Military Review

"Dagger" against the US Navy, or the Chimera of the Wunderwaffe

275
The announcement by the President of the Russian Federation about the latest Dagger missile system, along with a video demonstration of its use, created an incredible furor on the Internet, comparable, perhaps, to the explosion of a 100 megaton nuclear bomb. Some experts immediately rushed to prove that all this is nonsense, and no hypersonic weaponsable to move in space at a speed of 10 moves (M), the RF has not and cannot have. Others immediately declared the American carrier grouping (and indeed, all surface ships larger than the minesweeper) were completely outdated and unnecessary.


Let's try to figure out what impact the Dagger can have on the development of the Navy of the world. And first, let us recall what the president said to us:

“The unique flight performance of a high-speed aircraft carrier makes it possible to deliver a missile to a point of discharge in a matter of minutes. At the same time, a rocket flying at a hypersonic speed that is ten times faster than the speed of sound also maneuvers in all sectors of the flight trajectory, which also allows it to safely overcome all existing and, I think, promising air defense and missile defense systems, delivering to the target a range of more than two thousand kilometers of nuclear and conventional warheads. "


Honestly, very little is said, and the presented cartoon ... well, let's say, at the time of Joseph Vissarionovich, they would have put 25 in the camps for such years and would have been right. For such hack people who are engaged in this "cartoon", it would be worth forever excommunicating from the keyboard and sending to Central Africa to teach computer science to cannibal tribes (if they still remained there). The “animation” itself is such that it would be embarrassing for many fourth-year students, but the most important thing is that the “product” represented in the frames with great probability does not have anything in common with the present “Dagger”.

No, most likely what we saw “under the tum” in the MiG-31 - this is a real “Dagger”, but the footage of hitting the target ... The point here is not even that on the storyboard it’s absolutely clear that the ammunition is flying in one target (something like a dugout), and another (like a two-story house) explodes.



Yet to believe that the warhead of our hypersonic missile is equipped with equally hypersonic guest workers who can jump out of it and build a house in a split second, which will then explode the warhead, somehow difficult. But the problem is different - while the president talks about the speed of the 10 sweeps, the oblong body falling onto the blindage does so at subsonic speeds. Peer at the storyboard, estimate the missile displacement on individual frames and recall that in the second there is an 24 frame. On each frame, the ammunition flies barely its own length. Comparing the "Dagger" with the dimensions of the MiG-31, we understand that the rocket length is about 7 meters, which gives us a speed of 168 m / s or about 605 km / h. Not that hypersonic, it doesn't smell like supersonic.

From here follows a very simple conclusion - either the “Dagger” has an 10-flywheel speed only on the march segment, and in the vicinity of the target it loses it sharply, or what we were shown is not a “Dagger”.

The second part of the statement should pay special attention. The fact is that a lot of experts (and people who consider themselves as such) analyzed the Dagger on the basis of the video presented. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the probability that the contents of the “cartoon” (in the part where the flight profile is shown and the attack of the target) may not be relevant to the “Dagger” in general.

From the height of our current ideas about hypersonic speeds, two serious problems of a hypersonic missile are obvious. The first is maneuverability. No, as long as it flies in the upper atmosphere, there are probably no particular problems with maneuverability (in thin air), but a rocket, sooner or later, must descend into dense layers of the atmosphere — and there will be any significant maneuvers. accompanied by extreme loads, which, among other things, will cause a sharp loss of speed. Therefore, as far as the author is aware, our high-speed missiles (they are also called aeroballistic, the term is incorrect but familiar), like X-15, do not perform maneuvers, and, having gained "near-sonic" speed, go to the target in a straight line. Their protection is the minimum time remaining for the air defense systems to detect and destroy missiles.

The second problem is the “plasma cocoon” where the body going into the atmosphere at hypersonic speed will fall, and which impedes the operation of the missile’s homing systems. That is, we can fly at a hypersound, but we don’t need to land on a stationary (especially a moving) target, and this greatly limits the capabilities of a hypersonic weapon.

Let us now recall the frames of the flight trajectory to the target from the “cartoon”. First, the rocket soars into the high distant, then dives into the area where the target is located, after which it mysteriously forks (we see two trajectories), performs clever maneuvers, from which the friends of the sworn friends obviously have to get dizzy and attack the target.



From all of the above, I would like to conclude: “The Dagger” is an advanced version of our airball ballistic missiles, and probably works like this. It soars into the air, accelerates to 10M, flies to the target, then begins to descend into the dense layers of the atmosphere. The rocket body is discarded as unnecessary and a pair of warheads fly further, which begin to maneuver vigorously in space (most likely with no engine, only due to the speed gained earlier, that is, like the intercontinental ballistic missile warheads). The objectives of the maneuvers are two - to confuse the enemy's air defenses and slow down in order to get out of the effect of the plasma cocoon, so that the homing head turns on. And then the GOS captures the target, the CU adjusts the flight for its defeat - and that’s all, “finita la comedy”.

Does such a scheme of work "Dagger" contradict the words of V.V. Putin's? Not at all - re-read the text of his speech. There it is not said anywhere that the rocket flies on the 10M on the whole route, and there is not a single word about the speed of its combat units.

It seems to be logical, but the sad thing is that if (I repeat, IF) “Dagger” works like it was described above, then it does not at all constitute “vundervaffe”, which cannot be any air defense system. In order for the “GOS” to “turn on”, it is necessary to reset the speed of the strides to five, and this must be done a few dozen kilometers from the moving target in order to be able to adjust the flight. Maneuvering to reach the target - again, the loss of speed and the warhead will fly to the target is not at all on the 10 M, but well if on the 2-3. This warhead will still be a difficult goal, but to destroy it is quite possible.

So what can we say that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin once again embellished the real state of affairs? But not a fact. The fact is that the picture of the Dagger, outlined above, we built on the well-known and publicly available information, which appeared as if not decades ago.

How can you not remember the sweetest history, published in one of the issues of "Technology - Youth". In the old days, the bishop of the Catholic Church arrived to inspect one of the secular schools. After checking, he lingered for lunch, which he was served by the principal. The bishop told him that he was generally satisfied with what he had seen, but, in his opinion, since “science has not yet discovered a single more or less significant law of nature”, more attention should be paid to studying the Law of God. The director replied that yes, science is only taking the first steps so far, but it has a great future, and someday, for example, people will learn to fly in the clouds, like birds.

- Yes, for such words you direct road to hell! - exclaimed the bishop ... Wright, the father of William and Orville Wright, who designed and built the first plane in the world (although their primacy is disputed) and made a flight on it.

Let's not be like Bishop Wright and recognize that science does not stand still: the impossible yesterday, today it becomes possible. According to some data, it was not so long ago in Germany that the issue of the impermeability of the plasma cocoon was resolved, at least for a short time, and who knows what domestic Kulibins could have thought of?

As a hypothesis, let us assume that a self-guided missile with a range of 2 000 km, a march speed of 10М throughout the flight up to the target itself and the ability to vigorously maneuver during the attack was designed in the Russian Federation. To date, such an ammunition is really unable to intercept any anti-aircraft missile system of the world. Does this mean that the surface ships of the world are decidedly outdated and have no more combat value? What changes the appearance of the "Dagger" in modern concepts of building naval fleets?

Surprisingly - nothing.

A bit of history. In 1975, the long-range supersonic anti-ship missile P-500 "Basalt" was adopted by the Soviet Navy. For its time, it, without any doubt, had no analogues in the world and was an ultimatum powerful weapon that could not stop the existing at that time air defense of American ships.



The main medium-range anti-aircraft missile in those years in the American navy was the "Standard" SM-1 of various modifications, but it was not possible to use it any more effectively against the P-500. The fact is that the missile had a rather limited range (up to 74 km in some modifications), but it required constant illumination of the target by a radar beam. At the same time, the Soviet missile, finding its enemy AGSN, went down, hiding beyond the horizon until the deadline, thereby disrupting the guidance of the SM-1 fired at it. Using a P-500 medium-range missile after the Basalt appeared over the horizon was also extremely difficult due to the short flying time of the Soviet missile. The Sea Sparrow SAM, adopted in 1976, was a very imperfect weapon (the illumination radar operator had to visually see the target) and could not deal with low-flying supersonic missiles for some reason.

Especially to counter Soviet missile-carrier aircraft, the F-14 Tomcat heavy carrier-based interceptors were equipped with Phoenix long-range air-to-air missiles. In theory, the Phoenixes could shoot down Soviet supersonic missiles on a high-altitude section of the trajectory. In practice, the Phoenixes turned out to be such a complex and expensive weapon that they were not trusted by the deck pilots aviation USA (and this, in fact, the elite of the elites). That is, ordinary pilots and armament operators of the “Tom Cat” did not see this missile in their eyes - they did not give it out during the exercises. Naturally, after this it is impossible to talk about any effectiveness in their use in real combat.

Thus, it seems that the last days have come for the US surface fleet. Well, well, carrier strike groups with DRLO planes could count on the identification and destruction of Soviet surface ships at a distance greater than the launch range of the P-500. What about submarines? Yes, a squadron of anti-submarine aircraft and 12-14 helicopters was based on US aircraft carriers, but they could not guarantee control of the underwater situation at 500-kilometer distance from the aircraft carrier. At the same time, the Soviet SSGN, having received a target designation from the Legend (MKRTS) (which still sometimes worked exactly as the creators had intended), could, having received a target designation from a satellite, give a volley, and ...

But the Americans did not panic and were in no hurry to abandon their aircraft carriers. In 1980, the American version of the domestic 30-mm "metal cutter" was adopted - the six-barreled "super bullet" "Vulcan-Falanx". To tell the truth, its effectiveness against P-500 is somewhat doubtful. Perhaps the Phalanx could have aimed at the Soviet rocket, but at such a distance, when its 20 mm shells defeated with projectiles, little had already been done, because the anti-ship missile would go "to the finish line." The combat unit of Basalt was armored and that there the American "metal cutter" did not shoot off the P-500, this very warhead almost guaranteed flew to the side of the enemy ship.

But 1983 r in the US Navy entered the cruiser "Ticonderoga" with the latest radar "AN / SPY-1", a modification of the missile defense radar. And new “Standard” SM-2 SAM, which no longer required constant tracking of the target with a radar - it was enough to highlight it on the final segment of the trajectory.



In the future, the rocket was constantly improved, reaching a range of over 160 km - in other words, American ships were able to shoot down Soviet supersonic missiles before they, after finding an American warrant, would go to an ultra-low altitude. Gradually, the Americans learned to fight with Russian rockets and at the low-altitude section — their Spy, being a UHF radar, saw the sky perfectly, but it was very bad — what was at sea level. This problem was gradually solved, and in 2004 the new ESSM rocket, specially focused on fighting low-flying supersonic targets, took over the arms of the US Navy. Against Soviet satellites, the Americans developed ASM-135 ASAT, but the program was closed at 1988 g - the United States pushed the USSR away from the US-A satellites of active radar intelligence most dangerous for the American Navy.

Not immediately, but gradually, step by step, the Americans found ways to counter the Soviet “vundervaffe”. All these American means, of course, did not at all make supersonic missiles useless. “Granites” and “Basalt” remain very dangerous weapons even today. But ... the fact is that the means of attack and defense reside in the eternal competition of "shield and sword". At the time of the appearance of the "Basalts", the American "shield" could be said to have cracked, however, over time, the US strengthened it to such an extent that it allowed it to effectively resist the Soviet sword. The new US shield did not give guarantees of invulnerability (no shield would give such a guarantee to the warrior carrying it), but the combination of the “shield” (SAM) and the “sword” - deck aircraft gave the US fleet the ability to perform the tasks for which it was created, effectively enough to deal with carriers of Soviet long-range missiles and with the missiles themselves.

So, if the “Dagger” really possesses those characteristics with which we “awarded it”, then there is no doubt that the American “shield” has cracked again.



But just as well, there is no doubt that the Americans, realizing that they are in danger, will find in one year, or in ten ways, how to counteract Russian hypersonic missiles and gradually nullify the current technological superiority of the Dagger. No doubt, over time, they will “pull up” their “shield” to the level of our “sword.”

It is necessary to clearly understand that the concept: “We will give you the answer to any question:“ We have a machine gun, but you don’t have it! ”” Works exclusively against countries that are seriously inferior to our country in terms of scientific and technological development. In this case, yes, we can create “such devices” that the lagging country simply cannot counterpose to anything. And when you learn, we will be far ahead.

But no matter how much fun we have for the jokes of Mikhail Nikolaevich Zadornov who left us untimely, the Russian Federation does not surpass the United States in either the scientific or technical levels of development. If we take the purely military sphere, then, without any doubt, we are overtaking the United States in some areas, in other areas they are the best. And this means that the time is not far off when a quite worthy American answer will be found on the Russian “Dagger”, and we need to be ready for this.

By the way, it is possible that this “answer” is already now. To do this, we make another small excursion into history.

Falkland conflict, 1982 year. As we know, Argentina possessed Exochet anti-ship missiles, which could be used (and applied) by British ships. So, strange as it may sound, the “Exosets” in their tactical niche in 1982 absolutely corresponded to the Russian “Dagger” in 2018. Please do not throw at the author of the article with flowers in pots, but simply compare some facts.

Argentinean planes could use "Exocates" without entering the zone of the British air defense. More precisely, they entered, but the tactics of low-altitude flight did not leave the British time to react, as a result, they couldn’t even shoot at the Super Etandara, not to shoot down. The rocket flew to the target at an ultra-low altitude, at which the main British shipborne air defense systems "Sea Dart" and "Sea Cat" could not intercept the "Exochet" - there was no such technical possibility. Theoretically, the newest C-Wolf air defense systems could knock down the French anti-ship missile system, but, first, they were installed only on two British ships, and secondly, in practice, they didn’t always have time to work on subsonic Skyhawks rocket in combat conditions. Rapid fire artillery, like our AK-630 or American Vulcan Falanxes, could destroy the Exocates, but the British fleet did not have such artillery complexes. Aircraft wings on British aircraft carriers could not ensure either the interception of the “Super Etandar” or the destruction of the Execetes themselves.

In other words, at the disposal of Argentina was a super-weapon, which the British could not intercept with fire weapons (aircraft, missiles and artillery) and whose carriers they could not destroy before using their missiles. Strictly speaking, after the application they could not destroy either. Isn't it very similar to the description of the capabilities of the Dagger missile system? The author has no doubt that if the Argentine lovers of the navy had the opportunity to discuss the impending conflict with Great Britain “on the Internet,” as we do today, then the thesis “one Exeset missile” would have sounded everywhere.

Does the author have to remind who won the Falkland conflict?

The British ships could not destroy the missiles and their carriers, but they were able to mislead the homing head of "Exosets". As a result, the Argentine missiles hit only those goals that did not have time to set false targets, as happened in the case of Sheffield and Glamorgan. Strictly speaking, the Argentines did not shoot at Atlantic Conveyor - they used the Exocets on British combat ships, they set false targets, thwarted the capture and the missiles flew "into the milk." And there, to its own misfortune, the Atlantic Conveyor turned out to be, a converted civilian ship, which was not interfered with due to the inherent British economy of the means of staging.

Of course, today's gos British sample interference 1982 g is unlikely to be misleading. But progress does not stand still, and the Americans have always given a large role to the means of electronic warfare. And if, according to some sources, today we have been ahead in this area, this does not mean that the US EW stations are bad. At the same time, everyone who proclaims today: “One American aircraft carrier — one Dagger” and “We don't need a fleet, we have the Dagger” as if they forgot about the means of suppressing homing missiles. But whatever the speed of the rocket, the modern “gentleman's” set of GPS, which “works” on mobile targets - radar, optics and “thermal imaging” in the infrared range can be somehow misled. But it is very convenient not to remember this - for personal peace of mind, because you so much want to believe that the “gloomy Russian genius” created an invincible weapon that immediately changed the balance of power in the world!

In fact, if the “Dagger” possesses those performance characteristics that are attributed to it, it really represents an extremely formidable means of struggle at sea. It can be stated that the “shield” of the American Navy once again “cracked”, and this gives us the next 10-15 years much greater operational capabilities than the ones we had before. But everyone who speaks today about the uselessness of the military fleet of the Russian Federation, about the obsolescence of large surface warships as a means of fighting at sea, the author of this article asks you to think about one very simple idea.

Yes, without a doubt, we can curtail our shipbuilding programs today, give up on the development of means of countering American AUG - why, if we have the Dagger? But if the Russian Federation suddenly follows this path, then after 10-15-20 years in the United States, it will pounce, and we will find that our Daggers are no longer ultimatum and no longer represent an irresistible threat to American AUG. And we don’t have a fleet capable of protecting the coast of the Russian Federation, covering the deployment areas of strategic missile submarines, displaying the flag in the world's oceans, supporting countries where NATO "brings democracy". There is only a regiment of completely outdated MiG-31, which now even as interceptors can no longer be used, because the pendants are altered under "Daggers".
Author:
275 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 27 March 2018 05: 31
    +17
    "it is necessary to decline into the dense layers of the atmosphere - and there any any significant maneuvers will be accompanied by prohibitive overloads"
    The author you confuse. There is a response to a change in the steering wheel more. Just all.
    1. Vard
      Vard 27 March 2018 06: 02
      +17
      It seems that a certain concept of secrecy still has a place to be ... and real TTX missiles are a mystery with seven seals ... As for the AUG, they, as the events in Syria have shown, try not to appear where there is good front-line aviation, which without any exotics that they put on the deck of the aircraft carrier, turning the entire connection, we went out for a walk ...
      1. umah
        umah 27 March 2018 10: 56
        +14
        The second problem is the "plasma cocoon", where the body going in the atmosphere at hypersonic speed will get, and which interferes with the operation of the homing systems of the rocket

        As far as I know, in Russia (USSR), the problem of the passage of signals through a plasma cloud has long been resolved. The A-135 and C-300 (400) systems have hypersonic missiles, the flight of which is adjusted by the radio command method, and in the final section the AGSN is switched on, the operation of which is not impeded by the speed of the rocket. So there is a high probability that the "Dagger" when homing will not reduce speed.
        1. 11 black
          11 black April 5 2018 09: 18
          +3
          Quote: umah
          As far as I know, in Russia (USSR), the problem of the passage of signals through a plasma cloud has long been resolved.

          You are absolutely right - a radiolucent window breaks through a stream of freon on the lateral edge of the rocket, and radars with a synthesized aperture make it possible to look forward - this method has long been used in the A-135 system (in terms of breaking the plasma cocoon) - but the author did not bother, or simply did not want to look for such information is a minus.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac April 8 2018 22: 24
            +5
            Quote: 11 black
            but the author did not bother

            The author worked hard, made thoughtful conclusions based on ... an advertising cartoon.
          2. astepanov
            astepanov April 26 2018 17: 40
            +5
            The author generally does not seem too competent. Here is his pearl: “while it flies in the upper atmosphere, there are probably no special problems with maneuverability (in rarefied air), but after all, a rocket, sooner or later, must be lowered into the dense layers of the atmosphere - and there any then substantial maneuvers will be accompanied by prohibitive overloads. " School mechanics say that overloads are determined solely by the magnitude of the acceleration, and not by the presence of the atmosphere. For example, at 10M and a maneuver radius of 1000 meters, the acceleration will be V ^ 2 / r = 10900 m / s / s, i.e. more than 100 g - and what does the atmosphere have to do with it? And such pearls in the text - like grains in pearl barley.
        2. zenion
          zenion 8 May 2018 17: 53
          +3
          The author does not like it. Reminds that boy who knows receptions from everything. Well, hit me in the face with all my might. Maybe we should not? Bay. He hits - the boy falls. He wipes blood from his nose and snot and asks - you were me with all your strength? No adversary is recognized, so little. Boy - from that everything is wrong, I could not repel the blow and got up. Hit hard. Maybe we should not? Bey, I can beat the blow. So, now I’ll hit - it beats with all my might. The boy is falling. A few days later, in the hospital, when he could open his eyes, he asked what it was? Petro hit you, you made him. I thought the horse was a hoof. And all due to the fact that he beat incorrectly, I could fight back .------ The dagger flies incorrectly and all those killed will be considered alive.
      2. Alexander Nezgovorov
        Alexander Nezgovorov 27 March 2018 11: 20
        +14
        all this is nothing more than PR, not for NATO, but for us ...
        1. businessv
          businessv 27 March 2018 13: 35
          +13
          Quote: Alexander Nezgovorov
          all this is nothing more than PR, not for NATO, but for us ...

          Trying to justify the surname ?! smile Do you mean that our guarantor decided to establish unity with the people with such a duck? Doubtful!
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Serge Gorely
              Serge Gorely 28 March 2018 23: 10
              +23
              Quote: arshavets
              For four years now, our under-guarantee has been feeding the whole country with beer-fermented cheers-patriotism, for socio-economic policy is in favor of the rich majors and bureaucrats, and not the people. Are you not aware that KiselTV broadcasts?

              And you, dear, want to bring the voice of the Echo and the Air Force to us? Walk better on your native Ukrainian sites.
            3. The comment was deleted.
        2. Tda tar
          Tda tar 29 March 2018 12: 04
          +3
          And "for us" is for whom? Who will you be from?
          1. Serge Gorely
            Serge Gorely 29 March 2018 21: 59
            +6
            Quote: Tda Tar
            And "for us" is for whom? Who will you be from?

            I am straight. From normal. And you?
        3. manne mann
          manne mann April 6 2018 13: 00
          +3
          Of course, for such a “specialist” like you, it became clear from the first words of Putin that it’s PR! And I affirm that you are PR yourself here, because there is nowhere else! And our President is responsible for his words, and here you are, no!
      3. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 April 7 2018 18: 57
        0
        Firstly, in the photo under the abdomen of an air-based Iskander carrier. And its coverage for 10 Mach is obviously weak, and even Iskandker-Dagger, with the addition of the speed of air launch, is unlikely to reach hypersound (6Max). You need to understand the addressee in the president’s statements on the latest weapons of the Russian Federation, this is to the United States as a warning against the planned strategic strike on the Syrian armed forces. Here, busts are possible, because the goal is to scare and warn .. Now, according to the previously mentioned "Exosets", the British were clearly ready to meet with the French product. Yes, and the French, putting only 6 units and froze supplies. (again proved to be an unreliable supplier). And also, that some were defective (didn’t the English MI-6 try?). Therefore, a good tool for the English fleet did not work, otherwise the British would not have been sweet. And with the sinking, the Atlantic Conveyor is not so bad, because the helicopters that were on it, which the British were so short of, were lost on it.
    2. Artek
      Artek 27 March 2018 08: 53
      +34
      Of course, to abandon the fleet, the destroyers of the ocean zone and shift everything to the local watchtowers — this way of our Moscow Region is wrong.
      As for this dagger, the lack of funding for science in Putin's Russia will very soon lead to such results when the new generation of future designers of poor designers will not be able to, not only come up with something, but think at all.
      Iskander came up with the designer Invincible, MiG31 was designed by Lozino-Lozinsky, the nuclear reactors that Putin is now boasting about are being sold to the SOVIET SCHOOL of nuclear reactor engineering and are one hundred percent new Putin’s designers are not involved in them. old Soviet ideas still. But it will pass soon for natural reasons.
      Putin’s policy of NOT FINANCING SCIENCE will lead to the fact that the creation of such complex weapons systems will simply not be possible, because the generation of pepsikola and hamburgers is simply not able to think.
      1. MS71
        MS71 27 March 2018 09: 34
        +26
        "fsepropalo"? Or are you from the generation of barbecue and beer?
        1. Artek
          Artek 27 March 2018 09: 36
          +18
          Quote: MS71
          "fsepropalo"? Or are you from the generation of barbecue and beer?


          even here in your proposal is false, "a generation of barbecue and beer" has never been illiteracy.
          1. Oden280
            Oden280 27 March 2018 10: 15
            +19
            That's right, unlike your Pepsi generation and mattress worship. If you support science, then go and move it, and not flood the site.
            1. Artek
              Artek 27 March 2018 10: 37
              +11
              Quote: Oden280
              That's right, unlike your Pepsi generation and mattress worship. If you support science, then go and move it, and not flood the site.


              you go yourself
      2. Scaffold
        Scaffold 27 March 2018 09: 36
        +22
        The word "future" is written without the letter "u", if that. Who is the gundel about the level of education?
        1. Artek
          Artek 27 March 2018 09: 38
          +7
          Quote: Scaffold
          The word "future" is written without the letter "u", if that. Who is the gundel about the level of education?


          your "education" at the level of microbes, crawl on your knees and collect acorns, look at the top, not fate.
          1. Scaffold
            Scaffold 27 March 2018 10: 50
            +20
            "Up" is written together.
            1. Artek
              Artek 27 March 2018 10: 52
              +5
              Quote: Scaffold
              "Up" is written together.

              and the word cabinet with one f
              1. War_Child_83
                War_Child_83 27 March 2018 11: 32
                +9
                You got a good panama hat, a bourgeois thinker. "Zopesh in moleskine" so as not to forget.
                1. Artek
                  Artek 27 March 2018 12: 09
                  +10
                  Quote: War_Child_83
                  You got a good panama hat, a bourgeois thinker. "Zopesh in moleskine" so as not to forget.


                  shredded, like an information cover for the authorities, used to fight to invent various nonsense, dodge, adapt, mimic, and after the cycle said 77 percent, it became clear that you shouldn’t strain anymore, I think soon you’ll be cut, like von Braun as unnecessary and saving funds, so look for a new host.
                  1. B.T.V.
                    B.T.V. 27 March 2018 13: 27
                    +3
                    Quote: Artek
                    so look for a new host.


                    We are with yours, we’ll help you.
                    1. Artek
                      Artek 27 March 2018 13: 31
                      +7
                      Quote: B.T.W.
                      Quote: Artek
                      so look for a new host.


                      We are with yours, we’ll help you.


                      I myself, I have one master - my conscience.
                      1. 11 black
                        11 black April 5 2018 18: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: Artek
                        I myself, I have one master - my conscience.

                        And how many dollars does it cost?
              2. businessv
                businessv 27 March 2018 13: 40
                +4
                Quote: Artek
                and the word cabinet with one f

                is it like all the little bugs purposely created by author ?! repeat
                1. Artek
                  Artek 27 March 2018 13: 45
                  +4
                  Quote: businessv
                  Quote: Artek
                  and the word cabinet with one f

                  is it like all the little bugs purposely created by author ?! repeat

                  like yes ...
            2. myobius59
              myobius59 28 March 2018 12: 54
              +1
              You are mistaken, it is written both together and separately, depending on the meaning ...
          2. businessv
            businessv 27 March 2018 15: 17
            +8
            Quote: Artek
            your "education" at the level of microbes, crawl on your knees and collect acorns, look at the top, not fate.

            Did you yourself understand what you wrote ?! Microbes crawl on their knees, collecting acorns, despite the education and the possibility of an air strike (we are in)! laughing drinks
            1. Artek
              Artek 27 March 2018 15: 27
              +1
              Quote: businessv
              Quote: Artek
              your "education" at the level of microbes, crawl on your knees and collect acorns, look at the top, not fate.

              Did you yourself understand what you wrote ?! Microbes crawl on their knees, collecting acorns, despite the education and the possibility of an air strike (we are in)! laughing drinks

              Do not understand? Problems...
      3. Safevi
        Safevi 27 March 2018 10: 06
        +24
        Thanks to the author for a realistic review! These authors and the site are sorely lacking. Here, unfortunately, honors such as “Let's tear NATO!”, “Destroy America!”, “The West rots”, “They envy us!” Are used. and others, which to put it mildly does not correspond to reality. But they sweeten the ears of Uryalok, it’s so nice to fly in chimeras. Thanks again for the review and courage. Yes, courage, because not everyone decides to tell the truth when the majority prefers to hear a lie.
        1. Evgeny Grachev
          Evgeny Grachev 27 March 2018 11: 21
          +5
          Courage? ))) Or maybe stupidity? Unas every gopher ... agronomist ...
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          27 March 2018 12: 15
          +7
          Quote: sefevi
          Yes, courage, because not everyone decides to tell the truth when the majority prefers to hear a lie.

          Thank you! hi
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 27 March 2018 14: 29
            +8
            Andrey, that’s all right. From the same cycle as the Big Game. It does not stop, there are no victories and defeats. Separately won and lost battles. So here too - of course they will find a means of counteraction, there is no doubt. But, I think that if they had plans for the coming military conflicts, then they were postponed.
          2. Ascetic
            Ascetic 27 March 2018 14: 52
            +11
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Thank you!

            The next time when you are planning to write similar articles, I advise you to first read at least this book there before the nuts process is described how to use air-to-surface missiles
        3. Ascetic
          Ascetic 27 March 2018 13: 42
          +18
          Quote: sefevi
          Thanks to the author for a realistic review! These authors and the site are sorely lacking.

          If RK "Dagger" is the author of the RCC, then there is no need to talk about his competence. The dagger, like its ancestor Iskander, is designed to destroy important infrastructure objects with previously known coordinates - command centers, air defense and missile defense systems, air bases, etc. Including with the use of a nuclear warhead. Therefore, the article is continuous speculation that has nothing to do with reality. Moving targets, if capable of hitting, only with external target designation or, at worst, with special warheads striking the target’s area. Placing a long-range Iskander option on an airplane is associated with the INF Treaty. Just like the Caliber in the marine version, Well, the firm of Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering of the RK of the WB is not engaged in the company and has never been engaged. This is the topic of the ICD "Rainbow"
          Airborne anti-ship missiles from modern ones are the X-32, the newest anti-ship missile product of the WB 715 under development
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            27 March 2018 14: 59
            +4
            Quote: Ascetic
            If RK "Dagger" is the author of the RCC, then there is no need to talk about his competence.

            She declared, including as RCC, ashamed not to know.
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 27 March 2018 17: 05
              +7
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              She declared, including as RCC, ashamed not to know.

              Who is declared and where? Reporters? Or Borisov? where is the real video of tests on floating targets, which for RCC of all types are a dime a dozen. That's when they will appear then and we will discuss.
              A dagger is a solid-fuel rocket of the Iskander-M air-based complex, everything else is fiction, Unless, of course, the head of Ivan Ilyich ((X-15) does not stick to the body of Sidor Petrovich (Iskander) then yes .... RCC laughing
              Well, stop procrastinating rumors and speculation ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                27 March 2018 18: 10
                +5
                Quote: Ascetic
                Who is declared and where? Reporters? Or Borisov? where is the real video of tests on floating targets, which for RCC of all types are a dime a dozen. That's when they will appear then and we will discuss.

                Based on this logic (about a real video), we do not have a dagger and there is nothing to discuss.
                Quote: Ascetic
                The dagger is a solid-fuel rocket complex Iskander-M air-based, everything else is fiction

                I heard experts substantiating this point of view, I’m not satisfied with the explanations
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 28 March 2018 01: 04
                  +6
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Based on this logic (about a real video), we do not have a dagger and there is nothing to discuss.
                  Quote: Ascetic

                  That's it, there is nothing to write speculation about the SECRET weapon based on staged videos.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    28 March 2018 14: 10
                    +1
                    Quote: Ascetic
                    That's it, there is nothing to write speculation about the SECRET weapon

                    And if there is nothing to write, then why did they show their people? :)))))
                    Quote: Ascetic
                    based on staged videos.

                    3 / 4 articles are NOT reflections based on staged videos
            2. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
              VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 31 March 2018 07: 09
              +5
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk, please do not write please about the fleet every time you have a coral at least once in your eyes. Your sources are taken from the Internet. What do you mean, Mr. Sivkov is talking nonsense in his own way.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                31 March 2018 12: 22
                0
                Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
                Andrey from Chelyabinsk, please do not write please about the fleet every time.

                Please be written with the letter "Y", and nonsense - through "a". To give a Russian language textbook? :)))
                Do not like it - do not read. Able to refute - refute who is in the way.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac April 8 2018 22: 33
                  +5
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Please be written with the letter "Y", and nonsense - through "a". To give a Russian language textbook? :)))

                  So write articles about the Russian language.
            3. FWG
              FWG 6 May 2018 06: 34
              0
              It is also a shame not to know that the Mig-31 is not an outdated interceptor. And his modifications ....
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 27 March 2018 18: 35
            +10
            Quote: Ascetic
            The dagger, like its ancestor Iskander, is designed to destroy important infrastructure objects with previously known coordinates - command centers, air defense and missile defense systems, air bases, etc.

            Regarding the similarity of the Dagger and Iskander, a lot of copies are broken here ... but I have a reasonable question, excuse me, gentlemen, experts, are you sure that what is shown in the video is a real Dagger? Let's start at least with this. Where is the confirmation of this? This video is just a demonstration and nothing more ... experts draw conclusions and analysis on personnel, and mounted, and argue, anti-ship missiles, an analogue of the Macedonian rocket ... guys, are you serious?
            I remember very high-quality videos about SDI (this is about what quality movie we have), and what?
            Many forget that all the weapons presented by Putin are SECRET! The function of this video is not to show our weapons anymore, but to convey a simple thought that we have it. DOT.
      4. January
        January 27 March 2018 11: 41
        +16
        Near the grandfathers of the Soviet school are always examiners. Sit for years. What are they learning. Something is being developed and is gradually taking the place of grandfathers. And their experience and knowledge over the years of work in the Design Bureau is very different from the mess with which they left school. And your post could be shortened to "all the way" and "Putinslill."
      5. raw174
        raw174 27 March 2018 13: 34
        +13
        Quote: Artek
        Iskander came up with the invincible designer, Mig31 was designed by Lozino-Lozinsky, the nuclear reactors that Putin is now boasting about are being sold to the SOVIET SCHOOL for nuclear reactor engineering and are one hundred percent new Putin’s new designers are not involved in them.

        Clear day! That "Putin's designers", as you put it, are not involved in inventions created in the years when Putin went under the table! But, in modern Russia, a lot of discoveries have been made, especially in physics. Take an interest at your leisure ... At the same time, look at the results of international school olympiads, this may turn out to be unpleasant news for you, but shkolota from Russia are leaders in most subjects.
        And yes, the T-14 and SU-57 were created in Russia, after the collapse of the USSR.
        Quote: Artek
        Grandfathers are sitting in atomic design bureaus, who embodied their old Soviet ideas.

        That's right, it would be strange to see scientists aged 20-30 years, well, they don’t have the appropriate experience. But no less intelligent old people from Russia will come to replace old people from the USSR, do not hesitate!
        1. Artek
          Artek 27 March 2018 14: 48
          +4
          Quote: raw174
          Clear the day! That "Putin's designers", as you put it, are not involved in inventions created in the years when Putin went under the table! But, in modern Russia, a lot of discoveries have been made, especially in physics.


          the pepper is clear, I mean the designers designed already under Putin.
          As for the "many discoveries" I do not know.
          Quote: raw174
          At the same time, look at the results of school international competitions, this may turn out to be unpleasant news for you, but shkolota from Russia are leaders in most subjects.

          this is so, but in the first place it is the merit of our education and of course not Putin’s ego, but the old Soviet school, and secondly, Putin’s pedagogy is struggling with this state of things, so that soon we will not be the first in the olympiads. here the old teachers will leave completely and everything, as in Putin’s biathlon.

          Quote: raw174
          And yes, the T-14 and SU-57 were created in Russia, after the collapse of the USSR.

          yes funny type created, and when they are not known, I no longer believe the words.

          Quote: raw174
          But no less intelligent old people from Russia will come to replace old people from the USSR, do not hesitate!

          they’ll come, but not to Russian design bureaus, but to American, Chinese, Jewish, we don’t need such people.
          1. raw174
            raw174 28 March 2018 14: 16
            +8
            Quote: Artek
            the pepper is clear, I mean the designers designed already under Putin.

            It was sarcasm on my part, I understand you smile
            Quote: Artek
            As for the "many discoveries" I do not know.

            Well, probably google ...
            Laser installation in the RAS; Archaeological discoveries; Something there in the periodic table; geographical discoveries ... A process is underway, it is clear that there will not be such a breakthrough as in the 40s and 70s, not only in Russia, but also in the world. The great war, world war, can become a catalyst for breakthrough science.
            Quote: Artek
            but firstly, it is the merit of our education and of course not Putin’s

            First exam, this is three letters, the Unified State Exam. Secondly, this is not a methodology, but just an exam ... There are several school programs, my daughter goes to first grade, there is a choice of two programs: “Russia” and “Perspective”. I don’t know where to go, the wife is dealing with the issue. By type of activity, until last year, I often talked with schoolchildren and I won’t say that they are dumber than me at their age, they just don’t know much about history and their interests are completely different. But I think that the interests of generations are always different ...
            Quote: Artek
            soon we will not be the first in the olympiads. here the old teachers will come down completely and that's it

            We’ll wait and see ... now, mainly teachers of the 90s graduate (about 40 years old), they are no longer Soviet ... teachers of 60-70 years old do not work with medalists of international competitions ... The times of the Soviet school are already gone, The union fell apart 26 years ago!
            Quote: Artek
            yes funny type created, and when they are not known, I no longer believe the words.

            It depends on what meaning you put into the phrase "when will" ...
            The Armat platform was shown in 2015, the SU-57 in the ATS recently flew, i.e. has already.
            Quote: Artek
            they’ll come, but not to Russian design bureaus, but to American, Chinese, Jewish, we don’t need such people.

            Well, so far they are going to Russia ... Many who have left in the 80s and 90s are returning.
            Quote: Artek
            Putin

            Capitalize your surname if you are an educated person. Do not expose yourself as an ignoramus. Well it is, advice hi
      6. Santjaga_Garka
        Santjaga_Garka 27 March 2018 13: 54
        0
        According to some reports (not exactly), this is a temporary refusal, there will still be ocean ships, but in what quantity and when - the question is different ...

        Well, it’s unlikely that only grandfathers are sitting in the design bureau, they probably have successors in the places they teach and train ...

        I don’t know about Science, but with education, then of course garbage comes out, although to be honest, whoever wants to study, he studies, and who doesn’t want to, students “have fun living from session to session” ...
      7. Newone
        Newone 27 March 2018 22: 36
        +3
        For the past several years, our students have won (or simply win) international programming competitions (including the USA, Japan, China). not everything is so bad.
      8. Alexander Borisov
        Alexander Borisov 27 March 2018 22: 48
        +2
        Well, yes, the positions in the RAS are already inherited, it’s time to build up grandchildren, and the money allocated by the state is not enough. And the EG is in the corruption of the Russian education system, the only opportunity for talents from poor families to get a good education, they are the hope of Russian science.
      9. ty60
        ty60 28 March 2018 00: 00
        0
        Well lied. Read yourself-Spanish-Suis
      10. Setrac
        Setrac April 8 2018 22: 27
        +1
        Quote: Artek
        of course abandoning the fleet, of the destroyers of the ocean zone and shifting everything to local watchtowers — this way of our Moscow Region is wrong.

        It has long been time to build spaceships, and we all flounder in the water, kindergarten - pants on the straps.
      11. Senior manager
        Senior manager 7 May 2018 15: 49
        0
        Quote: Artek
        the generation of pepsikola and hamburgers is simply not capable of thinking.

        If I understand you correctly, your children are a worthless generation of Pepsi eaters and hamburgers. Well, do not be shy, admit it.
        I remembered the expression from the old Soviet book: "Humanity, this is not one Ryazan ...".
    3. Kars
      Kars 27 March 2018 10: 20
      +12
      Cartoons are not worth analyzing at all. I even think that this is correct if everything is not shown correctly in them. Why do the enemy spies do their work.
    4. Santjaga_Garka
      Santjaga_Garka 27 March 2018 13: 49
      0
      So the greater the speed, the greater the pressure on the steering wheel?
    5. venik
      venik 28 March 2018 21: 46
      +2
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      The author you confuse.

      =======
      The author generally "got ramsey" ...... He is trying to draw "thoughtful" conclusions from information, which in fact is NOT !!!!!
    6. 113262a
      113262a 28 March 2018 22: 19
      0
      Gas then do not care!
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 27 March 2018 05: 51
    +23
    The respected GDP will not bluff; the consequences are too serious in this case.
    If he said that this weapon exists, then it is.
    Regarding the fleet. Building and maintaining it is extremely costly and an expansion policy is needed to build a powerful fleet; Russia does not have it at the moment.
    The existing Russian Navy is rather weak and the main hope in the event of a large-scale conflict on submarines.
    That is precisely why weapons were created that offset the superiority of the United States in the Navy.
    Asymmetric answer.
    1. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 27 March 2018 09: 17
      +11
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      The existing Russian Navy is rather weak and the main hope in the event of a large-scale conflict on submarines.

      In general, I agree with you.
      But I think, in addition to boats, there is also that 22m3.
      In general, the article is clearly negative.
      I doubt that the author’s competence allows him to make professional judgments about the Navy.
      1. Ehanatone
        Ehanatone 27 March 2018 11: 42
        +1
        Alexey Zummer
        Go to the fridge, have a beer and you’ll feel better right away - after all, the author of FSE is frying!
        Fso!
        fso!
      2. Korax71
        Korax71 27 March 2018 12: 26
        +8
        Look at all the gdp’s speeches since 2000. we were supposed to tear the moon back in 2015, and raise the economy, lower salaries, and interest rates on loans. There were so many priority programs, and where are they? It will be the same with a dagger. and calm down.
        1. Senior manager
          Senior manager 7 May 2018 15: 58
          +2
          Quote: Korax71
          Look at all the gdp’s speeches since 2000. back in 2015, we should have taken the moon, and raised the economy, and wages

          It looks like you were recently born and do not remember i.e. they didn’t find the devastation of the 2000s, the global economic crisis of 2008, the sanctions officially announced since 2014, and the Jackson-Venik amendments since the past year. Learn at least the history of modern Russia, at least you will know why the development of Russia is so tight. I don’t even speak about other factors.
      3. businessv
        businessv 27 March 2018 13: 49
        +5
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        I doubt that the author’s competence allows him to make professional judgments about the Navy.

        Here all are not professionals, with rare exceptions! Judging by the epaulette, you are not a beginner, but about the Navy it was here that a whole series of articles came out, on the basis of which just an opinion is diametrically opposed to yours, unfortunately. Read here: https://topwar.ru/132505-voennyy-flot-rossii-grus
        tnyy-vzglyad-v-buduschee-chast-2.html at the end of the article a link to the first part, start with it. hi
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 March 2018 11: 00
      +7
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      The existing Russian Navy is rather weak and the main hope in the event of a large-scale conflict on submarines.

      A series of articles on the submarine fleet from uv. the author was also. The situation with SSBNs and multipurpose nuclear submarines in the Navy seems to be no worse than with surface ships: for the entire Navy there is the only multi-purpose nuclear submarine of a new project. The rest were laid back in Soviet times. Moreover, the available amount of ICAPL is not enough even to cover the SSBN.
    3. Santjaga_Garka
      Santjaga_Garka 27 March 2018 13: 59
      +2
      A powerful ocean fleet is needed not only for aggressive politics, but also to protect the Allies from foreign policy - projecting forces, for example in South America, would not work out without ocean ships ...

      In the case of a full-fledged conflict - yes, we have something to answer, but, usually, such a conflict is just not needed, we need to suppress it in the bud, for this we need ACG, for example ...
  3. mark1
    mark1 27 March 2018 06: 21
    +8
    The “Dagger” is a two-stage Iskander, where the first stage is an aircraft carrier (a kind of bypass of the INF Treaty), its priority is to use targets in Western Europe (for example, missile defense positions), everything else is just a useful addition.
    given the presence of the "Dagger" slowed down with the adoption of BR "Frontier"

    .
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 27 March 2018 10: 42
      +12
      That's right. The "Dagger" did not invent anything new.
      Therefore, it is real. Took the finished Iskander, hung under the finished
      MiG-31. Oops! - a new weapon.
      Of course, he will not hit any moving target. As usual
      Iskander. But the stationary target will hit quite accurately.
      1. andj61
        andj61 27 March 2018 11: 37
        +11
        Quote: voyaka uh
        That's right. The "Dagger" did not invent anything new.
        Therefore, it is real. Took the finished Iskander, hung under the finished
        MiG-31. Oops! - a new weapon.
        Of course, he will not hit any moving target. As usual
        Iskander. But the stationary target will hit quite accurately.

        Do you think his head was left exactly the same as that of Iskander? No.
        But they could put a modern analogue of Granite almost 40 years ago - and hello to moving goals! fellow
        Our scientists and production workers should not be denied in the mind - pointing at the ship is surely ensured: both experience and opportunities are available. hi
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 27 March 2018 11: 57
          +2
          "Do you think his head was left exactly the same as that of Iskander?" ////

          I am sure. Ballistic missile. First he makes the candle up, the fuel burns out, then the ballistics and ... stone down.
          There are no special options. Otherwise, it would be stated that the usual ground Iskander
          can sink ships. Alas...

          "the guidance on the ship is surely ensured: both experience and opportunities are available" ////

          No experience, no opportunities. Nobody in the world has yet learned how to hit BR in a moving target.
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 March 2018 17: 52
            +6
            The detachable warhead of the full-time Iskander-M has a CVO within 10 meters for a simple reason - it performs a controlled flight using thrust aerodynamic planes on the descending branch of the trajectory, homing on the radar or optical image of the target.

            This regime for ballistic missiles was decided at the Pershing in the shaggy 1980 years.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 27 March 2018 17: 58
              +2
              For stationary purposes. Inertial gives a CVO of 200 m, taxiing
              reduces to 10.
              But it has nothing to do with the hunt for ships. No 200, no, and 10.
              And on stationary and ordinary Iskander will fall. There is nothing to fuss
              with the MiG-31.
              1. sib.ataman
                sib.ataman 28 March 2018 10: 58
                +4
                Do I have a suspicion that someone is eating envy? How nice!
              2. Cossack 471
                Cossack 471 April 6 2018 23: 14
                0
                WARRIOR They used to write "Looking from London" now --- "Looking from Israel"
          2. Senior manager
            Senior manager 7 May 2018 16: 04
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            No experience, no opportunities. Nobody in the world has yet learned how to hit BR in a moving target.

            You still won’t believe that someone will be the first to create a missile for moving targets. There are no big technical difficulties.
      2. gridasov
        gridasov 27 March 2018 11: 51
        +3
        probably if a corrective drone hangs
        1. Romulus
          Romulus 27 March 2018 15: 06
          +2
          Quote: gridasov

          1
          gridasov Today, 11:51 ↑ New
          probably if a corrective drone hangs

          You are so brief .. I confess I do not recognize you (as it is accepted on the site))) in this makeup) (c)
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 27 March 2018 16: 17
            +5
            I confess that I am struggling with my shortcomings
            1. Romulus
              Romulus 27 March 2018 17: 24
              0
              You can’t defeat yourself, it’s better to remain yourself, yes .. not everyone understands you - but they don’t need it.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 27 March 2018 06: 42
    +11
    Briefly comment on the article, then this is "an attempt to gain sanity." Not entirely successful in some places, but nevertheless worthy of attention and considerable respect. Article plus.
  5. Alex_59
    Alex_59 27 March 2018 07: 07
    +26
    For such hack-work people who were engaged in this "cartoon" should be forever weaned from the keyboard and sent to Central Africa to teach computer science to the cannibal tribes
    On this occasion, I had a dispute with one friend. He also shouted "shame, shame." And I tell him - if they would have done it like in Hollywood, you would have cried out first - window dressing about what taxes are spent on cartoons! The people will always be unhappy. Beautiful - means window dressing and embezzlement. Modestly - a disgrace.
    No, while it flies in the upper atmosphere, there are probably no special problems with maneuverability (in rarefied air)
    Exactly the opposite! It is in the discharged air that the most terrible problems with maneuvering exist. In space or near the earth, problems are solved. At the earth - with aerodynamic controls, in space - with gas-dynamic. And in the discharged air, in a strip above 25 km and up to 50 km, everything is just bad. Aerodynamic organs there work very poorly, or generally do not really work - insufficient air density. But gas-dynamic ones, although they work, cannot by virtue of their low thrust significantly deflect the trajectory of the aircraft. A single impulse of a thruster will not give a significant change in the trajectory as it will be in space. Because there is still air, and at high speeds it has a significant resistance to attempts to maneuver. You can add traction to the steering engines, only then they turn into very overall and weighty products, which also require serious amounts of fuel. As a result, a small warhead can grow into a chubby little boar that does not fit on any sensible carrier. Therefore, in the altitude band 25-50 km, controlled interception is very difficult. It is not by chance that ours stuck the X-32 precisely at these heights. Because atmospheric means of interception there ALREADY do not work, and transatmospheric means still do not work. And our X-32 flies there like a log purely along a ballistic uncontrolled trajectory to the desired lead point.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2018 11: 32
      +14
      Quote: Alex_59
      Beautiful - means window dressing and embezzlement. Modestly - a disgrace.

      There is another opinion.

      If for such a pathos event they did nothing but hack work, then everything else is hack work all the more, a laser from a sewer pipe. If the leader allows you to make even presentations, then what can you expect from the main work.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2018 12: 41
        +9
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        If the leader allows you to do get away even presentations

        Alas, I can not agree
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 March 2018 13: 54
        +7
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        If for such a pathos event they did nothing but hack work, then everything else is hack work all the more, a laser from a sewer pipe.

        Earnestly. Such an opinion has the right to life.
      3. Romulus
        Romulus 27 March 2018 17: 56
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        laser from a sewer pipe.

        You press the paste on the cavo, tube)
        PS I’m more interested in your argument with Andrei than dumb (pseudo-knowledge .. mm how to download .. operator trolling) drinks hi
  6. jonht
    jonht 27 March 2018 07: 23
    +3
    Andrei, as the GDP said in the second part, while they will catch up, we still have time to come up with something. And the fleet seems not to be cut back in the rearmament program. And not everything that was already on the way to the troops was announced ...
    Although you are right, you should not relax, you need to work and still prepare for a long confrontation. As they say, either the donkey will die, or the padish. But as long as this system exists, our country will be like a bone in the throat.
  7. Operator
    Operator 27 March 2018 08: 00
    +21
    The author of the article, jumping out of his pants, hurries to prove the unprovable - Russia can not beat his god-like USA (otherwise the dog will go by the tail of his many years of work on advertising all the foreign and the best of the best by definition).

    An expert from Chelyabinsk, who knows nothing, compares a hypersonic ballistic missile with supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles - pulls an owl on a globe.

    From the opus of the “expert” it becomes clear that he simply does not understand the speed regime of ballistic missiles, their range and methods of protection against interception, but at the same time he puffs his cheeks and hangs noodles, comparing the incomparable - ballistic and aerodynamic weapons.

    More than three weeks after the presentation of the “Dagger,” he still did not understand what the range of the aerospace complex is and what kind of rocket it provides. He doesn’t care about the materiel, it’s different - how personally he was so blundered that now he has to deal with rude juggling and juggling in an attempt to prove that he is much smarter than the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RF Armed Forces - but how could it be otherwise, because the “expert from Chelyabinsk” knows spelling and syntax of the Russian language.

    I turn to the subject of "expert" cooling - the Iskander-M air-launched ballistic missile has the expected launch speed of 7 + 3 = 10М. At this speed, any body moving along an optimal ballistic trajectory with the apogee of 300 km above the Earth’s surface will fly away from the starting point by 1000 km (suddenly). Consequently, the MiG-1000 flight radius gives the 31 km complex at cruising speed with an external rocket suspension on the way to the launch point and without a rocket on the way back (if we forget about the exact quote from the speech of the GDP - “over 2000 km”).

    From information available to any "expert" it is known that after all the fuel in the engine has been triggered, the Iskander-M warhead is separated from the rest of the rocket and flies to the target on its own. When entering the dense layers of the atmosphere on the descending part of the trajectory, it slows down to 5М (suddenly), after which it is aimed at the target with the help of an onboard WGM or optoelectronic GOS (the possibility of combined guidance, as well as passive guidance even in space to AAG radar radiation, which if there is a threat of a missile attack, it will sound in the radio range as "experts" on the couch - in another "range").

    The MiG flight time to the rocket launch point is a little more than an hour, the rocket launch time from the launch point is less than ten minutes, the scanning radius of the rocket-assisted reconnaissance rocket in the passive mode of the sea area is about 100 km, in a half hour the AUG will never leave this radius from the word never, power special warhead "Iskander-M" at least 100 CTN, KVO warheads no more than the width of the deck of an aircraft carrier. Consequently, the northern animal, the Arctic fox, did come to the god-like USA and their servile "experts from Chelyabinsk."

    And a cherry on the cake - and who said that the detachable Iskander-M warhead in the 750 kg air launch modification does not contain its own rocket engine, does not accelerate beyond 10M and does not have a range above 1000 km from the launch point - because the weight of 100- Does the special warhead amount to only 100 kg, and the limitations of the INF and START treaties do not apply to air-launched ballistic missile systems from the word in general? bully
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 27 March 2018 09: 16
      +6
      And tell me, “megaexpert,” what problem for AAG air defense will be a ballistic missile warhead at a speed of 5M, if the “Standards” know how to shoot them down at a speed of more than 20M?
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 27 March 2018 10: 50
        +7
        Can they do that right? Maneuvering?
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 27 March 2018 12: 06
          +4
          You will not believe. But warheads of interceptor missiles also know how to maneuver.
          1. faradien
            faradien 31 March 2018 02: 59
            +2
            Quote: Snakebyte
            You will not believe. But warheads of interceptor missiles also know how to maneuver.

            For reference: Iskander-M missile maneuvers with an overload of up to 35g. To intercept it, you need to maneuver 2 times more energetically, which is not capable of any missile defense today.
            If the Dagger is Iskander, then the chances are very illusive. If not Iskander, then it’s unlikely that the Dagger will be an easier target.
      2. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 27 March 2018 11: 03
        +7
        Quote: Snakebyte
        And tell me, “megaexpert,” what kind of problem for AOG air defense will be a ballistic missile warhead at a speed of 5M, if "Standards" know how to bring them down at a speed of more than 20M?

        Share the source of the revelation?
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 27 March 2018 12: 06
          +1
          Calculate the speed of a ballistic missile warhead and compare it with the test facts.
          There the missile hit the target, and not "hit with the given accuracy", as in the December tests of the domestic "latest missile defense system."
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 27 March 2018 16: 15
            +5
            Quote: Snakebyte
            Calculate the speed of a ballistic missile warhead and compare it with the test facts.

            That is, you do not have data, but 20 max are taken from the "winds of your own head"? Strong position ...
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte 27 March 2018 22: 34
              0
              Why is there no data? The fact of the interception was. The target was a blank simulating an ICBM warhead. The speed of such an object is about 6 km / s, with a larger one it will go into orbit. 6 km / s in the upper atmosphere is about 20M.
              1. Rakti-kali
                Rakti-kali 28 March 2018 08: 28
                +4
                Quote: Snakebyte
                Why is there no data? The fact of the interception was. The target was a blank simulating an ICBM warhead. The speed of such an object is about 6 km / s,

                According to reports, the target (by the way, a single, not maneuvering, in a no-noise environment, with known flight parameters) was hit at an altitude of about 230 km. Accordingly, there can be no talk of any Mach numbers, because the height of 80-110 kilometers is considered to be the boundary of the atmosphere. Accordingly, firstly, the firing was carried out essentially at a known lead point, and secondly, the interceptor’s energy losses for overcoming air resistance were insignificant, therefore such exercises should be considered rather as tests of the fundamental possibility of intercepting ICBM goals at high (suborbital) altitudes.
                Well, and yet, so to speak, according to the main message - AUG ships usually do not carry "Standards" in the variant of an atmospheric interceptor. The maximum that can be there is SM-6, which is a 20-fly target too tough. Actually, the sixth version of the “Standard” essentially reached the level of some sort of S-300 in the mid-to-late 1990s.
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte 28 March 2018 12: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Accordingly, there can be no talk of any Mach numbers, because the height of 80-110 kilometers is considered to be the boundary of the atmosphere.

                  But what difference does it make or not. Warhead speed 6 km / s, which roughly corresponds to 17M near the earth or 20M at the border of the troposphere.
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Accordingly, firstly, the firing was carried out essentially at a known lead point, and secondly, the interceptor’s energy losses for overcoming air resistance were insignificant, therefore such exercises should be considered rather as tests of the fundamental possibility of intercepting ICBM goals at high (suborbital) altitudes.

                  Somewhere here I already described the third successful test launch, when the data about the target were transmitted with an error, but the missile completed itself.
                  Secondly, how was the energy loss insignificant? To enter the stratosphere, a rocket must overcome the resistance of the dense layers of the atmosphere and gravity. She was not launched from outer space. If the target is at a lower height, the interceptor will spend even less energy.
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Well, and yet, so to speak, according to the main message - AUG ships usually do not carry "Standards" in the variant of an atmospheric interceptor.

                  Actually, some are. In the US Navy, 29 ships are equipped for this purpose. Judging by the number of missiles sent to the fleet, each carries 5-6 such items.
                  1. Rakti-kali
                    Rakti-kali 28 March 2018 14: 48
                    +3
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    But what difference does it make or not. The warhead speed is 6 km / s, which roughly corresponds to 17 M at the ground or 20 M at the border of the troposphere.

                    The difference is fundamental - 6 km / s at an altitude of 240 km is the speed so-so, mediocre, at an altitude of 10 km it is already unbridled "almost 20 max." That's just the SM-3, the one that is an atmospheric interceptor, simply can not work on targets at altitudes below 100-120 km, because up to this height it goes on a booster by inertial and does not aim at any targets.
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    Somewhere here I already described the third successful test launch, when the data about the target were transmitted with an error, but the missile completed itself.

                    These are the Pentagon’s excuses when they began to stab their eyes that they have all the parameters of a target rocket, they began to wag sirloin, so that Allah wouldn’t cut the funding.
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    Secondly, how was the energy loss insignificant? To enter the stratosphere, a rocket must overcome the resistance of the dense layers of the atmosphere and gravity. She was not launched from outer space. If the target is at a lower height, the interceptor will spend even less energy.

                    See the scheme of operation of boosters and rocket engines of the Standard type and yes it will open to you ...
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    Actually, some are. In the US Navy, 29 ships are equipped for this purpose. Judging by the number of missiles sent to the fleet, each carries 5-6 such items.

                    Well xs, emnip, the starting engines and boosters have been changed there, which doesn’t allow them to be launched from standard cells, and it’s nothing for 5-6 items to snout because the Yankees themselves wrote that for the probability of intercepting the head of the BR close to 1, it takes from 10 to 20 kinetic interceptors on the head.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 29 March 2018 08: 31
                  +3
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  The maximum that can be there is SM-6, which is a 20-fly target too tough. Actually, the sixth version of the “Standard” essentially reached the level of some sort of S-300 in the mid-to-late 1990s.

                  I can still understand people who claim that BR interception is impossible (although the Jews, for example, have a different opinion).
                  But people who believe that the Americans could not repeat the S-300, sold to Greece in '96, and did not buy all AlmazAntei from the drunk Yeltsin in the bud, is impossible to understand.
                  And there is no need to understand them.
                  1. Rakti-kali
                    Rakti-kali 29 March 2018 14: 02
                    +2
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Americans failed to repeat the S-300 sold to Greece in 96th

                    They repeated it, and even surpassed it at some points (active GOS), only PMU-1, which is Greek, is a complex already in 1993, acquired by Cyprus in 1996 and transferred to Greece in 2006-2007. And only by 2013 the Greeks figured out in the complex so that they would shoot for the first time. And even though the S-300 PMU-1 is good enough and now it works on ballistic purposes in a fairly narrow framework. For “Sergeants” and the first “Pershinges,” he worked well, because he actually hid under them, but on the head of the “Minuteman” it would hardly be able to work out well.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    at the same time, they bought all AlmazAntei from the drunk Yeltsin

                    The Arabs at one time bought the best equipment, and had the best instructors, but in the end it did not help them in the confrontation with the Jews. The KSA are armed with the best Western weapons, but this does not stop them from raking hard from Yemenite chewers in kata in slippers and with ancient Kalash.
                    An unfamiliar technology may give impetus to the development of its own weapons systems, but there is always the possibility that our own technological base and ideology of scientific development - industrial production will not allow us to accurately repeat the external technology.
                  2. Setrac
                    Setrac April 8 2018 22: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    But people who believe that the Americans could not repeat the S-300, sold to Greece in '96, and did not buy all AlmazAntei from the drunk Yeltsin in the bud, is impossible to understand.

                    And what is impossible here? The Pepsi generation is not about our youth.
      3. Vadim851
        Vadim851 27 March 2018 11: 18
        +5
        SM-3 block 1b and 2a are equipped with a VNEatmospheric kinetic interceptor (2a is not completely ready yet), it works at least 100 km. An SM-6 SAM will work on the Dagger, only it can theoretically intercept it. But here everything is very, very difficult.
      4. andj61
        andj61 27 March 2018 11: 50
        +6
        Quote: Snakebyte
        And tell me, “megaexpert,” what problem for AAG air defense will be a ballistic missile warhead at a speed of 5M, if the “Standards” know how to shoot them down at a speed of more than 20M?

        And exactly know how to shoot at 20M? Of the known - this is one successful test when they shot down a target at a speed of 10M. Yes, many sources say that this was not the speed of the target, but the mutual speed of approach. The target was "highlighted" and did not maneuver. More about the successes and capabilities of the SM-3 is only rumored ... hi
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 27 March 2018 12: 03
          +4
          The speed of the ICBM warhead during descent is about 6 km / s, which is about 20M in the upper atmosphere. And successfully shot down. About the convergence speed of 10M fairy tales, the speed of the warhead of the SM-3 is more than 7M.
          Quote: andj61
          More about the successes and capabilities of the SM-3 is only rumored ...

          So we do not believe successful trials. And the animated film, in which neither the flight of the "Dagger" in hypersound was shown, nor the defeat of the target - we believe. Double standards they are.
          1. andj61
            andj61 27 March 2018 15: 42
            +5
            Quote: Snakebyte
            So we do not believe successful trials. And the animated film, in which neither the flight of the "Dagger" in hypersound was shown, nor the defeat of the target - we believe. Double standards they are.

            Why we do not believe - we believe! Only the test conditions were greenhouse - the target did not maneuver, there were no false targets, the flight path of the target was known in advance, the target was highlighted. And after that, there were no more tests, or they were kept secret and there was nothing to brag about. And you misled me with these 20Ms - the target was shot down at an altitude of 133 nautical miles (247 km). This is already space - it’s not worth talking about Mach numbers there (in some places information about the speed of sound in space slides, for example, when describing the solar wind, but here we are talking about many tens, if not hundreds, kilometers per second). I talked about 10M in relation to the surface layer of air. hi
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte 27 March 2018 22: 30
              +1
              And the test conditions of the "Dagger" were not greenhouse? A well-known target at the training ground, and that is not the building that the warhead fell into (if it was hit by the Dagger warhead at all).
              And the warhead speed of 6 km / s does not matter, is it necessary in dense layers of the atmosphere? So for the interceptor missile there is not much difference, these 6 km / s correspond to 10M in dense layers or 20M in the upper layers. What matters is the absolute speed of the target.
        2. kosmos84
          kosmos84 10 May 2018 22: 19
          0
          But 400 brought down a lot of people: there is nothing clear about 3 and 400 ..
      5. Operator
        Operator 27 March 2018 18: 00
        +6
        "Standards" do not know how to shoot down warheads and warheads of ballistic missiles in outer space, if the BG and BB use stealth covers with cooling with liquid nitrogen - the EPR of the covers is less than 1 square mm, in nature there is no radar and infrared sensor capable of distinguishing between object before it enters the atmosphere.

        And in the atmosphere, the Iskandera-M BG maneuvers at speeds from 10M at the entrance to 5M when approaching the target - the “Standards” are again out of action.
      6. Setrac
        Setrac April 8 2018 22: 45
        +1
        Quote: Snakebyte
        And tell me, “megaexpert,” what problem for AAG air defense will be a ballistic missile warhead at a speed of 5M, if the “Standards” know how to shoot them down at a speed of more than 20M?

        What are the exact standards? Your bunch is completely meaningless, because there are exact standards, but there are fast ones, but there are no fast and accurate ones at the same time.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 27 March 2018 11: 51
      +1
      Operator
      Why so angry - is it really something personal ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2018 12: 01
        +4
        Quote: Ehanatone
        really something personal

        Has long been:))))))
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 March 2018 11: 53
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      I turn to the subject of "expert" cooling - the air-based Iskander-M ballistic missile has an expected launch speed of 7 + 3 = 10M.

      That is, the F-14 launched from the catapult has the expected starting speed equal to the sum of the maximum speed of the aircraft and the speed of the shuttle of the catapult? what
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2018 12: 02
        +5
        Wave your hand, Alex. I’m silent about how the 31 will develop 3M with such a rocket ...
      2. Operator
        Operator 27 March 2018 17: 12
        +2
        Yes - physics is the same everywhere, but the F-14 speed increase starts to fade (to zero) immediately after reaching the maximum thrust of its engine, because the planes do not fly along a ballistic trajectory (suddenly).
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 March 2018 17: 30
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Yes - physics is the same everywhere, but the F-14 speed increase starts to fade (to zero) immediately after reaching the maximum thrust of its engine, because the planes do not fly along a ballistic trajectory (suddenly).

          Fine. And now, with a three-swing aircraft, we launch a rocket with 7 Machs of maximum speed, also achieved with maximum engine thrust. Can she reach 10 Machs? Or will the time it takes for the rocket to reach its maximum 7 Machs simply decrease?
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 March 2018 17: 37
            +2
            With an air launch rocket, the same thing will happen with the deck F-14: first, the rocket picks up maximum speed (the sum of the speeds of the launcher and the rocket itself), and then the speed starts to go out - just as soon as the thrust of the rocket engine is reached.

            Speed ​​vectors add up.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 March 2018 18: 58
              0
              Quote: Operator
              With an air launch rocket, the same thing will happen with the deck F-14: first, the rocket picks up maximum speed (the sum of the speeds of the launcher and the rocket itself), and then the speed starts to go out - just as soon as the thrust of the rocket engine is reached.

              So, the MiG-31 engines brought a bunch of aircraft-rocket to 3M, after that the rocket launched its engine and separated from the carrier. The rocket speed in this case is 3M. Next is an independent missile launch from the initial 3M - on its engines.
              The question is - to what speed will the rocket accelerate if acceleration comes only from the thrust of its engine, which can only achieve 7M?
              1. Operator
                Operator 27 March 2018 19: 11
                +2
                The rocket engine, in contrast to the turbojet engine and ramjet engine, has no restrictions on the speed of its work, so the speed of launchers and missiles add up.
          2. Setrac
            Setrac April 8 2018 23: 10
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Can she reach 10 Machs? Or will it simply decrease the time it takes the rocket to reach its maximum 7 Machs?

            A ballistic missile can definitely reach 10M. You misunderstand the terminology, the dagger has not a maximum of 7M, it has a specific impulse of 7M.
      3. Setrac
        Setrac April 8 2018 23: 04
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        oh, is the F-14 launched from the catapult has the expected starting speed equal to the sum of the maximum speed of the aircraft and the speed of the shuttle of the catapult?

        F - 14 is not a rocket and the concept of "momentum" is not applicable to it. The dagger will pick up speed at 7M plus to the starting one, because it carries its 7M with it in the form of a working fluid (fuel), the F-14 cannot take the catapult with it.
    5. Korax71
      Korax71 27 March 2018 12: 33
      0
      And you have no fraud belay And enlighten us orphans and the wretched. What is the speed of a directed and charged moment of 31? what are the speed limits in the presence of weapons on the external nodes of the suspension? write yourself about cruising speed, and come maximize empty aircraft.
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 March 2018 17: 41
        +3
        How about understanding the flight weight of the aircraft after overcoming 1000 km of the track and accelerating to maximum speed at an altitude of 18 km when the engine is running afterburner? laughing
    6. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2018 13: 38
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      Russia cannot beat its god-like USA

      The Russian Federation does not surpass the United States in either the scientific or technical levels of development. If we take a purely military sphere, then, without a doubt, we are ahead of the United States in some areas

      I thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of numbers. Considered, of course, the enemies of Russia
      World high-tech exports, USA - 153 billion, 3rd place, Brazil - 9,8 billion, 27th place, Russia - 6,6 billion, 30th place. The difference is 25 times.
      https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TX.VAL.TECH.
      CD? Year_high_desc = true
      The number of scientific publications in 2016, USA - 409 thousand, second place, Russia, 59 thousand, 10th place, the difference is 7 times. Brazil, 54 thousand, 12th place
      https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/data
      / appendix? achapter968
      China comes first on both lists.
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 March 2018 17: 19
        +4
        Are you out of your mind (a joke) - what is the connection between export / publications and the presence in Russia of unmatched strategic weapons?

        This logic from the series: "Disorder - Genghis Khan is not a science who bent China, which was the economic superpower of the 12 century" bully
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 27 March 2018 22: 40
          0
          Quote: Operator
          What is the relationship between exports / publications and the presence in Russia of unmatched strategic weapons?

          The concept of "scientific and technical groundwork" is unfamiliar to mega-experts?
          In all countries where military technology is developed, the level of civilian technology is high. In addition to the unique Russia, in which geniuses quickly and inexpensively create unique weapons, the Chinese cannot organize completely localized production of refrigerators due to the lack of a plant in Russia that is capable of producing commonplace compressors.
    7. businessv
      businessv 27 March 2018 14: 50
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      From the information available to any "expert"

      Oh and your nasty style of commentary, dear! It may be interesting, but I don’t want to read, due to the large amount of the poison of conceit! hi
    8. Romulus
      Romulus 27 March 2018 15: 24
      +1
      Quote: Operator

      10
      Operator (Andrey) Today, 08:00 New
      The author of the article, jumping out of his pants,

      You are handsome - how did you do it)
      Consider situevina that he was just sitting - miles sorry for my French) - sitting in blue (navy underpants)? Did you write this?
      Quote: Operator
      "Expert from Chelyabinsk", who knows nothing,

      I'm making fun of .. crying
      Quote: Operator
      he does not understand the speed regime of ballistic missiles, their range and methods of protection against interception, but at the same time puffs his cheeks and hangs noodles, comparing the incomparable - ballistic and aerodynamic weapons.

      I applaud while standing! emoticon .. damn no)
      Quote: Operator
      The author of the article, jumping out of his pants, hurries to prove the unprovable - Russia can not beat his god-like USA (otherwise the dog will go by the tail of his many years of work on advertising all the foreign and the best of the best by definition).

      An expert from Chelyabinsk, who knows nothing, compares a hypersonic ballistic missile with supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles - pulls an owl on a globe.

      From the opus of the “expert” it becomes clear that he simply does not understand the speed regime of ballistic missiles, their range and methods of protection against interception, but at the same time he puffs his cheeks and hangs noodles, comparing the incomparable - ballistic and aerodynamic weapons.

      More than three weeks after the presentation of the “Dagger,” he still did not understand what the range of the aerospace complex is and what kind of rocket it provides. He doesn’t care about the materiel, it’s different - how personally he was so blundered that now he has to deal with rude juggling and juggling in an attempt to prove that he is much smarter than the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RF Armed Forces - but how could it be otherwise, because the “expert from Chelyabinsk” knows spelling and syntax of the Russian language.

      I turn to the subject of "expert" cooling - the Iskander-M air-launched ballistic missile has the expected launch speed of 7 + 3 = 10М. At this speed, any body moving along an optimal ballistic trajectory with the apogee of 300 km above the Earth’s surface will fly away from the starting point by 1000 km (suddenly). Consequently, the MiG-1000 flight radius gives the 31 km complex at cruising speed with an external rocket suspension on the way to the launch point and without a rocket on the way back (if we forget about the exact quote from the speech of the GDP - “over 2000 km”).

      From information available to any "expert" it is known that after all the fuel in the engine has been triggered, the Iskander-M warhead is separated from the rest of the rocket and flies to the target on its own. When entering the dense layers of the atmosphere on the descending part of the trajectory, it slows down to 5М (suddenly), after which it is aimed at the target with the help of an onboard WGM or optoelectronic GOS (the possibility of combined guidance, as well as passive guidance even in space to AAG radar radiation, which if there is a threat of a missile attack, it will sound in the radio range as "experts" on the couch - in another "range").

      The MiG flight time to the rocket launch point is a little more than an hour, the rocket launch time from the launch point is less than ten minutes, the scanning radius of the rocket-assisted reconnaissance rocket in the passive mode of the sea area is about 100 km, in a half hour the AUG will never leave this radius from the word never, power special warhead "Iskander-M" at least 100 CTN, KVO warheads no more than the width of the deck of an aircraft carrier. Consequently, the northern animal, the Arctic fox, did come to the god-like USA and their servile "experts from Chelyabinsk."

      And a cherry on the cake - and who said that the detachable Iskander-M warhead in the 750 kg air launch modification does not contain its own rocket engine, does not accelerate beyond 10M and does not have a range above 1000 km from the launch point - because the weight of 100- Does the special warhead amount to only 100 kg, and the limitations of the INF and START treaties do not apply to air-launched ballistic missile systems from the word in general? bully
      1. Romulus
        Romulus 27 March 2018 15: 51
        +3
        Let me chizanut) - answer yourself)
        Andrei hi (take off my hat) .. A tub of cold water on the hot heads of the cheers-patriots will not hurt.
        I didn’t go further into molecules, someone with the nickname “OPERATOR” - people will feel unimportant)
        Since the days of the Soviet Union, I remember one agricultural specialty - operator milking machine))) and like V. Lipatov’s "And this is all about him")))))))
  8. EvilLion
    EvilLion 27 March 2018 08: 29
    +6
    And where does our ships? They do not plan to fight with the US Navy anyway, the gut is thin due to its size, and firing some Turkish troughs in the Black Sea with daggers is completely impractical. Even P-700 can be bold.

    The idea of ​​such missiles is extremely simple: "we are not going to sail anywhere, if you need to come, an aircraft carrier is more expensive than the most advanced order rocket on the 2-3."

    If the Argentines had dozens of "exosets", and not 3.5, then the British fleet would remain there. In the underwater position.
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 27 March 2018 11: 52
      -1
      EvilLion
      + + + + +
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 27 March 2018 08: 36
    +2
    The movie turned out - what you need! The task was to confuse the enemy, which turned out to be very
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 27 March 2018 10: 52
      0
      I agree. This is an element of competent disa. Let them guess ... Winning is time.
  10. Engineer
    Engineer 27 March 2018 08: 57
    +2
    Thanks to the author that he still admits that our designers are interested in American work in the field of countering anti-ship missiles and, possibly, take them into account when designing new missiles.
  11. Phoenix_L'vov
    Phoenix_L'vov 27 March 2018 09: 01
    +5
    How to put the article minus?
    1. Romulus
      Romulus 27 March 2018 17: 33
      0
      Mdya ... rather weak - let's think further) - Afftor? (for zero)?
  12. Blue fox
    Blue fox 27 March 2018 09: 03
    +2
    Thanks for the article, the analogies and concerns expressed are, in my opinion, quite logical. Let's hope that we will not prevail, as already once, under the corn leader, the craving for missiles in exchange for other things.
    1. KERMET
      KERMET 27 March 2018 09: 25
      +1
      Too much: if, imagine, suppose and admit .... Some kind of science fiction
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2018 13: 12
        +4
        Quote: KERMET
        Too much: if, imagine, suppose and admit ...

        The assumption in the article is one - that the Dagger has all of the declared performance characteristics.
  13. Alex_59
    Alex_59 27 March 2018 09: 15
    +10
    So, oddly enough this sounds, but the “Exocets” in their tactical niche in 1982 absolutely corresponded to the Russian “Dagger” in 2018.
    Exosets are completely out of line with our dagger. Argentina had serial weapons, trained crews, and missile maintenance and delivery facilities in modest but commercial quantities. We have a "certain" picture of the MiG-31 with a suspended product and a beautiful movie.
    Even if the rocket really exists. It is also necessary to test it, to establish its production. To create ground equipment, means of storage, maintenance, preparation, inspection. Prepare ground crews. Transfer it all to combat regiments, preferably not in one or two. Prepare flight crews. Work out application, interaction, etc.
    Sorry, even in the USSR it took years. How long will it take?
    I don’t quite understand who and how will work with this rocket from pilots? The geography of units armed with the MiG-31 is, to put it mildly, far from the sea. Most MiGs are based inland. The crews have been working out the task of long-range air defense of the country, air interception, for years. Then, all of a sudden, they need to abruptly begin to be able to find a land moving target in the vast sea and shoot at it with a “Dagger”. I have a slight break in the template from this.
    No, of course there are a few 31's in Mnochegorsk, Yelizovo and Corner. But they (as it were) have the task of air defense. Will they remove this task? And who then will be engaged in this very air defense?
    1. xtur
      xtur 27 March 2018 09: 47
      +3
      > Then, all of a sudden, they need to start abruptly to be able to find a mobile ground target in the endless sea and shoot at it with "Kinzhalom". I get a slight template break from this.

      you just need to fly to a point 2000km from the aircraft carrier - suddenly, you don’t need to search for anyone, you just need to fly to a point with known coordinates (my God, how MiG crews will solve this super-heavy task) and launch a rocket, the rest, judging by the movie / schedule, is the matter of the rocket itself.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 March 2018 10: 07
        +6
        Quote: xtur
        You don’t need to search for anyone, you just need to fly to a point with known coordinates

        Even so, I would be embarrassed to write in such a dismissive manner out of respect for the work of the pilots. And then from your words you get the feeling that they are superfluous on the plane, so everything is so easy and simple. But my experience of drilling rivets on the side members and removing aluminum oxide says that life is not so simple.
        1. Romulus
          Romulus 27 March 2018 17: 44
          0
          Bao? - sergeant on demobilization? (respect))
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 27 March 2018 20: 15
            +1
            Quote: Romulus
            Bao? - sergeant on demobilization? (respect))

            No, I did not serve, they did not take me for health. I am a DOSAAF volunteer and the son of an engineer, an aircraft engine designer.
            1. Romulus
              Romulus 28 March 2018 03: 19
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59
              son of an engineer, designer of aircraft engines.

              Excuse me .. I thought that the next daughter of an officer.)
        2. xtur
          xtur 28 March 2018 00: 09
          0
          > Even if so, I would be ashamed to write in such a dismissive manner out of respect for the work of the pilots

          actually, my tone is an exact copy of your panic - a mirror image in which just the right and left swap, and sometimes the top with the bottom
    2. NN52
      NN52 27 March 2018 10: 24
      +7
      Alex_59

      You are sorry, but it has already been said a hundred times, and I personally also say that the Dagger, which Andrei writes, suspended “under the belly” of the MiG 31, (by the way an unacceptable word in the professional aviation environment, especially since the article on a professional topic) is not intended only for MiG 31 ...
      31 is used as a test platform for the Dagger .... In Akhtubinsk besides ...
      Well, they will not drive the Dagger to test - Swans or 22 ....
      So with 31 everything is fine, no one will remodel all 31 under the Dagger (remove all pylons, remodel the lower point of the AKU suspension under one product).
      I got in touch with odnokan on this type, not like laughing, laughing ...
      Everyone who understands aviation understood about the aviation test platform based on the MiG 31 BM ....
      And who did not understand, they continue to add 3 + 7 ........
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 March 2018 11: 13
        +5
        Quote: NN52
        You are sorry, but it has already been said a hundred times, and I personally also say that the Dagger, which Andrei writes, suspended “under the belly” of the MiG 31, (by the way an unacceptable word in the professional aviation environment, especially since the article on a professional topic) is not intended only for MiG 31 ...

        I don’t know how many times and by whom it was said, but I hear for the first time. I have something to do with MiGs, so I understand what’s the matter.
        Quote: NN52
        Everyone who understands aviation understood about the aviation test platform based on the MiG 31 BM ....

        This does not change the essence. From a prototype to filling storage in shelves is a long road. And here the people rejoices as if we have hundreds of trained crews and thousands of missiles. It’s ridiculous.
        1. NN52
          NN52 27 March 2018 12: 27
          +3
          Alex_59

          In the search on the forum, type the Dagger, you will get a dozen topics on this topic ...
          After discussing which some of the "experts" on Popular Mechanics here, such as the Operator, add other opponents to their virtual black lists that do not agree with the opinion of the Popular Mechanics magazine .....
          By the way, the author of the article is also on the black list, and how the Operator climbed to comment on the article ....
          On the black list he has the floor of the forum, everyone doesn’t understand anything .....
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 27 March 2018 15: 09
            +1
            Quote: NN52
            After discussing which some of the "experts" on Popular Mechanics here, such as the Operator, add other opponents to their virtual black lists that do not agree with the opinion of the Popular Mechanics magazine .....

            No, I'm not like that. I still work with airplanes with my hands. Periodically. True, my technique is simpler. Yak-12, IL-14, Yak-52. From land I)))) And I just like to look at local MiGs. The father still drew the engine for him on the kulman, and he took me to the test bench as a child to watch how it all works live.
            1. NN52
              NN52 27 March 2018 15: 35
              +2
              Alex_59

              Are the Yak Xnumx still alive and flying?
              A song, not a plane !!
              Especially my first type, and even before entering ...
              Maybe when DOSAAF will be reanimated and will already be Yak 152 ....
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 27 March 2018 15: 45
                +1
                Quote: NN52
                Are the Yak Xnumx still alive and flying?

                You will laugh, but of the listed types, only the Yak-12 flies. Rather, supported in a more or less flying condition. Due to the lack of free time at the airport, I appear extremely rarely, the last time we did an engine race on it last summer. We were looking for a candle that gave passes, there are two of them per cylinder. Found it. In principle, he was ready to fly, but again, the domestic service did not let him fly. And this winter was a storm. The plane was sheathed, moored, but percale patted. And covers. It is necessary to glue now, while it is impossible to fly. When I get to the airport, I don’t know. Work, business, family ...
                And IL-14 is the former service board of Perm Motors. In the 90 they were decommissioned and driven to a dirt airfield, where for many years it rotted and drowned in the ground along the very nacelles. Then a group of enthusiasts dug it up, pulled it out, and began repairs. I joined them and for some time we gathered on weekends to maintain him in a more or less decent condition. There were plans to make a monument plane. Now the household routine crushed, the work is practically withered. The plane is again sinking in the ground slowly. It is unfortunate, but living at the airport does not work - the children and the wife will not understand.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2018 12: 40
        +3
        Quote: NN52
        by the way an unacceptable word in the professional aviation environment

        did not know. I’m not a pilot, I don’t own slang
      3. businessv
        businessv 27 March 2018 14: 42
        +1
        Quote: NN52
        Everyone who understands aviation understood about the aviation test platform based on the MiG 31 BM ....

        Thanks, clarified! To be honest, it was alteration 31 that didn’t confuse me very much, but very much! hi
      4. Romulus
        Romulus 27 March 2018 17: 48
        +1
        Quote: NN52
        Alex_59

        You are sorry, but it has already been said a hundred times, and I personally also say that the Dagger, which Andrei writes, suspended “under the belly” of the MiG 31, (by the way an unacceptable word in the professional aviation environment, especially since the article on a professional topic) is not intended only for MiG 31 ...
        31 is used as a test platform for the Dagger .... In Akhtubinsk besides ...
        Well, they will not drive the Dagger to test - Swans or 22 ....
        So with 31 everything is fine, no one will remodel all 31 under the Dagger (remove all pylons, remodel the lower point of the AKU suspension under one product).
        I got in touch with odnokan on this type, not like laughing, laughing ...
        Everyone who understands aviation understood about the aviation test platform based on the MiG 31 BM ....
        And who did not understand, they continue to add 3 + 7 ........

        And whoever doesn’t understand - vodka is evil (awl) .. and
    3. Romulus
      Romulus 27 March 2018 16: 07
      0
      Quote: Alex_59

      9
      Alex_59 (Alexey) Today, 09:15
      So, oddly enough this sounds, but the “Exocets” in their tactical niche in 1982 absolutely corresponded to the Russian “Dagger” in 2018.
      Exosets are totally out of line with our Dagger

      Do not mess up. - we are better)
    4. albert
      albert 27 March 2018 20: 21
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      No, of course there are a few 31's in Mnochegorsk, Yelizovo and Corner. But they (as it were) have the task of air defense. Will they remove this task? And who then will be engaged in this very air defense?

      We have about a hundred 31 MiGs of old modifications in storage. They can also be converted to Dagger carriers. It is not necessary to use the existing BMGs of the BM modification for this. Even in the video where the flight of the Dagger rocket was shown, its carrier is Mig of the old model.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 March 2018 20: 32
        +1
        Quote: albert
        We have about a hundred 31 MiGs of old modifications in storage. They can also be converted to Dagger carriers. It is not necessary to use the existing BMGs of the BM modification for this. Even in the video where the flight of the Dagger rocket was shown, its carrier is Mig of the old model.

        Above, a comrade explained that the MiG-31 in this case is the flying laboratory where the rocket is being tested. Those. on the practical use of this missile with MiGs in combat units is not talking.
  14. The comment was deleted.
    1. businessv
      businessv 27 March 2018 14: 36
      0
      Quote: xtur
      Generally speaking, not a single American weapon has been a real battle weapon for about 50 years, it is sharpened only for cutting the maximum amount of money of its own budget and serves only to fill a regular place in the information war.

      Forgive me for interfering in your conversation with the author, but you wrote this at the beginning - i.e. the mattresses are behind us, but here is what you write at the end:
      Quote: xtur
      Without using the potential of nuclear technologies, the Russian Federation can no longer maintain strategic parity with the United States, and it has already crossed this rubicon, this should be very clear

      Well, how do you understand ?! We overtook, or we do not care about anything because we do not maintain strategic parity - i.e. are we behind? Do not troll the author, the article is good! drinks
      1. xtur
        xtur 27 March 2018 23: 55
        +1
        > Well, how to understand you ?!

        When using a weapon, not only its quality, but also its quantity is important. Partners take in quantity, fill in any problem with money
  15. BAI
    BAI 27 March 2018 09: 36
    +4
    Argentina possessed Exoset anti-ship missiles, which it could use (and used) on British ships.

    But at the same time, the French gave all the information about the missiles that Argentine had in service to the British, and they were able to take measures (through EW).
    In accordance with the British version, the rocket did not reach its goal at all - an aircraft carrier (Invincible), because it was either shot down with a 114 mm shell from the Avantger frigate or neutralized by electronic warfare.
  16. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 27 March 2018 09: 43
    +10
    In short, I didn’t understand from the article, are we all going to die or will we still breathe? Andrei probably doesn’t know that there is a time-lapse shooting with the help of which they remove similar cartoons for all missiles and shells and makes calculations based on the fact that everything goes in normal speed mode , although in this mode even objects with a speed of a couple of swoops will not be visible. In fact, with such a shooting, the frame rate can be up to 60 frames / sec, and sometimes even more. So I advise you to recalculate the calculations taking into account such information.
    Then comes an incomprehensible return to history. Ticonderoges with SM-2 saved Americans from Russian missiles in 83. Only they had SM-87 until about 1. And then they started to put the second one. Yes, and by then they already had a couple Berkov with SM-2, so in this regard the role of Ticonderoge is exaggerated.
    Further, the Falkland conflict. The Argentines had only five Exocetes at the beginning of the war, France cut off their supplies at the request of England, although 50 missiles were ordered. Plus the Etandar planes for which they were intended to arrive in Argentina 1 MONTH before the war. You understand what there was a pilots raid on these new aircraft and the lack of any experience in using new missiles. Despite this, 5 large ships were sunk by 2 missiles. One of them is the newest destroyer with powerful air defense Sheffield, which was assigned to guard the squadron from SVN. And on which by the way, there were Oerlikon automatic guns, although according to the author they were not there. Like other destroyers, for example, there were Volcanoes on the Exciter. In reality, the British managed to bring down the guidance system of only one missile, which was intended for the frigate Plymouth. The transport container ship was destroyed two missiles, there were nine helicopters on board, a large amount of ammunition and food. Argentina, by the way, said that the purpose of the missiles there was transport, although the British claim that the aircraft carrier. So everything is not clear there, as it actually was. Well, the last Exocet missile was destroyed from the Mark 114 gun. But even while the whole squadron tried to shoot it, they missed successfully 8 Argentinean Skyhawks, who dropped 4 kg of bombs on the aircraft carrier Invisible, which received severe injuries and did not take part in the hostilities until the end of the war, so even the last missile, without reaching the aircraft carrier, completed the task. Well, as you correctly noted in the comments, if the Argentines had at least a couple of dozen such missiles, the war would have ended differently. Well, the Americans certainly “helped” the Argentines by prudently putting them before the war air bombs with defective fuses, as a result most of the bombs simply did not explode on the decks of British ships.
    In general, it doesn’t matter, they prepared poorly this time.
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 27 March 2018 12: 04
      -1
      And the Germans put unexploded torpedoes - also not a bad present
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2018 12: 11
      +7
      Quote: Xscorpion
      .In fact, with such a shooting, the frame rate can be up to 60 frames / sec, and sometimes even more. So I advise you to recalculate the calculations taking into account such information.

      No problem. 7 m per frame, 100 frames per second, 700 m / s or 2 520 km / h.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Ticonderoges with SM-2 in 83 saved Americans from Russian missiles.

      ??? This is where I wrote this? :)))
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Only they had CM-87 until about 1

      In 1983, the UIC Ticonderoga cruiser equipped with Standard-2 missiles was introduced into the combat structure of the US Navy. However, control missiles fired from it at the training range of the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet (Puerto Rico Island area) were unsuccessful (with 21 missile launch only six targets were hit), so a number of improvements were needed regarding the radio fuse, onboard computer and its mathematical support. Tests of the modified missiles, which took place in 1985 - 1986 years, were successful (100-percent interception of targets).
      Quote: Xscorpion
      The Argentines had only five Exosets by the start of the war,

      a lot more. This aircraft-based was 6, on ships - many more
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Plus the Etandar planes for which they were intended to arrive in Argentina for the 1 MONTH before the war. You understand what pilots flew on these new planes and the lack of any experience in using new missiles.

      nevertheless applied perfectly.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Despite this, 5 missiles were sunk by 2 large ships, one of which is the newest destroyer with powerful Sheffield air defense, which was assigned to guard the squadron from the air forces.

      And who at the time of the attack turned off all the radars so as not to interfere with the communication session and did not put the LOC
      Quote: Xscorpion
      And on which, by the way, there were Oerlikon automatic guns, although according to the author they were not there.

      Are you kidding me? Oerlikon is an 20-mm automatic machine guided manually. Are you going to shoot down RCC from it?
      Quote: Xscorpion
      As with other destroyers, for example, there were Volcanoes on the Exciter

      Did not have.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      In reality, the British managed to bring down the guidance system of only one rocket, which was intended for the frigate Plymouth.

      You kind of ... look at the materiel before such peremptory withers.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Transport container ship was destroyed by two missiles

      That is, the fact that the Argentines did not shoot at a container ship is unknown to you.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Well, the last Exocet rocket was destroyed from the 114 mm Mark 8 gun.

      Was not:)
      Quote: Xscorpion
      In general, it doesn’t matter, they prepared poorly this time.

      Sorry, but you don’t own the Falklands from the word "at all"
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 27 March 2018 12: 42
        +1
        Great article, definitely a plus good . get ready. now not only stools will fly in you, but also smelling substances lol
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 March 2018 14: 04
      +4
      Quote: Xscorpion
      And on which, by the way, there were Oerlikon automatic guns, although according to the author they were not there.

      We read the article carefully:
      Exosets could be destroyed by fast-firing artillery, like our AK-630 or American Vulcan-Phalanxes, but the British fleet did not have such artillery systems.

      That is, the British lacked ZAC. And the “erlikons” are the usual MZA, which is as effective against anti-ship missiles as a ZPU in a tank against a helicopter with anti-tank missiles.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      As with other destroyers, for example, there were Volcanoes on the Exciter

      Ahem ... it is usually written that the Phalanxes were purchased and installed on RN ships following the Falklands.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      In reality, the British managed to bring down the guidance system of only one rocket, which was intended for the frigate Plymouth.

      As well as those anti-ship missiles that went to the Hermes group. To their misfortune, the Atlantic Conveyor was next to this group.
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Well, the Americans, of course, “helped” the Argentines prudently putting them before the war, air bombs with defective fuses, as a result, most of the bombs simply did not explode on the decks of British ships.

      According to other sources, Argentinean technicians simply set the fuses in accordance with the height of the drop: for an "assault blast" with safe deceleration - to leave the aircraft from the danger zone. As a result, bombs simply pierced the ships through.
  17. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 27 March 2018 09: 55
    +3
    By the way, to remove the movement of a bullet in flight, they use shooting with a frame rate of 1000 fps.
    1. alstr
      alstr 27 March 2018 10: 29
      +1
      Plus, do not forget that no one has canceled the regime of secrecy and misleading opponents.
      Most likely, how the task was set, the way it was completed (from the point of view of making the film).
      1. ppolch
        ppolch 27 March 2018 10: 57
        +2
        I think that the level of secrecy on this topic before the Supreme Speech was such that there were simply no experts on "cartoons" with such an admission. And the goals to surprise with graphics were not pursued. At the right time, we portionwise brought the information that we considered necessary.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 March 2018 12: 11
        +3
        Quote: alstr
        Plus, do not forget that no one has canceled the regime of secrecy and misleading opponents.

        Therefore, I wrote that the cartoon may not be completely true
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte 27 March 2018 22: 49
          0
          Cartoon MO and correspondence with reality are incompatible concepts. As an example, the official video of the “point strikes” in Syria.
          Or else, in the PR clip about the Su-34, created back in 2007, there are beautiful pictures of how the Su-34 hits submarines. Has anyone heard of anti-submarine weapons used with the Su-34?
  18. Dart
    Dart 27 March 2018 10: 33
    +4
    Just a couple of articles of such "analytes", and I will definitely leave this site.
    "Sofa", one continuous sofa.
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 27 March 2018 12: 13
      +3
      Darts
      Can you surprise the world with your, probably not foolishly encyclopedic, knowledge, since you yourself managed on your own suddenly so suddenly a tear-off from this spring-mattress monster ?!
      1. Dart
        Dart 27 March 2018 23: 03
        +1
        What for...? I am an expert in my narrow field, and I am not going to engage in delusional fabrications in that area in which I "swim". But I really read competent specialists, but TW loses everything and loses them, and in return acquires ... well, you, for example, and those like you ... Incredibly, but it is.
    2. Alexander Nezgovorov
      Alexander Nezgovorov 27 March 2018 13: 16
      +1
      real PR ...
    3. businessv
      businessv 27 March 2018 14: 14
      +2
      Quote: Dartys
      Just a couple of articles of such "analytes", and I will definitely leave this site.
      "Sofa", one continuous sofa.

      But how are we going to live here without you ?! recourse There are so many clever thoughts in your comment that nobody can express them besides you! lol
  19. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 27 March 2018 11: 09
    +7
    It is useless, dear colleague - critical thinking in our time is not in honor. And about reassessing one’s own capabilities and underestimating opponents - this is generally a tradition: how many times it has been raked because of this, and all to no avail - hurray-patriotism overcomes, lessons are not learned, and in the next war it is necessary to lay on the Altar of the Fatherland tens, hundreds of thousands, and even millions of lives of citizens of their own country because they convinced themselves of their own “usability” and insignificance of opponents, relaxed and fell into stagnation ...
  20. Alexander Nezgovorov
    Alexander Nezgovorov 27 March 2018 11: 25
    +4
    A fool is a military commander who underestimates the army of a probable enemy ..... Everything about our military power is “noodles” ... Of course, there are no enemy ships to bomb and hit targets from air and sea, when there is clear sky and sea, no planes, but also air defense systems .... very convenient ...
  21. Sergey Enoktaev
    Sergey Enoktaev 27 March 2018 11: 40
    0
    You need to make sure. Test on a real goal. Without cartoons
  22. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 27 March 2018 11: 40
    +3
    The author sows us doubts - why? 10 missiles our missile gives in the stratosphere - and no one has such a thing, more than 5 are not exactly, neither missiles nor anti-missiles. With such speed and controllability, our rocket will give out an uninterrupted trajectory. At a speed of 3 M, it dives into the target almost steeply or dives and goes to the target at low altitude, maneuvering ... The enemy has no anti-missile defense against it - that’s all. The author scolds that there are supposed to be or soon, in a couple of years, they will be. That's when they will, then weep and weep, as the author. Or our guys will come up with something else, as always.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2018 12: 14
      +2
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      The author sows us doubts - why?

      In order to avoid illusions and in response to those who believe that with the advent of the Dagger, the fleet is outdated
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      The author scolds that there are supposed to be or soon, in a couple of years, they will be. That's when they will, then we’ll cry and weep, as the author

      Please cry, I have something to do with it? :)))
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 March 2018 13: 49
      +3
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      The author sows us doubts - why

      Truth is valuable in itself.
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      10 missiles our rocket gives in the stratosphere - and no one has such a thing,

      A lie is bad in itself. The missiles that give 10M behind the atmosphere are full. Only they are not anti-ship
  23. demo
    demo 27 March 2018 12: 17
    +3
    A lot of words. Many thoughts. Many tolerances and conjectures.
    Want to find out if there is a Dagger and what it looks like?
    Then you need to go to the area of ​​the glorious city of Krymsk, in the Krasnodar Territory.
    Here is a military airfield.
    And around it there are settlements.
    Settling. Bring high-quality video equipment with you and make a movie.

    But it seems to me that there is nothing there, since the MIG 31 is not parked.

    Some Su and transporters.
    The caponiers are gone.
    There are no other "southern" airfields near the Black Sea (Yeysk does not count, far away. Krasnodar is also not suitable).
    Maybe in the Crimea?
    But this is unlikely.
    Or maybe V.V.P. specially dragged us all in the harlot?

    If you see at least one MIG 31, then you will see the Dagger.
    1. NN52
      NN52 27 March 2018 14: 55
      +3
      demo

      Well, one more turned up, who thinks that he is smarter than everyone ....

      Whatever you suffer for a long time, I give a hint ... 929 GLITS. Search and find .....

      In Krymsk, there were 31 in life ...
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 27 March 2018 15: 15
      +2
      Quote: demo
      There are no other "southern" airfields near the Black Sea (Yeysk does not count, far away. Krasnodar is also not suitable).

      Hahahahahahahhahahhhhh! Damn, it's five. I haven’t laughed like that for a long time. Krymsk is the only ABB near the Black Sea.
  24. sgrabik
    sgrabik 27 March 2018 12: 26
    -1
    Despite the existence of such an effective missile system as the Dagger, we just need to have a sea-based anti-ship missile system with which our ships and submarines will be armed, the Caliber is certainly not a bad missile system, but it is not hypersonic and is more suitable for attacks on ground stationary objects, as the information about the new hypersonic anti-ship Zircon missile systems, which our scientists and engineers actively worked on, disappeared, I really hope that the Zircon missiles will soon be adopted by our army and navy.
  25. Radikal
    Radikal 27 March 2018 12: 36
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    Cartoons are not worth analyzing at all. I even think that this is correct if everything is not shown correctly in them. Why do the enemy spies do their work.

    You don’t worry about spies - thanks to the efforts of the current authorities, everything is fine with their information, and even excellent! sad
  26. vel1163
    vel1163 27 March 2018 12: 44
    +2
    Well, the author writes nonsense! Those cartoons are bad. It’s as if the effectiveness of the weapon depends on the animation. That: all the same, the Americans are the coolest and they’ll come up with something. But why did they think that the Americans are the most. After the war, no one felt their aircraft carriers. They never fought with an equal enemy. Yes, and in the Second World War their commander "genius" somehow didn’t impress. They gathered a pack from all over the world and crushed Yugoslavia and Iraq. Well, it’s not Russia, so that to build all of Europe alone as in 41 -45g.g.We do not meddle with them, but for reliable protection of our territory our forces will be enough. And there will not only be “Daggers” there. We’ll protect the base in Tartus. Something like that!
  27. Photon
    Photon 27 March 2018 12: 51
    +3
    Honestly, I haven’t read it to the end. At the moment where the author determined the speed of the rocket based on 24 frames per second, I had serious doubts about his competence.
    And the problem with our anti-ship missiles was not that the Americans learned to shoot them down. This is not very simple even now. But in order to launch them without entering the reach zone of the AUG aviation. And with over-the-horizon target designation, the presence of the "Legend" did not completely solve the problem.
  28. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 27 March 2018 13: 12
    +2
    Speaking of double standards:
    1) Presentation and testing in Russia - stopuds, it is, but they didn’t say anything completely yet, it’s still cooler than they said, it’s faster, more powerful, smarter than we can imagine!
    2) Presentation and tests in the USA - stopudas make a mistake, it can’t be, it works every other time, tight electronics are expensive and inefficient, completely hide huge system defects, which means it’s worse than stated!
    bully
  29. Scaffold
    Scaffold 27 March 2018 13: 13
    +1
    Andrey, tomcat is not “Tom's cat”, but a male domestic cat. lol drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2018 13: 32
      +4
      Quote: Scaffold
      Andrey, tomcat is not “Tom's cat”, but a male domestic cat

      I know this was a joke :))))
      1. Scaffold
        Scaffold 27 March 2018 17: 31
        +1
        Well ... I'm a pedant. drinks
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          27 March 2018 18: 13
          +2
          Quote: Scaffold
          Well ... I'm a pedant

          And that is great! hi drinks
  30. AleBors
    AleBors 27 March 2018 13: 22
    +4
    I constantly say that the "message", to put it mildly, is fake, from beginning to end.
  31. businessv
    businessv 27 March 2018 14: 04
    +3
    Andrey, thanks for the article, plus! Sensibly, with pertinent comparisons, examples, and analytics, as always! I believe that we will not soon find out the real TTX, but our Moscow Region has already told what it could, about this weapon, you have not backtracked from the description! By the way, they voiced the time taken from the development of the project to the introduction into the troops. Regarding the accuracy of the complex, Surovikin said, I quote: "An all-weather homing head is turned on in the final section of the trajectory, it provides the required accuracy and selectivity for hitting targets at any time of the day." Therefore, the GOS is present, friends - do not break copies. smile
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 27 March 2018 23: 14
      0
      Quote: businessv
      Regarding the accuracy of the complex, Surovikin said, I quote: "An all-weather homing head is turned on in the final section of the trajectory, it provides the required accuracy and selectivity for hitting targets at any time of the day"

      Yeah, we already have a night and all-weather Mi-28 helicopter, the tests of which were interrupted due to bad weather, and night vision systems ditched two sides in Syria.
  32. pavelty
    pavelty 27 March 2018 14: 11
    +3
    I don’t know, but I liked the article ... interestingly, the author writes
  33. Bigbraza
    Bigbraza 27 March 2018 14: 22
    +1
    Andrew, with the "cartoon", everything is very simple - professional designers and multipliers do not allow for the development of this level of secrecy. Those found in the depths of the MO, they were puzzled. And certainly in time trouble, certainly with admission restrictions, with the coordination of each scene. I don’t think it’s worth analyzing at all.
    As for the article - alas, everything is more or less true, and either we don’t know what the word “generally” means, or we need to shout “hurray” without removing the body armor.
    Well, with the Argentines is not so simple. It has already been said that if they had at least a few dozen "Exosets", the English fleet would have remained on the Malvinas Islands. But alas, there were very few of them ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 March 2018 14: 53
      +1
      Quote: BigBraza
      Andrei, with “cartoon” everything is very simple - professional designers and animators are not allowed to develop such a level of secrecy.

      Sorry, but it's just some kind of fantasy. That is, to create a cartoon is super-secret, and to show the whole world is not a bit super-secret :)))
      Quote: BigBraza
      and either we don’t know what the word “generally” means, or we need to shout “hooray” without removing bulletproof vests.

      Here is the last I really like :)
      1. The comment was deleted.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. Old26
    Old26 27 March 2018 16: 07
    +2
    Quote: Razvedka_Boem
    The respected GDP will not bluff; the consequences are too serious in this case.

    And this is not a bluff. Bluffing is when you have no trump cards, and the opponent has the highest
    One of the scouts said:
    I never lie. But if the truth can hurt me - I just hide it.
    So it is here. Partially GDP told the truth, partly did not agree on something. Do not forget that in the first place it was an election move. And by this move he multiplied all his competitors by zero. None of them could say anything like that.

    Quote: Razvedka_Boem
    If he said that this weapon exists, it means that it is ..

    But this is not a fact. For example, we can say that Samrat missiles are not there yet. Throwing gvm. And no one knows what she will be in the horse trials. Laser complex - that even showed in the gland. "Vanguard" - not shown, but at least heard about it. What is a rocket with poison yet no one knows. There have been tests - and so far at least it is known.
    Underwater drone - it is generally not clear what. If so, why not show. And then besides a fake stuffing called STATUS-6 and the cartoon, where the underwater vehicle was shown, which has been known for several years and is a completely different and completely different name. If there is, such as the Americans - why not show. They even show "on the slipway"
    .
    And we show a cartoon with the device



    Quote: Artek
    Iskander came up with the designer Invincible, MiG31 was designed by Lozino-Lozinsky, the nuclear reactors that Putin is now boasting about are being sold to the SOVIET SCHOOL of nuclear reactor engineering and are one hundred percent new Putin’s designers are not involved in them. old Soviet ideas still. But it will pass soon for natural reasons.

    I agree with Iskander, but what’s the reason MIG-31 is designed by Lozino-Lozinsky ??? Reactors? Some have already been made in Russia. Yes, the Soviet school of reactor-strontium is at the core, but nevertheless, it is naive to think that these developments are 30 years old
    Grandfathers .... And this is how old? 40 years old is a grandfather? Or 30? Or maybe "Grandfather" - those who are now 80? WHO?
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 27 March 2018 23: 12
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Underwater drone - it is generally not clear what. If so, why not show. And then in addition to the fake stuffing called STATUS-6 and the cartoon, where an underwater vehicle was shown, which has been known for several years and is a completely different and completely different name. If there is, such as the Americans - why not show. They even show "on the slipway"

      So even in the President’s speech it is said that only reactorThe development of the system itself has just begun.
      It's just that Putin’s PR specialists competently arranged the performance. First, systems that are only being developed are mentioned, then they are tested, and in the end, they are available in trial operation and in the troops. From which the pseudo-patriots have the impression that everything is already in the troops in commodity quantities.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 March 2018 07: 53
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Do not forget that in the first place it was an election move. And by this move he multiplied all his competitors by zero

      Elections? Competitors? What are you talking about?
  36. wisealtair
    wisealtair 27 March 2018 16: 55
    +3
    Quote: Artek
    Of course, to abandon the fleet, the destroyers of the ocean zone and shift everything to the local watchtowers — this way of our Moscow Region is wrong.
    As for this dagger, the lack of funding for science in Putin's Russia will very soon lead to such results when the new generation of future designers of poor designers will not be able to, not only come up with something, but think at all.
    Iskander came up with the designer Invincible, MiG31 was designed by Lozino-Lozinsky, the nuclear reactors that Putin is now boasting about are being sold to the SOVIET SCHOOL of nuclear reactor engineering and are one hundred percent new Putin’s designers are not involved in them. old Soviet ideas still. But it will pass soon for natural reasons ..


    Another sofa drocher, who knows about modern developments no more than a drunk at a night stall.
    Missiles were generally developed in ancient China. So the whole Soviet school - it's Chinese!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac April 8 2018 23: 22
      +1
      Quote: wisealtair
      Missiles were generally developed in ancient China. So the whole Soviet school - it's Chinese!

      There is no evidence for this, just like the invention of gunpowder by the Chinese.
  37. wisealtair
    wisealtair 27 March 2018 16: 57
    +4
    Quote: Photon
    Honestly, I haven’t read it to the end. At the moment where the author determined the speed of the rocket based on 24 frames per second, I had serious doubts about his competence.
    .


    There are doubts not in competence, but in mental adequacy. Evaluating the speed of a rocket by a VERY SLOW video is very cool.
  38. wisealtair
    wisealtair 27 March 2018 16: 59
    +2
    Quote: Nikodim ATO
    .no horseradish there is no dagger ..))) do not look at cartoons or read normal military experts read ..


    And there is no Crimean bridge!
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 March 2018 08: 01
      +1
      Quote: wisealtair
      And there is no Crimean bridge!

      No. And what does it have to do with it?
      1. Max golovanovo
        Max golovanovo April 4 2018 12: 47
        0
        You Us peeled off.
        "No. But what does it have to do with it?"
        Yes. Nothing to do with it.
  39. wisealtair
    wisealtair 27 March 2018 17: 09
    +1
    Quote: AleBors
    I constantly say that the "message", to put it mildly, is fake, from beginning to end.

    Quote: Artek
    this is so, but first of all it is the merit of our education and of course not Putin’s ego, but the old Soviet school,


    These children passed the same exams as the rest. Your delusional bowel movements expressed in a rather primitive way: they say, if the letter B was preceded by A, then A = B. Most Soviet grandfathers either died long ago or retired. Young guys were already working on Iskander-M. But you will say again - that this, they say, is the Soviet legacy. Your legacy has died a long time ago, dead and buried. Everything that now flies and rides out of the new is being worked by people who have no side to the Soviet legacy. Now completely different technologies and materials are completely different, so the Soviet legacy in modern realities is basically useless.
  40. wisealtair
    wisealtair 27 March 2018 17: 11
    0
    Quote: sgrabik
    Despite the existence of such an effective missile system as the Dagger, we just need to have a sea-based anti-ship missile system with which our ships and submarines will be armed, the Caliber is certainly not a bad missile system, but it is not hypersonic and is more suitable for attacks on ground stationary objects, as the information about the new hypersonic anti-ship Zircon missile systems, which our scientists and engineers actively worked on, disappeared, I really hope that the Zircon missiles will soon be adopted by our army and navy.


    Zircons will be delivered to Nakhimov and Peter. Already Nakhimov will come out with Zircons, and this is pretty soon, in 2-3 years.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 March 2018 08: 00
      +1
      Quote: wisealtair
      Zircons will be delivered to Nakhimov and Peter. Already Nakhimov will come out with Zircons, and this is pretty soon, in 2-3 years.

      Who exactly declared it?
      As far as I was interested in this topic, about the so-called Zircon expressed exclusively "sources wishing to stay" and "Internet experts"
  41. wisealtair
    wisealtair 27 March 2018 17: 27
    +1

    Quote: Snakebyte
    Calculate the speed of a ballistic missile warhead and compare it with the test facts.
    There the missile hit the target, and not "hit with the given accuracy", as in the December tests of the domestic "latest missile defense system."


    The standard was shot down by a target simulator, the coordinates and trajectory of which were known in advance. And it was not the warhead simulator that he shot down, but the carrier simulator - the BRSD; he never shot down the CM3 warheads.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte 27 March 2018 23: 08
      0
      Even Wikipedia says that in the third successful test, target designation was a mistake, but the missile hit the target. And the Americans deployed a network of missile defense satellites not for the sake of drinking dough, but to know in advance the trajectories of the launched missiles.
      In a test flight Wednesday, a Raytheon Standard Missile-3 Block IB fired from the USS Lake Erie destroyed a "complex, separating short-range ballistic missile target with a sophisticated separating mock warhead,"
      It is unclear if a warhead or carrier was shot down, but what is the difference? Shot down a target moving at space speeds.
  42. Operator
    Operator 27 March 2018 18: 06
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    taxiing reduces to 10

    Do you even know that a more radio-contrast - land target against the background of the earth’s surface or an aircraft carrier against the background of the sea’s surface? laughing
  43. axxmanm
    axxmanm 27 March 2018 20: 53
    +3
    After the first lines:
    Others immediately declared American carrier groups (and indeed, all surface ships larger than a minesweeper) completely obsolete and unnecessary.
    Let’s try to figure out what effect the “Dagger” can have on the development of the world Navy.

    I immediately realized that the lobbyist, the lawyer thief of pest smashers promoting the idea of ​​financing (read theft) of the aircraft carrier fleet for Russia, writes.
    "Andrew from Chelyabinsk"
    Fuck you and not aircraft carriers !!
    People will not allow such an abominable waste !!
    Look for another sawn pattern.
  44. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 27 March 2018 22: 53
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    10 missiles our missile gives in the stratosphere - and no one has such a thing, more than 5 are not exactly, neither missiles nor anti-missiles.

    Anti-missile Standard SM-3 - 7,8M
  45. Alexander Borisov
    Alexander Borisov 27 March 2018 23: 11
    0
    No one denies the importance of the ships of the far zone, without them it is impossible to protect their ocean communications and cut the communications of the enemy.
    Someday, Americans will be able to shoot down Daggers, but as long as the sun rises the grass will eat their eyes. A much closer and more dangerous prospect is the creation by the Americans of the dagger analogues and their placement on aircraft carriers. In this case, without entering the Russian air defense zone, they will be able to destroy targets and even the air defense itself.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac April 8 2018 23: 25
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Borisov
      A much closer and more dangerous prospect is the creation by the Americans of the dagger analogues and their placement on aircraft carriers. In this case, without entering the Russian air defense zone, they will be able to destroy targets and even the air defense itself.

      Quote: axxmanm
      Fuck you and not aircraft carriers !!
      People will not allow such an abominable waste !!
      Look for another sawn pattern.
  46. sounddoc
    sounddoc 27 March 2018 23: 56
    +2
    I warn you in advance - I am a purely civilian person, I have not studied at academies, in military affairs - zero ....
    And now - on the topic. After reading this article, I had a persistent aftertaste of a spherical horse in a vacuum, and in my head the phrase “your kung fu is worse than mine.” The author is smart, informed, able to analyze the available material. But .... extrapolation is somehow too straightforward experience of local conflicts on a hypothetical (or not so) confrontation between Russia and the United States. When anti-ship missiles fly, that same Armageddon will come. And not only (and not so much), as you may put it, “wunderwaffe” will fight the countless American AUGs, but the good old TNWs. During such a MIX, it will be necessary to urgently drown aircraft carrier groups and no one will clatter with sworn friends, too high there will be a bid! Patria o muerte! IMHO ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 March 2018 11: 10
      +2
      Quote: sounddoc
      And not only (and not so much), as you may put it, “wunderwaffe”, but the good old TNW will fight the countless American AUGs

      Which, as you know, well, it’s never a wunderwaffe and does not solve the problem globally. I’ll just remind you that the classic 2 strike of Tu-22M3 regiments on the AUG was to be preceded by eight missiles with a nuclear warhead on the AUG. At the same time, no one was counting on the destruction of the AUG nuclear weapons - they only hoped to suppress the electronics for some time with an electromagnetic pulse
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 28 March 2018 14: 50
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the classic strike of 2 Tu-22M3 regiments on the AUG was to be preceded by eight missiles with nuclear warheads on the AUG. At the same time, no one was counting on the destruction of the AUG nuclear weapons - they only hoped to suppress the electronics for some time with an electromagnetic pulse

        Emnip, 2 MPA regiment, this was for guaranteed destruction of the AUG with the loss of up to 80% of the guard ships and the aircraft carrier itself.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 March 2018 16: 11
          +1
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          Emnip, 2 MPA regiment, this was for guaranteed destruction of the AUG with the loss of up to 80% of the guard ships and the aircraft carrier itself.

          Let's just say - an aircraft carrier had to be either destroyed or brought into a fully operational state, but 80% is, alas, the level of losses of attacking aircraft
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 29 March 2018 14: 04
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but 80% is, alas, the level of losses of attacking aircraft

            But from this place in more detail - where did such information come from?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              31 March 2018 01: 03
              +1
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              But from this place in more detail - where did such information come from?

              There was such an analysis in the marine collection, + directly from people who served in the MPA
              1. Rakti-kali
                Rakti-kali 31 March 2018 09: 27
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                There was such an analytics in the marine collection,

                Drop the link to the article, I want to neigh and mock at a politician.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                directly from people serving in the MPA

                Name, title, position? And then I also have “people who served in the MPA”, and they do not confirm your information.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  31 March 2018 12: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Drop the link to the article, I want to neigh and mock at a politician.

                  But where can I find it now, I read on paper. And you can laugh / mock now, who's stopping?
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Name, title, position?

                  There is a person here, writes under the nickname "Ancient". But to give names, titles - sorry, not authorized.
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  And then I also have “people who served in the MPA”, and they do not confirm your information.

                  Well, if they do not confirm the extreme weakness of the X-22 GOS, that for a more or less reliable destruction of the target, they should wait for the target to be captured BEFORE launching the missiles, as a result of which the bursting Tu-22 should have gone out of the attack, turning almost over decks .... then take an interest in their name, rank, position :))))
                  1. Rakti-kali
                    Rakti-kali April 1 2018 09: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    But where can I find it now, I read on paper. And you can laugh / mock now, who's stopping?

                    Sorry, I was really interested in reading this article.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    There is a person here, writes under the nickname "Ancient". But to give names, titles - sorry, not authorized.

                    I don’t want to offend anyone, but I trust the lieutenant colonel back on Tu-16 more than strangers.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Well, if they do not confirm the extreme weakness of the X-22 GOS, that for a more or less reliable destruction of the target, they should wait for the target to be captured BEFORE launching the missiles, as a result of which the bursting Tu-22 should have gone out of the attack, turning almost over decks .... then take an interest in their name, rank, position :))))

                    Emotionally ... straight even applaud. That's just you distort. We talked about the level of planned losses, and not about the features of the X-22 guidance systems, which the people who planned the operations to destroy the AOG of the "partners", be sure, were known and taken into account when planning.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 1 2018 10: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      That's just you distort. We talked about the level of planned losses, and not about the features of the guidance systems X-22

                      And one is a little interconnected with the second, don’t you find? :))
                      Quote: Rakti-Kali
                      I do not want to offend anyone, but I trust the lieutenant colonel still on the Tu-16

                      This is your right, you have not offended me. If I find a link to 80% (I remember exactly that in addition to this it was spinning in the sources, let's look) - I will drop it to you by local mail
                      1. Rakti-kali
                        Rakti-kali April 1 2018 16: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And one is a little interconnected with the second, don’t you find? :))

                        I don’t find it, because you are trying to replace the estimate of the losses of the MRA strike group during a massive attack on the AUG by discussing the features of the X-22 missile guidance system. And this is the wrong approach, because these characteristics have already been taken into account (together with other elements) in determining the likely losses of the shock and support groups, as well as escort, cover, electronic warfare, and others.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If I find a link to 80% (I remember exactly that in addition to this it was spinning in the sources, let's look) - I will drop it to you by local mail

                        Thank you.
    2. Max golovanovo
      Max golovanovo April 4 2018 12: 52
      0
      Strategically AUG does not need to be heated, it is necessary to submarine.
  47. Photon
    Photon 28 March 2018 00: 58
    +1
    Honestly, I haven’t read it to the end. At the moment where the author determined the speed of the rocket based on 24 frames per second, I had serious doubts about his competence.
    And the problem with our anti-ship missiles was not that the Americans learned to shoot them down. This is not very simple even now. But in order to launch them without entering the reach zone of the AUG aviation. And with over-the-horizon target designation, the presence of the "Legend" did not completely solve the problem.
  48. Kleon
    Kleon 28 March 2018 09: 48
    +1
    Zadolbali these "bold" experts, who do not possess any real information, nor basic technical knowledge, make their thoughtful conclusions about everything in the world. Which always lead to the same thing, what is all great American and what is all worthless to ours. In general, the next vyser invisible worker of the ideological front.
  49. Old26
    Old26 28 March 2018 11: 01
    +1
    Quote: wisealtair
    Young guys were already working on Iskander-M. But you will say again - that this, they say, is the Soviet legacy. Your legacy has died a long time ago, dead and buried. Everything that now flies and rides out of the new is being worked by people who have no side to the Soviet legacy. Now completely different technologies and materials are completely different, so the Soviet legacy in modern realities is basically useless.

    Regarding Iskander, I agree and no. I agree that young people are already working, a completely different generation than those who worked 30-40 years ago. But let me disagree in the fact that this is not a Soviet legacy. In the design of weapons systems such as missiles do not use only "new products." Most often these are already implemented or not implemented solutions. And Iskander is no exception. This is a continuation of the line "Uranus" - "Oka" - "Iskander".
  50. Rey_ka
    Rey_ka 28 March 2018 12: 42
    0
    the ammunition flies into one target (something like a dugout), and another explodes (like a two-story house).
    No, well, what did you want with a variable trajectory? so where did he aim and get there? This is an "unpredictable dagger"