Military Review

Find an Aircraft Carrier: Drive Hunt

118

Earlier, we found out that there are many ways to carry out the initial detection of an aircraft carrier or ship strike group (AUG / KUG) - reconnaissance satellites and maneuvering spacecraft, stratospheric unmanned airships and high-altitude electric unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)and high-altitude and medium-altitude UAVs of long duration of flight of the HALE and MALE class.


However, there is always a risk that, immediately after detection, the AUG will destroy reconnaissance assets, apply various camouflage methods and change course to avoid meeting the enemy strike forces. Is it possible to minimize the time interval between the detection of an AUG and the strike against it by anti-ship missiles (ASM)?

Such a scenario can be implemented by reconnaissance and strike systems, which will be discussed in this article.

DARPA and her Gremlins


One of the most interesting projects in terms of creating promising reconnaissance and strike systems is the Gremlins project, implemented by the American defense agency DARPA. We have previously discussed this project in the article US Air Force Combat Gremlins: Reviving the Aircraft Carrier Concept.

The main essence of the project is the creation of small-sized UAVs in parameters comparable to the dimensions of a cruise missile (CR). These UAVs must be launched from various carriers, perform a combat mission and return to the assembly area by a C-130 transport aircraft, which is considered as the main carrier of a Gremlin-type UAV.

In fact, the concept of the Gremlins program is a logical development of patrolling cruise missiles with feedback from the carrier and the ability to retarget in flight.


Image of receiving UAVs on a C-130 transport aircraft and a test flight with UAV transportation on the receiving device.


Image and mock-up of a receiver for a Gremlins-type UAV.

UAVs developed under the Gremlins program must have limited reusability. It is assumed that they will have a resource for 20 flights. Most likely this is due to the reserve of the engine used in them, which is considered to be the Williams F107 turbofan, used in the AGM-86 ALCM and BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles.


Williams F107 turbofan engine.

The payload of a Gremlins-type UAV should be 65 kg. Optionally, it can carry electronic intelligence equipment (RTR), an optical location station (OLS), which includes a color video camera, a low-level night vision camera and a thermal imager, electronic warfare (EW) equipment or a radar station (radar). And also dropped weapons or warheads for direct target destruction. The estimated flight radius of a Gremlins-type UAV will be about 500-600 kilometers.


Experimental UAV X-61, developed by Dynetics under the Gremlins program.


UAV mockup developed by General Atomics as part of the Gremlins program.

What could be the role of a Gremlins-type UAV in hunting for AUG-KUG?


Having initially detected the AUG by reconnaissance satellites or high-altitude reconnaissance UAVs, the Gremlins-type UAV carriers move into the detection zone. At a certain line, the "Gremlins" are dropped, which distribute reconnaissance zones and begin a systematic search for the enemy's AUG.

It can be assumed that the C-130 can house about 10ꟷ20 Gremlins UAVs. Accordingly, four C-130 aircraft can simultaneously launch 40-80 UAVs. And to search for AUG in a strip several thousand kilometers wide along the front, moving away from the carrier at a distance of more than 500 kilometers.

UAVs of the Gremlins type with electronic reconnaissance equipment can detect the radiation of the Hawaiian long-range radar detection aircraft (AWACS) radar, ship-borne escort destroyer radars, anti-submarine aircraft and helicopter radars, as well as radio exchange to Link-16 tactical communication channels. Other "Gremlins" equipped with OLS or radars can search both the ships themselves and their wake. Equipped with electronic warfare equipment, UAVs of the Gremlins type can provoke the enemy into repelling an attack, turning on the air defense radar of ships and taking off of combat aircraft. Based on the data received, the operators will make a decision to change the UAV patrol zone in order to clarify the data on the location of other AUG ships.

Further, Gremlins-type UAVs can either loit in the target's visibility zone, or carry out its attack by self-destruction, and the attack can be carried out by a “flock” (tens ꟷ several dozen UAVs) to increase the probability of an air defense breakthrough by at least one UAV. The small mass of the warhead does not allow counting on the destruction of the ship or serious damage to its hull structures, but it is quite capable of completely knocking out radar equipment or vertical launcher silos. By the way, the priority destruction of escort ships is considered in the article by Alexander Timokhin "Do not touch aircraft carriers, sink destroyers".

On the one hand, it makes no sense to attack an aircraft carrier with such a small warhead (CU). On the other hand, if the UAV operator visually detects a cluster of aircraft on the deck, then there is a chance to considerably thin out the aircraft carrier's air group.


UAVs like Gremlins are not capable of destroying AUG. But they can pretty much "pluck" the escort ships. And, possibly, destroy part of the wing.

It can be assumed that the Gremlins will become a fairly simple target for the ship's air defense. But it is not so. Their design should be widely used technologies to reduce the visibility. Having detected the AUG ships, the UAV can descend to a minimum height and attack like a conventional low-flying anti-ship missile. It is not so easy to destroy 80 unobtrusive anti-ship missiles at once. Moreover, if some of them will perform the functions of electronic warfare or false targets with a transponder and / or elements that change the radar signature.

The use of "Gremlins" is the second stage of the AUG attack. Which comes after the first stage - detection by satellites and high-altitude UAVs. But before the third stage - the defeat of the AUG ships by a massive anti-ship missile strike. The main task of the Gremlins-type UAV is to clarify the coordinates and identify the AUG ships, as well as inflict maximum damage on the AUG escort ships.

"Gremlins" for the Russian Navy


In Russia today there is no information on the development of UAVs such as Gremlins. Nevertheless, work is currently underway to develop slave UAVs, which we talked about in the article Russian "Valkyrie": slave UAV "Thunder".

The Russian Federation has serially produced (and is now producing) aviation long-range cruise missiles Kh-55, Kh-555, Kh-101, Kh-102 and cruise missiles included in the Caliber complex, with a flight range of the order of 1500-3500 kilometers. There is information about the development of the Kh-BD cruise missile with a flight range increased to 5000-5500 kilometers.

Find an Aircraft Carrier: Drive Hunt

KR X-101/102.

Can these missiles be used as the basis for reusable solutions similar to Gremlins-type UAVs? Probably yes. And the task of their adaptation can be conditionally divided into the following two subtasks.

The first subtask is to ensure multifunctionality and remote control of the CD. It is necessary to guarantee two-way communication of the CD with the carrier. The groundwork for solving this problem can be taken from R&D on UAVs "Orion" and "Thunder".

The CD itself must be modular - the standard warhead and the homing head are removed, various types of payload can be installed in their place, as well as on UAVs such as Gremlins - OLS, radar, RTR equipment, electronic warfare or false target imitation. Accordingly, compact warheads can also be installed.

The second subtask is to ensure reusability. It is necessary to carry out testing and, possibly, refinement of the KR engine for limited reusable operation, for several dozen flights. And also to develop a modification of the Il-76 with the ability to launch / receive UAVs (by analogy with the American C-130 carrier).

Taking into account the declared flight range of promising Russian KRs of 5000 - 5500 kilometers, UAVs with a range of about 2500 kilometers can be obtained. Of course, this is only possible if there are satellite communication channels. If the communication range is limited to a distance of about 500 kilometers, the payload of the UAV can be increased, or the time for the UAV loitering at the maximum distance from the carrier can be increased.

In principle, at the first stage, the task can be significantly simplified by giving up reusability, and focusing on multifunctionality and feedback from the carrier. If we consider UAVs of the Gremlins type as a multifunctional tool for warfare, then reusability allows you to get significant savings. If we are talking about actions against AUG / KUG, then the possibility of re-using UAVs becomes uncritical (due to the low probability of their survival and the expediency of a direct strike immediately after the detection of enemy ships).

In this case, the carrier of such conventional KR-UAVs can be the existing Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers. Upgraded Tu-95MSM bombers are capable of carrying 8 Kh-101 type missile launchers on the external sling and another 6 Kh-55 missile launchers in the inner compartment. Presumably, the possibility of increasing the T-95MSM weapons compartment to accommodate the Kh-101 KR was considered. Thus, one Tu-95MSM bomber can potentially carry 8ꟷ14 KR-UAVs


Tu-95MSM and its armament.

The Tu-160M ​​missile-carrying bomber can carry 12 Kh-101 missile launchers in its internal compartments. This means a similar number of KR-UAVs.

Currently, the United States is testing the possibility of placing the JASSM CD on an external sling in the B-1B bomber: the ultimate goal is to install 12 more missiles there for 24 missiles placed in bomb bays. As a result, the B-1B will be able to carry a total of 36 JASSM cruise missiles.

It is possible that such an upgrade is also possible for the Tu-160M, which will increase its ammunition load to 18ꟷ20 KR-UAVs.


Russian Tu-160M ​​and American B-1B with JASSM test missile on external sling.

Thus, four Tu-160Ms can launch 48-80 KR-UAVs, carrying out reconnaissance of an enormous territory and ensuring the defeat of escort ships. The advantage of using Tu-95MSM and Tu-160M ​​missile-carrying bombers is their range, which significantly exceeds that of transport aircraft. And regarding the Tu-160M, there is also the possibility of a significant reduction in the delivery time of the KR-UAV due to the use of supersonic flight modes. The approximate range of the Tu-160M ​​without taking into account the possibility of refueling in flight is discussed in the article "Hypersonic" Dagger "on the Tu-160. Reality or Fiction "?.

If disposable analogs of Gremlins-type UAVs are deployed on Tu-95 and Tu-160 aircraft, the question arises of placing operators who have nowhere to attach to bombers. If the UAV can be controlled via satellite communication channels, then the control can be carried out from the ground center. If it is absent, then a specialized control plane will be required. For example, on the basis of Tu-214PU (control point) or Tu-214USUS (aircraft communication center) with a flight range increased to 10500 kilometers.

With reusable UAVs, everything is clear. But what is the advantage of disposable UAVs over CD?

The main advantage of such a solution as the above-described KR-UAVs (in comparison with conventional KR / RCC) is the possibility of additional reconnaissance of the AUG / KUG and retargeting the KR-UAV in flight to detected targets, as well as target identification by the operator. That will drastically reduce the effectiveness of camouflage and decoys.

The long flight range, amounting to about 5000-5500 kilometers, will make it possible to "pull up" those KR-UAVs that did not detect targets on their own to the location of the detected AUG / KUG ships. Use them to clarify the last coordinates of targets (for a subsequent strike with super / hypersonic anti-ship missiles) and immediately strike the UAV itself.


The ability to exchange data between the UAV and the carrier will greatly increase the effectiveness of the entire reconnaissance and strike group.

The greatest threat to reconnaissance and strike systems of the Gremlins type will be presented by enemy aircraft. First of all, early warning aircraft (AWACS).

However, they can also be ruled. What we will talk about in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
bastion-karpenko.ru, topwar.ru
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 4 December 2020 03: 50
    -2
    Is it possible to minimize the time interval between the detection of an AUG and the strike against it by anti-ship missiles (ASM)?
    Of course you can, the Siberian Crane will give you a dagger! Here's a little more, and dig daggers for each avik, one.
  2. KCA
    KCA 4 December 2020 04: 43
    0
    The greatest danger to a swarm of Gremlin-type UAVs will be represented by an explosive generator of an electromagnetic pulse, EMP is obtained not only when a vigorous loaf explodes, but also in a more gentle way, and if EMP protection is provided in naval and ground electronic devices for various purposes, then in UAVs of such protection no
    1. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 08: 01
      +6
      Quote: KCA
      The greatest danger to a swarm of Gremlin-type UAVs will be represented by an explosive generator of an electromagnetic pulse, EMP is obtained not only when a vigorous loaf explodes, but also in a more gentle way, and if EMP protection is provided in naval and ground electronic devices for various purposes, then in UAVs of such protection no


      No more than for the same CD / RCC. These are not drones from Aliexpress, they provide certain protection measures. In addition, they do not fly side by side, the distance between Gremlins can be tens of kilometers.
      1. KCA
        KCA 4 December 2020 19: 23
        0
        So protection against EMP can be organized with a shielding case with grounding, which is impossible for mini drones, as an option, to make electronics on vacuum tubes, which is also impossible for drones, in the case of using electromagnetic weapons, all achievements in the field of reducing the size of semiconductor devices are only harmful. and a joke about the fact that Soviet microcircuits are the largest in the world is a plus, not a minus, and there are also such things as micro-assemblies baked in ceramics, having only some conclusions from the outside, some of these micro-assemblies are soldered onto a fiberglass board with a thickness up to 3 mm and packed in an iron galvanized box with connectors, sometimes sealed, funny products, no marking at all
      2. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 9 December 2020 18: 35
        0
        in my opinion a great concept! drones for 15 million dollars that a hefty carrier delivers to the place of application. gorgeous! this is a great idea for the American military-industrial complex! under the next Boeing YAL-1, you can shake billions from the Congress and then say that "well, I am a niche" laughing and by the way they are shaking!
        while there is no Deshman UAV with acceptable characteristics comparable to the CD, but he is not, all this is nothing more than a budget drank tool. if you bring the drone closer to the CD in terms of flight characteristics, then its carrier will not be able to catch, if you do it so that it can catch, this drone is only suitable for chasing Somali pirates because it will be easy to shoot down even cannon air defense systems, and even an American laser, which so far can only model aircraft set fire to alik, and that will cope.

        hmmm .. maybe that's the idea? shake off money for lasers, and gremlins for export. As a result, the colonies are armed with these thunders, and the metropolis have lasers for which these thunders like seeds. wink

        Quote: AVM
        In addition, they do not fly side by side, the distance between Gremlins can be tens of kilometers.

        Doesn't it bother you that the Soviet anti-ship missiles worked like that back in the 80s, despite the fact that their speed was 5 times higher than that of the gremlen?

        PS
        all this is very reminiscent of the anecdote about the most reliable remedy for flies, you need to catch a fly, tear off its wings, sprinkle this powder on its head and the fly will definitely die.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 4 December 2020 10: 21
      0
      On the other hand, you can hang such a function on a UAV. As soon as he detects a loss of communication or the like, immediately detonate the EM warhead.
      1. Starover_Z
        Starover_Z 5 December 2020 11: 26
        0
        Quote: mmaxx
        On the other hand, you can hang such a function on a UAV. As soon as he detects a loss of communication or the like, immediately detonate the EM warhead.

        Or maybe, on the contrary, to build in the possibility of dropping the beacon into the UAV? We found a target, there is a threat of defeat, to drop the buoy to mark the target, at least for an approximate one.
    3. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 13: 28
      -4
      the use of countermeasures will determine the approximate location of the AUG
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 4 December 2020 05: 02
    +6
    I see, ubla is now a kind of fetish, for which they began to pray en masse! An UAV is not able to sink an aircraft carrier, this requires a very large UAV, and this is a very good target, cruise missiles with an analogue of artificial intelligence will be more effective against an aircraft carrier, capable of obtaining information without including their surveillance radar, or by searching and selecting targets using advanced optics with a long search range.
    1. t-12
      t-12 4 December 2020 05: 53
      +7
      UAV is unable to sink an aircraft carrier
      ... but can damage aircraft standing on the deck, superstructure with electronic equipment, elevators, etc.
      1. onstar9
        onstar9 12 December 2020 06: 28
        0
        I heard that there are "Volcanoes" on aircraft carriers, which fight off cruise missiles ... Therefore, the UAV is unlikely to reach there ...
    2. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 08: 03
      +5
      Quote: Thrifty
      I see, ubla is now a kind of fetish, for which they began to pray en masse! An UAV is not able to sink an aircraft carrier, this requires a very large UAV, and this is a very good target, cruise missiles with an analogue of artificial intelligence will be more effective against an aircraft carrier, capable of obtaining information without including their surveillance radar, or by searching and selecting targets using advanced optics with a long search range.


      What kind of artificial intelligence? Even if he appears, he also needs to "see" something.

      The UAVs must find the AUG and cause trouble for the escort ships. If the UAVs are typical, but with different loads, then the radar can be conditionally on 2 out of ten, for 4 more RTR means, for 2 optics, for 2 means of electronic warfare.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 13: 38
        -4
        but what ... the idea is sensible ... the mass of the warhead is 4 centers, even if you take the chassis + additional payload in the form of communication means + optics, then at least 75-100 kg warheads + a range of 1 km to be able to patrol another 500 2 km is very, very good .. To teach the Rocket according to standard designs to attack certain zones of ships not only know how, but also practice .. Yes, and as an option, you can use RBE / KOBE from the same MLRS or PTABs from Iskander instead of the standard OFS. And if even 500 missile / UAV breaks through, then 1 KOBE or 30 PTABs will destroy all the aircraft / helicopters on the deck + disable the deck, since taking off on the deck with 50-15 pits 20 cm deep is to ruin the plane at the start .. in general, I give comrade Mitrofanov my fat lois ..

        PySy ... by the way, the idea of ​​equipping a part of the Il-76 with launchers, for example conveyor-type or drum type, is very interesting ..
    3. noname1117
      noname1117 4 December 2020 20: 21
      -2
      Why drown it? Bonom Richard has shown perfectly well that even an accidental fire sends a 50000-ton ship into scrap. Moreover, it was extinguished by the whole port, in the open sea they would have flooded it themselves.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 4 December 2020 20: 42
        +1
        Was there a full crew in the port?
        "If you want to live, write with foam and put out everything. You will win"
  4. t-12
    t-12 4 December 2020 05: 46
    +6
    But what is the advantage of disposable UAVs over CD?
    The question can be reformulated: what is the difference between a disposable UAV and a KR? And then, and then - a piece of flying carbon fiber with sensors and explosives, which finds a target and explodes.
    1. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 08: 08
      0
      Quote: t-12
      But what is the advantage of disposable UAVs over CD?
      The question can be reformulated: what is the difference between a disposable UAV and a KR? And then, and then - a piece of flying carbon fiber with sensors and explosives, which finds a target and explodes.


      If we talk about reusable solutions, then everything is clear with the advantage. And if about disposable, then in fact this is the CD, in which the warhead was sacrificed to reconnaissance and special equipment, i.e. this is the first echelon of the reconnaissance raid. "Clean" RCCs should follow.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 5 December 2020 12: 53
      0
      Nothing. The rocket is guided by itself or almost by itself. A UAV is strictly an operator. Mainly in optics. That is, it turns out like a kamikaze.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 5 December 2020 19: 56
      0
      Quote: t-12
      The question can be reformulated: what is the difference between a disposable UAV and a KR?
      Tasks. The anti-ship missile system should fly low so that they would not be noticed, the UAV should fly high in order to increase the observation area and communication range. An anti-ship missile needs to fly fast in order to increase the chances, the UAV has enough speed of propeller-driven aircraft, if it is shot down, then this is a good reconnaissance sign, it has fulfilled its task (the main thing is that when it is defeated it is not "silent" so that it can be distinguished from failure) The price of an anti-ship missile is not a determining parameter (the price of the target will justify everything), a disposable UAV must be cheap. UAVs can be made with high aerodynamic quality to increase patrol times while operating in glider mode.
      By the way, I think that as an anti-ship missile, the UAV has no chance: the Volcanoes will shoot down any reasonable number of such UAVs.
    4. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 13: 41
      -3
      In this case, we are not talking about a disposable UAV, as an option, you can place the chassis and equipment for returning by landing method .. The production time is important here .. because it is easier to modify the engine and fuel tank + put optics, communication equipment + fall asleep a modified warhead + put the chassis with the control system from the UAV than to pervert and wait when in 5-7 years in the KB they will give birth to the same
  5. Avior
    Avior 4 December 2020 05: 53
    +10
    the ability of a UAV with a payload of 65 kg to fight the AUG is questionable.
    Especially considering that the appearance of these UAVs on the AUG will be immediately detected, much earlier than they detect the AUG, since UAVs are radio-emitting by definition.
    both on carrier-based aircraft and on ships there are much more advanced and effective RTR reconnaissance stations than can be stuck in 65 kg on a UAV. About the radar with a weight of 65 kg, including the power supply, I generally keep quiet. How cameras will be such a high-tech type of weapon, like AUG, to search is generally a complete mystery.
    These UAVs will simply not reach the AUG.
    1. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 08: 13
      0
      Quote: Avior
      the ability of a UAV with a payload of 65 kg to fight the AUG is questionable.
      Especially considering that the appearance of these UAVs on the AUG will be immediately detected, much earlier than they detect the AUG, since UAVs are radio-emitting by definition.
      both on carrier-based aircraft and on ships there are much more advanced and effective RTR reconnaissance stations than can be stuck in 65 kg on a UAV. About the radar with a weight of 65 kg, including the power supply, I generally keep quiet. How cameras will be such a high-tech type of weapon, like AUG, to search is generally a complete mystery.
      These UAVs will simply not reach the AUG.


      They do not fight AUG, they reconnoiter it, incl. sacrificing yourself. The same anti-ship missiles are somehow guided at targets, they can contain both optical reconnaissance equipment and guidance to radar radiation.

      About the cameras. And how is an anti-ship missile with an optical seeker guided in the final section? For example, we have 3 UAV missiles - 1 RTR, 2 radars, 3 OLS. The first (RTR) detects radio traffic of ships, the second two descend below the horizon and go towards the radiation source. The second (radar) makes a jump and clarifies the coordinates of the ship. The third behaves like a normal anti-ship missile, going on board and identifying it. She will most likely be shot down in the final section, but if not, she could damage the ship.
      1. Avior
        Avior 4 December 2020 08: 30
        +5
        Emitting UAVs, and it cannot be otherwise, ships will be detected long before these UAVs detect ships. And they have no chances to get past the destroyer of the forward patrol at best.
        Nobody sends the anti-ship missiles to a free search to look for ships, as you have suggested.
        But even so, their effectiveness is limited.
        1. Shopping Mall
          4 December 2020 08: 33
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          Radiating UAVs, but otherwise it cannot be


          Why? If you are talking about communication, then it is not a fact that it is not a fact that it unmasks, especially if it is satellite, or the antennas have a narrow radiation pattern, frequency hopping, etc.

          Quote: Avior
          ships will be discovered long before these UAVs detect ships. And they have no chances to get past the destroyer of the forward patrol at best.


          To ensure "not pass", the ship will have to turn on the radar, which is what we need.

          Quote: Avior
          Nobody sends the anti-ship missiles to a free search to look for ships, as you have suggested.
          But even so, their effectiveness is limited.


          This is not an anti-ship missile system, this is an anti-ship missile-based reconnaissance UAV with self-destruction by attacking a reconnaissance target.
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 December 2020 09: 04
            +2
            How directed, if they exchange information with each other.
            They will immediately light up. Again, even if directional, it is not a fact that the direction will not coincide, or the ship's or aviation rtr will not be enough and side lobes
            These are not 65 kg toys.
            And they will raise the planes in advance, for example. And then guess where it came from.
            Or even - why did they all shut up?
            As for the radar station, at best it will become known that the destroyer was
            Was there an aircraft carrier, who knows?
            And at worst, nothing will be known, they will shut up, and that's all.
            And about the attack of the target is generally a mystery. 65 kg per RTR station and how to attack? To fasten the f-1 grenade with blue electrical tape? And the expensive UAV will go away for nothing. Again, what would be the attack if he was shot down long before that?
            The range of the ship's air defense system is much greater than these UAVs.
            On the other hand, its real radius is 250 km if it comes back. So the carrier will be shot down at such a distance
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 4 December 2020 09: 18
              0
              Quote: Avior
              They will immediately light up.

              No. The exchange takes place with directional high-frequency signals. It is almost impossible to detect them.
              Quote: Avior
              The range of the ship's air defense system is much greater than these UAVs.

              Not fundamentally, gremlin's EPI is minimal. Part of the UAV from the swarm can act as decoys, the rest can fly at ultra-low altitude.
              Quote: Avior
              On the other hand, its real radius is 250 km,

              It is the X-61A that has a 560 km flight range, but the UTAP-22 already has 2600 km.
            2. Shopping Mall
              4 December 2020 09: 24
              0
              Quote: Avior
              How directed, if they exchange information with each other.
              They will immediately light up. Again, even if directional, it is not a fact that the direction will not coincide, or the ship's or aviation rtr will not be enough and side lobes


              Maybe, maybe not. We are talking about the raid of a flock of UAVs, the very fact of such a raid by the enemy can be perceived as an attack by an anti-ship missile system, which will lead to the inclusion of the radar of escort ships, takeoff of aviation, etc. And that's what we need.

              Quote: Avior
              And they will raise the planes in advance, for example. And then guess where it came from.
              Or even - why did they all shut up?


              They won't shoot everyone at the same time. There are 48-80 of them flying in a wide front. Activity itself will also be an unmasking sign. They will also have radio communications. In the end, after all, these disposable UAVs are not alone, in the distance there may be a MALE UAV With more powerful equipment, the RTR satellite.

              Quote: Avior
              As for the radar station, at best it will become known that the destroyer was
              Was there an aircraft carrier, who knows?


              This is not enough, how many escort destroyers will there be - 6-8? If we find 4-6 of them, will we damage some? And then "real" anti-ship missiles will arrive on them? Will AUG continue to perform a combat mission without security?

              Quote: Avior
              And at worst, nothing will be known, they will shut up, and that's all.


              One UAV will be silent, but not all at once.

              Quote: Avior
              And about the attack of the target is generally a mystery. 65 kg per RTR station and how to attack? To fasten the f-1 grenade with blue electrical tape? And the expensive UAV will go away for nothing. Again, what would be the attack if he was shot down long before that?


              There is no complete clarity about 65 kg, given that the KR warhead up to 500 kg + has its own seeker.
              Those. it is possible that this is a possible mass of ammunition dropped for the Gremlins, and the reconnaissance equipment is taken into account in the mass of the UAV itself.

              Quote: Avior
              The range of the ship's air defense system is much greater than these UAVs.
              On the other hand, its real radius is 250 km if it comes back. So the carrier will be shot down at such a distance


              Why is this a real radius of 250 km, if the CD has a range of 3000? USA for Gremlins declare radius 300 miles.

              As for the air defense missile system, it has a radio horizon, and it will detect a UAV at low altitude like a conventional anti-ship missile system, the same LARSM.

              There remain AWACS aircraft, but the PMCM has to get rid of them one way or another, as the next article has already been submitted.
        2. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 13: 52
          -4
          1) there are passive reconnaissance means, 2) such UAVs will detect enemy ships and transmit coordinates and anti-ship missiles will fly to the meeting - the key problem now is to find the area where the enemy AUG is located, and after entering the area, the rocket detachment itself will aim at the enemy ships. 3) the ability to attack ships is an option .. any air defense can be pushed through due to a massive missile raid. Somehow, there were calculations that to destroy an aircraft carrier with a full order, you need about 120-150 missiles .. The question arises, you need to launch these missiles .. The Americans, for example, do not sweat and make anti-ship missiles based on the same jasmas .. why are you worse than the x-101 ? the same stealth, the same speed .. the question remains of carriers .. Tu-95/160 can be launched, you can modify the launch mechanism for the IL-76 .. and voila .. raised a dozen carriers on patrol .. found an enemy aug through such UAVs and made launches ... not to mention the fact that such UAVs in an outfit of 10-15 UAVs will be able to destroy a destroyer
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 December 2020 14: 02
            +1
            1. AUG has them too. It's better. Much.
            2. First they will be found and shot down. They won't wither the aircraft carrier, they just won't reach it.
            after entering the area, the rocket detachment itself will aim at the enemy ships

            delusion that everything is so simple
            3. The fact that the Americans did, and the x-101 - nothing is known about it for certain. Including GOS capabilities.
            And the fact that the Americans are based on the type of fight against ships - aviation.
            About drowning a UAV destroyer is a utopia.
            SAM of the American destroyer is capable of simultaneously firing at 18 targets.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 14: 34
              -4
              1) and what is easier to notice - an inconspicuous target, which not every active radar will detect even from 50 km, or a group of ten ships, which is firing through negotiations?
              2) the shootdown itself, namely the loss of the UAV in a certain square, will allow to detect the location of the aug
              3) funny .. American 2-3 sorties on tests, cool, but the rocket, which is already in service for 10 years soon .. this is not that .. about the GOS .. you can put on the x-35 and get the guidance range in 50 km is quite enough for automatic capture and attack without operator control.
              4) "sink a destroyer with a utopia UAV" .. well, yes .. just think of a destroyer will fly from the heels of missiles with 100 kg warheads .. For understanding, to destroy a ship of 5 tons, 000-1 x-2s with a warhead of 35 kg ..
              5) about "zrk can fire" ... zrk can do a lot of things in ideal conditions .. But for some reason the Americans themselves make anti-ship missiles on the basis of jasms ... and for some reason they don't care that the enemy also has air defense systems that can also be guided on their pcr ...

              I repeat, any air defense can be pushed through, the question of the number of missiles, for us it is important to get the POSSIBILITY of launching this number of missiles. Alteration of the x-101 is not as expensive as it seems, the rocket itself is massive and worked out, the number of carriers exceeds 70, not to mention the possibility of developing a launch mechanism with the IL-76, which automatically increases the number of carriers to 150-170 carriers, and everyone will be able to launch 8-12 UAV missiles each, and the most important thing is a quick decision to create weapons with a range of 2-000 km, which automatically makes an attempt to attack our shores using aug-hard to do.
              1. Avior
                Avior 9 December 2020 14: 39
                +2
                1. RTR stations on ships and aircraft are much better than on drones. The drone emits, and quite actively.
                2. will not allow. the apparatus fell, and that's it.
                as a last resort, shot down a plane or ship. but eh
                This is not necessarily related to AUG.
                3. The problem of hitting is the problem of the GOS.
                4. arriving or arriving? the difference is huge
                5. They don't even have the tactics of firing a volley in the "wrong direction" into a combat-ready ship
                1. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 14: 56
                  -3
                  Well, yes .. the rocket that was created so that no one could detect it will sharply become noticeable .. by the way, it is easier to find the ship, since it will have to turn on the radars and negotiate, and the UAV can work autonomously.
                  about "fell and that's it" .. yeah, only the drone transmits its coordinates by satellite ... therefore if it "fell" then there is something interesting there ..
                  about the "gsn problem" about "whether it will hit or not" and "they have no tactics" .. yeah .. especially considering the presence of a search for a ship in a spiral .. no tactics ... in short .. if you cannot offer adequate counterarguments, do not write game
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 9 December 2020 16: 00
                    +1
                    Ek you just
                    And flies autonomously, and transmits coordinates simultaneously
                    Everything you write about has been discussed a million times.
                    For example, can you give real examples of an anti-ship missile system hitting a combat-ready ship with a modern anti-ship missile system with an RTR station, a reb and traps?
                    Can you give such examples with over-the-horizon launches?
                    1. Boris Chernikov
                      Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 16: 50
                      -4
                      and when was the last time we had combat launches? Israel was hit, there were hits .. and at one time in South America they managed to drop bombs on British ships from the "most advanced air defense" of that time .. so don't start in style " oops .. they have the same means of counteraction, we cannot launch any missiles! "
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 9 December 2020 17: 29
                        0
                        This is a collection of words.
                        Try to look for specific information about the real combat use of the anti-tank missile system in the world under the specified conditions, your confidence will diminish.
                        Pkr well get into sky-ready ships, either with outdated military, or non-military ships.
                        With the defeat of the anti-ship missile of a modern warship in real combat, and not at the training ground, Big problems
                      2. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 38
                        -7
                        oh yeah .. why pkr .. then let’s use cannons as in 1944 to smack .. just as well, in case of war, you should shoot yourself ..
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 9 December 2020 17: 42
                        0
                        Pkr - not a wunderwafe, as some think - let it go, it will find it itself and get it
                        To hit a target with a high enough probability, you need to foresee and provide
                      4. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 44
                        -10%
                        yes you are admiral ashpen I will see ...
                  2. Lex_is
                    Lex_is 9 December 2020 18: 14
                    -2
                    Pkr well get into sky-ready ships, either with outdated military, or non-military ships.
                    With the defeat of the anti-ship missile of a modern warship in real combat, and not at the training ground, Big problems


                    The story of how the Houthis anti-ship missiles USS Mason (DDG-87) drowned for a very long time and persistently is very indicative here. laughing
                    On October 9, 2016, Mason, near Baba el-Mandeb, was attacked by two anti-ship missiles, launched two SM-2 Standart and one RIM-162 ESSM to intercept and deployed a decoy target.
                    On October 12, 2016, Mason in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait near the city of Al-Khudaydah was again attacked by two missiles, successfully intercepted one missile at a distance of about 8 miles on the second missile, not sure if it was intercepted or it just fell into the sea.
                    On October 15, 2016, Mason underwent a third attack by five anti-ship cruise missiles north of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, firing a radar trap, an infrared trap and several SM-2 Standard missiles in response, intercepting four of the five missiles. the fifth missile was neutralized by a radar trap launched from the USS Nitze.

                    You can also remember the battle of Bubiyana, when the Iraqis launched Silkworm on the battleship USS Missouri, which was intercepted by Sea Dart from the British destroyer HMS Gloucester.
            2. Lex_is
              Lex_is 9 December 2020 16: 32
              -2
              UAV can work autonomously.
              about "and that's all" .. yeah, only the drone transmits its coordinates via satellite ...


              Would you decide whether it works autonomously or transmits coordinates?
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 16: 50
                -3
                and what exactly bothers you? or the transmission of coordinates with telemetry directly sharply gives out the data of the UAV?))
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 9 December 2020 17: 15
                  -1
                  or the transmission of coordinates with telemetry directly sharply gives out the data of the UAV


                  What, you didn't know that?
                  In addition, in addition to coordinates, he must also transmit a lot of things, for example, data from an electro-optical detection system or radar, with which he is going to detect enemy ships.
                2. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 21
                  -2
                  1) such information is transmitted in compressed packets of encoded information, not to mention the fact that depending on which sensors to set for detection
                3. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 9 December 2020 17: 29
                  -1
                  such information is transmitted in compressed packets of encoded information


                  This is where you subtracted such heresy and in which of the currently existing UAVs is this implemented?
                4. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 35
                  -4
                  and you do not confuse military UAVs with Ali-Express crafts)
                5. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 9 December 2020 17: 36
                  0
                  I asked a specific question "in which of the currently existing UAVs is this implemented?"
                  And here is Ali Express?
                6. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 40
                  -7
                  laughing and you do not know that military communication channels .. are a little encrypted?
                7. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 9 December 2020 17: 44
                  -1
                  Channel encryption does not affect PTP detection in any way.

                  The answer to the question will be?
                8. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 47
                  -7
                  only RTR will see that "it seems that somewhere out there someone is using a connection" .. and that is not a fact ..
                9. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 9 December 2020 19: 47
                  -3
                  RTR will see the air target with signatures typical for UAVs and bearing accuracy within 5 degrees.
                10. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 23: 27
                  -3
                  RTR will see only the signal source, it will not see any "characteristics" about "5 degrees", and what is not in half a degree? Not to mention the fact that the drone can work AUTONOMOUSLY, not emitting anything at all ... but it's convenient to say " but nothing will come of it ".. such figures at one time also spoke about drones in the XNUMXs ..." why do we need shock UAVs, we have a lot of pilots and planes ".. now these" experts "scream and demand tomorrow to the troops put drums on the UAV ...
                11. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 10 December 2020 10: 30
                  -1
                  RTR will see only the source of the signal, it will not see any "characteristics"


                  Tell this to the developers of the R-330KMV and Borisoglebsk-2, they will go crazy with such discoveries.
                12. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 11: 24
                  -6
                  Well, following this logic, we need to build battleships .. shoot from cannons ... then the truth will again be shouts and howls "how is it, why we were overtaken! The authorities are to blame!"
                13. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 10 December 2020 11: 30
                  -1
                  So what about with your statement that "Borisoglebsk-2" from the enemy's UAV
                  will see only the source of the signal, he will not see any "characteristics"
                  and, accordingly, will not be able to counteract the UAV? laughing
                  Do you continue to insist on this?
                14. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 11: 36
                  -4
                  and you have already put Borisoglebsk-2 on the ship? or following the principle that "the enemy can detect" nothing needs to be created at all) that's always touches "I saw from the sofa that it might not work .. therefore it is not necessary to think and R&D" ... under this brand we don't even need ships ... really ... why have a fleet and aviation ...
                15. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 10 December 2020 11: 52
                  -2
                  It was about the fact that:
                  RTR will see the air target with signatures typical for UAVs and bearing accuracy within 5 degrees.


                  You started screaming that it was impossible and
                  RTR will see only the signal source, it will not see any "characteristics" about "5 degrees", but what is not half a degree


                  I gave you an example of such an RTR among domestic developments close to your heart.

                  So can he see the characteristics of the signal or not?

                  And here is the AN / SLQ-32 enemy electronic warfare system monitor:

                  Are the azimuths clearly visible on the target?
                16. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 11: 57
                  -4
                  I am aware of the presence of the aircraft .. following your logic, since there is a possibility that there will be detection, then there is no need to try to develop a UAV and you need to send the plane with the pilot out .. that's right .. let the pilots die .. they don't mind
                17. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 10 December 2020 12: 06
                  -2
                  I am aware of the presence of the rab.

                  Already vkurse? After my long story? laughing winked
                  Yesterday you told me that
                  RTR will see only the source of the signal, it will not see any "characteristics"

                  You are changing your shoes on the fly!

                  No need to ascribe your crazy logic to me, where did I write that UAVs do not need to be developed?
                18. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 12: 13
                  -5
                  yes, almost everywhere .. "ah they will see it, ah they will destroy it, ah why is it needed"? so following the logic of your messages .. only old school .. only old cannons and battleships .. well, and dead pilots
                19. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 10 December 2020 12: 28
                  -1
                  yes, almost everywhere .. "ah they will see him, ah they will destroy him, ah why he is needed"


                  I understand that you are not accustomed to answer for your nonsense, but I would like to see specific quotes where I said this.
                20. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 13: 44
                  -5
                  laughing And your speeches about "but the Hussists fired missiles a couple of times and did not hit" how to understand? or "blah will detect electronic warfare and destroy"? or all these speeches in the style of "captain of the obvious"?
                21. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 10 December 2020 13: 46
                  -2
                  As facts taking place in recent years in the real world Boris.
                  This world is a little different from your wet fantasies.
                22. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 10 December 2020 14: 19
                  -5
                  yeah, of course it is different ... you can put the most expensive tank in an open field and then cry that it was destroyed ... There is such a concept as a tactic of use, if you hit from the maximum distance after a long aiming and even untrained crews, then you can calmly and not get there ... following your logic .. Americans are not very smart people, since they make anti-ship missiles, like other countries .. do you need guns again?) yes?
  6. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 50
    -7
    By the way .. I understand that you have already carried out R&D and studied the possibility of using UAVs against AUG and can you clearly state "this is technically impossible"? Or do we have a divanavision again?
  7. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 39
    -7
    via satellite communication channel, Not to mention that it all depends on the installed electronics - many data can be processed on board the UAV.
  8. Lex_is
    Lex_is 9 December 2020 17: 45
    0
    Satellite communication channels are also perfectly detected by means of RTR.
  9. Avior
    Avior 9 December 2020 17: 31
    +2
    Yes, it does
    The ships have very effective RTR stations, much more efficient than can be installed on an uav for this purpose.
  10. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 36
    -3
    ui? following your logic, we do not need an uav from the word at all .. because you can always "put a more powerful system on a ship or a truck" .. Or is the "noise" level of an uav and an aircraft carrier group comparable for you?)
  11. Avior
    Avior 9 December 2020 17: 45
    +1
    Aug at the transition can go in radio silence, and this is practiced
    Based on the limited radiation, it can be difficult to determine the type of ship - radio equipment and radars are very strongly unified
  12. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 17: 51
    -7
    Well, yes .. the Americans will be bored and they will pull the destroyers like a fan .. suddenly they will be noticed ..
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 4 December 2020 09: 38
    0
    Quote: Avior
    the ability of a UAV with a payload of 65 kg to fight the AUG is questionable.

    What doubts. This is simply not possible.
    Yes and no such task. It is necessary to identify and detect, the 2nd and 3rd waves will be engaged in destruction. There are also “heavy” UAVs, manned aircraft, ships and submarines. Everyone's favorite daggers and zircons.
    X-61A as an example, a concept is being worked out, not a production machine. UTAP-22 already has 250 kg payload and 2600 km flight range. In terms of size, the difference is not fundamental 4 meters against 6 meters in length, the wingspan is the same, the height is 0,5 against 0,7.
    1. Avior
      Avior 4 December 2020 10: 02
      +3
      It would have been so simple, they would have made disposable cruise missiles long ago. In the meantime, in practice, the avionics capabilities of cruise missiles are noticeably inferior to ships and aircraft.
      The fact that there is no opposition now, and so there are no such systems. Appear, then let's see the reaction to their appearance. Not the Americans, of course, they do not need to protect their Augs from these systems.
      Spoof traps will appear in response, and long-range air patrolling with refueling will be established, unmanned interceptors will appear, and much more.
      As a last resort, they will not use aug against an enemy with such systems, they will leave it for other tasks.
      With the declared range, the carriers are vulnerable to aviation, with an increase in the range, the required number will increase.
      In the meantime, there is an obvious problem of the effectiveness of the anti-aircraft missile system when attacking combat-ready ships, and so far no one has confirmed that it has been solved.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 4 December 2020 10: 14
        +1
        Naturally, this is a fight between a shield and a sword, of course the UAV is only part of the system. And they alone cannot solve all the issues.
        For a long time, the necessary technologies have appeared recently. During the technical revolution of the early 21st century. In the United States, technologies are now being developed. There are many more projects of the same UAVs than manned aircraft.
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 December 2020 10: 42
          +4
          It's just strange to compare existing technologies with those that are likely to be in the future, and even more so pretending that creating them is a trifling matter.
          Any technology requires testing by practice, and so far it doesn't even smell like that.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 4 December 2020 10: 55
            0
            These technologies are on the way; in the United States, the production of mass jet UAVs will begin this decade. Loyal Wingman is their # 1 priority. There are a lot of similar projects in the army, the air force, the ILC. And they did not appear suddenly, systematic work has been going on for over 80 years. It's just that the technical revolution of the 21st century has provided new opportunities that were not previously available. The latest information systems (hardware and software) make it possible to realize the fantasy of the mid-late 20th century.
            1. The comment was deleted.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 4 December 2020 20: 51
    0
    "...... will give a pot ... without honey for his birthday."
    Vinnie also flew ... and the bees survived ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 06: 52
    +8
    Earlier, we found out that primary detection of an aircraft carrier or shipborne strike group (AUG / KUG) can be done in many ways - by reconnaissance satellites and maneuvering spacecraft, stratospheric unmanned airships and high-altitude electric unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as high-altitude and medium-altitude UAVs flight class HALE and MALE.

    Due to the fact that earlier we found out that this is impossible, was it worth doing the continuation of the article?
    1. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 08: 13
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Earlier, we found out that primary detection of an aircraft carrier or shipborne strike group (AUG / KUG) can be done in many ways - by reconnaissance satellites and maneuvering spacecraft, stratospheric unmanned airships and high-altitude electric unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as high-altitude and medium-altitude UAVs flight class HALE and MALE.

      Due to the fact that earlier we found out that this is impossible, was it worth doing the continuation of the article?


      What exactly is impossible and where did we find it out?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 08: 27
        +5
        In the discussions for the previous article. There were completely fair statements about the impossibility of using
        stratospheric unmanned airships and high-altitude electric unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as high-altitude and medium-altitude UAVs of long duration of flight of the HALE and MALE class.

        in wartime. Satellites do not solve the issue.
        1. Shopping Mall
          4 December 2020 08: 47
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In the discussions for the previous article. There were completely fair statements about the impossibility of using
          stratospheric unmanned airships and high-altitude electric unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),


          Regarding airships, I would not strain too much precisely in the context of AUG, PMSM, they are more important as a conditionally stationary means of detecting low-flying targets.

          With regard to high-altitude electric UAVs, this is an inevitable future, who believes in it or not. They will, and they will be effective. To begin with, as a means of RTR and optical reconnaissance, and as technologies are developed, they will carry everything else. This is a 5-10 year question. And they will have flight altitudes of 20-30 kilometers.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          as well as high-altitude and medium-altitude UAVs of long duration of flight of the HALE and MALE class.


          I do not understand how the actions of heavy UAVs differ from those of the Tu-95RTs, except that the crew does not take risks, and the patrol time is longer and the visibility is less?

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Satellites do not solve the issue.


          Who does not decide for us? Maybe if there were more of them, they would solve it?
          "Not with us" there will definitely be more and more of them. After all, the breakthrough of SpaseX is not in Starlink, as such, but in the fact that they "bake satellites like cakes" and put them into orbit in batches.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 10: 28
            +3
            Quote: AVM
            Regarding airships, I would not strain too much precisely in the context of AUG, PMSM, they are more important as a conditionally stationary means of detecting low-flying targets.

            This is a very poor stationary device and it will not work due to the peculiarities of the behavior of airships at high altitudes.
            Quote: AVM
            With regard to high-altitude electric UAVs, this is an inevitable future, who believes in it or not. They will and they will be effective

            In 200 years - perhaps. And today the modest Global Hawk in its capabilities is inferior not only to the E-2D "Edvanst Hawkeye", but even to the U-2, and at the same time it costs significantly more than the "Hawkeye".
            Today, there are NO UAVs at all (even in the project) that could carry a working radar, at least somewhat comparable to the Hokai
            Quote: AVM
            To begin with, as a means of RTR

            Are you joking? What kind of RTR is it, if for all the enemy's RTR it sounds like a Christmas tree? Already at least by radio exchange with the ground.
            Quote: AVM
            I don't understand how the actions of heavy UAVs differ from those of the Tu-95RTs

            Hardware, sir. Not to mention the fact that the Tu-95RTs were considered an ineffective means of marine reconnaissance in the last century.
            Quote: AVM
            Who does not decide for us? Maybe if there were more of them, they would solve it?

            The USSR could not with its capabilities, but of course we can
            1. Shopping Mall
              4 December 2020 11: 11
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: AVM
              With regard to high-altitude electric UAVs, this is an inevitable future, who believes in it or not. They will and they will be effective

              In 200 years - perhaps.


              I would still be guided by 10 years. There are no transcendental ultra-high technologies to them, the question is only about the experience gained in their creation and the progress of components - electric motors, SB, batteries, and it goes quite quickly.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And today the modest Global Hawk in its capabilities is inferior not only to the E-2D "Edvanst Hawkeye", but even to the U-2, and at the same time it costs significantly more than the "Hawkeye".


              It costs more, yes, but you can also send it where the U-2 is not sent, because there is no pilot, you can take the risk. Otherwise, how is the U-2 superior to the Global Hawk?

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Today, there are NO UAVs at all (even in the project) that could carry a working radar, at least somewhat comparable to the Hokai


              So far, yes, but we have not yet talked about the UAV AWACS yet? And so, there are UAV AWACS projects. There is no particular problem to install the radar, it is a matter of carrying capacity, the problem is rather in processing information from it - operators are needed. Therefore, manned AWACS aircraft will not disappear anywhere, but AWACS UAVs will complement them.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: AVM
              To begin with, as a means of RTR

              Are you joking? What kind of RTR is it, if for all the enemy's RTR it sounds like a Christmas tree? Already at least by radio exchange with the ground.


              With a satellite. If everything were so simple, then why are they doing high-altitude reconnaissance UAVs at all?

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: AVM
              I don't understand how the actions of heavy UAVs differ from those of the Tu-95RTs

              Hardware, sir. Not to mention the fact that the Tu-95RTs were considered an ineffective means of marine reconnaissance in the last century.


              Nevertheless, the USA made the "Tritons", and they do not refuse them. What means of intelligence is effective? NK, PL? And Tu095RTs, of course, by the end of the 500th century, became obsolete both in terms of the glider and in equipment, they can be seen from XNUMX km away and can be heard from under the water. But what was the alternative to him as a long-range naval reconnaissance aircraft before the advent of the UAV?

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Quote: AVM
              Who does not decide for us? Maybe if there were more of them, they would solve it?

              The USSR could not with its capabilities, but of course we can


              There was no cellular communication in the USSR, and indeed there was no normal telephone communication, but now it is, yes, on imported equipment, but still. Even if we use imported components, buying them from under the counter, then communications and reconnaissance satellites need to be made, and there are a lot of them, since they are the alpha and omega of modern warfare. If there is no normal satellite communications and reconnaissance, then everything else - aircraft carriers, tanks, etc., can be forgotten. At best, it will be the fate of North Korea - sitting on atomic bombs and hysterically threatening to use them - by the way, there are adherents of such a policy here.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 13: 42
                +4
                Quote: AVM
                I would still be guided by 10 years. There are no transcendental ultra-high technologies to them.

                There is a fundamental problem that any UAV stumbles upon. Link. It is detected and monitored by modern means of RTR at times.
                Quote: AVM
                It costs more, yes, but you can also send it where the U-2 is not sent, because there is no pilot, you can take the risk. Otherwise, how is the U-2 superior to the Global Hawk?

                You can't send it anywhere, because where the U-2 is shot down, the UAV will be shot down even faster, and what's the point of throwing money down the drain? And it surpasses, for example, in that the Global Hawk reconnaissance complex is a simplified version of what is put on the U-2
                Quote: AVM
                With a satellite.

                What's the difference? The bottom line is that a UAV is an emitting object. Our RTR stations a la Kolchuga nullify non-emitting objects, and this one ...
                Quote: AVM
                If everything were so simple, then why are they doing high-altitude reconnaissance UAVs at all?

                For observation in peacetime and the fight against the armed forces of third world countries. Or in a war against a serious power, but exclusively in the zone of its air supremacy. Nobody ever intended to use a UAV like your suggestions.
                Quote: AVM
                Nevertheless, the USA made the "Tritons", and they do not refuse them.

                Because Triton's TASKS are completely different. Have you watched the performance characteristics of the Triton radar? 40 km range!
                Quote: AVM
                But what was the alternative to him as a long-range naval reconnaissance aircraft before the advent of the UAV?

                Satellites + Full-fledged RTR and AWACS aircraft. And now they have no alternative.
                Quote: AVM
                There was no cellular communication in the USSR, and indeed there was no normal telephone communication, but now it is, yes, on imported equipment, but still. Even if we use imported components, buying them from under the counter, then communications and reconnaissance satellites need to be made, and there are a lot of them, since they are the alpha and omega of modern warfare.

                Do you understand the difference between an optical reconnaissance satellite, a passive RTR and an active reconnaissance radar? The first two are used everywhere, but will not give you what you expect, and satellites with an active radar of the archidorogi today
                1. Shopping Mall
                  4 December 2020 16: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  I would still be guided by 10 years. There are no transcendental ultra-high technologies to them.

                  There is a fundamental problem that any UAV stumbles upon. Link. It is detected and monitored by modern means of RTR at times.


                  So at times? Satellite communication channel, with frequency hopping and other tricks like: https://nplus1.ru/news/2016/12/05/noise

                  As for high-altitude UAVs, with satellite data transmission channels, they can use directional antennas (the UAVs themselves) - the transmission then goes "up", here RTR will not see any side lobes. And what about the return signal from the satellite, it can also be directional, for this they put antennas with AFAR there. Moreover, given that 20-30 km is above the cloud cover, laser systems of covert communication can be used, and what the hell would RTR detect them? And these systems are being tested at Starlink.

                  With low-altitude it is more difficult, but again, the missile defense system cannot be directed to the communication channel, this is not a radar in active mode, i.e. it is necessary either to turn on the ship's radar, or to use the aviation radar in active mode. If 48-80 UAVs are involved in a reconnaissance and strike operation, then they will open the AUG, at least in part of the escort ships.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  It costs more, yes, but you can also send it where the U-2 is not sent, because there is no pilot, you can take the risk. Otherwise, how is the U-2 superior to the Global Hawk?

                  You can't send it anywhere, because where the U-2 is shot down, the UAV will be shot down even faster, and what's the point of throwing money down the drain? And it surpasses, for example, in that the Global Hawk reconnaissance complex is a simplified version of what is put on the U-2


                  This probability will be “shot down”. When the probability is high, and the combat mission requires risk, then it is easier to send an UAV without risking a trained pilot and lose only one (UAV). The pilot gets tired, and the UAV can patrol for 1-2 days, and the operators on the ground will go home after an 8-hour working day, handing over the shift to shift duty.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  With a satellite.

                  What's the difference? The bottom line is that a UAV is an emitting object. Our RTR stations a la Kolchuga nullify non-emitting objects, and this one ...


                  This is due to what he sees non-radiating objects? But in my opinion, Kolchuga detects radar radiation. And to determine the coordinates of the radiation object - triangulation, there should be 3 of them. Those. Speaking of ships, these are 3 ships, and to synchronize the data of their "Kolchuga" they must exchange radio signals, which can also be detected.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  If everything were so simple, then why are they doing high-altitude reconnaissance UAVs at all?

                  For observation in peacetime and the fight against the armed forces of third world countries. Or in a war against a serious power, but exclusively in the zone of its air supremacy. Nobody ever intended to use a UAV like your suggestions.


                  It is precisely the "Gremlins" and other types of slave UAVs that are created precisely to counter a serious enemy, and the United States openly talks about Russia and China. It was enough to bomb the Papuans and the Predators.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  Nevertheless, the USA made the "Tritons", and they do not refuse them.

                  Because Triton's TASKS are completely different. Have you watched the performance characteristics of the Triton radar? 40 km range!


                  Yes, Triton is more focused on finding submarines. But the RTR system is on it. And where does the data on the radar range of 40 km come from? The Global Hawk has exactly more than 200 km with a resolution of 1 m, or even 0,3 m.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  But what was the alternative to him as a long-range naval reconnaissance aircraft before the advent of the UAV?

                  Satellites + Full-fledged RTR and AWACS aircraft. And now they have no alternative.


                  Satellites yes. And the planes will be, but they will work in conjunction with the UAV. As an RTR aircraft, we have a Tu-214R. What prevents him from interacting with the UAV?

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  There was no cellular communication in the USSR, and indeed there was no normal telephone communication, but now it is, yes, on imported equipment, but still. Even if we use imported components, buying them from under the counter, then communications and reconnaissance satellites need to be made, and there are a lot of them, since they are the alpha and omega of modern warfare.

                  Do you understand the difference between an optical reconnaissance satellite, a passive RTR and an active reconnaissance radar? The first two are used everywhere, but will not give you what you expect, and satellites with an active radar of the archidorogi today


                  This is a question of mass production. The more AFAR modules are produced, the cheaper each individual module is. The same Starlink is thousands of satellites with AFAR modules, millions of modules. Yes, they are slightly different, but the technology is the same.

                  And as for the bans, well, it will have an effect - you will have to do something ourselves, pay off something from China, steal something. The USSR was spinning somehow.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 21: 17
                    +1
                    Quote: AVM
                    So at times? Satellite communication channel, with frequency hopping and other tricks like: https://nplus1.ru/news/2016/12/05/noise

                    Have you read the link?
                    The communication range of the system is up to ten kilometers, and the data transfer rate is up to three megabits per second.

                    For satellite communication, if anything, you need 50 Mbit, but about a range of 10 km ... Well, you get the idea.
                    Quote: AVM
                    As for high-altitude UAVs with satellite data transmission channels, they can use directional antennas (the UAVs themselves) - the transmission then goes "up", then RTR will not see any side lobes.

                    Let's clarify. You write
                    Quote: AVM
                    This is due to what he sees non-radiating objects? And in my opinion, Kolchuga detects radar radiation.

                    Chain mail and others like them do not work that way. The fact is that the whole world has long been permeated with radio waves. Any material object introduces a certain "dissonance" into this white noise - radio waves of this noise are reflected from it. And from these reflections, Kolchuga sees a non-radiating object at a distance of up to 800 km. And this is a 1987 development ...
                    And you are the "transfer up" ....
                    Quote: AVM
                    Just "Gremlins" and other types of slave UAVs

                    We're talking about an enemy detection UAV. What does the Gremlins have to do with it?
                    Quote: AVM
                    Yes, Triton is more focused on finding submarines. But the RTR system is on it. And where does the data on the radar range of 40 km come from?

                    The radar is said to control 5200 square kilometers with a 360-degree view in one pass. And since the area of ​​the circle is pi * er squared ...
                    Quote: AVM
                    The Global Hawk has exactly more than 200 km with a resolution of 1 m, or even 0,3 m.

                    Will you give me a link? :)))) I heard that the Global Hawk could be 200 km with a resolution of 1 m, but that his radar did not.
                    Quote: AVM
                    And the planes will be, but they will work in conjunction with the UAV. As an RTR aircraft, we have a Tu-214R. What prevents him from interacting with the UAV?

                    Knock the fuck out of both, that's all. The RTR aircraft can go in a radio silence mode, and thus ensure its own safety. But the exchange of data with the UAV will burn it on the spot. Opened and knocked down.
                    Quote: AVM
                    This is a question of mass production. The more AFAR modules are produced, the cheaper each individual module is.

                    But where does AFAR have to do with it? The satellite must have either a very low orbit (from which it will skip very quickly), or heavy-duty batteries. Was it in vain that they put reactors on the Legend?
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 5 December 2020 20: 07
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But the exchange of data with the UAV will burn it on the spot.
                      The author incorrectly sets tasks for a one-time UAV: ​​the task of such a UAV is additional reconnaissance in a dangerous direction. The reconnaissance aircraft detected suspicious activity and launched the UAV in its direction (flying there yourself could be fraught). The UAV flies and transmits information, independently heading to "interesting" places or switching to the patrol-search mode (the behavior model can be set before launch). The reconnaissance plane itself does not transmit anything to the UAV. A kind of air version of an anti-submarine buoy.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 4 December 2020 07: 52
    +6
    About supersonic on Tu-160 with rockets on an external sling amused.
    And so, the latest versions of the "Tomahawk" already have feedback and loitering.
    It would not hurt in Calibers, but, apparently, it does not fit because of the "largest integrated circuits" and the lack of support for long-distance (satellite) communications.
    All this is great and greatly expands the functionality, but, IMHO, it is suitable only for a war with a technically backward enemy, well, or only for the first "surprise" strike, if you know for sure that the enemy will not shoot first.
    Although, for a second strike on a "disarmed" enemy, it is most likely also suitable. He flew in, looked at what was still alive, finished off. Previously, they had B-52s with cast iron intended for this, but now they can not get up from the couch.
    1. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 08: 29
      +1
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      About supersonic on Tu-160 with rockets on an external sling amused.


      It is not necessary to write what is not. I have never stated that the Tu-160 will go with rockets on an external sling at supersonic. The range of BK 48-80 is indicated everywhere, where 48 is 4 aircraft with 12 CR in the inner compartments.

      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And so, the latest versions of the "Tomahawk" already have feedback and loitering.
      It would not hurt in Calibers, but, apparently, it does not fit because of the "largest integrated circuits" and the lack of support for long-distance (satellite) communications.


      You can't get away from this.

      Quote: Jacket in stock
      All this is great and greatly expands the functionality, but, IMHO, it is suitable only for a war with a technically backward enemy, well, or only for the first "surprise" strike, if you know for sure that the enemy will not shoot first.
      Although, for a second strike on a "disarmed" enemy, it is most likely also suitable. He flew in, looked at what was still alive, finished off. Previously, they had B-52s with cast iron intended for this, but now they can not get up from the couch.


      In the context of the destruction of the AUG, if we throw the entire salvo, then there is no particular sense, but if they go in two echelons with a minimum interval, then the first wave will carry out additional reconnaissance of targets.

      And if the feedback has a delay at a minimum level, then the possibility of retargeting will allow you not to hit false targets - all these boats with corner reflectors, smoke-metal curtains, etc.

      In addition, the feedback provides insight into which targets were hit.
      1. Avior
        Avior 4 December 2020 10: 05
        +3
        By the second wave there will be a new wave of traps, this is a matter of a few seconds, the picture will immediately change
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 4 December 2020 08: 36
    0
    I read three articles about these devices, and the idea of ​​using the airframe of the KR did not come to my mind ... it is strange why the Americans themselves did not do this? There is also a stealth case ...
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 4 December 2020 10: 25
      +1
      The rocket flies quickly and maneuvers with great G-forces. Its design is redundant for UAVs. It is unlikely that the current control and surveillance systems can react at the required speed at high flight speeds.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 4 December 2020 10: 28
        0
        Hello .... and at what speeds will these jet UAVs fly? On the same.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 4 December 2020 15: 35
          0
          Nevertheless, even for now, UAVs are relatively slow-moving vehicles. This allows them to be controlled by the operator from the ground and maneuver. When there is AI, then we will discuss.
          The slow speed has its advantages as well. Suffice it to recall the Ju-87, Po-2 and Israeli missiles that destroyed Arab air defenses.
          It seems to me that ours missed the development of UAVs precisely because of their slow speed. It was hard to believe that there could be an effect at low speed. Whether it is supersonic, etc.
          To understand that low speed is a convenience, it is enough to control the quadcopter. And then, a little yawned and already hanging on a tree.
      2. Shopping Mall
        4 December 2020 10: 47
        0
        Quote: mmaxx
        The rocket flies quickly and maneuvers with great G-forces. Its design is redundant for UAVs. It is unlikely that the current control and surveillance systems can react at the required speed at high flight speeds.


        If we are talking about cruise missiles, then they do not fly at high overloads, like UAVs now.

        But in the long term, one of the advantages of a UAV is the absence of a person, no matter how corny it sounds. So, theoretically, the UAV can maneuver with an overload of 20-30-40 G, or even more, i.e. at the level of SAM or V-V missiles. With what, then, the overloads will have to maneuver SAMs and V-V missiles to shoot them down?
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 4 December 2020 15: 39
          0
          Yes
          And this is especially true for kamikaze drones.
          You can make a rocket glider. He flies himself on the sly, then he found a target - he threw off his wings and went on the attack with rocket wings. There you have both speed and overload.
        2. Avior
          Avior 4 December 2020 21: 03
          +2
          A very expensive uav will turn out, not a massive one, but a piece
          And how will he, without a pilot, determine when and how to "maneuver"?
          Not every maneuver leads to the complication of interception, and maybe vice versa.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 4 December 2020 12: 24
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      I read three articles about these devices, and the idea of ​​using the airframe of the KR did not come to my mind ... it is strange why the Americans themselves did not do this? There is also a stealth case ...

      The Americans have already done it. The latest versions of the tomahawks have a ground link and loitering mode.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 4 December 2020 08: 49
    0
    "Upgraded Tu-95MSM bombers are capable of carrying 8 Kh-101 type missile launchers on an external sling and another 6 Kh-55 missile launchers in the inner compartment" - but will it take off with such a load?
    1. Shopping Mall
      4 December 2020 09: 34
      0
      Quote: ares1988
      "Upgraded Tu-95MSM bombers are capable of carrying 8 Kh-101 type missile launchers on an external sling and another 6 Kh-55 missile launchers in the inner compartment" - but will it take off with such a load?


      The information on different resources is the difference. Either the carrying capacity is underestimated or the number of KRs is overestimated.

      PMSM is unlikely, if only one Kh-55 / Kh-55SM. But if we are talking about a Gremlin-type UAV, then their mass should be about 700 kg. For the Tu-95MSM, the maximum carrying capacity is 20800 kg, i.e. 1485 kg per UAV.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 4 December 2020 10: 15
        0
        There are no questions from the UAV, if they are at least in the dimension of x-55, he will certainly carry them 16 pieces. I meant the load 6 x-55 + 8 x-101. Kmk is a bit too much.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 4 December 2020 10: 23
    0
    Considering what kind of things are done at the quadcopter show, you can expect a lot from UAVs for military purposes.
  • KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 4 December 2020 11: 06
    +2
    The seditious idea of ​​tracking aircraft carriers during the threatened period came. On each aircraft carrier, an electrician is recruited from the team in advance (how to do this is the task of the competent authorities). He is given a couple of dozen satellite communication radio beacons oriented to our satellites. He gradually installs them on the ship during an extended period, connecting them to the ship's power supply system so as not to drain the batteries. After installation, the recruited person gets into a car accident or is poisoned with stale Coca-Cola. During the threatened period, one of the beacons turns on from the satellite and we immediately have the coordinates of the avik in real time. As soon as the beacon is silenced (it will be found) on a signal or according to the program, the next one will turn on. To complicate the search, you can introduce the HRP. Let them search until they turn blue in the face (if there are a couple of dozen of them stuck on the ship), and over time it will be strained - do not forget that this hypothetical situation occurs during a threatened period. The only question is the size of the satellite constellation for such tracking in real time. All of the above is in the order of delirium.
  • Operator
    Operator 4 December 2020 11: 07
    -6
    It is true that the pre-war means of detecting aircraft carriers (satellites and ZGRLS) with the beginning of the war will go out of order as a result of the influence of the enemy.

    But the trick is that after the start of the war, all UAVs without exception will go out of action for a simple reason - clouds of ionized air from nuclear explosions, blocking all types of radio communications, radar and electronic intelligence.

    Therefore, strikes on the AUG and KUG in the first minutes of the war will be delivered in accordance with target designation from satellites and ZGRLS in the last minutes of the pre-war period.

    Survivors after the first strikes of the AUG and KUG will be sought by coastal aviation after their visual detection (since the ship's air defense zone using AWACS aircraft will also cease to exist), as well as by using anti-ship missiles with optical homing systems from the ISSAPL according to hydroacoustic noise direction finding data.

    NATO guidance documents indicate that the use of manned aircraft and UAVs after the start of a nuclear conflict in the European theater of operations will become impossible due to the loss of vision by pilots from frequent light flashes from TNW explosions and continuous air ionization from them.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 4 December 2020 12: 07
    0
    Avik's search radius is equal to the radius of action of his air wing, that is, he will approach the shores as much as his planes can reach and return. The UAV is on patrol, and the Avik will come by himself.
  • Smirnoff
    Smirnoff 4 December 2020 12: 27
    +17
    I think that it is necessary to fight against a swarm of UAVs, including with the help of other UAVs. That is, to attack. Sitting on the defensive will only delay defeat.
  • iouris
    iouris 4 December 2020 13: 08
    0
    Those. a retaliatory strike against US territory is not envisaged. Well, how long, in this case, can the "driven hunt" continue?
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 4 December 2020 13: 42
    +1
    Curious approach! thanks to the author. We can agree that the multiple use for such devices is largely ephemeral in wartime! In addition, the absence of reverse flight allows for a larger inspection area.
    1. iouris
      iouris 4 December 2020 14: 57
      +1
      The approach is curious, but why is DARPA going to "drive" its AUG? And there are no others.
      1. Shopping Mall
        4 December 2020 15: 26
        +2
        Quote: iouris
        The approach is curious, but why is DARPA going to "drive" its AUG? And there are no others.


        DARPA makes Gremlins for different purposes. Since they are the first, they are given as an example of such a solution.

        As for the "alien" AUG for the United States, China is actively working on this. It is not for nothing that the United States took care of the creation of the LARSM anti-ship missile system and their suspension on almost all types of aircraft.
        1. DrEng527
          DrEng527 5 December 2020 13: 38
          0
          Quote: AVM
          RCC LARSM and their suspension on almost all types of aircraft.

          followed the Soviet path ... hi
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 5 December 2020 19: 23
            +1
            Quote: DrEng527
            Quote: AVM
            RCC LARSM and their suspension on almost all types of aircraft.

            followed the Soviet path ... hi


            It...
            Call this "Soviet way", please ...

            So that the same rockets hang on all types of aircraft ...
            Well, that would be just like the Harpoon was hung on almost the entire line.
            How Exocet was hung on almost the entire line ..
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 4 December 2020 15: 42
    +4
    "we'll talk in the next article"
    Author!
    Don't need the next material!
    And this one was superfluous ...
  • Sergey Kulikov_3
    Sergey Kulikov_3 4 December 2020 18: 32
    -1
    First, the UAVs are sent out in search, as I understand it, by sectors (the author calls this a "wide front"), then suddenly they attack the found defenseless ship with a wolf pack, and all this happens on the distant approaches to the border. Did I get it right?
    1. Avior
      Avior 4 December 2020 20: 58
      +3
      At a speed of 0,8 m and a sufficiently high altitude, they will not pass even one destroyer
  • Eroma
    Eroma 5 December 2020 17: 36
    0
    The idea in the article is probably sensible, but only the meaning of the Gremlins is to use anything from anywhere (C130, Corn, etc.) so as not to distract strike aircraft to use a UAV! what therefore they are lightweight and compact.
    And to distract bombers for the delivery of drone, instead of cr, is somehow controversial! Who then will strike a blow? It turns out you need more bombers, but where to get them?
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 17: 40
      -1
      Quote: Eroma
      And to distract bombers for the delivery of drone, instead of cr, is somehow controversial!

      Converted transport aircraft are best used. It will fit more, the price is less, the range is comparable.
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 5 December 2020 17: 45
        0
        Then the idea of ​​creating a drone based on ko, described in the article, will not work! Painfully healthy drone will be obtained for use on transport recourse you need to invent something from scratch, then using existing solutions winked
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 17: 48
          -1
          For the IL-76 is a trifle.
          The idea is better described here:
          https://topwar.ru/172710-vvs-ssha-zahoteli-samolet-arsenal.html