Military Review

The appearance of "Zircon" to the people

448

Successful tests on October 6 of the newest hypersonic anti-ship missile system "Zircon" were actually the first public release of a fundamentally new model of domestic weapons.


Despite the fact that before that the creation of "Zircon" was not only not hidden, but was officially declared (including by the first person of the state), many, both in the Russian Federation and abroad, these statements were considered "advertising" and technically unrealistic.

In the report of the Chief of the General Staff, General of the Army Gerasimov, to the President of the country (on his birthday), for the first time, real numbers and test parameters were sounded. Despite the fact that the shooting was carried out far from the maximum range, these figures have already shaken the foundations of naval tactics, operational art and strategy of war in the seaside theater of operations.


At the same time, it is necessary to objectively understand (the experience of developing previous anti-ship missiles, especially Granit, Vulcan and Meteorite, speaks of this clearly) that there is still work and work to finish the victorious finish, and it is extremely unlikely that this will fit into 10 declared tests and acceptance into service in 2022.

Despite the very large success, the victory of the developers in the tests on October 6, the development of such a super-complex technical system as a hypersonic anti-ship missile system will require a lot of time, resources, nerves (the fact that not everything will be obtained at once is inevitable and normal in such a case).

At the same time, certain conclusions can be drawn already today.

The statement by the chief of the air defense of the ground forces about the destruction of the Antey air defense missile system of a "hypersonic target" passed practically unnoticed during the Army-2020 forum. Despite the fact that the target type was not named, as they say, its options are very few. And this is, of course, no less success than yesterday's tests of "Zircon".

The fact that hypersonic targets (missiles) can be shot down by tactical air defense systems has been convincingly confirmed in practice. With a significant clarification: the domestic air defense system, in which the great potential of the missile defense system was originally laid, and the air defense missile system developed by the Novator design bureau.

For the so-called partners, things are much worse. And the key problem here is the small size of the cell of vertical launch units (VLR), which do not provide for the placement of missile-guided interceptors with the required parameters for reliable destruction of hypersonic targets.


Knockdown. They can make an interceptor missile with the necessary performance characteristics, but it will not fit into the Mk.41 launcher. Ideally, they need to replace all their ships, which is obviously impossible.

Is it possible to defeat the "Zircon" SAM SM-6 "standard" SAM "Aegis" US Navy ships? Yes, it is possible, but with a very low probability and great restrictions on the parameter (and, accordingly, the ability to cover other ships of the order, primarily aircraft carriers). This is for a single anti-ship missile, but it is already obvious that the Zircon salvo can confidently break through any air defense system of the US Navy aircraft carrier group. In the short and medium term, Zircon simply will not have an opponent who could reliably intercept it.

However, everything is much more complicated.

First. The factor of electronic warfare (EW) remains extremely acute, especially taking into account the wide spread of traps fired abroad (active EW stations). It is pertinent to note that such funds, despite the extreme need for them, are not available in the Russian Navy. Initiative industries did not arouse the interest of the relevant structures of the Navy.

Second... The very high speed of the "Zircon" imposes objective physical restrictions on the capabilities of its seeker (GOS).

The complexity of the problem is evidenced by the example of the still Soviet Kh-22 anti-ship missile, which had a very high speed at altitude ("echelon"), but when diving towards the target, it dropped speed in order to preserve the possibility of the seeker in dense layers of the atmosphere through a heated fairing. In this area, she could be amazed not only by the Aegis air defense system, but also by the older Tartars.

Taking into account the very high speed and kinetic energy of the Zircon, it seems unlikely that its speed will decrease to low M numbers in the target area; accordingly, the operation of the seeker under plasma formation conditions is inevitable, which imposes severe restrictions on its characteristics (primarily the capture range and swath) ...

The third. All this sets very high requirements for target designation accuracy, much more stringent than for the previous anti-ship missiles of the Navy. At the same time, it is necessary to objectively understand that target designation issues have always been a problem for the Russian Navy (and the USSR) and have not always been successfully resolved.

This is at a tactical level.

However, there is also an operational one.

The obvious reaction of the enemy to the "Zircon" is to exclude the rapprochement of their valuable targets with its carriers at the range of anti-ship missiles. And here he has a lot of opportunities. The key factor is powerful aviation component, incl. carrier-based aviation. Those. “Zircon” does not “bury an aircraft carrier” (as a number of our media outlets happily began to write), it sharply increases its value and significance for our opponents - as a means of keeping distance and control over the situation to destroy the carriers of “Zircon” (both surface and submarine ) at a safe distance for yourself.

And here the question arises: what about our naval aviation? And it is actually destroyed.

The naval missile carrier (MRA) has been completely destroyed, its last remnants as part of long-range aviation (DA) are practically not engaged in issues of work as part of interspecific groupings with the Navy against enemy ship formations.


These are Aerospace Forces aircraft, they will not be engaged in naval missions

There are several dozen Tu-22M3 left, they are not part of the naval aviation, their crews do not work out naval missions, they do not have modern missile weapons for strikes against surface targets (Onyx). For marine tasks, these machines de facto do not exist.

The advertised Kh-32 is not mass-produced, it has a lot of fatal flaws, and in the presence of the Onyx and Zircon missiles, its existence makes no sense.

But there is no Onyx in aviation either.

Despite the presence of this outstanding missile and its aviation version in the Indian Navy ("Brahmos"), the naval aviation "registered" only light anti-ship missiles with a short range and a warhead such as the Kh-35 and Kh-31.

The Soviet experience has been completely forgotten: despite the large number of ship personnel of the USSR Navy, the total salvo of the MRA and DA was approximately 2 times higher than the total salvo of the ship's personnel in the operational anti-ship missiles (ASM ON). At the end of the 80s of the last century (the peak of the power of the Navy), these figures were approximately 1300 anti-ship missiles ON from aircraft carriers and 600 anti-ship missiles ON from ship carriers (surface ships and submarines). Placing 2/3 of the Navy's strike potential on carriers with excellent operational maneuverability made it possible to massage the strike power in the main direction. From the "Sea Collection": "While providing refueling in the air, the transfer from the north to the Pacific Fleet of the MRA division (40-60 Tu-22M) along the northern route took 42-45 hours."

A comparison involuntarily comes to mind with the transition to Tsushima of Rozhdestvensky's squadron.

The frigate of project 22350 and the APKR of project 885M can theoretically be as good as you like, but they cannot fly through the air, and for enemy aircraft they are targets at the level of only the necessary order of forces to defeat them.


"Ash" has a powerful salvo, but it cannot be quickly thrown where necessary, and it is very difficult to use in conditions of enemy domination at sea

Yes, on the 885 project you can load 32 Onyx or Zircon. But a regiment (24 aircraft) of the same Su-34 can lift 48 Onyx / Zirkons (and in the reloading shock version for a shorter range - 72). This assumption of the author was confirmed by the chief designer of the Su-34, Martirosov R.G. The high operational maneuverability and long range of the Su-34 makes it extremely difficult to organize the air defense of naval formations (especially if the Su-34 interact with the subtle Su-57).


Su-34, with proper modernization, will fully comply with the requirements for the basic attack aircraft of naval aviation and will be able to use the Zircon anti-ship missile system

It is the ignorance of the aviation factor in the development of the Zircon that causes a feeling of bitterness and great fear for the real combat effectiveness of this anti-ship missile. The aviation group, which is essentially a reconnaissance and strike complex, allows for both reconnaissance and high-precision target designation for the most effective use of the Zircon. And it is the planes that should be their main carriers, the main striking force of the Navy.

Do ships need Zircons? Yes, they will be extremely useful. Even a limited number of anti-ship missiles, distributed randomly on carriers with UKSK, becomes a very serious problem for the enemy. A problem that he cannot ignore both in peacetime and in a crisis situation (especially taking into account the very effective tactical reception of ships "tracking with weapons"), and even more so in a war.

But the priority in terms of efficiency still remains with the aircraft.

Despite the great success (of tests), the development of the Zircon will not be objectively completed within the specified time frame (2022), and in this situation, it seems highly advisable to supplement the TTZ and the state contract for the accelerated development of the aviation option.

The mistake of not receiving the Onyx anti-ship missile system by aviation should not be repeated, the Zircon should become a weapon of aircraft too.
Author:
448 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Fungus
    Fungus 12 October 2020 05: 15 New
    -8
    Wait and see. Zircon will be a thunderstorm for aircraft carriers and other ships.
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 12 October 2020 06: 09 New
      28
      A future thunderstorm), the author correctly wrote about the carriers of missiles - there are not many ships (carriers of zircons), respectively, the destruction of each is only a matter of time and the enemy aircraft spent on it. Strange logic of course "above". It seems after the Pacific WWII battles it became clear that aviation was the main force at sea. The USSR was intensively developing this business, but for some reason Russia did not
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 08: 44 New
        17
        Quote: Dangerous
        It seems after the Pacific WWII battles it became clear that aviation was the main force at sea.


        In principle, the command of the fleet does not understand this.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 12 October 2020 09: 57 New
          +4
          Maybe this is understandable to the naval commanders, but civil commanders are sitting over them, who issue money and approve the final decision. But the quality of these bosses is in great doubt.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 11: 47 New
            +6
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            Maybe this is clear to the naval commanders


            This is, in principle, not clear to the naval commanders. Otherwise, there would not have been such enchantingly delusional decisions in terms of MPS (naval underwater weapons), naval aviation, uh, patrol ships and so on.
          2. Cuba
            Cuba Yesterday, 09: 57 New
            0
            If Big Nix happens, the time for making a decision will be in seconds! .... what statements, what are you talking about ??
      2. slm976
        slm976 12 October 2020 09: 18 New
        19
        The author is absolutely right in assessing the need to restore the MRA based on the SU-34, or the edge of the SU-30SM.

        I don't know if it is possible (necessary) to hang on an aircraft of the SU-34 format, "Zircon" (I do not know anything about its dimensions and weight, but I assume that its price will be very high), but the fact that "Onyx" can be friends with the given carrier the Indians have already proved.
        A sufficient number of SU-34s armed with Onyx can become the very mobile reserve that can be transferred to a certain theater of operations in order to quickly compensate for the lack of naval personnel there ...
        Actually, the reconstruction of the MPA, in fact, rests only on finances, since both the carriers and weapons have already been developed and are mass-produced. I don't really understand why practically no movement in this direction is being made ...
        Also, it is absolutely incomprehensible why the active development of a new anti-submarine aircraft (((... this is generally complete absurdity, with an obvious lack of anti-submarine ships ..
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 09: 29 New
          +7
          I don't know if it is possible (necessary) to hang on an aircraft of the SU-34 format, "Zircon" (I do not know anything about its dimensions and weight, but I assume that its price will be very high), but the fact that "Onyx" can be friends with the given carrier the Indians have already proved.


          Zircon is about the same dimensions as Onyx and is similar in mass.
          1. slm976
            slm976 12 October 2020 09: 46 New
            +7
            Zircon is about the same dimensions as Onyx and is similar in mass.


            How, then, does it achieve hypersound? I thought that at least an additional engine was added there .... how is it done in the same dimensions?
            1. Fan-fan
              Fan-fan 12 October 2020 10: 02 New
              0
              So my question is: What is the difference between Zircon and Brahmos? I looked at the pictures of the launch of zircon - one to one as well as the pictures of the launch of Brahmos. Maybe people are being fooled again, maybe it's the same rocket? And rightly so - the ideologists were able to hang such a rocket under the Su, and why can't the Russian Vanya?
              1. timokhin-aa
                12 October 2020 12: 10 New
                +4
                Pay attention to the start. Onyx and Zircon in the video have a completely different algorithm.
              2. MBRSS
                MBRSS 12 October 2020 16: 22 New
                +4
                Or maybe there is no high-explosive warhead at all? If the same dimensions, but increased range and speed, then this can only be achieved by lightening the warhead.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 14 October 2020 07: 04 New
                  0
                  Perhaps the Onyx warhead was lightened by making only the high-altitude flight profile, due to this, the speed and range are higher.
              3. ZEMCH
                ZEMCH 12 October 2020 19: 29 New
                +3
                Quote: Fan-Fan
                The Indians were able to hang such a missile under the Su, and why can't the Russian Vanya?

                We hung it up to the Hindus)))
              4. DOC
                DOC 13 October 2020 11: 43 New
                0
                The fact that "Zircon" is similar to "Onyx" clearly follows that apart from another, but also ramjet engine, our engineers have achieved some kind of breakthrough in terms of fuel, otherwise it would be almost impossible to increase the "energy" of the rocket in the same dimensions. And the new fuel opens up new perspectives for improving Onyx in the future. For example, in terms of increasing the range (rumors about this, by the way, are actively circulating). Since the Zircon in terms of its weight and size characteristics coincides with the Onyx, then both Su-30 and Su-34 will be able to use it after modernization. The latter could possibly carry two missiles. At the same time, aviation itself is a means of reconnaissance and target designation with the help of a combat aircraft can be obtained with the most accurate.
            2. timokhin-aa
              12 October 2020 13: 31 New
              13
              Different engine, different air intake, different fuel, different flight profile (28 km slide with descent on thrust)
              1. slm976
                slm976 12 October 2020 13: 51 New
                0
                Thank you, I already managed to read it in your article on the Look!)) I will think it over and digest it.
              2. Editor
                Editor 12 October 2020 17: 02 New
                +3
                decrease in hypersound? is it at a temperature of over 4000 degrees and the density of the atmosphere ?? :)
                1. timokhin-aa
                  12 October 2020 18: 33 New
                  +3
                  It's not long. Seconds 70-80.
                2. ZEMCH
                  ZEMCH 12 October 2020 19: 32 New
                  +2
                  Yes, VVP has already told some of the secrets, comparing it with Eskimo
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal 14 October 2020 07: 08 New
              -2
              The most important question. And they do not give an answer to it without showing an image of the finished product. Since everything will be clear at once.
              What is the problem. The close aircraft is the American X-51. Which, even in the air launch version, without warheads and seeker, does not fit into the UKSK.
              Where are the long-term tests of scramjet engines, flying laboratories? With such a success, he would be trumpeted to the whole world.
          2. ancient
            ancient 12 October 2020 18: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Zircon is about the same dimensions as Onyx and is similar in mass.

            If so, then there is no question of the suspension on the Su-34, some kind of .. reloading version, .. only 2 missiles and more .. it will be necessary to very carefully calculate the suspension and .. where will the centering go. because the rocket wink then .. under 7 meters long.
          3. 3danimal
            3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 27 New
            0
            Then it does not have a GRVRD - it will not fit into the UKSK cell.
        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 12 October 2020 19: 12 New
          +3
          Quote: slm976
          The author is absolutely right in assessing the need to restore the MRA based on the SU-34, or the edge of the SU-30SM.

          We also need, in addition to MRA, scouts, target designation, electronic warfare aircraft, tankers, submarine helicopters, new submarine aircraft
          Quote: slm976
          Actually, the reconstruction of the MPA, in fact, rests only on finances, since both the carriers and weapons have already been developed and are mass-produced. I do not really understand why there is practically no movement in this direction.

          It rests on the decision makers, the Tu-22M3 was transferred to the DA, today the naval managers do not understand what to do with the MA.
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 12 October 2020 11: 25 New
        -4
        Yes, you can load 885 Onyx or Zircon on the 32 project. But a regiment (24 aircraft) of the same Su-34 can lift 48 Onyx / Zircon

        In order for this statement to be correct, you must first create an airborne Zircon or Onyx. And I think, in the presence of the Dagger, no one will create an aerial version of Zircon. As for Brahmos, I think the Russian Federation will never buy these missiles from India.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 11: 53 New
          +8
          Quote: NEXUS
          or airborne Onyx.

          And what is the fundamental problem in your opinion? We need another kick from the swing to the admirals.

          And I think, in the presence of the Dagger, no one will create an aerial version of Zircon.

          Here's the problem - the Dagger is the Air Force and in the last place it is intended for strikes against naval targets. He's not for that.

          As for Brahmos, I believe the Russian Federation will never buy these missiles from India.

          Bromos is an uh "car kit" of Onyx-commercial made in Russia and sent to India where the Indians collect it and proudly stick their tags.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 14 October 2020 07: 02 New
            0
            turn it is designed to strike at sea targets.

            Iskander air launch. For land targets.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 09: 27 New
              0
              The dagger ARGSN has.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 16 October 2020 02: 56 New
                0
                Ok, where does the information come from and can I link?
            2. Nemchinov Vl
              Nemchinov Vl 15 October 2020 18: 47 New
              +2
              Quote: 3danimal
              Iskander air launch. For land targets.
              I'm afraid that Zircon will later turn out to be (in fact) the same "Iskander", but only "sea launch" ... (!).
        2. slm976
          slm976 12 October 2020 11: 59 New
          +6
          And I think, in the presence of the Dagger, no one will create an aerial version of Zircon. As for Brahmos, I believe the Russian Federation will never buy these missiles from India.


          If my memory serves me, the only carrier of the dagger is the MiG-31, there was also talk about the fact that the TU-22M3 will be equipped with a "Dagger", though I don't remember how it all ended there ... why am I writing this - the number of carriers " Dagger "is very limited and, in the near future, will not be increased .... therefore, as a base strike complex for the MPA, this missile is not suitable.

          I can't say anything about "Zircon", it is still being tested, but Onyx has been around for a long time ...
          Brahmos, as I understand it, is the same Onyx and our specialists married him to the SU-30MKI, so why do you think that we do not have this technology and should be bought?
          For me, the whole point is simply in the inertia of thinking of our naval bureaucratic mechanism - they once chose the X-35 as an aviation anti-ship missile system and are not planning to change anything ...
          1. ancient
            ancient 12 October 2020 18: 12 New
            0
            Quote: slm976
            there was also talk about the fact that the TU-22M3 will be equipped with a "Dagger", though I don't remember how it all ended there ...

            As always ... nothing for now ... and they will probably stop there ... most likely there will be X-32 and X-50 ... I think so bully
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 12 October 2020 13: 05 New
          -1
          Quote: NEXUS
          In order for this statement to be correct, you must first create an airborne Zircon or Onyx.

          I think that this option was already envisaged during the research work - it is hardly as wasteful now as it was in Soviet times.
          Quote: NEXUS
          And I think, in the presence of the Dagger, no one will create an aerial version of Zircon.

          Everything will depend on the "cost of the issue" - the future of these projects is 100% dependent on production and operating costs. But the local naval "theorists" like Klimov and Timokhin do not even know the real costs of development and mass production, that is why one should be skeptical about their conclusions. the issue of ship or aircraft basing will be suspended in the air until they figure out what all this is about.
          Quote: NEXUS
          As for Brahmos, I believe the Russian Federation will never buy these missiles from India.

          No one doubts this - we will never sink to this.
          The unprofessional calculation of the author of the article, who boldly declares:
          But a regiment (24 aircraft) of the same Su-34 can lift 48 Onyx / Zircon

          How, in this case, to organize a cover for the planes if they all carry only Zircon missiles? This means that the entire division must rise so that one regiment, with a flight radius of only 1100 km, and a missile range of about 1000 km (total range of 2100 km) could protect our coast in one oceanic direction from one AUG. Yes, our aviation divisions of the Aerospace Forces will not be enough to cover the directions, if suddenly several aircraft carrier groups begin to patrol near our borders, at distances over 2000 km.
          In general, you sometimes listen to these "specialists" and think where they are so powdered (or they are powdered to us) that they present their Manilovism as the ultimate truth. Or maybe they are pushing specially customized ideas so that people do not understand what we should have in service. It is quite obvious to me that if an air-based Zircon is developed (and I am sure that it was created long ago at the prototype stage), then long-range aviation aircraft should become the main carrier of these missiles, and those from MPA that have a flight range of both at least several thousand kilometers and have the ability to carry several Zircon missiles. For this, the Tu-22M3 would be best suited and this is obvious to any sane person.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 12 October 2020 14: 17 New
            +3
            Quote: ccsr
            How, in this case, to organize a cover for the planes if they all carry only Zircon missiles? This means that the entire division must rise so that one regiment, with a flight radius of only 1100 km, and a missile range of about 1000 km (total range of 2100 km) could protect our coast in one oceanic direction from one AUG. Yes, our aviation divisions of the Aerospace Forces will not be enough to cover the directions, if suddenly several aircraft carrier groups begin to patrol near our borders, at distances over 2000 km.

            It is easier to cover our aircraft than ships, submarines, coastal structures, because we know the time of our attack.
            And if we cannot cover, then we must immediately give up. But for my taste, "it is better, of course, to suffer."
            1. ancient
              ancient 12 October 2020 18: 21 New
              -3
              Quote: SVD68
              Covering our planes is easier than ships

              It's you, dear, very ... got excited ... first of all, we now have support forces, except for air cover, and you have to fight not only with carrier-based aviation wink
              Quote: SVD68
              But for my taste, "it is better, of course, to suffer."

              The only hope is for the submarine fleet, by the way, he was always at the forefront of the first strike, and the aviation ... already ... for finishing off wink
              1. timokhin-aa
                12 October 2020 18: 35 New
                +5
                It was so in the USSR and it was an ERROR. Synchronizing a volley in a real war would not have worked; it was barely pulled out during the exercises.

                The submarine fleet, in order to have a chance of deploying forces, must take out the enemy's NK with sources of low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination.

                And the submarines will not do this themselves, they need aviation. Or NK - "arrows" and reconnaissance and target designation aircraft. But this is more difficult and much more expensive. It's easier to raise an air regiment to strike.
                1. ancient
                  ancient 12 October 2020 22: 00 New
                  +2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Synchronizing a volley in a real war would not have worked; it was barely pulled out during the exercises.

                  Here I will most likely agree, so active REP of the enemy forces for the X-22 missiles with AGSN ... "a huge headache", but ..... there are also missiles with the "head" of the PSI .. although the accuracy of course ... cat wept.
                  Well, at .. "training" or just at "exercises" when the enemy does not expect "it turned out pretty good, but if you also have a .." real "rocket, then that" bites "into the target tightly ... fuck the capture.
                  So the group launch was carried out (according to the SOC) with a maximum delay of 10-15 seconds of the extreme rocket) wink
                  Well, the flight to the daughters of the U-turn to the deployment line itself ... "U-turn .. all of a sudden" .. went like clockwork .. fortunately the navigation means allowed wink
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  The submarine fleet, in order to have a chance of deploying forces, must take out the enemy's NK with sources of low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination.

                  Here, alas ... I'm not strong ... request
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Or NK - "arrows" and reconnaissance and target designation aircraft.

                  We skip this at all ... Tu-95RTs is no longer there ... IL-38 in this role ... "oh .. don't tell my sneakers" lol
                  About the new Su-34M and MR, I can’t say anything ..... universal containers are hung under the belly, then what to do with the PTB .. right under the plane (as on all Su-24M) and, in principle, it turns out, and not a bad radius. ..but how these containers work in practice ... I can't say yet.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  It's easier to raise an air regiment to strike.

                  There may be unjustified large losses and .. the lack of results due to the lack of the necessary funds to fulfill the knowledge base.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    12 October 2020 22: 12 New
                    +1
                    There are no questions about the strike by aviation forces, it was the joint attack of aircraft and submarines that caused doubts, although it was envisaged.

                    There may be unjustified large losses and .. the lack of results due to the lack of the necessary funds to fulfill the knowledge base.


                    Either way or not. Boats will not be able to get out without this, the illumination makes it possible to detect secondary radiation from their hulls and enemy submarines too. And I'm very interested from what distance.
                    As if not from a five-digit.
                    1. ancient
                      ancient 12 October 2020 23: 01 New
                      +2
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      it was the joint attack of aircraft and submarines that caused doubts, although it was envisaged.

                      Yes, here ... "one headache", it's like airplanes, but of different stripes and with different missiles, which are all different flight characteristics ... try .. "keep track of" crying and if the AUG starts to maneuver at this time, i.e. change course ... easy belay wassat ... but then there is the "Fleet", they usually "rule", give the command to take off ... we take off, get together and stamp .. "according to plan" and then ... ..for an hour like that .... by 1,5-2 ... or even more .... at least shoot right away belay fool
                    2. 3danimal
                      3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 34 New
                      0
                      Either way or not.

                      Well, we will train new pilots in a couple of months - there are enough people (for now). But industry is by no means setting records. How fast will the loss be restored? Or a blitzkrieg?
                      One more point: after the attack on the US Navy, economically, they will try to create the most difficult conditions. There will definitely be a noticeable fall in income, with an increase in expenses.
            2. ccsr
              ccsr 12 October 2020 18: 28 New
              +5
              Quote: SVD68
              It is easier to cover our aircraft than ships, submarines, coastal structures, because we know the time of our attack.

              Why should we contain this armada, if we have something to hit on the territory of the United States, without even bothering with all of them AUG? In an extreme case, it is cheaper to have several long-range aircraft in order to send them to the intended area of ​​arrival of American warships during a threatened period, and at the same time not enter the zone of the ship's air defense.
              Quote: SVD68
              And if we cannot cover, then we must immediately give up.

              Why surrender, if our strategic nuclear forces are sharpened for the destruction of the territory of our main enemy in any case? They know about this, and for us this is better than any ship or airborne Zircons - Daggers, because our ability to destroy some local groupings of American troops is nothing in the face of their fear of receiving a full-fledged nuclear strike on the continental United States.
              1. ancient
                ancient 12 October 2020 22: 09 New
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                send them to the expected area of ​​arrival of American warships, and at the same time do not enter the ship's air defense zone.

                In my time, for the performance of such a task - the detection and opening of the AUG ... military awards were handed out .... it is very, very difficult ... to detect the AUG only based on the intended area
                finding her or entering the area sad
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 13 October 2020 10: 52 New
                  +3
                  Quote: ancient
                  In my time, for the performance of such a task - the detection and opening of the AUG ... military awards were presented ...

                  It was a long time ago, and now, as far as I understand, it is no longer possible to hide the presence of such an AUG in the ocean, even with our reduced orbital grouping. I don’t know what problems are now, but all ships with missile armament on board, even with medium and short-range missiles in the North and Baltic Seas in the eighties, were tracked and given out to the ground from the GSVG their exact coordinates - it seems like there were no problems with this. And now to organize operational support for their movement according to my naval intelligence forces - at least I see no reason not to do this.
                  1. ancient
                    ancient 13 October 2020 12: 39 New
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    I don't know what problems are now

                    Almost the same ... consider Liana replaced by "zagorizontniki" and that's it .. but they, that Liana. For a detailed control center, well, no way ... from the word ... absolutely recourse
                    Quote: ccsr
                    And now to organize operational support for their movement according to my naval intelligence forces - at least I see no reason not to do this.

                    I agree ... there is no reason not to do ... it remains ... to do bully
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 13 October 2020 12: 59 New
                      +1
                      Quote: ancient
                      Almost the same ... consider Liana replaced by "zagorizontniki" and that's it .. but they, that Liana. For a detailed control center, well, no way ... from the word ... absolutely

                      Where did the ground units of the naval osnaz go? Or have they all drunk away like a sailor those socks?
                      And besides the Liana, as far as I know, the naval ones also work with other reconnaissance systems. They even come to congratulate on anniversaries:
              2. SVD68
                SVD68 13 October 2020 06: 11 New
                +2
                Quote: ccsr
                nothing in front of their fear of getting a full-fledged nuclear strike on the continental United States

                Are you in favor of the first nuclear strike against the United States?
                Will you decide on it if the USA seizes Kamchatka?
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 13 October 2020 11: 01 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SVD68

                  Are you in favor of the first nuclear strike against the United States?

                  We were taught to be ready for this and demanded to reveal in advance their preparation for a nuclear attack - you just do not know the realities of those days. If we had not planned this then, we would have had to do with a satellite missile attack warning system (SPRN) - this would be quite enough to have time to strike the SNF duty officers.
                  Quote: SVD68
                  Will you decide on it if the USA seizes Kamchatka?

                  It will be bad if our rulers do not decide on this - then the Americans will be sure that in a crisis situation we will not destroy them, and then the world will definitely collapse, because they will lose their fear of us. And we are the only country in the world whom they are afraid of, and only their animal fear of us stops them from using tactical nuclear weapons against other countries. this has been part of their plans since the fifties.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 14 October 2020 07: 00 New
                    -1
                    you just don't know the realities of those days.

                    Do you remember from Grebenshchikov: “according to the latest intelligence data, we fought with ourselves”?
                    The Bolsheviks who seized power in the Russian Federation during the Civil War raved about the idea of ​​"repeat" in most of the world. They are ready to burn any necessary number of people who were told horror stories about terrible imperialists striving at all costs to strangle a peaceful state led by the Communist Party and the wisest (etc.) leader. And since they are so bad, you have to be ready for anything if the party says.
                    The first half of the 90s, everything is lying, there is help. Instead of the attack, which the party taught, is inevitable. Here then it would be necessary to think: what if they told me a lie?
                    1. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 15 October 2020 19: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      Do you remember from Grebenshchikov: “according to the latest intelligence data, we fought with ourselves”?
                      pop singer, even with good songs, but in terms of defending the Motherland, he is not an example (!)..
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 16 October 2020 03: 07 New
                        0
                        Do not forget: at the time of this writing - a socialist fatherland, led by the wise CPSU.
                        That came as a result of the seizure of power and the Civil War.
                2. Gary zucker
                  Gary zucker 13 October 2020 12: 00 New
                  0
                  Actually, Putin periodically gives out phrases such as “we will go straight to heaven, and they will not even have time to repent” and “why do we need a world in which there will be no Russia”, so that there is no doubt about it. So that everyone understands that light and heat will be delivered to partners in unlimited quantities under such circumstances.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 14 October 2020 06: 48 New
                    -3
                    Putin says that he does not care about the citizens of the Russian Federation, for whom he has only "paradise" (a fairy tale), and for himself and his entourage - comfortable bunkers.
          2. ancient
            ancient 12 October 2020 18: 17 New
            -2
            Quote: ccsr
            In general, you sometimes listen to these "specialists" and think where they are so powdered (or they are powdered to us) that they present their manilovism as the ultimate truth.

            On this I completely agree with you drinks
            Quote: ccsr
            For this, the Tu-22M3 would be best suited and this is obvious to any sane person.

            And here ... in principle, it may be possible and even possible to hang 3 and the range will be reduced ... not very great ... that's just ... will the Tu-22M3 survive to the forgiveness of this bright thought ... I am deeply thinking ... ...
            How long does it take to "fasten" the X-3 to the M32M and ...... now they are trying to use the simple Tu-22M3 recourse
            Sadly ....
        4. ancient
          ancient 12 October 2020 18: 11 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          And I think, in the presence of the Dagger, no one will create an aerial version of Zircon.

          Andrey, for sure, they will ... because it is much faster to deliver it by air carrier than by surface. wink ... well, we have underwater ... "it will not be enough" (in the foreseeable future) ... "there will not be enough for everyone" wink
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 12 October 2020 18: 47 New
            +2
            Quote: ancient
            Andrey, they will surely be ... since it is much faster to deliver it by air carrier,

            Friend, why don't you consider a cheaper option (I think so) as MODERNIZATION of the Dagger, and its optimization in overall characteristics? For me, it's cheaper to upgrade the Dagger than to trick the airborne Zircon.
            In addition, it has already been announced that the 22nd, 160th, and even 34th will be equipped with Daggers in the future.
            1. ancient
              ancient 12 October 2020 21: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Friend, why don't you consider a cheaper option (I think so) as MODERNIZATION of the Dagger, and its optimization in overall characteristics?

              Because Andrey, dear you are my friend .... NK-22 and NK-25 engines are distinguished by their "superb" appetite lol ... you will accelerate to the MFR and .... fly back, well, or fly there ... will not be enough, plus the ceiling he has ... but the MFR is rather weak, because you have to climb "higher" with weights under 1105-110 tons recourse
              Quote: NEXUS
              In addition, it has already been announced that the 22nd, 160th, and even 34th will be equipped with Daggers in the future.

              That's all .. "Borisov" fairy tales ... and .. "Wishlist" like "intellectual M3M2 and even with engines NK-45 lol
              About the Su-34, this is the same story and problem as on the Tu-22M3 ... the tactical range is drastically reduced ... but for the Zircon, such a high-speed mode is not needed ... it can fly even from 0 wink
              And for Tu-160 .. in my opinion, two "drums" with "Zircons" are better wink
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 12 October 2020 23: 37 New
                +1
                Quote: ancient
                Because Andrey, dear you are my friend .... NK-22 and NK-25 engines are distinguished by their "superb" appetite

                Friend, have you already canceled the air refueling? lol
                Quote: ancient
                And for Tu-160 .. in my opinion, two "drums" with "Zircons" are better

                It would be nice, my dear friend ... but only with our optimizations, I'm afraid the donkey will die before we go crazy with such a miracle in hardware and in the troops. wink
                1. ancient
                  ancient 13 October 2020 12: 44 New
                  +1
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Friend, have you already canceled the air refueling?

                  But as they removed the DA-78 from the KBP ... they still didn't ... introduced wink
                  On the Tu-160 ... the same ... so I think wink
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 38 New
              0
              They will be equipped with daggers for striking ground targets. Provides noticeable tactical flexibility.
              But the ARL of the seeker is a problem to put on him, and she will have very little time to work, with a limited ability to maneuver in the final section of the trajectory.
        5. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 12 October 2020 19: 26 New
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          As for Brahmos, I believe the Russian Federation will never buy these missiles from India.

          PJ-10 "BrahMos" (PJ-10 "BrahMos") is a supersonic anti-ship missile developed jointly by JSC MIC NPO Mashinostroyenia and the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) of the Indian Ministry of Defense. The rocket is based on the P-800 Onyx (more precisely, on its export version - Yakhont)
          The assembly of the missiles is carried out by the BrahMos Aerospace SB in Hyderabad and OAO PO Strela in Orenburg.
      4. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 12 October 2020 16: 07 New
        +5
        Damn, I like these arguments. Beautiful, correct, accurate, but for some reason they think that neither we nor the enemy have nuclear weapons. Introduce this postulate into your own discourse and you will get an idea of ​​what the Navy is doing and why. Let's argue. 1) Does our country also have the capabilities and resources to rebuild and equip the fleet and aviation, comparable in NON-NUCLEAR strike power and combat stability with the combined potential of the fleets and aviation of the NATO bloc? With the difference in military budgets 50 times and not in our favor. No, there is no such possibility. When we tried to go this way, it all ended sadly. 2) Is there any sense in doing this? Our military doctrine clearly defines the criteria for using nuclear weapons. An attack on our country with its use, or an attack that threatens the existence of the state. But we have it. The "partners" have adopted a completely different doctrine, and starting to lose even locally, they will immediately use tactical nuclear weapons to rectify the situation. Escalation for de-escalation, as they seem to call it. That is, even if we, having spent a hrenolliard of money, rebuild, for example, 3 dozen large ships in the far zone, and 20 regiments of naval long-range aviation, and in the event of some kind of conflict, by means of a massive attack, for example, we will sink a US aircraft carrier, then wait for a visit in a couple minutes 20-50 nuclear missiles. And you still have to answer, it's still a nuclear war, and on it at least one missile to the object, at least 150, does not really matter. So why waste colossal resources in pursuit of non-nuclear parity? 3) Let's imagine a real nuclear war today. What are the sides? Nuclear weapons, both carriers and warheads, are equally quantitatively. But our missiles are generally a generation newer, and now we are gradually starting to overtake by 2. There are problems in the naval part, the mace flies strangely, but they never really relied on it, the basis is all the same PGRK and mines. And here we have a very serious advantage precisely due to generations. Our missiles of the last two generations were created specifically as a means of overcoming missile defense, and the American ones are rather old examples of the era when the ABM treaty made expensive breakthrough systems unnecessary. Further - KR. The enemy has more of them, much more, but they are not equipped with strategic nuclear weapons and you cannot do it quickly on your knees. And our latest developments are in no way inferior to the same axes, and how many of them have already been riveted by one military man knows. Further, the missile defense itself. The Americans built most of it on the naval component. I would like to understand how it will help them when starting across the pole from the European part and from beyond the Urals. A stationary missile defense system protects one base for them, there are practically no vaunted TAADs in the states themselves, more and more in bases around the world. We have the latest C300 modifications and the C400 are stuck literally everywhere. And to tell that this is purely air defense is possible only in kindergarten. Of course, we will miss a certain number of strikes, but the ratio of air defense / missile defense missiles to American warheads is more than 10 to 1. I think this is the calculation. Hence the simple question - what will all these big and terrible AUGs, berks, submarines and other American fleet do when they find on our shores, albeit damaged, but a zone of access denial, and on the site of their own supply bases the Stalin Strait? I do not claim that it will be so, but such an analysis is still a little closer to reality than attempts to compare our and American fleets by the weight of a conventional salvo, which no one will ever do. It is foolish to talk about comparing the non-nuclear potential of nuclear powers. At best, it is very minor; at worst, it doesn't matter at all.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 12 October 2020 16: 32 New
          -1
          It is foolish to talk about comparing the non-nuclear potential of nuclear powers.

          A simple example is Syria. How are we fighting there? Nuclear weapons? Was Georgia "forced to peace" with nuclear weapons too? Therefore, it is stupid to rely only on nuclear weapons.
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 12 October 2020 17: 07 New
            +6
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            A simple example is Syria. How are we fighting there? Nuclear weapons? Was Georgia "forced to peace" with nuclear weapons too? Therefore, it is stupid to rely only on nuclear weapons.

            And why do warriors in third world countries need hypersonic missiles? Or large numbers of naval aviation? Or the Premier League? All that is discussed in the article? As practice shows, we are quite successful in operating in such countries and without involving these systems, which is logical. So the argument is off topic.
            1. ancient
              ancient 12 October 2020 18: 27 New
              -7
              Quote: oleg123219307
              As practice shows, we are quite successful in operating in such countries and without involving these systems, which is logical

              So yes .. that's just ... is it successful ..... not too many losses .. for a war with third countries? recourse
              1. Oleg123219307
                Oleg123219307 12 October 2020 18: 51 New
                +6
                Quote: ancient
                So yes .. that's just ... is it successful ..... not too many losses .. for a war with third countries?

                Well, if, instead of saving the nerves of the international community, our command would take care of its own soldiers, then the enemy's losses would be ten times higher, and we would not have them at all. For some reason, the Americans could afford to bomb Raqqa to zero, but we were polite in Aleppo. Likewise, in 2008. If we inflicted massive strikes on all bases, air defenses, warehouses, infrastructure, they would kill many Georgians, but they would not lose anyone. But even without this, judging by the figures of the ratio of combat losses, they are already 1 in 10000 approximately ...
                1. ancient
                  ancient 12 October 2020 21: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: oleg123219307
                  Well, if, instead of saving the nerves of the international community, our command would take care of its own soldiers, then the enemy's losses would be ten times higher, and we would not have them at all.

                  Well, actually ... fellow like-minded people still appeared in our "shelf" drinks
          2. ancient
            ancient 12 October 2020 18: 25 New
            0
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            A simple example is Syria. How are we fighting there?

            Well, the conflict in Syria ... in truth, it can not be called a real war ... the enemy has, roughly speaking, only weapons ... wink
        2. ancient
          ancient 12 October 2020 18: 23 New
          -1
          Quote: oleg123219307
          Damn, I like this reasoning

          And I, in principle, liked your thoughts drinks .. not all of course, but still + wink
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 12 October 2020 18: 34 New
          +7
          Quote: oleg123219307
          It is foolish to talk about comparing the non-nuclear potential of nuclear powers. At best, it is very minor, at worst it doesn't matter at all. And I do not think that there are fools in our general staff who are head and shoulders above in the ability to assess threats to commentators from the military.

          You absolutely correctly understand the situation, and I agree with your conclusions. But do not think that all local "military analysts" will agree with you - now they will start teaching you wisdom using the examples of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia, Syria and other garbage that has nothing to do with our strategic confrontation.
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 12 October 2020 18: 58 New
            +3
            Quote: ccsr
            But do not think that all local "military analysts" will agree with you - now they will start teaching you wisdom using the examples of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia, Syria and other garbage that has nothing to do with our strategic confrontation.

            I was here the other day already convinced how we forever lagged behind the "revolutionary" Turkish bairaktars ... And all my attempts to convince people that we and the states and China use drones very limitedly, not due to technological backwardness from such military giants technologies like Turkey or Iran, and due to the fact that this is the day before yesterday of our technologies, the methods of dealing with which are so polished by both sides that in a strategic sense it is just a waste of money, only led to the fact that I was dubbed "a blinkered old senile who does not understand the principles of work and the implications of modern technology ". For a 27 year old programmer specializing in artificial intelligence development, this is almost a compliment :-)
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 12 October 2020 20: 16 New
              +4
              Quote: oleg123219307
              and due to the fact that this is the day before yesterday of our technologies, the methods of dealing with which are so polished by both sides that in a strategic sense it is just a waste of money, they only led to the fact that I was dubbed "a blinkered old senile who does not understand the principles of work and the meaning of modern technologies."

              I am just one of those about whom you can say that he is a "blinkered old senile" if you compare the ages, but the funny thing is that already in Soviet times we perfectly understood all the nonsense that some great military leaders spread that we must be prepared for two wars, and this was the basis for our military doctrine. As a result, they were left without pants, the country collapsed, and the current mitrofanushki still do not want to learn from the past, so they roam here like Timokhin and Klimov, and many people inexperienced in military affairs believe in stupidity, which they utter with an intelligent air. As for programming and AI, I will only note that in Soviet times the Dozor system was developed in the GRU General Staff, which of course was not perfect, but already forty years ago we were able to automate the process of processing intelligence information received from various sources in real time scale, which made it possible to reliably determine the preparation of our enemy to deliver a nuclear strike. Proceeding from this, it was possible to make an operational decision on a retaliatory nuclear strike even before the first US missiles began to leave the launchers, i.e. we already then assumed to deliver a nuclear strike, not bothering much with what the orbital missile attack warning system would give us. I don’t think that now our ideas about delivering such a preemptive strike are deleted from the plans of our General Staff - this is the guarantee of our security.
              1. Oleg123219307
                Oleg123219307 12 October 2020 20: 29 New
                +5
                In terms of AI, I am a civilian developer, but I have friends among my military colleagues, and based on their stories, we can say that everything is not bad at all in this area. We are lagging behind in the element base, but our software and mathematical apparatus is qualitatively different, and much more efficient than in Western counterparts. They, as always, break through the wall with their heads, relying on available and cheap power, and our guys, not having such an opportunity, are forced to work with their heads. The results are sometimes amazing. As for the situation as a whole, in my amateurish opinion, it seems that now the military has everything in its head in terms of building defense. For everything that I see says about building a defense against NATO, and built not only on deterrence, but also on the ability to win due to technological superiority in strategic weapons and defense against them. A very correct position in my opinion, because I am not sure that the guys from the States, especially those who work for Biden, will not try to take risks. They are very bad in the economy, and this virus finished off what little Trump was trying to do. As a result, they will have to decide in the next year or two - a default, a dozen small wars, or one big one. And judging by the dynamics of the development of relations, and the total representation of us in the West as the main threat, I'm afraid that they have already decided everything for themselves ...
              2. Operator
                Operator 12 October 2020 20: 38 New
                -1
                Formally, a strike at the appointed time (in translation from administrative into Russian - preventive) is not planned by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia due to the presence of an official document - the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which provides only for a retaliatory strike. In Soviet times, it was much easier with this - the leadership of the USSR limited itself only to oral declarations about the inadmissibility of a first strike with nuclear weapons.

                On the other hand, the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation provides for a nuclear strike in response to the use of conventional weapons (in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of the country, etc.), therefore, the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, unlike the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, in these cases does not even need information on the preparation of a nuclear strike against our country.

                And this is deeply correct - while dominating in the field of nuclear missiles, it would be foolish of us to waste such a precious resource as our people.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 13 October 2020 11: 31 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  Formally, a strike at the appointed time (in translation from administrative into Russian - preventive) is not planned by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia due to the presence of an official document - the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which provides only a retaliatory strike.

                  At one time, I experienced many different "peace-loving initiatives", starting with Brezhnev, but as far as I remember, each time we more and more prepared for a fleeting war, where the main thing was to have time to "pull the trigger" before the enemy. And now, so that politicians do not weave, this principle will not disappear from our confrontation with the United States, so that they do not write in the Military Doctrine for housewives.
                  Quote: Operator
                  On the other hand, the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation provides for a nuclear strike in response to the use of conventional weapons (in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of the country, etc.), therefore, the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, unlike the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, in these cases does not even need information on the preparation of a nuclear strike against our country.

                  It is from this that our decision on the operational use of nuclear weapons will be built - it just won't take time to figure out what was used against us.
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 44 New
          -2
          Another man hoping to win a nuclear war ...
          Let me remind you that the S-400 is not designed to intercept ICBM warheads. All the more so - the S-300 (no matter how much you want).
          Another important point: our territory is extremely unevenly populated. If you look from this position, then it is not so great. And the losses in people will be very large. And from the other side, the allies will also join. (Remind me, do we have at least some?)
          So the plans are strange. And what is the purpose in general? Are they going to attack us tomorrow (in a year)?
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 08: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: 3danimal
            Another man hoping to win a nuclear war ...
            Let me remind you that the S-400 is not designed to intercept ICBM warheads. All the more so - the S-300 (no matter how much you want).
            Another important point: our territory is extremely unevenly populated. If you look from this position, then it is not so great. And the losses in people will be very large. And from the other side, the allies will also join. (Remind me, do we have at least some?)
            So the plans are strange. And what is the purpose in general? Are they going to attack us tomorrow (in a year)?

            Of course not. Their main target is corn workers. Exclusively corn growers. I do not care that the performance characteristics of missiles and radars this allows, I do not care that the number of missiles greatly exceeds ALL NATO aviation quantitatively, and this, with a probability of 0.8 for any type of aerodynamic target, do not care that objects in the interior of the country are covered, where it is pointless to keep a powerful air defense in peacetime , and here's a miracle, these are basically the same objects that would have cost to cover the missile defense, do not care that the performance characteristics of the Russian language indicate the possibility of intercepting ballistic targets ... No, just maize. Wikipedia will not deceive, since they said not missile defense, it means not missile defense, you can not develop missiles with breakthrough systems ;-) About the second part. Our territory is much larger, population and urbanization are much lower, as well as the dependence of survival on the availability of water in the mains and electricity in the outlet. And the key indicator here is the level of urbanization. You can't get enough rockets for every village. Not to mention the fact that 90% of our agriculture relies on natural reclamation, and what about the "partners" with this? No, when exchanging an equal number of punches, they will be much worse. As for the allies, Europe will think a little not up to them. Somehow at your leisure, compare at least the armored vehicles of the RF Armed Forces and NATO troops in Europe ... The guys will have something to do. As for the rest, I will not believe that our narrow-eyed neighbors will miss SUCH a chance to pick up territory and technologies ... The scenario that I described is possible, the main thing is to prevent massive attacks on their territory. That before that they are going to attack us or not - my subjective opinion - yes they are going. If you want to write, I will give my opinion and reasoning.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 13 October 2020 08: 45 New
              -1
              Of course not. Their main target is corn workers. Exclusively corn growers. I do not care that the performance characteristics of missiles and radars this allows, I do not care that the number of missiles greatly exceeds ALL NATO aviation quantitatively, and this, with a probability of 0.8 for any type of aerodynamic target, do not care that objects in the interior of the country are covered, where it is pointless to keep a powerful air defense in peacetime , and here's a miracle, these are basically the same objects that would have cost to cover the missile defense, do not care that the performance characteristics of the Russian language indicate the possibility of intercepting ballistic targets ... No, just maize.

              Eck you broke up.
              Clung to the word ballistic. And the radius of interception of these targets saw how different? Further: the speed of the BRMD, MRBM and ICBM are "slightly" different. In particular, the latter's warheads fly in the region of 5 km / s. There is no SM-3 analogue missile in the mentioned air defense systems.
              Modern aviation can be intercepted, who argues. But where did you get the idea that all these planes will fly in a continuous stream past the air defense? Moreover, with interruptions, so that they have time to recharge. Without attacking the PRR or using cunning tactics (not chivalrously ??). Was it that hard to understand?
              population and urbanization are much lower, as is the dependence of survival on the availability of water in the mains and electricity in the socket. And the key indicator here is the level of urbanization.

              Once again: look at our population density map. Nobody will hit the villages. Most are half empty. And residents went to large cities. At least half of the population lives in millionaires.
              No, when exchanging an equal number of punches, they will be much worse.

              Most of the population lives in villages and small towns, all of which are evenly settled. And we have? Many people can die, but there are 2 times more of them.
              There is a possibility that they will be able to destroy part of the SSBNs: on patrol, using superiority in modern submarines or "at the pier", if our strategists are recklessly gathering there.
              Somehow at your leisure, compare at least the armored vehicles of the RF Armed Forces and NATO troops in Europe ... The guys will have something to do.

              After the burned down industrial and administrative centers, military bases, the army ... will be too badly shabby. To fight seriously on land, one must have a powerful industry. Where is she now? And in the mentioned scenario, it will hardly remain. The question will be about the physical survival of people.
              That before that they are going to attack us or not - my subjective opinion - yes they are going.

              Write, very interesting.
              Immediately my counterarguments. We would like to - they attacked instead of bringing humanitarian aid in the 90s.
              Whatever the outcome, this means huge losses for them. Only a dictator-adventurer is capable of this, capable of neglecting millions of fellow citizens. Is there such? - no. Iraq, Libya? I hope you won't compare this little thing (without ICBM) with the RF?
              1. Oleg123219307
                Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 09: 17 New
                -1
                Quote: 3danimal
                Eck you broke up.
                Clung to the word ballistic. And the radius of interception of these targets saw how different? Further: the speed of the BRMD, MRBM and ICBM are "slightly" different. In particular, the latter's warheads fly in the region of 5 km / s. There is no SM-3 analogue missile in the mentioned air defense systems.
                Modern aviation can be intercepted, who argues. But where did you get the idea that all these planes will fly in a continuous stream past the air defense? Moreover, with interruptions, so that they have time to recharge. Without attacking the PRR or using cunning tactics (not chivalrously ??). Was it that hard to understand?

                So I'm talking about that, that there are 10 times more missiles than necessary for the fight against aviation, and this is on the basis that this aviation, as you say "chivalrously", will stick, which is hard to believe. So why riveted on your so many launchers and missiles to them, if not for the purpose of using them as a component of missile defense? Yes, the difference in range is large, but the ICBM is not an aircraft either, it is not trained to dodge, but the target is known. About SM3 - the guys have one concept of interception, we have another. Transatmospheric interceptors are not bad, but only against older missile types. The Americans themselves admit that they are so-so against our ICBMs, even the previous generation. Our strategy is more dangerous - interception in the final sector gives little time to correct the error, but with a missile / anti-missile ratio of 1:10, I don’t know, maybe the chances are not bad, a lot depends on the fire control system.
                Quote: 3danimal
                Once again: look at our population density map. Nobody will hit the villages. Most are half empty. And residents went to large cities. At least half of the population lives in millionaires.
                For yourself and look at https://nonews.co/directory/lists/countries/urban-population as I said, the partners are getting worse in this regard. This is not counting the trend towards heat and power supply from large nodes. This is a boiler room in every Mukho district ...
                Quote: 3danimal
                Many people can die, but there are 2 times more of them.
                There is a possibility that they will be able to destroy part of the SSBNs: on patrol, using superiority in modern submarines or "at the pier", if our strategists are recklessly gathering there.

                The fact that there are more of them will make them worse. All their agriculture is based on artificial reclamation. It will be hungry. Very. About SSBNs - this is not nearly our main strike resource. Plus about the pier - well, this is not a one-sided game, is it?
                Quote: 3danimal
                After the burned down industrial and administrative centers, military bases, the army ... will be too badly shabby. To fight seriously on land, one must have a powerful industry. Where is she now? And in the mentioned scenario, it will hardly remain. The question will be about the physical survival of people.

                So industrial centers will be burnt from all sides. And then everything will be decided by the balance of available forces. And here in Europe everything is sad for partners.
                Quote: 3danimal
                Write, very interesting.
                Immediately my counterarguments. We would like to - they attacked instead of bringing humanitarian aid in the 90s.
                Whatever the outcome, this means huge losses for them. Only a dictator-adventurer is capable of this, capable of neglecting millions of fellow citizens. Is there such? - no. Iraq, Libya? I hope you won't compare this little thing (without ICBM) with the RF?

                Let's start by saying that this is not the 90s. The 90s is the time of the flourishing of the American economy, their essentially victories in the Cold War, the carving up of new markets, why would they need a war then? There were more Americans in the White House in Moscow than in Washington. Now everything is a little different. Their economy is in the ass. Deep. High credit ratings with 27 trillion in debt are provided only by the fact that the rating agencies are controlled by the US Federal Reserve. But that doesn't make everyone blind. Before the virus, under Trump, there were chances. But this virus screwed up everything. Their economy has borrowed more money this year than in the previous 8. And the whole world has other problems besides feeding the states. In September, they already had problems with the last tranche of loans worth 1.8 trillion, and the November tranche of 2.2 trillion is completely questionable. They may simply not have a choice. In fact, there are now 3 paths in front of them. The default and fall of the government, a dozen and a half small wars in order to spur the military-industrial complex and bite off the markets, or one big one in order to strengthen the monopoly on finance, weapons and infrastructure projects. Given the prevailing sentiment among the generals from Biden's entourage, "we are invincible" and the exorbitant costs that the Democrats plan to flush social programs down the toilet, as well as the fact that we and China are gradually abandoning the dollar due to security, and Europe will not be the strength of losses from the epidemic, the situation looms ugly. The last time this was in 34-38 years. Remember how it ended?
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 13 October 2020 10: 32 New
                  -2
                  or one big

                  Nuclear ??? With the aim of ... perishing? And you argue from the position of the sole ruler-dictator-emperor of the United States. There is no such thing and will not be, the "founding fathers" made sure (fortunately for the Yankees and the whole world).
                  the situation looms ugly. The last time this was in 34-38 years. Remember how it ended?

                  The Americans sat there and went about their business. And Hitler (dictator-adventurer) planned conquests in Europe. (To start).
                  Given the prevailing sentiment among the generals from Biden's entourage, "we are invincible" and the exorbitant costs that the Democrats are planning to flush social programs down the toilet

                  Internal problems, they will sort it out somehow. Do you understand the colossal losses from a nuclear war (I am not taking the number of victims)? What's so difficult?
                  Their economy is in the ass. Deep. High credit ratings with 27 trillion in debt are provided only by the fact that the rating agencies are controlled by the US Federal Reserve

                  First, the question is: did you not read Khazin? For 15 years he has been promising "in a couple of years" the collapse of the US economy smile
                  Their debt is approximately equal to the same huge GDP. Which is considered quite safe. Japan has 300% won. Let's do it this way: when Japan collapses, it will be possible to consider the option with the United States smile
                  Also: 2/3 of the debt is domestic loans, which greatly simplifies the situation. 200 billion are spent on service annually. The budget of 5 million Denmark. Our economy would be buried by such expenses.
                  In addition: the United States has never declared a default (!), Which adds confidence.
                  About the printing of dollars: “According to various estimates, in 2007 and 2008, it (income from emission) amounted to 40 billion (0,3% of GDP) and 70 billion (0,5% of GDP), respectively. According to the report, while the dollar appreciated by 2009% in 10, the net benefit to the US economy was $ 25 billion.
                  This is a lot, 17-26% of our budget (260 billion), but not so noticeable for them (budget of $ 3500 billion).
                  SSBNs are not nearly our main strike resource. Plus about the pier - well, this is not a one-sided game, is it?

                  About 30%. It is very painful.
                  And we boast that you can shoot from the pier (knowing about the threat of sinking SSBNs on duty). Their strategists will be covered in the ocean by a huge surface and submarine fleet. Nothing to get.
                  So industrial centers will be burnt from all sides. And then everything will be decided by the balance of available forces. And here in Europe everything is sad for partners.

                  The number of warheads is limited. And part with a good probability will be knocked out together with SSBNs. You will have to beat both the United States and Europe. And on the bases, first of all. Will not be enough.
                  And the United States and allies - only in the bases and industrial centers of the Russian Federation. Which are noticeably fewer. They will not shoot at villages, endless steppes and taiga. (They love nature).
                  1. Oleg123219307
                    Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 10: 57 New
                    -1
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Nuclear ??? With the aim of ... perishing? And you argue from the position of the sole ruler-dictator-emperor of the United States. There is no such thing and will not be, the "founding fathers" made sure (fortunately for the Yankees and the whole world).

                    What are you, of course not. These savages Russians will not dare to strike with nuclear weapons on the glorious states, they have all the missiles rotted long ago, only cartoons remained. Just a brilliant army of the greatest people will march through the world, carrying the light of crap with fire and sword ... I read - this is now, unfortunately, a fairly widespread opinion in their media and the blogosphere.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    The Americans sat there and went about their business. And Hitler (dictator-adventurer) planned conquests in Europe. (To start).

                    And now a miracle, quite by accident, as soon as the allies landed in Normandy, they were allowed through half of Europe without a fight. I just wanted to - and let me go. This is having the ability to drink tons of blood. And after the war, like that, many scientists left for the states, and politicians ... All the dogs were sent to the military in Nuremberg, and who got the money for the "brilliant victory of the United States" and for the fact that the Union, before the war, surpassed the states in the military-industrial complex by two times drained of blood and almost went down in history after Germany, of course it is not customary to talk about this. There was no Munich agreement, and in general, as Rezun said, we ourselves are to blame, and then everything is by itself, by itself.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Internal problems, they will sort it out somehow. Do you understand the colossal losses from a nuclear war (I am not taking the number of victims)? What's so difficult?

                    I understand. I understand very well. And they? If they understand why they left the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, are they actually leaving START 3 now? They will figure it out - I really hope that the November elections will end in civil war for them. Then they will have no time for us for a long time. But chances are slim, Trump will be crushed.
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    First, the question is: did you not read Khazin? For 15 years he has been promising "in a couple of years" the collapse of the US economy

                    Unfamiliar surname. Do not read. And I do not predict their collapse. They won't allow this to be woodpeckers, they will somehow get out. But taking into account our greatly increased role in the world export of food, arms, resources, large-scale metalworking products, and, in fact, the leading role of China in all other industries, and also taking into account that the United States has been developing its real sector poorly for several years now, lagging behind global rates, I do not see how to get out in the long term. Trump sees, but Trump is, first of all, smarter than me, and secondly, he really, really messed up this virus. And the war has always been the easiest way to get away from internal political problems, send the most noisy to die for their homeland, and at the same time either write off debts, or earn extra money on weapons, or rob someone at worst. I am not suggesting that tomorrow they will inflict a global disarming blow on us for economic reasons. But they can get into a dozen local conflicts, including those affecting our interests. And there, having gotten on snot, they will turn on their favorite escalation for de-escalation and start using tactical nuclear weapons. And I'm not sure ours will respond by expressing concern. God grant that you are right, and I was wrong. But honestly, are the problems described by me really your pshik, and this option is completely excluded?
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    About 30%. It is very painful.
                    And we boast that you can shoot from the pier (knowing about the threat of sinking SSBNs on duty). Their strategists will be covered in the ocean by a huge surface and submarine fleet. Nothing to get.

                    Painful. But not fatal, and indeed it is possible from the pier. I have no doubt that their strategists will shoot. The question is whether the missiles will reach. And no one will tell us the real performance characteristics of our systems. According to open data, they can do something in a strategic missile defense, but you must remember how many years Wikipedia and the whole world along with it thought that the Calibers had a 300 km range ... So real and open performance characteristics are not at all the same ... And energetically, many S300 and S400 missiles are comparable to TAADs ...
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 13 October 2020 12: 51 New
                      -1
                      I read - this is now, unfortunately, a fairly widespread opinion in their media and the blogosphere.

                      Do not read the tabloids, no matter whose.
                      These savages Russians will not dare to strike with nuclear weapons in the glorious states,

                      I hope no. It works both ways. And all is well (alive and well)
                      And now a miracle, quite by accident, as soon as the allies landed in Normandy, they were allowed through half of Europe without a fight. I just wanted to - and let me go. This is having the ability to drink tons of blood.

                      We drank as much as they could. Let me remind you that from 2/3 to 3/4 of the army was on the air front. With aviation - the opposite. (It was necessary to cover the motherland from endless bombing.)
                      Take an interest in the preparation of the landing: more than a million people, with a fraudulent operation (the Germans were waiting for them in another area). Omaha Beach is one of the hottest areas, many of them had no defense at all. The air superiority was complete.
                      Nazi Germany was bursting at the seams: the industry was suffocating from the loads and bombings. In the Ardennes, they could not develop an offensive because they ran out of fuel and spare parts.
                      And after the war, like that, many scientists left for the states, and politicians ...

                      Many people went there, not only from Germany.
                      The alliance, which before the war surpassed the states in the military-industrial complex by half, was drained of blood

                      So the United States did not really have a land army before the war, as it was unnecessary. The most powerful fleet - yes, the aviation is developed. And a huge developed industry, which was quickly switched to a military track. They created a strong army in 2-3 years.
                      Union .. It was a big mistake to negotiate with Hitler and play for time. In 1938-1939 we the USSR was much stronger than the Reich than in 1941, when the industry and resources of the occupied countries were "added". One could have smashed them in 1939, and not gloated over the defeats of the French and British in the newspapers.
                      They will figure it out - I really hope that the November elections will end in civil war for them.

                      It happened even more abruptly - everything returned to normal. I propose a dispute for 5000r. That no civilian in the coming year smile
                      1. Oleg123219307
                        Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 13: 02 New
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Do not read the tabloids, no matter whose.

                        CNN, NYT, WP - mostly comments and articles there. Is this the yellow press?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        I hope no. It works both ways. And all is well (alive and well)

                        I am not suggesting preemptive strikes. I am only saying that in today's conditions the thesis about the impossibility of a nuclear war is irrelevant, technologies and geopolitics have changed too much.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        We drank as much as they could. Let me remind you that from 2/3 to 3/4 of the army was on the air front. With aviation - the opposite. (It was necessary to cover the motherland from endless bombing.)
                        Take an interest in the preparation of the landing: more than a million people, with a fraudulent operation (the Germans were waiting for them in another area). Omaha Beach is one of the hottest areas, many of them had no defense at all. The air superiority was complete.
                        Nazi Germany was bursting at the seams: the industry was suffocating from the loads and bombings. In the Ardennes, they could not develop an offensive because they ran out of fuel and spare parts.

                        We drank more at the final stage of the war. We lost more in the storming of every major European city than our allies in the entire war in total. It means we had strength ...
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Many people went there, not only from Germany.

                        Uh-huh. And then calmly and with pleasure they worked for the enemy. They built rockets, reactors ... Or not against the enemy?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        So the United States did not really have a land army before the war, as it was unnecessary. The most powerful fleet - yes, the aviation is developed. And a huge developed industry, which was quickly switched to a military track. They created a strong army in 2-3 years.
                        Union .. It was a big mistake to negotiate with Hitler and play for time. In 1938-1939 we the USSR was much stronger than the Reich than in 1941, when the industry and resources of the occupied countries were "added". One could have smashed them in 1939, and not gloated over the defeats of the French and British in the newspapers.

                        If the union attacked the states in 41, and now we would colonize the moons of Jupiter on behalf of the united Soviet Earth. So the guys got it safe.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        It happened even more abruptly - everything returned to normal. I propose a dispute for 5000r. That no civilian in the coming year

                        It makes no sense. Well I wrote above - I would like it, but there are practically no chances. White society is too infantile in America. Lazy and well fed, they will not want to fight.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 October 2020 18: 42 New
                        -1
                        And then calmly and with pleasure they worked for the enemy. They built rockets, reactors ...

                        Are you talking about von Braun? So there was not much choice in a state captured by criminals. And the Allies were enemies for Hitler and the Nazis, but not for the Germans.
                        The man realized his technical talents in the USA, where everything was for this. I left voluntarily and compulsorily, I suppose. But he didn’t work for food.
                        If the union attacked the states in 41, and now we would colonize the moons of Jupiter on behalf of the united Soviet Earth. So the guys got it safe.

                        Who did you read this? An alternative history book? belay
                        How could the Union attack the United States in 1941? When was such a dangerous "comrade" in the neighborhood? And for what??
                        It's great that this did not happen. Yes, and the strength would not be enough, people.
                        White society is too infantile in America. Lazy and well fed, they will not want to fight.

                        To fight with whom? With you? And what for?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 49 New
                        -1
                        a person with SUCH secrets and technologies should have expected suicide in the face of being captured by the enemy ...

                        An important nuance: the person did not consider himself associated with the Nazis. Let me remind you, the state captured by criminals
                        If Hitler had not gotten into the war with the USSR, and by 43 the world would have been divided in half ...

                        Sea too ?? laughing (I'm talking about the fleet)
                        Here you are "shooting down the office": declare that the Union was an aggressor who wanted to take over the world together with Hitler? And all the words during the Cold War about "aggressive Russians" going to invade Europe, were they correct?
                        But Krestobal Khozievich had time earlier ...

                        Who is this??
                        On account of why - and that now life is better than life would we capture the whole world?

                        "Empire above all else?" The world of the State Planning Commission is a sad world. The Union imposed its economic model on the satellites, with no private initiative and a ban on private economic activity. They would be far behind in development. Separately: one can only imagine the initiated and sustained level of terror in an effort to retain parts of the empire.
                        Fortunately, this would not have been possible outside the continent. After all, here we need a powerful fleet (mentioned), which was not there. And what happened proved to be weak.
                        With those crowds of black-ass who are now spreading their cities. For the right to live in peace, with a working police force.

                        Question: are you a racist?
                        The pogromists (yes, mostly black lumpen) will be dealt with somehow. The level of self-organization is high there, the federal, state, and municipality governments will not work - the "visionary", the citizens' militia, will be engaged. This is already happening in some places when guys with weapons are guarding the block.
              2. 3danimal
                3danimal 13 October 2020 13: 38 New
                -1
                understand. And they? If they understand why they left the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, are they actually leaving START 3 now?

                There is no China in these treaties. The balance of power has changed over the past 40 years.
                And MRBMs are needed against China, they will quickly make them, deploy them in South Korea. Pros: their ICBMs will not fly over our territory in the event of a batch with China.
                But taking into account the very greatly increased our role in the world export of foodstuffs, weapons, resources, products of large-scale metalworking

                The US is now the first in oil production. And a lot of "brains" leave for them, which is the most valuable thing now.
                By arms export: “Top 10 world arms suppliers for the period 2016-2019. looks like this: USA - 139,685 billion, Russia - 53,436, France - 37,492, Germany - 18,160 "
                https://rg.ru/amp/2020/01/27/rossiia-sohranila-vtoroe-mesto-po-eksportu-vooruzhenij.html
                And the war has always been the easiest way to get away from internal political problems, send the most noisy to die for the Motherland, and at the same time either write off debts,

                NOT a nuclear war, you know? Countries and people will be written off here. And now it is not the 19th and not the first half of the 20th century.
                And there, having gotten on snot, they will turn on their favorite escalation for de-escalation and start using tactical nuclear weapons.

                Take an interest, escalation for de-escalation is popular in our circles. Patrushev even has an article on this topic. All this is very dangerous.
                Why did you decide that they would certainly get some soup and immediately answer TNW? They know how to take losses.
                About local conflicts: are you talking about our attempt to occupy the Baltic states, I hope?
                But honestly, are the problems I described for your pshik really, and this option is completely excluded?

                Only dictators can start dangerous adventures for millions of citizens. In the United States, the authorities are well divided, and this is a fuse for milking everything, in fact (so that the richest and one of the strongest wanderers would go to pieces)
                1. Oleg123219307
                  Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 13: 55 New
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  There is no China in these treaties. The balance of power has changed over the past 40 years.
                  And MRBMs are needed against China, they will quickly make them, deploy them in South Korea. Pros: their ICBMs will not fly over our territory in the event of a batch with China.

                  What will the 200 Chinese warheads solve? As soon as the Chinese vyaknul what they say we are for, if you reduce the arsenals to our level, so the states like that immediately shut up on this topic. And the states do not need to launch anything over us in the event of a war with China. Their SLBMs can handle it.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  The US is now the first in oil production. And a lot of "brains" leave for them, which is the most valuable thing now.
                  By arms export: “Top 10 world arms suppliers for the period 2016-2019. looks like this: USA - 139,685 billion, Russia - 53,436, France - 37,492, Germany - 18,160 "
                  https://rg.ru/amp/2020/01/27/rossiia-sohranila-vtoroe-mesto-po-eksportu-vooruzhenij.html

                  In terms of money, yes, but in terms of volume? Given the fact that a unit of our equipment is on average five times cheaper than their counterpart. As for oil, they increased it, and then bang and crown, as I said. Our oil sector is old. It paid off long ago, and will live for two years without profit. And they have a shale revolution, hot highly liquid loans ... And here there is 0 demand. Oops.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  NOT a nuclear war, you know? Countries and people will be written off here. And now it is not the 19th and not the first half of the 20th century.

                  And they always start a small victorious war. The truth sometimes ends badly.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Why did you decide that they would certainly get some soup and immediately answer TNW? They know how to take losses.

                  The last time this was in Vietnam. And it ended very sadly in domestic politics. Even the minuscule they lost in Iraq responded very badly in their society. And the conflict with us is not with Iraq. One way or another, we will destroy all the enemy forces involved, even at a great cost. Are they ready to do it? Oh, I'm not sure.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Take an interest, escalation for de-escalation is popular in our circles.

                  Sometimes we have nuclear weapons for offensive purposes in general in the doctrine. And what about them?
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  About local conflicts: are you talking about our attempt to occupy the Baltic states, I hope?

                  Why do we need this gadyushnik? Burn out in case of war, I still understand why, but God forbid to occupy. Also feed them later. No, rather about an attempt, for example, to help Ukraine "liberate" Crimea.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Only dictators can start dangerous adventures for millions of citizens. In the United States, the authorities are well divided, and this is a fuse for milking everything, in fact (so that the richest and one of the strongest wanderers would go to pieces)

                  Dangerous adventures can still be started for big money. And today's USA is just such a case. Remind me, what kind of dictator bombed Yugoslavia?
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 03 New
                  0
                  What will the 200 Chinese warheads solve?

                  In addition, there is a powerful land army and an already strong and modern fleet (take at least the number of new destroyers), as well as the second economy in the world. With a military budget like our whole ..
                  In terms of money, yes, but in terms of volume? Taking into account the fact that a unit of our equipment is on average five times cheaper than their counterpart.

                  Compare prices for Tomahawks and Gauges for export. Or Su-30 and F-18, also for export. The difference is very small. The same is with the air defense system. Good hardware (stuffed with electronics) is expensive.
                  One way or another, we will destroy all the enemy forces involved, even at a great cost.

                  In a conventional conflict? In which region, theater of operations?
                  Are they ready to do it? Oh, I'm not sure.

                  Contradict yourself: before that they said that they could start a nuclear war with us (in which the losses will exceed by orders of magnitude) request
                  Burn out in case of war, I still understand why,

                  I don’t understand. I have been to my wife's relatives (by the way, Russians) more than once in Klaipeda, there the number is accurate. Nobody is bullying anyone. The older ones understood me, the young people almost did not (good English helped out).
                  What reasons do you have to hate these people? Heard a moving speech / read an article?
                  Also feed them later.

                  This is exactly what you don't need: they themselves do a great job. It's just that a number of our politicians allowed themselves to speculate how many days they would need to occupy.
                  No, rather about an attempt, for example, to help Ukraine "liberate" Crimea.

                  It is unlikely that Ukraine will start such actions, but a hypothetical attempt to clean up the canal (to restore the water supply to the peninsula) will definitely resist. They will help her: new sanctions (in their defense), weapons, equipment. I hope that fears about such an adventure will not be confirmed.
                  Dangerous adventures can still be started for big money.

                  At the risk of the death of millions of citizens? - Sure. Dictators good
                  Remind me, which dictator bombed Yugoslavia?

                  You took into account the words about a trifle, like Iraq or Libya and chose Yugoslavia smile
                  First: the same trifle, cannot be compared with the Russian Federation. The risks of losses and the losses themselves are minimal.
                  It was bombed by a group of countries in order to stop the war in the Balkans. As a result, everything calmed down.
                  Is Serbia occupied? - No, an independent republic maintains good relations with the Russian Federation. Is Kosovo occupied? - No. Independent republic, until 2008 was part of Serbia. (Relations are complicated there, but more than half of the UN countries have recognized Kosovo).
                3. Oleg123219307
                  Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 23: 55 New
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In addition, there is a powerful land army and an already strong and modern fleet (take at least the number of new destroyers), as well as the second economy in the world. With a military budget like our whole ..

                  It will help them very much against the states ... It will give the flame in which China will burn a special shade ...
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Compare prices for Tomahawks and Gauges for export. Or Su-30 and F-18, also for export. The difference is very small. The same is with the air defense system. Good hardware (stuffed with electronics) is expensive.

                  Uh-huh. Small ... 3 times sometimes ...
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  In a conventional conflict? In which region, theater of operations?

                  The fact of the matter is that the conflict with us can only be considered conventional, a very big woodpecker in their general staff.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Contradict yourself: before that they said that they could start a nuclear war with us (in which the losses will exceed by orders of magnitude)

                  Well, when they start it, they will not consider it nuclear. The first 20 minutes.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  I don’t understand. I have been to my wife's relatives (by the way, Russians) more than once in Klaipeda, there the number is accurate. Nobody is bullying anyone. The older ones understood me, the young people almost did not (good English helped out).
                  What reasons do you have to hate these people? Heard a moving speech / read an article?

                  What are you, what has hatred to do with it. Exclusively strategy. After such a war, even having won, we will be very weak. Better that for a couple of thousand km in all directions from our borders there was a burnt desert. There is less chance that yesterday's peaceful and calm neighbors will come to profit from our good.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  This is exactly what you don't need: they themselves do a great job. It's just that a number of our politicians allowed themselves to speculate how many days they would need to occupy.

                  And what is there to argue. 3-7. But why? In today's peacetime, these are just strangers living on their own land and it is not for us to teach them how to live. And in the military - well, I wrote everything above.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  It is unlikely that Ukraine will start such actions, but a hypothetical attempt to clean up the canal (to restore the water supply to the peninsula) will definitely resist. They will help her: new sanctions (in their defense), weapons, equipment. I hope that fears about such an adventure will not be confirmed.

                  And I hope that the brains of our elite will turn on, and Ukraine will be torn apart. For this is the enemy. The one who should be very afraid of a war or an internal political crisis. Bo these just hate us, and at the slightest opportunity they will try to destroy.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  At the risk of the death of millions of citizens? - Sure. Dictators

                  Yes Yes. A dictator staged a desert storm. Yugoslavia was bombed by a dictator. Libya was destroyed by a dictator.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  You took into account the words about a trifle, like Iraq or Libya and chose Yugoslavia
                  First: the same trifle, cannot be compared with the Russian Federation. The risks of losses and the losses themselves are minimal.
                  It was bombed by a group of countries in order to stop the war in the Balkans. As a result, everything calmed down.
                  Is Serbia occupied? - No, an independent republic maintains good relations with the Russian Federation. Is Kosovo occupied? - No. Independent republic, until 2008 was part of Serbia. (Relations are complicated there, but more than half of the UN countries have recognized Kosovo).

                  Tell this to tens of thousands of people killed by democratic bombs. And the fact that the Balts are good, they can not, and the Yugoslavs are bad, they can?
                4. 3danimal
                  3danimal 14 October 2020 05: 26 New
                  -1
                  It will help them very much against the states ... It will give the flame in which China will burn a special shade ...

                  What will the fleet be burning with? And he will have time to set fire to something in response.
                  The presence of nuclear weapons will force the United States to adhere to the conventional conduct of a hypothetical conflict to the last (for which they are quite ready, especially at sea and in the air). I hope that everything will be limited to the "rattling" of weapons.
                  Uh-huh. Small ... 3 times sometimes ...

                  Once again: the export price of the Su-30 is 3 times higher than the F-18 ?? Your examples.
                  The fact of the matter is that the conflict with us can only be considered conventional, a very big woodpecker in their general staff.

                  Well, when they start it, they will not consider it nuclear. The first 20 minutes.

                  That is, we are so weak that we will immediately be forced to use nuclear weapons? Risking escalation and ruining your people (and what to think of them, "little people"?)?
                  After all, I was talking about the regions (of the world); if a hypothetical conflict occurs, it will be on the territory of third countries.
                  What are you, what has hatred to do with it. Exclusively strategy. After such a war, even having won, we will be very weak. Better that for a couple of thousand km in all directions from our borders there was a burnt desert.

                  I see. Cannibalistic psychology, barbarism of the 21st century. You would be ashamed. negative
                  The cost of this approach is a much higher percentage of fellow citizens who died. Which you don't care either, I suppose ..
                  Do you have a family and children in general? You know, this greatly increases responsibility and makes you grow up. request
                  In today's peacetime, these are just strangers living on their own land and it is not for us to teach them how to live.

                  They live well: GDP per capita is greater than ours (both nominal and PPP).
                  11th place in the ranking of ease of doing business (2nd Singapore, 6th USA).
                  And I hope that the brains of our elite will turn on, and Ukraine will be torn apart. For this is the enemy.

                  You know, I remember how they started brainwashing TV together in 2014. No. I'm immune to this kind of thing. I don’t believe the words, but the numbers. And the stories of friends and colleagues who have relatives there.
                  And again this aggressiveness of yours and "New barbarism" ..
                  Look: because of the sanctions after 2014, our economic growth slowed down 2-3 times. Prices increased at least 2 times, and my salary only 1,5 times. My family and I started to live WORSE. Like most fellow citizens.
                  Your plans will make things even worse.
                  A dictator staged a desert storm. Yugoslavia was bombed by a dictator. Libya was destroyed by a dictator.

                  I said that this trifle cannot be compared with the Russian Federation at the cost of the consequences of a full-scale conflict. Do you understand? Iraq is nothing, dust. negative Like Libya, where in general all the most part was done by internal forces, it was only necessary to remove Gaddafi's aviation.
                  About Desert Storm. It was a good thing. After all, it was preceded by an attack on Kuwait and its subsequent occupation by Hussein. Most countries have condemned this, including the USSR. good
                  Tell this to tens of thousands of people killed by democratic bombs.

                  Propaganda, as well as rumors about a dozen downed F-117 (1) and a couple of B-2 (0).
                  Can you name the exact numbers?
                  249 soldiers,
                  22 police officers (data from Yugoslavia),
                  956-1200 soldiers (NATO data),
                  2500 civilians (data from Yugoslavia),
                  about 500 civilians (NATO data)

                  Even according to Yugoslavia - "not tens, hundreds of thousands" No.
                5. The comment was deleted.
                6. 3danimal
                  3danimal 14 October 2020 11: 43 New
                  -1
                  ... And they are more important to me than the lives of any number of enemies, even military ones, even civilians.

                  Isn't that your words about "burn a couple of thousand kilometers in all directions from the borders"?
                  And this is Pakistan, and China, and India. There won't be enough warheads for everyone (there are only 1000 ready to fire), and the answer will come. And not 50% will die, but 80, perhaps you and your family. Are you going to tell them in a bomb shelter that it was right to ask for attacks from neighbors who could remain neutral and help with humanitarian aid?
                  Think it over.
                  And familiar Ukrainians saying "well, your rash will fall apart, we will come to you in the Kuban and cut out all the Russian coves" is also there

                  There are many marginals where. "Hot guys" from Dagestan and Chechnya tell a lot of things (yes, we are all Russians ... we), and behave insolently. Are they not alarming?
                  Propaganda is not only on TV, it has turned on in the internet. All sorts of Dugins, Strelkovs, Izborsk clubs, broadcasts of the "duck" of the First Channel about the "crucified boy."
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 October 2020 14: 11 New
      -1
      Painful. But not fatal, and indeed it is possible from the pier.

      From the pier, the strategist turns into a stationary launcher with exactly known coordinates (you can swat a few with one blow).
      The question is whether the missiles will reach. And no one will tell us the real performance characteristics of our systems.

      Hope. Missile defense is only over Moscow, with nuclear warheads. We haven't made friends with kinetic interception yet ..
      According to open data, they can do something in a strategic missile defense

      I have no doubt against BRS (M) D. And not all missiles are in the complex.
      So real and open performance characteristics are not the same thing at all. And energetically, many S300 and S400 missiles are comparable to TAADs ...

      From the realm of hopes.
      The method of interception is very different. THAAD can intercept at an altitude of 100-200 km and a range of up to 200 km, kinetics (hit-destroyed, as opposed to a fragmentation warhead). A much more powerful system.
      Maybe they will do something here.
      1. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 15: 16 New
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        From the pier, the strategist turns into a stationary launcher with exactly known coordinates (you can swat a few with one blow).

        You will decide. Is it instant global disarming? Then yes. Or "no one in their right mind will start a war with us first"? Then if we are the first, don't care where to shoot from ...
        Quote: 3danimal
        Hope. Missile defense is only over Moscow, with nuclear warheads. We haven't made friends with kinetic interception yet ..

        Wait and see...
        Quote: 3danimal
        I have no doubt against BRS (M) D. And not all missiles are in the complex.

        And what is the fundamental difference between the MRBM and the ICBM? The speeds are about the same, the difference is well 30%, the trajectory for the current types of missiles is static ...
        Quote: 3danimal
        From the realm of hopes.
        The method of interception is very different. THAAD can intercept at an altitude of 100-200 km and a range of up to 200 km, kinetics (hit-destroyed, as opposed to a fragmentation warhead). A much more powerful system.
        Maybe they will do something here.

        40N6E can fly for 400 km. This is the same energy, the question of the flight mission. But unfortunately or fortunately I do not have such detailed information. It only seems to me that such energy is very much superfluous for air defense. But for missile defense just right.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 16: 05 New
        -1
        The speeds are about the same, the difference is well 30%

        These are 3500 and 5000 and / s. The difference is noticeable ..
        40N6E can fly in 400 km

        For aerodynamic non-maneuvering targets.
        It just seems to me that such energy is very much superfluous for air defense.

        Power engineering for a 1,9-ton rocket flight at 380 km in range and up to 30 km in height.
        THAAD falls short of the ABM capabilities:
        Starting weight: 900 kg
        Length: 6,17 m
        Maximum case diameter: 0,37 m
        Range: up to 200 km
        Interception height: 150, up to 200 km
        Speed: 2700-2800 m / s (maximum speed not less than 8M) (rockets)
        Launch range of intercepted ballistic missiles, up to: 3500 km.

        There is a noticeable difference in the mass of the missiles. Light warhead, kinetics.
      3. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 16: 28 New
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        These are 3500 and 5000 and / s. The difference is noticeable ..

        Not by orders of magnitude ... Especially without maneuvers, and American BB do not know how.
        Quote: 3danimal
        Power engineering for a 1,9-ton rocket flight at 380 km in range and up to 30 km in height.
        THAAD falls short of the ABM capabilities:

        More mass, more fuel, more energy. Or do you think there is a warhead in a ton? To fly 400 km in dense layers, you need three times more energy so that 200 km up.
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 21 New
        -1
        Not by orders of magnitude ... Especially without maneuvers, and American BB do not know how.

        Like most of ours.
        More speed - more difficult to intercept (for very small sizes).
        Or do you think there is a warhead in a ton?

        180kg.
        To fly 400 km in dense layers, you need three times more energy so that 200 km up.

        It depends on the mass of the rocket.
        But it is more difficult to climb 200 km in range and 200 in height. This is half the height of the ISS. smile
        The point is this: due to the use of ultra-precise guidance, kinetic interception is possible, which greatly facilitates the warhead and the entire rocket as a whole (900 kg!). Hopefully, similar technologies will be used here. (Very promising, https://bmpd.livejournal.com/398837.html)
      5. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 00: 32 New
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        Like most of ours.
        More speed - more difficult to intercept (for very small sizes).

        Most of our people just know how. Poplar already knew how. Well I wrote - in the ICBR we overtook quite a lot. Of course, they can catch up very quickly, but still not instantly.
        Quote: 3danimal
        180kg

        And an extra ton of mass difference is fuel. And who has more energy?
        Quote: 3danimal
        It depends on the mass of the rocket.
        But it is more difficult to climb 200 km in range and 200 in height. This is half the height of the ISS.
        The point is this: due to the use of ultra-precise guidance, kinetic interception is possible, which greatly facilitates the warhead and the entire rocket as a whole (900 kg!). Hopefully, similar technologies will be used here. (Very promising, https://bmpd.livejournal.com/398837.html)

        To fly up 200 km is not the same as going into orbit. The question of the parameters of the trajectory. And IRBMs flying at 500 km in range, in altitude are often above 1000, so that 400 km of range in dense layers is a very low power-to-weight ratio. About kinetics - we don't have such radars. And xs when they will. So you have to walk on other roads.
      6. 3danimal
        3danimal 14 October 2020 09: 59 New
        -1
        400 km range in dense layers is a very low power-to-weight ratio

        Not quite dense. The air defense system already knows the distance to the target and is guiding the missile along a quasi-ballistic trajectory. With a climb of about 20-25 km.
  2. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 21: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    THAAD falls short of the ABM capabilities:

    THAAD, in turn, is worse than the S-300VM air defense system
    The speed of the 9M82M SAM reaches the same 8M, and has a long launch range.
  3. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 October 2020 10: 14 New
    -1
    Worse as a ballistic missile interceptor ??
    We saw the words about a cool imported development, we need to praise something of our own. Even old smile
    9M82 - Soviet anti-aircraft guided missile ..
    Curb weight, kg 4685
    Diameter, mm 1215
    Length, mm 9918
    Starting range max .:
    (in the front hemisphere)
    9М82: 100 km
    9М82М: 200 km

    The mass is 5 times more than THAAD, the range is the same. In height, the reach does not exceed 40n6e - 30km.
  4. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 11: 48 New
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    Worse as a ballistic missile interceptor ??

    Compare the performance characteristics or something. I'm talking about upgrading VM
    We saw the words about a cool imported development, we need to praise something of our own. Even an old smile

    I don’t understand you, you have a fire at the fifth point?
  5. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 October 2020 11: 53 New
    -1
    I could not resist, sorry hi
    9M82M just modernized (S-300VM), two missiles on the launcher.
    40N6e is more perfect, with less mass.
    But it falls short of THAAD. And it varies greatly in weight, due to the principle of kinetic interception in the latter.
  6. 3danimal
    3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 06 New
    -1
    You will decide. Is it instant global disarming? Then yes. Or "no one in their right mind will start a war with us first"? Then if we are the first, don't care where to shoot from ...

    The most “realistic” hypothetical scenario is gradual escalation. For example, someone at our "top" decides to intimidate the Yankees with a blow on one of the cities (a number of politicians have voiced this). A reasonable response (for either side) to such an action would be a disarming strike. And the strategists standing at the pier are knocked out with one warhead.
  7. Oleg123219307
    Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 00: 37 New
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    The most “realistic” hypothetical scenario is gradual escalation. For example, someone at our "top" decides to intimidate the Yankees with a blow on one of the cities (a number of politicians have voiced this). A reasonable response (for either side) to such an action would be a disarming strike. And the strategists standing at the pier are knocked out with one warhead.
    It is better not to read Zhirinovsky's speeches. And smoking them is definitely not worth it - it will be overridden with such scenarios. What to scare? Whom? A nuclear power? Do you think we have politicians that the general staff of kammikaze thugs? Here either they will decide to frighten us with such a makar at the expense of their "greatness" or they will simply strike a global blow. I don’t see a scenario at all where we are the first to attack NATO. Why do we need this? Not to mention the lack of economic benefits - our entire doctrine is defense. We are strong in it, several times stronger than them. And in the attack - zilch. No fleet, no transport aviation, no logistics ... No one will rock the boat to seize something from NATO first.
  8. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 October 2020 05: 54 New
    -1
    Here either they will decide to frighten us with such a makar at the expense of their "greatness" or they will simply strike a global blow. I don’t see a scenario at all where we are the first to attack NATO. Why do we need this?

    And why should they, given the unacceptable losses?
    No president / prime minister / congress would sign up for that.
    In it we are strong, several times stronger than them.

    In defense of themselves, they are not weak either.
    NOT several times (all of NATO), but enough to inflict unacceptable losses.
  9. Oleg123219307
    Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 08: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    And why should they, given the unacceptable losses?
    No president / prime minister / congress would sign up for that.

    If we take into account the unacceptable losses, then we shouldn't. But if they consider that their missile defense system has reliably secured the territory, the fleet holds our SSBNs by the throat, and their "super duper" missiles and stealth aircraft are invulnerable and force the enemy to shoot himself from one of their kind, then they may take a risk. It seems you and I disagree not so much in assessing the military potential as in assessing the motivation and objectives of both sides.
    Quote: 3danimal
    In defense of themselves, they are not weak either.
    NOT several times (all of NATO), but enough to inflict unacceptable losses.

    There is a difference. For any successful war with us, they need to capture us. Bo our resources, territory and strategic position will not be superfluous for them, and they will find the human resources for this. But there is no reason for us to seize their territories. Hence the very different defense / attack tactics.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Oleg123219307
    Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 13: 54 New
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    They do not think it is impossible in principle (against a massive strike).
    But a dozen missiles Suk In Seung will be able to intercept (and they do not risk unnecessarily).

    Uh-huh. And they spend so much on missile defense that the said Son can be bought together with the whole country as a personal servant ...
    Quote: 3danimal
    I disagree. Our economy is breaking records. And in a war of attrition, it will be very difficult for her.
    Of course, they will cut off external sources of income to the maximum, in case of war. Embargo and all that. And our budget is only officially 30% filled from the sale of oil and gas, plus a lot of secondary income, such as VAT on the sale of iPhones (collectively for office equipment) and Hyundai Auto (for foreign cars), bought for foreign currency from the sale of oil and gas.
    The Chinese, perhaps, will continue to buy, but with a 50 +% discount (businessmen, they will not miss the benefit) and when buying only their goods (with a likely “fraternal” markup).
    The infrastructure is already worn out, and in the conditions mentioned above, devastation will begin.
    Much has been said about management efficiency.
    Something like this.
    I repeat: it is not profitable for them to attack the territory. Only extreme circumstances can force, say, an attack on Lithuania and the American military stationed there.

    Yeah. All are peaceful, kind, and don't go anywhere. And our economy and resources do not attract them at all. Iraq attracts, Syria attracts, Libya attracts, Venezuela attracts, but we do not) Beauty did not come out. And a maxim about Lithuania at the end. Your logic is that the Americans will never attack us, because this is a nuclear war and everything is fucked up. But only if we don't touch Lithuania ... Be objective. Nobody cares about these scraps. Neither them nor us in a serious war. Let's burn in passing, as they Belarus and that's it.
  12. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 October 2020 14: 28 New
    -1
    And they spend so much on missile defense that the said Son can be bought together with the whole country as a personal servant ...

    The son is proud and does not trust anyone. Having inherited the throne, he is afraid of losing it.
    And here serious problems with China are brewing.
    Iraq attracts, Syria attracts, Libya attracts, Venezuela attracts, but we do not)

    In Iraq, American oil companies lost the competition to the Dutch and the British.
    As far as I know, Turkey had the main profit in Syria.
    Libya .. What about her?
    And the impoverished Venezuela, brought to the handle by Maduro? Their production has dropped dramatically.
    The question is: who is Japan "robbing"?
    And where does the US $ 2 trillion export come from? (The share of oil and gas is only 10%)
  13. Oleg123219307
    Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 14: 35 New
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    The son is proud and does not trust anyone. Having inherited the throne, he is afraid of losing it.
    And here serious problems with China are brewing.

    Pride is a matter of price. They would be afraid of the Son for those lards of dollars that they spent on missile defense, they could buy, or they could throw bombs a hundred times cheaper. No, they are not so afraid of him at all) Yeah. Such that the Chinese gave them a new ICBM ...
    Quote: 3danimal
    In Iraq, American oil companies lost the competition to the Dutch and the British.
    As far as I know, Turkey had the main profit in Syria.
    Libya .. What about her?
    And the impoverished Venezuela, brought to the handle by Maduro? Their production has dropped dramatically.
    The question is: who is Japan "robbing"?
    And where does the US $ 2 trillion export come from? (The share of oil and gas is only 10%)

    And I did not say that they are smart or that they and their allies have no contradictions and corruption. They just love resources. Don't you think that Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela are not just such beggars? That in Libya under Gaddafi, the standard of living was like in the UAE? That Venezuela would not be a beggar if it could sell oil? That there was also a normal state in Syria until these little guys got in? They are for crap, and if someone lives differently and / or buys goods not in the United States - for his count. This is where the export comes from.
  14. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 11: 47 New
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    For example, someone at our "top" decides to intimidate the Yankees with a blow on one of the cities (a number of politicians have voiced this).

    Is it burning for you, I don’t understand? I've never heard that. Even in response to outright rudeness and another lawlessness. It is the United States that on occasion declares that we will inflict a nuclear strike on you.
    So if the US starts to blackmail us with a strike on cities, we can hold a spectacular demonstration to de-escalate. For example, to inflict a nuclear strike on the US Navy ships. No one will specifically hit the peace man. And even in the event of a global war, strikes will be struck at the habitats of the elites, military-industrial complex facilities, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants, ports and military infrastructure ...
  15. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 October 2020 14: 29 New
    -1
    It is the United States that on occasion declares that we will deliver a nuclear strike on you.

    Examples please belay
  16. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 14: 32 New
    +1
    You are a strange person, at first you weave all kinds of nonsense, without evidence, but do you demand links from me right there? As you will answer for your rotten bazaar, and I will certainly spread the links. Did you agree? I don't like games with only one goal ..
  17. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 October 2020 14: 52 New
    0
    https://iz.ru/news/354178

    Patrushev's interview. Preventive nuclear strikes in local wars.
    Now it's your turn about the threat of a nuclear strike on us, on occasion good
    (Or did you write in a rush?)
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 13 October 2020 10: 43 New
    0
    All their agriculture is based on artificial reclamation.

    View latitudes and annual temperatures by territory. They produce huge amounts of food and export a lot.


    About the density and uniformity of settlement.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 13 October 2020 11: 11 New
    -1
    About SM3 - the guys have one concept of interception, we have another.

    They intercept in the middle (where you can knock out all the warheads with one hit) and in the final sections (THAAD, GMBI), we - only in the final. When the warheads are already deployed.
    So that's what I'm talking about, that there are 10 times more missiles needed to combat aviation.

    Rockets tend to miss. For example, when launched at maximum range against an actively maneuvering fighter, it will not have enough energy. Possible leads with the help of electronic warfare and dipole reflectors. They make a stock of rockets for THIS, didn't you know?
    As an example: the number of air-to-air missiles also greatly exceeds the number of enemy aircraft. Also the remainder for interception of BR, you say? smile
    The BB ICBM is not an airplane, it is not trained to dodge, but the target is known.

    The speed exceeds the maximum for the S-400 (4,5-4,8 km / s), very strong in itself (it is necessary to withstand intense heating when descending into the atmosphere). Shards may not be enough. The Americans are using kinetic interceptors for reliability. (Not a splinter, but a 10-20kg blank)
    1. Oleg123219307
      Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 12: 52 New
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      They intercept in the middle (where you can knock out all the warheads with one hit) and in the final sections (THAAD, GMBI), we - only in the final. When the warheads are already deployed.

      Yes. But we have an order of magnitude more air defense / missile defense missiles. So you should probably consider looking at whose strategy is more effective.
      Quote: 3danimal
      Rockets tend to miss. For example, when launched at maximum range against an actively maneuvering fighter, it will not have enough energy. Possible leads with the help of electronic warfare and dipole reflectors. They make a stock of rockets for THIS, didn't you know?
      As an example: the number of air-to-air missiles also greatly exceeds the number of enemy aircraft. Also the remainder for interception of BR, you say?

      The probability of one S300 / 400 missile hitting a fighter-type target is more than 0.8. Why create a stock not just of missiles, but of deployed launchers, quantitatively exceeding all NATO aviation by an order of magnitude? Should they all arrive together according to you? at the same time? And at the same time, there will still be 7-9 missiles per plane with a probability of 0.8 with one missile. Some kind of strange mathematics comes out ... This is despite the fact that we have our own fighter aircraft, there are many of them and its air-to-air missiles are the best in the world in terms of range today. And this is all not counting the Buks, Thors, and other less long-range or older air defenses intended to combat enemy aircraft, which are also incredible.
      Quote: 3danimal
      The speed exceeds the maximum for the S-400 (4,5-4,8 km / s), very strong in itself (it is necessary to withstand intense heating when descending into the atmosphere). Shards may not be enough. The Americans are using kinetic interceptors for reliability. (Not a splinter, but a 10-20kg blank)

      Maximum declared. These are two different things. As for the strength - you don't need to tear it into pieces. It is enough to damage the fragile electronics, or unbalance the warhead core itself by a couple of microns. Now they are all implosive, the slightest roughness and nicherta will not explode - not the same form of shock wave in the charge ... Plus, do not forget - the speeds add up. A splinter at a relative speed of 15 km / s is, however, a skiff. Can't stand this.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 18: 50 New
        -1
        But we have an order of magnitude more air defense / missile defense missiles.

        More than an order of magnitude than the US aircraft or missiles?
        As for the strength - it is not necessary to tear it to pieces. It is enough to damage fragile electronics

        There are no fragile electronics. Heavy-duty shell, altimeter and detonation system.
        A splinter at a relative speed of 15 km / s is however a skiff.

        Where does 15 km / s come from? YABCH - 5 km / s, scattering of fragments - more 5. The speed in the final section will not be maximum, 1-1,5 km / s. And more likely to pass nearby and blow up from the side, if the detonation speed is enough.
        A direct hit is kinetically more effective.
        1. Oleg123219307
          Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 20: 21 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          More than an order of magnitude than the US aircraft or missiles?

          And that and that. They have approximately equal shares of planes and strategic missiles. About 3000 deployed units of this and that. According to various estimates, we have about 25-35 thousand deployed air defense / missile defense missiles.
          Quote: 3danimal
          There are no fragile electronics. Heavy-duty shell, altimeter and detonation system.

          You probably have little idea of ​​the system of protection and detonation of modern TNW. Not every computer is comparable in complexity and tolerance.
          Quote: 3danimal
          Where does 15 km / s come from? YABCH - 5 km / s, scattering of fragments - more 5. The speed in the final section will not be maximum, 1-1,5 km / s. And more likely to pass nearby and blow up from the side, if the detonation speed is enough.
          A direct hit is kinetically more effective.

          7-8 km / s orbital speed theoretically achievable for a ballistic missile, another 3-5 theoretically achievable for an anti-missile when operating in the upper cone. At the expense of the effectiveness of the KBCh - well, you still have to get there. In dense layers this is absolutely impossible - turbulence. And in space, if the target maneuvers at least a little to get such an accurate and relevant target designation, it is unrealistic, especially given the heap of false targets in the space sector. There is no such limitation with the fragmentation, and you cannot use false targets in the final section.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 October 2020 23: 09 New
          -1
          The orbital speed of 7-8 km / s is theoretically achievable for a ballistic missile, another 3-5 is theoretically achievable for an anti-missile when operating in the upper cone.

          5 km / s in the upper atmosphere. Not more than 1,5 km / s for a 40n6e rocket (and we were talking about it as an interceptor). And I honestly added the speed of the fragments. It turns out no more than 10-12 km / s, when detonated BEFORE YABCH. Sideways - only fragments are working, 3-5 km / s.
          At the expense of the effectiveness of the KBC - well, you still have to get there.

          It is used only with a sufficient level of accuracy. And the level of technology required for this in this direction.
          And in space, if the target maneuvers at least a little

          You can't really maneuver: you still have to fall into the desired area on the surface. And here: flight, undershoot.
          There is no such limitation with shrapnel

          In addition to the risk of detonating 1/1000 of a second later and losing efficiency.
          A separate topic is a matter of seconds before a nuclear warhead hits. Which will surely destroy the SAM crew. Extra nerves, more mistakes.
          And it's just NOT enough time.
          Need an analogue of THAAD, IMHO.
        3. Oleg123219307
          Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 23: 46 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          5 km / s in the upper atmosphere. Not more than 1,5 km / s for a 40n6e rocket (and we were talking about it as an interceptor). And I honestly added the speed of the fragments. It turns out no more than 10-12 km / s, when detonated BEFORE YABCH. Sideways - only fragments work, 3-5 km / s

          10 times faster than a bullet, even at the worst rating. And 10 interceptor missiles per warhead. It should be enough.
          Quote: 3danimal
          It is used only with a sufficient level of accuracy. And the level of technology required for this in this direction.

          Uh-huh. And they themselves say that against us and our maneuvering BB is not a panacea. Not to mention the fact that their units are worth TAAD far for lard bucks.
          Quote: 3danimal
          You can't really maneuver: you still have to fall into the desired area on the surface. And here: flight, undershoot.

          For kinetics + - a kilometer is already a lot. And on the ground for a 500KT charge, this is within the margin of error.
          Quote: 3danimal
          In addition to the risk of detonating 1/1000 of a second later and losing efficiency.
          A separate topic is a matter of seconds before a nuclear warhead hits. Which will surely destroy the SAM crew. Extra nerves, more mistakes.
          And it's just NOT enough time.
          Need an analogue of THAAD, IMHO.

          I just think that the C400 is analogous. They just don't advertise. But all the features of the placement and unnecessary for aerodynamic purposes TTX and the number speak in favor of this.
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 14 October 2020 04: 39 New
          -1
          And 10 interceptor missiles per warhead. It should be enough.

          This is a general stock, not only 40n6e, of which there are very few, you know ??? At the same time, a maximum of 2 will be launched, then an explosion of nuclear warheads and a medal to relatives (if they remember about them in the general chaos).
          Uh-huh. And they themselves say that against us and our maneuvering BB is not a panacea.

          And nothing is a panacea. But the PROBABILITY of interception is higher, as well as the interception time (starts earlier).
          Not to mention the fact that their units cost TAAD far for lard bucks.

          A specialized missile defense system, but mobile, rather compact.
          $ 2,3-3 billion. Don't worry about the US military budget smile
          2 batteries and 100 purchased missiles for 2013. In 2013 alone - 36 missiles for $ 777 million.
          For kinetics + - a kilometer is already a lot. And on the ground for a 500KT charge, this is within the margin of error.

          A lot for any anti-missile, the THAAD has gas-dynamic control, in contrast to the 40n6e.
          For modern nuclear warheads, this is a noticeable deviation from the "error", they should hit +/- 100-500m (now not the 70s).
          I just think that the C400 is analogous.

          The key word is "think". The analogue "I want to believe" in this case.
          They just don't advertise.

          Thus, everything can be exalted. "There is no AFAR radar station on serial aircraft, but what if there is, it's just a big secret?" - from the same opera.
          This does not happen, the data appears in open sources.
          performance characteristics unnecessary for aerodynamic purposes and quantities speak in favor of this.

          How unnecessary? A 2-ton missile to deliver at a distance of 400 km? With such energy, it is possible to work on ballistic ones, at 6-7 times less range and height up to 30 km. Everything is logical, isn't it?
          BUT: the battery contains only a small part of these missiles, the rest are from the S-300, with a range of 40-250 (guess which is more) and much less energy.
          The 40n6e rocket completed tests only in 2018 (how many "hundreds" of them are on duty in 2020?).
          https://rg.ru/amp/2018/07/03/rossiia-zavershila-ispytaniia-dalnobojnoj-rakety-dlia-zrk-s-400.html
        5. Oleg123219307
          Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 08: 36 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          This is a general stock, not only 40n6e, of which there are very few, you know ??? At the same time, a maximum of 2 will be launched, then an explosion of nuclear warheads and a medal to relatives (if they remember about them in the general chaos).

          How many interceptors do they have? Especially if you do not take into account the fleet, because no one across the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic will shoot in their right mind. Here, perhaps, there will be no one to give even a medal.
          Quote: 3danimal

          And nothing is a panacea. But the PROBABILITY of interception is higher, as well as the interception time (starts earlier).

          If they give us another 5 years, then the entire missile defense system can be thrown away, more will have time to rivet hypersound, and other "cartoons". But if everything starts right tomorrow, then yes, most likely everyone.
          Quote: 3danimal
          A specialized missile defense system, but mobile, rather compact.
          $ 2,3-3 billion. Don't worry about the US military budget
          2 batteries and 100 purchased missiles for 2013. In 2013 alone - 36 missiles for $ 777 million.

          How not to worry about that? I'm worried. For the second when the money runs out, wait for them to visit. Investments must be worked out ...
          Quote: 3danimal
          A lot for any anti-missile, the THAAD has gas-dynamic control, in contrast to the 40n6e.
          For modern nuclear warheads, this is a noticeable deviation from the "error", they should hit +/- 100-500m (now not the 70s).

          Who owe it? And for what? The question is the type of target and the charge capacity. Do you think in a global war there will be massive targets other than "city"? And there the accuracy is ...
          Quote: 3danimal
          The key word is "think". The analogue "I want to believe" in this case.

          Let's see ...
          Quote: 3danimal
          Thus, everything can be exalted. "There is no AFAR radar station on serial aircraft, but what if there is, it's just a big secret?" - from the same opera.
          This does not happen, the data appears in open sources.

          Yes, there are no AFARs. I know for sure that I talked to their developers. We have technical difficulties with them, and the price does not suit the Ministry of Defense. They want AFAR, but not enough to pay for it. The main thesis is that we do not want to pay four times more for an increase in characteristics by 25%. Do it twice better then think about it. In fact, such an economy seems to me to be one of the very dangerous mistakes of our military, but it's not for me to decide what they buy.
          Quote: 3danimal
          How unnecessary? A 2-ton missile to deliver at a distance of 400 km? With such energy, it is possible to work on ballistic ones, at 6-7 times less range and height up to 30 km. Everything is logical, isn't it?
          BUT: the battery contains only a small part of these missiles, the rest are from the S-300, with a range of 40-250 (guess which is more) and much less energy.
          The 40n6e rocket completed tests only in 2018 (how many "hundreds" of them are on duty in 2020?).
          https://rg.ru/amp/2018/07/03/rossiia-zavershila-ispytaniia-dalnobojnoj-rakety-dlia-zrk-s-400.html
          Well, first of all, it is able to reach an altitude of 400 by 30 km. This means that by reducing the distance by five times, we will increase the altitude by five times (roughly, in fact, more air resistance decreases with altitude, but not with distance), which will give 150 km of altitude in anti-missile mode. Don't you think that the engine of a solid-propellant rocket is multi-mode and is able to burn out all the fuel faster in the PRESH mode, increasing the speed but remaining within the same altitudes? I have no idea how to do it. But to work the same time but accelerating upwards is quite. Secondly, I will explain what I mean by the uselessness of characteristics for air defense. We have only a dozen AWACS aircraft. Total!!! Without them, you cannot aim at such a distance. Is that something very high flying. And even without taking into account losses, they cannot be everywhere at once. And the ZRLS give accuracy plus or minus the tram stop and are not suitable for target designation. Own radar will give an area of ​​100-120 km, even with a detector tower. Moreover, the AWACS aircraft is not so expensive. However, more than 6 thousand launchers S300 and S400 were riveted, but the planes were not. Do not find this strange. Either there are woodpeckers in the General Staff, or the goals and objectives of this pile of launchers do not provide for firing at a distance of over 120 km. And why then 40H6, 48H6 and others? However, they are ...
        6. 3danimal
          3danimal 14 October 2020 11: 01 New
          -1
          How many interceptors do they have?

          Was above:
          2 batteries and 100 purchased missiles for 2013. In 2013 alone - 36 missiles for $ 777 million.

          If they give us another 5 years, then the entire missile defense system can be thrown away, more will have time to rivet hypersound, and other "cartoons".

          Didn't you think that cartoons are for calming your own people and the tension (cheaper, a cartoon is inexpensive) of strangers?
          Yes, there are no AFARs. I know for sure that I talked to their developers. We have technical difficulties with them, and the price does not suit the Ministry of Defense.

          And things may not be as smooth as they say? Rogozin promises a lunar base by 2025, do you think he will?
          Well, first of all, it is able to reach an altitude of 400 by 30 km. This means that by reducing the distance by five times, we will increase the altitude by five times (roughly, in fact, more air resistance decreases with altitude, but not with distance) which will give 150 km of altitude in anti-missile mode.

          What is the mistake: flying upwards is much more difficult than using quasi-ballistics. So at best 60-70, and even then, almost over the launcher. But do not poke them in the center of each object?
          There are few missiles, maximum two for the target.
          Secondly, I will explain what I mean by the uselessness of characteristics for air defense. We have only a dozen AWACS aircraft. Total!!! Without them, you cannot aim at such a distance. Is that something very high flying.

          So on high-flying aerodynamic and planning.
          Either there are only woodpeckers in the General Staff,

          Not woodpeckers, but oaks (the stronger our defense smile )
          In Syria, it was an unpleasant surprise for someone that the range on the CD is limited by the radio horizon.
          40n6e is a kind of analogue of the CM-6 (I do not know only the differences in the characteristics of the seeker, we have an active-passive one), in the presence of an AWACS coverage, it is possible in theory to hit the RC over the horizon.
          Let me remind you that there are about 10000 Tomahawks and co. Ours are afraid of them.
          Own radar will give an area of ​​100-120 km, even with a detector tower.

          Will not give. The relief is by no means a sea surface, the radar is located high on ships, and the horizon is 30-40 km.
          AWACS helicopter only if.
        7. Oleg123219307
          Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 13: 47 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Didn't you think that cartoons are for calming your own people and the tension (cheaper, a cartoon is inexpensive) of strangers?

          No, the guys twitched painfully. Looks like they checked on their channels.
          Quote: 3danimal
          And things may not be as smooth as they say? Rogozin promises a lunar base by 2025, do you think he will?

          Dima? Dima will do it. Here's a rocket to launch it will not do, but there are little things. Nafig us rockets, we have Dima ... He will carry it himself. For such grandmothers it will be just right.
          Quote: 3danimal
          What is the mistake: flying upwards is much more difficult than using quasi-ballistics. So at best 60-70, and even then, almost over the launcher. But do not poke them in the center of each object?
          There are few missiles, maximum two for the target.

          And what is the difficulty up then? The gravity of the earth for a rocket with a thrust of under 30 is secondary, and the higher the less air and problems.
          Quote: 3danimal
          So on high-flying aerodynamic and planning.

          What kind of high-flying aerodynamic ones do the enemy have SO MUCH?
          Quote: 3danimal
          Not woodpeckers, but oaks (the stronger our defense)
          In Syria, it was an unpleasant surprise for someone that the range on the CD is limited by the radio horizon.
          40n6e is a kind of analogue of the CM-6 (I do not know only the differences in the characteristics of the seeker, we have an active-passive one), in the presence of an AWACS coverage, it is possible in theory to hit the RC over the horizon.
          Let me remind you that there are about 10000 Tomahawks and co. Ours are afraid of them.

          For this there are Buki, Torah, Armor, Tunguska and other cheap air defense. Yes, and there are no nuclear weapons on axes, is there any point in concentrating on them?
        8. 3danimal
          3danimal 14 October 2020 14: 06 New
          -1
          No, the guys twitched painfully.

          We, too, twitched about SDI at one time. Have you checked the channels?
          The gravity of the earth for a rocket with a thrust of under 30 is secondary, and the higher the less air and problems.

          There is little fuel. The engine runs for up to 25 seconds. So we can say that gravity is secondary for the Union too.
          What kind of high-flying aerodynamic ones do the enemy have SO MUCH?

          Bombers, fighters. You need to fight off the PRR with something. The carapace has not met expectations yet. The total you named includes different missiles.
          Nuclear weapons can quickly appear on Axes, greatly increasing their range at the same time.
          The trajectory can be difficult in order to bypass air defense areas.
        9. Oleg123219307
          Oleg123219307 14 October 2020 14: 12 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          We, too, twitched about SDI at one time. Have you checked the channels?

          But are you sure how much reality was in SDI and how many cartoons?
          Quote: 3danimal
          There is little fuel. The engine runs for up to 25 seconds. So we can say that gravity is secondary for the Union too.

          Do not confuse orbital trajectory and ballistic trajectory. The difference in the required speeds is an order of magnitude. In 25 seconds on its thrust, you can have an apogee far beyond 1000 km. But in order to enter orbit at such an altitude, you need to get 15 times more energy. But why would a missile defense missile go into orbit?
          Quote: 3danimal
          Bombers, fighters. You need to fight off the PRR with something. The carapace has not met expectations yet. The total you named includes different missiles.
          Nuclear weapons can quickly appear on Axes, greatly increasing their range at the same time.
          The trajectory can be difficult in order to bypass air defense areas.

          There are hundreds of bombers at best. Fighters have no reason to fly SO high and expose themselves. As for nuclear weapons on axes - will appear, then we'll talk. I heard a technical problem happened there. At the request of the Greens, the only plant that could produce such warheads was demolished, and now, 15 years later, they cannot be restored. In the end, of course, new ones will be made, but when will it be ...
  • SVD68
    SVD68 13 October 2020 06: 16 New
    0
    Quote: oleg123219307
    Hence the simple question - what will all these big and terrible AUGs, berks, submarines and other American fleet do when they find on our shores, albeit damaged, but a zone of access denial, and on the site of their own supply bases the Stalin Strait?

    The answer was given after the attack on Pearl Harbor - they will fight. Fiercely. Until complete victory.
    1. Oleg123219307
      Oleg123219307 13 October 2020 08: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: SVD68
      Quote: oleg123219307
      Hence the simple question - what will all these big and terrible AUGs, berks, submarines and other American fleet do when they find on our shores, albeit damaged, but a zone of access denial, and on the site of their own supply bases the Stalin Strait?

      The answer was given after the attack on Pearl Harbor - they will fight. Fiercely. Until complete victory.

      About Pearl Harbor - please don’t be ridiculous, comparing warm with soft, this is not a kindergarten and not a film agitation about superheroes. Ships love to refuel, be served, the crew, lo and behold, loves to eat. And when instead of bases there are radioactive wastelands, it's all difficult. So the war until victory will last until the exhaustion of the first resource, which limits the autonomy no more. During the entire war, America lost less than 300 thousand people. And now they talk about the small contribution of the USSR to the victory. Do not be fooled, they have never been able to fight with an equal opponent.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 October 2020 08: 49 New
      -1
      All true.
      Analogy with their boxers, MMA fighters.
      How could their Dan Henderson come up against our Emelianenko? But he went out. Another psychology. Also the military. Stress-resistant people are screened out and brought up.
  • ancient
    ancient 12 October 2020 17: 53 New
    +2
    Quote: Dangerous
    the author correctly wrote about the carriers of missiles - ships

    The author did not write correctly about the carriers of the Tu-22M3 type and the Kh-22 missiles:
    1. Quote - "...... says the example of the Soviet Kh-22 anti-ship missile system, which had a very high speed at altitude ("echelon"), but when diving towards the target it dropped speed in order to preserve the ability of the seeker to operate in dense layers of the atmosphere through a heated fairing. " belay
    Where did the author get such nonsense? request On the cruising trajectory, the rocket goes at a speed of 3,44M, when switching to a dive, the main engine is turned off and the rocket goes to the target at the time of the meeting at a speed of 2,04M. The rocket is decelerated by increasing the compaction of the oncoming flow wink
    2. Quotes - ".... their crews do not fulfill sea tasks". belay since the appearance of the 1st regiment, 185 guards tbap with Tu-22M2 planes on the .. "theater of military operations" have been constantly practicing and are currently working on several options for its use, including strikes against the KUG, AUG and AUS. soldier
    Quote - "... These machines do not de facto exist for naval missions." belay And where did the Kh-22 missiles suddenly disappear? belay and walking them to the hay (soon X-32) belay
    3. Quote - "..... From the" Marine collection ":" while providing refueling in the air, the transfer from the north to the Pacific Fleet of the MRA division (40-60 Tu-22M) along the northern route took 42-45 hours. " belay belay
    - on the Northern Fleet there was NEVER a division armed with 60 Tu-22M aircraft.
    - Tu-22M "combatants" NEVER refueled in the air, and if they refueled, then the time for relocation would be 6 ... well, a maximum of 7 hours (the wind is ... downhill ...) wink
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 12 October 2020 18: 57 New
    +3
    Quote: Dangerous
    It seems after the Pacific WWII battles it became clear that aviation was the main force at sea. The USSR was intensively developing this business, but for some reason Russia did not

    Both in the USSR and in today's Russia, admirals could not and cannot manage MA. And they are afraid of competition, how will the Aviation Fleet replace!
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 22: 16 New
      -2
      And they are afraid of competition, how will the Aviation Fleet replace!


      This cannot be technically possible. Some of the tasks can be taken by aircraft and that's it. And a small one.
  • ifdru74
    ifdru74 12 October 2020 19: 20 New
    +2
    If the "Zircon" fits into the same container as the "Caliber", then the AUG should shy away from any RTO by 600 + km. And you can rivet RTOs in any quantity. In this case, it is not even necessary to load all MRKs with zircons. Eliminating the consequences of a massive attack by several types of anti-ship missiles on an AUG order is no longer easy. And even if the RTOs do not move further than 1000 miles from the coast, this already covers most of the places convenient for the AUG attack lines. In addition, "Zircon", if possible, can and should be used to destroy Aegis carrier ships. Well, the competent separation of air defense in the grazing area of ​​RTOs also enhances the effect.
    In general, in the conditions of a reciprocal oncoming strike - let all the flowers bloom :-)
    1. ancient
      ancient 12 October 2020 22: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: ifdru74
      then the AUG should shy away from any RTO by 600 + km.

      And will RTOs be able to move away from the coastline to the launch line at 600 km (AUG 1200 km from the coast) due to their seaworthiness? wink
      The air defense umbrella does not apply to RTOs already ...... and he or them will be "eaten" without choking on either decks or URO ships put forward in threatening directions. Or nuclear submarines.
      You won't send an IA squadron to cover these MRKs
      1. ifdru74
        ifdru74 13 October 2020 18: 00 New
        0
        And where can you read about the capabilities of the modern AUG? And then I thought that taking off from conventional airfields + refueling in the air gives an increase in the flight range of aviation.
        1. ancient
          ancient 13 October 2020 18: 16 New
          0
          Quote: ifdru74
          And then I thought that taking off from ordinary airfields + refueling in the air gives an increase in the flight range of aviation.

          You think correctly ... only if the airfields are located at a distance of 300-500 km from the coastline, then the planes, yes, no one will refuel ... because. calculations were always taken based on the location of the AUG at a distance of 1200 km from our coastline. Relocation was carried out during the threatened period to airfields ... "closer" wink
          In the range of 0-1200 km ... no one will give you refuel ... if only above the airfield (or above the AUG).
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 22: 20 New
      +1
      If the "Zircon" fits into the same container as the "Caliber", then the AUG should shy away from any RTO by 600 + km. And you can rivet RTOs in any quantity.


      ..
      Questions - does the pitching limit the ability to launch missiles? And to deploy these RTOs during a threatened period in areas where the enemy is usually deployed in order to put pressure on us (Mediterranean, the western part of the Norwegian Sea) RTOs can?
      And what about repelling an attack by enemy aircraft at the moment of the opening of hostilities?
      How about tracking with a weapon in waves, keeping up with large ships in a light storm?
      And nothing that on "Buyan-M" the "glass" for the launchers is made so that even Onyx will break it? That on "Karakurt" BIUS does not provide for anything other than "Caliber"? What day will Karakurt start spitting piston rings in full swing?
      What are we going to do with this?
      And if the submarine is not hit by the RTO? Whereas?
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 56 New
        -1
        I fully agree about RTOs. It is all the more stupid to build such a highly specialized ..., in the context of a general lack of new universal warships.
        Obviously, people a priori assume that the naval authorities know better, they showed cartoons about "floating rocket micro-batteries", all of them wiped their nose to the "foe".
      2. ifdru74
        ifdru74 13 October 2020 18: 12 New
        0
        I, of course, suspected ours of saving, but not so much. If we assume that the design is so unsuccessful that the RTO cannot pass its range in one cruise according to the performance characteristics, that the ship will not withstand launching anything heavier than the Caliber, that the BIUS is incompatible in software and interfaces with anything other than Caliber, then The enemy's submarine is the last thing to be wary of when using MRK like this :-(
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 14 October 2020 06: 44 New
          -2
          But on paper, everything is fine: many underships have been built, the money has been spent ..
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 52 New
      -4
      If "Zircon" fits into the same container as "Caliber",

      The main thing here is if. With the declared scramjet engine and a booster (and also a warhead), it does not fit into the cell.
      competent separation of air defense in the grazing area of ​​the RTO also enhances the effect.

      Because of the flawed concept, RTOs have to puzzle their heads. Instead of building a large series of much-needed 20380 corvettes, which are able to cover themselves.
      And you can rivet RTOs in any quantity.

      You are mistaken, they are by no means built in six months, and not 10 pieces at a time (at the same pace). I bring it back to reality: our industry does not set records.
      In addition, "Zircon", if possible, can and should be used to destroy Aegis carrier ships.

      In the conditions of the relative weakness of our own fleet, I so want to get vnderwaffe, imba .. request
      1. ifdru74
        ifdru74 13 October 2020 18: 16 New
        0
        Because of the flawed concept, RTOs have to puzzle their heads. Instead of building a large series of much-needed 20380 corvettes, which are able to cover themselves.

        A rare ship can withstand a massive attack by enemy aircraft reinforced by an AWACS aircraft. In the presence of long-range anti-ship missiles, aircraft do not need to enter the ship's air defense zone.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 36 New
          -2
          A rare ship can withstand a massive attack by enemy aircraft reinforced by AWACS

          Just look: you begin to immediately elevate to the absolute. No ship can withstand such an attack.
          But 20380 can fight off a pair of aircraft with anti-ship missiles, unlike MRK. It has a good PLO, and the MRK is absolutely helpless against the PL.
          20380 is the universal "working" warship needed by the Navy.
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 15 October 2020 20: 28 New
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        ... Instead of building a large series of much-needed 20380 corvettes, which are able to cover themselves ...
        and what is he - much needed corvettes 20380, ....?! In PLO (its main function) - ZERO, because nothing (!) beat the PL ...(!)... The price is sky-high for a corvette (!)and ...
        Quote: 3danimal
        .... who are able to cover themselves ...
        are laughing ?!... Inoperable air defense missile system (without antenna "Polyment") ?!. belay repeat
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 16 October 2020 03: 15 New
          0
          Understood better in the subject: I agree, the ship is very damp.
          But the idea is the same: a massive and versatile ship was needed.
          Now I am more inclined that the rate should have been made on frigates pr 11356r. More displacement (this is a plus, seaworthiness), the same one UKSK container, a larger landing pad and a helicopter hangar, TA 533 mm, Shtil-1 air defense system. Some disadvantage is the capricious AU A-190 instead of the proven AK-100.
          Fully industry-challenged systems and assemblies. And the price is only 13 billion rubles, instead of 17 billion for 20380. good
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 16 October 2020 11: 43 New
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            .... Now I am more inclined that the rate should have been made on frigates pr 11356r.
            after 2014 it was no longer possible (!) with the loss of capacity "Zorya-Mashproekt" (!)... Even then, it was necessary to build a similar one ("Zorya-Mashproekt") - center for marine gas turbine engine building and gearbox assembly, on its territory. Like China, for example, before the start of the program for the construction of EM type 052A, and even more so, even before the start of the EM type 055 program (!!!)but alas (?!)... to this day, nothing is being done in this direction, and the Rybinsk NPO Saturn does not channel this role (!)... There is the first (main focus on Avia engines), and marine propulsion is secondary ...
            Quote: 3danimal
            ... instead of 17 billion for 20380.
            there already for 20+.
            Quote: 3danimal
            ... The price is high, it could be reduced with a large batch (15-20 pieces), IMHO.
            already over a dozen in the creation / construction of the series, however, - DOES NOT HELP ?!
            Quote: 3danimal
            If it functioned normally (in accordance with the declared capabilities), it would be very useful.
            he a priori cannot function normally (!)... On a ship in VI 2200 tons, the Poliment antenna will most likely not be possible to install, and without it, fully realize the potential of the Redoubt, this is a bluff (!)... Why did the designers ignore this fact, "thus raising the cost of the ship initially" (?!)... Probably someone in the military-industrial complex lobbied for this issue, and the "kosyach ship" went to the navy (?!) This time (!).
            And secondly, the designers suggested (and someone lobbied from the military-industrial complex) for the fleet, an PLO / OVR corvette, without effective weapons systems to combat submarines (?!)... No launchers for PLUR, no torpedoes 533 mm., For "Physicist / Case" ?!....(!)... How is that ?! "Packet-NK" can be effective for repelling a torpedo attack on a ship, but it is NOT ANYWHERE as an effective means of hunting for submarines of a potential enemy !!!.... And the worst thing is that in the Army 2020, contracts for these "expensive non-functional", in the amount of 8 units ?! !!!
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 16 October 2020 13: 45 New
              -1
              after 2014 it was no longer possible (!) with the loss of Zorya-Mashproekt's capacity

              Here there is a "strategic plan" of the country's leadership ... to spoil relations with a neighbor and disrupt industrial ties, IMHO. (I wouldn't be surprised if the "experts" didn't even consider the expected problems.)
              On the other hand, only 3 frigates were built, and the 20380s were in production both in the 00s and early 2010s.
              With a competent calculation of their capabilities, it was worth building 20 in a large (the same 11356 pieces) series (as inexpensive and technological, and as an experiment - a couple of 20380.
              No launchers for PLUR,

              They should be, they put the UKSK there?
              Package NK

              I read about them that they only recharge at the base. So the corvette releases 4 torpedoes on one side, and then it is necessary to turn around with the other request
              And after shooting all 8, return to base ..
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 16 October 2020 04: 45 New
          0
          what is he - badly needed corvettes 20380

          If it functioned normally (in accordance with the declared capabilities), it would be very useful.
          The MRK, even with full compliance with the paper specifications, is helpless in terms of defense. (The first Harpoon or torpedo and ..)
          The price is high, it could be reduced with a large batch (15-20 pieces), IMHO.
          Also, IMHO, the entire filling (with possible adjustments and in working order) would be better placed in a building of 3-4 thousand tons.
  • 1976AG
    1976AG 12 October 2020 10: 31 New
    +4
    Quote: Fungus
    Wait and see. Zircon will be a thunderstorm for aircraft carriers and other ships.

    Exactly. The only surprise is the attempt to analyze the fictional possibilities. In the absence of reliable data, any attempt at analysis falls to the level of "one grandmother said", but the desire to show their value outweighs common sense.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 12 October 2020 05: 26 New
    10
    It is unlikely that the Indians hung their Brahmos on airplanes themselves without our help.
    This means that our engineers have competencies.
    But our planes can't do that.
    So our commanders don't need this.
    This means that it is possible here (and not only) to write "airplanes are needed, planes are needed ..." at least 1000500 times, but nothing will change until the thinking of the commanders changes. Those. in fact, until these very commanders are replaced.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 12 October 2020 06: 28 New
      +9
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      This means that it is possible here (and not only) to write "airplanes are needed, planes are needed ..." at least 1000500 times, but nothing will change until the thinking of the commanders changes. Those. actually, until these same commanders are replaced.

      If you send all your 100500 demands to the military, then they are not the reason for the failure. Commanders are forced to fight with what they give. And they give, as you understand, not so much. Recently, basically, applicants (but where? belay to the troops or to the front line?) "new items" are either "a pig in a poke" or "a fig in a pocket", or a washed primus from a dusty closet of Soviet construction.
      You can perfectly see with your own eyes what priorities the authorities set for themselves. If the sad situation in the troops worries people whose life was devoted to defending the Fatherland, whose profession - to defend the Motherland, went with them through all mature years, then in today's power there are a lot of those who neither took the oath, nor held a machine gun in their hands ...
      And, as you know, they are not going to change anything in their life.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 08: 42 New
      +5
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      It is unlikely that the Indians hung their Brahmos on airplanes themselves without our help.


      They did not just hang it, they made a separate modification of the Su-30MKI, with a modified airframe, under the Sukhie Bramos.
    3. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 09: 30 New
      +8
      It is unlikely that the Indians hung their Brahmos on airplanes themselves without our help.
      This means that our engineers have competencies.


      They only mounted our kit on their Su, everything was done in Russia, we also have an aviation version of the Onyx with a short booster.
      But - we do not do it and that's it.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 12: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        our complete set for our Su,


        Reinforced glider from scratch.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 13: 44 New
          +1
          Components from the Russian Federation came for him.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 13: 45 New
            +2
            There, to this day, localization is minimal. Collected from ready-made kits
        2. ancient
          ancient 12 October 2020 22: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Reinforced glider from scratch.

          Not true ... the serial Su-30MKI was "expanded" and work was done to strengthen the fuselage structure, so
          in particular happened wink redistribution of loads on load-bearing elements.
          In total, 3 planes were made in this way .. the rest will (plan) to be made on HAL'e. wink
  • mark1
    mark1 12 October 2020 06: 24 New
    +7
    About missile-carrying aviation I agree on 100500, we need to revive, but only when the insight comes to our strategies.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 09: 40 New
      +4
      Yes, already, the last attempt was a year ago.
      But it ended badly - the project was nailed down by influential members of the defense industry, because it would have prevented money from being cut for another "project" related to the Su-34.
      1. d4rkmesa
        d4rkmesa 13 October 2020 13: 10 New
        0
        What's the other project? Su-34M?
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 October 2020 13: 30 New
          +1
          Yes, there was an attempt to modernize the Su-34 for naval tasks.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 12 October 2020 07: 27 New
    +9
    This amazes me:
    "From the" Marine collection ":" when providing refueling in the air -
    transfer from the north to the Pacific Fleet of the MRA division (40-60 Tu-22M) along the northern
    the route took 42-45 hours. "
    Tu-22m2 (3) aircraft did not perform not only DZT, but also the inter-naval
    maneuver by regimental groups, for various reasons. But this Tu-16
    the inter-fleet maneuver was performed regularly, usually without DZT, with landing in
    Tiksi. The flight of the regiment along the route Stone Creek - Tiksi - Olenya occupied
    pure flight time 8 hours, and about 3 hours - refueling in Tiksi.
    Usually, 24 hours after the "signal", the regiment with the Pacific Fleet applied tactical
    missile strike on "unsinkable aircraft carrier" about. Bearish on the SF.
    And regarding the article as a whole, I will say this: MRA is a terrible force! It is possible that
    that is why it is not allowed to be restored ...
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 08: 49 New
      +8
      Quote: Bez 310
      MRA is a terrible force! It is possible that
      that is why it is not allowed to be restored ...


      This was the main caliber of the Soviet fleet, which the Russian admirals, uhhh, flushed down the toilet. Yes, and it can be seen sighing happily at the same time. "How would we live peacefully IF NOT YOU." It was said by a certain rank with two gaps and three stars in Petropavlovsk at a meeting with the participation of the 317 OSAP pilots.
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 09: 39 New
      +3
      The last time it was not allowed to be restored because Turchak-Sredny and Gorbunov wanted to lay their hands on the "modernization" of the Su-34, and in fact the ongoing project to recreate a modern analogue of the MRA on this platform was in conflict with their desire.
      In the end, they won, the admirals who moved this topic lost.
      The Su-34 apparently also lost, the documentation for the plane went to the "Zaslon", how it will end is a big question.
    3. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 12 October 2020 19: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Bez 310
      This amazes me:
      "From the" Marine collection ":" when providing refueling in the air -
      transfer from the north to the Pacific Fleet of the MRA division (40-60 Tu-22M) along the northern
      the route took 42-45 hours. "
      Tu-22m2 (3) aircraft did not perform not only DZT, but also the inter-naval
      regimental group maneuver

      I was also confused by the time and refueling of the Tu-22M2 (3) in the air (in the absence of the possibility of air refueling of these aircraft)
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 12 October 2020 20: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: ZEMCH
        refueling Tu-22M2

        This aircraft - Tu-22m2, had the possibility of DZT,
        and the bar was, it was removed later, according to the Agreement.
        But DZT was not performed, there was no need.
        1. ancient
          ancient 12 October 2020 22: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Bez 310
          This aircraft - Tu-22m2, had the possibility of DZT,
          and the bar was, it was removed later, according to the Agreement.

          There was such a thing ..... on all Tu-22Ms (0,1, and 2) from the very beginning there were DZT rods and fuel automation with fuel supply and pumping systems drinks
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 12 October 2020 07: 58 New
    +6
    What an interesting life.
    1. One fellow talks about 9 swings.
    2. The second fellow says that these swings are literally knocked down by the air defense system, which was developed 40 years ago.

    How to be? There is an exit!

    The fact that hypersonic targets (missiles) can be shot down by tactical air defense systems has been convincingly confirmed in practice. With a significant clarification: the domestic air defense system, in which the great potential of the missile defense system was originally laid, and the air defense missile system developed by the Novator design bureau.

    For the so-called partners, things are much worse. And the key problem here is the small size of the cell of vertical launch units (VLR), which do not provide for the placement of missile-guided interceptors with the required parameters for reliable destruction of hypersonic targets.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 12 October 2020 08: 36 New
    +4
    Are the speeds of a Zircon and a ballistic missile in the final section comparable? One of the factors hindering the use of a ballistic missile was the impossibility of correcting the guidance of the seeker at the final stage. If it is decided for Zircon, is it solved for a ballistic missile? Then there is an opportunity to dramatically increase the range of destruction of the AUG
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2020 09: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      If it is decided for Zircon, is it solved for a ballistic missile?

      As I understand it, the BR has a limited maneuver in the final section. As a result, it, unlike the CD, will not be able to search for a target for any length of time, and will not be able to "trust" if the target has gone too far. As a result, you need a very accurate target designation at the time of the missile launch, but where to get it is a big, big question.
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 09: 35 New
      +4
      The question is not range, but how to find the target and accurately measure its course and speed.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 12 October 2020 10: 08 New
        -2
        But why is there no data on the Zircon anti-ship missile range?
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 12: 09 New
          +2
          Yes, even in its complete form, they simply could not be tested at max. range.
          In general, it should fly far.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 12 October 2020 12: 22 New
            +6
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            In general, it should fly far.

            By the way, an interesting question: how does a rocket, having the dimensions of "Onyx" (plus or minus), fly twice as far and four times as fast?
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 12: 34 New
              +1
              Ramjet and high cruising altitude
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 12 October 2020 12: 36 New
                +2
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Ramjet and high cruising altitude

                A ramjet engine - he and Onyx. And high altitude means a thinner atmosphere, which makes the engine more difficult to operate.
                1. chingachguc
                  chingachguc 12 October 2020 16: 59 New
                  +3
                  high altitude reduces drag and saves fuel ...
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 14 October 2020 06: 39 New
                    0
                    Yeah, but there is little oxygen. Here for a liquid-propellant engine / solid propellant engine - just right.
                    SPVRD can no longer cope. We need an NPVRD, and it is immediately visible - a characteristic air intake. In this view, only the plastic model of "Brahmos-2" was shown.
              2. timokhin-aa
                12 October 2020 13: 45 New
                +4
                Plus fuel.
    3. Lontus
      Lontus 12 October 2020 11: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      One of the factors hindering the use of a ballistic missile was the impossibility of correcting the guidance of the seeker at the final stage. If it is decided for Zircon, is it solved for a ballistic missile?

      That's it.
      I have always pointed out this, justifying the advantages of the BR over the winged "hypersound".
      If the problem of jamming the seeker at speeds above 4M is solved, then ballistic missiles become even more a universal wunderwave.
      1. timokhin-aa
        12 October 2020 12: 08 New
        +2
        This problem is solved but not very well.
        BRs are not applicable in most wars.
        For example, if we hack to death with the Turks, how will you keep the supply lines of our group in Syria with the help of ICBMs?
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 12: 35 New
          -1
          Did the Turks want to dig a second strait there? You can help a little wassat
          1. timokhin-aa
            12 October 2020 13: 46 New
            +2
            The question is, what is "aid" worth - for such a country as the Russian Federation, fussing with large losses is unacceptable.
        2. Lontus
          Lontus 12 October 2020 14: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          This problem is solved but not very well.
          BRs are not applicable in most wars.
          For example, if we hack to death with the Turks, how will you keep the supply lines of our group in Syria with the help of ICBMs?

          It is not here that there is a comparison with a "hypersonic" cruise missile, which has the same problems. If they are resolved "not very well" then it does not affect her either. And if the "goodness" of the GOS is equal. a ballistic missile is better than a hypersonic cruise - the design is more flexible and flies farther.
          1. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 12 October 2020 19: 55 New
            +3
            Quote: Lontus
            And if the "goodness" of the GOS is equal. a ballistic missile is better than a hypersonic cruise - the design is more flexible and flies farther.

            A ballistic missile has one huge problem - it flies along a calculated ballistic trajectory, so maneuvering BGs must solve this problem
  • Operator
    Operator 12 October 2020 09: 00 New
    +2
    There are two troubles in Russia - sailors and roads. While there are positive shifts from the second, nothing has changed from the first over the past 115 years.

    After reading the article by unknown authors signed by the well-known "ripper of the veils", you understand that the sailors, etc. ... the surface and submarine fleets, are now ready ... and the naval aviation.

    The GKR "Zircon" will certainly be produced in the version of aviation ammunition (in a lightweight form without a powder pressure accumulator), but it will be used exclusively by the VKS, since even the specialized NPA Poseidon cannot be entrusted to the sailors (the specified NPA and nuclear submarines are subordinate to the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense, and not the main command of the Navy).

    On the other hand, it is clear that the aircraft "Zircons" will only be able to prevent the enemy's AUG from approaching at the range of using aircraft cruise missiles against targets on the national territory of the Russian Federation (~ 2000 km). Interception of AUG at a longer range is possible only when using GKR from aboard attack nuclear submarines, the number of which must be at least twice (to guarantee) the number of NATO AUG. This goal is achievable only with the construction of small-displacement nuclear submarines by analogy with the Lyra (for a typical nuclear reactor of Poseidon and Petrel). Instead, our gallant military men issued TTZ to the mountain for the construction of another "Laiki" type hippopotamus (plan along the shaft, shaft according to the plan).

    Maybe something needs to be changed in the main command of the Navy for the first time in 115 years?

    PS Request to unknown authors: Enough to hang on the ears of readers noodles about the lack of external target designation of the enemy's AUG by the RF Armed Forces - this is if there is a container ZGRLS in the European part of the country with a detection range of destroyer-type ships at a distance of in geostationary orbit) with a detection range of 6000 km and low-frequency noise direction-finding facilities AUG using the submarine hydroacoustics at a distance of 40000 km.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2020 09: 26 New
      +9
      Quote: Operator
      Interception of AUG at a longer range is possible only when using GKR from aboard attack nuclear submarines, the number of which must be at least twice (for guarantee) the number of NATO AUG

      Twice is not enough. Potential friends also have a very solid fleet of modern nuclear submarines, among the most important tasks of which will be the protection of the AUG. And if you remember the numerous problems with the torpedo armament of our submarines (discussed many times at the VO), it becomes completely sad.

      Quote: Operator
      This goal is achievable only with the construction of small-displacement nuclear submarines by analogy with the Lyra (for a typical nuclear reactor of Poseidon and Petrel). Instead, our gallant military men issued TTZ to the mountain for the construction of another "Laiki" type hippopotamus (plan along the shaft, shaft according to the plan).

      Possible reason: the reactor for the "behemoth" exists in nature, and what is there on the "Poseidon" / "Petrel" is a big, big question. So far, there is no clear evidence that these products, in principle, are embodied in metal in any form.

      Quote: Operator
      This is in the presence in the European part of the country of the "Container" ZGRLS with a detection range of destroyer-type ships at a distance of 6000 km, RTR satellites (including in geostationary orbit) with a detection range of 40000 km and AUG low-frequency noise direction-finding equipment using submarine sonar at a distance 1000 km.

      ZGRLS of a sky wave, it is argued, are not suitable for issuing control instructions: there are conceptual limitations there. The "Liana" system can give control, but it cannot constantly track the entire globe at once: "viewing" of a specific surface area is carried out every 2-6 hours (depending on the spacecraft orbits), which will not always be enough. Reliable bearing of the AUG with the help of the HAK for 1000 km (especially if the AUG is hiding in civilian traffic) is fantastic.
      1. Operator
        Operator 12 October 2020 10: 49 New
        -4
        Russian nuclear submarines will use Zircons on AUG from a distance of 1000 km, i.e. where there is no PLO AUG zone with the participation of enemy nuclear submarines.

        Quite the opposite - a hippopotamus called Laika does not exist in nature, but a compact nuclear reactor (suitable for a nuclear submarine with a displacement of 1 tons with ammunition of several Zircons) is already being tested in a trial mode on Poseidon and Petrel ".

        OGRLS "Container" uses the reflection of radio waves from the ionosphere, and not a spatial radio wave propagating along a flat surface. ZGRLS tracks surface targets from 100 meters or more in a radius of 6000 km, a sector of 360 degrees and a 24x7x365 mode.
        The RTR geostationary satellite tracks the Hokai radiation at a distance of 40000 km in the entire lower hemisphere of the Earth in the same time regime.
        The sound direction finder of a nuclear submarine in the ocean area classifies the low-frequency noises of the propeller-driven group of an aircraft carrier at a distance of 1000 km, regardless of the presence of noise from the propeller-driven groups of other floating facilities. The angular error in determining the coordinates of the aircraft carrier is less than the radius of the radar survey of the RGSN "Zircon" from an altitude of 30 km.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 12 October 2020 11: 05 New
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          Russian nuclear powered submarines will use Zircons via AUG from a distance of ~ 1000 km, i.e. where the PLO AUG zone with the participation of enemy nuclear submarines ends.

          Provided that they receive target designation. Regarding the ASW zone: enemy nuclear submarines are able to act independently, hunting our submarines, say, at the exit from their bases, etc. This is not so difficult to implement in the conditions of our very shaken PLO.

          Quote: Operator
          Quite the opposite - a hippopotamus called Laika does not exist in nature, but a compact nuclear reactor (suitable for nuclear submarines with a displacement of 1 tons with ammunition in several Zircons) is already being tested in a trial mode on Poseidon and Petrel ...

          Laika is just an evolution of the existing 885 nuclear submarines. we are more or less able to build something like that. Poseidon with Petrel are very dark horses with unknown characteristics and many potential problems. Whether they exist in some form and what their percentage of readiness is is unknown.

          Quote: Operator
          ZGRLS "Container" uses the reflection of radio waves from the ionosphere, and not a spatial radio wave propagating along a flat surface

          This is a spatial wave, in contrast to a surface wave (this is how "Sunflower" works).

          Quote: Operator
          ZGRLS tracks surface targets from 100 meters or more in a radius of 6000 km, a sector of 360 degrees and a 24x7x365 mode.

          The "container" tracks mainly air targets. As far as I understand the physics of the process, the goal is visible the better, the higher its speed; in this regard, slow-moving ships are very inconvenient. At a minimum, the detection accuracy will not be sufficient to issue a control center.

          Quote: Operator
          The RTR geostationary satellite tracks the Hokai radiation at a distance of 40000 km in the entire lower hemisphere of the Earth in the same time regime.

          Perhaps I don't understand something, but according to https://planetcalc.ru/1198/, with a satellite altitude of 900 km, the distance to the horizon will not exceed 4000 km. In any case, the detection of the Hokai gives the location of the AUG with an error of only plus or minus a couple of hundred kilometers.

          Quote: Operator
          The sound direction finder of a nuclear submarine in the ocean area classifies the low-frequency noises of the propeller-driven group of an aircraft carrier at a distance of 1000 km, regardless of the presence of noise from the propeller-driven groups of other watercraft.

          This is not the first time you have written about this. Maybe share a link already? I have not found such data anywhere; usually indicated the range of AUG direction finding in the region of 100 km. If it had been otherwise, the Legend MRCC would have been simply not needed in due time.
          1. Operator
            Operator 12 October 2020 11: 32 New
            -8
            Rather, our nuclear submarine with a displacement of 1 thousand tons at a greater range will detect and bypass an enemy nuclear submarine with a displacement of 10 thousand tons.

            Project "Laika" is a revised project "Ash", in terms of visibility it is no better than "Sea Wolfe".

            The "container" primarily reads radio-contrast targets in the range of decameter waves with a length of 10 to 100 meters, which are all surface metal floating craft with a length of 100 meters or more - when operating in long-wave mode at maximum range. The Doppler frequency shift of the reflected signal is also taken into account.

            We are talking about the RTR satellite in a geostationary orbit with an altitude of 36000 km plus 4000 km to the edges of the visible hemisphere of the Earth. The Hawkeye is always within the range of sight of the AUG warrant from an attacking cruise missile equipped with an RGSN.

            According to the Leksin brothers, the coastal sound direction finder in Kamchatka picked up low-frequency noise from the propeller-driven group of a commercial vessel with a displacement of several tens of thousands of tons off the coast of North America at a distance of several thousand kilometers.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 12 October 2020 11: 43 New
              +6
              Quote: Operator
              Rather, our nuclear submarine with a displacement of 1 thousand tons will detect and bypass an enemy nuclear submarine with a displacement of 10 thousand tons.

              And how do you plan to push a decent GAS into this 1 tons, so that it is more powerful than a much larger GAS from an enemy submarine?

              Quote: Operator
              The Doppler frequency shift of the reflected signal is also taken into account.

              This moment is just about speed and tied. It's good with aerial targets: they are fast. But to distinguish a leisurely ship against the background of reflections from the sea surface is already difficult.

              Quote: Operator
              We are talking about the RTR satellite in a geostationary orbit with an altitude of 36000 km plus 4000 km to the edges of the visible hemisphere of the Earth.

              The spacecraft of the Liana complex are not geostationary, their orbits have an altitude of about 900 km.

              Quote: Operator
              The Hawkeye is always within the range of sight of the AUG warrant from an attacking cruise missile equipped with an RGSN.

              The range of the Onyx RGSN is something like 50 km. Are you sure that the Hawkeye is not allowed to go further than 50 km from the aircraft carrier? I doubt something.

              Quote: Operator
              According to the Leksin brothers, the coastal sound direction finder in Kamchatka picked up low-frequency noise from the propeller-driven group of a commercial vessel with a displacement of several tens of thousands of tons off the coast of North America at a distance of several thousand kilometers.

              Can I have a link? Very interesting:
              1. Are there such sound direction finders on the nuclear submarine;
              2. Who and how checked this bearing;
              3. How accurate is the bearing, whether it is suitable for issuing the control center;
              4. How accurately the target can be classified;
              4. Why do we even bother with all these ZGRLS and MRKTs, if, it turns out, "Motherland hears, Motherland writes" any major NK on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
              1. timokhin-aa
                12 October 2020 12: 06 New
                +9
                Do not waste time with Andryusha, he will write to you now that the monitor will clog up, and then he will accuse you of being for Ukraine.
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 12 October 2020 12: 10 New
                  +4
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Do not waste time with Andryusha, he will write to you now that the monitor will clog up, and then he will accuse you of being for Ukraine.

                  Well, I still don't lose hope of getting a prooflink: suddenly I really don't know what)
              2. Operator
                Operator 12 October 2020 12: 56 New
                -5
                Noise direction finding at low frequencies is carried out using a towed cable antenna, the length of which depends only on the coil capacity.

                Waves on the sea surface with a length commensurate with the length of the ZGRLS radio wave are extremely rare. Plus, the reflection coefficient of radio emission from the metal of the ship's hull is very different from the reflection from water.

                What's the point of placing a Hawkeye outside the AUG order - to create a vulnerability in the AUG air defense system in the opposite direction?

                There are memories of the Leksins on the Internet, where they describe the successful testing of a coastal sound direction finder in Kamchatka near Vilyuchinsk to receive a low-frequency hydroacoustic signal from a commercial vessel off the coast of North America in order to detect signal modulation by the hull of an American nuclear submarine making forced oscillatory movements during diving to Kamchatka ( when the distance between the nuclear submarine and the sound direction finder is 700 km). At the same time, the Leksins note that the submarine commander himself heard a hydroacoustic signal from a ship more than one thousand km away and tried to hide behind it from detection (trying to stay in line with the ship and Vilyuchinsky).
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 12 October 2020 13: 16 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  Waves on the sea surface with a length commensurate with the length of the ZGRLS radio wave are extremely rare. Plus, the reflection coefficient of radio emission from the metal of the ship's hull is very different from the reflection from water.

                  I came across other points of view. I think that the opinion of a specialized specialist is already needed here. One way or another, in most sources, ZGRLS like "Container" are designated precisely as an air defense / missile defense component; for some reason, the emphasis is not made on tracking the surface situation.

                  Quote: Operator
                  What's the point of placing a Hawkeye outside the AUG order - to create a vulnerability in the AUG air defense system in the opposite direction?

                  What do you mean why? Move the threat detection lines away from the AUG. Otherwise, the plane would not have been needed, it would have been possible to do with a helicopter: we tried, it turned out so-so.

                  Quote: Operator
                  There are memories of the Leksins on the Internet, where they describe the successful testing of a coastal sound direction finder in Kamchatka near Vilyuchinsk

                  Yes, I did. They tested some kind of experimental product. But there is no information that the installation has been brought to the series and delivered to some nuclear submarines. Apparently, the next "has no analogues-in-the-world", which did not go further than the prototype.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 12 October 2020 13: 22 New
                    -5
                    How can one move the Hokai detection line by moving the aircraft beyond the AUG order - by approaching the detection line in the opposite direction? laughing

                    What does the 35-year-old coastal installation have to do with it, especially since the American nuclear submarine in that case managed with "improvised" means - an airborne sound-direction finder.
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 12 October 2020 13: 31 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Operator
                      How can one move the Hokai detection line by moving the aircraft beyond the AUG order - by approaching the detection line in the opposite direction?

                      Here you can use an unexpected tactical technique - (drum roll) to raise the second "Hawkeye" into the air)) I'm not talking about the conduct of passive reconnaissance by the "Growlers" in radio silence. And yes, we still don't have a suitable RTR satellite in geostationary orbit.

                      Quote: Operator
                      What does the 35-year-old coastal installation have to do with it, especially since the American nuclear submarine in that case managed with "improvised" means - an airborne sound-direction finder.

                      Once again: we are talking about a one-time experiment of an ambiguous nature. As far as I understand, there is still no question of reliable detection of AUG in this way (with the issuance of the control center).
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 12 October 2020 13: 47 New
                        -3
                        How long will two Hawaiys be able to simultaneously patrol in the air (the presence of three or more AWACS aircraft in an air wing should not be offered)? And why it will not be possible to determine the midpoint between their location as the center of the AUG order (based on the condition of uniformity of moving the radar detection line)?

                        Once again: the moral of this fable is as follows - a 35-year-old nuclear submarine with a sound direction finder in a light direction found a commercial vessel at a distance of more than 1000 km.
                      2. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 12 October 2020 14: 00 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Operator
                        the presence in the air wing of carrier-based aviation of three or more AWACS aircraft should not be offered

                        Why? There are four of them.

                        Quote: Operator
                        And why it will not be possible to determine the midpoint between their location as the center of the AUG order (based on the condition of the uniformity of moving the radar detection line)?

                        Well, if we proceed from the fact that the Americans have never encountered satellite reconnaissance systems before and do not know how to work against them, then yes, of course, everything is easy and simple. "Hokai" straight round the clock cut even circles above the deck of the aircraft carrier, so that even from the moon AUG was clearly visible. In reality, alas, everything is not so simple.

                        Quote: Operator
                        Once again: the moral of this fable is as follows - a 35-year-old nuclear submarine with a sound direction finder in a light direction found a commercial vessel at a distance of more than 1000 km.

                        Once again: something somewhere, somehow, was detected. The repeatability of the experiment is unknown. Both our and "theirs" nuclear submarines are still operating at a distance of more than 100 km only by external target designation. There is nothing more to discuss here.
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 12 October 2020 15: 20 New
                        -4
                        "Hawkeye" cuts circles in a box with a perimeter of several tens of kilometers at an altitude of 9000 meters. The geometric center of the box is quite a countable value. What does the deck of an aircraft carrier have to do with it?

                        I understood - you will believe in the possibility of detecting an aircraft carrier by the low-frequency noise of its propeller-driven group after the publication of the guidance document of the Navy signed by the commander-in-chief laughing
                      4. Fan-fan
                        Fan-fan 12 October 2020 16: 48 New
                        -3
                        We will believe in such a document only if it is signed by the head physician of the hospital in which there is ward No. 6.
                      5. K298rtm
                        K298rtm 12 October 2020 21: 57 New
                        0
                        1. If an appropriate software and hardware processing system is developed, then the group target signal can be detected at the indicated ranges.
                        2. It is only necessary that it is very, very difficult to classify this signal.
                        3. It is practically impossible to determine the CPC (and even more so to develop the CU).
                      6. Operator
                        Operator 12 October 2020 22: 10 New
                        -3
                        Everything is possible - incl. determination of coordinates and parameters of target movement.
                      7. K298rtm
                        K298rtm 12 October 2020 22: 51 New
                        0
                        Explain how, in what way (method)?
                        At such D, the signal intensity and TTI practically do not change for a long time, even with a very narrow CV.
                      8. Operator
                        Operator 13 October 2020 00: 35 New
                        -1
                        The time of passage of the hydroacoustic signal at a distance of 1000 km from the aircraft carrier to the towed cable antenna of the nuclear submarine is 11 minutes, which is several times less than the time it takes for the signal to travel at SOSUS operating distances (with a similar antenna directivity characteristic), which ensured the accuracy of determining coordinates 120x120 km

                        The required accuracy of external target designation for the Zircon (taking into account the operation of its RGSN at the terminal section of the trajectory) is 100x100 km.
                      9. K298rtm
                        K298rtm 13 October 2020 13: 17 New
                        0
                        1. SOSUS is (was) a diversity antenna system.
                        2. Mobile anti-submarine forces (mainly UAVs) were used to confirm the contact and classify the detected signal.
                        3. If the specified accuracy is enough for Zircon, then we can only rejoice.
                      10. Operator
                        Operator 13 October 2020 15: 33 New
                        -2
                        This is exactly what I had in mind when I spoke about the SOSYS 'accuracy of 120x120 km - in the case of the Zircon, it needs to be equipped with an RGSN.
                      11. K298rtm
                        K298rtm 13 October 2020 17: 34 New
                        0
                        Ok, figured it out.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 12: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Kalmar
    ZGRLS of a sky wave, it is argued, are not suitable for issuing control instructions: there are conceptual limitations there.


    Can't give an approximate bearing and range plus, minus? The good news is that we can detect and identify it with a certain probability ... It's clear - then we need additional reconnaissance of the target and issuance of the control center
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2020 12: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      It's clear - then we need additional reconnaissance of the target and the issuance of the control center

      So these moments are the main problem. Near its coast, surface wave ZGRS and AWACS aircraft can help here, but in the oceanic zone all hope is for Liana, whose capabilities are far from endless.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 12: 55 New
        +1
        IMHO must be understood. For the coastal flanks, aircraft carriers are not at all the main problem. At the planning level, the enemy has long understood that in the event of a non-nuclear conflict or with the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the appearance of their AUG within the flight radius of their IS will not occur before a massive attack by Tomahawks / LRASM from single destroyers disguised in civilian traffic and nuclear submarines of the US Navy at airbases, naval infrastructure and ships. in connection with the above, it seems necessary in the future to introduce a new SPU into the SCRC Bastion to use the SCR Zircon, in case of impossibility it will achieve compatibility on the SPU.
        Again, in my opinion, it is necessary, first of all, to arm the bastions in the Baltic and the Black Sea with Zircons in order to strike at stationary US missile defense areas.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 13: 47 New
          +1
          in connection with the above, it seems necessary in the future to introduce a new SPU into the SCRC Bastion to use the SCRC Zircon


          There, TPKs are either just the same, or almost the same, minimal improvements are needed.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 13: 49 New
            0
            This is at least something, the presence of Bastins in the North and the Pacific Fleet is quite a deterrent factor for the plans to deploy and use the enemy's AUG.
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 October 2020 18: 39 New
              0
              No, they won't climb east of Narvik with them.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 14 October 2020 06: 36 New
          0
          to strike at stationary US missile defense areas.
          Reply

          Before a nuclear attack on the US or European countries? request
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 09: 28 New
            0
            Do not confuse warm with soft - in case of US aggression.
  • timokhin-aa
    12 October 2020 09: 33 New
    +1
    Andryusha, will you ever let go or not? Grown people will still not waste time trying to refute the nonsense that you write here. They will simply stick to the minuses and your comment will hang here, minified by everyone and never fully read by anyone.

    Well, that's it, you've killed your reputation, you can't change anything, calm down, go plant a geranium in a pot, look out the window.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. timokhin-aa
        12 October 2020 11: 58 New
        +2
        Only in your fevered imagination.
      2. psiho117
        psiho117 12 October 2020 16: 58 New
        0
        go start some krynki in the silsky pond

        The pot is actually a jug ... For milk.
        What kind of heresy are you writing?
        1. Operator
          Operator 12 October 2020 17: 02 New
          -4
          For example, put glass jars in your bathroom - full analogs of jars laughing
    2. prodi
      prodi 12 October 2020 13: 12 New
      +1
      But you must agree that in the main thing he is right: the Russian fleet in the 20th century proved itself so "valiant" that philistine skepticism about its ... uh-uh ... value (and funding) is natural?
      1. timokhin-aa
        12 October 2020 13: 48 New
        0
        This is a very superficial view of things.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 19: 01 New
          +1
          You must understand the question is more than logical and justified.
          1. timokhin-aa
            12 October 2020 21: 57 New
            -1
            The flat earth concept is also justified.
            At a glance, it is exactly flat. If you don't know the nuances.
            Speaking about how and why the fleet worked, one must always agree on why it happened.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 22: 02 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              we must always agree on why it happened.


              The entire twentieth and already the 21st century IT HAS BEEN THIS SO ........ Probably since the time of Sinop. Swan song of the Russian fleet ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                12 October 2020 22: 22 New
                0
                But the question must be answered
  • ccsr
    ccsr 12 October 2020 19: 02 New
    +3
    Quote: Operator
    PS Request to unknown authors: Enough to hang on the ears of readers noodles about the lack of external target designation of the enemy's AUG by the RF Armed Forces - this is if there is a container ZGRLS in the European part of the country with a detection range of destroyer-type ships at a distance of in geostationary orbit) with a detection range of 6000 km and low-frequency noise direction-finding facilities AUG using the submarine hydroacoustics at a distance of 40000 km.

    Moreover, I am amazed at their denseness in this matter, especially if we consider that naval reconnaissance satellites first appeared in the sixties, and information from GRU GSh satellites in real time began to be taken off at the district / naval level back in the eighties using the Most ". More than thirty years have passed, and they are all whining about their problems with targeting, as if there is nothing like this in the Navy:
    1. Mityay65
      Mityay65 13 October 2020 01: 14 New
      -3
      Not denseness amazes only! Not only she ...
      You see. All. Absolutely all low-orbit satellite systems of the Liana / Legend type and others like them, up to heights of 800 km, will be shot by an adversary in the first hours of the war. And most likely BEFORE the start. Probably, the war will start as an adversary with just this - the shooting of satellites. The foe has no problem with this.
      You cannot rely on this in any way. Satellite systems are very vulnerable and defenseless. They are not for war, but for peace ...
      What fantastic "GRU GSh satellites" can track targets in the ocean? Or could it be done in the glorious 80s ??? There was a Legend, with a minimal delay, it gave out targets, coped with reconnaissance - guidance. It did not provide target designation.
      No need for fantasies ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 13 October 2020 01: 33 New
        -4
        Shooting down our satellites = launching "Zircons" according to the last coordinates of the enemy's AUG determined by the satellites.
        1. Mityay65
          Mityay65 13 October 2020 01: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Operator
          launching "Zircons" according to the last coordinates of the enemy's AUG determined by satellites.

          Don't feel sorry for the "Zircons" then? They're folk, aren't they? laughing
          Can you tell us about the GRU GSh satellites?
          1. Operator
            Operator 13 October 2020 02: 05 New
            -4
            For you, we do not mind any nuclear weapons.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 13 October 2020 11: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Mityai65
        All. Absolutely all low-orbit satellite systems of the Liana / Legend type and others like them, up to heights of 800 km, will be shot by an adversary in the first hours of the war. And most likely BEFORE the start. Probably, the war will start as an adversary with just this - the shooting of satellites. The foe has no problem with this.

        Can you technically justify how all this will look in your mind, and what we will be doing all this time? How long will it take for the Americans to prepare for this operation, but the most important thing is how they will "shoot" the satellites and how long it will take - can you stop there in more detail? How will our over-the-horizon radar systems, Zvezda or Krug, for example, work at this time?
        Quote: Mityai65
        What fantastic "GRU GSh satellites" can track targets in the ocean? Or could it be done in the glorious 80s ???

        Any intelligence satellite of the GRU General Staff could work on a naval grouping, it's strange that you don't know about this:
        "Yantar-Terylene" (launched from 28.12.1982) became the first Russian digital reconnaissance platform transmitting collected data through satellites-repeaters of the "Potok" type to a ground station in near real time. In addition, the Yantar series devices became the basis for the development of the later satellites of the Orlets, Persona reconnaissance systems and the Resource-DK civilian Earth remote sensing satellite.

        https://topwar.ru/37962-kosmicheskie-razvedchikisovetskie-i-rossiyskie-sputniki-shpiony.html
        Here is the historical background:
        1. Mityay65
          Mityay65 13 October 2020 12: 45 New
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          Can you technically justify

          No, laziness .. I have already substantiated this many times, and it seems to you too, but I don't remember exactly. What to pour from empty to empty? On the VO and on the internet there is a lot of materials on anti-satellite weapons and their tests. And in some detail why the Legend was collapsed. Someone even wrote in the comments about the negotiations on this topic.
          You have been sitting here for several years and have already taken a course at the Academy of the General Staff and must figure it out yourself.
          And the fact that during the war with the enemy EVERYTHING, absolutely all satellite systems: species reconnaissance, RT reconnaissance, radar reconnaissance, navigation satellites, communications and so on ... will be destroyed first of all, this is the basics.
          Therefore, in this particular case for reconnaissance, guidance and targeting of cruise missiles satellite systems are not applicable.
          Quote: ccsr
          Any intelligence satellite of the GRU General Staff could work on a naval grouping, it's strange that you don't know about this:

          It looks like you are wasting your time on this site. Amber is a satellite of species reconnaissance and for the purposes of the Navy is not applicable in any way - they stubbornly tried to adapt it to work in the interests of another consumer. And something more or less began to come out by the end of the 90s. Once again, species reconnaissance is not applicable for targeting the CD.
          It never worked close to real time. Due to the weakness of the equipment and the narrowness of the "Geyser" communication channel. The heirs of Amber began to work more or less from the zero years.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 13 October 2020 13: 25 New
            0
            Quote: Mityai65
            No, laziness .. I have already substantiated this many times, and it seems to you too, but I don't remember exactly

            Those. You cannot name a single real system of Americans - is that how you should understand?
            Quote: Mityai65
            anti-satellite weapons and their tests.

            Only about testing is not necessary - I was talking about the combat alert of real systems of anti-satellite grouping of Americans. You cannot name such a system - so why pour from empty to empty?
            Quote: Mityai65
            And the fact that during the war with the enemy EVERYTHING, absolutely all satellite systems: species reconnaissance, RT reconnaissance, radar reconnaissance, navigation satellites, communications and so on ... will be destroyed first of all, this is the basics.

            Confirm these basics with the name of the American weapons system on alert, its ability to destroy our orbital grouping by at least 50% (especially geostationary) - can you do this, or will you refer to the Internet again?
            Quote: Mityai65
            Therefore, in this particular case, satellite systems are not applicable for reconnaissance, guidance and targeting of covered missiles.

            Even if we decide to strike first? What makes you think that we are OBLIGED to hit the AUG with cruise missiles, and not use a strategic nuclear charge on ballistic missiles for this?
            Quote: Mityai65
            Amber is a satellite of species reconnaissance and for the purposes of the Navy is not applicable in any way

            Thanks to Yantar, one of the non-naval officers received the Order of the Red Star on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, for the fact that after the loss of an aircraft carrier group in the ocean, they helped to find it very quickly. And that was still under Gorshkov, and I knew this officer. By the way, where did you get the idea that only the view satellites are available in the GRU General Staff, if there were satellites for radio and electronic intelligence? I’m not talking about the space radio line reconnaissance system, which you apparently do not suspect, but thanks to it, when it was deployed in Cuba and Vietnam, the GRU received information about the American fleet.
            Quote: Mityai65
            And something more or less began to come out by the end of the 90s.

            This is a lie - I myself participated in the LCI in the late seventies and early eighties, and in the second half it was already on duty. By the way, this unit recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, and it is more abruptly than what is in the fleet.
            1. Mityay65
              Mityay65 13 October 2020 13: 59 New
              0
              To be honest, it seems to me that you do not quite understand what you are writing about. I am too lazy to explain, but I am not engaged in education.
              Again, read the VO materials. Everything is there.
              PS I was jarred by your remark ""striking their denseness in this matter"when people write to you. It's not polite.
  • ancient
    ancient 12 October 2020 22: 52 New
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    A request to unknown authors: Enough to hang on the ears of readers noodles about the lack of external target designation for the enemy's AUG by the RF Armed Forces - this is if there is a container ZGRLS in the European part of the country with a detection range of destroyer-type ships at a distance of 6000 km, RTR satellites (including in geostationary orbit) with a detection range of 40000 km and low-frequency noise direction finding equipment AUG using the submarine hydroacoustics at a distance of 1000 km.

    With all due respect to the first part of your post .... the final part ... just shocked - and you with faith in this .. "really noodles" will try to "attack" the AUG .... belay request sad
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 October 2020 00: 39 New
      -4
      You are 30 years behind life and cannot appreciate the facts that the RF Ministry of Defense presents you on a silver platter - the Zircon hit a compact target after an autonomous flight for more than three minutes laughing
      1. ancient
        ancient 13 October 2020 12: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: Operator
        which the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation presents you on a silver platter - hit of "Zircon" in a compact target after an autonomous flight for more than three minutes

        Yeah .. just forgot to indicate that the target was .. "tied" for anchors and the coordinates were known with an accuracy of ... up to milliseconds wassat
        1. Operator
          Operator 13 October 2020 12: 52 New
          +1
          Before reaching the known coordinates, the Zircon in plasma autonomously flew 450 km (~ 200 seconds) with self-control according to the data of the onboard inertial system, due to which an error accumulated from one to several hundred meters (depending on the type of gyroscope - laser, solid-state vibration or micromechanical).

          It follows from this that either the target was of appropriate dimensions (which is unlikely) or the developers learned how to stabilize the radio-transparent window in the plasma for at least a few seconds for radar guidance to the target within the dimensions of a surface ship at the terminal section of the trajectory.

          In the latter case, it does not matter at all whether the target was standing or moving.
          1. Mityay65
            Mityay65 13 October 2020 13: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            "Zircon" in plasma autonomously flew 450 km (~ 200 seconds) with self-control according to the onboard inertial system

            Do you estimate the temperature of this plasma and the heating of the RR room, especially the edges of the wings and the nose cone, behind which, according to the idea of ​​the RL GNS? There, the thermal load is such that the heating will be over 1000 C. This suggests that on the marching section the nose cone is covered with a dumped casing made of a heat-resistant titanium alloy. This means that the GNS will start working only at a speed below 3M, after braking the Zircon KR in the dive section.
            Anti-aircraft maneuver is possible only when the speed is not more than 2,5M.
            This makes the CD Zircon extremely vulnerable to air defense systems.
            1. Operator
              Operator 13 October 2020 15: 31 New
              +1
              Liquid freon for cooling the ceramic head fairing at the moment of the formation of a stability window in the plasma is our everything.
              1. Mityay65
                Mityay65 13 October 2020 16: 50 New
                0
                To be honest, I doubt very much that there is such a ceramic that will withstand the aerodynamic pressure of the GZLA on the GOS fairing. In addition to withstanding the thermal head, this structural part must withstand a large force load from the incoming flow. These are titanium or steel alloys only. Therefore, we have a fantastic technology 1.
                "Stabilize the plasma window" is a fantastic technology 2.
                If we discard the presence of fantastic technologies 1 and 2, then we have:
                - the start point detected in azimuth and range thanks to the torch of the TTRD;
                - on the cruising section, a hypersonic unguided rocket projectile in a plasma cone without inter-board communication i.e. without the fatal "pack tactics". Even if one CD flies over the aircraft carrier, it will not notice and will not tell anyone;
                - on the marching section, a hypersonic unguided rocket projectile without external communication those. without the possibility of obtaining external target designation;
                - on the terminal leg of the "dive" flight to 3M, the seeker does not work and there is no communication;
                - until the speed decreases up to 2,5M maneuvering and anti-aircraft maneuver is impossible;
                I affirm that at the terminal site this is an ideal target for missiles. As good as it gets.
                From what we now have, this is only a blank. This is not a combat system.
                Although, I have always doubted GZLA and their usefulness - The CR should be pressed against the waves.
                The good old partially orbital rocket with MIRV and preliminary orbital reconnaissance is more reliable, simpler and inevitable hi
                1. Operator
                  Operator 13 October 2020 19: 19 New
                  +1
                  The speed of the Zircon is three times less than the speed of the descent module of the spacecraft; therefore, ceramic thermal protection is suitable for the GCR, and not an ablation coating.

                  A few years ago, the text of a state order for the development of just such a multilayer ceramic with an external silicon carbide coating was published on the Internet. And the lower surface of the Soviet "Buran" was covered with tiles made of similar ceramics.

                  The Zircon chip is in strictly horizontal flight at the flight level without going into outer space (like the Dagger when firing at maximum range), where the missile can be shot down by US missile defense kinetic interceptors. Plus an echelon height of 30 km guarantees the Zircon's invulnerability from all existing US anti-aircraft missiles.
                  1. Mityay65
                    Mityay65 14 October 2020 12: 41 New
                    0
                    Quote: Operator
                    therefore, ceramic thermal protection is suitable for HCR, and not an ablative coating.

                    Rather stringent requirements are imposed on the materials of the radome radome of the seeker, which must ensure full polarization neutrality and absolute isotropy of radio transparency under any thermal and aerodynamic effects. This is not easy to do. I doubt very much that ceramics will provide this.
                    The materials you are talking about for the Buran spacecraft had local reinforcement in the form of a power set of a heat-resistant alloy hull. This is impossible for the radome of the radar seeker.
                    Quote: Operator
                    The echelon height of 30 km guarantees the Zircon's invulnerability from all existing US anti-aircraft missiles.

                    So I'm talking about vulnerability not on the cruising phase of the flight, but on the terminal one - descent to the target with braking up to 3M to drop the heat-resistant cowling of the fairing and turn on the seeker. And then, until the possibility of anti-aircraft maneuver is obtained, at best it is 2,5M.
                    In this period KR Zircon is simply not a goal, but an anti-aircraft gunner's dream!
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 14 October 2020 12: 49 New
                      -1
                      The rocket nose fairings have strength due to their dome-shaped shape, and not due to the power set (as in the area of ​​the lower flat surface of the Buran glider).

                      To dive "Zircon" does not need to slow down or turn off the engine - the coordinates of the target were radar-refined even when approaching the AUG warrant, the warhead's heat heating was extinguished by cooling with liquid freon, and the "snake" anti-aircraft maneuver was used to protect against air defense / missile defense missiles.

                      Even if the Zircon glider burns out during the dive, a special warhead in an ablation-coated body will still reach the target.
                    2. Mityay65
                      Mityay65 14 October 2020 15: 08 New
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      To dive "Zircon" does not need to slow down or turn off the engine

                      You at least see what kind of thermal head is there, if you do not slow down !!
                      Below an altitude of 20 km, there will already be embers and not Zircon!
                    3. Operator
                      Operator 14 October 2020 16: 41 New
                      +1
                      What I said: after the GKZ glider burns out, the dive will continue with the warhead in the form factor of the warhead.

                      Do you have any questions about the heat resistance of BB, landing at a speed> 10M? bully
                    4. Mityay65
                      Mityay65 14 October 2020 18: 17 New
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      the dive will continue the warhead in the form factor of the warhead.

                      So at what stage will the targeting of the radar seeker be? This process takes more than one minute, especially in the conditions of modern electronic warfare.
                      First, on the marching section, we fly in a plasma cone without guidance and communication, then we begin to fall into the ocean, speed up along with the radar seeker, fall somewhere and explode?
                      You write "the coordinates of the target were radar-clarified even when approaching the AUG order", but we were on the marching site in an isolated plasma cone until it was reduced to 4M?
                      I suspect there is a secret here somewhere that you don't want to share! yes
                    5. Operator
                      Operator 14 October 2020 19: 08 New
                      -1
                      Switching on the RGSN - when approaching the border of the 100x100 km square, determined by means of external target designation (ZGRLS "Container", RTR aircraft and satellites, MCSAPL with a towed cable antenna GAS).

                      A radio-transparent window is formed in the plasma cocoon during the operation of the RGSN (by stabilizing the plasma oscillations using an electromagnetic field generator). The operating time of the RGSN in the mode of selecting surface targets can be estimated within one minute.
                    6. Mityay65
                      Mityay65 14 October 2020 19: 16 New
                      0
                      Oh, I'm afraid that we won't sink a single aircraft carrier ...
                      We must work further ...
  • ancient
    ancient 13 October 2020 14: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Operator
    In the latter case, it does not matter at all whether the target was standing or moving.

    Read again the ones .. that you wrote, and then again your conclusion .... you yourself deny the obvious wassat
    1.with self-control according to the data of the onboard inertial system, and therefore an error has accumulated from one to several hundred meters wink
    2. or the developers have learned how to stabilize the radio-transparent window in the plasma for at least a few seconds for radar guidance to a target within the dimensions of a surface ship at the terminal section of the trajectory.

    In addition (this is so ... just in case ... about yours .... 200 sec) “The missile's flight range was 450 kilometers, the maximum altitude was 28 kilometers. Flight time - 4,5 minutes.this is still 270 seconds, and at a speed of 20 knots the ship will travel 2,8 km ... is this in the "dimensions of a surface ship?" wassat
    Well ... the key word .. "Or" .... laughing
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 October 2020 19: 22 New
      -2
      I have already named my estimate of the field of view of the Zircon RGSN - 100x100 km, so the accuracy of external target designation plus the target range during the missile flight should not go beyond this square.
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 October 2020 14: 53 New
        -1
        Quote: Operator
        I have already named my assessment of the field of view of the RGSN "Zircon" - 100x100 km,

        You can continue in the same .. spirit ..... "by estimate" maximum 70 km by 10 wassat (with Н = 28 km ... well, look for the sector of angles (in degrees) or the field of view when searching, capturing and tracking a target wassat I have already written my vision for you. bully bully
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 12 October 2020 09: 05 New
    +5
    "The mistake of not receiving the Onyx anti-ship missile system by aviation should not be repeated, the Zircon should become a weapon for aircraft too."

    Forgiven for a long time who should be. You know.
    There is no Zircon in the marketable quantity yet. And no one will hang cartoons on airplanes ...

    Sometimes it leaks out that the Caliber is somehow not enough. We can barely scrape together the fleet. Therefore, they don't write about aviation either.
  • Volder
    Volder 12 October 2020 09: 10 New
    -13
    Why hasn't anyone booed the author so far? Reading the lines, I had one thought in my head: "God, what is he talking about ?!" The author goes out of his way to underestimate the significance and capabilities of the "Zircon" to destroy enemy ships, as well as the scientific achievements and production capacity of our military-industrial complex. The author lives the Soviet past, comparing the Zircon with Soviet rockets and science of those years. After the announcement that the SM-6 could shoot down a hypersonic maneuvering missile, the balls went up on my forehead. And after the assertion that carrier-based aircraft of aircraft carriers (with a combat radius of 700 km and a range of AGM-84E anti-ship missiles of 150 km) would be able to destroy the carriers of "Zircons" more than 1000 km away from me, I began to laugh, almost falling under the table. Fortune-telling on the coffee grounds has become a statement of "facts" and the ultimate truth. To disassemble the opus on the shelves, I have to write a separate article, but I have neither the time nor the desire for this.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 09: 34 New
      +9
      Why hasn't anyone booed the author so far? Reading the lines, I had one thought in my head: "God, what is he talking about ?!" The author goes out of his way to underestimate the significance and capabilities of Zircon to destroy enemy ships, as well as the scientific achievements and production capacity of our military-industrial complex.


      Nobody booed the author, because the author is right. This is the main reason.
      The author, unlike you, served in the Navy, and was engaged in the development of long-range missile strikes.

      But what armored car are you broadcasting from?
      1. Volder
        Volder 12 October 2020 10: 26 New
        -11
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The author, unlike you, served in the Navy, and was engaged in the development of long-range missile strikes.
        Perhaps that is why the author does not bother to explain by what algorithm the deck-based Superhornets will sink the Zircon carriers 1000-1500 km away from the aircraft carrier, and due to which the SM-6 can shoot down maneuvering hypersonic missiles. Also, the author "forgot" about the "Dagger" in service, which can hit an aircraft carrier at a distance of 2000 km in hypersound; in this sense, the aircraft "Onyxes" and "Zircons" are not particularly needed, because they will duplicate the "Dagger", inferior in range.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 12 October 2020 11: 29 New
          +7
          Quote: Volder
          what algorithm will the deck "Superhornets" use to sink the carriers of "Zircons" 1000-1500 km from the aircraft carrier?

          Well, after all, AGM-158C.

          Quote: Volder
          Also, the author "forgot" about the "Dagger" in service, which on hypersound can hit an aircraft carrier at a distance of 2000 km

          Firstly, 2000 km is the missile's range plus the carrier's combat radius (MiG-31).
          Secondly, there is no evidence that the "Dagger" can be used for moving targets. Its land variant, the Iskander, for example, cannot.
          Third, how many of those "Daggers" does the VKS have in principle? And how many of them, in principle, can be deployed if, except for the MiG-31, no one can let them in yet (and the 31st under the "Dagger" must be altered).
          1. Volder
            Volder 12 October 2020 13: 49 New
            -4
            Quote: Kalmar
            Well, after all, AGM-158C.
            There is a high probability that this subsonic low-speed rocket will not find a target at all: while it is flying and scouring, the Zircon carrier will have time to move a long distance. Therefore, the range of this missile is inflated. Probably, the passport range is given for an ideal situation when the target on the water does not move. In this case, the anti-ship missile flies in a straight line.

            Quote: Volder
            Also, the author "forgot" about the "Dagger" in service, which on hypersound can hit an aircraft carrier at a distance of 2000 km
            Quote: Kalmar
            Firstly, 2000 km is the missile's range plus the carrier's combat radius (MiG-31).
            Excellent! With the "dagger" we sink the aircraft carrier, and with the "Zircons" we finish off the escort ships. AUG in this case will not be able to escape.
            Secondly, there is no evidence that the "Dagger" can be used for moving targets.
            Representatives of the Ministry of Defense have repeatedly officially stated that the "Dagger" is intended to destroy surface targets. Google ...
            Its land variant, the Iskander, for example, cannot.
            That's why he is a land option, so as not to be able to.
            Third, how many "Daggers" in principle does the Aerospace Forces have? And how many of them, in principle, can be deployed ...
            In 2018, there were 10 Daggers in service, which is very symbolic (1 missile is required for 1 enemy aircraft carrier).
            1. Fan-fan
              Fan-fan 12 October 2020 16: 56 New
              -1
              What a bold plan - we can easily sink an aircraft carrier with one small racket. That's it, we have already defeated everyone! If we continue in the same spirit, then "the capital is confidently moving to New Vasyuki."
            2. Kalmar
              Kalmar 12 October 2020 17: 06 New
              +3
              Quote: Volder
              There is a high probability that this low-speed subsonic missile will not find a target at all.

              Therefore, the possibility of obtaining an updated control center in flight was realized for her.

              Quote: Volder
              Excellent! We sink an aircraft carrier with a "dagger"

              The main thing is to convince the aircraft carrier to stand still for half an hour (not even drift, if possible).

              Quote: Volder
              Representatives of the Ministry of Defense have repeatedly officially stated that the "Dagger" is designed to defeat surface targets

              To scratch your tongue, you know, is not to roll bags. Somewhere it was mentioned once that it could be surface targets. Somewhere later, it was agreed that we were talking about targets in the port (stationary, i.e.). Now for some reason they generally try not to remember him.

              Quote: Volder
              That's why he is a land option, so as not to be able to.

              Do you think there are few mobile targets on land that would be nice to crumble with the help of OTRK? We worked in this direction, but somehow it didn’t work out yet.

              Quote: Volder
              In 2018, there were 10 "Daggers" in service, which is very symbolic

              Symbolically, yes. They began to do it as a clever way to bypass the INF Treaty and get hold of a medium-range missile (more than 550 km) for the ground forces. And then the vile Murikans took it and left the INF Treaty, so now there is no special need in the "Dagger". A dozen riveted, no more is needed.
              1. timokhin-aa
                12 October 2020 22: 03 New
                +2
                A dozen riveted, no more is needed.


                Here I disagree, as mobile amplification is the very thing.
                Ground complexes with such speed cannot be transferred anywhere.
                For a sudden first strike, there is also a gut - the enemy does not expect missiles, he knows that they are not here. Aircraft resolve the issue with surprise.
                I would have a couple of regiments with Daggers. Just in case.
                But something doesn't go, I don't know what.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 13 October 2020 04: 58 New
                  -2
                  It does not go because of general problems in the economy, management efficiency, etc. IMHO.
                2. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 13 October 2020 09: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Here I disagree, as mobile amplification is the very thing.

                  The carrier is too specific: the MiG-31 has not been produced for a long time, there is a problem with spare parts, repairs, they say, are being carried out by cannibalism methods. And they chose it initially, I think, for a reason, which suggests the idea: is it really possible to launch "Daggers" from something else?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    13 October 2020 13: 26 New
                    0
                    The carrier is too specific: the MiG-31 has not been produced for a long time, there is a problem with spare parts, repairs, they say, are being carried out by cannibalism methods.


                    Well, everything is so with us, what to do?

                    And they chose it initially, I think, for a reason, which suggests the idea: is it really possible to launch "Daggers" from something else?


                    The initial velocity of the rocket at launch and, accordingly, the range, plus the speed of exit to the launch area.
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 13 October 2020 13: 42 New
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Well, everything is so with us, what to do?

                      Why then? There is the Su-27 and its derivatives, there is the Tu-22M, which is even being modernized. For the Tu-160, it seems like even engines are being made again. But they chose an aircraft that, in essence, is living out its days as part of the Aerospace Forces without a clear chance for a bright future.

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      The initial velocity of the rocket at launch and, accordingly, the range, plus the speed of exit to the launch area.

                      Doesn't it turn out that this is not just for a longer range, but out of necessity: lower speed and altitude, say, do not allow the "Dagger" to start reliably. Those. Is the possibility of adapting it to other media in question?
                3. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 11: 43 New
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  But something doesn't go, I don't know what.


                  Something I have a feeling that the Air Force corny does not want to give gliders to the Dagger Bearers. Apparently, there are very few of them left suitable for modernity.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    13 October 2020 13: 25 New
                    -1
                    Maybe I don't argue.
                    In general, if the rocket is successful, then it could be installed on other aircraft, on the same bombers.
                4. ccsr
                  ccsr 13 October 2020 12: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  I would have a couple of regiments with Daggers. Just in case.

                  At whose expense the "banquet" will be, journalist, tell us in more detail - whose states do you propose to change in order to create a "pair of regiments with Daggers", and at whose expense. At the same time, decide on the carriers, otherwise Klimov is pushing the Su-34, and what do you suggest? This "just in case" cost us dearly in the USSR - you pour water into whose mill, do not hesitate, tell the public ...
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 13: 35 New
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    and then Klimov is pushing the Su-34, but what do you suggest?

                    Let's just say, purely at the level of IMHO in the Su-34 unit, Klimov is right. The Navy needs a drummer.
                    And today, personally, I would give the Su-30 to the Air Force, gradually implementing the program of supplying 120 Su-34s to the Navy. Further, the manuals and KBP in the Air Force must be changed in the sense that the Air Force pilots must undergo training for operations over the sea and periodically participate in exercises with the fleet.
                    It is necessary to reorganize the MSS again. This is option A.
                    Option B. - to take all the available fighters and information security to the Air Force, except for the decks and base patrol aircraft .... If it is necessary to assign the Air Force units to operational subordination to the fleets.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      13 October 2020 13: 49 New
                      0
                      You are wasting your time on a subject. Type in his nickname on the Russian keyboard.
                      This creature is simply having fun, deliberately spraying various nonsense to be noticed and argued with him.
                    2. ccsr
                      ccsr 13 October 2020 14: 03 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      Let's just say, purely at the level of IMHO in the Su-34 unit, Klimov is right. The Navy needs a drummer.

                      From my experience, I’ll say that give the minister a command to present what the branches and arms of the Armed Forces need in the first place in the armament program, and believe me, everyone will present lists of 15-20 items, without which they will "die" and cease to exist. And then they will be ordered to cut them down to five positions, and no one will die, and will be glad that they included this in the program.
                      Therefore, it is impossible to proceed from the requests of the military in any case - they are like children in a toy store, and what the industry will not show them, they immediately shout - "Give!" That is why, proceeding from the security of the country, it is necessary first of all to look at how this or that weapon guarantees us strategic superiority, and only everything else on the residual principle. I respect the aircraft and missile industry and as a former armed man, I know perfectly well what drives them, but we must admit to ourselves that the Su-34 with the Dagger (or Zircon in the future) does not give us any strategic advantages over the United States, which means we need moderate appetites, and not talk about 120 Su-34s for the Navy, but go down to the ground, and think, maybe another plane is more preferable for us and will cost less in the end with less quantity.
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      Further, the manuals and KBP in the Air Force must be changed in the sense that the Air Force pilots must undergo training for operations over the sea and periodically participate in exercises with the fleet.

                      This is an organizational event, and here I completely agree with you, because this is a purely internal issue of the Ministry of Defense that does not require colossal financial costs. This can only be welcomed.
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      It is necessary to reorganize the MSS again. This is option A.
                      Option B. - to take all the available fighters and information security to the Air Force, except for the decks and base patrol aircraft .... If it is necessary to assign the Air Force units to operational subordination to the fleets.

                      I have gone through various reorganizations, and, which is characteristic, they are always opposed by those who are at the very top, although those who are lower understand that they are ripe. Therefore, your option may and does make sense, I don’t presume to judge, but here is how both commanders will look at it, the question is certainly interesting. As an example, since the eighties we have not been able to bring a helicopter regiment under the command of division commanders, although the Americans had about 140 of them per division. Here is a good example of our species relationships.
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 14: 18 New
                        0
                        Su-34 is for the Navy, but it will go down to the ground, and think, maybe another plane is more preferable for us and will cost less in the end with less quantity.

                        The difference in price between the Su-30SM and the Su-34 is not so significant. We will not get super-savings in this. Yes, and for long flights over the sea, the Su-34 is better suited.

                        This is an organizational event, and here I completely agree with you, because this is a purely internal issue of the Ministry of Defense, not

                        Quite right. In addition, again, we need to attend to the appropriate measures to ensure the leadership of the operations of the armed forces in the eee "Sea Sectors".

                        Therefore, your option may and does make sense, I do not presume to judge, but here's how both commanders will look at it, the question is certainly interesting.


                        Let me give you an example. In Yelizovo, MiG-31 (naval) crews fly 30-40 hours. Similar Air Force crews have an average of 80-100 flight hours in the same year.
                        Now about operational subordination. In 2009, I don’t remember exactly, the program was abolished. Instead, the FSB aviation was formed, divided into squadrons remaining in the places of the former deployment of the United Arab Emirates and the United Arab Emirates of the border troops. That is, aviation has become a single centralized structure subordinate to the director, air squadrons in the field are subordinated to the heads of regional departments in an operational manner. Flight training has improved, misuse of aircraft is excluded, such as transporting 3 boxes of canned food on the Ka-27 to Matua.
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 21: 05 New
                        0
                        In Yelizovo, MiG-31 (naval) crews fly 30-40 hours. Similar Air Force crews have an average of 80-100 flight hours in the same year.

                        I missed it again - speech for the state of the raid for 2015.
                    3. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 21: 10 New
                      0
                      Quote: ccsr
                      does not give us any strategic advantages over the United States, which means we need to moderate appetites, and not talk about 120 Su-34s for the Navy


                      You know the restoration of the MPA at least in ersatz form with the Su-34 as a carrier gives at least some leverage on the US Navy. But the financing of Poseidon's programs, not to mention the ditched APCR pr.949, occupied by the slipway of another nuclear special boat at the moment when we have a disaster with multipurpose nuclear submarines - does not give absolutely nothing, from the word AT ALL.
                    4. ccsr
                      ccsr 13 October 2020 21: 42 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      But the financing of Poseidon's programs, not to mention the ditched APCR pr.949, occupied by the slipway of another nuclear special boat at the moment when we have a disaster with multipurpose nuclear submarines - does not give absolutely nothing, from the word AT ALL.

                      I am not aware of who and how justified the creation of Poseidon and for the reduction of which developments this happened, but this is what I have noticed recently in the field of weapons.
                      Firstly, a sharp increase in UAVs, and, as I think, this is due to the reduction of reconnaissance aircraft. And I think they will not stop there, which means that attack aircraft and helicopters will be reduced.
                      Secondly, the Armata tank has slowly died, and it is unlikely that its production will reach several thousand for our armed forces. They decided to transfer the ground forces to missile armament, and this tendency is visible with the same Iskander, which means that the rest will be reduced.
                      Thirdly, large surface ships go into oblivion, and frigates and corvettes are replacing them, and I do not even remember about aircraft carriers.
                      Based on the foregoing, I suspect that the Ministry of Defense has developed a new concept, which provides for the reduction of our armed forces in terms of personnel, but at the same time, it relies on those weapons that will be fully automated and will not require a large number of service personnel.
                      If this is so, then all body movements with hypersound and projects like Poseidon become clear - it is their development that indirectly confirms my version.
                      However, I repeat - these are just my assumptions.
                    5. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 21: 54 New
                      0
                      Okay. And what you do not like the idea of ​​recreating the MPA. It is this decision that is needed to be implemented. For it will allow to influence the enemy's naval forces. The outfit of forces is necessary in my opinion. One BAP on a Su-34 in the Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet. One BAP central subordination in Novosibirsk, and a squadron of 865 IAP in Elizovo. Total minimum 108.
        2. Volder
          Volder 15 October 2020 06: 39 New
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Therefore, the possibility of obtaining an updated control center in flight was realized for her.
          There may be an opportunity, but in fact, reality does not coincide with the desired.
          The main thing is to convince the aircraft carrier to stand still for half an hour (not even drift, if possible).
          What half an hour ?? It turns out that you do not understand at all what hypersonic speed is. Also, you have no idea what area the seeker can cover from a height for an independent search for a target.
          Quote: Volder
          Representatives of the Ministry of Defense have repeatedly officially stated that the "Dagger" is designed to defeat surface targets
          Quote: Kalmar
          To scratch your tongue, you know, is not to roll bags. Now for some reason they generally try not to remember him.
          "Dagger" is also anti-ship. Do not want to believe the official statements of officials - this is your personal subjective right. By the way, about the S-350 "Vityaz" air defense system has not been mentioned for a long time either. Apparently, you judge the effectiveness of a weapon by the number of mentions in the media. Funny :)
          And then the vile Murikantsy took and left the INF Treaty, so now there is no special need in the "Dagger".
          For your information, if you are not aware, Russia has medium and long-range airborne missiles even without the Dagger. Therefore, the main purpose of the "Dagger" is not strikes on the ground, but strikes against moving surface targets. It is a luxury to use "Daggers" on the ground, like using an S-400 to shoot at cruise missiles.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 15 October 2020 09: 05 New
            0
            Quote: Volder
            There may be an opportunity, but in fact, reality does not coincide with the desired.

            Why do you think so?

            Quote: Volder
            It turns out that you do not understand at all what hypersonic speed is. Also, you have no idea what area the seeker can cover from a height for an independent search for a target.

            Hypersonic speed is all very touching. A lot of time also passes between the moment of the formation of the control center and the actual launch of the missiles. We have nothing special to keep the AUG "in sight" until the conditional red button is pressed.

            About the search: at the "Onyx" GOS looks at 50 km; viewing angle - ± 45 °. You can calculate which "spot" on the sea surface can be surveyed. Moreover, its radius will rapidly decrease as the rocket descends. Plus the proverbial plasma cocoon doesn't improve visibility. Plus, limited opportunities for maneuvering in the final section (the engine has already worked, the rocket is flying by inertia, each maneuver reduces speed).

            Probably, the above reasons played a role in the fact that no one now has ballistic missiles working at moving targets: everyone is hitting at known coordinates.

            Quote: Volder
            "Dagger" is also anti-ship. Do not want to believe the official statements of officials - this is your personal subjective right. By the way, about the S-350 "Vityaz" air defense system has not been mentioned for a long time either. Apparently, you judge the effectiveness of a weapon by the number of mentions in the media. Funny :)

            You, in turn, can believe any official statement. Even that glorious video with tank shooting from "Army-2020". Meanwhile, the S-350 was tested against air targets, even some vidosics flashed, but the "Dagger" was not on surface targets. But you have every right to consider it as an anti-satellite, I don't mind.

            Quote: Volder
            For your information, if you are not in the know, Russia has medium and long-range air-launched missiles even without the "Dagger"

            There are, but they are, firstly, winged and subsonic and, secondly, are deployed on strategic delivery vehicles (Tu-95 and Tu-160) that fall under the START treaty. And the "Dagger", being deployed on a conventional fighter, is not limited by any contracts. Do you feel the difference?

            Quote: Volder
            Therefore, the main purpose of the "Dagger" is not strikes on the ground, but strikes against moving surface targets

            Is that in MLRS mode. True, we have so many of these same "Daggers" no, but oh well.
      2. psiho117
        psiho117 12 October 2020 17: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Volder
        very symbolic (1 missile is required for 1 enemy aircraft carrier)

        Where are you, such fabulous, raised? Ha, if the avik could at least be critically damaged with one rocket fired!
        Even a 20-missile salvo of Granites does not guarantee the sinking of an aircraft carrier, even if several supersonic anti-ship missiles hit - the aircraft carrier will not sink at all.
        And you also need to take into account the gigantic experience of American crews in the fight for the survivability of their ship - there this skill is trained to the crew to complete automatism (in contrast to our fleet).
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 11: 44 New
          0
          Quote: psiho117
          And you also need to take into account the gigantic experience of American crews in the fight for the survivability of their ship - there this skill is trained to the crew to complete automatism (in contrast to our fleet).


          don't forget to add was.
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 October 2020 13: 29 New
            -1
            By the way, the fight for survivability there became much worse.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 13 October 2020 21: 11 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              with the fight for survivability it became much worse there

              What happened?
              1. timokhin-aa
                14 October 2020 18: 01 New
                0
                https://vz.ru/world/2020/7/14/1049787.html
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 16 October 2020 19: 08 New
                  0
                  Thank you.
                  I knew that they had problems with the quality of personnel in recent years - but I did not think that so much.
        2. Volder
          Volder 15 October 2020 06: 59 New
          0
          Quote: psiho117
          Ha, if the avik could at least be critically damaged with one rocket fired!
          An aircraft carrier can be damaged by 1 fired missile, interrupting its combat mission. Especially when it comes to a hypersonic missile. The speed and power of such a rocket is enough to smash the deck.
          Even a 20-missile salvo of Granites does not guarantee the sinking of an aircraft carrier, even if several supersonic anti-ship missiles hit - the aircraft carrier will not sink at all.
          An aircraft carrier in combat does NOT need to be sunk. It is enough to damage the deck or the side so that no aircraft takes off from it. Due to several holes in the side, the aircraft carrier will choke on water and roll. If the deck is not horizontal by more than 3 degrees, the air wing will neither take off nor land.
          And you also need to take into account the gigantic experience of American crews in fighting for the damage to their ship.
          Do you mean training? They are also training in the Russian Navy. While the crew is fighting for survivability, the ship's combat functions are paralyzed.
  • timokhin-aa
    12 October 2020 12: 03 New
    +7
    This is probably why the author does not bother to explain with what algorithm the deck-based Superhornets will sink the Zircon carriers 1000-1500 km from the aircraft carrier.


    What is not clear to you? With two PTB and one anti-ship missile "Hornet" can strike at a radius of 1200 km. Plus the radius of the rocket here.
    And also the second "Hornet" with a refueling unit, the so-called version of the KA-18.
    We do not yet have an aircraft carrier to cover our ships from air strikes.
    And it is not known when and in what form it will be repaired, and how much later it passes.
    The only question is to find this carrier, but they, unlike us, have something to conduct intelligence.

    and due to which the SM-6 can shoot down maneuvering hypersonic missiles.


    Don't you see in the video that this rocket has a fuselage similar to Onyx and the gas-dynamic rudders are the same, and TPK (this was in the press before)? The rocket is made on the basis of new energy, but using the Onyx backlog. She will not maneuver to Mach 5 before hitting the target.
    Can not.
    This is obvious to any tech-savvy person.
    1. Volder
      Volder 12 October 2020 14: 34 New
      -3
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      With two PTBs and one anti-ship missile, Hornet can strike over a radius of 1200 km. Plus the radius of the rocket here.
      In this case, a massive simultaneous strike on naval ships will not work, but a purely sequential launch will result. 1 our ship can repel at least 2 missiles simultaneously, not to mention the successive attacks stretched out in time.
      We do not yet have an aircraft carrier to cover our ships from air strikes.
      Alexander, instead of an aircraft carrier, we now have a hypersonic Dagger. For 2000 km we sink an aircraft carrier with it (so that not a single Superhornet takes off), and we finish off the escort ships with the Zircons. Here you need to clearly understand that in a threatened war period, our Navy will be covered by aviation. It is not necessary for Russian ships to go more than 2000 km from the coast to give battle.
      The only question is to find this carrier, but they, unlike us, have something to conduct intelligence.
      If you are talking about AWACS airplanes, then our military know how to jam their radars and communication channels with REP systems - both from the shore and from the aircraft suspension. Ours already have experience in secretly deploying military equipment to Syria.
      Quote: Volder
      and due to which the SM-6 can shoot down maneuvering hypersonic missiles.
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      The rocket is made on the basis of new energy, but using the Onyx backlog.
      The SM-6 has a speed of up to Mach 3,5 - this is clearly not enough to intercept the supersonic maneuvering Onyx.
      She will not maneuver on Mach 5 before hitting the target.
      Before hitting the target, at the final stage of the flight, it is not necessary to maneuver, because hypersound turns on there. The enemy's air defense system will not be able to react so quickly (calculate the course, make a decision on counteraction). It's not even about minutes, but about seconds.
      1. timokhin-aa
        12 October 2020 14: 49 New
        +3
        In this case, a massive simultaneous strike on naval ships will not work,


        What ???
        24 aircraft in a strike group give up to 24 anti-ship missiles in a salvo with this option. And in a dense volley.
        Enough for you?

        Alexander, instead of an aircraft carrier, we now have a hypersonic Dagger.


        And instead of a head - a Chinese iron. Just don't drag me in here.
        You still find this aircraft carrier to begin with, and most importantly - where is the "Dagger" in the series? 2 years have passed since that very speech - the missile is still not in service.
        Did you think why?
        And this is not counting the technically justified doubts that he can even hit a naval target.

        Here you need to clearly understand that in a threatened war period, our Navy will be covered by aviation.


        And at what distance from the coast is it possible with an acceptable level of reliability are you aware?

        If you are talking about AWACS aircraft,


        Not even close.

        The SM-6 has a speed of up to Mach 3,5 - this is clearly not enough to intercept the supersonic maneuvering Onyx.


        Let no rocket maneuver in the dense layers of the atmosphere at such a speed.

        Regarding the rest - educational program:

        What is the problem with the defeat of the hypersonic missile in general and the Zircon in particular? With the fact that a "slow" interceptor missile must be fired "in the forehead" or almost "in the forehead". It is, in professional terms, about "shooting with a small parameter." "Parameter" is the "target heading parameter", that is, the length of the perpendicular to the projection of the target missile's combat path onto the earth or water surface, drawn from the point where the firing anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) is located. A small parameter means that the air defense missile system shoots a target missile almost "in the forehead". Large - something from the side, from afar. Even simple logic dictates that the larger the heading parameter, the higher the speed of the interceptor missile should be. When the parameter exceeds certain values, it must first become higher than that of the downed target, and then significantly higher.


        https://vz.ru/society/2020/10/12/1064780.html

        Before hitting the target, at the final stage of the flight, it is not necessary to maneuver, because hypersound turns on there.


        We pull the switch, turn on the hypersound.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 12 October 2020 17: 03 New
          -1
          To turn on hypersound, I propose to put the pedal so that there is someone to immerse it in the floor.
        2. Volder
          Volder 12 October 2020 23: 15 New
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          24 aircraft in a strike group give up to 24 anti-ship missiles in a salvo with this option.
          All planes take off from the deck NOT simultaneously. More AWACS aircraft need to be raised and their protection provided. I think that the first thing the Russian aviation will do is hunt for American AWACS aircraft.
          Find this aircraft carrier to begin with,
          Finding is not a problem. The Ministry of Defense monitors the air, surface and ground situation at a distance of thousands of kilometers from the borders of the Russian Federation. Tracking and issuing control points are different things, it is much easier to follow.
          and most importantly - where is "Dagger" in the series? 2 years have passed since that very speech - the missile is still not in service.
          Alexander, in the process of trial operation "Daggers" can also be fired, as well as "Armata" tanks. In order to hit aircraft carriers, the serial production of the "Dagger" is not necessary - it is enough to have 10 pieces for 10 aircraft carriers. In the United States, more than half of the aircraft carriers are still not combat-ready, and for a long time. Well, we will throw NATO destroyers and cruisers with "Zircones", "Onyxes" and air-based anti-ship missiles, because the AUG air wing will no longer exist ...
          And this is not counting the technically justified doubts that he can even hit a sea target.
          Doubt has a right to exist. But since we are not scientists, we do not work for the Ministry of Defense, and are not aware of the latest scientific achievements in the military sphere, I prefer to trust the words of Putin and the representatives of the Ministry of Defense. I don't think they are bluffing.
          Quote: Volder
          Here you need to clearly understand that in a threatened war period, our Navy will be covered by aviation.

          Quote: timokhin-aa
          And at what distance from the coast is it possible with an acceptable level of reliability are you aware?
          Our Tu-22M3M, taking into account the range of the Kh-32 anti-ship missiles, can reach at least 2000 km from the coast. If we talk about interceptor aircraft with air-to-air missiles (Su-35, for example), then the distance is reduced to 1200 km.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 13 October 2020 05: 37 New
            0
            I think that the first thing the Russian aviation will do is hunt for American AWACS aircraft.

            What composition, what losses do you plan? How about the difference in the speed of their replacement?
            Finding is not a problem. The Ministry of Defense monitors the air, surface and ground situation at a distance of thousands of kilometers from the borders of the Russian Federation. Tracking and issuing control points are different things, it is much easier to follow.

            The statement is more about ideology. Should track - then it is. From satellites, I suppose, around the globe? Or at ranges of up to 1000 km along our (very long) shores 24/7?
            Armata. "In order to hit aircraft carriers, the serial production of" Dagger "is not necessary - it is enough to have 10 pieces for 10 aircraft carriers.

            Very naive. Firstly, the Dagger is NOT a RCC. And secondly, the attack of such protected objects will ALWAYS be led by a large squad of forces and means. (This is the kind of thinking that the state of the economy and industry leads to ... No. )
            Well, we will throw NATO destroyers and cruisers with "Zircon", "Onyx" and air-based anti-ship missiles, because the AUG air wing will no longer exist ...

            Can you hear yourself? The word "throw" appeared .. And let's just hats?
            The destroyer and the cruiser are "slightly" different in terms of protection from MRKs. Most importantly, in a miracle plan, it was easy to get rid of the air wing ...
            I understand, I want to "show them". And inexpensive (so that the industry pulls).
            then I prefer to trust the words of Putin and the representatives of the Ministry of Defense. I don't think they are bluffing.

            1. Putin always speaks the truth. 2.If he doesn't speak, read paragraph 1 smile
            We remember the file from O. Stone's film, when the military handed over "a video of our aviation in Syria," which turned out to be American from Afghanistan. (This is just one example) Military - they don't lie and don't allow punctures smile
            If we talk about interceptor aircraft with air-to-air missiles (Su-35, for example), then the distance is reduced to 1200 km.

            The question here was about the reaction rate. And an important point: they can be met by enemy aircraft. Those. it is necessary to allocate forces at least to bind it in battle.
            Let me remind you that the main missiles in our Air Force are still modifications of the R-27. And on the other side - everywhere AIM-120 (C7 / D), "imba" and "cheating" weapons at all distances.
            1. Volder
              Volder 15 October 2020 08: 23 New
              0
              Quote: Volder
              The Ministry of Defense monitors the air, surface and ground situation at a distance of thousands of kilometers from the borders of the Russian Federation.
              Quote: 3danimal
              The statement is more about ideology. Should track - then it is. From satellites, I suppose, around the globe?
              In fact, it is, and not only from satellites.
              Quote: 3danimal
              Dagger - NOT RCC.
              "Dagger" is also anti-ship.
              The attack of such protected objects is ALWAYS led by a large detachment of forces and means.
              This was the case before the advent of hypersonic weapons. Considering that it is impossible to shoot down hypersonic maneuvering missiles, 1 "Dagger" will be required to disable one aircraft carrier.
              The destroyer and the cruiser are "slightly" different in terms of protection from MRKs.
              There are big doubts about the fact that the anti-ship air defense of NATO countries with their SM-6 is capable of repelling the strike of "Caliber", "Onyx", X-32, not to mention the "Zircon". The SM-6 hit an analogue of the Soviet Mosquito during trials; nothing is known about more complex targets.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 15 October 2020 09: 31 New
                0
                In fact, it is, and not only from satellites.

                The satellites will not come out 24/7, especially all over the world. It costs a lot of money.
                Here, at least along its immense borders ..
                Considering that it is impossible to shoot down hypersonic maneuvering missiles, 1 "Dagger" will be required to disable 1 aircraft carrier.

                Let me remind you that this is a rocket based on OTR. And at high speed you can't maneuver much. We have never tested interception tools for tracking EMs.
                SAM S-300/400 can intercept targets at speeds up to 4500-4800 m / s.
                Aegis with SM-6 missiles of about the same level (surpasses in the field of interception of transatmospheric targets with the SM-3 missile).
                What are the reasons to believe that he will not cope with one (!) Missile on a head-on course?
                I would like to get a cheap "golden bullet", and even "one piece per AB". Naively, life is not a computer game.
                The dagger "is also anti-ship.

                https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20185211547-L3aOs.html

                “The result is a missile with a range of up to 2.000 km, a conventional warhead weighing about 500 kg and the ability to carry a special warhead (thermonuclear warhead). On the route, the rocket uses an INS with the ability to adjust from the GLONASS system. The profile of the X-47M2 hull was chosen so that at a speed of 10 Mach numbers, no special thermal protection is required, and no restrictions are imposed on the operation of the seeker (GOS). The missile searches for targets using an optical correlation seeker, which allows it to hit them with a deviation of about 1 meter. "
                Where is the radar seeker? The means of guidance are the same as on Iskander. According to your logic, the latter is a coastal anti-ship complex? smile
                There are big doubts about the fact that the anti-ship air defense of NATO countries with their SM-6 is capable of repelling the strike of "Caliber", "Onyx", X-32, not to mention the "Zircon". The SM-6 hit an analogue of the Soviet Mosquito during trials; nothing is known about more complex targets.

                I wrote about it above. SM-6 hit a supersonic low-flying target "over the horizon", it imitates both Caliber and Onyx. It is more difficult to shoot down anti-ship missiles over the waves.
                "Nothing is known" + "I want to believe" = we have a wunderwaffe, of which you can have 10 pieces. It's naive. Let me also remind you about the electronic warfare AN / SLQ-32 with a capacity of up to 1 MW (megawatt), which is also not a gift.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 05: 07 New
        0
        Alexander, instead of an aircraft carrier, we now have a hypersonic Dagger.

        That's where you got that Dagger - RCC? Then the Iskanders are coastal complexes smile
        If you are talking about AWACS airplanes, then our military know how to jam their radars and communication channels with REP systems - both from the shore and from the aircraft suspension.

        You are not talking about that "duck" with the "jamming" of the destroyer flying Su-24?
        The SM-6 has a speed of up to Mach 3,5 - this is clearly not enough to intercept the supersonic maneuvering Onyx.

        On a collision course, it is not necessary to have the same / greater speed than the target. "Maneuvering" an anti-ship missile system will always be worse than an air defense missile system. And having exceeded the overload, it will fall apart.
        The enemy's air defense system will not be able to react so quickly (calculate the course, make a decision on counteraction).

        Do you have accurate data on the speed of work of IJIS? Look: it can track and fire at MRBM (in the future ICBM) flying at much higher speeds. But our Zircon (a separate topic about its characteristics) will he skip out of politeness?
        1. Volder
          Volder 15 October 2020 09: 20 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          That's where you got that Dagger - RCC? Then the Iskanders are coastal complexes
          Dagger and Iskander missiles are NOT the same missiles. Iskander shoots at the ground, the Dagger shoots at the ground and at the water. And I took this from the official statements of officials. If you are used to listening only to home-grown "experts" guessing on the coffee grounds - this is your personal subjective right.
          You are not talking about that "duck" with the "jamming" of the destroyer flying Su-24?
          "Duck" does not negate the capabilities of Russian electronic warfare systems. Even US officials admit they have lagged behind Russia in this direction.
          Quote: Volder
          The SM-6 has a speed of up to Mach 3,5 - this is clearly not enough to intercept the supersonic maneuvering Onyx.
          Quote: 3danimal
          On a collision course, it is not necessary to have the same / greater speed than the target.
          This is true provided the target is not maneuvering.
          "Maneuvering" an anti-ship missile system will always be worse than an air defense missile system. And having exceeded the overload, it will fall apart.
          What does it mean "worse to maneuver"? Any anti-ship missile maneuver, even the smallest, leads to the impossibility of calculating the flight trajectory in ADVANCE for the anti-missile air defense system. It is clear that the path of the missile defense system is continuously corrected during the flight. Therefore, the speed of the maneuver of the missile defense system must be higher than that of the anti-ship missile system - in order to have time to change the course one second before the collision. You can consider this the ultimate truth.
          Do you have accurate data on the speed of work of IJIS? Look: he can track and fire at MRBMs (in the future ICBM) flying at much higher speeds.
          Yes, the Aegis missiles of Iran and North Korea could well shoot down.
          But out of politeness he will skip our Zircon?
          Yes, she will, but not out of politeness.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 15 October 2020 10: 01 New
            0
            And I took this from the official statements of officials.

            I gave an example with an official statement.
            Another face promises a habitable base on the moon by 2025. Will not tell the truth? wassat
            The dagger shoots at land and water.

            By water: without radar seeker - if only by drilling platforms. (But on the water! smile )
            does not negate the capabilities of Russian electronic warfare systems. Even US officials admit they have lagged behind Russia in this direction.

            In the overland area. And we are in the sea. Different priorities.
            What does it mean "worse to maneuver"? Any anti-ship missile maneuver, even the smallest, leads to the impossibility of calculating the flight trajectory in ADVANCE for the anti-missile air defense system.

            Have you made a discovery? How does the GOS SAM work in your opinion? And after all, they cope with twisting bends by fighters.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 15 October 2020 10: 27 New
            0
            Therefore, the speed of the maneuver of the missile defense system must be higher than that of the anti-ship missile system - in order to have time to change course one second before the collision. You can consider this the ultimate truth.

            The anti-ship missile system cannot instantly change course, the missile defense system always has greater maneuverability. (Approximately 3 times)
            At high speed with the same g-force, the radius of your turn will be noticeably larger.
            And turn down your conceit.
            Yes, the Aegis missiles of Iran and North Korea could well shoot down.

            Take an interest in the development of these missiles. SM-3IIa (b) can intercept ICBM.

            http://академия-ввс.рф/images/data/zhurnal_vks/4-2017/217-231.pdf

            Yes, she will, but not out of politeness.

            Well, how can you put the top officials of the Russian Federation in an uncomfortable position? smile
            Although, judging by the lack of reaction to the fail in an interview with O. Stone (no disciplinary measures), this will continue to be repeated.
            With Zircon, you generally need to wait for a photo of the appearance of the rocket. The principle of action and possibilities will immediately become clear. So far there were only pictures of the X-51 Waverider and the layout of the "Brahmos-2".
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 19: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Volder
    and due to which the SM-6 can shoot down maneuvering hypersonic missiles.


    I just have no doubts that it can bring down. The only question is how many missiles will have to be spent on average for one Zircon ///
    1. Volder
      Volder 15 October 2020 08: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Volder
      and due to which the SM-6 can shoot down maneuvering hypersonic missiles.
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      I just have no doubts that it can bring down.
      How? There are big doubts about the fact that the anti-ship air defense of NATO countries with their SM-6 is capable of repelling the strike of "Caliber", "Onyx", X-32, not to mention the "Zircon" and "Dagger". The SM-6 hit an analogue of the Soviet Mosquito during trials; nothing is known about more complex targets.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 15 October 2020 10: 32 New
      0
      There were memories of one American Admiral: they were not too afraid of high-altitude x-22s, much more - P-700, P-1000, at a low-altitude flight profile.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 12 October 2020 19: 11 New
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The author, unlike you, served in the Navy, and was engaged in the development of long-range missile strikes.

    In which fleet, specifically, and in what position - senior or junior officer? Or maybe you went to journalists after Lvov, so do not hesitate, tell us a little about yourself so that you can understand how to perceive your fantasies about the future of the Russian fleet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 22: 06 New
      0
      You can't read the author's name under the article? How did you serve in intelligence, if you have a problem reading the name?
      Oh yes, you’re just a warrant officer from the bath and laundry plant ...

      I forgot, sorry.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 13 October 2020 10: 43 New
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I forgot, sorry.

        Forgot to inform about yourself - the question was specifically for you. And there is no need to hide behind the back of Klimov, who was only the commander of the warhead, this is too small even for the operational department of the fleet headquarters.
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 October 2020 11: 19 New
          0
          He was not only the commander of the warhead. And you were responsible for the washed Beluga, this is of course also a very important area of ​​service, especially for soldiers and sergeants.
          It was possible not to pity, in such a duty station there is nothing shameful, without this work the personnel would be very bad.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 13 October 2020 12: 46 New
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            He was not only the commander of the warhead.

            Tell us about yourself, I have long understood everything with Klimov and his position, and she did not impress me, especially considering the period of his military service.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            It was possible not to pity, in such a duty station there is nothing shameful, without this work the personnel would be very bad.

            As far as I understand, you did not serve in the army at all, and all your chatter of an ordinary journalist about the army is not worth a damn, but you can continue to pose as a tough military expert. Only give the name of at least one admiral, who supposedly supports your views, so that you can understand where your legs grow from, and all your fantasies are a figment of your imagination.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 October 2020 13: 27 New
              0
              Only after the disclosure of the story about the bath and laundry plant.
              laughing
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 12 October 2020 09: 36 New
    +6
    Quote: Volder
    The author goes out of his way to underestimate the significance and capabilities of Zircon to destroy enemy ships, as well as the scientific achievements and production capacity of our military-industrial complex.

    The author quite rightly notes that "Zircon" is not a magic wand, which at once multiplies the enemy's fleet by zero. The missile is, after all, only one of the components of the system necessary for a successful fight against enemy ships. No matter how good it is, without other components (carriers, reconnaissance and target designation systems, etc.), it is useless. I think this is quite obvious.

    We will not recall the production capacities of our military-industrial complex at all, it is enough to get acquainted with the "shock" pace of construction of corvettes, frigates and submarines.

    Quote: Volder
    And after the statement, as if carrier-based aircraft of aircraft carriers (with a combat radius of 700 km and a range of AGM-84E anti-ship missiles of 150 km) will be able to destroy carriers of "Zircons" more than 1000 km away

    Therefore, our "friends" are confidently promoting LRASM for carrier-based aircraft, for which a launch range of up to 900 km is indicated. Information also flashed that it is planned to resume the program of the anti-ship Tomahawk on a new element base with a launch range of up to 2000 km. Then, do not forget about the submarines: the same "Virginias" are already 17 pieces (against one 885 we have), and they are equipped with more modern torpedo weapons.
    1. Volder
      Volder 12 October 2020 12: 50 New
      -3
      Quote: Kalmar
      No matter how good it is, without other components (carriers, reconnaissance and target designation systems, etc.), it is useless.
      The author of the article only casually mentions target designation, but did not say a word about the Liana satellite space reconnaissance and target designation system, as well as about AWACS aircraft. They are the ones who direct the Zircon. As for the carriers, there are enough of them, given that the destruction of 1 ship will require 1-2 Zircon missiles.
      We will not recall the production capacities of our military-industrial complex at all, it is enough to get acquainted with the "shock" pace of construction of corvettes, frigates and submarines.
      It is much easier and faster to manufacture missiles; this has never been a problem in the Russian Federation. I mean after it was put into service.
      Therefore, our "friends" are confidently promoting LRASM for carrier-based aircraft, for which a launch range of up to 900 km is indicated.
      It is possible that 800 km is taking into account subsonic maneuvers to search for a target, or in an ideal situation when the rocket is flying straight and the target is not moving on the water. In fact, in real combat conditions, the range of the LRASM is shorter. Considering that one such rocket costs about $ 1 million, you can hardly dream of a large-scale production. And by the way, the Russian air defense system can shoot down subsonic missiles.
      There was also information that it was planned to resume the program of the anti-ship Tomahawk on a new element base with a launch range of up to 2000 km.
      The Yankees cannot even complete the current programs, trying to save money from the deficit military budget and redistribute them to create hypersonic weapons "like the Russians." Anti-ship "tomahawks" are not very relevant for them now, there will hardly be any progress in this direction in the coming years.
      Then, don't forget about the submarines: the same "Virginias" are already 17 pieces (against one 885 we have),
      First, we do not have one submarine with cruise missiles - there are more of them. Secondly, you need to clearly understand that in the event of a global impact, the submarine will NOT act alone. The submarines operate as part of the AUG. And if the AUG is destroyed by the Zircons and Daggers, then the submarines will not dare to carry out a combat mission alone - they will not have enough missiles for a disarming strike against all necessary targets. And if we also take into account our echeloned air defense system, then the attack of the submarines will stupidly drown. By launching "tomahawks" they will reveal their positions.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2020 13: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Volder
        The author of the article only casually mentions target designation, but did not say a word about the Liana satellite system of space reconnaissance and target designation, as well as about AWACS aircraft

        I already commented here about "Liana", it has its own limitations in terms of the obsolescence of the control center. AWACS aircraft are good, but also not a silver bullet: they are tied to airfields, vulnerable to enemy aircraft, and in general, the possibilities of their interaction with the fleet are ambiguous.

        Quote: Volder
        It is much easier and faster to make missiles, this has never been a problem in Russia

        The rocket itself does not work, it also needs a carrier. And this is very tight.

        Quote: Volder
        It is possible that 800 km is taking into account subsonic maneuvers to search for a target, or in an ideal situation when the rocket is flying straight and the target is not moving on the water. In fact, in real combat conditions, the range of the LRASM is shorter. Considering that one such rocket costs about $ 1 million, you can hardly dream of a large-scale production. And by the way, the Russian air defense system can shoot down subsonic missiles.

        Well, the "Zircon" has its 1000 km - this is also an ideal option, if so.
        Cost: "Tomahawks" have a similar price tag, and yet they are purchased in very significant quantities. Here the cost of Zircon is more alarming: given the volume of innovations, it has every chance of repeating the fate of the Armata (cool, but too expensive for the Ministry of Defense).
        By shooting down: of course, he can, the question is in the detection range (stealth) and the number of missiles in a salvo.

        Quote: Volder
        The Yankees cannot even complete the current programs, trying to save money from the deficit military budget and redistribute them to create hypersonic weapons "like the Russians."

        The Yankees are not particularly on fire now, so they can afford to slowly poke around and cut budget funds. If they really press, they will fuss, there were precedents in the Cold Water years.

        Quote: Volder
        First, we do not have one submarine with cruise missiles - there are more of them.

        Only 885 can shoot "Onyxes" / "Zircons". There are one and a half of them: "Severodvinsk" was delivered to the fleet, "Kazan" is being tested. It seems like the 949A was going to be remade for "Onyx" and "Caliber", but there is no information that some were updated in this way.

        Quote: Volder
        Secondly, you need to clearly understand that in the event of a global impact, the submarine will NOT act alone.

        I do not know in detail the nuances of the tactics of the US Navy, but our nuclear submarines worked quite well without the support of the NK; I do not see what prevents the Americans from working in the same way. At the very least, the adoption of the Zircon will give them an excuse to reconsider the established tactical schemes and shift the emphasis to submarines and aircraft at the forefront of the attack.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 12 October 2020 14: 14 New
          +7
          Quote: Kalmar
          AWACS aircraft are good, but also not a silver bullet: they are tied to airfields, vulnerable to enemy aircraft, and in general, the possibilities of their interaction with the fleet are ambiguous.

          The A-50 aircraft was tested for guiding the shock
          groups of MPA for surface ships. Personally, I was
          in the battle formations of the MPA, and the control officers of our
          divisions - on board the A-50.
          The conclusion is unambiguous - the game is not worth the candle ...
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 12 October 2020 14: 29 New
            +3
            Quote: Bez 310
            The conclusion is unambiguous - the game is not worth the candle ...

            Interesting. If it's not a secret, are the problems technical or organizational?
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 12 October 2020 15: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Kalmar
              That's interesting.

              The biggest problem is that he sees ships later than the MPA.
              In general, "his grenades are of the wrong system."
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 12 October 2020 16: 39 New
                +2
                Quote: Bez 310
                The biggest problem is that he sees ships later than the MPA.

                All my life I believed that the AWACS plane, on the contrary, was the most big-eyed.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 12 October 2020 16: 44 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  All my life I believed that the AWACS plane, on the contrary, was the most big-eyed.

                  Well, yes, for air targets.
                  It is for this purpose.
              2. 3danimal
                3danimal 13 October 2020 05: 59 New
                0
                Hmm, Hawkeye ships normally sees as far as I've read. Other radar functions?
              3. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 13: 37 New
                0
                And the enemy fighters?
      2. timokhin-aa
        12 October 2020 15: 55 New
        +2
        First, we do not have one submarine with cruise missiles - there are more of them.


        Well, list how many submarines we have that are capable of firing Zircon, at least in theory, in the ranks now.
        1. Volder
          Volder 12 October 2020 23: 41 New
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Well, list how many submarines we have that are capable of firing Zircon, at least in theory, in the ranks now.
          And it's not just about "Zircons". I mean, speaking of submarines and comparing their number with an adversary, one should not ignore Soviet-built submarines with their missiles. They can still show "Kuz'kina's mother" :)
      3. psiho117
        psiho117 12 October 2020 17: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Volder
        It is much easier and faster to manufacture missiles, this has never been a problem in Russia ...
        Considering that one LRASM costs about 1 million dollars, you can not dream of a large-scale release.

        Yeah, the Yankes, with a budget of up to $ XNUMX, will not be able to provide themselves with rockets (just a million for a thing!), But we are another matter, we rivet rockets in one fell swoop.
        It's already funny ... Moderate your frenzy of leavened patriotism.
        The Yankees cannot even complete the current programs, trying to save funds from the deficit military budget and redistribute them

        And we, our budget are not redistributed, or what?
        And in general, all these cartoons with the Vanguard, Poseidon, missile launches on the DR of the Commander-in-Chief - this is all an element of information warfare, so that the enemy moves, and he transferred money from those directions where he needs it now to those where he has no success - but these damn Russians, again some kind of wunderwaffe threaten the free world wassat
        This is what Sun Tzu bequeathed: War techniques are based on deception... Therefore, when we are able to attack, we must look as if we are not capable, and when we use forces, we must look inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe that we are far, when we are far away, we must make him believe that we are close
        you need to clearly understand that with a global impact, the submarine will NOT act alone. The submarines operate as part of the AUG.

        Your understanding of the doctrine of submarine warfare is very ... primitive. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the number and tasks of US submarines, and also calculate how many of them are assigned to the AUG, and what everyone else is doing. You will learn a lot of new things.
        By launching "tomahawks" they will reveal their positions.

        Oh tyzh bitter ... I just want to ask - "And what?"
        Maybe we have something to intercept them? Maybe we even have anti-submarine aviation?
        Drummers do not care about detection - they will strike a blow, firstly from outside the reach of our anti-submarine forces, and secondly, there is simply nothing to get them with.

        I repeat once again - temper your frenzy of leavened patriotism.
      4. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 October 2020 19: 09 New
        0
        Quote: Volder
        Considering that one such rocket costs about $ 1 million, you can hardly dream of a large-scale production.


        If they really fit into a million it's extremely cheap. AiM-120 cost 1 million 300 thousand dollars last year, while AiM-9 cost slightly less than half a million. And SDB II - 250-300 thousand hours. And about 7 years ago, the SM-6 was already worth 2 million. In Ryadli, it has fallen in price since those times.
      5. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 October 2020 05: 54 New
        0
        Considering that one such rocket costs about $ 1 million, you can hardly dream of a large-scale production. And by the way, the Russian air defense system can shoot down subsonic missiles.

        Apparently, this is incredibly big money for you? I will disappoint: the modern WTO is generally all expensive. And Caliber is not far behind in price. And for the production of 1000 LRASM, as much as $ 1 billion is needed, which is ... 1/700 of the US military budget. Annual. Yes, the Tomahawk also costs about a million. And SM-6. AIM-120 0,7-1 million. How much money is there for all this? smile
        Ha, subsonic bombers learned how to shoot down much earlier. After all, our and American designers are stupid that they are sawing themselves PAK DA and B-21 ... (analogy).
        Calculation with LRASM for too late reaction of air defense.
        the satellite system of space reconnaissance and target designation "Liana", as well as about AWACS aircraft.

        Livny is still gone. And satellites don't hang over one point. There are few AWACS planes (especially in comparison with the Yankees), where will you concentrate them?


        And if the AUG is destroyed by the "Zircons" and "Daggers",

        Fantasies, "how cheaply and effectively to break such a power."
        The Yankees cannot even complete the current programs, trying to save money from the deficit military budget and redistribute them to create hypersonic weapons "like the Russians."

        Poor Yankees with a meager budget, only 35 times ours. (Of course, they steal everything from them and pay big salaries, spend money ineffectively. But here every ruble goes strictly to the cause ...)
        By launching "tomahawks" they will reveal their positions.

        And in five minutes they will be attacked? No.
        And they will swim away under water.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 13: 10 New
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          AIM-120 0,7-1 million


          AiM-120 1 million 250 - 1 million 300 thousand dollars - two contracts last year.
          SM-6 - at least $ 2 million.
          AiM-9 - in the area of ​​half a million baksolv
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 28 New
            0
            The 120th went up smile
            With SM / 6 - my mistake. The main goal was to convey the idea that a complex and effective product is expensive.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 13 October 2020 22: 50 New
              0
              For the 120th and 9th I am definitely sure. Not so long ago I saw a sign ...
              For six more difficult, I saw the price tag a couple of years ago and I don't remember where.
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 13: 50 New
      +1
      LRASM, for which the launch range is indicated up to 900 km.


      They lied, by the way. Much less in fact. The forgery was revealed. But all the same - hundreds of kilometers.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2020 14: 03 New
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They lied, by the way. Much less in fact. The forgery was revealed. But all the same - hundreds of kilometers.

        If you don't cheat, you won't sell. For the same reason, I am, shall we say, a little skeptical about the voiced characteristics of "Zircon".
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 26 New
          +1
          You have no tact. Can Russian arms dealers be suspected of wanting to make a "marketing ploy"? smile
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 12 October 2020 10: 12 New
    +8
    Quote: Volder
    And after the assertion that carrier-based aircraft of aircraft carriers (with a combat radius of 700 km and a range of AGM-84E anti-ship missiles of 150 km) would be able to destroy the carriers of "Zircons" more than 1000 km away from me, I began to laugh, almost falling under the table.


    For AUG, 600 miles was the standard range for hitting a target back in the 80s of the last century.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 12 October 2020 09: 30 New
    +3
    "Despite the fact that the shooting was far from the maximum range" - well, here too, for starters, we need to see how much he will eventually fly.
    In general, from the declared "450 km in 4,5 minutes" and "maximum speed 8M" so far it turns out that the average speed of Zircon is 5M. The maximum, I suppose, refers to the initial stage of the flight, i.e. the target speed will be slightly lower than the "average" 5M.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2020 09: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: ares1988
      those. the target speed will be slightly lower than the "average" 5M

      This makes sense: the missile seeker will be able to work normally. True, the advertised invulnerability for enemy air defense systems is in doubt.
      1. Volder
        Volder 12 October 2020 10: 12 New
        -5
        Quote: Kalmar
        True, the advertised invulnerability for enemy air defense systems is in doubt.
        Enemy air defense systems are not capable of shooting down even supersonic missiles flying and maneuvering at speeds exceeding Mach 3,5.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 12 October 2020 10: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: Volder
          Enemy air defense systems are not capable of shooting down even supersonic missiles flying and maneuvering at speeds exceeding Mach 3,5.

          Between 3.5M and "less than 5M" there is not much difference, so it is quite possible that more high-speed missiles may appear, capable of intercepting a "five-speed" target.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 13: 10 New
            +1
            especially if you remember how "air defense, which can shoot down shells" at one time did not shoot down low-speed anti-ship missiles ...
          2. Volder
            Volder 12 October 2020 15: 53 New
            -1
            Quote: Kalmar
            Between 3.5M and "less than 5M" there is not much difference
            This is a VERY big difference. A small fraction of Mach 1 can change the entire course of a battle. Let me remind you that subsonic missiles fly at less than Mach 1. And here there is a difference of Mach 1,5 (5 - 3,5 = 1,5).
            so the emergence of more high-speed missiles, capable of intercepting a "five-speed" target, is quite possible.
            As far as I know, there are NO such projects to create interceptor missiles capable of intercepting Mach 5 strike missiles and are not even announced.
            Most likely, "Zircon" maneuvers at Mach 5 on the main section of the path, and in the final section, before hitting the target, hypersound turns on - there are no longer necessary maneuvers. The enemy's air defense system will not be able to react so quickly (calculate the course, make a decision on counteraction). It's not even about minutes, but about seconds.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 12 October 2020 16: 53 New
              +3
              Quote: Volder
              This is a VERY big difference.

              SAM, unlike anti-ship missiles, do not need to fly far, so raising its speed is not so difficult. Moreover, for interception, the role is played not so much by speed as by maneuverability.

              Quote: Volder
              The enemy's air defense system will not be able to react so quickly (calculate the course, make a decision on counteraction). It's not even about minutes, but about seconds.

              As for "may or not" - the statement is somewhat unfounded. They have everything in order there with the element base. It's only about a suitable missile defense system. As long as they don't itch in this direction, there is no need.
              1. Volder
                Volder 14 October 2020 14: 20 New
                0
                Quote: Kalmar
                Moreover, for interception, the role is played not so much by speed as by maneuverability.
                Maneuverability without speed is about nothing! Of course, if the anti-missile missile speed is 2 times less than the anti-missile missile speed, or if the anti-ship missile is flying strictly in a straight or ballistic trajectory, then the enemy's existing air defense systems will definitely bring it down.
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 14 October 2020 16: 48 New
                  0
                  Quote: Volder
                  Maneuverability without speed is about nothing!

                  This has already been said. It depends on the desired exchange rate parameter: the larger it is, the higher the speed of the missile defense system should be. At low values, missiles may well be slower than anti-ship missiles. On Mach 8, it will fly in a straight line to the target; maneuvering at that speed will not work.
        2. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 14: 06 New
          +2
          What kind of stubborn habit of spanking gag on questions you don't understand? What makes you do it?
          1. Volder
            Volder 12 October 2020 23: 53 New
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What kind of stubborn habit of spanking gag on questions you don't understand?
            Sorry, but now everyone is guessing on the coffee grounds regarding Zircon. I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, I just compare the statements of officials (whom I believe) and critical, distrustful experts. Some keep silent, others already know everything in advance. As a result, I have a picture with the prefix "most likely".
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 13 October 2020 22: 30 New
          0
          I assume you are personally present at all the exercises and tests?
          For the SM-6, the ability to work on ballistic targets is declared. And there speeds and more than 5m can be.
          1. Volder
            Volder 14 October 2020 14: 25 New
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            For the SM-6, the ability to work on ballistic targets is declared. And there speeds and more than 5m can be.
            The key here is "ballistic targets". There are NO ballistic missiles in Russia at all. There is no need to belittle Russia to the level of the DPRK or Iran.
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 12: 04 New
      +2
      She flew long range. It is only unknown, with the GOS or not. But the fact took place. And VERY MUCH large.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 12 October 2020 12: 19 New
        0
        Were there any official statements? I may have missed this.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 13: 50 New
          -1
          It was necessary to look, during strikes on ground targets it seemed.
  • Konstantin Shevchenko
    Konstantin Shevchenko 12 October 2020 10: 05 New
    +1
    The CIA read the article and crying . smile
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Senka naughty
      Senka naughty 12 October 2020 11: 38 New
      -8
      Quote: Konstantin Shevchenko
      The CIA read the article and crying . smile

      Fools who can go to the topvar and tell about the characteristics of any secret weapons are not allowed to develop within the range of a sniper shot.
      And the attempts of the local expert flavor are simply ridiculous. With all due respect to the commentators. hi
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 12 October 2020 17: 36 New
        -4
        It's funny just the stories of the jingoistic patriots that we will easily sink their aircraft carriers.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 October 2020 10: 19 New
    0
    The mistake of not receiving the Onyx anti-ship missile system by aviation should not be repeated, the Zircon should become a weapon of aircraft too.


    Something I have not heard about the lightweight ONYX for aircraft .... an analogue of Brahmos.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 12: 04 New
      +1
      There is and is tested.
  • certero
    certero 12 October 2020 10: 22 New
    -3
    The dagger was invented for airplanes
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2020 10: 38 New
      +3
      Quote: certero
      The dagger was invented for airplanes

      True, he does not know how to ship and is launched only from the MiG-31.
      1. Volder
        Volder 12 October 2020 16: 02 New
        -5
        Quote: certero
        The dagger was invented for airplanes
        Quote: Kalmar
        True, he does not know how to ship and is launched only from the MiG-31.
        Who told you that? Where is the source of information from? The Dagger is not Iskander. In the sense that the missile guidance system is different. The Russian army has airborne anti-ship missiles, which means that it is technically possible to turn an Iskander missile into an anti-ship missile. But you have the right not to believe in it - your business is personal and subjective.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 12 October 2020 16: 46 New
          +4
          Quote: Volder
          "Dagger" is not "Iskander"

          An aeroballistic rocket at its base, and?

          Quote: Volder
          In the sense that the missile guidance system is different.

          There is no clear information about this.

          Quote: Volder
          The Russian army has airborne anti-ship missiles, which means that it is technically possible to turn an Iskander missile into an anti-ship missile

          Technically, a lot of things are possible, but practically ... In general, I have already expressed my considerations somewhere here: the BR has very limited possibilities in terms of maneuver and, as a result, additional reconnaissance of the target. As a result, a very accurate and "fresh" control center is needed at the time of launch - it is difficult to provide it with the means that we now have.

          Quote: Volder
          But you have the right not to believe in it - your business is personal and subjective.

          This is not a question of faith: either there are some tests in which a moving surface target was detected and hit by the "Dagger" on the move, or those were not carried out. I did not come across such information; if you know about something like that - share it.
          1. Volder
            Volder 14 October 2020 14: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Kalmar
            An aeroballistic rocket at its base, and?
            Even if at the base, the performance characteristics of the missiles may differ. But again, you can not believe - this is your right.
            Quote: Volder
            In the sense that the missile guidance system is different.
            Quote: Kalmar
            There is no clear information about this.
            This does not prevent you from believing the words of Putin and the representatives of the Ministry of Defense about the capabilities of "Zircon".
            Technically, a lot of things are possible, but practically ... you need a very accurate and "fresh" control center at the time of launch - it is difficult to provide it with the means that we now have.
            Perhaps this problem has already been resolved or is being solved at the moment. In the next branch, a man under the nickname Operator told how the control center for Zircon could be given.
            This is not a question of faith: either there are some tests in which a moving surface target was detected and hit by the "Dagger" on the move, or those were not carried out. I did not come across such information
            If there is no information, then the Zircon is not an anti-ship missile. Bravo! Excellent logic, worse female truth. Curtain, we all disperse ...
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 14 October 2020 16: 53 New
              0
              Quote: Volder
              This does not prevent you from believing the words of Putin and the representatives of the Ministry of Defense about the capabilities of "Zircon".

              Words and I can speak. When they are confirmed by tests, that's a different story. There is no such thing yet.

              Quote: Volder
              In the next branch, a man under the nickname Operator told how the control center for Zircon could be given.

              Yes, I was there, I remember, answered. And not only me. I will not repeat myself; in short: we generally have nothing to give out such a control center.

              Quote: Volder
              If there is no information, then the Zircon is not an anti-ship missile. Bravo! Great logic

              What does "Zircon" have to do with it, we were talking about "Daggers" here. You are poking logic at the wrong place.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 12 October 2020 18: 10 New
          0
          Quote: Volder
          The Dagger is not Iskander. In the sense that the missile guidance system is different

          Why do you think so? There is already a really working seeker at Iskander, on which years of work and millions of money have been spent. So what a sudden fright, you decided that it was developed new GOS, spending more years and millions, for the sake of, in fact, the same rocket, just with an air launch?
          Why do you generally pass off your conjectures as truth so categorically?
          There is no need to nod at the opportunity to work on sea targets - in fact, this is all solved by a minor software upgrade - it is enough to teach the optical seeker to recognize the silhouettes of ships against the background of the sea.
          The problems remain the same as those of the "classic" anti-ship missiles - target designation, recognition and filtering of targets against the background of electronic warfare
          1. Volder
            Volder 14 October 2020 16: 00 New
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            There is no need to nod at the opportunity to work on sea targets - in fact, this is all solved by a minor software upgrade - it is enough to teach the optical seeker to recognize the silhouettes of ships against the background of the sea.
            Why do you generally pass off your conjectures as truth so categorically? :)
          2. Kalmar
            Kalmar 14 October 2020 16: 56 New
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            You don't need to nod at the opportunity to work on naval targets - in fact, this is all solved by a minor software upgrade.

            Laughed, thanks. We download the "Ship recognizer" from PlayMarket, fill it in the GOS - and voila, it's in the bag)) And why no one immediately thought of this ... Maybe teach to recognize silhouettes - that's never at all minor upgrade? Maybe it will not work at the same time to provide the required search range, all-weather and noise immunity? Yes, no, some kind of nonsense.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 16 October 2020 19: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              Perhaps, it will not work at the same time to provide the required search range, all-weather and noise immunity

              That is why I do not consider the "Dagger" an anti-ship missile.
              As a possible option, yes, but not the main profile. Trite does not allow avionics.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 12 October 2020 10: 48 New
    +2
    the development of coastal aviation is the most important task
  • dimz
    dimz 12 October 2020 10: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    It is unlikely that the Indians hung their Brahmos on airplanes themselves without our help.
    This means that our engineers have competencies.


    They only mounted our kit on their Su, everything was done in Russia, we also have an aviation version of the Onyx with a short booster.
    But - we do not do it and that's it.

    This is not true. Brahmos for aviation was developed independently by the Indians. We have no analogue. Refused due to the division of KB specializations.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 12: 05 New
      +2
      Brahmos themselves, but they could not modify the Su-30 glider without us.
      We have an analogue, the performance characteristics are known.
  • iouris
    iouris 12 October 2020 12: 50 New
    -3
    The people should not reveal "Zircon", but the goal. So far it turns out like this: 1) "Every bomb, every shell is on target", 2) "Our goal is communism."
  • dimz
    dimz 12 October 2020 13: 03 New
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Brahmos themselves, but they could not modify the Su-30 glider without us.
    We have an analogue, the performance characteristics are known.

    Didn't modify anything globally in drying. Reduced weight and dimensions of the rocket + dug up the air launch. What the fuck is an "air" lionfish with such a range is a mystery to me.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 13: 52 New
      0
      What the fuck is an "air" lionfish with such a range is a mystery to me.


      Inter-theater maneuver, reserve in case of loss of the fleet, rapid volley build-up, etc.
      As for us, in general.
      1. dimz
        dimz 12 October 2020 16: 30 New
        -1
        If they “lose” the fleet, it's time to use nuclear weapons. Simply, the concept of onyx implies a massive launch. Control of all missiles to the target, RB throughout the entire section, variable trajectories on the approach, etc. A salvo of one rocket from a drying plant is an impermissible luxury. You are talking about zircon. And I very much doubt that a modern aircraft carrier group is able to catch a full salvo of onyx. It's not really about speed.
  • Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 13: 09 New
    -3
    The mine has an aggravation .. not knowing the characteristics, he had already invented everything himself and had already flushed all the rockets down the toilet .. lol
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 October 2020 13: 52 New
      +1
      YOU saw something similar in the article.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 13: 57 New
        -2
        this is to Mina, what he saw there, I don't know, but his favorite topic is to flush everything down the toilet on the basis of "I have no information, so all lies and drank" .. One story with his cries about "stop building Boreas, plant everyone who is engaged in it because he was not shown the launch of the Bulava from the serial boat, I wonder. When a year later he was launched, did he even think that in his article he froze heresy and demanded to freeze the construction of about 5 boats for a year?
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 October 2020 14: 00 New
          +1
          You seem to be going crazy.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 14: 13 New
            -1
            do not adopt the Minsk habit of blaming everyone for stupidity) do not slide down to its level ... but in fact..pardon, why hang Zircons on airplanes? 1) rockets have a different type of launch, therefore it will be necessary to adapt the rocket for an air launch, 2) how if work is going on now on the GZUR topic .. 3) the thrust of Mina to hang Zircons on the Su-34 due to the fact that this idea came to him and the developer told him that hanging this rocket on a bomber does not mean that everyone should start taking entire air regiments from the Aerospace Forces and transfer to the sailors .. it looks especially interesting with an attempt to combat aircraft carriers .. well, just a "brilliant" solution .. Moreover, the submarines for which he had to sink, he immediately wrote off for scrap. well, really .. after all, find a submarine within a radius of 1 km much easier than finding a flying regiment of Ducklings in the same radius .. And yes, "randomly" place missiles on ships ... And I should be accused of being crazy?
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 October 2020 14: 29 New
              +2
              1) rockets have a different type of launch, therefore, it will be necessary to adapt the rocket for an air launch,


              thanks, Cap

              2) how are the works on the GZUR topic going now


              There is a lot of things going on, and here is a finished rocket, it really has three to four years before the series, if the industrial company masters production. Why reinvent the wheel? Extra money? GZUR goes for the VKS, that she will have a special. anticorbent head was out of the question.

              3) Mina's thrust to hang Zircons on the Su-34 due to the fact that he got this idea and the developer told him that hanging this rocket on a bomber does not mean that everyone should start taking entire air regiments from the Aerospace Forces and transferring them to sailors ..


              It was not his idea, he only helped the docks write in support of the project. The idea was completely different people.

              it looks especially interesting with an attempt to combat aircraft carriers .. well, just a "brilliant" solution.


              This is the only solution - it is impossible to adjust economically so many ships to provide the necessary volleys in terms of scope and number only from them.
              Has the example of the Soviet MRA passed you by?

              Moreover, the submarines for which it should sink


              This is the logic of a schoolchild with a psyche, simple enough to write it down by means of some educational language for a PC - BASIC for example.
              All options are strictly binary, Yes / No, all through the same conditional transition, no "third options", etc. laughing
              In fact, being a submariner and having experience of pushing with amers, he just imagines what restrictions the submarine has today and that's it.

              he immediately wrote off for scrap. well, really .. after all, finding a submarine within a radius of 1 km is much easier than finding a flying regiment of Ducklings in the same radius.


              Enough has been written on the search for submarines both on the airborne and in other places.
              In the 90s, our GS-31 with GPBA detected Norwegian diesels on electric motors from HUNDREDS of kilometers.
              WITHOUT ILLUMINATION.

              And NATO members HAVE a highlight.

              Do you need to explain further?

              With the Su-34, by the way, the story was muddied by the submarine, and precisely in order to sink the surface KPUG OVMS NATO providing low-frequency illumination for the remaining anti-submarine forces.

              Because otherwise they will not turn around, they will flood like kittens and they know about it.
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 14: 53 New
                +1
                um ... shta? "why reinvent the wheel"? those. remove half of the rocket, replace it and then see "can it or not" .. for what? For Mina's wishlist? The peculiarity of the creation of the Dagger and Zircon is that the technology of creating hypersonic missiles is being worked out .. Therefore, further haste for the sake of "more missiles to God of missiles" will be too expensive .. The GZUR is so good that it can be hung in a Tu-22m3m revolver or Tu-160, and under the Su-34, hang in the amount of 3 pieces .. and taking into account that the Zircon is sharpened under the vertical, this will create problems with the placement of missiles on the Su-34 .. Example-Dagger, when we went on the "simplest" paths and shoved the rocket aboard the Mig almost without alterations .. as a result, to achieve the performance characteristics, you have to redo the car and only weighs 1 rocket .. About "he wrote the docks to justify the project" .. sorry .. This is to come up at the exhibition and ask "you heard about the secret Zircon rocket, do you think it can be hung on the Su-34? ".. This is the rationale?) Remind me, when Mina got access to the secret?

                By the way ... it's funny about "or or" to read, provided that Mina himself cuts everything at once ... And again, to find a nuclear submarine at a distance of 1 km + is much more difficult than guessing whether the Su-000 regiment will reach the launch point missiles - or they will be met by a four of F-34s and drown to a fancy ...
                1. timokhin-aa
                  12 October 2020 14: 56 New
                  +2
                  Do you even read what they write to you? Did you read my comment in principle?

                  Regarding to redo the rocket floor - on Onyx they strengthened the glider and added nodes for the suspension, removed the connectors differently, installed a shortened accelerator, rewrote the software.
                  If it is short.
                  The rest of the improvements were not dramatic.

                  The same can be done with Zircon.

                  As for the rest, communicate with yourself, I cannot hold a discussion with an opponent who does not respond to speech.
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 15: 03 New
                    +1
                    and I also had to redo the plane .. I will repeat, an attempt to create a "universal" rocket will lead to the fact that instead of a normal aircraft rocket, a giraffe is obtained, the same Indians everywhere declared that Brahmos would hang 3 pieces for Drying, in the end they admitted that the idea was not viable on Sushki only 1 rocket will hang and only Brahmos-NG, which they are only developing, will be even smaller than the current Brahmos will be able to hang 3 pieces for drying .. Mina proposes to go the same way .. take a healthy rocket, spend a couple of years creating an adapted air version, to hang 1 piece for drying, then remember that there is still a Tu-22m3m and a Tu-160 and it would be necessary to hang something on them, and preferably in a drum ... And cut it again?)) If, as you write this " the idea of ​​a submarine ", then the submarine should not be required to hang Zircon on airplanes with an ultimatum, but to demand hypersonic missiles on airplanes.
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 12 October 2020 15: 36 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      as if there are still Tu-22m3m and Tu-160 and it would be necessary to hang something on them, and preferably in a drum ..

                      There is no Tu-22m3m, but on the Tu-160 there is nothing new
                      missiles cannot be suspended.
                      1. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 15: 41 New
                        0
                        Slow ... but nothing that I wrote Tu-22m3M?
                      2. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 12 October 2020 15: 45 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Boris Chernikov
                        but nothing that I wrote the Tu-22m3M?

                        Nothing...
                        I was wrong, it will be right -
                        there are no Tu-22m3m planes.
                      3. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 15: 50 New
                        0
                        and there are no missiles yet) they are on tests ... and yes ... a couple of carcasses, as it were, they fly at the plant
                      4. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 12 October 2020 15: 51 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Boris Chernikov
                        fly at the plant

                        A lot of things fly in factories ...
                        There are problems with the airplane glider,
                        who were going to modernize.
                      5. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 12 October 2020 15: 52 New
                        0
                        wait and see)