Missiles, lasers and electronic warfare: the next stage in the development of military air defense

Modern air defense system "Tor" in a firing position

The Russian Ministry of Defense is studying and working on issues of further development of air defense and the creation of next-generation anti-aircraft systems. Taking into account the experience of recent years, including the current Special Operation to protect Donbass, it is proposed to equip promising anti-aircraft systems for military air defense with both conventional guns and missiles, and other types of weapons.

New requirements

The plans of the Ministry of Defense in the context of the further development of air defense were reported on January 10 by the Izvestia publication. From its sources in the department, it learned about preliminary work of a theoretical nature and the adoption of an important document. However, the ministry does not comment on such reports and has not yet disclosed its plans in the context of next-generation military air defense. The industry also does not clarify its intentions of this kind.

According to Izvestia, the Ministry of Defense has developed and approved tactical and technical requirements for anti-aircraft systems that will be developed in the future to arm the ground forces. Work on the creation of such samples may begin in the near future, and at the turn of the twenties and thirties the appearance of experimental equipment and the start of testing are expected.

The new requirements take into account the experience of combat use of various air defense systems in a modern conflict with its characteristic features and threats. In particular, special attention is paid to the detection and interception of unmanned aerial vehicles, incl. small and light models that are particularly difficult targets.

The Strela-10 complex launches a rocket

To combat the full range of expected air targets, it is proposed to revise the composition of anti-aircraft systems. They will be able to retain missiles and guns, and will also receive new weapons. To suppress optics and/or destroy the structure of UAVs, appropriate combat lasers will be developed and deployed. Anti-aircraft systems will also be supplemented with electronic warfare equipment to suppress control channels and navigation signals.

So far we are talking only about the general tactical and technical requirements for promising air defense systems, but over the next few years the development of new projects should begin, and then experimental equipment will appear. The introduction of serial models into the army will begin in the thirties. Izvestia notes that such products will be able to replace almost all currently available air defense systems and air defense missile systems of military air defense.

Threats and answers

All the details of the new tactical and technical requirements for promising anti-aircraft systems are, for obvious reasons, unknown. However, the published data are also of great interest. They reflect the specifics of air defense combat work in a modern conflict. The requirements also show the views of the defense department on ways and means of protection against current threats.

From the published data it follows that the next generation military air defense systems will retain the main features of modern models. Self-propelled chassis will again be used, with the help of which the complexes will be able to accompany troops on the march and in positions. The development of optical and radar detection means will continue.

Prospective complexes will again be equipped with missiles and guns. At the same time, a new generation of weapons with improved characteristics corresponding to the assigned tasks will be developed for them. Weapon traditional classrooms will be complemented by improved management systems.

Promising air defense system "Sosna"

It should be noted that the use of anti-aircraft guided missiles is not always justified or advisable. Such a product can be several times or tens of times more expensive than the destroyed UAV, and a massive raid drones capable of overloading air defense and depleting its ammunition. In this regard, various solutions have long been proposed for adapting anti-aircraft systems to repel new threats. Now the main ideas of this kind have found a place in an official document.

The new requirements for military air defense systems note the need to integrate electronic warfare systems. Thanks to this, air defense systems/air defense systems will be able not only to hit air targets, but also to suppress them. This approach to counteraction and defense allows you to protect yourself from aircraft activity, but at the same time save on missiles.

In this context, we should recall a variety of “anti-drone guns” and other electronic warfare systems. Such devices have found wide application in the current Special Operation and make a significant contribution to countering unmanned aviation the adversary.

In addition, new requirements provide for the introduction of combat lasers. This weapon also combines economy and effectiveness. Depending on the installed power and external factors, the laser beam can suppress the optical systems of an airborne target and prevent it from performing its mission, or damage or destroy its structure.

It was previously reported that our country had created an anti-aircraft combat laser complex, and it was even tested in the Special Operation zone. The experience of this project and other similar developments may find application in the next generation of military air defense.

Small UAVs are convenient for solving some tasks and are a difficult target for air defense

Recent ones news generally reveal general ideas and concepts for the further development of air defense of ground forces. However, some nuances of the approved plans still remain unknown. Thus, ideas of a layout nature are of great interest. Damage and suppression weapons can be placed on different platforms, but the possibility of creating a combined air defense system cannot be ruled out. It can simultaneously carry missiles, guns, lasers and an electronic warfare station, or have different combinations of these devices on board. All layout options for such complexes have their pros and cons, and the Ministry of Defense must choose the most successful ones.

Plans for the future

The Ministry of Defense pays great attention to the development of military air defense, and the main plans of this kind for the near and medium term are already known. Now it has become clear how anti-aircraft systems will develop in the distant future. In general, we are talking about a continuous process of renewal, involving the constant modernization of existing models and the development of completely new ones.

At the moment, the priority task of our defense industry is the serial production and repair of existing models of equipment of all main types. First of all, these are complexes of the Thor family, the latest versions of Strela-10, new Buks, etc. Various options for their modernization are also being developed and implemented.

At the same time, completely new projects are being created and carried out through the necessary tests and modifications. In the near future, equipment of these types will have to enter service. The most anticipated new product is the Sosna / Ptitselov air defense system. It is possible that other systems of a similar appearance will appear.

Downed Ukrainian UAV

From the latest news it follows that in the near future the Ministry of Defense and industry may begin developing a completely new generation of military air defense systems, which will be as different as possible from the current one. Based on the results of this work, in the early thirties, combat vehicles with missiles, guns, lasers and jamming stations will be able to enter service.

It is obvious that the transition of military air defense to new equipment will not be quick and will take a lot of time. A complete abandonment of products of the previous generation should be expected no earlier than the first half of the forties. The newly created systems will remain relevant for several more decades - perhaps until the middle of the second half of the century.

Thus, the current theoretical work of the relevant structures of the Ministry of Defense, which recently culminated in the formation and approval of tactical and technical requirements, determines the development of our military air defense for the next few decades. It is obvious that in the future such plans can be adjusted in one way or another, but their main provisions are being laid down right now.

Consistent development

Modernization of existing air defense systems and the development of new projects in our country have long been a continuous process that regularly produces the desired results. Now it has become known that the next samples of new types will appear over the next 8-10 years, and then they will be able to enter service.

The expected new stage in the development of military air defense is of great interest. This time we are talking not only about improving designs and increasing basic tactical and technical characteristics, but also about introducing fundamentally new solutions. Solving such problems will not be easy, but the expected result will fully justify all efforts.

Comments

[Toucan]

Another article “about nothing”. No specifics, just a bunch of general phrases...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tucan

No specifics, a set of general phrases.

And there is not a word about programmable fuses for 23-30-57 mm, but the adoption of such a fuse and programmer, even for the 30, will dramatically increase the capabilities of already adopted and long-mastered weapons to combat UAVs.

[Toucan]

Well, for 23 mm and perhaps even for 30 mm there is no particular point in making shells with a programmable detonation, the explosive filling coefficient will be too low and the fragmentation field will be small. In any case, such shells smaller than 35 mm are not mass-produced abroad
But for the 57-mm caliber such shells are needed.

[Aerodrome]

The Yemeni Houthis claim that in response to the attack by the Western coalition of aggressors led by the United States on their country, they launched retaliatory strikes. The Houthis claim they sank one American ship and shot down an American F-22 Raptor fighter jet. There are no photo or video evidence of these events yet.

https://tochka.press/2024/01/12/102771/

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Tucan

Well, for 23 mm and perhaps even for 30 mm there is no particular point in making shells with a programmable detonation, the explosive filling coefficient will be too low and the fragmentation field will be small. In any case, such shells smaller than 35 mm are not mass-produced abroad

48 grams of explosives in an OFZ projectile is only two times less than in the Russian Geographical Society, the projectile can be specially developed, the small field is compensated by decent, although not sufficient for a direct hit, accuracy and, more importantly, the 30 is super-common.

Along with the 35 mm AHEAD ammunition, Rheinmetall has developed similar ammunition in the 30 mm caliber (30 x 173 mm) PMC308, meeting the NATO standard (Fig. 9).

Despite the smaller caliber, the use of 30 mm ammunition in some cases turns out to be more preferable, since it allows saving the volume occupied by the gun’s ammunition by 50% compared to 35 mm ammunition, and by 40% compared to 75 mm ammunition. , or while maintaining the volume, significantly increase the ammunition load.

30 mm caliber ammunition is designed for firing from Rheinmetall MK30-2/ABM1 cannons and the new 30 mm Wotan automatic cannon (Wotan is the supreme deity of the ancient Germans), which, like the 35 mm cannon, has a induction fuze setter. But, as the developers note, these shells can also be used for firing from the American 30-mm Mk44 Bushmaster II automatic cannon from Orbital ATK, which has a programmer in the ammunition feed mechanism.

[Bongo]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

48 grams of explosives in an OFZ projectile is only two times less than in the Russian Geographical Society, the projectile can be specially developed, the small field is compensated by decent, although not sufficient for a direct hit, accuracy and, more importantly, the 30 is super-common.

Do not forget that a programmable projectile, and even more so a projectile with a radar fuse, will have less explosive capacity than a standard 30-mm OFZ. In addition, it is also necessary to take into account the thickness and material of the projectile body, and the ability to form a fragmentation “cloud” during an air explosion.
According to the “cost-effectiveness” criterion, when used for air defense purposes, the use of 30-mm and especially 23-mm “non-contact” projectiles is not justified. Caliber directly affects not only the internal volume and mass of the projectile, but also the effective firing range. To effectively use programmable fragmentation munitions, it is necessary to have an advanced fire control system, as well as a modern optoelectronic or radar target detection and tracking system. It is not advisable to install such equipment on a self-propelled gun with a short range. In my purely subjective opinion, we need to make an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 37-45 mm machine guns. This will allow you to create not only a shot with a satisfactory damage radius, but also have a decent firing range and a sufficient amount of ammunition on board.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bongo

Do not forget that a programmable projectile, and even more so a projectile with a radar fuse, will have less explosive capacity than a standard 30-mm OFZ

I seriously doubt it, it’s not 45 or even 85 now. You look at the contact fuse for OFZ 30*165 and compare with prog. for 30 mm Orbital
https://warinform.ru/news-view-299.html
https://s30116489994.mirtesen.ru/blog/43649074746/Snaryad-s-programmirUyemyim-vzryivatelem-Orbital-ATK--Northrop-G
Even if ours is larger than the American one, it will probably fit into the dimensions of the ancient Soviet one. And there’s no talk of a radar fuse; don’t confuse a programmable one with a non-contact one.

Quote: Bongo

According to the “cost-effectiveness” criterion, when used for air defense purposes, the use of 30-mm and especially 23-mm “non-contact” projectiles is not justified.

Where does the data come from? Well, okay, 23 mm, but 30 amers are supposed to be used against infantry, and it’s completely justified to use drones, even in terms of “cost-effectiveness,” not to mention “the cost of the object being covered.”

Quote: Bongo

In my purely subjective opinion, we need to make an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 37-45 mm machine guns.

For God's sake, how long will this rearmament cost and last? And here they are, 30s, and for lancet-like and FPV drones the range is enough for the eyes. While the fire control system is sufficient, the accuracy of the projectiles for a direct hit is insufficient.

[Semenov197]

37 and 45, nevertheless, forgotten by the troops and, more importantly, by industry, will be remembered for a long time and dearly. Isn't the promising 57 immediately better without a doubt?

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Tucan

Well, for 23 mm and perhaps even for 30 mm there is no particular point in making shells with programmable detonation

In order to deviate from course or disable a small drone, it will be enough to hit it with a tiny pellet.

[Civil]

1. Since the main threat from the air in modern combat conditions is UAVs (which has been warned about since the 00s), accordingly, UAV fighters, small-sized and cheap air defense missile systems, and large “fields” of drone mines with power supply or autonomous docking stations are needed for self-charging. It is possible with systems using inert gases to save charge. Both object and solid.
2. Aviation of World War 1 also began with plywood airplanes, and by World War 2 there were already all-metal airplanes. The UAV will evolve in the same way. With the same dimensions, UAVs will become high-speed, armored (partially) and will attack in swarms of thousands (tens of thousands) of pieces. Geranium has already received cheap jet engines, for example.
3. Of course, systems will be developed (or are already being tested) for launching missiles (ballistic, cruise, space-based) with warhead carriers where instead of cluster munitions there will be hundreds of UAVs.

[Passing]

Quote: Civil

Aviation during World War 1 also began with plywood airplanes, and by World War 2 there were already all-metal airplanes. The UAV will evolve in the same way. With the same size, UAVs will become high-speed, armored (partially) and will attack in swarms of thousands (tens of thousands) of pieces.

False analogy, wrong conclusions. The evolution took place exactly the opposite - from a huge, reactive, all-metal, expensive, and therefore piecemeal, to a small, cheap and therefore incredibly massive one. Further evolution - there will definitely be no armor, speed is in question, because speed can only be added with a jet engine, and this will sharply increase the cost, by an order of magnitude. But a sharp rise in price is still inevitable, in view of the inevitability of complication - thermal imagers, stealth, AI, communications ala Starlink, a more powerful warhead, this will cause a slight increase in size and weight (conditionally doubled), and a huge increase in price, because on mass, cheap , civilian technologies will no longer be able to build this. That is why there will not be countless swarms eclipsing the sun, because drones will no longer be cheap in price.
Why is complication inevitable? Because the current drone is neutralized and shot down simply for pennies, with the most primitive systems that can be assembled in a garage using civilian components. Why are drones now a nightmare for the entire front? Because our military-industrial complex sleepily tinkers with stupid projects that have lost their relevance, instead of clearly understanding the situation, setting extremely specific priorities, allocating any money and resources, finding people who guarantee the result with their own heads, gnawing their teeth for days, not sleeping at night, but giving the front what it really needs already yesterday.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A tiny pellet will not be enough to destroy a drone. The shot must be at least medium in size and must be hard.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Tucan

Well, for 23 mm and perhaps even for 30 mm there is no particular point in making shells with programmable detonation,

What if we take it not by “size”, but by quantity? A large amount of “trifles” in 1 second will allow you to “instantly” fill a “cube” of airspace with fragments! It will work out well against small UAVs (swarms of UAVs!)! The complexity and high cost of programmable “small” projectiles can be reduced with a special approach! 1. For example, the use of the “master-slave” concept! That is, the “leading” projectile does not have an explosive, but is “stuffed” with a non-contact radio frequency fuse; and the other projectiles in the queue (!) have a passive radio fuse...2. We have 23-mm and 30-mm multi-element (shrapnel) shells in service... The fuse has a fixed firing time. We choose a fixed but optimal firing time! We write in the instructions the recommended firing distance for shrapnel shells! What's further than this distance - rockets!

[Bongo]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

For example, the use of the “master-slave” concept! That is, the “leading” projectile does not have an explosive, but is “stuffed” with a non-contact radio frequency fuse; and the other projectiles in the queue (!) have a passive radio fuse ...

Vladimir, share this idea with Mitrofanov. He will write another article...

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Bongo

share this idea with Mitrofanov

So...the idea is not mine! (looked at it in “free patents”! )

[alexoff]

If I fall asleep and wake up in a hundred years and they ask me what is currently being discussed at VO, I will answer: 30 mm shells with remote detonation.
And back in 2019, NPO Pribor announced preparations for the production of 57 mm shells and such detonation, and controllable ones for derivation-air defense. As you can see, there is no further talk...

[Vlad2012]

If you shoot at low-flying UAVs over the heads of your own infantry, then a small-caliber projectile is preferable precisely because there is less scattering of fragments and less chance of hitting your own.

[barbos]

there is not a word about programmable fuses for 23-30-57 mm

How do you imagine programming in the same standard 2A42? How technically feasible is this? Not to mention the complexity of the fuse itself. In addition to electronics, it must have a power source for this very electronics, and this is an extremely capricious thing compared to electronics. If you install an ionistor, then you need to have time to charge it before firing. And all this, along with programming, must be done at the rate of fire of 2A42.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from barbos

How do you imagine programming in the same standard 2A42? How technically feasible is this? Not to mention the complexity of the fuse itself. In addition to electronics, it must have a power source for this very electronics, and this is an extremely capricious thing compared to electronics. If you install an ionistor, then you need to have time to charge it before firing. And all this, along with programming, must be done at the rate of fire of 2A42.

Your Internet is one-way, only works for transmission? How did OrbitalATK, Oerlikon and Mauser Werke solve all this?

[barbos]

Your Internet is one-way

Yes, yes. Just like you and everyone else. Because it was made by technical specialists whose cultural code influencing their thinking is binary. Therefore there is client, which asks the server something and server, which responds to client requests. And so it is everywhere.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from barbos

Yes, yes. Just like you and everyone else. Because it was made by technical specialists whose cultural code influencing their thinking is binary. Therefore, there is a client who asks the server something and a server that responds to the client’s requests. And so it is everywhere.

Now it’s clear why you ask idiotic questions without taking an interest in the topic, your cultural code is like this...
In addition, the Internet is not one-way, as you describe, but simplex, if you use telecom terms. But specifically, your Internet is one-way, there is no provision for transmission or reception.

[barbos]

the Internet is not one-way, as you describe, but simplex

In general, simplex is the most one-way type of communication. An example of this is an ordinary broadcast station that simply broadcasts. It only has a transmitter and no receivers.
Here's the link so you don't make a mistake next time
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C#:~:text=%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C%20%E2%80%94%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9,%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%20%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8.

But specifically, your Internet is one-way, there is no provision for transmission or reception.

How do you, dear man, imagine reception and transmission in a system with packet switching and code-address separation?
Then let's talk about the levels of the canonical OSI model
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C_OSI

[Vladimir_2U]

It's funny to read "foolishly" from a person who has been I tried to answer, but couldn’t get past the paragraph of my own link:

As defined by ITU-T, a simplex communication scheme allows the transmission of signals at every moment time in only one direction. At another point in time signals can be transmitted in the opposite direction. This type of communication is usually called half-duplex communication. An example of this type of communication is network cards connected by a coaxial cable and many types of technological radio communications.

Quote from barbos

Then let's talk about the levels of the canonical OSI model

Why go into the wilds if you messed up in the first position.

By the way, why are you suddenly interested in studying the issue? It’s shameful, really, but there is still no debate on the original subject of the dispute?

Quote from barbos

How do you imagine programming in the same standard 2A42? How technically feasible is this? Not to mention the complexity of the fuse itself. In addition to electronics, it must have a power source for this very electronics, and this is an extremely capricious thing compared to electronics.

All the same, your Internet is just one-sided, like a “broadcast station”, when it’s not profitable for you, I’ll clarify.

[barbos]

Well, let's go. Where do we start? With the ability to read, something that others can’t do?

According to ITU-T definition, a simplex communication scheme allows signals to be transmitted in only one direction at a time.

And what do we have here written in plain Russian in Russian? I'll try syllable by syllable. IN every moment in time is transmitted in only one direction. I understand that I really want to say that at any moment in time transmitted in a different direction, only in physics there is no such thing (not at every moment in time), as a consequence in radio engineering too.

We look further.

At another point in time, signals may be transmitted in the opposite direction. This type of communication is usually called half-duplex communication.

What does the last sentence say? I will repeat. This type of communication is usually called half-duplex communication That is, this is completely different. Civilian and military portable radio stations are just about this. About half-duplex. Now I’ll leave a link specifically so that they can read it and think about it. I think a week should be enough to master the material.
https://technical_translator_dictionary.academic.ru/178497/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81
So read it, and don’t embarrass yourself next time. Сimlex, пOluduplex and дplexes even begin with different letters - to make it easier to distinguish the difference. I specially highlighted the first letters so that the endings of words are not misleading. Otherwise everyone is similar.

What do we have about the OSI model and the difference between frequency division of channels and code-address division? Any suggestions or wishes?

But there is still no dispute on the original subject of the dispute?

Apparently we also need to be reminded. So, the question is quite simple (I repeat) how do you imagine this based on 2A42? Simply in our own words: we install a detonation controller based on such an architecture (RISK, CISC, WLIV, some of yours personally), which is programmed (where?) based on the readings of a laser range finder, radar or lidar (it is advisable to provide a link to Ali, because we do not produce this), the controller and electric fuse will be powered from a battery, capacitor or ionistor built into the shot (underline as appropriate). Will the controller be programmed via a simplex or half-duplex channel? Previously I provided a link explaining the difference. Can you handle it? If I have a chance, I'll stop by in a week and check. Hold on)

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from barbos

What does the last sentence say? I will repeat. This type of communication is usually called half-duplex communication

As he knew, as he knew.
Dear Hoshe (whatever that means), the official definition and “commonly called” are not the same thing. Generally an elementary thing.

A-priory The ITU-T simplex communication scheme allows signals to be transmitted in only one direction at a time. At another point in time, signals may be transmitted in the opposite direction. This type of communication is usually called half-duplex communication.

ITU-T - Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the International Telecommunication Union, which gives such a definition, is not ANSI - American National Standards Institute, Russia adheres to International Agreements, but you, with your “broadcast station”, can of course comply with the Amers.

Great Encyclopedic Dictionary
SIMPLEX COMMUNICATION - two-way communication between 2 points, in which in each of them transmission and reception of messages are carried out alternately.

Simplex communication - two-way communication, in which the transmission and reception of messages (signals) between two correspondents is carried out alternately over one communication channel.
Explanatory Naval Dictionary, 2010

simplex communication - 3.4 simplex communication (simplex): A method of communication in which the transmission possible in each of the two channel directions telecommunications through, for example, manual control. Dictionary-reference book of terms of normative and technical documentation

From your own link...

Quote from barbos

Simplex, half-duplex and duplex even begin with different letters - to make it easier to distinguish the difference. ...What do we have about the OSI model and the difference between frequency division of channels and code-address division? Any suggestions or wishes?...Just in your own words: install a detonation controller based on such an architecture (RISK, CISC, WLIV, some of your own)

You should not pass off the ability to search on the Internet, which you have little command of, as your knowledge, which you do not have at all. (I’m a little better with this, but that’s enough against you).

Quote from barbos

Simply in your own words: we install a detonation controller based on such an architecture (RISK, CISC, WLIV, some of yours personally)

Oh, again letters pulled from the internet.
And what kind of architecture (what a clever word, did you learn from the Internet?) is used in the UVI-10 Ainet remote detonation system? Of course, 125 mm is not 30, well, the zeros (more precisely, the 90s) are not the 20s.
However, it is clear that you still don’t understand how several developers dealt with the problem.

Quote from barbos

The controller and electric fuse will be powered from a battery, capacitor or ionistor built into the shot (underline as appropriate).

What a shame... An ionistor is a capacitor, only an advanced one.
And charging/power can be carried out by a pair of receiving inductor - capacitor/battery (before the shot) or a piezoelectric generator - capacitor/battery (during the shot), or something else, I’m sure there are enough ways.

Quote from barbos

Will the controller be programmed via a simplex or half-duplex channel?

Well, if you are used to looking at Americans in the mouth from their ANSI, then a simplex, and according to the normal Russian classification, a one-way data transmission channel (“broadcast station,” to put it understandably to you).

Quote from barbos

So, the question is quite simple (I repeat) how do you imagine this based on 2A42?

Without even touching on the fact that besides the 2A42 there are other 30*165 mm guns, there is an inductive programmer, which, I dare to assume, can be easily installed on one of the two 2A42 tape receivers, and there is a muzzle programmer, also inductive, but without charging, combined with a speed meter (as on 2A38), which is even easier to install. Well, the specifically Russian method is to program a fired projectile with a laser, but here you can’t just use a fuse; you need a projectile with a bottom fuse, i.e. special developments.

Quote from barbos

based on readings from a laser rangefinder, radar or lidar (it is advisable to provide a link to Ali, because we do not produce this)

However, why argue with a person who believes that domestic fire control systems do not have laser rangefinders?!!!

[Vladimir_2U]

I've wasted an hour on your enlightenment, be proud... Although I learned a couple of things myself.

[barbos]

Nothing much to be proud of. Because more than an hour is spent on self-conviction, but not on enlightenment. I can’t praise you enough for a good internet search. Otherwise, we would have gone to the World of Knowledge and taken a closer look
https://deepcloud.ru/articles/chto-takoe-simpleks-i-dupleks-v-radiosvyazi/

Quite simple and easy to explain material. I recommend.
In addition to childish bravado, you can simply try to become more familiar with the theoretical part. This is not shameful and even useful. Then there wasn't another chance to goof up. How much is it possible? It's time to draw at least some conclusions. For example, the same ionistor According to its characteristics, it occupies an intermediate position between a capacitor and a chemical current source. Therefore, it cannot be strictly classified as one or the other. It’s like with semiconductors. Or do you think these are also guides, only advanced ones?

Concerning

Of course, 125 mm is not 30, well, the zeros (more precisely, the 90s) are not the 20s

Isn’t that what we have in microelectronics now? By what minimum technological standards can they work on Angrem or Integral with an acceptable defect rate? Very similar to what happened in the late 90s in the West. Therefore, if there are working specimens under 30 mm, these will be single gold specimens.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Tucan

No specifics, a set of general phrases

You're right ! We need specifications, passwords, appearances, names of leading designers, R&D codes, photos of prototypes, design sketches! Shouldn't we write a letter to the RF Ministry of Defense accusing this state structure of being undemocratic and closed? The people demand to know!

[Toucan]

Do you disagree that the article is “about nothing”?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Tucan

Do you disagree that the article is “about nothing”?

So there is nothing yet...or almost nothing! There is a “notification” that they have “moved”! Now you can dream about what will happen! It became clear to me even before the SVO that the current generation of air defense systems is rapidly becoming obsolete! The next generation of air defense systems should differ in many ways from the present! For example, I now “see” in what directions air defense/missile defense systems can be improved and what changes there may be!

[Bongo]

These are the author’s fabrications, and nothing more....

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Bongo

These are the author’s fabrications, and nothing more.

Not only....I think that some changes are really “overdue”! (And I didn’t read Mitrofanov’s article carefully...so, I “skimmed” half of the article. I didn’t have the patience for more!)

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Tucan

Do you disagree that the article is “about nothing”?

So there is nothing yet...or almost nothing! There is a “notification” that they have “moved”! Now you can dream about what will happen! It became clear to me even before the SVO that the current generation of air defense systems is rapidly becoming obsolete! The next generation of air defense systems should differ in many ways from the present! For example, I now “see” in what directions air defense/missile defense systems can be improved and what changes there may be!

[RUSa]

Exactly! It feels like the text was written by a neural network and posted here with minimal human corrections.

[Etoya]

Early warning systems for attacks are needed, as well as mobile systems that plug holes. In the first case, systems on balloons are quite suitable; they can be raised quite high at any point. In the second case, we need UAVs that will cover the holes. We need systems that track the movement of enemy missiles in order to destroy them while still on the ground.

[Toucan]

Quote from Etoya

Early warning systems for attacks are needed, as well as mobile systems that plug holes. In the first case, systems on balloons are quite suitable; they can be raised quite high at any point.

Balloons in the front line?

[Devil13]

57mm derivation and T-15.
That's all.

[Lech from Android.]

Missiles, lasers and electronic warfare: the next stage in the development of military air defense

It’s rather weak for the future... we need to think about satellite air defense now... from Earth’s orbit it is always easier and more accurate to hit missile launch pads and airfields with enemy aircraft taking off.
We need to aim at more global things than just military or object air defense.
But I’m afraid some of our generals have little imagination and progress in their brains.
The beginning of the Northern Military District clearly showed this...

[Dutchman Michel]

For some reason, after reading the article, I remembered Gogol’s “Dead Souls” and its hero Manilov:

It would be nice if suddenly an underground passage was built from the house or a stone bridge was built across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and merchants would sit in them and sell various small goods needed by the peasants ©

[Mikhail Maslov]

And again there is a fly in the ointment. Without the development of comprehensive reconnaissance systems, any air defense will work after the fact, and therefore react with delay and delay. The second no less important component is the common reconnaissance-user network. Another note: air defense, electronic warfare, UAVs should become the norm for any divisions

[andrewkor]

It would be good to use EMP against a swarm of UAVs. Of course, protecting your own electronics.
How to do this in reality you need to think about?

[2k11]

If memory serves, a warhead with an EMP generator already existed in the 80s. At least we studied it in detail. The effective impact radius did not exceed 1-2 hundred meters.

And most importantly, colleagues, we are all mainly talking about increasing the effectiveness of weapons, and we forget that in air defense, especially air defense of the ground, it is much more important to do it in a timely manner goal to detect. Detection, efficient and timely, all existing and future types of goals - this is the main and main task. And how to hit a target discovered and taken for escort is the tenth thing

[barbos]

Anti-drone guns, with some stretch, can be classified as these weapons. You can take away from scientists some of their toys for high-energy physics and then it can really jam like in that movie about Ocean's 11.

[barbos]

Anti-drone guns, with some stretch, can be classified as these weapons. You can take away from scientists some of their toys for high-energy physics and then it can really jam like in that movie about Ocean's 11.

[Yuras_Belarus]

Combat lasers are what made me laugh about this text. A light beam of any origin begins to expand immediately after it appears, and after hitting the target, it is not the beam that is reflected on it, but a light spot. Burning the target coating is possible either at a very close distance or with very large energy expenditures to excite the medium in which the laser beam is formed. So you either need to attach the laser to the target or carry a small nuclear power plant with you. Currently, lasers are only suitable for blinding optics, target designation and range measurement.

[barbos]

A light beam of any origin begins to expand immediately after its occurrence.

According to your data, how much is the divergence in arc seconds per kilometer for the same carbon dioxide laser? What to do with the self-focusing effect of a laser beam when it just begins to gather?

So you either need to attach a laser to the target or carry a small nuclear power plant with you

Some semiconductor lasers have an efficiency of 90% (imported, everything is poor and poor here). We have many heat engines (guns), even when the newest ones do not produce as much.

Currently, lasers are only suitable for blinding optics, target designation and ranging

In general, there are difficulties in determining what exactly a source in the terahertz range refers to. So he can just lightly fry people (stick his face out, get a burn) and electronics. In this field, we currently have only laboratory numerical models and some made of special lamps such as TWTs, klystrons, maybe even a couple of magnetrons (also laboratory).

[Damask]

The next stage of development will be a bomb or missile, the explosion of which em or another type of radiation will destroy enemy electronics at long distances

[barbos]

The next stage of development will be a bomb or rocket, the explosion of which will release em or another type of radiation

So it will soon be a century since such a bomb was tested on the inhabitants of Japan. There, mass turns into energy with the abundant release of a large amount of energy. It is the gamma radiation resulting from strong (nuclear) interaction that works very well in electronics.

[Greek]

Hello. Please tell me, I can’t understand why many people write that the electric copter is not visible in a thermal imager and is not knocked down by a heat-seeking missile? In this Article and in general on the Internet there are a lot of videos showing how ordinary copters are very clearly visible https://topwar.ru/231293-baba-jaga-protiv-drony-uchatsja-voevat-po-novomu.html
Also, there used to be a myth that it is impossible for MANPADS to shoot down UAVs of the Orlan type and the Geranium type with very little heat. In the latest videos they posted how their entire body glows through thermal sights docked to the carts. Etc. https://t.me/our_odessa/59717

[savage3000]

Greek, the contrast mode of the MANPADS head is turned on. There is definitely something like this on the willow. With this mode, targets against the sky are lost.

[egsp]

In the first photo, Thor is old (M1 most likely), SOC is not PAR.

[savage3000]

It should be noted that the use of anti-aircraft guided missiles is not always justified or advisable. Such a product can be several times or tens of times more expensive than the destroyed UAV
××××××××÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷


Ryabov Kirill, what are you writing???

How much does an FPV drone cost? 50 thousand. How much does the TOP cost, which is affected by this FPV drone? Isn't it cheaper to spend an expensive missile, but not lose the air defense system?

[Andrey2912]

Yes, it’s better to work with drones using special drones. It seems like that - instead of optics, radio imager interferometers (PFAR), superior altitude, for detection and acceleration in a catch-up dive, good energy for long patrols.

[Andrey2912]

By the way, Karasnopol would benefit from PFAR interferometers in stabilizers; in this case, they could set their position from the howitzer’s slot antenna at the ballistic peak, from there, already equipped with a correction and planning module, they could fly at least twice as far if Lancet would also share a targeting module with such people. In short, it would be a tough surprise, about which who the hell will have time to say, even if they manage to blow smoke, they will not have time to drive away under it.

[savage3000]

I think this is nonsense. And nothing changes.

It's been going on for two years, but: there is almost no electronic warfare against FPV on the equipment, there are no drone detectors visible among the equipment, on the TOR type, the shell still does not have a system for detecting and suppressing drones. There are still no shells with controlled detonation. And so on. There are no purchases of shotguns for soldiers, portable UAV detectors and much more.

The points converted for Glonass are not visible.

Some kind of crap, in short.

[egsp]

[/quote]Based on the results of this work, in the early thirties, combat vehicles with missiles, guns, lasers and jamming stations will be able to enter service.[quote]

There will also be a Jedi sword, a slingshot and a transcriber

[Trinitrotoluene]

Of course there is a laser, they even announced a competition among the people and called it overexposure, as if they had already forgotten about it.