Military Review

Domestic means of early missile warning. 1-Part I

134



A few days ago on the "Military Review" in the "News»A publication appeared that referred to the transfer of several C-300PS air defense systems divisions to Kazakhstan. A number of visitors to the site took the liberty to assume that this is a Russian fee for using an early missile warning station on the shore of Lake Balkhash. In order to understand what the modern Russian early warning system is and how much Russia needs this object in independent Kazakhstan, let us return to the past.

In the second half of 60-x the main means of delivering nuclear weapons land-based ballistic missiles and deployed on submarines, and long-range bombers were relegated to the background. Unlike bombers, the nuclear warheads of ICBMs and SLBMs were practically invulnerable on the trajectory, and the flight time to the target, compared to bombers, was reduced many times. It was with the help of ICBMs that the Soviet Union managed to achieve nuclear parity with the United States. Prior to this, the Americans, who had invested heavily in the air defense system of North America (the USA and Canada), not without reason hoped to repel attacks against a few Soviet long-range bombers. However, after the mass deployment of ICBM positions in the USSR, the balance of power and the predicted scenarios of nuclear conflict changed dramatically. Under the new conditions, the United States could no longer sit overseas and hope that Europe and northeast Asia would become the main areas of use of nuclear weapons. This circumstance has led to a change in the approaches and views of the American military-political leadership on methods and means of ensuring security and the prospects for the development of strategic nuclear forces. By the beginning of the 70s, there was a reduction in the number of radar posts covering the air situation in North America, first of all, it affected the ships of the radar patrol. Numerous long-range air defense missile positions, useless against Soviet ICBMs, were almost completely eliminated in the United States. In turn, the Soviet Union was in a more difficult situation, the proximity of numerous American bases and tactical and strategic airfields aviation forced to spend huge amounts of money on air defense.

As ICBMs and SLBMs became the basis of nuclear arsenals, the creation of systems capable of detecting missile launches and calculating their trajectories in order to determine the degree of danger began. Otherwise, one of the parties received the possibility of a preemptive disarming strike. At the first stage, the over-the-horizon radar with a detection range of 2000-3000 km, which corresponded to the warning time 10 — 15 minutes before approaching the target, became means of warning about a missile attack. In this regard, the Americans placed their AN / FPS-49 stations in the UK, Turkey, Greenland and Alaska - as close as possible to the Soviet missile positions. However, the original task of these radars was to provide information about a missile attack for missile defense systems (ABM), and not to ensure the possibility of a retaliatory strike.

In the USSR, the design of such stations began in the middle of the 50-x. The Sary-Shagan proving ground has become the head object where research was conducted in the field of missile defense. It was here, in addition to the purely anti-missile systems, that the radar and computing facilities that were able to detect the launch and calculate with high accuracy the trajectories of enemy ballistic missiles at a distance of several thousand kilometers were tested. On the shores of Lake Balkhash, adjacent to the landfill, were subsequently built and tested the lead copies of the new radar missile attack warning system (EWS).

In 1961, with the help of the TsSO-P station (the Central Ground Detection Station), we were able to detect and track the real target. For transmission and reception of a signal, a DSO-P operating in the meter range had a horn antenna with a length of 250 m and a height of 15 m. . The experience gained in the creation of the TsSO-P was useful in the creation of the Danube radar with the detection range of objects up to 1 200 km, operating in the meter range.

Using the groundwork for the TsSO-P radar, a network of Dniester stations was created. Each radar used two “wings” of TsSO-P, in the center there was a two-story building, it housed a command center and a computer system. Each wing covered in azimuth the 30 ° sector, the scanning pattern in height was 20 °. The Dniester station was planned to be used for targeting anti-missile and anti-satellite systems. The construction of two radar sites, spaced apart in latitude. It was necessary for the formation of the radar field length 5000 km. One node (OS-1) was built near Irkutsk (Mischelevka), the other (OS-2) at Cape Gulshat, on the shores of Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan. Four stations with chillers were built at each site. In 1967, the Dniester Radar Station took up combat duty and became part of the space monitoring system (SSS).

However, for the purpose of the EWS, these stations were not suitable, the military did not like the detection range, the low resolution and noise immunity. Therefore, a modified version of "Dniester-M" was created. The hardware of the Dniester and Dniester-M radars was similar (with the exception of installing antenna sectors at elevation angles), but their work programs differed significantly. This is due to the fact that detecting the launch of missiles required scanning at elevation in the range of 10 ° -30 °. In addition, at the Dniester-M station, the element base was partially transferred to semiconductors in order to improve reliability.

To test the key elements of "Dniester-M" at the site "Sary-Shagan" installation was built, which received the designation TsSO-PM. Tests have shown that, compared with the Dniester stations, the resolution has increased 10-15 times, the detection range has reached 2500 km. The first early warning radars, which are part of separate radio-technical units (ORTU), began to function at the beginning of 70-x. These were two stations of the type “Dniester-M” on the Kola Peninsula near Olenegorsk (node ​​RO-1) and in Latvia in Skrunda (node ​​RO-2). These stations were designed to detect approaching warheads from the North Pole and to monitor launches of the ASCP in the Norwegian and North Seas.

In addition to the construction of new ones, for use in the missile attack warning system (scanning by elevation 10 ° - 30 °), two existing stations were upgraded at the nodes OS-1 and OS-2. The other two Dniester stations were preserved unchanged to monitor space (scanning the elevation angle 10 ° - 90 °). At the same time as the construction of a new radar station of anti-ship missile systems in the Moscow region of Solnechnogorsk, the construction of a missile attack warning center began. The exchange of information between radio nodes and HZ PRN went on special lines of communication. By order of the Minister of Defense of the USSR from 15 February 1971, a separate division of anti-missile surveillance was put on alert, this day is considered the beginning of the USS of the USSR.

18 January 1972, the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR approved the decision to create a unified missile attack warning system. It includes ground-based radar and space surveillance equipment. The Soviet missile defense warning system was supposed to promptly inform the military-political leadership of the missile attack by the United States and ensure a guaranteed counter-strike. To achieve the maximum warning time, it was intended to use special satellites and over-the-horizon radars capable of detecting ICBMs on the active leg of the flight. Detection of missile warheads in the later parts of the ballistic trajectory was envisaged with the help of the already created over-the-horizon radar. This duplication can significantly improve the reliability of the system and reduce the likelihood of errors, since different physical principles are used to detect the launching missiles and warheads: fixing the thermal radiation of the engine of the launching ICBM with satellite sensors and recording the reflected radio signal by radars. After the launch of the unified missile attack warning system, the Danube-3 (Kubinka) and Danube-3U (Chekhov) stations of the Moscow A-35 missile defense system were integrated into it.

Domestic means of early missile warning. 1-Part I

Radar "Danube-3U"


Radar "Danube-3" consisted of two antennas, spaced on the ground, receiving and transmitting equipment, a computer complex and auxiliary devices that ensure the operation of the station. The maximum target detection range reached 1200 km. Currently, the “Danube” family of radars are not functioning.

As a result of further improvement of the Dniester-M radar, a new station, Dnepr, was created. It doubles the viewing area of ​​each antenna in azimuth (60 ° instead of 30 °). Despite the fact that the antenna horn was shortened from 20 to 14 meters, thanks to the introduction of a polarization filter, it was possible to improve the accuracy of measurements in elevation. The use of more powerful transmitters and their phasing in the antenna led to an increase in the detection range up to 4000 km. New computers allowed to process information twice as fast.


Radar "Dnepr" near Sevastopol


The Dnepr radar also consisted of two “wings” of a two-sector horn antenna with a length of 250 m and a height of 14 meters. It had two rows of slot antennas in two waveguides with a set of transmitting and receiving equipment. Each row generates a signal, scanning the 30 ° sector in azimuth (60 ° to the antenna) and 30 ° in elevation (from 5 ° to 35 ° in height) with frequency control. Thus, it was possible to provide 120 ° scanning in azimuth and 30 ° in elevation.

The first station "Dnepr" was put into operation in May 1974 of the year at the Sary-Shagan test site (OS-2 node). It was followed by the radar station near Sevastopol (RO-4 node) and Mukachevo (RO-5 node). Later, other radars were upgraded, with the exception of tracking stations for objects in space in Sary-Shagan and Mishelevka near Irkutsk.


Radar "Daugava" near Olenegorsk


In 1978, the Daugava installation with active phase-controlled antenna arrays was introduced into the site at Olenegorsk (RO-1), after which the station received the designation Dnepr-M. Thanks to the modernization, it was possible to increase the noise immunity, reduce the influence of the aurora in the ionosphere on the reliability of information, as well as increase the reliability of the node as a whole. Technical solutions applied in the Daugava, such as the receiving equipment and the computer system, were later used to create the next-generation Daryal radar.


Antenna radar "Dnepr" at the site "Sary-Shagan"


Evaluating the Soviet radar first-generation missile systems, it can be noted that they are fully consistent with the tasks assigned to them. At the same time, to ensure the operation of the stations, a large number of highly qualified technicians were required. The hardware of the stations was largely based on electrovacuum devices, which, with very good gain and low noise levels, were very energy-intensive and changed their characteristics over time. Bulky transceiver antennas also required attention and regular maintenance. Despite all these shortcomings, the operation of some radars of this type continued until recently, and the Dnepr radar transmitter near Olenegorsk is still used in conjunction with the Daugava receiving part. The Dnepr station on the Kola Peninsula is planned to obscure in the near future the radar of the Voronezh family. As of 1 January, 2014 operated three Dnepr radar stations - Olenegorsk, Sary-Shagan and Michelevka.


Google Earth snapshot: SPRN radio node in the Irkutsk region


The station "Dnepr" in the Irkutsk region (OS-1), apparently, no longer carries combat duty, as the modern Voronezh-M radar is built nearby, two antennas of which with the 240 ° survey sector allow you to control the territory from the US west coast to india. It is known that in 1993, on the basis of another Dnepr radar station in Michelevka, the Observatory of Radio Physical Atmospheric Diagnostics of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences was created.


Google earth snapshot: Dnepr radar at Sary-Shagan test site


The joint use of the Dnepr radar in Ukraine (near Sevastopol and Mukachevo) with 1992 was regulated by the Russian-Ukrainian agreement. The maintenance and operation of the stations was carried out by the Ukrainian personnel, and the information received was sent to the PRN Main Center (Solnechnogorsk). According to the intergovernmental agreement, Russia for this annually transferred to Ukraine up to 1,5 million dollars. In the 2005 year, after the Russian side refused to raise fees for the use of radar information, the stations were handed over to the State Space Agency of Ukraine (SSAU). It is worth saying that Russia had every reason to refuse to discuss the increase in the cost of payment. Information from the Ukrainian stations did not come out regularly, and besides, President Viktor Yushchenko officially allowed American representatives to the station, which Russia could not prevent. In this regard, our country had to urgently deploy on its territory new radar "Voronezh-DM" near Armavir and in the Kaliningrad region.

At the beginning of 2009, the Dnepr radar stations in Sevastopol and Mukachevo stopped transmitting information to Russia. The independent Ukraine radar of the early warning system proved to be unnecessary, the management of “Square” decided to dismantle both stations and disband the military units engaged in their protection and maintenance. At the moment, the station in Mukachevo is in the process of disassembly. In connection with the well-known events, they did not have time to start dismantling the capital structures of the Dnepr radar station in Sevastopol, but the station itself was partially plundered and inoperable. In the Russian media, information was voiced that the station Dnipro in the Crimea was planned to be operational, but this seemed an extremely unlikely event. The developer of the stations of the A.L. Mintsa (RTI), who was also engaged in upgrading and technical support throughout the entire life cycle, said that these over-the-horizon radar anti-ship missiles over more than 40 years of service were hopelessly outdated and fully exhausted. Investing in their repair and modernization is an absolutely unpromising occupation, and building a new modern station with better performance and lower operating costs will be much more rational.

It is unclear whether the Dnepr radar is still used in Kazakhstan (OS-2). According to the News of Cosmonautics magazine, this station was redeployed from tracking space objects to detecting real launches of foreign ballistic missiles. Since 2001, the radio engineering center Sary-Shagan was on combat duty as part of the Space Forces and provided control over the missile-prone areas from Pakistan, the western and central parts of the PRC, covering India and part of the Indian Ocean. However, despite repeated upgrades, this radar, created half a century ago, is worn out, outdated and is very expensive to operate. Even if it is still workable, then its withdrawal from combat duty is a matter of the near future.

At the beginning of 70-x, in connection with the emergence of new types of threats, such as separable head units of ICBMs and active and passive means of jamming radar anti-missile systems, the creation of new types of radars began. As already mentioned, some technical solutions implemented in the next generation stations were used in the Daugava installation - the reduced receiving part of the Daryal radar. It was planned that eight stations of the second generation, located on the perimeter of the USSR, will replace the Dnepr radar.

The first station was planned to be built in the Far North - on the Alexandra Land Island of the archipelago Franz Josef Land. This was due to the desire to achieve the maximum warning time in the main missile hazard direction. Perhaps the example in this case was the American radar station in Greenland. Due to the extreme climatic conditions when creating a new radar, strict construction standards were laid down: for example, the top of the receiving structure with a height of 100 meters with a hurricane 50 wind of m / s should not be deflected by more than 10. The power of life-support systems and energy would be enough for a city with a population of thousands of people 900. The station was planned to equip its own nuclear power plant. However, due to the excessive cost and complexity of the radar "Daryal" decided to build in the Pechora region. At the same time, construction began on the Pechora SDPP, which was supposed to provide the facility with electricity. Construction of the station went with great difficulty: for example, 100 July 27, on an almost finished radar during the tuning work at the transmitting center, a fire occurred. Almost 1979% of the radio transparent coating burned out, about 80% of the transmitters were burned or covered with soot.


Daryal radar (transmitter on the left, receiver on the right)


Daryal radar antennas (transmitting and receiving) are separated by 1,5 km. The transmitting antenna is an active phased array of 40 × 40 meters in size, filled with 1260 interchangeable modules with an output pulse power of each 300 kW. The receiving antenna of size 100 × 100 meters is an active phased array (HEADLAMP) with X-NUMX cross-vibrators placed in it. Radar "Daryal" works in the meter range. It is capable of detecting and simultaneously tracking about 4000 targets with an EPR of the order of 100 m² at a distance of up to 0,1 km. The viewing area is 6000 ° in azimuth and 90 ° in elevation. With very high performance, the construction of stations of this type turned out to be extremely costly.


Planned geography of the placement of the radar "Daryal"


The first station under Pechora (node ​​RO-30) was put into service on January 20 1984 of the year, and March 20 of the same year was put on combat duty. It has the ability to control the space up to the northern coast of Alaska and Canada, and it completely views the space above Greenland. Following the station in the north of 1985, the second radar station, the so-called Gabala radar station (PO-7 hub) in Azerbaijan, followed.


Gabala Radar Station


In general, the fate of the project was unsuccessful: only two out of eight planned stations were put into operation. In 1978, in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, near the village of Abalakovo, the construction of a third Daryal-type station began. In the years of “perestroika”, nine years after the start of work, when hundreds of millions of rubles were spent, our leadership decided to make the Americans a “goodwill gesture” and preserved construction. And already in 1989, it was decided to demolish the almost completely built station.

Construction of the radar station early warning system in the area of ​​the village Mishelyovka in the Irkutsk region continued on 1991 year. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was terminated. For a while this station was the subject of bargaining with the United States, the Americans offered to finance its completion in exchange for withdrawing from the ABM treaty. In June, the 2011 of the year, the radar was demolished, and a new Voronezh-M type radar was built on the site of the transmitting position in 2012.

In 1984, the ORTU Balkhash (Kazakhstan) began the construction of a radar station according to the improved project Daryal-U. By 1991, the station was able to bring to the stage of production tests. But in 1992, all work was frozen due to lack of funding. In 1994, the station was mothballed, and in January, 2003, it was transferred to independent Kazakhstan. 17 September 2004 of the year as a result of a deliberate arson of the receiving position a fire occurred that destroyed all the equipment. In 2010, the building collapsed during unauthorized dismantling, and in 2011, the buildings of the transmitting position were dismantled.


The burning building of the receiving unit of the station "Daryal" at the site "Sary-Shagan"


No less deplorable was the fate of other stations of this type. The construction of the “Daryal-U” radar at Cape Chersonese, near Sevastopol, which began in the 1988 year, was discontinued in the 1993 year. The Daryal-UM radar in Ukraine in Mukachevo and in Latvia in Skrunda, which were in high readiness, were blown up under US pressure. The Gabala radar station, due to technical problems and high energy consumption in the last years of its existence, functioned with periodic short-term switching on in the “combat operation” mode. After Azerbaijan tried to raise the rent, in 2013, Russia refused to use the station, and it was transferred to Azerbaijan. Part of the equipment was dismantled and exported to Russia. The station in Gabala was replaced by the Voronezh-DM radar near Armavir.


Google Earth snapshot: Daryal radar in the Komi Republic


The only operating radar of the type "Daryal" remained station in the Komi Republic. After the closure of the radar station in Gabala, it was also planned to dismantle it, and on this site to build a new radar "Voronezh-VP". However, some time ago, the press service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation said that the station in 2016 should undergo a deep modernization.

In addition to the over-the-horizon radar, in the Soviet early warning radar, there were over-the-horizon radar stations (DPRS) of the “Duga” type, using the effect of two-jump over-the-horizon radar. In favorable conditions, these stations were able to observe high-altitude aerial targets, for example, to record the mass take-off of American strategic bombers, but mainly they were designed to detect plasma "cocoons" formed during the operation of engines of ICBMs in large quantities.

The first prototype ZGRLS "Duga" began to operate near Nikolayev at the beginning of the 70-x. The station demonstrated its performance by recording the start of the Soviet ballistic missiles from the Far East and the Pacific Ocean. After evaluating the results of trial operation, it was decided to build two more over-the-horizon radars of this type: in the vicinity of Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur. These stations were intended to pre-detect the launch of ICBMs from the United States, before they could be seen by the Dnepr and Daryal radars. Their construction is estimated at more than 300 million rubles in prices of the beginning of 80-x.


Sector control ZGRLS "Arc"


DGRA-1 near Chernobyl was put into operation in 1985 year. I must say that the location of this station was not chosen by chance, proximity to nuclear power plants ensured reliable power supply with very high energy consumption of this object. But later it caused a hasty decommissioning of the radar due to radiation contamination of the area.

The station, sometimes referred to as “Chernobyl-2”, was impressive in size. Since one antenna could not cover the working frequency band: 3,26-17,54 MHz, the whole range is divided into two sub-bands, and there were also two antenna arrays. The height of the masts of the high-frequency antenna from 135 to 150 meters. On Google earth snapshots, the length is approximately 460 meters. The high-frequency antenna has a height of up to 100 meters in height, its length in the Google Earth images is 230 meters. Radar antennas are built on the principle of a phased antenna array. The ZGRLS transmitter was located in 60 km from receiving antennas, near the village of Rassudovo (Chernihiv region).


Vibrators of the receiving antenna ZGRLS "Duga-1"


After launching the station, it became clear that its transmitter began to block radio frequencies and frequencies intended for the operation of aviation control services. Subsequently, the radar was modified to pass these frequencies. Also, the frequency range has changed, after the upgrade - 5 — 28 MHz.


Google Earth snapshot: Duga-1 near Chernobyl NPP


However, an upgraded radar prevented the Chernobyl accident from being put on combat duty. Initially, the station was mothballed, but later it became clear that with the existing level of radiation it would not be possible to return it to service, and it was decided to dismantle the main radio electronic components of the AGRS and remove them to the Far East. At present, the remaining facilities of the station have become a local landmark, with such dimensions receiving antennas can be seen from almost anywhere in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

In the Far East, the receiving antenna and sounding station of the Krug ionosphere, which was intended as an auxiliary to the SGRLS, as well as to generate current information about the passage of radio waves, the state of their passage, the choice of the optimum frequency range, were placed in 35 km from Komsomolsk-on-Amur , near the village of Cartel. The transmitter was located in 30 km north of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, near the Lian-2 military town, in which the 1530 anti-aircraft missile regiment is stationed. However, in the Far East, the service ZGRF was also short. After the fire in November 1989 of the year that occurred in the receiving center, the station was not restored, the dismantling of the receiving antenna facilities began in 1998.


A snapshot of the receiving antenna ZGRLS near Komsomolsk shortly before its dismantling


The author happened to be present at this event. The dismantling was accompanied by a total plundering of the entire receiving center, even the communications equipment that was still suitable for further use, the elements of the power and cable facilities were mercilessly destroyed by the metalworkers. Among the locals, spherical vibrator elements, which were used as a metal frame for building greenhouses, were very popular. Earlier, the Krug sounding station of the ionosphere underwent complete destruction. At the present time, remains of concrete structures and underground structures filled with water have remained on this site. On the territory where the Duga SGRLS receiving antenna was once located, the C-300PS air defense missile division, covering the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur from the south-west, is currently located.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://www.ww2.dk/new/pvo/radar/49ortu.htm
http://politrussia.com/vooruzhennye-sily/kak-rossiya-laquo-nezametno-raquo-426/
Author:
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PlotnikoffDD
    PlotnikoffDD 9 August 2016 07: 16
    +4
    "ZGRLS" Duga-1 "near Chernobyl"
    The photo does not match the description.
    1. Bongo
      9 August 2016 08: 16
      +8
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      "ZGRLS" Duga-1 "near Chernobyl"
      The photo does not match the description.

      Thank you! hi There should have been another photograph at this place! request
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 9 August 2016 19: 07
        +7
        Horror. How many were destroyed, plundered, left to the joy of America ... And all thanks to two "members", Gorbachev and Yeltsin ...
        Can you imagine what the PRN system would be like now, it’s a pity the story does not tolerate the subjunctive mood ...
  2. timyr
    timyr 9 August 2016 07: 20
    +14
    Yeah, my friends worked on the construction of the station in Sary-Shagan. They told how the military acceptance accepted their work, the slightest deviation, redo it. And as after 91 there everyone was pulled away. The fire was needed to hide the tracks. Thank you for the article.
    1. Serg koma
      Serg koma 17 August 2016 17: 10
      0
      Quote: timyr
      Station in Sary-Shagan.

      "And I was there ..." is true for a very long time, when "the trees were big" and everything worked for the safety of OUR peaceful life.

      PS Sary-Shagan, this is a railway station and a village that has nothing to do with the military "specialization" of the training ground, only the commandant's office is from military facilities. The stations were located "at the address" Balkhash-9.
  3. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 9 August 2016 07: 42
    -7
    The author was able to attend this event. Dismantling was accompanied by the total sacking of the entire reception center, even communications equipment still suitable for further use, elements of energy and cable facilities were ruthlessly destroyed by the "metalworkers".

    It would be interesting to learn about the role of the author in this event. am
    1. Bongo
      9 August 2016 08: 10
      +13
      Quote: sergeyzzz
      It would be interesting to learn about the role of the author in this event.

      Curiosity, not a vice ... only hell, why stuck it? what In the vicinity of the village of Kartel near Komsomolsk-on-Amur, there is a military unit and a military town, where the author had to and has to visit regularly. I did not participate in dismantling or stealing the equipment, are you alluding to this?
  4. Amurets
    Amurets 9 August 2016 08: 04
    +7
    << In the Far East, the receiving antenna and the Krug ionosphere sounding station, which was intended as an auxiliary to the ZGRLS, as well as to generate current information about the passage of radio waves, the state of the environment of their passage, the choice of the optimal frequency range, were placed 35 km from Komsomolsk-on -Amure, not far from the village of Kartel. The transmitter was located 30 km north of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, near the military town "Lian-2", in which the 1530th anti-aircraft missile regiment is stationed. However, in the Far East, the ZGRLS service was also short-lived. After a fire in November 1989 that happened in the receiving center, the station was not restored, the dismantling of the receiving antenna structures began in 1998. >>
    Sergey! Thank you! My heart is already contracting. In this area there was the 3rd division of S-75, our ZRP. In the area of ​​the village of Big Cartel.
    1. Bongo
      9 August 2016 08: 12
      +4
      Quote: Amurets
      Sergey! Thank you! My heart is already contracting. In this area there was the 3-th division of C-75, our air defense system.

      Hi Nikolay! I know this position, a radio relay communication station is now deployed on this site.
  5. Old26
    Old26 9 August 2016 08: 18
    +6
    Sergei! The photo of "Duga" near Chernobyl does not correspond to reality. The photo of the radar station "Daryal"
    1. Bongo
      9 August 2016 08: 20
      +4
      Quote: Old26
      Sergei! The photo of "Duga" near Chernobyl does not correspond to reality. The photo of the radar station "Daryal"

      Yes, Vladimir, there should have been another photo at this place, I don’t know how it happened. request I have already sent a notification to the moderator about this.
  6. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 9 August 2016 10: 47
    +7
    Thanks for the great article!
  7. Rusfaner
    Rusfaner 9 August 2016 11: 42
    +14
    Quote: timyr
    Yeah, my friends worked on the construction of the station in Sary-Shagan. They told how the military acceptance accepted their work, the slightest deviation, redo it. And as after 91 there everyone was pulled away. The fire was needed to hide the tracks. Thank you for the article.

    The objects were "guarded" by the forces of the newly created Republican Guard of the Republic of Kazakhstan, with which he dragged everything he could. Outsiders could not set fire. Some of the equipment was simply ditched with the help of crooked hands, money and consultations from Raytheon, which our government (for reasonable gratitude, of course) instructed to destroy the strategic infrastructure of the Strategic Missile Forces in Kazakhstan.
    PS They’ll kill me, damn it ...
    1. Serg koma
      Serg koma 17 August 2016 17: 19
      0
      A few days ago, on “Military Review”, in the “News” section, a publication appeared which spoke about the transfer to Kazakhstan of several S-300PS air defense divisions. A number of website visitors took the liberty of suggesting that this is a Russian fee for using an early missile warning station on the shores of Lake Balkhash. In order to understand what the modern Russian system of early missile warning is, and how much Russia needs this object in independent Kazakhstan, let us return to the past.

      "Moscow and Astana signed documents on the withdrawal from the lease and transfer to the Kazakh side of lands unused by Russia with a total area of ​​more than 1,6 million hectares," Defense Minister of the neighboring state Sergei Shoigu said on Thursday, RIA Novosti (April 17 2015). "
      We are talking about the Sary-Shagan landfill (located in the territories of the Karaganda and Zhambyl regions - Note), as well as the territory that is rented from Kazakhstan for work 929 flight test center of the Russian Air Force, located in Akhtubinsk.
      "Today we are signing two protocols to interstate agreements on the procedure for using our test sites located in Kazakhstan, and two protocols to intergovernmental agreements on their lease," Shoigu said at a meeting with Kazakh Defense Minister Imangali Tasmagambetov in Moscow.

      Here's how it turns out ... what
  8. vietnam7
    vietnam7 9 August 2016 12: 24
    +8
    "our leadership decided to make a" gesture of goodwill "to the Americans and suspended construction." - in almost every article about any defense facilities of our country, such a proposal appears, God forbid, everyone will be reckoned with what they deserve! Sergey thanks for the article, although there is little time to read - nowadays a good summer has to be done.
  9. Operator
    Operator 9 August 2016 15: 40
    +4
    The Soviet over-the-horizon Duga radar was limited to the construction of only one station in the Chernobyl area due to the high cost and energy consumption and low efficiency of the missile attack warning system.

    To ensure the detection range of flares of taking off intercontinental missiles of 9000 km, it was necessary to ensure the appropriate resolution of the decameter radio signal when it tripled reflected from the ionosphere. This made the "Dugu" very sensitive to any changes in the ionosphere of natural (such as solar flares) or artificial origin.

    At present, the detection range of the Russian OGRLS "Container" (Mordovia) is limited to 6000 km (two jumps) when detecting surface targets with an RCS of 1000 sq. M or more, as well as 3000 km (one jump) when detecting air targets with RCS from 1 sq. .m and more (in decameter range).

    The cost and power consumption of the "Container" has been reduced by an order of magnitude compared to the "Duga".

    ZGRLS "Container" is a part of the Russian early warning system, providing detection of ballistic missile torches at a distance of up to 6000 km, aircraft and cruise missiles at a distance of up to 3000 km, regardless of the use of stealth technology.

    Acting in the interests of the Russian Navy, the "Container" ZGRLS allows you to monitor enemy ships, starting with a corvette and above, at a distance of up to 6000 km in real time.

    The dead zone of the ZGRLS "Container" is 600 km, which requires the use of A-50 AWACS aircraft in this zone.
    1. Bongo
      10 August 2016 05: 18
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      Soviet over-the-horizon radar "Duga" was limited to the construction of only one station in the Chernobyl region

      It seems that you only looked at the pictures? Or is the article about the station near Komsomolsk-on-Amur not mentioned?
      1. Operator
        Operator 10 August 2016 09: 36
        0
        What does the second geographic point of deployment of the same instance of the Duga ZGRLS have to do with it (which, moreover, burned down at this point, without being put on alert)?

        During three-hop operation of the ZGRLS at a distance of 9000 km, the station becomes hypersensitive to any changes in the ionosphere and therefore cannot be considered as a combat element of the SPRN.

        At the same time, the overwhelming majority of the launch fields of American intercontinental missiles were and are located at a distance of 11000 kilometers or more from the Duga ZGRLS in the Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur regions.

        So your statement about the use of "Duga" as an element of anti-missile defense is fundamentally wrong - this radar was originally intended for over-the-horizon detection of B-52 strategic bombers (EPR 100 sq. M.) Over the Arctic at a distance of 6000 km when operating in two-hop mode ...

        The three-hop mode was declared experimental. And the two-jump mode in the interests of air defense was recognized as limitedly effective due to the low resolving power of the Duga revealed in practice - at a distance of 6000 km, with a deteriorated state of the ionosphere, it was possible to confidently distinguish only objects with an RCS of 1000 square meters or more (sea targets).
        1. Bongo
          10 August 2016 11: 03
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          What does the second geographic point of deployment of the same instance of the Duga ZGRLS have to do with it (which, moreover, burned down at this point, without being put on alert)?

          Moreover, the construction of ZGRLS near Komsomolsk began, God forbid, in about 1980, before the station near Chernobyl was launched.
          1. Operator
            Operator 10 August 2016 12: 07
            0
            Do not confuse the construction of antenna fields with the installation of radar equipment.

            Fields were built at one time at two points (Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur), and singular equipment roamed at different times from one point to another.
            1. Bongo
              10 August 2016 12: 12
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              Do not confuse the construction of antenna fields with the installation of radar equipment.

              Fields were built at one time at two points (Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur), and singular equipment roamed at different times from one point to another.

              C'mon, do you really believe that? Those. Do you want to say that in the Cartel it was originally planned to build only antennas without receiving equipment? wassat
              1. Operator
                Operator 10 August 2016 13: 30
                -3
                In the USSR, it was planned to build two complete "Dugi", but by the end of the 1980s it turned out as usual - one complete in Chernobyl, and the second - a long-term construction in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

                After the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the first equipment was transferred to the second - a completely reasonable solution, it’s another matter that in 1989 the cable economy burned out there, but this is already a question for the installers.

                PS I forget to say - in the article the diagram with the directional diagram of the Duga ZGRS is shown incorrectly when viewing North America - the viewing angle was not 10-15 degrees (as in the figure), but 120 degrees.
                This implies a fundamentally different purpose of the Duga ZGRLS in the Komsomolsk-on-Amur region - radar control of the Pacific Ocean up to the western coast of the United States (movement of the AUG, launches of SLBMs, carrier-based aircraft flights, control of the surface situation on the approaches to naval bases, located in the national territory of the United States).
    2. Falcon
      Falcon 10 August 2016 08: 39
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      and also 3000 km (one jump) when detecting air targets with EPR from 1 sq m or more (in the decameter range).


      What kind of fantasies, what EPR 1 sq m in decameter range winked

      Quote: Operator
      aircraft and cruise missiles at a distance of up to 3000 km, regardless of the use of stealth technology.


      Stop fantasizing! What other cruise missiles in the over-the-horizon radar belay
      Regardless of stealth technology, but very dependent on the basics of radar, she will never see them!

      Quote: Operator
      Dead zone ZGRLS "Container" is 600 km


      Not true! I wonder how is it? The floor jump from the ionosphere? Nonshock radar?
      1. Operator
        Operator 10 August 2016 09: 50
        +1
        What does it mean which EPR in 1 sq. M in the decameter range - and what EPR in 0,025 sq. M in the meter range? Or do you think that the radar distinguishes only targets whose linear dimensions exceed the wavelength? laughing

        All ZGRLs have an active phased antenna array (it is somewhat difficult to mechanically move the antenna field of an area of ​​sq. Km, isn’t it), therefore they can change the direction of scanning the radio beam both horizontally and vertically. To reduce the dead zone in the single-hop mode, the radio beam is directed to the ionosphere at a large angle, thus achieving the dead zone in 600 km.
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 10 August 2016 10: 28
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          What does it mean which EPR in 1 sq. M in the decameter range - and what EPR in 0,025 sq. M in the meter range? Or do you think that the radar distinguishes only targets whose linear dimensions exceed the wavelength?


          Enough of flogging nonsense! at a wavelength much larger than the size of the target itself, the EPR is inversely proportional to the length to the fourth degree. For each wavelength, its own EPR, and for decameter waves, the EPR in 1 sq.m will be that for centimeter 100 sq.m. Those. The ESR of a small ship will be in the aisles of 1 sq.m. A plane with EPR in 5 sq.m. in centimeter, in decameter there will be 0,00000 ... and it does not see it.

          Opening a simple radar tutorial is not much more difficult than rewriting nonsense from forums, but definitely more useful. and then there will be no such nonsense:
          Quote: Operator
          therefore, they can change the scanning direction of the radio beam both horizontally and vertically. To reduce the dead zone in the single-hop mode, the radio beam is directed to the ionosphere at a large angle, thus achieving the dead zone in 600 km.


          laughing And why then do they have a dead zone, if everything is so simple? Maybe because the ionosphere is not a wall? Or maybe you need to open the basics of over-the-horizon radar and understand that ZGRL due to its features can not see much closer 3000km? no, did not try?
          1. Operator
            Operator 10 August 2016 12: 54
            0
            The beginning of the envelope (not reflection) of radio waves begins with the ratio of the linear size of the object and the wave as 1 to 10 or more. For the case of ZGRLS (falling beam from above) and a cruise missile (length 5-6 meters), the problems of inverse EPR proportionality begin with decameter waves with a length of 50 meters or more.

            When the ZGRLS operates in the frequency range 5-28 MHz ("Arc") and 3-30 MHz ("Container"), detection of cruise missiles is possible in a single-hop mode at higher frequencies.

            The ZGRLS dead zone depends on the capability of the AFAR to deflect the beam in the vertical plane, as well as on the size of the beam spot on the ground / water surface. The larger the deflection angle and the smaller the spot size, the smaller the length of the dead zone. For ZGRLS "Duga" the size of the dead zone was 900 km, for ZGRLS "Container" - 600 km, for ZGRLS "Volna" - 360 km, for ZGRLS "Podsolnukh" - 200 km.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 10 August 2016 14: 46
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              The beginning of the envelope (not reflection) of radio waves begins with the ratio of the linear size of the object and the wave as 1 to 10 or more. For the case of ZGRLS (falling beam from above) and a cruise missile (length 5-6 meters), the problems of inverse EPR proportionality begin with decameter waves with a length of 50 meters or more.


              What??? What is the envelope, if we are talking about the EPR, where does the envelope?
              What is the problem of inverse proportionality ????
              Is there a direct proportionality problem then maybe ???

              This is not a problem - this is an EPR formula
              1. Sergei1982
                Sergei1982 13 August 2016 06: 03
                0
                And Falcon so you don’t smack the crap about radar, read for yourself at least
                Radar is very easy (Pedestrian)
                http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-514.html
                so that it’s clear I’ll highlight a number of phrases that completely contradict the nonsense that you wrote
                then in the case of a concentrated load (the wavelength is larger than the size of the target) the requirement of equal resistance is not physically feasible. So, we have the first conclusion - for meter waves, measures to reduce radar visibility do not have a significant effect and the ESR of the target depends only on the geometric dimensions of the target.

                and what we see for waves whose length is longer than the target, the EPR depends only on the geometry of the figure, so there are no problems again. It is also well written about ZGRLS
                But there are no laws of nature prohibiting the detection of targets of this class by overseas stations. Stealth is not at least some kind of obstacle for these stations. The main thing here is the size of the target relative to the wavelength. The main thing is that they should not be much less than the wavelength, then the EPR strongly decreases purely due to the small physical area. Raman length 5..10m, if the wavelength is not more than 20..40m, then the detection conditions are quite normal. The altitude of the piano generally does not play, which is for surface wave stations, which is for reciprocating sounding. For them, all goals are low flying. And grandfather Doppler works here. Therefore, the probing signals of such stations are selected based on the maximum possible Doppler resolution, those with a minimum spectrum width relative to the carrier.

                So I advise you to admit that you are wrong.
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 13 August 2016 08: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  And Falcon so you don’t smack the crap about radar, read for yourself at least
                  Radar is very easy (Pedestrian)
                  //militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-514.html


                  I read for a long time (at least a year ago). The article is really excellent, one problem does not contradict me.
                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  equal resistance is not physically feasible

                  Do you even understand what is said here? The reflection of the coating is not auditable since the thickness should be equal to an odd number of quarters of the wave, if simpler. But what does it change if we are talking about the meter range?

                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  and what we see for waves whose length is longer than the target, the EPR depends only on the geometry of the figure

                  Yes, more precisely from the angles of incidence and reflection. What is most important in stealth, where is the contradiction ???
                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  The main thing is that they should not be much less than the wavelength, then the EPR strongly decreases purely due to the small physical area.

                  Not quite right, so the physical area is secondary. But it is true since the EPR is inversely proportional to the wavelength.
                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  And why is it then the meter radars perfectly see the stealth

                  Yes Yes Yes. They see in our media. The textbooks are not very. There the structure of definition changes, no more. I will talk more about this in my article. If the moderators publish it in a week. I'm afraid you will not like it very much. As well as the majority of the patriotic population ...




                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  And so that you do not smack the crap ZGRLS Sunflower //www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vvs/rls_bzgr_podsolnuh-e.html decameter range and read what we see, but we see

                  And here is not to flog nonsense. Sunflower, contrary to the opinion of Wikipedia, is not a ZGRLS station on a surface beam; in 99% more, most people mistakenly call it a SEW beam. But this is also not the case, since no one has yet been able to create PEW stations - and this is a station with an "earth beam"

                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  it looks like your knowledge is weak, and you are so rushing words, so

                  where to me. I’m tired of honestly arguing about anything ... You are quoting something that you don’t understand and at least one formula for seed.
                  Quote: Sergei1982
                  in your opinion that the general designer is lying or all the same, your knowledge does not allow you to know this.

                  More similar designers said that the T-50 in the 2013 will go into the series. They have such a job, sell their goods, and frighten the American housewife.
                  Everything will be described in more detail in my article. But I think she is hardly interested in you.
                  1. Sergei1982
                    Sergei1982 13 August 2016 09: 09
                    0
                    Quote: Falcon
                    . The article is really excellent, one problem does not contradict me.

                    Contradicts, and how
                    But there are no laws of nature prohibiting the detection of targets of this class by overseas stations. Stealth is not at least some kind of obstacle for these stations. The main thing here is the size of the target relative to the wavelength. The main thing is that they should not be much less than the wavelength, then the EPR strongly decreases purely due to the small physical area. Raman length 5..10m, if the wavelength is not more than 20..40m, then the detection conditions are quite normal. The altitude of the piano generally does not play, which is for surface wave stations, which is for reciprocating sounding. For them, all low-flying targets. And grandfather Doppler works here. Therefore, the probing signals of such stations are selected based on the maximum possible Doppler resolution, those with a minimum spectrum width relative to the carrier.
                    you argued that this could not be, here is your phrase
                    Quote: Falcon
                    A plane with an EPR of 5 sq.m. in centimeter, in decameter there will be 0,00000 ... and it does not see it.

                    It is false, in all ZGRLS detection of air targets is declared
                    In 1986, the Volna station began to operate in experimental mode in the Far East (near Nakhodka). It was constantly improved, its software and algorithmic complex was modernized, and its energy potential increased. By 1990, the station was steadily detecting and escorting US aircraft carriers in the Pacific at ranges far above 3000 km, and individual air targets at ranges up to 2800 km.
                    And now you’re just trying to get out, I don’t have anything against you, you’ve just made a mistake and, besides, are grossly trying to get out. As for your next article, we’ll see, read, if there are any questions we will discuss, I remember we have already encountered you according to your article on F-15E and Su-34, so there are no problems.
                    1. Falcon
                      Falcon 13 August 2016 16: 22
                      +2
                      Quote: Sergei1982
                      you argued that this could not be, here is your phrase


                      And now I affirm. Since the EPR depends on the wavelength. If the CR in the centimeter range is 0,1m (plus or minus), then in the meter it is much smaller!
                      Quote: Sergei1982
                      And now you’re just trying to get out, I don’t have anything against you, you just made a mistake and, moreover, are rude and now you are trying to get out.

                      I certainly don’t need to spin. Your desire to believe the allegations, only your right. I do not need to be a messiah. If you think that the EPR formula is erroneous or it is considered differently, then I will gladly read your scientific work on this topic.
                      Quote: Sergei1982
                      Stealth is not at least some obstacle for these stations

                      The angle of incidence - reflection does not depend on the wavelength ...

                      Quote: Sergei1982
                      The length of the Raman 5..10m, if the wavelength is not more than 20..40m, then the detection conditions are quite normal.


                      Nakoy needs length when it is not in one formula, but only EPR. Which is not a measure of area but a power characteristic ???
                      1. Sergei1982
                        Sergei1982 14 August 2016 05: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Nakoy needs length when it is not in one formula, but only EPR. Which is not a measure of area but a power characteristic ???

                        So you don’t know the formulas and everything else, you’re an amateur, and a Pedestrian specialist, doesn’t satisfy Pedestrian, then please meet http://vpk.name/blog/fundamentalnye_i_prikladnye_problemy_stels-tehnologii/
                        I will highlight a quote
                        The magnitude of the EPR depends on the orientation of the object relative to the radar beam and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation.

                        What was clear who you are and who A.N. Lagarkov
                        Lagarkov Andrey Nikolaevich (1939, Moscow) - specialist in the field of electrophysics and thermophysics;
                        Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2011)
                        Lagarkov Andrei Nikolaevich was born on August 8, 1939 in Moscow. In 1963 he graduated from the Faculty of Electronic Engineering of the Moscow Power Engineering Institute (MPEI).
                        Scientific career A.N. Lagarkova began in the late 1960s in the theoretical department of the Institute of High Temperatures of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which was headed by Leonid Mikhailovich Biberman.
                        In 1967, Lagarkov A.N. defended his thesis. In 1977, for the work “Some Questions in the Theory of Transport Phenomena”, Lagarkov was awarded the degree of Doctor of Physics and Mathematics.
                        In 1989, A.N. Lagarkov headed the Scientific Center created on his initiative, and in 1999 the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which in 2007 became an independent institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Lagarkov - Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics of the Institute of High Temperature Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow). He is the head of the RAS Working Group on the creation of 5th generation aircraft.
                        May 26, 2000 Lagarkov A.N. elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of Physical and Technical Problems of Energy.
                      2. Sergei1982
                        Sergei1982 14 August 2016 05: 51
                        -1
                        December 22, 2011 Lagorkova A.N. elected a full member (academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of Energy, Engineering, Mechanics and Control Processes.
                        Lagarkov Andrey Nikolaevich - a specialist in the field of electrophysics and thermophysics. The main areas of scientific activity are research in the field of electrophysics, thermal physics and heat power engineering.
                        Lagarkov A.N. conducted important studies of energy transfer by radiation from an inhomogeneous plasma and hot gases. The development of the molecular dynamics method in the late 60s in our country is directly related to the works of A.N. Lagarkova and his students. The method turned out to be an effective tool for studying the electro- and thermophysical properties of melts, dense plasma, gases and liquids. Performed by A.N. Lagarkov's studies of the dynamics of electrical breakdown made it possible to describe the propagation of sliding discharges over the surface of insulators, the propagation of ionization waves in discharge tubes, streamers in shielded systems. Fundamental studies of the processes of energy distribution in heterogeneous media by A.N. Lagarkov, allowed to create new composite materials with unique electrophysical, optical and magnetic properties. The energy-saving glasses patented by him and the technologies for their creation, intended for use in the energy-saving construction industry, are one of the applications of the obtained fundamental knowledge. Investigations of the energy distribution in ferromagnetic media have allowed the creation of miniature magnetic sensors of the magnetic field and devices designed for modern magnetic diagnostics of gas pipelines and solving a number of problems of railway transport. The most significant defense result achieved under the leadership of A.N. Lagarkova, is the development of modernization of aircraft and other facilities, as well as the creation of new weapons with a low level of reflected energy.
                        And now for the knowledge of radar location, we look and learn a lot of new things, and not just from Wiki http://info.alnam.ru/book_afar.php?id=68, here you have the formulas for the dependence of the EPR on the wavelength and much more
                        Having determined the modulus of the complex amplitude of the scattered field, squaring it and substituting it into formula (9.1), we obtain the expression for the effective scattering surface (EPR) of the sphere depending on the ratio between the radius of the sphere a and wavelength in a propagation medium where is the speed of light in a medium; f is the frequency of the harmonic electromagnetic field in Hz.
                      3. Sergei1982
                        Sergei1982 14 August 2016 06: 01
                        -1
                        Well, you are our "specialist", you sailed in full to understand who wrote this book from where I brought the phrases.
                        Voskresensky Dmitry Ivanovich, Doctor of Technical Sciences (1965), Professor (1966).
                        He graduated from FRELAI MAI in 1951, a well-known scientist in the field of microwave antenna devices, organizer and head of the antenna scientific school in the field of
                        theory and technology of the PHAR, recognized as the leading one in our country.
                        Laureate of the State Prize, Prizes of the USSR Ministry of Higher Education, full member of the International Academy of Sciences of Information Processes and Technologies.
                        The department was created in October 1946. About 30 years (until 1974) the department was headed by its founder - Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Honored Worker of Science and Technology of the RSFSR, USSR State Prize Laureate Mikhail Samoilovich Neumann, whose 100th birthday was solemnly celebrated in March 2005 by the Faculty of Radio Electronics aircraft ". M.S. Neumann was one of the largest radio specialists in our country, who made a great contribution to the theory and practice of electromagnetic oscillating systems of superhigh frequencies, antenna technology and radio transmitting devices.
                        Since 1975, the department has been headed by Dmitry Ivanovich Voskresensky, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation.
                        Kanaschenkov Anatoly Ivanovich

                        General Designer - Deputy General Director for Science, OJSC Fazotron-NIIR Corporation
                        Doctor of Technical Sciences, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Professor, Honored Engineer of the Russian Federation, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, laureate of the State Prize of the Russian Federation
                        He was awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the October Revolution, two orders of the Red Banner of Labor
                        The author of 211 scientific works, including 17 monographs and 55 inventions.

                        So scramble under the table with your knowledge of the "tea pot" laughing .
                        And I advise you to recall the article you want to publish, so as not to fool people with your head, with your own nonsense.
                      4. Falcon
                        Falcon 14 August 2016 12: 59
                        +5
                        Thanks, neighing!

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        The magnitude of the EPR depends on the orientation of the object relative to the radar beam and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation.


                        Where did I state the opposite? smile

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        //info.alnam.ru/book_afar.php?id=68, here you have the formulas for the dependence of the EPR on the wavelength and much more


                        And then the calculation of the EPR ball? wassat

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        What was clear who you are and who A.N. Lagarkov


                        Serious person! Great work! But where are your arguments ???

                        From the words pasted by you that are incomprehensible to you, you do not look smarter. As in previous posts, terrible words were copied, taking them for arguments, not even understanding the meaning? Though explain where does the scope?
                        For you, as for the most stubborn ury patriot I will give the last educational program. That creepy and incomprehensible copy-paste formula for a ball can be deduced in a simplified form for students (you’re not a schoolboy, I hope you will understand):

                        Oh God belay inversely proportional to the fourth steppe wavelength wassat
                        All sources are in my article, but you do not need to read it.

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        So scramble under the table with your knowledge of the "tea pot"

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        Well, you are our "specialist"


                        I advise you to be careful in words. In the future, I see no reason in communicating with a person of such a controversial intellectual level, and even more so to prove something to you.
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        And what does it have to do with it, you said that the Container will be destroyed, well, according to this logic, the SPRN will be destroyed.

                        That says it all...

                      5. Sergei1982
                        Sergei1982 14 August 2016 17: 55
                        -1
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Where did I state the opposite?

                        Quote: Falcon
                        And then the calculation of the EPR ball?

                        Quote: Falcon
                        Serious person! Great work! But where are your arguments ???

                        How everything is started, you don’t even know how to read, but here’s another article for you, at least don’t have to, but just in case, I’ll highlight http://www.itae.ru/science/topics/№4%20 (stealth). pdf
                        Of course, it is desirable to reduce the ESR in
                        wide band, ranging from millimeter range to meter. However
                        even if such thin and light coatings with a nominal working
                        millimeter to meter wavelength range is really
                        existed, it is impossible to circumvent fundamental limitations on efficiency
                        their work on objects of limited size. As a result, it turns out that with
                        using coatings it is almost impossible to reduce the EPR of an airplane in
                        long wavelength portion of this range
                        , in reality it is possible to achieve
                        a significant reduction in the EPR of the aircraft in the continuous wavelength band from 2
                        up to 20 see
                        as everything is sad, everything, as I said, the long waves see everything perfectly, and one delitant (you) argued that they do not see shit.
                        Authors A.N. Lagarkov, A.I. Fedorenko, V.N. Kissel
                        S.G. Kibets, V.N. Semenenko
                        Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics RAS
                        (ITPE RAS) I HOPE EVERYTHING IT IS UNDERSTOOD WHO THEY ARE AND WHO A FALCON MAN WITH PONTS.
                        By the way, if your article comes out, I’ll specially say nothing and leave comments with a link to a number of resources (including the one that I just referred to) to dip you.
                      6. Falcon
                        Falcon 14 August 2016 18: 42
                        +3
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        As a result, it turns out that with
                        using coatings it is almost impossible to reduce the EPR of an airplane in
                        long wavelength portion of this range


                        You really do not understand or pretend to be?
                        I said above that
                        Quote: Falcon
                        The reflection of the coating is not auditable since the thickness should be equal to an odd number of quarters of the wave, if simpler


                        This is about absorbing paints, for the dull. I said that they do not work? Can you read? And where is the weird argument?
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        in reality it is possible to achieve
                        a significant reduction in the EPR of the aircraft in the continuous wavelength band from 2
                        up to 20 see

                        It's about paints fool For long-term: ABOUT PAINTS. Read the spell radio-absorbing !!!!

                        I said earlier that they do not work, and this is understandable. Or do you have all the stealth technology tied to paints? fool Or are you just not knowing what you are copying again?
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        But
                        even if such thin and light coatings

                        cover again - PAINTS! laughing
                        is that even clear?

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        By the way, if your article comes out, I’ll specially say nothing and leave comments with a link to a number of resources (including the one that I just referred to) to dip you.


                        You will only plunge yourself while showing that you do not even roughly understand the issue. More than sure, you will earn a bunch of pluses from such stupid ury patriots. But this is only funnier. wassat
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. Falcon
                        Falcon 14 August 2016 19: 36
                        +2
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        What paints are we talking about RPP and composites.


                        Here is the rzhaka! RPP These are materials coated with rabbi-absorbing paints. Radiolucent and radar absorbing different things!
                        For hard-to-read composites, no radar can see it. And all planes are treated with a radar absorbing coating or damn paints for the hundredth time. why did I say - this does not work: I repeat the hundredth time, if it does not fly for long:
                        Quote: Falcon
                        The reflection of the coating is not auditable since the thickness should be equal to an odd number of quarters of the wave, if simpler

                        Copy pasteur and
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        Sky-Y meter range detect, detect target with EPR 2,5 meter

                        Do you have at least three classes of education?
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        defective,

                        lol Let's copy more incomprehensible EPR phrases depending on the wavelength, and 2,5 in meter is a completely different EPR in centimeter? Is it clear no ??? The tenth time, damn it already !!! And he no longer cares for the radar absorbing coating,
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        defective,


                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        “I myself, sitting in the receiving position of such a station in Mordovia, observed how Dutch pilots learned to fly on small sports planes,” he said.


                        And t-50 in 2013 went into the series laughing
                        Come on a couple more copy-paste laughing
                      9. Operator
                        Operator 14 August 2016 20: 40
                        +1
                        Actually, you have to be on friendly terms with the materiel - the cellular filler of the wide-range radio-absorbing panels of the F-117 airframe (EPR 0,025 sq. M) had a thickness of 200 mm (good "paint", however)

                        As for the AWACS A-50 - before writing about it, it is useful to recall the existence of a dead zone at ZGRLS.

                        To prove the "lack of demand" for the ZGRLS, you would have remembered the satellite constellation of radar reconnaissance with a radius of action on a planetary scale - albeit in offline mode lol
                      10. Falcon
                        Falcon 14 August 2016 21: 05
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        Actually, you have to be on friendly terms with the materiel - the cellular filler of the wide-range radio-absorbing panels of the F-117 airframe (EPR 0,025 sq. M) had a thickness of 200 mm (good "paint", however)


                        Dear Operator, I will disappoint you a little, but even the very first batches of the MiG-29 have a composite honeycomb filler. Where it is located, it is also written on the fuselage - "do not step" in red. I walked myself, I know, and touched this structure in section. But he's not for radio coverage there.
                        Poke me with your finger, where does the F-22 have a 20cm thick plate on top of the main fuselage, or does the T-50 have such weak points? or are you confusing it with radar blockers? So this is a little different.

                        Quote: Operator
                        remembered the satellite constellation of radar reconnaissance with a radius of action on a planetary scale - however, offline


                        Well, with regards to fantasies, this is not for me. Rather, I have noticed you more than once in this sin wink

                        Quote: Operator
                        As for the AWACS A-50 - before writing about it, it is useful to recall the existence of a dead zone at ZGRLS.

                        Well, it's probably not for me, I didn’t write about A-50
                      11. Operator
                        Operator 14 August 2016 22: 06
                        +1
                        At your request, I'll stick it in F-117 (its RCS is an order of magnitude less than F-22, F-35 and T-50) - pay attention to the longitudinal arrangement of the "honeycomb"
                      12. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 August 2016 08: 10
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        At your request I will stick in F-117 (its EPR is an order of magnitude smaller than F-22, F-35 and T-50)


                        Cell design, wow! Eco is not seen. At Mig-29 such wing percent 10. is he stealth too? On 787, in general, the wing floor in honeycombs is also stealth?
                        How would they be full everywhere in the aircraft industry. In the photo there are a lot of places where honeycombs from your photo are used in a civilian liner ... Is he Stealth? A honeycomb is not radiolucent ??? Maybe they are made of material that is used on the radio stream, as there are also cells. This is the so-called radiolucent material (at any wavelength). Not radio absorption, not radar blocker - radio-transparent ...
                      13. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 August 2016 09: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        pay attention to the longitudinal arrangement of the "honeycomb"


                        В продолжение
                        honeycomb


                        Too


                        still, there’s even a patent


                        And here


                        MH-270

                        and still him


                        Is that all for stealth on civil and fairing, or? ...
                      14. Operator
                        Operator 15 August 2016 10: 07
                        0
                        Pay attention to my phrase "longitudinal arrangement of honeycombs" and to your photos, where it is transverse.

                        In addition, the size matters - with the height of the walls of the cells 200 mm they lose stability (do not hold the load).
                      15. Falcon
                        Falcon 15 August 2016 10: 16
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        Pay attention to my phrase "longitudinal arrangement of honeycombs" and to your photos, where it is transverse.


                        Ok, how is it? Does it seem to be longitudinal with respect to the bend wing?

                        And what does even longitudinal filling give us if the composite is radiolucent? What is the physical meaning of this arrangement?
                      16. Operator
                        Operator 15 August 2016 11: 13
                        0
                        Across - this means that the walls of the honeycombs are located normally to the loaded surface of the wing or fuselage, forming stiffeners. Plus, the height of the walls of honeycombs of small thickness should not exceed 100 mm, otherwise they will form under load.

                        Radar-absorbing honeycombs are located along the wing, their surface is covered with radio-absorbing material, deep inner cells of the honeycomb “catch” (do not re-reflect) radar radiation in a wider frequency range than the airframe RPM coating 3-5 mm thick.

                        By the way, a paint layer of this thickness does not happen by definition.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 15 August 2016 08: 19
          +2

          By the way, cool photo. But what is it for ???
          The material that is used in anechoic chambers when irradiating an aircraft? Or did you decide to tell me how an over-the-horizon radar plane is irradiated in an anechoic chamber wassat
          Or is such material placed on an airplane? lol I’m sorry, this is for walls, on the plane radar absorbing paint is used lol
          Again, something skipipastel - well, as usual in general lol
      2. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 14 August 2016 19: 27
        0
        Who are you to argue with
        General Designer of JSC NPK NIIDAR - Sergey Dmitrievich Saprykin was born on June 6, 1955. In 1978 he graduated from the Moscow Power Engineering Institute, in 1984 postgraduate studies at NIIDAR, candidate of technical sciences, professor at the base department of MIREA. From 2000 to 2010 he held the post of General Director of OJSC "NPK" NIIDAR "
        Under his leadership, radars are created that operate in various wavelength ranges - from high-potential decimeter radar stations (RLS) of high factory readiness (VZG) of space monitoring systems to a number of centimeter-range instruments and over-the-horizon products in container design.

        Sergey Dmitrievich Saprykin - a leading specialist in the field of theory and technology of radar, one of the creators of the modern direction of the development of the VZG radar, was awarded the “Honorary Radio Operator” sign, and has thanks from industry leaders.

        Sergey Dmitrievich Saprykin made a great contribution to the creation of the Volga radar - a high-potential radar of a missile attack warning system. Separate technical solutions embedded in products have no analogues in world practice.
        He says that ZGRLS sees the planes perfectly for 3000 km, and you say no, and who are you to argue with him, and you are no one to call, I brought you a link to world-famous scientists, you didn’t bring anything, just you write a set of nonsense from yourself and that's it.
      3. Falcon
        Falcon 14 August 2016 19: 44
        +3
        Quote: Sergei1982
        Who are you to argue with


        oh oh oh already on you laughing
        Look do not cry only here!

        Quote: Sergei1982
        Sergey Dmitrievich Saprykin

        Did I argue with him? He sees planes, the question is which EPR? Since this is a dynamic characteristic.

        Quote: Sergei1982
        such that to argue with him, but you are no one to call, I


        The poke hasn't grown to poke me. So "tykunchik" give me a physical rationale that the EPR of 1m2 in centimeter is the same as in meter and decometer? laughing Give please "God's hand" or monstrous copy-paste of phrases you do not understand? laughing
        I'm waiting for the "poke"!
      4. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 14 August 2016 20: 01
        0
        Quote: Falcon
        Did I argue with him? He sees planes, the question is which EPR

        Just arguing, here's your phrase
        Quote: Falcon
        A plane with an EPR of 5 sq.m. in centimeter, in decameter there will be 0,00000 ... and it does not see it.

        You wrote that we say MiG-29 (he has an ESR of 5 m) ZGRLS does not SEE, but Sergei Dmitrievich Saprykin, says
        I myself, sitting in Mordovia at the receiving position of such a station, watched how Dutch pilots learn to fly on small sports airplanes", - he said.
        oh well, I forgot, at the LITTLE SPORTS AIRPLANE EPR 1005000 m and Koteyner saw him for this, and the fact that ZGRLS Wave observed flights of aircraft with AUGs over 2800 km it also all lies, where are the doctors, professors, leading scientists of our military industrial complex, to a certain anonymous falcon, he's a genius lol , in general, what to take from you, so you write some wet fantasies.
      5. Falcon
        Falcon 14 August 2016 20: 09
        +2
        Quote: Sergei1982
        Just arguing, here's your phrase


        Silence, give me a physical justification - that the EPR of an airplane in different wavelength ranges is constant? Should formulas talk about inverse?

        Poppy, skip something wassat

        Quote: Sergei1982
        oh well yes I forgot, have a LITTLE SPORTS PLAN EPR 1005000 m

        And t-50 with 2013 in the series. And the laws of physics do not apply?


        Or maybe he watched the group goals and the group EPR wassat But this doesn’t fit in the head either, but at the same time copy and poke
      6. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 15 August 2016 03: 23
        0
        Quote: Falcon
        that the EPR of an airplane in different wavelength ranges is constant?

        Well, what was required to prove, you don’t even admit what I wrote myself, in the general society I explained everything and they understood everything.
        Quote: Falcon
        A T-50 from 2013 in a series.

        And what about the fact that PAK FA did not go into production in 2013, did it become a bad airplane? belay Ingenious logic what F-35s also communicated in 2008 and what of the relation to ZGRLS and its capabilities
        Quote: Sergei1982
        You wrote that we say MiG-29 (he has an ESR of 5 m) ZGRLS does not SEE, but Sergei Dmitrievich Saprykin, says
        I myself, sitting in the receiving position of such a station in Mordovia, observed how Dutch pilots learn to fly on small sports planes, "he said.
        The point is that you are LIES, you write one thing, and the sources say different things and you cannot refute them.
    3. Falcon
      Falcon 14 August 2016 20: 17
      +3
      Quote: Sergei1982
      your phrase


      So I didn’t hear how long since we switched to you, my irritated one?

      And I really look forward to the formulaic justification of the dependence of the EPR on the wavelength. Try not to flaunt brochures but with your gray matter.
      Or maybe an extract from the textbook where it is written - EPR does not depend on the wavelength or the article is scientific, of any respected person. Or maybe an article that EPR is not important belay This is a breakthrough.
      Let me remind you, I gave the EPR formulas and in ALL textbooks they are treacherously inversely proportional to the wavelength crying
      Or "Kiselevskaya" propaganda and of the releases completely ate a grayish substance, only it can poke laughing
      We amuse the people, otherwise we’ll get to the statements of politicians.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 15 August 2016 13: 19
      +1
      Quote: Falcon
      The conversation with you is over.

      Everything is clear, merged when you nose stuck laughing
      Lastly, to dip you again in.
      Radar P-18
      Detection range of the MiG-21 (in interference):
      at the height of 500 m - up to 60 (40) km
      at the height of 10000 m - Up to 180 (90) km
      at the height of 20000-27000 m - up to 260 (170) km

      So, so you don’t understand, EPR Mig-21 = 3 m, according to your stubborn logic fool , she should not see him (after all, she’s a meter), and he sees him, so I will repeat again: play a scatter in toys.
    9. Operator
      Operator 15 August 2016 14: 15
      0
      Give Falcon (1) time to comprehend the information hi
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Operator
    Operator 15 August 2016 10: 38
    +1
    Thanks for the tip - after I read in the Falcon (1) article about Su-34's maximum combat load eight tons and the availability of AFAR at the radar AN / APG-70, I have all questions settled by themselves laughing
  17. Falcon
    Falcon 15 August 2016 10: 52
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    I had all questions somehow exhausted immediately


    Chu, and that’s it. How do you deal with everything else?

    If you list how many times I caught you on incompetence, especially on air defense - then the article is not enough lol

    Quote: Operator
    SU-34 eight tons

    Sources about 8 tons
    http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/lineup/military/su-32/aircraft-specific/
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su34.html
    http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su32/lth/

    A source about 12 tons one
    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20131226/986658004.html

    I'm waiting there for a longitudinal arrangement of radio-transparent composites educational program, and how this affects the EPR. (especially in the toe of the wing)
  18. Operator
    Operator 15 August 2016 11: 29
    0
    Well, what have the sources to do with it (golem copy-paste)? Sources can be limited when you do not understand the subject (like Bongo, but to that it is excusable - the humanities after all).

    Fuck sources - if the Su-34 has a maximum take-off weight of 45 tons, the photo hurts the eye twice the number of wheels of the main landing gear and the known weight of an empty plane in 22,5 tons, then you have to be very out of topic to repeat the "sources" mantra about 8 tons of maximum combat load.

    And yet - by publishing a photo of the radar with slotted antenna on a rotating suspension, you can not place text under it, where the same antenna is designated as AFAR, and it is also stated that a rotating suspension is only for AFAR.

    PS AFAR of the F-22 and F-35 airborne radars are stationary, unlike the PFAR of the Su-35С airborne radar.
  19. Falcon
    Falcon 15 August 2016 12: 43
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    Fuck sources - if the Su-34 has a maximum take-off weight of 45 tons,

    And 45 tons are not from the source, they themselves were weighed? lol
    Quote: Operator
    eu empty aircraft in xnumx tons

    And this is also not from sources, weighed lol ?

    And by the way, not one official does not give a lot of empty even Su-32, let alone Su-34.

    But the OPERATOR with scales and fantasies knows everything himself lol
    Quote: Operator
    Radar-absorbing cells are located along the wing, their surface is covered with radio-absorbing material, deep inner cells of the cells “catch” (do not re-reflect) radar radiation in a larger range


    How do they catch if there are peromiid panels filled with honeycombs fool since they are composite. And the cells do not catch anything, since this is not radar blockers (which pass and do not release a wave, but do not catch lol ). Featherback reflection based on "odd number of quarter wave" rather than longitudinal position laughing

    Which does not work at a long wavelength, since the EPR is already falling.
    I’m tired of explaining to you the pastoral arguments, the conversation is over.

    Quote: Operator
    when you don’t understand the subject (like Bongo, but to that it is excusable - the humanities after all).

    OPERADTTOR with 3Y virtual reality glasses, certainly smarter than the person who wrote more than 200 publications wassat You can still say something here wassat
  20. Bongo
    15 August 2016 12: 55
    +3
    Quote: Falcon
    But the OPERATOR with scales and fantasies knows everything himself

    Just take it for granted and don't argue. For some time now, I do not enter into discussions with Andrei Vasiliev - this is about the same as urinating against the wind. What he just didn’t accuse me of, it turns out that I am a fan of Israel and everything Western, and at the same time also a "terry anti-Semite" and, moreover, a "humanist" lol All this is funny and no more, on the site of this person many do not take seriously already, and you also do not bother. And in general, once again do not rub your nerves at trifles. wink
  21. Falcon
    Falcon 15 August 2016 13: 02
    +2
    Quote: Bongo
    admirer of Israel and everything Western and at the same time also a "terry anti-Semite" and, moreover, a "humanist"


    Well ok so far not a satanist yet laughing Or worse, the fifth column laughing
    Although we will wait with conclusions, we’ll suddenly notice wassat
  22. iwind
    iwind 15 August 2016 13: 24
    +4
    Quote: Falcon
    Quote: Bongo
    admirer of Israel and everything Western and at the same time also a "terry anti-Semite" and, moreover, a "humanist"


    Well ok so far not a satanist yet laughing Or worse, the fifth column laughing
    Although we will wait with conclusions, we’ll suddenly notice wassat

    Better listen to Bongo.
    Although I apparently brought the Operator threw me in an emergency, which in general I am very pleased. It really annoys me when a person is constantly lying in his posts, but he got it so that I poke him into it. bully
  23. Bongo
    15 August 2016 13: 53
    +3
    Quote: iwind
    Although I apparently brought the Operator threw me in an emergency, which in general I am very pleased. It really annoys me when a person is constantly lying in his posts, but he got it so that I poke him into it.

    You were not the only one who got into an emergency at the "Operator". request My friend got there, for example, after she pointed out the contradictions in Andrei’s comments. In general, an emergency is a sign of weakness and inability to intelligible arguments.
  24. iwind
    iwind 15 August 2016 18: 02
    +4
    Quote: Bongo
    You were not the only one who got into an emergency at the "Operator". For example, my friend got there after she pointed out the contradictions in Andrey's comments. In general, emergency situations are a sign of weakness and inability for intelligible arguments.

    I do not quite agree. An emergency is sometimes a convenient thing, so as not to read absolutely nonsense. So I'm just glad that they brought me in an emergency.
    I take this opportunity, I want to say thanks for your articles. Almost the only articles that I regularly read on VO since you can always find out something new and interesting in them.
  25. Operator
    Operator 15 August 2016 14: 18
    0
    You better look not at the sources and number of publications, but at the root - at the design of the Su-34 chassis drinks
  26. Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 15 August 2016 12: 11
    0
    Quote: Falcon
    A source about 12 tons one

    A source about 12-13 tons, a user with the nickname Ancient-vaf, a respected person on this site, an honored pilot with thousands of flying hours, and his word is worth thousands of people like you.
  27. Bongo
    15 August 2016 12: 23
    +4
    Quote: Sergei1982
    A source about 12-13 tons, a user with the nickname Ancient-vaf, a respected person on this site, an honored pilot with thousands of flying hours, and his word is worth thousands of people like you.

    Sergei, I have a huge request for you, let's quit squabbling. And all the more, you shouldn't be rude and ruffle the name of a respected person known on the site as "Ancient", by the way, his name is also Sergei, like you and me. The payload weight of 12 tons is the maximum weight that the Su-34 is capable of lifting with a minimum supply of fuel, and this has nothing to do with reality. In general, you show uncharacteristic intemperance; you should not go over to personalities under any circumstances.
  28. Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 15 August 2016 13: 28
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    and bang the name of a respected person known on the site as "Ancient", by the way, his name is also Sergei, like you and me.

    I didn’t say a single bad word about the Ancient One, at one time we spoke quite tightly in person, this is a MUCH RESPECTED MAN (if I still communicate with him, I bow to him), really with knowledge and experience.
    Quote: Bongo
    The weight of the combat load of 12 tons is the maximum weight that the Su-34 can lift with a minimum fuel supply, and this has nothing to do with reality.

    Nevertheless, he is.
    Quote: Bongo
    In general, you are showing inconsistency uncharacteristic of you;

    But how, if a person doesn’t understand, I gave the developers’s data, quotes from scientists of the military-industrial complex, and Falcon writes that they all lie-ZGRLS doesn’t see anything, meter-range radars too, this is nonsense of clear water that we have in the Moscow region all the fools since the USSR and Russia once they buy meter radars and build ZGRLS?
  29. Bongo
    15 August 2016 13: 46
    +4
    Quote: Sergei1982
    I didn’t say a single bad word about the Ancient One, at one time we spoke quite tightly in person, this is a MUCH RESPECTED MAN (if I still communicate with him, I bow to him), really with knowledge and experience.

    This is a REALLY RESPECTED MAN yes But talking with him is rarely possible, due to the fact that Sergey has been missing on business trips recently, I think you can guess where. But in my opinion it is not necessary to interfere with it in a dispute. I, too, could refer to it in a couple of dubious moments voiced by you in the comments, but is it worth it?
    Quote: Sergei1982
    But how, if a person does not understand, I cited the data of the developers

    The data of the developers, let’s say, is not only not true, but they should not be unconditionally believed. This is usually ideal data for ideal conditions.
    Quote: Sergei1982
    Falcon writes they all lie-ZGRLS doesn’t see anything, meter radars too, is it nonsense that we all fools from the times of the USSR and Russia once buy meter radars and build ZRLS?

    This Cyril did not write, you are slightly exaggerating. No. One way or another, ZGRLS were not widely spread and so far are not involved in the formation of the radar field.

    Once again, I urge everyone to mutual politeness and stop turning to personalities!
  30. Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 15 August 2016 14: 12
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    This is usually ideal data for ideal conditions.

    But nevertheless they are.
    Quote: Bongo
    Cyril did not write this, you exaggerate slightly

    Here is his phrase
    Quote: Falcon
    A plane with an EPR of 5 sq.m. in centimeter, in decameter there will be 0,00000 ... and it does not see it.

    This is his statement that the ZGRLS does not SEE a fighter aircraft, the developers and the data obtained from the operation of the Wave say that they see, moreover, at 2800 km, that is, for example, everything that Pedestrian wrote turned out to be true.
  31. Falcon
    Falcon 14 August 2016 18: 49
    +1
    Quote: Sergei1982
    (ITPE RAS) HOPE ALL UNDERSTAND WHO THEY ARE


    I hope everyone understands that
    Quote: Sergei1982
    Authors A.N. Lagarkov, A.I. Fedorenko, V.N. Kissel
    S.G. Kibets, V.N. Semenenko
    Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics RAS


    These respected people talk about radio-absorbing gaps, which are only one of the hundreds of "stealth" technologies and in which I said that they would not work a hedgehog. And then not everyone understands the first time.
  • Operator
    Operator 13 August 2016 15: 01
    -1
    Falcon (1) is not able to admit that it is wrong - he grabbed the tops in the bare textbook on radar and is not able to understand that the general rule for dropping the EPR value depending on the growth of the wavelength begins to work only with a specific ratio of the wavelength and the linear size of the target ( what Pedestrian clearly stated).
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 13 August 2016 16: 14
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      textbook on radar

      The textbook is here with it?))) Write better!

      Quote: Operator
      that the general rule for the drop in the EPR value depending on the growth of the wavelength begins to work only with a specific ratio of the wavelength and the linear size of the target (as Pedestrian clearly stated)


      Nameless Pedestrian is certainly smarter than all the professors who wrote the textbook. And where did he say that?
      Or unfounded, but patriotic statements are a priori better than "golny" textbooks "golim" professors?
  • Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 13 August 2016 05: 48
    -1
    Quote: Falcon
    For each wavelength, its own EPR, and for decameter waves, an EPR of 1 square meter will be that for centimeter 100 square meters. Those. The EPR of a small ship will be in the aisles of 1 sq.m. A plane with an EPR of 5 sq.m. in centimeter, in decameter there will be 0,00000 ... and it does not see it.

    And why is it then meter-long radars perfectly see the Stealths (which do not see centimeter and decimeter radars), because by your logic they should not see them.
    And so that you do not smash the crap ZGRLS Sunflower http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vvs/rls_bzgr_podsolnuh-e.html decameter range and read what we see, but we see
    detection and tracking outside the horizon of sea and air objects, determining their coordinates and issuing target designations to weapon systems and systems1;
    here are the results of the exercises
    Specialists of the radio engineering service and crews of the Caspian flotilla ships conducted joint exercises to detect surface and air targets, followed by the issuance of target designations for the use of missile and artillery weapons.

    A new over-the-horizon radar station (ZG radar) "Sunflower" was involved in the exercise. Small missile ships Grad Sviyazhsk and Uglich took part in the exercises from the naval forces.

    The exercises were planned and conducted to work out the issues of interaction between the ZG Podsolnukh radar and control points of ships upon detection of surface and air targets with the further issuance of data on the situation and target designations for the use of weapons.
    it seems that your knowledge is rather weak, and you are so rushing in words, so that your opponent is completely right in the matter of detecting ZGRLS aircraft and KR.
    1. Bongo
      13 August 2016 05: 59
      +3
      Quote: Sergei1982
      And why is it then the meter radars perfectly see the stealth

      They see, but not "perfect". The detection range of aircraft with stealth technology is still shorter than that of conventional aircraft.
      Quote: Sergei1982
      it seems that your knowledge is rather weak, and you are so rushing in words, so that your opponent is completely right in the matter of detecting ZGRLS aircraft and KR.

      The opponent is wrong and your comparison is not correct No. Do you understand the difference between the characteristics and operating modes of the surveillance radar type 5H84A "Defense-14" and ZRLS? In terms of noise immunity, detection height and accuracy of determining coordinates, they can never be compared. At the same time, the detection of low-flying RS is a very difficult task even for a surveillance radar mounted on a hill. And you shouldn’t refer to official reports, there are a lot of lies and husks in them.
      1. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 13 August 2016 06: 12
        -1
        Quote: Bongo
        The detection range of aircraft with stealth technology is still shorter than that of conventional aircraft.

        There on 10-20% loss in range, so that's normal.
        Quote: Bongo
        Do you understand the difference between the characteristics and operating modes of the surveillance radar type 5N84A "Defense-14" and ZGRLS?

        Of course I understand, it was just a speech for ZGRLS Koneyner, I gave links and quotes, there’s an excellent article from Pedestrian, so ZGRLS see CDs and stealth perfectly, the problem of ZGRLS is that they do not give exact coordinates.
        1. Bongo
          13 August 2016 06: 20
          +2
          Quote: Sergei1982
          There on 10-20% loss in range, so that's normal.

          In reality, in a difficult jamming environment, there may be more than 50%, do not forget that meter-range stations are easier to score with interference than decimeter ones.
          Quote: Sergei1982
          Of course I understand, it was just a speech for ZGRLS Koneyner, I gave links and quotes, there’s an excellent article from Pedestrian, so ZGRLS see CDs and stealth perfectly, the problem of ZGRLS is that they do not give exact coordinates.

          Fine? No. At what altitude and what is the dependence on meteorological conditions? ZGRLS are "peacetime" stations, and they are intended mainly for monitoring the sea area. In addition, they are not suitable for issuing target designation to air targets. That is why these radars remain an expensive "exotic" and have not received distribution.
          1. Sergei1982
            Sergei1982 13 August 2016 07: 09
            -1
            Quote: Bongo
            In reality, in a difficult jamming environment, there may be more than 50%, do not forget that meter-range stations are easier to score with interference than decimeter ones.

            With interference, yes, I agree, but nevertheless it is still a higher range than that of decimetres.
            Quote: Bongo
            At what height and what is the dependence on weather conditions?

            Pedestrian's article says that height doesn't matter
            But there are no laws of nature prohibiting the detection of targets of this class by overseas stations. Stealth is not at least some kind of obstacle for these stations. The main thing here is the size of the target relative to the wavelength. The main thing is that they should not be much less than the wavelength, then the EPR strongly decreases purely due to the small physical area. Raman length 5..10m, if the wavelength is not more than 20..40m, then the detection conditions are quite normal. The altitude of the piano generally does not play, which is for surface wave stations, which is for reciprocating sounding. For them, all goals are low flying. And grandfather Doppler works here. Therefore, the probing signals of such stations are selected based on the maximum possible Doppler resolution, those with a minimum spectrum width relative to the carrier.
            Quote: Bongo
            ZGRLS are "peacetime" stations, and they are intended mainly for tracking the sea area.

            Well, how to say, we are implementing measures to create a network of ZGRLS, but not all of them are for peacetime.
            Quote: Bongo
            In addition, they are not suitable for targeting the means of destruction of air targets.

            Yes, there are problems with target designation, but it means armed if it’s bad if the ZGRLS detects the SLCM launch over 1500 km and the direction of their flight, attention will be increased or additional forces will be transferred (time allows, Tomogavk will fly to this range for almost 2 hours) , well, or simply they will send MiG-31 to the area to intercept, well, or Su-27/30/35, it doesn’t matter, because the direction, range will be known, there are not only exact coordinates.
            Quote: Bongo
            That is why these radars remain an expensive "exotic" and have not received distribution.

            Well, apparently we are changing in this direction: the second Koneiner ZGRLS is being built (plans for 10-12), now there are 3 Sunflowers on duty: in the Caspian Sea, as well as in the Sea of ​​Japan and Okhotsk, they are being built in the Crimea, in the Arctic and where then in the Baltic, so that the process goes on, as a means of detecting the process goes on.
          2. Sergei1982
            Sergei1982 13 August 2016 07: 30
            -1
            In general, I entered into a debate, because Falcon claimed that ZGRLS could not detect CR, and for generally small purposes, as a result he was cruelly mistaken, they just have such capabilities.
            ZOGLS Koneiner, Podsolnoluh, etc. can serve primarily as radar warnings against SLCM, ALCM, from the deployment of AUG, KUG, massive air raids, that is, in fact, it is an analogue of an SPRN, only aimed at preventing attacks by conventional means.
            1. Bongo
              14 August 2016 06: 00
              +4
              Quote: Sergei1982
              In general, I entered into a debate, because Falcon claimed that ZGRLS could not detect CR, and for generally small purposes, as a result he was cruelly mistaken, they just have such capabilities.

              Good afternoon!
              In theory, in the future this is probably possible. I think that I will not tell you the big secrets that are available at the moment ZGRLS are not used for illumination of an air situation and do not give target designation Medium and long-range air defense systems and interceptors. It seems to me that this is due to the low reliability of detecting low-flying small-sized targets, low noise immunity, and poor accuracy in determining coordinates.
              1. Sergei1982
                Sergei1982 14 August 2016 06: 15
                -1
                Quote: Bongo
                Good afternoon!

                And good day to you.
                Quote: Bongo
                I think that I will not tell you a big secret that the current ZRLS are not used to illuminate the air situation and do not give target designation medium and long-range air defense systems and interceptors

                With target designation, yes, it seems like there are problems, but for sanctification, I'm not sure why the ZGRLS network is being built in the same way?
                Quote: Bongo
                It seems to me that this is due to the low reliability of the detection of low-flying small-sized targets, low noise immunity and poor accuracy of coordinates.

                I think the latter, that I highlighted in color, at the expense of detecting low-flying small-sized targets, there shouldn’t be any problems; I have cited Peshkhod’s remarks, a link to a quote from Logarkov’s articles and the textbook of Voskresensky and Kashchenkov, which shows the dependence of the EPR on the wavelength, with regard to noise immunity, I don’t know for sure, but somehow I can only faintly imagine how, say, Groler will interfere with 1000-3000 km, with electronic warfare equipment it’s usually 150-200 km, rarely up to 400 km.
              2. Bongo
                14 August 2016 06: 53
                +4
                Quote: Sergei1982
                With target designation, yes, it seems like there are problems, but for sanctification, I'm not sure why the ZGRLS network is being built in the same way?

                I will not say for everything, but in the Far East, the ZGRLS works in the interests of the Navy.
                Quote: Sergei1982
                I think the latter, that I highlighted in color, at the expense of detecting low-flying small-sized targets, there should be no problems

                I don't think, I know, even specialized surveillance radars of the meter range carrying a constant OBD on the coast have such problems. The greater the range, the greater the influence of meteorological factors and the state of the atmosphere. In general, dvuhsachnovaya radar is an expensive and unreliable exotic that can be an addition to the "normal" radar. In modern combat conditions, the survival rate of even mobile radars is low. ZGRLS, even without the use of "special" warheads, will be instantly disabled and therefore the troops do not count on them too much.
              3. Sergei1982
                Sergei1982 14 August 2016 07: 20
                -1
                Quote: Bongo
                but in the Far East ZGRLS works in the interests of the Navy.

                Are you talking about the Wave? Well, now it’s like they are building the KOHNER ZGRLS network, by the way, one somewhere will fit in the Far East, where I don’t know for sure.
                Quote: Bongo
                In general, dvuhsachnovaya radar is an expensive and unreliable exotic that can be an addition to the "normal" radar

                Is the container two-jump or one? I met figures that the one-jump, the Operator claims that two.
                Quote: Bongo
                ZGRLS, even without the use of "special" warheads, will be instantly disabled and therefore the troops do not count on them too much.

                Does the enemy have SLCMs and ALCMs with a launch range of about 3000 km? or all the same they don’t have such? Besides, if you follow your logic, then the radar SPRN Voronezh will also be destroyed, and then what do you need to build them?
                I have little idea how Tomogavk will get it.
              4. Bongo
                14 August 2016 07: 39
                +4
                Quote: Sergei1982
                Are you talking about the Wave?

                Yes, under Nakhodka.
                Quote: Sergei1982
                Container, by the way, one somewhere will fit in the Far East, where I don’t know for sure.
                Not sure what is being built request Information about the plans was, but not the fact that they are being implemented. This is a very expensive project, with dubious effectiveness.
                Quote: Sergei1982
                Is the container two-jump or one? I met figures that the one-jump, the Operator claims that two.
                Different sources write differently. I don’t own such information, but for the declared range - most likely two-hop.
                Quote: Sergei1982
                Does the enemy have SLCMs and ALCMs with a launch range of about 3000 km? or all the same they don’t have such? Besides, if you follow your logic, then the radar SPRN Voronezh will also be destroyed, and then what do you need to build them?

                And the radar "Voronezh" located mostly in the depths of the territory is intended for the detection of aerodynamic targets? what I admit I did not know! belay Please tell me at what distance from the coast are our anti-submarine Pacific Fleet forces capable of operating and compare the number of our and American combat aircraft in the Far East? Sorry, but most of the facilities in the Far East are getting through to the United States.
              5. Sergei1982
                Sergei1982 14 August 2016 07: 55
                -3
                Quote: Bongo
                And the radar "Voronezh" located mostly in the depths of the territory is intended for the detection of aerodynamic targets?

                And what does it have to do with it, you said that the Container will be destroyed, well, according to this logic, the SPRN will be destroyed.
                Quote: Bongo
                Please tell me at what distance from the coast are our anti-submarine Pacific Fleet forces capable of operating and compare the number of our and American combat aircraft in the Far East? Sorry, but most of the facilities in the Far East are getting through to the United States.

                Well, I dropped a photo of the capabilities of the Container from Mordovia and how the enemy will get it, do not tell me? As for the PLO and the Air Force, well, it is necessary to develop all this and the Container ZGRLS will simplify the task of detecting both surface and air targets, which prevents it from detecting, say, AUG for 2000 km, then through various communication channels this information will be transmitted, say, to Ash or Antey and they will work on it, the possibility of capturing the AGSN Onyx is about 80-100 km, and the error of the ZGRLS is declared 18 km, so there are no problems or what prevents the transmission of data about the approximate the location of the AUG on the Tu-22M3M and they will work on it for the X-32 without going into the air defense zone of the AUG or what prevents the ZGRLS having detected a mass launch of the SLCM or ALCM to transfer to the command post of the ZRV and the aircraft located in the direction of launch, this information so that they are waiting for "guests".
              6. Bongo
                14 August 2016 08: 13
                +4
                Quote: Sergei1982
                And what does it have to do with it, you said that the Container will be destroyed, well, according to this logic, the SPRN will be destroyed.

                Do you understand the difference between air defense and missile defense tasks? No. Excuse me, I’m somehow lazy to explain the basics several times. In this publication, in my opinion, I have already quite clearly explained everything about the tasks of the SPRN.
                Quote: Sergei1982
                Well, I dumped a photo of the capabilities of the Container from Mordovia and how the enemy will get it, do not tell me?

                Of course, you cannot but know that the radar in Mordovia was built as a prototype, and the location for its location is far from optimal.
                Regarding everything else, I do not want to enter into a discussion, because it will be counterproductive for both of us. I can only say that you are too keen on fantasies, in reality, now the existing Tu-22М3 are not able to fight AUG, and the RCC X-32 exist only in the form of prototypes. let's talk about our real possibilities.
              7. Operator
                Operator 14 August 2016 11: 07
                -2
                ZGRLS "Container" works in the interests of early warning systems, air defense and the Navy only during peacetime for the Russian Federation.

                After the attack on Russia, over-horizon, as well as over-the-horizon radars will be disabled as priority targets. But at the same time they will fully fulfill their role in the SPRN - they will discover the mass take-off of tactical aircraft, the mass launch of cruise missiles and the mass launches of medium-range ballistic missiles.

                In the event of the conduct of hostilities by the allies of the Russian Federation (Serbia, Syria, Iran, India, China), as well as the conduct of hostilities by the Russian expeditionary forces, the ZGRLS "Container" act as air defense radars.

                The ZGRLS located in the coastal areas (Volna, Podsolnukh, Container) operate in the interests of the Russian Navy, controlling movements, including AUG, within a radius of up to 6000 km.

                PS ZGRLS detects air targets (missiles, planes and helicopters) exclusively in single-hop mode at a distance of no more than 3000 km.
                In the two-hop mode (6000 km), the ZGRLS can only detect ships against the background of the water surface due to a drop of the radar resolution by several orders of magnitude with two reflections from the ionosphere and one reflection from the Earth’s surface.

                PPS It is useless to try to explain to humanities (by definition, not interested in arithmetic) that the minimum wavelength of the decameter range is 3 meters, which is twice as long (and not less) than the length of a cruise missile laughing
              8. Falcon
                Falcon 14 August 2016 13: 41
                +4
                Quote: Operator
                PPS It is useless to try to explain to humanities (by definition, not interested in arithmetic) that the minimum wavelength of the decameter range is 3 meters, which is twice as long (and not less) than the length of a cruise missile


                And what from this?
                Quote: Operator
                EPR inverse proportionality problems

                Or maybe EPR is not needed, "God's hand" is necessary?
                The curtain! laughing
                Techie damn ...
  • Falcon
    Falcon 13 August 2016 08: 43
    +2
    Quote: Sergei1982
    and issuing target designations for them to complexes

    Quote: Sergei1982
    the subsequent issuance of target designations for the use of rocket

    Quote: Sergei1982
    target designation for the use of weapons.


    Yes, and target designation ZGRLS does not)))))))
    We do not have over-the-horizon missiles))). She gives intelligence data
    1. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 13 August 2016 08: 51
      0
      Quote: Falcon
      Yes, and target designation ZGRLS does not)

      Well, about target designation, I wrote that there are problems, it gives only approximate data, here is the data of another ZGRLS

      As you can see, it can give out rude data, which can be easily pointed out by IA or DRLOU (the trouble is that the cat was crying at us), which, in turn, will look and ...
      Quote: Falcon
      She gives intelligence data

      This is already half the battle, warned means armed.
  • Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 13 August 2016 05: 39
    0
    Quote: Falcon
    Stop fantasizing! What other cruise missiles in the over-the-horizon radar
    Regardless of stealth technology, but very dependent on the basics of radar, she will never see them!
    Well you gave a blunder and you fantasize
    ZGRLS "Container", developed by the research and production complex "Research Institute of Long-Range Radio Communication" (NPK "NIIDAR"). General designer of the enterprise Sergey Saprykin told reporters: "This is a new generation of over-the-horizon stations. Such radars detect any aircraft, everything that moves, starting from acceleration along the runway and further in the entire airspace at the range of the first over-the-horizon jump at a distance of up to 3000 kilometers."

    According to him, Saprykin, the capabilities of the "Container" radar make it possible to track even small aircraft. “I myself, sitting in the receiving position of such a station in Mordovia, observed how Dutch pilots were learning to fly on small sports planes,” he said.
    in your opinion that the general designer is lying or all the same, your knowledge does not allow you to know this.
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 August 2016 14: 48
      0
      The data of the ZGRLS "Container" ("RTI Systems" concern) given in your previous comment are distorted in a special way - in terms of the maximum and minimum range, the parameters of the relocated version of the station are given.

      In the stationary version, the maximum range of the single-hop mode is 3000 km (targets with an EPR of at least 1 sq m) and the double-jump mode of 6000 km (targets with an EPR of at least 10000 sq m).

      Target parameters (range, azimuth and speed) ZGRLS determines perfectly - taking into account the types of weapons that will then work on the target: anti-aircraft missiles, air-to-air missiles and cruise missiles. All these missiles are equipped with active seeker, i.e. are self-guided (do not require radio command guidance to the target's radar coordinates).
      1. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 13 August 2016 15: 22
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        In the stationary version, the maximum range of the single-hop mode is 3000 km (targets with an EPR of at least 1 sq m) and the double-jump mode of 6000 km (targets with an EPR of at least 10000 sq m).

        Perhaps I didn’t dig deep, I only went through proven sources.
        Quote: Operator
        All these missiles are equipped with active seekers, i.e. are homing
        I know perfectly well what it is, but there is still a problem here: 9M96 has not been finished yet, RVV-SD and RVV-BD have just joined the troops, 40N6 is also not understood, on the other hand, the ZGRLS are just starting to go into operation, general time is, let them work integrate.
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 13 August 2016 16: 27
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        in the stationary version, the maximum range of the single-hop mode is 3000 km (targets with an EPR of at least 1 sq m) and the double-jump mode of 6000 km (targets with an EPR of at least 10000 sq m).


        EPR of at least 1 sq m in the meter range - this is at best B-52))) since each EPR has a different EPR)))

        Quote: Operator
        equipped with active GOS, i.e. are homing (not requiring radio command guidance on the radar coordinates of the target).


        GESTURE! Is it like that? Maybe the GOS missile from the start captures the target? And she does not need a radio command flight adjustment?)))))
        1. Operator
          Operator 13 August 2016 19: 44
          0
          An active missile homing system captures a target with 20 km - this is the requirement for accuracy in determining coordinates from the ZGRLS side.
  • Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 9 August 2016 18: 24
    +1
    An article about how we "burned out the brains of the Americans." lol A joke of humor!
    Interestingly, I did not know about the sad incidents (before, I was only interested in technical aspects).
    From SW. hi
  • sergei_zap
    sergei_zap 9 August 2016 20: 00
    0
    Guys and there is someone here on the site from part 97794 84-86. My Yeniseisk 15 blew up to the foundation
  • Old26
    Old26 9 August 2016 20: 33
    +5
    Quote: sergei_zap
    Guys and there is someone here on the site from part 97794 84-86. My Yeniseisk 15 blew up to the foundation

    Now north of Yeniseisk, 10-15 kilometers away in the village of Ust-Kem a new one was built - Voronezh-DM. Now on pilot combat duty
  • Falcon
    Falcon 10 August 2016 08: 21
    +4
    Great article! A rarity for VO!
    Thank you Sergey, a lot of new things! hi
    1. Bongo
      10 August 2016 11: 05
      +4
      Quote: Falcon
      Great article! A rarity for VO!
      Thank you Sergey, a lot of new things!

      Hello! Where have you disappeared? First "ancient", then you ... sad
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 10 August 2016 11: 16
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Hello! Where have you disappeared? First "ancient", then you ...


        Hi!
        Work-cottage-Volga-repair wassat In a word summer wassat

        There is not enough time for VO, and there is not much interesting here.

        How about you? what are you working on?
        1. Bongo
          10 August 2016 11: 29
          +3
          Quote: Falcon
          How about you? what are you working on?

          I am writing the second part, time is also chronically lacking!
          Quote: Falcon
          I liked the pictures of the DPRK (your article) only An-2 covered in bulk, the most valuable technique

          In DPRK at many airfields there are underground shelters carved into the rocks and this can be seen in the pictures. It seems to me that what is open is basically faulty, or machines with a developed resource.
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 10 August 2016 12: 06
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            In DPRK at many airfields there are underground shelters carved into the rocks and this can be seen in the pictures. It seems to me that what is open is basically faulty, or machines with a developed resource.


            Yes you wrote about it yes
            But not the fact that in shelters they are reference. They say no diesel fuel and no one flies.
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 10 August 2016 11: 24
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Quote: Falcon
        Great article! A rarity for VO!
        Thank you Sergey, a lot of new things!

        Hello! Where have you disappeared? First "ancient", then you ... sad


        I liked the pictures of the DPRK (your article) only An-2 covered in bulk, the most valuable technique smile
  • Old26
    Old26 10 August 2016 08: 59
    +5
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Operator
    Soviet over-the-horizon radar "Duga" was limited to the construction of only one station in the Chernobyl region

    It seems that you only looked at the pictures? Or is the article about the station near Komsomolsk-on-Amur not mentioned?

    Plus another experimental in the south of Ukraine
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 August 2016 09: 15
      -2
      At that time, experimental ZGRSNs all over the world are like dirt (dozens), and units taken into service are units (in the USSR and Russia).
      1. Bongo
        10 August 2016 11: 06
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        At that time, experimental ZGRSNs all over the world are like dirt (dozens), and units taken into service are units (in the USSR and Russia).

        Have you heard anything about the Chinese stations?
        1. Operator
          Operator 10 August 2016 13: 02
          0
          Somewhere in electronic form I had a translation of the official report on the presence of ZGRLS in all countries throughout the post-war time with localization, frequency ranges, operating modes, diagrams, etc.

          If you are interested, I can search.
  • Old26
    Old26 10 August 2016 09: 41
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    At that time, experimental ZGRSNs all over the world are like dirt (dozens), and units taken into service are units (in the USSR and Russia).

    An experimental ZGRLS "Duga-N" (5N77) was put into service. And dismantled in 1995-2001. But even if you do not count it, there were still TWO radar units. RLU-1 near Chernobyl and RLU-2 in the Far East, and not ONE, as you wrote
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 August 2016 10: 26
      0
      The same set of equipment was installed on two nodes at different times, so there were no two "Arcs" at the same time.

      Someone is wrong: either the author of the article, claiming a fire at a site in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the 1989 year that put ZGRLS out of order, or you, claiming that a burned-out station was put into service.

      PS I did not understand the connection between your adjective "experimental" and the index of the Ministry of Defense 5N77 (indicating acceptance into service) in relation to the Duga-N ZGRLS.
  • Operator
    Operator 10 August 2016 15: 00
    -1
    Receiving antennas of ZGRLS "Duga" in Pripyat (Chernobyl region)
  • Old26
    Old26 10 August 2016 19: 31
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    The same set of equipment was installed on two nodes at different times, so there were no two "Arcs" at the same time.

    Why are you saying that? Shaw, really one set of equipment at two stations? Maybe
    There was one set of antennas too?

    Do not smack bullshit. Station in Chernobyl (2999 object) was put into operation in 1976 year. The work is fully completed by 1979 year. In 1980, it was taken into trial operation.. On full combat duty was to be put at the end of 1986. And what’s the most interesting.

    In the year when the station in Chernobyl was accepted for trial operation, the station in the Far East, which, as you say did not have a set of equipment, was presented for autonomous tests. It should be noted that the creation of the station in the Far East (1937 object) was completed in 1978 year, acceptance tests were completed in 1982 year after which the station was put on BATTLE STATEMENT (unlike the Chernobyl, which did not become on the database).

    Do not clarify the time paradox of how a station without equipment could be delivered to the database earlier than the station from which, as you say, the entire set of equipment was transferred to it without its own equipment ???

    Quote: Operator
    Someone is wrong: either the author of the article, claiming a fire at a site in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the 1989 year that put ZGRLS out of order, or you, claiming that a burned-out station was put into service.

    Is it really so hard to understand that you are wrong and neither the author of the article, or I? You affirm
    it is unclear that, you conclude that someone is wrong, based on completely incorrect initial data. And you are not right - since it was a question of two different stations. But you believed that she was one - and the point.

    Quote: Operator
    PS I did not understand the connection between your adjective "experimental" and the index of the Ministry of Defense 5N77 (indicating acceptance into service) in relation to the Duga-N ZGRLS.

    The Defense Ministry Index is still given BEFORE ACCEPTANCE products for service. Most often, after defending the advance project (I can be wrong and given after protecting the preliminary design, I don’t remember anymore), but BEFORE ACCEPTANCE into service. In particular, missiles were never armed 8K610, 15ZH66 and a number of others. And they have indexes
    Now with regard to "Dugi-N". This ZGRLS was not called as soon as: both experimental and experimental. in the end, after being put into service on November 7, 1971, she received the name Nikolaev separate node of the horizon location. It was in operation until 1995.
    So, the respected Duga station in the USSR was THREE, not ONE, as you say:
    - Nikolaev separate node with ZGRLS 5N77 "Duga" (or "Duga-N")
    - Chernobyl RLU-1 with ZGRLS 5N32 "Duga-2"
    - Far Eastern RLU-2 with ZGRLS 5N32 "Duga-2"
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 August 2016 20: 10
      -2
      Porit nonsense you.

      Since Nikolaevskaya ZGRLS "Duga-N" received the index of the Ministry of Defense, it means that it has ceased to be experimental. Another thing is that it was originally intended not for combat duty, but for working out technical solutions.

      The Dugi in Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur were of the same type with a design range of 9000 km, and Duga-N in Nikolaev was another station with a design range of 3000 km. At least they would have looked at the index of the USSR Ministry of Defense, God forgive me, before declaring otherwise with a clever look.

      If you are not aware of the problems with the "Dugs", then this does not mean that others cannot distinguish a divine gift from scrambled eggs - the ZGRLS "Duga" failed in operation due to overestimated expectations from its work, for which hundreds of millions of Soviet rubles of funding were allocated ...
      The main purpose of the Chernobyl "Duga" is to warn about the launch of American ICBMs at a distance of 9000 km in a three-hop mode. In operation, it was never able to demonstrate the appropriate permission for single launches of ICBMs, and it was not necessary to record a massive launch of ICBMs for obvious reasons. Moreover, sounding of the territory of North America through polar regions with an extremely unstable ionosphere was carried out with constant disruptions of combat alert.
      After the chief designer of the "Duga" proposed to spend several hundred million rubles on the construction of a fleet of reconnaissance ships and reconnaissance satellites for the state of the ionosphere, he was fired, and the only "Duga" that remained by that time was also burned (for independent reasons).
      So, no effect from the operation of the Duga type ZGRLS within the framework of the early warning system was achieved.

      But as a result of the operation of the experimental "Dugi-N", an absolutely efficient combat single-jump ZGRLS "Volna" was created for the USSR Navy, which controlled sea and air targets in the Pacific Ocean within a radius of 3000 km. The Russian two-jump ZGRLS "Container" is, according to its technical solution, the heir of the "Volna", and not the "Dugi".

      And the last - the hardware of the Chernobyl "Arc" was more advanced, which made it possible to operate it in a three-hop mode, and after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the specified equipment was transported to Komosomolsk-on-Amur, where it burned down (in terms of cable facilities) in 1989 during installation - otherwise the hell was there anything to drag from Ukraine to the Far East, where supposedly everything was already (in your "not nonsense" opinion).
  • Old26
    Old26 10 August 2016 23: 23
    +5
    Quote: Operator
    At least they would have looked at the USSR Ministry of Defense index, God forgive me, before declaring otherwise with a smart look.


    Go to the person? I watch it. And I try not to look on the Internet, on the forums, for how such were formed and are being formed MO index lists I know very well, I myself took part in the formation of such lists. And he is well aware that if you take three or four sources, then anything can be. In particular, the Nikolaev knot is sometimes called "Duga-2", sometimes just "Duga", sometimes "Duga-N". And with indices ... I prefer to have as a source of information not an Internet resource, but something more impressive and substantial.

    And so I took as a source of information "The history of domestic radar".
    SECTION 7. ULTRA-RADAR RADAR. In particular, the chapter Antennas for over-horizon radars 5N77 and 5N32 of the Arc system

    And alas and ah, but those who wrote this book - the creators of these radars know a little more about this than the entire "Internet community". And as they claim, the indices at the radar station of the Nikolaev node 5Н77, at Chernobyl and Far East - 5Н32.

    Quote: Operator
    Since Nikolaevskaya ZGRLS "Duga-N" received the index of the Ministry of Defense, it means that it has ceased to be experimental. Another thing is that it was originally intended not for combat duty, but for working out technical solutions.

    The Dugi in Chernobyl and Komsomolsk-on-Amur were of the same type with a design range of 9000 km, and Duga-N in Nikolaev was another station with a design range of 3000 km.

    What a progress !!! So you are no longer claiming that "Duga" was exclusively in Chernobyl?
    1. Operator
      Operator 11 August 2016 09: 26
      -2
      What's wrong with the indices - they themselves once again confirmed that "Duga" and "Duga-N" different by radar indices.

      Once again "Duga" is an early warning radar station, "Duga-N" is an experimental radar station.

      There were two pieces of "Doug", of which at the very least working (not at the planned range) - one.
  • Old26
    Old26 10 August 2016 23: 26
    +5
    Quote: Operator
    If you are not aware of the problems with the "Dugs", then this does not mean that others cannot distinguish a divine gift from scrambled eggs - the ZGRLS "Duga" failed in operation due to overestimated expectations from its work, for which hundreds of millions of Soviet rubles of funding were allocated ...

    "Ostap suffered." There is no need to distort and attribute to me what I did not say. Show, specifically, in what post I spoke about the "problem-free" ZGRLS type "Duga"? Maybe you shouldn't act like a card sharper, juggling ???

    Quote: Operator
    And the last - the hardware of the Chernobyl "Arc" was more advanced, which made it possible to operate it in a three-hop mode, and after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the specified equipment was transported to Komosomolsk-on-Amur, where it burned down (in terms of cable facilities) in 1989 during installation - otherwise the hell was there anything to drag from Ukraine to the Far East, where supposedly everything was already (in your "not nonsense" opinion).

    And what does that change? Does anyone dispute that at a station that is in trial operation, the hardware may be better than the one that is on the database ??
    The station in the Far East was equipped with standard equipment. Equipped with. Was on a DB, that is in operation. And the fact that some, more advanced equipment was brought from Chernobyl, what does it change? Remind you how it all began? From your statement, that the radar station "Duga" in the USSR was the only one. That the only set of equipment was only there, but the Far East did not have it. Still have the courage to admit that you were wrong in writing this, and not to translate the arrows into others
    1. Operator
      Operator 11 August 2016 09: 35
      -2
      All two "Dugi" were formally placed on the DB, but they could not detect a single ICBM launch.

      After that, only one "Duga" was in operation - in Chernobyl. The second "Duga" in Komsomolsk-on-Amur was de-energized because it was useless.

      They tried to modernize the Chernobyl "Duga" in order to justify the costs and teach them to detect ICBM launches at a distance of 9000 km, but they could not before the accident at the local nuclear power plant.

      After that, all the hardware developments were transferred to Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where they burned down during installation and commissioning in the 1989 year.

      Therefore, despite the fact that for some time on paper there were two ZGRLS SPRN actually only one worked. Since April 1986 of the year - virtually none. Since 1989 of the year - formally not a single one (in connection with the fire).

      So see?
  • Old26
    Old26 11 August 2016 14: 07
    +3
    Quote: Operator
    All two "Dugi" were formally placed on the DB, but they could not detect a single ICBM launch.

    Well, it began: "formally", "not formally". Two stations were actually delivered to the DB (Nikolaevskaya and Dalnevostochnaya) and one was in trial operation (Chernobylskaya). The fact that they could not detect the launches at a certain stage speaks of their imperfection, and not of their number.
    The Far Eastern station was initially not allowed for acceptance tests precisely because of the inability to detect ICBM launches. However, after the completion and detection of the Minuteman launches from the United States, it underwent acceptance tests in 1980 and was delivered to the DB in 1982. Chernobyl did not start at the DB, it was in trial operation.

    Quote: Operator
    After that, only one "Duga" was in operation - in Chernobyl. The second "Duga" in Komsomolsk-on-Amur was de-energized because it was useless.


    This is not true. The inability of stable detection became clear at the stage of debugging RLU-1 and RLU-2. At this stage, the probability of detecting single launches at the Chernobyl station was generally 0.1-0,2, and mass - 0,7 (for comparison, the detection of mass ones at Nikolaevskaya was higher - about 0,8). Far Eastern was not "de-energized", as you write. She was on the DB, together with the Nikolaev station, although the "quality" of the information received from this station became clear even then. After the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the Far East node remained in working order, although the need to withdraw it from the early warning system was already being considered. After the transfer of equipment there from RLU-1 and the fire, it was decided to withdraw the station from the early warning system. And then it was "de-energized" and removed from the early warning system. If sclerosis does not change me - in 1991 or 1992.
    And before that, together with Nikolaevskaya stood on the database. The longest in operation was Nikolaev. Until 1995

    Quote: Operator
    Therefore, despite the fact that for some time on paper there were two ZGRLS SPRN actually only one worked. Since April 1986 of the year - virtually none. Since 1989 of the year - formally not a single one (in connection with the fire).

    "Numbered on paper", "formally" was on the database. The best way to fog up. The early warning system had THREE overseas location stations. Two of them were on alert, one in trial operation. Since April 1986 - two stations, virtually without any
    or not actually. Since 1989 - one (Nikolaev), since 1995 - not one.
    So see?
  • Old26
    Old26 11 August 2016 14: 14
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    What's wrong with the indices - they themselves once again confirmed that "Duga" and "Duga-N" different by radar indices.

    Once again "Duga" is an early warning radar station, "Duga-N" is an experimental radar station.

    There were two pieces of "Doug", of which at the very least working (not at the planned range) - one.

    Station 5Н77 in the materials they call it differently. Sometimes just "Duga", sometimes "Duga-N". Stations 5Н32 most often called "Duga-2", although I also met the designation by the name of the RLU. That is, the Chernobyl - "Duga-1", and the Far Eastern "Duga-2", although these names are from the series of "folk art"
    Perhaps at the initial stage Nikolaev was considered experimental (or experimental), but in the final result it was designated as an abbreviated separate radar unit
  • Operator
    Operator 11 August 2016 17: 30
    0
    The history of the development and operation of the Soviet ZGRLS "Duga" and "Duga-N"

    http://psiterror.ru/p/content/content.php?content.82.2

    http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=7862.0
  • Old26
    Old26 11 August 2016 20: 21
    +3
    [quote = Operator] The history of the development and operation of the Soviet ZGRLS "Duga" and "Duga-N"
    The first link is blocked by a security certificate, and as for the second - on russianarms.ru - a good article, although the fact that it was written 4-6 years ago left its imprints, with the names "Duga", "Duga-2" they still have leapfrog ... It turns out that the earlier station has the code "Duga-2", and the later one is simply "Duga". Later literature still more accurately describes this.
  • Operator
    Operator 12 August 2016 12: 12
    -1
    Over-the-horizon and over-the-horizon radars - military giants

    Nikolaev. Experienced ZGRLS "Arc"

    In the mid-60 of the last century, near Nikolaev (Ukraine), construction began on a working prototype of an over-the-horizon short-wave radar (product 5Н77) under the code "Arc" - an 3065Н object developed at the Research Institute for Long-Range Radio Communications (NIIDAR) under the supervision of Chief Designer F. A. . Kuzminsky. The project was developed by scientists Vladimir Vasyukov, Yuri Grishin, Ether Shustov, Valentin Strelkin, Albert Baraev.
    An over-the-horizon radar station, or ZG radar, was designed to test the possibility of detecting intercontinental ballistic missiles by their starting torch and operates on the basis of reflection of the radio signal from the ionosphere, therefore it was called the ZG spatial radar radar.

    The station provided coverage of China's airspace.

    The transmitting antenna was located in the village of Luch, halfway along the Nikolaev-Kherson highway, and was clearly visible near the village of Posad-Pokrovskoye.

    A kilometer from the antenna there was also an object with an antenna that looked approximately like a long primrose, one of the short sides of which was low above the ground, and the opposite high. It was a kind of oblique antenna. Also at this object was a platform with about ten small telescopes (or large binoculars). They say that optics was used for maintenance of the antenna sheet - visual detection of mechanical deformations of antenna elements, adjustment of geometric dimensions during aging of metal structures (for example, reflector tension). But, according to those who worked at this facility, they worked only at night. In 1988, they have already been removed for a year or two.

    The receiving antenna was near the village. Kalinovka near Nikolaev.
    The distance between the antennas 50-60 km.

    Координаты: 47°02′28.33″N, 32°11′57.29″E

    ZGRLS turned out to be very impressive. Receiving antenna 300 wide and 135 meters high. On the antenna itself there are 330 vibrators, each 15 m long and 0,5 m in diameter. The transmitting antenna was 210 wide and 85 m high. The building itself is 90 m in front, it contains 26 two-story transmitters.
  • Operator
    Operator 12 August 2016 12: 13
    0
    Extension

    The manufacture, installation and commissioning of the transmitters was carried out by the Dnieper (Dnepropetrovsk) machine-building plant. Due to delays in manufacturing, Kuzminsky forms several teams from his specialists to help the plant. All work was carried out in the danger zone. Inside the huge two-story transmitter, operating voltages were from 6 to 40 kV. Unfortunately, the factory workers had a tragedy during the installation of the transmitters, and several people were killed by electric shock, some became disabled. Dnepropetrovsk passed the military acceptance of 15 transmitters, brigades from the Kuzminsky team - 11.

    Then, for a whole year, chief designer Franz Kuzminsky, his deputy Efir Shustov, hundreds of other specialists, including Valentin Strelkin, Yuri Grishin, tuned the systems, "taught" the radar to see targets.

    According to one version, the results of the design tests of the Nikolaev site for detecting group missile launches (according to 4 missiles) from the regions of the Far East and the Pacific Ocean over the Novaya Zemlya training ground were positive. Positive test results were obtained in the mid-latitude route and relatively calm ionosphere. The probability of detecting missile launches was 0,7-0,8.

    For more reliable information about the launch of missiles F.A. Kuzminsky suggested creating overseas detection means on the basis of the Nikolaev model.

    At the same time, the chief designer Kuzminsky developed a project to create a combat system for over-the-horizon detection (the code "Arc-2"), subsequently implemented under Chernobyl-2 and under Komsomol-on-Amur (Khabarovsk Territory).

    In 1969, after additional research on the passage of HF radio waves in the mid-latitude, subpolar and polar zones of the location, carried out under the guidance of the RTC-154 department, the decision to create the ZGRLS near Nikolayev took place. The node began to be called a separate experimental ZGO unit (or Nikolaev ZGO unit). The radar radiation pattern was oriented in the direction of the Far East in the mid-latitude zone.

    ZGRLS for the first time earned 7 on November 1971

    Grigory Vasilievich Kisunko, Chief Designer of the "A" and "A-35" missile defense systems, writes the following in his book "Secret Zone". The first built ZGRLS "Duga" in Nikolaev did not detect the launch of missiles, but jammed the coherent fishing radio stations. This was the only result. But Markov, the head of the Research Institute for Long-Range Radio Communication, achieved the construction of a ZGRLS in the Chernobyl region. The result is the same. Then they build another object - in the Far East, under the pretext that the perspective from Ukraine is unfavorable in terms of ionospheric conditions. But here, too, no success, although, as the creators of the "Duga" claim, they managed to prove that the "Duga" is capable of detecting a massive ICBM launch. But only. They are unable to detect single launches, since the signal reflected from the rocket torch is tens of thousands of times less interference. In the end, the then chief of the General Staff Ogarkov sent the developers of the ZGRLS away
    1. Operator
      Operator 12 August 2016 12: 29
      0
      Extension

      Indeed, the radar, by design, was supposed to detect BR launches from the United States. Despite the opinion of experts that the signal reflected from the torch of the launching BR will be much weaker than the signals from interference, a decision on the construction of over-the-horizon radars was adopted. Perhaps the basis of this decision was the information that work on the ZGRLS was started in the USA, although they were soon terminated as unpromising. It is believed that at the same time the Americans organized a "leak" of this information. As a result, three ZGRLS were built in the USSR in the areas of Chernobyl, Komsomolsk-on-Amur and Nikolaev of the types “Duga” and “Duga-2” designed by NIIDAR. ZGRLS could not fulfill the tasks assigned to them for various reasons. For a certain period, stations reported on the detection of BR launches, but these launches were previously reported in the United States. The puncture came when the previously announced and then canceled launch of the BR was “discovered”. Kisunko writes that due to disruption, and not because of "technical aging" (according to customers of the ZGRLS), the built ZGRLS were not put into service, but put into "trial operation".

      The history of the Duga stations was contradictory from beginning to end. NIIDAR was torn apart by a conflict between the two chief designers, Kuzminsky, the designer of the over-the-horizon radars, and Musatov, the designer of the over-the-horizon stations. Each pulled the blanket over himself, trying to take resources from the other. The struggle intensified especially when Kuzminsky became the director of the institute, adding an administrative resource to his arsenal. If each of them had their own thematic NIO, then the developers served both designers, a separate NIO-6 developed antenna-feeder devices, NIO-7 - transmitters, NIO-8 was engaged in receivers and digital signal processing, and so on. The same was the case with the NIIDAR Experimental Plant, which served both directions, it was located on the same territory with the institute, but formally had its own separate mailbox number. Constant intrigue, reshuffle and structural reorganization fevered the institute, affecting the quality and pace of development. From time to time, designers wrote carts on top of each other in the Central Committee, the Military-Industrial Commission, and God knows where else.

      In the 1984 year, Musatov and leading leaders on its subjects defiantly refused to receive the Kuzminsky Prize trimmed. Musatov was removed from all posts and expelled from the party on ridiculous charges. According to another version, Musatov was expelled because of his memorandum, in which he argued that the designed Kuzminsky ZGRLS could not perform the functions of over-the-horizon missile detection. Other experts who also were subjected to repressions spoke about the same thing. So, whether the Doug systems were developed for only one defense purpose or had a dual purpose, one can only speculate.

      After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine’s plans included retrofitting a station near Nikolaev at a cost of about 1,5 million dollars to detect air and sea objects at ranges up to 3000 km.
      In 1995, the transmitting antenna near Kalinovka ceased to function, and on 26-27 on May 2001 it was eliminated.
  • Operator
    Operator 12 August 2016 12: 14
    -1
    Extension

    Indeed, the radar, by design, was supposed to detect BR launches from the United States. Despite the opinion of experts that the signal reflected from the torch of the launching BR will be much weaker than the signals from interference, a decision on the construction of over-the-horizon radars was adopted. Perhaps the basis of this decision was the information that work on the ZGRLS was started in the USA, although they were soon terminated as unpromising. It is believed that at the same time the Americans organized a "leak" of this information. As a result, three ZGRLS were built in the USSR in the areas of Chernobyl, Komsomolsk-on-Amur and Nikolaev of the types “Duga” and “Duga-2” designed by NIIDAR. ZGRLS could not fulfill the tasks assigned to them for various reasons. For a certain period, stations reported on the detection of BR launches, but these launches were previously reported in the United States. The puncture came when the previously announced and then canceled launch of the BR was “discovered”. Kisunko writes that due to disruption, and not because of "technical aging" (according to customers of the ZGRLS), the built ZGRLS were not put into service, but put into "trial operation".

    The history of the Duga stations was contradictory from beginning to end. NIIDAR was torn apart by a conflict between the two chief designers, Kuzminsky, the designer of the over-the-horizon radars, and Musatov, the designer of the over-the-horizon stations. Each pulled the blanket over himself, trying to take resources from the other. The struggle intensified especially when Kuzminsky became the director of the institute, adding an administrative resource to his arsenal. If each of them had their own thematic NIO, then the developers served both designers, a separate NIO-6 developed antenna-feeder devices, NIO-7 - transmitters, NIO-8 was engaged in receivers and digital signal processing, and so on. The same was the case with the NIIDAR Experimental Plant, which served both directions, it was located on the same territory with the institute, but formally had its own separate mailbox number. Constant intrigue, reshuffle and structural reorganization fevered the institute, affecting the quality and pace of development. From time to time, designers wrote carts on top of each other in the Central Committee, the Military-Industrial Commission, and God knows where else.

    In the 1984 year, Musatov and leading leaders on its subjects defiantly refused to receive the Kuzminsky Prize trimmed. Musatov was removed from all posts and expelled from the party on ridiculous charges. According to another version, Musatov was expelled because of his memorandum, in which he argued that the designed Kuzminsky ZGRLS could not perform the functions of over-the-horizon missile detection. Other experts who also were subjected to repressions spoke about the same thing. So, whether the Doug systems were developed for only one defense purpose or had a dual purpose, one can only speculate.

    After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine’s plans included retrofitting a station near Nikolaev at a cost of about 1,5 million dollars to detect air and sea objects at ranges up to 3000 km.
    In 1995, the transmitting antenna near Kalinovka ceased to function, and on 26-27 on May 2001 it was eliminated.

    In 2006, there was no longer an antenna near the village of Luch. Local residents say they blew it up. Together with the building where the equipment was located. There is nothing left of the antenna, only the foundation.
  • Operator
    Operator 12 August 2016 12: 22
    0
    ZGLS "Duga" in Chernobyl

    http://psiterror.ru/p/content/content.php?content.82.3
  • Operator
    Operator 12 August 2016 12: 23
    0
    ZGRLS "Duga" in Chernobyl
    http://psiterror.ru/p/content/content.php?content.82.3

    ZGRLS "Duga" in Komsomolsk-on-Amur
    http://psiterror.ru/p/content/content.php?content.82.4
  • Operator
    Operator 12 August 2016 12: 38
    -1
    Komsomolsk-on-Amur, ZRLLS "Arc-2"

    Khabarovsk Territory, the village of Bolshaya Kartel, object 1937 ZGRLS 5Н32 "Arc-2" (then the product code was changed to 32Д6).
    The transmitting antenna was located next to n.p. Liane

    Positions:

    50grad23min17.98sek N
    137grad19min22.05sek E

    50grad53min22.87sek N
    136grad50min05 / 68 E

    After the fire at the Kartel position, the transmitting antennas were specially dismantled by means of "directional" explosions.

    Nikolaev SOT (Trace Detection Station) and its modernized version in the Far East "Circle system" had significant differences. The antennas of the system had the ability to sound the ionosphere in azimuth at 360 degrees.
    SOT is a kind of target designation station for the main antenna. In the end, their role became purely auxiliary and then they were adapted for all sorts of experiments. One of them was quite amusing, within the framework of the "Tourmaline" theme the idea of ​​the so-called multi-sign passive radar was tested. One of these signs was a matrix of changes in the signal levels of radio stations broadcasting in the launch area. At the start of the rocket, disturbances arise in the ionosphere, as a result, the signals from some stations may increase, and from others, on the contrary, weaken. The ideas of "Tourmaline" were somewhat ahead of their time, now it is called data mining, that is, the identification of a connection between a certain event or property and numerous "secondary" factors / properties that, at first glance, have nothing to do with the main event, in our case, the launch of a ballistic missile ...

    The creation of the radar ended at the end of the 1978 year. But the military she was not allowed to acceptance tests. The customer required evidence of the station’s ability to detect Miniteman ICBM launches from the United States.

    In 1980, the fact of discovery took place. The acceptance tests, during which the specified characteristics for the mass launches of the BR were confirmed, were completed in the 1982 year, and the eastern junction was put on combat duty as part of the SPRN.

    In 1986, after the cessation of the operation of the Chernobyl-2 node, the question arose of the advisability of using the eastern node for its intended purpose, i.e. as part of the SPRN. We studied options for its use for detecting aerodynamic and air targets at ranges up to 4000 km. Ultimately, the eastern junction was removed from the SPRN.

    The fire at the 2 node in the 1991 year led to the termination of its operation as part of the system.
  • trantor
    trantor 13 August 2016 07: 40
    0
    After the fire in November 1989 ...

    In general, I get the impression that in the second half of the 80s there was an abnormal number of fires and other man-made troubles at strategic defense facilities under construction, not only at the radar.
  • vignat21
    vignat21 16 August 2016 19: 22
    0
    Generally, "Danube 3" has a detection range of 3072 km, not 1200 laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • vignat21
    vignat21 16 August 2016 19: 31
    0
    Kubinka 10, receiving antenna SRLS DO "Danube 3"
  • UnclePasha
    UnclePasha 23 September 2016 12: 38
    0
    The Daugava in Olenegorsk has long been completely dismantled from the inside, very long ago dismantled.
  • UnclePasha
    UnclePasha 23 September 2016 12: 41
    0
    It is unclear whether the Dnepr radar is still used in Kazakhstan (OS-2).
    Used