"Dagger" under the belly. Estimates of the new weapons for the MiG-31 ambiguous

89
Went well

Recall that during the recent message to the Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the existence of several ambitious weapons programs in the Russian Federation. Here and a rocket with a hypersonic planning cruise unit, and a cruise missile with a nuclear power plant, and an underwater vehicle "Poseidon." But most of all experts were interested in the X-47М2 “Dagger” rocket, which is positioned as hypersonic: MiG-31K is a carrier of its carrier, a special modification of the famous interceptor.



Interest is understandable. The message about the rocket was supplied with a spectacular video with its launch, as well as animation of the defeat of the enemy ship. The voiced characteristics also struck many: the speed of the rocket, according to the president, is 10 Makhov, and the range exceeds 2000 km. At the same time, the “Dagger” can maneuver on all flight segments, thereby ensuring effective overcoming of the enemy missile defense system.

A solid bid for success. Especially when you consider that the MiG-31 interceptor is capable of speeds up to 3000 km / h. This can significantly increase the reaction rate, if we draw an analogy, for example, with the use of "Dagger" from the board of strategic bombers or the long-range Tu-22М3.

It is not known, however, what speed limits are imposed by the use of the “Dagger” on external holders. But another thing is known. The MiG-31 interceptor, converted into the MiG-31K variant, is deprived of the possibility of the regular use of weapons of other types, including the latest long-range R-37 air-to-air missiles. Simply put, considering the MiG-31K as an interceptor is no longer possible. In front of us aviation strike complex, focused mainly on the defeat of surface targets. The logic, presumably, is clear. A missile with a warhead of 500 kg is almost guaranteed in the event of a hit will disable a ship of any class. Including the latest US aircraft carrier such as the Gerald R. Ford or the time-tested Nimitz.



Hypersound Course

Under the modern definition of "hypersonic weapon“Experts understand a cruise missile capable of moving most of its way, of the order of 80%, at a hypersonic speed. That is, with a speed of Mach number (M) above five. To maintain this speed, a hypersonic ramjet engine is used. A striking example is the American promising Boeing X-51: you can recognize it by the characteristic shape of the air intake. The Russian Zircon rocket, which, according to official data, is about to become part of the Navy’s arsenal, is about the same. And make the American air defense completely ineffective.

But this is all in theory. In practice, the creators of hypersonic weapons face very serious difficulties, which, according to some experts, it is very difficult to overcome. When flying at hypersonic speed, a plasma is formed at the surface of the rocket, which literally envelops the apparatus, which has a huge impact on the operation of navigation systems, effectively knocking the rocket confused. This may not be an obstacle when attacking stationary targets, but when attacking naval targets, albeit relatively sedentary, an adjustment is necessary in the final leg of the flight.



According to available data, the X-47М2 product has an inertial navigation system with the possibility of adjustments from the GLONASS system, the AEW and the optical homing head. But all this does not solve the problem of missile guidance in the final segment of the trajectory before hitting the target (subject to flight at hypersonic speed). Moreover, as far as can be judged, neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China have so far coped with the existing challenges of this kind. Although actively working in this direction.

Iskander 2.0

So what is the new weapon of Russia? Is this really a breakthrough, or is it just the offspring of official propaganda? Simply put, the Dagger rocket was misunderstood. Partly to blame the media, actively picked up the official point of view. In practice, the Dagger is a fairly powerful air-launched ballistic missile that poses a threat to a number of targets. It is not a revolutionary hypersonic weapon because of:

1. The absence of a hypersonic ramjet engine.
2. Unsolved (as far as can be judged) fundamental problems associated with rocket guidance at hypersonic speed.


In more detail, we have an airborne Iskander in front of us. For example, the specialists of the well-known Western edition "Air & Cosmos" wrote about the relationship with the ground-based complex in the article "Le Kinzhal Devoile". You can also recall the very controversial in every sense, but read and discussed The National Interest. And one of its permanent authors, Dave Majumdar, who adheres to the same position.

Most often, X-47М2 is considered as an aviation version of the Iskander-M 9М723 rocket with an 480 km range. Of course, it makes no sense to equate these missiles. The aviation variant did, in one way or another, have had to be greatly modernized, and much more so than the carrier aircraft. It is known that 9М723 has a high flight speed - 2100 m / s, however, it falls to the target 700-800 m / s. In other words, before hitting a target, a rocket has a high supersonic, but not hypersonic speed. It is likely that aeroballistic "Dagger" has similar characteristics. In other words, ideologically, it is closer to the Soviet air-based X-15 rocket than to the American X-51 or to the semi-mythical “Zircon”.



It is worth repeating, does not mean that the rocket is bad. In any case, none of the countries of the world have such a complex. And not the fact that it will appear in the near future, as now other aviation means of destruction are in trend. The correctness or incorrectness of the chosen paths by the creators of X-47М2 will be shown by time, or rather, by experience of operating the rocket. At the same time, I really want to believe that no one will use the Dagger in a real battle.
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    2 July 2018 06: 22
    I would like to recall that the "dubious" dagger has an American counterpart https://topwar.ru/141699-aeroballisticheskaya-rak
    eta-douglas-ws-138a-gam-87-skybolt-ssha.html, moreover, the 60s. So we are not the first.
    1. +17
      2 July 2018 08: 00
      Quote: frezer
      I would like to remind you that the "dubious" dagger has an American counterpart

      ======
      Sorry, but you are already "sickened" by this "bolt" of yours !!! If so, then the FIRST hypersonic weapon was the Korolevskaya R-7, in which the warhead entered the dense layers of the atmosphere with a HYPERSONIC speed !!!!
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +10
          2 July 2018 08: 26
          When flying at hypersonic speed, a plasma is formed near the surface of the rocket, which literally envelops the apparatus, which has a huge impact on the operation of navigation systems, effectively confusing the rocket.
          ...
          Moreover, as far as one can judge, neither the United States, nor Russia, nor China have yet to cope with the challenges of this kind. Although they are actively working in this direction ..


          Doctors The missile of the A-135 Amur system at hypersonic speeds is controlled by commands from the ground at the initial and middle sections of the flight, and the homing head conducts the missile at the final section. So the problem of the signal passing through the plasma cocoon was solved in the Soviet Union.
          1. +5
            2 July 2018 12: 48
            Not bullshit. During acceleration (the first phase of flight), the rocket does not fly in hypersound. And it’s not particularly necessary to manage it - it just goes into space. There is no air in space, which means there is no plasma, so again, you can control it calmly like any satellite. And in the final section, when there is plasma again in the dense layers of the atmosphere - you yourself write what the guidance system controls.
            1. 0
              2 July 2018 13: 13
              You should at least open Wikipedia before writing:
              Rocket speed: 5,2-5,5 km / s (5500 m / s).
              Flight time: no more than 12 seconds.
              Acceleration to maximum speed (according to various sources) - 3 — 4 seconds
              The height of the affected area, minimum: to 5 km

              The rocket reaches full speed in dense layers of the atmosphere and is controlled in all areas of the flight, because at such speeds (ICBM warhead speed + anti-missile velocity) the anti-missile reaction should be ultrafast. Guidance of the GOS also goes through the plasma cocoon, so this requires a signal to pass back and forth.
              1. 0
                2 July 2018 13: 48
                Ah, well, so you look at the range. It’s almost an interception within the line of sight, there the signal transmission in general is at least as organized as possible, not necessarily even on radio waves. Missile defense systems are generally a separate song, but here we are about something else.
                1. +1
                  2 July 2018 14: 57
                  there the signal transmission in general can be organized at least as much as possible, not necessarily even on radio waves

                  Of course, it is not necessary on radio waves, it is also possible on sound ones, to give commands through a shout.
                  and here we are about something else
                  And we are here, as it were, about the fact that the author claims that no one has yet implemented the passage of signals through a plasma cocoon at hyper speeds, and what are you talking about?
                  1. +2
                    3 July 2018 15: 58
                    The author's allegations relate to long-range strategic missiles. A plasma cocoon is not a safe that is either there or not. Plasma only creates powerful interference through which it is necessary to break through. At short distances, at ultrashort frequencies - it can be possible to break through. But for ICBMs this is irrelevant anyway.

                    And rocket control with the help of sound commands - this, I'm sorry, you wrote nonsense. Which sound? What shout? The missiles are hypersonic! The sound will not catch them simply. But, for example, lasers in control systems have been used for a long time and very successfully.
                    1. +4
                      10 July 2018 06: 07
                      Quote: Pbs2
                      The author's allegations relate to long-range strategic missiles. A plasma cocoon is not a safe that is either there or not. Plasma only creates powerful interference through which it is necessary to break through. At short distances, at ultrashort frequencies - it can be possible to break through. But for ICBMs this is irrelevant anyway.

                      And rocket control with the help of sound commands - this, I'm sorry, you wrote nonsense. Which sound? What shout? The missiles are hypersonic! The sound will not catch them simply. But, for example, lasers in control systems have been used for a long time and very successfully.

                      Absolutely, the A-135 rocket has a plasma cocoon rupture system. I know where it is and how it works. Elements of a similar system are seen on the dagger.
          2. -1
            2 July 2018 19: 05
            Yes ... Buran confirms this. It was also controlled while in a cloud of plasma. In the USSR, the problem was solved, and all that we see is the hurt of the Union!
            1. +1
              7 July 2018 10: 52
              Buran seemed to automatically sit down. Self management. I read somewhere that the programs for him were written on the Prolog.
            2. 0
              13 September 2018 22: 07
              At 8:53, at an altitude of 90 kilometers, due to the formation of a plasma cloud, radio communication with it was interrupted for 18 minutes (the movement of the Buran in plasma is more than three times longer than during the descent of disposable spacecraft of the Soyuz type). During the absence of radio communications, control over the flight of "Buran" was carried out by the national means of the missile attack warning system
        2. +9
          2 July 2018 08: 32
          Quote: frezer
          Any questions?

          ========
          There are COMMENTS for the Comment !!!!
          You are actually the DIFFERENCE between the objects flying outside the atmosphere and entering the dense layers of the atmosphere with HYPERSONIC speed and the objects making the whole flight in the atmosphere UNDERSTAND ???
          And the difference between a purely INERTIAL guidance system and CORRECTION of external sources) with Homing at the final stage ???
          No??? Well then, SPEAK - NOT ABOUT WHAT !!!
          ALL (without exception !!) ICBM heads - also hypersonic!! But, in the dense layers of the atmosphere - they are UNMANDABLE and fly like a "brick, according to the laws of ballistics" .... Hence the accuracy of the "plus or minus one galosh", which makes their use in a non-nuclear version absolutely pointless !!!
          Here we are talking about devices making a CONTROLLED flight in the ATMOSPHERE and having a high-precision CORRECTION and GUIDANCE system !!!
          PS When a person "blurs" stupidity - it’s not scary - ALL people sometimes make mistakes! But when a person in stupidity RESISTING ...... request
          1. +2
            2 July 2018 08: 56
            Quote: venik
            Quote: frezer
            Any questions?

            ========
            There are COMMENTS for the Comment !!!!
            You are actually the DIFFERENCE between the objects flying outside the atmosphere and entering the dense layers of the atmosphere with HYPERSONIC speed and the objects making the whole flight in the atmosphere UNDERSTAND ???
            And the difference between a purely INERTIAL guidance system and CORRECTION of external sources) with Homing at the final stage ???
            No??? Well then, SPEAK - NOT ABOUT WHAT !!!
            ALL (without exception !!) ICBM heads - also hypersonic!! But, in the dense layers of the atmosphere - they are UNMANDABLE and fly like a "brick, according to the laws of ballistics" .... Hence the accuracy of the "plus or minus one galosh", which makes their use in a non-nuclear version absolutely pointless !!!
            Here we are talking about devices making a CONTROLLED flight in the ATMOSPHERE and having a high-precision CORRECTION and GUIDANCE system !!!
            PS When a person "blurs" stupidity - it’s not scary - ALL people sometimes make mistakes! But when a person in stupidity RESISTING ...... request

            It looks like you and the Chukchi, not a reader but a writer.
            Once again I repeat (maybe it will), and the dagger and skybolt are quasiballistic air-launched missiles. Both that and another do not go into space.
            And what does the guidance system have to do with it? The difference between the missiles is 55 years.
            Complrent.
            1. 0
              2 July 2018 12: 50
              What does it mean "do not go into space"? They do not join the ISS, this is true. But heights where hypersonic speed no longer creates a dense plasma shield - must reach, otherwise how to control it?
            2. +1
              2 July 2018 13: 58
              Quote: frezer
              It looks like you and the Chukchi, not a reader but a writer.

              =========
              This is your opinion, a missile designed to destroy SATELLITES at altitudes of up to 200 km - FROM THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT EXCEED??
              If I think you are a "Chukchi, who is not a reader, but a writer," then you are the cutest - then "ecimos", which even CAN'T READ!!! There is NO such place even in the "Union of Readers" !!! Only "by" odd "to hunt for the seal !!!!! fool
            3. +1
              7 July 2018 01: 54
              milling cutter! No need to write frank stupidity! The Dagger rocket is the only hypersonic rocket in the world that is controlled in the plasma stream throughout the flight and is not afraid of aerodynamic heating, in view of the new materials used, which the American rocket of the 60s of the production cannot boast of! You zadolbal all of your nonsense!
          2. +5
            2 July 2018 10: 29
            "Here we are talking about [hypersonic] devices committing the CONTROLLED
            flight in the ATMOSPHERE and having a high-precision system of CORRECTION and GUIDANCE !!! "////

            All right.
            There are no such devices yet. Dagger-Iskander - NOT such a device.
            1. -1
              2 July 2018 14: 03
              voyaka uh! As always by! The dagger is a hypersonic missile and is controlled throughout its flight path! Learn the materiel and do not knowingly write the wrong information!
              1. 0
                2 July 2018 14: 04
                voyaka uh! It's ugly to wishful thinking ...
              2. +2
                2 July 2018 14: 58
                You, apparently, read about the cruise missile ("ground Caliber"), which can technically be mounted on the Iskander tractor.
                But officially it is prohibited by the Russian-American treaty.

                And Russia is armed with Iskander short-range ballistic missile.
                She has the possibility of small random maneuvering (+ - 1-3 degrees) with gas rudders
                on the initial and final (terminal) section of the trajectory. To complicate the missile defense of the enemy.
                According to the internal, pre-recorded, program, and not from external control.
                Under the interceptor, the MiG-31 hung just such a missile to increase the range
                hitting targets. The rest is the same as the Iskander ground launch.
                A dagger is not a new weapon, but a new version of the use of existing weapons. hi
                1. 0
                  10 July 2018 15: 22
                  Well, the guidance system there is completely different (in the case of the anti-ship version), here most likely the fairing and radar are similar to air defense systems - both heat resistance and the ability to work on hypersound in the atmosphere. After all, missiles of missile defense systems - long-range air defense S-400 also have hypersonic speed. Moreover, if there is a rupture system for a plasma cocoon, as mentioned by the commentator above.
        3. +4
          2 July 2018 08: 57
          Any questions?
          Of course!
          What else do they have in common besides air launch?
          1. +2
            2 July 2018 09: 05
            Quote: sivuch
            Any questions?
            Of course!
            What else do they have in common besides air launch?

            I will answer again.
            Flight speed, quasi-ballistic trajectory, range. Enough or not.
            1. +1
              2 July 2018 11: 33
              answered in a parallel branch. so not enough.
    2. +7
      2 July 2018 08: 30
      Where? Is it in service?
      And in Russia from the 30s there is a hyperboloid. The book is described in detail. So how is it?
    3. +1
      2 July 2018 12: 55
      Quote: frezer
      I would like to remind you that the "dubious" dagger has an American counterpart

      GAM-87 turned out to be frankly unsuccessful, and was not accepted for service. And who says that “analogue has”? These cries are heard only from you. If anything, there was a domestic analogue, the aeroballistic X-15, which, by the way, unlike the "American", was adopted for service and was part of the arsenal of Tu-22M3 and Tu-160
    4. +1
      2 July 2018 14: 10
      Fraser! Do not write nonsense ... an American rocket cannot be an analogue, since it cannot be controlled in a plasma stream during a hypersonic flight, unlike a Dagger!
      1. MPN
        +6
        2 July 2018 19: 16
        Quote: SETTGF
        since it is not controlled in the plasma stream during hypersonic flight, unlike the Dagger

        The article is provocative on this expanse for the Frezers, I don’t even see the point of arguing, there were already his opinions in another thread, there they either convinced him or got him caught, didn’t track him to the end, here is Attempt No. 2.
        From the article
        Simply put, considering the MiG-31K as an interceptor is no longer possible.
        We did not bother to add that, firstly, the aircraft was modified as a carrier, and secondly, from where the author had knowledge about the possibilities of intercepting this modification. It is possible that in a specific flight as a carrier it cannot use Long-Range Interception missiles, but in the photo under the suspension it didn’t change anything, it is half-sunk in the fuselage, the place remains. In general, the article is nonsense.
    5. +1
      2 July 2018 20: 18
      Quote: frezer
      So we are not the first.

      Do not consider it work, tell me, when was it adopted?
      And then in the article you are referring to:
      The Douglas WS-138A / GAM-87 / AGM-48 / Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile could be the first model of its class to be adopted by the U.S. Air Force. However, the presence of a mass of problems requiring solution, alternative developments and the political situation in the world led to the abandonment of the project and the entire direction as a whole.

      Simply put, nothing came of them.
    6. +1
      3 July 2018 11: 28
      milling cutter! Do not write a lie! The Dagger has no analogues both in flight speed and plasma control ... I, together with the author of the article, with Ilya Legat, would advise you - not to wishful thinking! And do not sing the praises of the United States - they currently have no serious successes in the field of hypersonic weapons ...
    7. 0
      23 July 2018 10: 06
      remind yourself, we have flies, with your esteemed s, in the project
  2. +7
    2 July 2018 07: 38
    All this is a poorly staged pre-election performance designed to powder voters' brains.
    1. +15
      2 July 2018 07: 52
      Quote: NKVD
      All this is an election poorly staged performance designed to powder voters' brains

      That is, do not be this video appeal. Would Putin lose the election? You do not drink your pills with alcohol wink
      1. 0
        2 July 2018 22: 53
        Well, the goal was not just to win the election (there was no one to choose from anyway), but to win with the highest percentage possible. So once again, rattling some prodigy was very much in the topic.
    2. 0
      2 July 2018 13: 36
      Rather, powder the brains of American voters and squeeze more dough from them for the defense industry.
  3. +4
    2 July 2018 07: 43
    "A missile with a warhead of 500 kg is almost guaranteed to damage a ship of any class if hit. Including the latest US aircraft carrier such as the Gerald R. Ford or the time-tested Nimitz." The author picked up the virus "has no analogues", ordinary torpedoes need 5-6 to sink an aircraft carrier. So, not 500kg, but a full squadron with such missiles is needed to sink an aircraft carrier.
    1. +12
      2 July 2018 07: 56
      The author writes "disable" and not sink ...
      After hitting one dagger, an aircraft carrier is guaranteed to get out of combat.
    2. +11
      2 July 2018 08: 10
      Quote: Nix1986
      "A missile with a warhead of 500 kg is almost guaranteed if hit will disable ship of any class.

      ========
      The key words here are "will disable"!!!! Aircraft carrier to Destroy - it is not obligatory to heat - it is enough to "dissipate" him flight deck!!! Then it turns into a FLOATING WAREHOUSE of aircraft (and even burning!) !!! And 500 kg of modern explosives (in TNT equivalent it will be at least 1.5 - 2 tons) - they are quite capable of it !!!
      ATTENTIVELY read the article !!! hi
      1. +2
        2 July 2018 09: 02
        If the task is about to simply disable, then yes, one may be enough, taking into account how much everything is crowded there. Well, or introduce one McCain level pilot laughing
      2. +3
        2 July 2018 09: 32
        Quote: venik
        enough to "dissipate" him flight deck!!!

        And even better, in my opinion - to stick into the reactor compartment. Then half of the group will need to be deactivated.
        1. 0
          2 July 2018 14: 10
          Quote: Avis-bis
          And even better, in my opinion - to stick into the reactor compartment. Then half of the group will need to be deactivated.

          =======
          good
          One trouble! The reactor compartment is actually small! And it is protected by numerous decks and armored partitions ..... Yes, and it is in the most difficult place ......
          But! If you "dismantle" the flight deck, then under it ..... HANGARS with aircraft, fuel and ammunition ... fellow
          If "hooks" - Ooooooo !!!!! what
          1. 0
            3 July 2018 13: 14
            Quote: venik

            One trouble! The reactor compartment is actually small! And it is protected by numerous decks and armored partitions ..... Yes, and it is in the most difficult place ......

            Yes it is possible. But the kinetic energy of the hypersonic (it doesn’t matter that it practically consists of foil), and even a warhead explosion ... I think it will ruffle the shell of the reactor rather robustly, but the bigger one is not required, PMSM.
            1. 0
              5 July 2018 11: 46
              Exactly. We recall the lessons of physics. A half-ton warhead weighing 5500 km / h will pierce through a New Jersey type super-dreadnought from side to side, even if it is stupidly a tungsten blank.
      3. 0
        2 July 2018 22: 57
        enough to "dissociate" him with a flight deck

        And one 500kg of a babahi is definitely enough to cut the entire flight deck?

        A 500 kg of modern explosives

        500kg is the weight of the warhead; the weight of explosives inside it is much less. Well, 2 tons i.e. also somehow from the ceiling.
    3. +3
      2 July 2018 09: 01
      Modern torpedoes of caliber 533mm warheads have a total of 200-maximum 300 kg. And, most importantly, their kinetic energy is practically equal to 0
      1. +3
        2 July 2018 12: 59
        Quote: sivuch
        Modern torpedoes of caliber 533mm warheads have a total of 200-maximum 300 kg. And, most importantly, their kinetic energy is practically equal to 0

        but they hit the ship’s most vulnerable point - the underwater part (special chic - an explosion under the bottom). Ships are known to sink only due to loss of buoyancy
        1. 0
          3 July 2018 13: 15
          Quote: Gregory_45
          special chic - explosion under the bottom

          I mean - a keel fracture?
    4. 0
      3 July 2018 02: 30
      The author writes not to sink but to disable. "Yes, and 500 kg are not needed there at that speed. The dagger will add it in half with kinetic energy.
    5. 0
      10 July 2018 12: 57
      Not able to read the Chukchi here you are, the author did not say a word about the sink. But after catching such a warhead into the deck from a vertical dive, any aircraft carrier will be able to launch very soon. Yes, and there are doubts that conventional warheads will be used for such purposes.
    6. 0
      13 July 2018 17: 13
      I completely agree. I only rated at 4-6 torpedoes, which almost coincides with your data.
  4. +8
    2 July 2018 07: 50
    "..... It is not a revolutionary hypersonic weapon by virtue of:

    1. The absence of a hypersonic ramjet engine.
    2. Unresolved (as far as one can judge) fundamental problems associated with pointing a rocket at hypersonic speed ..... "
    ========
    This is DISCOVERY !!!!! It turns out that "hypersonic" can be considered ONLY systems equipped with a RECTANGULAR hypersonic engine ????? This makes no sense!!!!! laughing
    "Unresolved tasks in the field guidance"???? Complete insanity !!!! Immediately the question arises - HOW is it (the rocket) actually induced ??? But it IS INDUCED !!! fool The video shows getting into the "10 point", with a deviation of a couple of meters !!!!
    ========
    Summary - article - FULL BOOF !!!! Auto RU - FATTY "-" !!!! And why only people with a similar pseudoscientific "delirium climb into the VO ?? Show your beloved ??? am
    1. +3
      2 July 2018 08: 34
      Quote: venik
      "Unsolved guidance tasks" ???? Complete insanity !!!! The question immediately arises - HOW is it (the rocket) actually induced ??? But it is induced !!! fool In the video - getting into the "10 point", with a deviation of a couple of meters is shown !!!!

      Read carefully and do not flaunt your own illiteracy.
      An apparatus moving with hypersonic speed heats up from friction against air to such an extent that a plasma layer forms on the surface. For those in the tank, plasma is an ionized gas in which electrons are stripped from atoms. So, plasma is impervious to radio waves (therefore, by the way, there is no connection with spacecraft during descent and braking in the atmosphere). And a rocket flying at hypersonic speed cannot be guided either by commands from outside, or by its own radar, or receive GPS / GLONASS signals — it can only fly to a given area controlled by an inertial system. And there, for the final aiming at the target, she needs to slow down in order to cool down. And then it immediately turns from hypersonic into the usual one, quite accessible for interception by regular air defense systems.
      The Americans tried to solve the problem of a puncture of the plasma on the Sprint anti-missile, acting “in the forehead” - by placing a megawatt-class transmitter. But it was easier there, because it was intended to intercept warheads directly above its positions.
      1. +2
        2 July 2018 09: 26
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Read carefully and do not flaunt your own illiteracy.
        An apparatus moving at a hypersonic speed heats up from friction against air to such an extent that a plasma layer forms on the surface. For those in the tank, plasma is an ionized gas in which electrons are stripped from atoms. So, plasma is impervious to radio waves (therefore, by the way, there is no connection with spacecraft during descent and braking in the atmosphere).

        =========
        What are you saying??? And I didn’t know !!!!!
        Here are just a small remark (or rather a couple!)
        Firstly, the CAMA plasma reacts to an external electromagnetic field, because under the influence of electromagnetic radiation, the plasma parameters change !!! So, under certain circumstances, it can serve as some RECEIVING antenna! Did not know??
        The second:
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        And there, for the final aiming at the target, she needs to slow down so that cool down.
        COOL???? She DOESN'T COOL TO COOL - she needs to Slowly Slow down her speed to reduce the friction force to the threshold boundary (plasma formation). Then make an “aiming” and gain speed ......
        For reference, for example, with an altitude of 50 km and a range of 50 km to the target at a speed of 10 thousand km / h, the rocket will reach the target in 25 seconds! This is extremely small for the effective operation of the missile defense system!
        That's somewhere like that !!! For some reason, it seems to me that something like this "Dagger" and works .... hi
        1. 0
          2 July 2018 23: 05
          So, under certain circumstances, it can serve as some RECEIVING antenna!

          I am not special, but it seems to me that in this case it will be necessary to very quickly and accurately evaluate a whole bunch of state parameters of the plasma cloud, otherwise the received signal will be greatly distorted. Again, let them receive a receiving antenna - but what to accept? Who will issue the external control after start-up?

          SHOULD slow down to reduce the friction force to the threshold boundary (plasma formation). Then make an “aiming” and gain speed ......

          The question is - but is the 9M723 rocket a solid fuel? Those. it can’t just be taken and slowed down, and then dispersed again.
          1. +1
            3 July 2018 08: 36
            Quote: Kalmar
            The question is - but is the 9M723 rocket a solid fuel? Those. it can’t just be taken and slowed down, and then dispersed again.

            =========
            And WHAT did you get that it (in the sense of a rocket) - SOLID-FUEL ??? And what is it - generally 9M723 ??? Based on external similarities ??? WHERE and WHO said this ??? We are about the "Dagger" - in general know almost nothing!!!
            1. 0
              3 July 2018 09: 17
              And WHAT did you get that it (in the sense of a rocket) - SOLID-FUEL

              And where did you get the idea that it is hypersonic, controlled further on the list? For that matter, at the current moment it is precisely known that she:
              a) exists in some form;
              b) flies in some form.

              And so, according to information available in open sources, the “Dagger” is most likely a modified version of 9M723, in which case the use of a different type of engine is unlikely.
              1. +1
                3 July 2018 13: 34
                Quote: Kalmar
                And where did you get the idea that it is hypersonic, controlled further on the list?

                ======
                And at least with the fact that Putin ANNOUNCED it, and not some sort of "Kalmar" !!!! Because Putin, I believe a little more than the "scribblers" with the French "flag" !!!!! This is still not "Poroshenko", not "Kalmar" and not "Teresa" and not even "Mogherini" ....
                As experience shows - Man "for the bazaar" ANSWER !!!!!
                Unlike kalmar !!! wassat
                1. 0
                  3 July 2018 22: 35
                  And at least with the fact that Putin ANNOUNCED it

                  So what? He did not develop or test this rocket. Most likely, I didn’t even see it live. We will not discuss the degree of his responsibility "for bazaars" - there are enough collections on this topic on the Internet.
      2. 0
        13 July 2018 17: 17
        How long does it take to cool? Apparently a lot.
    2. +2
      2 July 2018 13: 57
      Quote: venik
      This is DISCOVERY !!!!! It turns out that "hypersonic" can be considered ONLY systems equipped with a RECTANGULAR hypersonic engine ????? This makes no sense!!!!!

      ... In-line air-jet hypersonic engine ....
      I agree with you! For some reason, there are hypersonic anti-aircraft missiles with solid propellant rocket engines ... (same SKEM); there are hypersonic missiles with solid propellant rocket engines ... there are BRSN warheads with hypersonic "entry" into the atmosphere ... but the "Dagger" cannot be "hypersonic"!? belay
    3. 0
      3 July 2018 02: 38
      The scramjet engine is a direct-flow B-air, and when B flies up, inside the reactor heats up, fuel is not even necessary, well, then it enters the nozzle and only into the nozzle because in front is a high pressure plug. Well, something like that, because otherwise they haven’t thought of it yet.
  5. +4
    2 July 2018 09: 04
    It is annoying that the authors of such articles offer some conclusions based on their only speculation.
  6. +2
    2 July 2018 10: 18
    Quote: Nix1986
    "A missile with a warhead of 500 kg is almost guaranteed to damage a ship of any class if hit. Including the latest US aircraft carrier such as the Gerald R. Ford or the time-tested Nimitz." The author picked up the virus "has no analogues", ordinary torpedoes need 5-6 to sink an aircraft carrier. So, not 500kg, but a full squadron with such missiles is needed to sink an aircraft carrier.

    Yes, yes, yes, it’s almost impossible to sink kosher aircraft carriers, they heard these tales, they heard. )))
    I just want to remind you about McCain and the aircraft carrier Forestall.))
    1. +3
      2 July 2018 10: 38
      A fire on Forrestal occurred during the Vietnam War in 1967.
      The aircraft carrier was returned to service and he remained in the American Navy until 1993.
      Since the Second World War, no aircraft carrier has been drowned.
      during the war.
      1. +3
        2 July 2018 11: 21
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Since the Second World War, not a single aircraft carrier has been drowned during the hostilities.

        You forgot to add: during the hostilities with the Papuans. laughing
        1. +3
          2 July 2018 15: 05
          Interesting ... the Russians began to consider the Vietnamese Papuans. recourse
          During wars with the Papuans, anything happens. fellow
          From one aircraft carrier they fell into the Mediterranean Sea, failing to land,
          two combat aircraft during the classic war with the Papuans.
      2. +1
        2 July 2018 13: 04
        Forrestal is very lucky that all the explosions were on the flight deck. Come they inside of a ship - it’s hard to say whether it would have reached the base at all, or a corny utop, before it would have completely burned out (even paying tribute to the very, very well-put battle in the US Navy for the survivability of ships)
      3. +1
        2 July 2018 14: 43
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The aircraft carrier was returned to service and he remained in the American Navy until 1993.

        ========
        And HOW MUCH was it being repaired, do not tell me ?????
      4. 0
        2 July 2018 14: 56
        Since the Second World War, not a single aircraft carrier has been drowned during the hostilities.
        a very dubious argument, since the Second World War there were no serious messes where they could be drowned. This is the same as to doubt the effectiveness of an ICBM with a nuclear warhead on the basis that they have never been used in real wars.
      5. 0
        2 July 2018 15: 32
        Quote: voyaka uh

        Aircraft carrier returned to service

        How many hours? The question, of course, is rhetorical. In war conditions, even a week is a huge period, and even more so months.
        1. ZVO
          +3
          2 July 2018 21: 35
          Quote: Avis-bis
          Quote: voyaka uh

          Aircraft carrier returned to service

          How many hours? The question, of course, is rhetorical. In war conditions, even a week is a huge period, and even more so months.



          Well, stop carrying nonsense ...
          When you have one aircraft carrier in Russia, like that ... Yes, stop throwing hats already. you need to know military history so that later this cap through the esophagus and further to the buttocks ...
          In 60 years - the measures were
          22 Essex / Oriskani class aircraft carriers.
          3 Midway class aircraft carriers.
          4 aircraft carriers of the Forrestal class.
          4 Kitty Hawk class aircraft carriers
          1 Aircraft Carrier Atomic Enterprise ...
          34 pieces in combat formation at that time.

          So for them the way out of the battle of Forrestal alone was generally imperceptible ...
          1. 0
            3 July 2018 06: 21
            Quote: ZVO
            Well, stop carrying nonsense ...

            Hold your tongue, not too zealous.
            Stop throwing hats already

            ... and respond to their hallucinations instead of what the opponent said.
            you need to know military history

            Well, so teach her not to look silly. In the meantime, accept the information (if you have anything): the Yankees sent this number of ships to this theater for good reason. And the failure of one is a problem for this group. The total number of aircraft carriers does not mean anything. Generally. Even the possibility of a quick change does not say anything.
  7. +3
    2 July 2018 10: 47
    The dagger is a very mobile ballistic missile with a range of 2000km. In fact, the INF Treaty is not violated, after all, is air-based. And its secondary operation as RCC, this is just a nice bonus.
  8. +1
    2 July 2018 11: 16
    I don’t remember the leaders of states talking and showing in detail about classified weapons. Probably, the main goal is to "scare the enemy", otherwise they really have unbelted recently, whoever wants to bend with Axes.
  9. -1
    2 July 2018 12: 45
    The worst thing is that the launch, apparently, takes place at a low speed, so that the speed potential of the carrier is not used. As for the accuracy of pointing - IMHO the missile is sharpened under a nuclear warhead, so maybe this question is not so acute. With this in mind, I also believe in a statement about hypersound. There, the final section is only a few seconds in the dense layers of the atmosphere, if you adjust the trajectory immediately before it, no sea target will have time to sail far away.
    1. 0
      2 July 2018 15: 11
      The Chinese are also counting on this.
      Shoot several aircraft in a row at an aircraft carrier, approximately
      having calculated according to information from satellites its path, even taking into account
      30 knots and combat maneuvers.
      You look, and one will break through the deck from above. Or undermine the nuclear warhead over it.
  10. 0
    2 July 2018 13: 48
    Today it was reported that the "Dagger" want to hang under the Tu-22М3 in the amount of 4 pcs.
    Well, the Tu-22М3 is slowly getting rid of its age, even considering modernization. But in the light of information on the resumption of production of the Tu-160, it would be interesting to consider the possibility of launching Dagger missiles from it.
    When placing 12 pieces on the internal drum PU, a volley from four aircraft - 48 missiles, decent for the passage of air defense / missile defense AUG. The combat radius of the complex will be about 6000-7000 km without refueling.
    Even if the information on anti-ship potential is unreliable, and in the version of the Dagger PKR can only work with specials. The warhead, and for strikes on ground targets is quite an interesting complex, with higher efficiency than subsonic KR.
    1. +2
      2 July 2018 15: 43
      Quote: AVM
      When placing 12 pieces on the internal drum launchers, a salvo from four aircraft - 48 missiles

      at least you look at the rocket (at its dimensions and mass) before writing such nonsense. Does not fit "Dagger" on the internal suspension of the 22nd, nothing. From the word in general. Only carry on the outside, like the X-22 / X-32. In the best case, two pieces on one carrier, under the wings. By the way, the Tu-22M3 has a 6-position drum PU. not 12. But the Tu-160 generally has no external suspensions.
  11. +1
    2 July 2018 14: 46
    The fight against "harmful" plasma: 1. Soviet approach (implemented).
    - Low-directional microwave emitters of on-board antennas with heated heat shielding and material melt on thermal protection.
    - On-board antennas with thermal protection, the original design of which has a reduced sensitivity of its radio transparency to the effects of high-temperature aerodynamic heating.
    - Methods of radio lighting AO for the conditions of aerodynamic heating, providing a reduction of losses in the heated AO.
    - The use of "long" heat-resistant antennas taken out of the plasma membrane film.
    —Increased EFFICIENCY OF THE OPERATION RADIO ENGINEERING COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS OF RETURNED SPACE APPARATUS
    - Due to the imposition of a constant electric field on the radiating surface of an AO, in this case there occurs a redistribution of charge in the melt on the surface of thermal protection, which leads to a decrease in losses in it, and hence to the enlightenment of the AO.
    - Due to the supply of refrigerant through the porous heat shield to its surface, this results in a decrease in the temperature of the radiating surface of the AO to a temperature below the melting point.
    —And also the passive principle is the construction of thermal protection from a combination of materials with different melting points, which leads to the redistribution of the temperature field over the surface of thermal protection and provides increased radio transparency on the part of the SKA (warhead).

    But the problem of passing an EMW (without loss and distortion) through such a "restless" plasma remains. And it is important not only for the SKA, but also at the launch of rockets and launch vehicles. RD torch - the same powerful plasma generator.





    One example: the interceptor 53Т6 (SH-08 / ABM-3A GAZELLE, Gazelle) ABM A-135 Amur.



    The radio command control system, the defendant and the autopilot on board, the transfer of guidance commands and other commands occurs via the command transfer station (SEC) channel.
    Antenna receiver commands and the respondent are located in pairs on 2 pcs. on the body of the rocket, the shielding of the antennas from the plasma arising from the flight of the rocket in the atmosphere occurs by the injection of freon or a liquid similar in its properties.




    The freon stream forms a non-plasma gas channel to maintain the radio command line between the guidance point and the rocket. If a rocket leaves the horizon, it drops speed to 5М to provide homing using the onboard radar
    .
  12. +1
    2 July 2018 14: 59
    Chinese approach (draft):
    The amplification of the signal, which can be created by resonance, or coordinated electromagnetic oscillations, between the plasma shell and the surrounding aircraft, a special layer. Celestial scientists suggest adding a “matching layer” to create the necessary resonant conditions during normal hypersonic flight.

    It is assumed that the matching layer will work as a capacitor in a conventional electrical circuit. The plasma shell, on the other hand, acts as an inductor that prevents changes in the electrical current passing through it. When the capacitor and the inductor are connected together, they can form a resonant circuit.
    As soon as resonance is reached, the energy will begin to circulate stably between the plasma and the matching layer, as in the case of conventional capacitance and inductance in an electrical circuit. As a result, the incoming radio signal from the Earth can spread through the matching layer and the plasma envelope, as if they do not exist.
  13. 0
    3 July 2018 02: 04
    How is the rocket -
    You don’t need to know about this,
    And about how that rocket is controlled.
    This business is familiar to us,
    This is an excellent job
    Those who are supposed to be in the service know.
    (Rocketeers March).
    And do not succumb to provocateurs provocateurs, keep military secrets secret.
  14. 0
    3 July 2018 02: 10
    Well, the first time I heard something that tormented for a long time. HyperVPVD turns on at 5-8 max and MIG does not give so much and Kizhal flies only 5Max. They showed that on the Dagger the nose fairing, as well as on ordinary RVV-ceramic, and how then will it withstand 1600-2000 degrees? I saw that the black coating withstands this temperature as it was on the Buran and the Shuttle. Am I wrong? And of course, control at such temperatures as possible?
  15. +2
    3 July 2018 13: 10
    A missile with a warhead of 500 kg is almost guaranteed in the event of a hit will disable a ship of any class. Including the latest US aircraft carrier such as the Gerald R. Ford or the time-tested Nimitz.

    In fact, the author wrote stupidity. Even HZ when in his work Admiral Kapitanets considered the probability of defeat or sinking as an aircraft carrier. and a cruiser of the Ticonderoga type. In this case, the attack must be carried out by X-22 missiles during an air raid or "Granite" - when using the fleet. Both the one and the other missiles have a warhead of about 1 ton. And that, and another speed at the final section EMNIP not less than 2M. But for the defeat (sinking) of the same aircraft carrier, it takes 8-10 (11-12) missiles of the X-22 or Granite type. To defeat the Ticonderoga, it is necessary to hit 6-8 (9-10) missiles in it). And here they want one 500-km warhead guaranteed to disable the ship ???

    In any case, no country in the world has such a complex. And it’s not a fact that it will appear in the near future, since now other aviation weapons are in trend.

    And I agree with the author, and no. The fact that now no one has absolutely does not mean that he will not appear in six months or a year ...

    Quote: venik
    Sorry, but you are already "sickened" by this "bolt" of yours !!! If so, then the FIRST hypersonic weapon was the Korolevskaya R-7, in which the warhead entered the dense layers of the atmosphere with a HYPERSONIC speed !!!!

    Quote: venik
    Quote: frezer
    I would like to remind you that the "dubious" dagger has an American counterpart

    ======
    Sorry, but you are already "sickened" by this "bolt" of yours !!! If so, then the FIRST hypersonic weapon was the Korolevskaya R-7, in which the warhead entered the dense layers of the atmosphere with a HYPERSONIC speed !!!!

    "You're angry, Caesar, then you're wrong."

    I must say that the comrade milling cutter (Alexander) is generally right. As we would not like to consider that we are the first in everything, namesake, but nonetheless first air-to-ground ballistic missile really was american. All the same "Skybolt" that you have, the namesake causes such a negative reaction. Moreover, back in 1958. Therefore, when in reality people start to say that the “Dagger” has no analogues - the media sin on this subject. The Americans experienced a similar system 60 years ago ...

    As for hypersonic weapons. And for that matter, then the royal P-7 was not the first hypersonic weapon. Alas, the Germans were the first. Their FAU-2 reached maximum speed in 5756 km / h at an altitude of 80 km. And in translation to the number M - this 5,67M.

    Everything else - the missile race between the USSR and the USA is a race for who is earlier, who is next. Korolev successfully tested his "seven" on intercontinental range earlier than the Americans their Atlas (August 21 versus December 17).
    But all this is a matter of chance. The Atlas’s first successful flight was earlier than the first successful R-7 flight (on July 17 with us, on August 21). But we used to go to the intercontinental, although our range was almost 6000 km less than that of the Americans. They We put it into service in 1959, we in 1960. Mashanin, but this concerns a ground-based missile. The article is about a missile BRVZ. And here the Americans were the first.

    Quote: umah
    Doctors The missile of the A-135 Amur system at hypersonic speeds is controlled in the initial and middle sections of the flight by commands from the ground, and in the final section the missile is guided by a homing head.

    Can you use the radio command control system on the "Dagger" ??? I'm afraid not. Therefore, with terms such as "cheats" should be treated very carefully. Homing at Amur is already there, above, when there is no plasma ...

    Quote: umah
    The rocket reaches full speed in dense layers of the atmosphere and is controlled in all areas of the flight, because at such speeds (ICBM warhead speed + anti-missile velocity) the anti-missile reaction should be ultrafast. Guidance of the GOS also goes through the plasma cocoon, so this requires a signal to pass back and forth.

    I repeat. The issue of using the radio command guidance system under such conditions has been resolved. But homing - NO ...

    Quote: umah
    And we are here, as it were, about the fact that the author claims that no one has yet implemented the passage of signals through a plasma cocoon at hyper speeds, and what are you talking about?

    In fact, the author talks about systems Homingif for someone it is not clear

    Quote: Bulwark Eagle
    Yes ... Buran confirms this. It was also controlled while in a cloud of plasma. In the USSR, the problem was solved, and all that we see is the hurt of the Union!

    It would be interesting to hear from you how it was controlled. Do not forget that there was first AUTOPILOTrather than external management

    Quote: venik
    Here we are talking about devices making a CONTROLLED flight in the ATMOSPHERE and having a high-precision CORRECTION and GUIDANCE system !!!

    In fact, a controlled flight in the atmosphere in a cloud of plasma can be on a rocket having an inertial navigation system. And then it makes no difference whether there is plasma or not. But self-guidance can only be in conditions where there is no plasma. And that means only one thing. The speed at the final section of the “Dagger” is supersonic, and by no means hypersonic. Descent from a height of about 80-90 km to a height of 5-7 km is an intensive deceleration of an object to supersonic speed. An example is the same Iskander. which slows down in dense layers from a speed of 2.1 km / s to speeds of 600-700 m / s ....
    Yet again. Correction and guidance in the final section is possible only in a narrow range of heights and lateral maneuvers. the rocket is already running without fuel and cannot make jumps by definition.

    Quote: Pbs2
    What does it mean "do not go into space"? They do not join the ISS, this is true. But heights where hypersonic speed no longer creates a dense plasma shield - must reach, otherwise how to control it?

    But 80-90 km is not space yet. How can I go to a target from an altitude of 80 km do not tell me? What should be the guidance system in order to detect a target from a height of 80-90 km at a distance of several hundred kilometers?

    Quote: venik
    This is your opinion, a missile designed to destroy SATELLITES at altitudes of up to 200 km - DOES NOT GO OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE ????
    If I think you are a "Chukchi who is not a reader, but a writer", then you are the cutest - then an "Ekimos" who does not even CAN READ !!! There is NO such place even in the "Union of Readers" !!! Only "by" odd "to hunt for the seal !!!!!


    Namesake, you start to get nervous and prove completely extraneous things. What does the rocket to intercept satellites and the "Dagger"? Space starts from the Karman line, that is, from a height of 100 km. In this case, the "Dagger" does not go into space. Antisatellite comes out, but where does it ???

    Quote: SETTGF
    voyaka uh! As always by! The dagger is a hypersonic missile and is controlled throughout its flight path! Learn the materiel and do not knowingly write the wrong information!

    Controlled. Question WHAT ???? And in what range of heights and lateral deviations. It is a hypersonic missile exclusively on the final section of the active section of the trajectory, while its engine is still operating. Descending from heights of 80-90 km to heights of 5-7 km, he loses several times in his speed, gradually moving from the range of hypersonic speeds to the range of supersonic ... He could have a constant hypersonic speed only if he had hypersonic ramjet engine. The existing "Dagger" can have hypersonic speed along the entire trajectory only in alternative reality with alternative physics ....
  16. 0
    5 July 2018 02: 55
    It flies at an altitude of 40-100 km, the atmosphere is very weak there and the cold is hellish, plasma is not formed there and it is possible to control by radio waves both from the earth and from satellites IMHO, and at the end of the correction, it is sent from the satellite to the ship, sharply dives and her homing head is already fulfilling a direct attack on the target, everything is simple, why is it incomprehensible.
    1. ZVO
      0
      5 July 2018 11: 06
      Quote: Thrombus
      it's simple, why is it incomprehensible then.


      Have you seen how many satellites of the Liana system we have in service?
      Have you seen the orbits of their movement?
      Do you know how the satellites of the Liana system work?
      Do you know the system of transmitting information through the satellites of the "liana" system?


      Simply - it is only in your opinion - i.e. then. when you don't know anything ...

      Liana, in principle, does not know how to give direct target designation to a rocket.
      Can not!!!
      Only on the CCP.
  17. -1
    7 July 2018 16: 41
    Well, you are here and the people have written nonsense.
    Let's think about how a missile can be aimed at a moving object but without the use of a seeker.
    YES, everything is just like the same ATGM - the only target detection tool is the powerful on-board MIG-31 radar - which the ship will notice over several hundred kilometers, and the missile control facility is a usual radio command.
    That is, in fact, such control and detection options have long been used in long-range air defense systems.
    Naturally, then the question arises of using this missile against a suppose AUG - naturally this is a quick approach accompanied by hawks to launch a missile launch range of about 300 km (this is the approximate range of the onboard radar). Hawks for protection from enemy hawks. Anti-aircraft missiles can not be afraid, they just do not have time to react. It is also possible that the MIG-31K will be in tandem with the MIG31BM - that is, one will attack the ship, the other will protect it from a possible attack from the air.
    A 300km missile flight takes about 3 minutes - this is the time when the MIG31K must regularly send correction commands on board the missile. This is relative to the use of a rocket on a moving target.
    I can also suggest the option of controlling and launching a rocket at a maximum range (1000-1500 km) on a moving target. The use of targeting and targeting satellites in the past is the legend of the Liana complex at present. The Pion-NKS spacecraft has an active radar and is capable of receiving the coordinates of mobile ground targets in real time - that is, in essence, to defeat a ship, it is only necessary to establish packet data transmission to a rocket in flight - how this is already a technical matter.
    NU and the third application for the maximum range on ground objects - here everything is much simpler inertial and Glonass - but it is also possible to adjust external means via a radio channel.
    Why do I think that the GOS is not there and never will be - it’s all simple - the GOS can always be deceived or drowned out - that’s why in modern times Granit-type complexes are already ineffective - there was a similar application option - Legend gives target designation - launching missiles into the area - then they by means of GOS, they seek the target and attack it. The weak point in all this is exactly the GOS missiles. And the external target designation is quite relevant. I think the Chinese anti-ship BRs do just that - they are adjusting either from the satellite or from the AWACS plane or from a special guidance and correction aircraft in general.
    In our case, thanks to the powerful airborne radar, MIG31K can itself perfectly perform both target search in the area and adjustment of the missile flight. After all, the rocket weighs only 4 tons and it could well be twisted to the su34 as well - but for some reason it was screwed specifically to the MIG 31 - I think precisely because it has a powerful airborne radar.
  18. 0
    8 July 2018 15: 17
    "actually confusing the rocket." what an idiotic epithet?
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. 0
    3 September 2018 19: 58
    Quote: frezer
    I would like to recall that the "dubious" dagger has an American counterpart https://topwar.ru/141699-aeroballisticheskaya-rak
    eta-douglas-ws-138a-gam-87-skybolt-ssha.html, moreover, the 60s. So we are not the first.


    What nonsense.
  21. The comment was deleted.