AGM-158C LRASM missile - a serious threat to ships

AGM-158C LRASM missile - a serious threat to ships
AGM-158C LRASM in flight. Photo Lockheed Martin / lockheedmartin.com


The U.S. Armed Forces, in collaboration with the defense industry, are continuing the process of introducing the latest AGM-158C LRASM anti-ship missiles. Recently it weapon reached the initial operational readiness stage as part of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet carrier-based weapons complex. Thus, now such missiles can be used not only by the Air Force, but also by the Navy.

Perspective weapon


The new RCC was developed by Lockheed Martin since 2009 with the aim of replacing old models of a similar purpose. The existing AGM-158B JASSM-ER missile was used as the basis for the AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) project.

The aim of the project was to adapt the original product for use on a wide range of media - on aircraft of various types and on universal launchers of ships. It was also necessary to modify the equipment of the rocket in accordance with the new conditions of use. In particular, navigation and guidance tools have been redesigned, now able to work in the face of opposition from the enemy.


Rocket launch by B-1B bomber. DARPA Photos

The LRASM product received a multifunctional radar seeker and navigation aids capable of working without external signals. Used penetrating fragmentation warhead weighing 450 kg. Flight range - about 500 nautical miles (more than 900 km).

Testing of the AGM-158C rocket began in 2013. Test discharges of prototype and experimental products from carrier aircraft were carried out; the rocket was also tested on the Mk 41 and Mk 57 shipboard installations. Based on the results of such tests, the project moved to new stages.

In the interests of the Air Force


On July 11, 2013, Lockheed Martin, together with the United States Air Force, carried out the first test discharge of prototype anti-ship missiles from the B-1B bomber. On August 27 of that year, the first full-fledged flight of a rocket with the defeat of a motionless surface target took place. The missile successfully passed the designated route, reached the target area, found it and hit it.


LRASM missile prototype for testing with F / A-18E / F fighter. DARPA Photos

On November 12, a new launch took place from B-1B - this time along a moving surface target with previously unknown coordinates and targeting after passing part of the route. Despite the known complexity of such a task, the target was astounded. In February 2015, they launched a similar launch in a more complex environment. LRASM once again coped with the task.

Two tests were carried out in 2017, with the December events providing for multiple launch rocket launch. In the spring of next year, the tests were declared completed, after which preparations began for the adoption of weapons for service.

In December 2018, the Air Force Command announced the completion of a number of necessary procedures. RCC AGM-158C LRASM as part of the armament of the B-1B bomber reached the initial operational readiness stage. Now similar aviation the complex can be used in real combat operations.


AGM-158C products under the wing F / A-18E / F. Photo Lockheed Martin / lockheedmartin.com

One B-1B can carry 24 missiles on the internal and external pendants, which makes it possible to organize massive airstrikes on enemy naval formations. However, the US Air Force has not yet taken advantage of such opportunities. Moreover, one can only guess when LRASM is first used outside marine ranges.

Missile for naval aviation


In August 2015, preparations began for future tests of the LRASM rocket in the interests of the naval forces. The carrier of such weapons, according to the plans of the time, was to be a carrier-based fighter F / A-18E / F. Tests with RCC simulators started in November, and in December they completed their first flight with a prototype on an external sling. Such tests did not take much time and were completed in January 2016.

The flight tests of the AGM-158C on the F / A-18E / F began in April 2017. Further tests on the new carrier were carried out in parallel with the tests on the B-1B. Nevertheless, work in the interests of carrier-based aviation required more time. According to the initial plans, the achievement of initial operational readiness was to occur in September 2019.


Launch of the LRASM rocket from the launch vehicle. Photo Lockheed Martin / lockheedmartin.com

A few days ago, American media, citing the Command of the Naval Aviation Systems, announced the completion of the necessary procedures for the introduction of promising anti-ship missiles. The LRASM product as part of the F / A-18E / F weapons complex reached its initial operational readiness in November.

The F / A-18E / F carrier-based bomber is capable of carrying up to four AGM-158C missiles on the external sling. Two rockets are suspended under each plane, each on its own pylon. With such a load, the aircraft is able to take off both from the airfield and from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Ship weapon


RCC AGM-158C LRASM should also be used by various types of combat ships equipped with universal vertical launchers. The carriers of such weapons should be the Ticonderoga cruiser and the Arleigh Burke destroyers with the Mk 41, as well as the Zumwalt destroyers with the Mk 57 systems.

Tests of the ship version of LRASM began in June 2013 with trial breakthroughs of the TPK cover. These measures showed that the rocket could exit the container without damaging the warhead. On September 17, a missile was launched at a test bench simulating Mk 41 type launchers. In January 2014, a launch was made using the full Mk 41 launcher. It is interesting that the launcher preparation for the tests consisted only in updating the software. Subsequently, test launches with the participation of test ships began.


In the future, LRASM will be included in the range of ammunition B-52H - already considerable. Photo US Air Force

Full-scale testing of the AGM-158C as a ship weaponry has been going on for several years, but is far from complete. The adoption of a missile into service and deployment with the achievement of the necessary degrees of readiness is still a matter of the future.

Future carriers


At the moment, the main task of Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon in the context of the AGM-158C LRASM project is to bring the ship’s ship version to full operation. In parallel, other work is being carried out in the interests of the Air Force and Navy. It is expected that in the foreseeable future the list of LRASM carriers will be replenished with two or three aircraft.

RCC AGM-158C can be used long-range bomber B-1B. Given the state of long-range aviation, the Air Force requested a similar re-equipment of B-52H aircraft. Work is underway in this direction, but real missile launches have not yet been carried out.

The Navy already has one LRASM combat-ready carrier, and in the future another aircraft will have such a role. The anti-ship missile will replenish the armament range of the P-8A Poseidon patrol / anti-submarine aircraft. With the help of such weapons, he will expand the circle of tasks to be solved - not only submarines, but also surface ships will be included in the list of targets to be hit.


Floating target after hit by an LRASM rocket. DARPA Photos

As a possible carrier of the AGM-158C, the F-35 Lightning II fighter in the corresponding modifications is currently considered as part of the air force and naval forces. However, there is no open information on real work on this topic. Perhaps the adaptation of the rocket to the technology of the new generation has not yet begun.

One rocket - many carriers


To date, two carriers of anti-ship missiles AGM-158C have reached the stage of initial operational readiness. These are B-1B bombers from the US Air Force and F / A-18E / F fighters from Navy carrier-based aircraft. In the near future, these weapons will receive new aircraft of the Air Force and Navy, as well as surface ships. However, the completion of all such work will require at least several years - they will continue until 2023-24.

The bulk of development work, testing and refinement on the LRASM project has already been completed, and the troops have begun the development of new weapons. However, this process is not yet completed, and will soon lead to new results of particular importance to the US Army. Having entered service with several combat arms, the AGM-158C will have to replace obsolete missiles and significantly affect their combat effectiveness.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

230 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. V.I.P. 25 December 2019 18: 11 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    One rocket for all carriers is very cost-effective, and simplifies logistics. The hull, like all new missiles, is designed to reduce EPR. The range of 900 km is probably only for an air launch?
  2. Kars 25 December 2019 18: 14 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    It is interesting how a dagger, dagger, goalkeeper work on such a rocket.
    All the same, it seems to sound.
    Still to know how many mm of armor it can penetrate))
    1. ss-n-22 25 December 2019 21: 55 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      It works the same as in any other NLC. Detection, target designation, tracking of a 3-coordinate radar, calculation of MPC, anticipated target points, prelaunch preparation of missiles, launch and guidance by one of the known methods, the inclusion of a radio fuse, detonation. The only question is, 1 aircraft carries 24 anti-ship missiles. Which will not be induced from 1 direction. This is, to put it mildly, unpleasant for those air defense missiles in which guidance of missiles in a limited sector. Like a dagger, for example.
      1. 3danimal 25 December 2019 22: 25 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        That's right, but NLC detection is only possible from a distance of less than 30km, as well as capture. A subtle performance, coupled with small sizes will greatly complicate these operations.
        With a massive raid from all directions, not a single ship can withstand, here simply missiles will leave less.
        1. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 07: 44 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Capture NLC with 30km? It is fantastic. The 3-coordinate radar of the wasp and dagger guidance station will take the NLC steadily from 5 kilometers. For that, it and the NLC. And yes, if active maneuvering around the ship was really laid in the algorithm, it will be difficult to beat off
          1. sivuch 26 December 2019 09: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I have other information from the former wasp battalion commander
            1. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 10: 15 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              So share the info. I did not serve on Osa, but I taught her tightly at KVVMU, and my neighbor in the kubrick served 1135. And the question there is no longer in the range at which the target will be captured, but in the fact that with a salvo of artillery 1135 the stern OSA fails. Together with the corridor shades of lighting, which scatter into splashes, if not removed in advance.
              1. sivuch 26 December 2019 10: 45 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Due to the high energy potential (the ratio of transmitter power to receiver sensitivity), the SOC with a moderate instrumental detection range has a high viewing rate and is capable of detecting small targets. From practical experience it is known that such "aircraft" as gulls were found at a distance of up to 8 km (and the SSC accompanied them), an eagle - up to 12 km, a pelican - 20 km, and a flock of ducks - up to 45 km
                The whole article about Osa is here https://forums.airbase.ru/2016/02/t83098_10--istoriya-razrabotki-zrk-osa.html 04/12/2018
                1. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 10: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Is there a difference between the SOC of the all-round view and the target / missile tracking station? According to SOC, the missile is not induced. SOC at 2 coordinates can detect the NLC at 15km, but the complex is capable of shooting the target, the missile and pointing the missile at 3 coordinates when the target reaches visibility along 3 coordinates and for this at the antenna post there are flat, non-rotating antenna mirrors. This is a limitation of the far boundary of the zone of destruction of complexes with active command guidance. Expanding the border is only adding your GOS to the rocket, which is not in the wasp and dagger. Roughly speaking, one cannot shoot beyond the horizon.
                  1. sivuch 26 December 2019 13: 01 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Formally, it cannot detect 15 km - The main tactical and technical coordinates of SOC
                    Instrument (indicator) detection and recognition range of 45 km.
                    Detection area on a Mig-19 type aircraft (at zero closing angles), not less than:
                    at an altitude of 25 m - 12 km
                    at an altitude of 50 m - 17 km
                    Although in real life it happened more.
                    NLC is captured in the first ray, i.e. the approximate height is already known. The antenna of the SSC is aimed at the target, but only in azimuth. The target designation mode of the control unit is turned on, and the SSC antenna begins to swing in elevation within the beam of the SOC that is now on (there is also a manual mode). As soon as the target is reached in the SSC beam and the range to the target is set correctly, the system will capture the target. If auto-capture is enabled, then it will take 2 more rounded off. None of the respondents complained about the difficulty of capturing by CM.
                    It is clear that we are not talking about the horizon.
                    1. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 13: 34 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Respondents in the fleets never shoot at the NLC with the Harpoon parameters, because there are no such RMs and there were none, therefore they did not complain about the difficulty of capturing them by means of nuclear weapons. The theory in the person of teachers says that a narrow beam of SSC when working to the maximum distance on the "Harpoon" is reflected from the water, which introduces a pointing error right up to a miss. It is strange that no one voices the conditions in the exercises, namely, in the Navy, the main air defense exercise is to shoot at the RM, which is moving at an altitude of 300 meters in the face of the P-120. A non-maneuvering target that runs parallel to the order of the ships with a distance of 4 km without additional surprises in the form of electronic warfare.
                      1. sivuch 26 December 2019 13: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I'm talking about land wasps
                      2. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 13: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Sorry, I did not realize.
                    2. Saxahorse 26 December 2019 22: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ss-n-22
                      Respondents in the fleets never shoot at the NLC with the parameters of "Harpoon" because there are no such RMs and there were not

                      As far as I remember, in 1987 the role of such a target was suddenly played by the P-15M Termite, who successfully drowned the MRC Monsoon. In the discussion of the incident, the sailors said that both Osa missiles missed because of the low altitude of the P-15M flight, they say that it’s no longer possible to distinguish a missile against the background of the sea by 25 meters when the sea is rough. Well, as usual, the gun simply didn’t hit.
    2. sivuch 26 December 2019 10: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Does the Dagger have a sector like the land Thor-1? Then a little bad.
      1. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 10: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        60 degrees
        1. sivuch 26 December 2019 10: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So this is a completely different matter. Even the second Thor does not have so much.
    3. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 16 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      They still have a very low ESR, go 5-6 meters above the waves, and plan their attacks on their own. Sometimes from different angles.

      This is really a terrible weapon.
      1. sivuch 26 December 2019 17: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        For ranges of 10-20 km - quite sufficient. 5-6 meters - depends on the excitement, with calm, it can completely. On their own - that each rocket decides for itself how to attack it or are several missiles capable of attacking as a group? What from different angles - do not even doubt it.
        And basically, yes. Not a child prodigy, but a serious adversary
  3. 3danimal 25 December 2019 22: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    10-15mm steel hulls of modern warships, it definitely should.
  • Operator 25 December 2019 18: 24 New
    • 8
    • 28
    -20
    LRASM (as well as JASSM) is subsonic, therefore it gets out of a slingshot.
    1. arkadiyssk 25 December 2019 19: 22 New
      • 17
      • 5
      +12
      Expert! Well, the Americans are stupid and don’t understand that their share goes astray, but we’re smart, why do we still have the main anti-ship missile subsonic X-35? Or is it not so obvious with a downing?
      1. 5-9
        5-9 26 December 2019 10: 01 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Faq? The X-35 was invented relatively recently as a cheap anti-ship missile, including for tactical aviation (in the Soviet Union there was no anti-ship missile system at all) so that it was. If we are talking about aviation anti-ship missiles, then over the past half century it has been the supersonic X-22 and X-32 now + hypersonic dagger.
        1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 26 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          The dagger is the OTR (Iskander) air launch. NOT RCC.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 27 December 2019 07: 59 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Why isn’t he RCC? It is clear that nothing is really known about him, but the vanging about the defeat of AUG was immediately and widespread. If this is not RCC, then why is it needed is not very clear ...
            1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 17: 52 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              OTR long-range air launch. Does not fall under the INF Treaty.
              You can also scam to defeat an aircraft carrier from AK)
    2. maden.usmanow 25 December 2019 20: 20 New
      • 9
      • 4
      +5
      But will it be a slingshot to detect and issue TsU?
    3. 3danimal 25 December 2019 22: 08 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      IMHO, the carapace of guns on it will work poorly. As with all small targets. (And then there is transonic speed).
      Danger in flight profile and stealth. It will emerge due to a radio horizon of 30 km, and the EPR is very small for detecting, and even more so, capturing the backlight from such a distance by the radar. More confidently - closer than 10km, but there is catastrophically little time for the reaction (how many ships with an automated BIOS)? 35s and less. Stealth here does the same as supersonic in heavy RCC - it reduces the reaction time. Keeping the sane dimension, the total mass, a sufficiently powerful warhead and a considerable range. The result is versatility, suitable for many carriers, simple logistics and the possibility of a massive launch.
      1. Operator 26 December 2019 02: 38 New
        • 5
        • 14
        -9
        The radio horizon of ship radars is ~ 30 km, the radar detection distance LRASM> 30 km, the speed LRASM is 15 km / min., The flight time LRASM is 2 minutes.

        And sho, this subsonic misunderstanding still can not be brought down? laughing

        The cargo cult blooms and smells.
        1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 03: 29 New
          • 8
          • 2
          +6
          Did you personally discover LRASM at a distance of 30 km? Shot down a lot? )
          Further, the ship’s surveillance radar is not the Irbis Su-35th. It is not a fact that it can detect subsonic Caliber or Tomahawk at such a distance: the target is already quite small. A decrease in EPR (due to shape and coverage) will further complicate recognition and capture, in particular. Hence my assumption that the realistic detection distance is ~ 10 km.
          P.S. Do you also consider X-35 and 3M-54E1 subsonic misunderstandings?
          1. Ross xnumx 26 December 2019 04: 44 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: 3danimal
            Did you personally discover LRASM at a distance of 30 km? Shot down a lot?

            It’s logical to ask:
            - Have you personally sank a lot of ships using LRASM?

            hi
            1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 11: 44 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              How reckless to pin your hopes on Harpoons? Everything is simple: a raid on all sides (star-shaped), the launch of 10+ anti-ship missiles. And each hit will take a huge part of the defense. In fact, after 2 strokes of the warhead 220kg (for a ship with a displacement of 4-5 thousand tons), the rest will be finishing.
              Let's not forget that damage to the RCC does not mean its dissolution in the air, remember the tragedy at the 1989 Monsoon MRC (EMNIP).
              And the new anti-ship missile will be a priori more difficult to intercept.
              I repeat, our designers and the military also based on something, creating / adopting the subsonic 3M-54E1.
              1. Saxahorse 26 December 2019 22: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: 3danimal
                Remember the tragedy at MRC "Monsoon" 1989 (EMNIP).

                1987 year. Monsoon destroyed by the entry of the ancient P-15M Termite. Both Wasp missiles missed, this Termite went too low.
                1. Operator 26 December 2019 22: 17 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Termite has a heavy-duty steel case, LRASM has a carbon-plastic shell.
                  1. Saxahorse 26 December 2019 23: 16 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Operator
                    Termite has a heavy-duty steel case, LRASM has a carbon-plastic shell.

                    If LRASM RCC there can be no shell. The side of a large ship 30-40 mm may be in the middle. And all this bunch of bulkheads needs to be punched.

                    Well then, what's the difference? The wasp missed, which means it completely missed, the fuse didn’t even work, the radar lost the target.
                    1. Operator 27 December 2019 12: 02 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      In the LRASM design, the steel casing is only for warheads.
                      1. Saxahorse 28 December 2019 21: 48 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        In the LRASM design, the steel casing is only for warheads.

                        It's enough. Why do we need wings inside the ship? wink
                      2. Operator 28 December 2019 22: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        With the destruction of the carbon fiber glider of the Kyrgyz Republic, its warhead flies along an unpredictable trajectory.
                      3. Saxahorse 28 December 2019 23: 45 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Operator
                        With the destruction of the carbon fiber glider of the Kyrgyz Republic, its warhead flies along an unpredictable trajectory.

                        At a speed of 300 m \ s, all fragments fly almost in a straight line. Well, for the complete destruction of the body you need a direct hit, and not a dozen shrapnel holes.
        2. Morrrow 5 January 2020 21: 11 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Why didn’t they find the F-117 in thousands of sorties from the radar? Refute stealth itself or what?
          1. sivuch 5 January 2020 22: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You have very inaccurate information
      2. sivuch 26 December 2019 10: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Of course, the ship SOTSka is not Irbis. Energy is not comparable anymore. So at ranges of 20-30 km no stealth will be close
        1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 11: 49 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          IRBIS is more concentrated in one direction, does not rotate.
          We do not have our AN / SPY or Sampson. And even for them, inconspicuous anti-ship missiles will be a problem, as a result - a small amount of time to intercept. Damage to anti-ship missiles a few kilometers from the ship leaves a serious risk of debris with fuel residues.
          1. sivuch 26 December 2019 17: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Firstly, the Irbis just rotates, or rather, it has a mechanical dovor.
            Secondly, just SPY-1 NLCs do not see well. They were not created for this. In Soviet times, large steamboats, such as pr.1155, set the radar for detecting NLC Subcategory, which I don’t know now. If detected over 20-30 km (depending on the height of the radar), the detection range will be 20-30 km. For one subsonic RCC time is more than enough. Another thing is if there are a lot of them and they maneuver or vice versa, they fly in barbecue.
            If the rocket is subsonic, then it’s quite enough, if it is hit in half a kilometer, the wreckage will not reach the target.
            1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 18: 10 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Irbis rolls, but does not rotate at a constant speed, like a surveillance radar.
              Where does your confidence come from that the detection range and CAPTURE of a low-flying (less than 10m, and not 30) subtle RCC will be according to the table data? Despite the fact that the LRASM EPR is clearly less than that of the F-35, which has an equivalent of 0,01 m square from the front (according to the manufacturer).
              In addition to SPY, I also mentioned Sampson. The advantage of the first is a good BIOS in the kit.
              1. sivuch 26 December 2019 18: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Have you read all the comments? I gave the data for SOTS wasp - as she sees the birds, they have even less ESR.
                By the way, in the previous comment I was illiterate. This refers to the height of the electric center of the antenna - all radars detecting NLCs are trying to cram higher, whether Sampson, Positive or Tackle.
                And a good CIUS - will it replace the antenna height or 9cm range?
              2. Vasya I. 27 December 2019 13: 16 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: 3danimal
                While the ESR LRASM is clearly less than the F-35, which has an equivalent of 0,01m square from the front (according to the manufacturer).

                3danimal, you write from Lockheed - Martin tales from commercials, confusing instant EPR from an optimal angle with an average EPR. For calculations, as in reality, the average ESR is used, and not the instantaneous ESR, which is not really supported in flight.
                1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 17: 47 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  No other data. Those that lead Pogosyan are unclear where they were taken from. It begs the thought that they were taken from the head so that his brainchild looked good against competitors.
                  1. sivuch 7 January 2020 09: 15 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    So actually Vasya is right. The minimal EPRs are published because they have no practical value
                  2. 3danimal 9 January 2020 10: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    But then there is no trust in the data that leads Poghosyan and Co.
                    “Everybody Lies” (Dr. House)
                  3. sivuch 9 January 2020 11: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Well why. Nobody's lying lol . It simply does not indicate the conditions when the given digit is true
                  4. 3danimal 9 January 2020 11: 23 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    The difference is that Poghosyan gives his parameters EPR and Su-57, and F-22/35. With a minimum separation of their offspring from the latter. Which is impossible, based on even the design features.
                    Well, or take it for granted that the Untermenschs from the USA are not able to create (with more experience working with the direction) an equally effective radar absorbing coating. )))
                    Seriously, structurally, solutions to stealth on the Su-57 are between the F-18E / F and F-22.
                  5. sivuch 9 January 2020 12: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Seriously, your comment is at the level - I don’t have exact data, but I want to think so
                  6. 3danimal 9 January 2020 13: 29 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    There is logic and general data on the design of stealth aircraft.
                    If all this is discarded (logic is generally on a fire :)), then it remains only to compare the data of Lockheed and UAC, which they give for their planes)
  • timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 19 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    Do not waste time on Andrey, he is already seventy, he is undergoing irreversible physiological processes in the tissues of the brain, he does not perceive your arguments.
    1. sivuch 26 December 2019 16: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Actually, I'm 60, too, so should I expect similar symptoms too?
  • sivuch 26 December 2019 10: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is it, a rocket, for the radar of a fighter and an aircraft / helicopter AWACS will be inconspicuous (which is already very important). But at a distance of 20-30 km, when it emerges from behind the horizon, it no longer exists. Power radar even short-range air defense missiles will be more than enough. Another thing is that the air defense system works in a certain sector, and there can be too many goals.
    1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 11: 52 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      The shape and coating are selected in order to maximize the difficulty of working in the centimeter range (backlight radars, precise guidance).
    2. Morrrow 5 January 2020 21: 14 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Why then F-117 was not detected?
      1. sivuch 5 January 2020 22: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And who told you that they were not found?
        1. Morrrow 6 January 2020 02: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Because they shot down just one in a few months
          1. sivuch 6 January 2020 09: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yeah, and one more was knocked out. And there were more cases of detection, just A / C broke. After all, both the P-18 and S-125 were created at a time when they did not hear about stealth, and there was nothing modern about the Serbs
            1. Morrrow 6 January 2020 16: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Which one was knocked out? Iraq had, in my opinion, s-200. 0 shot down.
              1. sivuch 7 January 2020 09: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The same, a month later. But he managed to get to a / b Aviano
                Iraq didn’t have any 200-ks, as, however, much more
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sinoptic 26 February 2020 18: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is unclear why the statement of the man was blown away.
    Remember. JASSM was fired at Syria, most of it seemed to have been shot down. Ours at the briefing said that JASSM actively interferes and knocks her down more difficult Tomahawk. But nevertheless they shot down. JASSM wreckage, sort of like in Russia, the pictures showed.
    It can be assumed that the LRASM target is approximately the same order as JASSM will be.
  • Amateur 25 December 2019 18: 31 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    AGM-158C

    The author modestly kept silent about the speed of this "gadget" for generals.
    1. Morrrow 6 January 2020 16: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Speed ​​does not solve. Decides range and stealth.
  • Zufei 25 December 2019 18: 41 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Probably, the detection distance of the ZRAK of the inconspicuous case of the "iron" compensates for the subsonic speed. She still probably plans on the final part of the trajectory and infrared does not "glow"?
  • rocket757 25 December 2019 19: 05 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Rocket and rocket, like many others.
    Counter tactics against them? Extinguish media on approach! As always, as everywhere.
    1. Saxahorse 25 December 2019 21: 52 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: rocket757
      Counter tactics against them? Extinguish media on approach! As always, as everywhere.

      Support!

      "The best air defense - a tank at the enemy’s airport" (c)

      Only in this way is it with them. In the trenches from the gifts from the air does not sit out.
      1. rocket757 26 December 2019 06: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        In the trenches from the gifts from the air does not sit out.

        We have an umbrella over the trenches! But throwing “gifts” is easier than catching them and ..... besides, it is expensive, an unequal exchange, and the number of interceptions is limited.
    2. 3danimal 25 December 2019 22: 13 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Carriers will fly hiding behind the radio horizon. They make a “jump” and launch RCC. So the Argentine Air Force also acted during the Falkland War.
      Now launches are possible on an external command center (AWACS aircraft, a submarine) and low-flying carriers cannot be attacked by a ship at all.
      1. rocket757 26 December 2019 05: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, so that all of you get a radio horizon ... control over the air and other space, over the horizon, too, not yesterday it was invented!
      2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 21 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Carriers will take it off from 600 km and fly home. She herself will go to the search area, begin to search for the target, finding the classifier, compare whether this is the ship with which she was "puzzled" and then attacks, bypassing secondary targets.
        1. alexmach 1 January 2020 02: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          However, it is interesting to compare with the X-35u. ton of weight against 600 kg. 450kg warhead versus 150. And at the same time, the range of 900 km versus 260. Where does such a huge difference come from? Wing area larger? Perfect engine or fuel?
  • looker-on 25 December 2019 19: 19 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Despite resembling a car trunk on roof rails, this is a serious thing. Subsonic does not mean at all that it is not dangerous. Alas
  • maden.usmanow 25 December 2019 20: 18 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The F / A-18E / F carrier-based bomber is capable of carrying up to four AGM-158C missiles on an external sling


    Yeah ...
    1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 11: 56 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      In reality, there will be two anti-ship missiles and 2 fuel tanks.
  • Cympak 25 December 2019 21: 10 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    The LRASM product received a multifunctional radar seeker and navigation aids capable of working without external signals.

    It is debatable that there is a radar seeker there, as this robs LRASM of its main advantage - stealth. According to other sources, there is a passive GOS for guidance on radio waves from surface ships operating radar + IR matrix with functions for recognizing ship images, selecting a priority target and a point of destruction. Those. LRASM works exclusively in passive mode. Navigation tools that can work without external signals are the good old gyroscopes, most likely laser ones, as those with the best accuracy + a protected satellite channel for changing a flight mission + a military protected GPS.

    About subsonic speed, then there are pluses:
    - low visibility in the infrared range (the case does not heat up)
    - the possibility of a long low-altitude flight profile, hiding the rocket approach from the radar of surface ships behind the radio horizon +
    - with a low-altitude flight profile, fuel consumption is much less, and the distance is greater than for a supersonic missile with a similar flight profile
    - great time to select a priority target and calculate the optimal trajectory of its defeat
    - the ability to perform complex maneuvers (at a speed of 2–3 Mach you can’t particularly maneuver because of high overloads and limited efficiency of aerodynamic rudders)
    - when flying at low altitude, the missile does not form an airborne "shield", which is perfectly visible for ship guidance radars
    1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 04: 06 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      The main question is how it is induced at the terminal site? If you can optics, you can put in smoke, there are also aerosols and active interference (such as airborne Vitebsk and ground Afghanistan, I don’t know about the ship’s passive radar), if you’re a passive radar homing system, well, you yourself just said that the missile goes beyond the radio horizon beyond the radar’s reach, if this is so then how can it be induced to radar radiation?
      1. Avior 26 December 2019 05: 02 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Passive radar + IR matrix + microwave radar in the last section for high noise immunity
        1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 05: 25 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          I have already pointed out a contradiction - if it is allegedly creeping through the water outside the radar’s view, then how then can its passive radar-assisted radar system be altered by radar radiation?

          And if she uses an active radar, then she is no longer a stealth, which facilitates the work of naval air defense systems.

          If IKGSN, then you can equip the ships with complexes of active and passive infrared interference.
          1. Avior 26 December 2019 09: 51 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            matrix seeker and microwave “siker” as they write
            works at close range, provides noise immunity
            Air defense it does not help
          2. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 11: 34 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Scanning IR camera. Recent anti-ship missiles, including Tomahawks, converted to anti-ship missiles, have taught how to search for goals autonomously, independently. They zigzag when approaching a potential target to increase the chance of detection. Even if the missile misses (smoke screen, cloud of aluminum foil), it makes a full turn and attacks the ship from the other side.
            1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 17: 21 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              This is all wonderful, the only thing the Americans did not take into account is that Gorshkov can pump outboard water onto the deck, thus his infrared signature will not stand out against the background of the environment.



              https://zen.yandex.ru/media/armsblog/universalnaia-sistema-vodianoi-zascity-korablia-5cfce2da7839c500ae7673e5

              So everything is ingenious is simple, even no electronic warfare equipment is needed.
              1. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 17: 57 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Take into account. These cameras are rocket and optical image. And even by comparing the pictures in the memory of their computer with the detected target profile, they can hit a specific vulnerability of the ship.
                For example, in a tower with radars.
                1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 18: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Let’s from the very beginning - the reconnaissance plane noticed the ship, the ship realized that it was burning and got on the skis. Within an hour, while a rocket flies to a given area, it goes at full speed in an arbitrary direction, then it stops, cools itself with seawater and puts in smoke curtains ... How will it be detected by a rocket in a sector with a radius of 30 miles? And what is it that LRASM can endlessly twist circles in search of a target that has an unlimited supply of fuel?
                  1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 17: 55 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    The ship will not understand that it burned if it was calculated by the radar.
                    Let me remind you that all RCC Caliber in the main flight section are subsonic. To be able to have a large range on a low flight profile and sane weight and dimensions.
                    1. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 17: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      I’ve already said ten times that you don’t need to shoot radar and, if possible, rely on external target designation! And we need longer-range missiles so that they can shoot Hokai ...
                      1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 05 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Someday will appear ...
                      2. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 18: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Hurry up drinks
                    2. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 39 New
                      • 2
                      • 2
                      0
                      Hokai can be "removed" only in a state of war. To which, I hope, never reaches ..
                      With technology for external target designation is not very dense.
              2. Sasha_rulevoy 27 December 2019 18: 24 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                to the tower with radar.


                By the way, the photo in the article shows how, with the help of a target, a missile hit the bridge of the cruiser "Glory" was imitated.
            2. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 18: 26 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Is that what you have called SPM? Universal water protection system? Its functions are completely different, it is primarily protection against WMD. Do cars exhaust water too? And how, successfully?
              1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 18: 36 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                I do not call anyone names, I just gave a link to the article.

                Yes, the turbine is shut off, the case is cooled, a smoke screen is placed. How will you search for a ship?
        2. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 31 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Understand that the whole difficulty is that you can find out too late about the attack and the presence of anti-ship missiles at your side (or will all the protective equipment work continuously on the campaign? - you will waste false targets, fumes). To do this, all the tricks with stealth. And having missed 450kg half-armored warhead on board, you can already defend weakly.
          1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 21: 49 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            No one is uninsured from an unexpected treacherous strike, and being in a state of war, one must always be in a state of full combat readiness and, if possible, be the first to strike. They have LRASM well, we have an upgraded Onyx with the same range.
            1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 10: 27 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Unexpected here - only due to the secrecy of the RCC itself. The systems are turned on, but not “to the fullest”, because data on shelling of the ship have not yet been received.
              1. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 17: 59 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                If we suddenly wail our RCC, they will also suffer losses imagine?
                1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 15 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quite possibly. It all depends on the number and type of missiles, the number and type of ships in the group, crew training.
                2. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  But why do we need it, how and why do they need it? There is no war, nor are there real reasons for it. Moreover, it is completely unacceptable.
                  1. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 19: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    A large-scale war is indeed unlikely, and indirect wars or undeclared wars against Korea and Vietnam are quite possible.

                    What for? We have no other way to defend our economic interests than with the help of an aggressive foreign policy.
                    1. 3danimal 27 December 2019 21: 04 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      The result of which will be technological and economic isolation. We will not forget that in our "energy power" there is no technology for the production of "hard to reach" oil and gas.
                      I am sure that the matter is not only in the economy, but also in the ambitions of a number of individuals. And after all, they do not understand that the “resource path” (with a certain level of greed distributing income) is a dead end.
                    2. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 21: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      The result of which will be technological and economic isolation. We will not forget that in our "energy power" there is no technology for the production of "hard to reach" oil and gas.

                      Actually, we have long been drawn into this confrontation, and by the way, and by the way we are holding on pretty well. "Ezolyatsii" is not observed, as it turned out that in addition to the West, other technological and economic centers appear in the World.

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      I am sure that the matter is not only in the economy, but also in the ambitions of a number of individuals. And after all, they do not understand that the “resource path” (with a certain level of greed distributing income) is a dead end.

                      I think you confuse the concepts of "structure of the economy" and "structure of export." Yes, our foreign trade is hopelessly dependent on hydrocarbons, but at the same time we have preserved and some high-tech production oriented mainly to the domestic market. The question is how to enter global markets with these products.
                    3. 3danimal 28 December 2019 05: 02 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      With non-competitive products - no way. The story with the Superjet is an indicator. Lack of reliability and poor support for the few available foreign buyers.
                    4. Connor MacLeod 28 December 2019 05: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 5
                      -5
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      With non-competitive products - no way.

                      Honestly I'm tired of already commenting on your liberal templates. Tires ...

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      The story with the Superjet is an indicator. Lack of reliability and poor support for the few available foreign buyers.

                      What is the unreliability of the Superjet? Does it have more accidents compared to western planes? Do you have statistics confirming this?
                    5. 3danimal 28 December 2019 09: 26 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Well, you begin to slowly switch to personality. I don’t say anything about cheers-patriotism, “found the best of all”, etc. More arguments.
                      What prevents Lam and Oazam from being sold abroad in quantities comparable with the same Huyndai? It’s a mystery, because even with us the share of locally produced cars is only -30%.
                      How are Yotafon successes, even in the domestic market?
                      In fact, now there are only hydrocarbons and weapons (there is also strong competition).

                      Perhaps the main problem of the Superjet is the inability to service equipment and supply spare parts at a level comparable to the same Embryer (not to mention Airbus or Boeing), in a short time.
                    6. Connor MacLeod 28 December 2019 13: 12 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      Well, you begin to slowly switch to personality. I don’t say anything about cheers-patriotism, “found the best of all”, etc.

                      I just don’t understand why we are discussing the economy in a dead branch dedicated to anti-ship missiles. Really tiring ...

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      More arguments.

                      You better broaden your horizons. In addition to Lada and Yotafon, they could not squeeze anything out of themselves. What is the share of domestic trucks in the domestic market? Buses? Locomotive? Passenger aircraft? Agricultural machinery? Construction machinery? Industrial equipment? Electrical equipment? Energy equipment?

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      What prevents Lam and Oazam from being sold abroad in quantities comparable with the same Huyndai? It’s a mystery, because even with us the share of locally produced cars is only -30%.
                      How are Yotafon successes, even in the domestic market?

                      Hyundai, unlike AvtoVAZ, entered the Western markets in the 60s and has a long history of strategic partnership with American automakers such as Ford Motor and DaimlerCrysler. Yotafon and Samsung will also be a very good comparison.

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      In fact, now there are only hydrocarbons and weapons (there is also strong competition).

                      I hope now you will learn to distinguish the structure of exports from the structure of the economy.

                      Quote: 3danimal
                      Perhaps the main problem of the Superjet is the inability to service equipment and supply spare parts at a level comparable to the same Embryer (not to mention Airbus or Boeing), in a short time.

                      Solved ...
                    7. alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 13 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      What is the share of domestic trucks in the domestic market? Buses?

                      I won’t say anything about trucks and buses
                      Locomotive?

                      Was recently in St. Petersburg. I saw at the Sapsan train station manufactured by Siemens .. In the class of high-speed passenger trains, the share is 0%.
                      Passenger aircraft?

                      Worthless. especially modern buildings. The dominant part of the park is Boeing and Airbus.
                      Agricultural machinery? Construction machinery?

                      I suspect that again it’s insignificant.
                      Industrial equipment

                      Everything is very bad, especially in the most high-tech and key segment of machine tools.
                      Electrical equipment? Energy equipment?

                      Here, most likely domestic prevails.
            2. alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              but at the same time we still have some kind of high-tech production oriented mainly to the domestic market. The question is how to enter global markets with these products.

              What kind of production is this high-tech, focused on the domestic market then? Can you give an example? Something not artisanal piece is desirable.
            3. Connor MacLeod 1 January 2020 12: 45 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              And do not you scrap in the morning of the first day to discuss the problems of the Russian economy? Have you just returned from a shift or what? Well, go to bed ...
            4. alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Just did not get up from a hangover. Waiting for the pool with saunas to open. Happy New Year
  • Avior 25 December 2019 22: 42 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    That a subsonic rocket should not dampen
    Long range, stealth passive GOS are needed to provide a sudden strike from a long range, against an enemy not expecting a strike, from which the radars cannot work all the time in full
    If a strike is made against a prepared enemy, it will be supplemented by supersonic harms, and will be covered by Growlers or F-35, which also have an electronic warfare station, can be supplemented by a supersonic cm-6 as an anti-ship missile system for dispersal and overload at a not very long distance vehicle countermeasures - targets, both electronic and air defense
    1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 04: 14 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      First of all, how are you going to search for radars from a range of 500-150 km like those on our corvettes and frigates from a distance of 200 nautical miles (let's consider them as a likely enemy)?
      1. Avior 26 December 2019 05: 03 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        The rocket itself doesn’t, the primary target designation according to intelligence, the Americans have aviation for this
        There is a correction in flight
        1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 05: 33 New
          • 1
          • 8
          -7
          In wartime, any reconnaissance aircraft right there from Redoubt will "rake" ...

          And in peacetime, after the flight of the scout, you can change the position. During the time when the rocket overcomes 500 nautical miles, the ship can go over 30 miles. Depending on the angle and range of the GOS, the missile may lose its target.
          1. Avior 26 December 2019 07: 12 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Of course not
            The radio horizon of the aircraft is more than 400 km to take off the situation in this zone, it only takes a few seconds, they won’t even have time to launch any rocket, even if it was, it’s not that it will fly
            Aircraft leave for the radio horizon in a matter of seconds, a hundred or two meters will go down
            And about leaving — for this there is a two-way communication for radio correction and a search mode when a PC scans the area with a snake in search of a target
            1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 17: 12 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              I doubt it. If you are talking about an AWACS aircraft, then it will not find a ship with a reduced radar signature from a distance of 400 km, which are our frigates and corvettes. The AWACS aircraft will have to come much closer. And most likely he himself will be the first to be discovered, his airborne radar will be detected by RTR naval means. Well, then a scout with an active radar-guided missile defense system is issued for the scout, and whether he can evade is already a big question. Shooting a ship immediately "gets up on the skis." Seek fistulas ...
              1. Avior 26 December 2019 19: 06 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                If you are talking about an AWACS aircraft, then it will not find a ship with reduced radar visibility from a distance of 400 km

                It will detect without big problems, even just for radar operation, and in the active one too without problems
                But even if it’s closer, it’s just that the height should be a little lower and that’s it
                1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 19: 10 New
                  • 0
                  • 5
                  -5
                  I'm talking about active mode. I understood you correctly - can a stealth ship detect at a distance of 400 km without problems? True? Well all I give up then! crying
                  1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 36 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    By operation, the radar will detect from a much greater distance - as far as the radio horizon allows.
                    IMHO, our stealth - not analogues of "Visby". Visibility is reduced, but not radically.
                    1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 21: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Therefore, it is not necessary to shoot radar, and, if possible, rely on on-board RTR means and external target designation. In any case, the performance characteristics of Hokaya radar is a topic that requires a separate discussion, do not confuse the detection radius of air and surface targets.
                2. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 19: 55 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  But the Americans themselves are most likely skeptical of the capabilities of DLRO aircraft and prefer to use space-based RTR systems for target designation. As this example is shown in the LRASM developer promo video:



                  Conclusion - you need to work quietly and not shoot the radar ...
                  1. Operator 26 December 2019 20: 05 New
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    -1
                    The LRASM range is 900 km, so the Hokai with a range of 400 km is out of business.

                    Moreover, an attempt to radar to locate NK located in the area of ​​its coastal air defense can lead to the fact that the Hokai will not be sold in a childlike S-500 air defense system at a distance of 500 km.
                    1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 20: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      I’m more interested in how the Hokai Stealth ship will detect at a distance of 400 km? Is it real at all?
                      1. Operator 26 December 2019 20: 17 New
                        • 4
                        • 3
                        +1
                        Any stealth ship in reflectivity is guaranteed to exceed 10 square meters, which makes it visible at the maximum range of the Hokai.
                      2. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 20: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        Yes, Polent-Reduta is clearly not enough ... We need an air defense system abruptly ... recourse

                        Well, Nitsche, but the modernized Onyx has a range of 800 km, which means that we must be the first to hit the aircraft carrier. angry
                      3. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 42 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        NK has little chance. Easier with the Premier League. If the PLO does not notice it before.
                        It does not happen that it is cheap and with equal strength. IMHO, it is enough to have a defensive fleet. We have a large common land border not with the USA, but with China.
                      4. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 18: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        The submarine does not have an air defense system ... In any case, you have to beat everything you have and, first of all, beat the escort!
                      5. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 49 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        The submarine has RCC and the possibility (albeit limited) of external target designation. From a distance of 100km she herself discovered a group of ships. (If it breaks through the layered PLO)
            2. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 38 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              And on what do you plan to install the S-500 (is it land-based, that is, already?). On nuclear destroyers "Leader" in the amount of 10+ pieces, I suppose?
              1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 21: 58 New
                • 0
                • 4
                -4
                Well, by the time the Leader is laid down, I think the S-500 will arrive in time. And you can try to shove other missiles from the S-400 into the frigate. The nomenclature is rich there - there are missiles with a range of 200 and 300 km. I think it will not be superfluous ...
              2. 3danimal 27 December 2019 17: 59 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                I’m ready to argue for money that there will be no Leaders in the next 10 years. And how much will they be built? 10pcs in 60 years?
              3. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 18: 05 New
                • 0
                • 4
                -4
                Wait and see. Maybe there will be a Third War in the Persian Gulf and oil will jump 2-3 times! In the meantime, projects 1144 and 1164 can be upgraded ...

                By the way, 10 Leaders are inappropriately enough for us, and 6. And the Ashenes pieces 6. We need a lot of frigates and Laikas.
              4. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 17 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                That is, the status of gas stations so resigned? What are the only hopes for rising oil prices?
              5. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 18: 21 New
                • 0
                • 5
                -5
                I prefer the term "Energy Super Power". By the way, to work in the fuel and energy complex we need highly qualified specialists ...
              6. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 45 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Take a look: there are no countries in the top ten economies whose incomes are based on the sale of resources.
                South Korea, Japan, Germany, Great Britain ..
                All theses about the “energy (super) power” are only the work of propaganda to justify the “only right” course (the simplest but also limited) chosen by the party and leader.
                For the prefix "over", you must have an economy comparable to the first two.
              7. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 19: 04 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                This is because South Korea, Japan, Germany integrated themselves into the international system of division of labor in 1945, and we in 1991 ... More precisely, the Americans allowed them to integrate, they allocated them a domain in the World of Capital so that they would not fall under the influence of the USSR. Most other capitalist countries do not show economic prosperity. Unfortunately, we also did not have time for the pie section ...
              8. 3danimal 27 December 2019 20: 13 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                When did Poland integrate? And they are developing well. Not all at once.
                Yu. Koreans did a lot themselves, as did the Japanese. The United States only restored their infrastructure, and their economic model is more effective than in the Union and North Korea. Hence the result.
              9. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 21: 04 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                Quote: 3danimal
                When did Poland integrate? And they are developing well. Not all at once.

                Poland is an agricultural ancestor of the EU and a source of cheap labor. I was there, they are still very far from developed countries.

                Quote: 3danimal
                Yu. Koreans did a lot themselves, as did the Japanese. The US only restored their infrastructure,

                It is not only infrastructure, but the redistribution of markets. Most importantly, the United States pursued trade and financial policies that favored the economic development of these countries.

                Quote: 3danimal
                and their economic model is more effective than in the Union and North Korea. Hence the result.

                I’ll tell you a secret, the vast majority of countries on Earth currently have market economies, including the poorest countries such as Nigeria, Congo, India, Indonesia. And the cherry on the cake is also a democratic country. That's just prosperity for some reason is not observed.
              10. 3danimal 27 December 2019 21: 10 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Corruption, lack of fair competition, low technological level. The market in the Congo and the market in the UK are slightly different. Plus, the unstable political situation, the lack of financial and technological investments. Vietnam, China - created conditions for this.
              11. Connor MacLeod 27 December 2019 21: 19 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                China is an authoritarian state with a prohibitive level of corruption, with a secured economy that constantly cheats and manipulates the rules of the WTO, while the standard of living there much higher than in decoratic India and Nigeria with fully open economies that unquestioningly fulfill all the requirements of the WTO. Paradox! laughing laughing laughing
              12. 3danimal 28 December 2019 04: 58 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                The Chinese have created reliable guarantees for investments: their corruption is of little concern. On this and grew. And also on a large number of rural people who are ready to work for a small amount of $. Authoritarianism is not an indicator here.
              13. Connor MacLeod 28 December 2019 05: 26 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                No, it’s just that in the 70s the Americans decided to play in the Soviet-Chinese split, Nixon and Kissinger flew to China specially for this. We agreed that the PRC is leaving the geopolitical orbit of the USSR in exchange for economic preferences and investments. Again, this was a purely political decision dictated by pressing interests, the Americans did not think about the long-term consequences. The Chinese took advantage of these ...
              14. 3danimal 28 December 2019 09: 20 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Mao never intended to be in the orbit of the Union. Poverty after the war was considered temporary difficulties of a thousand-year-old China. When he arrived in the USSR in the early 50s, he hinted that it would be nice to return the lands illegally seized by the tsarist regime from China.
                In Daman, the conflict began to inflame since the beginning of the 60s.
                Without guarantees and conditions for investors, nothing would have happened. Xiaoping and the team changed economic policy, carried out a "perestroika".
              15. Connor MacLeod 28 December 2019 12: 15 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                Even as he was in the 50s, he received considerable help. The reason for the split is nothing but the Twentieth Congress, when they swung at the authority of his idol, and not at all there were any border disputes there. Damansky only became an occasion; the cause was ideological contradictions accumulating over the years. The Americans were not slow to take advantage of this split and flew to Beijing ...

                Twenty five again! You might think that India and Indonesia cannot give such guarantees, not to mention the fact that they have a mass of rural people who are ready to work for priceless. And the less economic boom is not observed!
              16. 3danimal 28 December 2019 12: 44 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Not everyone goes. Vietnam is doing pretty well.
              17. alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And the less economic boom is not observed!

                Generally observed. India's GDP growth rates exceed the world average and Central Asian. India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. I agree with the rest in the last comments in this chain.
              18. Connor MacLeod 1 January 2020 12: 55 New
                • 0
                • 3
                -3
                All my acquaintances who have been in India claim that they have not seen SUCH poverty anywhere and never! Compared to India, Russia is a Paradise on Earth! Here is such an economic prosperity! And this despite the fact that India gained independence and joined the friendly family of the capitalist countries in 1949 ...
              19. alexmach 1 January 2020 13: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Compared to India, Russia is a Paradise on Earth!

                And you decide in general what we are talking about, about economic development or about the standard of living of the population. And if the latter, then where exactly?
                Yes, there are regions with populations living in extreme poverty (in China, by the way, there are also, although in percentage terms there are probably fewer than in India), but there are regions that live quite well by Western standards, as in China. But with all this, the industrial production and export of those very high-tech goods in India is growing and growing at a good pace.
              20. Connor MacLeod 2 January 2020 04: 17 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Let's be honest with each other - the country's economic development is determined by the standard of living and no matter how it is achieved. It can be an industrial monster like Germany and Japan, or it can be a financial center like Switzerland and Singapore or a tourist mecca with a huge public debt like Greece and Spain. The most important thing is that people live well ...
              21. alexmach 2 January 2020 08: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Let's be honest with each other - the country's economic development is determined by the standard of living

                Come on? And who is here above about high-tech production, wrote trains and planes? No, it is not determined. The standard of living depends on economic development, but it does not completely determine it, unless an essential role is played in your "post-industrial" service economies, and there is nothing to interfere with everything.
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    while the standard of living there is much higher than in decoratichek India

    For countries such as China and India, the standard of living is a very vague concept. They are too large, each larger than Europe and the United States, and they have a very big difference in this very standard of living in different regions. For them, the concept of "standard of living in China or India" is simply meaningless. My friend from India once used the phrase "all over the world" instead of "all over India", and not without reason.
  • Connor MacLeod 1 January 2020 13: 31 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Well, let’s say, in China the village is full of seams, but in big cities it’s still gone. Well, and in India everywhere seams! I am absolutely serious, I hear the same thing from many of my friends who have visited India - endless slums and cows graze in the garbage. Just a stone age! And these are large cities - Delhi, Mumbai and so on ...
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 14: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The notorious Bangalore behind the fence ...
  • Connor MacLeod 2 January 2020 04: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I tell you first hand experience
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Poland is an agricultural traitor to the EU and a source of cheap labor

    Agricultural appendage? Do not tell me, the EU does not need any agricultural appendages. They themselves easily provide food for 100% or more.
    The Polish secret lies precisely in the fact that they were able to maintain mass industrial production and, therefore, painlessly transferred the economy from the Soviet system to the European system.

    The reason for the developed agricultural sector is pan-European subsidies for its development. And if you see the difference with Russia, it is because the Russian agricultural sector is in permanent knockout and not because Poland is an agricultural appendage.

    As for the outflow of the population - yes, this is the fate of all non-advanced countries, people are leaving for more economically developed regions. People also leave en masse from the Russian outback.
  • Connor MacLeod 1 January 2020 13: 10 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    There are no Polish goods besides food products on European counters. It is a fact! An agricultural appendage as it is. Plus, as you correctly noticed, the source of cheap labor. Already half of England speaks Polish. That's how they are remarkably integrated into the European economy ...
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 13: 18 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    There are no Polish goods besides food products on European shelves

    How do you know that? So you go into the store, look, well, let's say the washing machine, let's say conditionally some kind of Indesit. How do you know where it is collected then in general? In Europe, there is no marking for the country of assembly.
    Already half of England speaks Polish

    And this is good both for England and for those who speak Polish there. In today's world, labor mobility is the norm.
  • Connor MacLeod 2 January 2020 04: 31 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: alexmach
    How do you know this? So you go into the store, look, well, let's say the washing machine, let's say conditionally some kind of Indesit. How do you know where it is collected then in general? In Europe, there is no marking for the country of assembly.

    Well this is ...

    ... I work in London laughing laughing laughing

    Quote: alexmach
    And this is good for England so for those who speak Polish there. In today's world, labor mobility is the norm.

    Debatable. On the example of Latvia, where I come from, I can say that accession to the EU led to a wave of bankruptcies in the real sector. When you see ruined plants and farms everywhere, this is not Good. And the opportunity to leave hopelessness to work in Western Europe is also not a blessing. This is a necessary necessity ...
  • alexmach 2 January 2020 08: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ... I work in London

    And what, in London, are goods labeled by manufacturer? I doubt very much.
    On the example of Latvia, where I come from, I can say

    Firstly, there is nothing to confuse warm with soft. Lavia is not really Poland.
    Secondly, it is better to be able to leave, than not to be able to.
    that joining the EU led to a wave of bankruptcies in the real sector. When you see ruined plants and farms everywhere, this is not Good.

    Very interesting. After joining, that is, in the 2000s? For in Ukraine, for example, everything went awry in the 90s, a decade earlier. And the Baltic states in Estonia say that just after joining in 2000 it got better.
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    When did Poland integrate?

    In fairness, Poland has built in more successfully than all post-Soviet countries, too, because it started earlier than anyone and was able to do this on the most favorable conditions.
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is because South Korea, Japan, Germany are integrated into the international system of division of labor

    Very good explanation. And what is the practical conclusion from it?
  • Connor MacLeod 1 January 2020 13: 05 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Such that the geopolitical allies of the United States in Western Europe and East Asia occupy a privileged position in the global economy due to the fact that the United States controls the international financial system. All other countries (80% of the world's population) are in full ...
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 13: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, I agree, but this conclusion is never practical.
  • Connor MacLeod 1 January 2020 13: 36 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Do you want practical? Please - you need to squeeze the Americans on the external side and bargain for yourself economic preferences. So maybe we'll rise ...
  • alexmach 1 January 2020 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    First of all, how are you going to detect radars from a range of 500-150 km from a distance of 200 nautical miles similar to those that are on our corvettes and frigates

    Passive radar in its radiation?
  • voyaka uh 26 December 2019 00: 57 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The Americans have two new anti-ship missiles.
    The cheapest option is the Norwegian NSM, to which Lockheed added smart GOS,
    and an expensive option is this LRASM.
  • Lontus 26 December 2019 02: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Was it really so difficult to cite TTX in an article?
    Moreover, there are a lot of common phrases in it that could be deleted without damage.
    1. eklmn 26 December 2019 03: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      What I learned:
      worth $ 3 million
      Launch from platforms:
      F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, B-1B Lancer, Mark 41 Vertical Launch System, F-35 Lightning II.
      Warhead:
      450 kg high explosive
      “..Thus, in addition to GPS digitally protecting against interference, LRASM will also use a two-way data line, a radar sensor that can detect ships (and can also be used for navigation), and a day / night camera for positive identification and final identification targeting . ”
      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 23 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        For a long time already more than 3 million.
  • Paul Siebert 26 December 2019 04: 54 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Unification among the Yankees is worthy of imitation.
    Several basic carrier platforms and a huge amount of ammunition.
    The nomenclature is amazing.
    How do they not get confused?
    In my opinion, this is both good and bad.
    Good - because competition brings out the best patterns.
    It’s bad - because in the conditions of constant lobbying of various defense corporations and the cutting of the military budget, such samples can simply be "cleaned up."
  • 5-9
    5-9 26 December 2019 10: 10 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Harpoon in the 21st century as the only RCC, it certainly was a shame.
    In this, the main plus is not stealth, but the range (which is useless if there is no adjustment on the trajectory) and this possibility of correction itself (i.e., additional forces and means are needed except the carrier, without them there will be a real range like Harpoon, although probably the target search algorithm there is enough fuel for an hour of doing this)). It gets off like a normal subsonic low-flying target over the sea - i.e. pretty easy. Those. she can saturate anti-aircraft defense from a safe place far ... to saturate anti-aircraft defense with missiles for 3 lyamas is of course the American way, but they can do this for themselves ...
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 23 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      It gets off like a normal subsonic low-flying target over the sea - i.e. pretty easy.


      Only from the cap.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 26 December 2019 13: 44 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Is she magical chtol?
        Type-stealth on the ranges of the appearance of RCC due to the radio horizon do not affect anything
        1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 01 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Stealth fully affects, for example, the capture of the target of the GOS missile launcher, and a lot of things.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 26 December 2019 14: 05 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            What is the GSN SAM? What are you speaking about? The range is tiny, GOS is semi-active or generally radio command. The only plus is a lower probability of detecting a launch on distant approaches ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Tektor 26 December 2019 11: 32 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    This is a regular target for the Carapace, including - sea. And also - for metal cutting. Above the land - any air defense systems, including Bending, and even artillery, such as Beach, Derivation. And perhaps Chrysanthemum.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 24 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      The question is in finding out, the goal is actually a problem.
    2. 3danimal 26 December 2019 13: 09 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      The carapace of guns works very poorly for such purposes (for example, shown in the "Acceptance"). And missiles with radio command guidance .. RCC will not be very warm contrast, plus the attack may be unexpected. And she will definitely go from all directions at once. And the damaged RCC will not dissolve in air and is able to reach the target.
      1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 13: 56 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        One hit of a 30 mm shell and the rocket dives.
        1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 15: 14 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          It will not dive, but will continue to move forward, bouncing off the "solid" (for such speeds) water. And if there is a couple of kilometers to the target, then the wreckage with high probability will fall into it. A sort of buckshot on a larger scale.
          Read about the defeat of MRK Monsoon (and the death of most of the command) during the exercises in 1989.
          1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 21: 44 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            In science fiction stories, fragments of a rocket destroy a ship in a couple of kilometers.
        2. Saxahorse 26 December 2019 22: 37 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          One hit of a 30 mm shell and the rocket dives.

          At a distance of 1 km, the probability of hitting is much lower than 1%. At a distance of 200 m, the probability increases sharply, but even 2-3 shells are already few, even badly damaged will fly.
    3. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      From AKM it’s even easier to bring down)
  • Operator 26 December 2019 13: 36 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    Did you personally discover LRASM at a distance of 30 km?

    On the Internet there is a Soviet Almaz-Antey report on the detection range of S-300 cruise missiles with an EPR of 0,01 square meters at a range of 30 km from the S air defense radar.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 26 December 2019 13: 48 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      This is probably taking into account the HBO tower, on the ship the radio horizon will be closer than 30 km, but taking into account the speed of 250 m / s and 20 km is enough.
      1. Operator 26 December 2019 13: 56 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        A 30 km radio horizon corresponds to a radar extension to a height of 25 meters and a flight height of the Kyrgyz Republic of 25 meters.
    2. Vadim237 26 December 2019 13: 53 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Such subsonic anti-ship missiles will be handled with a bang by marine air defense missile systems
      1. Operator 26 December 2019 13: 58 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I would bet on the marine modification of the "Shell" with the "Nails".
        1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 14: 06 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          And this will be more than enough against a carbon-polymer rocket on an aluminum frame.
          1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 46 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Against any missile that it has time to react to. But in the case of a decision to defeat the ship, there will be many missiles from all sides, and it will be more difficult to navigate the complex with new anti-ship missiles.
            1. Vadim237 28 December 2019 19: 55 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              It’s a lot - 8 - 10, the new Carapace can simultaneously track 16 targets, it was just created to destroy such missiles, and the old Cortik will cope with them with a bang and at least two of these systems will be used to attack different warships.
              1. 3danimal 28 December 2019 22: 37 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                In reality, the situation with a star-like shelling of a single ship 10+ anti-ship missiles means incapacitation or death.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. ss-n-22 26 December 2019 14: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      30 km, at what altitude?
      1. Operator 26 December 2019 14: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Radar 25 meters + CR 25 meters.
        1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 15: 20 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Near the target, RCC will go below 10 meters. And the EPR, I am sure, is less than 0,01 square meters. Simple logic: this EPR has the F-35 (from the front, according to the manufacturer). And the dimensions and the number of potentially reflecting elements are very different for the data of two aircraft (RCC and aircraft).
          1. The comment was deleted.
    5. 3danimal 26 December 2019 15: 16 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      NLC at water is a priori a more complex goal. Plus greatly reduced EPR.
      What’s it all: a dangerous thing, and hatreds always end badly.
      1. Operator 26 December 2019 15: 19 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        For modern air defense systems, the reach along the lower boundary of the height is 5 meters, and the EPR of intercepted air targets is similar to a 120 mm mine / projectile.
        1. Saxahorse 26 December 2019 22: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          For modern air defense systems, the reach along the lower boundary of the height is 5 meters, and the EPR of intercepted air targets is similar to a 120 mm mine / projectile.

          5 meters above the salt lake and 5 meters above the rough sea are not the same thing. The target merges with reflections from an uneven surface.

          By the way, do you know why in advertising they like to give an example of a mine or an RZSO rocket? They fly along a mortar path, i.e. at first it was abruptly upward, there it slowed down and only then downward to accelerate. As a result, the EPR of such a target is removed from the side surface, there is not 120 mm at all, but the trajectory is predictable. So as not to intercept? laughing
          1. Operator 27 December 2019 12: 06 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Modern radars use speed target selection, which in LRASM differs by one or two orders of magnitude from waves on the sea surface.

            Mines and shells are intercepted on the descending branch of the flight path when their cross section is visible in the radar.
            1. Saxahorse 28 December 2019 22: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Modern radars use speed target selection,

              Selection schemes for moving targets have long been known. However, until now, the minimum height for hitting a target is indicated in the parameters of the missiles. Not so simple.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 26 December 2019 15: 03 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    A good rocket against the Navy of Angola and the like.
    1. 3danimal 26 December 2019 21: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      How about the Navy of Iraq, Iran in the 90s? And they were attacked by Harpoons.
      1. maden.usmanow 26 December 2019 23: 25 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        You do not understand. It works differently. Flies means LRASM or harpoon to the target. He sees a pennant on the ship. Flag of a strong strong navy. And RCC immediately falls into the water, and does not attack.
        How do you like that?
        1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 27 December 2019 14: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Plus one hundred.
        2. 3danimal 27 December 2019 17: 50 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And if you shoot from the AK from the sky, you can sink the AUS in 1000 km))) (from this category)
          In Syria, a number of mercenaries were unpleasantly surprised by the readiness of the US military to shoot, knowing that they were Russians.
    2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 26 December 2019 23: 30 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      the Russian fleet has big problems, this is understandable
  • Operator 26 December 2019 15: 27 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: 3danimal
    EPR, I am sure, less than 0,01m square. Simple logic: this EPR has F-35 (from the front, according to the manufacturer)

    EPR F-117 is 0,015 sq.m (due to the honeycomb filler of the glider), F-22 - 0,2 sq.m, F-35 - 0,3 sq.m, Su-57 - 0,4 sq.m ( according to the public report of the general designer V. Putin).

    LRASM in terms of stealth technology is no different from F-22, F-35 and Su-57 - a faceted glider with a ferromagnetic coating, so its EPR can be estimated at 0,1 sq.m.
    1. Saxahorse 26 December 2019 22: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      LRASM in terms of stealth technology is no different from F-22, F-35 and Su-57 - a faceted glider with a ferromagnetic coating, so its EPR can be estimated at 0,1 sq.m.

      The size is different! wassat
      1. Operator 27 December 2019 12: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Naturally - that's why 0,1 sq.m
        1. Saxahorse 28 December 2019 22: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Naturally - that's why 0,1 sq.m

          You forgot a couple of zeroes in front of one. Even the ancient Garmas had 0.03-0.05 frontal EPR. LRASM is made by stealth technology.
          1. Operator 28 December 2019 22: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            At HARM, the cross-sectional area is 4 times smaller than that of LRASM.
            1. Saxahorse 28 December 2019 23: 43 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              At HARM, the cross-sectional area is 4 times smaller than that of LRASM.

              You yourself brought EPR F-117 as 0,015 sq.m. Agree that the first stealth is an order of magnitude larger than the rocket.
              1. Operator 29 December 2019 01: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The secret of the F-117 was in the cellular skin of a glider 20 cm thick.
    2. 3danimal 27 December 2019 18: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The question is, where did the general designer take the data? Scanned at an air show with a handheld device? )))
      IMHO, the data of competitors specifically underestimates, so that his creation looks better in front of a lifetime president.
  • Operator 26 December 2019 19: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: sivuch
    5-6 meters - depends on the excitement, with calm, it can completely

    Only in the case of the presence of an airborne lidar, which so far has not been observed in any CR (a radio altimeter at this altitude works with an accuracy of plus or minus bast feet due to the moving surface of the sea). At a height of 5-6 meters, RCC decreases in the immediate vicinity of the target (at a distance of ~ 1 km), when the risk of falling under the distribution of anti-aircraft artillery outweighs the risk of ramming the wave.

    By the way, that we are all about the EPR and the radio horizon - and the notorious LRASM homing on the target will be holy spirit or with the help of the RCGS, which glows like a Christmas tree, and at a distance that is a multiple of more than 30 km (to increase the radio horizon and search for the ship- goals)

    PS Do not offer an optical seeker due to the complete lack of all-weather.
  • ss-n-22 26 December 2019 21: 04 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    I do not call anyone names, I just gave a link to the article.

    Yes, the turbine is shut off, the case is cooled, a smoke screen is placed. How will you search for a ship?

    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    I do not call anyone names, I just gave a link to the article.

    Yes, the turbine is shut off, the case is cooled, a smoke screen is placed. How will you search for a ship?

    A turbine is not an engine from 2108. It does not shut off at the click of a finger and does not start in 10 seconds. USVZ does not disguise the ship's hull for the GOS with a thermal imaging guidance channel. It is for flushing radioactive dust. To divert missiles for false purposes, there are PK-10 and PK-16 complexes.
    1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 22: 31 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Well, in the aforementioned article and in the issue of the Military Acceptance, the SPMV was mentioned precisely as a means of protection against the IKGSN, I admit that it seemed plausible to me.

      In any case, this is not the only way to reduce the infrared signature of the ship. Pay attention to how, for example, the exhaust system of the corvette 20385 is arranged in comparison with the project 20380:


      1. ss-n-22 27 December 2019 15: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Of course, with the threat of missile attack, SPMW will also be involved. The problem is that the moment of launching missiles from aircraft on a ship cannot be detected. According to the action diagrams, we can only assume that the plane that has reached the line for so many kilometers has launched. And the first are always ORS, followed by RCC. Hence the command “both cars forward maximum”, bringing the bearing of the target to traverse the side, turn on the stopwatch, put out the radar from the active mode, count down the time of the probable approach of the ORS on the stopwatch, turn on the radar, shoot down anti-ship missiles ... And so on and so forth.
        1. Vadim237 28 December 2019 20: 02 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Modern radar systems can see and recognize missiles or bombs fired from an aircraft, and the aircraft themselves can recognize the same in class.
      2. alexmach 1 January 2020 13: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        and in the issue of Military Acceptance

        Military acceptance is a television show, it can not be attributed to reliable sources of information. Too many obvious nonsense sounded in her.
  • ss-n-22 28 December 2019 21: 08 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    Modern radar systems can see and recognize missiles or bombs fired from an aircraft, and the aircraft themselves can recognize the same in class.

    Modern radar systems installed on ships are not able to detect the launch of anti-ship missiles or missiles from a distance of 500 + km
    1. Vadim237 31 December 2019 15: 07 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      And for how long will this subsonic anti-ship missile pass 500 or more kilometers?
  • Evil Booth 29 December 2019 20: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: 5-9
    Harpoon in the 21st century as the only RCC, it certainly was a shame.

    for this you hung minuses)) at chatbots
  • Evil Booth 29 December 2019 20: 25 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: ss-n-22
    unable to detect launch of anti-ship missiles or ORS from a distance of 500 + km

    and? Does this make China Navy completely defenseless against Philippine export zircons?
    1. ss-n-22 30 December 2019 15: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      When you call me at least one ship with ammunition of zircons on board, then I will ask knowledgeable people about the defenselessness of the "Chinese American fleet"
      1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 20: 42 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        lol how are you)) in what cells do they also put a bunch of carriers of such cells as the circus they wear both in the air and on the ground, and for submarines they are already building .. did you sell the chugol? so this is Yandex! laughing
      2. Vadim237 31 December 2019 15: 12 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Considering that the launcher at Caliber and Zircon is unified, apparently, and the guidance is similar, these missiles can be put on all ships and carrying Caliber that are in service with the Navy.
        1. agond 12 January 2020 11: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          AGM-158C LRASM is an example of how to create a new effective weapon based on "old physical principles",