Military Review

Business Insider: The US will smash the fleets of Russia and China "to the nines"

278
At the moment, the US Navy is seriously inferior in range of anti-ship missiles to its main rivals - Russia and China. However, a new modification of the American rocket can literally smash the ships of the opponents of the United States "to pieces", writes Business Insider. Translation of material submitted Intotv

On board American destroyers and cruisers, there are advanced missile defense systems, as well as long-range cruise missiles to destroy ground targets, but the Harpoon anti-ship missile, in service with 1977, is seriously inferior to more modern Chinese and Russian counterparts.

Business Insider: The US will smash the fleets of Russia and China "to the nines"


Chinese anti-ship missiles YJ-18 and YJ-12 have a range of 380 km, and at close range from the target YJ-18 picks up supersonic speed, and YJ-12 performs a spiral-like maneuver, deviating from the enemy anti-missile means. The Russian anti-ship version of the Caliber hits 300 km and also gains supersonic speed at a small distance from the target.

Given that the range of the American "Harpoons" is only 120 km, Chinese and Russian missiles can inflict huge damage on US carrier strike groups. Although the F / A-18 Hornet deck bomber is capable of retaliating against the enemy, a gap in the range of anti-ship missiles remains a serious threat to fleet USA, emphasizes the publication.

In this regard, the US Navy will sign a contract with Raytheon to develop an anti-ship modification of the Tomahawk missile.

At low cost, this modification can potentially change the whole balance of power. Such a rocket will be able to hit on 1600 kilometers,
- said Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work in 2015 year. -
Almost all our surface and submarine fleets will be able to use it. ”


Overcoming the Russian and Chinese fleets by several times over a radius of defeat, US ships will be able to strike at the enemy with impunity. Moreover, the new rocket will allow the US Navy to operate in previously inaccessible areas due to the high probability of destruction. Near Russia it will be the Baltic and Black Seas, and near China it will be South China.
- concludes the newspaper.
Photos used:
to Reuters
278 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The black
    The black 19 August 2017 15: 06
    +15
    .. to the nines .. laughing... he’s there, he wrote an article about the game of poker ....
    1. Kent0001
      Kent0001 19 August 2017 15: 44
      +33
      In response, the Russian Federation will smash the entire 3,14ndostan to smithereens. That's the whole market. This little-skinned thing about what? Let the brain buy for itself ..... analyte .....
      1. Thrall
        Thrall 19 August 2017 16: 03
        +22
        In vain, the last paragraph of the article was not published, otherwise it turned out to be too apocalyptic for Russia and China smile
        Nevertheless, Business Insider warns that the new Tomahawk will not change the balance of power soon, because, according to Captain Mark Johnson of the US Navy marine command system, it will take a couple of years to develop a homing head and it will take as much to test it. It is assumed that this missile, capable of completely changing the balance of power at sea, will enter service in the early 2020s.
        1. Pirogov
          Pirogov 19 August 2017 16: 25
          +23
          Quote: Thrall
          In vain, the last paragraph of the article was not published, otherwise it turned out to be too apocalyptic for Russia and China

          Can you imagine that if Russia had a hundred destroyers and a dozen aircraft carriers like the United States they would probably be paralyzed from fear.
          1. Esoteric
            Esoteric 19 August 2017 17: 00
            +17
            Quote: Pirogov
            Can you imagine that if Russia had a hundred destroyers and a dozen aircraft carriers like the United States they would probably be paralyzed from fear.

            Nice man! The United States is paralyzed by the fear of the presence in the DPRK of missiles with nuclear weapons of incomprehensible characteristics and the Nth amount. What will happen if some American ACG suddenly disappears from the surface of the ocean in some unforeseen situation? This is the most realistic option to moderate the arrogance of presumptuous warriors. Only the will of the Russian Federation and China and coherence in joint actions are needed ...
            1. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt 19 August 2017 17: 38
              +15
              Quote: Esoteric
              Nice man! The United States is paralyzed by the fear of the presence in the DPRK of missiles with nuclear weapons of incomprehensible characteristics and the Nth amount.

              Man, why did you decide that the United States is paralyzed by fear of DPRK missiles? Quite the contrary, they are extraordinarily active in deploying their additional forces in this region, which also threaten the Russian Federation.
              1. cniza
                cniza 19 August 2017 17: 48
                +9
                That's right, and the DPRK has become a good reason to place US funds at our borders.
                1. bulvas
                  bulvas 19 August 2017 19: 38
                  +2
                  At low cost, this modification can potentially change the whole balance of power. ...
                  - said Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Wark in 2015.


                  And no one remembers Zircons?
                  1. karabas-barabas
                    karabas-barabas 19 August 2017 20: 05
                    +4
                    And what to remember then? Pictures? Where is this zircon? The anti-ship ax has been tested for a long time and if I am not mistaken, then even the video is on the network on this topic. In general, the article wrote some kind of nonsense:

                    Quote: bulvas
                    Chinese anti-ship missiles YJ-18 and YJ-12 have a range of 380 km, and at close range from the target YJ-18 picks up supersonic speed, and YJ-12 performs a spiral-like maneuver, deviating from the enemy anti-missile means. The Russian anti-ship version of the Caliber hits 300 km and also gains supersonic speed at a small distance from the target.
                    Given that the radius of action of the American “Harpoons” is only 120 km, Chinese and Russian missiles can inflict enormous damage on the US carrier strike forces. Although the deck bombers F / A-18 Hornet are capable of striking back at the enemy, the gap in the range of anti-ship missiles remains a serious threat to the US Navy, the publication emphasizes.


                    How does the author imagine this? The Chinese or the Russians from the crap and suddenly decide to attack the Amer AUG
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 August 2017 19: 35
              +8
              Quote: Esoteric
              What will happen if some American AUG suddenly disappears from the surface of the ocean in some unforeseen situation?
              Have you read fiction again at night? To lower the AUG to the bottom, a whole operation of the fleet forces is carried out !!! And it seems to you that this can be done by wave of a nail stick ??? Well!
              Quote: Esoteric
              This is the most realistic option to moderate the arrogance of presumptuous warriors.

              This is the 100% version of the start of World War III !!!
              Even the loss of one warship of the US Navy is an excellent occasion for the start of hostilities ...
              If you have not yet reached the point of understanding how a ship differs from a tank or an airplane - there is nothing to indulge in matches: play better in the sandbox. Yeah.
              1. Normal ok
                Normal ok 20 August 2017 09: 50
                +2
                Quote: BoA KAA
                Quote: Esoteric
                What will happen if some American AUG suddenly disappears from the surface of the ocean in some unforeseen situation?
                Have you read fiction again at night? To lower the AUG to the bottom, a whole operation of the fleet forces is carried out !!! And it seems to you that this can be done by wave of a nail stick ??? Well!
                Quote: Esoteric
                This is the most realistic option to moderate the arrogance of presumptuous warriors.

                This is the 100% version of the start of World War III !!!
                Even the loss of one warship of the US Navy is an excellent occasion for the start of hostilities ...
                If you have not yet reached the point of understanding how a ship differs from a tank or an airplane - there is nothing to indulge in matches: play better in the sandbox. Yeah.

                Great answer!
              2. Dashout
                Dashout 20 August 2017 10: 02
                +3
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                This is the 100% version of the start of World War III !!!
                Even the loss of one warship of the US Navy is an excellent occasion for the start of hostilities ...

                Of course, you are an expert in your field. But the question is, and doesn’t it seem to you that the United States (well, how to say it) is less afraid of the outbreak of World War III, when they brazenly climb with its bases and surroundings? But can this caution (fear) justify inaction?
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 20 August 2017 10: 26
                  +4
                  Quote: Dashout
                  The United States (well, how to say it) is less afraid of the outbreak of World War III, when they brazenly climb with its bases and surroundings? But can this caution (fear) justify inaction?

                  1. States climb with bases precisely because they are afraid. Strange as it may seem, wars that are not prepared by the aggressor do not start. And in order to prepare for the war with the prospect of winning it, you need to do a lot, prepare. It is these events that are the intelligence signs of the country's preparation for database maintenance. (Any normal state is constantly preparing for a possible war. But only the aggressor is preparing to conduct specific databases on the theater of operations: operational training of the theater, enhanced intelligence, means of attack, a series of maneuvers and exercises with the removal of standards, etc. The key criterion for getting D-Day to roll The supply of UBF to carriers was always considered, as soon as the vaults were empty, then immediately there was a MILITARY DANGER, and the forces advanced to the destination areas ... Now it has become more complicated by an order of magnitude: the initial stage of the armed conflict is assigned to the DB / BS forces from their Then we go one after another blindfolded in a dark room with a cocked pistol.
                  2. As for fear and inaction ... I never received the commands "do not provoke the enemy". Moreover, the combat order always had instructions on the use of weapons for self-defense. Well, what is the fear !?
                  But, of course, no one plans to run into a denture specially. Politics begin wars, and the military and the people are paying. Therefore, it is very important to know that "our cause is right" (and theirs is left!). Then "victory will be ours!"
                  Somehow, however ...
                  1. Diplomat x
                    Diplomat x 20 August 2017 15: 27
                    0
                    Hello. Project 885 “Ash” is also armed with Caliber cruise missiles, but of a different caliber — capable of carrying a warhead for 2 kilometers. And another version of "Caliber" is amazing at 500km, with an error of 300-1 meters. I understand that there are different modifications, warheads, but why is there such a difference in distance?
                    1. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 20 August 2017 23: 47
                      +2
                      Quote: Diplomat-x
                      I understand that there are different modifications, warheads, but why is there such a difference in distance?

                      The first option is the strategic 3М14, which grew out of the 3М10 "Pomegranate". It follows the ISN with correction according to the terrain and GLONAS, or the artificial satellite in the final section of the trajectory. The problem of the control system was solved by blocking the coordinates of the target in the head of the CRBD. B-14 flight profile. For tactical 3M54, 300km is enough, because HOOK (Amphora) is able to equip NK at a distance of 230 km plus or minus 10km. Ajax determines the medium. Bius gives EDC, firing with full preparation in one gulp, in order to block the zone of the OMVC. If these are targets with strong air defense, the trajectory is low altitude. Hence, such a range. But in any case, the firing is carried out on D provided, i.e. 0,7-0,8 D max. But the energy range of this RCC is much ...
                      In short, somehow, without secrets, according to the media. Yeah. yes
                    2. Santa Claus
                      Santa Claus 23 August 2017 04: 31
                      +1
                      that tapor, that the caliber works on stationary targets on the ground and the sea target cannot be stationary, it’s a movable PCR caliber, it’s essentially a different missile, another guidance system, etc. shooting at a sea target even stationary is very different at sea there are no landmarks both on land and 300km range limited by horizon
                  2. Dashout
                    Dashout 20 August 2017 16: 06
                    +4
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    Somehow, however.

                    Thanks! Earnestly!
              3. Evil Elf
                Evil Elf 20 August 2017 18: 06
                0
                Yeah, and the "accidental" flooding of the Leader ship is no reason to respond with the downing of RC-135
          2. Slovak
            Slovak 19 August 2017 21: 47
            0
            a real analyst does not need to consider ships under a hundred and aircraft carriers dozens. He will realize that rockets with planes fly far
        2. INVESTOR
          INVESTOR 19 August 2017 16: 26
          +11
          Business Insider: The US will smash the fleets of Russia and China "to the nines"
          Provocative headline, Speed ​​Info portal.
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 19 August 2017 20: 29
            +1
            So provocative or not, but this is reality .. It is unclear how the Chinese or Russian missile carriers are going to approach at least 500 km to the AUG and go unnoticed?
            1. trykin
              trykin 20 August 2017 02: 17
              0
              It depends on where. But in general, even this may not be desired. If you shoot not with calibers, but with onyxes and volcanoes.
      2. Vision
        Vision 19 August 2017 18: 53
        +1
        Og, all the tan, all of America, the whole planet and galaxy. Look do not tear the organ responsible for violent imagination.
        Ps There will be no war.
      3. okko077
        okko077 19 August 2017 23: 37
        0
        .............................. The main thing is that the navel does not burst.
    2. Monos
      Monos 19 August 2017 15: 57
      +11
      How will a long-range anti-ship missile help them in the Black and Baltic Seas? Are they going to shoot at the Balls, Bastions and Frontiers?
      1. Logall
        Logall 19 August 2017 16: 24
        +18
        will sign a contract with Raytheon for the development of anti-ship modification of the Tomahawk rocket
        In such cases, I always say: chicken in the nest. Egg, you know where. And they are already fried eggs ...
        Or
        Share the skin of a dead bear!
      2. Wisehorn
        Wisehorn 19 August 2017 16: 43
        +5
        so you can just lock both seas and just not go to the Balls and Bastions
        1. Esoteric
          Esoteric 19 August 2017 17: 04
          +4
          Quote: WiseHorn
          so you can just lock both seas and just not go to the Balls and Bastions

          It’s high time for the Americans to say that they don’t wet their boots in the inland Russian Sea. Let them train in the Mediterranean. And there is a very effective step: to pre-close this particular area for conducting missile firing.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Jaros81
              Jaros81 20 August 2017 02: 14
              +3
              Well, actually yes. Inner Russian. Of this five, only Turkey matters, and that’s because it holds the straits. The rest is a riffraff. By the way, almost the entire Black Sea is shot through by the Bastion complex. In a straight line from Crimea to the straits 500-600 km. The missile of the complex hits about the same distance. So, yes, Russia is the mistress of the Black Sea
            2. SergeBS
              SergeBS 20 August 2017 03: 23
              +2
              Quote: Liman17
              And since when is the Black Sea - internal Russian?

              Yes, 300 years. And long ago ago it was called not only the Black Sea, but also the Russian Sea. Because all other countries like Turkey, etc. were forcibly accustomed to sitting quietly and without permission to sail this sea.
        2. Monos
          Monos 19 August 2017 17: 15
          +4
          Quote: WiseHorn
          the new missile will allow the American fleet to operate in previously inaccessible areas due to the high probability of destruction

          You can lock without the "Harpoons". And here
          new missile will allow the US Navy act in previously inaccessible areas due to the high probability of destruction
          Harpoons will not help them “act” there.
          1. Wisehorn
            Wisehorn 20 August 2017 00: 42
            +1
            Quote: Monos
            Harpoons will not help them “act” there.

            What's the point? Why the Harpoons if the Russian fleet does not pass the straits?
            Yes, and which ships to pass them?
      3. jonhr
        jonhr 19 August 2017 22: 09
        +2
        Do you think that they will not happen in case of what?
        and they don’t need anti-carabule. for this there is a regular tomahawk block 4.
        by the way the anti-ship tomahawk was and it was removed from service. but they’re actually going to take LRASM-A
        and the harpoon hits 280 km, and not 120 as indicated in the article
    3. Juborg
      Juborg 19 August 2017 16: 10
      +8
      What is interesting they will carry? Is it possible to throw an atom, but where? We do not have such ship concentrations. And nothing more, all that is an old Harpoon rocket and that is only a few units, all that the Yankees put on the aft decks is for the circus. In addition, the range of "Harpoons" is a pure laughing stock. They threaten to remake the "axes", under RCC, but these are just words, and the rocket itself is again old again. In short, screams, threats, but the essence is the same, well, they don’t have anything in the near future (a word from the garden will be banned, along with me! laughing )
      1. Vision
        Vision 19 August 2017 18: 54
        +1
        So the fact is that here (in Russia) things are not in the best way.
        1. Juborg
          Juborg 19 August 2017 21: 20
          +2
          So far, we have had no problems with RCC. The same "Brahmos", this is a revised Soviet project P-700 "Granite" in which the range was up to 600 km. What problems? Especially today, "Caliber" can work both on land and on water.
      2. jonhr
        jonhr 19 August 2017 23: 23
        +2
        as well as several hundred super hornets that carry two harpoons per 800 km of combat radius, plus the range of the harpoons.
        you are naive as I look. you seriously decided that the us navy is so defenseless right
        1. Juborg
          Juborg 20 August 2017 06: 00
          0
          Are you "sculpting a hunchback" and are driving people into misinformation? What are the 800 km of the Harpoon? Aviation anti-ship missiles AGM-84, max flies 150 km. Miracle - at least read what you write.
          1. jonhr
            jonhr 20 August 2017 08: 59
            +2
            hornet how much is the combat radius? I honestly not the first time I notice for some individuals a complete lack of perception of information. it is strange that somehow we finished school. although certificates also issued
            and harpoon flies 280 km SLAM modification
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 19 August 2017 17: 37
      +3
      And what will be near America, the author did not think? hi Once, there was some interesting news about a deep-sea submarine - a drone with a port on a nuclear submarine. This is a real horror for any fleet. belay
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 August 2017 19: 45
      +4
      Quote: Black
      what is he there, he wrote an article about the game of poker ....

      author vopche about anything! (WITH).
      Strange ... Instead of yelling about hypersound, the author resolutely looks back: there were already tactical “Tomahawks” with D = 600 km. Withdrawn from the armament ... We are already approaching the GZKPR type "Zircon", and the troubadour of the Cold War still will not depart from yesterday's dreams ...
      But!
      1. Solomon Kane
        Solomon Kane 20 August 2017 00: 32
        +9
        Guys, guys! Everything is fine. The guys from the US Ministry of Defense paid the journalists some "green Tugriks" for the "Ode of Joy" in honor of the "great American weapon" - we must fight back to Congress for the hundreds of "yards" spoiled up in the budget of the military department. This is a normal "striped" approach in order to reassure their taxpayers and their friends from the European Union, of whom are on this site and blindly believe in the invincibility of the United States. To do this, they simply simply “knocked off” the performance characteristics of our “Caliber” and sang the capabilities of the “Ax”. And now a small cut from the Russian scientific and technical site. Have a nice reading (except friends of Donald Duck) and Good luck !:
        Many people remember how unexpected the first launch of Caliber was on October 7, 2015 for the general public. The media’s generally accepted range for these missiles was 300 kilometers, but they flew from the Caspian Sea to Syria five times as many - 1500 kilometers - and through Iran’s difficult terrain and part of Iraq. By the way, on the way both of these states gave their consent to the passage of Russian missiles. It is worth recalling that when the United States attacked target countries, no one was asked for permission, although their Tomahawks flew in transit through the territories of sovereign states to Afghanistan.

        According to international practice, sending your military aircraft through the airspace of other countries, you must obtain permission to fly them. In 2015, Russia set a new precedent. For the first time in the world, cruise missiles did not fly over planes, as agreed with them, over the countries that did not participate in the war. High in the sky passed several "Caliber", which, quite possibly, without warning would not even have seen the air defense of Iran and Iraq. Russian missiles have opened a new page in the regulation of international airspace.

        However, back to the range of “Caliber”. How did 300 kilometers turn into 500? The fact is that during the development of the Caliber it was decided not to make it a highly specialized system for global nuclear strike (such as the Grenade), but a flexible modular tool. The naval version of the "Caliber" has a range of up to 375 kilometers (with a conventional warhead - presumably 2,7 kilometers). At the same time, at the final stage, thanks to an additional accelerating stage, it is able to go on supersonic up to Mach 2,9-800. According to the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, in such a supersonic anti-ship configuration, the Caliber can control an area of ​​up to 500 thousand square kilometers (S = πR², where R = XNUMX kilometers). This is not so small - from the Russian Black Sea coast it is capable of threatening NATO ships entering the Black Sea via the Bosphorus.

        However, in October last year, ships of the Caspian Flotilla used the version for land strikes. It is devoid of a supersonic jerk in the last segments of the trajectory (and providing it with an additional step) - after all, the air defense of ground targets is weaker than the air defense of an aircraft carrier group, under which the anti-ship Caliber is imprisoned. But in exchange for a jerk, the marching step of the land variant has more fuel. Therefore, it can fly with a high-explosive warhead of 450 kilograms per 1500 kilometers, and with a lighter nuclear warhead - 2600 kilometers. In the latter version, its carrier - whether it is a ship or a submarine - holds at gunpoint more than five million square kilometers of the earth's surface.
        Of course, the American side was aware of the existence of such missiles in our country even before the commemorative launch - since 2012, when the Caliber was adopted. Even then, the Russian military honestly indicated their range. But just like with the Tomahawks, to know about a long arm is one thing, and to see it in action is another. Since 1991, the Americans have established a monopoly on the diplomacy of nuclear missile gunboats - small ships capable of holding millions of square kilometers at gunpoint. This allowed them to inflict anonymous attacks on peaceful countries without loss. For example, in 2009, without declaring war, two Tomahawks hit Yemen. When it turned out that with the inherent accuracy and grace of the United States, they killed more than 20 children, 14 women and only six men, American military and diplomatic sources did not confirm that the strike was exactly American. Only in 2011, thanks to Wikileaks, did it become known that it was the United States Tomahawks.

        Russia, having demonstrated Caliber publicly, destroyed this monopoly. What is especially important: the new missile is seriously superior to the Tomahawks. It was no coincidence that the video of the launches of the Caliber was uploaded by the Russian military. On the record, small rocket ships fired all their missiles in seconds. This is a convincing demonstration of superiority over the Tomahawks. Even large American ships carrying dozens of cruise missiles have a real launch speed of one in 20-30 minutes. It was at this speed that the U.S. Navy launched them during attacks on Syria in 2014.

        No less significant is the superior range, and the jerk absent from American missiles before a supersonic strike. Current versions of the Tomahawks (Block IV) cannot hit targets at ranges of more than 1600 kilometers. And even to achieve it, the US designers had to lighten the warhead to 340 kilograms, against 450 for the Caliber, which, thus, became even more powerful than the opponent. Therefore, if a Russian ship with a displacement of 900 tons can get American bases in the Gulf countries by missiles, then American ships - even 15-20 times larger - from the Persian Gulf cannot adequately answer Russia.
        In the event of a conflict in the seas surrounding Russia, all the advantages are also on the side of its missiles. After all, all US anti-ship missiles are Harpoon, created in the 1970s. Its warhead is half the weight of the heavy version of the Caliber warhead, and the range does not exceed 220 kilometers. In a missile duel, American ships simply have nothing to oppose our fleet
    6. Blondy
      Blondy 20 August 2017 13: 49
      0
      Fight will show.
  2. Observer2014
    Observer2014 19 August 2017 15: 07
    +16
    Business Insider: The US will smash the fleets of Russia and China "to the nines"
    Only in one case can this happen. If the Russian government, when attacking the Russian fleet, declares that Russia is not a party to the conflict wassat laughing
    1. The black
      The black 19 August 2017 15: 25
      +9
      Quote: Observer2014
      Only in one case can this happen. If the Russian government, when attacking the Russian fleet, declares that Russia is not a party to the conflict

      .... yeah ... the Americans will also play along .. laughing... here I love Americans for Shaw, because of their naive simplicity in matters of their greatness. They can make people laugh, they write freely ... stupidly, but it’s funny and most importantly the journalist is immediately clear - the victim of the American education system .... well, or health laughing
    2. Esoteric
      Esoteric 19 August 2017 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: Observer2014
      If the Russian government, when attacking the Russian fleet, declares that Russia is not a party to the conflict

      Transfer the names of all applicants on a surname and put them on “bastions” to meet with partners ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Normal ok
      Normal ok 20 August 2017 09: 53
      +1
      Quote: Observer2014
      Business Insider: The US will smash the fleets of Russia and China "to the nines"
      Only in one case can this happen. If the Russian government, when attacking the Russian fleet, declares that Russia is not a party to the conflict wassat laughing

      It is a very real option. Peskov will say that the ship left the service half a year before the sinking laughing
  3. Alex Xorkam
    Alex Xorkam 19 August 2017 15: 10
    +3
    “this modification could potentially change the whole alignment of forces,” or it may not.
  4. volodya
    volodya 19 August 2017 15: 11
    +2
    It was smooth on paper!
  5. svp67
    svp67 19 August 2017 15: 11
    +1
    Business Insider: The US will smash the fleets of Russia and China "to the nines"
    Well, well ... that's just as long as the United States will not be doing this at all the United States.
    1. Smog
      Smog 19 August 2017 15: 21
      +11
      No, it seems that the Americans will DO this, and our and Chinese specialists will all this time slurp their soup and eat rice with chopsticks. fool . Yeah ..... that’s how it will be. Well, damn it, exceptional fuckers. request
      1. hrych
        hrych 19 August 2017 16: 02
        +7
        Of course, it will be easier for them to create RCC on the basis of the existing Tomahawk, plus they have already made such modifications, they have refused, making the situation absurd, when there was nothing left except for dead Harpoon. Even their RCC, Tomahawk was looking for a target in zigzags, and ours always made a slide, fixed the target of the GOS and raced in super sound.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 19 August 2017 23: 21
          +1
          They are creating anti-ship missiles based on AGM 158
          1. hrych
            hrych 20 August 2017 00: 39
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            They are creating anti-ship missiles based on AGM 158

            Don't fantasize laughing This is a purely aviation KR. It does not have an accelerator, it is not designed to start with PU, and even more so from under water. KR Tomahawk is native to shipboard launchers, experimental RCCs had a place to start from scratch. Nevertheless, subsonic crap and a zigzag target search no longer inspire confidence. And make a little hill, like ours, they will see it and bang without any problems, because it is slow-moving, the whole point is to be unnoticed, as close as possible to the target.
            1. Mimoprohodil
              Mimoprohodil 20 August 2017 09: 53
              +1
              He does not fantasize. Based on AGM 158, RCC AGM-158C LRASM is created
              1. hrych
                hrych 20 August 2017 11: 25
                +2
                And you see how experimental this squalor is laughing The accelerator is the length of the Kyrgyz Republic itself. Moreover, the same subsonic, the same zigzagging, dignity versus anti-ship missiles Tomahawk in radio visibility and all. So you are not mislead, look at its dimensions, it is 2 times shorter than the Tomahawk and its range is less than 400 km, supposedly the ER modification is almost a thousand, due to the increase in tanks, but this is propaganda nonsense, increase the range by 2,5 times, first you need to reduce the 450 kilogram landmine to 50 (for a ship it’s not enough if a non-nuclear charge), well, the tanks will give a hundred or two increase in range. But the GOS in the RCC is much heavier, it already has its own radar. The same TASM with the same dimensions of the Tomahawk range had less than 500 km, i.e. less the same 2,5 times. Unfortunately, anti-ship missiles AGM-158 (and only aviation) will be in the performance characteristics of the same Harpoon and in the region of 200 km, well, unless it can get an advantage in radio visibility. That's why they started talking about the resumption of TASM because absurdity went with LRASM. This is about arming the destroyers, cruisers and submarines for naval combat, but you can test anything and anything, the TASM was in service and went all the way through testing, plus since 1983 there have been changes, satellite positioning has appeared. Now let's the most important thing and try to refute laughing And if you see, then custom mine shaftat the rocket with a length of 4,27 m, section 450 × 550 mm, and PU and TA 533 mmwhere Tomahawk in 531 mm is native, so to speak ours. So, conformal tanks are going to be added, and they will add sections in such a way. And what will you do? Redo all PU and TA? Or change the cross-section of anti-ship missiles, so it will be another missile and the same dead in terms of performance characteristics. A 4-meter missile cannot surpass an 8-meter one in TTX, with a close cross section, and the latter flies no further than 500 km in the RCC variant, like the Caliber itself, which does not exceed 400 km with light nuclear warhead and with a land mine.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 20 August 2017 14: 35
                  0
                  This missile can easily be carried by carrier-based aircraft.
                2. Mimoprohodil
                  Mimoprohodil 20 August 2017 15: 20
                  0
                  Quote: hrych
                  and its range is less than 400 km, supposedly the ER modification is almost a thousand, due to the increase in tanks, but this is propaganda nonsense, increase the range by 2,5 times,
                  The first rocket has a single-circuit engine, the JASSM-ER has a dual-circuit. That's fuel savings of 70%
                3. Mimoprohodil
                  Mimoprohodil 20 August 2017 16: 00
                  0
                  Quote: hrych
                  And if you see, the PU shaft is non-standard, for a rocket with a length of 4,27 m, a cross section of 450 × 550 mm
                  And why did you decide that you did not reduce the cross section in it? For the T-50, they generally made a square round missile.
                  Quote: hrych
                  A 4-meter rocket cannot surpass an 8-meter rocket at a close section in TTX
                  The Tomahawk without a starting stage has a weight of 1300 kg and a length of 5.56 meters. Here it is 300 kg heavier, 1,25 meters longer and flies 600 km further
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 20 August 2017 19: 56
                    +1
                    You see, at least 10 circuits are done, the efficiency gives an increase of insignificant percent, where 10% is considered a miracle, and to increase from 370 km to 1000, almost three times, we leave Lockheed to our conscience, but we are inclined to open lies. And then there is the corporate struggle of the Raytheon missiles, who make the Standards, Patriots and Tomahawks, with Lockheed, who makes planes with steel technology and who took up the aviation AGM-158. You understand that the developer of the F-35 will not let anyone into the armament of his machine and, naturally, the aerial KR Lockheed. Reiteon actually unified his missiles under the Mk 41 airborne fleet in the fleet, where all of his offspring from SM to Tomahawk are native. Nevertheless, this bickering is extremely beneficial for us, as long as we have excellent supersonic anti-ship missiles, we have excellent gauges, which at the final stage also switch to supersonic, and develop Zircon, they argue between two subsonic options limited by TTX. Whoever sells his garbage through Congress, it will initially be backward. Also make them hypersonic, jumping over the experience of supersonic, also looks dubious. Therefore, of course, they will still take the AGM-158 anti-ship missile, but the air-to-surface, convincing that the F-35 cannot take anything else. But anti-ship missile submarines and surface ships are still not clear, outdated, but common sense or stealth madness will win. One way or another, while the Harpoon and only the Harpoon, and therefore in a naval battle without a chance, if there is no aircraft carrier with the good old Hornet and .... Harpoon under the wing laughing
        2. jonhr
          jonhr 19 August 2017 23: 29
          +2
          Do you know what the charm of AUG is?
          and the fact that the AUG carries both combat aircraft that can easily bring down any anti-ship missiles launched towards the AUG and AWACS aircraft that can easily detect any anti-ship missiles. aircraft carriers are not Papuans to drive and attack defenseless countries as you say. aircraft carriers are the main strike and defensive fist of the fleet. and they were created to dominate the fleet where they are over fleets where they are not
          1. hrych
            hrych 20 August 2017 00: 20
            +3
            You have absolutely no idea what the attack of the Kyrgyz Republic is, you have the concept that the AWACS aircraft is constantly hanging in the air, and the fighters are always ready. This is completely wrong. While the pilot reaches the plane, starts the engine, drives to the catapult, starts, accelerates the aircraft to the required speed, enters into an attack maneuver, the supersonic anti-ship missile will already flush the side of the trough 10 times. They also make anti-aircraft maneuvers. And now, when they remember the “killer aircraft carriers” in the form of the Tu22M3 and the Antey nuclear submarines, they forget one important thing, the supersonic anti-ship missile Granit carried a half-megaton charge, and the X-22 in general to a megaton. MEGATONES ... They don’t have to fly aboard, blasting at a distance of up to 10 kilometers will burn planes and people on deck. Those. pops up over the horizon and is immediately undermining. What is the air defense laughing And you thought AUG will destroy "honestly"? laughing I don’t know what the Chinese are going to do there with their dead strategic forces, but we will definitely be killed by nuclear weapons if something happens. And “Antey”, Tu22M3 ... now there will be another “Ash”, “Pike-B” and even “Varshavyanka”, releasing missiles, they won’t even go into the air defense zone, PLO AUG. And Onyx (in the form of an aircraft Brahmos) will be on the Su-30, -35 and ... MiG-31, and the lousy Hornet has no opportunity to intercept and even see these comrades (neither see the radar, nor even get it on range missiles air-to-air) to attack RCC there is no possibility at all. And you can’t always let the AUG go, but what if the combination of the Destroyers and the Cruisers outside the AUG encounters an enemy ship? Even the Chinese will spread it over 300 km, and these Gorpunchik will be able to snap back only 120 km. Or do you think that everywhere they go only in the AUG, so there are only a few of them ... well, 10 maximum wassat So the American experts are worried, but the admirals from Romania are not laughing
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 20 August 2017 01: 02
              +2
              this is how the AWACS aircraft constantly hangs in the air and therefore there are two of them on each aircraft carrier. that is, they change each other and in a combat situation the link of fighters is always in the air.
              Well, in principle, I understand you. you have logic like I only know how to fight, and the Americans will have to take all my attacks. I will disappoint you. Americans in case of danger will be they who attack first
              Romania was dragged along sideways. in principle, I am no longer surprised at such statements.
              1. hrych
                hrych 20 August 2017 02: 07
                +5
                Quote: jonhr
                this is how the AWACS aircraft is constantly hanging in the air

                Not constantly, but only during the threatened period, when the flight weather and a certain level of pitching. You probably don’t quite understand that there is an aircraft carrier, it takes a lot of time to refuel stupidly from the tanker that accompanies it (by the way, at the moment it is the most vulnerable), it’s atomic itself, and the aircraft wing eats jet fuel and it’s unmeasured. And Hokai is not a maize and eats like a horse. It is also effective when electronic warfare is not used, false targets, and in general, until it was knocked out by electromagnetic radiation, etc. What our defense industry actually has been doing lately. When they say that they are fixated on Stealth technology, and we are not, it is also not true. They took the path of lowering the aircraft’s radio visibility with external target designation in order to quietly get to the target, and we took the path of blinding the enemy with Mercury, Krasuha, Khibiny, Vitebsk, Leverage, etc. the result is similar, in both cases the enemy does not see a damn thing. Therefore, on the eve of the delivery of the charge of destruction (naturally nuclear) there will be something dazzling defense, and this will not harm the RCC itself, its task is to inertially achieve the radius of the target’s destruction with a nuclear explosion (the concept is still the USSR, I see no reason to leave it from Russia).
                Quote: jonhr
                I will disappoint you. Americans in case of danger will be they who attack first

                This Soviet Doctrine was defensive, and in the Russian Federation it was preemptive, and the strategic forces of the United States, unlike the Russian Federation, are 70% naval and 30% ground-based (in the Russian Federation it’s the other way around), therefore they need to tear to our shore for launching strikes, moreover, for our centers are thousands of kilometers from the coast. Accordingly, our naval doctrine is to have the means to prevent them from being launched and destroy them by coastal means and the coastal fleet. And our main argument is land-based ICBMs, although the Boreas, Dolphins, and Squids are also on the alert. I repeat, it’s not up to your level of defense industry, so to speak, to get into a showdown of strategic giants who are calculating how to destroy each other and neutralize the threat. And since war does not happen, it’s successful. The same Cook was also driven in the Black and Baltic Sea, preventing it from reaching the launch distance in centers such as Moscow and will continue to be so, they will dazzle it with radio waves and simulate aircraft attacks. Therefore, they mentioned the Black Sea and Baltic regions and the range of 1600 km in this article, so as not to approach where they are being beaten, so far morally. But this is only a declaration of intent. The Chinese have a different story ... They also have the sadness that by the time their subsonic stray flies, even let it go first, as you said, our supersonic will fly three times faster. White starts and loses, this is the reality now wassat
                1. jonhr
                  jonhr 20 August 2017 19: 57
                  0
                  the reality in your fantasies is that only. in order to achieve something it is necessary to have an equivalent to the American fleet. at least
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 20 August 2017 20: 21
                    +3
                    Quote: jonhr
                    in order to achieve something it is necessary to have an equivalent to the American fleet. at least

                    You understand that in order for them to achieve something, it is necessary to have a territory at least equivalent to the Russian Federation. This is a pointless conversation, we are firm, they are the sea. Our main communications are land, our centers are thousands of kilometers from the sea. Why do we need a fleet like them? They need it, to protect their communications and they are mostly marine, and we need to be able to disrupt them. To do this, you do not need much effort. But not to let them to our shore, it’s quite enough RTOs, diesel submarines, etc. You have such concepts that there are as many. What for? Okay, the USSR was building a world revolution, but the Russian Federation didn’t care; And then the USSR did not build its AUG on the AUG of the Americans, but made an asymmetric version, in the form of the Antey nuclear submarine, which followed the AUG at a safe distance, was guided by the satellite "Legend" and covered it perfectly during "Ch" with its 24 most powerful supersonic nuclear "Granites". 1 AUG = 1 Antei. That was arithmetic. Now AUG we can and should be completely ignored. He doesn’t threaten us, he doesn’t climb into the northern latitudes, in the puddles of the Baltic and the Black Sea he is a victim himself, everyone shoots the coastal complexes and coastal aviation, which is always stronger than the deck. The only place is the Pacific Fleet zone, but it is full of submarines. And Antei, who lost his job at the end of the World Revolution, is now retraining for attacks on ground targets of the Kyrgyz Republic. Actually 4 Ohio and they redid it, removing the ICBMs. And the only thing that threatens us, besides ICBMs and nuclear submarines, are the Tomahawk carriers in the form of destroyers and cruisers, but in a naval battle, they, as it turned out, have no chance with their hunks even against our coastal vessels, and again they need to enter the coastal defense zone and their Tomahawk with a range of a thousand kilometers cannot be launched closer to the activities of the Bastion, and it is the same Onyx and beats with supersonic sound for 500 km, but we also have MRKs, and Varshavyanka, and Storozheviki, and Shchuki-B, and Antei with Yasen, so there is something to protect the coast with Tu22m3 with x-22 and x-32. Tu-142, Su-30, Su-35, MiG-31 with Bramos, etc. And as proof of everything, we took all of you from under the nose of the Crimea and drove them Donald Cook with rags from our coast. Such is now the reality and our weapons are to blame. am
                    1. zivXP
                      zivXP 20 August 2017 21: 31
                      +1
                      Hrych, standing ovation, the Romanians are already clogged in a fit. laughing
                      1. jonhr
                        jonhr 20 August 2017 21: 36
                        0
                        only caused a smile laughing as I understand it, NATO is defending itself against you, and you from NATO. here is the true resource profiling laughing
  6. On guard
    On guard 19 August 2017 15: 12
    +8
    The United States has a stronger fleet. But stupid to measure arms.
    Aviation seems more important to me. Tanks generally only fight near the border.

    Now any tank can be destroyed, a tool has long been invented. Any mentally retarded can destroy any tank with a Javelin or equivalent. Even a monkey.

    Creating Armata is tactically stupid. And they didn’t put it into service, they did it right. Enough and T 92.
    1. Alexander 3
      Alexander 3 19 August 2017 15: 25
      +7
      We will measure the monkeys. We do not have them, only in zoos.
      1. Esoteric
        Esoteric 19 August 2017 17: 10
        +3
        Quote: Alexander 3
        The United States has a stronger fleet. But stupid to measure arms.
        Aviation seems more important to me. Tanks generally only fight near the border.

        The United States has a larger fleet in terms of quantity. But the timely construction of RTOs and the improvement of RCC will quickly eliminate this advantage ...
        1. jonhr
          jonhr 19 August 2017 23: 31
          +1
          Yes, they have burk and ticonderoge more than you can build in 20 years. and these boats I’m not afraid to say everyone can be equated with Peter the Great
          1. hrych
            hrych 20 August 2017 01: 06
            +3
            Quote: jonhr
            I'm afraid to say you can equate each to Peter the Great

            But we should be afraid, they are armed with a bunch of missiles to hit the coast, good missile defense missiles in the form of SM and Sparrow, but there’s nothing to hit Peter except for Harpoon, and it’s only 120 km subsonic. But Peter carries 20 supersonic Granites, with a range of five hundred or more along a combined trajectory, very terrible for the enemy. Then there will be Onyx, Caliber and promising Zircons. And in the future they can only do slop Tomahawk and then not soon. RCC Caliber, albeit subsonic, but in the final section of the attack switches to supersonic, makes anti-aircraft maneuver and practically cannot be intercepted. For SM anti-aircraft missiles can intercept a target no lower than 15 meters above the water, and our anti-ship missiles are lower, Sea Sparrow, according to the Americans themselves, can only intercept subsonic missiles. You can rewrite brochures and all test reports “Standard SM2” and ESSM. You will see that during the tests these missiles successfully hit supersonic high-flying and subsonic low-flying targets. But reports on the defeat of supersonic low-flying targets can not be detected. At all. So even the very possibility of hitting low-flying supersonic targets with existing US missile weapons is at least controversial .. Plus, the application concept is different, they need to get to our shore, and we need to defend the shore. We have RTOs under cover of coastal complexes, including anti-aircraft defense and air defense systems, and the Bastions. Therefore, their power is more significant, and their AUG cannot come to shore without being hit. Therefore, they are sad ... Only for the Papuans and nothing more. Take the technical characteristics of the Bastions, Caliber, Onyx, Granites, X-22, X-32, Brahmosa and everything will become clear.
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 20 August 2017 18: 56
              0
              these boats will be part of the AUG and there is already a PRK with elements of stealth for them which flies 900 km
              By the way, who will give the target designation to Peter? and he is one, and these ships are 80. about 20 for each of your flagship. plus a bunch of planes
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 23 August 2017 22: 23
                +1
                Quote: jonhr
                these boats will be part of the AUG and there is already a PRK with elements of stealth for them which flies 900 km

                I'll pay you. Are there also carpet carpets in the AUG?
                And of course, the aircraft carrier is EASY to suppress its "trimmed" capabilities due to the chatter and short take-off of the OVR aviation. In which the strip is even more authentic, and they themselves are not a hybrid of a snake and a hedgehog in order to take off from a springboard.
                Well, it’s clear that some people have “super-duper” planes, starting from a 300 m deck into a dribble, are much cooler than simple interceptors and attack aircraft that take off from the terrestrial runway. "The USA is the coolest in everything." laughing
                In the Papuan. In which airfields, and aircraft - hell and no hell. laughing
                1. jonhr
                  jonhr 23 August 2017 22: 35
                  0
                  strongly this aircraft will help your fleet somewhere in the Mediterranean for example
                  1. SergeBS
                    SergeBS 25 August 2017 21: 22
                    0
                    The calibers have a Special Warhead, with which they fly VERY far. Will the fleet “heroically gurgle” in the Mediterranean help because of the “closure of the Special Water Base” in the Mediterranean pool? Especially if they are not fighting the Papuans, and therefore the "big dad" just gurgles with all his "super cool" air wing. Well, plus or minus a mile - it does not scratch for special warheads. All the same, a large tin, imprisoned in the war with the Papuan, "will drown a little." This is for the “cool aircraft carrier” hint. On which (or rather, on the order of which), only blind special warheads will not hit.
                    Since it is NOT with the Papuans that this AUG was rocking the battle. laughing
                    1. jonhr
                      jonhr 25 August 2017 22: 32
                      0
                      what special part? such draw a picture of nuclear war without realizing that this is the end of everything.
                      but to be honest, I don’t care if there is a nuclear war or not. maybe this will be true if humanity disappears from the face of the earth. It was necessary to grow wiser for a long time. namely, stupid, I think people who have a lot of bravado from the realization that they were handed a club
                      1. SergeBS
                        SergeBS 25 August 2017 22: 59
                        0
                        Kid, you are not aware that besides explosives, the Gauges can be equipped with special warheads of operational-tactical significance - only about 100 kT. Which special warhead weighs less than warheads with traditional explosives.
                        Smarter further that your AUG can still be "gurgled."
                        Club-headed patriot of the USA. am
      2. Observer2014
        Observer2014 19 August 2017 18: 54
        +4
        Alexander 3
        We will measure the monkeys.
        Yes sir! or like
        On guard
        T 92. wassatWell, with every "second Jew" do not argue with arguing! laughing
    2. Smog
      Smog 19 August 2017 15: 29
      +25
      Quote: On guard
      Creating Armata is tactically stupid.

      And I don’t even know, why the hell Israel is transferring its tank troops to Merkava 4MK. ????? Also probably tactical fools in their general headquarters are sitting? It would be enough and the First Merkava ....... what
      1. faridg7
        faridg7 19 August 2017 17: 52
        +6
        Quote: Smog
        And I don’t even know, why the hell Israel is transferring its tank troops to Merkava 4MK. ????? Also probably tactical fools in their general headquarters are sitting? It would be enough and the First Merkava .......

        Well this is overkill. It would be quite enough for them to run on foot. We already have experience, 40 years walked 400 kilometers on foot. it still needs to be managed in such a hurry.
    3. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 19 August 2017 15: 36
      +8
      For starters, in Russia there is no T-92 tank. There is a T-90.
      The praised Javelins were not really used in combat conditions, and it is hard to imagine what it is like. I believe that any complex “prodigy” will prove to be of limited use, even with the monkey behind the launcher, even without ...
      1. Smog
        Smog 19 August 2017 15: 40
        +10
        Well, let the Israeli "comrade" teach us to be orphaned, wretched and illiterate .... and he is pleased, well, to us on the drum ..... And yes, the Javelins haven’t sniffed gunpowder yet, while some victorious broadcasts from commercials. Wait and see, but for now .............. request
        1. trill
          trill 19 August 2017 16: 57
          +5
          What? Is your YouTube banned? Full of application videos in Afghanistan and Iraq.
      2. Esoteric
        Esoteric 19 August 2017 17: 12
        +2
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        Praised "Javelins" in combat conditions were not really used

        Applied ... But, "Cornet" is much more effective ...
        1. Normal ok
          Normal ok 20 August 2017 09: 56
          0
          Do not make me laugh. It seems that you just blurt out.
      3. Yuyuka
        Yuyuka 19 August 2017 17: 24
        +3
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        For starters, in Russia there is no T-92 tank. There is a T-90.
        The praised Javelins were not really used in combat conditions, and it is hard to imagine what it is like. I believe that any complex “prodigy” will prove to be of limited use, even with the monkey behind the launcher, even without ...


        still 90 is in Russian ... in and (LIKE) - 92 wassat
        1. faridg7
          faridg7 19 August 2017 18: 17
          +1
          Quote: Yuyuka
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          For starters, in Russia there is no T-92 tank. There is a T-90.
          The praised Javelins were not really used in combat conditions, and it is hard to imagine what it is like. I believe that any complex “prodigy” will prove to be of limited use, even with the monkey behind the launcher, even without ...


          still 90 is in Russian ... in and (LIKE) - 92 wassat

          It all depends on the conditions, are we buying or selling?
          1. Yuyuka
            Yuyuka 19 August 2017 19: 03
            0
            Quote: faridg7
            Quote: Yuyuka
            Quote: Mountain Shooter
            For starters, in Russia there is no T-92 tank. There is a T-90.
            The praised Javelins were not really used in combat conditions, and it is hard to imagine what it is like. I believe that any complex “prodigy” will prove to be of limited use, even with the monkey behind the launcher, even without ...


            still 90 is in Russian ... in and (LIKE) - 92 wassat

            It all depends on the conditions, are we buying or selling?


            belay nuuu ... while we are scratching languages ​​here ... about the subtleties of translation wassat
            1. faridg7
              faridg7 19 August 2017 19: 24
              +2
              Since the subtleties of translation depend on these marketing situations for these guys
      4. jonhr
        jonhr 19 August 2017 23: 33
        0
        is it not used? in Iraq and Afghanistan that they use them at landfills?
    4. hrych
      hrych 19 August 2017 15: 39
      +10
      Quote: On guard
      Any mentally retarded can destroy any tank with a Javelin or equivalent.

      By the way, a tank is the most stable means of protecting the crew from all the factors of a nuclear explosion and drive across the field with charred advanced Javelin operators, and even the luminescent radiation will be the most.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 19 August 2017 18: 03
        0
        Try the site for calculating an atomic explosion (although I didn’t figure out whether it is possible to adjust the height of the explosion there)
        http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
        If you believe him, a 10Mt explosion at a distance of 9,9 km will almost certainly kill, and at a distance of 28,6 km those who do not have time to hide are guaranteed to receive 3rd degree burns
    5. Damir
      Damir 19 August 2017 15: 54
      +2
      Well, the creation of merkava ????
      Merkava Mk.4 has been in service since 2002 [26]; was adopted in 2004 [27]
      (don’t swear ... it’s written on the wiki ....) .... that is exactly at the same time as the last modification of the T-90 for the Russian army .... (don’t swear .... so on the wiki it is written ...) ... later modernizations of the T-90 are commercial versions for export .... so you are cunning about the "tactically stupid" .... MBT must be developed ... especially in our open spaces ....
    6. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 19 August 2017 16: 15
      +3
      T 92 maybe it’s enough just what it is (an experienced US light tank of the 1950s)?
      And as for the uselessness of tanks, the idea is already old, but only in all modern local conflicts, tanks, with proper use, are still the main argument without them.
      1. Yuyuka
        Yuyuka 19 August 2017 17: 27
        +1
        Quote: _Jack_
        T 92 maybe it’s enough just what it is (an experienced US light tank of the 1950s)?
        And as for the uselessness of tanks, the idea is already old, but only in all modern local conflicts, tanks, with proper use, are still the main argument without them.


        Syria especially showed the "uselessness" of tanks feel
    7. Lavrenti Pavlovich
      Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 August 2017 16: 41
      +5
      Quote: On guard
      The United States has a stronger fleet. But stupid to measure arms.
      Aviation seems more important to me. Tanks generally only fight near the border.

      Now any tank can be destroyed, a tool has long been invented. Any mentally retarded can destroy any tank with a Javelin or equivalent. Even a monkey.

      Creating Armata is tactically stupid. And they didn’t put it into service, they did it right. Enough and T 92.

      Can you tell me where 36 Tomahawks of 59 released by the "most powerful" fleet in Syria have gone?
      Aviation is vulnerable, many different air defense systems. Moreover, the territory is not considered captured until the foot of the infantryman has stepped. Therefore, tanks are needed, especially since the geographical location of our country dictates to have a large grouping of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers .....
      The creation of Almaty is timely, a dozen of these tanks at times will strengthen a hundred T-72B3. The war in Syria has shown that Javelin cannot destroy the T-90. The range of targeted shooting of Almaty was announced -10 km, the range of Javelin is -2 km.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 August 2017 19: 14
        +2
        Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
        The range of targeted shooting of Almaty was declared -10 km, the range of Javelin -2 km.

        But Javelin disguises himself and acts from behind cover, while the T-14 moves over rough terrain. It’s good if the infantry and infantry fighting vehicles are ahead, and if it rips up the defense and is forced to “ram” the front edge of the defense or cut the enemy stronghold !?
        Therefore, we also need the Ka-52, along with the Mi-28Н, and a fire shaft ... Well, in short, all on the tactics of an offensive combined arms battle ...
        Somehow, however.
      2. Dimachrus
        Dimachrus 19 August 2017 22: 43
        +1
        And it’s also interesting - how many hours did the air base fly out of order?
        Efficiency in relation to costs far gone (in percentage) from hammering nails with a microscope?
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 August 2017 23: 25
        +1
        "Can you tell me where 36 of the 59 Tomahawks released by the" most powerful "fleet in Syria have gone?" “They reached their goal at an airfield of 135 square kilometers.” There is no evidence of their fall.
      4. jonhr
        jonhr 19 August 2017 23: 37
        0
        Before writing about the 36 Tomahawks you would first bother to show evidence that they really have gone somewhere.
        and as far as I know, there is really no such evidence. but there is a photo base with 44 destroyed objects
        1. SergeBS
          SergeBS 20 August 2017 16: 01
          0
          Proof on these photos I want.
          Yes, with 44 objects did not confuse? This is Trump - the 44th president. winked
          1. jonhr
            jonhr 20 August 2017 18: 58
            +1
            that's all the evidence about the missing tomahawks laughing
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 20 August 2017 22: 13
              +1
              So where are the 36 Tomahawks, if they are NOT missing? Show.
              And if you can’t show it, they are gone. For example, they gurgled at sea, or it is still unknown where, i.e. just disappeared. Since their place of fall is unknown. And just you have to prove that you are NOT missing - showing where they got.
              1. jonhr
                jonhr 21 August 2017 07: 10
                0
                35 where they were released at the base facilities. and I saw a photo of the base right after the bombing and they are there. Want to look for the photo is in the public domain.
                but you can offer nothing but empty words about the missing tomahawks.
                and this you must first provide evidence, not me
                as far as I understand you have no evidence? laughing
                1. SergeBS
                  SergeBS 21 August 2017 19: 45
                  +1
                  I repeat for the "especially" savvy:
                  1. If someone saw the photo - this is the problem of someone. I did not see. PROOF to the studio in these photos.
                  2. If someone claims that something is NOT missing, then he can show the place where this something lies. But if it can’t show, it means LOST! No one knows where this is something.
                  Accordingly, I should not prove that it was lost. Nekhai someone will show - "it’s not lost, here’s the little shoe." It can’t show where it lies - it means it's gone. No options. It is proved.
                  1. jonhr
                    jonhr 21 August 2017 22: 04
                    0
                    there is no proof you must once claim 36 missing tomahawks.
                    can even show photos of the whole base after the bombing laughing
                    and you are obliged to prove only because to preserve your dignity once I reproached you with a lie
                    1. Dashout
                      Dashout 22 August 2017 09: 17
                      +3
                      What are you doing with your flag in our country?
                      1. jonhr
                        jonhr 22 August 2017 17: 30
                        +1
                        I'm sitting at home, not in your country. Or do you already have your own virtual country?
                        then I have a logical question, but what does your virtual country do on the American Internet? lol
                    2. SergeBS
                      SergeBS 22 August 2017 18: 55
                      0


                      0
                      jonhr Yesterday, 22:04 PM ↑
                      there is no proof you must once claim 36 missing tomahawks.

                      Darling! Is it at all bad with a neck?
                      Think of how you can PROVE something is missing?
                      I will laugh. Total scanning of the Mediterranean bottom and other fantastic things - not to offer! winked
                      But to prove that it was NOT missing is just to show where the sought. That in case of loss is impossible.
                      So SHOW 36 NOT GONE. Since they have NOT disappeared, it is known where they are.
                      You can not? So lie. They disappeared, since they can’t show where they are. smile
                      And yet I want the PRUF in the photo of at least 35 hit tomahawks. However, in this case, again 59 - 35 = 24 it turns out LOST! laughing
                      1. jonhr
                        jonhr 22 August 2017 20: 45
                        0
                        there are satellite images of Shayrat where 44 affected objects are visible. some twice. there is a photo from the base itself with burned planes. concrete shelters with neat openings in the center of the hangar. and all this is in the public domain.
                        but you have nothing to offer in support of your hypothesis about missing tomahawks. By the way, why did they fall all in the sea, and not on the beach? laughing and how is such a bad missile that does not reach the aircraft hangars neatly in the center? laughing
                        you can google yourself and see these photos. I'm not going to chew you. although I don’t even care. believe what you want. the more you are mistaken the sadder the reality will be for you
                    3. SergeBS
                      SergeBS 25 August 2017 21: 28
                      +1
                      Again heart-rending cries: "show me where my Tomahawks disappeared." So it’s you, finger, must show where your "axes", with a show "not missing", are located, and therefore FOUND. Can not? So they are gone. Screaming further that if no one knows where the "missing" axes are, they did not disappear. laughing
                      1. jonhr
                        jonhr 25 August 2017 22: 39
                        0
                        I prefer not to respond to stupidity. by the way EW tools are absolutely useless against axes
      5. The comment was deleted.
    8. izya top
      izya top 19 August 2017 17: 13
      +5
      Quote: On guard
      Creating Armata is tactically stupid.

      I think tactical stupidity was the creation of an Israeli yes
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 August 2017 19: 19
        +1
        Quote: izya top
        I think tactical stupidity was the creation of an Israeli

        This is Stalin’s strategic plan against Albion. There wasn’t enough economic power ... otherwise it would be the light of communism in the BV! Ami seized the initiative ... yes
      2. The comment was deleted.
    9. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 19 August 2017 18: 32
      +3
      The same Javelins and Spikes when installed on KAZ tanks to protect them from an attack from above will make them completely useless ... It’s simply impossible to attack without tanks ...

      Aviation is certainly dangerous, but in Russia the best air defense in the world, only in Vietnam, about 2000 aircraft worth millions of dollars were destroyed, missiles at the price of two Volga cars ...

      The creation of Armata is a new level of tanks ... And when it is put into service, I hope many threats for it will be able to level ...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 20 August 2017 15: 03
        0
        "But in Russia the best air defense in the world" In which place is it the best? Kamikaze shock drones and drones, they will quickly exhaust and disable it, we have only 70 Pantsir complexes - for the whole of Russia, and there are no automated anti-aircraft guns at all, and such targets - “barrage ammunition” fly just at altitudes of 3 meters and can carry from 5 to 40 kilograms of explosives and attack any object or armored vehicles within a radius of hundreds, and in the future thousands of kilometers and electronic warfare systems against them will be powerless. Enemy aircraft will not enter the air defense zone, but unmanned light.
        1. SergeBS
          SergeBS 20 August 2017 23: 21
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237

          0
          Vadim237 Today, 15: 03 ↑
          "But in Russia the best air defense in the world" In which place is it the best? Shock drones and kamikaze drones, they will quickly exhaust and destroy it

          Yeah. With at least TWO "small" assumptions:
          1. These shock drones will magically be able to fly from AUG to OVR. How many can they fly to the maximum? At a speed of more than 300 kM / h, at which only the lazy will not hit (at an altitude of less than 500 m, that is, even an AK can "carry").
          2. The control channels of these drones should be in working condition (what about EW winked ?), well, there should be enough UAV OPERATORS for their drop dead quantity (they will be placed on the AUG, with communications, radio control channels independent of each other, etc.).
          I recommend to visit aircraft modeling competitions with radio-controlled models. Quickly your fervor about the "hundreds of drones go on target" will end.
          That super-duper drones' weapons - WHOLE kilograms of explosives do not have such a piercing effect as RPGs, and therefore 5-cm armor will not penetrate - is a separate issue.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 23 August 2017 00: 53
            0
            I didn’t talk about AUG, but about the fact that these drones can launch even from transport planes, dozens from one side, the control system is automatic according to the given coordinates, with the ability to select a target more priority during the flight and some operators will not be like drone operators like "Avengera" and explosives are different, five kilograms of HMX corresponds to 12 kilograms of TNT in power - 50ty, and even 80mm armor, it will easily break through.
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 25 August 2017 21: 42
              +1
              WOW! It turns out that drones just need to launch from transport aircraft. And drones themselves find the goal. Especially if they survive by throwing from 2 kilometers (for example) without active control. laughing
              What is the speed of the transporter, and what is the drone? Well, get out of the taxi at 80 km / h through the door. Perhaps you will not die. laughing
              If able to run at a speed of 80 kM / h. laughing
              Well, the "given coordinates" - a very interesting idea. The “cool” drone operators will be “prodigy” for 500 miles, capable of flying only with calm wind. laughing
              Especially with "given coordinates". And the ships will fall into the drift so that the "given coordinates" do not change. laughing
              Well, as for the UNAUTHORIZED explosion, as many as 4 kg of explosives, which breaks through as much as 80 mm armor, dream on.
              Just study the work of RPG-7, for starters. laughing
  7. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 19 August 2017 15: 12
    +3
    Well, let's mutter on how your ships plow the open spaces of the Bolshoi Theater.
  8. izya top
    izya top 19 August 2017 15: 18
    +13
    Yes of course yes but you Yankees still need to learn from the horses how and what to write fellow
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 19 August 2017 17: 01
      +1
      Quote: iza top


      I saw the Russian tank Armata in battle, I couldn’t see it, I lost points!
      1. Yuyuka
        Yuyuka 19 August 2017 17: 29
        0
        Quote: APASUS
        Quote: iza top


        I saw the Russian tank Armata in battle, I couldn’t see it, I lost points!


        ... and my eyes stuck to the glasses laughing
  9. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 19 August 2017 15: 20
    +3
    One American put a finger in his ass and pulled out four pounds of shit! Who told them Caliber flies 300 km? The logs? laughing tongue wassat
    1. Flinky
      Flinky 19 August 2017 21: 41
      0
      The anti-ship version, it is possible that it is limited by such a range. Shorter range = less fuel required = more RCC on one ship.
  10. egor1712
    egor1712 19 August 2017 15: 24
    -1
    They have not yet seen zircon laughing . That will be a tantrum.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  11. gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 19 August 2017 15: 24
    +5
    The main principle of the war is "everything that can go wrong, it will definitely go wrong", the Dreadnoughts stay at the bases throughout the war, the Maginot line doesn’t hold anyone back and ISIS smashes the regular parts on machine guns with machine guns. So pure math doesn’t work in a war.
  12. Alsur
    Alsur 19 August 2017 15: 33
    +1
    Quote: Dzafdet
    One American put a finger in his ass and pulled out four pounds of shit! Who told them Caliber flies 300 km? The logs? laughing tongue wassat

    So it is, the only clarification relates to the marine (mobile) target, but much more to the stationary one. But the tinnitus so simply will not do the same 1600km for the sea target, because this is the same distance on a stationary target. Why the author writes this, from stupidity or on the instructions of the center, it would be interesting to know.
  13. Holoy
    Holoy 19 August 2017 15: 39
    +5
    There is no ocean fleet in Russia ...
    1. Damir
      Damir 19 August 2017 16: 00
      +2
      Russia has an ocean fleet ... but VERY badly in need of updating the ship's crew and modernizing the existing ships .... nothing like the heavy nuclear missile cruisers (TARKR) no one .... though they all need a major overhaul ... what actually will be done in turn ...
      1. jonhr
        jonhr 20 August 2017 21: 40
        0
        no because nafig are not needed. the Americans disposed of all their nuclear cruisers
    2. sdc_alex
      sdc_alex 19 August 2017 21: 09
      0
      Katz always offered to give up!?!
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 August 2017 23: 30
        0
        In this case, Katz will not even have time to decide on the surrender, as he will be killed. In the Pacific Ocean, the fleets of China and Russia against the US fleet will not have the slightest chance of winning - they will defeat them like the Japanese fleet into the Second World War.
  14. tchoni
    tchoni 19 August 2017 15: 41
    +1
    Wait, in my opinion, the tomahawk had an antiscarabile modification !? In my opinion 109 B TASM, it seems .... it was either accepted or removed ....
  15. ibn.shamai
    ibn.shamai 19 August 2017 15: 47
    0
    Even I didn’t understand who would smash someone to smithereens? what They haven’t done anything yet but are already threatening! laughing Pontoreza! lol
  16. seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 19 August 2017 16: 03
    +1
    Dear fellow pilots - defeat us first in World of Warships - then we'll see
  17. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 19 August 2017 16: 05
    +1
    And they say hatred in our blood laughing
  18. Alexander Abdrakhmanov
    Alexander Abdrakhmanov 19 August 2017 16: 05
    +1
    For what I love Americans, they have not yet released such tomahawks. They manage to smash the entire Russian fleet to smithereens. Writes "Caliber" flies 320 km, where he rest, if they in Syria have flown a mine of 1500 km. He, with his article, quickly cut our wings. ours now do not know where to hide the fleet from the Americans.
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 19 August 2017 16: 51
      +3
      you will understand the modifications of the calibers ... do not confuse the anti-ship missile variant with D ~ 350-380 km and the KR version with D` ~ 1500-2000 km ...
    2. jonhr
      jonhr 20 August 2017 21: 42
      0
      they have even removed these tomahawks from service. 16 years old laughing
  19. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 19 August 2017 16: 10
    0
    It’s just that an ax flies rather slowly and if on land it can hide in relief, then there is no place to hide on the sea - so it would be much easier to find such a missile on water and destroy it in time. Here on the final part of the trajectory either hypersound (at least supersonic) or active maneuvering needs to be added.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 August 2017 18: 30
      +1
      It's right. You can intercept. But what?
      If the Russian fleet had carrier-based aircraft, then they patrolling around the squadron could easily intercept Tomogavki. And the missile defense of a ship in the opposite direction can be done with great difficulty.
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 19 August 2017 21: 43
        +1
        With great difficulty, low-speed KR? Modern headlamps ship radars see an object of the Kyrgyz Republic for several tens of kilometers. (at least according to the statements of radar manufacturers - both Western and ours). What is the problem of knocking it down if the speed is small and the rocket does not perform anti-ballistic maneuvers? The main problem with the CR is the difficulty of detecting it due to the envelope of the relief - it merges with the ground, if the CR was detected in time to bring it down is not difficult. And on water, the detection range increases significantly - a flat surface.
        And the missile defense of a ship in the opposite direction can be done with great difficulty.

        If I’m not mistaken, I read somewhere on this site your comment about the Israeli ship air defense of the Indians. There, you stated that she easily knocked down supersonic brahmos in the counter courses during exercises, and ordinary CR means a problem?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 August 2017 22: 26
          0
          "your comment on the Israeli naval air defense of the Indians." ////

          There was about the Barak-8 missile defense system.
          She knocks down. But Russia does not have such systems (yet). And those that are, as far as it was in the press,
          knock down ordinary KR, but with a low coefficient of efficiency. (as I wrote: "with great difficulty"). What does this mean in practice? With the approaching Tomogavka they will shoot rockets several times. And the supply of air defense / missile defense missiles on Russian ships is very small. And the Americans hope that with a simple quantitative "pressure" they will break through the missile defense of ships.
          1. padded jacket
            padded jacket 19 August 2017 22: 32
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            There was about the Barak-8 missile defense system.
            She knocks

            It’s interesting if your Barak-8 is so cool, why is this Jewish craft not bought by anyone other than India and Azerbaijan, and even then in limited quantities? lol
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 20 August 2017 00: 15
              0
              Americans, British, French are developing their products. The rest is not in the subject.
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 20 August 2017 02: 06
                0
                Yeah. Those. the rest simply sent another "ingenious" invention of Israel into a "foot erotic". Since it’s not worth the money that they want for it, and REALLY - bullshit with “cool marketing”, which Azerbaijanis and Indians bought for, and the rest are not. Ess, but they are therefore "off topic." wink
          2. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 19 August 2017 22: 39
            0
            Well, a massive strike of the Kyrgyz Republic is a problem for anything, ships are no exception. And the fact that our fleet suffered more than other weapons after the collapse of the USSR is yes, as a result, now it is a miserable sight, except, perhaps, for the underwater component. In the current state, our surface fleet is nothing compared to the US fleet, not to mention NATO. And here is that with the Kyrgyz Republic, that without them - no chance.
            Apparently, the conversation is about confrontation with the PRC fleet, which is gaining strength, and they have no such problems with naval air defense of medium and short range.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 20 August 2017 00: 12
              0
              It's right. The Chinese are rapidly increasing the number and mirroring the air defense / missile defense systems.
              The Tomogawks have the advantage that they are put on the conveyor and checked for many years. The new generation of stealth KR is not so long-range. Mounting on a ship's version of the GNS Tomogavka is quite simple. There’s a catch when moving from an approximate “targeting” via GPS to an exact one via radar or video, and what if the enemy’s ships slipped away during a missile’s flight.
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 20 August 2017 02: 35
                0
                WOW! It turns out many years of operation (with performance characteristics that meet the requirements of 50 years ago) - is this an advantage? Well then, a mosquito is the best infantry weapon. For example.
                I also did not understand a bit about GPS - will the boats kindly provide their coordinates to the KR, who want to "drown them" a little? Or how?
                Especially considering that GPS on the Kyrgyz Republic is fantastic, and boats usually do not stand still, and even if the speed is 20 times lower, but the accuracy should not be hundreds of meters, but meters.
                Radar and video are also an interesting topic.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 20 August 2017 09: 43
                  0
                  "About GPS, I also did not understand a bit" ////

                  This is not the only thing you do not understand ... smile
                  1. SergeBS
                    SergeBS 20 August 2017 15: 22
                    +1
                    Those. You studied the principle of GPS operation, made sure that the GPS coordinates of the target on the CD are fantastic and "made a smart look."
                  2. SergeBS
                    SergeBS 25 August 2017 21: 45
                    +1
                    Ale, the pontiff bearer is understanding! Where are you gone? With your super-megapixel GPS work? laughing
          3. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 20 August 2017 17: 05
            0
            Do you think Barak is significantly superior to our Calm?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 20 August 2017 17: 56
              +1
              Calm is a converted Beech in a marine version.
              Semi-active missile from a ship’s radar.
              The Barak-8 rocket has an active seeker with its own radar and infrared
              video camera. Completely different generations. Russia didn’t even put up its Calm on the Indian tender, since it did not satisfy even the initial requirements of the Indians.
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ 20 August 2017 22: 42
                0
                Yes, everything is in order with the GOS and radars, but the high-speed characteristics of the rockets are weak - just fly towards
              2. SergeBS
                SergeBS 25 August 2017 22: 39
                +1
                I remember that the “God-chosen nation” promised protection from its air defense with its “supreme-mega-devise”, which blinded the air defense with a dumbbell. However, it turned out that this "super-mega-device" can only detect launches in its direction. With appropriate "anti-air defense". Like "they fired at you, so you kirdyk." Advertising from the Jews - it is. laughing
                And of course, only in the country of the “God chosen people” are the most effective technologies. laughing
                Well, there are all the geniuses about "last year’s snow vparit as a super remedy for defrosting refrigerators." laughing
      2. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 19 August 2017 22: 08
        0
        It seems that there was a conversation about Barak, so it was developed about 30 years ago and it seems to be doing fine with supersonic anti-ship missiles and will there be problems with an ordinary ax?
  20. LAWNER
    LAWNER 19 August 2017 16: 17
    +1
    Quote: hrych
    Quote: On guard
    Any mentally retarded can destroy any tank with a Javelin or equivalent.

    By the way, a tank is the most stable means of protecting the crew from all the factors of a nuclear explosion and drive across the field with charred advanced Javelin operators, and even the luminescent radiation will be the most.

    God forbid to see or try on yourself.
  21. NEXUS
    NEXUS 19 August 2017 16: 18
    +4
    Surpassing the Russian and Chinese fleets several times in range, US ships will be able to strike at the enemy with impunity. Moreover, the new missile will allow the US Navy to operate in previously inaccessible areas due to the high probability of destruction.

    While such a missile will be planed in the USA, we will have Zircon in service, about whose range the information is generally foggy. At the same time, the Caliber is also being modernized ...
    Hence the question - If for 50 years, mattresses have not created anything equal to the Volcanoes, Granites and Onyxes, why now they will succeed?
    Some may say that the US fleet was sharpened more to work along the shore ... but in the days of the Union, there was some parity, but even in those days, they were unable to create something anti-ship and dalboy.
  22. DOCTOR ZLO
    DOCTOR ZLO 19 August 2017 16: 28
    +1
    Well, at least in terms of the number of ships and aircraft of the Navy of rocket launchers, they are ahead of the rest ...
    Another thing is they do not install the KR MB on such small ships of the corvette-guard class.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 August 2017 23: 41
      0
      “Another thing is they don’t install missile launchers on such small corvette-guard ships. Why do they need it when they have more than 140 surface and underwater missile launchers, each of which, from 20 to 50 missiles, can be stuffed. And In the future, all Ohio submarines can be remade the same under KR carriers, there is also the option of building ships, based on the San Antonio, under the carrier of 500 missile defense and Tomahawks.
  23. Ural50
    Ural50 19 August 2017 16: 40
    +1
    It is not short-sighted to shout like that, because their Navy can then be left without budget money since they are doing so well.
  24. SCHMEL
    SCHMEL 19 August 2017 16: 54
    +12
    US will destroy the fleets of Russia and China

    We look forward to the release of the Hollywood blockbuster: belay
  25. Igor Nikolaevich
    Igor Nikolaevich 19 August 2017 17: 16
    +1
    No wonder Trump wants to declare an emergency mode in connection with the excessive use of opiates, apparently specifically hooked.
  26. Billgejtz
    Billgejtz 19 August 2017 17: 21
    +1
    diapers brought to the Amer fleet?
  27. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 19 August 2017 17: 23
    +3
    after the thrashing received by the states from Eun, all their boltology sounds unconvincing. (very softly speaking)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 18: 30
      +1
      Quote: Atlant-1164
      after thrashing the states from Eun,

      Did they get a thrashing? This is something new
  28. K-50
    K-50 19 August 2017 17: 25
    +1
    US ships will be able to strike at the enemy with impunity.

    If that were the case, we had to fight back from the “axes,” but for now it’s only their wet dreams. fellow
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 18: 31
      +1
      We are protected by nuclear weapons, and so ..
  29. venik
    venik 19 August 2017 17: 30
    0
    "..... Surpassing the Russian and Chinese fleets several times over, the US ships will be able to strike at the enemy with impunity. Moreover, the new missile will allow the American fleet to operate in areas previously inaccessible due to the high probability of destruction. Near Russia there will be the Baltic and Black Seas, and near China - the South China ..... "
    =======
    Blessed is He Who Believes ...... "Warm" To Him in the World !!!!!!
  30. NordUral
    NordUral 19 August 2017 17: 30
    0
    Another misconception.
  31. XXXIII
    XXXIII 19 August 2017 17: 40
    +1
    Something needs to be done, and very quickly. For example, we will hang a couple of nuclear charges from a balloon and let it go downwind towards Washington. wink
    1. sgapich
      sgapich 19 August 2017 19: 47
      +2
      ... hang a couple of nuclear charges from a balloon ...

      Yeah, and Fedor Konyukhov on board. Maybe let it drop somewhere)))
    2. Svarog51
      Svarog51 19 August 2017 19: 50
      +8
      Vladimir hi
      .For example, we’ll hang a couple of nuclear charges from a balloon and let it go downwind towards Washington.

      It is a very difficult task to raise the ball to a height of about 32 km. On the "road" a layered cake from the air flows in any direction and blows the ball very far. Just a week ago, I had the honor of talking with a direct participant in the events that took place in the early 80s precisely on this topic. Of the three experimental launches, it was the "general" one that turned out to be the most successful and passed in the given parameters. For which my friend received the lieutenant ahead of schedule. And the means of observation and defeat of such targets have stepped far forward. So the probability of reaching the goal is very small.
  32. mlad
    mlad 19 August 2017 18: 14
    0
    the biggest problem with such a range is aiming at a target, you can’t do without satellites here, and the Americans have a lot of them, in the final section, aiming at your own radar, it’s real, you can use the caliber like that, only strengthen the satellite constellation
    1. sdc_alex
      sdc_alex 19 August 2017 21: 13
      0
      In the event full-scale hostilities begin, satellites are nothing more than space junk!
    2. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 19 August 2017 21: 29
      0
      So far, a lot. There is confidence that at one o'clock Amers will have about a dozen outdated meteorological satellites ... and the question will arise: Do the Russians and Chinese want war?
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 19 August 2017 21: 32
        0
        Are the Swedes checking my koment? Terrorism, bomb, genocide and many, many scary words. laughing
    3. 117423
      117423 19 August 2017 21: 50
      +1
      For all this, the Russian Federation already has a HA-32 range of defeat from the Tu22m3 1000-1500km at a speed of 1,5km / s, approximately 5400km / h, it is already undergoing final tests and from 2018 into production, as well as the "zircon" from far to 1000km / h with 8mah and this is under 10000km / h and the submarines will be armed with them. Question - where will the Yankees shoot with their "axes" and where will they run away? And on the approach "status 6", "line" "Sarmatian" "U-71" new electronic warfare systems, although now "axes" are falling like flies from "krasukha" All this American bravado and Wishlist are worth nothing, they are just very afraid of the Russian Federation . RUSSIA is far from North Korea,
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 August 2017 23: 43
        +1
        While in service with this nothing.
        1. Diplomat x
          Diplomat x 20 August 2017 16: 11
          0
          “On the way”, “There are no analogues,” “Will” - in the end, there is, that is.
          Serdyukov is still sitting in Russian Helicopters, it is strange that the industry is still afloat.
  33. panov_panov
    panov_panov 19 August 2017 18: 21
    0
    Like children))) .... well, honestly!))
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 19 August 2017 18: 37
    0
    Tell me who it is, I don’t understand. To shoot a modern anti-ship missile, do you really need a ship? Or shore? A cassette with the necessary systems, batteries, etc. .. say for a year of autonomy, yes, it is necessary. And what have the ships to do with it?
  36. Old26
    Old26 19 August 2017 18: 40
    +3
    Guys! You are again led to the publication of this magazine. It's time to ignore him
    Quote: juborg
    They threaten to remake the "axes", under RCC, but these are just words, and the rocket itself is again old again.

    They have experience in remaking. There is nothing new to put except GOS. But before, their RCC version was at least 600 km away. Now at 1600? I wonder what kind of naval targets they will shoot with it? By landline

    Quote: hrych
    Of course, it will be easier for them to create RCC on the basis of the existing Tomahawk, plus they have already made such modifications, they have refused, making the situation absurd, when there was nothing left except for dead Harpoon. Even their RCC, Tomahawk was looking for a target in zigzags, and ours always made a slide, fixed the target of the GOS and raced in super sound.

    Now even more absurd. If before, having a range of 600 km, the anti-ship “Tomahawk” last 80-100 km “programmed” “zigzag”, looking for a target (of course, it captured a large area along the front), now with a range of 1600 km .... The missile will be go to the goal of TWO HOUR order. During this time, the target at a speed of 30 knots will go more than 100 km. And the range of the GOS is not unlimited. Why make such a rocket with such a range ???
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 19 August 2017 19: 08
      +1
      You're right. if you compare, something like Yamato’s guns, long-range, powerful and where to shoot? Scare fish.
    2. hrych
      hrych 20 August 2017 01: 28
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      If before, having a range of 600 km, the anti-ship “Tomahawk” last 80-100 km “programmed” “zigzag”, looking for a target ... now now with a range of 1600 km

      Well, it’s possible to justify them, to give external target designation to correct the trajectory, but if with us, it’s like a nuclear and global war, where we cut down their guidance and positioning. And where only the inertial guidance system will be relevant, where again we have advantages in the concept of weapons. I don’t know with the Chinese whether he is ready to snapper at least in the global confrontation, given the backwardness in satellite and nuclear technologies.
      1. MadCat
        MadCat 20 August 2017 02: 09
        +1
        Quote: hrych
        where we cut down their guidance and positioning.

        the satellites are in a geostationary orbit of 35,786 km, what are you going to shoot them with, and even so that the Americans do not notice?
        Quote: hrych
        guidance system, where again we have advantages in the concept of weapons.

        there is no advantage since American missiles are equipped with more compact systems.
        Generally reading this, it seems that you think that in the event of a mess, the Americans will not do anything at all, and just sit and wait when their "good fellows" begin to kill.
        1. hrych
          hrych 20 August 2017 03: 05
          +1
          Quote: MadCat
          the satellites are in a geostationary orbit of 35,786 km, what are you going to shoot them with, and even so that the Americans do not notice?

          The problem is that they can’t transmit anything to KR, Stels, etc. The receivers themselves are below the ionosphere and in the EMP zone, and there is absolutely no need to touch the satellites.
          Quote: MadCat
          there is no advantage since American missiles are equipped with more compact systems.
          Generally reading this, it seems that you think that in the event of a mess, the Americans will not do anything at all, and just sit and wait when their "good fellows" begin to kill.

          What are more compact systems? Let's just say that their high-precision weapons in the form of the Tomahawk, AGM-158, the same Stealths (for external guidance and target designation) require precision hits because non-nuclear systems. Those. accuracy should be a deviation of a meter, a maximum of 10, which is achieved only thanks to the GPS system, and the inertial in itself is dull and a deviation of a hundred meters is considered the norm. However, when using a nuclear charge - it does not matter. They even converted their nuclear Tomahawks into highly accurate non-nuclear ones, and in Granite we have a half-megaton charge, from x-22 to a megaton, Caliber inherited 200 kilotons from Grenade, Onyx is not published yet how much, but also from a third to a half-megaton charge. Those. the defeat of the ship in a radius of 5 to 13 kilometers and the deviation of inertial guidance even in a kilometer absolutely does not mean anything. They also need to get on board, and if the ground target is right in the building, PU, ​​Radar, etc. Such is the difference in the doctrine of the use of funds. Plus we have accumulated tactical nuclear charges from 5 to 15 thousand, for every taste and under no agreement they do not fall.
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 20 August 2017 03: 44
            0
            Quote: hrych
            accuracy should be a deviation in meter, maximum 10, which is achieved only thanks to the system of PP&S

            And how does this GPS system ensure the accuracy of hitting a target of 10 m. Is it the coordinates of the target that determine, not the OWN coordinates of the GPS receiver? Telepathically? winked
        2. SergeBS
          SergeBS 20 August 2017 03: 14
          0
          Quote: MadCat
          the satellites are in a geostationary orbit of 35,786 km, what are you going to shoot them with, and even so that the Americans do not notice?

          And also such satellites are located above the equator, well, they don’t see any nifig. There are no radars on them, from the word at all.
          What are these satellites doing, explain?
          What do these satellites have no MILITARY value, explain?
          In Google banned? wink
  37. Vision
    Vision 19 August 2017 18: 56
    0
    The Russian fleet is possible and yes, but there is simply not enough strength for China.
  38. Conductor
    Conductor 19 August 2017 19: 04
    0
    What a trifle, gentlemen, Americans, to pull MX out of the zagashniks, put ax blocks in there, and let them in with zumvolts to the joy of democracy and fear to enemies!
  39. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 19 August 2017 19: 43
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Atlant-1164
    after thrashing the states from Eun,
    Did they get a thrashing? This is something new

    and for me it’s new that you don’t know how to read between the lines. I’ll explain. If the world hegemon sent an armada of aircraft carriers, strategists b-1b, etc. and they didn’t just send him. They promised to send their strategists (ICBMs). this is what I call thrashing. and in plain Russian, the Americans were sent to all three letters of the great and mighty. ferstein?
    1. Barmal
      Barmal 19 August 2017 20: 19
      +1
      Gaddafi looks at your words and smiles sweetly, patting On with an invisible hand on the shoulder.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 21: 36
      0
      Quote: Atlant-1164
      if the world hegemon sent an armada of aircraft carriers, strategists b-1b, etc. and they didn’t just send him. They promised to send their strategists (ICBMs). this is what I call thrashing

      In response to Eun's next tricks, the United States sends an AUS to him. It doesn’t reach Eun, so the United States is pushing through the UN Security Council sanctions (with our warm approval, by the way) according to which the northerners will not count one third of their export earnings. The question is - who and to whom did the thrashing - rhetorical
  40. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 19 August 2017 20: 24
    +1
    Yeah ... On a computer, on complexity - Easy! Using ArtMoney ...
  41. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 19 August 2017 21: 03
    +1
    The newspaper kept silent about one thing: how much did the arms manufacturers and the local Serdyukovs pay her ...
  42. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 August 2017 21: 27
    +2
    Hmmm, weird. Someone banged my comment that the article was completely delusional, including because the US Navy today is able to easily and without straining to smash both the Russian Navy and the Chinese Navy on the wall at least once, at least separately. Is this a violation of the rules?
  43. AVV
    AVV 19 August 2017 21: 37
    0
    Clowns, the caliber flies much further !!!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 August 2017 23: 46
      0
      Only now the cat wept in caliber, it would be nice if there were 200, and the US Navy has more than 4000 tomahawks.
      1. hrych
        hrych 20 August 2017 03: 19
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        Only now the cat wept in caliber, it would be nice if there were 200, and the US Navy has more than 4000 tomahawks.

        The whole difference is that they have high-precision - non-nuclear, and we have high-precision / inertial - nuclear, this is the trick. For barmaleys are landfill tests, and the main stationary targets are the cities of the enemy, well, the ships of NATO, Japan and the PRC, in all cases (maybe except Japan), the conflict involves the exchange of nuclear strikes and no one will take charge. And do not climb FIGs. Actually, this was stated when the Commander-in-Chief brought the performance characteristics, they were clearly for nuclear equipment. And in the West they understand this, because by their codification, Caliber is listed as the Incinerator.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 20 August 2017 11: 41
          0
          But is there enough spirit in our leadership to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear attack - the question remains open.
          1. hrych
            hrych 20 August 2017 12: 20
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            But is there enough spirit in our leadership to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear attack - the question remains open.

            And will they have the guts to conduct a non-nuclear attack against a nuclear superpower? On the whole, the picture will look in a menacing approach and concentration of the enemy fleet to our coast at a launch distance, I am afraid they will not be able to do it secretly, therefore at some point ICBMs will already fly according to our military Doctrine. AND suitcase not with the political leadership, but with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and he is, to put it mildly, a decisive and fearless person, and they don’t give a damn about the opinions of the rest, including even the Prime Minister, not only ..., and the SPRN system, etc., works already automatically (probably laughing), maybe the consent of the person is no longer required laughing There is the same "Perimeter".
            1. Dashout
              Dashout 21 August 2017 11: 04
              +4
              Reading you - the mood rises! Convincing, well done! Just change the nickname - it does not match ..
  44. rus-5819
    rus-5819 19 August 2017 21: 51
    0
    a new modification of the American missile could literally smash the ships of the US adversaries "to the nines," writes Business Insider.

    That's the "Duckling Duck" from our planes shies in both the Black and the Baltic ... Apparently not afraid to convey to the latrine is afraid
  45. rpuropuu
    rpuropuu 19 August 2017 22: 28
    0
    Quote: Black
    .. to the nines .. laughing... he’s there, he wrote an article about the game of poker ....

    No, about money laughing laughing
  46. rpuropuu
    rpuropuu 19 August 2017 22: 32
    0
    Quote: Pirogov
    Quote: Thrall
    In vain, the last paragraph of the article was not published, otherwise it turned out to be too apocalyptic for Russia and China

    Can you imagine that if Russia had a hundred destroyers and a dozen aircraft carriers like the United States they would probably be paralyzed from fear.

    One "agent" was enough laughing For half a year now they’ve been looking for some traces there, some not perceptible avengers there lol
  47. LeonidL
    LeonidL 19 August 2017 22: 40
    +2
    Obama has already told the world that the Russian economy is torn to shreds ... This couch warrior can see his nestling chick. ... As the wise cat Leopold used to say, "Guys - let's live together!"
  48. happy
    happy 20 August 2017 01: 13
    0
    So far only in fantasies. There is no rocket.
  49. Ilja2016
    Ilja2016 20 August 2017 01: 30
    0
    Quote: cniza
    That's right, and the DPRK has become a good reason to place US funds at our borders.

    They would have placed them anyway.
  50. Ilja2016
    Ilja2016 20 August 2017 01: 32
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Hmmm, weird. Someone banged my comment that the article was completely delusional, including because the US Navy today is able to easily and without straining to smash both the Russian Navy and the Chinese Navy on the wall at least once, at least separately. Is this a violation of the rules?

    Easy and effortless only in a computer game laughing laughing