F-35C presented with a hypersonic rocket

While the Russian MiG-31 is already plowing airspace, being equipped with the Dagger, Lockheed Martin is engaged in “animation”, demonstrating the F-35C created by the US Navy with a hypersonic rocket.

6 May at one of the exhibitions was first presented the artistic concept of the newest strike fighter, equipped and firing a hypersonic rocket HAWC. In accordance with this image, it is assumed that the aircraft will carry two items, one on each side on external hangers. There is no doubt that this method of arming the F-35 will negatively affect the notorious secrecy of the aircraft.

It is assumed that HAWC, which has so far been developed as weapons ground-based, first fly before the end of the year. As explained in the Air Force and DARPA, HAWC will use a launch vehicle that can accelerate at least to speed in 5 Mach, and then a hypersonic ramjet engine that supports speed between 5 and 10 Machi will work. Lockheed Martin is involved in the creation of the rocket, with which the military in April 2018 of the year entered into a corresponding contract for 928 million.

HAWC is said to be able to maneuver in the atmosphere, following a more unpredictable flight path compared to other traditional long-range weapons, such as ballistic missiles, which make it harder for the enemy to protect against them. The product will be capable of striking both ground and sea targets.

The War Zone edition suggests that HAWC can be equipped not only with deck F-35Cs, but also other Navy fighters, such as the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, B-1 or B- bombers. 52.

DARPA and the Air Force look at HAWC as a kind of stepping stone to more advanced hypersonic air-launched weapons. In this case, the final choice on their part has not yet been made. Currently, HAWC is in a "race" with another program - Tactical Boost Glide (TBG), in which it creates an unmanned aerial vehicle designed to launch a hypersonic rocket both from the air and from a ship.

We are on the path to ensure that both [programs] fly to the end of [current] calendar year [...] [However] sometimes they slip.

- said 1 May 2019, Stephen Walker, head of DARPA.

Comments

[neri73-r]

Go ahead gentlemen, and with the song! Let's see what happens and for what price!

[siberalt]

If the hypersound is not nuclear, then what will the "efficiency" cost to carry a couple of centners of conventional TNT on it, if the target is not a naval aircraft carrier group?

[voyaka uh]

So most cruise and tactical ballistic missiles carry a warhead of 200-500 kg. And the Caliber, and the Tomahawk, and Iskander ... The whole chip is exactly.
If you missed 20 m - then a lot of money wasted.

[lucul]

So most cruise and tactical ballistic missiles carry a warhead of 200-500 kg. And the Caliber, and the Tomahawk, and Iskander ... The whole chip is exactly.
If you missed 20 m - then a lot of money wasted.

Nda? And YOURS, they did prove to me with might and main that the Americans in hypersound are ahead of the rest, and Russia cannot even do Lada. And there was this debate back in 2009))

[yehat]

speculations in the topic begin in the title
than the old-old sidewinder rocket is not hypersonic?
and then it went - went "we are the coolest" there, others are here,
but the essence does not change. The development of the topic in general is very far from successful at all
Perhaps I will tell you a revelation, but in a number of aspects the leader is no longer the United States and the Russian Federation, but China
But not because they are the most, but because no one was digging there.
and you know, it turns out a dispute between a blind person and a deaf person who hears and reviews someone.
But in general, the situation does not change. The Americans have the best practical base, we better understand
theory and forecast, and the Chinese are the best ones to pick up other people's solutions and persistently improve them.

[Cowbra]

And tactics, along with winged ones - cost several orders of magnitude less, for example, they, for example, a guidance system in a plasma cloud - don't need a fuck.
Time and sawing, sawing and time - the Pentagon's motto!

[Genry]

Quote: Cowbra

Time and sawing, sawing and time - the Pentagon's motto!

And not only the Pentagon but also NASA with their "people's" Mask.

[5-9]

So hypersound is much more expensive, especially KR. Well, the sense of the Kyrgyz Republic without special warheads is also not very much see Syria and 3 sheds for 100 missiles. BR is even more expensive - there’s even less sense without special warheads from them. In terms of cost / effectiveness.

[novel66]

if even a blank is creeping near the target, but on hypersound - it will not seem enough

[yehat]

will the watchman go into binge?

[poquello]

and if there is only one left, a weight will be picked up to the second wing

[SHAMAN]

Now Russia is driving in hypersound, etc. And let the US catch up, they slammed us in the early 2000s
We celebrated the victory in the Cold War over the USSR early on.

[Chizhik]

Quote: SHAMAN

Now Russia is driving in hypersound, etc. And let the US catch up, they slammed us in the early 2000s
We celebrated the victory in the Cold War over the USSR early on.

where do we steer? even the engine was not created for a hypersonic rocket, and the Americans are already testing it in full. it is possible to accelerate a weight to hypersonic speed, only it will not become a hypersonic rocket.

[SHAMAN]

Quote: Chizhik

Where do we drive?

Well, judging by your Bandera cries ..)))

Quote: Chizhik

and the Americans are already testing it. it is possible to accelerate a weight to hypersonic speed, only it will not become a hypersonic rocket.

Even so, why do they yell with you about the Russian threat ..?

[Chizhik]

Quote: SHAMAN

Quote: Chizhik

Where do we drive?

Well, judging by your Bandera cries ..)))

Quote: Chizhik

and the Americans are already testing it. it is possible to accelerate a weight to hypersonic speed, only it will not become a hypersonic rocket.

Even so, why do they yell with you about the Russian threat ..?

who is yelling there? They scream at the NI website, which completely obeys the people and they pass it off as the opinion of all amers. they are more likely to yell into the voice, from all these cartoons and people who believe in all this.

[For example]

Quote: Chizhik

Where do we drive?

You are driving on the Maidan. Cobblestones, tires, bottles of kerosene. Well, whoops praising themselves.
Go on, and abroad will help you.

[dauria]

You steer on the Maidan. Cobblestones, tires, kerosene bottles.

The strongest argument of the dispute at the current BO. Sunk.
And now to the point. The type of engine on the Dagger? Direct-flow air-jet? Or is he carrying an oxidizer with him? If the oxidizing agent is air oxygen, then the second question is fuel in liquid form or solid inside the combustion chamber? The questions are not idle, because the main thing is not the fashionable word "hypersonic", but the creation of a ramjet on liquid fuel with an oxidizer from the air and combustion in a supersonic flow. Who did this before the serial model, so much so that the adversaries overslept everything? So even with the atomic bomb it was not, our people knew, they did it as best they could. The United States then had a head start. We fought, they traded and lived a virtually peaceful life. And now ? I don’t believe that the United States could have “overlooked” such a question.

[For example]

Quote: dauria

The strongest argument of the dispute at the current BO. Sunk.

I do not know where you sunk there, but there are facts.
Fact 1 is a dagger on alert.
The fact of 2 is the absence of a hypersonic missile from the USA.
With the rest of the wife cry.
That you announce our development cartoons. Now American dreams declare held weapons.

What is more effective than a real "dagger" or a hypothetical hypersonic mattress?

Does it carry oxygen with it or not, what's the difference at this point in time?

The "wrong" dagger can disable an American aircraft carrier, and the correct hypersound of the Americans cannot even scare fleas, because it does not exist.

Be happy!

[Chizhik]

Quote: For example

The fact of 2 is the absence of a hypersonic missile from the USA.

well, in fact, for today, just the amers have a hypersonic missile, and this is the x-51, whose photos they like to insert here when they talk about our hypersonic missiles. and the right dagger for a start you need to somehow point to this aircraft carrier. and the satellites that will do this are not yet in orbit.

[skif8013]

Quote: For example

Quote: Chizhik

Where do we drive?

You are driving on the Maidan. Cobblestones, tires, bottles of kerosene. Well, whoops praising themselves.
Go on, and abroad will help you.

You forgot about crutches and colanders)

[antique]

Quote: Chizhik

where do we steer? not even an engine created for a hypersonic rocket

I agree. Don't underestimate your opponent. Russia has not created a fundamentally new thing. As she stood on all fours, she still stands. The Kremlin "Moth" tells fairy tales tirelessly. There was no direct flow line, and there is still no one. The flying astrolabe is in experimental combat operation. How many are there, 2 or 3 pieces fly? Now, if the Zircon is launched, now if there is a direct-flow engine on the Zircon, if it is produced at least a thousand or two, you can puff out your cheeks out of pride. In the meantime, urakryakalki, cover the mouth slits. You are portraying delight as if on command. It's too early. It is not known how many years we will need to fine-tune all these miracles. And the money is already running out. Therefore, what lies ahead of us is unknown. 3 pieces of Daggers made, 12 pieces of Vanguards promise to build if the keel does not pop out. What to boast about? Shine and poverty of modern Russia. The American girls will do everything quickly now and put it into series. Does anyone have any doubts? Will they be able to? Easy. Everything will be done and adjusted to the borders of Russia. To Ukraine, for example. Then we'll listen to the new songs of the Kremlin. "Moth," will rustle again about bad "partners."

[Sns]

Russia drives hypersound only on TV, the Americans said that radars cannot see the flight of hypersonic devices in the atmosphere, which means that it is impossible to verify the statements of Russia about the success of testing such devices. The flight of a hypersonic glider in the atmosphere looks like a meteorite flight, that is, flying through the whole of Russia to Kamchatka, the flight of the Vanguard should have been seen by millions of Russians from the ground and filmed on camera. On YouTube there is a video of the flight of the American glider HTV-2 across the ocean. Why is there no video of the flight of the Russian Vanguard across Russia ??

[neri73-r]

Quote: Sns

Why is there no video of the flight of the Russian Vanguard across Russia ??

So that the diggers of the sea (Black) could not cut it out and apply it, although it is already Polish or German!

[Leon68]

Have you been banned in Google, or have youtube disabled? There are still lots of videos not only from Russia, but also from the Scandinavians. See what you are asking:

Quote: Sns

The flight of a hypersonic glider in the atmosphere looks like a meteorite flight, that is, flying through the whole of Russia to Kamchatka, the flight of the Vanguard should have been seen by millions of Russians from the ground and filmed on camera.

[Stas 2rep]

Oluh, the word Russia is capitalized. Sit deuce

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Sns

Russia drives in hypersound only on TV,

Damn it, vacation is only in a month, and high school is already attacking.

[voyaka uh]

While serial cruise missiles with ramjet engine no. Who first puts into service is unknown
Both the USA, and Russia, and China each work on their own version.

[SHAMAN]

Quote: voyaka uh

Both the USA, and Russia, and China each work on their own version.

And Israel, over which option, if not a secret ..?

[Zaurbek]

Israel has adopted something similar to a dagger but smaller in size and range .... Under its planes and threats.

[mark1]

Quote: Zaurbek

Israel has adopted something like a dagger

More likely on x-15

[voyaka uh]

With ramjet engine? - we do not have such developments.

[SHAMAN]

Quote: voyaka uh

With ramjet engine? - we do not have such developments.

Do not ponte the warrior! Why such a small pseudo-country such a weapon .. With whom are you going to fight then ..? Always laughed at your ambitions and exclusivity.

[voyaka uh]

"Why would such a small pseudo-country have such a weapon .." ///
----
Here I am about the same!
Always laughed at gigantomania.

[Zaurbek]

analog dagger ..... ball rocket, air-based.

[Cowbra]

And Israel is occupied by earth-moon rockets, of shock action, without a warhead warhead, in order not to accidentally damage the traces of the presence of Americans on the moon. They are not up to hypersound. Sounds they spread on VO

[voyaka uh]

Israel produces all types of missiles: ballistic - from small (Laura) to ICBMs (Shavit), the entire line of missile defense, short-range and medium-range missiles, short-range and medium-range missiles (subsonic). Recently made an analogue of the Dagger - launched Laura from the plane.

[Cowbra]

That's just the Dagger is not OTRK, fundamentally different missiles, so I congratulate you on another lie!

[lucul]

While serial cruise missiles with ramjet engine no.

Well, who will tell you the truth))
Won about the A-235 project (Nudol) only now it became known ....

[Zaurbek]

But her ancestors flew for a long time.

[dirk182]

Yes, there is no project Nudol! This is really a fake.

The old woman "Gazelle" in her usual old TPK, only differs in color (it used to be pale yellow with white caps). At the same time, in the video by reference, the missile type is indicated as 51T6, and this is generally the designation "Gorgons" :)

Another brave agit-prop https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2958277. Apparently, a gazelle-type missile was launched (according to NATO classification) or a conventional air defense missile from a new launch container. It is alleged that the range of 1 km and a height of 500 km. Illiterate delirium, since only a ballistic missile can have such flight parameters, but not an ABM interceptor! The conditional target, i.e. the real goal was not hit. Then what is the basis for the enthusiasm that this product is a "killer of ballistic missiles", can hit targets in space, etc. etc.?

In today's state, the Russian Federation is no longer able to create new samples of high-tech weapons, because the country is de-industrialized, and science and education are destroyed by "optimization reforms." All 18 years of Putinism, Russia has “produced” almost exclusively corruption and pretense.

[Genry]

Quote: voyaka uh

While serial cruise missiles with ramjet engine no.

If you are talking about hypersound, then there will never be. At these speeds, wings are harmful by definition.

[Nyrobsky]

A broom with a stupa to help them ..

[bessmertniy]

For every woman with a stupa yaga there is a many-headed Serpent Gorynych.

[evgic]

It’s not good to have an ape at a gas station with a torn economy. Come up with something bright and elven

[Sns]

The dagger is not a hypersonic weapon, it is just a ballistic missile of an air launch. I recommend the author of the article to read about the GAM-87 Skybolt rocket, which had a speed of 15 max, was launched from an airplane. A speed above 5 max does not make a rocket a hypersonic weapon ...
A dagger can only hit immovable ships anchored in ports, a source told the newspaper Vzglyad, it cannot hit ships / aircraft carriers at sea on the move. The dagger cannot, ballistic missiles are not intended for planning for movable targets, they have too large mass-dimensional performance characteristics, it’s flying a barrel which, during maneuvers, colossally loses energy / speed. The dagger needs to reduce its weight by 10 times and add wings for maneuvering to get closer to the performance characteristics of the famous winged anti-ship missiles. The tale of the Dagger as a thunderstorm of aircraft carriers was invented by patriotic channels ...

[Grigory_45]

Absolutely sure

I recommend the author of the article to read about the GAM-87 Skybolt rocket

- and I would recommend that the author never write again

[dirk182]

USAF plans to deploy 50 Titan 3C ICBMs with a 100-megaton Ripple warhead (weighing 18000 pounds) + 52 Titan3C to deliver 3 types of Dynasoar more interesting! Or the use of Nova launcher to deploy a system of 30 orbital bombs Boeing model SR-181 (weight 60 pounds) with the same version of Ripple.

but about this, by chance, did not hear anything?

[dirk182]

then a flying barrel which, during maneuvers, is tremendously losing energy / speed.

That is, still maneuvers?)

Secondly, such a missile during its flight can carry out maneuvers with the help of aerodynamic rudders, bypassing all dangerous zones - for example, the areas where the missile defense (ABM) and air defense systems are located. The ability to maneuver in hypersonic flight allows us to ensure the invulnerability of this product and guaranteed hit on target, Borisov emphasized.

A dagger can only hit immovable ships anchored in ports

All he can. The only problem is target designation. And work is underway on this.

[bulvas]

Quote: Sns

stop listening to these storytellers from the Ministry of Defense, they hang noodles with fermented cheers patriotic.

command me to listen?
you’re definitely not a storyteller, you’re just carrying a blizzard without knowing anything

When and if the Americans want to check, they will set up their ships, while they don’t want to.

As for stationary targets, there are a lot of them, so the Dagger will be very handy if necessary.

[neri73-r]

Quote: Sns

The tale of the Dagger as a thunderstorm of aircraft carriers was invented by patriotic channels ...

Your patriotic canals came up with a tale about the tumens of equestrian Buryat tankers, as well as their successful destruction near Debaltsev and Ilovaisk!

Quote: Sns

A speed above 5 max does not make a rocket a hypersonic weapon ...

But you believe it, it doesn’t, we don’t have anything!

[Zaurbek]

I think it’s just that there are expanded possibilities for correcting hits on the final stretch, in comparison with the Iskander rocket (although a similar rocket was already lit up by Iskander). And this correction will allow the RBF to get into the moving large ship, if there is initially the correct MC. Comparison with RCC is not entirely appropriate here. You can even calculate how long the AUG or warrant will take during the flight of the BR. Quite to itself, the target will hit.

[Grigory_45]

Iskander was originally created to defeat stationary goals. Yes, no doubt, you can make the rocket adjust its course - but within very small limits, at least on the basis of the rocket’s layout and its speed. To hit the Kyrgyz Republic on a moving maneuvering target is a huge problem (even on such a relatively large and slow-moving ship). The Americans conducted research with their Tomhawk, but, you know, it has both subsonic speed and more aerodynamic surfaces. Plus, he needed accurate target designation, right down to the target's highlight. So a comparison with anti-ship missiles is quite appropriate if the missile is in conventional equipment. If in a special - this is a different conversation ... there is a mistake

[Zaurbek]

And China has created a BR with such capabilities. External CC is the determining thing. Most likely they simply expanded the area where correction is possible and put the appropriate seeker (probably a radar with mm range or infrared)

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Zaurbek

And China has created a BR with such capabilities

rather, China relied on massaging the use of such rocket launchers — one will get it) Although they tried to do this in the USSR as well - remember the modification of the R-27K missile. But to this day, without a special warhead, to hit a moving target is a problem for BRs.

[dirk182]

what does Iskander have to do with it if we are talking about the "Dagger"?

HAWC will be able to maneuver in the atmosphere, following a more unpredictable flight path compared to other traditional long-range weapons, such as ballistic missiles, which makes it difficult for the enemy to defend against them. The product will be capable of striking both land and sea targets.

that is, it does not bother you .... hmm, well, everything is clear

[Zaurbek]

Everything is clear only to a limited number of people ..... and they are cared for in special institutions. Naturally, Kinjan and Iskander ballistic missiles are different in layout. It is impossible to suspend one and the same BR under the aircraft pylon and on the MZKT launch vehicle. But this and that BR with very similar in appearance dimensions (length and diameter) and the terms for creating the Dagger system are much shorter than Iskander.

[dirk182]

I'm not talking about the layout! but about the fact that the Americans actually claim the same thing: the defeat of land and sea targets. Agree that the sea target will not stand and wait. That is, among the Americans, we consider this possible, and in the case of the Dagger impossible?

[Zaurbek]

What are you corrosive. If they write, then it’s possible. GOS are becoming more modern, funds for central control also.

[antique]

Quote: dirk182

That is, among the Americans, we consider this possible, and in the case of the Dagger impossible?

Don't forget about the US orbiting satellite constellation. And about the quality of satellites. For them, \ USA \ target designation is really possible. The total number of satellites is 849. Russia is reported to have over 150. We are talking about all satellites. Including civil and dual use. The ratio is not in our favor. Russian satellites "live" less in orbit. Therefore, with external target designation, not everything is so simple.

[dirk182]

Dear, why did you say that? It's about opportunity-impossibility !!! Let's dwell on this.

[antique]

Quote: dirk182

Dear, why did you say that? It's about opportunity-impossibility !!! Let's dwell on this.

It is about opportunity and impossibility. If there are enough satellites, target designation becomes possible !!!

[Babai 640]

The key word of all this bravado is "Will ..."

[Sns]

Nowhere in the world are ballistic missiles used as anti-ship weapons, they are losing enormously energy at the terminal stage due to their mass, they simply do not know how to plan like cruise ships.

[Zaurbek]

In the West, there is no such acute problem of protection against AUG ... competitors do not have them (or there are but few). This problem hangs over the Russian Federation and China .... No one had analogues of Granite either. But not because there is no backlog for their creation. They have nothing to destroy and their functions are performed by aircraft from bases around the world and from the AUG.

[dirk182]

yes, yes, yes .... you and yours will not please. That appearance is not the same (not hypersound). Something else is wrong. Do you have any complaints about the picture with the F-35? Pure hypersound?

[dirk182]

A dagger can hit only immovable ships anchored in ports, a source told the newspaper. Look,

Sorry, I just saw it. And what is the source? Another "special"?

[Cowbra]

Urrrya! AmerYga ponad mustache again! Everything, now tremble, a drunk Russian bear !!! You can draw like that - you can never! Fearfully? Bullshit, I'll show you a picture of a rocket launch from Zumvolt! And here's another picture of how he shoots at 100500 miles from SUPERPUSHKA! What does junk mean? Shaw, it means you have been showing these pictures for 10 years already, but it didn’t work to shoot either one or the other? See the picture? Here. Ponadus, as it is!

[Charik]

draw more as they can, there is money for cartoons

[Grigory_45]

What kind of presentation style is this? Now in fashion?

While the Russian MiG-31 is already furrowing the airspace, being equipped with a “Dagger”

- And how many MiG-31 with Daggers plow open spaces? One two Three? When there will be not units, but regiments, then it will be possible to boast.

There is no doubt that this method of arming the F-35 will adversely affect the notorious secrecy of the aircraft.

- does the author of the note have any solid evidence that the F-35's stealth is "notorious"? The proof is in the study!

[malyvalv]

and how many MiG-31 with daggers plow open spaces? One two Three? When there will be not units, but regiments, then it will be possible to boast.

They are required for more than the number of AUGs in the United States. One at aug is just enough. The rest is money down the drain.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

They are required for more than the number of AUGs in the United States. One at aug is just enough

What are you sho?)) Where does this analytics come from? Afftor can study?))

[malyvalv]

To reasonably answer the question, why more if the enemy does not have protection?

[Sns]

A dagger can’t hit floating aircraft carriers and other ships, ballistic missiles are nowhere used as anti-ship missiles anywhere in the world, their mass is 10 times greater than the mass of cruise anti-ship missiles, the engines do not work at the terminal stage, it's just a flying barrel, the ship’s displacement in space makes this barrel correct flight this leads to a colossal loss of energy to subsonic speed.

[malyvalv]

How much does the aircraft carrier move there during the terminal stage of the dagger flight? How many corrections should be applied there? And why are these engines not working?
Well, if it can’t, all right. It is unclear why then the Americans are so hysterical about the Dagger. They probably want to experience in practice whether it strikes moving goals or not.

[Grigory_45]

that I can, unlike you. Arguably, by itself. They asked a question to you, and you, like Moishe, asked a question to a question .. So how will the answer be voiced?

[malyvalv]

That you sho?))

This is the question you proposed to answer ?. I'm nothing. Will such an answer satisfy?
But I did not wait for your answer yet.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

This is the question you proposed to answer?

So on a simple, and do not pretend to be Ivanushka from a fairy tale that he was not seen. For the gifted, I duplicate:

Quote: Gregory_45

Where does such analytics come from? Afftor can study?))

Are you satisfied? Then I wait for an answer) Argumented, by itself))

[malyvalv]

Where does such analytics come from? Afftor can study?))

These are rhetorical questions that are not accepted in a decent society. In less decent it is customary to send.
In general, it seems I can’t wait for the arguments. Well, okay. Better learn the lessons. A quarter is ending soon.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

In general, it seems I can’t wait for the arguments

they will be lower. But I didn’t see anything intelligible from you. Apparently, there is nothing to say except blah blah. It happens...

Quote: malyvalv

In less decent it is customary to send.

I consider myself from a decent society, therefore I will not send you. Although it would be worth it - as an instance from indecent society))

Now to the point. So I understand that all your statements are based on one assumption, namely

Quote: malyvalv

why more if the enemy does not have protection

Who told you such nonsense? To begin with, there are patrol interceptors, there are AWACS aircraft, there are missiles on escort ships - all this can neutralize the carrier even before the rocket launches. There are electronic warfare systems and again missiles that can bring down the missile itself or ensure its miss. The missile itself may miss - both due to a malfunction and as a result of a violation or lack of external target designation. Even if a rocket hits AB, this does not guarantee its sinking or incapacitation. AB - a serious, large armored ship with a layered and spaced, duplicated arrangement of vital mechanisms. In the USSR it was believed that the hit of one Granite or X-22 is not enough. The dagger carries the warhead no more. And based on the foregoing, consider that

Quote: malyvalv

One at aug is just enough

very, very arrogant and criminally stupid. How do you imagine the attack of a single missile carrier on the AUG?)) It’s not funny to yourself? After all, he alone is needed, with a single missile, for

Quote: malyvalv

The rest is money down the drain

So that..)))

[malyvalv]

Quote: Gregory_45

there are AWACS aircraft, there are missiles on escort ships - all this can neutralize the carrier even before the launch of the rocket. There are electronic warfare systems and again missiles that can bring down the missile itself or ensure its miss.

The media cannot be neutralized. Mig-31 still need to catch up. He can safely fly up to 300-400 km and when he sees the launch of missiles on it, he can calmly turn around and flee.
At the same time, he will see AUG without problems at such a distance. SAM and escort aircraft carrier will not save. They stupidly have no missiles to shoot down hypersonic missiles. EW will not save either, since the basis of target designation will be inertia + optics. The aircraft carrier is too big and fat carcass to escape far during the time that the dagger flies to the target. Moreover, when an aircraft carrier falls within the limits of optical visibility, the inertial will be constantly updated and calculate the course of the rocket taking into account the movement of the ship. RGSN is simply not needed.
An aircraft carrier, when hit by one missile, of course, most likely will not drown. But this is not necessary. The fact that he will fail already is enough. But Migov can be 2 and 3. Then the whole AUG will not be sweet.
Even with 10 Daggers on duty, to push the AUGs to our shores during the database is for the Americans a deliberate suicide.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

Cannot neutralize media

like that peremptory, right?)) Interestingly, on the basis of what? A missile carrier has 9 lives, or is it invulnerable and invisible?))

Quote: malyvalv

Mig-31 still need to catch up

so he attacks the AUG, or runs away from the interceptors?))

Quote: malyvalv

He can safely fly up to 300-400 km and when he sees the launch of missiles on it, he can calmly turn around and flee.

are you aware of the parameters of the detection zone by ship’s means, means of airborne early warning aircraft and the patrol zone? ..)

Quote: malyvalv

At the same time, he will see AUG without problems at such a distance.

how? With binoculars?)) On the MiG-31K there is not even a radar)

Quote: malyvalv

EW will not save either, since the basis of target designation will be inertia + optics

right?)) Oh, specialist ... Inertial does not provide accuracy, it is useless when shooting at moving objects. Optics - has a short range. And will it work on hypersound? Or will you have to slow down and become a target for SAM?

There are a lot of questions, many of them (I would say, almost everything) you have no answers. Therefore .. to make peremptory statements - well, at least stupidly

[malyvalv]

are you aware of the parameters of the detection zone by ship’s means, means of airborne early warning aircraft and patrol zones? ..

I am aware of the range of means of destruction of targets at AUG. 300 km maximum. From the fact that they will see Mig, he is neither cold nor hot. And they will not launch rockets for 300 km. They will fly so far MiG already has time to reach their native airfield.

how? With binoculars?)) On the MiG-31K there is not even a radar)

He does not really need him in the event of an AUG attack. She (AUG) itself shines well for hundreds of kilometers. The meaning of removing the radar is most likely that it is planned to accelerate the Mig to speeds of 3 M and higher before launching the Dagger. That is, at the start speed of the scramjet engine without a preliminary accelerator. And the radar most likely does not withstand temperature conditions during such acceleration. Although it may have left the radar. This is a secret matter. No one will tell the truth.

Inertial does not provide accuracy, it is useless when shooting at moving objects.

On its own, yes. In combination with optics is very accurate. Moreover, when approaching the Dagger at a distance of 20-30 km, the aircraft carrier can be considered a stationary target due to the huge speed difference.

Optics - has a short range.

The dagger, which is not a camouflaged tank, must be sought. Aircraft carrier is a big thing. It will be visible at a distance that allows transparency of the atmosphere. This is many many tens of kilometers at least. The optoelectronic system Su 35, 57 allows you to detect an enemy fighter at a distance of up to 50 km. And then the aircraft carrier.

right?)) Oh, specialist ...

Yes true. And yes, specialist. And on the topic have something to say?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

I am aware of the range of means of destruction of targets at AUG

I doubt

Quote: malyvalv

300 km maximum

real - the radius of patrol interceptors. You do not know anything about the organization of air defense AUG. Recall how the Americans were going to eliminate the threat from Soviet missile carriers (Tu-22 with X-22)? It is carrier-based aviation. And you're talking about some missiles weaving .. They are the penultimate line of interception

Quote: malyvalv

She (AUG) itself shines well for hundreds of kilometers.

how's the tree That is, with binoculars? Or how if the aircraft does not carry radar?

Quote: malyvalv

Inertial does not provide accuracy, it is useless when shooting at moving objects.


On its own, yes. In combination with optics is very accurate. Moreover, when approaching the Dagger at a distance of 20-30 km, the aircraft carrier can be considered a stationary target due to the giant speed difference

You again do not understand) Inertialka leads a rocket quite accurately if the target is stationary. If not, the rocket needs to be corrected (just as the course of long-range BB missiles is corrected - from the side of the carrier aircraft until the missile seeker captures the target) If there is only an inertial, there is a great chance that the dagger’s seeker will simply not find the target, because there’s a minimal error on the trajectory or maneuvers of the target - and the range of the optical seeker is not enough to detect the target. Optics are accurate, but only works over short distances.

Quote: malyvalv

It will be visible at a distance that allows transparency of the atmosphere. This is many many tens of kilometers at least

a maximum of 20 kilometers, but in reality - even lower

Quote: malyvalv

And yes, specialist

what profile?

Quote: malyvalv

And on the topic there is something to say

with you exclusively on the topic and I say, if you have not noticed) It’s you who are carrying the blizzard ...

[malyvalv]

real - the radius of patrol interceptors.

Patrol not 300 km around AUG 365 days 24 hours? No resource is enough. Writing on paper is one thing; reality looks different.

Recall how the Americans were going to eliminate the threat from Soviet missile carriers (Tu-22 with X-22)? It is carrier-based aviation.

Straight and escort is not needed? Why then are all these Berks stuffed with missiles? So the hopes were not very high pinned on the wing.
The dagger is far from the X-22. It’s impossible to bring him down. Neither the F-18 nor the Berks. This is the main change.

If there is only an inertial, there is a very high chance that the DOS of the Dagger simply will not find the target, because the minimum error on the trajectory or maneuvers of the target - and the distance of the optical DOS is not enough to detect the target. Optics are accurate, but only works over short distances.

The required inertial accuracy at a distance of 400 km in order for the optics to catch a target of at least + \ - 50 km. What is the problem? It seems to have written earlier. Inertial + optics with inertial correction according to optics. There is no again 25. Dumb?

a maximum of 20 kilometers, but in reality - even lower

F-22 at a distance of 50 km. This is real data on optics at Sushki.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

Dumb?

Dumb, of course))

Quote: malyvalv

Patrol not 300 km around AUG 365 days 24 hours?

for the period of maintaining the database - yes, at least the constant presence in the air of the AWAC and in the standby pair. Plus, AUG is not in a vacuum, receiving data on the environment from many external means.

Quote: malyvalv

Straight and escort is not needed? Why then are all these Berks stuffed with missiles? So the hopes were not very high pinned on the wing.
The dagger is far from the X-22. It’s impossible to bring him down. Neither the F-18 nor the Berks.

you again didn’t understand anything)) Interceptors - in order to bring down missile carriers before launching missiles, or at least to disrupt their attack (and not then to bring down already launched missiles)) AUG air defense is four-level: the far zone (interceptors and AWACS), medium (SAM) escort ships), the nearest one (they are also the air defense of the AB itself), and the limiting one is anti-aircraft guns, for sifting through what broke through. In addition, the escort does not deal exclusively with air defense tasks - it is responsible for providing anti-aircraft defense, protecting aircraft from surface ships, supporting strikes along the shore (Berki, by the way, is stuffed with Yeshe and Axes), etc. Have you ever wondered why the AUG always includes at least one submarine? Probably to reflect aianalets?

Quote: malyvalv

F-22 at a distance of 50 km. This is real data on optics at Sushki.

oh oh?)) You again confuse green with square. Under ideal conditions, an aircraft heat finder can also catch a hot jet engine nozzle. In your opinion, does the ship also shine, and even against the background of the underlying surface? What do you mean by optics? IR head?

Perhaps you yourself already understand that everything is not at all as simple as you see it. I have not talked about the problem of target designation (you modestly shut up already about target detection)

Laugh further))

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

What are you sho?)) Where does this analytics come from? Afftor can study?))

The author has a normal orientation ....
And for the Dagger, how many goals can you offer? Divide them by month, one per day and get the required number of planes.
If not urgently, then one aircraft may be enough (now the troubles are small).

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

The author has a normal orientation

if urry-patriotism and amateurism (or rather, stupidity) is now normal - then I wash my hands ...
Now to the point. In the USSR, they very, very seriously took the problem of counteracting the state's AUGs, since they were a very severe headache. So, according to the research of our Navy, to destroy or inflict unacceptable damage to one AUG, it took at least 100 anti-ship missiles in a salvo, from different directions and from different carriers. RCC type Granite or X-22. There were no amateurs writing analytical notes. And I believe them more than mellowed urri patriots. Therefore, all who claim that one Dagger - one sunken aircraft carrier or not in himself, or very, very far from reality.

[dirk182]

one, of course, will not be enough .... from 5 to 10 per aircraft carrier to ensure its incapacitation (not sinking). How many of them will be required for AUG is anyone's guess. But AUG will not be fun. And if you take into account the fact that there is a revival of "Legend" - "Liana", it will not be at all.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

and how many MiG-31 with daggers plow open spaces? One two Three? When there will be not units, but regiments, then it will be possible to boast.


They are required for more than the number of AUGs in the United States. One at aug is just enough.

admire. And there are now such an overwhelming majority. As before Tsushima ...

Quote: dirk182

one of course will not be enough .... from 5 to 10 on an aircraft carrier to ensure its guaranteed failure (not sinking)

and that is not a fact. Considering many factors (starting from the fact that the MiG-31 with the Dagger cannot reach supersonic sound and is completely unarmed, the enemy has electronic warfare and fighters with AWACS and ends with problems with target designation for the missile itself. There is no time for enthusiastic screams and throwing bonnets .. .

[dirk182]

I don’t even argue with you!) I absolutely agree. I am only talking about a purely theoretical part. Missile and the possibility of hitting a moving target.

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

MiG-31 with a dagger cannot go to supersonic and is completely unarmed,

Hello supersound ... Why is it then not launched from any transport or passenger?
But why arm, maybe cover with exterminators. Yes, and he will be a bullet from a safe zone.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

Hello supersound ... Why is it then not launched from any transport or passenger?

and who's stopping? Allowed carrying capacity and avionics. Didn’t you think of it yourself? In general, the dagger was created for suspension under the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS. Last LTH not far from the transporter)

Quote: Genry

Yes, and he will be a bullet from a safe zone.

Yeah, yeah ...) You didn’t intend to shoot at the training ground, but not in real life? The enemy should not be underestimated - it is better to overestimate it. Minus the radius of the missile’s use, at least the detection range of the carrier by AWACS is already an insecure zone. Why don’t you want to think, or is arguing a hobby for you?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

Why arm

so on the Su-34 why hang explosive rockets? He is a front-line bomb! Fighters will always cover him! Your logic does not stand up to criticism ... alas (((

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

Therefore, all who claim that one Dagger - one sunken aircraft carrier or not in himself, or very, very far from reality.

You are not in it if you think that the American aircraft carrier will be drowned with conventional non-nuclear weapons.
It will be a war without brakes. The Anglo-Saxons never spared anyone. Even columns of unarmed people were shot. Therefore, no one will play giveaways.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

It’s you, if you think that the American aircraft carrier will be drowned with conventional non-nuclear weapons

in my opinion, just you)) It all depends on the degree of conflict. So far, American ships have tried to sink only conventional weapons. And the one who first applies nuclear weapons will not be very greeted .. Be smarter

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

And the one who first applies nuclear weapons will not be very greeted .. Be smarter

Do you really think that the United States will be embarrassed to use tactical nuclear weapons. They already have experience.
And the sinking of the aircraft carrier will be an event when it doesn’t matter which rocket it banged. All the same, they will yell about everything that was and was not. Lied with a test tube at the UN about Iraq. Today they talk about Salisbury about Russia. We do not forget about pseudo-chemical attacks in Syria (then massive rocket attacks). And then, even more so, they will scream like roasted ones.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

Do you really think that the United States will be embarrassed to use tactical nuclear weapons. They already have experience.

uh .. And which one? Hiroshima?

Quote: Genry

the sinking of the aircraft carrier will be an event when it doesn’t matter which rocket it banged

no, far from all the same. If you bang it with an ordinary rocket, you might wash yourself. And with a special warhead, there will be a scandal all over the world and you will become an outcast country, from which they will turn their backs and anathematize everything. Think broader .. Tactical nuclear weapons are a bluff, from him to strategic - one minute .. and the end.

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

there will be a scandal for the whole world and you will become an outcast country,

You will become an outcast even before the use of missiles. Now they are trying to impose Russia with sanctions and lies. And the use of nuclear weapons will be simulated in advance or applied by the USA themselves. Aircraft carriers will be sinking at the height of events for stripping.

Quote: Gregory_45

Tactical nuclear weapons are a bluff, from him to strategic - one minute .. and the end.

The US will use tactical tactics from Europe - they say we are not. But they have already been answered - we do not care.
Strategically, Russia is more resistant to nuclear weapons. Large territory, no seismic areas and the possibility of catastrophic development. In the USA it is San Andreas, Yellowstone and the convenient island-volcano Las Palmos, beloved since the times of the USSR. By the way, in the United States about Yellowstone, a specific panic was raised that a year was left - a maximum of two.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

US will use tactical

will it be, or have you already applied, as you said? And they say, not a novelty - i.e. many times?

Quote: Genry

In the USA it is San Andreas, Yellowstone and the convenient island-volcano Las Palmos, beloved since the times of the USSR. By the way, in the United States about Yellowstone, a specific panic was raised that a year was left - a maximum of two.

this nonsense is not even worth commenting)

Quote: Genry

You will become an outcast even before you use missiles

apparently you can’t imagine. what is a real rogue country ..

For this, let me stop the dispute - I did not hear anything constructive and interesting (except for the ridiculous) from you. All the best))

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

For this, let me stop the dispute - I did not hear anything constructive and interesting (except for the ridiculous) from you. All the best

You simply cannot weightily answer. Sit down - deuce!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

You just can’t weigh back

it's just you to yourself. I get tired of the narrow-minded and simply stop communicating, instead of explaining the inexplicable to the individual, and even if they don’t understand. If you do not understand. And I had to explain how to the fifth grader.
So

Quote: Genry

Sit down - deuce!

obviously not in my address ..

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

obviously not in my address ..

I may have got excited, but you didn’t say anything about La Palma Island (in the park you called Las Palmos a stranger). So you don’t know what is its danger to the USA?
Small and far from the US island ....

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

I might get excited

it looks like you are just earning your points. Pluses. I do not need this - I always say it as it is, even if my opinion is not pleasing to the majority. However, I’m used to that smart adequate people are discussing with me, not .. You made such an impression. Apparently, they only produced ...
And for the cons - grateful) I have long understood, here. on VO, the more of them - the more targeted and your comment got into the top ten. It’s even a kind of compliment)

I hope you understand the rest. A stupid person like

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

it looks like you are just earning your points. Pluses. I do not need this - I always say it as it is, even if my opinion is not pleasing to the majority. However, I’m used to that smart adequate people are discussing with me, not .. You made such an impression. Apparently, they only produced ...
And for the cons - grateful) I have long understood, here. on VO, the more of them - the more targeted and your comment got into the top ten. It’s even a kind of compliment)

I hope you understand the rest. A stupid person like

Well, how do I perceive you now?
You are trying to hang your pettiness on me.

[Grigory_45]

about the orientation of the afftor have more questions?

[Babai 640]

Therefore, all who claim that one Dagger - one sunken aircraft carrier or not in himself, or very, very far from reality.

At your leisure, try to wrinkle the gyrus and think what is the point in the AUG if its most important part is the aircraft carrier is out of order ?! I hope that the three classes of the TsPSh are enough to understand that the aircraft carrier does not even need to be drowned, but it is enough to damage the take-off deck to make it completely useless!
PS Nobody has yet learned to dig trenches in water.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Babay 640

try to wrinkle gyrus

which I advise you, as well as wrinkle your eyesight (if you know how) and see what I have written everywhere

Quote: Gregory_45

for destruction or unacceptable damage one aug

And about

Quote: Babay 640

an aircraft carrier doesn’t even need to be drowned, but it is enough to damage the take-off deck to make it completely useless

there will be a separate remark. The Americans learned to repair the deck quickly. This is not a factor that can make AB useless. Disable it not for several hours, but in general, only damage to the reactor, catapults or finishers can. And do not forget that these systems are duplicated, buried deep in the hull and equipped with protection. This is as stupid as believing that by damaging the takeoff of an airfield, you can make it useless. Runway repaired in a few hours
Therefore, keep up the good work.

Quote: Babay 640

wrinkle

not write silly comments

[antique]

Quote: Gregory_45

if urry-patriotism and amateurism (or rather, stupidity) is now normal - then I wash my hands ...

Nice to read sane comments. For some reason, they \ adequate \ assessment and opinions are becoming less common. Absolutely stupid enthusiasm about the state of the Armed Forces progressively grows, well, the most complete madness happens when it comes to Putin’s favorite multi-toys. Hooray crackers breed like poisonous toads in Australia.

[Grigory_45]

Alas, the VO was getting smaller. Or dried up. Comments are written to a greater extent either by inadequate urry-patriots, or people who do not even know the basics of technology. Very, very few technically competent (indeed literate, not "well-read") specialists remained. Probably, the resource was not created in order to write laudatory odes and minus the undesirable (in this case - a march to Made with us, they will kiss in the ass)). I wanted to see VO as a serious resource where you can discuss pressing problems with literate thinking people. Alas, there are almost no such people left here. And he himself has a desire to leave .. There is no one to talk to ...

I myself am a leading engineer, I gave the industry 11 years .. I have my opinion on many issues.

[antique]

Quote: Gregory_45

Alas, the VO was getting smaller. Or dried up. Comments are written to a greater extent either by inadequate urry-patriots, or people who do not even know the basics of technology. Very, very few technically competent (in fact, literate, not "well-read") specialists remained.

It looks like this situation is not only on the site. General decline and degradation are just racing ahead of each other. And, of course, the organized choir of the "enthusiastic" makes a significant contribution to the overall picture. The site is popular, it can have a significant impact on the minds and moods, so there is a feeling of some control, to put it mildly, from the outside.

[CAT BAIYUN]

Well, in 2018, at the parade on May 9, exactly six pieces flew with the "Daggers".
And to show not just what would not be necessary, but enough. And who said that was all? And no longer in stock? The difference between what is shown and available in reality has always been and will be.

[voyaka uh]

MiG-31 - a necessary measure. He hardly drags such a weight as Iskander-Dagger. With him under his belly, he will not overcome the sound barrier. And she certainly won’t be able to sit with him. At the parade showed dummies without fuel and warheads. Even the radar with the MiG-31 was removed to make the aircraft as light as possible.
That's when the Iskander will be able to carry the Tu-22 or Tu-95, then we can talk about weapons.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: voyaka uh

MiG-31 - a necessary measure

Quote: voyaka uh

That's when the Iskander will be able to carry the Tu-22 or Tu-95, then we can talk about weapons.

common sense)

[dirk182]

for Tu-22M3

[Genry]

Quote: voyaka uh

MiG-31 - a necessary measure.

The problem is not in weight but in range. MiG-31 is shown as a solution to problems in the near field. For the far zone, there can be any carrier (for example, a cruise missile stage).

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

For the far zone, there can be any medium

you contradict yourself. See (your) comments above. Not confused in those pines then?

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

you contradict yourself. See (your) comments above.

Write a thesis. It's hard to understand what your three ... thought up.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

It's hard to understand what your three ... thought up

So your two thought up ... It’s very difficult to re-read your own comments and identify inconsistencies?

Quote: Genry

For the far zone, there can be any medium

Quote: Genry

Hello supersound ... Why is it then not launched from any transport or passenger?

Already eat, don’t you? Well, such a plan of statements can be found not one or two ... I used to adhere to one line in a conversation with many opponents, and you probably do not ..
And they did not explain how the MiG-31 in the form of a missile carrier differs from the Su-34, which was deemed necessary to give defensive weapons in the form of melee explosive missiles. MiG-31 can not meet with the enemy interceptors? Is this generally out of the question? Or did the developers leave the plane no chance, and did not burden the additional load? Which option do you like more? Or maybe the one that the MiG-31 is just a demonstrator, and no more? And the real carrier will be the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS? Then what does speed have to do with it? .. Ask yourself questions, this is a good brain training ..)

[Genry]

Quote: Gregory_45

It’s very difficult to re-read your own comments and identify inconsistencies?

Well, damn it, you give.
Each case had its own context. And you did not perceive "any carrier" and did not find fault: wheeled, tracked, sea. But they found fault with supersonic. Do you have any gaps with information?

Quote: Gregory_45

And they did not explain how the MiG-31 in the form of a missile carrier differs from the Su-34, which was deemed necessary to give defensive weapons in the form of melee explosive missiles.

But it’s not clear to you that the dagger has significant weight and this limits the amount of fuel to be loaded onto the plane. Therefore, to increase the flight range, all secondary equipment and weapons are removed in the MiG-31 in order to take more fuel and meet the maximum take-off weight.

Quote: Gregory_45

MiG-31 can not meet with the enemy interceptors? Is this generally out of the question?

In fact, it is poorly suited for maneuvering combat (especially pregnant) and short-range missiles will not help him. You just have to run away, but with fighters of the enemy, it’s better to understand fighters such as Su-35, MiG-35, sharpened to gain dominance.

Quote: Gregory_45

Or maybe the one that the MiG-31 is just a demonstrator, and no more? And the real carrier will be the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS? Then what does speed have to do with it?

No need to palm off the Tu-95. The dagger needs supersonic, otherwise it can fly across or with its tail forward, like a log.
Tu-22 is suitable, but not yet needed, or they are corny enough to be allocated for these tasks. You will not show the layout for the specialization of the use of aircraft.

Quote: Gregory_45

Ask yourself questions, this is a good brain training ..

Judging by the generation of your questions, you have not practiced for a long time or simply never .....

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

Judging by the generation of your questions, you have not practiced for a long time or simply never .....

which applies to you - that's for sure ..) _

Quote: Genry

Well, damn it, you give.

So at you give, not me) The answer was to your comments, and very clear.

Quote: Genry

And "any carrier" you did not perceive and did not find fault: wheeled, tracked, sea

which only confirms my words is an absolute unconstructive, and if you puffed up to sarcasm - it didn’t work)

Quote: Genry

But it’s not clear to you that the dagger has significant weight and this limits the amount of fuel to be loaded onto the plane.

Gospidya, so it is clear to me as anyone)) Where did you find the opposite? Well? wishful thinking or playing in public? Pale, very pale. That's exactly why the MiG-31 removed all defensive weapons and even radar. Well, did that benefit the plane? They removed it from hopelessness, if only it flew - is it not clear? Yes, of course, you can’t admit to yourself ...

Quote: Genry

No need to palm off the Tu-95

oh how)) And what is it? You do not know? Your problems. Tu-95 we have a full-time missile carrier. And the Tu-95RC is also a designator. Does the target designator bother you?

Quote: Genry

Tu-22 is suitable, but not yet needed, or they are corny enough to be allocated for these tasks

do not star. The Tu-22M3 is just being modernized to use the most modern weapons, because the Tu-160, by itself, is not enough for everything. And bears are outdated in the last century.

I’ll shrug you all the same to turn on the brains, if any, and you have not forgotten where the toggle switch is ON)))

[Genry]

To this point, you only have grimaces ...

Quote: Gregory_45

That's exactly why the MiG-31 removed all defensive weapons and even radar. Well, did that benefit the plane? They removed it from hopelessness, if only it flew - is it not clear?

Hopelessness is already with you. Just sort through the options and carry whatever.
Your just to fly, in fact, provides a specific task. The MiG-31 simply changed its specialization (type of weapon), because it was best suited to the task of an air launch of the Dagger.
And the benefit is that you are now forced to take a break and pretend that you have everything in chocolate.

Quote: Gregory_45

You do not know? Your problems. Tu-95 we have a full-time missile carrier. And the Tu-95RC is also a designator.

Yes, even a flying toilet. I'm not interested in what you say about him.
One you are afraid to say that he can not pass the sound barrier. But the dagger needs to be launched from that side, since all its aerodynamics are calculated ....

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: Genry
Tu-22 is suitable, but not yet needed, or they are corny enough to be allocated for these tasks

do not star. Tu-22M3 just upgrade to use the most modern weapons,

Well, who starred here?
What is the size of the rockets in the launch drums? Will you cram with a sledgehammer?
You can attach it externally, lose in the characteristics of speed and range - but not for this plane was made.

Quote: Gregory_45

I’ll shrug you all the same to turn on the brains, if any, and you have not forgotten where the toggle switch is ON)))

Where is the switch in your brain - I don’t know. And I’m not going to poke around in your gray-white-brown substance, where everything is shaken and mixed.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Genry

The MiG-31 simply changed its specialization (type of weapon), because it was best suited to the task of an air launch of the Dagger.

You see, all your reasoning is based on one assumption - that a rocket does need a high initial velocity

Quote: Genry

But the dagger needs to be launched from that side, since all its aerodynamics are calculated ....

who told you such nonsense? Then, according to your logic, the same Iskander (prototype of the Dagger) will not fly from the ground launcher) After all, the launcher is stationary and has not overcome the sound barrier))) In general, hypersonic missiles need to be launched exclusively from high-speed aircraft))) Not funny?)) Zircon as will it start from the ship?)) And the shtatovskaya X-51, probably, sucks because it was launched from the B-52?))

Quote: Genry

do not star. Tu-22M3 just upgrade to use the most modern weapons,

Well, who starred here?
What is the size of the rockets in the launch drums? Will you cram with a sledgehammer?
You can attach it externally, lose in the characteristics of speed and range - but not for this plane was made.

what are the drums, what are you talking about? Oversized cargo (such as X-22, X-32, etc.) the missile carrier carries (nominally!) On external suspensions)) And always wore them there)

I don’t even comment on the rest))

Happy Holidays!

[CAT BAIYUN]

MiG-31 - a necessary measure. .

Forced or not, but there is a measure and it works.

With him under his belly, he will not overcome the sound barrier. And she certainly won’t be able to sit with him.

that is, have you personally tried, not overcome, and not sat down?

At the parade showed dummies without fuel and warheads. Even the radar with the MiG-31 was removed to make the aircraft as light as possible.

Everywhere you were and saw everything, and of course you know everything
Not ... I understand everything: the picture from your American friends looks more convincing than everything that Russia currently has.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: KOT BYUN

Well, in 2018, at the parade on May 9, exactly six pieces flew with the "Daggers".

with mock rockets. These are said to be two huge differences

[CAT BAIYUN]

Well, you, like, an adult ... Well, really .... maybe you can tell here that all the equipment that arrived at the parade comes in its original combat ready state .... right now even though, from the parade, Take it directly from Red Square and complete the tasks.
It is clear that the Victory Parade is an action prepared, well staged, pursuing its goals, with the presence of security measures, options for the development of events and the prevention of emergency situations. It may well be such an option - they drag models ... And so what? From this it follows that mock things are not in nature?
Vaughn soldier Wow, right, he developed a whole theory on this topic: it cannot, will not take off, will not sit down, and in general layouts, and without a radar and without fuel "..
Well, he is forgivable. Yes, I do not argue with him - he is a fanatical supporter of the sect "F35 best in the world aircraft".
What are you? Have you signed up for the same sect?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: KOT BYUN

you’ll tell here that all the equipment that arrived at the parade comes in a pristine combat ready state ....

Quote: KOT BYUN

It may well be such an option - they drag models ... And so what?

and from that it follows that there can be only three combat missiles, and there can be a lot of mock-ups for window dressing. You do not understand me at all, and even blame me

Quote: KOT BYUN

Well, you, like, an adult ...

Therefore, what is shown at the parade does not mean that there is a sufficient amount in the aircraft. In the days of the USSR, mock ballistic missiles were dragged in size, although they themselves weren’t on the database !!!)) The world had enough of the window dress ... Is that clear now?

Quote: KOT BYUN

Yes, I do not argue with him - he is a fanatical adherent of the sect "F35 best in the world aircraft".
What are you? Have you signed up for the same sect?

Well, if a group of sober-minded (or trying to think like this) is now a sect, and moreover devoted to anathema - then yes, consider signing up))

[Zaurbek]

Mig31 does not fly over the ocean ....... you need to cover the Mediterranean Sea, the way out of the North and the Japanese ..... It is achievable.

[looker-on]

Quote: lucul

So most cruise and tactical ballistic missiles carry a warhead of 200-500 kg. And the Caliber, and the Tomahawk, and Iskander ... The whole chip is exactly.
If you missed 20 m - then a lot of money wasted.

Nda? And YOURS, they did prove to me with might and main that the Americans in hypersound are ahead of the rest, and Russia cannot even do Lada. And there was this debate back in 2009))

That's the problem that we can make rockets and normal cars for civilians, no. The last was Russo-Balt. Minus how much you want

[Genry]

Quote: looker-on

we can do rockets and normal cars for civilians, no. The latter was Russo-Balt.

Instead of Russo-Balt now Aurus. Or is it not in your temporary space? Ah, the training manual is out of date?

[Sayan]

An old trick - we bought into the SDI cartoon, but it's still worth looking at this crap - they are still technologically powerful and will create such a weapon. So that Kuropatka "we cast aside icons" must be discarded, but it is necessary to study, analyze and draw conclusions ... but what about the brain drain? - after all, they pull our brains to themselves, it means they are not so stupid that they understand that they themselves cannot cope ...

[vasilii]

Weird picture. The "A" in HAWC stands for "Air-breathing", so where is the air intake?

[CAT BAIYUN]

He's probably on the other side of the picture Well, that's how they drew .... It so happened

[Timx]

The air intake there is covered by an aerodynamic hood in front, which should be reset immediately after the start))) A hypersonic version of Bramos is depicted in approximately the same way in mock-ups.

[vasilii]

For this, the air intake must be annular, and this is more like Russian developments - more precisely, the GL "Kholod" from the 90s. The Americans, on the other hand, had both hypersonic prototypes, the X-43 and X-51, with linear air intakes.

[Timx]

Well, firstly, I had it there))), which means sarcasm, and secondly, why

the air intake must be annular

? in the USSR there were different projects: the first of the type "Tempest" and "Buran" - yes with ring, but then almost all jet aircraft flew on this type, tk. it was most well studied, then they switched to a symmetrical X-shaped scheme, as it makes it possible to free up volumes for placing guidance systems with large antennas (Soviet anti-ship missiles X-41 "Mosquito" and multipurpose KR X-31), but this was still alive to the founder of OKB-670 Bondaryuke: after his death, parts of the united team scattered among various structures and the search work stopped ... This is precisely the reason for the "craving" of domestic developers for the ring air intakes.

[Timx]

That is why modern anti-ship missiles "Yakhont" and "Bramos" have this type of VU-device (the power plant for them was designed by a small group of veterans from the former OKB-670 and, of course, they had to use, for the most part, the operating time they had in KB in the 60s ...

[Lieutenant Colonel of the USSR Air Force in stock]

Quote: SHAMAN

Quote: voyaka uh

With ramjet engine? - we do not have such developments.

Do not ponte the warrior! Why such a small pseudo-country such a weapon .. With whom are you going to fight then ..? Always laughed at your ambitions and exclusivity.

***
Israel is on the 5th place in the export of armaments in the world, behind the USA, RF, Fr., Isp.
and per capita for 1, probably -320 $, US $ 101, RF- $ 99
Israel takes the 5th place according to the results of export in 2018 - $ 3,266 billion, or 3,7% of global supplies.
For comparison: in 2015, the volume of identified Israeli military exports amounted to $ 2,035 billion (2,8% of the world market), in 2016 - $ 2,955 billion (3,4%), and in 2017 - $ 2,540 billion. . (2,9%). In general, over the past 4-year period, Israel exported arms worth $ 10,796 billion (3,2% of the world market, 7th place). Supplies weapons to 60 countries. All developments are oriented not only to their small market, but also to the external one.
The following places in the top ten in terms of arms exports at the end of 2018 are held by the United Kingdom - $ 3,114 billion (3,5%), Germany - $ 2,508 billion (2,8%), Italy - $ 2,093 billion ( 2,4%), South Korea - $ 1,937 billion (2,2%) and China - $ 1,335 billion (1,5%).
If we take into account the entire 4-year period (2015-2018), the rating of exporting countries ranked from 1 to 10 will look like this (only identified supplies are taken into account): USA - 142,249 billion dollars (1st place) , Russia - $ 49,135 billion (2nd place; for reference: the "unaccounted" volume in the Russian Federation due to incomplete data for this period is estimated at approximately $ 10 billion, that is, about 20% of the identified volume against 3-5 % from other leading exporting countries), France - $ 29,789 billion (3rd place), Germany - $ 19,065 billion (4th place), Great Britain - $ 15,571 billion (5th place), China - 10,905 billion. dollars (6th place), Israel - 10,796 billion dollars (7th place), Spain - 10,462 billion dollars (8th place), Italy - 7,807 billion dollars (9th place) and the Netherlands - 4,356 billion dollars. (10th place).
This is not only ambition: the conditions for survival and replenishment of the budget

[Lapunevsky]

It is interesting, when already at many leading military powers of the World will be armed with hypersonic missiles and carriers, approximately equal in characteristics and capabilities - what then? What kind of arms race will come up again to rob taxpayers and budgets, what vundervaflu?

[spectr]

Already there is such an area - genetics. They periodically write about her, something similar to science fiction. And if the development and testing of conventional tools can somehow be tracked by satellites, then the impact at the genetic level is a closed and uncontrolled topic.

[Lapunevsky]

I agree. I can even imagine how many secret laboratories in the depths of bunkers under wild protection are now sculpt all sorts of genetic research and even viruses and other filth. Inventing how to make invulnerable ones and kill others.

[Berkut24]

But there is no striped aircraft, which would give a good impetus when starting the product. A start on a subsonic requires additional fuel. I think that the creators of MIG-31 themselves did not know what kind of masterpiece they would succeed in.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Berkut24

I think that the creators of MIG-31 themselves did not know what kind of masterpiece they would succeed in.

they certainly didn’t realize that he would have to carry such a heavy load and act in an uncharacteristic role. The MiG-31 is an excellent interceptor and a very flawed anti-ship missile carrier. Why - read above, I do not want to repeat myself. not a burden on him ...

[Lapunevsky]

Americans can recover the SR-71 and stick a pair of hypersonic rockets to it. It turns out not a bad carrier. [media = http: //www.airwar.ru/image/idop/other/m21/m21-3.jpg]

[Lapunevsky]

The United States has such a not bad SR-71 aircraft, if everyone hasn’t drunk them yet .... It was against it that the MiG-25 interceptor was created. Read about it at your leisure.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

Read about it at your leisure

You just made me laugh)))) I know a lot about what ... don’t make yourself a guru, please) Do not consider yourself smarter than your opponent .. it may be slippery) The USA has no way to put into operation museum CP-71s (and others not left), just like to revive their production. Although Kelly Johnson once offered an interceptor on the basis of the Archangel (as he was called then) .. But it did not work, and could not work out. so I’m sending you to study the SR-71, and think why it cannot be a missile carrier, and not an upright scout))

[Lapunevsky]

This is exactly what I advise you - do not consider yourself smarter than others. I pointed out to you on the SR-71 as an example, that the United States still has experience in creating supersonic aircraft with a supersonic step of more than 3 males. in response to your: "... But there is no striped aircraft that would give a good impulse when launching the product ...".

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

that the United States still has experience in creating supersonic aircraft with supersonic pitch of more than 3 max

Thank you for enlightening, otherwise I didn’t know))) Did I argue with you about this?

Quote: Lapunevsky

But there is no striped aircraft, which would give a good impetus when starting the product

and fuck it is not needed if the rocket itself is hypersonic) Estimate, huh))

[Babai 640]

But there is no striped aircraft, which would give a good impetus when starting the product

and fuck it is not needed if the rocket itself is hypersonic) Estimate, huh))

Read your words about "slippery" and don't make people laugh! It is the initial impulse that is of paramount importance at this historical stage of development!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Babay 640

and do not make people laugh!

which I recommend to you)))

Quote: Babay 640

It is the initial impulse that is of paramount importance at this historical stage of development!

only if you want to throw an object into space. And then - the launch height is more important than speed. Understand for yourself why? Did you learn about the atmosphere and its properties at school?

As already mentioned, there is the problem of separating the ammunition from the carrier at high speed. Therefore, if the rocket is really fast, the initial impulse is not very important for it - the height, which gives the range, is more important. Of course, to start a hypersonic engine, an initial air flow rate is needed, but it is easier to provide it not with the speed of the carrier, but with a rocket accelerator. Besides, let it be known to you, the Dagger is not hypersonic.

[Babai 640]

And then - the launch height is more important than speed. Understand for yourself why? Did you learn about the atmosphere and its properties at school?

I would be immensely grateful if you would open a little to me that "over the horizon" part of physics and the "properties of the atmosphere" that you possess!
PS I will give good advice. Never write about something that you have an extremely vague idea of!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Babay 640

I would be immensely grateful if you would slightly reveal to me that "over-the-horizon" part of physics and the "properties of the atmosphere" that you possess.

This is known to every student)) You have not learned lessons yet? Well, a rocket spends a significant (large) part of the fuel to overcome the dense layers of the atmosphere. The booster plane allows this to be avoided, the rocket starts already from a great height. Where the atmosphere is discharged. This is clear? Even a kindergartner should be clear, not like a student who writes in VO ..)))

Quote: Babay 640

PS I will give good advice. Never write about something that you have an extremely vague idea of!

Follow your advice - it is relevant for you as well))

[Babai 640]

Where the atmosphere is discharged. This is clear? Even a kindergartner should be clear, not like a student who writes in VO ..)))

To tears, right
No, I don’t argue, you’re a respected person here, a whole lieutenant, but I just love to stall the humanities who smoked a physics textbook back in the 5th grade! To begin with, you would have familiarized yourself with the principle of operation of a scramjet engine, although it is enough to start with a simple "ramjet", because these are two systems that are completely different in physical processes, and then they were carrying fierce delirium! I will not load you with the theory of fuel combustion, but I will start with platitudes. Have you heard anything about the stoichiometric number? Why does he know why turbines are installed on car engines ?! You have a "box" on your avatar, and you are getting into the theory of jet engines.
No, I do not dispute your purchased Certificate of Secondary Education, but the rudiments of ingenuity are simply required to be present! How to get excess pressure at the entrance to the Dagger's engine to ensure stable, supersonic combustion of fuel in conditions of rarefied outside air ?! Don't you guess ??? Then "Learn, learn and learn!" as grandfather Lenin bequeathed!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Babay 640

No, I do not dispute your purchased Certificate of Secondary Education, but the rudiments of quick wits are simply required to be present! How to get excess pressure at the inlet of the Dagger engine to ensure stable, supersonic combustion of fuel, in conditions of discharged outdoor air ?!

have you ever heard of accelerators?)) A hypersonic ramjet has a minimum speed at which it can function, approximately equal to M = 5. Well, and what can the medium help you with even with a hypothetical speed in M ​​= 3?)))

So

Quote: Babay 640

"Learn, learn and learn!" as grandfather Lenin bequeathed!

[Grigory_45]

Babai, go to sleep))) Sleep, I mean. You write such garbage that even a drunk can’t write ... Don’t clog up the ether, do everyone a favor)

[Babai 640]

Babai, go to sleep))) Sleep, that is

You tell your husband this, sub-Alcove.

[malyvalv]

Quote: Gregory_45

only if you want to throw an object into space. And then - the launch height is more important than speed.

Listen, come on, amuse the people. Look at the topic of which is more important for spacewalk altitude or speed more closely.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

Listen, come on, amuse the people.

stop it. who doesn’t tell you?))

Quote: malyvalv

Look at the topic of which is more important for spacewalk altitude or speed more closely.

Look at air start systems. The carrier can be subsonic, its task is to deliver an object (rocket) to a height of more than 10 km, which can significantly save on rocket fuel. and, accordingly, on its mass.

[malyvalv]

Well, how many spacecraft have been launched into space from an air launch? That one.
There is no need to familiarize oneself with the materiel deeper before continuing to carry nonsense.
The only air launch project so far is the shuttle drop to a height of 100 km. But speed is not important to him. Because the air start.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

Well, how many spacecraft have been launched into space from an air launch?

We look at the Stargazer (this is generally Lockheed L-1011 Traistar a la Boeing airliner). We look at projects - both domestic and foreign. Almost all of them are on subsonic vehicles (Mriya, Ruslan, the Lightning-1000 project, the recently flown Stratolaunch Model 351). By your logic, the creators of these aircraft or projects are pests))

Quote: malyvalv

There is no need to familiarize oneself with the materiel deeper before continuing to carry nonsense.

Meet, or faith does not allow you?

[malyvalv]

Mriya and Ruslan - transporters and no more. Not created for an air launch.
Stratolunch is not for spacecraft. As I wrote, just push the shuttle to a height of 100 km.
A cruise missile launching a 500 kg satellite into a low orbit from an air launch is a burnout project. Now carriers are able to do the same from the earth as dirt in a heap of countries and they are much cheaper.
What you wrote just confirms that an air launch does not give any special advantages. Otherwise, they would have long been used by everyone. But this fact does not alarm you. You stupidly continue to bend your line. Further without me please.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

Mriya and Ruslan - transporters and no more. Not created for an air launch.

MiG-31 was also created not as a carrier of an aeroballistic missile. But for some reason this does not bother you at all, but the transporter as a carrier is so very))

Quote: malyvalv

Stratolaunch not for spacecraft

he was supposed to carry Falcon Air with a payload of about 5 tons. For a space rocket - what we are talking about. Or are you talking about something else already?
Moreover, Stratolaunch, in order to complete the task, surprisingly does not accelerate to three Machs) It just climbs higher.

Quote: malyvalv

Now carriers are able to do the same from the earth as dirt in a heap of countries and they are much cheaper.

Who denies that they are not? In that quality, ballistic missiles removed from the database are used. But here's what's cheaper - the grandmother said in two. Therefore, air launch projects live, no one has abandoned them (neither we nor the Americans) - because launching a rocket from a height is much more economical than launching from a ground platform. This is understandable even to a student - the rocket did the hardest part of the path for itself on the carrier)

[Grigory_45]

Quote: malyvalv

air start does not give any special advantages

then the creators of such systems are pests) So?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

But there is no striped aircraft, which would give a good impetus when starting the product.

although ... if you think about it, that is. F-15 what does not suit? Or B-1B? This is not an invitation to a debate that the F-15 or Lancer will be a carrier of cruise missiles, but to the fact that you are very poorly versed in the aircraft of an incredible enemy

[Lapunevsky]

Then why is the MiG-31 chosen as a carrier at all, if the Dagger missile is hypersonic? If the speed of the carrier is not important in your opinion, then why not stick the Daggers to the IL-76? Think about it, huh? Why bother with reworking the MiG-31? And in aviation technology, I understand at the level of an Internet user, like most ordinary people. And I count those who constantly drum on the chest - they say "we have wow what a wunderwaffe, but the Americans do not have such a wow wunderwaffe!" - couch urapatriots. Which only harm the good image of Russia and its army.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

in aviation technology, I understand the level of Internet user

because I advise you not to build a connoisseur - ridiculous))
The dagger was originally planned for the armament of the Tu-22M3 and Tuk-95MS, if this is new to you. Enlighten) Which of them has a speed of 3M with suspensions? Probably the Tu-95?)))

Quote: Lapunevsky

And I think those who constantly drumming in the chest ... sofa urapatriots. Which only harm the good image of Russia and its army.

But the truth does not harm the image? Image? you are only discussing with me because my words seem to cast a shadow on the great and invincible? ...

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

Then why is the MiG-31 chosen as a carrier at all, if the Dagger missile is hypersonic?

so a hypersonic missile (suppose))) What’s the carrier? In addition, the MiG-31 with a dagger under the belly is not something that M = 3 will not develop, it will not even work out to supersonic. High speed is not important, as long as the launch height - then the rocket will fly further without spending fuel and energy to overcome the dense layers of the atmosphere. The dagger can be safely launched from the IL-76, if so it will be equipped with pendants and equipment for launching missiles

[Lapunevsky]

The supersonic carrier is not used as the first stage for the rocket during the acceleration phase. The MiG-31K delivers an aeroballistic missile to the drop area in a matter of minutes (This is what supersonic Mach 2-3 is needed for), then the main engine accelerates the ammunition to hypersonic speed in seconds. It's all about the minimum time for the launch vehicle to reach the launch line of a hypersonic missile. And this minimum time can only be provided by high-speed media. With a full ammunition load in the perceptor variant, the MiG-31BM develops a speed of Mach 2,5-3, depending on the flight altitude. The MiG-31K was re-equipped to work with the Dagger, and all unnecessary weapons were removed from it. The weight for a combat mission with him remained within the performance characteristics of the interceptor. Therefore, with the "Dagger" under his belly, he is able to reach the launch line at a speed of Mach 2,5-3. Neither the Tu-95MS, nor the Il-76 and others are capable of this. The Tu-22M3, after being converted into "Daggers", is also capable of reaching the launch line at speeds up to Mach 2. All the best, great expert.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

A carrier with supersonic sound is not used as the first stage for a rocket during the acceleration phase. The MiG-31K delivers an aeroballistic missile to the discharge area in a matter of minutes (That's what supersonic in 2-3 mach is for)

Not used. There is a problem of separating the ammunition from the carrier at high speeds. Especially so heavy and overall, like a BR. In addition, when the BR is suspended, the frontal resistance increases significantly, which prevents the carrier from reaching high speed. Pure aerodynamics, and no cheating)

Quote: Lapunevsky

The MiG-31K was reequipped to work with the "Dagger", and all unnecessary weapons were removed from it

Well?))) It turns out that the aircraft does not need a radar, and a pair of explosive rockets for self-defense is now an excess? Not just overkill, but generally an unnecessary thing?)) Nu-nu ..))

Quote: Lapunevsky

All the best, great expert.

which I wish you))

[Grigory_45]

but for having fun - thanks) The mood was finally seams, you even lifted him a little))

[Lapunevsky]

They themselves invented something to laugh at - they laughed themselves.

[GibSoN]

The degree of lies and propaganda in the Russian Federation over the past few years has increased so much that it is simply impossible to actually find out the truth! There is so much "noise" from here. In fact, the degree of lies has reached the very top levels! That even the president can no longer be trusted (hello, retirement age). So gentlemen, this is all, just so that there would be at least something to talk about, well, except for the real thing that is also important for you. Nothing personal. Have fun.

[Mentat]

Quote: Sns

The dagger is not a hypersonic weapon, it is just a ballistic missile of an air launch. I recommend the author of the article to read about the GAM-87 Skybolt rocket, which had a speed of 15 max, was launched from an airplane. A speed above 5 max does not make a rocket a hypersonic weapon ...
A dagger can only hit immovable ships anchored in ports, a source told the newspaper Vzglyad, it cannot hit ships / aircraft carriers at sea on the move. The dagger cannot, ballistic missiles are not intended for planning for movable targets, they have too large mass-dimensional performance characteristics, it’s flying a barrel which, during maneuvers, colossally loses energy / speed. The dagger needs to reduce its weight by 10 times and add wings for maneuvering to get closer to the performance characteristics of the famous winged anti-ship missiles. The tale of the Dagger as a thunderstorm of aircraft carriers was invented by patriotic channels ...

The performance characteristics of the dagger are currently classified, and no “source” can tell anything to any views, such messages are complete nonsense. It is only known that it is an aeroballistic missile (not ballistic), capable of maneuvering along a trajectory that passes the main flight section at the border of the stratosphere.

Experts can express their view about the characteristics of this rocket, nothing more.

The source of information that aircraft carriers may be the target of the Dagger is an interview with Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation Yu.I. Borisov:

“This is a class of high-precision weapons, which has a multifunctional warhead that allows you to work both on stationary and moving targets. In particular, aircraft carriers and ships of the cruiser, destroyer, frigate class are potential targets for this weapon ”(http://archive.redstar.ru/index.php/component/k2/item/36438-v-obojme-sarmat-kinzhal- avangard)

Read, educate. And enough already to carry nonsense on the forum.

[Mentat]

Quote: Lapunevsky

Americans can recover the SR-71 and stick a pair of hypersonic rockets to it. It turns out not a bad carrier. [media = http: //www.airwar.ru/image/idop/other/m21/m21-3.jpg]

Can not. The SR-71 was an apparatus of tremendous value for special reconnaissance operations, which essentially did not meet its purpose, because they never ventured to send him deep into the territory of the USSR even once, because it was clear that they would see him, bring him down, and all the “supertechnologies” would float away. Mass production of such a machine does not work. Moreover, titanium was purchased for him in the USSR through intermediaries.

[Lapunevsky]

I agree. But the Americans have experience with such airplanes, and modern technologies will allow it to be improved many times and to create a similar aircraft for launching hypersonic missiles from it.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lapunevsky

But the Americans have experience with such aircraft

There is experience, but nowhere to apply) And there is no need ... Are you in a vacuum or something? What for? This is the main question. Is a space rocket hypersonic (in your understanding, by itself)?

[Grigory_45]

If it is (a space rocket is hypersonic, do you agree?) Then it does not need a high-speed carrier. That's it) All of the now-known air launch platforms are subsonic in general. Yes, that's right) even the Tu-160 project involved launching a rocket at subsonic speed. Nihrenas broke your vision of the world? Do not be a sucker - everyone is mistaken, but you rest on ignorance, and so put yourself ... nowhere below

[Lapunevsky]

If you are not attentive and see only what you want in the text, these are your problems. This is literally what I wrote: "... A carrier with supersonic is not used as the first stage for a rocket at the acceleration stage. The MiG-31K delivers an aeroballistic missile to the drop area in a matter of minutes (This is what supersonic is for in Mach 2-3) .. "That is, supersonic for the launch vehicle is needed not to accelerate the rocket at launch, but to quickly reach the area of ​​ammunition dumping at Mach 2-3 at supersonic speed. For the same Dagger strike on a ship in the Black Sea, for example, from one of the airfields in the Southern Military District. I don’t need to talk to you anymore. You are one of those who "knows everything better".

[Mentat]

Quote: Mentat

Quote: Lapunevsky

Americans can recover the SR-71 and stick a pair of hypersonic rockets to it. It turns out not a bad carrier. [media = http: //www.airwar.ru/image/idop/other/m21/m21-3.jpg]

Can not. The SR-71 was an apparatus of tremendous value for special reconnaissance operations, which essentially did not meet its purpose, because they never ventured to send him deep into the territory of the USSR even once, because it was clear that they would see him, bring him down, and all the “supertechnologies” would float away. Mass production of such a machine does not work. Moreover, titanium was purchased for him in the USSR through intermediaries.

It would be interesting to listen to the “silent minusculers” if they have something to say, of course, and these minuses are not just a manifestation of irritation and bile exit due to the truth about SR-71. What do you disagree with?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Mentat

It would be interesting to listen to the “silent minus-minders

I would also be interested to listen) So they are so ... there is nothing to say with argument, and there is a lot of anger that they wrote an objectionable comment. / Impotents, in general. I voted to cancel the cons. Now we are reaping - the worst fears have come true

[srelock]

Quote: voyaka uh

MiG-31 - a necessary measure. He hardly drags such a weight as Iskander-Dagger. With him under his belly, he will not overcome the sound barrier. ... Even the radar with the MiG-31 was removed to make the aircraft as light as possible ...

Which book was "Old"? It's just that the Gospel doesn't say anything about it ...