Military Review

New American RCC will be "invisible" and autonomous

152
New American anti-ship long-range missile LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) uses stealth technology from the strategic bomber B-2, transmits Lenta.ru report Post LRASM project manager Joe Mancini from the company Lockheed Martin.




According to him, “the rocket will be equipped with a passive radar system, as opposed to an active one designed to receive external signals, rather than transmitting them - this makes it difficult for the enemy to detect the LRASM, which analyzes its signal that is used in the guidance system”.

The latter is based on the miniaturization of radio-electronic systems used in the B-2, as well as the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets.

Mancini also said that the rocket "will receive a wide-angle scanning antenna and an artificial intelligence system that allows autonomously making a decision about destroying the target, relying on the electronic library of ships."

The stated LRASM range is more than 900 kilometers, which is 3 times as large as the current Harpoon.

It is reported that one new missile is capable of destroying an enemy ship with a displacement of 9 thousand tons.

In July, 2017, the US Department of Defense announced the purchase of 23 LRASM for aircraft of the Air Force and Navy. The adoption of the missile is expected in 2018 year.
Photos used:
http://eurasian-defence.ru
152 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 8 December 2017 15: 07 New
    10
    Well, our X-101 is already flying, and on its basis they make long-range missiles. Let them surpass.
    1. Monos
      Monos 8 December 2017 15: 15 New
      16
      Dushenov spoke in detail about this.
      1. Going
        Going 8 December 2017 15: 42 New
        +6
        The spiral went to unwind, only now we will see how they catch up with us in this matter, and they should not even think about the combination of price and quality.
    2. Lexus
      Lexus 8 December 2017 15: 25 New
      +7
      LRASM turned out to be quite compact (almost 3 times in comparison with the X-101) and is intended including for tactical aircraft. If the mosek around us is then equipped with them, it will still be unpleasant. 100 wasps = 1 elephant.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 December 2017 19: 11 New
        +6
        It will be unpleasant when they adopt the ships - missile arsenals, based on the San Antonio BDK with 588 universal launch cells.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 9 December 2017 00: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: lexus
        100 wasps = 1 elephant.

        1 elephant = 10 wasps
        Quote: lexus
        LRASM is compact enough

        Slow and unreliable. You understand that while the LRASM will look for enemy ships which might not be there, the hypothetical battle of the Russian and American fleets will have time to end several times.
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 9 December 2017 01: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: KaPToC
          Slow and unreliable. You understand that while the LRASM will look for enemy ships which might not be there, the hypothetical battle of the Russian and American fleets will have time to end several times.

          what does it mean to go, where? The Americans, in contrast to the target designation, everything is fine.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 9 December 2017 09: 55 New
            0
            Quote: MadCat
            what does it mean to go, where? The Americans, in contrast to the target designation, everything is fine.

            If they had everything perfectly, they would not have invented all this hemorrhoids with the "search for a snake". Their nichrome is not normal, problems with guidance are similar to ours.
            1. MadCat
              MadCat 9 December 2017 20: 05 New
              0
              Quote: KaPToC
              If they had everything perfectly, they would not have invented all this hemorrhoids with the "search for a snake". Their nichrome is not normal, problems with guidance are similar to ours.

              to add a couple of lines of code is not a “hemorrhoids", they have it by default the homing head allows you to do. This is a scenario with an active jammer, just one of many.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 9 December 2017 20: 48 New
                0
                Quote: MadCat
                to add a couple of lines of code is not a “hemorrhoids", they have it by default the homing head allows you to do.

                I will not argue on the technical side of the issue, although I’m sure that everything is not so simple, but you should understand that the further the goal, the larger the search area and the less fuel (time) to search.
                1. MadCat
                  MadCat 10 December 2017 02: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  but you must understand that the farther the goal, the larger the search area and the less fuel (time) to search.

                  with a maximum range of 900 km, they can afford it, while competitors have 3 times shorter range.
    3. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 8 December 2017 15: 26 New
      +2
      Striped overshoot flash ..... in Russian that is, such missiles ..... now catch up
    4. Chertt
      Chertt 8 December 2017 15: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: NEXUS
      Well, our X-101 is already flying,

      Everything with an adult is with mattresses. We measure rockets in the toilet
      1. Berber
        Berber 8 December 2017 16: 46 New
        +3
        Especially ours more. laughing
        1. In100gram
          In100gram 8 December 2017 18: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: BerBer
          Especially ours more.

          Ours is better and more accurate soldier
    5. Zhelezyakin
      Zhelezyakin 8 December 2017 15: 48 New
      +5
      The main thing is that it does not work out so much not visible, like hatches on the F-35)))
    6. ZVO
      ZVO 8 December 2017 17: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: NEXUS
      Well, our X-101 is already flying, and on its basis they make long-range missiles. Let them surpass.


      X-101 anti-ship?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 December 2017 17: 39 New
        +3
        Quote: ZVO
        X-101 anti-ship?

        As far as I know, they also make an anti-punishable option ... but if it will be easier for you, Zircon is on the way. Has it become easier?
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 8 December 2017 17: 56 New
          +9
          Quote: NEXUS
          Quote: ZVO
          X-101 anti-ship?

          As far as I know, they also make an anti-punishable option ... but if it will be easier for you, Zircon is on the way. Has it become easier?


          Who needs an 8 meter (and this is without a starting accelerator) fool in the anti-ship version?
          Well, think about it with your head ...

          Zircon is a fiction. Updated Onyx and nothing more ....
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 30 New
            0
            Quote: ZVO
            Who needs an 8 meter (and this is without a starting accelerator) fool in the anti-ship version?

            But shaw, the carrier of this wunderwaffle is smaller in size? So than dropping bombs (rockets), it is easier to carry the bomb (rockets) to shreds. Moreover, it is definitely larger, flies higher and therefore - more visible.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 06: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: SergeBS
              But shaw, the carrier of this wunderwaffle is smaller in size?

              Naturally, she climbs in MK41 :)
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 9 December 2017 00: 44 New
            +3
            Quote: ZVO
            Zircon is a fiction. Updated Onyx and nothing more ....

            LRASM fiction - an updated ax and nothing more.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 9 December 2017 06: 08 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          As far as I know, they make an anti-punishable option.

          Well, we haven’t "seen so far" the "anti-punitive" version of the X-101! An “alternative” to LRASM can be (to some extent!) X-32! And what? Range (according to various sources) from 600 to 1000 km; attacks the target from an altitude of 40-km with almost hypersonic speed ... ANN guidance with the possibility of correction ... ARGSN with the possibility of passive detection of radio emissions.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 10: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            And what?

            Yes, nothing ... Liquid - i.e. hemorrhoids with storage / preparation for use. Only Tu-22M3M can carry it, today we have 10 of them, according to the plan there will be 30, but this missile will not be put on the ship. Well, in everything else ... On the X-32, it is almost certainly active / passive radar, as on the LRASM, but there is no OLS.
            In general, a rocket is suitable, but that's all for one type of aircraft, and the Yankees can be put on any tactical corps and it’s better to hang them on tactical + guidance. Our takes at the expense of speed, the American at the expense of stealth, it turns out approximately equivalent
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 9 December 2017 13: 44 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes, nothing ... Liquid - i.e. hemorrhoids with storage / preparation for use.

              Oh trouble. Have you tried to learn the materiel? I give a tip: container (capsule) missiles. Completely cut by 1993, the 8K84 was containerized. With storage for years - no problem. Preparation - promotion of gyroscopes, which is NOT connected with fuel.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 15: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: SergeBS
                Oh trouble. Have you tried to learn the materiel?

                Are you talking to me?:))))))
                Quote: SergeBS
                I give a tip: container (capsule) missiles.

                Gave. Now, on your tip, look at the X-32. Where are the capsules? :))))))) Do you even understand the difference between the ICBMs in the mine and the Kyrgyz Republic on an airplane?
                1. SergeBS
                  SergeBS 21 December 2017 01: 16 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Where are the capsules? :)))))))

                  Little child, not a capsule, but a capsule. Mabuta.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Do you even understand the difference between ICBMs in the mine and the Kyrgyz Republic on an airplane?

                  Such an ordinary torpedo is also a capsule, in a way. She was blundered by the target, and all that is needed for movement is "inside her." Without any charges. This is to make it clear.
                  By the way, the same for rocket torpedoes. And under water, it’s “a little” harder to ensure combat readiness. For instance.
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 9 December 2017 15: 09 New
              0
              Why are you so inattentively reading other people's "comments" ?! Did I point out that X-32 is the "complete analogue" of LRASM ??? belay If there is no “full analogue”, then “approximation” (!) Is taken to one degree or another!
              By the way, your conclusions can also be called "categorical" ... for example:
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Liquid - i.e. hemorrhoids with storage / preparation for use

              Yes, the situation is not "sugar"! But here, not everything is “unequivocal” ...: with the improvement of technologies, the LRE also changes: these are “encapsulated” missiles (moreover, the technology of encapsulated missiles has not exhausted all the possibilities for improvement); and "quasi-LRE" with gel-like (quasi-liquid) fuel ... Encapsulated missiles can be stored for years without constant "special maintenance".
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Only Tu-22М3М can drag it, today we have such 10, according to the plan there will be 30, but this rocket will not be transported to the ship

              X-32 is not a box with cartridges for you! Too many of them and it is not necessary ... not to shoot from a machine gun! Hence the “air armada” for the X-32 is not needed. There will be 30 Tu-22M3M-and that’s good!
              Weapons are not always universal in terms of carriers ... the armaments being created are (both in our country and in NATO (!) Specialized in carriers, which determines the methodology for use ... this is just true for X-32
              A few words on the topic: ships and anti-ship missiles ... compare the dimensions of anti-ship missiles X-32, П-500, П-700 ...
              MORE: the methods of "intellectual behavior" of anti-ship missiles are not a secret for Russian designers ... take, for example, the performance characteristics of the same P-500, P-700 ... already very old missiles.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 15: 35 New
                +1
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                If there is no “full analogue”, then “approximation” (!) Is taken to one degree or another!

                Well, so I wrote in response that
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In general, a rocket is suitable

                more...
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                X-32 is not a box with cartridges for you! Too many of them and it is not necessary ... not to shoot from a machine gun! Hence the “air armada” for the X-32 is not needed. There will be 30 Tu-22M3M-and that’s good!

                yes, but Ukrainians have 3 armored boats enough to ditch the Navy of the Black Sea Fleet :)))))
                In general, the Tu-22M3 regiment is this minimum to counter one aircraft carrier. The USA has 10 AB, we have one regiment Tu-22M3M.
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                MORE: methods of "intellectual behavior" of RCC are not a secret for Russian designers ..

                It will not help our frigate when lasm shy on it.
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 9 December 2017 15: 39 New
                  0
                  There was no such term in the USSR
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  minimum to counter one aircraft carrier

                  but it was necessary for guaranteed destruction
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 16: 07 New
                    +1
                    Quote: KaPToC
                    There was no such term in the USSR

                    Did not have
                    Quote: KaPToC
                    but it was necessary for guaranteed destruction

                    It was. And there was such an indicator as probable losses, which reached 80% of the number of Tu-22M3. So your cue is incomprehensible
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 9 December 2017 16: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      So your cue is incomprehensible

                      I’ll clarify my remark once you don’t understand
                      We will destroy the aircraft carrier "non-guaranteed"
                    2. SergeBS
                      SergeBS 21 December 2017 01: 28 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And there was such an indicator as probable losses, which reached 80% of the number of Tu-22M3.

                      And "in the materiel" at the AUG regiment Tu-22 aimed for guaranteed destruction. Probable speech loss was not discussed for an obvious reason - there will be no survivors in the "big mess" with the use of nuclear weapons. That Launch Strategic Missile Forces, that the SSBNs, that the airfields of the dalnyak and strategists will be destroyed by a "potential adversary", therefore their task is to inflict damage on this adversary unacceptable for further existence before destruction. In short - suicide bombers.
  2. Berber
    Berber 8 December 2017 15: 12 New
    +7
    Apparently subsonic. The Americans are lagging behind. But the electronics are probably 5 s +.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 8 December 2017 16: 21 New
      +6
      on our approach, the Pantsir-ME air defense system shoots 36 km in range - the entire radio horizon.
      Phased Array Radar cm1RS1-1 range
      Radar with phased array antennas cm и mm1RS2 and 1RS2-1 Helmet bands for tracking air targets and guiding missiles.
      an optical-electronic complex with an infrared direction finder for additional search of targets according to radar data, with the determination of the angular coordinates of objects.
      RLM SOC S-band, for the detection, recognition and auto tracking of targets in the presence of active or passive interference with a detection range and tracking of more than 40 kilometers. At the same time accompanies up to 40 goals.
      1. Berber
        Berber 8 December 2017 16: 40 New
        +1
        Thank. I did not know that.
        1. Viktor.12.71
          Viktor.12.71 8 December 2017 18: 14 New
          +1
          If the Americans really implement everything they promised in a rocket, it will be hard against them. The video shows who they are creating their rockets against. They will be adopted in 2018.
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 33 New
            +1
            To promise is not to marry. winked
            Wunderwaffles SR-71, F-117 ALREADY "HUNDREDED". With all his advertising for the company. winked
          2. Aqr009
            Aqr009 8 December 2017 23: 14 New
            +1
            Judging by the video, she will have machine vision in a very wide spectrum, significantly exceeding human. In fact, sound and electromagnetic waves will form part of its spectrum! It is clear why she will not radiate anything, she will perceive everything "by eye"! belay
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 9 December 2017 06: 19 New
              0
              Quote: Aqr009
              part of its spectrum will be sound and electromagnetic waves!

              Did you read Okedov about the "sound waves"? what So far, it’s “clear” that the LRASM has a passive RF guidance system (like PRGSN)
              Quote: Aqr009
              , she will perceive everything "by eye"!

              So ... if "she" is offered something "tasty" ..., "she" can "eat."
          3. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 9 December 2017 06: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Viktor.12.71
            realize in a rocket all that promised, it will be hard against them.

            Hard, but not hopeless! What are the “strong” qualities of LRASM? 1. "Stealth-invisibility"; 2.Lack of active homing ... Hence countermeasures: 1.activation of developments to detect "stealth" and sufficient equipment of aircraft with appropriate means; 2.Equipment of aircraft with electronic warfare devices that "synthesize" electronic portraits "very" attractive "to LRASM ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 10: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Lack of active homing ...

              It is, these are journalists ...
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 9 December 2017 13: 51 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It is, these are journalists ...

                Even journalists do not write “eat,” but “will.” This is the main thing. The whole text - "we will make a child prodigy, she will have ....".
  3. Warrior-80
    Warrior-80 8 December 2017 15: 16 New
    +2
    In general, there’s nothing new in it, why there isn’t the speed of the most important thing, in the military district the same tamahawk practically, our missiles also fly with a passive guidance head, the active one turns on only at the last stage when it’s too late to do something, the distribution of targets is artificial intelligence fool
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 8 December 2017 17: 37 New
      +4
      Quote: Warrior-80
      In general, there is nothing new in it:


      It has a lot of intellectual new electronic ...
      And GOS, and satellite and not only communications ...
      Lots of.
      1. poquello
        poquello 8 December 2017 18: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: ZVO
        Quote: Warrior-80
        In general, there is nothing new in it:


        It has a lot of intellectual new electronic ...
        And GOS, and satellite and not only communications ...
        Lots of.

        many, many, but we will not tell the patam what is secret, but it’s obvious to everyone
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2017 17: 41 New
      15
      Quote: Warrior-80
      In general, there’s nothing new in it, why there isn’t the speed of the most important thing;

      Yeah :))) Nothing that a rocket fully embodies all the ideas of flocking laid down in Granite (data exchange between missiles, distribution of targets, etc.) has its own electronic warfare (like granite) but on a new technological base? Is there anything in addition to the multimode radar operating in both active and passive mode (this is now on our RCCs) there is also an OLS that is aimed at the image of the ship (that is, in the old days, remote control, only on its own)? Nothing stealth?
      And so yes, tomahawk :)
      1. poquello
        poquello 8 December 2017 18: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Warrior-80
        In general, there’s nothing new in it, why there isn’t the speed of the most important thing;

        Yeah :))) Nothing that a rocket fully embodies all the ideas of flocking laid down in Granite (data exchange between missiles, distribution of targets, etc.) has its own electronic warfare (like granite) but on a new technological base? Is there anything in addition to the multimode radar operating in both active and passive mode (this is now on our RCCs) there is also an OLS that is aimed at the image of the ship (that is, in the old days, remote control, only on its own)? Nothing stealth?
        And so yes, tomahawk :)

        enemy spies steal along with kaz, but so far they will debug that kaz that pcr time will pass, and our new ones will introduce
  4. gafarovsafar
    gafarovsafar 8 December 2017 15: 18 New
    0
    then what? knock down impossible chtoli? experts your opinion?
    1. Aqr009
      Aqr009 8 December 2017 23: 37 New
      +1
      Given that its AI will process the data received, including using the machine vision system, it will be possible to deceive it. After all, we are armed with inflatable tanks, inflatable anti-aircraft systems, why not make inflatable pilothouses or even inflatable ship silhouettes. wink
      1. MadCat
        MadCat 9 December 2017 02: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Aqr009
        After all, we are armed with inflatable tanks, inflatable anti-aircraft systems, why not make inflatable pilothouses or even inflatable ship silhouettes. wink

        also fill them into torpedo launchers and shoot false self-blowing targets with self-heating with a radar with gun mounts and the dimensions of a natural size (otherwise this enemy missile will not lead) ... I think it will be easier to build another ship. lol
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 9 December 2017 08: 37 New
          0
          Quote: MadCat
          I think it will be easier to build another ship.

          Read about the Nulka Mk234 "missile" missile target ...
  5. Jackyun
    Jackyun 8 December 2017 15: 21 New
    +3
    I can be mistaken, but ... Stupidly passive GOS needs to highlight the target. Thus, the carrier of the guidance station is needed and it must be air. Nobody canceled the physics of radio wave propagation. The backlight, of course, can be discrete, but with sufficiently long intervals for the correct detection of a maneuvering target and path correction. Thus, suppressing electronic warfare or destroying the backlight carrier multiplies this pepelats by zero. The inertia system and GPS can only be brought to the target area. And what will induce on the attack site?
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 8 December 2017 17: 38 New
      +3
      Quote: Jackyun
      I can be mistaken, but ... Stupidly passive GOS needs to highlight the target ....
      And what will induce on the attack site?


      1. Read about anti-radar missiles.
      2. We read about the operation algorithms of the GOS AMRAAAM rocket version D.
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: ZVO
        1. Read about anti-radar missiles.

        Yeah. And in the last century, these missiles were very simply placed in the pose of a “buridan donkey”: 2 air defense radars worked in turn. As a result of passive guidance - kaput. Although, of course, it’s scary - "what if a neighbor doesn’t wave a locator - then" happiness "will fly to me." But this is a matter of coherence, as in an infantry attack by echelons of the 1st - 2nd. 1st runs - 2nd shoots, 2nd runs - 1st shoots.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 9 December 2017 15: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: SergeBS
          Quote: ZVO
          1. Read about anti-radar missiles.

          Yeah. And in the last century, these missiles were very simply placed in the pose of a “buridan donkey”: 2 air defense radars worked in turn. As a result of passive guidance - kaput. Although, of course, it’s scary - "what if a neighbor doesn’t wave a locator - then" happiness "will fly to me." But this is a matter of coherence, as in an infantry attack by echelons of the 1st - 2nd. 1st runs - 2nd shoots, 2nd runs - 1st shoots.

          We read about how a couple of years after the first combat use of the PRLR, they began to put in them a system for storing radar coordinates.
          And we understand.
          That turning off the radar does not mean its salvation.
          The missile continues to attack the target not at its signal. but by its coordinates.
          Since the flight speed of the PRLR is very high - not a single more or less large radar can be saved ...
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 22 December 2017 22: 15 New
            0
            Quote: ZVO
            That turning off the radar does not mean its salvation.

            Baby, don’t worry. Passive guidance - it is precisely passive. If in your "super-smart" warhead there are already TWO coordinates of the target (and in fact - the average between them), then where will this warhead fly? Will it be divided in half or between them?
            Well, quite a “subtle” hint: the radar itself didn’t bother anyone. She gives target designation. And it could very well aim at the “super-smart” petty missile defense division of self-defense (not an infantry barrier, but something abruptly). Since it is needed alive by the missile defense batteries, and not by the gouging, as a result of which it is not clear where to shoot.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 23 December 2017 10: 38 New
              0
              Quote: SergeBS
              Quote: ZVO
              That turning off the radar does not mean its salvation.

              Baby, don’t worry. Passive guidance - it is precisely passive. If in your "super-smart" warhead there are already TWO coordinates of the target (and in fact - the average between them), then where will this warhead fly? Will it be divided in half or between them?
              Well, quite a “subtle” hint: the radar itself didn’t bother anyone.


              Grandpa, look at the tactics of using anti-radar missiles ....
              And then do not carry nonsense ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 December 2017 19: 26 New
      +3
      Quote: Jackyun
      I can be mistaken, but ... Stupidly passive GOS needs to highlight the target.

      Or in the source of radio emission, to which she directs RCC. And a modern ship will provide her with these sources above the roof.
      Moreover, based on an analysis of the detected sources, RCC can even classify the target: if the dagger radar and the AK-630 are shining, then with a high degree of probability it is pr. 1155. If the Hurricane is the same AK-630 - pr. 956. If the “dagger” and AK-630 were added “daggers” - “Kuznetsov”. And if also “fort” - “Peter the Great”. If the "fort", "wasp" and AK-630 - pr. 1164.
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 12 New
        0
        And the immeasurable palliative RCC is enough to scan the entire range. Especially considering EW. We will not confuse radio intelligence with anti-ship missiles. RCC about recognition of radiation sources - "the pipe is lower, the smoke is thinner ..."
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 9 December 2017 00: 49 New
          0
          Quote: SergeBS
          And the immeasurable PPC

          The smarter the rocket, the more vulnerable it is to electronic warfare
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 06: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: SergeBS
          And the immeasurable puzzling RCC is enough to scan the entire range

          Naturally, you don’t need much mind for this
          Quote: SergeBS
          Especially considering EW

          Which against passivation is of little use
          Quote: SergeBS
          We will not confuse radio intelligence with anti-ship missiles. RCC about recognition of radiation sources - "the pipe is lower, the smoke is thinner ..."

          By itself. But the Shtatovtsy (by the way, in our image and likeness) bogged down the active-passive GOS, as I understand it, i.e. able to work in both modes. And added OLS. It is clear that everything can be fooled, but they can be said to have ridden the maximum of what is possible and to reject such a missile will be VERY hard
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 9 December 2017 09: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Which against passivation is of little use

            Why on earth? Against rockets MLRS applicable and against more complex missiles - no?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 10: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: KaPToC
              Why on earth?

              Can you explain the mechanism? :) How to apply interference against a passive GOS? :)
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 9 December 2017 10: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Can you explain the mechanism? :) How to apply interference against a passive GOS? :)

                electronic warfare is not only interference.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 11: 58 New
                  +1
                  not a question, just explain how you see the electronic warfare against a passive seeker
                  1. SergeBS
                    SergeBS 9 December 2017 13: 54 New
                    0
                    As turntables throw thermal traps, so do airplanes throw radio traps. We already have this.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 15: 29 New
                      +1
                      Quote: SergeBS
                      As turntables throw thermal traps, so do airplanes throw radio traps.

                      Hassle, there is, and may even work.
                      But the problem is that LRASM has the ability to select, i.e. she will try to distinguish the operation of the trap from ship systems. And taking into account the active-passive GOS, it can also check for the presence of the corresponding EPR signature.
                      1. SergeBS
                        SergeBS 22 December 2017 22: 22 New
                        0
                        Do not be smart. On the passive already a little "out of work" was. On the "active" will be the same.
                        Active-passive wunderwaffles are already at the “fifth point”.
                        Compose something cooler. Tighten up, just don't tear yourself up. winked
            2. ZVO
              ZVO 9 December 2017 15: 28 New
              +1
              Quote: KaPToC
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Which against passivation is of little use

              Why on earth? Against rockets MLRS applicable and against more complex missiles - no?


              How can the fight against the only electronic device of the MLRS missile, namely the radio altimeter, affect a full-fledged seeker with a million functions?
              If you try to tryndet - so at least try to do it with your head ..
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 9 December 2017 15: 41 New
                0
                Quote: ZVO
                If you try to tryndet - so at least try to do it with your head ..

                What I mean is that the methods of influence may be different, instead of trying, try to expand your horizons.
                1. ZVO
                  ZVO 9 December 2017 15: 43 New
                  0
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Quote: ZVO
                  If you try to tryndet - so at least try to do it with your head ..

                  What I mean is that the methods of influence may be different, instead of trying, try to expand your horizons.


                  About different methods of exposure to GOS - trynichite elsewhere.
                  You are all the same in this alas. not in the subject.
                  That is, you just farted into the puddle once again ... Standard for you ...
                  1. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 9 December 2017 15: 49 New
                    0
                    Quote: ZVO
                    That is, you just farted into the puddle once again ...

                    Strange your craving for "farts in a puddle"! Are you a coprofile?
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 9 December 2017 08: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Jackyun
      Stupidly passive GOS needs target illumination

      Passive radar seeker Does not need special illumination of the target ... that’s why it is “passive” (!) .. PRGSN use their own electromagnetic fields (working and spurious) GOALS.
  6. san4es
    san4es 8 December 2017 15: 22 New
    +7
    New American Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) anti-ship missile uses stealth technology

  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2017 15: 42 New
    +7
    The rocket is super, judging by the descriptions, the caliber is very far from it. In general, I don’t know how with zircon, but apparently the United States has taken the lead
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2017 16: 10 New
        +1
        What hits the mobiles? :) Both caliber and lrasm - pcr, it is clear that both hit the mobiles
    2. GABALIS
      GABALIS 8 December 2017 16: 01 New
      +2
      oh these usa crying
      1. Andrey Panov
        Andrey Panov 8 December 2017 16: 29 New
        0
        Star Wars nervously smoking on the sidelines
    3. Berber
      Berber 8 December 2017 16: 44 New
      +2
      Not that far. Radar and electronics - yes. And they do not have supersonic at all.
      1. Oleg7700
        Oleg7700 8 December 2017 18: 17 New
        +4
        Well then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ER
        AM. 3.5M, up to 500 km. during the tests, the extremely strong and durable 4200t broke in half. "Oliver Hazard Perry." In a specialized, supersonic, with ramjet, Israel will never refuse them.
    4. poquello
      poquello 8 December 2017 18: 26 New
      +5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The rocket is super, judging by the descriptions, the caliber is very far from it. In general, I don’t know how with zircon, but apparently the United States has taken the lead

      still flying backwards, sideways, diving, burrowing into the ground, double and double
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 9 December 2017 00: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: poquello
        twofold and twofold

        This is it propagated by division. He fired one missile weighing a ton and 128 missiles of 8 kg each flew to the target.
    5. SergeBS
      SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The rocket is super, judging by the descriptions

      Judging by the descriptions from the "potential adversary," it was the United States that controlled the entire European coalition under the leadership of Schicklgruber. And that these pindosos depicted the war, but did not fight ("as many as 300 thousand died"!), Of course, not in the set.
      And the Japanese, too, pen.dos won. And the fact that they did not multiply the Kwantung army of 1 million by zero does not count. They heroically fought 25 thousand troops against the 1,5 thousand Mikado garrison - and won. laughing
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 06: 06 New
        +2
        Quote: SergeBS
        Judging by the descriptions of the "potential adversary", it was the United States that controlled the entire European coalition under the leadership of Schicklgruber

        For God's sake, believe in stupid Americans fighting with stone axes.
        1. SergeBS
          SergeBS 9 December 2017 13: 21 New
          0
          The prodigy of F-117 was. According to the descriptions - SUPER! The F-35 prodigy was also super by description, but only upon the fact of flights sad
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 9 December 2017 15: 31 New
            +2
            Quote: SergeBS
            The prodigy of F-117 was. According to the descriptions - SUPER! The F-35 prodigy was also super by description, but only upon the fact of flights sad


            But that’s all. those who tried to fight against Amer’s wunderwafers by throwing hats are already dead or crushed.

            I don’t want this for my country. And ready to push your hat to you in that very place.
            And want. so that our military and our scientists would do the real thing - and not read your toilet fantasies.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 9 December 2017 15: 42 New
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              But that’s all. those who tried to fight against Amer’s wunderwafers by throwing hats are already dead or crushed.

              However, Americans are always fighting at the expense of numerical superiority - the very throwing of their hats - and not at all due to technological superiority.
            2. Berber
              Berber 11 December 2017 13: 38 New
              +1
              There were no corresponding opponents. The whole block of NATO bombed the same Yugoslavia.
            3. SergeBS
              SergeBS 22 December 2017 22: 44 New
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              But that’s all. those who tried to fight against Amer’s wunderwafers by throwing hats are already dead or crushed.

              I don’t want this for my country. And ready to push your hat to you in that very place.
              And want. so that our military and our scientists would do the real thing - and not read your toilet fantasies.

              Oh trouble. It turns out the Yankees are seriously (with a comparable opponent) fought! Find out where and when. Since it’s the p.i.nd.dosskaya strategy - to throw Papuans with "caps" (sorry, F-117 and others). And what you want is your problem.
              Well, "finishing off": what about Vietnam or Afghanistan?
              Who "threw caps" threw them? By chance, not I.N.C.? With a sad result for yourself?
              And "for starters" is quite simple: read YOUR toilet fantasies about the "great warriors from the United States." And better read the story - where these "great warriors" are not raked for the war with a comparable rival.
              The correct answer is ANYWHERE! Even the Japanese, in fact, were given to the Red Army, and not the p.i.d.doskie atomic bombs, for example.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 15: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: SergeBS
            The prodigy of F-117 was. According to the descriptions - SUPER!

            And it turned out to be quite good in reality.
            Quote: SergeBS
            The Wunderwaffle F-35 was also super descriptive

            Yeah. And there was still the magnificent F-15, excellent F-16, very good Abrams, with first-class ammunition that our people could only envy for, there were AMRAAM (which we couldn’t launch at the time) there was a link 16, analogues of which we are appearing only now, there was an excellent station wagon "Harpoon", there was MK41, there was Aegis, there was an AFAR, "Elk", "Sea Wolfe" and there was still a lot of everything.
            But you do not believe - this is all the stories of journalists laughing
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 22 December 2017 22: 48 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And it turned out to be quite good in reality.

              Yeah. A very simple question is in what reality? In Serbian, where the air defense was "for show", but still one was given to the child prodigy?
            2. SergeBS
              SergeBS 22 December 2017 22: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yeah. And there was the magnificent F-15, the excellent F-16, a very good Abrams, with first-class ammunition, which our only could envy

              Yeah. F-15 and F-16 “leaked” air battles even to Indians, and the Abrams turned out to be good only in “Storm in a Glass”, when all the armored vehicles were knocked out by the Air Force BEFORE the clash. Well, a SUPER tank that fights only when no one is around, and then from RPG-7 it flew with a fatal outcome. laughing
            3. SergeBS
              SergeBS 22 December 2017 23: 31 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And it turned out to be quite good in reality.

              Where is this "reality"? Will there be an example? Do not screw the Zambezi, Angola and other "highly armed" places.
  8. gig334
    gig334 8 December 2017 15: 58 New
    +5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The rocket is super, judging by the descriptions, the caliber is very far from it. In general, I don’t know how with zircon, but apparently the United States has taken the lead

    What pulled ahead? Zircon does not give chances to anyone, the enemy can only watch a couple of minutes as it brings death to them. It’s unrealistic to shoot down zircon.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2017 16: 48 New
      +8
      The fact that zircon is not yet visible and it is still unclear what it is, but lrasm already exists and it covers all that we have
      1. shans2
        shans2 8 December 2017 21: 10 New
        +4
        Andryusha from Haifa, didn’t you run the bullshit to carry all this time?) Russia has the X-32 ALREADY in service. and not some new missiles out there in the future, which the United States will launch in the 20s at subsonic speed ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 06: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: shans2
          Russia has X-32 ALREADY in service.

          To your deep misfortune, you are my unreasonable hare, X-32 to LRASM as far as China on four wheels, and through Paris. X-32 - liquid, in fact, you can not continue on.
          The missile was adopted in 2016, yes. By the way, you have a question about backfilling - how many planes can use it? :))) In pieces? :)))
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 9 December 2017 13: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            X-32 - liquid, in fact, you can not continue on.

            Is it possible in more detail? Why are liquid ones really bad? Only reasonably. That liquid is not kosher, because Israel doesn’t really know how to make them - it’s not rolling.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 15: 41 New
              +2
              Quote: SergeBS
              Why are liquid ones really bad?

              poisonous fuel, usually stored separately from the rocket in the Kyrgyz Republic, refueled before launch, according to some sources, the X-32 inherited this problem from the X-22
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 22 December 2017 23: 02 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                poisonous fuel, usually stored separately from rockets in the Kyrgyz Republic,

                Yeah. And where (on what types of missiles) does such "happiness" exist?
                Hint: chatting - not carrying bags. Lie further for "refueled at the airfields of the Kyrgyz Republic." laughing
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 10 December 2017 14: 53 New
              0
              Quote: SergeBS
              Why are liquid ones really bad?

              Well, don't say that! "Liquid" "liquid" -different! “Old-style liquid (non-encapsulated)” - they don’t use it ... “aggressive” fuel, the need to keep (!) Rockets “empty”, the need to refuel shortly (!) Before use, constant checks. But liquid-fuel systems are being improved: 1.encapsulated rockets , allowing them to be stored for a long time (comparatively (!) and ensuring the speed of use; 2. in the short term, the creation of "encapsulated" rockets for gel (quasi-liquid) two-component fuel. Unfortunately, nothing concrete is "said" about the type of Topics: X-32 "liquid propellant rocket engine + liquid fuel" ... It makes you "think" that X-32 is "un-upgraded" ... but then it is possible to "modernize", because there is potential. At present, this is not Estimate how many "Domodernizations" (including repeated ones) are being carried out now, especially as a result of the "Syrian experience"!
              1. SergeBS
                SergeBS 22 December 2017 22: 59 New
                0
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                Well, don't say that! "Liquid" "liquid" -different! "Old-type liquid (unencapsulated)" - niht gut ... "aggressive" fuel, the need to keep (!) Rockets "empty", the need to refuel shortly (!) Before use, constant checks.

                I’ll tell you one simple thing: 8K84 - liquid and ampoule. They were not kept empty, not refueled, and in 1993 (in the last century, by the way) they were cut as obsolete. Continue to continue? Or "a great connoisseur of everything and everywhere"? The skull does not squeeze the brain? laughing
                1. Nikolaevich I
                  Nikolaevich I 23 December 2017 03: 37 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SergeBS
                  The skull does not squeeze the brain?

                  No, it does not press! But your “shard” is too spacious for your brains ... so they “float”, like “dung” in an ice hole ... they won’t find a “permanent home port” wink
                  It’s not interesting for me to “talk” with you! I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yeryoma! fool What does 8K84 have to do with it? request
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 11 December 2017 21: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            By the way, you have a question about backfill - how many planes can use it? :))) In pieces? :)))


            He merged. Such illiterate ryaashapometateli - usually always merge on the first concrete question.
            Just because it's bots.
            Stupid bots. working on manuals.
            And when the question arises in which you need to have at least a little head - they are “FSO”. Disappear.

            Only 1 specially converted aircraft ....
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 22 December 2017 23: 06 New
              0
              For the time being, the “cool connoisseur” of the Kyrgyz Republic “Andrey from Chelyabinsk” merged, because he simply does not know that already in the last century capsule systems were made that did not require refueling during the entire service life (from 5 to 15 years, depending on the type of troops).
              Merge with him for company. laughing
  9. tchoni
    tchoni 8 December 2017 16: 03 New
    +2
    Interesting concept. That is, given the declared range, the source of intelligence for launching a rocket will not be a radar reconnaissance system, but a radio and electronic reconnaissance system. And the rocket itself, in fact, wakes up anti-radar .... It might work.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 8 December 2017 17: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: tchoni
      Interesting concept. That is, given the declared range, the source of intelligence for launching a rocket will not be a radar reconnaissance system, but a radio and electronic reconnaissance system. And the rocket itself, in fact, wakes up anti-radar .... It might work.


      I think that they really liked the AMRAAM ALM-120D GSN which uses the passive mode and the active mode and combines them ...
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 8 December 2017 18: 55 New
        +1
        It could even be.
  10. Dargavs
    Dargavs 8 December 2017 16: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And caliber and lrasm - pcr,

    Since when did Caliber become RCC?
    Cold with Green wassat
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 December 2017 16: 46 New
      11
      Listen, well, if you don’t know that there are calibers in the PCR version, so you don’t put emoticons, learn how to
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 December 2017 19: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: DargAVS
      Since when did Caliber become RCC?

      Since then, as in the family "Caliber" is 3M-54.
      I’ll tell you more - there are anti-submarine "calibres".
  11. Kerensky
    Kerensky 8 December 2017 16: 39 New
    +2
    Source - project manager. Here are a couple of "experts" and the characteristics will grow ...... well, and the price.
  12. anjey
    anjey 8 December 2017 16: 51 New
    0
    New American RCC will be "invisible" and autonomous
    and very, very very expensive, satellites from Europe are getting ready to fork out well for the next “miracle” of the US military complex, they will “kick you in” and you won’t see it — it’s invisible ...
  13. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 8 December 2017 17: 16 New
    +6
    LRASM is a great CRP. So, LRASM has nothing to compare with, except perhaps with JASSM, but this is a bit different.
    Low EPR, excellent range, the ability to hang up to x4-pcs on F / E-18E or x2 on F-35C (in the inner compartment).
    It also breaks into the Mk-41.
    Simply put - PKR wagon!
    1. JD1979
      JD1979 8 December 2017 18: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      LRASM is a great CRP. So, LRASM has nothing to compare with, except perhaps with JASSM, but this is a bit different.
      Low EPR, excellent range, the ability to hang up to x4-pcs on F / E-18E or x2 on F-35C (in the inner compartment).
      It also breaks into the Mk-41.
      Simply put - PKR wagon!

      As ours love to praise themselves - has no analogues in the world. And really does not. Neither in range nor in the brain. Any aircraft starting with F-16 can carry 2-3 missiles with a range of up to 980 km, and spit on any air defense, and B-1B and B-2 - a few dozen. With us, only Tu-22M3 and strategists, and even masses of missiles, can carry missiles of comparable range ...
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 24 New
        0
        Quote: JD1979
        Any aircraft starting with F-16 can carry 2-3 missiles with a range of up to 980 km, and spit on any air defense

        I want proof! Especially about GOALS. The "Caliber" for FIXED targets at 2,500 kM works, and in the anti-ship version - at 500.
  14. Mentat
    Mentat 8 December 2017 18: 15 New
    +1
    artificial intelligence system that allows you to autonomously make a decision on the destruction of the target, relying on the electronic library of ships

    Hello 70s! Soviet RCC already had such a subsystem.
    The main thing is to call it an “artificial intelligence system”, and then it sounds fresh, marketing-wow!
    1. Viktor.12.71
      Viktor.12.71 8 December 2017 18: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Mentat
      Hello 70s!

      Russia does not have such missiles for aviation.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 9 December 2017 01: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Viktor.12.71
        Russia does not have such missiles for aviation.

        Why do Russia need it if it has better?
        1. Viktor.12.71
          Viktor.12.71 9 December 2017 08: 25 New
          0
          Quote: KaPToC
          Why do Russia need it if it has better?

          And what is it? Something I don’t remember, so that RCCs with a range of 900 km could be equipped with fighters, and even in an amount of 2 to 4 pieces.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 9 December 2017 10: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Viktor.12.71
            what is this? Something I don’t remember, so that RCCs with a range of 900 km could be equipped with fighters, and even in an amount of 2 to 4 pieces.

            The problem is not with the battlefield, but with guidance, target designation for the missile. At 900 kilometers, this LRAsM will not hit anyone.
  15. Kent0001
    Kent0001 8 December 2017 19: 33 New
    0
    If stealth technology, then the rocket is unlikely to be very fast.
    1. SergeBS
      SergeBS 8 December 2017 20: 45 New
      +1
      Stealth technology, it's just the dispersion of the irradiation of the locator so that it does not return to the locator. If you lay the centimeters of the wave, then the stealth can go on supersonic. They bubbled the load-bearing structure from the “needles” into a centimeter with a backing, put on a radio-transparent (but not breathable) casing “on top” - and everything is fine with aerodynamics, too, with invisibility on the centimeter.
  16. geoan
    geoan 8 December 2017 19: 39 New
    0
    interesting lope costs enta wunderwafle wassat
  17. Mentat
    Mentat 8 December 2017 21: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Viktor.12.71
    Quote: Mentat
    Hello 70s!

    Russia does not have such missiles for aviation.

    There is a Pine cone, that is, Onyx, which is a hundred years old at lunch, and the Americans only plans. Feel the difference.
    We are preparing for the adoption of Zircon, which the USA has no analogues even in the near future.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 9 December 2017 05: 48 New
      0
      Onyx for aviation no. Zircon and even more so. And lrasm level didn’t even dream of us
  18. Dargavs
    Dargavs 8 December 2017 22: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Listen, well, if you don’t know that there are calibers in the PCR version

    You know, I still didn’t know what to eat, since I didn’t see or hear about the application, and before presenting the facts confirming, can you share information about the anti-satellite “caliber” ???
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 06: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: DargAVS
      and before presenting evidence supporting

      Google banned you?
      http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/3m54e1/
      3m54e1.shtml
      http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/kr/3m54.html
      http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-818.html
  19. Conductor
    Conductor 9 December 2017 06: 26 New
    0
    Will she fly? Or so, sneaking up?
  20. Darvin dv
    Darvin dv 9 December 2017 09: 13 New
    0
    The argument of the super-smart experts is not clear ... After all, our strategy has long been evident that completely breaks off the American ultra-expensive arms race - 1) to shoot down satellites (and there is no target designation, targeting) because of which the Americans screeched sharply, 2) to build a multiple small (preferably underwater) fleet with a large number of missile cells 3) to improve electronic warfare (currently quite good). The main war is economic, because after all, like the DPRK, we need to have time to do all this before hour X.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 10: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: DarvinDV
      The dispute between super-smart experts is not clear ..

      Materiel need to be taught
      Quote: DarvinDV
      ) bring down satellites (and there is no target designation, targeting) because of which the Americans screeched sharply,

      What? :))) Do you even know that, unlike the Americans, we do not have anti-satellite missiles?
      Quote: DarvinDV
      build a multiple small (preferably underwater) fleet with a large number of missile cells

      Already set up 1 Severodvinsk + a bunch of tiny little coyablik, whose ammunition is less than one destroyer Arly Burke
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 9 December 2017 13: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Do you even know that, unlike the Americans, we do not have anti-satellite missiles?

        Do you say such a thing with the look of Sarah, who caught 10 flounders with cowards?
        Google for some reason does not know about Amer’s rockets, but Nudol is successfully moving forward.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 December 2017 15: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: SergeBS
          Do you say such a thing with the look of Sarah, who caught 10 flounders with cowards?

          So I don’t understand how the scream of your knowledge could live to master the computer keyboard.
          Quote: SergeBS
          Google for some reason about Amer’s rockets do not know

          fool Google SM-3, GBMD, and also ASM-135 ASAT. The program of the latter is closed after a series of successful actual interceptions, but ...
          Quote: SergeBS
          but Nudol is successfully moving forward.

          while in the USA there is a rocket ready for production launched from the F-15
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 22 December 2017 23: 15 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Google SM-3, GBMD, and also ASM-135 ASAT. The program of the latter is closed after a series of successful actual interceptions, but ...

            Yeah. Everything was successful until it came to practice ... Well, just like with the F-117 in the past and with the F-35 now. The loot was cut, the log somehow flies - everything is COOL!

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            while in the USA there is a rocket ready for production launched from the F-15

            Yeah. And that "no one saw her alive" - ​​well, so "super secret"! Especially when starting from F-15. Lope there at this super aircraft combat radius? 1000 km typed? laughing
            Otherwise, with whom is this child prodigy going to fight? With the Papuans who have no air defense? laughing
            How this FY-15 will take off from a prodigy - a missile from the United States - is a separate issue. On the subject of who weighed more and how far it will fly.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 23 December 2017 10: 43 New
              0
              Quote: SergeBS

              How this FY-15 will take off from a prodigy - a missile from the United States - is a separate issue. On the subject of who weighed more and how far it will fly.


              Are you up to date with ASAT missiles?
              There are more than enough airfields in Alaska, Japan, Norway, and Greenland to use these missiles ...

              Well, you hammer your aplomb, which is not confirmed by any gray matter, far and for a long time ...
  21. bmv04636
    bmv04636 9 December 2017 15: 49 New
    0
    Recently, the Mascots were lost, they fell off the asshole.
    In Moscow, a massive failure of GPS navigation was recorded. Problems are observed not only in the center of the capital, but throughout the city. Failures in the operation of the satellite navigation system are reported by users of social networks.
    Well, if you consider that we still have a combat battalion in operation, which can change the terrain overnight, where is this miracle political drinks
  22. Mentat
    Mentat 9 December 2017 21: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Onyx for aviation no. Zircon and even more so. And lrasm level didn’t even dream of us

    Actually, on the contrary, the USA did not dream of the level of our RCCs, they are lagging behind in this area.
    Onyx (Yakhont) for aviation is, be aware.
    The statement that we did not dream of the level of this LRASM is nonsense.
    They cannot even repeat Granite of shaggy years. LRASM is a subsonic galoshes because “the risks of developing a supersonic rocket were too high,” which in human terms means “we cannot develop a supersonic heavy RCC.”
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 December 2017 05: 46 New
      0
      Quote: Mentat
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Onyx for aviation no. Zircon and even more so. And lrasm level didn’t even dream of us

      Actually, on the contrary, the USA did not dream of the level of our RCCs, they are lagging behind in this area.
      Onyx (Yakhont) for aviation is, be aware.
      The statement that we did not dream of the level of this LRASM is nonsense.
      They cannot even repeat Granite of shaggy years. LRASM is a subsonic galoshes because “the risks of developing a supersonic rocket were too high,” which in human terms means “we cannot develop a supersonic heavy RCC.”

      Those. Do you think they are trying to replicate granite? yes Do you think they are such fools that they will build their carrier for each rocket? no, only the USSR was stepping on this rake. The Yankees quickly realized that such a missile had more shortcomings than advantages.
      First, show me the airy Onyx / Yakhont. request
  23. Dargavs
    Dargavs 10 December 2017 03: 45 New
    0
    [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] Has Google banned you? [/ quot
    I don’t trust Google as a confirmed disinfectant, because you can write, draw anything you like, but in this case, I meant that our RCC have different names and markings other than the KR.
  24. Mentat
    Mentat 10 December 2017 12: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    show me the air onyx / yahont

    Take a look not to forget:


    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 December 2017 15: 36 New
      +1
      What beautiful pictures and plastic that has been shown since the 90s.! Now show me the aviation onyx, please! However, do not try — he is not.
  25. Mentat
    Mentat 10 December 2017 12: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Do you think they are such fools that they will build their carrier for each rocket? no, only the USSR was stepping on this rake. The Yankees quickly realized that such a missile had more shortcomings than advantages.

    They are not fools, just slightly lag behind in this area, and can not repeat today the Soviet anti-ship missiles of the 1970s.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 December 2017 16: 25 New
      0
      behind ? last year they split the frigate in half with a supersonic rocket! and they spat on this matter, realizing that it’s better to have a universal rocket that any RCA or patrol plane will take out of its holster. Do you think they could not create a 7-ton rocket, which needs a separate cruiser or nuclear submarine?
  26. Mentat
    Mentat 10 December 2017 21: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    What beautiful pictures and plastic that has been shown since the 90s.! Now show me the aviation onyx, please! However, do not try — he is not.

    Onyx-M is much less “plastic” than the hypothetical LRASM, which has worse performance.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 11 December 2017 04: 42 New
      0
      "hypothetical" LRASM launched with decomp. carriers, including deck hornet. And the miracle rocket of the 70-80s development Onyx is still not suspended under any aircraft, like Mosquito. To create an unparalleled wunderwaffe world, for which you will need to build your carrier later, these are the risks that the US Defense Ministry will not take, and we continue to step on this rake from the time of Chelomei, spending money, time, and then showing pictures to the President instead of rockets and torpedoes
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 11 December 2017 13: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Mentat
      Quote: Tlauicol
      What beautiful pictures and plastic that has been shown since the 90s.! Now show me the aviation onyx, please! However, do not try — he is not.

      Onyx-M is much less “plastic” than the hypothetical LRASM, which has worse performance.


      Onyx-M - does not exist ....

      There is a version called Bramos, but it is not ours. And it can really begin to be produced in a couple of years. And not ours. and the Indians.
      And maybe then, after 5-8 years, we will begin to produce it too.
      But hardly.
      Hindus did it for the development of their industry.
  27. Mentat
    Mentat 10 December 2017 21: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Do you think they could not create a 7-ton rocket, which needs a separate cruiser or nuclear submarine?

    I think that you should go back a few posts and read a quote about the "risks."
  28. Mentat
    Mentat 11 December 2017 15: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    "hypothetical" LRASM launched with decomp. carriers, including deck hornet. And the miracle rocket of the 70-80s development Onyx is still not suspended under any aircraft, like Mosquito. To create an unparalleled wunderwaffe world, for which you will need to build your carrier later, these are the risks that the US Defense Ministry will not take, and we continue to step on this rake from the time of Chelomei, spending money, time, and then showing pictures to the President instead of rockets and torpedoes

    Expensive fanboy US technicians, Onyx is a development of the 1970s, long adopted by the arsenal, which the American "super-rocket" repeats after 40 years (!!), not completely. Onyx-M, in fact, has existed since the same 70s, because The P-800 was originally designed as universal. However, the Ministry of Defense deemed it inappropriate, in the framework of the military doctrine of the USSR and Russia subsequently, to order and adopt an air-based version.
    Unlike Onyx, which has been exported for many years including, LRASM There is no, there is no finished product, this is the name of the project, you are our fan, and when it will be really ready - it is not known. there is plans take this product into service. Perhaps this will take place in 2018, or maybe not.
    So go tell tales of fantastic US rockets somewhere else, where boiled noodles for spreading ears clings well.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 11 December 2017 15: 18 New
      0
      I am not a fan of US technology. And the noodles on the ears are those funny pictures that you show, or that which show the Supreme, mastering billions

      and the "non-existent" lrasm is already mass-produced even before being adopted
      well, and this (C): “Onyx is a development of the 1970s, long adopted, which the American“ super-rocket ”repeats after 40 years (!!), not completely.” - it’s just a diagnosis
  29. Mentat
    Mentat 11 December 2017 15: 12 New
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    Quote: Mentat
    Quote: Tlauicol
    What beautiful pictures and plastic that has been shown since the 90s.! Now show me the aviation onyx, please! However, do not try — he is not.

    Onyx-M is much less “plastic” than the hypothetical LRASM, which has worse performance.


    Onyx-M - does not exist ....

    There is a version called Bramos, but it is not ours. And it can really begin to be produced in a couple of years. And not ours. and the Indians.
    And maybe then, after 5-8 years, we will begin to produce it too.
    But hardly.
    Hindus did it for the development of their industry.

    The Hindus wiped the casing with a polishing cloth and wrote BRAMOS through a stencil, because Bramos is Yakhont, i.e. Onyx with a truncated control unit and low range. Hindus Bramos-M did not, but asked for them to assemble according to the existing project, our MO did not buy these missiles dozens of years ago, and at the moment is not going to, but the project itself has long existed, if there is an order, it will appear in the gland.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 11 December 2017 16: 02 New
      0
      Not a word of truth ... how so ...
      But if you suddenly imagine that it was like that - did we, for 15 years, build a rocket on a ready-made project and mount avionics on an airplane?
      It will not appear in the gland - for this it is necessary not to destroy one plane, but in our naval aviation it took one or two to miscalculate. Forget it!
  30. ZVO
    ZVO 23 December 2017 10: 40 New
    0
    SergeBS,
    Quote: SergeBS
    Do not be smart. On the passive already a little "out of work" was. On the "active" will be the same.
    Active-passive wunderwaffles are already at the “fifth point”.
    Compose something cooler. Tighten up, just don't tear yourself up. winked


    Read about the scheme of operation of the GOS at least AMRAAM rocket version D.