Prospects for the Development of the Russian Aerospace Forces. AWACS aircraft

Necessary foreword

May those who write on this topic forgive me (although you may not forgive me), but recently a lot of people have been discussing how the strategy and tactics of the Russian Aerospace Forces should change in modern conditions, especially considering the latest combat experience.

To my great regret, 90% of such materials boil down to some kind of game of "And here they have - and here we have". Sometimes there are very good understandings of the development line of some classes of American aircraft, but nothing more. The understanding that modern war is a complex event aimed at the destruction of enemy manpower and equipment with the subsequent capture of foreign territories is not present in everyone. And the understanding of what kind of aircraft we need to accomplish all the tasks is even less.

So we'll talk about how things are "there" later. First, let's figure out what we have and what to do with it.

So, strategy. As the ancients said, tactics wins the battle, strategy wins the war. What is the modern strategy of application aviation? Gaining air superiority, destroying the enemy's ground aviation infrastructure, supporting one's own units and destroying the enemy's rear structures. And to this, reconnaissance, counteraction and supply.

We will leave army aviation, as a very specific type of troops, for later, as well as strategic aviation, as the most expensive and useless type of aviation.

Let's start with those types of aviation where we really desperately need development, and not just development, we need new machines. Well, simply because often the old ones are simply not available.

AWACS aircraft

Not only do we have practically no aircraft (6 or 7 A-50/A-50U), but they are also obsolete, practically in the last century. And these old machines are worth their weight in gold, because they can at least somehow work against the enemy and provide target designation to pilots and missilemen.

Moreover, as practice has shown, the whole world has already begun to refuse huge, slow and clumsy coffins, and only here the Il-76 is the light at the end of the tunnel. The Americans are also beginning to understand that their Boeing E-3 Sentry is as old as our A-50, but they are in no hurry to buy the E-7A Wedgetail.

Why? Well, the world has changed. A huge iron, as soon as it is in the range of any weapons, - a pile of burnt metal on the ground. No chance of salvation.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone think there is a chance? I will send you to the families of the Il-20 and A-50 crews, talk to them and tell them that we have such protection - there is nothing to fear. But both the Il-20 in Syria and the A-50 near Crimea were shot down by an incredibly old rocket S-200 air defense missile system. Almost our own. I won't even mention the Il-22 that the Wagner fighters marching on Moscow shot down in my region, the Strela-10 was the anachronism that carried it out.

There is no chance for a modern aircraft from Il-20 to Il-76 to evade or defend against a missile. As practice has shown, this means 10-20 corpses (highly qualified specialists at that) and minus the aircraft in any case.

And if we take into account that today a means of destruction can also be a UAV, the cost of which is 10-15 times less than the cost of a missile...

The Americans are starting to look at a device similar to their E-2C Hawkeye naval AWACS aircraft. Yes, it is ancient, like I don’t know what, but: it is small, light, maneuverable, with a small crew of five people (2 pilots and 3 BIC operators). And on its basis they are making a new, so-called “Advanced Hawkeye”, with more modern engines, a new radar and a full surveillance complex (they say there will be a truncated AN/SPY), and this aircraft is of interest not only to aviation fleet, but also the Air Force.

Logical.

The Swedes also do all sorts of things based on Gulfstream business jets, and there is a three-year waiting list for their Saab 340 AEW&C. For the same reason.

Okay, where are we, and where are the Swedes and Americans, I agree. But you can look at the Chinese, what a delight they make! I'm talking about their KJ-200 and KJ-500. Especially the 200th. No huge rotating antennas, everything is on AFAR, light weight, they've churned out so many that it makes your teeth ache with envy. They haven't reached a hundred, but what are we talking about when we're talking about grand?

KJ-200

KJ-500

Yes, they have - we have. But we have, in fact, nothing. Something incomprehensible is happening with the "Premier", which is the A-100, some sources say that the program may be curtailed altogether. But there are two options, a bad one and a good one. The bad one is the "Armata". They talked for a long time about how good it would be, but it turned out as usual. The second is a revision of the program as a whole.

The SVO has shown that AWACS aircraft are needed for the efficient and, most importantly, safe operation of aviation. And they are needed in as many quantities as necessary so that the operation of such an air complex is a routine matter, and not a gift from heaven.

Accordingly, here is the layout of what a modern AWACS aircraft should be: small, maneuverable, inexpensive compared to the A-50.

A-50. Capable of "holding" a front of up to 1000 km, seeing a bomber at a distance of up to 650 km, a fighter at up to 450 km, a cruise missile at up to 200 km. Can track up to 300 targets and control 12 fighters.

And this magnificence costs 500 million dollars.

Wouldn’t it be more effective to replace the A-50 with five aircraft the size of the An-30 and costing five times less, albeit with five times less efficiency?

Such an aircraft, the “Russian Hawkeye”, could keep a 100-120 km front under surveillance, track 50-60 targets and guide, say, 2-4 aircraft to the targets.

What's the point? The point is that even if such a plane is shot down, 600 km of the 100 km front will be exposed. Yes, there will be a "hole" that can somehow be leveled at the expense of other planes. But if an A-50 is shot down, that's it, the concert is over.

A smaller aircraft is built faster. It is equipped faster. It is repaired faster. Turboprop engines are more economical and allow to "hover" in the air longer. And in the time it takes to assemble one Il-76 and re-equip it into an A-50U, it is possible to assemble many such aircraft.

The main problem of the Russian Aerospace Forces is that we simply don’t have such an aircraft. The An-30 is gone, history. It's unrealistic for us to produce it, unless we grab the entire Antonov enterprise for ourselves. In general, it would be very good, but I'm afraid not as soon as we would like.

The fact that JSC Ilyushin makes various modifications of the Il-18 and Il-20 from the Il-22, one by one, manually, one plane per five years, is also not a good life, and there is no particular sense in this. The planes are converted from the Il-18, the most recent of which was manufactured in 1985. And, no matter how you look at it, an aircraft from the last century cannot be taken seriously today. At least in terms of its resource.

There was some hope for the Il-112V, the aircraft met all the requirements, and it could have been made into an AWACS aircraft, but, alas, we all know how it ended. And there is no continuation yet and none is expected.

Here's your direction of development. Without any references to the Americans. Almost.

The Russian Aerospace Forces need an AWACS aircraft. A small one that can be hidden in a hangar at any airfield, so that it can be on the operational frontier when it is needed, and not when it can fly from a safe airfield to the front line. And in general, do these safe airfields exist? It is clear that there are some in Kamchatka. But it is very difficult to work from there in the European part of the country.

So here it is, the vector: an aircraft with a takeoff weight of up to 25-30 tons, two turboprop engines capable of giving it a speed of up to 800 km/h, a crew of 2 people plus 2-4 radar operators and a data processing complex. This aircraft should "hover" in the operating area for 5-6 hours, no more, then comes physical fatigue and the resulting inattention of the crew. And all these refuelings in the air turn out to be unnecessary. The aircraft took off from a standard hangar at the airfield, worked, returned, landed. The crew rested, the aircraft in the hangar and prepared for the next flight.

The most interesting thing is that today the role of such an aircraft is performed by pilots of the Su-35. Yes, the gorgeous radar of this aircraft allows it to look very far and track even anti-aircraft missile launches (a very useful option) at other aircraft. And this is often how the work goes: the Su-34s drop what they have there, and the 35th hangs above and monitors the tactical situation.

But the Su-35 is first and foremost a fighter, and a single-seater at that. Here we come to the point that the Su-30 or MiG-31 would look better in this role, but the Su-30 has a weaker radar, and the MiG-31 is also not very effective to use in this role. So the Su-35 turned out to be the best. Although it is already the best we have, and in the world too.

So yes, a normal tactical AWACS aircraft is necessary, and the sooner the better.

And the Russian Aerospace Forces need a lot of such aircraft. At least 30, and so here is the chain: aircraft – surveillance equipment – information processing and transmission – result.

We need to start with the aircraft. Then - bases with the necessary infrastructure, where the primary task is to create anti-drone protection.

Next are the issues of processing and transmitting information. Our adversaries have Link 16, a system that allows transmitting an array of information with target coordinates to any link in the chain included in the system. That is, right up to the commander artillery batteries, which, based on the data received, will be able to independently make a decision to open fire when ready.

Many countries that do not have such systems, and there are many such countries, spend a lot of time on transmitting information. Let's take, as an example, any country that has reconnaissance aircraft, but does not have Link 16 analogues. Pakistan will do.

An AWACS aircraft detects, say, a tactical missile launcher and a column of armored vehicles 30 kilometers away. The information first goes to its command post, from where it is transmitted to the Air Force headquarters, where the initial decision is made "can we - can't we"; if it is impossible to hit from the air, the information goes to the ground forces decision-making center, where they decide who will work on the targets. Then comes the issuance of combat missions to missilemen or artillery.

In general, as practice shows, it can take a lot or a lot of time to make decisions and agree on them. Up to several hours. During this time, the launcher can fire a salvo and leave the area, and the column can reach its target.

And the entire land part of the country must be equipped with such aircraft, capable of quickly transmitting information.

But in the sea expanses of the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, on the contrary, large aircraft capable of staying in the air for 6+ hours will be more appropriate. In those areas, there are fewer threats and longer distances. But, as you understand, these will be naval aircraft, mainly focused on working with the Northern and Pacific fleets and coastal defense units. And in these areas, an AWACS aircraft capable of "holding" up to 1 km along the front will be very useful.

In the North, the A-50 and its descendants will feel comfortable: there are frankly few airfields, but the range allows for patrol flights with a large "shoulder". The same is true in the Pacific Ocean, only there are many times more threats there, but we will talk about this later.

The Northern and Eastern directions are strikingly different from the West and South, so here the support of flying tankers is important. We do not have many Il-78M and Il-78M-90A, but they will be more than enough to provide fuel for reconnaissance, counteraction and cover fighter aircraft.

This is the first part of the vision of the direction in which the Russian Aerospace Forces should direct their efforts in order to truly ensure their future superiority, both strategic and tactical. The next part will offer consideration of the directions of aircraft development EW and RTR. Unfortunately, it is simply unrealistic to do all of this in the space of one article.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Although the author is mistaken in believing that a few, a few, and not much, better maneuverability of lighter vehicles will greatly help them from being shot down, but in general he is right.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Although the author is mistaken in believing that a few, a few, and not much, better maneuverability of lighter vehicles will greatly help them from being shot down, but in general he is right.

The author is wrong in principle. This is not an article, but heresy, some kind of continuous desire for an AWACS aircraft.
In modern Russia, in this "cock's hell" - capitalism, they can't even make an An-2. What other AWACS aircraft?
These AWACS aircraft are in the same place as the new Russian orbital station, the Armata and Kurganets tanks, the A-40 Albatross flying boat, the MiG-35, the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, etc.

[Pravodel]

The author is wrong in principle. This is not an article, but heresy, some kind of continuous desire for an AWACS aircraft... they can't even make an An-2. What other AWACS aircraft?

1. Let me ask: what is this principle in which the author is wrong?!
2. If they say "A", then they must say "B", and not jump from topic to topic. As the ancients said: do not multiply entities. If the author is mistaken about the necessity/non-necessity of AWACS aircraft, then he can and should be corrected. But this does not mean at all that from a correct or incorrect solution follows the conclusion about the impossibility of building something.
In this regard, be consistent in your theses and do not jump from one to another...
P.S.
A small example of logic similar to that quoted here.
A brick is crawling along the wall, Fomich is sitting under the wall, tomorrow is artilleryman's day, I didn't take your slippers.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Let me ask: what is this principle in which the author is wrong?!

I'll explain for those who don't know anything about it.
From 1992 to 2013, I worked at the TAPOiCh plant in the chief designer's department in Tashkent, where - attention! You won't believe it - they made those same A-50s based on the Il-76. They also made the Il-114.
So, more than 1000 (thousands) of factories from all over the USSR worked for the TAPOiCh plant. They were suppliers of everything - from engines and chassis to all grades of materials used (aluminum, steel, magnesium, bronze, rubber, plywood, oils, etc.), from machine tools to wires and radar equipment. In short, everything that a car (or, in your opinion, an airplane) is made of.
Now Russia is a member of the WTO. I explain it especially for you.
The primary principle of the WTO is Attention! Liquidation of industry. All industry. What Yeltsin did and what the guarantor continued, to the joyful cries - All our factories are unprofitable! The West will sell us everything or just give it away!
Now do you understand why there is endless talk about import substitution?
There are no 1000 factories in Russia to produce the A-100, well, there aren't any. Garant and his accomplices did their best. That's why they can't even make the An-2 in Russia. What kind of AWACS aircraft are we talking about?
That's exactly why I call our life in capitalist Russia "rooster hell"!
In 1991, Russia was thrown back to the end of the 19th century.
So see?

[Pravodel]

I call our life in capitalist Russia "rooster hell"!

Your indignation at the capitalism that exists in Russia is understandable. But it is not clear what this has to do with

the principle in which the author is wrong

The article is dedicated to the fact that Russia needs AWACS aircraft. And there is no and cannot be any dispute here. The author is 100% or even 200-1000% right. Everything else is your emotions that are not related to the topic of the article.
So, as already said above, if you put forward some thesis, then build logic in relation to this thesis, and not to your emotions and indignation at capitalism in Russia, or don’t write at all and swear, to your heart’s content, in your own back alley. You can even shout at the crows, because they shit on our gardens and parks.

[D-east]

There was no guarantor in power in 91, why are you casting a shadow over the fence? In the Union with its planned economy, everything was spelled out, who and where produces, including this concerns the production of aircraft. When the country went under, the entire production chain went under. Are critics like you not Cossacks sent by the authorities?

[shikin]

Yes, definitely planted. They don't like that the tree doesn't produce good enough apples, they are ready to cut it down. The current government has many shortcomings (as does any other). But what do they offer in return? Maybe Navalny or even Khodorkovsky? Or Zyuganov? It is easier to cut down a tree than to grow the right one.

[cmax]

Quote: D-east

There was no guarantor in power in 91, why are you casting a shadow over the fence? In the Union with its planned economy, everything was spelled out, who and where produces, including this concerns the production of aircraft. When the country went under, the entire production chain went under. Are critics like you not Cossacks sent by the authorities?

Cossacks or not, but the new Avaks are as far away as Mars. It doesn't matter who is to blame, when, what matters is that none of this exists and isn't even expected. The "new" AN-2 will help. Here are the drones of the First World War, and they fly all over the European part of Russia. One thing follows another. Maybe you have a different order, I don't know!

[alexoff]

But I don't understand - there is a command post and radar from the S400, we can make it for the Il-76, it seems. But making it two in one is just some kind of stupor. AFAR is installed on the Su-57, it is impossible to install more of them in a Tu-214 so that they look to the side.
There are simply problems that are being solved, and there are separate industries with very specific people who will steal all the money and will not be able to establish stone production.

[D-east]

And who has them, the new AWACS? By the way, products from the 70s of the last century. An-2 to help? I already wrote above, but, apparently, the interlocutors' emotions are clouding their minds. There used to be the USSR Ministry of Aviation Industry. Do you understand? USSR! Which included a bunch of enterprises scattered across all 15 republics. The country collapsed, and with it the entire established chain. From the previous bunch of enterprises, only a few remain. And in order to restore all this, you need to have a lot of money, brains, time, specialists, etc., etc. This cannot be done at the click of a button.

[cmax]

Quote: D-east

And who has them, the new AWACS? By the way, products from the 70s of the last century. An-2 to help? I already wrote above, but, apparently, the interlocutors' emotions are clouding their minds. There used to be the USSR Ministry of Aviation Industry. Do you understand? USSR! Which included a bunch of enterprises scattered across all 15 republics. The country collapsed, and with it the entire established chain. From the previous bunch of enterprises, only a few remain. And in order to restore all this, you need to have a lot of money, brains, time, specialists, etc., etc. This cannot be done at the click of a button.

I know what and how it was before. You probably also know that 1945 years passed from 1961 to 15 (Gagarin's flight). I mean, if you really want it, then everything can be done, but if you engage in empty talk and search for reasons, then even a new AN-2 and a new engine for it cannot be made for fifteen years with normal financing. And the new Russian Avacs is generally fantastic, given the lack of the necessary element base and the small number of aircraft produced by the industry. Hope for the Chinese comrades. The war showed everything - who is who and what is what. What we have achieved and what we have not achieved. IMHO.

[D-east]

Well, we had to want it badly not so long ago. The countdown can be started from 2014, and very badly - from 2022. Before that, you know, the whole world, including us, believed in the so-called globalization. Including in aircraft manufacturing. What the Superjet is made of, you know. But then it was the order of the day for everyone, including our Chinese comrades. No one has the gift of foresight, and it is unlikely that anyone foresaw that we would be so happily screwed by our "Western partners". But achievements are still appearing, with difficulty. And our own engines for the Superjet and MS-21, replacing Western goods with our own and Chinese (I do not argue) in aircraft. If all this time (since 2014) we had only been engaged in empty talk, we would have collapsed after the first package of sanctions.

[Ermak_415]

There was no guarantor in power in 91

No, there wasn't. But it appeared later.
This is already the fifth term of GDP and what has changed? Industry continues to collapse as it did.

[lazy]

su35, su34, su57, nuclear submarines, paved road from west to east, otherwise the communists in the united country did not have money to connect the east and west of the country with a road, everyone used the trans-Siberian Railway built in tsarist Russia, bridges and not only the Crimean one, all over the country up to Vladivostok, well, there is not enough money for everything, so in the USSR there was not enough in Komsomolsk they built 300 planes a year and there were barracks in blocks, only now they are being torn down and people are being resettled in new ones.

[D-east]

Is it just collapsing? Are you confusing this with the "blessed 90s"?

[cast iron]

There was no guarantor in power in 91, why are you casting a shadow over the fence?

The Garant has been at the top of power since 1999. What has he done for the people? Raised taxes? Destroyed education and medicine? Made people homeless? Maybe at least developed the auto industry? How much longer will the Garant hang around in his chair with his buddies from the judo section?

[D-east]

Do you consider "Garant" a wizard? Why didn't you say a word about the "blessed 90s"? He was in power then too and was smashing and selling everything? Clear your memory first. The auto industry - then you can make a claim to Stalin, they started creating it in his time, and Stalin was in power longer than Putin.
And who are these judo buddies? I only know Trutnev, one of those who are on everyone's lips. You are one of those who just want to blurt out something loudly and then don't care.

[cast iron]

Do you consider "Garant" to be a wizard?

Do you consider your fellow citizens to be idiots?

Was he in power then too and was smashing and selling everything?

He was working for Sobchak then. For the "hero of the country".

Automotive industry - then you should make a claim to Stalin, they started creating it in his time, and Stalin was in power longer than Putin

Stalin created the auto industry, unlike... And in his highest position, Dzhugashvili was in power for a shorter period.

And who are these judo buddies? I only know Trutnev,

You don't know well. And have you already forgotten Rottenberg?

You are one of those people who just want to blurt out something loudly and then don't care.

And you are apparently one of the admirers? Have you settled in well?

[D-east]

I asked about the Guarantor, not about fellow citizens. This is a difficult question for you, apparently.
"He was working for Sobchak then. For the "hero of the country." - and, of course, he had a lot of authority to resolve such issues.
"Stalin created the auto industry, unlike," - he did, thank you for agreeing with me. But the cars of those years did not become the pinnacle of automobile manufacturing. I do not blame Stalin for this.
"And in his highest position, Dzhugashvili was in power less," - I congratulate you for lying. Joseph Stalin was the de facto leader of the USSR from 1924 to 1953. That's 29 years. Putin became president in 1999, now it's 2025, that's 26, the arithmetic is simple.
"You don't know well. And have you forgotten Rottenberg already?" - A person in the singular is not "buddies", but "buddies". Tell me, what position does this person hold? Deputy Prime Minister? Minister? Maybe, at worst, a deputy minister? Or does he sit on the Security Council?
"And you are apparently one of the admirers? Have you settled in well?" - you were mistaken. I won't explain, you don't have to believe me.

[Grancer81]

Russia needs AWACS aircraft, they are necessary, but do they need them and do those who rule the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff need them?

[Vasily I]

By the way, I am from the industry and I work in it now.
You are both right and wrong. We do have factories. Only their condition... is in accordance with the volume of available orders. Therefore, no one is ready to produce a series in the sense of the USSR. Almost all production in the industry (both new and old, but alive or revived after Crimea) is small-scale.
So, we will be able to make some kind of series. It's another matter when they direct to install an engine that only gives the required power/thrust in the passport. And the requirements for the car are raised higher than even its passport capabilities.
Among the many reasons why Sukhoi is still productive, including the fact that its management works correctly with the Customer (by the way, at one time, Kyivians were also distinguished by this). Simply put, they receive sane (or almost) technical specifications. Considering how they frolicked with military science (it is definitely not profitable :-( according to the received manuals), you will not expect anything good from the Customer left to his own devices.
Right now we have, in my opinion, two bottlenecks:
- lack of a systemic understanding of what is needed (not from someone, but at the end of the approval of the technical specifications (see "Pentagon Wars"))
- the impossibility of a sharp scaling of the production of engines (for now almost the entire line of machines used is from there) and the same, locators and other avionics.
And the engine, among other things, is a source of current on board, and if the power is limited, then, within the framework of the topic of this article, the review will not be very...

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

By the way, I am from the industry and I work in it now.

Hello!
It's nice to talk to a knowledgeable specialist!

[Vasily I]

Thank you, shark-shark ;-)

[Alexey Lantukh]

In 1991, Russia was thrown back to the end of the 19th century.

Well, still not for 100 years, but in today's terms for about 30 years. And that's because of the many holes in production chains that can't be patched up quickly.

[eskela]

I agree, I recently got a job in the defense industry, and at the plant it feels like I got into the 90s in the middle of nowhere. It's unclear how we could and can do something now (but we do, and some plans are being fulfilled). In defense, I'll say that money is now spent on everything (that's why I got a job, a good white salary). But damn, it will take 6-10 years to restore the former strength, and only then will we be able to go further. And all this thanks to the traders who ruined everything.

[Sensor]

And it's all thanks to the traders who ruined everything.

It wasn't the traders who destroyed it, but the bandits in crimson jackets with Mercedes 600s. They carried out the simplest scheme: external management, bankruptcy, quick sale of fixed assets for scrap metal, finished with the resale of land and buildings. That's all, instead of a factory, at best a shopping center.
For ordinary workers, a purchase of radio components containing precious metals was organized. That's how many electronic units were put out of order and, accordingly, equipment, no one even counted. Refining, extraction mainly of gold, platinum and palladium was carried out by barbaric methods, the spent acids were poured onto the ground or into the sewer.

[Mister who]

You probably worked at TAPOiCh for a long time, there were negotiations, yes, they asked for unthinkable money for the old equipment, so it turned out to be cheaper to make the IL-76 in Russia, the workers were offered to move to Russia and work in a new place. Yes, it was hard, there was a collapse, yes, but their production was established in Russia, so your shit on the fan is inappropriate!

[Michael Petran]

I don't think so, it's not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with people.

[barbos]

So, more than 1000 (thousands) of factories from all over the USSR worked for the TAPOiCh plant.

What a terribly inefficient, unscalable and unsustainable production. What kind of profitability can we talk about with such a spread of costs? They did the right thing by closing such a poorhouse.

[SovAr238A]

Quote from barbos

So, more than 1000 (thousands) of factories from all over the USSR worked for the TAPOiCh plant.

What a terribly inefficient, unscalable and unsustainable production. What kind of profitability can we talk about with such a spread of costs? They did the right thing by closing such a poorhouse.

Are you absolutely sure of what you're saying?
Any car plant works with 500 or more suppliers.
Lockheed/Martin has more than 1500 suppliers of components for the finished F-35 in its production chain...

[barbos]

L/M is far from just one aircraft, its engine, etc. They also have a civilian line. SpaceX gets by with an even smaller number of suppliers.

[Good Evil]

In principle, the author is right that we need AWACS aircraft, and many of them, and different ones. But this is no secret to anyone. But this also applies to many other areas in the military - we need a lot and a lot - high-speed secure communications, and reconnaissance, and target designation, etc., etc. And all this was needed the day before yesterday. But our sluggish Ministry of Defense, as always, goes its own way and deals with the problems of sewing on shoulder straps of a new uniform!

[Rome]

To understand the situation with AWACS aircraft, it is necessary to at least provide the characteristics of the radars of these very AWACS.
The A50 has a bomber detection range of 650 km, cruise missiles 300 km, and fighters 450 km. That is, the A50 can detect a fighter at a distance beyond the fighter's missile range and direct its fighters at it. The Hokkai and Shved have radar capabilities that are approximately 2 times worse, precisely because of the size and energy, I can also assume, and quite possibly not much better than modern fighters such as the Su-35, F-15, and I won't even mention stealth. As a result, a smaller AWACS is quite likely capable of detecting a modern fighter at about the time when this very fighter is already directing its missiles at it!
In the USA and China, there are 2 types of AWACS aircraft and they operate together, where the light ones are not dangerous, and where the heavy ones are dangerous.
Most likely, instead of light AWACS there will be a swarm of UAVs like the Okhotnik, it has stealth and a radar like a fighter and can also fire a missile. Well, yes, you can deploy them along the front like a palisade and control the space and deploy an A100 behind them, then a mouse won't get through.
But the data transmission system of the Link 16 type, here the author is 100% right, such a system should be in any aviation, with AWACS and without them! This is generally the first thing that needs to be done!

[Vlad2012]

As far as I understand, the A-50 surpasses the Swede in the detection range of large high-altitude targets. The Swede sees small and low-flying targets better, as well as small targets on the water surface. Including because of the fixed antenna. And the price is much lower, which allows them to be used in pairs.

[Rome]

When the enemy does not have AWACS and modern fighters, this can affect the situation, 2 are certainly better than one. But, a modern analogue of the A50 will see the Swede, but the Swede will not, the radar range is not enough and in this situation, even 10 Swedes, they will simply be shot

[Vlad2012]

We shot down many Ukrainian planes at a distance of 300 km, and the Swedes can see at 450? While the aviation threat is declared every day in the DPR. And probably because the VMU planes fly under their own air defense and they cover them. Just like ours.

[bk0010]

Quote: The Truth

1. Let me ask: what is this principle in which the author is wrong?!

The author imagined that our equipment for the AWACS aircraft would be able to fit into a small plane. It won't be able to handle it either in terms of weight or power. It will be another Ka-31. When they were able to stuff it into the Il-76 instead of the Ruslan, they were very happy. But when sanctions and import substitution came, the A-100 program came to its current state. As I understand it, the equipment doesn't fit into the Il, and the An-124 is already gone.
The author refers to fighter radars, but does not take into account that they see far, but their viewing angle is modest, not for AWACS. Plus, the aircraft must accommodate specialists to work with the results of the radar. Theoretically, they could be taken to the ground or to another aircraft, but then the issue of reliable transmission of the radar results to them would have to be resolved.

[Okko777]

What is the experience of the Air Defense Forces and what do AWACS aircraft have to do with it? Ukraine is nearby, and the Russian Armed Forces cannot see anything in real time even at a distance of 20 km. In terms of reconnaissance, surveillance, detection and target designation in real time, our generals have a miserable army. What AWACS aircraft and why are they needed in the Air Defense Forces? Can't we get by with towers and airships to see all of Ukraine? Yes, easily. But who needs it? And how much will the S-500 radar see from a hill in Belarus? We have stupid leaders in the army and the country who can't do anything and don't want to do anything except quickly steal and run away to Europe... Why do they need a modern army? We completely lack technical means of reconnaissance and information processing in real time at all levels, from tactical to strategic...

[Pravodel]

What kind of AWACS aircraft are there and why are they needed in the SVO?

There was information here on VO that ours shot down one of the F-16s precisely on the tip of our DLRO. Here you have the answer to what DLRO planes are needed for.
Another thing is that reconnaissance balloons wouldn't hurt either, especially since the practice of using them was well-established during the Great Patriotic War. But apparently the Ministry of Defense and the generals there know better how to fight.

[Ablet]

Aerostats have a big disadvantage - their size. If they are placed at altitudes accessible to FPV drones, they will become easy targets even if they are far from the LBS.

[Vasily I]

Here a question arose:
What kind of power source do you plan to equip the proposed long-range detection balloon with?
Don't suggest a rope from the ground, although... if you attach Shukhov's tower to it and tie the balloon to it with blue electrical tape...

[Pete mitchell]

The author definitely gets a plus in karma for raising a topical issue.

Quote: Okko777

… In terms of intelligence, surveillance, detection and real-time targeting, our generals have a miserable army.....

And you, sir, raise an even more pressing issue - are the residents of Znamenskaya Street capable of comprehending modern warfare? This is not like stealing boards from Patriot Park for a summer house. Is there a concept for using AWACS, a fleet, tanks, satellites, reconnaissance... or the old-fashioned way: as God puts it into our souls... well, we managed... and here you are, ACS. You regularly raise this issue - I hope not only you and not only at the level of the Military District.

[Vasily I]

I have already written about the state of military science above. And the author has raised a bad topic. If someone here comes up with one of the solutions being worked on, I have no idea how they will prove that they came up with it themselves. No, maybe they will let him go. But not right away, and even then, it is not a fact.
By the way, there is no threat to TS )))

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: VasilyI

..the author raised a bad topic.

There's nothing good about it when hang out nice and fancy presentations have replaced real needs. Before St. Peter meets them with a good stick, I hope the investigators will talk to them

[bayard]

Quote: Okko777

from Belarus, how far will the S-500 radar be able to see on a hill?

Why do you need it there and what do you want it to see? It will see ballistic targets, satellites and high-altitude high-speed targets (including hypersonic ones) even without any special elevation. But we are interested in low-altitude targets and WWI targets at a sufficient range (at least 200-300 km). It is impossible to achieve this by ground means. Even if you drag the station to the highest tower, the target detection range on the NVG will be ... well, 100 km. - maximum. The Earth is round. Therefore, to illuminate targets in WWI (cruises and attack UAVs), the radar must be raised to an altitude of at least one and a half kilometers. But the higher the better. This can be achieved with the help of AWACS tethered balloons, AWACS aircraft, AWACS airships, AWACS helicopters. Hussars should keep quiet about satellites.
Which of these are available to us?
Everything depends on the availability and quality of radars for such means of air surveillance and control. Tethered aerostats are quite accessible to us and with their help it is possible to build a couple of radar control echelons from the frontline zone and deep into the territory. But an appropriate radar complex is needed for the aerostat, and this control system will seriously depend on the wind load. That is, in strong winds the aerostat will have to be lowered and fixed to the ground. Special hangars may be required.
The AWACS airship is out of the question due to the underdevelopment of this type of transport, but in the long term it is quite possible to think about it.
AWACS helicopter?
For the frontline zone for the rapid build-up of the radar field at WWI it is a very useful thing, for them and an airfield is not needed - the site is enough for temporary basing. The detection range of targets at WWI depending on the EPR can be 200-250 km. This is not bad.
Well, and the AWACS aircraft.
The author is certainly right that the Il-76MD\MD-90A is a Godzilla and is not very suitable for frontline conditions. And the An-30 proposed by him is quite suitable as a base for a light, but powerful and maneuverable AWACS. It will not reach 800 km/h, a swept wing and jet engines are needed here. They were not produced in the Russian Federation, these are all Kyiv and Kharkov. It would be possible to consider the turboprop Il-114 as a base ... In principle, it is possible, if there is a suitable radar system. But this is a civilian aircraft with limited thrust-to-weight ratio. It will not become like the An-30, for this it is necessary to install good old AI-20 engines on the airframe (they were installed on the Il-18, An-12 and An-30), which are also not in production. And I would revive it, in a modernized form, with a range of maximum thrust depending on the modification from 4000 to 5500 hp, they would be very useful... for the same Il-112 in a reinforced version... But no, no.
So, we have two candidates among light platforms: Il-114 and SSZh-100. Both are interesting and desirable. The first is the most economical and can be operated from small local airfields when the speed of patrolling/being on duty in the area is not important, and the speed of response to a call/arrival to the area when ready is not important... The second is just for such emergency calls, when it is necessary to quickly arrive at the patrol area and, if necessary, quickly retreat from there. And preferably with the ability to refuel in the air. The radar and all the hardware should be identical to them, the AFAR antenna in the form of a "board on the back".
Long-range DRLOiU as an alternative to the A-100 - based on the Tu-214R, with more developed AFAR antenna panels on both sides. The hardware can be taken entirely from the A-100 backlog. But the aircraft will be lighter, cheaper, with two rather than four engines, more economical and easier to operate.
These are the directions in which we need to work.
We still haven't developed a heavy UAV, so "the hussars should keep quiet" about the unmanned version!
This should have been done the day before yesterday.
I have been proposing to use Ka-27M ASW helicopters with their quite good side-looking radar to control low altitudes in missile and drone-hazardous areas since the first half of 2023. But either there are very few such helicopters, or this possibility has been ignored. In the same Crimea and to control the space near the Crimean Bridge ... But the fact that the Su-35S flies as an AWACS is already good. Now the troops are already receiving Su-30SM3, which have the same "Irbis" with the ability to rotate the antenna canvas and the avionics composition of the Su-35S.
This is what needs to be done. Shoyga has pro-Biathlonized the entire topic of AWACS. It is understandable - there is no military education, he was stingy with money for upgrading the A-50 to the A-50U. Now we are cleaning up the mess.

[alexoff]

But we ordered a drone with a side radar. The competition included MiG and the Sokol design bureau. Suddenly, Sokol won, which was owned by the son-in-law of State Duma member Khayrov, who was in charge of defense. He opened a jewelry store in Cyprus with the money for the drone, and with the rest they somehow assembled a glider with German engines. Then they gave it to UZGA, which recently crashed this drone. Now we're screwing it. And everything is fine with Khayrov, his former son-in-law Tsvetkov and the UZGA management, like water off a duck's back.

[bayard]

I've heard about these stories, so I don't have any particular illusions about a heavy UAV. But these geese, from which water used to flow, are already starting to drip fat, like a goose on a grill - look how many arrests, suicides and other fun there have been. Maybe some strict uncles will also come to the father-in-law and son-in-law who sell jewelry in Cyprus and ask simple questions.
The grandmaster does not abandon his own, but it seems that many have simply stopped being his own. Or maybe they never were.

[Alexey Lantukh]

We have stupid leaders in our army and country who don’t know how to do anything and don’t want to do anything except quickly steal and run off to Europe...

Oh yeah! But we are armchair experts, as smart as can be, and we are also endowed with the gift of foresight.

[Dzungar]

and the Russian Armed Forces can't see anything in real time even at a distance of 20 km

your horses are galloping quietly, and in the fourth year of the war, which is extremely unforgivable for your opinion and for you personally. Our battalion commander can see at least that many kilometers by simply raising the DJI mattress above his head. And the Mavic 3 can also see everything they need to at that distance by flying there, and that's already a company scale

[Alexandra]

In the hell of Soviet state capitalism, the light aircraft RLDN could not be launched into series production either. Although they sawed it up nationwide There are quite a few government funds for this. The photo shows only one of the embezzlements.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

In the hell of Soviet state capitalism, they also couldn't launch the light aircraft RLDN into series production. Although they sawed off a fair amount of public funds on this. The photo shows only one of the embezzles.

If you had taken the trouble to find out why the Yak-44 and An-71 were not put into production, you wouldn’t have written nonsense about embezzlement.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

If you had taken the trouble to find out why the Yak-44 and An-71 were not put into production

Publish your version of "why they didn't go", Vladimir. And then I'll quote the version published in the press.
Or should I immediately voice the version published in print? Something like this, starting with a cheerful: "In 1982, the USSR government, on the recommendation of the ministries of defense, aviation, radio and electronics industries, as well as the communications industry, decided to conduct research on an operational-tactical AWACS aircraft. The Kiev Mechanical Plant (KMZ - now ANTK im. O.K. Antonov) was designated as the lead enterprise for the project as a whole, and for the electronic complex - the Moscow NPO Vega. The requirements for the aircraft were very high, and the deadlines were tight. It was necessary to create a land-based machine not inferior to the E-2S." ?

I'm waiting for your version. You are ready to work, Vladimir?

How many millions of full-fledged Soviet rubles were spent on fruitless R&D on the same An-71 program before it was stopped in 1990, you are probably not interested?

For comparison, in the hell of American liberal capitalism, less than 2 years passed from the formation of requirements for the future E-1956A Hawkeye in 2 to the adoption of the E-1964A into service in January 8. In about the same period in the USSR, although already in the 1980s, they managed to spend money and stop the development program at the testing stage. The money ran out.

Somehow, the superiority of the Soviet developed socialism of the 80s over the American developed capitalism of the late 50s and early 60s is not noticeable in this historical example.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

By comparison, in the hell of American liberal capitalism, less than 2 years passed from the formation of requirements for the future E-1956A Hawkeye in 2 to the acceptance of the E-1964A into service in January 8.

Quote: AlexanderA

In about the same period of time, the USSR, although already in the 1980s, managed to spend the money and stop the development program at the testing stage.

I always considered liberals to be either liars or idiots. Are you a liberal?

В end of 1990 year The An-71 program was suspended due to lack of funding[2].

Due to difficulties in developing on-board equipment, only a mock-up of the Yak-44 was built. In 1993, the work was frozen due to lack of funding..


By the end of 1958, the customer issued OKB-156 refined tactical and technical requirements for the developed AWACS complex
The Tu-126 was launched into serial production at Plant No. 18 in Kuibyshev[14][12].
At 1965 the aircraft was accepted into service in the year

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I always considered liberals to be either liars or idiots. Are you a liberal?

I am apolitical. And you clearly have problems with politics. You are trying to drag it into issues of development-science and technology, citizen "fighter against the regime". In the 70-80s, if you were born earlier, you would have fought against the "communist regime". On August 19, 1991, you would have listened to Yeltsin's speech on a tank and would have tried to rush under an infantry fighting vehicle with soldiers for the young democracy.

At the end of 1990, the An-71 program was suspended due to lack of funding.

Exactly, at the stage of tests that had already been going on for several years. Financing of the more expensive Yak-1979 program, which had begun in 44, continued successfully in 1990. In 1990, they just started sawing nationwide government funds for the construction of the first flying prototype of the Yak-44.

In the "cock's hell" of the USSR, not a single project of the light RLDN aircraft was brought to series production. Neither the P-1971RLD aircraft project started in 42, nor the Yak-1979 aircraft project started in 44, nor the An-1982 aircraft project started in 71. Life was good in the USSR for the design bureaus, research institutes and scientific production associations that sawed up state resources. It was possible to saw up state funds at once on several simultaneous RLDN aircraft projects, or on several main battle tank projects. And if the long-term "theme" eventually ended in nothing... well, the "sharashkas" were closed back in 1953. Therefore, the Soviet scientific and technical intelligentsia after 1953 could ineffectively spend state resources with almost impunity. "British scientists" could only envy this Soviet impunity.

By the end of 1958, the customer issued OKB-156 with updated tactical and technical requirements for the developed AWACS complex.
Tu-126... In April 1965, the aircraft was accepted into service

Have you ever heard of the American Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star AWACS aircraft? Development began in 1949, when the US Navy purchased two Lockheed L-749 Constellations to convert them into AWACS aircraft. The first flight of the then PO-1W was on June 9, 1949. After the PO-1W (renamed WV-1952 in 1) proved that installing large radars on aircraft was possible, the US Navy ordered the WV-2, based on the L-1049 Super Constellation. In 1954, the PO-2W was renamed WV-2 and was accepted into service with the US Navy that same year as the basic AWACS aircraft. Renamed EC-1962 in 121, the aircraft served in the US Navy until 1982. Pictured is a production NC-121K in 1973, escorted by an F-4B Phantom and an EA-4F Skyhawk. Pictured second is a Lockheed EC-121L (WV-2E) testbed with an AN/APS-70 "dish" radar radome, late 1950s.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

In the 70s and 80s, if you had been born earlier, you would have fought the communist regime. On August 19, 1991, you would have listened to Yeltsin's speech on a tank and would have tried to rush under an infantry fighting vehicle with soldiers for the young democracy.

Quote: AlexanderA

And if the long-term "theme" eventually ended in nothing... well, the "sharashkas" were closed back in 1953. Therefore, the Soviet scientific and technical intelligentsia after 1953 could ineffectively spend state resources with almost impunity.

Yes, you are definitely a liberal, and an elderly one at that, to trot out such mantras from Ogonyok in the 90s...
I poked you with the fact that the USSR developed airplanes on time, so you dug up some ancient thing, so what?
And the fact that you didn’t give a damn that the Americans had much more developed electronics, and aircraft manufacturing, and in the case of deck-based AWACS, simply incomparable experience, once again emphasizes that the liberals are liars or morons.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yes, you are definitely a liberal, and an elderly one at that, to trot out such mantras from Ogonyok in the 90s...

Lol. You have an extremely simplified, two-color, black-and-white picture of the world. And the world is colorful. And this is only the visible part of the spectrum. The world is immeasurably more complex than it seems to you, and people are much more complex than those miserable labels that you try to hang on people to simplify your own picture of the world.

I can write the same "mantras" about the modern US military-industrial complex, for example. At one time, the US military-industrial complex was the first in the world to quickly develop and adopt in 1983 the hypersonic (which means controlled maneuvering flight in the atmosphere at hypersonic speed) IRBM "Pershing-2", while Soviet design bureaus, research institutes and scientific-production associations "sawed" huge funds on the hypersonic "theme" and still did not bring any of this to adoption into service before the fall of the USSR (see, for example, the 15F178 guided warhead, which was never adopted into service, or the hypersonic cruise missile Kh-90).

Today, it's the other way around. The US has been "sawed" for many years and has not been able to bring any hypersonic weapon project to service, while hypersonic missiles are already in service not only with the Russian and Chinese Armed Forces, but it seems even with the DPRK and Iranian Armed Forces.

I poked you with the fact that the USSR developed airplanes on time, so you dug up some ancient thing, so what?

I simply demonstrated to you with examples that the US military-industrial complex in the 50s-80s was more effective in high-tech R&D than the military-industrial complex of the “most advanced state in the world,” the USSR.

Why do you hate modern Russia so much and love the USSR, which fell victim to its own inefficiency (after Stalin’s death it was unable to keep up with the West in scientific and technological progress and in the efficiency of industrial production) and social naivety?

And the fact that you didn’t care that the Americans had much more developed electronics and aircraft manufacturing

What prevented them from catching up and overtaking the USA? The slogans "we will catch up and overtake" were mainstream. The modern PRC has already overtaken the USA in a number of scientific and technical areas. The USSR under Stalin was catching up, and then stopped catching up, on the contrary, the scientific and technical gap, the gap in labor productivity in industry during the Brezhnev "era of stagnation" began to increase.

"To slow down means to fall behind. And those who fall behind are beaten. But we don't want to be beaten. No, we don't want to! The history of old Russia consisted, among other things, in the fact that it was continually beaten for its backwardness. The Mongol khans beat it. The Turkish beys beat it. The Swedish feudal lords beat it. The Polish-Lithuanian lords beat it. The Anglo-French capitalists beat it. The Japanese barons beat it. Everyone beat it - for backwardness. For military backwardness, for cultural backwardness, for state backwardness, for industrial backwardness, for agricultural backwardness. They beat it because it was profitable and went unpunished... Such is the law of exploiters - to beat the backward and the weak. The wolfish law of capitalism. You are behind, you are weak - that means you are wrong, therefore, you can be beaten and enslaved. You are powerful - that means you are right, therefore, you must be beware... Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and lose its independence? But if you do not want this, you must eliminate its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop real Bolshevik tempos in the matter of building its socialist economy. There are no other ways. That is why Lenin said on the eve of October: "Either death, or catch up with and overtake the advanced capitalist countries."

As Comrade Stalin predicted back in 1931, so it happened. The West didn't even have to beat the USSR in 1991. The USSR itself fell apart, torn apart by the Soviet and party elites of the USSR who wanted to be "first in the provinces, not second in Rome" and quickly turned post-Soviet and anti-communist.

So what are you nostalgic for? For this late Soviet weakness and the progressive lag behind the West that rushed forward into the future on the "debt economy" (then it was called "Reaganomics")? Or did you NOT live through the USSR at a conscious age and are nostalgic for that invented, fairy-tale image of the state and society moving with seven-league strides into the bright future of the world of "Noon, 21st century", which never existed in reality?

I hope my allusions are clear to you? Because your vocabulary is clearly that of a "child of the late 80s and 90s, from a "proletarian" family" who was not on friendly terms with books - "poked", "Americans", "liberals", "morons"...

[SovAr238A]

Quote: AlexanderA

At one time, the US military-industrial complex was the first in the world to quickly develop and adopt into service in 1983 the hypersonic (which means controlled maneuvering flight in the atmosphere at hypersonic speed) IRBM Pershing-2

Don't deceive people.
The second Pershing (its warhead) - reduced the descent speed to 3M. Otherwise, the onboard computer could not work with the Radar.

[Alexandra]

Quote: SovAr238A

Don't deceive people.

Do you really understand what kind of deception they tried to accuse me of?

Quote: SovAr238A

The second Pershing (its warhead) - reduced the descent speed to 3M. Otherwise, the onboard computer could not work with the Radar.

https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/download/337/154

And so, the definition of hypersonic weapons (p. 84): "...carry out maneuverable flight in the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds..."

Now tell people the whole truth about the altitude and speed at which the warhead of the Pershing II IRBM entered the (pull up, pull down) velocity control maneuver.

After which we will determine whether the pull up, pull down maneuver of the warhead of the Pershing II missile began in the atmosphere and at hypersonic speed, or not, and whether someone is deceiving people, or someone simply does not understand something.

[Vlad Gor]

Where does this hatred towards the Soviet Union come from? Who are you?

[Alexandra]

I don't hate the USSR. I have pity. "Only that revolution is worth anything that knows how to defend itself" V.I. Lenin. Later, the Soviet state and later Soviet society turned out to be a state and society that could not defend themselves from destructive tendencies within themselves and perished with minimal "help" from external enemies.

The modern Russian state and Russian society are capable of defending themselves both from the internal drive for self-destruction and from numerous external enemies under the general leadership of the already self-destructive "world hegemon" the United States.

P.S. I feel nothing but pity for the losers. The empire of Nicholas II Romanov and his family was weak and perished. The bourgeois republic that was formed in February 1917 after the fall of the Romanov empire "on the ruins of the empire" turned out to be even weaker and perished within a few months.

In your opinion, I apparently feel hatred towards Nicholas II and his court, as well as towards that entire Februaryist camarilla, all those "Gavriil Popovs" of 1917, who brought Russia to the very edge so quickly that by October 1917, power in the Russian state was "lying on the pavement"?

[Hexenmeister]

The modern Russian state and Russian society are capable of protecting themselves both from the internal drive for self-destruction and from numerous external enemies.

Only from the external component it fights off the "Soviet legacy", and the "internal" ones haven't really started yet, although there are a lot of alarm bells, "industrious newcomers", "waiting Ukrainian lovers", budget overseers"...

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Only from the external component it is repelled by the "Soviet legacy"

And the Mosin rifle model 1891/30, the Maxim machine gun and the divisional gun model 1902/30 were apparently the “tsarist legacy” with which the USSR began to fight off the attack of the German Nazis in 1941?

Up to several hundred "Geraniums" and other UAVs and missiles with operational flight range per night, those thousands of disposable and reusable tactical UAVs that are again used at the front every day and solve the lion's share of fire missions at the LBS, those up to several hundred gliding aerial bombs with UMPK per day that fall on the heads of enemy soldiers both on the front line and in his immediate rear - is this in your eyes the entire "Soviet legacy"?

Then you have formed a very distorted picture of objective reality.

and the "internal" ones haven't really started yet, although there are a lot of alarm bells, "industrious newcomers", "waiting Ukrainian lovers", budget overseers"...

Let's start with the fact that "industrious newcomers" are a consequence of the fact that by 1965 Soviet women in the RSFSR had become so reluctant to have children that in that year the birth rate in the RSFSR fell below the level of simple reproduction of the population (this is when the average woman gives birth to less than 15 children during her lifetime when she can give birth (from 45 to 2,1 years). At the same time, in 1965, an absolute record of abortions was reached, 5,7 million if my memory serves me right. There was a small surge in the birth rate above 2,1 children per woman in the RSFSR in the mid-80s, but it lasted no more than 1,5 years. The birth rate in the entire USSR since the mid-60s was maintained above the level of simple reproduction of the population of the USSR only due to the increased birth rate in the Central Asian Soviet republics. So if the USSR had survived to this day, there would have been more “labor migrants” from Soviet Central Asia, because no state borders or problem of obtaining citizenship would have held them back.

What about the "waiters". By the end of the 80s, there were a majority of them in the Soviet republics. They sat and believed that "foreign countries will help us", that kind uncles will come from the West and help us make it so that "100 types of sausage" would be on our grocery store shelves. Uncles from the West, by the way, came and strongly advised the Gaidar government to arrange "shock therapy".

https://dzen.ru/a/YnrTnjOBNCrn3PJY

How the "Chicago Boys" Helped Chubais Fight Socialism

And yes, let's say thank you to US President George Bush Sr. for the fact that in 1991 the USSR collapsed into 15 "independent states" and not into 40-60. According to economist Khazin, the West had such an "alternative plan" on the issue of dismantling the USSR, which President Bush Sr. did not give effect to.

I await with interest the realization of your predictions regarding the growth of our internal difficulties. I will add a correction to them, though: "internal difficulties" will grow for everyone.

"The winner will be the one who falls last..." historian A.I. Fursov

https://yandex.ru/video/preview/6070253803766002998

[Hexenmeister]

In your eyes, this is the entire "Soviet legacy"

Well, of course, buying technology and ripping off a primitive Iranian drone is an outstanding scientific and technical achievement, but the drones of our own design are still there, well, you understand where, although you can buy them in China. But if you take something more complex, for example, military aviation, then alas, it is a legacy, and the weapons on them are also a legacy, and most importantly, nothing new has been proposed in terms of ideas, everything is based on the legacy.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Well, of course, buying technology and copying a primitive Iranian drone is an outstanding scientific and technical achievement.

Well, of course, buy the technology and rip off the primitive British Vickers E tank - this is an outstanding Soviet scientific and technical achievement of the early 1930s. It's just a pity that it dragged on until 1941.

only the drones of their own design are still there

Today's mass-produced Geranium-2 differs from the Shahed 136 in approximately the same way that the La-9 differs from the LaG-5 produced in the summer of 1942.

And there are plenty of domestically developed drones, mass-produced today in huge series. Dozens, maybe already over a hundred types of them. From "Vandals" and "Lancets" to "Orlans" and "Ailerons".

But if we take something more complex, for example military aviation, then alas, the legacy

I didn't know that the Su-30SM, Su-35S and Su-57 were Soviet developments. Or maybe you don't know when the development programs for the Su-30MKI (in service with the domestic Armed Forces - the Su-30SM), Su-35S and Su-57 multirole jet fighters were launched?

and the weapons on them are also a legacy

That is, you don't know when the development of the R-37M, the most effective air-to-air missile of the 2020s, began? Or maybe the newest American air-to-air missile AIM-120D3 is just a "legacy" of the American AIM-120A missile, developed in 1979-1991? And the Abrams M1A2C tank is just a "legacy" of the Abrams M1 tank, which began to enter service with the US Army in 1980? And the newest American M2A4 Bradley IFV is just a "legacy" of the M2 IFV, which entered service with the US Army in 1981?

Is the essence of the polemical example you used clear from the examples I gave?

and the main thing is that nothing new has been proposed in terms of ideas, everything is based on the legacy.

I can't remember a Soviet anti-ship missile with a flight speed of over 10 kilometers per hour. I'm talking about the "Zircon", of course.

Point out the new ideas in the latest American weapons adopted by the US Armed Forces and I will point out what old ideas these new ideas are a legacy of.

[Hexenmeister]

You don't know history very well, so I'll give you a hint: T-10M, hence the Su-35, with or without S, Su-37, Su-30MKI (SM), plus SUV for them from there. Moreover, it is also necessary to note that the SU-30MKI and Su-35S are initiative developments, to which the official Ministry of Defense had nothing to do, but used the results without paying anything to those who developed it. Su-57, how many years have they been making it, or reworking it, they even managed to drop the first factory aircraft intended for delivery to the troops, how many years passed between the first flight of the prototype and the first delivery to the troops for the Su-27? And how many years do we have for the Su-57??? It would be more correct to say that by Soviet standards there is no Su-57 yet! With air-to-air weapons, too, not everything is so simple, everything concerning its long range is a process of continuous development from the MiG-31M theme, it would not have appeared on its own!

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

You know history very poorly, so I'll give you a hint: T-10M, hence the Su-35, with and without S, Su-37, Su-30MKI(SM), plus SUV for them from there.

I know very well that the Su-27S is only superficially similar to the Su-35. But do you know very well that the F-15EX Eagle II, which recently entered service with the US Air Force, is in fact a TF-15A, produced in 1972-1979?

plus SUV for them from there.

The Su-27 fighter's combat control system used the BCVM Ts100. Can you tell me how many BCVM Ts100 are used in the Su-35S fighter's combat control system?

Let me put it more clearly: the Intel Core i7 13700F processor is a "legacy" of the Intel 4004 processor, and the V-92S2F diesel engine of the T-90M tank is a "legacy" of the V-2 diesel engine of the BT-7M tank?

Moreover, it is also necessary to note that the SU-30MKI and Su-35S are initiative developments, to which the official Ministry of Defense had nothing to do, but took advantage of the results

The A-32 tank was an initiative development of the KB-24 designers. The ABTU of the Red Army ordered the development of a wheeled-tracked tank.

And how much do we have for the Su-57???

https://www.slashgear.com/1868536/russia-su-57-fighter-jet-numbers-how-many-have/

"As of the end of 2024, Russia was estimated to have 42 Su-57 fighters in service, significantly more than just two years ago. In 2022, there were only six, and in 2023, 12 more were added. Such an increase in one year suggests that Russia is serious about using the new fighter. In April 2025, their number increased by two, meaning that at that time, Russia had 44 Su-57s."

It would be more correct to say that by Soviet standards there is no Su-57 yet!

By Soviet standards, the US Air Force never had the F-117A Nighthawk. Some 59 serial aircraft - that's not serious. The US definitely never had the SR-71 Blackbird. The measly 32 serial aircraft can simply not be counted. They say that the Pakistan Air Force still does not have the J-10CE. After all, 20 aircraft in the Air Force as of May 7, 2025 - that's just no aircraft "by Soviet standards". For what reason on May 7, 2025, at the very beginning of Operation Sindoor, six Indian fighters fell, is unclear.

With air-to-air weapons, things are not so simple either; everything concerning its long range is a process of continuous development starting with the MiG-31M; it would not have appeared on its own!

Dig deeper. You'll get to the G-300 air-to-air missile:

https://biography.wikireading.ru/196644

[Hexenmeister]

Again, empty chatter, the talk was about the T-10M, and the N-011 radar on it, in which the Ts-100 was never installed. And the principles of the N-011 design, moreover, maximally simplified in relation to the very first version of its hardware, which appeared back in the late 80s, went on to the "Bars" and "Irbis". And the type of radar was never determined by the composition of its computing facilities, but it is the type of radar that will determine the basic characteristics of the system.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Empty chatter again,

Empty, unsubstantiated and not corresponding to real historical facts chatter in our conversation with you is your prerogative. And so, with the avionics of the Su-35S zero BCVM Ts100.

the discussion was about the T-10M, and the N-011 radar on it, in which the C-100 was never installed. And the principles of the N-011 design, moreover, maximally simplified in relation to the very first version of its hardware, which appeared back in the late 80s, continued on to the "Bars" and "Irbis".

You are clearly not aware that the N011 radar, by the way, in the late 80s and early 90s about two dozen N011s were manufactured and more than a dozen experimental Su-27Ms were built, had a target antenna array.

You, citizen, have confused the BRLS N011 with the ShchAR and the BRLS N011M with the PFAR. The "construction principles" of the BRLS with the ShchAR and the BRLS with the PFAR, as they say, are somewhat different.

In any case, the N011M radar, which is part of the avionics of the serial Su-30MKI aircraft, is also not part of the avionics of the Su-35S.

The Su-35S has nothing in common with the avionics of the serial Soviet Su-27S and the avionics of the experimental T-10M - these are different aircraft. Moreover, these are aircraft of generations: 4, 4+ and 4++.

But their appearance to the average person is similar.

Unfortunately, you are the same layman for whom the Su-27S and Su-35S are the same jet fighter. At the same time, the TF-15A (later designated F-15B) and F-15EX are most likely different aircraft in your layman's understanding.

Although in the photo you simply cannot tell the difference between a Su-35S and a Su-27S, or an F-15EX and a TF-15A, except perhaps by the paint job.

And the type of radar has never been determined by the composition of its computing equipment, but it is the type of radar that will determine the basic characteristics of the system.

http://www.dspa.ru/articles/year2007/jour07_1/art07_1_7.pdf

Koshelev V.I. "Doppler processors for primary processing of radar signals (part 1)"

"One of the subsystems that determines the most important characteristics of radar stations (RLS) is the primary signal processing subsystem. The most well-known version of its construction is based on Doppler filtering in the so-called fast Fourier transform (FFT) processor or Doppler signal processor (DSP)."

I suggest you figure out for yourself which specialized BCVM of the C-series was used at one time to process radar signals in the experimental N011 BRLS of the Su-27M aircraft, which one in the serial N011M BRLS of the Su-30MKI aircraft, and which one is used in the N035 BRLS of the Su-35S aircraft. I will only hint that these are not just different specialized BCVMs for signal processing, but three different generations of such specialized BCVMs. However, I will give you one more hint:

"The powerful multiprocessor digital computer "SOLO-35.01" is designed for signal processing and consists of four digital signal processing modules with a total peak performance of up to 80 GFlops and the ability to generate graphic information. The second machine, "SOLO-35.02", is a multiprocessor control digital computer containing four data processor modules with an advanced system of external interfaces for solving the problems of controlling the operation of the radar and interacting with the aircraft's avionics. Both digital computers are made in the form of sealed units with forced air cooling based on 6U modules with conductive heat dissipation.

The computing complex provides software adaptability to the tasks being solved and high survivability due to the redundancy of processor modules. During the experimental design work, a number of complex technical and technological problems were solved related to the wide use of a modern element base, the development and manufacture of multilayer, including flexible-rigid printed circuit boards, surface mounting of SCVM units.

At present, the SOLO-35 SCVM, having successfully passed all stages of development and testing, is being mass-produced and supplied as part of the Irbis radar for equipping Su-35 aircraft."

And I'll add a couple of photos from the "Find 10 Differences" series.

[Hexenmeister]

As always, empty words again! If they started using another antenna, it does not mean that the ideology of signal processing in the N-011M suddenly became different from the ideology of the N-011 (without "M"). And further, all your primitive books do not answer the questions, what are the weak points of this ideology of constructing the receiving path, and what shortcomings were corrected by increasing the performance of the signal processor and its steepness? And the answer is known, none!!! It should also be added that the work on the N-011, then on the "Bars", and already largely on the "Irbis", was carried out essentially within the framework of one department, and the groundwork obtained in the late 80s on the N-011 served as the basis for all this work.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

As always, empty words again! If they started using a different antenna, it does not mean that the ideology of signal processing in the N-011M suddenly became different from the ideology of the N-011 (without "M")

You're talking nonsense, Alexey. The same signal processor that you considered unimportant above is responsible for the "ideology" of radar signal processing. And this bastard is a subsystem that determines the "most important characteristics of radar stations". So the signal processors on the H011 and H011M are not just different, they are of different generations. With greatly differing computing power. And the computational complexity of the fast Fourier transform actually increases logarithmically with the increase in the size of the input data.

A trivial example: on the MiG-31BM, when upgrading the Zaslon-A radar to the Zaslon-AM, the PFAR was not changed, but the signal processor was changed from Argon-15A to Baget-55-02. So, Alexey, the range of acquisition for tracking in the PPS of a "fighter" type target on the upgraded radar increased from approximately 90 km to >200 km.

The growth of the characteristics in terms of target tracking range in the N011M of the late 90s compared to the N011 of the early 90s was, of course, smaller. Well, in the N011 the role of the signal processor was not performed by the SCVM "Argon-15A", a development of the 70s.

A radical increase in performance compared to the H011 was achieved on the H035. Do you know what GFLOPS is, Alexey? It is a billion floating point operations per second. And the peak 80 GFLOPS of computing power of the SOLO-35.01 BRLS H035 signal processor is, if my memory serves me right, actually more than the peak performance of the AN/APG-81 BRLS radar signal processor.

all your primitive little books do not provide answers to the questions of what are the weaknesses of this ideology of constructing a receiving path, and what shortcomings have been corrected by increasing the performance of the signal processor and its steepness?

"Books" do not give answers to questions for those who do not read them. Unfortunately, as far as I understand, you are not a reader, Alexey, you are a writer. However, I am not interested in reading what you write. Because you have not read anything, and as a result, you know nothing. As a result, what you write is boring, and most importantly, not true.

[Hexenmeister]

Well, what a chatterbox, one of the main actions of the signal processor, both on the N-011, and on the Bars, and on the Irbis, was indeed the execution of the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm, but here's the problem, the signal sample size is essentially the same, what kind of increase in computing costs can we talk about??? The increase in the detection range of the Zaslon did not occur due to a change in the signal processor, at least carefully read the historical chronicles of the developer in this part. And the ideology of processing is not only a signal processor, but something else! Apparently, you are not destined to understand that in addition to the "butterfly processor" there are other processing methods, and much more effective, only they are not accessible to understanding after reading such books, and an example of this are your "pearls" about the increase in the range of the Zaslon, although not the most radical solution was used there.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

What a chatterbox!

You are self-critical, as it seems to me.

both the N-011, the Bars, and the Irbis really did implement the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm, but the problem is that the signal sample size is essentially the same for them

You previously broadcast that H011 (which is with the SHAR) and H011M (which is with the PFAR) are the same thing. Have you changed your broadcast to the story that H011M and H035 are the same thing? The sample size can be changed.

https://masters.donntu.ru/2009/fvti/petrischeva/library/5.htm

"Radar systems impose the most stringent requirements on the hardware part of digital processing. The main content of digital processing here is the filtering of input signals of the antenna, signal frequencies from 10 MHz to 10 GHz. The sizes of transformations can reach up to 2^14 complex points, the performance requirements are 10^9 multiplications per second."

The N011M signal processor was not capable of a billion multiplications per second. Not at all. The creators of the Baget-55-02 once reported that their signal processor performed butterfly-type FFT operations at a speed of 40 million operations per second. The N011M Su-30MKI actually has an Indian Ts200 signal processor capable of performing butterfly-type operations at a speed of 75 million operations per second. This is approximately the same generation as the Baget-55-02. But the SOLO-35.02 is exactly billions of such operations per second.

The previously existing hardware limitations in digital processing of radar signals have finally been completely removed.

Now, I hope, you already understand that in addition to the increase in the emitted power of the N035, this led to the fact that for the N011M the declared detection range in the PPS of a target of the type "MiG-29 fighter" is approximately 140 km, and for the N035 - 350-400 km?

And I hope you have finally begun to more or less understand why the Su-27S, Su-27M and Su-35S are different aircraft?

Moreover, if in a duel between the Su-27M and Su-27S the pilot of the Su-27S could still somehow struggle, then for the Su-35S with R-37M missiles, both the 27th generation Su-4S and the 27+ generation Su-4M are blind and helpless aerial targets.

Apparently, you are not destined to understand that in addition to the "butterfly processor" there are other methods of processing, and much more effective ones, but they are not accessible to understanding after reading such books.

"Books" that you have not read. That is why you cannot even imagine why the peak 80 GFLOPS of the SOLO-35.01 digital computer can be used in the digital processing of a radar signal, and you are chatting about an "ideology" that "has not become excellent" (It has. With the gradual removal of hardware limitations, the "ideology" has changed many times). Read those same "books" whose titles you forgot to mention. Once you have read them, we will continue.

But your position about "unchanging ideology" after reading "books" will change to the opposite. Knowledge is power!

[Hexenmeister]

Specifically in N-011, Bars and Irbis, what is the signal sampling size when detecting air targets??? Values in the studio!

[Alexandra]

I have given you enough figures from open sources for you to begin to understand that your belief in an "unchanging ideology" is mistaken. But I will not give you figures that are not in open sources.

And yes, over 90 percent of intelligence information comes from open sources!

[Hexenmeister]

Instead of numbers, they could have given a formula that follows simply from common sense, but apparently the book did not provide this formula, in short, "Excel for Dummies" did not help the rising star of the DSO!

[Alexandra]

It is very inconvenient to write formulas in the online forum editor window. You would have to insert an image file. Why do you need formulas, Alexey? Looking at the formulas, did you want to personally verify that the computational complexity of the fast Fourier transform grows logarithmically with the increase in the size of the input data?

Before our conversation, you did not even know such a banality that the sample size calculated by the digital signal processor of the radar using the FFT algorithm rapidly increased with the growth of hardware capabilities of onboard signal processors. That is, before our conversation, you knew practically nothing. This predetermined your fundamentally erroneous views on the issues raised in our conversation.

To illustrate this, I will quote the capabilities of the digital signal processor of the AN/APG-66 radar of the F-16A fighter, so to speak, the standard representative of the 4th generation of jet fighters.

"Digital processor. The digital processing unit of radar signals is equipped mainly with multiplexers, so that the choice of algorithm is made according to the commands of the computer software. Extensive parametric programmability, especially in the synchronizer, provides the flexibility necessary for a multifunctional radar. 8 In the air-to-air mode, the processing of radar signals includes the suppression of MO during downward observation, Doppler filtering of signals by means of 64-point FFT algorithms with Dolph-Chebyshev weighting, signal detection, adaptive automatic threshold control (ATC) to ensure a constant false alarm rate, and signal correlation by range. In non-coherent air-to-surface modes, radar signal processing includes video detection, post-detector accumulation, logarithmic amplitude compression, digital sweep conversion to present data as combined RS-170 video signals for subsequent display in symbolic form or as marks of real video signals.

Arithmetic processing is organized in a pipeline. The combination of a butterfly processor and a 26K-bit random access memory of a notepad type allows for the execution of 64-point FFT in 224 µs. The 218-bit memory block is a device with cross-directions of data recording and reading in the air-to-air modes, and in the air-to-surface modes it is used as an intermediate RAM during sweep conversion during radar image indication. For the AGC system and frequency tracking of the MO signal along the main beam, devices for estimating the MO amplitudes and frequency discriminators are used. For the Doppler beam "sharpening" mode during mapping, a reference signal generator is provided, which is controlled by computer commands."

Let me remind you that in 2009 it was noted that: "Transformation sizes can reach up to 2^14 complex points". Two to the fourteenth power is 16384 points. An increase of 16 times compared to what the F-256A radar digital signal processor calculated.

In short, "Excel for Dummies" did not help the rising star of the DSO

I hope that "Excel for Dummies" will help you. I leave you to read this book in the full confidence that today you know a little more about the issue raised in our conversation than before our conversation, and now you doubt your thesis about the unchanging "ideology".

However, if you have not studied philosophy and have never heard of the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones in Hegel's dialectic and materialistic dialectic, then perhaps, based on the results of our conversation, you continue to "stand your ground".

In this case, this is already a manifestation of the psychological Dunning-Kruger effect - a cognitive distortion in which the least competent people tend to greatly overestimate their capabilities and consider themselves experts, while highly qualified specialists often underestimate their abilities and experience a chronic feeling of insecurity.

Until you start doubting your ideas, you are an ignoramus, Alexey.

I hope our somewhat drawn-out conversation was useful for you. And then... self-education is the best education. Good luck in your self-education!

[Hexenmeister]

You are ignorant

Smiled.

It is very inconvenient to write formulas in the online forum editor window

A bad dancer's shoes always pinch!
But if you were to give a formula, it would immediately become clear that it only contains a couple of radar parameters and one signal characteristic, which (the signal) you constantly forget about, but there is nothing that would indicate the "antiquity" of the radar! And all these 64 and 2048 points are determined by these three parameters, and not by the "antiquity" or "novelty" of the radar.

[Alexandra]

If nothing prevents you, give the formula. Explain, based on the formula, that the transition from a 64-point FFT to a 2048-point one, and even to a 16384-point one, actually does not give anything.

As a good dancer, all the cards are in your hands!

Bring all these people who in vain transferred funds from military customers to the development of compact onboard DSPs (digital signal processors) with peak performance in many GFLOPS in the last decade, and today already TFLOPS, "to clear water".

[Hexenmeister]

Just to begin with, you will figure out for what signal (and in what mode) the APG-66 used 64-point conversion. And then find out that at the same time, normal radars (both American and ours) had another mode of operation for air targets, with another signal, which used conversion to a much larger number of points, and the growth of this number was limited by the characteristics required from the radar, and not by the processor's performance.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Just to begin with, you will understand for what signal (and in what mode) the 66-point conversion was used in the APG-64.

It seems like you are going to show with a formula in hand that Doppler filtering of signals using a 64-point FFT allows you to get the same quality result as Doppler filtering of signals using a 2048-point, or even a 16384-point FFT. No?

Are you interested in what modes of operation of the AN/APG-66 radar used Doppler filtering of signals and suggest that I figure it out?

In the sense that you don’t know why Doppler filtering is used in the operation of pulse-Doppler radars and what it allows you to obtain?

https://moluch.ru/archive/467/103065

"Doppler signal filtering is one of the key operations of radar signal reception and processing devices, the correct choice of parameters of which determines the required probabilistic characteristics of target detection. Doppler filtering solves the following problems:

1) It is desirable that the target speed be estimated unambiguously.
2) Improving the quality characteristics of radars through coherent accumulation of narrow-band filters
3) Passive interference suppression

The most common method of Doppler filtering is the direct discrete Fourier transform (DFT) [3, p. 63]... But there is also the fast Fourier transform (FFT) [3, p. 145]."

The author did not list everything. For example, he did not mention the task of resolving individual targets from the group concentrated by range. But these are already trifles.

I hope your next question will not be: "What are the quality characteristics of a radar and why should they be improved?"

And then find out that at the same time, normal radars (both American and ours) also had another mode of operation for air targets, with a different signal, which used conversion to a much larger number of points.

You will write to me about the modes of high-frequency and low-frequency impulses.
"on normal radars" of that time and, about what signal sampling did the FFT algorithms in the signal processors of these radars handle instead of the 64 points that the DSP AN/APG-66 handled?

Let's say, in the normal BRLS-8B "Zaslon", what kind of sample did the FFT algorithm cope with during digital signal processing?

[Hexenmeister]

It seems like you are going to show with a formula in hand that Doppler filtering of signals using a 64-point FFT allows you to get the same quality result as Doppler filtering of signals using a 2048-point, or even a 16384-point FFT. No?

That's right! We've already come close to this process, but here's the problem: you haven't named the parameters of the signals for the two different modes of operation against air targets, and this would have allowed us to determine the duration of the signal!

about the sample of signals that the FFT algorithms in the signal processors of these radars could handle instead of the 64 points that the AN/APG-66 DSP could handle

Well, for example, 1024, on the right signal! What, you don't believe it?

Let's say in a normal BRLS-8B "Zaslon" with what kind of sampling did the FFT algorithm cope with during digital signal processing

The original "Zaslon" did not have any FFT, but it did have a digital receiver, the number of channels of which was much more than 64!

[Alexandra]

Quote: Hexenmeister

That's right! We've already come close to this process, but here's the problem: you haven't named the parameters of the signals for the two different modes of operation against air targets, and this would have allowed us to determine the duration of the signal!

You are trying to prove that the transition from Doppler signal filtering using a 64-point FFT to Doppler signal filtering using a 2028-point, 16384-point, even 32768-point FFT does not actually give anything in terms of improving the quality characteristics of the radar. Right? The cards are in your hands. Prove it. Do you want to use formulas? Do you want to use no formulas?

Well, for example, 1024, on the right signal! What, you don't believe it?

Given the extravagance of your views, of course I do not believe your unsubstantiated statements about "normal radars" of the AN/APG-66 era. Provide a quote about the 1024-point FFT on "normal radars" and a link to the source of this quote. A little further I will once again show how this is done.

Quote: Hexenmeister

The original "Zaslon" did not have any FFT, but it did have a digital receiver, the number of channels of which was much more than 64!

I show:

http://www.id-bedretdinov.ru/journals/articles/istrebitel-perehvatchik-mig-31

"The development of the Zaslon SUV was preceded by the Groza research project, which was conducted in the late 1960s at the Research Institute of Radio Engineering. This work envisaged the development of a concept for a SUV with a long firing range at targets (100-110 km). However, as practice has shown, the results of this research could not be used as the basis for the system being developed. However, the creators of Zaslon borrowed recommendations from the Groza research and development work on the use of fast Fourier transform in processing radar signals.."

[...]

For the first time in the USSR, during the development of the "Zaslon", the digital signal processing systemThe exchange of information in the weapons control system was also carried out using onboard computers.

https://djvu.online/file/cRdTYFxBfFPxT?ysclid=mdo9165crd35267520

"The Zaslon SUV is the first in the world to implement a three-channel (radar channel, illumination channel and nationality determination system) antenna system in the form of a single-block phased array with fast electronic restructuring of the beam position in space and applied to long-range aviation radars. digital narrowband Doppler device. Also, for the first time on board a domestic fighter, the SUV has been implemented pulse-doppler signal processing, discrete-continuous illumination, tactical situation indicator and on-board digital computer system with A-15A digital computer developed at NICEVT and mass-produced in Chisinau. It should be noted that this, the only domestic on-board digital computer at that time, had a very modest performance (200000 short operations per second), which limited the possibility of implementing new combat modes. However, the creators of "Zaslon" had nothing to choose from."[/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-Doppler_signal_processing

"Pulse Doppler signal processing separates the reflected signals into several frequency filters. A separate set of filters is used for each ambiguous range. The I and Q samples described above are used to start the filtering process.

These samples are organized into an m × n matrix of time samples, shown at the top of the diagram.

The time domain samples are converted to the frequency domain using a digital filter. Typically, the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is used for this. During signal processing, sidelobes are generated, and to reduce the number of false positives, a sidelobe suppression strategy such as the Dolph-Chebyshev window function is required.[1]"

So, if the "Zaslon" SUF did not use the "usual" fast Fourier transform for digital processing of radar signals, then indicate what algorithms for digital signal processing were used. I look forward to your response with citations and links.

[Hexenmeister]

You are trying to prove that the transition from Doppler signal filtering using a 64-point FFT to Doppler signal filtering using a 2028-point, 16384-point, or even 32768-point FFT does not really give anything in terms of improving the quality characteristics of the radar.

Of course it doesn't, because everything should be solved in a complex! There is a time of review of a certain area of space specified by the technical specifications, and it cannot be exceeded, because you will not get the required rate of information update in combat conditions. Based on the beam width, you will get, roughly speaking, the number of angular positions in this area, and the maximum possible signal processing time in one angular position.
Here we also need to consider that with the data for the APG-66 signal with its 64 counts, we get ambiguous values of range and speed, and this problem also needs to be solved, for which we will need to work at several repetition rates at one corner point, which will further tighten the requirements for the accumulation time in a "single" cycle. And if we stupidly increase the accumulation time by raising the sample size from 64 to 1024, then the time for viewing the entire zone will increase by 16 times, which is unacceptable.
Therefore, with a conversion size of 1024, you need to use a different signal (you can guess what needs to be changed in the signal), but for it you will also have to solve the problem of eliminating the ambiguity of the measurement, although this can be done in other ways, but everything will still be limited by the time of the "single" accumulation cycle, and the need to ensure the required time for reviewing the entire zone.
And the resolution by Doppler frequency (speed) depends only on the duration of the signal, that is, the duration of a “single” accumulation cycle, tied to the required time of review of the required area, and has no connection with the order of conversion.

[Alexandra]

Did you remove the thesis: "There was no BPF in the original "Zaslon"?" What a pity.

As I understand it, you are left with only the thesis: "Nothing depends on the sample size during digital processing of a radar signal. Increasing the sample size by coherent accumulation of narrow-band filters does not improve the quality characteristics of the radar in any way" or something like that?

In light of this thesis of yours, could you tell us why it is necessary to operate "normal radars" in modes with a high pulse repetition rate? Or maybe you could immediately voice the answer?

https://djvu.online/file/QKMIKi7PoFXL6?

"When solving the problems of detecting air targets, it is desirable to use a high repetition rate of probing radio pulses, which ensures a large number of coherent accumulations of reflected signals, as well as unambiguous measurement of the Doppler frequency shift of reflected signals from moving targets and obtaining the necessary width of frequency windows free from the periodic spectrum of reflections from the underlying surface [2, 4]."

And then we will probably discuss the BRLS-8B serial detector mode at a time when working with large samples during digital processing of radar signals was still poor, but it was still possible to obtain a 25% gain in detection range in this BRLS-8B operating mode.

[Hexenmeister]

Why is it necessary to operate "normal radars" in high pulse repetition frequency modes?

Working on the VChP has the following features:
unambiguous measurement of speed, but has its own peculiarities with the solution of the problem of removing ambiguity for range;
the signal energy is much higher than when working on a frequency converter, therefore a significantly greater detection range is achieved;
the mode is used when working with targets moving towards each other, since the Doppler shift of such targets lies outside the range of Doppler shifts of the signal reflected from the underlying surface;
If the work is carried out on targets in pursuit, then the VCHP mode loses to the SCHP mode, precisely because the Doppler shift falls into the range of reflections from the underlying surface.
The given example for the conversion size 64 for APG-66 refers to the SCHP mode.

Let's discuss the serial detector mode

It is precisely because of the sequential detection that FFT cannot be used!

[Comet_1]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Working on the VChP has the following features:

Hexenmeister, carefully review the messages to you from the participant under the nickname AlexanderA. This is what is now called artificial intelligence. You are used to train it.

[Hexenmeister]

You are being used to train him.

This cannot be learned by correspondence. I have long suspected that this is "like Voodoo", each message is a treatise, with excerpts and links, only it is clear that this is not from a person, but from the analytical department of the corresponding intelligence of the corresponding state. Here is the same thing, the "analytical" department, only it is not clear whose, and it may be the same as you said.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Hexenmeister

This cannot be learned by correspondence.

I'm talking about neuroethics training.

Quote: Hexenmeister

It’s the same here, the “analytical” department, only it’s not clear whose, or maybe it’s the same as you said.

Here is a person and a neural network under his control.

[Hexenmeister]

Our discussion with you has already been "downvoted" by a crowd of Quaker experts 😊

[Comet_1]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Our discussion with you has already been "downvoted" by a crowd of Quaker experts 😊

Here they give minuses for both elementary physics and well-known facts...

[Alexandra]

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tsifrovaya-vychislitelnaya-mashina-dlya-sovremennyh-malogabaritnyh-bortovyh-radiolokatsionnyh-stantsiy

Digital computer for modern small-sized airborne radar stations

[...]

The following was chosen as a test task: real-time primary signal processing algorithm for real-beam mapping. It consisted of a sequence of functions (processing stages) and included the following set of arithmetic, trigonometric and logical vector operations:
 calculation of reference functions of the digital heterodyne;
 search for the maximum modulus in input arrays;
 subtraction of the constant component;
 multiplication of arrays by support functions;
 padding arrays with zeros up to 2048 counts;
 Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on 2048 points;
 multiplication of arrays by an external support function;
 Inverse FFT on 2048 points;
 incoherent summation.

[...]

Based on the totality of parameters for the project, the Elbrus 2S+ MP (1891VM7) developed by ZAO MCST was selected.

[,,,]

In 2015, preliminary and interdepartmental tests of the digital computer were successfully conducted, and the letter "O" was received. In 2016, state tests of the digital computer (as part of the product) should be completed.

An analysis of the performance load conducted jointly with the users of the MBRLS BCVM showed that its value already today reaches 60-80%, and judging by foreign sources, the need to increase the processor speed will only increase, so there is a need to assess the development prospects of the hardware platform of the proposed BCVM. Such an assessment is also important for the reason that the flexibility of the BCVM architecture based on the Elbrus MP and KPI allows for the creation of BCVM modifications that will ensure their use in virtually any radar, both civil and military.

[...]

The use of the Elbrus-4S microprocessor will increase the system performance to 50 Gflops (32 bits, single precision), and in the future, Elbrus-8S and Elbrus-16S will increase performance to 1.6 Tflops. In addition to the above microprocessors, JSC MCST plans to release the KPI-2 peripheral device controller, with the following characteristics:
 exchange speed with the processor up to 16 GB/s;
 PCIe 2.0x16 bus.
This will make it possible to design a digital receiver with a sampling frequency of analog signals above 1 GHz.

[...]

[cmax]

Quote: AlexanderA

I don't hate the USSR. I have pity. "Only that revolution is worth anything that knows how to defend itself" V.I. Lenin. Later, the Soviet state and later Soviet society turned out to be a state and society that could not defend themselves from destructive tendencies within themselves and perished with minimal "help" from external enemies.

The modern Russian state and Russian society are capable of defending themselves both from the internal drive for self-destruction and from numerous external enemies under the general leadership of the already self-destructive "world hegemon" the United States.

P.S. I feel nothing but pity for the losers. The empire of Nicholas II Romanov and his family was weak and perished. The bourgeois republic that was formed in February 1917 after the fall of the Romanov empire "on the ruins of the empire" turned out to be even weaker and perished within a few months.

In your opinion, I apparently feel hatred towards Nicholas II and his court, as well as towards that entire Februaryist camarilla, all those "Gavriil Popovs" of 1917, who brought Russia to the very edge so quickly that by October 1917, power in the Russian state was "lying on the pavement"?

You probably console yourself with your speeches here, how cool you are, how you put everything on the shelves. You yourself wrote that the picture of the world is not in two colors, but in many. And in the USSR they did more for the country than those who are now in power. There was a lot of good in the USSR and the incorrect postulate that personality does not matter in history was wrong. The result is obvious. And we are now seeing this in our lives. Thieving feudalism is all that we have now, which affects the results of the SVO. IMHO.

[Alexandra]

The late USSR eventually self-destructed with minimal help from outside enemies under the weight of the “constructive errors” and contradictions embedded in it.

What about modern Russia, a state that US President Barack Obama called a "gas station nation" last decade, and which US President Joe Biden set out to inflict a "strategic defeat" on three years ago? Modern Russia has clearly proven to be much stronger than the late USSR.

If you don't notice this, then something is preventing you from seeing. IMHO.

[Vlad Gor]

The strength of the Russian Federation is not in the strength of Russia, but in the fact that the US has achieved its goal, changed the political system from socialism to capitalism. Now capitalism dominates the Earth. Why destroy the Russian Federation colony, which brings you golden eggs, destroy your power in the Russian Federation. There is no strength in the Russian Federation, no one is going to occupy and divide the Russian Federation, these are fairy tales for grandmothers and especially gifted people. What is happening is the redistribution of property of the bourgeoisie, capitalists of the whole world, the redistribution of markets. You like these, you are one of them:
Yeltsin B.N. (1992.06.17) -
Speech to the US Congress: “God Bless America!
I have the great honor to speak here, in the Congress of a great free country, as the first popularly elected president in the thousand-year history of Russia, as a citizen of a great power who has made his choice in favor of freedom and democracy..\\\ [The world was shaken by the storms of confrontation, it was close to exploding, dying and not being resurrected. Now this diabolical scenario is becoming a thing of the past. The world can breathe a sigh of relief, for the communist idol, which sowed social discord, hostility and unprecedented cruelty throughout the world, which inspired fear in the human community, has collapsed. Collapsed forever. (*This is the USSR) And I am here to assure you: on our land we will not allow it to rise again!
[Loud applause, congressmen jumping from their seats, ovation.]
The SVO in Ukraine turned out to be a litmus test that showed who is who.
You can't write the truth here. Ask yourself why there is not a single legal document of the Russian Federation on the SVO in Ukraine, although the SVO has been going on for 3,5 years already. This is what you call durability.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Vlad Gor

The SVO in Ukraine turned out to be a litmus test that showed who is who

Oh, what a darling!

Well, well... more details - what did the SVO show in Ukraine?

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vlad Gor

The strength of the Russian Federation is not in the strength of Russia, but in the fact that the US has achieved its goal, changed the political system from socialism to capitalism. Now capitalism dominates the Earth.

I will disappoint you. If you look closely at the theory of socio-economic formations, then each such formation in its mature form corresponds to its own material and production base.

https://istmat.org/node/33654?ysclid=mdamsirmy2410634587

Since the material and production base of developed socialism in the USSR was no different from the material and production base of developed capitalist countries (on the contrary, there was always some material and production lag of the USSR behind the most developed capitalist countries), there was no developed socialism in the USSR.

In the USSR, state capitalism was built in its most extreme form - the state (and not society) acted as the owner of almost all means of production. State capitalism with red flags and a revolutionary entourage.

If you are interested in the material and technical basis of real, not proclaimed socialism, then google such a term as nanosocialism. You can read here:

http://dspace.bsuedu.ru/bitstream/123456789/16173/1/Dyatchenko_Klassy_i_%20sobstvennost.pdf?ysclid=mdan4o5qfu274448266

L.Ya. Dyatchenko "CLASSES AND PROPERTY: domination and oppression, inequality and disease"

Chapter XVIII. Nanosocialism as a society of the future: an attempt to construct a hypothesis

So, there has never been any real developed socialism on planet Earth. And American liberal capitalism has had and has had its main opponents. Today, these are the Russian Federation and the PRC.

Why destroy the Russian colony that brings you golden eggs?

Russia brings nothing to the US now, except for assistance in the US actions aimed at "defatting" Europe. Modern capitalism is in crisis. Modern capitalism is coming to an end. The countries of the "golden billion" no longer have the capacity to maintain the consumption of the entire "golden billion" at the same level. That is why there were those in the US who planned to drive Western Europe out of the core to the semi-periphery of the world capitalist system. Russia, solving its own problems, oddly enough, has provided significant assistance to the US in this. Modern Western Europe is simply not a subject, except for Britain, which is today trying to squeeze "for itself" at least some macrozone in the emerging divided world of economic macrozones. Or as we like to say - in the emerging multipolar world.

[Vlad Gor]

Here the question was raised, although not on topic, why in the 1990s, when the USSR lost the Cold War and was dismembered, why NATO did not finish off the Russian Federation and dismember it. But it could have done so in 1991-1992, painlessly. Why did the USA help restore the Russian state. You yourself understand that in big politics they pay for everything. Above I wrote that the goal of the West was achieved, the West changed the political system in the post-Soviet space to capitalism. Now, this is a showdown between capitalists for the redistribution of property, resources and markets. There is no crisis in the West, the West will replace the temporary decline in the EU due to the loss of resources of the Russian Federation. There is no shortage in the world.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vlad Gor

You yourself understand that in big politics they pay for everything. I wrote above that the West's goal was achieved, the West changed the political system in the post-Soviet space to capitalism.

As historian A.I. Fursov formulated it:

https://vk.com/wall537490896_1971?ysclid=mdddni2s1z881605408

"In October 1990, when I was giving a lecture at Columbia University, one of the people present asked me sarcastically: "Don't you think the bell tolls for communism?" I told him that John Donne had a poem with this line (Hemingway used it as an epigraph): "Never ask for whom the bell tolls. The bell tolls for you!" I mean that the destruction of the Soviet system is the beginning of the end of your system, in 10-15 years. The audience laughed... But in 2008, the crisis really came. The crisis that was predicted in the West in the early 80s.
And now the question arises, for whom does the bell toll? It tolls for the existing world system. And if Russia remains a part of this world in such a sloppy state, mentally, economically, and socially, then the bell will toll for it too. Another thing is that if Russia were not a part of this world, but were, say, a socialist system in itself, everything would be different...

...in order to decide, one must have knowledge. Therefore, I will allow myself to add the final phrase from my book "The Bells of History": "Only subjective and free rational knowledge of society will teach people not to be afraid of the ringing of the bells of history. It will teach them to live without hopes for a reward, because being a human being is the greatest reward. To live without illusions, because life is the best of illusions. To live without idealizing the past, without complaining about the present and without fearing the future. It will teach the courage to be and the courage to know. To know and be a human being - a human being free from defeatism..." Everything depends on a person, especially when social worlds are collapsing and the bells of History are ringing."

I do not idealize the past, do not complain about the present and do not fear the future. I suggest doing the same. And yes, you need to know the past so as not to repeat the mistakes made in the past. "In the next 10-15-20 years, the winner will be the one who falls last, preferably on the corpse of the enemy."

[Mustached Kok]

The article simply points out a weak spot in the Air Force and Air Defense system.
But “can we do this or not” is a question for the author, and not for the management that allowed this to happen.

[bk316]

in the same place where the new Russian orbital station is, the Armata and Kurganets tanks, the A-40 Albatross flying boat, the MiG-35, the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, etc.

How much pathos.
Why not where?
Su-35, Su-57, Yasen submarines, icebreakers of project 22220, C-400, C-500?

Do you seriously think that it is technically more difficult to repair Kuzya than to build five nuclear submarines and three nuclear icebreakers?

[Glagol1]

Well, well, we can't do anything, we don't know how to do anything. We've heard it, and more than once. All these mourners highlight their failures, and try to keep quiet about their achievements. Let me remind you, obiwankenobu, about the Su-57, Tu-160M, about the Yasen and Borei, about the 22350, about the S-400 and S-500, Su-34/35, Solntsepeok, Kalibr, Tsirkon and Kinzhal, Poseidon, MS-21, AK-12, about Yars and Oreshniki, we can go on and on. A sofa is a comfortable thing, especially when you want to criticize and make fun of it, right, obiwankenobu?

[Gregazov]

I agree with you. The author is far from knowledge of energy ratios during review, formation of the route, etc. At one time (1988-1989) I wrote a review of a dissertation from 30, in which the author proposed to switch to the operating mode of 1 minute of silence and 3 minutes of work in order to increase stealth. At the same time, he considered the loss of the effectiveness of the AK RLDN (our army never had AWACS, these are other tasks and other applications) to be only 25%. He did not understand that such a mode would lead to the reset of all previously tied routes and the loss of all radar information. The effectiveness of the radar depends on the energy ratios during review, and the beam scanning method (mechanical or electronic) does not change these ratios (how many seconds the beam should scan one angular resolution element). Be it AFAR, or waveguide-slotted, or cassegrain, you will not make more than 6 circular reviews per minute. Otherwise, you will lose a significant range. But then it will no longer be AK RLDN, but something else.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

In modern Russia, in this "cock's hell" - capitalism, they can't even make an An-2. What other AWACS aircraft?

I remind my communist comrades that in their communist paradise in 1962, in addition to Gagarin’s flight, there was also the execution of workers in Novocherkassk, simply because they wanted working people to have something to feed their children!!!

The communists, with their empty talk and incompetence, brought the people to poverty and the country to collapse without any capitalism and without oligarchs.

So, sit now, comrade communists, at least silently and watch how they clean up the problems that you created during 75 years of your incompetent rule.

[NordOst16]

No, well, to its credit it should be said that the communists left a bunch of "problems" that the modern Russian Federation is still getting by on. Plus, after all, the communists got a superpower, but the current regime is not doing well so far.

[NordOst16]

The "cock's hell" of capitalism did not prevent the United States from becoming the world's leading economy and does not particularly hinder the rise of China. We must thank the courageous rulers of the USSR, who brought the country to 91 (and Gorbachev, perhaps, is to blame for being a follower and not a genius for correcting the situation), and now we are reaping the fruits of the fact that, living in the 21st century, we dream of the 20th.

[TheWatcher]

It is obvious that you are the one talking heresy, and not the author - there is definitely some truth in his words))

[PROXOR]

The author buried the Il-112, but for some reason forgot about the Il-114. Which has already been tested.

[Evgeny_4]

The Il 114 could just become the base

[Dzungar]

the better maneuverability of lighter vehicles will greatly help them from being shot down

how can the better maneuverability of light transport aircraft, on the basis of which, according to the author of the article, promising AWACS aircraft should be based, "help them a lot from being shot down..??? Do you think they are light fighters with great maneuverability or something, capable of aerobatics..??? How are light AWACS aircraft better in maneuverability than large AWACS aircraft....??? If we believe you...

[Revolver]

Lighter machines do not fit equipment, simply because, as was noted in Soviet times, "Soviet microcircuits are the largest in the world." So the Swedes and Jews cram all the necessary equipment into a business jet, and the Russians and Chinese into a heavy transport aircraft.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Nagan

Here the Swedes and Jews cram all the necessary equipment into a business jet, and the Russians and Chinese into a heavy transport aircraft.

Firstly, both the Swedes and the Jews do not have their own element base, and secondly, the functionality and power of light AWACS are noticeably lower.

[Soldatov V.]

We can actually make a light AWACS aircraft based on the Yak-40. If only there was a desire. Firstly, there are many of them in storage. It can be modernized by installing new fuel-efficient engines, new wings and we get 700-800 km/h speed and up to 7000 range. This is how one Yak-40 was modernized in Novosibirsk.
Avoid rotating antennas, use phased antennas only.

[AllX_VahhaB]

There is a lot of talk about this, but no action is visible yet...

[Dante Alighieri]

Yes, it's all very simple. All over the world, AWACS aircraft (with a few exceptions) are created on the basis of widely adopted by industry mass commercial passenger aircraft or mass military transport aircraft. This reduces the cost of production, maintenance and repair of the airframe itself, allowing the saved funds to be directed to the electronic filling of the aircraft. True, this requires a developed aviation industry. Remind me how many civil aircraft we have planned to produce this year? And next year? Does anyone still remember Manturov's pearls about a thousand aircraft by 2030?

[Essex62]

Well, in the formula oil-gas, in exchange for a finished product from there, the aviation industry is of no use. Nothing has changed since the time of the lip-slapper. "From there" only became from another place. It's called a turn to the East.

[Dante Alighieri]

He could not iamba from chorea,
As we fought, to distinguish.
Branil Homer, Theocritus;
But I read Adam Smith
And he was a deep economy,
That is, he knew how to judge,
As the state grows rich,
And what lives, and why
He doesn’t need gold,
When it's simple product It has.
Father could not understand him
And pledged land

[Mustached Kok]

For Manturov, the main thing is that in 2030 everyone forgets his statement

[Dock1272]

All their statements and programs used to be based on the principle: either the donkey dies, or the emir... or the donkey learns to talk... But suddenly it turned out: the education reform has failed, the health care has failed, the pension reform has failed... Well, and there are some other little things... But the people who implemented them did not die... and the emir did not die... And these people still sit in power and, together with the emir, pour into our ears, instead of answering for what was not done... Accordingly, all these articles are a fart in the desert...

[NordOst16]

Well, if you approach it from this side, then a good option would be either the Tu 204 or the MS21. They are smaller than the 76th, the MS21 will potentially be produced in large series for civilians. At the same time, they are still large aircraft to master the domestic gloomy genius of microelectronics.

[PN]

But why does no one remember the Il-114? There is nothing to modernize there. The airframe is old, yes, but the engines are new.

[Dante Alighieri]

But why does no one remember the Il-114?

Because it still needs to be launched into production. It's easier with the Yak-40 in this regard - it's enough to modernize it. Although, I agree, the Il-114 is also a pretty good potential platform. And there can be no talk of old age. The Chinese generally use the An-12 and its descendants for these purposes and don't complain. Here you just need to see what turns out to be more economically advantageous - turboprop or turbojet engines.

[NordOst16]

Yak40, if I'm not mistaken, stopped being produced in the 80s. I'm not sure that restarting production will be easier than setting up production of a new model. In addition, as has already been written in the comments, there is a suspicion that our developers will be able to fit the equipment into light aircraft.

[Luminman]

Quote: PN

But why does no one remember the Il-114?

For some reason, no one remembers helicopters as a radar carrier either. Although they are inferior to airplanes in speed and flight duration, they can still be easily used in the SVO near the LBS, especially since they do not require airfields. I can remind you about Ka-31, which, although created for use at sea, could also be used on land. According to rumors, one such helicopter has already been used as an AWACS in Syria and even has the ability to refuel in the air...

[Dante Alighieri]

For some reason, no one remembers about helicopters as a radar carrier either.

Well, you answered yourself in the next sentence: lower speed and flight duration, less space for operators and equipment, higher fuel consumption and cost per flight hour.

In this regard, a good option would be to take a closer look at airships or aerostats. They have a good load-carrying capacity, they do not depend on the power of the on-board network, since they are powered from the ground, they can be quickly lowered and raised if necessary. Yes, they are not mobile, but they provide a good overview. In addition, in addition to the radar, they can be equipped with high-resolution optoelectronic equipment to detect the same UAVs or other ground or air objects.

[Engineer]

They have good load capacity.

Yeah...and the dimensions with this good load capacity? A 40-ton fool along the length will probably go for 200 meters... 4 times larger than a similar aircraft. You can immediately draw a target on the side.

[NIKN]

Quote: Engineer

A 40-ton fool would probably go 200 meters... 4 times longer than a similar plane. You can immediately draw a target on the side.

That's not even the point, in fact, you only need to raise the antenna. But in the end, this will be a ground-based stationary object that can be hit with geraniums and artillery. How to protect it?

[Engineer]

Well, if that’s the case, then you can hang the antenna on a birch tree, or, if there’s no birch tree, build a mast.

[NIKN]

Yes, you can go anywhere, I'm talking about protecting the object, stationary objects are destroyed in no time...

[Dante Alighieri]

and what are the dimensions with this good load capacity?

Everything will depend on your appetites. For the same Irbis radar from the Su-35 and the sighting column, much space will not be required. The radar from the KA-31 will be a bit larger and, therefore, the aerostat itself will be larger, but not critically. But if you install something more substantial, then yes - you will need an appropriate product.

[NordOst16]

But will the Irbis have enough resources to shine like AWACS radars? After all, it was developed for completely different machines with different operating modes. The Ka31 radar is more suitable, but they are rarely used and who knows how effective and well-developed the radar is there.
The aerostat will not replace AWACS aircraft and, apparently, it will be even more vulnerable on the front lines.

[nekromonger]

They will be shot down near the LBS, that's the drawback

[shikin]

The plane, according to various estimates, is good, and the flight duration is long. And somewhere in October they should finish certification. But the production capacity for now is about 12 planes per year (and not from the first year, but in 2-3). And a lot can be done on its basis. And the airframe is not old, a lot has been reworked there.

[qQQQ]

Quote: V.

We can actually make a light AWACS aircraft

Without developing and producing our own element base, we will not be able to produce anything more complex than an iron. And if we can, then only in homeopathic doses, which will not affect the general situation in any way.

[Alexandra]

As I understand it, you believe that the L-band AESA in the wing consoles of the Su-57 fighter were manufactured using imported microwave MIS?

[qQQQ]

Quote: AlexanderA

As I understand it, you believe that the L-band AESA in the wing consoles of the Su-57 fighter were manufactured using imported microwave MIS?

Nobody will show us what components it is made of. The most important thing is what components the equipment for processing the signal from it and other systems are made of. And SU57 is produced in homeopathic doses, and is used accordingly.

[Alexandra]

Quote: qqqq

Nobody will show us what components it is made of.

It is made of domestic components. Because aresnid-gallium microwave monolithic integrated circuits cannot be "pulled out of washing machines".

https://mwelectronics.etu.ru/assets/files/2012/u02_a.a.-borisov_sozdanie-seriynogo-proizvodstva.pdf

Creation of serial production of transistors and microwave integrated circuits at the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “NPP Istok” and development of AFAR submodules based on them

"To ask a question well, you must know most of the answer" Robert Sheckley

You are still asking yourself and others the wrong questions.

[qQQQ]

Quote: AlexanderA

You are still asking yourself and others the wrong questions.

Anything is possible. I understood about the radars, good if so. Now the second part of the question, what about the equipment for signal processing and in general from what components the BIOS is made, considering that almost all production in this industry is completely destroyed.

[Alexandra]

https://www.module.ru/uploads/products/0032019-4224f2691c.pdf

The domestic system on a crystal 1888TX018 was used as the main computing core of the on-board computer

https://xhfpp.tb.ru/shop/cpu/module/1888th018

1888TX018 is designed for use as a central processor for devices requiring high performance and high energy efficiency in computing systems and multimedia information processing systems, and is used in devices such as television signal conversion units for on-board equipment and on-board control machines.

[...]

Processor architecture – PowerPC v2.05
Processors: 2 CPUs (PowerPC 470S) and 4 NMC3 CPUs
System performance: CPU – 2150 DMIPS and DSP – 6,4 GOPs (16 bit), 38.4 GOPs (8 bit)

But there are more than 16 GB of DDR3 RAM with EC and more than 1 TB of NAND, NOR ROM, there are foreign integrated circuits, yes.

For comparison, the avionics of the F-35A.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27539

TWO HIGH PERFORMANCE POWER SUPPLIES

[...]

System Processor:
»> 2900 DMIPS, 1MB L2 Cache
"512MB DRAM, 256MB Flash
»128KB NOVRAM

[...]

Power PC 7448

[Aviator_]

We can make a light AWACS aircraft based on the Yak-40. If there is a desire.

Do they have the Yak-40? As well as the compact AWACS, which was never made. They did it for the Kuzya, but they didn't have time.

[Soldatov V.]

There are about 400 Yak-40s in storage. Half of them have unused resources. About ten of them are flying now. Why not install a Su-35 radar on it if it is so wonderful and not one but three, for example, for all angles? I understand that we cannot bring the Baikal to mind, and here is a light AWACS.

[NordOst16]

Irbis was not created for use in the modes in which AWACS aircraft operate their radars. Most likely, it will not cope with its resource.

[Hole puncher]

Our adversaries have Link 16, a system that allows them to transmit an array of information with the coordinates of a target to any link in the chain included in the system. That is, right up to the commander of an artillery battery.

The author somewhat exaggerates the capabilities of the Link 16 system, because there is one condition. The transmitting and receiving parties must be within radar visibility. And the data transmission channel capacity is not high. But when SpaceX launches the MILNET communication system, for which it received (or will soon receive) 13 billion, then indeed, what the author described will be without any conditions.
Moreover, then there will be no need for operators on board the AWACS aircraft at all, because all information will be transmitted to the ground via MILNET, and the operators can sit on the beach in Hawaiian shirts sipping juice... Although most likely there won't even be any operators at all, and AI will handle information processing and control...

[ycuce234-san]

The transmitting and receiving parties must be within radar visibility.

Any signals, for example, can be received on the ground near the scene of the event and then amplified and transmitted via various networks anywhere.
Even old systems like link16 can be modernized to suit realities.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: ycuce234-san

can be received on the ground near the scene of the events

How much equipment do you need to have? You can go broke. It's easier to create a Starlink and use satellite communications.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Puncher

How much equipment do you need to have? You can go broke.

Just a little bit. You can lay temporary lines using fiber optics left over from drone use, for example. This is an example of when you can come up with solutions for literally pennies.

[Essex62]

It looks like Homa sapiens has reached the final stop. Its complete erasure from the surface, as a species, is a matter of the near future. We will bury ourselves. However, not for the first time. What civilization are we?

[Engineer]

What civilization are we?

[Essex62]

That the next one will be Anglo-Saxon-Jewish? Probably yes.

[Hole puncher]

The Swedes also do all sorts of things based on Gulfstream business jets

Who's stopping us? We're requisitioning from the oligarchs, we can get enough Gulfstreams for an air division, and the maintenance is at their expense...
According to Forbes

In total, Russians own up to 500 business jets.

Or "this leg, whose leg do you need..."?

[AllX_VahhaB]

And who will requisition? What kind of system do we live under? Who is the ruling class under it?

[iommy]

in a liberal democracy like Russia it is impossible to take anything away from an honest capitalist, especially an airplane

[Engineer]

Well, okay... so they requisitioned it. And what next? What kind of equipment will you put there and where will you get it?
No, as an option, put a soldier with binoculars at each porthole - it will "cover", as the author says, only a couple of kilometers, but it will be as cheap and widespread as possible)

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Engineer

Well, okay... so they requisitioned it. And what next? What kind of equipment will you put there and where will you get it?

[Vitaly.17]

The fact that the concept of an AWACS aircraft, both large and small, has outlived its usefulness is clearly demonstrated by the experience of their combat use. At the same time, radar control of the air and ground situation is more effective from high altitudes, ideally from space, but there are a lot of other problems there. Currently, the vulnerability of ground-based radar control systems is too great. This is clearly demonstrated by the numerous UAVs that fly more than 1000 km deep into Russian territory.
Hence the conclusion. We need compact, low-power airborne radars with the ability to be installed on high-altitude UAVs such as the S-70 (Okhotnik). It's too bad that such radars do not exist yet. Theoretically, the N036 "Belka" radar can be used as a technological basis. But in fact, this will be a completely different radar with a different design and different principles of space observation.

[Amateur]

And this magnificence costs 500 million dollars.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to replace the A-50 with five aircraft the size of the An-30 and costing five times less, albeit with five times less efficiency?

Of these 500 million, the carrier costs 15-30 million (even 50) dollars. The rest is electronic filling. So it will not work to make 5 instead of one. And in general, there is no need to make the A-100, since it became morally obsolete many years ago. The main and fundamental anachronism is the "dish antenna". Everyone has long since switched to the phased array. Why the developers are dragging their feet with a fundamentally new AWACS aircraft is completely incomprehensible. The technologies of large phased arrays and "soft/hard" have long been tested on the S-400 and S-350. To adapt them for placement on an aircraft is only a matter of desire and money, and relatively little at that.
But they don't. Maybe someone is just against it?

[Engineer]

fundamental anachronism - "dish antenna"

The A-100 has an AFAR... it's just in the shape of a plate, like the Chinese have... and it also spins, which the Chinese don't have)

[Alexandra]

Quote: Amateur

But they don't. Maybe someone is just against it?

Developers from the Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex named after G.M. Beriev have long wanted to make money on the R&D project, within the framework of which a new carrier aircraft for the "plateless" radar complex will be developed. For at least 11 years now they have wanted to:

https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2572366C2_20160110

[Same lech]

Why not make the AWACS system in the form of removable containers or blocks and lift it into the air using various air carriers from helicopters to balloons... it is much cheaper and safer than using existing AWACS aircraft.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

Why not make the AWACS system in the form of removable containers or blocks and lift it into the air using various air carriers from helicopters to balloons... it is much cheaper and safer than using existing AWACS aircraft.

https://topwar.ru/39076-kompleks-jlens-aerostat-s-rls-i-chastnaya-zhizn.html

[Same lech]

Alas, alas...all that remains is to shrug our shoulders...and the cart is still there.

[Engineer]

Well, just off the top of my head - most likely it will be low-power (it won't see much further than the standard radar), serious problems with information processing are possible - you'll have to somehow make friends between the suspension system and the on-board receiver of different carriers.

[Same lech]

Quote: Engineer

most likely it will be low-power (it won’t see much further than the standard radar),

Perhaps... but many such blocks can be placed along the front line in the depths of the defense... and behind them, the A-100 can be launched... such a combination will increase the safety of their flights.

[Engineer]

How will it increase safety? Do you think the A-50 didn't see what was flying at it?

[ln_ln]

Do you think the A-50 didn't see what was flying at it?

This is the most interesting question.
What prevents us from implementing active defense in aviation?

[Engineer]

Active protection is to put machine gunners there or what? Who knows, I suspect that the speed of the missile...
As an "active defense" option: I was once told that such planes should be accompanied by fighters, which should shoot down the missiles, and in extreme cases, catch the missile themselves.

[ln_ln]

Should we put machine gunners in for active defense?

A person with his reaction speed and eye will definitely not cope.
Tank APS operate automatically. Of course, the speed of the SAM is higher than the ATGM, but so is the detection distance.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from: ln_ln

Of course, the speed of the SAM is higher than that of the ATGM, but so is the detection distance.

The Tu-95 and Il-76 aft gunners had a mode of automatic fire based on target designation of their radar sights. But apparently this became lost knowledge...

[Dedok]

Why not make the AWACS system in the form of removable containers or blocks and lift it into the air using various air carriers from helicopters to balloons... it is much cheaper and safer than using existing AWACS aircraft.

you have to sit down and count...
but who will do it?

[FoBoss_VM]

Everyone knows everything and everyone understands everything. But no one does anything... This is the main scourge of our RF Ministry of Defense. The same situation is with communications, from VHF to satellite.

[Hole puncher]

Quote from: FoBoss_VM

This is the main scourge of our Russian Ministry of Defense.

Well, the Russian Defense Ministry may want to buy something like that, but the military-industrial complex is not capable of issuing something like that. In the 90s, they wanted to replace the A-50 system with the A-100, which was placed on the... An-124. Because there was no room anywhere else.

[Engineer]

The military-industrial complex issued the TU-214R... and where are they? I suspect the Russian Ministry of Defense itself is confused about what it wants.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Engineer

Military-industrial complex issued TU-214R

Two of them. But this is a reconnaissance radar, not an AWACS.

Quote: Engineer

and where are they?

I can assume that it turned out like in the joke, "One lost, and the other broke..."

[Engineer]

Two of them. But this is a reconnaissance radar, not an AWACS.

Well, how many have been ordered. And I'm talking about the attitude to technology... there are planes, they've even been tested, unlike the hundred. But there's no movement in their direction, they're just standing there.
It's a shame, listen (c)

[Dedok]

I suspect the Russian Ministry of Defense itself is confused about what it wants.

plot with a house on Rublevka...

[ycuce234-san]

Accordingly, here is the layout of what a modern AWACS aircraft should be: small, maneuverable, inexpensive

Now it is technologically possible to work through a chain of unmanned repeaters, when the fairly cheap equipment of the flying radar and communications node will be right in the thick of things, and its operators will be safe - beyond the Urals. And such flying radars can be made in numbers by orders of magnitude more than aircraft. It is probably better to focus on such systems than on aircraft versions.

[barbos]

It's probably better to focus on systems like these rather than aircraft-based options.

I will downvote you and they will continue to downvote you, because there are plenty of adherents of manned and only manned aviation here, some of them, in all seriousness, wrote articles and a bunch of comments at the beginning of the SVO about how easy and simple it is to shoot down all drones with airplanes using an aircraft cannon.

through a chain of unmanned repeaters, when the flying radar equipment itself is quite cheap

It is very easy to solve with the help of satellite communications. What the US demonstrated more than a decade ago in Iraq, when operators controlled their attack drones from military units directly in the US. And delays in signal transmission did not affect control.

And such flying radars can be made in numbers that are orders of magnitude greater than the number of aircraft.

As the production of Geraniums demonstrates now. And it does not necessarily have to be a specialized model only for AWACS. It can be a universal unmanned platform that can be riveted in mass production. thousands of pieces

It's probably better to focus on systems like this rather than aircraft variants.

Exactly! Just keep in mind that most of the comments on this resource on almost any topic revolve around how backward the Ministry of Defense, General Staff, etc. are, but at the same time, the commentators themselves are mostly stuck forever in the last millennium.

[ycuce234-san]

By the way, I forgot - it is convenient to install georadars on small drones with radars over the battlefield for reconnaissance of various underground structures and search for minefields - this cannot be installed on a large manned AWACS aircraft in principle.

[iommy]

What is stopping domestic aircraft manufacturers? Maybe some environmental standards are too narrow? After all, they could have made engines in large quantities in the 60-70-80s

[Luminman]

Quote from iommy

What is hindering domestic aircraft manufacturers in general?

The system that has developed in the country since the collapse of the USSR...

[Dedok]

maybe some environmental standards are too narrow

what are you talking about?
about the exhaust of a tank when performing a combat mission or about the color of the exhaust from the nozzles of a MiG-31 or Tu-22M3 when taking off with afterburner?
We are talking about the country's defense capability, not about environmental friendliness and the transition to a "green agenda"...
no time for fat...

[cmax]

Quote from iommy

What is stopping domestic aircraft manufacturers? Maybe some environmental standards are too narrow? After all, they could have made engines in large quantities in the 60-70-80s

There was an article recently, a cry from the heart of a manufacturer, the lack of quality bearings for aircraft construction. That's all. Unfortunately. Maybe things will get better, at least after 2030. Hope dies last!

[Paranoid62]

Quote: cmax

There was an article recently, a cry from the heart of a manufacturer, the lack of quality bearings for aircraft construction

Let's read it here together. It's strange: airplanes fly, both military and civilian, engines pass the regulations (otherwise they wouldn't fly) - but there are no bearings.

Quote: cmax

That's all

No, not all. I have a question: are you throwing this little money at the propeller, or is it your heart's desire?

Now that's all that's true.

[cmax]

Quote: Paranoid62

I have a question: are you throwing this little money at the propeller, or is it the call of your heart?

As long as there are people like you and those like you, there is no way to think about any Victory. Smart people learn from the mistakes of others, and you know who, from their own. All the best, what...
"Smart man" has become one of the interlocutors!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And the noise standards and the lack of brains at the same time interfere. After all, you can take the domestic NK-12 from the Tu-95 and An-22, adapt to it a propfan from the failed An-70. You will get a completely modern and reliable, albeit less fast, but more powerful engine.
Perhaps it will be possible to adapt it to the Tu-204, solving the problems with efficiency. And the Il-76 with such a unit will significantly gain in efficiency, it will be a kind of reincarnation of the An-22.
A symbiosis of the NK-12 and the SV-27 propeller fan has long been proposed, but for some reason the matter has not moved forward.

[air wolf]

A couple of weeks ago I watched one of the last A-50s take off, a beauty. but their time has passed, now it is easier to install four AESA from Su-214, 35 or MiG-57BM on the Tu-31M and it is time to start production of the Kronshtadt AWACS UAV, perhaps an AESA from MiG-35 will be installed there

[iommy]

Such an aircraft, the "Russian Hawkeye", could keep a 100-120 km front under surveillance.

in the age of air-to-air missiles like the Meteor or R-37, this is too little

[Luminman]

Quote: Roman Skomorokhov

strategic aviation as the most expensive and useless type of aviation

The author could explain why strategic aviation is a useless type of aviation?

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Luminman

Could the author explain why strategic aviation is a useless type of aviation?

Not the author, but perhaps he had the following facts in mind.
1. In case of a nuclear war, strategic aviation will most likely be destroyed by the first strike, since the time to prepare for takeoff and the takeoff itself of several machines will take several times longer than the time it takes for an ICBM warhead to reach the airfield. The American Air Force, of course, conducts exercises for this case, Elephant Walk - takeoff of all with a minimum interval, but this is necessary so that everyone is ready for takeoff, refueled and with a crew on board.
2. Apart from the B-2, no other strategic bomber is capable of dropping a bomb on enemy territory with a relatively high probability of completing the mission. The others simply launch missiles without entering enemy airspace, and for this purpose the same transport aircraft can be used, which is what the Americans did by dropping a container with a heavy cruise missile from the EC-130.

[Dedok]

The American Air Force of course conducts exercises for this case, Elephant Walk - everyone takes off with a minimum interval, but this is necessary so that everyone is ready for takeoff, fueled and with crew on board.

It would also be nice to load nuclear weapons on board: not all Air Force bases have nuclear weapons storage facilities

[Octillion]

There are already JASSM-ER missiles with a range of up to 980 km and JASSM-XR missiles with a range of up to 1600 km, launched from conventional fighters. The range of the latter is only slightly shorter than the range of existing American strategic ALCMs.

[Maluck]

I tried to post this concept as an article, but the editor didn't accept it. Let it be as a comment.

The concept of using UAVs in the context of building a continuous air defense system along the country's borders.

Inspired by the tragic facts of Ukrainian UAV raids deep into Russian territory.
First of all, I would like to warn you that I am not an expert in the field of air defense, but I have some experience and education in the field of aircraft.

Initial data:

1. No matter how small the percentage of Ukrainian UAVs that overcome Russian air defense, it does exist, which means that such UAVs must be fought. It may happen that a single UAV that overcomes an air defense system can cause damage that is many times greater than that caused by missiles. It all depends on the target it hits.

2. The fact that at the moment quite a large number of enemy UAVs are penetrating deep into Russian territory indicates that the air defense system at the LBS is of a focal nature and does not provide continuous coverage of the contact line. Using SIGINT, the enemy finds gaps in the air defense system and through them UAVs fly beyond the contact line.

3. Given the limited means of destroying air targets, the means of detecting enemy UAVs play an important role in protecting the country's airspace. Given the fact that the enemy, when crossing the line of contact, programs the flight of its UAVs at an extremely low altitude, this further complicates the task of detecting them in those locations that do not have a sufficient number of detection and destruction means.

4. After crossing the line of contact, the probability of hitting an enemy UAV is sharply reduced due to the low density of detection and destruction means deep in Russian territory. Because destruction means are usually deployed to protect individual critical infrastructure facilities.



Concept.

The goal is to ensure continuous coverage of the contact line, or the state border, with means of detecting and destroying enemy UAVs or cruise missiles flying along a flat trajectory at subsonic speed. Because if detected in a timely manner, it is possible to significantly increase the probability of their neutralization before they reach the target, even if they managed to fly deep into Russian territory. In the future, it would be logical to deploy such an early warning system along the entire border of the country.

The means used.

To achieve the stated goal, it is necessary to use UAVs of three different classes.

1. High-altitude (ideally) stratospheric UAVs equipped with SAR systems. And also carrying radars for scanning the earth's surface. They should have a long autonomous flight time, calculated in tens of hours. Flight speed is not as important here as the time spent in the sky and the practical ceiling. The prototype created is an Altius-type UAV.

2. Medium-altitude reconnaissance UAVs, which serve to visually confirm targets detected by high-altitude UAVs. They can also be used to guide attack UAVs. The speed and flight characteristics of this class of UAVs should ensure the ability to catch up with most enemy UAVs and track them for several hours. They should also have advanced optical detection systems. The prototype created is the Orion UAV.

3. Attack UAVs carrying a warhead and having a high speed of movement, which ensures the pursuit of an enemy UAV and its destruction not only with the help of a warhead, but also with kinetic contact.


Principle of application.

High-altitude UAVs conduct continuous patrols over the territory of Russia (or neutral waters), but along the contact line (border) at altitudes of +15 km, replacing one another. This will allow scanning the surface and all moving objects to a depth of more than 100 km from the patrol line. That is, to see not at a tactical, but at an operational depth. In this way, it is possible to detect enemy UAVs in advance, before they approach the LBS or border.

Medium-altitude UAVs rise into the sky after detecting enemy UAVs approaching the LBS. They move into a given square and the parameters stored in memory - course, speed, flight altitude of the detected enemy assets. These parameters will be updated if the enemy UAVs change them, and the flight parameters of the medium-altitude reconnaissance UAV will change accordingly, in order to ensure its exit to meet the enemy strike assets.

After detection and visual confirmation/identification of the enemy UAV, attack UAVs are launched into the sky. The medium-altitude UAV is responsible for guiding the attack UAVs, and it also provides video recording of the attack UAV's operation.

Attack UAVs can be based locally, along the line of contact, but taking into account their combat radius, so as not to leave gaps in the means of destruction. They can also have a mobile platform for basing, in order to quickly move out to meet the enemy's flying UAVs. Ideally, several echelons of the air defense system are formed from attack UAVs. With sufficient development of technology, they can operate automatically and without the participation of operators, using commands given from the control center of medium-altitude UAVs.

Summary.
When implementing this concept, it is possible to create a continuous air defense line along the border or LBS. Moreover, the detection system will be able to work not only to detect UAVs, but also cruise missiles with a low flight profile and terrain following. If the flight speed of the enemy's strike vehicles exceeds the capabilities of the strike UAVs, then standard air defense systems such as Pantsir or S-300/400/500, etc. can come into play.

The use of high-altitude UAVs as detection tools not only provides an unprecedentedly large scanning radius, but also significantly reduces the response time to enemy attacks.

[AlexanderBrv]

Quite an interesting proposal to involve UAVs in the role of AWACS! The problem raised in the article is extremely acute and to solve it we need to look for and implement all available options taking into account financial and technological capabilities!

[Maluck]

I tried to post this concept as an article, but the editor didn't accept it. Let it be as a comment.

The concept of using UAVs in the context of building a continuous air defense system along the country's borders.

Inspired by the tragic facts of Ukrainian UAV raids deep into Russian territory.
First of all, I would like to warn you that I am not an expert in the field of air defense, but I have some experience and education in the field of aircraft.

Initial data:

1. No matter how small the percentage of Ukrainian UAVs that overcome Russian air defense, it does exist, which means that such UAVs must be fought. It may happen that a single UAV that overcomes an air defense system can cause damage that is many times greater than that caused by missiles. It all depends on the target it hits.

2. The fact that at the moment quite a large number of enemy UAVs are penetrating deep into Russian territory indicates that the air defense system at the LBS is of a focal nature and does not provide continuous coverage of the contact line. Using SIGINT, the enemy finds gaps in the air defense system and through them UAVs fly beyond the contact line.

3. Given the limited means of destroying air targets, the means of detecting enemy UAVs play an important role in protecting the country's airspace. Given the fact that the enemy, when crossing the line of contact, programs the flight of its UAVs at an extremely low altitude, this further complicates the task of detecting them in those locations that do not have a sufficient number of detection and destruction means.

4. After crossing the line of contact, the probability of hitting an enemy UAV is sharply reduced due to the low density of detection and destruction means deep in Russian territory. Because destruction means are usually deployed to protect individual critical infrastructure facilities.



Concept.

The goal is to ensure continuous coverage of the contact line, or the state border, with means of detecting and destroying enemy UAVs or cruise missiles flying along a flat trajectory at subsonic speed. Because if detected in a timely manner, it is possible to significantly increase the probability of their neutralization before they reach the target, even if they managed to fly deep into Russian territory. In the future, it would be logical to deploy such an early warning system along the entire border of the country.

The means used.

To achieve the stated goal, it is necessary to use UAVs of three different classes.

1. High-altitude (ideally) stratospheric UAVs equipped with SAR systems. And also carrying radars for scanning the earth's surface. They should have a long autonomous flight time, calculated in tens of hours. Flight speed is not as important here as the time spent in the sky and the practical ceiling. The prototype created is an Altius-type UAV.

2. Medium-altitude reconnaissance UAVs, which serve to visually confirm targets detected by high-altitude UAVs. They can also be used to guide attack UAVs. The speed and flight characteristics of this class of UAVs should ensure the ability to catch up with most enemy UAVs and track them for several hours. They should also have advanced optical detection systems. The prototype created is the Orion UAV.

3. Attack UAVs carrying a warhead and having a high speed of movement, which ensures the pursuit of an enemy UAV and its destruction not only with the help of a warhead, but also with kinetic contact.


Principle of application.

High-altitude UAVs conduct continuous patrols over the territory of Russia (or neutral waters), but along the contact line (border) at altitudes of +15 km, replacing one another. This will allow scanning the surface and all moving objects to a depth of more than 100 km from the patrol line. That is, to see not at a tactical, but at an operational depth. In this way, it is possible to detect enemy UAVs in advance, before they approach the LBS or border.

Medium-altitude UAVs rise into the sky after detecting enemy UAVs approaching the LBS. They move into a given square and the parameters stored in memory - course, speed, flight altitude of the detected enemy assets. These parameters will be updated if the enemy UAVs change them, and the flight parameters of the medium-altitude reconnaissance UAV will change accordingly, in order to ensure its exit to meet the enemy strike assets.

After detection and visual confirmation/identification of the enemy UAV, attack UAVs are launched into the sky. The medium-altitude UAV is responsible for guiding the attack UAVs, and it also provides video recording of the attack UAV's operation.

Attack UAVs can be based locally, along the line of contact, but taking into account their combat radius, so as not to leave gaps in the means of destruction. They can also have a mobile platform for basing, in order to quickly move out to meet the enemy's flying UAVs. Ideally, several echelons of the air defense system are formed from attack UAVs. With sufficient development of technology, they can operate automatically and without the participation of operators, using commands given from the control center of medium-altitude UAVs.

Summary.
When implementing this concept, it is possible to create a continuous air defense line along the border or LBS. Moreover, the detection system will be able to work not only to detect UAVs, but also cruise missiles with a low flight profile and terrain following. If the flight speed of the enemy's strike vehicles exceeds the capabilities of the strike UAVs, then standard air defense systems such as Pantsir or S-300/400/500, etc. can come into play.

The use of high-altitude UAVs as detection tools not only provides an unprecedentedly large scanning radius, but also significantly reduces the response time to enemy attacks.

[DO]

Quote: Maluck

The means used. (...)
3. Attack UAVs (...)

As for strike UAVs, today there is only one prototype that is guaranteed to catch up with a UAV with a turbojet engine (600 km/h) and a cruise missile (1000 km/h) - this is an anti-aircraft missile, ZV or VV.
However, if everything is clear with the launchers of the ZV missiles, they are ground platforms, then the carrier of the VV missiles is a fighter. In our case, these could be the few remaining in service light fighters MiG-29, and MiG-35, the serial production of which, we hope, will happen in the near future.

Quote: Maluck

High-altitude UAVs conduct continuous patrols over the territory of Russia (or neutral waters), but along the contact line (border) at altitudes of +15 km, replacing one another. This will allow scanning the surface and all moving objects to a depth of more than 100 km from the patrol line. That is, to see not at a tactical, but at an operational depth. In this way, it is possible to detect enemy UAVs in advance, before they approach the LBS or border.

Regarding patrolling by Altiuses with a suspended panel radar of Russian borders beyond which no military action is taking place, yes.
But if the clumsy Altius flies over the LBS in Ukraine, it will most likely be shot down on its first flight, because this ashcan is not a maneuverable and fast jet fighter.

Quote: Maluck

Medium-altitude UAVs rise into the sky after detecting enemy UAVs approaching the LBS. They move into a given square and the parameters stored in memory - course, speed, flight altitude of the detected enemy assets. These parameters will be updated if the enemy UAVs change them, and the flight parameters of the medium-altitude reconnaissance UAV will change accordingly, in order to ensure its exit to meet the enemy strike assets.

You can find data on the Orion's maximum speed online - according to various sources, it is from 120 to 295 km/h. You must agree that for a clumsy UAV, at such a speed, it is highly unlikely to detect a maneuvering drone with a turbojet engine (600 km/h) and a cruise missile (1000 km/h), and it is completely impossible to catch up.
That is, we cannot do without MiG-29/35 interceptors here. Considering also that the fighter pilot can use the onboard radar for additional detection of an air target and guidance to it.

Quote: Maluck

After detection and visual confirmation/identification of the enemy UAV, attack UAVs are launched into the sky.

If by "attack UAVs" we mean anti-aircraft missiles launched from existing ground launchers, then there are no questions.
If some of the enemy's drones or cruise missiles do manage to penetrate beyond the air defense line, they can be destroyed by MiG-29/35 interceptors. Moreover, here on VO, commentator bayard recalled the American experience of laser guidance of special aviation URS (modernized NURS) on drones and cruise missiles. If our industry masters this technology, a fighter-interceptor will be able to carry not 8 expensive high-explosive missiles, but several dozen relatively cheap URS with laser guidance. That is, one interceptor will be able to repel a massive attack by enemy drones and cruise missiles.

[Vadim S]

All this chatter about what is necessary and what is not necessary has been going on for many years and nothing has changed at all! It's all just to sit, think and go about your business. No one here does anything, they can't convert a pathetic outdated Vesta to their own parts, and it can't compare to an airplane, so there's no need to talk about what high technologies we can or will do, these are fantasies that are unattainable for us! We can only sell natural resources and make tanks, that's all!

[Dmitry Eon]

There is good microwave electronics in the Russian Federation, the same Irbis and Zaslon radars are not produced by Texas Instruments, the issue is that for decades we have been fed "fairy tales about Death Stars-which-have-no-analogues" which "will soon go into production". And here we come to the issue of Technical Specifications and customer requirements, which are contradictory and it is almost impossible to comply with them (and not go crazy). Regarding the AWACS and the base for it - it is quite there and is called Il-112 - if we move away from the numerous requirements of peacetime (no time for fat) and we need to start producing!

[wladimirjankov]

Regarding the AWACS and the base for it - it certainly exists and is called the Il-112 - if we move away from the numerous requirements of peacetime (no time for fat) and need to start producing it!

Where is this IL-112 now? It is not there and will not be. And then the carrier aircraft is far from the entire base for the AWACS. The main one is the element and component base. Why has it not yet been possible to launch the A-100 AWACS into production? Precisely because of the lack of our own domestic element base. After all, the circuitry of the A-100 has long been developed and designed, but on a foreign base, which we do not have analogues of yet. There is simply nothing to make a modern AWACS from yet. The reason for the problem of creating AWACS is not the lack of a carrier aircraft.

[Engineer]

Why has it not yet been possible to launch the A-100 AWACS into production?

What the hell series? It hasn't even been submitted yet.

[wladimirjankov]

It hasn't even been handed over yet.

Where not handed over? To scrap metal or something?

[Siberian man]

The author speaks about airplanes, specifically as flying machines, that they are the problem. The author is wrong, the problem is not in them at all, or they are a much smaller problem than the two main problems.
And the two main problems are: 1. we don’t have an electronics industry and 2. our budgets are being completely stolen in all departments and at all levels, starting from any noticeable boss and ending with the highest officials of the state, but they weren’t going to work and won’t.

[Dedok]

Prospects for the Development of the Russian Aerospace Forces. AWACS aircraft

In considering this issue, the author put the cart before the horse:
1. We need electronics that allow us to complete the assigned tasks (DLROiU) - we practically don't have it (and we don't need to talk about AFARs on SU35), in addition to the antenna, we need to process the received signal, we need a data transmission system to the "end user"
2. and only after this - we need to talk about the carrier - the aircraft.
As of today, we have neither the first nor the second!
stories about import substitution are stories from the "box" for those who watch it...
I can't say what to do in this situation, where to start, but time is running out - and all we have is chatter...

[Vasily))]

Make a two-seater Su-35 and let it be an AWACS aircraft for the European theater of military operations. And there is no need to create a problem. And a fighter with its super maneuverability is not so easy to shoot down. It has more external fuel tanks, the minimum armament for defense, and let it monitor the situation in economy mode.

[Yuri_K_Msk]

But the aerostat is actually a very difficult target for air defense. The Americans barely managed to shoot down the Chinese one with the help of the F-22. And trumpet it to the whole world as a great achievement.

[Apis1962]

...modern warfare is a complex event aimed at destroying enemy manpower and equipment with the subsequent capture of foreign territories...
The complex event is well said, although it grates on the ear, but the author muddied the thesis about the final seizure of territory in vain. To obtain resources, industry and other "goodies" it is enough to buy out the elite, leading media and destroy or reduce education to a minimum. Which is what was done in the 90s.
As a result, there was no place and no one to create an AWACS aircraft. In eight years of preparation for the SVO, they were unable to create a satellite group conducting simple surveillance of 404.

[Ivan_1234]

In Putin's Russia there is one algorithm: loud shouts and slogans, then decades of development with billions of people leaving with their sons and daughters for the USA and Switzerland, and then a quiet closure under the slogans that it is better this way and we don't need it at all

[barbos]

And how are things in Zelensky's Ukraine?

[John_Doe]

... modern warfare is a complex event aimed at destroying enemy manpower and equipment with the subsequent capture of foreign territories, which is not present in everyone.

- Not all (authors) have an understanding that not only modern wars, but also past and, to a large extent, future wars have been and will be such “complex events”.))
When an article is prefaced with such blatant banality as a start, you understand that you shouldn’t count on any meaningful material.
Which, in fact, was confirmed by a subsequent cursory viewing.))
And yes, if we consider a means of armed struggle as a "spherical horse in a vacuum, outside the system, structure of hierarchy, principles of combat use", any weapon can be equally successfully dubbed a "wonder weapon" and a "worthless coffin", depending on the wishes and current opportunistic attitudes of the author. Which writers here, and not only here, often sin with.))

[Alexandra]

Everything has already been thought up before us. True, it has not been implemented. There was not enough money. In the early 90s, Boeing still had good engineers working there.

[Alexandra]

To top it off. Patent: "A low-radar signature aircraft for deck and ground-based use with a circular-view antenna system"

https://poleznayamodel.ru/patent/257/2572366.html

[pin_code]

Author: So what kind of plane do we need? Il-22 is bad, Il-76 is bad, Su-35 is bad.

[Vladimir-TTT]

Quote: pin_code

Author: So what kind of plane do we need? Il-22 is bad, Il-76 is bad, Su-35 is bad.

We have another problem. Namely, the interaction of different departments. Both to exchange information and to avoid destroying each other.
One large plane (Il-76) took off, covered 1000 km of the front. All "involved" were warned not to shoot it down.
And the information “vertically” from this one plane reaches somewhere.
And if instead of one there are many, the system will "get stuck".
Along with technical issues, organizational ones also need to be addressed.
Which of them is more difficult is unknown...

[pin_code]

How can something slip if there are no other options? I'm talking about the A-50.

[dragon772]

We also need AWACS to replace the A-50. I hope they won't make them based on the Superjet 100, which has just had its avionics converted to domestic. But it's not clear yet how reliable it is.

[pin_code]

Tup204(214) can be used. But again, it should be a mass-produced aircraft.

[Zaurbek]

In order not to wait for something that does not exist, you can use civilian platforms. SSZh100 and Tu214 (MS21).
Il114.

[exo]

In a country where all civil aviation programs have failed (and this is the base), they will not be able to create an AWACS. That's all. If Tupolev promises to start "serial" production of the obviously obsolete TU-204 by 2027! And it is better not to talk about products that have already been imported in aviation without tears.

[utyutkin]

This whole article is essentially just plain nonsense on the topic of "how nice it would be if there was...". Author, you need to live in reality. Gentlemen commentators, you are strange. You talk about anything except what needs to be talked about. People, we don't have radar! We don't have it! And we won't have it in the near future. And none from other planes will do. And its problem is not only to make it, you need to invent it. This is a very complex scientific problem and no factories can solve it.

[DO]

A huge iron, as soon as it turns out within range of any weapon, - a pile of burnt metal on the ground. No chance of salvation. (...)
(...) both the Il-20 in Syria and the A-50 near Crimea were shot down by an incredibly old S-200 air defense missile. Almost its own. I won't even mention the Il-22 that was shot down in my region by the Wagner fighters marching on Moscow, the executor there was the anachronistic Strela-10.
There is no chance for a modern aircraft from Il-20 to Il-76 to evade or defend against a missile. As practice has shown, this means 10-20 corpses (highly qualified specialists at that) and minus the aircraft in any case.

The author then writes a very interesting text:

in our country the role of such an aircraft /*required in the enemy air defense zone*/ is performed today by pilots on the Su-35. Yes, the luxurious radar of this aircraft allows one to look very far and track even anti-aircraft missile launches (a very useful option) at other aircraft. (...)
But the Su-35 comes first fighter, Also single. Here we come to the point that the Su-30 or MiG-31 would look better in this role, but the Su-30 has a weaker radar, and the MiG-31 is also not very effective to use in this role.

But only fighter capable of evading enemy missiles and quickly leaving the kill zone of a suddenly awakened "patriot." And the clumsy propeller-driven Hawkeye will be shot down in the kill zone of a modern air defense system about as easily as an Il-76.
About "single" - yes, for the radar reconnaissance function this is a disadvantage.
The author does not explain why it is "not entirely effective" to use a two-seater MiG-31 with a good radar for radar reconnaissance purposes. Obviously, because this aircraft is not produced today, and its losses are irreparable.
Yes, and the author forgot to mention the Su-34 with the suspended side-looking radar "Sych" UKR-RL (https://topwar.ru/199782-universalnye-kontejnery-razvedki-sych-v-specoperacii.html?ysclid=md8ri5m6153086801).

In the north The A-50 and its descendants will feel comfortable: there are frankly few airfields, but the range allows for patrol flights with a large "shoulder". The same goes for in the pacific, only there there are many more threats

Logical. But what if the A-50 is too small and is not produced? Of course, it is necessary to develop a "Russian Hawkeye" for the North. But its development and testing will take years, and radar reconnaissance in the North and the Far East is urgently needed here and now. Therefore, let us remember the heavy UAV "Altius", capable of lifting and providing energy to the suspended radar "Sych". And besides, this UAV would solve the problem of the increased risk of using a radar reconnaissance aircraft in the Pacific Ocean.
Yes, today "Altius" is infamous as one of the failed projects of the former repair plant now called UZGA. But if a heavy UAV is urgently needed, why not transfer its modification to a competent design bureau that can quickly bring "Altius" to series production?

[Hexenmeister]

Oh, and the author forgot to mention the Su-34 with a suspended radar. side view "Sych" UKR-RL (https://topwar.ru/199782-universalnye-kontejnery-razvedki-sych-v-specoperacii.html?ysclid=md8ri5m6153086801).

This container is not suitable for AWACS needs

UKR-RL is designed to detect single and group ground targets at ranges of up to 300 km. It can be used to identify enemy troops on the march, in concentration areas or in positions.

Doesn't work on air targets!

[DO]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Doesn't work on air targets!

Regarding the Sych radar, I dug around on the net:

Quote: https://www.hibiny.ru/murmanskaya-oblast/news/item-aeto-chtoby-luchshe-videt-tebya-vnuchenke-vnemeckoy-presse-ocenili-prokachku-rossiyskih-bombardirovshchikov-su-34-i-vspomn-370995/

First of all, we are talking about the UKR (Sych) complex, which increases the accuracy of target recognition and destruction. For many years, Russia has been working on integrating electronic units with the Su-34, so that the aircraft becomes suitable for tactical reconnaissance. (...)
(...) the modular UKR has three variants. The first one is with a powerful side-looking radar "Pika-M" (UKR-RL)

Let's see what this "Pika-M" is:

Quote: https://tehnoomsk.ru/archives/1957

"Pika-M" is part of the BKR-3 onboard complex, which provides radar reconnaissance around the clock and in any weather. The radar has a resolution in the cartographic mode of up to 1-1,5 m, and the detection range of objects is up to 300 km. It is interesting that the radar is capable of distinguishing in detail the structural elements of the detected aircraft - engine, fin, armament, etc., and determining its type by characteristic featuresFor this purpose, a telescopic observation mode with a resolution of up to 30 centimeters is provided.

That is, judging by open According to sources, the veracity of which, naturally, I cannot vouch for, the Sych UKR-RL radar is supposedly designed to detect not only ground targets, but also air targets.

[DO]

PS
Just in case, a little about the radar following the Pika-M:

Quote: https://svgbdvr.ru/bezopasnost/novosti-otechestvennykh-radiolokatsionnykh-stantsii

The ultimate goal of the current work is to develop a fifth-generation side-looking radar. A characteristic feature of this development will be the use of an active phased antenna array. The new project is called "Synthesis".
(...)The Sintez radar will have some other advantages. According to some reports, the aperture synthesis radar function will be implemented. It will also be used selective selection of moving targets, display of the coordinate grid in meters or pixels with the ability to scale, and Approaching or receding objects will be marked in different colors.

Judging by what I have highlighted in bold, the Sintez radar uses the Doppler effect, which is effective for detecting drones and cruise missiles flying low against the background of the earth by an aircraft radar from above.

[Hexenmeister]

Yes, indeed... The synthetic aperture mode is known and implemented even in the times of Tsar Gorokh, and processing in this mode is classified as Doppler, so the phrase "judging by the highlighted" does not cause anything but a smile, and then again cliches: generations, afars, etc. Do you know what "happens" to moving targets after processing using synthetic aperture?

[DO]

Hexenmeister, the only thing I reliably understood from your post is that you are sitting on your couch and smiling mysteriously about something personal. And judging by the conversation "through the lip", you claim the title of guru among radar developers.
Could you please tell us specifically and clearly for normal people, why you don't like the Sintez radar? Is it suitable for detecting drones and cruise missiles, or not? If not, then why?

[Hexenmeister]

It is clearly written there: Cartographic mode!!! There are no air targets in it, and this resolution is for ground targets. Even if we assume that there is a mode for classifying air targets, here's the catch, this is only possible with a very good signal/noise ratio, that is, the target is several times closer than the detection range, so in real combat conditions the carrier of this container will be shot down by a missile "v-v" before it can classify anything.

[DO]

Hexenmeister, it seems you want to say that the Pika-M radar does not have a Doppler mode of operation that cuts off interference from stationary targets? If so, then say so, don't be shy. Because then at least you will be understood.

[Hexenmeister]

It seems you want to say that the Pika-M radar does not have a Doppler mode of operation.

Read carefully, I wrote that the synthetic aperture mode is by definition Doppler, but is intended for mapping the underlying surface, and I asked you to answer the question of what will happen to a fast-moving air target in this mode, but you did not answer, which means you do not know.

[DO]

Quote: Hexenmeister

You didn't answer, so you don't know.

Well, I don't think I'm here for a job interview at Vega. And I don't have to know the answer to your question. I attended lectures on radar at the university back in Brezhnev's USSR, and since then they haven't been useful for my work. It's possible to find an answer online, but I don't see the point in it.
And you, instead of trying to hint at your knowledge of the subject with a smart look, would do better to explain this question in simple language (if you can, of course). Because the majority of readers of this page are not specialists in the radar field.

[DO]

PS
Hexenmeister, but you don't have to explain anything. Because a radar that doesn't have the ability to detect cruise missiles at maximum range is almost pointless. And what technical methods of Doppler detection were used by the developers of today's UKR-RL "Sych" radar, the information is classified. Consequently, you won't see a reliable and comprehensive answer to your question here by definition.

[Hexenmeister]

I attended lectures on radar at the university back in the Brezhnev USSR, and since then they have not been useful for my work

Oh well, they came in handy for me!

Because a radar that does not have the ability to detect cruise missiles at maximum range is almost pointless.

But what if the radar was not intended for these purposes? You wouldn't make a claim against a meteorological radar, whose task is to see thunderclouds, that it cannot detect cruise missiles? And from a course in the theoretical foundations of radar, you would understand that it is necessary "to detect cruise missiles at maximum range", and that not every radar has the necessary signal and methods for processing it, and that AFARS and supercomputers do not provide anything for this.

[DO]

Quote: Hexenmeister

You wouldn't make a claim that a weather radar, whose job it is to see thunderclouds, can't detect cruise missiles?

The UKR-RL "Sych" is a suspended military radar reconnaissance radar. And if it were blind to air objects flying towards it, then as a military radar it would be under-functional.

[Hexenmeister]

None of what you wrote is in the open description of the container, which you yourself provided. The basic words: "side-looking radar", "mapping", "synthetic aperture mode", tell me, having studied radar and applied this knowledge in practice, that this is a system for working on ground targets, and some knowledge of the history of this process allows me to say that the implementation in the form of a container is a "pathetic imitation for the left hand" compared to what was planned to be on this aircraft in Soviet times.

[DO]

Hexenmeister, if you are right, it would be expedient for our industry to quickly improve this suspended radar so that it would detect cruise missiles and drones at maximum range. Because creating a fighter with the required built-in side-looking radar (why a fighter - because no other aircraft will survive for long near the SVO LBS), and then again from scratch creating a panel radar for the border Altius (or for the "Russian Hawkeye"), and another separate radar for the suspended aerostat - this is an occupation for a total of 15 years, if not more. A spoon is dear to dinner.

[Comet_1]

Quote: DO

The UKR-RL "Sych" is a suspended military radar reconnaissance radar. And if it were blind to air objects flying towards it, then as a military radar it would be under-functional.

The point is that the radar does not differentiate between ground and air targets. This is postulated in the radar. If the radar operates on ground targets, then all detected objects are considered ground. If the radar operates on air targets, then all detected objects are considered air. When operating on air targets, the radial speed of the target is used and low speeds are cut off, and when operating on ground targets, the transverse speed is used and high speeds are cut off.

[DO]

Quote: Comet_1

When working on air targets, the radial speed of the target is used and low speeds are cut off, and when working on ground targets, the transverse speed is used and high speeds are cut off.

Above, Hexenmeister, who introduces himself as a radar specialist, confidently assumes that the UKR-RL "Sych" radar can only operate in ground mode.
Let's say he's right. My question to you is, how should the UKR-RL be modified so that it can detect cruise missiles and drones? Is it just some kind of reconfiguration, or does its hardware need to be redesigned?

[Comet_1]

Quote: DO

Above is Hexenmeister, who introduces himself as a radar specialist.

So he is a real radar specialist.

Quote: DO

confidently assumes that the UKR-RL "Sych" radar can only operate in ground mode

If the Azrabogtniks do not declare the mode of operation against air targets, then this mode does not exist...

Quote: DO

A question for you: how should UKR-RL be modified so that it can operate in cruise missile and drone detection mode? Is it just some kind of reconfiguration, or does its hardware need to be redesigned?

I don't know the design of this radar. It could be either way.

[DO]

Probably the most reliable and fastest way to create a panel side-looking radar for detecting cruise missiles and drones would be to rework/reconfigure the Su-57 N036 "Belka" radar by its team of developers.

[Pavel57]

AWACS aircraft are rarely created from scratch, but are usually built on an existing platform.
In the USSR - Tu-126, Il-76, An-71. The exception is the Yak-44, which is now in great shortage.
Currently, the platforms Tu-204, Il-114, MS-21, and possibly Superjet with PD-8 are conditionally available.

[Pavel57]

AWACS aircraft are rarely created from scratch, but are usually built on an existing platform.
In the USSR - Tu-126, Il-76, An-71. The exception is the Yak-44, which is now in great shortage.
Currently, the platforms Tu-204, Il-114, MS-21, and possibly Superjet with PD-8 are conditionally available.
To test the R-33 missile, the Zaslon was installed on the Tu-104. From the Tu-204, both we and the Chinese installed the BRLS to conduct the BRLS testing.
The British had a project to install two radars in the nose and tail as an alternative to the Nimrod.
This all means that theoretically it is possible to go down this path - install 2 Zaslon-type radars on a Tu-204-type aircraft.

[Glagol1]

I agree with the author, we need 2 platforms, and we have them - Tu-214, as a single version of AWACS, long-range ASW and airborne command post. The range in this version will be 6000 km, more than the A-50, it is a large, but moderate in money aircraft. Well, and Il-114, this is the younger brother, capable of hanging in the air at 400 km per hour for 7-8 hours. A-100 Premier - there are two of them, we should finish it, transfer it to the troops and not break down this door anymore.

[Dart2027]

The reasoning is interesting, but the question remains - at what distance will this light aircraft with a light radar be able to see? Especially since it needs to detect not only huge bombers, but also small drones.

[Vlad Gor]

My opinion. There are no prospects for the development of aviation, including AWACS, under such a government. Discussing technical solutions in the absence of political ones is a waste of time for specialists, and for the government it is a way to let off steam from the people. What are the gentlemen going to produce if there is no industry? There is no machine tool building, no radio electronics, no bearings. As long as there is oil and gas, we will sell and buy, but there are no buyers of oil and gas left, only freeloaders remain.

[megadeth]

We need AWACS aircraft "yesterday", so I see only one way out, to order their production from China. It will be cheap and fast, and of course we will install our own equipment, but if tomorrow there is a war with imperialist predators, then with the equipment... Where to get the money, for oil, gas, ice cream... etc. IMHO

[Octillion]

and A-50 near Crimea were shot down by an incredibly old S-200 air defense missile

Please don't repeat this Ukrainian nonsense.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: The Truth

But it's not clear what this has to do with it

Well, it is quite obvious here that this champion is more concerned about the fact that we don’t have a Soviet Union now, but damned capitalism.
And he connects all this with the fact that damned capitalism screwed everything up, and supposedly everything existed under the Soviet Union. But he is fundamentally silent about the fact that everything was screwed up after the era of L. I. Brezhnev ended, that's when everything went down the drain, and under Gorbaty it was finally finished off, i.e. even before the damned capitalists carried out a coup d'etat, seized power and gradually sold off the remains of the Soviet industry.

[ratcatcher]

A smart idea... The question is, at which Russian flight base should they be made? Superjet?...
Yes, and the commentators have written a lot of fair things about the capabilities of a small AWACS aircraft. We still need two types of aircraft. A large A 100 and more compact ones to solve more local tasks, cover various holes and low-flying targets...

[barbos]

Why does it have to be a manned aircraft? It has a few simple tasks: take off if it needs to hover in the air, if it needs to move along a simple route, land for refueling or maintenance. It is not required to perform aerobatics. A large flying wing with equipment. Essentially an analogue of the existing NATO reconnaissance drones.

[Lucy]

I read up to "Su-34s are dropping what they have there, and the 35th is hanging above and monitoring the tactical situation.>", then I looked to see who wrote it. Skomorokhov, what do they have there and how are they dropping it? Skomorokhov Su-34s are currently dropping FABs from the UPMK. So at least inquire about the flight profile of the Su-34 on this BM, and then write who is higher, who is lower. And why higher and what echelon is this? How to monitor and what is the tactical situation. There is no point in even commenting on this "today, the role of such an aircraft is performed by pilots on the Su-35".

[agond]

For DLRO, it is better to use high-altitude aircraft such as the M-55 Geofizika, which has a ceiling of 21.5 km. This will move the visible horizon 100-150 km further than, for example, the Boeing E-3A, plus the danger of enemy attack will be reduced.

[Mykola Kovach]

I agree, creating an amazingly complex device like the IL112 is not a task for idiots! And we don't have any others. We don't need strategists? That's right. We'll fire cruise missiles from balloons and drop bombs on the enemy from Superjets! While the idiots in uniform, led by Shoigu, happily rule the army and rob the budget, there are plenty of options for how to come up with a miracle and do nothing.

[savage3000]

This time the buffoons are telling the truth!