An endangered species: the uncertain future of AWACS aircraft

Quantity and quality of

Hardly anyone can doubt that long-range radar detection and control aircraft (AWACS) play a huge role in combat operations. The conduct of the Russian Special Military Operation (SVO) in Ukraine clearly demonstrated the importance of these vehicles, as well as their shortage in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces).

At the beginning of the SVO we talked about this in materials "Russian special operation in Ukraine: to dispel the fog of war" и "Issues on the use of AWACS aircraft, reconnaissance and combat control during the NWO in Ukraine". Especially The effectiveness of AWACS aircraft became noticeable when they learned to work with anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), ensuring the destruction of enemy aircraft and helicopters beyond the radio horizon.

Apparently, the problem with the shortage of AWACS aircraft in the Russian Armed Forces is so acute that a decision has been made to produce AWACS aircraft in the A-50U version, obviously in some kind of modernized version, without waiting for the completion of the protracted development of the newest AWACS aircraft A-100 "Premier" (most likely, we are talking about restoring and upgrading to the A-50U version of all A-50 AWACS aircraft available to the Russian Armed Forces).

Aircraft AWACS A-100 "Premier". Image by Wikimedia Commons/Trolyambus

One of the ways to saturate the RF Armed Forces with AWACS aircraft is to create so-called ersatz solutions, that is, machines made on the basis of any serial aircraft and modified serial radar systems (RLS), even if they have worse characteristics compared to “full-fledged” machines , but less expensive and easier to produce - we previously discussed this issue in the material “AWACS aircraft for the Russian Air Force: fast, many, inexpensive”.

We should not forget about the possibility of creating highly specialized machines, for example, based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which we discussed in the material “Waiting for the Helios-RLD UAV: ​​for protection against low-flying air attack weapons” (SVN), however, the UAV-DRLOs discussed in this material are designed specifically for detecting low-flying SVVs in their air superiority zone aviation – the low power of the radar will not allow the use of the considered AWACS UAVs for hunting airplanes and helicopters deep in enemy territory (however, this does not apply to all possible options for creating UAV-based AWACS vehicles).

Model of the Helios-RLD UAV. Image by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation

The problem is not only in the number of AWACS aircraft in the ranks of the Russian Armed Forces, but also in the fact that these machines are extremely vulnerable to enemy fire. Recent events have shown that no matter how difficult it is to increase the fleet of AWACS aircraft, it is just as easy to lose these machines. The high survivability of NATO AWACS aircraft is due only to the fact that we do not fire at them. It can be assumed that if NATO countries transfer a certain number of AWACS aircraft to Ukraine, they will fall from the sky faster than the Leopards and Abrams are burning on the front line.

Threats from ground and air

Realizing the importance of AWACS aircraft for gaining air supremacy, the world's leading countries are actively developing weapons capable of reaching them. In particular, Russia has developed and operates anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs) with a range of up to 400 kilometers, used by the S-400 air defense system.

Also, long-range air-to-air (“A-A”) missiles have been created for aircraft carriers, for example, such as the R-37, R-37M (RVV-BD) with a firing range of up to 300 kilometers. Presumably, the V-V KS-172 missile with a firing range of over 400 kilometers is in development.

Rocket "V-V" R-37M (RVV-BD). Image by Wikimedia Commons / Vitaly V. Kuzmin

Of particular concern is the possibility of the enemy using an air defense system in ambush mode, according to external target designation data; in this case, the enemy air defense system is extremely difficult to detect in advance, and even after launching a missile defense system, it can quickly change location and evade a retaliatory strike.

The capabilities of the air defense systems of Western countries in this regard are more modest, however, according to open data, missile defense systems are being developed for the Patriot air defense system, designed to destroy aerodynamic targets at a range of about 250–280 kilometers. In addition, the SM-2 missile defense system with a firing range of up to 240 kilometers has already been created for the Standard ship-based air defense system, which, presumably, can also be used from ground-based mobile launchers (PU).

In terms of aircraft carriers, NATO countries have adopted the European B-B missile MBDA Meteor with a ramjet engine. Despite the stated range of 100 kilometers, it is assumed that when firing along a ballistic trajectory, its range can reach 150–300 kilometers, which makes it quite possible to hit such large and low-maneuverable targets as AWACS aircraft at this distance.

V-V missile MBDA Meteor with ramjet engine. Image mbda-systems.com

The maximum launch range of the American B-B missile AIM-120D is 180 kilometers, but it is possible that this missile can attack low-maneuverable targets along a ballistic trajectory at a much greater distance.

Also, presumably, the enemy’s SAMs and V-V missiles can be guided not only using their active radar homing head (ARH), but also using a broadband passive homing head to the source of radar radiation - the radar of the AWACS aircraft.

As the functionality of AWACS aircraft expands, for example, in terms of detecting ground, surface, and, to a limited extent, underwater targets (for example, submarines with a raised periscope), the opposing sides will make more and more efforts to destroy enemy AWACS aircraft, and accordingly will More and more effective means of destroying these machines at long distances are being developed.

A special role in the hunt for AWACS aircraft can be played by a “distributed fighter” - an orbital network of satellites supposedly capable of detecting not only hypersonic and ballistic missiles, but also other aircraft, as we previously discussed in the materials "HBTSS and PWSA Satellite Network: Distributed Fighter Can Become a Tool for Absolute Air Superiority" и “Anti-air attack weapons (AA): ground strike echelon of a “distributed fighter”.

Another significant factor is the emergence of high-speed satellite communication networks capable of transmitting large amounts of information in real time, which makes it possible to provide two-way satellite communication with SAMs and V-V missiles for real-time correction of their flight trajectory when firing at long range according to data external target designation.

All of the above suggests that the chances of survival for large, low-maneuverable combat and support aircraft will be significantly reduced in the foreseeable future. While missile-carrying bombers still have a chance to survive due to the significantly increased flight range of cruise missiles, AWACS aircraft do not have this luxury - the increase in the effectiveness of their radar systems is compensated by a decrease in visibility in the radar range of air attack weapons (AEA).

Conclusions

Based on the above, we can say with a high degree of confidence that the future of AWACS aircraft with a traditional layout looks very sad.

Previously, we have repeatedly said that incorrect conclusions can be drawn based on the results of any military conflict.

For example, when the successful bombing of the Barmalei in Syria led to conclusions being drawn about the need to use a minimum amount of high-precision weapons in favor of the use of conventional, unguided aerial bombs, whose guidance was quite accurately carried out using the SVP-24 Hephaestus aviation sighting and navigation systems, as a result it turned out that when fighting a more high-tech enemy, this does not work - the planes are simply shot down when approaching the target, which led to the need for accelerated development and organization of mass production of unified planning and correction modules (UMPC).

Exactly the same situation may arise with AWACS aircraft. Yes, we needed them yesterday, we really need them today, but if we talk about tomorrow, then the only thing that AWACS aircraft with a traditional layout will be suitable for, be it models with a “mushroom” above the fuselage or more modern solutions with a flat antenna located along the hull, then this is control of airspace in the depths of its territory, at a distance of at least five thousand kilometers from enemy aircraft and air defense systems capable of operating against AWACS aircraft with their long-range weapons.

The expected appearance of the prototype V-V KS-172 missile with a range of up to 400 kilometers - it and others like it can close the era of AWACS aircraft with a traditional layout. Image by Wikimedia Commons/Piotr Butowski

NATO countries, and not only them, are now actively purchasing AWACS aircraft of the traditional configuration, inspired by their successes in the Ukrainian theater of military operations, because AWACS aircraft from NATO countries largely closed low altitudes over the territory of Western Ukraine for our aviation.

However, all this became possible only because we do not shoot down these planes. If Poland and the Baltic countries really got involved in the conflict, it would suddenly become clear that AWACS aircraft would not last long over their territory.

Considering how many low-flying and inexpensive air attack weapons will be used in predicted conflicts, which must be quickly detected and shot down, any AWACS aircraft will be in great demand (including just AWACS aircraft, without personnel on board carrying out target distribution and target designation) , however, in this case it is still better to build a network of UAV-AWACS, which we already talked about earlier - such a solution will be cheaper both in construction and in operation.

As for the construction of promising long-range radar detection systems designed to gain air superiority in the fight against a comparable or stronger enemy, their appearance will be significantly different from what we see now, but we’ll talk about that another time.

Comments

[FoBoss_VM]

It’s a no brainer that the time has come a long time ago to switch to afars, to move away from bulky moving structures with heavy drives and hydraulic motors. This and the modern element base makes it possible to use other gliders besides the Il76, which are cheaper and less bulky. But there are a lot of BUTs... and above all, the people who are at the helm of management and decision-makers. Those who destroyed and did not develop the radio-electronic industry, nor the machine tool industry, nor high-precision manufacturing. Entire industries simply ceased to exist, citing the fact that we have oil, gas, coal, timber, and we will buy the rest. Well, gentlemen, Kremlin managers, have you bought everything?

[ramzay21]

If you look at how our AWACS planes were shot down, it becomes clear that they were shot down not because they were outdated, but because of the lack of training of our degenerals and those who make decisions.
And to avoid this it was necessary
firstly, adopt the experience of NATO AWACS aircraft, where such aircraft must control air defense systems and their missiles, as well as fighter aircraft and their missiles.
Secondly, every AWACS aircraft on the BS must ALWAYS be accompanied by a pair of fighters, because only headless horsemen and our degenerals do not understand that the AWACS aircraft is defenseless and needs protection from missiles.
Thirdly, it was necessary to practice during exercises various actions with the participation of AWACS aircraft, including attacks on these aircraft and repelling such attacks in conditions as close as possible to combat, which our degenerals do not like to do, because this must be plowed, especially after an autopsy shortcomings that need to be eliminated together with the leadership of the military-industrial complex, but they also don’t like to work.
Fourthly, if AWACS aircraft, together with Tu-204R aircraft and Su-35 and Su-34 groups, had adequately trained against enemy air defenses, then not only would there not have been air defense ambushes, but the enemy’s air defense in this area would have been suppressed, which would have made possible free operation of our Su-34s over the enemy, with all the ensuing bad consequences for him
Fifth, strategic reconnaissance UAVs and AWACS UAVs are of course needed, but they require a constellation of satellites capable of transmitting large volumes of information in large quantities.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: ramzay21

And to avoid this it was necessary
firstly, adopt the experience of NATO AWACS aircraft, where such aircraft must control air defense systems and their missiles, as well as fighter aircraft and their missiles.

As far as I understand, many air defense systems have been removed from storage, it is unlikely that they have interface systems with AWACS

Quote: ramzay21

Secondly, every AWACS aircraft on the BS must ALWAYS be accompanied by a pair of fighters, because only headless horsemen and our degenerals do not understand that the AWACS aircraft is defenseless and needs protection from missiles.

Well, then the fighters will be shot down, 6-8 missiles will be launched, and then what? And are the R-77-1 and R-37M capable of intercepting the Patriot or S-300/400 missiles, for example?

Quote: ramzay21

Fourthly, if AWACS aircraft, together with Tu-204R aircraft and Su-35 and Su-34 groups, had adequately trained against enemy air defenses, then not only would there not have been air defense ambushes, but the enemy’s air defense in this area would have been suppressed, which would have made possible free operation of our Su-34s over the enemy, with all the ensuing bad consequences for him

It’s difficult, the enemy’s air defense systems are dispersed, they rarely turn on their radars so that they don’t fly in. The same launchers are dispersed.

[ramzay21]

As far as I understand, many air defense systems have been removed from storage, it is unlikely that they have interface systems with AWACS

And the S-400 that shot down our A-50U?

Well, then the fighters will be shot down, 6-8 missiles will be launched, and then what? And are the R-77-1 and R-37M capable of intercepting the Patriot or S-300/400 missiles, for example?

Are you saying that our fighters can’t do anything at all? Fighters are designed to shoot down enemy aircraft, including missiles. And we need to practice repelling attacks on protected targets during exercises in peacetime so that we don’t have to tell plaintive stories later, and if the country’s leadership and the Defense Ministry are not able to organize this, then they should leave and give the opportunity to those who can organize it.

It’s difficult, the enemy’s air defense systems are dispersed, they rarely turn on their radars so that they don’t fly in. The same launchers are dispersed.

Again, this should have been practiced in exercises and not just window dressing, then there wouldn’t have been any difficulties. And again, the main question is the inability of the degenerals to organize and manage the army and not that the enemy is fighting against us and not playing giveaways as the degenerals planned in numerous and stupid show-off exercises.

[alexoff]

Quote: ramzay21

Do you want to say that our fighters can’t do anything at all? Fighters are designed to shoot down enemy aircraft, including missiles.

Fighters can still carry electronic warfare equipment and, if necessary, cover a more important comrade with their fuselage

[ramzay21]

Fighters can still carry electronic warfare equipment and, if necessary, cover a more important comrade with their fuselage

For good reason, an electronic warfare aircraft should, of course, be a separate specialized aircraft.
And fighters, yes, in a critical situation they must protect the AWACS aircraft from attack, but it is better to destroy all targets, especially since long-range missiles are limited in maneuvering.

[alexoff]

We don’t like specialization, especially in the last 30 years; somewhere between AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft, smaller reconnaissance aircraft should fly, and even closer to the front, aircraft without pilots at all. So they consistently have to cover the big boss, notify about danger, and so on.
But we don’t have a systematic approach, otherwise there wouldn’t be such articles at all. That an aircraft directing air defense receives a missile from the same air defense into itself, this cannot happen without degradation of leadership or direct betrayal, which is, in principle, the same degradation of leadership. And this is repeated twice. And then one fall the head of the Federal Air Transport Agency was fired, then it turned out that his subordinates had been charged with selling our planes and helicopters overseas. Maybe some general will also be fired like this, and his subordinates will be imprisoned for exceeding their authority. And the general will buy his daughter a villa in Spain, we won’t even know

[Khanyga]

Purely within the framework of game theory:

[/quote]Well, then the fighters will be shot down, 6-8 missiles will be launched, and then what? And are the R-77-1 and R-37M capable of intercepting the Patriot or S-300/400 missiles, for example? [quote]

Assumption, also known as a local theorem: everything that has reliably registered radar, thermal, visual, etc. marks can be deactivated in the oncoming/counter-side cone of destruction from the TARGET POSITION.
Specific considerations from specialists, but from a purely amateurish point of view, when a missile defense system is flying at you, it is not a problem to ensure an oncoming lateral course; detection under the conditions that the target is an AWACS system, too, two questions remain: launch from the target position for the enemy missile defense system and the means defeats. The author proposes a solution to the minimum of the first task - constant escort by at least two fighters, and what they have on the pylons is the second question, anti-missiles, IMHO, because the task of destroying missile defense launch platforms is not a priority specifically for ESCORT FIGHTERS.
The only thing is that the mention of missiles with a kinetic destructive warhead during the stated interception task is not entirely correct, especially the R-37M due to its increased range; by the time it reaches the interception point of the enemy missile defense system, it will already have flown a considerable part of the distance itself.

[Deon59]

Two Patriot systems are 13 percent of air defense and it’s not difficult to calculate the number. And this number successfully works against our VKS.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: ramzay21

if AWACS aircraft, together with Tu-204R aircraft and Su-35 and Su-34 groups, had adequately trained against enemy air defenses, then not only would there not have been air defense ambushes, but the enemy’s air defense in this area would have been suppressed,

The idea is correct, but there are questions and nuances.
1. The Patriots worked on our aircraft from an “ambush”, that is, not emitting EMR into the air, but using the “picture” received from the artificial satellite (radar) via link-16. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to detect such a complex using RTS... So, you need to “do something” with the R/L detection and issuance of the control center. And we do not use our latest systems (if they exist, of course) for obvious reasons.
2. The Jews boldly climbed into the SAR, provoking our S-300s to open fire and, after all, avoided the missile defense systems using avionics/repairs and traps... But for some reason ours are not eager to become heroes, preserving the flight crew (and that’s right! ), but also without gaining experience in avoiding missiles.
3. The Yankees in “Desert Storm” and other operations in the war zone did use air defense clearing and penetration groups... they crushed Iraqi air defense systems (including those made by us, albeit old ones), gained experience, but where are our attempts in this direction?
= I interpolate all this (the situation with air defense and the role of AWACS) on the Central Theater of Operations and it turns out that apart from how vigorous the loaf is, we have nothing to smother them with... And this causes a feeling of deep dissatisfaction... If NATO is very itchy, then we need to be ready, but for now I don’t really see the options for solving this problem.
/Better bitter, but the truth, than pleasant, but a lie (c)/
IMHO.

[ramzay21]

. Patriots worked on our aircraft from an “ambush”, that is, not emitting EMR into the air, but using the “picture” received from the artificial satellite (radar) via link-16. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to detect such a complex using RTS... So, you need to “do something” with the R/L detection and issuance of the control center.

Tactics to counter such tactics had to be sought and tested in exercises. I think that a good countermeasure to such enemy tactics would be to have a pair of Su-57s with anti-radar missiles and possibly missiles with seekers on the WWII, plus a couple of deployed Iskanders, Tu-204R and A-50U aircraft with cover fighters in positions, and to use several UAVs to detect the operation of the air defense system A pacer with control via satellite channels similar to link-16. The air defense systems, even without turning on the backlight, will launch missiles at the Pacer UAV or risk being detected by a UAV capable of destroying it. If missiles are launched, and the A-50U or Tu-204R is detected and transferred to the Su-57 and Iskander, then the air defense system may not have a chance to quickly fold up and leave. In any case, this needs to be checked, practiced, and variations performed during exercises.

[Boa kaa]

The proposals are sensible. But no forces were allocated to cover the A-50U. A Su-57 with a Kh-59 could have solved the problem, but it wasn’t there. And the aviation chief, apparently, didn’t even have such a thought. Extraordinary carelessness!

[ramzay21]

This is NATO’s tactics, they understand that the main thing is to gain air superiority, and in order to gain it against a country that has air defense, it is necessary to destroy this air defense and prevent the emergence of new air defense systems in a given area.
In the USSR, some Air Force generals also understood this, which is why they ordered AWACS aircraft and tried to work out joint actions of AWACS and Air Force aircraft.
In the Russian Federation, the degenerals of the Aerospace Forces are, firstly, unteachable, secondly, lazy, and thirdly, they consider themselves the smartest and most knowledgeable, and therefore, having AWACS aircraft, air defense systems, Su-57, Su-35 and Su-34 aircraft and modern anti-radar missiles, they are not able to they could read how NATO operates and create a similar system without reinventing the wheel, but they can’t do that either.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: ramzay21

Modern degenerals...are not able to at least read how NATO operates and create a similar system without reinventing the wheel, but they cannot do that either.

If this is truly so, then woe to us orphans...
But I still hope that not everything is as sad as you wrote!

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

In the Russian Federation, the degenerals of the Aerospace Forces are, firstly, unteachable, secondly, lazy, and thirdly, they consider themselves the smartest and most knowledgeable, and therefore, having AWACS aircraft, air defense missile systems, Su-57, Su-35 and Su-34 aircraft and modern anti-radar missiles, they are not able to

Have you looked at the statistics of destroyed air defense systems and their launchers over the past week? In fact, 20 enemy air defense missile launchers and 10 illumination/guidance radars were destroyed. Yes, this happened after the loss of two A-50Us with their crews, but it was apparently not expected that the enemy would bring long- and medium-range air defense systems to the LBS itself... apparently. Especially with such (long) range missiles. And in many cases these air defense systems were destroyed along with their crews, incl. and from Western countries. So, you are still overreacting about learning disabilities; war (especially in its third year) teaches even clinically poor students.
In addition, in the third year of the war, it’s time for members of the forum to stop behaving like a pregnant high school student shouting “how long” and “the generals fell in love with polymers,” and look at the war as a dynamic process when your enemy (a very serious one in the form of NATO) too learns, comes up with new moves to counter your countermoves, and on our part we take retaliatory measures accordingly. The destruction of enemy air defense systems in the front-line zone over the past week cannot be called anything other than an operation to suppress enemy air defense in a specific theater of operations. And it was carried out quite successfully. And hysterics have already begun in Western countries. Incl. in Germany, where the same Patriot air defense system was from, destroyed almost in its entirety on the march, along with its GERMAN crew.
So we got even for the lost A-50U.
By the way, the fact of the destruction of the German “Patriot” in the front-line zone, precisely where fire was likely coming from on our AWACS aircraft, suggests that it is not in vain that the Ministry of Defense is now secreting all the information, incl. about the circumstances of the downing of this plane. For immediately after such a loss, the hunt for the hunter began. And the hunter (Patriot) is destroyed.
I could support your indignation if it weren’t for the obvious results of the countermeasures taken and the removal of so many air defense systems from the enemy’s front-line zone... They are suffering greatly from our FAB with UMPC, they took the risk of bringing long-range air defense systems to the LBS, and now they have lost several dozens of them, including Patriot, S-300, a couple of Bukovs, several imported medium-range air defense systems and more than a dozen of the Strela-10 type. This was a very effective operation to suppress air defenses. Although in response to the losses of our strike aircraft and two AWACS.
This is war. Losses are inevitable there. And in war they always lie, because war is a path of deception.
For our AWACS aircraft.
In principle, the delivery to the troops at the end of last year and the beginning of this year of two newly modernized A-50Us has already stopped/compensated for these losses. There were eight A-50Us in service, and they remain so, and they promise to deliver another one this year.
What is this talking about?
The fact that with the beginning of the SVO, the shameful practice of saving on the modernization of these aircraft was stopped, limiting itself to the modernization of one aircraft within 2 years. Since last year, we have already begun to receive 2 aircraft per year, all available non-modernized A-50s have already been sent for modernization, and in the absence of any more, the decision was made to build them from scratch, on the basis of those buildings that are scheduled for delivery for the A-100 configuration , which is not yet ready for the series. And such a decision is certainly correct and the only correct one in the current situation.
And this suggests that WAR TEACHES.

[VB]

Name at least the main and main culprit of what is happening, this is Putin. Twist and be modest. The president is responsible for everything, and the cadres decide, well, you know..."The country was ruined by mediocrity..." (Maurice Druon)

[bear cub]

On what basis, dear author, do you claim that NATO planes will begin to fall after the start of the conflict? After the start of the conflict, it may turn out that our planes will not be able to take off because the airports were destroyed by a massive missile attack. The quantitative advantage of Western long-range radar detection aircraft is not even worth mentioning, because before they lose half of their service life, Russia will conduct reconnaissance using balloons and a private with binoculars.

[zyablik.olga]

As for the construction of promising long-range radar detection systems designed to gain air superiority in the fight against a comparable or stronger enemy, their appearance will be significantly different from what we see now, but we’ll talk about that another time.

Maybe we should not? The author’s conclusions regarding the concept of the use and future of AWACS aircraft are mostly made up from thin air.
The endless references to your loved one are also very touching.

[S.Z.]

IMHO, it is in Ukraine that a satellite constellation would be most useful. At least it is inaccessible to air defense. It is better to invest in the future rather than in the past, and the future is space.

[common man]

The high survivability of NATO AWACS aircraft is due only to the fact that we do not fire at them.

I propose to transfer our AWACS aircraft to Iran and ask them to fly in neutral waters near Odessa.
And yes. Belarusians can also scan Ukraine from their territory.

[Glory1974]

I propose to transfer our AWACS aircraft to Iran and ask them to fly in neutral waters near Odessa

Good idea. Unfortunately, ours will not do this.
It was possible to shoot down reconnaissance drones a long time ago, since they are used to kill our soldiers. But even red lines have ceased to be drawn.

[Vadim S]

I agree, such aircraft are already a thing of the past; satellites, UAVs, and some new solutions are needed.

[Vladimir80]

Maybe the past, for example, the United States launches drones over the Black Sea, which coordinate attacks on a long bridge and the remnants of the fleet...

[Vadim S]

That's right, but our couch minusers still believe in the Soviet legacy, which is easily knocked down, it is closer to them

[bug120560]

Given the current ratio of the military potentials of NATO and the Russian Federation, conducting any military operations without nuclear weapons is a guaranteed defeat for us.

[Maluck]

A more or less advanced UAV can hang in the air for about 40 hours. Question - how long can the A-50 hang? I don’t even want to talk about the cost. For the price of one A-50, you can build 4-5 reconnaissance UAVs and there will be no need to risk a qualified crew. They, in turn, will provide scanning of the area 24/7. The main thing is that they can fly at an altitude of more than 20 km, then all low-flying targets will be at their fingertips.

[Izotovp]

In the conditions of air defense, to monitor enemy territory, I propose to “sow” enemy territory with helicopter-type UAVs with passive radars for artillery and aviation reconnaissance with data transmission in packets.
And in the Black Sea, the most dangerous areas will be seeded with similar sensors to protect against attacks by sea and aircraft drones.
This will make it possible to create a permanent observation field regardless of the aviation situation.

[solar]

Helicopter-type UAV with passive radars for artillery and aviation reconnaissance with data transmission in packets.

Do you know what the range and time in the air of a conventional helicopter are?

[Izotovp]

I'm not suggesting patrolling. That's the point.) I propose to “drop” them. Like stationary sensors. And receive a signal field of passive sensors on enemy territory.

[solar]

And in the Black Sea, the most dangerous directions will be planted with similar sensors

And how to sow the sea with them? Drown or what?

[Izotovp]

Actually, there is such a thing as beacons.

[solar]

And what does “helicopter-type UAV” have to do with it?
How to install a radar on the buoy? and a separate question - what is it?

passive radars for artillery and aviation reconnaissance with data transmission in packets.

Can you name an example of a real-life device of this type?

[Izotovp]

Using a helicopter-type cargo UAV, you can deliver small passive (non-radiating) small antennas, similar to those used in air defense radars or artillery reconnaissance stations with a battery and a data transmission antenna.

[alexoff]

Which? The airborne forces had more helicopters than planes, but even according to Konashenkov’s statistics, many times fewer helicopters were shot down. Since the beginning of 2023, we have literally 4-5 helicopters shot down, and one or two were precisely from our own air defense.

[Demon]

It is much cheaper to launch inflatable balloons with radars in a tailwind. Moreover, it is advantageous to launch it in a pack with pacifiers. A weather balloon over America confirmed the validity of this decision.

[Dedok]

really liked this:

For example, when the successful bombing of the “barmalei” in Syria led to the fact that conclusions were drawn about the need to use a minimum amount of precision weapons in favor of the use of conventional, unguided aerial bombs, whose guidance was quite accurately carried out using the SVP-24 “Hephaestus” aircraft sighting and navigation systems, as a result, it turned out that this does not work when fighting a more high-tech enemy

what’s it like from Chernomyrdin - “it never happened and here it is again”
so ask those - “did such conclusions”
All our problems come from the fact that there are no “officers, i.e. military men”, there are only managers in military uniform
How long can you drag this out?

Based on the above, we can say with a high degree of confidence that the future of AWACS aircraft traditional layout looks very sadabout.

What is a "traditional layout"?
for example, it seems like they were going to transfer officials to “Chinese” (cars) - so there is no “traditional instrument panel” there either - but only tablets... and nothing, what’s the problem here?
M.B. things should be called by their proper names

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dedok

what’s it like from Chernomyrdin - “it never happened and here it is again”
so ask those - “did such conclusions”
All our problems come from the fact that there are no “officers, i.e. military men”, there are only managers in military uniform

This is how it is everywhere. The economy must be economical, and war even more so. And since until recently conflicts were mostly local and of low intensity, budget solutions began to be invented in all countries. After all, it seemed that it would always be like this.
The same USAF, until 2022, held on to the Warthog with its teeth - because even the US budget could not afford to spend 25 kilobucks on each bearded man with a rusty machine gun, and another 60-80 kilobucks for every hour of flight. And now the same officers who three or four years ago mockingly demanded that the Penguin perform all the tasks of an attack aircraft, including brrrrrt, they want to quickly re-equip the assault squadrons with Penguins. Because the era of Zusul smoking suddenly ended, and as practice has shown, a classic attack aircraft can do nothing more.

[Dedok]

Quote: S.Z.

It is better to invest in the future rather than in the past, and the future is space.

Why didn’t you invest “yesterday”?
Do you remember the manager named Rogozin?
ask him why he slept and didn’t “invest”...
or maybe We just flew into space “today”?

[alexoff]

Rogozin is some kind of scapegoat, he could distribute the money, but the investment should have been made by higher people, who distribute the budgets and sequestered the space program at least twice

[Glagol1]

The AWACS aircraft will see a missile launched in its direction and may change course. The flight time for 300 km is 6 minutes or so, you can fly (for the A-50) for 70-80 km during this time. And the AWACS aircraft can also deploy electronic warfare. Don't write this look off. But the carrier and filling must be changed to the Tu-214.

[Yuras_Belarus]

Any plane is vulnerable. Large AWACS systems were initially designed not for flights in a combat zone, but for strategic reconnaissance in peacetime. They were supposed to cover the voids in the country's unified air defense and missile defense radar field, which inevitably appear due to the practical impossibility of blocking the air and near space with ground-based radars. On the battlefield, they are unable to respond to clouds and clouds of small and medium-sized targets. Here it will be more effective to use a multi-rank network of radar patrol UAVs with direct access from units and subunits on the battlefield. Well, for reconnaissance and target designation deep in enemy territory, a large space group with a reliable communications system is needed.

[merkava-2bet]

I would like to ask the author, how many AWACS aircraft have been shot down in combat over the past 70 years, besides Russian ones?

[jdiver]

The high survivability of NATO AWACS aircraft is due only to the fact that we do not fire at them.

And if we make a couple more logical transitions from this phrase, we can name the reason why we find ourselves in the role of a duck on a duck hunt, which does not return fire.

[the same doctor]

There is no need to engage in self-justification and tell tales of uselessness and vulnerability.
An AWACS aircraft is invulnerable if it works in conjunction with aviation and air defense. Stupid generals put him up for slaughter, like the admirals of Moscow, in order to solve their petty affairs and problems, to demonstrate activity...
.
Any weapon must arrive at the front as part of trained units with a trained commander at a high rank. So that no one could give him stupid orders.
For any drone, the highest commander should be the captain in command of the artillery battery. The drone operators, the security platoon, the communications department, the battery itself...

The A-50 requires a whole air group and air defense, like around an American aircraft carrier. And this force also cannot be released to the front without prior training and coordination. Was there such a force UNDER UNITED COMMAND around our intelligence officer? Or, like “Moscow”, they were sent to scare and demonstrate?

[DO]

An endangered species: the uncertain future of AWACS aircraft

In the Northern Military District theater of operations - yes, of course. Because the enemy’s priority target A-50U cannot live there for long. At the same time, modifying an A-50 into an A-50U takes 2 years, its export price (according to Google) is $500 million, the crew is a flight crew of 5 people + a tactical crew of 10 unique specialists.
But in the Northern Military District theater of operations, for reconnaissance of the enemy’s rear, as a carrier of a flat side-view radar with an AFAR, there is practically no alternative to a fighter, preferably an unmanned one. For example, it could be an old Su-27, modernized into an unmanned AWACS aircraft with an overhead panel radar; there is a serial reconnaissance version of the manned Su-34 with the Sych UKP-RL overhead radar. A fast and maneuverable fighter has a chance to evade an enemy missile, and does not cost astronomical money like the A-50U. Several radar carriers, naturally, must be connected by radio channels to a ground-based operator center (if required, through UAV repeaters).
===
But for the deep rear and borders of Russia with countries with which there are currently no hostilities, the A-50U is still needed. For

Quote: Google

The length of Russia's territory from north to south exceeds 4000 km, from west to east it approaches 10 km. The total length of Russia's borders is 000 km (of which 60 km are maritime borders).
Area of ​​Russia - 17 km²

It was practically impossible to cover such lengths of borders and territories around important infrastructure facilities with a continuous stationary radar field, even in Soviet times.
The solution is to use A-50U AWACS aircraft to control, for example, the Northern Route, the Far East, borders with NATO countries (at a sufficient distance from them).

[nswe]

alternatives
Albatross M5. The complex's time in the air is up to 4,5 hours. The maximum flight altitude of the device is 5 km, the maximum flight range is 300 km
Helios-RLD instead of AWACS /cm svpressa/
the brains didn't have enough. performance characteristics: speed = 350−450 km/h, flight duration - from 24 to 30 hours, maximum ceiling - 11 km
experts position not only its ability to detect (regardless of the degree of complexity of the terrain) low-flying objects, but also to control the operation of enemy space electronic reconnaissance systems that track the location of operating radars of the Russian Armed Forces

A-50
Flight duration:
Maximum without refueling: 9,3 hours
1000 km patrol:
No refueling: 4 hours
With 1 refueling: 7 hours

A-50, or similar, required. for your tasks. but, in the absence of fish... or a drone, a hot air balloon will do. with appropriate equipment. which, by the way, weighs far from 20 tons. satellites are flying. Tama count per kg, grams

[TerraSandera]

Well, yes, no, that means they won’t be needed soon. The rest are fools that China makes them too.
Some kind of nonsense, not an article

[nordscout]

It is possible that the A-100 “Premier” and others like it in NATO are an anachronism! But! Such devices will be needed for a long time... Perhaps they will be drones, with their own protection systems, or compact aircraft based on “jet”, such as the Israeli Eitam system.