How to protect yourself from Zircon


Estimated appearance of the Zircon rocket. Figure Riafan.ru


Russia continues to develop a promising anti-ship missile 3M22 Zircon. This is hypersonic weapon with the highest characteristics will become a unique and extremely dangerous means of combating surface fleet probable adversary. Accordingly, the probable enemy already now - without waiting for the appearance of serial missiles - needs to work out the issue of countering such a threat. How can I protect my ships from a Russian missile?

Missile threat


Unfortunately, very little is known about Zircon. The main features of this complex have been announced, but most of the characteristics have not yet been announced. There are various estimates, however, they may not correspond to the real state of affairs.

It is known that the product 3M22 will be a missile with the possibility of application on surface and underwater platforms; possible appearance aviation modifications. Earlier, the creation of only anti-ship weapons was mentioned, but recently it became known that the Zircon will also be able to hit ground targets.

According to press reports, the flight speed of the Zircon rocket can reach M = 8. The range, according to various estimates, is up to 400 or up to 600 km. Product dimensions are limited by the size of the cell 3C14 universal launcher. Technical details of the project, such as engine type, type of GOS, etc., remain unknown.


Frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" with TPK of unknown type at the stern. Presumably, in containers - 3M22 missiles. Photo TC "Star"

It is expected that due to hypersonic speed and the special flight profile of the anti-ship missile system, Zircon will pose a special danger to the ships of a potential enemy. So, the final section of the trajectory will be overcome in a minimum time, which will reduce the chances of successful interception by existing or promising air defense systems. The enemy literally will not have time to carry out all the necessary procedures. The defeat of the target will be made both due to the warhead of the rocket, and with the help of its kinetic energy.

The carriers of the 3M22 product due to the installation of 3C14 can be domestic surface ships of several projects. There are more than 20 such combat units in service and a comparable number of ships are at different stages of construction. Submarines of the “Ash” type will also receive new weapons - one is already in service, several others are not yet ready for surrender. It will be unknown whether Zircon will be introduced on other submarines unified in armaments.

Air Defense Issues


A key factor affecting the high performance of Zircon is hypersonic flight speed. In addition, on the approach to the target, the missile decreases and flies literally above the waves, performing evasion maneuvers, which makes it difficult to detect and track it. As a result, the detection and defeat of an attacking hypersonic RCC turns into an extremely difficult task.

The first issue in the context of air defense is the timely detection of a flying rocket. At a RCC speed of the order of M = 8, the passage of the responsibility zone of a typical naval radar will take only a few minutes - this may not be sufficient to repel a missile strike, especially a massive one. In this case, it makes sense to use additional radar.


RTO "Serpukhov" pr. 21631 "Buyan-M". The ship is equipped with a 3C14 installation, which theoretically allows him to carry Zircons. Wikimedia Commons Photos

In this context, one should recall the composition of the carrier-based carrier group of the U.S. Navy. They necessarily include long-range radar patrol aircraft E-2D Hawkeye. This technique, while on duty at a distance from the AUG, is able to make the boundaries of detecting threats over long distances and significantly increase the time for the reaction of ship's air defense. Fortunately for ship formations, hypersonic missiles are not stealthy, and their detection is not a particularly difficult task.

The defeat of hypersonic low-altitude anti-ship missiles with modern anti-aircraft systems is still a serious problem without an explicit solution. Means of short-range action, including artillery must be immediately excluded as obviously ineffective. Even with the successful defeat of the target missile at distances of less than several kilometers, its fragments will cause significant damage to the ship.

Thus, to combat the Zircon, medium or long-range missiles with high flight speed and the ability to intercept high-speed targets are needed. To obtain the possibility of a second attack in case of failure of the first, it is advisable to push the intercept line as far as possible, which places higher demands on SAM.

An example of a weapon that has some potential against hypersonic anti-ship missiles is the American RIM-174 Standard ERAM / SM-6 missile. It has a speed of M = 3,5 and has a range of 240 km. Thus, the flight to the maximum range takes no more than 4-6 minutes. A multi-mode radar seeker is used. Using third-party target designation, the ship can launch the SM-6 missile “over the horizon” and get some chances to intercept a flying RCC of the 3M22 type - perhaps not at the first attempt.


Multipurpose nuclear submarine “Severodvinsk” pr. 885 “Ash” is another possible carrier of 3M22 products. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

However, such protection against RCC has significant drawbacks. First of all, this is the price. One SM-6 product costs US taxpayers $ 4,9 million. Since 2009, less than 300 serial missiles have been produced, and the total production, including future years, will be limited to 1800 units. Due to the high cost and complexity, the SM-6 is so far limited in use and makes up a small fraction of the ship’s ammunition.

Fighting carriers


Intercepting a flying Zircon is extremely difficult, if at all feasible at the current level of technology. In this case, the first blow with the defeat of carriers of such weapons should be considered a more convenient and realistic way to combat the enemy’s anti-ship missiles. The timely detection of enemy ships or submarines with especially dangerous weapons, by definition, will exclude its effective use.

The already mentioned U.S. Navy has a sufficiently developed set of tools for searching and detecting ships and submarines of the enemy. In fact, the entire structure of the AUG and other naval formations, patrol aviation, submarine forces, etc. defined to solve such problems.

The main means of combating surface objects are still the Harpoon family missiles used by ships, submarines and aircraft. They are being replaced by the modern anti-ship missile system AGM-158C LRASM, but its real combat capabilities are not too great. Only F / A-18E / F fighters can carry it in the Navy, and the initial operational readiness of such a complex was obtained only a few weeks ago. The ship’s version of the rocket is not yet ready for service.

How to protect yourself from Zircon

Possible use of "Zircons" in the t / p version of "News of the Week"

To combat submarine missile cruisers in the United States there is a developed fleet of multipurpose nuclear submarines, and the construction of such equipment continues. Not so long ago, another contract appeared for 10 ships of the Virginia type. Ammunition of such submarines includes torpedoes and rockets of several types.

Thus, the US Navy has the ability to detect and attack Russian carrier ships of promising hypersonic weapons. However, the success of such an attack is not guaranteed. Not all US-made anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons are new and highly effective, and the Russian Navy has means of defense against such attacks.

Success is not guaranteed.


Around the Zircon project, a very interesting situation is taking shape. The exact characteristics of the future weapons have not yet been announced, but approximate capabilities and strengths are known. And already on the basis of this, assessments and conclusions are made, incl. far reaching.

Apparently, 3M22 will really be a unique weapon for our time with the highest combat efficiency. In a hypothetical conflict, ships, submarines or aircraft with the Zircons will become an extremely dangerous force, capable of inflicting the most serious damage to the enemy with minimal risks for themselves.


Start missiles SM-6 American ship. US Navy Photos

At the same time, one hundred percent effectiveness will not last forever. The appearance of hypersonic anti-ship missiles at the Russian Navy will force other countries to intensify the development of promising defenses. In addition, one should expect increased attention to systems for combating carriers of such missiles.

With the help of existing or prospective weapons, a likely adversary may get some chances to repel the Zircons attack. However, such a defense will be difficult from the point of view of organization and expensive due to the consumption of the most advanced ammunition. In addition, its successful outcome is not guaranteed - and failure threatens with the loss of combat units and extremely unpleasant consequences for the fleet.

Apparently, for a long time hypersonic anti-ship missiles “Zircon” will indeed be a unique and highly effective weapon capable of fighting enemy ships and guaranteed to destroy them. Until the advent of decent defenses, such a missile will remain the most important military and political instrument. In fact, it can be considered as another means of strategic non-nuclear deterrence. How long Zircon will be able to maintain this status - time will tell.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Santa Fe 30 December 2019 05: 40 New
    • 38
    • 19
    +19
    There is much debate about the latest weapons introduced to the public in 2018. According to some, such weapons were created in practice, but we won’t know the details - secrecy. According to skeptics - with cartoons, the Defense Ministry covers up failures in the creation of traditional weapons. Where there are a thousand once promised Armat and Su-57 in any noticeable quantities

    The highest officials of the country and the Moscow region make a loud statement, then silence follows. Details - military secret, no one can know. But the statement is made. All that is offered is to take a word

    My opinion is that there was the Soviet Union, they took his word for it. Why?

    The USSR has never boasted of what it does not have. He usually did not say what he HAS. Therefore, they believed him even without words.

    The successes of the Soviet military-industrial complex in the creation of traditional weapons, the development of any element, from space to the ocean floor, were not in doubt. A tank, a new type of aircraft, a series of titanium submarines at the pier - here they are, admire. No one doubted that the Union was conducting research in the field of advanced weapons, and it had a lot of concepts and developments at the forefront of science and technology.

    Nowadays, the situation is the opposite, the MO declarations on the creation of nuclear missiles and torpedoes need to be accompanied by some evidence from related areas of technology. "Success" in the creation of traditional weapons, alas, rather confirm the doubts about the reality of "Poseidon"

    Such miraculous weapons and super-technologies that change all ideas about nuclear technology could not appear out of nowhere in one day. And for some reason they did not find use anywhere except zircon, a nuclear missile and a nuclear torpedo. Which, of course, will not be shown to the public
    1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 05: 46 New
      • 8
      • 34
      -26
      request repeat the boss is all gone (s)
    2. Connor MacLeod 30 December 2019 06: 23 New
      • 26
      • 15
      +11
      It is very good that you mentioned the USSR ...

      By 1949, the USSR had enough plutonium for just one atomic bomb, which we detonated during the tests. After that, we produced plutonium for the next bomb for about a year. The Americans by that time already had hundreds of nuclear charges. If they struck, then the USSR would have nothing to answer. But the Americans did not do this since the test RDS-1 produced the necessary psychological effect.

      Another example is the R-7 rocket. Although it was the first ICBM in the world, it had many shortcomings and could be deployed in very limited quantities - 6 units by 1960 (4 in Plesetsk and 2 on Baikonur) were even smaller. But all the same, thanks to the effect that it produced (the so-called Sputnik shock) Thousands of strategic bombers deployed by the Americans along our borders for a nuclear strike against the USSR remained at their bases.

      And now my question is for you - imagine if at those critical moments for the country there were people who would disseminate information (objective or not important) regarding the low combat capabilities of the latest weapons, here in your opinion what should be done with similar people?
      1. Santa Fe 30 December 2019 06: 36 New
        • 28
        • 28
        0
        And now my question is for you

        I get your question, Connor.

        Cartoons about the latest weapons were shown three days before the election. The main and only spectator of these cartoons was the Russian voter

        Examples of the long-standing USSR-US confrontation have nothing to do with it
        1. Octopus 30 December 2019 08: 43 New
          • 17
          • 13
          +4
          Quote: Santa Fe
          The main and only spectator of these cartoons was the Russian voter

          Well said. The only viewer of the cartoons was their indicator. He is the main and only voter.
        2. YOUR 30 December 2019 12: 01 New
          • 11
          • 4
          +7
          Addition to cartoons. For some reason, the author chose the drawing of the American Boeing X-51 hypersonic missile as a screensaver. The one on wikipedia is worth it.
        3. mentle 30 December 2019 18: 18 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Here it would be nice to go into details before judging. If the rocket is hypersonic throughout the flight, then how will it overcome air resistance without burning, while maneuvering. Or it will only be at the terminal site. But a rocket with a nuclear engine so the general question is why. Store for a long time will not work, subsonic speed, i.e. even our Carapace C can bring her down ...
          1. Federal1 8 March 2020 17: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            the idiocy of missiles with a poison installation in the pit was initially clear to any normal person, which was shown by the subsequent mini Chernobyl in Severomorsk. How much do you need to drop missiles so that it flies and for what purpose
        4. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 10: 24 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Quote: Santa Fe
          the only viewer of these cartoons was the Russian voter

          Here are just a committee of chiefs of staff of the USA and Congress, (for some reason) were very, very concerned, if not more rude. I wonder why? recourse request
      2. Octopus 30 December 2019 08: 45 New
        • 11
        • 6
        +5
        Quote: Connor MacLeod
        along our borders for a nuclear strike against the USSR they remained at their bases.

        Why not hit in the 56th?
        Quote: Connor MacLeod
        If they struck, then the USSR would have nothing to answer. But the Americans did not

        Why not done in the 48th?
        1. Connor MacLeod 30 December 2019 09: 56 New
          • 4
          • 12
          -8
          Quote: Octopus
          Why not done in the 48th?

          Until 1949, Stalin tried not to provoke them - Greece leaked for example. Although there were already plans to strike the Soviet Union Chariotir, Flifwood, Dropshot and etc.

          Quote: Octopus
          Why not hit in the 56th?

          Re-equipped on the B-52, waited until the DEW line was completed, they regretted London (the Russian appeared P-5) ...
          1. Octopus 30 December 2019 11: 39 New
            • 12
            • 4
            +8
            Quote: Connor MacLeod
            Stalin tried not to provoke them

            Did you hear about the blockade of Berlin?
            Quote: Connor MacLeod
            Rearmed on B-52

            When you don’t want to do something, a million excuses appear.

            Eisenhower was then asked in Congress, why not finally gasp in Russian? Eisenhower's answer: "What the hell?". Very offensive, if you think about it, answer.
            1. zenion 30 December 2019 17: 03 New
              • 8
              • 2
              +6
              Stalin tried not to provoke for this reason he helped North Korea not only with weapons, but also with pilots. Apparently the Americans did not know this.
              1. Octopus 30 December 2019 17: 41 New
                • 6
                • 2
                +4
                Quote: zenion
                Stalin tried not to provoke for this reason he helped North Korea not only with weapons, but also with pilots

                Stalin realized after the "raisin bombers" that the Americans were afraid of a new war. Check for a boy / not boy did not pass.

                He was not afraid.
              2. Connor MacLeod 30 December 2019 18: 26 New
                • 2
                • 5
                -3
                The war in Korea began in 1950, if that, after the RDS-1 test. Having received the bomb, Stalin immediately became active in foreign policy ...
            2. Connor MacLeod 30 December 2019 18: 56 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              Quote: Octopus
              Did you hear about the blockade of Berlin?

              It happened. In terms of intensity, the situation cannot be compared with Korea itself, when MacArthur proposed a nuclear strike against the USSR and China. But by that time the bomb was already and Truman put in his pants. MacArthur was removed ...

              The Civil in Greece is indicative, when nationalists and the British slaughtered the Greek Communists, and Stalin could only watch. I had to give in ...

              Quote: Octopus
              When you don’t want to do something, a million excuses appear.

              Honestly, I don’t understand what you want to say - that the appearance of the atomic bomb and ICBMs in the USSR had no effect on the American establishment or what?

              Quote: Octopus
              Eisenhower was then asked in Congress, why not finally gasp in Russian? Eisenhower's answer: "What the hell?". Very offensive, if you think about it, answer.

              The King plays the Suite ... The president’s rhetoric is not important, the mood of the establishment is important, and at that time he was extremely aggressive.
              1. Octopus 30 December 2019 20: 38 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                Quote: Connor MacLeod
                In terms of intensity, the situation cannot be compared to Korea itself.

                The problem of Berlin is much more significant. Stalin violated the guarantees that he personally gave to Truman in Potsdam. Truman has worn himself out.
                Quote: Connor MacLeod
                MacArthur proposed a nuclear strike on the USSR and China.

                MacArthur was naturally right. The then-existing military doctrine did not suggest any other options. How it happened - the question is not MacArthur, but the NHS, Eisenhower, then Bradley. And Truman, of course.
                Quote: Connor MacLeod
                Stalin could only watch. I had to give in ...

                Stalin did not concede, someone deceived you. Stalin quarreled with the gangster Tito, and the latter blocked oxygen for miners and tractor drivers.
                Quote: Connor MacLeod
                the appearance of the atomic bomb and ICBMs in the USSR had no effect on the American establishment or what?

                Of course it didn’t, people of the wrong scale. Produced would - crushed would in the 90s, and Russia, and China, and even more so Kimov.
                Quote: Connor MacLeod
                he was very aggressive at that time.

                Aggressive establishment usually refers to the traveled Forrestal. The establishment behaved in such a way that
                President Roosevelt surrenders Mexico and Europe to communists from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic.
                President Truman surrendered China to the Communists.
                President Eisenhower surrendered to the Communists half Korea and all of Cuba.

                So, the American establishment didn’t particularly deal with aggressiveness.
                1. Connor MacLeod 30 December 2019 23: 29 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  The problem of Berlin is much more significant. Stalin violated the guarantees that he personally gave to Truman in Potsdam. Truman has worn himself out.

                  Actually, Stalin wiped himself, Truman wiped himself in Korea, you are confusing something. The blockade of Berlin failed after the Allies established an air bridge. Despite this, Stalin maintained his composure. In any case, all these little villains can not be compared with the full-scale war in Korea, when MacArthur’s bar fell and the situation really got out of hand.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  MacArthur was naturally right. The then-existing military doctrine did not suggest any other options. How it happened - the question is not MacArthur, but the NHS, Eisenhower, then Bradley. And Truman, of course.

                  No military doctrine involved the transformation of the UN peacekeeping operation into World War III. Truman was frightened by a similar prospect because he decided to stop the general who had gone cuckoo. Incidentally, the removal of the madman was Truman's personal initiative and prerogative, and what is the General Staff in general?

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Stalin did not concede, someone deceived you. Stalin quarreled with the gangster Tito, and the latter blocked oxygen for miners and tractor drivers.

                  Help could come (and did) through the Bulgarian and Albanian borders. The opportunity was, was not necessary. Moreover, the Americans pulled themselves in to help the monarchists. We decided not to provoke.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Of course it didn’t, people of the wrong scale. If it would have produced - they would have crushed Russia, China, and even more Kimov in the 90s.

                  Oh, of course, Olympic calm, everything is under control, as always! They probably voluntarily removed the missiles from Turkey, plannedly drove themselves into debt by military spending, and bankrupted the Bretonwood system, plannedly crawled the WWS to conclude and so on and so forth?

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Aggressive establishment usually refers to the traveled Forrestal.

                  This is the one that jumped out the window shouting "Russians Are Coming !? Well, this is just a curious case of little relevance to the conversation."

                  The real gray cardinals in the 50s were the Dulles brothers, Wall Street proteges. Maybe you question their anti-communist agenda?

                  Quote: Octopus
                  The establishment behaved in such a way that
                  President Roosevelt surrendered to the Communists Mexico and Europe from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic.

                  As can be seen from Churchill's Fulton Speech, which you cite, the West was not going to put up with this state of things ...

                  Quote: Octopus
                  President Truman surrendered China to the Communists.

                  The United States generally did not recognize the PRC until 1979.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  President Eisenhower surrendered to the Communists half Korea and all of Cuba.

                  So, the American establishment didn’t particularly deal with aggressiveness.

                  Eisenhair then left, but the establishment remained. The failed operation in the Bay of Pigs, the Caribbean Crisis and the Blockade, which continues to this day, has followed.

                  The King is played by Sweet ...
                  1. Octopus 31 December 2019 02: 07 New
                    • 3
                    • 3
                    0
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    The blockade of Berlin failed after the Allies established an air bridge.

                    The air bridge was politically a very winning solution. But, at the same time, Truman paid a lot of money to the notorious taxpayers (and the lives of the pilots) to don't decide the problem of having CA in Europe.
                    Truman could not even afford to acknowledge this problem, because he had elections in November, and he could not get the question "How did it happen that the Soviets can afford to block American forces?" Therefore, he invents and rubs the press a crazy story that friend Joe is the sweetest person, a great friend of America, and the hawk Molotov made him behave this way.
                    Kennedy was only the first American president who didn’t personally dress himself in the 45th, twirling shura-moors with Uncle Joe in the 60th.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    with the full-scale war in Korea when MacArthur

                    Just the war in Europe could lead to a decisive result, up to the destruction of the USSR (although, of course, the situation would have been much more complicated than in the 45th). In Korea, no, the war was obviously losing for the United States, regardless of the outcome. Comrade Stalin exchanged free garbage units for the lives of American voters; any course was beneficial to him.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    No military doctrine involved the transformation of the UN peacekeeping operation into World War III.

                    Just those idiots who broke out into big bosses under Marshall, were under the hypnosis of their own myth about the effectiveness of strategic bombing. Especially striking is the chief of the General Staff, Eisenhower, who, as commander of the Allied forces, laid the mats of two useless butchers, Spaats and Harris.

                    Accordingly, in the second half of the 40s everyone wanted to attach AB to any operation, and had no idea how to fight ground forces. It was in this logic that MacArthur demanded a total war, the American military doctrine did not foresee war on limited theater of operations by limited forces. WWII lessons were not learned, German experience in ground operations was not accepted. Even Korea did not cure the Americans.

                    Sherman against the T-54, the Garand rifle against the 7,62x39 complex, Shutingstar against the MiG-15. In the 45th, it was impossible to imagine such a thing, the impressive technical superiority of the Allies of the 45th year was blown down the drain in record time.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    Incidentally, the removal of the madman was Truman's personal initiative and prerogative, and what is the General Staff in general?

                    It was Truman in the 45th who was obliged to understand that the war was going on, it was Truman who had to determine the limitations for military operations and their goals in the new reality, it was the General Staff who had to explain to MacArthur how to act in a situation where victory is not the aim of the war.

                    This has not been done. This was not done even after 20 years, in Vietnam.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    Help could come (and did) through the Bulgarian and Albanian borders.

                    The Albanian and Bulgarian borders are much further from the main cities. In addition, in the region of the 47th year, the Americans joined this batch, as you rightly noted, the first years the British pulled alone.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    We decided not to provoke.

                    Yes, there was a threat that the Americans and Tito would turn over.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    Oh, of course, Olympic calm, everything is under control, as always!

                    Of course not. The usual mess, bickering and two-year electoral cycles.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    Bretonwood system

                    Originally a crazy idea. The Roosevelt Keynesians reached the point of monetarism.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    planned themselves into debt by military spending

                    So our friend, public debt was formed.
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    The real gray cardinals in the 50s were the Dulles brothers, Wall Street proteges. Maybe you question their anti-communist agenda?

                    These who surrendered to the Communists in Cuba? Which of the countries of people's democracy did they both win against the Communists?
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    As can be seen from Churchill's Fulton Speech, which you cite, the West was not going to put up with this state of things ...

                    Firstly, if you take the trouble to read the Fulton speech, you will see that it is absolutely surrender. The task of destroying the USSR was not only not set, but not even recognized. At the same time, Churchill is an irresponsible oppositionist, English Zhirinovsky, who can say what he wants. The famous "Truman Doctrine" is even more toothless.
                    Secondly, a year after this speech, the Attlee government sold the USSR engines from the MiG-15 "for non-military purposes."
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    The United States generally did not recognize the PRC until 1979.

                    So what? This prevented the Chinese from killing them a little bit, first in Korea, then in Vietnam?
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    A failed operation in the Bay of Pigs followed

                    By the way, what were these of your Dulles brothers worth?
                    Quote: Connor MacLeod
                    Eisenhair then left, but the establishment remained.

                    Just Kennedy was the first president who did not bear personal blame for the emergence of the Yalta-Potsdam system and could finally act adequately, although very poorly understood how. Under him, America began to twist to develop a new strategy in the new circumstances. Although, of course, the case was done by other presidents: Nixon and Reagan.
                    1. Connor MacLeod 31 December 2019 04: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 5
                      -5
                      Quote: Octopus
                      The air bridge was politically a very winning solution. But, at the same time, Truman paid a lot of money to the notorious taxpayers (and the lives of the pilots) in order not to solve the problem of having a CA in Europe.

                      Truman could not even afford to acknowledge this problem, because he had elections in November, and he could not get the question "How did it happen that the Soviets can afford to block American forces?" Therefore, he invents and rubs the press a crazy story that friend Joe is the sweetest person, a great friend of America, and the hawk Molotov made him behave this way.
                      Kennedy was only the first American president who didn’t personally dress himself in the 45th, twirling shura-moors with Uncle Joe in the 60th.

                      .....

                      Just the war in Europe could lead to a decisive result, up to the destruction of the USSR (although, of course, the situation would have been much more complicated than in the 45th). In Korea, no, the war was obviously losing for the United States, regardless of the outcome. Comrade Stalin exchanged free garbage units for the lives of American voters; any course was beneficial to him.

                      Okay, these are all the details. Returning to your original question of why they didn’t hit before 1949, I am inclined to the point of view expressed by bk0010 that they did not have enough atomic bombs. Indeed, production was stopped after WWII, the bill went to dozens of charges. They met and began to increase the intake only after 1949.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      Just those idiots who broke out into big bosses under Marshall, were under the hypnosis of their own myth about the effectiveness of strategic bombing. Especially striking is the chief of the General Staff, Eisenhower, who, as commander of the Allied forces, laid the mats of two useless butchers, Spaats and Harris.

                      Accordingly, in the second half of the 40s everyone wanted to attach AB to any operation, and had no idea how to fight ground forces. It was in this logic that MacArthur demanded a total war, the American military doctrine did not at all provide for a war on a limited theater of operations with limited forces. WWII lessons were not learned, German experience in ground operations was not accepted. Even Korea did not cure the Americans.

                      Sherman against the T-54, the Garand rifle against the 7,62x39 complex, Shutingstar against the MiG-15. In the 45th, it was impossible to imagine such a thing, the impressive technical superiority of the Allies of the 45th year was blown down the drain in record time.

                      .....

                      It was Truman in the 45th who was obliged to understand that the war was going on, it was Truman who had to determine the limitations for military operations and their goals in the new reality, it was the General Staff who had to explain to MacArthur how to act in a situation where victory is not the aim of the war.

                      This has not been done. This was not done even after 20 years, in Vietnam.

                      Well, I take your word for it, I admit, I am a little expert on American military doctrine in the early 50s. Here it is necessary to work with documents ...

                      Regarding their unpreparedness for conventional warfare, this is a controversial thesis. Let me just recall the landing in Incheon, the operation was a stunning success and included in all military textbooks. good

                      Quote: Octopus
                      The Albanian and Bulgarian borders are much further from the main cities. In addition, in the region of the 47th year, the Americans joined this batch, as you rightly noted, the first years the British pulled alone.

                      .....

                      Yes, there was a threat that the Americans and Tito would turn over.

                      The USSR from the very beginning was very passive. And this made some sense - as long as all attention was focused on the situation in Greece, Stalin could calmly supply Mao against Chankayshi.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      Of course not. The usual mess, bickering and two-year electoral cycles.

                      .....

                      Originally a crazy idea. The Roosevelt Keynesians reached the point of monetarism.

                      .....

                      So our friend, public debt was formed.

                      I do not agree. In my opinion, the main three reasons for the formation of public debt and the collapse of Bretton Wood are:

                      1) Lunar Race (after Gagarin’s flight, the Americans needed to spend literally 100 times more money on the Apollo program than the East program was worth to restore prestige)

                      2) Vietnam (the costs of armaments and logistics were simply colossal, let me remind you that more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than on Germany, Japan and Korea combined)

                      3) Social reforms of Lyndon Johnson (I had to spend money on social programs to discern the spread of leftist ideas in society)

                      Quote: Octopus
                      Firstly, if you take the trouble to read the Fulton speech, you will see that it is absolutely surrender. The task of destroying the USSR was not only not set, but not even recognized. At the same time, Churchill is an irresponsible oppositionist, English Zhirinovsky, who can say what he wants. The famous "Truman Doctrine" is even more toothless.
                      Secondly, a year after this speech, the Attlee government sold the USSR engines from the MiG-15 "for non-military purposes."

                      You said something about the surrender of Europe. Personally, I think that Potsdam was a farce. As well as Yalta. Allies simply needed to draw the USSR into the war against Japan. No one was going to endure the USSR in Central Europe and the Balkans after the War.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      So what? This prevented the Chinese from killing them a little bit, first in Korea, then in Vietnam?

                      You mentioned the plum of China. I repeat, the United States did not recognize China until 1979. Well, for the war against Mao in the 40s, there was simply not enough manpower at the Pacific Theater.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      These who surrendered to the Communists in Cuba? Which of the countries of people's democracy did they both win against the Communists?

                      About the surrender of Cuba is to Kennedy ...

                      Quote: Octopus
                      By the way, what were these of your Dulles brothers worth?

                      Well, they lobbied for the invasion of Cuba in the context of their anti-Soviet line. The operation ended in a military disaster through no fault of their own. Castro beautifully cut the bridgehead. good

                      Quote: Octopus
                      Kennedy was the first president who did not bear personal blame for the emergence of the Yalta-Potsdam system and could finally act adequately, although he understood very poorly how. Under him, America began to twist to develop a new strategy in the new circumstances. Although, of course, the case was done by other presidents: Nixon and Reagan.

                      Kennedy capitulated to Khrushchev, surrendered to Cuba and removed rockets from Turkey. For which he was killed ...
                      1. Octopus 31 December 2019 09: 02 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        Okay, these are all the details.

                        No, it was just a moment of principle. They made it clear to Comrade Stalin that Truman could not fight with him. Naturally, after this war became inevitable.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        they did not have enough atomic bombs. Indeed, production was stopped after WWII, the bill went to dozens of charges.

                        Firstly, dozens are much more than 0, I assure you. Secondly, you in vain slander the capitalist system, in the 49th you went to the 3rd hundred.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        Let me just recall the landing in Incheon,

                        From the American military leadership, Eisenhower possessed a phenomenal ability to ignore his own experience. MacArthur by the 50th year had not yet completely forgotten his operations of the 44th year. But this was precisely the level of the front commander, and not the General Staff (KNS). GS was interested in questions of war minimally. If possible, he was not at all interested, he drew his drop shots and there are no other worries.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        USSR from the very beginning was very passive

                        Let me remind you that the pre-war border of the passive USSR is the Narva-Dniester line.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        collapse of Bretton Wood it

                        The very idea of ​​a gold standard. The amount of money in the economy is tied to a resource, the growth of which does not coincide with the growth of the economy, as a rule, is much lower. Accordingly, the growth of the money supply does not correspond to the growth rates of the economy.

                        Or you save the gold content of the dollar and draw them as much as you have gold. Thus, there is more and more goods for the same money supply, deflation begins, and this is much worse for the economy than inflation, since it cripples the investment cycle.

                        Or you draw as many dollars as the economy needs, but you realize that in fact they are not provided with gold. So all this works until the first de Gaulle, who will come to the cashier and will require changing bank notes to gold.

                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        Allies simply needed to draw the USSR into the war against Japan. No one was going to endure the USSR in Central Europe and the Balkans after the War.

                        In what interesting way can one not be prepared to endure the USSR anywhere? Comrade Stalin didn’t have problems with the capitalist ministers, but the Allies didn’t get into the habit of shooting members of the Comintern. Signora Togliatti, for example.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        Allies only needed to draw the USSR into the war against Japan

                        The allies, and specifically the American foreign policy bloc, Hall and Stettinius, needed to sign the USSR to the UN, which they had planned for themselves in the 40s. In turn, the UN for them was an answer to a Congressional question, what did they do all this time, except for crimes against humanity, and why Roosevelt did not send them to the fine battalion so good. To the Eastern Front.
                        As for Japan, the participation of the USSR in the war against it was ruled out. But the participation of the USSR in the civil war in China against the US ally Chiang Kai-shek is not excluded, which the USSR did. I note that at the headquarters of Nimitz there were sane people, including himself, who were wondering how to land more conveniently on the mainland in order to limit the successes of the Red Army (unlike the Eisenhower boob in Europe, I emphasize), but it didn’t come to that time.

                        The idea that the Americans needed Stalin in Japan so much that he didn’t feel sorry for giving Europe back (especially since it was the English half before the war), was spread on the one hand by various figures of the 45th year, who later testified to Congress about everything these Yalta-Potsdam stories, and on the other hand, Soviet and post-Soviet authors, such as Isaev, in order to rationalize the actions of the allies, to pass off treason as state wisdom.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        You mentioned the plum of China. I repeat, the USA did not recognize China until 1979

                        The Entente and the USSR did not recognize until the 24th (USA - until the 33rd). This does not mean that they did not merge Russia with the Bolsheviks.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        against Mao in the 40s, there was simply not enough manpower at the Pacific Theater.

                        Ten years were, and in the 47th ended. But Comrade Stalin did not end.
                        The end of the forces was due to the fact that the State Department convinced Truman that there was no difference between Kai-shek (Kitonazi) and Mao (Kitokommi). By the way, personally, it was J. Marshall, Secretary of State since the 47th year, special representative for China since the 45th year.
                        Although on the other hand, he performed decently in Europe, one cannot but admit. He did not allow the aggravation of his mistakes during the war.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        About the surrender of Cuba is to Kennedy ...

                        Eisenhower and the whole Dulles company turned in Cuba. Castro was in Washington on April 59th, with Vice President Nixon meeting with him.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        lobbied for the invasion of Cuba in the context of its anti-Soviet line. The operation ended in a military disaster through no fault of their own.

                        They merged Batista and admitted that the reddish gang of various Cuban Kerensky turned bright red.
                        Quote: Connor MacLeod
                        For which he was killed

                        Kennedy was assassinated because his dad, the American Berezovsky, had already imprisoned one young energetic president. They could not expel four terms from the White House until the fins were glued together. This time they decided not to wait for the weather by the sea, but to take matters into their own hands.
                      2. Liam 31 December 2019 10: 51 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Kennedy was assassinated because his dad, the American Berezovsky, had already imprisoned one young energetic president. They could not expel four terms from the White House until the fins were glued together. This time they decided not to wait for the weather by the sea, but to take matters into their own hands.

                        Do not get involved in conspiracy theories.
                        The twenty-second amendment to the US Constitution was adopted by Congress on March 21, 1947 and ratified by the required number of states on February 7, 1951.
                      3. Octopus 31 December 2019 12: 39 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: Liam
                        Twenty-second Amendment to the US Constitution

                        ))).
                        I am aware of the 22nd amendment. But dad Kennedy had three (living) sons. And three daughters, by the way, one of them seems to be even alive until now. All this could well end like that of Gandhi Nehru.
                        And with the amendment, anything can happen. Someone entered it there, this amendment.
                      4. Liam 31 December 2019 14: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        I believe that the fact that this powerful old man by the age of 61 was a vegetable in a wheelchair would not have prevented him from building a dynastic monarchy from his sons, daughters and nephews in the USA)
                      5. Octopus 31 December 2019 18: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Liam
                        I believe that the fact that this powerful old man by the age of 61 was a vegetable in a wheelchair would not have prevented him from building a dynastic monarchy from his sons, daughters and nephews in the USA)

                        )))
                        That first one was also in a wheelchair, but it won out how it happened)))

                        But you are right, of course. Something I began to drown for conspiracy theories, I don’t remember whose El-Murida, it seems.
                        I did not expect from myself))).

                        Oh well.
                        drinks
                      6. Liam 31 December 2019 18: 50 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        And you have a good NG and all the best) drinks hi
            3. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 10: 47 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Connor MacLeod
              For which he was killed ...

              Naive! Kennedy was killed for the INTENT to subordinate dollar emissions to the US Central Bank, thereby limiting the influence of a private office (organized crime group from several private banks), called the Fed. You will find proofs for yourself, (if you want)
  • voyaka uh 30 December 2019 15: 28 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    "Why not hit in the 56th?" ///
    ---
    Because Stalin died.
    Beria immediately, in the first days after Stalin's death, sent a message to the United States via intelligence channels: "internal terror in the USSR has ceased, perestroika, nuclear retreat"
    And the Khrushchev thaw began.
    And although Beria was killed, and Malenkov-Molotov was suspended, Khrushchev actually continued Beria’s policy of establishing relations with the United States.
    1. Octopus 30 December 2019 16: 30 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Because Stalin died

      The civil war in Greece, Mao in China, Berlin and Korea were under Stalin and Truman.
      1. voyaka uh 30 December 2019 16: 56 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        It's right. But the turning point in the final abolition of the preventive nuclear strike against the USSR was the death of Stalin. Beria led the Soviet nuclear program and intelligence at the same time. And I realized that it was a seam.
        Then Stalin died suddenly.
        Literally on the following days (even before the funeral) they suddenly started talking “above” about the “personality cult” and “repressions”.
        Long before Khrushchev and the 20th congress.
        The Americans understood the hint right away. And for the Soviet people a few more years reached.
        1. Octopus 30 December 2019 18: 03 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I realized that it was a seam.
          Then Stalin died suddenly.

          Too smart.

          Comrade Stalin died because he already got everyone. His strategy to always be the first to succeed, as Kristobal Hosevich, failed. A Mingrelian case stretches near Beria, his protege Abakumov was arrested, Malenkova was still shuganuli in the case of aviators, the military were registered under the trophy case, Molotov and Mikoyan were removed from the squad, Molotov was sitting with his wife.

          In general, the question with Comrade Stalin overripe.
          1. voyaka uh 30 December 2019 18: 13 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            I agree with your conclusions. The leaders were scared for themselves. But instantly the signal "hang up!" was filed in the States. What's important.
            1. Connor MacLeod 30 December 2019 19: 55 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              "Why not hit in the 56th?" ///
              ---
              Because Stalin died.
              Beria immediately, in the first days after Stalin's death, sent a message to the United States via intelligence channels: "internal terror in the USSR has ceased, perestroika, nuclear retreat"
              And the Khrushchev thaw began.
              And although Beria was killed, and Malenkov-Molotov was suspended, Khrushchev actually continued Beria’s policy of establishing relations with the United States.

              Quote: voyaka uh
              I agree with your conclusions. The leaders were scared for themselves. But instantly the signal "hang up!" was filed in the States. What is important.

              Can the source be? Preferably with links to archival documents, etc.
        2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 10: 52 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          But the turning point in the final abolition of the preventive nuclear strike against the USSR was the death of Stalin.

          I.e. Do you want to say that Stalin was “bad” for the United States, and Khrushchev was “good”? An interesting interpretation of historical events. But. with this - not to me, to a psychiatrist! In Kashchenko, dear, to Kanatchikov’s cottage! I advise you not to hesitate, the symptoms are menacing!
  • Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 10: 29 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    Why not hit in the 56th?

    Re-equipped on the B-52, waited until the DEW line was completed, they regretted London (the Russian appeared P-5) ...

    No ... It’s just that the war in Korea showed that ALL US bombers would be shot down on approach ... Yankees also know how to bluff, but they are not suicides, and there are few fools among them. Nerds, of course. enough - how could it be without them, but not fools!
  • bk0010 30 December 2019 20: 48 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Octopus
    Why not done in the 48th?
    There were very few bombs, and 1945 has not yet been forgotten.
    Quote: Octopus
    Why not hit in the 56th?
    Because in Korea it was found that they did not have any reliable media (see Black Thursday, Black Tuesday, Alley of Migov)
    1. Octopus 30 December 2019 21: 10 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: bk0010
      Yes, and 1945 have not forgotten

      If they had not forgotten the 45th, Truman and Eisenhower would have been hanged. Naturally, the best moment for a decision on the USSR was precisely in the 45th. But even the most “aggressive,” like Churchill or Kennan, did not call for an end to the USSR. AND containment wars do not win.
      Quote: bk0010
      Because in Korea it was found that they did not have any reliable media (see Black Thursday, Black Tuesday, Alley of Migov)

      How did you get the idea that the B-29 in small groups at an altitude of 3 km was all that they had, and even in the 56th?
      1. bk0010 30 December 2019 22: 34 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        > Where did you get the idea that the B-29 in small groups at an altitude of 3 km-this is all that they had, and even in the 56th?
        And what did they have in 1956 that could be guaranteed to break through the USSR air defense?
        1. Octopus 31 December 2019 00: 52 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          And what did they have in 1956 that could be guaranteed to break through the USSR air defense?

          You have chosen the year unsuccessfully. For the 56th year, the 4th series (D) of the B-52 already flies. Avro Vulcan flies. The MiG-15 practically cannot catch up with this economy; the MiG-19 is needed. But there is no guidance system for interceptors yet, so the chances of the MiG-19 in the afterburner catch the intercept are very small. Even worse, the Convair B-58 Hustler flew (but has not yet been adopted). There is simply nothing to stop him. There is no S-25 in the 56th year, not to mention the S-75, the Su-9 is not.
          1. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 02 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Octopus
            The MiG-15 practically cannot catch up with this economy,

            You forgot". that the MiG-15 was already replaced by the MiG-1956 by 17. In addition, "your untruth!" (c): ... The MiG-19 fighter began to enter the troops in small batches in March 1955, and the full saturation of aircraft parts with new fighters went only in 1956 ..., http: //armedman.ru/samoletyi/1946- 1960-samoletyi / istrebitel-mig-19.html
            1. Octopus 31 December 2019 12: 47 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Igor Aviator
              replaced by MiG-17

              What's the difference? The same tens of kilometers per hour compared with the B-52 and Avro. It can intercept only if it is brought to the target in advance. In those years, they were not particularly able to do this.
              In the afternoon.
              Quote: Igor Aviator
              The MiG-19 began to arrive in small batches in March 1955,

              I write that the MiG-19 is flying, but there is no guidance system yet, so the prospects are sour.
  • Kostyar 30 December 2019 09: 02 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    Such miraculous weapons and super-technologies that change all ideas about nuclear technology could not appear out of nowhere in one day. And for some reason they did not find use anywhere except zircon, a nuclear missile and a nuclear torpedo. Which, of course, will not be shown to the public

    So let the heck wonder if we have such a prodigy or not ...
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 30 December 2019 09: 50 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      Quote: Bone
      So let the heck wonder if we have such a prodigy or not ...

      Yes, they have already wondered.

      What did Putin say to them? "Guys, do you count. Do you know how to count? Count before you make such a decision that would create additional threats for us." Well, they counted, and decided that it is possible, in principle, to leave the INF Treaty.
      1. Mountain shooter 30 December 2019 14: 35 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

        What did Putin say to them? "Guys, and you count. You know how to count

        It’s worth counting. Hypersound is a minimum of a couple of kilometers per second. A rocket emerges from the horizon and in ten seconds it’s on your board !!! Moreover, the speed of angular movement is such that it is difficult even to aim ... and there is another option - an attack from the “zenith” ... From a height of 40 km vertically, at a speed of 6M !!!
        What is it to bring down?
        1. Octopus 30 December 2019 16: 33 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          What is it to bring down?

          In the first picture is an image of a real hypersonic missile. Naturally not Russian. It is easy to notice thermal protection in the bow, similar to Shuttle or Buran, other hypersonic aircraft.

          To start. What GOS are you planning to put under this thermal protection?
          1. bk0010 30 December 2019 20: 54 New
            • 0
            • 6
            -6
            Why under? In the abdomen, opened in the absence of maneuvers, guidance sensors looking forward and down.
            1. Octopus 30 December 2019 21: 14 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              Quote: bk0010
              guidance sensors looking forward and down.

              1. At what altitude does the rocket fly?
              2. Do you see black below? This is also thermal protection. Since during hypersonic flight, it is this part of the hull that creates lift. That is, it creates resistance. That is, it is warming.
              1. bk0010 30 December 2019 22: 37 New
                • 0
                • 4
                -4
                1. On the big one. More than 30 km.
                2. And what? At the correction points, the slope changes slightly, the thermal protection plate is pulled inward and shifted, the platform with the sensors extends (but within the housing, of course), correction / additional exploration is performed, the platform is removed, the thermal protection is put in place.
                1. Octopus 31 December 2019 00: 53 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  Quote: bk0010
                  the slope changes slightly, the thermal protection plate is pulled in and shifted, the platform with sensors extends (but within the case, of course),

                  Yeah.
          2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 09 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            In the first picture is an image of a real hypersonic missile. Naturally not Russian.

            Firstly - this is not a full package. and just a model - a laboratory. Flying, if memory serves, only 18 seconds (and then, once, apparently by accident! laughing ) Now, when it truly becomes a full-fledged BATTLE rocket, and can fly, according to the STATED CHARACTERISTICS, and WILL BE accepted for service, then we'll talk. And so - what to discuss the American "bunch"? lol
            1. Octopus 31 December 2019 12: 51 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Igor Aviator
              discuss the American bunch?

              Well, Zircon is being discussed for the 5000th time.
    2. Valdaev 28 January 2020 23: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      no one guesses. know not. and smile at fairy tales. only sweat evaporates ... you
  • abrakadabre 30 December 2019 10: 24 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    "Success" in the creation of traditional weapons, alas, rather confirm the doubts about the reality of "Poseidon"
    Just the opposite. because the "successes" in large-scale production are not problems of design bureaus, but of the next stage - leprosy serial production, forgive me for the harsh moderators. The creation and testing of piece samples in this (only in this sense) is much simpler.
  • zenion 30 December 2019 17: 00 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Unfortunately, the author knows little about this weapon. They did not allow him to read documents and technical specifications. They did not ask him for advice on how to improve the product. But he dug up a lot. That is, the words of Mark Twain are not suitable here - if you do not know. what to say, tell the truth. But there is an indefatigable fantasy about the truth.
  • Chaldon48 30 December 2019 17: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    SM-6 costs $ 4,9 million, of course it’s expensive, there are 300 missiles, they are going to make 1800. I wonder how much Zircon costs, I don’t ask about the quantity, it's probably a secret.
    1. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Chaldon48
      I wonder how much Zircon costs

      Believe me - much less than a cruiser, or a corvette!
      1. Chaldon48 31 December 2019 12: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It was very beautiful, to shoot a rocket with the cost, say, in mln. $!
  • Astronaut 30 December 2019 18: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And for some reason they did not find use anywhere except zircon, a nuclear missile and a nuclear torpedo.

    There are a lot of things on the Internet, but not all. Try search charcoal. And its application. You just lack awareness.
  • Stalllker 30 December 2019 20: 15 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    USSR never boasted ??? I beg of you
  • Robertocalos 30 December 2019 21: 54 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    It's like that. Naturally, military secrets will not be shown. But one could at least let the fog in and not spread frank nonsense about technical characteristics, like about Vanguard, for example, with mutually exclusive parameters and violation of the laws of physics.
  • Narak-zempo 31 December 2019 19: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Santa Fe
    The USSR has never boasted of what it does not have.

    I remembered the joke.
    After Nixon’s visit to Moscow in 1959, Khrushchev told Mikoyan:
    - Here, Anastas, such a thing. Richard boasted of scientific achievements. He said that they had invented a way to revive the dead. I had to say in response that our scientists created doping, which allows a person to overtake a car. Where to get such a dope now?
    - And you, Nikita, ask them to revive Joseph Vissarionovich - then you yourself will run faster than any car.
  • Asan Ata 1 January 2020 01: 40 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Let's imagine a situation where it is impossible to disclose the method of destroying the enemy, but it must be warned so as not to twitch.
    Suppose there is no Poseidon, but there are thermonuclear land mines along the coast of a potential enemy. It is clear to seek them out - a futile affair. But how to undermine them? Very simple. There should be activation sensors that are triggered by the production of an explosion of a certain power, say, at a distance of 50 km. That is, an inconspicuous rocket is blown up in neutral waters, a sensor is triggered and a thermonuclear explosion occurs, washing off the coastal state. Maybe? Of course. Defense means monitor only what threatens the territory, and nobody protects neutral waters.
    Let's say these landmines have long been each in its place.
    Tell about it? Somehow not very. But the tale of "Poseidon" will go.
  • IL-NAVY 1 January 2020 08: 56 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    According to skeptics - with cartoons, the Defense Ministry covers up failures in the creation of traditional weapons.
    Well, personally I had enough expression on the face of the NGS when showing cartoons ... There, his thought is read- "Vova, what are you talking about ...?"
  • meandr51 6 January 2020 19: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But what about Khrushchev's “global rocket” and his “ICBM production, like sausages”? How did this relate to the truth?
  • Evil Booth 30 December 2019 05: 42 New
    • 7
    • 14
    -7
    negative so-so little article, for the first time the range of 1000 hung for a long time even in a "free" wiki, with a plague proof. secondly, there was a snapshot of the start of the subject on live and not a drawing.
  • Evil Booth 30 December 2019 05: 45 New
    • 3
    • 19
    -16
    wassat of the E-2D Hawkeye patrol, the subject takes off with a full set of fuel ONLY at a wind speed of 60 km / h above the deck according to the discovery and the flight manual which is google, so you need to accelerate the avik downwind to the maximum speed that! * 10! fuel consumption and less than a couple of days, in fact, then overheating and deterioration of cars
    1. kjhg 30 December 2019 07: 23 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: Evil Booth
      fuel consumption and less than a couple of days, in fact, then overheating and deterioration of cars

      What nonsense are you talking about? Himself not ashamed to write such a heresy in VO?
      1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 14: 04 New
        • 1
        • 8
        -7
        tongue Omerga is in danger! more minuses))) AUG can NOT swim a week at full speed. In exactly the same way, F35 cannot fly farther than a couple of hundred kilometers at supersonic. the rest well, 300 will fly by then overheating, and that’s if it’s empty in terms of firing and armament at a high altitude))) you first google then unmount if you don’t know what.
        1. Boa kaa 30 December 2019 19: 30 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Evil Booth
          Aug can not swim a week at full speed. R

          The American AUG, consisting solely of ships and with nuclear power plants and the Rey plaza, circumnavigated the world at one time. The average (!) Speed ​​at the transition was 25,0 knots!
          And the aircraft carrier needs full speed against the wind only for the period of raising / receiving aircraft. And if there are no night flights, then you can relax a bit from the "race".
          1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 20: 39 New
            • 0
            • 5
            -5
            EXCLUSIVELY))))))))))))))))))))) wassat Duc if the chipmunk is a bird, although it is not visible then ... well, you understand.
    2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Evil Booth
      you need to disperse Avik downwind

      maybe, after all, AGAINST the wind? How much I understand in aviation (believe the word - quite a lot!) For take-off the plane, INSTRUMENT SPEED is important — that is, the speed relative to the surrounding air. at the same time, for the pilot sitting in the cockpit of the aircraft, the speed of the aircraft carrier relative to the water surface does not matter at all - even if it’s “faded”, but it provides the required Vrib.
  • sergo1914 30 December 2019 05: 50 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    . Means of short-range action, including artillery must be immediately excluded as obviously ineffective.



    So why write on a topic that you absolutely don't understand?
    1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 06: 01 New
      • 3
      • 11
      -8
      in fact, artillery complexes do not work out speed even at Mach 2 ... they can potentially be fine. By the way, there were exactly tens and tens of millions of reposts, it’s just everywhere that the volcano knocks down granite, then it turned out that the speed is not the same)))) well, let's say the shell works out 3 mach Whp guns and with a good coefficient
      1. sergo1914 30 December 2019 08: 32 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Evil Booth
        in fact, artillery complexes do not work out speed even at Mach 2 ... they can potentially be fine. By the way, there were exactly tens and tens of millions of reposts, it’s just everywhere that the volcano knocks down granite, then it turned out that the speed is not the same)))) well, let's say the shell works out 3 mach Whp guns and with a good coefficient


        They put the veil. On the proposed trajectory. To work in the inner circle on a hypersonic target is pointless - insanity.
        1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 14: 02 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          and what forgive my Chinese difference? and in general otked -5? so to say in spite grandmother frostbite the canyons? they put the veil. ingenious, I probably wrote that they were firing a single shell!
          1. sergo1914 30 December 2019 16: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Evil Booth
            and what forgive my Chinese difference? and in general otked -5? so to say in spite grandmother frostbite the canyons? they put the veil. ingenious, I probably wrote that they were firing a single shell!


            Where the cons come from - I don’t know. Most likely, field marshals with generalissimo naughty.
            For the rest - there is practical development experience. The results are good. If I managed to throw the barrel blocks in the right direction.
            1. Evil Booth 30 December 2019 20: 41 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              there is 0,1 sec and from 1,5 km of the volcano minus 200 meters will remain. ak630 up to 10km kiadet but effective 6 moo time to charge a couple of times thick .... but in general it's all brakes first with missiles
              1. sergo1914 30 December 2019 21: 24 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Screw feed. A lot of trunks. Caliber arrows. To the dust. If you hit.
                1. sergo1914 30 December 2019 21: 32 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: sergo1914
                  Screw feed. A lot of trunks. Caliber arrows. To the dust. If you hit.


                  What a fool is tracking my comments? I did not have time to write - it’s already a minus. Can you open your face, Gyulchatay?
  • Evil Booth 30 December 2019 06: 00 New
    • 2
    • 12
    -10
    good Estimated range https://rg.ru/2019/09/19/chto-predstavliaet-soboj-giperzvukovaia-raketa-cirkon.html 1000 km but the free ones actively assume 600 because they still remember from the 90s the billiards of hollowing from each yusbport that 600 is not enough. http://tehnoomsk.ru/node/3605 up to 1000 km https://inosmi.ru/military/20190303/244680094.html GDP personally indicated 1000 km but "ours" are watching the current bill for doshirak, and again a thousand https: / /novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/03/21/79948-no-mozhem-sobstvennyh-tsirkonov and this is part of the current proofs.
  • Evil Booth 30 December 2019 06: 13 New
    • 6
    • 10
    -4
    by the way about air defense, there’s a great and terrifying base of power of the Navy hegemon in the back of a mono at least a frying pan for boarding .. there is nothing. the turrets are still standing on the pot, claiming 360 *
  • Air force 30 December 2019 07: 06 New
    • 14
    • 7
    +7
    How to protect yourself from Zircons? The easiest and cheapest way is not to attack a country with Zircons. And all other means are doubtful, these are not Hollywood films. If the time comes when the United States will have to defend itself against the Zircons, it means that they will have to defend themselves against the Avangards and the Daggers, in general, from the entire nuclear triad, and this is a completely different movie. PS It’s really serious to defend against hypersonic weapons and develop countermeasures, maybe the country that put hypersonic weapons into its arsenal, and the rest are just dreams and theory, from the category: maybe we can develop air defense missile defense based on railguns, we’re in the movies defeated transformers with this weapon laughing
    1. Octopus 30 December 2019 08: 47 New
      • 16
      • 7
      +9
      Quote: Air Force
      How to protect yourself from Zircons? The simplest and cheapest tool

      Do not read Soviet newspapers.
      1. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 24 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: Octopus
        Do not read Soviet newspapers.

        It’s harmful for you to read! And to write - too!
    2. NEXUS 30 December 2019 15: 34 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Air Force
      And all other means are doubtful, these are not Hollywood films.

      Logically, while the West will create protection against Zircons, Daggers and Vanguards, these same Zircons, Daggers, etc. will also improve both in range and speed. And who can say one hundred percent that the same Zircon in 5 years will not fly 5000 km, at a speed of 30 max? This means that Western designers need to create a defense with a margin, which I see as extremely doubtful.
      1. SovAr238A 30 December 2019 22: 28 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        And who can say one hundred percent that the same Zircon in 5 years will not fly 5000 km, at a speed of 30 max?

        I can 100% say that your words will not be confirmed in the next 50 years.
        For even the slightest engineering horizon is enough to understand simple truths
        If you can achieve results in materials science and be able to create material that is not afraid of a temperature of 5000 degrees, then the question is: what kind of fuel can a rocket move with a body temperature of 5000 degrees? what guidance system and what materials will stand on the rocket at which the body temperature is 5000 degrees.

        To get started - take a look. what is 5000 degrees ...

        That's all.

        It was just that you had to study at school. and at least at the institute.
        1. NEXUS 31 December 2019 04: 44 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: SovAr238A
          It was just that you had to study at school. and at least at the institute.

          Listen, "just to learn at school" ... firstly, from what kind of vegetable is there 5000 degrees drawn in your inflamed, educated brain? This time ... second. What do you, an educated wise guy know about modern fuel for RCC?
          The third question is, what do you know about the work of defense material scientists today in general?
          You just don’t have to bend your fingers and think that a diploma is an indicator of the mind.
          1. SovAr238A 31 December 2019 09: 23 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Quote: SovAr238A
            It was just that you had to study at school. and at least at the institute.

            Listen, "just to learn at school" ... firstly, from what kind of vegetable is there 5000 degrees drawn in your inflamed, educated brain? This time ... second. What do you, an educated wise guy know about modern fuel for RCC?
            The third question is, what do you know about the work of defense material scientists today in general?
            You just don’t have to bend your fingers and think that a diploma is an indicator of the mind.



            And what should be the body temperature when moving in the atmosphere at a speed of 40 km / second?

            Defenders - cannot fly from another planet.
            These are the same engineers who studied with us at the same universities, from the same teachers.
            Defenders may use only those materials in their work. which produces industry and its enterprises.
            And the same engineers and technologists about whom it is told above work there.
            And chemists and technologists and engineers - all of them are ours. they all take advantage of that. what industry produces, components, materials, literature.
            These are basic concepts.

            And if you believe in fairy tales about secret laboratories, secret chemical plants. secret foundries - I feel sorry for you.
            You really only have pink dreams. and you don’t understand anything in the surrounding reality.
            1. NEXUS 31 December 2019 12: 36 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: SovAr238A
              And what should be the body temperature when moving in the atmosphere at a speed of 40 km / second?

              At what height? I will explain for those who studied at school, the density of the atmosphere, depending on the height, is different.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Defenders may use only those materials in their work. which produces industry and its enterprises.

              About how ... so what do you know about at what level our materials science for defense is now? I just became very interested. Enlighten the dark student in school.
              1. SovAr238A 31 December 2019 18: 58 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                Quote: SovAr238A
                And what should be the body temperature when moving in the atmosphere at a speed of 40 km / second?

                At what height? I will explain for those who studied at school, the density of the atmosphere, depending on the height, is different.


                Well, you're going to hit ground / surface targets with hypersound ...
                Or have they changed their shoes on the fly?
                Andrey, you can’t ...

                Quote: NEXUS

                Quote: SovAr238A
                Defenders may use only those materials in their work. which produces industry and its enterprises.

                About how ... so what do you know about at what level our materials science for defense is now? I just became very interested. Enlighten the dark student in school.


                If you were interested, you would know.
                that from the moment of creation of the previous steel to the next, such as the last type of experimental steel 44SSVSh - more than 40 years have passed.
                And this is not some kind of breakthrough.
                40 years were required to repeat the Germans or Swedes.
                And it still cannot be put on the rails of industrial production.
                In Volgograd, they are trying something there.
                But with varying success.
                And in other factories - they didn’t even try.


                You should understand that if you had read a little thoughtfully - that defense steels - are made in ordinary factories. Ordinary technologists, ordinary metallurgists. Ordinary people.
                And the level is appropriate.
                Not aliens.
                There is no secrecy in fact.
                And everyone is in sight.
                And yes, the owner of the Steel and Plant Research Institute is a Dutch company. Suddenly. Yes?
        2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 26 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: SovAr238A
          It was just that you had to study at school. and at least at the institute.

          Your education seems to have inflamed! Probably malignant! laughing
          1. SovAr238A 31 December 2019 18: 58 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Igor Aviator
            Quote: SovAr238A
            It was just that you had to study at school. and at least at the institute.

            Your education seems to have inflamed! Probably malignant! laughing

            What inflamed you7 Honduras bothered?
  • rocket757 30 December 2019 07: 28 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    How to protect yourself from Zircon

    The alleged, optimal way of protection ... do not go where you have not been called!
    And so, when everything is clear with the rocket, they will seek opposition. It always has been .... if it was not possible to obtain information about the technical characteristics of the enemy’s weapons, before.
  • bars1 30 December 2019 08: 16 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Zircon is the most secret (of the widely discussed) weapons of Russia. He is not even shown in cartoons. Moreover, the issue of adopting it can be resolved.
    1. Octopus 30 December 2019 08: 48 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: bars1
      Russia's most secret (widely discussed) weapon

      Some day of aphorisms today.
    2. SovAr238A 30 December 2019 22: 30 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: bars1
      Zircon is the most secret (of the widely discussed) weapons of Russia. He is not even shown in cartoons. Moreover, the issue of adopting it can be resolved.

      Zircon is a common Onyx modification.
      For it was necessary to read about 10 years ago the documentation on tenders for state orders.

      With a ballistic flight path.
      And all of his "hyper" - only at an altitude of 50km.
      To which you still have to get.
  • Nikolaevich I 30 December 2019 09: 10 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Recently I read on the internet about the "difficulties of intercepting ,, zircons ,," ... well, like, that "with such a flight profile, zircon ,, radar" such-and-such "on the ship" can "detect" zircon, at a distance of S km, and at such a distance no more than 50-55 seconds (!) remain to repulse the blow, which is clearly not enough! Is it worth it to rely on medium and long range zuras in this case? but it’s also necessary to acquire short-range short-range GZUR “interceptors”! When organizing a missile defense system, you can’t do without UAV barracks, which operate in different “guises” ... hypersonic small missiles with solid propellant rockets can act as weapons of destruction .. It is possible that the concept of "thunderchief" will be applied ...
  • Hermit21 30 December 2019 09: 15 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    The range, according to various estimates, is up to 400 or up to 600 km


    The author is one of those superintelligences over which the Emperor’s words about the range of “over 1000 kilometers” passed?

    Using third-party target designation, the ship can launch the SM-6 missile “over the horizon” and get some chances to intercept a flying RCC of the 3M22 type - perhaps not from the first attempt


    To intercept an aerodynamic target, the anti-missile must have a speed at least equal to the speed of the target and maneuver with at least twice as large overloads. SM-6 does not meet these criteria with respect to 3M22
    1. PIXY_117 30 December 2019 09: 32 New
      • 13
      • 14
      -1
      All you need to know about the word "sovereign":
      While I am president, there will be no increase in the retirement age. V.V.P.
    2. YOUR 30 December 2019 12: 51 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      You are mistaken
      Quote: Hermit21
      To intercept an aerodynamic target, the anti-missile must have a speed at least equal to the speed of the target and maneuver with at least twice as large overloads.

      SAM S-400 SAM 48N6E maximum speed of 2100 m / s is able to destroy targets flying at a speed of 4800 m / s. Those. target’s speed is more than twice the speed of missiles.
      1. Octopus 30 December 2019 13: 56 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: YOUR
        SAM S-400 SAM 48N6E maximum speed of 2100 m / s is able to destroy targets flying at a speed of 4800 m / s

        SM-3 has a confirmed downing of the object on the 1st space.
        1. Hermit21 31 December 2019 00: 09 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The interception of a satellite falling along a ballistic trajectory has nothing to do with the interception of 3M22 and aerodynamic targets as a whole. These are different tasks that require different solutions.
        2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Octopus
          SM-3 has a confirmed downing of the object on the 1st space.

          Equipped with a beacon. At the same time, the azimuth of the target and altitude were known in advance - the Americans themselves admitted! So what - by! tongue
      2. Hermit21 30 December 2019 14: 34 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        This is with regards to the ballistic goal. There are other success criteria for interception
        1. SovAr238A 30 December 2019 22: 31 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Hermit21
          This is with regards to the ballistic goal. There are other success criteria for interception

          Isn't Zircon like that?
          1. Hermit21 31 December 2019 00: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Surprisingly, but not like that. This is a cruise missile flying thanks to the laws of aerodynamics, not ballistics
            1. YOUR 31 December 2019 03: 09 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Interception of any targets depends not so much on the speed of missiles as on guidance algorithms.
  • arkadiyssk 30 December 2019 09: 26 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Means of short-range action, including artillery must be immediately excluded as obviously ineffective. Even with the successful defeat of the target missile at distances of less than several kilometers, its fragments will cause significant damage to the ship.
    Some kind of game. The author all mixed up in the head and article. Either Zircon actively maneuvers when approaching the target, which means it never flies in a straight line to it, then it is useless to shoot cannons, because all the same, fragments of several kilometers will fly in a straight line into the ship, which means that the rocket before that flew in a straight line without maneuvering.
  • Operator 30 December 2019 11: 16 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    Firstly, V. Putin has already announced the adaptation of Zircon under the Iskander-M launcher (due to the termination of the INF Treaty), therefore the GKKR has become universal-based.

    Secondly, the Zircon’s marching flight altitude is 40 km and when diving on targets, the SCLC performs anti-aircraft maneuvers, and the maximum height for intercepting targets with the SM-6 anti-aircraft missile is only 35 km and it is not designed to intercept maneuvering hypersonic targets.

    Thirdly, the Zircon’s flight range reaches 1000 km with a flight time of 6 minutes - which is a deadly indicator for the AOG, ground command posts, launching positions of medium-range missiles, SPRN radars and other priority targets.
  • Kostadinov 30 December 2019 12: 43 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: Octopus
    Why not hit in the 56th?
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    If they struck, then the USSR would have nothing to answer. But the Americans did not

    Why not done in the 48th?

    1. Nuclear weapons and their carriers until the mid-50s were not suitable for the battlefield and could not effectively hit industrial objects.
    2. Large Soviet cities beat many times less vulnerable than Japanese cities, were very far from American bases, and fighters did not have enough range to escort bombers with atomic bombs.
    3. Tried in Korea and in their own skin realized that they would lose.
    1. Good_Anonymous 30 December 2019 13: 26 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Until the mid-50s, nuclear weapons and their carriers were not suitable for the battlefield and could not effectively hit industrial objects.


      I don’t know about the battlefield, but everything was against industrial facilities and cities.

      Quote: Kostadinov
      fighters did not have enough range to escort bombers with atomic bombs.


      So what? As far as I know, this is true now. Strategic bombers did not count on escort.

      Quote: Kostadinov
      Tried in Korea and in their own skin realized that they would lose.


      What could Korea show - were there at least B-36s used there? Not to mention the B-52.
    2. Octopus 30 December 2019 14: 50 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      not suitable for the battlefield

      Yes.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      could not effectively hit industrial objects.

      They could have.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      very far from American bases and fighters did not have enough range to escort bombers with atomic bombs.

      Before the appearance of the MiG-15, the range was quite enough, incl. fighter (piston). With the advent of reagents, the fighter range fell, but on the other hand, before the appearance of the S-25, S-75 and Su-9, it is extremely difficult to intercept the B-36 at maximum altitude and speed. The MiG-15 and B-36 have the same ceiling.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      in their own skin they realized that they would be defeated.

      We realized that if you use strategic aircraft at low altitudes in small groups for tactical purposes, you can get oh.

      And they realized that WWII was not the last of the wars. For Eisenhower, that was damn bad news.
  • rica1952 30 December 2019 12: 47 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    The more they say about this weapon, the more likely the absence and the near future of this rocket are. Because the deplorable state of our science, in particular material science, is a clear example of the lack of a raw material and production base for carbon fiber for MS 21, and here the problem is more abrupt, and scientific schools are destroyed in many directions .So that
    these are all soap bubbles of our heads of specialist on galoshes.
    1. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: rica1952
      these are all soap bubbles of our heads of specialist on galoshes.

      And what do you have to do with military science to declare so categorically? So far, I see that our “partners” have not even been able to tear the RD-180, even having a full package of technical documentation, for them our (still Soviet) MiG-29 and SU-27 aircraft are a revelation! S-300 and S-400 are generally unreachable.
  • Servisinzhener 30 December 2019 13: 56 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    To the question posed in the title of the article, only one thing can be said: It is not known how.
    Because we do not know the performance characteristics of the rocket and its flight profile. And also what speed in which section it can develop. Too many questions remain open. 1000 km when starting from which carrier? Ground / Air. M = 8 in which section of the flight? At all, or only when it flies at an altitude of more than 30 km. What is the altitude and flight speed of the target?
    The answers to these questions are known in the NGO Engineering. And it’s good that beyond the doors of this organization this knowledge did not work out.
  • Mikhail3 30 December 2019 14: 53 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Means of short-range action, including artillery must be immediately excluded as obviously ineffective.
    Well, why do frank nonsense to write? It is impossible to intercept a hypersonic missile with a missile. For the simple reason that preparing a rocket for launch is too time-consuming exercise. Do not have time and that's all.
    Assume that the speed of Zircon is 10 max. At the moment, there are artillery systems capable of hitting artillery shells moving at a speed of about 2 max. This is not enough, but there is at least some sort of perspective. If you raise the effectiveness of such artillery systems to values ​​comparable to a hypersonic missile, it makes sense to design something like "Shilka", that is, a high-speed machine gun that lands a cloud of damaging elements along the trajectory of the rocket.
    Yes, even fragments of a hypersonic missile will cause damage. But such a decision is already something! It is also possible protection, consisting of huge clouds of metal, a kind of hyper-shotgun. Having passed through such a cloud, the rocket will slow down somewhat and its charge will be damaged.
    Talking about anti-ballistic missiles in these conditions is pointless. Art systems will slightly reduce damage, but not avoid it. In general, the fleet is frankly bad. Maybe there will be no war in the near future if the Americans again do not use the old method of "loaded donkey", so successful and so in demand in what we have left of Russia.
    Only new physical principles remain, and these are not lasers or railguns. Who will be the first? Ivan Petrov or Richard Stark? Ivan has long had no institute, no salary, no company of his own (he cannot have one). However, Stark’s affairs are not very good either; in the USA there are no longer conditions for the development of precisely new ideas in technology and science.
    Only one thing can be said for sure - only a completely new, non-standard, now unknown technology will bring victory.
    1. ss-n-22 30 December 2019 14: 58 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Have you just outlined the AK-630 + Pennant algorithm, which has been in service for many years? Shooting in a pre-determined place of the target. I’ll tell you a secret - in addition to the speed of fire, the Navy also has inexorable onboard and pitching. MZA is the last means of air defense of the ship. A total of 956 projects with 2 AK-630 submachine guns can shoot down 0,6 subsonic “harpoons”. I do not think that the states of their MZA are much more effective.
      1. Mikhail3 30 December 2019 15: 06 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        You will not believe it, but I know) Anyone who wants to know this, except without names. Do you know how exactly in the cabin of a certain Columbus a lamp was suspended? The lamp was oil, but he did not set fire to the ship, because it compensated for the pitching. That is, suddenly, there are ways to compensate for pitching. Even at the level of the Columbus lamp.
        Using modern technologies, namely computers and active adaptation of the suspension (the computer analyzes pitching, and gives corrective impulses to the suspension, and the suspension engines work out them), one can completely forget about pitching of any intensity in such an important matter as the ship's missile defense.
        To compensate for ship movements exceeding the suspension capabilities, you just need to enter the correction when firing. This is pure mathematics, and modern computers, of course, have sufficient (and even much higher) computing power for this.
        Well, exchanged platitudes)
        1. ss-n-22 30 December 2019 15: 12 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Stabilization of the AK-130 with the deck? Wow! Yes, even the stabilization of the AK-630 with a barbette))) this is fantastic. On ships, the pitch tracking system when developing full guidance angles of artillery systems is by default. For example, "nadir". But it’s one thing to introduce the angle into the guidance of the barrel, it is an objective reality. And the fantastic unreality is to suspend the firing artillery system on the drives. But write more, it's funny
          1. Mikhail3 30 December 2019 15: 16 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Yes, I’m funny. Are you aware that there are giant walking liners equipped with a pitch reduction system? That is, to close the WHOLE SHIP is possible (and not even so difficult) and one artillery system is fantastic? Hehe ...
            The thing is simply that the fleet management and its specialists are very illiterate. Their knowledge and skills are 40 years behind the current reality, and to these days, these people have no desire.
          2. bk0010 30 December 2019 21: 01 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Back in Atlantes, the universal caliber was stabilized, EMNIP
        2. Good_Anonymous 30 December 2019 17: 04 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Mikhail3
          To compensate for ship movements exceeding the suspension capabilities, you just need to enter the correction when firing. This is pure mathematics.


          The difficulty is not in calculating the amendment, but in compensating for "movement greater than the possibility of suspension." It will have to be compensated by the movement of the trunk, and the speed of the computer does not affect its speed.

          Quote: Mikhail3
          Are you aware that there are giant walking liners equipped with a pitch reduction system?


          I have never been a sailor, but I suspect that the size of the liner only makes it easier to suppress pitching.
          1. Mikhail3 31 December 2019 09: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Of course it does not. Therefore, a correction is simply introduced into the calculation. It does not necessarily compensate for all 100%, so that one shell does not hit. So what? It is necessary to create a wall of many shells, only this tactic allows us to hope for partial success.
            Our (and not ours) developers work on the instructions of sailors. Which operate on the capabilities of technology at the BSEM 6 level, and they represent these capabilities very poorly. According to experts, the highest authorities are overwhelmingly unable to rename the file in their staff. Moreover, the amount of lessons given to them is indifferent. All the same, do not catch up. There is nothing to say about changing the password.
            However, the old developers who really know how to develop something working, also at this level, are perhaps better oriented with BSEM. And new ones are suitable exclusively for drawing beautiful presentations at the level of a poor cartoon ...
        3. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 50 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Mikhail3
          (the computer analyzes the pitching, and issues corrective impulses to the suspension, and the suspension engines work them out)

          But the ship’s pitching is by no means a PERIODIC process, it has a very large random (stochastic) component. That is - again, the theory of probability ... either hit or disappeared .. In addition, as far as I can remember, our (domestic) anti-ship missiles have a reservation for the warhead (and the instrument compartment), withstand the penetration of an armor-piercing 30mm shell. Ambush again! In addition, let’s say, the (?) Phalanx (20mm) at a distance of 100-200 m fell into a rocket flying at very, very supersonic speed, do you think this will help the attacked ship in any way? He’s not a tenant anyway! Shots from Makarov into a steam locomotive flying at you — about the same ratio of speed and mass.
          1. Mikhail3 31 December 2019 13: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Stochastic? Well, not really) It's a pitching caused by the wind, tidal forces, depending on the topography of the bottom ... In general, there are patterns, and the farther into the sea (the deeper) the patterns are more regular. This is NOT SIMPLE. But not impossible. If you cannot get an accurate picture, then you can get closer to it, and this is already a lot in the light of this task.
            I do not argue that a hypersonic missile is the death of large ships, because it is. Just indicated the ONLY path on which there is at least something. Do you understand? Not the best, not effective, but the only one, albeit with low productivity. The rest is primarily a missile defense, generally a hat ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Seld 30 December 2019 15: 03 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Bone
    Such miraculous weapons and super-technologies that change all ideas about nuclear technology could not appear out of nowhere in one day. And for some reason they did not find use anywhere except zircon, a nuclear missile and a nuclear torpedo. Which, of course, will not be shown to the public

    So let the heck wonder if we have such a prodigy or not ...


    By the way, what should the RFU / other countries do if an analogous "cartoon" appears with "an hour later" with similar quite official statements by Amers that they also have a "unified bonba rocket with hyper sounds, say, 30M"?
    Believe? Do not believe? Sumlevatso, like those dare men from kin about Chapaev?
    laughing
    1. Mikhail3 30 December 2019 15: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Nothing special. For us, such a weapon is not fatal. This is the United States forced to build the entire strategy on the use of the fleet.
    2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 56 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: seld
      By the way, what should the RFU / other countries do if an analogous "cartoon" appears with "an hour later" with similar quite official statements by Amers that they also have a "unified bonba rocket with hyper sounds, say, 30M"?

      You see, the Russian Federation has such a service - foreign intelligence. And with her - a very serious analytical department ... So I would not advise you to giggle. because over the past 20 years, the Americans have not shown themselves in anything. Only, having inflated their cheeks, with a pretense of importance and menacingly, they launched the mock-up, and then, they got it!
  • opus 30 December 2019 15: 16 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    How to protect yourself from Zircon

    mmm .. it seems to me that the author has confused the resource where he wrote the article.
    The National Interest should have been written here either in Chinese yellow
    1. Does it really interest us?
    2. The opponents of the "Zircons" do not seem to be
    1. Good_Anonymous 30 December 2019 16: 57 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: opus
      The opponents of the “Zircons” do not seem to be


      Adversaries are also developing hypersonic missiles. Who will take them into service before is another question.
      1. opus 30 December 2019 19: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Good_Anonymous
        Adversaries are also developing hypersonic missiles.

        For ESPECIALLY gifted slow-witted, repeat
        name Articles
        How to protect yourself from Zircon

        therefore:
        Quote: opus
        1. Does it really interest us?
        2. The opponents of the "Zircons" do not seem to be


        / do you like with logic?
        If the author was bothered
        Quote: Good_Anonymous
        Opponents are also developing the Kyrgyz Republic. Who will take them into service before is another question.

        That article would be called:
        How to protect yourself from enemy hypersonic missiles that they are developing and who will take them into service earlier is another question

        but I did not comment on such an article



        1. Good_Anonymous 30 December 2019 19: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You give too much importance to the names. But for the gifted - protection methods from Zircon are applicable against any hypersonic missiles.
          1. opus 30 December 2019 20: 47 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            Zircon protection methods are applicable against any hypersonic missile.

            Who?
            Do not make me laugh:
            we have the same methods
            in the usa - others
            and Israel has a third
          2. Igor Aviator 31 December 2019 11: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            Zircon protection methods are applicable against any hypersonic missile.

            Especially touches in your comment the word "any" lol
  • Old26 30 December 2019 16: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    By 1949, the USSR had enough plutonium for just one atomic bomb, which we detonated during the tests. After that, we produced plutonium for the next bomb for about a year.

    Small clarification. We exploded the next charge 2 years and 1 month after the first
  • bar
    bar 30 December 2019 17: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    a more convenient and realistic way to combat the enemy’s anti-ship missiles should be considered the first strike with the defeat of carriers of such weapons. The timely detection of enemy ships or submarines with especially dangerous weapons, by definition, will exclude its effective use.

    With such tactics, it is necessary to completely clean out the entire water area and airspace of the theater. Enough resources, striped pants do not crack?
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 31 December 2019 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      How many zircon carriers do you have? So no, don't crack.
  • Shahno 30 December 2019 17: 59 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    // this may not be enough to repel a missile strike, especially a massive one // missile launcher, whose shape is unknown, the type of remote control used is unknown, the type of GOS is not known laughing
    But the most serious thing, it turns out that in the final section it “flies over the waves”, and this is somehow known by miracle ..
  • Pavel57 30 December 2019 18: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The main zashita ships from Zircon - station interference.
    1. Mikhail3 31 December 2019 10: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Reasonably. Therefore, it is better not to correct the missile trajectory in the last section.
      1. Pavel57 31 December 2019 11: 07 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Recall the statistics on the use of anti-ship missiles, where interference was applied, the efficiency dropped significantly. And Zircon is essentially RCC.
  • va3610 30 December 2019 19: 43 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is very simple to defend oneself from Zircon - not to attack Russia.
  • Robertocalos 30 December 2019 21: 40 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Again Prigozhinsky Rafan, a picture of Waverider for Zircon, gives out. And the VO editors are not ashamed to take anything from this garbage dump. Happy, letting out.
    1. Mikhail3 31 December 2019 10: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Gee-gee ... Are you hoping that they will lay out the real picture ?! And you with the coming, although I am not releasing))
      1. Robertocalos 31 December 2019 11: 26 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        What are the hopes?) I have no illusions on the account of Zircon)
  • Gardener 30 December 2019 22: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Santa Fe
    The USSR has never boasted of what it does not have. He usually did not say what he HAS. Therefore, they believed him even without words.

    May 9, 1965 on Red Square triumphantly proceeded 8K713. The foreign military attaches present at the parade were scared to death, then the turn of the NATO headquarters came. The Americans allocated another tens of billions to develop NORAD - a complex of defense against global missiles.
    And on Red Square, only mock-ups rode ...
    The parade in honor of the 20th anniversary of the Victory was remembered by many who were involved in the development of missile weapons. In particular, because on it, in addition to 8K713, mobile complexes of the development of Chelomey (8K96) and Mikhail Yangel (8K99) with solid fuel rockets were demonstrated.
    A terrible international noise came up. And only those who were directly involved in the preparation of this demonstration knew that fakes rode across the area in the clouds of exhaust gases. One of the authors of this article himself considered the strength of the fastening system in the 8K99 model of ballast, necessary so that the empty shell does not bounce too much on the paving stones.
    Both complexes actually did not go into series: test launches at the Plesetsk training ground were completely unsuccessful.
    https://nickmix01.livejournal.com/558481.html
    1. Mikhail3 31 December 2019 10: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Since then, some changes have occurred in the world. There are such things - tracking satellites are called. And no statements by the president, no parades and cartoons will make anyone in the world even scratch themselves once again. And here’s a satellite film about how a contraption took off from a Russian training ground, gained hypersonic speed, went out of the atmosphere, went back in ... well, etc.
      If it was a snag, okay! Such a "trick" can be safely put into service)
  • Evil Booth 31 December 2019 07: 59 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: sergo1914
    Quote: sergo1914
    Screw feed. A lot of trunks. Caliber arrows. To the dust. If you hit.


    What a fool is tracking my comments? I did not have time to write - it’s already a minus. Can you open your face, Gyulchatay?

    all non-normal bots always have their own bots)) with connection) and sub-calibers are pellets they will not affect the RCC in any way, it remains to fly in a straight line 1-2 km. only offs30mm can be shot down and from depending on where and how it will be applied, yes, for what. but better 2-3 at least
  • Evil Booth 31 December 2019 13: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Igor Aviator
    maybe, after all, AGAINST the wind?

    and you know how to trolling drinks
  • Evil Booth 31 December 2019 13: 28 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Evil Booth
    EXCLUSIVELY))))))))))))))))))))) Duc if the chipmunk is a bird, although it is not visible then ... well, you understand.

    https://masterok.livejournal.com/7669.html 14 суток вещают fellow ships of the rear logistics probably also nuclear power plants))))))))))))))))))) here it is full of tyrant stupid bots)) so that they had something to wipe with these assholes 10 mercenaries around the deck, it is desirable to have supplies and overload not a storm on the go)) e000 does not fly further than 2 km, too))))))) and in general, a favorite 300 demolishes in 1 volleys the full flight structure of one AUG)))))) and all this is up to the threshold of launching the c2 charms independently from heights there is an HBO in the composition. The control unit on the C300 comes from the duty radars and the combat position remains a surprise until the RPNs are turned on for a dozen km from ....
    1. Good_Anonymous 31 December 2019 14: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Evil Booth
      https://masterok.livejournal.com/7669.html 14 суток вещают fellow



      Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov, the new commander in chief of the Russian Navy, recently announced that Russia plans to create a new squad of aircraft carriers that will be built before 2020. Earlier, Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Anatoly Serdyukov at the end of last year for the first time announced the information on the construction of a new aircraft carrier cruiser.


      What are you talking about?
      1. Evil Booth 31 December 2019 16: 26 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        request it's him) it's not me. But a long time to drive aug can not
  • 3danimal 31 December 2019 17: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And again, and again, images are shown from the American X-51A Waverider.
  • IL-NAVY 31 December 2019 20: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I specially looked through all the comments.
    The main issue has not been raised - Detection, target designation and target identification.
    Americans are great masters in disguise, electronic warfare, creating a false target environment.
    This problem was not solved even in the presence of MPA and hundreds of Tu-22 m2-3 and Tu-95 RCs with various "Legends" and others.
    However, Timokhin has already written about this several times.
    1. Octopus 31 December 2019 21: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In the topic about the Leader, there was a small legendary doctor just now))
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2020 18: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All this is fun, if not for one nuance. The author forgot to mention the MAIN ways to combat RCC, this is the use of electronic warfare and the setting of false goals. Which have long demonstrated their highest efficiency, and are not too dependent on the flight time of the rocket (although this is important, since the reaction time will be short)
    1. agond 5 January 2020 11: 50 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      and setting false goals.

      If the satellite has an elliptical orbit and is at its peak above the Atlantic in the daytime, then it can detect a large ship in the ocean and adjust its orbit so that it falls on it, the correction should continue until the Earth’s atmosphere enters, the fall velocity may be higher than the first space 7.8 km / s. When entering the atmosphere, it naturally decreases, how much it depends on the shape of the falling object and the angle of entry into the atmosphere, if scrap falls and at a right angle, there will be a minimum decrease in speed, and the fall time in the atmosphere will take less than 10 seconds, and no false targets, electronic warfare systems, air defense systems and laser beams will not help, and the ship will not be able to evade a maneuver of 300 meters.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2020 13: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: agond
        If the satellite has an elliptical orbit and is at its peak above the Atlantic in the daytime, then it can detect a large ship in the ocean and adjust its orbit so that it falls on it

        laughing fool
        It is necessary to have a bite.
        Quote: agond
        the adjustment should continue until the Earth’s atmosphere enters, the incidence rate may be higher than the first space 7.8 km / s. When it enters the atmosphere, it naturally decreases, how much it depends on the shape of the falling object and the angle of entry into the atmosphere, if scrap falls at a right angle there will be a minimum decrease in speed, and the fall time in the atmosphere will take less than 10 seconds

        Deuce to you in physics.
        The speed of the satellite can be higher than the first space one, but there is a nuance - no one canceled the inertia. And in order for the “scrap to fall at a right angle”, you must first QUICK the speed above the first cosmic, and then ATTACH the speed above the first cosmic but in a different direction.
        The size of accelerators and fuel for recruiting the first space can you imagine? And such a thing as acceleration, did you skip school? Well, I remind you that a powerful artillery is about one kilometer per second. You need more than 7,8 km / s.
        That is, even providing the crowbar with rocket engines, we will accelerate slowly and sadly, and when entering the dense layers of the atmosphere, the process will slow down significantly. That is, 10 seconds is the fruit of a completely unfamiliar imagination.
        Quote: agond
        and no false targets, electronic warfare systems, air defense systems and laser beams will help,

        To begin with, that the atmospheric correction is categorically insufficient. Upon entering the atmosphere, the crowbar will encounter such nasty things as wind, air temperature / humidity, and so on. All this significantly changes the trajectory of the artillery shell, and must be taken into account in the shooting parameters. And you don’t even have to shy away from your “crowbar” - the probability of it getting into the ship without atmospheric guidance is zero point ten.
        The Americans, for acceptable QUO for STATIONARY purposes, did atmospheric homing to their perching
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2020 14: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          About acceleration - the phrase was incorrectly built, it was understood that the gun tells the projectile such acceleration that by the time the active force is completed, the projectile has a speed of the order of a kilometer per second
        2. agond 5 January 2020 15: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Deuce to you in physics.

          Yes, two ... an example with a satellite is probably possible in principle (with an orbit like Lightning at the apogee of 40 km and a 000-hour orbit), by the way, in ellipse orbits, the speed is not very constant and at the apogee corrections with minimal fuel consumption are possible, but all this complicated and expensive. It is much easier to go along the path of North Korea, that is, the lithite rocket is relatively close, but along a very high trajectory, but then the speed of decline is 12 fps and higher if necessary, and as a result of such a steep trajectory, the vertical angle of entry into the atmosphere of the descent vehicle. with scrap In this case, the device will be located outside the atmosphere for a rather long time and can find an aircraft carrier in the ocean and have time to correct its trajectory several times, the last time before entering the atmosphere, and the atmospheric portion of the trajectory will overcome the scrap in 7.8-7 seconds at an average speed of 10 km / s, during this time, an aircraft carrier 7m long at a speed of 300 m / s will go to a third of the hull and our crowbar will drop to any deck.
  • Nemchinov Vl 8 January 2020 12: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Or how realistic is it to create a working "zircon" corresponding to the declared TTX ?! ?!
  • Vadim01 9 January 2020 00: 03 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Usually, rockets are adjusted to the dimensions of the UVP, but with zircon, on the contrary, it turned out.
  • The comment was deleted.