Military Review

The updated "Storm" takes on the fly the fleets of NATO. Breakthrough "Standards" and "Asterov" - a delicate matter

161



Five days ago, in the “Military Technologies” section of the “Free Press” news and information and analytical resource (svpressa.ru), an interesting and highly thought-out article from the technical point of view entitled “The Feature of the Russian“ Kitchen ”: the cruisers and destroyers of the US Navy will go to feed the fish. " For an intended eye, it becomes instantly clear that we are talking about long-range multipurpose tactical missiles of the X-22 family, which in the North Atlantic Alliance were assigned the identification code AS-4 "Kitchen" even at the end of distant 60's. Our product was called "Storm".

Nevertheless, the regional and global maritime theaters of the 21st century are gradually evolving into real network-centric arenas with state-of-the-art missile defense based on advanced RIM-162 ESSM, RIM-174 ERAM anti-aircraft missiles, against the background of which the aircraft’s technical and physical characteristics are X -22 gradually lost their share. For example, the relatively low flying speed to the target in 2500 km / h (2,05М), with a huge effective scattering surface of the order of 1 sq. m, the lack of execution modes intensive anti-aircraft maneuvers (similar to "Onyx"), as well as diving at a target at a relatively small angle of 30 degrees (starts at a distance of 60 km from a surface ship), made it possible for the ship's IRRLS / ANY-1A without difficulty “Capture” X-22 at a distance of up to 150 km and begin interception with the help of far from the most advanced SAMs RIM-67D and RIM-156A starting from 80 - 100 km.

As a result, active flight tests of the modernized X-2000 cruise missile (32-A-9) began with the 2362-s, which we will try to examine in detail in our today's review. The development of the X-22 update package up to the X-32 version was carried out by the specialists of the ICB Raduga since the 80-s of the 20th century. And already in 2016, the rocket entered service with the Tu-22М3М long-range bombers. And now let us try to analyze whether the new product from Raduga has reached the level that the existing naval air defense and missile defense systems of the US Navy and the United Navy of NATO set, as well as set more advanced anti-missile systems that are preparing for operational readiness in 20's years?

In the above article on “Kukhne”, the issue of the combat effectiveness of the X-32 RCC is expressed by Captain First Rank, Doctor of Military Sciences and Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences Konstantin Sivkov, who made an analytical review taking into account the tactical and technical characteristics of the new missile, as well as the well-known parameters of the American anti-aircraft missile ultra-long-range missiles RIM-174 ERAM "Extended Range Active Missile". For the most part, Konstantin Valentinovich considered the capabilities of X-32 for overcoming the air defense system of the American naval and carrier strike groups (CUG / AUG) as well as the anti-missile properties of RIM-174 ERAM (SM-6) up to the smallest details. In particular, even such an imperceptible detail for a simple browser was indicated as a significant decrease in the maneuverability of the RIM-174 ERAM SAM at heights exceeding the official interception ceiling figure in 33 km (stated by the manufacturer - “Raytheon”), which is observed due to critical sparseness the atmosphere. Here everything is absolutely true.

If at an altitude of 33 km the pressure is of the order of 11,5 mbar, then at an altitude of 40 km (here the march section of the X-32 trajectory passes) does not exceed 3,1 mbar. Consequently, the SM-6 aerodynamic rudders sharply lose their efficiency and the rocket maneuvering becomes much more viscous (the angular turn rate decreases), which does not allow it to effectively intercept the X-32, which performs anti-zenith maneuver. This result is also observed due to the lack of a gas-dynamic “belt” of transverse-control impulse engines (compensating aerodynamic planes) and low flight speed in 6 — 3700 km / h, which does not allow to realize all the best qualities of aerodynamic control surfaces at high altitudes. (for example, the 3800B5A missile system of the C-21 complex was perfectly controlled by aerodynamic rudders at altitudes up to 200 km due to the impressive speed of 40 km / h). Against this background, the X-9000 has indisputable advantages: flight speed in 32 - 5200 km / h at the march, and hence the possibility of vigorous maneuvering.

A very important advantage of the X-32 main flight mode (unlike the X-22) when performing an anti-ship strike is that the rocket supports the flight trajectory at an altitude of 40 km up to the target and does not begin a dive at a distance 50 - 60 km from it . In practice, this further complicates the process of intercepting the updated “Storm” (the native name is X-22) by means of the RIM-174 SAM with all the flight and technical flaws of the latter. The situation changes drastically at the moment of the X-32 transition from horizontal flight to steep dive mode on the target, or diving at angles of more than 70 degrees. Decreasing to 25 km altitude, X-32 falls into an area where the maneuverable capabilities of the SM-6 interceptor rocket are at the proper level due to the higher density of the lower stratosphere layers, in the same turn, this reduces the flight speed of the Kitchen to 3,5 - 4M . As a result, the chance of interception increases several times. At such heights, the SM-6 is able to realize an overload of approximately 15 units, a heavier and slower X-32 - also no more than 15 units.


One of the main advantages of the X-32 is the near-hypersonic speed on the initial segment of the sustainer portion of the trajectory, which does not allow it to be intercepted by all types of missiles of western production in pursuit. The main drawback is the huge radar signature, comparable to the Rafal EPR, as evidenced by the weight in 5780 kg (as in the X-22М), due to the lack of introduction of composite and radio absorbing materials


We proceed to the following points. The article states that despite the high permissible overload of the combat stage of the RIM-174 ERAM, it is not able to intercept X-32 due to the fact that the speed of the target being hit is only 2880 km / h, while the speed of X-32 approaches 5400 km / h on the march. Firstly, according to the statements already made in the article, the SM-6 has an extremely scarce “window of ability” to intercept a maneuvering target at an altitude of 40 km in a rarefied atmosphere (for this, X-32 should not perform maneuvers so that less rapid and less “vert "RIM-174 was able to intercept it). Consequently, the emphasis had to be made at that time of the final trajectory segment, when the rocket swooped on the target through the denser layers of the stratosphere, and the speed here was already fairly reduced (not only because of the greater aerodynamic resistance, but also due to the sharp turning X-32 pitch) to 3,5 - 4M.

Secondly, it is impossible to agree with the maximum speed of the target hit for the SM-6, voiced in the article, at only 800 m / s. So, on December 14, 2016, offshore of the Hawaiian Islands, field tests of two advanced missiles of the SM-6 Dual I modification were successfully carried out to intercept a simulator of a medium-range ballistic missile, the speed of which significantly exceeds the 2,5M figure described in the material on svpressa. ru, and can reach 3,5 - 5M. Moreover, specialists of the manufacturing company Raytheon and representatives of the American fleet have already stated that the SM-6 of the new “blocks” (modifications) will be designed not only for the horizontal destruction of low-altitude tactical and strategic cruise missiles at a distance of 100 - 150 or more kilometers, but also against operational-tactical ballistic missiles, as well as medium-sized ballistic missiles range, including the Chinese DF-21 DPS on the descending branch of the trajectory in the denser layers of the stratosphere.

As far as we know, the speed of the HF promising anti-ship MRFM DF-21D at an altitude of 25 - 30 km can reach 1500 - 1800 m / s. This means that approximately in the same framework is the maximum speed of the target to be hit for the RIM-174 ERAM SAM, but not the 800 m / s. There is no point in thinking here for a long time, since back in the summer of 2008, the standard SM-2ER Block IV anti-aircraft guided missile (obviously, RIM-156A) launched from the universal vertical launch Mk 41 missile cruiser CG-70 "Lake Erie" during firing tests, was able to destroy a medium-range ballistic missile simulator over the Pacific Ocean. RIM-156A has an interception ceiling in 29 km. Remarkably, this SM-2 Block IV anti-aircraft missile is not a highly specialized interceptor for hitting ballistic missiles, but is designed to intercept standard high-speed aerodynamic objects, including both high-altitude and low-altitude, traveling "above the crest of a wave."

The article “Features ...” indicates that the probability of intercepting X-32 on the flight path using the RIM-174 SAMs is about 0,02 if target designation is performed via Link-16 radio channel from the E-2D deck aircraft or other Aegis "- ship and with probability 0,07 when targeting from a destroyer / cruiser carrier. The argument of such a low interception probability is the presence of SM-6 ARGSN, made on the basis of the homing head of air-to-air missiles of the AIM-120C AMRAAM family, which are capable of capturing a target with 1 ESR. m at a distance 12 km. With a total convergence speed in 2,2 km / s, the on-board computer system of an anti-aircraft missile will only have 5 seconds for an exact correction, which will reduce the chance of interception to a minimum.

This can be easily explained: during the exercises, the SM-6 intercepted an even faster simulator of the BRSD, since it did not perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, and the X-32 is capable of such maneuvers. Moreover, the improved "Kitchen" can be equipped with an on-board EW complex, complicating the work of the active RGSN SM-6. But the EW station with the current perfection of ARGSN is partly a double-edged sword, since modern ARGSN can work not only in active mode, but also be guided solely by the radiation source of interference. As a result, the SM-32 X-6 interception probability indicated in the article is perceived with a fair amount of caution. It is possible that, given the first maneuvering, this probability ranges from 0,15 to 0,2.

It should be noted that the Pentagon, with its own hands, has closed the opportunities for the US Navy to more effectively oppose our anti-ship missiles X-32. It consists in canceling the anti-aircraft guided missile RIM-2001B (SM-156 Block IVA) project in 2, which differs in a two-channel guidance system consisting of an IR sensor whose lens is recessed into the hull generator immediately behind the radio transparent radome of the homing head and semi-active radar homing head . The IR module ensured an increased accuracy of interception of a small-sized ballistic object, since the AN / SPG-62 X-band radar searchlight may not be sufficiently illuminated.

So, equipped with an infrared sensor RIM-156B (SM-2 Block IVA) would have much more potential to intercept X-32. Why? Launched in advance of the anti-missile can detect and accompany the anti-ship missile X-32 at a distance of several tens of kilometers, even before the moment when the vertical dive begins. The main channel of guidance in this case will be assigned to an infrared sensor capable of ideally operating in the clean and cold stratospheric layers. The sensor will focus on the infrared signature of the wings heated from the aerodynamic drag and the X-32 nose fairing. Shortly before the “meeting” of the X-32 and SM-2 Block IVA rockets, the first one will already enter a dive mode in denser stratospheric positions. Consequently, the aerodynamic heating of the front edges of the wing and the radome of the GOS will lead to an even more expressive “thermal portrait”, which means a more stable capture using the IR module of the RIM-156B anti-aircraft missile. Integration of the IR channel with a semi-active radar channel can increase the probability of X-32 interception to 0,35. Moreover, the IR sensor compensates for possible errors of the radar channel at the time of our radio-electronic jamming. Fortunately, the RIM-156B project is currently closed. But there are concerns that it will be embodied in the temporarily secret project of the SM-6 Dual II interceptor, the first tests of which are scheduled for the 2019 year.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the SM-6 is not the only anti-aircraft guided missile that is used by the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the Ticonderoga cruisers to set an anti-aircraft umbrella over the AUG order. Very predictable consequences can be expected from the development of a promising modification of the anti-aircraft guided missile RIM-162B ESSM. If modification “A” is equipped with only semi-active radar homing head, which required the mandatory use of AN / SPY-1D and single-channel illumination radar SPG-62, then RIM-162B ESSM Block II will receive an active X-band radar homing head. The trick here is that the AN / SPY-1D multifunctional radar and the AN / SPG-62 continuous-radiation / illumination radars do not cover the elevated angle of our today's heroine, the anti-ship missile X-32, with its elevation angle of view. This means that RIM-162A will not be able to be effectively used against our RCC. Modification "B" with its active radar guidance can. Moreover, in contrast to the second stage of the SM-2 / 6 with the maximum overload of maneuvers in 27 - 30 units. at medium altitudes, “Developed Sea Sparrow” (as the ESSM abbreviation is translated) is capable of pursuing a goal with its own overloads of at least 50G.


ESSM Block II Tests


These qualities became available to the US naval air defense system thanks to equipping all types of ESSM with a gas-jet thrust vector deflection system, which continues immediately until the solid-fuel charge of the sustainer solid propellant rocket mode is burned out. With flight speeds in 1200 m / s in the dense layers of the troposphere, RIM-162B provides ideal conditions for countering X-32. This could also be mentioned in an article on svpressa.ru. Currently, the RIM-162B ESSM Block II is at the final stage, while the adoption of the fleet is planned at the end of the 2019 and the beginning of the 2020.

In the final part of the article on the Free Press, the final conclusions are made that the ship assault group of two destroyers of Arleigh Burke class missile defense or two cruisers of Ticonderoga class missile defenses cannot repel the blow of a pair of Tu-22М3М long-range bombers with 4 to get counter-strike from a pair of long-range bombers of TU-32М26М with 2 and anti-bombers with heavy bombers -41 on the suspensions of both cars. I would like to believe in such an outcome, but the harsh technological reality does not allow this. Obviously, such a scenario would correspond to reality if the Thirty-second Kitchens were opposed by Ticonderoga class cruisers in an early modification with Mk 6 girder launchers (had much lower firing performance) and outdated SM-10ER Block II anti-aircraft missiles . Today, when the US Navy’s high-performance Mk 12 launchers are in service, but the SM-32 Dual II and ESSM Block II are not yet in place, 5 to 6 X-22 with 3 or 32 T-XNUMXXXNUMX must be used to defeat a pair of American destroyers. When they begin to enter the ammunition of American ships, the number of X-XNUMX needed to defeat will increase one and a half to two times.

A more unpleasant situation arises when using the X-32 against the AUG / CUG of the Royal Navy of Great Britain and the AUG of the French Navy. Let us dwell on the British. As part of their naval forces, 6 of the Daring class 45 air defense destroyers are included, each of them is equipped with a powerful multipurpose AFAR-radar Sampson working in decimeter S-band, which is capable of displaying 2000 tracks in the review mode in maintenance mode on the aisle. Typical target with EPR around 300 square. m (our rocket X-1), this radar complex will detect at a distance of about 32 km. The S220M additional radar detector will track the Storm at a similar distance. Therefore, PAAMS operators will have about 1850 seconds to prepare the Sylver A80 launcher for firing, during which time the X-50 anti-ship missile will approach the attacked KUG at a distance of 32 km, from which Aster anti-aircraft missiles can fire. -100 "various modifications.

Despite the fact that the Eurosam consortium indicates the official interception height for Aster-30 in just 25 km, the architecture and type of controls, as well as the maximum flight speed of the combat (second) stage in 4,7M, clearly indicate that the rocket will feel great and at an altitude of 35-40 km (similar to our 9М96ДМ). For this, the compact combat stage has a small mid-section, extended bearing wings of a large area and an impressive charge of low-smoke fuel. This is far from the poorly manoeuvrable SM-6, equipped only with aerodynamic rudders. In the arsenal of the Aster-30 control system there is an important trump card - a cross-shaped gasdynamic belt made of 4-x slotted transverse-drive control engines built into the wing design.

This “belt” is located in the center of mass of the rocket (like 9М96ДМ), which allows you to make energetic “throws” of “Aster-30” in space when you reach the maneuvering target, even at an altitude of 35-40 km. Literally in 4 -5 hundredths of a second, overloading to 15 - 20 units can be realized, which means that clearly X-32 will not be hard to hit. The developer called this method of lightning gas-dynamic control "PIF-PAF". It is precisely known that in many cases it allows you to hit the target with a direct hit “to-kill”. One does not even have to hope that the massive X-32 with its large radar visibility can “get away” from Aster. At low altitudes in 5-7 km the picture is exacerbated: high atmospheric pressure allows the Aster-30 combat stage to maneuver to the target with an overload in 55 - 60 units. The list of advantages is completed by an active radar homing head operating in a higher and more accurate J-band (from 10 to 20 GHz).

It is not difficult to sum up the above described: if the chance to send to the bottom of the American reinforced carrier-carrier (one aircraft carrier of the Gerald Ford class, 1 cruiser Ticonderoga and 2 — 3 destroyer Arley Burk) using 30 — 36 X-32 0,6 anti-ship missiles X-XNXX-30 1 anti-ship missile X-XNUMX. large (around XNUMX), then destroying the British AUG as part of Queen Elizabeth and four Daring-class air defense destroyers is unlikely to succeed because of the highest flight-technical parameters of the Aster-XNUMX SAM. By the way, this anti-missile in the coming years will be brought to a completely different level in the version of "Block XNUMXNT": its distinctive feature will be even more advanced ARGSN mm-Ka-band to work on ultra-small ballistic elements of high-precision weapons. For the opening of such an antimissile echelon, it is necessary to hope only on “Zircons” and “Daggers”.

Information sources:
https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/196146/
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/Standard-SM-2-Block-IVA_a001148008.aspx
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/sm-6/sm-6.shtml
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-756.html
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/x22/x22.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/samp_t/samp_t.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/paams/paams.shtml
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm2.htm
Author:
161 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Artek
    Artek 30 March 2018 07: 09
    +6
    like too many of these American complexes became a patriot, and aegis, and thad, now this Rome174 can’t be traced.
    1. Dam
      Dam 31 March 2018 00: 55
      +1
      All this is great, but here only a war plan will show
      1. Nick
        Nick 31 March 2018 11: 28
        +4
        Quote: Damm
        All this is great, but here only a war plan will show

        Yes, only in combat conditions it is possible to find out the real effectiveness of weapons. And any analysis suffers from one-sidedness.
        It’s not clear to me, for example, why when diving at a target it is ALMOST SIGNIFICANT, the speed of the X-32 will decrease due to an allegedly sharp pitch turn. And what makes it difficult to make the turnaround less sharp, without loss of speed. Yes, and Earth's gravity will help the engine accelerate the rocket. Therefore, the speed in the final section cannot be reduced, rather the opposite ...
        Also, the author does not take into account the whole variety of tactical methods of using weapons, which we can only guess about. A high-altitude nuclear explosion, for example, arranged with the same missile weapons in the area of ​​the enemy AUG, will disable all its electronics, after which it will become easy prey for any modern anti-ship missiles, IMHO
        1. Su24
          Su24 April 1 2018 14: 38
          +1
          The speed drops due to an increase in air resistance in the lower atmosphere.
          1. Nick
            Nick April 1 2018 18: 09
            +4
            Quote: Su24
            The speed drops due to an increase in air resistance in the lower atmosphere.

            And the acceleration of gravity 9,8 m / s2 does not compensate for the increase in atmospheric density? The rocket has an aerodynamic shape. She is not parachuting down
  2. sanches-nk
    sanches-nk 30 March 2018 07: 15
    +9
    Good analysis. X-32 is very good, but comes out. that it also needs to be modernized, or to put more promising missiles. If the “Dagger” could be launched not only with the MIG-31 (but apparently this is the only way), then the problem of destroying the enemy’s AUG and URO would be solved very effectively and for a long time. Let’s hope that the “Dagger” will be improved to launch even with subsonic aircraft.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 30 March 2018 07: 20
      +6
      Quote: sanches-nk
      Good analysis. X-32 is very good, but it goes. as it needs to be either modernized

      X-32 with LRE is the one that is smut. Moreover, this missile has not been adopted yet, due to unfinished tests. And it’s not at all the fact that she will ever go to the front line at all.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 30 March 2018 08: 58
        +3
        X-32 with LRE

        the smut was on X-22 and on X-32 not even decillin was used, but a different mixogen based on RDX
        so that the performance characteristics are underestimated at times, because is used detonation rocket enginemore economical and powerful
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 30 March 2018 09: 02
          +2
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          the smut was on X-22 and on X-32 not even decillin was used, but a different mixogen based on RDX
          so TTX are underestimated at times, because detonation engine, more economical and powerful

          The source of information do not share?
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 30 March 2018 09: 07
            +4
            1. X-32 is a transitional product to the Dagger
            2. The dagger "calmly", upon withdrawing from the INF Treaty, switches to the Iskander OTRK, already with a range of 2500 km, and there is no need to recreate heavy Pioneers
            1. sanches-nk
              sanches-nk 30 March 2018 10: 01
              +2
              Well, apparently, the MIG-31 acts as the first step in the “Dagger”. For Iskander, it will be necessary to accelerate it to the desired speed to start the scramjet, I think that is precisely what most likely does not allow the use of the “Dagger” on other media, speed is needed. although all this may be another ploy for our "partners"
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 10: 39
                +6
                Quote: sanches-nk
                accelerate to the desired speed to start the scramjet,

                Oh, already the scramjet on Iskander appeared, as well!
              2. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 10: 45
                +5
                Quote: sanches-nk
                For Iskander, you will need to accelerate it to the desired speed to start the scramjet,

                Miles sorry! Wildly sorry! bully Reveal a terrible military secret wink : which version of Iskander has a scramjet? yes
                1. Besmaster
                  Besmaster 30 March 2018 11: 58
                  +10
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Quote: sanches-nk
                  accelerate to the desired speed to start the scramjet,

                  Oh, already the scramjet on Iskander appeared, as well!


                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  Quote: sanches-nk
                  For Iskander, you will need to accelerate it to the desired speed to start the scramjet,

                  Miles sorry! Wildly sorry! bully Reveal a terrible military secret wink : which version of Iskander has a scramjet? yes


                  You guys when you enter the service of the State Department at least learn the cases of the Russian language. The author of the message that you quoted did not say that there is a scramjet on the iskander. We are talking about the fact that the MIG-31 gives the Dagger initial speed to launch the scramjet, and Iskander does not. Therefore, to launch the Dagger from Iskander, it will take something else that will give him this initial speed.

                  You go to the embassy and report - you fell asleep on a misunderstanding of Russian speech.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 19: 37
                    +3
                    Quote: BesMaster
                    MIG-31 gives the dagger initial speed to launch the scramjet, and Iskander does not

                    And, well, that is, the Dagger is no longer an air-based Iskander, but a rocket with a scramjet? But Iskander, it turns out, does not accelerate to 3M?
                    So much new!
                    1. Romario_Argo
                      Romario_Argo 31 March 2018 23: 55
                      +1
                      everything at you all somehow went aside. good to stupid already.
                      in short, it will be a Volga type PTRC, with a booster unit
            2. Compasure
              Compasure 31 March 2018 23: 09
              +2
              Actually, still Invincible in one of the interviews, he spoke about the air-based version of Iskander, so the Dagger is already made from Iskander wink
              1. Compasure
                Compasure 31 March 2018 23: 12
                0
                And about the "transitional product" - it's overkill wink
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 10: 38
            +6
            Quote: Bongo
            The source of information do not share?

            In-in! As I read this opus about “mixed fuel based on RDX” and “detonation rocket engine”, my eyes immediately became like ... belay Sources of information in the studio!
            1. Compasure
              Compasure 31 March 2018 01: 53
              0
              Try google, sometimes it helps))
              http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionar
              y/[email protected]
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 31 March 2018 05: 23
                +2
                Dear Alexander! I was familiar with the recipes for “mixed fuel based on RDX” even before the publication of the article about the “updated ,, Storm ,, ..." (only there RDX was replaced by HMX ...). For example: 1..Alumin.powder, perchlorate ammonium, octogen, nitroglycerin, other ballistic additives - mixed solid rocket (so-called "detailed") 2 fuel. Nitroglycerin, octogen, colloxylin, ballistic
                f additives-ballistic solid rocket fuel ("detonation-capable") .... Similar detonation-propellant rocket fuels are also used as "adaptive charges" in military missiles, active-rocket artillery shells ...
                But these are all “solid rocket fuels”! And where is the liquid X-32?
                Further ..... The detonation rocket engine - the "know-how" of the 21 century ... exists in the form of a demonstration layout .... there is no mass production of these engines! And where does the serial X-32? request
                1. Compasure
                  Compasure 31 March 2018 23: 10
                  0
                  I don’t need to explain in such detail, I am in the know wink
                  In general, I apologize, inattentively read the original post ....
                  1. Nikolaevich I
                    Nikolaevich I April 1 2018 02: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: Compasure
                    In general, I apologize, I carefully read the original post

                    By-and-a-e-t! ....
          3. Compasure
            Compasure 30 March 2018 11: 47
            +2
            It feels like you're a CIA employee bully
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 12: 04
              +5
              Quote: Compasure
              It feels like you're a CIA employee

              Well .... still freelance ... repeat But I have some "floodlights" for sale fellow ... do not buy? hi
      2. novel66
        novel66 30 March 2018 09: 00
        +2
        and hanging them is still fun
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 08: 14
      +15
      Quote: sanches-nk
      Good analysis.

      Damantsev vs Sivkov? Epic battle, of course.
    3. novel66
      novel66 30 March 2018 08: 59
      +1
      well, actually, the Tu-22 is kind of supersonic, although it’s not enough to reach the three Makhov missiles
      1. Timx
        Timx April 1 2018 05: 21
        0
        Tu-22M3 with external suspension of cruise missiles X-22 (X-32) can be considered a subsonic aircraft.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 21 August 2018 12: 37
          0
          Nevertheless, they plan to hang daggers on it hi
    4. venik
      venik 30 March 2018 09: 34
      +3
      Quote: sanches-nk
      If the "Dagger" could be launched not only with the MIG-31 (but apparently so far this is the only way)

      =========
      And what, in fact, are “fundamental prohibitions” for using the “Dagger” from distant bombers ??
      In my opinion - NO! The MiG-31 was apparently chosen (this was indirectly mentioned) precisely because of its ability to QUICKLY launch a missile to the line of combat use.
      Yes, he has a speed of almost 1000 km / h higher than the Tu-22 and Tu-160 .. So what? Ultimately, all this can lead only to a certain decrease in the maximum range of the missile’s flight and that’s all ... Well, this factor is compensated by the range of the “carrier” ....
      1. sanches-nk
        sanches-nk 30 March 2018 10: 03
        +2
        God grant that so, I do not affirm anything, but reason. If for launching the scramjet it’s enough to say 2000 km / h, then almost any reactive carrier of ours will be able to start it. Or maybe he doesn’t need supersonic at all. So far, everything is covered in mystery. MIG-31 can really be chosen precisely for a quick exit to the discharge point and no more.
        1. meandr51
          meandr51 30 March 2018 12: 18
          +2
          On rollers on the Dagger, the ramjet is not visible at all. It is also called an aeroballistic missile.
          So you can run it from anywhere. Even with the An-24.
        2. Timx
          Timx April 1 2018 05: 24
          0
          2000 km / h is enough to launch an SPVRD, but it’s by no means a scramjet, which isn’t really even in the form of prototypes for testing.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 11: 11
        +4
        Quote: venik
        Ultimately, all this can lead only to a certain decrease in the maximum range of the missile’s flight and that’s all ... Well, this factor is compensated by the range of the “carrier” ....

        No! We won’t allow “to lead to a certain decrease in the maximum range of the missile’s flight ...” We’d better send an additional accelerator to the “Iskander”, and if it doesn’t fit into the MiG-31, then we’ll take the Il-76! And there will be a fortune "happiness" .... in the next world!
    5. ruslann004
      ruslann004 31 March 2018 08: 15
      0
      The task of mig31 is to fly up to 1500 km to the AUG, launch a rocket and screw from there as quickly as possible. Why the hell to put a dagger on subsonic aircraft? To have time to get an answer?
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 1 2018 02: 42
        +2
        Quote: ruslann004
        Why the hell to put a dagger on subsonic aircraft?

        And why the hell is a subsonic PAK YES being developed? what
        Quote: ruslann004
        To have time to get an answer?

        And if you don’t have time? "Dagger" then hypersonic! fellow
        Well, don’t need to take any “letter” so literally! I brought as an alternative version of IL-76 (it is large and there are many of them! wink ), but there may be others! If you diligently seek a way out, then there is one ....
  3. Lex.
    Lex. 30 March 2018 07: 35
    +6
    to realize all the best qualities of aerodynamic rudders at high altitudes (for example, the ZV 5V21A of the S-200 complex was perfectly controlled by aerodynamic rudders at heights of up to 40 km thanks to an impressive speed of 9000 km / h). this is nonsense
    The missile has a length of 11 m and a launch mass of 7,1 tons, of which 3 tons are accelerators (for the S-200V).
    Rocket flight speed: 700–1200 m / s, depending on range.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 11: 19
      +5
      Quote: Lex.
      perfectly controlled by aerodynamic rudders at altitudes up to 40 km thanks to the impressive speed at 9000 km / h). this is nonsense

      Nonsense .... not nonsense .... but I also do not understand! With a rarefied atmosphere, the aerodynamic rudders "poorly rotate" the rocket, but even at high speed at high air pressure more effort is required to drive. To set the steering wheel to the desired angle. Where is the middle ground?
      1. Lex.
        Lex. 30 March 2018 11: 22
        +3
        Not a rocket launcher, I copied it from a wiki, but an Israeli missile was shot down with an o-200 missile about if it had a speed of 9000 it would have been impossible to shoot
    2. venik
      venik 30 March 2018 11: 32
      +2
      Quote: Lex.
      perfectly controlled by aerodynamic rudders at altitudes of up to 40 km thanks to an impressive speed of 9000 km / h)

      ======
      Yeah! You also paid attention to this "lapsus"! Eugene usually writes quite competent articles, but at times he "puts" !!! I didn’t pay attention to the fact that the speed of 9000 km / h is IS "hypersound"!!!
      1. Lex.
        Lex. 30 March 2018 12: 12
        +1
        maybe about a dagger mixed up there for 10000 km per hour
    3. Cossack 471
      Cossack 471 30 March 2018 20: 28
      0
      The S-200 missile has a speed of 690-715 m, with depending on which zone the shooting is being conducted. near or far. engine thrust decreases from 3200 kg to 2000 kg from the calculation. that the rocket to the target should fly up with empty tanks. for better handling at the meeting point. That is, its speed --2520 km / h. The upper limit of the affected area of ​​40.8 km is determined by a powerful steering machine. the area of ​​the rudders themselves and the successful layout of the rocket (assembled according to the "normal aerodynamic design", that is, the rudders are behind the wings)
  4. Operator
    Operator 30 March 2018 07: 50
    +6
    Everything is simple - to ensure operability of the radar and, moreover, infrared GOS, missiles and anti-missiles must fly in the target area at a speed of no more than 1500 m / s or 5М, otherwise plasma formation starts at higher speed in the air surrounding the missile / anti-missile and the GOS stops working .

    When limiting the ability to increase the flight speed of a rocket / anti-missile, it is necessary to compare by their maneuverable capabilities specified by the strength of the structure and the thrust of special steering engines. At the same time, a missile capable of doing such taxiing in the target area (for example, with 50 g overload) will always have an advantage over a missile defense capable of maneuvering with equal overload - the milking capacity of an interceptor missile should be twice as high as the available overload.

    Plus, the rocket’s natural advantage is due to static energy in the Earth’s gravitational field - it always moves down, and the anti-missile up, so the first can use thrusters of lower power.

    Plus, a compact reinforced detachable maneuvering missile warhead with much less inertia and greater strength than the "telegraph pole" of the missile defense body.

    Summarizing, we can say that the missile defense has no chance against detachable warheads of rockets with thrusters.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 30 March 2018 15: 09
      +2
      This “expert” does not understand that warheads cannot constantly “steer” and cannot know exactly when it is needed.
  5. Spambox
    Spambox 30 March 2018 08: 32
    +6
    for example, the 5V21A missile launcher of the S-200 complex was perfectly controlled by aerodynamic rudders at altitudes of up to 40 km thanks to an impressive speed of 9000 km / h)

    What did the author smoke ?!
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 30 March 2018 14: 33
      0
      If what can be verified is nonsense, then what is everything else that cannot be verified? The answer is the same nonsense.
  6. Amateur
    Amateur 30 March 2018 09: 20
    +11
    Dear Admin! A huge request to write the authors is not at the end, but at the beginning of the article. Then you can save a lot of traffic without reading some articles.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 30 March 2018 14: 59
      +9
      And I like Damantsev's articles. I take them as fantastic stories, which they certainly are. Even more I like to read comments on these articles. lol
      For example, such
      Quote: BesMaster
      You guys when you enter the service in the State Department at least learn the cases of the Russian language.

      Or this:
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      The tin cell was on X-22 and on X-32 not even decillin was used, but other hexogen-based composite fuel
      so TTX are underestimated at times, because detonation engine, more economical and powerful

      We immediately see who is who. wassat
  7. Essex62
    Essex62 30 March 2018 09: 37
    +4
    Missile strike on UAG mattresses and NATO fleets, why? Does someone seriously hope to win the upcoming war, to survive and reap the fruits of victory? Forget, no one and nothing will survive. It is much more rational for everyone that is able to fly, with vigorous stuffing, to embed nonhumans on the nest. Massons must be punished for the destruction of civilization. Yes, and these skins will not dare to aggression being under the gun. There are doubts whether the Russian aligarch for its little ones can be launched in London and New York.
    1. Tomato
      Tomato 7 May 2018 22: 06
      0
      The most balanced comment. I completely agree.
      A blow to the UAG of mattresses (I hate fiercely) will nevertheless lead to a war where no one will survive.
      A blow to London and New York will never lead to war. The proletarians of these countries themselves hate Freemasons. It's time to do it. How does the Kremlin do not understand this? Tell them at last.
  8. ZVO
    ZVO 30 March 2018 09: 38
    +11
    If the author really believes that on the marching section of the flight - a long-range missile will perform "energetic anti-aircraft maneuvers" - then this author needs to bite off his head.
    And removing this false parameter from Sivkov’s number system — his entire analysis strategy — is falling apart.
    And so in all his analyzes.
    In each case, he comes up with an ephemeral indicator / criterion, everything wraps around him and everything seems to be logical.
    But alas.
    He always lies from the beginning.
    And already in a lie he is screwing up his numbers.


    “Return to parents” is also necessary for those who, having hung up, “listen” to such nonsense ...
    About 20-30-40-50-60-XNUMX years ago, so that parents could correct the mistakes of youth ...

    It’s just a shame for those who seem to have a non-stupid education too, and they easily accept and believe in such dirt ......
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 11: 53
      +4
      Anti-aircraft maneuvers? Maybe .... it could be ... But it seems to me that this is a "dubious pleasure" ... Given the speed of modern missiles and the features of their use, intercepting them is most likely in the final section of the trajectory ... Therefore, maneuvers in the middle section Nafig’s trajectories are impressive, but in the end .... you need to understand that you don’t have any fouet and pirouettes, but to kiss a ship you need to cross a certain space in front of the ship. There is a concept that advises you to fill up this space with shells .... on time. In pursuance of this concept, the MYRIAD .....
    2. Don
      Don 31 March 2018 14: 31
      0
      Quote: ZVO
      It’s just a shame for those who seem to have a stupid education too, and they easily accept such dirt and believe in

      Your comment as a whole seems to be the result of a surge in the emotions of an offended person. In a dispute between an intelligent person who must rely on facts and an unintelligent person who can carry any nonsense, the second wins. If you do not agree with the author, then you can write your article, giving your arguments in it, which was done by the respected Damantsev after the article of the respected K. Sivsky.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 31 March 2018 16: 27
        +2
        Quote: Donskoy
        If you do not agree with the author, then you can write your article, giving your arguments in it, which was done by the respected Damantsev after the article of the respected K. Sivsky.

        Sorry, but writing articles based on school books and drawing conclusions that should be reinforced by school instruction is nonsense!
  9. olegstaz
    olegstaz 30 March 2018 10: 18
    0
    to strike with "daggers" on the radar of ships and finish them off with the help of X32 does not present any problems ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 10: 44
      +7
      Quote: olegstaz
      to strike with "daggers" on the radar of ships and finish them off with the help of X32 does not present any problems ...

      Absolutely.
      Only in the real world do the Chinese with their anti-ship BRDS have only an expensive cartoon and a plate 50x300 meters on the ground, into which Trident will fall.
      Russia has a cheap cartoon and that’s it.
      1. Mikhail Zubkov
        Mikhail Zubkov 30 March 2018 21: 03
        +2
        In real life, the attack of the Amer’s AUG will look very different. They will find it at least for 1000 km, and the maximum - when the aircraft carrier leaves the base. But it’s just not goal # 1 - from the air it will only be damaged in the process of suppressing strike cruisers and destroyers of the URO (goal # 1), it will lose speed and then it will be finished off with missile torpedoes from submarines. The attacking MIXED air group will have 10-12 sides, including a pair of Tu-95 or Tu-160 strategists, 4 Tu-22 pieces and 4-6 Mig-31 pieces. They will have a lot of attacking means, and different ones, they will attack from 3 - 4 directions. Estimatedly, the first wave drowns a couple of cruisers and destroyers and damages the rest of the ships, including the aircraft carrier. The second wave, synchronized with the attack of the submarines, kills the remnants of the AUG.
        1. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 30 March 2018 21: 05
          0
          Here is such a cheap cartoon to liars and aggressors will be shot.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 21: 06
          +6
          Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
          In real life, the attack of Amer’s AUG will look very different

          Is it you retelling a new book in the genre of "combat science fiction"? I do not really follow them.
        3. Lucy
          Lucy 30 March 2018 22: 55
          +3
          Michael, what kind of tactics textbook do you read? You are from the BP department of the aviation association, the flagship missile of the NK compound, or just the beginning. associations? Attacking means, the first wave, - what are these new terms by definition. And the formulas, according to the calculation of the outfit of forces, with the given P remained the same? Michael, and when will the YES be passed back to the non-existent MPA? You probably think that flying on a group BPASP over the sea (reference-free month) is like 2 fingers on asphalt? Study the PRLK of aircraft, and do not forget who and how launches the RC on a moving MC, or a motionless MC in skerry (fjords) areas, and on a motionless SC. Start with the simplest, - the work order of the navigator on the PNA with the Tu-22M3. repeat
          1. igobel
            igobel April 1 2018 19: 47
            0
            Hmm, when was YES in MRA ??
        4. ssergn
          ssergn 31 March 2018 10: 10
          0
          You forgot about pl with RCC - granites, calibers / onyx.
        5. igobel
          igobel April 1 2018 19: 45
          0
          Maybe three cars are enough?
      2. ssergn
        ssergn 31 March 2018 10: 08
        +1
        "Only in the real world do the Chinese, with their anti-ship BRDS, have only an expensive cartoon and an 50x300 meter plate on the ground into which Trident will fall.
        Russia has a cheap cartoon and that’s it. "

        Blessed is he who believes.
        Peace to you.
  10. konstantin68
    konstantin68 30 March 2018 10: 58
    +4
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Russia has a cheap cartoon and that’s it.

    Have you already learned to shoot video such as a maneuvering warhead? Then to you in Hollywood!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 20: 59
      +3
      Enough to learn how to rent a ship
  11. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 30 March 2018 11: 15
    +8
    One thing is interesting to me ... in the article the interception of anti-ship missiles by forces exclusively from naval air defense systems is long and hard And suddenly a conclusion is made:
    The result of the above is not difficult to summarize: if the chance to send to the bottom an American reinforced aircraft carrier (one aircraft carrier of the Gerald Ford class, one cruiser Ticonderoga and 1-2 destroyers Arleigh Burke) with 3-30 anti-ship missiles X-36 there is enough large (about 32), it is unlikely that it will be possible to destroy the British AUG as part of Queen Elizabeth and the four destroyers of the Dering air defense class due to the highest flight-technical parameters of the Aster-0,6 missiles.

    One question - where did another 300-500 kilometers of the AUG air defense zone, which are closed by the forces of the carrier-based air group, have gone? And in general - can the carrier of promising anti-ship missiles reach the launch range?
    1. Anchonsha
      Anchonsha 30 March 2018 12: 01
      +2
      And the aviation of garbage collectors (that is, small-shavens) from the AUG can rise to the same height that the carriers of our Kizhaly rise to? Here is the answer.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 30 March 2018 12: 54
        +5
        Quote: Anchonsha
        And the aviation of garbage collectors (that is, small-shavens) from the AUG can rise to the same height that the carriers of our Kizhaly rise to? Here is the answer.


        Do you really know anything about AUG Britons and their weapons?

        Question 1. And the F-35 aircraft will not stand on aircraft carriers?
        Question2 And will these aircraft not be armed with AMRAAM rockets or Meteors?

        Well, the question is 3. To what height can a carrier with a suspended dagger rise?
        If the dimensions and weight of a product of 4 tons are known?
        And yes, the installation of dagger suspension nodes completely excludes the carrier from direct and potential interceptors ... Yes, I’m talking about the Mig-31.
        It becomes useless for aerial combat.
        It becomes completely toothless.
        1. lance
          lance 30 March 2018 19: 45
          +2
          Is it that his radar is turned off with a dagger or the payload of 6-9 tons immediately subsided, that he can’t grab a pair of in-in missiles? he with a rocket against the satellite pulls another 4 in-in
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 30 March 2018 21: 07
            +1
            Quote: Lance
            Is it that his radar is turned off with a dagger or the payload of 6-9 tons immediately subsided, that he can’t grab a pair of in-in missiles? he with a rocket against the satellite pulls another 4 in-in


            Have you seen the photo of the Mig-31 prepared for the dagger? Take a look ...
            1. lance
              lance 30 March 2018 21: 16
              +1
              I've already seen enough of this, it's the same test. the wings as they carried their own, so they will carry and will be about 1,5m. Have you been in trials? he dragged a rocket against isz from 2,5m, and it will be more.
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 31 March 2018 17: 12
                0
                Quote: Lance
                I've already seen enough of this, it's the same test. the wings as they carried their own, so they will carry and will be about 1,5m. Have you been in trials? he dragged a rocket against isz from 2,5m, and it will be more.


                Will not.
                Modified aircraft.
                All nodes have been removed from it.

                Contact rocket - no one dragged. She never left the layout stage ...
                Do not repeat this garbage that we had an anti-satellite missile.
                She was not there.
                In fact - it was not.
                And more.
                Contact did not mean cutting the fuselage. which is mandatory with the Dagger.
                Learn the materiel again.
                1. lance
                  lance 31 March 2018 18: 47
                  0
                  Are you always talking about yours about girls? the conversation was about speed and loads. 31 ishim. to launch a 3-stage rocket weighing 9,12 tons, it accelerated to 2,5 m.
                  the dagger is half lighter, smaller. drags him not ishim, but the usual converted 31bm and pendants are converted there without problems, but with time. as for the case, then there is no big alteration. dagger drowned in recess for 4 long-range missiles
  12. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 30 March 2018 11: 29
    +3
    Probably, I am known as a conservative, but in the old manner I trust the military expert K. Sivkov more than the freelancer at HE E. Damantsev.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 30 March 2018 12: 56
      +3
      Quote: ButchCassidy
      Probably, I am known as a conservative, but in the old manner I trust the military expert K. Sivkov more than the freelancer at HE E. Damantsev.


      Sivkov’s expertise is the same as that of Fengelhauer - i.e. self-proclaimed ...
      1. Butchcassidy
        Butchcassidy 30 March 2018 15: 19
        +1
        Quote: ZVO
        Sivkov’s expertise is the same as that of Fengelhauer - i.e. self-proclaimed ...

        I am the Doctors of Military Sciences and Corresponding Member of RARAN published on the Military Industrial Courier, where I mostly read and trust Sivkov.

        Your opinion about the "self-styled expert Sivkov" is about nothing. No offense.

        PS Who is Fengelhauer - I do not know.
        1. faradien
          faradien 31 March 2018 04: 27
          0
          Quote: ButchCassidy
          PS Who is Fengelhauer - I don’t know

          Pavel Fengelhauer, from Liberostav, read it in Novaya Gazeta, who is also an iksperdt.
          Obviously, the true performance characteristics of the X-32 are not known to us for certain. So neither Sivkov nor Damantsev can calculate the real alignment when meeting with these or those missile defense systems.
          From what just comes to mind right away: And what, on the X-32 you can’t make a coating that reduces radar signature? Or, if the Iskander warhead maneuvers in such a way that no missile defense can defeat it, that the X-32 warhead cannot be made the same? Yes, and the energy of maneuvering the X-32 on the march is also reliably unknown ... Obviously - we just don’t know everything
          1. Butchcassidy
            Butchcassidy April 2 2018 13: 35
            0
            Quote: faradien
            Obviously, the true performance characteristics of the X-32 are not known to us for certain. So neither Sivkov nor Damantsev can calculate the real alignment when meeting with these or those missile defense systems.
            From what just comes to mind right away: And what, on the X-32 you can’t make a coating that reduces radar signature? Or, if the Iskander warhead maneuvers in such a way that no missile defense can defeat it, that the X-32 warhead cannot be made the same? Yes, and the energy of maneuvering the X-32 on the march is also reliably unknown ... Obviously - we just don’t know everything

            It's about making changes to a standard product, including in terms of coverage - this is a question, as they say, not on our salary)))
            If about the article as a whole, then any research and testing cannot directly predict the outcome of a particular combat use of the product, this is not their task.
            K. Sivkov conducted his research using a specific methodology, if you, or Damantsev, or someone else have questions about the method, then again there is a question for Sivkov, but Damantsev in his article does not raise the question of methodology. He points to certain factors that, according to the author, are not taken into account by Sivkov. But we do not know how the study was generally conducted, what was taken into account, what was not taken into account, and if it was not taken into account, then why.
            On the whole, my idea is this: Sivkov is an expert with a specialized education and a degree in Doctor of Economics, a corresponding member of RARAN, who is Damantsev, what kind of education does he have, etc. - This is a great mystery.

            There is also doubt about the "publishing house" referred to by Damantsev - svpressa, while Sivkov mostly publishes his calculations on "VPK" vpk-news.ru.

            That's all.
            1. faradien
              faradien April 3 2018 01: 54
              0
              Quote: ButchCassidy
              It's about making changes to a standard product, including in terms of coverage - this is a question, as they say, not on our salary)))

              The point is that if certain features were successfully implemented on some products, then, quite possibly, they were also implemented on other products with similar tasks.
              Of course, Sivkov, as a Doctor of Economics and so forth inspires more confidence. But for accurate modeling in such cases, just a degree in specialized topics is not enough. Tolerance required. Obviously, they both do not possess it. For sim, it's just general impressions stretched over numbers hi
              1. Butchcassidy
                Butchcassidy April 3 2018 14: 06
                0
                Quote: faradien
                Obviously, both of them do not possess it.

                From what is this obvious?))) Do you have information on those that are admitted or not admitted to information of special importance?))
                1. faradien
                  faradien April 5 2018 00: 30
                  0
                  I think you carefully read the article. There is not a word, for example, about the capabilities of the onboard equipment of a missile's REP. And without taking its capabilities into account, it is impossible to determine the outcome of a real confrontation between an anti-missile missile. And such information is available only by admission. By the way, the EPR is also given only estimated wink
                  And yet, yes ... In Sivkov’s article, there is no such data either request smile
                  1. Butchcassidy
                    Butchcassidy April 5 2018 11: 07
                    0
                    Again - back to the questions: what problem did Sivkov set himself when he wrote this article? You already go to the question of evaluating the combat effectiveness of a product. And this question can give an answer combat analysis only.

                    And it’s clear to the hedgehog that such a number of factors that can not be taken into account affect the combat use that it is virtually impossible to simulate without any conventions.
                    And even a specific military application cannot talk about the effectiveness of weapons, such an analysis can be done only on the basis of the averaged results of various applications.

                    From my point of view, Sivkov solves the comparison problem based on open data possible or probable outcome of the combat use of the product all else being equal.

                    With his task (I'm sure)) K. Sivkov copes.
                    1. faradien
                      faradien April 10 2018 01: 36
                      0
                      Quote: ButchCassidy
                      You already go to the question of evaluating the combat effectiveness of a product. And only combat analysis can answer this question.

                      Just for information: Before the combat use of the product, even at the design stage, conduct a mat. modeling taking into account all the available parameters, and och serious you know. Its results, it is believed, are close to what they then receive in practice. Otherwise, they would not have done it.
  13. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 30 March 2018 11: 46
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: Bongo
    The source of information do not share?

    In-in! As I read this opus about “mixed fuel based on RDX” and “detonation rocket engine”, my eyes immediately became like ... belay Sources of information in the studio!


    Typically, these sources of particleboard. In particular, textbooks on the technical training of the commanders of certain units. There is nothing surprising in what was said. About the liquid propellant rocket engine do not know if detonation is used there, but about solid fuel everything is absolutely true. It is based on hexogen or octagen. In Needles For example, OKFAL is used as fuel. It is immediately obvious to a specialist that this is a mixed explosive consisting of Octogen, phlegmatizers and aluminum powder.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 31 March 2018 00: 20
      +4
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Typically, these sources of chipboard

      If a person is not able to bring sources of information, it says one thing - he is a liar.
      1. faradien
        faradien 31 March 2018 04: 32
        +1
        Exactly, to sue this ... lol In British! wassat
        You still would have presented claims to GDP for failure to disclose the source of information laughing
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 31 March 2018 04: 35
          +1
          Quote: faradien
          Similarly, the court to file such a thing ..

          You can submit, since there is a desire ... but they taught me to answer for their words. It is a pity that not everyone succeeds.
          1. faradien
            faradien 31 March 2018 04: 45
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            but I was taught to answer for my words. It’s a pity that not everyone succeeds.

            So what about claims to GDP? ... wink
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 31 March 2018 04: 49
              0
              Quote: faradien
              So how about claims to GDP?

              Yes, you are a provocateur, my friend ... lol However, I do not answer for others, if someone does not fulfill his promises - this is on his conscience.
              1. faradien
                faradien 31 March 2018 05: 05
                0
                With all due respect to you and your merits, just do not judge so categorically hi
                Quote: Bongo
                If a person is not able to bring sources of information, it says one thing - he is a liar.
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 31 March 2018 06: 12
                  0
                  Quote: faradien
                  With all due respect to you and your merits, just do not judge so categorically

                  Thank you so highly for my modest merits. hi But in my opinion, if you are unable to confirm your words with reliable sources, it is better to remain silent. Lying without it too much. hi
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 1 2018 03: 01
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        If a person is not able to bring sources of information, it says one thing - he is a liar.

        Do not pay attention! Man, obviously, "heard the ring, but does not know where he is!" What does it have to do with "RDX-based solid fuel" when it comes to liquid X-32?
      3. Timx
        Timx April 1 2018 06: 32
        +3
        Excuse me, Sergey, can I ask you a question?

        I speak to myself personally. I was carried away with the topic of hypersound from school, after Bauman MVTU I worked on the 117C engine for the Su-35, then with a 30 '' product (T-50). Then they called for help with the engine for the so-called "zircons" among the people. Information (photo / video test / telemetry) has accumulated darkness. And what do I need to dump all this on the forum to refute the obvious criticism of the next "Damantsev"? Just to make local boobies happy?

        Then one month ago, a local type asked me for a source of information. Something like 'source: eyes / ears' answered him. ''
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Timx
            Timx April 1 2018 08: 38
            +1
            Thank you for responding, Eugene. I had hardly looked in here before. One year ago, with a relative (he is a humanist financier-internationalist (MGIMO), although in childhood he built improvised rockets with railways on the balcony) I heard something interesting in the conversation. In response to the question "where did the data come from," he pointed to VO. At these New Year holidays I decided to see what’s here, but how ... Sadness, sadness, of course. But sometimes interesting material slips through. I am pleased to read your series of articles "Joint post-war European combat aircraft projects" (I myself have a significant part of the machines in question in the form of stand models on the shelves), thanks. good
            1. Bongo
              Bongo April 1 2018 09: 07
              +3
              Quote: TimX
              Thank you for answering, Eugene

              I'm not Eugene, especially not Daman. request But about European projects, this is really mine. hi
              1. Timx
                Timx April 1 2018 10: 24
                +1
                Please forgive me, Sergey (I usually double-check every comment before posting, and here ... there’s a direct Freudian clause with these Eugene))) I’m writing here in the early afternoon (I have Moscow time).
            2. Timx
              Timx April 1 2018 09: 25
              0
              And as for the articles, here is the last one that Yandex suggested, an excellent, in my opinion, example of the popularization of aircraft, and on your topic, by the way.

              http://naukatehnika.com/muzej-aviaczii-i-kosmonav
              tiki-le-burzhe-chast-11.html
              1. Timx
                Timx April 1 2018 09: 30
                0
                Doesn’t start the link, can be found in the search by the name `` Le Bourget Museum of Aviation and Cosmonautics. Part 11 ".
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 31 March 2018 08: 33
      +2
      Regarding the detonation of the liquid propellant rocket engine, "solid fuel based on RDX" I already gave the answer on this page to Mr. Compasure ...

      Dear Alexander! I was familiar with the recipes for “mixed fuel based on RDX” even before the publication of the article about the “updated ,, Storm ,, ..." (only there RDX was replaced by HMX ...). For example: 1..Alumin.powder, perchlorate ammonium, octogen, nitroglycerin, other ballistic additives - mixed solid rocket (so-called "detailed") 2 fuel. Nitroglycerin, octogen, colloxylin, ballistic
      f additives-ballistic solid rocket fuel ("detonation-capable") .... Similar detonation-propellant rocket fuels are also used as "adaptive charges" in military missiles, active-rocket artillery shells ...
      But these are all “solid rocket fuels”! And where is the liquid X-32?
      Further ..... The detonation rocket engine - the "know-how" of the 21 century ... exists in the form of a demonstration model .... there is no mass production of these engines! And here the serial X-32
  14. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 30 March 2018 11: 56
    0
    An interesting article, albeit a bit heavy for perception for a simple layman. It turns out that we need better carriers for our Daggers and Zircons, or so that there are more of them to destroy the country's warships - garbage bins (the so-called small Britain)
  15. Besmaster
    Besmaster 30 March 2018 11: 57
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: sanches-nk
    accelerate to the desired speed to start the scramjet,

    Oh, already the scramjet on Iskander appeared, as well!




    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: sanches-nk
    For Iskander, you will need to accelerate it to the desired speed to start the scramjet,

    Miles sorry! Wildly sorry! bully Reveal a terrible military secret wink : which version of Iskander has a scramjet? yes


    You guys when you enter the service of the State Department at least learn the cases of the Russian language. The author of the message that you quoted did not say that there is a scramjet on the iskander. We are talking about the fact that the MIG-31 gives the Dagger initial speed to launch the scramjet, and Iskander does not. Therefore, to launch the Dagger from Iskander, it will take something else that will give him this initial speed.

    You go to the embassy and report - you fell asleep on a misunderstanding of Russian speech.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 30 March 2018 13: 02
      +5
      Quote: BesMaster
      We are talking about the fact that the MIG-31 gives the Dagger initial speed to launch the scramjet, and Iskander does not. Therefore, to launch the Dagger from Iskander, it will take something else that will give him this initial speed.

      You go to the embassy and report - you fell asleep on a misunderstanding of Russian speech.


      You now generally wrote something?
      The fact that Iskander after the launch site can reach speeds of 5-6M - which is much more than the maximum possible for the MiG-31 with a suspended Dagger 1,5M ...
      And you talk about something?
      And you still write about the embassy?

      Write your nonsense better on the fences, they will not answer you there ...
      1. lance
        lance 30 March 2018 19: 47
        0
        you need to stop the nonsense. at what height is 1,5m?
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 30 March 2018 21: 12
          +3
          Quote: Lance
          you need to stop the nonsense. at what height is 1,5m?


          Once again, study the materiel prepared for the Dagger Mig-31 ...
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 30 March 2018 15: 06
      +3
      Quote: BesMaster
      You go to the embassy and report - you fell asleep on a misunderstanding of Russian speech

      Well, why, at the embassy!? They won’t let us in anyway. No. ! We are already at school for retake recourse ... and the "author of the message" - right to the encryption department! soldier Without exams and probation! yes
  16. Laruss
    Laruss 30 March 2018 13: 35
    +2
    There is no limit to my admiration !!! Of course, the new weapons are scary., BUT .., to stop the stench from the west, all means are good. New weapons, protection not only for Russia., But for the entire world community.
  17. Mikhail Anokhin_2
    Mikhail Anokhin_2 30 March 2018 13: 50
    0
    Manenko cold on the head of the Uri-Patriots!
  18. Looking for
    Looking for 30 March 2018 14: 43
    -1
    Long-range tactical missile. It's like a small ship with a large displacement. Or small-caliber guns of caliber 152-203 mm.
  19. Indifferent
    Indifferent 30 March 2018 15: 04
    0
    Mine is all weird! How so. Amer’s tests in 80% are tailored to be successful. With sudden attacks, everything is much worse. Further, I inform the tankers that the crews of the lower ships should be kept for weeks at readiness number 1. They need to eat, poop, sleep, at least a little, and so on. As a rule, air strikes and missiles are sudden. Well, in any way, many in the crew do not have time to rush to the military post with a push. Therefore, all that the author has done here is to be "divided in half." By the way, I read somewhere that TU 22M will also carry Daggers.
  20. 75 hammer
    75 hammer 30 March 2018 15: 31
    +1
    I already wrote in comments of articles by this author that attacking weapons are used in the complex and X-32, only one component, and the air defense of large ship formations also consists of a complex where the listed missiles are also only one component. Comparisons are very incorrect, for example, Merkava with the AZ complex and without it two different tanks, and RPG-7 and Vampire, in the presence of a tandem warhead, pierce each more than 800 mm behind the dynamic armor. To confirm the characteristics of weapons, tests are carried out in conditions close to combat! And compare only the performance characteristics, for children who are measured by pipettes! and about 9000 km / h I’m very surprised, usually the author very well lists the performance characteristics of wiki products, I read with pleasure. This would be energy, but on the right track. I give a tip: simulate the work of the Patriot in conditions close to combat (with the Pelena electronic warfare, with an attack from a radio horizon hitting a missile pointing at a detection station, but you need to shoot down the Iskander maneuvering unit, etc.) and give a chance of defeat one rocket. And for the article plus, I like the style of presentation.
  21. Operator
    Operator 30 March 2018 17: 23
    +1
    The article has lost its relevance since March 1 of 2018.

    The Tu-22 missile system with the X-32 with the 5M rocket speed and 40 flight altitude will not take off for km — it was replaced by the MiG-31 Dagger complex with Iskander-M with the 10M rocket speed and altitude 300 km.

    Moreover, the GDP in its election speech designated the range of the “Dagger” not as 2000 km (1000 km combat radius of the MiG-31 and 1000 km, the flight range of Iskander-M with high-altitude air launch at 3M speed), but as above 2000 km . Most likely, the detachable warhead of Iskander-M weighing 780 kg received its own rocket engine, and the weight of the 100 ktn warhead decreased from 480 to 160 kg (nuclear charge, ASG and maneuvering engines). The flight range of the two-stage Iskander-M BB can be estimated in 2000 km with a maximum flight height of 500 km.

    The Iskander-M flight profile, starting from an air carrier, when firing at maximum range, includes the active section of the first stage trajectory (altitude from 18 to 70 km), the active section of the second stage trajectory (altitude from 70 to 100 km), passive ballistic section BB flight in space (from 100 to 500 km and descent to 100 km), the aerodynamic section of the flight in the atmosphere (from 100 to 10 km) and the gas-dynamic section of the flight in the atmosphere (from 10 to 0 km).

    Most of the BB’s flight path passes in space, where the BB is protected from radar and infrared detection using a stealth cover. After entering the atmosphere at an altitude of 100, the BB is protected from interception by anti-aircraft maneuvering (using aerodynamic rudders and maneuvering engines). Moreover, in dense atmospheric layers at an altitude of 10 and less than km, the available overloads at the BB will be equal to or greater than the overloads of anti-missile systems.

    The maximum BB speed of the two-stage Ikander-M will be on the order of 15M, including medium speed - 3М, first stage speed - 10М. The reaction time of the “Dagger” complex from the moment of receiving external target designation for the AUG can be estimated in 75 minutes (flight of the carrier to the launch point of the rocket - 60 minutes, flight of the rocket to the target - 15 minutes).

    During this time, the AUG will move away from the external target designation site at 50 km, which requires BB homing at the last stages of the flight. At an altitude of 150 km, the BB drops the stealth cover and turns on the receiver in the passive AUG radio direction-finding mode, after which at an altitude of 100 km it enters the atmosphere at 15M speed and turns off the receiver in connection with external plasma formation. After anti-aircraft maneuvering and a speed drop to 5М at an altitude of 10 km, the BB again turns on the ASWG already in active mode and is guided to the radar circuit of the aircraft carrier stored in the ASWG computer memory.

    In short: AUG has no reception against scrap (ballistic missiles with maneuvering BB) bully
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 30 March 2018 21: 42
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      range of flight "Iskander-M" with high-altitude air launch at a speed of 3M


      Have you seen this photo?



      What do you think, with such holes in the center section, with such a huge missile on the suspension - can the Mig-31 get 3M ???

      Something seems to me that he will understand into pieces ....
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  22. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 30 March 2018 19: 49
    0
    Well, what can I say, it is necessary to develop and develop. The main thing is that there is an understanding of the direction of movement.
  23. dimann271
    dimann271 30 March 2018 20: 47
    +1
    Eugene, are you able to?
  24. Dmitri Kopilenko
    Dmitri Kopilenko 30 March 2018 21: 05
    +4
    Mr. Damantsev, writing this huge article on the topic: "Who is who?" (Is this article not custom-made?) - You voluntarily or involuntarily throw firewood at the bonfire of hatred fanned by the Russian leadership. Putin was the first to throw the first spark in this fire. Now the fire is blazing to the sky. And to heaven grows a new generation of haters. It would be better if you gathered civil courage and wrote about at least one of more than 20 MILLION poor Russians.
    1. SETTGF
      SETTGF 30 March 2018 21: 55
      +1
      Do not write "stupid nonsense" about the poor Russians ... You are more poor in your spirit and consciousness! And do not exaggerate V.V. Putin, a couch strategist ... the human-independents are you, who have started waking up games with weapons - with actions and threats in Syria!
      1. SETTGF
        SETTGF 30 March 2018 22: 06
        +1
        The clerical misunderstanding is correct! And if you do not "understand" (I suppose you knowingly pervert) the meaning of the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin, then we regret your low intelligence and more!
        1. SETTGF
          SETTGF 30 March 2018 22: 19
          0
          Operator! I can not agree with you about your algorithm, and especially about the estimated speed of the Dagger at the final stage of 5M - there is the possibility of interception ...
          1. SETTGF
            SETTGF 30 March 2018 22: 22
            0
            I suggest plasma control methods - the algorithm will be different ... Good luck!
          2. Operator
            Operator 30 March 2018 23: 50
            0
            I already explained in my first post: a maneuvering combat unit with anti-missile steering engines cannot be intercepted by definition - its available overload is always half the necessary minimum (two times) to intercept such an AP.

            Another thing is if several anti-ballistic missiles are fired at a maneuvering BB, only then can it be intercepted.

            But in this case, the iron rule also applies - there is no reception against the crowbar: not one carrier aircraft but a couple is involved in the attack on the aircraft carrier, with the first Ikander-M rocket launching 30 seconds earlier than the second, the first BB at the entrance to the atmosphere explodes at an altitude of 100 km, the EMP from the 100 ctn of a thermonuclear explosion suppresses minutes at 5 (at least) AUG radars, so the second AP reaches the aircraft carrier without any opposition from the AUG ABM.
            1. Timx
              Timx April 1 2018 07: 54
              +1
              In order to explain something to someone, you yourself need to grow wiser for a start. Success wink
        2. ssergn
          ssergn 31 March 2018 10: 28
          0
          Do you think he listened to the speech of the President? He has a different task.
    2. ssergn
      ssergn 31 March 2018 10: 26
      +1
      Xnumx beggars sweetheart? Uh ... about 20 / 1 of the country's population. Wow, but we didn’t know ..
  25. Operator
    Operator 30 March 2018 22: 46
    +4
    Quote: ZVO
    What do you think, with such holes in the center section, with such a huge missile on the suspension - will the MiG-31 be able to type 3M

    I don’t think - I’m listening to the sound recording as part of the video of the experimental (still experimental) launch of the Iskander-M from the MiG-31, in which the voice of the aircraft’s on-board auto-recorder is heard: “2,8М”.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 30 March 2018 22: 55
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      I don’t think - I listen to the sound recording as part of the video of the experimental (still experimental) launch of the Iskander-M from the MiG-31, in which the voice of the DVR is heard: "2,8M




      If you started to hear voices and refuse to think, better pause ....
      1. Operator
        Operator 30 March 2018 23: 37
        +2
        https://youtu.be/BLR4e9UzbMo

        "Deb.ly", - S. Lavrov (C)
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 31 March 2018 17: 09
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          https://youtu.be/BLR4e9UzbMo

          "Deb.ly", - S. Lavrov (C)


          Is there 2.8M there?
          Can you tell me what are the maximum speeds of airplanes with suspensions?
          With small pendants from 4 half-sunk missiles in the fuselage?
          It seems to me that it's still smaller.
          And here is a huge blank with a torn fuselage and 2.8M ???

          It seems to me that someone "played with omnipotence" ...
          1. Operator
            Operator 31 March 2018 18: 34
            +2
            The modified MiG-31 with silicate glazing in the afterburner accelerates to 3400 km / h (more than 3M).

            An empty MiG weighs 21,8 tons, the fuel supply in the internal tanks is 17,3 tons, and the maximum take-off weight is 46,7 tons. With full fueling and Iskander-M on an external sling, the take-off weight is 42,9 tons, and the flight weight at the time of Iskander-M launch is about 34,4 tons.

            The maximum engine thrust on the afterburner is 31 ton, i.e. the thrust-to-weight ratio allows the MiG-31 to accelerate to the 18M at an optimum altitude of 3 km even with the Iskander-M rocket on external sling.

            With Mig-31 as part of the Dagger complex, four ventral ejection ejection devices for air-to-air missiles were dismantled, and Iskander-M suspension brackets were brought into the vacant places for their attachment. In the process of trial operation, aluminum drifts - cowls have not yet been installed in the dismantling sites of the ACS, after the complex is put into service, the drills will be installed.
            1. sabotage
              sabotage 31 March 2018 22: 18
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              In the process of trial operation, aluminum drifts - cowls have not yet been installed in the dismantling sites of the ACS; after the complex is put into service, the drills will be installed.

              And why put them if and so 3M speed is achieved? And why not put them right away? To construct for a long time? Is it difficult to make? Nonsense.
              1. Operator
                Operator April 1 2018 08: 51
                0
                We were shown the very first Iskander-M air launches prepared in haste - by the date 1 of March this year.

                The Dagger complex itself was designed on paper back in the USSR at the Invincible Design Bureau.

                Iskander-M has the opportunity to develop:
                - Installation of a full-fledged second stage, similar to the Soviet Volga project;
                - installation of a compact detachable combat unit 0,3x3 m with its own engine (hidden under the fairing of the current warhead) according to the Russian patent.
                1. sabotage
                  sabotage April 1 2018 09: 47
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  We were shown the very first Iskander-M air launches prepared in haste - by the date 1 of March this year.

                  That is, a set of CDs for remaking the MIG was developed. On the rocket control system. It was fabricated, factory mounted. But when it was necessary to make a pair of cladding parts, their metal ran out, the laser broke, the bending machine swelled, and the rivets were handed over for repair under warranty? Fima, do not make me brains!
                  1. Operator
                    Operator April 1 2018 10: 37
                    +2
                    It is possible that they used the design documentation for the air start of the Oka missile OTRK, developed back in the USSR.

                    By the methods of implementation in metal - you, damn it, as if you weren’t living in Russia laughing

                    When staging the ARC "Dagger" in the series "there will be a squirrel for you, there will be a whistle" (c).
                    1. sabotage
                      sabotage April 1 2018 10: 49
                      0
                      I do not see any difficulty in manufacturing these parts. There costs thousands to a maximum of 200. In addition to the option that there will be no 3M, and the rudders of the rocket enter too deep into the belly.
                2. igobel
                  igobel April 1 2018 19: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  The Dagger complex itself was designed on paper back in the USSR at the Invincible Design Bureau.

                  Where does the information come from?
                  1. ZVO
                    ZVO April 2 2018 17: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: igobel
                    Quote: Operator
                    The Dagger complex itself was designed on paper back in the USSR at the Invincible Design Bureau.

                    Where does the information come from?

                    This is the Operator. He has had an alternative universe for 3-4 years in a row ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Timx
      Timx April 1 2018 08: 07
      0
      [/ quote] The voice of the on-board auto-recorder is heard ... [quote]
      . Well, well, listen, listen while the orderlies are stuck in traffic))) good
  26. Yura Ehlakov
    Yura Ehlakov 30 March 2018 23: 00
    +3
    Ay guys I read this article very carefully. Now listen to me, I'm certainly not a great specialist, but such a pain in the neck that he wrote is just tin. Where did he get this data, is he either a project engineer or a designer, ultimately he is working on its creation. Wake up from where this type of data. Yes, I will write to you on the fence x y - and there is an angry dog ​​and you believe it? Well then you become like Washington and NATO, they farted and those said crap. Remember such revolutions do not prevent anyone from secrecy of the development of this project. So this is his fountains, it’s just not clear where he read all these nonsense. Believe me, my very good friends are working on such projects, and not one will say where and under no circumstances about their work. I do not believe this comrade is not a jot. What can I say Anderson just resting in comparison with him. I read the comments and everyone indulges, as if all the experts, well, just some developers, well, you are not a KB if you are so smart. It’s just a terrible article, I’ve met such scribbling more than once and am amazed at his calculative mind, he’s not writing fairy tales but building rockets. Guys, I'm sure that a large number of readers do not believe in these tales. Thank you for your attention and understanding !.
    1. Timx
      Timx April 1 2018 08: 07
      0
      I fully support, bravo !!! good (like the good half of the creators of this rocket)
      PS
      Perhaps I’ll print it and take it to my colleagues to Dubna’s “Rainbow '', let them hang it on the wall in the PR department))))
      1. dali
        dali April 11 2018 10: 31
        0
        If you so agree with this person:
        Quote: Yura Ehlakov
        Believe me, my very good friends are working on such projects, and not one will say where and under no circumstances about their work.

        Then to your comments of faith zero (from the word complete):
        Quote: TimX
        I was carried away with the topic of hypersound from school, after Bauman MVTU I worked on the 117C engine for the Su-35, then with a 30 '' product (T-50). Then they called for help with the engine for the so-called "zircons" among the people.
        1. Timx
          Timx April 11 2018 15: 38
          0
          I agree only with this specific user comment "Yura Ehlakov (Ratnik)", and only wink . And then everyone is free to fantasize to the extent of his depravity good. All the best!
    2. dali
      dali April 11 2018 10: 25
      0
      1) I can’t say anything about Damantsev or Sivkov - because they both fit your definition:
      Quote: Yura Ehlakov
      Where did he get this data, is he either a project engineer or a designer, ultimately he is working on its creation.

      2) You are not only
      Quote: Yura Ehlakov
      I'm certainly not a great specialist
      but also an illiterate person ...
      projecti laughing
      computational laughing
      fountains laughing
      1. Timx
        Timx April 11 2018 15: 49
        0
        Quote: Dali
        to your comments
        - you are our literate laughing
        1. dali
          dali April 11 2018 16: 05
          0
          Indicate the correct spelling of this word, as well as the source that this is so ... belay superconstructor for all armaments, immediately you are our ... laughing

          And so, in general and in particular, one can quite argue about the spelling of the given word ... since it (the spelling is correct) is not unambiguous ... which is not close to the "literacy" of the above citizen laughing
          1. Timx
            Timx April 11 2018 19: 56
            0
            Sit down, 2 good You can take a cookie and relax a bit wink
            1. dali
              dali April 12 2018 10: 05
              0
              Oh ... another teacher drew ... laughing
  27. zhapin1944
    zhapin1944 31 March 2018 06: 25
    0
    How many guests under different flags. In vain you are scattered with your ideas and performance characteristics. Oh, nothing. In my time, they did not stroke the head for this.
  28. Vadim12
    Vadim12 31 March 2018 07: 54
    0
    o A lot of chatter and unnecessary reasoning. Landfill - the Mediterranean Sea. The real goals of the 6th US fleet. It is only necessary to launch the X-32 for one or more purposes. Then we will only find out whether the vaunted pro systems will fight off or not. Or themselves shy away. laughing
    1. Antares
      Antares 31 March 2018 19: 40
      +1
      Quote: Vadim12
      o A lot of chatter and unnecessary reasoning. Landfill - the Mediterranean Sea. The real goals of the 6th US fleet. It is only necessary to launch the X-32 for one or more purposes. Then we just find out whether the vaunted complexes about

      I'd rather uselessly chat and reason too much than someone who will turn our planet clean from civilization in order to test another theory ... laughing
      the author’s reasoning is interesting, but again, everything does not stand still ...
  29. Nevyatoy
    Nevyatoy April 1 2018 01: 33
    0
    Well then, I wish the author to be consistent. If the British can so easily deal with our X-32s with speeds of about 4 max, then it’s better for them to go into the sea-ocean with their antediluvian harpoons at a speed of 800 km / h. They will have even less chances. It turns out our fleet can they are not afraid of the word at all ...?
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. Vaska-cat
    Vaska-cat April 1 2018 09: 30
    0
    People, stop fighting. Bad end.
  32. evgeny68
    evgeny68 April 1 2018 17: 50
    0
    I'm not special. But I watched the dock. a film about the conflict over the Falkland Islands and was amazed how real hostilities differ from such articles. The British fleet was then more powerful than it is now and the Argentines drowned their ships with rusty bombs, they would have sank more and the bombs would not explode due to old age.
  33. igobel
    igobel April 1 2018 19: 51
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    If the dimensions and weight of a product of 4 tons are known?

    How are they known?
  34. Forever so
    Forever so April 1 2018 22: 17
    0
    Actually, it’s significant that American magazines such as Bulletin of the Pig for 2007 and so on are involved in the assessment of the Russian Armed Forces. Well, who else will truthfully write than a gentle partner, or rather a pig farmer knows all. And according to the most powerful British AUG, it is that which neither the strength nor the ability to advance from the ports of Britain can not. ?? In short, everyone is lying, boy!
  35. Compasure
    Compasure April 2 2018 00: 16
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Enough to learn how to rent a ship

    Tomogawk subsonic KR it can be photographed)) and try to photograph a hypersonic missile))
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 2 2018 02: 17
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Enough to learn how to rent a ship
  36. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov April 2 2018 10: 22
    0
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    There is a concept that advises filling this space with shells .... on time. In pursuance of this concept, the MYRIAD .....

    Another concept can also beats - the ships are loaded with shells and disables their air defense / missile defense. And then drown.
  37. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov April 2 2018 12: 53
    0
    The X-32 missile is made in the X-22 body and their geometric dimensions are completely identical. Due to the reduced warhead increased tank volume. Installed another more powerful engine. A new noise-protected radar-inertial guidance system with radio command correction and reference to the terrain (from a radio altimeter) has been installed. Instead of the autopilot, an automatic control system is installed.
  38. Compasure
    Compasure April 2 2018 15: 54
    0
    Quote: Falcon5555
    This “expert” does not understand that warheads cannot constantly “steer” and cannot know exactly when it is needed.

    What does it mean they can't steer constantly? What kind of warheads are you talking about? Incidentally, not about the "Vanguard"?
  39. Cresta999
    Cresta999 April 13 2018 13: 48
    +1
    So, equipped with an infrared sensor RIM-156B (SM-2 Block IVA) would have much greater potential for intercepting the X-32. Why? A missile launched in advance can detect and escort the X-32 anti-ship missile at a distance of several tens of kilometers, even before the moment when the sheer dive begins. The main guidance channel in this case will be assigned to an infrared sensor that can ideally operate in clean and cold layers of the stratosphere. The sensor will focus on the infrared signature of the wings and nose fairing X-32, red-hot from aerodynamic drag.

    And the missile interceptor, it must be understood, will not heat up to the same temperatures going at the same speed? And the sensor can somehow distinguish the X-32 against the background of its own warmed fairing ?!
  40. nnz226
    nnz226 2 May 2018 13: 52
    0
    A lot of different things are said about the reports on testing American air defense / missile defense missiles. Advertising and Hollywood is a good thing, but in real life, how was it ??? It is said that a ballistic missile warhead simulator was struck by the fact that it had a beacon on which the missile was aimed. Something I did not see a refutation of this statement ...