F-16 fighter jet of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down by Russian air defense - Russian Defense Ministry

The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed that an F-16 fighter jet of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down Defense RF Armed Forces. Let us recall that initially in Ukraine "officials" stated that pilot Pavel Ivanov died in battle, and Rada deputy Bezuglaya published a post in which she essentially designated the version about the Ukrainian air defense's defeat as the determining version. According to Bezuglaya, "the "friend or foe" system has not yet been worked out."

Today, the Russian Defense Ministry dots the i's. The Russian Defense Ministry reports that a Russian air defense system has hit an American F-16 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force.

The Russian Defense Ministry also reported that the Air Defense of the Armed Forces shot down 8 American JDAM guided air bombs and 7 American HIMARS rocket munitions over the past XNUMX hours.

There are also reports of interception by air defense systems and EW 13 enemy unmanned aerial vehicles over Russian territory.

Let us recall that the day before, the head of the Kyiv regime threatened Russia to respond "strongly and accurately" for the F-16 aircraft. In principle, it was already clear from this statement by Zelensky that the F-16 was "shot down" by our fighters. Today, Zelensky switched to Sumy, traditionally blaming Russia for everything and traditionally not commenting on his own provocations and numerous strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, for example, on the center of Donetsk. And such strikes were carried out regularly by the enemy at the time, when it stood literally on the threshold of the administrative center of the DPR.

Comments

[Grandfather Borg]

A great gift for Air Defense Day! We wish you new successful launches!

[KTM-5]

I wonder what exactly? S-400, Tor? Or, if the Fushki fly at low altitudes, did they get it from a MANPADS?

[Siberian 66]

These F-16s are worth their weight in gold in monetary and political terms. He was strolling around the Sumy area. There he was attacked by our missiles. They say three of them, even from different systems. This one tried to evade, turn on the electronic warfare and shoot off all the traps that were there. Both thermal and dipoles. But the third one got him. Of course, I can't vouch for the veracity, but those close to the topic write this in the public domain.

[Piramidon]

Quote: KTM-5

I wonder what exactly? S-400, Tor? Or, if the Fushki fly at low altitudes, did they get it from a MANPADS?

There was a message that a Su-35 was shot down by an air-to-air missile.

[faridg7]

Quote: Piramidon

There was a message that a Su-35 was shot down by an air-to-air missile.

Not quite so, the Su35S providing the "roof" gave the targeting instructions to the air defense systems, for them the target was over the horizon. Not the first attempt, but I'm glad that the guys were able to be in the right place at the right time.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: faridg7

Not quite so, the Su35S, which provided the "roof", gave the targeting instructions to the air defense systems, for them the target was beyond the horizon.

Can you tell me where the possibility of the air defense system and the aircraft operating in real time for guidance is described (if it is not an AWACS)? Or when and where has anyone done this before? Are you aware that direct communication between the air defense crew and the pilot is simply not provided? And the simplest question is - why should the air defense system guide the 35th if it could itself land the Fushka in such conditions? Therefore, either Sukhoi or air defense, without "combinations"

[faridg7]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

Can you tell me where the ability of an air defense system and an aircraft to operate in real time is described (if it is not an AWACS)?

This feature is described in the Su35S flight manual, but I can’t tell you the page number – I don’t have it at hand.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

well or when and where has anyone done this before?

Just recently, information appeared on the Internet that a Su-35S flew over Voronezh at supersonic speed - at that time, there was an attempt to do this on the Fu-16.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

the simplest question is - why would air defense direct the 35th if it could have brought down the Fushka itself in such conditions?

The S300 and S400 are certainly mobile systems, but they cannot operate on the move, and not so much that they can be placed near the LBS, and at the distance where they can be safely placed, an aircraft descending to a low altitude beyond the LBS is beyond the horizon for the system. So accept this as a given.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: faridg7

described in the Su35S RLE

to guide others aircraft, but not the air defense calculations, however..

Quote: faridg7

Just recently, information appeared on the Internet that a Su-35S flew over Voronezh at supersonic speed - at that time, there was an attempt to do this on the Fu-16.

i.e. there are no specifics..

Quote: faridg7

The S300 and S400 are of course mobile systems, but they cannot operate on the move, and not so much that they can be placed near the LBS.

you didn't understand me.. Su- could have shot it himself, why would he need air defense to help? especially one that is located at a decent distance from the LBS... not to mention the simple thing that there is no direct connection between the air defense systems and the aircraft in one network in real time, except through the AWACS, but in theory again...

[faridg7]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

i.e. there are no specifics..

Su-35S hang in the sky almost around the clock to provide "cover", issuing targeting instructions for air defense is one of the tasks of such duty. Do you want specifics? Right now along the BS line (of course, conditionally along the line - 80-120 km from it) there are several Su-35S with such a task.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

for guiding other aircraft, not for calculating air defense, however..

How does the output of target coordinates for an aircraft differ from the output of target coordinates for an air defense missile system? How does the operation of an air defense missile system target illumination station differ from the target illumination of an aircraft radar?

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

you didn't understand me.. Su- he could have shot it himself, why would he need air defense to help him? especially one that was standing at a decent distance from the LBS...

If I could... Calculate for yourself. Su35S 80-120 km from LBS, target is also 80-100 km from LBS, but on the other hand, and it's not a fact that it's directly opposite, so set the initial condition as the distance to the target of at least 200 km, here you can only shoot down with caps.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: faridg7

Su-35Ss hang in the sky almost around the clock to provide "cover", issuing targeting instructions for air defense is one of the tasks of such duty.

yes... but not directly to the operator's tablet, but through the ground - and this is time and accuracy, you understand - there is no such direct system - if there was, no one would have flown from that side a long time ago...

Quote: faridg7

How does the output of target coordinates for an aircraft to the network differ from the output of target coordinates for an air defense missile system to the network?

nothing special, except that they are not in a conjugated system... this is still fantasy.

Quote: faridg7

If I could.. Calculate for yourself. Su35S 80-120 km from LBS, the target is also 80-100 km from LBS, but on the other hand, and it is not a fact that it is directly opposite, so set the initial condition as the distance to the target of at least 200 km, here only caps can be used to shoot down

Well, is the air defense much closer or what? Besides, it is not a fact that the Sukhoi can clearly see a low-flying target at 200 km.. well, let's assume it can.. blind firing by the air defense system is only possible with real-time data transmission to the operator's tablet.. I repeat - there is no such system.. it is not provided.. missiles should be adjusted during the flight, only the AWACS aircraft can do this, if aircraft the size of the Su could, and even at 400 km, the AWACS would no longer exist...

[faridg7]

Well, I won't be making any calculations with documents about this fantasy, the Su35S is a good plane, with excellent equipment. Of course, it's not an AWACS plane, it can't process, track and highlight the same number of targets, but if there are few targets, it can work on them just as well. The pilot has already shot down three of these. These shot downs don't count towards his count, but he is rightfully proud of the OK on them.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: faridg7

then he can work on them no worse

worse. and much worse.. otherwise, I repeat, AWACS would not be needed.. but it is better than not having such a possibility at all.. An AK with a sniper scope can shoot "sort of", "almost" like a sniper rifle.. but specifically sort of and almost..

[bayard]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

worse. and much worse.. otherwise, I repeat, AWACS would not be needed..

The AWACS certainly has better visibility capabilities, as well as better working conditions for operators/navigators, but the Su-35S radar has a function for turning the antenna panel left and right, which allows the viewing sector to be up to 240 degrees, and the detection range of the Irbis is very good. So, flying along the LBS with the radar panel turning towards it, it can also work as a ersatz AWACS. Given our shortage of such aircraft.
Regarding the possibility of issuing target designation for low-altitude targets beyond the radio horizon line to land-based or naval air defense systems, it was said and written at the time when it was still possible. Including in the Military District, somewhere in 2010-2011, when the capabilities and functionality of the Poliment-Redut naval air defense system and the S-350 (its land version) were described. Modern S-400, S-350 and Buk-M3 air defense systems have an AGSN with radio command target designation of the rendezvous point with the target. Modern RVVs have an AGSN and the same target designation system, they are practically identical. And the possibility of such guidance/target designation for ground/ship SAMs from a fighter or AWACS aircraft was initially included in both fighters and SAMs. How effective this can be was shown by the results of 2023, when target designation for the S-400 was provided by the A-50U. Then we lost two such aircraft from a Patriot ambush. And a few months later, a similar method of guidance began to be practiced using the Su-35S as a target designator. And there have been at least 29 reports of this kind of interceptions/shootings (MiG-16, and now F-4) in my memory. So this is not news at all, but the first case of shooting down a Falcon in this way. The Su-35S can supposedly also use the R-37M, but this is just "sort of". And the ability to guide long-range S-400 SAMs and fly along the LBS with antenna rotation, very much contributes to the use of this pair (Su-35S + S-400) to combat low-altitude targets beyond the radio horizon line for ground-based SAMs. Which is what we have been observing since the end of 2023 - beginning of 2024.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: bayard

using the Su-35S as a target designator

yes, exactly as a target designator, according to the target's location square, and then it will be lucky or not, like the AGSN will work, but not as a built-in part of the S-400 complex, guiding the missile itself.
Well, there is no such system to embed the S-35 radar data into the S-400 operator's tablet.. This is not the Internet, but military communications.. The only one who can do this is AWACS - arrange for them to be paired, which has been proven by successful actions.. I understand that for the Internet - what could be simpler - just send the data to some IP in real time, yes, that's true.. for the Internet... but military communications are not arranged like the Internet and its channels are not fiber-optic, but radio with ZAS mainly and on different frequencies of equipment.. Believe me, a military communications specialist.. military communications cannot be like the Internet.. Su compared to the capabilities of a normal AWACS, it's like a 1st-ranked athlete with a master of sports.. Of course, he can replace him in the ring.. a little.. He's also a boxer, but there's a nuance..

[bayard]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

Well, there is no system to integrate the S-35 radar data into the S-400 operator's tablet.

The point is that anti-aircraft missile divisions work in the ACS, and the AGSN of the SAMs and on the SAMs and on the RVV work on approximately the same algorithms, therefore, before the launch of the SAM, the aircraft provides the target coordinates and the lead point through the ACS as primary data for the launch. But since the target maneuvers, then during the flight of the SAM (as in the case of the RVV), the aircraft itself provides a correction of the lead point on the SAM. And it has everything necessary for this (those same computing power and communication channels). This capability was initially included. When it was still possible, they wrote about this in open sources, and I, as an officer in the combat control of an air defense unit (in the past), was interested in this back then. Therefore, I was not surprised when they began to shoot down enemy aircraft in this way with target designation from an AWACS aircraft, and then from a Su-35S. The Su-35S has a more suitable radar for this - with the ability to rotate the antenna. But one crew member ... and this is already some inconvenience. I think as the Su-30SM2 with the Irbis enters the troops, such work will be performed with greater "convenience" and quality. I will repeat once again - such an algorithm for the fighter's operation as a target designator for SAMs for targets beyond the radio horizon was described in an article about the future (then still undergoing development tests) ship-based SAM "Poliment-Redut" and its ground version S-350. The S-400 has the same operating principle, and perhaps the same type of AGSN. And if they hadn't written about this in open sources at the time (and I googled them specifically then), I wouldn't be writing to you about this now. These are not my fantasies, and Shoigu talked about this too. And the military pilot and blogger "Voevoda" also wrote about this - namely, about guiding the S-400 SAM to targets beyond the radio horizon from the Su-35S. You are right about one thing - doing this with a single-seat fighter is not very convenient, precisely because it is a single-seat fighter, and the pilot also needs to fly it. The MiG-31 has a more powerful and advanced radar, but it does not have a canvas turn. So in the future, only the Su-30SM2. And perhaps it is precisely the complexities and nuances of such targeting/guidance from a single-seat Su-35S that have not yet made this practice a mass phenomenon. So far, reports of such interceptions have only come from the northern direction.

[faridg7]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

yes... but not directly to the operator's tablet, but through the ground - and this is time and accuracy, you understand - there is no such direct system - if there was, no one would have flown from that side a long time ago...

We have a real problem with training people.
Back in 93 in Solnechnogorsk they showed me an ASUO in a tank, which allowed the tank platoon commander to distribute and direct targets to the platoon vehicles, and determine the type of BP for each target. In practice, the platoon commander could completely control the platoon's fire. But there was no one to teach the course participants how to work with the system, and accordingly, upon returning to their units, these officers could not teach their subordinates.
The same is true with the capabilities of aircraft - very often experienced pilots are surprised to learn from each other about functions and methods that are not even described in the flight manual.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: faridg7

Back in 93, in Solnechnogorsk, they showed me an automated control system in a tank, which allowed the tank platoon commander to distribute and direct targets to the platoon’s vehicles, and determine the type of AP for each target.

for one branch of the military - yes.. at the troop level - yes.. for short distances - yes.. aircraft + air defense operator no.. the scale of solving problems and issues - are an order of magnitude different.. even just technically.. we don't have a complete network-centric army command and control system.. NO... do you understand? Even on the ground we don't yet have a system for commanding one unit via a tablet that works normally and well..
and the ASUO that they showed you could give real-time information to the Tochka battery at 100 km on moving targets with coordinates? Do you understand what I mean? And in the air it is much more difficult than on the ground.

[Bad_gr]

The Su-35S was initially created as an aircraft for gaining air superiority, destroying air and ground targets under air defense cover at a great distance from their base airfields. Recently, the issue of using it as an airborne early warning and control aircraft has been considered. Its tasks may include controlling several aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as transmitting target designation to various strike systems.

(12.09.2022)
https://aif.ru/politics/russia/chto_za_istrebitel_su-35s_effektivno_boretsya_s_sistemami_pvo_na_ukraine

Specifically, it is not written whether the “strike systems” mean ground-based air defense, but with such target designation capabilities, it would be strange not to coordinate these systems.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Bad_gr

It would be strange not to coordinate these systems.

it would be strange not to have control at least at the platoon-company level via tablet? but no.. it would be strange not to have a fully army system of network-centric control that you are talking about? but no.. but in the absence of a system at the platoon-company level, what can we say about the Air Force board-air defense operator system... or is network-centricity already working hard in the army? and it is precisely this that is needed for what you are talking about..

[nik-mazur]

Quote: faridg7

how different is the operation of a target illumination station of an air defense missile system from target illumination of an aircraft radar

Those in the know say that the frequency ranges are completely different. This was done specifically so that aircraft and ground-based air defense systems do not interfere with each other. Therefore, a missile from an air defense system cannot be controlled from an aircraft and vice versa.

Quote: faridg7

the distance to the target is at least 200 km, here you can only shoot down with hats

The R-37 missile has a range of up to 300 km. And it seems that it has already been successfully used at 270 km.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Those in the know say that the frequency ranges are completely different. This was done specifically so that aircraft and ground-based air defense systems would not interfere with each other.

Thank you for your clear explanation, perhaps I did not explain it very well

[faridg7]

Quote from: nik-mazur

The R-37 missile has a range of up to 300 km. And it seems that it has already been successfully used at 270 km.

Of course it is, but something is wrong there. For some reason this missile rarely hits the suspension.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: faridg7

For some reason this rocket rarely hits the suspension

Is this an argument that is meant to prove something?

[faridg7]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Quote: faridg7

For some reason this rocket rarely hits the suspension

Is this an argument that is meant to prove something?

If the Su35S is in the air with the X31 and P27, and you need to fire at 250 km, ask the enemy to keep watch in the air while the Su35 flies to the airfield, hang up the P37M?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: faridg7

If Su35S is in the air with X31 and P27

If a.

[faridg7]

https://t.me/fighter_bomber/20415
The photo shows a standard roof support suspension. Can you find the R37M?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: faridg7

You will find P37M

Does this photo mean that our planes never don't use R-37?

[faridg7]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Does this mean that our aircraft never use the P-37?

Do you somehow distinguish between the meanings of the words NEVER and RARELY?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: faridg7

You somehow differentiate the meaning of the words NEVER and RARELY

I differentiate very clearly. That is why I do not consider it impossible to use P37. Even if it is rare.
Do you differentiate?

[faridg7]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Quote: faridg7

You somehow differentiate the meaning of the words NEVER and RARELY

I differentiate very clearly. That is why I do not consider it impossible to use P37. Even if it is rare.
Do you differentiate?

Did I write something about the impossibility of using the P37? Although yes, I wrote that it is impossible to use the P37 if the plane is in the air and the P37 is in the arsenal warehouse.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: faridg7

I wrote something about the impossibility of using P37

Not so overtly, but that's exactly how it looked.

[faridg7]

Not everything in the world is as it seems, two witnesses of the same incident will describe it differently, because everyone has their own cockroaches in their head and everyone calms their cockroaches in different ways. For example, I buy mechanical pencils for my people and that's why they read your answers calmly

[Vrotkompot]

Sometimes it's better to chew than to talk )))
If reconnaissance UAVs can re-draw the coordinates of targets, including air targets, then why shouldn't an advanced aircraft have this capability? And to avoid being shot down during a mission, they learn to fly for many hours.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote from Vrotkompot

Sometimes it's better to chew than to talk )))

at exactly

Quote from Vrotkompot

If reconnaissance UAVs are able to recalculate the coordinates of targets, including air targets.

i.e. the transmission system from the UAV to the operator is the same as from the Su pilot to the air defense operator? Chew-chew))) You are a theoretician, sir, it is immediately clear...

[Vrotkompot]

I didn't say that, this is your addition. I only said about the presence of the "target designation" function, how it is implemented neither I, nor, obviously, you know. You think it is impossible to stick a couple of gadgets from the A-35 into the SU-57 or SU-100 and implement the target illumination function.
“The Su-57 has a number of advantages over the F-16. Retired Indian Air Force pilot Vijayinder K. Thakur has detailed how the fifth-generation Felon (NATO nickname for the Su-57, which translates as “criminal.” — NEWS.ru) can be synchronized with ground-based radars, which would give it an advantage on first launch over the fourth-generation F-16,” Carlin says.

[nik-mazur]

Quote from Vrotkompot

reconnaissance UAVs can re-detect target coordinates

Drones can transmit coordinates, but only for stationary targets on the ground. They do this, by the way, in text mode. For moving ones, laser illumination is required, for example.

[Vrotkompot]

Did you program them to talk like that? Do you know the stuffing of the Hunter? ))

[nik-mazur]

Quote from Vrotkompot

You programmed them

No, I use open sources, according to which no drone can provide target designation for moving targets, except for laser illumination. There is no talk of coordinates of air targets.

Quote from Vrotkompot

You know the Hunter's filling

A similar question. Although it is not entirely clear what "Hunter" has to do with it.

[vitosia]

this is written by people who have no idea how and what works)))

[Shukhov]

For example, the Su 108S "Integrated Communication System S-35" can transmit data to the terminals of the NKVS-27 ground communications complexes; command and telecode communication channels of the KDL-I type are used, operating in the frequency range from 0,96 to 1,250 GHz, close to the "Link-16" system.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Shukhov

"Integrated communication system S-108" Su 35S can transmit data to the terminals of the ground communication complexes NKVS-27 command and telecode communication channels of the KDL-I type are used, operating in the frequency range from 0,96 to 1,250 GHz, close to the "Link-16" system

Do you know what NKVS-27 is and what it is for?) Ground-based air communications system for frontline aircraft - NKVS-27... for communication with its "base", which is what any aircraft does, and it has nothing to do with control and communications with the air defense crew... it is simply a "base-to-board" connection

[Shukhov]

Integrated Communication System S-108 - It's Not Just Voice Communication

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Shukhov

Integrated Communication System S-108 - It's Not Just Voice Communication

dear man, if in the tank R-173m, which has a digital mode of operation with the function of masking speech and data transmission at a speed of up to 16 kbps, does this mean that the R-173M can guide a missile? Do you understand the analogy? The purpose of the system is not to guide air defense missiles, even if there is data transmission.. although if in pure big theory - using data it is possible to transmit coordinates, etc. fantasies have flown.. just like with the R-173M... in fact, the data there is transmitted necessary to ensure the flight of the board.. and EVERYTHING... the rest is fantasy...

[Shukhov]

The S-35 tactical information exchange stations installed on the Su-108S provide the crews with the ability to instantly issue target designations on detected equipment to the NKVS-27 ground air communications stations with subsequent retransmission to the battery command posts of the Tornado-S high-precision MLRS, their previous version, the Smerch, and the Tornado-G. Target designations can also be issued to the operators of the Lancet-3/M kamikaze UAVs, who will carry out additional reconnaissance of armored groups and individual units of equipment and artillery, after which they will strike the exposed units.

This is definitely not just a connection to the base
https://voennoedelo.com/posts/id46722-ekspert-raskryl-osobennosti-istrebitelja-su-35s-v-protivostojanii-proryvu-vsu

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Shukhov

This is definitely not just a connection to the base
https://voennoedelo.com/posts/id46722-ekspert-raskryl-osobennosti-istrebitelja-su-35s-v-protivostojanii-proryvu-vsu

ok, I won't go into details, I'll just note that we're talking about guiding air defense missiles... and what you listed is done anyway - through the base again, and not directly by the board commanding the Tornado, for example... it's even written with further "retransmission"... but not by the NKVS, but by other means - accordingly - it's just communication with the base

[Shukhov]

Ok, now I understand how it works, thanks

[Piramidon]

This is what the yellow and blue side writes:

According to the Ukrainian military, the Russian Armed Forces "organized a hunt" for Ukrainian aircraft that participated in strikes on Russian Armed Forces positions in the Belgorod and Kursk regions. There was no "friendly fire"; no air defense systems of the Ukrainian Air Force were used in that area at all; they were not physically present there. But Russian air defense systems were there, as were aircraft in the air. In short, a Ukrainian pilot named Ivanov in his F-16 came under simultaneous attack by an air defense system and a fighter jet of the Russian Aerospace Forces; only three missiles were fired, but one was enough.

"In total, the Russians fired three missiles at the plane. It was either a guided anti-aircraft missile from the S-400 ground-based complex or an R-37 air-to-air missile."
- said the Ukrainian military man.

[faridg7]

Quote: Piramidon

This is what the yellow and blue side writes:

According to the Ukrainian military, the Russian Armed Forces "organized a hunt" for Ukrainian aircraft that participated in strikes on Russian Armed Forces positions in the Belgorod and Kursk regions. There was no "friendly fire"; no air defense systems of the Ukrainian Air Force were used in that area at all; they were not physically present there. But Russian air defense systems were there, as were aircraft in the air. In short, a Ukrainian pilot named Ivanov in his F-16 came under simultaneous attack by an air defense system and a fighter jet of the Russian Aerospace Forces; only three missiles were fired, but one was enough.

"In total, the Russians fired three missiles at the plane. It was either a guided anti-aircraft missile from the S-400 ground-based complex or an R-37 air-to-air missile."
- said the Ukrainian military man.

It is quite possible that the Sukhoi worked as a missile, but no one would have cancelled its work as a backlight for the SAM system. One does not contradict the other.

[Dimax]

Su 35 as an AWACS aircraft? Well, it's a so-so crutch.. We need a normal AWACS, so it can see further away...

[faridg7]

Quote: Dimax

Su 35 as an AWACS aircraft? Well, it's a so-so crutch.. We need a normal AWACS, so it can see further away...

The guys are using what they were given. You can give them a normal AWACS, give it to them, they will use it.

[Dimax]

It’s as if they’re ripping off taxes from me and not from me alone, what does that mean, do I live in the state or in the market?

[faridg7]

Quote: Dimax

as if they were ripping off taxes from me and not just from me,

You wrote above that this is not enough, more and better is needed. The guys on LBS use what the state and the people can give them, if you want to improve - improve, no one is holding you by the sleeves

[Dimax]

There is a state and people who should do this, I have another job.

[Kovacs]

Quote: KTM-5

I wonder what exactly? S-400, Tor? Or, if the Fushki fly at low altitudes, did they get it from a MANPADS?

S-400, got it with the third missile, the Russian turned out to be a nimble one, it was not for nothing that they hung three dog badges on it in the pigsty...

[topol717]

There, it seems, the S-400 launched 2 missiles and 1 Sushka missile. Someone somewhere said that one missile would have been enough, but air defense always works in pairs against such targets. But the Sushka constantly illuminated with its radar, providing guidance for the missiles.

[nik-mazur]

Quote from: topol717

The dryer constantly illuminated its radar, providing guidance for the missiles.

The aircraft can only illuminate and provide guidance for its own missile. SAM missiles are not compatible with the aircraft's guidance system.

[topol717]

SAM missiles with aircraft guidance systems are not compatible.

Who told you this? The missile is guided by a radio signal reflected from the target. And yes, this signal contains nothing but the carrier frequency.

[nik-mazur]

Quote from: topol717

Who told you this?

Air defense specialists. You can dig around here:
https://dzen.ru/id/5daad4a0c7e50c00b1294ff0?share_to=link
Although I doubt that you will like it, since the author writes a lot, in a complex manner, with many technical details, and most importantly, he frankly dislikes the fightbomber, who is dearly loved here for his truth-telling attacks.

Quote from: topol717

the missile is guided by a radio signal reflected from the target

It's so simple. But the guys from the air defense don't know that any pioneer can light up a target for a SAM missile with his snotty hands.

Quote from: topol717

this signal contains nothing but the carrier frequency

And these frequencies are completely different for aircraft and air defense systems. Because otherwise there will be chaos.

[topol717]

Quote from: nik-mazur

And these frequencies are completely different for aircraft and air defense systems. Because otherwise there will be chaos.

This is not true. In radar and electronics in general, much, if not everything, is based on probability and mathematics. So, the probability of simultaneous target irradiation is very low. And if you have a passive radar, which is installed on all SAMs, then you have no other source, and this radar must catch all signals from a possible target.

[nik-mazur]

Quote from: topol717

the probability of simultaneous target irradiation is very low

An anti-aircraft missile, at a minimum, has a radar of the SAM system that launched it at the target. For this reason, the missile should not perceive third-party signals, including aircraft signals. And it is impossible to transfer control from the SAM system to the aircraft. In fact, it is also impossible to control the SAM missile from the aircraft, since at the current technical level, it is practically impossible to coordinate the coordinates of the aircraft, missile and target. Again, the receiver of the control signal of the missile is located in the butt and is directed backwards, and therefore, it is inaccessible to the aircraft.

Quote from: topol717

This radar must catch all signals from a possible target

No, it shouldn't and it doesn't.

[SovAr238A]

Quote from: nik-mazur

An anti-aircraft missile, at a minimum, has a radar of the SAM system that launched it at the target. For this reason, the missile should not perceive third-party signals, including aircraft signals. And it is impossible to transfer control from the SAM system to the aircraft. In fact, it is also impossible to control the SAM missile from the aircraft, since at the current technical level, it is practically impossible to coordinate the coordinates of the aircraft, missile and target. Again, the receiver of the control signal of the missile is located in the butt and is directed backwards, and therefore, it is inaccessible to the aircraft.

This is exactly what the US Navy has accomplished with its NIFC-CA.
And it works for them. True, so far only with one SM-6 naval SAM (possibly because of its AMRAAM seeker).
It is the Navy's F-35V and E-2D aircraft that search for the target, provide the initial target designation (square) for launch from the ship, and guide the SAM to the target in the over-the-horizon area.
They have already been tested in field trials in the Navy.
Triton and Poseidon trials are coming up.
The program has been in effect since 2012-2013.
Very complicated.
A similar program (development and future testing) is currently underway in the US Air Force and Army.

There is nothing like this in the Russian Federation and there has never been anything like this. That's for sure.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: SovAr238A

This is exactly what the US Navy has implemented... True, so far with only one SM-6 naval SAM

Yeah, because the SM-6, unlike all other SAMs of the Standard family, has an active radar homing head.

Quote: SovAr238A

There is nothing like this in the Russian Federation and there has never been anything like this. That's for sure.

Well, naturally, we don’t have the F-35 or the SM-6 naval SAM.

[SovAr238A]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Quote: SovAr238A

This is exactly what the US Navy has implemented... True, so far with only one SM-6 naval SAM

Yeah, because the SM-6, unlike all other SAMs of the Standard family, has an active radar homing head.

Not only ARLGS...
But all the "aviation" channels of data exchange and correction, developed in hardware and software...
This allows the aircraft to take control of the rocket from the ship.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: SovAr238A

Which allows the plane to take control of the rocket from the ship.

Well, yes - either control, or target designation. Or maybe just information exchange with the combat information and control system, which is the most likely.

[SovAr238A]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Or maybe it’s just an exchange of information with the combat information system, which is the most likely.

In this case - not "can".
The NIFC-CA program was started for direct control of the SAM from the target designator aircraft. BEYOND the radio horizon.
Because this same program also includes tests on using the SM-6 SAM as an anti-ship missile. Which the Americans quite like. But here there is only direct control.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: SovAr238A

The NIFC-CA program was started for direct control of the SAM from the target designator aircraft.

The enemy internets claim that "The central tenets behind NIFC-CA are situational awareness and extended-range cooperative targeting."
Within the framework of this concept, it is assumed that the F-35, due to its stealth, should approach as close as possible to the enemy, detect targets and transmit information to the AWACS aircraft, which will then distribute them to the executors. And direct control of foreign missiles is mentioned exclusively in the future tense.
It is not entirely clear how the F-35 is supposed to be camouflaged when it starts emitting radio waves in all directions in close proximity to the enemy.

[SovAr238A]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Within the framework of this concept, it is assumed that the F-35, due to its stealth, should approach as close as possible to the enemy, detect targets and transmit information to the AWACS aircraft, which will then distribute them to the executors. And direct control of foreign missiles is mentioned exclusively in the future tense.
It is not entirely clear how the F-35 is supposed to be camouflaged when it starts emitting radio waves in all directions in close proximity to the enemy.

Not this way.
First, the F-35 is a slightly different aircraft to spread waves in all directions.
Secondly, it doesn't need AWACS. The F-35 is head and shoulders above the Hawkeye in the requirements that are conveyed to the "forward gunner": Despite the work that still remains, Sheridan said pairing the F-35 with NIFC-CA – compared to using the Navy's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye or other aircraft – “is just heads and shoulders above anything else we've been seeing.”

Thirdly, it is under the F-35 that the installation of special Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication systems on ships begins - specifically for the tasks of the NIFC-CA program. They are already installed on the F-35, but are absent on the Hawkeyes.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: SovAr238A

pairing the F-35 with NIFC-CA ... “is just heads and shoulders above anything else we've been seeing.”

If you don’t praise yourself, no one will guess.
Wherein:

Quote: SovAr238A

Despite the work that still remains

In other words, nothing is working yet, but when (if) it happens, the US will gain an advantage, secure it for itself, send a signal, etc., etc.

[Kovacs]

Quote from: topol717

Someone somewhere said that one missile would be enough, but air defense systems always work in pairs against such targets.

Once upon a time, in a past life, our division fired in Sary-Shagan - two missiles, two targets. S-200. I still remember three things: hitting a target in the sky, the March frost at night and warmth during the day, and a steppe full of scarlet poppies!..

[DIM (a)]

Happy Holidays to the Air Defense fighters! Keep it up! Clear skies over the Motherland!

[Kovacs]

Quote: DIM (a)

Happy Holidays to the Air Defense fighters! Keep it up! Clear skies over the Motherland!

We don’t fly ourselves and we don’t let others fly!

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

❝ The F-16 fighter of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down by Russian air defense ❞ —

— The conscious ones flew by prizeThey still have a few F-16s left, so there are more chance ...
(Bezuglaya published a post in which she essentially designated the version about the Ukrainian air defense plane being hit as the decisive version)

[Mazunga]

handsome guys, we should give the crew a nice bonus for the downed American

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Keep them coming, guys: the sky of the Fatherland must be clear...

[tralflot1832]

F 16 hasn't been flown in the sky for a long time, it would be good if it was a "spark". There is a chance to see an incredible obituary about a Western pilot - he died on vacation from a mamba bite.

[guest]

Quote: tralflot1832

There's a chance to see a bizarre obituary about a Western pilot

No, some Bandera supporter died there and the clown has already awarded him the title of hero.

[guest]

Especially for the minus-writer, there is an article about this
https://topcor.ru/58686-svideteli-priveli-podrobnosti-kak-letchik-sbitogo-nad-sumskoj-oblastju-f-16am-vsu-pytalsja-spastis.html

[nik-mazur]

Quote: guest

There is an article about this

witnesses, local residents, told the Russian expert ... According to eyewitnesses, the Ukrainian F-16AM was flying towards the state border, but was shot down by Russian ground-based air defense systems, as they were firing from the ground

That is, eyewitnesses, sitting on a bench, identified a specific model of F-16, and also clearly observed not only its flight and maneuvers, but also detected the launch of three anti-aircraft missiles with a range of up to 250 km.
As they say, sapienti sat...

[nik-mazur]

Quote from: nik-mazur

eyewitnesses sitting on a bench

I forgot to mention another extremely “plausible” nuance: Ukrainian witnesses (and the incident took place somewhere near Sumy) told the Russian expert.

[guest]

All claims are directed to the author of the article, not to me.

[Fitter65]

The Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that the F-16 fighter of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down by the Russian Air Defense Forces.

By the way, the intellectual level of Ukrainian pilots is clearly visible. Some who can and know how to think fly into space, while those who cannot use their brains end up underground in Western scrap metal... For RUSSIAN COSMONAUTS!!!!!

[Dutchman Michel]

This fact needs to be communicated to potential F-16 buyers from every outlet. It would be nice to land the F-35, but the pig-faces don't supply it.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

It would be nice to land the F-35, but the pig-faces don't supply it.

They'll put it in 60 years, maybe, as a museum exhibit, in one of the Russian Ministry of Defense museums in Novorossiya... We have a capsule cabin from an F-111 in Monino... and an F-5 "Tiger"... I won't even mention the foreign tanks in Kubinka...

[yuriy55]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

It would be nice to land the F-35, but they don't supply it to pig-faces.

But there are plenty of them in the BV and they fly everywhere...

[rocket757]

Increasing the capabilities, efficiency of reconnaissance, control of airspace is a priority task!!!

[Popov I.P.]

The Air Defense Day gift is substantial, but it is only the beginning. The crew that hits the enemy will also receive a substantial bonus from the state. Moreover, on a show on one of the channels it was announced that in addition to this, a considerable cash reward for the first downed F-16 (16 million rubles) was promised to be paid by one of the entrepreneurs (name not published). Traditionally, payments for the destruction of valuable enemy weapons and military equipment are also made by the authorities of the subjects of the Federation, whose fellow countrymen were involved in the event. At one time, when the Ukrainians prayed for the "Leopards", "Abrams" and "Challengers" as if they were the wonder of the century, there was such a rush in the hunt for them that the Ukrainians even had to move them away from the front line so as not to discredit the manufacturers, and still at least 2/3 of these models have already been lost by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The F-16 is not a wonder of the century and their number has already started to increase. But the main thing in such events is that trained pilots are also disposed of along with the equipment, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces have a very hard time with this. True, they can put retired NATO pilots in F-16s, but it is unlikely that there will be many "hero" suicides among them. Therefore, the more F-16s and other Ukrainian Armed Forces aircraft are landed along with their crews, the lower the Ukrainian potential. So get to work, brothers, air defense men!

[guest]

F-16 fighter jet of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down by Russian air defense

Has the crew that shot it down already been nominated for an award?

[Comrade Beria]

As I expected - dry and without details.

[faridg7]

Quote: Comrade Beria

As I expected - dry and without details.

As always, these are not Korean TV announcers.

[borisvt]

.. F-16 "shot down" by our fighters. Today Zelensky switched to Sumy, traditionally blaming Russia for everything

Wow, our guys are great!
Serves it right Svidomo

[Karelian]

The Russian Defense Ministry also reported that the Air Defense of the Armed Forces shot down 8 American JDAM guided air bombs over the past XNUMX hours.

This means that "litaks" are already being used regularly and not just one at a time. There will be more to join the lad who was not accepted as an astronaut.

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Quote: faridg7

how different is the operation of a target illumination station of an air defense missile system from target illumination of an aircraft radar

Those in the know say that the frequency ranges are completely different. This was done specifically so that aircraft and ground-based air defense systems do not interfere with each other. Therefore, a missile from an air defense system cannot be controlled from an aircraft and vice versa.

Quote: faridg7

the distance to the target is at least 200 km, here you can only shoot down with hats

The R-37 missile has a range of up to 300 km. And it seems that it has already been successfully used at 270 km.

How does this missile aim at the target if it is 300 km away? After all, if the F16 is illuminated all the time from the moment of launch, then it has a lot of time to simply fly away in the opposite direction, where the missile does not reach. The trick is that it flies up unnoticed. But the plane does not stand still...

[Calm_type]

To launch the R37 for three hundred km, several conditions must be met. In ordinary life, they don't launch for three hundred. It won't fly.