New American RCC will be "invisible" and autonomous

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.

Comments

[NEXUS]

Well, our X-101 is already flying, and on its basis they make long-range missiles. Let them surpass.

[Monos]

Dushenov spoke in detail about this.

[Going]

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.

[Lexus]

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.

[Vadim237]

It will be unpleasant when they adopt the ships - missile arsenals, based on the San Antonio BDK with 588 universal launch cells.

[KaPToC]

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.

[MadCat]

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.

[KaPToC]

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.

[MadCat]

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.

[KaPToC]

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.

[MadCat]

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.

[Alexey-74]

Striped overshoot flash ..... in Russian that is, such missiles ..... now catch up

[Chertt]

Quote: NEXUS

Well, our X-101 is already flying,

Everything with an adult is with mattresses. We measure rockets in the toilet

[Berber]

Especially ours more.

[In100gram]

Quote: BerBer

Especially ours more.

Ours is better and more accurate

[Zhelezyakin]

The main thing is that it does not work out so much not visible, like hatches on the F-35)))

[ZVO]

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?

[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?

[ZVO]

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 ....

[SergeBS]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SergeBS

But shaw, the carrier of this wunderwaffle is smaller in size?

Naturally, she climbs in MK41 :)

[KaPToC]

Quote: ZVO

Zircon is a fiction. Updated Onyx and nothing more ....

LRASM fiction - an updated ax and nothing more.

[Nikolaevich I]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[SergeBS]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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?

[SergeBS]

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.

[Nikolaevich I]

Why are you so inattentively reading other people's "comments" ?! Did I point out that X-32 is the "complete analogue" of LRASM ??? 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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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.

[KaPToC]

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

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[KaPToC]

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"

[SergeBS]

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.

[Berber]

Apparently subsonic. The Americans are lagging behind. But the electronics are probably 5 s +.

[Romario_Argo]

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.

[Berber]

Thank. I did not know that.

[Viktor.12.71]

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.

[SergeBS]

To promise is not to marry.
Wunderwaffles SR-71, F-117 ALREADY "HUNDREDED". With all his advertising for the company.

[Aqr009]

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"!

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Aqr009

part of its spectrum will be sound and electromagnetic waves!

Did you read Okedov about the "sound waves"? 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."

[Nikolaevich I]

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 ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Lack of active homing ...

It is, these are journalists ...

[SergeBS]

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 ....".

[Warrior-80]

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

[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.

[poquello]

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

[Andrei 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 :)

[poquello]

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

[gafarovsafar]

then what? knock down impossible chtoli? experts your opinion?

[Aqr009]

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.

[MadCat]

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.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: MadCat

I think it will be easier to build another ship.

Read about the Nulka Mk234 "missile" missile target ...

[Jackyun]

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?

[ZVO]

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.

[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.

[ZVO]

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 ...

[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. 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.

[ZVO]

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 ...

[Alexey RA]

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.

[SergeBS]

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 ..."

[KaPToC]

Quote: SergeBS

And the immeasurable PPC

The smarter the rocket, the more vulnerable it is to electronic warfare

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[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?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: KaPToC

Why on earth?

Can you explain the mechanism? :) How to apply interference against a passive GOS? :)

[KaPToC]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Can you explain the mechanism? :) How to apply interference against a passive GOS? :)

electronic warfare is not only interference.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

not a question, just explain how you see the electronic warfare against a passive seeker

[SergeBS]

As turntables throw thermal traps, so do airplanes throw radio traps. We already have this.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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.

[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.

[ZVO]

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 ..

[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.

[ZVO]

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 ...

[KaPToC]

Quote: ZVO

That is, you just farted into the puddle once again ...

Strange your craving for "farts in a puddle"! Are you a coprofile?

[Nikolaevich I]

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.

[san4es]

New American Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) anti-ship missile uses stealth technology

[Andrei 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

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

What hits the mobiles? :) Both caliber and lrasm - pcr, it is clear that both hit the mobiles

[GABALIS]

oh these usa

[Andrey Panov]

Star Wars nervously smoking on the sidelines

[Berber]

Not that far. Radar and electronics - yes. And they do not have supersonic at all.

[Oleg7700]

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.

[poquello]

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

[KaPToC]

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.

[SergeBS]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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.

[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

[ZVO]

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

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.

[KaPToC]

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.

[Berber]

There were no corresponding opponents. The whole block of NATO bombed the same Yugoslavia.

[SergeBS]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[SergeBS]

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?

[SergeBS]

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.

[SergeBS]

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.

[gig334]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[shans2]

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 ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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? :)))

[SergeBS]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[SergeBS]

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."

[Nikolaevich I]

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"!

[SergeBS]

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?

[Nikolaevich I]

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”
It’s not interesting for me to “talk” with you! I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yeryoma! What does 8K84 have to do with it?

[ZVO]

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 ....

[SergeBS]

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.

[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.

[ZVO]

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 ...

[tchoni]

It could even be.

[Dargavs]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And caliber and lrasm - pcr,

Since when did Caliber become RCC?
Cold with Green

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Listen, well, if you don’t know that there are calibers in the PCR version, so you don’t put emoticons, learn how to

[Alexey RA]

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".

[Kerensky]

Source - project manager. Here are a couple of "experts" and the characteristics will grow ...... well, and the price.

[anjey]

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 ...

[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!

[JD1979]

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 ...

[SergeBS]

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.

[Mentat]

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!

[Viktor.12.71]

Quote: Mentat

Hello 70s!

Russia does not have such missiles for aviation.

[KaPToC]

Quote: Viktor.12.71

Russia does not have such missiles for aviation.

Why do Russia need it if it has better?

[Viktor.12.71]

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.

[KaPToC]

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.

[Kent0001]

If stealth technology, then the rocket is unlikely to be very fast.

[SergeBS]

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.

[geon]

interesting lope costs enta wunderwafle

[Mentat]

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.

[tlauicol]

Onyx for aviation no. Zircon and even more so. And lrasm level didn’t even dream of us

[Dargavs]

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” ???

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[Conductor]

Will she fly? Or so, sneaking up?

[Darvin dv]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

[SergeBS]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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

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

[SergeBS]

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?
Otherwise, with whom is this child prodigy going to fight? With the Papuans who have no air defense?
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.

[ZVO]

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 ...

[bmv04636]

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

[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.”

[tlauicol]

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? 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.

[Dargavs]

[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.

[Mentat]

Quote: Tlauicol

show me the air onyx / yahont

Take a look not to forget:

[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.

[Mentat]

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.

[tlauicol]

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[Mentat]

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."

[Mentat]

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.

[tlauicol]

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

[Mentat]

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.

[tlauicol]

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!

[ZVO]

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.

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