Military Review

Expert on the dangers of American SM-6 for Russian ballistic missiles

71
The SM-6 shipborne multi-role missile tested in the United States does not represent a radical threat to actively maneuvering Russian missiles, but it is dangerous for single ships of the Russian Navy, leading RIA News the comment of the expert of the center for military-political studies at MGIMO of the Russian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Korovin.




The US Missile Defense Agency recently announced the second successful test of the SM-6, which intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile launched from Barking Sands.

“Now we will continue to develop anti-missile defense technologies in order to anticipate emerging threats,” said Agency Head Sam Greaves, calling the test “a key milestone in the development of American missile defense.”

Modern Russian missiles, so to speak, short-range type "Iskander", have the property of vigorous maneuvering at the start and end of the flight. The American SM-6 does not work on intensively maneuvering targets. It, of course, complicates the task of Russian ballistic missiles, but does not pose a radical threat to them,
Korovin said the agency.

He noted that the SM-6 is “a kind of multi-purpose rocket,” and when used as an anti-ship, its task is to go on a ballistic trajectory and attack the ship vertically.

She "flashing" the ship from top to bottom. Vertically shoot up today not many systems can. Here is a neighboring ship on this attacking missile can work, but not attacked. That is, for a single ship, this rocket poses a certain danger,
The expert explained.

According to him, the SM-6 rocket has been in mass production for about four years.

It is made at the new plant, which is located in Alabama. This long-range anti-aircraft missile - the so-called over-the-horizon - is capable of operating at a distance of more than 350 kilometers. The mass of its warhead - 125 kilograms. The solution to the problem of intercepting ballistic missiles for her is not the main, but the additional (task)
told Korovin.

In his opinion, the SM-6 task of intercepting medium-range ballistic missiles is a continuation of the program for the end of the 90-s.

In 2001, the Americans abandoned this program due to a sharp increase in cost. When the SM-6 rocket appeared, it was proposed to use it to intercept ballistic missiles at low altitudes - from 10 to 25 kilometers, not higher. The fact that today they intercepted a medium-range missile suggests that the rocket is really successful, successful,
The expert noted.

It is a continuation of the program launched in the mid-1960s to create Standard-type missiles - a further development of the main American missile fleet Standard-2 Block IV - only with the installation on it of an active homing head from an air-to-air missile AMRAAM - the most massive American aviation medium-range missiles
added on.

However, to call the test "milestone", probably would not be worth it.

Demonstrated what the previous system based on the SM-2 Block IV-A rocket was supposed to do at the beginning of the 2000s. The test results are about the analogue of the fact that the Russian C-300 Favorit system also knocks down ballistic missiles, with a certain restriction, of course. It’s just not clear at what speed the medium-range ballistic missile flew at the point where it was intercepted,
said Korovin.

That is, this is a ship-borne rocket, which will also shoot down ballistic missiles at relatively low altitudes. Each year, these missiles are produced about 80-90 units. The price of SM-6 is several million dollars. Any business suggests that you need as much mass production as possible. Naturally, they are trying to impose additional tasks on this rocket, in particular, anti-missile and anti-ship,
he concluded.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
71 comment
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. VadimSt
    VadimSt 31 August 2017 09: 00
    +5
    It is likely that it is! At the same time, experts, like the rest, use open sources, but due to the specialization and systematization of materials, they can “look under the covers” and make their forecasts.
    The true tasks and opportunities of many weapons systems in any country, as they were, remain behind the "seven locks".
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 31 August 2017 09: 49
      +4
      Quote: VadimSt
      True challenges and opportunities

      The capabilities of the current 3,14 missile defense were clearly demonstrated yesterday's launch of the Hwason-12 RSD ...
      Here, or as the VVZh says, “there was no task to intercept.” Or - "I couldn’t ..." Yankees can intercept RSD only if they “call” them and take into account the exact start location and time.

      Comments are unnecessary. And this opens up excellent opportunities for Russian and Chinese ICBMs, especially from underwater carriers, for "preventive strikes at the appointed time." EVERYTHING IS A DOT!
    2. papas-57
      papas-57 31 August 2017 11: 38
      +3
      The possibilities of the American missile defense are pure PR. They will be able to intercept their missile knowing the exact time, place and direction of launch. For greater reliability, a radio beacon will be installed on the rocket (as if window dressing had not broken). They can shoot down a single missile at the cost of losing heaps of their missile defense. But with a mass launch of missiles, the American missile defense system simply turns off the number of targets and the result will be disastrous.
      1. misti1973
        misti1973 8 February 2018 08: 07
        0
        Aegis cannot launch many missiles with a semi-active guidance head. Such as SM-2. And the SM-6 with an active head does not require tracking. There are still satellites that can be target designation tools. Of course, you can’t get everything down, but you can shoot down Poplars on our active site.
  2. Vincent
    Vincent 31 August 2017 09: 04
    +12
    So why didn’t they intercept the last launch from North Korea? You can’t imagine the best advertisement ... Also, after all, a medium-range missile was ...
    1. zhekazs
      zhekazs 31 August 2017 09: 15
      +5
      Read the USA Today article: The US Navy successfully tested a missile defense in Hawaii, yesterday there was a comment from Old 26, he explained everything in detail about this.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 31 August 2017 09: 17
      +2
      Israel also does not intercept missiles that do not fall on us.
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 31 August 2017 09: 46
        +3
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Israel also does not intercept missiles that do not fall on us.

        You compare unguided missiles with guided ones. How can I find out where a Korean rocket could fall? She can change her course. This is not a dumb blank with MLRS
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 31 August 2017 10: 41
          +1
          Quote: Muvka
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Israel also does not intercept missiles that do not fall on us.

          You compare unguided missiles with guided ones. How can I find out where a Korean rocket could fall? She can change her course. This is not a dumb blank with MLRS


          Do you really think that ballistic missiles can "fall anywhere" and that "it can change its course" ???
          You really need to go to school.
          See what ballistic missile maneuvers really are ...
          Deviation from the trajectory to the side - no more than 200 km, deviation along the trajectory - is practically not realistic. For this you need to know. how rockets fly at ballistic trajectories.
          1. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 31 August 2017 20: 28
            0
            Here are just the Russian warheads after breeding for some reason they fly along a pseudo-ballistic trajectory, that is, they maneuver along the course and pitch.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 31 August 2017 21: 27
              0
              Quote: sharp-lad
              Here are just the Russian warheads after breeding for some reason they fly along a pseudo-ballistic trajectory, that is, they maneuver along the course and pitch.


              Name the source?
              They maneuver only in the order of aiming at the target.
              What is a pseudo-ballistic trajectory - you name it?
              Will show?
              I just don’t recall such a term ...
              Floating can?
              Is your pseudo-ballistic not linearly dependent?
              Algorithms not calculated?
              1. sharp-lad
                sharp-lad 31 August 2017 21: 48
                0
                Okay, okay, misinterpreted. recourse Not pseudo-ballistic, but quasi-ballistic! Although radish is not sweeter. lol
  3. Tusv
    Tusv 31 August 2017 09: 05
    +3
    It’s just not clear how fast the medium-range ballistic missile flew at the point where it was intercepted,

    not higher than 5M
    1. Solomon Kane
      Solomon Kane 31 August 2017 09: 07
      +6
      Yeah, and even that is a kinetic blank .... Vladimir, Salute!
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 31 August 2017 10: 18
        +1
        Quote: Solomon Kane
        Yeah, and that one is a kinetic blank .... Vladimir, Salute

        Greetings. There are also high explosive
  4. agfa
    agfa 31 August 2017 09: 18
    +1
    Nothing new, as 40N6 operates over a range of 400 km, like 40N6 it has less overload capabilities, differences in weight and number of carriers, respectively, an over-the-horizon central control unit is required
  5. agfa
    agfa 31 August 2017 09: 21
    +3
    40H6:
    Type of long-range missiles
    Mass production of the MMZ Avangard
    Length 8.7m
    Diameter 0.575 m
    Weight 2500 kg
    Warhead weight 145-180 kg
    Warhead types similar to 48N6E2
    Range 400-460 km. According to other sources, up to 600 km.
    The height of the defeat is 185 km. According to some reports, 250 km.
    Maximum speed> 9M
    Maximum target speed> 4.8 km / sec (> 15.6M)
    Overload capacity> 25G
    Chance of hitting a target 0.95
    Start-up preparation time no more than 8 sec
    Service life 15-20 years
    Rocket design Two-stage solid fuel with a bearing body
    and aerodynamic steering stabilizers
    Control and guidance system Combined: inertial control system
    + GOS development of Central Design Bureau “Almaz” active semi-active
    with the transfer to the target search mode by command of the SAM system.
    After finding the target in the “search” mode, the active
    The radar directs the missile at the target.
    PAD is
    Engine 1 stage solid propellant rocket motor
    Engine 2 stage solid propellant rocket motor
  6. agfa
    agfa 31 August 2017 09: 25
    +1
    SM-6:
    Missile length, mm 6550
    Wingspan, mm 1570
    Launch weight, kg 1497
    Range, km ~ 240
    Flight speed over 3.5M
    Warhead weight Mk-125, kg 115


    Starting engine Mk72

    Diameter, mm 530
    Length, mm 1700
    Curb Weight, kg 712
    Weight of fuel charge, kg 468
    Specific Impulse, from 260-265
    Opening hours, from 6


    Marching engine Mk104

    Diameter, mm 340
    Length, mm 2880
    Curb Weight, kg 488
    Weight of fuel charge, kg 360
    Specific Impulse, from 260-265
    Opening hours, from 6
  7. Old26
    Old26 31 August 2017 09: 40
    +6
    Quote: Vincent
    So why didn’t they intercept the last launch from North Korea? You can’t imagine the best advertisement ... Also, after all, a medium-range missile was ...

    Pancake. They chew the same gum for two days. Tell me, can you, for example, hit a target from a Makarov pistol that is 3 kilometers away from you? Or from a double-barreled shot-down to shoot down not a duck, but yelling at a height of 500 meters?
    Is it really so hard to understand that there are certain parameters for interception. And just like that, at will, no one can intercept anything. Neither Americans nor we.
    If the height of this missile is 33 km, how can you intercept a target flying at an altitude of 550 km?
    Or if you have a reach of 180-200 km, how can you intercept a target reaching an altitude of 550 km?
    Missile defense systems are designed not just to knock someone down there, if they suddenly get drunk on someone from questions, and why they didn’t knock them down, but in strictly defined zones.
    And what’s the most, sorry, h.r.e. new, is that now these systems (capable of such interception) were not there, and now they WILL.
    And the Japanese destroyers will quickly re-equip Block 3A to Standard SM-2 (but there weren’t)
    And the THAADs are insulted. And then the question is, on whose mill does Eun pour water? not on the American?
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 31 August 2017 09: 48
      0
      And where did you get the idea that the Korean rocket was at an altitude of 550km?
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 31 August 2017 10: 43
        0
        Quote: Muvka
        And where did you get the idea that the Korean rocket was at an altitude of 550km?


        And on what trajectories do ballistic missiles fly?
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 31 August 2017 11: 25
        +2
        Quote: Muvka
        And where did you get the idea that the Korean rocket was at an altitude of 550km?

        Yesterday we considered here on the site, the apogee of the ballistic trajectory of the Korean missile should be in the region of 500 - 700 km, it all depends on the angle to the horizon ...
  8. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 31 August 2017 09: 42
    +4
    She "flashing" the ship from top to bottom. Vertically shoot up today not many systems can. Here is a neighboring ship on this attacking missile can work, but not attacked. That is, for a single ship, this rocket poses a certain danger,
    I would rather turn to KRET and ask them to put on a NK-class “corvette-frigate” and higher a laser unit or other REP on brain boiling at the GOS ZUR-RKR. And then all about the same: "not everyone shoots vertically up." Damn, he’s also calling * an ekderd *, but he doesn’t know elementary ... fool
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 31 August 2017 09: 44
    +3
    "short-range type" Iskander ", have the property of vigorous maneuvering
    at the start and end of the flight. "////

    How can Iskander ENERGY maneuver? He has no aerodynamic rudders,
    only gas. With an energetic maneuver, the rocket will fly away forever with its ballistic
    trajectories to the goal. You can maneuver a little bit within a degree or two.
    I do not think that such a maneuver will be able to deceive the "big-eyed" GOS interceptor.
    1. Alsi
      Alsi 31 August 2017 10: 50
      +5
      = You can maneuver a little bit within a degree or two. =
      Even in open sources about ISKADER it is stated that in the initial and final sections of the trajectory it maneuvers with overloads of 20-30G. This is clearly not 1-2 grd.

      = I do not think that such a maneuver will be able to deceive the "big-eyed" GOS interceptor. =
      Cheat on deceive, but the body of the "interceptor" corny can not withstand shunting overloads when approaching. This is for GOS.

      = With an energetic maneuver, the rocket will fly away forever with its ballistic =
      Yah?! The simplest ATGM "MALUTA", moving along a helical path, does not leave its path.

      = He has no aerodynamic rudders,
      only gas. =
      Who told you such nonsense ?!
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 31 August 2017 10: 51
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      With an energetic maneuver, the rocket will fly away forever with its ballistic
      trajectories to the goal.


      Exactly...
      Something like the "sect of the terrible Iskander" somehow very poorly knows physics.
      But you can’t deceive her.
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 31 August 2017 20: 35
        +1
        To cheat is not the way of an engineer, to go around or use - that’s it! Who said that from the start point to the goal there is only one path?
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 31 August 2017 21: 51
          +1
          Quote: sharp-lad
          To cheat is not the way of an engineer, to go around or use - that’s it! Who said that from the start point to the goal there is only one path?

          there are many trajectories.
          Only now, the starting segment with a probability of 99% gives the true trajectory for the BR.
          Its change is unrealistic to implement.
          To change - you need:
          1. This is the presence of powerful engines on a warhead with a huge fuel supply for sudden braking or additional acceleration. is there any reason for this7

          2. warhead. which is not a warhead. and a container for another rocket. which is also unrealistic. since placing a normal rocket in a very small protected volume of a warhead is unrealistic. there are no fairy tales.
          etc.
          1. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 31 August 2017 22: 15
            +1
            You don’t need to change the trajectory much, the enemy got the idea of ​​kinetic destruction of warheads, the main maneuvering takes place on the acceleration section and when entering the dense layers of the atmosphere due to the shape and small aerodynamic planes, a second missile is not needed yet. But false goals .... hi
  10. Old26
    Old26 31 August 2017 10: 24
    +4
    Quote: Muvka
    And where did you get the idea that the Korean rocket was at an altitude of 550km?

    Well, even if not at an altitude of 550 km (this was its apogee), then at least even if at 500, okay, even at an altitude of 400 km. How to intercept it?
    Camrad zhekazs already written, read the topic USA Today: The US Navy successfully tested Hawaii missiles.. There I gave lents to who and what can. So here. Theoretically, if the missile was at an altitude of less than 500 km, the Standard SM-3 block 2A could intercept it. But that's just bad luck. There are no such missiles on Japanese destroyers. It could have been intercepted by an American destroyer if it was in that area. But the question is, why intercept a missile that goes "nowhere"? Spend millions to bring down the blank? which fell into the sea? In principle, Eun can now dare and launch another missile, again over Japan. They may not bring down it, but they may destroy it.
    Another complex that can intercept such a target are GBI interceptors located in Alaska. At the limit, but could intercept. they have a range of 5000 km and a height of at least 2000 km. Again, why? The rocket did not threaten anyone. The only thing is the political effect and increased self-conceit of Un, that he can do everything and no one decree to him.
    We, several years ago, did not shoot down the North Korean Musudan when it flopped into the sea about 70 kilometers from Nakhodka? The North Korean did not shoot down when they fell 300-500 km from Vladivostok? Why? Yes, because they are not a threat.

    Immediately, everyone, as one, begins to ask the question: why didn’t they hit. And they immediately conclude - NOT SMOGY. And the answer lies on the surface. Nafig did not have to shoot down.
    Yes, no one launches their missiles over foreign territory. The Koreans have already done this three times - in 1998, 2009 and now. Will he be allowed to shoot again? I am not a prophet. But he himself brings himself to be smeared. Moreover, China said that it would not protect it if it did so first. Now he has stated that this is a prelude to launching in Guam. And not across the ocean around the island, but along the American base itself. Did the roof go away from its significance? Or does he think that since they let him go, the second one and nobody will touch him ???
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 31 August 2017 10: 34
      +1
      Here. It begins. If yes at the wrong point. Those. Does this system require ideal conditions? Spherical horse in a vacuum. And so, in secret, ballistic missiles fly along a BALLISTIC trajectory. And the mid-flight of the rocket was not over Japan. Far from over.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 31 August 2017 11: 02
        +1
        Quote: Muvka
        Here. It begins. If yes at the wrong point. Those. Does this system require ideal conditions? Spherical horse in a vacuum. And so, in secret, ballistic missiles fly along a BALLISTIC trajectory. And the mid-flight of the rocket was not over Japan. Far from over.


        For the operation of any system, appropriate conditions are needed.
        Any system. Relevant conditions.
        The tank cannot drive sideways - straightforwardly. Only where the geese look.
        A jet aircraft cannot fly in an inert gas environment. Only where there is oxygen.

        The level of technology and the expediency of hitting ballistic missiles today is such that it is possible with almost 95% probability to shoot down ballistic missiles in only 2 areas - the start and the end. In both cases, BRs are very vulnerable.
        Do not read about any maneuvers at these stages - this is nonsense ... This is not a car driving a twist.
        This, as they rightly said here, is a “ballistic disruption,” which cannot be reconfigured in more or less significant angles.
        The whole maneuver is 2-3 degrees and no more.
        All other sections of the BR flight are uninteresting to anyone ..
        And the same standard-3 - sharpened to the launch site. THAAD - to the final.
        But it is quite possible that changing the software in the radar, GPS, interceptor unit will improve the same standard for the final section.
        1. Shadow of darkness
          Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 13: 05
          +2
          Quote: ZVO
          Quote: Muvka
          Here. It begins. If yes at the wrong point. Those. Does this system require ideal conditions? Spherical horse in a vacuum. And so, in secret, ballistic missiles fly along a BALLISTIC trajectory. And the mid-flight of the rocket was not over Japan. Far from over.


          For the operation of any system, appropriate conditions are needed.
          Any system. Relevant conditions.
          The tank cannot drive sideways - straightforwardly. Only where the geese look.
          A jet aircraft cannot fly in an inert gas environment. Only where there is oxygen.

          The level of technology and the expediency of hitting ballistic missiles today is such that it is possible with almost 95% probability to shoot down ballistic missiles in only 2 areas - the start and the end. In both cases, BRs are very vulnerable.
          Do not read about any maneuvers at these stages - this is nonsense ... This is not a car driving a twist.
          This, as they rightly said here, is a “ballistic disruption,” which cannot be reconfigured in more or less significant angles.
          The whole maneuver is 2-3 degrees and no more.
          All other sections of the BR flight are uninteresting to anyone ..
          And the same standard-3 - sharpened to the launch site. THAAD - to the final.
          But it is quite possible that changing the software in the radar, GPS, interceptor unit will improve the same standard for the final section.

          You are directly an example of a person carrying nonsense with clever words.
          PS Missiles also fly on jet engines and ... they can move even in a vacuum. Everything else that you wrote is the same distortion of reality for the sake of your own opinion!
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 31 August 2017 14: 54
            0
            Quote: Shadow of Darkness

            You are directly an example of a person carrying nonsense with clever words.
            PS Missiles also fly on jet engines and ... they can move even in a vacuum. Everything else that you wrote is the same distortion of reality for the sake of your own opinion!


            Just - nonsense - these are your words ....
            Your text is an example of Internet communication, when people can’t say anything within the meaning of the written text and “reach” to one word “torn out” of the general context.
            Standard and stupid trolling.
            All right.
            Specifically for you clarification. The aircraft is modern with a modern dual-circuit engine. Or turbofan ...
            What changed? will fly into space?
            From my text as a whole - has something changed?
            No.
            The message is the same. Each product has its own conditions of use.
            And your trolling is just stupid.
            1. Shadow of darkness
              Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 19: 53
              +1
              Oh well!
              The first phrase you expressed does not correspond to the clarifications:
              A jet aircraft cannot fly in an inert gas environment. Only where there is oxygen.

              In fact, he will be able to deal with relatively small alterations, we won’t talk from TTX, but he can even:
              The aircraft is modern with a modern dual-circuit engine. Or turbofan ...

              You just have to carry oxygen with you. I will tell you a secret, there were such ideas at one time, but they were safely abandoned due to their short range and carrying capacity. But he could climb to heights unattainable for other aircraft. In fact, he would only be able to gain height and sit down. winked
              Next:
              The tank cannot drive sideways - straightforwardly. Only where the geese look.

              Can. This trajectory is called the skid, ask the tank! Further:
              The level of technology and the expediency of hitting ballistic missiles today is such that it is possible with almost 95% probability to shoot down ballistic missiles in only 2 areas - the start and the end. In both cases, BRs are very vulnerable.

              You don’t seem to find fault here, everything is correct. But:
              This, as they rightly said here, is a “ballistic disruption,” which cannot be reconfigured in more or less significant angles.

              If this "ballistic disruption" was not provided for initially by the launching party.
              The whole maneuver is 2-3 degrees and no more.

              Everything seems to be correct, and large angles at high speeds can destroy a rocket beyond its strength limits, but draw an arc with a deviation of 2-3 degrees and you can believe it will be far from your calculated ballistic trajectory! In the same way, it will be unexpected for missile defense systems because they consider the trajectory exactly as for an object with a ballistic trajectory! And most importantly, the same laws apply to a missile defense that has such characteristics as the reaction time of a system. That is why in the article above it is written:
              Modern Russian missiles, so to speak, of short-range Iskander type, have the property of vigorous maneuvering at the start and the final stage of flight.
              The American SM-6 does not work on intensively maneuvering targets. Naturally, it complicates the execution of the task by Russian ballistic missiles, but does not pose a radical threat to them,
              hi
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 31 August 2017 20: 35
                0
                I am writing about existing samples. not about fantasy. which are not. it's about modified engines ...
                Hug is not a movement. This slide is uncontrollable. Which again implies trolling on your part. Cling to words taken out of context.

                Ballistic disruption. Tell me real samples capable of disrupting ballistics during the launch phase? What ballistic missile is capable of this? Maybe you will call me its size and fuel reserves that the commission of such maneuvers. type as I indicated - start at a range of 2500 and the apogee corresponding apogee in 550 and then rebuild the ballistics at a distance of 800 and apogee 2100 km .. What rocket is capable of this?

                Changing the trajectory by 2-3 degrees is insignificant for the IR interceptor, it has a much wider viewing angle ... So about the escort here, you are past the ticket office .. Learn the materiel.

                Vigorous maneuvering in the form of an indication of overloads is a lie. They indicate overloads not caused by nonlinear or stepwise movement of the rocket in the horizontal plane at the starting acceleration segment, but simply overloads at high-speed launch. And since the missile goes along ballistics, both up and to the side along the axes, from the military they began to extol themselves about maneuverable overloads. The missile goes along the trajectory - without moving. in fact. without jerking to the left. nor right.
                1. Shadow of darkness
                  Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 21: 37
                  +1
                  Changing the trajectory by 2-3 degrees is insignificant for the IR interceptor, it has a much wider viewing angle ... So about the escort here, you are past the ticket office .. Learn the materiel.

                  Made laugh! The steering wheel on the car can also be turned far, however, this ensures that the car will go in a given direction! Stupidity was frozen, but in order to understand this it is necessary not to teach the mat part, but to receive a special education. wassat
                  Э
                  jerky maneuvering in the form of an indication of overloads is a lie. They indicate overloads not caused by nonlinear or stepwise movement of the rocket in the horizontal plane at the starting acceleration segment, but simply overloads at high-speed launch. And since the missile goes along ballistics, both up and to the side along the axes, from the military they began to extol themselves about maneuverable overloads. The missile goes along the trajectory - without moving. in fact. without jerking to the left. nor right.

                  This generally contradicts not only the laws of physics, but also common sense in general. The car goes along the trajectory, the plane flies along the trajectory, the cruise missile flies along the trajectory, the anti-missile flies along the trajectory, along a variable but trajectory. Ballistic missiles were called only for the reason that their trajectory is as close as possible to the trajectory of a freely falling body.
                  Fair! I don’t want to argue with you! Laziness, and pointless. Judging by your pearls, you have nothing to do with rocket science, and I'm too lazy to do your education! I already forgot more about it than you are trying to tell! In general, I’m googling in my hands and learn to formulate questions correctly, I’m generally silent about the technical library, there is no sofa there, and not everyone is allowed there.
                  1. ZVO
                    ZVO 31 August 2017 22: 03
                    0
                    Stop stop stop ...
                    Get down trying to look like a rocket builder ...
                    You can only turn the wheel on a rocket so much. so as not to change the original trajectory.
                    Otherwise, you simply drop the missile from the ballistic trajectory. And then no one knows where the rocket or warhead will fly then. bounce back from the atmosphere. or will enter at a too critical angle and burn.
                    you do not talk nonsense with an example about a car ... you contradict yourself.
                    look a little deeper with your own written letters.
                    Yes, and an example about a car - if you look at the dependence of speed and trajectory. those. roads - then you can change the angle of rotation of the wheels. only within the road. otherwise you will leave the road and your car, that is, the BR, will simply collapse ..
                    and yes. what university rocket science did you graduate. I'm just curious.
                    You just said it yourself. nobody pulled you by the tongue ...
                    Googling. You can quickly find a specialty .. and then I will check
    2. Shadow of darkness
      Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 10: 47
      +2
      Naturally, they counted everything and waved it off! But in South Korea there is no missile defense system, and no one is already sailing under the Korean Peninsula, and the rocket immediately went right away for 500 km at a right angle, in general: the American missile defense system, which has no analogs, is not needed there (Eun shoots anyway, yes and he doesn’t have rockets, this is all the Kremlin sermon), but explanations for its necessity will still be found.
      1. Shadow of darkness
        Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 12: 18
        +1
        Kremlin propaganda ...
        T9 plus my carelessness
    3. papas-57
      papas-57 31 August 2017 11: 49
      +3
      '' In principle, Eun can now dare and launch another missile, again over Japan. They may not bring down it, but they may destroy it. '' If the Americans could shoot down a Korean missile, they would shoot it with great joy. Moreover, the rocket flew over the territory of the US ally. The best advertisement for the American system cannot be invented. They would show the world that they really have a missile defense system.
  11. The comment was deleted.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 31 August 2017 11: 57
      0
      Quote: viktor007
      nobody is terrified there, and they are well aware that they would have to exchange all the flying, sailing and traveling along the coast with a couple of three aircraft carriers of Russia, and not by the entire grouping, but only for a couple of pennants.

      The maximum where their AUGs fit in is the KTOF's region of responsibility, alas, no where else (the Baltic and Black Seas are not even ridiculous, to our north they are also on the verge of fantasy), it is unlikely to destroy the AUGs of the Air Force or MA (not enough left), but with the help of SSBNs or ICAPL it is quite possible, only one thing is unknown --- that with target designation.
      1. viktor007
        viktor007 31 August 2017 13: 13
        +1
        the initiative is with them, and not with us, and no changes are expected, further it will only get worse
        however, they should not be afraid of us, but rather, with China's coastline and industrial areas concentrated there.
    2. Shadow of darkness
      Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 12: 47
      +1
      solving your questions and using rush just like a long promoted brand, nothing more.

      Next:
      it's only on наших cheers on patriotic sites, aa calibers, aa death to the fleet of america, Americans in horror,

      Nothing beguiled? Only the sick with all their heads or traitors can call their country "rush"! You already decide which category you are from and change your location either to the hospital or abroad. Before singing an ode to America, first teach them how to navigate and use ship navigation systems in a volume larger than a GPS navigator!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. ZVO
        ZVO 31 August 2017 15: 12
        +1
        Quote: Shadow of Darkness
        Before singing an ode to America, first teach them how to navigate and use ship navigation systems in a volume larger than a GPS navigator!


        Before you teach others to live, stand by their terms of use of the technology ...
        So when we have a couple of hundred warships in the ocean zone,
        That's when they will go to seas with KOH at 0.7,
        That's when they will constantly patrol areas of especially intense shipping,

        And then you will understand. what it is...

        This is called the theory of large numbers.

        The theory of large numbers helps to draw the right conclusions about patterns in relation to human statistics.
        For example, the
        In villages, there is no accident for ten years.
        In cities, there are hundreds and thousands of them daily.
        This does not mean that drivers are better in the village.
        This suggests that there are just a few people.
        This also suggests that as soon as the village has 1,5 million inhabitants, then they will also have hundreds and thousands of accidents ...
        1. Shadow of darkness
          Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 15: 22
          0
          What are the “smart” words, our ships float right in some of their own, closed water areas. lol so I say: with clever words carry nonsense. laughing
        2. Shadow of darkness
          Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 15: 48
          0
          And yet, you guys are singing very synchronously, do you get manuals from the same office? It seems people are different, but the motive is one! OK OK! I will not tell anyone! wassat
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 31 August 2017 17: 02
            +2
            Quote: Shadow of Darkness
            And yet, you guys are singing very synchronously, do you get manuals from the same office? It seems people are different, but the motive is one! OK OK! I will not tell anyone! wassat


            Manuals is with you. You are the real enemies of Russia.
            Hockers.
            With eyes full of God's dew ..
            It is you who are ruining the society.
            It is you that destroy real patriotism.
            You sing praises to the birds. why not!
            A fleet comparable even with the Japanese - no.
            Aviation - comparable to half of Europe - no. It is quantitatively comparable with Israel.
            All of these Kraukhs and Avtobaz - 5-10 pieces for the whole country and they will only cover the headquarters.
            And so in everything.
            But you are one Krasuha ready to destroy all of America ....
            One Caliber life-giving.
            Which is no better than the 40 year old Tomahawk.
            You are enemies ...
            Not us.

            And it was precisely the growth of "Urya-patriotic writers" in all forums that occurred precisely when people like us did not let go through the swamp and other sugar.
            And your curators then said that you need to change society. need to split it from the inside.
            This is what you are doing.
            You are deceiving the people reading you that we are all the best. that we are stronger than all.
            And when the reading people get into reality, and sees how and who works in the factories.
            As well as how much technology is produced. How much they pay for it ... And this people begins to ask questions, why is it all wrong. how do they write these goverment ???
            True, the average layman does not see the difference between us - real patriots who need a really strong army and you. fools. who do not need an army, but the State Department training manual ...

            You are the enemy.
            Maybe you don’t think about it yourself, but your actions are sweeping - they are ruining the country to the benefit of the enemy.
            1. Shadow of darkness
              Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 18: 55
              0
              You are the enemy.

              Loudly spoken and many words. No thoughts, all the more so! The argument below the baseboard, as well as the attempt to appropriate not my thoughts to me. The depth of views is between: "... the glass is half empty!" and "Chef, it's all gone!".
              True, the average layman does not see the difference between us - real patriots who need a really strong army and you. fools. who do not need an army, but the State Department training manual ...

              For a true patriot, you too often glorify the enemy and turn a blind eye to his weaknesses and punctures, and cry too much about the Russian army, which was crushed to smithereens, despite the fact that this army conducts military operations of a quality not lower than your American troops. So against your background, excuse me, snot, the phrase: "I am a patriot!" it sounds not only false, but also ridiculous, unless you are a patriot of another country. God forbid Russia such patriots!
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 31 August 2017 19: 53
                0
                Quote: Shadow of Darkness
                You are the enemy.

                Loudly spoken and many words. No thoughts, all the more so! The argument below the baseboard, as well as the attempt to appropriate not my thoughts to me. The depth of views is between: "... the glass is half empty!" and "Chef, it's all gone!".
                True, the average layman does not see the difference between us - real patriots who need a really strong army and you. fools. who do not need an army, but the State Department training manual ...

                For a true patriot, you too often glorify the enemy and turn a blind eye to his weaknesses and punctures, and cry too much about the Russian army, which was crushed to smithereens, despite the fact that this army conducts military operations of a quality not lower than your American troops. So against your background, excuse me, snot, the phrase: "I am a patriot!" it sounds not only false, but also ridiculous, unless you are a patriot of another country. God forbid Russia such patriots!


                Nothing is loud. I say it as it is.
                Without knowing the strengths of the enemy - you will not be able to provide defense.
                You will not be able to plan your upper bars in the attack.
                You will only throw hats.
                We true patriots do not exalt!
                We study everything, both weak and strong.
                Have you ever played sports?
                Boxing for example?
                Have you ever had a coach before a fight, did you say?
                "don’t try to do it like this - you’ll immediately get it like this, it will fly here from here .... it’s very fast on the left, it will strike immediately
                so what was the coach doing at that moment?
                shaking with fear7 Exalted the enemy?
                Not. He studied it. and let you know his strengths. Where to meddle is not worth it.
                You're just stupid ..
                you do not understand any reality. no applied examples.
                Just a moron ...
                And you don’t use your head at all.
                And you are the enemy. present. hidden. Hiding under the guise of a Russian.
                Maybe I have snot
                You are drooling. as the owner of ZPR, who is always happy .. Just because. that his brain lacks the ability to analyze incoming information ...
                1. Shadow of darkness
                  Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 20: 15
                  0
                  It looks like you were boxing a bit, if you react like that! You do not understand the words! don't hear the opponent. In what, excuse me, are you a general rank engaged in "analytics"? Do your "analytical" conclusions have at least some basis in the field of strategy and tactics of combat units and formations? Maybe you have experience in building weapons? Okay, you can continue to plan your "upper bars in the attack!" There are many, but the treatment of money is worth it! bully
                  1. ZVO
                    ZVO 31 August 2017 21: 18
                    0
                    Quote: Shadow of Darkness
                    In what, excuse me, are you a general rank engaged in "analytics"? Do your "analytical" conclusions have at least some basis in the field of strategy and tactics of combat units and formations? Maybe you have experience in building weapons? Okay, you can continue to plan your "upper bars in the attack!" There are many, but the treatment of money is worth it! bully

                    Do you know...
                    I am tongue-tied enough to resist couch warriors. working according to the manuals of the State Department. this is your method. Target one word taken out of context and inflate it.
                    the upper bar is just TK. This is the level, the points as the maximum range. as maximum speed, as minimum EPR, etc.
                    I think everyone understood and no one except you. the real enemy did not pay attention to my tongue-tied tongue ...
                    You are the enemy. Present. like a snake.
                  2. ZVO
                    ZVO 31 August 2017 21: 35
                    0
                    Quote: Shadow of Darkness
                    There are many, but the treatment of money is worth it! bully


                    And further. do not dodge in the direction do not take away the topic.
                    I ask you directly:
                    so what was the coach doing at that moment?
                    Shaking with fear? Exalted the enemy?

                    Answer this question and all ...
                    Just answer...
                    1. Shadow of darkness
                      Shadow of darkness 31 August 2017 22: 12
                      0
                      Here is restless! You need a trainer like Beijing with cancer! In order to make a serious analysis, you need to have a good specialized knowledge base and be able to use both open and closed sources of information! Do you have such sources? Or do you take for a serious source of information only what the media write, such as VO? What fright did you suddenly decide that you are an expert and analyst? Appointed himself? Who will be the consumer of your analysis? The same lovers like you ?! Open a business, start a business, become a leader and stop shining on the Internet with your "knowledge" and "expert" ratings! In general, take care of the real thing and then you will become a real patriot, but for now you can only express your personal opinion and it will be right and even useful.
  12. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 31 August 2017 11: 52
    0
    Do you really think that ballistic missiles can "fall anywhere" and that "it can change its course" ???
    You really need to go to school.
    See what ballistic missile maneuvers really are ...
    Deviation from the trajectory to the side - no more than 200 km, deviation along the trajectory - is practically not realistic. For this you need to know. how rockets fly at ballistic trajectories.

    1. Drops anywhere BR is not necessary. It is necessary to fall where the goal is. But on what path you can reach the target with very large deviations if the range is much less than the maximum. Then you can fly and much lower or higher and not only to the side.
    2. Maneuvering is possible with very large deviations from the ballistic trajectory and overloads also using the atmosphere when the warhead falls.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 31 August 2017 12: 09
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Do you really think that ballistic missiles can "fall anywhere" and that "it can change its course" ???
      You really need to go to school.
      See what ballistic missile maneuvers really are ...
      Deviation from the trajectory to the side - no more than 200 km, deviation along the trajectory - is practically not realistic. For this you need to know. how rockets fly at ballistic trajectories.

      1. Drops anywhere BR is not necessary. It is necessary to fall where the goal is. But on what path you can reach the target with very large deviations if the range is much less than the maximum. Then you can fly and much lower or higher and not only to the side.
      2. Maneuvering is possible with very large deviations from the ballistic trajectory and overloads also using the atmosphere when the warhead falls.


      Tell me then why the same Korean missile, when firing at a range of 800 km, has an apogee of a trajectory of 2100 km, and when firing at 2700 km, has an apogee of 550 km ???
      I ask the answer to the following questions:
      1. Can a Korean missile that has already started, going along the starting section of the trajectory to a range of 800, change its trajectory and ultimately fly to a target at a distance of 2700 km?
      2. The reverse question. Can a Korean missile that has already launched, going along the starting section of the trajectory to a range of 2700, change its trajectory and ultimately fly to a target at a distance of 800 km?
      I just want to hear your answers ...
      1. viktor007
        viktor007 31 August 2017 13: 51
        0
        In the Moyma, you both confuse different concepts - missile defense maneuvers of warheads and taxiing to the target, with the launch path,

        it is clear that warheads fly where the previous stages threw them, it is also clear that at the last stage - the warhead itself, there are maneuverable engines that can steer towards the target, and in especially advanced cases - perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, mainly in the atmosphere.

        and I strongly doubt that North Koreans have maneuvering warheads, so the trajectory is perfectly built for their mega-weapons, and it is perfectly clear where exactly the warhead is dropping.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 31 August 2017 14: 25
          +2
          Quote: viktor007

          it is clear that warheads fly where the previous stages threw them, it is also clear that at the last stage - the warhead itself, there are maneuverable engines that can steer towards the target, and in especially advanced cases - perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, mainly in the atmosphere.
          .

          I strongly doubt that ballistic missile warheads are capable of real maneuver in the final section.
          Because. what:
          Firstly. comply with high-quality guidance with the required AEC of 100-150m for warheads at 400KT
          with active maneuvering - it will be impossible ... Maneuvering can be done - only here the KVO will be tens of kilometers. That pancake warhead in 400KT - zilch. And the whole inch turns into a pumpkin ...
          Secondly, the active maneuvering of warheads immediately “multiplies by zero” the scheme of false targets, tens and hundreds of which are carried by the “buses” of the BR.
          Why spend missile defense resources on false goals. if true goals show themselves by their maneuvers?
          1. viktor007
            viktor007 31 August 2017 15: 18
            +1
            Well, you can call this anti-aircraft maneuvering as you like, but in fact we are talking about a quick breaking of the trajectory in a narrow cone in the final section. There is nothing supernatural, only the logical development of the system of steering a warhead to the target in the final section, and modern inertialists quite give the necessary quo even with a chatter. And why did you decide that imitators do something at the last hundred kilometers?
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 31 August 2017 17: 17
              0
              Quote: viktor007
              Well, you can call this anti-aircraft maneuvering as you like, but in fact we are talking about a quick breaking of the trajectory in a narrow cone in the final section. There is nothing supernatural, only the logical development of the system of steering a warhead to the target in the final section, and modern inertialists quite give the necessary quo even with a chatter. And why did you decide that imitators do something at the last hundred kilometers?


              Rapid breaking of the trajectory is not possible.
              In view of the stabilization of the flight path of the warhead by rotation. Good rotation. At a dozen revolutions per second. A pair of micromotors.
              End-point adjustment — sometimes called maneuvering — looks just like an extremely small change in the angle of inclination of the warhead cone.
              But here is his little maneuvering - for some reason many began to voice it as a step anti-aircraft maneuvering.
              What a big mistake.
              All the same, the trajectory is not broken. does not change spasmodically. She is like she was ballistic. so it remains. really changing by a couple of degrees. Not more.
              And for the kinetic interceptor guidance system, there are no particular problems to reach the target.
  13. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 31 August 2017 12: 23
    0
    We, several years ago, did not shoot down the North Korean Musudan when it flopped into the sea about 70 kilometers from Nakhodka?

    North Korean missiles never “flopped” 70 km from Nakhodka or from some other foreign city or coast in the world.
    But the question is, why intercept a missile that goes "nowhere"? Spend millions to bring down the blank? which fell into the sea?

    That's true. But then why bother people with sirens if they knew that the rocket was going nowhere? Millions spend knocking down their blanks while they are eating, and now this opportunity will intercept a real enemy missile and brag about the whole world.
    In principle, Eun can now dare and launch another missile, again over Japan. They may not bring down it, but they may destroy it.

    Test launches of North Korean long-range BR will continue, including over Japan. No North Korean missiles in the United States will feed on knocking down because it’s "blanks that go nowhere." There will be nothing but a UN Security Council resolution if the United States does not violate the ceasefire on the Korean Peninsula, which is bad for everyone (including the United States will end) and then there will be military launches, but this is unlikely. All the same, the Americans will fight in a real war with big casualties, but they don’t want to destroy the unwanted government. They better deal with the rains in Texas.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 31 August 2017 14: 35
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      We, several years ago, did not shoot down the North Korean Musudan when it flopped into the sea about 70 kilometers from Nakhodka?

      North Korean missiles never “flopped” 70 km from Nakhodka or from some other foreign city or coast in the world. .


      2005 or 2006.
      Taphodon-2.
  14. gloomy fox
    gloomy fox 31 August 2017 14: 39
    0
    Well, what about the vaunted Patriots who could not bring down a Korean missile? I agree with other comments that this is pure show-window. who knows these Yankees they are masters of PR!
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 31 August 2017 15: 11
      0
      Because something Petriot shoots missiles at altitudes up to 30 km. He had to swim in the middle of the ocean to bring down a DPRK missile
      1. marder7
        marder7 31 August 2017 16: 32
        0
        the patriot swims beautifully, Aegis is called. did not know?
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Old26
    Old26 31 August 2017 19: 10
    +1
    Quote: Muvka
    Here. It begins. If yes at the wrong point. Those. Does this system require ideal conditions? Spherical horse in a vacuum. And so, in secret, ballistic missiles fly along a BALLISTIC trajectory. And the mid-flight of the rocket was not over Japan. Far from over.

    Kamrad! Any missile defense system needs conditions, albeit not ideal, but close to them. Take the same Russian missile defense system around Moscow. Well, she couldn’t intercept someone’s warhead if she would fly above the reach of the missiles of this complex. At least three times turn inside out, and do not intercept. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE IN PRINCIPLE a comprehensive missile defense system that will intercept all warheads. Broke all the countries of the world. For the number of interceptor missiles should be at least 7-3 times greater than the number of warheads on the other side. That is, if Russia now has about 4 warheads, then for 1800% interception they must have at least 100 to 5400 interceptor missiles. Add to this the warheads of China and others and get that the number of interceptors should be on the order of TEN THOUSAND. This is just unreal.

    You ask, are ideal conditions for interception necessary? If they are ideal, it will not be worse. But even without ideal conditions, interception is possible. It just depends on the type and parameters of the target how many interceptor missiles you spend on one target. For example, when shooting at a Korean rocket, 2-3 interceptors will be needed, for the Russian type of Yars, about 17-19.

    Yes, the climax was not over the Japanese islands, a little earlier. But even if the climax was half a hundred hundred kilometers less, this does not solve the problem

    Quote: Kostadinov
    1. Drops anywhere BR is not necessary. It is necessary to fall where the goal is. But on what path you can reach the target with very large deviations if the range is much less than the maximum. Then you can fly and much lower or higher and not only to the side.

    Actually, the laws of ballistics cannot be fooled. You can fly not along the optimal trajectory, but along the so-called quasi-ballistic, with a lower apogee, but you will have to pay for it.
    Range falls almost threefold. Accuracy is almost an order of magnitude. The entry speeds of warheads into the atmosphere can be prohibitive and the warhead will simply burn. Deviations can be, but by no means as huge as they write in our media (Internet). Large deviations can be possessed not only by controlled warheads, but by “winged” ones. With aerodynamic planes and its own engine. And there are simply no such weapons yet. Only tested. Therefore, deviations in height and lateral have a place to be, but they are not as great as they like to write.
    Remember, deviations are not an end in themselves. The mission of the warhead is to hit a given target, and if it turns away from it by tens of degrees and hundreds of kilometers, how will it return to a given course. She does not have artificial intelligence. She has a clearly defined launch point and target point. And possible minor deviations. NO MORE

    Quote: Kostadinov
    2. Maneuvering is possible with very large deviations from the ballistic trajectory and overloads also using the atmosphere when the warhead falls.

    You can maneuver with large deviations, and with huge overloads. But where do you get to? In the white light?
    If a warhead is approaching the target, then the maximum that it has at the current stage is skirt deflection or gas rudders. But both are insignificant, because there is no huge fuel reserves from the word at all on the warhead. ...

    Quote: viktor007
    it is clear that warheads fly where the previous stages threw them, it is also clear that at the last stage - the warhead itself, there are maneuverable engines that can steer towards the target, and in especially advanced cases - perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, mainly in the atmosphere.

    The aiming point (hit) of the warhead gives DEPARTMENT STAGE. It is she who takes that very predetermined position from which the warhead will hit the target
    There are essentially no shunting engines on warheads. In the 80s, experiments were conducted to create not just individual guided warheads, but maneuvering. The former have the western designation MIRV, the latter - MARV
    In the USSR, such experiments were also carried out. Was created managed warhead for the R-36M2 Voyevoda missile. Overall dimensions were several times larger than conventional, unguided warheads. That is, instead of 10, the Voivode could carry only 3 or 4. There was another development - 15F178. But there, with the same overall dimensions, only BGs with a capacity of 150 kt instead of 750 were able to be made. The KVO was about 80 meters, in contrast to 200-300 for an uncontrolled one. “She could steer, but in a completely insignificant range. There were not hundreds of lateral and tens of kilometers in height. Yes, the number of interceptors to destroy such a BG increased, but to say that it could not be shot down is also not true

    Quote: viktor007
    and I strongly doubt that North Koreans have maneuvering warheads, so the trajectory is perfectly built for their mega-weapons, and it is perfectly clear where exactly the warhead is dropping.

    No and is unlikely to be in the near future. If you watch the video on the Internet, you can see that the thermal protection system is built on a completely different principle than ours. Not an ablative coating, but a commonplace carbide hood that will be torn down during maneuvering

    Quote: Kostadinov
    North Korean missiles never “flopped” 70 km from Nakhodka or from some other foreign city or coast in the world.

    Yah? Give you a card? I can do it. They could already understand that I am saying what I can confirm. Or what I know. And I can name the date (it will take a little more time, but also not a problem).
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 August 2017 20: 04
      0
      "Add to this the warheads of China and others and you get that the number of interceptors should be on the order of TEN THOUSAND. It's just unrealistic." - Why it’s not realistic, such a mass production of missile defense can be organized, the only question is money - $ 30 billion money - for the United States are not so real.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 31 August 2017 22: 11
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        "Add to this the warheads of China and others and you get that the number of interceptors should be on the order of TEN THOUSAND. It's just unrealistic." - Why it’s not realistic, such a mass production of missile defense can be organized, the only question is money - $ 30 billion money - for the United States are not so real.


        Vadim!
        The cost of the missile defense itself is a drop in the bucket.
        The cost of operation and maintenance will be a couple of orders more expensive.

        The simplest example.
        The cost of the program for the development, re-equipment of production for all subcontractors and suppliers and training of labor personnel, the production of 2400 F-35 aircraft, the development of all BAO equipment, the production of this BAO equipment, etc. - 380 billion dollars.
        1,1 trillion dollars - exploitation of this all over the next 20 years ...
        is the difference visible? Rather, the ratio of costs for production and operation?
        on the face...
        1 to 3 at least.
        Subject to the development of the F-35 as very economical to operate for its level.
        Those. we will prepare for missiles in a ratio of 1 to 5. or even 1k 7.
        Those. spending 30 billion Get ready to spend at least 1.5 trillion just on maintenance.
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 31 August 2017 22: 46
          0
          We somehow wondered in a narrow team. To create a real system against MBR, the states need to spend 10 percent of the NATO budget. And not one five-year plan ....
  17. Old26
    Old26 31 August 2017 19: 10
    +2
    Quote: Kostadinov
    That's true. But then why bother people with sirens if they knew that the rocket was going nowhere? Millions spend knocking down their blanks while they are eating, and now this opportunity will intercept a real enemy missile and brag about the whole world.

    And you do not consider the factor of uncertainty, randomness? That the same disc could, due to some accident, change the trajectory and plop down into Japan? In fact, millions are tested. This is an inevitable factor. If you want to work out the system, you will have to test it many times. By itself, it will not become reliable.
    I’m repeating for the hundredth time there was nothing to bring down this missile. For this, it was necessary to have US ships there with the Block-2A missile. Japanese destroyers simply do not. The rest simply did not reach. To launch tens of millions worth of interceptors from Alaska in order to intercept an unnecessary missile - Americans are too good at counting money. Eun received only external preferences, confirming the reputation of a tough guy who does not care about anything. He just forgets that he doesn’t give a damn about others, and if others spit on him, he won’t be able to

    Quote: Kostadinov
    Test launches of North Korean long-range BR will continue, including over Japan. No North Korean missiles in the United States will feed on knocking down because it’s "blanks that go nowhere." There will be nothing but a UN Security Council resolution if the United States does not violate the ceasefire on the Korean Peninsula, which is bad for everyone (including the United States will end) and then there will be military launches, but this is unlikely. All the same, the Americans will fight in a real war with big casualties, but they don’t want to destroy the unwanted government. They better deal with the rains in Texas.

    No one will endure his antics. There are unwritten rules not to launch their missiles over the territory of other countries. Korea has already done this three times. In 1998, 2009 and four days ago. How long will his antics endure - no one can tell you this. Maybe they will bear it again, or maybe not, the next missile will be trivially shot down, having fitted a couple of destroyers there.
    Eun’s actions can provoke others precisely to violate the ceasefire. And if he tries to realize his last threat (I recall, he said that this launch is a prelude to launching in Guam, and not near, but specifically on the island), the reaction will be unambiguous. Moreover, China will not stand up for it. China said that if Eun starts first, they will not stand up for him
    As for the big casualties from the Americans. They had big sacrifices while they were hammering the same Iraq without moving to the ground phase? The same thing here. Having destroyed the military-industrial potential of the DPRK, the Americans will drop the DPRK dozens of years ago in their nuclear missile program. And more and not ngado. The rest will be done by South Korea and famine

    Quote: frowning fox
    Well, what about the vaunted Patriots who could not bring down a Korean missile? I agree with other comments that this is pure show-window. who knows these Yankees they are masters of PR!

    Pancake Match Teach !!!!!!!!! What nafig "Patriots" ????? Can you hit the target with a Makarov pistol if it is 3 kilometers from you ????? No, you can’t, why do you think that missiles with a range of 25-28 kilometers in height can hit a target at an altitude of 500 km ?????????

    Quote: marder7
    the patriot swims beautifully, Aegis is called. did not know?

    Damn, ANOTHER EXPERIENCE. LEARN MATCH "" ""
    Aegis is rockets STANDARDAnd not PETRIOT
  18. Old26
    Old26 31 August 2017 21: 27
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    "Add to this the warheads of China and others and you get that the number of interceptors should be on the order of TEN THOUSAND. It's just unrealistic." - Why it’s not realistic, such a mass production of missile defense can be organized, the only question is money - $ 30 billion money - for the United States are not so real.

    30 billion? They have already spent about 44 billion on deploying only 40 GBI interceptors. And 44 interceptors are a drop in the bucket. They can intercept an average of only 15-20 targets. The cost of one such interceptor is about $ 90 million. For such a system to be able to intercept at least 100 targets, this will require from 200 to 300 such interceptors. This is already 18 billion. Not to mention the need for stations for them - also not a cheap pleasure
    Further. Aegis system. Only one Block-1B rocket costs 11,2 million US rubles. Option "Block-2A" - 24 million. And on the ship - it is not the only one. On the basis of missile defense Aegis Ashor - 24 interceptors. So far, 2 are planned in Europe. The Japanese also want to. And 24 interceptors are already 576 million. Apart from the Aegis BIUS itself, radars and everything else.
    Now THAAD. The cost of the complex (this is a battery of 4 launchers, a radar and a command post) is 2,3 billion. So far, 4 batteries are planned. Already 9,2 billion. The cost of a rocket for it is about 21-23 million apiece. And you also need the "Patriots" RAS-3. So there is not 30 billion, but God forbid, to 300 billion ..
    The creation of an “Impenetrable” missile defense system can ruin any country. This became clear back in 1972.
    Yes, I have not yet taken into account R&D (and without them, the system cannot be brought to the necessary condition). R&D at the TAAAD already cost $ 15 billion ....