Military Review

Stratospheric weapon against aircraft carriers

126



X-22 causes fatal injuries even without the use of a nuclear charge. With the approach speed in 800, m / s, the breach area was 22 sq. m, and the internal compartments of the ships were burned with a cumulative jet to a depth of 12 m.

Rocket X-22 - weapon Tu-22M long-range supersonic bombers, according to Western Backfire classification (Back fire Counter Fire).

The cumulative charge leaves deep, but small in size gaps, while the diameter of the holes left does not depend on the mass of the charge. It is determined by the caliber. In order to leave the “hole” area 22 square. m, you need a cumulative warhead with a cross section of tens of meters. And to launch such a rocket would have to Baikonur.

The second remark - the cumulative jet does not burn anything. The temperature there does not matter. The CC literally “washes out” the hole, like a jet of fluid under high pressure. And after overcoming the obstacle, the explosion products turn into fine powder with a temperature several times smaller than the melting point of steel.

The internal compartments of the ships were “burned” not by a cumulative jet, but by a directional high-explosive explosion. Regarding the size of the hole - nothing surprising for a warhead containing 630 kg of explosives.

Of course, all these “burning out” are minor inaccuracies found in articles on military equipment. Essentially it does not change.

The warhead of the X-22 missile can drown any ship. But can at least someone launch such a rocket?

Below are the data from the article “Backfire rockets” from a famous historian aviation, writer Viktor Markovsky. Chronicle of the combat service X-22 with a detailed description of the episodes of its maintenance and practical application in parts of long-range missile aircraft. Figures and facts.

Based on this information, it becomes obvious that no X-22 cruise missile existed as a weapon. Its components separately lay in warehouses, and dummies periodically lifted into the air. But the ability to proceed with combat missions in accordance with their mission in a given time frame was out of the question.

* * *

Task. Deliver a one tonne warhead to a range of 500 km at a speed close to four sound speeds. The use of tube-jet or direct-flow engines is excluded, they are not “drawn out” in energy. Only a two-component LRE with a flow rate of up to 80 kg of fuel and oxidizer per second. And high-impact - 250 kgf thrust on 1 kg dead weight of the engine.

To ensure these characteristics, four tons of dimethylhydrazine (TG-2) and concentrated nitric acid (AK-27I) were pumped into the tanks of the rocket. If, during the refueling process, a leak occurred, the spilled acid had to be neutralized with no less caustic alkali. Leaks were commonplace, because concentrated nitric acid had an important property - high aggressiveness, leading to rapid corrosive destruction of metals.

As for asymmetrical demethylhydrazine, it is also the poison that can trap all tens of meters due to its considerable toxicity and volatility.



Unfortunately, the designers did not guess to cover the inside of the tanks of each rocket with a layer of gold. Therefore, the storage of X-22 missiles in the filled state turned out to be impossible.

In theory, the combat readiness of aviation regiments that had X-22 missiles on board was achieved by means of a continuous cycle of operations. Several rockets were put into a refueled (combat) state, then, after a certain time, the fuel and oxidizer merged from them, the warhead was removed, the tanks were washed with a neutralizing solution, dried and the missiles surrendered to the storage, while the new rocket was undergoing refueling and took up combat duty.

You do not need to be a rocket engineer (in a gas mask and rubber boot covers, thick with a finger) or the commander of an aviation regiment to understand the absurdity of such a “carousel”.

In practice, everything looked simpler - the Tu-22M missile carriers always and everywhere flew with unfilled missiles. The full cycle of refueling was worked out only when performing valid start-ups, which were carried out at best 1-2 times a year. In describing such episodes, Markovsky uses the word “extraordinary”.

Then came into force the laws of survival in the military environment.

The number of stars on the epaulets depended on the shooting results. Therefore, only the most trained crews who already had similar experience were allowed to take-off starts. While most of the pilots had no experience with the X-22 at all.

Preparation for the test run took at least a month, with several rehearsals. They always went to start-up as a pair in which the backup crew insured the lead in case of failure.

As a result, martial fiction about the three aviation regiments required for the destruction of one AUG, gave way to harsh reality - a pair of missiles that had to be fueled and prepared for launch for a whole month.



In this case, even a tucked rocket had a chance to stay on the ground. The process of introducing the 6-ton “blanks” under the bottom and wing of the aircraft and then the suspension in a semi-submerged state in the load compartment on the DB-45F holder required certain efforts and skills. Due to the rarity of such events, the technical staff also did not have extensive experience in handling these weapons.

Stratospheric weapon against aircraft carriers


Therefore, the take-off of three regiments of rocket-carrying aircraft for an attack by an aircraft carrier group could take a little time.

Markovsky rightly notes that the American “response” to the threat from the Soviet missile carriers had similar drawbacks.


AIM-54 long-range HOSAC “Phoenix”, the main caliber of F-14 interceptor fighters.


15-inch projectile with a starting weight of half a ton and a launch range of 180 km. With marching speed 5M, 60 kg warhead and unique for its time control system "Hughes" AN / AWG-9, installed on board the fighter. Able to simultaneously accompany up to 24 targets.

Now, after decades, it turned out that the F-14 could have flown out on full-armed patrols (six Phoenix missiles), but could no longer land on deck. Therefore, the experience of piloting "Tomcat" in this configuration, none of the pilots did not have.

Do we need to clarify the cost of these missiles in comparison with other conventional EIA (Sparrow, Sidewinder)? It turned out to be such that most US Navy pilots fired them only on paper and simulators.

Returning to the domestic "vundervaffe." In addition to low operational suitability, the X-22 cruise missile had a number of other “positive” qualities.

Length - 11,67 meter.
Case diameter - 0,9 m.
Starting weight - 5760 kg.

The size and weight of the missiles limited their number on the carrier, and the external suspension worsened the flight characteristics and increased the visibility of the missile carrier. If with one KR Tu-22М2 had a range of 2200 km, then the suspension variant of two or three rockets was already overload, and the range had thus decreased to 1500 km.



According to some reports, under the wing holder Tu-22М3 is the X-32 rocket (an upgraded version of the X-22)


Such a goal - the perfect gift for enemy air defenses. Single, large, flying at an altitude of 20 + km, with an ESR sufficient to detect the missile at the time of its separation from the carrier.

As for the high marching speed (3,5 — 4,6М) and height (22,5 — 25 km), it is vulnerable to the ship's air defense weapons of the “likely enemy” at all stages of its flight. Modifications of the ship's standard-2 missiles had a max. 100 nautical miles launch (180) and interception height over 80 thousand feet (24 + km). At the same time, anti-aircraft calculations had much more experience in shooting and actual use of weapons than among missile carrier pilots.

Modern "standards" have even higher performance. For example, the SM-6 with an active GOS hits air targets at 240 km and reaches 33-34 km. For higher-altitude targets, there is an extra-atmospheric interceptor SM-3.

conclusions

Weapons should not be frightened by their complexity and cost. During the naval exercises RIMPAC-2010, the Americans “drove” into the target ship (formerly the helicopter carrier “New Orleans”) at least 10 of the harpoon anti-ship missiles.



Similar exercises are held regularly fleets different states. In another photo - the sinking frigate “Sarhad” of the Pakistani Navy, hit by the harpoon anti-ship missile launched by the frigate “Alamgir”.



Below is a decommissioned destroyer shot by three anti-ship missiles during the RIMPAC-2000 exercise.



Mass subsonic anti-ship missiles are the most realistic and in fact the only anti-ship missile of our time. These missiles are placed on thousands of carriers: ships, aircraft, submarines. And military units have experience with this weapon. Sufficient experience, which allows us to hope that in a combat situation the rocket forces will be able to launch a rocket at the right time, not forgetting to turn off all the fuses and designate the correct flight task.

Finally, group low-flying targets with low ESR and visibility (due to the limited size of the missiles) pose a greater threat than single targets at high altitudes.

As for monster rockets, decades of development and testing usually end in an unclear and at the same time logical result. Where is the aviation variant of the P-800 “Onyx” three-sweep missile, which has been talked about for the third decade? The only photo is a model of a rocket under the fuselage of the Su-30MKI made in 1990's.

The Indians have 10 years promise to adopt the aircraft "Bramos-A". Need I say that it does not exist? Frankly, among the Indians, even the ship version has not yet reached operational readiness.

The Yankees, having taken on the development of a promising RCC, immediately “abandoned” the project of a supersonic LRASM-B, switching to a simpler draft of a subsonic rocket with a much lower cost and less operational problems.

Another monster rocket RATTLERS has not gone beyond the layout on the scale of 1: 2.

It is worth noting that the systems listed are childish babble against the background of the cyclopean X-22. Truly, one can be surprised at the technological and industrial power of the USSR, which was capable of embodying 11-meter monsters “in metal”. Even without achieving real combat readiness in combat aviation regiments.



History with the X-22 rocket is closely intertwined with the new sensation - promising hypersonic anti-ship missile “Zircon”. Delivery of the warhead (300-400 kg) to the range 400 km at speeds up to 6M. All this - with the use of ramjet engine and in dimensions, allowing to place the rocket in the standard cells of the UBC “Caliber”. Those. with a length of less than 10 m and the launch mass of the rocket is only about 3 tons.

Unlike the X-22, which was launched from the Tu-22M flying in the stratosphere, the fantastic “Zircon” has yet to independently climb and accelerate to a speed at which it can turn on the main propulsion ramjet (obviously, due to the starting solid-fuel accelerator, which should weigh as polrakety). Plus a mandatory layer of thermal protection.

The use of ramjet instead of a liquid jet engine should have a positive impact on the operational suitability of the Zircon. On the other hand, the analysis of the performance characteristics of other rocket systems of a similar purpose (having a large mass and dimensions at a much lower flight speed) suggests that the creation of the Zircon anti-ship missiles with voiced characteristics is impossible.

This is the conclusion from the point of view of existing rocket technologies. But who said that Russian science can not make a breakthrough?
Author:
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 November 2017 07: 44 New
    +7
    Oleg, why did he spoil such a good article with the last paragraph good?
    1. Krabik
      Krabik 13 November 2017 09: 24 New
      +2
      Russia is creating weapons that have no analogues in the world and it’s logical that we can have breakthroughs in the development and production of military equipment!
    2. venik
      venik 13 November 2017 09: 50 New
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Oleg, why did he spoil such a good article with the last paragraph good?

      ==========
      Unfortunately, Oleg “spoiled” one of the first paragraphs:
      "..... In order to leave a" hole "with an area of ​​22 square meters, a cumulative warhead with a cross section of tens of meters would be required. But such a missile would have to be launched from Baikonur ......"
      ------------
      To create a "cumulative stream" with a cross section of 22 sq.m., it would not be necessary to launch a "rocket from Baikonur" here, but something the size of an ALL "STARTING TABLE" !!!! The caliber is not a few tens of meters, but something like a half-kilometer !!!
    3. Vasily Kuznetsov
      Vasily Kuznetsov 13 November 2017 20: 08 New
      0
      I do not see a bad paragraph, there is some understatement that inspires hope !!!!! drinks
    4. Juborg
      Juborg 14 November 2017 02: 42 New
      +8
      So I swear at this "analyst" and the grief of the writer and the admin will send me to the eternal ban. But the administrator (us!) Himself (mime!) Is not ashamed to post such nonsense about holes of 22 m² on the resource? Not, of course, the master, as the master says, but I have never read, not one article of this article ................., wherever Oleg would pour mud on everything Soviet (Russian! ) and did not praise everything American. One wants to swear in three knees, but it is better to meet and communicate very closely and hotly. Hi Oleg America!
  2. mark1
    mark1 13 November 2017 07: 52 New
    15
    X-22 - technologies of the early 60s, KSR-5 - smaller, easier - technologies of the late 60s, X-15 - weight 1200 kg warhead - 150 kg, speed up to 5M (almost hyper) - 80s. So there is nothing impossible, just everything has its own time and the time of “Zircon” has come.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2017 08: 18 New
      11
      Quote: mark1
      technology start 60's

      Unlike cars and computers, speeds in aviation remain unchanged over the past 60 years.

      Civilians fly on dialing, combat go to supersonic only in emergency situations
      cruise missiles - 90% of developments fly on dialing, a vivid example - Caliber does not differ in speed from its predecessors
      Quote: mark1
      X-15 - weight 1200 kg CU- 150 kg, speed up to 5M (almost hyper) - 80-e.

      Well, it's time to tell you about X-15.

      Due to the prolonged testing until the end of 1991, the YES crews did not start the practical launches of the X-15

      Vl the second is aeroballistic a rocket, with all its advantages (relative simplicity, TTRD, lack of a wing) and disadvantages - flying along a simple ballistic trajectory, vulnerability for enemy air defense. Apogee of the trajectory - 40 km

      3. The range of a variant equipped with an RLGSN is smaller by a factor of 2 than that of the base X-15 (which had no guidance other than INS — like the German V-2). And this - aviation rocket launching from a plane, max. 150 km range is realized when launching from a high altitude and high flight speed in the direction of the target. The "Zircon" will not have such support, the ship is not an airplane

      X-15 is a very bad argument that shows how far from reality the fantastic "Zircon"
      1. mark1
        mark1 13 November 2017 08: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        X-15 is a very bad argument that shows how far from reality the fantastic "Zircon"

        The development of the X-15 was hindered by the events of the late 80s and the beginning of the 90s known to you, it simply wasn’t brought to mind, but it was adopted into service as a variant of firing at stationary targets. Quite a rocket striking anything in the so-called. "funnel", and intercepting it is not so simple. They removed it from service due to fuel aging in the zero years. But if the project continued to develop further, now we would have the armament of a quite decent hypersonic missile with an increased range (up to 500 kM), irresistible with massive use.
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2017 08: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: mark1
          The development of X-15 was prevented by the events of the end of 80's that were known to you and the beginning of 90's.

          Concept recognized obsolete
          Quote: mark1
          and intercept it is not so easy

          But it's very easy to intercept media.

          So, when launching from 200 - 250 km, which is near by the standards of "long-range", the crews of the missile carriers are forced to act practically in the air defense zone (especially taking into account the time needed for "unloading" the entire drum of the ISU).
          Quote: mark1
          decent hypersonic rocket

          Airborne, aeroballistic
          1. mark1
            mark1 4 January 2018 18: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Concept recognized obsolete

            Yes, no, the concept is very promising
            Quote: Santa Fe
            But it's very easy to intercept media.

            And if the barrage is a pair of volleys of 10 kt? And the carrier is far from an airship.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Airborne, aeroballistic

            But does it change something?
      2. mark1
        mark1 13 November 2017 08: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        ANN - like the German V-2

        In "Tradent" and SRAM and in dozens of other samples of the INS as in the V-2
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2017 08: 56 New
          +4
          Quote: mark1
          In "Tradent" and SRAM and in dozens of other samples of the INS as in the V-2

          ANN is a simple and excellent solution if the coordinates of the target are known and no correction is required to ensure accuracy in a few meters.

          But for firing at the ships - it is necessary to spend part of the load under the placement of the radar and the GOS
          1. mark1
            mark1 4 January 2018 18: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            But for firing at the ships - it is necessary to spend part of the load under the placement of the radar and the GOS

            And then the problem was solved! No need to kick in the 80s of the USSR Armed Forces were potentially a cut above the armed forces of other countries.
      3. xtur
        xtur 13 November 2017 09: 10 New
        +2
        > Santa Fe

        Ah, here you are Oleg Kaptsov after another reincarnation. However, anti-patriotism (rationale will be lower), it looks like reincarnation, surprisingly, and in contradiction with all the dogmas of the theory of reincarnation, is not treated

        > flight along a simple ballistic trajectory, vulnerability to enemy air defense.

        since we have a general reasoning, we can refute it in the same way - it's time to remember Iskander

        > cruise missiles - 90% of developments fly subsonic,

        It seems that such a country as the USSR / RF with its directly opposite proportions, for some, simply does not exist
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2017 09: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: xtur
          since we have a general reasoning, we can refute it in the same way - it's time to remember Iskander

          Does Iskander have a common ballistic trajectory?
          Quote: xtur
          cruise missiles - 90% of developments fly on dialup, it seems that a country like the USSR / RF with its opposite ratios, for some, simply does not exist

          RF - 1 / 6 light (and 5 / 6 darkness). Joke.

          As a result, it turned out that most chelomeevsky monsters are not capable of functioning, we are switching to Calibres
          1. xtur
            xtur 13 November 2017 12: 48 New
            +1
            > Does Iskander have a normal ballistic trajectory?

            rather, already advanced ballistic - mainly ballistics, but with maneuvering. quote from wiki:
            Iskander-M uses a high-altitude (flight altitude of 50 km) super-maneuverable (overload of 20-30 G) quasiballistic missile

            > As a result, it turned out that most of the Chelomeev monsters are not capable of fighting, we switch to Caliber

            no, most of the anti-ship missiles have remained supersonic, for them there are always separate cells on ships. That is, on ships they use both supersonic and Caliber, which also seem to be accelerated to supersonic at the final stage of the trajectory
          2. poquello
            poquello 13 November 2017 21: 04 New
            +2
            Quote: Santa Fe
            As a result, it turned out that most chelomeevsky monsters are not capable of functioning, we are switching to Calibres

            there were “patriots-memoirists” in the country who managed to spoil our army and in the Second World War as they could, but the victory remained with us, if you dug up another chernukha it’s not at all a fact that the “memories” must be trusted, except for poisonous fuel in general, the rest somehow looks awful
      4. KCA
        KCA 13 November 2017 09: 39 New
        +2
        In the 90s, at the time of universal love and climbing into the gums, there was a joint project with ... GERMANY! for the study of high-speed missiles, as part of this project, fortunately closed a long time ago, the X-32 was dispersed at the stage of attack to speeds above 7MAX, the designers said that 9 and 12 were not a threshold
        1. poquello
          poquello 13 November 2017 21: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          In the 90s, at the time of universal love and climbing into the gums, there was a joint project with ... GERMANY! for the study of high-speed missiles, as part of this project, fortunately closed a long time ago, the X-32 was dispersed at the stage of attack to speeds above 7MAX, the designers said that 9 and 12 were not a threshold

          Yes, you sho? Kaptsov’s is fantastic
          1. KCA
            KCA 14 November 2017 02: 32 New
            +1
            GELA - a hypersonic experimental aircraft with ramjet from the same times
      5. oblako
        oblako 16 November 2017 12: 04 New
        +6
        I am an air defense officer, I served on the S-200 there, too, missiles with mixed remote control, including a marching rocket engine. We were also preparing to repulse the massive air raids of the enemy. Before launch, the missiles were accumulated at the launch position for 12 hours by one BK, and a total of 3 were supposed to be assembled. They were collected and run by the technical division, if necessary, in which I had to serve. So I’ll tell you the following. There is nothing unrealistic in the mass application of X-22 AUG. Aircraft carrier also does not instantly appear on strike positions. In the threatened period, the missile training unit (TDN in my case) receives the “FLOW” signal and begins assembling, checking the refueling of the ammunition unit and accumulating it at launch positions. Aviators have a suspension on planes and the introduction of target coordinates in the GOS, the refinement of flight missions to crews, etc. Moreover, both in air defense and in aviation, missiles are most likely stored in various degrees of readiness for launch: fully charged and ready to launch, filled only with compressed nitrogen, without fuel and oxidizing agent, which can be filled with both in half an hour; in the "assembled" state, and in the cases of long-term storage in the disassembled state. All this technical division (TDN) is able to put together in a heap in a timely manner and prepare ammunition for use. Tales about the fact that super-aggressive fuel and an oxidizing agent cannot be kept in tanks should be told to someone else. Yes, in rocket tanks this is a limited time, but not critically short. Missiles are standing for a year, then they are shot at the firing range and that's it ..
  3. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 13 November 2017 08: 04 New
    +1
    Information for reflection
    1. mark1
      mark1 13 November 2017 08: 45 New
      +4
      You should have heard how the Americans raised a howl in 1976 when you found out that the USSR wanted to prepare several hundred of these bricks for them!
    2. oblako
      oblako 16 November 2017 12: 13 New
      +2
      Misak Hananyan. Normal spitch in the video! Professionalism is needed everywhere, especially in aviation. And in journalism too. 2 regiment Tu 22 M3 is necessary to destroy the AUG - grouping, not an aircraft carrier. For a moment, an aircraft carrier is about 100 aircraft + multi-purpose security and support ships, sometimes with a dozen or more. 2 regiment is about 60 aircraft. Very commensurate, otherwise it was not planned. Why ponder that?
  4. TELEMARK
    TELEMARK 13 November 2017 08: 23 New
    0
    Oleg, I’m reading your articles with great pleasure, but I would like to read something good about our equipment, do me a favor, well, at least about Karvet or something, I remember you spoke well about them somehow, well, or about our tanks, here I can even argue! Yours faithfully!
  5. Iline
    Iline 13 November 2017 09: 30 New
    +9
    It can be seen that the author did not "dive" into the topic. I won over facts from various sources on a matter of interest, but it turned out to bring them together very badly. Yes, and clearly did not serve on these aircraft, and therefore all conclusions are not worth a damn. I’m not familiar with the schedules of preparing these aircraft for combat sorting, nor with documents for combat use. This is already evidenced by the fact that "how poorly prepared are the techniques for rolling missiles under the cargo bay" and "how sharply the range of the combat mission drops when three missiles are suspended." Yes, three missiles are suspended only if they are relocated to another point, the combat option is one missile under the plane!
    Some commentators praise the X-15 out of the blue. Here, the logic of the military in abandoning this missile is simple - the launch range is such that it is much easier for the enemy to bring down the carrier on approach to the launch area than to have trouble with these missiles later. The pilots themselves said that it was easier to bomb on a target than to use these missiles.
    But the message itself is true - X-22, as well as the system for preparing it for launch and guidance on the target, are clearly outdated and require a radical solution. Only arguments should be verified, but they cannot be presented in the open press.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2017 09: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Iline
      combat option - one rocket under the plane!

      What a wonderful confession
  6. tchoni
    tchoni 13 November 2017 09: 35 New
    +3
    Statements are surprising to everyone. Shocked trot to the frenenie. and a mustache ... That's the whole Kaptsov .... A few still lack phrases like "but in the PMV battleships pulled out 10 hits with the main caliber with a shell weight of half a ton and a speed of 600 meters per second" ...
    But at that I’m so grumbling)))
    In fact, the article, for all its controversy, is quite practical. And it makes you wonder if we are going there.
    Py.Sy. Oleg, links to the material would be very nice)
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2017 09: 38 New
      +1
      Well I wrote at the very beginning - Victor Markovskiy, "backfire missiles"
      the rest is my photo archives
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 13 November 2017 10: 24 New
        +3
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Well I wrote at the very beginning - Victor Markovskiy, "backfire missiles"
        the rest is my photo archives

        This is clear. But then you give the interception range for anti-aircraft systems - where are they from? Have you invented it yourself? Flight profiles for different rockets? where did they get it? Links to huge EPR cruise missiles? from where - it is not clear. Again, the reference to the "death" of the proct "brahmos" is the same as it is not clear. D
        Giving links to every moment - you would get acquainted with the material and avoid obvious nonsense such as a launch height for Tu22 of 20 km ... Well, readers would be less likely to enter fornication.
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2017 10: 53 New
          +3
          Quote: tchoni
          But then you bring the interception range for anti-aircraft complexes - where do they come from?

          Google, open any source - my data converges
          about 80 KT and 100 nautical miles
          Quote: tchoni
          Flight profiles for different rockets?

          Cruise missile, march height 20 + km
          Quote: tchoni
          Again, references to the "death" of the "Brahmos" project

          Bramos-A
          Not death, silence for a decade
          Quote: tchoni
          Links to huge EPR cruise missiles?

          Look at the sizes))
          Quote: tchoni
          would avoid the obvious nonsense of the type of start altitude for Tu22 in 20 km

          I have nothing to do with it, you wrote about 20 km in your comment
          And trying to attribute it to me

          If you are talking about the distinction between ship and aircraft based - yes, launching from an airplane gives a significant advantage. The rocket already at separation from the carrier has a speed of 1M and an altitude of 10 + km. The dense words of the atmosphere remained far below, the pressure at 10 000 height m less than 5 times than at sea level

          Do such simple things need to be explained
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 13 November 2017 13: 40 New
            +2
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Google, open any source - my data converges

            Well, agree, Oleg, this looks like a reference to the "news agency" of the OBS.
          2. tchoni
            tchoni 13 November 2017 13: 42 New
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Not death, silence for a decade

            But in the article you interpret it as death. And they are not silent. "Bramos" is regularly transported to exhibitions, etc.
          3. tchoni
            tchoni 13 November 2017 13: 59 New
            +4
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Google, open any source - my data converges

            Oleg, agree, this sounds like a reference to the "news agency" of the OBS)))
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Bramos-A
            Not death, silence for a decade

            But in the article, it’s the death of the project that you have under “silence”. And they are not silent. Constantly carried around the exhibitions.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Look at the sizes))

            Alas, size is half the battle. b2 the dimensions of the passenger liner are ... and the EPR is much less than a meter. So it is here. The main culprit of the epic dispersion of EME into the front hemisphere is the air intake, compressor blades, cockpit ... and here they are absent as a class ....
            etc. etc.
            I understand that messing with sources is lazy ... and dreary. It’s easier to copy-paste the article, insert the heels of your comments and inflate a little srach .. and rise a little on this ... but, it’s somehow .... tactless, or something .....
          4. Sfurei
            Sfurei 13 November 2017 22: 21 New
            +3
            Oleg, unfortunately, read your article only today and got a blurry impression. For all your Bramos-A funerals, as an answer to your question - today information has come about placing a real order for India on these missiles ....))) Therefore, the historical part of the article is also read, although the lack of experience of those personnel in securing missiles under the wing - what kind of stupidity ??? there are VG models for this) .... then your predictions about the impossibility of realizing full-fledged future projects ... this news alone (about air-based Bramos) is crossed out.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 14 November 2017 05: 16 New
              0
              They ordered Brahmos without having made a single air launch (only resetting the layout) from the SU30. They plan the first launch at the end of the month. The saga lasts 15 years
            2. Dyniaq
              Dyniaq 14 November 2017 05: 58 New
              0
              You guys are right in something, and often in everything! But the worst thing is that after causing damage of 22 m2 or less, the NUCLEAR WAR !!! We are obviously weaker, but we are not going to give up, I think that 4-5 m for nuclear weapons is not a miss. I think our guys have already loaded all the nuclear warheads, and now they are shooting. Otherwise, we are ZADADOV, as now in everything !!!
              1. Servisinzhener
                Servisinzhener 14 November 2017 10: 54 New
                +1
                If you had to shoot such missiles at such targets, then clearly the situation is already extremely serious. Or simply put, they came to blame us. And in this situation, you need to think about how to fight back, and not about how not to offend the killers.
  7. SPACE
    SPACE 13 November 2017 09: 46 New
    +8
    The concept of the destruction of an Aircraft Carrier, AOG in the far sea zone is in itself flawed, well, who can threaten AUG there in an open okiyan? Only maybe schools of fish))). AUG can be dangerous only in coastal waters, at a range of its main weapon, but then, in this case, it will face the full power of the strike forces, surface, underwater, air and, most importantly, the whole variety of ground-based aviation and missile weapons. And are there many chances for the AUG to survive? The answer is more than obvious, in the confrontation with Russia in general no !!!, and if so, "what for goat bayan?" But the AUG button accordion, the goat of the USA is needed only in order to scare the weak, well, that their hard-earned people invested heavily in the US economy, somehow the Americans need to pay back such an expensive weapon. There are no other reasonable goals and options! and will be gone! Moreover, the number of frightened people will be less and less with time! Based on the prospects, the concept of aircraft carriers, all the more so expensive and on such a massive scale, especially against the backdrop of the technological development of shock unmanned rocket technology, is losing its relevance. Americans, by virtue of their mental exclusivity or retardation, or maybe in pursuit of a former willichia, still continue to use them by inertia, but sooner or later they will reach them, I suppose even they already suspected that something was wrong, meaninglessness of their devices. Therefore, Vanguy, I predict the gradual cessation of the construction of new and the reduction of existing aircraft carriers ... and so these complex and expensive specialized complex means of counteracting aircraft carriers are no longer needed.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 November 2017 10: 29 New
      +6
      Quote: SPACE
      AUG can be dangerous only in coastal waters, at a distance of its main weapon, but then, in this case, it will face the full power of the strike forces, surface, underwater, air and, most importantly, the whole variety of ground-based aviation and missile weapons.

      “Coastal waters” for an aircraft carrier are 300-400 miles from the coast.
      And what “power of shock forces" will the AUG face? With the only "Peter" / "Nakhimov"? Or with the only Kuznetsov? Or with "karakurt" or "buoyan"? sad
      One hope is for the "loaves". Because there is no more snoring in the fleet either. And most of the coastal SCRCs simply will not reach AB.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 13 November 2017 11: 29 New
        +8
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And what “power of shock forces" will the AUG face? With the only "Peter" / "Nakhimov"? Or with the only Kuznetsov? Or with "karakurt" or "buoyan"?

        Do you doubt it !? lol Are you possibly not in your right mind and not a solid memory? Then you should not bother to convince yourself, continue to believe in your gods. Just answer yourself the question what is an aircraft carrier, AUG? And what is its combat value. Maybe in a couple of dozens of deck aircraft? And what are they capable of? Or maybe his strength in Ijes destroyers? And what will they do, with whom, with what and how and in what sequence to fight?))) At a distance of 300-400 km from the coast?))) Actually you yourself answered your own question, and you’ll encounter everyone together, and under water, and at sea and on land and in the air, and not only, frankly, it’s very difficult to imagine a belligerent AUG and even a couple of such squadrons somewhere in the Kamchatka or Kola Peninsula, even despite the weather and the presence of nuclear weapons, zone of continuous operation of naval forces of Pacific Fleet or Northern Fleet, coastal missile systems and air defense, in the zone of action The effects of the entire spectrum of the Air Force and other goodies are both suicide on the basis of exclusivity and suicide on the basis of stupidity, they will be rolled out to zero, and supplements will still be required. In any case, for American AUGs, everything will end in a "utopia" in both the literal and figurative sense.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 November 2017 12: 19 New
          +4
          Quote: SPACE
          Just answer yourself the question what is an aircraft carrier, AUG? And what is its combat value. Maybe in a couple of dozens of deck aircraft?

          In fact, from 48 to 72 universal fighter / strikers - carriers of URO. Just after the collapse of the USSR, deck groups lost weight.
          Quote: SPACE
          Actually, you yourself answered your own question, and you’ll encounter everyone together, both under water, and on sea and on land and in the air, and not only, frankly, it’s very difficult to imagine a belligerent AUG and even a couple of such squadrons somewhere in the region Kamchatka or the Kola Peninsula, even despite the weather and the presence of nuclear weapons,

          No problem. How many coastal airfields do we have in the Kamchatka region? And now 3 ABs fall into this area, each with 60 percussion force. Plus “Tiki” and “Burke”, some of which are in the shock version of the download. And then - the standard gain of dominance in the air + SLCM strike and air-to-ground URA against coastal targets. Fortunately, the same PRR can now be launched without capturing the radiation source.
          In the 80's, the Yankees learned from their own experience that an AB in the Bering Sea could very well operate as carrier-based aircraft.
          By the way, can you imagine an imitation of an attack on the Kuril Islands by American decks? And that was - and in times heyday of power THE USSR.
          Or an AUG's inconspicuous exit to the strike distance in Murmansk and the subsequent work of carrier-based aviation without the AB itself being detected by our forces? And that too - the Yankees skillfully hid AB in Norwegian skerries.
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 13 November 2017 14: 27 New
            +7
            Quote: Alexey RA
            No problem. How many coastal airfields do we have in the Kamchatka region?

            A little, about five military men and about a dozen with whom you can work, plus YES.
            Or AUGs suddenly come up?)))
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In the 80's, the Yankees learned from their own experience that an AB in the Bering Sea could very well operate as carrier-based aircraft.

            Yeah, a couple of days a year, if the weather allows.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            No problem.

            Tell me, will they all take off at the same time? And what are the download options? To gain air supremacy? Shock anti-ship? or will they work on the ground? And what is the range of projecting the force, with the ammunition that will be carried away under the wings from the AUG, the depth of the territory, along the front, the time spent in the air? on different objects will work or how? And go unnoticed? But what about air defense with sea and land and air defense aviation? Probably Burki tomahawks will shoot at airfields or radars, how many are there, pieces of 300-400, everything is interesting at the same time on 5-10 pcs per object, or what?))) Not of course, they can shoot back with an incomprehensible result roughly like in Syria)))) , and then what? in general, some questions ... but for some everything is clear, without what without? )))
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Or an AUG's inconspicuous exit to the strike distance in Murmansk and the subsequent work of carrier-based aviation without the AB itself being detected by our forces? And that too - the Yankees skillfully hid AB in Norwegian skerries.

            This, in my opinion, is nonsense, an AUG or an aircraft carrier, it can be lost only because of stupidity in the age of space satellites, RTS, and intelligence intelligence, I’m not surprised that on the NTsUO LCD monitors the locations or patrol areas of not only aircraft carriers, but also strategists are tracked in real time , this is their routine work. Well, on the topic to whom and what the Americans have demonstrated and who has not noticed what, one can fantasize for a long time.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 November 2017 18: 07 New
              +3
              Quote: SPACE
              A little, about five military men and about a dozen with whom you can work, plus YES.

              About 5 years ago there was a big scandal when, during the exercises, the civilian airport on Sakhalin refused to accept military aircraft - Moscow forgot to notify the airfield authorities of the arrival of the aircraft. And without notice, the airport did not even have fuel to refuel military sides.
              So formally, there is a joint airfield - but in fact there firewood lie.
              By the way, then, among the howls about the need to land all the airfield authorities, a timid voice inquired - why didn’t IL-76 go to military airfields? The answer was simple - Smirnykh is closed, and the Falcon is used from time to time.
              Now there is nothing in the general list of military airfields on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.
              Quote: SPACE
              And what is the range of projecting the force, with the ammunition that will be carried away under the wings from the AUG, the depth of the territory, along the front, the time spent in the air? on different objects will work or how?

              They have one object - for there is nothing else in Kamchatka. And at this facility from the ZRV - the S-400 regiment. And that’s it. Plus there will be 1 "local" IA regiment and 1-2 IA regiment from neighboring bases. If you have time to come up. And if they are not connected somewhere else - for example, by Japanese aviation on the Kuril or Sakhalin direction.
              Further - everything is standard. Additional reconnaissance of the air defense system by means of RTR by forcibly opening the system (either “injecting” or simulating a raid using the same UAV and false targets). An attack by PRR, air-to-ground missiles and SLCMs on the OVC radar, on the known positions of the air defense divisions and on the runway (the latter certainly will not run away). And then - on the thumb.
              There is little hope for the SAM - the radius of the S-400 on MV and PMV differs little from the S-125. sad
              Quote: SPACE
              This, in my opinion, is nonsense, an AUG or an aircraft carrier, can be lost only by stupidity in the age of space satellites, RTS, and undercover intelligence

              And it happened. While spaceships plow the Bolshoi Theater our intelligence knew that somewhere on the theater of operations there is an AB (because the deck cars "lit up"). But she could not determine the position of AB with the accuracy necessary for striking.
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 13 November 2017 23: 31 New
                +4
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Now there is nothing in the general list of military airfields on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                They have one object - for there is nothing more in Kamchatka

                This is not about Sakhalin or Kamchatka separately, but about the Far East region as a whole, the airfields of Yelizovo, Nikolaevka, Knevichi, Kamenny Ruchey, Dzemgi, Central Corner, etc. And is it true that the Americans with three AUGs can fall into Kamchatka with one military object)))?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                They have one object - for there is nothing else in Kamchatka. And at this facility from the ZRV - C-400 regiment. And all

                Tell me, have American aircraft carriers already approached Kamchatka? Actually then what are you discussing here? What, more C-400 / 300 shells, bastions with calibers are nowhere else or is there a problem to transfer them?
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Further - everything is standard.

                Even on the approach of the AUG, the MAPLs will advance and spread out, naturally, surface forces will come up, earn Sunflowers and Containers, fly into the air of AWACS, MIG-31, SU-27, 34, YES interceptors will be ready, will deploy additional air defense systems and coastal missile systems and the means of electronic warfare, the enormous military mechanism will work, the AUG will be visible in a hundred sights as a "belly button on the belly of an Indian dancer" ...
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And then - on the thumb.

                Half of SLCM Burkov did not even reach the coastline, according to the remnants, he will work out ground-based air defense. The last Tomahawk will fail to take off as the AUG will already be attacked from different sides by missiles with nuclear submarines, missile cruisers. Soaring air groups from aircraft carriers loaded with harpoons in confusion do not know what to do, being under cross fire, jammed by air defense from land and sea and fighter aircraft, in the grip of electronic warfare ...
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But she could not determine the position of AB with the accuracy necessary for striking.

                It is difficult to believe that a whole aircraft carrier group could be in complete radio silence for a long time, and RTR means could not detect them. Do not confuse the gift with the scrambled eggs, could not, but simply in peacetime, even during the Cold War, many things simply cannot be done, not all means can be used, unlike the military situation. The exact location of moving targets in real time is difficult to achieve and is not necessary, missiles in flight will already do this.
                1. Servisinzhener
                  Servisinzhener 14 November 2017 11: 10 New
                  +2
                  Totally agree with you. 3 AUGs from nowhere will not fall to Kamchatka. Russia, even in its present state, is a very serious adversary for the United States. Anyway, there will be a “threatening period” with a huge preparation of equipment and people that cannot be hidden. Because of the number of people who will be involved in the preparation of these groups. And accordingly there will be preparations for the reception of these "guests", both along the way and on the spot.
          2. poquello
            poquello 13 November 2017 21: 39 New
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And now 3 AB are falling into this area,

            it’s not from the sky that they tumble, they are now visible everywhere
    2. Vasily Kuznetsov
      Vasily Kuznetsov 13 November 2017 20: 31 New
      +1
      I'm --- not at all in the subject, I find your koment convincing !!! hi
    3. poquello
      poquello 13 November 2017 21: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: SPACE
      The concept of the destruction of an Aircraft Carrier, AUG in the far sea zone is in itself flawed,

      and this is a legacy in general, the USSR had a clear mechanism for the global destruction of the forces of the hostile bloc, and no matter where the aircraft carrier was allowed to sink to the bottom with its constant sight in the sights, this further development of science and technology gradually made it possible to control enemy forces from afar
  8. novel66
    novel66 13 November 2017 10: 01 New
    23
    it’s strange, but when he was at the airfield in Seryshevo, he hung these missiles on the Tu-95, and on an alarm the whole regiment was equipped, and the launches were not carried out by “the most trained crews”, but they got young navigators on and hit. which is characteristic. more careful with sources (maybe better about armor? lol )
    1. Days
      Days 13 November 2017 15: 15 New
      +9
      This is a tactical move) in the following articles he will refer to this to explain to everyone:
      1) all missiles are actually slow and uncomfortable, battleships with artillery are steeper and tenacious
      2) all anti-ship missiles in Russia are backward, but in the USA there is another technical revolution! My God, one Zumwalt with such missiles can destroy all the fleets of Russia without departing from its native coast!
      1. novel66
        novel66 13 November 2017 15: 53 New
        +8
        of course. without departing. how does he move away - they break right away1
    2. poquello
      poquello 13 November 2017 21: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: novel xnumx
      maybe better about armor? lol)

      ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
      Well, it's you in vain, about missiles - it turned out more convincingly, with a mumorist
  9. venik
    venik 13 November 2017 10: 04 New
    +5
    The article, as usual, is very "pretty" .......
    For example:
    ".... Below is the data from the article“ Backfire missiles ”from the famous aviation historian, writer Viktor Markovsky. Based on this information, it becomes obvious that no cruise missile X-22, as a weapon, has ever existed. Its components, individually, they lay in warehouses, and dummies periodically took to the air. But there was no question of the ability to begin to carry out combat missions in accordance with their mission within the set time limits ...... "
    ===========
    A quote from the work of V. Markovsky “Backfire Rocket”: “... Because of the complexity of the preparation, only a few, the most experienced crews [2 *] had to make real launches in the regiments of the DA and Navy, and during the combat training in units this happened do, at best, two to three times a year. All these firing were carried out at the Air Force Test Institute near Akhtubinsk, where there was a network of measuring and control equipment. ..... "
    ===========
    Well, you can’t give out the "wishful" for the "valid" ..... There are other "mistakes" !!!!
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2017 10: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: venik
      Well, you can not give the "desired" for the "real"

      And what is the contradiction?

      Most of the time airplanes fly with unfilled (sky-ready) rockets.
      Practical experience in using 2-3 crew from the entire regiment.

      Description fits in with conclusions
      1. FID
        FID 13 November 2017 11: 01 New
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Practical experience in using 2-3 crew from the entire regiment.

        Well, well. Is that knowledge or speculation? Oleg, henceforth, do not draw such conclusions ...
        1. novel66
          novel66 13 November 2017 11: 47 New
          12
          this is a fortune-telling that has nothing to do with reality, and only about the technical composition that hangs the rocket, straining all forces - a song! laughing
          1. FID
            FID 13 November 2017 12: 08 New
            +3
            Here, here ... Oh, I’ve been to the regiments and divisions of YES throughout the USSR, God knows how many KAPOs ... but ... Someone from the submarines, let Kaptsov answer ...
            1. novel66
              novel66 13 November 2017 15: 00 New
              +4
              apparently from the Premier League, if anyone answers. that is obscene. exclusively!
          2. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 13 November 2017 15: 07 New
            +4
            Quote: novel xnumx
            And about the technical staff that hangs the rocket, straining all the forces - a song!

            it is strange that Kaptsov did not tell how pilots and navigators manually drag rockets to the target / target =)))
      2. utyutkin
        utyutkin 13 November 2017 20: 56 New
        +4
        Lord what enchanting nonsense !!!!!! you are probably a woman. only women sometimes have a complete lack of logic :)))))). for comparison, I will give 1 example that you simply have nothing to interrupt. :))). SAM missiles with -75 charge only 25 minutes before launch :)))))). the rest of the time they are empty. and this is FACT !!!!!!!. Imagine from 5 years of service the rocket can only be in the refueling state for 25 minutes. Do you understand Russian? only 25 min out of 5 years of service !!!!! Moreover, if she stood tucked longer than this period, it is FORBIDDEN to shoot from her !!!!! and so on the basis of your "LOGIC" with such a rocket it is impossible to bring down any aircraft :))))). Moreover, almost no calculation of these missiles did not shoot in training :))))). Well, you yourself think how much these missiles cost to shoot from them just like that :))))))). and even the fuel was terribly poisonous and filled in spacesuits :)))))). and after all this, see how many planes shot down 75ka :))))). so you my friend is apparently a woman :). I hope this comparison does not offend you, because you can’t take offense at the prada :))))
        1. sheridans
          sheridans 18 November 2017 16: 31 New
          0
          I do not agree with you in principle. I am in the past ZRV-shnik on S-75. Before the collapse of the USSR, each missile launcher at the launcher had 6 FULLY ready for combat use of missiles. The life of such a missile is five years, after which they were removed from duty and not training ranges were sent. All other missiles were stored in a DRY form (heated storage) up to 22,5 years. Upon reaching this age or earlier, part of the DRY missiles were refueled and put on combat duty (for years).
      3. Alex_59
        Alex_59 14 November 2017 09: 39 New
        +6
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Most of the time airplanes fly with unfilled (sky-ready) rockets.
        Practical experience in using 2-3 crew from the entire regiment.

        Dear, well, you and the young ladies probably make love several times a week, at night. Well, maybe every night. But your scribble is not in a "working" position around the clock, right? Because what for it is necessary?
        You are simply inattentively reading Markovsky. Otherwise, we would have understood the concept of "tactical launch." Which work out all the crews of the regiment. In the best years, the regiment could carry out 3-4 practical launches and several hundred tactical launches during the year. Such a volume of work is simply physically impossible to carry out with the help of only 2-3 crews. This was done by all the crews. Most crews were able to fire and practiced dozens of times a year.
        Drawing an analogy with the "love" principle - tactical launch, this is a sexual act without conception. Because after conception nothing depends on the crew. But all the actions necessary so that at the right moment everything goes as it should - are being worked out.
  10. sivuch
    sivuch 13 November 2017 10: 11 New
    +7
    In the meantime
    Cruise missile X-32 adopted by the VKS of Russia
    At the end of August 2016, the first stage of the State tests of the new aviation complex with the Kh-32 cruise missile, which is designed to improve the combat qualities of the main long-range attack aircraft of the Russian Long-Range Aviation - the Tu-22M3 bomber, was completed.
    State tests of the complex were completed at the end of 2016 with a positive assessment. The complex is adopted. It is planned to finalize part of the Tu-22M3 combat aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
    And so, between us, only photos are good in the article
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2017 10: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: sivuch
      Cruise missile X-32 adopted by the VKS of Russia

      Heard about it

      The new modification did not fix the main problem - low operational availability of the rocket. All the same two-component rocket engine + old sizes
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 13 November 2017 12: 05 New
        +2
        No matter how. The dimensions are old, but this does not mean at all that the EPR also remained old. Although it would be because at the time of the creation of the X-22, they simply did not think about reducing the EPR.
        The engine remained liquid fuel, but which fuel components are unknown. Maybe not so filthy. By the way, I just don’t know if it is possible to make an amputated refueling for such a rocket. In theory, since they do it on BR, then why not here?
        And here is another article about this product, in my opinion, quite objective
        What is the new X-32 anti-ship cruise missile?
        http://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/chto-predstavlyaet-s
        oboj-novaya-protivokorabelnaya-krylataya-raketa-h
        -32 /
        Is that the photo above spoils the impression
      2. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 13 November 2017 16: 59 New
        +2
        those. only
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Heard about it

        But I am convinced that
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The new modification did not fix the main problem - low operational availability of the rocket. All the same two-component rocket engine + old sizes

        indicative. did not read, but condemn! (with)
  11. Taoist
    Taoist 13 November 2017 12: 37 New
    11
    Yeah ... apparently my fellow technicians in the next MPA regiment did not read Kaptsov’s article every day working out the work with these missiles. By the way, the author is aware that nitric acid does not dissolve not only gold? And what is it that a large family of rockets with liquid propellant rocket engines on the same components was constantly on long combat duty? Or were they also stored in mines with empty tanks? Yes, the missiles, of course, are already outdated ... But they were not at all a “virtual threat” Well, as regards promising missiles, as they say, we will wait and see ... Actually, it is not at all necessary to scratch the entire flight with hypersound ... (which sharply reduces energy requirements) it is enough to make a breakthrough when leaving the radio horizon.
  12. Greyjojo
    Greyjojo 13 November 2017 13: 50 New
    14
    Hmm, Kaptsov’s next application of rezunovsky logic to prove his tales.
    For non-military and non-engineers, fairy tales about “terribly poisonous fuels” and “terrible nitric acid” look very convincing and impressive. And after the words “amid the cyclopical X-22,” the average reader must fight in horror.
    Nevertheless, there is nothing terrible and cyclopic in this rocket. Let me remind you that in the USSR the S-75 and S-200 air defense systems were armed with armament. On the last were 11 meters long rockets with a launch weight of 7 tons. (very close to X-22) These missiles were refueled by the same eerie TG-02 and nitric acid.
    Yes, there are difficulties with their operation, but they are all technically solvable.
    The complex was successfully in service with the USSR Air Defense Forces, and still stands abroad. It has acceptable readiness indicators. The number of missiles launched and the number of deployed launchers is several times greater than the X-22.
    It is strange to believe that air defense technicians resolved issues of refueling and maintaining these missiles in operational readiness, but air force technicians could not. Given that the reaction time of an air defense in the event of a threat should be several times shorter than that of the air force. (the speed of the target and the distance of its detection differ significantly).
    The argument that the missile suspension was akin to a feat also looks ridiculous. The same 200 were recharged by transport-loading vehicles quite successfully and were designed to recharge in the conditions of the enemy’s approach within a few minutes.
    As a rule, several missiles were on standby ready to launch (with fuel and oxidizer). The rest are fueled, but without oxidizer.
    These are technical issues.

    Organizational - it’s quite natural that planes flew with unfilled missiles. These are not air defense interceptors on combat patrols. AUG, unlike airplanes, will not be able to break the border for several tens of minutes, shoot and leave.
    To master the skills of piloting, it is enough to fly with MMG. What prevents technicians from training their skills by hanging these same MMGs on airplanes?

    As a result:
    1) technically, the difficulties with the mass of the rocket and liquid oxidizing agent and fuel are not insurmountable. The Air Defense Forces successfully dealt with much tougher requirements.
    2) Organizational fact of flights with unfilled missiles is quite logical and does not mean the unavailability of crews and technical staff.

    Conclusion: the arguments and results of the article are sucked from the finger. If the X-22 is not ready for combat use, then for other reasons.
    1. novel66
      novel66 13 November 2017 15: 04 New
      10
      yes they were ready, I beg you. it's the USSR - what the fuck. Unavailability could be at the product. adopted into service?
    2. Educoh
      Educoh 13 November 2017 17: 36 New
      +2
      After seeding "To ensure the indicated characteristics, four tons of dimethylhydrazine (TG-2) and concentrated nitric acid (AK-27I) were pumped into the rocket tanks." You can not read further))))
  13. Yeti
    Yeti 13 November 2017 14: 25 New
    +1
    Everything flows and changes. At that time, jet aircraft was also a fantasy. There is no need to talk about space. Any development leads to results. "Flurry" also contradicts common sense and partly physics. But this is the breakthrough that is mentioned at the end of the article. PS He is not mistaken .....
    1. novel66
      novel66 13 November 2017 15: 05 New
      +4
      who is not Kaptsov, reasoning about long-range aviation ....
  14. Servisinzhener
    Servisinzhener 13 November 2017 14: 41 New
    +7
    After the third paragraph, it became clear who the author of the article
    1. Tarikxnumx
      Tarikxnumx 13 November 2017 23: 36 New
      +6
      Soon there will be a game in VO - "Guess Kaptsov's article from two paragraphs" :)
      1. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 14 November 2017 10: 47 New
        +2
        The first two paragraphs are most likely borrowed. But the third is already "homespun" and very colorful. )) But the topic of booking and artillery of a large hummingbird with armor-piercing shells this time unfortunately was not disclosed. (((
        1. lazy
          lazy 16 November 2017 05: 46 New
          +1
          that's for sure, there is not enough comparison of damage from a missile and a main-caliber battleship shell. by the way I guessed the author after the third paragraph. really it's time to play the game "guess Kaptsov")))
  15. Konstantin Kiselev
    Konstantin Kiselev 13 November 2017 15: 23 New
    0
    And no one heard about the detonation impulse air-jet engine, built and tested in n.p.o. them Cradle, who generally worked for 100 hours, and in one turn on more than 10 minutes!
    Here you have a breakthrough !!!
  16. Eflintuk
    Eflintuk 13 November 2017 15: 50 New
    0
    The article seems to be about the utopianism of the fantastic "zircon", but it is not clear what is being discussed ... :).
  17. D040sm
    D040sm 13 November 2017 16: 13 New
    +9
    Quote: “Backfire” (Rear fire Counter fire). Yandex translator gives several meanings of a word, such as: reverse result, reverse effect (noun), have unpleasant consequences
    come around
    (verb). So a long-term bike about the rear / oncoming / large, etc. Fire does not roll.
    Further, the author said almost correctly. High explosive-cumulative penetrating warhead, weighing 960 kg, of which 630 kg of explosive TGAG-5 (TNT, RDX, fillers, etc.) plows well.
    Quote: “four tons of dimethylhydrazine” ... stop-stop! Four tons of what? As fuel, 1015 kg of “Samin product” is refueled, otherwise TG-02, which is a mixture of technical isomeric xylidines and technical triethylamine in a 1: 1 ratio (and where is heptyl?). The oxidizing agent is indeed a volatile, 27% solution (mélange) of nitrogen tetraoxide in concentrated nitric acid.
    That is, now for no reason how many inaccuracies in the article.
    And finally. To train crews, there is absolutely no need to refuel fuel components - this is just meaningless work, associated with unnecessary risk. A loaded rocket needs to be periodically monitored, that is, run daily to the airfield. In general, there were special industrial simulators, but there weren’t enough of them all, so they adapted to carry rockets specially designated for training purposes. About inept technicians who are not able to hang up a rocket - this is a bust (although in some places it really was like that).
    Almost every flight shift flew with rockets, because Beckfaire is primarily a rocket carrier, and then a truck for transporting iron (in any case, it was in the MPA). Yes, test launches were once a year, both on land and on naval targets. At various landfills throughout the country. Even in hopelessly impoverished years, with a scanty raid and disgusting serviceability of the aircraft fleet, they managed to work out "excellently".
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 14 November 2017 09: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: D040sm
      Yes, test launches were once a year, both on land and on naval targets. At various landfills throughout the country.

      And there were "tactical" launches. Imitation. All operations except directly the descent of the rocket. And after the descent of the rocket, nothing actually depends on the crew. There were hundreds of such imitation launches per year.
  18. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 November 2017 16: 53 New
    +1
    These anti-ship missiles, as well as the newer ones, were created to fight the AUG of the US Navy; this is their main purpose, as well as their use not in 2 missiles, but in large quantities, with the participation of anti-radar and anti-radar missiles. The range of RCC Harpoon is 150-180 km and you are unlikely to be able to use them against targets such as AUG ...
  19. Educoh
    Educoh 13 November 2017 17: 34 New
    +4
    The people, what are you listening to is an expert who didn’t “serve” the Tu22 m3, he was even too lazy to look at elementary things on the wiki for, so to speak, “self-education”) After the epic “To provide the indicated characteristics, four tons were pumped into the rocket dimethylhydrazine (TG-2) ", - further this vyser can not be read. This student is not even aware of the difference between dimethylhydrazine and TG-2)))
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 14 November 2017 10: 19 New
      +2
      Without any connection with Kaptsov
      Your opinion is simply interesting. For an anti-ship missile similar to the X-32, can I make an amplified refueling, like ballistic missiles?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 10: 59 New
      +1
      It would be nice if we had a hundred Tu 22M3 in service, so two X 32 missiles on each would be enough to break through the AUG air defense, but when there are a maximum of two dozen of them in the same direction, there is no need to talk about any breakthrough.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 30 July 2018 12: 26 New
        0
        now there are anti-ship missiles Dagger ash by 4 pcr on the Carcass, again say that ...?
        no breakthrough to speak
  20. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 13 November 2017 18: 32 New
    +4
    For some reason, many people think that the Tu-22m with these missiles should have worked alone against the augs, and on this basis, all the weapons of the U.S. fleet are directed at our missile and their chances are estimated. Their task is to destroy the aircraft carriers, and the rest of the aug parties fleet, aviation and submarines .. Children's debate on who is stronger, Rambo or the Terminator. Do not fight alone, for each weapon its own tasks.
  21. faiver
    faiver 13 November 2017 19: 05 New
    +6
    once again convinced that Mr. Kaptsov at VO is like Dontsova in Russia - entertaining reading matter where you do not need to think and can not be taken seriously hi
  22. Oleg Petrov
    Oleg Petrov 13 November 2017 22: 09 New
    +1
    It always neighs and wonders: Why are the roads of brains not enough to build normal, and not from limestone? And then Onyx, X-101, Gauges .... with a smaller and more mundane one must begin
    1. faiver
      faiver 14 November 2017 05: 28 New
      +2
      Well, yes, they can’t make a dice for thirteen and they let the tram hi
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 14 November 2017 05: 38 New
        +5
        Why do you need a die on 13?
        1. faiver
          faiver 14 November 2017 13: 23 New
          +1
          ilf and petrov "xnumx chairs"
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 11: 05 New
      +1
      Onyxes have a short range, X 101 is launched only from strategic bombers, and we have 3M14 carriers, in all fleets, about 15 at most. Not a single country in the world has an effective system to counter aircraft carrier strike groups.
  23. yoyo1984
    yoyo1984 13 November 2017 22: 10 New
    +3
    Hmm, as usual, whining and moaning, there is no fact, speculation and speculation, as you already got !!! delete acc., homegrown analyst go further Wikipedia read. well
  24. akm8226
    akm8226 14 November 2017 01: 24 New
    +4
    I did not understand - what kind of education does the author of the article have? Is it really higher technical? It's just a pearl! I quote:

    "... the cumulative jet does not burn anything. The temperature does not play any role there. The short circuit literally“ flushes ”the hole like a jet of liquid under high pressure. And after overcoming the barrier, the explosion products turn into a fine powder with a temperature several times lower than the melting temperature steel. "(end of quote)

    It is a masterpiece! And now let's read what smart people write about this.

    A cumulative projectile is a thin-walled steel projectile filled with a powerful explosive substance - RDX, or a mixture of TNT with RDX. In front of the shell in the explosive there is a goblet-shaped recess lined with metal (usually copper). The projectile has a sensitive head fuse. When a shell collides with armor, an explosive is blown up. At the same time, the cladding metal is molten and compressed by explosion into a thin stream (pestle), flying forward at an extremely high speed and piercing through the armor. Zabronovoe action is provided by a cumulative jet and spray metal armor.
  25. Sprinter
    Sprinter 14 November 2017 01: 45 New
    +4
    Strange affair. Take the S-200. As far as I remember, the fuel of the marching rocket engine is the same. And nothing. It is stored for a long time refueled. Such cyclopean stresses, as described in the article, have no calculation. Yes they charge. Yes, removing the rocket from duty, they drain and wash. Complexes are still at the combat post in different countries of the world. The "Satan" had these components, too, and stood at the military post for decades, filled with ampule. Now about the damaging factors. Let's say a couple of bombers reach a target with 4 missiles. Launch line 250km. The air defense system of the AUG took targets for escort. The bombers turned around and even if the AUG shoots at them, the missiles will not be able to shoot them, the bombers have already left the sector in range. Yes and not to them. There is very little time to destroy 4 missiles. As the experience of the war in Iraq shows, the probability of defeating anti-aircraft missiles for subsonic targets is 0,35, or even lower. And here are the 4th supersonic targets. Of course, all destroyers and cruisers from this wing of the AUG will work on them. Will fly or fly - only God knows. So the NATO sailors were afraid of these missiles, and they are afraid. But the Harpoons of the air defense of modern ships, in principle, learned to shoot down with a probability of 0,98-0,99 (I will not say anything about the NATO ones about their modern systems). In this case, everything will depend on the mass of the raid, the installation of electronic warfare and other interferences by both sides with the ammunition and separation of the air defense of the target.
    1. dimzat
      dimzat 14 November 2017 04: 09 New
      +4
      The author did not hear anything about the 3M51 Termite, where Samin and Melange were also used, on the boats of the 1241 project they were given 4 pieces while the AUG was on combat duty, this (God forbid) is about 1-3 months, maybe up to six months. They calmly refilled and drained after the database, for delivery to the ship - a bunch of mechanization, even the onboard connector docked automatically in the TPC. They tried, it would seem, to make an aviation version of the rocket, without launch boosters. But the "Mosquito" is quite an aircraft missile, carriers-Su-27, Su-34, and on the Tu-95 they seemed to be hung on an external suspension. range along a high-altitude trajectory - up to 350 km, speed on a march - 2,5 - 3 Mach, when approaching - departure under a radio horizon, on an ultra-small and anti-aircraft maneuver. What the hell are you doing with it. So the author is JOURNALIZE, who has nothing to do with the army or the military-industrial complex, all the knowledge is from Wikipedia. However - this is my IMHO ...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 November 2017 11: 06 New
        +1
        “But the Mosquito is an aircraft rocket for itself.” - This rocket is no longer being launched.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 15 November 2017 17: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Sprinter
      As the experience of the war in Iraq shows, the probability of defeating anti-aircraft missiles for subsonic targets is 0,35, or even lower.

      Which one is Iraqi 1st or 2nd? Where does this data come from?
      Quote: Sprinter
      But the Harpoons of the air defense of modern ships, in principle, learned to shoot down with a probability of 0,98-0,99 (I will not say anything about the NATO ones about their modern systems). In this case, everything will depend on the mass of the raid, the installation of electronic warfare and other interferences by both sides with the ammunition and separation of the air defense of the target.

      Again, where did these numbers come from? From your own wishes? Then it was possible and 99,999 .. draw))
      I think the separation of the AUG defense is very serious, coupled with EW installations of megawatt power in Berks and Ticks.
      About the fear of US sailors before the X-22. I met a fragment of the memoirs of one of the former (80s) AUG commanders, where he said that the “Backfires” weren’t particularly afraid - anti-aircraft defense detected at long distances and missiles fly at high altitude - convenient targets. They were afraid of submarines, pr. 949, with Granites, which had good chances to jump 100-150 km and shoot anti-ship missiles, capable of passing this distance along a low-altitude trajectory.
  26. Sergeantpro
    Sergeantpro 14 November 2017 02: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Oleg Petrov
    It always neighs and wonders: Why are the roads of brains not enough to build normal, and not from limestone? And then Onyx, X-101, Gauges .... with a smaller and more mundane one must begin

    The problem is not in the brain, but in that if it weren’t
    Onyx, X-101, Gauges ....
    then there is nowhere and no one to build roads. By the way, and with them, the roads are not as wonderful as you think. It’s easier to be.
  27. Alex_59
    Alex_59 14 November 2017 09: 14 New
    +3
    The author finally started reading serious literature (Markovsky) and shares the suddenly revealed truths with the people. Well, that’s good.
    As for the high marching speed (3,5 — 4,6М) and altitude (22,5 — 25 km), it is vulnerable to the naval means of air defense of the “likely enemy” at all stages of its flight.
    A new modification of the X-32 old-school X-22 flies at altitudes of 40-45 km. What removes from the agenda the question of its interception of both SM-3 and SM-6. Well it is, in theory. In theory, because the likelihood that American AUGs will go in case of a big mess under the sights of Tu-22 is extremely small, as well as the fact that modern Russian aerospace forces will be able to form a volley (in case all the same, Americans climb their AUGs to our shores, in which there is no real need).
    Mass subsonic anti-ship missiles are the most realistic and in fact the only anti-ship missile of our time.
    As always to the point, cap! To compare highly specialized anti-aircraft weapons built using the technologies of the late 50's with missiles designed to destroy a frigate, the maximum destroyer from the middle of the 70's ... Well, who would be surprised. X-22 is such a weapon of the Tu-22 (without the "M"). For him it was created. What year is it? Out of date? Well it is more like Yes. Does anyone argue? X-32 is the latest attempt to squeeze at least something out of an outdated design. The complex goes down in history. For its time, there was a super-weapon. It’s not worthwhile to blame the refueling of the rocket with fuel and so on. Then it was an achievement.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2017 11: 19 New
      +1
      There was a variant of the X 22B missile with a maximum speed of 6-7 Machs, but the development did not work, and I agree with the author - the X32 missile is too large, heavy, which reduces the range of the bomber and the combat load, in modern realities, missiles capable of developing hypersonic speed are needed , but the mass of such anti-ship missiles should not exceed 2,5 tons.
    2. Santa Fe
      15 November 2017 05: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      A new modification of the X-32 old school X-22 flies at altitudes 40-45 km. What removes from the agenda the question of its interception as SM-3 and SM-6.

      And if you think your head, and not post fakie from the Internet?

      1. Pressure at height 42 km - 17 times lowerthan at altitude 22 km


      With increasing height, the required speed increases to create aerodynamic lift. On the Karman line (~ 100 km), it becomes equal to 1-th space, which makes all means using the laws of aerodynamics meaningless.

      LA does not existcapable of performing 3,4 speeds even 5М aerodynamic flight at altitudes 30-40 km. Recall the MiG-25 - he dynamic 37 km ceiling (flight along a ballistic trajectory), practical ceiling (aerodynamic flight) - 22 ... 23 km

      (in order to immediately stop the dispute about low-speed high-altitude aircraft with U-2 extra-large elongation, Zephyr, etc., we are talking about one type of aircraft with a similar layout and S of the wing, in this case, CR of X-22 family)

      The most famous example of a compact high-speed X-43 - for sustained aerodynamic flight at altitudes above 30 km, 7М is required

      Due to what magic X-32 while maintaining the aerodynamic design, layout and wing area of ​​the predecessor (at least on the X-32 photos caught in the network, there are NO external differences) and the same flight speed reaches twice the height - a mystery





      The same two-chamber LRE, the use of a new fuel and oxidizer cannot give a multiple increase in speed, due to the lack of noticeable progress in this area over the past 50 years, three-component LRE remain a theory
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 15 November 2017 09: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Due to the magic of the X-32, while maintaining the aerodynamic design, layout and wing area of ​​the predecessor (at least in X-32 photos that got into the network, there are NO external differences) and the previous flight speed reaches twice as high - a mystery

        In your case, not even a mystery - but witchcraft. Devilry! ))))
        So that you can figure out your mistake, go on the other side. Take a break and imagine that she still flies on 40 and even 50 km. I understand that you are denying this, but imagine, you can do it. Proceed from the axiom that can not be doubted that it flies, and try to understand what engineering solutions this can be achieved. And perhaps everything will fall into place.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 November 2017 09: 16 New
          +2
          It goes to 40 km at the apogee, along a ballistic trajectory. For a moment

          The rest of the flight takes place at half the height, like its predecessor
          Stable flight based on aerodynamic forces at an altitude of 40-45 km, while maintaining the layout of dimensions x-22 and speed 3-4М - impossible

          Here is an explanation. And if we talk about it as an SM-2ER / SM-6 air defense breakthrough weapon, such a profile doesn’t give anything - the missile defense will be pulled out at any stage, there is no question of secrecy
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 15 November 2017 09: 29 New
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Here is an explanation.

            I repeat - the calculations are wrong. I don’t have to prove anything, it’s a waste of time. If you want to figure out why it can fly like that - sort it out. She flies like that is a fact. The fact that you cannot figure out how this is possible is not my problem, and not rockets.
            1. Santa Fe
              15 November 2017 10: 24 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59
              She flies like that - it's a fact

              You still stomp foot, for persuasiveness

              By the way, there are at least some official statements on this subject - from tactical missile weapons, the Ministry of Defense

              Here you are, for example, where I read about 40 km
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 15 November 2017 11: 01 New
                +1
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Here you are, for example, where I read about 40 km

                I don’t have to read. I know that you can easily cram it into these 40. And on 50 you can. And she will fly there. Yours is not a problem.

                On 60, it’s probably already problematic. There it is already easier to create a new rocket than to finish this.
                1. Santa Fe
                  15 November 2017 11: 27 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  I know that you can safely push these 40. And on 50 is possible. And she will fly there

                  Well, ka, and MiG-25 there you can push?
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 15 November 2017 12: 14 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    Well, ka, and MiG-25 there you can push?

                    No, MiG-25 can not. No way. (((
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 15 November 2017 11: 17 New
            +3
            But in vain. Do you seriously think that someone would start adopting a direct-flying bandura without reducing the EPR and electronic warfare? No, I understand that only corrupt officials are sitting in the Russian Defense Ministry, but not to the same extent
  28. Tektor
    Tektor 14 November 2017 11: 05 New
    0
    To ensure these characteristics, four tons of dimethylhydrazine (TG-2) and concentrated nitric acid (AK-27I) were pumped into the tanks of the rocket. If, during the refueling process, a leak occurred, the spilled acid had to be neutralized with no less caustic alkali. Leaks were commonplace, because concentrated nitric acid had an important property - high aggressiveness, leading to rapid corrosive destruction of metals.
    Strange ... For a long time, fuel and oxidizer tanks for LRE have been amplifying, i.e. No refueling required. Really, X-22 has such a crap? It needs to be eliminated, or replace the X-22 with X32, based on the saving of real costs.
  29. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 14 November 2017 14: 21 New
    0
    Yes, I was surprised.
  30. Old26
    Old26 14 November 2017 16: 33 New
    0
    Quote: juborg
    here is the admin (us!) himself (mime!) not ashamed to post such nonsense about holes of 22 m² on the resource?

    "Do not shoot the pianist. He plays as best he can."
    The figure is 22 square meters. meters and a piercing depth of 12 meters wander from one article to another on various resources for 10-20 years, no less. Some authors try to get around these slippery numbers, others write. Considering that the head of a rocket is explosive-cumulative and of approximately 950 kg it is almost 500 kg explosive, it can be assumed that as a result of hitting the target there may be a hole of 22 square meters and burned to a depth of 12. That is, the explosive part warheads makes a hole of 22 squares, and its cumulative part burns to a depth of 12 meters.
    So here neither Oleg nor the editors are to blame for this nonsense. These figures regularly go from resource to resource, and Oleg probably does not have access to X-22 restricted materials
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 14 November 2017 19: 41 New
      0
      And thank God that they don’t have access to classified materials ...
  31. Ace Tambourine
    Ace Tambourine 14 November 2017 19: 37 New
    +5
    What can I say ...
    Even the word Nonsense somehow doesn’t fit .. Already in the distant 80s of my service in the air defense of the 75s and 200s they stood on the database tucked up with the same muck, and the start time depended only on the promotion of gyroscopes ...
    But, in general, it seems to me that this home-grown Analitig is nothing but a troll from the Pentagram ... Heaps up on the air deliberate nonsense, and the "brave" patriots with foam at the mouth begin to refute, citing TTX and their own experience, but in fact in fact, the band-eared analysts draw their conclusions ... So, gentlemen, comrades, hold your tongues, and either simply ignore this mundial, well, or whatever ...
    Dear Kaptsov ... Maybe a ray about transgender people in the army of your beloved country?
    Along the way, is it closer to your 5th selling point?
  32. Tests
    Tests 15 November 2017 00: 23 New
    +3
    I never thought that I had been haunted by ghosts for a year and a half, because "there was never any X-22 cruise missile as a weapon." For each alarm, the 121 Guards Red Banner Sevastopol TBAP serviced by our base at Machulishchi airfield near Minsk used to “haul” ghosts to different training ranges on Tu-22, right up to Balkhash. It was in 1983-84. The aircraft, like a missile carrier, was made in the 60s, the first X-22s appeared at the same time, rocket modifications appeared in the 70s ... Yes, carts carrying missiles from the "secretaries" to non-ZIL-131 planes were dragged , as in the photo, but “Zil-157”, some of them were from the 70s of release, still without a power steering. And the old Zilka guys coped with their work quite well ... While serving in the fire brigade, I went to the fuel and lubricant warehouse several times. There was nothing unusual in the refueling of rockets. I remember once having spilled oxidizer with sweeps. And there were days when I was in the hospital (more than three weeks), I sat on my lip (13 days for 4 times), went to checkpoints at the checkpoint, in the kitchen, at the headquarters of the unit and on command (as if to count them). My colleagues left in those days. Work as work was, at a gas station for missiles, a routine ... Well, okay, I was a conscript on Long-Range Aviation of the USSR. And in the Caspian Sea near the Tyuleny Islands ships with distant thoughts leaked far pilots?
    The network has a site for the regiment's veterans and the site “Bright Tu-22 Aircraft” there are memories of pilots and technicians, but the men don’t know that they served with ghosts, which they could not cook, hang, fly with them, and most importantly ...
  33. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 15 November 2017 07: 29 New
    +1
    Oleg! Thank you for the article!
  34. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 15 November 2017 07: 39 New
    +3
    SW Commentators! That's why Oleg is good, which brings us to discussion. And, earlier, it was extremely interesting to read the comments on his articles. Especially from really versed in the matter. But the current "autofire" hurt. There is something to say, write, but do not stoop to insults.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 18 November 2017 20: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Ecilop
      That's why Oleg is good, which brings us to discussion.

      Sorry, but Oleg is just a fat troll: he sketched and left. in the discussion of this “article” it has already been proved (once again), there is no connection between Oleg’s fantasies and reality. question to administrators: why are Oleg’s fantasies still printed in the “weapons” section, and not in the “opinions” section?
      Again, multiculturalism from Oleg. how many accounts does he have?
      I never thought that hype is important for VO.
      1. Grim Reaper
        Grim Reaper 22 November 2017 00: 20 New
        +1
        Danil! I disagree with you. Oleg, offhand, almost 500 "or more?" articles on the site, and every second causes a heated discussion. Yes, he’s probably wrong about something, yes, he writes “from emotions” ...... but don’t say that his publications are not interesting, don’t say that it is not interesting to read comments on his articles.
        ps. Yes, I do not know what a hype is.
  35. Jackking
    Jackking 15 November 2017 19: 52 New
    0
    An article by a man in love with the opinion that he is “the most intelligent and brilliant”
  36. 3danimal
    3danimal 16 November 2017 20: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: DyniaQ
    But the worst thing is that after causing damage of 22 m2 or less, the NUCLEAR WAR !!! We are obviously weaker, but we are not going to give up, I think that 4-5 m for nuclear weapons is not a miss. I think our guys have already loaded all the nuclear warheads, and now they are shooting.

    Fortunately, you are mistaken, you are our warlike;)
    A limited nuclear conflict (on neutral territory) will occur only if one of the parties uses nuclear weapons. Further - it depends on how hot the heads of the military and politicians are “red” and “blue”. You can go the path of escalation and reach full-blown exchange of blows. Or it is prudent to freeze a hot conflict by switching to "cold" actions.
    On neutral territory, a convention conflict, having begun, is likely to remain so. Because "Americans and Russians also love their children." And the elite is trying not to let the people frost-bitten into power.
    The Russian Federation can use nuclear weapons only during hostilities on its territory (and if the prospect of defeat is obvious). The United States does not threaten this, so their missiles and bombs from special. Warheads will fly only in response.
    As an example, remember the story of the Russian Su-24 shot down by Turkey. There was that slap in the face (they didn’t even leave the opportunity to “shut up” the incident, directly stating “we did it and we can repeat it”). The answer was in the form of an outflow of tourists and tomatoes ... Conclusion - do not exaggerate the determination of the leadership of the Russian Federation.
  37. wbigfire
    wbigfire 17 November 2017 15: 49 New
    +3
    Kaptsov such kaptsov! I served as a technician on the TU-22M3. And the X-22 and under the fuselage and under the wing hung repeatedly. Bullshit is written by Mr. Kaptsov. The technical composition of the two groups — the armament and the radio technical support of the regiment — without tension, coped and would cope with the task of suspending and preparing the aircraft from the Kh-22 for departure on time. And I don’t remember something during my entire service so that someone would seriously “get caught” in the fuel components during their maintenance. Alcohol used to splash when docked with an on-board cooling system, but that's it! Both for training and practical launches with the X-22, the flight crew flew. And not only "specially trained" but all crews. Of course, not in bulk, but gradually everyone alternately flew. And it is not strange for Mr. Koptsov - they did! where it was necessary.
  38. silver169
    silver169 18 November 2017 07: 29 New
    0
    Nonsense! Kaptsov, you?
  39. abc_alex
    abc_alex 18 November 2017 21: 20 New
    +3
    I have been watching Mr. Kaptsov silently for quite some time. Delivers, you know :)

    X-22 causes fatal injuries even without the use of a nuclear charge. With the approach speed in 800, m / s, the breach area was 22 sq. m, and the internal compartments of the ships were burned with a cumulative jet to a depth of 12 m.


    Well, firstly, it would not be bad to give a link to the original, or at least bother to quote the quotation. So that people can read the original article by Ryabov Cyril "Cruise missile X-22" dated December 20, 2013. This is necessary at least in order not to fool people with their heads, because the original article says:

    H-22 missile with homing on target could carry high-explosive fragmentation cumulative or nuclear warhead with an explosion power of 200-350 ct


    Then it becomes clear when she leaves behind a hole of 20 square meters, and that this is definitely not done due to the cumulative impact. And most importantly, the original article says:

    Tests have shown that high-explosive fragmentation or cumulative warheads can cause serious damage even to large and well-protected ships. So, after a missile flying at a speed of about 800 m / s hit, a hole with an area of ​​up to 22 square meters remained on board the target ship. m, and the cumulative stream hit internal structures to a depth of 12 meters. When attacking ground targets, the warhead could destroy the shop of a plant or a railway bridge.


    Not "burned", dear you are our whistleblower, but Hit. It may be difficult for you to admit it, but in the world there are a lot of people who are no more stupid than you. ;) And your whole pathos of revelation about the "rocket from Baikonur" is actually at the shkololo level.

    But this is not the funniest thing in your article. The complete rzhach is that you took the materials for your "exposure" from the same article, from where the arguments for exposing them come from.

    Here is what you read:
    According to the test results, the high-explosive impact of warheads containing 250 - 300 kg of high-explosive explosives was enough to completely destroy a typical factory workshop, railway tunnel or bridge. When practicing the use of missiles for naval purposes, carried out at the southern training ground of the 3rd Main Directorate of the Air Force Research Institute in the Caspian Sea, getting a missile on board a target ship caused damage that could even incapacitate even a cruiser or an aircraft carrier. The size of the hole reached 22 mg, and internal compartments burned by cumulative jet to a depth of 12 m. Even when a missile with an inert warhead without explosives hit, a one and a half ton supersonic “arrow”, it happened, flashed the ship through and through!


    This is the Markovsky you quoted. Apparently from an excess of competence he will replace the word "marveled" with the word "burned out". What excited Mr. Kaptsov to another opus.
    So you would decide on the attitude to the source: you either make fun of it, or rely on it. If the first, then your stories about the operation of the X-22 are not worth a damn, and if the second, then you have to admit that the cumulative charge still burns the ships 12 meters deep :)

    And such a thing. If you are interested in how aerodynamic planes can operate at high altitudes at “6 max”, you should remember why the wing of a supersonic plane is many times thinner than the subsonic wing, perhaps this will lead you to the path of correct reasoning. :)