Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile: new features of old weapons

30
In the early eighties, the Tomahawk cruise missile was adopted by the US Navy. Soon this rocket became one of the main types of weapons actively used in various armed conflicts. According to reports, to date, the Pentagon managed to buy more than 4 thousand missiles, and more than half of these products were used for hitting targets during real combat operations. In the future, the operation of such weapons will continue, for which several years ago it was decided to create another modification of the missile with enhanced characteristics.

At the moment, the newest version of the Tomahawk rocket is a modification of Block III, created and put into service in the early nineties. The project Tomahawk Block III implied performance enhancement weapons through the use of an updated guidance system that determines its own coordinates by GPS signals, and an improved power plant. As a result, such a rocket could fly farther than its predecessors and more accurately hit these targets. However, over time, the modification of Block III has ceased to fully meet the requirements of the military. As a result, a new project was launched, the goal of which was again to increase the basic technical and combat characteristics.




Test launch of Tomahawk Block IV, 10 November, 2002. US Navy Photo


The beginning of the development of the Tomahawk Block IV project was announced at the beginning of the last decade. The official reports of the US military and some defense industry enterprises revealed the main features of future modernization and the general requirements for the renewed rocket. As it soon became clear to their number of new messages, it was proposed to improve existing weapons through the use of new components, as well as through the use of other algorithms of work. All this made it possible to obtain a number of new opportunities with clear consequences for the combat effectiveness of the rocket.

Previous versions of Tomahawk missiles can only be aimed at one target. In the Block IV project, the customer required to ensure that the coordinates of 15 objects of the enemy were simultaneously introduced into the homing head. In this case, it was necessary to provide for the redirection of the rocket during the flight. In addition, for the full realization of all the benefits of such an update, the rocket should have been able to barrage in a given area in anticipation of new operator commands.

The existing control system using inertial and satellite navigation was proposed to be supplemented with new means. In the instrument compartment of the rocket, it was necessary to install optical / thermal imaging surveillance equipment and a video signal transmission system. With the help of this equipment, the operator of the complex could monitor the flight of the rocket and, if necessary, control it. Video transmission and telemetry could also be used to conduct intelligence and monitor the results of previous launches. Communication between the rocket and the operator’s console was to be via satellite.

As part of the modernization program should improve the equipment designed for ships and submarines carriers of rocket weapons. Now the operator of the complex should have been able to fully plan the so-called. GPS missions - firing rockets using only the coordinates of the target, but not the full amount of data used previously. Also, the carriers were to receive control equipment such as Tomahawk Weapons Control System and Tomahawk Command and Control System.

The initial draft of Tomahawk provided for the possibility of using conventional and special combat units. The use of nuclear weapons in the future refused. In addition, by the time the Block IV project began, the existing high-explosive warhead had ceased to organize the military. As a consequence, the JMEWS (Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System) project was launched. The result of this project was to be a new combat unit, characterized by high penetration characteristics, but at the same time maintaining the high-explosive and fragmentation effect at the level of the previous product.

The result of the next modernization program was to be the emergence of an improved cruise missile, which differs from its predecessors in enhanced performance and enhanced combat capabilities. It was expected that after such an update, the Tomahawk Block IV product would be able to attack ground and surface targets, both stationary and moving. By using the new JMEWS warhead, it was possible to ensure the destruction of protected ground objects, such as slightly buried bunkers, etc. At the same time, a new warhead, at a minimum, should not have been inferior to existing products.


Rocket escape from the launcher. Photo by US Navy


From a certain time, the improved "Tomahawk" began to be considered as a possible alternative to the existing Harpoon anti-ship missiles. With noticeable advantages in all the basic characteristics, the Tomahawk Block IV anti-ship variant could replace the smaller and heavier production model missiles. This would give advantages both combat and operational nature. First of all, carriers of rocket weapons would no longer need to be equipped with launchers of various types.

It should be noted that along with the increase in technical and combat characteristics, the use of new components should have given certain possibilities that were absent from previous missiles of the family. The most noticeable advantage of Tomahawk Block IV should have been a drastic reduction in preparation time for launch. The mission planning, rocket preparation and other operations previously required 80 hours. In the new project, all these operations require no more than an hour, after which the rocket can be sent to the target. At the cost of some reduction in the combat radius, a certain fuel economy is achieved, allowing the rocket to remain in the target area and wait for the attack command.

The development of a promising version of the cruise missile was entrusted to the Raytheon company, which had previously created the previous products of the family and was engaged in the production of serial weapons. Over the next few years, the bulk News about the Tomahawk Block IV project concerned the signing of various contracts and agreements. In addition, during this period, the customer and contractor repeatedly reviewed various features of a promising project. Nevertheless, the US military and industry several times talked about successes of a technical nature.

In 2004, the new rocket was officially put into service, but the development of the project did not stop. In 2006, it was announced to continue the upgrade, which is still ongoing. At this stage, it was necessary to renew the composition of the onboard equipment of the rocket and improve its main characteristics. Also, it was in the framework of the second stage of modernization that it was planned to implement some of the functions. It was decided not to use a new designation for the updated project.

So, in August 2010, the specialists of the naval forces and defense industry conducted the first successful test of the JMEWS warhead. Subsequently, such tests were repeated several times, after which the design of the product began to be adapted to be installed on Tomahawk missiles. According to reports, to date, such work has been completed.

In October, 2013, the company Raytheon announced the successful testing of the updated guidance system. In preparation for these tests, the homing systems were improved with the latest radar head. In addition, the test complex of onboard equipment has already managed to get two-way communication with the operator’s console and some other innovations. The development company claimed that the latest improvements will effectively use a cruise missile as an anti-ship weapon.

Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile: new features of old weapons
Scheme of the head compartment of the Block IV rocket containing the guidance tools and the warhead. Figure Raytheon / raytheon.com


19 February 2014, the first full-fledged test launch of a Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile, finalized on an actual project, took place. As it was reported, before the launch, the coordinates of the target and the flight program describing the entire route to it were entered into the memory of the rocket. Throughout the test flight, the prototype rocket maintained two-way communication with the operator’s console. In order to test and evaluate new capabilities during the flight, the rocket received updated target designation data. Automatics correctly processed the commands and ensured the defeat of the conditional goal. Communication with the carrier was maintained until the moment of hitting the target.

At the same time it was reported that in the foreseeable future, testing of missiles with a new complete set will continue. The Pentagon and the company Raytheon planned to test the work of the new on-board automation in various modes and under different conditions. In particular, experiments were planned with the implementation of the connection between the rocket and the console using separate repeater planes.

In the spring of 2014, the US military began the work on determining the required volume of purchases of new weapons. During 2014-15, it was proposed to purchase about three hundred Tomahawk missiles. In the future, the armed forces could expect to receive similar products of the latest modification. In total, the command wants to simultaneously be armed with about 4 thousand Tomahawk missiles of all modifications. Such a number of such weapons will quickly and correctly respond to all possible threats. The proportion of missiles of the last modification will have to gradually grow.

In September of the same year, Raytheon announced the launch of two new tests of Tomahawk Block IV missiles using naval-supplied carriers. One of the new type advanced missiles was launched by the USS Hampton nuclear submarine (SSN-767), and the second was sent to the target by the USS Lake Champlain missile cruiser (CG-57). Again increased flight performance and product specifications were confirmed. In addition, experienced rockets again demonstrated the ability to quickly and easily retarget after launch.

In the summer and autumn of 2015, the development company conducted several tests, during which an experienced new model rocket demonstrated for the first time in practice its capabilities in conducting reconnaissance using onboard optical-electronic systems. The prototype rocket was launched from one area and headed to the second. There, the operator made the necessary observations, and then sent a rocket into the third zone. In the latter there was a conditional target that the rocket was supposed to hit. Also, during such tests, it was found that such original methods of using missiles can be used both for single and salvo launches.

Tests were scheduled for the 2015-16 winter, in which Tomahawk Block IV missiles were to hit moving ground and surface targets. To defeat moving objects missiles must use new elements, relatively recently introduced into the composition of the homing equipment. With some problems of a technical or other nature, experienced rockets, in general, successfully coped with the tasks assigned to them.


Launch of the upgraded "Tomahawk" from the cruiser USS Cape St. George (CG-71), 23 March 2003. Photo Navsource.org


At the beginning of 2016, it was announced the start of work on finding new ways to improve the combat qualities of the rocket. Experts from the laboratory of Energetic Materials Research and Engineering proposed to increase the impact of the standard warhead with the help of some improvements in the fuel system. In some situations at the time of hitting the target in the missile tanks may be some amount of fuel. Scientists of the laboratory were able to use a tank with fuel residues as a specific ammunition for a volumetric explosion. With the help of special means of spraying and ignition, it was planned to obtain an optimal distribution of fuel in the surrounding volume with its subsequent ignition. In case of successful solution of the existing tasks, prospective modifications of the missiles will have to be distinguished by increased power while maintaining a regular warhead.

11 January 2017, the company Raytheon has completed the successful completion of tests of the latest rocket Tomahawk Block IV. The tests ended with two launches of missiles from the ship USS Pinckney (DDG-91), which was located on the sea range off the coast of California. The first test firing of the rocket meant the quickest possible preparation for launch, after which the weapon went to the intended target, following the program laid down. The second test launch was carried out without a previously prepared program and with a missile control during the flight. These tests reaffirmed the fundamental possibility of the practical application of new functions for solving various combat missions.

In previous versions, the Tomahawk cruise missile was a guided weapon suitable for engaging stationary land targets. Previously, rockets could follow the originally laid down program and follow the target along the specified route. Such features of the complex provide an acceptable probability of hitting targets, however, they no longer fully meet the requirements of the times and the wishes of the main operator, represented by the US Navy. Based on the desire to increase the potential of surface and submarine forces, upgrade their arsenals and gain new capabilities, the US Navy previously initiated the creation of a new modification of the existing missile.

For the development of missile weapons, it was decided to use new approaches. According to available information, the Tomahawks are now being upgraded by replacing or processing all the main rocket units. Without significant changes, only the glider remains. Thus, quite old rocket weapons are now being developed on modular principles. This allows introducing new elements and equipment with the required capabilities into the design. Such approaches have already shown their potential, having confirmed it in the course of numerous lengthy trials.

The current modernization of cruise missiles, which allows to solve various combat missions and destroy various enemy targets, will allow the US military to keep Tomahawk products in their arsenals for the next few decades. It is known that at the end of the current decade, the program of repair and renewal of the remaining models of rockets will have to start. After the restoration of technical readiness and the installation of new components, these weapons will meet modern requirements and will be able to remain in service in the future. In parallel with this, the production of new missiles, which initially have new capabilities, will continue.

Over the past few decades, the United States naval forces have repeatedly taken part in armed conflicts, in the course of which they used Tomahawk cruise missiles. Over the entire period of operation of such weapons, a total of more than 2 thousand guided missiles were used, the targets of which were various ground targets of the enemy. The current modernization of such weapons directly speaks of the desire of the American command to keep it in service, but at the same time receive new opportunities associated with the modernization of the onboard systems. This means that the Tomahawk Block IV missiles will remain in service for a long time, and are likely to be able repeatedly to take part not only in exercises, but also in real combat operations. It is in the setting of a real war that a modernized weapon will be able to show its capabilities.


On the materials of the sites:
http://raytheon.com/
http://defenseindustrydaily.com/
http://nationalinterest.org/
http://militaryaerospace.com/
http://breakingdefense.com/
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    April 4 2017 07: 32
    "Yes, Russia is a backward country, lives on modernization of Soviet developments" ... and for their own face ... fluffers are pulling on new requirements, now tomahawks ... I certainly understand that the latter are still coping ... but for some reason it’s “we don’t know anything” ... they have “modernization”
    1. AUL
      +7
      April 4 2017 09: 34
      Why can't we? Our developments are not inferior to yusovskie! The question is different - they have 4000 axes in reserve, + 2000 have already been used in different wars. And how many calibers do we have? I think 2 orders of magnitude less. It hurts dear, it's a toy!
      1. +5
        April 4 2017 17: 21
        Quote from AUL
        Why can't we? Our developments are not inferior to yusovskie! The question is different - they have 4000 axes in reserve, + 2000 have already been used in different wars. And how many calibers do we have? I think 2 orders of magnitude less. It hurts dear, it's a toy!

        Unfortunately, block4 already exceeds its caliber in terms of performance characteristics. So they are inferior and quite noticeable.
        1. 0
          April 4 2017 19: 08
          The only defense of Kr from air defense is a low flight altitude ... and only on the ground does it matter because of the terrain. It has no maneuver, nor has the means to overcome air defense. Everyone has long understood that the Kyrgyz Republic is against the Papuans and Babanov republics ... the future lies in hypersound. As of now, in the public domain, it seems, there are 4 of these bricks 600 made, of which there are less than 100 in Europe ... the rest of the number of axes is old modifications brick 3 and below
        2. +6
          April 5 2017 00: 52
          Quote: Voldemar Voldemarovich Shelomov
          Unfortunately, block4 already exceeds its caliber in terms of performance characteristics. So they are inferior and quite noticeable.

          ... oh ... Did you remember that the Caliber is an armament complex? ... not one missile launcher in the form of a super-duper prodigy ... and, 2 types of anti-ship missiles with different warheads in range, weight and even speed, actually 3M14 for attacking ground targets and a missile torpedo to destroy underwater targets ... and all this is as much as possible unified ... so here in catching up mattresses ... do not cast a shadow on the wattle fence ... hi
          Quote: CooL_SnipeR
          The only defense of Kr from air defense is a low flight altitude ... and only on the ground does it matter because of the terrain.

          ... that’s also the trouble ... because it has every chance when flying at an altitude of 15-50 m. to "collect" all power lines of voltage class 110/330 kV ... like a fly into a web ... wink
          1. +3
            April 5 2017 13: 54
            Quote: Inok10
            Quote: Voldemar Voldemarovich Shelomov
            Unfortunately, block4 already exceeds its caliber in terms of performance characteristics. So they are inferior and quite noticeable.

            ... oh ... Did you remember that the Caliber is an armament complex? ... not one missile launcher in the form of a super-duper prodigy ... and, 2 types of anti-ship missiles with different warheads in range, weight and even speed, actually 3M14 for attacking ground targets and a missile torpedo to destroy underwater targets ... and all this is as much as possible unified ... so here in catching up mattresses ... do not put a shadow on the wattle fence

            The United States has analogues of all other missile systems. They do not need a complex. And the shock Caliber lags behind block 4, it is a fact
          2. 0
            April 7 2017 05: 30
            Quote: Inok10
            it’s also a misfortune ... since it has every chance when flying at an altitude of 15-50 m. to "collect" all power lines of voltage class 110/330 kV ... like a fly into a web ..

            I’m not going to protect the ax, but it flew into the Pentagon perfectly, as it should, and I didn’t touch the power lines (11/09)
            1. 0
              April 8 2017 22: 12
              crap ...
              1. 0
                April 9 2017 01: 48
                So in your opinion it was a Boeing? Oh my God
        3. +2
          April 6 2017 00: 13
          Quote: Voldemar Voldemarovich Shelomov
          Unfortunately, block4 already exceeds its caliber in terms of performance characteristics. So they are inferior and quite noticeable.

          What are these parameters? belay
          Does Onyx also outperform?
      2. +2
        April 5 2017 01: 17
        Quote from AUL
        And how many calibers do we have? I think 2 orders of magnitude less

        2 orders is a hundred times. Really at us "Caliber" 40 pieces?
        1. 0
          April 7 2017 05: 31
          I already wrote above, 4 bricks in total 600 pieces, certainly we have at least calibers
    2. +4
      April 4 2017 10: 58
      with missiles, modernization is essentially a new missile. The blank is unchanged but the GOS, engine and warhead can be very different from the original.
  2. +4
    April 4 2017 08: 27
    I drew attention to one "know-how" in the article, the use of a tank with fuel residues as a volume-detonating ammunition (ODB). And here’s why .... There are sites like Freepatent.ru in the internet; and there I saw such a “technical proposal”: a cruise missile, in which there was no traditional warhead, but there was a fuel tank that performed the “role” and was voluminous - detonating ammunition .... in general, a simple "mechanics": a greater range, less power "warheads"; Shorter range-more power "warhead"! There was a description and "varieties": a "traditional" warhead and a tank with fuel residues as ODB ... almost exactly the same as the new Tomahawk modification. Compulsory thoughts would come to mind: would all Russian merikos read sites where there are many technical projects, offers?
    1. +8
      April 4 2017 09: 47
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      .There are sites like Freepatent.ru on the Internet; and there I met such a “technical proposal”: a cruise missile, in which there was no traditional warhead, but there was a fuel tank that served as a “role” and a space-detonating ammunition ... .in general, simple "mechanics": a greater range, less power "warheads"; Shorter range-more power "warhead"!

      It's not all that simple ... Two-stroke (creating an aerosol cloud => detonation) volumetric explosion ammunition is not particularly reliable. No wonder our people prefer much less powerful single-cycle thermobaric
      - The creation of clouds can be hindered by weather (wind, rain, etc.) and terrain features.
      - The fuel of a cruise missile is, perhaps, one of the most inconvenient formulations for creating a BOW
      - High complexity of this kind of systems. Even in the classic push-pull it is difficult to achieve cloud detonation at the optimal moment. And here it is also necessary to coordinate the detonation of the main charge and the detonation of the cloud. If the main charge explodes earlier, its shock wave will scatter the aerosol cloud. If later, the probability of damage to the main charge is high, which in the best case will cause a decrease in its power, and in the worst, destruction.
      1. +3
        April 4 2017 10: 57
        You justified your "doubts" well ... but my example is still, in fact, a "project", which has the inherent disadvantages of projects ... without practical study, without prototypes. Moreover, the author considered different types of fuel (in including those more suitable for creating ODB). I also “tricked” a little, that is, “kept silent”: in this project, the author considered a variant of a rocket with a liquid propellant rocket engine and two-component fuel.
        1. +4
          April 4 2017 11: 14
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          In this project, the author also considered a variant of a rocket with a liquid propellant rocket engine and two-component fuel.

          This is generally meaningless. A cruise missile with a rocket engine is an economically inexpedient solution. Well, ballistics burns out all the fuel and oxidizer in the active part of the trajectory, and only the fuel tanks with the fuel-air mixture inside them can act as an “amplifier”.
          By the way, about the new “Tomahawk” - maybe this is the solution that was applied there. I don’t really believe in the possibility of creating what is described in the article. For the reasons I have indicated.
          But the transformation into ext. the charge of the fuel tanks themselves is a feasible option.
          1. +1
            April 4 2017 12: 17
            Quote: Spade
            Cruise missile with rocket engine- economically inexpedient solution

            A cruise missile was offered with a turbojet engine .... it was a "main course." And with a liquid propellant rocket engine it was like that .... "for starters," "and it was not a missile launcher, but a type of guided aerial bomb with an" engine. " Having examined the draft of the Kyrgyz Republic in more detail, I briefly “ran over” and other options for applying his idea. I got to this site by chance (I was looking for the info I needed at that time), I looked through the site “clean” because of curiosity, I lingered on some "projects" (which seemed to me more interesting) and left the site. There were also "calculations": formulas, diagrams, drawings; but I just "skipped" them. Therefore, I didn’t I can reasonably defend this project .... especially since this is not mine.
          2. +1
            April 4 2017 12: 56
            Quote: Spade
            But the transformation into ext. the charge of the fuel tanks themselves is a feasible option.

            EMNIP, this concept has been living with us since the time of KSSh: then, however, it was planned that the detachable warhead would hit below the waterline, and the hull with tanks would be higher. Then they refused the detachable warhead.
            Judging by what the engine of one Exocet has done under the Falklands - even in solid-fuel RCC, the hull has a rather damaging effect. smile
      2. +1
        April 4 2017 13: 11
        There is still one “catch” ... For ODB - “size matters” ... there is no point in creating air bombs of less than 100 kg and artillery shells with a caliber of less than 122-mm ... (or is it 152-mm? - forgot ...). And TBB ("thermal bars") are created up to 43-mm inclusive. Honestly, I did not really study the topic: ODB and TBB, therefore, from time to time the question arises: what's the matter? why is there such a difference? - remains unanswered ...
    2. +5
      April 4 2017 13: 38
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      but there was a fuel tank that played the role of a volume-detonating ammunition .... in general, simple "mechanics": a greater range, less power of a "warhead"; Shorter range-more power "warhead"!


      the "inventor" confused fuel КР (Naphthyl / kerosene) with liquid explosives (for example, ethylene oxide or propylene oxide, methane, propyl nitrate, MARP (a mixture of methyl, acetylene, propadiene and propane))
      +
      it will take several detonators (initiators), at several design points, which is difficult to accomplish on a target striking RC.
      TBB necessarily use a parachute:
      ensured stabilization of the bomb and the rate of descent most favorable to the sequence of operations (explosion of the squib and opening of the bomb body, atomization of the fuel mixture, scattering of detonators, detonator explosions). A cable 5-7 meters long with a weight was lowered from the nose of the bomb. Reducing the tension of the cable when it touches the ground and caused the start of operations operations.


      1. Volumetric explosion ammunition has only one damaging factor - the shock wave. They do not have fragmentation, cumulative effect on the target and cannot possess.
      2. brisance (i.e. the ability to crush, destroy the barrier) clouds of the fuel-air mixture is very low, because here it still has an explosion of the “burning” type, while in very many cases it requires an explosion of the “detonation” type and the ability of an explosive to crush the shell of a shell, an element being destroyed, etc.
      3. a volume explosion requires a large free volume and free oxygen, which is not required for the explosion of conventional explosives (it is contained in the explosive itself in a bound form). Those. the phenomenon of volumetric explosion is impossible in airless space, in water, in the ground.
      4. the operation of ammunition volumetric explosion is greatly influenced by weather conditions. With a strong wind, heavy rain, the fuel-air cloud either does not form at all, or it dissipates strongly.
      5. It is impossible and impractical to create small-caliber volumetric explosive ammunition (less than 100 kg bombs and less than 220 mm shells).
  3. +3
    April 4 2017 10: 23
    This whole Block IV somehow looks routine - they added GPS (as it is now in every smartphone), screwed on a satellite transceiver, a high-definition domestic camera, a laptop computer and a laser altimeter. And the noise is receiving a picture from a rocket, transferring tactical data to a rocket, storing coordinates of as many as 15 targets (despite the fact that a simple memory card can store the coordinates of hundreds of thousands of targets), falling into targets crawling on the surface, flying in a circle in an area goals (to watch for a good moment). And as the pinnacle of absurdity - hourly readiness for launch.

    I hope that the “Caliber” by the time of adoption of this sloppy version of its competitor will already have much more significant functions:
    - stealth coating;
    - minute readiness for launch;
    - the strength of the hull, providing launch from air and underwater carriers without the use of TPK;
    - millimeter RGSN with AFAR and target recognition along its contour;
    - thermal imaging seeker with target recognition along its contour;
    - GLONASS, two-way coded satellite communications, advanced processor and memory.

    A set of specialized warheads, a laser altimeter, and decilin-M Caliber fuel, which has no analogues, already have it.
  4. +1
    April 4 2017 11: 30
    not very clear
    two-way communication with the operator in the video conferencing mode laughing it sounds great
    but the repeater should hang (and how long does it sag?)
    1. +1
      April 4 2017 12: 59
      Why a plane? Communication with a rocket - via satellite. The operator sits in the building
      The Pentagon, or somewhere ...
      The rocket is now quite modern. The disadvantage is not stealth.
      1. +1
        April 4 2017 14: 11
        The delay in this option will be wild, it will not allow you to control a rocket in OnLine :)
      2. +2
        April 4 2017 14: 37
        Quote: voyaka uh
        but the repeater should hang (and how long does it sag?)

        two-way satellite communication (VHF) with the carrier (via satellite)
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The Pentagon, or somewhere ...

        Why the Pentagon?
        The carrier formed a flight / combat mission, the carrier carried out identification / capture / launch.
        He (carrier and steers)
        Quote: Protos
        The delay in this option will be wild, it will not allow you to control a rocket in OnLine :)


        Even if the operator sits on the moon (384 400 km).
        That delay (including processing) is unlikely to be more than 4 seconds
        Average flight speed UGM-109 / АGM-109, km / h = 885 (246 m / s).
        Given the range of the seeker 40-50 km. bearable.
        But the carrier (or the "pentagon") is not on the moon?
        The distances (including back and forth) are unlikely to exceed 1000km.
        And this is .... 0,000003 (3) seconds.
        4-5 μs?

        23 microseconds will be required in order for the dynamite checker to explode, which wick burned to the end.


        Threat.
        real-time mode - Information processing mode, which ensures the interaction of the information processing system with external processes relative to it at a pace commensurate with the speed of these processes. [GOST 15971 90]
        1. +1
          April 4 2017 15: 46
          Congratulations! I, with my plus sign, seem to have made you generals fellow .
          For the title drinks
          1. +2
            April 4 2017 17: 20
            Quote: voyaka uh
            I, with my plus sign, seem to have made you generals

            Oh..
            And I think what this epaulettes began to reap wassat
            then- TODA

            Threat. I somehow do not care.

            Quote: opus
            And this is .... 0,000003 (3) seconds.

            I made a mistake (km / m in speedways, but km in m did not translate into 1000km)
            of course 0,003 (3) with
            Those. 4-5 milliseconds.
            But this does not change the essence
            Brain processes images in 13 milliseconds

            Neuroscientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs1341
            4-013-0605-z

            And all our freedom is enclosed in a time period equal to 200 milliseconds!

            consciousness has only 100-150 milliseconds to “veto right” (in the last 50 milliseconds, direct activation of the corresponding spinal motor neurons, which are responsible for physical activity), has already been taking place in parallel.
      3. +1
        April 4 2017 16: 30
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Why a plane?

        question to the authors
        In particular, experiments were planned with the implementation of communication between the rocket and the remote control using separate relay aircraft.
  5. 0
    April 8 2017 22: 07
    Block IV entered service in 2015