Military Review

AWACS vs. A-50: Air Combat in Europe

169

Source: Maxim Maksimov, russianplanes.net


In the article "Soviet aviation in the era of the digital revolution: rise and fall ”(hereinafter - the previous article), we focused on the painful defeat of Soviet aircraft and air defense systems in the First Lebanese War (hereinafter - the Lebanese War) in 1982. One of the main reasons for the failure was the Israeli E-2C. And this article will describe in more detail why, by the beginning of the 80s, AWACS aircraft became a serious threat and changed the methods of warfare.

The capabilities of the new means of detection and control will be shown on the example of a scenario of a conflict between NATO and ATS in the Central European theater of operations. The ratio of forces will be set as of 1989, when the USSR had the maximum possible number of 4th generation fighters. By this time, the OVD and the USSR were on the verge of collapse, and a military conflict with NATO was impossible. But we are considering a hypothetical scenario (without the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and other "unconventional" things).

Party plans


Being determines consciousness, and personal experience shapes the views of the military on the methods of warfare. This is fully applicable to the military thought of both NATO and the ATS. American theorists, of course, understood the advantages of "digitalization" of combat aviation back in the 70s, but they could not clearly shape the image of the future war. The military in general is not prone to deep analysis. Churchill's catchphrase that

"Generals are always preparing for the last war",

is completely true. That is why the United States (as well as the USSR) underestimated the contribution of UAVs to the Lebanese War and realized the advantages of this weapon only after Desert Storm. Israeli UAVs were initially perceived as "local exotic" ("model").

At the same time, the demonstration of the capabilities of AWACS aircraft and 4th generation fighters was so convincing that it was impossible to ignore this new experience. The Americans realized what a serious advantage they had over the USSR. The mosaic has developed: air defense systems can no longer resist modern aviation and limit its ability to maneuver on the battlefield.

From that moment on, the rules of the "game" changed. In August 1982, only a couple of months after the air battle in Lebanon, the AirLand battle doctrine was hastily adopted in the United States. The role of aviation is being revised, and now it is the main striking force, albeit in close cooperation with the ground forces.

For the first time since 1939, the role of the "ram" crushing the enemy's orders is played not by the Panzer-Division, but by the "air divisions" consisting of 60 to 100 aircraft. The difference is that aviation is tasked with striking the enemy to the full depth of his order. The defeat is inflicted not only on the first echelon, but also the reserves and rear infrastructure are destroyed. The principle of "see and attack to the full depth" is implemented.

This doctrine will develop further until after the "Desert Storm" it takes the final form of "total offensive in the air" only by air forces. Reduction of "livestock" tanks in Europe after the end of the Cold War is associated not only with budget cuts, but also with a revision of priorities in favor of aviation within the framework of the new doctrine. The recent example of the purchase of F-35 fighters by Poland while ignoring the outdated tank fleet is characteristic.

In the USSR in the 80s, military thought froze at the level of WWII, and tank "wedges" were still considered the main striking force, and aviation was assigned a secondary role. Soviet theorists were still working on a tank "Blitzkrieg" with a throw to the English Channel, and the air defense system was seen as the main means of fighting enemy aircraft. The collapse of air defense systems and tanks in the Lebanon war seemed to them only an annoying accident.

In Europe, the OVD had an overwhelming superiority in the ground forces, which NATO countries planned to oppose with their air superiority. Aviation was considered as the main means of warfare, which was supposed to seize air supremacy and destroy the tank armies of the ATS. Soviet aviation had the main task of disrupting this plan by destroying enemy aircraft on the ground, as well as disabling air bases, ground radar stations, air defense systems and AWACS aircraft.

The USSR Air Force and Air Defense were based on the doctrine that was last effective in the Yom Kippur War, and assumed that air defense systems, supported by fighters, should hold down enemy air forces, and tactical bombers should make low-altitude breakthroughs from under the air defense umbrella.

Forces and technique of the parties


In the USSR, military aviation was distributed between the Air Force, Air Defense and the Navy. A scenario of a battle on a ground theater of operations is being considered, and the Navy's Air Force will not be taken into account, as will NATO's naval aviation. To analyze the capabilities of the sides in a confrontation in the air, an assessment of the balance of forces in AWACS aircraft, fighters and bombers capable of low-altitude breakthroughs will be given. (The number of aircraft will be given with rounding, since an accurate count would be a separate large-scale study, and will not fundamentally affect the overall picture).

AWACS


In 1972, the United States created a prototype of the first AWACS aircraft capable of "looking down" (with the ability to detect low-altitude targets - see the previous article): EZ Sentry based on Boeing-707. In 1976, the first production car will be assembled. And a little later, the modernization of the propeller-driven E-2C began, which will also receive a new-generation radar.

The appearance of these aircraft completely changed the tactics of warfare in the air. The effectiveness of AWACS aircraft, which were used before, was incomparable with the new systems. E-2 and E-3 were complex complexes with the main multifunctional radar, auxiliary radar identification "friend or foe" (hereinafter IFF, Identification friend or foe), RTR and communication systems (voice and data exchange). The United States Air Force received a powerful tool for both defense and seizure of the initiative.

In the previous article, we dwelt in detail on the problems of ground-based air defense in the fight against low-altitude penetrations of enemy aircraft, "invisible" beyond the radio horizon for ground-based radars. The average ground-based radar can detect an aircraft flying at an altitude of 30 m only at a distance of less than 21 km. And this is provided that this radar is capable of filtering out interference from the ground. It is enough for the attacking aircraft to gain an altitude of 150+ m in order to use air-to-ground weapons, after which it descends again and “leaves” at low altitude (the detection range of a radar or radar missile with a target ZPS is greatly reduced).

That is why AWACS aircraft with radar with the ability to “look down” are becoming the basis of air defense for the United States. They form an "umbrella" over the covered area: they detect enemy aircraft in advance and direct their fighters to destroy them. They are much more resistant to enemy attacks than ground-based radars, as they are moving targets. In the new conditions, long-range air defense systems have lost their former importance. And the US ground air defense was represented mainly by short-range complexes to combat low-flying targets. They made up the first echelon of air defense, and long-range air defense systems were the second in the depth of defense.

AWACS aircraft are also used in offensive operations. The radar of fighters of the 1980s had the ability to scan only in a limited sector (fighters received any capabilities comparable to the E-3 only in our time with the introduction of AFAR) and the passport detection range in fact was reduced significantly. AWACS aircraft now followed the fighters and guided them to their targets. Having received a vector on the target, the fighter could detect it much further (when scanning in a narrow sector) and be the first to launch missiles either from a long distance on a collision course, or come from the side, like the Israelis in the Lebanon war. Combat distances begin to grow.

AWACS aircraft also increase the ability to destroy ground targets. From the radar and the RTR station, their on-board computers receive, and then display on the map, information about the targets detected in the air and on the ground. Computers identify targets identified by RTR by comparing their signals with those available in libraries. This information allows you to plot safe routes for scouts and bombers (for example, avoiding ZSU positions). Identified targets (if necessary) are destroyed by aircraft or artillery.

These capabilities were first tested in 1981. When Israeli aviation destroyed the nuclear reactor in Osirak (Iraq) with the support of E-2C, flying at low altitude through Jordan, Syria and Iraq for more than 800 km (Iraqi air defense was mobilized: there was a war with Iran). A more vivid and well-known example is the Lebanese war, which was discussed in the previous article.

A-50 vs E-3


The USSR was faced with the task of finding an antidote against E-2 and E-3, and work in this direction was carried out. The prototype A-50 (a new AWACS aircraft based on the Il-76) made its first flight in 1978. And in the USSR, the construction of these machines began at an accelerated pace. More than 40 units were built in total. A-50, according to official data, could detect a target with an EPR of 3 sq. m at a distance of 220-240 km (in the "look up" mode), simultaneously accompany up to 50-60 targets and control up to 10-12 aircraft.

Information on E-3 in the public domain is presented extremely contradictory. The situation is facilitated by the fact that (when the issue of adopting it into service) was formed a powerful lobby of opponents of this project. As a result, large-scale tests were carried out to confirm its characteristics, and information on them has already been declassified. There were two types of tests: one for countering electronic warfare systems and the second for the capabilities of the AWACS itself, where E-3 simultaneously accompanied 274 "enemy" aircraft and pointed 134 "own" aircraft at the targets.

Immediately striking are the limited capabilities of target tracking and aviation control of the A-50. In battle, the AWACS aircraft receives information about hundreds of targets that need to be monitored and saved history their movements. This process requires high automation and software. The gap between digital and analog electronics is here at its best. The A-50 had a performance many times lower than that of the E-3.

In the event of a large-scale conflict, the USSR needed much more AWACS aircraft. If we assume that the USSR could concentrate in Germany half of its A-50 and half of them, up to ten units, would be simultaneously on duty in the air, then this makes it possible to control 100-120 aircraft and track up to 600 targets. In conditions when the enemy has deployed thousands of aircraft, UAVs and missile launchers, this is not enough.

In the "look up" mode, the E-3 could detect a target with an RCS of 3 sq. m at a distance of at least 300 km. This data is for E-3 on Block 20/25, before the modernization of the late 80s (Block 30/35). Here we see the advantage of the American aircraft. The lag of Soviet technology is observed when solving not the most difficult task: scanning in a pulsed mode at medium and high altitudes. This is much easier than scanning the lower hemisphere. The long detection range gave the E-3 a serious advantage: it could move farther from the front line than the A-50. NATO had 18 E-3 units permanently based in Germany. And in the event of a threat, the United States had to additionally redeploy most of its fleet of 34 vehicles.

There is no reliable public information on the “look down” mode for the E-3 and A-50. For this, the pulse-Doppler mode was used and advanced computers were needed to filter targets from the ground. It is logical to assume that here the lag of Soviet technology was even greater. This is hinted at by the presence of a separate surveillance radar on the A-50 for scanning the earth's surface in a fairing under the nose. Why do you need a separate radar if there is a more powerful main one? However (in the absence of accurate information), we will not "get hung up" on this nuance and will try to conduct an analysis based on the available data.

MiG-31 vs E-3


An important issue in relation to AWACS aircraft is their survivability on the battlefield, that is, stability during enemy attacks aimed at destroying them. One American general once said:

"E-3 has a high survival rate, but it is not immortal."


Experiments (which the Americans carried out in the 70s) showed that in order to destroy the E-3, the enemy would have to sacrifice up to 60-100 aircraft in some scenarios. What these experiments were has not yet been declassified. And it is not clear what forces of the parties were included in the scenario. How the Americans were going to cover the E-3 in Europe is also unknown. But in the declassified documents, the senator mentioned "an armada of fighters to protect the E-3." Whatever he means, it doesn't seem like the task of destroying E-3 is trivial. There was something to cover.

If you believe the information of the NATO military, received privately from our pilots in the early 90s, it was planned to use entire IAPs to strike the E-3. The information was published in an interview. And there they talked about the attack by the MiG-29 with R-33 missiles. The Soviet pilots estimated their own losses at one squadron for one E-3. Obviously, there is some inaccuracy: the MiG-29 could not use the P-33. Here we are either talking about the attack of the MiG-31 with R-33, or the MiG-29 with melee missiles.

Why they could have used the MiG-31 to attack is understandable: it was equipped with a powerful radar and carried long-range R-33 missiles (range up to 160 km). A powerful radar was needed to fire from a maximum distance at the E-3, which was on duty far from the front line. To fly up to it at a distance of visual contact meant to be exposed to the attacks of air defense systems and enemy fighters. And it was logical to use the "long arm".

On paper, everything is fine, but in practice problems began due to the lag in electronics. The MiG-31 was equipped with the best Soviet Zaslon radar. An analog system weighing 1 ton, which had to match the AWG-9 parameters, the analog F-14 radar. But in fact, before the modernization, it was inferior to it and was heavier by 350 kg.

For comparison, the digital radar F-15E, APG-70, weighed 4 times less than the "Zaslon". With a similar detection range in the "look up" mode (in the "look down" mode, the APG-70 had a range of 135 km, unattainable for analog electronics). The Su-27 was originally supposed to receive an airborne radar similar in parameters to the Zaslon, only in a more compact version. But in the USSR, the necessary miniaturization was not achieved. The analog system could not overcome the serious electronic warfare.

In 1986, during an exercise in the presence of the MiG-31 Minister of Defense, it was not possible to outplay even the primitive electronic warfare station of the Tu-95MS bomber, and he had to be "shot down" from a cannon. As for the R-33 missile, there is an opinion that it was a clone of the American AIM-54 Phoenix (transferred to the USSR by the Iranians). The guidance system parameters, dimensions and weight are completely identical. Phoenix had protection against interference - it went into protection mode and flew to the signal source. The R-33, apparently, did not have such a mode of operation.

This rocket, rooted in the 1960s, could hardly have shot down the E-3. It is no coincidence that the Americans removed the Phoenix from service and replaced it with the less long-range, but more "smart" AIM-120. In the USSR, a version with an analog seeker was reproduced, which had a shorter launch range compared to the digital version of the original: 160 versus 190 km.

There are two wills in the field


There are two wills in the field, and since we are studying the possibility of destroying American AWACS, then it is worth assessing the possibility of retaliatory actions. The Americans could attract F-50 fighters with Phoenix missiles to fight the A-14. It is clear that the maximum launch ranges do not correlate at all with the real ones, but the Americans had the advantage in the "brains" of the missiles and radar systems of fighters.

Also, the E-3 had a detection range of 70 km more than the A-50. If we add here the 30 km difference in firing range, then we get a serious advantage for NATO. This means for the MiG-31 the need to enter the zone of action of enemy aircraft and air defense systems, and for the enemy more comfortable missile launches.

The R-33 is equipped with a combined seeker, and the MiG-31 had to illuminate the target for a long time until the missile approaches it by 18 km to launch the ARLGSN. In the last article, I talked about the nuances of this technology. The contrast (EPR at the bomber level) and non-maneuverable MiG-31 had little chance of surviving in a counterattack by cover fighters (if only to interrupt guidance and fly away).

The MiG-31 itself is an ideal target for the same Phoenix, which can be fired at it from maximum range. But for the F-14, with a lower EPR, the R-33 could only be used from a distance of up to 100 km. In addition, AWACS aircraft are mobile targets. Both E-3 and A-50 are maneuverable enough at speeds up to 850 km / h to have time to retreat. The detection range of the radar for catch-up targets drops. For a successful missile launch, you need to get as close as possible. To hit a target of this type from a long distance, you need a “fire and forget” missile - an air-to-air missile system. Neither the ATS nor NATO had such weapons.

If we consider the scenario with the breakthrough of the MiG-29 or Su-27 at a distance of visual contact with the E-3, then the losses would be great. Here you can really talk about dozens of downed aircraft. The E-3 was covered by ground-based air defense, and it must have been accompanied by an electronic warfare aircraft (in addition, the F-15 had built-in electronic warfare capabilities, and the F-16 carried the electronic warfare system). Under these conditions, only the P-73 with IKGSN (analogue of AIM-9L) with a launch range of several kilometers could provide guaranteed defeat from the Soviet arsenal.

NATO for an attack on the A-50, in addition to Phoenix, could use Sparrow AIM-7M missiles with a launch range of up to 70 km and an efficiency of 0.68 (the radar of the newest F-15E was able to overcome the Soviet electronic warfare). The AIM-120 missiles could also be used: they went into production in 1987. And they were kept secret "until a special occasion." They could be integrated very quickly on aircraft with PSP. In addition, both numerically and in terms of performance, NATO had a large advantage in AWACS aircraft and could sacrifice a significant number of them without prejudice to the combat potential (three E-3s covered the entire Central European theater of operations).

4th generation fighters


The fighters of the 3rd generation, both ATS and NATO, were essentially daytime (due to the weak capabilities of the radar and outdated communication systems). At night, when the 4 th generation all-weather aviation "woke up", they "fell asleep". In NATO countries, old fighters were used as daytime interceptors or bombers. In the USSR, they were predominantly daytime interceptors. Aircraft of the 3rd generation could naturally fly at night: they were just much less effective in the dark. For example, they had limited opportunities to identify “friend or foe”.

Outdated fighters of the 3rd generation made seemingly insignificant differences from the 4th generation: digital communication (data transmission "computer-computer") and display. Analog communication made it possible only for voice communication in real time, and with digital modulation, information could be displayed on the display in front of the pilot's eyes. In a short-term air battle, it is extremely difficult to explain with the help of an analog transmitter where our own and where others are. And in a fighter of the 4th generation equipped with digital communication, information about aircraft in the air is promptly received on the display (own and enemy aircraft are marked) and a vector is displayed to the next target. The pilot is not required, as in the Vietnam War, to identify "friend or foe" visually, he can immediately attack. With digital modulation, all information (voice or data) is transmitted much more reliably. Higher protection against interference and noise, more difficult to intercept messages and detect the operation of the transmitter (even voice messages are transmitted in encrypted digital stream).

NATO has a digital communication system called Datalink, and in the USSR there was a telecode communication (TCS). The TKS was installed only on the MiG-31, MiG-29 and Su-27. 1 MiG-900 units (in the Air Force and Air Defense) did not have it. It was impossible to fully use them in hostilities. At the same time, "Tornado" with worse (than the MiG-23) maneuverability, thanks to Datalink, could be used in aerial combat.

How this could happen is known from the experience of Desert Storm: due to a mistake by the AWACS operator, the MiG-25 was able to fly up to American aircraft unnoticed and shoot down the F-15. This was an isolated episode. But, in the presence of digital communications and AWACS aircraft, such tactics are put on the conveyor belt.

Both the MiG-25 and the Tornado had no chance against the F-18 in maneuvering combat. And only with modern aviation control, using the effect of surprise, they could be an effective weapon. This tactic was first tested by the IDF in 1982 and boiled down to attacking Arab aircraft suddenly, remaining "invisible." Analogue radar and communication systems were jammed, and the Arab planes were "blinded". It was absolutely unimportant how many "blind" enemy aircraft were flying over the battlefield: not all targets were shot down, but only those that could be destroyed with minimal risk. There was a gradual but inevitable grinding of the enemy's forces. In the Gulf War, the Americans shot down 38 (out of 41) Iraqi aircraft in aerial battles in a similar scenario using AWACS aircraft.

NATO aviation in Europe was supposed to act in the same vein. The plan was to (thanks to better awareness and quality of control) create a local superiority in forces and destroy enemy aircraft. No more knightly duels and duels: just "hit from behind with a bat". This approach has remained unchanged to this day.

When in the late 70s in the United States it became known about the work on the MiG-29, research began there on the formation of the appearance of a new generation aircraft. The task was to create an aircraft that could remain as "invisible" to the 4th generation aircraft as they were "invisible" to the 3rd generation. As a result, this led to the creation of the F-22, designed to maintain the advantage of NATO after the USSR completely re-equips aviation with 4th generation aircraft.

One of the important tools for the "invisibility" technology was the covert operation of the radar. It allows you to attack enemy aircraft suddenly without activating their PDF. The LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) mode known to us today for AFAR radars is just a new generation of this technology. In LPI mode, the target is scanned with weak pulses at different frequencies. And in the early stages of the development of this technology, scanning was carried out at only one frequency (or several, but in a narrow range). The efficiency was much lower, but against the aircraft of the 3rd (and possibly not only) generation it was quite enough.

It was a secret technology. Its existence became known only after the Islamic Revolution, when specialists from the USSR managed to get acquainted with the F-14. The secrecy has not gone anywhere today: in the "west" the LPI regime has been criticized for some time, including in scientific articles, as part of a disinformation operation. In the USSR, work was also underway on this technology, and it was implemented at least in some air defense systems.

Correlation of forces


In the IAP of the Air Force and Air Defense of the USSR, there were more than 4 fighters in service, including slightly less than 500 fighters of the 1th generation: 000 MiG-4, 500 MiG-29 and 200 Su-31. Fighters of the 250rd generation were represented by a large number of types, of which the MiG-27bis and, to some extent, the MiG-3 could participate in maneuvering combat. Also, the Air Defense Forces had a large number of obsolete highly specialized interceptors to combat strategic aviation.

These aircraft (most of them the Su-15 and its "classmate" MiG-25) were gradually replaced by the Su-27 and MiG-31. As well as the MiG-23 on the MiG-29 in the Air Force. This is despite the fact that all MiG-23, MiG-25 and most of the Su-15 were manufactured in the 70s and early 80s. These were "new" cars. In the 70s, they were replaced by quite combat-ready MiG-21s, which were cheaper to operate and had the best characteristics in most indicators. Fighters of the 3rd generation were changed to ... the same generation. Astronomical sums were wasted.

How many aircraft of the 4th generation of the USSR could concentrate on the Central European theater of operations is a difficult question. If the United States planned to send all the Air Force fighter aircraft there (without the National Guard) and could afford it, then the USSR had several more ground theaters (including Afghanistan) and the need to deter the enemy's strategic aviation and AUG. In the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakia, approx. 700 Soviet fighters (of which about 280 MiG-29 and several dozen Su-27). There were also to transfer forces from the western districts. Probably, as a result, 280 MiG-29, 150 Su-27 and 60 MiG-31 could be assembled in Germany. A total of 500 4th generation units (plus an undefined number of old cars).

The USA planned to deploy 2 Air Force fighters in Europe, including more than 500 2th generation units, the F-000 and F-4. The Allies could add another 16 F-15s, 500 Tornadoes (IDS fighter-bombers and ADV interceptors) and 16 Canadian F-800s. France could provide 100 Mirage 18 aircraft. A total of 200 2000th generation aircraft and a significant number of older aircraft. MiG-4 and "Tornado" do not fully correspond to the parameters of the 000th generation (no high maneuverability), but they are equipped with digital communication systems and can be used against modern aviation. Therefore, we also take them into account.

As a result, we observe in the Central European theater of operations the ratio of forces in modern fighters: 500 to 4. Aviation of the ATS countries can be disregarded - except for a few dozen MiG-000 (without TKS), the rest of the fighters were outdated. Let's take them out of the brackets together with the Swedish Air Force, which, of course, would have taken part in the battle with a significant number of 29th generation aircraft.

Tactical bombers


Here it is necessary to make a reservation right away that almost all of NATO's 4th generation fighters were "universal soldiers": "fighter-bombers". "Tornado" IDS could participate, if necessary, in air combat, and the aircraft (gaining air superiority) F-15 could be involved in "strike missions". Soviet fighters of the 4th generation could not effectively “work on the ground” due to the lack of SAR (radar scanning of the earth's surface) mode at their radar. All 4th generation Soviet vehicles were clean fighters. As well as some early modifications of "western" 4th generation fighters, for example, the F-16A. They could be used as daytime tactical bombers, but nothing more.

In the USSR, mainly highly specialized aircraft were used as tactical bombers, of which there were more than 1989 units by 2. Including Su-700 bombers, Su-24 attack aircraft and MiG-25 and Su-27 fighter-bombers. The word "fighters" should not be misleading here: they were light bombers. For example, the MiG-17 (27 units), were not equipped with radar, had a minimum thrust-to-weight ratio and could not be effectively used in air battles.

A classmate of the MiG-27 - "Tornado", also with a variable sweep wing (to reduce resistance when flying at low altitudes), was equipped with an airborne radar and could participate in aerial combat. In the west, the opposite approach prevailed: the newest fighters went into production, and the old machines were re-profiled for auxiliary roles of day fighter-bombers. In the Lebanon War, the IDF Air Force's 4th generation aircraft fought for air supremacy, and the 3rd generation took part in the suppression of air defense. But if needed, both the F-4 and Kfir could make up a reserve for air battles. Soviet tactical bombers were not suitable for this.

The USSR's striving for a narrow specialization of aviation technology ran counter to the global trend towards universalization. And at times reduced the ability to fight for air supremacy. NATO also had highly specialized aircraft. For example, the F-117 low-visibility night bomber, but in his case it was justified. He had an optical sighting system that (not without glitches) could work at night. In Iraq, F-117s made 2% of the total number of sorties, but hit 40% of key targets. The United States had more than 60 F-117 units and (invisible at low altitudes even for AWACS radar) they could cause huge damage.

The USSR did not have night bombers due to the lack of SAR radars and effective night vision devices. On the most massive NATO night bomber "Tornado" IDS was an on-board radar with SAR. And he could fly on autopilot in the terrain enveloping mode (its direct analogue is the Su-34, only without the ability to work on air targets). That is, to fly "at the level of trees" and bomb at night, while remaining invulnerable to air defense systems. Its radar could detect targets in any weather and time of day, and the MiG-27 optical system, even during the day and at a minimum distance to the target, did not provide guidance at altitudes of more than 5 m. In Afghanistan, its "high-tech" optical sighting system failed. And for him the work was done by the Su-000 (with the help of aircraft controllers).

The advantage of night bombers was that at night they were practically not threatened by MANPADS, the main scourge of low-flying aircraft (ZSU and SAM are not so numerous and can not always effectively respond to targets of this type). NATO night bombers could operate in relatively comfortable conditions, while Soviet "strikers" in the daytime in the FRG were waiting for hundreds of MANPADS. If the single "Stingers" in Afghanistan delivered a lot of problems to the Soviet aviation, then what to say about NATO air defense.

But most of all, the appearance of AWACS aircraft conducting interceptors with the ability to “look down” reduced the survivability of Soviet tactical bombers. Now, in order to carry out low-altitude breakthroughs, E-3 had to be neutralized first. And for this, tactical bombers were unsuitable. Yes, they could have been thrown against NATO airfields in Europe, but Soviet bombers would have ended much earlier than NATO airfields and aircraft. It was impossible to organize raids on the rear with impunity, as in 1973.

In turn, the enemy could deploy more than 500 IDS Tornado units, 70 F-111F and 60 F-117 in the FRG. More than 600 units of specialized night bombers alone, plus a reserve of several thousand fighters that can replace them. Here you need to add at least 400 night attack helicopters and several hundred A-10 attack aircraft. In this aspect, NATO aircraft had a serious advantage.

A similar situation was observed with the ground forces. The lack of modern night vision devices was the Achilles heel of the USSR Armed Forces and significantly reduced their combat effectiveness. NATO was preparing to take full advantage of this weakness. How this could happen, we know from the example of the Falklands War, where the British purposefully attacked the islands at night, using night vision devices that the Argentines did not have. In addition to night bombers, the alliance had a large number of aircraft that were used as day bombers: Alphajet, F-4, Jaguar, various old Mirage modifications, etc. In the afternoon, they sent them to bomb "which is not a pity."

ATS tactics and capabilities


After analyzing the equipment of the parties, it can be concluded that the capabilities of the ATS air forces did not correspond to the tasks set.

They could not destroy NATO aircraft on the ground. At the airfields, it was necessary to destroy shelters with planes hidden in them, hangars or at least runways so that the planes could not take off. Hangars were the lightest and largest target, but there were not a large number of aircraft and it was possible only to disable technical personnel and equipment.

Destroying the runway (despite the fact that many countries were developing ammunition to destroy them) was unrealistic. Ground personnel could quickly restore them, and additional lanes were built at the air bases in Germany to provide insurance. A lot of closed shelters for aircraft were built, and they were well camouflaged. They did not protect against direct hits, but this was not required against Soviet technology. Soviet daytime tactical bombers did not have sufficient survivability and sighting equipment for such operations.

To hit the shelters with conventional bombs was a very difficult task: the IDF Air Force in 1973 did not succeed. The Soviet KAB could not improve the situation in any way, since they had a short range of use. Aircraft carriers had to enter the area of ​​operation of the object air defense, and before that survive when meeting with AWACS and fighters. Heavy and medium bombers could strike shelters from a long distance with cruise missiles, but for analog guidance systems they were not sufficiently contrasting targets (like a bridge, for example).

The range of the Soviet MLRS and TRK did not exceed 70 km (a small number of airfields fell into the affected area), and their accuracy was low. OTRK also did not have sufficient accuracy. The American Tomahawk CD, which had no counterpart in the USSR, could stably hit the shelters. NATO's capabilities to destroy ATS aircraft at airfields were much higher.

It was not possible to destroy the enemy AWACS aircraft without unacceptable losses, and accordingly it was impossible to suppress NATO air defense. At the same time, the A-50s were vulnerable.

In the light of all of the above, there is only one scenario for the ATS aviation: defensive (possibly forcedly defensive, after the loss of a large number of aircraft). This is the provision of air defense and direct support of ground forces in the frontline zone by tactical bombers during daylight hours. It was required to reproduce the best moments of the Yom Kippur War and ensure the advance of the armored columns. The problem is that by 1989, a lot had changed.

NATO tactics and capabilities


The alliance's possible tactics in Desert Storm are clear and transparent. Suppression of air defense would be the primary task. And therefore the first act of the Pentagon's play called "Air-Ground Battle" was supposed to begin with the launch of the "armada" of the BQM-74C UAV (speeds up to 970 km / h made it possible to fairly reliably simulate "fighter" targets for analog radars). In the second act (after turning on the Soviet radars), the launch of the HARM radars, which, if they did not destroy the radar, then forced them to turn off. In the third act (at night, when the Soviet MANPADS were useless), the F-117 and Tomahawk missile launchers struck the entire depth of the ATS units. With preliminary reconnaissance of E-3 targets, RTR aircraft, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft.

Enveloping in low-altitude flight relief of the KR, A-50 theoretically could still detect, but there was no effective means to destroy them. He could not find the F-117 at low altitude. The radars of that era were simply not designed to detect such subtle targets. Even the E-3 received the ability to work on inconspicuous targets only after upgrading to Block 30/35. Both Tomahawks and F-117 could be shot down, but by coincidence.

PRLR, KR and F-117 were supposed to suppress air defense in order to facilitate the work of aviation. Ground-based air defense did not so much threaten tactical bombers as prevented NATO fighters from covering them. It would be important for NATO forces to push the air defense system further from the front line with air and artillery strikes, where they no longer defended anything but themselves. This cleared the way for the safe night raids of the Tornado, F-111F, A-10, Cobra and Apache. All these "locusts" were intended for night attacks of the forward formations and columns of the ATS reserves.

Back in 1967, it became clear that this could not end well: without air cover, tanks burn like candles. Even taking into account the superiority in tanks (6 versus 000), the ATS troops could not advance in such conditions for a long time. Air supremacy makes it possible to destroy numerically superior enemy forces in parts, creating a local overwhelming superiority in certain sectors of the front. Aviation can quickly maneuver on the battlefield, while air defense systems and tank columns need days or even weeks to redeploy. NATO did not need to immediately suppress the entire air defense system of the ATS: it was enough to neutralize it in the most tank-hazardous areas.

The disastrous outcome of the battle for the Internal Affairs Directorate, it would seem, was inevitable, but there was still a scenario of a "war of attrition". After 1973, there were fears in NATO that the Soviet aviation could "throw pilots" the alliance forces in the air, namely, throw "hordes" of MiGs into battle. The fears were related to the outcome of the Yom Kippur War, after which Israel was left without fighters. Due to the high intensity of aviation work, almost all combat aircraft were worn out and required retirement.

This scenario seems unlikely. Here there is even no point in counting all the aircraft in the reserve of the sides (although it is clear that the ATS did not even have a numerical superiority in fighters in Europe). It is enough to understand that the outcome of the battle in the air was decided in the confrontation of modern machines, controlled by AWACS aircraft. Neither Soviet nor "NATO" "antiques" could be effective against this combination. This was understood both in the USSR and in the USA.

The Lebanese war became an all too obvious example: 100 4th generation aircraft, supported by E-2C, “scrapped” 24 3rd generation aircraft a day. High losses were associated with an attempt to seize the initiative in the air. And in passive defense they would have been much less (Iraqi actions in the Gulf War). But winning the battle by passively defending itself is impossible.

NATO faced serious losses in the first days, perhaps weeks, while the Soviet 4th generation aircraft and the "under-suppressed" air defense systems were in service. As they were eliminated, the losses would almost disappear. Here the possibility is rather visible for NATO aviation to "crush the numbers" of the Soviet.

conclusions


If we consider the war in the air separately, then the victory of the NATO air force is beyond doubt. The seizure of the initiative by enemy aircraft meant that the advanced Soviet formations, even without being surrounded in the classical version, would in fact fall into the "aviation boilers". That is, they would be blocked by air forces.

When attempting an offensive or other maneuvers, NATO aircraft would bomb the convoys and inflict serious damage, gradually reducing the combat effectiveness of the ATS units. They would bomb "everything that moves." Unlike reconnaissance aircraft that appear in the air sporadically, AWACS aircraft, like an "all-seeing eye", allow you to receive real-time information about the movements of equipment in the front line. Not missing anything, 24x7 and whatever the weather.

The SAR image in the late 80s did not yet allow identification of targets. And NATO did not have a UAV capable of providing a video image (like the IDF in the Lebanese war), so there was a need to send reconnaissance aircraft for additional reconnaissance of targets. And this wasted time. But the scouts could also carry out bomb and missile strikes, and the advantages over the old means of detection were still colossal. It was impossible to "chase after every lorry" without drone UAVs, but group targets would be destroyed regularly.

The USSR could only defeat if it could neutralize NATO aircraft, but this was prevented serious mistakes in planning.

Wrong prioritization... It was necessary to reduce the production of air defense systems and tanks and invest heavily in the main means of warfare - in aviation. Hence the need to rethink the role of aviation in general.

Low level of expertise of military equipment... A large number of ineffective aircraft, fighters and bombers were built. The money spent could be used for the production of really necessary aircraft, the development of the radio-electronic industry and R&D.

Failure to shape the airplane of the future... There was a blind copying of American aircraft. The success story of the MiG-21 in Vietnam was not developed and was put into production under the Phantom MiG-23. Then the USSR rushed to create analogues of the maneuverable American aircraft of the 4th generation, the Su-27 and MiG-29. Was it necessary to do this? Great question.

There were also alternative (easy) ways of developing fighter aircraft: French and Swedish. For the layman, light fighters look undignified. But in an era when the means of communication and control "reign", everything is not so obvious. It was no coincidence that the USA abandoned the F-22 in favor of the less maneuverable F-35. The Wunderwaffe preferred the cheaper and more widespread aircraft. The Americans came to this in the 90s, and the Swedes brought it to life back in the 70s, creating the Yak-37 (JA 37 Viggen). This is a big topic that will be covered in a separate article.

The OVD could not get a "Blitzkrieg". NATO had every opportunity to repel tank attacks. This lost battle, however, does not amount to automatic defeat in a war. Even having lost a large number of tanks in unsuccessful attacks, during the transition to the defense it was possible to "stop the bleeding" and try to stabilize the situation.

NATO was able to deplete and probably partially defeat the ATS forces in the GDR, but it was not able to maintain a high intensity of hostilities for a long time. There were no human and material resources to "go to Moscow" in the scenario without the use of nuclear weapons. That is why all NATO plans for the defense of the FRG included the mandatory use of nuclear weapons in order to avoid the meat grinder, as in the Korean War.

The USSR, having a numerical superiority in the ground forces, also considered "non-nuclear" offensive options.

As in the Korean War, the result of the clash would probably be a transition to trench warfare.

And then peace negotiations.
Author:
169 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Reklastik
    Reklastik 5 December 2020 10: 22
    +2
    The military in general is not prone to deep analysis.
    the author, in general, does not shine with depth of thought, but does not suspect about it laughing
    1. lucul
      lucul 5 December 2020 11: 43
      +3
      the author, in general, does not shine with depth of thought, but does not suspect about it

      Just a very sensible article, explaining on the fingers, all the actions of Gorbachev. The USSR lost the arms race and hung a white flag. And only by 1999 I realized that there would be no mercy.
      1. YOUR
        YOUR 5 December 2020 12: 15
        +9
        As a reminder. Gorbachev ruled until 1991, where you got 1999 from.
        It's been 30 years since he's gone, but things are still there.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 12: 42
          +4
          Quote: YOUR
          where did you get 1999.

          It's about the bombing of Serbia.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 5 December 2020 12: 47
            +4
            Then what has Gorbachev got to do with it? The surname was a bit different at the helm.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. lucul
          lucul 5 December 2020 13: 51
          -5
          As a reminder. Gorbachev ruled until 1991, where you got 1999 from.
          It's been 30 years since he's gone, but things are still there.

          It meant the USSR, not Gorbachev, or rather the Russian elite.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 6 December 2020 04: 43
            +2
            But do you agree with the fact that nothing has changed?
            1. lucul
              lucul 6 December 2020 11: 27
              -6
              But do you agree with the fact that nothing has changed?

              In military terms, Russia has seriously reduced the gap - some Calibers are worth something.
              1. YOUR
                YOUR 6 December 2020 12: 34
                +1
                Calibers in service since the 80s. They were created almost simultaneously with the Tomahawks.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 6 December 2020 12: 42
                  -8
                  Calibers in service since the 80s. They were created almost simultaneously with the Tomahawks.

                  At 300 km range? )))
                  The whole tsimes of Calibers in a new chemical formula of solid fuel, which made it possible to increase the range to 2500 km, and now up to 4 km.
                  And these solid-fuel engines were developed after the collapse of the USSR.
                  1. YOUR
                    YOUR 6 December 2020 12: 52
                    0
                    Caliber is a whole family of missiles. There are those whose range does not exceed 45 km of missile-trap, there are 75, there are - 300. These are export-version anti-ship missiles, but we also have them. The one you are writing about is strategic, as well as a Caliber with a range of more than 1000 km. A simple fuel change is indispensable here. It was developed in the late 80s. At that time, solid fuel for missiles began to be actively used in all types of missiles, both in missiles and in ballistic ones.
                    But they showed its application in Syria.
                  2. Kaw
                    Kaw 6 December 2020 23: 57
                    0
                    The whole tsimes of Calibers in a new chemical formula of solid fuel, which made it possible to increase the range to 2500 km, and now up to 4 km.
                    And these solid-fuel engines were developed after the collapse of the USSR.

                    The calibers are a replica of the old Soviet Granat missiles, which had a range of over 2000 km, and were destroyed by Gorbachev under the INF Treaty.
                  3. Kostya Lavinyukov
                    Kostya Lavinyukov 9 December 2020 01: 46
                    0
                    Solid fuel? They're like turbojets running on kerosene or deciline. (Only anti-ship missiles have a solid-fuel booster for the final section of the trajectory)
                    1. Dread
                      Dread 14 December 2020 17: 36
                      0
                      The author is Demagogue - you absolutely do not know Radio Engineering, Fundamentals of Radar and cannot count.
                      1.
                      [quote = Demagogue]
                      For this, pulse-Doppler mode and advanced computers were needed to filter targets from the ground. It is logical to assume that here the lag of Soviet technology was even greater. [/ Quote]
                      No computers are required for Pulse Doppler. Don't know the Basics of Radar. What to expect from a US apologist is absurd.
                      In your last article that you advertise at the beginning of this article.
                      Pulse-Doppler operation of the radar has been used in the USSR since the beginning of the 70s of the last century. Example - P-37 "Sword" radar used potentioscopes
                      with coherent processing. In A-50
                      also used the coherent processing mode. Your article is mostly incorrect and low level
                      your competence in these matters.
                      2.
                      [quote = Dread]
                      [quote = Author Demagogue article "Soviet aviation in the era of the digital revolution: rise and fall" (hereinafter - the previous article)] The solution was pulse-Doppler pulse synchronization, which allows you to filter the earth's surface from objects in the air and on the ground. This is how a pulse-Doppler radar station appeared, operating on the principle of the Doppler effect. [/ Quote]
                      Don't know the Basics of Radar.
                      Pulse-Doppler pulse synchronization does not exist in nature.
                      There is even nothing further to talk.
                      3.
                      [quote = Demagogue]
                      Since 1979, a new F-15S with an improved APG-63 radar with PSP went into production in the USA, the first full-fledged fighter of the 4th generation (a highly maneuverable fighter with a full-fledged "look and shoot down" capability) with an explosive missile with an active AIM- 120. [/ quote]
                      The AIM-120 air-to-air missile entered service with the USAF in 1991.
                      And so in all articles of this author.
                      Author Demagog - In 1989, the R-31 missile with ARGSN entered service with the MiG-37 much earlier, which surpassed and still surpasses the US AIM-120 missile in terms of range and parameters. In your article - you are silent about it.
                      4.
                      [quote = Demagogue] An average ground-based radar can detect an aircraft flying at an altitude of 30 m only at a distance of less than 21 km. [/ quote]
                      Author Demagog "can't count"?
                      For the calculation, take the antenna height of the average radar H = 4 m, the target flight height H = 30 m, we get
                      The target's line-of-sight range is D ~ 31 km (the geometric range of the target's line of sight in our case is D ~ 27 km). Again, the author significantly underestimates the parameters to justify his judgments, which is not true.
                      5.
                      [quote = Demagogue] One of the important tools for the "invisibility" technology was the covert operation of the radar. It allows you to attack enemy aircraft suddenly without activating their PDF. The LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) mode known to us today for AFAR radars is just a new generation of this technology. In LPI mode, the target is scanned with weak pulses at different frequencies ... [/ quote]
                      The author of Demagogue - you were repeatedly informed on the VO forum about the shortcomings of this AFAR mode - the short detection range of the aircraft radar in this mode, as well as the serious influence of broadband interference, which effectively suppresses the aircraft radar.
                      Conclusion. Complete incompetence of the author in matters of this topic.
                      Forum users I apologize. By the author and his hedgehog - text editing is disabled for me.
                      1. Dread
                        Dread 14 December 2020 18: 08
                        -1
                        PS. Admins! I tried to delete the extra character [quote = Dread] - the result did not change - I see no errors.
          2. Civil
            Civil 6 December 2020 08: 15
            +1
            Disappointing conclusions, but this is without nuclear weapons.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 6 December 2020 12: 36
              -3
              And nuclear weapons cannot always be applied. For example, against a country that does not have nuclear weapons, if it is applied, then the current sanctions will seem childish.
              1. bayard
                bayard 6 December 2020 17: 10
                +3
                All NATO countries had US nuclear weapons on their territory. Therefore, the entire NATO bloc was perceived as a single whole - as a single military machine against us.
                On the territory of the same Japan, US nuclear weapons were present and, apparently, are still present.
                So what's the problem ?
                Where do the complexes come from?
                And what are the sanctions belay when did nuclear weapons go into action?
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 7 December 2020 06: 07
                  0
                  YAO different. You can use a tactical charge, singly, or you can attack massively.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 7 December 2020 13: 52
                    +2
                    Well, what single use of speech are we talking about?
                    There is a massive raid of the Kyrgyz Republic and enemy aircraft, the air defense is overloaded ...
                    And?
                    Are we going to see how our military and civilian infrastructure and cities are being smashed?
                    Or we immediately decide on the use of nuclear warheads on missiles and an OTRK strike with special. Warheads for airfield infrastructure and command centers?
                    Let me remind you that the author of the article drew us a full-scale ... but for some reason not a nuclear war.
                    belay This happens ?
                    You will have time to find out - these CD and IS are dragging nuclear bombs, or so - to play around?
                    And further .
                    It should be remembered very well that the military-political leadership of the USSR consisted of WWII veterans, and the general consensus adopted the doctrine - "WE WILL NEVER ALLOW WAR IN OUR TERRITORY."

                    So the author tried in vain.
                    But he described the technical side of the balance of forces well.
                    But not complete either.
                    1. YOUR
                      YOUR 8 December 2020 04: 46
                      0
                      Here's an example. Japan decided everything was enough for our Kuril Islands and attacked them. Our options in this region are limited. Very limited. To protect the territory in accordance with the Constitution and the new Military Doctrine, the country's leadership decides to use nuclear weapons. Naturally, not on the territory of Japan, so that Tokyo at once with a blue flame, but a blow is struck at the ship group and the landing.
                      Doesn't this option come to mind? Only herds of KR, ICBM, B-52, etc.
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 8 December 2020 05: 05
                        0
                        The author described the war of the USSR \ OVD and NATO in Europe. At the time of 1989, we are considering this situation for the armies of that time.
                        And with Japan - yes, to begin with, just like that. Then about VMBases, and then about Tokyo.
                        We, too, can count that we have had enough ... And we do not need Japan at all.

                        And then - in the late 80s, this is exactly how the war was presented - a massive strike by the Kyrgyz Republic and Pershing-2 from bases in Europe.
                        And then aviation. fellow
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR 8 December 2020 05: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: bayard
                        And with Japan - yes, to begin with, just like that. Then about VMBases, and then about Tokyo.
                        We, too, can count that we've had enough ... And we don't need Japan at all

                        Lord! Yes, our strategists in Syria cannot dare to stop the bombing by Israel, I am not writing about Turkey.
                        What I wrote is a fantasy on the topic, no more.
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 8 December 2020 06: 41
                        +1
                        Well, Israel ... this is Israel ... they are like children - how to stop them? repeat
                        And with Japan it is more and more complicated, they still have to return Hokkaido to us ... Roosevelt promised Stalin in Yalta. yes
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. bayard
    bayard 6 December 2020 17: 06
    +4
    Quote: lucul
    Just a very sensible article explaining on the fingers, all the actions

    The author drew a sphero-conical horse in a vacuum and examined it. Apparently his nickname very closely matches his analytics.
    All those who served at that time in the Air Defense / Air Force, and not only, knew that in terms of the total number of fighter aircraft (including fighter aircraft), the OVD was inferior to the NATO bloc. This is a well-known fact, due, among other things, to the ratio of economies, and the proactive development of the West in radio electronics and avionics. For 5 - 7 years the West preempted us in the transition to 4th generation fighters, so at the moment in question in 1989 we really had several times less of them.
    So what ?
    Let's look at the broader issue - the state of the air defense of the opposing blocs. And here is already a diametrically opposite balance of forces. The air defense of the USSR and the countries of the Internal Affairs Directorate was head and shoulders more powerful, equipped and saturated. And this to a very large extent compensated for the insufficient power of our aviation.
    Consider the strike capabilities of the ATS without taking into account strike aviation.
    And what do we see?
    And we see the total superiority of the USSR and the Internal Affairs Directorate in tactical, operational-tactical missiles, long-range artillery and heavy MLRS.
    And why did the author decide that if a meat grinder had begun in Europe, we would have fought with them ... "on little knives," while the machine guns started talking.
    What does the author know about the Soviet TNW in this theater of operations and the equipment of the Soviet air defense systems of nuclear warheads?
    Or does the author think that with a massive raid, we would play "giveaway"? smile
    Not at all.
    And the fact that the main method of fighting enemy aircraft is the destruction of air bases and temporary bases was known in our headquarters as "Our Father". And the means were available for this.
    Yes, the disabled runway is repaired and returned to service in about a day (sometimes faster), but this is exactly THAT day when the aviation of this base, even when it survived, sits on the ground, does not participate in battles ... and takes over new portions of gifts.
    What can a high-altitude nuclear explosion do to the electronics ... even to AWACS electronics? But for this we had a sufficient number of long-range air defense systems (over 300 km) and special warheads for them.
    You, the author, like the NATO strategists, at the turn of the 70s - 80s invented a kind of sphero-conical conflict on conditions convenient for you. But according to the rules of the sharper, an experienced player does not play. An experienced player builds his game.
    And the backbone of our (USSR) security and the security of the Internal Affairs Department was built on a powerful air defense system, numerous OTRK, MLRS, artillery and the overwhelming nuclear missile power of the Strategic Missile Forces. bully
    ... Instead of the collapse of the USSR in 1991, then you see, by the year 1995 the balance of forces and capabilities in an air war in Europe would have looked completely different.
    Do not find?
    And the 4th generation aircraft would already be enough, and the existing fighters and information security would be modernized (there were plans to modernize all the MiG-23 of the latest series of avionics to the level of the MiG-29), and the CR would have already produced enough (they were, but only began to enter service and become familiar with the troops), and their carriers would be built ... more (Tu-22M4 with updated avionics and engines NK-32, Tu-95 SM, Tu-160 - all of them were actively built in those very years, and no one planned to curtail their construction).
    And the same Tu-22M3 \ M4 with aeroballistic missiles would have taken out all airfields in Europe ... They were created for this. Therefore, they had the status - EUROSTRATEGIC bombers.
    The same A-50 planned to build 50 units. , and if most of the planned ones were built, then they were mastered in the troops sufficiently for 1989 ... and even for 1991, they were not. Combat interaction with ground air defense and its command posts was not worked out, and combat interaction with the aviation entrusted to control was not sufficient ...
    But after 5 years repeat everything would look very different.

    Therefore ... "not everything is so simple."

    And with what fright, according to the author, would we (the USSR and the Department of Internal Affairs) rush to the English Channel?
    No nuclear weapons?
    At enemy nuclear bombs?

    For a real war, there were completely ... completely different scenarios.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  • cmax
    cmax 5 December 2020 11: 47
    +2
    Quote: Reklastik
    The military in general is not prone to deep analysis.
    the author, in general, does not shine with depth of thought, but does not suspect about it laughing

    You, that's definitely not shining, but respect to the author. I wrote everything correctly.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 5 December 2020 17: 06
    -2
    You should, Reklastik (Novel), just to blurt out an insult to the author of the article. And you cannot substantiate this insult. Apparently you yourself do not have enough thought for this.
  • Maxamud
    Maxamud 5 December 2020 10: 32
    -10%
    The USSR, having a numerical superiority in the ground forces, also considered "non-nuclear" offensive options.

    Yes, even now we can jerk off in a single impulse if something happens, even just with a pitchfork .. History has taught us a lot! And we all know the goals. soldier
  • jonht
    jonht 5 December 2020 10: 34
    0
    According to the author's logic, NATO of the USSR in the 80s simply tore ... And only human resources did not allow them to do this .... But the population of the Internal Affairs Directorate was much smaller than the population of NATO countries and their sympathizers.
    And for the destruction of AWACS, medium and shorter-range missiles were more suitable, they would have been enough for enemy airfields.
    1. Demagogue
      5 December 2020 10: 59
      -1
      The number of groups in the Central European theater of operations was about a million on each side. Overweight in tanks at the police station. Until the arrival of the Americans and mobilization. But I wrote about NATO's readiness for losses, and it was much lower than WWII.

      E-3s were based far from the front line. You can't get them that easily. The USSR had a good idea with a missile defense system with the launch of an uav, but there was no electronics for the idea.
      1. jonht
        jonht 5 December 2020 12: 43
        +3
        MLRS were not needed, there were Temp and Pioneer missile systems, short and medium-range, they were enough in Europe for gloza, for strikes at targets in depth, and if you consider that they had not only conventional charges, but also tactical nuclear ....
        In my opinion, in any case, the wrong side would not have done without TNW.
        1. Demagogue
          5 December 2020 12: 59
          0
          You can estimate the dimensions of the aircraft shelter and impose the accuracy of Soviet complexes on them. Wouldn't have enough rockets. Only with yao.

          And a nuclear war is not necessary. In the USSR, an offensive scenario without yao was considered. If they started without yao and the enemy took a break to see what would happen without yao, then why not. The political leadership of both the USSR and NATO was terrified of a nuclear war. Hence, thousands of air defense and pro fighters.
          1. jonht
            jonht 5 December 2020 13: 12
            -1
            The accuracy of our IRSMD missiles was at the level, and 300-500 kg of charge, even with a deviation of 10 m, make a rather big funnel. The length of the strip for AWACS, as well as for transport aircraft, should be at least 2500 meters, and the width should be around 50 meters, if not more. There is no stripe in the sky AWACS, but how our tanks can quickly advance in the west knew. And as they say in the infantry, the best air defense, tanks at the enemy airfield.
            1. 2 Level Advisor
              2 Level Advisor 5 December 2020 14: 16
              +7
              KVO at the Temp-370 meters .. at the Pioneer - 500 m, but he is nuclear weapons .. so about 10m - you obviously got excited ..
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 5 December 2020 17: 16
            +9
            Quote: Demagogue
            And a nuclear war is not necessary. The USSR considered the scenario of an offensive without yao

            This is a lie - no one even considered such a scenario, but only admitted that nuclear weapons may not be used immediately, but only as a result of the escalation of the military conflict. And even then, this scenario was prescribed for housewives and peacekeeping events, such as the Helsinki accords. Nobody in the General Staff ever believed that such a war could happen to our main adversaries - NATO, the United States and China. Moreover, even then it was assumed that in a critical situation, when preparations for unleashing a war against the USSR on the part of NATO were revealed, we would strike a preemptive strike with our nuclear weapons, and no one believed that this would be done with conventional weapons. As well as now ...
  • Imobile
    Imobile 5 December 2020 10: 40
    -20%
    The economy of the USSR is not flexible at all... All equipment is outdated and highly specialized to rebuild to release a new one. If it is made Kalash, then it cannot be rebuilt for others. There was no money, grain, clothes and furniture were brought from abroad. The maximum that the USSR is capable of is opening a design bureau (ala circle) It was not possible to rebuild the entire economy
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Moskal 55
          Moskal 55 6 December 2020 00: 58
          +6
          Just don't be rude and show off! The fact that we are living on the Soviet backlog is obvious. And the article is very controversial. I cannot make a complete analysis, but I can say for sure that the conclusions were made and radars in various types of weapons were being developed more and more digital and with phased array. The TOP was being developed then. There was a lag in microelectronics, in the 85th year by 5 years, which is not critical, and then everything began to stop, starting with this very microelectronics. But effective weapons could be developed on the existing element base. The same TOP, for example, and the radar were then designed with quite competitive characteristics. Consideration of a non-nuclear war with NATO in the 80s is, of course, complete garbage, but even here the obvious things are not taken into account. Europe is not deep. Airfields would be mostly destroyed by missiles. In addition, with good short-range air defense systems and with a sufficient number of them, not all tanks from above will be destroyed, i.e. Germany was doomed to capture in the event of a full-scale non-nuclear war (which could never have happened, since it would have immediately become nuclear). Perhaps, at some stage, the offensive would have drowned, but from that side in general on the ground it is not very much to fight ... Well, this is not against Lebanon or Iraq. And perestroika was not started because of the mythical defeat in the Cold War. The most ideological perestroika wanted to unite with Europe, and even now they do, and the people bought it with the fact that under capitalism there would be a lot of everything. It was not very difficult because by that time in the social. countries have already grown a consumer society. Something like this.
          1. Demagogue
            6 December 2020 08: 17
            -4
            Here all sovkodrochery scribble similar posts. You could read the opus of colleagues and not litter. For this there are topics on politot.

            I can't make a full analysis


            You can't even partial. Just scribble "all gouging". After my summer article about UAVs, they wrote the same thing. And then Artsakh. Whistle is not to roll bags.

            On what backlog of the USSR you live, I don't know. Do you drive a 1989 Zhiguli?
            1. Kaw
              Kaw 7 December 2020 00: 41
              +1
              When attempting an offensive or other maneuvers, NATO aircraft would bomb the convoys and inflict serious damage, gradually reducing the combat effectiveness of the ATS units. Would bomb "everything that moves"

              That is why the USSR had a very developed and numerous military air defense system. It would not be so easy to destroy tank columns from the air. Especially considering that:
              first - after the start of the war, they would not have stood still,
              second - in Europe there are very small distances,
              third - the USSR has a large number of MLRS of different types (they would also probably be covered by military air defense).
        2. Alesi13
          Alesi13 6 December 2020 02: 48
          -5
          Wouldn't you go or send
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 10: 43
    +6
    Thanks for the great article!

    That is why the United States (as well as the USSR) underestimated the contribution of UAVs to the Lebanese War and realized the advantages of this weapon only after Desert Storm. Israeli UAVs were initially perceived as "local exotic" ("model").

    Controversial statement. The development of UAVs in the United States went on continuously, they were successfully used in all their wars. It was just that there were no technical capabilities that we have now.
    When attempting an offensive or other maneuvers, NATO aircraft would bomb the convoys and inflict serious damage, gradually reducing the combat effectiveness of the ATS units. Would bomb "everything that moves"

    We have seen it more than once. From fresh Karabakh. The difference in losses in equipment is colossal by 4-10 times. In humans, 2 times.
    Wrong prioritization. It was necessary to reduce the production of air defense systems and tanks and invest heavily in the main means of warfare - in aviation. Hence the need to rethink the role of aviation in general.

    Low level of expertise of military equipment. A large number of ineffective aircraft, fighters and bombers were built. The money spent could be used for the production of really necessary aircraft, the development of the radio-electronic industry and R&D.

    Failure to shape the airplane of the future. There was a blind copying of American aircraft. The success story of the MiG-21 in Vietnam was not developed and was put into production under the Phantom MiG-23. Then the USSR rushed to create analogues of the maneuverable American aircraft of the 4th generation, the Su-27 and MiG-29. Was it necessary to do this? Great question.

    And this is happening now. There is a creation of useless weapons, ground and air wunderwaves, instead of really needed projects. There is no vision of the future, blind copying of foreign technology and the continuation of old Soviet projects.
    1. svp67
      svp67 5 December 2020 10: 51
      +11
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      We have seen it more than once. From fresh Karabakh. The difference in losses in equipment is colossal by 4-10 times. In humans, 2 times.

      ????? Sorry, but are you sure?
      Azerbaijan claims death of 2783 servicemen
      Armenia - 2718 people
      Excuse me, where is "2 times" here? Show
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 10: 54
        +1
        Yes I am sure.
        According to the statement of the Ministry of Health of the republic, as of November 19, the number of Armenian servicemen killed since the beginning of the conflict was 2425 people. It was about servicemen of the Armenian Defense Army and volunteers


        2425 + 250 unidentified = 2675 from the Armed Forces of Armenia and volunteers
        +1586 from the army of Karabakh
        + hundreds of bodies not yet removed, not exchanged from the battlefields
        Total: 4261 + not found, not exchanged - for any over 5000
        1. svp67
          svp67 5 December 2020 10: 58
          +8
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          2425 + 250 unidentified = 2675 from the Armed Forces of Armenia and volunteers
          +1586 from the army of Karabakh

          Excuse me, but where did you get this data from?
          Official, these are the ones that I indicated and these are TOTAL losses of the Armed Forces of Armenia and the Army of Artsykh
          And you can fantasize about many things, especially since Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, every day printed a list, by name, of the dead and missing
          1. cmax
            cmax 5 December 2020 11: 52
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            2425 + 250 unidentified = 2675 from the Armed Forces of Armenia and volunteers
            +1586 from the army of Karabakh

            Excuse me, but where did you get this data from?
            Official, these are the ones that I indicated and these are TOTAL losses of the Armed Forces of Armenia and the Army of Artsykh
            And you can fantasize about many things, especially since Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, every day printed a list, by name, of the dead and missing

            Where have you ever seen official data from government sources. Everybody always lies. Even General Konashenkov is not a role model in his briefings. There are always approximate data.
            1. svp67
              svp67 5 December 2020 11: 55
              +7
              Quote: cmax
              Where have you ever seen official data from government sources? Everybody always lies.

              Forgive me, but then it is necessary to question the data of Azerbaijan.
              And yet I find the data of Armenia more credible. I repeat once again that every evening they printed a list of the dead and missing, unlike Azerbaijan, and in this case it is much more difficult to cheat
              1. Imobile
                Imobile 5 December 2020 16: 20
                -12%
                Let's face it, judging by the personnel, the Azerbaijani army acted unprofessionally, the maneuvers were wrong. Aria of Armenia acted super professionally. The Armenians had everything according to science, the old Soviet science. If not for the drones, then the Armenians rolled the army of Azerbaijan in no time. Losses of Azerbaijan are losses from inept actions. Moreover, these actions were not required. UAVs rolled out Armenia. That is, 10 people bought what and 20 service personnel. 30 people rolled out the army of Armenia, the rest of the victims, these are participants who do not influence the outcome.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 5 December 2020 16: 34
                  +7
                  Quote: Imobile
                  Let's face it, judging by the personnel, the Azerbaijani army acted unprofessionally, the maneuvers were wrong. Aria of Armenia acted super professionally

                  Well, you can say whatever you want. I will say that I DO NOT agree with your opinion. Everything is accurate to one turn
                  Quote: Imobile
                  The Armenians had everything according to science, the old Soviet science.

                  Yes, no, again, everything is exactly the opposite.
                  Quote: Imobile
                  UAVs rolled out Armenia.

                  Armenia was rolled out by its complacency and conceit
    2. Demagogue
      5 December 2020 10: 52
      +2
      On the UAV, all the possibilities were from the 70s. It's just that Israel got its bearings earlier than the United States. In the Bure they were used locally by the Americans. Trial operation.
      1. Pavel Vladimirov
        Pavel Vladimirov 5 December 2020 10: 59
        +5
        In what year did the USSR begin to lag behind the West in technology? Was it not when the dissidents were leaving for Israel?
        1. Demagogue
          5 December 2020 11: 04
          0
          No)) in 1917. The isolation had a bad effect. Plus, illiterate people appeared in science, Lysenks took place not only in genetics. You will not implement his ingenious invention, but he is a statement.
          Plus the lack of private initiative. In the USA, they received a digital processor with private investments of less than 20 million US dollars at current prices, and the USSR and billions could not solve the issue.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 5 December 2020 11: 34
            +9
            Quote: Demagogue
            No)) in 1917. The isolation had a bad effect.

            Before. The key problem of the Empire was precisely in technology: it was possible to invent any wunderwaffe, but to put it into practice is either impossible, or only in a small series.
            Clinical Cases - the only factory in the entire Empire capable of producing machine guns (10 years after the start of their serial production). Or the only car plant with an order of magnitude lower productivity than Western ones. You can think of any wunderbroken car - but no chassis.
            1. Demagogue
              5 December 2020 11: 37
              -3
              At the same time, RI was building battleships, and the USSR approached this level after 70 years with Ulyanovsk. In RI, the nuclear program began before 1914, and in the USSR, Vernadsky persuaded Stalin by 1940. The level of expertise was higher. And if you are part of the western world, then everything can be bought. The Swedes for Wiggen quietly bought the processors in the USA and made them under license.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 5 December 2020 11: 46
                +11
                Quote: Demagogue
                At the same time, RI built ships of the line

                Uh-huh ... for 8 years, being late as a result of the beginning of the war. As a result, by the time the Sev was launched, other countries already had the next and even the next generation - 15 "LK.
                At the same time, the Empire did not find money for the development of the railway network in the Western theater of operations. As a result, she destroyed the Warsaw UR, which was under construction for 80 years, with her own hands - for the pace of concentration of the Russian army did not allow the main forces to be withdrawn to the UR before the main enemy forces approached.
                Quote: Demagogue
                And if you are part of the western world, then everything can be bought. The Swedes for Wiggen quietly bought the processors in the USA and made them under license.

                Pfff ... the USSR bought GTZA for LK in Switzerland, and turbines for EM - in Britain. However, the British even sold anti-aircraft machine guns for ships to the Soviets at the beginning of 1941.
                1. Demagogue
                  5 December 2020 11: 50
                  -8
                  RI was not an ideal state, but more perfect than the chimera of the USSR.
                  And in terms of access to technology: who prevented the USSR from agreeing with Intel on the construction of a plant?))) Not all were sold.
                  1. ximkim
                    ximkim 5 December 2020 17: 00
                    -2
                    Ideology interfered, and the structure of the way.
                  2. Stas157
                    Stas157 6 December 2020 09: 51
                    +7
                    Quote: Demagogue
                    And on access to technology: who prevented the USSR from reaching an agreement with Intel about building a plant?)))

                    What for? There were clones of this processor in the USSR.

                    There were also much better processors. The same Elbrus in terms of speed would be at the level of Pentium, which went into series when the USSR was gone. Let me remind you that only three countries had supercomputers at that time, which was considered a super achievement. USA, Japan ... USSR.

                    But now the gap is much, much more! And your speculations about what a developed agrarian RI was in comparison with the technological USSR are generally amusing.
                    1. Demagogue
                      6 December 2020 10: 11
                      -4
                      The first pc in the USA in the early 70s, the USSR in 1985. Of course they could. 15 years behind and everything was fine.

                      As for ri, you are simply in captivity of the Soviet ravings that everything is measured by the number of factories. China was even more agrarian then, and where is it now? But he saved the peasants for a real breakthrough, and not the utopian construction projects of socialism.
                      1. Stas157
                        Stas157 6 December 2020 10: 21
                        +2
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        China was even more agrarian then, and where is he now?

                        Now he is not agrarian. The distance between the agrarian China of the 90s and the current technological one is about the same as between the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR by 41.
                      2. Stas157
                        Stas157 6 December 2020 10: 52
                        +4
                        Quote: Demagogue
                        15 years behind

                        Elbrus name of processors familiar to you?

                        Quote: Stas157
                        The same Elbrus in terms of speed was at the level of Pentium, which went into series when the USSR was gone.

                        Where is the lag of 15 years here?
                      3. Demagogue
                        6 December 2020 12: 44
                        -2
                        Once again for those who are in the tank: at 70m the Americans have the first PC. This is a huge breakthrough for the entire economy. This is the level of miniaturization for military equipment. The mythical Elbrus somewhere in the institute is a bonus to the work of the institute. A pc in the USSR in 1985.With processors, compact radars weighing a ton are not made))
                    2. bk0010
                      bk0010 6 December 2020 13: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      The first pc in the USA in the early 70s, the USSR in 1985.
                      What kind of PCs do you have in the early 70s? The USSR released PCs with a delay of 3-4 years relative to the states.
                    3. Demagogue
                      6 December 2020 13: 32
                      -4
                      Listen, Google is there. The first is Kenbak-1, created in 1970. A real breakthrough from Intel 8008 and beyond. hp 2640 in 1974 is already mass production.

                      In fact, everything is even worse, I did not exaggerate the colors in the article. In the United States, an airborne radar with an open architecture in 1979, and we have with the Su-30 in 2012. Yes, for the Indians they have done it with the French since the 2000s, but for ourselves. Better not provoke me to revelations))
                    4. bk0010
                      bk0010 6 December 2020 20: 43
                      -1
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      In fact it's even worse
                      IBM PC XT came out in 1983, EC 1840 in 1986, IBM PC AT came out in 1984, EC-1842 came out in 1988.
                    5. Demagogue
                      6 December 2020 22: 55
                      +1
                      "Agat" - the first Soviet serial personal computer (microcomputer). "Agate" is 8-bit a universal computer oriented for use in public education. Developed in 1981-1983 at the Scientific Research Institute of Computing Complexes (NIIVK) as a Soviet analogue of the American computer Apple II + / IIc Plus. "Agat" is the first personal computer developed in the USSR, the first sets of which appeared in 1982, and the serial production was debugged by 1985.

                      In 1985, x86 is already 32 bits.
                    6. bk0010
                      bk0010 6 December 2020 23: 19
                      0
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      "Agat" - the first Soviet serial personal computer (microcomputer).
                      Well, no, this is the first Soviet home computer (you could buy it from LEMZ for 1200 rubles). If you consider Kenbak-1 to be the first personal computer, then measure yourself at least with D3-28 (released no later than 1979) or Electronics-60 (in 1981, real systems were already handed over on it). By the way, the "source" of Agatha (Apple IIe) was released in 1983, and the Apple II - in 1977. In short, when they decided that personal computers were not self-indulgence, they pricked up to scrape them for 3-4 years (just mathematics for them "kept up" ). And then the union collapsed.
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      In 1985 already x86 32 bits
                      In 1985, a processor was released, but then it did not resist anyone because of the price. Comp on 386 (Compaq Deskpro 386) appeared after a year and a half and it was not taken. Until the "windows 3.1" ripened fast kopeck piece was more interesting than three rubles (I remember from the battles around OS / 2 1.3, which is 91 years old).
                    7. Demagogue
                      6 December 2020 23: 44
                      0
                      Well, for a fighter for tens of millions, they quite found money to buy a processor. There was one problem that I didn't write about. Namely, the software appeared. PSP and open architecture presuppose it. And here in the USSR there was a snag. The SAR mode also needed software, etc.
                      The snag was apparently connected with what the orthodox were instructed to do on the radar. A few years ago, radar radars were only tube. Transistors are already high-tech. We didn't have time to rebuild.
                    8. Hexenmeister
                      Hexenmeister 7 December 2020 10: 25
                      0
                      Namely, the software appeared. PSP and open architecture suggest its presence ... SAR also needed software
                      And what is the connection between software and open architecture ??? Or do you think that the Union did not have digital signal processors for fighter radars? And what are the problems with writing programs for digital signal processors with their "poor" command system ??? I will tell you a terrible secret, if everything is done correctly, then the signal processor programs for the B-B mode and the synthesized aperture mode have so much in common that, by and large, it is not necessary to separate these modes in terms of programs ... :)
                    9. The comment was deleted.
                    10. bk0010
                      bk0010 7 December 2020 22: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Imobile
                      In the United States in 72, they were already massively playing on consoles, and enterprises began to use
                      These were analog (not processor-based) set-top boxes. Our analogue with tennis and something else (Tournament) came out in 1979.
                    11. Hexenmeister
                      Hexenmeister 8 December 2020 09: 48
                      0
                      In the USSR there were no ... As for the military, they did not use processors at all ... no analog-to-digital converters were used
                      And the men didn't know ... Why did they write programs for on-board computers for the MiG-31 and Su-27 radars, and these radars carried out the primary signal processing much faster than the digital signal processor in the APG-63, apparently it was from -for lack of ADC :)
                2. bk0010
                  bk0010 7 December 2020 22: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Demagogue
                  open architecture suggests its presence
                  Open architecture assumes only that outsiders can stick a snout into your feeder. Apple (in fact, it's so clear that they have PCI, but PCI is only for those who can) blocks open architecture in their products and thrives (who else can sell wheels for a computer for $ 700?).
                  Quote: Demagogue
                  The snag was apparently connected with the fact that the orthodox were instructed to do the radar.
                  An acquaintance of mine in the mid-90s wrote software for a ground-based radar. There was 286 (or 386, I don’t remember exactly) as a control processor and three signal processors, each of which tore the top 486DX50 like a hot water bottle on their tasks. So, he was doing this a year after graduating from the institute. Why did bortoviks have to be different?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 December 2020 14: 27
    +4
    Quote: Alexey RA
    As a result, by the time of launching "Sev"

    I got excited - the Lizas appeared "by the time the Sev was commissioned."
    However, nothing happened anyway. © smile
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 5 December 2020 19: 29
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Pfff ... the USSR bought GTZA for LK in Switzerland, and turbines for EM - in Britain.

    You are right, the stupidity of the pre-war governments in dealing with the Bolsheviks is striking. However, your sketch that the USSR's access to technologies during the XIV era was comparable to the capabilities of the RCMP is still nothing more than a provocation.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Before. The core problem of the Empire was precisely in technology:

    Really? In fact, supporters of the RCMP will tell you that the technical level of the PMV army was quite comparable to that of the Reichswehr, which is more or less noticeable from the position of the front line. At the same time, this cannot be said about the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, in spite of the fact that the Wehrmacht, compared to the Reichswehr, was just a nomadic gypsy camp.
  • paul3390
    paul3390 5 December 2020 13: 06
    +6
    Your RI even bearings - and it was not able to produce .. Not to mention something more complicated. It was not for nothing that the Bolsheviks had to urgently industrialize - because there was not a damn thing !!

    Battleships - well, yes, and also the USSR did not make catapults and trebuchets .. Who needed them after the war? Nonsense about the nuclear program of the Republic of Ingushetia is impossible to read without tears .. You, who are fond of the tsar, are ready to carry any nonsense .. And what is especially sad is that you yourself believe in it ..
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 December 2020 14: 45
    +10
    Quote: Demagogue
    In RI, the nuclear program began before 1914, and in the USSR, Vernadsky persuaded Stalin by 1940.

    That's what I'm writing about. While the whole thing is limited to a pencil and a laboratory - the Empire is at the level. As soon as it comes to iron - this is how such gaping heights, which is already breathtaking.
    Having no access lines, the Izhevsk plant used river routes during the navigation period. The access road to the Golyany pier on the Kama is a 40-kilometer tract - in the summer during the rainy season, in the fall and spring, it became impassable. Traveling even in a light carriage this distance could take 18 hours, and the carriage of goods stopped.

    And this is not some kind of "Horns and Hooves" office, but the main rifle factory of the Empire:
    The role of the Izhevsk plant was such that it - of course, somewhat exaggerated - seemed to the TsVPK expert even "the only rifle plant in Russia, for Tula and Sestroretsk are not independent factories and serve only as an addition to Izhevsk." But in fact, the manufacture of rough barrels was concentrated in Izhevsk, and the production of rifles for the rest depended on their supply by this plant; during the war, the plant produced 52% of all Russian-made rifle barrels, 79% of machine-gun barrels. Of the small arms produced in Russia, Izhevsk accounted for 43 to 48%; the production of rifles in Izhevsk increased six times - from 82 thousand in 1914 to 313 thousand in 1915 and 505 thousand in 1916.
    © Polikarpov V.V.Russian military-industrial policy, 1914-1917.
    Moreover, it is the only manufacturer of steel of the highest grades, including panel steel, spring steel and tool steel.
    And here is what happened 20 miles from the capital of the Empire - at the Sestroretsk plant:
    One of the tasks was to install new engines and set up a power plant instead of water wheels (“there was not enough water already in 1913”) so that there was no need to stop or reduce work twice a year due to lack of water in the “spill”.
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 6 December 2020 10: 08
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Minnows on the Kama - 40-kilometer tract - in the summer during the rainy season, in autumn and spring became impassable

      But that's not true. It is dry there in summer. And there is no rainy season in summer. So, just a short rain.
      And the railway appeared in Izhevsk at the end of the 19th century. And by 1915, a narrow-gauge railway to Golyan on the Kama. The railway problem was radically solved already in the USSR, when it was pinned during the Second World War.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 7 December 2020 14: 42
        +1
        Quote: Stas157
        And the railway appeared in Izhevsk at the end of the 19th century.

        The problem is that there was no access to the general imperial railway network until 1915:
        By the fall of 1915, the construction of the track to Kazan, begun in 1913, was completed. This line had a low carrying capacity; it was built in conditions of a shortage of materials, with the laying of a reduced number of sleepers and fasteners against the norm. Enhanced fuel procurement led to the construction of a 55-verst narrow-gauge road to the first forestry, construction began in the fall of 1915 and by 1917 had cost 2,2 million rubles. In 1915, exploration work was completed for the construction of a railway with access to the Perm line, which was supposed to open access to the Urals and to the Kizelovsky coal basin. The research began in 1913 (the idea had been discussed earlier for two decades), but practically no construction was started at that time.
        © Polikarpov.
        Estimate the extent of procrastination - twenty years of discussing railway construction. smile
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 5 December 2020 16: 42
    +6
    In RI, the nuclear program began before 1914

    From this place in more detail, pzhlst.
  • svp67
    svp67 5 December 2020 11: 57
    +7
    Quote: Demagogue
    No)) in 1917.

    Oh, well, what kind of FAIRY TALES. A country that is not able to quickly establish a mass production of weapons for its army, which does not have the capacity for mass production of new equipment, this is your IDEAL ?????
    1. Demagogue
      5 December 2020 14: 49
      -4
      Read about the ideal of the state of Plato's thoughts. This is not for me.
      The USSR is definitely better. Mountains of weapons did not help him in 1941. And in 1914, ri was with the allies and the foe braked not near Moscow, but in Poland. Losses are several times less.
      1. svp67
        svp67 5 December 2020 15: 08
        +6
        Quote: Demagogue
        Mountains of weapons did nothing to help him in 1941.

        Yes, they helped, without him it would still be worse
        Quote: Demagogue
        And in 1914, ri was with the allies and the foe did not slow down near Moscow, but in Poland.

        They braked, braked, but never stopped ...
        Quote: Demagogue
        Losses are several times less.

        Yeah, only in your dreams. As a result of the war, we lost a lot of territories, and if we add up the losses in WWI and the Civil War, the primary cause of which was WWI, then no matter how much they were, given how many people left us with the territories. So what is not necessary
        1. Demagogue
          5 December 2020 15: 16
          -5
          Yes, they helped, without him it would still be worse


          But nothing. Most of the Germans were helped by trophies. The army of Ingushetia did not surrender by the millions, but fought.
          How much worse could it be ?? Millions of prisoners in the first months. The adversary was traveling faster than in western Poland at 39m.

          And why didn't they slow down? They held the front. We didn't run. They retreated with battles.

          You distort on losses. Then the repression and WWII count. It is believed that the war was one world war, with a break.
          1. svp67
            svp67 5 December 2020 15: 18
            +6
            Quote: Demagogue
            The army of Ingushetia did not surrender by the millions, but fought.

            Well, the Red Army did not fraternize, but fought
            Quote: Demagogue
            The adversary was traveling faster than in western Poland at 39m.

            No, not faster and there were much more losses
            Quote: Demagogue
            You distort on losses

            Do you want to say that there were none?
            1. Demagogue
              5 December 2020 16: 32
              -7
              There were, but much less than in the USSR.
              And in Poland the Germans did not accelerate more than 40 km, and in the USSR up to 70. Poland, by the way, is a fragment of the Republic of Ingushetia, where cadres and customs have been preserved. And nothing, they were producing weapons. If GDP is compared with RI in progression and production capabilities are estimated, then at 39 against RI Hitler has no chance. And the tanks too. And there would be no war with RI. A stable and peaceful Europe without the rise of the United States. But that's a different story. By the summer I can make an article. There is no point in flooding here.
              1. svp67
                svp67 5 December 2020 17: 41
                +5
                Quote: Demagogue
                then at 39 against ri, Hitler has no chance.

                Not any, not any chance, as France did not have them
                Quote: Demagogue
                And there would be no war with RI.

                Ha ... ha ... ha ... Yeah, and what would "butter up Germany" with?
                Quote: Demagogue
                And in Poland the Germans did not accelerate more than 40 km, and in the USSR up to 70.
                So what? The Poles have little merit in this. If they were hit by the "permethine" Wehrmacht model of 41, they would be "made" three times faster. And so the "Wehrmacht" honed its skills and staffing structures. And if we take the average speed, then, in 21 days of the war, the Germans were able to advance through our territory with an average maximum speed of 30 km per day
                -The distance on the route of the movement of Army Group "North" Klaipeda - Pskov on the roads is 585 km. Consider 585: 21 = 27,8 km per day. The Germans were advancing at such a speed in the Baltic States.
                - Distance on the route of the Army Group "Center" Brest - Smolensk on the roads = 627 km. 627: 21 = 29,8 km per day. With such speed the Germans passed all of Belarus and captured Smolensk
                - Distance on the route of movement of Army Group "South" Rava-Russkaya - Zhitomir on the roads = 445 km. 445: 21 = 21,2 km per day. At such a speed the Germans advanced in the Ukraine.
              2. Demagogue
                6 December 2020 09: 07
                -5
                And you, for a change, Brest Minsk, count. And on what day the Minsk cauldron began to boil. On the 4th. 250-300 km from the border. It was 100 km from the German border to Warsaw in the north, and on the 8th day we approached the city.

                Poles shot down another 130 German aircraft. Check it out when ours have filled a similar number.

                Stop flooding in a non-core topic. Are there any claims on the merits of the article?))

                In addition to crying for the wonderful USSR? Which was scattered after 70 years of existence.
              3. svp67
                svp67 6 December 2020 09: 31
                +3
                Quote: Demagogue
                It was 100 km from the German border to Warsaw in the north, and on the 8th day we approached the city.

                So what? Unlike the USSR, Poland by this moment had actually already lost its Armed Forces to resist, and agony followed.
                Quote: Demagogue
                Poles shot down another 130 German aircraft.

                Did you look at the German data on losses? Apparently not, otherwise they would not try to operate with this figure and these arguments
                According to GERMAN data for SIX days of fighting, from 22.06 to 28.061941, the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front irrevocably lost 280 aircraft. Again:
                Poles in EIGHT days - 130
                USSR for SIX days - 280.
                So what did you want to say?
                Quote: Demagogue
                Are there any claims on the merits of the article?))

                "... - Do you have any complaints about buttons?
                - No! Sewn to death, you can't tear it off! Who made the suit? Who sewed my sleeves instead of pants? Who instead of sleeves spanked my pants? Who did this?"
                So I don't understand:
                - how in the USSR, "spreading rot" to cybernetics and living "according to the precepts of Lysenko," back in the 50s they were able to create an air defense area around Moscow with missiles capable of shooting down ballistic targets, which the Americans were able to achieve only in the 80s?
                - How did it happen that in the same 50s, with the help of computers, of our own design, in the USSR they calculated the same flights into space, from where did these computers come from?
                - why, suddenly, the MiG-23 has become an analogue of the F-4, and not a continuation of the line of the MiG-21 light?
                - where is the story about the use of unmanned aircraft by the USSR with the use of products of the "Tu" company?
              4. The comment was deleted.
              5. The comment was deleted.
              6. Demagogue
                6 December 2020 19: 42
                -1
                Insult? God forbid. I just sincerely do not understand the attraction to a state of this type. For me, such love is akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

                As for the elite, then you are wrong. They missed Russia in the 17th after the hardest war. The Bolsheviks gave it up without a fight. They caused devastation at the beginning of their reign, killing up to half of the urban population. The brains of the nation. And then the devastation of the 90s, rushing to privatize property. RI did not treat its population like that. Although it was not a stronghold of humanism.

                As for the one, what does he give? In marketable quantities? Live video? No. That is why it no longer applies. There is a reason for everything.
              7. svp67
                svp67 6 December 2020 19: 49
                +1
                Quote: Demagogue
                We missed Russia in the 17th after the hardest war.

                ???????? Why did this not happen under Stalin? what was wrong with that elite? Why, having taken power in hands, in the form of the "Provisional Government", did this "elite" act in such a way that it would be better if they did not climb out at all? Why did this "elite" lose out to their opponents during the Civil War?
                Because what you call the "elite" WASN'T as such, GENERATED, became a "ballast" and a brake on the country's development. Exactly the same happened with the "communist elite"
                Quote: Demagogue
                This is why it no longer applies.

                All in good time.
              8. Demagogue
                6 December 2020 20: 09
                -1
                The Bolsheviks had no elite. And there was nothing to degenerate. It takes many generations to form an elite. It's like animal breeding. Agesilai, who walked in the phalanx in the forefront with his voters, is not Stalin, who was hiding in the early days of the war.

                Any victory has a price. The French were a great nation under Napoleon, but they ruined their gene pool. The Germans were a force under Hitler, and now it is a swamp. Where is our strength now? Under the RI we were a Russian state, but what are we now? With all the minuses of theft, etc. All the same, better than the Bolsheviks.
              9. Captain Nemo
                Captain Nemo 7 December 2020 00: 49
                0
                RI did not treat its population like that
                - well, yes, first the landlord slavery, then "liberation" with the transfer to bank slavery ...
                The French were a great nation under Napoleon, but they ruined their gene pool.
                - just as a result of the Napoleonic wars, the average Frenchman became darker in hair and sharply decreased his height, such an unnatural selection.
                In RI, the "military elite" (noblemen) quickly turned into alien parasites, with the purchase of posts and contempt for the Russian people. That, in general, is repeated in the Russian Federation. The life of the USSR is somewhat similar to the rise and fall of ancient Sparta.
                The author got excited about Lysenko - the scientist had real achievements and merits.
                The article is interesting, but in other areas of knowledge the author's position is weak, judging by his comments.
      2. svp67
        svp67 6 December 2020 20: 16
        +1
        Quote: Demagogue
        That the Poles had aviation for one Soviet garden.

        Well, of course, here I agree with you that, like the Republic of Ingushetia, Poland COULD NOT saturate its Armed Forces with the proper amount of weapons, which had a very detrimental effect on its defenses and led to a rapid defeat in the armed confrontation with Germany
  • Eroma
    Eroma 6 December 2020 12: 23
    0
    In WWI, troop movement speeds were much lower than in WWII engine war! France also fought in WWII and even won, but in WWII it lasted only 41 days!
    Germany used an innovation in WWII: Blitzkrieg is called and only the USSR was able to withstand this innovation! soldier
  • lucul
    lucul 5 December 2020 11: 46
    -7
    In what year did the USSR begin to lag behind the West in technology? Was it not when the dissidents were leaving for Israel?

    As soon as 2.5 million people immigrated to Israel, so Russia developed solid-propellant engines that are not inferior to the American ones, which made it possible to create Calibers, Zircons, Daggers, etc. and so on, one ROFAR is worth ...
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 11: 13
    0
    Quote: Demagogue
    It's just that Israel got its bearings earlier than the United States.

    Rather, Israel spied on how the US UAVs worked in Vietnam.
    1. Demagogue
      5 December 2020 11: 54
      +1
      Israel has figured out how to use them effectively. I think it was due to the fact that the army was recruited from scratch. There were yesterday's engineers and scientists in command positions.
    2. stone
      stone 6 December 2020 20: 07
      0
      Rather, Israel spied on how the US UAVs worked in Vietnam.


      It was in Israel that the concept of modern drones was invented, as low-speed, "hanging" in the air vehicles (MALE), capable of presenting data from the battlefield in real time. The Americans also used the Israeli experience and developments, and the RQ-2 Pioneer, and the RQ-5 Hunter, and the same General Atomics, which bought Leading Systems - all from Israel. Read about Abraham Karem at least.
  • neri73-r
    neri73-r 5 December 2020 13: 22
    +2
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    UAV development in the United States went on continuously,

    And in the USSR, a drone was developed, the same Flight, etc.
  • Pavel Vladimirov
    Pavel Vladimirov 5 December 2020 10: 44
    0
    Bitie defines consciousness, better than being.
  • Demagogue
    5 December 2020 10: 53
    -3
    Quote: Reklastik
    The military in general is not prone to deep analysis.
    the author, in general, does not shine with depth of thought, but does not suspect about it laughing


    The author knows he doesn't know anything, do you?))
    1. akarfoxhound
      akarfoxhound 5 December 2020 21: 48
      +5
      It's cool, to scribble an article on the basis of "knowledge" of general journalism and take offense for "I don't know." turned out, and so .. it turned out "interested from interested" in general smeared.
      For the work and capabilities of the A-50, E-2, E-3, F-15 and Drying with MiGs, you have not a single real working figure, something like this
      By the way, having gone into history for some reason you did not say a word for the Shauliai Carcasses. It is clear that the element base of Liana is firewood, but it was worth mentioning the firstborn. Yes, and people still alive on the ground walk, who plowed on these devices, they tell a lot of interesting things.
      In general, do not make analytics based on "newspapers", otherwise your positive message to people from the inside in the topic looks like empty demagoguery. But your business, I do not argue, everyone is free and free
      1. Demagogue
        5 December 2020 22: 16
        -4
        What does Carcass have to do with it, if we are talking about a drill with the ability to work on low-altitude targets? To start. I didn’t mention old cars for Americans either.

        And so it is customary if you object to someone, to give facts, and not blabla "everything is wrong."

        The numbers are incorrect)) must be absolutely secret with the vultures. Yeah.
  • prior
    prior 5 December 2020 11: 01
    +2
    Without the use of nuclear weapons, the scenario of a large-scale war in Europe is indeed hypothetical.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 5 December 2020 18: 51
      +2
      Quote: prior
      Without the use of nuclear weapons, the scenario of a large-scale war in Europe is indeed hypothetical.

      This is how an American weapons expert sees it, and it immediately becomes clear what they are afraid of in the first place:
      Russia can easily defeat any republic of the former USSR, like Ukraine, but, faced with an equal rival, its relatively untested military machine is likely to disperse at the seams. Even if NATO did not exist, it is not a fact that Russia would have enough manpower reserves to occupy the Baltic countries, especially if they deployed training for a massive conscript army. Despite the published results of the war games, in which the Russians capture the Baltics in 30-60 hours, the states of the region are not such a tasty target for the Russian occupation as some would like to believe.
      One of the most difficult questions about the prerequisites for such a war is who is more afraid of what: the USA - Russian nuclear escalation or Russia - American retaliation. It is difficult to make recommendations here, it should only be emphasized that we are faced with two responsible nuclear powers, realizing that violation of the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons can lead, due to the "escalation ladder", to apocalyptic consequences.

      Michael Kofman Researcher, Center for Naval Research (USA)

      It may sound veiled, but this expert clearly shows that they understand that Russia will not stop before using its strategic nuclear forces, which means that all talk about the control of air battles is just childish babble. It is true that the expert is too naive about our power, but what they order him, he will write.
  • akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 5 December 2020 11: 12
    -2
    Comrade author, your article is bpead (and this is not "bread" from English winked ), what's the title, what's the content. I don't even want to discuss the name, but "inside" not a single figure of real data - neither our hardware, nor imported, for the native MiGar 31st "real info" smiled separately. Not an article, but a text “for aviation” pulled from the popular media, followed by an “analysis” of this rubbish. Children in the sandbox also cook little porridge, like their mother in the house in the kitchen. But my mother's porridge made of cereal is porridge, and her children in the yard have a sand / water prison interspersed with the waste of a neighbor's cat. Your option is two. Why be offended? Analysis is it? - Analysis !!! That's just what the analysis is? Did you work with Avaks yourself? Data not from Popular Mechanics and not from NI, but from the EAF manuals "for partners", have you seen the UPS in your eyes?

    Honestly (IMHO) the level of articles is in a deep peak and the conclusion is not visible, it becomes a pity for the time spent.
    1. AAK
      AAK 5 December 2020 17: 39
      +2
      Colleague, do not agree with the author - read Kalashnikov-Kucherenko "broken sword of the empire" (it's hard to find a great literary patriot of the USSR), a lot has been written about all sorts of Arab-Israeli wars, and everything is about the same: Israeli (American, NATO) aviation-helicopters-AWACS-UAVs- "smart" missiles - there are no Arab (our in fact) tanks-aircraft-air defense systems, etc., but he has the main idea - Arabs are worthless warriors, cowards, corrupt traitors, So, like, our heroes would be at the steering wheels, consoles, levers, they would have shown ... so there were plenty of ours behind the levers, and at the steering wheels, and at the consoles, and in headquarters, but alas ... so "f-f-f" of the author - not casual
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 5 December 2020 17: 46
        -2
        Quote: AAK
        so ours there were in abundance at the levers, and at the steering wheels, and at the consoles, and in the headquarters, but alas

        When it comes to this, this video is always remembered.
      2. akarfoxhound
        akarfoxhound 5 December 2020 21: 02
        +1
        I read it, in 98-99, very tendentiously. I agree with patriotism, he is needed, especially in the 90s of Drybadan with EBN, although he, patriotism, is in the book and regularly goes off scale (like scenes with banners, drums, trumpets and portraits of Stalin, etc.). But he has so many fantasies there with a claim on reality - mom, do not cry! The numbers are mostly from the ceiling. We gave each other part of it to read, but there, in addition to the well-known events in the same Africa and neighboring Arabia - the rest "for tactics and materiel" - a specific gag. The direction in the book is correct, but ...
        And the above-described Demagogue does not have an article, but empty demagoguery, the chase justifies completely, did not match in a single figure, nowhere

        P.S. not for you, AAK, but for the minus people, the fans of the articles about anything - you, dear "patriots", an addition to the second, to patriotism - you need to know the materiel! The enemy during the hostilities will only thank you for your rune in an emotional outburst, because in the final she looks like idiocy on the smoking ruins.
      3. akarfoxhound
        akarfoxhound 5 December 2020 21: 58
        +1
        I read, some 20 years ago, at home there is a "masterpiece" on the shelf. Tendentious, patriotic, over the edge. But everything that is about technology and its capabilities is empty rubbish sucked out of a finger, this is not information. We had nothing to do in the forest garrison, especially in the duty rooms, so the people read. I will not comment on Kalashnikov's opuses from fellow soldiers here, they will be banned, from a decent one: "Well, patriotic, so!" and smiles from ear to ear
        And when a technique is compared, not knowing its real capabilities, as here, this is anything but analytics, forgive me.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 6 December 2020 14: 53
      -1
      Quote: akarfoxhound
      for the native MiGar 31st "real infa" smiled separately


      Was there a case when the MiG-31 had to shoot down a Tu-95 with a cannon?
  • Mikhail S.
    Mikhail S. 5 December 2020 11: 23
    +6
    In the 82nd year as a student, he did an internship at the Research Institute of Radio Communication, which is related to aviation. There, an aircraft radio station was "developed" by the method of exact copying of the American one. Even transistors were copied. So the lag was behind our system. The bosses did not want to risk it, why come up with something of their own, if there is already a proven foreign one.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 5 December 2020 17: 03
      +5
      Quote: Mikhail S.
      There, an aircraft radio station was "developed" by the method of exact copying of the American one. Even transistors were copied. So the lag was behind our system.

      This could not have happened, if only because our production base was different, and it was forbidden to buy foreign components for the production of weapons and military equipment. The fact that designers could use advanced foreign technical solutions in the design of new equipment was not prohibited, but on the contrary, they tried to provide them to everyone, up to the theft of technical documentation from foreign manufactures through undercover work. Even certain types of materials were mined for the Academy of Sciences and industrial research institutes, so that it would be easier for them to understand which solutions to the problem to choose.
      Quote: Mikhail S.
      The bosses did not want to risk it, why come up with something of their own, if there is already a proven foreign one.

      You poorly know the designers of that era, because they contrived on their knees to bungle what they could not even imagine abroad and argued that this could not be. As was the case with "Putin's cartoons", when at first in the West everyone did not believe that this was possible, and after state tests and the release of the first serial samples, they fell into a stupor.
      1. Mikhail S.
        Mikhail S. 6 December 2020 15: 04
        0
        "This could not be, if only because our production base was different, and it was forbidden to buy foreign components for the production of weapons and military equipment."

        The high frequency transistors were copied. I saw the original and our copies.
        The transistors were somehow layer-by-layer polished or cut off. But copies were brought to NIIRS.
        What I saw, I write about that.
        When in Algeria in Mers el Kebir in 1988. The decommissioned American radio station from the ship got into the hands of the element base and the level of performance was amazed. We lagged behind in electronics. And copying even their best examples were doomed to lag behind.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 6 December 2020 15: 13
          +2
          Quote: Mikhail S.
          When in Algeria in Mers el Kebir in 1988. The decommissioned American radio station from the ship got into the hands of the element base and the level of performance was amazed.

          In the west, they were also amazed at our communication facilities, especially small-sized equipment:
          An interesting find was made by archaeologists from the Rhine Regional Museum in Bonn. While searching in the woods near Cologne for traces of a mansion dating from the Roman era, they found a Soviet radio station intended for reconnaissance groups operating on enemy territory. As reported by "NPlus1" citing Live Science, the radio has a year of manufacture 1987 and is in perfect working order.

          https://topwar.ru/168293-v-lesu-pod-kelnom-arheologi-nashli-sovetskuju-radiostanciju.html

    2. cdrt
      cdrt 5 December 2020 22: 52
      +2
      And why come up with something if someone has already filled up the cones for the task at hand. Of course, if someone else's suits you, you SHOULD use it
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 5 December 2020 11: 45
    +7
    Since then, something may have changed, but hardly much. Potential adversary of 4 types of stealth - f117, B2, F22, F35 - launched / launched a series, Russia has 2 serial Su57s, besides, with stage 1 engines up to 22-23. The level and number of AWACS and UAVs is far behind.
    1. t-12
      t-12 6 December 2020 06: 33
      0
      Even abstracting from technology. For example, Russia has problems with the military industry. But can aircraft shelters be made? It doesn't take long, does it? And then they stand in the open, waiting for the rocket:
  • rocket757
    rocket757 5 December 2020 11: 50
    0
    How many people, so many opinions ...
    Any system has flaws, bottlenecks, they appear at different times and in different places!
    To analyze the mistakes of the past, so as not to commit such a thing in the future ... the goal is reasonable, but in our situation, not very productive, because the principles, conditions for the appearance of new errors are now very different !!!
    How can I not make new mistakes ??? Here, too, there are a lot of "recipes", but the truth can hide behind the next corner and it is simply not noticed!
    In fact, we will again have to keep our "vigorous loaves" ready and .... REMEMBER that this is not forever!
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze 5 December 2020 12: 35
    +2
    And here is a normal, pleasant article arrived in time. Congratulations to the author.
  • Hello from Baku
    Hello from Baku 5 December 2020 13: 40
    +7
    The lag in microwave electronics of the then USSR predetermined NATO's advantage in aviation and not only. Microelectronics in the USSR lagged behind by a generation and microwave electronics by 2-3 generations. We did not have modern technological equipment, and what was stolen / bought in the West by hook or by crook. For example, we made sital substrates for microwave boards using Dutch equipment.
  • iouris
    iouris 5 December 2020 14: 44
    -2
    All this is the reasoning of the "cold war" period. The country's survival strategy after the assassination of the USSR should consist in uprooting foreign agents from the "head" and other parts of the state's body. Quit all limitation treaties. Demonstrate the readiness of nuclear weapons for use. To warn that in response to the continuation of hostile economic and financial measures, especially to attempts to arrange a "color revolution" by agents of the West, a warning nuclear strike will be delivered against NATO countries (there is a list of countries that you do not mind).
    "Battle in Europe" means the death of the state, country and people.
  • Avior
    Avior 5 December 2020 14: 51
    +2
    ... It is known from the experience of "Desert Storm": due to an error of the AWACS operator, the MiG-25 was able to fly up to American aircraft unnoticed and shoot down the F-15. This was an isolated episode.

    Can anyone tell me which episode is in question?
    Did the Americans admit it?
    I heard their statements that the F-15 was not shot down in aerial combat
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 5 December 2020 15: 29
      +6
      January 30, 1991. Nobody knocked anyone down. It seemed to the operators of the Iraqi radars that it seemed that some plane had fallen somewhere and that the Bedouins, according to stories, were finding wreckage in the desert. No Bedouin or wreckage was seen.
      1. Demagogue
        5 December 2020 16: 52
        -1
        There is a mistake. F-18, not F-15, January 17.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 5 December 2020 18: 17
          +6

          Then right. All that remains of Michael Spiker's F / A-18C. The pilot was killed.
        2. Avior
          Avior 5 December 2020 20: 20
          0
          Clear. I am aware of the f-18
    2. iouris
      iouris 5 December 2020 21: 16
      -2
      There was a case. A flyotenant flew on a MiG-25 and, suddenly, two scouts or a jammer. From the command post he was quickly pointed. Bang bang - and to the point.
  • Iskazi
    Iskazi 5 December 2020 16: 33
    -1
    In some ways, the author is right, and this is a lot, but this is not the past, although the Soviet leadership was preparing for the last war, the main idea of ​​the author is that there are alternative approaches and solutions, but ... about military optimism, no
  • ccsr
    ccsr 5 December 2020 16: 50
    +6
    Author:
    Demagogue
    In the USSR in the 80s, military thought froze at the level of WWII, and tank "wedges" were still considered the main striking force, and aviation was assigned a secondary role. Soviet theorists were still working on a tank "Blitzkrieg" with a throw to the English Channel, and the air defense system was seen as the main means of fighting enemy aircraft. The collapse of air defense systems and tanks in the Lebanon war seemed to them only an annoying accident.

    Excuse the author, but you are talking nonsense, and it immediately became clear to me that you did not know what military thought was, and, accordingly, military doctrine in the 80s of the last century.
    At that time the theory of two wars, which we had to wage simultaneously, prevailed, one with the use of nuclear weapons, and the second with traditional types of weapons. All our armed forces were built for this, where two components were simultaneously improved, which led to ill-considered spending on the army. But the country's top military leadership did not want to accept this, knowing that their whims would be satisfied at the expense of the people, which is why we, along with the Typhoon nuclear submarine, capable of destroying any state in the world within 30 minutes, were simultaneously developing new field bakeries, pipelayers and other dregs, as if we were going to fight for years. Nobody bothered with a blitzkrieg with a throw to the English Channel, because one salvo of the rocket army near Vinnitsa destroyed all the capitals of Europe and left radioactive ash in front of our group of troops in Germany, which the Americans would just as well have destroyed, even if we had time to leave PPD. Everyone who was then in the armed forces in high enough positions already understood everything perfectly, but since Ustinov decided that it was necessary for our military-industrial complex to be loaded to capacity, no one could do anything with him, and many did not want to, knowing how he dealt with Ogarkov. As a result, the country overstrained, and the consequences were catastrophic with the arrival of the talker Gorbachev.
    In general, I will not further tell what is known to those who served at that time, but I will note that the war in Lebanon did not in any way affect the construction of our armed forces - it was the war of the courtyard punks, and we were in the heavyweight combat category. As the saying goes, feel the difference before you put forward your ideas about how the Lebanese war affected our military forces.
    1. Demagogue
      5 December 2020 18: 19
      -7
      With what pomp and aplomb))) there are a lot of words, but it was possible in two words: and we are their yadrenbaton !!
      But the adversary had enough loaves. This is not a Soviet exclusive. Nobody wanted a nuclear war.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 6 December 2020 02: 07
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      Nobody bothered with a blitzkrieg with a throw to the English Channel
      This is exactly what was planned. For two weeks on the glass to the English Channel, the seizure of all ports and fuck the Americans where they will land. No, they can land on the ruins of England, but the radioactivity there will go off scale.
      Quote: ccsr
      because one salvo of the rocket army near Vinnitsa destroyed all the capitals of Europe and left radioactive ash in front of our group of troops in Germany, which the Americans would just as well have destroyed, even if we had time to leave the PPD.
      So what? This is not the end of the war, but the beginning. And tanks can fight in such conditions. But airplanes without airfields are becoming disposable.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 6 December 2020 10: 51
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        This is exactly what was planned. For two weeks on the glass to the English Channel, the seizure of all ports and fuck the Americans where they will land. No, they can land on the ruins of England, but the radioactivity there will go off scale.

        Come on, I took part in all FKShU in the GSVG in the late eighties, and nowhere, even at the level of exercises, did we cross the border of the GDR, but always worked out the tasks of containing the enemy that had broken through into our territory. We really could not know what would happen to the group of troops if the Americans attacked it with their strategic nuclear forces, and they would definitely do it as a priority target. Why attack if we ourselves were rolled into "glass"? And what is the meaning of such an offensive - can you explain it using the example of Chernobyl?
        Quote: bk0010
        So what? This is not the end of the war, but the beginning.

        The beginning and the end of the war would have occurred within one or two hours, and all serious military analysts understood this - the Americans could not send, let alone the fleet, to the shores of Europe, they would not even be able to transfer personnel by air to redeem the stored equipment. What are you talking about, even if you have no idea about the strength of the first nuclear strike by our enemy's strategic nuclear forces and its consequences for small territories, like the German Democratic Republic, where our group was stationed?
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 6 December 2020 13: 08
          0
          Come on, I took part in all FKShU in the GSVG in the late eighties, and nowhere, even at the level of exercises, did we cross the border of the GDR
          We took part a little late, it was already collapse, perestroika, detente.
          Quote: ccsr
          Why attack if we ourselves were rolled into "glass"?
          Those that were brought to the deployment sites.
          Quote: ccsr
          and what is the meaning of such an offensive - can you explain it using the example of Chernobyl?
          The seizure of all major European ports to prevent the landing of the US expeditionary forces there, the organization of jump airfields in Western Europe to increase the range of our aviation on the US Navy and US transports bound for Europe.
          Quote: ccsr
          the Americans would not be able to send not only the fleet to the shores of Europe, they would not even be able to transfer personnel by air to reactivate the stored equipment
          Who would stop them if they sit idly by?
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 6 December 2020 14: 42
            +2
            Quote: bk0010
            We took part a little late, it was already collapse, perestroika, detente.

            No, this is not so - in 1988, the GSVG was never as strong as ever, and even tactical nuclear weapons were not withdrawn, and all exercises, supplies of weapons and equipment went according to plan.
            Quote: bk0010
            Those that were brought to the deployment sites.

            Not everything was so simple then, considering that even the covering tank regiments, according to the standard, only after 45 minutes in the summer came out of the PPD, and I'm not even talking about the rest of the structures, it took more time there.
            Quote: bk0010
            The seizure of all major European ports to prevent the landing of the US expeditionary forces there, the organization of jump airfields in Western Europe to increase the range of our aviation on the US Navy and US transports bound for Europe.

            I think that this is more from the realm of fantasy than real events after the ports themselves, both sea and air, will no longer be on the territory of the United States.
            Quote: bk0010
            Who would stop them if they sit idly by?

            The fact is that such events in themselves bear an unmasking sign, and could cause a completely different reaction from our top leadership in peacetime. This is what the Americans have always remembered, it was not for nothing that after 1963 they created a "hot line" with us.
  • cdrt
    cdrt 5 December 2020 16: 51
    +7
    Such authors should be directed to read the annual collections of the ZVO of those years :-))))
    About the fact that tactical nuclear weapons were considered as an organic element of the battle, moreover, by both sides, about the fact that the advancing CYNER troops had to follow in extremely dismembered orders, about strikes on airfields directly at one o'clock, minute m, about the same strikes on everything that at least remotely revealed we are like a control point, etc., and so on. about the fact that in the 80s NATO did not see any other way to stop the ice rink, except to switch to nuclear escalation with strikes on cities. But ... Nick himself speaks of the meaninglessness of this exercise. Piu-piu, vigil, vigil. The game was won by the one with the best units
    1. Demagogue
      5 December 2020 17: 04
      -7
      If I had read the article carefully, I would have found this information.
      But we're smart. We read the first paragraph and then we criticize.

      Nuclear war is an ashes in Europe, it is even useless to consider.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 5 December 2020 17: 06
        +1
        “For the sake of convenience of further constructions, we deduce the most significant factors from consideration and jump on” well, quite the way, yes. From only the "ashes" it would be worth reading about the escalation levels, the views of both sides of that time, and so on. I repeat, the ZVO is straight with annual filings of the year from 80 to 89 would give an unprecedented layer of knowledge in comparison with the existing one :-)))))
        1. Demagogue
          5 December 2020 17: 09
          -4
          In general, did you read the first paragraph carefully? The article is not about nuclear war, but about the management of aviation using the example of a hypothetical conflict. Here Gorbachev took and began to escalate at 89))) selections))
          1. cdrt
            cdrt 5 December 2020 17: 16
            +2
            Damn, read what a "nuclear war" is, and there were no such terms either in our or in NATO planning.
            A nuclear strike with a tactical ammunition of the required power in an AWACS patrol area with detonation at a high altitude at the time of an attack on it by a fighter regiment is this a nuclear war or not? And for this there are appropriate terms, definitions, planning rules, etc. The use of nuclear weapons by both us and NATO was seen as an NECESSARY element of database management at the tactical level, and both sides considered it until the end of the 80s as an opportunity that did not lead to a nuclear apocalypse on a global scale ...
            And moreover, until now the NATO-Russia clash necessarily includes TNW :-))))) but in toys this is rarely taken into account
            1. Demagogue
              5 December 2020 17: 24
              -5
              For the hundredth time. It's about aviation. Both sides could use yao. This factor is absent in the script.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 5 December 2020 18: 39
            -1
            Quote: Demagogue
            The article is not about nuclear war, but about the management of aviation using the example of a hypothetical conflict.

            And the army is not preparing for hypothetical conflicts, but for a real war, based on the operational situation in any theater of operations. So all the hints of the Lebanese war are not worth a damn. As for the modern confrontation, there can be no talk of tactical nuclear weapons - we will definitely strike with strategic nuclear forces, if only the preparation of the United States to deliver any missile strike at us is revealed, or a massive upsurge of US strategic aviation with suspended missile forces occurs. It cannot be otherwise - calm down with these AWACS, this is all yesterday, because this technique is needed for local wars with a weak adversary that cannot withstand the United States or Russia. Why should we manage aviation, if the main thing is that strategic bombers take off with ammunition and a one-way flight mission, though with the hope that they may return and even land at an alternate airfield, since the main one will no longer be. This is a real situation for our Armed Forces, and those who are versed in military affairs understand this very well and do not create illusions about a future war.
            1. Demagogue
              5 December 2020 18: 46
              -3
              What a perfect nonsense. At the kindergarten level. The whole world is in dust)))
            2. zwlad
              zwlad 5 December 2020 20: 34
              +1
              100% support.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Charik
    Charik 5 December 2020 19: 32
    +2
    The American Tomahawk missile system could stably hit the shelters, which the USSR had no analogue --- S-10 "Granat" - a sea-based missile system, adopted in 1984.
    RK-55 "Relief" is a mobile ground missile system, created since 1983 in response to the deployment in Europe of American ground-based GLCM cruise missiles ("Tomahawk"). Before the signing of the INF Treaty, they had time to start trial operation in a unit of the USSR Armed Forces in Jelgava.
  • borys
    borys 5 December 2020 20: 08
    +3
    I wonder where the author got the figure 40 of the produced A-50s?
    This alone speaks of his level of knowledge of the topic.
    1. huntsman650
      huntsman650 6 December 2020 00: 25
      0
      Yes, I think we would have had them right off the bat.
    2. Demagogue
      6 December 2020 18: 09
      -1
      I wonder where the author got the figure 40 of the produced A-50s?
      This alone speaks of his level of knowledge of the topic.


      Another victim of the Google ban? The most important thing is pooping in our palm and throwing ourselves at the author, but we don't give our numbers.
  • zwlad
    zwlad 5 December 2020 20: 32
    0
    The author missed one important point. The USSR was not preparing for a local war in Europe. If the war began, then in Europe, few would have had time to take off, and if they had time, then there would be nowhere to return. And tanks would have driven across the radioactive desert to the English Channel. Airplanes in that sky would have nothing to do.
    1. Demagogue
      6 December 2020 18: 11
      0
      With nuclear weapons, all of Europe would be a desert. It is now Internet wrestlers who swagger and shout that it is necessary to apply yao just a little. The USSR was frightened of such a performance as the devil with incense.
      1. zwlad
        zwlad 6 December 2020 21: 49
        0
        You are wrong. All of Eurasia and North America would be a nuclear desert. And the states were afraid of this and therefore agreed to the START treaties.
        It was for this reason that we did not have so many attack aircraft. The number that was to clean up the remnants would have been more than enough. And the emphasis on fighters was to prevent the adversary from nuclear missiles.
  • pytar
    pytar 5 December 2020 22: 21
    -1
    Devastating Statue! The author was not afraid to analyze impartially all aspects of the real state of things! The article will not appeal to urya-partiots, but for the rest it is very interesting! hi
  • 123456789
    123456789 5 December 2020 23: 54
    0
    "History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood." This means that history went the way it went, and everything else is unfounded speculation.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 6 December 2020 10: 08
    0
    More interesting is the author's statement about copying amerov planes
    "The success story of the MiG-21 in Vietnam was not developed and was put into production the under-phantom MiG-23. Then the USSR rushed to create analogues of the maneuverable American aircraft of the 4th generation, the Su-27 and MiG-29."

    Everywhere they write that ours! and for him - they created analogs of amerovsky.
    Is it true?
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 6 December 2020 13: 20
      +3
      Quote: Alex2000
      Everywhere they write that ours! and for him - they created analogs of amerovsky.
      Is it true?
      He himself writes that our fighter and strike aircraft are different machines, but the NATO members are the same (he writes incorrectly, it turns out that the F-15 and F-15E are one and the same, although this is not so), but neither less, the trend was. So what are the analogues? Our answers were yes. So the Su-24 is the answer to the F-111. But not a copy. By the way, the F-111 was very suitable for the author's ideas (they were going to make a line from an interceptor to a strategic bomber out of it, but they left only a bomber).
    2. Demagogue
      6 December 2020 19: 21
      0
      My fault, ambiguously formulated. Of course, there was no direct copying of the Phantom. The impact of the concept was undeniable.
  • Ngauro
    Ngauro 6 December 2020 13: 29
    +1
    Quote: Demagogue
    Yes, they helped, without him it would still be worse


    But nothing. Most of the Germans were helped by trophies. The army of Ingushetia did not surrender by the millions, but fought.
    How much worse could it be ?? Millions of prisoners in the first months. The adversary was traveling faster than in western Poland at 39m.

    And why didn't they slow down? They held the front. We didn't run. They retreated with battles.

    You distort on losses. Then the repression and WWII count. It is believed that the war was one world war, with a break.

    In the First World War, to the Germans, she lost almost all the battles where the Germans took part. and for the Germans, the eastern front was secondary. WWI was not maneuverable, there were no special breakthroughs and boilers. Where a large number of prisoners come from.
  • cdrt
    cdrt 6 December 2020 13: 33
    +1
    Curiously, 500-600 Sud-24 / 24M pieces fell out of consideration for the author. It would seem that an unprofitable flight in the bend mode is an innate feature, but for the consistency of the idea "th scoop was boiling in shit", I had to remember them once and then start jumping in general words, no longer touching them.

    One thing can be said, a half-truth with a conscious suppression of inconvenient facts, namely, we observe it in this case, is a lie.
    1. Demagogue
      6 December 2020 18: 04
      -2
      Read it carefully again. Nothing dropped out. Calculated with daytime tactical aircraft.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 6 December 2020 14: 51
    0
    the Swedes brought it to life back in the 70s, creating the Yak-37 (JA 37 Viggen). This is a big topic that will be covered in a separate article.


    We are waiting.
  • Hexenmeister
    Hexenmeister 7 December 2020 15: 19
    +1
    There is no reliable public information on the “look down” mode for the E-3 and A-50. For this, the pulse-Doppler mode was used and advanced computers were needed to filter targets from the ground.

    No advanced computers are needed for these purposes, and detection against the background of the underlying surface occurs due to a coherent signal, which forms the basis of this very "pulse-Doppler mode".
    On paper, everything is fine, but in practice problems began due to the lag in electronics. The MiG-31 was equipped with the best Soviet Zaslon radar. An analog system weighing 1 ton, which had to match the AWG-9 parameters, the analog F-14 radar. But in fact, before the modernization, it was inferior to it and was heavier by 350 kg.

    Oh, these analysts ... the radar from the MiG-31 cannot be classified as analog, although where can analysts find out about its features, if they are still not on the Internet. And if we compare it with the F-14 radar, then why did you not mention the "restrictions on the attack of several targets" inherent in it, and which are not on the Zaslon due to the use of PAR. So to compare by weight it is insanity.
    For comparison, the digital radar F-15E, APG-70, weighed 4 times less than the "Zaslon". With a similar detection range in the "look up" mode (in the "look down" mode, the APG-70 had a range of 135 km, unattainable for analog electronics).

    Again fairy tales, she did not have such a range, and this is already 90 years.
    The Su-27 was originally supposed to receive an airborne radar similar in parameters to the Zaslon, only in a more compact version. But in the USSR, the necessary miniaturization was not achieved.

    Again past the money, the Su-27 was originally created a system that attacks only one target, and the multipurpose Zaslon could not be its counterpart. Only again you forgot to tell that initially a much more advanced antenna was developed for the Su-27 than was on the F-15, this is in terms of backwardness.
    The analog system could not overcome the serious electronic warfare.

    You might think that someone will be able to overcome this, only deceive, and even then not always ...
    NATO for the attack on the A-50, in addition to Phoenix, could use Sparrow AIM-7M missiles with a launch range of up to 70 km and an efficiency of 0.68

    Here you are, hell in a tomato, and someone here wrote that the Americans complained that the real launch range of the AIM-7 is slightly greater than that of the AIM-9.
    The radar of the newest F-15E was able to overcome the Soviet electronic warfare

    Blessed is he who believes.
    In LPI mode, the target is scanned with weak pulses at different frequencies.

    If this is the case, then this signal has a weak energy, and a high detection range cannot be realized on it. For those who understand this, no campaign of false criticism for the purpose of disinformation is needed.
  • Konstantin Pekhlivanov
    Konstantin Pekhlivanov 7 December 2020 15: 41
    0
    I read it with pleasure, thanks! Just small notes:
    - Tornado IDS is not multi-purpose in any way. Nobody ever noticed RVV SD (I think that I have not seen RVV MD either). Tornado ADV is also not multipurpose
    - F-15A and C are not very multipurpose. Yes, I have seen photographs from surface-to-air (unguided), but very rarely. It was built singing "no pound for air-to-ground". (a notable exception is Operation Hel Haavir's Wooden Leg, but I have no details there)
    - The MiG-27 turned out well in my opinion. It was a kind of TMV consumable. On the other side is the SEPECAT Jaguar. Where did you get the idea that Afghanistan has failed? That's why the MiG-27 and Su-17 were built at the same time, I never understood.
    - In the mid-80s, most F-16s were Block 15, they were considered day fighters.
    - director guidance without radio communications was still on the MiG-21, on the MiG-23 it was positive

    As for the lag in communication, ACCS, overestimation of the role of the air defense system - I agree. Thanks again!
  • certero
    certero 7 December 2020 18: 55
    0
    At this point, the Union was undoubtedly behind in the digitalization of aviation. But the situation is never static. For example, when, in the late sixties and early seventies, the Soviet fleet had missile weapons at my disposal, I literally targeted all American ships, we had superiority. And then the Americans got rid of the ships and we began to lag behind again.
    So I'm sure the Union exists further and, having overcome the crises, it would catch up with the West in electronics, at least in military
    1. onstar9
      onstar9 12 December 2020 06: 05
      -1
      Well, that is why the USSR failed, because it could not continue to exist economically. And therefore, even if it had survived, it would not have been able to "catch up" with anyone ...
  • Pamir
    Pamir 7 December 2020 23: 29
    -2
    Everything would be fine, but the author did not indicate in the article an additional measure of influence on NATO aviation, and missiles, these are electronic warfare units of the Russian Federation. And in the USSR there was a serious attitude towards this type of weapon. But in general, in modern war, electronic warfare systems solve such problems as the fight against the enemy's anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense, its aviation, UAVs, artillery, communication and control systems, disruption of communications, suppression of remote explosive devices, etc.
    Russia is one of the recognized world leaders in the production of electronic warfare equipment. It is no coincidence that even the American military admits that it is very difficult to resist Russian electronic warfare. Prominent Americans, for example, admit that the United States has forgotten the basic lessons of electronic warfare and this oversight can be very costly for the American armed forces. After all, Russia, meanwhile, is improving its electronic warfare systems. And the Russian Federation has many new types of electronic warfare, for example, the EW Complex "Divnomorye"; Complex 1L262 "Rtut-BM"; EW "Palantin"; EW "Krasukha-4" 2; REPS "Tirada- 2C "; EW" Borisoglebsk-2 ". If it were that simple, but the battle of aviation with aviation and air defense systems does not exclude the participation of additional weapons at all. For example, electronic warfare. complex.
  • Pamir
    Pamir 7 December 2020 23: 40
    -1
    Electronics has one significant nuance, weak resistance to electronic warfare, and the capabilities of air defense systems are already increasing.
  • Pamir
    Pamir 7 December 2020 23: 48
    -1
    I indicated only ground-based electronic warfare, but there are also built-in gliders.
  • Pamir
    Pamir 7 December 2020 23: 52
    -1
    Well, the ship's means of electronic warfare also exist.
  • yaglon
    yaglon 10 December 2020 19: 56
    0
    What a great article. A very good, objective military-strategic overview on a very interesting topic - the balance of power between NATO and the ATS in the 1980s. There were a lot of such articles in the Western Military District at the same time, which, however, is understandable - the secrecy regime was then not childish. I look forward to such articles from the author, it will be very interesting to read them and comments too.
  • onstar9
    onstar9 12 December 2020 05: 38
    0
    Really unclear why all these "fights"? Huge armada of planes, missiles, all these AWACS, air defense, missiles of the USSR, NATO ... against each other .... For what? Kill each other ... and hurry up? At normal times, everyone goes to visit each other, everyone talks perfectly .... They buy Mercedes and gas from each other. Who wants to fight? Merkel wants to take over Russia? Or does Putin want to take over Germany? For what? So that then there "Niva" to release, instead of "Mercedes"?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.