Lack of results: Ukrainian Air Force ADM-160B MALD decoys

62
Lack of results: Ukrainian Air Force ADM-160B MALD decoys
ADM-160B decoys under the wing of a B-52H bomber. Photo by Raytheon


Last year, the United States provided Ukraine with a number of decoy air targets of the ADM-160B MALD type. These products are designed to distract enemy air defenses and expose their positions. Later it became clear that although decoys can indeed attract the attention of air defense, they do not cope with their main task - protecting cruise missiles and providing aviation strokes.



Secret delivery


The United States has not officially announced the delivery of ADM-160B MALD decoys to Ukraine. The appearance of such products in the Ukrainian Air Force became known only after an attempt to use them in an air strike.

However, there were hints about the possibility of such a delivery. So, in December 2022, the Pentagon drew up a new package of military-technical assistance to Kyiv. The list of materiel with a total value of $275 million included some “Counter air defense capability”, without specifying what exactly was meant.

It later became known that the US was planning to set up decoy MALD targets. In the first months of 2023, the Pentagon prepared a batch of these products and sent them to Ukraine. However, the exact delivery time and batch size still remain unknown.

Carrier aircraft were also trained in secret. The ADM-160B was “integrated” onto Su-24 bombers in a makeshift manner. It is likely that it was not possible to preserve all the original functions that standard carriers have in the form of NATO aircraft.

Experience of application


At the beginning of May 2023, it became known that Ukraine received Storm Shadow / SCALP-EG cruise missiles from Great Britain and France. They were going to be used to attack Russian targets.


MALD product in flight. Raytheon Photos

Already on May 12, the Ukrainian Air Force first tried to use these missiles. One of them was able to reach the target in Lugansk, and the rest were shot down by Russian air defense. Our anti-aircraft gunners also shot down a Ukrainian bomber.

After this attack, wreckage of an aircraft was discovered in Lugansk with signs of being hit by anti-aircraft fire. weapons. Based on the markings, it became clear that it was an ADM-160B decoy air target. Subsequently, similar debris was repeatedly found in different areas of the Special Operation zone and in our rear. In all cases, the fallen MALDs showed signs of being hit by anti-aircraft fire, mainly anti-aircraft missiles.

According to reports, the Ukrainian Air Force regularly used ADM-160B products to accompany and “protect” imported cruise missiles. The exact number of air targets used is unknown. However, such information could tell a lot about the effectiveness of such products.

According to the Ministry of Defense


Our air defense successfully shoots down MALD decoys, as well as the missiles they cover. It is curious that during the first few months, such episodes, for unknown reasons, did not appear in the reports of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Perhaps decoys were not considered worthy of mention in such reports.

The ADM-160B product was first included in an official report on January 12, 2024. It was alleged that over the previous week our fighters and air defense systems shot down two such targets. It is interesting that in this and subsequent reports the decoy air targets were called aircraft guided missiles.

The next mention of MALD is on March 24th. According to the Ministry of Defense, over the previous day, four such products were shot down by the Aerospace Forces and Air Defense Forces. Also destroyed were 11 Storm Shadow and 3 Neptune missiles.


A fragment of a MALD product in Lugansk, May 2023. Photo Telegram / “Poddubny”

In the report dated April 16, among other targets hit, 4 units were named. MALD. This time they were called in accordance with the original nomenclature - decoys. Also destroyed were 6 Storm Shadow aircraft missiles and 2 units. AGM-88 HARM.

The last mention of the ADM-160B took place on June 30. In the previous day, 3 such products were intercepted. You also need to pay attention to the destruction of 2 Neptune-MD missiles.

Since the end of June, American-made decoys have not appeared in Department of Defense reports. There are also no similar messages on unofficial resources. Apparently, the enemy has not used such products in recent weeks.

Material part


Development of the MALD (Miniature Air-Launched Decoy) decoy began in 2002. Design work was completed in the middle of the decade, and testing began in 2006. The first production contract was awarded in 2008.

Design flaws delayed the launch of production, which meant the Pentagon only received the first ADM-160B units in the early XNUMXs. However, production quickly picked up the pace and fulfilled the order. military departments.

The MALD decoy is essentially a cruise missile with a special payload. Externally, it is similar to combat missiles and has an elongated fuselage with a folding wing. Product length - 2,85 m, wingspan - 1,7 m. Launch weight - 110 kg.

The product is equipped with a Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet engine, which allows it to reach a maximum speed of 0,8 M or a cruising speed of 0,6 M. The flight range is at least 900 km with a duration of approx. 45 min.


Fragment of ADM-160B with wing. Photo by RIA News

To control the flight, an autopilot with the function of following a given route is used. The flight mission is entered before suspension on the carrier or, if its on-board equipment allows, before reset.

MALD can fly to given coordinates in a straight line or with maneuvers, or patrol in a given area.

The original ADM-160B is equipped with a head section with a corner reflector to attract the attention of enemy radars. It is understood that the air defense will detect such a target and attack it, and the real cruise missile will have a chance to break through to the target.

Modernized product versions MALD-J and MALD-X have been developed. They differ from the basic model by a new head part that accommodates full-fledged jamming stations. These decoys have other functions and tactical capabilities.

Preliminary findings


There is no exact data yet on in what quantities and how often ADM-160B is used. There are also no statistics on their defeat. But even the available data allows us to draw some conclusions.

In general, the situation looks negative for the Ukrainian side. Judging by the known data, the ADM-160B only partially copes with its task. They really attract the attention of Russian air defense, come under fire and replenish the combat account of anti-aircraft gunners.

It is worth remembering that this product has a different purpose. It should divert fire weapons and ensure the free passage of a real cruise missile. Reports from the Ministry of Defense show that Russian air defense successfully detects and engages both false and real air targets. In addition, carriers of aircraft weapons launching cruise missiles and decoys are also intercepted.


MALD products in production. Photo by Raytheon

The prerequisites for such a situation are simple and associated with the incorrect use of decoys and aircraft weapons.

The fact is that the ADM-160B product is capable of showing high efficiency only in a massive raid. This requires a large number of attack aircraft carrying a mass of cruise missiles and decoys. The total number of real weapons and their simulators must correspond to or exceed the fire capabilities of the enemy's air defense.

In such conditions, decoys can actually create an excessive load on air defense and divert some of the anti-aircraft missiles. At the same time, real air-to-surface weapons have a chance to overcome defenses and hit targets.

The Ukrainian Air Force cannot organize and carry out such an attack. They lack carrier aircraft, which limits the number of cruise missiles and MALD decoys they can launch simultaneously. At the same time, Russian air defense and fighter aircraft pose an excessive threat to Ukrainian missile carriers.

useless help


Thus, foreign patrons tried to help Ukraine organize air strikes against Russian targets and were unsuccessful. The transfer of ADM-160B decoy air targets promised to be an effective step, but in the current situation it was not possible and will not be possible to realize the potential of such products.

Since last spring, there have been sporadic attacks using MALD products in conjunction with real weapons. Russian fighter aviation and air defense, having the necessary numbers and potential, successfully cope with such attempted attacks. Practice shows that they have enough resources for both false and real purposes. And the enemy should not hope for a change in the current situation.
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    6 August 2024 06: 15
    This raises a legitimate question about price. What is more valuable, this “false target” or our missile defense system used against it?
    1. -17
      6 August 2024 06: 29
      It is clear that our rocket will either be cheaper or comparable in price
      1. +7
        6 August 2024 07: 37
        Why do you think so? If you believe these internet sites of yours, then the ADM-160 costs about $100-150 thousand, and a missile, for example, the S300, from 700 to 1 thousand...
        1. -6
          6 August 2024 11: 30
          Please do not forget the fact that ATACMS and Storm Shadow cruise missiles are also launched with decoy targets, which cost MUCH more than our anti-missiles!!!
          1. +2
            6 August 2024 11: 47
            Who told you that it is MUCH more expensive? According to information from the Internet, attacks or storms cost from 1,5 to 2 million. Taking into account that the air defense crew makes 2 launches per missile, then even the interception of one missile is already at best + - comparable in cost for the parties, and taking into account the use of decoys protection from an impact is more expensive than the impact itself (although it is not correct to compare this way; one must also take into account possible damage to the object)…
            1. -5
              6 August 2024 12: 04
              The cost of one ATACMS missile is $2,5 million
              The cost of one Storm Shadow missile is from 1,3 to 2 million euros
              The cost of one S-300 missile is from $700 thousand to $1,2 million
              Even if we take into account that each missile attack uses at least 2-3 cruise missiles, we are still a winner!!! Moreover, in addition to the S-300, we also have other means of destruction, the same Buk, Thor, Pantsir...............
              1. +1
                6 August 2024 13: 19
                It always seemed to me that the war was won by the one who destroyed something on enemy territory. If American missiles destroy targets on Russian territory, and Russia cannot even destroy an ice cream stand in America, then where is the victory?
                1. +1
                  6 August 2024 15: 29
                  The war was won by the one who concluded a peace treaty on his own terms or at least achieved other goals set for himself in this war, perhaps unobvious or secret ones (or at least declared that he had achieved them). What and where had to be destroyed for this is the tenth question.
                2. 0
                  6 August 2024 17: 04
                  Why destroy an ice cream stand in America? Are you against ice cream?
            2. +4
              6 August 2024 15: 40
              Quote: parma
              although it is not correct to compare this way, one must also take into account possible damage to the object.

              Finally, you remembered the damage that will be caused by a missile closed with a false target and breaking through the air defense :)) Yes, it is guaranteed to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and maybe even exceed millions. Add in the cost of firing that missile, plus the cost of the decoy missile that covers it... now do you see what's actually cheaper? :))
        2. 0
          6 August 2024 17: 02
          Where does the information come from about such an exorbitant cost of the S300 rocket? I saw the price of 100 thousand dollars 10 years ago.
    2. 0
      6 August 2024 17: 01
      The question is posed incorrectly. It is impossible to understand in advance whether a real combat missile with explosives is flying or a decoy target. That's why everything goes wrong. The question must be posed - what is cheaper, our damaged object or the anti-aircraft missile we fired.
      1. +1
        6 August 2024 17: 26
        Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
        The question is incorrectly posed.

        Delivered as it is
        Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
        It is impossible to understand in advance whether a real combat missile with explosives is flying or a decoy target. That's why everything goes wrong.

        I completely agree here and this is not subject to discussion.
        Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
        The question must be asked - which is cheaper?

        Our main air defense systems that work against air targets are not the S-300, but the Buks, Tors and Pantsirs, and they may give up in such a way that the price of their missiles is commensurate, and maybe even less, with the prices of these “traps” .
        Any war is the first battle of economies
        1. 0
          6 August 2024 18: 43
          It’s hard to argue with you about “it may be that the price of their missiles is commensurate, or maybe even less, with the prices of these “traps.” But we must consider the potential harm from the fact that it may not be a trap, but a missile with a warhead. Ours now they launch "gerberas" made of polystyrene foam, g... and sticks to spend missiles on them and detect air defenses. The Armed Forces still try to shoot them down because it could be a real missile with a warhead.
      2. +1
        6 August 2024 20: 31
        Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
        It is impossible to understand in advance whether a real combat missile with explosives is flying or a false target
        I don’t understand why you can’t add explosives to this decoy target and get a real combat missile. Maybe not 500 kg, but 50 kg could be crammed in. Explosives are inexpensive, and this thing has a control system and a jet engine for everyone. What if she is the one who breaks through to the goal?
      3. 0
        6 August 2024 23: 11
        Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
        ... It is impossible to understand in advance whether a real combat missile with explosives is flying or a decoy target. That's why everything goes wrong.

        Not certainly in that way. If the false target does not pose a threat and does not interfere, then it is not shot down. It will fall on its own. But if, for example, the flight path of a false target is directed towards Sevastopol, then it will have to be shot down. Fuck knows what she will do if she falls on the city, even without a warhead.
        1. 0
          7 August 2024 00: 42
          How can we understand this in advance “a false target does not pose a threat and does not interfere”?
          1. 0
            7 August 2024 01: 18
            Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
            How can we understand this in advance “a false target does not pose a threat and does not interfere”?

            For example, if it flies not towards a covered object, but somewhere to the side where there is nothing. And if it does not interfere with shooting at targets.
            1. 0
              7 August 2024 01: 20
              Why would the enemy let her go there “where there is nothing”?
              1. 0
                7 August 2024 01: 44
                Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
                Why would the enemy let her go there “where there is nothing”?

                It can cause some damage only to the civilian sector.
  2. +6
    6 August 2024 06: 22
    Everything that has been said certainly pleases me.
    But it’s not that MALD missiles are ineffective, but that they were not used in a massive raid.
    How much do these products cost?
    By what means do we defeat them?
    And finally, can they pose a danger to ground targets?
    The author never revealed it. It's a pity.
    1. +5
      6 August 2024 06: 51
      And finally, can they pose a danger to ground targets?
      Now imagine that a blank weighing 110 kg flies at a speed of 980 km/h. I think the question will disappear by itself wink wink wink
  3. 10+
    6 August 2024 06: 37
    Stability is a sign of mastery: late, little, useless.... good
    1. +2
      6 August 2024 16: 58
      Having scrolled to the end of the article and seeing the famous author, I did not read and went straight to the comments, which are MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE and interesting than the article itself.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +3
    6 August 2024 06: 46
    Our air defense can cope with them, but in what quantity? 1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 50 - pieces in a salvo? Here is the answer. The fact that our air defense shoots down 4 out of 4 decoys released, for example, is not at all an indicator of the ineffectiveness of this type of weapon, it all depends on the mass of the salvo.
    1. -1
      6 August 2024 23: 14
      Quote from Nesvoy
      Our air defense can cope with them, but in what quantity? 1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 50 - pieces in a salvo? Here is the answer.

      It doesn't matter how many there are.
      Quote from Nesvoy
      The fact that our air defense shoots down 4 out of 4 decoys released, for example, is not at all an indicator of the ineffectiveness of this type of weapon, it all depends on the mass of the salvo.

      Why shoot them down if they pose no threat? A total of 13 of them were shot down over the entire period.
  6. -6
    6 August 2024 06: 46
    decoy air targets ADM-160B MALD from the Ukrainian Air Force
    Why is this expensive system better than cheap dipole reflectors? wink
    1. +8
      6 August 2024 06: 57
      If THIS has parameters on the radar screen, like those of a full-size missile system (speed, ESR, altitude), then no operator will distinguish a false target from a real one. Unlike dipoles and aerosols
      1. -6
        6 August 2024 08: 33
        no operator will distinguish a false target from a real one
        In the case of a dipole reflector, not a single operator will see the target at all (in theory)
        1. +4
          6 August 2024 10: 12
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          In the case of a dipole reflector, not a single operator will see the target at all (in theory)

          Dipoles can be used to “block oneself” for a short time. After the foil is dropped, it slows down sharply, and due to the difference in speed due to the Doppler effect, they are easily “filtered”. They learned to do this during World War II.
          1. -5
            6 August 2024 11: 14
            They learned to do this during World War II.
            Especially after the bombing of Hamburg, when the whole city resembled "The Last Day of Pompeii" wink
          2. -1
            6 August 2024 23: 43
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            After the foil is dropped, it slows down sharply, and due to the difference in speed due to the Doppler effect, they are easily “filtered”.

            But to do this, you need to turn on the SDC, which reduces the radar range. In addition, SDC is a coherent mode, which is convenient for SAP with DRFM. An alternative is to wait until the object and the DO are in different impulse volumes. And this is time. DOs are not so harmless, especially together with active interference.
    2. +2
      6 August 2024 06: 58
      At least by the presence of an active jammer and movement along the route, and not anyhow.
      1. -5
        6 August 2024 08: 34
        and not anyhow
        A dipole reflector is not “anyhow”. This is serious passive protection wink
        1. +4
          6 August 2024 11: 27
          She was like that 20 years ago.
          Now it is already a secondary system, or even a third echelon.
          In terms of efficiency.
          1. -5
            6 August 2024 11: 30
            Now it is already a secondary system, or even a third echelon
            You are confusing it with corner reflectors
    3. -2
      6 August 2024 23: 18
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      Why is this expensive system better than cheap dipole reflectors?

      They have different tasks. The purpose of using decoys is to provoke the enemy to turn on the combat mode radar and, if you're lucky, the guidance radar. And the task of dipole reflectors is to complicate the interference situation for the enemy.
  7. +3
    6 August 2024 07: 32
    “There is no exact data yet on in what quantities and how often ADM-160B are used. There are also no statistics on their damage.”

    “Thus, foreign patrons tried to help Ukraine organize air strikes against Russian targets and were unsuccessful.”
    1. -3
      6 August 2024 08: 36
      foreign patrons tried to help Ukraine organize air strikes against Russian targets and were unsuccessful
      They simply experienced active protection in practice, and most importantly, not in their own skin. laughing
  8. +1
    6 August 2024 09: 38
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    no operator will distinguish a false target from a real one
    In the case of a dipole reflector, not a single operator will see the target at all (in theory)

    Dipoles, by definition, have a lower speed than CDs. The Doppler effect allows you to “weed out” targets at a lower speed.
    It will take you for a ride with a tank standing still.
    With a rocket at 0.8 M, most likely not
    1. -5
      6 August 2024 11: 22
      Dipoles, by definition, have a lower speed than CDs
      What does speed have to do with it? The bomber “fed” the operator with staniol, camouflaged himself in the cloud of this field, and then bombed off. After the operator rubs his eyes, he leaves the air defense zone. On the F-16, which has already set everyone's teeth on edge, such a thing is already available by default
  9. 11+
    6 August 2024 11: 25
    Well, again, stupid conclusions...
    Ryabov’s repertoire includes ostrich and sand.
    The defeat of the Navy headquarters in Sevastopol by two missiles, the destruction of the large landing ship and submarine in the shipyard in the same Sevastopol.
    Destruction of several air defense systems in Crimea.
    This is all a consequence of the use of MALD decoys.
    1. -4
      6 August 2024 23: 19
      Quote: SovAr238A
      The defeat of the Navy headquarters in Sevastopol by two missiles, the destruction of the large landing ship and submarine in the shipyard in the same Sevastopol.
      Destruction of several air defense systems in Crimea.
      This is all a consequence of the use of MALD decoys.

      Ask them to change your manual.
  10. +3
    6 August 2024 11: 33
    The MALD decoy is essentially a cruise missile with a special payload.

    I remember the history of the ALCM design, when the Yankees spent a long time and hard at making the SCAD decoy target - and then it turned out that the resulting product could carry a UBS.
  11. +3
    6 August 2024 11: 48
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    Dipoles, by definition, have a lower speed than CDs
    What does speed have to do with it? The bomber “fed” the operator with staniol, camouflaged himself in the cloud of this field, and then bombed off. After the operator rubs his eyes, he leaves the air defense zone. On the F-16, which has already set everyone's teeth on edge, such a thing is already available by default

    “Pulse Doppler processing selectively eliminates low-velocity reflections so that there are no detections below a threshold velocity.” Speed ​​selection will filter out slower signal reflections.
    1. -1
      6 August 2024 17: 48
      Quote: Zufei
      Speed ​​selection will filter out slower signal reflections.

      Guys! Has anyone on this page mentioned that interference, both passive and active, can be simulating, or can also be masking!? If you use dipole reflectors as simulators, then yes... selection by speed will quickly reveal: "xy from hu" ! But it's a different matter with masking interference! You can launch cheap missiles filled with dipole reflectors ahead of the planes and air defense systems...At the “right” moment, the space between the planes and air defense systems is filled with a cloud of missiles...On the radar screens there is a “large-sized” spot! Yes, the “dipole cloud” will dissipate... but how long will it take!? what
  12. +2
    6 August 2024 12: 57
    Written in Konashenkov's style. What is the price of such a decoy? Forgot to write or did not specifically indicate? If such a target costs 10 times less than an air defense missile, then they can do their job very well. It is more prestigious for the collective “Konashenkov” to report that they shot down 10 Scalps, and the fragments of two fell, in vast Russia, exactly where they were not needed, than to say that they shot down false targets, and the Scalps broke through. Given the enormous price of Patriot missiles and the difficulty of mass production, cheap decoys would be useful for the Russian army.
    1. BAI
      0
      7 August 2024 17: 31
      cheap dupes would be useful for the Russian army.

      They exist and are used. For example - Gerberas
  13. RMT
    +2
    6 August 2024 16: 54
    "...In general, the situation looks negative for the Ukrainian side..."
    Ukraine has received decoy missiles and is using them. What's the negative? Why were they shot down? That's what they are designed for.
    1. -1
      6 August 2024 23: 22
      Quote: RMT
      Ukraine has received decoy missiles and is using them. What's the negative? Why were they shot down? That's what they are designed for.

      They get shot down very rarely. Basically, they fall on their own.
      1. RMT
        0
        7 August 2024 09: 04
        if I understood correctly:
        - missiles fly, they are detected, fired at but not shot down,
        - the missiles fly, they are not detected, they fly and then fall on their own.
        Which option is correct?
        1. -1
          9 August 2024 23: 13
          Quote: RMT
          if I understood correctly:

          Misunderstood.
          Quote: RMT
          - missiles fly, they are detected, fired at but not shot down,
          - the missiles fly, they are not detected, they fly and then fall on their own.

          You have not presented all possible options. There are more than two possible options.
          Quote: RMT
          Which option is correct?

          All of the ones you presented are incorrect. The correct option among the possible options not presented by you.
          1. RMT
            +1
            12 August 2024 14: 11
            The fact that there are more than two options is indisputable. Voice your option.
            1. -2
              15 August 2024 22: 25
              Quote: RMT
              The fact that there are more than two options is indisputable.

              Why did you only voice two?
              Quote: RMT
              Voice your option.

              So I already wrote above. Celb is detected and identified as false. It can only pose a threat to civilian objects, in which case it has to be shot down. If there are no civilian objects along the flight path, then the false target flies until the fuel runs out.
              1. RMT
                0
                20 August 2024 08: 31
                “identified as false” And skipped by the air defense calculations? Seriously?
                A two-meter blank weighing 45 kg. threatens not only civilian objects, but any object. That's why they shoot her down.
                1. 0
                  22 August 2024 02: 02
                  Quote: RMT
                  “identified as false” And skipped by the air defense calculations? Seriously?
                  A two-meter blank weighing 45 kg. threatens not only civilian objects, but any object.

                  No. This blank is not a threat to military installations. This blank has neither a guidance system nor a warhead. This blank threatens only civilian objects, and then only from the political side.
                  Quote: RMT
                  That's why they shoot her down.

                  Only a few of them were shot down during the entire period of the Northern Military District.
                  1. RMT
                    0
                    23 August 2024 12: 53
                    The arrival of a forty-five-kilogram blank into a military facility, with or without a control system, can cause damage. Kill a serviceman or several, destroy or damage military equipment. I think it's obvious.
                    Next about the threat to civilians. You agreed that there is a danger. So you need to shoot down, and not let through with the hope that God will save you!
                    1. 0
                      23 August 2024 21: 18
                      Quote: RMT
                      ... So you need to shoot down, and not let through with the hope that God will save you!

                      I already wrote to you above that only a few of them were shot down. Only those that have been accepted as posing a threat. The rest fell on their own.
  14. -3
    6 August 2024 16: 59
    What's the point of such a rocket? Is it much cheaper than stuffing explosives into it? Well, how much cheaper is it? I don’t understand the humor of using such a missile?
    1. -2
      6 August 2024 23: 28
      Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
      What's the point of such a rocket? Is it much cheaper than stuffing explosives into it? Well, how much cheaper is it? I don’t understand the humor of using such a missile?

      I will repeat here. Only standby radars operate normally. The purpose of using such missiles (false targets) is to provoke the enemy to turn on the combat mode radar, and, if lucky, the guidance radar. Based on the data received about operating radars, active jammers are placed, other missiles are launched, etc. ...
    2. -1
      7 August 2024 06: 30
      Opening the air defense system.
      Collection and transfer of received information to the Central Communications Center.
      Simulation of any modern target, from a rocket to a bomber level up to the B-52.
      Overload of air defense missile tracking and guidance channels.
  15. BAI
    0
    7 August 2024 17: 29

    Our air defense successfully shoots down MALD decoys,

    That's why decoys are designed to be shot down. If the air defense let them through, then it would be a different matter
  16. The comment was deleted.