Military Review

US media: Russian X-35 rocket can only be threatened by fishermen

131
The American edition of Business Insider has published its vision of how to treat the tests of the Russian X-35U rocket. We are talking about frames published not so long ago, in which an episode of the defeat of this ship at sea is presented. The author of the publication in the American magazine claims that in the US nothing was nervous about the video published by the Russian Ministry of Defense.




From the material:
Russia declared that the X-3U missile could not be intercepted. She is able to bypass all modern ship protection systems. But these statements by the Russian defense ministry should not be taken as truth.


Further, the author (his name Logan Nye) concretizes his point of view. According to this journalist, the Russian missile was aimed at an old civilian ship, which acted as a target during the exercises. The defeat of this ship was carried out without any active opposition, including opposition from the military aviation and electronic warfare systems.

From the material:
The rocket can be launched from an air carrier from a distance of about 300 km. But the American "Super Hornet" can protect the US Navy aircraft carriers within a radius of up to 800 km, and American specialists are working to increase this radius.


Further, the author talks about the presence of deck F-35, which are able to neutralize the missiles launched by carrier groups. But at the same time in Business Insider it is stated that Russia often underestimates the characteristics of its weapons, but even in the presence of the F-35, “do not be afraid”.

Final log output:
By and large, you can simply watch the spectacular propaganda of the Russian Ministry of Defense, because the X-35U missile tests are a beautiful firework display that can threaten, perhaps, fishermen.
Photos used:
Wikipedia
131 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ugolek
    Ugolek 2 October 2018 06: 48
    +18
    Bye, but what about the missile defense system that "knocks down" ONLY blanks that do not maneuver and without jammers? laughing
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 2 October 2018 07: 00
      +19
      As I understand it, this publication in Business Insider is aimed at local, striped, all Finger and Trump Finger (there are such everywhere). The author expressed his vision, confirmed by numbers. - This is normal
      1. hrych
        hrych 2 October 2018 07: 28
        +26
        Quote: Chertt
        confirmed by numbers

        This Nye did not take into account one thing, that the X-35 is still an integral part of the Bal coastal complex, which means that it creates a 200-kilometer zone off the coast, that the X-35 is in the form of Uranus, still ship-based and of course aviation, and can also be used from a helicopter as well as from sea containers, i.e. from any bulk carrier, truck platform or railway platform. Those. a completely universal tool and in ports, bottlenecks, it will pick up the enemy’s ships, to point blank range, what is the 800 kilometer zone, who is going to attack in the open sea, oh well. Moreover, Nye did not understand that the AUG air wing Hornet had nothing to do with it, because the X-35 was designed to sink ships up to 5000 tons with a displacement, and the carrier carrier would be 100 tons and would naturally be attacked by other means. And the X-000 specializes in missile and torpedo boats, auxiliary transport vessels, by the way on which the AUG is simply critically dependent. Well, the destroyer can take unacceptable damage from the X-35, although it already has a displacement of more than 35 tons, one and a half to two times and is no longer the purpose of this device, there are Onyxes, there are Clebras, Maskites, Granites and Zircons with Daggers. In short, the X-5000 is not intended to destroy ships with decent missile defense / air defense, and even more so with an air wing, in principle wassat
        1. Altona
          Altona 2 October 2018 08: 13
          +7
          Quote: hrych
          and is no longer the goal of this device

          --------------------------
          Well do not tell. Modern sofa and magazine analysts compare incompatible things. They have a cruise subsonic missile, by the way flying at an altitude of up to 50 m above ground level, can easily meet with a supersonic fighter flying at an altitude of 6000-8000 m. And this is not the worst comparison. laughing laughing There are also such "fears" that a modern Russian submarine cruiser must necessarily raise a periscope somewhere near Florida and thereby frighten the local elite, although he can shoot his missiles at America directly from the pier, without leaving anywhere. laughing
          1. poquello
            poquello 2 October 2018 08: 29
            +7
            Quote: Altona
            must raise the periscope somewhere near Florida

            ett such signs, superstition, if put on the deck of the ship F35, then all flying rockets will be killed with laughter or from fear
          2. Varaga
            Varaga 3 October 2018 08: 28
            0
            Quote: Altona
            a modern Russian submarine cruiser must lift the periscope somewhere near Florida

            Quote: Altona
            although he can shoot his missiles at America directly from the pier without leaving anywhere.

            Right, maybe. And in the sea he leaves in order to strike secretly. Because remaining at the pier it will be destroyed by a preemptive strike in the first place.
        2. Sandor Clegane
          Sandor Clegane 2 October 2018 09: 00
          -3
          Quote: hrych
          because the X-35 is designed to sink ships up to 5000 tons with a displacement,

          Yes, you sho? belay , can not be ..... where did you find that ??
          Quote: hrych
          In short, the X-35 is not intended to destroy ships with decent missile defense / air defense, and even more so with an air wing, in principle

          Well, how do we understand this? - They themselves came up with and gave out as an axiom!
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 2 October 2018 11: 26
            +9
            Quote: Sandor Clegane
            can not be ..... where did you find that ??

            You will not believe it - on the website of the manufacturer of this RCC:
            The anti-ship missile (RCC) X-35E is designed to destroy missile, torpedo, artillery boats, surface ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons and sea transport.
            © site of JSC "KTRV"
            Quote: Sandor Clegane
            Well, how do we understand this? - They themselves came up with and gave out as an axiom!

            And so to understand: the X-35 is a "harpoon". The domestic improved version of the "harpoon" is a subsonic anti-ship missile with a mass of 500-600 kg, with a warhead weighing 145 kg, medium-range, universal in terms of carriers. To launch it, the carrier must enter the AUG air defense zone. And the subsonic speed greatly facilitates the work on anti-ship missiles.
            1. Sandor Clegane
              Sandor Clegane 2 October 2018 11: 45
              +5
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For its launch, the carrier must enter the AUG air defense zone.

              why do you have it all come down to AUG ?????? there are no other options at sea ??? bulk carriers and oil carriers ... EM, etc. ..... and if you think that in the conditions of a database, the captain of our corvette identifies a surface target as an enemy UDC, scratches the back of his head and says .... it is a pity that he is more than 5000 tons .... I will not spend missiles .....
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 2 October 2018 19: 53
                -1
                X-35 is equipped with a penetrating high-explosive fragmentation warhead, which is designed to destroy missile, torpedo, artillery boats, surface ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons and sea transports.
                1. Sandor Clegane
                  Sandor Clegane 2 October 2018 19: 57
                  -2
                  Quote: Cannonball
                  X-35 is equipped

                  post wikipedia elsewhere
                  1. Cannonball
                    Cannonball 2 October 2018 20: 18
                    +2
                    But you are a lazy person, my friend - to look for information on normal sites for you in scrap, on Wikipedia - flush, and writing crap is the most it.
                    Tokmo, I don’t need your advice, Danila Dmitrievich, I have my own head.
                    1. Sandor Clegane
                      Sandor Clegane 2 October 2018 20: 24
                      -2
                      Quote: Cannonball
                      Tokmo I do not need your advice

                      then why are you trying to teach me life? why are you trying to seem smart? based on your smart logic - a container ship with a displacement of 10000 tons cannot be drowned with this rocket ?? there is more than 45% of blatant wrongs on the wiki, but for you it's like the Pravda newspaper of 1980
                      1. Cannonball
                        Cannonball 2 October 2018 22: 05
                        +1
                        Do not drown with one rocket, you are our smart.
                        A 10000 ton container ship has permeable bulkheads, for your information, that will prevent the sufferer from dipping one missile.
                        But this disliker of Vicki and Pravda seems not to know why. He uses exclusively the Talmuds of the Elders of Zion and draws his information from comics and State Department brochures.
                      2. Henderson
                        Henderson 3 October 2018 21: 13
                        -2
                        Quote: Sandor Clegane
                        a container ship with a displacement of 10000 tons cannot be drowned by this missile ??

                        a container ship with a displacement of 10000 tons of 145 kg of explosives is like an elephant’s pellet.
          2. Cannonball
            Cannonball 2 October 2018 19: 49
            0
            Read on Wikipedia or here in VO.
            1. Sandor Clegane
              Sandor Clegane 2 October 2018 19: 53
              -4
              Quote: Cannonball
              0
              Read on Wikipedia or here in VO.

              Wikipedia for noobs, and those who are not involved in the topic of reposting it
              1. Cannonball
                Cannonball 2 October 2018 20: 20
                0
                Noobs argue about what they don’t know, and normal analysts use any sources of information, even populist.
                1. Sandor Clegane
                  Sandor Clegane 2 October 2018 20: 36
                  -4
                  Quote: Cannonball
                  and normal analysts use

                  Wikipedia - the source is just a bomb, and that's enough to flood.
        3. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 2 October 2018 10: 33
          +3
          So what's wrong with Logan Nye? The missile struck an anchored ship without counteraction from electronic warfare and air defense systems. And in the presence of these systems and in motion? Would a missile hit a target? The rocket can maneuver or flies strictly in a straight line?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 October 2018 11: 32
            +3
            So what is wrong with Logan Nye?

            You might think Harpoons and the like are being tested on ships fully armed, with air defense and electronic warfare included. Logan balabol, that's all. 1. The X-35 family is not designed for aircraft carriers, although it can be used when attacking them as a means of complicating the air situation. 2. Suppose Hornet and cope with one or two missiles, but with the eight is unlikely. And this is just one PU. The same can be said of the F-35.
          2. Cannonball
            Cannonball 2 October 2018 19: 54
            +2
            The flight is carried out at altitudes 10-15 meters under the control of an inertial control system, the target radar target ARGS-35 is captured at the final part of the trajectory, after which the height of the trajectory decreases to 3-5 meters, which, taking into account the near-sonic flight speed, complicates the interception of missiles by means of air defense goals
        4. Rzzz
          Rzzz 2 October 2018 14: 28
          +6
          This rocket may well get into the flight deck, after which the aircraft carrier turns into an unarmed barge and loses part of its wing forever (they cannot land and fall into the sea), some are damaged on the deck and are thrown overboard, some in the hangar, but cannot take off.
          1. Henderson
            Henderson 3 October 2018 21: 15
            -2
            You turn on the logic.
            How can she get into the flight deck if the height of her trajectory in the final section is less than 5 m?
      2. keeper03
        keeper03 2 October 2018 07: 47
        +1
        This is for Russophobes, so that they suddenly do not run out of all diapers! laughing
        1. Rav Rav
          Rav Rav 2 October 2018 07: 55
          +1
          Gee gee gee let them go to the gaskets laughing !
        2. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 2 October 2018 10: 37
          -1
          Well, Russia has not hit America yet either! Russia then who? Americanophobia? So where are Russia's retaliatory strikes? What bridgeheads has she occupied over the past three years or thirty-three? Why is Russia so afraid of diapers and constantly expresses deep concern? Is there an answer to this?
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 2 October 2018 07: 17
      +3
      They also fly along a previously known route
  2. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 2 October 2018 06: 54
    +3
    This Nye mumbled with trembling lips what he himself did not believe in, or did not understand!
    And it is right! No need to be afraid! It won't hurt! Come-chick, and no more!
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 10: 41
      -2
      Oh well! Shaking lips! Did he express concern or ask for something? Che so ulcerative? Because besides an ulcer there is nothing more to answer? Why, then, these cowardly diapers do not leave Syria? Why is Ukraine not being left? They are so shaking and afraid of everything !?
      1. Sober
        Sober 2 October 2018 11: 46
        +5
        This is the last clue. All of Syria was profiled. It used to be impossible.
        America is very strong, but far from omnipotent. We, too, are not omnipotent, but we are already forced to reckon with us.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 October 2018 12: 40
        +4
        Quote: Mister Creed
        Che so ulcerative? Because besides an ulcer there is nothing more to answer?

        Mister! Are you again for yours? Get involved!
        Nothing to answer? And all that is in the arsenals is for children's fun in the sandbox?
        About X-35U. We don’t know what logic of circumventing the air defense / missile defense system is laid down in it, how the GOS is protected from REP ... We made an improved version of Harpoon. And this is a very serious RCC, according to the Yankees. GOS with IR and UV channels, a random change in the pulse frequency, the ability to barrage and re-approach the target after a miss ... Range to 280 km ...
        Why can't our Kulibins repeat the same thing in their product? In addition, in terms of price / quality, Uranus has excellent export potential. Maybe that's why they pour slop on it, that it will press Harpoons in the militia store?
        So, it’s not a fact that there is nothing to answer but an ulcer!
        1. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 2 October 2018 14: 57
          0
          So far, the product has not been used anywhere except for launches on targets. How to behave in a real battle is unknown. Over a hundred axes did not live up to their hopes. But the combat tests passed and got unsuccessful. Although positioned as a super-super missile. Here, as they say, do not say gop until you jump over.
      3. gurzuf
        gurzuf 2 October 2018 12: 48
        +2
        What answer do you think is needed? As I understand it, the Russian Federation brings only one thought to the "chosen by God" - do not touch us and we will not have to touch you. And this thought was not born now and not even during the USSR.
        1. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 2 October 2018 15: 08
          -2
          The Russian Federation brings only one thought to the "chosen by God" - do not touch us and we will not have to touch you. # Since the 90s Russia has been saying: "Take me, take me!" And now he says: "Hands off me!" Well, when does Russia behave sincerely, when it invites foreigners or when it scares them? When Peter and Gorbachev invited foreigners, were they rooting for Russia or against? When Stalin defeated Hitler without becoming integrated with him, was he (Stalin) against Russia? Today we have entered into all possible unions and societies, are we for Russia or against? Here's how to understand the logic of Russia? Now she herself invites foreigners, then she threatens and hits in the face. Which one is the real Russia?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 October 2018 16: 07
            +1
            But you don’t need to greet. And also to be rude, poison and try to destroy. And everything will be fine.
          2. gurzuf
            gurzuf 3 October 2018 18: 10
            0
            I will answer with a Russian proverb - they don’t go to someone else’s monastery with their charter. And from myself I’ll add - especially in this monastery they’re not spoiling.
      4. adept666
        adept666 3 October 2018 12: 57
        0
        Did he express concern or ask for something?

        If he was on a ship with all the fancy RTS / REB / Air Defense / ABM, and on this very ship, they would have worked the 2-3rd X-35 to defeat, and not to imitate, not only would his lips quiver, but also would lock and not in one place. It’s not to be afraid of RCC from the couch ... And they don’t leave just because we don’t work on them (and they are for us) and this reason is that they and we have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles in sufficient quantities for them global hit. Therefore, we play poker by the hands of others.
  3. Azim77
    Azim77 2 October 2018 06: 55
    +1
    speaks of the presence of deck F-35, which are able to neutralize missiles launched by the carrier groups

    Right from the deck are able to neutralize? smile
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 2 October 2018 11: 33
      +3
      Right from the deck are able to neutralize?

      The late McCain apparently practiced it back then.
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 2 October 2018 06: 56
    +3
    tests of the Kh-35U rocket - a beautiful firework that can threaten, perhaps, fishermen
    Apparently, the "great specialist" in missile weapons Logan Nye decided to help the US Defense Ministry by calming him down after they were very nervous about our missile. There can not be in the world of weapons more modern, smarter and more powerful (according to Trump) than in the United States - the principle that is guided by American patriots from the media.
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 10: 48
      -2
      Americans have not retreated
      neither from calibers, nor from our VKS, nor the presence of our Navy near Syria. So whose eggs are shaking and gurgling?
      1. Sober
        Sober 2 October 2018 11: 48
        +1
        Retreated. Snarling, resisting, indignant! But, retreated. I repeat, this does not mean that they have become weak, it means that we have become strong.
        1. Henderson
          Henderson 3 October 2018 21: 17
          -1
          Quote: Sober

          Retreated. Snarling, resisting, indignant! But, retreated. I repeat, this does not mean that they have become weak, it means that we have become strong

          Idlib’s example speaks directly to the opposite
      2. gurzuf
        gurzuf 2 October 2018 12: 52
        +1
        And who? Russia put the device on the opinion of the Crimea and Syria.
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 October 2018 14: 02
        +5
        Quote: Mister Creed
        Americans have not retreated
        neither from calibers, nor from our VKS, nor the presence of our Navy near Syria.

        I don’t remember something when we worked as Caliber, VKS and Navy for the Yankees in Syria? request
        But when in Korea, on April 12 1951 they shot down 12 from 21 B-29, and then on October 30 1951 they shot down 14 from 21 “Super Fortress”, which raided the Nancy airfield. - I remember that! You can also recall the Vietnam War, when on the night of 19 on 20 of December 1972, our S-75 air defense systems shot down 6 and damaged another 6 B-52 ...
        Therefore, it is not a sin to remember when our weapons seriously "puzzled" the Yankees.
        1. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 2 October 2018 15: 13
          -4
          Is it in vain that Russia let Caliber in front of television cameras and demonstrated the accuracy of getting shot from drones? The American zone of occupation in Syria has been and remains. And the launches of the Caliber with the work of the VKS did not frighten them at all, as did the presence of our Navy.
  5. ANCIENT
    ANCIENT 2 October 2018 07: 00
    +7
    wake up on your destroyers to `` fish '' in our waters, you will experience the power of our missiles. and, read the American press less, there is such a trend to underestimate the abilities of the enemy of the USA, in particular, our side, and such actions are good for nobody. brought ...
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 10: 52
      -4
      So far, not a single American has suffered from our missiles! What we are going to do? Fix it? And why didn’t they do it before?
      1. Sober
        Sober 2 October 2018 11: 51
        +6
        Yes, because while prudence prevails on both sides, it is not possible to begin the global destruction of humanity.
  6. Tusv
    Tusv 2 October 2018 07: 05
    +2
    It seems that ours stated that the X-35U for corvette-type ships .. Not a little warrior. Give each corvette an aircraft carrier. lol
    1. Vard
      Vard 2 October 2018 07: 15
      +4
      AUG becomes a pile of iron after an aircraft carrier loses the ability to take planes ... So one rocket is enough ...
      1. Mr Credo
        Mr Credo 2 October 2018 10: 58
        +1
        One rocket is enough. Only the whole question is how to do this so that the aircraft carrier does not object to delivery? Hang a rocket on a plane returning to the deck?
  7. Weight
    Weight 2 October 2018 07: 14
    +2
    “Dear scientists. I have a knock in the kitchen in the evenings. Please explain why he is and how he is going on. ” - A and B Strugatsky.
  8. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 2 October 2018 07: 15
    +2
    Do the USA conduct tests in the face of resistance? And what happens to those kamikaze who ventured into such actions?
  9. krops777
    krops777 2 October 2018 07: 16
    +1
    Further, the author talks about the presence of deck-based F-35s that are capable of neutralizing rockets fired by aircraft carrier groups.


    Well, where without the F-35 omnipotent. wassat
  10. Yngvar
    Yngvar 2 October 2018 07: 20
    0
    Interestingly, he (Logan Nye) himself prescribed the test conditions? Who told him that the X-35U was tested in the absence of counteraction from the electronic warfare?
    Well, let's wait for the "fishermen" ...
  11. shinobi
    shinobi 2 October 2018 07: 24
    +5
    Awesome logic. So, to convince such figures like that, you need to use the latest destroyer in full combat signature as a target? Only at your expense.
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 11: 05
      -8
      And can only motorized gunners and hunters shoot at a moving target? Or a problem to create a target without a crew? On other planets, the vehicles mean they launched, but the mobile surface vehicle means nothing? Why is this impossible? After all, the country is on the rise and the creation of high-tech products for her is just a spit! Or do all the wearers sit in our manual?
  12. Yujanin
    Yujanin 2 October 2018 07: 24
    +2
    If you are discussing a topic, it means to be afraid.
  13. Tamek
    Tamek 2 October 2018 07: 31
    0
    In order to control 800 km around the AUG, how many planes do you need to keep in the air at the same time? Will it be unprofitable?
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 11: 10
      +1
      AWAX will be enough. Why consider the enemy stupid. If they were foolish, they would go without spears and without bows! And so they were able to create an aircraft carrier and not one! Or did stupid people do this? And England, too, could. And France seems to be not far behind with Japan.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 2 October 2018 18: 32
        +4
        AWACS aircraft land and too large for an aircraft carrier. The United States on aircraft carriers use AWACS E-2 Hokai. To ensure a circular radar field within a radius of 800 km from the AOG, at least 4 Hokai will be required simultaneously, i.e. at least 8 for shift-by-turn patrolling (and only for a fairly limited period of time). This is not realistic even for the AUG consisting of 3 aircraft carriers.
        More realistic control of radio emissions by means of RTR. An example from the story. A Libyan missile boat approaching the AUG was discovered after turning on the radar for a time equal to the time of one revolution of the antenna. After which he was hit by the Harpoon aircraft missile.
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 2 October 2018 20: 01
        +2
        If ours are going to attack with AUG missiles, then AWACS will be shot down before the attack begins. Why consider the enemy stupid? We have something to shoot down AWAXES.
  14. Zubr
    Zubr 2 October 2018 07: 58
    +3
    smile Good morning everyone ! Well, damn it, this edition of "Business Insider" together with NI can be counted among our means of propaganda .. smile They read soothing mantras to the entire American people ... smile Well, let them read, I think there are enough boobies who will believe in it .. smile And then, when a couple of rockets are caught on board, we'll see how they sing. God forbid, of course ... smile
    1. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 11: 11
      0
      Why are they catching rockets? Before this, they didn’t catch it, but then it will blow the wind?
      1. Zubr
        Zubr 2 October 2018 11: 56
        +4
        They will run into, they will catch ... smile
    2. Henderson
      Henderson 3 October 2018 21: 20
      -2
      NI, as it were, is a Russian means of propaganda, and this does not particularly hide. Otherwise, he would not have been listed as a release editor by Alexey Pushkov.
      And this, incidentally, is the Chairman of the interim commission of the Federation Council on information policy and media relations.
  15. another RUSICH
    another RUSICH 2 October 2018 08: 04
    0
    Well, then there is nothing! Check it out?)
  16. lopvlad
    lopvlad 2 October 2018 08: 06
    +5
    According to this journalist, a Russian rocket was aimed at an old civilian ship, which acted as a target during the exercises. The defeat of this ship was carried out without any active opposition, including opposition from combat aircraft and electronic warfare systems.


    I propose that the Americans donate Russia for missile testing as a target a new warship with REB and several support aircraft in order to shame Russian designers for the whole world.
  17. Romanenko
    Romanenko 2 October 2018 08: 13
    +1
    Very good opinion, let them think so. Let them consider that the fake bear from the circus, his club is foam rubber. Let them hope for the F-35, but how, so much dough was invested in it, it can’t work at all !!!
    As A.S. wrote, Griboyedov - "Blessed is he who believes, warmth to him in the world ...."
  18. shans2
    shans2 2 October 2018 08: 57
    +1
    This is an analogue of the glorious and highly effective missile of the French "Exocet")), the one that flew to both the Americans (the frigate Stark) and the British in the Falklands War, they are not in vain afraid))) the Americans simply do not have such an analogue ... they would have been praised, like the French and French customers)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 October 2018 11: 29
      0
      Quote: shans2
      This is an analogue of the glorious and highly effective missile of the French "Exocet")), the one that flew to both the Americans (the frigate Stark) and the British in the Falklands War, they are not in vain afraid))) the Americans simply do not have such an analogue ...

      Mwa-ha-ha ... and who took this "Harpoon" from the Americans, in the image and likeness of which the X-35 was made? wink
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Cannonball
        Cannonball 2 October 2018 20: 06
        0
        Despite the significant similarities between the characteristics of the X-35 and Harpoon missiles, the differences between them are clearly visible both in appearance and in layout. So, in the X-35, the electronic equipment of the autopilot is located behind the warhead, and in the Harpoon in front; The design of the wing and the air channel is different. The main functional difference of these missiles is called more perfect in terms of noise immunity of the seeker in the X-35 missile.
        Where did you see the similarities in the image and likeness?
  19. reminin
    reminin 2 October 2018 09: 11
    +2
    Moreover, in tests of missiles by Russia in warheads there was not even explosive. The functional part of the rocket was tested. Perhaps an inertial guidance system for which US EW methods are useless.
    It’s interesting, if the United States declares an 800-kilometer "umbrella", does this mean that the aircraft carrier cannot come closer than 800 kilometers to the border of the protected area? Since it will be attacked due to a potential threat (similar to the threat of a Russian aircraft for an aircraft carrier with a missile at a distance of closer than 300 km). And why then do we need an aircraft carrier that cannot approach the target?
    Against this background, long-range cruise missiles and intercontinental missiles look more promising.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 2 October 2018 09: 20
      +3
      Inertial, then it is inertial. but at the final stage, an active search is still underway !!! This is if the object is not welded to the pier tightly! So the counteraction of electronic warfare can be, what else.
      There is no perfect weapon and never will be .... but there is an effective one!
  20. HMR333
    HMR333 2 October 2018 09: 13
    +1
    He is clearly intercepting an anti-ship missile by an airplane))) is that f35 will ram a missile))) or it’s standing on it))) another Petrosyan! Yes, and let him teach the topic tests always pass either on special shields or on old dishes in all countries! this is what you need to be a boob to put it mildly, to conduct tests on an operating ship with a crew)))
    1. Shkiper
      Shkiper 2 October 2018 10: 25
      0
      Vladimir, believe me, a fighter is capable of intercepting an anti-ship missile with an air-to-air missile much more efficiently than an air defense missile system. Moreover, shoot with a cannon.
    2. Mr Credo
      Mr Credo 2 October 2018 11: 17
      0
      Problem creating a floating drone? At the same time, they are testing attack and reflection systems, as well as control systems. If there is an unmanned attack system, why cannot an unmanned reflection system be?
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 October 2018 14: 34
        0
        Quote: Mister Creed
        Problem creating a floating drone? ... If there is an unmanned attack system, why cannot an unmanned reflection system be?

        1. During the time of the Union, there were CCs led. Even for artillery fire. There was also a target submarine for firing "combat" torpedoes (only without BZO) at it. Crews received "combat" and length of service, as in a war - a year in three.
        2. "Unmanned" reflection system? You propose to arrange a "war of robots" at the "budget" level !? Have you already created cyborgs? AI is just being developed, if that ... yes
        1. Mr Credo
          Mr Credo 2 October 2018 15: 29
          -1
          Well, why not test unmanned systems? For some reason, there are no questions about unmanned weapons. And to unmanned means of reflection, skepticism. They managed to land Buran in unmanned mode. Missiles fly in unmanned mode and fall into the window. Why can not make an unmanned reflection system? Because it is impossible? Or just there was no such team? It's probably like flying drones. When they gave the command, they appeared. But they appeared in technologically advanced countries. The rest began to catch up with them. If there is a team to create unmanned means of reflection, then Russia may become the first country in this matter. We bought flying drones from Israel. For some reason, Israel was able to create them, but Russia does not. Although in the days of the USSR they could have produced.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 October 2018 16: 10
            0
            Why can not make an unmanned reflection system? Because it is impossible? Or just there was no such team?

            And if / when they do, your next criticism will be in the spirit: your AI is stupid, incomplete, will the fishing boat slip there?
    3. Cannonball
      Cannonball 2 October 2018 20: 12
      0
      By the way, when using electronic warfare equipment, even a modern warship can become a sedentary target barge. Ask Donald Cook.
      1. MANITU
        MANITU 3 October 2018 00: 26
        +2
        Ask "Donald Cook"


        So who should I ask? The crew quit out of fright, the "Cook" now the poor fellow himself is swimming.
      2. Mr Credo
        Mr Credo 3 October 2018 06: 55
        0
        About Cook has already been written. This is nothing more than a bike. Although pleasant for us!
        1. Cannonball
          Cannonball 3 October 2018 20: 56
          -1
          A bike is not a bike, but EW is a serious thing. Even more.
  21. rocket757
    rocket757 2 October 2018 09: 17
    +3
    Just a test, now we are pushing PR for this matter!
    Everybody does that, to scare Schaub, to sell Schaub .... such a normal situation, each one praising his "Kuzkin's mother", but negative pours on Tsuzuyu!
  22. Strashila
    Strashila 2 October 2018 09: 34
    +1
    "beautiful fireworks that can threaten, perhaps, fishermen." ... but the military budget was raised to 716 lard greens, which does not fit.
  23. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 2 October 2018 09: 35
    0
    This opus is directed primarily to American sailors. Are you afraid of the X-35U ??? Do you want to talk about it? Reception at the psychologist no more .... well, believe in health in what you want.
  24. Timtam
    Timtam 2 October 2018 09: 52
    -6
    which may threaten, perhaps, fishermen.
    And it depends on what hands, the Syrians, for example, will sink the Russian scab, and they will be given for this.
    1. 9PA
      9PA 2 October 2018 10: 07
      0
      It became interesting. If you can cram the sbch into the caliber with one blow, can you disable the aug? One rocket one aug, blast wave, minisunvmi there. Or one missile with sbch one aircraft carrier?
      1. Yarhann
        Yarhann 4 October 2018 02: 33
        -1
        if you hit the aircraft carrier exactly, it’s enough for one 5ct rocket to go to the bottom, and if you hit it with a blast wave, you need a very powerful warhead and a short blast distance of about a few km - the ships are very strong things that can withstand storms and therefore overpressure they will be able to withstand it, but the planes will blow something else but it will not last long.
        In general, the simplest option is a raid by several missiles with UBC - the first explodes on the way and the EMF temporarily disables the electronics and detection tools, the rest will go quietly into the warrant. Naturally, in the transceiver equipment, there is an automatics at the input, which, in the event of the failure of one amplifier stage, should immediately connect another - how quickly this will happen and how quickly the system can be rebuilt and return to the combat state, that’s the question.
  25. Andrey Nikulnikov
    Andrey Nikulnikov 2 October 2018 10: 06
    +1
    Remind me how much time and how many missiles, torpedoes and bombs the United States destroyed its old ship with the same exercises. If my memory serves me right, then the count went to the clock, and the amount of ammunition reached ten in my opinion. Probably, based on such experience, this analytical article was written.
  26. NEXUS
    NEXUS 2 October 2018 10: 07
    +4
    The rocket can be launched from an air carrier from a distance of about 300 km. But the American "Super Hornet" can protect the US Navy aircraft carriers within a radius of up to 800 km, and American specialists are working to increase this radius.

    For aircraft carriers there is a Dagger, X-32, well, Poseidon ... all this is at the final stage of testing. This rocket is sharpened to stoke various MRKs and corvettes ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 October 2018 14: 41
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      For aircraft carriers there is a Dagger, X-32, well, Poseidon ...

      Alex, hi! hi
      As for the "Poseidon", you obviously got excited ... He can solve the AVM problem only when the latter is in the naval base or close to the coast ... And so he is against the "coast". You know about it yourself. It's just that when you write posts - be more careful, don't fuss! drinks
  27. Storog dvornik
    Storog dvornik 2 October 2018 10: 12
    0
    "but even that, given the F-35," there is no need to be afraid. "
    ... quiet, quiet, no need to be afraid ....
  28. Shkiper
    Shkiper 2 October 2018 10: 18
    -2
    in the USA they were in vain nervous about the video published by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
    Of course in vain, don’t be nervous, sleep peacefully and don’t ask Congress for defense money ....
  29. Forestol
    Forestol 2 October 2018 10: 40
    +4
    Well, yes, yes, it’s just that Americans are used to the show, if there is a missile defense, there is a radio beacon in the mockup of the blank that guides the PR, if ATGM firing at the tank, the radio fuse blows the tank to shreds at the moment of the ATGM rocket flight at an altitude of 5-6 meters .... as Sun Tzu wrote, if you are strong, show that you are weak, if weak, show that you are omnipotent. War is the science of deception. The USSR strongly believed in SDI, created an exceptional “Buran”, compared to which the “shuttles” had a two-oar barge, each military version of the “Salute” could have a ready-made combat laser .... They spent the money and ruined the country, plus the help of “friends” ”And betrayal of the highest leadership of the USSR. Today our industry is nonexistent, industrialization implies the growth of industrial capital, and for 25 years we have developed financial capital, globalistic and OVERstate. Any arms race is a loop for us. So far, all liberals have not outweighed, starting with the HSE.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 October 2018 14: 46
      +1
      Quote: Forestol
      outweigh all liberals starting with the HSE.

      Your words, yes ... to God’s ears!
      But who will hang them, if there are only "friends" around! bully
  30. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 2 October 2018 10: 50
    +1
    Check scary, and so only scratch your tongue !!! I understand perfectly well -Russian, unlike you, just do nothing. Think Americans what to do with aircraft carriers? before it’s too late, the Chinese for scrap !!!
  31. AleksSandro
    AleksSandro 2 October 2018 11: 05
    0
    I doubt very much that this Nye ever wore epaulettes, but in psychiatry he was credited: part of the faint-hearted audience will calm down for a while, and there will be less people wishing to throw themselves out of the windows of New York skyscrapers ...
  32. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 2 October 2018 11: 18
    +3
    Yes, yes, peaceful American fishermen on peaceful aircraft carriers. We still have Granites with Caliber. Gifts for fishermen too ... laughing tongue wassat
  33. Berkut24
    Berkut24 2 October 2018 12: 18
    +1
    Who in the States should be appointed by post - he understood everything correctly. And journalists can gush as much as they like. If you don’t write, you don’t eat.
  34. Tuareg72
    Tuareg72 2 October 2018 13: 25
    0
    but weak amers try, it is worth fearing or not! Wellcome, awesome !!!
  35. NUR
    NUR 2 October 2018 13: 52
    +1
    The usual container ship melon made much larger, near Japan, but the ship survived, the leash bent slightly.
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 4 October 2018 02: 19
      -1
      it’s not a hole - it’s the explosion and the subsequent fire, the task is not to flood the ship but to disable it, that is, either immobilize or make it impossible to conduct military operations. And the holes that are above the waterline are not fearless not for ships, not even ships (container ships), but if it was a training torpedo and if it had a hole in the water, it would go to the bottom and the ship (if the crew does not work out as it should) and even more so the container ship (there are pressurized compartments )
  36. DOKTORdiesel
    DOKTORdiesel 2 October 2018 15: 17
    +1
    Not strong in a naval battle, but I think that the Americans are testing their rockets the same on standing fishing vessels? Or how?
    1. Varaga
      Varaga 3 October 2018 09: 10
      0
      Not always. Basically, as a target, they use old (decommissioned) warships. Since it is warships that best match the characteristics of a naval target, for the destruction of which RCC was created.
    2. Yarhann
      Yarhann 4 October 2018 02: 25
      -1
      you can test on anything, but given that the ESR of modern ships is less than the old ones, I think it’s better to take either small fishing trawlers (similar in ESR to warships) or just organize a design of angular reflectors of comparable ESR on the barge. To test new missiles designed to defeat new ships on old ships is not serious - this is how to test the C500 complex on B52 bombers, what's the point? And so it is clear that it will be detected at the range of the radio horizon and is guaranteed to be struck.
  37. Cannonball
    Cannonball 2 October 2018 19: 43
    +2
    X-35U - a beautiful firework that can threaten, perhaps, fishermen

    Which will catch fish, the feed of which will go to American sailors, thanks to the hit of the X-35U.
  38. sergej987
    sergej987 2 October 2018 19: 43
    0
    How nice it would be for them to think so about all our weapons!
  39. razved
    razved 2 October 2018 21: 14
    0
    If they really think so, then "blessed is he who believes" ...
  40. Varaga
    Varaga 3 October 2018 09: 04
    0
    Quote: Sandor Clegane
    is it impossible to drown a container ship with a displacement of 10000 tons?

    No, Danila. You can't. Disable so that the ship (ship) loses speed - yes. Namely, this goal is being pursued. In any ship (especially a ship), the inner space of the hull and superstructures is divided by several partitions, which are not inferior in strength to the sides or bottom of the hull. And at the slightest "fistula" (hole), adjacent compartments are isolated by battening down the bulkheads between themselves. Thus, the vessel (or ship) can maintain positive buoyancy for a long time.
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 4 October 2018 02: 14
      -1
      ship maybe ship no. Only warships are divided into pressurized compartments, and as a rule these are ships of past years - when any confrontation in any case led to holes on both sides - the ships were also well-armored, and the dimensions were quite impressive. Now the emphasis is on whoever first detects and launches the rocket, the enemy can only rely on jamming and missile defense of the ship - because if it arrives then the return shot may not follow.
      1. Varaga
        Varaga 4 October 2018 12: 55
        0
        All ships and ships are built according to the same principle - "multi-volume". Precisely so that when one or two compartments are flooded, the ship (vessel) remains afloat. And nothing new has been invented in this regard.
        1. Yarhann
          Yarhann 4 October 2018 21: 49
          -1
          I repeat again - ships yes, no trial. The only thing that can be compared with ships is passenger ships - although they are just as beautifully drowned as practice shows. In ships, there is a completely different construct to the spread of sea water to the organization of the tightness of the compartments td and tp. Well, and most importantly, do not forget that the compartments on the ship are much stronger than on the ship and during the explosion of explosives - in the ship, nafig disintegrates all partitions and decks, while on the ship the damage will be less significant and it will be possible to organize measures to ensure buoyancy and seaworthiness the ship.
          Let's just say that there are a lot of small compartments in the ship, especially important as the engine compartment, weapon cellars, etc. They are also well-armored, fuel tanks are spread throughout the ship and often serve to absorb the shock wave of the same torpedo. Take an example, for example, how battleships of World War II were built - these are ideal machines for preserving the buoyancy and numerous holes of sides, decks and bottoms. Ships do not make any comparisons with ships. Yes, modern ships are no longer built so monumental - there are no armored decks of 2 cm steel and so on - but still they are a cut above in unsinkability in comparison with ships. .
          And do not forget that on the ship the close-knit crew of the ship is fighting for survival - who knows what to do, and there is no one to do this on the ship ..
          1. Varaga
            Varaga 5 October 2018 08: 42
            0
            I repeat once again - ALL ships are built on the same principle. Have you been on a warship? And on the ship? First visit and climb the holds and add-ons. And then write. I’m not talking about the BZ ship, but about its construction principle. And nothing new to come up with. Neither for ships, nor for ships.
            1. Yarhann
              Yarhann 6 October 2018 22: 30
              -1
              Well, yes, Tirpitz built on the patterns of the Titanic))) funny .... you damn still submarines with ships compare
              1. Varaga
                Varaga 8 October 2018 00: 24
                0
                The circuit diagram is the same. The rest is the details.
                It is strange that you yourself do not make laugh.
  41. Larum
    Larum 3 October 2018 10: 00
    0
    The star posted a photo of the ship. Several holes, Entire windows and windows !!! and the ship didn’t even donkey.
    Boats and fishermen will be unpleasant.
    1. Rzzz
      Rzzz 4 October 2018 10: 40
      0
      They do not shoot at targets with full-fledged charges. Or discs, or greatly weakened. Because you don’t have enough targets, this time. Secondly, it is important to see where it’s hit and how deep it penetrated, but how to understand it if the target is torn to shreds?
  42. SibRUS
    SibRUS 3 October 2018 11: 12
    0
    Is the X-3U a typo or do they mean another missile?
  43. Sandor Clegane
    Sandor Clegane 3 October 2018 14: 35
    0
    Cannonball,
    and the frigate Grigorovich has waterproof bulkheads (you aren’t smart) ?, you can’t sink him or his analogue with 1 rocket ?? and it’s less than 5000 tons ..... although you don’t have to think about it
    1. Ugolek
      Ugolek 3 October 2018 15: 26
      0
      But after all, in war, it often happens when weapons are used for other purposes, and there is a lot of sense from this, there is efficiency. For example, Hrych gave several options. More examples: quad machine guns in WWII, shooting from rifles and anti-tank rifles at planes, anti-aircraft guns at tanks, and so on. Who is more cunning and will be able to use at the right time more effectively the arsenal that he has in stock. Napoleon finished off Austria in general with a printing press, and not with large battalions ...
  44. MrFox
    MrFox 3 October 2018 17: 43
    0
    And yet it is not clear what with the guidance system in the case of a moving target.
    1. At what distance will the target move until the rocket driven by the inertial system reaches the target location area?
    2. Does the active seeker, at the final flight site, capture the target, taking into account its displacement?
    1. gurzuf
      gurzuf 3 October 2018 18: 12
      0
      I think so, not a specialist, what if your pp 1 and 2 are not taken into account, then it makes no sense to build a rocket.
    2. Yarhann
      Yarhann 4 October 2018 21: 59
      -1
      Are you serious or kidding? all anti-ship missiles have an active seeker — the range of such seekers in the field of view is several tens of degrees at about 50 km for a destroyer-sized target. A ship, even at a great distance, will not be able to go anywhere far — the task of the RCC carrier is to set the rocket to an approximate meeting place with a target and approximate characteristics (EPR value and TP) - then the rocket arriving at a given square turns on the seeker finds the target (the targets may be false) selects according to embedded data and attacks using anti-aircraft maneuvers (slide, snake).
      For modern GOS, the task is no longer in the search for a target, it will find the target. And in its retention - because all modern ships have electronic warfare systems, various passive radio-contrast and heat-contrast curtains are also used - which hide the ship from the GOS RPC. That's all this mess on-board computer RCC and transceiver equipment and you need to figure it out - find the intended goal, make a maneuver and hit.
  45. StudentVK
    StudentVK 3 October 2018 19: 19
    -2
    OOOOO !!!!! WHO SAYS IT TO US ????? WOULD YOU ADVERTISE FU35 YES AS SO THAT THE SMOKE FROM THE “FAVORITES” WAS ANYWHERE)))
  46. segamegament
    segamegament 3 October 2018 21: 06
    -1
    a noble fish connoisseur, I doubt that he also understands rockets, and in military affairs does not understand anything from the word at all, since he recalls the worthless Fe35
  47. macgyver
    macgyver 3 October 2018 23: 28
    0
    As I understand it, the author regrets that the VKS did not test their rocket on any American invisible destroyer))
  48. Yarhann
    Yarhann 4 October 2018 02: 09
    -1
    American deer do not know what the rocket is for; this is an analogue of PKP harpoon. The harpoon is also not designed to break through the warrant of ships and destroy the flagship. For such purposes, there are completely different missiles, other carriers and other tactics of use.