Invisible death for American guests

71
Invisible death for American guests

While comprehending what was happening in the skies over the Black Sea and considering options for the development of events and methods of countering air pirates, I was caught by the news that work on the creation of a new aircraft was in full swing in South Korea.

It would seem that South Korea is there and where are their planes? In fact, yes, South Korean-built ships and cars are in greater demand in the world than airplanes. Especially combat ones.



However, work on its own aircraft in South Korea has been going on for a long time and, it must be said, not without success. Yes, the KF-21 Boramae does not at all look like a fifth-generation fighter, even taking into account the fact that the United States handed over the honor of technological developments for the F-35 to its Asian allies. The maximum that the KF-21 can do is generation 4,5 or 4+, whatever you like, the point is not in numbers, but in capabilities.


The KF-21 Boramae is a promising and promising aircraft, the main thing is that its creators do not plan to produce “unparalleled in the world”, their maximum tasks are much simpler: an aircraft that will surpass the F-16 in its capabilities and characteristics.

But what we are currently interested in is not the KF-21, but the KF-21EA. And this is planned on the basis of the two-seat combat training KF-21B electronic warfare aircraft. Naturally, there will be no dual control, and the second place will be given to the operator of the systems with which this aircraft is supposed to be stuffed from the heart.

The creation of this aircraft was originally planned under the KF-X program and there is little doubt that the work will progress as planned. And, sooner or later, the KF-21EA will take to the air and begin testing.

This will not happen tomorrow, development has just begun, which means that a lot of time and money will still pass before there are any sane results. But what is important to us is not the result, but a certain trend.

And it will lead to the fact that the Republic of Korea will have the KF-21EA (Electronic Attack) electronic warfare and air defense suppression aircraft. Considering the close friendship between the South Koreans and the Americans, it will most likely be an analogue of the Boeing EA-18G “Growler”, which has been in service with the US Navy since 2008. That is, a completely tested and normally operated carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft.

It is planned to install three electronic warfare containers and two electronic reconnaissance equipment containers on the KF-21EA.

On the ventral hardpoint there will be a container with low-frequency electronic warfare systems, and on two underwing nodes there will be two containers with high-frequency electronic electronic warfare systems, that is, the operator will be able to suppress enemy radar systems in almost the entire frequency range. And containers with electronic reconnaissance equipment will be placed on the wingtips.

Naturally, four hardpoints will be allocated to accommodate a pair of air-to-air missiles for self-defense, and two for AARGM-ER anti-radar missiles. That is, to have something to finish off what was not suppressed.

If Korean aircraft manufacturers nevertheless decide on the issue of an intra-fuselage weapons compartment, then this will not add stealth to such an aircraft, but will allow it to carry more missiles for defense and attack. The plans call for the compartment to accommodate either four long-range Meteors or eight air-to-surface missiles.

The KF-21EA avionics will also differ from the original version in the presence of a new promising airborne radar with AFAR and a new airborne defense complex, to which elements of network-centric interaction will be added. In the long term, the KF-21EA is considered as one of the elements of the promising NACS (Next Air Combat System), developed by KAI, which, according to the developers’ plans, will be able to “attach” UAVs controlled via satellite communication channels to aircraft.

The creation of the KF-21EA is planned for approximately 2036, but the timing is highly dependent on the completion date of work directly on the KF-21 Boramae. And he made his first flight in July 2022, that is, just two years ago. And already during 2023, the manufacturer KAI transferred six flight prototypes of the aircraft to the Air Force for testing, two of the six were two-seater, which made it possible to conduct parallel studies of the capabilities of such aircraft, including the program for creating an electronic warfare aircraft.


On June 25, 2024, the South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Agency awarded KAI a $1,41 billion contract to supply the South Korean Air Force with the first 20 production KF-21 fighter jets. These aircraft are due to be handed over to the Air Force in 2026. And this amount includes $347 million, which will be spent on continuing development work on versions of the aircraft.

It is planned to purchase 2032 production KF-120 aircraft by 21, and KF-2036EA aircraft by 21.

There is not much time left to see whether South Korean aircraft manufacturers will follow the normal path or repeat the “successes” of their Indian and Pakistani colleagues. In theory, they shouldn’t, there is a certain confidence that they will succeed. The Koreans themselves can do a lot, and with close friendly assistance from the United States, they will be able to do even more, at least to implement developments on the F-35 so that it doesn’t turn out to be “expensive and rotten” - why not?

In general, South Korea will join the club of owners of electronic warfare aircraft in the very near future.

But we're not talking about airplanes, we're talking about trends. And therefore, next is China.


The PLA Air Force has such a machine as the J-16D Hidden Dragon. The Dragon made its first flight in 2015, that is, the machine is fresh. Created on the basis of the two-seat fighter J-11BS (this is a licensed Su-27SK) with technology borrowed from the Su-30MKK, which China is buying from Russia. Well, and my own developments.

The J-16 initially had 12 hardpoints, 2 between the engine nacelles, 2 under the air intakes, 6 under the wings and 2 at the wingtips, with a total payload capacity of over 8 tons.

Containers with reconnaissance equipment were immediately registered on the wingtips of the J-16D, the remaining 10 units were divided between missiles and other electronic warfare containers: the RK-Z930-22 and RK-Z930-10 containers were installed under the wing consoles, and the RK-Z930-31 and RK-Z930-32 - left and right of the fuselage. These containers house suppression equipment for different frequency ranges. In addition, the cannon was removed from the fuselage, and jamming station blocks were placed in its place.


The result is a design similar to the American NGJ REP system, in which standard jamming units are supplemented with replaceable ones in hanging containers.

Here the Chinese are great, in the design of the “Hidden Dragon” they added a mid-wave interference generation unit to the standard high- and low-frequency interference generating units, that is, if necessary, the J-16D can try to work on all ranges. How effective this will be is a question, but “extinguishing” any of the three ranges to choose from is very good.

Theoretically, an electronic warfare fighter with such a full-range suppression capability could become a very effective means of combating not only air defense systems, but also enemy aviation and - very important - drones enemy. Creating a full-fledged anti-radar protection zone around a group of one’s aircraft is strong, because if we take the example of the Americans’ use of their Growler, then one such aircraft significantly increased the security of the F/A-18, which are not at all invisible. The Hornets are not even stealth, so this was very useful for them, especially where the enemy had at least some air defense.

In addition, if rumors are confirmed that the Chinese have somehow “torn off” (although the option of developing their own system should not be discarded) the American CCS (Communications Countermeasures System), “Complex of communications countermeasures” system, then it will generally be a bomb . But it’s too early to talk about this yet.


However, intercepting and scanning voice messages (including encoded ones), as well as data transmission channels, which the system allows, with the further generation of directed interference and transmitting them through low-frequency transmitters is very unpleasant, given that the aircraft can safely operate on jamming in an area with a radius of a couple of hundred kilometers or even more.

Well, the enemy of some and the ally of others in the region is the United States. And there, of course, is what all developers in all countries of the world are looking at: the EA-18G Growler. A classic of the genre, as they say.


The EA-18G is designed for conducting electronic reconnaissance, jamming enemy radars and communications systems, and destroying radars with HARM anti-radar missiles. The “trick” of the “Grunt” is that it is a network-centric aircraft, capable of interacting with other aircraft and drones in a single information field, transmitting information both through its own communication channels and through satellites.

The aircraft has an interesting layout. It is so hung with antennas (on the sides, in the tail, in the nose, between the engines) that they allow the AN/ALQ-218(V2) complex to receive and send signals from any angle from all sides and in all directions. The gun was removed and replaced by the AN/ALQ-227(V)1 CCS (Communications Countermeasures System) complex, which intercepts signals, analyzes them, and then AN/ALQ-99 broadband low-frequency transmitters, which are placed in containers, are used. under the fuselage. This is not the best technical solution, ALQ-99 are frankly outdated and their inclusion in work with CCS is like illuminating a target with a laser for firing cannonballs from a cannon. The weak link, seriously.


On the one hand, there are satellite communications and communication systems that provide stable communication during the operation of jamming systems, and on the other, the suppressors themselves are based on lamp element base.


The EA-18G Growler's standard weapons include two narrowband and one wideband ALQ-99 jammers, two drop tanks, two AIM-120 air-to-air missiles and two HARM anti-radar missiles. Instead of a broadband transmitter, you can hang a fuel tank.

EA-18G Growler fought. The baptism of fire was during the operation in Libya, where the Grumpy coped “excellently” with the French Crotal and Soviet Osa air defense systems. True, “Crotal” was no longer dared to be called a good modern complex, and the neutralization of the 9K33 “Osa” air defense system comes from the seventies of the last century...

However, this is not the main thing.

The main thing is that we do not have anything close to these aircraft. No, we had jammer planes, but here it is - in the past tense.

The seventies, when the Yak-28PP were in service with the Soviet Air Force, can be considered the golden era of aviation electronic warfare.


The plane was not easy, but effective. True, by the 90s it was really outdated and was withdrawn from service in 1992-93. The Su-24MP was planned to replace it, but... The Yak left its post, but the Su did not come to the post.


10 aircraft were manufactured, two Su-24MPs entered the 4th TsBP in Lipetsk, and all eight production aircraft were supplied to the 118th separate aviation regiment of REP aircraft in Chertkov. After the collapse of the USSR they remained in Ukraine.

In this story electronic warfare aircraft in Russia ended before it began, and for 30 years now we have nothing in service even similar to the Growler. But the enemy has it, and it’s not just the States, the Europeans have an electronic warfare aircraft based on an attack aircraft - the Tornado ECR. It has been in service since 1989, but modernizations keep it in good shape. Both the German and Italian Air Forces operate it quite normally.


We don’t have such an aircraft, and, apparently, it’s not even expected. Meanwhile, recent practice has demonstrated the need for such a type of weapon as an electronic warfare aircraft.

Here are screenshots of one well-known program showing the presence of various aircraft in the sky, taken at different times. It can be very clearly seen that American reconnaissance UAVs fly along our borders, openly hiding behind civilian aircraft.




The picture of possible counteraction is so-so. Coastal air defense systems are at the limit of their range, and firing towards civilian corridors is a so-so idea; all that was missing was to shoot down a foreign passenger airliner. Let's dismiss the idea.

SAM systems on ships are a little more interesting, but with the same UAVs it is very easy to detect all the movements of warships and adjust the course of a drone that has a speed an order of magnitude higher than the ship’s - as easy as shelling pears.

An attack by an aircraft on an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft using missiles or a cannon - this, whatever one may say, will be regarded as an act of aggression by Russia against the United States. American drones fly in neutral airspace and nothing can be done about it.

So all that remains is to pour kerosene or create turbulent turbulence. Everything is based on the experience of Russian pilots, fortunately, it exists.

In this case, the use of electronic warfare aircraft in such a situation could be very effective. For several reasons at once.

1. An interference, as a result of which the drone will either lose contact with the control centers, or its brain will “go sour” - an intangible thing, unlike a rocket. Electromagnetic waves that fly through space and disable electronics are very old, but a nuclear air explosion is not our method. But the generated interference signal sent to the Hawk - why not? It is unproven, like buckshot compared to a rifled bullet.

2. There will be much less concern about the unenviable fate of civilian airliners in some cases. Directional antennas have not been canceled, and work on jamming using radar antennas with AFAR is carried out not only in the USA. In general, this use of radar is the most luxurious option: an electronic warfare aircraft enters from a corridor with civilian airliners, finds a drone, points the antenna at it and... Antennas with phased arrays are capable of producing a very thin (about 1-1,5 degrees) beam, which can be sent to the appropriate a way generated interference that disrupts some processes in the drone's brain.

3. The political component is practically absent due to its unprovability. There is no clause in any set of rules that prohibits fumbling with a radar beam in space. And if someone starts having problems with navigation, then questions of a completely different kind arise.

So a well-crafted interference that will blow the minds of, say, a radar altitude sensor is a very good way to end the situation as a whole. As an example.

The bad thing is that we don’t have aircraft capable of performing such an operation. Not only is it not, it is also not expected in the near future. This means that just as the American “birds” flew, so they will fly, just as the American missiles aimed at us, so they will. And we can only rely on the skill of our pilots, who will be able to do something with aerobatics. But this is not a solution to the problem.

How can a problem of this nature be solved if the Russian Aerospace Forces have only THREE electronic warfare aircraft? And even then, it’s not a very successful design, the IL-22PP, which is the “Chopper”.


In 2016, the media happily reported that “the first three new electronic warfare aircraft have been delivered to the Aerospace Forces.” These three aircraft were relatively new, since they were converted from Il-18, which were mass-produced from 1957 to 1985. Yes, having undergone a major overhaul, but still.

And these first three aircraft have so far turned out to be, since 2016, all that our Aerospace Forces have in this regard.

But the IL-22 is completely unsuitable for performing the tasks in question. It is difficult to say what guided the development of the electronic warfare aircraft theme, but the Porubshchik is not suitable for combating UAVs such as Reaper or Global Hawk. There is no doubt that the L-415 “Porubshchik” complex itself is a completely modern means of electronic warfare; our KRET produces decent electronic warfare systems, and this is known all over the world and recognized by experts and the military.

But to put the latest complex in a fifty-year-old aircraft capable of flying at a cruising speed of 500 km/h (which is obviously less than the cruising speed of the same Hawk by 200 km/h) and with a maximum ceiling of 8 meters - it looks more than strange.

Everything is simple here: as soon as the Il-22PP is detected taking off from the airfield, the operators of the same Yastreb will calmly carry out their tasks, and then just as calmly take the drone to a safe distance from the Russian aircraft. And they will do it absolutely calmly, since 300 km/h at maximum speed is an abyss.

But you will have to approach, no one can cancel physics, but it clearly says that radio waves in space (the atmosphere is not free space, if anything) tend to attenuate, depending on many factors, including the power of the transmitter and emitter, ionization, distance to the target receiver and so on. The formulas are cumbersome, but they speak about this absolutely specifically.

And in the end, rolling out an electronic warfare aircraft into the middle of the Black Sea and starting to extinguish everyone in a row is not a good idea. Unlike the quiet “Criminal” (nickname for the Su-57 in the NATO hierarchy), which can approach relatively unnoticed and use something from the available arsenal. Even if the Yastreb is driven to 18 thousand meters, there will still be a huge difference with the Il-22 if a modern jet aircraft is used instead of a turboprop aircraft.

The main problem in our case is simply the terrible inertia of our Ministry of Defense. More than ten years ago, with pomp and special effects, three “Choppers” were assembled on their knees and that was all. If we compare with the Americans, who have more than a hundred Growlers (and how many more are hanging around among the allies), the Europeans (also about a hundred Tornadoes), the Chinese... In general, we are not very good at this.

It is especially sad to understand this, knowing that our KRET makes the best complexes in the world.

The modern world is a very dynamic phenomenon, and the faster you need to adapt to it, the better and the fewer losses. Just yesterday Russia needed normal modern electronic warfare aircraft capable of solving problems in the Black Sea. And these planes are not the ancient Il-22. These are fast and high-altitude vehicles, capable of catching up with a target and knocking it out.

It’s a shame, but once again our military-industrial complex will have to play catch-up. But there’s nothing we can do about it; without solving some problems, we’ll have to start fighting others - that’s our way. The main thing is to start. But we need such machines, capable of gently and accurately sweeping away everything that hangs over the Black Sea, since missiles are simply not possible. Something needs to be done anyway.

And let Austin continue to be hysterical.
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    5 July 2024 05: 36
    What is there to talk about? The Moscow Region cannot purchase droboguns. What nafik electronic warfare...
    1. -22
      5 July 2024 05: 57
      Article plus.
      This time Roman raised an important topic and fully revealed it. But he didn't offer any solutions. We all remember our Sushka’s flights over an American destroyer in the Black Sea: then Sushka captured an entire destroyer. This means that we have some kind of suspended containers with electronic warfare and electronic warfare. If we start work on an electronic warfare fighter now, establish strict control over the expenditure of funds and deadlines, as in Stalin’s sharashka, then the aircraft can be completed in a year. Yes
      If we do nothing, the Americans will continue to shell our beaches with children and women swimming.
      1. +8
        5 July 2024 08: 29
        If we start work on an electronic warfare fighter now, establish strict control over the expenditure of funds and deadlines, as in Stalin’s sharashka, then the aircraft can be completed in a year.

        Everything you said seems to be correct, but it seems to me that the main thing is missing: are there “People” left capable of Solving such problems..."?
        after all, those who can come up with something new are paid like “everyone”, and they leave...
        today's wages have been raised again for everyone...uniformly
        In any case, the questions are primarily for those who have stripes...
        they are paid for what they do - they must think, think about protecting the Motherland, and not their own pocket
        in the meantime, the “vertical of power” cannot boast of such an attitude to work
        1. 0
          5 July 2024 21: 43
          Military pensions and UBI are indexed at 5℅, and inflation is 25℅!???!
      2. +17
        5 July 2024 09: 52
        There is a hanging container. Terribly secret. Only we lost the dryer with it and didn’t bother to find it. And they found them when we escaped from the Kharkov region. Lying in an open field.
        So now it is secret only for us. It is now unclear how effective all this is. And there are no electronic warfare aircraft again. Scouts, by the way, too. And the Moscow Region is not scratching its head about this at all.
      3. +12
        5 July 2024 10: 10
        I would not draw any conclusions from Sushka’s flight past the enemy ship. Such a trick could succeed only in peace. During the war, it was impossible to even fly close to the battlefields.
        1. +5
          5 July 2024 10: 48
          Such a trick could succeed only in peace.

          Exactly. SM-6 with a range of 350-460 km. - this is a clear confirmation of what was written...
      4. -4
        5 July 2024 10: 24
        Quote: Bearded
        start work on the fighter

        A remotely controlled (rotating mechanisms from CCTV cameras) infrared or blue laser “pointer” with a power of 1..5 kW powered by lithium-ion batteries, placed under the belly of the MiG-31 in a container on the Dagger suspension (or between the stabilizers on the upper surface of the MiG fuselage skin -31 on the RQ-4 Global Hawk video head) you can select sensitive points on the surface of the RQ-20 Global Hawk from a distance of 100..8m at altitudes of 16..4km (there are few clouds there). Sensitive points are the video head, the location of microwave antennas under radio-transparent radomes, or the lid of a fuel tank, as in the famous film “Voroshilov’s Shooter”.
        And hit it AIMED with a laser beam. Sensitive points will not like this effect. The price of the issue is a laser, a rotating mechanism with a video surveillance and aiming camera, Li-battery, work on installing the container - about 10 million rubles.
        1. 0
          8 July 2024 00: 57
          Quote: Svetlana
          power 1..5 kW powered by lithium-ion batteries, placed under the belly of the MiG-31 in a container on the Kinzhal suspension (or between the stabilizers on the upper surface of the fuselage skin of the MiG-31 on the video head of the RQ-4 Global Hawk)

          Is it okay that the MiG-31 and RQ-4 Global Hawk have completely different wings?
      5. +9
        5 July 2024 10: 49
        We all remember our Sushka’s flights over an American destroyer in the Black Sea: then Sushka captured an entire destroyer.

      6. Loh
        0
        5 July 2024 17: 09
        So the journalist is not a specialist and should not offer technical solutions
        1. 0
          5 July 2024 18: 16
          OK . Roman is a Swede, a reaper, and a trumpet player. There were jamming stations in the 80s. And in the form of hanging containers too. Only I didn’t take into account that in Iraq, for example, the Americans abandoned the directors and chose a different tactic. The Invisibles went first to the main group. And they knocked out known radars without being noticed. For a simple reason - if you interfere, the entire air defense system will go up in arms, right down to the barrage of anti-aircraft guns. And then it didn’t matter whether you were invisible or not.
          1. 0
            8 July 2024 00: 55
            Quote: dauria
            The Invisibles went first to the main group. And they knocked out known radars without being noticed.

            Not this way. Helicopters came first... And electronic warfare was used...
      7. +1
        8 July 2024 00: 25
        Quote: Bearded
        If we start work on an electronic warfare fighter now, establish strict control over the expenditure of funds and deadlines, as in Stalin’s sharashka, then the aircraft can be completed in a year.

        Will you be leading this work? And what performance characteristics should it have?
      8. 0
        14 July 2024 14: 48
        Whatever Roman proposes, the Moscow Region, due to the lack of forward-looking thinking, not even network-centric, will do nothing. KRET makes it, but there are no carriers, they didn’t provide for it
  2. +11
    5 July 2024 05: 40
    Yes that's right. There is a channel on YouTube - “Native Council of Workers”. It describes in sufficient detail how the Americans encountered air defense in Vietnam, and what conclusions they drew. How the air defense suppression strategy was developed and how it was implemented. And then, clearly, like clockwork, they destroyed Iraq. Why the USSR, and then Russia, did not pay due attention to electronic warfare aircraft is a mystery. After all, the example was before my eyes. Now this technique would be very useful
    1. +4
      5 July 2024 14: 01
      Because, as was known both now and then, Americans are stupid, effeminate weaklings and cowards. What can you learn from them? So we didn’t study.
    2. +6
      5 July 2024 18: 04
      Quote: Lykases1
      Why the USSR, and then Russia, did not pay due attention to electronic warfare aircraft is a mystery.

      The USSR had such aircraft - based on the Tu-16 and Yak-28, they served until the early 90s. New aircraft were also created/designed, but “New Russia” and Yeltsin’s gang did not need them. "There will be no war!!!" - the generals, admirals, marshals widened their eyes and the supreme commanders-in-chief smiled quietly.
      Of course, such aircraft are needed and creating hardware for them will not be difficult, and quite quickly. And you can also quickly select a plane for this, fortunately there is plenty to choose from. Off the top of my head - Su-30SM and Su-34. Both are two-seater, heavy, load-lifting, with a large range and the ability to refuel in the air.
      But Military Thought died in the Moscow Region even before the “reorganization”/dispersal of the headquarters. In the Moscow Region, even the staff has begun to think and plan ahead - there is simply no one. But young generals with model appearance appeared... either "spies with a strong body", or... "trusted assistants". But after this, the Army no longer had not only electronic warfare aircraft, but even bulletproof vests, helmets, shoes and uniforms in the mobile reserve warehouses. Now, of course, you can and should do this, and Borjomi is a very healthy drink, but you need to drink it on time... so that nothing falls off.
      1. 0
        5 July 2024 18: 31
        I trust your words - I was not interested in this topic. I just heard how the Americans approached this. Very seriously.
      2. +3
        6 July 2024 01: 06
        Yes, there were also An-12BK-PPS and Tu-22MP. But those “glorious” times came when we “had no enemies.”
      3. 0
        8 July 2024 00: 53
        Quote: bayard
        Of course, such aircraft are needed and creating hardware for them will not be difficult, and quite quickly.

        For what? Why do we need a carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft without a deck itself?
        Quote: bayard
        Off the top of my head - Su-30SM and Su-34

        There is a Tarantula electronic warfare container for them.
        1. 0
          8 July 2024 16: 27
          Quote: Comet
          For what? Why do we need a carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft without a deck itself?

          Naval Aviation not only flies from the deck, and electronic warfare aircraft are needed not only for Naval Aviation, but also for the Aerospace Forces as a whole.
          Quote: Comet
          There is a Tarantula electronic warfare container for them.

          Still, it is better to have a specialized aircraft based on a regular combat aircraft, and of course such containers are not attached to every aircraft; the crew must have specialized training. A specialist is always better than an amateur.
          1. 0
            8 July 2024 22: 33
            Quote: bayard
            Naval Aviation not only flies from the deck, and electronic warfare aircraft are needed not only for Naval Aviation, but also for the Aerospace Forces as a whole

            You did not understand me. The EA-18 is a deck carrier, its weight and dimensions are limited by an aircraft carrier. Why are these restrictions on a normal land airfield?
            Quote: bayard
            Still, it is better to have a specialized aircraft based on a regular combat aircraft, and of course such containers are not attached to every aircraft; the crew must have specialized training. A specialist is always better than an amateur

            But the US Air Force does not have an electronic warfare aircraft based on a fighter/attack aircraft. Such an electronic warfare aircraft is a solution specifically for an aircraft carrier.
            1. 0
              9 July 2024 04: 07
              Quote: Comet
              But the US Air Force does not have an electronic warfare aircraft based on a fighter/attack aircraft.

              Well, if we have fairly effective containers for tactical aircraft, then why not. Another thing is that the crews of aircraft with such containers must still have specialized training, however, most likely this is the case in real life.
    3. 0
      8 July 2024 00: 28
      Quote: Lykases1
      Yes that's right. There is a channel on YouTube - “Native Council of Workers”. It describes in sufficient detail how the Americans encountered air defense in Vietnam, and what conclusions they drew. How the air defense suppression strategy was developed and how it was implemented.

      How many aircraft did the Americans lose from this suppressed air defense in Vietnam? What do they report about this on the channel "Native Council of Workers"? What electronic warfare tactics did the Americans have in Vietnam?
      ZY Iraq is equivalent to Vietnam.
      1. 0
        8 July 2024 07: 19
        Yesterday or the day before yesterday, on the website, there was an article about -75. Read it. + - same thing. It's more competent than I can explain. After Vietnam, the Americans systematically prepared for war with a state that had a powerful air defense system. In my opinion, it worked.
        1. 0
          8 July 2024 22: 50
          Quote: Lykases1
          Yesterday or the day before yesterday, on the website, there was an article about -75. Read it. + - same thing. It's more competent than I can explain.

          I had a simple question: How many planes did the US lose in Vietnam?
          Quote: Lykases1
          After Vietnam, the Americans systematically prepared for war with a state that had a powerful air defense system.

          What did this preparation consist of? Didn’t the air defense prepare systematically for a war with a state that had a powerful air force?
          Quote: Lykases1
          In my opinion, it worked.

          What does this mean? Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya - air defense equivalent to Vietnam.
          1. 0
            9 July 2024 06: 27
            Oh, you asked a question!? Simple!? The topic is not interesting, would you like to talk? Okay, I'll answer. The simple answer is that the data is different. Lost from 2.5 to 4.5 thousand aircraft. Losses from cannon air defense fire were higher than from missiles. Preparation was expressed in the creation of specialized means for reconnaissance of air defense positions and radar stations, as well as in the development of means of destroying these targets - high-precision bombs, anti-radar missiles, cruise missiles. Specialized electronic warfare aircraft were developed. Already in Vietnam, it took up to a hundred missiles to destroy one B-52. The next question is, was air defense prepared? Yes and no. I will give you, as I remember, the memories of a participant in the Vietnam War. It was on this site. "We had to constantly violate instructions, pay great attention to camouflage. The missiles were launched from unprepared positions, right from the forest. We many times exceeded the standards for the deployment and collapse of the complex. Otherwise - death. What a surprise, when we returned to the Union - all our achievements were of no use to anyone were interested, the standards did not change." Undoubtedly, air defense systems have developed and achieved something. Achieved a lot. We are seeing their work now. But we are not attacked by 2.5 thousand planes, as in Iraq. I'm afraid that without the use of Yao, the result would have been similar. The last question - well, the result is visible, in my opinion. And Iraq's air defense is not equivalent to Vietnam. It was better. And in Iraq it was defeated. Just like a system. Yes, single complexes could still work, but the system collapsed and aviation, almost unhindered, destroyed everything it liked. I hope I answered your questions. And, dear, all this information is present on this site. Dig into the archive. Interesting.
            1. -1
              10 July 2024 00: 37
              Quote: Lykases1
              Oh, you asked a question!? Simple!? The topic is not interesting, would you like to talk? Okay, I'll answer. The simple answer is that the data is different. Lost from 2.5 to 4.5 thousand aircraft.

              3706 aircraft. US News & World Report, August 1973.
              Quote: Lykases1
              Losses from cannon air defense fire were higher than from missiles.

              If there were no missiles, then there would be no losses from cannon artillery fire. It was the missile defense systems that drove the planes under artillery fire.
              Quote: Lykases1
              Preparation was expressed in the creation of specialized means for reconnaissance of air defense positions and radar stations, as well as in the development of means of destroying these targets - high-precision bombs, anti-radar missiles, cruise missiles.

              And with the development of radars and air defense systems, in response, they acquired the ability to quickly change position and gained the ability to hit high-precision bombs, anti-radar missiles, and cruise missiles. Gained the ability to simultaneously fire at several targets.
              Quote: Lykases1
              Specialized electronic warfare aircraft were developed.

              And for new air defense systems (AAMS), methods and means of destroying electronic warfare aircraft were developed. In new electronic zones, interference suppression systems, signal spectrum expansion, and signal accumulation systems have appeared.
              Quote: Lykases1
              The next question is, was air defense prepared? Yes and no. I will give you, as I remember, the memories of a participant in the Vietnam War. It was on this site... What a surprise when we returned to the Union - no one was interested in all our developments, the standards did not change."

              This is surprise from ignorance. The performance characteristics of the new air defense systems at regular intervals significantly exceeded the deployment/deployment time of the Vietnam-era air defense systems.
              Quote: Lykases1
              But we are not attacked by 2.5 thousand planes, as in Iraq.

              2500 aircraft can be stationed at airfields only if these airfields are not attacked. As was the case in Iraq and Yugoslavia.
              Quote: Lykases1
              And Iraq's air defense is not equivalent to Vietnam. It was better.

              Equivalent. The same SA-75 from Vietnam, Cube... Not a single combat mode radar. Neither Bukov, nor the S-300P family. There wasn't even an S-200.
              Quote: Lykases1
              And in Iraq it was defeated.

              Iraq did not have a single modern system.
              Quote: Lykases1
              And in Iraq it was defeated. Just like a system.

              There was no air defense system in Iraq.
              Quote: Lykases1
              but the system collapsed

              There was nothing to collapse; there was no air defense system in Iraq.
              Quote: Lykases1
              I hope I answered your questions.

              I commented on your answers.
              Quote: Lykases1
              And, dear, all this information is present on this site. Dig into the archive. Interesting.

              There is no information here about the differences between the S-300P/V generation and the S-75 generation. Otherwise, ideas to study and apply the American experience of Vietnam and Iraq would not have appeared.
              Quote: Lykases1
              Already in Vietnam, it took up to a hundred missiles to destroy one B-52.

              This is just nonsense. There weren't as many targeted channels in Vietnam. The Vietnamese tactics of the B-52 against the S-200 are simply bomber suicide.
              1. 0
                10 July 2024 07: 53
                Let's start from the end. Why nonsense? What if we divide the number of missiles fired by the number of targets shot down? And the tactics of the Jews against the S200 led to the destruction of our plane. About s300, 400 - yes, their capabilities have increased. But, after all, there are also disadvantages. If they weren’t there, the Tochs probably wouldn’t have broken through to the airfields (I remember how they laughed that a patriot couldn’t shoot down the Scuds. But it turns out that’s how it is), they wouldn’t have fired missiles at ships, on Russian territory. The main ones are limited ammunition, long reload times, mainly semi-active guidance heads (yes, there are homing ones, but their quantity and effectiveness are questionable), limited detection range of low-flying targets and targets with low reflectivity, overload of target channels. And this is without electronic jamming. As for the Iraqi air defense system - how could it not be? There was a unified management of air defense sites divided into districts. Combining several parts under a single control - a system. Yes, there was no hero c300 standing there, ten kilometers from which there were two Kubas, and within a radius of three kilometers there were ten Tunguskas. Nevertheless. Regarding modern systems, my cousin served on the S90 in the 75s. Nowadays, our soldiers in the Svo are armed with weapons from almost the times of Khrushchev. Somehow it works out. As for Iraq's 200-300, they would have been suppressed just as well. Well, maybe the losses increased by a dozen aircraft. Regarding the placement of aircraft - yes and no. Have we destroyed Ukrainian aviation? Two years have passed. You will have to hit tactical weapons. Here I agree. Again, NATO has so many bases - they will disperse them. Regarding surprise from ignorance, he spoke about his complexes. Not about the 300. I don’t know how our complex works against their interference. But I think that with interference it is worse than without it. Again, we may find out soon. World War is far from a ghost. I hope you are right here. Very. About the ability to shoot down everything that flies. She is. But what? Up to a certain limit. And, preferably, in the sands of Ashuluk. Reality - open the news. NATO intelligence work to bypass air defense positions. Something like this
                1. 0
                  11 July 2024 00: 17
                  Quote: Lykases1
                  Let's start from the end. Why nonsense? What if we divide the number of missiles fired by the number of targets shot down?

                  It will turn out to be about 8.
                  Quote: Lykases1
                  And the tactics of the Jews against the S200 led to the destruction of our plane.

                  Are you confusing the years: 1982, 1991, and 2018? From 1991 to 2018 everything changed. Back in the late 200s, Syria asked to replace their S-300 with a S-1PMU-2/XNUMX and give it an Iskander-E. Delegations from Israel then came to us one after another. They did a good deed for Israel...
                  Quote: Lykases1
                  About s300, 400 - yes, their capabilities have increased. But, after all, there are also disadvantages. If they weren’t there, the Points probably wouldn’t have broken through to the airfields

                  You should read the characteristics “s300, s400” presented by the manufacturer. The probabilities of hitting targets are indicated there, and these probabilities are less than 1.
                  Quote: Lykases1
                  As for Iraq's 200-300, they would have been suppressed just as well.

                  How? The same spectral density of interference that was in Iraq? Even the PMU-1 would have practically no loss in range, and this would not have affected the PM at all. But the jammers would get the full benefit of the PM.
                  Quote: Lykases1
                  Regarding the placement of aircraft - yes and no. Have we destroyed Ukrainian aviation? Two years have passed.

                  You talked about deploying 2500 aircraft. What does Ukraine have to do with it? Ukraine is not capable of conducting a massive air operation like Desert Storm.
                  Quote: Lykases1
                  Nowadays, our soldiers in the Svo are armed with weapons from almost the times of Khrushchev. Somehow it works out.

                  It turns out because copies of Khrushchev’s times are covered with modern means. Is this not clear?
                  1. 0
                    11 July 2024 07: 15
                    Don't cover the BMP 1 with anything - it's a BMP 1. If I'm not mistaken, she cannot fire from her gun while moving. Or rather, maybe, but it’s not clear where. The question is - what will we use to ensure destruction at NATO airfields? As soon as the strategists roll out onto the path, a combat alert will sound. TNW. No other way. How would they suppress with 300 in Iraq? 30 years have passed. I don't think there has been any progress. Or they would have discharged it with decoys and carried it out anyway. They study the frequencies of our complexes - but we are their jammers - that’s not a fact. Of course, the probability of hitting a target is below 1. And, probably, the striking elements are designed for aircraft, and not OTRK warheads, as happened with the Patriot. S300 deployed in Syria. The Jews promised - the first plane shot down - and it will end. Explained how. Now we also have bombs with umpk. I haven’t heard of someone being hit with 300. Miracles. The number of missiles - I read in some article. Maybe you're right too. I haven't studied it in detail. Yes, I remembered, I defended the Antonovsky Bridge with 400. Stupid incompetent Ukrainians, as if from a textbook, unloaded it with a cheap MLRS, and then took it out with a high-precision chimera. So much for the confrontation between sword and shield.
  3. +3
    5 July 2024 05: 44
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    No, we had jammer planes, but here it is - in the past tense
    If we talk about the past, then for electronic warfare tasks there was a very good Tu-16, a grandfather who faithfully served in the sky. The Chinese still exploit it, albeit under a different name. And for some reason the article doesn’t say anything about the presence of IR countermeasures on board
    1. -4
      5 July 2024 09: 56
      In modern times, the Tu-16 can't be compared to an aircraft based on a fighter. Yes, and like the Tu-16 plane, it’s still junk. We need a lot of such planes. A few big ones are no substitute for a lot of small ones. And it’s an anti-aircraft gunner’s dream to shoot down this coffin.
      1. +1
        5 July 2024 10: 59
        Yes, and like the Tu-16 plane, it’s still junk. We need a lot of such planes. A few big ones are no substitute for a lot of small ones. And it’s an anti-aircraft gunner’s dream to shoot down this coffin
        God, what nonsense are you talking about!
        1. +1
          6 July 2024 06: 34
          Yeah. This “beautiful” plane crashed on its way. As many pilots did not die in the database as on this Tupolev miracle in peacetime.
          1. 0
            8 July 2024 01: 28
            Quote: MCmaximus
            Yeah. This “beautiful” plane crashed on its way.

            The Tu-16, it seems, crashed no more often than other types.
  4. +3
    5 July 2024 06: 11
    In the USSR, it seems that helicopters were jammers
    1. +3
      5 July 2024 06: 30
      We have few of them, and helicopter pilots and station operators are at a high cost. Just like they were shot down in the Bryansk region, that’s it, they don’t fly close to the border. For now, there is no point in sending someone to death. In Armageddon there will be no choice but to be a hero. We have not yet heard of unmanned stage managers with stations of the "Lychag-AV" or "Krasukha" class.
      1. 0
        8 July 2024 00: 50
        Quote from JuhanJuhan
        Just like they were shot down in the Bryansk region, that’s it, they don’t fly close to the border.

        At what distance from the border do they fly?
    2. 0
      5 July 2024 09: 59
      In my opinion, helicopters for this purpose are generally an extremely niche idea. And now it's rotten. No range, no speed, no duration. You can just hide it for the time being. Jump out, suppress and run away. So you can’t get away from modern air defense
  5. +22
    5 July 2024 06: 27
    After 10 years, people began to understand that the Khibiny Mountains are mountains, not electronic warfare
    1. 0
      8 July 2024 00: 48
      Quote: Tlauicol
      After 10 years, people began to understand that the Khibiny Mountains are mountains, not electronic warfare

      There is also a mountain, and there is also an electronic warfare complex.
  6. +8
    5 July 2024 07: 29
    Our top brass don’t want to accept the BMPT, “Where are we going to put it and register it?” And you're talking about a more expensive and complex sample. You have to start moving, do something, tear one seat away from the soft chair, but we really don’t like all this, and not only in the army. So we won’t see such planes, I’m absolutely sure
  7. +10
    5 July 2024 07: 32
    There is less need to use analogues. And hope for “effective managers” who are “slaves in the galleys”. There's no time to rock up. Almost a quarter of a century already.
  8. +10
    5 July 2024 10: 19
    Quote: Bearded
    Article plus.
    This time Roman raised an important topic and fully revealed it. But he didn't offer any solutions. We all remember our Sushka’s flights over an American destroyer in the Black Sea: then Sushka captured an entire destroyer. This means that we have some kind of suspended containers with electronic warfare and electronic warfare. If we start work on an electronic warfare fighter now, establish strict control over the expenditure of funds and deadlines, as in Stalin’s sharashka, then the aircraft can be completed in a year. Yes
    If we do nothing, the Americans will continue to shell our beaches with children and women swimming.

    2024 - witness of Cook and Khibin. Hand face...
  9. -2
    5 July 2024 10: 25
    > We don’t have such an aircraft, and, apparently, it’s not even expected. Meanwhile, recent practice has demonstrated the need for such a type of weapon as an electronic warfare aircraft.

    Wait, what about the story about the Su-24 and the destroyer USS Donald Cook?
    1. +9
      5 July 2024 10: 58
      Donald Cook is wishful thinking... actually tank biathlon
  10. +10
    5 July 2024 10: 39
    Oh, how this all reminds us of the situation in 1905! Before Tsushima.
  11. -2
    5 July 2024 11: 15
    Russia wasn't preparing for war with Ukraine but NATO, that's what the author refused to understand, in a real war with Russia and NATO, Growler and others alike are completely useless because the we be shotdown.
  12. -3
    5 July 2024 12: 06
    The topic is relevant. There is a need for a Su-24PP or Su-34PP, but there is no implementation.
    I hope the new Minister of Defense will pay attention to this “gap” in Russian aviation and eliminate it.
    1. 0
      8 July 2024 00: 47
      Quote: dragon772
      The topic is relevant. There is a need for a Su-24PP or Su-34PP, but there is no implementation.

      Why are they?
      Z.Y. There is a Tarantula container.
      1. 0
        8 July 2024 16: 40
        And Khibiny, but the functionality of the Boeing EA-18 Growler is higher, just look at how many containers it has suspended.
        1. 0
          8 July 2024 22: 28
          Quote: dragon772
          And Khibiny, but the functionality of the Boeing EA-18 Growler is higher, just look at how many containers it has suspended.

          And Compass Call and Porubshchik have higher functionality than EA-18. They fit much more inside than the EA-18 containers. And they have larger antennas than the EA-18.
          1. 0
            10 July 2024 16: 37
            And what does this mean? In the context of Tarantula-Khibiny?
            1. 0
              10 July 2024 23: 48
              Quote: dragon772
              And what does this mean? In the context of Tarantula-Khibiny?

              Power of power supplies, power of transmitters and "lambda to de".
  13. kvv
    +4
    5 July 2024 12: 08
    yes, I remember the defamation of our electronic warfare before the Northern Military District, when from every iron came what powerful electronic warfare we have and how much we don’t care about any drones, we will blind them all at once and plant them, but as usual, something went wrong with our Defense Ministry, led by a reindeer herder not so, in general, if the army were more serious than the outskirts army, then they would have crapped themselves long ago and would have been sitting at a gas station and further
  14. 0
    5 July 2024 12: 13
    In terms of ensuring the development and implementation of many of the latest achievements of military science, no questions arise at all for our General Staff and Defense Ministry, because they are either so classified that no one knows about them, or they do not exist, and therefore no questions arise either.
  15. +1
    5 July 2024 12: 45
    The PLA Air Force has such a machine as the J-16D Hidden Dragon

    The PLA Air Force also has the Chengdu J-10D and Shenyang J-15D.
  16. 0
    5 July 2024 15: 28
    Attention, question!
    Skomorokhov thinks about the phrase of the joke: “What are we for?”
    Which, when his fantasies come true, will definitely come up....
  17. 0
    5 July 2024 19: 48
    Quote: dragon772
    The topic is relevant. There is a need for a Su-24PP or Su-34PP, but there is no implementation.
    I hope the new Minister of Defense will pay attention to this “gap” in Russian aviation and eliminate it.

    The new minister is never a military man. And willy-nilly, in purely military matters, he will rely on the “specialists” of the Ministry of Defense. That's all...
  18. 0
    6 July 2024 04: 44
    I agree to create an electronic warfare aircraft and jam and land drones and let Austin be hysterical. By the way, there are electronic warfare antennas there, or they say they brought Murmansk?!
  19. 0
    6 July 2024 14: 42
    While comprehending what was happening in the skies over the Black Sea and considering options for the development of events and methods of countering air pirates, I was caught by the news that work on the creation of a new aircraft was in full swing in South Korea.
    - well, that's what I thought laughing
  20. 0
    7 July 2024 06: 42
    As far as I understand, now, at least the fighters and helicopters participating in the SVO are equipped with electronic warfare and radio electronic reconnaissance equipment individually
  21. 0
    7 July 2024 08: 36
    Another article about “We need...”, “It would be nice if...”, “We need to start immediately...”.

    Which is typical, but Pupkin always says the same thing at his benefit performances, where people come to take a nap, that this Russia needs this and that, and what it needs to pay closer attention to.
    And who should do this according to the author and Pupkin? H.Z.

    The Ministry of Defense is also not in this regard, 10 trulleys have been sfisdil over the past 10 years, and this is just what we were told. And these commanders are sending someone into battle.
  22. 0
    7 July 2024 10: 02
    Everything will move from a dead point as soon as RAMBOVICH breaks the back of high-ranking thieves from those who do not have time to escape from them. You can disperse the stupid and thieving state fool - a lot more money will appear. Wait and see.
    1. 0
      7 July 2024 20: 03
      Dear viktor_ui! Leave respected Andrei Removich alone... He needs to grow into the situation, the environment, the essence of the implementation of the laws of war and peace, in this organization... I will make a cautious assumption, based on an analysis of the level of embezzlement in his native Fatherland... They stole, "in black" from the state. treasury from Ivan III, when the boyars were given inheritances “for feeding”... From Ivan IV, the definition of “embezzlement” appeared, for which heads began to be cut off, though not for long.... After Peter I, “embezzlement” was reclassified as “not to take according to rank", which significantly softened the punishment and the attitude of society towards this "trick"... There was a rough, undemocratic time - the RSFSR-USSR, when for this "trick" "they began to smear the forehead (back of the head) with brilliant green"... state the treasury began to “enter” less often, but the people continued to “carry” from factories and fields, which, against the general background of growth in labor productivity and GDP, was not very noticeable... Under the current Russian capitalism, the emergence of a new Russian boyars and multiplying like cockroaches, - bureaucrats, “feeding from the treasury” has become a national sport”... Considering the current de-ideologized “don’t care” society for the most part, “tailored” to selfishness, earning money at any cost, “money” or banal survival, in Russian capitalist society , to whom they are trying to “stick” a “Gagarin” smile... And to Removich, we wish him good luck on the difficult and thorny path to a bright, decent, not thieving future in the RF Ministry of Defense and the structures that are near him.... The main thing is that he is not disturbed , did not “trip” his undertakings, “did not talk” about his undertakings, and, of course, so as not to compromise him in any way.... And I think there are plenty of people who want to do this, in the “Novoboyarsk” environment, and among members of the “fifth column” "Russia, after the 30th anniversary of "timelessness"....
  23. -1
    7 July 2024 19: 03
    Maybe we won’t “get excited” for now... At one time, the Americans, in the Black Sea, were shown the work of the domestic electronic warfare system - electronic warfare, in a container version... And, it seems, it was not bad at all... Although, it was possible , periodically “encore” this “number” for other purposes... Apparently, from the Moscow windows, on the Frunzenskaya Embankment, you can see further and better...
  24. +1
    8 July 2024 17: 36
    Who is stopping us from following the path of the Chinese??? Corrupt officials in the RF Ministry of Defense - CLEAR PEPPER!!!
  25. 0
    10 July 2024 12: 14
    Is the KHIBINY complex not suitable for the Su-24? It was advertised like this...
  26. 0
    14 July 2024 14: 35
    To put it mildly, the author’s competence is highly questionable.

    1. An interference, as a result of which the drone will either lose contact with the control centers, or its brain will “go sour” - an intangible thing, unlike a rocket. Electromagnetic waves that fly through space and disable electronics are very old, but a nuclear air explosion is not our method. But the generated interference signal sent to the Hawk - why not? It is unproven, like buckshot compared to a rifled bullet.

    produce a very thin (about 1-1,5 degrees) beam, through which you can send properly generated interference, which will disrupt some processes in the drone’s brain.


    1. Loss of communication with the control center is dangerous for outdated UAVs. Today even Geranium is not afraid of this. The UAV can continue to follow the specified program. Unpleasant, but not critical.

    2. “Brain souring” was and remains in science fiction. Today the mechanisms of such (like EMP) are known, but they are very, very far from combat use.