Military Review

Hot topic - Cruise missiles and how to deal with them

55
Hot topic - Cruise missiles and how to deal with them

General provisions


Over the past two decades, all relatively large-scale military conflicts involving the United States and NATO countries as an indispensable element included the massive use of sea-based and air-launched cruise missiles (KR).

The US leadership is actively promoting and constantly improving the concept of "contactless" war using high-precision weapons (WTO) long range. This idea implies, firstly, the absence (or reduction to a minimum) of casualties on the part of the attacker and, secondly, effective solution of the most important task characteristic of the initial stage of any armed conflict, winning unconditional air supremacy and suppressing the enemy’s air defense system. "Contactless" strikes suppress the morale of the defenders, creates a feeling of helplessness and inability to fight the aggressor, and has a depressing effect on the highest governing bodies of the defending side and subordinate troops.

In addition to the "operational-tactical" results, which the Americans repeatedly demonstrated during the anti-Iraq campaigns, attacks on Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and others, the accumulation of the Kyrgyz Republic also has a "strategic" goal. The press is increasingly discussing the scenario in accordance with which the simultaneous destruction of the most important components of the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the Russian Federation by conventional warheads of the Kyrgyz Republic, mainly sea-based, during the first “disarming strike” is assumed. After delivering such a strike, command posts, mine and mobile launchers of the Strategic Missile Forces, air defense facilities, airfields, submarines in bases, control and communication systems, etc. should be disabled.

Achieving the desired effect, according to the American military leadership, can be achieved through:
- reduction of the combat strength of the Russian strategic nuclear forces in accordance with bilateral agreements;
- an increase in the number of WTO funds used in the first strike (first of all - the CD);
- the creation of an effective missile defense system in Europe and the United States, capable of “finishing off” the Russian strategic nuclear forces not destroyed during a disarming strike.

For any unbiased researcher, it is obvious that the US government (regardless of the president’s name and skin color) persistently and persistently achieves a position where Russia, like Libya and Syria, is cornered, and its leadership will have to make the last choice: agree to the full and unconditional surrender in terms of making major foreign policy decisions or still trying out on themselves another version of "decisive power" or "unbreakable freedom."

In the described situation, for the Russian Federation no less vigorous and, most importantly, effective measures are needed that can, if not prevent, or at least delay "D-day" (maybe the situation will change, the threat will be reduced, new arguments will emerge against the implementation of the force option "Martians will land, American" tops "will become more responsible - in order of decreasing probability).

Possessing enormous resources and reserves of constantly improving WTO samples, the US military and political leadership rightly believes that repelling the massive strike of the Kyrgyz Republic is an extremely costly and complex task that today is beyond the reach of any of the potential opponents of the United States.



Today, the ability of the Russian Federation to repulse such a blow is clearly insufficient. The high cost of modern air defense systems, whether it is anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) or manned aviation interception complexes (PAK), it is not possible to deploy them in the required quantity, taking into account the enormous length of the borders of the Russian Federation and the uncertainty with the directions from which strikes can be carried out using missile defense.

Meanwhile, possessing undoubted advantages, the CD is not without significant drawbacks. First of all, there are no means of detecting the fact of an attack of the Kyrgyz Republic from the side of a fighter on the modern samples of “cruise ships”. Secondly, on relatively long stretches of the route, cruise missiles fly with a constant course, speed and altitude, which facilitates the interception. Thirdly, as a rule, the CD fly to the target by a compact group, which makes it easier for the attacker to plan the attack and theoretically contributes to increasing the survivability of the missiles; however, the latter is carried out only if the target channels of the air defense systems are saturated, and otherwise, this tactic plays a negative role, facilitating the organization of interception. Fourth, the flight speed of modern cruise missiles is still subsonic, on the order of 800 ... 900 km / h, so there is usually a significant time resource (tens of minutes) for intercepting the CD.

The analysis shows that to combat cruise missiles, a system capable of:
- intercept a large number of small-sized subsonic non-maneuvering air targets at extremely low altitude in a limited area for a limited time;
- to cover with one element of this subsystem a section (boundary) with a width much larger than that of existing air defense systems at low altitudes (approximately 500 ... 1000 km);
- have a high probability of performing a combat mission in any weather conditions day and night;
- to provide a significantly higher value of the integrated criterion "efficiency / cost" in the interception of the Kyrgyz Republic in comparison with the classical air defense systems and the PAC interception.

This system must interface with other systems and air defense / missile defense systems in terms of control, enemy air reconnaissance, communications, etc.

Experience of fighting the Kyrgyz Republic in military conflicts

The scale of the use of the Kyrgyz Republic in armed conflicts is characterized by the following indicators.

During the operation "Storm in the Desert" in 1991 from the surface ships and submarines of the US Navy deployed in positions in the Mediterranean and Red Seas, as well as in the Persian Gulf, 297 launches of Tomahawk-type SLCMs were carried out.

In 1998, in the course of Operation Desert Fox, a contingent of American armed forces deployed more than 370 naval and air-launched cruise missiles to Iraq.

In 1999, during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, in the framework of Operation Decisive Force, cruise missiles were used to launch three massive air-missile strikes that took place during the first two days of the conflict. Then the United States and its allies switched to systematic hostilities, during which cruise missiles were also used. In total, more than 700 sea and air-launched missile launches were performed during the active period.

In the process of systematic hostilities in Afghanistan, the US armed forces used more than 600 cruise missiles, and during Operation Freedom to Iraq in 2003, at least 800 KR.

In the open press, as a rule, the results of the use of cruise missiles are embellished, creating the impression of the "inevitability" of the blows and of their highest accuracy. Thus, on television, a video was repeatedly shown in which a case of a direct hit of a cruise missile in the window of a building, etc. was shown. However, neither about the conditions in which this experiment was carried out, nor about the date and place of its conduct, no data were given.

However, there are other assessments in which cruise missiles are characterized by markedly less impressive efficiency. It is, in particular, the report of the Commission of the US Congress and the materials published by the officer of the Iraqi army, in which the percentage of American cruise missiles hit in 1991 by Iraqi air defense systems is approximately 50%. The losses of cruise missiles from Yugoslav air defense weapons in 1999 are considered to be somewhat smaller, but also significant.

In both cases, cruise missiles were brought down mainly by portable Strela and Igla air defense systems. The most important condition for interception was the concentration of calculations of MANPADS on rocket-prone areas and timely warning of the approach of cruise missiles. Attempts to use "more serious" air defense missile systems to combat cruise missiles were difficult, as the inclusion of radar detection of targets from the air defense system almost immediately caused strikes against them using anti-radar aircraft.

Under these conditions, the Iraqi army, for example, returned to the practice of organizing aerial surveillance posts that detected cruise missiles visually and reported their appearance by telephone. During the period of fighting in Yugoslavia, highly mobile Osa-AK air defense systems were used to counteract cruise missiles, including a radar station for a short time, with an immediate change of position after that.

So, one of the most important tasks is to exclude the possibility of a “total” blinding of the air defense / missile defense system with the loss of the ability to adequately cover the air situation.

The second task is the rapid concentration of active agents in the direction of impact. Modern air defense systems for solving these problems are not quite suitable.

Americans are also afraid of cruise missiles

Long before 11 in September 2001, when kamikaze planes with passengers on board crashed into United States facilities, American analysts revealed another hypothetical threat to the country, which, in their opinion, could be created by rogue countries and even individual terrorist groups. Imagine the following scenario. Two hundred and three hundred kilometers from the coast of the country, where "happy ness" lives, there is a non-ordinary cargo ship with containers on the upper deck. Early in the morning, in order to use the haze that makes it difficult to visually detect air targets, cruise missiles, of course produced by the Soviet production or their copies, "welded" by craftsmen from an unnamed country, suddenly start from several vessels on board this vessel. Further, the containers are dumped overboard and flooded, and the missile carrier vessel pretends to be an “innocent trafficker” who happened to be here by accident.

Cruise missiles fly low, their start is not easy to detect.

And their combat units are filled with not ordinary explosives, not toy bears with calls for democracy in their paws, but, naturally, powerful poisonous substances or, at worst, anthrax spores. Ten or fifteen minutes later, the rockets appear over the unsuspecting coastal city ... Needless to say, the picture was painted by the hand of the master, who was watching the American horror films. But in order to convince the US Congress to fork out, we need a "direct and obvious threat." The main problem: to intercept such missiles, there is almost no time left for alerting active interceptors - missiles or manned fighters, because the ground radar can "see" a cruise missile flying at ten meters high at a distance not exceeding several tens of kilometers.

In 1998, for the first time, money was spent on developing the nightmare protection of cruise missiles arriving "out of nowhere" in the United States as part of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) program. In October, 2005 was completed research and experimental work related to the verification of the pledged ideas for feasibility, and the company Raytheon received the go-ahead for making prototypes of the JLENS system. Now it’s not about some unfortunate tens of millions of dollars, but about a solid amount - $ 1,4 billion. The elements of the system were demonstrated in 2009:
71M helium balloon with ground station for lifting / lowering and servicing, and Science Applications International Corp. from St. Petersburg received an order for the design and manufacture of the antenna for the radar, which is the payload of the balloon. A year later, a seventy-meter balloon for the first time flew into the sky with radar on board, and in 2011, the system was checked for almost the full program: first imitated electronic targets, then they launched a low-flying aircraft, after which the turn came on a UAV with a very small EPR.

Actually, there are two antennas for aerostat: one for detecting small targets at a relatively long range, and the other for accurate targeting at a smaller range. The power to the antennas is supplied from the ground, the reflected signal is “lowered” through the fiber-optic cable. The performance of the system was tested up to the height of 4500 m. The ground station has a winch that provides the lift of the balloon to the desired height, a power source, as well as a control cabin with the workplace of a dispatcher, meteorologist and aerostat control operator. It is reported that the equipment of the JLENS system is mated with the shipboard Aids air defense system, the Patriot air defense system and the SLAMRAAM complexes (the new self-defense air defense system, which uses converted AIM-120 SD, which were previously positioned as air-missiles air").

However, in the spring of 2012, the JLENS program began to have difficulties: The Pentagon, as part of the planned budget cuts, announced it was reluctant to deploy the first batch of 12 serial stations with 71M balloons, leaving only two radar stations already completed to tweak the radar and eliminate identified deficiencies in hardware and software .

30 April 2012, in the course of practical launches of missiles at a training and testing ground in Utah, using a target designation from the JLENS system, was shot down by an unmanned aircraft using REB equipment. The representative of the company Raytheon said: “It’s not only that the UAV was intercepted, but also that it was possible to fulfill all the requirements of the technical assignment to ensure reliable interaction between the JLENS system and the Patriot air defense system. The company hopes that the military’s interest in the system will be renewed JLENS, because previously it was planned that the Pentagon will purchase hundreds of sets in the period from 2012 to 2022.

Symptomatic can be considered the fact that even the richest country in the world, apparently, still considers unacceptable for itself the price that would have to be paid for the construction of the "great American antimissile wall" using traditional means of intercepting the Kyrgyz Republic, even if in interaction with the latest detection systems for low-flying air targets.

Proposals for the appearance and organization of countering cruise missiles with the help of unmanned fighters

The analysis shows that it is advisable to build a system to combat cruise missiles based on the use of relatively mobile units armed with guided missiles with thermal seeker which should be focused in a timely manner on the threatened direction. As part of such units should not be stationary or low-mobile ground radar, which immediately become the targets of enemy strikes using anti-radar missiles.

Ground-based air defense systems with ground-to-air missiles with thermal seekers are characterized by a small course parameter, which is a few kilometers. Dozens of complexes will be required to reliably cover the boundary with a length of 500 km.

A significant part of the forces and means of ground defense in the event of the passage of enemy cruise missiles on one or two routes will be "out of work." There will be problems with the placement of positions, the organization of timely warning and target distribution, the possibility of "saturating" the fire capabilities of air defense weapons in a limited area. In addition, the mobility of such a system is quite difficult to provide.

An alternative could be the use of relatively small-sized unmanned interceptor fighters armed with short-range guided missiles with thermal seekers.

The division of such aircraft can be based on one aerodrome (aerodrome take-off and landing) or in several points (non-aerodrome start, aerodrome landing).

The main advantage of aviation unmanned aerials to intercept cruise missiles is the ability to quickly concentrate efforts in a limited corridor of the enemy’s missile flight. The expediency of using BIKR against cruise missiles is also due to the fact that the “intelligence” of such a fighter, currently being implemented on the basis of existing information sensors and calculators, is sufficient to hit targets that do not actively counteract (with the exception of CU).

A small-sized unmanned fighter of cruise missiles (BIKR) must carry onboard radar with a range of detection of an airborne target of a cruise missile against the ground of the order of 100 km (Irbis class), several UR air-to-air (P-60, P- 73 or MANPADS "Igla"), and also, possibly, an aircraft gun. Relatively small mass and dimension of BIKR should help reduce the cost of vehicles compared with manned fighter-interceptors, as well as reduce the total fuel consumption, which is important given the need for mass use of BIKR (maximum engine thrust can be estimated equal to 2,5 ... 3 tf, i.e. approximately like a serial AI-222-25). In order to effectively combat cruise missiles, the maximum TIKR flight speed should be near-sonic or low supersonic, and the ceiling should be relatively small, no more than 10 km.



BIKR control at all stages of flight should be provided by an "electronic pilot", whose functions should be significantly expanded compared with typical aircraft automatic control systems. In addition to autonomous control, it is advisable to provide for the possibility of remote control of BIKR and its systems, for example, at the stages of take-off and landing, as well as, possibly, combat use of weapons or decision-making on the use of weapons.



The process of combat use of the BIKR unit can be briefly described as follows. After detecting by the senior chief (low mobile ground surveillance radar cannot be entered into a subunit!), The approach of enemy cruise missiles into the air raises several BIKRs so that, when the unmanned interceptors reach the calculated areas of the detection radar, the entire undercover radar plot.

Initially, the maneuvering area of ​​a particular BIKR is set before departure in the flight mission. If necessary, the area can be updated in flight by transmitting relevant data over a secure radio link. In the absence of communication with the ground-based KP (radio link suppression), one of the BIKR acquires the properties of a "command apparatus" with certain powers. As part of the BIKR electronic pilot, it is necessary to provide for an analysis of the air situation, which should ensure the massing of airborne BIKR forces in the direction of the approach of the tactical group of enemy cruise missiles, as well as organize the call for additional BIKR duty forces if all cruise missiles are not manages to intercept the "active" BIKR. Thus, BIKRs on duty in the air will, to a certain extent, play the role of a kind of “surveillance radar”, practically invulnerable to the enemy's anti-radar missiles. They can fight with streams of cruise missiles of relatively low density.

In the case of diversion of airborne BIKR on the same direction from the airfield should be immediately raised additional vehicles, which should exclude the formation of naked areas in the area of ​​responsibility of the unit.

During a period of danger, the organization of continuous combat duty of several BIKRs is possible. In the event of the need to transfer units to a new direction BIKR can fly to a new airfield "on their own". To ensure landing beforehand, a control cabin and calculation must be carried out on this airdrome, and the calculation ensures that the necessary operations are carried out (it may take more than one transport worker, but the problem of moving a long distance is potentially easier to solve than in the case of air defense systems, and in a much shorter time). At the stage of a flight to a new airfield, BIKR should be controlled by an “electronic pilot”. It is obvious that, in addition to the “combat” minimum of equipment for ensuring safety of flights in peacetime, BIKR automatic equipment should include a subsystem for avoiding collisions in the air with other aircraft.

Only flight experiments will be able to confirm or refute the possibility of destroying a CD or another enemy unmanned aerial vehicle with fire from a BIKR onboard cannon.

If the likelihood of the destruction of the Kyrgyz Republic by cannon fire turns out to be quite high, then by the criterion of "effectiveness - cost" this method of destroying enemy cruise missiles will be out of competition.

The central problem in creating BIKR is not so much the development of the actual aircraft with the corresponding flight data, equipment and weapons, but the creation of effective artificial intelligence (AI), which ensures the effective use of BIKR units.

It seems that the tasks of AI in this case can be divided into three groups:
- a group of tasks that ensures the rational management of single BIKR at all stages of the flight;
- a group of tasks that ensures the rational management of a BIKR group that covers the established boundary of the airspace;
- a group of tasks that ensures the rational management of the BIKR unit on the ground and in the air, taking into account the need for a periodic change of aircraft, building up forces, taking into account the scale of the enemy's raid, interaction with the reconnaissance and active means of the senior chief.

The problem, to a certain extent, is that the development of artificial intelligence for BIKR is not a profile either for the creators of the aircraft itself, or for the developers of the onboard ACS or radar. Without a perfect AI, an unmanned fighter turns into an inefficient and expensive toy that can discredit an idea. The creation of a BIKR with a sufficiently developed AI can be a necessary step towards a multifunctional unmanned fighter capable of fighting not only unmanned but also manned enemy aircraft.

Author:
Originator:
http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/82/pics/pg16.pdf
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pon69
    Pon69 23 July 2013 07: 59 New
    10
    “Everything was confused in the Oblonskys' house.” He began by saying that the main problem of countering the CD is to detect the launch of the CD itself and its route. They got lost in almost everything that is possible at a price ten times less and more efficiently, starting from MANPADS and ending with "jammers" from microwaves, with a timely response. And he ended up organizing permanent braiding fighters of the Kyrgyz Republic, comparable to an aircraft in complexity and price, which should also have artificial intelligence. In the summer of 1987, a tethered balloon "hundred-thousanders" with a suspension and special equipment from all kinds of antennas, from space communications to a repeater, were tested. I went up 3 km. The "Jackets" said they saw the entire Indian Ocean, most likely via satellite. And the connection on VHF for three fives was with the plane that left for Kubinka. Everything is as old as the world, and was tested in the USSR.
    1. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 15: 45 New
      0
      Quote: Pon69
      In the summer of 1987, a tethered balloon "hundred-thousanders" with a suspension and special equipment from all kinds of antennas, from space communications to a repeater, were tested. I went up 3 km.


      Dear colleague, a tethered balloon is not a mobile device, such "eyes and ears" are destroyed first of all ...
    2. Civil
      Civil 23 July 2013 19: 40 New
      0
      A territorial defense system is needed, taking into account ALL TERMS OF LOCATION, perhaps
    3. mark1
      mark1 27 August 2013 07: 55 New
      0
      It is a good idea to use against the massive use of disposable UAVs of the KR type, massively with AI UAVs of the "hunter" type in the middle segment of their flight. To create an inexpensive glider hung with missiles and guns and a small economical engine is a solvable task, but to insert suitable brains there, taking into account the general situation with our UAVs, so that all this would be (again) not expensive - probably a problem (God forbid, solvable)
  2. ben gun
    ben gun 23 July 2013 08: 51 New
    +2
    ".. at least to postpone D-Day (maybe the situation will change, the severity of the threat will be reduced, new arguments will appear against the implementation of the" force option ", the Martians will land, the American" upper classes "will become more sane - in decreasing order of probability) .. "
    I would add the start of unrest in the United States itself.
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 23 July 2013 09: 31 New
    +4
    Yeah, this is an analyst damn ... I hope no one takes this seriously. The author of those that sleeps and sees the armada of enemy bombers over his peaceful sky. If he had been smarter, he would have remembered that for the collapse of the USSR, not a single cruise missile was needed, while for the collapse of the Russian Federation they were not needed. Regarding the tactics of using the CR, the author frankly showed his ignorance, and even passages about MANPADS, except for homeric laughter, can not cause anything (thousands of MANPADS calculations day and night following the sky, are there any greetings from the adversary scattered through forests, fields and mountains ... ) And the attached plate with an approximate amount of US CR is a vivid indicator of the author's professional level. In an unimaginable way, the author by 2015. carried as carriers of the Raman carrier carriers of the Spruens type that were long ago either sawn into scrap metal or recessed as targets (the last DD-985 Cushing was sunk on September 21.09.2005, 8). Moreover, the Sprüyens plate indicates the number of Tomahawk CRs 24, while 41 ships were equipped with the Mk.8 UVP, in which the number of Tomahawks is more than XNUMX.
    In general, delirium is delusional ...
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 23 July 2013 14: 05 New
      0
      Virginia is armed with 12 tomahawks, in table 20 ...
    2. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 15: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      Yeah, this is an analyst damn ... I hope no one takes this seriously. The author of those that sleeps and sees the armada of enemy bombers over his peaceful sky. If he were smarter

      I personally know the Author!
      He is a combat officer who participated in the planning and use of the air forces in all recent conflicts with our participation from Afghanistan to Chechnya and has an idea how to use the KR and UAVs, their capabilities ...
      In addition, the material is a combination of general theoretical thoughts on the prospects of creating unmanned aircraft as air force officers and pilots, and mozhaiki ...
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 23 July 2013 22: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Rus2012
        I personally know the Author!

        And what, in his head there is always such a confusion, or cannot express his thought in writing? The topic of CD is quite complex and when preparing to write variations on the theme "How to protect yourself from CD", first of all, it was necessary to get acquainted with the subject itself. What kind of RCs does the author propose as the most probable for the execution of the scenario described by him? ALCM or promising LRSW? JASSM-ER? Tomahawk Block III or Block IV? Proceeding from this, citing the example of Desert Storm, one should realize that over 12 years the Kyrgyz Republic has grown wiser and what was relevant for 1991. not entirely relevant for the present time. And the conditions are not at all comparable, to organize posts with MANPADS within the borders of Serbia is one thing, to try to do it on the scale of the Russian Federation is quite another. The assertion that the United States is afraid of the CD is presented as an axiom without any references, and the theme of a container ship full of CD is purely childish fantasy. Questions automatically arise when thinking about this option: how many such container ships are needed to deliver an unanswered strike (otherwise it makes no sense)? Where can I get so many? How to ensure secrecy if the entire crew of container ships has to be staffed with military personnel, and For example, the Russian Federation has few of its own ships (under the control of about 430 ALL types flying under the flag of Russia, from liquid bulk to dry cargo vessels), then replacement of crews and incomprehensible manipulations with loading will immediately raise suspicion? Therefore, the statement is frankly delusional. What follows is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion about the JLENS system, which I honestly did not understand. JLENS is designed to increase the capabilities of the Patriot air defense system to intercept low-flying high-speed air targets and improve its missile defense capabilities in terms of intercepting MRBMs, the work is excellent, the system works, which is confirmed by tests. Those. JLENS has improved the capabilities of the Patriot air defense and missile defense system. How is the author trying to draw missile defense to the topic of the CD? Why should the United States be afraid of CDs when no country in the world has their number comparable to that of the United States?
        On the use of UAVs against KR?
        "It is advisable to build a system for combating cruise missiles based on the use of relatively mobile units" - this statement absolutely contradicts the main idea of ​​the article that the United States, with the help of the CD, will strike the destroying strategic nuclear forces of Russia. All our strategic objects are known, so we need to cover them ALL AT ONCE, what the hell are mobile units? In this case, the system of balloons looks much more attractive, 30 days of continuous patrolling with the provision of lighting of the air situation and the issuance of target designation to both ground air defense systems and air. And you don't need to keep hundreds of UAVs in the air.
    3. bif
      bif 23 July 2013 22: 35 New
      0
      I was more amazed by the proposal about the BIKR ".. should carry an airborne radar with a detection range of an air target of the" cruise missile "class against the background of the earth about 100 km (of the" Irbis "class), several UR" air-to-air "(class R-60, R -73 or Igla MANPADS), as well as, possibly, an aircraft cannon .. "further speculative characteristics" the mass of weapons is 300-450kg (despite the fact that 4-6 missiles and a gun, which is obviously with cartridges and there are not a dozen of them not "fluff") and further contradicts itself "the mass of rockets in the table is 110kg" ... I will not say anything about the author's analytical qualities, but with mathematical qualities there is definitely a "gap".
    4. StolzSS
      StolzSS 28 July 2013 10: 31 New
      0
      Why are you all rushing to the author? An interesting idea is only difficult to implement ... we still have to create such a system sooner or later since we cannot control such borders as ours, and we don’t have a fleet that would take over the sea part, and we will have to create an air unmanned component since the UAV operator is cheaper than the pilot ...
  4. gregor6549
    gregor6549 23 July 2013 10: 04 New
    10
    How many times have they told the world that it wasn’t possible to build that fence .... Single CR and BR can be quite successfully detected and shot down by the equipment that is in service. In particular, back in Soviet times, the MIG31 turned out to be the most effective means of combating the Kyrgyz Republic. I know firsthand Our company participated in the development of ground-based equipment for the KR interception complex based on MIG31. They proved to be quite good in terms of detecting low-flying Raman and radar systems operating in the meter and decimeter ranges. Well, when he discovered KP and put her on escort, then only the lazy can not bring her down. She, KR, flies after all, basically like an ax i.e. like Tomogavk, without bothering with special maneuvers, and the speedboat of the Kyrgyz Republic is very frail, you won’t be especially fast at low altitude. Again, the marching engine should work throughout the flight, and this is a good target for infrared sensors. Those. with properly organized air defense it is not so difficult to deal with missiles in principle. But ... all these considerations are good, provided that there is no massive and well-planned attack of the Kyrgyz Republic, together with other types of IOS (BR, aircraft, etc.), covered by powerful electronic warfare (active and passive interference, ORS, etc.). Against such a raid, no super anti-air defense duper can blow out, although some people will be able to attach some faces to the table
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 23 July 2013 10: 46 New
      0
      Good afternoon, and how do you like Morpheus as a cover for the last frontier.
      Against such a raid, no super anti-air defense duper can blow out, although some people will be able to attach some faces to the table

      In the case of Russia, it’s like BE doesn’t quite roll the sbch on carriers, no one has yet canceled
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 23 July 2013 12: 15 New
        +4
        To cover more or less reliably, it is possible (and theoretically) only a very limited number of cities and strategic objects, for example Moscow, St. Petersburg, and then only for the time necessary to deliver a retaliatory strike. All these scenarios were worked out and modeled more than once, and the conclusion, even in the heyday of stagnation, when the country's strength was bigger, was quite clear: if it comes to the massive use of KR, BR and other muck, then neither the USA nor the USSR can defend themselves. That mutually destroy each other and at the same time all the rest without problems, I do not think that Russia is now stronger than the USSR of that time, rather weaker and much
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 23 July 2013 13: 38 New
          0
          Yes, about mutual destruction; yes, this has long been clear to everyone
          And how do you like Morpheus with his philosophy, IMHO, if they finish it correctly, then the KR and the other will not be so relevant with the layered air defense
          For he does not have the flaws of the older brothers
          - Small BK
          - Weakness for EW
          - "Small" number of target channels.
        2. Rus2012
          23 July 2013 15: 52 New
          0
          Quote: gregor6549
          I do not think that Russia is now stronger than the USSR of that time

          Therefore, overseas and plan "Global strike ...". Our business is to be ready for it. Then the violent heads and aggression will diminish, right?
      2. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 23 July 2013 15: 28 New
        0
        I read about "Morpheus" about two years ago. Interesting system, especially radar. Something like "Iron Keupol". True, something new was no longer there.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 23 July 2013 15: 54 New
          +1
          sawing slowly 15-16 year
          There the main plug in the radar is too innovative.
    2. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 15: 50 New
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      In particular, even in Soviet times, the most effective means of combating the Kyrgyz Republic was MIG31


      Exactly!
      But, colleague, I think you know the speed of the Mig-31 and the flight hour of its use ...
    3. nakaz
      nakaz 23 July 2013 16: 31 New
      0
      Indeed, why in the case of a massive strike of the Kyrgyz Republic, our ultra-fast fighters cannot be used. Tomogawk, by the way, only up to 300 m / s the maximum accelerates. It is quite possible and necessary to cover fighters. Moreover, having shot from the cannon of the Kyrgyz Republic, one can hardly expect that it will calmly fly on))
      1. the polar
        the polar 23 July 2013 17: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: nakaz
        Indeed, why in the case of a massive strike of the Kyrgyz Republic, our ultra-fast fighters cannot be used. Tomogawk, by the way, only up to 300 m / s the maximum accelerates. It is quite possible and necessary to cover fighters. Moreover, having shot from the cannon of the Kyrgyz Republic, one can hardly expect that it will calmly fly on))

        And how many Russian fighters can take off today?
  5. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 23 July 2013 10: 13 New
    +3
    A few rational offers of the layman:
    The Americans are sleeping and dreaming of the maximum reduction in Russia's strategic nuclear forces. Dreaming is not harmful. In contrast, the maximum reduction of US Navy cruise missiles.
    Container shipping off the coast of the United States needs to be increased, increasing trade with the countries of the Caribbean and the Pacific.
    And balloons with radar with grape-type balloons will cost less than constantly barrage aircraft of various types.
    1. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 16: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Starover_Z
      And balloons with radar with grape-type balloons will cost less than constantly barrage aircraft of various types.

      Dear colleague, the author on the diagram shows a mobile surveillance radar ... and the forces and means of higher authorities are mentioned ... (they can be completely different - from intelligence agents, satellites ... and balloons).
      For all that, all these means are not means of defeating the Kyrgyz Republic.
      By the way, the balloon also belongs to the aircraft. Although using it in the Arctic is a difficult task ...

      The meaning of the article is the use of UAVs against the Kyrgyz Republic.

      Amer already in full use them to destroy ground mobile objects. Give me time - they will soon switch to helicopters (then to planes). I hope you do not refuse the thought of a Russian person to do all this before?
      1. bif
        bif 23 July 2013 22: 45 New
        0
        "The meaning of the article is the use of UAVs against the Kyrgyz Republic"
        From the point of view of science, as one of the options .. for the future, yes. But with the economic and current state of Russia - NO. In addition, it resembles an attempt to reinvent the wheel, why? ... have already come up with everything for a long time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwp4FtM0Xo
  6. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 23 July 2013 10: 27 New
    +2
    I myself have pondered the idea of ​​a "Mosquito" air defense many times. And here is the conclusion I came to.
    For confident interception of the Kyrgyz Republic, superior speed is required. If we take subsonic KR, then they have a speed of 800 km / h. Therefore, it is necessary to design a supersonic aircraft. Supersonic aircraft has a decent dimension and cost. Therefore, there are no fundamental advantages (except for the lack of a pilot) over manned aircraft. And if the races need to be made a supersonic interceptor aircraft of the Kyrgyz Republic, it is logical to make it the main interceptor of the air defense system. These are the pies ...

    Sorry, that is not the topic of the article. But it hurts me to torment one idea.
    Unmanned fighter of low-speed targets (helicopters, reconnaissance UAVs).
    Now only helicopters and ground-based air defense systems can work against them. The creation of the proposed unmanned fighter will allow you to get an advantage over the likely enemy. A modern war without helicopters is impossible. At the same time, helicopters are a difficult target for fighter aircraft. Our attack helicopters are designed primarily for ground operations (for which they are attack aircraft) and the task of air battles with enemy aircraft is a secondary task for them. Air defense ground systems currently pose the greatest danger to helicopters. But enemy helicopter pilots know this and apply accordingly. techniques: flying at very low altitudes, hops, etc. So, what am I doing ... An unmanned fighter of low-speed targets puts enemy helicopters in an extremely unfavorable position, especially if there is a ground component of air defense.
    1. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 15: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Zerstorer
      For confident interception of the Kyrgyz Republic, superior speed is required. If we take subsonic KR, then they have a speed of 800 km / h. Therefore, it is necessary to design a supersonic aircraft.

      Supersound in this case is needed only to reach the line of use of weapons. The famous Mig-31 - patrols up to the sound. And in general, recently they don’t go for 2 machines (they cannot withstand glazing.
      The author writes that BIKRu needs only a small supersonic, and this is something no more than 1200km.
    2. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 16: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Zerstorer
      But it really hurts me to torment one idea. An unmanned fighter of low-speed targets (helicopters, reconnaissance UAVs). Now only helicopters and ground-based air defense systems can work against them. The creation of the proposed unmanned fighter will allow you to get an advantage over the likely enemy.


      ... dear colleague, good thought!
      But, you must admit - this may be the next task for the UAV, i.e. it’s easier to shoot down missiles, and with gaining experience, you can switch further - to helicopters, enemy UAVs ...
      1. Zerstorer
        Zerstorer 23 July 2013 17: 24 New
        0
        Combining these 2 functions in one device is irrational. Absolutely different required dimensions. As for BIKR, it will most likely be in the dimension of 7-10 tons. Agree, not quite a small bird. This is the dimension of a light fighter aircraft or TCB.
        1. Skiff-2
          Skiff-2 23 July 2013 19: 50 New
          0
          The main thing in the fight against the Kyrgyz Republic is the timely detection and target designation of active air defense systems. A radar station on a UNZhe, an aerostat on a leash is good but not mobile, the A-50 is good, mobile but expensive, and for some reason no one remembers the airships of the AWACs on which the USSR worked in recent years and amers are working? It is mobile, economical and a long patrol time, it can also be made unmanned, but if a manned version of the A-50 flying command post is realized, its civilian version (passenger airship) will pay for the development of the platform (the airship itself) very quickly. And the active means - air defense systems, air defense fighter jets, army air defense assets will act on its target designation and in interaction with each other. DRLO airships are relevant for the North and the Far East; in other directions, the use of balloons is cheaper. And most importantly - it is necessary to restore the Unified Air Defense System, which, however, is being done. And unmanned interceptors (?) ... it’s better to work on the shock versions and not to disperse forces, with good target designation, the KR and MiG-21 will, by the way, make weight and size and speed characteristics of it like that of the desired drone. To destroy the enemy, you need to see him, but the means of destruction are enough. Sincerely .
          1. Zerstorer
            Zerstorer 24 July 2013 07: 23 New
            +1
            So I’m leading to the fact that if you make BICR, the result will be a full fighter-interceptor (with all the ensuing consequences).
  7. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 23 July 2013 11: 00 New
    +2
    Complete nonsense. About the effectiveness of the Kyrgyz Republic has been written many times. The US military themselves admit that the Kyrgyz Republic is effective in small conflicts. All of their combat usefulness is estimated below 5% in Iraq and Yugoslavia. The main work was done by front-line aviation. Remember how at the end of the Yugoslav conflict Suddenly they began to miss and fall on Bulgaria, embassies, etc. (after the Primakov drove a special board there) .Another time it was said about the vulnerability of cr to reb. Having 5000 cr is a very expensive pleasure. Remember how in the 2nd Iraqi company the USA suddenly ran out of supplies kr and they were forced to launch a production line, or Libya, from Europe they had enough for 5 days, but what's the point? I hope we are not Libya and Iraq.
    1. Kars
      Kars 23 July 2013 11: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      All their combat usefulness is estimated in Iraq and Yugoslavia below 5%

      Where is it written? Cruise missiles knocked out air defense, and the most dangerous targets, and only then aviation increased the effectiveness of their actions.
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Remember how in the 2nd Iraqi company, the United States suddenly ran out of reserves of kr and they were forced to launch a production line or Libya from Europe they were enough for 5 days, but the point

      where did you get this again? For what purposes did the USA have to shoot after a week of the second company? As for Libya, Europe didn’t run out there, but there was a shortage of not WING missiles, but guided munitions, for the same .. frontline .. aviation.
      1. 1c-inform-city
        1c-inform-city 23 July 2013 12: 35 New
        0
        In general, cruise missiles can be effective against stationary air defenses. Their control system is inertial. The latest modifications have the ability to re-target, but very limited in terms of electronic warfare.
      2. Rus2012
        23 July 2013 16: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        Where is it written? Cruise missiles knocked out air defense, and the most dangerous targets, and only then aviation increased the effectiveness of their actions.


        Dear colleague, I don’t even want to argue with unsubstantiated exclamations - "Brad! ..." from some.
        The material was compiled as you see for a long time, even in some places the data in the tables are outdated.
        It is clear that the material was prepared "where necessary", but the same exclamations were also heard from some of the generals ...
        Because when 08.08.08 sent Tu-22 to the sky of grizzly ...
        It is also not an argument that "no one does that", because then there was no need for Korolev to send Gagarin into space ...
        It simply surprises the cries of some - to keep and not let out the bold thoughts of Russian specialists when they make advanced decisions ...
      3. andreitk20
        andreitk20 23 July 2013 17: 14 New
        +1
        You are wrong, during Libya, Europeans ran out of both long-range missiles and guided munitions, they were forced to ask amers. The Americans initially refused to show the Europeans that without them they could not have anything, that is, a small lesson to the Allies who is the main boss in the house.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 23 July 2013 14: 13 New
      0
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      The effectiveness of the Kyrgyz Republic has been written many times. The US military themselves admit that the Kyrgyz Republic is effective in small conflicts. Their entire combat usefulness is estimated below 5% in Iraq and Yugoslavia.

      When did they say that, and where did you get these numbers?
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      the USA suddenly ran out of reserves of kr and they were forced to launch a production line

      As far as I remember, the Kyrgyz Republic allocated for a specific conflict ended. How many in your Kyrgyz Republic were shot in Iraq, and how many Kyrgyz Republic were in ships, planes and warehouses?
    3. Rus2012
      23 July 2013 15: 58 New
      0
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Complete nonsense.

      ... this is not an argument!
  8. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 23 July 2013 12: 44 New
    0
    For me, the best way to combat cruise missiles is to destroy their carriers before launching the missiles.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 23 July 2013 14: 14 New
      0
      Try to destroy dozens of nuclear submarines, bullets from nowhere from the coast from a distance of 1000 km.
      1. Dimka off
        Dimka off 23 July 2013 14: 38 New
        0
        to begin with, destroy the entire surface and air fleet capable of carrying these missiles. Fortunately, we also have something to answer. Well, with the underwater course you have to suffer.
      2. egor 1712
        egor 1712 23 July 2013 16: 32 New
        0
        10000 km-Borey, and Sineva and that further. Now they don’t even have to go out. They can shoot from the pier.
        1. Dimka off
          Dimka off 23 July 2013 17: 48 New
          0
          I did not mean nuclear weapons but conventional missiles - X-101, X-55/555 for ground targets and anti-ship missiles Granit, Volcano, Caliber, Onyx and X-22 \ 32 for surface. Although the Caliber 91RE1 and 91RTE2 missiles can work on submarines.
      3. Tektor
        Tektor 23 July 2013 17: 32 New
        0
        Complex "Rubezh" will not work?
    2. 000Brat000
      000Brat000 23 March 2014 22: 53 New
      0
      If you know where this medium is ...
  9. papik09
    papik09 23 July 2013 16: 41 New
    0
    [quote = gregor6549] To cover more or less reliably it is possible (and even theoretically) only a very limited number of cities and strategic objects, for example Moscow, St. Petersburg, and then only for the time necessary to deliver a retaliatory strike. All these scenarios were worked out and modeled more than once, and the conclusion, even in the heyday of stagnation, when the country's strength was bigger, was quite clear: if it comes to the massive use of KR, BR and other muck, then neither the USA nor the USSR can defend themselves. That mutually destroy each other and at the same time all the rest without problems, I do not think that Russia is now stronger than the USSR of that time, rather weaker and much [/ quote
    The USA could destroy the USSR 44 times, and the USA USA 22 wassat
  10. olviko
    olviko 23 July 2013 17: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Rus2012
    Quote: Zerstorer
    But it really hurts me to torment one idea. An unmanned fighter of low-speed targets (helicopters, reconnaissance UAVs). Now only helicopters and ground-based air defense systems can work against them. The creation of the proposed unmanned fighter will allow you to get an advantage over the likely enemy.


    ... dear colleague, good thought!
    But, you must admit - this may be the next task for the UAV, i.e. it’s easier to shoot down missiles, and with gaining experience, you can switch further - to helicopters, enemy UAVs ...


    Why, for the destruction of the Kyrgyz Republic, do not use helicopters, existing models of combat helicopters, the modernization of which will be sharpened specifically for these purposes or specially designed new models. Why do you need high speed? There is no need to chase CR. Helicopters should be of two types: one, air armed with missiles - medium and short range air, cannons or multi-barrel machine guns. Another - something like, if I may say so, mini - Avax, for irradiating the target and aiming fighter helicopters on the target. At the signal of early warning, such a group of helicopters, hovering on its own section, covers several tens of kilometers along the front, can quickly, at a speed of 250 - 300 km \ hour change position, set up ambushes, landing on the ground almost anywhere, i.e. use all the benefits of helicopters.
  11. saag
    saag 23 July 2013 17: 35 New
    0
    Yak-130, it seems the option of unmanned use is provided, the car is serial, you can hang up to 3 tons of all kinds of different things - missiles, PTBs, decent radars in a container
  12. Yankuz
    Yankuz 23 July 2013 19: 05 New
    +1
    I understood the main thing - if all this armada of the Kyrgyz Republic suddenly suddenly explodes in our direction - we will not be able to delay it! We have few funds so far for this. It is real now to have only hidden positions of complexes for a guaranteed retaliation retaliation.
  13. SPACE
    SPACE 23 July 2013 21: 46 New
    +1
    I don’t see any difficulties with the interception of cruise missiles! Their weak point is their low speed, with a speed of 880km / h to objects they will fly from an hour to 3x. Starts will pinpoint ZGRHCH, and then it’s a matter of technology, while flying, many echeloned belts are urgently organized at the main lines of attack from melee air defense systems of the Tunguska, Torah, Armor. At the same time, aviation takes off into the air to intercept the Kyrgyz Republic at the borders. Directly, near the attacked objects, a defense is created using MANPADS, electronic warfare systems and the installation of smoke screens on the objects themselves. As I’ve already calculated, koment wrote: When starting the 10 000 KR from 10 directions with a time difference of 30 minutes. To intercept all 10 000 missiles, it is necessary to organize attacks in each 1000 KR of 10 positional areas of interception of 10 installations in each area in each direction, totaling 1000 systems of 100 missiles for each complex for each 10 missiles, not counting MANPADS and other anti-aircraft artillery funds. In Russia, the number of interceptors is much larger. In the case of a properly organized defense, even in such conditions, the attacking side has almost no chance of harming anything significantly, but to get the return-on-the-go chance they have is equal to 100%.
    1. m262
      m262 24 July 2013 23: 25 New
      +1
      I read an interesting thought of one Soviet general: "The best air defense system is your own tanks at the enemy airfield." Why fight cruise missiles if it is more reliable to hit the carrier at once. By the way, unmanned underwater vehicles are much cheaper than aircrafts. most likely, they will attack us from the sea, during the threatened period it is necessary to create a curtain of such ships, and perhaps there will be no one to strike the CD, the same Arlie-Burke is not a very strong ship, I think a "thick" torpedo is not needed for it.
  14. sprut
    sprut 23 July 2013 22: 02 New
    0
    To increase the survivability of objects of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, too few measures are taken to ensure survivability.
  15. I think so
    I think so 23 July 2013 23: 33 New
    +1
    Any defense is DAMAGED and surmountable ... Spending efforts on defense means is pointless ... In the article, the only valuable idea is that you need to develop efforts to improve drones ...
  16. burhan
    burhan 24 July 2013 05: 20 New
    0
    The invulnerability of antennas could be achieved due to the miniaturization of its elements and maximum diversity in space. Communication between the elements is ensured by laser communication or other means. If tens of kilometers of elements of such antenna fields were spaced, it would eliminate the possibility of their destruction by anti-radar missiles. I think this makes some sense.
  17. rotor
    rotor 24 July 2013 22: 32 New
    0
    Cruise missiles at low altitudes can be shot down with advanced guided missiles. The advantage of shells in comparison with missiles is their cheapness and smaller dimensions.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 25 July 2013 05: 10 New
      0
      The idea is interesting, but cruise missiles have been around for a long time and what this is known, and not only from papers, but what promising shells are, when they will be and what they can do is a big question. So let's first wait for these shells and then see how much cheaper and more effective they are. Otherwise, it can happen strictly in accordance with the instructions developed by A.S. Pushkin. for one of the familiar priests. "You wouldn't be chasing, priest, for cheapness, you wouldn't have paid with a headache" I can't vouch for the accuracy of Pushkin's citation (old age, sclerosis), but somewhere like that
  18. micstet
    micstet 28 August 2013 12: 19 New
    +1
    I liked the article. It seems like an interesting idea to create many controlled balloons that could land to recharge batteries. On their basis, create a monitoring system for a threatened direction, for example, this is the coast of Syria, where an attack by US cruise missiles is possible. With the help of this system, transmit information about the attack on small and relatively cheap Igla missiles, which are based on the ground. This could be information about the number of detected cruise missiles. Accordingly, the required number of Igla missiles take off and hit cruise missiles. The development of such a system would not be very expensive, especially since all its elements already exist: the detection systems for balloons can be taken from unmanned aerial vehicles, and Igla is also available. The only problem is the development of a noise-immune and reliable data transmission system from the surveillance system to the missile launch system. And the missile launch system can be multi-barreled or in general some kind of distributed, which will increase its survivability. The advantage of such a system is its massiveness and cost, which is less than the cost of the targeted cruise missiles. It seems to me ineffective and expensive to put missiles on drones, and besides, they are easy to shoot down, since the drone drones are large. And balloons can be made almost invisible.
  19. micstet
    micstet 28 August 2013 13: 46 New
    0
    "Controlled aerostatics" would probably be more correctly called small controlled airships.
  20. micstet
    micstet 29 August 2013 16: 22 New
    0
    If you make a monitoring system of balloons on a cable with a cable, then it is even easier to implement. This ensures security and guarantees that there will be no imitation of false targets by the enemy, at least in electronic form.
  21. sivuch
    sivuch 3 September 2013 09: 32 New
    +1
    Nayhas (1)
    Iraqi Armed Forces as of January 1991 the most combat-ready of the Arab countries of that time. Iraq’s armament is equipped with modern weapons, tanks, airplanes, and Iraq’s air defense is almost similar to the USSR air defense, only the S-300 was not
    You know, it’s necessary to be able to plant so many mistakes. I’m not even saying that the phrase “combat-ready” from the Arab countries sounds a bit comical, but even the most unlikely here. After the defeat of 82 years, Syrian air defense was much more powerful. Nobody indulged the Syrians with 300s, Bukami and Tungusks, but nevertheless they got some of the novi. For example, a long arm - that is, the 200th complex - to shoot down DRLO and PP planes, relatively modern radars, in t. hours Radar center NTs ST-68U, control systems (Senezh, as far as I remember, were), airplanes and helicopters EW. In principle, anyone can read the famous article from bmpd and make a comparison
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/257111.html
    Not all air defense systems are given here, in particular, nothing is said about air defense of the air forces, but to compare, it’s enough.
    And of course, the technical superiority of the coalition was just stunning. After all, the coalition countries gathered how easy it is to understand the most modern equipment, and Iraq’s air defense pulled at best the Tmutarakan military district. And if Iraqi anti-aircraft gunners managed to bring someone down from ZSU-57-2 or KS-19, then they, of course, are great, but junk still remains junk. Another factor against Iraq was the French integrated QARI air defense system. Believing or not believing information about bookmarks was a personal matter, but the air defense system was painfully familiar to the Allies, I think no one will argue. So neither the Iraqi air defense of the country, nor the air defense of the country were in any way analogous to the soviet, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. And only amateurs could be shocked, however, as were the statements that 300 everyone will be put out
    Separately, about MANPADS. If we take the Iraqi infantry division, it was approximately the same as the Soviet one in number, but the number of MANPADS was approximately the same as in the Soviet SMEs, i.e. to about 50. Which is much worse, the air defense of the Iraqi division did not have its own radar (they were at the hull level) and PU-12 control systems, especially the PPRU-1 (they were not enough in the SA). Therefore, you can bring the information to a separate shooter It was a voice, a flag, etc. There were no plates for MANPADS, of course, where would they get the information from? Therefore, it is not surprising that the Iraqi shooters of MANPADS had little chance of knocking down KR. Soviet anti-aircraft gunners were in a much better position.
    --
    the design of the first domestic PEP 1L110 included the possibility of target allocation and automated control of the combat operations of the anti-aircraft gunner’s squad, including by transmitting target designation to individual PU sighting devices by wire.
    But this function was not in demand since the tactics of using MANPADS in domestic motorized rifle units, worked out during exercises, showed that there is no time for deploying wireline lines for offensive and mobile defense (the main battle method). In addition, wired communication lines are vulnerable to fire, and dramatically reduce the mobility of the complex.
    At the same time, it was proposed to introduce launchers and two missiles into each motorized rifle compartment on the BMP (such measures were not taken only for subjective reasons), which also leveled the value of the control function by wire.
    This function was in demand only in the "stationary" departments of the cover MANPADS, which are organizationally part of the anti-aircraft missile batteries of heavier air defense systems (TOP, BUK and S 300).
    Perhaps there was deployed a wired network.
    http://gspo.ru/index.php?showtopic=1303&st=2080
    The same applies to Shilke - without an external control unit, it was unrealistic to bring down the CR
  22. Kasyanov Sergey
    Kasyanov Sergey 3 September 2013 18: 42 New
    0
    I really liked the article. Since the proposed BICR has many advantages:
    -the ability to quickly concentrate efforts in a limited passage range of enemy missiles;
    - Relatively small mass and dimension of BICR;
    - effective artificial intelligence (AI), ensuring the effective use of BIKR units. You can take the "armor" system as a basis.
    - use at any time of the day and a quick opportunity to relocate.
  23. 000Brat000
    000Brat000 23 March 2014 22: 46 New
    0
    What you are discussing here is accessible to many observers. My opinion, tactical issues should not be described and discussed. For reviewers questions:
    Is there any information about the downed missiles of NATO production in the last hot spots and what was the account for (approximately) launch?
    when was the last time in real combat conditions the countermeasures weapon was tested by Russia?
    Thank you.
  24. Ramzaj99
    Ramzaj99 10 May 2014 13: 55 New
    0
    Shells perfectly bring down any cruise missiles and drones.
  25. Ilya_Nsk
    Ilya_Nsk April 19 2017 10: 33 New
    +1
    In one article, the Americans evaluated the possibility of a massive disarming strike by non-nuclear cruise missiles by the Americans. An unambiguous conclusion is that preparation for it will not go unnoticed for all levels of intelligence, hence there is time for organizing defense (there was no talk of proactive destruction of speech carriers at all). With great difficulty, the Americans can collect about 7500 KR, deliver them to acceptable launch positions and release them all in 30 minutes. Because If about 3000 “worthy of defeating long-range missile” targets are attacked (about two, or maybe more missile targets per target for reliability of defeat), it remains to cover them with short-range complexes aka “Shilka” / “Tunguska” / “Tor” and, do not laugh, MANPADS "Strela" / "Needle", because some tomahawks discovered visually, in Yugoslavia was shot down by warned by phone fighters with "Arrows". It remains to "rivet" the aforementioned in the right amount and distribute it correctly. Ships with "Duets" / "Daggers" / "Palms" can cover the sea access routes. Nobody canceled air defense aviation, recognized in the USSR as the most capable force to intercept the Kyrgyz Republic. So we sleep peacefully, hoping that the funds allocated for defense have not been dragged away in our pockets.