Military Review

ATK Advanced AARGM Advanced Anti-Radar Missile Launched Second Full Production Contract

33



The AARGM rocket is currently deployed on several theater and is in service fleet and the US Marine Corps. AARGM's initial operational alert was determined in July 2012, and a full-scale production contract was signed in August 2012. AARGM is a joint program of the US Navy and Italian Air Force, in which the fleet is responsible for the entire program. AARGM is currently installed on American FA-18C / D HORNET aircraft and is undergoing an integration process for installation on the American fleet EA-18G GROWLER and FA-18 E / F Super HORNET, as well as TORNADO ECR aircraft of the Italian Air Force. The missile is also compatible with F-35, EA-6B, allied FA-18 and all F-16 fighters

The US Navy issued to ATK, famous for its artillery systems, high-precision weapons and rocket engines, a contract worth 102,4 million dollars for the second stage of the full-scale production of Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile AARGM. The contract provides for the production of AARGM and static training missiles CATM (Captive Air Training Missile) for the US Navy and the Italian Air Force, as well as CATM for the Australian Air Force.

AARGM is a supersonic, tactical air-launched missile, which is an upgrade of the existing AGM-88 HARM rocket with advanced enemy anti-aircraft weapons destruction capabilities. AARGM is the most advanced rocket system, allowing pilots in the cockpit to receive real-time complete information on modern means of enemy air defense. The missile is capable of rapidly destroying traditional and advanced land and sea anti-aircraft complexes, as well as non-radar, time-critical targets.

“The second contract is notable not only for the number of missiles to be manufactured and delivered, but also for the fact that this means the beginning of AARGM’s deliveries to foreign customers in accordance with the sales program weapons and military equipment to foreign countries, ”said Bill Casting, vice president of electronic systems at ATK. “We are proud to help render these crucial combat capabilities and plan to continue supplying AARGM missiles to the US Navy and our allies in accordance with the contract schedule.”

“The AARGM rocket is capable of performing difficult tasks from several platforms, providing our military with advanced and unique capabilities,” said Mike Kan, president of the ATK Defense Group. “The accuracy and reliability of AARGM is the basis of our mission, which is to deliver precision weapons to our customers.” The Australian Air Force submitted to the US government the so-called Letter of proposals and the adoption of proposals for the first purchase of new missiles. CATM training missiles will be used for combat training after the Australians receive EA-18G GROWLER aircraft. In accordance with the contract, the production of these missiles for the Italian Air Force as part of the joint US-Italian program continues.



At the nodes of the suspension fighter F-16 Fighting Falcon carries two AARGM missiles



Description of AARGM anti-radar missile with my subtitles
Author:
Originator:
Military Technology 11 / 2013
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 April 10 2014 07: 20
    +4
    Bad, bad, bad ... This missile is a "first strike" weapon and it is clearly directed against the one who has a modern air defense system, I think it's not worth telling who is the first in this list of the state officials ... Well, well, now we have to wait for what our gunsmiths and air defense specialists will answer ...
    1. Saburov
      Saburov April 10 2014 07: 39
      +5
      For layered air defense, these are seeds, and does it have a launch range of 100 km? And for whom will they work AARGM, in the division? At lonely stations? So loners always work for cat and mouse and have 3-4 replaceable positions and 2-3 false source-simulators, this is a needle in a haystack, and the division will even take a group of several fighter aircraft and EWs into scrap metal, especially a competent officer, will spread the positions in such a way that inevitably the group enters the launch zone, plus it also puts a flare on long-distance secrets. So for Syria or Libya it is justified where to count the air defense on the fingers, but not with Russia.
      1. Professor
        Professor April 10 2014 08: 57
        +4
        Quote: Saburov
        For layered air defense, these are seeds, and does it have a launch range of 100 km?

        Not the seeds. These missiles are a very serious threat. Used with false targets, baits and electronic warfare. They have one drawback - the price is under a million dollars per rocket.
        1. Stiletto
          Stiletto April 10 2014 09: 07
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Not the seeds. These missiles are a very serious threat. Used with false targets, baits and electronic warfare. They have one drawback - the price is under a million dollars per rocket.


          Oh, a million ... That would be a million - but a good deal! And so - only down the drain (Shell-S, more precisely).
        2. inkass_98
          inkass_98 April 10 2014 09: 14
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          These missiles are a very serious threat.

          Quite right, do not underestimate the achievements of the enemy, the caps may not be enough to shoot down all the missiles. It is necessary to strengthen the defense of air defense systems and develop countermeasures.
          Quote: Zhenya88
          Scatter microwaves on rooftops

          Microwaves are good (a friend suggests using them), only in isolation from civilization extension cords will be needed very noblelaughing. But sacrificing homes and civilians is not the smartest idea from our strategists.
        3. Saburov
          Saburov April 10 2014 11: 19
          +2
          For single stations, yes, but not for the division, tracking of selector targets is given with priorities, in speed and direction, therefore false targets will be identified as soon as they appear, a reliable method was developed in 60x, and EW on which channel will give interference, if it is turned off, at the remote control do not fools sit shining themselves. The two-mode passive channel, and even spaced in range, negates all these attempts to hit the station, at best there will be a defeat of the simulator or secondary targets, from the 70 years mass air raids on the air defense division are excluded, because losses can be very large, up to 80%, and the guaranteed destruction of enemy air defense by 50 by 50%, even with a retinue of electronic warfare and early warning systems, only air defense missiles or nuclear weapons will be hollowed out at air defense only when a position is detected.
          1. sso-xnumx
            sso-xnumx April 10 2014 22: 29
            0
            I apologize, colleague, that I am not addressing the topic of your very interesting message, but some kind of "me" has set minuses to more or less competent answers. Do you by any chance know who and why? Taking this opportunity, I congratulate you on the upcoming holiday of the Day of Air Defense Forces!
          2. eagle11
            eagle11 April 11 2014 14: 37
            0
            Once in "furry" 1999, the HARM racket had a range of 100 km, now, the declared launch range is 185 km.
            False targets practically do not differ from the marks of real targets (for our S-300 type air defense systems, for sure).
            The use of PRLR is carried out in conjunction with the RC and LC, and the air defense missile systems will shine in full growth, reflecting the attack of the air attack, and then the "wild weasels" will gather their harvest.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 10 2014 08: 53
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      Bad, bad, bad ... This missile is a "first strike" weapon and is clearly directed against someone who has a modern air defense system,

      You are mistaken. The weapons of the first strike in a war without the use of nuclear weapons are tactical cruise missiles. And only then anti-radar missiles.
  2. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz April 10 2014 07: 23
    +1
    RRR! What they can’t take away is the possibility of creating such missiles. I’m not special in aviation weapons, who knows, do we have something like that? (I mean, better?)
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 10 2014 09: 10
      +4
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      RRR! What they can’t take away is the possibility of creating such missiles. I’m not special in aviation weapons, who knows, do we have something like that? (I mean, better?)

      No, our anti-radar missiles (PRR) do not have the possibility of correction via the satellite channel and do not have an active radar homing head operating in the millimeter range (mm. ARLGSN).
      But there is the Tor air defense system, one of the first anti-missile anti-aircraft systems. Anti-missile in the sense of intercepting air-to-ground missiles and guided aerial bombs. He certainly has disadvantages, he would have to add an IR guidance channel so that his radar does not shine.
      1. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz April 10 2014 09: 12
        0
        They lit up. I didn’t know that we had problems with this. Tosklivo. But - "Thor" groundman. And such missiles are needed for underwing pylons. As I understand, they are not? what I still don’t understand! We, like, are not weak in armament. Maybe we just don’t advertise?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 10 2014 09: 26
          +3
          Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
          They lit up. I didn’t know that we had problems with this.

          Yes, no ... Potential opponents with ground-based air defense systems are not very busy, and I don’t hear anything about developments to create something like “Gazetchik-E” (34Я6Е). They have a bet on the Air Force, they are the main means of air defense.
          The only thing they are developing is an anti-missile system, so to speak, of "local use"; to destroy all flying threats in a close radius of 4-5 km. including mortar mines and art. shells. For example, the Extended Area Protection and Survivability System (EAPS) from Lockheed Martin. Kinetic interceptor with parameters: length about 750mm, diameter 70mm, weight only 3kg! Destroys air targets with a direct hit and therefore does not have explosives.
          It will be impossible to break through such a mini ABM to the same AGM-88E.
          The racket itself:

          1. dmitrij.blyuz
            dmitrij.blyuz April 10 2014 09: 34
            +1
            They cooked it up. Thank you for enlightenment! hi
  3. horoh
    horoh April 10 2014 07: 25
    -1
    And what ??? The Americans have advanced missiles, so everyone is afraid ??? Yeah, schsss !!!
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 10 2014 07: 29
      +10
      Quote: horoh
      And what ??? The Americans have advanced missiles, so everyone is afraid ??? Yeah, schsss !!!
      Not afraid, but afraid ... to know what you might have to face. What would then, not to look for "those guilty of defeat"
      1. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz April 10 2014 09: 20
        +1
        Amerikosy are not fools either. There are smart people there. And there are a lot of them. Otherwise, they would not have created what they had created. You don’t need to throw their hats over, otherwise, in fact, we’ll tear the states off the Internet! wassat
  4. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx April 10 2014 07: 34
    +4
    In general, such weapons are not new. There are certain tactics that negate or minimize the effectiveness of such missiles. Back in the distant 80th year, our battalion commander, a Vietnamese, who shot down not a single amerovsky plane, spoke about it. True, when we were taking the equipment to the plant for the regulations, I saw our U cabins riddled with fragments of such missiles. Then they were called "Shrike" (AGM-45A).














    http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avz/agm45.html

    What we are seeing now is actually the modernization of such a missile, under new ranges of radiation and additional intelligence in guidance.
    The whole ficus is that in order to hit a division, the attacking plane must enter the zone of destruction of the division itself. And the affected area, in range, is approximately two times larger than the launch range of such a missile. And if during the times of C-75 we had to constantly illuminate the target in order to hit it and thereby ensure that such a missile was aimed at us, now this is no longer necessary. By the way, they fought with them precisely by short-term shutdown of the backlight beam and the inclusion of another / false beam from a false position.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 10 2014 07: 43
      0
      Quote: Al_lexx
      In general, such weapons are not news.

      Something tells me that we will soon hear about the affairs of this missile in the news from the Middle East ...
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 April 10 2014 07: 55
        +1
        Serezha hi. Israel is supplying them. Based on the experience of combat use, the effectiveness of this missile is 50-60 percent.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 10 2014 09: 13
      +2
      Quote: Al_lexx
      In general, such weapons are not news.

      Quote: Al_lexx
      What we are seeing now is actually the modernization of such a missile, under new ranges of radiation and additional intelligence in guidance.

      Quote: Al_lexx
      By the way, we fought with them precisely for a short time turning off the backlight beam and switching on another / false beam from a false position

      Watch the attached video, the capture and guidance mechanism is described in detail there, turning off the radar will not help. A rocket launches under the cover of interference from low altitudes.
  5. Fedor
    Fedor April 10 2014 07: 36
    +3
    And how will an advanced missile against an inflatable radar with radiation simulators behave?
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 10 2014 07: 42
      +1
      Quote: Fedor
      And how will an advanced missile against an inflatable radar with radiation simulators behave?

      But this is the question of whether she knows how to distinguish false goals from real ones ...
    2. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx April 10 2014 09: 29
      +1
      Quote: Fedor
      And how will an advanced missile against an inflatable radar with radiation simulators behave?

      If the simulator of thermal and radio emission is made correctly, and l / s can handle them, then these missiles are useless.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 10 2014 20: 18
        +1
        Quote: Al_lexx
        If the simulator of thermal and radio emission is made correctly, and l / s can handle them, then these missiles are useless.

        You absolutely did not understand the principle of guidance of the PRM AGM-88E. After launch, the PRR is induced both by radar radiation and so it flies according to GPS and ANN data by determining the coordinates of the target. Turning off the radar will not help, because In this case, the PRR flies by GPS, even if the GPS signal is suppressed, the PRR flies by the ANN, the main thing is to go to the square where, on approach, the millimeter-wave ARLGS turns on and searches for the target. Thermal radiation does not matter.
        1. Al_lexx
          Al_lexx April 11 2014 03: 40
          -1
          You absolutely do not understand the principle of guidance PRR AGM-88E

          Where did you serve ....

          For this missile to follow the radar signal (launch zone), the carrier must enter the air defense strike zone, at least 70km.
          ;)

          mat part, mat part ...

          Those. this tool only works with massive plaque. Stupidly throw axes, as in Serbia, does not work.

          Of course, there is a chance. But nothing more than a chance. And if some (other) air defense system is in ambush (the experience of Vietnam), then the cleaner has no chance, in the context of modernity.

          And if there had been, then the West would not have squealed like that when we try to put the old C-300, not to mention the C-400.
          Their patriot is not bad, but it will be a bit brighter. First of all, in terms of reaction to a raid (shoots in azimuth, and we are vertical).
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 11 2014 07: 46
            0
            Quote: Al_lexx
            For this missile to follow the radar signal (launch zone), the carrier must enter the air defense strike zone, at least 70km.

            For a short time, with subsequent departure to low altitudes.
            Quote: Al_lexx
            Those. this tool only works with massive plaque. Stupidly throw axes, as in Serbia, does not work.

            So how is it without this? Without interference, without first opening the air defense areas, their borders with the help of UAVs and false targets?
            Quote: Al_lexx
            Of course, there is a chance. But nothing more than a chance. And if some (other) air defense system is in ambush (the experience of Vietnam), then the cleaner has no chance, in the context of modernity.

            Therefore, preliminary reconnaissance is carried out using the UAV. If you do not shoot him down, he can reveal the location of the air defense missile system with his "eye" ... It is difficult to hide the S-300 from reconnaissance means ...
            Quote: Al_lexx
            And if it were, then the West would not squeal like that when we try to put the old S-300, not to mention the S-400

            Any strengthening of the enemy is always harmful. To organize a raid against an enemy who does not have anti-aircraft defense is one thing, another thing when he has them, albeit an ancient Dvina or Cube. There is a risk that needs to be considered ... Who will like it?
            Suppose, "hypothetically," the General Staff of the Russian Federation is preparing an attack on Kiev, a plan has been developed on the basis of intelligence data, the enemy's positions are known, and the forces and means are also known. But then a message appears that Poland has decided to allocate 12 F-16 aircraft with its crews to defend Ukraine, and NATO's E-3 is providing support in covering the air situation using the airspace of Ukraine. What will our generals do? They will say "Yes, these Polish F-16s are rusty flying buckets, there is no use from them, they will not be able to take off ..." Or will they start changing the plan by shifting the date of day X? How will the domestic agitprop react, leave it unnoticed or unleash hysteria about Poland's interference in Ukraine's affairs?
            1. Login
              Login April 11 2014 12: 52
              -1
              Knowing the Russian agitation prop, they will begin to blame NATO for all mortal sins (even the disappearance of life on Mars), and they will bomb Voronezh.
              laughing
          2. eagle11
            eagle11 April 11 2014 15: 03
            0
            For this missile to follow the radar signal (launch zone), the carrier must enter the air defense defeat zone by at least 70 km .;)

            The LC or KR will enter, and will force it to turn on. In modern realities, manned aircraft do not plan to enter the affected area. And we have only four dozen complexes with a launch range of more than 150 km (to our "little homeland".) I took part in the practical work of the PS on the Kh-55, and I can't say "easily knocking down the KR" language.
  6. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN April 10 2014 07: 41
    0
    There is no reception against the S-400!
    1. Mercenary
      Mercenary April 10 2014 08: 28
      -1
      Against this rubbish, the C-400 is very greasy. It is necessary to put down in KB and our guys will come up with something cheap and effective.
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx April 10 2014 09: 25
        0
        Quote: Mercenary
        Against this rubbish, the C-400 is very greasy. It is necessary to put down in KB and our guys will come up with something cheap and effective.

        Alexander. Excuse me. Do you understand what you wrote?
        Everything is exactly the opposite. It’s just this rubbish that will work against the SAM, and not vice versa.
        Another thing is that starting with C-300, the rocket does not need constant illumination of the target. Those. immediately after launch, you can turn off the transmitter, since the rocket has a fully self-sufficient guidance complex.

        In fact, these anti-radar missiles remain relevant only for work at long-range regimental reconnaissance stations. At the division level, there were no goals left for her.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 10 2014 11: 06
          +2
          Quote: Al_lexx
          In fact, these anti-radar missiles remain relevant only for work at long-range regimental reconnaissance stations. At the division level, there were no goals left for her.

          According to the developer, AGM-88E was created in response to the emergence of modern S-400-type air defense systems. This refers to the modification under the index E.
          1. Al_lexx
            Al_lexx April 11 2014 03: 37
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            Quote: Al_lexx
            In fact, these anti-radar missiles remain relevant only for work at long-range regimental reconnaissance stations. At the division level, there were no goals left for her.

            According to the developer, AGM-88E was created in response to the emergence of modern S-400-type air defense systems. This refers to the modification under the index E.

            Alexander, all this is clear.
            I wrote to you in a direct text that the shrikes appeared distinctly later than the C-75s, on which I served. Those. they appeared around the middle of the Vietnam War. And nevertheless, about a month later, tactical methods of shooting were developed, taking into account such radio "cleaners".
            Now everything is the same. I wrote that the rocket was modernized taking into account that the guidance beam is no longer always needed and that the rocket flies a certain distance according to the original target designation.
            What is interesting here ...
            Interestingly, the S-300 air defense system has a range of approximately 250 (200 with high probability). In neo-shschrayki, about 80km. Well, maybe a little more, I'm not sitting in the pentagon. So here. In order to hit the main air defense system with such a missile, it would be necessary for the carrier to fly up very close. But after all, C-300 rarely works outside the radius of the beech / cube and then the near approaches that protect the shells. Those. if NATO aviation is faced with an enemy other than the Papuans, then everything becomes completely different.
            With regards to us, in terms of air defense, we have so far the quantity lags behind the quality. I see no other problems besides the number of regiments and trained personnel. The systems, considering the layering, are great.
          2. Al_lexx
            Al_lexx April 11 2014 03: 47
            +2
            Quote: Nayhas
            Quote: Al_lexx
            In fact, these anti-radar missiles remain relevant only for work at long-range regimental reconnaissance stations. At the division level, there were no goals left for her.

            According to the developer, AGM-88E was created in response to the emergence of modern S-400-type air defense systems. This refers to the modification under the index E.

            Once again I want to ask you:
            What kind of troops did you serve and what do you know about the tactics of using air defense systems? Have you ever worked on a real enemy?
            Not? Then read on the forums.

            ZY
            The first time I’ve been trolling like this. laughing
  7. prostofily
    prostofily April 10 2014 08: 00
    0
    Developers have earned money and no more. There are enough ways to turn ento into rubbish.
  8. Vita_vko
    Vita_vko April 10 2014 08: 23
    +2
    There are quite reliable means of protecting the radar against anti-radar missiles of the “Gazetchik-E” type. It's time to introduce them into the standard delivery set and modernize them for the new AARGM.
    Designed to protect radar from anti-radar missiles (PRR) by briefly turning off their radiation according to the commands of an autonomous PRR detector in combination with the use of distracting devices in the radar frequency range, as well as aerosol and dipole jamming of PRR guidance systems with thermal, television and active homing radar .
    Composition:
    - PRR detector;
    - a distraction device in the frequency range of the protected radar;
    - means of setting aerosol and dipole interference;
    - radar interface unit.
    Various product configuration options are provided - with and without aerosol and dipole jamming.
    Key Features:
    Viewing area:
    PRR detector:
    in azimuth hail. 360
    by elevation, deg. +10 - +90
    radiation of distracting devices: in azimuth, deg. 360
    by elevation, deg. +10 - +60
    Probability of protection: from one PRM type HARM at least 0,85
    from one PRR with thermal, television or active radar homing heads 0,85-0,95
    Combat mode
    automatic
    Power supply system
    from protected radar
    MTBF, h: detector PRR 500
    distractions 500
    Average recovery time, h 0,5
    Turn-on time, from 30
    Coagulation (deployment) time, min. 60-90 (depending on configuration)
  9. Strashila
    Strashila April 10 2014 08: 37
    0
    Another killer of microwaves.
  10. sso-xnumx
    sso-xnumx April 10 2014 08: 41
    0
    Questions, questions, questions ....
    Who is advanced? What is advanced? Where is advanced? And most importantly - why advanced?
    The last answer is obvious - money! But the rest ...
    As the Chinese sages say: "The toad is cunning, but a small beetle with a screw is much more cunning than it." For the first time, what is the problem to solve? This damn thing must have its weak points! The Yankes always overestimate the performance characteristics of their products in order to intimidate everyone and everything. Only we, like that hedgehog, should not be frightened with our bare ass.
    After all, V.S. Vysotsky even when he sang about it:
    "Only in vain is he joking with our brother -
    I have a measure, even two:
    If he kills me,
    So I him - through the thigh with a grip,
    Or - RIDING ON THE HEAD! "
    "Honor of the Chess Crown: II. The Game" 1971-1972.
  11. Sergey Minin
    Sergey Minin April 10 2014 16: 47
    +1
    This type of weapon is useful for the army of any country! The rocket price is certainly high, it’s expensive to shoot at Shilki. But a downed plane is more expensive, always! It is advisable to study world experience and create your own model.
  12. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 11 2014 05: 29
    +1
    A serious thing and you need to treat it with due attention. Particularly noteworthy is its combined guidance: passive (according to radar signals and active (according to the GPS coordinates of the radar). Considering that the radar cannot "squeak" and slip away for several seconds, and the accuracy of determining coordinates using GPS lies within a couple of meters or even centimeters (differential GPS), then the probability of hitting the radar with the given PRS increases many times. In this connection, the placement of surveillance radars, guidance radars and missile cannon weapons "in one bottle" (Tunguska, Pantsir, Kashtan, Broadsword, etc.) is not the best solution, especially considering that the detection range of the PRS with the help of these radars is much less than the detection range of the radars themselves by onboard radio reconnaissance means and the passive seeker of the PRS. (An axiom that does not require proof, especially in conditions of massive use of active and passive interference, including interference imitating PRS.
    Much better combat stability in the conditions of use of ORS would have possessed spaced (bi-static) radars in which the transmitter (s) and receiver (s) of the radar are spaced at a decent distance on the ground. At one time, these systems were forgotten due to the limited computing power of radar processing systems, but now this power is more than enough. But ... the habit of walking the beaten path is stronger than common sense, and history teaches, so it cannot teach anything.
    1. Vita_vko
      Vita_vko April 11 2014 08: 46
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      Much better combat stability in the conditions of the use of ORS would have possessed spaced (bi-static) radars in which the transmitter (s) and receiver (s) of the radar are spaced at a decent distance on the ground

      Radars, which do not radiate anything at all, have even greater resistance to counteracting PRLR and active interference. They can use the energy of other radiation sources, starting from stationary from television signals and cellular communications, there are such radars for a long time, although they are of little use in military conditions, but there are developments that can use the energy of absolutely any sources, starting from airborne warning systems and electronic warfare, but the most efficient use of the energy of GPS / GLONASS satellites signals, if necessary, you can use the energy of communication satellites and even the Sun. In general, our entire space is literally penetrated by electromagnetic energy, which is perfectly reflected from all objects.
      Here are a couple of examples of serious work on this topic;
      http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2240576
      http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2472176
      The first patent is the result of my scientific work. There I took the jammer as an energy source. For research, its non-stationary signal is most difficult to process, but the result in range and accuracy of determining the coordinates is very good.
  13. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 11 2014 12: 01
    0
    SW Vitaliy.
    Of course, the idea of ​​using free microwave energy emitted by enemy means is interesting, and they have been trying to realize this idea for a long time.
    In particular, at one time a number of studies were carried out on this and essentially related topics, including in the Kharkov ARTA. MIZRU, etc. There are even stories around the world about how some brave and terribly capable officer of the Yugoslav air defense was able to detect and shoot down F117 using cellular mobile communication signals. True, other authors no less convincingly prove that all this is nonsense and F117 then discovered the standard means of the air defense system. But even assuming that there is some truth in both stories, it is unlikely that any air defense unit commander would want to rely on "otherworldly" energy sources to receive information about the air situation in his unit's area of ​​responsibility and control the fire of active weapons. Military systems differ from all others in that they must be self-sufficient at any given time and not depend on the goodwill of the enemy or on the location of the stars in the sky. In the meantime, the entire experience of local conflicts, starting with Vietnam, has shown that ORS pose a more than serious danger and, most importantly, that the pace of their development is significantly ahead of the pace of development of means and methods of protection against them. This means that modern radars are in fact protected from modern anti-aircraft missile systems no better than the radars used in Vietnam from primitive Shrikes.
    1. Vita_vko
      Vita_vko April 12 2014 11: 48
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      There are even stories circulating around the world about how a brave and terribly capable officer of the Yugoslav air defense managed to detect and shoot down the F117 using cellular mobile signals

      I was lucky to study with the Yugoslav officers at the same faculty. True, they came as listeners, and I already studied at the postgraduate school of the Academy of East Kazakhstan in Tver. Therefore, as they say, I know firsthand the official version and the unofficial commentary of the Yugoslav officers themselves. They even brought a piece of F-117 skin, which lay in the museum of the special faculty. Only two F-117s were shot down, but one crashed in Montenegro, so there is no official confirmation. The shots were different complexes of one C-125 with another Cube (I'm not sure about the latter). Communication in Yugoslavia was indeed both cellular and wired and was actively used for guidance and warning from both sides. It was through state-owned stationary communication channels that it was possible to transmit information about the passage of aircraft and take countermeasures. P-18 radars were very effectively used as sources of information. They say that the Americans fired dozens of AGM-88 HARM missiles, but they failed to hit the P-18. The fact is that for all meter radars, the principle of forming a cosecon beam pattern is based on reflection from the Earth. Therefore, they have 2 identical electrical centers. One is at the radar station, and the second. usually more powerful, at a distance of 300 meters, and even rotates. therefore HARM calculated the middle between two electric centers and hit exactly 150 meters from the radar without causing any damage! When the Yugoslav air defense officers received information about the passage of the Americans, they almost always turned on the optical guidance mode. In addition, on most of their air defense systems, they independently installed French (Thales) night vision optoelectronics, in addition to the main TCEs.
      1. Vita_vko
        Vita_vko April 12 2014 12: 07
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        A number of studies were conducted on this and essentially related topics, including in Kharkov ARTA. MVIZRU and so on
        I am not only familiar with these studies, but I also consulted a lot with the scientists and teachers themselves, who, after the liquidation of the Kharkov Academy, moved to Tver. It was they who prompted me to apply for a patent and helped with the description and formula.
        Those experiments that were carried out in Kharkov came to a standstill because there weren’t enough good means of digital signal processing that could provide a sufficient dynamic range and an acceptable ADC speed, but that was almost 20 years ago.
        Now radars that use cellular and digital TV signals have been developed in the USA by Celant Sentry, in France and recently a similar radar has been created by Germany EADS. But they all have common serious drawbacks that do not allow to completely replace traditional active radars. The reason is the difference-ranging method for determining coordinates.
        Quote: gregor6549
        Military systems differ from all others in that they must be self-sufficient at any given time and not depend on the goodwill of the enemy or on the location of stars in the sky

        This is just very easily solved if you use the energy of navigation systems such as GPS / Glonass. But Western radars are not yet capable of this, the principle is not the same.