Military Review

Riper UAVs can be equipped with air-to-air missiles and anti-radar missiles

Riper UAVs can be equipped with air-to-air missiles and anti-radar missiles

The company General Atomix Aeronautical Systems GA-ASI (General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc) is in talks with the company Raytheon about equipping an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Riper (MQ-9 Reaper) with air-to-air missiles "AIM-9X Sidewinder" (Sidewinder), AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) and anti-radar missiles (PRR) AGM-88 HARM (High-Speed ​​Anti-Radiation Missile). There are no plans to conduct any tests, but an initial design, initiated at the request of the customers of these devices, is being conducted.

According to the representative of GA-ASI, at the expense of the company's own financial resources, work is underway to create an onboard radar station (BRLS) for the MQ-9 UAV with active phased antenna array (AFAR). Only the most modern fighters are equipped with such a radar with AFAR.

The presence of a radar with AFAR aboard the MQ-9 UAV can provide warning of the possibility of a collision in airspace with aircraft. Ensuring such a possibility is the main requirement for UAVs in the case of permission to fly in airspace in accordance with international safety standards. At the same time, a radar with AFAR has various functions and can carry out target designation of attacking air-to-air missiles, search for ground targets and even jamming enemy radar facilities.

Equipping an MQ-9 UAV with air-to-air missiles and a radar with AFAR can provide operations against other UAVs. In particular, MQ-9 in this configuration will be able to counteract enemy unmanned vehicles approaching warships of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf.

The MQ-9 BLAH has a payload of 680,3 kg, which it can carry on the underwing pylons, which is more than enough for installing air-to-air missiles and for anti-personnel missiles AGM-88 HARM, which can be used to suppress enemy air defense radars .

The developers of the device are also considering the possibility of integrating Link-16 (Link 16) data line onboard UAV equipment, which will allow the MQ-9 to transmit target designation data and coordinates of objects to manned aircraft located in the target area.

One of the obvious advantages of this technical solution is that the inconspicuous fighter type F-22 "Raptor" (Raptor) will be able to receive target designation data from the MQ-9 UAV even without the inclusion of its radar.

The US Air Force last July demonstrated similar capabilities using aerostats. JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor System) of Reiteon, after detecting an approaching air target simulating an anti-ship missile, transmitted target data through Link-16 to the F-15E fighter "Strike Eagle" (Strike Eagle), who carried out the interception of the target missile AMRAAM.

According to experts, the discussion of the possibilities of equipping the UAV MQ-9 with air-to-air missiles is associated with the intentions to expand the spectrum aviation means of destruction of unmanned vehicles of this type. This task continues to remain relevant since the mid-90s, when the predecessor of the MQ-9 Reaper UAV, the MQ-1 Predator, entered service with the US Department of Defense.

More than 10 years ago, GA-ASI began to arm the MQ-1 UAV with AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.

The possibility of arming the UAV with air-to-air missiles was later realized. In December 2002, a few months before Operation Freedom for Iraq, the USAF armed the MQ-1 UAVs with AIM-92 Stinger missiles of the Raytheon company and began using them for reconnaissance flights in the airspace above Iraq closed for flying. In one of these flights, the MQ-1 UAV was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 fighter, although the latter has higher speed and maneuverability compared to an unmanned vehicle. According to the results of this combat episode, the US Department of Defense considered that the goal was achieved and Predator could effectively use air-to-air missiles. First of all, when performing tasks to combat the UAV of the enemy, the probability of damage to which both with the use of Predator devices and Riper vehicles will be higher.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. il grand casino
    il grand casino 19 August 2013 14: 24
    No ... well, if missiles against alien UAVs are used, then why not ...
  2. denson06
    denson06 19 August 2013 14: 39
    We would have to push UAVs in the subject, otherwise they would be godlessly behind ... England (read NATO) is already developing UAV drones, which in the coming years will be able to fly and carry out tasks and attack the enemy without operator’s participation, and we are considering promising projects when direct participation of the Minister of Defense in order to attach importance to the direction ..
  3. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 19 August 2013 14: 40
    An extremely dangerous thing will be for air defense systems if anti-doping missiles are suspended. The adversaries are getting ready to kindle another fire of war.
    1. Varnaga
      Varnaga 19 August 2013 14: 41
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 19 August 2013 16: 15
        There are many such means. But are they in the troops?
    2. alexng
      alexng 19 August 2013 15: 35
      In the sense of a UAV, RIPER carries TRIPER quietly (in the form of DEMOCRACY)?
      1. Constantine
        Constantine 19 August 2013 16: 10
        Quote: alexneg
        In the sense of a UAV, RIPER carries TRIPER quietly (in the form of DEMOCRACY)?

        If he spread democracy, then by popular demand, he would no longer fly. By the way, a telling story when the top puts on the opinion of others pursuing their goals, and those around also pursuing wassat

        However, the Air-to-Air missiles on it are a bad sign. This means that Chinese aircraft, and many others, can be cut bloodlessly. Everyone will have to fly with the plane as the jammer as part of the group, or else somehow cut down the drones at a distance. recourse
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 19 August 2013 18: 55
          It’s interesting - purely technically, how can you drown out the UAV communication, which is conducted by a satellite directional antenna? Similarly, about GPS - I talked (at work) with those who do Glonass - so there experts in my words that this is all muffled at once, I was ridiculed for a long time, it seems like almost all of these on new GPS satellites, ours will only launch, with new signal encryption algorithms and its greater power, it is actually completely robust (and in combination with ANN, it is very very reliable).
        2. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 19 August 2013 19: 04
          Well, that’s the means, that is, the last missile on our new dryers works at a distance of up to 400 km, and now they have to put an active radar on the blp, which makes the drone detect and destroy in turn, so that the plane is not a big threat, but the group of drones is extremely Soap heights with radars turned off to the last and approaching the air defense centers and destroying radars are really dangerous, and you can lose a lot of them, you don’t need to save pilots, there is a sense of impunity and not vulnerability, which leads to inadequate actions.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 20 August 2013 12: 57
            Quote: tilovaykrisa
            Well, that is, the last missile on our new dryers works at a distance of up to 400km,

            There is no such missile yet, and its purpose is to maneuver targets with small overloads (so far UAVs can be attributed to those), but there is simply nothing to detect a plane, especially a ripper at such a distance, without them they will be shot down at a distance of kilometers fifty.
  4. Vtel
    Vtel 19 August 2013 14: 40
    I’d like to take a slingshot in our hands, since our reciprocal cool UAV is not there yet, but it’s time to have something like Almaty, but with wings.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. eplewke
    eplewke 19 August 2013 14: 42
    There was still a UAV with harms on board. air-to-air on a UAV is nonsense. Fight other drones? do not make me laugh! With whom do you want to fight the monopoly of drones ...?
    I hope Snowden told me the access codes for drones, or how to get them ... In one part, we will reduce the number of UAVs in the USA that way to 100 from the air. laughing
  7. sys-1985
    sys-1985 19 August 2013 14: 45
    And with us, and with gas in our apartment ... Gizmo is good.
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 19 August 2013 15: 04
      Everything goes to the fact that the Anglo-Saxons increasingly prefer non-contact types of war.
      1. HAM
        HAM 19 August 2013 15: 26
        Consequently, they will kill more and more, and with impunity.
      2. Mercenary
        Mercenary 19 August 2013 16: 10
        there, first of all, people are valued, and we contrary to Suvorov, not by skill, but by the number of dead. Here is such a mess! How many guys on the radar can be killed and they need to be born to raise and feed to teach. Ajanki only spends toilet paper in the form of dollars
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 19 August 2013 16: 20
        You're not right. Their war is absolutely contact. Just this kind of means can reduce military transport. Fewer tanks, less heavy connections. And the infantry was and will be. And along with a bunch of drones, they are increasing the combat capabilities of the infantry.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 19 August 2013 22: 14
          That's for sure. Infantry has recently grown a lot of things - starting from the bronics.
      4. cdrt
        cdrt 19 August 2013 18: 58
        Hmm ... Skynet is born.
        And so - UAV with radar with AFAR - this is the future. Well done shtatovtsy.
        Well, at least while artificial intelligence is not very developed - it takes a person
  8. rugor
    rugor 19 August 2013 14: 54
    It is necessary to take control and land such a thing at our airport, for a detailed familiarization with the design
    1. nikolas 83
      nikolas 83 19 August 2013 16: 06
      Anywhere in Georgia steal a drone
      1. eplewke
        eplewke 20 August 2013 08: 20
        Precedent was. During the 5-day war on 08.08.08/2/XNUMX, we intercepted XNUMX Georgian drone Israeli assembly. Rumor has it that the Zionists themselves sold access codes ...
    2. novobranets
      novobranets 19 August 2013 16: 33
      As soon as the UAV "senses" outside interference in the control, it will turn off the command receiving channel, turn on the router (read autopilot), and automatically return to the starting point. To land it, you need to know the codes.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 19 August 2013 17: 59
        As soon as the UAV "feels"
        - Terminator seen enough)?
        1. novobranets
          novobranets 19 August 2013 18: 03
          Well, there will be a mismatch of algorithms. So understandable? By the way it will feel in quotation marks.
          1. viktorR
            viktorR 19 August 2013 19: 01
            No, not more clearly. Do you even understand what you're talking about? Well, at least on a theoretical level, can you imagine? Thinking like in a movie honest word ...
            He will not feel anything and "compare algorithms" the channel is either decrypted or not. But most likely they will not decipher it, it is long and dreary, it will simply be drowned out and replaced by the GPS signal, although not everything is smooth there either with directional antennas and built-in ANNs.
            1. novobranets
              novobranets 19 August 2013 19: 34
              Let's try again. There was a proposal to take control and land the UAV at its airport. The control is carried out by the operator using coded signals. Each command of the operator is checked by the UAV CPU for authenticity, i.e., the received signal is compared with that recorded in the aircraft's memory. Suppose you select a frequency and, as you see the code, you send an LA command. He compares your signal and his own. Mismatch in a single sign includes the procedure described above. Sorry, if this time he wrote it is incomprehensible, not able to state.
              1. Su-9
                Su-9 19 August 2013 20: 56
                In pursuit of a rookie.
                It is impossible to pick up the code in principle.
                The communication channel for each UAV is encrypted for this UAV. Moreover, each team is signed by the code of the control center (and the verification code sits on the chip inside the UAV).
                So it’s impossible to order a UAV to do something else (unless of course a technician uses crazy hands).
                It is also impossible to repeat the previously recorded command, since the command from the ground will have several changing parameters (time, counter, token about the UAV) - and the command signature will always be different.
                This is of course all the basics of information security, but all the principles are easily implemented on a cheap elemental base.
                But to drown out - yes, it is possible, but difficult and expensive. Good ones put directional antennas for the main channel.
                but Harm will fly to the muffler very quickly. Surely even automatically from the same UAV.
                1. novobranets
                  novobranets 19 August 2013 21: 14
                  drinks In addition, the codes automatically change several times during the flight.
  9. sys-1985
    sys-1985 19 August 2013 15: 06
    As far as I have information on civilian encryption channels, even these channels are very difficult to crack. We believe that we have Kulibins in intercepting information! But most likely it will be cheaper to bring down.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 August 2013 19: 06
      I think I need to decrypt even the ancient RSA for weeks. And this is just the technology of the 1970s. Modern methods, hmm ... hardly. Nobody has canceled combinatorics
      1. Su-9
        Su-9 19 August 2013 21: 12
        The Kulibins won't help. Here the mathematics is unbreakable. It can only be broken if someone is using a back door chip. But in the military, ordinary chips are usually not used. By the way, I do not know how in Russia, the amers have a whole program for testing chips on the back doors - they check it more or less clearly there.
  10. saag
    saag 19 August 2013 15: 11
    Well, here it is the concept of "mosquito" air defense, something like that I somehow voiced, only on the basis of an unmanned version of the Yak-130 against subsonic cruise missiles
  11. Alexey M
    Alexey M 19 August 2013 15: 27
    Further it will be worse. UAVs will decrease striking power to grow. Barring ammunition has already been invented. So, after about twenty years, Skynet will definitely rise.
  12. Su24
    Su24 19 August 2013 15: 40
    Riper with AFAR, comrades)
  13. nikolas 83
    nikolas 83 19 August 2013 16: 12
    Amerikosovskie pilots are so thick and heavy that they can no longer fly on ordinary aircraft laughing . Here and make drones.
    But if you really need to introduce a spy to them, steal the data and make your drone.
  14. starhina01
    starhina01 19 August 2013 16: 52
    and this is just the initial stage of drones belay what will happen next request stop this ball i will come down hi
  15. NURLAT
    NURLAT 19 August 2013 16: 56
    Not such a device, I wish I had one!
  16. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 19 August 2013 17: 19
    Only one question - where are the Russian rippers?
    All developed countries are building, and we?
    1. me
      me 19 August 2013 17: 51
      ... and we always walk in developing
  17. gal
    gal 19 August 2013 17: 24
    AGM-88 HARM to suppress the enemy air defense radar - Launch range (maximum): 106 km

    S-300PMU1 with SAM 48N6E - Aircraft destruction area, in range, 150 km
    Detection Range, 120km to 300km

    PS As you know this is not the most advanced complex. (S-300PMU2 Favorit (Air Defense Index - 35Р6-2) (NATO designation SA-20b Gargoyle) was introduced in 1997, the same year it was adopted as an update for S-300PMU1 with increased range up to 195 km) S-400 to 400km.
    1. armandos
      armandos 19 August 2013 17: 27
      I'm certainly not special, but is it really too expensive to shoot down UAVs with S-300 missiles? Or am I misinterpreting you?
      1. Fregate
        Fregate 19 August 2013 19: 13
        I'm certainly not special, but is it really too expensive to shoot down UAVs with S-300 missiles? Or am I misinterpreting you?

        I don’t know if you interpreted it correctly or not, but if you add the possible damage that it will cause to the UAV, it will definitely be unprofitable.
        1. armandos
          armandos 19 August 2013 19: 40
          Well, maybe you can shoot them down and how simpler? Less expensive? Again, I'm not special, but it seems to me that from this UAV one place should be played by the Arabs and the hedgehog with them, why should we be afraid of them?
          1. Fregate
            Fregate 19 August 2013 19: 57
            I'm not special either. Well, if we are talking about anti-radar missiles with a launch range of 106 km, then neither Buk, nor even Thor, Shell will get it. The alternative is aviation, but the operation of the aircraft is also not free. I don’t know what will be cheaper and easier.
            1. armandos
              armandos 19 August 2013 20: 35
              It seems to me that they should be fought not by physical destruction, but by something like an electromagnetic pulse. Disrupt GPS signal and boost.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 19 August 2013 19: 08
      Quote: gal
      AGM-88 HARM to suppress the enemy air defense radar - Launch range (maximum): 106 km

      At the beginning of the 1983, in the area of ​​Israel, a C-200 system shot down an AWACS aircraft from a distance of 195 km.
      1. Su-9
        Su-9 19 August 2013 21: 15
        An atmospheric nuclear explosion is good for shooting down UAVs. no operator can hold. And electronics hap. laughing
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 19 August 2013 21: 45
      Quote: gal
      S-300PMU1 with SAM 48N6E - Aircraft destruction area, in range, 150 km
      Detection Range, 120km to 300km

      When you give data on the S-300, I ask you to think about whether they are valid for all heights? With what RCS of an air target are these characteristics of detection and destruction achieved? And how is all this taken together + in the conditions of using electronic warfare means? Difficult questions, right? It is easier to assume that "most likely this is true for both the EA-18 Growler and the B-52 Stratofortress, absolutely at all altitudes, regardless of the terrain and radio horizon, and the interference ... but do not take them into account and that's it ... 300 rulezzzzzzz! "
      Now a question. What will the S-300 operators do when the indicators show hundreds of air targets? Will it be understood that most likely these are false targets of the MALD-J type capable of imitating any NATO aircraft, capable of placing active interference, and among them tactical missile launchers or the same HARM are flying? It will be necessary to destroy all of them, using all means, i.e. having opened all echelons of ground air defense. Let's say they destroyed, and then real planes fly right behind, and the launchers of the air defense missile system are empty, there is nothing to fight back, all positions are lit and a complete "fluffy northern animal" comes ...
      1. master_rem
        master_rem 20 August 2013 07: 53
        apocalyptic batch ...
      2. eplewke
        eplewke 20 August 2013 15: 34
        everything is measured by geographic surface. it is clear that in the highlands this coefficient will be lower ...
  18. armandos
    armandos 19 August 2013 17: 31
    Gritting my teeth, I admit: - Good bastard! Meanwhile, this morning I read in the news: "The Main Military Investigation Directorate (GVSU) of the TFR refused to initiate a criminal case, the defendants of which could be ex-Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, as well as his favorite, the former director of the education department of the military department Ekaterina Priezzheva , writes "Kommersant".

    Prosecutors found in their actions when purchasing furniture for the Krasnodar Presidential Cadet School (KPKU) signs of a crime under three articles of the Criminal Code. The investigation, on the contrary, considered that there was no crime at all.

    The supervisory authority, according to the publication, intends to appeal the decision of the GVSU SKR.

    “I think that the investigation had no grounds to make such a decision. The materials sent to him contain everything: both concrete evidence and confessionary testimonies of all interviewed defendants, "said Roman Fedosov, who asked President Vladimir Putin, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika to sort out this story."

    Ehhh, not soon we will see our UAVs!
  19. zvereok
    zvereok 19 August 2013 17: 41
    Half a year ago, the mind reigned in the mind that the demon pilots suck, and are suitable only to drive the Papuans. So what happened during this time? Or did we end up worrying?
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 August 2013 19: 11
      AFAR is no longer driving Papuans, and anti-radar missiles too. Simple - a cheap and safe replacement for Wild Weasel, which were not invented against the Papuans, but against the Soviet air defense
  20. 11 black
    11 black 19 August 2013 17: 43
    I’m wondering what kind of Woodpecker pilot you need to be
    In one of these flights, the MQ-1 UAV was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 fighter,

    THIS IS AS - AS a fighter, which single-handedly broke through air defense of Japan (When the famous character drove him to intercept the Japanese they could not) was shot down by a SCREW UAV !!!
    Yes, and with the help of Stinger ... STINGER !!!, no words ...
    1. armandos
      armandos 19 August 2013 20: 55
      You have mixed up something dear, I do not have such a quote.
    2. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 19 August 2013 22: 08
      It was the other way around - an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down the Predator. But the UAV did manage to launch the Stinger.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 19 August 2013 22: 15
    3. eplewke
      eplewke 20 August 2013 15: 39
      trucker sat at the helm ... laughing
  21. gregor6549
    gregor6549 19 August 2013 18: 15
    Why not equip? They will work out the use of this and not only this weapon on such a still primitive UAV, and even cooler UAVs are already on the way, including specialized ones (for breaking through air defense, air combat, etc.) Everything goes to this. And if such a UAV and So, chuckling at the stupid "amers" it would be time to seriously think about what to oppose to these flyers. during the war) and figs you will notice it. And if you notice it, you may not have time to react. And jet "whistles" like DRYERS, how many I upgrade them may turn out to be of little use against such UAVs. speeds and high altitudes, and he will come around the corner from a low altitude and from afar, so you won't have time to notice where that came from
    1. hrych
      hrych 19 August 2013 18: 48
      A colleague on this subject, specialists already said that western UAVs, essentially radio-controlled devices by the operator with all the problems that creep out of it, are suitable against an enemy far from using electronic warfare. But the real robot drones are the P-700 anti-ship missiles of the Granit missile system adopted by the USSR in 1983.
      When firing at a long range (more than 200 km), the missiles rise to an altitude of about 14000-17000 meters and perform most of the flight on it in order to reduce air resistance and increase the detection radius of the seeker's targets. Having found a target, the missiles carry out identification, distribute targets among themselves and then descend to a height of 25 meters, hiding behind the radio horizon from the carrier ship's radars, and then follow at low altitude with the seeker off, turning them on again just before the attack. The attack on the formation is organized in such a way that the defeat of secondary targets occurs only after the destruction of priority ones, and in such a way that one target is not attacked by more than the number of missiles necessary to destroy it. At the same time, anti-ship missiles use programmed tactical methods of evading fire from air defense equipment, and also use onboard electronic countermeasures. When approaching the target, one of the group's missiles acts as a leader, occupying a higher echelon in order to maximize the target's capture area. If the leader is defeated by the enemy's anti-missile defense, one of the group's missiles takes his place. This is what is needed, a kind of "back to the future."
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 19 August 2013 21: 49
        Quote: hrych
        But the real robot drones are the P-700 anti-ship missiles of the Granit missile system adopted by the USSR in 1983.

        Please read a detailed study of this "miracle weapon" on the website, there is a different opinion about it ...
      2. gregor6549
        gregor6549 20 August 2013 07: 33
        Uv colleague. There are many specialists in the world and everyone has different opinions. Moreover, life does not stand still. There is a rapid development of technologies used in the creation of UAVs, including technologies of the so-called. "Artificial Intelligence" and along with the development of technologies, both the areas and tactics of using the UAV are expanding. Ele the last war showed that dogmas live little in war. At the same time, the radio control of the UAV fades into the background and is reduced to clarifying the tasks in accordance with the updated reconnaissance. data. Those. the concept of shock reconnaissance complexes based on UAVs is being implemented. The dependence of the UAV on GPS is also not a fact, tk. UAV navigation systems are often duplicated. For example, together with GPS, inertial and other navigation systems can be used, including those used in "Tomahawks"
        If we talk about the famous "Granites", then the technologies used in them are not even yesterday, but the day before yesterday, while Granites, unlike many foreign UAVs, have never been tested in a real (and not simulated) combat situation. Not to mention the fact that each "Granite" is a very decent-sized monster and its detection by regular means of reconnaissance of ships and carrier-based aircraft is no longer a problem. And the data exchange system between the "Granites" in the "flock" is very vulnerable to modern electronic warfare systems.
        In conclusion. If Western household computer and other equipment is updated monthly, then why should the military be an exception, especially since the development of the military is financed by the West much better. And the fact that such devices are not cheap, then a) why should we take someone’s money? Would you learn to count yours and spend them properly b) which is more expensive, every piece of iron or human life? In the West, this question has long been answered. Even during the Second World War. But what about the answer to this question in Russia? If the same as during the Second World War, then further reasoning is useless
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 19 August 2013 19: 16
      Quote: gregor6549
      Why not equip?

      It is possible to equip. A ripper with AFAR is cool, who would argue. That's just the cost of such an ashtray will also be very rather big ...
  22. shpuntik
    shpuntik 19 August 2013 18: 38
    It seems that a flock of such "pterodaktels" (10-12 pieces) for enemy air defense will be worse than a salvo of the "Tamaghawk" KR. Apparently they will change the tactics of air combat completely, because there is potential for development.
    It will be difficult to keep up with them, production will be automated, they will make workshops by and large, they do not spare money.
    Only if a man-made disaster does not destroy the "Raytheon" plant, maybe one of the design engineers will run over to us.
    Raytheon missiles are now made by robots
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 August 2013 19: 16
      Well, Americans have always been masters. Yes, and in aviation have always been trendsetters.
      We need to build our own production, master the same lean manufacturing methods, and we will be happy.
      The truth is not right away laughing
  23. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 19 August 2013 18: 52
    Quote: shpuntik
    It seems that a flock of such "pterodaktels" (10-12 pieces) for enemy air defense will be worse than a salvo of the "Tamaghawk" KR. Apparently they will change the tactics of air combat completely, because there is potential for development.
    It will be difficult to keep up with them, production will be automated, they will make workshops by and large, they do not spare money.
    Only if a man-made disaster does not destroy the "Raytheon" plant, may one of the design engineers run over to us. And so, on each rocket, you can't turn the sensors ...
    Raytheon missiles are now made by robots

    I think so too .. The threat is serious churning out and they are modernizing them too smartly .. Such a flock of "locusts" in the sky .. will not seem a little ..
    1. Ivan Tarasov
      Ivan Tarasov 19 August 2013 22: 46
      In order to neutralize the UAV, it is necessary to destroy the space constellation, which SAMs will not save - only through space.
      Here in this vector and move.
      Well, of course, it's time to stamp their UAVs.
  24. Andryha_2010
    Andryha_2010 19 August 2013 20: 07
    No need for lean manufacturing! Sick of him already, for us it sounds like a mean and only hinders development ...
  25. mirros
    mirros 19 August 2013 20: 42
    In Soviet times, there were all-Union competitions in the construction of aircraft from which many great designers grew up. It is necessary to do the same thing now with respect to drones. Craftsmen who will be able to find remedies will come out of the people. Another thing is that this greatly interferes with the budget cut, which is most worried about the top. Another alternative is an individual manned aircraft. The essence of the idea is to return to low-mass aircraft and speeds up to 700 km / h. In fact, to piston engines. The main thing for an aircraft is maneuverability. As for the confrontation between the aircraft and ground defense, one must not forget that ground defense, if it moves, is in two-dimensional space, and the plane in three-dimensional, that is, air defense is doomed to defeat.
  26. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 19 August 2013 20: 50
    From Mesers in 41-42 they ran like that. through the bushes .. if there will again be something similar. ?? .. God forbid of course .. Now everything is much more serious ..
  27. aud13
    aud13 19 August 2013 20: 53
    About three months ago I read an article in which the words of our famous designer Shipunov were quoted, in which he directly said that anti-radar means have significant potential in our time, therefore it is necessary to create means for detecting missiles, aircraft, etc., working on principles other than radar detection. Moreover, they even created such a short-range system, but unfortunately forgot the name.
    The point is that having created these means, working at medium and long distances, we could leave without "work" and without demand a huge part of the weapons stored in the warehouses of our "friends" overseas (and not only). And by supplying this weapon to our allies, on the one hand, it would be possible to receive material rewards, and on the other hand, give a shit to our "reset" partners (minke whales), because their combat (shock) capabilities would plummet.
  28. darksoul
    darksoul 19 August 2013 21: 18
    sad all this is somehow
  29. minimum
    minimum 20 August 2013 02: 13
    Comparing the development trends of the Russian and American VPK, I have to bitterly admit that the abyss separates us and them. In a real clash in 10-15 years, when they bring their innovations to mind, the Russian army will be just a horde of Papuans for the US army. And after all, the trends in science and education are more and more depressing every year. All this is sad.
  30. IGS
    IGS 20 August 2013 02: 51
    All this is sad. Googled .. The USA is currently using about 7 thousand drones. They carry out 67% of reconnaissance missions on the battlefield, 50% of missions to ensure the protection of troops and only 25% of missile combat tasks. There is a deliberate increase in the share of combat defeat tasks. As I understand it, until this technology is worked out, at the moment they solve this problem like this:

    "The US Army has requested a large batch of Switchblade compact kamikaze drones for use in Afghanistan. According to Defense News, citing a Pentagon official, the total cost of the drones exceeds the budget.

    How many drones are ordered is not specified. According to Colonel Pete Newell, at the end of 2012, 75 drones were delivered to army units in Afghanistan, but there were few.

    Switchblade weighs 2,7 kilograms and reaches a length of 60,9 centimeters, so they can be worn in a backpack. They are launched using the launch tube, the UAV controls the flight of the operator using the ground control station.

    Switchblade can reach speeds of up to 157 kilometers per hour, cover up to 10 kilometers and stay in the air for up to 10 minutes. In this case, the UAV is designed for single use. It detects the target using the built-in video camera, and then crashes into it and is undermined. As previously reported, the operator can cancel the task to destroy.

    According to Defense News, the US Army has already spent about $ 10 million on the purchase of Switchblade drones. AeroVironment received the last contract for the supply of Switchblade for $ 5,1 million in May 2012. "(

    All this amount (I figured out the number of our fighters and air defense systems, in the case of "all at once", it will be possible to fight, only with UAVs, we will not be enough for everything else) against the background of established production and proven technologies, unlike us, it looks depressingly. Alas, so far we have nothing to oppose this armada, except, again, nuclear weapons, if this whole armada rushes at us (plus the UAVs of satellites, for example Israel), it will be a global conflict, and there will be no time to talk. We have time until they have brought the missile defense to mind. And this will happen sooner or later. I have no doubt that we will create some kind of parity. But the war after that, I think, will go into space. The easiest way is to destroy the satellites hanging above us in order to leave this whole armada without control (even if at the same time we destroy our vehicles, we will be in the black, since we are the defensive side on our territory). The US understands this, read about their new developments to replace shuttles. So welcome to the next round ...
    The United States will not stop until Russia exists as an independent state ... And one must be prepared for this.
  31. USNik
    USNik 20 August 2013 09: 40
    The author can be more detailed about this fantastic "took place" episode, from where the information, office. statements, references (not to Israeli and American resources):
    On one such flight, an MQ-1 UAV shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 fighter, although the latter has a higher speed and maneuverability compared to an unmanned vehicle. Based on the results of this combat episode, the US Department of Defense considered that the set goal had been achieved and that Predator could effectively use air-to-air missiles.
    For example, I have completely different information:
    However, one day the Iraqis seized the moment when patrol aircraft left a gap in the protected area, and an Iraqi pilot in a MiG-25 shot down an MQ-1 Predator. A few months later, history repeated itself, but this time the pilot was in for an unpleasant surprise: in response to a missile fired, the drone unexpectedly launched its air-to-air missile (presumably a Stinger). Using the powerful MiG engines, the pilot escaped the missiles, but the Predator was still shot down
  32. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 9 November 2013 13: 53
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: gal
    AGM-88 HARM to suppress the enemy air defense radar - Launch range (maximum): 106 km

    At the beginning of the 1983, in the area of ​​Israel, a C-200 system shot down an AWACS aircraft from a distance of 195 km.

    More precisely, on July 24, 1982 at 16:50, but not AWACS, but F-4 in RF-4E configuration (reconnaissance), and not S-200, but two missiles with 2K12E "Square" (allowing to hit aircraft with speeds up to 600 m / s at ranges up to 22 km and altitudes up to 7 km) - so more likely 19.5 km, November 20, 1983 at 14:30 - during an attack by Air Force aircraft on targets north of the Beirut-Damascus highway with a direct hit by an anti-aircraft shell shot down "Kfir S.2" After that until 1985 there were no losses in the Air Force. No need to play "broken phone".