Boeing LRAAM: air-to-air missile concept to replace AMRAAM

45

LRAAM rocket model

Boeing has joined the development of a promising air-to-air missile and is ready to show its development. The other day she showed a model of the LRAAM product, showing the main provisions and solutions of the project. Perhaps in the future this concept will receive support from the Air Force and will be brought to service.

Next generation


Work on promising long-range air-to-air missiles in May last year was launched by the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). She issued a request for information, the purpose of which is to find technologies and solutions for the subsequent design of real missiles. Applications from potential contractors were accepted until mid-June. As is now clear, Boeing responded almost immediately to AFRL's request.



AFRL believes that in the long term, the existing AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles will no longer meet current requirements. Accordingly, it is necessary to work out the issues of their modernization or replacement with completely new air-to-air missiles. Such weapon in the future, it can supplement the already developed product AIM-260 JATM and provide high combat effectiveness of fighters.

The request lists "soft" requirements for future projects, and also provides for the choice of optimal solutions. Severe restrictions apply only to the dimensions of the rocket. It will be used by modern fighters, and therefore its length must correspond to the dimensions of their internal cargo compartments. Product is limited to 156 inches (approx. 4 m) in length.

There were no specific propulsion requirements and AFRL is ready to consider any systems. At the same time, technologies for creating throttled impulse solid fuel engines, as well as improved fuel compositions, are of particular interest to the Laboratory. The type of homing can be any, but preference will be given to a system that combines high performance, a modern component base and a reasonable cost.


According to flight data, a hypothetical rocket should at least not be inferior to existing models. It is also necessary to improve the combat characteristics - to create an improved compact warhead and ensure that the target is hit by one missile.

First layout


On September 20, the Air, Space, and Cyber ​​Conference of the Air Force Association opened in the United States. This event is traditionally a platform for the demonstration of various developments in the field of combat aviation... Boeing became one of the exhibitors.

Boeing's booth is showcasing a mock up of the Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) rocket, a concept developed in response to last year's AFRL request. Some technical and other information is also provided. At the same time, the project is in its earliest stages, and some of its aspects have not yet been worked out. In particular, the developers cannot reveal even the most basic characteristics.

The model demonstrates a two-stage air-to-air missile, the dimensions of which fit into the customer's limitations. The steps have a similar appearance and are maximally unified in design and units. Both stages have a cylindrical hull with a low aspect ratio X-shaped wing and tail rudders. Some of these planes are installed on longitudinal fenders. The combat stage has an elongated warhead with a radio-transparent fairing. The head part of the second stage is shorter and is made in the form of a cone for connection with the combat one.

Such a stage design in the future should simplify production and reduce the cost of serial missiles. In this case, the steps are developed from scratch and without borrowing parts from other projects.

The LRAAM project provides for the use of a solid propellant propulsion system in both stages. After dropping from the carrier, the first stage should accelerate the rocket to cruising speed and ensure flight to the target. After running out of fuel, the empty hull is dropped, and the combat stage begins an independent flight - first with the engine, and then due to the accumulated energy.

Boeing LRAAM: air-to-air missile concept to replace AMRAAM

F-22A fighter cargo bay. Gray product on the right - AIM-120 serial missile

The design of the fairing indicates the use of a radar seeker, but no precise information has been given. The method of hitting the target also remains unknown. The combat stage can carry a traditional high-explosive fragmentation warhead, but it will reduce the available volumes for the engine. It is also possible to abandon warheads, and a highly effective seeker will provide a direct hit on the target.

Future technologies


While the LRAAM project is in its earliest stages, however, now we are talking about the selection of key solutions and technologies that in the future will determine the final appearance, characteristics and capabilities of the rocket. And already now it is possible to consider the proposed ideas, as well as determine their potential.

Of greatest interest in the LRAAM concept is the two-stage scheme, which is not typical for air-to-air missiles. With its help, the active phase of the flight is divided into two parts. The first is completed by dropping the spent stage, which optimizes weight and energy characteristics, and therefore improves flight performance and maneuverability.

All this makes it possible to increase the firing range in comparison with current missiles, while maintaining acceptable dimensions. Based on this, it can be assumed that the final version of LRAAM will show a range no less than that of the latest AIM-120 AMRAAM modifications, i.e. more than 150-170 km.

The presented layout makes rather high demands on all major systems, incl. to the seeker and warhead. First of all, layout difficulties are likely. The combat stage has limited volumes, in which all units must be placed without loss in their characteristics. Perhaps the control systems are planned to be installed in the elongated head of the stage. The warhead may simply be absent, which will give additional volumes for solid fuel and improve the flight range.


AMRAAM missile transportation

The missile needs a highly efficient active radar seeker. She will have to detect and lock targets in a wide range of ranges. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure the ability to detect inconspicuous aircraft and resistance to modern electronic warfare systems.

In the long term, the combat stage can become an independent weapon. Due to the lack of initial acceleration, the firing range will be significantly reduced, but all other advantages and features of the "long" missile will be retained.

With uncertain prospects


The presented concept of the LRAAM rocket offers the use of the most interesting solutions, incl. fundamentally new, and therefore should be of interest to both the AFRL and the Air Force as a whole. However, the timing of the start and implementation of design work, as well as the entry into the testing stage, are still in question. Moreover, there are no obvious reasons for optimistic assessments either.

Apparently, the Boeing company began working on the LRAAM concept no later than the summer of 2020. More than a year has passed since then, and during this time it was only possible to determine the most general features of the future rocket and prepare its layout. This can be explained by the fact that AFRL does not speed up work and does not urgently require the submission of a combat-ready model, and Boeing is in no hurry. However, there is another explanation associated with the complexity of the tasks and the inability to solve them in a short time.

Obviously, the development of the concept will continue, and in the medium term it may lead to the emergence of a full-fledged project. By that time, the Air Force Laboratory will have to move from considering proposals to a full-fledged competition, according to the results of which future rearmament will be carried out. Most likely, Boeing will take part in a full-fledged missile development program. Which companies will compete is unknown.

Thus, the situation in the field of promising air-to-air missiles for the US Air Force is beginning to gradually clear up, but there is still great uncertainty in it. The future customer in the person of the Air Force Research Laboratory is looking for the necessary technologies, and one of the leading contractors is already ready to present his ideas, even at the level of a concept project. In the near future, the announcement of new similar developments is expected. The Air Force will compare them and make their decision - and then the real potential of the current LRAAM concept will become clear.
Our news channels

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

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    22 September 2021 18: 06
    It is high time to replace the AMRAAM family of missiles with newer, technologically advanced missiles.
    1. +10
      22 September 2021 18: 19
      Where is it even more technologically advanced than the AIM-120? There is little in common between the first and last versions of this rocket.
      The variant of the proposed Boeing has an interesting opportunity to use only the missile itself (stage 2) for UAVs or to increase the number of missiles in fighters. If you need a long-range missile, use the two-stage version, if you need more missiles or are limited in size (like the XQ-58) use a single-stage short-medium range.
      This will seriously reduce the cost of production and service.
      1. 0
        22 September 2021 18: 39
        Where is it even more technologically advanced than the AIM-120? There is little in common between the first and last versions of this rocket.

        This does not mean that you need to stand still. It is necessary to develop, which means to make new missiles. Even taking a scheme with steps, then only this will increase the range, because the rocket will not need to carry extra cargo.
    2. +2
      22 September 2021 20: 34
      It's high time to change

      Why do you need it?
      1. -1
        24 September 2021 17: 24
        What do you mean why? Moskal ukantrapupit. There can be no other reason.
  2. +5
    22 September 2021 18: 29
    Quote: Bradley
    It is high time to replace the AMRAAM family of missiles with newer, technologically advanced missiles.


    In addition, the P-27 is in service.
    1. +1
      22 September 2021 18: 40
      In addition, the P-27 is in service.

      Yes I know.
  3. +2
    22 September 2021 18: 32
    Outwardly, both stages of the rocket look almost the same. And this will simplify its production and reduce costs. It would be interesting to know the technical characteristics of the ammunition, because the dimensions of the warhead will be clearly smaller due to the second engine.
    If the plans are realized, then the speed, range and maneuverability of the new missile will undoubtedly be higher.
    .
    1. 0
      22 September 2021 18: 35
      Quote: knn54
      warhead dimensions

      Probably no warhead. Kinetic interception is assumed.
      1. 0
        23 September 2021 03: 53
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Probably no warhead. Kinetic interception is assumed.

        A long-range airborne missile system with a kinetic warhead !? A rocket that should fly at least 170 km and hit somewhere like this "warhead" !? I still understand this There was a CUDA concept, which was of a short radius and with kinetics, but this ... There will only be two minutes of flight time (if not more) and then there is kinetics with an active seeker. What kind of space should there be in the head for this thing to really confuse something. And I don't mean liners.
        1. +1
          23 September 2021 09: 38
          For missiles with AGSN all the same, the distance to the target is 2 km or 2000 km. If the target is captured by the head, it will be hit. Here the problem is precisely in the capture, and not in the presence or absence of warheads.
          By the way, this is probably a continuation of the CUDA project, the option with a booster was considered.
          1. 0
            23 September 2021 15: 50
            It was not just that I made a reservation about the flight time and the active GOS. The longer you fly and the more often you shine, the less chances of hitting the target due to countermeasures. Moreover, you need to aim directly, and not nearby, among other things. With the AIM-120 it is easier, because there is a "normal" warhead.
          2. -2
            15 February 2022 16: 07
            We have already tried kinetic interceptions, here the speeds are weak, there is little sense, far from the energy of ballistic targets.
      2. -2
        23 September 2021 09: 46
        It is doubtful that there will be kinetic interception, this is a method against ballistic warheads. At atmospheric speeds, kinetic interception is similar to the defeat of a single simple anti-aircraft artillery projectile - it is dangerous, but with a high probability one hit will not be enough.
    2. -2
      23 September 2021 09: 26
      It looks like a two-story 9M38M1.

  4. -2
    22 September 2021 20: 18
    Error in the article. Boeing (at least for now) states that the missile will not compete with the AIM-260 program, I believe this missile will not be used in 5th generation fighters, but rather in 4 ++ (F-15EX, F16 Block 70/72), as a analogue of KS-172
  5. 0
    22 September 2021 21: 00
    The combat stage has an elongated warhead with a radio-transparent fairing. The head part of the second stage is shorter and is made in the form of a cone for connection with the combat one. Something I am not "catching up"! In my understanding, a "combat stage" is the second stage (it can be called a marching stage, a warhead ...). The starting stage (upper stage) is the first stage ... And what is literally understood from the "article" phrase? request
    The two-stage scheme can have different designs ... for example. In 3 "variations" ...: 1. by the LRAAM type; 2. by type 57E6 ("Carapace"); 3. "hybrid" performance using a detonation-capable solid propellant engine ... so to speak, 2 in 1 ... (both the engine and the warhead)! Option # 3 is suitable for modernizing the Pantsir air defense missile system and long-range RVV ...
  6. +3
    22 September 2021 21: 00
    The rocket shown in the photograph is designed to eliminate the main drawback of the airborne missile systems - they can be "twisted" and a modern fighter does not need to try for this. During the Gulf War, long-range missiles did not have time to enter the GOS capture zone. Therefore, they create two-stage missiles. The first stage has a solid-propellant RD and a control system designed to output the RVV, taking into account the probable trajectories of the target by inertial motion or external DC / illumination. Thus, the missile "under the wing" does not capture the target. The capture of the target of the gsn occurs after the development / throttling of the first stage engine, after which the second stage engine is started with the OVT. Only such a scheme makes it possible to achieve the defeat of a high-speed maneuverable target with one missile.
    Sincerely
    1. 0
      23 September 2021 09: 44
      The first stage has a solid-propellant RD and a control system designed to output the RVV, taking into account the probable trajectories of the target by inertial motion or external DC / illumination.
      Even the old R-27 (E) R could change its trajectory on the inertial guidance section when the target movement parameters changed, information about these changes was transmitted to the board using radio correction signals, so nothing new
      Thus, the missile "under the wing" does not capture the target. The capture of the target of the gsn occurs after the development / throttling of the first stage engine, after which the second stage engine is started with the OVT.
      None of the V-V missiles with radar seeker that are already in service capture the target in the "suspension", the target is captured by the head already at the final stage of guidance, when even all the fuel has already burned out.
      Only such a scheme makes it possible to achieve the defeat of a high-speed maneuverable target with one missile.
      What is this? Separating the starting stage? Well, it probably will help, but all these arguments about the process of targeting and capturing the GOS have long been known and used, and they will not bring anything new.
      1. +1
        23 September 2021 11: 08
        What is this? Separating the starting stage? Well, it probably will help, but all these arguments about the process of targeting and capturing the GOS have long been known and used, and they will not bring anything new.

        OVT on the second-stage engine of the rvv bd will not bring anything ??? But...
        Sincerely
        1. 0
          23 September 2021 11: 19
          But
          And before that, that on the V-V missiles, no measures were taken to increase its maneuverability ??? So it turns out, you have written a lot, in fact, the novelty is only in the division! In addition, the article does not give any specifics at all, except for the division, and what methods and solutions will be used there will be determined only in the future.
          1. +1
            23 September 2021 12: 14
            The OVT was not used on long-range missiles. On missiles, MD has been used for a long time.
            Sincerely
            1. 0
              23 September 2021 12: 35
              Where does the article indicate that OVT will be used?
              There were no specific propulsion requirements and AFRL is ready to consider any systems.

              What they will be able to deliver, they themselves do not yet know.
              1. +2
                23 September 2021 12: 44
                I personally understand everything about OVT. Look at the identical rudders on two steps. All this fuss is meaningless without the Ovt on the second step. In theory, there should be folding lattice rudders without ovt.
                Sincerely
                1. 0
                  23 September 2021 12: 58
                  First you need to know the requirements for the rocket, and for what purposes it will be designed. And this will already determine the requirements for its maneuverability at different stages of its flight. It is no longer important whether it will be implemented using OVT or other methods.
                  1. +1
                    23 September 2021 13: 29
                    Their requirements have not changed since the First Iraqi War - they want the RVV BD to "take in place" a modern fighter ...
                    Sincerely
                    1. 0
                      23 September 2021 13: 46
                      But the trouble is, it all depends on this "place", there are no such means four meters long and conventionally weighing 300 ... 500 kg, which could be suspended on a fighter and fired at 400 km at heights of 5 ... 10 km, and so that it flew to the "place" with the engine running, and here someone begins to pervert as much as they can ...
                      1. +2
                        23 September 2021 14: 41
                        And above the comrade wrote that there is no difference at what distance to shoot ... At 2 or 2000 km. The main thing is that the active homing missile captures the target ... I think that at 2000 km it is easier to shoot with a long-range explosive missile than by 2.
                        Sincerely
  7. 0
    23 September 2021 14: 47
    The given layout is made "from the bulldozer". It is not realistic and unnecessary to drive the accelerator into the rocket body. The rocket has a warhead, a fuse, a control unit, which you don't need to have on an accelerator.
  8. 0
    23 September 2021 23: 19
    - The only serious prospect for the URVV is ramjet missiles, such as "Meteora". And the Chinese have already made a similar one. And the Americans are still hesitating, they are all crumpled and huddled ... The proposed two-stage option, and moreover, so that it fits into the dimensions of the AIM-120 is an empty and unpromising undertaking ...
    1. 0
      11 December 2021 19: 24
      As far as I remember, the meteor has problems when used at less than 80-100km. it is connected just with the ramjet engine.
      1. 0
        12 December 2021 01: 40
        - ?? Why would it suddenly?
        1. 0
          12 December 2021 05: 53
          because of the climb profile. in pvd it is smooth. in a rocket engine, it is intermittent.
          in general, different engines have their own advantages.
          about the general American and our ignorance of pvd has a justification. this is a cold calculation - I came across a graph of the speed of rockets in-in for different engines. with each iteration, the rocket engines become better and better, but the disadvantages of pvd cannot be smoothed out.
          in addition, rocket engines are still progressing. which we will see in aim-260, for which the small plant in the utah has already been built and is being tested with a frequency of 10 launches per month.
          1. 0
            12 December 2021 09: 12
            - It looks like you used not entirely reliable data - the Meteor engine is combined, at first the solid propellant engine works and only then the ramjet engine comes into action. The rocket accelerates to a speed of 2M in 2 seconds:


            And the advantages are undeniable: you do not need to carry an oxidizer with you, only fuel, as a result, with a similar starting weight, the range almost doubles. Plus the possibility of smoother trajectory adjustments on the trajectory is an additional plus for increasing the launch range. And the undeniable advantages when starting after ...
            1. 0
              12 December 2021 19: 08
              the booster has always been on the meteor because the ramjet works with 3M only.
              but aaram accelerates to 4M within 8-9 seconds and then flies by inertia. it burns all the fuel in these seconds and then flies only 150kg. the meteor smoothly picks up speed up to 5M. and burns fuel smoothly.
              in fact, the meteor has one advantage - speed at the final stage of flight. and on other parameters it loses. it is heavier, it is slower (when looking at the entire flight). the max range is higher for aaram (160 km versus 110 km). although the effective range of the meteor is slightly better: 100 km versus 80 km for the aaram.
              in general, it is not clear who wins, but aaram looks more correct)
              1. 0
                12 December 2021 19: 36
                the max range is higher for aaram (160 km versus 110 km). although the effective range of the meteor is slightly better: 100 km versus 80 km for the aaram.

                - ?? Why are you talking about this nonsense, about the "maximum range" Meteor "110 km ?! This is just nonsense.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)
                Operational range - In excess of 250 km;
                No-escape zone of 60 km


                https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/08/02/german-air-force-declares-meteor-missile-ready-for-eurofighter-fleet/
                The Meteor has a combat range of 200 km...
                And this is its main advantage - the largest (in its weight class) range of destruction.
                1. 0
                  12 December 2021 19: 54
                  probably 200 km, but the speed will suffer greatly. at maximum speed (4.5-5M) only 110 km.
                  a conventional rocket, of course, does not have such a luxury - everything is there only at maximum speed.

                  The ramrocket is also throttle-able at a 10: 1 ratio which would allow for an (all other things being equal) ~ 3x change in cruise speed (ie Mach ~ 1.5 to ~ 4.5) The lower speed will of course have less drag and more range (using 10% of the fuel for 33% of the speed). THIS is what allows the Meteor to have a strong NEZ as it is under power longer than the AIM-120.
                  1. 0
                    13 December 2021 01: 54
                    probably 200 km, but the speed will suffer greatly. at maximum speed (4.5-5M) only 110 km.

                    - Not true! Wild nonsense ...
                    a conventional rocket, of course, does not have such a luxury - everything is there only at maximum speed.

                    - Not true. The maximum range of the airborne missile system is determined by its ability to perform a one-time maneuver with an overload of 5 units.
                    The ramrocket is also throttle-able at a 10: 1 ratio which would allow for an (all other things being equal) ~ 3x change in cruise speed (ie Mach ~ 1.5 to ~ 4.5) The lower speed will of course have less drag and more range (using 10% of the fuel for 33% of the speed). THIS is what allows the Meteor to have a strong NEZ as it is under power longer than the AIM-120.

                    - That's right: you need get to the target and hit the target... And this does not require a speed of 5M at all.
                    No escape zone - this is an area of ​​space up to the range where the target, performing its maneuver with the maximum overload for itself, will not be able to escape the missile, even if it detects it in time.
                    NEZ ~ 0.35 * L max.
                    1. 0
                      13 December 2021 07: 15
                      I'm just talking about the fact that many can collect a meteor. There is a lot of work on the ramjet and the technology is not that new. but the application itself is very controversial and does not provide clear advantages. both the Americans and ours had appraisals. and both sides came to the conclusion that there is no clear advantage.
                      why? I gave the text and almost everything follows from it.
                      1. 0
                        13 December 2021 07: 45
                        - The use of a ramjet engine on an air-launched missile system is absolutely indisputable, the whole question is whether a given country has to make such an air-launched missile system in compliance with:
                        - the required weight;
                        - required dimensions;
                        - the proper level of quality;
                        - with flight characteristics, superior to air-to-air missile systems with solid propellants;
                        - for reasonable money ("Meteor" costs 2 million euros apiece).
                        both the Americans and ours had appraisals. and both sides came to the conclusion that there is no clear advantage.

                        - In Russia, the level of technology does not allow making a rocket like Meteor for relatively little money.
                        For the time being, the Americans prefer to squeeze the last juice out of the capabilities of the URVV with solid propellant rocket motors, but they have already hit the limits stipulated by the laws of nature - it is impossible to make a longer-range rocket with a similar mass, if one is forced to carry both fuel and an oxidizer, while the other takes only fuel, and the oxidizer draws from the air ...
                        ..................
                        The Chinese made an air-to-air missile system with a ramjet engine, even though they did not meet the parameters of the Meteor:
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-21
                      2. 0
                        13 December 2021 08: 02
                        - Apparently, the Americans have the AIM-260 - the last air-to-air missile system with solid propellant rocket ...
                        https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/10/aim-260-missile-us-air-force
                      3. 0
                        13 December 2021 21: 05
                        a conventional rocket carries both fuel and oxidizer for the first 8-9 seconds. and the propulsion system consumes fuel for the entire flight. so the statement is controversial.
                        AIM-260 promises 2 times longer range than AIM-120D. and a speed of 5M (at the beginning of course). if this is achieved, then there will be no more next 20 years.
                        I generally also thought earlier that the meteor was perfect ... but as it turned out, there are many factors. winning in one you lose in another. then you just have to choose what is more important to you. both the Americans and ours have chosen versatility. Europe has chosen the remoteness. and the Chinese just want to be the first everywhere)
  9. 0
    10 November 2021 08: 50
    A beautiful rocket. It is clear that it is potentially for us, but beautiful
  10. -1
    25 November 2021 04: 38
    Quote: nobody75
    I personally understand everything about OVT. Look at the identical rudders on two steps. All this fuss is meaningless without the Ovt on the second step.

    UHT are installed only on short-range missiles - and even then not on all. On medium and long-range missiles, there is no UHT, - they manage with aerodynamic rudders - the rocket has a very high speed.
    In theory, there should be folding lattice rudders without ovt.

    - Lattice rudders have a huge RCS and unmask the rocket. That is why they are not used in the West.
    Sincerely

    - No.
  11. 0
    13 December 2021 23: 12
    Quote: Momento
    a conventional rocket carries both fuel and oxidizer for the first 8-9 seconds. and the propulsion system consumes fuel for the entire flight. so the statement is controversial.

    - It is not true: a long-range missile today has a solid propellant rocket with at least TWO modes of operation: launch and cruise. The starting mode is shorter and with a maximum thrust - 7-8 seconds, at this time, it accelerates to a maximum speed of 4M-5M. After the fuel burns out, the starting mode starts the cruise mode - the operating time can be twice as long, - for example. 14 seconds and less traction. Further, the rocket flies only by inertia, gradually decelerating.
    AIM-260 promises 2 times longer range than AIM-120D.

    Not true. The AIM-120D has a maximum engagement range of 180-150 km. The AIM-260 has a little over 200 km (let it be 250?). AND this is the limit (for that weight and those dimensions). Moreover (they say that) Americans have learned / contrived to turn the solid propellant engine on and off on the trajectory! It seems that the engine of the rocket "David's Sling" (STUNNER) can do the same.
    and a speed of 5M (at the beginning of course).

    - No, of course, it's extremely irrational. Need average speed on the 2.5M-3M trajectory for the longest possible stage, this is what ensures the maximum range. And acceleration to 5M, followed by chopping off the engine - this is how rockets flew in the 60s. NOT TODAY.
    if this is achieved, then there will be no more next 20 years.

    - ramjet already there is. And the same "Meteor" will develop, improve and become cheaper. It's the same with the Chinese. Will appear for others as well. In 5 years we will all hear about the American air-to-air missile system with a ramjet engine.
    In general, I also thought earlier that the meteor was perfect ... but as it turned out, there are many factors. winning in one you lose in another. then you just have to choose what is more important to you.

    - You have suddenly passed from correct judgment to delusion. Someone led you astray and off the pantalyk? laughing lol
    both the Americans and ours have chosen versatility.

    - the Americans are working on an air-to-air missile system with a ramjet engine (they just didn't tell you wink), yours (the Russians), simply cannot make such a rocket, just as they cannot do many other things - a chronic technological lag.
    Europe has chosen the remoteness.

    - Europe has done quite wisely and correctly.
    and the Chinese just want to be the first everywhere)

    - And the Chinese, increasingly becoming a hegemon on planet Earth, they simply cannot and do not act in another way. And they are right ...

"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"