Analysis of critical comments to the article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser"
At the beginning of my article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser with a sixth generation UAV" the author warned that he is not a specialist in either aviation or shipbuilding, and this material is offered only as a concept that he hopes to improve with the help of readers. But hopes were not destined to come true. 2/3 of the comments turned out to be not criticism, but criticism.
Commentary: With each article by this author, I am convinced that it is not worth reading it.
Answer:
If from the beginning of the article it is clear that this is only the author's fantasy, why bother and read to the end?
Commentary: Where does the website editorial office look, why are such articles skipped?
Answer: You did not report what the author's mistakes were. Or at least referred to an article describing the solution to the problem. The State Duma has not yet adopted the draft "On the introduction of like-mindedness in Russia" by Saltykov-Shchedrin, although it is trying.
Especially for such discussions, the author compiled a four-step self-test test:
1st stage: Absolutely everyone knows what should not be in the world.
2nd: Not everyone, but many know what should be in the world.
3rd: Few people know how to go from “shouldn't” to “should”.
4th: And no one will let it slip: what is the name of the guy who will make this transition?
Now everyone can decide for himself at what stage he intends to conduct the discussion and continue it in a calm tone. It's a shame to waste time on useless picks. There are also serious comments.
Opinions have been expressed that the light AK cannot replace the classic aircraft carrier Storm. And the price of the AK, taking into account the development, will be only half the size of the Storm. The author does not know the Storm's price, but Nimitz is estimated at $ 10 billion. Whether we will be able to meet this price is unknown. In the USA, aircraft carriers are being built in series, and our shipyard in Nikolaev has ordered a long life. Where will the new one be, how will we build a slipway, how will we organize a large-block assembly, how will we build a dry dock, who will make a catapult? And all this for one single ship? Questions for the knowledgeable.
For AK, such questions do not arise. Once 2 UDCs have been laid, then the building berths of the UDCs can also be adapted for AK. The fact that a pair of UDCs was laid down at once suggests that the price of each of them is clearly not equal to half of the Storm price.
The AK is being built in a similar building, and there is no reason to value it more than the UDC. The difference is that the author considers it necessary to place on the AK air defense missile system a DB, the radar of which would also provide a missile defense system.
Some readers believe that the AFAR used in this radar will be unacceptably expensive. We can assure you that the cost of the AFAR missile defense radar, due to the use of the 70 cm wavelength range, will be very inexpensive. The total price of the radar will be no more than 10% of the cost of the ship itself. The number of SAMs should be very small, for example, 16. The main means of destruction of anti-ship missiles will be MD SAMs. Air defense against a previously detected enemy IS attack can also be provided by IS UAVs on duty.
There are also opinions that there is nothing for everyone and everyone to get involved in the issues that the minister must resolve. And what, the minister will be frightened by the fact that someone has suggested something? If you look at the facts, then according to GPV 2011-20, which was laid down under the previous minister, 8 frigates 22350 were to be built, and 2 were built. Note that Admiral Gorshkov is the only project that can at least partially compare with the destroyer Arlie Burke. The frigates Admiral Makarov have so weak air defense that they need to be transferred to the class of corvettes. So someone who, and the sailors could express their problems to the minister more energetically. If you listen to the president of USC Rakhmanov, you immediately realize that we are carrying out our plans brilliantly.
As a result, we get that there is no need to talk about any Storm. Stretch your legs over your clothes. Proposals for the design of a reduced Storm by 50-70 thousand tons also do not look convincing. The costs are almost the same, but we will get a new Kuznetsov, perhaps with a nuclear propulsion system.
Proposals to use UDC of the America type are not implemented for another reason. We do not have and are not developing our own F-35b and the mass of America is no longer 25, but 45 thousand tons.
For some reason, no one suggested copying Charles de Gaulle. It is smaller than Kuznetsov - only 42 thousand tons. Maybe because the French themselves do not copy it, but develop a new one. Maybe because they don't want to develop a catapult or nuclear propulsion system.
Someone claims that there is nothing to roll your lip. We do not need an aircraft carrier for strikes on the ground, the main thing is to accompany the KUGs. We have to argue that in the United States for KUGs they build URO destroyers, and aircraft carriers are universal, but they have priority on land. The author outlined proposals for the destroyer radar in a previous article, the cost of the radar turned out to be low. But something in GPV 2018-27 about the destroyers is not heard. However, about the Storm too. Of the two permanent allies of Russia, one already needs resuscitation. We have to quote the classic Vereshchagin:
The result is not encouraging. For the last war of mankind, we have long been ready, 4000 warheads will destroy all of humanity with a guarantee. But we cheerfully continue to finance Vanguards and Petrels. But there were no instructions about the penultimate war. What will we do if the Turkish drones, for example, will they fly further than Karabakh? Everyone will have to answer these questions on their own.
Realists won't even dream, they write:
Another classic, Zhvanetsky, understood everything about life. Understood and left. Who will now describe our situation like this:
The author set himself the task of offering the AK the cost that our Navy will pull. That is, the cost of the ship itself should not be higher than the cost of the UDC. The cost of an air wing and the cost of a complex of weapons for it must be considered together. The possibility of using cheap ammunition should also be part of the concept.
Readers rightly note that the creation of a new ship, UAV and weapons carries a noticeable technical risk. In the USA, everything is worked out in stages. But we also have the opportunity to practice UAVs at the UDC after their commissioning. The concept must be considered as a whole, otherwise it will not be possible to parallelize the development process of individual components, and we will not eliminate the lag behind the United States.
You cannot argue with the statement that on aircraft carriers the air defense system of the database interferes with the main function. In the article "The Effectiveness of AUG Air Defense" the author pointed out that in the US AUGs, the task of Arleigh Burke's destroyers is to pull attacks from an aircraft carrier onto themselves. Here, fortunately, the author found a defender who said that in the absence of such destroyers we should not blame the author, but the government. Admiral Makarov does not defend for a long time with frigates, and Admiral Gorshkov does not solve the missile defense problem.
Let's consider each component of the AK.
To reduce the cost of the ship, it is necessary to abandon the development of the catapult. Reducing the mass of the ship is achieved by lightening the deck and hangar when using fairly light UAVs. The limited spacecraft length of 220–240 m requires a decrease in the UAV's landing speed. For example, up to 130-150 km / h. To maintain the impact potential, the total number of UAVs must be large - for example, 40. The superstructure across the entire width of the deck (in accordance with the reader's note) can cause turbulence on the runway in case of unstable wind. The funnels created by the open gates of the superstructure will help structure the wind flow from bow to stern.
The question of the size of the springboard requires elaboration. Ideally, you need to do without it altogether, since if necessary, send the UAV to the second round, the springboard will only interfere. If the springboard remains, then the height of the superstructure's span will have to be increased.
When choosing the type of UAV, you immediately have to discard supersonic. Otherwise, you will get a MiG-21 with a weight of 8 tons and an insufficient flight range. And the AK will turn into Charles de Gaulle or Kuznetsov. Therefore, the UAV should rather replace the subsonic Harrier, but in a reduced mass. Light UAVs (weighing less than 2 tons) are not suitable, since they will not provide the required range of 600 km and a combat load that allows long-range aerial combat or strikes at enemy concrete targets. A weight of 4 tons seems to be the best compromise.
Of course, one cannot argue with the remarks that a manned IS with a large AFAR provides a large target detection range. But here, too, the author outlined a way out. Firstly, at distances of up to 400 km, the illumination of the air situation will be provided by the AK radar, and then 400 km by the UAV AWACS. Secondly, group scanning of several IS UAV radars will provide a range no worse than that of a manned IS.
Readers' fears that cheap UAVs will not be allowed to install expensive AFARs is understandable. Wealthy Americans have switched their radars to AFAR. AFAR Su-57 or S-500 also cost millions of dollars. But here, too, a way out is offered. It is enough to transfer the radar from the 3–4 cm wavelength range to the 5–6 cm range, and the price of the AFAR will drop 2,5 times. At the same time, the characteristics of the radar will significantly improve due to the interaction with the ship's MF radar, operating in the same range.
The next comment states that the pilot will always outplay the UAV. Now he will replay, therefore UAVs and avoid close combat. But it should be noted that in the proposed concept, UAVs are not autonomous. They are connected to the operator on the ship by a high-speed anti-jamming communication line. That is, the situation is different from satellite control. Each UAV can be controlled by 2-3 operators who (by analyzing information from television cameras, radar, RTR, etc.) will outplay the lone pilot. With a flight altitude of 16 km, direct control of the UAV along the beam of the MF radar is possible up to a range of 500 km.
The American planning bomb (PB) GBU-39 turned out to be much cheaper than the V-p-class missile launcher of the same range. The first version of the PB had simple navigation (only from GPS). This PB cost $ 45 thousand. The accuracy and noise immunity of GPS guidance was low, and they decided to use the seeker, which increased the price several times.
However, the positive qualities of PB can be developed with less price increases. It is proposed to solve the problem of interference immunity of PB navigation if the GLONASS receiver is installed on an IS UAV. When flying at an altitude of 16 km or more, the GLONASS antenna installed on the upper part of the fuselage will be shielded from interference from the ground, that is, the coordinates of the UAV will be known exactly. Then a pair of UAVs, separated by 20–40 km, will be able to measure the PB coordinates (except for altitude) with an error of less than 10 m at ranges up to 150 km. The radars will be able to make accurate measurements if a transponder is installed on the PB. For the final aiming at the target, the PB will need to be equipped with a TV camera, the image from which will be transmitted to the operator through the transponder. The camera optics can be quite simple. It is necessary to ensure target detection from distances of more than 1,5–2 km. If the target is moving at a speed of more than 10 km / h, then the radar will be able to direct the PB to it.
Another gliding ammunition is the author's own proposal, which has not been tested by anyone. And, accordingly, it can be criticized by experts. These are gliding missiles (PR), which should replace the R-77 medium-range UR UAV. The essence of the proposal is that the UAV, having detected an enemy IS attack, launches a missile defense system at it and, without engaging in battle, return to the AK. IB will try to catch up with the UAV at supersonic. But the launch range of UR AMRAAM in pursuit is 3 times less than in the opposite direction. Therefore, the PR is not at all obliged to immediately attack the IS. It is enough to wait until the IB itself flies up to the PR. Suppose that the launch of the PR occurred when there was 150 km before the IS, and the IS speed was 600 m / s. Let the PR plan to meet the IS at a speed of 200 m / s. Then in 140 s the distance between them will be reduced to 40 km. PR can turn on the engine and, dropping the wing, accelerate, for example, up to 700-800 m / s. In 140 s the PR will lose 2,5 km in altitude, that is, it will be at an altitude of 14-15 km. If the IB is at a higher height, then the PR will easily rise to the required height.
Since there are almost no clouds at high altitudes, the PR can have an optical GOS (for example, TV). Almost all the time of the flight of the PR, it is guided by the radar using the command method, and only on the last 2-3 km there is a transition to homing. In such conditions, the mass of the PR of 60 kg will be quite sufficient. Consequently, a shock UAV can take a pair of PRs "just in case." Moreover, the PR can be used against attacking missiles and missiles.
Many comments were devoted to the fact that evolutionary development should not be disturbed. It is necessary, like the Americans, to develop everything in stages. As a general statement, this is true, but our reality does not make it possible to calmly philosophize over a glass of tea.
The first article in the series argued that our defense industry is in a critical situation. In recent years, research funding has declined sharply. Developments that are declared to be the newest are often not. For example, the Dagger complex. You can't admit aviation version of the Soviet Iskander missile for the latest development. Of course, something was modernized, but there was no breakthrough. The Dagger MiG-31 carrier is also outdated and uncompetitive. It is so expensive and uneconomical that orders for it are not expected. And for some reason nobody liked the speed of 3000 km / h.
If you continue to declare that AK does not need to be developed due to the fact that there are no necessary technologies, then after a while you will notice that entire engineering schools are dying. Then, when you need to develop something really new and competitive, it turns out that there are no developers, and the experience is lost. If an engineer has not developed anything promising for 10 years, then he loses his qualifications. Therefore, ideas should be discussed and avant-garde projects should be carried out long before their implementation.
The next article is supposed to consider the concept of an AWACS aircraft intended to replace the A-100 aircraft.
Commentary: With each article by this author, I am convinced that it is not worth reading it.
Answer:
"The mice were injected, crying, but they continued to eat the cacti."
If from the beginning of the article it is clear that this is only the author's fantasy, why bother and read to the end?
Commentary: Where does the website editorial office look, why are such articles skipped?
Answer: You did not report what the author's mistakes were. Or at least referred to an article describing the solution to the problem. The State Duma has not yet adopted the draft "On the introduction of like-mindedness in Russia" by Saltykov-Shchedrin, although it is trying.
Especially for such discussions, the author compiled a four-step self-test test:
1st stage: Absolutely everyone knows what should not be in the world.
2nd: Not everyone, but many know what should be in the world.
3rd: Few people know how to go from “shouldn't” to “should”.
4th: And no one will let it slip: what is the name of the guy who will make this transition?
Now everyone can decide for himself at what stage he intends to conduct the discussion and continue it in a calm tone. It's a shame to waste time on useless picks. There are also serious comments.
1. What will the AK cost?
Opinions have been expressed that the light AK cannot replace the classic aircraft carrier Storm. And the price of the AK, taking into account the development, will be only half the size of the Storm. The author does not know the Storm's price, but Nimitz is estimated at $ 10 billion. Whether we will be able to meet this price is unknown. In the USA, aircraft carriers are being built in series, and our shipyard in Nikolaev has ordered a long life. Where will the new one be, how will we build a slipway, how will we organize a large-block assembly, how will we build a dry dock, who will make a catapult? And all this for one single ship? Questions for the knowledgeable.
For AK, such questions do not arise. Once 2 UDCs have been laid, then the building berths of the UDCs can also be adapted for AK. The fact that a pair of UDCs was laid down at once suggests that the price of each of them is clearly not equal to half of the Storm price.
The AK is being built in a similar building, and there is no reason to value it more than the UDC. The difference is that the author considers it necessary to place on the AK air defense missile system a DB, the radar of which would also provide a missile defense system.
Some readers believe that the AFAR used in this radar will be unacceptably expensive. We can assure you that the cost of the AFAR missile defense radar, due to the use of the 70 cm wavelength range, will be very inexpensive. The total price of the radar will be no more than 10% of the cost of the ship itself. The number of SAMs should be very small, for example, 16. The main means of destruction of anti-ship missiles will be MD SAMs. Air defense against a previously detected enemy IS attack can also be provided by IS UAVs on duty.
There are also opinions that there is nothing for everyone and everyone to get involved in the issues that the minister must resolve. And what, the minister will be frightened by the fact that someone has suggested something? If you look at the facts, then according to GPV 2011-20, which was laid down under the previous minister, 8 frigates 22350 were to be built, and 2 were built. Note that Admiral Gorshkov is the only project that can at least partially compare with the destroyer Arlie Burke. The frigates Admiral Makarov have so weak air defense that they need to be transferred to the class of corvettes. So someone who, and the sailors could express their problems to the minister more energetically. If you listen to the president of USC Rakhmanov, you immediately realize that we are carrying out our plans brilliantly.
As a result, we get that there is no need to talk about any Storm. Stretch your legs over your clothes. Proposals for the design of a reduced Storm by 50-70 thousand tons also do not look convincing. The costs are almost the same, but we will get a new Kuznetsov, perhaps with a nuclear propulsion system.
Proposals to use UDC of the America type are not implemented for another reason. We do not have and are not developing our own F-35b and the mass of America is no longer 25, but 45 thousand tons.
For some reason, no one suggested copying Charles de Gaulle. It is smaller than Kuznetsov - only 42 thousand tons. Maybe because the French themselves do not copy it, but develop a new one. Maybe because they don't want to develop a catapult or nuclear propulsion system.
Someone claims that there is nothing to roll your lip. We do not need an aircraft carrier for strikes on the ground, the main thing is to accompany the KUGs. We have to argue that in the United States for KUGs they build URO destroyers, and aircraft carriers are universal, but they have priority on land. The author outlined proposals for the destroyer radar in a previous article, the cost of the radar turned out to be low. But something in GPV 2018-27 about the destroyers is not heard. However, about the Storm too. Of the two permanent allies of Russia, one already needs resuscitation. We have to quote the classic Vereshchagin:
"It's a shame for the state."
The result is not encouraging. For the last war of mankind, we have long been ready, 4000 warheads will destroy all of humanity with a guarantee. But we cheerfully continue to finance Vanguards and Petrels. But there were no instructions about the penultimate war. What will we do if the Turkish drones, for example, will they fly further than Karabakh? Everyone will have to answer these questions on their own.
Realists won't even dream, they write:
"Author, do you understand that you are writing science fiction?"
Another classic, Zhvanetsky, understood everything about life. Understood and left. Who will now describe our situation like this:
“Yes, yes, yes, exactly, for everything you have to say thank you. Thank God, I had lunch, thank God, I slept, woke up - thank you, fell asleep - thank you. Thank God, dressed, on my feet, thank you, pants, on my head, thank you very much, hat. And no need to grumble, criticize, laugh. These shabby murmurs only spoil. You sit, listen - you tremble: how is he not afraid? Well, everyone is afraid, is he alone not afraid? He is probably even more afraid, but he cannot: in his soul he waxes and grows. Bloating from thoughts. I think: if it's better than it was - keep quiet so as not to jinx it, pah-pah-pah, pah-pah-pah.
What's the use of looking ahead when the whole experience is from behind ?! I remember everything: at first there was no salt, then there was no soap, then there was no uncle, then there was no aunt. Now they are all there. So thank me and my children forever and ever! "
What's the use of looking ahead when the whole experience is from behind ?! I remember everything: at first there was no salt, then there was no soap, then there was no uncle, then there was no aunt. Now they are all there. So thank me and my children forever and ever! "
2. Justification of the concept of AK
The author set himself the task of offering the AK the cost that our Navy will pull. That is, the cost of the ship itself should not be higher than the cost of the UDC. The cost of an air wing and the cost of a complex of weapons for it must be considered together. The possibility of using cheap ammunition should also be part of the concept.
Readers rightly note that the creation of a new ship, UAV and weapons carries a noticeable technical risk. In the USA, everything is worked out in stages. But we also have the opportunity to practice UAVs at the UDC after their commissioning. The concept must be considered as a whole, otherwise it will not be possible to parallelize the development process of individual components, and we will not eliminate the lag behind the United States.
You cannot argue with the statement that on aircraft carriers the air defense system of the database interferes with the main function. In the article "The Effectiveness of AUG Air Defense" the author pointed out that in the US AUGs, the task of Arleigh Burke's destroyers is to pull attacks from an aircraft carrier onto themselves. Here, fortunately, the author found a defender who said that in the absence of such destroyers we should not blame the author, but the government. Admiral Makarov does not defend for a long time with frigates, and Admiral Gorshkov does not solve the missile defense problem.
Let's consider each component of the AK.
2.1. Justification of the appearance of the ship
To reduce the cost of the ship, it is necessary to abandon the development of the catapult. Reducing the mass of the ship is achieved by lightening the deck and hangar when using fairly light UAVs. The limited spacecraft length of 220–240 m requires a decrease in the UAV's landing speed. For example, up to 130-150 km / h. To maintain the impact potential, the total number of UAVs must be large - for example, 40. The superstructure across the entire width of the deck (in accordance with the reader's note) can cause turbulence on the runway in case of unstable wind. The funnels created by the open gates of the superstructure will help structure the wind flow from bow to stern.
The question of the size of the springboard requires elaboration. Ideally, you need to do without it altogether, since if necessary, send the UAV to the second round, the springboard will only interfere. If the springboard remains, then the height of the superstructure's span will have to be increased.
2.2. Justification of the appearance of the UAV
When choosing the type of UAV, you immediately have to discard supersonic. Otherwise, you will get a MiG-21 with a weight of 8 tons and an insufficient flight range. And the AK will turn into Charles de Gaulle or Kuznetsov. Therefore, the UAV should rather replace the subsonic Harrier, but in a reduced mass. Light UAVs (weighing less than 2 tons) are not suitable, since they will not provide the required range of 600 km and a combat load that allows long-range aerial combat or strikes at enemy concrete targets. A weight of 4 tons seems to be the best compromise.
Of course, one cannot argue with the remarks that a manned IS with a large AFAR provides a large target detection range. But here, too, the author outlined a way out. Firstly, at distances of up to 400 km, the illumination of the air situation will be provided by the AK radar, and then 400 km by the UAV AWACS. Secondly, group scanning of several IS UAV radars will provide a range no worse than that of a manned IS.
Readers' fears that cheap UAVs will not be allowed to install expensive AFARs is understandable. Wealthy Americans have switched their radars to AFAR. AFAR Su-57 or S-500 also cost millions of dollars. But here, too, a way out is offered. It is enough to transfer the radar from the 3–4 cm wavelength range to the 5–6 cm range, and the price of the AFAR will drop 2,5 times. At the same time, the characteristics of the radar will significantly improve due to the interaction with the ship's MF radar, operating in the same range.
The next comment states that the pilot will always outplay the UAV. Now he will replay, therefore UAVs and avoid close combat. But it should be noted that in the proposed concept, UAVs are not autonomous. They are connected to the operator on the ship by a high-speed anti-jamming communication line. That is, the situation is different from satellite control. Each UAV can be controlled by 2-3 operators who (by analyzing information from television cameras, radar, RTR, etc.) will outplay the lone pilot. With a flight altitude of 16 km, direct control of the UAV along the beam of the MF radar is possible up to a range of 500 km.
2.3. Justification of the concept of gliding ammunition
The American planning bomb (PB) GBU-39 turned out to be much cheaper than the V-p-class missile launcher of the same range. The first version of the PB had simple navigation (only from GPS). This PB cost $ 45 thousand. The accuracy and noise immunity of GPS guidance was low, and they decided to use the seeker, which increased the price several times.
However, the positive qualities of PB can be developed with less price increases. It is proposed to solve the problem of interference immunity of PB navigation if the GLONASS receiver is installed on an IS UAV. When flying at an altitude of 16 km or more, the GLONASS antenna installed on the upper part of the fuselage will be shielded from interference from the ground, that is, the coordinates of the UAV will be known exactly. Then a pair of UAVs, separated by 20–40 km, will be able to measure the PB coordinates (except for altitude) with an error of less than 10 m at ranges up to 150 km. The radars will be able to make accurate measurements if a transponder is installed on the PB. For the final aiming at the target, the PB will need to be equipped with a TV camera, the image from which will be transmitted to the operator through the transponder. The camera optics can be quite simple. It is necessary to ensure target detection from distances of more than 1,5–2 km. If the target is moving at a speed of more than 10 km / h, then the radar will be able to direct the PB to it.
Another gliding ammunition is the author's own proposal, which has not been tested by anyone. And, accordingly, it can be criticized by experts. These are gliding missiles (PR), which should replace the R-77 medium-range UR UAV. The essence of the proposal is that the UAV, having detected an enemy IS attack, launches a missile defense system at it and, without engaging in battle, return to the AK. IB will try to catch up with the UAV at supersonic. But the launch range of UR AMRAAM in pursuit is 3 times less than in the opposite direction. Therefore, the PR is not at all obliged to immediately attack the IS. It is enough to wait until the IB itself flies up to the PR. Suppose that the launch of the PR occurred when there was 150 km before the IS, and the IS speed was 600 m / s. Let the PR plan to meet the IS at a speed of 200 m / s. Then in 140 s the distance between them will be reduced to 40 km. PR can turn on the engine and, dropping the wing, accelerate, for example, up to 700-800 m / s. In 140 s the PR will lose 2,5 km in altitude, that is, it will be at an altitude of 14-15 km. If the IB is at a higher height, then the PR will easily rise to the required height.
Since there are almost no clouds at high altitudes, the PR can have an optical GOS (for example, TV). Almost all the time of the flight of the PR, it is guided by the radar using the command method, and only on the last 2-3 km there is a transition to homing. In such conditions, the mass of the PR of 60 kg will be quite sufficient. Consequently, a shock UAV can take a pair of PRs "just in case." Moreover, the PR can be used against attacking missiles and missiles.
3. Заключение
Many comments were devoted to the fact that evolutionary development should not be disturbed. It is necessary, like the Americans, to develop everything in stages. As a general statement, this is true, but our reality does not make it possible to calmly philosophize over a glass of tea.
The first article in the series argued that our defense industry is in a critical situation. In recent years, research funding has declined sharply. Developments that are declared to be the newest are often not. For example, the Dagger complex. You can't admit aviation version of the Soviet Iskander missile for the latest development. Of course, something was modernized, but there was no breakthrough. The Dagger MiG-31 carrier is also outdated and uncompetitive. It is so expensive and uneconomical that orders for it are not expected. And for some reason nobody liked the speed of 3000 km / h.
If you continue to declare that AK does not need to be developed due to the fact that there are no necessary technologies, then after a while you will notice that entire engineering schools are dying. Then, when you need to develop something really new and competitive, it turns out that there are no developers, and the experience is lost. If an engineer has not developed anything promising for 10 years, then he loses his qualifications. Therefore, ideas should be discussed and avant-garde projects should be carried out long before their implementation.
The next article is supposed to consider the concept of an AWACS aircraft intended to replace the A-100 aircraft.
Information