Perfect protection for PAK YES: myth or reality?

50

Image: VKS Film Company and Russian Navy

As stated by some media outlets (and some have thoroughly discussed this news), "Promising aviation long-range aviation complex (PAK DA), will receive the most advanced defense complex, which will protect the aircraft from all types weapons».

Here, of course, there is something to talk about, if you do it carefully and deliberately. Speaking through the lips of the literary hero, the great Bulgakov, “you never know what you can tell! You don't have to believe everything. " Moreover, such news appears in our press systematically and regularly.



Recently, we have a complete order, if we need to tell (or show a cartoon) that another deadly contraption has been invented in Russia. But with comprehension, problems are often observed. To say that "it has no analogues ..." is simple. It's harder to explain why.

But no one especially tries to grasp the essence of the matter, because sometimes it turns out just funny incidents. However, first things first. Let's try to arrange everything in accordance with the plan according to which everything will need to be understood.

Item 1. In Russia, the assembly of a modernized version of the Tu-160 strategic bomber has begun. Tu-160M2.

Yes, you need to start from this point, and not from PAK YES. Each has its own time.

Item 2. In 2016, representatives of the Tupolev company in an interview with the media said that the bomber will be equipped with a new locator, an aerobatic complex with modern laser gyroscopes, communication systems, sensors, indication systems, and a new weapon control system.

That is, in fact, it was also about the fact that the body of the aircraft will remain the same, and the filling will be very significantly reworked. Not an upgrade, but actually another car in an old building. That's okay, that's right.

Item 3. In 2009, Russia began work on the creation of a new strategic bomber "Product 80" or PAK DA. Work goes on, and goes on, if what we are told in the official statements is, however, not bad. In 2020, the assembly of the first sample began. Just 11 years after the start of work.

It is worth comparing with the PAK FA, work on which began in 2001, the first flight took place in 2017, and the project is still quite far from the logical completion of the project. But they promise that the bomber will fly by 2025-2026.

Not a bad deal, especially considering how much the fighter is smaller than the strategic bomber.

Item 4. The media begin to report en masse that the PAK DA (when it is "in the metal") will receive the most advanced defense complex, which will protect the bomber from all types of weapons.

These statements immediately gave rise to many questions from those who do not fully understand the essence of these complexes. It is not a fact that those who wrote, also have a clear idea of ​​everything. But some simply stated the fact that a new defensive complex would be created for PAK DA, others began to doubt and ask questions like "And what is the new complex for Tu-160M2?"

A very logical question, isn't it? In fact, what, in reality, is the development of TWO complexes for two different aircraft, or the PAK DA will receive the same complex that is being prepared for the Tu-160M2?

Agree, there is a certain trick in the question. The Tu-160M2 is being assembled today, the old aircraft are being brought up to this level, and the PAK DA will fly in ten years at best. And if we are talking about the same complex, it is unlikely to be relevant and competitive in ten years.

So what do we really have: two complexes for two bombers or one? What do the representatives of the military-industrial complex mean when they say that both the Tu-160M2 and the PAK DA will receive almost 100% protection against any attacks in the optical and radar ranges?

Of course, the figure "100%" should not be taken seriously. However, all such delusions are very often broken. For example, the F-117 stealth plane misconception was shattered in this way. Everyone is inclined to exaggerate, both we and the opponents.

Naturally, modern electronic countermeasures systems are able to significantly weaken the work of the enemy's air defense. Loosen but not nullify.

The best example of this is the testing of the Smalta system, the latest at that time, in the 70s of the last century during the next Syrian-Israeli conflict. "Smalta" on a Mi-8 helicopter was used against the "Hawk" air defense system. At first, "Smalta" worked very effectively against the "Hawk", but then the Israelis, realizing what was happening, changed the channels on the guidance and control system. And everything went the same way.

It's an endless race. Defense against weapons and weapons against protection. Therefore, both the first and the second will be modernized and replaced with more modern models.

This is quite normal for our bombers as well. By the way, besides PAK DA, which is only on paper and Tu-160, we have Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3M. And the modernization of means of radio-electronic influence, in theory, should affect these aircraft too.

Unification. A very useful thing. Design, manufacture, installation, repair and maintenance are all easier to do with one system on four types of aircraft than vice versa.

But the main thing is that it is not yet clear what it is all about. What our news media is talking about new systems is not at all a reason to start making a fuss. News is just news, and the news does not have to be specific. “There will be a new system that has no analogues in the world, with which we will defeat everyone. Point". That's enough for news.

And then you will have to deal with something completely different. But we need to figure it out, because the cries that everything is sad and there will be four different electronic protection systems for four aircraft is not serious.

It is clear that developing such a difficult thing as an airborne electronic warfare system is not a matter of one year. Unlike all other complexes, the air one is the most difficult to implement.

Ground systems do not care about their weight. The only question is the base, from the trailer (the same "Resident") to the "Krasukha", which is on the chassis from the BAZ.

Naval systems don't rely on energy as much as others. There is always order on ships with energy.

But air complexes should be lightweight and consume energy so that the aircraft systems are enough. Accordingly, it is not easy to design and assemble something that will satisfy everyone.

Since we are already talking about "Smalta", which will begin to change in the VKS complex "Lever", the complex "Smalta" went into series in 1974 and is still used on some models of equipment. The Khibiny, which is today spoken of as a miracle weapon, began to be developed in the same 1977, when the Kaluga Development Institute (KNIRTI) received the State Prize for Smalt.

So it's not a very quick thing to do - the creation of an airborne electronic warfare complex. Accordingly, if today we hypothetically say that a certain complex of protection "from everything" is ALREADY ready for the thoroughly modernized Tu-160M2, this does not mean at all that in 10 years the same complex will be installed on PAK YES, as some so lament.

In general, the development of modern electronic warfare systems is proceeding at a very high rate. What to say, in the nineties, the average jamming station consisted of at least two hefty trucks. And even out of three: antenna, hardware and power plant. Much easier today. On the basis of MT-LB, they make a station, which is a sheer nightmare for enemy aircraft.

Therefore, there is no doubt that in Kaluga (for example) they really worked on the topic of rearmament of the Tu-160M2. It is Tu-160M2, because this is a real plane, not a project on paper. And on the Tu-160M2 will indeed be installed new systems of electronic impact on the enemy's assets.

As for the PAK YES, it will not be left without a protection complex, this is understandable. Which one is another question. Most likely, what will be installed on the Tu-160M2 will be taken as a basis. As a basis - because in 10-15 years it will not make any sense to install the same on PAK YES, as already mentioned.

It is clear that a potential adversary will not sit idly by and will improve detection, guidance, suppression systems, and missile weapons in the same way. And this will have to watch and take appropriate action.

So we can safely say that yes, the complex that will be installed on the PAK DA is not the one that will be installed on the Tu-160M2. For one simple reason: in any case, this complex will have time to pass the tests and changes will probably be made to it based on the results.

But in any case, it will be a kind of unified system, whatever one may say. And this is quite logical, all long-range / strategic aircraft should have the same level of protection against all means of destruction.

Here we have just a comprehensive rearmament for one system of all aircraft, from the Tu-95 to the Tu-160M2 and further, what will come out of the PAK DA.

Speaking about the fact that this complex, about which we do not know anything yet, will be able to 100% protect aircraft from electronic and optical effects, it is probably somewhat premature. This requires some kind of proof, test results. Like a helicopter with a "Lever" they fired at "Needles" missiles and nothing happened. And all doubts about the "Lever" immediately disappeared.

Of course, we would very much like our planes to feel at home in the sky. Modern means of radio electronics can provide a fairly high degree of security, countering the technical means of the enemy.

This applies to everything: detection radars, seeker, lasers ... And a huge bomber with powerful engines will be able to safely lift into the air and use the same "Lever", even though it weighs one and a half tons.

By the way, such systems are a very significant prospect. "Lever" will certainly "lose weight" in the coming years and will receive a permanent residence permit on the sides. It would be very helpful.

I would like to make everything as safe as possible. But the enemy also has engineers and designers working to ensure that their radars can see our aircraft, and missiles find the target detected by the radars.

Therefore, it is quite expected that the new bomber is simply obliged to receive the most advanced protection complex. Just throwing loud statements that these funds will provide 100% protection of the aircraft is probably not worth it yet. Until the aircraft is created, until the protection complex is created.

It is clear that in 10 years no one will remember what was said today on this topic. It remains only to wait for the results of work on the PAK DA and its weapons. And there it is already to draw certain conclusions.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    16 June 2021 04: 11
    The time will come and there will be no need to guess on a daisy! Wait and see.
    1. +8
      16 June 2021 04: 27
      It remains only to wait for the results of work on the PAK DA and its weapons.
      No invention can be perfect right away.
      Cicero Mark Tullius. Let's wait and wish the design engineers success in their work.
      1. +4
        16 June 2021 16: 09
        The author got a little fixated on the electronic warfare systems, while confirming that he has no idea what it is about at all. Apparently he is not bad at RAP. But this is narrow for analysis. Why exclude other protections? Well, at a glance, systems similar to KAZ adapted for these tasks, this is a jump-start. The field for speculation is huge, but the fact is that we have no idea what it is about, even about what was put on the TU160M2, and even about PAK YES ... I just would like to form something.
  2. +5
    16 June 2021 05: 37
    Just throwing loud statements that these funds will provide 100% protection of the aircraft is probably not worth it yet.
    Of course not worth it, if only because a heavy vehicle cannot do without active means of defense, and there is not a word about them in the article.
  3. +3
    16 June 2021 06: 08
    I would like to understand what this is about?
    What is a "defense complex" of a strategic (long-range) aircraft?
    1. +1
      16 June 2021 09: 55
      Quote: Bez 310
      I would like to understand what this is about?

      It looks like we are talking about sprinkling with holy water. 100% protection in the skies.
    2. -2
      16 June 2021 11: 54
      Quote: Bez 310
      I would like to understand what this is about?
      What is a "defense complex" of a strategic (long-range) aircraft?

      Indeed, the question is interesting, if only because long-range aircraft are not supposed to even approach the enemy's air defense systems and their fighter aircraft, because these are too serious weapons when they have nuclear warheads on board.
      1. 0
        16 June 2021 12: 12
        Quote: ccsr
        Quote: Bez 310
        I would like to understand what this is about?
        What is a "defense complex" of a strategic (long-range) aircraft?

        Indeed, the question is interesting, if only because long-range aircraft are not supposed to even approach the enemy's air defense systems and their fighter aircraft, because these are too serious weapons when they have nuclear warheads on board.


        Well, as far as I read different sources, the same B-52 and B-1B are equipped with the most powerful electronic warfare / electronic warfare / as well as countermeasures to various optical-location devices, IR / UV, etc.
        1. -6
          16 June 2021 12: 59
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Well, as far as I read different sources, the same B-52 and B-1B are equipped with the most powerful electronic warfare / electronic warfare / as well as countermeasures to various optical-location devices, IR / UV, etc.

          They can fight against the Papuans, who have primitive air defense systems, and we maintain our long-range aviation only to destroy our main opponents. But this enemy will not give us the opportunity to come close to his borders in order to use the systems you have listed.
          1. 0
            16 June 2021 14: 13
            Greetings! Sorry, but using even the first "layer" of Starlink satellites, any US Navy ship can deploy a battlefield network within a 1000 km radius. Already today, the first layer of the starlink covers the entire planet, so a strategic bomber cannot feel safe even over its territory and will be forced to use electronic warfare equipment.
            In connection with the above, a natural question arises: "Dear Dmitry Olegovich, is it not better to use the funds from the filming of the film on the ISS for the implementation of the Sphere project?"
            Sincerely
            1. -3
              16 June 2021 18: 21
              Quote: nobody75
              Sorry, but using even the first "layer" of Starlink satellites, any US Navy ship can deploy a battlefield network within a 1000 km radius.

              I wonder what kind of air defense missile weapons are used by the Americans to hit a target 1000 km from the ship? By the way, did you ever think that this ship would be destroyed before the Tu-95 entered its radar zone?
              Quote: nobody75
              and will be forced to use electronic warfare means.

              Electronic warfare means by themselves unmask our plane better than any Starlinks, especially if it will fly 10 km.
              1. +2
                16 June 2021 19: 38
                I wonder what kind of air defense missile weapons are used by the Americans to hit a target 1000 km from the ship?

                How bloodthirsty you are! Such a ship will be able to control reconnaissance and strike drones. Or rather, not to control directly, but to provide a satellite communication channel between them and the data center, in which all intelligence information will be collected ... And AI will analyze it, because a "machine" is always big data. Control over the patrol routes of strategic bombers will allow you to correctly orient the reconnaissance satellites that will be able to track the launch of the CD.
                And the means of electronic warfare will be needed in order to try to drown out the starlink. But I'm afraid that nothing will come of this venture, since the equipment of the starlink is an antenna with headlights and a satellite orientation system. One hope - at +50 the antenna overheats and automatically turns off.
                Sincerely
                1. -6
                  16 June 2021 20: 34
                  Quote: nobody75
                  How bloodthirsty you are! Such a ship will be able to control reconnaissance and strike drones.

                  Those. they took the figure from the ceiling, I immediately understood. I will disappoint you - the Americans do not have such systems now.
                  Quote: nobody75
                  And the means of electronic warfare will be needed in order to try to drown out the starlink. But I'm afraid that nothing will come of this venture, since the equipment of the starlink is an antenna with headlights and a satellite orientation system.

                  Well, since you do not believe in such a possibility, then why place unnecessary equipment on the plane?
                  1. +1
                    16 June 2021 21: 20
                    The figure was not taken from the ceiling of 1000 km - the coverage of the base station of the starlink of the first layer. Its channel is shared by all subscribers, and satellites are repeaters between subscribers and BS.
                    Sincerely
  4. +1
    16 June 2021 06: 26
    In ten years, it is possible that these applicants will no longer be present.
    Somehow they do not seriously raise a fuss.
  5. -1
    16 June 2021 06: 51
    Protection for PAK YES is still a myth.
    1. 0
      19 November 2021 12: 51
      - Russian electronic warfare stations are a myth. Seriously speaking. lol
      As I have already said here at least 33 times, you cannot have a 25-year lag in radar from the United States - and electronic warfare stations capable of withstanding American radar. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE!
      Because The electronic warfare station always acts as a "catch-up" radar and in order to effectively suppress it, it must be more perfect than the enemy radar at least "on the head"! And here the opposite is true. In this situation, all the talk about the capabilities of Russian systems to suppress the radar of American fighters is just a dead fake. And all those who try to rant on this topic with fanfare and timpani are simply ignorant, not knowing the subject of the conversation.
      One of them is the author of this article, Roman Skomorokhov ... "The writer writes, the reader reads".
      I'm not talking about the fact that there is no need to try to make electronic warfare stations - from tens of tons to those based on missile carriers and fighters. You just need to understand that electronic warfare and radar / radar stations are two branches of the same tree and it is impossible to have effective electronic warfare stations until the 25-year radar / radar lag is overcome... And it will not be overcome until the overall technological lag behind the United States and the West is overcome. And it cannot be overcome under this system of state power - in recent years, the "fork", or "scissors" in the technological development of Russian high-tech from Western technologies only increases, no matter how much the official propagandists try to portray the opposite picture ... stop belay
  6. +2
    16 June 2021 07: 32
    It is worth comparing with PAK FA, work on which began in 2001, the first flight took place in 2017,

    Su-57 / First flight January 29, 2010
  7. -2
    16 June 2021 07: 56
    Perfect protection
    There is no perfect defense, so a myth.
  8. 0
    16 June 2021 08: 14
    The complex of protection is electronic warfare, anti-missiles, countermeasures to thermal heads, and a lot of things you can think of in 10 years. ...
  9. +4
    16 June 2021 08: 41
    About the same thing, but in short, could you write? Repeat on repeat. "A lot of letters."
    1. 0
      16 June 2021 08: 52
      And there are many mistakes in the text. Was the author in a hurry?
      1. 0
        16 June 2021 09: 07
        And he is always in a hurry.
  10. 0
    16 June 2021 10: 16
    Such a great article ...
    And the meaning is only 2 lines.
    It is understandable, the fee from 2 lines will not work.
    And if on the topic, if the PAKDA is already under construction, then why should we fool with the TU - 160?
    No, it is clear that the idea was to resume production at a speedy pace, like it was done here recently and is still being renovated and modernized. In fact, it turned out that some critical technologies were lost, production facilities were destroyed, there were no counterparties, and almost the entire aircraft had to be redesigned.
    It would be necessary, if smartly, to give up this venture and direct all forces to PAKDA. But no, the design bureau, the plant, the subcontractors stubbornly make the obviously outdated "swan2".
    1. +3
      16 June 2021 16: 22
      Modernizing the old and making new Swans, the plant first trains the personnel that will be needed to assemble the PAK DA. Secondly, it establishes and hones work with subcontractors. Who also hone the skills of their teams. In fact, they are preparing the industry for the start of production of a promising product. At the same time, the country's defense potential is being increased.
      1. -3
        16 June 2021 16: 56
        Quote: garri-lin
        ... In fact, they are preparing the industry for the start of production of a promising product.

        Yes, exactly the opposite.
        They divert resources from preparing for the start of production of a promising product to preparing for the production of an obsolete product.
        This is all due to the fact that the chief was told noodles, he gave an erroneous order on the basis of inaccurate information, the media trumpeted the whole world, and now it seems like an inconvenience to be canceled.
        1. +1
          16 June 2021 17: 24
          PAK YES is still very far away. And what should the assembly plant do in order to improve their qualifications? Are we going to walk? And so are the hands in business. And there is some benefit for the country. When there are actual documents on the assembly of PAK DA, there will be worked out subcontractors and a well-trained team with work skills.
          1. 0
            16 June 2021 18: 10
            Quote: garri-lin
            And what should the assembly plant do

            The same thing that they did before - the modernization of aircraft from the presence of the aerospace forces.
            And plus the preparation for the production of PAKDA.
            there will be worked out subcontractors and a well-trained team with work skills.

            Will these subcontractors be needed later for another aircraft? And people may be needed with completely different qualifications. Not to mention the equipment and accessories, which will all go to waste.
            1. 0
              16 June 2021 19: 41
              With the highest degree of probability, equipment unification will be the highest possible. It's cheaper. Plus, before the launch of PAK YES, this equipment will get rid of childhood illnesses on Lebed. The modernization potential and compliance with the TOR will be assessed. So the subcontractors will be as common as possible. And what about qualifications is even easier. The higher it is, the more efficient the employee is. And the aircraft industry is not to say that it will be very different for a swan and for YES.
    2. 0
      16 June 2021 19: 28
      and you seriously, just like that, you think that TU - 160 is outdated?)))
      1. 0
        17 June 2021 04: 54
        Quote: Maks Winter
        and you seriously, just like that, you think that TU - 160 is outdated?)))

        Yes.
        You are not?
        And why do we need a PACKDA then?
  11. +2
    16 June 2021 11: 10
    Three countries are going to release a strategist bomber.
    USA: R-21
    China: H-20
    Russia: PAK-DA.

    All three have the same design: a stealth flying wing.
    Who quickly?
    1. 0
      16 June 2021 12: 15
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Three countries are going to release a strategist bomber.
      USA: R-21
      China: H-20
      Russia: PAK-DA.

      All three have the same design: a stealth flying wing.
      Who quickly?


      B-21 has already assembled two copies for testing.
    2. -6
      16 June 2021 20: 38
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Who quickly?

      Even cats cannot give birth faster, so haste is generally inappropriate here.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      All three have the same design: a stealth flying wing.

      Why don't you admit that this is specially spread disinformation?
      Or can only Israelis be so "cunning" by making informational stuff? You have no idea what will be the main operational aspect in the presence of a CD - stealth or speed characteristics.
  12. +1
    16 June 2021 11: 50
    Is it reasonable to put a powerful source of electronic warfare on a stealth geometry plane? It turns out some kind of nonsense
    1. +2
      16 June 2021 12: 20
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Is it reasonable to put a powerful source of electronic warfare on a stealth geometry plane? It turns out some kind of nonsense

      Those. you still do not understand the meaning of the term "stealth"?
      Stealth is unobtrusive.
      It is not invisible.
      Subtle details are not visible at a normal distance.
      But they become visible up close.

      What to do when suddenly and accidentally an enemy fighter with the radar on appears in extreme proximity?
      Shouting: "Alyarma, the wolf carried away the rabbits, we will all die !!!" So ???
      Or to have powerful countermeasures that will allow to disrupt the attack, disrupt the operation of the radar and optical systems of the fighter?
      1. -5
        16 June 2021 13: 03
        Quote: SovAr238A
        What to do when suddenly and accidentally an enemy fighter with the radar on appears in extreme proximity?

        Where did you get such fantasies, if any flight of our strategic bomber is accompanied by several different services of the Aerospace Forces, which, in particular, monitor the operational situation around it, and transmit information to them in real time. In general, do you even understand that when a strategic nuclear weapon is suspended on such an aircraft, then its safety becomes a matter of national importance, which means it is protected in the same way as the Strategic Missile Forces missiles in mines.
        1. -1
          16 June 2021 14: 05
          Quote: ccsr

          Where did you get such fantasies, if any flight of our strategic bomber is accompanied by several different services of the Aerospace Forces, which, in particular, monitor the operational situation around it, and transmit information to them in real time. In general, do you even understand that when a strategic nuclear weapon is suspended on such an aircraft, then its safety becomes a matter of national importance, which means it is protected in the same way as the Strategic Missile Forces missiles in mines.


          What does nuclear weapons have to do with it?
          Without nuclear weapons, they don't fly at all?
          never flew?

          And even with nuclear weapons.
          Have you thought about what to do if American bombers flew to us, and ours to them.

          And what are fighter pilots to do?
          Accompany and defend your bombers over intercontinental distances?
          And thereby to expose your defenses from attacking enemy bombers?
          Or "wave a pen" to your bombers - and try to defend your homeland from enemy bombers?

          Or have you seen enough star wars, where the battle for the planet with attacks and defenses manages to fit in 15 minutes and everyone has enough missiles, torpedoes and fuel ... ????

          We have been flying Tu-95s for 60 years - what do you think they fly naked?
          Or the Yankees' B-52s have been flying the same way for almost 70 years ... So naked?

          Why the B-52 crew always has 2 people in defense systems!
          Are 2 people of the permanent full-time crew responsible for the defense complex?
          Can you imagine what kind of complex there is that requires two people?

          The crew of the B-1B also has a separate person for the defensive complex ...

          Where did they come from?

          Or a Tu-95 crew of seven? These are all pilots or what?
          1. 0
            16 June 2021 16: 17
            2 pilots, navigator, radio operator, engineer, weapons operator, and I don't remember if there is a gunner there now in the tail zone
          2. -5
            16 June 2021 18: 13
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Without nuclear weapons, they don't fly at all?

            As a rule, they fly without it for training.
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Have you thought about what to do if American bombers flew to us, and ours to them.

            It all depends on the scale. But don't worry - the third world war is unlikely to begin with a massive takeoff of bombers, because this is a clear unmasking sign, and we will have time to strike at the US territory before their aviation cruise missiles hit our targets.
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And what are fighter pilots to do?
            Accompany and defend your bombers over intercontinental distances?

            Who told you such nonsense? Regular flights of our strategic planes take place where none of our fighters can reach without refueling. Why then unmask yourself like that?
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Or have you seen enough star wars,

            You are definitely an eccentric to the well-known letter, because we followed a thousand aircraft carriers of nuclear weapons in Europe, and even such "cows" as their B-52 were spotted by means of RTR for several thousand kilometers when approaching Europe.
            Quote: SovAr238A
            We have been flying Tu-95s for 60 years - what do you think they fly naked?

            Ordinary standard weapons, so they don't really need to go out of their way - they conduct flights in a completely different way than you pictured it for yourself.
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Why the B-52 crew always has 2 people in defense systems!

            We don't give a damn about their troubles, especially since their B-52s even fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we did not use our strategic bombers in Afghanistan - that at least tells you something.
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Or a Tu-95 crew of seven? These are all pilots or what?

            Of course not - two crew members can be in the aft cabin. But this does not mean that we are obliged to hang a bunch of defensive systems on the Tu-95, taking into account the fact that they will take off in peacetime on duty. And the Americans will not have enough aircraft carriers to catch them over three oceans, even if they are all driven out to sea.
          3. 0
            16 June 2021 18: 50
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Why the B-52 crew always has 2 people in defense systems!

            Of the interesting things, the B-52 has a false target missile MALD-J. Which can fully simulate any aircraft.
            It is interesting to use UAVs like Loyal Wingman with bombers. Back in the days of Vietnam, drone UAVs were launched from them. Then self-defense can become not only passive.


      2. 0
        16 June 2021 20: 48
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Those. you still do not understand the meaning of the term "stealth"?
        Stealth is unobtrusive.
        It is not invisible.
        Subtle details are not visible at a normal distance.
        But they become visible up close.

        What to do when suddenly and accidentally an enemy fighter with the radar on appears in extreme proximity?
        Shouting: "Alyarma, the wolf carried away the rabbits, we will all die !!!" So ???
        Or to have powerful countermeasures that will allow to disrupt the attack, disrupt the operation of the radar and optical systems of the fighter?

        It is hard to say. It seems to me that such a question requires a very high level of competence, so high that not every pilot will be able to answer this question.

        For example, in American sources, I have come across references to the fact that the f-117 pilots repeatedly "observed" enemy aircraft that could not detect them.

        For me, it remained unclear what was meant by the word "observed" (I am not a super-expert in English on this could understand too clumsy) ... because, in theory, all active means they had to be turned off. Maybe they meant passive detection of radiation and they understood that it was a fighter.

        On the other hand, they actually entered the airspace and there really was an opportunity to meet closely with fighters.

        At the same time, the TACTICS of using stealth consisted in their breeding with other aircraft. Those. they were specially bred so that no one of their own would be close. (here it may be relevant to "show" false targets in another place - to distract enemy fighters so that they fly in the other direction)

        I am also interested in this question ... how in this case?
        After all, if you accompany stealth, you unmask it.

        Therefore, it seems to me that if someone really flies close ... then well, that's all the powers. Hana stealth - the dude pulled out a short match. He was not lucky. At the wrong time in the wrong place.
        Something like that ...

        Therefore, in the future (and in the present) stealth drones will fly.

        In general, if you analyze how stealth was used, this is exactly .... such a "world in itself", i.e. they disconnected from everything at all and flew almost on the instruments.

        Those. this is very similar to the operation of a conventional inertial system.
  13. 0
    16 June 2021 16: 14
    Who will tell you what kind of electronics is in a new product? And if someone did tell, tomorrow there would be an article for him, according to which they give from 25 years and above ...
  14. DMi
    +1
    16 June 2021 16: 39
    Too many repetitions of the same thoughts.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  15. 0
    16 June 2021 18: 02
    >> the aircraft body will remain the same
    The author, if you undertake to write on aviation topics, you should know that the body of an aircraft is called a glider.
  16. 0
    16 June 2021 18: 43
    Tu-22M3 is already history. Remained a negligible number for the whole country, about 30-40 combat-ready aircraft. For useless modernization, half will be taken away, but it will also extend the life of 10 years, no more.
    Engines for this aircraft are not produced, the equipment is outdated and does not exist.
    But what can I say, the unreliable, heavy and large KT-1M crosses were not replaced with modern K-36L-70s of the Tu-160 type. They didn't even figure it out. And the recent case of their triggering is an example of this.
    There is no replacement for this bomber. They are trying to create something on the basis of the Su-34.
  17. 0
    16 June 2021 23: 42
    unification is not always a useful thing, especially when it comes to electronic warfare means. Perhaps for this reason, we have so much variety in this regard. Yes, the systems have different functions, but there are quite a few redundant ones. The diversity in this environment makes it difficult to unify response systems. If there was one universal electronic warfare system, then it would be quickly studied and an ideal anti-system would be created. Therefore, the greater the variety of electronic warfare, the more stable the result of practical application will be.
    It is interesting to ask experts how realistic it is to copy the encoded communication / control signal and be able to reproduce such a copied signal? Without decryption, of course. It would be possible in peacetime to copy a lot of NATO signals, accumulate them, indiscriminately ... and in times of war, simply emit everywhere, thus creating a mess. Although such a possibility is probably taken into account and is not possible.
    1. 0
      29 July 2021 23: 18
      Unification is a useful thing. You just need to change the approach to electronic digital systems of military equipment. This is not to be part of the "hardware", which has a life cycle ten times longer than modern electronic warfare means. The structure of the "iron" and covering surfaces should provide for the possibility of replacing the filling (radar, antenna arrays, emitters and receivers of signals, processing and display facilities, etc.) in the field. For this, the continuity of the means and the design and production possibility of updating them on the equipment in use must be ensured.
  18. -1
    2 September 2021 10: 12
    for the cries that everything is sad and that there will be four different electronic protection systems for four aircraft is not serious.
    Screams? Well, and the level ... Screamers understand the issue about as much as the author of the article) What is easier and easier for the enemy - to hack the protection of one complex, or four? What is better for the defenders - one team dealing with such complexes, or four? How is it easier to maintain the protection of our aircraft - changing it by one method, or four different ones?
    What powerful experts are all around divorced ...
  19. -1
    2 September 2021 11: 31
    In fact, the author, without any specifics, laid out a bit on the shelves.
    Vropros as they were and remained. just also decomposed on the shelves))))

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"