The previous parts, we discussed the possibility of using missiles in-in and ATGMs as missiles.
Problematic situation:
However, “problem number 1” has not yet been resolved – how “for very little money” it is possible to ensure the defeat of high-flying remote targets, primarily AWACS, EW and electronic intelligence aircraft?!
Fighters are disappearing – those that will not be destroyed by a preventive strike at airfields will most likely be hidden in sand dunes (other shelters) until the end of the war
Sabotage groups with MANPADS on AWACS routes? – if they don’t catch it, they still won’t shoot it – first of all in height.
SAM – there are not yet such (S-400 has not yet been adopted) capable of knocking down AWACS at a distance of 300-400 km. In addition, the use of medium and long-range air defense systems becomes problematic in the conditions of the overwhelming air and radio-technical superiority of the aggressor => high-precision electronic intelligence systems adopted in the United States provide detection of radio electronic equipment at ranges of 100-150 km with an accuracy of 20-50 m in 10 -20 seconds (!)
http://www.vko.ru/article.asp?pr_sign=arch…2003.10.0310_13
– after which immediately follows the blow of Harmami, and then the UAB of the “Jidam” type. It turns out that, even if the defending side has S-300 (S-400) type complexes, in fact they will not be able to work effectively – because you will have to constantly “do your feet” after every (!) Minute inclusion of the radar – but this is in Russia vast expanses, you can be suffocated, but if the country is a quarter of the Moscow region ?! => there is nowhere to hide
Ideally, we should strive to create long-range and medium-range air defense systems capable of firing directly from the wheels, on the move
! As far as I know, the developers of the Shell claim such abilities. But nothing of the kind is known about other air defense systems …
Another problem is the massive use of ultra-cheap erazz-Tomahawks – such as the same MLDA UAV – will lead to the depletion of our limited resources (primarily missiles), while the Americans have (conditionally) unlimited offensive potential
Conclusions:
1. it is necessary to drive AWACS, electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft beyond the limits of their effective work,
2. it is necessary to reduce the effectiveness of the use of eras-Tomahawks.
Proposal under item 1 (please don’t kick too much!):
I propose to use a RPV (remotely piloted aircraft) of the Hermit type http://dpla.ru/ Otshelnik/Otshelnik.htm take-off weight of 60-80 kg with a payload of 15-20 kg and a flight duration of 6-10 hours at a speed of 110-180 km/h.
The essence of the idea is extremely simple => you need to approach the AWACS and “raise” the Igloo to a launch altitude of about 3-5 km in order to successfully hit the target.
As a combat load, I propose to fix under the belly of the TPK MANPADS of the Igla-V (Igla-S) type or another SD (you can also in-in) of an acceptable mass with an active seeker.
Control – radio command or via satellite – for example, satellite phones of the Globalstar system http://www.tesskom.ru/satellite_phones.php
now cost from $ 700 with a weight of 400-500 grams. The use of radio command control is usually limited by the range of direct radio visibility (up to 70 km), so it is better IMHO to use satellite communications. For example, the Telit SAT 550 phone can also work as a simple cellular phone, has access to the Internet (9.6 kbps – this speed is enough to transfer from 6 to 15 pages of one-page documents in Microsoft Word format without pictures), supports SMS ( sending SMS to the Globalstar satellite phone is carried out from the site or by e-mail – and for free!). Another phone – Qualcomm GSP 1600 has a GPS chip – and can determine its coordinates. The very same flight control is similar, in fact, to the control of an aircraft model and comes down to a minimum set of commands: up-down, left-right, faster-slower, roll control.
Guidance – using a radio direction finder tuned to the desired frequency, + manual search for a target using a television (about $ 500) or an infrared camera. Accuracy is not important here – the main thing is to detect the target and approach it at the Igla launch range (3-6 km). In principle, it should not be difficult to transmit a picture in “real time” mode with a low resolution and a low color bit depth, in extreme cases, compression methods (jpeg, mpeg, etc.) can be applied. In addition, the main targets are healthy and inactive aircraft, it will be difficult for them to jump out of our field of view.
Navigation – manual radio command or automatic using a GSP (Glonass) receiver (with a barometric altimeter – something around $ 200-400 – although they promised to put on stream a GPS chip worth about $ 15 this year – that way in 5 years in every 2nd it will stand on a mobile phone !!!) => modes: altitude hold, navigation at intermediate points of the route (PPM), automatic loitering and return.
The composition of the complex is a car with a catapult (landing – with the help of parachutes); control system based on a laptop with software + satellite phone (1000$+700$); several UAVs.
We calculate the estimated cost of our superweapon: (satellite phone) $700 + $500 (TV camera) + $400 (GPS receiver) + $400 (other personal belongings) => $2000. The cost of the aircraft itself is hardly more than $500 (after all, aircraft modeling technologies: plywood, balsa, paper, epoxy glue, and this can be done in any aviation mug!) – and the engine will pull the lion’s share, + $500 “for assembly on the knee” => $3000 is the red price of the RPV itself. Let’s add 20000 c.u. for MANPADS. Laptop with satellite phone – about $1700. Catapult, parachutes – another 300 USD
Total: about 25,000 USD => Normally, the poor will pull
Suggested use:
Having received the control center, the RPV is launched and it flies in automatic mode (with the possibility of radio correction) to a given area – at a distance of 100-500 km. Upon arrival at the starting point, the RPV starts loitering along a given route at an altitude of 3000-6000 m (in order to get out of the fire of ZA and get closer to the targets – they usually fly at an altitude of 3-10 km). When detected by a radio direction finder (TV camera), a bearing is taken and an approach to the aircraft occurs. At the final stage, in manual mode (cheaper and more reliable), the UAV is brought to the line of sight and the IR seeker of the target is captured. Then the launch follows, the result of the attack is monitored. After the UAV returns to loitering or goes home, “to the base.”
The loitering time depends on the remoteness of the area and the flight altitude and can be at least 2-5 hours (subject to the RPV returning home).
The main problem is the difference in speed by 500-800 km/h -> it can be solved by using a RPV with a turbojet engine => but this is already more substantial money, although the principle is the same!!!
Of course, AWACS can easily evade our RPVs – but what if there are 20-40 of them loitering along the front for every 50-100 sq. km? – then he will either have to call fighters for help (although it will be funny to see how the F-15s will rush in search of small UAVs and waste fuel and cannon ammunition B on them) – they simply won’t capture them with missiles! – you will have to get closer -> and there is always the opportunity to run into the answer of MANPADS) and helicopters (and you can climb higher from them – in extreme cases, hit them with the Needle!) Or go to another area => which is what we need !!!
On the other hand, slow-moving aircraft usually do not cause concern, which makes it possible to sneak up closer – especially given the minimum EPR and the difficulty of detecting and destroying such RPVs with missile weapons and anti-aircraft weapons.
In addition, in order to save money, it is not necessary to install MANPADS on each RPV -> this will give us the opportunity to increase the number of RPVs by orders of magnitude! It is enough to hang a MANPADS Igla TPK simulator under the belly (roughly speaking, an empty TPK) and use it, for example, to accommodate additional equipment or a supply of fuel (15 kg of fuel is an additional 10 hours of patrolling!). It is impossible to visually determine whether the real Needle is hanging under the RPV or just a simulator container -> the enemy will have to shoot down each (!) RPV => and time is working against him!
Proposal for item 2 – how to reduce the effectiveness of the use of Erazz-Tomahawks?
One of the ways is to use our RPVs as a means of jamming (PP) to the Navstar GPS system (the RPVs themselves in this case will work in Glonass or in manual mode) – it is enough to install simple blocks on them no more than $ 500 with a power of no more than 1-5 W to “cut down” the guidance systems of the CD within a radius of 20-30 km: http://radiowar.narod.ru/articles/navig.htm . By the way, there are already RPVs of this type – Moshkarets: http://dpla.ru/Moshkarec/
You can, for example, make several similar RPVs with PP circle over our position of the air defense system – then it is unlikely that the KR and other WTO will arrive at their destination
.
Another way to deal with the KR is to intercept them at distant lines, “near the front line” (in the loitering area) and knock them down with the Needle. But in this case, of course, it is better to use faster RPVs – so that you can rush in pursuit of a missile launcher that has slipped past and approach it at a missile launch range.
In a word, we have a multifunctional and cheap (!) combat platform – for a wide variety of applications
