Military Review

The effectiveness of the air defense of an aircraft carrier strike group. Is a breakthrough possible?

329
The effectiveness of the air defense of an aircraft carrier strike group. Is a breakthrough possible?

In the second article in the series "The effectiveness of the air defense of the naval strike group" the topic of group air defense of the KUG was considered and the functioning of the main defense means - air defense systems and electronic countermeasures (KREP) complexes was described. In connection with the comments of readers, this article is presented as simply as possible, only the case aviation AUG attacks.


1. Introduction. What does an aircraft carrier give Russia?


The question of the fate of the unhappy "Admiral Kuznetsov" has been debated for several years, but no consensus has been worked out. The main thing is not even whether the endless repair will ever end, but what its combat value will be after the repair, especially if you apply the cost / efficiency criterion. The repair will cost at least $ 1 billion. For that kind of money, you can build a full-fledged destroyer, which we do not have even in the project. In the previous article, the author insisted that without destroyers or reinforced frigates, it would not be possible to build full-fledged KUGs, and without them, our ships would only have to protect their shores, and even then with air support. What can an obsolete aircraft carrier do? In peacetime, at low speed to Syria and lose 2 planes there? What will be the value of an air wing of 12 aircraft, which, moreover, can only take off with half the combat load? ..

As part of the US AUG should be present 2 destroyers URO "Arleigh Burke", carrying the main load to support the aircraft carrier's air defense. Instead of destroyers, we will have to use frigates 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov", which have a smaller ammunition load, and there are only 2 of them in Russia. The previous article showed that both frigate radars and their KREPs are inferior to destroyers. With the confrontation between AUG and AUG, the balance of forces is clearly not in our favor. What if we use Kuznetsov to support ground operations? Where then? Norway is the closest, but conventional aviation is enough for it. Entering the Atlantic in wartime past NATO is unrealistic. You can take part in regional conflicts, for example, in Syria. While we are negotiating with the Turks, everything is calm, but what if we don't share something? It is dangerous for Kuznetsov to stand in Tartus: he is seen too far through optics or infrared. You can't get out to sea either: the Inzhirlik airbase is not far away!

According to American data, the actual operation of one AUG costs $ 4 billion a year. If we spend at least 1 billion on the Kuznetsov AUG, we will be left without new ships at all. Of course, we cannot compete with the United States and China in terms of aircraft carriers, but we want to have a symbol of a world power - we are no worse than France! It remains to find out which is more pleasant to have: pride in a country or a destroyer?

Therefore, we will not waste further time discussing the Kuznetsov air defense concept, we will better deal with the possibilities of breaking through the US air defense system.

2. Scheme of building air defense AUG


In the areas of duty, the aircraft carrier operates as part of the AUG. Only in special circumstances, such as ocean crossings, is solo voyage permitted. The AUG includes up to 10 ships and one Virginia class nuclear submarine. We will only be interested in a pair of URO destroyers "Arleigh Burke" located to the left and right of the aircraft carrier at a distance of 1-2 km. The total size of the AUG can reach 10 km.

The AUG air defense is echeloned, the long-range echelon is not circular, an attack-hazardous sector is highlighted in it, for viewing which 1-2 AWACS E2S Hawkeye aircraft are allocated. The "Hokai" watch zone is moved to 250-350 km. "Hawkeye" can fly alone, but during the threatened period, a pair of fighter-bombers (IB) on duty can fly in front of it. If necessary, another pair of information security is carried out to the line of 500 km. The third pair is on deck with hot engines. The range of detection by the Hokai of Russian information security is estimated at 300-350 km, and for DA and SA aircraft at 550-700 km. Consequently, the distant border of the first echelon of defense reaches 700-1000 km.

The second line of defense is circular and is provided with information by the Aegis air defense system radar or surveillance radars of ships. The far border of the zone is 350-400 km, and the interception in this zone is carried out by the IS on duty, who rise from the deck in a forced mode and at an altitude of about 10 km, attack the target in supersonic manner. The third line with a radius of 250 km is provided by SM6 Aegis air defense missile systems or IS officers on duty. Medium or short-range missiles can also be launched by other ships, and target designation (TS) is given to them by the Aegis air defense system.

3. The problem of obtaining a CU by AUG


In the previous article, it was substantiated that the possibilities of receiving control centers from external sources (satellites, over-the-horizon radars) are very small, for example, the control center from satellites arrives every few hours, and it becomes obsolete in 10-15 minutes. Of all types of homing heads (GOS), the greatest detection range is provided by radar (RGSN): more than 20 km along a corvette and 40 km along an aircraft carrier, even for small anti-ship missiles. However, for the RGSN, the ship is just a brilliant point, it does not distinguish between its type. Even in the absence of interference, the WGSN will see the AUG as a few shiny dots. The brightness of the points depends on the effective reflective surface (EOC) of the ship. But the image intensifier of the target at different angles varies greatly. Therefore, without the control center, the RGSN selects a target according to one of the simplest algorithms: the brightest, the most left / right, etc. It is especially bad when, instead of target marks, the RGSN receives several interference. Then the choice is generally random. Consequently, having an accurate target control significantly improves the choice of the main target.

The Tu-142 reconnaissance aircraft is not very suitable for opening the AUG, since it can detect the AUG only after it leaves the horizon, that is, from a distance of 400 km. But such a noticeable and slow-moving IS aircraft AUG will not be allowed to reach such a range.

The Tu-160 has slightly more capabilities. It can fly around the Hawkeye in an arc with a radius of 700 km, that is, actually approach the AUG from the rear. However, even reaching a distance of 400 km, the Tu-160 will receive a powerful interference from the Arlie Burks. Consequently, he can report to the command post that a source of interference has been found in such and such an area, but whether it is an AUG will remain unknown. Then the Tu-160 must urgently go back on supersonic. The obvious disadvantage of this method of reconnaissance is the lengthening of the route (there and back) to 2000 km.

As a result, we come to the conclusion that the problem of neutralizing the Hawaiian is becoming central.

4. Methods for neutralizing the Hawkeye aircraft


Special point for those interested.

4.1. The method of suppressing the radar of the airborne AWACS Hawkeye


IS can be much more successful than scouts to open the composition of the AUG, but for this they need to break through to a distance of about 100 km, and "Hawkeye" is the main guard here. To avoid detection by its radar, it is necessary to fly at a distance of at least 400 km from it, but lengthening the route may lead to a lack of fuel.

The Hokaya radar operates in the decimeter range - 70 cm. There is no jamming equipment in this range in the standard CREDs of most IS in the world. Therefore, it is necessary to suspend a special KREP container of this range under the IB. We still do not have such a KREP, although it is not complicated.

To receive a directed beam, the container antenna must be located on its lateral surface and have a length of at least 4 m.If such a KREP is developed, then a pair of IS with KREP - jammers (PP) will be required to create a wide jamming sector. The distance between the BCPs along the front should be 50-80 km, and the safe distance from the Hokai to the BCP, where they will not be immediately attacked by IS AUG, is estimated at 300 km. As a result, under the cover of such powerful interference, the IS reconnaissance pair will be able to bypass 2Hokai in an arc with a radius of 200 km and at low altitude reach the line of 100 km from the AUG.

4.2. The defeat of the plane "Hawkeye" by a special rocket


To organize an attack on the Hawkeye, it is necessary to determine its exact coordinates. IS radars are of little use for this. If in the area of ​​"Hokai" there is his IS on duty, then he will turn on the interference, and our IS will determine the direction to the IS on duty instead of directing to the "Hokai".

Having 2 PPs, it is possible to determine the coordinates of the "Hokai", for which PPs must be separated by at least 50 km. Then, by bearing the radiation of the Hokaya radar with two PPs from a range of 400 km, you can get a control center error along the front of only 0,2 km, but at a range of 10-15 km.

It is possible to increase the likelihood of the Hokai's defeat if an aircraft missile with a launch range of at least 500 km is developed. You can, for example, use a guided missile (UR) "Dagger". Its disadvantage is that its nose cone is narrow and the RGSN cannot be placed in it, but the IR seeker, having the indicated control unit, will provide guidance.

4.3. Direct attack of information security on "Hawkeye"


If the IS attack tactics does not allow to fly around the Hawkeye, and the mentioned variant of the Dagger missile defense system is not developed, then the Hawkeye will have to be attacked directly. The attack group should consist of three pairs of IS with air-to-air missile defense (in-in). The launch range of UR AMRAAM is 150 km, and 180 km are expected. Our analogue of AMRAAM, RVV-AE, cannot boast of such ranges. Therefore, our information security should have a numerical advantage.

They should reach the 400 km line from the Hokai, having a separation along the front between pairs of 100 km and, gradually approaching, attack the Hokai. These pairs should be covered by two single PPs separated by 100 km, which should suppress the Hokaya radar. Having detected jamming, "Hawkeye" sends out a pair of IS on duty for reconnaissance, and 2 pairs of our ISs must engage with it in a counter battle, and the third pair, under cover of interference, will continue to attack the Hawkeye. Since our 2 pairs will use interference, the Hokaya's IB will not detect the third pair, which is far away. Consequently, the Hawkeye will have no reason to retreat back, and the third pair will be able to intercept him. Of course, this interception method is less reliable than the previous one.

5. Tactics of IS exit to the anti-ship missile launch line


Further, suppose that most of the attacking group of IS carries anti-ship missiles, and the smaller part carries UR in-in. Therefore, the attackers cannot engage in air combat with the entire IS of the aircraft carrier, but they are quite capable of intercepting the IS pairs on duty.

A single hit of an anti-ship missile system on an aircraft carrier almost does not disable it. Partial damage occurs with 3-5 hits, and complete damage occurs with 10 or more. The probability of hitting a target depends on the type of anti-ship missiles: sub-, super- or hypersonic (DPKR, SPKR, GPKR). The accuracy of the control center, and the ability to carry out radio correction of the anti-ship missile system in flight, and even meteorological conditions are also important: in good weather, the capabilities of the short-range air defense missile system (MD) to hit the anti-ship missile system increase. In any case, a volley of more than 20 anti-ship missiles will be required.

The IS detachment required to defeat an aircraft carrier is determined by the distance from the airfield to the launch line and the mass of anti-ship missiles used, but even more important is the question of the need to hide from detection by the Hokai or IS.

5.1. Exit to the launch line of anti-ship missiles in the absence of "Hokai"


The wing includes 4 Hawkeye aircraft. Of these, 1-2 are in the air. If 2 are on duty, then their zones will be separated by 300-400 km. Therefore, the defeat of one of them will open up a whole zone beyond the detection radius of the second "Hokai", through which IS can approach the AUG. It will be much more difficult for SA aircraft to pass into this zone, since the enemy's detection range is 1,7-2 times greater than that of IS.

AUG, having found a hole in the defense, will begin to raise all IS on the deck. The detection range of the IS radar is 1,5-2 times less than that of the "Hokai", but if the IS group distributes scanning sectors among themselves, they will receive a sufficient range. Moreover, the Aegis radar will take over detection in the high-altitude zone.

This situation shows that it will not be possible to use light DPKR of the Kh-35 type, since without a counter battle, the IS strike group will not be able to reach the line of their launch of 200-250 km even at low altitudes. Therefore, you will have to use anti-ship missiles or launch them from ranges of the order of 500 km.

5.2. Going to the launch line of anti-ship missiles in the presence of "Hokai"


"Hawkeye", detecting an attack on its own or with the help of a pair on duty, IS will retreat under the protection of "Aegis" to the line of 200 km. This departure will take 10 minutes, during which most of the IS will rise from the deck, but they will not have time to reach the 300 km line in 10 minutes.

Suppose that our IS can reach the 800 km line unnoticed and without interfering. After turning on the Hokai jamming, the IS duty pair will need about 5 more minutes to reach the attack detection zone. They will not be able to open the group due to interference, but they will determine the approximate range. Therefore, in order to reach the launch line of 500-550 km, our IS only need to overcome one pair of IS.

6. RCC attack


Russia has cruise missiles of the required ranges, but there are no ready-made aviation anti-ship missiles. For example, the 3M14 "Caliber" could be suspended under the IB, but this modification is not available. Apparently, work is needed to alter the RGSN and tests for vibration resistance of the case. SPKR "Onyx" is too heavy for conventional information security, but the MiG-31 could lift it instead of the "Dagger" if the aviation version turns out to be lighter than the ship one. GPKR "Zircon" is still a mystery and it is impossible to discuss it. Further, we will assume that the necessary anti-ship missiles will appear in the foreseeable future.

A special feature of the Hokaya radar is that it uses a wavelength range of 70 cm. Radar-absorbing materials used to reduce the visibility of the DPKR in this range become ineffective and the visibility of the DPKR with coatings approaches the ASR without coatings. Let's estimate the visibility of the DPKR - image intensifier = 0,5 sq. m. Then the detection range of the Hokayem anti-ship missile system will not exceed 200 km, and the tracking range will not exceed 150 km. Then the IS, having received the control center, will be able to intercept the DPKR already at a distance of 250-300 km from the AUG, and the SPKR - at 200 km. For IS, these anti-ship missiles are quite standard targets, which, moreover, do not maneuver at such ranges. The probability of intercepting such targets must be at least 0,8, and not only the AMRAAM missile system, but also the Sidewinder MD MD can be used. The DPKR IB can shoot even from a cannon - it is enough to line up the DPKR in the tail. Therefore, it is extremely important for the DPKR to avoid detection by the Hokai. To do this, the DPKR must fly around the Hokai in an arc with a radius of 250 km, which will lengthen the route by 250 km and require a correction of the control system from the strike group already during the DPKR flight. Therefore, it is important to suppress the Hokaya radar with interference and fly around it with a radius of 100 km.

For SPKR, the breakthrough will be no less difficult, since, in addition to the Hokai, it can also be detected on the marching sector by the Aegis radar, which cannot be suppressed by interference. To hide from this radar, the SPKR must fly below the horizon of this radar, for example, at a distance of 200 km, the SPKR should drop below 3 km. Such a flight threatens to significantly reduce the launch range.

The possibility of intercepting the PCR is estimated very roughly. Suppose that the Aegis missile launcher SM3 will not be able to intercept the Zircon at a cruising altitude of 40 km, since the SM3 is designed to intercept ballistic targets, and the Zircon can, albeit weakly, maneuver on the cruising phase of the flight. AUG will intercept the Zircon in the descent section at altitudes of 20-30 km. Let the image intensifier "Zircon" be equal to 1 sq. m, then the detection range of "Zircon" radar "Aegis" will reach 500 km. It will take 50 seconds to reach the point where the descent starts at a distance of 200 km. During this time, a decision must be made about who will intercept the Zircon, Aegis or IB. If the stock of SM6 missiles at the Aegis is sufficient, then it is the Aegis that fires at the target. If IB are in the air next to the AUG, then interception can be assigned to them. To do this, the ISs rise to the maximum available height and launch the AMRAAM UR at the moment when the Zircon clearly began to descend. If the launch is made from an altitude of more than 12 km, then the missile launcher will accelerate to a speed of 1,4 km / s. This speed, although less than that of the "Zircon", but taking into account the greater maneuverability of AMRAAM, will allow you to intercept the target. In case the "Zircon" is able to intensively maneuver at altitudes of more than 20 km, the IS will have to launch a salvo from 4 missiles in 4 directions. Due to the high temperature of the "Zircon", it can be intercepted even by the UR "Sidewinder" from the IR seeker. The Sidewinder's maneuverability is even higher than the AMRAAM.

Successful testing of the Zircon this week did nothing to clarify its characteristics. Hitting a target with known coordinates does not allow judging whether it is possible to hit even in the absence of a control center. The launch range was not the declared 1000 km, but 450, and the flight altitude was 28 km, not 40. All this suggests that the tests are at an early stage. The list of shortcomings of the GPCR is given in the first article of the series. The statement of foreign experts that it will take 20 missiles to defeat one Zircon is astonishing. How, without knowing the characteristics, can you make any estimates? Maybe they know better about Zircon than we do?

At the final stage of the anti-ship missile attack, they will be intercepted by air defense missile systems and KREP, as described in the previous article about air defense KUG. Moreover, the task of the destroyers "Arleigh Burke" is to lure the anti-ship missiles on themselves and on false targets in order to prevent the anti-ship missiles from entering the aircraft carrier. The radar of the Hawkeye aircraft can track low-altitude targets below the detection horizon of the Aegis radar and direct missiles at them. This capability provides an additional echelon of defense in comparison with the KUG. Thus, we find that it will not be possible to break through the air defense without suppressing the Hokai with powerful interference. On the last 10 km of the flight, the MD RAM air defense missile system is firing, and on the last km the Vulcan-Phalanx air defense complex is also firing.

Opportunities to launch anti-ship missiles at AUG from ships are very ghostly, it is not known how far an enemy ship will allow an aircraft carrier. The radius of the attack on ships by aircraft carrier IS is not less than 1000 km. Even the KUG cannot withstand repeated massive raids. The KUG will be able to approach the launch range of the Onyx SPKR (600 km) only under the powerful cover of its own aviation. Then the question arises: if aviation is capable of defending the KUG all day long, then wouldn't it be better for them to instruct them to strike at the AUG instead of ships?

7. findings


The effectiveness of the air defense AUG is qualitatively superior to that of the air defense KUG. General considerations about the likelihood of hitting a ship by some super-missile are inapplicable here.

For a successful launch of an anti-ship missile system using AUG, it is necessary to receive a control center immediately before launch.

The Tu-142 scout will not be able to provide the control center. The reconnaissance should be conducted by a pair of information security.

It will not be possible to launch anti-ship missiles on AUG from ranges less than 500 km.

Currently, Russia does not have an anti-ship missile of the required range, or a KREP, which would make it possible to hide anti-ship missiles during flight.

Air defense AUG multi-echeloned. Of the dozens of anti-ship missiles launched, only a few will reach the AUG ships, and perhaps not a single one will reach the aircraft carrier.

Striking the KUG is even less effective due to the difficulty of reaching the KUG at the launch line and the difficulties associated with preventing a preemptive strike by the AUG.

The information basis of the AUG air defense system is the Hokai AWACS aircraft. To combat it, it is necessary to develop a powerful KREP or special missile.

It is impossible to call any ship or anti-ship missile "aircraft carrier killer". Let's leave this term to the sofa experts.

Only the development of a new concept of group use of information security and anti-ship missiles with mutual exchange of information will allow solving the problem of a breakthrough.

In the next article, the author intends to consider his own version of the naval air defense concept.
Author:
Articles from this series:
The effectiveness of the air defense of the naval strike group
The problem of increasing the effectiveness of air defense. AA defense of a single ship
329 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 October 2020 05: 34 New
    -1
    General considerations about the likelihood of hitting a ship by some super-missile are not applicable here.

    Zircon is not a super rocket, or as the author wants to teach it, in the form of some kind of prodigy. Zircon is a logical continuation of the "stone" RCC. And when the head of state says that the Zircon range is more than 1000 km, then it is so. As for the control center, there are a lot of nuances on which it depends whether an exact indication of the target to Zircon is needed at all, throughout the flight online, or just the coordinates of the square where the target is located is enough.
    Currently, Russia does not have any anti-ship missiles of the required range,

    If we do not take into account the Zircon, which is undergoing tests, then why should the author not recall the Dagger, which flies according to the stated data at a distance of 1400 km? Or, according to the author, the Dagger is not a RCC?
    Thus, we find that it will not be possible to break through the air defense without suppressing the Hokai with powerful interference.

    With the advent of the Dagger, and in the near future also Zircon in service, the AUG air defense with Aegis is not able to effectively repel the attack of such anti-ship missiles from the word at all.
    Considering that no one to hit the AUG will become a single anti-ship missile (if it is not an anti-ship missile with a special warhead), one must understand that the attack will be massive and from several directions. The vaunted Aegis stupidly cannot cope with such a task for several reasons ...
    The first is the reaction time of AUG air defense systems to a hyperspeed maneuvering threat. And in general, will AUG radars be able to detect such a target or a group of targets? There is a very big question.
    Second, the number of interceptor missiles to absorb a massive anti-ship missile strike. And here, too, there are big questions, since to intercept the same Onyx, mattresses count from 2 to 5 interceptors. And with the same Dagger, the story is much more complicated, in terms of interception.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2020 06: 52 New
      14
      When the head of state says something, I send him very far !!! We have heard a lot about pensions and about how we live well and about 100500 aroma and sous 57 (which are cheaper than Zircon). We have only produced about 500 calibers, etc., etc. The dagger is a palliative for nothing better. All these putinwafers are useless without target designation, at the moment we cannot provide normal target designation for 350+ km. And yes, this test statics got it. The designers would be sent to use their inventions ... Zircon will not go into service soon (if it does at all, which has happened more than once in the new history) must understand that Zircon is not a continuation of pebbles, but something new and not logical ... So let's see hi
      1. Ali
        Ali 10 October 2020 07: 05 New
        -18 qualifying.
        Nehist (Alexander). Do not write off topic, your spam! The author has written a lot of jambs for people like you!
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2020 09: 54 New
          +2
          Is there anything specifically to object?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Serg4545
              Serg4545 11 October 2020 19: 25 New
              +5
              Oh.
              So much nonsense in the article. To understand everything, you need to write your own article. I'll try to write in small passages.
              Here the author presented 3 options for solving the Hawaiian problem. But for some reason I did not consider the most obvious one.
              So. It is known that a working radar can be detected at a much greater distance than the detection range of this radar. It is generally believed that the direction finding range of the radar is at least 30% higher than the range of the radar.
              Let's say Hawkeye is flying at an altitude of 9 km. A pair of our planes, equipped with direction finding equipment, are flying towards it, at an altitude of 9 km too.
              In this case, the radio horizon will be 780 km. Hokai's radar sees about 500 km. But our planes will see the operation of the Hokai radar at ranges of 650-700 km. If there is at least 50 km between our planes, then the exact coordinates of Hokai can be determined by the triangulation method.
              This way our planes will find Hawkeye before he sees them. And if they maintain a distance between themselves and the Hokai at 600-700 km, then the Hokai will not know about them, because he will be detected only by passive means. And our planes will transmit data on the location of Hokai in real time.
              Further. Our planes need to fly around Hokai from one side. Let's say we fly around Hawkeye on the right (keeping the required distance). And here two options are possible: if the second Hawkeye is patrolling to the right of the first, then we will also find him first. And as a result, we know the exact location of both Hokai, and they do not even suspect that they were found. The second option: if flying around the first Hawkeye on the right, we did not find anyone else, then we can confidently conclude that the second Hawkeye is to the left of the first.
              Whichever option is implemented, we now know exactly where Hokai is. This means that a group of attack aircraft can easily fly around the Hokai at a distance where they will remain unnoticed for the Hokai.
              Moreover, if it is possible to find both Hokai, then you can even estimate by their location where the AUG may be (of course, very approximately).
              The strike group, having passed Khokaev, should lower the altitude to 50-30 meters, while they will go beyond the radio horizon and will not be visible to the ship's radars AUG. Until you get close at a distance of 40-50 km. Since the exact location of the AUG is not known, the strike team must fly in a wide front to sweep a large area.
              When the planes approach the AUG at 40-50 km, options are possible. I will dwell on the worst for us. The ship's radar picks up our plane as soon as it leaves the radio horizon. Our plane, having received a message about radar exposure, should jump to a height of 200 meters. And it doesn't matter what kind of electronic warfare the enemy has. From a distance of 40-50 km, such a carcass as an aircraft carrier will be visible to the naked eye! This means that no enemy opposition will prevent you from getting the exact coordinates of the aircraft carrier. After flying for 3-4 seconds at an altitude of 200 meters and receiving accurate target data, the plane should descend to 20 meters. In this case, he again dives under the radio horizon and again becomes invisible to the ship's radars. For those few seconds until it is visible to the ship's radars, they will not have time to fire on it because the reaction time of anti-aircraft systems is much longer. After the aircraft again becomes invisible to ship radars, the pilot enters target data into the anti-ship missile system and launches the anti-ship missile system. And of course it gives target designation to other aircraft.
              How effective will the strike be? Well, taking into account the shooting at close range, when anti-aircraft weapons and electronic warfare have a minimum of time to counter. Question.
              1. lucul
                lucul 11 October 2020 19: 39 New
                +1
                Let's say Hawkeye is flying at an altitude of 9 km. A pair of our planes, equipped with direction finding equipment, are flying towards it, at an altitude of 9 km too.
                In this case, the radio horizon will be 780 km. Hokai's radar sees about 500 km. But our planes will see the operation of the Hokai radar at ranges of 650-700 km.

                It’s too difficult for them, comics are necessary - this is the only way to understand clearly ...
                1. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 12 October 2020 11: 53 New
                  +3
                  I continue to parse the article.

                  // A single hit of an anti-ship missile on an aircraft carrier almost does not disable it. Partial damage occurs with 3-5 hits, and complete damage occurs with 10 or more. //

                  I do not blame the author for this statement. He simply repeats the Soviet standards, where up to 20 anti-ship missiles are needed to destroy an aircraft carrier.
                  In my opinion, these standards are incredibly, godlessly overestimated!
                  This is more than strange, because the Second World War ended not so long ago. And detailed information was available about the combat stability of large aircraft carriers, with a developed fire extinguishing system, with a trained team in the fight for damage control, and so on.
                  And the stability was extremely low. 1-2 hits of a medium-caliber bomb (250-500 kg), almost always led to severe damage to the aircraft carrier and most often led to the death of the ship.
                  Of course, since World War II, the size of aircraft carriers has grown by 30 to 40 percent. Added automatic fire extinguishing systems and other innovations designed to increase the survivability of the ship.
                  But in the described period, the power of the means of destruction also increased sharply. In our country, most of the missiles that were supposed to hit aircraft carriers had warheads weighing 500/750/1000! kg.
                  I will focus on PKR Granite. At oversound speed, even with an inert warhead, the missile was capable of punching through an aircraft carrier. Like paper. A 750 kg warhead in an explosion broke in half a light cruiser.
                  So, according to the standards, hitting 3 such monsters (which are capable of tearing 3 light cruisers to shreds) inflicted only cosmetic damage on an aircraft carrier. The crew will eliminate this damage in an hour and the aircraft carrier is again as good as new. What is it !?
                  And the hit of ten Granites (10 light cruisers torn to shreds) will simply lead to the fact that the aircraft carrier will not be repaired on the move, and it will be forced to enter the port.
                  And only 15-20 Granites can rest this almost immortal vampire!
                  A rare nonsense!

                  No, maybe I'm wrong. And modern (at that time) aircraft carriers really increased their survivability a hundred times?
                  This can be verified.
                  Did they hit the modern (at that time) aircraft carriers with military weapons?
                  Yes, they did. As many as 2 times.
                  Both times it was a Zuni rocket. A small racket that I can carry on my shoulder.
                  Both times it was an accidental launch of our own aircraft.
                  Both times the rocket exploded on the upper (flight) deck. Naturally, without breaking through it.
                  Both times, this resulted in enormous destruction, which completely disabled the aircraft carriers. And they put the aircraft carriers on the brink of death.
                  Then no. As the aircraft carriers were troughs, striving to fall apart from any sneeze, they remained.
                  So where did these absurd figures come from in Soviet regulations?
                  Well, it's impossible to say for sure now.
                  But most likely it was like this:
                  A group of comrades from the military department were ordered to develop this standard. This group, not having the actual ability to accurately calculate the indicators (well, we did not build 100 thousand ton aircraft carriers!), Decided to take the required amount of ammunition with a large stock. Just in case.
                  These conclusions were submitted to a higher authority, where, just in case, all figures were doubled. And they submitted a standard to the authorities for signature.
                  Before signing, the authorities scratched their heads (and just in case) doubled the numbers.
                  This is the only way I can explain the appearance of such hypertrophied figures in this standard.
                  And this standard turned the aircraft carrier, which was always distinguished by extremely low resistance to combat damage (lower than that of a light cruiser), into some kind of unkillable monster)
                  I believe that this standard can be safely cut 3-5 times.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 20: 06 New
                0
                No, people wanting to find a hmm, screw pin will never end.

                Small question. How are you going to organize air refueling of the strike group? By the way, do you know how many IL-78s you have and where are they located?
                1. Serg4545
                  Serg4545 11 October 2020 21: 08 New
                  +2
                  Why is the TU 22 refueling?
                  And the SU 30/35/34 family with outboard tanks has, frankly, a good range.
                  And just in case. We are here analyzing a non-spherical situation of how to sink the AUG in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
                  We are analyzing the author's article. And in the article there are no introductory notes about the problem with the availability of AUG. This means, by default, the AUG is at the distance of the combat radius of our aircraft.
                  If you don't like these introductions, write your own article with your own. We will comment on it.
                  Until then.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 21: 39 New
                    0
                    Quote: Serg4545
                    We are analyzing the author's article. And in the article there are no introductory notes about the problem with the availability of AUG. This means, by default, the AUG is at the distance of the combat radius of our aircraft.

                    We analyze the situation when the AUG is at a strike distance from Vilyuchinsk and, accordingly, Elizovo. This is at least 2 thousand km. 180 degrees from northeast to southwest.
                    1. Serg4545
                      Serg4545 12 October 2020 03: 22 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      We analyze the situation when the AUG is at a strike distance from Vilyuchinsk and, accordingly, Elizovo. This is at least 2 thousand km. 180 degrees from northeast to southwest.

                      What?
                      Where is this introduction from the author?
              3. 3danimal
                3danimal 12 October 2020 00: 38 New
                -1
                But our planes will see the operation of the Hokai radar at ranges of 650-700 km.

                Right. He often pointed out the possibility of using this tactic against ground-based air defense systems.
                Our plane, having received a message about radar exposure, should jump to a height of 200 meters. And it doesn't matter what kind of electronic warfare the enemy has. From a distance of 40-50 km, such a carcass as an aircraft carrier will be visible to the naked eye! This means that no enemy opposition will prevent you from getting the exact coordinates of the aircraft carrier. After flying for 3-4 seconds at an altitude of 200 meters and receiving accurate target data, the plane should descend to 20 meters. In this case, he again dives under the radio horizon and again becomes invisible to the ship's radars.

                IMHO, at low altitude it will not be possible to use the RTR complexes to the full.
                Distances of 40-50 km you will not see anything without optics, especially since escort destroyers go at a distance of up to 10 km from AB.
                The aircraft will dive behind the radio horizon, and a pair of SM-6s will fly towards it (for each enemy aircraft that suddenly appears in the near security zone). This is the meaning of Aegis and other modern shipborne BIUS. No matter how much we would like without losses, but they will be, and considerable.
                A ninja-style operation is extremely unlikely. In this regard, there are too many "ifs", because of the failure of one of which everything is bursting at the seams.
                We will have to use a significant outfit of forces and means. A separate topic is how to create it at a great distance from the coast (and close an aircraft carrier battle group will not work).
                1. lucul
                  lucul 12 October 2020 12: 29 New
                  +2
                  The aircraft will dive behind the radio horizon, and a pair of SM-6s will fly towards it (for each enemy aircraft that suddenly appears in the near security zone). This is the meaning of Aegis and other modern shipborne BIUS. No matter how much we would like without losses, but they will be, and considerable.
                  A ninja-style operation is extremely unlikely. In this regard, there are too many "ifs", because of the failure of one of which everything is bursting at the seams.

                  You do not understand - the primary task is to destroy Hawkeye, that is, the eyes of the aircraft carrier. And without Hokai, the air defense cruisers / destroyers of the AUG cover will see the anti-ship missile only 30-40 km away if it goes low above the water, i.e. here the radio horizon plays the role of the air defense cover ships.
                  It's just that without Hokai (AWACS aircraft) avik is much easier to destroy)))
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 12 October 2020 14: 25 New
                    -1
                    It's just that without Hokai (AWACS aircraft) avik is much easier to destroy)))

                    It's kind of an axiom, of course request
                    But it's not an easy task. The Command of the Aircraft Carrier Battle Group (CBG) will try to make the most of the available systems and weapons, as well as there is no shortage of personnel training. (The same Hokaev 5pcs, during a threatening period the alarm level will be increased, as well as the number of patrols)
                    With a small force, the attack will not succeed with a high probability - the main conclusion.
        2. lucul
          lucul 10 October 2020 10: 05 New
          -11 qualifying.
          Nehist (Alexander). Do not write off topic, your spam! The author has written a lot of jambs for people like you!

          Yes, Timokhin writes it again - as always, jambs come out of all the cracks
          The range of detection by the Hokai of Russian information security is estimated at 300-350 km, and for DA and SA aircraft at 550-700 km. Consequently, the distant border of the first echelon of defense reaches 700-1000 km.

          The author probably thinks that reconnaissance planes are hanging over the AUG 24 hours a day, 7 days a week)))
          you will have to attack the Hawkeye directly. The attack group should consist of three pairs of IS with air-to-air missile defense (in-in). The launch range of UR AMRAAM is 150 km, and 180 km are expected. Our analogue of AMRAAM, RVV-AE, cannot boast of such ranges. Therefore, our information security should have a numerical advantage.

          A hockey player beyond 350 km simply does not see, and cannot see physically - everything rests against the radio horizon. Because Hawkeye, the ceiling flies low -9m, and at this altitude the radio horizon is about 000 km. Let me remind you that the MiG-350 flies at an altitude of 31+ km. The MiG-20 with the R-31M missile will calmly endure the Hawkeye, because the missile has a range of 37 km, and they are already in service with the MiG-300. Hawkeye cannot dodge the R-31M, this is not a fighter and an easy target for a rocket. And left without all the Hokaev, AUG becomes much more vulnerable.
          In addition, the maximum patrol radius of the AUG for Hornets is not more than 500 km, and the real one is 300-400 km, based on the range of the F-18.
          I recommend the book to the author

          It's all about target detection, Kalman filters and electronic warfare)))
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 10: 12 New
            19
            Quote: lucul
            radio horizon and is about 350 km. I remind you that the MiG-31 flies at an altitude of 20+ km. The MiG-31 with the R-37M rocket will calmly take out the Hawkeye, because the rocket has a range of 300 km

            I love it when the radio horizon for patriots works strictly for ours. And the missile's warhead, the size of a bucket, turns out to be humiliating a huge flying radar.
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 October 2020 10: 33 New
              -5
              I love it when the radio horizon for patriots works strictly for ours. And the missile's warhead, the size of a bucket, turns out to be humiliating a huge flying radar.

              Is it okay that the ceiling of the MiG is 31, 20 meters, while the Hokai has only 000 meters?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 10: 47 New
                +7
                Quote: lucul
                Who, who is easier to notice?

                AN / APY-9 vs. Zaslon-M? This is a damn difficult question.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 10 October 2020 11: 35 New
                  -7
                  AN / APY-9 vs. Zaslon-M? This is a damn difficult question.

                  Once again, your AN / APY-9 does not see PHYSICALLY further than 350 km, which is due to the radio horizon at Hokai))). The radio horizon for the MiG-31 is about 500 km. But I see, you just need to draw it clearly - text information is not perceived ...
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 11: 40 New
                    22
                    Are there really people so stupid that in an hour and a half they did not understand that if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometrically, since the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 10 October 2020 11: 57 New
                      -5
                      Are there really people so stupid that in an hour and a half they did not understand that if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometrically, since the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?

                      Take a pen and draw a radio horizon 350 km for Hokai, and a radio horizon for the MiG-31 500 km. And look carefully. And also read about the radar (beam) detection angles.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 11: 58 New
                        +8
                        Quote: lucul
                        Do people really exist

                        Apparently yes.
                      2. lucul
                        lucul 10 October 2020 12: 02 New
                        -4
                        Apparently yes.

                        Well, stay on in happy ignorance)))
                      3. Ivanchester
                        Ivanchester 10 October 2020 21: 58 New
                        +1
                        Unbelievable, but it is a fact... request
                    2. Nehist
                      Nehist 10 October 2020 12: 37 New
                      +1
                      Gyg that is the same temperature inversion. Don't you take it into account? The radio horizon is like a big difference
                    3. Vol4ara
                      Vol4ara 11 October 2020 12: 55 New
                      +2
                      Quote: lucul
                      Are there really people so stupid that in an hour and a half they did not understand that if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometrically, since the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?

                      Take a pen and draw a radio horizon 350 km for Hokai, and a radio horizon for the MiG-31 500 km. And look carefully. And also read about the radar (beam) detection angles.

                      Oh Lord, what are you talking about ... Does it not reach that if a moment rises to the ceiling and sees the hockey player, then he will no longer be beyond the horizon, and the hockey player will see him? For a moment, there is no over-the-horizon radar, as it were ...
                    4. lucul
                      lucul 11 October 2020 13: 14 New
                      -1
                      Oh Lord, what are you talking about ... Does it not reach that if a moment rises to the ceiling and sees the hockey player, then he will no longer be beyond the horizon, and the hockey player will see him? For a moment, there is no over-the-horizon radar, as it were ...

                      And what is the distance between them at this moment? And at what distance can Hokai's radar station, the MiG-31, be able to see it, with its EPR, if a bomber the size of a B-52 can only see in the sky at 500 km?
                  2. Samir
                    Samir 14 November 2020 00: 42 New
                    0
                    The radio horizon rests on the GROUND, it does not work when the target is in the air, at an altitude of 20 km. The radio horizon for each object is calculated from its plane, and if the MIG-31 flies at an altitude of 20 km, then there is no need to calculate the radio horizon, as if it is rolling on the ground.
                2. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 10 October 2020 12: 22 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Are there really people so stupid that in an hour and a half they did not understand that if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometrically, since the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?

                  Even worse. He posts a picture in which it is directly written about it. Such enchanting uryakly are rare even here.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 12: 24 New
                    +7
                    )))
                    Yes, I already checked it out.

                    And now Hokai saw the ZGRLS and transferred it to the MiG-31, the further into the forest the thicker the partisans.

                    Tellingly, ZGRLS also work strictly in one direction.
                  2. lucul
                    lucul 10 October 2020 13: 30 New
                    -5
                    And now Hokai saw the ZGRLS and transferred it to the MiG-31, the further into the forest the thicker the partisans.

                    And even more - the MiG-31 itself perfectly gives target designation)))
                    Now they want the Su-35 to also be able to issue target designation to ground troops)))
                    But it's so far away from your opp's world that you don't even look there)))
                  3. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 14: 21 New
                    +9
                    Oh, we played, played with the horizons and still came to the fact that the Zaslon is overexposed to AN / APY-9.

                    Better and better.
                  4. Nehist
                    Nehist 10 October 2020 17: 17 New
                    0
                    Ok MiG-31 can issue tsese designations, but only for air targets !!! Now they are trying to stick a sub-missile carrier out of it
                3. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 10 October 2020 13: 35 New
                  +2
                  Oh God, they don't stop. How can you explain something to them?
                  Quote: lucul
                  BOMBER, and at an altitude of 10 m))) MiG-000 is never a bomber, and secondly it flies at 31 meters.)))
                4. lucul
                  lucul 10 October 2020 13: 47 New
                  -8
                  Oh God, they don't stop. How can you explain something to them?

                  Aha-ahah ran into a humorist))))
                  Do you think Hawkeye and the Moon see on the radar? )))
            2. lucul
              lucul 10 October 2020 13: 28 New
              -6
              Even worse. He posts a picture in which it is directly written about it. Such enchanting uryakly are rare even here.

              One has already been caught - there is data for the target - a BOMBER, and at an altitude of 10 m))) MiG-000 is never a bomber, and much less, and secondly, it flies at 31 meters.)))
            3. Ali
              Ali 11 October 2020 08: 57 New
              -5
              OgnennyiKotik! The data given by you is a blatant misinformation of managers and trolls - who love the USA, on VO. The detection range D = 540 km without image intensifier (EPR) targets is just stupidity! The image intensifier of the Bomber can be 25 m2 and 100 m2. When people like you argue with me on VO, nod at the image intensifier of targets, and when they themselves provide an open "linden", they are silent in a rag about their false data. Now let's calculate for your specific case:
              When flying E-2D at an altitude of H = 7000 m and a target flying at an altitude of H = 10000 m2, according to your table:
              1. Geometric horizon dg = 298.65 km,
              2. Radio horizon dr = 344.86 km,
              3. Geometric target line-of-sight range Dg = 655.61 km,
              4. Range of direct radio visibility of the target Dr = 757.04 km.
              US Managers Presented Detection Range D = 540 km], according to the technical capabilities of the AN / APY-9 radarbut this does not replace Image intensifier tubesfor which this distance is measured.
              Therefore, the data you provided is data for the "fools" that mean nothing and are useless for calculations if the value of the image intensifier is not specified, and also cannot be presented as evidence in a dispute (this is just a dummy that cannot be verified, but which post in the "garbage" of the Internet from time to time, not understanding the essence).
              Russophobic trolls on VO, can rejoice at their stupidity by supporting these data.
            4. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 16 November 2020 17: 36 New
              -1
              Quote: Ali
              The detection range D = 540 km without image intensifier (EPR) targets is just stupidity!


              Isn't that instrumental range by any chance?
        3. frog
          frog 10 October 2020 21: 59 New
          0
          Exist, as you can see repeat
        4. Ali
          Ali 10 October 2020 23: 08 New
          -3
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Are there really people so stupid that in an hour and a half they did not understand that if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometrically, since the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?

          Cherry nine! And geometrically, radar stations are incomparable, since they have a different operating frequency range! And therefore the radar differently "see" goals , in mind different refractive index... And for the AN / APY-9 radar, one cannot speak geometrically, in view of its operating range from 0,3 to 3 GHz and the refraction coefficient of radio wave propagation more 3,57... This is your mistake ... Having counted, you will get different radio visibility distances of targets ... Therefore, there is geometric visibility and radio visibility, and these are different target detection distances!
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 02: 13 New
            +5
            Quote: Ali
            And geometrically, radar stations are incomparable, since they have a different operating frequency range!
            You have gone somewhere wrong. With a specialist we were talking exclusively about the horizon, that is, about a situation when the target is hidden from view due to the spherical shape of the earth. At least I was talking about this, with him - it's hard to say.
          2. lucul
            lucul 11 October 2020 10: 46 New
            -5
            You have gone somewhere wrong. With a specialist we were talking exclusively about the horizon, that is, about a situation when the target is hidden from view due to the spherical shape of the earth. At least I was talking about this, with him - it's hard to say.

            Aha-ahah, but the fact that an entire article praising the invincibility of the AUG air defense, with the Hokai at the head, went to the bottom, crashing into a simple bundle of MiG-31 and its long-range missile R-37M (up to 300 km), with which he calmly destroys Hokai ( "eyes") AUG (the author is seen and not in the know). Is there no objection to this? ))))
            That's okay)))
          3. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 12: 43 New
            +7
            Quote: lucul
            Is there no objection to this?

            )))
            Wow, there are a lot of smart people who know that the key element of the AUG defense is the AWACS aircraft. Naturally, when solving the AWACS problem, the AUG attack will be greatly simplified.

            The little problem, however, is that the partners know this too. Therefore.
            1. Hockey players on board 5.
            2. They do not fly by themselves, but in the EA-18G Growler company.
            3. It is highly likely that the Mk41 of the forward escort ship is somewhere nearby. In the standard AUG of not 2, as the author writes, but 5-6, ticks and berks, it is quite possible to move the ship to the threatened direction. The frigates will soon be cut down, very tough.
            4. Your R37M, like most Soviet / Russian long-range missiles, are designed for ultra-long-range shooting down of airliners traveling at a constant course, speed and level. With combat aircraft, everything is not so simple for them - the thrust at maximum range is not the same (if at all). This is especially true of aircraft, which the R37M can see perfectly throughout the flight.
            5. If you remember about the Mk41, then hello flies towards your Moment by the time you reach the launch line (which does not exclude the launch of a rocket, but excludes attempts to illuminate the target of the airborne radar of the aircraft). 9B-1388 remains alone with all the achievements of the enemy science and technology.
            6. At the same time, the entire flight of the R-37 takes place in the ship's air defense zone.

            So everything there is not as simple as you would like.
          4. lucul
            lucul 11 October 2020 13: 08 New
            -5
            Your R37M, like most Soviet / Russian long-range missiles, are designed for ultra-long-range shootdown of airliners traveling at a constant course, speed and level

            What was written is possible for the R-37, and the R-37M has been well modernized.
            It is highly likely that the Mk41 of the forward escort ship is somewhere nearby. In the standard AUG, from not 2 at all, as the author writes, but 5-6,

            Nearby is where? A hockey player can (and should) fly 500 km from the order. And considering that he can fly in a circle around the order - not too bold, for the concept of "nearby" in 500 km? Do amers have air defense missiles at 500 km? )))
            If we recall the Mk41, then hello flies towards your Moment by the time you reach the launch line (which does not exclude the launch of the rocket, but excludes attempts to illuminate the target of the airborne radar of the aircraft). 9B-1388 remains alone with all the achievements of the enemy science and technology.

            Ok))) here are the introductory ones:
            The radio horizon for Hokai 300 km is at an altitude of 9 m, but Hokai does not always fly at this altitude. So, the MiG-000, "emerging from behind the Hokai radio horizon (31 km), at a speed of 300 km / h and at an altitude of 1000 m, launches an R-50M missile (37 km range) at Hokai, and leaves. Like the Israelis launch their gliding bombs across Syria.
            What will prevent the R-37M from shooting down the Hawkeye? Air defense of a ship near Hokai? Then why is it needed if the ship is constantly kept under it? )))
          5. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 14: 34 New
            +3
            Quote: lucul
            and the P-37M was well modernized

            Yes? This is not the same R-37M, which has been at the final stage of testing since 2011, it seems?
            Quote: lucul
            Hawkeye can (and should) fly 500 km from the order

            From an aircraft carrier, not from the leading ships of the warrant. The king has many.
            Quote: lucul
            And considering that he can fly in a circle around the order

            You see, the enemy is not obliged to act strictly in the way that would be more convenient for you. The directions from which the MiG-31 can come are far from 360 degrees.
            Quote: lucul
            Much like the Israelis launch their glide bombs over Syria.

            Your problem (one of) is that you do not distinguish between the defeat of a stationary object, a ship and an aircraft.
            Quote: lucul
            So, the MiG-31, "emerging from behind the Hokai radio horizon (300 km), at a speed of 1000 km / h and at an altitude of 50 m, launches an R-37M rocket (300 km range)

            That is, at some random moment in time for him, flying on an ultra-small Mig crawls out from behind the radio horizon and sees Hokkai. There is a small, but nonzero probability that he manages to launch the rocket before the moment Hokkai disappears into the interference.
            After that, the rocket flies for about 5 minutes along the inertial control system to a point that is 50 km from the actual position of Hokkai at the time of approaching the target. Radio command guidance is impossible - any communication channels of the rocket with the aircraft, Growler and Hokkai will be crushed, and the MiG to hang around for 5 minutes above the radio horizon is suicide.
            Quote: lucul
            Then why is it needed if the ship is constantly kept under it?

            To increase the radio horizon, allowing shipborne systems to display those capabilities that imply the mass-dimensional characteristics of shipborne weapons. It's weird that a radio horizon specialist needs to explain this.
          6. lucul
            lucul 11 October 2020 17: 26 New
            -3
            That is, at some random moment in time for him, flying on an ultra-small Mig crawls out from behind the radio horizon and sees Hokkai. There is a small, but nonzero probability that he manages to launch the rocket before the moment Hokkai disappears into the interference.

            If interference were guaranteed protection, no one would have fenced in an air defense garden. And in terms of electronic warfare, Russia is head and shoulders above the NATO .9B-1103M-350 "Puck" should work out regularly, because all the data on it is against a fighter - and here is such a big goal.
            Yes, and the MiG to hang around for 5 minutes above the radio horizon is suicide

            And how will he be knocked down at a distance of 300 km - may I ask? )))
            From an aircraft carrier, not from the leading ships of the warrant. The king has many.

            Do you want to say in AUG enough ships so that there is a distance of 10 km between them in a circle with a radius of 500 km?
            You see, the enemy is not obliged to act strictly in the way that would be more convenient for you. The directions from which the MiG-31 can come are far from 360 degrees.

            The R-37M is already being installed on the Su-35S, and this is already a 3600 km range, so there are more options at once.

            Your problem (one of) is that you do not distinguish between the defeat of a stationary object, a ship and an aircraft.

            An example was the possibility of using "shadow", well, you understand how you can)))
            To increase the radio horizon, allowing shipborne systems to display those capabilities that imply the mass-dimensional characteristics of shipborne weapons. It's weird that a radio horizon specialist needs to explain this.

            What do you mean, from your words (a specialist), the ships of the order are scattered in a circle with a diameter of 700 km in order to support their AWACS aircraft, their air defense. And there is another problem - the EA-18G Growler - it has a very small combat range of 700 km to constantly cover Hawkeye, that is, the deck of the aircraft carrier will be busy or ready to receive the landing EA-18G Growler, which in any case reduces the safety of the aircraft carrier ...
            Whatever one may say, but with the advent of the Zircons, the fate of battleships is prepared for the aircraft carriers.
          7. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 17: 45 New
            +3
            Quote: lucul
            in terms of electronic warfare, Russia is head and shoulders above NATO

            Not surprised.
            Quote: lucul
            And than he will be knocked down at a distance of 300 km

            Well, you have a hypothetical R-37M, the enemy has a real SM-6.
            Quote: lucul
            so that there is a distance of 10 km between them per circle with a radius of 500 km?

            What for? How many MiG-31 airfields do you have?
            Quote: lucul
            R-37M is already being installed on the Su-35S

            Ah, well, that changes everything.
            Quote: lucul
            it has a very small combat radius of 700 km

            Seriously?
            Quote: lucul
            with the advent of the Zircons, the fate of battleships is destined for aircraft carriers.

            With the appearance of zircons, which, according to Gerasimov's report, is reduced under the UVP Granite, nothing changes at all for AB.
          8. lucul
            lucul 11 October 2020 18: 48 New
            -1
            With the appearance of zircons, which, according to Gerasimov's report, is reduced under the UVP Granite, nothing changes at all for AB.

            No matter how puffed up here, the Americans will remove the aircraft carriers from the fleet)))
          9. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 19: 29 New
            +4
            Quote: lucul
            Americans will remove aircraft carriers from the fleet)))

          10. lucul
            lucul 11 October 2020 19: 34 New
            -1
            Pffff ....
            It will be earlier than you think, because the cost of Zircon and an aircraft carrier is incomparable)))
          11. lucul
            lucul 11 October 2020 19: 49 New
            0
            Quote: lucul
            it has a very small combat radius of 700 km

            Seriously?

            And give me the combat radius of the EA-18G Growler if you don't believe in mine.
            Just don't sing about hanging tanks - he won't take air-to-air missiles aboard with tanks.
  2. Ali
    Ali 11 October 2020 14: 00 New
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine (1)

    4. Your R37M, like most Soviet / Russian long-range missiles, is designed for ultra-long-range shooting down of airliners traveling at a constant course, speed and level. With combat aircraft, everything is not so simple for them - the thrust at the maximum range is not the same (if any). This is especially true of aircraft, which the R37M can see perfectly throughout the flight.

    Cherry nine (1), it is ugly to write an outright lie. For those illiterate like you and other Russophobes who do not know:
    The R-37M long-range missile is intended for to destroy air targets (fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, VTA aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles)In at any time of the day, at all angles, in the conditions of the REP, against the background of the earth and water surfaces, including with multichannel shelling according to the "fire-and-forget" principle.
    Source: https://testpilot.ru/rossiya/vympel/r-37m/ Testers © www.testpilot.ru
    R-37M can destroy air targets on a collision course. After receiving the coordinates, the rocket is directed to the object by the inertial system, so the ammunition "does not shine" on the cruise line on the radars. An active radar homing head (GOS) is activated immediately in front of the target. The enemy is able to detect its radiation, but the pilot has a fraction of a second left for the evasion maneuver. On the final leg of the flight, the rocket is accelerated to hypersonic speed - Mach 6.
    Source: https: //naukatehnika.com/finalnyie-ispyitaniya-sverxdalnobojnoj-giperzvukovoj-raketyi-r-37m.html
    Source: https://testpilot.ru/rossiya/vympel/r-37m/

    Cherry nine (1). Learn materiel and more!
  3. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 14: 19 New
    +1
    Do you read the texts that you cite? Have you forgotten that you are trying to attack a flying radar paired with an electronic warfare aircraft?
  4. Ali
    Ali 11 October 2020 14: 28 New
    -1
    Cherry nine (1). Many, like you, are completely unaware that any radar contains systems that can cut all your interference to 0 or acceptable values. And it is not necessary to present electronic warfare as some kind of panacea for radar. You, like many in VO, are mistaken!
  5. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 14: 37 New
    +3
    Quote: Ali
    Many, like you, do not know at all that any radar contains systems that can cut off all your interference under 0. And you don't need to present electronic warfare as some kind of panacea for radar

    As I already wrote, the further into the forest, the thicker the partisans.

    Have you canceled only American electronic warfare, or Russian too? Let me remind you that the almighty Russian electronic warfare is one of the symbols of faith of today's patriots, because otherwise the RF Armed Forces will merge with Azerbaijan, not like Finland, for example.
  6. Ali
    Ali 11 October 2020 15: 13 New
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Have you canceled only American electronic warfare, or Russian too? I remind you that the almighty Russian electronic warfare - one of the symbols of faith of today's patriots, because otherwise the RF Armed Forces will merge with Azerbaijan, not like Finland, for example.

    Cherry nine. I wrote to you about electronic warfare in general. You are wrong - not only patriots, but also Russophobes - kryakalok and vsepropalschikov! For 4-5 years on VO, I can name many by name ... From the author of the article - Gorbachevsky, I did not expect such blunders - the article was ordered, for certain purposes, at the sacrifice of bias!
  7. Ali
    Ali 11 October 2020 20: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    5. If you remember about the Mk41, then hello flies towards your Moment by the time you reach the launch line (which does not exclude the launch of a rocket, but excludes attempts to illuminate the target of the airborne radar of the aircraft). 9B-1388 remains alone with all the achievements of the enemy science and technology.

    Cherry nine. As soon as the penguins are F-35, non-5th generation aircraft, go to the distance of launching their RVV-BD AIM-120 with a maximum range of D = 180 km, hello is already flying towards them RVV-BD P-37M with a maximum range of D = 300 km, leaving no chance of salvation!
  8. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 12 October 2020 00: 10 New
    +4
    Quote: Ali
    F-35, not 5th generation aircraft ... RVV-BD R-37M with a maximum range of D = 300 km, leaving no chance of salvation!

    Oh, 9B-1103M-350 already leaves no chance for penguins to be saved. How scary to live.

    This thing can get into a penguin only by big oversight.
  9. Ali
    Ali 12 October 2020 00: 59 New
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine (1)
    Oh, 9B-1103M-350 already leaves no chance for penguins to be saved. How scary to live.
    This thing can get into a penguin only by big oversight.

    Cherry nine (1). Do not write fables! For people like you:
    1.The target acquisition range with an image intensifier = 5m2 GOS 9B-1103M-350 (Washer) is more than 40 km (according to other sources 67 km), and you praised the F-35 penguin has an average
    Image intensifier tube = 0,3-0,4 m2, for calculations we take the average image intensifier tube = 0,3 m2 for the F-35. For calculations, we take the target acquisition range with an image intensifier = 5 m2, equal to D = 40 km, for the 9B-1103M-350 GOS (Washer). Having calculated, we see that the F-35 will be captured at a distance of D = 19,796 km by the GOS, and then it will be guaranteed to be destroyed by the RVV-BD R-37M.
    This is your F-35 penguin - a misunderstanding and not only ...
  10. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 12 October 2020 01: 15 New
    +2
    Quote: Ali
    penguin F-35 has an average image intensifier = 0,3-0,4 m2

    )))
    This is if you average the messages of TASS and Zvezda?
    Quote: Ali
    EOC = 5 m2, equal to D = 40 km, for GOS 9B-1103M-350 (Washer). Having calculated, we see that the F-35 will be captured at a distance of D = 19,796 km of the GOS

    It's even scary to think about what kind of mathematics you have applied. How long does the R-37 fly 300 km? How many kilometers does the fighter travel during this time?
  11. Ali
    Ali 12 October 2020 02: 58 New
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine (1)
    This is if you average the messages of TASS and Zvezda?

    Cherry nine (1). You tales of Martin-Lockheed managers more attractive!
    Quote: Cherry Nine (1)
    ... How long does the R-37 fly 300 km? ...

    Cherry nine (1). Yes, twice as fastThan your favorite AIM-120, your his misunderstandings - penguin!
  12. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 12 October 2020 08: 01 New
    +1
    I asked a specific question. Can't count?
  13. Ali
    Ali 12 October 2020 09: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I asked a specific question. Can't count?

    I am not a mentor for people like you ...
  14. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 16 November 2020 17: 40 New
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    most Soviet / Russian long-range missiles are designed for ultra-long-range shooting down of airliners


    Liberal inadequacy and rushing?
    Have you decided to pretend you don't understand? There are quite enough goals with such parameters. These are BTA aircraft, special-purpose aircraft, and tankers. Opening huh ?!
    The fact that airliners are in fact subject to mobilization and are used to transfer troops is also not in the know?
    Only it will be called differently.
  15. ancient
    ancient 11 October 2020 18: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Ali
    This is your mistake.

    3,57 and 4,12 .. these are not the coefficients of refraction of the propagation of radio waves, but are the coefficients calculated, at one time, for meter waves and microwave ... taking into account the refraction, which is calculated by the value of the vertical gradient of the dielectric constant wink.
    Therefore, you are given the correct .. "numbers" for determining the line r / l of visibility of an object according to the form with a coefficient of 4,12, since in this case it is taken into account that:
    Drlv. = 4,12 x Cr, etc. wink
    where Кр - coefficient of refraction (radar observability).

    Radar observability depends on meteorological conditions, season, etc. and takes the following values:
    for normal refraction - 1,0;
  16. Ali
    Ali 12 October 2020 02: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Ali
    Cherry nine! And geometrically, radar stations are incomparable, since they have a different operating frequency range! And therefore, radar stations "see" targets in different ways, in view of the different refractive index. And for the AN / APY-9 radar, one cannot speak geometrically, in view of its operating range from 0,3 to 3 GHz and the refraction coefficient of radio wave propagation of more than 3,57. This is your mistake ... Having calculated, you will get different radio visibility distances of targets ... Therefore, there is geometric visibility and radio visibility, and these are different target detection distances!

    Quote: ancient
    3,57 and 4,12 .. these are not the coefficients of refraction of the propagation of radio waves, but are the coefficients calculated, at one time, for meter waves and microwave ...taking into account refraction, which is calculated from the vertical gradient of the dielectric constant

    ancient. Calculated odds 3,57 calculated excluding refraction, therefore, it is mainly used for shorter microwave waves and is used for geometric calculation of the line-of-sight range.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    ... what if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometricallybecause the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?

    Quote: Ali
    And for the AN / APY-9 radar, one cannot speak geometrically, in view of its operating range from 0,3 to 3 GHz and the refraction coefficient of radio wave propagation more 3,57... This is your mistake ...

    Quote: ancient
    therefore You are given the correct .. "figures" for determining the direct r / l of visibility of an object by the form with a coefficient of 4,12

    ancient... Wrong again. First, understand the meaning of what you read. This is the same expression. Read carefully. If in the case of the coefficient of the equation of direct range of 3,57 we can talk about the geometric range, then in the second case with the coefficient of 4,12 for the AN / APY-9 radar, this cannot be done, in view of the range of AN / APY-9.
    Therefore, the essence of my saying remains absolutely true!
  17. ancient
    ancient 12 October 2020 09: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Ali
    ancient.

    I am not mistaken, but expressed myself incorrectly ... naturally, the coefficients 3,57 and 4.12 are indicated WITHOUT the refractive index, i.e. for the value 1,0000011 wink
    Otherwise you are right wink
  • Ali
    Ali 10 October 2020 13: 06 New
    -5
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    AN / APY-9 vs. Zaslon-M? This is a damn difficult question.

    Cherry Nine, to start with, repeat the radar forward-range equation before writing your opus! Maybe then you will understand something!
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 13: 15 New
      +7
      I see lucul is not just one radio horizon specialist.

      Fine, wonderful.
      1. Ali
        Ali 10 October 2020 13: 27 New
        -5
        Cherry nine! The evening will not be so great for you! I am an expert in radio visibility and not only!
      2. lucul
        lucul 10 October 2020 13: 34 New
        -3
        I see lucul is not just one radio horizon specialist.

        Well, where do I care)))
      3. Ali
        Ali 10 October 2020 13: 41 New
        -2
        Cherry nine! Writing a word geometrically - you wrote nonsense ... Now I can not write, since I am in such a place that it is impossible to write from the phone! I'll write to you in the evening.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2020 17: 24 New
          -1
          The radio visibility specialist somehow forgets about the background interference
        2. Ali
          Ali 10 October 2020 18: 21 New
          -1
          Nehist! For a start, see the forward range equation? And where is there background noise that does not exist in nature?
          Maybe noisy? However, they are not there either!
  • Drago
    Drago 11 October 2020 03: 44 New
    0
    Do you understand that if you see Hawkeye, then Hawkeye sees you?
  • ancient
    ancient 11 October 2020 17: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: lucul
    And nothing that the ceiling of the MiG - 31, 20 meters

    And .. "nothing" that, apart from the height, such a value as ... "power of the PRD" wassat
    1. Ali
      Ali 11 October 2020 20: 00 New
      -2
      Quote: Ali
      US managers presented the detection range D = 540 km], according to the technical capabilities of the AN / APY-9 radar, but this does not replace the image intensifier of the target for which this distance was measured.

      ancient, I can do without prompters!
      Quote: ancient
      And nothing that the ceiling of the MiG - 31, 20 meters

      And .. "nothing" that, apart from the height, such a value as ... "power of the PRD"


      ancient. AT in the equation of direct range, there is no value for the power of the TRX, so learn radar. Lucul (Vitaly) is talking about the equation of direct rangeAnd not about the equation of maximum range, although it is necessary to take into account, but they have not yet reached this point in their dialogue. Therefore, you are wrong. laughing
      1. ancient
        ancient 12 October 2020 09: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Ali
        There is no Tx power in the forward range equation, so learn radar.

        1. There is no need to advise me what to do, and I will not advise you where to ... to go wassat
        2. We are here discussing the capabilities of the MiG-31 radar, and not .. ". Equations"
        Therefore ... learn .. "mat.part" lol
        1. Ali
          Ali 12 October 2020 11: 09 New
          -2
          Quote: ancient
          2. We are discussing here capabilities of the radar MiG-31, not .. ". equations"
          Therefore ... learn .. "mat.part"



          ancient. It is ugly to write a lie - in bold! We discuss topics on - radar, where you have big problems and not only ... Your ignorance and ignorance of the meaning of Russian words, as well as surreptitiously filth has no boundaries and decency. You understand what I mean - about you and your dirty trolls, doing the same thing from the very beginning of the VO website ...
  • ancient
    ancient 11 October 2020 17: 26 New
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I love it when the radio horizon of the patriots works strictly for ours.

    and they always do so ... the main thing fellow ..... wassat
    But the enemy's direct r / l visibility if he flies at an altitude of 9000 meters, and his target at an altitude of only 1000 meters is only ... 497 km ... laughing
    But for fellow .... it is very difficult ... to understand wink
    1. Ali
      Ali 11 October 2020 21: 47 New
      -2
      Quote: ancient
      here is the enemy's direct r / l visibility if he flies at an altitude of 9000 meters, and his target at an altitude of only 1000 meters is only ...497 km.....

      ancient. The word ancient in Russian for your nickname is written with a capital letter. Yes, you do not know how to count. For you:
      If the enemy's plane flies at an altitude of H = 9000 meters, and its target is at an altitude of only H = 1000 meters, then
      1. The range of direct radio visibility of the target is D = 521,37 km, not 497 km, as you write Or do you not know the equations of direct range by - radar? And you are trying to appeal without knowing the materiel!
      Learn to count and write tongue laughing
      1. ancient
        ancient 12 October 2020 09: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Ali
        Yes, you do not know how to count. For you:

        But this is already ... not disguised rudeness on your part ... did not expect sad
        1. Ali
          Ali 12 October 2020 11: 20 New
          -3
          Quote: ancient
          1. Range direct radio visibility of the target is D = 521,37 km, instead of 497 km, as you write Or do you not know the equations of direct range by - radar?


          Quote: ancient
          But this is already ... not disguised rudeness on your part ... did not expect

          ancient. This is not rudeness, but the truth (truth) that hurts your eyes ... Learn radar! And learn to count to start! laughing
          1. Ali
            Ali 12 October 2020 11: 39 New
            -2
            Quote: Ali
            1. The range of direct radio visibility of the target is D = 521,37 km, and not 497 km, as you write. Or do you not know the equations of the direct range by radar?

            Oppiska - at the top is my phrase to you, not yours.
            Quote: ancient
            2. We are here discussing the capabilities of the MiG-31 radar, but not .. ". equations" Therefore ... learn .. "mat.part"

            By me the "Zaslon" radar was never mentioned in dialogues, and
            AN / APY-9 radar was mentionedso you are wrong!
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 12 October 2020 13: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: ancient
          But this is already ... not disguised rudeness on your part ... did not expect

          Seryoga, this is a troll known in VO as I-from Vasya. wassat He has been banned countless times for rudeness and incitement to the nation. Don't mind him.
  • Nehist
    Nehist 10 October 2020 11: 48 New
    +2
    Oddly enough for you it will sound, but in the days of the USSR, Nad Aug did not just hang, but also tried to accompany the KUG
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 10 October 2020 21: 18 New
    +3
    Quote: lucul
    The author probably thinks that reconnaissance planes are hanging over the AUG 24 hours a day, 7 days a week)))

    Yes!!!! Do you consider enemies as stupid wooden targets? The hockey is made to hang over the AUG 24 hours a day ..
    1. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 11 October 2020 01: 45 New
      -2
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Yes!!!! Do you consider enemies as stupid wooden targets? The hockey is made to hang over the AUG 24 hours a day ..

      Well, how then, on October 17, 2000, two Su-24 and Su-27 combat aircraft from the 11th Army of the Air Force and Air Defense of Russia discovered the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and flew over it several times, at an altitude of about 60 m. the ship carried out restocking on the move in the northern part of the Sea of ​​Japan, between the island of Hokkaido and the mainland coast of Russia. After the flyby, the Russian pilots sent the captured images to the aircraft carrier's website. Overflights were repeated on October 20 and November 9
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 01: 59 New
        +5
        Quote: ZEMCH
        Well, how then, October 17, 2000

        What do you want, excuse me? To be shot down right away?
        1. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 11 October 2020 02: 02 New
          -1
          The first plane took off from an aircraft carrier 10 minutes after the 1st overflight, and it was not an F-18.
          This is the question that hangs 24/7 Hookai over AUG))
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 02: 07 New
            +2
            Quote: ZEMCH
            This is the question that hangs 24/7 Hookai over AUG))

            And who told you that they weigh 24/7 always, and who told you that the Americans keep information security in the air or on hot alert 24/7 in peacetime? Yes, hooligans have to be tolerated in international waters. The Americans themselves, it happened, were notable for their daring.
            Quote: ZEMCH
            I will answer you with the words of American Admiral Turner

            If you wanted to convey some wisdom, then it was lost.
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 11 October 2020 01: 31 New
    -2
    Andrey Martyanov has another book, "The Loss of Military Superiority: The Shortsightedness of American Strategic Planning," but "The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs" came to the Americans)))
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 08: 04 New
    11
    Quote: NEXUS
    the head of state says that the range of Zircon is more than 1000 km, then

    It means that the head of state is simply spitting in the face of dear Russians.

    Speed ​​and range are energy in joules. The amount of joules at the disposal of a rocket is determined by the weight and energy characteristics of the fuel. The first is known based on the dimensions of the UVP, the second in the USSR / Russia always limped on both legs. There are no miracles. And yes, by the way, there are no actively maneuvering hypersonic objects, the operation of the seeker at hypersonic speed in the atmosphere is impossible.
    Quote: NEXUS
    With the advent of the Dagger, and in the near future, and Zircon in service

    Working against the BRMD, which is the Dagger, for Aegis the regular mode, the Zircon is no different from any other missile (except that it does not exist).
    Quote: NEXUS
    The vaunted Aegis stupidly cannot cope with such a task for several reasons ...

    The very essence of the SBU is the optimal allocation of resources in a massive attack. And the SBU was not conceived at the present time, but at the time of the MRA divisions.
    Quote: NEXUS
    in general, will the AUG radars be able to detect such a target or a group of targets? There is a very big question.

    There is no question here. What can be said about a hypersonic target in the atmosphere for sure - it is very bright.
    Quote: NEXUS
    the number of interceptors to absorb a massive anti-missile strike. And here, too, there are big questions, since to intercept the same Onyx, mattresses count from 2 to 5 interceptors

    What Burke has in his air defense system is missiles. As well as the Berks themselves. By the way, in AUG, often, not to say "usually", they put Tiki, who have even more missiles.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 08: 38 New
      -6
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Zircon is no different from any other rocket (except that it doesn't exist).


      Are you a witness of the "Zircon - no" sect?

      Even about its appearance, one can already speak confidently enough ...

      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 08: 55 New
        17
        Are you a witness of the "Zircon - no" sect?

        I am a sect witness "Chief lying. Is always".
        Even its appearance can already be talked about

        Do you realize that the photo is a plastic pacifier?
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 08: 56 New
          -4
          Did they shoot a plastic dummy in the North?

          operation of the seeker at hypersonic speed in the atmosphere is impossible.

          On 8M stated, it is just possible.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 08: 59 New
            +5
            And what did they shoot in the north?
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 09: 02 New
              -3
              You have already been told about this on TV. And those who can count quite figured out the speed of the RCC
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 09: 16 New
                +6
                I don't watch TV. And they definitely don't lie there?

                In the North, according to the MO record, a rocket was launched.

                1. Known size (UVP).
                2. Without ramjet.
                3. With a relatively "blunt" fairing. That is, the rocket is subsonic or transatmospheric. Krylyov did not notice, although it is difficult to say here, the recording is short.

                The result is, at best, a blighted OTP. OTR yes, they can be "hypersonic" but rather conventionally they can be anti-ship. Although the Chinese have been filming cartoons on this topic lately. In the usual case - Caliber with some alterations. Which is probably what Zircon is.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 09: 54 New
                  +7
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  With a relatively "blunt" fairing. That is, the rocket is subsonic or transatmospheric.

                  Hand face. There is NO fairing on the frames. It can be seen only in the footage of the missile launch from the UVP. And he, this "fairing", even on the "Onyx" is a nozzle with two solid propellants, which turn the rocket nose in the right direction, after which the "fairing" is fired back and then the rocket flies without it.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 09: 58 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    he, this "fairing", even on the "Onyx" is a nozzle with two solid propellants, which turn the rocket nose in the right direction, after which the "fairing" is fired back and then the rocket flies without it.

                    OK.
                    So what do we see on the tape?
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 10: 18 New
                      -2
                      PS.
                      He overpowered himself and looked at Gerasimov's report to the commander-in-chief.

                      These clowns do claim to have caught up and overtaken the '8 RIM-58. God, how can you be so awesome ?!
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 11: 12 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      These clowns do claim to have caught up and overtaken the '8 RIM-58.

                      Did you understand what you said? :)))))
                    3. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 11: 17 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Did you understand what you said? :)))))

                      Quite. RIM-8 was tested, including as anti-ship missiles.
                    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 11: 48 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Quite. RIM-8 was tested, including as anti-ship missiles.

                      Uh-huh. Line of sight.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      God, how can you be so awesome ?!
                    5. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 11: 57 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Line of sight.

                      Well, at least not conditional.

                      However, in my opinion, I confused Talos with Terrier. This makes Zircon unique, well, except for Granite-Volcanoes, all this gloomy Soviet genius.

                      Are you really going to argue that returning to the idea of ​​a high-speed stratospheric RCC is a smart idea?
                    6. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 11 October 2020 13: 03 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Are you really going to argue that returning to the idea of ​​a high-speed stratospheric RCC is a smart idea?


                      The hypersonic anti-ship missile itself seems to be a perfectly reasonable idea (if you do not consider its cost). A hypersonic anti-ship missile can only be stratospheric.
                    7. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 13: 23 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      A hypersonic anti-ship missile can only be stratospheric.

                      Do you understand that the stratospheric anti-ship missile is exactly the type of target that the Americans turned on missile defense would like to see? Or is the idea that they and their AWACS have closed the issue with normal anti-ship missiles so well that you need to spend money and UVP cells on such miracles?
                      By the way, where is she flying, I wonder? Has someone already decided to solve the problem of over-the-horizon target designation?
                    8. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 11 October 2020 13: 30 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Do you understand that the stratospheric anti-ship missile is exactly the type of target that the Americans turned on missile defense would like to see?


                      I don't know what the Americans want to see. But I know that a hypersonic rocket is a very difficult target.

                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      By the way, where is she flying, I wonder? Has someone already decided to solve the problem of over-the-horizon target designation?


                      If I knew about this, I would not answer. But I don't know, so I will answer smile - just the weakness of reconnaissance forces us to make fast missiles. As mentioned above, the CU can come every few hours and have a short period of relevance. To implement such a control system, a fast rocket is needed (this is not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one).
  • lucul
    lucul 10 October 2020 10: 52 New
    -6
    I don't watch TV. And they definitely don't lie there?

    In the North, according to the MO record, a rocket was launched.

    1. Known size (UVP).
    2. Without ramjet.
    3. With a relatively "blunt" fairing. That is, the rocket is subsonic or transatmospheric. Krylyov did not notice, although it is difficult to say here, the recording is short.

    The result is, at best, a blighted OTP. OTR yes, they can be "hypersonic" but rather conventionally they can be anti-ship.

    I love it when God's chosen ones deduce their logical conclusions)))
    Reminds immortal - no movement, Zeno)))
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 10 October 2020 20: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Without ramjet.


    What does this mean?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 October 2020 02: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Eye of the Crying
      What does this mean?

      I wrote. I can't see him. However, the recording itself is a couple of seconds, the rocket is seen rather poorly.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 October 2020 09: 12 New
    -1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    It means that the head of state is simply spitting in the face of dear Russians.

    Or maybe you spit and point your crooked finger at others?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The first is known based on the dimensions of the UVP, the second in the USSR / Russia always limped on both legs. There are no miracles.

    You dear, either come out of the 80s, or stop carrying nonsense with the air of the one who developed the Zircon.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And yes, by the way, there are no actively maneuvering hypersonic objects,

    Ooty paths ... Avant-garde means fantasy and it simply does not exist. fellow What have you smoked since morning?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Work against the BRMD, which is the Dagger, for Aegis the regular mode,

    Seriously, that is, the Aegis, for which you are praying so, involves work on a target flying at a speed of Mach 10-12? Are you a Wikepidist, or are you just writing this from a bald?
    Any missile defense system has clear restrictions on the speed characteristics of the target. Aegis has the latest modification (which is far from all Burks), this figure is theoretically up to 6 swings. And the second is the reaction time to the threat. And here I think Aegis has problems. Especially if the threat flies from several directions, in the form of a flock of anti-ship missiles.
    And one more thing, Dear, is there enough anti-missile missile defense AUG, to intercept several dozen of the same Daggers?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Zircon is no different from any other rocket (except that it doesn't exist).

    Wow ... that is, they have been developing it since the age of 12, they have already publicly conducted tests on the camera, but here it is, and it does not exist. fellow Well, maybe your alternate reality doesn't have it.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    What can be said about a hypersonic target in the atmosphere for sure - it is very bright.

    And what? Are you going to look at her with Aegis through binoculars?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    What Burke has in his air defense system is missiles.

    That is, in your brain, there is such a picture that ONLY anti-missiles will be put on Burke? And forgive me how many anti-missiles are required to intercept a hyperspeed target, don’t enlighten the dark? And what is the reaction time to a threat from Aegis to such a volley?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    put Tiki, who have even more missiles.

    Tiki dear cheat and you know it.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 09: 55 New
      +3
      Quote: NEXUS
      Or maybe you spit

      Everyone has their quirks, but I have never been turned on by humiliation, in any role.
      Quote: NEXUS
      either come out of the 80s

      As if the newest Russian multwunderwailers weren't dug up in the Soviet trash cans of the 80s. And sometimes, for example in the case of Status, - much earlier.
      Quote: NEXUS
      Avant-garde means fantasy and it simply does not exist

      The Vanguard is an ICBM warhead with an increased descending atmospheric range. An excellent way to facilitate missile defense to an enemy who has been working on intercepting ballistic targets in the upper atmosphere for decades, just the perfect solution. It seems that someone in Langley has knocked out a handsome bonus for himself.
      While Langley most likely has nothing to do with it, this someone is taking other people's credit. The Soviet trash cans contained answers to SDI, with a satellite missile defense system; in those conditions, the withdrawal of the warhead into the atmosphere made sense. The current missile defense system is built differently. Vanguard allows you to expose a warhead under fire not only from GBI, but much more serial complexes, army and naval, up to and including MEADS.
      Quote: NEXUS
      That is, the Aegis, for which you pray so, involves work on a target flying at a speed of 10-12 mach.

      Anyone. Aegis are radars, communications and computers. Means of destruction yes, may have limitations, but this is a normal working moment.
      Quote: NEXUS
      intercept a few dozen of the same Daggers?

      And where do you get so many of them, excuse me?
      Quote: NEXUS
      they have been developing it since the age of 12, they have already publicly conducted tests on the camera,

      Launching something very similar to a subsonic caliber - you call it "camera tests"?
      Quote: NEXUS
      look at her with binoculars

      Bright in all ranges. Yes, in the IR too. No, not an Aegis, if we are talking about over-the-horizon detection.
      Quote: NEXUS
      there is such a picture that ONLY anti-missiles will be put on Berki?

      What is needed, then they will put it. So what, and Berkov is enough.
      Quote: NEXUS
      how many interceptor missiles are required to intercept a hyperspeed target

      No idea. If such goals appear, they will find out. But what is known for sure is that in terms of speeds / overloads, an anti-missile is more effective than an anti-ship missile of the same dimensions by default - it has a lighter warhead, shorter range and a simpler flight profile.
      Quote: NEXUS
      What is the reaction time to a threat from Aegis to such a volley?

      The same as any other. With the exception that a hypersonic target is much easier to identify, this is definitely not an airborne cessna.
      Quote: NEXUS
      Tiki dear cheat

      Tiki, dear, decommissioned from the first series, with an inclined launcher. Ticks from UVP will be written off for another 20 years.
      1. lucul
        lucul 10 October 2020 10: 41 New
        -1
        An excellent way to facilitate missile defense to an enemy who has been working on intercepting ballistic targets in the upper atmosphere for decades, just the perfect solution.

        For decades it has been working unsuccessfully to intercept ballistic targets - more precisely)))
        And therefore, the missile defense system is brought as close as possible to our border, so that we can intercept missiles at the start, and not at the end of the trajectory)))
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 10: 49 New
          +5
          It is impossible to intercept missiles at the start (from the ground). And they work completely, completely unsuccessfully, yes.
          1. lucul
            lucul 10 October 2020 11: 36 New
            -3
            It is impossible to intercept missiles at the start (from the ground).

            And on account of this (PRO), I do not look at you)))
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 11: 47 New
              +4
              I have already understood from the example of the radio horizon that your mathematics and physics should give way to geopolitics. In particular, the Romanian Aegis exists. in order to intercept ascending ICBMs from the Saratov region, this is very close.
              1. lucul
                lucul 10 October 2020 12: 00 New
                -1
                I have already understood from the example of the radio horizon that your mathematics and physics should give way to geopolitics. In particular, the Romanian Aegis exists. in order to intercept ascending ICBMs from the Saratov region, this is very close.

                Oh Gospadi .....
                The whole tsimes of missile defense is to catch up with ICBMs on an ascending trajectory, because intercepting ICBMs at the final stage of flight is a disastrous business.
                But I see you do not know at all how the Amer is conceived. PRO)))
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 11: 00 New
          +4
          Quote: lucul
          For decades it has been working unsuccessfully to intercept ballistic targets - more precisely)))


          And somehow not very successful. From the word in general. And even with the interception of a conventional ICBM warhead, uh, it's bad ..
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 11: 05 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Actually, variable success is what distinguishes real tests from conditional interception of a conditional target.
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2020 11: 57 New
      -2
      Andrew!!! that the AC engine is all right? Since the times of the USSR, We can create unique masterpieces, but we still do not have serial normal engines
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 October 2020 01: 01 New
      0
      intercept a few dozen of the same Daggers?

      Several dozen Daggers. The MiG-31 (K), modified for its delivery, takes only one. 10 MiG-31K on experimental combat duty in the Southern Military District since December 1, 2017.
      Where did you get the tens?
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 10 October 2020 09: 40 New
    +2
    What you have written is all theoretical. When Aegis intercepts something like a dagger or zircon, then we will talk about it. Mattress covers are a lot of fairy tales to tell. They drew a certain conditional interception on the computer and announced to the whole planet: "The problem is solved !!!" And even they themselves do not know how much it has been solved))))
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 10: 06 New
      +3
      You should clarify who draws what on the computer. And the partners work out the interception of a ballistic target regularly, with varying degrees of success. Actually, variable success is what distinguishes real tests from conditional interception of a conditional target.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 10 October 2020 12: 02 New
        0
        So I say that when there will be a real interception of a target missile by Aegis with similar performance characteristics (mainly speed and flight trajectory), then we will calculate the probability and conditions. In the meantime, apart from cheerful reports from the Washington Reich Chancellery, it is not known what is based on, there is no evidence.
        1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
          Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 11 October 2020 21: 13 New
          0
          when will there be a real interception of a target missile by Aegis with similar performance characteristics (mainly speed and flight path)


          USA-193 google.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 11 October 2020 21: 32 New
            0
            The next mattress tales - no thanks))) but "Ticonderoga" went "on pins and needles" - it's a fact.
            1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 12 October 2020 02: 18 New
              +1
              And what, in your maneuver, not a single tic is left? Does Burk have a different Aegis with other UVPs? Interesting how.
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 12 October 2020 12: 15 New
                -1
                So "Tika" is the first, followed by 5 more pieces. will go. "Bjorks" as they are not good, but not a replacement for cruisers. If you noticed, in the orders of mattress AUG, "tinconderog" has become less, before there were two, now one, and sometimes not one at all. What is it for?))))
                1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                  Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 12 October 2020 20: 45 New
                  0
                  > "Bjerki" as they are not good, but not a replacement for cruisers

                  this is a complete replacement for ticks in the pro role, except for the number of universal cells

                  > "tinconderog" has become smaller

                  do you suggest that they not write them off, but arrange an epic with modernizations for 15 years? Clarify
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 12 October 2020 22: 02 New
                    0
                    "Bjorks" have not only fewer cells, but guidance channels. So it's not a replacement at all. It's not for nothing that mattress toppers are now drawing a new cruiser URO, but somehow very weakly
                  2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
                    Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 13 October 2020 04: 48 New
                    0
                    We can calculate how many ships with Aegis and guidance channels there were orders in 1990, and how many are now. And then compare how many carriers were in the Soviet MPA and how many are now.
                  3. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 13 October 2020 16: 45 New
                    0
                    So then there were more AUG mattress covers. But then the tasks were different.
  • lucul
    lucul 10 October 2020 10: 37 New
    -2
    Zircon is no different from any other rocket (except that it doesn't exist).

    Well, yes, in the Barents Sea cartoons showed)))
    1. Editor
      Editor 10 October 2020 11: 20 New
      +5
      and what was shown there? the launch of a certain rocket ... and that's it?
      1. lucul
        lucul 10 October 2020 11: 37 New
        -1
        and what was shown there? the launch of a certain rocket ... and that's it?

        The "partners" were warned in advance and they saw and understood everything perfectly)))
        1. Editor
          Editor 11 October 2020 17: 26 New
          +1
          when you start ONYX - the video is similar.
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 11 October 2020 02: 00 New
    +1
    I will answer you with the words of the American Admiral Turner, who was the director of the CIA from 1977 to 1981, - “What matters is not the number of ships or their size. The ability to perform actions that will have a decisive impact on the outcome of any particular situation is important. "
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 10 October 2020 09: 32 New
    +1
    Of course, the destruction of an aircraft carrier with one missile will confuse the whole aug and the situation of finishing off with missiles, otherwise you will have to first destroy its aircraft, by coastal means, and only then the aircraft carrier itself, which was left without air cover. to bring a shooting range aug to our shores at once, then there will be a mess in the air and aircraft carriers will very quickly sink from our missiles, and carrier-based aircraft that had time to take off fall into the water, aug is a weapon only against weak countries.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 10 October 2020 09: 35 New
    +1
    To the above, I want to add - what kind of destroyer was the author going to build? It is difficult to build a large ship, if there are not even "general views", not to mention the detailed drawings. Or the author thinks
    layout of "Leader" at the exhibition in St. Petersburg - is it enough?)))
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 11: 03 New
      +7
      Quote: TermNachTER
      what destroyer is going


      We don't need to build it at all. And to begin with, he will attend to the deployment to the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet of air divisions aimed at working at sea and including both fighters and strikers, tankers and RTR aircraft
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 12 October 2020 00: 18 New
    0
    A dagger that flies according to the stated data at a distance of 1400 km? Or, according to the author, the Dagger is not a RCC?

    Namely, the Dagger is not an anti-ship missile. Like Iskander smile
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 12 October 2020 00: 22 New
    -1
    And when the head of state says that the Zircon range is more than 1000 km, then it is so.

    In the 80s, one head of state talked about the implementation of "Star Wars" (SDI). Was crystal-clear, of course (chapters - they are all smile ).
    And in the past 20 years, another chapter has promised not to raise the retirement age (he later suggested understanding).
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 10 October 2020 06: 01 New
    -1
    The effectiveness of the air defense AUG is qualitatively superior to that of the air defense KUG. General considerations about the likelihood of hitting a ship by some super-missile are inapplicable here.

    Well, FSE, is it time to paws up the hill?
    author -> author -> author, is it about yesterday? Today "Zircon" is already. Nobody tells the maximum range.
    And ONE bursting "Zircon" with YaB is enough to feed the fish to the whole AUG
    It is impossible to call any ship or anti-ship missile "aircraft carrier killer". Let's leave this term to the sofa experts.

    Better to be a "couch expert" than a couch mourner "all-consuming"
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2020 06: 53 New
      -3
      Zircon No !!! Test samples are not weapons
      1. Ali
        Ali 10 October 2020 07: 08 New
        -2
        Quote: Nehist
        Zircon No !!! Test samples are not weapons

        Nehist (Alexander)! Do not write nonsense and teach materiel!
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2020 09: 57 New
          +3
          Mr. Comrade Barin !!! I in BC 11 tore away from a sailor to an ensign !!! And I saw how all this (new weapons goes into service) Comrades, the participants in the database will confirm to you the presence of new equipment and what they really take out ...
          1. lucul
            lucul 10 October 2020 10: 42 New
            -3
            Mr. Comrade Barin !!! I in BC 11 tore away from a sailor to an ensign !!!

            Another Crimean woman, daughter of an officer?
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 10 October 2020 20: 06 New
              -2
              Quote: lucul
              Another Crimean woman, daughter of an officer?
              The same officer.
              Ensign.
          2. Shiden
            Shiden 10 October 2020 21: 22 New
            +2
            Alexander, here you are right. Everyone thinks that in cases of non-nuclear conflict they will be given modern weapons. Yeah, in the General Staff, the generals will rush to give new weapons to dreamers if they give them equipment at least a dozen years younger than the dreamer himself.
          3. Ali
            Ali 12 October 2020 09: 24 New
            -3
            Quote: Nehist
            Mr. Comrade Barin !!! I in BC 11 tore away from a sailor to an ensign !!!

            Nehist (Alexander). However, this did not add to your mind, judging by how illiterate you write in VO ...
      2. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 10 October 2020 07: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Nehist
        Zircon No !!! Test samples are not weapons

        Will test samples be put into service in 21?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 10 October 2020 07: 46 New
          +6
          Cartoons have been put into service lately. Especially in the future tense. Not an argument.
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 10 October 2020 08: 06 New
            -6
            Yes, even if you put you on a rocket on horseback, you will still talk about cartoons in Fashington
        2. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2020 09: 58 New
          +1
          You are not an adequate person judging by most of your comments
      3. Sidor Amenpodestovich
        Sidor Amenpodestovich 10 October 2020 07: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: Nehist
        Zircon No !!! Test samples are not weapons

        You haven't regained consciousness since yesterday evening, or have you "had breakfast" early in the morning?
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2020 09: 59 New
          +3
          I will answer with the words of Minister Lavrov D.B ..
          1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
            Sidor Amenpodestovich 10 October 2020 10: 02 New
            -5
            Quote: Nehist
            I will answer with the words of Minister Lavrov D.B ..

            Lavrov, he is Sergey Viktorovich, S.V. that is, not some D. B.
            Although, if there is no Zircon in your world, then why shouldn't Lavrov also be D. B?
          2. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 10 October 2020 12: 07 New
            -4
            But now I understand cho now I understand
            Disgusting Russia. While in words
            1. Nehist
              Nehist 10 October 2020 12: 31 New
              -3
              Respected!!! When a motorized rifle company gnaws at the ground knowing about all kinds of Caliber, Circus, Dagger !!! And in fact, except for the D-22 and the Mi-8, there is no nichrome !! Fuck what else is abreted !!! I don’t want you to fall under your own NURS !!! Inexpressible feelings !!! No one except the Israeli army will work with Precision Ammunition along the front edge
      4. nnm
        nnm 10 October 2020 08: 25 New
        -1
        Already, by the way, it has already been announced about test launches on targets that simulate the PM and the aircraft carrier.
        Not an expert, but I will clarify, what do you dislike, the predecessor of Zircon - Onyx?
      5. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 October 2020 09: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: Nehist
        Zircon No !!! Test samples are not weapons

        Zircon has been developed since the age of 12. If you are shown on camera, it is so that people like you say, and this is a fake, this cannot be, because in my alternative reality this is impossible.
        You shitty, frankly a patriot. As I read your writings, I wonder how much you can hate your country so fiercely. It is the country, not Putin.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 10 October 2020 19: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Nehist
            Andrew!!! Do you see at least one SU 57 in service?

            Oh, that's how deep they dug ... well, ok, let's go in order. The SU-57 is currently undergoing state tests. Note that this is not a model, not a wunderwolf, but real pre-production vehicles. And the first production vehicle has already been assembled this year. At the same time, an amateur - "give it all and at once", to consider the creation of the SU-57 simply as the next fighter, this is exactly the trick with the ears that citizens love to use, called "fucking the polymers", Putin is to blame "," all the money of the Russian Federation went to buy yachts for oligarchs ". Moreover, in a different order, no, no, yes, in every branch. And fuck the topic, what is it about, and so on.
            A dvigun, an electronic warfare complex, a radar, an arsenal, tactics of use (even in conjunction with a Hunter), an unmanned flight, etc. are being developed for the Su-57 ... that is, there is not even a fighter from scratch, but whole industries from scratch. But you chew on the click, and come on here, at this minute, otherwise you have drunk all the polymers, you know!
            Quote: Nehist
            Moreover, this aircraft is cheaper and easier to put into production !!!

            Che is seriously easier? Or are you fooling around?
            Quote: Nehist
            To hell with you

            Fuck is with us, and who is with you?
            Quote: Nehist
            VO turned into Shit !!!

            It was because of these that he turned.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 09: 56 New
      +8
      Quote: Lipchanin
      And ONE bursting "Zircon" with YaB is enough to feed the fish to the whole AUG

      And two - to wipe the United States off the face of the earth ...
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 10 October 2020 10: 14 New
        0
        It's easier to blow up arsenals
    3. Editor
      Editor 10 October 2020 11: 22 New
      +4


      what to look for and how to aim at a target?
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 11 October 2020 02: 33 New
        -2
        Quote: Redactor
        what to look for and how to aim at a target?

        Does GLONASS aim at our targets? The first thing that will be disabled above the theater is gps and glonas
        1. Editor
          Editor 11 October 2020 17: 23 New
          0
          And what in the sea-ocean can direct to a moving target (previously marked with coordinates) - maybe its own radar or an optical system? and all this through a cloud of hypersonic plasma?
          1. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 11 October 2020 17: 27 New
            +1
            Why are you attached to a cloud of plasma, the problem is solved and very original, when they declassify you will be surprised for a long time that Themselves did not think of it before)))
            It's like with a fountain pen in space, you can spend millions and do it, or you can write with a pencil)))
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 13 October 2020 06: 14 New
              0
              Graphite dust flies from a pencil, but it's cheap.
    4. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 October 2020 01: 05 New
      0
      And ONE bursting "Zircon" with YaB is enough to feed the fish to the whole AUG

      Is there a nuclear war in your scenario?
      There is such a thing - an anti-nuclear warrant, invented long ago smile Or do you have 60 MT warheads?
  • Ali
    Ali 10 October 2020 06: 27 New
    +2
    Author! We in Russia have RVV-BD (long-range air-to-air missile) R-37M with a range of D = 300 km in service, and you are comparing the US RVV-BD AIM-120 with RVV-AE - this is incorrect and is a mistake!
    The detection range of AN / SPY-1 you take D = 500 km, without specifying for the purposes with which image intensifier, this is also wrong, etc.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2020 07: 00 New
      -2
      Fully autonomous (active) mode for preliminary target designation without radar support in flight ("fire-and-forget" mode)
      Inertial guidance mode with radio correction.
      Reprogramming mode
      The question is in what mode is the R-37m effective? Again, we will run into target designation because in the 1st mode it is quite easy to parry
      1. Ali
        Ali 10 October 2020 07: 13 New
        -2
        Quote: Nehist
        The question is in what mode is the R-37m effective? Again, we will run into target designation because in the 1st mode it is quite easy to parry

        Nehist. Read the author's statements carefully! Compared to the AIM-120, the RVV-BD R-37M is much more efficient! And do not compare the air-to-air rocket long range AIM-120 with air-to-air missile medium range RVV-AE. And that is not all.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 10 October 2020 11: 10 New
          0
          But the enemy has target designation means and we do not
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 12 October 2020 01: 11 New
          0
          And they do not compare the long-range air-to-air missile AIM-120 with the air-to-air missile RVV-AE. And that is not all.

          AIM-120 C-7 - 120km. RVV-AE - 110 km. (And only AIM-120D - 180 km). Specify what it is about?
          Compared to the AIM-120, the RVV-BD R-37M is much more efficient!

          By maneuverability, jamming immunity of the seeker, or only the maximum range?
          On a maneuvering target, no one launches a rocket at the maximum range - there is not enough energy. Offer this to pilots - they will laugh at it.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 12 October 2020 08: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: 3danimal
            Offer this to pilots - they will laugh at it.

            )))
            They are all Russophobes.
          2. Ali
            Ali 20 October 2020 04: 59 New
            -1
            Quote: 3danimal
            On a maneuvering target, no one launches a rocket at the maximum range - there is not enough energy. Offer this to pilots - they will laugh at it.

            3danimal. Baby! In order to maneuver, you must first discover! Live on with your illusions!
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 20 October 2020 07: 58 New
              -1
              3danimal. Baby! In order to maneuver, you must first discover! Live on with your illusions!

              Less demagogy, you are not at the Komsomol (Yunarmeiskom) meeting.
              Free software to help you good
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 10 October 2020 07: 36 New
    13
    I don't quite understand why the author wrote this article?
    There are simplifications in the article (KR is not indicated in the ABM order
    URO, ...), there are inaccuracies, and the conclusions have long been known -
    currently, the RF Armed Forces cannot destroy AVM
    as part of the AUG with conventional weapons. Reasons - there is no necessary
    order of forces and means, there is practically no system
    issuing a timely control center for a moving target.
    1. nnm
      nnm 10 October 2020 08: 26 New
      -3
      And the satellite constellation cannot issue the control center?
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 10 October 2020 08: 30 New
        +4
        In the article, the author answers your question like this:
        "... the possibility of receiving control centers from external sources (satellites,
        over-the-horizon radars) are very small, for example, control units from satellites
        comes in every few hours, and it becomes obsolete in 10-15 minutes. "
        I agree with the author.
        1. nnm
          nnm 10 October 2020 08: 33 New
          0
          To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the case. In my practice, I came across cases of the need to obtain information from the "Gonets" satellites and upon the fact of the exercises, the information went in real time. Yes, there were some breaks and so on, but we were certainly not talking about watches. And we kept in touch with them for 7 days.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 10 October 2020 08: 43 New
            +7
            Quote: nnm
            To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the case.

            For reconnaissance and issuance, the control center must be deployed
            modern space system "Liana". But, how long ago
            in Russia it was customary, nothing was done by the time.
            In general, while the system is not fully deployed, and
            does not provide the required data. But hope remains ...
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 10 October 2020 09: 19 New
              -4
              Quote: Bez 310
              For reconnaissance and issuance, the control center must be deployed
              modern space system "Liana"

              And besides Liana, a similar satellite system is not being developed in the Russian Federation to help Liana, no? Or will you continue to talk about Liana, piously hoping that this is so?
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 10 October 2020 10: 16 New
                +7
                No need to get personal!
                If you have anything to say about the space exploration system
                and the issuance of CU, similar to "Liana" I read with pleasure.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 09: 58 New
            +9
            Quote: nnm
            In my practice, I encountered cases of the need to obtain information from the "Gonets" satellites and upon the fact of the exercises, the information went in real time

            Right. Because the Messenger is not a satellite / scout, but an ordinary signalman. If someone gives CU, then he, this someone, may well give it through the Messenger, he is just a repeater. The question is, who gave it to the control center ... I don't think it was a space system
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 October 2020 10: 44 New
              -5
              The question is, who gave it to the control center ... I don't think it was a space system

              All about the control center here)))
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 11 October 2020 11: 06 New
                +2
                Andryusha Martyanov cannot write about what target designation is, when half a year ago he was asked to give a simplified (for NDT) definition, he merged. He doesn't even understand this word.
                Regarding who Andryusha is

                At the same time, you need to understand that the enemy is working in different directions, an example of which is the frenzied activity of one Russian-speaking American citizen, who at the turn of 2006-2008 literally spammed a lot of paramilitary Runet forums with brightly and emotionally written articles about the confrontation between the USSR Navy and the US Navy in the 70s. x, "Project 60" by Elmo Zumwalt and the supposed strategies of war at sea (incorrect, but "similar to the real ones"), from which it directly followed that the Russian Federation should not even think about aircraft carriers with normal aircraft, but "verticals" are the very ... The citizen “tore the vest” for Russia, while working (according to him) in the Boeing (not bad for a guy from the subordinates of the KGB of the USSR border troops, right? And he got into the Boeing).

                So what? And the fact that since 2018, R&D has been launched on an aircraft with a short takeoff and vertical landing, which is absolutely unnecessary for either the Aerospace Forces or the Navy. Some of the current "second persons" in the highest echelons of power in his youth clearly imbued with the ideas of a distant patriot from America.

                A little later, it turned out that the remote patriot of Russia was actively collecting information about the Zircon anti-ship missile system from open sources, trying to obtain closed data on its predicted effectiveness and the type of guidance system, trying to establish contacts with officers of the Navy (including senior officers), and having operational cover (the phone is tied to an address in a house in Seattle, which does not exist in nature, the number itself is issued to another person "without a biography", to "virtual") and in America he writes book after book about what Russia has already laid with its weapons USA on both shoulder blades, and maintains a bunch of thematic blogs, and at a pace that precludes work for Boeing. Then, apparently, the American military carry these books to sessions of knocking money out of Congress.

                He is not the only one.


                https://topwar.ru/175883-obmanut-putina-kak-otechestvennaja-i-zapadnaja-pressa-ispolzujutsja-dlja-dezinformacii.html#comment-id-10852619

                And more

                Martyanov's intelligence activity has at least one major success, unfortunately, thanks to him, the Americans will be able to put pressure on one of the current senior officers of the Navy, if they deem it necessary. The man inaccurately set himself up at one time, when he was still lower in rank.
                Alas...


                Really one of the top officers now. He gave them a weak hold, but gave them, they can press it.
                I will not give my surname, title and position.

                https://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2245&p=26#p1367583

                It's funny how poor leavened patriots are. They are ready to bow in front of open American agents who are not even shy about admitting that they are part of the American defense "community", that they know top naval officers, work for their military-industrial complex, and so on.

                Amazing. An incredible link of interests.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 11 October 2020 11: 17 New
                  -3
                  It's funny how poor leavened patriots are. They are ready to bow before open American agents who are not even shy about admitting that they are part of the American defense "community"

                  Aha-ahah - as if Timokhin is different, the same as Martyanov)))
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 11 October 2020 11: 35 New
                    +4
                    Timokhin is a citizen of the Russian Federation, born in the Russian Federation (well, in the RSFSR), living in the Russian Federation, liable for military service, after some events he is also not allowed to travel abroad (and not because they are not allowed to leave, but because it is dangerous. But I will not write about THIS ).

                    Timokhin drowns in order to eliminate critical shortcomings in the combat readiness of the RF Armed Forces.

                    Martyanov, was born and lived in the Azerbaijan SSR, he served there, after the collapse of the USSR he emigrated to the United States, he never had Russian citizenship and never tried to get it, he works for the American special services almost openly. In between serious cases, he works to lull the vigilance of the population of the Russian Federation.

                    I have no doubt that you and people like you are much closer to Martyanov, this is even natural to some extent. A kind of circle of betrayal - to become a traitor by virtue of personal stupidity, and then to resist because the cowardly soul does not give to surrender to his own and atone for guilt. You and others like you choose a good path for yourself, you will not say anything ...
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 11 October 2020 12: 07 New
                      -4
                      Timokhin drowns so that critical shortcomings in the combat readiness of the RF Armed Forces were eliminated

                      And because of this, pour only ONE slop into the homeland ...
                      What a convenient cover))) Exactly for the elimination of ALL the shortcomings of the Russian Federation, all our opponents, including Navalny, are drowned, so they are doing everything right, and we who protect the country from attacks
                      to become a traitor by virtue of personal stupidity, and then to resist because the cowardly soul does not give in to surrender to his own and atone for his guilt.

                      means too stupid, if we do not understand that pouring slop on the country is it kosher and monetary?
                      So Timokhin?
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 11 October 2020 13: 06 New
                        +2
                        DO NOT play with a traitor.

                        If I know that the ship has an inoperative air defense system, I will write about it.
                        If I see that my country is in danger, I will write about it.
                        If I see that the money that should be spent on weapons is being stolen, I will write about it.

                        The opinion of American litters does not bother me.
                      2. lucul
                        lucul 11 October 2020 13: 37 New
                        -2
                        DO NOT play with a traitor.

                        If I know that the ship has an inoperative air defense system, I will write about it.
                        If I see that my country is in danger, I will write about it.
                        If I see that the money that should be spent on weapons is being stolen, I will write about it.

                        The opinion of American litters does not bother me.

                        But this is already a chutzpah, in its pure and original form, but as they say - with whom you lead, from that you will gain.
                        If I know that the ship has an inoperative air defense system, I will write about it.

                        For all the time, at VO, there was only one analytical article about the fleet, which fully described the state of affairs.
                        I won't find it now, but from memory, the essence is this - as a war is the continuation of politics by other means, and the navy is a continuation of a trade war by other means. That is, historically - warships were created to protect merchant ships, and fully paid for themselves (as the protection of merchant caravans). And if you do not have your own merchant fleet, then the content of your military fleet (the purpose of which is not clear) will simply fly away into the pipe.
                        It was a very, very good voluminous article, it’s a pity I didn’t bookmark it. The detachment of the army from the capabilities of industry was very well shown by the USSR, which in 1990 had a tank fleet of 60 tanks !!!! Even if we take the price of a tank at $ 000 million, then it comes out to $ 2 billion. Yes, for this money, the USSR could easily build 120 aircraft carriers, and a lot of other ships.
                        And after all, every military man, in his field, wants more, more, more guns, more planes, more tanks, more ships, cartridges, shells, equipment, and everything.
                        But you only have a certain military budget, and you need to distribute it as correctly as possible. Whichever country does it most correctly will have an advantage in the military sphere.
                        But these are all common truths.
                        Regarding Martyanov, I can acquaint you better, he is now a patriot))) Here is his article about Zircon
                        https://m.aftershock.news/?q=node/910749#comments
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 11 October 2020 19: 00 New
                        0
                        Regarding Martyanov, I can acquaint you better, he is now a patriot))) Here is his article about Zircon


                        That is, if an American agent of influence and a spy praises Zircon, then he will become a patriot and can now be trusted? So earlier he also praised "Granita" when "Zircon" was not, and as a result, his owners have compromising evidence on a very high-ranking officer, albeit a weak one.
                        It's time for your brain amputation, citizen.
                        I have been following Martyanov for 15 years, it was you and your little head who discovered something new, but with adults everything is different.

                        And I'll close the topic by repeating:

                        The opinion of American litters does not bother me.


                        Even if they are not on purpose, out of stupidity.
                2. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 11 October 2020 13: 24 New
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Timokhin is a citizen of the Russian Federation, born in the Russian Federation (okay, in the RSFSR), living in the Russian Federation, liable for military service, after some events he is also not allowed to travel abroad


                  .... as well as an amateur counterintelligence agent.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 11 October 2020 13: 30 New
                    +2
                    Sounds funny, yes.
                    But nevertheless - if no one does, do it yourself.
    2. Operator
      Operator 10 October 2020 10: 21 New
      -4
      The radio emission of the Hokai is visible to the RTR satellites from a distance of 36000 km, so the data on the location of the AUG is sent to the enemy in real time.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 11: 13 New
        +8
        Quote: Operator
        The radio emission of the Hokai is visible to the RTR satellites from a distance of 36000 km, so the data on the location of the AUG is sent to the enemy in real time.

        It is necessary to have a bite.
        1. Operator
          Operator 10 October 2020 11: 28 New
          -5
          GKR "Zircon" - a good fuse in the ass to Russophobes bully
    3. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 10 October 2020 20: 05 New
      -3
      Quote: Bez 310
      e.g. control center from satellites
      comes in every few hours, and it becomes outdated in 10-15 minutes


      Perhaps the expectation that the Dagger or Zircon will be in time earlier.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 20 October 2020 08: 52 New
    0
    No, even just locating can be problematic. Satellites in lower orbits cannot observe one site for a long time, and geostationary ones are short-sighted. And everyone has a limited viewing angle.
    The author correctly said that it is impossible to observe the movement of ships in the oceans even for the United States and China, with their gigantic (in our understanding) budgets and production capabilities.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 09: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: Bez 310
    The RF Armed Forces cannot destroy the AVM
    as part of the AUG with conventional weapons.


    And what did we have planned to seriously hit the AUG with non-nuclear weapons?

    I completely agree on the problems with the Central Command and the detachment of forces in the coastal areas.
    1. Avior
      Avior 10 October 2020 22: 18 New
      +3
      No Aug is worth starting a nuclear war.
      Forget, no one will shoot nuclear charges at an aircraft carrier in modern conditions
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 13: 20 New
        +1
        The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the enemy, including the destruction of the AUG, is not nearly a reason for a global nuclear war.
        1. Avior
          Avior 12 October 2020 16: 16 New
          +1
          Yes, but the enemy will silently wipe himself out and will not fire a nuclear charge in response.
          Or even a full-fledged disarming salvo.
          But what about.
  • Nehist
    Nehist 10 October 2020 10: 18 New
    +3
    Well, the author went a little too far with Kuznetsov's assessment. This structure as a drummer should be used by missiles and aviation as an air defense order, which was very logical when we had the RC. It is currently a limited training site.
  • Demagogue
    Demagogue 10 October 2020 08: 08 New
    0
    The article begins for health and ends for peace.

    To detect an aircraft AWACS AUG, you need your own analogue with a minimum detection range. And we don't have it. The latest modifications of the E-2 can operate in covert lpi mode with a loss of range of no more than 10 percent and guide missiles from destroyers. Naturally, it can jam the radars of our AWACS and missiles. According to American doctrine, any means of detecting an enemy near the AUG must be promptly destroyed. That is, the attack on our AWACS will follow earlier than on the American one.

    To even think about attacking the AUG, you need to have a powerful afar complex like the e-7.

    Unpromising in general. The Syrians in the Lebanese tried to attack the Hawaiian. The radar stations of their fighters were completely jammed, as well as communications.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 08: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Demagogue
      The latest modifications of the E-2 can work in covert lpi mode with a loss of range of no more than 10 percent


      Stealth mode works at minimum ranges. Learn materiel. And don't base your knowledge on Wikipedia ...

      direct missiles from destroyers.


      Once again. Hawkeye does not aim rockets. Rockets direct ships using Hawkeye data, in short.

      powerful complex with afar


      To stick the word AFAR in place and out of place is this some kind of spell you have? We have already figured out that you do not understand anything in radar, to put it mildly.

      Well, in short, you can not continue further ...
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 10 October 2020 09: 29 New
        +1
        To stick the word AFAR in place and out of place is this some kind of spell you have? We have already figured out that you do not understand anything in radar, to put it mildly.


        We figured out that you are a member of the tube electronics witness sect. Of course, the whole world is developing radar stations with afar, which are many times more expensive than Doppler and PFAR.

        By lpi you have already disgraced yourself enough, but crave repetition)) will we give you a link on lpi? Or as always?

        I'll chew it up not for you, but for the public: the radar 70x, apg-63, had a peak power of 5 kilowatts, which of course was not fully utilized. It is not the power that decides, but the quality of signal filtering. The f-35 radar with afar has a power of 30 kilowatts and works with many beams. Old "Doppler" and PFAR radars work with one beam. The scanning time differs several times in the end. That is, an aircraft with afar can, as an AWACS, fully scan space. And an airplane with pfar cannot do this in principle. In order for him to detect a target at a long distance, he must receive a vector from a ground radar or AWACS and then scan in a narrow sector to capture the target.

        Hawkeye can direct missiles from destroyers and ensure the destruction of targets beyond the radio horizon. Missiles with a range of up to 400+ km if that.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 10: 48 New
          +3
          Quote: Demagogue
          We figured out that you are a member of the tube electronics witness sect. Of course, the whole world is developing radar stations with afar, which are many times more expensive than Doppler and PFAR.


          We all have already clearly seen, all present here, that you are a faithful follower of the alternative sect "reasonable". I will remind you, the author of articles on the use of UAVs, that in your opuses you managed not to understand either the losses of the parties using the UAVs, or, accordingly, the losses of air defense systems. I laughed for a long time at your "conclusions" when "unexpectedly" it turned out that the Male-class strike UAV was being carried out by more or less modern air defense systems. The mentioned class is generally a purely police-terrorist vehicle. They have nothing to do on the battlefield.
          All this is easily confirmed by information from the Lost Armor and Aviation Security Network sites, which you basically did not even look into, because it destroys your strange little world
          And on the battlefield, including in the NKAO, a completely different type of UAV is driving.

          By lpi you have already disgraced yourself enough, but crave repetition)) will we give you a link on lpi? Or as always?

          You have alternatively reasonable sclerosis, with LPI you already did a cool and enchanting way. Let's repeat it for an encore !!! Such a regime was studied for a very long time in our country, but in reality it works at relatively small distances of no more than 50-60 km. And if, of course, start from the wiki !!! YES wiki-pedia is a storehouse of knowledge. wassat Only it is not written by experts.
          That is, an aircraft with afar can, as an AWACS, fully scan space. And an airplane with pfar cannot do this in principle. In order for him to detect a target at a long distance, he must receive a vector from a ground radar or AWACS and then scan in a narrow sector to capture the target.


          You are now again just enchanting nonsense - only an AWACS aircraft can fully scan in CO mode, and on the same pregnant penguin and even the Su-35, the parameters of the directional diagram and the viewing sector in the horizontal and vertical planes will not allow it.
          And in general, in order to detect the target of a fighter's radar (including on an unmodernized Su-27), it has search modes. See the instructions for using the Su-30K (commercial) on the network.
          And they do not say a vector, but they say to receive target designation.

          And an airplane with pfar cannot do this in principle.

          Of course, maybe this is a radar station with SHAR, maybe, but you habitually went into your pants in public ...

          Quote: Demagogue
          Hawkeye can direct missiles from destroyers and ensure the destruction of targets beyond the radio horizon. Missiles with a range of up to 400+ km if that.


          For a completely illiterate type of you Demagogue I repeat Hokai ZUR does not direct. Using the data of the Hawkeye, the ships issue radio correction commands, which, as I understood from the description, the Hawkeye broadcasts to the missile defense system. However, you need to understand - in this mode, the probability of hitting a missile defense system drops significantly ..

          Another thing is interesting, last time you already stated that you will not communicate with me! Have you washed your trousers and become brave?
          1. Demagogue
            Demagogue 10 October 2020 12: 02 New
            -1
            My dear, why are these streams of empty words meaningless?
            My initial reasons were:
            We do not have AWACS capable of detecting Hawkeye earlier, which means there is no way to seize the initiative. Now, without any lpi, everything is already bad.

            There is nothing to argue here and you start to grind nonsense about lpi. By the way, in the west in 00s, specially with the filing of governments, articles were published that lpi is a myth. To confuse competitor analysts and slow down the development of similar technology. But with people like you we do not need to be brought down. Although you certainly do not know this, we tried to implement lpi on separate samples of the lpi technique. It is clear that without afar it is not very effective.

            And the UAV is not yours at all. Here you would have to cover your beak, but not to uncover it in your mind. It was I who predicted what is happening in Artsakh now. And you muttered: and we are their beech)))
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 16 November 2020 18: 17 New
              -2
              My dear, why are these streams of empty words meaningless?

              The drain is counted inadequate you are ours. There was nothing to argue with you, only to puff up meaningless eyes. And by the way, put on brown pants, you don't need to change them every time

              And the UAV is not yours at all. Here you would have to cover your beak, but not to uncover it in your mind. It was I who predicted what is happening in Artsakh now. And you muttered: and we are their beech)))


              Mumble here exclusively you are alternatively reasonable. I don't know what * Artsakh * is. And the war of 2020 is a classic example of the fundamental hammering of the bolt on the issues of engineering equipment of theater of operations, the organization of military air defense and complete disregard for the control of troops and artillery and, of course, combat training, and the least problem of the Armenians here is the lack of MALE-class devices, it was enough for the Armenians to have marketable quantities UAVs for reconnaissance and control center of the Orbiter / Aileron class tied to the ACS of artillery, and the situation would be different. Bayraktar worked purely in the clear sky, again. Why don't you tell us like that? The beeches never appeared on the stage, Thor (One of the minimum 16) appeared on the scene in recent days, for some reason he was hidden in a box, and 3-5 minutes after the radar antenna was folded down, the Harpy flew there. The Armenians used the Osa air defense system without modernization - who is the doctor to them?
        2. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 10 October 2020 19: 45 New
          -2
          Quote: Demagogue
          The f-35 radar with afar has a power of 30 kilowatts and works with many beams. Old "Doppler" and PFAR radars work with one beam. The scanning time differs several times in the end.


          The range is also reduced.
          1. Avior
            Avior 10 October 2020 22: 23 New
            +2
            No
            Afar rays can be formed with a time division
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 11 October 2020 12: 12 New
              +1
              Then the time is no different.
              1. Avior
                Avior 11 October 2020 22: 51 New
                -1
                Flexibility of application
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 11 October 2020 23: 06 New
                  0
                  It is obvious that APAR generally allows for a more flexible application than PFAR.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 11 October 2020 23: 18 New
                    -1
                    Exactly
                    Including different types of multipath mode
                    Which is possible in PFAR in time division mode, by the way.
          2. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 16 November 2020 18: 19 New
            -1
            Comrade sculpts nonsense - fundamentally not understanding what it is about. Both PFAR and SHAR have their own difficult modes. One early warning mode is worth ...
        3. Ali
          Ali 20 October 2020 04: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Demagogue
          not for you, but for the public I'll chew: radar 70x, apg-63, had a peak power of 5 kilowatts, which of course was not fully utilized completely.

          Demagogueѣ. It had not peak, but impulse power. You need to understand what you are writing about!
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 16 November 2020 18: 20 New
            -1
            Quote: Ali
            You need to understand what you are writing about!


            He's too uh uneducated for that! wassat
    2. lucul
      lucul 10 October 2020 10: 45 New
      -4
      To detect an aircraft AWACS AUG, you need your own analogue with a minimum detection range.

      MiG - 31 sees no worse)))
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 10 October 2020 12: 03 New
        -1
        Better, at 800 km he sees Hawkeye, and at 400 km the ships are "gray".)))
        1. lucul
          lucul 10 October 2020 12: 07 New
          -3
          Better, at 800 km he sees Hawkeye,

          At Hokai radio horizon 350 km)))
          1. Demagogue
            Demagogue 10 October 2020 12: 17 New
            -1
            I meant that the MiG will see. he has pfar, he sees beyond the horizon)) but seriously, 400 plus km for sm6 missiles that Hawkeye can direct does not mean that they will be fired at 400. The stock for catching up.
            1. lucul
              lucul 10 October 2020 12: 22 New
              -7
              But seriously, 400 plus km for sm6 missiles that Hawkeye can direct

              I'll tell you straight - as soon as Hawkeye turns on his radar - it immediately becomes visible on our over-the-horizon radars, with an accuracy of plus or minus 100m. Next is a matter of technology)))
              1. Demagogue
                Demagogue 10 October 2020 12: 39 New
                0
                You immediately specify what kind of technology)) specific modifications, their capabilities. The Syrians in the Lebanese saw the Hawaiians. But the eye sees, and the tooth ... They were crushed by obstacles on the way. To get close to Hokai and shoot down you need low visibility and
                afar. The over-the-horizon radar will not target missiles. We must fly up, grab his radar and shoot. Brls and gsn must overcome the rab.

                I'm not even saying that instead of hockey it is fashionable to find Growler and a pack of fighters.
                1. Ali
                  Ali 20 October 2020 06: 03 New
                  0
                  Quote: Demagogue
                  To get close to Hokai and shoot down you need low visibility and
                  afar.

                  Demagogueѣ. And what is AFAR for? And here, you are probably wrong.
          2. Avior
            Avior 10 October 2020 22: 27 New
            +4
            350 km is the radio horizon
            At this distance, he sees the target on the surface of the earth
            It is correct to talk about the radio visibility range when it comes to air targets.
            For a target at hockey altitude, radio visibility for him is 700 km
          3. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 11 October 2020 11: 14 New
            +1
            Don't you really understand the difference between air target detection and surface target detection?
            The direct radio visibility range from an altitude of 7000 meters on a surface target 15 meters high is 360 km, on an air target at an altitude of 1000 m - already 475, on a scout at an altitude of 12000 - already the same 800.

            Turn on your head already.
            1. lucul
              lucul 11 October 2020 11: 23 New
              -2
              Turn on your head already.

              Ah-ahah - I mean that if Hokai has a radio horizon of 300 km, and this is for 9m, and Hokai does not often climb to such a height, then the MiG-000 "emerged" from behind the Hokai radio horizon, at a low altitude of 31m , at a speed of 100 km / h and launching an R-1000m missile at it with a range of 37 km is guaranteed to hit it. )))
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 12 October 2020 01: 25 New
                0
                From a low altitude, the P-37m range will be much less than the declared 300 km. The density of the atmosphere at sea level will eat up a significant part of the energy, as well as the need to climb 9 km up.
        2. Ali
          Ali 20 October 2020 06: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Demagogue
          Better, at 800 km he sees Hawkeye, and at 400 km the ships are "gray".)))

          Demagogueѣ. You are wrong again. Hockey cannot detect targets for 800 km.
          Maximum detection range AN / APY-9 radar D = 540 km.

          Can you refute? Then reset the link.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 October 2020 01: 23 New
        -1
        This MiG-31 was given to you (at least BM, I hope?). Compare to Irbis Su-35, useful information.
    3. Ali
      Ali 20 October 2020 05: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Demagogue.
      The latest modifications of the E-2 can work in secret lpi mode with a loss of range of no more than 10 percent and direct missiles from destroyers.

      Demagogue. You absolutely do not understand what a noise-like signal is - take a spectrum analyzer and look at the signal parameters.
      How long can you write nonsense about the LPI mode. Demagogue. For people like you:
      LPI mode in terms of detection distances, it has nothing to do with the maximum or working ranges of detection of radar. because it is determined by other parameters (processing of noise-like signals).
      The maximum distance in theory is up to 55 km, in real life less than 50 km. in the complete absence of jamming from the enemy, because this mode is very sensitive to the noise component.
      This distance is on the border of the detection distance of an aircraft operating in LPI by means of optoelectronic target search. For fighters of the last generation, it approaches 60-70 km. for subtle targets in the infrared range.
      This mode is convenient to sneak up to the enemy’s newest aircraft, while remaining invisible. When meeting a plane that has a modern OEC detection. as well as during the operation of electronic warfare systems, all its advantage is reduced to zero.

      Do not write fairy tales from Wikipedia and manufacturers' advertising sites.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 10 October 2020 08: 47 New
    +1

    GPKR "Zircon" is still a mystery and it is impossible to discuss it.

    laughing

    SPKR "Onyx" is too heavy for conventional information security, but the MiG-31 could lift it instead of the "Dagger" if the aviation version turns out to be lighter than the ship one.



    The author can still teach a little bit of materiel on the topic?
    1. snc
      snc 16 November 2020 15: 39 New
      +1
      I would also add:

      This is a Mosquito, and it is even slightly heavier and larger than Onyx.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 16 November 2020 17: 32 New
        -1
        One but. There you need a special bridge for hanging heavy anti-ship missiles on the central pylons.
  • bar
    bar 10 October 2020 09: 01 New
    +1
    10 minutes, during which most of the information security will rise from the deck

    A very optimistic statement.

    IS climb to the maximum available altitude and launch the AMRAAM UR at the moment when Zircon clearly began to descend. If the launch is made from an altitude of more than 12 km, then the missile launcher will accelerate to a speed of 1,4 km / s. This speed, although less than that of the "Zircon", but taking into account the greater maneuverability of AMRAAM, will allow you to intercept the target.

    This is generally at the level of a circus act with aerial acrobats, and with the probability of success around zero.
    I will not recall Mr. Katz, but the article is defeatist as a whole. Unsinkable AUG, led by a victorious and unkillable "hockey". The ultimate weapon. We drain the water ... recourse
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 October 2020 10: 35 New
      -6
      There are no air defense systems in service with foreign aircraft capable of intercepting a hypersonic target at an altitude of 30 km. The same applies to a hypersonic dive target performing a "snake" anti-aircraft maneuver.

      A separate unsolvable task is to intercept a pair of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, equipped with special warheads and performing first-second tactical reception: the leading anti-ship missile system is undermined at the cruise flight level and jamming the AUG air defense radars with the help of EMP, the slave anti-ship missile system unimpeded by striking the AUG.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 October 2020 01: 28 New
        -1
        This is all great, but in this scenario a nuclear war starts / is going on?
        1. Operator
          Operator 12 October 2020 07: 56 New
          0
          And what is the problem of conducting a local nuclear conflict at sea using "clean" two-stage thermonuclear charges (with complete afterburning of unreacted first-stage plutonium by neutrons from the second-stage fusion reaction)?

          At the same time, the enemy in terms of the use of nuclear weapons on our national territory (the transition of the conflict to the global level) will be bound hand and foot by the inevitability of the reciprocal use of nuclear weapons on his national territory.

          Therefore, a local nuclear conflict, limited only by water areas, is quite real and fully beneficial for the Russian Federation, which has an overwhelming superiority in nuclear missile weapons.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 12 October 2020 12: 07 New
            -1
            In the event of a threat (and the beginning) of such a conflict, "superiority" will quickly disappear. And the lack of weapons carriers will affect. Then will you start proposing “limited” strikes on US territory?
            1. Operator
              Operator 12 October 2020 12: 59 New
              0
              What is the lack of nuclear missile weapons for the destruction of all NATO aircraft carriers without exception, together with most of their escorts? laughing
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 12 October 2020 14: 33 New
                -1
                Who will go to destroy the aircraft carriers? Or do you think "one rocket for each, stand in a row?" You understand that there will be powerful opposition (including the use of nuclear weapons) and the loss of carriers (ships, aircraft and nuclear submarines).
                In addition, in the event of such a "limited" conflict, the qualitatively and quantitatively superior US fleet (submarine, in particular) will not be limited in hunting for any warship under our flag (not register them in Cyprus ??). As well as taking all measures to maximize damage to the economy.
                This is a very negative and dangerous scenario for us. Perhaps, first, we should at least get off the “oil needle” (so that the share of hydrocarbon sales in the budget does not exceed 20%)?
                1. Operator
                  Operator 12 October 2020 15: 24 New
                  -2
                  What counteraction is possible when the Zirkons are launched outside the air defense and PLO AUG zone?

                  Let the stub of the US fleet after the sinking of all its aircraft carriers with the majority of the escort and hunt our ships and vessels, and we will deal with a much more pressing matter - the land occupation of Europe and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 12 October 2020 18: 28 New
                    -1
                    and we will deal with a much more pressing matter - the land occupation of Europe and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf.

                    Yes you have Napoleonic plans, I see smile Century for the 19th - just right. "I want a bigger empire."
                    Or Red Alert left a mark on the soul smile
                    Well, how are you going to occupy Germany or France without getting hit by nuclear weapons? Or Britain?
                    About the countries of the Persian Gulf: it may very well be that they will also have nuclear weapons.
                    Here's a stub of the US Navy after sinking all of its aircraft carriers with most of the escort and hunt our ships and vessels

                    The whole plan is based on the wunderwaffe, thanks to which a huge force, which we cannot create an analogue of which in terms of the number of pennants, is easily (probably also without losses) incapacitated.
                    In addition, how to be the most numerous Air Force that will participate in the battles over Europe?
                    And finally: so you want to attack first? And "with little blood and on foreign territory"?
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 12 October 2020 19: 45 New
                      -2
                      Everything is not simple, but very simple - first we will glaze the nuclear weapons, and then we will fill it with "Novichok" (Bonaparte and the 19th century are resting).
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 October 2020 06: 03 New
                        -1
                        first glaze YAO

                        Not receiving 1000 nuclear bullets in return (from the EU)? Our people are eating, not getting used to it?
                        What about the economy? There is no need to sell gas to Europe, are you planning to kill everyone there?
                        Yes you are a maniac negative (Do you even have a family and children?)
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 13 October 2020 09: 04 New
                        -2
                        A la guerre comme a la guerre, which translated means: "This is war, baby" (C).

                        You are definitely "chosen by God" - agreeing in advance to the occupation of our country, such as it is a pity for foreign invaders to glass and poison right in their nests.

                        The strategy of intimidation - have you heard? So this is about us, not about you candidates for Hell.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 October 2020 10: 54 New
                        -1
                        You are definitely "God's chosen one"

                        I won't go down: blue-eyed brown-haired man, 2m tall. Only with IQ (130) and critical thinking order smile
                        type it is a pity for the foreign invaders to glass and poison directly in their nests.

                        Sorry for a little bit of everyone, but first of all for our own. Are they the victims of your "great obsession"?
                        Intimidation strategy - have you heard?

                        Have you heard about responsibility for your people? It was no coincidence that I asked about the presence of a family and children. Greatly improves the mentioned quality. And it relieves too desperate individuals from the thoughts “well, I'll die and die”.
                        and not about you candidates for Hell.

                        And I suppose you believe in Santa Claus too ?? wink
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 10 October 2020 09: 11 New
    -3
    a very interesting article by a professional, it is clear that large surface ships are outdated, that air domination already in the great Patriotic war was more important than surface monsters ... that Russia cannot afford an AUG, and an ACG is useless ... Conclusions, it is necessary to focus on the development of coastal aviation , submarines. To concentrate all surface ships of the first second rank around the bases of the nuclear submarine, to ensure their exit and return. And stop uryapatriotic screams at battleship destroyers, aircraft carriers, and it is better to develop missiles, coastal aviation and submarines for the defense of the country
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2020 13: 48 New
      +1
      Hm ... Vladimir !! You haven't read the article carefully! The author, on the contrary, points out that the process is very complicated !!! Currently unattainable for Russia !!! Nothing
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 10 October 2020 18: 05 New
        -2
        I just read it carefully, for such an important purpose the probability of death is too high, the author is considering a hypothetical option of finding the AUG in the open sea, far from our shores, when approaching the coast, it is destroyed in two counts, The author has not yet considered all the options for strikes on the AUG, for example, several respected participants have already pointed out about the zircon strike ... an aviation duel on the distant approaches to the aug does not necessarily lead to the victory of the aggressor, if there is a lot of aerospace forces and from the shore, then the AB air group will simply be gradually destroyed, which means 12-20 carrier-based aircraft in comparison with coast-based VKS regiments? from the 4th approach of aircraft, there will be no more aircraft on AB, but then AB itself will inevitably be destroyed.
  • Operator
    Operator 10 October 2020 10: 12 New
    -5
    What the hell is it to "open" the AUG, if it illuminates itself with a radio horizon of a thousand kilometers (radio visibility of the direct radiation of the Hokaya radar from an aircraft / UAV RTR)? Moreover, the RTR aircraft / UAV does not need to be stealth, in order to remain invisible from the Hokai, the detection range of which does not exceed 500 km.

    And, damn it, by "accidental" coincidence, the flight range of the Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles is within the specified radio horizon. In this case, the golimy "Hawkeye" will act as an external source of target designation (with switching to homing of the anti-ship missile system at the terminal flight segment). When equipping "Zircons" with a standard warhead weighing 400 kg and with a capacity of 1 MTn, the presence of false targets in the AUG order can be neglected.

    One thing remains unclear - where the author saw the "air defense system AUG" in this situation laughing
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 10 October 2020 13: 49 New
      +2
      Wow !! And what did the Zircons adopt? And riveted at least 500 pieces?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 10 October 2020 18: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      In this case, the golimy "Hawkeye" will act as an external source of target designation (with switching to homing of the anti-ship missile system at the terminal flight segment). When equipping "Zircons" with a standard warhead weighing 400 kg and with a capacity of 1 MTn, the presence of false targets in the AUG order can be neglected.
      everything is correctly noted, a skiff aug when meeting with zircon.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 06: 18 New
        0
        Everyone, the Yankees rushed to disband the AUG, after reading articles and comments on VO smile good
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 October 2020 06: 12 New
      0
      golimy "Hawkeye"

      I suppose the basis for neglect is that we have a large series of superior AWACS aircraft in terms of performance?
      When equipping "Zircons" with a standard warhead weighing 400 kg and with a capacity of 1 MTn, the presence of false targets in the AUG order can be neglected.

      Haven't you heard of the anti-nuclear warrant? Warheads will have to be done 10-20 times more powerful.
      What if they start that way too? How will the Russian Federation react in case of shelling of its group of ships using nuclear weapons?
      Have you read F. Berezin?
  • imobile2008
    imobile2008 10 October 2020 10: 22 New
    -1
    Respect for such articles and authors! Such a general! But our system is different, we take zadnelys as leaders, Rogozin licked his tongue and squinted. Where is he now. The next election is a chance to get rid of. The main thing is to stand on the fact that they would not remove the "objectionable", not to be afraid to go to rallies with iron eggs! I'm going to go to the next meeting, stop sitting on my couch, I've already got all the rot upstairs!
  • iouris
    iouris 10 October 2020 12: 41 New
    0
    The topic is very relevant ... for the last 75 years. Maybe? Maybe. But what is the probability and cost of the issue? It is necessary to break through the air defense of the US territory. Can you imagine: US aircraft carriers without the US?
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 10 October 2020 13: 01 New
    0
    It feels like the article was written by the American military! Lots of inaccuracies! And there are ways that our pilots know! The article was not written by an amateur of a wide profile! List ways to uncover secrets! These methods existed in the 70s-80s, but now new ones have appeared!
  • sifgame
    sifgame 10 October 2020 13: 41 New
    +3
    Well, everything rushed)))) Probably the activity of users on the site fell and the editors threw it on the fan
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 10 October 2020 13: 45 New
    0
    Judging by what the author writes - a more or less sudden attack is practically impossible - and therefore, the AUG has time to prepare, maneuver, use some elements of camouflage, etc. The way out of this impasse is to increase the range and speed of missiles - and, consequently, the mass and price, and cost, and detectability as such. Thus, in my opinion, we come to the classic dead end of the "gun versus armor" dilemma - we increase the cannon, the enemy increases the armor, etc.
    In the case of the enemy, the logic of actions is less costly, because the core of its forces (aircraft carrier) does not need radical modernization to counter this build-up - you can only increase and change the forces of the order. Whereas in our case (the gun) it is necessary to do a lot of work on the rocket every time, expensive tests, relatively small batch batches, despite the fact that as development and implementation, this product may become outdated with respect to new missile defense developments or the increase in network-centric and digital capabilities Missile defense. I am leading to the fact that the very reasoning of how we should split the AUG and what needs to be done for this by classical methods is the path to an increasing, complex waste of resources - both the rocket, and target designation, and the carrier, etc. develop countermeasures for our planned technical research (which in his case will be more economical than our research).
    This is a kind of economic trap, which requires a significant share of resources to be diverted by standard methods to solve the problem, which grows exponentially and never approaches 100% (guaranteed destruction of the target).

    That is, in my opinion, trying to solve the problem of liquidating AUG in this way is most likely ineffective or ineffective.

    The concentration of resources necessary for a more or less adequate% of the destruction of an aircraft carrier in this situation will require disproportionate efforts and time, in comparison with the mobility and quantitative capabilities of the enemy's AUG. Obviously, this will not happen in itself - there will be war and destruction around - and the overexpenditure of resources to defeat part of the task can lead to a shortage of solving the complex - if there is more than one AUG (and it will not be alone, of course).

    My personal conclusion is that I do not pretend to be some kind of serious analytics in this matter, but it seems to me that all of the above suggests that it is time to find a new, more economical and massive approach to the liquidation of an aircraft carrier. The direction for solving this problem may not be super-large-super-missiles with horse costs, but the development of a swarm of underwater-air UAVs and algorithms for their operation, allowing either to inflict damage to the combat capability of the AUG or disable its sensory capabilities. In my opinion, the moment has come for the transition from quality to quantity to solve this problem.
    1. prodi
      prodi 10 October 2020 14: 48 New
      +3
      in my opinion, even if we proceed from a purely "spherical horse in a vacuum" - the fleet against the coast with conventional weapons, the fleet will always lose to the coast; and if we take into account that the only really threatened direction for us is the Pacific Ocean, then the problem generally acquires an exclusively sports character
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 10 October 2020 18: 09 New
      -2
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      AUG has time to prepare, maneuver, use some elements of disguise

      disguise aug at sea? ........
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 10 October 2020 20: 55 New
        -1
        Electronic warfare can be viewed as a disguise
      2. Bez 310
        Bez 310 10 October 2020 21: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        disguise aug at sea? ........

        Exactly!
        The ships on the radar screen are dashes, and a priori it is believed that the most
        the big dash is the AVM. But you can put corner
        reflectors on the supply vessel, and it will "glow" more
        AVM. But this is the simplest trick, there are many other ways to hide
        AVM in the order.
        Once we flew around a group of ships with a strong illumination at night,
        and believed that we were guarding the AVM, and later learned that the AVM was hiding
        in the strait, sending forward a group of NK with CD URO.
        In general, you still do not know a lot about these aircraft carriers ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 11 October 2020 00: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Bez 310
          But you can put corner
          reflectors on the supply vessel, and it will "glow" more
          AVM.

          this is of course a move, but in my opinion disguise is not when someone is better seen than you, but when, for example, you are not visible at all ... for example, a submarine may not be visible at all, not in dashes or circles ... this is a disguise, no matter who before the cruiser or AB drowns, it is important that the group is visible in all ranges and therefore is attacked.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 11 October 2020 07: 11 New
            0
            Amateurism is the scourge of our time ...
            Remember - we do not have the ability to continuously monitor the AUG in the ocean.
            Once I directed the flights of our aircraft for reconnaissance AUG, which all
            lost in the Northwest Pacific. Not so easy to find
            AUG in the ocean ...
            Quote: vladimir1155
            no matter who the cruiser or AB drowns earlier

            It is very important to immediately "drown" the AVM, as
            and we do not have the funds to re-attack. Yes u
            we may not have enough strength for the first attack ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 11 October 2020 07: 59 New
              0
              Quote: Bez 310
              Remember - we do not have the ability to continuously monitor the AUG in the ocean.

              yes it is not necessary, especially in peacetime
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 11 October 2020 08: 05 New
                -1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                yes it is not necessary, especially in peacetime

                I will stop commenting on your statements, sorry ...
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 11 October 2020 08: 04 New
              0
              Quote: Bez 310
              forces
              and we do not have the funds to re-attack. Yes u
              we may not have enough strength for the first attack ...

              That is why I believe that it is necessary to abandon AB, battleship destroyers, and UDC, and to develop coastal aviation, sell Kuzya and order more aircraft and submarine missiles.
              Quote: Bez 310
              AUG everyone
              lost in the Northwest Pacific. Not so easy to find
              AUG in the ocean ...
              Quote: vladimir1155
              no matter who the cruiser or AB drowns earlier

              It is very important to immediately "drown" the AVM, as
              and we do not have the funds to re-attack. Yes u
              we may not have enough strength for the first attack.
              the more difficult is the task of finding a submarine there
  • exo
    exo 10 October 2020 13: 53 New
    +1
    A very simplified understanding of the problem. But what about the electronic warfare aircraft that participate in the ABM AUG?
    Their role is very important. Not a single "Hockey", a missile defense system is under construction.
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 October 2020 13: 59 New
      -3
      How to use electronic warfare to cover the Hawkeye itself, which shines like a Christmas tree for 40000 km?
    2. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 10 October 2020 20: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: exo
      A very simplified understanding of the problem. But what about the electronic warfare aircraft that participate in the ABM AUG?
      Their role is very important. Not a single "Hockey", a missile defense system is under construction.

      When flying an anti-ship missile from above from 30 km on hypersound, electronic warfare will not help)))
      1. Avior
        Avior 10 October 2020 22: 35 New
        +1
        And how will the height help against rab?
        Will the target also swim at an altitude of 30 km?
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 10 October 2020 17: 46 New
    +3
    Well, again 25. Even according to the text of the article - the aircraft carrier compound has no tasks. Against NATO, China's silt is still useless, but against the rest it is redundant.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 10 October 2020 17: 47 New
    +1
    If you look closely, there is no urgency of the problem of combating the American AUG for the European part of our country. In a hypothetical conflict with the Russian Federation, it is unlikely to enter the Black, Baltic and Barents Seas to work along the coast and inland with carrier-based aircraft. But the carriers of the KRBD in its composition in the form of cruisers, destroyers and submarines are much more dangerous. Therefore, I do not understand the obsessive obsession with the priority of the removal of the aircraft carrier in the first place? And if, as a result of the current situation, our cruiser, submarine or a squadron of carriers of any anti-ship missiles manages to fire a salvo of 16-20 missiles and damage (not to mention drown) any units from the AUG, isn't that a success? Another thing is in the Far East, where all the few defense and economic infrastructures are actually located "on beaches and lagoons" ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 October 2020 18: 16 New
      -3
      Well, go to hell with him, with the Far East - in response to an attack in this region with a population of 1 million people, we will glaze Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea with a population of 1 billion people, with the first by inflicting a nuclear missile strike on these regions.

      Do they need it?
    2. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 10 October 2020 19: 59 New
      +1
      I agree with the Far East, but attacks from the North and Mediterranean Seas are being considered from the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleet. YES will work on Barents and Bely.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 10 October 2020 19: 39 New
    +2
    It is possible to increase the probability of the Hokai's destruction if an aircraft missile with a launch range of at least 500 km is developed. You can, for example, use a guided missile (UR) "Dagger".


    Is this serious?
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 10 October 2020 19: 49 New
    +1
    For that kind of money, you can build a full-fledged destroyer, which we do not have even a single one in the project.

    How can you build something that is not in the project, and especially calculate the price?))
    The effectiveness of the air defense AUG is qualitatively superior to that of the air defense KUG. General considerations about the likelihood of hitting a ship by some super-missile are inapplicable here.

    No one argues about the superiority of the air defense AUG. On the rocket, it is not so clear. Neither Aegis nor Hawkeye will provide a meeting point for air defense systems and a maneuvering supersonic target.
    For a successful launch of an anti-ship missile system using AUG, it is necessary to receive a control center immediately before launch.

    This is understandable, no one in the "white light" is going to shoot
    The Tu-142 scout will not be able to provide the control center. The reconnaissance should be conducted by a pair of information security.

    Tu-142 shouldn't, it's anti-submarine. Tu-95RTs could, but I don't know exactly how much is left))
    It will not be possible to launch anti-ship missiles on AUG from ranges less than 500 km.

    And it won't work with the PL?
    Currently, Russia does not have an anti-ship missile of the required range, or a KREP, which would make it possible to hide anti-ship missiles during flight.

    On Granites, Basalts, Volcanoes and, I think, Onyx there are electronic warfare modules
    Only the development of a new concept of group use of information security and anti-ship missiles with mutual exchange of information will allow solving the problem of a breakthrough.

    Here I agree, developing a new one, not forgetting the old one)))
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 10 October 2020 20: 46 New
      0
      Quote: ZEMCH
      Tu-95RTs could, but I don't know exactly how much is left))

      I know that.
      For a long time, more than 20 years ago, all
      Tu-95RTs finished their combat path.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 10 October 2020 21: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: Bez 310
        For a long time, more than 20 years ago, all
        Tu-95RTs finished their combat path.

        Then there is no one from the aviation to give the Central Administration, at least now
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 10 October 2020 21: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: ZEMCH
          Then there is no one from the aviation center to give

          So this is what we are talking about!
          There is no aviation, space is in its infancy, everything
          RCC can only be launched "towards the target."
    2. Avior
      Avior 10 October 2020 22: 40 New
      0
      On granites, basalts and volcanoes there is a development of the 60s of the last century
      With the appropriate capabilities
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 10 October 2020 22: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        On granites, basalts and volcanoes there is a development of the 60s of the last century
        With the appropriate capabilities

        I meant the continuity of decisions. I don't think that this issue has not been resolved on modern missiles, if from the 60s they put
        1. Avior
          Avior 10 October 2020 23: 03 New
          +1
          Rockets as big as granite have not been made for a long time
          Actually, the main enemy of the anti-ship missile system has long been not the enemy's air defense, but his electronic warfare
          And against him, neither his rab, nor an increase in speed will help
          There must be fundamentally new GOS
        2. aagor
          12 October 2020 23: 13 New
          0
          Any source of interference installed directly on the rocket, for the radar or for the RGSN is a radio beacon, that is, it increases the angular guidance accuracy, only group interference from several points can shake the guidance loop. I don’t think there are such funds in modern CDs. Author
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 10 October 2020 21: 48 New
    +1
    The article is very curious, and judging by the stream of conflicting comments, the author's opinion pretty much touched many people interested in this topic. For the article itself, the author is definitely thankful! laughing

    After reading about the problems of the AUG air defense breakthrough, one involuntarily wants to express our proposals too :) And if to break through the AUG air defense completely score on your aviation? Why all these IB and other Tu-160s if their game does little to break through the echeloned defense of the AUG. What if cruise missiles themselves were used directly to ensure a breakthrough?

    Obviously a flock attack is required. Why not include highly specialized specimens in this pack? For example, a jammer. CD with powerful electronic warfare instead of warheads. An example of an air defense system, with several separable short-range missile systems instead of a high-explosive warhead? A copy of additional reconnaissance, with a powerful pulse radar illuminating all targets in the area after a sharp slide of 15-30 km.

    There is a feeling that such a complex attack of drone missiles will be much more effective than attempts to break through the deep defense of the AUG using means of 30-40 years ago. All sorts of information security and other Tu-160 ... Let's look for victory in the war of the 21st century, making the most of the new opportunities presented to us at the wrong time by the information technologies of the 21st century ..
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 10 October 2020 21: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      What if cruise missiles themselves were used directly to ensure a breakthrough?


      They need to somehow be delivered to the launch line. And before that, still find the goal.

      Quote: Saxahorse
      There is a feeling that such a complex attack of drone missiles will be much more effective than attempts to break through the deep defense of the AUG using means of 30-40 years ago.


      RCCs have always been drones. And the attack with air defense saturation was invented 50 years ago.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 11 October 2020 20: 34 New
        0
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        They need to somehow be delivered to the launch line. And before that, still find the goal.

        The target can be detected from the satellite. This is not enough for guidance, but it quite unambiguously sets the search area for the AUG. And you can deliver anti-ship missiles with anything. A nuclear submarine can carry over a hundred cruise missiles with a range of 2.5-3 thousand km. KR can also be disguised in container installations on the type of a civilian ship. The range of the CD allows for a massive strike from afar, from outside the AUG air defense system, with a large margin for maneuvering and searching. The problem is precisely in targeting.

        So I propose to assign additional reconnaissance and target designation to the same CDs that are immediately included in the attack group.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 11 October 2020 20: 37 New
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          A nuclear submarine can carry over a hundred cruise missiles with a range of 2.5-3 thousand km


          Thank you enough.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 October 2020 12: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            Thank you enough.

            154 KR carries the type "Ohio", converted into a SSGN: 22 mines with 7 "Tomahawks" in each.

            But these are pure CDs. How many LRASM anti-ship missiles can be crammed into the former Trident launchers and whether it is possible at all is a question.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 12 October 2020 12: 17 New
              0
              Look at what range the Tomahawk has when launched from a submarine.
    2. Avior
      Avior 11 October 2020 07: 13 New
      +1
      If the aircraft does not find the aircraft carrier at sea, it will return, refuel and try again.
      Unlike pkr, which will not return for a second attempt
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 11 October 2020 20: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Avior
        If the aircraft does not find the aircraft carrier at sea, it will return, refuel and try again.

        She will not return anywhere. They beat up the scouts and that's all. At best, they will mark the boundaries of the AUG air defense zone.

        CD, on the other hand, have a huge range that allows not only to strike from outside the air defense zone, but also to maneuver with the aim of searching for AUG.
        1. Avior
          Avior 11 October 2020 22: 49 New
          0
          What, let the PCR out into the world like a pretty penny, let them look for themselves?
          Something from fiction
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 11 October 2020 23: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Avior
            What, let the PCR out into the world like a pretty penny, let them look for themselves?

            Exactly! They themselves will find, they themselves will kill! Any other, traditional methods is a guaranteed loss of pace with zero result.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 12 October 2020 12: 15 New
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Exactly! They themselves will find, they themselves will kill!

              Yeah ... they will. How Hornet's dive bombers at Midway found an empty spot where the 1st and 2nd DAV should have been. They also flew on preliminary target designation. smile
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 12 October 2020 23: 07 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Yeah ... they will. How Hornet's dive bombers at Midway found an empty spot

                That is why I am writing that additional reconnaissance is definitely needed right during the strike. And the number of CDs performing the tasks of ensuring the strike should be significant.
    3. aagor
      12 October 2020 23: 17 New
      +2
      A series of articles and is calculated on the fact that in the end there is a suitable solution. Each of your proposals has a right to exist, but it must be assessed taking into account economic opportunities and mathematical modeling. Thank you for participating in the discussion. Author
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 10 October 2020 23: 04 New
    0
    The author has got an almost complete algorithm - a script for the computer game "Sea Battle". We urgently need to get a patent.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 13 October 2020 21: 05 New
      0
      Quote: K298rtm
      The author has got an almost complete algorithm - a script for the computer game "Sea Battle". We urgently need to get a patent.

      The author does not know modern trends ...

      What algorithm are you talking about - school naval combat?

      Nothing about network centricity ...
      Nothing about complex systems.

      Some spherical horses in a vacuum ...
      1. K298rtm
        K298rtm 14 October 2020 11: 46 New
        0
        Patriotic education must begin in kindergarten.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • phalanger
    phalanger 11 October 2020 06: 00 New
    +1
    Isn't it easier to break up the infrastructure on which the AUG relies. ports, supply vessels, floating, station. hospitals, bases where weapons are located. it is not the symptoms that need to be treated, but the disease.
    1. aagor
      12 October 2020 23: 18 New
      0
      Will there be enough medicines for such treatment? Author
      1. phalanger
        phalanger 22 October 2020 01: 04 New
        0
        Oh well. people you are here, as I can see, all smart, explain to an amateur. and why seek, no one knows what, no one knows where. unlikely, there are so many directions from which AUG can operate on the territory of the Russian Federation. create in these directions, a kind of nodes, points of resistance, something like mine-artillery positions that were created in the Baltic in WWI and wait. create a layered air defense, missile defense, anti-aircraft defense ... we are ready, and you can try if you want
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 22 October 2020 04: 22 New
          -1
          For the simple reason that AUG will not get to the Baltic too early laughing
          1. phalanger
            phalanger 22 October 2020 04: 47 New
            0
            yes, not about the baltic
            1. Lex_is
              Lex_is 22 October 2020 09: 51 New
              -1
              And nowhere else is what you described and you will not do.

              But, if you do not take what has been said literally, then it is precisely on such ideas that they are fighting.
              This is now called the A2 / AD zone (anti-access and area denial) zone of restriction and denial of access and maneuver.
              Such a zone consists of mobile anti-ship missile and artillery systems located on the coast or islands, powerful air defense systems, ground-based electronic warfare systems, airfields, etc.
              In Russia, such zones are Crimea and Kaliningrad.

              But the creation of such zones is also very difficult, and the enemy is preparing to actively fight with this.
              1. phalanger
                phalanger 22 October 2020 19: 39 New
                0
                Okay. Thanks for the answer.
                However: * What was, will be; and what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. There is something about which they say: "Look, this is new"; but that was already in the centuries before us. *
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 11 October 2020 09: 28 New
    0
    It is possible to increase the likelihood of the Hokai's defeat if an aircraft missile with a launch range of at least 500 km is developed. You can, for example, use a guided missile (UR) "Dagger". Its disadvantage is that its nose cone is narrow and the RGSN cannot be placed in it, but the IR seeker, having the indicated control unit, will provide guidance.

    Bad idea. The author generally imagines the maneuverable capabilities of the Dagger (in comparison with the same RVV-BD), which is OTP, if that. IR GOS has a good chance of being taken away by the LTC.
    The correct option is to increase the range of the air-to-air missile, to make it two-stage, as an option.
    1. aagor
      12 October 2020 23: 20 New
      -1
      A two-stage rocket requires a completely new development and will cost billions of dollars. Hockey is a low-maneuverable target and the Dagger will be able to target it. Author
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 13 October 2020 21: 15 New
        -1
        Quote: aagor
        A two-stage rocket requires a completely new development and will cost billions of dollars. Hockey is a low-maneuverable target and the Dagger will be able to target it. Author


        Hawkeye is a very maneuverable target ...
        Its fuselage is designed for the most severe loads.
        Taking off from the catheter and landing on an aircraft carrier in stormy weather with an air guard.
        Almost flop (fall) onto the deck ...


        And you are going to have it little maneuverable. and, most importantly, an aeroballistic rocket, which flies like a cobblestone at the terminal section ...
        With virtually no controllable surfaces ...

        Yes, the pilot of the Hawaiian just 30 seconds before the impact - will give full throttle and take the helm.
        And in these 30 seconds it will rise to 600-700 meters, the new engines give it a climb rate of 22 meters per second.
        whatever gives not the slightest chance for the Dagger's maneuver ...
        1. aagor
          16 October 2020 08: 15 New
          +1
          Don't confuse hull strength with agility. The rocket will approach Hockey from above, in its maximum viewing angle upwards of only 7 degrees, he will not see the Dagger. Author
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 11 October 2020 11: 05 New
    0
    Something went quiet about the Chinese ballistic missiles as a means of destroying aircraft carriers. Some time ago, even Americans expressed concern about this type of weapon. I wonder what has calmed down - the Chinese are convinced of their futility at the present moment? As once in the USSR? Or is it on the contrary, is it progressing?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Yuri Vasilievich-2
    Yuri Vasilievich-2 13 October 2020 09: 30 New
    +1
    About CU. Let's say we got the exact location of the aircraft carrier itself. Let Zircon go. Judging by the report of the beginning. General headquarters 500 km rocket flew in 4 minutes without any control, like an ordinary blank and it will not be able to be controlled at this speed. During this time, the AUG went at a speed of 30 knots (30 for ease of calculation of sofa experts). We divide 30 knots by 6, we get 5 cables per minute (for "strategists" this is the usual formula for calculating sailors). So in 4 minutes of the rocket flight, the aircraft carrier will move away from the control point 5 x4 = 20 cables is, 2 miles X 1865 = 3 kilometers 730 meters. Tell them you will shoot at the UMC, but for this you need to know at least the course of the maneuvering aircraft carrier. So for a rocket with conventional explosives, the aircraft carrier will be out of reach. This is the first thing. The second has already been said that our KUG will not go to the Atlantic during wartime, it will simply be destroyed in the Barents Sea. Third, a counter sea battle does not make sense. It seems to me that the aircraft carrier will relocate all its aviation to the airfields of NATO countries, and better the Baltic states, Poland. Then why do you need an empty iron box? Is it that the war at sea can be considered to create domination in the areas of interests of the warring states ..
  • Operator
    Operator 13 October 2020 12: 43 New
    -2
    Quote: 3danimal
    I'm sorry for a little bit of everyone, but first of all for my own

    "Katz offers to surrender," is expected.
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 13 October 2020 21: 03 New
    0
    4.3. Direct attack of information security on "Hawkeye"

    Avtar is illiterate ...

    Even the NIF-CA technology - I have never read it ...
  • Alexander Yusupov
    Alexander Yusupov 14 October 2020 00: 10 New
    -1
    And ischo our "pilots" will fly with their hands and feet tied.
    And they will disdain to apply EMP.
    And all kinds of electronic warfare.
    Well it is.
    Schaub u be honest.
    AUG in maximum tension, with all HOCKAYs in the air.
    Arleigh Burke, Arlee Burk Mark purrs his own, radar radar station.
    And ours are relaxed, and connected well, pump them up with vodka even before the heap.
    Like so honest, but in a different way CHEATING.
    /
    Nothing Personal War is not the Olympics or the Caviar of Thrones.
    There are a lot of best practices and tactics for overcoming the AUG, and even Iran can do it.
    AUG is a wonderful tool for Big Politics.
    But in War, an airfield of comparable size with air defense and missile defense is preferable.
    /
    They will slap everything they have, they can even slap them with nuclear weapons, a classic three-way and at least 2-3 rocket flies into the side.
  • Outsider
    Outsider 15 October 2020 05: 34 New
    0
    Quote: lucul
    Are there really people so stupid that in an hour and a half they did not understand that if plane A (geometrically) sees plane B, then plane B (geometrically) sees plane A? Only geometrically, since the radars of these aircraft are incomparable?

    Take a pen and draw a radio horizon 350 km for Hokai, and a radio horizon for the MiG-31 500 km. And look carefully. And also read about the radar (beam) detection angles.

    - A hockey player flying at an altitude of 9000 meters will see a MiG-31 flying at an altitude of 20000 meters at its instrumental range - 580 km.
    "MiG-31BM maximum detection range of air targets increased to 320 km"
  • Outsider
    Outsider 15 October 2020 06: 04 New
    0
    Quote: Serg4545
    Oh.
    So much nonsense in the article. To understand everything, you need to write your own article. I'll try to write in small passages.
    Here the author presented 3 options for solving the Hawaiian problem. But for some reason I did not consider the most obvious one.
    So. It is known that a working radar can be detected at a much greater distance than the detection range of this radar. It is generally believed that the direction finding range of the radar is at least 30% higher than the range of the radar.
    Let's say Hawkeye is flying at an altitude of 9 km. A pair of our planes, equipped with direction finding equipment, are flying towards it, at an altitude of 9 km too.
    In this case, the radio horizon will be 780 km. Hokai's radar sees about 500 km. But our planes will see the operation of the Hokai radar at ranges of 650-700 km. If there is at least 50 km between our planes, then the exact coordinates of Hokai can be determined by the triangulation method.
    This way our planes will find Hawkeye before he sees them. And if they maintain a distance between themselves and the Hokai at 600-700 km, then the Hokai will not know about them, because he will be detected only by passive means. And our planes will transmit data on the location of Hokai in real time.
    Further. Our planes need to fly around Hokai from one side. Let's say we fly around Hawkeye on the right (keeping the required distance). And here two options are possible ...

    - Instrumental range of Hokai - 580 km. One Hawkeye hangs over an aircraft carrier, the other two at 120 degrees move forward in threatened directions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Specifications_(E-2C)
    Service ceiling: 10,600 m
    The radio horizon at this altitude is 360-420 km. You can't come closer undetected.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 15 October 2020 21: 30 New
    0
    "It is impossible to call any ship or anti-ship missile system" the killer of aircraft carriers. "Let's leave this term to the sofa experts." - Adequate approval of the performance characteristics of anti-ship missiles without control center is 30% efficiency or efficiency. AWACS, electronic warfare, and the satellite constellation must be developed in a complex. And the A-50 and modifications in the amount of 8 units per country are not enough. Every fleet needs that amount.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 27 October 2020 19: 16 New
    0
    While there is no target designation in real time, no Zircons will help. We need to start with this, which is expensive but technically feasible.
  • Mikhail Zakharov
    Mikhail Zakharov 20 November 2020 15: 21 New
    0
    AUG withdrawal is invincible