Prospective Russian AWACS: Choosing a Platform

A view from heaven

One of the most important elements of the Air Force (VVS) / Aerospace Forces (VKS) are airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft.

The Russian Aerospace Forces have a critical shortage of this type of weaponry, especially compared to the armed forces of other leading countries in the world. First of all, this is the United States, but they are quickly being caught up by China, which has many developments of AWACS aircraft, both manned and unmanned, and other countries are also trying to ensure the presence of these machines in the ranks of their Air Forces.

The problem is that the effective range of use has increased significantly in recent times. missiles "air-to-air" and anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs), and there is a tendency for it to increase further, which has increased the risks of destroying AWACS aircraft - we previously talked about this in the material "An Endangered Species: The Uncertain Future of AWACS Aircraft".

The American AIM-174B Gunslinger air-to-air missile has a range of about 240 kilometers

Given the complexity and cost of AWACS aircraft, the increased risks of their destruction are forcing the armed forces of the world's leading countries to seek new approaches to ensuring situational awareness from the air. One of them is distributing the AWACS function between several small-sized manned and/or unmanned carriers, and today we will talk about the capabilities that the Russian Aerospace Forces potentially have in this area.

Limited choice

Based on open data, the Russian Aerospace Forces have problems with the creation of AWACS aircraft not only in terms of the radar complex (RLK), but also in terms of the carrier. Earlier in the material Aircraft AWACS for the Russian Air Force: fast, a lot, inexpensive We considered the possibility of creating a "ersatz" AWACS aircraft based on the promising Il-114 aircraft and the Irbis radar system of the Su-35S aircraft, which has proven itself well in the special military operation (SVO) zone.

The concept of a "ersatz" AWACS-114-300 aircraft with several Irbis radar systems on board

However, the development of the Il-114 aircraft is delayed, and when and in what quantities it will enter serial production is completely unknown. Of course, one can consider the possibility of using the Tu-214 aircraft as a carrier platform, but these machines are also produced in a fairly small series, and their large dimensions and low maneuverability make them vulnerable even to low-maneuverability air-to-air missiles and long-range SAMs.

What other options do we have?

There aren't that many of them. With a small aviation We have serious problems in general, to the point that we have not been able to create a replacement for the “maize” for several decades, so, in fact, there is not much to choose from, as a result, we cannot yet create something like the American Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.

The American E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft and the Chinese KJ-600 – it’s a pity that we are unlikely to succeed in this, at least in the foreseeable future, both due to the lack of a comparable carrier aircraft and the lack of a radar system for it

Recently, the topic of using UAVs as a platform for placing AWACS equipment, that is, only the “detection” equipment, while “U” – “control” is taken out. In particular, in China, the AWACS UAV WZ-9 Divine Eagle is being developed, specially designed for detecting low-observable aircraft.

UAV WZ-9 Divine Eagle

With unmanned technology, we have the opposite situation: while small UAVs are being actively developed and mass-produced, there are certain problems with medium and heavy ones.

The medium-altitude Orion UAVs have too little payload capacity – they can be used in combination with a low-power radar station to detect kamikaze UAVs or unmanned boats (UBK) of the enemy, but not to solve the tasks of seizing air superiority. The same will most likely apply to the heavier medium-altitude Altius / Sirius UAV.

There is a project of the Gelius-RLD UAV – a radar patrol, but, apparently, this machine exists only as a concept and a model. Nothing is known even about the creation of the first prototype – it can be assumed that the Gelius-RLD UAV will appear in the Russian Aerospace Forces when machines of this type in Western countries will already begin to become obsolete, since they are about to be replaced by low-observable machines capable of surviving in combat with a high-tech enemy.

Model / prototype of the UAV "Gelius-RLD"

For example, based on open data, in the US Air Force The RQ-4 Global Hawk strategic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft will be replaced by the extremely stealthy RQ-180 White Bat UAV.

RQ-180 White Bat UAV

However, it is in the niche of stealth UAVs that the Russian Aerospace Forces have a compelling argument – ​​this is the heavy stealth UAV S-70 Okhotnik, made according to the “flying wing” scheme. Based on open data, this UAV is in the final stage of development, accordingly, it should be closest to serial production. Thus, the S-70 Okhotnik UAV may be very interesting as a platform for the radar complex, which is part of the spatially distributed AWACS.

Can we consider the S-70 Okhotnik UAV as a platform for an AWACS aircraft or will these machines be in demand in the Russian Aerospace Forces to solve some other priority tasks?

UAV S-70 "Hunter"

The program to create the Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik unmanned aerial vehicle is one of the most classified in the Russian Aerospace Forces. Based on the data published in open sources, two main scenarios for using the S-70 Okhotnik UAV can be considered.

The first is the autonomous use of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV to destroy any ground targets using guided weapons (I would like to hope that they do not plan to use this combat vehicle to work with unguided “iron”).

Dropping an unguided aerial bomb from the S-70 Okhotnik UAV during testing

The second is the use of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV in conjunction with the Su-57 fifth-generation multi-role fighter as a “faithful wingman.”

Su-57 fighter and S-70 Okhotnik UAV

High-intensity armed conflicts, such as a special military operation (in Ukraine) or the war between Iran and Israel, require combat aviation to exert enormous strain to employ thousands - tens of thousands of high-precision missiles. weapons long range.

In Ukraine, the main precision munition used by the Russian Aerospace Forces aviation is the unified planning and correction module (UMPK) aerial bomb. Using UMPK aerial bombs with the S-70 Okhotnik UAV is unlikely to be practical in terms of cost-effectiveness. For routine work on ground targets, a more promising solution seems to be the use of UAVs of the Grom type, developed by the Kronstadt company..

Grom UAV mockups/prototypes

It seems more expedient to use the S-70 Okhotnik UAV with complex and effective high-precision munitions to hit especially important targets. However, it is worth making a reservation here - even the low-visibility S-70 Okhotnik UAV is not invisible and invulnerable to enemy SAMs and air-to-air missiles, while it itself will be a very desirable target for the enemy.

This means that when penetrating enemy airspace, the S-70 Okhotnik UAV can be detected and destroyed by enemy aircraft or anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) operating in ambush mode. We should not forget about the risks of interception or suppression of the control signal - this problem will be extremely relevant for Russian unmanned aircraft until we have our own high-speed encrypted satellite communications.

According to unconfirmed reports, the remains of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV lost in Ukraine

As for the use of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV as a “faithful wingman” for the Su-57, there are also a number of questions here.

For example, the Su-57 fighter is capable of moving at supersonic cruising speed without using afterburners, while the S-70 Okhotnik UAV is, by all indications, a purely subsonic machine, meaning that when working in a group, the speed of the group will be limited by the capabilities of the slower machine.

There is also a question about the onboard radio-electronic equipment (avionics) of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV, primarily the radar. Of course, if the said UAV is equipped with a modern, highly effective radar, for example, based on the Belka radar of the Su-57 fighter with an active phased antenna array (AFAR), then the range of tasks solved by the S-70 Okhotnik UAV will increase significantly, but the cost of such a machine will also be high - the cost of a modern radar/avionics can be a third, or even half, of the cost of the entire combat vehicle.

Thus, it can be assumed that the joint use of the Su-57 and the S-70 Okhotnik UAV will be optimal and effective for missions to destroy especially important targets at a great distance from their bases, when the Su-57 in a group with the S-70 Okhotnik UAV will move at subsonic speeds, and the increased risk of losing the expensive S-70 Okhotnik UAV will be justified. In other cases, for example, for jamming or delivering additional ammunition in the LBS area, it is more practical to use the cheaper and simpler Grom UAV.

It is also worth remembering that the Su-57 is a single-seat combat aircraft. Will the pilot be able to simultaneously control his aircraft and the S-70 UAV? For the two-seat version of the Su-57, such a combination looks much more logical, but so far there is no reliable information about the creation of a two-seat version of the Su-57 and the order of such machines for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

We previously discussed these issues in the article “Hunter” is approaching: prospects for the use of the heavy stealthy S-70 UAV in Ukraine.

Conclusions

Based on the above, we can state with a high degree of confidence that the heavy UAV S-70 Okhotnik may enter serial production in the near future.

The operation of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV over enemy territory will be limited due to the high risk of losing these vehicles both from enemy air defense systems and fighter aircraft, and from the possibility of intercepting or jamming control channels.

On the combat contact line, to perform routine tasks such as dropping aerial bombs from the UMPK, a more promising solution seems to be the use of inexpensive Grom UAVs with simple avionics, which should be produced in large quantities.

As a “faithful wingman,” the use of the S-70 Okhotnik UAV will only be appropriate for a limited number of missions to destroy particularly important targets at a great distance from the base, taking into account the high risks of losing the latest combat vehicles and them falling into enemy hands.

As a "faithful follower" - a carrier of funds EW, anti-radar missiles (ARM) or air-to-air missiles, the optimal solution will most likely be the same Grom UAVs, especially in the stealthy configuration in which this UAV was originally planned to be created.

Thus, we can potentially consider the possibility of using the S-70 Okhotnik UAV as an aviation platform for the creation of a promising spatially and functionally distributed AWACS complex.

We will talk about the prospects and advantages of this solution in the next article.

Comments

[SmolH2]

At least some kind of AWACS, but it is necessary. Yesterday. After all, they are still thinking about it and have not started developing it. And even if they have started, they will do it for now. Good luck to our engineers. And to companies like "Angstrem".

[Alexander_Makedonskov]

A good remark on the issue of flexibility and speed of decision-making in the US military-industrial complex.

[Civil]

1. No engine - no aircraft or UAV. And it appeared recently! This is the engine from Geranium-2, a two-cylinder, two-stroke, horizontally-opposed air-cooled engine (formerly Limbach L550E). We will have to reduce the Irbis by 4 times, and two such engines will "pull" the radar.
2. Communication. More or less, communication with Geranium-2 has been established, and the joke is that the new ones already have video cameras. That is, solutions have already been developed. As an option, a semi-stationary version with fiber optics with reinforcing braiding (also already exists).
3. Step on your throat and buy copies of the An-12 from China and install Belkas.

And finally, urgently make a connection like Link-16. Pakistan managed to do it and the results are good.

[Revolver]

Quote: Civil

engine from Geranium-2, two-cylinder, two-stroke, horizontally opposed air-cooled engine (formerly Limbach L550E).

What is the service life of this engine? One thing is a one-way flight, and quite another is daily service of an AWACS aircraft.

Quote: Civil

Step on your throat and buy copies of An-12 from China

And will Xi sell it? It's one thing to have Mavics that can be designed as toys, and microchips that can work in microwaves, and quite another thing to have full-size military transport aircraft. It's unlikely that Xi will want to run into secondary sanctions. Xi is not Kim, who doesn't give a damn about sanctions.

[Civil]

What is the service life of this engine? One thing is a one-way flight, and quite another is daily service of an AWACS aircraft.

Everything is fine with the resource; the engine was even used in light aircraft.

And will Xi sell?

Buy through Kazakhstan or Venezuela. In this case, it will sell. There will be no problems with service or with spare parts. Everything is available.

[Kalmar]

Buy through Kazakhstan or Venezuela.

It is doubtful that Kazakhstan will be interested in participating in such schemes, it is trying to be friends with the West, more or less. And it is not a fact that Xi himself will want to get involved with Venezuela, because sanctions can be caught there too.
Overall, I think a solution can be found (let’s say, buying planes in parts and assembling them locally), the question is whether China will get involved in this.

[red-eye]

He doesn't even want to get involved with the Russian civil aviation sector, let alone paramilitary/military projects.

[red-eye]

there is an opinion that Kazakhstan will not go for this because they themselves will soon need to rearm (most likely the range of weapons of Russian origin will decrease and Turkish, Israeli and Chinese will increase) and China most likely will not sell anything to Venezuela because of the threat of sanctions and conflict with users of Chinese military equipment in the region

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Nagan

What is the service life of this motor?

This engine was originally created for light aircraft. And the resource must be appropriate

[alexoff]

No engine - no plane or UAV.

This is all wild insanity. The Americans made the Global Hawk on a jet engine with a thrust of about three tons. We have a similar one and it is installed on the Yak-130, and its previous model was installed on the Yak-42 and nothing, everything flew. Installing propellers is some kind of crazy insanity of our sawyers, so that later they can throw up their hands. And this is not to mention that the A100 and Tu-214R had engines, but none of this came to the troops, the intelligence turned out to be unnecessary for the country, and the money has already been spent

[bayard]

Quote from alexoff

And this is not to mention that the A100 and Tu-214R had engines, but none of this reached the troops, the intelligence turned out to be unnecessary for the country, and the money had already been spent.

This is the main reason for the lack of AWACS aircraft. There is simply NO DESIRE. But there are aircraft as a base for this. Although not many.
For starters, it would be possible to take those two dozen Tu-204 and Tu-214 from the layover with almost untouched resources, which the airlines refused. They are ready, they are undergoing restoration repairs and there you have it - a sufficient base for AWACS aircraft. But they need the appropriate radar complex.
Have they dealt with it?
NOT !
They were counting on buying it from Israel and passing it off as “their own,” but the calculation turned out to be incorrect.
And what about your own? What did they whip up for the A-100? Is there a working radar system there? It has three canvases with a viewing angle of 120 degrees+, each. For the Tu-214-DRLO, two such canvases on each side are enough, if you don’t want to hook up the “mushroom” (and it would be able to handle that quite well). Add PPM modules, divide them, and for each side, two canvases with some forward and backward rotation for a better total coverage on each side, not 120, but 160 degrees. In total, we’ll get almost complete all-round coverage without any mushroom, and the antennas are in side radio-transparent fairings with a 15 degree rotation each. Well, it’s as simple as pie. Why don’t they do it? Are Vega’s arms growing out of its hip joints? Should we look for another contractor? Why did they ruin Phazotron?
Do you also need a smaller carrier?
Here you go - here's the SSZh-100-rus, isn't it a base for an AWACS?
Do you need it so that it can land on dirt roads, in the highlands and in general be more economical?
Then we take the good old An-30, do reverse engineering and launch it into production as a base for an analogue of the Hawkeye.
Where do the engines for it come from?
Firstly, they are still on the shelves of the operators of the Il-18, Il-38, An-12, An-30. Yes, yes, this is our good old and unrivaled AI-20. We simply set the task of "Resuming engine production with the introduction of improvements" (electronic control system, new heat-resistant alloys, manufacturing turbine blades using 3D printing. Reproducing is not as difficult as molding from scratch. And while the aircraft is being recreated and taught to fly on the existing engines, we are launching the production of the AI-20. We can even buy a batch from China for the time being, while we get it up and running at home. And that's it - here's your analogue of the "Hawkeye", if only there were a radar complex.
And don't make up stories about the Irbis and Belka fighters, these radars are about something else. We need a surveillance radar that will work continuously for hours.
But all this is NOT DONE.
Why
THEY DON'T WANT TO. They don't want to at all - stubbornly and furiously... FURILY.
Wrecking?
Obviously .
Who's guilty ?
As always - no one. That's what power is for - irresponsibility and imitation.

[Barracuda 148]

Well, why no one, there are people who were responsible for the A100 in the Military-Industrial Complex, who were responsible for the A100 in VEGA, they are the ones who should be held accountable. And those who tried to do all this not here, but to buy half abroad should be held accountable.

[bayard]

But WHO should I ask?
Do we have a Questioner in the Russian Federation?
I don't see it yet.
If there was, we wouldn’t chat about it, but would only rejoice in the accomplishments.

[23ronin]

Please clarify your pearl about the Yak130 and Yak 42 engines, there is a misunderstanding: D36-42 machine (Motor Sich) and Yak130-AI 222-25 (Salut). What is the connection?!

[alexoff]

Are you talking about the manufacturer? Both engines were developed by Zaporizhzhya's Progress and manufactured by Motor Sich. In the early 22s, the AI-XNUMX was localized at Salyut with an added code, and there are suspicions that the Zaporizhzhya engines continued to be used in our aircraft.

[23ronin]

Not quite, you put 36 and 222 engines in parallel as if they were the same engine, only with different degrees of modification. Personally, that's how I understood your post...

[alexoff]

I read that they are close relatives, I expressed myself too harshly. The engines have suitable characteristics for a high-altitude drone. Compared to the Altius, which was equipped with a diesel engine that is not capable of working adequately above 3-4 km, and is also foreign-made. This is to the question of there being no engines - they are there, there is simply no conscience

[23ronin]

I'll let you in on a secret, the ICE, unlike the TValD, works quite well at altitude, but the TValD has problems with this, because the air density decreases with altitude. In the ICE, this is compensated for by using a supercharger. The Mi-4 was once tested in India precisely because of its good adaptation to flights in mountainous terrain.

[alexoff]

What are you saying? A jet engine works poorly at altitude, but a diesel works well? And were they able to pull the Altius to the stated 11 kilometers? Well, where did the Yak-42 actually fly?

[23ronin]

Judging by everything, you are an amateur, there is no point in describing the basics to you. Jet (TRD) and TURBOSHAFT (TSV) are not the same thing...

[alexoff]

What does a turboshaft engine have to do with it? Are you just trying to be smart? What does this have to do with AWACS? The choice was between a jet or a diesel engine, which didn't work at altitude. Well, write about a rocket engine and say that I don't know anything. Or about asynchronous electric motors in trams, since you started talking about helicopters.
I thought you decided to tell me that gas turbines, which transmit rotation to the propeller, work worse than aircraft diesel, and you just decided to show off for no reason

[23ronin]

I heard you , diesel from the "German" with Russian roots "Red diesel" seems to be now working on the Aurus in a gasoline version. This is one thing. The use of diesel is associated with its efficiency in comparison with other engines, your pearls ... I read something somewhere ... I heard something somewhere do not stand up to criticism, an amateur is an amateur and no one was going to show off. About Charomsky's diesel engines, as well as about EP2, the Internet will help you. About the B2 diesel, it would also be nice to find out before writing anything.

[alexoff]

diesel from the "German" with Russian roots "Red diesel" seems to be now working on the Aurus in a gasoline version.

what nonsense, the engine developed by Porsche now turns out to be a diesel from the Yak-52

The use of diesel is due to its efficiency in comparison with other engines.

application of diesel probably in your next message you will write about marine diesels. Tell me better about diesels in aviation, why aren't they used? Diesel was invented before the first airplane

Your pearls...I read something somewhere...I heard something somewhere don't stand up to criticism

Let's analyze your pearls now, you are a professional in engine development. So what about jet engines, when do they stop working, at what altitude?

an amateur is an amateur and no one was going to show off

It's clear, it just came out of you, an amateur

It would also be nice to find out about the B2 diesel before writing anything.

It would be a good idea for you to turn on your brain before writing. Write something else about a diesel engine from a submarine, you can put it on a plane economically and fly

[23ronin]

For this nonsense, this is for you. As for diesels, MV engines are modified and installed on SLAs. Didn't you know? As for "RED Diesel", Germany banned the sale of these diesels to Russia, which is why the problem and delay with Altius arose. Study the material, and don't blurt out what you don't understand. That's one thing. Another. You mixed up everything you could and even more. I didn't write a word about the 52 car, but you nevertheless dragged it in. There is a 14 engine, 9-cylinder gasoline star there. Okay. Breed rabbits, that's your level.

[alexoff]

For this nonsense, come to you.

No, it's straight to you

As for diesel engines, MV engines are modified and installed on ultralight aircraft.

Let's go into more detail from this point on, who flies on diesel aircraft engines now? What is their share in light aircraft?

As for "RED Diesel", Germany has banned the sale of these diesels to Russia, which is why there was a problem and delay with Altius, study the material, and don't blurt out what you don't understand.

and in what year did the ban come about? And when did the delay occur? When did they take the Altius away from KB Sokol? Maybe you don't know anything at all and it's better for you to chew than to write here, since you're only burying yourself? I'm not even asking if they installed a side-view radar on this Altius and when it rose to 10 km

I didn't write a word about the 52 car, but you brought it up anyway. It has a 14 engine, 9-cylinder petrol star.

diesel from the "German" with Russian roots "Red diesel" seems to be now working on the Aurus in a gasoline version.

As usual - enemies planted it, you didn't write anything like that, yeah

Okay. Breed rabbits, that's your level.

that is, you can't tell why planes don't fly on fuel-efficient diesels, but on jet engines? Probably because your level is breeding rabbits?

[23ronin]

Yes, sir, you are a complete layman in the matter under study. If you are interested in the topic, then at least take the trouble to look it up on the Internet. I do not intend to chew it up for you and put it in your mouth. This is not a lecture.

[qQQQ]

Quote: Civil

No engine - no plane or UAV

There is no element base for the filling and no engine, plane, or space battleship will save it.

[SmolH2]

A space battleship of the Planet Destroyer class will save us.
This is not a reason to do nothing, if only there is a desire.

[qQQQ]

Quote: SmollH2

This is not a reason to do nothing, if only there is a desire

Of course. Inaction is akin to a crime. But, to be fair, desire alone is not enough. We have killed entire sectors, both in science and in industry, primarily electronics. It is precisely this that needs to be revived first, but it will take more than a dozen years.

[SmolH2]

That's exactly what they're raising. In '08 there was one semiconductor factory, now there are at least 15. This is from the Internet. Microchip production is also expanding. But in the end they could have bought the nomenclature for 15-20 AWACS. They wouldn't have peeled off. Not such a large volume and money.

[SmolH2]

Hmm. A funny joke. A plus from me. I like people with a sense of humor and restraint. But I didn't mean something (completely) different in the previous discussion.
But here it is not a matter of speed of decision-making, but of possibilities. And these missing possibilities of the Russian military-industrial complex have a name, a surname and a position, as well as an account number, most likely more than one. And I suspect their relatives are not poor.
In general, any military-industrial complex, since it consists of people, has at least two minuses. Too fast decision-making and too slow. And it is impossible to guess in advance which one is which.
P.S. It's funny, people gave you pluses clearly having some other meaning to your comment

[wladimirjankov]

It can be stated with a high degree of certainty that the heavy UAV S-70 Okhotnik may enter serial production in the near future.

What kind of "high level of confidence" can there be if this "pepelats", having lost contact with the "leading" SU-57, could not return to the takeoff point and they had to shoot it down over enemy territory, to whom it was almost intact. A gift, so to speak, from its creators. Even primitive UAVs like the "Mavic" now have a program for returning to the launch point, if control or contact with the operator is lost. But in this expensive and huge 20-ton "hunter", on which tens of billions of rubles and tens of years were spent, for some reason they did not provide for such a possibility, as well as the possibility of self-destruction in such cases. So, this S-70 still needs a lot of work and improvement, and it looks like it will not reach serial production anytime soon.

[Aviator_]

in case of loss of communication with the "leading" SU-57,

Don't you think that the Americans simply took over control of it and led it to themselves?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Aviator_

in case of loss of communication with the "leading" SU-57,

Don't you think that the Americans simply took over control of it and led it to themselves?

That's right.
Control was seized.

Which makes it clear that our engineers have absolutely no understanding of the level of required encryption of control signals.
Levels and capabilities of foreign systems to decrypt and gain access to our systems.

And also - with a short excursion into history, about how the epic story of the alleged landing of an enemy UAV by "Avtobaza" - from which all the Uryakalkas poured boiling water on their feet - turned out to be a lie and a dud.
And for 3 years of war - we have not intercepted control of even one antediluvian Ukrainian drone...

[Egg]

I'm wondering how any type of actively emitting flying crap will be invisible?

[Vrotkompot]

The thing actively emits only when it enters the attack area (if you meant Hunter). It fires back, goes into silent mode again and goes back home. I think that's how it happens. Well, for optical reconnaissance, there's no need to emit anything special.

And AWACS aircraft usually emit at such a distance that enemy missiles are unable to reach them. Apparently, there are problems with this now.

[Egg]

Quote from Vrotkompot

The crap actively emits only when it enters the attack area (if you meant the Hunter).

The article is about AWACS, no matter what platform it is on, it flies and emits for a long time.

Quote from Vrotkompot

And AWACS aircraft usually emit signals at such a distance that enemy missiles are unable to reach them.

Another question, they write that reconnaissance and target designation for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is provided by NATO AWACS aircraft flying over the territory of Poland and Romania or from the neutral zone over the Black Sea (in the case of Crimea), but there the distances are up to 1300 km, what can be seen at such a distance?
Okay, I admit that our planes flying near the LBS are visible, but the movements of units and subdivisions, equipment, etc. on the ground...
Ours don't see Ruslan taking off in Kyiv, where F-16s take off and land, but they see everything from Poland... I think someone is dispersing here... or whistling an artistic whistle.

[Vrotkompot]

Well, let the one who is burning explain to you what they see there at 1300 km. I believe that they can only detect the radiation of some very powerful electronic warfare systems (and the like), but not the full situation on the battlefield. Their space reconnaissance deals with this. Don't forget about the American and European UAVs that fly in the Black Sea in neutral waters near Crimea, they can give something back to the same BEKs.
And from Poland and Romania they only control the situation at the borders of these states.

[red-eye]

it all depends on what object we are looking for if the plane is in the air depending on the size (in practice not in ideal conditions which are usually indicated in the table values ​​of radars - airliner from 600 km fighter (4+) 300 km (5) 200-250) for machines based on private jets for e3 the figure will be 1.5-2 times higher

[SovAr238A]

Quote from Vrotkompot

Well, let the one who is burning explain to you what they see there at 1300 km. I believe that they can only detect the radiation of some very powerful electronic warfare systems (and the like), but not the full situation on the battlefield. Their space reconnaissance deals with this. Don't forget about the American and European UAVs that fly in the Black Sea in neutral waters near Crimea, they can give something back to the same BEKs.
And from Poland and Romania they only control the situation at the borders of these states.

How do they control the takeoff of any MiG-31, so that 2 minutes after its takeoff an air raid alarm sounds throughout the so-called Ukraine?
How?

[Engineer]

Ours don't see Ruslan taking off in Kyiv, where F-16s take off and land

Where did you get that idea from? They don't see it only if they don't look. Or maybe they see it but can't get it, and that's why they whistle because they don't see it.

[Vrotkompot]

They see it and they can get it. But apparently there is an agreement. Most likely it is registered as a civil aircraft. And starting a war against civil aircraft is like opening Pandora's box.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Telur

Another question, they write that reconnaissance and target designation for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is provided by NATO AWACS aircraft flying over the territory of Poland and Romania or from the neutral zone over the Black Sea (in the case of Crimea), but there the distances are up to 1300 km, what can be seen at such a distance?

This issue was already discussed at the VO in 2022 - in the article "Ukrainian radar means of detecting air targets" by Mr. Sergey Linnik.

Even if an AWACS aircraft "touches" the Ukrainian border with its wing (which is unsafe), it will be able to detect large high-altitude targets over Ukraine at a range of no more than 700 km, and tactical aircraft operating at low altitudes - at a distance of about 400 km. Since the shortest route from the Polish border to Kyiv is more than 450 km, the air patrol is able to control 1/3 of Ukrainian airspace at best, and these will mainly be the western regions of Ukraine. Considering that 5-6 AWACS aircraft would have to be kept in the air to organize continuous round-the-clock patrolling, this task is difficult to implement and does not make much sense.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Telur

Ours don't see Ruslan taking off in Kyiv, where F-16s take off and land, but they see everything from Poland... I think someone is dispersing here... or whistling an artistic whistle.

Naturally, this is illiterate artistic whistling. No AWACS aircraft over Poland can see who is taking off where. Only over-the-horizon radars can see at such distances. They can even see who is taking off where. But they don't see it accurately, with an azimuth error of up to several degrees. We have the "Container" OGRLS. The French have the Nosradamus OGRLS. These ones see. Not everything and not always, but they see.

[VlK]

and how do they see the takeoff of our MiG-31s ​​and strategists from obviously distant rear airfields?

[Alexandra]

Nostrdamus. Detects at distances up to 3000 km from the city of Paris.

"In France, the development of a reverse-slant sounding radar, which detects small targets at ranges of 700-3000 km, has been completed under the Nostradamus project. The important distinguishing features of this station are: the ability to simultaneously detect air targets within 360 degrees in azimuth and the use of a monostatic method of construction instead of the traditional bistatic. The station is located 100 km west of Paris...."

Another option for detecting the takeoffs of supersonic military aircraft is by the flares of afterburning work of their jet engines. These flares, under suitable conditions (no clouds), are detected in the IR range by satellites of the orbital group of the early warning system.

Well, and no one has cancelled the "old lady dandelion" who sympathizes with Banderovites and lives near the airfield.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Telur

I'm wondering how any type of actively emitting flying crap will be invisible?

Approximately the same as it was done in the USN, where the issue of reducing the visibility of AWACS aircraft arose about 60 years ago. Because constantly shining radio beacon, the radiation of which was recorded by the potential enemy's SIG aircraft, revealed the presence of the AUG in the area even when it was moved a hundred miles away from the order.
As a result, the Navy decided to sacrifice continuous coverage in favor of low visibility: the Hawkeyes were allowed to go on the air once every few minutes for one full rotation of the antenna. And they were given Prowlers as partners - for conducting passive SAR.

[Egg]

Quote: Alexey RA

As a result, the Navy decided to sacrifice continuous coverage for stealth: the Hawkeyes were allowed to go on the air once every few minutes for one full rotation of the antenna.

A flashing light attracts more attention than a constantly burning one.

[Amateur]

If there is something to choose from, they will definitely choose. But for now there is nothing to choose from.
The bourgeoisie even makes AWACS out of business jets.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Amateur

The bourgeoisie even makes AWACS out of business jets.

Because they produce them or can freely buy them. Our main problem is the base machine, which must be 146% domestic.
And after this machine appears, a circus with ponies will begin, the name of which is electromagnetic compatibility. In general, we tear out all the electronic and electrical filling of the base board, mix it with the blocks and routes of the AWACS and new communications system - and shove it back so that all this fits into the hull and does not affect each other and the crew.

[Neutral Neutral]

So, there are no base aircraft? Did something happen to the Superjet, the MC-21, or the Il-114?

[Alexey RA]

Quote from Neutral Neutral

So, there are no base aircraft? Did something happen to the Superjet, the MC-21, or the Il-114?

Incomplete localization.
At this point, only the most optimistic would build an AWACS based on a vehicle with imported components. We won't get the AWACS, and the civilian version will be ruined.

[Neutral Neutral]

What imported components?

[Mr. Vaclav]

We can potentially consider the possibility of using the S-70 Okhotnik UAV as an aviation platform for the creation of a promising spatially and functionally distributed AWACS complex

I hope there won't be an aviation version of the Armata-Kurganets-Boomerang line...

[Vladimir_2U]

So, based on the aerodynamic design of the "Hunter", how does the author imagine a DRLO vehicle based on a flying wing without a hump or a saucer?

[Victor Leningradets]

In fact, a flying wing filled with AFAR is an ideal AWACS, even without a "shadow". And the upper surface of the flying wing can be made in the form of a solar battery, although this is certainly an option.

[Victor Leningradets]

If the Zeppelin were equipped with an AFAR, it would have all-round coverage.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

In fact, a flying wing filled with AESA is an ideal AWACS, even without a “shadow”.

And in particular, at least two full-fledged canvases in the leading edges, and not the wing consoles, with an overlap far from circular and even from 240 degrees, and it is unknown how to place the third for the rear hemisphere. So for patrolling, a wing without a plate or a ridge is not really ... And at a price like a full-fledged AWACS or even two.

[red-eye]

Victor Leningradets only after turning on the radar canvas all this low visibility will disappear and it will glow like a Christmas tree and the power consumption of the radar is incomparable with the efficiency of solar batteries and you do not compensate for anything not to mention the increase in mass => a drop in range means we fly less and take off closer (which is not very good for domestic aviation anyway)

[Victor Leningradets]

The idea of ​​the AWACS being invisible is nonsense (not mine!)
As for solar batteries - this is not providing all the energy, but saving fuel. When flying in the stratosphere during the day - for a flying wing it is quite weighty.

[Alexandra]

https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2572366C2/ru

The aircraft with reduced radar visibility comprises a fuselage, wing, empennage, power plant, chassis and a system of all-round surveillance antennas. The central part of the wing is made with radio-transparent leading and trailing edges and has a greater narrowing than the wing tips. At the same time, the central part of the wing is made with such a narrowing that the antennas installed in its leading and trailing edges provide all-round visibility. This achieves an expansion of the zone of all-round illumination of the air situation, limited only by the technical capabilities of the antennas, a decrease in radar visibility, the possibility of unimpeded ejection of the crew, easy access to the fairings of the RTK antennas. 1 s.p. f-ly, 3 ill.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

A low-stealth aircraft consists of a fuselage, wing, empennage, power plant, landing gear and a 360-degree antenna system.

Very good, but I see a lot of things here besides the use of the "flying wing" aerodynamic design...

[Alexandra]

I think it is clear which wing edges to place the radar antennas into. An earlier project was called Boeing EX. It is in the picture with the aircraft carrier.

[Vladimir_2U]

Yeah, right. And this is not a flying wing, but a longitudinal biplane - a spatial frame. And the main complaint about a flying wing, a la Okhotnik, is the difficulty of placing the radar canvas in the REAR thin, and also disadvantageously deployed edge of the wing.

[Alexandra]

This is a joined wing. Is it hard for you to imagine a flying wing with a forward sweep at the trailing edge?

https://mai.ru/upload/iblock/474/Konyukhov_rus.pdf

"A "flying wing" with a break in the leading and trailing edges (cranked kite). It has a developed center section with a special profile. In general, the positions of the breaks in the leading and trailing edges may not coincide."

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

This is a joined wing.

Then it is a closed diamond-shaped wing. But not a flying wing.

Quote: AlexanderA

Do you find it difficult to imagine a flying wing with a forward-swept trailing edge?

No, it’s not difficult, but here the need arises to install a fourth phased array panel, as opposed to two panels on the dorsal ridge or three in a fixed plate.
Accordingly, the price increases compared to conventional schemes.

[Alexandra]

Then it’s a closed diamond-shaped wing.

Are you talking about the aircraft in the illustration? This is the RQ-180 UAV. Aerodynamic configuration - flying wing, aerodynamic layout - cranked-kite. The B-21 Raider has the same aerodynamic configuration.

Aerodynamic configuration is the implementation of an aerodynamic design with a specific position and geometry of the wing and tail.

No, it’s not difficult, but here the need arises to install a fourth phased array panel, as opposed to two panels on the dorsal ridge or three in a fixed plate.

Two phased arrays in the dorsal fairing do not provide all-round visibility. The "mushroom" creates high aerodynamic drag. If you create a RLDN aircraft "from scratch", and not on the basis of a passenger or cargo aircraft, then the flying wing is the optimal scheme, and the cranket-kite is the optimal aerodynamic configuration. Within the framework of this scheme and configuration, you can try to create even a supersonic RLDN aircraft.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

Are you talking about the aircraft in the illustration? This is the RQ-180 UAV. Aerodynamic design - flying wing, aerodynamic configuration - cranked-kite.

No, it's a joined wing.

Quote: AlexanderA

Two phased arrays in the dorsal fairing do not provide all-round visibility.

No, they don't, but they provide sufficient visibility for patrolling along a certain line, and at the same time significantly reduce the cost and simplify installation on any base. In addition, there is such a nuance as installing a shortened antenna in the front part of the ridge, directed forward. So the view is not 360, but not 120 either.

Quote: AlexanderA

The "mushroom" creates a lot of aerodynamic drag.

Possibly. But it allows for a 360 view and the use of ready-made platforms.

Quote: AlexanderA

If you create a RLDN aircraft "from scratch", and not on the basis of a passenger or cargo aircraft, then a flying wing is the optimal design, and a cranket-kite is the optimal aerodynamic configuration.

You can even try to get by with three antennas, spreading the engines horizontally and installing a stern antenna between them. The question is the cost of creating a specialized machine...

Quote: AlexanderA

Within the framework of this scheme and layout, it is possible to try to create even a supersonic RLDN aircraft.

I don't even see any practical sense in this. And if you remember the much higher cost of supersonic machines with equal-tonnage subsonic ones, then this is an unrealistically expensive project.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

No, it's a joined wing.

That's what it's called. They have a joined wing, and we have an articulated (attached wing).

http://elib.osu.ru/bitstream/123456789/1533/1/260-262.pdf

"The articulated wing is a further development of the "Tandem" scheme and, as a rule, is two bearing surfaces located in different planes, connected to each other. The advantages of this scheme are: smaller dimensions and weight with the same area of ​​bearing surfaces, relative to other schemes and the possibility of using thinner profiles and reducing the overall resistance of the aircraft due to a decrease in the area of ​​the wetted surface.
The disadvantage of the design is that it imposes restrictions on the aircraft's design. For example, ailerons on the front wing impair flow around the rear wing."

No, they don’t, but they provide sufficient visibility for patrolling along a certain line, and at the same time they significantly reduce the cost and simplify installation on any base.

A cheap solution that, for example, the Swedish military-industrial complex was able to "master". But it is not promising. The survivability of such RLDN aircraft in a conflict with a serious enemy will be low in the near future.

Possibly. But it allows for a 360 view and the use of ready-made platforms.

In the US, the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail program is under threat of complete cancellation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail

"In June 2025, it was revealed that the Trump administration was considering canceling the E-7 purchase over concerns that the aircraft would be vulnerable in future conflicts. In testimony to Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited the E-7 as an example of "systems and platforms that do not survive on the modern battlefield or give us an advantage in future fights," and noted that "tough decisions" would need to be made.

"Off-the-shelf" solutions become too vulnerable.

I don't even see any practical sense in this. And if you remember the much higher cost of supersonic machines with equal-tonnage subsonic ones, then this is an unrealistically expensive project.

The Americans noted a more than twofold increase in the cost of a supersonic long-range strike system compared to a subsonic system of equal tonnage.

"There are no technological problems in ensuring the supersonic cruising speed of the developed machines, corresponding to the numbers M=1,5-2,2. However, as shown by the comparative analysis of the cost of a serial machine with supersonic flight speed and a subsonic model conducted by American specialists, in this indicator, with all other equal weight and size characteristics, the former is more than 2 times greater than the latter. Based on a comprehensive analysis of these concepts, the US Air Force command made the final decision to create a bomber with high transonic flight speed in a manned version."

As a result, the B-21 Raider is subsonic. America doesn't have enough money.

And China may have enough. Including for a supersonic RLDN aircraft.

The tactical point is that a supersonic stealth aircraft has a higher survivability than a subsonic one.

"The LRS-B is expected to be capable of operating with both nuclear and conventional weapons. The use of advanced radar signature reduction techniques and supersonic cruising speed will provide the aircraft with the ability to successfully penetrate enemy air defense systems."

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexanderA

That's what it's called. They have a joined wing, and we have an articulated (attached wing).

This is a question of terminology, because an articulated wing is a special case of a tandem wing, which in turn can be called a longitudinal biplane. Especially if, unlike a pure articulated wing, the wings are also separated vertically.

Quote: AlexanderA

The survivability of such RLDN aircraft in a conflict with a serious enemy will be low in the near future.

Quote: AlexanderA

"Off-the-shelf" solutions become too vulnerable.

The question here is what is better - vulnerable, but a lot and quickly, than invulnerable, but expensive and sometime.

Quote: AlexanderA

The LRS-B is expected to be capable of being used with both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Well, we see a device that has not even been accepted for design, and it is a bomber at that.
However, it is obvious that a supersonic wing must be a) thin-profile; b) resistant to aerodynamic heating. And how this will be combined with the placement of antennas in the wing edges is difficult to imagine.
But I agree that supersonic speed combined with low visibility for an AWACS aircraft would be a noticeable ))) factor in increasing survivability.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

This is a question of terminology, because an articulated wing is a special case of a tandem wing.

I agree. This is a clarifying term. After all, a "flying wing" is a special case of the "tailless" aerodynamic design.

The question here is what is better - vulnerable, but a lot and quickly, than invulnerable, but expensive and sometime.

Today, only the PRC is able to produce a lot and quickly, with four dozen quickly manufactured KJ-500 RLDN aircraft.

But let's say the US Air Force planned to buy only 7 E-3 aircraft to replace the E-26 aircraft. At the same time, the contract for the first two of them cost the Pentagon $1,2 billion.

In this regard, it is necessary to look for technical alternatives, such as placing an L-band AFAR in the wing edges of a new generation heavy manned fighter.

It can be expected that in the foreseeable future, specialized RLDN aircraft based on civil and military transport aircraft will be replaced by low-observable heavy manned fighters of the 6th generation with decimeter-range AESA in the wing edges, which will act as a mass replacement for modern RLDN aircraft.

An attempt to continue to rely on a traditional design using a civil or military transport aircraft with the installation of an antenna complex placed in a "comb-shaped" or "mushroom-shaped" fairing on this aircraft is an attempt to linger in yesterday. Figuratively speaking, an attempt to build maneuverable biplanes in the era of high-speed monoplanes.

Well, we see a device that has not even been accepted for design, and it is a bomber at that.

We have already seen experimental manned aircraft designated as the J-36 and J-50, and have not yet seen an aircraft designated as the JH-XX.

However, it is obvious that a supersonic wing must be a) thin-profile; b) resistant to aerodynamic heating. And how this will be combined with the placement of antennas in the wing edges is difficult to imagine.

And we have already seen L-band AFAR in the wing tips of the Su-35S and Su-57. As for the "heat barrier" that affects the design of supersonic aircraft, supersonic aircraft made of aluminum alloys run into this barrier at speeds greater than two times the speed of sound. For example, the main structural material of the Concorde double-mach supersonic airliner, which was in service from 1976 to 2003, is the heat-resistant aluminum alloy Hiduminium RR58.

That is why today: “There are no technological problems in ensuring supersonic cruising flight speed... corresponding to numbers M=1,5-2,2.”

But I agree that supersonic speed combined with low visibility for an AWACS aircraft would be a noticeable ))) factor in increasing survivability.

As you have correctly noted, everything depends on the cost. Therefore, we can expect that the function, which has been assigned to specialized RLDN aircraft until now, will be taken over in the future by heavy piloted "tailless" fighters. And what specific aerodynamic configuration will be there - cranked kite, or some other, the future will show.

[Vladimir_2U]

In general, I agree with your comment, except for one position - the wing radar of the Su performs very limited functions, one might say, not related to the detection and tracking of targets. If you believe open sources.

[Alexandra]

There are different types of open sources:

https://mai.ru/upload/iblock/afc/afc379cf79ab60eab8951403998e1e43.pdf

"ON-BOARD SCANNING WIDEBAND LINEAR DECIMETER RANGE RADIATION SYSTEM"

"The aim of the work is to develop a small-sized broadband phased array of the decimeter range with an operating frequency band of 1-1.6 GHz, scanning in a sector of angles of ±45°, placed in a limited volume and intended for an antenna system, performing radar functions and state identification.

[...]

The antenna array under study is placed along the nose of the movable wing console of the aircraft: in the forward section of the deflectable nose, under the radio-transparent fairing, which is also part of the aerodynamic surface of the wing (Figure 4.9). In the second and third chapters, the characteristics of a 12-element phased array for the 1...1.6 GHz band were obtained taking into account the mutual influence of the emitters, the radio-transparent fairing and the structural elements of the wing. The purpose of further study of these arrays is to assess the influence of large-sized structural elements of the carrier object.
The carrier object under consideration (the SU-27 family aircraft) has a wingspan of about 14,5 meters (70  min ) and a fuselage length of about 22 meters (120  min ) [63, 64], where λ0 is the wavelength at the lower frequency of the operating range."

[Vladimir_2U]

Thanks for the source!

Quote: AlexanderA

a small-sized broadband phased array of the decimeter range with an operating frequency band of 1-1.6 GHz, scanning in a sector of angles of ±45°, placed in a limited volume and intended for antenna systems that perform radar functions and state identification.

However, in this case we are talking about a PAA in a SYSTEM, and not about a linear PAA as an independent radar. And this is not chicanery, because it is confirmed by the fact that the dissertation does not say a word about the elevation angle. And the elevation angle is the second most important characteristic for an air situation illumination radar. Yes, a PAA with a single-row arrangement of elements cannot scan vertically.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And if we remember the much higher cost of supersonic aircraft with subsonic aircraft of equal tonnage, then this is an unrealistically expensive project.

Not at all necessary. Especially if we abandon traditional aircraft in favor of exotic solutions. For example, we develop an AWACS based on a small unmanned rocket plane. The latter can glide at supersonic speeds and is inexpensive, making it easy to deploy unmanned aircraft directly over the battlefield without having to worry so much about their losses to air defense fire.
And a rocket fuel engine can provide more power to an electric generator on the shaft of a gas turbine.

[Pankrat25]

What kind of nonsense did I just read? What kind of platform choice is this? Who chooses it? A scribbler who decided to hype it up? Anyone who can actually choose something has long since given up on all this, and all the speculation in the article is nonsense from the evil one!

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Pankrat25

I don't give a damn about all this, and all the speculation in the article is nonsense from the evil one!

All work is in progress off the wheels and chipping in, because a quarter of a century was spent on hanging out beautifully. Until Znamenskaya Street gives birth to a modern concept of database management, it will continue like this off the wheels.

Quote: avia12005

We need to start with personnel. With the merciless elimination of "promisers" and "deadline-shifters". And things will go well. But it's hard to believe in this.

Aka personal responsibility is required

[Vrotkompot]

The current system has shown its "efficiency" in the form of a destroyed army by 2022 and aviation accordingly. Unfortunately, ".. and you friends, no matter how you sit, are all unfit to be musicians."

[Alexandra]

The previous system collapsed before the army, air force, etc. were destroyed.

Following the destruction of the system, the army and aviation, etc. collapsed.

But the current system holds on to nothing, neither gives up “half of Sakhalin”, nor signs the “Helsinki Act” with the West.

[Vrotkompot]

Do you think that now everyone will show you who signs what? Was much written about the Belovezhskaya conspiracy or was it somehow criticized? Only after 20-30 years did the realization come....

[Alexandra]

Quote from Vrotkompot

Do you think they will show you now who signs what?

There were many things before the Belovezhskaya Pushcha agreement. It all started with the Helsinki Accords of 1975. In Helsinki, representatives of the USSR signed legally binding documents with the West - they really wanted to be friends. And the West, after the US defeat in the Vietnam War and the oil crisis of 1973, simply took a breather, in order to later (this happened in the early 1980s) attack with renewed vigor. The West, everything that is not the Western world, has been considering as "food" for several hundred years. Therefore, any attempts to come to an agreement with the West eventually end in failure. It is possible and necessary to talk to the West only from a position of strength. Do you think the so-called "Putin ultimatum" of the end of 2021 is what? This is precisely the beginning of a conversation from a position of strength. The West is not ready for war. But the Nazi Bandera regime in Kyiv turned out to be ready. And not just for war, but for total war. When the weaker side wages a total war, and the stronger side wages a limited war. It turned out the way it did. Alas, but this is probably the best option in the era of wars and revolutions promised to the world by modern forecasters.

https://inosmi.ru/20210811/250291801.html

[Broad flag]

Quote: Amateur

If there is something to choose from, they will definitely choose. But for now there is nothing to choose from.
The bourgeoisie even makes AWACS out of business jets.

We too can cobble together an AWACS from business jets.
We don’t have the antenna-processor complex ourselves, so we can decide later where to stick it.
author I was concerned about the cart, not having a horse.
You can even remove the Yak-40 from storage if you want and have radar equipment. But this is all talk for the benefit of the poor

[Amateur]

We too can cobble together an AWACS from business jets.

Where will "we" get business jets? Or will we confiscate them from the Potanins/Vekselbergs? They will rip off "Faberge" from someone for their business jets.

[Broad flag]

I like your idea about confiscation, but there are other methods.

[alexoff]

Almaz-Antey can make antennas and processors, but for some reason no one calls him, apparently there is a clearing there and someone is milking it. A lot of money was spent on the A100, the result is probably an Il-76 with a plate, whether there is something inside it, no one really knows

[Broad flag]

I am not prepared to discuss insinuations of which I know less than nothing, but I admit the possibility of the situation developing according to your description.
Experience shows that leaders are not interested in any technology in principle, until life pushes them to the wall, and then they are ready to wriggle out of it, at someone's expense. And to attach a saucer to an old transport and crow "I made a thing" is enough for the people. Those who are in the know can only smile with this.

[SmolH2]

Quote: Shiry Prapor

I am not prepared to discuss insinuations of which I know less than nothing...

Russian is clearly not your native language, but... That damned "but". You also have zero understanding of what you are writing. Using idioms or complex expressions without being a native speaker or an intelligent person is not a good idea. Calling yourself a fool, you still have to try. Knowing less than nothing is admitting your own stupidity. For the sake of imaginary beauty of expression.
And yes, using the word innuendo, you accused alexoff of dishonesty. The explanatory dictionary will help you.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: SmollH2

Russian is clearly not your native language.

As do you, by the way.

Quote: SmollH2

Understanding that write also at zero

You write, you write - it will be credited to you

и

... you are here write, What...

The difference is clear, I hope.

[SmolH2]

Hah, on pencil then.
The difference is clear. I wasn't writing about grammar, by the way. Well, apparently it's difficult for you.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: SmollH2

Hah, on a pencil then

It didn't hit the horn.

Quote: SmollH2

I wasn't writing about grammar, just in case.

And I'm talking about her, my dear. I can add, in principle

[SmolH2]

Quote: Paranoid62

It didn't hit the horn.

Really? Surprised. I can't say that. It hasn't even been two days since you pestered me with nonsense again. And these are the very words I mean. Ridiculous claims about my supposedly meaningless comments. How else can I understand it? And finally it is clear who is one of those who constantly gives me three minuses, even to completely neutral comments. Not being lazy to get to the first ones. Well then. Good luck to you.

Quote: Paranoid62

And I'm talking about her, my dear.

So what? I was wrong and will continue to be wrong. After all, I write without any spell check. From memory and meaning, and the smartphone changes words and endings, I correct at least five to ten times per answer.
There were mistakes before... But you clearly didn't get the point of my comment. And you say "not with a horn". You are a stubborn one after all. Any more complaints? However, it is not a fact that I will waste time on you. Although, judging by everything, you have developed a toolkit. So clearly, what you are not stuck on, will not let you pass by.

[Paranoid62]

Many letters.

"Pishite" instead of "pishete" here is something that almost every third person uses. It's enough, but bearable. But to lecture about "Russian is not your native language" and then blurt it out right away is too much.

Quote: SmollH2

And finally it is clear who is one of those who constantly gives me three minuses, even for completely neutral comments

That's right - it didn't hit the mark. Not everyone here has fans, I have them too... well, what next?

Quote: SmollH2

But you clearly didn't get the meaning of my comment.

I'll drop everything right now and start doing a semantic analysis of your writing. It doesn't lead anywhere at all.

[SmolH2]

Words words...
Have you taken your leave? Did I understand correctly? If so, until next time.

[Bez 310]

The author demonstrated some skill in compiling the results of searching for information on a given topic on the Internet. The author did not discover anything new in the "article", more or less prepared readers have long known that there is no breakthrough in the field of AWACS, and the prospects are vague.

[Soldatov V.]

A drowning man must save himself. I don't know how realistic this is, but there is the Chaplygin Research Institute in Novosibirsk. By the way, he upgraded the AN-2 and made its further development. I think he will be able to make an AWACS aircraft to protect Siberia, because the range of Ukrainian UAVs is constantly growing and they will soon reach Siberia, and this is also taking into account possible UAV launches from Kazakhstan.
The Institute will be able to make an AWACS aircraft from any aircraft currently available to protect the Siberian, Far Eastern and Transbaikal regions. Before it's too late.

[Revolver]

What is the point of using low-visibility AWACS carriers? Low visibility until the moment the radar is turned on, and the purpose of AWACS is to be a flying radar.

[Alexandra]

After launching a missile at an object, the object turns off its radar and it is again barely noticeable. The missile has lost it, flown off somewhere, wasted.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Nagan

What is the point of using low-visibility AWACS carriers? Low visibility until the moment the radar is turned on, and the purpose of AWACS is to be a flying radar.

Radars, even powerful ones, when using LPI mode, reduce the probability of their full capture as a target by a couple of orders of magnitude.
While losing no more than 30% of the maximum detection range.
Plus the passive mode, no one has cancelled the AWACS, and it is, for example, the main one for the same E-2D, apparently the same Americans can receive a lot of necessary information even without constant active location.

[avia12005]

We need to start with personnel. With the merciless elimination of "promisers" and "deadline-shifters". And things will go well. But it's hard to believe in this.

[garri-lin]

Another Mitrofanovshina.
Selecting a platform for AWACS.
And the choice is obvious. Sukhoi Super Jet or MS 21.
Two civilian devices that, well, you could say, can.
There are some small things left. Actually, the equipment is modern. Antennas, servers, communications.
If the latter is true, it's sarcasm.

[Mustached Kok]

Well, in principle, there is another option to make a small AWACS (even with lower characteristics) based on the Yak-40 or Yak-42 (you can focus on which model has been preserved in working condition more often). Even 5 aircraft based on the Yak-42 can play favorably on the SVO, provided that all 5 will be on duty in the sky in turn (with short intervals, of course).
But overall we have problems at the level of:
1) Production of a suitable platform - there are only the Superjet and the MS-21, but they are produced so little and so slowly that even the civilian market is having difficulty switching to them.
2) Production of suitable equipment - individual developments for light/medium AEW aircraft are produced by the company on its own initiative, but the management did not order them. And therefore it is not clear how the enterprise will cope with a large order for such equipment.
3) I'm not sure, but it seems there is no system as such for the prompt transfer of information between different branches of the armed forces and members of the group. Do we have an analogue of Link 16?

[garri-lin]

Why use old sides?
Yak 40. It will take more than a year to create the equipment and equip the airframe. This and that won't be done in time for the SVO. We need to do it for what will happen after. I think the enemy has collected enough intelligence and is drawing conclusions about the ability of the Russian Federation to respond to forceful actions from outside. And we need to prepare for what will happen after the SVO. So the plan is not even half the battle. It's a quarter.
As for Link 16, it's not clear. In principle, the software there is not complicated. The question is in the "hardware". It seems that if you look at open sources, there are peripherals, but "nodes" seem to be missing.

[Alexandra]

Quote: garri-lin

As for Link 16, it's not clear. In principle, the software there is not complicated. The question is in the "hardware". It seems that if you look at open sources, there are peripherals, but "nodes" seem to be missing.

The domestic analogue of Link 16 is hidden behind the abbreviation OSNOD.

[exo]

Superjet New (and the regular one is no longer being built) and MS-21 will have new engines with a short service life. They will be brought up to standard in five or six years. Then the service life will be acceptable. PS-90 was brought up to standard in about fifteen years. Therefore, they will not appear as a base for a long time. But the TU-204, with all its shortcomings, is the only option. The IL-114 is questionable. But I don’t believe in the “Hunter” at all.

[garri-lin]

The equipment will be improved for many years. The Tu204/214 seems to be produced steadily. But the machine is tired. Outdated.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: garri-lin

Another Mitrofanovshina.
Selecting a platform for AWACS.
And the choice is obvious. Sukhoi Super Jet or MS 21.
Two civilian devices that, well, you could say, can.
There are some small things left. Actually, the equipment is modern. Antennas, servers, communications.
If the latter is true, it's sarcasm.

The sarcasm is not only in this, but also in the choice of aircraft.
The same Gulf Stream, used by many, has a flight range of up to 12 thousand km.
And our superjet is no more than 3000 km.
Both with full tanks.
The MS-21, designed on a western base and with western wings, was planned for 5000 km,
Now, after import substitution, no more than 3800-4000 km.

[garri-lin]

This problem can be solved without problems. Additional tanks. I don't think that the equipment will take up all the space and weight. There will be room left for tanks.

[Engineer]

Well, the author has already been properly mocked for the stealth AWACS... I'll ask something else:

The concept of a "ersatz" AWACS-114-300 aircraft with several Irbis radar systems on board

And where is the IRBIS itself in the picture? It looks more like a complex with the TU-214R.

[Dedok]

Prospective Russian AWACS: Choosing a Platform

and what is the platform chosen for?
- for what we don't have yet...
when they create the "DRLO complex" - then it will become clear what to "transport" it on: a UAV with an engine from a Geranium or an Il-76...
but for now we don't have electronics...

[alexoff]

but for now we don't have electronics...

There is electronics for the BUK-Pantsir-S-400-SU-57, but not for aerial reconnaissance. But I can remind you that under Shoigu we didn't have concrete in the country to build hangars

[Dedok]

There are electronics for the BUK-Pantsir-S-400-SU-57, but not for aerial reconnaissance.

so the A-100, as I understand it, remained a prototype...
the carrier is tested (Il-76), so what's the problem with releasing it (A-100)? - I don't understand...

[alexoff]

Here I have only a conspiracy theory. Like to show that we, our own bourgeois, destroyed entire industries. Maybe that's why our intelligence officers at the top left the army without intelligence, to show that we are not preparing for a serious war, we are peaceful. Because there is no other way to explain why almost all projects related to intelligence have been screwed up and stolen. Our GRU is headed by an admiral, and the SVR is headed by Naryshkin, a former member of the board of directors of an American tobacco company.

[Dedok]

here I have just a conspiracy theory.

and not only you

[VlK]

Or maybe it’s all simpler and more banal - they invested in and developed only what was in demand and competitive on the international market, or for concluded foreign orders and contracts, and the rest - on a residual basis or not at all?
And in general - did our VKS see (as the author of the article does) the DLRO aircraft as "one of the most important elements of the Air Force (VVS) / Aerospace Forces (VKS)"? Or, based on all their combat experience, starting with Afghanistan and ending with Syria, did they not attach any special importance to them, relying in the old-fashioned way on ground-based radar systems? In our country, it was not a VKS pilot who commanded the SVO

[alexoff]

It seems that the Su-34 was never sold to anyone, we bought it ourselves. And if no one remembered about the AWACS, we could say so. But no - we knew about the AWACS, we invested money in the A100 and Tu-214R, but it ended in nothing. As Borisov said at the beginning of the SVO - and we slept through the drones! No, this is just pretending, all the moves are recorded on the Internet - we have been fussing with drones since 08.08.08, engineers have drawn more models of drones than the USSR designed airplanes, some of them even flew. But it turned out that all this was in a single copy next to the Peresvet and Krasukha with mercury. Why? Well, because here they willingly allocate money to important managers and then do not ask where the money went.

Quote: VlK

based on all my combat experience, from Afghanistan to Syria

Well, drones arrived at the base in Syria, Shoigu said - we need hangars, we will build them! He built nothing. Then in 2021 he said the same thing again. And until the end of his reign, he never built a single hangar. Probably because according to the documents, it was already built twice by the hands of Deputy Minister Timur Ivanov. They stole money for the AWACS, and for the "Azart" communications system, and for the ESU TZ. They gave a ruble, sent for weapons, there was no engine, the money disappeared from their hands

[Zaurbek]

For AWACS, a civil version of the aircraft is needed. With a civil resource of both the airframe and the turbojet engine.
They fly for many hours and need inexpensive standard hourly maintenance and accessible service.
PD-8, PD-14....

[agond]

For AWACS, it is necessary to use higher altitude aircraft, ideally the M-55 Geofizika with a ceiling of 22 km, this will increase the range of the antenna and remove the aircraft from the combat zone, while it is not at all necessary to keep a team of radar operators on board. Two pilots are enough, and the signal from the radar antenna is transmitted to the ground and processed there - deciphered and transmitted further to consumers.

[Zaurbek]

Well, that's one of the options... And it needs to be developed in parallel. The complex itself, on something like the Tu-204 (MS-21) and the miracle aircraft... I think that repeating Geophysics now is not easy.

[bear cub]

Mitrofanovism in its purest form. The author dreamed of what delicious French fries he would cook. The problem is that he has neither oil nor a saucepan.

[AdAstra]

There are no potatoes either."""

[Amateur]

When I read Mitrofanov’s works, I always remember the old joke:

A monkey sits on the river bank and dips a banana peel into the water. Past
a crocodile is swimming.
- Monkey, what are you doing?
- Give me a chervonets, I’ll tell you.
Well, the crocodile puts down ten. The monkey takes the money and says:
- I dip a banana peel in water.
The crocodile is shocked by this answer:
- Well, you are a monkey and a fool!
- Fool or not, I still make fifty cents a day...

[Novel_]

Planes, drones... Look wider - a blue balloon, Winnie the Pooh and Eeyore will not let you lie - this is the perfect choice!

[Alex12345ii]

It should not be in the future, but should have been there for a long time. Because it is a base! It is not that difficult, as well as the production of high-altitude drones on which all this can be installed. The country can do everything if it wants and if the right people are willing. All this is very alarming. It is dangerous to remain silent

[Danil Timoshenko]

The key problem of development and serial production of airborne early warning aircraft (AEW) in modern Russia is the systemic degradation of the aviation industry. Despite the fact that under sanctions, the theoretical possibility of building certain types of aircraft remains - such as the Tu-204, Tu-214, Il-96 or Il-76 - in practice, their production is mainly piecemeal and does not have a stable serial base.

This situation is due to a number of structural factors:

1. Shortage of personnel: Over the past decades, there has been a loss of skilled engineering and labor resources necessary for the serial production of complex aircraft equipment.


2. Import dependence: A significant portion of critical components, including avionics, engines and control systems, were previously imported or produced using foreign technology. Restricted access to them has sharply limited production capabilities.


3. Lack of serial production: even in the most favorable conditions, the Russian aviation industry was unable to establish production of modern civil aircraft in competitive volumes. Under sanctions, production was reduced to the level of single units.


4. Financial and organizational problems: limited budgets and ineffective management decisions lead to projects often being implemented with many years of delays and on a reduced scale.



As a result, even the theoretically possible number of aircraft that could be built for the needs of the Aerospace Forces is extremely limited. Thus, the systemic shortcomings of domestic aircraft manufacturing do not allow us to count on the mass creation of an AWACS fleet, which threatens the implementation of long-term plans in the field of air control and strategic defense.

[Dmitry Eon]

Russia has recently been actively producing a quite decent Ka31 AWACS helicopter for the Indians and Chinese, about two dozen units in total. There is also a line of Mi8REB helicopters with side-mounted antennas - the "lever" type, PP/PPA, SMV, etc. There are powerful compact generators. The radar has decent things like the same aircraft Irbis, Bars and Zaslon. Helicopters, unlike aircraft, can be based in the North, have a low speed (and therefore are barely noticeable due to the small Doppler shift), while being able to quickly change position, unlike ground-based radars

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Vertials are easily visible on radar by their propeller blades. In case you didn't know.

[Dmitry Eon]

Previously they said that this is an extremely difficult task, since the EPR of the propellers is small due to their small thickness and geometric properties, now I don’t know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

Russia has recently been actively producing a quite decent Ka31 AWACS helicopter

Not "quite passable", but "slightly better than completely useless" Ka-31 is not bad in its original role - to detect an enemy ship and give it a target designation for anti-ship missiles. It is practically unsuitable for AWACS work - the avionics are too weak.

[Dmitry Eon]

Nevertheless, there were foreign customers for the Ka31, and not entirely backward ones. And the appearance of the new AWACS helicopter can be assumed to be based on the well-known Mi8 MTPR, only with radar antennas, not electronic warfare ones.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

Nevertheless, there were foreign customers for the Ka31, and they were not completely backward.

The Chinese and Indians took it for the needs of the navy, where the helicopter was useful as a reconnaissance aircraft - for lack of a better one and due to the availability of aircraft carriers that are not capable of carrying AWACS aircraft. You are not only trying to assign a function that is not typical for a helicopter (it is not an AWACS, it is a descendant of the Ka-25RC, whose task was precisely to detect surface targets and issue target designations for surface ships' anti-ship missiles), but you are also proposing to aggravate this by developing a new helicopter... Why? Do you have extra money? Use it to create a normal AWACS aircraft:))))))

[Dmitry Eon]

Unlike long-term aircraft construction projects like the Il114 and drones like the Altius, the prototypes of which are rare, Mi8/17 helicopters were recently produced in batches of 120-150 units, reaching 170. The same applies to the PFAR radar from the Su30/35, for which there is serial production. But yes, of course, it would be good to have a powerful and beautiful AWACS aircraft, this is the logic that led to the long-term saga with the A100, which, according to reports, ended in collapse...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

The same applies to the PFAR radar from the Su30/35, which is in serial production.

But you can't build an AWACS on the Irbis - it's too weak for that. Therefore, by mounting an Irbis on a Mi-8 you'll get a helicopter with an Irbis, but no AWACS.

[Dmitry Eon]

There are no other options for the next 5-7 years and none are expected, and the fact that the Su-35 is already forced to perform AWACS tasks has been written about many times

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

There are no other options for the next 5-7 years and none are expected.

That's right

Quote: Dmitry Eon

and the fact that the Su35 is already forced to perform AWACS tasks has been written about many times

The fact that a fighter is forced to perform AWACS tasks does not mean that it does it well and that these tasks can be performed by a helicopter with the same radar.
The Su-35 can operate in the combat formations of our strike aviation, that is, it follows at a short distance and shines. If it is attacked, its high maneuverability and speed give it a good chance against an SAM. The helicopter has none of this

[Dmitry Eon]

Yes, you are right, when Su-34 UMPK operate against the enemy, they are covered by a "roof" in the form of Su-35, which operates at a certain distance and altitude from Su-34. But now they are writing that attacks on our troops with such gliding bombs from F-16 and Su-27 aircraft are increasing, which fly at low altitudes and make a hill. In order to repel such attacks, it is necessary to place S-400 air defense systems right at the front line - simply because of the radio horizon. This means exposing them to attack by Atakms and Harmov, therefore, to cover the troops, it is also necessary to use Su-35 - burn out the resource of the airframe and engines, in addition, the fighter pilot must perform the functions of a radar and ELINT operator. And in a helicopter, all these tasks can be divided. In addition, the threat of long-range cruise missiles increases, so a "short-range review" helicopter was a good solution ... so I think
P.S.: everything is from open sources, maybe everything is different, but that's what they write

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

To repel such attacks, it is necessary to place the S400 air defense missile system right at the front line - simply because of the radio horizon.

Why? Firstly, even more "modest" systems can cope with this, and secondly, in the absence of a radar control zone, such systems will be doomed - they are not supposed to constantly illuminate the radar. Perhaps they can act more cunningly, in combination with ground-based ELINT, but there are no guarantees here.

Quote: Dmitry Eon

This means exposing them to the attacks of Atakms and Harmov.

Yes, but how can a helicopter help here? If you try to hang it near the LBS, then the nomadic SAMs will shoot it down, like sending two bytes

[AdAstra]

"Promising Russian AWACS: Platform Selection"
It already needs to be produced and in the quantities that are currently needed, and not “platforms” need to be selected.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Unfortunately, we have a lot of things that should have been produced the day before yesterday, and we don't even have them in the project... However, what Mitrofanov writes shouldn't have been produced either yesterday or today. But a full-fledged AWACS, yes, it is extremely important and extremely necessary.

[Marlin]

As a platform for AWACS I see a UAV, but not a stealth one like the S-70, but something like the Altius. There was already an article about it in VO, but it hasn't been finished yet, there are problems with engines and communications. I hope they will solve it.

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Hmm. Drones based on all sorts of Orions or S-70s. Comrades. A powerful radar to see far away requires a ton of electricity to power it. Where can we get it for a UAV that only powers itself at most? We currently have 2 current platforms that are relatively cheap to produce. These are the Superjet or the MS-21. Both can be fitted with a radar "dish". But with a caveat. Throw out everything for passengers and fit additional fuel tanks. Crew: 2+2 pilots (for a change), a couple of flight technicians for the equipment. The planes are essentially just flying radars and repeaters for fighters. The main data processing equipment with specialists (20+ people) is somewhere in a buried command post. They process the data - the plane is just a flying antenna. Any normal plane has more energy than a UAV with a motor. This is the first option, against the XXLs. The second option is a full-fledged flying point with specialists (like A-50). For example, we will have to fight against "slipper wearers" like Syria, who have no air defense. According to the data on the Internet, there are almost 21+ MS-20s at the factory, which do not have engines. A dozen of them should be removed for the needs of the Ministry of Defense for conversion into AWACS.

[2al]

Maybe we should stop searching for all sorts of crap and do it the human way? With tethered balloons and microsatellites?
"Capella's satellites are less than half the size of other SAR small satellites, and thirty times smaller and hundreds of times less expensive than traditional SAR satellites that can cost upward of $500M and can take days to deliver images. Thanks to the small size of Capella's satellites, the company can launch faster, with far fewer rockets and significantly less capital than any other company. Capella's breakthrough design lies at the heart of the company's long-term strategy to rapidly establish a symmetrical 12-plane, high-revisit constellation that will produce more SAR images than the entire industry combined, at greater speed and lower cost than any satellite in orbit."

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: 2al

On tethered balloons and microsatellites?

Is this what people call it now? :))) The aerostat is practically useless, except to illuminate your deep rear, and Capella is basically incapable of AWACS

[2al]

In fact, Capella is planned to be used even instead of UAV reconnaissance and not only AWACS. At the same time, it includes several modifications of microsatellites that allow reconnaissance by multispectral means and implement, among other things, SIGINT, allowing real-time target detection and target designation. The composition of the group, costing less than $0.5 billion, is planned to be increased to 100 satellites, the cost of one serial satellite, depending on the modification, is from $3-10 million, the service life in orbit at an altitude of 500 km is from 5 to 7 years.
"In essence, a unique military space system is being formed for the continuous, uninterrupted observation of areas of special attention, primarily areas of deployment and use of long-range missile weapons, with the provision of observation results to consumers down to the tactical level practically in real time."
https://www.vesvks.ru/vks/article/kosmicheskaya-sistema-radiolokacionnogo-nablyudeni-16696

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Please read your own link.
The time from the moment an application is issued until the data is delivered to the consumer is 90 minutes in theory, but in reality it is up to 15 hours.
In this case, we are not talking about tracking a moving target, but only about photographs. Where did you see the AWACS here?

[2al]

This is a link to a Russian-language resource, since the English version apparently didn't get that the constellation, which currently consists of 5 satellites, will be expanded and supplemented up to 100 pieces, while being equipped with laser optical channels.
"The SDA agency has signed a contract with Capella Space for experiments to test the technology of inter-satellite laser communication between the SAR satellites and the payload called TIDES-Tranche 1 Demonstration and experimentation System, consisting of 18 satellites with an experimental payload. By the end of 2024, it is planned to increase the Tranche 1 payload to 150 satellites."
It should be noted that even satellite systems such as Starlink use target illumination in several radio frequency ranges for passive target detection.
"China could use Starlink to its advantage by successfully detecting a stealth aircraft using Starlink satellites.
As part of the experiment, the team launched a DJI Phantom 4 Pro drone off the coast of Guangdong. The drone was about the size of a bird and had the radar cross section of a stealth fighter.
Despite its stealth, the target suddenly appeared on the screen, although the ground radar did not emit any radio waves that could lead to an echo. Scientists explained that this was possible because the drone was irradiated by electromagnetic radiation from a Starlink satellite passing over the Philippines."

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: 2al

will be expanded and supplemented up to 100 pieces, while being equipped with laser optical channels

I ask again - what does this have to do with AWACS? :))))
You see, we are discussing the functions of long-range radar detection here. And how Capella takes pictures, contemplates the stars and washes underpants is not relevant to the question
There is no need to take passive detection - our RTR stations have been able to do this for a long time and this does not solve the AWACS issues

[Vlad Gor]

Since the Russian Federation doctrine is defense, i.e. the carrier is not on enemy territory, the most effective and cheapest carrier of AWACS is an airship.
Installing AWACS on a stationary stratospheric unmanned airship is several times cheaper than an airplane and a satellite. At an altitude of 25-40 km, the continuous operation time is 12 months (it descends and is serviced). A disc-shaped airship with a diameter of 250 meters will have a lifting force of 40 tons. The airship is launched to a given point and uses electric motors to maintain the specified coordinates. Power comes from solar panels and batteries. At such an altitude, solar cells produce more than 75 W per square meter. With an area of solar cells of 35000 sq. m, well illuminated by the sun, we have 2625 kW/h. At those altitudes, the duration of daylight hours will be 2 hours longer than on the ground.
At an altitude of 20 (35) km, the optical visible horizon is 535 (709) km, direct radio visibility is 1000 km. Such an airship - AWACS plus optical and thermal detection, allows you to detect any flying object and track, even a super-small drone, an inflated balloon, a bird, as well as ground objects. AWACS on an airship will allow you to close the holes that the Russian Air Defense has today. The weather does not affect it, there is practically no wind there, all the air jet streams are known, such an airship can hang for decades. It is unlikely to be shot down at such an altitude. The airship can have air-to-air missiles on board.
The airship project first appeared in the USSR in the mid-1950s as a repeater. Scientists again became interested in the stratospheric airship in the early 2000s, when R&D work began on the A-100 AWACS.
The stratospheric airship AWACS, as a means of air defense of the country, is beyond competition. The stratospheric airship AWACS is located on the territory of the country, can move in space (speed at an altitude of 35 km, 30 - 60 km / h), does not depend on the weather, can hang for years. It is impossible to compare what is better: a ground radar, an airship, a balloon, an airplane or a satellite, each of them has its own advantages, disadvantages and purposes. In terms of price, in relation to the stated goals, manufacturing + commissioning + operation, the stratospheric airship AWACS turns out to be the cheapest among aircraft.
Currently, Western countries are intensively exploring the stratosphere with aircraft.

[DO]

When creating today's cheaper version of the Grom UAV (bottom photo in the article), judging by the round cross-section of the hull and the vertical keel, the task of low visibility on radars was not set. Most likely, this version of the strike Grom is designed to break through enemy air defenses at extremely low altitudes, where the sophistication of radar stealth is not particularly required. Personally, I think that this decision is correct - enemy air defenses must be tried to break through both from above and from below. Functionally, "from below" is most likely the delivery of a swarm of autonomous UAVs with AI to the enemy's rear area, where reconnaissance has discovered worthy targets.
When throwing gliding bombs from the maximum altitude, the low visibility of the carrier on the radars of the air defense system is obviously necessary. Therefore, the use of the S-70 Okhotnik here is preferable to the cheaper but noticeable Grom. And the issue of reducing the cost of the S-70 still needs to be addressed - both by adequate performance and configuration for this function, and by a larger series size.

[DO]

In the SVO zone, slow, clumsy, heavy aircraft-type UAVs will most likely be shot down during their first flights, just like the A-50.
The only fighters that have a chance of surviving an acceptable number of sorties in the SVO zone are those that are capable of quickly escaping or dodging enemy anti-aircraft missiles. Therefore, it seems that a fighter with a suspended radar is an adequate solution here. A standard fighter radar, located in the nose, can be used to detect air targets, and a suspended side-view radar can be used to reconnoiter ground targets in the enemy's rear.
The current solution here is the Su-34 version with the UKR-RL pod-mounted radar. What improvements are seen in this solution?
Firstly, the unmanned version of the carrier.
Secondly, it is highly desirable to install a modern N036 "Belka" radar in the nose of a RECONNAISSANCE aircraft.
Thirdly, the Su-34's armored capsule is clearly excessive here, gobbling up excess fuel.
Fourthly, for a cheap drone, a single engine is desirable, that is, in the near future, this could be a version of the unmanned Su-75.
But here and now, it might be appropriate to modify the old Su-27s for this purpose.

[dragon772]

AFAR Belka, Irbis, not a single UAV can handle it in terms of energy.
AWACS is required, even if it is based on the Superjet or MS21.

[DO]

dragon772, when in many years they build an AWACS aircraft based on a civilian airliner, the war may already be over. With a Russian victory, of course.
But "ersatz" AWACS aircraft based on UAVs can be created much faster. Because the crew does not need to be protected from microwave radiation, and in general, fewer formalities and tests are required to launch UAVs into series production.
Unfortunately, heavy UAVs are not mass-produced in Russia today. But the Russian Armed Forces have a need for them, and with sufficient efforts by the Russian government, heavy UAVs, such as the Altius, could be launched into production in the near future.
Regarding energy. The radar transmitter on board a heavy UAV may not operate continuously, but may be switched on briefly, at certain time intervals. In this case, the radar power supply may be provided through supercapacitors (which are used, for example, in electric cars), to equalize the moderate current consumption from the energy source.

[dragon772]

On fighters, the radar may be switched on briefly.
And for AWACS, the radar must be constantly kept on in order to monitor the airspace.

[DO]

Quote: dragon772

For AWACS, the radar must be constantly kept on to monitor the airspace.

Perhaps you mean the following https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307867280_ANALYSIS_OF_ALGORITHMS_OF_AIR_SPACE_SCANNING_USING_ACTIVE_PHASED_ARRAY_RADAR_TO_REDUCE_TIME_OF_WATER-SURFACE_AND_AERODYNAMIC_OBJECTS_DETECTION :
For a typical APAA system, the time of fixed beam position in a given position (tfix) is ≤ 10 ms.
The delay time when forming a beam in a given position (tswitch) is ≤ 50 µs.
To reduce the time it takes to scan airspace using AFAR, radars take into account the monitoring features in different zones.
For example:
To detect surface objects appearing above the horizon, line scanning is performed at a specified step to cover the entire airspace.
For highly mobile aerodynamic objects with different RCS values, the scanning time is reduced by reducing the positions at elevation angles (b ≥ 10–15°).
===
However https://www.securitylab.ru/blog/personal/Bitshield/355542.php :
The antenna in the A-50 mushroom rotates at a speed of 6 revolutions per minute, performing one full scan of the surrounding space in 10 seconds. The mechanical antenna of the A-10 mushroom categorically cannot reduce physical positions "at elevation angles (b ≥ 15–50°)" like the AFAR, and this seems to suit everyone.
So why shouldn't the "ersatz solution" of a UAV with an AFAR emulate a mechanical antenna, performing only a full physical scan of the surrounding space each time the radar transmitter is turned on?
Perhaps radar experts would find other ways to reduce radar consumption.

[DO]

P.S. Since it is known at the state border from which side the enemy's pepelats may arrive, the scanning time of the AFAR side-view radar of the UAV can be reduced by 2 times, due to scanning the space only from the side of one of the UAV's sides.

[DO]

In the deep Russian rear, there is a problem of the impossibility of implementing a continuous radar field, due to the vast territory of the Russian Federation.
It is clear that towers and tethered balloons/airships with radar are adequate as an element of object air defense.
But early detection of air targets attacking the territory of the Russian Federation is also required so that fighter-interceptors can work on enemy air targets. Here, the classic A-50 AWACS aircraft are in demand. However, their current number is completely insufficient, and the production of new ones in a short time is impossible. Therefore, the author of the article is absolutely right to consider the so-called "ersatz solution" - a UAV with a suspended or built-in panel radar, based on the Altius, Helius, and Inokhodets UAV carriers. There are two problems here: the carrier and the radar itself. The problem with carriers is solved by the correct choice of performers, strict control over execution and sufficient funding. Radar: the existing suspended panel radar Sych UKR-RL (judging by its description and the opinion of experts in my discussion with them in the comments to one of the articles here on VO) is intended for reconnaissance of GROUND targets ONLY. And there is currently no modern side-view radar for detecting AIR targets, which is required for the REAR. Therefore, it is probably fastest to use the radar solutions from the Su-57 N036 "Belka":
1) look for the possibility of integrating the existing round radar H036 "Belka" for side viewing into the UAV airframe;
2) rework the N036 "Belka" into a side-looking panel radar, similar to the UKR-RL Sych.

[DO]

Quote: P.S.

look for the possibility of integrating the existing round radar H036 "Belka" for side viewing into the UAV airframe

The main round antennas from the N036 "Belka" can be suspended under the UAV wings, for the Altius - outside the engines (the wing structure and their fastening here will probably have to be strengthened). For the radar equipment, in order not to significantly alter the UAV, it is possible to work out a fastening to the wing between the engine and the aircraft body.

[Glagol1]

Tu-214. Only it. Range in the AWACS version is 8000 km. Duty time in the air is 10 hours and even more. Large platform - you can place a lot of equipment. Max. Speed ​​900 km / h - can quickly arrive in the necessary area, and can quickly escape. The cost of the aircraft is 4 billion - not so expensive. In a couple of years, the Kazan plant will be able to make 6-7 aircraft per year, but there are not many passenger orders - here the MS-21 rules.

[storm]

The problem is that the effective range of air-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs) has increased significantly in recent times, and there is a tendency for it to increase further, which has increased the risk of destroying AWACS aircraft.

Is it really impossible to use electronic warfare, air-to-air anti-missiles, laser and microwave installations to protect AWACS aircraft?
In addition to the basic AWACS and U equipment, the Tu-214 platform can easily accommodate several active and passive defense systems...

[Broad flag]

Quote: SmollH2

Quote: Shiry Prapor

I am not prepared to discuss insinuations of which I know less than nothing...

Russian is clearly not your native language, but... That damned "but". You also have zero understanding of what you are writing.
And yes, using the word innuendo, you accused alexoff of dishonesty. The explanatory dictionary will help you.

He went to sprinkle ashes on his head, in search of some native language.
Regarding the charges: judging by the comments, half of the prosecutor's staff is sitting here on the forum. The other half is a mix of Russian language teachers and retired military personnel, most often strategists kicked out of the General Staff due to length of service.
LOL

[Pushkowed]

The next step in the field of AWACS will probably be physical separation in space of transmitters and receivers. Transmitters cannot be made unnoticeable, they "glow" by definition. So future AWACS will be exclusively passive receivers. And transmitters will be needed exclusively for radar "illumination" of the theater. They will have to be made in large quantities, cheap, possibly even disposable, and they will no longer be tasty targets (no one tries to shoot down illumination shells, right?), but the hunt will be conducted on centers for receiving reflected signals and data processing. Perhaps the next step will be their miniaturization, robotization ("AI-ization") and evolution in the direction of "quantity over quality".

[26_Sergey_26]

An article about a drill or about an hunter.
Respect to the author, especially for the photo in which a cast iron is thrown off an ultra-modern hunter.
But there is a problem with the planes. There is no carrier of the all-round radar, except for the Il-76.

[cmax]

For the emergence of new modern aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles, Avax is needed
Specialists in the development of electronic equipment;
Communication, analog Link16
Engines (jet, piston);
Developed production of microelectronics;
Satellite constellation for aviation support with AWACS in real time;
And money.
Yesterday there was an article that the manufacturer of Orion drones, Kronstadt, has problems, and lawsuits for 2 billion rubles have been filed by suppliers of equipment and components.
What we have available and what we don’t have can be observed now and conclusions can be drawn.
Something will appear, but most likely not now and not quickly. IMHO.

[Broad flag]

Quote: 26_Sergey_26

An article about a drill or about an hunter.
Respect to the author, especially for the photo in which a cast iron is thrown off an ultra-modern hunter.
But there is a problem with the planes. There is no carrier of the all-round radar, except for the Il-76.

Am I the only one who thinks that the IL-76 reminds me of the joke about the "radio on an armored train"? The plane is good, but we shouldn't continue to mold it into an AWACS, like in the days when transistors were big and SBIS were huge.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Half measures in this matter are not enough. We want it cheaper and faster, but this will only worsen the problems with AWACS. Today we need AWACS UAV systems capable of staying in the air for at least 24 hours, controlled from the ground, and alternatives are yesterday's news. If they do not exist, then they must be developed ahead of the locomotive. It is unlikely that it will be possible to create an effective AWACS based on the S-70 Okhotnik UAV. A deep reworking of the project will be required, and this is a lot of time, money, and as a result it will turn out that it is not effective enough. At a minimum, an AWACS aircraft needs a powerful power system, and the Okhotnik does not have this.

[Forever so]

Russia's problem is not in aviation, but in the fact that the financial elite are saving the Breton Woods system and they don't care what's going on, that tiny handful of government officials who are concerned about Russia's fate for one reason or another have neither the leverage nor the resources to change anything, and the president is unable to make a political decision and financially untie Russia from the nose-diving West. What kind of drlo drlo are we talking about when billions stolen from the offshores are stuck!!!

[23ronin]

Dear readers and writers, we somehow forgot about the long-existing platform in the form of the M55 "Geophysics", which was actually created as a high-altitude strategic reconnaissance aircraft and, with appropriate modification, could play the role of an analogue of the "Starlink" satellite group, moreover, locally for a specific theater of operations. And with the equipment of the appropriate RES and the AWACS function. The question would probably arise in the tactics of use, and not in the absence of technical means.

[anclevalico]

There are none, these prospects. At the present moment, none. Even the existing ones are not properly used.

[P]

Maybe first we need to try and put in a corner those who destroyed the aviation industry, with the news broadcast to the whole country?

[AC130 Gunship]

The conclusion of the article is that we have again come to the point where there are no analogues in the world.
There won't be any Okhotnik-based DLROs now or in 20 years. There are no technologies or components for that. An example is the A100 project, which stalled almost 10 years ago and is incredibly outdated without ever having flown.
We need to build AVAKSs with a crew, but without the outdated rooftop saucer. That's a thing of the past.

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote: 23ronin

Dear readers and writers, we somehow forgot about the long-existing platform in the form of the M55 "Geophysics", which was actually created as a high-altitude strategic reconnaissance aircraft and, with appropriate modification, could play the role of an analogue of the "Starlink" satellite group, moreover, locally for a specific theater of operations. And with the equipment of the appropriate RES and the AWACS function. The question would probably arise in the tactics of use, and not in the absence of technical means.

Why do we need altitude here? In the M50, one pilot sits in diapers and can barely even move. There's not a single gram of space, and they need to cram in several tons of iron. My armchair opinion: we're eliminating the M50 as a carrier for the DLRO.

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote: Glagol1

Tu-214. Only it. Range in the AWACS version is 8000 km. Duty time in the air is 10 hours and even more. Large platform - you can place a lot of equipment. Max. Speed ​​900 km / h - can quickly arrive in the necessary area, and can quickly escape. The cost of the aircraft is 4 billion - not so expensive. In a couple of years, the Kazan plant will be able to make 6-7 aircraft per year, but there are not many passenger orders - here the MS-21 rules.

In 2024, KAPO delivered one (out of three promised). And in 2025, it looks like it will deliver zero. Where the six or seven will come from in a couple of years is unclear.
But recently (November 2025), a new interesting fact emerged. It turns out the MC21 won't be able to fly the distances the Soviet Tu-154M could fly nonstop. Consequently, the Tu-214, which rose from the ashes, is now the frontrunner in the race, with no equivalents worldwide.