle of sight of 45 degrees, the slant range will be 10 km. Not a single LD of that time beat so much. Maple-54, for example, about 4-5 km. There even the rangefinder scale on the S-17VG aiming mark was up to 3,5 km.
              Most of the planes in the Lebanese war were shot down from ambushes (including 25). Well, it's not the planes that are to blame. As they say, it was not about the bobbin, ..... I was sitting in the cockpit.
              1. Demagogue
                26 October 2020 19: 57 New
                +1
                I'm certainly not a demagogue


                You are very far from this status.))

                They mentioned the R-3S and it was replaced by the R-60 (then the R-60M). Complete nonsense. The R-3 was replaced by the R-13 (R-13M). The R-60 appeared later and was not a melee missile, as such. It was used as a self-defense weapon at the IBA (Su-17m3-4).


                It is you who bear the Achineah. R-3C and R-13 are one and the same. And the R-13M has never been in Vietnam. This is a copy of the AIM-9D. By the end of Vietnam only did.

                The R-60 was the main missile for the Syrian aviation. Why? Yes, because it could be used for maneuvering targets. And there they were all like that. And the R-13m has limitations.

                I do not even comment on the rest of the nonsense.

                Learn to communicate with strangers correctly, pilot. By the manner of communication, you only sat in the cabin of the garbage truck.
                1. basmach
                  basmach 27 October 2020 09: 51 New
                  +1
                  To begin with, I'm not a pilot, but an armaments engineer. Faculty AV Tambov VVAIU. Then the engineer Prnk in 523 Orsha apib (Su-17m4). That is why you were sitting in the cabin of the garbage truck. R-3S and R-13 are absolutely different missiles. Well, you are "special". By the way, the P-13 is a copy, not the P-3. They even look different. And the P-13 appeared after Vietnam. Why did you get the idea that 60 was the main missile in Syria. At 23 it was not applied. And Su-17 is an iba. It is not very suitable for air combat. And you can hang max 4 R-60 under it. And then if you use the APU-60-2. Learn materiel.
                  1. Demagogue
                    27 October 2020 10: 09 New
                    +1
                    Well, it's a shame for an engineer to write this.

                    Will you give a link for at least one statement? As an engineer, you should be able to work with sources.
                    You reproached me that I was writing about the R-3S instead of the R-13M: where is m-ka in Vietnam? And what changes m-ka? Is the efficiency 0.18 versus 0.12?

                    Did the Israelis accidentally take the P-60 out of the F-15 nozzles? Where is m-ka in Lebanon?

                    Be kind.
              2. Hexenmeister
                Hexenmeister 26 October 2020 20: 42 New
                0
                R-27 (R or T) 2/3 of its path flies in passive mode, receiving target designation from the carrier. When operating in review mode, the radiation warning system is not triggered, only when the backlight is on. For RGSN R-27, the last third of the way, when the carrier begins to highlight the target. TGSN captures itself.
                You seem to be confused yourself. Rockets with TGS lock the target in suspension, this applies to both 73 and 27 (E) T. A 27 (E) R flies two-thirds of the way not passively, but combined, inertial plus radio correction, and then illumination begins. The launch of 27 (E) R missiles in the view is impossible, but only after switching to the continuous tracking mode, therefore, the RVO will squeal at the target even before the illumination starts.
                1. basmach
                  basmach 27 October 2020 10: 00 New
                  +1
                  Are you seriously? And how then to launch the R-27T. Heading the course. Indicate at least one TGSN with a capture range of 60-79 km. Attack launch range on a collision course.
                  If you start to highlight the target from the moment of launch, then goodbye to the rocket. By the way, you yourself and answer your question. 2/3 of the way flies without illumination with correction. And yet, figure out what the inertial method is. To implement this method, an IKV is needed (inertial directional reference, gyroscope, in other words.). Well, there is no such device on V-V rockets. Read the comment above.
                  1. Hexenmeister
                    Hexenmeister 27 October 2020 11: 14 New
                    +1
                    Are you seriously? And how then to launch the R-27T. On a collision course
                    Absolutely serious, 27T captures in suspension and on a meeting too, only 27T does not fly at the range you specified
                    60-79 km.

                    this is the lot of the 27ER!
                    If you start to highlight the target from the moment of launch, then goodbye to the rocket. By the way, you yourself have answered your own question. 2/3 way flies without illumination with correction
                    Before teaching someone, understand how a bunch of radar and 27 (E) R missiles works! The launch is carried out in the mode of continuous single-purpose tracking, in which the intervals of target tracking in the radar alternate with intervals of first radio correction, and then the illumination. The main beam of the radar antenna is always directed to the target, there is no view. This was done when aiming the AIM-7. And therefore, the secrecy of such an attack was initially very poor, which was the reason for the transition to missiles with an active radar seeker, only it was not only a new missile, but also another radar, with different modes of operation, and it became possible to attack several targets while maintaining the view of space. which, by and large, can be considered a REVOLUTION in terms of combat use within the framework of one, the so-called "fourth" generation, for which no "plus signs" were put, as for the display devices in the cockpit.
          2. Doccor18
            Doccor18 24 October 2020 19: 32 New
            +8
            in the Central European theater of operations at the time Zapad-81 was completely different from what domestic fans think tanks.

            It looks like they really hoped only for a huge numerical superiority in the ground forces, or rather in the tank forces. A giant avalanche of tanks was supposed to roll out the entire NAT in Europe in 2-3 weeks. It does not matter whether nuclear strikes were used or not. They would have rolled it out anyway ... There is no doubt about that. And in this case, the technological superiority of NATO aviation simply would not have had time to realize .. This is what Soviet strategists in most cases were in the mood for. Although later, at the end of the 80s, the USSR nevertheless issued two very serious air fighters - SU-27 and MiG-29, which somewhat changed the balance of power in the sky. And if the radius of the MiG-29 was small, remaining, like the grandfather of the MiG-21, rather a security aircraft, the Sukhoi fighter was a completely long-range air superiority fighter.
            1. Demagogue
              24 October 2020 19: 53 New
              +7
              It is difficult to say unambiguously about this in Europe. This is a tricky simulation. In different years, a different alignment came out. But tanks wouldn't have saved. Their time is gone.

              Nata had a shock in 1984 from a Mig29 with a helmet-mounted sight and an all-aspect rocket, but the enemy's equipment had gone far ahead at that time. The main disadvantage is that we did not have advanced AWACS. Without them, we could not have realized our numerical superiority.
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 24 October 2020 20: 01 New
                +1
                But what about Ogarkov's automated control system? They brought the entire mass of troops into a single combat mechanism. They were incomplete, of course. But if it were not for the greatness of Ustinov, I think that they would have done it. The USA didn't have that, even in the draft. Then, due to someone's negligence, they left the GDR, they handed it over to the Americans, so they were amazed. The Soviet system of reconnaissance-targeting-strike was ahead of other countries by a whole generation (human).
                The main disadvantage is that we did not have AWACS

                And the A-50U? It has been produced since 1978. Since 1985, it has been fully used in the Air Force.
                1. Demagogue
                  24 October 2020 20: 11 New
                  +7
                  To control someone, you need orders to reach the addressees, and not as in Lebanon. This connection, including where not everything was okay, to put it mildly.

                  A-50 and its capabilities are only X's. It is unclear what he could and from what moment. It is not clear what the connection is. As of 1982, he's definitely not a factor. Closer to 90m you need to look.

                  Little information to analyze.
                  1. passerby
                    passerby 26 October 2020 05: 10 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Demagogue
                    To control someone, you need orders to reach the addressees, and not as in Lebanon. This connection, including where not everything was okay, to put it mildly.

                    A-50 and its capabilities are only X's. It is unclear what he could and from what moment. It is not clear what the connection is. As of 1982, he's definitely not a factor. Closer to 90m you need to look.

                    Little information to analyze.

                    Your article is great, I really liked it. But thinking that you are too boldly extrapolating the results of the 1982 war and the Iraqi war to the European theater of operations, arguing that the time of tanks is over. Firstly, both in 1982 and in 1991 the passivity of the losers should be noted, which was caused by objective circumstances, but nevertheless. They waited and were going to repel enemy air strikes, and the enemy chose the time, force and targets for the strike. Secondly, the factor of nuclear weapons, it is clear that no one will be able to accurately estimate its value, but in any case, with its massive use, aviation and complex electronic systems will be the most vulnerable to it, i.e. exactly what the enemy was superior to the USSR. Armored vehicles are just the least vulnerable to nuclear weapons. Therefore, I am convinced that the massive use of tactical nuclear weapons (not only against ground targets, but also against air targets using air defense systems "in combination with tank strikes, would make it possible with a high degree of probability to break NATO's defenses in Europe.) In this type of military action, decides And thirdly, I have already mentioned this, but nuclear weapons would be used in air battles and a nuclear strike on the AWACS area or dense EM interference would most likely resolve the issue of NATO superiority in control systems.
                    1. Demagogue
                      26 October 2020 08: 33 New
                      0
                      Thanks. I am not trying to transfer mechanically to Europe. Europe is not me, but the readers decided to discuss)) But we have two scenarios in Lebanon and in Iraq. In Lebanon, there is an attempt to attack, and in Iraq, passive defense. In Iraq, they held out longer against more opponents in the end. Tanks did not play either there or there. In Lebanon in 1982, Syrian tanks burned so famously that the Americans did not understand how this was possible.
                      Only a large number could save us. And this is difficult to calculate. And yao is a completely different genre))
                      1. passerby
                        passerby 26 October 2020 09: 39 New
                        +1
                        When I speak of passivity, I mean passivity in air warfare. Neither in Iraq nor in Lebanon, the losing side did not even try to strike at the enemy's home airfields and military infrastructure. In both cases, the losers were passive. If we assume that on the site of the same Lebanon there was the USSR, then it is obvious that even without taking into account the nuclear weapons factor, one of the first actions on the part of the USSR would be to deliver massive missile strikes using both ground and air-based missiles at airfields, communication centers and objects of military and civil infrastructure, I think that this alone would radically change the nature of hostilities. It's just that neither Syria nor Iraq had such opportunities for launching missile attacks on the enemy's infrastructure, so they just waited for them to be bombed, and such tactics very rarely lead to victory, and given the lag in intelligence, communications, target designation and aviation systems , this is a direct road to defeat. If we imagine the development of the offensive in Lebanon according to all the rules of Soviet military science, i.e. a strike by mechanized and tank formations immediately through the epicenters of nuclear explosions with access to the operational space and further encirclement of enemy units with simultaneous nuclear strikes on the enemy's civil and military infrastructure, then only radioactive ruins would remain from Israel in a few days, despite all their superiority in aviation and electronics.
                      2. Demagogue
                        26 October 2020 10: 04 New
                        +1
                        Everybody has nuclear weapons, which means they will not use it. The conflict in Europe in the 80s was unrealistic. Neither with yao nor without. The time has come for local conflicts.

                        We are discussing virtual things. In 1982, Israel did not bomb airfields, but could. And he had nuclear weapons. And in Europe, there was something to fill up on the airfields.
                      3. passerby
                        passerby 26 October 2020 11: 20 New
                        +1
                        I didn’t put a minus. Of course, we are discussing virtual events, I just wanted to show you that in the situation of a real global war in Europe or any other theater of military operations with the participation of the USSR, those shortcomings of the Soviet armed forces, about which you are absolutely correct and very well written, would not be critical and would not prevent the USSR from rolling Europe or the same Israel into a thin pancake, despite all the superiority of NATO in electronics and aviation. There is no reception against scrap (nuclear weapons), if there is no other scrap, and if there is other scrap, then everything will be decided by the number of troops and weapons capable of operating in conditions of massive use of nuclear weapons. As for "they will not be used," I strongly doubt it, just so far there has not been such a situation when the question of the use of nuclear weapons would arise seriously. Even Gorbachev, quite frightened enough, would give such an order. I think that the disbelief that nuclear weapons can actually be used is one of the most dangerous illusions of the modern world. And the fact that Israel did not bomb Syrian airfields only says that, apart from aviation (which would inevitably suffer losses), Israel simply had nothing to attack airfields with, then they did not have normal medium and short-range missiles and operational-tactical missiles. and the USSR had and had a lot of them.
                      4. Demagogue
                        26 October 2020 11: 30 New
                        +1
                        Well, I don't agree. In the event of a nuclear war, just an apocalypse and that's it. No winners or pancakes. Imagine that today we are throwing yadrenbaton at Israel for bombing Syria. Can you? And the Soviet leadership had more restrictions. The USSR tried to maintain a certain image in the world. But this is already politics.
                      5. passerby
                        passerby 26 October 2020 11: 41 New
                        +1
                        I wrote a little about something else. I wrote that it would be a great exaggeration to draw a conclusion about the obsolescence of tanks and that taking advantage of superiority in aviation and electronics, NATO could defeat the USSR. In a situation of war against the USSR, NATO or Israel would face a completely different enemy than an enemy with a potential of 50 or 100 Syria. In such a war, completely different rules would operate and, within the framework of these rules, tanks and armored vehicles would not be completely outdated, but would make a decisive contribution to victory along with nuclear weapons, but superiority in electronics and aviation after the destruction of the corresponding infrastructure necessary for its application by nuclear strikes, completely lost its meaning.
                      6. Demagogue
                        26 October 2020 11: 59 New
                        0
                        The tanks would not have contributed anything. Dense development in western Germany. Here motivated infantry is needed, otherwise Grozny will work out.

                        I see a tight fight if you put yao aside. I don't see any crushing blows. Probably as a result, the transition to trench warfare We do not agree here with you))
                      7. passerby
                        passerby 26 October 2020 16: 06 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        I see a tight fight if you put yao aside. I don't see any crushing blows. Probably as a result, the transition to trench warfare We do not agree here with you))

                        Apparently yes, but this is also good, the more opinions, the more interesting the result of the discussion can be. Good luck, write more :)
                      8. Demagogue
                        26 October 2020 16: 38 New
                        0
                        Maybe I'll write about the loss of the "ram" status by tanks with the appearance of long-range ATGMs. Good idea. But I don't really like infantry themes)) and good luck to you!
        4. passerby
          passerby 26 October 2020 09: 48 New
          0
          And I do not consider nuclear weapons to be another genre. Nobody seriously considered another version of the war between the USSR and NATO, except for the nuclear one, and it was for this type of military action that the USSR army was preparing. Another question is that in the end it was necessary to fight in completely different conditions, which is why such a low efficiency.
        5. Demagogue
          26 October 2020 10: 24 New
          +1
          On nuclear weapons, there is a good moment in "Yes, Mr. Prime Minister" where the British Prime Minister is asked if he will use Yao if the Russians take over Germany. No
          They will go to the English Channel. No. Will you wait for the march through Piccadilly?))

          Our politicians are no better. Here Gorbachev took and hit yao))

          And the Syrians tried to bomb the Jews in Lebanon, but the drloiu look down and deplorable. Downed 23bn.
        6. passerby
          passerby 26 October 2020 11: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Demagogue
          And the Syrians tried to bomb the Jews in Lebanon, but the drloiu look down and deplorable. Downed 23bn.

          I wrote about this that the Syrians did not have missiles to strike at airfields, but the USSR had them and had a lot of them.
        7. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 26 October 2020 12: 00 New
          +2
          Well, besides the series, there are facts. And the facts indicate that the political cost of the use of nuclear weapons is too high, as a result, with the proper degree of frostbite, its presence by the enemy does not play any role, even in cases of an attack by a non-nuclear country (or a country without means of delivery) on a nuclear (its territory or her troops). The first example is the Berlin crisis of 1948, when the non-nuclear at that time the USSR blocked, among other things, the American garrison in West Berlin. Then a series of conflicts: Korea (non-nuclear DPRK / PRC against the nuclear United States), Damansky (which had no means of delivery, China against the USSR), Arab-Israeli conflicts (it is believed that Israeli nuclear weapons appeared in the late 60s - early 70s), Pakistan -Indian conflicts (India has been nuclear since the 70s), Argentina's attack on Great Britain, etc.

          So the cries of the current diseases "The whole world is in dust!" they cause nothing but annoyance. Nuclear weapons do not replace a competent army and will never replace them.
        8. passerby
          passerby 26 October 2020 16: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          So the cries of the current diseases "The whole world is in dust!" they cause nothing but annoyance. Nuclear weapons do not replace a competent army and will never replace them.

          I wrote a little about something else.
        9. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 26 October 2020 16: 11 New
          0
          Yes, but I did not reply to your text.
        10. passerby
          passerby 26 October 2020 16: 14 New
          0
          Sorry I didn't look. I thought you answered me.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 16: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Doccor18
    It does not matter whether nuclear strikes were used or not. They would have rolled it out anyway ... There is no doubt about that.

    Actually there is.
    You seem to have a poor idea of ​​the NATO division of that time. Let me remind you that these people later rode to Kuwait. There they lost 292 people (147 combatants). Iraq lost about 5 thousand units of Soviet armored vehicles, incl. about 3 thousand units of Soviet tanks. Let me remind you, by the way, that the Iraqi army, unlike the GSVG, had combat experience.
    1. Lara Croft
      Lara Croft 25 October 2020 16: 23 New
      -1
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Iraq lost about 5 thousand units of Soviet armored vehicles, incl. about 3 thousand units of Soviet tanks.

      Most of the MBT and AFVs of the Iraqi Ground Forces were destroyed from the air or abandoned during the retreat, I have not heard about oncoming tank battles ...
      Therefore, at the end of January, Saddam decided on a sortie in the area of ​​the city of Khafji (Saudi Arabia), where an important highway was located, and where the military units of Saudi Arabia and Qatar were located. Iraqi troops managed to take the city. However, by February 1, the allies drove the Iraqi units out of Khafji. Before the ground clash, the Americans began to harass the enemy, alternating air raids with bombing. Thus, about 50% of Iraqi military equipment was destroyed.

      Source: https://usamagazine.ru/vojna-v-persidskom-zalive-1990-1991/
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 16: 33 New
        -1
        Quote: Lara Croft
        I have not heard about oncoming tank battles ...

        А зря.
        https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/262825.html

        The ground part of the BVP made a much greater impression on people in the subject than the air one. Everything in the air was more or less expected. But no one expected such a performance on the ground. The same The Wehrmacht is back.

        It turned out that for many years there was a compressed spring of monstrous power in front of the SA. And the SA itself, let me remind you, was already taking her exam 3 years later.

        In Chechnya.
        1. Lara Croft
          Lara Croft 25 October 2020 16: 39 New
          -1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          But no one expected such a performance on the ground. The same The Wehrmacht is back.

          Baghdad was at a loss: the Iraqi military relied heavily on fortifications, hoping that the battles would be fought primarily on the ground. And although the Iraqis managed to save most of their aircraft by hiding them in underground bases, it was almost impossible to wage an air war with Western countries because of the American electronic warfare systems. By January 19, the anti-Iraqi coalition had achieved complete air supremacy. From that moment on, several hundred air raids were made on the territory of Iraq every day. The only thing that the Iraqi pilots could do in these conditions was to make small desperate sorties. Iraq also responded to the Americans with missiles fired from the Scud complexes, which, not possessing high accuracy, were very mobile, instantly disappearing into the desert immediately after the strike.
          Source: https://usamagazine.ru/vojna-v-persidskom-zalive-1990-1991/
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 25 October 2020 21: 28 New
      -1
      Well, yes, I directly see how the brave Germans, Belgians and Dutchmen in Leopards drive into the defeated Minsk, after grinding 100 Soviet divisions ...
      Not even funny.
      Although the guys from Hollywood would be interested ...
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 21: 32 New
        0
        Quote: Doccor18
        Well, yes, I directly see how the brave Germans, Belgians and Dutchmen in Leopards drive into the defeated Minsk,

        And who told you that the liberation of the BSSR was their task? Let me remind you that the BSSR has not yet been liberated, although if it has interfered with it for the last 28 years, it is definitely not the GSVG.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 25 October 2020 21: 46 New
          +1
          In all of Europe there was only one army that could really compete on the battlefield with the Soviet one. And I struggled ... But I finished very badly in 1945. There is no one else to fight in Europe, not then, not now.
          Americans would not want to fight and DIE even in tens of thousands (let alone millions) for the Europeans. Only the unpredictability of the use of nuclear weapons on both sides prevented the start of the third world war. But if it had begun, it would have ended even faster than the USSR General Staff counted. After a week of fighting, half of the NATO soldiers would have fled to their homes ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 22: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: Doccor18
            And I struggled ... But I finished very badly in 1945.

            Yes, at that time the USSR was under pressure a little.
            Quote: Doccor18
            There is no one else to fight in Europe, not then, not now.

            Well, well.
            Quote: Doccor18
            Americans would not want to fight and DIE even in tens of thousands (not that millions) for the Europeans.

            Yes Yes.
            I remember a lot of talk about the weak fighting spirit of the Americans. The Japanese, at one time, were very fond of such conversations. Saddam pushed something on this topic while he was alive.
            Quote: Doccor18
            Americans fight and DIE even in tens of thousands (not like millions)

            As always, it is understood that no one would have thought of asking Soviet people about any of their plans on this topic. Well, I am always for realism.
            Quote: Doccor18
            Only the unpredictability of the use of nuclear weapons on both sides prevented the start of the third world war.

            In fact, the task of NATO forces in Europe was precisely to close all options for a successful limited war for the USSR / OVD.
            Quote: Doccor18
            After a week of fighting, half of the NATO soldiers would have fled to their homes ...

            Better to be red than dead? Yes, there was such a concept. But there was also the opposite.
  • Lara Croft
    Lara Croft 25 October 2020 11: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    it turns out that the situation in, say, the Central European theater of operations at the time of Zapad-81 was completely different from what Russian fans think of counting tanks.

    A good statement ... I hope the author in the next article (in its continuation to this one) will describe the alignment of NATO and USSR forces in the European theater of operations, in terms of military aviation, their capabilities and who had priority in the skies over Europe from 1982 to 1992 . (withdrawal of the 16th VA from the GDR).
    I found a good article about the 16th VA (disbanded in 2009 by "stooltkin" with the tacit consent of the generals).
    https://tech.wikireading.ru/14619
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 16: 05 New
      -3
      Quote: Lara Croft
      I found a good article about the 16th VA

      )))
      The authors of the article are oversimplifying. Mig-29 and Su-25 to catch over the FRG, frankly, there is nothing.
  • PCA
    PCA 24 October 2020 07: 35 New
    -21 qualifying.
    Oppiska - right - one-sided!
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 24 October 2020 05: 31 New
    -12 qualifying.
    "In our opinion ... we will try ... we will tell ..."
    A similar split has already happened: "... Bles-s-ck and ples-s-ck, my delight! A treat for s-s-glory! S-s-sweet cous-s-s-ck for us -s-sir! ... "
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 12: 27 New
      +4
      Quote: 7,62x54
      In our opinion ... we will try ... we will tell

      In academic works, it is customary to write "we" in the sense of "me and my scientific advisor." This is not very appropriate in the article, but here, as the author is more comfortable, let him write.
      1. Demagogue
        25 October 2020 08: 51 New
        +3
        I did not have a leader))) "we" is a standard form for a scientific or scientific journalistic style.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 12: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Demagogue
          "we" is the standard form for a scientific or scientific journalistic style.

          When you write either you are with a scientific, or in co-authorship.

          However, this is an empty argument.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 24 October 2020 05: 39 New
    +3
    Sadness, sadness and hopelessness.
    1. PCA
      PCA 24 October 2020 07: 10 New
      -28 qualifying.
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Sadness, sadness and hopelessness.

      Jacket in stock. Propaganda is discouraged. "The road to Hell is paved with your intentions."
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 24 October 2020 06: 01 New
    +7
    I'm not a military man. Are we a cover?
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 24 October 2020 06: 23 New
      +5
      Yeah, back in 82m. tongue
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 24 October 2020 09: 19 New
        +1
        As long as we have a big atomic bomb, we are not over yet.
    2. Anika
      Anika 24 October 2020 07: 17 New
      +9
      After reading this article, I got the same impression, especially after the bayraktars extinguished the shell in Syria and Libya, then what are American drones capable of? We can only hope for nuclear weapons, but our military will decide on their use, for example, if now we face Turkey over Karabakh?
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 24 October 2020 09: 21 New
        12
        Because of Karabakh, we will definitely not use nuclear weapons, as long as you are not poking around in Karabakh at all, and I hope we will not poke our heads.
        1. PCA
          PCA 24 October 2020 10: 25 New
          -26 qualifying.
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          Because of Karabakh, we will definitely not use nuclear weapons, as long as you are not poking around in Karabakh at all, and I hope we will not poke our heads.

          Fan-Fan, there is no knowledge at all - a priori! To defeat the UAV is good suitable SAM "Pantsir-SM", was shown at the military parade on May 9, which passed due to the pandemic on June 24. Many trolls are ready to forget this and write nonsense in the topics of the VO about UAVs and in the events about Karabakh, they hid the languages ​​- this shows the level of forums on VO at the present time and where it leads next!
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 24 October 2020 12: 36 New
            +6
            The Pantsir-SM air defense missile system is suitable. They are not in service, so take it easy for now.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 12: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: Dimy4
      I'm not a military man. Are we a cover?

      If you fight the Georgians and the Ukrainian Armed Forces - all the rules. But I would not aim at Azerbaijanis anymore.
  • north 2
    north 2 24 October 2020 06: 04 New
    -18 qualifying.
    as one proctologist said, - ... if a person, in this case the author, speaking on his own behalf uses the pronoun "we" in the plural, it means together with worms ... And then the author in the article is constantly us, we, yes we. ..
    1. Lara Croft
      Lara Croft 25 October 2020 11: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: North 2
      as one proctologist said, - ... if a person, in this case the author, speaking on his own behalf uses the pronoun "we" in the plural, it means together with worms ... And then the author in the article is constantly us, we, yes we. ..

      Apparently you have never written scientific articles in your life ... and the author explained to you above what makes you amazed ...
  • Revolver
    Revolver 24 October 2020 06: 04 New
    +5
    This operation was the first "bell" for the air defense system, questioning their effectiveness in the context of the use of precision weapons. Now attack aircraft could, without approaching a ground target, attack it from a distance. In this situation, the air defense systems found themselves in the position of extras with the advent of new tactics, when the "strikers", hiding behind the radio horizon, fly up unnoticed at a low altitude at a distance of launching corrected bombs.

    In Vietnam, there were only high-altitude S-75s, which were not capable of operating at altitudes below 500 m (and in practice, at 500 and slightly higher, it is also not very reliable). At that time, low-altitude S-125s were already in service, but they were not delivered to Vietnam, because everything that was supplied to Vietnam became available to China, and relations with China at that time were tense, and they were given the secrets of the newest (at that time ) Nobody wanted the air defense system.
    But the C-125 was delivered to the Arabs, and these soldiers threw at least one of them intact, like even with all the documentation, so the Jews themselves got acquainted and shared with America.
  • C-X
    C-X 24 October 2020 06: 47 New
    14
    <PPSh>
    An article about the events of 40-50 years ago ... What does the angry comments about the "affairs" of today have to do with it.
    1. PCA
      PCA 24 October 2020 07: 18 New
      -26 qualifying.
      Quote: C-X
      An article about the events of 40-50 years ago ... What does the angry comments about the "affairs" of today have to do with it.

      CX. You can't finish reading the article to the end! You here, ill-wishers, have played too much, spitting on Russian equipment and not knowing basic knowledge! This is not a game about tanks.
      1. PCA
        PCA 24 October 2020 07: 29 New
        -22 qualifying.
        Oppiska - right - without basic knowledge!
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 24 October 2020 09: 44 New
          17
          To tell the truth, in your opinion, means to spit, but in our opinion, the truth is needed in order to draw the right conclusions, and not continue to live in your isolated and rosy world. In order not to lose their pilots and their planes ineptly.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 24 October 2020 11: 00 New
            +6
            Remembered
            -The enemy general is strongly entrenched in that position, there are full of camouflaged firing points, if you go head-on, then everyone will fall!
            -Yeah got a traitor! I decided to spit on our valiant troops! Now you will see how our heroes will march at full height and beat the cowardly and weak enemy!
      2. DominickS
        DominickS 25 October 2020 20: 02 New
        0
        Quote: PPSh
        Quote: C-X
        An article about the events of 40-50 years ago ... What does the angry comments about the "affairs" of today have to do with it.

        CX. You can't finish reading the article to the end! You here, ill-wishers, have played too much, spitting on Russian equipment and not knowing basic knowledge! This is not a game about tanks.

        Make an appointment with a psychotherapist. You are already confusing your maneuver with reality.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 24 October 2020 07: 06 New
    +7
    I remember at the end of the Lebanese war the sides of the USA and the USSR exchanged statements. The United States declared that the Soviet weapon did not show itself in any way and was inferior to the American one, the USSR, rather quickly replied that these are competitive weapons and not the latest models and that even they can be resisted if there is good preparation.
    1. Demagogue
      24 October 2020 08: 39 New
      12
      I don't know what the propagandists exchanged there, but the opinion of our specialists can be found in the journal Aviation and Cosmonautics for September and October 1983. Many of my conclusions are supported there.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 09: 30 New
        +3
        The opinions of specialists are not published in such journals, for this there is other literature - departmental, closed.
        1. Demagogue
          24 October 2020 10: 13 New
          +6
          Certain moments nevertheless slip through. And given that it is now known what specific actions were taken following the results, conclusions can be drawn. Of course, almost nothing has been declassified in our country so far, but in the 70s you can read the declassified minutes of the Senate hearings in the Americans, and in the 80s there are issues of think tanks close to the sources.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 11: 19 New
            0
            The author got into this topic rather superficially. For example, according to the period of the Vietnam War, only the MiG-21 is considered from our side, while the Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, Tu-128 were still in service with completely different capabilities to combat air targets. The same is true for the Middle East conflicts. It is possible to continue on both the ZRV and practically not considered RTV.
            1. Demagogue
              24 October 2020 11: 49 New
              10
              No need to continue)) first reveal the outstanding contribution of "dryers" in Vietnam.
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 11: 54 New
                +3
                And what does Vietnam have to do with it? The article is called "Soviet Aviation in the Era of the Digital Revolution: Rise and Fall".
                1. Demagogue
                  24 October 2020 11: 57 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  For example, according to the period of the Vietnam War, only the MiG-21 is considered from our side, while the Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, Tu-128 were still in service with completely different capabilities to combat air targets.


                  We take this phrase and reveal it))

                  An article about Soviet aviation with specific aircraft as examples.
                  1. Sergey Valov
                    Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 12: 41 New
                    +3
                    It is much more correct to compare the MiG-21 with the F-5, both light fighters. At that time, there were no analogues of the Phantom in the USSR. It is very difficult to write an article on air defense fighters, they did not participate in hostilities, few people know their real capabilities. But without taking them into account, it would be incorrect to consider this topic.
                    “We take this phrase and reveal it))” - mind you, I didn’t raise the topic “Soviet aviation in the era of the digital revolution: rise and fall”. Moreover, what kind of digital revolution is there at the turn of the 50-60s.
                    1. Demagogue
                      24 October 2020 22: 20 New
                      +6
                      First you give me a list of all the stillborn creativity of "dry", which is supposedly better than the great and terrible 21st! here is the impudence)) and now we compare with the f-5)) I analyzed the actual confrontation between the two cars. And by the way, I noted that they are in different weight categories. Mig-5 met f-21 in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. If you are interested, you can write an article about it.

                      On the digital revolution:
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Revolution

                      At least read Pedivikia.
                      1. Sergey Valov
                        Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 22: 33 New
                        -5
                        "Stillborn creativity" dry "" - this could end the communication, but
                        "At least read pedivikia" - if you refer to Wikipedia, and even more so to study the history of technology for you, then I'm sorry ... I won't disturb you with my communication anymore.
                      2. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 25 October 2020 22: 09 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        I analyzed the actual confrontation between the two machines. And by the way, he noted that they are in different weight categories.

                        That did not prevent you from declaring the best maneuverability of the twenty-ton Phantom against the eight-ton MiG-21. I am afraid that it is not easy to find such lapses even in pedivikia. wassat
                      3. Demagogue
                        25 October 2020 22: 18 New
                        0
                        Бггг))) specialist detektid)))

                        If you dance from the masses, then we don't need anything other than moment-21. The Su-35 needs to be sawed on needles. Better yet, the Yak-3 into production))
                      4. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 26 October 2020 00: 48 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        If you dance from the masses, then we do not need anything except the moment-21.

                        Yea Yea. Some, as I see it, believe that 10% superiority in specific power fully compensate for 100-150% of the difference in mass. It is immediately evident - "expert"! tongue
                      5. Demagogue
                        26 October 2020 08: 36 New
                        +3
                        Will we give you the numbers?)) I actually gave it. Share your calculations on thrust-to-weight ratio and load.
                      6. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 26 October 2020 23: 53 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        Share your calculations on thrust-to-weight ratio and load.

                        And what does the thrust-to-weight ratio have to do with it? MANEUVERABILITY is the speed in changing the direction of movement. There is no way a twenty-ton aircraft can be more maneuverable than the lighter MiG-21 at times. By definition.
                      7. Demagogue
                        27 October 2020 08: 47 New
                        +1
                        Enough clowning already, I know that Google is not banned))

                        The F-4 has two engines and 160 kilonewtons, while the 21st PF has one and how many? I give homework to find information on my own))
                      8. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 27 October 2020 23: 41 New
                        0
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        The F-4 has two engines and 160 kilonewtons, while the 21st PF has one and how many?

                        Hmm .. hard case .. wassat So in your opinion, Phantom on rocket engines, how did the lunar module maneuver? fool
                      9. Demagogue
                        28 October 2020 08: 40 New
                        0
                        There will be no figures from you)) But I did not expect it either. sure not))
  • Operator
    Operator 24 October 2020 11: 09 New
    +7
    In 1983, the opinion of the AiK magazine was 100% the same as the opinion of the departmental literature.
    1. Demagogue
      24 October 2020 11: 50 New
      +2
      Ultimately, yes.
      1. Operator
        Operator 24 October 2020 11: 56 New
        0
        The attentive readers of "AiK" knew this perfectly well in 1982 laughing
        1. Demagogue
          24 October 2020 12: 01 New
          +2
          Attentive readers knew in 1978, after a series of articles about how air combat changed))
          1. Operator
            Operator 24 October 2020 13: 13 New
            0
            In 1978 I had not read "A&K" and "ZVO" yet laughing
            1. Lara Croft
              Lara Croft 25 October 2020 11: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              In 1978 I had not read "A&K" and "ZVO" yet laughing

              Well, a selection of old magazines could be read now ...
              I have a selection of ZVO magazines in my sofa since 1975, this does not mean that I learned to read already in 1975 (when I was not yet) ...
              And the articles in it were more interesting earlier than they are now ... "masking with foam", "fighting fogs at airfields" (according to NATO experts), etc. etc.
              1. Operator
                Operator 25 October 2020 11: 21 New
                0
                Thank you for reminding me - I still have a "selection" of interesting topics of the Western Military District in my mind laughing
  • parusnik
    parusnik 24 October 2020 10: 35 New
    +2
    I'll tell you when it was somewhere in the early 80s, before perestroika, years 83-84, was published in the Soviet press: Pravda and Izvestia .. From the beginning, the United States declared, then the USSR answered ... Propaganda was on both sides ...
    1. Demagogue
      24 October 2020 10: 59 New
      +7
      I am only interested in the military component. Politics is not interesting. The father of technology, Beckman, evaluated everything from the point of view of technological-non-technological, and I take a similar approach. I am not a "fan" who is a fan of our technique, but I try to analyze incessantly.
      As for the USSR, it is believed that the conflict in Lebanon in 1982 led to defeatism in the leadership and, as a result, to perestroika. But I'm not very interested in this.
      1. Lara Croft
        Lara Croft 25 October 2020 11: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Demagogue
        As for the USSR, it is believed that the conflict in Lebanon in 1982 led to defeatism in the leadership and, as a result, to perestroika. But I'm not very interested in this.

        Well, if you took the period of the Lebanese war in 1982, then why didn't you write about the successes of the Soviet anti-aircraft missile systems in the SAR against the planes of Israeli Jews ... about Israeli warplanes falling from a mute over the SAR with fireballs ... a decrease in the role of ZRV (and RTV, respectively) ...
        1. Demagogue
          25 October 2020 11: 35 New
          +2
          No problem. Give data on who, where and what shot down and discuss. If shot down over SAR, then there must be captured pilots or debris at least. Would you like to present them?
          1. Lara Croft
            Lara Croft 25 October 2020 12: 25 New
            -2
            Quote: Demagogue
            No problem. Give data on who, where and what shot down and discuss. If shot down over SAR, then there must be captured pilots or debris at least. Would you like to present them?

            Everything is in the public domain (like the material that you used for this article), otherwise, who are you to present something to me or do you write according to the editorial assignment?
            In this article, you have written promisingly:
            Aviation technology has entered the era of onboard systems with software and small-sized computers on missiles, but we will talk about this next time.

            I only proposed two topics about the USSR and NATO Air Force in the European theater of operations and the defense of the USSR sky by the SAR in 1982
            1. Demagogue
              25 October 2020 12: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Lara Croft
              Quote: Demagogue
              No problem. Give data on who, where and what shot down and discuss. If shot down over SAR, then there must be captured pilots or debris at least. Would you like to present them?

              Everything is in the public domain (like the material that you used for this article), otherwise, who are you to present something to me or do you write according to the editorial assignment?
              In this article, you have written promisingly:
              Aviation technology has entered the era of onboard systems with software and small-sized computers on missiles, but we will talk about this next time.

              I only proposed two topics about the USSR and NATO Air Force in the European theater of operations and the defense of the USSR sky by the SAR in 1982


              There is no factual information available. Some serious authors are inclined to believe that Israel probably lost several aircraft, but no more. And fairy tales don't interest me. There were dozens of foreign military observers in Lebanon, you can't really falsify. I have provided data that I believe to be reliable.

              In 1982, no sar sky was out of the question. The Syrians tried to prevent Israel from conducting an operation in Lebanon. The fighting took place in Lebanon.

              European TVD is a hypothetical situation, but here is a real war and real experience in the use of technology. I prefer to work with facts.
              1. Lara Croft
                Lara Croft 25 October 2020 12: 56 New
                -2
                Quote: Demagogue
                Accessible no factual.

                I understood you, goodbye ...
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 24 October 2020 07: 42 New
    -9
    I think that it was enough for the author to print his "Conclusions" section and not waste his energy on such a lengthy article. Volume does not always replace content. For the author: as it is customary to write this is my personal opinion and the editorial staff is not responsible for it.
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 24 October 2020 08: 42 New
    -4
    The author initially declares the controversial statement as a fact that does not require proof, and then submits everything under this statement. A strange manner.
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 24 October 2020 09: 42 New
      +6
      Quote: Turist1996
      Author initially controversial statement declares as a fact that does not require proof, and then submits everything under this statement. A strange manner.

      Give an example of a controversial statement, otherwise it is not entirely clear what you mean.
  • Fan-fan
    Fan-fan 24 October 2020 09: 27 New
    15
    The most bitter feeling I have is that even now the situation is not very different from that of 1982.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 October 2020 12: 43 New
      +4
      All air-to-air missiles that are now in service with our Air Force are already yesterday or even the day before yesterday.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 24 October 2020 09: 43 New
    14
    What's controversial in the article?
    That Soviet electronics lagged behind Western ones?
    Also news to me. Everyone knew it then, and it is surprising that someone does not believe in it now.
    Remember, "cybernetics is the corrupt girl of imperialism"? This was not in vain.
    At the university, the electronics teachers joked at the lectures that Japanese magazines published articles with descriptions of "Soviet" microcircuits, where they told us why in our microcircuits what output was used.
    For at that time we were able to copy semiconductor structures, in the USSR there was even a unique, really unparalleled technique for layer-by-layer grinding, but then there were problems.
    Here, for example, about those same 80s from a man who knew what he was talking about
    in the 80s we put into operation the first in our country onboard computer for anti-aircraft guided missiles. Before that, rockets with computers flew only into space ...
    we solved the problem! The first combat computer, such a serious aggregate of fifteen kilograms out of more than a thousand pieces of microcircuits, we did pass. Our "car" was produced until 2000. Source: https://m.vn.ru/news-103291/


    And after 1991, there was a complete seam ...
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 24 October 2020 10: 02 New
      +6
      Or here's a comparison of ours and Western electronics already in the two thousandth:
      It took them to make homing equipment for the torpedo. Of course, the submariners themselves conjured over the task. But it turned out that electronic "brains" occupied almost a third of the entire torpedo, displacing the charge and the engine.
      (We) promised that the filling would be more elegant. The first "pancake" of the NIEEP turned out to be four times less than that of the "sea devils". Those with amazement, not believing their eyes, familiarized themselves with the "product" of the Siberians and immediately shrugged their shoulders with great regret: "Alas, he cannot work!" Not because it is poorly made. On the contrary, there has never been anything like it in the Fatherland. But in the Fatherland there was not and still is not the same element base that is used all over the world and which NIIEP risked using, having obtained it "on the side". As a result, we managed to press the "brain stuffing" of the torpedo into a plate-plate that fits ... in the palm of your hand. Source: https://m.vn.ru/news-103291/
    2. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 24 October 2020 12: 17 New
      +1
      A new version of historical events in the style of "What if the USSR had its own uncopying electronics?" should just about, in the coming decades, show the Chinese. They have their own original electronics and they are not lagging behind the western ones as much as they lagged behind in the USSR and they are striving to sell their aircraft and tanks to third countries, where the parties to the conflicts will have both modern western technology and modern Chinese technology.
  • [comment-show]
    mihail_mihail0620
    mihail_mihail0620 24 October 2020 09: 59 New
    -2
    The attitude to the article is ambiguous, along with many politicized articles that have recently appeared on the VO, there is an opportunity to discuss something about weapons.
    I am not an expert in the field of air defense, but several questions arose for the author:
    The Syrian Air Force was represented by both the MiG-21, already well-known in Vietnam, and the MiG-23 and MiG-25.

    Was the MiG-25 used in Vietnam?
    The conclusion, to put it mildly, is not obvious in the presence of the experience of unsuccessful attacks on the E-2S, when the radar of aircraft much more powerful than the radar of missiles were jammed. Subsequently, the S-200 air defense system will be transferred to Syria, and then the S-300, but the IDF air force will still operate unhindered on Lebanese territory and strike at Syrian territory, and the Syrian air force and air defense will not be able to get there since 1982.

    S-200s were delivered to Syria only in 1983 and S-300s only in 2018.
    "History of the Israeli Air Force" (Wings of Retribution) from AST 2001 price in Israel 45 nis. The book is still on sale - about at least today it has not yet been sold in the "Golden Age" store 4th floor Tahana Merkazit A hadasha Tel Aviv. Near the Stematsky store.
    Quote page 258 .:
    "... Israeli losses are unknown. During this period, at least one E-2S Hokkai AWACS was shot down by a Soviet S-200 air defense missile system in Syria ....

    and UAVs made of composites were a difficult target for air defense systems of that time (as they are today), although some of them, of course, were shot down by the Syrians.

    "In terms of noise immunity, the Wasp surpasses all military complexes of its generation."

    This forced the use of various tactics to combat it, along with electronic warfare means, which, in turn, reduced the effectiveness of the action of strike aircraft. Therefore, acting in the summer of 1982 against the complexes delivered to Syria, the Israelis intensively attacked their positions with "drones", forcing them to expend missiles on them, and only then delivered a powerful strike from aircraft.
    (http://otvaga2004.ru/tiv/zenitnyj-raketnyj-kompleks-osa-istoriya-sozdaniya-chast-3/)
    The lagging behind of the USSR took place both at the technological level and at the level of military thought: air defense echelon no longer worked.

    What layered air defense did the Syrians have in Lebanon in 1982?
    Regarding the backward scientific thought, so the MIG-31 with the Zaslon radar, which was PFAR, the beginning of operation in 1981 and which could be used as an AWACS, the USA did not have PFAR then.
    [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
    The comment was deleted.
    [/ comment-deleted]
    1. Operator
      Operator 24 October 2020 11: 21 New
      +5
      The author's absolutely correct conclusion: the backwardness of military thought in the domestic air defense is still continuing - the Karabakh shooting in a shooting range of everything in a row, including any types of air defense systems, is a clear example.

      And the point here is not in the element base of domestic electronics, but in devastation in the heads - so far, the Russian air defense system does not have a short-range anti-aircraft missile system capable of detecting and simultaneously firing at several dozen small air targets.

      Maybe you need to fix something in the system?
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 11: 43 New
        +1
        The point, of course, is not the element base. But it is easier and more effective to deal with drones by means of RTV, and not anti-aircraft missile systems. Why this is not happening in Karabakh is a separate question.
        1. Operator
          Operator 24 October 2020 11: 55 New
          -2
          For a simple reason - electronic warfare is not effective against UAVs. But this fact has not yet been reported to the commander-in-chief of the air defense.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 24 October 2020 11: 58 New
            +3
            Who decided it was ineffective? UAV manufacturers? It is always easier to interfere with radio communication channels than to protect yourself from them, this is an axiom. You just need to deal with this issue.
      2. Demagogue
        24 October 2020 15: 50 New
        +7
        SAM will no longer help. We need UAV fighters UAVs. Well, give the infantry more effective means of fighting. I like the Swedish rbs-70. Integration into one network of many pu. Themselves poo not contrasting targets like any wasps, etc. If the radar is with a stealth mode of operation, ideal. And you can also put Ols on the same tripod. And do not detect it.
        1. Operator
          Operator 24 October 2020 16: 09 New
          -3
          There is no need for a radar to detect UAVs - an OEP is enough, since the UAVs themselves are equipped with an OEP, i.e. can only work while maintaining visibility in the optical range.

          Any MANPADS is more expensive than a small reconnaissance UAV equipped with an OEP and a laser designator. Therefore, when a MANPADS missile hits the specified UAV, it should be said that the aircraft shot down the missile, and not vice versa.

          To combat reconnaissance and attack UAVs, a simple air defense system (for example, based on the Tiger) with an OEP and a towed launcher for 100 small missiles with a kinetic warhead and an inclined range of 14 km is required. The missiles should be equipped with an optical seeker with computerized target recognition against the sky.
          1. Demagogue
            24 October 2020 16: 26 New
            +9
            The tiger drives and is a contrasting target for the UAV - like Shilki in Lebanon in 1982. And the tripod cannot be spotted. The Swedes are great. They put tripods every 4 km and one radar at the back. Network centricity. Stability. So we will win))

            Anything contrasting on the front line won't heal now. UAV fighter can be used as a bomber, two in one.

            In Lebanon, the Israelis are crazy! they threw a bonbu with a caliber of a ton to be sure. The main thing is to win the battle. No one will stand behind the price.
            1. Operator
              Operator 24 October 2020 19: 25 New
              -6
              "Tiger" with 100 channels of simultaneous guidance, armed with 100 anti-aircraft missiles, is not a target, but a hunter.

              If a gliding guided bomb is dropped on the "Tiger" outside the range of its missiles, it will shoot it down (disrupt the operation of the seeker) immediately after crossing the interception line. He will do the same with 99 other simultaneously attacking ammunition. After that, the "Tiger" with a clear conscience will take the hit of the 101st ammunition (the crew can control the air defense missile system remotely).

              The remaining three air defense systems from the anti-aircraft missile battery will cover the army unit to which they are attached. This is called military air defense.

              And four Swedish MANPADS are called "kindergarten", which, in a massive attack, can only defend itself.
              1. Demagogue
                24 October 2020 19: 47 New
                +5
                The fact of the matter is that it is not a kindergarten. The Iranians in Iraqi were very pleased with them.

                RBS will not let the UAV nightmare the infantry and it is difficult to destroy it. This is a tactical link.

                And the strategic one needs UAVs and aviation, and a lot. This is the only way to win. Only aircraft can seize the initiative

                A tiger won't fit so many rockets. On a wagon with a trailer too. Zrk everything, this is a passive defense and does not work. A volley from battery 155 and hello. Why would the Jews spend?
                1. Operator
                  Operator 24 October 2020 21: 05 New
                  -3
                  In the Iranian-Iraqi war, UAVs and guided munitions were not used, all the more massively.

                  If you shoot down a UAV, then what will help to aim the MLRS at an air defense system that controls the airspace in a passive mode?

                  Vertical-launch anti-aircraft missiles in TPK 2 meters long and 20 cm in diameter will fit into 2x2x2 meter launchers with outriggers based on a Tiger trailer.

                  In a war with a technologically advanced adversary (and not in an anti-terrorist operation), strategic and tactical nuclear weapons are required bully
                  1. Shahno
                    Shahno 24 October 2020 21: 10 New
                    0
                    Quote: Operator
                    Since the Iran-Iraq war, UAVs and guided munitions have not been used, much less massively.

                    If you shoot down a UAV, then what will help to aim the MLRS at an air defense system that controls the airspace in a passive mode?

                    Vertical-launch anti-aircraft missiles with a length of 2 meters and a diameter of 10 cm will fit in a 2x2x2 meter launcher with outriggers based on a Tiger trailer.

                    In a war with a technologically advanced adversary (and not in an anti-terrorist operation), strategic and tactical nuclear weapons are required bully

                    And the Turks have it or not, if that ... laughing
                    They did not respect the alliance, they may not come to the rescue.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 24 October 2020 21: 11 New
                      -1
                      If you don’t share, then it won’t be laughing
                  2. Demagogue
                    24 October 2020 22: 27 New
                    +4
                    So I raised all these questions in the article about the UAV. A mid-altitude UAV sees 70+ km of sar radar. For 40 km ols. They can just run a one-time model over the trees.

                    SAM is money down the drain. All the money, up to a penny, is needed for aviation. Aviation can be gathered into a fist and the air defense system can be torn apart in one sector of the front, providing a breakthrough. Mobility. And zrk is static.

                    The Japanese say: static is death, and dynamics is life.
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 24 October 2020 22: 40 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      SAM is money down the drain. All the money, up to a penny, is needed for aviation.

                      The United States has concentrated on reducing the size of weapons, planning bombs (the Turks also have their own) can already be hung on the MALE, these bombs have a range of 60-110 km, the price of a “penny”. Indeed, there is very little real sense from ground-based air defense, maximum to calm down the troops.
                    2. Operator
                      Operator 24 October 2020 22: 42 New
                      -3
                      The medium-altitude UAV is very well knocked down by the S-350 even before the detection line of the short-range air defense system. And against the reciprocal use of aircraft weapons, it is precisely the short-range air defense system that is required.

                      When flying at low altitude, a small UAV has a swath of several hundred meters wide - while it crawls in the sky over the enemy's positions, it is more likely to be shot down from small arms than it detects, especially under camouflage capes.
                      1. Demagogue
                        24 October 2020 22: 46 New
                        +4
                        I chewed this whole story in detail. No c-350 will help. Although I treat him warmly. He will have his own problems. They just push through with a number and there won't be enough bq. Read the article on UAVs vs Air Defense.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 24 October 2020 22: 52 New
                        -5
                        How many can suppress the S-350, if it is protected by a short-range air defense system with 100 missiles of ammunition - a rhetorical question.

                        The dynamics for the RF Armed Forces in offensive weapons - as many guided weapons as possible in the format of MLRS, GKR, OTRK, MRBM and ICBM (including with special warheads). Any other approach is the lot of rogue.
                      3. Demagogue
                        25 October 2020 07: 51 New
                        +6
                        In Libya, the Turks explained everything in a popular way like ... Okay, once again: your air defense systems will have to be moved far from the front line, otherwise they will simply be demolished with art. And this means that they do not cover the front line, but only themselves in the rear. The front end will be blown apart by the UAV and the art, and these pointless accessories will be thrown and run like Generalissimo Haftar. If you do not have air supremacy, then no zrk will correct this.
                        100 missiles))) will ship several packages from the MLRS at the same time and that's it.
                        The aviation only decides the outcome of the battle today.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 25 October 2020 07: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    And the point here is not in the element base of domestic electronics, but in devastation in the heads - so far, the Russian air defense system does not have a short-range anti-aircraft missile system capable of detecting and simultaneously firing at several dozen small air targets.

    Therefore, there is no, that it cannot be made from the existing element base.

    That's why she basethat everything further depends on her.
    And no matter what thought in their heads replaces devastation, there is no way to jump above your head.
    1. Liam
      Liam 25 October 2020 07: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      you can't jump above your head.

      Above bases in this context
    2. Operator
      Operator 25 October 2020 10: 44 New
      -3
      Damn - wide-angle infrared video cameras on the Russian market are like dirt (used in golim systems for protecting premises and territories), with desktops, electronics stores are overwhelmed at the very least.

      Not the element base, but the heads in the RF Aerospace Forces are absent as a class - so far they have not been honored to instruct domestic programmers to adapt numerous commercial face recognition programs for recognizing aircraft against the sky (sky - cap). And at the same time, take the most shitty Chinese / Taiwanese smartphones with built-in face recognition to install their filling as the seeker of short-range anti-aircraft missiles.

      Screams about the lack of an element base - just a cover for their asses.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 25 October 2020 14: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Operator
        take the most beefy Chinese / Taiwanese smartphones with built-in face recognition to set their filling as anti-aircraft missile seeker

        Funny.
        Even not the most shitty Chinese microcircuits have shown their inadequacy.
        Remember what you found on the records of the black box of our plane, shot down by the Turks in 2015. That's right, nothing, because they were made of Chinese.
        Do you have any idea of ​​the working conditions of the on-board equipment of anti-aircraft missiles? Looks like no.
        1. Operator
          Operator 25 October 2020 16: 34 New
          0
          What are the problems of pouring epoxy on a smartphone board?
  • Eug
    Eug 24 October 2020 10: 00 New
    +3
    If the MiG-23 was a step forward compared to the MiG-21, it certainly wasn't in terms of air combat. Although it was on the 23s, as for me, that the "correct" missile suspension scheme was applied - the R-23s were suspended further from the CM than the R-60s. Thus, in close combat, the moment of inertia was reduced, which contributed to an increase in maneuverability. Why this suspension scheme was not developed is a mystery to me. In Lebanon, in addition to jamming Arab ground detection equipment, relief played a significant role - the folds of the terrain could only be viewed from AWACS aircraft, but not from the ground. And not a word about marching training (or rather, about its absence in not the most problematic conditions of changing positions) of Arab ground air defense systems. In general, as for me, the picture was made by AWACS aircraft - they opened the ground air defense and control system, "looking" far beyond the line of contact of the parties.
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 24 October 2020 11: 03 New
      +5
      Quote: Eug
      In Lebanon, in addition to jamming Arab ground assets

      do not forget that in Operation Artsav 19 (Medvedka 19), the tactic of using drones as targets for decoys and for reconnaissance was also used. drones "Telem" (radar deception) and "Zakhavan" (reconnaissance).
      also successfully worked out anti-radar missiles "Purple Fist" (AGM-78E American missile modified for Israeli needs)

      Israel has used about 90 flying vehicles (simultaneously in the air) and not 200 as the author claims.


    2. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 24 October 2020 19: 18 New
      +2
      The P-23s were suspended further from the CM than the P-60s. Thus, in close combat, the moment of inertia was reduced.

      When the missiles are located further from the CM, the moment of inertia of the system increases.
      1. Eug
        Eug 25 October 2020 06: 45 New
        0
        Yeah .. only the R-23 could be launched earlier and with less overload - BEFORE close maneuvering combat, thereby getting rid of the spaced masses that increase the moment of inertia .. and to the borders of the close maneuvering combat on the 23rd, only the P-60, located close to the CM .. for comparison - the Su-27 has short-range missiles at the ends of the consoles ...
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 25 October 2020 21: 22 New
          +1
          for comparison - the Su-27 has short-range missiles at the ends of the consoles ...
          Well, right, only at these points can the R-73 be captured at all permissible homing angles. And if a rocket with a TGS is suspended between the gondolas, then the head will only see a narrow sector of the corners down. And therefore, the R-27T is hung only on one pair of points, and the R-73 is even closer to the ends of the wings.
          1. Eug
            Eug 26 October 2020 15: 51 New
            0
            Thank you, I didn't know that.
  • Hexenmeister
    Hexenmeister 24 October 2020 11: 35 New
    +6
    In 1982, the problems of Soviet military aviation were systemic. Since 1979, a new F-15S with an improved APG-63 radar with PSP went into production in the USA, the first full-fledged fighter of the 4th generation (a highly maneuverable fighter with a full-fledged "look and shoot down" capability) with an VV missile with an active AIM- 120. By analogy with the improved RDM radar, it can be argued that the detection range for its radar when looking downward was at least 90 km. Aviation technology has entered the era of onboard software systems and small computers on missiles

    - Neither in the 70s, nor in the 80s, the AIM-120 was not in service;
    - APG-90 did not have any "80 km by fighter" in the 63s;
    - The use of PSP in those days led to the following disadvantages:
    - dynamic range problems
    - problems with stabilizing the level of false alarms, the primitive solution of which gave losses, and, accordingly, a decrease in the detection range
    - PSP did not allow the use of "non-trivial" methods of increasing the detection range and accelerating the rate of survey of space, which were used in radars with electronic control of the position of the main lobe of the directional pattern (who did not understand this is a phased array antenna).
    1. Demagogue
      24 October 2020 13: 29 New
      +2
      The first successful launch of aim-120 was in 1981. Wikipedia doesn't write about it, but okay. The series from 1987 is true, before this pre-production and testing. If it was necessary, then they would test on us.

      For detection ranges, let's link to the studio. The French write that their radar in the early 80s could be 90 km away. Mind.

      On PSP everything is simple: now all PSP radars)))
      1. Hexenmeister
        Hexenmeister 24 October 2020 13: 38 New
        +4
        You yourself wrote that the characteristics are secrets, but you require some kind of links.
        Regarding the PSP, for a start we would have figured out where these problems arose from, what can be done and what cannot, suddenly it turns out that they have remained present ...
      2. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 17: 36 New
        -1
        Quote: Demagogue
        now all PSP radars)))


        Excuse me, what is PSP - DSP or something else?
        1. Demagogue
          24 October 2020 17: 46 New
          0
          PSP is a term in aviation. Now it leaves already, tk. everything went digital. Yes, compliant with civil DSP. In 1979, it went into a series of radar with a digital processor and in the same year Intel made digital processors available to civilians.
  • iouris
    iouris 24 October 2020 12: 39 New
    +3
    The title declares a topic that has not been disclosed at all, therefore, informationally and conceptually, the publication contains no novelty. Stating the topic, the author did not even bother to indicate the time frame of the "digital era" of US aviation and Soviet aviation, not to mention the content of the changes that took place and their consequences. Instead, the reader is offered a "brief overview" of the military operations of aviation in Vietnam and the Bolshoi East, which has already set the teeth on edge.
    Technologically, Soviet aviation has always lagged far behind the enemy for 20-30 years. In the "digital era" Soviet aviation did not have "ups", but, on the contrary, began a rapid decline (in the sense of lagging behind the exemplary level). And this lag is growing.
    The conclusion is not good. Due to the "digital lag", the aviation and the armed forces of the Russian Federation as a whole, without a decisive retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons on the "decision-making center" and its environs, will not be able to complete the task and are doomed to suffer huge losses from pinpoint strikes by network structures.
    The only task of the aviation and armed forces of the "new look", in general, is to ensure the infliction of damage, which the enemy considers unacceptable.
    1. Demagogue
      25 October 2020 08: 59 New
      +2
      Stating the topic, the author did not even bother to indicate the time frame of the "digital era" of US aviation and Soviet aviation,


      You are not reading carefully. The author indicated everything. The beginning of the digital revolution 50-60s. Who thinks how. And the end ... Revolutions have no end)) The process continues. But all this could be found in a couple of seconds and not waste time on the message. Do not keep up with the revolution then))
      1. iouris
        iouris 25 October 2020 11: 37 New
        0
        It is clear: "The revolution has no beginning, the revolution has no end ..."
        Take the trouble to give an example of "digital" devices on the aircraft of the USSR in the 50s ... 60s (first-third generation).
        1. Demagogue
          25 October 2020 11: 44 New
          +2
          The digital revolution may have an end, but by all accounts, it is not yet complete.

          And why should I bother looking for something that the Soviet aviation did not have? Read the headline carefully: Soviet aviation in the era of the digital revolution that began in the 60s, regardless of the state of Soviet electronics.
          1. iouris
            iouris 25 October 2020 12: 21 New
            0
            Then what kind of "takeoff" are we talking about?
            1. Demagogue
              25 October 2020 12: 39 New
              0
              It's about successful use in the 60s and 70s. Have you read the article?
              1. iouris
                iouris 25 October 2020 14: 10 New
                -1
                Have you figured out the topic? "Successful application" is air superiority. And where has this "successful application" been observed?
                1. Demagogue
                  25 October 2020 14: 58 New
                  0
                  I figured it out)) and gave examples. And he outlined the criterion of success, moreover. Within the framework of the Soviet doctrine, which involved the use in combination with an air defense system. The conquest of air supremacy was not supposed there. And the air defense of ground forces and objects was provided.
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 25 October 2020 21: 55 New
      +2
      I have the impression that you either do not know what you are writing about, or you are incorrectly formulating your thoughts. The lag in technologies in certain industries is associated with the level of development of science and production, which, of course, affects the tactical and technical characteristics of aviation technology, the materials used, the reliability of units, systems and structural elements in general. our aviation equipment is not only not inferior to foreign models, but surpasses them in a number of characteristics. The communications and combat command and control system has proven its effectiveness and is constantly being improved.


      Your fabrications about "huge losses from pinpoint structures", Russia's impossibility to strike back at the enemy's "decision-making center" without using nuclear weapons is nothing more than irresponsible chatter. Today, the task of aviation and the armed forces as a whole still remains to repel an enemy attack from wherever it comes, using all types of modern weapons, incl. nuclear. Putin said clearly: "A world in which we will not be, we do not need!"
      1. iouris
        iouris 26 October 2020 00: 09 New
        -1
        Words are words and criteria are factors. Pay less attention to propaganda. The tasks that you formulate for the RF Armed Forces must be achievable. RF is not the USSR. The USSR had both "strategic depth" and enormous resources, and superiority in its "deterrent" potential. NATO is a billion people, and a "golden" one. Do not forget that systems are built on elements, the element base is the cutting edge of technology, and the element base seems to be mostly "imported", i.e. American. The US will continue to strangle. Until Moscow begins to control the population of at least 250 million people, the industry will not work.
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 26 October 2020 02: 08 New
          +1
          You are probably a humanist and inclined to abstraction. That's where all these "factors", "deterrent potential", "golden billion", "elements", "element base" and so on come from. I was a test engineer, a military pilot in one specialty, and a professional lawyer in another, the current one. I do not think that I will “discover America” if I inform you that modern warfare is a carefully planned event and many factors are taken into account in preparation for it: the readiness of the Armed Forces, industry, moral-political, mobilization, economic, military, evacuation potential, food and material reserves. funds and so on. The purpose of the war must justify the money spent on it, otherwise, it becomes meaningless. As in the days of the USSR, in modern conditions, the war in Europe, if unleashed, will become general and nuclear missile. All accumulated "deterrent potential" will be used. There will also be practically no mobilization period and will have to fight with all those types of weapons that are currently available. There will be no division into civilian and military objects; the rear and front will be under attack. There will be no evacuation deep into the territory, and it will not save the civilian population from the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. In such a war there will be no winner, and the territory of the belligerent states within 20-30 minutes will turn into a lifeless desert with a lunar landscape, where the very "golden billion" about which you wrote will burn in terrible agony. And who will survive? I think no one. It seems to me that this is correct, if we are not there, why would anyone live on Earth at all.
          As for the element base, it has always been domestic in all types and branches of troops since the times of the USSR. I do not remember what was foreign (at least Mongolian) in the MiG-21, Yak-28, Tu-22M3 or missiles R-60, 23, 27,31,40, 77, X-22M, 8K67,8K84,15A30 and etc. The software on the UKP has long been domestic, the combat control and communications system does not depend on foreign servers, unlike, for example, our financial system, which is tied to Swift.
          I hardly believe that someone will decide on a nuclear conflict with Russia, knowing at least part of what I have written about, but the danger of the country being “pulled” into a local conflict is quite probable. Due to my age and state of health, I am no longer fit for military service. You are, judging by the comments, younger. I think you should devote more time to military affairs and prepare yourself for this.
          1. iouris
            iouris 26 October 2020 10: 44 New
            -2
            Quote: rubin6286
            You are probably a humanist and inclined to abstraction.

            Quote: rubin6286
            As in the days of the USSR, in modern conditions, the war in Europe, if unleashed, will become general and nuclear missile.

            Quote: rubin6286
            As for the element base, it has always been domestic in all types and branches of troops since the times of the USSR.

            Purely concretely, without abstractions, as you like, I quote the argument: In "modern conditions" the USSR lost the war (and peace), disappeared (did you notice when?) The war did not become either general or nuclear missile. Whole ministries have also disappeared, including: the aviation industry, radio-electronic ... And further down the list. By the way, personnel training systems and sectoral research centers, led by ministers, who were personally (!) Responsible for the results of work, i.e. implementation of planned (!) indicators (natural and "quality"). It was a rout.
            And now from the category of "this is interesting". On the first Soviet cruise missiles - analogs of the "Tomahawks" - reading the program from the magnetic tape was carried out using French-made magnetic heads (and this is about the beginning of the 1980s). I am afraid that today at critical facilities of technology, systems are functioning, built almost exclusively on the element base, purchased or stolen (yes, they just turned away for a second) in the "foreign country". Of course, there are "bookmarks" everywhere. And these elements are manufactured using technologies that do not meet the military standards of the MIL-STD series, which negatively affects the reliability and durability of military satellites, etc. and so on.
            1. rubin6286
              rubin6286 26 October 2020 15: 33 New
              0
              Again, I disagree with you. In the late 80s, early 90s of the last century, the USSR was stronger than ever. He lost not the war, but the economic competition between the two systems. Academicians and world-famous scientists see the reason for this in one thing, politicians, party and industry nomenclature in another, and the people in the kitchen in the third. In a country that has lost the war, a foreign army will come and impose its rules, which will have to be fed and not only. Thank God it didn't come to that.….
              The country, collapsed from within, was in dire need of reforms. They went, it's another matter who took up their implementation and what they led to. What you wrote about the collapse of entire industries, the system of personnel training - alas, it was, and not only that ... Much later had to be restored, and some of the consequences are still felt. But still, "Oboronka" was preserved, the country was defended, the rest will also gradually follow.
              Now about plagiarism and industrial espionage. Intelligence is engaged in industrial espionage. Alas, it was and will be so ..
              The development of rocketry began in the late 30s in Germany. What got to whom and how - they read books and watched films. I'll tell you what you probably haven't read. The missile launch is preceded by prelaunch preparation. Depending on the purpose of the missile, it takes a different period of time, but its goal is always the same - to make sure. that the instruments and units installed on board are in good working order and ready for operation. And if you are not ready? If not ready, you need to either replace the entire rocket, or the device itself. What to replace, where to get it? In ZIP. For each missile put on alert, a set of spare parts and accessories comes with it to the division's weapons depots. This is about 30-36 boxes of different sizes, which have everything that must be installed on it in preparation for launch or must be replaced when a malfunction is detected. The on-board instruments available in the spare parts must be checked on special equipment (stand SRS-5) with filling in the forms. This is a triple control operation. This is exactly what I had to do at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in 1979-80. I can assure you that magnetic heads in devices, pulse counters, punched tape - everything there was domestic and foreign did not smell at all.
              1. iouris
                iouris 27 October 2020 01: 12 New
                +2
                The USSR was so strong that it destroyed itself (the most powerful power in the world). Not so after 1991. The problem is not plagiarism, the problem is that the production of many things in the Russian Federation is impossible. It is bought in two China and South Korea or exchanged for resources (fish, forest, etc.). Do you represent the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with an iPhone?
                1. rubin6286
                  rubin6286 27 October 2020 11: 37 New
                  0
                  I will dare to recall the words of MV Lomonosov; "Nothing disappears without a trace and does not arise from nothing. Everything has a primary source." It is not surprising that after 1991 "everything went wrong." the other side ,,, "All countries of the world participate in trade, but with respect to a number of goods. incl. technologies in a number of countries have certain restrictions. If you can't buy from some, buy from others. This is a natural process. The General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, like the President of Russia, does not need an iPhone; he has a system of government communications through which he can contact anyone in the world at any time.
          2. unknown
            unknown 26 October 2020 14: 10 New
            +1
            Strange as it may seem, but before everyone else, mathematicians defended their Ph.D. theses, then chemists, physicists, and ... And later of all - philosophers. Humanities require more serious intellectual potential, breadth. The exact sciences are narrower. Of course, we are talking about serious science, and not about "effective management".
        2. unknown
          unknown 26 October 2020 14: 04 New
          0
          What "golden billion" are you talking about?
          The real population of the planet is much less.
          The population of China, for example, is estimated by researchers to be about 450 million.
          Accordingly, there are less other countries as well.
          1. iouris
            iouris 27 October 2020 10: 22 New
            0
            Quote: ignoto
            The population of China, for example, is estimated by researchers to be about 450 million.

            ???? Does the Earth still stand on three whales, or have they already been poisoned?
  • certero
    certero 24 October 2020 14: 25 New
    +4
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    oh, I would not even aim at Azerbaijanis

    why write nonsense. the capabilities of the Azerbaijani and Russian army are absolutely incomparable despite all the drones.
    However, unlike you, Azerbaijan itself clearly understands this.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 15: 32 New
      -1
      Quote: certero
      the capabilities of the Azerbaijani army and the Russian one are absolutely incomparable despite all the drones.

      How interesting.

      Let me clarify. Do you mean by the Russian army all its reportable beauty and power? Or, say, specifically those forces that were allocated 080808, not to mention the various ichtamnets in subsequent years?
  • certero
    certero 24 October 2020 14: 41 New
    +2
    The article is interesting, but the example of Lebanon as proof of the superiority of the generation of aircraft is not suitable.
    Acting like the Syrians and the Soviet air defense would have shown nothing. just because passive actions and giving the initiative to the enemy never lead to good. Just like now, when Israeli planes from Lebanese space are shooting missiles at Syria and air defense cannot shoot down all the missiles, this does not mean that it is bad but that what Israel is much stronger.
    The correct response to such actions would be to strike at Israeli airfields.
    By the way, in Vietnam, the main aircraft of the Vietnamese were the mig-17 and the mig-19.
    1. iouris
      iouris 27 October 2020 10: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: certero
      By the way, in Vietnam, the main aircraft of the Vietnamese were the mig-17 and the mig-19.

      And the main aircraft of the Americans were the F-105, loaded with six tons of bombs.
  • certero
    certero 24 October 2020 15: 34 New
    +3
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Or, say, specifically those forces that were allocated by 080808, not to mention the various ichtamnets in subsequent years?

    The outfit of forces required to defeat the Azerbaijani army.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 20: 10 New
      -1
      Quote: certero
      The outfit of forces required to defeat the Azerbaijani army.

      Streamlined. And in fact the same 58A and what is there from the videoconferencing? Tu-22 again?

      Oh well.
  • Alexander Sayapin
    Alexander Sayapin 24 October 2020 16: 24 New
    +2
    Cool and relevant article. Thanks to the author.
  • Capybara67
    Capybara67 24 October 2020 18: 06 New
    0
    It is interesting in this regard to find out how modern over-the-horizon radars, of which a lot have already been put into operation, can compensate for the shortage of AWACS aircraft in Russia
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 20: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: Capybara67
      It is interesting in this regard to find out how modern over-the-horizon radar

      Not a little.

      ZGRLS is a tool with a fairly specific functionality; it has nothing to do with local wars.
  • certero
    certero 24 October 2020 19: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Capybara67
    over-the-horizon radars, of which a lot have already been commissioned, can compensate for the shortage of AWACS aircraft in Russia

    They cannot issue target designations, unlike avaks.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 24 October 2020 19: 48 New
    -1
    I will not dispute the "destructive" direction of the article for Soviet aircraft and weapons. Let the connoisseurs, who have a fair amount of time, exercise. It will be interesting to read the discussion. lol

    But the Russian defense industry even now (and in the 60-80s) has to use what it has, starting with materials, electronic equipment, brains, etc. in the country of the USSR / RF. Indeed, in the last war, many German aircraft were initially stronger and more efficient than Soviet ones. But the outcome of the air battle on the Eastern Front is known lol
    1. iouris
      iouris 27 October 2020 10: 26 New
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      But the outcome of the air battle on the Eastern Front is known

      Because the result of the war is the defeat of the Europe United by Hitler. The outcome of the war was determined by the Russian rear, Russian infantry, tanks and artillery.
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 24 October 2020 19: 55 New
    -4
    The higher the thrust-to-weight ratio and the lower the wing loading, the higher the maneuverability. In combat with early modifications, the MiG-21 F-4 was more maneuverable: it had a better thrust-to-weight ratio (0.86 versus 0.71) with an identical wing load.

    "I do not believe!" (c) Stanislavsky.

    Despite the abundance of "beeches" and numbers, the article does not arouse the slightest confidence. The very comparison of the light fighter MiG-21 with the first heavy fighter-bomber F-4 Fantom is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. The machines are qualitatively different in their capabilities, and the abundance of "cut corners" and outright crap in the description of the article was finally finished off.

    Author .. do something more useful than fooling Topvar's readers!
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 20: 08 New
      +4
      Quote: Saxahorse
      the abundance of "cut corners" and outright crap in the description of the article was finally finished.

      A lot of letters and numbers would be appropriate in this place.

      However, I don't remember long posts in your performance.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 24 October 2020 20: 26 New
        -2
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        However, I don't remember long posts in your performance.

        I have more long posts than I would like, but this is not the case. The first obvious mess of the author suggests that there is no point in spending a week parsing each number.
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 25 October 2020 16: 04 New
      0
      American "project approach". Funding is allocated for a certain project, in this case - "the confrontation between Russia in the information sphere". This confrontation includes the vilification of the USSR, including in the field of weapons. Once the article falls into the topic, it can be funded from the funds of the project. Profit! So the article can be as far-fetched as you like, biased, deceitful, whatever. The author will receive money for it, and not at all the three hundred rubles that copywriters get from us, even if they write "War and Peace".
      So the author is doing something very useful for himself, and your indignation at him is simply ridiculous. The mass of this low-standard concoction will do its job anyway - it will form a certain reflex to the phrase "Soviet aviation" among the readers who are not in the subject. Gag reflex, yeah. People who are no longer taught, are not forced to think, but are simply trained to pass the test, the effectiveness of the project approach to their undeveloped brains is almost 100%
  • certero
    certero 24 October 2020 20: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Streamlined. And in fact the same 58A and what is there from the videoconferencing? Tu-22 again?

    the war of 888 and revealed the significant shortcomings of the Russian army. Most of them have been eliminated by modern times. Starting from the appearance of permanent readiness units and ending with interaction with the videoconferencing.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 October 2020 20: 49 New
      -2
      Quote: certero
      the war of 888 and revealed the significant shortcomings of the Russian army.

      It was believed that 58A was very lucky that she was dealing with Georgians, and not with a minimally competent adversary, at least the level of Chechens.
      Quote: certero
      Most of which have been eliminated by modern times

      Yes?
      1. mihail_mihail0620
        mihail_mihail0620 25 October 2020 12: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        58A was very lucky that she was dealing with Georgians, and not with a minimally competent adversary, at least the level of Chechens.

        For 4 years, Georgians were trained by specialists from the United States and Israel, and even the Ukrainians helped with air defense.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 12: 54 New
          -3
          About the Ukrainians and their air defense became clear a little later. As for who cooked whom, Americans and Jews are not magicians either. Those who do not want to learn will not learn.
          1. mihail_mihail0620
            mihail_mihail0620 25 October 2020 14: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            As for who cooked whom, Americans and Jews are not magicians either. Those who do not want to learn will not learn.

            Or maybe 58A fought well?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 15: 53 New
              -3
              Quote: mihail_mihail0620
              Or maybe 58A fought well?

              It would be strange, but, of course, this cannot be ruled out.
              1. mihail_mihail0620
                mihail_mihail0620 25 October 2020 17: 31 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                It would be strange

                Why strange? The Russians had the experience of two Chechens behind their backs.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 27 October 2020 10: 48 New
                  -1
                  Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                  The Russians had the experience of two Chechens behind their backs.

                  Therefore, it is strange.
                  1. mihail_mihail0620
                    mihail_mihail0620 27 October 2020 18: 58 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Therefore, it is strange.

                    Strange or not, but within 5 days the Georgian army stopped resisting.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 27 October 2020 19: 17 New
                      0
                      Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                      within 5 days the Georgian army stopped resisting.

                      Ага.
                      The Georgian warriors turned out to be so-so. There were (and are) democratic countries with high militarization, but Georgia is not one of them.
                      1. mihail_mihail0620
                        mihail_mihail0620 27 October 2020 22: 14 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The Georgian warriors turned out to be so-so.

                        Of the Iranians, the warriors turned out to be so-so, from the Turks, the warriors were so-so, the warriors from Nazi Germany were so-so, the soldiers from the Kwantung Army were so-so.
                        The Russians were lucky.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 28 October 2020 09: 17 New
                        0
                        Do you think the Russians were lucky with the Germans, who fought badly? Are you talking about WWII or WWII?

                        To be honest, I always go nuts at this place from patriots.
                      3. mihail_mihail0620
                        mihail_mihail0620 28 October 2020 12: 58 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Do you think the Russians were lucky with the Germans?

                        About WWII. The Russians won the Germans, so the Germans are so-so fighters, the Russians fought anyhow, just were lucky, according to your logic?
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        To be honest, I always go nuts at this place from patriots.

                        Emotions
  • iouris
    iouris 27 October 2020 10: 28 New
    0
    That's for sure. Especially Commander 58A. Very lucky. But his security was unlucky.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 October 2020 10: 47 New
      0
      Are you talking about the episode with Khrulev on August 9? Yeah, epic. Order of Suvorov to this gentleman.
  • certero
    certero 24 October 2020 21: 41 New
    +4
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    not with a minimally competent adversary, at least the level of the Chechens

    Don't make it up. The Chechens were better only with motivation. The Georgian units were fully prepared.
    And yes, most of the shortcomings have been eliminated, at least Syria has clearly shown it
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 25 October 2020 16: 10 New
      -4
      Quote: certero
      The Chechens were better only with motivation.

      )))
      At one time, the Germans were better only with motivation. Compared to the Italians.
      1. unknown
        unknown 26 October 2020 14: 20 New
        0
        Funny.
        During the WWII the Hungarians lost 400 thousand people irrevocably.
        Great Britain, along with the colonies, is the same. Likewise, the United States.
        Romania irrevocably lost 1 million 200 thousand people. That is, as much as the United Kingdom, the United States and Hungary combined. Did Great Britain and the United States fight at all?
        Italy, unlike the French, at least fought.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 26 October 2020 14: 56 New
          0
          )))
          Maximum losses of WWII: 1. USSR, 2. China 3. Reich 4. Poland (including the Holocaust) 5. Dutch India (Indonesia). 6. British India 6. Japan 7. French Indochina (Thailand) 8. Romania 9-11 Burma, Yugoslavia, Philippines.

          Are you sure this list (not counting the Axis countries) matches the contribution to victory? Any of these countries lost more than Britain and the United States combined. What does being in such a peculiar company say about the USSR?
          1. mihail_mihail0620
            mihail_mihail0620 27 October 2020 19: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            What does being in such a peculiar company say about the USSR?

            Says absolutely nothing. If the Americans destroyed the Kwantung Army themselves, they could well get on your list.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 28 October 2020 09: 20 New
              0
              Quote: mihail_mihail0620
              If the Americans destroyed the Kwantung Army themselves, they could well get on your list.

              If (would) the Americans "destroyed" the Kwantung Army themselves, the losses of the Americans amounted to 0 (zero) people against 40 thousand in total for the USSR. The surrender can also be accepted by telegraph; the Americans did not surrender to occupy Manzhou Guo.

              Unlike the USSR.
              1. mihail_mihail0620
                mihail_mihail0620 28 October 2020 12: 44 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                If)

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                "destroyed"

                According to the rules of the Russian language, the particle "would" can be placed both after (if) and after (destroyed).
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                The surrender can also be accepted by telegraph; the Americans did not surrender to occupy Manzhou Guo.

                Imagine that Manzhou Guo is Attu Island, only a large one and there is a million-strong Japanese army.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 28 October 2020 13: 21 New
                  +2
                  Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                  About WWII. The Russians won the Germans, so the Germans are so-so fighters, the Russians fought anyhow, just were lucky, according to your logic?

                  The Germans fought great (at first) but made a number of other mistakes.
                  Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                  According to the rules of the Russian language, a particle

                  The rules of the Russian language have nothing to do with it. The destruction of the Kwantung Army is an artistic exaggeration. This refers to the surrender of the Kwantung Army, which the Soviet side, which had rushed ahead of time, accepted it instead of the Chinese and presented it as a great favor to the Americans.
                  Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                  Imagine that Manzhou Guo is Attu Island, only a large one and there is a million-strong Japanese army.

                  At least two Attu islands. The Kwantung Army obeyed orders from Tokyo.
                  1. mihail_mihail0620
                    mihail_mihail0620 28 October 2020 16: 31 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    but made a number of other mistakes.

                    You play chess well and make a number of mistakes ....?
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    This refers to the surrender of the Kwantung Army, which the Soviet side, which had rushed ahead of time, accepted it instead of the Chinese and presented it as a great favor to the Americans.

                    The Japanese did not want to surrender to the Chinese and the Americans, although the Americans donated bases to the Japanese for the entire 44 and half of 45 years, the Russians capitulated, the Russians were lucky.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    At least two Attu islands.

                    It is very curious to see how the Americans would capture two large islands with two million Japanese fighters, without atomic bombs (in the 43rd atomic bomb the USA did not have)
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 28 October 2020 16: 45 New
                      +2
                      Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                      You play chess well and make a number of mistakes ....?

                      I hope I don’t need to prove that the government of A. Hitler was not the best by German standards. So yes, there were mistakes.
                      Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                      The Japanese did not want to surrender to the Chinese and the Americans,

                      The question of Japan's surrender was discussed from the end of 44, at the level of prime ministers and the emperor. Japanese diplomats in Sweden and Moscow have been pounding different thresholds on this issue since at least the beginning of July.
                      Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                      The Japanese did not want to surrender to the Chinese and the Americans

                      Japan surrendered, of course, to the United States. By the way, Germany (Reims) and Italy (Cassible). This is a pretty offensive coincidence for the Soviet side.
                      Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                      in the 43rd atomic bomb the United States did not have

                      You see, in 43, everyone had a bit of a crush on the Kwantung Army. By the way, the USSR too.
                      Quote: mihail_mihail0620
                      how the Americans would capture two large islands with two million Japanese fighters

                      You see, they somehow have no need to capture these Japanese fighters. Japan is on the other side.
                      1. mihail_mihail0620
                        mihail_mihail0620 28 October 2020 20: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Japan surrendered, of course, to the United States. By the way, Germany (Reims) and Italy (Cassible). This is a pretty offensive coincidence for the Soviet side.

                        There is nothing insulting to the USSR in this.
                    2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 28 October 2020 17: 48 New
                      0
                      > Russian capitulated, lucky Russian.

                      Wow the party line is swaying.
                      On board which Soviet battleship the act of surrender was signed, can you tell me?
                      1. mihail_mihail0620
                        mihail_mihail0620 1 November 2020 08: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                        On board which Soviet battleship the act of surrender was signed, can you tell me?

                        “In the office of Yamada [the commander of the Kwantung Army - Ya. B.] there was a meeting. The Soviet officer interrupted him and handed the Japanese a demand for immediate and unconditional surrender. The commander was silent. The gift of speech returned to him only with the appearance over the city of our landing aircraft and bombers [ie the plane with the officer flew alone, to accept the already agreed surrender - Ya. B.] ... The commander was the first to take off his saber, recognizing himself as a Soviet prisoner [as in the text; The Soviet Red Army began to be called only in 1946 - Ya. B.] Army. After him, all the other Japanese generals who were in the office did the same. "
                        And the next day, August 20, the Americans flew to Mukden to accept the surrender of the Japanese. "Imagine the surprise of the arrivals when they were met by Soviet servicemen." It is reported by Rambler. Further: https://weekend.rambler.ru/read/44720428/?utm_content=weekend_media&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink

                        The board was American, but.
                        World War II came to an end completely and completely, when on September 2, 1945, on board the American flagship Missouri, which arrived in the waters of Tokyo Bay, Japanese Foreign Minister M. Shigemitsu and Chief of the General Staff General Y. Umezu, US Army General D. MacArthur , Soviet Lieutenant General K. Derevyanko, Admiral of the British Fleet B. Fraser on behalf of their states signed the "Act of Japan's unconditional surrender."
                      2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                        Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 1 November 2020 17: 46 New
                        0
                        And the next day, August 20, the Americans flew to Mukden to accept the surrender of the Japanese.

                        And when Derevianko arrived in Tokyo, do you remember? How is it, they kind of gave up to us?


                        > American, but

                        "But what? You somehow cut off the thought at the most interesting place. Develop logic. And then tell us why, from your point of view, the expression "The Third Reich surrendered to France, France fought well" is incorrect.
                  2. 3danimal
                    3danimal 30 October 2020 14: 41 New
                    0
                    It is very curious to see how the Americans would capture two large islands with two million Japanese fighters, without atomic bombs (in the 43rd atomic bomb the USA did not have)

                    I would suggest taking these islands into a blockade, with a pair of light cruisers and destroyers (provided that the forces of the Japanese fleet are pushed back to their main territory). And he demanded surrender.
                    Would refuse - ok, ate each other ..
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 30 October 2020 14: 51 New
                  0
                  The Germans fought great (at first) but made a number of other mistakes.

                  They were doomed to defeat, starting a war on 2 fronts (with Britain at sea and in the air and the Union on land and in the air). Moreover, the naval war took away a huge amount of resources, each of more than a thousand submarines produced - this is at least 10 tanks.
                  Both Britain and the Union were supported by the world factory of the time, the USA.
                  In addition, from the 43rd year, the territory of the Reich began to be regularly bombed, causing damage to production facilities.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 30 October 2020 15: 23 New
                    +1
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Would refuse - ok, ate each other ..

                    So towards the end they did so when they grew wiser. Blood gut was only for airfields when they were needed. Okinawa, Iwo Jima.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    (with Britain at sea and in the air and the Union on land and in the air)

                    In fact, the British and on the ground were playing as best they could, but they could not be enough. In the Balkans, the Germans had the ground burning under their feet, although the leader of the Yugoslav proletariat, Comrade. Tito was not yet in spirit.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Each of the more than a thousand submarines produced is at least 10 tanks.

                    Even counting by weight, seven is 600+ tons. In fours - 25-30 pieces.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Were doomed to defeat by starting a war on 2 fronts

                    Yes, they did not think it over a bit.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 30 October 2020 17: 13 New
                      0
                      In the Balkans, the Germans had the ground burning under their feet, although the leader of the Yugoslav proletariat, Comrade. Tito was not yet in spirit.

                      Agree good
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 24 October 2020 23: 10 New
    +3
    Quote: Demagogue
    I am only interested in the military component. Politics is not interesting. The father of technology, Beckman, evaluated everything from the point of view of technological-non-technological, and I take a similar approach. I am not a "fan" who is a fan of our technique, but I try to analyze incessantly.
    As for the USSR, it is believed that the conflict in Lebanon in 1982 led to defeatism in the leadership and, as a result, to perestroika. But I'm not very interested in this.


    For such a look - I am already taking off my hat, in fact! Because calmly and without hurray-patriotic saliva or lime-tree in our country they write little analytical.
    In fact, what you are talking about in the article is, in my opinion, the conclusion on R&D issues - already in the 60s we preferred to copy American products, not having time to keep up with their updates. It will be interesting to read the continuation of the question.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 25 October 2020 00: 21 New
    +2
    Dear author! Digital technologies have increased the capabilities of weapons not only in aviation, but also in all other types and branches of the military, but, as much as we would not like it, this has not made aviation the main means of warfare today. Technical superiority in the field of digital technologies, of course, affects the efficiency of the task, but does not lead to the critical superiority of the air force of one of the belligerents over the battlefield and victory in the war.
    In the era of digitalization, Soviet aviation did not take off anywhere and did not fall anywhere. This message is fundamentally wrong. It has always developed, making the most of the achievements of science and industry of the country, and it would be surprising if it were otherwise.
    Our military doctrine has always proceeded from the fact that aviation does not conduct wars on its own, but only ensures the actions of ground forces or naval groupings. Modern aircraft are expensive and difficult to manufacture and operate. It can be detected in a timely manner by air defense systems and is most likely destroyed, and its ability to strike at ground and sea targets is significantly reduced by the use of electronic warfare systems. The combat effectiveness of air strikes is significantly inferior in terms of efficiency and accuracy of MLRS, not to mention tactical, operational-tactical and land-based and sea-based cruise missiles.
    Today it is generally accepted that military thought in developed countries works in the same way and it is only a matter of economic and technological capabilities. Modern weapons systems are being created and improved. It is impossible to surpass the enemy in everything, but it is real, first of all, where there are already prerequisites for this. Then the so-called "asymmetric" response arises. What our "partners" have, today we also have (over-the-horizon radars, AWACS aircraft, etc.). Another thing is how much they have and how much we need. Statistics say that parity is generally respected.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 October 2020 15: 54 New
    0
    What a wonderful article! Description of the American missile begins with the words
    The advantage of the AIM-9D was the cooling of the seeker, and, accordingly, the better sensitivity and launch range. AIM-9B.
    , and in the same sentence we see a description of the Soviet missile
    The weakness of the Soviet missile was the time for target acquisition - endless 22 s, twice as long as even with the original
    .
    If the article was aimed at analyzing the situation, a description of the advantages of the American missile would be replaced by a description of the advantages of the Soviet one, and vice versa. And so on, and so on, like a detailed description of the "paper advantages" of American radars, which of course "were much better" than the Soviet ones. True, disgustingly corrosive readers will certainly crawl into the sources, so right after the boastful praise of American radars, there is a sad statement that in 97% of cases American pilots identified enemy aircraft exclusively visually.
    The categorical assertion that the combined Soviet concept "has failed" is also charming. It suffered such a collapse that the C 300, not to mention the C 400, are just a pain in the belly of the American Air Force.
    There is no analysis of the situation in the article at all. Only a furious attempt to pull a well-known rubber product onto the globe. It's a pity. It is the analysis that would be extremely interesting. Here it is not even for a penny ...
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 25 October 2020 19: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      the boastful praise of American airborne radars is followed by the sad assertion that in 97% of cases, American pilots identified enemy aircraft exclusively visually


      In Vietnam? Well, the article says that the Soviet and American fighters there were about equal.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 26 October 2020 08: 51 New
        +1
        No, this is not what the article says) The article says that the radar of the American aircraft was much better, and then through clenched teeth it was recognized that it was not at all better. Right in one paragraph. at the same time, the phrases are selected very accurately, which indicates not analytics, but methods of psychological suppression. Read disgusting ...
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 26 October 2020 12: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          Well, the article says that there the Soviet and American fighters were about equal.

          No, that's not what the article says)


          The article says exactly that:


          The first round of the confrontation remained with the Soviet fighter, and the Americans failed to realize the numerical superiority in technology.


          Quote: Mikhail3
          The article says that the radar of the American aircraft was much better, and then through clenched teeth it was admitted that it was not at all better


          No. The article says that that time the advantage could not be realized.
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 26 October 2020 12: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            No. The article says that the advantage was not realized that time.

            There was an advantage on a piece of paper. The usual American drawn advantage, which cannot be seen with the eyes, touched with the hands, but which "is" because it is written in the performance characteristics. And this time such nonsense was nonsense that the "advantage" was not realized at all! Apparently the radar was seen twice as far as the Soviet ones, but the pilots did not. By the next war, American pilots pulled their eyes on the aphedron, and it became visible to them)) If you were ashamed, you would be so ashamed ...
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 26 October 2020 12: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: Mikhail3
              Apparently the radar was seen twice as far as the Soviet ones, but the pilots did not


              Naturally, the pilots saw the same. Therefore, with the requirement for visual identification and bad missiles, the fight was on an equal footing.

              Quote: Mikhail3
              By the next war, American pilots pulled their eyes on the aphedron, and they could see))


              For the next war, they made the best radar and the best missiles.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 26 October 2020 10: 06 New
      0
      And now about Putin, can you justify?
    2. unknown
      unknown 26 October 2020 14: 25 New
      0
      Word of J.I. D. has nothing to do with either nationality or religion.
      But, to the estate. Third. The class of usurers (bankers) and traders.
      Do you think that the article was ordered by the third estate?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 26 October 2020 09: 31 New
    +3
    The score in favor of Iran came out if not identical to the Israeli in Lebanon, but still devastating. Iran, unlike Israel, did not have AWACS and there was a "pure" confrontation of fighters. Only the nature of the hostilities was somewhat different: there were no major air battles and the Iranians were actively firing long-range missiles from the radar missile system. In these fights, the MiG-23 (including the MiG-23ML) invariably lost: approx. 45 units against 3 shot down F-14 and F-4.


    I, of course, wildly apologize, but in that war, both sides had a bunch of very different scrap metal, and the F-14 was there - it's like a heavy cruiser in a battle of corvettes with frigates. You can recall the Iranian F-5, which was just food for the MiG-23. As a result, both sides fought for 8 years without achieving anything. Although the qualitative superiority of the Iranian Air Force, which the United States had been so fed up with before, raises no questions. Only in 8 years the Iraqi Air Force has not ended.

    It is argued that the technological gap between our 4th generation aircraft and foreign 5th generation fighters is insignificant and unprincipled.


    Let's speak professionally for a start, for example, let's put the notorious generations in one place, I can easily show that the F-35 is just a "Superhornet", built at a new technological level, expressed in weight savings due to the use of a more advanced engine ...

    That is, it is necessary to clearly articulate how such aircraft as F-22, F-35, Su-57 differ from the latest versions of F-16, F-15 (which can be congratulated on a major contract for a new modification for the US Air Force, although someone swore by their mother that the F-35 would replace everyone), F \ A-18E \ F, Rafale, Typhoon, Su-35.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 26 October 2020 12: 24 New
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      I can easily show that the F-35 is just a "Super Hornet", built on a new technological level


      If it's easy, show it.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 26 October 2020 10: 05 New
    +4
    The Vietnam War was a great success for Soviet fighters. Simple fighters with primitive electronics were able to withstand expensive and technically complex American aircraft.


    To begin with, this is not the case, and the Americans carried out any Linebecker operations without any particular problems. Simply because of the overwhelming quantitative superiority. Separate injections of the MiG-17 and MiG-21 did not fundamentally change anything here. And comparing it to "Desert Storm", where the Coalition ground troops for the most part watched, is meaningless. In the air, the difference was only in the fact that the Vietnamese shot down more often due to the simplicity of the machines on both sides, which still gave sensible pilots a chance, but on the ground the Vietnamese did not care that they had everything bombed out. They lived in huts before and have not yet gotten used to it, it is not critical for them if the Americans bomb the power plant. So the Americans could bomb endlessly, as the USSR later bombed in Afghanistan.

    Another thing is that the MiG-21 itself suited such tactics well, and the Americans had a question, is it not fat to substitute expensive "phantoms". As a result, they made their MiG-21 (F-16) only more complicated. Because they could. And the F-20 did not even go for export, although in terms of performance characteristics it no longer looks like the bottom of the F-5 level.

    But in general, for anyone familiar with the equation of the existence of an aircraft, it is obvious that the MiG-21 class aircraft is good only in one thing, in price. And the USSR understood this perfectly, because all sorts of S-54/55/56 did not go into series.

    Further, we, of course, believe the Jews who did not shoot down a single plane, although one F-15 received the P-60 from the MiG-21 successfully landed with a torn nozzle. But what's the point in comparing the MiG-21 with the F-15? Let's then an early F-16 Compare with the Su-35. Well, in 1982, the USSR Air Force began to receive the MiG-29. The MiG-23, what year it is, 1968, it seems, I don't know what the author smoked about intercepting strategic bombers, against the F-15 is also not an option, the opinion of the pilot who flew on the MiG-23 was interesting in this regard. He had no illusions about the F-15, even based on the information available in the 80s. True, he did not consider the situation a hopeless either, tactics and numerical superiority.

    And I don’t remember that the MiG-23 lost where there was no F-15.

    As for the "useless" MiG-25, during the "Desert Storm" it was he who, on the very first day, minus the F \ A-18 from the formation of 40 vehicles and fled. Speed ​​and long-range missiles are always an argument.
    1. Demagogue
      26 October 2020 16: 06 New
      0
      You obviously haven't read the article. Or not all. There are all the answers to your questions.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 28 October 2020 08: 20 New
        0
        And the article contains initially incorrect facts.
        1. Demagogue
          28 October 2020 08: 36 New
          0
          "Wrong facts" is great)) If the facts do not fit into your theory, then you discard them, not the theory.

          You do not notice the opponent's arguments and you only "refute" the conclusions. In civilized polemics, this is not accepted. This is cheating.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 28 October 2020 09: 58 New
            0
            I'm afraid that it was you who initially invented the theory, and then began to adjust the facts to fit it, although, as I said, the Iraqi Air Force was not destroyed in the 8 years of the war with Iran, and the USSR Air Force was initially in a lagging position compared to the US Air Force, as and the whole country, and by the 80s, had just begun to receive aircraft technologically comparable to what the US industry could produce.

            As for Lebanon and other Arab-Jewish squabbles, it was formulated there long before any aircraft: "One Arab cavalryman is stronger than one Frenchman, 100 Frenchmen are sometimes stronger than 100 Arabs, 1000 Frenchmen are always stronger than 1000 Arabs."

            I have no questions about the ability of the tiny MiG-21, whose last modification of the MiG-21bis appeared in 1972 to fight against a heavy F-15, which only made its first flight in the 70s, I have questions about the level of organization of the Air Force and air defense, and indeed the armies of the Arab countries in general. The same Iraqis, having received from the Americans "Abrams" very quickly were left without them, and the Saudis, who bought the most advanced American weapons, failed everything they could in Yemen.

            In addition, if you so want to disassemble how primitive MiG-21s with old missiles could not do anything with advanced aircraft with new missiles, then you can then make out the effectiveness of some not the newest radar, like the Barsa with the Su-30MKI , which flew in 1999, and the obsolescence of this product, like the Su-30SM, does not raise questions with it, and newer models. Unlike Lebanon, this radar perfectly sees everyone against the background of the earth, and its detection range is quite simple. More than practical missile launch range. We add here the ability to receive data from ground controllers and other aircraft, and this function does not depend on the aircraft as such. That is, the difference in situational awareness between the F-35 with the AFAR miracle and the Su-30SM will not be as catastrophic as in the case of the MiG-21 over Lebanon, the pilot of which can only shout from his colleague on the radio that: "Makhmut , the enemy is on the right !! ".

            That is, as I initially said, we should not talk about generations, but about functionality (which is 35 better? Which is Su, or which is F? The first one flies better, has the largest radar, the second one is less visible, and now all have sensors about the same), and about the organization. The MiG-21 for the Syrians and the MiG-23 for ours are two big differences. That's just in everything, from the quality of the car and the individual training of the pilot, to the organizational support and quantity.

            As for the approximate similarity, the success of the Soviet Air Force in WWII is largely due to the fact that piston engines reached their limit, as did the efficiency of propellers, and neither side could build an aircraft that would fly much better than the others. And in Korea, in the case of a dog fight between "jets" on both sides, there were almost extreme subsonic aircraft with guns. To go to supersonic, a leap was needed, which still had to be made. But when it was done, then the USSR again became not very good, because the Americans are still richer and they have more opportunities.
            1. Demagogue
              28 October 2020 13: 27 New
              -2
              You skimmed through the article, 20 percent of the strength. And then they just filled themselves with the opinion "I have not read but do not approve." They filled the usual cliches - "only our old air defense systems and airplanes are beaten." Here you repeat again

              They beat old air defense systems with old planes. In Lebanon, the air defense was carried out not by the F-15 and F-16, but by phantoms, kfir and so on. In our time, Syria is bombed not by the F-35, but by the F-16. And they didn't care about the S-300 and the S-200. Technique of one era.

              As for fighters, you also write nonsense. And without knowledge at all. "MiG-23 was shot down only by F-15"))) Yes, they were shot down by everyone who had a minimal desire. F-4, F-16, F-15, F-14 ...
              The F-16 filled the Lebanese one more times than the F-15. You have not read the articles and did not understand the meaning. Technical excellence is also the best organization. F-16 with AWACS will demolish the Su-30 and Su-35 without options. No wonderful F-22 and F-35 are needed. Whoever has the best detection means wins.

              Enlighten a little bit before leading the discussion. Just for the test. I did not mention in the article one modification of the MiG-23, which was in service with the USSR by 1982 and had more advanced on-board equipment than even the ML. The question is what kind of modification it is and why I did not consider it relevant to mention it. Answer - you can discuss with you. No, sorry))
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 28 October 2020 10: 10 New
            +1
            And yet, about the idea itself, about some kind of belief in the power of the aircraft of past generations. The whole history of the USSR and Russian Air Forces since the 1960s speaks of just the opposite, about the desire to build aircraft of limiting parameters, which resulted in the first MiG-23, and then the Su-24, MiG-31, MiG-29 (for its class he clearly strove to be the coolest), the Su-27, and now it is Russia that is launching the most powerful fighter in the world into the series, while the Americans with the F-35, on the contrary, give freebies, obviously relying on the number and organization, and the fact that they have an engine now the best, partially compensates.

            I'm not talking about all kinds of ship aircraft for, like the Tu-160, that's where the "mosquito VVS" are.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 26 October 2020 10: 31 New
    +3
    The most important questions are:
    1) And where did the author get the idea that layered air defense does not work? Because the Syrians, having received a certain amount of old air defense systems and fighters, have blown the war? They blew wars afterwards. And even now, they had a bunch of planes, they could not bomb the barmaley, ours flew in, mainly with the Su-24, and if it were not for the Americans with the Turks, the war would have ended long ago, even the helicopters in the hands of Russian pilots were hardly vulnerable to bearded men with MANPADS that before that crumbled the Syrian turntables. And what is layered air defense in his view, because I simply do not know any other. There are fighters, there are air defense systems of different ranges, there are short-range missile and cannon systems, and their role is now sharply increasing due to the proliferation of drones. Well, no air defense can be built entirely on fighters, since even in readiness number 1 it is impossible to raise a regiment at once, and if dozens of targets appeared on the radar 400 km away, then it would be the SAM system that would meet them. It is clear that air defense systems do not have freedom of maneuver, but the enemy, at a minimum, must plan an operation to neutralize them, during which something will definitely go wrong.

    2) And where did the author get the idea that in 1982 the Soviet Air Force was in crisis ?? And in 1950 they were not in crisis? That in Korea they fought well with the Yankees? Well, yes, the MiG-15 and F-86 are of the same berry, but there was nothing like the B-29 in the USSR, this very B-29 had to be copied. And in 1920? So the Imperial Army, unlike the developed countries, did not have any representative air force, the USSR by the 1940s was able to organize the production of, maybe not the most advanced, but numerous aircraft. Until 1960, American intelligence officers quietly flew over the USSR, they were put in place. In the 1960s, the USSR began to move away from small fighters in favor of heavier and more technologically advanced machines, such as the MiG-23 and Su-15. And in the 1980s, the USSR was able to launch a series of aircraft competitive against the background of the best Western models. On the contrary, there is a gradual reduction in the backlog of the USSR from the developed capital. countries.
  • Antokha
    Antokha 26 October 2020 14: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Demagogue
    I am only interested in the military component. Politics is not interesting.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    For such a look - I am already taking off my hat, in fact! Because calmly and without hurray-patriotic saliva or lime-tree in our country they write little analytical.

    And I give the author a minus for this particular approach, despite the fact that the article is technically probably true. Politics is the main thing here, and the technological lag is just a consequence. An objective analysis must show the root cause, otherwise the analysis is no different from the crap on TV, which is also justified by the fact that it is telling the truth. But who needs it if there is no root cause analysis? It is then useless, and taking into account the demoralization of readers - harmful.
    The second quote from a man named Knell Wardenheart is intended to show the truth of the adage "tell me who your friend is, and I'll tell you who you are."
    Now to the point. The Soviet Union was burdened with ideology from the beginning of its existence to the end. Soviet ideology poorly described reality, but it was so powerful that it allowed itself to ignore reality or distort it. In this sense, what the author describes is true. Even serious defeats might not lead to the right strategic conclusions and technological changes if they crashed against ideology, which is exactly what it was. Now the situation is reversed. Over the past 15 years, we have finally been recovering from false postulates imposed by Russophobes and supported by powerless and cowardly people in power, and the West is precisely condensing the ideology that is killing it. As a result, the lag will be overcome, and we will be able to come out ahead. The West cannot survive because his ideological grip on the neck of a person turned out to be even tougher than that of the USSR, and he is deprived of a basic positive attitude towards a person, who was still one of the main attributes of the USSR.
  • Mooh
    Mooh 26 October 2020 19: 02 New
    0
    I cannot speak on the merits of the issue, because I do not have the necessary information, but the article and the polemics made an impression. That the author, that most commentators seem to own the topic, there is almost no outright politics and nonsense of paid propagandists. At the same time, the intensity of the discussion is quite impressive. Just like before in the good old VO.