Military Review

On the revolution in the naval art of the United States. CRP LRASM

205
Sad as it may seem, but unlike the F-35 that has become the talk of the town, which was constantly being brought into service for a long time, the American LRASM anti-ship missile program is on schedule and, apparently, in 2018 the rocket will be adopted by the Navy USA.


And, sadly aware of this, with the introduction of the LRASM into service, the American fleet not only finally fixes its absolute dominance on the maritime expanses, but also threatens the combat sustainability of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. But first things first.

So what is LRASM? This is the latest anti-ship weapon created on the basis of high-precision cruise missiles of the JASSM family already in service with the US Air Force. It makes sense to consider in more detail what they are.

In 1995, the US armed forces wanted to get a cruise missile for striking at stationary ground targets, and their flight range should be sufficient to launch such missiles outside the air defense zone of potential adversaries. This requirement was primarily due to the fact that it was originally intended to equip strategic B-52 bombers, by definition incapable of operating in a zone of strong enemy air defense. Subsequently, it was envisaged to "train" the missile to "work" with tactical aviation, including F-15E, F-16, F / A-18, F-35. Initially, it was assumed that the missile would be in demand by both the Air Force and the Navy (it was assumed that 5 JASSMs would be purchased, including 350 for the Air Force and 4 for the Navy).



The above requirements have defined the shape of a future rocket. It was supposed to be light enough for tactical aircraft to carry it, and the need to independently overcome powerful air defense required the use of stealth technology.

In 2003, the US Air Force received the AGM-158 JASSM, the characteristics of which at that time looked quite satisfactory. A subsonic rocket weighing 1020 kg was able to deliver an 454-kg warhead to a range of 360 kilometers. Unfortunately, the JASSM EPR parameters are not exactly known, but they are clearly less than the old Tomahawks: some sources indicated an EPR in the size of 0,08-0,1 sq. M. The control system was, in general, classical for cruise missiles — inertial, with corrected by GPS and terrain (TERCOM). At the end, precise guidance was performed by the infrared homing system. The deviation, according to some sources, did not exceed 3 m. Flight altitude - to 20 meters.

In general, the Americans turned out quite successful rocket, capable of hitting including protected targets. One of the variants of its warhead contained the main part, whose shell consisted of a tungsten alloy and contained 109 kg of explosives and accelerating the blast container, which gave the main warhead additional acceleration, thanks to which it could pierce up to 2 meters of concrete.



Despite the fact that the Navy eventually came out of the JASSM program and preferred a missile based on the Garpun anti-ship missile system SLAM-ER, the AGM-158 JASSM was favorably received by the US Air Force. In 2004 g, the development of its modification started, which was designated JASSM-ER. The new rocket, while maintaining speed, the EPR and the warhead of the AGM-158 JASSM received a range increased to 980 km (according to some data - to 1300 km), and its dimensions, if increased, are insignificant. Such an increase was achieved by using a more economical engine and increasing the capacity of the fuel tanks.

And besides, JASSM-ER has become more “smart” than the missiles of the previous types. For example, it implemented such a function as “time to goal”. The rocket itself could change the speed limit and route in such a way as to launch an attack at the appointed time. In other words, several successively launched rockets from one ship, a pair of missiles from a B-1B bomber and one more, with the F-15E, despite the difference during launch and flight range, can attack one (or several targets) with the same time.

Now let's see what happened in the US Navy. In 2000, anti-ship modifications of the Tomahawk missile were decommissioned and the US Navy lost its only long-range anti-ship missile. From this, the Americans are not too upset, because TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) was much like a stupid weapon system. Its undoubted advantage was the ability to fly 450 km (according to other data - 550 km), and to do it at an ultra-low height of the order of 5 meters, which made the rocket extremely difficult to detect. But its subsonic speed led to the fact that during the half hour of the flight from the moment of launch, the target could be greatly displaced in space from the initial position (the ship going on 30 nodes overcomes almost 28 kilometers in half an hour), that is, it turned out to be out of the “field of vision” of low-flying rockets. And, not least, the carrier-based aviation of the Americans could strike far far distances, which made the joint actions of TASM and the Hornets with Intruders practically impossible.

For about a decade, the US Navy was satisfied with the "Harpoons", but nevertheless it should be recognized - despite all the modifications, this very successful rocket for its time was pretty outdated. The range of the latest modifications did not exceed 280 km, and the rocket did not fit in the standard for the American fleet the Mk 41 universal launcher, requiring a specialized deck launcher, which, in general, negatively affected the cost and radar visibility of the ship.

In addition, reductions in the armed forces led to a reduction in the number of aircraft carriers in the US Navy, the number of promising air groups also underwent a reduction, and “on the horizon” Chinese aircraft carrier ambitions loomed. All this made the command of the US Navy think about the "long arm" for their ship groups. And it is not surprising that JASSM-ER was chosen as the prototype for this purpose. There is already a well-developed platform, and "stealth", and relatively small dimensions, allowing to make a new rocket universal, that is, applicable with deck and tactical aircraft, strategic bombers and any carriers.

In 2009, the Americans began to develop a subsonic anti-ship missile LRASM. The development was quite fast, to date, the rocket tests have entered the final stage and it is expected that in 2018 g rocket will be adopted for service.

What kind of rocket will the US Navy get?

In principle, this is all the same JASSM-ER, but ... with a number of the most interesting “additives”. Strictly speaking, there is a feeling that the Americans most carefully studied everything they could find from Soviet anti-ship missiles, and then tried to realize the best of what they had found.


LRASM test results in 2013 g. Target hit.


1) The rocket also uses an inertial guidance system, is capable of skirting the terrain, and can build complex routes. That is, for example, it, being launched from the ocean and many hundreds of kilometers from the earth, may well reach the coast, make a circle above it, and attack a target ship moving along the coast from the coastline. It is clear that a rocket that suddenly jumps out from behind the hills, attacking against the background of the underlying surface will be a very difficult target for the ship's anti-aircraft gunners.

2) Active-passive seeker. Actually, in the USSR something else was used on the “Granites”. The idea is as follows - the active homing head is, in fact, a mini-radar, which determines the parameters of the target and enables the rocket computer to adjust the direction of flight. But any radar can be suppressed by interference, and the noise generators on the ship can be installed very powerful. In this case, "Granite" ... just led to the source of interference. As far as the author knows, such active-passive seeker has been installed on all USSR / RF missiles since the 80s of the last century. This was an advantage of our missiles, but now the United States also has LRASM using multi-mode active-passive radar.

3) The ability to determine a priority target and attack it, without being distracted by the others. This can and Soviet / Russian missiles. In principle, the old "Tomahawk" also knew how to aim at the largest goal, but did not have an identification of "friend or foe", therefore the areas of its use should be chosen very carefully.

4) Opto-electronic guidance system. According to some data, LRASM has not only radar, but also an optical homing system, which allows to visually identify targets. If this information is reliable, then we will have to state that today LRASM has the most sophisticated and noise-proof guidance system among all the anti-ship missiles in the world. As far as the author knows, the Russian anti-ship missiles are not equipped with anything like this.

5) EW block. Heavy anti-ship missiles of the USSR were equipped with special EW units designed to make it difficult for the enemy to destroy our missiles and thus make it easier for them to break through to target ships. Whether there are similar blocks on modern anti-ship versions of Onyxes and Calibrov — the author doesn’t know, but there are some on LRASM.

6) "Grace". At one time, the USSR was able to realize the exchange of data between heavy anti-ship missiles, but the United States did not have anything like it. However, now the principle “sees one — they see everything” is also true for American missiles — by exchanging information, they dramatically increase the noise immunity of the group and make it possible to distribute targets between individual missiles. By the way, it is not known whether such data exchange has been implemented on our Onyxes and Gauges. I would like to believe that it is implemented, but because of secrecy they keep mum ... The only thing that is more or less reliably known is that the "Caliber", in the absence of a target in the area where it was supposed to be, can climb 400 m in order to carry it out Search.

7) Range - according to various data from 930 to 980 km. In principle, the USSR had Vulkan missiles, according to some data, flying on 1000 km (most sources still give 700 km), but still today the Vulkan is outdated. Unfortunately, it is completely unknown how far the anti-ship versions “Caliber” and “Onyx” fly - there is reason to assume that their range can be not km 350-375 km, but 500-800 km, but these are only guesses. In general, it can be assumed that the LRASM in terms of range exceeds all the RCCs available to the Russian Navy.

8) Rocket flight altitude. Supersonic Soviet anti-ship missiles and the Russian Onyx have some decent range only when combined flight trajectory (when the flight takes place at high altitude and only before the attack the missiles go to low altitudes). The “caliber” flies on the 20 m, falling before the attack, and the altitude of the 20 m is announced for LRASM.

9) Warhead weight. From this point of view, LRASM occupies an intermediate position between the heavy anti-ship missiles of the USSR, which (according to various data) had warheads from 500 to 750 kg and modern Caliber and Onyx missiles that have a 200-300 kg combat unit.

10) Versatility. Here, LRASM has an obvious advantage over the ASR of the Soviet Union, since their enormous mass and dimensions required the creation of specialized carriers, both surface and underwater, and these missiles could not be stationed completely on airplanes. At the same time, the LRASM can be used by any ship that has the United States UkP Mk 41, as well as tactical and strategic aircraft and, of course, deck aircraft. The only drawback of LRASM is that it was not “taught” to work from a submarine, but Lockheed Martin, the developer, is threatening to correct this shortcoming, would have been an order from the US Navy. Accordingly, it is possible to speak about an approximate parity of universality with “Caliber” - but not “Onyx”. The thing is that domestic missiles of these types are significantly heavier than LRASM, and although it seems that work is currently under way to “tie” them to airplanes, this will be more difficult. In addition, ceteris paribus, a heavier rocket will either reduce the aircraft’s ammunition load or reduce its flight range. LRASM hardly weighs more than 1100-1200 kg (it is likely that its weight remained at the level of JASSM-ER, ie, 1020-1050 kg), while the anti-ship versions of the Caliber - 1800 - 2300 kg, and " Onyx "and at all 3000 kg. On the other hand, Russian missiles without problems “were registered” on domestic submarines, including atomic ones, while the LRASM still has a hitch with it.

11) Stealth. The only domestic rocket that can have some similar EPR indicators with the American LRASM is the “Caliber”, but ... not the fact that it has.

12) Speed ​​- everything is simple here. The American rocket is subsonic, while the Soviet heavy anti-ship missiles and the Russian Onyx are supersonic, and only the Caliber is a subsonic Russian missile.

It is known that when developing a new anti-ship missile, the Americans considered the development of not only a subsonic rocket (LRASM-A), but also a supersonic rocket (LRASM-B), but later abandoned the supersonic version, focusing on the subsonic one. What is the reason for this decision?

The first is that lately the Americans have been trying to minimize the costs of R & D (as strange as it may sound), and they would have to develop a supersonic anti-ship missile from scratch: they simply have no such experience. Not that Americans are not able to make supersonic rockets, they can, of course. But on the whole, the volume and cost of work on such a rocket were substantially higher than those of the subsonic RCC project. At the same time, there remained a considerable risk of doing “as in Russia, only worse,” because we have been engaged in supersonic rockets for a decade now and it is very difficult to catch up with the Russian Federation on this issue.

The second - in fact, oddly enough it sounds for some, but the supersonic RCC does not today have any fundamental advantages over subsonic. And a lot here depends on the concept of the use of anti-ship missiles.

Supersonic RCC overcomes the distance much faster than subsonic, and this gives it a lot of advantages. The same "Volcano", with its cruising speed in 2,5, the mach overcomes 500 km in a little more than 10 minutes - during this time even a high-speed ship, following 30 nodes, will not have time to go 10 kilometers. Thus, a supersonic rocket that has received a “fresh” target designation, in general, does not need to look for a target ship upon arrival at the site.

In addition, it is very difficult to intercept a supersonic rocket by means of a ship’s air defense — the Soviet heavy anti-ship missiles, finding the target, left at low altitudes, hiding behind a radio horizon, and then arising from it at 1,5 M speed (almost twice as fast ” Harpoon "). As a result, the American ship had literally 3-4 minutes to knock down the Soviet "monster" before it had gone to low altitude, and during that time it was necessary to do everything - to detect the target, issue the control center, take it to the accompaniment of the backlight radar ( in the last century, the US Navy did not have missiles with active seeker) to launch missiles in such a way that it had enough time to fly to the Soviet RCC. Taking into account the real (and not tabular) reaction time, which is far from the worst British air defense systems in the Falkland Islands (“Sea Dart”, “Su Wolfe”), it’s not that hopeless, but very unpromising. The same “Xie Wolfe” at the maneuvers managed to shoot down 114-mm artillery shells in flight, but in battle sometimes did not have time to fire a subsonic attack aircraft flying over the ship. And if we also recall the presence of EW units on Soviet missiles. ... Well, after the multi-toned anti-ship missile system emerged from beyond the horizon and until it hit the ship’s side it was barely a minute, by and large, only EW could be protected from it.

But for every advantage you have to pay. The problem is that a low-altitude flight is much more energy-intensive than a long one, therefore, domestic RCCs, having a range along the combined trajectory at the level of 550-700 km, at a low altitude could barely overcome 145-200 km. Accordingly, rockets had to travel most of the way at altitudes above 10 km (data for different types of rockets differ, reaching in some sources up to 18-19 km). In addition, supersonic rocket units require a lot of air, respectively, there is a need for large air intakes, which greatly increase the EPR of the rocket. Large ESR and altitude do not allow the supersonic rocket to be made as unobtrusive as it is. During a flight at high altitude, such a rocket is quite vulnerable to the effects of enemy aircraft and can be hit by air-to-air missiles.



In other words, the supersonic RCC relies on a short reaction time. Yes, it can be seen well and from afar, but it leaves the enemy a little time to counter.

In contrast, the subsonic rocket is able to sneak at low altitude; many stealth elements can be implemented on it. Because of the low altitude of the flight, such a missile cannot be seen by the ship’s radar until the rocket comes out of the radio horizon (25-30 km) and only then will it be possible to shoot at it and use EW equipment. In this case, until a rocket hits at a speed of 800 km / h, approximately 2,5 minutes remain, that is, the reaction time of the ship's missile defense is also extremely limited. But the same 500 km such a rocket will overcome for almost 38 minutes, giving the enemy, who have air reconnaissance equipment, much more opportunities to detect these missiles, after which they can be destroyed, including with the use of fighters. In addition, during the approach time of the subsonic RCC, target ships can be greatly displaced in space, and then you need to look for them. This is not a problem if the attacking side can control the movement of the enemy order and, accordingly, correct the flight of the missiles, but if this is not possible, then you will have to rely solely on the “intelligence” of the missiles themselves, and this is better not to do.

Why did the USSR develop supersonic rockets in the first place? Because our Navy was preparing to act in the conditions of the information domination of the US Navy, "under the hood" of their reconnaissance aircraft. Accordingly, it would be difficult to count on the fact that subsonic RCCs will remain undetected at the cruising site and will not be attacked by the US carrier-based aviation, and in addition, pre-warned ships could drastically change the course and speed in order to avoid contact. It was more effective to attack with supersonic missiles, relying on the short reaction time that such missiles leave to enemy weapons. In addition, the rapid exit of the missiles to the target did not give the American ship order a chance to evade the maneuver.


Launch PKR "Granit" from "Peter the Great"


But the Americans have completely different reasons. A typical operation to destroy an enemy shipboard attack group (KUG) would look like this - using the satellite or long-range DRLO-patrol, it detects an enemy's KUG, an air patrol is sent to it - the DRLO aircraft under the cover of the EW plane and the fighters control the movement of the KUG from a safe distance (300 km and more) Next is the launch of cruise missiles. Well, yes, they will arrive at a goal that finds itself at a distance of, say, 800-900 km from the American squadron in almost an hour, but the Americans have this hour - it is guaranteed by the dominance of the US carrier-based aviation in the air. During the flight, the RCC route is adjusted for the movement of the CUG and the chosen attack pattern. RCC, hiding from shipborne radars behind the radio horizon, occupy lines for attack, and then, at the appointed time, begins a massive raid of RCC from different sides.

That is, for Americans who are able to provide and control the movements of target ships and protect their missiles from detection and attack in the air, the speed of the anti-ship missiles is no longer a critical factor and, accordingly, they are fully capable of effectively using subsonic anti-ship missiles.

But LRASM can be applied quite effectively outside the dominance of US aviation. The fact is that due to its small EPR, even such Monsters as an A-50U can detect a missile of this type at a distance of 80-100 km, which is not so much. We also have to keep in mind that the radiating DRLO aircraft unmasks itself, and the route of the missiles can be rebuilt in such a way as to go around the detection zone of the Russian DRLO patrol.

In a possible confrontation between the American and Chinese fleets, the emergence of LRASM puts "check and check" to the Chinese. Not only that their aircraft carriers do not have reconnaissance aircraft somewhat comparable to the American carrier deck, and moreover, American ejection floating atomic aerodromes are capable of sending far more aircraft than the springboard Chinese, so now, by using "long hands ”in the form of LRASM, Americans can reduce the number of strike aircraft, respectively, increasing the number of aircraft to gain air superiority, thereby creating an overwhelming quantitative superiority.

How dangerous are new US anti-ship missiles for our strategic nuclear forces?

The fact is that in a threatening period, our fleets will need to ensure the deployment of strategic missile submarines, and for this it is necessary to cover the water areas in which this deployment will take place. Given the multiple superiority in the number of multi-purpose submarines (against one of our submarines, Americans have at least three of their own), this task can be solved only by the extreme tension of all submarine, surface and air forces at our disposal. A big role here could be played by corvettes and frigates deployed in a “fishing net” in the protected area, including by virtue of their ability to receive and maintain anti-submarine helicopters.

However, with the adoption of LRASM, the Americans are able to destroy such a “trapping network” deployed, for example, in the Barents Sea, within an hour, in full force and only one. To do this, they will need only 2-3 destroyer "Arly Burke", a pair of DRLO aircraft to open the surface situation and air patrol fighters for air cover. All this can be provided both from the coast of Norway and the deck of an aircraft carrier on these shores. Reveal the location of Russian ships, launch rockets, "ordering" them to attack targets at exactly 00.00 and ... everything.

However good the air defenses of an Admiral Gorshkov type frigate might be, they will not be able to repel a simultaneous strike of ten LRASMs (just like Arly Burk will not repel a strike of ten Calibres). Price issue? According to some data, the cost of one LRASM CRP is 3 million. The cost of one Admiral Gorshkov frigate was estimated to be higher than 400 million. (According to other data, 550 million.) justified.

In general, we can state the following. The LRASM anti-ship missile is a very formidable sea battle weapon, at least equal, but rather, still superior to what the Russian Navy has at its disposal, including even such “advanced” weapons as Onyx and Caliber. In 2018 g, when Americans adopt the LRASM, for the first time in all history confrontation our fleet will lose its superiority in long-range anti-ship missiles, which he possessed for many decades.

In essence, it can be said that the Soviet Navy was developing a "rocket" evolution, choosing anti-ship long-range missiles as its main weapon. In contrast to this, the US Navy went "aircraft carrier" by laying the task of destroying enemy surface forces on carrier-based aircraft. Each of these paths had its own advantages and disadvantages.

We were the first to realize the fallacy of such a separation, starting the construction of aircraft carriers in addition to powerful submarines and surface-launched missile carriers, as well as naval rocket-carrying aircraft, but the collapse of the USSR destroyed these undertakings. But in practice, the Americans will be the first to combine the advantages of the "rocket" and "aircraft carrier" approach. With the entry into service of the LRASM, they receive a "long rocket arm" capable of operating at approximately the same distance as their own carrier-based aircraft, and this will make their fleet much stronger.

The appearance of the hypersonic "Zircon" may return us to the superiority in anti-ship missile weapons, but it may not return - everything will depend on the actual characteristics of the newest missile. But you need to understand that even if the Zircon in all respects surpasses LRASM - henceforth our fleet will be confronted by a much more formidable opponent than before. Regardless of whether we get “Zircon” or not, the US Navy gets a powerful “long arm” and it will be much more difficult to fight them.

Thank you for attention!
Author:
205 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 13 December 2017 06: 55 New
    +6
    US Navy gets a powerful "long arm" and it will become much more difficult to deal with them
    . will again have to "tricky nut", to invent a new "bolt" ...
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 13 December 2017 07: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      US Navy gets a powerful "long arm" and it will become much more difficult to deal with them
      . will again have to "tricky nut", to invent a new "bolt" ...

      with inequality of arms, change tactics. hi
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 13 December 2017 11: 25 New
        11
        Thanks to the author for a great article!
        1. Inok10
          Inok10 13 December 2017 21: 58 New
          +7
          Quote: xetai9977
          Thanks to the author for a great article!

          ... Bullshit ! ... laughing
          ... three paragraphs that contradict each other ... to comment on this do not respect yourself ... read:
          But the Americans have completely different reasons. A typical operation to destroy an enemy shipboard attack group (KUG) would look like this - using the satellite or long-range DRLO-patrol, it detects an enemy's KUG, an air patrol is sent to it - the DRLO aircraft under the cover of the EW plane and the fighters control the movement of the KUG from a safe distance (300 km and more) Next is the launch of cruise missiles. Well, yes, they will arrive at a goal that finds itself at a distance of, say, 800-900 km from the American squadron in almost an hour, but the Americans have this hour - it is guaranteed by the dominance of the US carrier-based aviation in the air. During the flight, the RCC route is adjusted for the movement of the CUG and the chosen attack pattern. RCC, hiding from shipborne radars behind the radio horizon, occupy lines for attack, and then, at the appointed time, begins a massive raid of RCC from different sides.
          That is, for Americans who are able to provide and control the movements of target ships and protect their missiles from detection and attack in the air, the speed of the anti-ship missiles is no longer a critical factor and, accordingly, they are fully capable of effectively using subsonic anti-ship missiles.
          But LRASM can be applied quite effectively outside the dominance of US aviation. The fact is that due to its small EPR, even such Monsters as an A-50U can detect a missile of this type at a distance of 80-100 km, which is not so much. We also have to keep in mind that the radiating DRLO aircraft unmasks itself, and the route of the missiles can be rebuilt in such a way as to go around the detection zone of the Russian DRLO patrol.
          ... everything emits from Matrasnikov, but for some reason we are not visible, well, yet another Tale ... but where Warhead -7 ? ... RTR / RER ... canceled in the fleet? ... Andrei hanged even more than Daman and Kaptsov folded together . laughing
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 13 December 2017 22: 16 New
            +4
            P.S. ... I haven’t read such a "blizzard" in VO for a long time ...
            Andryukha from Chelyabinsk - writings of eScho - Merry everyone ... who was and is in the Navy of the USSR / RF ... come on Man Burn! ... laughing
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            13 December 2017 23: 06 New
            +5
            Quote: Inok10
            three paragraphs that contradict each other ... to comment on this do not respect yourself ... read:

            We read, we try to understand what we read, if we do not understand, we turn to the author for clarification. He is kind, he will tell :))
            Quote: Inok10
            Matrasnikov radiates everything, but for some reason we are not visible, well, yes, another Tale

            Why - not visible? Apparently. We saw the same patrol kilometers three hundred from KUG ... What next? Arranged a rally and angrily branded the machinations of the American military? laughing
            1. Inok10
              Inok10 13 December 2017 23: 47 New
              +9
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              We read, we try to understand what we read, if we do not understand, we turn to the author for clarification. He is kind, he will tell :))

              ... no, I’ll tell you ... the range of Naval Aviation of the Russian Federation WWII is 1500 km. excluding weapons ... closer than 2000 km. AUG American will not work ... and, if supplemented by Long-Range Aviation ... then 3000 km. ... smoke bamboo ... ZGRLS as a means of detection has not been canceled by anyone ... The "Wave" in Nakhodka ... The "Container" in Kovylkino generally closes from Svalbard to Israel ... range - 3000 km. which AWACS, what for it is necessary, the elevation angle doesn’t matter with a sea target ... in the future they promised to pull it to the Persian Gulf ... Andrey materiel you need to know! .
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Why - not visible? Apparently. We saw the same patrol kilometers three hundred from KUG ... What next? Arranged a rally and angrily branded the machinations of the American military?

              ... P-500 / P-700 / P-1000 and X-22/32 ... not enough? ... you will consider carriers? ... ah, I’ll tell you ... a few dozen ... in total from two hundred there will be RCC and not subsonic, and supersonic and hypersonic, but what will you fight back with? ... SM-3/6? ... and you can come to us only from two sides, here you have a gap with geography ... from the Pacific Ocean and the North Sea, well, the story with the North is still ... No wonder it’s Northern ... why then on the latest Anglitsky aircraft carrier - Trampoline! ... right ... it's very cold for more than 6 months of the year ... the steam catapult ... froze ... in general with a bare saber on the tank ... laughing .
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                14 December 2017 00: 17 New
                +6
                Quote: Inok10
                .. no, I'll tell you ...

                Try it :)
                Quote: Inok10
                Russian Naval Aviation Range - 1500 km. excluding weapons ...

                And now they looked at the map and thought how to fly to the AUS in the North Sea for 1500 km.
                Quote: Inok10
                No one canceled the radar detection system ...

                In addition to the American KR at the beginning of the conflict.
                Quote: Inok10
                ... Andrey materiel you need to know! ...

                It is necessary. For example, that ZGRLS is actually incapable of giving TS in the Kyrgyz Republic.
                Quote: Inok10
                . P-500 / P-700 / P-1000 and X-22/32 ... not enough?

                How did you intend to bring down an air patrol of the AWACS, O Great Expert of the Materiel?
                Quote: Inok10
                carriers you will consider? ... ah, I'll tell you ... a few dozen ... in total from two hundred there will be RCC

                On the Federation Council - 1 TARK with 20 anti-ship missiles, 3 Antey, (72 more) - a total of 92, well, we count Severodvinsk with its onyxes - a total of 124 ....
                Quote: Inok10
                it’s not in vain that it’s Northern ... why then on the newest Anglitsky aircraft carrier - Trampoline! ... correctly ...

                Because of the savings :)))) The British very much wanted a cat-board, and they reserved a place for it, but money, alas, was not enough :)))
                Quote: Inok10
                aro catapult ... froze ...

                That's what we wanted to build Kuznetsov with steam catapults. Silly, where are they up to you :)))
                1. Inok10
                  Inok10 14 December 2017 00: 49 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Try it :)

                  ... already rolled out ... like God to the Turtle ... laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And now they looked at the map and thought how to fly to the AUS in the North Sea for 1500 km.

                  ... easy ... take a look at a map of Russia ... a connoisseur of geography ... and don’t forget there ... there is a refueling in the air on the Su-30SM ... well, that's how you will be with your combat radius of 800 km . The American AOG carrier-based aircraft withstand a combat radius of 1500 km. with refueling Aviation Navy / VKS RF ... that's just neighing and it remains ... oh, and if the MiG-31BM still pulls up ... then finita la comedy ... American carrier-based aircraft ... with 280 km. they will beat like sparrows, and even on take-off, even directly above the deck ... laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In addition to the American KR at the beginning of the conflict.

                  ... which CDs ... are subsonic? ... America by that time will be gone when they can be reached the borders of Russia ... laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  For example, that ZGRLS is actually incapable of giving TS in the Kyrgyz Republic.

                  ... and it’s not necessary ... there’s the GOS KR P-500/700/800/1000 and X-22/32 ... the main thing is to know the square ... the rest is the GOS business ... well, give it in real time target designation - moveton - to fire a means of destruction ... the basics of RTR / RER ... just the Mattresses couldn’t make supersonic anti-ship missiles so ... PUK went Loud and Smelly for them ... well, Andryushi from Chelyabinsk really want to help them with both Sound and Smell ... well, maybe that’s what happens with Sound, but with Smell it’s not ... laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  How did you intend to bring down an air patrol of the AWACS, O Great Expert of the Materiel?

                  ... plenty of funds ... Mig-31BM, SAM 40N6 ... and there is a range of 500 km. ... which patrol? ... why a patrol ?, at the beginning he also said ... AUG does not approach 3000 km. ... operational range of 1000 km. at AUG, Andryusha finish treating Grandma, she is not sick . laughing

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  On the Federation Council - 1 TARK with 20 anti-ship missiles, 3 Antey, (72 more) - a total of 92, well, we count Severodvinsk with its onyxes - a total of 124 ....

                  ... Pacific Fleet forgot ... laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Because of the savings :)))) The British very much wanted a cat-board, and they reserved a place for it, but money, alas, was not enough :)))

                  ... en, no. Americans Expensively demanded ... for their Miracle Electromagnetic ... and in truth Miracle as an F-35 ... laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That's what we wanted to build Kuznetsov with steam catapults. Silly, where are they up to you :)))

                  . I would consider for the Kirov factory ... it was there back in the late 80s and it was made just meeting all the requirements of the Northern conditions with heating and all the Mother of Pearl buttons ... tongue
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    14 December 2017 11: 53 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Inok10
                    .. already rolled out ... like God to the Turtle ..

                    You rolled out so far except that lip :)
                    Quote: Inok10
                    .. it’s easy ... look at the map of Russia ... a connoisseur of geography ... and do not forget there ... there is a refueling in the air on the Su-30SM ...

                    That is, you did not see the card. You were asked a specific question - how were you going to hit the AUS in the Aegean or North Sea? Along Norway to the North Sea from Murmansk fly more than 3 thousand km, so as not to enter the air surveillance zone, and even then ... most likely you will get. And you can directly, no question. Only now it will be necessary to fly through NATO airspace, collecting all its interceptors along the road ... This is not even suicide.
                    This aircraft carrier from the North or Aegean Sea can easily raise planes, refuel them where the thread is at the German or Turkish jump airfield and send them into battle. And in order to reach the AUS, we have to go over NATO territory.
                    And if you are not even able to understand this, if nothing is placed in your head except for two numbers of combat radii, then why should I spend time on you, so beautiful?
                    1. Inok10
                      Inok10 18 December 2017 00: 36 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You rolled out so far except that lip :)

                      ... you were rolled out ... catch the X-32 for 40 km. ... Member of the Sect "Rev. AUG and St. Tomahawk" ... you have not yet been reminded of the "Caliber-PL", where are you going to swim? ... and at least 10% of them will be with a Special CTU of 250 Kt ... caught a hint ?! ... no one will fuss ... no after that no AUG / AUS ... a bunch of radioactive floating scrap metal ... laughing
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That is, you did not see the card. You were asked a specific question - how were you going to hit the AUS in the Aegean or North Sea?

                      ... about the North, I told you above ... don’t go crazy ... Weather for more than 6 months a year does not allow the use of aviation from a steam catapult ... tongue
                      ... and, for the Aegean ... it’s so easy now, we read:
                      Russian President Vladimir Putin has submitted for ratification to the State Duma an agreement with Syria on the transformation of the 720th Navy Logistics Support Point (TUR) in the Syrian port of Tartus into a full-fledged naval base. The first for our sailors abroad.
                      ... and more ...
                      An intergovernmental document, signed on January 18 this year, provides for the expansion of the territory of the Navy and the entry of ships of the Russian Navy into the territorial sea, inland waters and ports of the Arab Republic. Moreover, the document provides for the simultaneous stay in the Syrian port of up to 11 Russian warships, including equipped nuclear power plant. Source: https://cont.ws/@fktrctbx/797819
                      ... maybe about the videoconferencing base in Khmeimim. Have you forgotten too? ... this was not even in the days of the USSR ... smoke Andrei ... hi
                      1. Sckepsis
                        Sckepsis 30 December 2017 21: 31 New
                        0
                        they rolled you out

                        You rolled out only your own incompetence in elementary issues.
                        I do not comment on the principle, but I couldn’t keep silent. Andrey, I recently disagree with you a lot of things, but here I would like to give advice: do not pay attention to this clown. This is either a low-grade troll or an illiterate, counting on the fingers. Spending time on one thing, on the other is pointless.
                2. xtur
                  xtur 14 December 2017 13: 36 New
                  0
                  > ZGRLS is actually incapable of giving the control center to the Kyrgyz Republic.

                  I was always interested in how people imagine what they say? Ie they have a radar in combat, which does not see the target? Or does he see the target, but does not give coordinates?
                  It’s true that it’s like in a joke about a Georgian who loves to eat a tomato, but no.
                  How can a radar in combat work not give the coordinates of the target? Why is she then in combat? Or does she give the coordinates of the target, but does not send them immediately to the CR?

                  It's just a song of some kind, there is a radar station in combat, but he sees no purpose. And if he sees, then he doesn’t tell anyone. We definitely do not have KVN?
        2. xtur
          xtur 14 December 2017 14: 58 New
          +2
          > Thanks to the author for a great article!

          c'mon, this is just a horror story in the spirit of Damantsev. The new US rocket looks like a "dream rocket" on which they hung everything they dreamed about. But where does it follow that people who have never developed such things all of a sudden will get everything right away in 5 years?
          There are examples of what they did, how did “Man from the Capuchin Boulevard” carry out a pregnancy installation, in which it would last a couple of days?
          All the somewhat non-trivial developments of recent years do not work for them as it should, and they will be brought to condition for another 10-15 years.

          So it will be with this missile, until it becomes the weapon that Andrei told us a lot of time will pass, and by that time it will again become clear that the fleet is against a well-fortified shore, + the defense fleet smashes any attack fleet into chips.
          By that time, ZGRLS will be pushed into every hole, and satellite intelligence systems will appear, and much more, of which we don’t even know today.

          But even today it’s obvious that ZGRL + those anti-ship missiles that exist in the Russian Federation do not leave any chance to any fleet of attack.

          PS. So they forced Solomon’s design bureau to develop a “Mace” from “Poplar” and got a terrible bummer, although it would seem a well-known design bureau in a country that is developing different ICBMs at a time. Moreover, her specialists are so strong that in S. Korea they almost like the United States, when flying to the moon, make all the most complicated equipment on the first try.

          You can’t just get a rocket like this, which is equal to what the USSR / RF developed for 50 years, going through many stages. This process can be accelerated two times, given the capabilities of the United States, but not faster
      2. ZVO
        ZVO 13 December 2017 11: 30 New
        +2
        Quote: Dead Day

        with inequality of arms, change tactics. hi


        Briefly, succinctly - and definitely said!
    2. max702
      max702 13 December 2017 10: 28 New
      +2
      As we see the main problem is a means of detection and target designation .. And there seems to be only one way out .. Space .. But for this we need science and production, and all this can appear only with a high-quality education .. Here we have to start with it ..
    3. The brightest
      The brightest 13 December 2017 16: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      will again have to "tricky nut", to invent a new "bolt" ...

      no need to invent anything, the circuit described in the article was already with the United States. Only their speed changes.
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 13 December 2017 19: 05 New
        +6
        All! Rus, Chinas give in! Checkmate! .......
        So I did not understand that there are significant differences from the Ax except there is a slight decrease in the EPR and some improvement in the computational characteristics of the onboard equipment?
        I understand that our khan, they are like alarms, "emerge" at one o'clock all at once. Before that, no one had ever been able to think of anywhere. No? And their body shape is so trump! And with the weight of the rocket per ton, with 200 kg of explosives, it is an inconspicuous reptile, its target is 900 km by smell. An odor analyzer, an active GSN, OLS, a processor and a power source for all this weigh nothing ... well, 200 kg. And what remains of the design there? Another 200? And for fuel? 400? Super rocket! At 400 kg, it will fly 900 km, with maneuver, search, thoughts of whom and in which side to embed and how to distribute the goals in the pack! SUPER! None! Nowhere! I didn’t guess. Checkmate! Secures the unattainable advantage of mattresses ...
        Does the author himself believe in this?
        What is RCC Caliber with a combined flight profile and supersonic speed of the last low-altitude section! Bullshit! About Onyx with its even higher speed to forget at all, sucks! The main thing is the AWAC patrol, which will see everything and bring everyone in.
        Is there anything that the Russians are not going to attack the mattress troughs on the striped shores, but plan to defend themselves under the guise of coastal aviation and ground defense? Where will that patrol be there?
        Where will that AUG be? I will tell the author - at the bottom! Well, as a last resort in the form of steam after YaV.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 December 2017 19: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: Vlad.by
          Nothing that the Russians are not going to attack the mattress troughs on the striped shores, but plan to defend themselves under the guise of coastal aviation and ground defense?

          Oh-ho-ho ... "to defend under the guise of coastal aviation" - this means that we give the throat of the White Sea and the straits of the Kuril ridge to the enemy. Because coastal aviation is rigidly tied to stationary airfields. And the maximum distance of the covered object from the airfield should not exceed the range at which the enemy from this object is detected + the operating range of the enemy’s missile / missile system. Otherwise, reinforcements for the duty link will be suitable when the link itself is already debris on the ground, and a group of aircraft will fly to the object.
          A simple example: from the airfield to the object 300 km, targets found at a distance of 300 km from the object. Let the reserve take off instantly and go to the covered object with the same speed as the enemy. But when the enemy approached an object 80 km and launched a missile launcher and a missile launcher, the reserve would be from the adversary’s aircraft at a distance of 160 km — and could only watch the carrier rockets leaving it and fighter cover. Or instead of hunting for the Kyrgyz Republic, he will be forced to fight with the same cover group.
          When operating within the framework of the effective operation of coastal aviation in the same Severs, one can immediately forget about the defeat of marine carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic - for this, the line of defense must be pushed “around the corner”. Or wait 150 SLCMs from the same converted SSBNs.
          And most importantly - will we be able to collect an outfit of forces sufficient to fight off 3-4 AUGs? Let me remind you that during the Cold War the number of percussion vehicles on AB USN decks in some deck wing configurations exceeded 70 units. And only after the collapse of the USSR did these wings begin to dry out.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 13 December 2017 22: 10 New
            +2
            I correctly understand that the enemy is secretive to impossibility, managed to mobilize, prepare for a mortal battle with a nuclear power, pulled large, and even the largest forces for the first air strike, and the Russian intelligence clawed cabbage soup, washed down with vodka, the military danger was not declared, our forces on duty are deployed in peacetime states, special warheads for missiles in storage, boats at piers, surface ships crews and half of the military personnel in dismissals ...
            Here, yes, the sworn friend will have time to show off, fly 80, 100 and 100500 km while our “reserve” will fly to the rescue ...
            Or let's look at a dueling situation - one Karakurt against a secretly crept AUG, for example. And who will win, then ???
            Americans, for sure. They also have such missiles ...
            And 80-90 vehicles on one aircraft carrier. It’s nothing that the latter will take off when the former have already run out of fuel. And the fact that the line does not need to be "pushed around the corner". For those around the corner there is reconnaissance and ballistic missiles. And for those who are closer there are submarines and coastal missile systems, even in the event of a "sudden" attack.
            I understand that you always need to put yourself in the worst position and try to get out of it. In training. Like, such a stress test. But, knowingly raising their paws uphill, assuming a 100% advantage to the enemy and denying themselves the possibility of a fight, can only be a traitor or a complete and ... stupid person.
            In your arrangement, you imitate the latter. No?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 December 2017 10: 24 New
              +4
              Quote: Vlad.by
              I correctly understand that the enemy is secretive to impossibility, managed to mobilize, prepare for a mortal battle with a nuclear power, pulled large, and even the largest forces for the first air strike, and the Russian intelligence clawed cabbage soup, washed down with vodka, the military danger was not declared, our forces on duty are deployed in peacetime states, special warheads for missiles in storage, boats at piers, surface ships crews and half of the military personnel in dismissals ...

              No, of course ... as soon as mobilization is announced here, then by the pike dictate, first-class airbases filled with fighter aviation regiments will appear from nowhere. After all, each reservist in case of mobilization stores in the garage by plane or tank. smile
              What will the blow to the same Vilyuchinsk reflect? One squadron from Yelizovo? You can’t count on the videoconferencing - they will need to cover Vladik and KnA.
              Quote: Vlad.by
              Here, yes, the sworn friend will have time to show off, fly 80, 100 and 100500 km while our “reserve” will fly to the rescue ...

              Read carefully - the reserve flew out simultaneously with the discovery of a suitable group of enemy aircraft. I even reset the time for him to take off and gather the group for him.
              Quote: Vlad.by
              And the fact that the line does not need to be "pushed around the corner". For those around the corner there is reconnaissance and ballistic missiles.

              I really want to see how ballistic missiles will help in the fight against SLCM carriers. Especially underwater.
              Quote: Vlad.by
              And for those who are closer there are submarines and coastal missile systems, even in the event of a "sudden" attack.

              But why come closer if there is an opportunity to shoot the enemy with impunity from a distance, consistently moving his defense lines?
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 14 December 2017 12: 48 New
                +1
                Well, you still remember about accelerated production of clubs ...
                During the attack on Vilyuchinsk, how many minutes will the Commander-in-Chief of All Russia wait before pressing the "red button", what do you think?
                And then it will be all the same how many first-class airfields in Alaska and the continental States and who hid there "around the corner", do not you find?
                All your "attacks on Vilyuchinsk" can be considered only after counting the survivors and determining the approximate period of survival in the conditions that will develop after the detonation of the launched warheads.
                But, I'm afraid there will be nobody, no reason, nothing and nothing to attack someone. And the greatest value will be his majesty Kalashnikov assault rifle with zinc cartridges and ... a sip of clean, filtered from radioactive particles of air and disinfected water.
                1. Mih1974
                  Mih1974 18 December 2017 19: 19 New
                  +2
                  Remind HOW ALL Turkey was shaking after they shot down our plane? am As we have already been wondering here - are we glazing ALL of Turkey with nuclear weapons, or is it just that airfield where did these shit guys take off from?
                  It is only in the wet balls of the USA that they are “in the sandbox” with us and we are suddenly defeated, and in response to no “but we are for what” will not come - FIGS. Even as it comes. soldier
                  "A good American is a dead American !!" good
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 December 2017 10: 04 New
            0
            Mistake came out - not missiles, but RVV.
        2. Mih1974
          Mih1974 18 December 2017 19: 14 New
          +2
          As correctly noted above, Russia inherited from the USSR a wonderful “pill” from any AWAC at our borders.

          Here he is handsome good laughing . He is guaranteed to catch up with these AWACS and “drops them,” while he drops “invisibles” and any other “wunderwaffle” crap. good
  2. tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 December 2017 07: 57 New
    13


    Andrei forgot to indicate that with the inclined PU LRASM starts
    As for the hypothetical Zircon - what will change? Without eyes in the ocean, you can just as well instead of any super-duper zircon load bags of potatoes, or rather, of gold. What is the use of a powerful pistol if you are blind and deaf, and the enemy has a rifle with an optical sight?
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 13 December 2017 19: 16 New
      +6
      The situation resembles a thief who climbed into the house in the dark with a flashlight and a gun. At the same time, the owner and his friends hid with light and heavy machine guns and waits for the reptile, holding his hand on the light switch.
      Do Russians intend to sail to the coast of America and attack them with Zircons? Or exactly the opposite? Who will have hundreds of “eyes” and hundreds of coastal weapons of destruction against a pair of Hokai taking off from the AUG and a dozen Hornets with two or three dozen RCCs? Our fleet will only complete the defeat of that AUG, and not even the Zircons, but torpedoes will drown burning vessels, so that they would not suffer.
      Fools are dumb, no one in the ocean alone, even Zircons will attack superior forces.
      The bastards themselves will sail to our shores, we need man-made reefs for divers.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 14 December 2017 03: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Vlad.by

        Fools are dumb, no one in the ocean alone, even Zircons will attack superior forces.
        The bastards themselves will sail to our shores, we need man-made reefs for divers.

        certainly will not - for there is nothing request
        about "swim up" - did you even read the article?
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 14 December 2017 09: 08 New
          +2
          There is nothing about it - this is overkill. Granite, Volcano, Onyx, Caliber, X-31,32 ... this is not counting any Bears,
          Mosquitoes, etc. Moreover, each of the given missiles is at least as effective as newfangled American ones, for which there is generally no experience of operation and use. But they have already been elevated to absolute. Why?
          And you should not believe in the absolute ability of the AUG order to find a strike boat in the ocean and a bear flying at low altitude. Moreover, the successful experience of photographing the decks and sides of aircraft carriers is enough for us and the Chinese.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 14 December 2017 16: 44 New
            +2
            they would say that they didn’t read, why disgrace then?
  3. sevtrash
    sevtrash 13 December 2017 08: 10 New
    +2
    It is quite logical - who has more material and technical resources - that is the leader. In this sense, China has good prospects. The United States is unlikely to be able to catch up, at least in the next century or two, but to create-copy is a little worse, of course. The economy is working.
    1. katana
      katana 13 December 2017 10: 19 New
      +8
      Quote: sevtrash
      It is quite logical - who has more material and technical resources - that is the leader. In this sense, China has good prospects. The United States is unlikely to be able to catch up, at least in the next century or two, but to create-copy is a little worse, of course. The economy is working.

      What is it that theoretically China can catch up with the USA in armaments? As far as I know, the Chinese have no particularly warm feelings for either Ukrainians or Russians. In addition, China is a totalitarian country and at one point can consider that the northern “barbarians” unjustly seized territory from it in the 19th century and it was time to correct this historical mistake. Appeals to China only make me laugh - in childhood, beaten boys boasted of their older brothers. laughing
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 13 December 2017 15: 11 New
        0
        Quote: katana
        Appeals to China only make me laugh - in childhood, beaten boys boasted of their older brothers.

        And here are some appeals? Had a lot of courts, or what? China ranks second and first in terms of GDP / PPP, the "factory of the world", and the largest gold and currency reserves. If anyone can even catch up with the United States in any future, there are no candidates besides China. And what about the appeal? Clean economy.
      2. Lock36
        Lock36 13 December 2017 17: 13 New
        0
        Quote: katana
        In addition, China is a totalitarian country and at one point can consider that the northern “barbarians” unjustly seized its territories in the 19th century and it was time to correct this historical mistake

        But for me, such statements are already a diagnosis of the author’s complete insanity. Buy yourself a primer for a start.
      3. Mih1974
        Mih1974 18 December 2017 19: 26 New
        +1
        It’s not funny, all the development of the northern territories in China began only at the time of the “opening of the border” on our part, and basically it was for deliveries to us that developed. Actually, after the artificial collapse of the ruble exchange rate in 2008, the reverse trend was outlined - the north of China is getting worse and there has been a lag in development with other regions. So no fi nafih, the Chinese are our northern lands, they are much warmer and more habitual territories will occupy. They first need to return Taiwan, then there are still Korea there, all sorts of Vietnam and Laos. )) Yes, and it’s not so “painful” to break into the south how to start a “last battle” with us. Especially - And on a fig? tongue When the Chinese got money, they would always prefer to buy our goods than to lose their lives when fighting with people as strange as we are.
    2. Lock36
      Lock36 13 December 2017 17: 14 New
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      It is quite logical - who has more material and technical resources - that is the leader. In this sense, China has good prospects.

      Bullshit. For all these years, China has not caught up with us either in aviation or in missiles. And he didn’t even come close.
      Engines on their aircraft are still being bought from us.
      Money is not always converted to technology.
      1. Mih1974
        Mih1974 18 December 2017 19: 28 New
        +1
        I support. I’m just waiting for the Chinese to show the World at least something of their own “innovative”. Alas recourse request - only copies, alterations (God would be better if they didn’t touch anything with their hands), or, "under the watch of the white sahibs" they bring something to their logical conclusion (high-speed trains).
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 19 December 2017 13: 46 New
          0
          Kamrad, you rarely see someone who is not a fanatic of licking the priests of the Great Yellow Monkey. drinks
  4. Serg65
    Serg65 13 December 2017 08: 38 New
    +7
    hi Welcome Andrew!
    bully You directly burst into articles, that's what forced unemployment does to people laughing
    The article is excellent, no kooky and informative! good
    from now on our fleet will be confronted by a much more formidable enemy than before

    Well then, demand creates supply yes ! Take at least the development of the Navy of the USSR. With access to the ocean, 30 cis replaced Kotlin, studded with "Soviet Oerlikons." With the advent of danger from the US missile nuclear submarines, the Komsomol members of the 61st project came into operation. To confront AB US with their carrier-based aircraft, the USSR responded with the destroyer of the 58th project, by the will of the Secretary General, who became cruisers. To combat the increased capabilities of the US nuclear submarines, the Komsomol members were replaced by the Bukari project 1134b. For a more effective struggle with the US Air Force, Grozny was replaced by the Atlanteans and the Eagles. Those. as Andrei Yurievich put it ...
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    will again have to "tricky nut", to invent a new "bolt".

    The development of the "shell" and "armor" goes in a spiral and that the most interesting thing in today's rapidly changing world, the "shell" may be "armor" bully
    Thank you for the article drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 09: 52 New
      +5
      Greetings, dear Sergey!
      Quote: Serg65
      You directly burst into articles, that's what forced unemployment does to people

      So what to do?:))))
      Quote: Serg65
      The article is excellent, no quirk and informative

      Thank!:)))
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 13 December 2017 18: 52 New
        +3
        Serious analytical work. Thank!
  5. Pavel Ryabov
    Pavel Ryabov 13 December 2017 08: 59 New
    0
    Americans need aircraft carriers to wage land wars. Therefore, our Navy does not need aircraft carriers, but UAV carrier ships. Firstly, it’s cheaper, and secondly, it is the UAVs that will be able to surround large ships with a swarm and carry out reconnaissance, and destroy anti-ship missiles at distant approaches.
  6. Magic archer
    Magic archer 13 December 2017 09: 31 New
    0
    There is no weapon without flaws! And the American have it anyway! But no one will tell us about them!
  7. Town Hall
    Town Hall 13 December 2017 09: 39 New
    +5
    "....
    6) "Packing". At one time, the USSR was able to realize the exchange of data between heavy CRP.... "


    It would be very interesting to know, besides the Internet tales, when and how, on what exercises, the Granite launch, the leader rocket, the exchange of data between rockets and other charming colorful details were really worked out in the USSR "....
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 09: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: Town Hall
      It would be very interesting to know, besides the Internet tales

      Communication with people who directly exploited the complex :))
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 13 December 2017 09: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Communication with people who directly exploited the complex :))



        So all the same, only tales ... Nothing of the kind was tested in the USSR in real conditions. And the paper will endure everything)
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 13 December 2017 10: 11 New
          +9
          Quote: Town Hall
          So all the same, only stories

          laughing Those. you have the opportunity to operate with the secret test data and the training use of Soviet anti-ship missiles in single shots and is there nothing in your secret documents about the salvo use of these anti-ship missiles? Did I understand you correctly?
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 13 December 2017 10: 21 New
            +4
            Quote: Serg65
            Quote: Town Hall
            So all the same, only stories

            laughing Those. you have the opportunity to operate with the secret test data and the training use of Soviet anti-ship missiles in single shots and is there nothing in your secret documents about the salvo use of these anti-ship missiles? Did I understand you correctly?



            No, I don’t have such an opportunity. The author gives this story as an objective fact, which means that he should confirm it with at least some specifics.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 13 December 2017 10: 46 New
              +6
              Quote: Town Hall
              No, I don’t have such an opportunity

              bully Those. You can not refute the author of the document?
              Quote: Town Hall
              The author gives this story as an objective fact,

              The author refers to the allegations of the designers and the operators, do you deny what you refer to in your denial? Well, other than how your “Can't Be” has facts?
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 December 2017 10: 52 New
          +6
          Quote: Town Hall
          None of this was tested in the USSR in real conditions.

          Well, why?
          We go here http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-398.html we read
          A total of 17 launches were carried out at the Nenox training ground (stands of CSK and BSG-9), including 9 missile launches from the BSG-9 stand. Joint tests of the complex and carriers were carried out from 1980 to August 1981. Launches from the Kirov missile cruiser pr.1144 were carried out during state tests of the cruiser from September to December 1980 - 4 launches, including 1 launch with a two-missile salvo at close to maximum range. Targets - target ship pr.1784 surrounded by ship shields. With single launches at the minimum and medium range, the missiles were successfully aimed at the main target. When salvo firing, the main target was hit by one of the missiles, the second missile hit one of the shields.

          Those. there is a distribution of targets in the salvo launch of anti-ship missiles
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 13 December 2017 11: 12 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            4 launches, including 1 launch with a two-rocket salvo at close to maximum range. Targets - target ship pr.1784 surrounded by ship shields.




            That is, all this fiction (for the electronics level of the 70s) with a leader rocket that rises above the flock, transmits data and distributes targets to the rest of the "pack" if it is shot down by another leader rocket which in turn cancels the "directions" of the previous one and re-indicates / distributes and other colorful details - worked out and confirmed by 1 (one) powerful 2 (two) missile "salvo" at the GI during which one missile hit the target and the second shield?


            I have no more questions on this topic ...
            1. kuznec
              kuznec 13 December 2017 11: 30 New
              +7
              Well, it’s good that there are no more questions. And you thought you’ll now lay out the source code of the programs, nozzle geometry and identification codes? Most of the tests will remain state secret. And rightly so.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 December 2017 11: 33 New
              +4
              Quote: Town Hall
              oh there is all this fiction (for the electronics level of the 70s) with a rocket leader

              The exchange of information between rockets and a rocket - a leader - these are "slightly" different things. About the "leader" I heard that this is fantastic, but see the exchange on its own - the thing is completely not fantastic and quite implemented on the basis of the then technology.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 13 December 2017 12: 25 New
                +4
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The exchange of information between rockets and a rocket - a leader - these are "slightly" different things. About the "leader" I heard that this is fantastic, but see the exchange on its own - the thing is completely not fantastic and quite implemented on the basis of the then technology.



                These are hypotheses, and there are facts that say that Americans are creating such network-centricity between missiles only now. And it is considered a great achievement. In 2017, it is not found on either Harpoons or Axes. And the strangest thing is that they could not be repeated even in today's Caliber. And no one can name at least the name of this information exchange system. Everything is secret even after 50 years). Everyone has heard about Link 16, for example. But about this, no one could ever say anything specific, no test, no name. Nothing. Only stories of well-informed anonymous friends comrades.
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 13 December 2017 12: 45 New
                  +3
                  Well, you have to start with this - once the Americans are just introducing it, then where are the Russians from then ... So, the leader rocket is really bikes, but there was an exchange of information, I gave a link to the Courage website, but you, of course, they didn’t bother to read. And there it is painted without patriotism what was and what is not. True, Delta did not serve on the Eagles, but on Antei.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 13 December 2017 12: 53 New
                    +1
                    Quote: sivuch
                    I gave a link to the Courage website, but of course you didn’t bother to read it. And there it was painted without patriotism, what happened and what didn’t.



                    It will not be difficult for you to copy-paste here the passage from the site of Courage, which says that PCR Granit exchanged information with each other?
                  2. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 13 December 2017 21: 33 New
                    0
                    Quote: sivuch
                    . So, the leader rocket is really bikes

                    If there is a leader, then it is easier to compose algorithms, when there is no leader, then everything is very difficult even with a modern base, probably still what was the starting point.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  13 December 2017 13: 22 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  These are hypotheses. There are facts. They say that Americans are creating such network-centricity between missiles only now. And it is considered a great achievement.

                  First, what is considered? You?:)))
                  The Americans did not have a special need for such missiles for one simple reason - in their tactics of naval combat, the distribution was carried out in a completely different way, because they were going to fight by air raids, when the whole picture of the enemy KMG was opened by intelligence and DRL. Accordingly, the pilots of attack aircraft received their assigned target and aimed at it.
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  It is neither on the Harpoons, nor on the Axes. And the strangest thing is that they could not be repeated even in today's Caliber.

                  Who said they couldn’t? There are NO data at all about the calibers in the arsenal of the Russian Federation, only speculation
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  And no one can even name the name of this information exchange system.

                  Why is there a separate name?
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  everyone heard for example about Link 1

                  This is completely different
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  But about this, no one has ever been able to say anything concrete, either a test or a name. Nothing.

                  As well as about a bunch of things from our and American sides. For example, the F-22 radar station is top secret, the manufacturer didn’t disclose the info, nevertheless, all fans of American weapons are sure that it tears everyone
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 13 December 2017 14: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    First, what is considered? You?:)))



                    I see ... we switched to trolling.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      13 December 2017 14: 12 New
                      +6
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      I see ... we switched to trolling.

                      No, I asked a question. You troll here, and for a long time.
              2. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 13 December 2017 16: 26 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The exchange of information between rockets and a rocket - a leader - these are "slightly" different things.


                Granite missiles can hunt their prey in a "flock." The first P-700 captures the target (or targets) and directs all the other missiles at them. Each of them gets its own target, but if the guided missile is destroyed, then another member of the "pack" takes on its functions. Missiles classify targets by degree of importance, choose the most optimal attack tactics and their plan. The electronic missile control system contains the data of all modern ships, information about the types of their construction, methods of counteracting attacks. Missiles that hit the target constantly exchange information with each other.
                All this allows the P-700 to decide what is in front of it: AUG, an ordinary convoy or an amphibious group, to act accordingly. If the ship is destroyed by one missile, then the rest choose other goals for themselves.
                Each missile is equipped with a radar jamming device and can throw false targets.
                This fragment contains information about the exchange of information between missiles, and about the “leader” missile .. What else is needed?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                About the "leader" I heard that this is fantastic ...

                And what is "fantastic"? request If the "exchange of information between missiles" in the P-700 complex is real even from your point of view, then the realization of the idea of ​​a "leader rocket" (as described in P-700) is at the same technical level.
                You, for some reason, willingly believe the "rumors", but stubbornly ignore the information contained on the official sites!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  13 December 2017 17: 18 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  You, for some reason, willingly believe the "rumors", but stubbornly ignore the information contained on the official sites!

                  Please give the official website. I did not find something. By the way, in addition to jokes, for such a link, my gratitude will be immense (within reason laughing )
            3. Julio Jurenito
              Julio Jurenito 13 December 2017 12: 39 New
              +1
              Envy silently, Signor.
            4. jonht
              jonht 20 December 2017 05: 48 New
              0
              So in this case, not the elemental base is important, but the software .....
              There were no problems with this in the USSR, the programs were written well.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 December 2017 11: 43 New
            +1
            In fairness, Andrei, I have never met references to a volley of more than two missiles. And in this case, not a word about SOIR. The type of target (ship’s shield, target ship) was apparently laid before launch. No real mention of the work in packs except journalistic tales and "a friend told me."
            In principle, the easiest way when you don’t have to ruin missiles is laboratory aircraft. True, you have to raise it into the air, say 3 planes (or better 16 or 24 wink ) with GOS missiles, IRW and other tripe. So for months you can test and analyze the operation of electronics at different heights, bearings, etc. But more suited for subsonic

            ps. By the way, I forgot to ask how this flock acts if the leader goes at a higher altitude and f. flies further, and the flock burns fuel at the bottom?
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 13 December 2017 12: 05 New
              +5
              A volley of 4 rockets I saw in the movie about pr.1144. In the Northern Bureau of Holidays, it was decided immediately after Yukhnin's speech to make films about his projects. That time was about Orlan.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 13 December 2017 12: 14 New
                0
                hi Well, they said A, say B, and it’s interesting
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 13 December 2017 12: 49 New
                  +2
                  Do you know what year it was? About 30 years have passed. I recall something like this -
                  A formidable voice-over said: - A surface target, a range of 400 - to destroy. Missiles came out at intervals of either 3 or 4 seconds, a lot of steam and spray.
                  But the commander’s cabin was remembered wink
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 December 2017 13: 16 New
              +3
              Quote: Tlauicol
              In fairness, Andrei, I have never met references to a volley of more than two missiles

              Granite - yes, but the same Volcano was shot by four.
              Quote: Tlauicol
              By the way, I forgot to ask how this flock acts if the leader goes at a higher altitude and f. flies further, and the flock burns fuel at the bottom?

              Not so. Missiles are coming at a height, they are looking for someone to jam with their GOS. They see the warrant, it cuts the electronic warfare, the GN part of the missiles is jammed and does not see anything. Then for them there is an opportunity to get the control center (direction, time of maneuver) to go down, and attack the target from other missiles
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 13 December 2017 13: 59 New
                +1
                those. in tests on the shield put the electronic warfare complex? Or one of the missiles flew off. GOS, and received data from the second, then turned on the GOS? Nonsense - they even before the start knew: one big, another small goal - and the whole business. Where, how, and when did the SOIR be tested, more likely nowhere and never, or on a stand, on the ground.
                The same with the attack - if the missiles "see the warrant", then that's it, then it's clear. they cut down the GOS and each decrease in the right direction before the attack ...... What they know before attacking start - for example. : 1,3,5,7ya attack krupnyak, 6,8ya goals to his right, 2,4ya in front of him or to the left - well, the most primitive algorithms. Why is SOIIR here?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  13 December 2017 17: 17 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Nonsense - they even before the start knew: one big, another small goal - and the whole business

                  Are you sure about this? Can I find out the grounds for such confidence?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 13 December 2017 18: 42 New
                    0
                    almost completely sure of that. simple logic.
                    counter question: are you sure that the two missiles "agreed" among themselves, after finding targets?
                  2. Vlad.by
                    Vlad.by 13 December 2017 19: 32 New
                    0
                    Strange, does a person require to lay out a test procedure for secret research with test results? Maybe the keys to the apartment where the money is?
                    You would, dear, introduce yourself! With full name, addresses, phone numbers, account numbers and passwords for the Internet bank!
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 14 December 2017 00: 22 New
          0
          As far as I know, a full-scale test of the flock has never been conducted.
          There was a launch of 2-3 missiles: leading and either one, or two slaves. Based on this successful test, it was concluded that a large flock would be successful.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 14 December 2017 01: 12 New
            +1
            about 4 I wrote a post above, but more, perhaps, was not
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 13 December 2017 09: 52 New
      +3
      Judging by the context, you want to say that there was nothing like this?
      Personally, I heard about the same tales (although not quite the same) when I worked in the Northern Bureau, and then in Diamond, as well as from classmates whom I have known for as many years as I do myself.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 13 December 2017 10: 05 New
        0
        Quote: sivuch
        Judging by the context, you want to say that there was nothing like this?



        You can tell anything you like. I believe that such serious characteristics that affect so much the same tactics of use should have been verified and confirmed in real conditions on the exercises. Here I want to know if and when such exercises were carried out and the results. Otherwise, this less well-founded tales
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 13 December 2017 10: 42 New
          +8
          Quote: Town Hall
          So I want to know if and when such exercises were held and the results

          Man, you try to find at least some information at least about naval training missile firing !!! Suppose I know for certain that the Azov BOD in the 85th during practical firing by Fort, was almost hit by the ZM-80E missile, it was lucky that Osa worked out with a bang! I know for sure that RKR Golovko was struck by a minesweeper during missile firing for the prize of the Commander-in-Chief, but where can I read about it? Nowhere! That is, my knowledge, in your terminology - ordinary tales, is not it?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 December 2017 11: 33 New
            +1
            all this is in the open press, including and incident with BT Kherson Komsomolets
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 13 December 2017 11: 39 New
              +5
              Quote: Tlauicol
              all this is in the open press, including and incident with BT Kherson Komsomolets

              I hardly found about HC, even on the Tsushima forum, but there is no Azov. If there is something about Azov discard, please!
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 13 December 2017 11: 55 New
                +1
                I did not know about Azov, I will not hide it. And I immediately remembered about the minesweeper from the book "Accidents and Disasters of the Navy of the USSR" - it is in e. form.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 13 December 2017 10: 48 New
          +5
          That is, until you receive a detailed report on the exercises, do you want to believe nothing?
          Well, your right. Then this I already post is not for you
          http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/defense/
          2012/1016/19249412 / detail.shtml
          Five generations of GOS PKR Concern "Granit-Electron"
          To combat aircraft carrier formations in the 70s of the last century, the Granit missile system was created. To increase its effectiveness in the on-board automatic control system (BASU), the third generation GOS was implemented. GOS allowed to carry out target distribution and target designation in a salvo of missiles without an operator. This function, associated with the complex logic of target selection against the background of interference, as well as with assessing the compliance of goals with given signs, was implemented in an on-board digital computer (BCM), performed for the first time on integrated circuits. The algorithms implemented in it are based on game theory. The strategy of organizing multiple launch rockets and the enemy’s missile countermeasures are seen as a game of two partners. For the solution, the so-called “payment function” is calculated, the conditions are selected under which the damage to the adversary will be maximum, and own losses (“payments”) will be minimal.
          GOS for RCC “Granit”, after launch, independently conducts search, selection and selection of the object of impact, as well as assessment of target parameters with subsequent capture and homing of the selected target. A multi-channel (active-passive) radar sighting device was created in the radio engineering part of the GOS, which, working in the passive mode (radio silence), provides search and detection of the warrant, increasing the stealth of the GOS and RCC as a whole on the marching flight area. GOS for anti-ship missile system “Granit” allowed solving the problem of inflicting maximum damage to an enemy carrier’s connection when they use active radio countermeasures
          And here the man supplements, and it is precisely with regard to the reduction of sturgeon
          FORCE OF RUSSIA. Forum site "Courage" (www.otvaga2004.ru) »Fleet» Anti-ship missiles
          http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=44&
          ; p = 19
          Although, of course, this can be called tales. But, sorry, we have no other readers for you (with -I.V. Stalin)
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 13 December 2017 12: 07 New
            +2
            That the rocket had sufficient "intelligence" in order to choose the most important target in the warrant, no one disputed.

            It's a little different if you were a little closer. Where in your copy-paste there is something about a leader rocket, a flock and data exchange between rockets?
  8. Town Hall
    Town Hall 13 December 2017 09: 53 New
    0
    "....No matter how good the air defense systems of a frigate of the Admiral Gorshkov type are, they will not be able to repel the simultaneous strike of ten LRASM...."


    Are you talking about the failed Polement-Redoubt because of which the frigate is essentially still without any serious air defense?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 10: 56 New
      +6
      Quote: Town Hall
      Are you talking about the failed Polent-Redoubt

      (shrug) And he is definitely a failure? :)
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 13 December 2017 11: 21 New
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Is he just a failure? :)

        laughing laughing laughing good
      2. Town Hall
        Town Hall 13 December 2017 12: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Town Hall
        Are you talking about the failed Polent-Redoubt

        (shrug) And he is definitely a failure? :)



        Just a shrug then)
      3. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 13 December 2017 20: 42 New
        0
        Failed failed! 100% - a cousin of a brother-in-law the sister-in-law of the cousin of aunt of one of my acquaintance said in secret! Absolutely! This and do not go to the grandmother, I give a tooth! :-)
    2. Rakovor
      Rakovor 13 December 2017 11: 21 New
      0
      Why is Polement Redoubt a failure. That will bring to mind, then we'll see. And there is nothing ahead of time to spray with saliva.))
  9. sivuch
    sivuch 13 December 2017 09: 55 New
    +5
    4) Opto-electronic guidance system
    On Malachite - radar + infrared seeker
  10. Horse
    Horse 13 December 2017 10: 14 New
    +1
    And that screaming is all gone? From time immemorial Russia mother fought with a well-trained and armed enemy, and where is this enemy? Our defense industry complex and general staff are far from idiots and are counting different risks and "surprises" of potential adversaries and the answer to their new missile will be in the form of new detection and counteraction systems. Why and in talented designers, we do not have a lack of luck, fortunately there would be a will of the leadership and enough funds in their implementation
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 10: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: Horse
      And that screaming is all gone?

      Apart from you, nobody seems to scream
  11. ADmA_RUS
    ADmA_RUS 13 December 2017 10: 18 New
    +1
    Not a fact, it is not known, presumably, probably, etc ..
    But at the same time we compare and draw evaluative conclusions.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 10: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      But at the same time we compare

      Specify what saw the comparison as incorrect
      1. ADmA_RUS
        ADmA_RUS 14 December 2017 09: 29 New
        0
        The author does not have data obtained by a unified methodology and similar conditions. But it compares the products. In some cases, he generally does not know the data, but operates with numbers from the ceiling. But this does not prevent him from making value judgments.
  12. Taoist
    Taoist 13 December 2017 11: 07 New
    +3
    Well, for subsonic missiles there is another danger ... MRAK - high-speed missile-artillery systems - with an individual optoelectronic guidance system - I don’t think that the American novelty has at least some protection against them. Given the real detection range - and at distances of 4-5 kilometers, no stealth will help. But 30mm metal cutting will have time to fire. So ... sad of course, but not hopeless.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 11: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Taoist
      MRAK - fast-firing missile artillery systems - with an individual optoelectronic guidance system - I don’t think that the American novelty has at least some protection against them

      It doesn’t. This is absolutely accurate.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 13 December 2017 11: 43 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This is absolutely accurate.

        bully Oh Andrey, you shouldn’t underestimate the metal cutting in vain !!!! Target rocket figachela with labor enthusiasm!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 December 2017 13: 24 New
          +2
          Quote: Serg65
          Oh Andrey, you shouldn’t underestimate the metal cutting in vain !!!

          Why am I underestimating her? For approval
          I do not think that the American novelty has at least some protection from them

          I confirm
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It doesn’t. This is absolutely accurate.

          Where is the underestimation here? :)))
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 13 December 2017 13: 27 New
            +5
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Where is the underestimation here? :)))

            laughing Sorry, hurt yourself!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 December 2017 14: 25 New
              +3
              There is no reception against scrap .... laughing
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 13 December 2017 13: 21 New
      +2
      "But a 30mm metal cutting will have time to fire" ////

      This is the last and last frontier of defense, in the last seconds.
      Quick-firing guns can fall during operation automatically, each with its own radar.
      But with the frantic consumption of ammunition. One missile can take the entire ammunition of the tower.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 13 December 2017 13: 48 New
        +1
        This is the last frontier but nevertheless very effective ... Even junk like the AK 630 managed to fire at several targets and not at all the ammunition one at a time. To defeat an unarmored and extremely tightly arranged target such as the KR is enough, even a single hit is enough ... And there is fire density ... Well, if we take the MRAK (ie the Broadsword missile system), then its capabilities for hitting multiple targets at the same time is much higher. Well, the subsonic speeds of the missiles leave enough time for both the reaction and the transfer of fire. Unlike an air defense system, there is actually direct fire here + a huge rate of fire and density of fire.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 13 December 2017 14: 10 New
          +5
          Hard to say. recourse There were cases that even in high-speed
          boats of pirates and terrorists did not get from these guns.
          Radars do not see stealth or small targets near water.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 13 December 2017 14: 48 New
            +1
            These complexes have at least two guidance channels - in addition to a pure radar, an optoelectronic one is also used. I suspect the "pirates" were shot at all with manual aiming (there is such a regime).

            “The capabilities of the Shar station allow you to take a target of an“ aircraft ”type for automatic tracking at ranges of up to 30 km (depending on the characteristics of the target). For cruise missiles, the maximum capture range is 10-12 kilometers.
            Optical-electronic control station "Shar" is interfaced with a digital computer and other components of the complex. All information about the operation of the systems is displayed on the control panel monitor. Depending on the environment ZRAK Broadsword can operate in a fully automatic or semi-automatic mode. In the latter case, part of the control operations is carried out by the complex operator using automation. The 3M89 Broadsword anti-aircraft artillery complex is capable of carrying out layered anti-aircraft defense of the base ship. So, at ranges from 1,3 to 10 kilometers, target destruction is carried out using Sosna-R missiles. Aimed fire from automatic guns can be fired at a range from 200 to 4000 meters. 9M337 missiles are capable of destroying targets flying at speeds up to 700 m / s. The maximum speed of the target that the guns are capable of hitting is 300 m / s. The reaction time of the complex does not exceed 5-7 seconds. "(S)
            In general, 3-4 of such modules are capable of repelling even a massive attack of subsonic anti-ship missiles.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 13 December 2017 15: 30 New
              +2
              Work "Chestnut" (aka Dirk)
  13. Pacifist
    Pacifist 13 December 2017 11: 21 New
    +2
    Interesting, balanced, objective. Thanks, it was interesting to read.
    I already wrote about this rocket, but I repeat. This is an extremely dangerous weapon. We have no analog yet. Given the quantitative indicators of the fleet of potential "friends" using this rocket, they are able to multiply by 0 our surface Navy. Therefore, we need not parity in means of destruction, but overwhelming superiority. It remains to wait for Zircon. Only guaranteed unacceptable damage can these creatures at least somehow keep on a relatively adequate leash.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 11: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: Pacifist
      Interesting, balanced, objective. Thanks, it was interesting to read.

      Thank you, glad I liked it!
    2. Dimka off
      Dimka off 13 December 2017 14: 25 New
      +1
      This is an extremely dangerous weapon. We have no analog yet.

      I thought about it too. Why can’t I imprison the same X-101s for the RCC variant? Range, low-speed, stealth, powerful warhead. The carrier therefore has. And such a smart warhead is not a problem for our minds to do. The CC system seems to be being made - the companions of Liana. The only question is why is the bet on super and hypersound (which is absolutely necessary) and subsonic RCC forgotten?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 13 December 2017 14: 51 New
        +1
        I think that, first of all, because subsonic anti-ship missiles still leave enough time for the reaction for object-based air defense. But for the defeat of supersonic and especially hypersonic targets, everything is more than complicated.
      2. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 14 December 2017 09: 20 New
        0
        Why didn’t the caliber please you?
        Just because the real range is kept secret?
        1. Dimka off
          Dimka off 14 December 2017 17: 21 New
          +2
          Well, if its real range is 1500-2000 km, then I’m absolutely calm
  14. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 12: 03 New
    0
    for LRASM, the flight altitude of 20 is announced.

    10 anti-ship missile launcher LRASM in salvo - for our cruisers it's zilch
    antenna posts of surveillance radars are located at different heights and have different radio horizons
    TARKR pr.1144, - radio horizon 93 km.
    3 Frontier Air Defense from LRASM: SAM; Fort; SAM Dagger; ZRAK Dirk (6 pcs.)
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk, this is your statement in the article: David and Goliath from 06.12.17 10: 17
    RKR pr. 1164, - radio horizon 75 km.
    3 Frontier Air Defense from LRASM: SAM; Fort; SAM system Wasp; AK-630
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 13: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      RKR pr. 1164, - radio horizon 75 km.

      Learn to read, zolotets :)))) What is your 75 km radio horizon ??? fool You first learn to distinguish the range of use of weapons from the radio horizon, you are our illiterate, then write messages
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 13: 52 New
        0
        you are our illiterate

        I repeat again for the distant,
        everything is very simple, the surveillance radar, located at an altitude of 55 meters, has a radio horizon at TARKR Peter the Great 93 km; on the RKR Ave. 1164, 75 km.
        after the modernization of the air defense systems Fort and Fort-M have in the missile launcher with AGSN
        For 93 and 75 km ranges, 9M96E2 missiles with a range from 1 to 135 km are used.
        (with 4 SAM on the 1 TPK)
        Analogy with ground air defense systems, universal mobile tower 40B6MD height 39 meters, under 76H6 radar, the radio horizon is 120 km.
        RCC LRASM just do not have a chance against our ship's air defense
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 14: 12 New
          0
          Analogy with ground air defense systems, universal mobile tower 40В6МД height 39 meters, under the radar 76Н6, the radio horizon is 120 km.

          I explain ....
          tower 20 meters - this is the horizon 40 km, height 0 meters
          40 tower meter - this is the horizon 80 km, height 0 meters.
          the tower is also 40 meters - the radio horizon is 120 km, the target height is 20 meters.
          applicable in shipborne surveillance radar
          - RCC detection with ramjet is possible at a distance of 80 km since RCC height 5-10 meters since salty sea water does not have any effect on the PDRD
          - detection subsonic RCC with turbojet engines is possible at a distance already 120 km.
          RCC flight altitude LRASM 20 meters
          because salty sea water is already causing surging and stopping the turbojet engine (low draft about 500 kgf)
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 December 2017 14: 22 New
          +6
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          everything is very simple, the surveillance radar being at an altitude of 55 meters has a radio horizon at the Peter the Great TARKR 93 km

          wassat Listen, you already tortured you with your ignorance.
          The horizon (understanding it as the boundary between heaven and earth) is calculated by the formula - distance to the horizon (in kilometers) = 3,57 * square root of the observation height in meters, i.e. for an observer at 55 meters, the horizon range is 26,47 kilometers.

          This time. The second one. How many times have you been told - go learn the materiel? Surveillance radar is NOT USED for guidance missiles, for this two “boobs” are on Peter, and naturally lower than the survey radar
          That's honest, I got it already with my nonsense
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 14: 35 New
            0
            The radio horizon is usually larger than the optical, because in radio waves, refraction is stronger than in light.
            this is very simplified formula, does not include the refraction coefficients, the equivalent of the Earth's radius, the correction for atmospheric refraction, which bends the path of the radio wave and, thus, slightly changes the radio horizon. This refraction, in turn, depends on weather conditions, wavelength and emitter power.
            + There is a tropospheric distribution when, in the troposphere, due to a combination of weather conditions, formations appear that reflect the radio signal over the horizon, or a radio waveguide is formed.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 December 2017 15: 33 New
              +4
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              this is a very simplified formula, does not include coefficients

              Oh yes, I'm sorry :)))) For the radio horizon, the coefficient is not 3,57, but 4,124, so the radio horizon is already 30,58 km! laughing
              Feel better?
          2. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 14: 38 New
            0
            USED ​​to aim missiles, for this two "boobs" are on Peter, and naturally below the observation radar

            Surveillance radar is used to detect and highlight the target, and guidance from its data is handled by ACS SAM
            about the use of missiles with AGSN - so it simplifies EVERYTHING!
            yes, you can use two "boobs" - as you write ....
            only for some reason they upgraded and decided to simplify everything
            for performance anti-aircraft missile system
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              13 December 2017 15: 35 New
              +3
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              surveillance radar is used to detect and highlight the target

              Surveillance radar is needed to DETECT the target. Its accompaniment and backlighting is provided by the "boobs", you cannot shoot without it
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              regarding the use of missiles with AGSN

              Where are they? When adopted?
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              only for some reason they upgraded

              On Peter? Modernization ?! wassat Are you generally with some kind of parallel universe, or what?
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 17: 34 New
                0
                in the American embassy apparently Andrey from Chelyabinsk receives a salary
                TARKR Peter the Great has a Fort-M air defense system in a missile system which includes the 9M96E2 missiles with AGSN
                RCC LARSM-A will be a standard target for the "Fort"
                for TARKR "Peter the Great" "radio horizon" is 165 km
                in your linear understanding this does not fit, I understand.
                Americans are not happy either!
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 13 December 2017 17: 58 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  TARKR Peter the Great has a Fort-M air defense system in a missile system which includes the 9M96E2 missiles with AGSN

                  Can I link to some document in which 9M96E2 is included in Fort-M BC?
                  So far, they write about this missile that it is part of only the “Reduta” (it is he who is the “ship’s air defense system”). A “Fort-M” differ from the “Fort” in the ability to use 48N6E2.
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  for TARKR "Peter the Great" "radio horizon" is 165 km

                  For a target going at an altitude of about 1 kilometers. smile
                  1. Romario_Argo
                    Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 18: 02 New
                    0
                    for TARKR "Peter the Great" "radio horizon" is 165 km

                    For a target going at an altitude of about 1 kilometers.

                    depending on what wavelength the scanning rays have and with what energy
                    and this is a state secret in general!
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      13 December 2017 18: 51 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Romario_Argo
                      depending on what wavelength the scanning rays have and with what energy

                      fool
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. ZVO
                      ZVO 13 December 2017 19: 13 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Romario_Argo

                      and this is a state secret in general!


                      Burned ...
                      Charming, charming ...
                    3. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 13 December 2017 19: 16 New
                      0
                      Quote: Romario_Argo
                      depending on what wavelength the scanning rays have and with what energy

                      What does the wavelength have to do with it? In order for the radar of an air defense system, located at an altitude of about 30 m above the overhead line, to see a target at a distance of 165 km and be able to direct missiles at it, this target must be at a height of at least 1 km.
                      At lower altitudes at this range, it will simply go beyond the horizon.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        13 December 2017 19: 28 New
                        +3
                        Introductory lecture by artillerymen. The teacher explains that the gun burns, the gun propels the projectile, it flies up, but gravity pulls it down, so it flies along a parabola and eventually falls to the ground and explodes.
                        - Any questions?
                        - And if you put the gun on its side, can you shoot around the corner?
                        Here we met with this cadet laughing
              2. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 14 December 2017 09: 31 New
                +1
                Listen, experts! When some write about the mattress patrol of the AWACS, they claim that once they saw it, it means they also brought the enemy to the khan. But for us, another discrimination turns out to be - we saw it, we tied the track but we can’t bring it down and bring it down. Why is this actually? It will enter the affected area and will be fired and destroyed. The main thing is to know where she is. Patrol AWACS, Karl!
                Or, again, double standards? Mattresses have an efficiency of 100500, and we have 0,0?
                Again, when calculating the radio horizon and altitude, the target must be taken into account. Although 5-10m, but all a couple of extra kilometers. No?
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 14 December 2017 10: 36 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Vlad.by
                  Listen, experts! When some write about the mattress patrol of the AWACS, they claim that once they saw it, it means they also brought the enemy to the khan. But for us, another discrimination turns out to be - we saw it, we tied the track but we can’t bring it down and bring it down. Why is this actually?

                  Because we have air defense of a ship’s connection tied to an air defense system. And his working range is determined by the height of the antenna above the overhead line and the height of the target. And since there are no stupid people on the other side, the flight upon impact on our KUG in the final section will go to the WWII - as was prescribed back in the 80s. And the same “Fort” can begin work on such goals not from the maximum range, but from 40-45 kilometers.
                  And the adversary’s air defense is tied to aircraft carrier fighters. In which the operating range is determined only by the capabilities of the avionics, because the theoretical radio horizon in them exceeds even the flight range of the RVV (because the flight height).
                  Quote: Vlad.by
                  It will enter the affected area and will be fired and destroyed. The main thing is to know where she is.

                  The problem is that some consider the affected area based on the maximum range of the air defense system. And not from the radio horizon.
                  Quote: Vlad.by
                  Patrol AWACS, Karl!

                  And by the way, where do we get the AWACS? From the only A-50 regiment, which in case of which will be spread all over the country? Or try a couple of AWACS helicopters to organize continuous duty? wink
                  1. Vlad.by
                    Vlad.by 15 December 2017 14: 03 New
                    0
                    Yes, do not count the affected area. There is a distant border, there is a near one. At different heights are different. But the one inside is practically not a tenant.
                    And they don’t climb because they know.
                    As for the adversaries, they will be attacked only in response. so when approaching our shores at the launch range, they will be monitored 100 eyes. Believe me, they will not overlook. And ... back to the ZP SAM.
                    Well, followed by a retaliatory strike on the order. By all available means. And believe me, something will fly. And it doesn’t seem enough.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 13 December 2017 16: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The horizon (understanding it as the boundary between heaven and earth) is calculated by the formula - distance to the horizon (in kilometers) = 3,57 * square root of the observation height in meters, i.e. for an observer at 55 meters, the horizon range is 26,47 kilometers.

            This is for a radio horizon on the surface of the Earth. For an air target, the detection range is equal to the sum of two radio horizons - the antenna and the target itself. equal to 4,124 * (square root of antenna height + square root of target height (in meters)).
            That is, for a 55 m radar and a 30 m target, the detection range will be 54,28 km. But only where to get such a radar for a ship’s air defense system ...
            1. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 13 December 2017 18: 10 New
              0
              and generally RAR LARMS-A ​​subsonic standard target for ZRAK "Dagger"
              and soon on the way and ZRAK "Shell-M"

              ZRAK "Shell-M" shoots at a range of 36 km - the entire horizon.
              1RS1-1Е phased array radar
              Radars with phased antenna arrays of cm and mm bands 1RS2 and 1RS2-1Е Helmet 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.
              At the future frigate of the 22350M project, they will be your 4 ZRAK Pantsir-M
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 13 December 2017 19: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: Romario_Argo
                Radars with phased antenna arrays of cm and mm bands 1RS2 and 1RS2-1Е Helmet 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.

                The number of goals followed is not the main thing. The main thing is how many channels are there for targets and missiles?
                And the most interesting - is it possible to simultaneously work on different goals of the cannon and missile units? Because the main thing for this complex is precisely the aiming in the near zone and the self-defense of the ship. And secondly, how will the distribution be organized between Redoubt and Carapace? More precisely, in which zone will the transfer of targets from air defense systems to air defense systems take place. PMSM, it will not be 36 km, but much closer.
                1. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 15 December 2017 14: 08 New
                  0
                  Yes there will be no transmission. The Shell has its own means of detection and guidance. There is no time for an external CPU.
                  ALL targets entering the near zone will be fired.
  15. opus
    opus 13 December 2017 12: 12 New
    +3
    Quote: Author
    1) The rocket also uses an inertial guidance system that can bend around the terrain, and

    belay
    why should she "go around the terrain" ... if there is no terrain?
    waves around?
    Shl.
    Just the AGM-158C LRASM does not have an airborne complex of high-precision navigation with a correlated-extremal navigation system and a digital terrain map.
    for reasons:
    -not necessary.
    - for stealth.
    There even PB is somewhat different

    Quote: author
    Active-passive seeker

    it does not have an active-passive homing head such as 9Б-1103М-200ПС, or rather not quite.
    It will not be induced at the source of interference.
    passive RF is used only for covert exit to the target (depending on the type of target and the flight task), and it is simultaneously a component of the bistatic homing system. How they implemented it in such a compact HZ.

    Because the system of identification, redirection and "friend or foe" is based on the principle of target selection and its identification using digital memory from the library.
    She has a BAE Systems radar GPSH with a flat phased antenna array + a fully automatic thermal imaging coordinator of the Damascus type (modified) target with a choice of aiming point, in my FLIR IR sensor with attached comrades Israeli hands (bash on bash: ABM technology instead of Israeli number and image processing)

    Quote: author
    3) The ability to determine a priority target and attack it, without being distracted by the others. This can and Soviet / Russian missiles

    The goal is not determined much differently (not the principle of the largest spot on the canvas AFAR, but by the contour of the target)
    + Of course, the fantastic speed of analyzing incoming information (less than 1) at the speed of changing the image of the target area.

    Quote: author
    4) Opto-electronic guidance system

    aerial reconnaissance camera no.
    TK is not required, as well as the mode of following the terrain, however
    This is not AGM-158 JASSM
    fully automatic thermal imaging coordinator goal type (modified) "Damascus"

    Quote: author
    11) Stealth. The only domestic rocket that can have some similar EPR indicators with the American LRASM is the “Caliber”, but ... not the fact that it has.

    Oh well .. they do not count.
    ZM-14 essentially loses, both on materials, both in a form, and on IR a noticeability


    2 meters of concrete did not see ... wink
    If what, then the maximum width of the body AGM-158C LRASM to 0, 5 m
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 13: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: opus
      why should she "go around the terrain" ... if there is no terrain?

      Why not? What, RCC is obliged only to fly over the sea?
      Quote: opus
      The goal is determined not much differently

      I didn’t talk about how about the possibility itself.
      Quote: opus
      ZM-14 essentially loses, both on materials, both in a form, and on IR a noticeability

      A source?
      Quote: opus
      2 meters of concrete did not see ...

      So what? the photo is actually given, because it’s beautiful, and not in confirmation of 2m
      By the way ....
      1. opus
        opus 13 December 2017 14: 44 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Why not? What, CRP is obliged just fly over the sea?

        belay
        Well, ships (vessels) go (float) over land only in the framed ganglion of Frau Psssaki (well, remember that crap about the 6 fleet and Belarus).
        Same Long Range Anti-ship Missile (AGM-158C LRASM).
        Shock on land objects, they will not.
        It is stupid, redundant, expensive, and unmasked.
        TERCOM of course uses a radio altimeter, but there both angles and intensity and visibility in the RL range are different.
        Shl. Okojans did not observe relief on the seas.
        Me this
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What, PKR is obliged only to fly over the sea?

        recalled Author: Evgeny Damantsev on PKR XASM-3

        Have you ever wondered why 3М-14 * does not fire on ships, and 3М-54 *, respectively, on land targets?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A source?

        1.brain, experience of combat duty on the air defense system, different models, basics of radar, knowledge of the characteristics of 3М-10, basic education, etc.
        2.me is strange, your usual position in the dialogue
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A source?
        to the opponent, although you yourself are not very with "sources".
        there is a whole article
        On the revolution in the naval art of the United States. CRP LRASM

        a bunch of information, photos (strangers), statements and?
        Sources and references-zero

        So (I think so) Andrei from Chelyabinsk in his hands held, participated, tested, photographed, and so on.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So what? the photo is actually shown because beautiful

        I'm just kidding, by the way.
        1. Topgun
          Topgun 13 December 2017 15: 53 New
          0
          Well, my experience suggests that no one takes away anything, "flies and let it fly", such crutches sometimes come across - the ancient mammoth feces and do nothing ...
          1. opus
            opus 13 December 2017 22: 13 New
            +1
            does not clean

            This is nonsense vaabsche, and for 110% of the pragmatists of Americans all the more.
            1. It is expensive
            2. This is pointless.
            3. And terraced solo unmaskiruei, and lrasm has esm.
            Spend so much dough on stealth that would just carry the meaningless terter?
            Mmm. How would Andrei write from Chelbbinsk (repeated ears)
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 13 December 2017 22: 59 New
              +1
              Quote: opus
              This is nonsense vaabsche, and for 110% of the pragmatists of Americans all the more.




              POINT MUGU SEA TEST RANGE, Calif. - The Navy, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) completed a successful test of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Feb. 4, marking a significant step in maturing key technologies for the future operational weapon system.

              The joint-service team, known as the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), conducted the test to evaluate LRASM's low-altitude performance and obstacle avoidance as part of the program's accelerated development effort.

              “We are very pleased with how LRASM performed today and we are looking forward to continuing integration efforts on the Air Force B-1, followed by our Navy F / A-18, over the next few years,” said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the LDO's Navy program manager. “We have a clear mission, to deliver game-changing capability to our warfighters in theater as quickly as possible.”

              During the flight from the Sea Test Range in Point Mugu, California, the B-1 Bomber released the LRASM, which navigated a series of pre-planned waypoints to verify aerodynamic performance. In the final portion of the flight the missile detected, tracked and avoided an object that was deliberately placed in the flight pattern to demonstrate its obstacle avoidance algorithms.


              http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=h
              ome.NavairNewsStory & id = 5838
              1. opus
                opus 14 December 2017 00: 50 New
                +2
                I am more on deutsch sharyu.
                Shl. You are not afraid of a ban (Comrade Smirnov - ay!)?
                See the rules of this site
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 14 December 2017 01: 08 New
                  0
                  Oops. You can not link to the adversary?
                  1. opus
                    opus 15 December 2017 01: 27 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    Oops. You can not link to the adversary?

                    everything is complicated.
                    Contact admins / Munder.
                    for example, I have 8 bans (+ 2 and I’m adyu),
                    And Adieu was already.
                    I'm joking.
                    Shl. and I did not understand why you brought the words of captain Jaime Engdahl
                    recourse
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 15 December 2017 01: 45 New
                      0
                      Quote: opus
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Oops. You can not link to the adversary?

                      everything is complicated.
                      Contact admins / Munder.
                      for example, I have 8 bans (+ 2 and I’m adyu),
                      And Adieu was already.
                      I'm joking.
                      Shl. and I did not understand why you brought the words of captain Jaime Engdahl
                      recourse



                      Hello.

                      As for the reference, I’ll correct it)


                      As for the words of captain Jaime Engdahl, as far as I understood, he informed the city and the world about the tests, including flying around the rocket's terrain.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 December 2017 17: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: opus
          I'm just kidding, by the way.

          This is good, thanks for saying. And then ... there are people here who would put this into a serious claim :))))
          Quote: opus
          Well, ships (ships) go (sail) by land only in the inflamed ganglion Frau Psssaki

          The fact is that the range is very large, and if there is an opportunity somewhere to attach to the ground (island, coastal region) then this can be realized
          Quote: opus
          brain,

          Clear. In addition to jokes, to this source I respectfully. Not many people have it (it’s not in your pebble garden :)))
          Quote: opus
          it’s strange for me, your ever-present position in the dialogue

          Yes, nothing really strange. Well, look - I wrote an article on open sources, the price is ... well, you see, this is not Truth In The Last Instance.
          And when you disagree with something, I need to understand the basis for this disagreement. Maybe you generally refer to the English-language Old from the manufacturer’s website? Or for technical descriptions ... Or for something else, after which I can only shrug my hands.
          And half of the critics criticize not because they have any reliable sources of information, but simply from the principle "I don’t like it - that means nonsense!"
          So I ask.
          1. opus
            opus 13 December 2017 23: 07 New
            +1
            I'm here pardon: from a mobile phone.
            No quotes, no links could.
            1. Programmers from Comrade Smirnov
            2. Moved from ios to Andrew: the same problem as ip.1
            3. Fingers are thick, hands are crooked, age is deeper than average.
            Essentially:
            1. According to the photo (2) - for the sake of Hochma
            2. According to the sources: I can not. Consider it my brain, well, or what it replaces now.
            I "chat" with both those and ours, but I cannot give references.
            Note: the chip is your new car .... so wanted about electronics (Crimea Nash) **** Lenvoke to write: the chip driver is a genius / left-handed. I heard and saw all my mouth open.
            Nizyaya, and not Hotts on the ears to grab.
            3. From English speakers too. But you will not find this on the site, TOR TOR.
            --m ---
            You’ll excuse me: I’m happy to read / study your ships (especially the battles with Genosse Kaptsov), but you are in missiles and radar systems .... Well, how could it be, well, we’ll kill you

            I would write, but in mench after a depressive job, you have, as I understood the opposite: the letter-maker and the arbeitsloch.

            But how will I gather in Mosley (such as "radars are different KOZHZGSF), I will inform you personally.
            -------
            For this I say goodbye, I am overflowing.
            I need to explain to the youngest that to mine bitcoin now, but on its nvidia 1070 it’s just silly.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 December 2017 00: 27 New
              +2
              Quote: opus
              According to sources: I can’t. Consider it my brain, or what it is replacing now.

              Oh well, I said that with all due respect :)
              Quote: opus
              You’ll excuse me: I’m happy to read / study your ships (especially the battles with Genosse Kaptsov), but you are in missiles and radar systems .... Well, how could it be, well, we’ll kill you

              Well, enough for a review of open press, and there, you see, competent people will fill up and correct the author, what was wrong :))))
              Those. I understand correctly, LRASM has a combination of some cunning passivation that can select a target, AGSN, there is no optics, but does it have a thermal imager?
              Quote: opus
              you, as I understand it the other way around: the writer and arbeitsloch.

              I would say the deepest arbeitsloch crying
              Quote: opus
              But how will I gather in Mosley (such as "radars are different KOZHZGSF), I will inform you personally.

              We are waiting!
              1. opus
                opus 14 December 2017 01: 03 New
                +1
                By argsn-yes true.
                I forgot to stick with the computer.
                With Andrew it is not realistic to do this (4 attempts, I’ll become an alcoholic.)

                On the account of the work of Andrew - do not pass. I almost didn’t go to the slaughterhouse diamond to get settled. She will get better.
                You just need to play WoT to the utter annoyance, to nausea, to learn 57% stats and work will find you, yourself.

                "oh god, but how hard it is to return to real" ....
                I even spoke Italian with grief ...


                By road - by all means.
                and then the "operator" and "nexus" haben beide meine kopf gedunkl.
                And zircon, zircon necessarily-kaptsovu fight, genau
  16. Nitarius
    Nitarius 13 December 2017 12: 28 New
    0
    Well, for this and the EAGLES are building now going! so the subsonic guys .. may already not catch HIM!
  17. gregor6549
    gregor6549 13 December 2017 14: 54 New
    +1
    The article is competent. Great advantage.
    The importance of having a reconnaissance and target designation system without which any super duper rocket does little can be very correctly noticed.
    The statement that the RCC speed is not a panacea for all problems is also true. After all, the higher the speed of the missile, the less its ability to maneuver and the higher the ability of missile defense to detect such a missile, put it on a stable escort and ultimately shoot. In addition, at certain speeds, for example at hypersound, a rocket can cause the appearance of additional unmasking signs, such as increased infrared radiation, etc.
    One can also note the appearance of the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, which is able to conduct a survey of a large area of ​​the ocean and detect AOGs at the highest points of its trajectory, and when they find it, choose the most “delicious” target and hit the vehicle’s detection funnel from above into the dead funnel.
    Of course, the development of LRASM for the revolution in the military art of the US Navy does not pull, because to have some kind of weaponry is one thing, and the ability to correctly use it is another. Again she appeared and the means of counteracting her appear. And not necessarily "symmetrical". But these are trifles.
    Well, I would also add that when talking about highly smart missiles, it is somehow overlooked that such weapons as Directed Energy Weapon are capable of creating high-energy directed electromagnetic radiation, including pulsed, in a wide frequency range and turning smart missiles into stupid discs.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 16: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      The article is competent. Great advantage.

      Thank you, glad you liked it!
      Quote: gregor6549
      We can also note the appearance of the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile

      I still consider it VKF (Great Chinese Fake)
      Quote: gregor6549
      Of course, the development of LRASM for the revolution in the military art of the US Navy does not pull, because to have some kind of weaponry is one thing, and the ability to correctly use it is another

      Nuuuu :))))) Those of our sailors who came across the Americans at sea never talked about their unprofessionalism :))) On the contrary. Americans are good sailors. You can beat them, it’s not a question, but for this you yourself must be an excellent student in military and political :))))
      1. opus
        opus 14 December 2017 01: 07 New
        0
        I do not agree with the ICF.
        Arguments:
        -Work with celestial 11 years
        - br is an ideal tool for defeating ayg (speed of gift delivery + radio horizon for argsn)
      2. gregor6549
        gregor6549 14 December 2017 01: 53 New
        0
        There is a lot of material about VKF on the Internet, including on the WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21
        In any case, staff members take it seriously and develop means of counteracting such missiles.
        The problems in the American Navy also have a lot of articles, and the events of recent years when the US Navy ships collided with other ships or allowed a breakout of "barmaley" on a feeble boat to their destroyer with the subsequent explosion of the boat, the death of crew members and damage to the destroyer also do not indicate high professionalism of staff. Not to mention the fact that on individual ships of the U.S. Navy, erratic relations bloom violently. Apparently the absence of a worthy enemy for a long time and the desire to constantly control the entire world ocean played a cruel joke with the US Navy. Infa on this topic is also more than and it is more believable than fairy tales about the frightened "Khibiny" to the death of sailors "Cook"
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. sivuch
    sivuch 13 December 2017 15: 09 New
    +3
    Just quotes from Courage 2011-02-14 19:17:34
    This is starting from the 18th part
    katernik wrote:
    there the same one distributes TS to the rest
    otvaga2
    Administrator
    That is, after all, is there a "wolf pack" when one rocket flies a little higher than the others and provides all the radar with a picture?
    But then it was said on the branch that all this was an invention and the SU “Granita” did not possess any such “bells and whistles”. That the flight task is loaded before the start and the target distribution also occurs before the start. I don’t understand something - where is the truth?
    DELTA-4 old-timer
    So it is. One is not flying high. And that “flagship” most likely meant that if one of the KR “front” (the extreme one, as a rule) found a target, then it passes its coordinates to everyone else and a volley of missiles is rolled back.
    Target allocation does not take place before the start, but on a high plot according to the algorithms laid down during the software. It depends on the type of target.
    I wonder what the firing range in the version described by your friend ..;)
    One of the challenges facing the Granite developers was to increase the time of data obsolescence and reduce the accuracy requirements of the control center. Plus range. All this can only be done if the missiles go along a high path (range) and the front line
    Of course, the main task is to break through the air defense. And what you highlighted is a pleasant bonus.
    katernik
    Yes, they do not go to the front, the blunt wedge. Given the interval of descent and the logic that the leading comes last. I didn’t specify the range, but apparently within the limits declared in the Murzilka, it is clear that in the variants specified in the flight task, the high-altitude trojectories are combined, the greater the range, the larger the section of the high trojector
    DELTA-4
    This friend also said ..? Yes ....
    In fact, the complex has an engine thrust adjustment ...
    By the way, ask a friend what is the maximum range of salvo in 24 KR and why
    the main task is to break through air defense
    And how was this task solved in this complex?
    DELTA-4
    The main thing is a divorce on the front.
    katernik
    The main thing in the air defense missile defense breakthrough is the use of electronic warfare and the suppression of air defense carriers by direct exposure
    That's right. But the question was about a specific complex.
    I know. I even know what exactly and on which section .. But in this system there is one BUT. Therefore, the main advantage of the complex when breaking through the air defense is building missiles in the front. This does not depend on the year the rocket was launched ....
    Enough? In fact, it is better to read it yourself, of course, taking into account the knowledge of who is hu.
  20. ausmel
    ausmel 13 December 2017 15: 49 New
    0
    Only in an advertisement for an American rocket that says nothing about the X-32, so let the author and American friends look for a new “bolt” on it
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 16: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: ausmel
      Only in an advertisement for an American rocket that says nothing about the X-32

      Yes, it’s not a question, tell me, in all the chilling details :))) Do you seriously believe that three dozen Tu-22M3Ms from the X32 will change something in the above scenario? :)
  21. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 13 December 2017 16: 38 New
    0
    After reading this article, there are no words, only video clips ... first, right after reading the article: F. "Diamond Hand". A. Mironov: "Chef! Everything is gone!"; the second one .. well, this is “after” ... Maybe some time after the article is already “digested” ...: F. “It’s raining on Brighton Beach .....” “And what will it say Katz? Katz offers to give up! "
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 16: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      After reading this article there are no words, some video clips ...

      This is bad, you need to start working on yourself :)))
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 14 December 2017 17: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        you need to start working on yourself:

        Already! As they said "earlier" ...... ,, today I reread the pager ... I thought a lot ... "I looked again at the heading of the article:" About the revolution .... "Why is it so loud? Maybe it’s necessary was it before the publication of the article, “plunge” into the Wikipedia encyclopedia and get acquainted with the definitions of revolution and evolution? Then, perhaps, they would realize that LRASM is Evolution, not revolution! Evolution is a gradual, time-stretched Accumulation of Quantitative Changes , which, exactly, applies to LRASM and US naval art! If the example is simpler ... The appearance of a gunshot weapons is a revolution! And all subsequent development thereof is evolution! For the AK-12 assault rifle also has a wick arquebus as its “ancestor. But equipping the infantry of the World armies with laser“ rifles and pistols ”can, I think, be called a Revolutionary Event! with missiles, and with naval art ... If you analyze LRASM in a good way, then you can perfectly see that this product is the result of a "gradual accumulation of quantitative changes"! How long has stealth technology appeared? When did you begin to use the technique with multiple restructuring of the radio frequency "from pulse to pulse"? And these are “new-fangled” expressions: “network-centric” abilities, the ability to conduct “network-centric” wars ...? Our “fathers” did not know these tricky words, but in this “spirit” they created “basalts, granites, volcanoes” ... much earlier than LRASM. But is everything "beautiful in the Danish kingdom" ... that is, in the "Moscow kingdom"? Alas, not really! If the LRASM is a product of the evolutionary development of military equipment and military art. Then it was possible in time (at least try (!) To “predict” military-technical evolution for the “near future.” Use the findings in military-technical development, improve tactics and strategies in military art in the “advanced” version. That is, timely development of appropriate electronic warfare equipment, means of detection and destruction; improving the art of their use ....... It is bad if this was not done in Russia. Unfortunately, it would often be the proverb is true: Modern generals are ready for yesterday’s war. But .... "the devil may not be so terrible as his little 2? Maybe you should not panic so sharply? And indulge in the" philosophical "expression:" shake it, see ... " .... what will Russia answer in the "near future"?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 December 2017 18: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          If the example is simpler ...

          Maybe better not?
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          The advent of firearms is a revolution! And all subsequent development thereof, evolution!

          Aghas :)))) But here's the bad luck - the appearance of the same "Dreadnought" is considered a revolution in naval affairs. From your point of view, this is a purely evolutionary process :)))
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          If you analyze LRASM in a good way, then you can perfectly see that this product is the result of "gradual accumulation of quantitative changes"

          You did not understand. The revolution here is not the rocket itself, but a change in the concept of naval combat of the US Navy, previously exclusively focused on carrier-based aircraft
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 16 December 2017 11: 36 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Maybe better not?

            It is necessary, Fe ..... Andrey ..... it is necessary!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            - the appearance of the same "Dreadnought" is considered a revolution in naval affairs. From your point of view, this is a purely evolutionary process :)))

            Exactly ! The evolutionary process! How did the “Dreadnought” “sharply” differ from the “previous” battleships? "Sharp"? Not at all! Unless ..... in the "Dreadnought", slapped ,, everything that was previously introduced in the shipbuilding "separately" for a certain time! And so ... "a displacement ship, armored, screw ..." Where is the "revolution"? Evolution! The hydrofoil and hovercraft include a much more “revolutionary event!” And about the “Srednevekoy” noise-hype, the dreadnought district .... Duc, and then there were enough “shots.” Ready to admire .. .revolution in naval art ...... "!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The revolution here is not the rocket itself, but a change in the concept of naval combat of the US Navy, previously exclusively focused on carrier-based aircraft

            And what, when the “dominated” Concept, “tailored exclusively to carrier-based aircraft, didn’t there exist a“ parallel ”concept similar to the“ New American ”in the world? At least not 100% similar, but including the main“ components ”? Well, how on the hunt ... in order to shoot a duck, they take out a shot cartridge from the bandoleer, and the "bear" appeared, climb after the bullet cartridge. Or ... on ducks with a smooth-bore gun; on a bear with a rifled carbine. Where is the revolution? Miles sorry , a bet on heavy ocean ekranoplans will cause much more significant changes in the concept of marine first battle! And for the revolution, more significant events are needed (!) ... such as the teleportation of the cruiser from point A to point B lol
  22. Operator
    Operator 13 December 2017 17: 46 New
    +2
    The author in his repertoire: "US Navy above all, Katz offers to surrender."

    In fact, JASSM / LRASM is a pure crap compared to our Caliber, which has an 600 km longer flight range, and the X-32, which is five times faster at the same flight range as the American RCC, and which flies at an altitude inaccessible to all types of American anti-aircraft missiles.

    ZAGLS “Container” detects JASSM / LRASM at a distance of 3000 km, an A-50 / 100 AWACS at a distance of 150 km, a Su-35С at a distance of 75 km, a naval radar at a distance of 30-40 km. At the same time, JASSM / LRASM is interrupted by all types of domestic anti-aircraft missiles and automatic gun mounts without exception.

    Another "analytics" of the author choked on - JASSM / LRASM will disable all Russian surface ships covering the deployment areas of the Russian SSBNs, after which American anti-submarine formations will enter and sink the SSBNs. And the latter, therefore, after the disabling of the cover ships, they will wait several hours / days when they are finally sunk.

    Type surrender without delay, and do not launch SLBMs: “If only there was no war”, - Katz (C) bully
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 13 December 2017 22: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Operator
      In fact, JASSM / LRASM is a pure crap compared to our Caliber, which has a 600 km longer flight range
      Commander of the Caspian Flotilla Rear Admiral Sergey Alekminsky: "The test results are positive," the commander of the flotilla said. "The ship is not bad, with modern filling. It is currently the most powerful ship in service with the Russian Navy. It has a missile systemfiring range of which on surface targets 375 kmand for coastal targets - up to 2 600 km. There are no such complexes with powerful missile weapons on surface ships in Russia, only on submarines. "
      1. Operator
        Operator 14 December 2017 00: 02 New
        0
        It’s true - the main anti-ship version of the Caliber is a two-stage rocket with a second supersonic stage and a reduced range of the first subsonic stage.

        But this is not the whole truth - the one-stage subsonic version of the Caliber (which coincides in speed with the JASSM / LRASM, which is why I brought it in for comparison) with the conventional warhead has a range of 1600 km (more than 600 km longer than JASSM / LRASM) .

        I cited X-32 as an example, since it still coincides in range with JASSM / LRASM, but slightly exceeds the last in speed - by 5 (five) times.

        And yes, US Navy rules laughing
    2. db1967
      db1967 14 December 2017 06: 29 New
      0
      IMHO - the author misses 2 points:
      1. The increased firing range of SLBMs
      2. Changed ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean.
      Kmk SSBNs of the Russian Federation can now go into the depths of their water territories, which are unattainable for any current US anti-ship missiles, to prepare for firing.
  23. rbz05
    rbz05 13 December 2017 18: 33 New
    +2
    As the states love the carrier fleet of their missiles, their planes ..... It's just scary to live. Just want to ask strategists what they will do with this fleet let's say in the war against us ?? In the Black Sea, they will drive their aircraft carriers horseradish. From the north is also problematic. Yes, and in the Far East, you won’t especially blame. To Siberia on wheels? This fleet is good if you are at war with the third world or a small country that is shot through. We seem to be not going to land in America. But if they are to us, then forgive the sense of that fleet will not be enough. Stupidly, the distances are neither for missiles nor for the aircraft of those aircraft carriers. What are we going to cut with them in the ocean? So it seems not. And why then puff here with such articles? Let them shove those rockets in themselves. Because if the war starts, then there a completely different technique will be used both on our side and on their side.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 18: 49 New
      +1
      Just want to ask strategists what they will do with this fleet let's say in the war against us ??
      You are here
      https://topwar.ru/131567-rossiya-protiv-nato-tak-
      dlya-chego-zhe-ssha-avianoscy.html
  24. Wladwlad
    Wladwlad 13 December 2017 19: 16 New
    0
    The author, as it were, did not notice that recently there has been information that small boats that are capable of carrying the latest missiles are entering the Navy.
    No matter how "cheap" these American scarecrows were, but one such missile still costs more than a flotilla of these boats.
    In this case, it’s cheaper to shoot gold bars.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 December 2017 19: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: WladWlad
      The author, as it were, did not notice that recently there has been information that small boats that are capable of carrying the latest missiles are entering the Navy.

      Oh, and what?
      Quote: WladWlad
      No matter how "cheap" these American scarecrows were, but one such missile still costs more than a flotilla of these boats.

      That is, in your opinion, one LRASM is cheaper than 8 calibers in the mines of the same Karakurt? wassat And the ship itself?
      Yes you are a financial genius, sir! soldier
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 December 2017 19: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes you are a financial genius, sir!

        No, why so? When calculating, we take the rate of 1 dollar / 1000 rubles - and voila, RTOs are cheaper than a rocket. smile
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 December 2017 19: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: WladWlad
      No matter how "cheap" these American scarecrows were, but one such missile still costs more than a flotilla of these boats.

      The cost of the smallest of the naval calibronos - MRK pr. 22800 - is estimated at 2 billion rubles. Or 33 megabytes.
      The cost of one LRASM anti-ship missile is $ 3 million.
      1. Mimoprohodil
        Mimoprohodil 13 December 2017 22: 22 New
        0
        Something cheap turns out
        As part of the Army-2016 international military-technical forum, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a construction contract with Zelenodolsk Shipyard three MRK project 21631 in the amount of 27 billion rubles
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 December 2017 10: 42 New
          0
          As it turned out later, 27 billion rubles - this is the entire package of orders of the plant, and not just 3 RTOs.
          Otherwise, it turned out that the cost of one simple RTO is 60% of the cost of one FR, pr. 11356 (15 billion rubles).
  25. B-15
    B-15 13 December 2017 22: 50 New
    +1
    Quote: Lock36
    Quote: sevtrash
    It is quite logical - who has more material and technical resources - that is the leader. In this sense, China has good prospects.

    Bullshit. For all these years, China has not caught up with us either in aviation or in missiles. And he didn’t even come close.
    Engines on their aircraft are still being bought from us.
    Money is not always converted to technology.

    This is how to look.
    The number of SU-27 in China is more than ours. There are also much more pilots. Engines on the SU-27 they make their own, albeit with less resource. Believe me, enough for the destruction of our aviation at the initial stage of the war.
    Generation 5 aircraft; they already have two options. They work on the engine for them, but for now they put ours. The same as on the T-50 of the first stage. Those. moving forward.
    Missiles at mobile complexes have already been adopted. And they can naughty including on aircraft carriers.
    And if we add here that all military personnel have the skills of our formations, who have been in battles or our special forces, then I do not believe that we will be able to delay the shaft of the ground forces of China without nuclear weapons.
    They functionally surpass us in electronics, but lose in special effects.
    So do not throw hats.
    We must understand that without the development of the military-industrial complex, we will not soon be in a good condition.
  26. tlauicol
    tlauicol 14 December 2017 06: 54 New
    +1
    news
    On December 13, the U.S. command conducted a double test of new ammunition, dropping it from the strategic bomber B-1 Lancer.

    In tests taking place off the coast of California, the B-1 Lancer simultaneously launched two LRASM cruise missiles, which hit two surface moving targets.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 December 2017 14: 33 New
      0
      And what? Volcanoes and Granites as early as shaggy years in group launches hit the target ...
  27. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 14 December 2017 09: 06 New
    +1
    In principle, in such situations, the role of naval anti-aircraft systems of self-defense increases. Perhaps it makes sense to modify the Broadsword for the possibility of using the Sosna air defense missile system 9M340 (EMNIP, initially the Broadsword was designed specifically as a SPLA, and specifically for these missiles) - at small distances, the small LRASM radar signature will have less relevance, moreover, "Pine" is optimized for the optoelectronic system of the central control and laser beam guidance.
    And somehow crush DLRO aircraft. It is possible to integrate long-range 9M96E2 missiles into the Poliment Redoubt, maybe there are other ways.
    In general, the task is difficult, but the KVM, which can be solved even by the available forces and means.
  28. JETFLAG
    JETFLAG 14 December 2017 09: 48 New
    0
    For the disreputable “all-scribblers” from the metal forge in Chelyabinsk, I advise you to read an article from the relevant media: Why aren’t we afraid of a “quick global strike”, Russia should prepare for a full-blown rather than non-contact war.
    http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2017-11-24/1_974_global.h
    tml
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 December 2017 16: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: JETFLAG
      I advise you to read an article from the relevant media: Why are we not afraid of a “quick global strike”

      I advise you to read the article and answer not to me, but at least to yourself - what does the quick global blow have to do with it? :))))
  29. tchoni
    tchoni 14 December 2017 10: 31 New
    +2
    The article was written quite competently, although it has a number of inaccuracies, but, on the whole, they are unrealistic. The author correctly reflected the basic idea of ​​the development of the American fleet. And its essence is such that the anti-ship war is returned to the tasks of the USA fleet as an urgent problem, and not an optional one (thanks to the Chinese and Russians).
    But most comments on the article - you won’t look without tears. It feels like the commentators were offended in childhood and they developed an inferiority complex: both the Americans’s rocket and some kind of stealth because it emits (we didn’t hear about noise-like signals, detuning in the direction and other events) and we’ll shoot them down massively - it’s not clear what, but we’ll do it. And then zircons are sewn ogogo (no one has seen them especially so far, but oh well).
    1. Soho
      Soho 15 December 2017 07: 06 New
      +1
      sewn zircons

      I want to remind you that both LRASM and Zircon are both in the testing phase. So I don’t see a reason for banter
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 15 December 2017 07: 13 New
        0
        EMNIP in the 2017th Zircons did not fly. And LRASM are in small-scale production
        1. Soho
          Soho 15 December 2017 08: 03 New
          +1
          And LRASM are in small-scale production

          I dare to remind you that small-scale production provides details just for passing these very tests. Do not take Wikipedia so literally.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 15 December 2017 08: 38 New
            0
            b17 was ordered before the construction of the first flight model, I dare to recall.
            It is about ordering the first batch of missiles from the Navy.
            1. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 15 December 2017 14: 37 New
              0
              Su-34 was officially adopted ten years after the first combat use.
              You want to say something?
              Su-57 is also an installation batch ordered,
              mean Hurray! Is our 5th generation already in the army?
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 15 December 2017 18: 55 New
                0
                Of course, in the next. year promised to transfer to the Air Force as much as two cars
  30. gregor6549
    gregor6549 14 December 2017 12: 32 New
    +4
    Quote: ausmel
    let the author with american friends

    As Comrade Schellenberg said there: "If you smoke American cigarettes, they will say they sold out to the Americans."
    So it is here. When there is nothing to say in the case, patriotism and a reference to products of the fur industry such as a "cap with earflaps" are used to throw a probable and even incredible opponent into the process. But the underestimation of the enemy has already happened and it is known what led to it. So do not touch the author. He is one of the few who is trying to honestly and competently sort out the issues he raised using open sources of information, rather than the pseudoscientific fiction that many commentators sin.
    So these commentators would sit at the table and try to write at least a small article. I doubt very much that something good will come out from under their pen
  31. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 14 December 2017 14: 18 New
    0
    Crowning, especially in the conditions of victorious marches, cannot be dealt with, and the enemies are not asleep. This must be known and understood.
  32. looker-on
    looker-on 14 December 2017 16: 29 New
    +1
    Andrey has been very productive lately. A great analysis. No "imagine that we have 10 aircraft carriers and China and India for us" (although it would be interesting to dream up)))). Thank you for the most interesting articles
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 December 2017 17: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: looker-on
      Andrey has been very productive lately.

      So again I’m sitting without work :)))))
      Quote: looker-on
      No "suppose we have 10 aircraft carriers and China and India for us"

      laughing With such source codes I will even be banned on alternative histories :))))
  33. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 14 December 2017 17: 52 New
    0
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk, We met this cadet ..
    Duc, then he is a cadet, and not the commander of an art division!
  34. Soho
    Soho 15 December 2017 07: 02 New
    +1
    The third consecutive article on the fatal prospect of US-Russian military confrontation. Something the author began to follow a certain trend.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 December 2017 14: 39 New
      0
      Depressiac from idleness lol
  35. Wildfox
    Wildfox 17 December 2017 19: 51 New
    0
    Andrei very much love your articles on naval battles, but here I agree with you only partially.
    Yes, I agree, the proposed option is real, although only if all the command and the General Staff are "picking their nose." Suppose the Americans struck as you described, and then what? The Russian Federation will not counterattack?
    How much time will pass after the destruction of the over-the-horizon radars while the Arlibeks come up with the aircraft carriers to the distance of destruction, which thread is important?
    Let's be honest, one figure in history has already done a blitzkrieg. The attack of the Russian Federation is for months, if not for years, and the price of the issue to America is not yet affordable.
    In addition, look at the KAB-500 hits in Syria in buildings, this warhead is half as weak, sorry but to damage enough at least UVZ 96 missiles a little and 192 I think it’s not enough. Without a destroyed defense industry complex, all AUGs and Arly Becks can drown in the end.
    My answer option is 50-60 KR synchronously attacking AUG from different carriers, underwater and air, after which a massive raid of strategists. Will Americans be able to digest the loss of 7-8 thousand sailors and AUG? and to a big victory, then as to Beijing .... hi
  36. 3danimal
    3danimal 24 December 2017 18: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Inok10
    America by that moment will no longer be when they can be reached the borders of Russia ...

    So Russia will be in the process of erasing from the surface, do not forget about the retaliatory strike by the United States. Are you planning to "neigh" in the bunker?
  37. 3danimal
    3danimal 24 December 2017 22: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Vlad.by
    During the attack on Vilyuchinsk, how many minutes will the Commander-in-Chief of All Russia wait before pressing the "red button", what do you think?

    I’m sure he will think more than once. After all, otherwise then you will urgently have to go to the anti-nuclear bunker for an indefinite period.
    Own death "on the world" is by no means "red" for him, he was talking about us, he is easily ready to sacrifice us ..
  38. 3danimal
    3danimal 24 December 2017 23: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Mih1974
    at the same time, he also “invisibles” drops all other “wunderwaffle” crap.

    Here, first deal with the basics of radar, and then declare. He sees invisibles, but not far, ~ 30km in the front hemisphere. At 400 km - for targets with EPR of 20 square meters. m. - that is, a bomber. A modern stealth fighter will detect it much earlier and, in the event of a military conflict, will launch a pair of medium-range missiles.
    The fact that he can “catch up” with an AWACS aircraft is not something exceptional. Or are you talking about ranged missiles?
  39. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 04: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    In general, 3-4 of such modules are capable of repelling even a massive attack of subsonic anti-ship missiles.

    It’s more difficult in life than in theory.
    At the turn of the 80s-90s in the Union, tests were conducted to intercept RCC simulators with the help of SPRAK. Of course, flying on a parallel course. And the results were not very convincing: if the missile module could not hit the target, the guns, often did not have time to make their "contribution". In addition, they are located at a distance of 2 meters from each other, which increases the dispersion (reduces the density of the route and the probability of hitting) and the complex itself is much more massive and inert compared to the AK-630 or Phalanx CIWS, the speed of the "turn" on the target ( deg / sec) less, which is critical for ZAK, which the conditional "Dirk" is also.
    Why are tests conducted in parallel courses? - When the anti-ship missile flies directly to the ship, often even after being knocked out (not annihilated at all), it continues to move in the same direction in the form of fragments ricocheting from the water (fragments of the hull, engine with fuel, warhead). Which with a good probability can still hit the target ship. And this is damage to systems, fires, the death of arms operators. Each such hit will significantly reduce defense capabilities.
    Therefore, with a massive attack, especially subtle (will be later discovered and attacked) and maneuverable (higher missed risk) RCC, the ship is doomed. After 2-3 hits (depending on displacement and structural protection), the task will remain one - to evacuate the crew.
  40. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 04: 37 New
    0
    Quote: WildFox
    My answer option is 50-60 KR synchronously attacking AUG from different carriers, underwater and air, after which a massive raid of strategists.

    That would be effective. But first, it is imperceptible for AUG to concentrate the carriers of these anti-ship missiles at the strike distance, to accurately determine the location of the order (which is constantly moving). Which is a very difficult task, especially considering that no exercises were conducted on it.
    Do not underestimate the enemy, especially since he has a lot of new equipment (better supply) and experience in using aircraft carrier forces. And all the more hope that he is "chickened out." And then it can happen, like the hero of a famous film: "they said a German coward, in the frontal attack he would be the first to reject, but mine did not turn away, understand?"
  41. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 04: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Pacifist
    Therefore, we need not parity in means of destruction, but overwhelming superiority. It remains to wait for Zircon. Only guaranteed unacceptable damage can these creatures at least somehow keep on a relatively adequate leash.

    Overwhelming superiority will not allow the economy, the budget is less than 20 times.
    There is the possibility of causing unacceptable damage even with lesser forces; good supply and coherence are needed.
    I have been hearing the Zircon here since 2011. It reminds one of the hope for the “Golden Bullet” or “Wunlerwaffe” of the Germans in the 2nd World War. Not justified.
    Excessive emotionality does not color anyone. And who is the thing for you: the generals, the president and parliament, or all US citizens in general?
    When he was a superpower, the Union also had interests around the world and "poked its nose" (and not only) a lot where. And they were unhappy with this.
    We have lost this status (the basis of superpower is a huge, powerful, high-tech economy, not the "oil industry"). Remained the United States.
  42. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 05: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Soho
    Third consecutive article on the fatal prospect of US-Russian military confrontation

    Severe realism however ..
    Can a simple Russian man beat Anthony Joshua in the ring? Purely hypothetically, but the chances are very small.
  43. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 05: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And the most interesting - is it possible to simultaneously work on different goals of the cannon and missile units?

    Probably not. At the turn of the 80s-90s were tested ZRAK simulators of RCC. In case of unsuccessful batch fire, the guns got through was belated. In addition, greater inertia and lower horizontal / vertical rotation speed than the "pure" ZAK. Guns - AO-18, 2 6-barreled, at 5000 rounds per minute.
    And on the "Shell" are 4 single-barrel guns of sums. a rate of 4000 rounds per minute, and even with a base of 2 meters.
    In one of the thematic programs ("Reception") he was tested, and he could not shoot down a slow and high flying drone, the size of a small anti-ship missile, with artillery. 2 times - in milk. I had to turn around at a new approach and fire rockets - then yes, the first one was struck.
  44. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 December 2017 06: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    ZAGLS “Container” detects JASSM / LRASM at a distance of 3000 km, an A-50 / 100 AWACS at a distance of 150 km, a Su-35С at a distance of 75 km, a naval radar at a distance of 30-40 km. At the same time, JASSM / LRASM is interrupted by all types of domestic anti-aircraft missiles and automatic gun mounts without exception.

    First, take the trouble to indicate the minimum ESR of the target detected at such a considerable distance. I am sure that we are talking about dozens of square meters. for ZGRLS and 3-5 sq.m. for others.
    Here, the EPR "Tomahawk", about 0.1 sq. M. And for the inconspicuous RCC, this value will be orders of magnitude smaller, lower than that of the F-22, I think (physical dimensions are smaller).
    As a result, the range of "detecting" this miracle of engineering for the A-50, Su-35S and ship "Podkat" (only it works on low-flying targets) will be reduced by 4-5-6 times. But they are able to "see" him. A few minutes before hitting ...
    Secondly, this missile has its own RTR means and will detect radiation from enemy radars much earlier, which will allow you to bypass dangerous areas (see the video from Lockheed).
  45. blackies
    blackies 28 July 2020 18: 04 New
    0
    Andrey from Arkhangelsk is a gibberish for earning likes, with claims to be technically literate.