AWACS/Command post aircrafts of RuAF

First of all, if someone believes anything that "The Drive" writes about russian military tech he will also believe what "The Sun" writes about russian politics or "The Economist" about russian finances.

The A-100 will, just like the A-50 or the american E-2 and E-3, use a rotating antenna. It will rotate at 12rpm (A-50: 6rpm).

The russian militay has the habit to test anything relentlessly before it is put into service, because a few years delay are cheaper then to solve all the problems later when a large amount of units have been build (just look at the F-35).

But the most likely reason for the delay is the slow production of the base model (Il-76MD-90A or Il-476).

Until then, there are 7 modernised A-50U and 2 more are on order.

It can rotate and still be an aesa.

Irbis is also rotating and using a mix of pesa/asea tech. That gives it a huge field of view compare to nato fighter's static radars

The rotation can also be stoped to focus on one sector.

It can rotate and still be an aesa.

Irbis is also rotating and using a mix of pesa/asea tech. That gives it a huge field of view compare to nato fighter's static radars

The rotation can also be stoped to focus on one sector.

My understanding is that the A-50 and A-100 like the western equivalents used electronic vertical scan.

The amount of processing required there is not so much advantage to electronic scanning, except tripling the number of scanning elements without increasing resolution, and also tripling their heat output and therefore also cooling requirements.

Russian AWACS don't perform the same role they perform in the west except outside of Russian airspace.

In Russia they are gap fillers and something that can have a closer look at something of interest... ie a large mass of incoming threats they might send an AWACS aircraft to monitor and provide better discrimination of the various target types.

It is likely that new Photonic radar equipment for testing might be put into such an aircraft because such an aircraft would benefit most from improved radar performance and also have the internal volume and power, but from what I have read about the photonic radar is that it is supposed to not only be more sensitive and long ranged, but also smaller and lighter than current radar systems too and using less power it should actually be easier to fit into fighters than current high power AESA radars.

We will just have to wait and see.

Regarding delays, most seem to be related to Il-476 production... they really need to work out something there because they are an important aircraft that they could do with in larger numbers.

I also support their idea for Il-276s to replace the An-12s, so they could boost production of Il-476s by building a few extra factories to make them and a few extra factories to make their engines and then once production has ramped up they can convert some of the Il-476 factories to making Il-276s instead... using the same engines (but only two of them per plane of course).

I suspect we will see an MC-21-400 fly before the Il-276.
PD-14 engine production is ramping up a lot but I have heard nothing about PD-14M engine yet.

George1 wrote:Russia’s cutting-edge A-100 long-range ‘flying radar’ to complete flight tests in 2022
https://tass.com/defense/1400809

Lol. The Drivel fails again.

The A-100 complex made its first flight with the locator turned on

Specialists of the Vega Concern of the Roselectronics Holding and the Beriev TANTK conducted the first flight of the A-100 long-range radar surveillance and guidance aircraft complex with the on-board radio engineering complex (BRTC) turned on. The tests confirmed the regular operation of special equipment, as well as on-board systems of the aircraft in conditions of high electromagnetic radiation.

During the flight, the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft, the performance of avionics and parts of the BRTC target equipment were checked. The aircraft systems have worked out in accordance with the specified parameters and are ready for further types of tests.

"The flight took place in normal mode. All systems and equipment worked correctly. The crew fully completed the flight task, having trusted the stability and controllability of the aircraft in the specified piloting modes, as well as the operation of the complex installed on the aircraft. The IL-76MD-90A platform confirmed the specified characteristics," said the crew commander, test pilot of the Beriev TANKC, Honored Test pilot of the first class Sergey Parkhaev.

The new generation aviation complex was created on the basis of the IL-76MD-90A aircraft, which has a fairing with a unique antenna system and the latest special radio equipment developed by Vega Concern (part of Roselectronics). The A-100 can detect and accompany air and other targets, as well as participate in the management of fighter and strike aircraft when targeting air, ground and sea targets.

When creating radio equipment for the A-100, technical solutions based on a modern electronic component base, high-performance computing facilities, and the latest achievements of domestic radio electronics were used. This applies to both the means of obtaining information and the computing complex for processing it, as well as automated operator workstations.

"An important stage of testing of the A-100, an aviation complex that embodies the most advanced developments, has begun. Scientists and designers have confirmed that Russian technologies for creating radar patrol and guidance aircraft are at the world level. During 2022, we plan to complete the cycle of preliminary flight tests and transfer the complex to state joint tests," said Vladimir Verba, General Designer of the Vega Concern, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

https://t.me/s/uac_ru

Equipment for the A-100.

Close-ups of some antennas

I don't think it have such large number of communication antennas. Such forests of antennas are usually on ELINT planes, so this is not just AWACS, but also ELINT and EW plane. It have big ECM pods under wings.

Never seen an aircraft bristling with so many antennas and raydomes what a beast. No wonder why western clickbaity articles would write about it. I think it would be a major worry and headache for Natosphere militaries.

WHy are they not flying AWACS to assist with drone detection in the ukraine operation?

limb wrote:WHy are they not flying AWACS to assist with drone detection in the ukraine operation?

because drones are easy to detect even via things like Buk and Pantsir radars, the fact that there's a video showing of TB2 Attacking russian forces does not necessairly mean they are failing since you are seeing like 5 percent of the conflict, the russian MoD has already announced that they destroyed a large number of drones. If 20 drones get shot down and one or two broadcasts itself killing an AD system obviously the latter would circulate on the internet.

A drone of the size of TB2 is very very easy to spot, its not stealthy, it is a typical target. Any hit it gets can be due to mismanagment and circumstances.
It is very similar to pantsir over syria, the engagement statistics pound per pound proved very favourable for pantsir even if we count the instances where it got cought with no ammuntion in the tubes, but since vides of TB2 shooting them spread more easily, and the fact that a wreackage of a truck is easier to spot than the wreakage of a small airborne drone, it gives the impression that drones are spreading havoc over Air defence.

AWACS are needed for things like very long range situation awareness and cruise missile detection at low altitude.

Edit: Keep in mind that drones like to fly at low altitude to evade the typical S400 radars, but things like pantsir and BUK have algorithms to detect low flying small size aircraft and matching them with a threat library, especially in assistance with electro optics which work better in those situations. Even Kornet D has good enough optics to easily recognise and guide Kornet missiles at drones.

Atmosphere wrote:

limb wrote:WHy are they not flying AWACS to assist with drone detection in the ukraine operation?

because drones are easy to detect even via things like Buk and Pantsir radars, the fact that there's a video showing of TB2 Attacking russian forces does not necessairly mean they are failing since you are seeing like 5 percent of the conflict, the russian MoD has already announced that they destroyed a large number of drones. If 20 drones get shot down and one or two broadcasts itself killing an AD system obviously the latter would circulate on the internet.

A drone of the size of TB2 is very very easy to spot, its not stealthy, it is a typical target. Any hit it gets can be due to mismanagment and circumstances.
It is very similar to pantsir over syria, the engagement statistics pound per pound proved very favourable for pantsir even if we count the instances where it got cought with no ammuntion in the tubes, but since vides of TB2 shooting them spread more easily, and the fact that a wreackage of a truck is easier to spot than the wreakage of a small airborne drone, it gives the impression that drones are spreading havoc over Air defence.

AWACS are needed for things like very long range situation awareness and cruise missile detection at low altitude.

Then why did a Tor destroy a TB2 rather than an AAM or buk ?

limb wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:

limb wrote:WHy are they not flying AWACS to assist with drone detection in the ukraine operation?

because drones are easy to detect even via things like Buk and Pantsir radars, the fact that there's a video showing of TB2 Attacking russian forces does not necessairly mean they are failing since you are seeing like 5 percent of the conflict, the russian MoD has already announced that they destroyed a large number of drones. If 20 drones get shot down and one or two broadcasts itself killing an AD system obviously the latter would circulate on the internet.

A drone of the size of TB2 is very very easy to spot, its not stealthy, it is a typical target. Any hit it gets can be due to mismanagment and circumstances.
It is very similar to pantsir over syria, the engagement statistics pound per pound proved very favourable for pantsir even if we count the instances where it got cought with no ammuntion in the tubes, but since vides of TB2 shooting them spread more easily, and the fact that a wreackage of a truck is easier to spot than the wreakage of a small airborne drone, it gives the impression that drones are spreading havoc over Air defence.

AWACS are needed for things like very long range situation awareness and cruise missile detection at low altitude.

Then why did a Tor destroy a TB2 rather than an AAM or buk ?

Because a Tor can destroy drones similarly to Pantsir and BUK, especially Pantsir.
The correct phrase here is "the only video that surfaced on twitter is a Tor destroying a drone". Since we are seeing a tiny fraction of the conflict we can't see the vast majority of the performance of AD systems.

Pantsir has several drone kills over syria, even mortar shells.

Like going to a beach and sticking your head under water and saying "I thought there would be more fish in the sea than that...".

GarryB wrote:Like going to a beach and sticking your head under water and saying "I thought there would be more fish in the sea than that...".

Pretty much!

MOSCOW, March 29. /TASS/.

The A-100 multifunctional aviation complex for radar surveillance and guidance, which is being created by the Vega concern, will provide a long-term basis for the modernization of Russian combat systems of this type, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said.
"This aircraft embodies the most advanced ideas in the field of radar and provides a basis for the modernization of domestic early warning systems (AWACS) for decades to come," Shoigu said at a conference call on Tuesday.

Earlier, Rostec reported that flight tests of the A-100 Premier long-range radar surveillance and guidance aircraft would be completed in 2022.
The new generation A-100 Premier complex was created on the basis of the Il-76MD-90A aircraft, on which a radome with a unique antenna system and the latest special radio equipment developed by the Vega concern (part of Ruselectronics) are installed. The A-100 can detect and track air and other targets, as well as participate in the control of fighter and attack aircraft when aiming at air, ground and sea targets.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14213567

One aspect of licence production agreements is that sometimes when you are a long way from the original designers/producers you often get contracts to service products for local buyers, so it would be perfectly normal for India, as a major user of Su-30s to also service Su-30s used by customers nearby or even further away from the Russian factories.

It means the Indians can make some extra money, but will still pay the Russians a royalty fee, while the owners of the aircraft, in this case Uganda, don't have to send their aircraft quite so far away which means they should get them back much quicker too and the cost of the maintenance would be less and delay without their products less by getting it done in India.

The work should be certified and equivalent to the level of work done in Russia or they wouldn't be signed off to make them for themselves and service them for themselves.

With the recent raid on belgorod, does this prove AWACS is kind of useless at detecting terrain hugging helicopters and cruise missiles?
Is it a universal physical constraint that AWACS S band radars are crappy at spotting helis flying at below 5m? What kind of radar would be able to detect objects flying at below 5m?

Whats wierd is that Mi-24's aren't stealthy at all, and generate a massive RCS with their non-composite blades.

Does this mean that in a war with NATO, NATO AWACs will have trouble detecting russian helicopters too? I wonder what NATO radioelectronic engineers think of this debacle. According to advertisement, the AESA S-Band radar on the E-3 can keep a weapons quality track of any helicopter from up 300km+ as long as its flying above 2m. Is this BS?

First, radars on AWACS have nothing more than ground based radars.

Second, if the target flies under some speeds it can be automatically ignored by the radar. They do it to not track all the birds and vehicles. That's why drones fly freely over some older systems. Newer ones have made some changes to allow such target to be tracked but it is very hard. Tests against hovering helicopter show it is a really hard target for AD. That's why they need to produce in mass stuff like Sosn-R which uses optival tools for tracking and attacking.

Third, what tells you an AWACS was there when it happened ? The only awacs we saw were based in Belorussia and they aren't using them as much as nato.

Fourth, those ukrainian choppers are the same as russian ones and have operated in a area were russian daily fly tens of sorties. It's hard to confirm which helicopter it is and russians weren't expecting any such attack IMO.

Fifth, the possibility that it was a false flag operation by Russia isn't 0. They were quick to say it will impact the negociations while the attavk itself was pretty shitty with only one fuel tank damaged among a group of 6 or so. With rockets and 2 choppers they could have destroyed all of it or went for a more juicy target.

Sixth, the drone that crossed all eastern nato flank two weeks ago had the rcs of a mig-29, the speed of a cruise missile and nato AWACS which are operating 24/7 there didn't detect it.

WHy are they not flying AWACS to assist with drone detection in the ukraine operation?

Why do you assume they aren't?

Then why did a Tor destroy a TB2 rather than an AAM or buk ?

What a stupid question.

TB2s are armed drones and a threat... anything that detects one will attempt to destroy it as soon as it can.

Maybe it didn't fly near any BUK or Russian Aircraft till it stumbled on a TOR vehicle that shot it down.

BTW the TOR vehicle is expensive, but its missiles are simple command guided weapons that are cheap and easy to mass produce... a TOR missile is much cheaper than an R-77 or a BUK missile... both of which have radars inside them.

With the recent raid on belgorod, does this prove AWACS is kind of useless at detecting terrain hugging helicopters and cruise missiles?

Well with Tu-141 drones that are not stealthy and not particularly fast or very high or low flying penetrating 3 countries into HATO, or all the drones and cruise missile weapons penetrating Saudi Airspace willy nilly, perhaps you have to wonder about how effective air based air defence really is...

Is it a universal physical constraint that AWACS S band radars are crappy at spotting helis flying at below 5m? What kind of radar would be able to detect objects flying at below 5m?

You are assuming there was a Russian AWACS aircraft present and operating at the time... there are enormous numbers of targets on any battlefield.... the vast majority will be Russian aircraft and drones, but there will also be other objects that fly low like birds, drones and aircraft.

When detected you can't tell from the radar signal what side they are on, they need to be challenged with IFF systems, and Ukrainian platforms wont admit to being enemy straight away.

Zapping everything that appears on radar without checking would lead to Russia shooting down a lot of its own aircraft and weapons and drones.

Whats wierd is that Mi-24's aren't stealthy at all, and generate a massive RCS with their non-composite blades.

Flying very low amongst trees and buildings will always be an effective way of hiding from airborne radar and be a difficult target to deal with for air defence systems.

It also makes them terribly vulnerable to ground fire and often heavy fire can make them fly into obstacles on the ground so it is incredibly dangerous.

And also what incident are you even talking about... is it even real or is it made up?