Russia needs to get bolder. The question is what and how
In the previous article “To go or not to go” pressing questions were asked, but any of them require answers. And now we will try to analyze several options for the development of events, tightly tying them with politics, because without this there is nowhere.
But first, let’s outline a situation that is, as it were, on par with a combat mission, and many of our readers have already submitted some very good ideas in this regard.
What does American opposition to the Russian Army in the south generally look like?
It’s simple: a flying nuisance like the RQ-4B enters the neutral waters of the Black Sea, closer to the border of our territorial zone, and begins to calmly circle there.
Let us emphasize – in accordance with international law.
Here is a diagram showing the division of maritime territorial zones. Air space is divided in exactly the same way as sea space. That is, 12 miles of territorial waters are inviolable, this is the territory of the state. 12 miles of the adjacent zone, also called customs or sanitary, is actually a continuation of territorial waters, in this zone the state has the right to exercise control over ships of other countries. In general, this is also a control zone, including in the air, if there were appropriate means for this.
But this is 12+12=24 miles or about 45 kilometers. But then the special economic zone begins. And since we are not interested in the production of oil, gas and fish, as far as our affairs are concerned, then, in accordance with international law, anyone can fly and swim there, as long as they do not violate international sets of rules.
That is, a reconnaissance UAV can easily fly into the SEZ, which is 370 km from the low tide line. And if in the first two zones the question “Should we go?” It’s not worth it at all, because you have to leave without talking, then in the third, economic, albeit special, there are problems with this. Since the UAV does not fish, does not extract oil, gas and other minerals, it does not seem to violate anything! Especially if it staggers without interfering with civil and military aircraft.
And so a tadpole like RQ-4B or MQ-9 flies into the SEZ of the Russian Federation on the Black Sea and begins to fly. At a decent altitude - 15–17 km, that is, without interfering with civil aircraft that fly much lower.
It turns out that there is such a repeater in the air that is able to hang for almost a day, not only is it looking at a decent distance with its systems, it is also capable of processing the information received and, using its communication systems, transmitting various information to those who really need it.
They are urgently needed, for example, by operators of unmanned boats of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which at this moment are heading towards Sevastopol. Or UAV gunners flying to Feodosia.
"Hawk" and "Reaper" are quite capable of seeing these devices and guiding them to the target. And do it quite accurately. Moreover, from such a height, the tadpole perfectly observes, for example, ships located at the piers or in the roadstead, and perfectly corrects the course of the BEC. We all saw how this happens; Starlink antennas were present on all neutralized boats.
But that's only half an orange.
Simultaneously with the guidance, the Yastreb BEC or UAV can perfectly view the entire coastal zone and note the reaction of the Russian side. Where and when, in what direction the ships came out to intercept the boats, how many helicopters were scrambled, and how many planes and on what courses they took.
This is the main task of the "Hawk" and "Reaper" - to provide information about the tactical situation in the region of operation. Airplanes, helicopters, missile complexes, ships - everything that sensors can capture drone, will be chewed by the processor and transmitted via satellites to the information center.
Everything is in real time and with precise coordinates: synthetic aperture radar is a very serious component of avionics, and the SAR/MTI subsystem provides scanning and detection of moving targets within a radius of 100 km.
In general, this SAR/MTI allows observation with a resolution of 6 meters over a strip of width 37 km and length from 20 to 110 km.
That is, the Hawk can quite normally track almost all methods of counteraction on our part: missile launches Defense, takeoffs of fighters, helicopters, movements of warships. After which we can expect a variety of ways in which the situation may develop, from a change of course by the same BEKs to a strike by cruise missiles or ATAKMS on SAM positions. Or any combination, it is not so important here.
In the above diagram from the cartographic studio “Colored Pencils “Tactics” by Alexander Zimovsky, you can evaluate how the “Yastreb” RQ-4B worked almost unhindered for 16 hours in the line of sight of its AWACS equipment in the southern part of the Black Sea at an altitude of about 16 meters.
Plus, it is worth noting that at times the device approached our borders on the verge of a foul in the Sochi area. How much information he was able to process and transmit during this time is, in fact, a very vital question.
It is absolutely clear and understandable that this device, calmly flying along our border and watching everything that happens on our side, and even transmitting everything it sees via satellites anywhere, is absolutely not in the hands of Russia. And it really needs to be dropped into the waves of our warm Black Sea.
The question is how?
Let's think about what methods can be used to knock down the same “Hawk” from the height to which he climbs, so that there is nothing politically responsible for it?
In general, of course, there will be a howl in any case, but the whole question is purely in the consequences.
Let's start from the bottom up.
6. The ship
A ship at point X with missiles capable of performing such a task.
That’s why it’s in last place because everything is sad in this regard. Considering such a formidable enemy as that very unit of the Ukrainian Armed Forces with unmanned boats, which showed itself so well, everything is completely sad. And somehow we have very few ships with the naval analogue of the S-300 on the Black Sea. True, you can easily rely on Shtil-1, which is an extremely harmful thing, because the Buk just needs to get a little closer. That's all.
This means that the only ones who can depict something so meaningful are the old and new “Petrel”, of which there are as many as five on the Black Sea. And considering that “Grigorovich” is performing some tasks in the Mediterranean Sea, then all four.
But the ship is a large and clearly located target. The exit and any movements of the ship will not be a secret, especially since it is still clearly visible from satellites. What to do, a ship is a slow thing. And there's nothing to be done about it.
No complaints, actually, just a statement of fact: a vile dirty trick like the “Hawk” or “Reaper” will easily and naturally fly around any ship beyond the reach of its air defense.
In addition, the launch of a rocket from a ship is simply perfectly monitored and becomes public knowledge and the subject of showdowns. And since the ship is very clearly tied to a point in space, it is very difficult to excuse the crew who thought that the drone was in our space.
In general, we have few ships, and everything is somehow tense with them. And this is not the best way to counteract.
5. Coastal air defense systems
Coastal air defense systems, even if placed at the very forefront, are not very effective against such a target as even a large drone. A long distance gives rise to unpleasant moments with the possibility of retargeting missiles, as was already the case in the Black Sea or in the Mediterranean, when Syrian “specialists” shot down our Il-20.
Even if we assume theoretically that our missile will be retargeted at some civilian aircraft, as the Ukrainian one did at one time, the probability is very small, but even it should be excluded, which means that the use of air defense missiles at their maximum distances should be abandoned.
And firing a missile at a drone that is located in neutral space will definitely ensure howling and groaning everywhere, from the media to the UN Security Council. And no one will listen to the arguments of the Russian side, and our diplomats are not very good; they will not prove that the UAV posed a security threat by its actions. And then all sorts of resolutions and further sanctions. Everything as usual.
However, this option should not be discounted.
Aviation
It's very interesting here. There are several ways to use aircraft to destroy UAVs. More precisely, we are talking about the use of various types of weapons.
4. Rockets
Missiles are also missiles in Africa, and therefore the use of missile weapons by fighters is quite comparable with the previous points. That is, it is quite possible to track the launch (and with the cameras of the same UAV) and, based on the evidence obtained, create just a luxurious scandal.
And then measures will most likely be taken. Laughter and laughter, and when our plane’s missile went down in an emergency, not even completely in the direction of the British plane, for quite a decent time in the Black Sea region all the relevant NATO planes flew with fighter cover. Covering a drone that can fly for almost a day is, of course, still a pleasure, but other methods of protection can be used. Political and financial.
In general, the use of missiles is too noticeable and definitely entails not the most pleasant consequences. Therefore, it is worth acting more subtly and not so noticeably.
3. Maneuver
The maneuver is quite a good thing. Both a cloud of kerosene dumped along the UAV’s route and a stream of hot gases from the nozzles of engines operating in afterburner are not bad. And effective. But the trouble is - this has already happened, and remember how many shouts there were about the fact that Russian pilots do not comply with international flight safety rules?
Apparently it works, because there have been no recent air incidents. Reconnaissance tadpoles fly around as if at home.
2. Artillery
More interesting thing. And due to the fact that the Hawk and the Reaper do not have rear-view cameras (not a problem, of course, but not yet), you can safely approach from the rear hemisphere and fire a certain number of shells. It’s possible to miss such a hefty thing, but it’s difficult, especially if the pilot is trained.
And a burst from a cannon is not as noticeable as a rocket. Moreover, who has seen how the “frrr” of 20 shells occurs - quickly and almost imperceptibly.
Here, of course, the only question will be whether NATO gentlemen will be able to quickly catch material evidence of a riddled nature from the water. If they catch it, high, of course, they will raise a universal one, but if they don’t, it won’t, and there will be no trial.
1. EW
This is truly the top of our hit parade. In general, what could be better than an airplane flying a kilometer or two from a drone?
Doesn’t violate any international codes and rules, after which the UAV either flies in the wrong direction or flies down completely?
Moreover, both options are working. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel for them. There are hanging containers. From the same “Geranium”/“Lilac”. But you will have to stuff a slightly different set of blocks into them.
The guts of the “Resident”, the part that stifles navigation, would be great, because that’s what the station does just brilliantly. Plus, all the equipment of the “Resident” is not so bulky. A reconnaissance UAV that doesn’t know where it’s flying is unpleasant. Because he can fly anywhere, but there (see points above), in our territorial waters, no one cares that his navigation is faulty.
Or something completely epoch-making, like “Lever”. Yes, you will have to work a lot here, “Lever” is heavy. And its capture sector is not 180 degrees, much less, but, as they say, a flying microwave will cook jelly from any processor.
The use of electronic jamming stations looks most preferable from a political point of view. Who knows what is in the bottle under the belly of the plane, kerosene or radio-electronic units? And it will be very difficult to present a burned-out processor as evidence. Who knows what caused it to burn? Maybe it was Chinese...
Why is so much attention paid to the political component of the conflict? Why American drones don’t go astray except for two very acrobatic stunts performed by Russian pilots?
Because politics is the engine and brake of everything in the world. Starting from military conflicts and ending with Olympic ridicule. She is behind everything. And therefore, yes, you have to act with an eye on what the world will say.
On the one hand, I understand that this seems to be the case, but on the other...
On the other hand, he would rent a drilling rig to the Houthis in the area preferred by Hawk operators for flights. Providing them with everything necessary for life. Well, you know what we're talking about. These guys generally have politics down their sleeves; they have no authority in the West. So whether it’s an aircraft carrier or a drone...
We must lead by example. Okay, Russia is a civilized country, but even a civilized country needs a certain amount of arrogance. And sometimes it turns out like in a Soviet cartoon – the mice are vicious, and the cat is still saying, “Let’s live together.” The way our diplomats express concern goes something like this.
No, our world today is not like that. Respect is only given when a club is attached to a sweet smile and a bow on the neck. Large and knotty, plus it demonstrates the desire of this club to retreat from someone who does not understand where the shores are.
A strange war with a constant look to the West and a demonstration of readiness for negotiations - where is the strength and confidence here?
Advance towards Kharkov? Yes, I agree. This is better than a thousand words about negotiations, because in our country, unfortunately, everything except unconditional surrender ends with either the Brest Peace or Khasavyurt. And always not in our favor.
So, yes, it’s realistic here only up to Karlshorst, but what to do if it doesn’t work out any other way?
Perhaps the term “arrogance” is not entirely correct, it is more about demonstrating strength and confidence in one’s actions, but what difference does it make if the United States has to pay for it with its “Hawks” who work for Ukraine?
If you drop a number of RQ-4 Global Hawks, and each one costs $140 million, that is, a little more than the F-16 Fighting Falcon (34 million for Block 52), enlightenment should come to the brain. The lost millions of dollars contribute greatly to this.
Besides, what else, what sanctions can scare us? Put titanium on the sanctions list? Yeah, Boeing will be the first to rush to the Senate with hammers.
What else can you do to scare us all who are already so scared? No, of course, if we are talking about personal sanctions, such as golf courses in Europe and hotels in Dubai, then, of course, yes. There is no trick here against scrap.
But if we are talking about how to demonstrate power and self-confidence, it’s hard to think of anything better than a couple of “Hawks” flying to the Black Sea on vacation. After all, whatever one may say, the damage is purely financial, people will not suffer in any way. This means that all of the above points are good.
In the end, sooner or later, you will have to start. So, maybe we can bang after all? Even if not the whole world is in ruins, but a couple of “Hawks” are very necessary...
Information