UAVs against air defense: the myth of the omnipotence of air defense systems

Source: infosmi.net

Modern armed conflicts show that the wars of the future will be fought with high-precision and mobile weapons, and the role of attack and reconnaissance UAVs comes to the fore. The era of large mechanized armies of the XNUMXth century is fading into the past, the time of high technologies and perfection of reconnaissance is coming, when one precise and verified blow can neutralize the firepower of the enemy. And UAVs, both reconnaissance and combat, play a key role in this new concept of modern warfare.

It should be noted that at the moment there are very few serious works on the effectiveness of the UAV. Of what is in the public domain, perhaps the only major work on this topic is the monograph by S. Makarenko "Counteraction to unmanned aerial vehicles." This work has been of great help to me in writing this article, and some excerpts from it will be given below.

The vast majority of modern experts who talk about the effectiveness of UAVs make overly optimistic conclusions about the success of countermeasures. drones air defense systems, as well as electronic weapons. In reality, things are not exactly as the "talking heads" in the media claim. Small UAVs (small-sized and low-speed) are the most difficult to counter. Small UAVs include devices weighing up to 25 kilograms, flying up to 3 kilometers and with a range of up to 40 kilometers.

Which of the Russian air defense systems can effectively counter UAVs? Based on the declared technical characteristics, these are 3PK "Top-M1" and "Top-2E", "Buk-M2E" and "Buk-MZ", "Vityaz", anti-aircraft missile and gun systems (ZRPK) "Pantsir-S1" and "Pine". For example, it is assumed that the radars of the Top-M1 and Oca-AKM anti-aircraft systems are capable of detecting small-sized UAVs at ranges of 3,3-7,4 km. However, what do we observe in practice? Here I will quote an excerpt from the monograph by S. Makarenko:

“The results of field tests showed that the 3PK Top target detection radar provides detection of small-sized UAVs at ranges of only 3-4 km. The practical experience of experimental firing at small targets - analogues of UAVs ("Pchela", RUM-2MB and "Reis"), indicates the low efficiency of their destruction. The main reasons for this are the imperfection of the SAM warhead detonation control system, as well as large errors in target tracking and SAM guidance on small-sized UAVs. The results of field tests of the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile systems show that firing missile weapons at small-sized UAVs is practically impossible. The reason for this is the short detection range of small-sized UAVs from the side of the detection and target designation radar, which, like for the 3PK "Top", is 3-5 km, which practically coincides with the near boundary of the missile defense zone. The use of cannon armament of these 3PKs against small-sized UAVs is fundamentally possible, but due to the small size of the UAVs, the probability of their defeat is low.

That is, in practice, we see that air defense systems are often ineffective against small-sized UAVs. And we are talking not only about the Tor air defense system and the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system. The Strela-10 air defense system, as practice has shown, turned out to be capable of hitting a mini-UAV of the Akila type only in daytime conditions. At the same time, the Akila UAV is an outdated device, withdrawn from service, while modern devices are smaller and have lower thermal contrast.

And how are things going with countering the Bayraktar TB2 strike drone? On the one hand, we see quite a lot of reports from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation about the downing of UAV data in Ukraine, on the other hand, we see quite a lot of videos when, with the help of Bayraktars, the Armed Forces of Ukraine strike at Russian military equipment, at the air defense system (Snake Island), on the positions of the RF Armed Forces. The same videos appeared in abundance during the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, in which drone attacks and drones played a decisive role.

Apparently, the official expert community still does not appreciate the capabilities of drones very highly. Let us cite, for example, the words of a military expert, Major General of the Reserve Vladimir Popov, who on April 17 in a comment to Gazeta.ru stated the following:

“In general, it seems to me that the experience of combat operations during a special military operation will significantly reconsider the use of attack drones. They've been overwhelmed."

What this conclusion is based on is not entirely clear. Consider the result of the use of domestic air defense in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

So, the Bayraktar TV2 UAV is a strike UAV carrying up to 4 UMTAS guided anti-tank missiles that can hit targets at a distance of up to 8 km. The combat use of the Bayraktar TV2 UAV involves the performance of two main types of tasks: reconnaissance and strike. When performing a reconnaissance mission, the UAV is flying at an altitude of about 6 kilometers. In this case, the Pantsir-S1 radar will be able to detect this UAV at a distance (horizontally) of about 7 kilometers. The American military module Wescam CMX-2D is used as the optoelectronic system (OES) of Bayraktar TV15. The cameras of this module make it possible to detect a tank-type target, according to some sources, at a distance of up to 80 km. And at a distance of 20 km, the resolution of this ECO allows you to view the driver's cabin.

Thus, the reconnaissance capabilities of the Bayraktar significantly exceed the detection capabilities of the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system, and the UAV can reveal the location of the air defense missile system outside the radius of destruction. Having determined the location of the target, "Bayraktar" issues target designation on it for the use of strike weapons. Here is another quote from the monograph:

“The effectiveness of the UAV OES depends on atmospheric factors, the level of camouflage of the air defense missile system and other factors, but in general it is very likely that the UAV will reveal the location of the air defense missile system first and seize the initiative in conducting confrontation. The further scenario of the UAV actions involves a maneuver to enter the zone of destruction of the air defense missile system, operational approach to a distance of up to 8 km (range of launch of UMTAS missiles), launching missiles at the air defense missile system, performing a return maneuver. In addition, the experience of using UAVs by Turkish military personnel suggests that UAVs will be used in a group, and their actions will be supported by the KORAL and REDET EW REP complexes. The impact of interference will lead to a decrease in both the detection range of the UAV from the side of the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system, and to a decrease in the probability of correct target designation. The experience of the combat use of the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system in Libya showed that the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system, due to certain design flaws in its radar, under interference conditions, provides a high probability of hitting an UAV only at relatively short ranges - about 4-6 km.

In the war in Syria, Turkey has taken the tactics of using its UAVs to a new level. A tactic was developed for the use of Bayraktar TV2 strike UAVs massively, in groups, under the cover of heavier Anka reconnaissance UAVs equipped with radar, OER and REP systems, as part of solving the tasks of hitting 3PK and air defense systems. If you believe the media of the opposing parties, then in Syria, from September 2019 to September 2020, in duel situations between UAVs and ZRPKs, about 20 Bayraktar TV2 and Anka UAVs were shot down, while 8 Pantsir-S1 air defense systems were lost.

If we talk about the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh, here the Azerbaijani armed forces have demonstrated the high efficiency of the use of UAVs and combat drones. The massive use of the Bayraktar TV2 UAV, together with the Sky Striker, Harop and Orbiter kamikaze UAVs, resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Armenian 3PK Osa and Strela-10 deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh in the early days of the conflict. Air defense was completely powerless. Nagorno-Karabakh lost most of its air defense systems on the very first day of the war, while Azerbaijan lost only 4 UAVs. The massive and effective use of UAVs, first to destroy air defense systems, and then armored vehicles and manpower of the enemy, was called the "war of drones" in the media and was encountered in world practice for the first time.

What conclusion can be drawn from all of the above?

Firstly, contrary to popular belief, in the confrontation between UAVs and air defense, it is UAVs that seize the initiative in waging confrontation. The myth that domestic air defense systems are able to cope with any challenges in the field of countering drones and drones continues to be supported by most official experts and the media, but this is a dangerous delusion.

Secondly, drones have begun to play a key role in modern conflicts. Small groups with active reconnaissance, encrypted communications and combat drones are now able to achieve results with much greater efficiency than large, hulking mechanized columns with heavy firepower. An ancient Latin proverb says - "Times change, and we change with them." Armies must keep up with the times, and not live in the ghosts of the past.

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

UAV vs air defense: the myth of the omnipotence of air defense systems

Do we buy or sell?

the role of attack and reconnaissance UAVs comes to the fore.

Would you like to rave? Intelligence - yes, but strikes .... efficiency is determined not only by accuracy, but also by the power of the b-supply. Air defense has much more powerful means of detecting UAVs, as well as the power of a b-supply.

[mojohed2012]

Question to the author of the article: Then why and with what kind of super-powerful detection means does the RF Armed Forces detect and shoot down Bayraktars and other Western UAVs in batches a day? Intuition?

[sash-sash]

Do you believe in stories about

detects and shoots down Bayraktars and other Western UAVs in batches

?

[dorz]

Apparently, the official expert community still does not appreciate the capabilities of drones ...

UAVs are the tanks of the 21st century, honest experts say.

[sash-sash]

If you do not repeat the sacramental "wait and see", then probably yes.

[voyaka uh]

"UAVs are tanks of the 21st century" ///
----
I agree with that.
In the SVO, you can see how drones neutralize tanks - they do not allow tank offensives to be carried out.
Two ways: 1) fast and accurate reconnaissance and target designation for artillery
2) direct strikes on tanks from above.

[zombirusrev]

That's right, as a means of target designation ... in themselves they are better only because a downed UAV is not a loss of a pilot. But without the use of accompanying means of cover, they are vulnerable ... the main thing is the correct systematic approach in the use of ANY weapon .. the secret is in adequacy to the current situation :)

[kytx]

The key word here is "mass" application. Oversaturate enemy air defense, and there it doesn’t matter if a noticeable drone or not. You need to attack with a swarm.

As for countering UAVs, IMHO it's time to give birth to a fighter UAV. Of course, it must be very different from the classic fighter. I think drones should be fought from the air, not just from the ground.

[novel66]

use light attack aircraft, such as "tucano" with cannon and machine gun weapons

[kytx]

You can't save pilots. It is necessary that it itself fly, patrol the indicated area, distinguish between its own / another's and destroy it.
The minus is not mine, otherwise everyone became somewhat offended :)

[barbos]

For fifty years now, the most expensive and valuable object in hostilities is a person. The women, who punish at the first call, have become twisted, and the demographic situation, despite all government efforts, has long wanted to be better - we are dying out without a war.
In addition to the fact that not everyone is fit for the role of a pilot, he still needs to be taught for several years and then he still has to gain experience for a single year. Do not bring that, if it happens, you have to pay a lot of money to the family of the deceased. In addition, there are reputational costs on the front of the information war: shots of a downed aircraft, and even more so of a captured pilot, are worth a lot. In addition, a flight with shooting from a cannon-machine-gun armament of a drone, even for $ 5000, is more expensive.
In the case of mass conveyor production of drones (the technological standards of electronic components even in modern Western UAVs are at the level of the late nineties), they can be used as consumables - kamikaze drones - have worked out their resources and, together with all their contents and striking elements, fell into the enemy's trench. Did not complete the task (shot down), the conveyor can rivet them around the clock without breaks and days off - like shells.
Another point is that I strongly doubt that our generals and red directors know such terms as mesh networks, genetic algorithms, neural networks, big data, swarm models, strong AI, and these are not new terms at all. It was then that it was possible to make more serious devices (not kamikaze drones), which on their own without an operator, with their well-coordinated actions, could wear down enemy air defense. But so far, even Dishman quadrics with photo cameras are not enough.

[TreeSmall]

Not "tanks of the 21st century", of course.
Ammunition and intelligence of the 20s of the 21st century
UAVs will not occupy the territory, they will not break through the defense, they will not repel the offensive.
While UAVs rule: they are very difficult to detect and very expensive to shoot down.
UAVs are essentially consumable ammunition. When there are a lot of them, they are more efficient and more accurate RSZO, neg, attack aircraft (well, or from a modern replacement)
Operation "Medvedka" (if I'm not mistaken) - that was the first call.
To which they did not respond as they should.
I can assume that resistance will be found soon.
The falcon fights best with birds, and it can be cheaper and easier to have a "bat locator" for locating and issuing tsu for these speeds.

[svoroponov]

A bunch of wreckage of downed Turkish UAVs on the ground, proof of this. And the Shells and Beeches, according to many videos, are struck either on the march or in a reconnoitered shelter, or after the ammo is used up when reloading in a single version without safety net by another complex.
If it works in the electronic warfare area, then small drones become useless. EW often lags behind the troops on the offensive, and it doesn’t keep up with deploying its defense umbrella everywhere, which leads to certain troubles. And the large UAVs of the Turks and the Americans benefit only from the capabilities of their video cameras to see something from the side and from a great distance. But this is already stopped completely by air defense systems, and laser weapons are already being used in Ukraine to illuminate optics. In general, this military special operation, an excellent training ground, where everyone shows what they are capable of, what they are strong in and what they are weak in, and what needs to be improved and what to refuse.
And in general, for every poison there is or is produced its own antidote.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: svoroponov

For every poison, there is or is being developed its own antidote.

"Very" is correct. No one denies that the UAV is a strong adversary. But to consider air defense systems "naked", without EW cover and camouflage - in my opinion, is also wrong.
OLS Bayraktara sees well in clear, cloudless (not to mention precipitation!) weather. And if the battlefield is covered in smoke or aerosol masking is applied? Then, no one forbade the joint use of jamming stations and air defense systems. Again, our OLS based on Pantsir can detect UAVs in the boundless sky no worse. They are not on the ground, they will not be able to hide behind the hillock. From here, it seems to me, you should dance.
Then, no one forbade equipping the forward posts of the NOS, as was the case during the years of the Second World War and WWII. An observer with a PZRU and a gunner-operator with a pipe on his shoulder are a sweet couple. Plus to them the shooter-carrier BZ. Such a trinity can contribute to the timely detection and firing of UAVs at altitudes up to 5 km. It will also move the line of UAV use by means of military air defense.
In short, you need to look for an antidote, and not trail behind events at the tail of history.
IMHO.

[gsev]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

"Very" is correct. Nobody denies that the UAV is a strong adversary.

With the advent of the UAV, the machine gun, rifle and machine gun have become as anachronistic as the club, sapper shovel, sword and pike. Back in World War II, the Chinese launched successful attacks on the Japanese with swords alone, but Chinese losses were paid either with a lot of blood or were explained by successful camouflage and a lack of ammunition and automatic weapons from the enemy. A 2 kW motor and a 10 kg metal and plastic structure are capable of destroying 100 tons of high-quality armor, a 10 kW diesel engine, 40 tons of ammunition and half a ton of diesel fuel refueling with one 400 kg shot in one sortie. UAVs are expensive in their design, in mass production it is just a slightly more expensive ammunition.

[Technical engineer]

At one time during the Korean War, the North Korean Armed Forces declared total war on American aviation. Everything went into action, Degtyarev machine guns on a wooden swivel, anti-tank rifles, balloons, and even wires and cables strung between hills. And I must say the effect was. several planes were destroyed by the same cables, although it would seem how it is possible to fill up the same F-80 with such a miserable weapon. They also shot down 7,62 machine-gun bursts, there are also facts. Roughly speaking, if a modern equipped infantryman is stabbed in the neck with a stone ax, no ammunition will save him. For every tricky nut there is a bolt. And what to do with UAVs so that we obviously detect them earlier than they are air defense systems, or rather, long before they can bang on the air defense system. Well, just add a millimeter-wave radar to the complex. Not very large, so that every little thing can be detected at a distance of 20 km.

[gsev]

Quote: Technical Engineer

North Korean Armed Forces Declared All-out War on US Aviation

In Afghanistan, the United States generally offered the Afghans to throw stones at Soviet aircraft during air raids, convincing that Allah, seeing such
the sacrifice of the Pashtuns will grant them victory. The CIA predictions basically came true. However, in reality, victory is ensured by the product of the size of the army and the effectiveness of its weapons. By the way, about 5% of high-tech weapons fail due to technical malfunctions and improper operation. Perhaps this number includes some aircraft shot down by Korean cables and rifle fire. It is a historical fact that the Vietnamese shot down one US helicopter with a crossbow. However, this is because the pilot chose to get too close to his opponent to consider the opponent's fear with exotic weapons. If you read the Lao reports of Birchet, according to the Vietnamese the best journalist, then we can conclude that a bow with arrows is a more progressive and effective weapon than a firearm. For the production of drones, a dozen designers are needed, a physical and mathematical school capable of identifying talented people and giving them a modern education, time for training, experiments and resources for the material base of production. Drones are effective precisely because they require fewer resources to produce than the military they will destroy in a war and counter drones. In principle, in the USSR, the Department of Aerodynamics at the Moscow Aviation Institute existed in order to find one or two people a year who were able to continue the development of science and offer something new in the design of aircraft weapons. If a country does not intend to have more modern technology, but seeks to purchase and use foreign or simply operate outdated weapons, then students can learn aerodynamics in a couple of months as in accelerated officer schools during the war.

[Dkuznecov]

Well said. Water - 0%.

[svoroponov]

There is an antidote, but for some reason it is not used in Ukraine. Perhaps they are saving for a more serious opponent and do not want to reveal their cards in advance, perhaps they can harm their own. That is, before use, it is necessary to land all of your own, so as not to damage.

[kytx]

Vladlen claims that electronic warfare (both ours and Ukrainian) is far from being as good as they describe. You can work, it interferes, but it doesn’t matter.

[ratcatcher]

A document was even published recently. Of course6 in tg channels, which calls into question the authenticity. But nonetheless. The Turks are asking to stop the use of Bayraktar in areas that are too difficult in terms of air defense, as the reputation of the machine is being damaged.
There was also an opinion - again in Ukrainian channels, that the Armed Forces of Ukraine deliberately spend Bayraktars in difficult missions, hoping that the Americans would take pity and put Reaper

[Spatel]

Judging by the number of "minuses", not only he believes in these stories ...

[Uncle Vanya Susanin]

Do you believe in stories about

The photos posted in the cart are apparently also fairy tales, or Mosfilm cartoons?

[BastaKarapuzik And]

On today's radio broadcast, the guest stood up for drones in the troops.
But besides that, he called them consumables, since they really get knocked down in batches.
And this is a merit not only of missile air defense systems.

[shurshun]

You cannot win a war by means of defense. We need strike weapons for various tactical purposes. Attack UAVs are one of them. It is obvious.

[Beetle1991]

I would like to add a question to the author of the article, what if they put the same optics as on drones (detection of a tank from 80 km) on an air defense system?
Against the background of the sky, any bayraktar and others like it will also be visible for a couple of tens of kilometers.
Yes, the RCS of drones is much smaller than manned vehicles, so they are difficult to detect. But against the background of the "black / blue" sky, any UAV will be visible from far away in the optical and infrared ranges.
The question is, what kind of optics are Russian air defense systems equipped with, I won’t be surprised if these are analogues of the French "Catherine" of the 90s, which are put on tanks.
If the optics of shock UAVs normally see people against the backdrop of buildings and a diverse landscape from a distance of 15-20 km, then why can't the same optics installed on an air defense system see a bayraktar from the same distance?

[Letun]

Quote: Beetle1991

I would like to add a question to the author of the article, what if they put the same optics as on drones (detection of a tank from 80 km) on an air defense system?

I don't want to say obvious things, but the earth is flat and the sky is three-dimensional. How are you going to fumble around with optics there? In white light like a pretty penny?

[Beetle1991]

The same pine / birders work passively, only with optics, there is no airborne radar.
Foreign short-range air defense systems also use optics, or a combination of optics / radar.
As for the three-dimensional sky, yes, you have to search with optics, while in manual mode, just like they do on TORs and shells.
Military air defense for wartime is being discussed, and not positional for the 24/7/365 regime
Here is a drone video. It could be the same with the air defense system.

[gsev]

Quote: Beetle1991

Against the background of the sky, any bayraktar and others like it will also be visible for a couple of tens of kilometers.

Having a drone, you can choose the place of attack and attack a convenient target, concentrating all your forces on a key point of defense. Breakthrough and defense tactics are based on the creation of strongholds well protected and hidden from enemy observation, for example, on the reverse slopes of heights and swift attacks from these points on the enemy. The presence of drones makes it possible to identify such points, inflict accurate attacks on them, identify the approach of supply transports to the points and see the beginning of the advancement of the attackers from these points. I think 90% of the losses the Russian army in Ukraine suffered as a result of drone attacks or as a result of shooting corrected with the help of drones. Air defense will be effective against drones if it is capable of withstanding a massive enemy attack at any time on any sector of the front. However, ground-based air defense has been effective since 1939 only when its location is unknown to the enemy, that is, during battles practically from ambushes. The USSR paid for the effective air defense of Moscow in 1941 with the death of the Western Front in the Vyazemsky cauldron.

[Alex 34091]

Quote: mojohed2012

Question to the author of the article: Then why and with what kind of super-powerful detection means does the RF Armed Forces detect and shoot down Bayraktars and other Western UAVs in batches a day? Intuition?

Yes, they partially go astray, here the question is different, in this war we had {to} rely on strike reconnaissance drones, because we knew that the Ukrainian air defense system, as it were, would not last long. With the proper number of them, you can arrange artillery and aviation terror . And it is in this war that a small amount of blah ~ a big mistake of our military elite. Even if we look mathematically at the payments to the wounded and fallen of our guys, not even counting the cost of the lost equipment, how much good could we produce, and if there was insufficient production, could we buy from Turkey? And the Ukrainians would not be able to pick them in such numbers as we do, anyhow they had little air defense left in the first weeks of their own. And in the end we have a reasoning general, Karl in April !!! About what type it is, it’s ineffective ... And a video where our Marine ties an RGD5 to a Chinese copter in a plastic cup.

[max702]

Generals are preparing for past wars (admirals for the year before) (S.)
Why do you think, after the 45th, a lot of military commanders were put up against the wall?

[Alex 34091]

Quote: max702

Generals are preparing for past wars (admirals for the year before) (S.)
Why do you think, after the 45th, a lot of military commanders were put up against the wall?

A rake, and a rake again, well, they stepped on them at the beginning of the operation, so buy them now wherever you can, these machines remove the issue of reconnaissance and target designation by 70 percent. Reduce the loss of people for which the state pays.

[max702]

Quote: Alexey 34091

Reduce the loss of people for which the state pays.

Duc pays little! From that and does not protect people! Officially, payments are now about 7 million rubles for the deceased, which is somewhere around $ 100 when they start paying from 000 million dollars, that is, 1-70 million rubles and a pension of 80 rubles, then they will start thinking, and UAVs will appear and high-precision weapons and boots which you can wear, walkie-talkies, equipment, teplaki, and much more on which the MO is now "saving" ..

[Igor K]

More powerful is the one who emerges victorious from the battle (the battle of Goliath and David).

[Letun]

Quote: Igor K

More powerful is the one who emerges victorious from the battle (the battle of Goliath and David).

A very recent example...

[Igor K]

The question is in the approach, the principle of evaluation. I hope you do not consider the law of Archimedes not fresh)

[Letun]

Quote: Igor K

The question is in the approach, the principle of evaluation. I hope you do not consider the law of Archimedes not fresh)

Compare the laws of physics with an example from history. To clarify, from the biblical story, this is about the same as comparing a swan with helium. In short, a very good example.

[TreeSmall]

Quantity always translates into quality.
10 kg of ammunition delivered exactly to the tower, or to the cover of the world, will do more harm than a 150 kg projectile that arrived 10 meters from the tank

[ultra]

The author obviously smoked something.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: ultra

The author obviously smoked something.

Just a sent Cossack. His opinion:

Ukraine is constantly replenishing its losses at the expense of the mobilized, and the RF Armed Forces, in turn, have no military reserves. The reason for this is the underestimation of the enemy and the expectation of a quick end to the military campaign in Ukraine. Former Defense Minister of the DPR, retired FSB colonel Igor Strelkov believes that the “second stage” of the operation may be delayed, and Russia needs to carry out partial mobilization.

Look at his "works" on the site.

[ViktorBiryukov]

You are now citing my quote as a kind of "exposure" (which is very funny), but let's essentially - which of the above is wrong? Was there an underestimation of the enemy? Is there no mobilization in Ukraine? The second stage of the special operation did not drag on, and everything goes according to plan? How many settlements were taken after the announcement of the second stage, list? If you enjoy living on the planet of pink ponies and wearing pink glasses, then you can assume that there are no problems and everything is going according to plan.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

You are quoting my quote as a kind of "exposure"

That's funny! To mention tests two years ago against SMALL UAVs and cite them as an example of the ineffectiveness of air defense against Bayraktar is rather stupid.
To consider that the UAVs of Azerbaijan defeated the air defense of Armenia, completely forgetting that he had air supremacy, is also not very smart.
Clear level is shorter.
Oh yes, Bayraktars on Zmein worked on boats not equipped with means of detecting air targets.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

You are quoting my quote as a kind of "exposure"

That's funny! To mention tests two years ago against SMALL UAVs and cite them as an example of the ineffectiveness of air defense against Bayraktar is rather stupid.
To consider that the UAVs of Azerbaijan defeated the air defense of Armenia, completely forgetting that he had air supremacy, is also not very smart.
Clear level is shorter.
Oh yes, Bayraktars on Zmein worked on boats not equipped with means of detecting air targets.

air supremacy with unsuppressed air defense? or after?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

air supremacy with unsuppressed air defense? or after?

If you are too lazy to ask yourself, then here you go:

the means of air attack of one of them have decisive superiority and can effectively solve their tasks with acceptable losses, while the means of air attack of the other side cannot effectively solve the tasks assigned to them

I’ll chew it up if you’re too lazy to think: enemy planes do not interfere with ours, they do not work at airfields and our air defense, and enemy air defense is choking from the air, including a glut of decoys, as was the case in Karabakh.

[tlauicol]

UAVs are also means of air attack.
And, yes: you spoke specifically about the air defense of Armenia, and I asked about it. Specifically. And in your training manual there is not a word about him

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

And, yes: you spoke specifically about the air defense of Armenia, and I asked about it.

"Bai" and kamikaze drones began to be used after the exhaustion of the "Torov" ammo for false targets such as the An-2-UAV and demonstration sorties of aviation. Question: would the An-2 and jamming aircraft have flown if there was an active Armenian IA?

Quote: Tlauicol

And in your training manual there is not a word about him

What they wrote in the State Department/Kremlin/Verkhovna Rada is what I use, but what do you use?

[tlauicol]

So, once again: did the Azerbaijani aviation seize air supremacy Before the suppression of air defense or after? Write in one word please

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

So, once again: Azerbaijani aviation seized air supremacy Before the suppression of air defense or after

Of course before. Re-read the definition of air supremacy.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I’ll chew it up if you’re too lazy to think: enemy planes do not interfere with ours, they do not work at airfields and our air defense, and enemy air defense is choking from the air, including a glut of decoys, as was the case in Karabakh.

What is not clear to you from this?

[tlauicol]

Re-read several times. Not a word about air defense. Or "definition" is how you chewed it yourself?
But I understand you, you think that Azerbaijan seized air supremacy before the suppression of air defense by drones

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tlauicol

Re-read several times. Not a word about air defense. Or "definition" is how you chewed it yourself?

Learn materiel, at least at the initial level:

Air supremacy is the decisive air superiority of one of the belligerents in the airspace in the theater of operations. In terms of scale, it can be strategic, operational and tactical. The decisive role in gaining air supremacy belongs to the Air Force and Air Defense Forces

Ensuring the Air Force combat operation actions of one fighter or the combined action of various types of air power against the enemy Air Force is just one part of the struggle for supremacy (domination) in the air. Basically, air superiority is achieved by systematically organized struggle against enemy aircraft.

This struggle, in addition to "security" and defense measures include the following active measures:

a) broad, systematic reconnaissance (on a broad front and deep behind enemy lines) of the enemy grouping (airfields), its activities (observation of airfields and the combat work of VZS), aviation industry facilities, air bases and aviation training centers that feed and replenish Soy aviation units (undercover and aerial reconnaissance);

b) systematic destruction of the enemy air force both in the air and on the ground.

Air Force destroyed the enemy in the air in air battles and battles, conducted both over enemy territory and over its territory during its invasions (bombing enemy action, airborne assault forces, the actions of large groups of its fighters on the battlefield).

Constant monitoring of enemy airfields and the flights of small and large groups of his aviation, surveillance of these groups and radio guidance of fighter groups (and groups of other types of aviation in the event of a major invasion) on them to repel an enemy raid make it possible to destroy his aircraft even over his own territory or, in extreme cases, on the approaches to their territory and to the most important objects. As a last resort, the enemy Air Force is destroyed by their reverse ROsgration. One of the main ways to destroy enemy aircraft returning from a raid is to attack it at airfields after landing.

The ultimate goal of fighting the Air Force in the battle for tactical and operational control of the air will be:

a) deprive the enemy Air Force of the opportunity to freely carry out its main tasks, mainly where this is necessary in the interests of the operation or battle we are conducting;

b) provide its troops and fleet with the opportunity to carry out their tasks without opposition from an air enemy.

In this struggle for supremacy in vozduhe- involves all kinds of aircraft.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

would the An-2 and jamming aircraft have flown if there was an active Armenian IA?

I think Azerbaijan would, in any case, buy more decoys than Armenia could buy anti-aircraft missiles. The drone-false target is a product of an aircraft model circle with a children's programmable controller of the Ardino type - the price for it is 400 rubles at the most. In China, the cost of a servo drive with a servomotor is 000 rubles, a CNC for 24 coordinates is 000 rubles.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: gsev

I think Azerbaijan would have bought in any case more decoys than Armenia was able to buy anti-aircraft missiles

An-2s were used as a decoy, moreover, with an explosive charge, such as they shoot down - it’s not a pity, they don’t shoot down - it will blow something up .. So about China by. And also past because of the low flight speeds of homemade products. BC air defense systems were dragged onto demonstration flights of aviation under the cover of jammers and false, but quite serious targets.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

An-2 was used as a decoy,

A drone designed for a false target will be 10 times cheaper than the AN-2. Unlike a passenger aircraft, it should not be designed to carry people. It is tempting to open the air defense to send a drone with loitering ammunition. During radio exposure, he would drop barrage ammunition in the direction of radio emission, which would go into the area where the radio signal appeared and attack the air defense. In addition, effectively separate the drones along the front and height. The lower ones as a bait for close-range air defense systems and at the same time, in the absence of air defense, strike at ground targets, the high-altitude ones strike at the places of a shot from air defense systems.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: gsev

A drone designed for a false target will be 10 times cheaper than the AN-2.

Perhaps, like an anti-aircraft missile, they are different.

Quote: gsev

It is tempting to open the air defense to send a drone with loitering ammunition. During radio exposure, he would drop barrage ammunition in the direction of radio emission, which would go into the area where the radio signal appeared and attack the air defense.

Are you sure that such ammunition will be cheaper not even for anti-aircraft missiles, but for an airplane?

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Are you sure that such ammunition will be cheaper not even for anti-aircraft missiles, but for an airplane?

90% of the cost of ammunition is the work of the designer and programmer. After the manufacture of the first ammunition, the price of the rest is the price of the material spent on them. The advantage of high-precision homing weapons is that they can be made in peacetime, but used massively at once.

[TreeSmall]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Oh yes, Bayraktars on Zmein worked on boats not equipped with means of detecting air targets.

And what kind of boats “equipped with means of detecting air targets” exist in nature?
Radar "Furke-E" has a mass of 900 kg to 2500 kg
+ equipment from 100 kg to 900 kg
+ "guts" several hundred kg
It's only SOC
and we also need a target tracking radar "Roman" 1L36-01 / 1RS2-E "Helmet"
count half of the furke
- what kind of vessel will withstand this and not gurgle?
-how much is it?
The world, or rather the war, has entered a different era, what can you think of.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from TreeSmall

And what kind of boats “equipped with means of detecting air targets” exist in nature?

You are so smart and write nonsense. The author, briefly, writes that air defense is powerless against "bayraktars" and, as an example, cites an attack by boats having no means of detecting air targets at allth.
And there are boats, project 12411 mod with radar Positive and ZRAK Kortik. It's just that boats are different. So that.

[ultra]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

Was there an underestimation of the enemy? Is there no mobilization in Ukraine?

What does this have to do with the topic of your "labor"? Like the Oblonskys, everything is mixed up.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

Let's get to the point - what's wrong

As an example of the successful use of UAVs, you choose those where the air defense was focal and not saturated. Moreover, those databases where the air defense was built more or less normally (Ukraine) and where UAVs actually proved to be frankly weak as strikers are brushed aside by you. I am not saying that UAV drummers are not needed, but this is not a prodigy either. Like any weapon, they have their own niche, advantages and disadvantages.

[gsev]

Quote: qqqq

As an example of the successful use of UAVs, you choose those where the air defense was focal and not saturated.

Any 10 km gap in the front that is not closed by air defense allows drones to penetrate behind the front line and find unprotected objects at a depth of 200 km to strike or simply attack air defense from the rear. In addition, the enemy can sacrifice a dozen shock beyraktars in one battle in order to destroy 30 other drones on the 30th sector of the air defense front and make 5 sorties per day in this sector during the day. Or even hang your reconnaissance drones over the enemy artillery, which will direct the fire of their nomadic self-propelled guns at the enemy’s blind artillery.

[qQQQ]

Quote: gsev

Any 10 km gap in the front that is not closed by air defense allows drones to penetrate behind the front line and find unprotected objects at a depth of 200 km to strike or simply attack air defense from the rear

Of course, but for this, layered air defense is being created so that there are no holes. This example just shows that UAVs are quite effective in focal air defense.

[28st region]

In essence, it turns out that horizontally the Pantsir can detect a bayraktar-type target at a distance of less than 4 km. Not very sure in your calculations. In addition to the radar, it also has an optical-electronic detection and guidance system. In conditions of active interference, it is used as the main one. What is the data on it? Also, detection is practically overhead?
But you touched on a topic that they try to keep silent about. Yes, the CBO revealed many shortcomings and shortcomings. We do not have the required number of UAVs and they are not produced in the required quantities, all hope was for abroad - we will buy it. Meanwhile, the experience of the b / a showed that most of the losses in PM and armored vehicles were suffered from the fire of heavy artillery, the calculations of which used small reconnaissance copters. The accuracy of fire has increased tenfold.
So far there is no data on the use of BMPT, but it seems that there will be no breakthrough at all. With the effectiveness of the CD, not everything is as we would like, and much more. Do not hush up, but disassemble and look for ways out.

[Tsyrendorzhiev Sambu Rabdanovich]

Many people speak about the pace of accomplishment of the tasks of the operation, however, when formulating their judgments, one must answer the question: how many settlements, according to the plan, were envisaged to be taken by our troops by a certain date? You and I do not know the decision of the commander for the operation, the content of the tasks in each of the directions. We do not know the offensive zone of groupings of troops and so on ... Therefore, our reasoning with you is of no value. Except for entertainment. Many now understand the mistakes in assessing the enemy, his determination to wage stubborn resistance, the political unity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the national battalions, the level of Russophobia among the population. No one greeted us with flowers. As a result, our troops suffered serious losses. The change in commander is a sure sign of a more serious attitude of the military leadership to the matter. The conditional first stage, which I personally associate with the defeat of the grouping of troops (forces) of Ukraine near Donetsk, has already been marked by the capture of Mariupol, is close to completion. I do not presume to speak about the timing, but it is clear that after the completion of these tasks and the introduction of reserves into battle, the pace of the offensive will increase for obvious reasons.

[svoroponov]

Russia is fighting using 3 waves of its grouping. 1 - fights, the second insures a few in the rear and, if necessary, helps the first in disturbing areas, 3 - in the rear on rest and replenishment. After a certain time, the first one is slowly withdrawn to the rear, the second one replaces the first one in the areas of battles, and the third one is transferred to the near rear to help instead of the second one. Immediately with replenishment, it is not introduced into battle. Recruitment newcomers get used to the proximity of hostilities. That is, more or less fresh forces are fighting almost continuously in our country. Ukrainians don’t have this, their battles are exhausted, they are not taken to rest, and in case of losses (and not small ones), fresh, poorly trained and not fired units are immediately brought in. Therefore, the front begins to crumble, fatigue and poor preparation take their toll. Well, there are some other reasons.

[avg]

Quote: ultra

The author obviously smoked something.

I don’t know what the author smoked, but God forbid you check this conclusion of his in practice:

Small groups with active reconnaissance, encrypted communications and combat drones are now able to achieve results with much greater efficiency than large, hulking mechanized columns with heavy firepower.

And if these with "great firepower" suddenly turn out to be nimble?
No matter how much you have to remember that - "The Lord is always on the side of large battalions."

[zombirusrev]

These systems were sharpened against relatively large carriers ... so it's not surprising, but when the size of the missile defense system is comparable to the target being hit, this is a slightly different paradigm ... and it needs to be changed. Previously, artillery systems of the AK-630, Vulcan-Falax or Goalkeeper types were used against such targets .. So, short-range air defense systems still work against the drones themselves, and it’s already worse against the small PTAB-2,5 type ammunition they carry ..

[Negruz]

These systems were sharpened against relatively large carriers ... so it's not surprising, but when the size of the missile defense system is comparable to the target being hit, this is a slightly different paradigm.

BM with automatic gun 57 mm and UAS...
As they say: to Caesar - Caesar's, and to the locksmith - locksmith's ....

[Vladimir Michailovich]

There is BK -60 shots, and some of them are armor-piercing, which one of them to shoot down?

[Negruz]

Where bk - 60 shots?

[zombirusrev]

The author is apparently not quite in the subject .. Arrows against UAVs cannot work at all because they are guided by a thermal signature, which is negligible by default for small UAVs ..... i.e. the more UAVs (the engine is more powerful and t.s. warmer) the more vulnerable it is .. for Arrows .. And about Flights (Tu-123, etc.) generally bypass, because this is a large "almost an airplane" the size of a cruise missile and everything works on it.

[ViktorBiryukov]

I pointed out in the article - "as the practice of 3PK "Strela-10MZ" showed, it turned out to be capable of hitting Akila-type UAVs only in daytime conditions." (with)
In general, the possibility of firing 3PK "Strela-10MZ" is determined mainly by the target detection range by the operator and the capture range of the 3UR seeker. The average detection range of Akila-type UAVs by the 3PK Strela-10MZ operator is 1,3-4,5 km, which is not enough for effective shooting.

[DenVB]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

The average detection range of Akila-type UAVs by the 3PK Strela-10MZ operator is 1,3-4,5 km, which is not enough for effective shooting.

Radarless air defense systems firing missiles with optical seekers are a good option against drones, but for this they need to be equipped with OLS, which are not inferior in performance to those on the Bayraktars. And the missiles must have inertial, or radio command, or laser-beam guidance in the initial section, and guidance of their own seeker - in the final one.

[ultra]

What is the inertial guidance in the air defense missile ????

[DenVB]

Quote: ultra

What is the inertial guidance in the air defense missile ????

You don't know what inertial guidance is? The rocket is given a starting task - to fly such and such a course such and such a distance. After completing the task, the GOS is activated.

[ultra]

Quote: DenVB

You don't know what inertial guidance is?

It looks like you don’t know what ANN is. Otherwise, you wouldn’t write such nonsense.

[DenVB]

Well, whatever you say.

[ultra]

Who seeks will always find.

[DenVB]

Quote: ultra

Who seeks will always find.

Start with Google. Or directly from this site. IRIS-T. SM-6.

[ultra]

There TEAM INS. We learn materiel.

[DenVB]

Quote: ultra

There TEAM INS. We learn materiel.

Not very skillfully dodging so far. Try again.

[ultra]

What does it mean to dodge? INS is completely autonomous on the march, there is no command INS. And you have gone far, the first command INS on air defense missiles was used back in the USSR. Two types of missiles for the S300 used this system.

[DenVB]

Quote: ultra

What does it mean to dodge?

Well, you have learned something that you did not know before: that the inertial system can be used in anti-aircraft missiles. So at least thank you for enlightening me.

And not only anti-aircraft, by the way. Air to air too. Amraam. R-77.

[ultra]

It looks like you need to learn more materiel. An air defense missile cannot fly autonomously until the target is captured by the seeker, it constantly needs correction, since the target is maneuvering.

[DenVB]

Quote: ultra

An air defense missile cannot autonomously fly until the GOS target is captured,

On the contrary, an air defense missile may well fly autonomously until the target is captured. Whether the capture will be successful depends on various factors, for example: the distance traveled, the range of the target, the speed of the target, the "brightness" of the target, the width of the "field of view" of the seeker.

Trajectory-corrected inertial guidance certainly increases the chance of a successful lock-on, especially when firing at long ranges.

[ultra]

Quote: DenVB

Inertial guidance with trajectory correction, of course, increases the likelihood of a successful capture,

Therefore, it is called "command-inertial".

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Let people make history...

[ultra]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

The average detection range of Akila-type UAVs by the 3PK Strela-10MZ operator is 1,3-4,5 km, which is not enough for effective shooting.

And nothing that max d

[Bolt cutter]

Mr. Biryukov, why is it impossible to take the bearing of the UAV? And then burn the optics matrices with a laser? A laser of 50 watts, which is quite enough in engravers with Ali, even laser special effects at concerts damage the matrices of digital cameras.

[DenVB]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

And then burn the optics matrices with a laser?

The idea is good, by the way. But the UAV still needs to be seen in the sky.

[Bolt cutter]

You only need to know approximately where the UAV is located, and the laser, through a vibrating or rotating mirror, will create a "field" where everything light-sensitive will be burned out - an ordinary 150-watt module (from a cutting machine) cuts even shoe leather, that is, amba optics matrices.

[DenVB]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

You only need to know approximately where the UAV is located

It's not so easy. You need a good OLS to constantly monitor the sky and automatically detect drones.

By the way, there are also ways to protect against lasers. Not absolutely reliable, but there are.

But I like the idea itself. And, in principle, it can be tested on the battlefield even now, you just need to bring the idea to intelligent people at the front.

[Bolt cutter]

Need a good OLS

And to find the signal transmitted by the UAV?

There are also ways to protect against lasers.

There is. Are there ways to protect Chinese cameras from lasers? With a burnt matrix, a blinded drone is useless.

it can be tested on the battlefield right now

Need. Not such a complicated technology (surveillance cameras are already being burned with pointers).

[DenVB]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

And to find the signal transmitted by the UAV?

Don't know. For some reason it doesn't seem to work.

Quote: Bolt Cutter

Are there ways to protect Chinese cameras from lasers?

Is.

[Bolt cutter]

Is.

And what? To date, all cameras are vulnerable, and a mavic for a thousand is even more so.

[DenVB]

For example, it is proposed to use light filters that do not transmit light of certain frequencies - for the most popular lasers. Although such filters are not easy to make, usually the filter, on the contrary, passes a certain frequency, and filters out the rest.

[Bolt cutter]

do not transmit light of certain frequencies

That is, you can forget about the IR range - it is very narrow and the laser wavelength coincides with the sensitivity of bolometers.

light of certain frequencies

You can combine 2-3 lasers into a beam, and most importantly, such filters will significantly reduce the capabilities of the camera. Make the drone semi-blind.

[DenVB]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

and most importantly, such filters will significantly reduce the capabilities of the camera. Make the drone semi-blind.

Maybe. However, this is still speculative. First, you need to try to disable the IPS at least at a few Bayraktars, and then wait for the manufacturer to respond.

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Yeah, at 20 kilometers :) yes, with a laser, for how many years they have been sawing a laser theme, both in our country and especially overseas. There are no primitive PDs for UAVs in the country - not at all and apparently no longer will be.

[Bolt cutter]

at 20 kilometers

First of all, I meant mavics that literally hang over their heads. And kamikaze. And 20 km - only shoot down with a rocket (although a 500-watt laser - from a cutter for steel - should cope). The laser is quite enough to burn the optoelectronics.

[Kaufman]

Great article. They just don't take criticism well here.

[TermNachTer]

An article with some pretense of objectivity, but the author does not say anything about the fact that "bayraktars", as well as other UAVs, did not show themselves very well in very recent events. Tank detection at a distance of 80 km.? raises certain doubts.

[Nestorych]

You are right, the marking itself speaks of the possibilities - the maximum reconnaissance range is up to 15 km, which is quite enough with a range of 8 km, but this does not make it any easier. The shell still hits.

[TermNachTer]

The author himself writes that in Syria, in dueling situations, the exchange was 1: 4. Taking into account the fact that there are "beech" and "tor" in the RF Armed Forces, the "shell" simply occupies "its own niche." Alas, the Syrians cannot afford such a luxury.

[Nestorych]

This is how to count, the crew of the Shell is 3 people, the approximate cost is about $ 15 million (2010 estimate). Bayraktar from $2,5 million to $5 million apiece, let's take an average of 3,75 million.
Loss ratio 1:4, price ratio 1=15 to 3,75*4=15 i.e. 1:1, but 3 more trained people, and the Bayraktars were still working for other purposes before their death, such mathematics ...

[TermNachTer]

Is victory in war measured in dollars or pounds? In a couple of months, if you wish, you can go - it's not far away, ask them how much the defeat cost them?

[TermNachTer]

Z.Y. The Mi-15 helicopter costs 28 lyam of American money, I think the "shell" will be cheaper.

[Nestorych]

Yes, really?))) "8 attack helicopters Mi-28NE" Night Hunter ". The preliminary amount of the contract will be 478 million dollars" total 59,75 apiece.)

[TermNachTer]

And you don’t include spare parts and accessories, B / C and other nishtyaks in the contract amount?))) Missiles of 100 tons of bucks come for free? spare engines for greenery, blades, etc. - free of charge, i.e. for nothing?)))

[Dart2027]

Quote: Nestorych

Bayraktar from $2,5 million to $5 million apiece

6 pieces plus two control machines 70 lyam.

[Nestorych]

Yes, but not a single control vehicle has yet been destroyed, and they are the most expensive!

[Dart2027]

Quote: Nestorych

not a single control machine

It may have been destroyed, only this work is not for air defense, but for the Aerospace Forces, Caliber or Iskander.

[DenVB]

The price also includes a certain amount of controlled ammunition, which is also a lot.

Well, do not forget that this is the export price. The price "for their own" can be significantly lower. In our military-industrial complex, this is usually the case.

[Dart2027]

Quote: DenVB

The price "for their own" can be significantly lower.

Essentially, however, not at times, but several million.

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Absolutely true, the main component in any product is labor.

[Negruz]

The output doesn't match the text....
Moreover, the content of the "myth" is artificially and arbitrarily expanded by the author....
The weakest point: the lack of a statistical base ....
As soon as UAVs begin to “crumble” in combat conditions, the thesis is used, they say, “not there, not like that, they used the wrong ones, but if it were the first-second-third-compote, then it would be oh-ho-ho!! "....
Well, and the thesis that from the "gun to sparrows" is ineffective, understandable without the author ....
So, for "little ones" other means of destruction must be used, and not tori-shells ....

[Vikxnumx]

Moreover, the content of the "myth" is artificially and arbitrarily expanded by the author....
The weakest point: the lack of a statistical base ....

By Bayraktar. And there are not so many air defense systems for purposes ...
And an accurate analysis of the errors in the use of air defense systems and their effectiveness will have to wait a long time!
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/12/a-monument-of-victory-bayraktar-tb2.html

[sen]

The reason for this is the short detection range of small-sized UAVs from the detection and target designation radar, which, like for 3PK "Top", is 3-5 km, which practically coincides with the near boundary of the missile defense zone

A millimeter-wave radar on a long rod may well detect a small-sized UAV over several tens of kilometers, a specificity of the millimeter range, and can be used as a SNR.

[Glory1974]

in Syria, Turkey has taken the tactics of using its UAVs to a new level. A tactic was developed for the use of Bayraktar TV2 strike UAVs massively, in groups, under the cover of heavier Anka reconnaissance UAVs equipped with radar, OER and REP systems

The army has a system. If applied massively, there will be a result. Single drones will not make the weather. But in general, a classic confrontation between a sword and a shield.

[Cowbra]

It is not entirely clear where the author got the data on the effectiveness of Bayraks, where he found out that the use of Bayraks is "effective" on Zmein and it is not clear why he kept silent about the fact that UAVs both in Syria and in Yemen showed themselves to be isolated when they first appeared The novelty factor kicked in. And there were no further victorious reports even in the Turkish chronicle. It is also incomprehensible why numerous attempts to strike at a really provided air defense facility - the Khmeimim base were frustrated with a dry score.
So the facts say that the author...

Quote: ultra

The author obviously smoked something.

And Thor is not raschchytan for small sizes! Against them, in principle, other things are developing the whole world

[ViktorBiryukov]

You didn't read the article carefully. It states that "according to the media of the opposing parties, in Syria, from September 2019 to September 2020, in duel situations" UAV - ZRPK ", about 20 Bayraktar TV2 and Anka UAVs were shot down, while 8 ZRPK were lost" Pantsir-S1 "" (c). Even if you do not believe media reports, but only talk about statements by officials who claim that during this period 10 Bayraktar TV2 and Anka UAVs were shot down and 2 Pantsir-S1 air defense systems were lost, such an exchange confirms the inadequately low level of combat survivability of air defense systems, in conditions of massive use of UAVs.

[Cowbra]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

since September 2019

Well, this is the first application when the surprise factor worked. Further, even in the Turkish media, there is not a single mention of effective Bayraktars in Syria. So that's right - the effectiveness has not been confirmed in any way, there all the losses were in the first attack, after a couple of days Bayraks fell in heaps from the sky - and all reports about their use disappeared

[rocket757]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

such an exchange confirms the inadequately low level of combat survivability of the ZRPK, in the conditions of the massive use of UAVs.

Oh, don't make fun of my horseshoes.
If anything was shown by the loss of air defense systems, then there is only one thing ... between the steering wheel and the seat, the gasket should be normal, and not just another "camel or ram". Also, the SHEPHERD / organizer of the combat process must be qualified, well prepared !!!
And so, in general, there are no invulnerable systems !!! Those. there is an opener for any plug, if the opener is friends with brains.

[Cowbra]

Quote: rocket757

Between the steering wheel and the seat, the gasket must be normal

They have noticed for a long time - ALL absolutely Shells recorded on Bayraki - were caught without BC at the time of reloading and without cover. Well, if you watch videos. So it does not pull on low efficiency. A machine gun is also worse than a club, when the BC shoots - the barrel is hot, you grab the figs

[rocket757]

There was, presumably, an option when the crew was calving ... the drones came from several directions even closer than the SHELL could finish them off!
GASKET, GASKET and once again the commander who organizes the correct combat process, in general!
I have a negative experience with ... "camels". It was a long time ago, but I do not believe that anything has changed since then. Moreover, even dad talked about the same ... "camels", from another region, in fact, the same.

[D16]

talk only about the statements of officials who claim that during this period 10 Bayraktar TV2 and Anka UAVs were shot down and 2 Pantsir-S1 air defense systems were lost

During the military conflict in Syria and Libya, Russian Pantsir-S1 missile systems destroyed more than 40 Turkish Anka and Bayraktar attack drones. This number was announced by the head of the construction and development of the system for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Alexander Novikov on the air of the Vesti Nedeli program on the Rossiya 1 TV channel (c)
https://www.yaplakal.com/forum3/topic2367998.html
Is the face formal enough?
Only in reality, in Idlib, the main losses to the Bairaks were inflicted by the Buk M2E air defense system. Do not seriously consider any duel situations. Air defense is a SYSTEM. The Buk air defense system will destroy Bayraktar flying at 7000m long before he can see anything at all. It is cost-effective to bang on it and from the S-300. Especially a rocket with outgoing shelf life.

[rocket757]

It is not entirely clear where the author got the data on the effectiveness of the Bairaks, where he concluded that the use of the Bairaks is "effective" on Zmein and it is not clear,

. Come on, the Sultan encourages everyone to praise his drones, otherwise the sale of super super weapons may turn sour.
Ordinary advertising ... without any principles of objectivity and other things ... whoever pays orders the music.

[zombirusrev]

Small size is generally a problem, but they will soon become even smaller .. But here is another topic than to equip them then .. the combat load will also decrease by a multiple ..

[Yrec]

The author makes a generalization on the basis of only the Karabakh war using only Bayraktars. There was focal obsolete air defense in mountainous terrain against a technically backward enemy. When using a continuous layered air defense system, the use of UAVs the size of Bayraktar and larger is ineffective and leads to large losses. The story about the discovery of a tank from 80 km is simply ridiculous. Well, maybe in the Otakama Desert on a completely flat surface without any interference. In short - a spherical horse in a vacuum. The main problem in Ukraine is small UAVs - spotters. Against them, TORs, BUKs and other Shells are really ineffective. EW systems should be used against such. Both a wide spectrum, like Krasuha, and narrowly targeted anti-drone "guns". And all this should work in close interaction, which is the problem. After all, you can dump your drones.

[Foul skeptic]

So, the Bayraktar TV2 UAV is a strike UAV carrying up to 4 UMTAS guided anti-tank missiles that can hit targets at a distance of up to 8 km.

TV2 will not survive 4 UMTAS missiles. Only 2.

The American military module Wescam CMX-2D is used as an optoelectronic system (OES) of Bayraktar TV15

Wescam is a Canadian company. So it's Canadian. Or Turkish.

Small UAVs include vehicles weighing up to 25 kilograms, with a flight altitude of up to 3 kilometers and a range of up to 40 kilometers.

What classification? And then in the Russian classification there is no concept of a small UAV at all. According to the international group, small ones also include categories with a mass of up to 500 kg, a range of up to 200 km and a ceiling of up to 5 km.
PS By the way, in the latest May issue of the ZVO, there is just a good article about Turkish drones and their weapons. Not only those who have set their teeth on edge TV2. About Wescam optics - also in ZVO (May 2011 issue)

[EvilLion]

in which it was the attacks of drones and drones that played a decisive role.

Of course, we will forget about more than 600 Su-25 sorties.

[Nafanya from the sofa]

What this conclusion is based on is not entirely clear. Consider the result of the use of domestic air defense in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

What is this nonsense? Evaluate the effectiveness of weapons according to information from the media, and 99% advertising. The author has real data on the effectiveness of air defense or "I think so ..."
In general, discussing the question of what is stronger, a shield or a sword, is an occupation for philosophers.
p.s. Dear editors! Please return the ability to give NEGATIVE ratings to published articles. This can make authors take their articles more seriously.

[Okakakiev]

10 bayraktars were shot down on the snake. It was worth it? What did they achieve in return?

[DenVB]

To combat strike and reconnaissance drones, fighter drones are needed. Ground air defense is the last line of defense.

[rocket757]

Ground air defense, this is ALL DEFENSE LINES!
You just need to understand that systemic air defense is a whole range of methods and means of combating enemy air attack weapons.
And air defense combat drones ... when they appear, they will be included in the same general, integrated system.

[Raider]

I went to the above author (F.I. works as a link), for some reason all your articles are of the same type, I understand criticism is important, but everything and everywhere is bad for you. Are you not working for Bayraktar? Article from a series of programs on "Ren TV".
Everyone understands that the strategy of military conflicts is changing. UAVs are effective not even as a strike, but more reconnaissance on the scale of an army company. The target is small, which means that the weapon should be, such as shrapnel or buckshot, so as not to particularly aim, almost all of them are made of plastic, they will make the metal "glow" in a different way.
And why don’t you write about air defense systems that disrupt the “operator-UAV” electronic communications or satellite navigation systems, it’s not all necessary to shoot down with a rocket or projectile. It is necessary to look for weak points in its main advantages - remote control, the influence of electromagnetic radiation on it.

[rocket757]

And why write that we use integrated air defense everywhere ... they still have lonely SHELLS and other self-propelled systems alone to dangle anywhere !!!
Although, the boom is objective, with the expansion of the protected zone of control / protection, during the conduct of hostilities, integrated air defense lags behind advanced units. This is a natural situation that arises for objective reasons.
In general, an advertisement for something that also cannot be, for now, a super super prodigy ... for objective reasons, by the way.

[Okakakiev]

Well, in general, small drones for aiming art are fine, yes. But just drums like blah blah cara are in doubt.
Although he has such a good video camera that you can aim for tens of kilometers. He sees it all as amazing.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

What kind of amateurish nonsense have I just read? The author confuses complexes intended for air defense with air defense itself as such.
Therefore, I remind you that air defense, that is, air defense, is a system built according to strictly specified criteria, and not just cars with rackets.
And to blame the "Shell" for not reaching the target at 8000 altitudes is the same as making claims against small arms for not penetrating tanks. "Shell" is a short-range complex designed to operate on low-altitude targets in the immediate vicinity of the covered object, and it copes with this task perfectly. For high-altitude purposes, there are other complexes and air defense aviation. In addition, for the tasks of this very air defense, front-line aviation, including attack aircraft and combat helicopters, can also be involved.
In other words, air defense is, first of all, a set of organizational measures to build defense along three range lines: the near zone, the middle zone and the far zone. And if there is a failure from one of the zones, then there is no air defense as such. This is what the events in Nagorno-Karabakh showed.
As for the wunderwaffe "Bayraktar TV2". This pepelats with the performance characteristics of aircraft from the times of WWI and the corresponding combat load, as much as 100 kg. At the same time, it costs very “cheap”, only 69 million USD for a complex consisting of 6 drones, 2 control stations, 200 units. ammunition and auxiliary equipment. For comparison, a training aircraft and part-time light attack aircraft in the export version has a price of 15 million USD. At the same time, it carries 3000 kg of combat load. Such is the economics of war. Even if we take into account the highly controversial factor of greater safety for UAV operators in their stationary control points, 600 kg of a one-time combat load against 12 kg is clearly not dancing.
In addition, the recall of Bayraktar TV2 from the front to save commercial history only confirms the fact that nothing shines against high-altitude UAVs against the built air defense. And today there is only a loophole for very cheap UAVs crawling near the ground intended to look “around the corner” and, if necessary, deliver grenade-type ammunition there. But it is clear that such a “strike power” does not make the weather, and the development of the Adekbander muzzle of countering them is already underway.

[Foul skeptic]

For comparison, a training aircraft and part-time light attack aircraft in the export version has a price of 15 million USD. At the same time, it carries 3000 kg of combat load. Such is the economics of war. Even if we take into account the highly controversial factor of greater safety for UAV operators in their stationary control points, 600 kg of a one-time combat load against 12 kg is clearly not dancing.

Do you have any questions about your "war economy"?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Can you compare 600 kg and 12000 kg?

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Can you compare 600 kg and 12000 kg?

Why 12000 kilograms (what kind of aircraft are we talking about, the Tu-22M?), if 20 kilograms is enough to disable a tank or an air defense system?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

12 is the total combat load of four aircraft. And 000 kg, you still need to bring it to the tank. And did it ever occur to you why in all branches of aviation there is a struggle to increase the combat load? That the effectiveness of the man-weapon system is precisely estimated by the amount of damage inflicted on the enemy per unit of time?

[Foul skeptic]

That the effectiveness of the man-weapon system is precisely estimated by the amount of damage inflicted on the enemy per unit of time?

Extremely controversial "spherical in a vacuum" statement.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Maybe the whole point is that you did not study the tactics of the Air Force?

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

And it never occurred to you why in all branches of aviation there is a struggle to increase the combat load?

Right in everyone? And the fighters are already flying loaded with twelve tons of bombs?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

That the effectiveness of the man-weapon system is precisely estimated by the amount of damage inflicted on the enemy per unit of time?

So one Bayraktar with its tiny guided bombs can cause more damage than the Tu-22M with its twelve tons of cast iron.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Right in everyone? And the fighters are already flying loaded with twelve tons of bombs?

Is it for you to fart? Or do you have a passion for denying reality?

So one Bayraktar with its tiny guided bombs can cause more damage than the Tu-22M with its twelve tons of cast iron.

Tu-22M can take both "twelve tons of cast iron" and guided munitions. Which can be applied even without entering the air defense zone. While Bayraktar needs to be suspended above the enemy, the range of his ammunition is painfully small. Yes, and their impact is very weak.
In general, the very comparison of the Tu-22M and Bayraktar is only permissible for a couch strategist.

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

In general, the very comparison of the Tu-22M and Bayraktar is only permissible for a couch strategist.

So far, the ridiculous Bayraktars have disabled more equipment than the Tu-22M.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

What are you saying, can you confirm it with facts, without references to Ukrainian propaganda?

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

What are you saying, can you confirm it with facts, without references to Ukrainian propaganda?

You obviously belong to the category of people who attribute all information that does not suit them to someone else's propaganda. Therefore, I will save the beads.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

What is the information for today? Only that the Bayraktrars are being removed from the front. So you don’t have beads, but acorns.

[Foul skeptic]

I can. What for?
Do you consider economics?

This is the economics of war

Here also consider. Let's leave the economy for later.
Since you have 6 Yak-130s, you already have 15x6=90 million USD. And now add here the cost of simulators for the Yak-130 - procedural and combat use. The role of which for TV2 is played by the same control station. Add the cost of 200 KAB-500Kr (otherwise, the use of the Yak-130 is suicide).
Added? Move on.
Next, compare operating costs, fuel consumption, etc.
Compared? Move on.
The cost (I am silent about the timing) of training jet pilots and UAV operators.
Well, what about the "economy"? Do you want a cherry on the cake?
And now multiply the resulting figure for operating costs by 8, and the cost of aircraft by 4. Because the maximum time spent in the air by the Yak-130 (and the maximum, which means with the PTB and without weapons) is 3 hours. Not 24.
And for these costs, you get a practical result ... comparable to the "pepelats from the performance characteristics of aircraft from the times of WWI." Since there is no 3000 kg load in the non-suicidal version. That TB2 will be capable of 2 launches of mini-KAB, that the Yak-130 will be capable of 2 launches of KAB.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: A vile skeptic

Here also consider. Let's leave the economy for later.
Since you have 6 Yak-130s, you already have 15x6=90 million USD.

Actually, I was talking about four, not six.

And now add here the cost of simulators for the Yak-130 - procedural and combat use. The role of which for TV2 is played by the same control station. Add the cost of 200 KAB-500Kr (otherwise, the use of the Yak-130 is suicide).
Added? Move on.
Next, compare operating costs, fuel consumption, etc.
Compared? Move on.
The cost (I am silent about the timing) of training jet pilots and UAV operators.
Well, what about the "economy"? Do you want a cherry on the cake?
And now multiply the resulting figure for operating costs by 8, and the cost of aircraft by 4. Because the maximum time spent in the air by the Yak-130 (and the maximum, which means with the PTB and without weapons) is 3 hours. Not 24.
And for these costs, you get a practical result ... comparable to the "pepelats from the performance characteristics of aircraft from the times of WWI." Since there is no 3000 kg load in the non-suicidal version. That TB2 will be capable of 2 launches of mini-KAB, that the Yak-130 will be capable of 2 launches of KAB.

Firstly, the cost of operating weapons is a function of their cost, so once you spend money on an UAV, you won’t be able to operate it cheaply.
Secondly, purchasing such expensive systems, you will inevitably have to abandon other systems.
Thirdly, it is many times easier to shoot down a low-speed UAV flying at high altitude than an attack aircraft maneuvering in the WWI (this mode is not available for UAVs).
Fourth, orders of magnitude greater combat load of manned aircraft expands both the list of ammunition used and the power of impact.
Fifthly, even if the UAV itself can stay in the air for 24 hours, but the operators will need several shifts. And why is it? Kill him before.
Fifth, in addition to the cost of operating costs, there is the cost of damage.
As a result, Bayraktar TV2 UAVs are only suitable for conflicts in which the opposing side has neither air defense nor aviation.

[Foul skeptic]

Actually, I was talking about four, not six.

Truth? Let me remind you

only 69 million USD for a complex consisting of 6 drones, 2 control stations, 200 units. ammunition and auxiliary equipment. For comparison, a training aircraft and part-time light attack aircraft in the export version has a price of 15 million USD.

Firstly, the cost of operating weapons is a function of their cost, so once you spend money on an UAV, you won’t be able to operate it cheaply.

What is it for? This is exactly the same true for the aircraft. In general, it is ridiculous to hear about "cost functions" in comparing the operation of an UAV with 1 internal combustion engine and a manned vehicle with 2 turbofan engines.

Secondly, purchasing such expensive systems, you will inevitably have to abandon other systems.

And what is this for? If the Yak-130 will cost more.

Thirdly, it is many times easier to shoot down a low-speed UAV flying at high altitude than an attack aircraft maneuvering in the WWI (this mode is not available for UAVs).

What are in ... extremely small ?! Return to the real world. In which it is advisable not to send to extremely small ... unarmored aircraft, and where enemy fighters do not care about WWI or not.

Fourth, orders of magnitude greater combat load of manned aircraft expands both the list of ammunition used and the power of impact.

Lord, may this power of influence be given to you. Some kindergarten.

Fifthly, even if the UAV itself can stay in the air for 24 hours, but the operators will need several shifts.

So what? This will not reduce the cost of using the Yak-130.

Fifth, in addition to the cost of operating costs, there is the cost of damage.

Certainly. One device will destroy a cart with MANPADS with a bomb for 2 million, and the other with a bomb much cheaper.

As a result, Bayraktar TV2 UAVs are only suitable for conflicts in which the opposing side has neither air defense nor aviation.

Exactly the same as the Yak-130. But at the same time ... cheaper. We're talking about the "economy". Haven't forgotten?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Truth? Let me remind you

It will never reach you that for 69 million USD, which costs a kit including 6 UAVs, you can buy 4 Yak-130 (if at prices for the Russian army, then 8)?

What is it for? This is exactly the same true for the aircraft. In general, it is ridiculous to hear about "cost functions" in comparing the operation of an UAV with 1 internal combustion engine and a manned vehicle with 2 turbofan engines.

Do you still believe in fairy tales that a complex for 69 million USD will be cheap to operate?

What are in ... extremely small ?! Return to the real world. In which it is desirable not to send to extremely small ... unarmored aircraft,

In the real world, I've run into these extremely small enough, because I know what I'm talking about.

and where the enemy fighters do not care about WWI or not.

What fighters? You've got everything on the UAV.

Lord, may this power of influence be given to you. Some kindergarten.

That is, in essence, you have nothing to answer? For reference, my kindergarten is SVVAUL plus Afghanistan, plus Chechnya. As you can see, not from the couch of judgment.

Certainly. One device will destroy a cart with MANPADS with a bomb for 2 million, and the other with a bomb much cheaper.

This is exactly the kindergarden idea of ​​​​the work of aviation. I don’t even ask you about what the required outfit of forces and means, guaranteed destruction is.

Exactly the same as the Yak-130. But at the same time ... cheaper. We're talking about the "economy". Haven't forgotten?

It just seems that way to you. The flight characteristics of the same Yak-130 allow the use of a much wider range of weapons.

[Foul skeptic]

It will never reach you that for 69 million USD, which costs a kit including 6 UAVs, you can buy 4 Yak-130

It will not reach you ... that it is necessary to compare the comparable. Otherwise, on the one hand, you have a full-fledged kit, and on the other ... just an aircraft without peripherals (and not in an assault modification).

Do you still believe in fairy tales that a complex for 69 million USD will be cheap to operate?

What does cheap mean? Again, the logic of kindergarten. Nothing that a comparable number of aircraft, infrastructure, weapons ... is more expensive. It doesn't matter if it's cheap or not, what matters is CHEAPER or not. So tell us how the operation of a UAV with 1 internal combustion engine is more expensive than the operation of a manned vehicle with 2 turbofan engines.

In the real world, I've run into these extremely small enough, because I know what I'm talking about.

AND? Your occupation does not refute what I said.

What fighters? You've got everything on the UAV.

I have? Or you? In your "spherical in vacuum" example.

That is, in essence, you have nothing to answer?

Essentially, you have been answered. You prefer not to see.

And for these costs, you get a practical result ... comparable to the "pepelats with flight characteristics of aircraft from the times of WWI." Since there is no 3000 kg load in the non-suicidal version. That TB2 will be able to launch 2 mini-KABs, that the Yak-130 will be capable of 2 launches of KABs.

For reference, my kindergarten is SVVAUL plus Afghanistan, plus Chechnya.

Did that make you an economist?

This is exactly the kindergarden idea of ​​​​the work of aviation. I don’t even ask you about what the required outfit of forces and means, guaranteed destruction is.

Don't ask. And tell us about the required outfit of forces and means for the guaranteed destruction of a cart with MANPADS.

It just seems that way to you. The flight characteristics of the same Yak-130 allow the use of a much wider range of weapons.

How does this relate to the ECONOMY and the fact that "the opposing side has neither air defense nor aviation" (the condition you set)?! In the case of enemy air defense, both TV2 and Yak-130 are aircraft of the same sortie. Only the loss of TV2 is cheaper and easier to replace.
In the absence of air defense, TV2 occupies its own clear niche, in which the Yak-130 will not replace it in any way, since the UAV will be faster and more economical.
The problem of "deniers of the role of strikers in modern conflicts" is that they consciously or unconsciously manipulate by trying to impose the role of attack aircraft on the front line on UAVs. Question - why?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

It will not reach you ... that it is necessary to compare the comparable. Otherwise, on the one hand, you have a full-fledged kit, and on the other ... just an aircraft without peripherals (and not in an assault modification).

According to you 200 units. ammo is a complete set?

What does cheap mean? Again, the logic of kindergarten. Nothing that a comparable number of aircraft, infrastructure, weapons ... is more expensive. It doesn't matter if it's cheap or not, what matters is CHEAPER or not. So tell us how the operation of a UAV with 1 internal combustion engine is more expensive than the operation of a manned vehicle with 2 turbofan engines.

This is childish talk, to reduce all operation to the power plant. However, not everything is clear-cut here either. It is necessary to compare specific indicators. Although here the UAV itself acts as a consumable. In fact, it's just a good target for a lot of money.

AND? Your occupation does not refute what I said.

And what do you have there to refute, couch fantasies?

Essentially, you have been answered. You prefer not to see.

And for these costs, you get a practical result ... comparable to the "pepelats from the performance characteristics of aircraft from the times of WWI." Since there is no 3000 kg load in the non-suicidal version. That TB2 will be capable of 2 launches of mini-KAB, that the Yak-130 will be capable of 2 launches of KAB.

That is, you have KAB = mini-KAB? That is, we were fools when back in Afghanistan they abandoned the S-5 in favor of the S-8. After all, according to your theory, the caliber does not matter.

Did that make you an economist?

It made me a specialist, unlike you.

Don't ask. And tell us about the required outfit of forces and means for the guaranteed destruction of a cart with MANPADS.

Do you have a cart with MANPADS on its own, like a spherical horse in a vacuum? In short, you have another couch idea about the work of aviation.

How does this relate to the ECONOMY and the fact that "the opposing side has neither air defense nor aviation" (the condition you set)?! In the case of enemy air defense, both TV2 and Yak-130 are aircraft of the same sortie.

Of course, you are not in the know again, but air defense can also be broken through. It's all about the resources available. That's just, an aircraft with a combat load of 3000 kg can carry ammunition for such purposes, but when it's only 100 kg, then alas.

Only the loss of TV2 is cheaper and easier to replace.

Cheaper? You have seen the price. In addition, TV2 is easier to shoot down, a half-blind non-maneuverable target.

In the absence of air defense, TV2 occupies its own clear niche, in which the Yak-130 will not replace it in any way, since the UAV will be faster and more economical.

It's even funny. In the absence of air defense, the Yak-130 will iron the enemy with impunity, even with guided munitions, even with conventional ones. You can afford it, having a superiority in combat load by 30 times. And given the superiority in speed at least 6 times, what kind of efficiency can we talk about?
At the same time, the UPC can be hung on a part of the Yak-130 and TV2 themselves can be taken out.

The problem of "deniers of the role of strikers in modern conflicts" is that they consciously or unconsciously manipulate by trying to impose the role of attack aircraft on the front line on UAVs. Question - why?

The problem with attack UAV apologists is that they have no idea how the fighting is being conducted.
Well, after your statement, it’s curious to hear what do you think shock UAVs are for?

[Foul skeptic]

According to you 200 units. ammo is a complete set?

I think it's 200 units. there is more ammunition than the cost of the Yak-130 you described.
But you keep comparing the incomparable, "specialist."

This is childish talk, to reduce all operation to the power plant. However, not everything is clear-cut here either. It is necessary to compare specific indicators. Although here the UAV itself acts as a consumable. In fact, it's just a good target for a lot of money.

And no one reduces operation only to the operation of a power plant - just to avoid getting into the jungle, using an elementary example, the absurdity of your statements was shown. Want more? Then tell us about the difference in the cost of maintaining life support or control systems And I will listen to your adult babble with pleasure. Sound specific indicators. Oh can't you? Well, the phrase

However, not everything is clear-cut here either.

generally dotted all over and in what kind of "specialist" you are.

And what do you have there to refute, couch fantasies?

Yes, refute the "couch fantasies." So far it doesn't work.

That is, you have KAB = mini-KAB? That is, we were fools when back in Afghanistan they abandoned the S-5 in favor of the S-8. After all, according to your theory, the caliber does not matter.

A typical technique of an Internet expert is to attribute to the opponent statements that are not deducible from his messages.
No, my CAB is not equal to a mini-CAB. And no, in my opinion, caliber matters. And from my messages it is impossible to draw such a conclusion. There is only one conclusion in them - the power of the ammunition must be proportionate. And if an AFV can destroy a mini-KAB, but there are none, but there is only a KAB, then there is no point in a larger payload ... NO, you will simply gobble it up with the heavy weight of the ammunition. And in the end, that TB2 with a tabular load of 80 kg will destroy 2 detected single AFVs, that the Yak-130 with a tabular load of 3000 kg will destroy 2 separately detected AFVs. Well, it will specifically please you with a bunch of collateral damage.

It made me a specialist, unlike you.

I already see.

Do you have a cart with MANPADS on its own, like a spherical horse in a vacuum? In short, you have another couch idea about the work of aviation.

Yes, by itself. And this is far from a "spherical horse", but the reality of military conflicts, the use of mobile ATGMs and MANPADS on light wheeled chassis for ambushes. So I repeat the question to the "specialist"

And tell us about the required outfit of forces and means for the guaranteed destruction of a cart with MANPADS.

Of course, you are not in the know again, but air defense can also be broken through. It's all about the resources available. That's just, an aircraft with a combat load of 3000 kg can carry ammunition for such purposes, but when it's only 100 kg, then alas.

Air defense breaker on the Yak-130

Cheaper? You have seen the price. In addition, TV2 is easier to shoot down, a half-blind non-maneuverable target.

Saw. And you? Yes, cheaper. Because 5 (upper bar) is less than 15 (lower bar).
And about the "half-blind" one more pearl in the piggy bank. What's with the fright such unfounded statements? Who is it intended for?

It's even funny. In the absence of air defense, the Yak-130 will iron the enemy with impunity, even with guided munitions, even with conventional ones. You can afford it, having a superiority in combat load by 30 times. And given the superiority in speed at least 6 times, what kind of efficiency can we talk about?

No, it's not funny. It is sad. Even the fact that you are stubbornly talking about 3000 kg, in isolation from considering the actual configuration of suspensions (in order to understand what and how much can be "brought down on the heads of adversaries"), eloquently speaks of the ability to sensibly assess reality.
The lack of air defense is, first of all, the absence of a SYSTEM, and not the lack of means from which it is possible to hit an aircraft (the same MANPADS or MZA). Well, it is, little things. Just one more fact in the piggy bank of the "specialist".
What will speed give you? Or do you only see the pros and not the cons? The greater the speed, the less awareness you have that on the ground, you will be heard earlier (you are still subsonic) compared to the internal combustion engine (which will not be heard at all).
About the efficiency that from the moment the target is detected and the target designation is transferred to the attack aircraft until the target is destroyed, it will take a multiple of more time than in the case of using a UAV. Because the UAV 1) is itself a reconnaissance target designator 2) is already in the air.

The problem with attack UAV apologists is that they have no idea how the fighting is being conducted.

Well, of course. Here is the reality of specific military operations using the example of what is happening in Ukraine - shooting NARs with pitch-up with the Su-25 along a hinged trajectory with the appropriate efficiency.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

I think it's 200 units. there is more ammunition than the cost of the Yak-130 you described.
But you keep comparing the incomparable, "specialist."

More than what, your sofa?

And no one reduces operation only to the operation of a power plant - just to avoid getting into the jungle, using an elementary example, the absurdity of your statements was shown. Want more? Then tell me about the difference in the cost of maintaining life support systems or control lol tongue And I'll be happy to listen to your adult babble.

It doesn’t reach you in any way that the combat survivability of an UAV is several times less, at a comparable cost to an aircraft. Well, this happens to you couch strategists.

generally dotted all over and in what kind of "specialist" you are.

Wrong, "specialist" in quotation marks is just you.

Yes, refute the "couch fantasies." So far it doesn't work.

Your fantasies to refute only spoil.

A typical technique of an Internet expert is to attribute to the opponent statements that are not deducible from his messages.

You crap one's pants in your pants though. I can provide my details, but you can't.
http://artofwar.ru/l/lisowoj_w_i/

No, my CAB is not equal to a mini-CAB. And no, in my opinion, caliber matters. And from my messages it is impossible to draw such a conclusion. There is only one conclusion in them - the power of the ammunition must be proportionate. And if an AFV can destroy a mini-KAB, but there are none, but there is only a KAB, then there is no point in a larger payload ... NO, you will simply gobble it up with the heavy weight of the ammunition. And in the end, that TB2 with a tabular load of 80 kg will destroy 2 detected single AFVs, that the Yak-130 with a tabular load of 3000 kg will destroy 2 separately detected AFVs. Well, it will specifically please you with a bunch of collateral damage.

Have you heard the concept of guaranteed destruction? But who am I asking. Okay, I'll try it easier. You lied. Working with similar ammunition with a load of 3000 kg, you can hit more targets per flight than when the load is only 100 kg, that's one thing. Not all targets can be hit with relatively light ammunition, these are two.

Yes, by itself. And this is far from a "spherical horse", but the reality of military conflicts, the use of mobile ATGMs and MANPADS on light wheeled chassis for ambushes. So I repeat the question to the "specialist"

Have you been involved in real conflicts? Of course not. And I happened to. The situation you describe is just nonsense. MANPADS are primarily an air defense system, and not in itself. And when they are ambushed, you will not detect it from the air.

Air defense breaker on the Yak-130

Are you lying again, where did I say that the air defense breakthrough was precisely through the Yak-130 light attack aircraft?

Saw. And you? Yes, cheaper. Because 5 (upper bar) is less than 15 (lower bar).

What kind of planks do you have? Or do you have bad eyesight?

And about the "half-blind" one more pearl in the piggy bank. What's with the fright such unfounded statements? Who is it intended for?

Have you even worked with the Shturm-V complex in the air? Of course not, that's why you don't understand what the difference is.
Okay, think about it, why can't you move the camera sharply when shooting a video?

No, it's not funny. It is sad. Even the fact that you are stubbornly talking about 3000 kg, in isolation from considering the actual configuration of suspensions (in order to understand what and how much can be "brought down on the heads of adversaries"), eloquently speaks of the ability to sensibly assess reality.

Hardheaded just you. It doesn’t reach you in any way that a large combat load is like a larger list of ammunition, as well as a large impact power.
As for reality, you, being a layman, rub fantasies.

The lack of air defense is, first of all, the absence of a SYSTEM, and not the lack of means from which it is possible to hit an aircraft (the same MANPADS or MZA). Well, it is, little things. Just one more fact in the piggy bank of the "specialist".

Are you completely nuts? Will the system give you much if there are no funds?
We need both the system and the material part.

What will speed give you? Or do you only see the pros and not the cons? The greater the speed, the less awareness you have that on the ground, you will be heard earlier (you are still subsonic) compared to the internal combustion engine (which will not be heard at all).

Another statement is already beyond idiocy. How long will you stomp to the target, at a speed of 150 km / h?

About the efficiency that from the moment the target is detected and the target designation is transferred to the attack aircraft until the target is destroyed, it will take a multiple of more time than in the case of using a UAV. Because the UAV 1) is itself a reconnaissance target designator 2) is already in the air.

Do you hope that UAVs will be allowed to hang overhead with impunity, conduct reconnaissance and use weapons? However, you are a dreamer. In reality, the same TV2 is carried out on approach. That is why they were removed from the front.

Well, of course. Here is the reality of specific military operations using the example of what is happening in Ukraine - firing NARs from a nose-up from a Su-25 along a hinged trajectory with appropriate efficiency.

Do you even know what this kind of shooting is for? Of course not. This is the so-called harassing fire on the location of the enemy. It exhausts him very much, considering that he cannot answer. And for forest areas, that's it. Even checked in Chechnya.
Well, you can’t do this on a UAV.

[Foul skeptic]

More than what, your sofa? lol

More than the number of weapons included in the figure of 15 million. Therefore, yes, 200 units. ammunition is a full-fledged ammunition load ... compared to ZERO. And you keep laughing.

It doesn’t reach you in any way that the combat survivability of an UAV is several times less, at a comparable cost to an aircraft. Well, this happens to you couch strategists.

Life itself is responsible for me - in the presence of air defense in Russia, now in Ukraine, that the departure of an UAV, that the departure of an aircraft ends the same way. But the plane is more expensive. You are stupid and brazenly lying about a comparable cost.

Wrong, "specialist" in quotation marks is just you.

"Specialist", where are the numbers of "specific indicators" and explanations of why the operation of an aircraft with 1 internal combustion engine is more expensive than the operation of an aircraft with 2 turbofan engines, because "not everything is so simple"?

You crap one's pants in your pants though. I can provide my details, but you can't.

Your data should shed light on why you are attributing things to your opponents that they didn't say?

Have you heard the concept of guaranteed destruction? But who am I asking. Okay, I'll try it easier. You lied. Working with similar ammunition with a load of 3000 kg, you can hit more targets per flight than when the load is only 100 kg, that's one thing. Not all targets can be hit with relatively light ammunition, these are two.

I have heard and know a lot. You worry about yourself. You are constantly trying to get out by jumping from a discussion of comparing the use of TV2 and Yak-130 in terms of economic efficiency to ABSTRACT possible aircraft with separate parameters, like TV2 and Yak-130. No need. Tell me about "similar ammunition" for the Yak-130? What, no? So it makes sense to talk about what is not (and is not expected), if in a real non-suicidal version they still hang 2 KAB-500 and tanks. And that's it.
Once again, for the gifted, the power of the ammunition used must be commensurate with the target being used. 10 kg warhead of ammunition with TV2 is commensurate for ALL ground military equipment (for most anti-tank weapons, including aircraft, it is less, for the same Sturm you mentioned - 2 times) and part of fortifications or infrastructure. I’ll tell you one terrible thing for you, but more and more often in conflicts they begin to use bombs and missiles without explosives at all, only with kinetic warheads, to work in cities.

The situation you describe is just nonsense. MANPADS are primarily an air defense system, and not in itself. And when they are ambushed, you will not detect it from the air.

1) This, as you say, "nonsense" is a common situation in all modern conflicts, including Ukraine.
2) MANPADS are, among other things and mainly, a means of air defense for mobile groups. Do not fasten them to building an air defense fortified area.
3) Vooo, at least one sensible thought about "you will not see." Yes, you won’t see it on the Yak-130, for this, TV2-level devices were created (including) - to detect the advancement of such groups to ambush sites and destroy them.

Are you lying again, where did I say that the air defense breakthrough was precisely through the Yak-130 light attack aircraft?

Because the conversation started from comparing two specific LA, but the fact that you are rushing about from specifics to "horses spherical in a vacuum" in order to somehow argue your nonsense is your problem and on your conscience.

What kind of planks do you have? Or do you have bad eyesight?

The main thing is that I have no problems with cognitive abilities. This is the cost of losing TV2 and Yak-130 if only the technical component is taken into account.

Okay, think about it, why can't you move the camera sharply when shooting a video?

I am listening really carefully. And then we will find out why you again do not understand what you are trying to fasten to the discussion.

Hardheaded just you. It doesn’t reach you in any way that a large combat load is like a larger list of ammunition, as well as a large impact power.

Lord, yes, we are discussing a specific situation. And you do not deviate from the ABSTRACT figure of 3000. Which includes both the PTB and the RVV, which do not participate in the destruction of carts with MANPADS and ATGMs. Consider SPECIFIC aircraft in a SPECIFIC situation.
Well, the answer will be

And tell us about the required outfit of forces and means for the guaranteed destruction of a cart with MANPADS.

??

Are you completely nuts? Will the system give you much if there are no funds?
We need both the system and the material part. fool

Oh, again a pearl from the "specialist". A system is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity. If there are no funds, then there is no system, since it is part of it. Therefore, to state that "both the system and the material part are needed" is a clear indicator of your "level".

Another statement is already beyond idiocy. How long will you stomp to the target, at a speed of 150 km / h?

That is, you do not agree that "The greater the speed, the less awareness you have that on the ground, you will be heard earlier (you are subsonic anyway) compared to the internal combustion engine (which will not be heard at all)"? Try to refute.

Do you hope that UAVs will be allowed to hang overhead with impunity, conduct reconnaissance and use weapons? However, you are a dreamer. In reality, the same TV2 is carried out on approach. That is why they were removed from the front.

Learn to understand what the interlocutor writes about. Previously, two options were clearly distinguished - the absence of an air defense system and its presence. And you are distorting, for the case with the Yak-130, not taking into account air defense and considering its use by one side of the conflict, and for TV2 - taking into account air defense and considering its use by the other side of the conflict. Why don't we compare under the same conditions? Because all your nonsense about the more economical and efficient Yak-130 (compared to TV2) will immediately disappear?
Where are the specific arguments for a specific text?

About the efficiency that from the moment the target is detected and the target designation is transferred to the attack aircraft until the target is destroyed, it will take a multiple of more time than in the case of using a UAV. Because the UAV 1) is itself a reconnaissance target designator 2) is already in the air.

You do not answer a single direct question, but immediately jump to something else.

Do you even know what this kind of shooting is for? Of course not. This is the so-called harassing fire on the location of the enemy. It exhausts him very much, considering that he cannot answer.

You are funny. "Harassing fire" in relation to the firing of NAR from a roll-up is from the same opera as "straightening the front line" or "tactical regrouping" in relation to the retreat and abandonment of territories.
I understand if I had not heard this from a veteran pilot. You, as an interlocutor, have simply completely devalued yourself.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

More than the number of weapons included in the figure of 15 million. Therefore, yes, 200 units. ammunition is a full-fledged ammunition load ... compared to ZERO. And you keep laughing.

You are a bad mathematician. 69 million dollars for a complex consisting of 6 drones, 2 control stations, 200 units. ammunition and auxiliary equipment. While the price of the Yak-130 is $15 million (export) and
7,5 million dollars (for the Russian Air Force).
Even at the export price, 4 aircraft will cost 60 million dollars, that is, 9 million dollars in the balance, which will be enough for much more than 200 units. ammunition.

Life itself is responsible for me - in the presence of air defense in Russia, now in Ukraine, that the departure of an UAV, that the departure of an aircraft ends the same way. But the plane is more expensive. You are stupid and brazenly lying about a comparable cost.

Will there be evidence? you understand, you, as an anonymous person, have no faith in a word.

"Specialist", where are the numbers of "specific indicators" and explanations of why the operation of an aircraft with 1 internal combustion engine is more expensive than the operation of an aircraft with 2 turbofan engines, because "not everything is so simple"?

Why are you lying again? Where did I say that it is the SU that determines the cost of operation? This is just your nonsense. The plane is complex.
As for the PD, at first glance, the Rotax-912 costs (the civilian version, the military version is probably more expensive) about $ 20. But do not forget that it carries 000 times less combat load and 15 times inferior in speed. Elementary calculations show that in order to inflict damage comparable to a light attack aircraft, it is necessary to increase the number of UAVs and the associated operating costs.

Your data should shed light on why you are attributing things to your opponents that they didn't say?

Yes, what are you saying? Are these not your words?

And in the end, that TB2 with a tabular load of 80 kg will destroy 2 detected single AFVs, that the Yak-130 with a tabular load of 3000 kg will destroy 2 separately detected AFVs.

It's not good to lie though. As for personal data, I did not expect that you would name yourself. To say that you are a hairdresser, or who you are, perhaps even a sales manager, is somehow not very good. I understand you.

I have heard and know a lot. You worry about yourself.

Yes, what should I worry about. You only heard, but I know in practice.

You are constantly trying to get out by jumping from a discussion of comparing the use of TV2 and Yak-130 in terms of economic efficiency to ABSTRACT possible aircraft with separate parameters, like TV2 and Yak-130. No need. Tell me about "similar ammunition" for the Yak-130? What, no? So it makes sense to talk about what is not (and is not expected), if in a real non-suicidal version they still hang 2 KAB-500 and tanks. And that's it.

Are you completely out of touch with your head? Why did you decide that the Yak-130 needs its own personal ammunition? No, from the same list as for the rest of the aircraft.

Once again, for the gifted, the power of the ammunition used must be commensurate with the target being used.

Exactly, just how are you going to hit well-protected targets with 100 kg of combat load?

10 kg of warhead of ammunition with TV2 is commensurate for ALL ground military equipment (for most anti-tank weapons, including aircraft, it is less, for the same Sturm you mentioned - 2 times) and part of fortifications or infrastructure.

And you don’t know that the same Sturm (which I used enough in combat conditions) allows you to hit the enemy while being inaccessible to air defense, the range is enough to get to the front line. But TV2 needs to be hung over your head. Such a good target.

I’ll tell you one terrible thing for you, but more and more often in conflicts they begin to use bombs and missiles without explosives at all, only with kinetic warheads, to work in cities.

I will also tell you a secret. For a kinetic warhead, speed is needed, supersonic. Free-falling ammunition is not very suitable for this. The same flashettes were abandoned back in the thirties.

1) This, as you say, "nonsense" is a common situation in all modern conflicts, including Ukraine.

No, it's your imagination.

2) MANPADS are, among other things and mainly, a means of air defense for mobile groups. Do not fasten them to building an air defense fortified area.

What the hell is strong. district? MANPADS are primarily a short-range air defense system. Outside the composition of the air defense, its capabilities are very limited.

3) Vooo, at least one sensible thought about "you will not see." Yes, you won’t see it on the Yak-130, for this, TV2-level devices were created (including) - to detect the advancement of such groups to ambush sites and destroy them.

But you are not healthy. You can't even imagine what kind of smut the search for NC is. And optics is not always helpful here, the inspection area is increasing. And with proper disguise, so in general. All this time. And who will allow these UAVs to hang and look out for targets? They will be knocked down faster. And, as practice shows, 99% of cases of using SD at the tactical level are targets discovered during the database. And here low-speed UAVs will not help.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Because the conversation started with a comparison of two specific aircraft, and the fact that you are rushing from specifics to "horses spherical in a vacuum" in order to somehow argue your nonsense is your problem and on your conscience.

No need to lie, these two aircraft were an example of cost and effectiveness. You can take analogues and nothing will change.
But an air defense breakthrough is a completely different thing. You are just trying to get out.

Oh, again a pearl from the "specialist". A system is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity. If there are no funds, then there is no system, since it is part of it. Therefore, to state that "both the system and the material part are needed" is a clear indicator of your "level".

Dear hairdresser, here is what you claimed:

The lack of air defense is, first of all, lack of a SYSTEM, and not the lack of funds from which you can hit the aircraft (the same MANPADS or MZA). Well, it is, little things.

So pearl is yours.

That is, you do not agree that "The greater the speed, the less awareness you have that on the ground, you will be heard earlier (you are subsonic anyway) compared to the internal combustion engine (which will not be heard at all)"?

How hard it is with you amateurs. That is why in the same Chechnya we used jump sites? Yes, because the speed of a helicopter is not always enough for proper efficiency. And for the same TV2, it is half as much. And the speed of the aircraft for an independent search for targets does not have much effect, for anyone it is difficult, especially since even helicopters from the Afghan worked on target designation from the ground.
And the crawling TV2 rumblers, especially at a height, are detected very well. That's why they were removed.

Learn to understand what the interlocutor writes about. Previously, two options were clearly distinguished - the absence of an air defense system and its presence. And you are distorting, for the case with the Yak-130, not taking into account air defense and considering its use by one side of the conflict, and for TV2 - taking into account air defense and considering its use by the other side of the conflict. Why don't we compare under the same conditions? Because all your nonsense about the more economical and efficient Yak-130 (compared to TV2) will immediately disappear?

If the enemy has an air defense system built along all three lines, the same Yak-130, like other manned aircraft, has a chance. Pick it with long-range guided munitions, remotely. UAVs have no such chances, definitely goals.

You do not answer a single direct question, but immediately jump to something else.

I'm just answering to the point. I simply do not have time to comment on all your youthful fantasies.

You are funny. "Harassing fire" in relation to the firing of NAR from a roll-up is from the same opera as "straightening the front line" or "tactical regrouping" in relation to the retreat and abandonment of territories.
I understand if I had not heard this from a veteran pilot. You, as an interlocutor, have simply completely devalued yourself.

You are just stupid like most amateurs. We read fairy tales about guided munitions and built our own reality. Meanwhile, in many cases, only the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbdeployment is known about the enemy, especially before the start of the database. So what if we don't see specifically drop air support? Meanwhile, it is precisely such shelling over the area that allows you to open targets, get nervous, open return fire, albeit useless. (Were there at least once, not even under fire, but just the possibility of it?).
This is how they worked in Chechnya, first NAR, then ATGM.

[Ryazan87]

For comparison, a training aircraft and part-time light attack aircraft in the export version has a price of 15 million USD. At the same time, it carries 3000 kg of combat load. Such is the economics of war. Even if we take into account the highly controversial factor of greater safety for UAV operators in their stationary control points, 600 kg of a one-time combat load against 12 kg is clearly not dancing.

For correctness, the cost and time of pilot training should be added to the economy of war, right? And the cost of ongoing support and building up his skills, for example, to work in difficult weather conditions.
As for the greater safety of the UAV operator compared to the attack aircraft pilot, there seems to be no subject for dispute here.
And something is wrong with the arithmetic: then a light attack training aircraft (which is proposed to be thrown against enemy air defense) carries 3000 kg, then we are talking about 12 kg ... or are we talking about several aircraft?
By the way, what about the time spent in the air by a UAV and a manned attack aircraft. Operator and pilot fatigue levels? Work at night? Finally, replenishment of inevitable losses?

[Foul skeptic]

Everything about this passage is “beautiful”. The author of the message decided to fight the "amateurism" of the author of the article ... by his own methods))

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The UAV operator also needs to be trained, because it has its own specifics. At least what you see with your own eyes from the cockpit and observe through the camera on the monitor are two big differences.
In addition, due to the tiny combat load of UAVs, their number needs to be increased, and hence the number of operators.

And something is wrong with the arithmetic: then a light attack training aircraft (which is proposed to be thrown against enemy air defense) carries 3000 kg, then we are talking about 12 kg ... or are we talking about several aircraft?

This is not what you have.

69 million USD for a complex consisting of 6 drones, 2 control stations, 200 units ammunition and auxiliary equipment.

Total 6 UAVs in total 600 kg.

a training aircraft and part-time light attack aircraft in the export version has a price of 15 million USD.

I confess, I missed the type (Yak-130), for the same amount you can buy 4 units, total 3000 x 4 = 12000 kg.
And again, the issue of security is moot. Maneuvering aircraft and stationary, complex. And if you think that the UAV operator does not get tired, then you are mistaken. Moreover, due to the low combat load, more work needs to be done.

[Ryazan87]

The UAV operator also needs to be trained, because it has its own specifics.

Of course it is necessary: ​​"... The training course depends on what type of drones the cadets are trained for. If these are short-range and short-range systems, such as Granat drones from the first to the fourth modification, Eleron, Zastava, etc. , then the study lasts 2,5 months; for medium-range systems, such as the Forpost UAV, they study for about four months. (https://www.mk.ru/politics/2016/06/15/gde-i-kak-v-rossii-uchat-operatorov-voennykh-bespilotnikov.html)
Military pilot training course - 5 years. Well, okay, you can start preparing for the Yak-130 type combat training aircraft, with which you propose to solve the tasks of attack aviation, earlier - in the 2nd year, perhaps. With the appropriate quality, really. With the Su-25 or a combat helicopter, this will no longer work.
And one more thing: "Training a highly professional military pilot in Russia costs from 3,4 to more than 7,8 million dollars, and the operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is several times cheaper - about 200 thousand dollars, the commander-in-chief of the Air Force told reporters on Wednesday. Forces (Air Force) of Russia, Colonel General Alexander Zelin. (https://ria.ru/20090805/179779746.html)
"A first-class front-line aviation pilot is trained on average in seven to eight years, and the cost of his training is about $ 3,4 million, while the training of a sniper pilot takes ten to 12 years and costs $ 7,82 million" (ibid.) .
The economy is obvious.

seeing with your own eyes from the cockpit and watching through the camera on the monitor are two big differences.

And here you are right. Modern cameras allow you to observe the situation much better, and in a much calmer mode.

In addition, due to the tiny combat load of UAVs, their number needs to be increased

There are UAVs in addition to Bayraktar. Even the old and now not produced "Reaper":
It has six suspension points:
2 internal 680 kg each
2 in the middle of the wing, 230-270 kg
2 cantilevers for 68–91 kg
Not so "tiny" anymore? And yes, the choice between Bayraktar's corrected glide bombs / anti-tank missiles and Su-25 NARs is also ambiguous.

And again, the issue of security is moot. Maneuvering aircraft and stationary, complex.

Undisputed. Maneuvering a light training aircraft over a battlefield is an order of magnitude more dangerous. Yes, even on an armored attack aircraft such as the Su-25. And yes, being at the airfield can also be very hectic - see Chernobaevka.

And if you think that the UAV operator does not get tired, then you are mistaken.

He gets tired, but much less, so he can work more.
Compare: sit behind a monitor with a joystick or in a cockpit under fire, dodging MANPADS. I think this is a slightly different level of nervous tension.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Of course it is necessary: ​​"... The training course depends on what type of drones the cadets are trained for. If these are short-range and short-range systems, such as Granat drones from the first to the fourth modification, Eleron, Zastava, etc. , then the study lasts 2,5 months; for medium-range systems, such as the Forpost UAV, they study for about four months.

Let's not tell the pilot about the features of flight training. What a UAV operator is taught in 2,5 months is equivalent to a pilot after an export program. Pancake flight.

And here you are right. Modern cameras allow you to observe the situation much better, and in a much calmer mode.

It is immediately clear that you are far from aviation and aircraft piloting in particular. You don’t know the specifics why the UAV operator needs an order of magnitude more time for the same all-round view than the pilot.
At least guess that a person's eyes always work in conjunction with the vestibular apparatus. When we turn our heads, it seems to automatically take into account the correction. It is because of this that the speed of the UAV is limited, especially at low altitudes. Otherwise, the operator simply will not be in time.

There are UAVs in addition to Bayraktar. Even the old and now not produced "Reaper":
It has six suspension points:
2 internal 680 kg each
2 in the middle of the wing, 230-270 kg
2 cantilevers for 68–91 kg

Do you think this is a sufficient combat load?

Not so "tiny" anymore? And yes, the choice between Bayraktar's corrected glide bombs / anti-tank missiles and Su-25 NARs is also ambiguous.

And here you don't have to cheat. The Su-25 can also carry guided munitions of a much larger caliber.

He gets tired, but much less, so he can work more.

The eyes are much more tired. And this is very critical.

Compare: sit behind a monitor with a joystick or in a cockpit under fire, dodging MANPADS. I think this is a slightly different level of nervous tension.

And do you not take into account the expectation that an answer will fly through your radio-emitting, static booth?

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

And do you not take into account the expectation that an answer will fly through your radio-emitting, static booth?

Why do you think that the UAV operator necessarily sits in a radio-emitting booth?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Well, what are you, of course not. Everything is controlled by wires.

[DenVB]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Well, what are you, of course not. Everything is controlled by wires.

Exactly. Nowadays, nothing prevents the operator from sitting even on another continent. And in the booth you can leave only an autonomous radio station.

By the way, Bayraktar generally has the option of control via satellite. I hope you do not expect that the operator is sitting on the satellite?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

You, now you also need satellites.
In short, we are adding space forces to the expensive set of UAVs. And for what, at a snail's speed, carry 100 kg of combat load to the target, with meager chances to fly. No, somehow a plane with a good load and a CD is somehow better and cheaper in this situation.

[Oleg133]

+1 to the author for bringing up the topic.
The RF Ministry of Defense was "poorly prepared for the meeting with the star."

[rocket757]

UAVs against air defense: the myth of the omnipotence of air defense systems

. There are no absolutely invulnerable weapon systems.
Moreover, striking means, in many cases, have advantages over defense means.
Although it is worth realizing that there is a dependence on the correct, well-thought-out organization of the air defense system! The same can be said about percussion means, the tactics of their use.
Those. EVERYTHING matters, quantity, quality and much, much more.
Well, the classic, most reliable air defense is our own "tanks" at enemy airfields!
I clarify, tanks at airfields, this is a whole range of measures to deprive the enemy of even the opportunity to use strike weapons.

[ism_ek]

For the sake of frankness, it must be said that if the Ukrainians invested in UAVs as much as we do in air defense, then they would have beaten us.
The story of Zmein illustrates this well. They released a dozen UAVs against TOR and destroyed it. Moreover, these ten UAVs cost the same as one TOR.
The same story with aviation. Air defense is definitely losing to aircraft.
Air defense wins only by numbers and good organization.

[DenVB]

Quote: ism_ek

Air defense is definitely losing to aircraft.

Because ground-based air defense systems are static, and aviation is mobile. The mobile one can always concentrate his efforts at one point of the immovable defense and break through it. Basics of military art.

[Vladimir61]

I would like to know who it is

S. Makarenko

that his opinion is unquestionable...? However, this also applies to the author!

[ViktorBiryukov]

Makarenko Sergey Ivanovich - Leading Researcher of the St. Petersburg Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Professor of the Department of Information Security of the St. Petersburg State Electrotechnical University "LETI" named after. IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin). His monograph on UAVs is in the public domain, you can read it yourself if you are interested.

[Vladimir61]

Quote: Viktor Biryukov

Professor of the Department of Information Security

I still agree with his knowledge in the field of programming, but this still does not say anything about his leading role in knowing the capabilities of air defense systems.

[malyvalv]

If you look at the development of aviation, then at first the aircraft were used for reconnaissance. Then it became possible to drop a couple of bombs directly on the head of the enemy. The history of the UAV exactly repeats this path. But at the dawn of aviation, fighters immediately appeared. Their duty was to prevent anyone from throwing bombs directly on their heads with impunity.
But there are still no fighter UAVs operating against other small-sized UAVs. After all, the use of Thor or Beech against small-sized UAVs almost literally looks like a cannon on sparrows. And I think this is a mistake. Which will be fixed soon.

[DenVB]

Quote: malyvalv

And I think this is a mistake. Which will be fixed soon.

After that, apparently, the evolution of UAVs will to some extent repeat the evolution of manned aviation. Relatively slow-moving, light-armed fighters will appear first to chase down attack slow-moving fighters. Then faster and better armed fighters will come to chase the slow fighters. And so on, in ascending order.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

No, there will be no such evolution.

[malyvalv]

Such an evolution is unlikely to happen. The advantage of such UAVs in low cost and dimension will be lost. Actually, there was already a video of how Orion, with an ATGM suspended under his belly, destroys another UAV. This is how it will look like. Only, of course, the huge ATGM will be replaced with something less cumbersome.
And for a very trifle, Borisov just now talked about laser systems with a range of 5 km, which are already being tested in the Donbass.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Impact UAVs have their own limited niche. You can say their work is police / counterguerrilla functions. The trouble is that dreamers to fight comfortably and safely in their fantasies replace combat aircraft with them.

[malyvalv]

UAV is a loose concept. Sooner or later, what is now called combat aviation will also become a UAV.
The speech here so far has been about small UAVs at the front.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

This is when artificial intelligence will appear. In the meantime, remote control imposes a limitation.
By the way, guided missiles are also UAVs.

[bk0010]

Conclusion: to combat small UAVs, it is necessary to revive barreled large-caliber (about 100-mm) anti-aircraft artillery with optical and acoustic (detection of sound waves with those frequencies that are characteristic of rotating propellers) means of detection and guidance. Radar - only from external sources, tk. expensive and not efficient enough. The fight against large high-altitude UAVs is no different from the fight against old aircraft.

[faterdom]

The article leaves a strange feeling.
UAV panegyric, and air defense is a myth and crap.
Only in terms of air defense we are perhaps the best in the world, in terms of UAVs we are not the best, but we will work.
And you can’t rush into the UAV and throw air defense at all levels, from manual infantry to S-500 and A-235.
We must already prepare for the fact that the Americans will still overcome hypersound, and its danger is that no UAVs were lying around.
But the UAV - I hope the experience of the Ukrainian campaign will add a lot to this, and especially in the field of small UAVs, for artillery gunners, for infantry from a battalion and above, our military-industrial complex will not want to do something cheap and effective (capitalism, it is also capitalism in the military-industrial complex ) - Donbass, with the help of Chinese comrades, will arrange the release of what they have suffered and what they need in the war, and not at the exhibition.
Any war, especially a major one, gives a new impetus to technology, and advances weapons to new stages of development, even if the manufacturers of trebuchets and crossbow bolts are strongly opposed.

[Ryazan87]

But the UAV - I hope the experience of the Ukrainian campaign will add a lot to this, and especially in the field of small UAVs, for artillery gunners, for infantry from a battalion and above

The Ukrainian campaign shows that small UAVs are needed at the level of a platoon, and by no means only for gunners. And in the format of "consumables".

[Emergency]

Erdogan's son-in-law ordered an article?

[unco]

Time is changing... we must change...
Previously, military air defense was aimed at heavy aircraft, such as aircraft, but now light UAVs have appeared, which means that new wax air defense is needed, otherwise "from a cannon to sparrows" ....

[spektr9]

You read the comments and you understand that urya "patriotism" should be treated like schizophrenia. For the urya "patriot" hat thrower, in his sabotage, easily competes with the saboteur
So I completely agree with the author, and for good if we were conducting military operations, and not waiting for Ukraine to be fully equipped with Western weapons. It would be possible to buy wing loong from the same Chinese, and at least somehow improve the situation on the fronts, but it seems that no one needs it

[DenVB]

Quote: spektr9

That could be purchased from the same Chinese wing loong

This should have been done before the war. Now, most likely, the Chinese will no longer sell. They also do not need unnecessary problems with the West.

[Kolin]

In Syria, the Turks destroyed 0 Shells and damaged 2.

[Wildcat]

If we talk about the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh, here the Azerbaijani armed forces have demonstrated the high efficiency of the use of UAVs and combat drones. The massive use of the Bayraktar TV2 UAV, together with the Sky Striker, Harop and Orbiter kamikaze UAVs, resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Armenian 3PK Osa and Strela-10 deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh in the early days of the conflict. Air defense was completely powerless. Nagorno-Karabakh lost most of its air defense systems on the very first day of the war, while Azerbaijan lost only 4 UAVs.

Well, not in one day.
There is a good CAST book on the Karabakh war, the Armenians and Azerbaijanis themselves posted a lot of things.
The opening and destruction of the air defense was a long and difficult process, in which, as an UAV, even the An2 was driven with bombs to reveal the positions of the air defense. And several Harops had to be sent to Thor. Bayraktars were not the only UAVs, but turned out to be more "on the screen", although Hermes and Orbiters conducted reconnaissance and adjustment of artillery / bombs / missiles more interestingly, Harops went to important air defense targets, and Kargu generally flew into the trenches.

But in general, the article is not bad and the conclusion is correct "Contrary to popular belief, in the confrontation between UAVs and air defense, it is UAVs that seize the initiative in waging confrontation. The myth that domestic air defense systems are able to cope with any challenges in the field of countering drones and drones continues to be supported by most official experts and the media, but this is a dangerous delusion.".
The understanding that "UAVs are the essence of ammunition" is "not pushed", because "not pushed" into some heads since the time of Artsav19, although forty years have passed, but the heads are still the same ....

In the article, the author goes against the kind soul of many axioms and beliefs of "almighty air defense".
Therefore, the author, I urge you: do not be upset that you have so many opponents "out of business." Here are questions of faith, in a similar case, J. Bruno was generally burned.
It’s good that the author of the Almighty Electronic Warfare fans didn’t hurt ...

[DenVB]

Quote: Wildcat

In the article, the author goes against the kind soul of many axioms and beliefs of "almighty air defense".

Back in World War II, some Western general said: "The bomber will always get through." And this is still true. There is no and never will be absolute protection against air means of attack. The best defense is attack. For each of their drones, we must launch ten of ours. And hit wherever you can. This is how victory should be achieved.

[Liam]

Quote: Wildcat

as an UAV, even An2 was driven with bombs to identify air defense positions.

How interesting ... and what technical means can be used to turn the An-2 into a UAV (God forgive me)?

[Wildcat]

Greetings!
Autopilot, IMHO; pilot with parachute and conventional bombs.
There is a video, I'll try to find it.

[Liam]

Quote: Wildcat

video, I'll try to find

Thank you

[Wildcat]

Somewhere there is a big Azerbaijani film "how they broke air defense."
I can’t find it, here are some shots, there are, in principle, a lot of them:

[Liam]

I think that you yourself will agree that these two videos are ordinary lyrics and propaganda. Real. UAV is a very complex and expensive thing. Even a simple autopilot does not exist on An-2. with bending around the mountainous terrain, perform at least some maneuvers - climb, descend, turns, etc., calculate heights, reach a given point, find a target, drop bombs, etc., etc., firstly, it is almost impossible on such an archaic, and secondly, cost a lot of money, which cuts at the root the very idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXba mass cheap UAV, as it is presented in this case. It is no coincidence that there is nothing specific technical on this topic, but only tales. collide with a mountain or run out of fuel without any chance of detecting a target or dropping bombs (not to mention the accuracy of such a thing) are completely different things. This is not counting the fact that this device it will fall on its own at the first strong gust of wind without a pilot and automation capable of reacting to it. And it will also fall on the head of its own troops, for example.
This tale is absolute nonsense from a practical point of view

[Roman Efremov]

The "Thor" has a near border of the affected area 3-5 km ?????? This is how it is written in the monograph of a certain Makarenko, according to the author of the article.

[voyaka uh]

The author's analysis is correct.
Bayraktar in terms of efficiency-cost ratio turned out to be
a very effective reconnaissance and strike drone.
Its use pays off with any air defense: both saturated and complex, and focal.

[Sedoy]

there are very few serious works on the effectiveness of the UAV at the moment.

sosem recently read about the effectiveness of the Turkish bayraktar in khokhlostan - at the moment 10%, a month ago it was much higher ...
either there are no qualified operators (and where did they go, not at the forefront), or the air defense adapted itself or increased the "density" ...
so, without confirmed data of objective control (a gram of a degree per snout - how many UAVs per "battle area" and how many of which air defense), all fabrications on the topic of "wars of the future", in this context, are in favor of the poor ...

[Viktor Sergeev]

Lord, what kind of nonsense I just read, maybe someone knows how to calculate? Rewrote an article from a year ago.

[Sedoy]

we see quite a lot of videos when, with the help of Bayraktars, the Armed Forces of Ukraine strike at Russian military equipment

it's true...
just need to say in what cases - successfully ...
according to the news from the fields - on the same "serpentine" strikes were delivered by "planning" ammunition - from outside the air defense ...
they began to be used when these cockroaches began to be shot down too often ...
in general, we still won’t know the full truth in the near future, officialdom will not tell us anything for its own, well-founded reasons ...
so, "we will wait for information from the outside" ...
By the way, about a monograph based on "field tests" - this is generally a murky topic - it all depends on the order ...
recently there was an analysis about the air defense "Moscow" and about its field tests - if you believe him, then everything was done there for "acceptance" - and the targets are "necessary", and the flight altitude, and speed with direction ...
therefore, if we accept that "Moscow" was hit by a missile, then its air defense, in principle, could not catch that missile - it went too "low" ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sedoy

recently there was an analysis about the air defense "Moscow" and about its field tests - if you believe him, then everything was done there for "acceptance" - and the targets are "necessary", and the flight altitude, and speed with direction ...

Pfff... trials and teachings - this is still that kind of joke. At our military department, there was a tale about a reported calculation during the exercises: Comrade General, the crew is preparing to repel a surprise enemy attack. A surprise attack will take place then, with such and such forces, the approximate azimuth and altitude of such and such.

[Fedorovich]

Does the author propose to inflate the myth of the omnipotence of drones?

[Gunther]

The author somehow completely forgot about "Peresvet" behind hasty conclusions, and the prime minister pleased the other day:
"The army receives new types of weapons based on "new physical principles", including laser, electromagnetic broadband weapons", "Passed tests, in
during which the drone was destroyed
at a distance of 5 km, said the Deputy Prime Minister.
So UMTAS anti-tank missiles have no chance to reach the target - they will burn it like midges, along with drones, technological superiority rules.
The nonsense about "new physical principles" can be forgiven, well, the official forgot the school physics course.

[Jacket in stock]

Do you really see the difference between "passed the test" and "no chance"? Or do you just really want it to be?

I participated in the tests of KAZ more than 30 years ago, and in battles they were not even very noticed.
And yes, our prime minister seemed to say in Russian - Peresvet - this is about satellites, and not about UAVs.

[d4rkmesa]

Well, yes, now a new mantra - "Peresvet" will burn everything. It remains only to fit this car, which weighs ~ 80 tons in the complex, closer to the line of contact.

[NA1981]

According to my information, Tor M2 and Buk M3 are guaranteed to destroy bayraktars if they hit the radar. The only downside is it's expensive.

[svp67]

Quote: NA1981

The only downside is it's expensive.

With regard to the air target, I don’t understand this concept at all. And to miss a "penny" UAV and as a result lose billions, is it cheap?

[Igor K]

I don’t think the cost of one UAV is $5 million, the Shell - 1 C export costs $14 million.

[svp67]

The Strela-10 air defense system, as practice has shown, turned out to be capable of hitting a mini-UAV of the Akila type only in daytime conditions.

Without a radar, this "old woman" is generally well done, which strikes at least something, in modern conditions

[Skipper]

The author is an alarmist and does not get along with reality. Here's a reality for you - a review of one of the calculation of the TOR-M2 crew .. he says that the complex detects and captures EVERYTHING ... and even small quadrocopters .. and EVEN FLYING BIRDS is taken for escort and capture [media = https://vk.com /mil?z=video-133441491_456259061%2Fcfdf8402309beea074%2Fpl_wall_-133441491].....

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Skipper

The author is an alarmist and does not get along with reality. Here's a reality for you - a review of one of the calculation of the TOR-M2 crew .. he says that the complex detects and captures EVERYTHING ... and even small quadrocopters .. and EVEN FLYING BIRDS is taken for escort and capture [media = https://vk.com /mil?z=video-133441491_456259061%2Fcfdf8402309beea074%2Fpl_wall_-133441491].....

At what range?
And what will happen when a flock of small quadrocopters arrives while Thor "looks" at the birds?

And if you also remember that one Thor rocket costs as much as 10 such copters, then, for example, an equal enemy will be able to send a "flock" of 100 drones for each Thor, and "non-partners" even 200 pieces without much strain on their budget.

[ban]

Good article. Everything is written correctly. Author +

[Igor K]

It is necessary to develop means of detection, destruction and camouflage / protection using the principle of an asymmetric response:
1. Discovery.
- start using mass detection systems on balloons (detection, illumination)
- use the electromagnetic signature of enemy UAVs to detect
2. Destruction.
- finally introduce 30, 57 mm remote detonation into the range of ammunition
- bring to the mode of use network-centric principles of warfare (exchange of information about the location of targets with the possibility of firing at them with the nearest fire weapons)
- use laser systems to destroy and blind UAVs
- develop and implement a class of UAVs - interceptors
- develop and implement piston aircraft to detect and destroy UAVs over their own troops (inexpensive armed with a range of weapons specifically for these tasks)
3. Camouflage/protection.
- use stationary KAZ systems to intercept attacking UAV ammunition
- more actively use mock-ups of equipment with the reproduction of thermal signatures of real equipment as a bait
- to cover the deployment sites of air defense weapons, use systems for jamming fired similar to sea and land (on tanks).

[Hariton laptev]

Well, the author told about the UAV of a potential adversary, well intelligibly, advantages, application strategy, tactics, everything is super. He revealed some characteristics of our air defense systems and gave application statistics. And the conclusion??? all air defense is scrapped and we will arrange UAV battles? meaning of the article? Or is the author trying to convey to everyone that our air defense systems are complete worthlessness? But here, excuse me, it’s probably worth asking the opinion of experts who give recommendations on the purchase of our weapons.

[Valnik]

When the fish is small, and you need to catch a lot, they put nets with a small mesh. Also on the UAV, a projectile loaded with a net. The weapons are ancient. The Romans also used

[Makhno2022]

Stalin: Shoot Chemezov!!!

[Makhno2022]

Quote from Valnik

When the fish is small, and you need to catch a lot, they put nets with a small mesh. Also on the UAV, a projectile loaded with a net. The weapons are ancient. The Romans also used

Or, as ours once came up with against SDI - remote detonation and a bunch of nails (shrapnel) ...

[Makhno2022]

Quote: Hariton Laptev

Well, the author told about the UAV of a potential adversary, well intelligibly, advantages, application strategy, tactics, everything is super. He revealed some characteristics of our air defense systems and gave application statistics. And the conclusion??? all air defense is scrapped and we will arrange UAV battles? meaning of the article? Or is the author trying to convey to everyone that our air defense systems are complete worthlessness? But here, excuse me, it’s probably worth asking the opinion of experts who give recommendations on the purchase of our weapons.

"This country will be destroyed by corruption ...." (c)
A year ago you were raped by "voluntary" vaccination and now you believe in a miracle???

[Makhno2022]

Quote: Igor K

It is necessary to develop means of detection, destruction and camouflage / protection using the principle of an asymmetric response:
1. Discovery.
- start using mass detection systems on balloons (detection, illumination)
- use the electromagnetic signature of enemy UAVs to detect
2. Destruction.
- finally introduce 30, 57 mm remote detonation into the range of ammunition
- bring to the mode of use network-centric principles of warfare (exchange of information about the location of targets with the possibility of firing at them with the nearest fire weapons)
- use laser systems to destroy and blind UAVs
- develop and implement a class of UAVs - interceptors
- develop and implement piston aircraft to detect and destroy UAVs over their own troops (inexpensive armed with a range of weapons specifically for these tasks)
3. Camouflage/protection.
- use stationary KAZ systems to intercept attacking UAV ammunition
- more actively use mock-ups of equipment with the reproduction of thermal signatures of real equipment as a bait
- to cover the deployment sites of air defense weapons, use systems for jamming fired similar to sea and land (on tanks).

If Chemezov is shot, then I vote for you!!!

[Makhno2022]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Quote: Skipper

The author is an alarmist and does not get along with reality. Here's a reality for you - a review of one of the calculation of the TOR-M2 crew .. he says that the complex detects and captures EVERYTHING ... and even small quadrocopters .. and EVEN FLYING BIRDS is taken for escort and capture [media = https://vk.com /mil?z=video-133441491_456259061%2Fcfdf8402309beea074%2Fpl_wall_-133441491].....

At what range?
And what will happen when a flock of small quadrocopters arrives while Thor "looks" at the birds?

And if you also remember that one Thor rocket costs as much as 10 such copters, then, for example, an equal enemy will be able to send a "flock" of 100 drones for each Thor, and "non-partners" even 200 pieces without much strain on their budget.

And if you remember that videos with civilian use of copters and flocks of copters have been posted on YouTube for 10 years, then you will think about the adequacy of analysts from the Moscow Region ...

And how much has passed since the Azerbaijani blitzkrieg in Karabakh ??? - One and half year....
And after this, do not draw conclusions .... tin of course ....

[Alexey RA]

Consider the result of the use of domestic air defense in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

With the same success, one can consider the effectiveness of domestic tank compounds on the example of a duel of one tank against one ATGM.
Air defense is a strong system. In Syria, and especially in the NKR, there was no air defense and no. There are separate divisions and even complexes, the use of which is provided by a few even more rarely working radio equipment. Or does someone think that after so many years of the Civil War in Syria, the same OVTs radar network and data transmission lines survived?
In a normal air defense system, the situation "the area covers the only complex, it went to reload - and its area of ​​​​responsibility remained uncovered, after which the complex was hit by an UAV" cannot happen - the air defense system operating radii overlap each other, the command post gives the command to reload the firing system and to its time covers the "dropped out" sector with the forces of neighboring installations / divisions.

[iz odessy]

I think the “thought” of the developers of advanced air defense is already working hard. The spiral of history confidently shows that the unconditional advantage of one very type of weapon eventually ends. This was the case with aviation, which was quickly curbed by missiles in the 60s. This was the case with tanks, which became the backbone of the “faustpatron”, etc. Of the options for fighting, not even with the UAVs themselves, but with their combat effectiveness, which is also subjective, for example, their long-range detection in combination with camouflaging the objects against which it is “flying.” The word camouflage today is much broader than throwing strips of foil or smoke into the air. From the article it is clear - the eye of the UAV, the optical-electronic unit. There's the key to fighting them

[Technical engineer]

At one time during the Korean War, the North Korean Armed Forces declared all-out war on American aviation. Everything was used, Degtyarev machine guns on a wooden swivel, anti-tank rifles, balloons, and even wires and cables strung between the hills. And I must say there was an effect. several planes were destroyed with the same cables, although it would seem how it would be possible to overwhelm the same F-80 with such a wretched weapon. They also shot down 7,62 machine gun fire, there are also facts. Roughly speaking, if a modern equipped infantryman is hit in the neck with a stone ax, no amount of ammunition will save him. For every tricky nut there is a bolt, just use it wisely... By the way, the Ult I'll hit my head against the wall S and YakB-12,7 would be effective against them.
What should we do with UAVs so that we can detect them before their air defense systems, or more precisely, long before they can hit the air defense system? As an option, add a millimeter-wave radar to the air defense complex. Not particularly large, so that every little thing can be detected at a distance of 20 km. But it seems like up to 20 UAVs are shot down per day in Ukraine.

[SkyMaXX]

Well, it’s not entirely logical to take into account the success of drones against air defenses controlled by Syrians, Libyans and Armenians. Any equipment can be destroyed. And in Russia the military are real professionals. And there is no one better at Russian technology than Russian professionals. Of course, there are exceptions, such as perhaps the air defense operators BUK, which fucked Bayraktar. But in general, there are no problems with the destruction of medium and heavy class drones, of course, with a competent approach to work.
As for the small ones, of course it’s a bit complicated. But then again, in Syria, small drones with ammunition attached have often attacked the Khmeimim airfield before. And after one incident where planes were shot down in the parking lot, there were no more such incidents. And with all the difficulty of intercepting such miniature aircraft, the Pantsir air defense system did not miss a single such UAV. Yes, letting them closer destroyed everything. But actually, why would he destroy them 10 km away. These are small UAVs and cannot carry air-to-surface missiles. They pose a danger only if they are allowed and approached.

[svoit]

.The era of large mechanized armies of the XNUMXth century is becoming a thing of the past,

It’s not clear why, but the author of the article took it. Many UAV targets cannot be hit or scouted. For example, the same anti-tank systems, grenade launchers, MANPADS, and the role of large mechanized armies will not soon become a thing of the past

[Alexander Toroshchin]

The cuckoo praises the rooster because he praises the cuckoo. Why did the Ukrainian Nazis, with the support of the Euro-asses and ovs, lose all their luster and courage in three months, about countless drones? There is not and will not be a weapon against which there will be no means of defense, so do not drive the blizzard.

[Gunther]

Quote: Jacket in stock

...but in battles they are not very noticeable.

In what specific “battles” have you not noticed in 30 years?

[Mikhail Maslov]

I would immediately dismiss this general. The whole discussion comes down to Turkish UAVs. But what about the American ones? Like the American doctrine of UAVs - a controlled swarm? No, dear, it’s clear that it’s a special operation, this is just a small piece of the problem. And to say that UAVs have been over-praised is simply a crime.

[unco]

Here are some more questions on the topic...
To what level in the troops should we lower not only air defense but also electronic warfare/repair....
What calibers should be used against drones? (23 and 30 mm are already too thick)
New principles for detecting drones and their cost of use...

[Andrey VOV]

Unmanned aerial vehicles are not a magic sword treasure. The integrated use of forces and means involved in a military operation wins.
Adherents of the drone sect, frankly speaking, are fed up with it.

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Excellent article - thanks to the author.
The tactics of using UAVs are constantly being improved. What will happen if UAVs of different types begin to be used massively - hundreds or maybe thousands? No air defense will survive. And there is no mention of RF engines for UAVs. What is treason, betrayal, stupidity?

[agond]

[quote=Vladimir Michailovich]What will happen if UAVs of different types begin to be used massively-[/quote
The very idea of ​​mobile air defense on wheels (including tracked ones) is too straightforward, like we’ll install a launcher with missiles and guns on a vehicle and the problem is solved, this is not so, anti-aircraft missile and gun systems are the same “Pantsir-S1”, this a target that is too noticeable and large, which is neither hidden nor properly armored. Objects protected by air defense are usually stationary, so air defense should also be built on a stationary principle, then you won’t have to put all your eggs in one basket, because missiles, guns, guidance and control systems, everything is collected on one machine.

[Russian Patriot]

Finally an honest article. Not in the spirit of “shell is the threat of all UAVs” or “our miraculous robot complexes are planting bayraktars.” UAVs are extremely effective against both Thors and Shells. It is a fact. But Ukrainian operators, due to their low level of training, use the equipment ineptly. Which is good for us.

[Comet]

Honest article? Oh well. What the author of the article quoted from the monograph is a compilation of fantasies from the Internet (from topware, by the way) with distorted material from 2004.

[Protos]

Set of Azerbaijani and Ukrainian myths

[Comet]

Dear Victor Biryukov! Please tell me why you wrote this hack with such a name. Why hack? Because you are referring to Makarenko. Makarenko's monograph is simply a compilation of the fragments he needs from various sources. Well, he did it on purpose, obviously. But you, dear author, why didn’t you go through the links in the monograph and check their quality? Look here:
1. Your first quote from Makarenko: "The results of field tests showed that the 3PK Top target detection radar provides detection of small-sized UAVs at ranges of only 3-4 km. ... The use of these 3PK cannon weapons against small-sized UAVs is fundamentally possible, but due to the small size of UAVs, the probability of their destruction is low. Makarenko has links to sources [44,48], which you threw out when quoting. But the point is that Makarenko copied this entire text from [44], in [48] it is written wrong. The journal at the link [44] is a junk journal created with the aim of obtaining publications for students to defend their thesis. All this material is written in [44] as a free presentation of the material from [48]. At the same time, there are no references at all in terms of statements about the Pantsir. This is just a fantasy of the authors [44]. If you carefully compare this piece you quoted with the content in [48], you will notice a difference in content. If you dig a little more, you can find that [48], which is from 2015, refers to the Arsenal of the Fatherland from 2014. And if you tinker a little more, you can find that the material from 2014 was published in the Arsenal of the Fatherland from 2004 with the permission of the authors. True, in this material they screwed up with the calculated dependence of the detection range on the EPR, for them this dependence is almost linear.
2. Your second quote from Makarenko "The effectiveness of UAV IES depends on atmospheric factors, the level of camouflage of air defense systems and other factors, but in general it is very likely that the UAV will reveal the location of air defense systems first and seize the initiative in conducting confrontation. ... Experience in the combat use of air defense systems Pantsir-S1 in Libya showed that the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile system, due to certain design flaws in its radar, ..." You again threw out a link to the source. And these are links [125,126]. Here they are on this site:

https://topwar.ru/172126-protivostojanie-zrk-pancir-s1-i-tureckih-bpla-repeticija-vojn-buduschego.html

https://topwar.ru/171955-zrpk-pancir-protiv-ataki-bpla-slabye-mesta-pri-variante-slaboj-obuchennosti-jekipazhej.html

Link [125] is the fantasy of an author with the nickname Demagogue, and link [126] has no author at all.

3. Did you see Makarenko's Figure 2.1? There is a dependence of the detection range on the mass of the UAV. Have you ever, anywhere met the mass of the target in the radar formulas?

Sincerely.

[svoit]

It’s a strange thing, but for some reason the author of the article does not want to consider air defense as a whole, that is, add AWACS and air defense aircraft, because one cannot exist without the other and everything must be considered as a whole, and not just ground-based air defense systems.
Maybe because then the conclusions of the article will have to be slightly adjusted, and the author has already written it...

[Alien ...]

IMHO.

1. The Achilles heel of all UAVs is the TV channel. The operator must constantly receive a picture. Conclusion:
2. We scan the airwaves using electronic warfare equipment, detect telecommunication frequencies, and jam them...

And one more thing: why are you, young people, attached to the Shell and Thors? Their problem in modern warfare is much more fundamental: how to deal with air targets on the front line at distances that can be shot through by the craziest (the same D-30) enemy artillery? How's that? Just turn on the locator - you have already been passively detected and punished... That's right: the locator should be located God knows where in the "rear". And distribute the situation to the launchers located in the covering positions of units/units...

[Comet]

1,2 The data transmission channel of military UAVs is broadband, it is not easy to detect and suppress. A military UAV, if it has lost contact with the command post, switches to working on the on-board INS and leaves the area where the connection was lost to the area to establish communication.
3. Military air defense systems are dispersed objects, which are very inconvenient for artillery. Air defense radar operation is not detected from the ground.

[Alien ...]

Who said it would be easy? But, if it works, then everything is shut down.
By the way, loitering military personnel operate on the same principle.

Everything is convenient for art now. If it is modern art, with modern radars. And if you have a “Gvozdika”... With a spotter on the nearest water tower, with BI 8x30 binoculars...

[Comet]

Quote: Alien ...

Who said it would be easy? But, if it works, then everything is shut down.
By the way, loitering military personnel operate on the same principle.

It's just not serious. The most clear thing for you is that the solution to the problem of suppressing broadband communication is always probabilistic, and it is never known with certainty (with probability 1) whether the connection is suppressed or not suppressed.

Quote: Alien ...

Everything is convenient for art now. If this is modern art, with modern radars...

A dispersed target for artillery was, is and will be “inconvenient.” This does not depend on the means of target designation and adjustment. And there is no radar in the artillery.

[Alien ...]

"There are no radars in the artillery." We don't have a lot of things that should have been there a long time ago...
And for educational purposes for you: https://topwar.ru/179825-rls-kontrbatarejnoj-borby-armii-ssha.html

...Whether it's probabilistic or not-"science doesn't know this"But there are only 3 ways:
1. Jam GPS
2. Jam the surveillance channel.
3. Jam the control channel.
OBS says that Israel is trying to follow 4 paths: direction finding of UAV operators and their destruction.

[Russian soldier]

Tell me, what radars should be in artillery units????

[Imperial Technocrat]

How propagandists praised the Bayraktars in Karabakh...and now we see their confrontation against developed Russian air defense, the score is 78:3 in favor of Russian air defense. 2 damaged Russian boats and a destroyed oil tank - that’s the Bayrakovs’ entire catch. Russia killed 78 Bayraktars in Ukraine - 40% of all Bayraktars released by Turkey in history. A set of 6 Bayraks + a control station costs $69 million, so Russia destroyed only these UAVs in Ukraine for an amount of about $0.9 billion

[agond]

Quote: Alien ...

1. The Achilles heel of all UAVs is the TV channel.
2.. Correct: the locator should be located God knows where in the “rear”. And distribute the situation to the launchers located in the covering positions of units/units...

UAVs are small in size and have low visibility, but they also have small ammunition and are almost useless against a stationary air defense system, so it is more logical to cover stationary stationary objects with stationary air defense systems, and in general air defense systems are guns and missiles mounted on one large, unarmored platform, they themselves need protection, so the weapons of a stationary complex must shoot from cover (how to do this is another question), and the locator is of course somewhere in the rear.

[Sergei 777]

Well, electronic warfare units must fight small UAVs. Air defense, of course, also needs to be brought up to the proper level, but it is still very difficult to effectively shoot down crumbs.

[Russian soldier]

I can advise the author to go to Ukraine and verify the effectiveness of the UAV. And he will immediately understand that he is practically wrong. The greatest danger is posed by mini UAVs (especially commercial ones), and even then electronic warfare has not reached them, etc.