Military Review

Will AWACS aircraft survive?

227

We are accustomed to the fact that a war in the air without AWACS aircraft is impossible. But in the future, everything may change. Source: aviation21.ru


It is a fact that early warning and control aircraft (AWACS, hereinafter referred to as AWACS) are a necessary component of the struggle for air supremacy and multiply the effectiveness of fighter actions. aviation against enemy aircraft. In those wars, where one side had such planes, and the other did not, the war in the air turned into beating the blind with the sighted.

At the moment, such equipment is massively in service with Western countries, including the United States, and their allies. China is engaged in the creation of such aircraft. Russia is among the outsiders here. In our country, there are almost no AWACS aircraft left. There are fewer of them than, for example, in Japan. Of the nine A-50s, only 5 have undergone modernization, the new A-100 is being born in agony, and its prospects are not clear.


A-100 "Premier". Photo: russianplanes.net

The enumeration of the benefits that the availability of AWACS aircraft gives is, most likely, redundant. It is worth mentioning, however, some disadvantages.

Typically, such machines are created on the basis of passenger or transport aircraft (or unified with those). This is not due to the fact that the complex of onboard equipment is too large - it is often quite possible to minimize it.

This is due to the fact that such an aircraft must perform airspace control tasks. So, he needs to have a lot of patrol time. And therefore it has to be created on the appropriate "platform". An example - the Americans could well create a very high-speed transonic AWACS aircraft in the dimensions of the same A-3 Skywarrier. But they created it as a turboprop and low-speed, with a long wing. The reason lies precisely in the economy of such a scheme, which makes it possible to patrol for a long time.

But the price of this is low speed and the need to ensure safety from enemy fighter aircraft. Once one-on-one with a fighter, such an aircraft is doomed - even if its jamming systems withdraw all the missiles, it will be shot from a cannon.

This fact should always be taken into account when choosing the distances between your fighters and the AWACS aircraft, and between it and the supposed line at which the fighters will meet the enemy.

Usually, a combination of large forces of fighter aircraft and competent planning of operations is enough to secure your AWACS aircraft, especially after the weakest enemy. But let's ask ourselves a question - what if fighters have the opportunity to attack an AWACS aircraft from a relatively safe distance? Not breaking through, in the style of Tom Clancy's "Red Storm" to the AWACS aircraft, losing one regiment after another, but simply from a distance of hundreds of kilometers, launching an ultra-long-range air-to-air missile at it?

The survival of large and slow-moving aircraft in this case will depend only on their complex of interference. But it is well known that no passive defense systems provide a complete guarantee of security. It is most likely that it will not be possible to protect the aircraft (if the creators of the attacking missile have worked on the jamming immunity of the seeker).

For a long time, this was pure theory. Even the Soviet P-33 was poorly suited here, its maximum range was approximately equal to the distance to the target, which there were some chances to reach with a massive attack. And with losses. We needed missiles with an even greater range. And today they have practically become a fait accompli, which gives opportunities that were not there before.

Could the appearance of ultra-long-range missiles put an end to the concept of a traditional AWACS aircraft? How to provide awareness of fighter aircraft instead of traditional AWACS aircraft? What is needed to destroy an AWACS aircraft with a fighter, besides missiles?

Try to understand.

The first term is rockets


The first missile, which theoretically was supposed to provide the ability to fight against AWACS aircraft, was supposed to be another Soviet development, known today as the R-37. Its development began back in the 80s, and even under the USSR, the first launches began.

The collapse of the USSR significantly slowed down the work on the rocket. But nevertheless, back in the 90s, it already hit targets at a 300-kilometer range. Subsequently, the rocket was redesigned into a new version of the R-37M or RVV-BD. Today, its maximum range, according to open sources, reaches 398 kilometers. For a long time, these missiles were not supplied to the Russian Aerospace Forces, which caused bewilderment. Since what country, and ours - definitely need a "long arm" in the air will always be.


R-37M. Photo: vitaliykuzmin.net

But some time ago, photographs of such missiles began to appear under the wing of the MiG-31. And at the end of 2020, the Ministry of Defense showed a video of the launch of such a missile from a Su-35 fighter. Now we can only hope that the Ministry of Defense will provide decent launch statistics. The small number of missile launches has always been the Achilles heel of our aviation. I would like this problem to be fixed after all.

Will AWACS aircraft survive?
Launch of R-37M with Su-35S. Source: mil.ru

This is not the only version of a rocket capable of reaching an AWACS aircraft. For a long time, the Novator Design Bureau has been developing the ultra-long-range rocket KS-172. This rocket at one time thundered in the media precisely as an "AWACS killer". I must say that its characteristics fully corresponded to this definition - the missile could destroy a target from a range of more than four hundred kilometers. The rocket was developed, passed all preliminary tests and, in principle, was ready for state tests. And if they are successful (almost guaranteed due to the depth of product development) - for adoption. But after that the project was stopped.

Information about the reasons for its stopping in open sources is different: from "organizational reasons" to the desire of the Aerospace Forces to have the R-37M with the same range. While the fate of the rocket is unclear. But the fact that our VKS also have this option as a backup is a fact. For now, at least.


KS-172 in the last version, with export markings. Source: missilery.info

Russia is not the only country that is working on such weapons... Besides us, China is actively engaged in these missiles. China began work on its ultra-long-range air-to-air missile much later than Russia. But, like us, it already has it in the series. And PLA Air Force planes have already been seen with this rocket on a suspension many times. This is a product that Western sources refer to as PL-15.

This missile entered service (as reported in the media) in 2016. That is, the Chinese have bypassed us in terms of the timing of the arrival of ultra-long-range missiles. But so far they are inferior in tactical and technical characteristics. If our R-37M has a range of up to 389 km and a speed of up to M = 6, then the Chinese one has 350 kilometers and a "four-speed" one.


PL-15 under the wing of a J-16 fighter

Nevertheless end-to-end.

But these parameters may be enough for a large group of fighters, even with losses, to reach the AWACS aircraft. At the same time, China is developing a new, longer-range and high-speed missile PL-21. There is reason to believe that very soon she will also be in the ranks. In any case, her tests are already underway, as they say, with might and main.

Naturally, the USA should also be mentioned. For a long time it was their missile - AIM-54 "Phoenix" that was the champion among long-range missiles. Although, by modern standards, the rocket, as they say, is not impressive. Obviously, the scientific, technical and industrial potential of the United States has made it possible to create a killer missile for AWACS aircraft for a long time. But the opponents of the United States with such aircraft were seriously strained.

For the USSR and Russia, and then for China, the American Hawkeye and Sentry were like a bone in the throat. For a long time, the United States did not face such a problem - the A-50 in terms of the performance characteristics of its radar complex did not even reach the deck-based Hawaiian, and there were not many of them. China, on the other hand, had only rather poor experiments.

Today the situation has changed.

China is actively developing its air force. And we should expect that by the time of a hypothetical collision with the United States, it will have a lot of AWACS aircraft. In an acute form, the need to have long-range missiles can get up at sea - on the third Chinese aircraft carrier, which has catapults, AWACS KJ-600 aircraft can also be based. Taking into account the high-quality AFAR radars on Chinese fighters, their combination with AWACS aircraft turns out to be very dangerous. This means that the destruction of Chinese "flying radars" is becoming a necessity, otherwise China will have an advantage in air combat, not the United States.


Chinese carrier-based AWACS aircraft KJ-600 for the future ejection aircraft carrier "003". He's already flying.

Thus, the development of China's military power also made the Americans puzzled by the destruction of air targets at long range. Since the US Air Force and the US Navy are independent of each other, development proceeded along two paths at once.

The Air Force, "under whose wing" periodically launched, achieved success and "killed" various versions of ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles, are now developing the next iteration of this undertaking - the AIM-260, with a speed of 5 M and a range of 200 kilometers. I must say that the range is too small. But, on the one hand, the Americans have simpler opponents. On the other hand, the United States can almost always guarantee itself a superiority in numbers: either over us or over the Chinese. And therefore they will be able to get to our A-50 and 100 and Chinese KJs due to the "head-on assault". Just breaking through to them, despite the attacks of our or Chinese fighters, not really worrying about losses (whatever they may be, the numerical superiority will still remain considerable).

In addition, an even more serious missile is being developed for the Air Force - the Long-Range Engagement Weapon (LREW). Translated - a weapon for long-range attack, which will have an even greater range of target destruction.

The Navy went the other way.

For all their enormous financial capabilities, Americans know how to save money. The fleet relied on ... the adaptation of the ship's anti-aircraft missile SM-6 for launch from an aircraft. The Americans kill many birds with one stone at once with this missile - unification with missile defense systems for ships, savings on training technicians, a good missile for striking surface targets (SM-6 is very lethal in this capacity), with a speed of much more than three "sounds" (from an airplane, probably , will be under four) and small size, making it difficult to intercept. And yes - an ultra-long-range missile for intercepting air targets - all in one.

The tests of this rocket are already underway, the results, in general, are encouraging. Naturally, we are talking about special modification. But it is basically unified with a purely naval missile. The flight range of the SM-6, even when launched from a ship, is significantly higher than 200 kilometers. And if it is launched from an airplane and in conditions when it has an initial speed of many hundreds of kilometers per hour and there is no need to spend fuel to climb? We can safely assume that this rocket will fly far enough to talk about the destruction of the AWACS aircraft.


Rocket RIM-174 or SM-6 under the wing of the US Navy F / A-18F. Source: Michael Grove

Thus, we can safely say that the missiles necessary to "knock down" a slow and clumsy AWACS aircraft at a sufficiently long range, or the main players already have, or will soon appear.

Of course, there are nuances here.

For example, Russia is chronically unable to properly master even mass-produced weapons. In the United States, serious military programs often turn into various types of "sawmills". And the Chinese can fall short in performance characteristics and hide it. But all these moments are in any case correctable, if there is an awareness of the problem and the desire to eliminate it. This means that the fact that all "high negotiating parties" have a long arm can be considered reliable.

What else do you need in order to successfully deal with the E-3 or A-100?

Carrier


Rockets are launched from airplanes. And in order to get an AWACS aircraft defended by fighter aircraft, you need an aircraft that meets specific requirements.

Let's consider it on the example of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Having stipulated at the same time that other air forces of the world will be able to acquire similar capabilities in one way or another.

First of all, such an aircraft must have a very good, powerful radar. If we talk about Russia, so far the only serial radar that can be approached with such epithets is the N035 Irbis radar. Its disadvantage is the architecture - it is a radar with a passive phased antenna array, which makes it very noticeable in the radar range and requires a lot of electricity. Everything else is a plus. This radar with a huge radiation power is precisely capable of detecting an AWACS aircraft at a distance that allows it to be attacked, that is, somewhere around 400 kilometers. At the same time, it has a high resistance to interference.

Thus, we need to "merge" in one aircraft the possibility of using the R-37M and the powerful Irbis radar.

What other qualities should this plane have? Good range and the ability to quickly "rush" to the target. Do we have such a plane? Yes, this is the MiG-31. Alas, its modernization according to the truncated version of "BM" with the revision of the old radar "Zaslon" (developed by JSC "NIIP" of the 70s, serial plant - JSC "Zaslon"), which ultimately led to extremely, so to speak, contradictory results of the program MiG-31BM. But the technical possibility of normal human modernization of these interceptors is there.

What is the main quality of the MiG-31 in the context of the destruction of AWACS aircraft? In a combination of a powerful radar (so far in relation to the "Irbis" - hypothetically), a large number of long-range missiles and at the same time - high speed. Whatever one may say, but to enter the zone in which the enemy directed from the AWACS aircraft will be able to launch missiles at our fighters will have to in any case. The MiG's speed somewhat minimizes the time that the enemy has to organize his attack, which, we recall, must be carried out before the launch of the R-37M. It also makes it possible (in some cases - not always) to simply preempt the enemy with access to the launch line and then break away from him. The flight range and combat radius of the MiG-31 are large, there is a system for refueling in flight. In general, the chances are very good.


MiG-31 is an almost ready-made AWACS killer. You just need to replace the radar. Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

The MiG-31 may well become the "AWACS killer", it has everything for this. Of course, additional modernization is needed, you need to work out the implementation of such a task in exercises, you need to regularly shoot missiles at combat targets in order to know both their real performance characteristics and the real level of reliability. But we have the main thing.

A few words about partners and "partners".

If we minimize the time during which enemies can attack our MiG-31 with high speed, then the enemy of the United States and China can take advantage of stealth - the J-20 and F-22, as well as the J-31 and F-35, have reduced radar signature. , whatever and whoever thinks about it. Thus, if we fly fast, then they are detected late - the same result is achieved in a different way. China manufactures world-class AFAR radars. This country has already outstripped Russia in this area. And the United States has always been the world leaders in radar, so they will have radar with the necessary performance characteristics in any case.

We have to admit that AWACS aircraft in the next war between more or less developed opponents will become not only an “all-seeing eye”, but also an object for very strong attacks, which will be very difficult for them to survive. For this, all the components are ready, it remains to grow them together.

And this is already clear to many. A simple example - the Indian Navy does not finally break with the MiG, because they hope (they were very interested in the KS-172 in the 2000s, and in the recently published requirements of the Indian Air Force, the long-range missile defense system laid down the characteristics, in fact, of the KS-172) when- then get a plus to these aircraft and ultra-long-range missiles. This is not the only reason, but it is. The Indians, who have all aircraft carriers (both existing and under construction) springboards, understand that no AWACS aircraft will shine for them. But after all, inequality of opportunities can be eliminated not only by increasing one's own, but also by decreasing others? India does not have its own carrier-based AWACS aircraft, but it may be able to make it so that the enemy will be left without them.

This simple logic is applicable not only (and not even so much) to India.

Alternative Methods


It is necessary to ask yourself the question now - how can you do without AWACS aircraft in conditions when they cannot be used?

This is all the more relevant for Russia. Because we have fewer of these aircraft in the ranks than fingers on two hands. And one more on endless tests and improvements. As in the case of India, our only aircraft carrier is a springboard. And a full-fledged AWACS aircraft will never fly from it.

Is there a way out?

Let's just say - there are some options that are either already being worked out, or may be in it very quickly.

Option 1. Special reconnaissance equipment on aircraft. An example here is just given by our "Kuznetsov". Specially for him in the 2010s, universal reconnaissance containers were developed and adopted in 2015: UK-RT container complex for radio-technical reconnaissance, UK-RL - long-range container radar with an active phased antenna array, UKR-EO - electro-optical intelligence service.

Each of the containers can be suspended under the aircraft (on Kuznetsov under the Su-33, in parts of the Aerospace Forces on any Su aircraft), as a result of which the three aircraft will even slightly surpass the AWACS aircraft in their reconnaissance capabilities. The disadvantages of the solution are the impossibility of targeting fighter aircraft without a ship or ground command post. Nevertheless, in conditions where "either this way or not", this decision will be quite appropriate. Especially if the enemy AWACS aircraft can be destroyed. As for the vulnerability of the communication between the aircraft and the command post, the Americans many times, and the Turks in Karabakh clearly showed us that the radio channel can be “hidden” within a very wide range, with a constant change of frequencies. And so that no radio intelligence and no electronic warfare will reach.


Su-34 takes off with an overhead container UK-RL. Inside - a radar with several antenna panels with AFAR. Source: airliners.net

Option 2... From the overhead containers, you can take the next step - an airplane to illuminate the radar situation in a glider, unified with a fighter. We are talking about the following.

Here you need to make a reservation. One crew member severely limits the ability to control a group of aircraft. The Su-30SM has two crew members, but the Bars radar with significantly more modest capabilities (inferior to modern Western aviation radars).

Undoubtedly, the right decision was made to deeply modernize the Su-30SM "for the Irbis". However, even with it, the problem of ergonomics remains in the organization of information interaction "operator - airborne radar" when solving an extremely complex task of air combat control. And in this case, the cockpit has many great possibilities, where the crew members sit side by side, shoulder to shoulder. This was implemented on the Su-34 fighter-bomber (largely thanks to this layout, it provided for and ensured the solution of very difficult anti-submarine missions for operators) and on, perhaps, the most underestimated, but promising aircraft of the Su-33KUB line.

The possibility of installing a very powerful radar and ensuring the effective work of operators when solving air combat control problems raises the question of resuscitating the Su-33KUB backlog (including when solving problems over the ground as a multipurpose tactical AWACS aircraft).

Imagine a carrier-based aircraft similar to the Su-33UB (KUB), but with a powerful Irbis radar in the nose cone, with additional radar blades in the edges of the wings, in a suspended gondola-container, on the fuselage from above, in the tail. If we assume that the crew of the aircraft is freed from the need to fight, and all the antennas work in a single complex, then such a machine may well provide illumination of the situation no worse than any AWACS aircraft.

Also, the question arises of the management of aviation forces. Apparently, it can be solved by means of automation directly on board this aircraft. As a last resort, you can additionally develop a special command aircraft. Such an aircraft, unlike conventional AWACS aircraft, will not hover over a given area for many hours. It will operate in conjunction with fighter and reconnaissance aircraft. It will certainly have disadvantages in comparison with a normal AWACS aircraft, but it will be able to survive in conditions when the enemy uses ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles. In addition, the production of such aircraft can be carried out at about the same pace as the Su-35 or Su-34, that is, it will be a mass aircraft.


Su-27KUB, aka Su-33UB, aka Su-33KUB. One of the planes that did not go into production, but its groundwork can be used with great benefit. The aircraft has a characteristic landing of the crew members - shoulder to shoulder. Drawings by Andrey Zhirnov

For the Aerospace Forces, it is possible to develop such an aircraft based on the Su-33KUB, making a ground modification partially unified with the ship (deck) aircraft.

Option 3... "Piercer" / Penetrator. In an interesting way, both the United States and Russia are now investing in this somewhat fantastic option. Just differently. The bottom line is as follows.

A combat vehicle is being created, the task of which, relying on stealth, is to quickly "slip" into the airspace, where enemy aviation is operating here and now. And from there, at their own expense, provide target designation for air-to-air missiles suspended on fighters that are too far away to detect targets with their radars. Or simply hiding from the enemy, not including their radars.

Such an aircraft will be able to "expand the radar field" of the aviation group in the air instead of the AWACS aircraft. Being "caught" by enemy aircraft, he will be able to fight himself. Of course, such an aircraft will have limited capabilities for "highlighting" targets in the air compared to an AWACS aircraft, but many such machines can be made. And to throw a lot into battle.

In the United States, according to this scheme, they plan to use the Penetrator counter air - PAC, an inconspicuous reconnaissance and strike aircraft, which is now being created under the Next Generation Air Domination (NGAD) program. This program is described in the article "The United States is preparing a breakthrough in the creation of combat aviation".

Russia followed the same path, but in a different way. Our future apparatus of this purpose, which should act in the same way as an American plane, is being created unmanned. We are talking about the UAV S-70 "Okhotnik". We read old news about this drone:

The drone made a flight in an automated mode in full configuration with access to the duty zone. The Ministry of Defense explained that during the event, the interaction between the drone and the Su-57 was worked out to expand the fighter's radar field and target designation for the use of aviation weapons.

Obviously, this is it.

The problem here is that for effective use such a machine must be able to think for itself. No quotes. In order for the "Hunter" to fully perform its tasks, it must be controlled by an artificial intelligence capable of waging a battle on its own. It is unclear how far our specialists have progressed in this matter. The problem, on the one hand, can be solved even with the electronics available to us. On the other hand, it is still very complex.

You can read about the "Hunter" and artificial intelligence in war in the article "Russia and the United States are crossing the most important milestone in the development of military robots".

Time will tell what we get out of this in the end. For the time being, it should be admitted that Okhotnik is one of the most important military programs in Russia. And every effort must be made to ensure that it ends in success.


S-70 “Hunter and Su-57 in joint flight. The future may come faster than we think - even in our country. Photo: cezarium.com

And at the same time, you need to have backup options in case it ends in failure. Which ones are described above. However, a high-speed aircraft for illuminating the radar situation can be made together with the "Okhotnik", it certainly will not be superfluous.

Findings for the future


It is impossible to predict the future reliably. But the fact that clouds are gathering over the traditional AWACS aircraft is a fact. In the developed countries of the world, weapons are being created that can seriously limit the applicability of AWACS aircraft in real military operations, up to turning them into a means of peacetime and controlling aviation in the rear. To what extent all this is being implemented in practice is an open question, but the processes are already underway.

At the same time, means are being created that, on the one hand, have the necessary survivability in a war, and on the other hand, they can partially replace traditional AWACS.

In such conditions, Russia, which is experiencing huge problems with the production of such equipment, might it be worth moving in an alternative direction? Moreover, we have R-37s, reconnaissance containers, and Su-planes? And maybe even with the "Hunter" in the end it will still work out?

Of course, since AWACS planes will not disappear at all, there is no need to close this direction at all. But you can make it so that the delay from the A-100 will lose the negative meaning that it has now.

We should seriously think about this.
Author:
227 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. YOUR
    YOUR April 26 2021 04: 56
    +9
    The first AWACS aircraft we have is the Tu-126, at the present time it has been removed from service, and only after the A-50
    The target detection range of the AWACS aircraft is about 400 km. It is practically impossible to expect such aircraft to raid deep into enemy territory. It will hang out from the demarcation line in a couple of hundred kilometers and how to take it, and even escort fighters and in the area of ​​the covered ground air defense. Naturally, there will be attempts. But their execution is a big question.
    One of the ways to destroy such a target is an anti-aircraft missile system with semi-active homing, target illumination is mandatory, but in the case of an AWACS or jammer, there is an option when the anti-aircraft missile defense system will be guided to the river. location signal from the aircraft. But this is the same from the series maybe.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek April 26 2021 09: 20
      +4
      And nevertheless, it is necessary to exercise control of the airspace ... to build a defense against the CD, AWACS now control not only the air, but also the situation on the ground. Antennas with AFAR provide this opportunity. Plus local conflicts, where you can cover the situation in a neighboring country from abroad. It is necessary to attract aircraft from the civilian fleet, such as the Il-114, SSZh and MC21 (Tu204).
  2. svp67
    svp67 April 26 2021 05: 41
    +7
    The principle "I sit high, I look far away" no one can cancel, large and bulky current aircraft will leave, they will be replaced by small and multiple UAVs that can be lost by dozens
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 08: 24
      +9
      Can you imagine how much a small UAV costs? A Turkish handicraft of not the best quality costs 6 million, but now estimate how much a heavy drone will cost? Still thinking about a lot of customization and want to lose dozens of them? Small toys are good for war with underdeveloped ones, but if the enemy has air defense, EW is all almost useless, and it still costs a lot.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2021 08: 30
        +21
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Can you imagine how much a small UAV costs? A Turkish handicraft of not the best quality costs 6 million, but now estimate how much a heavy drone will cost?

        Can you imagine how much the life of one person costs? On the A-50, there are only TEN radar operators, and this does not take into account the aircraft crew.
        And the price of a UAV is changeable ... A smaller size is cheaper to build, less fuel consumption is cheaper to operate, you can build more, each copy will cost less, a downed AWACS plane is almost 100% death of the crew, which took years to prepare and millions of money for Each shot down UAV operator, whose training took years and millions, will simply call the next one from the hangar ...
        1. Errr
          Errr April 26 2021 10: 55
          +4
          Quote: svp67
          Smaller size - cheaper to build, less fuel consumption - cheaper to operate ...
          And also. the smaller the radar carrier, the lower the power of the latter. Unmanned small fry (cheap) will not look far, because initially her gut is thin. smile
          As Alexander Sergeevich rightly used to say through the lips of the hero of one of the most famous works of Russian literature:
          Do not chase you, pop, for cheapness. lol
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 26 2021 11: 02
            0
            Quote: Herrr
            And also. the smaller the radar carrier, the lower the power of the latter.

            Well, it's not a fact, why would their power decrease? All the space previously occupied by people can be filled with both equipment and what serves it, plus fuel
            1. Errr
              Errr April 26 2021 11: 13
              +2
              The power of the radar in this particular case is determined solely only by the power of the power plants of the aircraft and nothing more. If you are now talking about an unmanned version of the A-100 (or a modified A-50), then it is difficult for me to disagree with you, but with only one amendment - such a UAV is clearly not small and not at all cheap, and even with only one of its operator is also much more vulnerable than his own manned version.
        2. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev April 27 2021 20: 46
          -3
          One person's life is worth almost nothing unless it is a super professional. Spending money on a bunch of unnecessary UAVs is a lack of them for other needs. A mistake in choosing a concept is the death of millions. Do you yourself believe that UAVs are born out of thin air? Where do the money, operators, control systems come from? Do you know that UAVs are vulnerable to electronic warfare or other UAVs, I am silent about air defense? But I agree about BRLO, this is the same dead end. With the current level of development of radar and long-range missiles, AWACS will die out.
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 April 26 2021 13: 12
        +1
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        but if the enemy has air defense, electronic warfare is all almost useless

        you need to consider the economy.
        for example, if protection from a device is several times more expensive than the tool itself, then it is logical to arm yourself, even if you do not plan to use it. Just in order to get a decisive advantage in another area.
      3. IL-18
        IL-18 April 26 2021 22: 18
        0
        MiG-31 with a Dagger. It is necessary to resolve the issue of undermining the warhead at the desired point.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek April 26 2021 09: 23
      +3
      They will not come ... the antenna must be large ... There will be something like a Global Havka with a "Log" (Plate) on the back.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2021 09: 28
        +7
        Quote: Zaurbek
        They will not come ... the antenna must be large.

        The time of "big dishes", with the advent of "phased antennas" has passed, now this "dish" can be placed all over the airplane body or make it like this

        or even so
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 09: 33
          +12
          Israel has interesting AWACS projects, extremely compact.



          This one evokes mixed emotions. laughing But there is no question in which country it was made.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek April 26 2021 09: 46
            +1
            This is a matter of aerodynamics and whether you take the liner from the side or modify your civil liner at your own factory. Accompanied by KB
          2. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock April 26 2021 13: 03
            +2
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Israel has interesting AWACS projects, extremely compact.

            By the way, Israel has more efficient aircraft than the same E-3, due to the fact that the Gulf Stream 550 has an operating altitude of 15000 meters, the radio horizon is much more than 400 kilometers.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek April 26 2021 09: 34
          +3
          This is not a matter of principle and the question of "Prices" is an economical option, the Jews make for themselves more integrated aircraft with antennas in the bow and stern. A "plate" is also possible - fixed with three canvases and movable with two ....... The main characteristics of AFAR and "Brains". Just a log on the roof is an opportunity to simply and relatively cheaply take a comm liner (of the required size) and make an AWACS.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 26 2021 09: 35
            +2
            Quote: Zaurbek
            Just a log on the roof is an opportunity to simply and relatively cheaply take a comm liner (of the required size) and make an AWACS.

            And make it unmanned ...
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek April 26 2021 09: 44
              +4
              Someday it will be so. There are a lot of news in the form of data transmission to the command post. Here the Russian Federation is not a leader ..... then the carriers themselves would be launched into the series. Now, with half a sin, only Il476 have begun to do. There is nothing more serial.
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 26 2021 11: 06
                +3
                Quote: Zaurbek
                Now, with a sin in half, only Il476 began to do

                And with a new approach, it is no longer needed. It is necessary to take a good look at the Yak-242 (MS-21)
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek April 26 2021 11: 36
                  +2
                  You can also take a closer look at the Tu204 ... 10 years ago .. but things are still there.
                2. bayard
                  bayard April 26 2021 11: 39
                  +7
                  A year ago they crowed that they were going to place the A-100 equipment on the Tu-214 - they say everything fits, the comfort of the calculation is even better, the fuel consumption is half as much, and the range and time of loitering are even longer ... But again it did not bloom ... Silence at the "Ivanovskoye cemetery".
                  So they will hang containers under the Su-34 and Su-30SM, where one navigator will be for the entire calculation of the AWACS aircraft.
              2. anzar
                anzar April 26 2021 13: 04
                +4
                ... only Il476 began to be made. There is nothing more serial.

                Why not remodel already released Tu-204/214? Air companies don't need them.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek April 26 2021 16: 28
                  +1
                  I completely agree ... Trd and BREO are serially produced for Il476 ..... it is quite possible to update and use
                2. timokhin-aa
                  April 26 2021 23: 58
                  +1
                  There was even one document "at the top", with the rationale for such an aircraft - with Н035 on the sides.
                  And then they expand the radar field for the air defense missile system.
    3. RealPilot
      RealPilot April 26 2021 13: 01
      +1
      The future belongs to unmanned AWACS.
      On the ground, we are installing radio signal repeaters, this does not surprise anyone.
      Operators are not on duty around the clock, for example, at every cell tower ...

      The Su-57 + "Okhotnik" bundle seems to be very promising, but special versions of fighters with suspended containers have long been a reality.

      The article is interesting, the material has been worked out deeply. Thanks to the author.
  3. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock April 26 2021 05: 55
    +17
    KS-172. ...
    The rocket was developed, passed all preliminary tests and, in principle, was ready for state tests. And ... for adoption. But after that the project was stopped.

    Information about the reasons for stopping it in open sources is different: from "organizational reasons"

    Yes, the reason is generally simple - interdepartmental competition.
    The innovator is air defense personnel. Their "pilots" do not know. And with their old friends, they go to the bathhouse together (fishing, hunting, the name day of mutual acquaintances ,,,), therefore they were pleased, though for a weaker rocket, but from the right people.
    And Novator took a simple path, like the American Navy, stupidly adapted the anti-aircraft gun from its S-300VM-xx to an aircraft launch. I myself worked on this topic back in 91. True, it was my topic that was closed, but the parallel topic went further than mine, and people who had left to lay tiles were even returned under it, and they promised to pay salaries more often than once every six months.
  4. Nevsky_ZU
    Nevsky_ZU April 26 2021 05: 56
    -7
    From the article, I realized that in air battles, in terms of the number of missiles on fighters and the capabilities of their radars, we are losing.
    Plus, our electronic warfare is powerless against the Turks in Karabakh. And where to talk about the Americans?
    Probably only the "Ukrainian" rocket R-36 "Voevoda" saves us from total defeat.
    We disperse. It's 1999, nothing has changed. It was possible to continue flying the Su-27 and MiG-29.
    After all, the nuclear triad insures)
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 April 26 2021 06: 08
      +4
      In Karabakh, the Armenians used what they bought and what they had enough money for against the Turks. There is no point in talking about powerlessness here, since they simply do not have the entire nomenclature of systems. Pilaf cannot be made from one onion and rice) you need the rest of the products, the right cauldron, the right fire. I think the analogy is clear)
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol April 26 2021 06: 25
        +9
        Quote: carstorm 11
        In Karabakh, the Armenians used what they bought and what they had enough money for against the Turks. There is no point in talking about powerlessness here, since they simply do not have the entire nomenclature of systems. Pilaf cannot be made from one onion and rice) you need the rest of the products, the right cauldron, the right fire. I think the analogy is clear)

        bought Iskander, Su30, S300 and many more expensive toys. They had money for pilaf, but the Armenians squandered it on foie gras and lobsters
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 April 26 2021 06: 31
          +5
          They could very well. If they had prepared something else, they would have understood what they specifically need. But there they did anything but preparation. Apparently they decided that ours would decide everything. Although they were not initially promised this.
          1. timokhin-aa
            April 26 2021 07: 33
            +15
            No, there was something else.
            We are the strongest and greatest, and whoever does not believe is a traitor.
            In the end, nothing was done.
            Everything is like ours.
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 April 26 2021 08: 17
              +1
              When then yes. We needed 08.08.08.
              1. timokhin-aa
                April 26 2021 11: 19
                +4
                We are resting on our laurels again. 08.08.08 is needed again, alas.
                1. bayard
                  bayard April 26 2021 11: 50
                  -1
                  If we talk about AWACS aircraft, then there were no laurels especially, so they rest on a sackcloth ... army generals and "great chess players". And they have no interest in this before, even if you kill yourself against the wall.
                  For "there will be no war."
                  Like "we will agree before the war."
                  And if we don’t agree, then we will “solemnly surrender,” tea is not in the first place.
                  The heirs of Gorbachev and Yeltsin are incapable of thinking otherwise.
                  And the noise and crackling about "modernization" and "rearmament plans" is all ... tactical smoke.
                2. carstorm 11
                  carstorm 11 April 26 2021 12: 14
                  -1
                  I would not agree. It changes a lot and quickly. Another thing is that you are probably about the fleet, but there I am zero)))
              2. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock April 26 2021 12: 51
                0
                Quote: carstorm 11
                When then yes. We needed 08.08.08.

                This is not an indicator, the 58th combined-arms army fought there, and not all the troops of the Russian Federation. What the 58th army had, so they fought, well, even the Su-34 prototypes flew. This is what I mean, if there were other troops, maybe they would have done better.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 26 2021 13: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  This is what I mean, if there were other troops, maybe they would have done better.

                  Actually, the 58th at that time was the most belligerent army in our country
        2. max702
          max702 April 26 2021 10: 06
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          bought Iskander, Su30, S300 and many more expensive toys.

          Bought ?? !! Are you serious or what? Graciously accepted as a gift!
      2. Eug
        Eug April 26 2021 06: 56
        +1
        Well, and also the ability to cook deliciously.
    2. Sidor Amenpodestovich
      Sidor Amenpodestovich April 26 2021 06: 31
      -4
      Some kind of complete nonsense.
      our electronic warfare is powerless against the Turks in Karabakh. And where to talk about the Americans?

      What is "your" electronic warfare? Armenian or what?
      How do you know that electronic warfare means of the Russian Armed Forces were used in Karabakh? Does a deep inner conviction tell you about this? I see that highlike is becoming more and more fashionable. What about? There is no need to prove anything, he blurted out into the bushes, telling his opponent, to whose specific questions there was nothing to answer, that he simply did not understand anything.
      Probably only the "Ukrainian" rocket R-36 "Voevoda" saves us from total defeat.

      Exactly, exactly! We fly into space thanks to the "Ukrainian" Korolev, and we transport cargo by aviation, thanks to the "Ukrainian" Ruslans. And yet we are not dying of hunger, thanks to the "Ukrainian" borscht.
      1. timokhin-aa
        April 26 2021 07: 32
        +3
        How do you know that electronic warfare equipment of the Russian Armed Forces was used in Karabakh?


        They were used and even destroyed.
        Not with our personnel, really.
        1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
          Sidor Amenpodestovich April 26 2021 07: 34
          -7
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          They were used and even destroyed.
          Not with our personnel, really.

          That is, they were just specially brought from Russia during the conflict?
          Did the Russian EW troops bring their equipment from their presence to Karabakh and leave it there for the Armenians to use?
          1. timokhin-aa
            April 26 2021 07: 36
            +3
            No, they materialized out of thin air there.
            1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
              Sidor Amenpodestovich April 26 2021 07: 37
              -5
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              No, they materialized out of thin air there.

              Can you answer the questions or will you portray a homebrew snob?
              1. max702
                max702 April 26 2021 10: 08
                +3
                Quote: Sydor Amenpospestovich
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                No, they materialized out of thin air there.

                Can you answer the questions or will you portray a homebrew snob?

                He is an artist, he sees so! (FROM.)
        2. Sidor Amenpodestovich
          Sidor Amenpodestovich April 26 2021 10: 27
          +1
          In general, I found it myself. The Armenians officially announced that they were given the Pole-21 complexes, which covered three sectors of the front, and the Azeri UAVs did not operate there.
          But I did not find anything about the destruction of these complexes. Do you have reliable information?
          Judging by the instant minus, there is no information. Or it is so secret that you cannot divulge it. Clear.
          1. timokhin-aa
            April 26 2021 11: 07
            -2
            I didn’t minus, the Azerbaijanis posted a video of the strike on such a complex, I didn’t save it.
            They were enough for four days
            1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
              Sidor Amenpodestovich April 26 2021 11: 12
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              I did not minus

              Then I'm sorry.
              I read on the Internet that in Shusha, where such a complex worked, the Azerbaijanis were forced to act without the support of the UAV.
              And they were enough for four days because then the UAVs did not operate in the area of ​​operation of these complexes.
            2. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 11: 19
              +2
              Field-21 did not appear on the "video". But during these 3-4 days, in which the UAVs allegedly did not fly, there was a heavy fog, and winter began. So the main reasons for the lack of drone flights are not clear. In general, the last days of that war were very strange.
              From what is on the video:
              Repellent-1 first destroyed:


              Second destroyed



              R-330 pyramid
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 April 26 2021 08: 52
      +5
      Plus, our electronic warfare is powerless against the Turks in Karabakh

      draw less information from pro-Turkish sources.
      We are probably only saved by the "Ukrainian" rocket R-36 "Voevoda"

      Who can “you” be saved by the Ukrainian R-36 missile, firstly, taken out of service in the 80s, and secondly, created during the Soviet era, when the concept of “Ukrainian missile” could not exist by definition?
      We diverge.

      better avatar and nickname change, do not match.
      1. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU April 26 2021 09: 38
        0
        Quote: Ka-52
        Plus, our electronic warfare is powerless against the Turks in Karabakh

        draw less information from pro-Turkish sources.
        We are probably only saved by the "Ukrainian" rocket R-36 "Voevoda"

        Who can “you” be saved by the Ukrainian R-36 missile, firstly, taken out of service in the 80s, and secondly, created during the Soviet era, when the concept of “Ukrainian missile” could not exist by definition?
        We diverge.

        better avatar and nickname change, do not match.

        it was irony over the author of the article
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 08
          0
          Don't you notice that your comments are not relevant to the topic of the article? It is spring?
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 April 27 2021 06: 26
          +2
          it was irony over the author of the article

          then write that this is sarcasm. And then such hard-headed as I do not immediately enter, that this is a veiled banter laughing
      2. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan April 26 2021 10: 18
        -6
        What, Andryusha, does it hurt to read the truth? Does the word "Ukraine" cause persistent allergies in you? And the truth is often bitter. At least here we can hear the truth and thanks to the author for that.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 April 27 2021 06: 31
          0
          What, Andryusha, does it hurt to read the truth?

          it hurts you to sit on a chair, due to advanced hemorrhoids.
          At least here we can hear the truth and thanks to the author for that.

          and no one told you that you stupid an uneducated and poorly erudite person? Well, just know. Though here you could hear the truth laughing

          ps and yes, I did not comment on the article of the author, but on the words of the reader above. When will you learn to think first and write later?
  5. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx April 26 2021 06: 37
    +9
    What prevents the development and installation of an active anti-missile defense system on an AWACS aircraft?
    I am not claiming that it is easy and that it is a panacea, but I just ask myself a question. The aircraft is large, carrying capacity, internal volume and wing area more than. Suspend several containers with relatively compact anti-missile missiles and put another operator in this flying carriage. For the base, you can take something like armor (relatively speaking).
    Doesn't seem to be ..
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 08: 42
      +5
      Quote: Al_lexx
      What prevents the development and installation of an active anti-missile defense system on an AWACS aircraft?

      Development is underway. They do not twitch too much yet, they go systematically.
      The retractable anti-missile unit protested. Perhaps under the B-21. They are developing the MDSM interceptor missiles themselves.


      Slave UAVs with air launch are being tested. Arming them with rockets. Here's a mini fighter. UTAP-22 under the F-15.

      We launched the LongShot project. This is a UAV with missiles. Like long-range missiles.

    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 08: 45
      +3
      There are also a number of projects with a UAV air launch, a possible return to the carrier.

      In fact, the crown is not new. It was tested back in the 60s and 70s.

    3. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall April 26 2021 08: 48
      +4
      Quote: Al_lexx
      What prevents the development and installation of an active anti-missile defense system on an AWACS aircraft?
      I am not claiming that it is easy and that it is a panacea, but I just ask myself a question. The aircraft is large, carrying capacity, internal volume and wing area more than. Suspend several containers with relatively compact anti-missile missiles and put another operator in this flying carriage. For the base, you can take something like armor (relatively speaking).
      Doesn't seem to be ..


      The United States is very actively working on active defense systems for aircraft - these are Cuda-type anti-missiles (and many other similar projects), as well as laser weapons.

      Long-range missiles have one significant drawback - their large size and low maneuverability. At the end, their speed drops - for active defense systems, they will be an easy target.

      The ramjet engine partly solves the problem, but so far this is still a range of about 200 km. And the dimensions will not go anywhere.
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx April 26 2021 09: 38
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        Long-range missiles have one significant drawback - their large size and low maneuverability. At the end, their speed drops - for active defense systems, they will be an easy target.

        I thought about that too. Even if the effectiveness of the anti-missile warhead is relatively weak, there is still a high chance that the attack will be thwarted. Complete destruction is hardly possible if the detonation of an anti-missile warhead occurs at a certain distance (which is most likely), but even a slight destruction of the wings and control planes will lead to a heavy and clumsy long arm in a state of some kind of paralysis.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 26 2021 09: 46
          0
          Quote: Al_lexx
          if the detonation of an anti-missile warhead occurs at a certain distance

          Americans have been hitting that kill for 40 years already. In the Russian Federation, there is an S-350 on this topic, well, as it is, more in theory.
  6. Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right April 26 2021 06: 55
    +8
    The main question, which the author did not answer, but actively wrapped circles around him: How is it that when aviation is saturated with these "Avax killers", the "blind" will beat the "sighted"? "Command aircraft" with its survivability is certainly good, but thanks to whose over-the-horizon vision, the aircraft will take off and intercept these "avaks", especially at sea? They themselves said that the command board, at the base of the fighter, does not have a lot of loitering time.
    Or will it be like a sea battle game, only in the air? laughing
    It's just that the article, in fact, describes how to reduce the need for AWACS, but not as the need to "zero".
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 26 2021 07: 31
      +2
      It's just that the article, in fact, describes how to reduce the need for AWACS, but not as the need to "zero".


      Yes, it is, but what are the options? For ten years, the range of target destruction by a fighter will be compared with the detection range of an air target by an AWACS aircraft.
      They will simply be brought down, and that's it.
      Moreover, this trend is clearly in our country, the Chinese, and the United States.
      1. Angry Alt-Right
        Angry Alt-Right April 26 2021 08: 39
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Yes, it is, but what are the options? For ten years, the range of target destruction by a fighter will be compared with the detection range of an air target by an AWACS aircraft.
        They will simply be brought down, and that's it.
        Moreover, this trend is clearly in our country, the Chinese, and the United States.

        1) But what about the AWACS "form factor", which, all other things being equal, allows placing equipment with higher characteristics? Well, that notorious "pancake", which is clearly more than the nose cone of any fighter. Can't there be an increase in characteristics for AWACS too?
        2) If the first point is correct, does this mean that the situation will simply make another "round"?
        1. Niko
          Niko April 26 2021 10: 25
          -1
          Quote: Angry Alt-Right
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Yes, it is, but what are the options? For ten years, the range of target destruction by a fighter will be compared with the detection range of an air target by an AWACS aircraft.
          They will simply be brought down, and that's it.
          Moreover, this trend is clearly in our country, the Chinese, and the United States.

          1) But what about the AWACS "form factor", which, all other things being equal, allows placing equipment with higher characteristics? Well, that notorious "pancake", which is clearly more than the nose cone of any fighter. Can't there be an increase in characteristics for AWACS too?
          2) If the first point is correct, does this mean that the situation will simply make another "round"?

          A very reasonable argument. But this is the complexity of all assumptions about the development of technology, sooner or later the possibility of the development of AWACS disappears from the reflections in this case, and only the development of means of combating it remains
        2. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 10
          0
          A big plane with a pancake is better, but it gets shot down, that's all.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 09: 29
        +7
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        will be compared with the detection range of an air target by an AWACS aircraft.

        You see, the enemy's radar is no worse. A AWACS aircraft is a searchlight that allows fighters not to light themselves. This is the idea of ​​5G fighters, for a minute. Defending this searchlight is difficult, but by definition easier than any given fighter. Moreover, in the event of the death of the searchlight, the lanterns on the fighters will not go anywhere.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 11
          +4
          This is true YET.
          In 10 years they will be knocked down from 400 km and that's it.
          Fighters will still have to turn on their radar in order to launch on a target.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex April 26 2021 12: 22
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This is true YET.
            In 10 years they will be knocked down from 400 km and that's it.
            Fighters will still have to turn on their radar in order to launch on a target.

            Think about this.
            There is a project (I do not know at what stage of implementation it is now) of a cruise missile with a nuclear power plant. What prevents it from being used as a loitering ammunition specifically to combat AWACS aircraft? At the moment of pre-war tension, launch a dozen or two of these missiles with the "saw-hit" task, which does not require any artificial intelligence at all, and setting up the sighting system to emit the Hokayev and Avaks radars.
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 26 2021 12: 34
              +2
              Harshly.
              Don't bomb Voronezh, of course, but thereabouts
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex April 26 2021 12: 50
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Harshly.
                Don't bomb Voronezh, of course, but thereabouts

                :)
                As I have said many times in the "aircraft carrier" branches, I believe that the destruction of AWACS aircraft is a task that needs to be solved in the course of a war at once and by all possible means. Including strikes against bases in third and neutral countries. The statesmen build the entire system of air force operations on the basis of these lamps, and the destruction of this system is tantamount to the defeat of the enemy headquarters.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 26 2021 23: 55
                  +1
                  I agree, but they understand that too. And they will take action.
                  1. abc_alex
                    abc_alex April 27 2021 01: 57
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    I agree, but they understand that too. And they will take action.

                    The eternal battle of sword and shield. Hope we win :)
      3. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell April 26 2021 10: 36
        +8
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        For ten years, the range of target destruction by a fighter will be compared with the range of detection of an air target by an AWACS aircraft. They will simply be brought down, and that's it.

        I'm sorry, but how do you approach AWACS? So simple in a straight line? Basic E-3 controls up to 600 km around itself with a "dead zone" funnel above itself. He has the ability to attract all the forces at hand for his protection. Over the same Baltic, he has only one loop along which he can walk in case of conflict.
        Failing AWACS is troublesome and requires a very decent outfit of forces, and the job is done by one 31 - who can jump into the "dead zone" and handle yourself. We calculated this. They also calculate, using AWACS is also troublesome and expensive.
        The tactics will change along with the technical possibilities: we will count them too, never ending ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 12
          0
          We calculated this.


          Since then, the range of our missiles has grown somewhat, radars with a detection range of up to 400 km have also grown.
          1. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell April 26 2021 11: 52
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Since then, the range ...
            their technique also did not stand still and developed, like tactics. It seems to me that in the article you are considering a somewhat one-sided approach - the pure destruction of AWACS as a single reconnaissance aircraft, which will not work in the case of AWACS: it is just part of the integrated multi-level C4I system and in this system it will be protected as a central link, priority. Here, a pure comparison of numbers is not entirely correct.
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 26 2021 11: 53
              -1
              I simply showed that a combatant can now detect and attack AWACS from a distance at which the latter can only see it.
              1. Pete mitchell
                Pete mitchell April 26 2021 12: 03
                +4
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I simply showed that a combatant can now detect and attack AWACS from a distance at which the latter can only see it.
                Maybe some small AWACS, but with E-3, 767 "head-on" will not work. Even with the E-2, it's not that simple. As before - it is necessary jump into the dead zone, and this is within the power of 31mu. Dumping AWACS is a whole battle, it is better, of course, not to bring them to take off. repeat
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 26 2021 12: 38
                  -1
                  The 31st with the P-37M will cope with this task quite easily. RL-field Hokai - Tor, in the top of the funnel, below, God forbid, 150 km of range.
                  It is clear that this will not be a simple execution.
                  New rockets provide a bunch of opportunities that were not previously available
                  1. Pete mitchell
                    Pete mitchell April 26 2021 12: 54
                    +4
                    Excuse me, but where did you see about the 150 km range of the E-2? It would be more correct to count as 450.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    new missiles provide a bunch of opportunities that were not previously available

                    But to use these possibilities, you need to approach it: how do you approach AWACS in the western part of the Baltic, for example? He, too, will not be bored while waiting. Again, I repeat - it is not correct to consider the destruction of AWACSa as the interception of a single aircraft.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      April 26 2021 23: 54
                      +1
                      150 km downstairs.

                      Regarding the Baltic, it is a difficult theater of operations, I will not comment, in general, to tell the truth, I do not understand how we are going to fight there.
                      On TVD "simpler" - the attack of large forces of the IA on the enemy's aircraft, a breakthrough by a separate detachment of forces on the line of the launch of the UR on SDRLO.
                      Maybe from above, into the "funnel".
                      1. Pete mitchell
                        Pete mitchell April 27 2021 00: 20
                        +1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        attack of large IA forces on the enemy AI, breakthrough by a separate detachment of forces to the launch line of the UR by SDRLO
                        By and large, I do not believe at all in the possibility of a major conflict on the western borders, unless the provocation of some madman provokes, but then AWACS will very quickly cease to be a priority headache. recourse
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Maybe from above, into the "funnel".
                        There are no other logical options, an outfit of forces will be needed for any very decent. Getting into the bottom funnel is very difficult.
        2. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 26 2021 12: 46
          0
          Quote: Pete Mitchell
          He has the ability attract all the forces at hand to protect yourself... Over the same Baltic, he has only one loop along which he can walk in case of conflict.

          So what? Are these forces teleporting to him? If a rocket from 400 km detects AWACS, then at a speed of 4-5Mah (4500-5000 km / h), Avax will have about 5 minutes for everything. During this time, it will not have time to attract anything, except that it flies right next to him. And intercepting a missile at such speeds is a task that is hardly feasible in principle in general.
          Moreover, if there is more than one missile. And for such a purpose, three missiles are not a pity.
          Even if we take the finished R-37M, then its launch range is 300, the speed is 6M. As I understand it, if the rocket leaves the pylon, AWACS has no chance.
          You say - to intercept the carrier in the area of ​​600-300 km.
          The maximum altitude speed of the Su-35S is Mach 2,25. This is 2475 km / h. Let the car fly 2400 km in 300 \ 1 hours. It's 8 minutes. That is, if a Su-7,5S unit enters the AWACS detection zone, it will have 35 minutes to react and attract "improvised means" under PERFECT conditions. If the attackers have electronic warfare systems, then less.
          Again, it turns out that he can only attract what is right here. At the same time, not all vehicles in the attacking echelon will be aimed at AWACS. Someone will attack the convoy with similar missiles. 7,5 minutes, of which something will be spent on identification, something on a turn, rapprochement, and then two (out of three) attackers launch at interceptors, because they will not finish it off to AWACS yet, but to the defenders already completely.
          1. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell April 26 2021 13: 02
            +2
            I am glad that everything is simple with you. And how will the Su-35 unit approach it in the northwestern part of the Baltic, for example? When will they be discovered?
            And yet, yes: AWACS can have a link of "personal protection" in a row, plus everyone who is at hand.
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex April 26 2021 14: 03
              0
              Quote: Pete Mitchell
              I am glad that everything is simple with you. And how will the Su-35 unit approach it in the northwestern part of the Baltic, for example? When will they be discovered?
              And yet, yes: AWACS can have a link of "personal protection" in a row, plus everyone who is at hand.

              Just as the US AWACS will arrive there, through the territory of third countries. What confuses you? We're talking about a state of war. Do you think that under the threat of a nuclear strike on its territory, Finland will not accept the overflights of our aviation?

              And so yes! It was from the calculation of the outposts that I carried out the calculations. If not, then AWACS has no chance at all.
              And mind you, I am not talking about such a means of dealing with AWACS as the destruction of their base structure.
              1. Pete mitchell
                Pete mitchell April 26 2021 14: 29
                +4
                So when do you think the attacking group will be found? Just wondering
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex April 26 2021 14: 40
                  -2
                  Quote: Pete Mitchell
                  So when do you think the attacking group will be found? Just wondering

                  Depends on the scale of hostilities. If there is a full-fledged war, then at the turn of the AWACS antenna detection, if you just "fly like this", then it depends on the location of NATO ground-based radars.
                  1. Pete mitchell
                    Pete mitchell April 26 2021 15: 03
                    +5
                    In the case of the Baltic, you will have to cut through the location field of the Finns, the Balts, which is directly tied to the control centers in Karup, Ramstein; on the way mowing radars, focal points, communication lines, Zoknyay with Emari ... Do you think this will be a usual conflict for a long time?
                    Sorry, I repeat: the destruction of AWACS as a single reconnaissance aircraft, which will not work in the case of AWACS: it is just part of an integrated multi-level C4I system and in this system it will be protected as a central link, a priority. Here, a pure comparison of numbers is not entirely correct.... Let the planning head work, they have the cards in their hands.
                    1. abc_alex
                      abc_alex April 27 2021 12: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: Pete Mitchell
                      In the case of the Baltic, you will have to cut through the location field of the Finns, the Balts, which is directly tied to the control centers in Karup, Ramstein; on the way mowing radars, focal points, communication lines, Zoknyay with Emari ... Do you think this will be a usual conflict for a long time?


                      I don't know, what am I, a prophet? I answered: "Depends on the scale of hostilities." If there is a full-fledged military conflict with NATO, then all these Baltic and Finnish "location fields" must either be drowned out by the threat of a nuclear strike or destroyed. You do not think that our military are idiots and someone will rush to shoot down AWACS through the "location fields" foolishly? Well, let's not be like "experts" like "your ship against US AUG".
                      By the way, if everything there is so stuffed up with "location fields", what should AWACS do there? :)
                      But hypothetically, from Kostomuksha to Robertsfors less than 500 km. Ours and the Indians have a project to create Bramos V-V, just for shooting AWACS. And the new Onyxes, as they say, are already flying 800 km along a high-altitude trajectory ...
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 26 2021 14: 52
                +2
                Quote: abc_alex
                Do you think that under the threat of a nuclear strike on its territory, Finland will not accept the overflights of our aviation?

                For information. The Finnish Air Force is comparable to the Aerospace Forces of at least the Northwest. So even in Soviet times, when planning a limited war, they tried not to touch the neutrals unless absolutely necessary.
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex April 27 2021 12: 59
                  +2
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  Do you think that under the threat of a nuclear strike on its territory, Finland will not accept the overflights of our aviation?

                  For information. The Finnish Air Force is comparable to the Aerospace Forces of at least the Northwest. So even in Soviet times, when planning a limited war, they tried not to touch the neutrals unless absolutely necessary.

                  AND? If they remain neutral, for God's sake. And if they begin to actively serve the US Air Force with their radars, what kind of neutrals are they? You can not touch anyone at all, not a single NATO country. Then in general there is a sense in the sun? The United States will start a war, NATO countries will provide them with deployment and logistics, and they can not be touched further.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine April 27 2021 19: 51
                    0
                    You see, the conflict with Finland, in addition, will create many additional problems in the Northwest. Moreover, your desire to use nuclear weapons at any opportunity can lead you to a sad outcome of life long before your hands reach Finland.
                    1. abc_alex
                      abc_alex April 28 2021 11: 01
                      +4
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      You see, the conflict with Finland, in addition, will create many additional problems in the Northwest. Moreover, your desire to use nuclear weapons at any opportunity can lead you to a sad outcome of life long before your hands reach Finland.

                      In response, I can suggest that you independently assess the military-technical potential of NATO and compare it with the Russian one. And if you find at least one military way not to be defeated in a protracted war with NATO, please voice it.
                      By the way, with regard to Finland, I spoke about the THREAT of the use of nuclear weapons. Threat. And the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is quite a handshake reason for Finland, on the one hand, to maintain neutrality, and on the other hand to come to terms with the flights of our aviation. Politics, sir.
                      And yes, I really believe that nuclear weapons should be used in the war against the United States and NATO. Otherwise, there will be no sense in this war at all. Russia will lose it, if not militarily, then demographically, for sure. And even more so, there is no point in fighting the United States without nuclear weapons. Since these can only be stopped from insanity by an animal fear for their own lives. Only the threat of a nuclear strike right on the cowboy's head. A real threat.
                      And Europeans, too, to sober up, need to be very clear about that no amount of paper on neutrality will save them. Gave the state residents the territory for the base - get warmth and light delivered to your home. Otherwise, Russia will lose the war.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine April 29 2021 02: 03
                        -1
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        if you find at least one military way not to be defeated in a protracted war with NATO, please voice it.

                        None. Except for the fact that NATO saw a protracted war in its grave.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        a handshake reason for Finland, on the one hand, to maintain neutrality, and on the other hand, to come to terms with the flights of our aviation.

                        You do not know that Russia poses the main threat to its neighbors, especially those with a non-aligned status. And the Finns won't buy it.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Since these can only be stopped from insanity by animal fear for their own lives.

                        Whose madness? Let me remind you that neither in the "dashing nineties," nor in the days of the American nuclear monopoly, or de facto monopoly, which actually lasted until the early 60s, did they strike. It is possible to discuss whether they were right or not, but did not hit, the fact is the fact.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Otherwise, Russia will lose the war.

                        So and so will lose. The game "find the last Russian" will receive support from both Western and Eastern partners.
                      2. abc_alex
                        abc_alex 3 May 2021 22: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        None. Except for the fact that NATO saw a protracted war in its grave.

                        Why did you say this? To the fact that NATO will strive to be the first to strike at Russia using nuclear weapons? I already know that.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You do not know that Russia poses the main threat to its neighbors, especially those with a non-aligned status. And the Finns won't buy it.

                        Not buying what? What I don't know? Or to your curve logic from another world? Recently, the United States once again reported that Russia poses an existential threat to them. Google what it is about.
                        Russia does not pose a threat to countries with a neutral status at all. But the NATO member states, those who are ready to participate in the attack on Russia, or contribute to this attack, providing territory for US military installations, but under the guise of neutrality - it represents. Like everyone aspiring to NATO.
                        But the United States represents a DIRECT military threat to any country in the world, since the local leadership is less and less friendly with the head. And for Finland, in the event of a NATO attack on Russia, it will be important to get a REASON for our planes to pass through itself, since the United States can strike at Finland, they do not care. And the threat of nuclear weapons across the territory will be such a reason. All the more so if they behave to your nonsense like "Russia poses the main threat to its neighbors."

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Whose madness? Let me remind you that neither in the "dashing nineties," nor in the days of the American nuclear monopoly, or de facto monopoly, which actually lasted until the early 60s, did they strike. It is possible to discuss whether they were right or not, but did not hit, the fact is the fact.


                        In the dashing 90s, the Strategic Missile Forces were hardly the only branch of the army in our army that retained its combat capability. In addition, then the heads of the US leadership were still in place, and they understood that even 1 \ 10 of Russia's nuclear arsenal would be enough to completely annihilate the "victory in the Cold War."
                        In the 60s, the United States no longer had a monopoly on nuclear weapons. You probably don't know the history of Russia well, maybe you weren't taught it anymore where you come from, or maybe you didn't learn it in principle.
                        On September 3, 1949, a plane from the US special meteorological intelligence service took air samples in the Kamchatka area, and then American specialists found isotopes in them, which indicated that a nuclear explosion had been carried out in the USSR. US President H. Truman publicly announced this on September 23.

                        The United States lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons in 1949. And since then, they NEVER knew exactly how many Bombs the USSR had in service.
                        In 1955, the serial production of the Tu-95 bomber began.
                        On August 21, 1957, the USSR successfully tested the R-7 rocket capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the United States.
                        That is why the United States did not dare to use nuclear weapons in the USSR. And not because of innate humanism. They simply did not know how many bombs would fly on their heads in response. Especially after the launch of the royal seven.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        So and so will lose. The game "find the last Russian" will receive support from both Western and Eastern partners.


                        That is precisely why I say that "Warmth and light in every house" should become the motto of our Strategic Missile Forces. So that not a single Russophobic tvari even in an erotic dream would dream of playing the game "find the last Russian". So that, together with the desire to fight with Russia, a clear understanding of the inevitable fatal outcome for everything that anyone sees would come. So that the very thought of a war with Russia would give rise to animal fear for their own skin. At the level of self-preservation instinct. So that any Ukrainian, Canadian, US, Australian or any other politician who talks about the war with the Russians would immediately begin to be perceived by fellow citizens as a potential murderer of OWN. His own. Not ours.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 3 May 2021 23: 24
                        +2
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        To the fact that NATO will strive to be the first to strike at Russia using nuclear weapons?

                        How it goes. But not yet.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Recently, the United States once again reported that Russia poses an existential threat to them.

                        Wow, how cheerful Joe did not expect from him.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Russia does not pose a threat to countries with neutral status at all.

                        Seriously? But Finland has something to remember on this topic from its history. By the way, for reference, over the past 30 years, the Russian Federation has mainly attacked post-Soviet countries that are not NATO members. In non-post-Soviet countries, there have also been and are adventures, but on a rather small scale.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        since the US could attack Finland as well, they don't care

                        A US blow to Finland? What an interesting world you live in.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        your nonsense like "Russia is the main threat to its neighbors."

                        It's like a Finnish story.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        In the dashing 90s, the Strategic Missile Forces were hardly the only branch of the army in our army that retained its combat capability.

                        Yes? It is strange that the drunkard Yeltsin was not sent a box of vodka to break.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        even 1 \ 10 of Russia's nuclear arsenal is enough

                        I'll tell you more, the Americans brought all this stuff to the Russian Federation from the rest of the post-Soviet countries. For Ukraine, in particular, it turned out to be inappropriate.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        In the 60s, the United States no longer had a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

                        There was AB, but there were no delivery vehicles. This is the main reason for the Cuban missile crisis.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        In 1955, the serial production of the Tu-95 bomber began.

                        It's useless.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        testing the R-7 missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the United States.

                        It's useless. The first normal ICBM, the R-16, entered service on July 15, 1963.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        That is why the United States did not dare to use nuclear weapons in the USSR.

                        20 years did not dare.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        And not because of innate humanism.

                        I tend to perceive the activities of American presidents from Roosevelt to Eisenhower inclusively as a betrayal.
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        So that the very thought of a war with Russia would give rise to animal fear for their own skin. At the level of self-preservation instinct.

                        )))
                        People don't like to be afraid. People deal with the issue with the source of fear at every opportunity. The collapse of the USSR was relatively peaceful - almost no one died. Not the fact that you will also be lucky next time.
      4. ramzay21
        ramzay21 5 May 2021 01: 27
        0
        You are forgetting two things.
        AWACS has EW more powerful than any fighter in the world, this is the law of physics plus technology. If the Americans do not shout at all angles about electronic warfare, this does not mean that they do not have it.
        If by some miracle our Su 35S are deployed to AWACS, and they can detect it in the face of strong countermeasures from their electronic warfare, this does not mean that missiles launched from fighters covering AWACS are no longer flying towards our Su 35S. This has already happened.

        The Yugoslav MiG 29s did not have time to understand where the missiles were coming from, although they fired these F15 missiles, of the same generation as the MiG 29. The F15 was just at low altitude, did not turn on their radars, and were guided by AWACS. Neither the Yugoslav MiG 29 nor the Yugoslav ground radars saw the F15, but AWACS perfectly saw the MiG 29 and pointed the F15.
        1. timokhin-aa
          Yesterday, 13: 27
          0
          We are not Yugoslavia after all. The same Su-35 has a good chance of detecting an AWACS from 350-400 km, if it does not use electronic warfare equipment.
          And the use of electronic warfare equipment makes it possible to implement in the UR-VV the "naval" regime of "jamming", and interferes with the operation of its own radar by the AWACS aircraft.
  7. ramzay21
    ramzay21 5 May 2021 01: 05
    0
    And what if the UAV with radars will interact with the AWACS aircraft and be controlled by it. The direct communication range of a high-altitude UAV and an AWACS aircraft will be decent, add to this the detection range of radars on the UAV, and taking into account new technologies, such UAVs will have decent characteristics and their cost will decrease.
    Then a bunch of AWACS aircraft and a group of such UAVs will be able to control huge spaces and it will be impossible to get to the AWACS aircraft. If unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) fighters appear in addition to all this, then AWACS aircraft will acquire enormous importance, much greater than now.
  • Crabong
    Crabong April 26 2021 07: 04
    +1
    Aviation modification 46N6E. The most is to shoot down AWACS planes.
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU April 26 2021 07: 48
      0
      Quote: Krabong
      Aviation modification 46N6E. The most is to shoot down AWACS planes.

      That would then attach wings to the S-400))) A good heavy fighter will turn out laughing
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 26 2021 09: 57
        +5
        Quote: Nevsky_ZU
        attach wings to the S-400))) A good heavy fighter will turn out

        What's so funny?
        This is just the best option, which takes place in real life.
        The article mentions the SM-6 aircraft modification, we also have anti-aircraft missiles for the S300VM3 / 4 (9M82xx), if not as a single unit, then with the maximum possible unification with a promising aircraft missile. And there are plenty of examples of converting Air-to-Air missiles into anti-aircraft missiles.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 08: 06
    +11
    The appearance of a long-range missile defense system does not "nullify" AWACS aircraft, just as, say, the appearance of an ATGM did not "nullify" the value of tanks on the battlefield. Still, shooting UR explosives for hundreds of kilometers is such a pleasure.
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 08: 21
      -8
      Do fighters, electronic warfare systems, air-to-air missiles zero? You say ATGM does not zero tanks? I also reset it to zero, especially the American ones, turning them simply into a mobile cannon, which is contraindicated to approach positions at 4-5 km. Until the enemy is demolished by aircraft and helicopters, as well as missiles with howitzers, tanks will not stick out their nose.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 08: 40
        +11
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Do fighters, electronic warfare systems, air-to-air missiles zero?

        Increase its role
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        You say ATGM does not zero tanks? I also reset it to zero

        Only in someone's fantasies.
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Until the enemy is demolished by aircraft and helicopters, as well as missiles with howitzers, tanks will not stick out their nose.

        Only now the tanks do not know this, and are constantly "sticking out"
      2. ramzay21
        ramzay21 5 May 2021 01: 34
        0
        Electronic warfare systems, air-to-air missiles and ATGMs appeared more than 50 years ago, just tanks and aircraft are also developing. The one who does not develop loses. If the tank does not undergo modernization in a timely manner, then it is destroyed by a modern ATGM. Also, if the ATGM is not upgraded, then it will not be able to destroy a modern tank.
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 26 2021 11: 12
      +2
      But it will cut their niche
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 11: 14
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But it will cut their niche

        Life will definitely complicate, but the niche ... yes, probably, it will remain the same
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 44
          0
          I think no.
          After all, if you remember, the Americans have already made an attempt to make an "AWACS killer" from the F-117, which was again sung by Clancy.

          Sooner or later, someone will succeed.
    3. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock April 26 2021 12: 58
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The appearance of a long-range missile defense system does not "nullify" AWACS aircraft, just as, say, the appearance of an ATGM did not "nullify" the value of tanks on the battlefield. Still, shooting UR explosives for hundreds of kilometers is such a pleasure.

      Well, the rocket will be guided by the powerful radiation of the AWACS aircraft, if they turn it off, it will fly to the alleged area where the aircraft was spotted and then search for it with an active seeker, it will be quite easy to find the E-3 missile seeker due to its large size.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 14: 28
        +3
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        Well, the rocket will be guided by the powerful radiation of the AWACS aircraft, if they turn it off, it will fly to the alleged area where the aircraft was spotted and then search for it with an active seeker

        This scheme is highly vulnerable to countermeasures. A rocket flies 300-400 km for a long time, it has an average speed of 1.5-2 km / sec. passive guidance is fairly easy to shoot down with interference from another aircraft. Those. to put it simply, the AWACS radar is cut down, interference is turned on by an electronic warfare aircraft or an ordinary fighter, the rocket goes to the side, the aircraft extinguishes the interference and leaves the sector of the capture of the AGSN. Everything, the rocket goes to milk
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister April 26 2021 16: 05
          +1
          passive guidance is fairly easy to shoot down with interference from another aircraft. Those. to put it simply, the AWACS radar is cut down, interference is turned on by an electronic warfare aircraft or an ordinary fighter, the rocket goes to the side, the aircraft extinguishes the interference and leaves the sector of the capture of the AGSN.
          Passive guidance implies aiming at a radiation source, and for V-V missiles this is the target's radar radiation; an V-V missile with a passive seeker before launch is "tuned" to the radar radiation parameters. It is possible to disrupt its guidance only by turning off the radiation of the radar, this head will not work on third-party interference (noise), it is necessary to emit not noise, but a signal with similar parameters. And if a rocket launch is detected in a torch, the enemy still does not recognize the type of its seeker, even for an active seeker, the initial stage will be "with radio correction." True, it should be noted that long-range V-B missiles with passive radar seeker do not exist, only medium-range ones. In addition, by turning off the radiation of the radar of the AWACS aircraft, you will in fact deprive for a certain time the information support of the entire group associated with this AWACS aircraft.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2021 07: 19
            +1
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            True, it should be noted that long-range V-V missiles with passive radar seeker do not exist

            Therefore, the conversation is purely theoretical.
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            even for an active seeker, the initial stage will be "with radio correction".

            Which in the conditions of electronic warfare will not be so easy to perform
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            Passive guidance implies aiming at a radiation source, and for V-V missiles this is the target's radar radiation; an V-V missile with a passive seeker before launch is "tuned" to the radar radiation parameters.

            Not certainly in that way. Now there are active-passive seeker, which are actively guided, and in the case of jamming - to the source of interference
            1. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister April 27 2021 09: 44
              0
              Not certainly in that way. Now there are active-passive seeker, which are actively guided, and in the case of jamming - to the source of interference
              This is just not the case, the head as it was and remains active, and here it should be understood that the interference by means of electronic warfare is placed in response to the radiation of the seeker, without the radiation of the seeker, there will be no response interference, there are no fools on the side of electronic warfare. Therefore, "aiming at the source of interference" is not a passive guidance mode, but an auxiliary procedure that helps to somehow bring the missile with an active seeker closer to the target, in the hope that it will be possible to detect its reflected signal, the level of which will increase as it approaches the target. In addition, the very process of "jamming", and this requires the determination of the angular coordinates of the jammer, which is not easy, considering all the variety of counteraction, especially "electronic warfare at the corners".
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2021 10: 16
                +2
                Quote: Hexenmeister
                Therefore, "aiming at the source of interference" is not a passive guidance mode, but an auxiliary procedure that helps to somehow bring a missile with an active seeker closer to the target

                Alexey, but radiation guidance is still a passive process :)))) Why do you refuse to call it a passive mode? I am not a great specialist in radar, if you can give a competent explanation - I will listen with pleasure
                1. Hexenmeister
                  Hexenmeister April 27 2021 10: 43
                  +1
                  Passive detection methods (respectively, and guidance) are those methods in which factors are used that unmask the target, and the enemy cannot determine in any way whether you have found these factors or not, at best he will be able to identify only the moments accompanying the process of aiming a weapon at him, but not detection methods. When "aiming at interference", the initial is the probing signal of your GOS, in response to which a noise is set, forcing the GOS to work "not according to its signal", as if it were "passive". But there will be no radiation, there will be no answer by which one can work passively. Although if the minds "work", it is probably possible to propose a simultaneous attack by two missiles with active radar seeker, tuned to the same frequency, only one seeker will emit, in response to it a jam is put, and the second, flying after the first, will calmly analyze the situation, and either it will hit the jammer passively, or at the very last moment it will go to another operating frequency, and while the electronic warfare is sorting out, it will fly to the target.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2021 10: 51
                    0
                    Thanks, thanks! hi
                    1. Hexenmeister
                      Hexenmeister April 27 2021 10: 56
                      0
                      Of course, the topic of missiles, albeit medium-range, passively guided by aircraft radar radiation is very interesting, and has been "in development" for a long time, but there is practically no practical way out on this topic, except for statements about 27EP, therefore, there either "did not shmogla" or "there is little sense from it."
            2. Newone
              Newone 1 May 2021 23: 00
              0
              R-37 has an active seeker (30 km). Aims to the point of capture of the seeker inertial with correction. The center of the pancake with a radius of 30 km will be guided by external target designation (Container satellites, as a last resort, the radar of the MIG-31 itself.
              And the radius of detection of the AWACS of the attacking fighter can be safely reduced to 350 km. They will approach at a low altitude, then jump to a height (since the rate of climb allows you to do this quickly), launch, guidance on the AWACS and leave.
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 April 26 2021 20: 52
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This scheme is highly vulnerable to countermeasures.
          Previously, no opposition was required: Phoenix lost his grip 50% of the time.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 08: 18
    -8
    AWACS are dying out as a class with the advent of more and more radars on fighters and an increase in the range of missiles. For a war with the barmaley, AWACS is not needed, against an equal is useless. I hope there is no need to talk about the cost of an hour of flight and service? Aircraft carriers and AWACS can ruin anyone. Well, they will do from a hundred and that, they will stand on airfields, due to the lack of the need for use in modern conditions. Ours are right that they do not spend a lot of money on these monsters, there are more urgent tasks. Let the United States spend, maybe it will tear the navel.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 08: 49
      +12
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      AWACS are dying out as a class with the advent of more and more radars on fighters and an increase in the range of missiles.

      Yeah. Americans, for example, are killed in invisibility radar, apparently to shine a radar and unmask their fighters, yes.
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      AWACS is not needed for the war with the barmaley

      That's something against Libya in 2011 with might and main involved "Sentry"
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      useless against equal

      Only in someone's rich imagination. In reality, it is extremely necessary.
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      I hope there is no need to talk about the cost of an hour of flight and service?

      I hope you will not speak, for you clearly do not know what you are talking about. The cost of the Sentry and Hawkeye flights is lower than that of the F-22 and F-35
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Ours are right in not spending a lot of money on these monsters.

      By developing the A-100 "Premier ...
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 09: 05
        +16
        Alexander shouldn't have told about the importance of AWACS. People do not understand about the extremely high need for them. Radio horizon and radio visibility are unknown words.
        The fact that ground / naval air defense is actually useless without AWACS, before a massive raid, we do not say at all.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 16
          +4
          Alexander shouldn't have told about the importance of AWACS.


          It's self-evident
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 11: 21
            +2
            Judging by the comments, it seems not for everyone. You shouldn't underestimate human stupidity and stupidity.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 09: 33
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Only in someone's rich imagination. In reality, it is extremely necessary.

        )))
        Without AWACS, there will be no "equal fight" by definition.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        By developing the A-100 "Premier ...

        It is a sin to laugh at sick people (s).
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 09: 57
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          )))
          Without AWACS, there will be no "equal fight" by definition.

          Why are you writing this to me?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 26 2021 10: 18
            +3
            Out of solidarity.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 10: 29
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Out of solidarity.

              It is clear now :)))) And I thought you disagree with me again, and did not understand what :)))))
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek April 26 2021 09: 27
      +2
      Do not die out. Civil aircraft with a long service life, long range, comfortable cockpit, powerful radar (of any size), all-round visibility, civil pilots from comm liners. There are no global wars. Fly and fly
    3. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock April 26 2021 13: 00
      +2
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      AWACS are dying out as a class with the advent of more and more radars on fighters and an increase in the range of missiles. For a war with the barmaley, AWACS is not needed, against an equal is useless. I hope there is no need to talk about the cost of an hour of flight and service? Aircraft carriers and AWACS can ruin anyone. Well, they will do from a hundred and that, they will stand on airfields, due to the lack of the need for use in modern conditions. Ours are right that they do not spend a lot of money on these monsters, there are more urgent tasks. Let the United States spend, maybe it will tear the navel.

      AWACS can be used for more effective air defense, for example, with massive firing of cruise missiles, the AWACS aircraft dramatically increases the effectiveness of the ground complex.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine April 26 2021 09: 42
    +6
    Some kind of vague article.
    1. The aforementioned ultra-long-range explosive missiles are thrown onto a high, almost ballistic trajectory, and fly at the maximum range by inertia. This could theoretically work against the Tu-22, but against the AWACS aircraft, which sees a rocket going to him, it works much worse.
    2. The rocket carries, by definition, a small BRLO, and Russia, let me remind you, is not America, the AFAR still cannot fit into airplanes, but here is a rocket. This BRLO should overestimate all the possibilities that the Hockey / Growler has, especially the Century / B-52H CCJ. Quite frankly, not an easy task.
    3. The US Navy is currently the leader in long-range air defense. This is briefly reflected in the article. They made friends with SM-6 for a long time, attaching an air launch is the minimum of possible problems. Again, the enemies are the leader in missile defense on the ground, which they now need to lift into the air. They are also at least in the middle of the path, when everyone else is at the beginning.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 09: 53
      +3
      Come on, good article. To chew everything you need to write a book. Apparently the author cut his article to get into the format.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      ultra-long-range explosive missiles are thrown on a high, almost ballistic trajectory,

      Everyone forgets or does not know about it. This is one of the reasons the Americans rejected long-range B-B missiles. A rocket flying along such a trajectory is useless.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 10: 10
        +1
        Well, after the story with the fatal hit of the S-200 of the then fraternal Ukraine in 2001, this moment was explained a lot and in detail. Not that it's useless against the conventional Powers, but the Americans, the bastards, have stopped flying like that for 50 years.

        But the Americans with their SM-6 have serious developments, both in the rocket / AWACS communication, and in low-flying targets.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 10: 15
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          But the Americans with their SM-6 have serious developments, both in the rocket / AWACS communication, and in low-flying targets.

          SM-6 is another story. Extremely advanced. They also make a hypersonic shock out of it, in addition to air defense missions.
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 26 2021 11: 15
      +2
      1. The aforementioned ultra-long-range explosive missiles are thrown onto a high, almost ballistic trajectory, and fly at the maximum range by inertia. This can theoretically work against the Tu-22, but against an AWACS aircraft that sees a missile coming towards it, it works much worse.


      If his BKO does not take her to interference, then the crew will simply see their death and that's it. Can you imagine an anti-missile maneuver on the E-3?

      2. The rocket carries, by definition, a small BRLO, and Russia, let me remind you, is not America, the AFAR still cannot fit into airplanes, but here is a rocket. This BRLO should overestimate all the possibilities that the Hockey / Growler has, especially the Century / B-52H CCJ. Quite frankly, not an easy task.


      But not unsolvable. It is theoretically possible to tune away from interference.

      In the USA - so what am I writing about?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 11: 46
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Can you imagine an anti-missile maneuver on the E-3?

        Sure. We turn off the spotlight temporarily and go beyond the horizon and growler. GOS, which can make its way to hockey through a growler, is only possible in fairy tales.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        It is theoretically possible to tune away from interference

        In theory, a lot is possible. And in practice, usually the one who is stronger and stronger.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 11: 52
          +1
          Sure. We turn off the spotlight temporarily and go beyond the horizon and growler.


          And the time required for all this to count?

          In theory, a lot is possible. And in practice, usually the one who is stronger and stronger.


          If you only knew how easy the same Nulka manages, you would not write this.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 26 2021 13: 34
            -3
            Quote: timokhin-aa

            And the time required for all this to count?

            5 swings is roughly 1.5 km per second. And this is the maximum speed at the time of the end of the operation of the engines. So the time is not so short for 300-400 km.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            If you only knew how easy the same Nulka costs

            Are you talking about MK 53? And what is it for?
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 26 2021 23: 50
              0
              5 swings is roughly 1.5 km per second. And this is the maximum speed at the time of the end of the operation of the engines. So the time is not so short for 300-400 km.


              I am very much not sure that the AWACS will take the UR of the explosive from 400 km. Media - yes. The rocket is doubtful.

              What is it for?


              To the fact that the interference is bypassed
    3. Sergey Kulikov_3
      Sergey Kulikov_3 April 26 2021 19: 47
      -1
      Tell us about how the S-400 missiles work. Magic Word, Please!
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 26 2021 20: 07
        0
        Quote: Sergey Kulikov_3
        Tell us about how the S-400 missiles work

        What are you talking about?
        1. Sergey Kulikov_3
          Sergey Kulikov_3 April 26 2021 20: 18
          0
          About classified information. But you can declassify everything for us, you are not a Turk.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 26 2021 20: 28
            -1
            What declassified information? How do rockets fly?
        2. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell April 27 2021 00: 32
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: Sergey Kulikov_3
          Tell us about how the S-400 missiles work
          What are you talking about?

          - What is a "counter"?
          - Angela, do you know what it is?
          - I know, - Merkel smiled, - an ordinary Russian counter: three, two, one ... start! "
          lol
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay April 26 2021 09: 51
    +2
    Additional equipment of the AWACS aircraft with missiles for self-defense does not seem to be some sort of outright impossible task.
    1. agond
      agond April 26 2021 10: 16
      +1
      It seems that other AWACS options are also possible, for example, two converted MiG-31s ​​fly at an altitude of 20 km and, using a triangulation method, build a picture of a two-dimensional radar image of air targets at ranges exceeding the range of the A-50 flying at an altitude of 10 km
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock April 26 2021 10: 14
    0
    In 2015, the following universal reconnaissance containers were put into service: UK-RT container complex for radio-technical reconnaissance, UK-RL - long-range container radar with an active phased antenna array, Ukrainian-EO - electronic-optical reconnaissance.

    Each of the containers can be suspended under the aircraft (on Kuznetsov under the Su-33, in parts of the Aerospace Forces on any Su aircraft), as a result of which the three aircraft will even slightly surpass the AWACS aircraft in their reconnaissance capabilities.

    It won't.
    Although the thing is extremely useful.

    I don’t understand, screw a motor and wings to this container (a task for a schoolchild from a circle of aircraft modelers) here is a ready-made UAV for AWACS.
    Apparently the problem is the same competition. For some reason, they make Altiuses from scratch, although almost everything is already there, well, except for the motor. And that, they write, has already been killed.
    And there is no need to fence any "barn" A100,
    1. Gust
      Gust April 26 2021 11: 18
      +1
      No motor and wings can be compared with a full-fledged AWACS. Neither in energy, nor in noise immunity, nor in range, nor in selection, etc. The case when size is everything. But small ones are also needed, and medium ones are also needed. Each has its own specialization, its own niche.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 26 2021 12: 39
        0
        Quote: Rafale
        No motor and wings can be compared with a full-fledged AWACS. Neither in energy, nor in noise immunity, nor in range, nor in selection, etc. The case when the size decides

        I agree, he will not be able to replace it at all.
        If there was something to replace.
        But there’s nothing.
        A-50s were outdated in the last century. And they had only one resource left to take off and die immediately.
        Our industry is not able to make A-100.
        The author of the article suggests removing the finished equipment from the trailed container and inserting it into the fighter, and also writes that it will be even better than a large AWACS aircraft (well, yes, this is differently better than what is not in nature).
        And it seems to me that even a fighter is superfluous here.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 26 2021 10: 59
    0
    AWACS aircraft now have the opportunity to arm
    defensive laser systems.
    They are relatively massive, but just right for such a large platform.
    And the laser will have time to shoot down or at least damage at a distance of several hundred
    meters to a couple of kilometers from the aircraft any missile.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 26 2021 11: 16
      +2
      Alexey, are you a fan of "Star Wars"? :)))))) In order to install a combat laser capable of burning a rocket, you need to throw out all AWACS equipment from the plane and fill it with energizers :)))
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 26 2021 15: 23
        +2
        Why burn it?
        It is uneconomical. It is enough to damage her GOS.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 27 2021 08: 43
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It is enough to damage her GOS.

          That's what I'm talking about. To "burn" did not mean the incineration of the rocket (today's lasers are incapable of doing this in principle), but to damage sufficiently to exclude the target hit
    2. Crabong
      Crabong April 26 2021 12: 43
      0
      It is better to include Jedi with lightsabers in the AWACS aircraft crew ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 26 2021 11: 36
    -5
    instead of answering questions about the aircraft carrier (1 why 2 where to get trillions of rubles), uv Alexander Timokhin decided to come up from the other side and inflict a crushing blow on AWACS planes, and why are they slow-moving? yes, he wrote himself because they have to patrol for a long time, and now Timokhin, who scolded tu160 for excessive speed, proposes to install AWACS on fighters ... a deep delusion that did not exceed the truth of his delusion in the area of ​​AB (he did not answer questions about AB) was not found!) A100 patrols and immediately after the detection of targets hides in the depths of the Russian Federation, and interceptors, bombers and fighters fly out to meet it. intercepting the danger entering the battle, they do not need to be an AWACS, they have already received a control system from the A100 and they only need to select targets and destroy, for which they must have means of searching for targets for target designation and destruction, but they do not need to cover the entire distant zone, they are about they know the target, and the slow-moving vulnerable aircraft carrier will definitely not escape, it will be sunk and drown with all its planes exploding upside down and show-off. and the carrier-based aircraft that took off will fall into the sea and also sink
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 26 2021 11: 45
      -1
      (he never found an answer to his questions about AB!)


      what questions? can you give a link?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 26 2021 17: 42
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        what questions? can you give a link?

        the old man decided to take me with a kindergarten reception ... "but I don’t know what I’m talking about," but everyone knows about this dispute not only in the VO, but even in the Moscow Region, and the respected Sergei Shoigu even went to the Northern Fleet ... and Timokhin who he brewed porridge turns out to be not in the know .... then he answers five questions for five questions, but now in general in the bushes like "my house is on the edge, I don't know anything" ..... you want to keep a good face in a bad game .... here link to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ-Vxijkoyk
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 26 2021 23: 47
          0
          Well, that is, no one asked me any questions, you just have an aggravation, right?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 07: 04
            0
            https://topwar.ru/181353-neudobnye-voprosy-dlja-storonnikov-avianosnogo-lobbi.html если конечно вы раскаялись в своем заблуждении (покинули тоталитарную деструктивную секту свидетелей авианосца) и перестали быть сторонником авианосного лобби то можете не отвечать
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 07: 10
              0
              here are 6 more questions for you to the heap https://topwar.ru/181821-flotskie-dramy-o-politike-vojne-i-celesoobraznosti.html
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 07: 16
                0
                here are 5 more questions for you ... https: //topwar.ru/181195-aviacija-kak-glavnaja-udarnaja-sila-rossijskogo-flota.html ... well, now you can’t shrug your shoulders and say that you can’t hear Have you heard about the questions asked to you? weak to give an answer? won't you sit out in the bushes? if you cowardly run away from the battlefield, then I count you a defeat, dear Alexander
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 27 2021 11: 22
                  0
                  I answered this article in my own.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 13: 25
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    I answered this article in my

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    what questions?

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    no one asked me any questions, just

                    you will decide whether there were questions or there were not, or you answered them, which did not exist ... the criminals specifically choose the tactics of testifying to the investigator so as not to get into a trouble like you are now
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      April 27 2021 20: 42
                      0
                      In the article "A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers" I answered, at the end to "Inconvenient questions".
                2. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 27 2021 13: 10
                  0
                  laughing so the answers were actually .. the fact that they didn’t suit you doesn’t mean that they didn’t fit
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 13: 21
                    0
                    there were no answers, he wrote his counter questions to confuse everyone, because Timokhin has no answers, and he understands the weakness of his position
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 27 2021 14: 22
                      +1
                      laughing Are these proposals to use anti-submarine Tu-160 or Ka-52 with a range of 200 km? Oh yes ... Or proposals "if we can't fly from our homeland, then we don't need to get in there?" .. it's epic
              2. timokhin-aa
                April 27 2021 11: 22
                0
                Write later.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock April 26 2021 12: 30
      +1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      The A100 patrols and immediately after the detection of targets hides in the depths of the Russian Federation, and interceptors, bombers and fighters fly out to meet it. intercepting the danger entering the battle, they do not need to be an AWACS, they have already received a control system from the A100 and they only need to select targets and destroy, for which they must have means of searching for targets for target designation and destruction

      It’s funny.
      And nothing that the A-100 is called DLROiU?
      The last letter "U" means "control.
      So that the missile carriers do not have to turn on their detection and target designation means and not be exposed to attack before launching their missiles.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 26 2021 17: 36
        -1
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        So that the missile carriers do not have to turn on their detection and target designation means and not be exposed to attack before launching their missiles.

        control at the stage of preliminary target designation and assessment of threats, and at the stage of destruction of threats, strike aircraft will work without him, because he is a slow-moving target and is not going to approach missiles ... by the way, how Timokhin is going to place such a huge antenna on a front-line fighter, precisely because of her drill is based on il 76, and not on yak40, for example, in general Timokhin is again wrong all around, like his henchmen
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock April 27 2021 09: 50
          -1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          how Timokhin is going to place such a huge antenna on a front-line fighter, it is because of her that the drone is based on the il 76, and not on the yak40 for example

          Yes, it is not going to.
          And huge antennas are no longer in vogue, the above is full of examples when aircraft of the YAK-40 class are used for DLRO.
          And the Il76 was used not so much because of the antenna, but because of the rest of the equipment made from Soviet LSIs (large integrated circuits) - the largest in the world, and the need for a large crew.
          And the fighter is offered because there are no large "real" DLROs in Russia and is not expected, due to the absence of the very same LSIs, but there is a ready-made container version of "semi-range" detection, suitable for installation on an aircraft of exactly this dimension.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 11: 08
            0
            Quote: Jacket in stock
            full of examples when aircraft of the YAK-40 class are used for DLRO.

            firstly, the Yak 40 is still more capacious than the front-line fighter, then it turns out that you need to make the Tu160 drills and the analogue of the Tu95 drills, I don't think that the listed AWACS antennas can be placed on the front-line fighter, even small compared to the old large ones, they are smaller than the old ones, but still not the smallest for they are drlo all the same
            Quote: Jacket in stock
            ready-made container version of "semi-range" detection,
            then it turns out not AWACS, but just patrolling by front-line aviation, which Timokhin has been striving for a long time to justify the aircraft carrier and put on it some kind of ersatz drlo that did not drill ... but I don't know what ... it seems to me that work on the A100 is underway, and there are not trillions needed for the development of electronics, we need to continue this work, and not offer an "unknown little animal" that is half-drone, but in truth it is not drone at all .... anyway, an aircraft carrier is not needed
  • Denton
    Denton April 26 2021 12: 25
    +1
    The beginning of the article is straightforward, but then it gets worse and worse.
    Let's start with the radar. Why is this radar with PFAR more noticeable than AFAR ??? Both emit impulses towards the enemy. And if the enemy is not at the level of the Papuans, he will see the impulses. And it's funny to read about electricity in general, not because it's not true, but because if a radar is installed on an airplane, then there is electricity for it.
    But generally speaking, a radar for an AWACS attack is not always needed, because it is quite possible to target the emitting AWACS passively. Moreover, even the execution of missiles is as "anti-radar".
    Further, for some reason, the author does not see the Su-57, which, although slowly, is already being mass-produced. And the problems of the A-100, as I understand it, are more likely to come from what they want to do right away, i.e. and the aircraft is modernized and the equipment is up-to-date.
    Moreover, AWACS themselves are certainly cool, but they are needed more for offensive operations. And naturally for aircraft carriers (although there are variations there too)
    And for some reason the author considers the MiG31 as a carrier, but does not consider the Su-35, which is also not slow and the range is also not bad. And in general, he does not consider the Su-57, which, as it were, is the very thing for the destruction of AWACS.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock April 26 2021 13: 01
      +1
      Quote: Denton
      AWACS by themselves are certainly cool, but they are needed more for offensive operations. And naturally for aircraft carriers (although there are variations there too)

      Funny.
      AWACS are needed to view the situation from above in order to expand the radio horizon.
      And for defense, they are needed no less, even if an aircraft carrier, or even the borders of the country.
      1. Denton
        Denton April 29 2021 14: 45
        0
        For starters, there is such a cool thing as a VHF radar. Yes, rockets cannot be guided with its help, but it is quite possible to understand that they fly from there. Well, raising the meeting committee in the air is also not a problem. In this case, this radar is generally put on stealth technology.
        The second disadvantage of such a radar is its size and, apparently, the need for power supply. That in the case of ground placement, as it were, do not care.
        Plus, the radars of fighters are already approaching the same radio horizon, which, in conjunction with setocentricity (yes, it was her, starting with the MiG-31), the defense is quite normal
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 26 2021 14: 48
    0
    The author writes about the speed of the missiles: Mach 4, Mach 5, Mach 6. What is the meaning of these numbers? this is the maximum speed, which is about nothing. Average speed is more important.
  • iouris
    iouris April 26 2021 14: 49
    -5
    Why do we need aviation if Poseidon is used?
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok April 26 2021 15: 04
    0
    Forgive me, but who and what will look for a target (- AWACS) and direct missiles and fighters? If AWACS "sees" at 400+ km.
  • KKND
    KKND April 26 2021 15: 08
    +2
    I'm wondering why the author believes open source missile data? All military missiles, especially new or actual ones, are classified.
    So, the data of the R-33 and Phoenix are indicated that their mass is in the region of 500 kg (allegedly 490), while the R-37M has a mass in the region of 600 kg (???), it is unlikely that the mass of the R-37M is much greater than the mass of the R-33 (suspension The MiG is also designed for certain weights). All of these missiles are structurally single-stage solid-propellant missiles.
    The question is, how did the range increase by about one and a half times according to the most modest estimates? There are no miracles in the world and the specific impulse limit of solid fuels is still unchanged. The only thing they could have made was to slightly lighten the design of the rocket, to reduce the mass of electronics, but here you also won’t gain much.
    Or how the Americans, having launched their AiM-120D from the maximum target altitude at an altitude of 1 km, reported that the range increased to 180 km?
    But in reality, the AWACS aircraft itself will be at a high altitude and can fly with any heading parameter.
    So, unfortunately, the article is partially based on misleading information specially thrown into the media, which has nothing to do with the real war.
    1. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister April 26 2021 16: 15
      +5
      The question is, how did the range increase by about one and a half times according to the most modest estimates?
      Or how the Americans, having launched their AiM-120D from the maximum target altitude at an altitude of 1 km, reported that the range increased to 180 km?
      This is where all the pitfalls are hidden! When specifying the maximum launch ranges, no one ever indicates the accompanying conditions: the parameters of the carrier's movement, the parameters of the target's movement, the model of the target's behavior during the guidance process. As you indicate, the entire "shroud" will immediately come off, and accordingly the enemy will not be substituted for the "maximum" launch ranges.
      1. KKND
        KKND April 26 2021 16: 26
        +1
        Quote: Hexenmeister
        This is where all the pitfalls are hidden!

        The pitfalls are that the maximum speeds, the mass of fuel, everything is classified. Developers from Eagle Dynamics have to carry out virtual reverse engineering, and there the guys from TsAGI worked.
        And in the media, any numbers can be given, who will check? And what will happen to those who publish the real numbers?
  • dgonni
    dgonni April 26 2021 15: 27
    -1
    Ndya!
    For submarine +. And for this opus I would bet a minute!
    You yourself understand that there are no prospects in the field of AWACS and target designation!
    And you yourself understand that the AWACS plane does not wander around by itself!
    Well, the cherry on the cake, this is what the drlo will see this rocket at the moment of launch and will do everything to dodge and set false targets. With his avionics, it's like two fingers on the asphalt!
    Well, into the ending!
    Nice spoon for dinner.!
    If the enemy has these pepelatsev maltsa more than we have stratags in the form of A-50.
    What can we talk about then?
    Well, drones like blackhawk are already hanging around the borders.
    So 10 years ago it was in the subject.
    At the moment it is unrial
    1. Sergey Kulikov_3
      Sergey Kulikov_3 April 26 2021 20: 04
      0
      I can directly imagine how the AWACS dodges a rocket flying at Mach 5, or they start to shoot down the missile "To protect the AWACS".
      1. dgonni
        dgonni April 26 2021 20: 18
        -1
        In order to bring such a rocket to the DRLO aircraft, in our realities, you need to try hard!
        And if it's easier to bring it and implement it!
        Which is very problematic in terms of uniqueness and incomprehensible implementation!
  • Dmitry Izmalkov
    Dmitry Izmalkov April 26 2021 16: 22
    +2
    I doubt very much that the Aim-260 will fly only 200 km. Even Aim120D flies away at 160-180. Create a rocket for 40+ km? Wangyu, which is from 300 km
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 26 2021 18: 06
    +1
    hmm .. why not make ultra-long-range missiles? something in between Onyx and R-37m? or Say GZur and R-37?
    1. Cympak
      Cympak April 26 2021 19: 50
      +2
      Quote: Barberry25
      hmm .. why not make ultra-long-range missiles? something in between Onyx and R-37m? or Say GZur and R-37?

      Due to ultra-long range targeting problems.
      The radar on the SAM is small, does not see far, but an even bigger problem is that this radar requires a lot of energy to operate, and it takes energy from the onboard battery. Therefore, the radar of an ultra-large missile defense system will turn on only at the final stage of the flight. And after switching on, he with his "blind eye" in a very limited search sector must detect and lock the target. And for this, the entire flight over an ultra-long range must be transmitted to the missile defense system for heading correction. Those. there must be a radar that tracks the AWACS aircraft and which can detune from the enemy's electronic warfare interference, while the radio correction signal, which the enemy cannot drown out.
      For missiles with a passive seeker, the same problems - the operating time from the on-board network. During the entire flight, it is guided by the AWACS signal and the electronic warfare will not be able to, there will not be enough batteries. Therefore, we again return to the long-term flight with the radio-corrected course from an external source.
      Conclusion: this whole article is crumbling by means of electronic warfare aimed at jamming the radio correction line of long-range missiles.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 26 2021 21: 59
        0
        that's why I say ... why not make a large rocket ... let's say up to 1,5 tons in mass, and the primary illumination due to long-range ground-based radars, or RER systems, for example ..
        1. Cympak
          Cympak April 27 2021 00: 12
          0
          Because there is a radio horizon and terrain folds. Long-range radars are not very mobile and their location after switching on becomes known to the enemy, who can choose the place and time of the strike, the outfit of the strike forces, i.e. conduct active offensive actions
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 27 2021 13: 00
            0
            well, this is a game of cats and mice .. it will always be, but if we can determine the patrol area, then why not develop a means of destroying AWACS aircraft ..
            1. Cympak
              Cympak April 27 2021 13: 45
              -1
              In principle, the S-400 air defense complex and the promising S-500 move the patrol zone of AWACS and EW aircraft to a considerable distance
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 27 2021 14: 25
                0
                You can substitute the S-400 under attack .. that's why you need air-to-air with a range of 500 km .. in fact, you can use drones a la Lightning for transitional control units for missiles.
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 27 2021 05: 15
        0
        Quote: Cympak
        For missiles with a passive seeker, the same problems - the operating time from the on-board network. During the entire flight, it is guided by the AWACS signal and the electronic warfare will not be able to, there will not be enough batteries. Therefore, we again return to the long-term flight with the radio-corrected course from an external source.

        And here you are wrong. For contradict yourself.
        A passive seeker is exactly the same receiver as the receiver of the radio correction system. And it consumes energy by several orders of magnitude less than an active RLGSN. The batteries will be enough for her.
        The problem is different.
        The target aircraft, having detected a missile launch on it, can turn off its locator and shoot a false simulator target. In this case, the SAM has only one option - a multichannel seeker, and we have not yet heard of such. Although it would be easier to shove it into a large, heavy rocket.
    2. riwas
      riwas April 27 2021 06: 03
      +1
      hmm .. why not make ultra-long-range missiles? something in between Onyx and R-37m? or Say GZur and R-37?

      The developers approved the project of the Brahmos cruise missile for the destruction of air targets - radio detection and guidance aircraft with the AWACS system.
      According to RIA Novosti co-director of the Russian-Indian joint venture "Bramos" Alexander Maksichev, preparations for the first launch are planned to be completed by 2024.
      http://новости-россии.ru-an.info/новости/россия-и-индия-создают-крылатую-ракету-брамос-для-уничтожения-самолётов-awacs/
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 27 2021 13: 01
        0
        laughing so ... I want a bonus for an idea
      2. niksfromru
        niksfromru April 27 2021 13: 07
        0
        Knowing how many years Bramos has been made from Onyx, it is unlikely that they will meet such a deadline.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 26 2021 21: 59
    +4
    These are all refinements from poverty. What is needed is AWACS aircraft, and the radius, capabilities, and quantity are no less than in the United States. But this is unreal. Not with our squalid industry and impoverished economy.
  • Michael
    Michael April 26 2021 22: 35
    -1
    Only DOSAAF !!!!! Masterclasses - DIY a drone. Badges - UAV operator of the third level. Patches - hacker of the first system. And no AWACS will dare to approach.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 27 2021 08: 30
    -2
    This radar with a huge radiation power is just capable of detecting an AWACS aircraft at a distance that allows it to be attacked, that is, somewhere around 400 kilometers. At the same time, it has a high resistance to interference.

    The peak power of PFAR N-035 is not that great in comparison with modern AFAR radars - 20 kW.
    For example, AFAR AN / APG-71 (F-22) has a power of the same 20 kW, with a much larger number of modes (including unobtrusive, LPI) and noise immunity.
    The range of 400 km of the Irbis (according to the 4th generation fighter) is achieved by increasing the scan time.
    The future is for AFAR, all developed countries are switching to them.
    The same Rafale, Eurofighter and even the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen have a radar based on this technology, not to mention the F-22 and F-35.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder April 27 2021 10: 32
      -1
      The future is for AFAR, all developed countries are switching to them.
      so old, the future has long gone into slightly different areas of radio engineering and digital signal processing in the radio spectrum, such as almost and / or soon mass technologies:
      1. Surface wave antenna (APW);
      2. RF ASIC (also called “beamformer”);
      3. Quasi-optical antennas (use of radio lenses as a beamforming scheme);
      PS There are a large number of companies in the world that are developing antennas with beam control on various principles of operation. Which of them will take a place on the market, we will see in the coming years, the most promising and interesting direction for creating scanning antennas for mass applications are surface wave antennas. Kymeta has already shown in practice the possibility of deviating from the standard PAR paradigm. We should also mention the company Pivotal, which has developed automatic reclosing on a single multilayer printed circuit board, which indicates the potential for reducing the cost of such antennas. It is quite possible that we will see significant breakthroughs in this direction in the coming years. In addition, research is currently underway by consortia led by Intel and IBM in the field of materials with a controlled phase transition, various magnetic films with controlled parameters are being investigated. This creates additional prerequisites for the development of new surface wave antennas with beam steering. On the other hand, the massive arrival of the HEADS on the RF ASIC market is quite obvious. Further, this approach will be
      gradually transform into CARs, since they are the most flexible and effective solution that actually allows you to directly digitize the field in the antenna aperture, and thereby obtain almost unlimited functionality. However, the key stop factors of RF ASIC and CAR today are the cost of integrated circuits and the complexity of processing large streams of digital data. Most likely, in the horizon of 5 years, there will be hybrid solutions based on RF ASIC CARs and antennas on surface waves.
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 28 2021 10: 41
      0
      Yes, and we are, as it were, transitioning to AFAR, but it has not happened yet, so Irbis.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal April 28 2021 11: 33
        0
        Slow request
        Beetle-A and "Belka" have been creating for a very long time, although they have been represented at MAKS since the beginning of the 2010s.
        There are 625+ F-35s in the world, respectively, the same number of AN / APG-81.
        And a bunch of 4 ++ aircraft with AFAR ..
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 28 2021 13: 40
          0
          How does this contradict what I wrote?
  • Intruder
    Intruder April 27 2021 10: 26
    -2
    By the way, the author gave interesting aspects, a few articles contain a similar review without water, a well-deserved plus article from me!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 11: 25
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    to this article in their

    you asked questions there, but evaded a specific answer ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 27 2021 21: 00
      0
      In the last section of the article, just the answers were
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 27 2021 21: 30
        +2
        I read there no answers, you want to use the building berth of the Baltic plant, and that's it, ... then there is empty reasoning that you can find designers and berths and a new plane and a catapult from scratch ... no, and where to get money at all do not mention ... this is not an answer ... you have no answer
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 28 2021 10: 42
          0
          The purpose of the aircraft carrier is to ensure the use of aircraft outside the combat radius of the base aircraft.
          What is not clear to you here?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 28 2021 13: 13
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The purpose of the aircraft carrier is to ensure the use of aircraft outside the combat radius of the base aircraft.
            What is not clear to you here?

            then what is the purpose of using aviation further than 9000 km from its base, or further 9000 km from a base provided by a friendly state?
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 28 2021 13: 32
              0
              Well, foreign policy, the level of influence does not imply the presence of a large number of friendly states, as well as their increase.
            2. timokhin-aa
              April 28 2021 13: 44
              0
              The maximum range from the base at which the base fighter aircraft provides effective air defense, subject to the presence of a radar field with a depth of 700 kilometers or more, and calculated from the defended naval group, is no more than 250 kilometers, and generally 150-200.

              And this is the maximum range that allows you to operate without aircraft carriers.
              Moreover, the distance from the airfield, not from the coast.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 28 2021 20: 00
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                depths of 700 kilometers or more, and calculated from the defended ship group, is no more than 250 kilometers, but mostly - 150-200.

                just a lie, ...... The aircraft is capable of reaching supersonic speed in afterburner mode and holding it for 45 minutes. The crew of the Tu-160 is four people, the combat load is 40-45 tons, the flight range is 13,5 thousand km ...... su57 Flight characteristics
                Flight range at subsonic speed Up to 4300 km
                Takeoff run 350 m
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 30 2021 19: 55
                  0
                  No, you are simply illiterate in terms of tactics.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 27 2021 11: 37
    -1
    Quote: KKND
    The question is, how did the range increase by about one and a half times according to the most modest estimates? There are no miracles in the world and the specific impulse limit of solid fuels is still unchanged.

    The total impulse should not be very different, but the fuel combustion schedule can be optimized, and, accordingly, a longer range can be obtained. Extreme points - fuel burns all at once in a short time, and the second extreme point - fuel burns according to a certain schedule during the entire flight. The R-33 engine was closer to the first combustion option, while the Phoenix engine was closer to the second, therefore it had a longer range. Hence the lack of practical sense in the maximum missile speed, and the advantages of ramjet missiles (albeit with limited altitude, which is not critical for hitting targets such as AWACS).
  • niksfromru
    niksfromru April 27 2021 12: 42
    0
    Quote: svp67
    they will be replaced by small and multiple UAVs

    If they don't come, you can't fool physics: the size of the antenna required to form a narrow beam depends on the wavelength, not the size of the aircraft.
  • niksfromru
    niksfromru April 27 2021 12: 57
    0
    The prospects of AWACS aircraft largely depend on which version of the war we develop ... - set aside! - we are considering. In the event of local conflicts, the AWACS aircraft may be in the airspace of a third party, and an attack against it will be tantamount to an attack on that side. This is not always required :) No matter how long the "missile arm" is, AWACS usually have the ability to detect it earlier and initiate countermeasures.
    Any suspended radar containers for front-line aircraft have an order of magnitude worse performance due to the significantly smaller antenna aperture. This applies even more to airborne radars. The leading edges of the aircraft are already "occupied" by the slats and it is extremely difficult to "fit" the antennas into them. But, even if it were possible, the width of the radiation pattern in the vertical plane would be unacceptably large due to the relatively small "thickness" of the wing profile.
    As soon as the "invisible breaker" starts its duties of lighting the air situation, the "invisibility" effect will instantly disappear. Not to mention the fact that a decrease in the RCS even by a factor of 100 leads to a decrease in the detection range by only 3,16 times. This "kamikaze" will be destroyed before completing its combat mission.
    In general, the "correct" tactics of using AWACS planes can be described by the phrases "I see you, but you do not see me" or "the eye sees, but the tooth is numb";)
    1. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister April 27 2021 13: 40
      0
      No matter how long the "missile arm" is, AWACS usually have the ability to detect it earlier and initiate countermeasures.
      On-board radars of fighters already have a target detection range of under 400 km, and since the AWACS aircraft does not operate in the forward combat formations of fighters, it becomes somewhat useless to support such fighters with such a detection range, because they will detect their targets before the AWACS aircraft. If we talk about the detection by the AWACS aircraft of a missile attack on itself, then it is imperative to take into account the rate of information update from the "flying mushrooms", until he figure it out, it will be too late for him, and therefore his security forces should never allow such a situation.
      This applies even more to airborne radars.
      vertical beamwidth would be unacceptably large
      But no, they work in different ranges, and the resolution of the fighter's antennas in two angular coordinates is no worse. than the AWACS aircraft. And the "flying mushroom" has problems with the second coordinate because of the longer wavelength.
      In general, the "correct" tactics of using AWACS planes can be described by the phrases "I see you, but you don't," or "the eye sees, but the tooth doesn’t."
      Just everyone sees each other, and if there are problems with the destruction of the AWACS aircraft, then they are not because of the "splendor of its characteristics", but because of the actions of security. And you always need to remember about the "elusive Joe", who "nafig nobody needs" because you can prevent the AWACS aircraft from solving their tasks with the same "correct" electronic warfare, and the radar is always forced to emit it, since this is its main function.
  • niksfromru
    niksfromru April 27 2021 13: 12
    0
    Quote: Intruder
    directly digitize the field in the antenna aperture

    With a signal frequency of 30 GHz, the sampling frequency must be at least 67 GHz. Add to this the necessary data bus bandwidth - and you get a supercomputer for the price of an airplane;)
    As far as "quasi-optical" processing methods are concerned, back in the 1960s, side-scan radars were using optical holography techniques. True, they were implemented using analog technologies.
    And no amount of technology development will allow us to bypass the laws of radio wave propagation.
  • Hexenmeister
    Hexenmeister April 27 2021 16: 02
    0
    and how can you do without AWACS aircraft?
    Special reconnaissance equipment on aircraft
    Especially for him in the 2010s were developed ... UK-RL - long-range container radar with an active phased antenna array
    Each of the containers can be suspended under the aircraft ... as a result of which the three aircraft will even slightly surpass the AWACS aircraft in their reconnaissance capabilities

    Look at the photo of the Su-34 with this container, when suspended under the fuselage with side panels, only mapping in SAR of the earth's surface is possible, that is, downward, the rest of the space is closed by the aircraft body. Both the nose and tail antennas are also substantially shielded. So, if we want to get at least a semblance of an AWACS aircraft in this way, we need to sacrifice one side canvas and hang TWO containers at the ends of the wings, and then with three antennas on each container we will get full coverage of the space. Only the weight of these containers, taking into account their equipment, will, I think, be too large for suspension at these points.
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 27 2021 20: 44
      0
      But this is a hanging container. In addition, the plane with it can be raised closer to the ceiling.

      But a special plane with built-in canvases is another matter.
      1. Hexenmeister
        Hexenmeister April 28 2021 09: 52
        +1
        But this is a hanging container.
        For a start, try to answer the question why V-V missiles with TGS are hung on Sukhoi fighters only at three extreme points on the wing, the farthest from the fuselage? The answer, it seems to me, is easy to get, only from them a normal view of the space is possible without shading by the aircraft body. Therefore, if you hang a container with a radar in the center, then it is suitable only for mapping, which is also supported by the geometry of the canvas visible in the photo. Raising the flight altitude will not solve all the problems. And, as it seems to me, such a container is small for creating a radar of the level of a normal AWACS, and a primitive 200 km of detection will be suitable only for working with the Papuans.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 28 2021 10: 52
          0
          You are now criticizing a specific decision - UK_RL on the Su-34 on the central pylon.

          But I wrote about the fact that, in principle, you can use suspended containers for radar reconnaissance.
  • Max PV
    Max PV April 27 2021 17: 50
    +2
    In my deliberate opinion, the task of detecting AWACS aircraft is much simpler, and does not require any super-locators of the latest generation - these flying radars and command control stations themselves emit so that any passive reconnaissance station can detect them. My main problem is the flight time of weapons. Let's say we are launching a rocket from 400 km. The rocket accelerates to 6M, but it is not capable of flying at such a speed all the way, and will actually cover these 400 km in 400-450 seconds. At this time, the AWACS aircraft, flying at a speed of 540 km / h (150 m / s), will fly at least 60 km, which exceeds the range of the seeker of air-to-air missiles, and, moreover, it can simply go beyond the range of the rocket itself, or reduce this radius if the rocket is forced to maneuver. It seems more promising to me the use of AWACS converted for firing at air targets of anti-ship missiles (it is necessary to replace the warhead and rebuild the seeker). and the dimensions of the X-32 seeker compartment allow even the "Beetle" to be crammed there.
  • Gardener91
    Gardener91 April 27 2021 18: 37
    0
    AWACS aircraft are a complex that includes not only a detection system, but also a warning system. It also includes a ground, mobile, block point - a decision-making center where the chiefs of high ranks of the aviation branches on the data of the theater of operations are in full interaction with each other. In the early stages of operation, ground objects of the AWACS system were VP - 05, with subsequent replacement with a more advanced electronic and mobile component. Ground objects are autonomous in power supply for a long time and are equipped with RCB protection. The complex is very complex, but still necessary, given the possible transience of armed conflicts.
  • Newone
    Newone 1 May 2021 23: 09
    0
    Good article.
  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php:1135 Stack trace: # 0 / var / www /topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/ pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 2 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(559): HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 3 / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php (531): HTML_Node-> clear () # 4 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/ pharse / pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 5 [internal function]: HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 6 {main} thrown in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php on line 1135