Military Review

Russian "death zones": truth or fiction?

53

Over the past weeks, a number of Russian media outlets have published information that “in Russia, the military has created“ death zones ”that will become virtually inaccessible to any high-precision weapons, cruise missiles and drones ”. Izvestia started this business, others, as usual, took it up.


In fact, it is really worth considering carefully how realistic and possible all this is. The difference between "created" death zones "and" will work out the creation of "death zones" still has a place to be.

As well as the raising of "hurray-hype" with or without reason in our country.

As usual, I urge you to start thinking with your head. And since our audience for the most part still served, it means that many will be able to draw the correct conclusions and explain to the sofa in the comments, if suddenly it will be (of course, will be) necessary.

The first thing that did not like in the reports was with what confidence many media outlets, relying on data obtained "from sources in the Ministry of Defense" or "sources close to the Ministry of Defense", began to tell their readers that maneuvers would begin next year, on which the relevant units of the respective troops will work out the creation of "impenetrable protection" not only over army facilities, but also over civilian infrastructure.

There is some surprise at how many informants the modern media have both in the Ministry of Defense and around it. At the same time, there is a firm belief that the sources for the most part are nothing more than fiction.

Those who understand this issue will not allow to lie, but as far as I know, the maneuvers that are carried out in the districts and which are included in the annual combat training plan, as a rule, are not disclosed to the media. Yes, at some of the maneuvers, the Ministry of Defense gives journalists the opportunity to be present, but you yourself understand that these are not all events.

I am convinced that events like those at which "death zones" will be created will do without the presence of media representatives. Firstly, filming such events in itself is rather boring, there are absolutely no dynamics and that very "beautiful picture" so desired by the screen viewer, and secondly, every step is controlled by the relevant services. There are too many secrets.

In addition, as some media wrote that in 2022 "maneuvers throughout the country" will take place - this is delightful. Simply because in April 2021 to be aware of the Plan for Operational Training of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for 2022 ... But it seems to me that the plan has not yet been approved. If, by the way, it was developed at all. Considering that it is April 2021.

In general, if we turn to the definitions, then there can be no EW troops maneuvering. If we are talking (and we are talking about this) about military exercises, since maneuvers are bilateral large-scale military exercises, so let's take the definition of military exercises.

“Military exercises are the highest form of combat training and, at the same time, a control check of the field, air and naval training of personnel and command personnel. The exercises are aimed at acquiring and consolidating combat skills, combat coordination of large formations, formations, units and subunits for conducting combat operations, using weapons and military equipment, as well as practicing various tactical and strategic scenarios of a potential armed conflict "

It is difficult to imagine from such a perspective the hypothetical exercises exclusively of the EW troops. In general, EW subunits and units cannot carry out any independent maneuvers. In any case, for this they need the participation of other types of troops (which must be pressed), which automatically brings us back to the Plan of operational combat training of the Armed Forces.

But in the Plan, which is made up by military people, such terms as “cover of army, social and industrial facilities,” as colleagues wrote, are dubious. Rather, it would have sounded like this: "to work out the options for covering various means of a potential enemy from air strikes of the most important centers of state and military control, economic and industrial facilities."

The military origin of the quoted texts seems to me very, very doubtful.

And what then could the theory be about?

If we think in military terms, then about the construction of an effective anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense in a certain area.

This is very, very vital. And it is quite realizable, because indeed, to arrange an exercise, which involves all possible forces, where the goal of the exercise can be set the task of maximizing the effectiveness of air defense of a specific area.

And, of course, EW subunits and units will play a crucial role in repelling air attacks from a potential enemy.

I witnessed such exercises when an electronic warfare brigade and an air defense brigade covered the city of K from attacks by a regiment of Su-34 bombers weighed down by the Khibiny. We had a dynamic reportage on this topic two years ago.

I draw your attention to the fact that the electronic warfare brigade worked side by side with the air defense brigade. And in general, when it comes to repelling a serious and massive strike of a potential adversary, all types and types of troops that can effectively participate in this process.

That is, the operational-tactical aviation, and anti-aircraft missile troops. Naturally, nowhere without radio-technical troops. And in areas where there is a presence fleet, ship resources are also involved.

And when all branches and types of troops work in a single bundle and under a single command - that's when we talk about the existence of an effective cover zone from air attacks.

And here one should not idealize the EW troops as the ultimate truth. This is far from the case, electronic warfare systems are very vulnerable units, they are very easy to neutralize and disable.

In addition, in order to really create a real "dead zone" for absolutely all types of weapons moving through the air, it will take a lot of complexes.

What is the essence of electronic warfare? The bottom line is the disorganization of the enemy's communications equipment, interference with the operation of electronic means of coordination, and so on.


UAVs use their radio range. Airplanes and helicopters are our own. To work on the signals of navigation satellites, you need your own complexes. The radar frequencies of missiles and aircraft also differ.

There is no universal electronic warfare system capable of “knocking down everything that flies”. And it can't be. In the enemy's army, they are not stupid either, they are also working on countering electronic warfare in full.

Yes, the war on the air today is akin to the conquest of the air in World War II. And whoever wins the broadcast will have a huge advantage. It is a fact. Huge, but not critical. But in order to consolidate the invisible success, the practices of mixed electronic fire strikes are being successfully developed and are already being practiced. This is when not only their electronic warfare systems, but also artillery, missile troops, and aviation are being worked out using the detected communication and electronic warfare systems of the enemy.


And that makes sense.

Modern electronic warfare systems are quite capable of suppressing signals from enemy global positioning systems. This can make it very difficult to use some high-precision weapons systems, which cannot work effectively without GPS referencing. These are cruise missiles and guided bombs equipped with the JDAM system, which is more effective than laser guidance. In general, any "smart" ammunition that requires a reference to a coordinate system.

What if the weapon does not use GPS? How, for example, are the latest modifications of the same "Tomahawks", which work like missiles of the last century, on an inertial countdown, "remembering" their route in my head?

By the way, yes, while we do not have an effective means of electronic warfare against the Axes. In principle, only Krasukha-4 can knock off course, but under very specific conditions. Which are very, very difficult to create, since "Krasukha" is a very peculiar complex, with a bunch of advantages and a bunch of disadvantages. Of the latter - a narrow vector of impact and slow speed.


Opinion: it is impossible to create a "death zone" for absolutely all aircraft using only electronic warfare systems. You can set as many electronic warfare systems as you like around some object, and despite the fact that the ether seems to be “closed”, something will still break through. Or someone.

Therefore, if we talk about the fact that a really "dead zone" should be formed in the area of ​​object X, then such a zone can be created. But not only at the expense of electronic warfare means, but also at the expense of anti-aircraft missile and missile-cannon systems of different ranges and necessarily fighter aircraft.

Let's try to sketch out such a "death zone" as it should look seriously.

1. System of radar reconnaissance and early detection.


The eyes of the "death zone", moreover, with the fastest transfer of information. The detection zone will have to be completed with radars of various types in order to repeatedly cover all ranges and get a complete picture of what is happening. That is, to see in all ranges, at all heights and targets of all sizes. And not only to see, but also to accompany.

2. The brain of the system: an analytical information processing system. Classifies targets, assigns importance and gives target designation to all possible means of destruction. And do it quickly.


3. Long-range and medium-range anti-aircraft missile systems. Everything is clear here.



4. Short-range anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems. For work, including for small-sized targets.

5. Aviation. Fighters and fighter-interceptors connected to the "death zone" control system.


6. As interceptors of small-sized aircraft, helicopters of army aviation can be used, respectively, armed with rapid-fire small-caliber weapons.


7. Electronic warfare equipment that can interrupt communication channels, disrupt the satellite orientation system, "light up" the radars of aircraft with all the ensuing consequences.


And here electronic warfare systems play the same important role as missiles and shells.

If we are talking about a "dead zone" for aircraft, mainly of small size, that is, cruise missiles and UAVs, it is an integrated approach that is very important here. And all links of the system should act against small-sized targets such as strike UAVs.

A cruise missile or drone with a tactical nuclear charge is a very difficult and specific target for any weapon. An airplane, fighter-bomber or bomber (we do not consider strategists, they will launch the same cruise missiles), despite the fact that they may have their own means of counteracting defenses, is a "calmer target" for the system than a small-sized target of a CD or UAV. Larger and less maneuverable.

In addition, both missiles and UAVs can contain maps of the area in memory and follow the inertial system. And then the defeat by means of electronic warfare becomes less likely. And here "Pantsiri-1S" and similar ZRPK can come to the rescue. The option that the Krasukha's high-energy beam will burn the control circuits is just as real as the Pantsir's anti-missile or cannon fire.


An integrated approach to the defeat of small-sized and highly maneuverable targets is the key to success in creating the so-called "dead zones". And the means of electronic warfare, whatever the journalists invented there, is just one of the components of the system, which is really capable of ensuring the creation of such a "dead zone".


"Death Zone" is not a bad notion, but ... If you look closely at the sketched diagram, there is absolutely nothing new in it. Everything is old and used up. The "Death Zone" is, unfortunately, just a nice move. To create a real "death zone" using only electronic warfare means is costly and imprudent. "Holes" in such a zone will be more than enough.

They did not hit or hit with a spread palm or a twig. They beat with a well-clenched fist or club. Then the result, as they say, will be on the face.
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx April 27 2021 04: 31
    -1
    There is nothing easier than making your own opinion by watching the video:
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather April 27 2021 06: 37
      +13
      Quote: ROSS 42
      There is nothing easier than making your own opinion by watching the video:

      sure it will be correct? in the "military reception" we always have "equalize". Whoever is in the subject, he usually only smiles condescendingly, watching this program.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx April 27 2021 06: 56
        -3
        Quote: Dead Day
        sure it will be correct?

        The advantage of your own opinion is that it is not only composed of watching videos. A video is better than reading a hundred times.
        Criticism of Roman's "death zones" is no better than the hype raised by the media. I hope Roman is familiar with the effectiveness of hitting targets? It is foolish to deny one hundred percent defeat if its nature is not well known. Like the nature of radiation, for example.
        Electronics malfunctions occur even with increased solar activity. The principle of the effect of EMP has been known since the late 50s, but I, for example, know people who consider the existence of thermobaric ammunition to be fiction.
        Let's think about why the salvo of American "axes" in Syria did not reach the goal? Really JUST let down the same electronics, which (in the civilian version) are chased in Russia by the majors and those who imitate them?
        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather April 27 2021 07: 23
          +1
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Let's think about why the salvo of American "axes" in Syria did not reach the goal? Really JUST let down the same electronics, which (in the civilian version) are chased in Russia by the majors and those who imitate them?

          Come on, think ... in that area, our "krasukhs" and the hedgehog with them, were not born. by definition, it is not "hmeimim".
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx April 27 2021 07: 33
            +4
            Quote: Dead Day
            in that area, our "krasukh" and hedgehog with them, were not born. a-priory,

            Are you saying this as the head of the General Staff or as a VO user? What is the secrecy regime you were told? Not everything that happens in the sun should be known to those who are not involved. The result is important here and your version of sabotage at the enterprises for the production of "axes" is unconvincing.
            1. Grandfather
              Grandfather April 27 2021 07: 39
              -6
              Quote: ROSS 42
              The result is important here and your version of sabotage at the enterprises for the production of "axes" is unconvincing.

              "my version"??? Seriously ? coming up with it on the go? according to your "version" all that you do not know, and nothing has been confirmed anywhere, is it "secrecy"? yes, if it was our "electronic warfare" worked in Shayrat, then you can be sure, they would trumpet.
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 27 2021 08: 42
          +7
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Let's think about why the salvo of American "axes" in Syria did not reach the goal?

          Let's. Maybe because you achieved your goals?





          The "after" pictures were taken 10 hours after the attack. They recorded the destruction of 10 weapons depots, 7 gas stations. The SA6 anti-aircraft missile system has been completely reduced to rubble. Also, 4 more complexes were damaged, significant damage was caused to the runway of the airfield.
          Israeli experts believe that 58 missiles have reached the targets. They note the high efficiency of the blow. As for the relatively small damage caused, it is explained by the fact that the missiles are equipped with relatively small warheads - 450 kg of explosives.
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 27 2021 09: 39
          +1
          "Let's think about why the salvo of American" axes "in Syria did not reach the goal?" ///
          ----
          All Tomahawks flew to the Syrian military institute,
          except for one released from the side of the Red Sea.
          She had a technical deficiency.
          It's just that the monitoring tools of Russia did not notice everything. The rockets were launched from three
          strontium: from the Mediterranean Sea, from the Persian Gulf, from the Red Sea.
          The missiles from the east were not noticed by Russian weapons.
          The Americans checked the firing synchronization and satellite communications of the missiles
          (previously it was not there).
        4. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 27 2021 09: 44
          +14
          A video is better than reading a hundred times.

          Pushkin turned over in his grave. In general, any psychologist will refute these words of yours once or twice. And he will say that reading promotes better assimilation of information, and also creates better conditions for its analysis. While video strikes the imagination harder, therefore, it programs human thinking more in the direction that directors need.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 27 2021 10: 06
            +6
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            stronger programs human thinking in the direction necessary for directors.

            Absolutely right. Screen 1:54 suddenly appeared "energy shield" against missiles. How does this relate to reality? None. This is for Star Wars. This was done on purpose, so that people would have an opinion about the prodigy of electronic warfare.
            From a vital element of combined arms combat, electronic warfare has become a cult.



            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 27 2021 10: 14
              +2
              Find 10 differences, called laughing laughing laughing .
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 27 2021 10: 21
                -1
                Here's a good overview from a professional combatant by profile. But there will be no funny "cartoons".
        5. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. April 28 2021 12: 26
          +1
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Let's think about why the salvo of American "axes" in Syria did not reach the goal?


          Akstis - less Konashenkov's tales listen to "about 36 tomahawks did not fly ..."

          It has long been sorted out which rocket hit where
      2. Sergey Obraztsov
        Sergey Obraztsov April 27 2021 10: 24
        +1
        in the "military reception" we always have "equalize". Whoever is in the subject, he usually only smiles condescendingly, watching this program.


        Propaganda is propaganda. But I watch the program because of the gorgeous video sequence and the heap of the described little things, which I, as a person who did not serve, did not even think about.
        1. Egoza
          Egoza April 27 2021 16: 50
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Obraztsov
          Propaganda is propaganda

          a number of Russian media outlets published information that “in Russia the military have created“ death zones ”... Izvestia started this case, others, as usual, picked up.

          When the media begin to "inform" us, the old, Soviet times come to mind ...
          "There is no truth in Izvestia, there is no news in Pravda, Trud is left for 2 kopecks.
      3. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver April 27 2021 13: 59
        +4
        Quote: Dead Day
        smiles condescendingly, looking at this transmission

        So it can reduce cheekbones - to smile for 40 minutes. Masochism of some kind
      4. Volder
        Volder 1 May 2021 07: 02
        0
        Quote: Dead Day
        in "military acceptance" we always have "uravsekhporvom". whoever is in the subject usually only smiles indulgently while watching this program.
        No lies have yet been noticed in this program. Or have you noticed? Share.
  2. Mitroha
    Mitroha April 27 2021 05: 16
    +7
    As usual, I urge you to start thinking with your head. And since our audience for the most part still served, it means that many will be able to draw the correct conclusions and explain to the sofa in the comments, if suddenly it will be (of course, will be) necessary.

    Roman, do you think that the absence of this paragraph would make your article lose? If you think with your head?
    1. Crabong
      Crabong April 27 2021 06: 41
      -4
      It looks like this paragraph was meant for your brother.
  3. Cowbra
    Cowbra April 27 2021 06: 08
    -2
    We have a fundamentally different scheme, which MANY, according to the NATO standard, call anti-access and area denial ... We still have the land, and on it there are people
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins April 27 2021 06: 19
    +3
    Not a frequent case when I agree with the author. I also have the prevailing opinion that absolute no weapons.
    Everything should work together.
    Yes, during the time that I was not in the Armed Forces, the electronic warfare systems took a step forward. They have become more compact, more reliable, versatile, but .... remained not absolute and vulnerable.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 27 2021 06: 59
      -6
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      I also have the prevailing opinion that there is no absolute weapon.

      But historical events show that absolute victory can be achieved with small arms, in which the range of destruction is increased due to the rifling in the barrel ... belay
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 April 27 2021 06: 24
    +3
    You don’t know, don’t check ... or is it the other way around ???
    Impenetrable zones are not created, because .... even from a slingshot, they will still penetrate / pierce!
    1. Cowbra
      Cowbra April 28 2021 11: 34
      -1
      One problem - there is Khmeimim ... And there were already thirty attacks on him only by drones ... Iffect is not even that much. And there are American bases ... Or partly American Aramko ... Y-y-ykskyuzmi, crap (if anything - a quote from the movie "Promised Heaven")
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 28 2021 11: 50
        +2
        The "barmaley" do not know how to make good "slingshots", there are no suitable resources.
        And so, in fact, our protection systems are the best, now.
  6. Crabong
    Crabong April 27 2021 06: 38
    -5
    Yes, we have enough moronic propaganda ...
  7. Old tanker
    Old tanker April 27 2021 06: 52
    +10
    It should be borne in mind that the use of electronic warfare means in many cases interferes not only with the enemy, but often with their own troops. Anyone who has encountered the use of electronic warfare in exercises or in a combat situation knows about it.
    So, electronic warfare is not a constantly working jammer of everything and everyone, but part of a complex of counteraction and defeat of the enemy, strictly linked in place, time and purpose of use with other types and types of troops and weapons. Electronic warfare units do not act on their own, but in strict accordance with the planned interaction table or, to solve sudden-arising tasks, at the direction of the command.
  8. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo April 27 2021 07: 50
    -2
    Are our electronic warfare equipment ready for the threats posed by Starlink and OneWeb?
    Here it is really necessary to cover the entire territory of the country.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 27 2021 09: 44
      -4
      StarLink is a civilian program. Musk refused to put the military on these satellites
      sensors.
      But soon the Pentagon will launch a separate, similar military network (also with the help of Falcon-9).
      Here it is necessary to be afraid.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo April 27 2021 11: 03
        -1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        StarLink - civil program

        So I'm talking about civil.
        This is a hybrid warfare weapon.
      2. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall April 27 2021 15: 29
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        StarLink is a civilian program. Musk refused to put the military on these satellites
        sensors.
        But soon the Pentagon will launch a separate, similar military network (also with the help of Falcon-9).
        Here it is necessary to be afraid.


        Refused, or said he refused?

        In a recent interview, 48-year-old Elon Musk spoke about his satellites, and also said about the possibility of their use for military purposes. He invited the United States Department of Defense to try them in work.

        Source: https://actualnews.org/exclusive/347857-ilon-mask-predlozhil-svoi-sputniki-starlink-pentagonu-dlja-voennyh-celej.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop

        The US Army has signed a three-year agreement with billionaire Elon Musk's SpaceX to collaborate on the Starlink project, which will launch 12 satellites into low-Earth orbit. The Pentagon is exploring the possibility of using satellite broadband for military purposes, according to SpaceNews.


        ... undoubtedly SpaceX is working hard to sell Starlink and its services to the military. So, in 2019, testing of a satellite channel was organized between the ground terminal and the aviation terminal on board the C-12 aircraft through the first Starlink satellites of the Tintin type, which showed a speed of 610 Mbit / s. In September 2020, new tests took place under the same Global Lightning program, already with the current generation of Starlink satellites and C-17 and KS-135 aircraft during army exercises.


        But on a separate military network, you are most likely right.

        The biggest success of SpaceX in the "military" direction is the signing in mid-2020 of an agreement on free testing and study by the military of this network and its services for three years. Note also that the Pentagon has now announced a competition for the development of a project for its own low-orbit network (similar, in fact, Starlink) called STL (Space Transport Layer). An analysis of open data on the terms of reference for this project shows that at the moment Starlink has two significant drawbacks from the point of view of the military: the lack of coverage in the Arctic and the need for ground gateways.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 27 2021 15: 34
          0
          The military, Musk said, will be able to use StarLink satellites to
          internet connections in hard-to-reach areas of the world,
          mainly for ships in the oceans.
          But the satellites will not have military chips and IR sensors.
          1. Volder
            Volder 1 May 2021 07: 14
            -1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Musk said that
            But the satellites will not have military chips and IR sensors.
            And everyone believed him, of course. Don't tell my slippers! :)
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 May 2021 09: 30
              0
              About 1500 identical communication satellites have already been launched. There are no military additives on them. And it won't.
              1. Volder
                Volder 9 June 2021 14: 17
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                About 1500 identical communication satellites have already been launched. There are no military additives on them. And it won't.
                All satellites have a dual purpose - civil and military. Believing Mask is like not respecting yourself.
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 27 2021 15: 38
          -1
          Quote: AVM
          Refused, or said he refused?

          They can use it as an Internet channel. There is a huge amount of information that can be transmitted through civilian channels without loading the military.

          Quote: AVM
          lack of coverage in the Arctic

          Mask Toli sent or is going to send a pack of satellites to the northern latitudes. This need is being closed.
          Quote: AVM
          own LEO network

          By launching 3-4 RTR satellites and communications into orbit, they will be able to issue a stable control center for moving targets. With a strong desire, this is done in 000-2 years.
  9. gridasov
    gridasov April 27 2021 09: 47
    0
    To talk about truthfulness or speculation, it is necessary to understand what scientific and technical issues must first be resolved in order to ensure such processes.
  10. vladcub
    vladcub April 27 2021 14: 17
    +3
    Novel, what do you want from the repertoires? The reporters had and will have the main rule: SENSATION, and everything else is FIG.
  11. vladcub
    vladcub April 27 2021 14: 51
    +2
    "with a bunch of advantages, a bunch of shortcomings" in this regard, REN-TV will immediately tell you: a) "seven in one fell swoop"; b) "boss, the mustache is gone. The plaster is removed tomorrow."
    There are such cool "experts" that wonder
  12. arkadiyssk
    arkadiyssk April 27 2021 20: 37
    +1
    I think that all these Death Zones are fabulous notions of journalists under the order of propaganda. If there was a real opportunity and would like to flex their muscles, showing the whole world the power of electronic warfare, three months ago, during Karabakh 2, we could place all the necessary funds on the Armenian border and cover Karabakh with such an umbrella under the pretext - we are for peace and a calm conversation between the parties not shooting Baytaktar. And no one would have said anything against it, because there would be a Russian flag next to it. There, the depth of work is only 50 km. But no, nothing of the kind was even close, they just silently looked at the vidosiki as a formal ally, beaten by 20 drone operators. At least they could drown out the control channels. Complete zero.
  13. TOR2
    TOR2 April 27 2021 21: 28
    0
    The author did not mention one important point. If we are talking about installations of electronic warfare of active influence, then energy intensity plays an important role. Soil carriers can only meet this need up to a certain level. For example, if you put some elements of electronic warfare on rails, you can solve this problem. Being at a distance, but united in a common network, such installations at the right time can close quite large areas, taking into account the relief, of course. In addition, fiber-optic cables have been laid along the lines of Russian Railways. So civil infrastructure can be used for data transmission. And one more not unimportant moment. Radiation at such capacities is a rather dangerous thing, so professionalism should be at the highest level.
  14. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 April 28 2021 03: 25
    0
    - relying on data obtained "from sources in the Ministry of Defense" or "sources close to the Ministry of Defense" - this is the OBS system. All verses are designed for "people", he "grabs" everything !!! For them, rating or, as it is now, "classes" are more important than brains.
  15. engineer74
    engineer74 April 28 2021 12: 34
    0
    The absolute means of electronic warfare has long been known: warheads of the megaton class in the ionosphere. The truth does not act very selectively, but, for that, reliably. wink
  16. zlobny tatarin
    zlobny tatarin 1 May 2021 17: 43
    0
    Too much water. Looks like it was hastily written.
  17. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 2 May 2021 00: 54
    0
    Well, in principle, the author is right. But there are questions.
    Every year, high-precision weapons are becoming more and more independent of external control and support channels and are simply immune to electronic warfare of any kind.
    Also, I have always been confused by the "teachings" against their own systems, the value of such teachings is very conditional. Suppressing the electronic warfare of the radars of your aircraft, for example, does not guarantee a similar result for enemy aircraft, or protection from your own electronic warfare does not guarantee protection from strangers. Moreover, there have already been similar examples in history.
    And third, I was incredibly surprised when people in Russia began to openly talk about what electronic warfare is in the troops, and what they can do. Indeed, in any army, electronic warfare is a trump card, and a short-lived one. Ideally, the enemy should not even suspect that you have electronic warfare until the last second. The surprise effect is a serious tactical advantage. Everyone, except Russia, is hiding information about their electronic warfare as much as possible, somehow strange.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 2 May 2021 01: 02
      +2
      Quote: And Us Rat
      Everyone, except Russia, is hiding information about their electronic warfare as much as possible, somehow strange.

      Electronic warfare is an element of propaganda. In all types of troops, the backlog in technology is 1-2 generations. In addition to the Strategic Missile Forces and Electronic Warfare. In order to compensate for the media effect of the lag, a myth about "REB" is being created, which has little in common with reality.
      This direction is extremely convenient for propaganda, few people understand it, it is impossible to "touch", Western partners hide information about it. And besides, there are real successes, being ahead in some elements.
      1. mva
        mva 5 May 2021 09: 41
        0
        Electronic warfare is an element of propaganda. In all types of troops, the backlog in technology is 1-2 generations. In addition to the Strategic Missile Forces and Electronic Warfare. In order to compensate for the media effect of the lag, a myth about "REB" is being created, which has little in common with reality.
        This direction is extremely convenient for propaganda, few people understand it, it is impossible to "touch", Western partners hide information about it. And besides, there are real successes, being ahead in some elements. [/ Quote]
        I don’t know about the Strategic Missile Forces, but there is also a couple of generations behind in the electronic warfare. NIIR was not carried out in the 80s in the electronic warfare, the Ministry of Defense does not want to finance them, it is easier to screw a new "bumper" to the car and pass it off as a new product.
  18. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 2 May 2021 01: 16
    -1
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik

    And besides, there are real successes, being ahead in some elements.

    And here is the main logical snag. And how does one ask to know whether these advances are real, if there is simply nothing to compare with?
    And what about related industries? If electronic warfare is the best, then radars should be the best, and in general all military microelectronics. How is one possible without the other?
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 2 May 2021 01: 22
      +1
      Quote: And Us Rat
      if there is simply nothing to compare with?

      If you have nothing to compare with, then you are ahead. For example Krasuha, a direct analogue of only Turkish Koral. The "West" does not have such a system because they do not need it stupidly. They are on aircraft carriers.
      Quote: And Us Rat
      How is one possible without the other?

      It is impossible.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 2 May 2021 01: 42
      +1
      I looked at your articles, very interesting. Don't you think to continue?
  19. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 2 May 2021 09: 32
    0
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    I looked at your articles, very interesting. Don't you think to continue?

    Thank you, I think how interesting material will turn up - I'll post it.
  20. mva
    mva 5 May 2021 09: 29
    0
    Dear Roman Skomorokhov, have you tried to count what kind of energy Krasukha should have with the size of the mirrors that are on it in order to burn out the control circuits at a distance of, for example, 1 km? I'm not even talking about the fact that these control circuits are usually also protected from external EMP.
    The role of electronic warfare in modern warfare (as well as of tanks that are unable to reach the enemy's engagement range) tends to zero. But now the electronic warfare is not even able to detect broadband noise-like signals, let alone suppress them.
    It would also be interesting to hear your interpretation of how electronic warfare from the ground can suppress the signal of global positioning systems on aircraft (missiles, bombs) if a screen is installed on them under the antenna, blocking the signal from the ground.
  21. Cer59
    Cer59 12 July 2021 20: 29
    0
    drunkenly decided last year to close themselves from drones fluttering in the sky. They don't give you a drink, what if the wife is flogging ...
    and already on the next fishing trip, the sky was tightly closed ...
    the specialists arrived, what the hell is this ...
    you can close everything, that's just how to be yourself ...