KAZ-AT: complex of active protection of aviation equipment

165
KAZ-AT: complex of active protection of aviation equipment

Russian special military operation (SVO) in Ukraine revealed the highest vulnerability aviation equipment from the means of air defense (air defense) of the enemy. Almost from the very beginning of the NWO in the news periodically there is information that another plane or helicopter of the Russian air force (VVS) has been shot down. Worst of all, this information is often confirmed by the fact that Russian military pilots are captured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), where they are subjected to torture and abuse, not condemned by the so-called “free world”.

Of course, if you listen to the Ukrainian media, then Russian aviation has already been completely destroyed, and several times in a row. However, for some Russian media and official sources of information, one can also note the sin of exaggerating our achievements in terms of destroying enemy aircraft.



The main burden of the struggle during the NWO lies with Tanks и other armored vehicles, artillery and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), except for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including UAV-kamikaze, added novelty to the course of hostilities.

The massive use of infantry, armored vehicles and artillery is a consequence of inability of the RF Armed Forces to seize air supremacy over Ukraine. And we cannot seize air supremacy because of the vulnerability of our aviation equipment to enemy anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM).

Ways to protect


There are various ways to potentially reduce the loss of aircraft and helicopters - using electronic warfare (EW), setting infrared (IR) interference, using active countermeasures for homing heads (GOS) of attacking anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) of the enemy, reducing the radar and thermal visibility of aircraft and helicopters, but there are nuances.

Domestic electronic warfare equipment, from which “the American destroyer Donald Cook fled in disgrace from the Black Sea,” for some reason did not close the sky over Ukraine - radar-guided missiles periodically fly into our planes. Conventional IR jamming systems - heat traps, are far from always able to disrupt the capture of modern IR seeker with digital signal processing. Complexes of active countermeasures of the Vitebsk-type IR seeker, including not only heat traps and dipole reflectors, but also laser irradiation detection equipment, ultraviolet missile launch direction finders and optoelectronic suppression stations (SOEP), apparently, are more effective, but nevertheless , and they do not always provide protection against missiles, especially if the enemy releases several of them at the same time.


The Mi-8AMTSh helicopter, equipped with the L-370E8 Vitebsk airborne defense system, shows ultraviolet direction finders of the fact of missile launches and optoelectronic suppression stations. Image by wikipedia.org

As for measures to reduce thermal and radar visibility, they must be implemented at the design stage of the aviation complex. So far, we have only one such machine - this is the Su-57 multifunctional fighter, and even then, in the troops of these aircraft, we can say that they are not.


The Su-57 multifunctional fighter is still a rare bird in the Russian Air Force. Image by wikipedia.org

The above measures only make it possible to deceive the means of guidance for missiles or partially disrupt their functioning, but these measures are not sufficiently reliable. As practice shows, functional counteraction is unstable, the most reliable way of self-defense of protected objects is the physical destruction of attacking ammunition.

Trends in the development of aviation means of active protection


The idea of ​​increasing the security of aviation by directly destroying enemy attack weapons, such as air-to-air (A-A) missiles or SAMs, has been in the air for a long time.

First of all, we are talking about the interception of attacking ammunition with the defending aircraft's own V-V missiles. Moreover, there are two options, the simplest of which is to use your own V-V missiles to intercept V-V missiles. The problem is that their number on board the aircraft is limited, and having intercepted one or two enemy missiles, you yourself can be left without ammunition.

The second option is the creation of specialized anti-missiles with reduced dimensions and range, designed specifically to intercept V-V and SAM missiles. Such products, presumably, can be taken on board several times more. However, like modern V-V missiles, these will be expensive high-tech solutions, including active radar homing heads (ARLGSN) or infrared homing heads (IKGSN), or even more expensive combined solutions.


Comparison of the dimensions of American B-B missiles and the promising B-B MSDM anti-missile, as well as an image from a Northrop Grumman patent for a defensive ammunition launch system for combat aircraft

We previously considered this issue in the material Air-to-air anti-missile missiles.

A radical way to reduce the cost of self-defense of aviation systems is laser weapon. It is still perceived by many with skepticism - they say, how will you power it, how will you cool it, they remember silver paint, bad weather, and so on and so forth ... We have repeatedly discussed the prospects for the development of laser weapons, including on aviation media, for example, in the article Laser weapons on combat aircraft. Is it possible to resist him?, and we will definitely return to this issue in the future.

Despite the opinion of skeptics, The US military has already begun testing a 300 kW combat laser system.. It's a lot. A weapon of such power is capable of intercepting any V-V missile or missile.


Image of a HELSI combat laser with a power of up to 300 kW developed by Lockheed Martin

Someone will say that this is just a ground demonstrator. Yes, this is true, but a few years ago, the maximum power of the tested samples did not exceed 150 kW, and a few years earlier, 15-50 kW. And these are not some gas-dynamic or chemical lasers, but modern compact models based on solid-state / fiber lasers with spectral alignment of radiation. Progress is clearly moving very quickly. And for example, in a bomber or in a transport plane there is a place for such a “truck” - a small price to pay for the opportunity not to be afraid of enemy missiles.

Given that aircraft and helicopters do not need to “cut” ships and Tanks, and they fly much higher than fogs and dust-smoke screens, then the prospects for laser weapons are grandiose, and the higher the aircraft (LA) is, the more effectively it will be able to use laser self-defense weapons.


The US Armed Forces plan to deploy laser defense systems both on transport aircraft and bombers, and on tactical aircraft and helicopters

Perhaps the newest American B-21 Raider bomber, the presentation of which should take place at the end of 2022, will become a reference point in the use of laser weapons on combat aircraft, it is possible that he will become something much more than an ordinary bomber.

Are powerful high-performance lasers being developed in Russia that could potentially be installed on aircraft and helicopters of various classes?

This is an open question, even if something is being developed, then under a thick veil of secrecy.

Are specialized small-sized air-to-air missiles being developed in Russia?

With them, most likely, even more difficult. Even if such V-V anti-missiles are developed, they will be expensive, there will be few of them in service. To be convinced of this, it is enough to look at how long the RVV-SD missiles went to the troops, and what is most often dropped on the head of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during a special operation in Ukraine (ordinary "cast iron").

If the prospects for creating combat aviation systems for laser weapons in Russia are still in question, and the number of purchased V-V anti-missiles will inevitably be limited by their undoubtedly high cost, then perhaps it is worth considering other ways to increase the security of aircraft and helicopters, for example, active protection systems?

KAZ - for armored vehicles, and not only


Active protection systems for armored vehicles have long become commonplace - KAZs have been developed in different countries for a long time, many variants of KAZ have been developed, and even more concepts have been formed. Unfortunately, despite the fact that Soviet specialists can be considered pioneers in the creation of KAZ, neither the Soviet nor the Russian army, in fact, received serial KAZ into service. We can say that Israel has the greatest experience in the real use of KAZ with its widely advertised ASPRO-A Trophy complex.


So far, KAZ is widely used only on Israeli Merkava tanks.

Previously, we considered various options for active protection complexes, for example, KAZ-PVO - complex of active protection of air defense, KAZ-NK - active protection systems for surface ships и "Octopus" - a complex of active anti-torpedo defense of submarines.


Concepts KAZ-Air Defense and KAZ-NK


The active anti-torpedo protection complex, in combination with the small-sized anti-torpedoes of the Paket-PL complex, can significantly increase the survivability of Russian SSBNs and ICAPLs

A distinctive feature of active defense systems is the defeat of attacking ammunition at a minimum distance, as well as the use of unguided ammunition (the exception is the concept of the Sprut active anti-torpedo protection complex, where the ammunition is guided, but this is a consequence of the specifics of the application environment, however, in this case, the expediency of using unguided protective ammunition cannot be completely ruled out).

It can be assumed that active protection systems can also be developed for placement on aircraft and helicopters of various classes. Let's try to consider what a promising complex of active protection of aviation equipment (KAZ-AT) might look like.

KAZ-AT


We need to protect aviation equipment from two main types of threats - surface-to-air (S-A) missiles, that is, missiles launched by ground-based and ship-based air defense systems, and air-to-air (A-A) missiles launched by enemy planes and helicopters. Of course, there is also anti-aircraft artillery, but both guided anti-missiles and KAZ-AT are likely to be useless against shells, and self-defense laser systems will also be of little use.

On the other hand, as we have already said in the material Where will the combat aircraft go: will it press down on the ground or gain altitude??, it is best to protect aviation equipment from attacking ammunition at high altitude, where it will have room for maneuver, clear skies for long-range visibility and the ability to build a layered defense due to the successive destruction of attacking ammunition by guided V-V anti-missiles, laser weapons and, finally, KAZ-AT. And at high altitude, shells cannot reach airplanes and helicopters, as well as promising enemy ground / ship laser weapons (the range of these systems will be limited).

Attack ammunition can be roughly divided into two types. The first type is ammunition containing a high-explosive fragmentation / rod or other warhead filled with an explosive and detonated near the target. The second type is the ammunition of a direct, so-called kinetic hit.

Characteristically, the second type - ammunition for direct kinetic destruction of the target is considered more modern and more dangerous, it is they who are capable of inflicting maximum damage on targets and causing detonation of ballistic missile warheads.

In any case, in the final section of its flight path, the last 100-200 meters, the V-V missile or SAM can no longer practically maneuver, both due to lack of time for this, and often due to lack of energy (especially when firing maximum range or close to it). Moreover, now such a task is not set - the main thing is to hit the target as quickly and accurately as possible.

Thus, V-V and SAM missiles are, albeit high-speed, but straight-flying targets. Unlike air-to-ground (A-G) munitions, gravity plays against the A-B missiles and missiles, with any damage, their trajectory will quickly begin to deviate downward. Even anti-ship missiles flying parallel to the earth's surface, after hitting a missile defense system in the final section, by inertia can fly to the attacked ship, at least their fragments. For V-V and SAM missiles, this is more difficult to do - a downed missile, most likely, will not get anywhere.

As in the case of KAZ-PVO and KAZ-NK, two types of ammunition can be considered to destroy V-V and SAM missiles - shrapnel and unguided munitions with remote detonation on the trajectory. It can be assumed that the best solution would be the simultaneous use of KAZ-AT as part of the ammunition load, while ammunition with remote detonation on the trajectory should hit V-V and SAM missiles at a greater distance - about 100-200 meters, since there will already be a risk of hitting the protected shrapnel from the ammunition protecting it. In turn, shrapnel ammunition should work at a distance of up to 100 meters, then the dispersion of damaging elements, presumably, will become too large to provide an acceptable probability of hitting the target.

How can you place damaging ammunition?

It can be assumed that it will be something like containers suspended under the wing / fuselage of aircraft - something like launchers (PU) of unguided aircraft missiles (NAR). Additionally, launchers can be equipped with flaps that reduce their resistance to air flow and reduce the effective dispersion surface (ERA). However, hanging containers in any case will increase the overall RCS of aircraft. Suspended containers must be equipped with mechanisms for extremely fast turnaround and targeting of attacking V-V missiles or missiles.

The main problem of KAZ-AT is the timely detection of attacking V-V and SAM missiles, the calculation of their trajectory and the turn of launchers of damaging ammunition in their direction.

Is it possible to implement KAZ-AT on the basis of detection and tracking systems for active counteraction to infrared (IR) homing heads (GOS) of the Vitebsk type? Hardly. Of course, potentially complexes like "Vitebsk" can and should be integrated into a single whole. It is possible that KAZ-AT will be created on the basis of complexes of active counteraction to the IR seeker. But it must be understood that the accurate defeat of attacking V-V missiles or missiles will require the issuance of accurate target designation to the KAZ-AT weapons, which can only be provided by radar detection tools. Thus, KAZ-AT should include small-sized radar stations (RLS) conformally placed on the aircraft body in such a way as to provide all-round visibility. It is possible that the KAZ-AT detection radars can be made on the basis of solutions for active protection systems for armored vehicles.

KAZ-AT operation algorithm


Two modes of operation of KAZ-AT can be implemented: passive and active.

After climbing, the pilot activates the KAZ-AT, after which it switches to fully automatic operation. IR and ultraviolet (UV) radiation sensors continuously survey the surrounding area in order to detect attacking I-V missiles or missiles. In this mode, KAZ-AT does not emit anything, without unmasking the aircraft on which it is installed - this is the basic, passive mode of operation. In case of detection of a launch of a V-V missile or a missile defense system, the KAZ-AT switches to active mode - the target detection radars are turned on.

It can be assumed that in most cases it is the active mode of operation of KAZ-AT that will become the main one, enabled by default. Low-power short-range radars do not unmask an airplane or helicopter so much, but at the same time, the chance to miss an attacking V-V missile or missile defense system will decrease by an order of magnitude.

Presumably, KAZ-AT will have limited defense sectors, that is, it is unlikely that it will be possible to provide launcher guidance in the range of 360 degrees horizontally and vertically. Most likely, these will be conventionally rectangular conical sectors ahead and behind the aircraft.

In the event that attacking ammunition is detected in advance and directed at them by IR and UV sensors at a long range, the protected aircraft will receive an alarm signal in advance and information about the need to turn the nose / tail part towards the attacking ammunition in order for them to fall into the kill zone of the KAZ- launcher AT. A variant of deep integration of the control systems of the aircraft and KAZ-AT can be considered, when in a number of situations the aircraft will return to the required position of the launcher automatically.

When entering the affected area, attacking V-V missiles or SAMs must be fired at sequentially with protective ammunition of various types until they are destroyed. It can be assumed that the optimal solution would be the obligatory simultaneous-sequential (the delay between their use will be scanty) firing of ammunition with a remotely detonated warhead and shrapnel ammunition.

Priorities for the use of KAZ-AT


On what types of aircraft can KAZ-AT be deployed? It would seem that, first of all, these should be the most expensive and high-tech combat vehicles of the Russian Air Force, such as the Su-57 multifunctional fifth-generation fighter and the Tu-160M ​​strategic bomber-missile carrier. However, the specifics of these machines will make the integration of KAZ-AT on them a rather difficult task.

The Su-57 is an inconspicuous aircraft, and the placement of KAZ-AT hanging containers on it will deprive it of this advantage, not to mention the need for a conformal placement of the radar on the fuselage. Similarly, on the Tu-160M, hanging containers will dramatically increase aerodynamic drag, especially at supersonic speeds.

Thus, it is advisable to place KAZ-AT complexes on Su-57 or Tu-160M ​​type vehicles only in the course of modernization, through deep integration into the aircraft design.

Then where is it advisable to use KAZ-AT?


First of all, these are subsonic aircraft, such as Tu-95 bombers, Su-25SM attack aircraft, Ka-52 and Mi-28M / NM helicopters, Il-96 transport aircraft and vehicles based on them, such as tanker aircraft or long-range aircraft radar weapons (DRLO). It is on these machines, which are extremely vulnerable to V-V and SAM missiles, that the potential of KAZ-AT can be fully revealed.


Tu-95, Su-25, Ka-52, Mi-28, A-50, Il-76 are the first contenders for the installation of KAZ-AT. Image by wikipedia.org

They can be followed by such vehicles as the Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-35, MiG-35 and others, that is, vehicles of the fourth generation (no matter how many pluses they are given). The integration of KAZ-AT on them will be more difficult, since they can fly at supersonic speeds and maneuver with high overloads, however, it is quite real.

It's funny, but it can be assumed that the best candidate for the installation of KAZ-AT is the American B-52 bomber, the service life of which, apparently, will exceed 100 years! This machine combines a reliable, albeit outdated, basic design, complemented by the latest technical solutions, up to a radar with an active phased array antenna (AFAR) - the experience of creating and extending the life cycle of this combat vehicle must be used.


B-52 and Tu-95 - it is unlikely that we will see this again soon, if we ever see it at all ...

Aftermath


Suppose we have integrated KAZ-AT on the Tu-95MSM, what will this lead to?

The enemy will be damaged even without combat.

How so?

For example, Tu-95MSM, equipped with KAZ-AT, patrols the waters over the Norwegian Sea. As always, one of the NATO countries sends a fighter jet to accompany him, for example, the latest F-35. But, given the limited ammunition load of V-V missiles installed in the F-35 weapons bay, the enemy cannot be sure that he will overcome the capabilities of the KAZ-AT. As a result, two or even four cars will need to be sent for escort. And this is an additional expense for the cost of a flight hour, the consumption of engine life, the number of takeoffs and landings of weapons - rather big money.

But the main thing, of course, is not to "nightmare" enemies in peacetime. The main thing is to increase the security of Russian aircraft in wartime conditions.

For example, in the course of the NMD in Ukraine, Russian aviation could escape from low altitudes, avoiding the fire of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). Strategic missile bombers could constantly "hang" over the front line and any important objects that require timely destruction. Russian aviation would be able to fully seize air supremacy and operate in the depths of Ukrainian territory.

The armed forces of Ukraine do not have enough missiles to launch dozens of Russian aircraft out of the direction, most often it is one or two missiles that KAZ-AT should potentially be able to handle. In addition, the long-term operation of the Ukrainian air defense systems in the active mode would quickly lead to their detection and destruction - now their tactics are more like “hit and run”.

At one time, a lot was said about some "plasma generators" that will turn our, even obsolete, aircraft into "invisibles". Well, somehow it didn’t grow together with the “plasma”, and the Russian Air Force clearly lacks modern stealth aircraft. This means that it is necessary to look for other approaches - let the enemy be able to detect our aircraft, but he should have problems with its destruction.

It can be assumed that the creation of kits of the KAZ-AT type should become one of the most important priorities of the Russian Air Force. At the same time, one should not forget about other ways to increase the security of aircraft, such as the creation of air-to-air anti-missiles, laser self-defense systems and electronic warfare systems. Their rational combination within the framework of one aircraft will make it, if not “invulnerable”, then maximally protected from the impact of enemy air-to-air missiles and missiles.
165 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    1 November 2022 05: 27
    how many years have we been listening to these "Vitebsk" aircraft, and our aircraft are being shot down. Of course, they hide losses (they know how to do this). on tanks - logs as in 43. The facts that are revealed "own" are depressing.
    1. +16
      1 November 2022 06: 13
      how many years have we been listening to these "Vitebsk" aircraft, and our aircraft are being shot down

      what a stupid statement. It's like writing "The seat belt was invented in the 19th century, and people still die in accidents." Any protection reduces the risk of an aircraft being hit by means of attack. To be objective, you need to take into account what means were used, distance, height, how many launches were performed. After all, there were also cases when up to 3-4 launches of anti-aircraft missiles were made on one of our aircraft and it safely got out of attack. You need to be objective, and not write like that
      1. 0
        2 November 2022 10: 23
        The Su-25 pilot said in an interview that there could be up to 16 launches of MANPADS per flight.
        The whole article is some kind of childhood, the author decided that KAZ is a panacea for everything and put on tanks, and now he has reached aviation on air defense systems. Apparently, all our generals and developers are stupid and cannot think of such elementary things as installation on KAZ equipment.
        But here's a question for example with aviation. Most MANPADS missiles with TGSN shoot after and aim at the engine exhaust, how should KAZ or anti-missile work in this case? Because of the turbulence, it can hit itself with its own rocket. Even during the Second World War, there were such cases when they put the RS-82 on the PE-2 with a reverse launch in order to drive away the pursuing aircraft. And how to put KAZ in the tail of the plane? This is me in the order of fantastic delirium.
        1. +1
          3 November 2022 08: 54
          The Su-25 pilot said in an interview that there could be up to 16 launches of MANPADS per flight.

          I think that he either made a mistake or spoke incorrectly. Most likely this is the number of registrations of exposure from the onboard L-150 or Sirena (I don’t know what they have there now. And 16 launches is an obvious bust
        2. +1
          8 November 2022 13: 25
          Apparently, all our generals and developers are stupid and cannot think of such elementary things as installation on KAZ equipment.

          9 months have passed since the beginning of the SVO, but despite significant losses in armored vehicles, not a single general made a statement about the need for mass production and installation of KAZ on armored vehicles, self-propelled guns and tanks, which indicates either their "indifference" or ordinary cowardice so as not to cause anger higher command, therefore, there is no point in referring to the lack of proposals from the generals.
          The developers, if they are engaged in the initiative development of KAZ for aviation, are only at the level of pre-design solutions, until funding on this topic has been opened ....
          1. +1
            8 November 2022 14: 35
            Quote: assault
            despite significant losses in armored vehicles, not a single general made a statement about the need for mass production and installation of KAZ on armored vehicles, self-propelled guns and tanks, which indicates either their "indifference" or ordinary cowardice so as not to arouse the wrath of the higher command, therefore, refer to the lack of proposals generals make no sense.

            Exactly!!! Not only are they stupid and cowards.
            And try with your developments to go directly to the leadership of the country, or at least the Moscow Region.
        3. +1
          8 November 2022 23: 47
          Wow, another gift. It is easiest to defend against overtaking missiles - it's like twice two - all the laws of boomerang flight are about this.
          Moreover, I will hint that even the tactics of using these missiles (active defense) must be built in such a way that the enemy missile catches up with the aircraft)))
          I won’t tell you how to do it in an elementary way - it’s just that we don’t have anyone to translate it into reality, and let the enemy think for himself ...
          1. 0
            9 November 2022 01: 51
            What are you on? Immediately go out with your inventions to the President
  2. +1
    1 November 2022 05: 35
    Almost from the very beginning of the SVO, information periodically appears in the news that another plane or helicopter of the Russian Air Force (VVS) was shot down. ...where they are subjected to torture and humiliation, not condemned in any way by the so-called "free world".
    Dozens a day, or maybe less? The author immediately begins to whip up emotions. For me personally, this is a sharp minus of the article.
    And we cannot seize air supremacy because of the vulnerability of our aviation equipment to enemy anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM).
    First of all, due to the lack of a systematic and constant search for and destruction of anti-aircraft weapons. Including DRG.

    Radar-guided missiles periodically fly into our aircraft.
    Well, nonsense, you can’t pull an owl on a globe like that !!! Most of those shot down fall on MANPADS! And most of those shot down are Su-25s and helicopters that won't climb high. And "large" aircraft such as the Su-30-34 were shot down at the beginning of the NMD and also at low altitude, due to the air defense not yet being knocked out.

    It is not good to start a technical article with such a flood of emotions and distortion!
    1. 0
      1 November 2022 05: 47
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It is not good to start a technical article with such a flood of emotions and distortion!

      that is, you do not take into account a lot of MANPADS at all, and you blame the Author.
      1. +1
        1 November 2022 05: 57
        Quote: Aerodrome
        that is, you do not take into account a lot of MANPADS at all, and you blame the Author.

        That is, you did not read the comment and blame me?
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Well, nonsense, you can’t pull an owl on a globe like that !!! Most of those shot down fall on MANPADS!
    2. +6
      1 November 2022 06: 41
      Most likely you are right. In my opinion, the war should begin with the destruction of air defense and command centers, especially now, there are means that allow strikes almost to the entire depth of the state. Space reconnaissance and specialized reconnaissance aircraft reveal targets and then strike with missiles and glide bombs. Will there be losses in aviation, of course. Should be considered acceptable or not. Well, and, accordingly, to have a sufficient number of aircraft and pilots. Is any of this missing? Maybe then you need to get hold of it or not go where you don’t need to. Pay attention - NATO concentrates thousands of aircraft for the database. Places a bet on them. And do not say that their opponents did not have air defense. During the desert storm, the USSR still had complexes in service, like Iraq. Did NATO have losses? Yes. But they were acceptable.
  3. -2
    1 November 2022 06: 15
    shrapnel, of course, looks preferable to a remote detonation, but it won’t help from a kinetic warhead either; here it is necessary to shoot towards, some kind of voluminous and rapidly increasing in size mass (LC) (for example, inflatable, with the possibility of volumetric detonation upon impact)
    1. 0
      6 November 2022 23: 08
      The drop-down dense mesh, which for some reason no one thought of, is very well suited. Enough for a missile to hit that net...
      1. 0
        7 November 2022 06: 10
        there was such a proposal, but there are doubts that it will be able to significantly knock a supersonic missile off course or damage it - a system of charges spaced over an area is also needed to undermine
        1. 0
          7 November 2022 19: 52
          Charges are just redundant. The higher the speed of the rocket, the more dangerous any obstacles are for it. Damage to the IR seeker, aerodynamic rudders, even scratches on the body that violate the aerodynamics of the rocket. And if snatches of the net remain on the rocket, then its further flight becomes impossible. You probably don't know that the area of ​​the bearing surfaces of the rocket is very small, and they will not be able to carry deformed, damaged rocket airframes, and even more so, with foreign objects. Even if the rocket breaks and does not hook the net, when it hits the net at high speed, it can get cracks and deformations.
          Further, you do not take into account that a significant part of its flight the rocket goes with an idle engine, due to the complete burnout of the fuel - a passive section. At this stage, a collision with any foreign body will cause the rocket to fall. Even if the kinetic energy of the rocket is enough to break the network, it is no longer enough to maintain the flight path. In addition, at the moment of impact, the GOS is likely to lose its target. The problem is not in this, but in ensuring that the trap is fired at the right point in space, and in opening the net quickly enough so that the rocket has time to hit it
  4. 0
    1 November 2022 06: 49
    The wreckage of a large rocket will fly more than one hundred meters after the explosion. And against small MANPADS it is easier to increase the number of traps. Or a laser
    1. 0
      7 November 2022 19: 55
      So it's not a fact that these fragments will hit the target. And the target, after shooting the protective ammunition, in any case, must make a maneuver (even the Tu-95 can do this)))
      1. 0
        8 November 2022 04: 40
        You won’t shoot KAZ for a kilometer.
        Quote: futurohunter
        So it's not a fact that these fragments will hit the target. And the target, after shooting the protective ammunition, in any case, must make a maneuver (even the Tu-95 can do this)))
        1. 0
          8 November 2022 11: 36
          Well, the wreckage will fly further in an uncontrolled flight. Therefore, I write everywhere that the plane, after firing off protective ammunition, must make a maneuver, best of all, with a climb. By the way, taking into account the direction of firing protective ammunition, the protection control system can give a command to the control system, indicating the direction of the maneuver (with the corresponding indication for the pilot, and the ability for him to perform an independent maneuver, or cancel the action of the control system - he began to move the handle / steering wheel, or pedals - the command is cancelled)
          1. 0
            8 November 2022 12: 09
            KAZ will shoot down a rocket 20 meters from the plane. This is death.
            If beyond 100m or further, you will need heavy mobile long-barreled mortars, and heavy projectiles for them with good ballistics. Heavy drives and mechanisms for this, plus strengthening of suspension units, fuselage, etc. It is easier to install a laser
            1. 0
              8 November 2022 12: 53
              You think with "tank" logic. You don't need any mortars. Ammunition simply dropped into the rear hemisphere with control due to aerodynamic surfaces. Perhaps with a parachute. Most attacks come from behind. When protecting the front hemisphere, rocket engines are used, but control, again, is aerodynamic
              1. 0
                8 November 2022 13: 01
                IL76. Tu95. Tu160. Tu22m. Will they lay turns? Oh well..
                Silt in Syria is generally shot down from above
                1. 0
                  8 November 2022 13: 15
                  What, they can't, right? Quite capable
  5. 0
    1 November 2022 10: 41
    Of course, it is necessary to carry out work on KAZ for aviation. But you need to understand that KAZ is not 100% protection. Therefore, it is necessary to prioritize other methods of bypassing air defense. The fastest and simplest are gliding adjustable bombs. 2nd is loitering anti-radar weapons.
    Where the introduction of KAZ is most relevant is in armored vehicles. Because in addition to KAZ, there is a solid passive protection.
  6. +2
    1 November 2022 11: 28
    These KAZ will crack cast iron. Against lasers, a thicker shell and protected seeker. Against an anti-missile - a warhead with a separable second stage, when, after detection, it will be conditionally divided into 3-7 independent stingers.
    1. 0
      7 November 2022 20: 08
      IR GOS cannot be protected. She just stops working. And finally, you have surpassed the author in your fantasies. I propose to go further and arrange a firefight between the rocket and the target, and to guarantee, put a pilot in the rocket laughing
      1. 0
        11 November 2022 10: 20
        IR GOS cannot be protected.

        Everything is possible if you want. The laser, on the other hand, will not immediately enter the GOS, there will be an adjustment of the guidance with small illuminations, during which time the protection of the GOS will work. The laser works for a short time, during which the rocket flies on inertial control. After removing the laser attack, unlocks the seeker again.
        Quote: futurohunter
        And finally, you have surpassed the author in your fantasies.

        Fantasies are not fantasies, but smart sights were also once fantasies, but now they are a reality.
        The deepest delusion is to assume that nothing will change and sit on the priest evenly.
        1. 0
          11 November 2022 10: 30
          At the time of exposure to the laser, the GOS goes blind, and after the cessation of irradiation, most likely, it will lose its target. And if you make a modulated illumination, then an erroneous signal will go from the GOS, which will make the rocket rush in different directions. Read how missile seekers are arranged and work. So far, I do not see options for protecting any optical means from blinding. You can only protect photodetectors and cameras from laser burning, but they will not work during blinding, because the level of the blinding signal will be higher than that of the picture. It is only possible to simultaneously use the seeker radar and the optical seeker. While the optical is blinded, the radar seeker sees the target. Although simultaneous blinding of both is possible. This is physics ... No one has canceled its laws yet
          1. 0
            14 November 2022 11: 52
            So far, I do not see options for protecting any optical means from blinding.

            Clearly not from blindness, but from burning out. But, you yourself offer options. And this should be considered comprehensively in terms of overcoming this missile defense system, and not pure physics. How long can this laser work, what will it do with a pair of missiles, but with a triple? At what height will he begin to blind rockets? If it’s small, then for static purposes, the inertial GN is quite enough to fly when blinded.
            1. 0
              14 November 2022 16: 28
              We "on you" have not yet passed. Too much power is needed to "burn out". But it seems that you also do not know how GOS work. In short, with the help of a laser, it is enough to create such interference to deceive the GOS, and she believed that the radiation source was moving randomly in space. This will lead to the fact that the GOS itself will generate incorrect control signals, and the rocket will first begin to rush about, and then lose its target. With the help of a sweep system, several targets can be irradiated with such interference. Such interference does not require high power and the laser will work as long as necessary. Height - any. The only condition is normal visibility (no dust and fog). However, with a "bad atmosphere" optical seekers do not work. And here we discussed not "static targets", but the protection of flying aircraft
  7. 0
    1 November 2022 16: 43
    The massive use of infantry, armored vehicles and artillery is a consequence of the inability of the RF Armed Forces to seize air supremacy over Ukraine.

    No amount of air supremacy will replace the dominance of ground troops on the ground and in war in general.
    Although I like the idea for KAZ in aviation.
    1. 0
      11 November 2022 10: 32
      Air supremacy protects its ground forces from enemy air strikes, and vice versa, allows its aircraft to clear the battlefield for its troops. Aviation can crush enemy troops in a matter of minutes
  8. DO
    +2
    1 November 2022 19: 27
    Almost from the very beginning of the SVO, information periodically appears in the news that another plane or helicopter of the Russian Air Force (VVS) was shot down. Worst of all, this information is often confirmed by the fact that Russian military pilots were captured by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), where they are tortured and abused.

    Therefore, in those combat missions that require the use of not small-sized drones - reconnaissance and kamikaze, but full-size high-speed and maneuverable fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, attack helicopters, AWACS aircraft / helicopters - it is advisable to replace pilots with a specialized computing unit, sensors, drives and a communication system. They can be controlled both from a manned aircraft or a helicopter that is not included in the air defense zone, and from the ground through an UAV repeater. There may be tasks of autonomous (unguided) use, for example, the rapid delivery and release of "smart" autonomous kamikaze drones at a given point in the enemy's deep rear, or full-fledged guided bombs aimed at the target by pre-delivered small-sized drones.
    At first, it is possible to convert old aircraft close to decommissioning or already decommissioned into drones. And in the future - to produce, for example, an inexpensive unmanned version of the single-engine Su-75.
  9. +2
    1 November 2022 19: 49
    How long have I been waiting for this topic, thanks to the author, a well-deserved star) KAZ is my weakness. Aviation KAZ would unambiguously solve problems with mobile air defense systems. I think it’s best to try to fit KAZ into a separate container with all parts, it will be like a fuel container. Thus, it will be easy to install, hooked up and that's it. Yes, thrust-armament will suffer, but protection is a priority.

    As for radars ... I'm not an expert, of course, but is it possible to use the laser as a rangefinder navigator, and not as a striking factor? The British Stormer air defense system works in a similar way, where a rocket, or rather the rods, are guided along a laser beam. This is not suitable for ground-based KAZ, since dust, smoke, fog are commonplace, so radars are needed there. For aviation, there is no such problem.

    Next-generation vehicles, like the Su57, can embed KAZ components in themselves, radars can already be located in the same wings.

    It’s a pity that these are our wet fantasies, KAZ armored vehicles won’t wait for us, what can we say about planes ... (((
    1. 0
      7 November 2022 20: 11
      Aviation also flies in the clouds, and in bad weather. Yes, and measuring the distance to another aircraft with a laser is quite difficult technically. Yes, and why not? And the idea of ​​​​semi-active guidance to a rocket using a laser beam is quite difficult to implement
  10. +1
    1 November 2022 20: 21
    these prodigies will be made with us for more than a dozen years ...
    or they could have already made a body kit for fab cast iron: wings / motor and satellite correction for resetting due to the air defense zone, for 30 km ...
    like pin to owls...
    and the bombers would soak the dill now, and not sit on the ground ...
    leaving for the holidays...
  11. +2
    1 November 2022 20: 52
    Already got Mitrofanov with his "shrapnel"! You can object to him with a "fragment of a joke": There are no fools sitting in the Central Committee! Fly into the sun at night!" This I mean that despite Mitrofanov's horror stories about the high cost of V-V interceptor missiles, in the "out-of-Russian" world they rely on V-V anti-missiles! About "Mitrofanov's" KAZ-AT there " didn’t think and didn’t dream "! A V-V anti-missile can be made not only not more expensive than an aviation RVV, but also cheaper! And who counts V-V missiles? There was a time when a fighter took "on board" 2 (!) RVV! And now How much he can, he takes as much! And this is now normal! The price of RVV is not an obstacle! So why should the cost of an anti-missile be an obstacle? belay The only limit on the number of interceptor missiles is the mass and dimensions of the missile! But now anti-missiles are also being created on the basis of MANPADS! In any case, many anti-missiles have a "caliber", length, weight commensurate with MANPADS missiles! (By the way, when the actions of air defense are being noted, they often say that MANPADS are unmeasured there! The price of MANPADS does not bother anyone!) Yes ... V-V anti-missiles will be somewhat more expensive than MANPADS! Well, there will be a number of V-V interceptor missiles not "unmeasured", but "semi-unmeasured" ... three-quarters of unmeasured, but it will (!) And that's enough!...
    Su-57s have radars integrated into the fuselage of the aircraft and, as a result, "all-round" visibility! You give the massive Su-57 to the troops! fellow
    By the way, it is not necessary to rely on radar sensors "according to Mitrofan"! You can get by with a "bundle" of UV / IR detectors with a laser rangefinder ... UV / IR sensors are "responsible" for detecting danger ... determining the direction and sector of danger; and "laser" - the distance to the "danger" and the speed of the "danger"! ...
  12. 0
    1 November 2022 22: 09
    Here you need a power shield, like in science fiction.
    Huge hovering aircraft with a hundred guns in a protective force field.
    Technological breakthrough.
  13. -1
    2 November 2022 12: 58
    You can go further, weigh the plane with remote sensing blocks wassat
  14. fiv
    0
    2 November 2022 15: 54
    Weapon systems are becoming more and more sophisticated, their capabilities are increasing so much that the task of defending against them is most likely a task that requires a comprehensive solution. Simply put, an aircraft should not defend itself alone, it should be assisted in this by both other aircraft (firing at a missile, at an air defense installation, at a radar, disrupting communications, ...), and UAVs, for example, posing under a missile ( fantasy). Departure, and indeed vigorous activity in the area of ​​work and on the route, should be preceded by thorough reconnaissance, the development of tactics and measures to counter air defense.
    Metallized squib-inflated targets can be ejected
  15. +1
    2 November 2022 17: 33
    Yeah, for starters, they would install KAZ on tanks.
    And so the idea is, of course, absolutely correct, as practice shows, electronic warfare very poorly protects aircraft from destruction, so any option either with light and cheap missiles that will shoot down incoming missiles or with shells that will be automatically fired towards the missile is an obvious development path for aviation technology. Otherwise, it will become useless - too expensive and too vulnerable to air defense systems that cost hundreds if not thousands of times cheaper.
    By the way, when I wrote this, they completely downvoted me :) and now look, a whole article on this topic has appeared
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. +1
    2 November 2022 20: 13
    Of course, the protection of our aviation equipment needs to be improved!
    1. 0
      3 November 2022 14: 18
      It is not at all easy for an aircraft flying at high speed to create a KAZ missile against air defense missiles launched at it from the ground, it will take a lot of engine power to maneuver, because KAZ missiles will not be small
  18. +1
    6 November 2022 23: 46
    the author of the article is incompetent. Generally. I do not want to list his mistakes related to the lack of elementary knowledge.
    There is no need to fence any prodigy on board, the place on which and the mass of the payload are limited. The laser does not need to burn missiles, it is enough to blind the infrared seeker. Or you can create impulse noise that follows at a certain frequency and knocks down the rocket coordinator. It is possible that the GOS has systems for filtering such interference, so the interference must be complexly modulated. To bring down the second type of seeker - radar, there is nothing better than active interference. For some reason, the author also does not recall the anti-radar missiles that are actively used in Ukraine on both sides. For an air defense system without a radar goes blind. Finally, if anti-missile munitions are used, then it makes sense to make them adjustable, but it will not be a rocket, but something else, possibly descending by parachute. As a striking element, the best thing is ... a strong and large fine-mesh net, which is opened with the help of several miniature powder engines, in fact, micro-rockets. It is enough to open the grid on the path of the rocket so that its further flight becomes impossible.
    For some reason, the thoughts of the designers are extremely stereotyped, but here non-standard solutions are needed. Shooting at a small rocket with an even smaller rocket is stupid and completely stereotyped. It's even more stupid and inefficient to try to damage it with a laser.
  19. +1
    7 November 2022 00: 02
    I will add. In fact, there is no need to reduce the ammunition of the aircraft for a bunch of dubious prodigies. The decision is as old as the world - the right tactics and the right order of battle. No need to fly in pairs and small groups. There should be a group of attack aircraft that hit ground targets and cover groups - fighter-interceptors with missiles from short to extra long range and air defense suppression groups, including, in addition to strike aircraft, EW aircraft, and aircraft similar to the American Wild Wiesel, especially for destruction SAMs and their radars. Climbing to medium heights will save you from MANPADS. As for attack aircraft operating at low altitudes, no anti-missiles will help here. There is only interference and maneuver. Well, there can also be security with the help of an air defense suppression group
  20. +1
    7 November 2022 20: 19
    To combat the calculations of MANPADS, it would be possible to use firing points firing backwards. In Afghanistan, old Il-28s were used, which had a rear firing point. The rear gunner immediately hit everything on the ground that could pose a threat. That is why there were practically no attempts to launch MANPADS on the Il-28. After all, MANPADS missiles are most often launched in pursuit. And if we are talking about aircraft such as the Tu-95, which also have defensive firing points, it is possible to modernize them so that they can fire at suitable missiles and interfere with them. or throw out traps for them. On Mi-24/35 helicopters, it is not a problem to make such a firing point, moreover, they simply need it!!!
    1. 0
      8 November 2022 13: 18
      Quote: futurohunter
      Mi-24/35 is not a problem to make such a firing point, moreover, they simply need it!!!

      There the tail screw can get in the way. it’s better to do this on coaxial helicopters, but otherwise everything is correct, and it’s still nice to have something electrically impulsed at least with a short range
      1. +1
        8 November 2022 13: 25
        You can make a simple turret with blocking fire in a certain sector. In Afghanistan, they seemed to open the back doors of the turntables and put equipment with a machine gun there. also the technique was planted with a machine gun in the side door (or even two in both side doors).
        From coaxial, it is obvious that such a solution is possible only on transport helicopters. On land, we do not have military coaxial transporters. Only Ka-31 with radar.
        I didn’t understand about the electric impulse
  21. +1
    8 November 2022 13: 22
    Regarding the effectiveness of KAZ. I tried to put myself in the place of the enemy, from whose missiles enemy aircraft suddenly began to "fight back." The problem is solved simply. Massaging funds. Fighters and air defense systems make massive missile launches. And then the attacked aircraft will quickly exhaust the supply of their KAZ. Attack aircraft of the Su-25 type will not be able to carry more than 2 full-fledged ammunition, fighter-bombers of the Su-27 family - more than 4-6, heavy bombers - more than 8-10. Don't forget about fuel and combat load.
    Therefore, there is no need to spend money and effort on another unnecessary child prodigy. Therefore, the means of countermeasures remain the same: interference (laser stations may be added), anti-missile maneuvers, the right tactics, the use of long-range guided munitions, increasing the survivability of aircraft, and, of course, anti-aircraft suppression groups and fighter cover. A full-fledged armada will always reach the target
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +1
        9 November 2022 00: 49
        Inappropriate comparison.
        I explained quite clearly that the presence of extra, expensive and heavy prodigies on board does not solve the problem, it is overcome by simple means, and also reduces the PAYLOAD and fuel supply. And how many more years, money and resources it takes! So all this is just a debate of bored people who imagine themselves to be experts.
        By the way, KAZ is almost never used on tanks. Single examples do not count.
        But why our aviation is so used in Ukraine is a question for the generals from the Air Force. Why are there no large strike armadas, well covered by interception and air defense suppression groups, and instead of them, pairs and units fly with almost no cover?
        1. +1
          10 November 2022 04: 27
          Why are there no large strike armadas, well covered by interception and air defense suppression groups, and instead of them, pairs and units fly with almost no cover?
          Because for such armadas, the goals must be appropriate. And here we have a very strange way, when blows are struck at individual sheds and dugouts. And large and critical targets are not attacked in principle.
          1. +1
            10 November 2022 17: 57
            Alas, the question is indignantly rhetorical ...
  22. +1
    9 November 2022 12: 14
    We need to close the topic. It is unrealistic and unnecessary to develop aviation KAZ. Instead, we need to make sure that there is no need to protect aircraft from missiles. Simply, so that they would not be attacked by missiles. We take the conditions of the current NWO - for such a context is set by the author of the article.
    1. MiG-31 with Caliber - perhaps they are not in danger
    2. Departure of aviation to medium altitudes, at which MANPADS are not reached
    3. Finally wipe the remaining airfields with rockets so that nothing can fly from them
    Use the experience of enemies! For example, the tactics of the US Air Force in Vietnam - successful operations were carried out there to suppress the Vietnamese air defense and destroy fighter aircraft. Agree that, despite the sensitive losses that the Vietnamese inflicted on the US Air Force and Navy, they could not stop the raids.
    4. Conduct operations to identify and suppress air defense systems. First comes the demonstration group. These can be both lightweight fighters carrying a minimum of fuel and melee missiles only for self-defense, or UAVs, possibly even converted from decommissioned aircraft. They cause the activation of enemy radars. If the radar stations are silent, the demo groups are already working on other routes. AWACS / EW aircraft are in the air at this time, fixing the coordinates of the radar, and aircraft with anti-radar missiles that hit them. In the event of the launch of the air defense system, the fighters leave, and the UAV can be donated (especially decommissioned aircraft).
    5. Apply air strikes from medium heights, in large units. They include fighter cover groups and air defense suppression groups, including electronic warfare aircraft, aircraft with anti-radar missiles and bombers that destroy identified radars and air defense systems. Well, and the main strike group, hitting the targets
    6. Heavy strategic groups must be escorted by fighters and carry missiles that allow them not to enter air defense zones. Well, their routes should be drawn up so that they do not enter the zones of destruction of air defense systems
    7. The situation is more complicated for attack aircraft. They only have work at low altitudes, the use of weapons from half-loops or pitch-up and interference to protect against MANPADS. Aircraft can be allocated in the group to combat MANPADS crews and anti-aircraft artillery, which can fly separately from the strike group
    8. Finally, turntables, which the authors forgot about. They are definitely not threatened by any KAZ. But strike groups must be accompanied by Mi-8/Mi-17 transports to deal with ground threats and rescue downed crews. And they should have a circular fire, due to machine gunners in the side and rear doors. However, this is how it is done.
    As you can see, I did not discover America, and I do not offer anything fundamentally new. Nevertheless, skillful and competent always win. To paraphrase a famous saying: They win both by number and skill
    1. 0
      9 November 2022 21: 27
      And what kind of KAZ is needed against Starstreak: is there a speed of more than 1100 m / s?
      1. +1
        9 November 2022 22: 51
        Only a smoke screen (to bring down the laser spot) and helicopter maneuvering. At low altitudes, finally, no KAZ can work
        1. 0
          10 November 2022 09: 40
          And yet, one should try to create relatively small charges that generate a strong electromagnetic pulse that affects the electronics of missiles, and one can turn off one’s avionics at the time of detonation, although the dangerous radius of the MIO will be uniquely small, tens of meters
          1. +1
            10 November 2022 17: 55
            Will not work. In general, military electronics are protected from EMP, and even tested in special EMP chambers for durability. For missiles with IR seeker, EMP does not care at all. On the GOS radar there is an EMP cut-off scheme. Everything else is shielded. You need a vigorous explosion to burn it all down
            1. 0
              11 November 2022 09: 31
              Nevertheless, non-nuclear EMP bombs exist and have even been used, the question is how to make them small with a range of several tens of meters
              1. +1
                11 November 2022 10: 39
                EMP bombs were used against stationary energy infrastructure facilities and television centers. As a result, their inefficiency was found out. The EMP bomb only temporarily disabled the object (to burn the electronics, you need EMP power, which can only be provided by a nuclear explosion). "Conventional weapons", unlike EMP, destroy the object, or inflict very serious damage to it. An explosion is still used (explosive magnetic generators). So maybe it's easier to hit the target with this explosion and fragments from it than to fool around with complex electromagnetic systems? EMP ammunition turns out to be more complex, more expensive and less effective than a similar high-explosive fragmentation
                1. 0
                  12 November 2022 13: 03
                  Quote: futurohunter
                  The EMP bomb only temporarily disabled the facility

                  If the EMP temporarily removes the electronics of the attacking air defense missile, this will be enough, and then the radius of action of the EMP will be any larger than the radius of damage by fragments, not to mention a direct hit for MANPADS
                  1. +1
                    12 November 2022 18: 25
                    You will not understand in any way that military equipment is regularly protected from EMP. This is first. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to hit a small-sized and fast-moving object with the help of EMP. The vircator-explosive EMP generator produces a very narrow directional wave, the power of which rapidly decreases according to the law of Gaussian distribution at the slightest deviation from the centerline of the emitter. Masers (analogs of a laser, only in the microwave range) are very large, expensive, and therefore cannot be used in ammunition. Unlike a laser beam, the power of an ordinary electromagnetic wave decreases rapidly with distance - the wave front diverges, plus the waves are scattered by the inhomogeneities of the atmosphere. Therefore, any missile will easily fly past your EMP ammunition. Even the input-output paths of the radar you will not be able to hit, because they have an EMP protection circuit. Given the short duration of the pulse (fractions of a second), the radar will not have time to lose the captured target
                    1. 0
                      12 November 2022 21: 42
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      The vircator-explosive EMP generator produces a very narrow directional wave, the power of which rapidly decreases according to the Gaussian distribution law at the slightest deviation from the centerline of the emitter.

                      Not catching up, the Gaussian distribution describes the probability densities as it relates to a wave of magnetic momentum that decays according to the inverse square law,
                      If "EMP gives a very narrow directional wave" (like a searchlight), then as a result, the range of the pulse beam will increase greatly.
                      1. +1
                        12 November 2022 23: 11
                        The narrower the beam, the higher the efficiency - the device - the greater the EMF power induced on the target. But, the narrower the beam, the more the power drops, with the slightest deviation of the center line of the beam, from the target. Moreover, the greater the distance from the target, the more the deviation affects. At a distance of up to 100 meters, it is easier and more reliable to hit the target with fragments or ready-made damaging elements. There are, however, still side lobes, but their power is quite insignificant. There is another contradiction here. To focus the beam well, you need a large antenna. The larger the antenna, the narrower the beam. Any palliatives, such as a Fresnel lens, will not help - at high powers, a breakdown of the dielectric material of the lens will occur, and it will stop working. Obviously, the dimensions of the ammunition limit the dimensions of the antenna.
                        In addition, the range will be large, even to space, but the power also drops rapidly with distance, due to the fact that the front of the beam diverges (this is not a laser beam). In addition, if we are talking about microwave, then it begins to scatter on the inhomogeneities of the atmosphere - dust, drops, smoke, etc.
                        Another factor is that this electromagnetic bomb can also interfere with its radio equipment. Burn, will not burn (for the reasons stated earlier), but the operators will swear)))
                      2. +1
                        13 November 2022 00: 02
                        You're wasting your time with these EMPs. If you knew how missiles are induced, you would prefer interference. Jamming can be used many times, and bulky EMP ammunition will be limited. True, the supply of chaff and heat traps is also limited, but still much more (by an order of magnitude or two))) By the way, can you describe how missiles are aimed? This is very unexpected and entertaining))) It becomes clear how to deal with them. And makes some ideas unnecessary fantasies))
                      3. 0
                        13 November 2022 17: 33
                        It is assumed that an EMP device based on conventional explosives cannot produce a narrowly directed beam like a searchlight, the wave front of an electromagnetic pulse propagates almost spherically, approximately like from a light bulb, so you don’t have to bother with aiming, within a radius of several tens of meters, all electronic devices must be removed out of service.
                      4. +1
                        14 November 2022 08: 22
                        Our conversation goes around in circles, I already wrote to you that all military electronics are protected from much EMP. First, shielding. Secondly, careful insulation of all kinds of holes (where wires are inserted) and connectors. Thirdly, simple circuits based on thyristors and gas-discharge lamps that cut off EMP. The stability of the equipment is tested in special laboratories. This is also necessary to solve another problem - electromagnetic compatibility. Missiles on air defense systems and aircraft are among a bunch of other equipment, including radar antennas and other emitting devices (for example, canadian guidance of radio command missiles). The probability of missiles hitting a powerful radar beam is very high, and radio command missiles are constantly in it. Therefore, I repeat, your EMP for such missiles is a mosquito bite for an elephant. Read the same literature, fortunately, there is a lot of it now, and in the public domain. At least articles in the journal "Foreign Military Review" on the topic of EMP protection and electromagnetic compatibility
                      5. 0
                        14 November 2022 11: 06
                        A flying air defense missile cannot be completely shielded, there is a control channel from the ground and, most importantly, there is a working homing head that cannot be shielded, otherwise it will not work, and in general we are talking about short distances from an EMP source, tens of meters, the magnetic field strength will be sufficient. is great, as you know, even solid fuel in a rocket engine (which is not shielded at all) can change the nature of its combustion, if it does not detonate.
                      6. +1
                        14 November 2022 16: 33
                        I will add that you do not know not only the principles of missile guidance, but also physics. The fuel in your EMP rocket is absolutely "on the drum". The control channel is only on air defense missiles with radio command guidance. For example, on the S-300 it is, on the S-200, and there is no MANPADS. There is also no such channel on air-to-air missiles. Although that doesn't change things. I have already written to you. Learn materiel. Can't repeat anymore.
                        And at tens of meters, a high-explosive fragmentation-rod combat one will work for sure, but your EMP ammunition will slightly warm the air, and infuriate the radar operators for a couple of seconds
                      7. +1
                        14 November 2022 18: 36
                        I don’t know how deep your knowledge of physics is, as well as in chemistry, however (at the household level), EMP, like a microwave oven, can heat objects, and mixed propellant of rocket engines is not a pure dielectric, therefore it can absorb pulse energy and heat up, when this changes its burning rate, the engine body is made composite, for example, it can be wound from graphite fiber, which is a poor conductor, but the products of fuel combustion are definitely conductors. How all this together will affect only the experiment with a flying rocket. By the way, the presence or absence of a command guidance channel in the air defense missiles of a potential enemy is an open question
                      8. +1
                        14 November 2022 19: 34
                        I'll start with the last one:
                        the presence or absence of a command guidance channel in the air defense missiles of a potential enemy is an open question

                        Closed. The characteristics of all missile systems in the world are well known. So far, nothing particularly new is expected here.
                        Let your rocket fuel consist entirely of magnesium and aluminum, but you will definitely need the EMP of a nuclear explosion, and at a very short distance, in order to somehow affect it - radiation and infrared radiation will affect it much more in a nuclear explosion. The vircator will not give such power to even heat this fuel. You yourself said here that you are counting on a weakly directed source of EMP. Due to the weak directivity, the field strength induced by it will generally decrease catastrophically.
                        By the way, a bad conductor is called a dielectric, and the EMF induced on it is so small that it can be neglected. For the most part, the electromagnetic field passes freely through dielectrics.
                        Apparently, it is simply important for you to prove that you are right, because you stubbornly defend an absolutely untenable idea. A rocket is not a transformer in a power plant or a transmitter in a television center!
                        And as for experiments with rockets - believe me, the problem of electromagnetic compatibility and protection against EMP has been studied since the 50s. And something is not visible that EMP munitions are massively used, although they are already over 20 years old. Read Prishchepenko's books. He did a lot of just EMP ammunition and described well all their advantages, and much more - disadvantages
                      9. +1
                        14 November 2022 22: 34
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Closed. The characteristics of all missile systems in the world are well known. So far, nothing particularly new is expected here.

                        For example, Starstreak has control, though laser, but from the ground
                        You are considering only a vircator, but the same Prishchepenkoy wrote in 1994 "electromagnetic munition devices (EMBP). Direct conversion assumes the absence of such a radiation source as a vircator, and energy is transferred from an explosive device directly to the antenna. Such devices range in size from a baseball to 105 mm artillery shell. The articles describe several types of EMBP,." so it was a quarter of a century ago,
                        And to prove something, I don’t conduct experiments, but I believe that the effect of EMP is a kind of analogue of induction heating
                      10. +1
                        14 November 2022 23: 17
                        Sorry, you probably have no idea how you can form an electromagnetic pulse.
                        Option 1. It is necessary to provide a very fast discharge of the high voltage storage. The higher the voltage, and the shorter the front of the pulse, the more energy goes into electromagnetic radiation. In short, this is a powerful capacitor + emitter-inductor with a very small number of turns. But such an LC generator cannot give a powerful impulse. The reasons? Voltage limitation due to the breakdown of the dielectric in the capacitor. Capacitance limitations - a large current is needed for sufficient power - a large current gives a large capacitance - the larger the capacitance - the longer the discharge - the weaker the pulse. The coil on the one hand should have less inductance - fewer turns - less energy is radiated, more is spent on heating. Plus, the large dimensions of the system are not suitable for ammunition.
                        Option 2. Very fast compression of the coil with a magnetic field. As a result, there is a rapid change in the magnetic field generating EMP. Obviously, it won't do anything faster than an explosion. This is the vircator (explosive magnetic generator) - the only acceptable option for generating EMP without the help of a nuclear explosion.
                        There are no "direct conversions of explosion energy into EMP". Read Prishchepenko, he writes specifically about vircators - explosive magnetic generators.
                        The explosion itself gives only mechanical energy in the form of a shock wave, and electromagnetic energy in the form of photons of light and infrared rays. What is considered EMP - a short-term burst of radio waves in the range from tens of MHz to tens of Gigahertz - the explosion itself will not give, no matter how much you fill the explosive with metal powder
                      11. +1
                        14 November 2022 23: 24
                        EMP exposure is not even heating. All modern technology consists of semiconductor devices. When high-power pulses pass, a breakdown of pn junctions occurs and semiconductors stop working. Electronics turns into a pumpkin. It is most important. As long as the electronics were on tubes, there was almost no EMP problem. Electrolytic capacitors flew out, light bulbs and transformers burned out, but this happened in power circuits that are easy to repair (unless, of course, this is a power plant). A computer in which, after an EMP, elements simply began to fail unpredictably, can only be thrown out entirely
                      12. +1
                        14 November 2022 23: 33
                        There is no "laser control". There is a laser illumination of the target, and ammunition is aimed at the "bunny" (speck) from the laser. It works only in clear weather, it does not work in rain, fog, dust and smoke. It is enough to surround the target with a smoke screen, and the GOS immediately loses it. For example, tanks use the "Cloud" system - when a laser backlight is detected, special grenades are fired, creating a smoke screen. Not
                      13. +1
                        15 November 2022 16: 04
                        Of course, my knowledge of physics is limited to a school course, and therefore one can plausibly fantasize, for example, one can imagine obtaining EMR using an MHD generator based on a modified shaped charge, and if we add the effect of creating a high current density due to explosive electron emission .... And according to shielding, it is effective for fully inertial guidance, but this does not happen in MANPADS, but there are open "sensitive sensors" that are sensitive to UHF
                      14. +1
                        15 November 2022 19: 07
                        I'll start with "inertial", as you call it, but in fact inertial guidance. Used on the first rockets. Its problem is that it gives an error in determining the coordinates. Moreover, this error increases with increasing range. The reasons for the error are errors in measuring the speed (headwind or tailwind, etc.). In the first missiles, the inertial system gave a deviation of kilometers from the target. Only used for very rough targeting of long-range missiles in the early stages. Then, guidance is still used with the help of GOS, by ground references (electronic map of the area), or satellite navigation (GPS, Glonass, Beidu)
                      15. +1
                        15 November 2022 19: 13
                        The MHD generator will not provide the required power due to the small cross section of the cumulative jet. In addition, in order for an EMF to arise in the jet, which will create EMP, you still need a source of a magnetic field in which this jet will move. By developing such a design, you will eventually come to a coil with a magnetic field compressed by an explosion - the same vircator
                      16. +1
                        15 November 2022 19: 58
                        What is "explosive electron emission"? There is no such effect. An explosion is a very fast combustion process, accompanied by the release of expanding combustion products and infrared and visible electromagnetic quanta. Combustion products produce a destructive shock wave. Everything.
                        Usually, the shock wave expands outward, but by choosing the shape of the charge, it is possible to provide a converging shock wave (implosion), which can form a cumulative jet or compress something (a plutonium assembly of a nuclear charge, a vircator coil, etc.). Well, maybe you'll come up with something else to compress))
                      17. +1
                        15 November 2022 20: 02
                        MANPADS use exclusively optical sensors (infrared, ultraviolet or visible range). They are insensitive to your EMP (the range is wrong). Well, if, of course, you explode a vigorous charge, then the EMP from it can theoretically burn optical sensors. But there is one but. EMP is formed only by high-altitude or space nuclear explosions (this is the physics)
                      18. +1
                        15 November 2022 20: 07
                        Let me summarize. With all the tricks, any ammunition that generates EMP will give a lot more "normal" destructive factors (shrapnel, heat, shock wave). They will deal much more damage than EMP. Therefore, in most cases, EMP ammunition - a child prodigy is not clear why
                      19. +1
                        16 November 2022 08: 54
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        They are insensitive to your EMP (the range is wrong).

                        Camera matrices are similar in structure to printed circuit boards, chips and other microcircuits, therefore, they can also be damaged by EIM
                        The current rarity of EMP weapons is due to their complexity and high cost, although if you put a conical coil into a conventional cumulative ammunition, it will also be crimped when fired, although a special generator will be required to create current in the coil.
                      20. +1
                        16 November 2022 10: 01
                        Why conical? What does it change? If you just want to build it into a cumulative funnel, this is a bad idea. The cumulative jet will simply carry it out, and you will not be able to create the required field concentration. In fact, you will get such an inferior impact core for a shaped charge. Vircators, yes, have a high voltage source. When the charge is removed from the fuse (a rocket or projectile is fired, a bomb is dropped), the on-board battery charges the capacitor bank through the voltage converter, which is discharged through the coil during the explosion. The main thing is to accurately synchronize the process of triggering the fuse and powering the vircator coil.
                        By the way, the cost of EMP ammunition slightly exceeds the cost of conventional high-explosive fragmentation. The high cost is most often due to the fact that these ammunition are highly accurate. And their rarity is due to the fact that high-explosive fragmentation ammunition is more effective for most tasks. Moreover, your EMP ammunition also has a high-explosive fragmentation effect
                      21. +1
                        16 November 2022 10: 10
                        Semiconductor CCD arrays are definitely not similar to printed circuit boards consisting of conductors)) Somehow, EMF from electromagnetic waves is not very well induced on semiconductors)) Something is not heard about semiconductor antennas, although combining an antenna with a radio receiver is a very tempting idea)) EMI induces EMF only on metal conductors. EMF causes high voltage pulses in conductors, which disable semiconductors. Photosensitive devices (photodiodes, CCD matrices) usually do not have any conductors on the surface that receives optical radiation. And yet, very often the lenses of optical systems have metallized coatings (light filters, etc.). We close this coating on the metal body of the rocket, and your EMP is dissipated in the space around the rocket. Believe me, this problem has long been solved.
                      22. +1
                        16 November 2022 11: 05
                        Yes, I wanted to add. Both EMR and optical rays - infrared, ultraviolet, thermal - are electromagnetic radiation. The difference is that optical beams do not induce EMF on conductors. EMR consist of electromagnetic radiation in the range of tens of megahertz-tens of gigahertz (wavelength - from meters to millimeters) - radio waves. They behave completely differently. Optical seeker always has an optical system, which includes different lenses and filters. It perfectly transmits optical radiation of the required wavelengths (for example, corresponding to the radiation of rocket or aircraft engines), and does not transmit other electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves. Therefore, EMI is on the drum
                      23. +1
                        16 November 2022 11: 10
                        I will emphasize again. Work on the creation of weapons and means of protection against them has been going on for more than a dozen years. And believe me, the designers of all these things have already eaten a dog on all this. The problem of protection against EMP appeared with the creation of nuclear weapons and semiconductors, at the same time it was solved. If EM weapons were really effective, they would be widely used. Protection methods have also been developed over the years, and work on protecting aircraft from weapons is in the public domain (I looked the other day). So it's hard to come up with something new.
                      24. +1
                        16 November 2022 22: 05
                        You draw an ideal picture, although it is known that the magnetic field cannot be completely shielded. Is it possible that with superconductivity or plasma and magnetodielectrics they are not transparent, they do not make objective lenses for matrices, and the matrices themselves, like any microcircuit, contain a metal conductive layer, because it is necessary as then transmit voltage from individual pixels to the processor, and there are semiconductor antennas, for example, AFAR on the F-35, although I may not understand, but look how small they are compared to our HEADLIGHTS, therefore the first, second and third are hardly possible to fully protect against EMP, they are all quite vulnerable, at least at close range., And this distance is greater than the radius of destruction of conventional fragments.
                        With regards to the conical coil in the crow of the shaped charge, the shock wave should at the beginning greatly reduce the diameter of the coil, approximately as according to Sakharov, but simpler, without spherical compression., but it doesn’t matter how it then flies.
                      25. +1
                        16 November 2022 22: 26
                        There are no semiconductor antennas. There are ferrite phase shifters and receiving dipoles
                      26. +1
                        16 November 2022 22: 33
                        The vircator has a cavity inside the charge, the shock wave is directed inside this cavity perpendicular to its walls. The cumulative funnel is conical, the explosion products go not only inward, but also move progressively along the axis of the funnel, forming a cumulative jet. Once again, your coil will be thrown out of the funnel before it even has time to form anything. At the same time, it will be torn off from the power source. Look at the picture
                      27. +1
                        16 November 2022 22: 35
                        The magnetic field cannot penetrate not only a metal sheet, but even a metallized coating. This is what screening is all about. Surround the protected object with a metal shell - a screen.
                        An electromagnetic wave of the radio range induces an EMF on the surface of the screen. Moreover, the shorter the wavelength, the smaller the penetration depth of the induced electric current (skin effect). In the microwave range, this will be millimeters and even fractions of a millimeter. An alternating current induced on a metal surface will induce an alternating magnetic field around it. Simply put, an electromagnetic wave will bounce off a metal surface. Moreover, nothing will happen on the reverse side of this surface! See subject "Propagation of electromagnetic waves"
                      28. +1
                        16 November 2022 22: 44
                        Metal conductors, as I already wrote, are on the back side of the "pixels". The front side of the photosensor, on which the photons of the optical range fall, must be free
                      29. +1
                        16 November 2022 22: 54
                        By the way, I still don’t understand why you are not satisfied with the classic explosive magnetic generator?
                        Why some conical coils?
                      30. +1
                        17 November 2022 09: 25
                        The classical one assumes a cylindrical compression of the coil, it is difficult to do it synchronously from all sides, and by ejecting the coil before it has time to create a magnetic impulse, it all depends on the shape of the charge and on the properties of the explosive, and then the tasks are different, in one case to create a cumulative jet in the other, reduce the diameter in a simple way.
                        According to the "semiconductor" AFAR antennas, of course there are emitters, but they are part of the transceiver modules from which the antenna itself is assembled
                      31. +1
                        17 November 2022 11: 20
                        So I didn’t understand why you need a cumulative jet? Are you only interested in the electromagnetic field? How will the cumulative jet affect him? It just gets in the way!
                        About AFAR. This is a very complex structure. As a rule, they work both for transmission and reception. First, I go to the actual metal antenna elements that generate or receive the field. Then, in order for it to be "phased", there are ferrite phase shifters. Then come vibrators and microstrip lines. Phase shifters are controlled by a magnetic field (coils). The voltage on the coils, yes, is controlled by semiconductor thyristors. Continue. After microstrip lines, yes, tube or semiconductor elements can go. Despite the complexity of the design, the system is sufficiently protected from interference and EMI.
                        And semiconductors are not needed in the antenna itself, they are used to control the PAR / AFAR matrix, or in the receiving-transmitting path (but not always, there may be an intermediary in the form of a tube local oscillator; I already wrote that EMP lamps in general, don’t care)
                        By the way, the network has enough work on protection against EMP. For example, http://www.gurevich-publications.com/articles_pdf/main_principles_emp_%20immunity_test_rus_electricity.pdf
                        Another article was found about EMP weapons, and there are ways to generate without a vircator: https://naukatehnika.com/elektromagnitnoe-impulsnoe-oruzhie-2.html
                      32. +1
                        17 November 2022 17: 13
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        So I didn’t understand why you need a cumulative jet?

                        The jet is secondary, the main front of the shock wave compresses the coil and that's it, it's just that this method seems simpler.
                        According to AFAR, to work in active mode, its elements require power (given the large total power of all elements), that is, a conductor is needed, the location signal reflected from the target, having arrived at the element, must be sent for processing, that is, a conductor is again required, so there is metal in the antenna . Given the high density of mounting elements, it is very difficult to shield them., And the elements themselves, as they write to us, consist of microcircuit substrates and emitters and other things., Maybe there is even a cooling system
                      33. +1
                        17 November 2022 20: 37
                        But this does not mean at all that EMP can do something here ... Once again, military equipment is being tested for electromagnetic compatibility and resistance to EMP. I don’t remember now, but some research institute is doing this with us. And the amov laboratories have
                      34. +1
                        17 November 2022 20: 39
                        the main front of the shock wave compresses the coil
                        A uniform front created by a cylindrical cavity is just preferable. By the way, a conical coil can create a completely different field. Now I don’t remember electrodynamics, but it may well be
                      35. +1
                        18 November 2022 23: 17
                        The compressing wave front can be -
                        1 spherical, the most efficient and the most difficult to organize
                        2 cylindrical, medium in complexity
                        3 conical, the compression efficiency will probably be the worst, but this is the easiest way, you can get by with one fuse ..
                      36. +1
                        18 November 2022 23: 59
                        But you will have a magnetic field of an incomprehensible configuration. And in general, you will save on fuses, but you will not get what. Perhaps EMI will not work either.
                        Problems with fuses were solved back in 1945, when designing the Fat Man atomic bomb. There were, if I'm not mistaken, 36 detonators, and they all worked synchronously
                      37. +1
                        19 November 2022 15: 42
                        Spherical compression requires the simultaneous operation of many detonators, which is quite difficult for mass use, it would be easier (probably) to take a metal tape and wrap a long cone around it, you get a hollow conical coil, if you find a way to quickly compress it in the axial direction (shorten) then the same effect will turn out, and in general it's time to put pluses for the discussion
                      38. +1
                        19 November 2022 20: 20
                        About the pros Ok))) Well, I have only seen flat or cylindrical coils, I have never heard of conical coils)) Flat ones are used as antennas, for example, in bank cards or telephones.
                        They don’t make coils with metal tape - it’s not optimal. Only round wire.
                        And most importantly, I repeat, the configuration of the magnetic field will be very strange. It seems to me that it will be just a combination of a large number of single-turn coils. A single turn coil gives almost no field. From the fact that there are many of them, little will change. If you squeeze such a coil, it will simply become flat for you. Perhaps the magnetic field will change little.
                        A cylindrical coil, on the contrary, gives a good field density - the longer the coil, the stronger the field
                      39. +1
                        20 November 2022 09: 47
                        How do you understand my reasoning at the level of speculation,
                        wires are not only round, for example, in acoustic speaker coils it is better to use rectangular
                        a cylindrical coil of tape can have many turns, I don’t know what will be the difference between its magnetic field and a regular one
                        the tape reel can be shaped into a hollow cone, or can be returned to the cylinder
                        If we assume that in order to obtain EMP, a coil is needed that can decrease in size (the more the better), then you can "wind" a "loose" coil (not necessarily from a tape) with a large initial volume, for example, in the form of stretched alternating flat and cylindrical spirals
                      40. +1
                        20 November 2022 13: 20
                        When I was a radio amateur, the wires were all round. By the way, it is easier to wind the coil with a round wire than a flat one (a flat one will have torsion resistance). All flat coils are made according to the technology of printed circuit boards (etching of a foil surface, or electroplating on a flat surface; theoretically, it can be printed on a printer))).
                        In the same way, a round wire is wound around a cone without problems, unlike a flat one - try winding tape around a cone - you will see what happens))
                        Incomprehensible all these tricks with coils. Physicists have long established that it is cylindrical coils that give the greatest inductance, and, accordingly, the strength of the magnetic field. There are also no particular problems with the compression of a cylindrical coil - a cylindrical explosive charge with a cylindrical channel inside. If the problem of the synchronous front of the shock wave is of concern, several fuses are made with synchronous initiation. By the way, the front of the shock wave is also asynchronous for a shaped charge, it is due to this asynchrony that the jet is compressed into a thread.
                        Loose coils are not needed, because any coil will be squeezed by a shock wave without problems
                      41. +1
                        20 November 2022 15: 14
                        I repeat, this is all speculation,
                        an ordinary cylindrical coil has a void inside, of course this void will be filled with turns when compressed, but then the turns will inevitably collapse and the magnetic field disappears ahead of time, if you wind the coil from a tape in the form of a cone, then the central turns may initially have a very small radius and when we squeeze the cone into a cylinder, it will last longer inside the explosion. It is important what shape of the coil field turned out at the end, and not what it was at the beginning before the compression.
                      42. +1
                        20 November 2022 23: 17
                        In any case, everything that is inside the front of the shock wave will turn into a plasma)) The shape of the coil at the end does not matter at all. An electromagnetic field is created when the magnetic field changes very quickly. According to the laws of electrodynamics, a change in the magnetic field provokes the appearance of an electromagnetic wave. The faster the magnetic field changes, the greater the energy of the wave, and the greater the EMF it induces on the "receiving antennas" (metal conductors). The more EMF, the higher the voltage. To destroy electronic components, you need a very high voltage, and a very rapid change in it. This is the impulse.
                        Therefore, we need to provide a very rapid contraction of the coil through which the electric current flows. And it is desirable that the coil does not collapse as long as possible. But the high temperature will still evaporate the coil, and the high pressure will turn it into a thin rod. And during the compression time, the coil will have time to generate an electromagnetic wave. After she has done her job (in microseconds), she is no longer needed.
                        Regarding the "emptiness" inside the coil)) It can be almost any non-metallic dielectric, even air, even vacuum. It is in this void that a magnetic field is formed, which is then compressed and gives EMP. If there are coil turns in this "void", they will interfere with the magnetic field lines
                        Theoretically, it is possible to compress a permanent magnet, but its magnetic field is too weak, and a permanent magnet ceases to be a magnet under the influence of temperature.
                        Ideally, a superconducting electromagnet would give a very strong field, but this is too complex a design and not suitable for ammunition.
                      43. +1
                        21 November 2022 00: 01
                        Made a mistake. The cavity of a "normal" (non-explosive) coil may contain a ferromagnetic, or simply a steel or iron core. In any case, a magnetic field is formed in the cavity. And the "emptiness", in this case, is needed so that the coil has where to compress))
                      44. +1
                        22 November 2022 17: 31
                        To obtain EMP, you can do without explosive compression of the coils, it is enough to assemble one with a large inductance, but from separate turns, each turn is connected to its semiconductor switch. Thus, you can create an inductance and an impulse much faster, and the coil is intact.
                      45. +1
                        22 November 2022 17: 34
                        By the way, such a method exists, but for some reason only from individual small coils with switching from serial to parallel.
                      46. +1
                        22 November 2022 20: 55
                        Damn, here I posted a bunch of links on the topic (even to a homemade EMP generator))), but they were removed. Is it forbidden to post links on this forum?
                        With the help of switching, even if using semiconductor switches, it is extremely difficult to achieve such a rate of change of the field that there is an impulse. Explosion and gives great speed. In the links that were deleted, there would be a variant of the EMP generator, in which the turns, on the contrary, are torn apart by a successive shock wave of the explosion running along the coil
                      47. 0
                        23 November 2022 08: 34
                        Compared to a conventional coil, for example, of 1000 turns, a coil of the same size, but assembled from individual turns, will "work" 1000 times faster (plus, with a parallel "discharge" it will have a resistance 1000 times less), and the rate of change of the magnetic field of the coil and there is what is required.
                      48. +1
                        23 November 2022 14: 46
                        I also thought about your idea with semiconductors.
                        Semiconductors have 2 limitations - in terms of the power of the transmitted current and the speed of operation. About the power. EMP munitions just usually burn out semiconductor devices. Therefore, we cannot use them. Well, in terms of speed. Explosive generators give nanosecond pulses, or even shorter - the shorter the pulse - the higher its energy. Semiconductors will not give such speed.
                        Namely, due to speed and power limitations, electron tubes (magnetrons, klystrons, traveling and backward wave tubes, etc.) are used at high radiation powers and very high frequencies.
                        As a result, when using semiconductor switches, we get, instead of a short burst of a super-powerful magnetic field, a growing and then damping sinusoid of medium power. We can create interference, but it will not be very effective.
                        Yes, and such a multistage generator will be too complicated and expensive. Explosive generators are simpler and cheaper.
                        And this kind of interference will clearly show where its emitter is located. If we want to shoot down the homing head with interference, then we need either a long-term noise interference that simply jams the signal from the target, or a diverting interference, with a Doppler frequency shift (velocity deception), a phase shift (range deception), or a modulated signal (imitation decoy movement)
                      49. +1
                        23 November 2022 14: 56
                        Regarding the number of turns. It's not about resistance, it's about inductance. Inductance, roughly speaking, is an indicator of how much of the energy of an electric current will go to create a magnetic field. The more turns, the higher the inductance. A single turn coil creates a very weak magnetic field. But inductance also prevents changes in the magnetic field. If we change the current in the coil, then the magnetic field changes, and the change in the magnetic current generates an EMF in the coil directed against the magnetic field. Therefore, the more turns, the greater the return of the coil, but also the slower the rate of change of the magnetic field. With an explosive effect (it doesn’t matter if we compress the coil or break the coils), we force the magnetic field to change dramatically
                      50. 0
                        23 November 2022 17: 16
                        It is assumed that the turns are connected in series when "charging" the coil, and parallel when it is "discharging", of course, the switches are the weakest point in such a circuit, if the issue with them is somehow resolved, then there are a lot of turns, in each turn the current is very small, average the length of the coil is about 30 cm, but the rate of change of the magnetic field during the "short circuit" will be thousands of times faster than in a kilometer wire.
                      51. +1
                        23 November 2022 17: 25
                        The switches can be disposable, some kind of electric detonator shorts all the turns at once. (there are explosive switches) by the way, the current during the "discharge" of all turns of the coil will be the same very large as its power, and this can be used somehow.
                      52. +1
                        23 November 2022 17: 54
                        If we are talking specifically about the impulse, then the current is a thing in itself. The main thing is the speed and amplitude of the change in the magnetic field.
                        And what kind of electric detonator, which "shorts all the turns"? A detonator involves a small explosive charge that causes a detonation reaction in the main charge.
                        Never heard of explosive switches. In principle, if a large current is applied to a thin nichrome wire, it will quickly burn out (as a coil in a light bulb burns out, or a fuse). By the way, at one time I had a switch (I had to replace it), with a fuse. Each time the bulb burned out, there was such a surge of current that the fuse burned out.
                        The problem is this. It is very difficult to ensure the stability of the characteristics of all these switches, if there are many of them.
                        If we have an explosive charge of the correct shape (for example, cylindrical), then it is just simple and easy for him to ensure the uniformity of the detonation wave front - it is enough just to do it carefully, without errors
                      53. +1
                        23 November 2022 18: 01
                        By the way, I wrote here that they erased the links where there was a home-made EMP generator.
                        A flashlight was used there (more precisely, high-voltage capacitors from it), and an emitter in the form of a coil with several turns (7-15 turns).
                        Discharging a high-voltage capacitor across a coil produces a small amount of EMP. True, it seems to me that it is difficult for them to burn something. If only a phone, or a calculator, which will be very close
                      54. +1
                        23 November 2022 18: 39
                        By the way, any spark discharge creates EMP. Though a stun gun, even a welding machine. Only they do not reach explosive magnetic generators in terms of their power
                      55. +1
                        24 November 2022 09: 23
                        Ideally, yes, you need to compress the coil and turn off all the turns at once, and the coil needs to be on superconductors, and the EMP power during a spark discharge will always be small, the efficiency is low
                      56. +1
                        24 November 2022 09: 53
                        Another known RFEMI is a shock-wave source of radio frequency radiation. is based on the direct conversion of the energy of explosives (HE) directly into the energy of RFEMI, without a vircator.
                      57. +1
                        24 November 2022 12: 47
                        I was digging the topic here, and since I was interested in this for a long time, I forgot something and messed up. The Vircator is a vacuum tube that increases the efficiency of explosive magnetic generators. This is not the generator itself)) And there is no direct conversion and cannot be! I already wrote about it. It also compresses the source of the magnetic field (a coil, or a system of permanent magnets). Unlike the Sakharov coil, spherical compression occurs. Although the design is much more complicated than with cylindrical compression
                      58. +1
                        24 November 2022 13: 47
                        If you really fantasize, you can take a capacitor, which has a piezoelectric between the plates, and connect it to a coil, then shoot a bullet at the piezoelectric, or blow up an explosive charge on its surface. AMI will also be)) but so-so ...
                      59. +1
                        24 November 2022 13: 02
                        Why disable coils? What's the point of this? It only complicates the design.
                        Moreover, if you compress the coil, the field strength increases, the EMF appears in the turns, with a sharp opening of the turns, you can get the so-called "reverse current" directed against the EMF. spoil the effect))
                        I was thinking about your idea with switches)) You can, indeed, work to open and reduce the magnetic field. An EM wave is created by any change in the field, even up or down. You can make fuses with different resistances so that they work with an increase or decrease in the passing current (depending on the circuit). This will give serial switching, or separation of the turns of the coil. The disadvantage is that it works too slowly, and the front of the current change is too gentle.
                        You can also use gas discharge lamps with avalanche discharge. That is, it is possible to design a lamp so that the discharge in it does not occur immediately, but has an avalanche character. That is, it began with a small discharge, causing the release of electrons and avalanche ionization of the gas. Thus, we can get a power surge and EMP. Only it is important not to overplay, otherwise instead of EMR we will get ultraviolet or X-ray radiation)) After all, electromagnetic waves are in different ranges)) By the way, gas-discharge lamps also have a delay in operation.
                        The problem with all these spark and gas discharge solutions is not efficiency at all. Firstly, a complex design, and rather capricious and unstable devices. Secondly, indeed, power can go not to microwave generation, but to other ranges of electromagnetic waves - from infrared to X-rays.
                        And finally, you need a large current - you need powerful current sources. In a bomb, or a rocket, for example, you can’t put one like that. Therefore, there is nothing more effective than an explosive magnetic generator of any design))
                      60. +1
                        24 November 2022 13: 10
                        There is one more solution)) For a change. A vacuum tube is taken ... at least a kinescope from a TV)
                        First, a high voltage is applied to the cathode in order to create a cloud of electrons near it. The grid at this time is locked by a negative voltage. We charge the capacitor in advance and then discharge it through the grid (with a positive voltage))) The lamp is unlocked, the electron cloud flies to the anode and gives a field surge. Side effect - X-ray burst is also possible
                      61. +1
                        24 November 2022 13: 45
                        About the superconducting coil. Firstly, too complicated and expensive design (definitely not suitable for ammunition). Secondly, superconductivity is not very friendly with the magnetic field, and disappears when it changes. If you try to compress a superconducting coil, you will destroy its cooling system. Of course, all this will give a change in the magnetic field, but the EMP will be very weak.
                        You can, of course, put a ferromagnetic core into such a coil and shoot it out of it, causing a sharp change in the inductance, and hence the field, but still, the EMP will be weak.
                        In short, superconducting coils are ill-suited for EMP generation. The only exception is if you pass a large current pulse through them (again, there will be primary EMP, then superconductivity will disappear, and maybe the coil will be destroyed by such a current)
                      62. 0
                        24 November 2022 22: 06
                        The superconducting coil could be stationary, such as it was assembled on the ground or on the water, then they bang, all the devices flew within a radius of two kilometers, and yes, the example is unsuccessful.
                      63. 0
                        24 November 2022 22: 18
                        It is easier to create an EMR on a short circuit, at the beginning from a weak source gradually power a coil with many turns, and then "discharge" the turns in parallel with simultaneous compression, of course, in addition to the EMR, the accumulated energy at other frequencies will also be released, it must also be used somehow. By the way if you do not crimp, then the coil will be reusable, that is, you can use it for jamming. Options for x-ray output, if they can be assembled into a beam, will be more dangerous than EMP itself
                      64. 0
                        24 November 2022 23: 42
                        If you mess around with coils, then there will be no x-ray))) X-ray radiation occurs in vacuum or gas-discharge tubes when the flow of high-energy electrons is sharply decelerated in a strong electric field. Electromagnetic waves are very different. Radio waves (up to hundreds of gigahertz) are created by fluctuations in an electric or magnetic field. Everything with a shorter wavelength (infrared, light, ultraviolet, x-rays) is the discharge of radiation quanta by electrons when moving from a higher to a lower energy level
                      65. +1
                        25 November 2022 09: 21
                        Coils are needed as energy storage devices (with or without compression), otherwise they are bulky and heavy.
                      66. +1
                        25 November 2022 09: 54
                        Coils can be used in two ways - both to generate a pulsed current, and as a magnetic antenna-emitter of an electromagnetic wave in the radio range
                      67. +1
                        25 November 2022 10: 05
                        Coils in explosive magnetic generators are light. A ferromagnetic core can be heavy - it is usually not used - it interferes with the compression of the coil. Heavy is also a multi-turn coil. But it is not suitable for RFEM, because its high inductance will smear the pulse. I already wrote that a change in the current in the coil, or a change in the magnetic field, causes an EMF in the coil that opposes the change. The more turns - the more inductance - the more EMF. This leads to the fact that the impulse with a short edge or decay turns into a smoothly rising or smoothly falling one, i.e. loses its impulse energy and destructive power
                      68. +1
                        25 November 2022 10: 00
                        I wanted to add about the x-ray. In the case of electromagnetic radio wave generators, any electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength (terahertz, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray) is an absolutely unnecessary side effect and a waste of energy. X-ray radiation in this case is weak, its transmission distance is small - it is quickly absorbed by the atoms that make up the air. It can be dangerous only for people who are a few meters from the generator, but if it is explosive, it doesn’t matter anymore))) Its power is no longer enough to damage the electronics. And x-rays are absorbed by any solid body. If the electronics are closed even with plastic cases, x-rays will no longer pass through it
                      69. 0
                        26 November 2022 16: 36
                        The inductance of the coils depends, among other things, on the number of turns, in other words, on the length of the wire, if there is a transistor in each turn, then the coil can be turned off faster than in the traditional way and no EMF will affect the speed during such a turn off.
                      70. 0
                        26 November 2022 16: 57
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Coils can be used in two ways - both to generate a pulsed current, and as a magnetic antenna-emitter of an electromagnetic wave in the radio range

                        It seems that if you attach two more contacts to the capacitor plates, four instead of two, then you can make static electricity move, as a result you get a hybrid of a coil and a capacitor, that's just how to use it.
                      71. 0
                        26 November 2022 19: 35
                        What for? Yes, and static will not move anywhere))) More precisely, static will be only until the capacitor is wet))) To make a hybrid of a coil and a capacitor, it is enough to wrap it tightly with a wire))) In general, there is the concept of an LC circuit. L-inductor, C-capacitor. More precisely, L is the value of the inductance of the coil, C is the value of the capacitance of the capacitor. An inductor is any coil of wire, at least from one capacitor plate to another. Similarly, a capacitor (capacitance) is any two close conductors that are not in contact with each other. LC is an oscillatory circuit that generates the alternating current needed to form a radio wave. The more LC- the lower the oscillation frequency, on the one hand, on the other hand, the greater the energy reserve in the circuit. The simplest, very high-frequency oscillatory circuit is, in general, a loop with a gap))) Only the quality factor is extremely low, and if such a circuit is not pumped with energy (by any means, the oscillations die out in it immediately). But, we do not need a frequency that is not too large or too small. If you want a damaging RFEM, then the frequencies must be selected carefully. Too long waves will not be able to penetrate the devices, too short ones will not be able to either, and will also be absorbed by the atmosphere (there are certain frequencies at which the atmosphere eats up the microwave radio wave)
                      72. 0
                        26 November 2022 19: 45
                        I already wrote that using semiconductor devices in an EMP generator, if you want to hit enemy semiconductor electronics with this EMP, is an extremely bad idea. They will burn out before you. Unless, of course, your goal is to use them instead of fuses laughing Then you need not transistors, but diodes)) Turn them on towards the current)) A large current causes a breakdown of the PN junction of the diode. The diode irreversibly turns into a conductor, by the way, not very good (resistance in the region of kilo-ohms). The trouble is that when the current passes, it will warm up - you will have heat losses. Plus, due to the resistance of the diode, you will get not a growing, but a decreasing current. Something like this. Then you need to use electronic or gas discharge lamps wink It will be even cheaper than semiconductors)) Only the design will be bulky and capricious if there are a lot of lamps
                      73. +1
                        28 November 2022 10: 15
                        If we accepted that a coil with a large inductance cannot be turned off quickly enough, but if you break individual turns at once, then it is possible, the transistor in the wave can cope with this and it doesn’t matter that it burns out, it is important that the circuit irreversibly opens, and the coil we have disposable and designed to generate a single decaying pulse.
                      74. +1
                        28 November 2022 10: 40
                        Regarding the "capacitor coil", if in a conventional transformer (with single-core wires) a "two-core" tape is used, thereby simultaneously forcing a positive and negative charge to move along its tapes, then such a system should be an effective energy storage device with low resistance. It is not clear how it behaves will lead during buildup, it may be possible to accumulate enough energy to explode the winding
                      75. +1
                        28 November 2022 13: 06
                        Plus for the originality of thought, minus (did not rate, only in the text)))) for inoperability. Nothing good will come of it. Firstly, you will interact with the magnetic fields of "oncoming" wires. With direct current, this is tolerable (they will be attracted to each other, but the losses will be small). At the slightest change in current, the mutual influence of the wires will begin, and mutual interference (fields that are in antiphase will simply extinguish each other). To cope with this, you will need a metal screen between the fields - then the capacitance between them will disappear.
                        And the resistance depends only on the resistance of the wires, and will not be less in any way)))
                        With a "buildup", as you put it, a change in current in the opposite conductors will mutually induce an EMF, which will form a counter current, which, firstly, will lead to a decrease in current, and secondly, to mutual compensation of magnetic fields.
                        In fact, you need to do exactly the opposite. See what an "autotransformer" is (about 50 years ago they were sold as power supplies). Unlike a conventional transformer, there the windings are connected, and the magnetic fields in the coil are directed in one direction. I don't remember how it works now. But such a design does not have any accumulation of energy.
                        Yes, and in fact the accumulation of energy and its return can only be given by a capacitor. The inductor only maintains the magnetic field (and, accordingly, the current flowing through it) and does not accumulate any energy.
                      76. +1
                        28 November 2022 13: 13
                        Yes, I remembered. You use your idea when you connect your Internet wire somewhere (for example, from a provider to a home router, or from a local network to a work computer). It's called "twisted pair" laughing So, in it the wire is twisted so that the conductors go towards each other (in antiphase). The digital signal passes normally. But the counter electromagnetic interference induces counter currents, and in the network card they compensate each other
                      77. +1
                        28 November 2022 13: 23
                        You may be interested, but the Americans and the Chinese are developing EM emitters for ... dispersal of demonstrations:

                        The installation creates near (at a distance of up to 100 meters) a microwave field of the millimeter range. A person entering this field experiences an unbearable burning sensation and literally jumps back. Already tested
                      78. +1
                        28 November 2022 12: 02
                        The idea, of course, is yours)) Only a complex design, and it’s a pity for semiconductors - after all, they are more expensive than the wire that the coil is wound on)) And it’s very troublesome to work out such a design. There is another complicating factor. Semiconductors have a certain spread of parameters, in connection with this they will have different limiting breakdown current of the PN junction.
                        In short, in any case, an explosive magnetic generator is simpler and cheaper)))
                        And if you want to tear the coils, then there is such an explosive design - a spiral generator:
                      79. +1
                        28 November 2022 16: 16
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Yes, and in fact the accumulation of energy and its return can only be given by a capacitor. The inductor only maintains the magnetic field (and, accordingly, the current flowing through it) and does not accumulate any energy.

                        However, textbooks write "Energy can be stored not only in capacitors, but also in inductors. This stored energy can be used to create aperiodic current pulses in pulsed current generators. A well-known example of an inductive storage is an ignition coil in a car."
                      80. +1
                        28 November 2022 16: 32
                        Regarding the "capacitor transformer", of course, this is a fantasy, but it should be noted that in order to create a magnetic field around the conductor, it does not matter whether the negative potential moves or the positive one, or both along different conductors in the same direction. and the EMF will obviously be summed up
                      81. +1
                        28 November 2022 16: 38
                        EM Emitters for... Overclocking Demonstrations: It's Not as Relevant as Overclocking UAVs
                      82. +1
                        28 November 2022 23: 24
                        The "Shell" battery will perfectly cope with the acceleration of the UAV))) But through the EMP (if it is not from a vigorous explosion, of course))) the same "Geraniums" will calmly fly by and fly further. In Syria, UAVs were used, without a radio channel at all (even without GPS))), only with a timer. They generally do not have components for defeating EMP))
                      83. +1
                        28 November 2022 23: 30
                        By the way, you can create an UAV, without any electronic components at all))) There were V-1 missiles))) The same UAV. There were no computers
                      84. +1
                        29 November 2022 12: 16
                        Unambiguously, the EMF is summed up if the current flows through adjacent conductors in the same direction and changes synchronously. If a direct current flows, no EMF is created. The fact is that the EMF is created when the magnetic field changes, and the changing magnetic field creates a changing current. This is how interference is induced on the wires. And in antennas, current is also created when the electromagnetic field changes. Roughly speaking, any unshielded conductor, or even a conductive surface, is an antenna. And the screen (including the Faraday cage / grid), also an antenna))
                        The Faraday grid is also an oscillatory circuit that does not transmit radio waves with a length greater than the cell size
                      85. +1
                        29 November 2022 12: 09
                        You see, the real accumulation occurs only in the condenser. It is the capacitor that is able to accumulate and maintain a charge for some time. It is obvious that time is not infinite, because the dielectrics, between the plates of the capacitor, have, albeit scanty, but still conductivity. Roughly speaking, a capacitor is like a lifted weight, or a stretched rubber band.
                        The coil is more like a car, or a spinning flywheel. It "stores" energy only at the moment when current flows through it. As soon as the current changes, it begins to give it away (with an increase in current, it prevents it from growing, with a decrease, it prevents it from decreasing).
                        The combination of a coil and a capacitor gives a unique device - an oscillatory circuit. If you simply close the capacitor to a load with a small inductance, then it will quickly discharge. The ability of the inductor to prevent the current from falling makes it possible to delay this process and turn it into oscillations.
                        The capacitor starts to discharge through the coil, but it maintains a decreasing current. When the capacitor is discharged to zero, current still flows through the coil, and it charges the capacitor, but in a different polarity. As the capacitor charges, the current in the coil drops and there comes a moment when there is no more current in the coil, but the capacitor is charged. Then it starts to discharge again through the coil, only the current flows in the opposite direction. And the process is repeated. The process cannot go on forever, because the current is lost on the resistance of the conductors (it goes into heat), and on the electromagnetic radiation of the coil. I already wrote that the lower the capacitance of the capacitor and the inductance of the coil, the higher the frequency and the sharper the front of the pulse. Therefore, taking into account the fact that inertia is inherent in a greater degree of inductance, for a high frequency it is necessary, first of all, to reduce the inductance. And to increase power - increase the voltage on the capacitor (the limit is the breakdown voltage of dielectrics). This is a very simplified explanation.
                        By the way, the vircator is also, in fact, an oscillatory circuit. Like any oscillatory circuit, it has its own resonant frequency, and allows you not to "smear" the pulse energy over the spectrum, but to collect it in a fairly narrow frequency band.
                        About the momentum, as such. The impulse character is achieved due to a sharp change in the characteristics of the system. For example, a sharp compression of the magnetic field. Or a sharp turn on or off of the current supply. By the way, on old switches, as well as when pulling the plug out of the socket, such an electromagnetic pulse often occurs. In addition to the actual electromagnetic radiation, it causes a spark discharge between the contacts and the appearance of a reverse current. With insufficient protection of the electrical appliance, it may even burn out.
                      86. +1
                        29 November 2022 19: 32
                        It is clear that direct current creates a constant magnetic field around the conductor and it is natural that no eddy currents can be obtained in it, and that with an increase in the capacitance of the capacitor and the inductance of the coil, the frequency drops, that is, a rapid change in the magnetic field strength cannot be obtained.
                        Along the way, the thought arose of what would happen if the core in the transformer was made of very thin sheets of transformer steel, assembled as plates in a capacitor, and connected to the windings (you get two circuits), I wonder how the static charge will interact with the magnetic field.
                      87. +1
                        29 November 2022 19: 41
                        In UAVs, due to their small size, the short length of conductive parts, therefore, they should be less susceptible to EMP, ceteris paribus.
                      88. +1
                        29 November 2022 19: 49
                        As they say, after a nuclear explosion, communication is generally broken for some time, which means that the change in the magnetic field strength is not recorded by receivers, there are no clear explanations why, although the carrier of the magnetic field itself is unknown.
                      89. 0
                        29 November 2022 22: 55
                        The physics of nuclear explosions was studied back in the 50s. Firstly, it all depends on the nature of the explosion and its power. A kiloton, or even smaller fungus will disrupt only briefly disrupt the operation of mobile phones in an area of ​​\u5b\uXNUMXbabout XNUMX km, or even less.
                        The radioactive radiation of the explosion (alpha, beta, gamma rays and neutrons) causes air ionization at a certain distance from the explosion. Air becomes a conductor, and as you know, electromagnetic waves do not propagate through conductors.
                        In general, the passage of any radio waves depends very much on the state of the atmosphere. The shorter the wavelength, the more dependent. For microwaves, in general, there are "windows of transparency" - several ranges in which radio waves pass through the atmosphere. There are "windows of opacity" - radio waves are absorbed by the atmosphere.
                        Explosions at heights of more than 10 km, and even more so in space, streams of charged particles are not absorbed by the atmosphere as near the earth, have a higher density, and spread farther than at low altitude. In the end, they inevitably collide with the oxygen and nitrogen atoms that make up the air, and knock out high-energy electrons from them. Interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, these electrons generate an electromagnetic pulse.
                        In short, a low explosion ionizes the atmosphere around it and disrupts the passage of radio waves, but high-altitude ones, not only spoil the atmosphere, but also cause EMP. By the way, the receivers will not be silent))) From low explosions, they will simply emit cods, from high-altitude ones they will burn out ... Lamp ones, by the way, will not burn out)))
                      90. 0
                        29 November 2022 22: 56
                        About the same crack as from a nearby thunderstorm. A thunderstorm, like a giant spark, is also a source of EMP
                      91. 0
                        29 November 2022 23: 02
                        The theory of electromagnetism was written back in the 90th century by Maxwell. A change in the electric field generates the appearance of a changing magnetic field at a neighboring point in space, with a phase shift of 90 degrees. In turn, the changing magnetic generates in the neighborhood an EMF with a phase shift of XNUMX degrees. Thus, the electromagnetic wave propagates. But with a decrease in the wavelength, and its approach to the size of elementary particles, the wave acquires a quantum character, i.e. behaves like a particle. It is possible to single out a separate quantum of such EM radiation - a photon. However, photons are caught only for EM radiation from infrared to gamma, but not for radio waves. Something like this. As for the carrier of the magnetic field - it seems that the Dirac monopole was discovered, I don’t remember exactly now
                      92. 0
                        29 November 2022 22: 38
                        It all depends on the design. As I wrote, you can generally make a UAV without electrics and electronics. Diesel engine (no ignition system), impeller-propeller to record the distance traveled, gyroscope, mechanically or hydraulically connected to the servos through a mechanical programmer. Even the EMP of a vigorous explosion will not affect such a unit.
                        A handicraft construction made from parts purchased on Aliexpress or Hobby King will burn out even from training the Shell radar, at a short distance. But military vehicles, as I wrote earlier, are necessarily tested for electromagnetic compatibility - getting into a radar beam, maybe even your own, is also not pleasant. And serious military vehicles are also protected from EMP. The possibility of combat use in a vigorous war has not been canceled.
                        I'm not sure, though, that Geraniums and the like are heavily protected. But only the satellite navigation channel is vulnerable to them, and it is not difficult to protect it. Moreover, with their inertial area guidance system, they will fly even with a burned-out navigator
                      93. 0
                        29 November 2022 22: 25
                        No way. The nature of the fields is somewhat different. Static charge is simply electrons accumulated on the surface of a dielectric. They cannot accumulate on the surface of the conductor - they spread over the surface. By the way, when they spread over the surface, they interact with the magnetic field. But they cannot leave the surface of the dielectric, because the air around is also a dielectric. Under certain conditions - rarefaction of air, the appearance of moisture and other conductive particles, ionization under the influence of radioactive radiation, a very large charge, an air breakdown - a discharge can occur. Then an electric current will flow through the ionized air, which will have its own magnetic field - it will interact with the external magnetic field. You see, it is difficult to invent something here - everything was invented almost 100 years ago. Here you can only look for new materials (ion exchangers, ferroelectrics, nanomaterials such as graphene and the like)
                      94. 0
                        29 November 2022 23: 52
                        Since there are many answers, I will clarify that the electrostatic charge does not interact with the magnetic field in any way.
                      95. The comment was deleted.
                      96. The comment was deleted.
                      97. The comment was deleted.
  23. 0
    6 December 2022 15: 37
    Lots of beeches. Fantasy flow. It is noticeable that the author has a poor idea of ​​the dynamics of air combat, overload. What kind of anti-missiles are there.
    Vitebsk protects only from MANPADS. For the rest, since the days of Vietnam, there have been jamming stations, the cat interferes with the missile's sighting channel.
    He does not know the possibilities of lasers. A lot of money is driven into them, but there is no result. Unless you set fire to the UAV, and knock out the gunner's eye.
    It will be useful when free electron lasers become more compact.
    And about tank KAZs in the Russian Federation, who cares, take a look at Arena and Arena-M. It is better than Trophy, but not implemented.
  24. 0
    20 December 2022 19: 06
    It seems that everything in the article is correct, but there are no beautiful and reliable solutions. You can, of course, follow the path when we have all the weapons "both a Swiss and a reaper and a player on the pipe", but this is a road to nowhere. Effective combat is the organization of complex interaction of specialized weapons. For example, two SU-25s were sent to attack. This means that they should be covered by a specialized Su-25, which is located in close proximity to the combat pair. This defender must be armed with anti-missiles. EW, ammunition for setting protective smoke and the corresponding all-round radars. Its task is to automatically notify combat crews about an attack by their air defense systems, issue instructions to combat crews on the correct combat maneuver, as well as set protective smoke, suppress electronic warfare weapons and hit them with anti-missiles. All this can be supplemented by personal protective equipment for combat aircraft, but they should not be redundant. I outlined the universal principle of building such systems on the battlefield. However, the problems are not even in this, but in the indecision of the country's leadership, which can be disastrous for all of us. In fact, we entered into a conventional war with the enemy (NATO), which is many times superior to us in terms of mobilization and economic resources. It is time to use, at least outside populated areas, tactical nuclear weapons of air blast, the main factors of destruction of which are the neutron flux and electromagnetic impulse. This will radically solve all the problems of defeating the enemy’s manpower and technical means. Russia has more than ten thousand of these charges. Our fathers and grandfathers made them, not so that their grandchildren would "suffer" in a conventional war. After these words, some hysteria will start to hysteria about the fact that I allegedly propose a path to a global nuclear conflict. I do not argue. Of course there will be a lot of noise, but to hell with it. The main thing is to achieve victory and lose less of our priceless soldiers. Well, if strikes with tactical nuclear weapons do not sober anyone up, then there is nothing to be done. So this war sooner or later still can not be avoided. It's like in the issue of cancer surgery - if you don't get treated, you'll die for sure, but if you're operated on, maybe you'll survive. Therefore, if our sworn partners start to "rock the boat" even after that, then they will be the first of all types of innovative weapons until they are completely destroyed. We have no other chances.
  25. 0
    8 January 2023 09: 10
    But until recently, half of the local elite in the comments proved to me that this is not necessary and completely impossible, they explained that it’s too much weight, it’s hard to visit, it’s hard to get in, and in general I don’t understand anything.
    I think these are the people who sit in our MO.
  26. 0
    12 January 2023 15: 19
    On tanks in Syria, the Shtora protective complex was used, which diverts missiles attacking the tank to the side. Why not develop something similar for helicopters in the first place, and then for bombers and attack aircraft? And there, you see, Caliber can be equipped with this (if the cost allows). And other Poplars, Yarsy.
  27. 0
    16 January 2023 22: 23
    Towed radio / heat traps + towed charges. The main thing is to have time to deploy the plane with its tail to the rocket.
  28. 0
    17 January 2023 23: 47
    The problem of protecting combat aircraft and the pilots who control them requires an urgent solution !!! The field of technical solutions for aircraft protection described by the author in this article does not reflect an order of magnitude simpler way to protect aircraft from being hit by any known missiles. It is impossible to divert the topic into equipping aircraft with expensive KAZ LA systems - this is a gift for the Anglo-Saxons. They sleep and see how our industry will waste its potential.
  29. 0
    18 January 2023 16: 59
    When so much has been written, by the middle of the article it is already unclear what it is specifically about.
    As for mini-missiles of the B-B class, for their production it is first necessary to reduce the backlog in microelectronics, which today is about 30 years old. Someone comrade. Chubais, a great lover of nanotechnologies, mastered and finally mastered in 15 years the allocated funds in full and went abroad without creating anything at all. And you say rockets...
  30. 0
    12 February 2023 09: 53
    Methods and devices for the protection of combat aviation are needed today. Here and now. The fact that the responsible specialists of the specialized research institutes of the Ministry of Defense have been sitting their pants in their offices and still have not created reliable, 100% protection for our MANPADS combat aircraft and other missiles does not honor them. The creation of KAZ AT complexes is a dead end and useless path, moreover, it requires a lot of resources and time and still does not guarantee reliable protection. Let's burn money for not a pinch of tobacco, as it was with the Angara rocket landing on the aircraft upper stage.