The first tests of a new operational tactical missile passed in the USA

41
The first tests of a new operational tactical missile passed in the USA

Graphic image of a promising tactical missile from Lockheed Martin

In the United States, the first tests of the latest promising operational tactical missile, created under the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) program, were completed. As the bmpd blog reports with reference to the Lockheed Martin press service, the tests passed on December 10.

Lockheed Martin Corp. conducted the first test at the US White Sands missile range in New Mexico, the promising Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) tactical missile. The prototype was launched from the M142 launcher of the HIMARS missile system and flew about 240 km to the target area. The corporation said that "the test was successful with all the set goals."



The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) program, launched in 2017, involves the creation of a new generation of high-precision operational-tactical missiles with the official initially declared range from 60 to 499 km, but the development was carried out taking into account the US exit from the INF Treaty. According to reports, the rocket is already capable of flying at 550 km, and according to other sources - up to 700-750 km.

In the future, the new missile should replace the Lockheed Martin MGM-140 ATACMS tactical missiles.

One of the requirements for the new missile is that it must be launched from standard launchers of the American M270A1 MLRS and M142 HIMARS missile systems, but, unlike ATACMS, the M270A1 MLRS launcher should have four PrSM missiles (instead of two ATACMS), and on the launcher M142 HIMARS - two PrSM missiles (instead of one ATACMS).

It is assumed that by the end of the 2020 year, the U.S. Army will make a choice between Lockheed Martin and Raytheon rockets (a competitor, creates its own rocket), the mass production of which will begin already in the 2023 year.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    41 comment
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. -1
      11 December 2019 10: 46
      To fit a rocket with a range
      sources - up to 700-750 km.
      в
      standard launchers of American missile systems M270A1 MLRS and M142 HIMARS
      you have to try ...
      1. +7
        11 December 2019 11: 02
        Their rocket weighs three times less than Iskander. Therefore, 4 pieces will be placed.
        1. +1
          11 December 2019 12: 39
          Quote: voyaka uh
          . Therefore, 4 pieces will be placed.

          Two in the M270 and four in the M142 by Raytheon
          As part of the development, the company adapted its new launch pod missile container for the Army's M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS, which will be able to hold two and four missiles respectively, doubling the existing load.

          only two at Lockheed Martin
          PrSM Specifics:
          Two PrSM rounds per launch pod

          Quote: voyaka uh
          Their rocket weighs three times

          where are the firewood from? in 3? belay Conspiracy theory?

          1. BR 9M723-1 - SS-26 STONE-A
          Starting weight 4615 kg

          Raytheon / Lockheed Martin PrSM
          mk climbs into capsules in M270 MLRS, and MGM-168A ATACMS Block 4A "flies" only 270 km and has a mass of either 1,670 kg / or 1,750 kg
          270 km = 1,700 kg
          500 km = about knee 3 100 kg - 3 158 kg (warhead, speed, altitude, etc. = nd)
          which LJ
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It weighs three times less than Iskander.

          ??
          2.Not the weight, and mass (containers)
          metal-composite housing applied
          H-26 Polyolefin (Spectra®) + graphite (helical wrap) / winding / and Polyolefin (hoop wrap) fibers / Obturator /
          + they did a good job on aerodynamics (joints, internal wiring, aerodynamics of RM and surfaces, new coating, experimenting with a retractable "needle", optimized small ventilation holes along the body (part of it was closed)

          and fuel (in this they always overtook us)
          Threat.
          they didn’t get more than 1700 km from 300 kg


          3. Expect Promising missile system KBM
          in the event of Russia withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the range of the complex could be increased to an estimated 1500 km
          it will be fun
          1. -1
            11 December 2019 13: 52
            "Conspiracy theory?"////
            ----
            NASA conspiracies - your part laughing
            I have simple comparative estimates.
            Our Laura weighs 1600-1800 kg. Flies for 400 km. And maybe more. Depends on the mass of the warhead.
            1600 × 3 = 4800 = Iskander mass.
            Why don't the Americans make a rocket that weighs roughly like Laura?
            A simple exchange of technology ...
            1. +1
              11 December 2019 14: 20
              Quote: voyaka uh
              NASA conspiracies - your part

              1.Where is the dog from? What does NASA have to do with it?
              2. I for interesting puzzles, and not for the theory, said already
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Our Laura weighs 1600-1800 kg. Flies 400 km

              1.why do we need a blacksmith? Who is LORA ter?
              2.weight is measured in Newtons, or kg * s - "at worst"
              3. Who has whistled for you about 400 km and 1800 kg?

              We look at the manufacturer:

              4. look carefully at the warhead

              800-1000kg in contrast to 400 kg at Laura (for 300 km), or penetrating 600 kg already at 220 km
              и
              versus 160 kg-520 kg for the MGM-140A ATACMS with D = 300-165 km
              Do you know how to count?
              Quote: voyaka uh
              I have simple comparative estimates.

              there is "mathematics," that I studied for only five, you refer to him

              or
              Mityay65 (Dmitry) (he builds aircraft carriers, and uses the connoisseur in the space program), the trouble is only touchy: he minuses, writes non-stop and complaints, and he understands Laura’s norms, I’m sure

              Quote: voyaka uh
              Why don't the Americans make a rocket that weighs roughly like Laura?
              A simple exchange of technology ...

              they have better composites than yours, and mixed ones are also better.
              and, perhaps
              "a goose is not a pig's friend"... ashamed of them
              1. -1
                11 December 2019 14: 34
                "800-1000kg versus 400kg at Laura (for 300 km" ////
                ---
                It's right. But for such tactical missiles with a conventional warhead, the main thing is accuracy and speed.
                For "counter-battery fight".
                A few 800-1000 kg of bombs and aviation can bring.
                I suppose the Americans will have a small warhead.
                1. +2
                  11 December 2019 14: 45
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  But such tactical missiles with conventional warheads,

                  Laura’s accuracy is good

                  The point of impact of one of the LORA missiles fired into the Mediterranean Sea, deviation within 10 meters from the intended target. Red circles indicate floating buoys / markers, indicating the triangle in which the target was.

                  BUT THIS ONE FIG does not say that Laura
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Flies on 400 km.


                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  I suppose the Americans will have a small warhead.

                  MEANING?
                  I know for sure that she will be using Insensitive Munitions (IM) technology
                  1. 0
                    11 December 2019 16: 05
                    "MEANING?"////
                    ----
                    I wrote: counter-battery fight.
                    As a kind of "anti-Iranian Iskander". You don't need a ton warhead for this. You need to fly quickly (much faster than a fighter-bomber) and accurately.
                    Laura was adopted precisely for this, despite the objections of the Air Force command. Although they used it in business a couple of times only in buildings.
                    1. +2
                      11 December 2019 16: 25
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      I wrote: counter-battery fight.

                      which batteries and which counter?
                      These are almost medium-range ballistic missiles.
                      300km / 500km / 1000km

                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Laura was adopted precisely for this.

                      IAI writes
                      LORA is an armament system long rangecapable of striking strategic goals in depth enemy territory from mobile or offshore platforms. LORA is an effective solution for destroying targets deep in enemy territory.

                      Typical goals are fixed or portable, including infrastructure. A powerful warhead can be delivered with significant accuracy, with a probability of circular error (CEP) of 10 m over the entire range. A missile can be launched within minutes from unprepared positions. Any purpose whose location is known within the range of the rocketcan be attacked and destroyed less than 10 minutes after the decision to launch.

                      the Iranians will leave ... although the Syrians are stupid
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Although they used it in business a couple of times only in buildings.

                      this is when in 2017 in Syria the Russian-made "Pantsir-C1" self-propelled anti-aircraft missile-gun system (ZRPK) shot down the latest Israeli missile operational-tactical complex LORA.
                      Therefore, interest in acquiring LORA no one showed (except Israel)?
                      1. 0
                        11 December 2019 16: 45
                        "which batteries and which counter?"
                        “These are almost medium-range ballistic missiles.
                        300km / 500km / 1000km "////
                        ----
                        You again do not read the text carefully: smile
                        "some" anti-Iranian Iskander ".
                        It is designed to destroy the same enemy tactical ballistic missiles as it is itself. In artillery (and in our country it belongs to artillery) this is called (by tradition) "counter-battery fight".
                        There is enough aircraft against the buildings.
                        ----
                        The Vietnamese bought Laura specifically to combat Chinese tactical missiles.
                        ----
                        "Pantsir-C1" of Russian production knocked down the newest ... "////
                        ----
                        The carapace is the champion! laughing
                        1. -1
                          11 December 2019 17: 05
                          You again do not read carefully tex

                          I read, I read. You will destroy it by aviation, in the places of basing and on the march
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          and it relates to artillery with us

                          Well, I (and we are here 99% of those present) are not with you.
                          call it as a thread in "SI", it is common
                          Missile troops and artillery (RV and A) - a branch of the Ground Forces, which is the main means of fire and nuclear destruction of the enemy during the conduct of combined arms operations (military operations). They are designed to perform the following main tasks:


                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          The Vietnamese bought Laura exactly

                          Was it in our universe?
                          yours doesn’t take it, and Vietnam ... something you
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          "Conspiracy theory?"////

                          carried away
                          In 2018, it has been offered for sale to the israel defense forces, but a decision on purchasing it has not yet been made

                          your will buy

                          Vietnam will live without LORA, the Chinese can sleep peacefully
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          The carapace is the champion!

                          Are they lying?
                          LORA, beautiful in the photo. Well tell me why not her Shell enter into an intimate relationship with her, without her consent?

                        2. +1
                          11 December 2019 17: 35
                          Laura was adopted by the IDF and was used in Syria.
                          Sale to Azerbaijan confirmed,
                          they were shown. There was a sale to Vietnam, they tested it.
                          We do not need Hawk.
                        3. 0
                          11 December 2019 18: 41
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          Laura - in service with the IDF and

                          comrade .. well, let's not. I did not even expect from such a serious person who knows where the F-1s are stored !!! wassat
                          where lor ki?




                          In addition, the IDF is armed with about 200 multiple launch rocket systems - both of its own design (MAR 290, MAR 350) and foreign (American MRLS, captured BM-24 and BM-21

                          Are you based on this talk?


                          check here:

                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          Sale to Azerbaijan confirmed,

                          it is not related to the dispute.
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          There was a sale to Vietnam, they tested it.

                          link is possible, or fot ..
                        4. 0
                          11 December 2019 19: 09
                          Is it important for you to win this dispute?
                          I am pleased to give you victory!
                          You are a knowledgeable and interesting person and it is pleasant to talk with you. drinks hi
                        5. 0
                          11 December 2019 19: 24
                          Quote: voyaka uh
                          I am pleased to give you victory!

                          no, not worth it.
                          LORa want to see in the IDF and Vietnam
      2. +7
        11 December 2019 11: 26
        Quote: MoJloT
        you have to try ...

        No, thanks.
        M142 HIMARS not only
        1.Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)
        Compatible with launchers MLRS M270 and HIMARS
        2 Raytheon DeepStrike
        Compatible with M142 HIMARS launchers and M270 US Army
        Quote: MoJloT
        sources - up to 700-750 km.

        sources fantasize. officially until 500
        1.Lockheed Martin PrSM = 499km
        Two PrSM rounds per launch pod
        Ranges from 60 to 499 kilometers
        Based upon Lockheed Martin's decades of unparalleled experience in Precision Fires rockets and missiles
        open systems architecture
        Modular and easily expandable
        IM energetic payload
        Compatible with both MLRS M270 and HIMARS family of launchers


        2.Raytheon DeepStrike
        will hit targets at a distance up to 499 kilometers.
        The DeepStrike missile will defeat fixed land targets 60-499 kilometers away



        two BR must enter the TPK (such a task)
        1. +5
          11 December 2019 11: 34
          voyaka uh (Alexey) opus (Anton) Thank you gentlemen for the explanation.
    2. +4
      11 December 2019 10: 48
      MLRS installation, interesting in its modularity.
      In my opinion it is very successful.
      Which only launcher modules did not cling to it.
      Well, a rocket ... - well, a rocket, they’ll finish it on anyone. TTX approved, money allocated, heads and hands are there, what not to do?
    3. -3
      11 December 2019 10: 59
      Each poison has its own antidote.
    4. +2
      11 December 2019 11: 12
      "" One of the requirements for the new missile is that it should be launched from standard launchers of American missile systems М270А1 MLRS and М142 HIMARS, "" Even mattresses are striving for unification ... despite the fact that corporations are also more profitable to develop launchers ......
      1. +4
        11 December 2019 11: 29
        For mattresses, unification was always on top, especially striking with the example of the Navy.
    5. +2
      11 December 2019 11: 44
      Quote: Alien From
      "" Even mattresses are striving for unification ... in spite of the fact that it is more profitable for corporations to develop launchers ...
      um, actually, Americans have long been the first to unify technology for a long time, we always had many types of submarines, aircraft (Su 27, Su 30, Su 35), tanks, etc.
    6. +1
      11 December 2019 12: 04
      however, the development was carried out taking into account the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. According to reports, the rocket is now capable of flying 550 km, and according to other sources - up to 700-750 km.



      Who would doubt it, they are "honest".
    7. +1
      11 December 2019 12: 26
      It just begs to integrate these missiles, like the entire MLRS nomenclature, into UVP Mk41 and Mk57
      It would be an inexpensive replacement for Tomahawk for short and medium distances
      1. +1
        11 December 2019 13: 46
        Quote: Avior
        It just begs to integrate these missiles, like the entire MLRS nomenclature, into UVP Mk41 and Mk57

        not possible (or will be terribly expensive)
        MLRS downhill start, she can't jump out of MK
        1. +2
          11 December 2019 15: 43
          I don't think this is a problem
          They start from large angles, so there is a possibility with a little refinement if necessary
          In extreme cases, an inexpensive starting accelerator
          Of course, we are talking about guided ammunition
          1. -1
            11 December 2019 16: 18
            Quote: Avior
            They start from big angles,

            Elevation angle, degrees: - minimum –2
            - maximum +60
            not so big

            Quote: Avior
            there is a slight revision if necessary

            Big revision: shutters and lift.
            Quote: Avior
            In extreme cases, an inexpensive starting accelerator

            the design of the rocket itself does not provide such additional significant accelerations
            1. +1
              11 December 2019 19: 28
              If there is a vertical start, accelerations will be less than with an inclined
              I don’t know where you got the numbers, but visually there are pictures with a clearly wide angle

              If a refinement is really needed, there is nothing complicated in it - change the shape of the engine filling to add traction in the first 2-3 seconds
              Actually, the projectile takes off at very different angles
              The accelerator is also not a problem, you can mount it directly at the nozzle, it is needed for a couple of seconds
              And obturators there why?
              1. -1
                11 December 2019 20: 16
                Quote: Avior
                If there is a vertical start, accelerations will be less than with an inclined

                it's like?
                1.sinus (elevation angle) suddenly became a MORE unit?
                2.Are the lift at an inclined start lost?


                Quote: Avior
                - change the shape of the engine filling to add traction in the first 2-3 seconds

                in solid propellant rocket engines, thrust is proportional to the combustion surface area
                Quote: Avior
                Actually, the projectile takes off at very different angles

                the shell is not a rocket
                Quote: Avior
                And obturators there why?

                1. +1
                  11 December 2019 22: 15
                  1.sinus (elevation angle) suddenly became a MORE unit?

                  sine on the spot where it should be
                  rocket acceleration at launch is determined by the difference between the acceleration generated by the rocket engine minus the gravitational acceleration multiplied by the sine of the launch angle.

                  with a horizontal launch, the sine is 0, that is, the acceleration of the rocket is maximum, with a strictly vertical, the sine is 1, that is, the acceleration of the rocket is minimal

                  for 80 degrees and 90 degrees, the sine value differs by as much as 1,5 percent
                  inconsequentially.

                  Quote: Avior
                  - change the shape of the engine filling to add traction in the first 2-3 seconds

                  in solid propellant rocket engines, thrust is proportional to the combustion surface area

                  exactly.
                  but the charge form of a solid-fuel engine is not a primitive cylinder at all, it is of a more complex shape and increase traction at first by a couple of seconds by 1,5, or even 15 percent - not the slightest problem.
                  the shell is not a rocket

                  what MLRS firing is often called a missile projectile
                  Missile Projectile Missile A projectile delivered to a target by propulsion of a jet engine (See Jet engine). Designed to defeat military equipment, enemy manpower and the destruction of its defensive structures.

                  but let there be a rocket, I do not argue

                  So why are there obturators?
                  and why, by the way, their problem to make?
                  1. 0
                    12 December 2019 00: 33
                    Quote: Avior
                    rocket acceleration at launch is determined by the difference between the acceleration created by the rocket engine minus the acceleration of gravity,

                    Damn. I do not. You what?
                    P-thrust rd = m ~ * Va + Sa * (Pa-Ph)
                    where

                    Newton’s Law II:

                    P = F = m * a (m is the mass of the rocket, and a is the acceleration)
                    Ft = m * g - gravity acting on everything, in our case, a rocket
                    P (F) must be greater> Ft (approximately 30%)
                    ANYWAY

                    P> Ft
                    m * a> m * g, cut m
                    a> g - such acceleration is required to take off
                    If you start at an angle to the horizon (or normal), then (see the figure) you need
                    P * sin (Alf) + Fп (lift)> Ft this is, so on the knee, elbow: just without resistance and angle of attack, etc., etc.)
                    m * a * sin (Alf) + Fп> m * g
                    a * sin (Alf)> g- FP visible to the naked eye acceleration less
                    a> (g- Fp) / sin (Alf)
                    or kindergarten in general:


                    Quote: Avior
                    with horizontal start, the sine is 0

                    with horizontal movement gravity does not need to be overcome: it is perpendicular to acceleration
                    a * 0> g- FP
                    1st cosmic: the body falls (flies parallel to the surface and perpendicular to the force of gravity) constantly to the planet, but the planet's surface constantly "runs away" down a distance = what the rocket falls to
                    with minimal thrust and lift, you can fly with wings and not fly if the thrust is LESS than gravity

                    Quote: Avior
                    for 80 degrees and 90 degrees, the sine value differs by as much as 1,5 percent

                    and what does it have to do with it?
                    Quote: Avior
                    it is more complex in shape and to increase traction at first by a couple of seconds by 1,5, or even 15 percent - not the slightest problem.

                    this is done by form (surface) or coating, in the form of a problem with strength, in coating in cost. YES and "just like that" -fig it will turn out, the technology of formation of the solid propellant rocket charge is not bullshit
                    therefore and
                    Quote: opus
                    not possible (or will be terribly expensive)

                    Quote: Avior
                    So why are there obturators?

                    that would not wedge in a glass (tpk) when the rocket begins to move in the TPK (this in this case)
                    Quote: Avior
                    and why, by the way, their problem to make?

                    no problems.
                    take, think, make (equipment, then them), go to what thread Tyuratam / KapYar / Alabama / Alaska, shoot, measure, make changes, additions, and so on several times.
                    I wrote
                    Quote: opus
                    not possible (or will be terribly expensive)

                    Another vertical, it is necessary to introduce a cold mortar, and then withdrawal from the control panel, or a multi-mode engine (solid propellant rocket engine oh how does not like it) -BURN THE PU
                    The result of the conversion on the knee of a ballistic (yes, any SAM) missile from an inclined launch to a vertical one ..
                    still need to consider overload.

                    therefore
                    Quote: opus
                    not possible (or will be terribly expensive)
                    1. 0
                      12 December 2019 00: 49
                      I already explained all this verbosity to you in one sentence
                      rocket acceleration - the resulting vector of vector values ​​of engine thrust and gravity
                      since the thrust vector is directed along the line of motion, to take into account gravity, we multiply it by the sine of the angle
                      it is elementary mechanics.
                      and if you change the direction of the flight from an angle of 80 degrees to a vertical, the influence of gravity will increase by only one and a half percent (sine of 80 degrees - 0,985, sine of 90 - 1,0), so a change in the angle of inclination to the vertical will not be significant
                      Obturators are needed to avoid gas breakthroughs, it is sometimes necessary in bullets or shells, for hunting, for example, for missiles, guides are simple, this is not a problem, in fact, you can use ready-made guides from MLRS, they just need to be inserted into containers for μ41 or μ57 cells, There's no problem
                      Another vertical, it is necessary to introduce a cold mortar, and then withdrawal from the control panel, or a multi-mode engine (solid propellant rocket engine oh how does not like it) -BURN THE PU

                      Americans have a hot start direct from their own engine, their missiles, for example, start directly - this is the subtlety why solid-fuel rockets are easy to integrate precisely into their cells
                      hi
                      1. -1
                        12 December 2019 14: 30
                        Quote: Avior
                        I already explained all this verbosity to you in one sentence

                        oh well zero explanations. These are misconceptions
                        Do not believe me / do not understand-here:

                        or here:

                        An inclined launch allows a gentle overload mode for the launcher / TPK and missile design.

                        "verbosity". a lot of unnecessary things are written here:


                        Quote: Avior
                        degrees - 0,985, sine 90 - 1,0), so the change in the angle of inclination to the vertical will not be significant

                        to whom and why is it needed?
                        The inclined launch of the BR for the Americans is a maximum of 60g to the horizon, ours (ZRSS-200) -47, what are 90,80? when rolling, so there is no sailor
                    2. 0
                      12 December 2019 01: 06

                      MK41 cells provide a direct launch of missiles from a marching engine (or a launch accelerator, if provided for in some types of missiles)
                      they have a gas exhaust system
                      nothing burns there
                      1. -1
                        12 December 2019 14: 44
                        Quote: Avior
                        MK41 cells provide direct launch of missiles

                        are you in your mind?
                        Do you want MK 41 on land mobile PU?
                        1. Forward, one (!) Cell has a mass:
                        15 000 kg / 8 = 1875 kg, WITHOUT LIFTING DEVICES (+ 1500 kg more)
                        2. Take the sea / okyan with you
                        made of corrugated steel. They have upper and lower membrane covers, system irrigation valves at the top for water supply

                        well, or what kind of water carrier you have to carry with you
                        Quote: Avior
                        nothing burns there

                        Yes Yes


                        Quote: Avior
                        Americans have a hot start direct from their own engine, their SAM,

                        Quote: Avior
                        The accelerator is also not a problem, you can mount it directly at the nozzle, it is needed for a couple of seconds


                        Yes Yes. quite simply so tyap blunder and let's go
                        Pavel Afanasyev, Vladimir Korovin, Vladimir Svetlov


                        Quote: Avior
                        Obturators are needed to avoid gas breakthrough

                        you probably know better
                        Device for launching a rocket from TPK includes a shutter, PAD, a high-pressure cylinder with a start-off valve connected to the under-liner volume of the container by a pipeline, a pressure switch with a pipeline, the opposite end of which is located in the under-liner of the container.
                        1. 0
                          12 December 2019 18: 21
                          Everything that you wrote to UVP mk41 has no relation
                          There's a direct start marching engine
                          Do you want MK 41 on land mobile PU?

                          On the contrary, missiles from a land launcher to a ship
    8. 0
      11 December 2019 13: 46
      Quote: DAC scratch
      Quote: Alien From
      "" Even mattresses are striving for unification ... in spite of the fact that it is more profitable for corporations to develop launchers ...
      um, actually, Americans have long been the first to unify technology for a long time, we always had many types of submarines, aircraft (Su 27, Su 30, Su 35), tanks, etc.

      it’s for sure with the tanks that they again stepped on the old rake by launching the T-80BVM and T-72B3 / T-90AM, which are incompatible with each other, in a series and still quite * another * Armata looms on the horizon
      1. 0
        11 December 2019 15: 38
        Quote: Klingon
        still quite * different * Armata
        This is a completely new tank, but it has already been unified with TBMP, so it's too early to moan.
        Quote: Klingon
        T-80BWM
        It is not produced, but modernized from previous releases.
    9. -1
      11 December 2019 16: 13
      One of the requirements for the new missile is that it must be launched from standard launchers of the American missile systems M270A1 MLRS and M142 HIMARS.

      This is very reasonable. According to the tactical role, the new OTRK is the development of BM-27 Hurricane tactics from the time of the ХV or Katyusha from the time of the Second World War, only the range is different. Accordingly, the new OTRK should be cheap and massive. Use existing PUs, and save the loot to drink in Hawaii.
      The most interesting part is not mentioned - how will the adversary fight the S-400, Buk, TOR and others like them? The new OTRK should be able to perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, have a powerful electronic warfare station on board and sow the field of false targets, dipoles, etc., m. using the forward launch of a similar OTRK.
      P / S / So there is an opinion that ballistic type OTRKs with such range, speed and energy are, in principle, useless against systems of the S-400 level. Well, glad for the old Erdogan lol
    10. 0
      12 December 2019 02: 02
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Quote: Klingon
      still quite * different * Armata
      This is a completely new tank, but it has already been unified with TBMP, so it's too early to moan.
      Quote: Klingon
      T-80BWM
      It is not produced, but modernized from previous releases.

      I kind of like in the course about Armata with what it is unified. but how many arrived and the troops of equipment based on Almaty, ?? Well, even though they upgrade the T-80 from hour to hour is not easier. in developed countries, usually one MBT or striped (for example) still produce M-60 in addition to the Abramovich ?? and the Germans bring their Leopards to the level of 2A7V and only we have vinaigrette. That's why it was sculpted from the T-72, T-72B3, I don’t understand why the T-90 wasn’t immediately there because there was almost complete unification (in fact the same tank), but they just wanted cheaply and angrily. Of course, it’s cheaper to weld a machine gun on the tower as in 1943 than to fire a remotely controlled turret with optics and so on.
    11. 0
      18 December 2022 23: 29
      I think that the Americans will be able to place two new PrSM missiles in one TPK.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"