Ukrainian capitalism: turning an old Soviet fighter into a ground-based medium-range air defense system

17 857 57
Ukrainian capitalism: turning an old Soviet fighter into a ground-based medium-range air defense system
The "Shershen" air defense missile system in full force


Ukraine tested anti-aircraft missile rocket The Shershen complex uses five types of missiles, including Soviet-made missiles, imported missiles, and Ukrainian-made missiles. The five types of missiles likely include the Soviet R-27 with thermal (infrared) and semi-active radar homing (medium-range), the R-73 (short-range), the American AIM-7 E/F/G/M/P/R Sparrow (medium-range), and the AIM-9 L/M/P/R/X. If France supplied Magic 2 missiles with the Mirage 2000 fighters, these missiles would also be suitable. It should be noted that this is far from the first attempt to land or splash down air-to-air missiles. The Americans were the first to attempt to develop a naval air defense system based on the Sparrow air-to-air missile in the early 1960s. This was a success, resulting in the highly successful RIM-7 Sea Sparrow naval air defense system. Taiwan currently uses a land-based version of the Sea Sparrow naval air defense system as part of its system. Defense Skyguard. The US Army has developed its own version of the MIM-72 Chaparral ground-based short-range air defense system based on the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile.




Taiwan's Skyguard-Sparrow air defense system

The multi-caliber platform is designed to reduce dependence on a single missile supplier amid the ongoing shortage of anti-aircraft missiles caused by ongoing Russian air attacks.

According to a report by the Ukrainian defense publication "Military," Ukraine has developed and tested a new multi-caliber air defense system called "Shershen."

The main developer and systems integrator is a company that is part of the National Association of the Defense Industry of Ukraine (NAUDI), which cooperates with several Ukrainian firms responsible for missile guidance and control systems, as well as for the integration of radars and launchers.

The Militarnye newspaper reported that the Shershen (the name translates from Ukrainian as "Hornet") anti-aircraft missile system was tested with five types of missiles. These include Soviet-made missiles, foreign-made missiles, and advanced Ukrainian-developed missiles. The system is designed to allow the use of different types of missiles from a single launcher.

Sergey Goncharov, CEO of NAUDI, explained the logic behind this concept:

This eliminates dependence on a single supplier, as they operate in a competitive environment and want to lock customers in for decades. This then creates a situation where, say, there are launchers but no missiles, and missile production volumes are, firstly, low, and secondly, they are becoming increasingly expensive every year.


In the foreground are the R-27T and R-27R

Photographs published by Militarnye show a launcher equipped with two R-27 missiles: one with an infrared seeker and the other with a semi-active radar seeker. The R-27 (NATO designation AA-10 Alamo) is a medium-range air-to-air missile originally developed in the Soviet Union and later adapted by a number of countries for use as a surface-to-air missile for ground-based air defense systems.

Ukraine faces a severe shortage of anti-aircraft missiles amid intense fighting and ongoing large-scale air attacks from Russia. Ukraine's existing Western and Soviet-made air defense systems are tied to specific manufacturers and missile stockpiles. Without compatible missiles, launchers remain idle during repeated attacks, awaiting deliveries.

The "Shershen" air defense system is built on scraps from the Soviet table, inherited by the Ukrainian SSR from the Great USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Air Force inherited approximately 66-70 Su-27 aircraft from the first series, manufactured in the 1980s. A lack of funds, coupled with the Su-27's high maintenance requirements, led to a shortage of spare parts and inadequate servicing, resulting in approximately 34 airworthy aircraft in service as of 2019, most of which have already been lost during the conflict. At least 35 aircraft decommissioned in the 2000s were still in Ukrainian inventory, and these—or more precisely, their targeting equipment (TAE) and air-to-air missile launch pylons—served as the basis for future ground-based ersatz medium-range air defense systems. "When there's no fish, even a crayfish is a fish"—there's no better way to put it.

The Su-27 fighter's RLPK-27 targeting system included the N001 pulse-Doppler radar, equipped with a 975 mm (1076 mm) diameter Cassegrain antenna with mechanical scanning in azimuth and elevation, and capable of detecting air and ground targets in active jamming conditions. The detection range for a fighter-type target in the forward hemisphere (on a head-on course) is 80-100 km, and in the rear hemisphere (on a pursuit course) - 30-40 km. It can simultaneously track up to 10 air targets in transit and intercept the single most threatening one. The altitude range of detected targets within a solid angle of 120° ranges from 50-100 m to 27 km. The RLPK-27 is controlled by the Ts100 onboard computer. The N001 radar for the Su-27 was developed by the design bureau under the leadership of Viktor Grishin.

The initial design, known as "Sword," was to incorporate advanced technologies developed for the Soyuz experimental radar program under the overall supervision of NPO Istok. It was envisioned to share much in common with the MiG-29's N019 Rubin radar. The N001 has a 1,075-meter-diameter cross-cassegrain antenna. Its pulse-Doppler design, operating in the 3-cm range with medium and high pulse repetition frequencies for optimal downward lookout, provides a search range of 80-100 km against a target with a 3-meter-square radar cross-section (PSR) and 140 km against a bomber with a 15-meter-square radar cross-section (Il-28). The radar can track (acquire) a 3-meter-square target at a range of up to 65 km. When operating simultaneously in search and AS modes, the search range for a target with an RCS of 3 m² is reduced to 40 km. Azimuth limits are ±60°. The first production models had a mean time between failures (MTBF) of only 5 hours, but later modifications reached 100 hours; the MTBF was eventually increased to 200 hours. For its time, it was a very good radar, better than the AN/APG-63 on the F-15A fighter.

The R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) missile is a Soviet medium-range air-to-air guided missile developed by the I. I. Toropov Vympel State Design Bureau (Moscow). It is manufactured by Artem (Kyiv) and Vympel (Moscow). Artem only performed final assembly of the missile, assembling the warhead (Item 1101) with an engine and warhead. The R-27 intercepts aircraft and UAVs in long-range and short-range air combat, as well as cruise missiles. The R-27 is available in infrared-guided/IR (R-27T, R-27ET) and semi-active radar-guided/SARH (R-27R, R-27ER) versions. Missiles of the R-27 family are produced by both Russian and Ukrainian manufacturers. The R-27 missile is installed on the MiG-29 and Su-27, Su-30, and Su-35 fighters. The R-27 missile is also produced under license in China. Serial production of the R-27 ("Product 470") began in 1984. In 1987, the missile was accepted into service (in the R-27ER and R-27ET variants). Modifications:

The R-27R is a variant with a 9B1101K semi-active radar seeker. It has a target acquisition range of 25 km with an RCS of 3 m² (with a 100-degree acquisition sector) for engaging airborne targets, including those under countermeasures. Launch range is 0,5-70 km.

The R-27ER (E stands for "power-armed") is a variant with a semi-active radar seeker with an extended range. The missile is larger in caliber—260 mm instead of the R-27's 230 mm—and 990 mm longer. Launch range is 0,5–95 km. In service with the Soviet Air Force since 1990.

The R-27T is a variant with an infrared seeker. Launch range is 50 km.

The R-27ET is a variant with an infrared seeker and an extended launch range. Launch weight is 343 kg. Launch range is 90 km. In service with the Soviet Air Force since 1990.

The R-27P is a missile with a 9B1032 passive radar homing head, designed to engage radio-emitting air targets and also to defeat aircraft deploying active jamming devices. Launch range: 72 km.

The R-27EP is a missile with a 9B1032 passive radar homing head and extended launch range, designed to engage radio-emitting air targets and also to defeat aircraft deploying active jamming devices. Launch range: 110 km.

The launch range of the ground-based SAM will not exceed 20-25 km for the R-27R/T variant, and 35-40 km for the R-27ER/ET variant.

By pursuing the concept of multi-caliber compatibility, thanks to the ability to use different types of missiles on a single launcher, Ukrainian "developers" sought to reduce dependence on a single supplier and expand the range of available ammunition, including obsolete Soviet stocks and imported missiles.
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    24 February 2026 03: 29
    Sergey, in most cases I enjoy reading you, but not this time! negative
    Let's write articles on topics we understand? This post is full of mistakes, and what's it even about? This topic has been covered many times.
    Here is the most "outstanding" gaffe:
    In the foreground are the R-27T and R-27R
    (photo below)
    This photo shows a Skyguard launcher with a Sparrow or Aspide SAM. It's unclear how these missiles could be confused with the R-27. The wing shape is completely different!
    1. +3
      24 February 2026 03: 36
      Quote: Bongo
      It's unclear how these missiles could be confused with the R-27? The wing shape is completely different!

      As far as I understand, this was simply a mistake in the photo caption. It's already been changed.
      1. +1
        24 February 2026 03: 40
        Quote: Puncher
        As far as I understand, this is just a mistake in the photo caption. It's already been changed.

        Perhaps so. But the topic is poorly developed!
      2. +1
        24 February 2026 09: 25
        But the missile types in the caption also need to be swapped: first the semi-active radar, and then the thermal one.
    2. + 10
      24 February 2026 03: 47
      Sergey, good morning! (It's still the middle of the night here.) My apologies, it's my fault. The thing is, I still haven't figured out how to post photos in this system; it's much more complicated than in Word. I just upload them to the site, and the editors post them themselves. They messed up the first version. They've fixed it now – well done, quick response. My apologies again!
      1. +6
        24 February 2026 03: 54
        Hello Sergey!
        Unfortunately, the level of professionalism of the authors writing for VO has dropped significantly. It's especially disappointing when such flaws appear in your publication. This topic could have been covered significantly further and unnecessary details could have been omitted. What does the radar installed on the MiG-29 and Su-27 have to do with the ground guidance station? They have slightly different operating modes and ranges.

        I'm not exactly an expert on this subject, but if you decide to write about air defense in the future, you can send me the text first. I'll help as best I can.
        1. +4
          24 February 2026 08: 00
          Quote: Bongo
          It's even more offensive when such mistakes appear in your publication.

          Well, the author is trying... the author is learning... he won't do it again! But you have your share of mistakes too!
          1. -1
            24 February 2026 09: 14
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            And you have some problems too!

            In order not to be unfounded, would you mind citing some of these kinds of mistakes?
            1. +2
              24 February 2026 09: 35
              I didn't specifically write down these glitches in a separate "little book"... whenever possible, I reported them to you directly in the comments. Off the top of my head, I can recall one: your statement about the 82mm grenade for the RPG-2! The RPG-2 comes with an 80mm grenade! I reported this to you several years ago, when you published a series of articles "Anti-tank weapons of the Soviet infantry" and recently, when "Anti-tank weapons of the Israeli army" (or whatever the precise title was) appeared. You ignored it the first time and repeated the same mistake a second time! It seems you don't like admitting your mistakes, unlike Ketonov!
              1. -2
                24 February 2026 09: 39
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                Off the top of my head, I can think of one: your statement about the 82mm grenade for the RPG-2! The RPG-2 comes with an 80mm grenade!

                Yes, and you're absolutely right about that! I'm happy for you!
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                I didn't write down these mistakes in a separate "book"... whenever possible, I reported them to you immediately in the comments.

                Once!
                But you're writing about "jambs" in the plural. To avoid being seen as a chatterbox, please be more careful with your wording. wink
                1. +4
                  24 February 2026 09: 50
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Once!

                  Oh, come on! Not just once! I repeat: I didn't specifically write down my mistakes in my little book, but I remember them "multiple". And with your answer, you confirmed my opinion: You don't like to admit your mistakes!
                  1. -3
                    24 February 2026 09: 54
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    Come on! Not "one" time!

                    No one is perfect! Not even you! However, I've noticed that you've been very biased towards me for some time now. When did I even have time to spit in your soul?
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    I repeat once again: I didn’t specifically write down the mistakes in the “little book”, but I remember the “multiplicity”.
                    If you can't confirm something, then there's no point in talking about it, because it looks pathetic.
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    And with your answer you confirmed my opinion: You don’t like to admit your mistakes!

                    Do you like it? I've published over 800 articles on VO. You have a unique chance to study them all and provide a list of their flaws. Good luck!
                    1. +3
                      24 February 2026 11: 19
                      Quote: Bongo
                      I have published more than 800 articles on VO

                      That's the whole point! I'll find your mistakes, but to do so I'll have to sift through a lot of material and waste a lot of time! Do I need that? I don't! Yes
                      1. -5
                        24 February 2026 11: 23
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        Do I need it? No!

                        Then don't talk about things that can't be proven in standing!
                      2. +2
                        24 February 2026 17: 34
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Then don't talk about things that can't be proven in standing!

                        laughing I can! I just don't want to waste time on something that doesn't interest me! stop
                      3. -3
                        25 February 2026 01: 56
                        Those who can do, and those who can't, just talk!
                      4. +2
                        25 February 2026 09: 19
                        Someone else's cow would moo, but yours would be better off keeping quiet...
                      5. -5
                        25 February 2026 09: 33
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        Someone else's cow would moo, but yours would be better off keeping quiet...

                        So far, all you've been doing is moaning and saying nothing substantive. You're acting unmanly. I wonder if you've always been like this or if it's just a matter of age?
                      6. -3
                        25 February 2026 09: 44
                        Quote: zyablik.olga
                        So far, all you've been doing is moaning and saying nothing substantive. You're acting unmanly. I wonder if you've always been like this or if it's just a matter of age?

                        Don't fight, girls!
                      7. -3
                        25 February 2026 08: 01
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        I can! I just don't want to waste time on something that doesn't interest me!

                        Perseverance worthy of respect! good
                        Quote: zyablik.olga
                        Those who can do, and those who can't, just talk!

                        Olya is certainly harsh and categorical, but essentially she's right! In fact, I'd be very grateful if you'd take the trouble to spot all the flaws in my publications, which are undoubtedly present. But then again, there are all kinds of bloopers. It's one thing to confuse completely different missiles, and quite another to make a 2mm caliber error. wink
                        Vladimir, frankly, I don't understand why you're so angry or what sore spot I've stepped on. Okay, there are some downright idiots, brainwashed by years of using an awl and incapable of even calculating the energy of a body, knowing its mass and speed. But you don't fall into that category.
                        Regarding the criticism of this publication written by Sergey Ketonov. This may come as a revelation to you, but Sergey and I have a very constructive, I would even say friendly, relationship and exchange of information. He has occasionally found inaccuracies in my publications (for example, the incorrect designation of American nuclear warheads). I am always open to constructive and substantive criticism, without generalizations or sweeping statements, and I communicate effectively with reasonable people.
                      8. +2
                        25 February 2026 09: 36
                        With your responses, you've proven 120% that you hate admitting your mistakes! And your "offense" at my comments stems from the realization that this is indeed true! You're picking on every single letter of my comments, eager to pick on me whenever you find it convenient! But I couldn't care less... I repeat (and I won't!): I don't want to waste time searching for flaws in your articles; I find it uninteresting, unproductive, and insignificant!
                      9. -4
                        25 February 2026 09: 43
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        With your responses to me, you've proven 120% that you don't like to admit your mistakes! And your "offense" towards my comments stems from the realization that this is indeed true! You're picking on every single letter of my comments to rip me apart whenever you find it convenient!
                        fool
                        I sincerely believed that you were adequate, I see that I was wrong.
                        Quote: Nikolaevich I
                        I don't want to waste time looking for existing flaws in your articles.

                        Yes, because they are incapable... wink
        2. +3
          24 February 2026 09: 23
          What is the relationship between the radars installed on the MiG-29 and Su-27 and the ground guidance station?
          As far as I understood the author of the article, the goal was precisely to use "everything aviation" for a ground-based air defense system, and even the radar in the picture is somewhat reminiscent of the N-001.
          There are slightly different operating modes and ranges.
          However, nothing will prevent the N-001 from detecting air targets while stationary on the ground.
          1. -1
            24 February 2026 09: 26
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            As far as I understood the author of the article, the goal was to use “everything aviation” for a ground-based air defense system, and even the radar in the picture is somewhat reminiscent of the N-001

            Which is not rational! No.
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            However, nothing will prevent the N-001 from detecting air targets while stationary on the ground.

            Let's compare the service life and mean time between failures of the aircraft N-001 and the guidance station specially created for the land-based air defense missile system?
            1. +3
              24 February 2026 09: 32
              Why do you think such a system would be continuously transmitting? They'd operate using a semi-ambush method! And what ground-based air defense system, with such a large amount of equipment and power consumption, could boast such a detection range, simultaneously tracking up to 10 routes?
              1. -3
                24 February 2026 09: 36
                Quote: Hexenmeister
                Why do you think that such a complex will be switched on for emission on a permanent basis?

                I have a basic understanding of the missions of the target air defense missile systems and can estimate the operational life of the SNR when repelling waves of kamikaze drones. The air station can be considered a technology demonstrator, but nothing more. No.
                1. +1
                  24 February 2026 10: 01
                  In any case, the N-001 is a single-purpose station, and no one will be able to shoot down a "swarm" with its help at once, but F-16s in Ukraine are also used sequentially against a single target, and even five hours of mean time between failures is enough to fire the entire stock of missiles of such a system at Gerani and any cruise missiles that fall into the kill zone of such a system.
                  1. 0
                    24 February 2026 10: 06
                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    and even five hours of mean time between failures would be enough to fire the entire stock of missiles available to such a system at Gerani and any cruise missiles that fall within the kill zone of such a system.

                    Yes, but cruise missile and UAV strikes occur almost every night. A SAM system with such a system would spend more time in repair than in operation. It's much more efficient to use an optronic system paired with thermal missiles to detect airborne targets. In fact, the "independent" SAM system using air-launched missiles has been in development for over a decade. But operational models have yet to emerge.
                    1. +5
                      24 February 2026 10: 16
                      An air defense missile system with such a station will be under repair longer than in operation.
                      All that remains is to decide: five hours or two hundred? And at a speed of 250 m/s, 100 km will be covered in 400 seconds, or less than seven minutes. And how many times, even in five hours of operation, can missiles be launched at targets within the kill zone?
                      use an optoelectronic system
                      And if the weather is bad, should I complain to the League of Sexual Reform?
                      1. -2
                        24 February 2026 10: 20
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        All that remains is to decide: five hours or two hundred?

                        I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but the difference is roughly an order of magnitude. And aircraft radars aren't designed for long-term operation.
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        And if the weather is bad, should I complain to the League of Sexual Reform?

                        Is the League of Sexual Reform responsible for the weather? what Did not know! request
                        As for the OES, I will get tired of listing how many air defense missile systems they are used on.
                      2. 0
                        24 February 2026 10: 27
                        As for the OES, I will get tired of listing how many air defense missile systems they are used on.
                        It's perfectly reasonable to use it as a supplementary channel, but not as the primary one for "our" weather conditions. A combination of the N-001 and variants of the R-27E missiles could easily be quickly integrated into a ground-based system, but I doubt Ukraine is capable of doing this, so I fully support your opinion.
                        But working samples have not yet appeared.
                      3. +1
                        24 February 2026 22: 56
                        Quote: Bongo
                        But the difference is about an order of magnitude. And aircraft radars aren't designed for long-term operation.

                        The fact is that the war is ongoing and they've lost not only all their Soviet-made SAM systems from three Air Defense Armies and the Air Defense Forces of three military districts, but also all the SAM systems transferred to them from the Warsaw Pact, old Soviet SAM systems bought up from all over the world, all serviceable old NATO SAM systems, and almost all the modern SAM systems transferred to them from NATO. So they're looking for something to profit from from the Soviet legacy. Their SAM systems don't last long, so don't worry about their service life. If they managed to revive the radar and install it on a fixed platform, all that's left is to attach an aircraft pylon to the launcher and the automatic launch system. They still have plenty of old Soviet RVVs in stock. If they manage to revive and equip the RVVs with engines (because age and the heavy fuel are degrading, but they know how to replace heavy fuel), then they'll have improvised SD SAM systems.
                        And Sergey’s article is useful in that it reminds us of such a resource and the work that has been done on this topic for at least 10 years.
                        We don't know how to change the HT in missiles, so we can't make such ersatz SAM systems. At least for the purpose of recycling old missiles, fortunately there are plenty of targets.
                        But we have Pantsirs with simple and cheap SAMs.
                        Quote: Bongo
                        As for the OES, I will get tired of listing how many air defense missile systems they are used on.

                        The question is whether the Ukrainian Armed Forces have them in working order, except on surviving fighters. And it would be very good if they don't.

                        And how it is better, more resourceful and more correct in peaceful life, it is already clear.
          2. +1
            24 February 2026 16: 04
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            However, nothing will prevent the N-001 from detecting air targets while stationary on the ground.

            Yeah. Only the range parameter will be like in a catch-up.
            KM~40-50 (EPR=3 m^2, with a probability of 0,5)

            On the other hand, "when there is no fish, even a fish"
            Since post-Smaidan, the State Enterprise “Novator” has been repairing microwave modules M45210 (M45212), M45211-2 (M45213-2), M55117-2 (M55104-2), U52171-2 (U52151-2), U52172A (U52155A), and has replaced them.
            The parametric amplifier in the microwave receiving module M55117-2 (M55104-2) was replaced with a more reliable low-noise transistor amplifier, and the H019-09A unit was upgraded.
            It is unlikely that they reached the RLPK-27 VEP + "feather".
            I don't understand the author's sarcasm.
            The "Shershen" air defense system is built on scraps from the "Soviet table" inherited by the Ukrainian SSR from the Great USSR.

            From the word at all.
            Better than using the "geranium"'s ears to search for and aim the MOG guns on the carts? Right?
            The gliders and engines of the Soviet Union's "leftovers" have served their purpose, whether they're in the hands of the "wind" forces, the young Europeans, or other Africans. But the radars will still serve.
            1. -2
              24 February 2026 16: 39
              Yeah. Only the range parameter will be like in a catch-up.
              What does this have to do with the radar's ability to detect targets? The kill zones are clear; a ground-based launch at zero speed would produce very small kill zones.
              1. 0
                24 February 2026 16: 48
                Quote: Hexenmeister
                What does this have to do with the radar's ability to detect targets? And what about the kill zones?

                Grandpa Doppler and Uncle Newton

                And I won’t say a word about “kill zones”.
                You better read carefully, and then think about it, that is, think.
                1. -1
                  24 February 2026 16: 53
                  Grandpa Doppler and Uncle Newton

                  So what???
                  The detection range of a fighter-type target in the forward hemisphere (on a collision course) is 80-100 km, in the rear hemisphere (on a pursuit course) - 30-40 km.
                  Are you going to refute the results?
                  1. +2
                    24 February 2026 17: 12
                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    So what???

                    Not in horse food?
                    🥱Aircraft radars are castrated both in terms of antenna diameter (aperture), and in terms of power, axial size, and computing potential.
                    Everything works out +/- when the radar platform moves relative to the target (ground) at speeds of 500-1400 km/h.
                    We combine the reference frame (Sir Isaac Newton, a lover of reference frames) with the carrier and... and voila: the target produces a Doppler shift (at the work of Mr. Christian Doppler, a lover of waves).
                    Place this dystrophic plate d=60 cm-1,2 m on a stationary (in working mode) ground tripod...
                    Against creeping geraniums (<200 km/h) we get a mediocre radar, but it works not against fast projectiles, but against “snails of the sky”.
                    Haben Sie mich verstanden? Habe ich meinen Gedanken genug Essen gekaut?
                    Quote: Hexenmeister
                    Are you going to refute the results?

                    What?
                    Why should I refute this? Be clear: I'm slow on guesses.
                    I suppose you are gnawing at doubts?
                    Sit in the pilot's/aircraft operator's seat, try to detect/lock on to a target that is heading towards you, and then the same target that is running away, and you are catching up with it.
                    1. -1
                      24 February 2026 17: 23
                      I'm slow on guesses
                      First, figure out how the analysis zone is set in H-001; the absolute Doppler shift is not played there.
                      1. +2
                        24 February 2026 17: 45
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        For a start

                        Ага.
                        And then, what comes after “for starters”?
                        Uncle 🥱 I don’t understand at all how to sew this “sleeve” to the female genital organ?
                        Well, I'll set it up through the SUV: TWS mode, DVB, BVB, review with HP, SDC, etc.
                        How does this relate to what I said above and the landing of a mobile (and quickly mobile) radar on Mother Earth, motionless?
                        Or do you belong to the category of those "id", pardon me, "specialists", who recommend tying up the "Irbis" on a dirigible and taking it to accompany the "Lyuty" for 400 km?
                        «
                      2. -2
                        24 February 2026 17: 56
                        Well, I'll set it up through the SUV: TWS mode, DVB, BVB, review with HP, SDC, etc.
                        What do these sets of letters have to do with the N-001 control?
                      3. 0
                        24 February 2026 18: 46
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        What do these sets of letters have to do with the N-001 control?

                        Well, enlighten me (a deer), how to control the N-001 without this "set of letters"💁
                        Be so kind
                      4. 0
                        25 February 2026 08: 53
                        Show me a single control in any photo of a 80s Su-27 cockpit using the N-001 that says "TWS" or "High Resolution View" or "SDC." Please!
                      5. +2
                        25 February 2026 17: 22
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        Show me any photo of the cockpit of a combat Su-27 from the 80s using the N-001,

                        Uncle (barn) well you are strange.
                        - Whoever mentioned the "control organ"? I wrote about the radar's operating modes. I'm talking about this rambling collection of words.
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        how it is exhibited analysis zone in H-001, there the absolute Doppler shift is not played.

                        perceived about the radar operating modes.
                        I'm not a pilot, and you're relying on (unsuccessful) hints from a former BAO employee. Who's whispering there? Alyosha or Seryozhka?
                        What is the "analysis zone"? Also "letters"
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        Do these sets of letters have anything to do with the N-001 control?

                        TWS (Track While Scan) is the simultaneous scanning and plotting of target trajectories. I understand it's discrete.
                        DVB (Long Range Air Combat) - The radar operates at maximum range, using a narrow beam and high update rate to detect and launch missiles (ARL/PARL).
                        CAB (Close Air Combat) - Mode with a wide viewing angle or automatic first target acquisition.
                        Ground Based Radar/Low Air Targets (GPR) - Uses the MTS (Moving Target Selection) mode to filter out ground reflections, allowing you to see targets against the underlying surface.
                        MTS (Moving Target Selection) - Doppler mode that filters out stationary objects (the ground) to identify flying aircraft
                        SUO - weapon control system

                        It says on the "controls"
                        On the left (along the side) on the control panel of the fire control system there is a 7-position switch for the fire control system operating modes (only what is related to the radar control system)
                        -Fi 0 (RLPK failure)
                        -RLS (the leading channel is assigned to the radar control center)
                        AUTO-MANUAL GUIDANCE SWITCH
                        3 buttons <>^
                        The delta H switch has 11 positions (0,2,4,6,8,10, and also with “-”) and controls the radar’s viewing area.
                        - switch IZLUCH-EKV-OKTL with corresponding positions
                        - AUTO-MANUAL CAPTURE switch (MANUAL for manual capture using the Ku-31 button)
                        - APK-AP-OFF switch (this is when interference is present)
                        - PPS-AVT-ZPS switch
                        - switch AZ-D-OBN-AZ-V. Screenshots with markers about what I said, and what you lack in whispered hints, or your own knowledge, to understand

                        And the "buttons" on the starboard side are
                        -10 pieces of TARGET (1-10)
                        -5 with FIGHTER alarms (1-4 and GR)
                        -1on ENTER
                        -1 on RESET
                      6. 0
                        25 February 2026 17: 59
                        You read your own message in its entirety. Sometimes low-speed targets aren't detected, sometimes a low-speed helicopter is detected and locked on, sometimes at 300, sometimes at 180, or even faster. What a narrow and wide beam, if it uses a Cassegrain antenna, and what maximum ranges are possible if the entire range is always processed? Where do you even get such nonsense?
                      7. +1
                        25 February 2026 19: 11
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        You yourself read your entire message.

                        Of course I read it when I wrote it. But who was supposed to read it?
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        Sometimes targets flying at low speed are not detected, sometimes they are detected

                        Well, don't talk nonsense, it's not my thing. It's RLE.
                        Quote: Hexenmeister
                        Where do you even get such nonsense from?

                        From the Su-27 flight manual, of course. Please reread it yourself, pp. 103 to 174.
                        Su-27 (Fomin), by Government Decree of 1976 (Tikhomirov Research Institute of Design)
                        And you are like that Buridan's donkey. What's wrong again?
                        Pulse Doppler radar N001 with a two-mirror Cassenger antenna
                        It has excellent ability to form an extremely narrow beam (high directivity) due to its two-mirror system, which makes it ideal for satellite communications and radar. A narrow beam is achieved by using a large primary mirror relative to the wavelength, which provides a high concentration of energy in a narrow angle. Narrow Beamwidth: The angular width of the radiation pattern at half power (
                        dB) can be very small, which allows for accurate targeting at long distances.

                        a two-mirror antenna with a feed in the form of a broadband antenna array with controlled polarization of the radiation field

                        I got it. Uncle. Shed. What can you do?
                      8. The comment was deleted.
  2. +4
    24 February 2026 04: 32
    According to reports, the Artem State Nuclear Power Plant, the manufacturer of the R-27 missiles, has been shelled by our troops several times. Therefore, it's strange to see reports like these, which suggest that some NAUDI (National Agency for Nuclear Research) is continuing to develop new weapons instead of switching to pig-drawn carts after four years of continuous shelling. This is some strange demilitarization, or am I missing something?
  3. -3
    24 February 2026 05: 30
    What about decommunization? The documentation is in Russian, isn't it? It's not worth reading and thinking in Muscovite, but spewing boorish phrases in calf-speak. drinks
  4. +1
    24 February 2026 05: 49
    The five types of missiles likely include: the Soviet R-27 with thermal (infrared homing head) and semi-active radar homing head (medium range), R-73 (short range), American AIM-7 E/F/G/M/P/R Sparrow (medium range) and AIM-9 L/M/P/R/X.

    I wonder where they'll get an AIM-7E? Will they rob a museum? And try finding an AIM-7F. Even the Spanish probably don't have any.
  5. +4
    24 February 2026 07: 18
    In short, it's like an Irish stew... "They deliberated for a long time about whether to add the rat brought by Montmorency to the pot."
  6. 0
    24 February 2026 08: 54
    It's perhaps worth noting that among the listed modifications, the R-27 could have also featured an active radar seeker! I believe such a model was developed back in the Soviet Union, but it never made it into production! However, Ukraine developed its own "independent" R-27 with an active radar seeker and had serious intentions of putting it into production! I don't think they managed to do this before the Second World War, but it's possible they're not trying now! Examples of this are being observed! Incidentally, the Ukrainians developed a "unified" seeker for both the R-27 and the S-125 SAM...
    1. 0
      23 May 2026 10: 30
      The R-27 with ARGS in metal was never produced, since it appeared in the development/metal/armament of the R-77.
      1. 0
        23 May 2026 11: 14
        The R-27 with ARGS has an index assigned to items "present" not only in the design but also in prototypes! And what does the R-77 have to do with it, given that reports recently surfaced that the R-27 will remain in service for a certain period and even be modernized to extend its operational characteristics! What prevented such a modernization from adding a seeker, for example, from the R-27? Let me remind you again that in Ukraine, ARGS was installed on the R-27! At least, it reached the prototypes!
        1. 0
          23 May 2026 12: 20
          What prevented them from adding a seeker head, for example, from the R-27, as part of such a modernization? Let me remind you again that in Ukraine, they installed an ARGS on the R-27! At least, it made it to the prototypes.

          No one was planning to modernize the R-27. Installing an active warhead requires a long development cycle. No one will do it here for a simple reason: why bother, when we have the R77/R77M.
          Regarding the active head for the P27 in Ukraine, please provide the proof. They wanted to make an analogue of the P77 in Ukraine, but something didn't work out.
  7. -2
    24 February 2026 16: 06
    By today's standards, a SAM system with a 40-kilometer range can no longer be considered medium-range. The current average range of the Buk-M3 is 70 kilometers. At the most conservative estimate, 40 kilometers is the lower limit of the medium-range range.
  8. +3
    25 February 2026 22: 32
    The R-27 family is obsolete as an aircraft weapon, but as an air defense missile, it makes perfect sense given the shortage of air defense systems on both sides. Ukrainian engineers are brilliant. They weren't the first to use the R-27 as a surface-to-air missile—the Houthis were—but if they did, they deserve credit for their skill.
    1. 0
      23 May 2026 10: 32
      The R-27 as an air defense missile would also make sense for us in the face of endless drone attacks.
  9. Eug
    0
    6 May 2026 12: 30
    A very rational approach.