Military Review

Sea warfare for beginners. Targeting problem

505

The power of anti-ship cruise missiles is great, but in order to hit a target with them, you need to know much more about it than just coordinates. In the photo, the launch of the P-1000 Vulkan anti-ship missile system from the Pacific guards missile cruiser fleet "Varyag" project 1164


One of the issues that consistently causes misunderstanding among the general public is the issue of target designation when firing anti-ship guided missiles (ASM). And it is precisely the lack of understanding of this issue that leads to the fact that our people actively believe in superweapons. Still, a rocket can hit a ship from a thousand kilometers!

Can. Or maybe not. To hit, the rocket must, having flown this very thousand kilometers, reach the target with the required accuracy. What if the current target location at the time of launch is known with a significant error? At this moment, the curious begin to divide into those who are able to think rationally, and those who immediately need some kind of fairy tale to repair the shaken foundations. Satellites, for example, which see the target and "transmit" something somewhere, after which an unbreakable rocket arrives from this "somewhere" exactly at the target. Or the gigantic sector for capturing the missile's seeker, for many tens of kilometers, together with its supposedly super-maneuverability, which will allow you to turn behind the target and not miss.

In a real, complex and dangerous world, everything is different. And, in order not to let themselves be fooled, all those involved should deal with this very target designation.

Before we go any further, let's clarify a few important points. This text is a popularization text, it is not a quotation of rudocs or the "Rocket Fire Rules". It explains basic concepts in simple spoken language and using elementary examples. Moreover, even with this in mind, much is simply left behind the scenes, and on purpose. Some methods of obtaining data for this very control center are simply intentionally not mentioned. And, as a consequence, indications of rude mistakes from comrades who wore a black uniform will be accepted with gratitude, but nothing needs to be detailed and further clarified, this is not the case, the topic is too serious. But let's start with a frivolous stories.

Targeting Pink Pony


Once upon a time there was a Pink Pony. He was a patriot and loved his country. But, alas, he did not like to think - at all. And it seemed to him that everything in the world is very simple.

Sea warfare for beginners. Targeting problem

This is Pink Pony. Everything is simple with him. If anything, let's launch the "Dagger", the end of the aircraft carrier

For example, you need to put a rocket into an enemy aircraft carrier.

Well, what's the problem, saw the aircraft carrier from the satellite and sent a rocket to it. "But what about the Central Administration?" - people asked Pink Pony. “Don't you see? - Pink Pony pointed his hoof at the photograph of the aircraft carrier from the satellite. - What else do you want? The goal is visible! "


It seems that the target is it, attack. But this is an illusion

And people were perplexed and told him: "So you understand that this is" Charles de Gaulle "in Cyprus, how to explain this to a rocket? And the Pony started raving, laughing loudly and shouting at people: "Yes, everything has been decided for a long time, any normal satellite can transfer the coordinates of the detected target to the right place!" People did not calm down and asked further: “Coordinates? Will they be enough? What is target designation, you know? What is the meaning of this word? "

Here Pony was furious. He began to call people Solzhenitsyn and Rezuns, accused them of being for America and selling themselves to the State Department: Russophobes, pour mud on their country and do not understand anything at all! He wrote them various nonsense on the Internet and put emoticons with protruding tongues at the end of these nonsense, thinking that this is how his nonsense looks very convincing.

But in reality, the pony just didn't want to think. He never found out what target designation was, although he was told. He didn't hear. He thought that everyone who is not like him is not patriots and enemies.

So what is this, target designation?

Let's talk about this briefly.

Shooting data


Before moving on, it is worth understanding what basic data is used when rocket firing at a target that is not directly observed from the rocket carrier. weapons.

Let's imagine a picture. There is a kind of war going on somewhere, and we, like some Houthi, are sitting on the shore with a homemade launcher, on which stands an anti-ship missile system pulled from a broken naval warehouse. We have found a way to make it start and we can even program some commands for it, for example, make it lie on the course we have set, turn on the GOS "by timer" or immediately, it doesn't matter. Now, in order to launch it, we need to find a target somehow beyond the horizon.

We don't have a radar station, but we have a small boat with observers and a radio station. He walks around the designated area "snake" and searches for targets visually. And then his crew saw a warship on the horizon. Looking through powerful binoculars, the silhouette seems to have been identified (“like” is the key word, here we start the theory of probability, but more about it below). Now we need to somehow inform the shore about where the target is, and so that they immediately understand where it is, and understand exactly. The sea is empty, there are no landmarks in it. Therefore, in order to transfer target data “where it is necessary”, it is necessary to agree on how to explain the target's location. And this requires a coordinate system. There is no DC without a coordinate system.

The systems can be different. The first is polar, or relative.


Polar coordinate system on a maneuverable tablet

In polar coordinate systems, there is a central reference point from which the positions of other objects are set. As a rule, this is the object itself, oriented in these coordinates, for example, a ship. It stands at the center of the coordinate system. The position of other objects is specified through the angle and distance. The direction from the central point to the object whose coordinates you need to know (the target in our case) is called the word "bearing". The range is given for this bearing.


In the center is our destroyer URO, on which we "are", given the bearing to the enemy destroyer. Knowing the bearing and range to the target, we know where the target is and can convert its coordinates into a format that can be "understood" by a vehicle, for example, an anti-ship missile

The second system is rectangular, or geographic. These are the usual geographic coordinates: latitude and longitude. You can recalculate target position data from one coordinate system to another.


Rectangular coordinate system

How to transfer coordinates to our boat? If we had an automated system for generating data for rocket firing, it would give us the bearing from itself to the target and the range to it, and the automation would have already turned these two numbers into the bearing from the launcher and the range from the launcher to the target in this bearing.

But we do not have any automated system, therefore, on the boat, knowing their coordinates, they calculated the approximate coordinates of the target in normal geographic coordinates and reported on the radio to the command post of the launcher. Nothing, we'll count it if necessary, right? So.

And now we have the coordinates of the target, and, therefore, the bearing to it and the range.

The data on the exact location of the target at the present moment in time is called the "Present location of the target" - NMC.

Let's say we received this data without delay, quickly recalculated it into relative coordinates, got the bearing to the target and the range along it, then calculated the angle of rotation of the rocket after the start so that its course would coincide with this bearing, programmed it all into the rocket ... it took us still five minutes.

Is it possible to send a rocket to the NMC exactly?

The ship does not stand still, it moves. In five minutes to prepare for launch, which we carried out with the help of a laptop taken from the enemy with "broken" software, the ship covered some distance. Moreover, while our rocket is flying towards him, he will continue to go and cover an even greater distance.

What will it be? It's simple, it will be equal to the time from the moment of detection and receipt of the NMC and until the moment the rocket arrives, multiplied by the target speed. And in which direction will he go this distance? If, after the discovery of the ship, we no longer observe it, then in any unobservable one. For example, if a ship has gone beyond the horizon from our boat, then it can go either along the horizon in any direction, or at an angle to it. As a result, the zone in which the ship may find itself will form a semicircle for some time. And what if our boat was forced to run from the ship in panic at 45 knots? And at the same time his communication was crushed by the ship's means of the REP? Then it turns out that the ship from the NMC could leave in any direction, and the zone in which it can be now is a circle.

This figure, inside which the target can be at a given moment in time, is called the "Probable Target Location Area" - OVMC. By the time when the OVMC circle on the map grew around our NMC, it was no longer real, but initial.


OVMC: On the left - the observer boat remained in place, and the target ship went beyond the horizon. Then, in time t with a speed V, he can travel the distance V * t and the zone in which he can be is half a circle, the radius V * t centered at the NMC. Left - our source of information is lost or has left the area. Then the OVMC is a circle, since the goal can go in any direction, and we do not know which

Here we must make a reservation. If we had any other information about where the target might go, we would turn a circle or semicircle into a sector. If there were many options for where the target would go, and we had the time and the appropriate software, then we could get within this OVMC the probability distribution of finding the target in one or another part of the OVMC. In reality, this is what they strive for, it makes it easier to shoot. But we will continue as if we know nothing more.

If we cannot obtain such a probability distribution, then it is critical for us how much this circle is larger or smaller than the width of the target capture bandwidth of the seeker of our missile. What if the OVMC is twice as wide as the GOS swath width of our RCC? The chances that the last missile will go nowhere are becoming very high. And if the OVMC did not have time to "grow" and almost all of it is covered by the GOS search bar? Then it is more or less possible to shoot, although this is still a risk: the missile can capture a target somewhere on the edge of the field of view, but because of the speed it will not have time to turn on it. The faster our rocket is, the more accurately we must bring it to the target. Or you need to set it to a high flight altitude, with a large radio horizon, so that it can detect a target from a long distance and rely on it without problems, but then it will be easier to shoot down. Ideally, be in time by the time when the OVMC is still small.


On the left is the OVMC, and the width of the capture swath of the seeker is of comparable size. The probability of hitting the target will be higher. On the right - on the contrary, and the probability of hitting the target is minimal or even negligible

Thus, we have a dependence on the time factor.

The time from the moment the target is detected until the missile approaches it within the range of the seeker is called the total data aging time.

This time can be calculated in advance, since it consists of such known quantities as the time from the moment the target is detected until the end of the transmission of a message about it to the “firing” unit (coastal launcher in our case), the time for prelaunch preparation, flight time, etc. etc. For a ship, it may even include the time for some maneuver necessary to launch the rocket.

Our task is to hit the target, thus, it boils down to this: the total aging time of the target data should be such that during this time the target does not have time to go too far and that the size of the OVMC does not grow to exceed the width of the target's swath width.

Let's consider a specific example.

Let's say we have a ship armed with a long-range anti-ship missile system, and we have just been told the coordinates of the target to be hit, also the ship. The target range is 500 kilometers. The speed of the rocket on the course is 2000 km / h, the width of the capture swath of the seeker is 12 kilometers. The time from the moment the target coordinates arrive at the attacking ship until the missile is launched is 5 minutes. The flight time is obviously 15 minutes, the total data aging time is 20 minutes, or 1/3 hour. The rocket course is laid directly in the NMC. So that, when the missile approaches the target, the GOS can capture it, it is necessary that the target does not leave the NMC further than 6 kilometers perpendicular to the missile's course in any direction. That is, the target should not go faster than 18 kilometers per hour, or 9,7 knots.

But the warships don't move at that speed. Modern warships have an economical speed of 14 knots and a maximum speed of 27-29. Old ships sailed at an economical speed of 16-18 knots and had a maximum speed of 30-35.

Of course, the ship can go not across the course of the incoming rocket, but lag (at an angle) to it. Then he can be in the detection zone of the seeker, even walking at high speed. But it may not be, and the greater the distance to the target (and hence the total data aging time), the less chances of hitting the target if we have only the NMC, that is, the coordinates of the target received once.


Possible variants of the target course from the NMC relative to the detection sector of the GOS RCC. Option 1 - the probability of hitting the target is high, 2 - low, 3 - negligible, tends to zero. Long-range shooting at the NMC looks like this

Here we need to digress from simple things and say this. In fact, the situation is even more complicated.

In the examples described above, what is in reality is missing. So, for example, in relation to the coordinates of the target, the calculation of errors must be performed, and in reality we know the NMC inaccurately - this is always the case. The second point is probabilities. The results of such problems are estimated using the apparatus of the theory of probability. Basic things can be seen in the "primer" known to any lieutenant - in the book Elena Sergeevna Wentzel "Introduction to Operations Research"... Why do we need a theorver? Then, for example, sooner or later the rocket does not start from the TPK when the command passes. Or her seeker will break. Or there will be a cruise ship near the target. The enemy can tow a decoy target nearby and the missile will be directed towards it. Or ... and the required high probability of hitting the target must be ensured precisely in such conditions when the outcome of each step in preparation for launch, the launch itself, the flight of the missile and the defeat of the target upon a successful exit to it is probabilistic. Moreover (remember that the target was identified from the boat), even the detection itself can be erroneous, that is, it also has a probabilistic character. With the target coordinates determined with errors. Moreover, in reality, even wind corrections must be taken into account, and when launched at a long range, their effect is directly proportional to the range.

In such conditions, the probability of successfully hitting a target when shooting at the NMC becomes too low, and it is undesirable to shoot so.

Actually, this is where our Pink Pony stumbles. He cannot understand how it is: a satellite photo is not a control center, even in principle. And he cannot understand why it is simply impossible to send a rocket by coordinates. But fervently argues with those who understand and know.

Is it possible to give the rocket such a speed that the total data aging time becomes very small? In fact yes. For example, if, in the above example of firing from a rocket ship at a target at a distance of 500 kilometers, the target speed would not have been 2000 km / h, but 6000 km / h, then the target ship would not have left the 12-kilometer strip at any realistic speed would, but there would be another problem: such a speed is a hypersound with various funny effects such as plasma on the GOS fairing. This means that we would not have 12 kilometers ...

Or imagine firing a Dagger missile at a distance of 2000 kilometers, as promised on TV, at a ship. In order to play along with the "Dagger", the MiG-31K is not at the airfield, but in the air - the enemy aircraft carrier is waiting for 31 hours a day. Let's assume that 5 minutes passed from the moment of control (we didn’t understand what it was, but it didn’t matter) and before the MiG-2000K headed for the target and gained the speed necessary to detach the rocket. Then the rocket goes to the target. We neglect its acceleration time; for the sake of simplicity, we assume that it is instantaneous. Next, we have a flight of 7000 km at a speed of about 17 km / h, which gives us an approach time of 23 minutes, and the total data aging time is 23 minutes. The "Dagger" has a radio-transparent fairing on the nose, but it is small, which means that the radar is very small, taking into account the fact that the operating conditions of this small antenna are very difficult (plasma), we get a rather small target detection zone, a small detection range and strict requirements to its conclusion on the target. How long does the ship travel in 24 minutes in a straight line? At 17 knots, for example, he will cover 34 kilometers. In any direction from the NMC. That is, the diameter of the OVMC will be 300 kilometers and there will be a XNUMX-meter ship in this zone.

“Dagger” doesn’t work just like that and get to the right place ... And “Zircon” will have similar problems.

Moreover, our examples do not take into account the EW factor. The problem is that electronic warfare, even in the case when the anti-missile missile seeker can detune from part of the interference, greatly narrows the field of view, that is, the "tabular" data on its width dramatically lose relevance, in addition, the missile's target detection range suffers, it also decreases up to a few kilometers (without electronic warfare - tens of kilometers). In such conditions, it is necessary to bring the missile literally to the ship itself, and not somewhere to the side, with the detection of the target "on the edge" of the seeker's line of sight.

Of course, a number of missiles implement the "jamming guidance" mode, but a potential enemy has Nulka-type systems, in which the jamming emitter flies away from the ship, and there are also electronic warfare stations on helicopters, and he will be able to deflect the missile. It would save the inclusion of the seeker directly in front of the target, but the rocket must reach this target exactly.

So it turns out that you can't shoot at the NMC? It is possible, but for short distances, when the target is guaranteed not to leave the missile's line of sight in any direction. For tens of kilometers of range.

But for accurate shooting at medium and long ranges, that is, hundreds of kilometers, some more data are needed.

What if we know the course the target is headed? Or what maneuver is she performing? Then our situation changes, now the OVMC becomes incommensurably smaller, it actually comes down to the error with which the course is determined.

And if we also know the target's speed? Then it's even better. Now the huge uncertainty in the target's position becomes negligible.

The course and speed of the target are called its motion parameters - MPC.

With regard to submarine war, they say "elements of target movement" (EDT), and they still include depth, but we will not touch this issue.

If we determine the MPT, then we can predict the place in which the target will be by the time the rocket arrives. We will simply extrapolate the course taking into account the known speed and corny send the rocket to where the target will be in the same 20 minutes from the previous example.

It can be schematically defined like this:


The predicted target site indicated on the diagram is called the "Pre-emptive target site" - UMC.

This diagram does not indicate an error, and it does not explicitly follow from it that the course is probabilistic in nature: the target can simply turn around at the moment of launch, but we cannot influence this. But this is much better.


A practical example is the launch of the Harpoon. Pay attention to two positions of the target: one at the moment of launch, the other at the moment of hitting the target. The course has a heading error. You might also think what would happen if, at the time of launch, the target turned 180 degrees and went full speed

And if we only know the target's course (roughly, like everything else in war), but not the speed, but we need to shoot? Then you can try to launch the missile at such an angle to the intended course that the missile with the maximum probability "meets" the target in some place.

This place is called the calculated target site - RMC.


The course is known very approximately, we direct the missile so that the probability of its passage near the target is maximal. This is where the probability distribution would come in handy!

Shooting at the OVMC is an exceptional case, the "Rocket shooting rules" require shooting at the NMC, UMC or RMC, and providing a high probability of hitting the target. At the same time, as we saw earlier, shooting at the NMC (without knowing the MPTs) is possible with a given probability of hitting only short distances, and shooting at the RMTs and RMTs requires knowing a much larger amount of information about the target than its coordinates at some point in time ...

These two types of firing missiles at long distances require knowing the MPC - course and speed (for the UMC), and it is also desirable to know what the target is doing (how it maneuvers). And all this with errors and probabilities. And adjusted for the wind, of course.

And then it becomes possible to send missiles to where the target will be at the right time. This does not guarantee the destruction of the target - it will eventually shoot back. But at least the missiles will get where they need to go.

But how do you know the course and speed of the target?

Sufficient information


Let's go back to the situation with anti-ship missiles on a homemade coastal launcher and a reconnaissance boat. Let's say the target range is such that our old subsonic missile with a “dead” ancient seeker has very small chances of reaching the target by firing at the bearing received at the NMC (in fact, we are talking about shooting at the OVMC). Then we need to know the UMC. And for this you need to know the course and speed of the ship.

Let's make an assumption: our reconnaissance boat has an optical rangefinder, but it itself is under a neutral flag and is not classified as a dangerous target by the enemy. Then, having a rangefinder, our boat will make a series of measurements of the range to the target ship for, for example, 15 minutes, and at the same time, by the angle of rotation of the rangefinder on the boat, it will calculate the target speed.

We put the data transmitted by the radio to the shore on the tablet, and here it is - the UMC.

But for this, it turned out to be necessary to observe the target ship from the boat for 15 minutes and transmit data to the shore by radio without frightening the enemy. It is easy to imagine how difficult it will be in the course of a real war, when a ship or plane discovered by the enemy is immediately attacked, and the enemy himself is doing everything possible so that no one simply sees it.

And yes, the satellite with its speed will not be able to measure the MPC for 5-15 minutes either.

Let's make an intermediate conclusion: in order to obtain all the necessary data for rocket firing at a long distance, the target should be regularly and at short intervals (or even better continuously) tracked until the launch of missiles at it with the transfer of target data to the missile carrier. Only then does it become possible to obtain all the necessary data for firing a rocket. If this condition is not met, then the probability of hitting the target drops sharply, including to negligible values ​​(depending on the situation). And one more important conclusion: no matter what range the anti-ship missiles have, the closer their carrier is to the target, the higher the probability of its destruction.

Just because the data in a real war will always be incomplete, there will always be a lack of information, the electronic warfare will "shoot down" guidance, and a short flight time can somehow help to ensure that the OVMC does not grow beyond the swath of the anti-ship missile seeker, especially in a strip "cut" by enemy interference.

It is a pity that Pink Pony did not finish reading to this point.

Having figured out what data is needed, now let's figure out what all the same is this control center.

Target designation


If you open definition of the Ministry of Defense, which is made available to wide circles of society, then the word "target designation" refers to the following:

Communication of data on the location, movement elements and target actions from the source of detection (reconnaissance) to the carrier of the means of destruction. Ts. Can be produced from landmarks (local objects), pointing a device or weapon at a target, in polar or rectangular coordinates, on a map, aerial photograph, tracer. bullets (shells), signal cartridges, reference-signal aircraft. bombs, explosions art. shells, using radar, air defense nets and specials. tech. funds.

This is "in general". This definition even includes "tracers" fire on a window with a firing point, led by a 24-year-old motorized rifle platoon commander to show the platoon the target. We are interested in the marine component, so we will remove from the definition everything that does not apply to it.

Communication of data on the location, movement elements and target actions from the source of detection (reconnaissance) to the carrier of the means of destruction. Ts. Can be produced ... in polar or rectangular coordinates ... with the help of radar ... and special. tech. funds.

What conclusion follows even from this "vague" definition? Target designation is actually a PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND GENERATION OF DATA with the parameters necessary for the effective use of weapons. How is the data transmitted? "In general" - even with flag signals, but in the domestic fleet and the sea aviation It has long been accepted as the main option that the control center is transmitted from the "scout" to the "carrier" in the form of machine data of special target designation complexes.

For the effective use of weapons, not only do we need to detect the target and get the NMC, not only do we need to determine its MPC (for which the goal needs to be monitored for some time), it is not enough to calculate all the errors, we also need to convert all this into a machine format and transfer it to carriers in a ready-to-use form.

Moreover, given that a "scout" is, as a rule (though not always), an aircraft with a limited crew and high vulnerability to anti-aircraft fire, then the data generation process should be fully or partially automated.

If we are talking about data transmission in a different way, then this is possible only through some kind of ground control panel with the corresponding data aging time.

Of course, data can be transmitted to the ship even by voice, and if they are accurate, then the personnel of the BC-2 will prepare all the data for firing, starting from the real position of their ship, enter them into the missile weapon control system, where they will be transformed into the very " machine control unit and loaded into a rocket or rockets.

But this is on the ship. In aviation, pilots launch an aircraft into an attack at a speed much higher than the speed of sound, under fire both from surface ships and from enemy interceptors, with losses in the strike group and the corresponding situation on the radio, in the most difficult jamming environment, and sit there. with rulers and calculators and there is simply no time to load something somewhere. Having superimposed on this imperfection of devices for displaying information about the target and oxygen starvation (sometimes), we get an environment in which people act at the limit of human capabilities, on the edge. Accordingly, a "machine format" is needed.

For a long time, control center for aviation meant not transmitting and receiving data for launching a rocket, but transmitting and receiving data necessary for an aircraft to reach the line of its launch - the missile performed target capture directly on the carrier.

With the advent of such missiles as the Kh-35 on airplanes, it became possible to attack targets in a ship-like manner - with the target of the missile's seeker on a course, after being detached from the carrier. But this does not reduce the rigidity of the requirements for the control center, but on the contrary, increases. The error after detaching the missile can no longer be corrected, but the pilots of the "old" aviation had the opportunity to "show" the target to the missile before launch, correcting the consequences of reaching the target according to inaccurate data from the control center by targeting the missile at the target selected for destruction directly from the aircraft radar. Modern pilots can launch missiles without observing the target with their own radar, and this is one of the standard ways of using them. This means that the control center data should be more accurate.

And now, understanding the complexity of the problem, let us ask ourselves the question: how can you get all the data? Naturally, in a real war, where the enemy shoots out aerial reconnaissance and crushes communications with interference?

Let us examine this issue for a start using the example of the Dagger complex.

Dagger realities


Let's imagine what it would take for us to hit a sea target with this missile. So, the antenna half-blind from the plasma under the small radio-transparent fairing of the "Dagger" should be very close to the ship, so that neither the problems with guidance due to speed, nor the electronic warfare would simply have time to interfere with the rocket. What is needed for this? It is necessary to transmit with extreme precision to the carrier the control center with the anticipated target location, almost without errors, so accurately that the "Dagger" could hit the target even without guidance at all.


Everyone thinks that this is the "Dagger" complex. But this photo is missing something.

Will it work then? Quite. If the target moves without maneuvering, then by measuring its speed and determining the course accurately enough, knowing the weather on the missile's route and choosing the time of its launch (the carrier should already pick up speed by this moment), it will be possible to "drop" the missile exactly on the target. And the presence on the rocket of a primitive radar and gas-dynamic rudders will make it possible to carry out minimal corrections of the rocket's course so as not to miss a point target.

The question is: what conditions must be met in order for this trick turned out? First, as mentioned earlier, the goal must be discovered, about how difficult it is sometimes, it was said in the last article “Sea warfare for beginners. Putting the aircraft carrier on strike... Secondly, as already mentioned above, the goal should go straight and not maneuver under any circumstances. And, thirdly, somewhere near the target there should be a target designator, for example, a ship or an aircraft. Taking into account the fact that the accuracy of determining the coordinates and MPC should be the highest, this can only be a very perfect intelligence officer.

Yes?

Yes. News of July 30, 2020 from the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation:

THE DAGGER ROCKET COMPLEX WILL BE ABLE TO RECEIVE AIMS FROM THE MODERNIZED IL-20M.
The modernized Il-20M electronic reconnaissance aircraft was put into operation in the Southern Military District (YuVO). The aircraft commissioning ceremony took place at one of the airfields in the Rostov region. Experts believe that the main feature of the aircraft modernization is the possibility of issuing target designations via a secure communication channel directly to the Kinzhal hypersonic aviation missile system.
Earlier it was reported that the "Dagger" complex took up experimental combat duty in the area of ​​responsibility of the Southern Military District.


Completely: here.

Here it is, the missing piece of the mosaic. What was missing in the picture of the all-crushing "Dagger" to make it whole. But, fortunately, the Ministry of Defense explained everything: in order for the hypersonic "Dagger" to hit an aircraft carrier from 1000 kilometers, a low-speed turboprop Il-20M must be hung next to the aircraft carrier, the PDC must be removed, the control center transferred to the carrier, and the aircraft carrier must be asked not to maneuver and not to shoot down Ilyushin. ". And it's in the bag.


In the photo with the "Dagger", they usually forget to add this part of it, and without it, it won't hit the sea target. And if the war?

The accuracy of the Il-20M electronic reconnaissance systems is very high. This aircraft can indeed ensure that the Dagger hits a naval target, but under the conditions indicated above. It will not be surprising if soon the Ministry of Defense will show us some kind of demonstration launch of the "Dagger" with a hit in the BKSH, just not mentioning the turboprop "pterodactyl" flying next to the target for half an hour.

The fireworks made of bonnets, thrown into the sky in a patriotic frenzy, will be notable, and the nuances - well, who is interested in them? If only then you don't really have to fight, otherwise everything will pop up, but in our country it seems that they do not believe in the possibility of war because of the word "absolutely".

Well, we are returning to the real world.

Is it correct in principle to use a guidance plane, target designation, etc.? In fact, this is often the only way out. Especially when the enemy has powerful air defense and you need to attack him suddenly, from different courses and low altitudes. Then some external "gunner" is simply uncontested. In the USSR, Tu-95RTs aircraft were used in this capacity, below is one of the schemes for their interaction with attack missile-carrying aircraft.


I must say that this was not at all an ideal scheme: there were much more cases when the Americans intercepted scouts than when they did not intercept. But still, these were some chances, and besides, the Tu-95, in terms of its characteristics, such as, for example, speed, is not an Il-20 at all, it is a much more difficult target in reality.

Examples of obtaining information for the control center


Let's analyze the options for obtaining data for the development of the control center.

The simplest option: the ship detects the target of its radar and delivers a missile strike at it. Such battles took place after the Second World War more than once, in fact, this is the main option. But it works only within the radio horizon, that is, at a distance of tens of kilometers. Naturally, the enemy can fire missiles at our ship before our missiles reach him. Both the American missile attacks during Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf and our "episode" with Georgian boats in the Black Sea in 2008 were just such battles. But if the risk is too great? How can you get all the data you need without exposing your fragile, valuable and expensive ship to damage?

Answer: using electronic reconnaissance means without emitting radiation, to detect the operation of the enemy's radio technical means, to determine the NMC by them and to use weapons. The accuracy of determining the NMC in this way is low, but the firing range is also small - the same tens of kilometers, only from outside the enemy's radio horizon.

An example is from the book cap. 1 rank of reserve Romanov Yuri Nikolaevich "Combat miles. Chronicle of the life of the destroyer" Battle ", concerning the development of the control center according to RTR (RTR station" Mech "):

"We discovered at the Mech station the operation of the radio-technical means of the American destroyer. In order to maintain combat readiness and practice the ship's combat crew, the first mate announced a training alert for a simulated missile strike with the main complex. After performing a series of maneuvers, creating a" base "for determining the distance and determining that the target is within reach, while continuing to maintain stealth, not including additional radio equipment on the radiation, a conditional missile strike was inflicted with two P-100 missiles.When performing a missile attack, the complex of all measures according to the classical scheme of the missile strike schedule was fully worked out. the crew was shaken from the drowsiness caused by the heat.Visually, the foe was not found and did not identify, nor did they strive for it, following strictly according to the transition plan.The station of radio technical search MP-401S was repeatedly found behind the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, at the exit to the Indian Ocean radar operation American carrier-based AWACS aircraft "Hawkeye". Obviously, from the AVM "Constellation", which, according to intelligence reports from the 8th OPESK, regularly arriving at the "Boevoy", is on combat training in the Arabian Sea. Passive search and reconnaissance tools help out a lot. This is our trump card. Allowing to remain invisible, they "highlight" the environment, warn about the approach of air attack means, missile danger, the presence of enemy ships, eliminating civilian targets. The cassettes of the stations' memory blocks contain the data of all existing radio equipment of the ships and aircraft of the potential enemy. And when the operator of the Mech station reports that he is observing the operation of an air detection station of an English frigate or a navigation radar of a civil ship, reporting its parameters, then this is so ... "



EM "Combat" project 956.

That is, there is a simple case: the ship turned out to be hidden from the enemy at such a distance, with which the RTR was able to detect the operation of radio technical equipment on the enemy ship, maneuvering and making repeated measurements, was able to obtain the NMC, and, since the distance was small, “inflicted »Missile strike at the NMC.

Of course, it was peacetime, and no one was looking for our destroyer, but even from the last article (“Sea warfare for beginners. Putting the aircraft carrier on strike) it can be seen that the ship in the ocean can be "hidden", and combat experience confirms this: sudden skirmishes of ships have happened and will be in the future.

Let's complicate the situation: our destroyer has no missiles, it has been used up, but the target must be hit. To do this, it is necessary for another ship to strike, for example, a missile cruiser, and the destroyer would receive the necessary data and transmit it to the control center. Is it possible? In principle, yes, but here the question already arises of what kind of goal it is. Maneuvering around a careless ship using emitting means and determining its NMC so many times to reveal the course and speed, and then transfer everything to the cruiser, the "Combat" could technically, and the cruiser, according to the control center formed and transmitted by the destroyer, could shoot back, and with good accuracy.

But, for example, to get in this way data about an aircraft carrier with security, or about a detachment of ships, in which only one is sailing with the radar on, or about an enemy destroyer, which goes, as Vice Admiral Hank Masteen said, "in electromagnetic silence" , "Combat" would no longer be able to and no control center for a missile cruiser in wartime would not provide. He would be able to maximize time to find some kind of extreme ship in security, and then it would be covered by aviation. Even information about the composition of the aircraft carrier group, the depth of its defensive order and its formation could not have been obtained, only to establish the very fact of the presence of the naval (presumably aircraft carrier) group.

And how to get a control center so that the ship with its missiles worked for hundreds of kilometers and hit? In the West, ship helicopters can be used for this. Almost any helicopter has a radar and a terminal for the system of mutual information exchange with the ship, which allow the ship to "look beyond the horizon" and receive the necessary data about the enemy. The helicopter has powerful electronic warfare equipment, it can go a few meters above the water, remaining unnoticed by the enemy and "jumping" only to control the situation, detect the enemy and determine the MPC. At the same time, it can also be used as a means of disinformation, reaching the target from a direction that does not coincide with the bearing from the enemy to its ships.


Image of the helicopter's work on long-range missile guidance. Both the anti-ship missile and the picture are ours, but the Russian Navy does not yet have such capabilities. Work in this direction is proceeding but extremely sluggishly and in "roundabout ways"

Thus, it is possible to receive control systems at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, comparable to the maximum ranges of such missiles as the last "blocks" of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system, the former anti-ship Tomahawk, and others. In general, helicopters are of great importance in naval warfare, you can read about this in detail in the article “Air fighters over the ocean waves. On the role of helicopters in the war at sea "... The topic of reconnaissance is also raised there, and it is also well shown that modern naval helicopters themselves can destroy ships.


Foreign picture: UAVs provide control centers for helicopter-armed anti-ship missiles. A classic of naval warfare in the West today. And there is a similar technique there, even in some places in the ranks

And for a long range? And for a longer range, the same USA has aviation. There is the possibility of reconnaissance with the help of carrier-based aircraft, there is with the help of AWACS E-3 aircraft assigned to the Air Force. Thanks to the well-functioning interaction between the aircraft types and well-organized interspecies communication, this is quite possible.

But even in this case, the same Americans took the problem of data obsolescence so seriously that their only “distant” LRASM anti-ship missile system received very serious “brains”. The Americans are not even trying to grasp the immensity and learn how to shoot at large, hundreds of kilometers, distances at a moving target with "blunt" missiles. They need not only to launch a rocket, but also to hit.

However, brains also need guidance. The Swedish rocket SAAB RBS-15 with "brains" is also more than good, but it also needs to be directed from the air to achieve maximum efficiency.


Swedish variant

Our situation is different: our AWACS aircraft are very much inferior to foreign ones, and there are very few of them, they are of little use for detecting surface targets, the aircraft carrier is always under repair and its aircraft for reconnaissance cannot be used, the basic reconnaissance aircraft is almost destroyed. But we do have brainless long-range missiles.

In the USSR, a "bundle" of Tu-95RTs reconnaissance target designators and missile-carrying aircraft was widely used, but now the Tu-95RTs are no longer there, and attempts to use low-speed aircraft based on the Il-18 as such are simply beyond the edge of good and evil. For the surface and submarine forces, the Tupolevs were also transferred to the control center. The USSR got out with long-range shooting as best it could, but now we simply do not have an "eye" like the Tu-95RTs.


Tu-95RTs before takeoff from a base in Vietnam, 80s. Technique of a bygone civilization. No matter how outdated it may be, the Russian Federation now has nothing similar

At the same time, we will not be able in the foreseeable future to get away from the missile weapons of ships as one of the main striking means, our "brains" are not held in high esteem, therefore we do not have "smart" missiles, although it is not the most difficult task to put the target search algorithm into the missile , there would be a desire.

This means that long-range control issues will remain relevant for us for a very long time. It makes sense to familiarize yourself with how these things were done before.

Consider the experience of obtaining a control center for striking a multi-purpose aircraft carrier group using a real example from the USSR.

From the book of Admiral of the Fleet I. M. Kapitanets "The Battle for the World Ocean in the Cold and Future Wars":

In June 1986, the US Navy and NATO conducted a strike fleet exercise in the Norwegian Sea.
Taking into account the situation, it was decided to conduct a tactical exercise of nuclear submarines of the anti-aircraft division against real aircraft carriers. To detect and track the AVU, a reconnaissance and shock curtain of two submarines, pr. 671RTM and SKR, pr. 1135, were deployed, and long-range aerial reconnaissance was carried out by Tu-95RTs aircraft.
The transition to the exercise area of ​​AVU "America" ​​was made secretly, observing camouflage measures.
At the command post of the fleet, the air force and the flotilla of nuclear submarines, posts were deployed that provided control of forces. It was possible to reveal the deceitful actions of carrier-based aircraft. All this confirmed that it is not so easy to fight with AVU.
At the entrance of AVU "America" ​​into the Norwegian Sea, the aircraft carrier was directly monitored by the TFR pr. 1135 and missile tracking of the tactical group of nuclear submarines. Air reconnaissance was constantly conducted by Tu-95RTs and Tu-16R aircraft.
To break away from tracking, the AVU developed a maximum speed of up to 30 knots and entered the Westfjord Bay. The use of Norwegian fjords by aircraft carriers to lift carrier-based aircraft was already known from the actions of the US 6th Fleet in the Ionian Islands, it made it difficult to select long-range missiles. Therefore, we deployed two Project 670 nuclear submarines (Amethyst missiles), which were capable of striking missiles at short distances in the fjords.
In the course of tactical exercises, control was transferred to the tactical group command post to organize an independent strike, and a joint strike of submarines and naval missile aircraft was organized from the command post of the fleet.
For five days, the tactical exercise on the aircraft carrier America continued, which made it possible to assess our capabilities, strengths and weaknesses and improve the use of naval forces in the naval operation to destroy the AUG. Now the aircraft carriers could no longer operate with impunity in the Norwegian Sea and sought protection from the forces of the Northern Fleet in the Norwegian fjords.

The admiral forgot to add that all these forces of the Northern Fleet acted against one American aircraft carrier group, and there were fifteen of them and more allies. Anyway…

For the rest, even in peacetime, in order to obtain a control center, it was necessary to conduct a complex reconnaissance operation of very large forces, including aerial reconnaissance, and all this in order to establish the impossibility of striking from a long distance, which required bringing the submarine into action from a short range. . 670.

Again, in peacetime, it was possible to "track with weapons", during hostilities no patrolmen would have been able to act like that, at best there would have been work to detect "contacts" without revealing themselves, as the "Combat" did, to transfer "contact" to other forces, mainly air reconnaissance, and the latter would have to fight to the fullest, just to determine the area in which the enemy is located - no one would have let them to the aircraft carrier.

Someone will ask: what about the Legend satellite system? I.M.Kapitanets gave the answer a page earlier:

Under the leadership of the commander of the 1st Fleet, Vice Admiral E. Chernov, an experimental exercise of the tactical group on a detachment of warships was conducted in the Barents Sea, after which rocket firing at the target field was carried out. Target designation was planned from the Legend space system.
During a four-day exercise in the Barents Sea, it was possible to work out the joint navigation of a tactical group, to acquire skills in the management and organization of a missile strike.
Of course, two SSGNs of pr. 949, having 48 missiles, even in conventional equipment, are capable of independently incapacitating an aircraft carrier. This was a new direction in the fight against aircraft carriers - the use of plark pr. 949. In fact, a total of 12 SSGNs of this project were built, of which eight for the Northern Fleet and four for the Pacific Fleet.
The pilot exercise showed a low probability of target designation from the Legend spacecraft, therefore, to support the actions of the tactical group, the formation of a reconnaissance and shock curtain was required as part of three nuclear submarines of the project 705 or 671 RTM. Based on the results of the experimental exercise, it was planned to deploy an anti-aircraft division to the Norwegian Sea during the command and control of the fleet in July. Now the Northern Fleet has the opportunity to effectively operate submarines independently or jointly with naval missile-carrying aviation on the US aircraft carrier strike formation in the North-East Atlantic.

In both examples, the situation is obvious: an incredibly expensive tool, the ICRC "Legend" system, did not provide a solution to the central control problem, which "took out of the brackets" the main striking force of the Northern Fleet - the Project 949A submarine.

And in all cases, in order to find and classify a target, as well as to be able to strike at it (including obtaining a control center), it was necessary to conduct a complex reconnaissance operation of heterogeneous forces, and in the second case, it also required a reduction in the launch range by bringing carriers to the launch line close to the goal.

And this is really the only solution that can have practical application. In peacetime and in a threatened period, you can act like this:

At the entrance of AVU "America" ​​into the Norwegian Sea, the aircraft carrier was directly monitored by the TFR pr. 1135 and missile tracking of the tactical group of nuclear submarines. Air reconnaissance was constantly conducted by Tu-95RTs and Tu-16R aircraft.

The TFR transfers the control center to the submarines, the submarines hold the aircraft carrier at gunpoint, the Tupolevs track the position of the target to ensure the possibility of an aircraft strike at it. But this will not work in war. Submarines and ships - for sure, aviation may have options.

If you did not know why the Americans did not even try to create ultra-long-range anti-ship missiles before, now you know this, as well as why LRASM "brains" are much more necessary than flight speed.

Integrated reconnaissance operation and strike on the AUG


Let's try to define what a successful operation to obtain a control center for striking with anti-ship cruise missiles at a long range and this strike itself should look like.

The first stage is to establish the very fact of having a goal. The difficulties of such are known and are described in more or less detail in the last article, but it will not be possible to get away from this: the target must first of all be found and quickly, until it can strike at which it is being advanced.

At this point, all types of intelligence and analytics are included in the work. There are two tasks to solve: to identify areas where the probability of finding a target in which is high enough to start looking for it there, and those, the probability of finding targets in which is so small that it makes no sense to try to find it there.

Let the enemy try to bring an aircraft carrier group to strike with cruise missiles and aircraft, as described in the last article. Thus, our target is an aircraft carrier multipurpose group.

Let's say reconnaissance surveyed a certain area from aircraft. Inside this area, it is possible to delimit those zones into which the target will not have time to pass before the next search, you can immediately mark the bands that will be checked by optical reconnaissance satellites, tie the need for a lurking target at one time or another not to enter these or other areas. Even at the beginning of the preparatory measures, reconnaissance detachments of surface ships can be created, whose task will include not so much the search for a target as control of various lines and informing the command that there is no target there.

So the search areas begin to narrow, surface ships enter the areas surveyed by aviation and remain there, on the path of the target's possible movement there are curtains of submarines, covered from enemy submarines by surface ships and aircraft, in those narrows through which the target can pass into the protected area (which - some fjord) minefields are placed from the air, which reduces the target's field for maneuver.

If the target is an aircraft carrier, then AWACS aircraft capable of detecting air targets from a long distance are involved in reconnaissance, and sooner or later the areas of the likely location of a target evading detection will be reduced to several zones that reconnaissance aircraft can check in a couple of days.

And now the goal has been found.

Now the second stage of the operation begins: obtaining the NMC and the PDC, without which the use of weapons is impossible.

Periodic flights of aerial reconnaissance, the work of RTR, sonar stations of submarines will give different OVMC with different errors in determination. By superimposing them on each other and identifying common areas in the results of all types of reconnaissance, noting their displacement over time, you can get an idea of ​​the target's course and where it is going.


Ship icon: NMC received by aerial reconnaissance 5 hours ago, blue circle - OVMC, obtained starting from aerial reconnaissance data, red circle - OVMC obtained from RTR data one hour ago, green zone - target position data obtained by the submarine's SAC from a long distance to 1 hour 30 minutes ago, arrows - an approximate course according to the data of the SAC PL. After that, the theorver and simply the experience of the operators are used, multiplied by rough ideas about where and why the target is going. The task is, based on this data, to narrow the search area for repeated flight of aviation. ATTENTION: the zones are drawn conditionally, in reality they are completely different, the purpose of the diagram is to visualize the logic of events and nothing more, you do not need to take everything literally

Further, with the help of the mathematics of the theory of probability, based on the received intelligence, the area where the location of the target is most likely is calculated. And the target is searched again.

After completing several reconnaissance missions in succession and detecting a target from a long distance (without being exposed to fire and interceptors; if substituted, then there will not be enough forces for a war), the OVMC is minimized and reduced to very small areas.

Then comes the most difficult stage. Knowing the outdated NMC with an error, having an acceptable size OVMC, roughly knowing the course and having received the RMC, it is necessary to bring the carriers (for example, SSGNs and missile cruisers of project 1164) to the launch line, prepare for their receipt of the control center in such a way as to get it immediately after the final stage of the reconnaissance operation before the first strike.

For example, we plan that aerial reconnaissance will be in the RMC, determined by the results of the ongoing reconnaissance operation and will find a target there at 16.00 and that, according to its data, the control center for ships and submarines can be transferred to them no later than 16.20 and at 16.20-16.25 a time-synchronized salvo will be fired ... The carriers are at different ranges from the target, and they will have to launch missiles at such intervals that they still arrive at the target simultaneously. In case of earlier target detection, the carriers are ready to receive a control center and fire in advance. Since the SSGN "under the periscope" are vulnerable, the areas where they are located are covered by other forces: aviation, multipurpose submarines, etc.

Thus, the total data aging time should be equal to 20 minutes + the flight time of the missiles. Suppose we are talking about a range of 500 kilometers, and the speed of a rocket is 2000 km / h, then the total data aging time will be 35 minutes.

At 15.40, aerial reconnaissance begins a search. At 15.55 he finds the target, enters the battle with the cover aircraft. Only this time we have an Avrug, an aviation reconnaissance and strike group, which must not only find a target, but also attack it, simply without unnecessary risk, without breaking through to the main goal, etc.

At 15.55, the target was attacked, RTR noted the intensive work of the radar and radio equipment, the joint results of aerial reconnaissance and RTR showed sufficiently accurate for a salvo of the NMC, the rise of deck aircraft (if the target was an aircraft carrier) was recorded, which means that now the target would have to periodically use radio equipment or, when work "in silence", do not change course so that the planes themselves can then find their aircraft carrier.

At 16.10, regarding the results of RTR, reconnaissance and reconnaissance in force, the UMC or RMC of the targets are calculated, generated and transmitted by the Central Control Center for the SSGN and RRC. At the same moment, starting from the same control center, the task is set to strike the aircraft.

It was at this moment that we, albeit for a short time, solved the control center problem. This is what it costs to get this very CU, that's where it comes from. This is what it looks like - the solution to the target designation problem

At 16.15-16.20, the missile defense carriers fire a massive salvo, calculated not only by the launch time, but also by the front (front width of the approaching group of missiles between the outermost missiles in the group) and span (without going into details, the estimated time between the defeat of the target of the first and last missiles in volley).

A volley from a variety of missiles ensures that in case of insufficient accuracy in determining the NMC, RMC, etc. a significant part of the missiles will still hit their targets, and if there is an exchange of data between the missiles in the group, then some of the missiles will have time to maneuver and turn over to those targets that their GOS did not detect. But part, of course, will not be in time and will fly by. Since data obsolescence is still measured in tens of minutes, we will not reach the target with one missile or a small number of them - we need an attack on a wide front, beyond which the target would definitely not go. The percentage of missiles that will have to reach the target is calculated with the help of the probability theory matapparat in advance, and taking these calculations into account, a salvo is planned.


The advantages of wide-front salvo fire and the exchange of data between missiles in a salvo - clearly

At 16.45:XNUMX pm, the missiles reach the target, and at about the same time, the main aviation forces, with additional reconnaissance of the target at the same control center, inflict a massive air strike, followed by recording the results of all strikes delivered to the target.

Then, the results of strikes are assessed according to data from other types of reconnaissance, and, if necessary, either new missile strikes (if there is anything) and air strikes (if there is anyone), and / or an offensive of surface forces and submarines is carried out to destroy the enemy from shorter distances, up to the use of torpedoes by submarines (of course, such an offensive will also have its own price).

Of course, in fact, there can be many different attack options. There can be a mainly air offensive operation with different options for the order in which the enemy ships should be destroyed: either it will be a rush to the main goal, or the successive destruction of all ships in a battle. Perhaps, first there will be an air offensive, under the cover of which ships and submarines will launch an attack from a closer range. There are many options, but they are all very complex, primarily from the point of view of managing forces.

And obtaining reconnaissance information, searching for the enemy, obtaining precision and command control by the strike forces to strike or strike at the enemy is a separate and very complex operation with large losses.

This is how a strike on an aircraft carrier group and target designation looks very roughly.

Some moments were left in a distorted form for "regime reasons". The goal was not to tell how it really is there, but simply to give an idea of ​​the scale of the problem of issuing target designation for long-range shooting.

It is easy to understand that there is no question at all about some kind of magic tool that can simply be fired “somewhere there” and also get there. With the "Dagger" of the Ministry of Defense it seems like it was "revealed", but any other combat science fiction such as Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles and the like has the same problems and limitations.

Based on what you have read, it is also easy to understand why skeptics from among the retirees simply do not believe in the ability of the RF Armed Forces as a whole (this is not about the fleet) to conduct such operations: Russia simply does not have the forces necessary for this, and the headquarters do not have the preparation for that. to carry out such operations. Just the rise to strike of several different air regiments from different airfields and their output to the target together at a given time is a whole story. There is no guarantee that this can be done without dozens of prior exercise attempts.

The level of control that should be in order to organize such an operation is simply unattainable for today's RF Armed Forces, and such things have not been practiced for many years even in exercises. And there is nothing to work them out with, there are no forces that can be controlled and work out such operations.

And why the Americans sincerely believe that their aircraft carriers are invulnerable in general, in principle, is also clear: they believe in this precisely because of their understanding of the complexity of the task of finding and destroying an aircraft carrier group and understanding of what numerous and well-prepared forces are for this. are needed. They simply know that no one has such powers today.

In fact, Russia today has the resources to acquire forces capable of such operations in a short time, and it will not be very expensive. But this issue must be dealt with. This must be done, it is necessary to form parts and formations, to purchase equipment for them, mainly aviation, to create guidelines and instructions and train, train, train.

Tales about "Dagger", which will sweep away everyone "in one fell swoop", will remain fairy tales, the idea that, having seen an enemy ship in a satellite photo, it can be immediately attacked is the level of thinking of Pink Pony. This is a simulacrum, suitable only for propaganda among schoolchildren, and nothing more.

But at the same time, the problem, with all its difficulty, is solvable. If it is, of course, solved.
Author:
Photos used:
Russian Defense Ministry, Kremlin.ru, Saab, NPO Mashinostroeniya, Aviationphotos.net
Articles from this series:
“Sea warfare for beginners. Putting the aircraft carrier on strike
505 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. And Makarov
    And Makarov 26 October 2020 18: 06
    32
    Barely mastered ... But interesting
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 26 October 2020 19: 05
      +9
      Strongly written. And, in general, it is true. Alexander's style is immediately evident.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 27 October 2020 00: 15
        23
        I agree.
        Thanks to the author for the interesting article, in which the complex can be easily told. hi
        But, fortunately, the Ministry of Defense explained everything: in order for the hypersonic "Dagger" to hit an aircraft carrier from 1000 kilometers, a low-speed turboprop Il-20M must be hung next to the aircraft carrier, the PDC must be removed, the control center transferred to the carrier, and the aircraft carrier must be asked not to maneuver and not to shoot down Ilyushin. ". And it's in the bag.

        I laughed for a long time ...
        But seriously, it is surprising that for several decades in our country and in the navy, in particular, for so long, one might say, they were routinely and are in captivity of their own delusions. And there is no end, no edge ...
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 27 October 2020 00: 31
          +8
          Alexander hi,
          paradoxically, your namesake described what actually takes place. In this case, we laugh at ourselves. Then we will cry, because these "gannets" only nominally occupy high posts in our country, and in fact serve the interests of enemies. They simply have nowhere to be mistaken - all routes inside an empty head lie in the digestive tract - it is in it that they digest / assimilate - and then the "results" come out. That is why "breakthroughs" always have a characteristic "smell".
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 27 October 2020 00: 39
            +2
            In this case, we laugh at ourselves. Then we will cry ..

            This is exactly hi
            This is laughter through tears.
            1. Lexus
              Lexus 27 October 2020 00: 42
              +2
              On a national scale, this increasingly resembles a dying grin. recourse
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 27 October 2020 00: 54
                +4
                It's a shame when you want to, but you can't. But when you can, but you do everything so as not to want to ... This is already a diagnosis or ...
                I read Kuzin and Nikolsky more than 20 years ago. People so much really imagined a picture of the present and future of the Navy. And it is clear that they were not alone, and there were many such professionals and patriots both in the General Staff and in the leadership of the Navy. 30 years of trying. Exactly attempts. And the result is very so-so. And there are people, and the means ...
                1. Lexus
                  Lexus 27 October 2020 01: 08
                  +7
                  Those, real, patriots selflessly served the Motherland, and did not serve the boss for nishtyaki. Therefore, professionalism was valued much higher than sycophancy.
      2. Old Michael
        Old Michael 27 October 2020 01: 05
        21
        Strongly written. And, in general, it is true.

        I will add: on the fingers (perhaps for the first time on VO) it is explained that target designation is not a set of constants, but a PROCESS.
        In my opinion, this is the most important component of combat planning, which, to put it mildly, is "sometimes overlooked."
        1. Oden280
          Oden280 27 October 2020 16: 39
          -5
          Only the author, according to his usual habit, illuminated this process in one-sided and very simplified manner. And only those who are engaged in this know about what and how our Armed Forces and certain types of weapons can. And they won't talk about it.
          1. Aleksandr123
            Aleksandr123 27 October 2020 20: 26
            0
            "covered this process in a one-sided and very simplified manner"
            No, he himself repeatedly noted in the article that this is exactly the case, that the article is for a general understanding of the process. Those who did not know will acquire a concept. Who knew - repetition is the mother of learning.
            1. Oden280
              Oden280 28 October 2020 05: 25
              -4
              This article is a collection of materials from various, mainly foreign, magazines. So, there is nothing to repeat here.
              1. timokhin-aa
                28 October 2020 11: 13
                0
                And how is it really there?
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 28 October 2020 16: 42
                  +3
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And how is it really there?

                  Alexander, hi
                  God knows he didn't want to, but he asked for it himself.
                  First, a little about the article, "for beginners"
                  1. Where did you get that "We don't have smart missiles" !? Even on the primitive Amethyst, there was an SRB in my head, not to mention the latest samples, which are carried by 2 on-board computers! But go and someone sang nonsense in their ears and went to write the province!
                  2. With one phrase that "the TFR is transferring the control center to the boats," you killed all faith in the bright future of the target designation process! You are far from controlling the curtain or the "puck" if you seriously believe that everyone is hanging on the periscope and waiting for the control center, and the control headquarters (MSC GSh / or SF) is poking around, and the operators on the SDV field are playing cricket.
                  3. Much has been written, but the average person still does not understand, so what does the KBR-r get to the NK / PL from the "target designator" (KNS, TU-95RTs or RZK) in order to enter rocket firing data ... What is the type of RDO with control center? And what is then broadcast in the on-board computer (head) of the RC ... What calculations does the complex carry out so that the RC hits the target, what trajectory needs to be set for the RC to "see and capture its target". How to organize a volley ... All this remained behind the scenes. And not because it is very secret.
                  Now (from memory, after the operation / anesthesia / began to forget a lot ...) how it really is now. (at the time of the 10s)
                  1. The control center was mainly received "from Jenibekov", or from the control headquarters (Central Command Center of the Navy, CP SF) in the form of "OBK (composition) cap, good, course, speed, subscription time). The navigator fell on the map and put a" target " ...
                  2. Determined: the data obsolescence time, distance, sector of probable courses, estimated bearing of fire ... Determined by OVMC ... SPK / K-2 with a palette of the GOS capture strip crawled along the map with OVMC ... A volley set was determined based on countermeasures air defense systems, target survivability, overlapping zones, etc.
                  3. The firing data was entered into the machine: calculated K, V targets, current D, P on the target. The Nav complex broadcast its K, V, pitching angles, meteorological corrections (temperature, wind, pressure, humidity), the time was synchronized and other crap (I don't remember exactly)
                  3. The generated firing data was broadcast to the head of the RCC. The trajectory and flight altitude were selected depending on the range.
                  With full preparation, they shot at the anticipated (probable) location of the target, when the location, course, speed of the target at time T.
                  Organization of a volley. You can type, or you can give it to the car. (This is to the question that we do not have "smart" missiles!)
                  GOS missiles PRK "Granit" - a specialized system for the destruction of AUG. In the GOS, characteristics of targets were developed that made it possible to carry out target distribution and target designation in a missile salvo without operator participation. The algorithms implemented in it are based on the game theory.
                  The strategy of organizing salvo fire and the enemy's missile countermeasures are viewed as a game of two partners. For the solution, the so-called "payment function" is calculated, that is, the conditions are selected under which the damage to the enemy will be maximum, and own losses ("payments") - minimum. GOS for anti-ship missiles "Granit" after the start independently searches, selects and selects the target of the strike, as well as evaluates the parameters of targets with subsequent capture and homing at the selected target. An active-passive radar sighting device is used, which operates on the cruising section in a passive mode, which ensures the search and detection of orders by emitting ship radars, increasing the secrecy of the seeker and anti-ship missiles in general. RCC in a salvo form a single information field.
                  Export option GOS 5th generation (for anti-ship missiles Yakhont) was presented at IMDS-2013 with the following characteristics:
                  detection range - not less than 110 km,
                  range resolution, m - 9-15 m
                  corner resolution - 1 degree,
                  power consumption - 400 W,
                  Weight - 45 kg, volume - 50 liters.

                  About myths, at the everyday level.
                  Quite often, the statement is made that in a joint attack of missiles, a salvo exists, some kind of "main missile" or "reconnaissance missile", which flies high and transmits information to other missiles. Maybe this statement is true for the SU half a century ago. Today, all missiles in a salvo are equal and all transmit information, forming a single information field according to the data of active and passive channels of all seeker salvo missiles. The functions of information exchange are performed by SOIR - a system for exchanging information for missiles in a salvo. Thus, what one rocket "sees" is "seen" by all others. When launching missiles along the front, the joint work of the seeker of salvo missiles makes it possible to search for targets over vast areas and to produce centralized (controlled) target distribution.

                  This is all in the open press, without secrets and know-how.
                  Respectfully, KAA.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    28 October 2020 17: 12
                    +4
                    1. Where did you get that "We don't have smart missiles" !? Even on the primitive Amethyst, there was an SRB in my head, not to mention the latest samples, which are carried by 2 on-board computers! But go and someone sang nonsense in their ears and went to write the province!


                    And can she herself, by the captured radar radiation, determine that this is not a target assigned to her, but some other ship and go to look for "her own"?
                    And on the route over a piece of land to go into the fjord and look for a target there?
                    Now the understanding of the word "smart" is not the same as in the late 80s.

                    2. With one phrase that "the TFR is transferring the control center to the boats" you killed all faith in the bright future of the target designation process! You are far from controlling the curtain or "puck" if you seriously believe that everyone is hanging on the periscope and waiting for the control center


                    I just didn't go into detail. Of course, the TFR did not maintain direct contact with the boats. She was supported by the CP on the shore. And the TFR gave information to him.

                    Now (from memory, after the operation / anesthesia / began to forget a lot ...) how it really is now. (at the time of the 10s)
                    1. The control center was mainly received "from Jenibekov", or from the control headquarters (Central Command Center of the Navy, CP SF) in the form of "OBK (composition) cap, good, course, speed, subscription time). The navigator fell on the map and put a" target " ...
                    2. Determined: data aging time, distance, sector of probable courses, estimated bearing


                    Well, I have listed the same data in the article. In fact, something.

                    What conclusion follows even from this "vague" definition? Target designation is actually a PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND GENERATION OF DATA with the parameters necessary for the effective use of weapons. How is the data transmitted? "In general," - even with flag signals, but in the domestic fleet and naval aviation it has long been accepted as the main option that the control center is transmitted from the "reconnaissance" to the "carrier" in the form of machine data of special target designation complexes.

                    For the effective use of weapons, not only do we need to detect the target and get the NMC, not only do we need to determine its MPC (for which the goal needs to be monitored for some time), it is not enough to calculate all the errors, we also need to convert all this into a machine format and transfer it to carriers in a ready-to-use form.

                    Moreover, given that a "scout" is, as a rule (though not always), an aircraft with a limited crew and high vulnerability to anti-aircraft fire, then the data generation process should be fully or partially automated.

                    If we are talking about data transmission in a different way, then this is possible only through some kind of ground control panel with the corresponding data aging time.

                    Of course, data can be transmitted to the ship even by voice, and if they are accurate, then the personnel of the BC-2 will prepare all the data for firing, starting from the real position of their ship, enter them into the missile weapon control system, where they will be transformed into the very " machine control unit and loaded into a rocket or rockets.


                    But this is on the ship.


                    This is not a retelling of the handbook. The meaning of the OVMC, NMC, RMTs, UMC is revealed in the article, what this control center consists of is approximately clear, its meaning is to bring the missiles to the right place, the advantages of a salvo over firing "one missile" are mentioned. What else do you need?

                    Well, be more careful with the details. Even open.

                    In general, I just set the task of showing that obtaining a CU is a complex process. As it seems to me, I have shown the complexity of the process.
                    1. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 28 October 2020 17: 51
                      +2
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      In general, I just set the task of showing that obtaining a CU is a complex process. As it seems to me, I have shown the complexity of the process.

                      With the task of "the difficulty of obtaining control center" I believe you have coped. I guess I misunderstood you.
                      Once again on smart rockets:
                      When developing the GOS for missiles (3M22), the changes that have occurred in the technique and tactics of application since the development of the GOS of the previous generation were taken into account. Particular attention was paid to increasing the power of electronic warfare equipment, the use of stealth technologies on ships, the use of difficult coastal relief (rocks, fiords) to shelter ship groupings, the location of the controls, and industrial military facilities in urban areas. To solve these problems, it was necessary to increase the detection range, ensure the concealment of radiation, and increase the resolution. Provide versatility for the objects of application (including ground-based). The GOS is an airborne two-channel active-passive radar that uses a complex broadband coherent signal when operating in active mode (ARC). To provide a covert detection mode, an ultra-long-range object detection algorithm has been implemented, in which the seeker sees further than it can be unmasked by means of electronic reconnaissance. The algorithm for aiming at a non-radio-contrast target, based on a radio-contrast landmark, has been implemented. The GOS is built on a modular basis: antenna, transmitter, receiver, information processing device. The synthesizing of the antenna system aperture using the Doppler beam narrowing method has been implemented for operation in urban environments.

                      So the amas already know that you can't hide in the fjord: the Russian missiles have become "smarter"!
                      AHA.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        28 October 2020 18: 45
                        +4
                        Draining approaches to the "head" of Zircon. By the way, done very, very in vain.
                        But here the question is that Zircon must be launched at a target whose location is known, she herself will not look for it, this is simply technically impossible for a hypersonic missile.

                        To overcome the above-mentioned challenges in the fifth generation airborne radio stations, it is required to perform proactive detection of destination objects.


                        Hence the requirements for the control center.
                2. Oden280
                  Oden280 29 October 2020 16: 16
                  -2
                  Enter the naval school, reach the appropriate positions - then you will find out.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    29 October 2020 16: 20
                    0
                    What a pity. And I thought your stupid and arrogant comment was due to knowledge.
                    And you don’t know ...
    2. quaric
      quaric 26 October 2020 23: 01
      -28 qualifying.
      Quote: A Makarov
      Barely mastered ... But interesting

      Dregs from the series of how many regiments are needed to destroy an aircraft carrier .... or why the "squall" torpedo is bad.
    3. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 27 October 2020 15: 00
      +6
      The sad thing is that the smart people in the Navy already know it, but they can't do anything. Because modern Russia is a country where it is important to "report". And what really is there ... but who cares? The bosses are satisfied, the Supreme is importantly threatening the adversaries, Channel One is choking with delight, the interested persons make their careers.
      And nobody else needs anything.
    4. Alien From
      Alien From 27 October 2020 17: 33
      +3
      I also thought I could not master it, but I was captured by the topic. Respect for the author.
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 26 October 2020 18: 14
    -32 qualifying.
    When they try to convince me on the pages of an Internet publication in matters that have many nuances ..
    I don't understand one thing ..
    Why are the sovereign's people not convinced of this?
    And who is this author?
    Let his regalia, works, etc., be indicated in a footnote.
    1. Sergst
      Sergst 26 October 2020 18: 20
      24
      Do you think professionals don't know these details? There are much more of them (details)
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 26 October 2020 19: 50
        -17 qualifying.
        Where did I write that the pros do not know this?
        You don't need to convince me.
    2. Bez 310
      Bez 310 26 October 2020 19: 56
      34
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      And who is this author?
      Let his regalia, works, etc., be indicated in a footnote.

      Instead of thinking about questions
      raised in the article, do you think
      about the identity of the author.
      Probably, the "sovereigns
      people"...
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 26 October 2020 19: 59
        -8
        Hmm ..)
        The marine theme was at one time my hobby.
        Especially the question is whether aircraft carriers are needed, in particular, Russia or not.
        At the level of an amateur, I know the arguments about the salvo firing of missiles.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. timokhin-aa
        26 October 2020 22: 44
        14
        What a cheap sketch.
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 27 October 2020 00: 37
          +4
          Alexander hi , Meehan gave offspring along the way. It is a sin to take offense at such.
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 27 October 2020 05: 40
            -7
            this article is just for people like you. so that you can realize yourself again
        2. lucul
          lucul 27 October 2020 00: 43
          -15 qualifying.
          Is it possible to send a rocket to the NMC exactly?

          The ship does not stand still, it moves. In five minutes to prepare for launch, which we carried out with the help of a laptop taken from the enemy with "broken" software, the ship covered some distance. Moreover, while our rocket is flying towards him, he will continue to go and cover an even greater distance.

          Not mine, quote "I have read more than once Russian all-fighters that supposedly while the rocket is flying, a three-hundred-meter aircraft carrier will play ninja, and no one will hit it. Honestly, I am generally surprised by their calculations. They take the speed of the aircraft carrier and multiply it by the time of arrival Gentlemen, this does not happen in nature. An aircraft carrier also has speed and possible acceleration, and huge inertia, there are Newton's laws and the laws of hydrodynamics. That is why Kalman filters have always been used in navigation since the 1950s. Because the Kalman filter takes into account speed and possible acceleration, and gives a forecast many times more accurate than a simple measurement of coordinates. All modern navigation works like this. And since the 1990s, there are things even more precise than simple Kalman filters, the so-called PDF algorithms (probabilistic data fusion), when several Kalman filters, which highlight the characteristic maneuvers of the object (for example, full forward travel and turns). During the approach of a hypersonic missile, such a system will give predicting the coordinates of an aircraft carrier in a couple of hundred meters, if not less. "
          And now my - offhand - the speed of the avik is 55 km / h, that is, roughly 1 km per minute. That is, in the 10 minutes that the Zircon will cover the distance of 1000 km, the Avik will only cover 10 km, that is, the possible options are a circle with a radius of only 10 km.
          We look, for example, the seeker of such a rocket as Caliber NK:
          ARGS-54E radar head
          is designed to detect and accurately aim cruise missiles at a surface target at the end of the flight path.
          Provides missile guidance to the target in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation - from + 10 ° to −20 °.
          The maximum range is up to 65 km.
          Can be used at any time of the day at ambient temperatures from -50 ° C to +50 ° C, in rain and fog, roughness of the sea up to 6 points.
          Or the ARGS-14E radar head - designed for precise guidance of a cruise missile at ground targets in the final segment of the flight path of the Club-N and Club-S missiles under countermeasures.
          It provides detection of ground targets in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation - from + 10 ° to −20 ° along various trajectories.
          The maximum range is up to 20 km.
          It can be used at any time of the day at an ambient temperature from +60 ° C to -50 ° C, in difficult weather conditions at any geographical latitude.
          Ie, what do we see? Even if the Zircon has such seeker as on the Caliber, then they easily capture the aircraft carrier, no matter how it turns - the seeker on the rocket turns on 65 km before the target, in the azimuth angle sector +/- 45 degrees. As we remember, an aircraft carrier can only cover 10 km in 10 minutes. Even in the presence of electronic warfare interference, the ARGS-14E seeker will still capture the avik, that is, as it turns on 20 km before the target and the avik is captured. Pay attention - even the seeker of the KALIBR rocket does not care about clouds, fog, smoke and other difficult weather conditions, but Timokhin has insurmountable obstacles for reconnaissance satellites.
          We have dealt with the capture of an aircraft carrier by a Zircon rocket, now the most difficult thing is target designation. Of course, the satellite can give out target designation, but the trouble is that the satellite does not hang over one place, but flies in orbit, and only a certain time, per day, can give target designation, if, of course, the avik falls under its lane.
          With the rest, I agree with Timokhin, today we do not have a marine AWACS aircraft similar to the Hokai.
          BUT, on October 26, the Orion UAV was adopted, a direct analogue of Bayraktar - a range of 250 km, an altitude of 7 km, a payload of 100 kg. By the way, I missed this event.
          This means that the Altius UAV should also be on the way, with its range of 10 km, a flight height of 000 km and a flight time of 12 hours. This is exactly what is needed for target designation against the AUG. In the passive radio direction-finding mode, it is able to detect Hokai far enough, and with it the AUG itself. So we are waiting for him in the fleet, the sooner the better.
          Something like this.
          1. timokhin-aa
            27 October 2020 01: 04
            16
            Again we read Martyanov. Why drag American agents of influence here, for what? If you are so smart - the question is - how many times do you need to get NMC in order to use such algorithms as the same Kalman filter? You are not going to probabilistic models, extrapolations, etc. to use in relation to SINGLE events? Although in your case, I would not be surprised.

            After you, not knowing English, brought me as an argument Martyanov's book in this language, which you have never read. Shame .. laughing

            Further, where did you get the idea that the target detection range directly along the course and at an angle to it at the GOS anti-ship missiles is the same? Who told you that?

            Where did you get the idea that when descending to low altitudes before the attack, the detection range does not change?

            And the fact that the sector of capture of the GOS and the range when the enemy uses electronic warfare is reduced at times, you have not heard? And unevenly?

            And why are you comparing the operating conditions of the seeker of a subsonic missile with the Zircon? Have you already broken away from reality? At hypersonic plasma on the body, everything is much tougher there.

            In short, don't distract adults, okay?
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 October 2020 01: 14
              14
              Pay attention - even the seeker of the KALIBR rocket does not care about clouds, fog, smoke and other difficult weather conditions, but Timokhin has insurmountable obstacles for reconnaissance satellites.


              Only Liana has optical reconnaissance satellites, or RTR, and the GOS of the RCC has a radar laughing

              The capture of an aircraft carrier by a Zircon rocket sorted out


              Yeah, figured it out, I would say with what you can really figure it out ...

              Of course, the satellite can give target designation


              And anyone. Even meteorological. But - only for the pink pony, so that he can see where to ride.

              But no. laughing
              1. lucul
                lucul 27 October 2020 01: 31
                -18 qualifying.
                Only Liana has optical reconnaissance satellites, or RTR, and the GOS of the RCC has a radar

                Do you know which intelligence satellites Russia has put into orbit over the past 10 years? Or do you only have Liana flying alone?
                Yeah, figured it out, I would say with what you can really figure it out ...

                ))))
                And anyone. Even meteorological. But - only for the pink pony, so that he can see where to ride.

                Well, yes, in your last article, in order for the AUG to hide from the radiological reconnaissance satellite, it is enough to turn off the radar)))
                1. timokhin-aa
                  27 October 2020 09: 31
                  +7
                  I am aware that not a single Peony has been bred. And they can't even collect. Radar reconnaissance satellites NO

                  Well, yes, in your last article, in order for the AUG to hide from the radiological reconnaissance satellite, it is enough to turn off the radar)))


                  Stop lying, you have already sunk to the point that those around you will soon stop considering you as a person, stop.
                  1. lucul
                    lucul 27 October 2020 14: 03
                    +1
                    Well, yes, in your last article, in order for the AUG to hide from the radiological reconnaissance satellite, it is enough to turn off the radar)))


                    Stop lying, you have already sunk to the point that those around you will soon stop considering you as a person, stop.

                    I quote Timokhin from a previous article:
                    "How to deceive RTR satellites? The answer is what is well known in all fleets of all countries. What we in the RF Armed Forces call" Radio-technical camouflage ", and the Americans call" Radiation Control "- Emission control, EMCON.

                    And these same methods make it possible to deceive not only electronic intelligence satellites, but also RTR in general. "

                    And number two:
                    "The strike team moves to their theater of action in complete radio silence."
                    "For the strike group, wide-range search systems are especially dangerous, so that enemy reconnaissance systems are blocked either by a complete lack of sensory information for them, or by disinformation, or by providing them with truthful information with some critical edits that completely distort the picture. For example, the enemy's RER are focused on detecting radiation So the main way to avoid them is to radiate as little as possible. "

                    Your words ? Yours. Or do you not remember what you wrote? They are actually kind of correct, but only for 1980. Modern satellites detect an aircraft carrier even when it is in complete radio silence.
                    I already gave an example in the last article. Again, here is a photo from a radar satellite:
                    The open parking lot of the Central Museum of the Russian Air Force in Monino. Staring SpotLight shooting mode: spatial resolution <1 m, size of the surveyed area 4 km.

                    Airplanes are clearly visible, through any weather conditions, and with "off radars".
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 14: 09
                      +3
                      I quote Timokhin from a previous article:
                      "How to deceive RTR satellites? The answer is what is well known in all fleets of all countries. What we in the RF Armed Forces call" Radio-technical camouflage ", and the Americans call" Radiation Control "- Emission control, EMCON.

                      And these same methods make it possible to deceive not only electronic intelligence satellites, but also RTR in general. "


                      If you were smarter, you would have known that such pictures are given only by RADAR reconnaissance satellites. And RTR means RADIOTECHNICAL reconnaissance.

                      And optical and electronic intelligence satellites cannot do that. I have never argued that a RADAR reconnaissance satellite cannot detect a target through the clouds.

                      And number two:
                      "The strike team moves to their theater of action in complete radio silence."
                      "For the strike group, wide-range search systems are especially dangerous, so that enemy reconnaissance systems are blocked either by a complete lack of sensory information for them, or by disinformation, or by providing them with truthful information with some critical edits that completely distort the picture. For example, the enemy's RER are focused on detecting radiation So the main way to avoid them is to radiate as little as possible. "
                      Your words ? Your


                      If you were smarter, you saw that this is a quote from a translated article by an American pilot, in which he described his EXPERIENCE in such matters.

                      But you are not smarter, alas.
                      1. lucul
                        lucul 27 October 2020 14: 14
                        0
                        If you were smarter, you saw that this is a quote from a translated article by an American pilot, in which he described his EXPERIENCE in such matters.

                        But you haven't refuted it? No ? So you take it for an axiom, otherwise you would not give an example.
                        I repeat - everything that you wrote there is correct, but only for 1980.
                        It took 40 years, as it were, and a lot has changed.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        27 October 2020 14: 17
                        +2
                        On Flitex, the Midway AUG passed through the Legend satellites' flyovers when they were not there.
                        Since then, nothing has changed - if there is NO target in the survey or satellite detection strip, then he does not see it.

                        You cannot see an object that is not in sight.

                        So what did I have to refute, citizen lover of American agents of influence?
                    2. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 14: 22
                      -3
                      If you were smarter, you would have known that such pictures are given only by RADAR reconnaissance satellites. And RTR means RADIOTECHNICAL reconnaissance.

                      And optical and electronic intelligence satellites cannot do that. I have never argued that a RADAR reconnaissance satellite cannot detect a target through the clouds.

                      Truly not, they said, simply because you DIDN'T KNOW about it, and radar reconnaissance in your article is presented only in ZGRLS, there is not a word about satellites.
                      Here's how your article
                      We cheat radar facilities

                      Another mythologized means are over-the-horizon radars (ZGRLS). The rushing brain of a man with an anchor in his head is looking for something to calm his psyche, something to believe that a magic system that allows you to find a target from a chair in a warm bunker and send an anti-ship ballistic missile to it with one touch of a magic button

                      And there is not a word about radar satellites, and it is they who completely cross out your last article, so you cannot hide from them if you come under a satellite.
                    3. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 19: 26
                      +1
                      Truly not, they said, simply because you DIDN'T KNOW about it, and radar reconnaissance in your article is presented only in ZGRLS, there is not a word about satellites.


                      Are you really that or are you pretending?

                      Quote from the article:

                      The area from which "we" will strike is controlled by the Chinese with the help of the following orbital groups:

                      1. A constellation of optical reconnaissance satellites, satellites Yaogan-15, 19, 22, 27. In the simulation, their coverage is highlighted in red.
                      .

                      2. A constellation of radar reconnaissance satellites equipped with synthetic aperture radars, Yaogan-10 satellites, 29... In the simulation, their coverage is highlighted in blue.

                      3. Another constellation of radar reconnaissance satellites, satellites Yaogan-18, 23, their coverage is highlighted in green in the simulation.

                      Broken satellites are not listed.


                      What is incomprehensible here?

                      What's your problem, please tell me? Can't read the simplest text? Does the pressure jump on words with more than five letters? What's wrong with you?
                    4. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 21: 21
                      +1
                      A constellation of radar reconnaissance satellites equipped with synthetic aperture radars, satellites Yaogang-10, 29. In the simulation, their coverage is highlighted in blue.

                      This was a simple listing of satellites, you just copied without comprehending. Because
                      We cheat radar facilities

                      Another mythologized means are over-the-horizon radars (ZGRLS).

                      You haven't said a word about deceiving radiological satellites. Only about over-the-horizon ZGRLS. And if you are not fooling satellites, then they will see you. And your article was directly invulnerable AUG.
                      The funny thing is that here's a man writes
                      The satellites fly in orbits at an altitude of 910 km.
                      turnover period - 103 minutes.

                      Ie the satellite flies over the place exactly in 103 minutes. And with the width of the strip of its detection of 300 km, the avik simply physically cannot slip, as you wrote using the "window". Because at a speed of 55 km / h (1 km per minute), the avik will cover only 103 km of the 300 km of the satellite's detection strip and will not cross it undetected.
                    5. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 21: 28
                      +2
                      You haven't said a word about deceiving radiological satellites. Only about over-the-horizon ZGRLS. And if you are not deceiving satellites, then they will see you


                      There, a scheme for maneuvering the ship is given, which allows one not to get into the radar reconnaissance satellite's swath.
                      Go read again.

                      Ie the satellite flies over the place exactly in 103 minutes. And with the width of the strip of its detection of 300 km, the avik simply cannot physically slip through, as you wrote using the "window"


                      There, a computer simulation is given of the flight of satellites.
                      And it is due to the fact that on each flyby a different band of daily recession.

                      You are really tired.
                    6. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 21: 40
                      -1
                      There, a computer simulation is given of the flight of satellites.
                      And it is due to the fact that on each flyby a different band of daily recession.

                      What's the difference ?
                      You proved in the last article that in the conditional simulation of America's AUG against China, the avik will unhindered (not detected) reach the range of the strike against China.
                      But in fact, it is enough to form a satellite flight trajectory 1 km from the coast of China. And with a satellite rotation period around the Earth of 000 minutes and with a detection bandwidth of 103 km, the satellite becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the AUG. Since (again) during the satellite rotation period of 300 minutes, the avik will travel only 103 km during this time, and his companion will inevitably find him.
                    7. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 21: 48
                      +1
                      But in fact, it is enough to form a satellite flight trajectory 1 km from the coast of China. And with a satellite rotation period around the Earth of 000 minutes and with a detection bandwidth of 103 km, the satellite becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the AUG. Since (again) during the satellite rotation period of 300 minutes, the avik will travel only 103 km during this time, and his companion will inevitably find him.


                      Read about the daily recession. Searched for "tidal acceleration" in the search engine.

                      Although I am sure that you will not master it. Not in the sense of a tidal acceleration question, but a search engine.
                    8. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 00
                      +2
                      Read about the daily recession. Searched for "tidal acceleration" in the search engine.

                      Although I am sure that you will not master it. Not in the sense of a tidal acceleration question, but a search engine.

                      Timokhin, such Timokhin
                      In fact, even during the day, under the influence of the variable influence of the gravitational forces of the Moon, Earth and the Sun, it changes in an unpredictable way. The satellite performs complex harmonic daily and annual oscillations, which are observed from the Earth in the form of a figure eight, changing relative to the plane of the geostationary orbit. Therefore, without stabilizing the position of the satellite and its antennas, it is impossible to provide retransmission of TV broadcasts to the allotted territory on Earth.

                      И
                      Therefore, without stabilizing the position of the satellite and its antennas, it is impossible to provide retransmission of TV broadcasts to the allotted territory on Earth. Position stabilization essentially means maintaining a constant direction of the axis of the satellite body relative to the plane of the geostationary orbit. Once this problem is resolved, it is easier to maintain constant directivity of the antennas. There are two main ways to stabilize a satellite in geostationary orbit:

                      □ stabilized by rotation. Usually for stationary satellites the axis of rotation (stabilization) is chosen parallel to the axis of the Earth;

                      □ stabilization along three axes (direct stabilization) is carried out by controlling the angular position of the satellite relative to each of the three coordinate axes.

                      And that's it, the tidal acceleration is leveled. Again - since the avik will cross the satellite's detection band of 300 km and with an orbital period of 103 minutes? ))))
                    9. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 14
                      +2
                      I'm tired of your madness.
                      In the picture above, numbers 1,2,3 represent the ISS orbit.
                      Understand how so - there is one station, and three trajectories, then come here.
                      I was not hired to communicate with such a contingent, especially for free.
                      I'm not a defectologist.
                    10. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 20
                      -3
                      I'm tired of your madness.

                      And yours for me, because if the satellite detects the AUG within the range of the Zircon defeat, then 5 minutes of target designation is enough for the Zircon to start, and if the AUG is closer than 1 km, then it will inevitably be destroyed.
                    11. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 21
                      -1
                      What is two plus two times two?
                    12. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 22
                      -2
                      What is two plus two times two?

                      Timokhin, who has just written two useless articles, decided to flash his mind again? ))))
                    13. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 24
                      0
                      I'm just wondering if you could have done it yourself without googling. I see that no.
                    14. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 26
                      -6
                      I'm just wondering if you could have done it yourself without googling. I see that no.

                      I can imagine how foreign experts are laughing at such articles.
                    15. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 28
                      0
                      So how much is two plus two times two? Google gives the answer, yes, I checked. But you have to strain your brain and click on the link.
                      Try it.
                    16. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 29
                      +1
                      So how much is two plus two times two? Google gives the answer, yes, I checked. But you have to strain your brain and click on the link.
                      Try it.

                      You have already shown your capabilities in articles, as well as the level of education in the comments.
                    17. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 34
                      0
                      Answer the question. It's elementary. I understand that you CANNOT take and count.
                      Taking into account the fact that you carry it naturally.
                      But you use a search engine, though you don't add letters to words, you confuse low orbits with geostationary ones, and radio-technical reconnaissance with radar ones, but at least google the answer to the classic one-digit primary school problem.
                      Or is it too difficult for you?
                    18. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 36
                      -1
                      Or is it too difficult for you?

                      It is difficult for you that written with such difficulty, 2 articles about the invulnerability of the AUG, crumbled to dust, upon detailed examination.
                    19. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 38
                      0
                      What is two plus two times two?
                    20. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 41
                      -4
                      What is two plus two times two?

                      Are customers unhappy? I understand that getting into a puddle is something you still have to try.
                    21. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 44
                      +2
                      Cool. I thought such people die when they try to leave the entrance.
                      But our world comes out much more humane laughing

                      So how much is two plus two times two? Torment the search engine.
                    22. lucul
                      lucul 27 October 2020 22: 45
                      -2
                      So how much is two plus two times two? Torment the search engine.

                      Timokhin broke the next bottom? No? Is there still where to fall? )))
                    23. timokhin-aa
                      27 October 2020 22: 47
                      0
                      I'll have to show you to friends.
                2. Fizik M
                  Fizik M 7 November 2020 20: 53
                  +3
                  Quote: lucul
                  Are customers unhappy? I understand that getting into a puddle is something you still have to try.

                  In Algino, are there already students from school (like YOU) recruiting? lol
              2. Fizik M
                Fizik M 7 November 2020 20: 54
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                What is two plus two times two?

                no need to torment the patient with such difficult questions lol
            2. Fizik M
              Fizik M 7 November 2020 20: 53
              +2
              Quote: lucul
              articles on the invulnerability of AUG

              boy, there is no about "invulnerability", there is about the EXTREME DIFFICULTY of this task
              - what is FACT
    4. Fizik M
      Fizik M 7 November 2020 20: 57
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      Imagine how foreigners laugh

      they scoff (to be more precise, they scoff at) over such olga bots as YOU
  3. Fizik M
    Fizik M 7 November 2020 20: 56
    +3
    Quote: lucul
    if the satellite detects AUG within the range of the Zircon defeat, then 5 minutes of target designation is enough for Zircon to start

    1. LESS
    2. How did YOU decide that "AUG" is exactly AUG, and not a false order?
    Quote: lucul
    if the AUG is closer than 1 km, then it will inevitably be destroyed.

    RAVE
    at least due to the electronic warfare factor
  4. lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 22: 24
    -2
    In the picture above, numbers 1,2,3 represent the ISS orbit.
    Understand how so - there is one station, and three trajectories, then come here.

    The trajectories are then 3, but the repeater / radar drives along the same place on the ground, and not in three places. Compensation for trajectory fluctuations.
  5. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 22: 30
    +1
    You didn’t even have enough brains to understand what you were digging into a search engine.
    I'll try to suggest, though you won't understand anyway.

    There are words in your quote

    There are two main ways to stabilize a satellite in geostationary orbit


    Do you understand their meaning? Do not understand.
  6. lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 22: 34
    0
    Do you understand their meaning? Do not understand.

    You don't really understand that even if the trajectory is dancing, the antenna is always oriented to a certain band on the Earth. Or do you think that satellite antennas cannot rotate to compensate for trajectory fluctuations?
  7. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 22: 40
    +2
    On reconnaissance satellites, they NEVER do this, and they do not do it on purpose and for an absolutely obvious reason for a normal person.
    I will not explain it to you, you cannot even master the arithmetic of the 3rd grade of secondary school, where do you care about such matters.
  8. lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 22: 42
    -2
    On reconnaissance satellites, they NEVER do this, and they do not do it on purpose and for an absolutely obvious reason for a normal person.

    Do you still think that AUG is invulnerable?
  9. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 22: 46
    +2
    I would answer, but you will not master the answer.

    What is two plus two times two?
  10. lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 22: 47
    -2
    I would answer, but you will not master the answer.

    Ashamed to admit to myself that I was wrong? There is nothing scary about that.
  11. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 22: 49
    -1
    So how much is two plus two times two?
  12. lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 22: 51
    -2
    So how much is two plus two times two?

    Now I will have this association with Timokhin "two plus two times two".
  13. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 22: 53
    0
    Now I will have such an association with Timokhin "two plus two times two".


    Yes, it will be the kind of height that your mind could not reach laughing
    I couldn't even google the answer.
  14. lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 22: 56
    -2
    Yes, it will be the kind of height that your mind could not take laughing
    I couldn't even google the answer.

    Well, where am I to Timokhin two plus two and multiply by two))))
  15. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 23: 00
    0
    You are not only up to me as to the moon.
    You are in the same way up to the vast majority of people living on the planet.
    The bushman, accidentally pulled out of the Kalahari, surpasses you intellectually by an amount tending to infinity.

    It is a pity that you are not able to evaluate yourself from the outside.

    But can you try to solve an example? laughing
    If you can either solve it, or find the answer in a search engine, I admit that you are human.
    Try it.
  16. timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 23: 06
    0
    The opponent gave up and left the chat laughing

    I could not find the answer in the search engine, I could not calculate it myself. Probably ask friends, write tomorrow.
    Wait laughing
  17. Sanichsan
    Sanichsan 28 October 2020 00: 26
    -1
    Quote: lucul
    Or do you think that satellite antennas cannot rotate to compensate for trajectory fluctuations?

    thinks? he is sure of it! you read about ninja aircraft carriers wink
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Fizik M
    Fizik M 7 November 2020 20: 59
    +1
    Quote: lucul
    even if the trajectory is dancing, the antenna is always oriented to a certain band on the Earth. Or do you think that satellite antennas cannot rotate to compensate for trajectory fluctuations?

    tell me are you in Do you order Olgino's manuals in "Detgiz"? lol
  20. Serg4545
    Serg4545 28 October 2020 13: 30
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    There, a scheme for maneuvering the ship is given, which allows one not to get into the radar reconnaissance satellite's swath.

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    There, a computer simulation is given of the flight of satellites.
    And it is due to the fact that on each flyby a different band of daily recession.

    Sorry, your diagram is based on the completely ridiculous assumption that the satellite's detection band runs straight down. Only with such a fantastic assumption are the described AUG maneuvers possible in order to avoid detection.
    It might come as a surprise to you, but. Satellites can deploy their detection equipment (antennas, optoelectronic devices, etc.). Accordingly, the satellite's detection band can run 500-700-1000 km to the left or right of the satellite's flight path.
    And naturally, the possibilities for changing the detection band are actively used. Nobody would build such an expensive space system if it could be so easily tricked.
  21. timokhin-aa
    28 October 2020 13: 42
    +4
    Satellites can deploy something somewhere. But only when the antenna is built into the satellite body, and not on a movable bracket, it can be deployed only by turning the satellite itself.
    And this requires the consumption of fuel or working fluid, which is not enough on board and which cannot be replenished.
    And this is done only at the command of the operator, for which a very good reason is needed.

    The Yaogans have a fixed antenna, the entire satellite must be deployed. And I don't know if they have engines.

    And you think about the reason that can give the command for such a turn. View another lane? And what about the old one then?
  22. Serg4545
    Serg4545 28 October 2020 14: 33
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The "Yaogans" have a fixed antenna,

    Is it possible the source of this statement?
    It’s hard to believe that the Chinese genius turned out to be so gloomy that he did not install a penny electric drive and thereby reduced the flexibility of using the satellite by several orders of magnitude. Although if they have a PAR / AFAR, then they do not need an electric drive to change the scanning angle.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And you think about the reason that can give the command for such a turn. View another lane? And what about the old one then?

    Why look at the old one?
    Perhaps in your universe, reconnaissance satellites fly only to track one strip. Whether there is someone there or not. And giving the enemy every opportunity to remain unnoticed (knowing in advance the orbits of the satellites).
    And in my universe, intelligence systems work to detect those who want to hide from them. This means they work unpredictably for the enemy.
    Yes, it is possible, if you change the detection zones arbitrarily, the enemy will have chances to go unnoticed. But this is an accident. They will notice / do not notice. If you always light one strip, then this is a GUARANTEE, not to notice anyone. The difference is enormous!
  23. timokhin-aa
    28 October 2020 16: 34
    +2
    It’s hard to believe that the Chinese genius turned out to be so gloomy that he didn’t install a penny electric drive


    In zero gravity, the operation of any servo will have to be compensated for by the influence on the satellite, equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction, otherwise, with each actuation of such a servo, the satellite will unfold in an unpredictable way.

    This is the basics of mechanics.

    Attention - I cannot explain SO elementary things. I do not have that much time, if you do not remember Newton's third law (9th grade of high school) then this cannot be my problem. So please don't ask such stupid questions next time, okay?

    Picture Yaogang 1 just in case.


    Why look at the old one?


    Then, that the enemy will not even have to maneuver, he will know that there is a strip 300-500 km wide around the planet, over which a satellite with a radar flies 14 times a day, and there is nothing else. And from this he will build all his tactics. And the side that will use satellites in such an extravagant way will need at least three or four times more satellites for a normal coverage.

    This is the basics of logic.

    I draw your attention to the fact that I normally communicate with people only as long as they do not demonstrate mental disability, and then no longer.

    You started asking "on the edge" questions. Think about what you want to ask, respect my time, I have a family, a job, I cannot communicate with people who fundamentally do not want to use their brain for its intended purpose, I just have no time.
  24. Serg4545
    Serg4545 28 October 2020 17: 30
    -2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    In zero gravity, the operation of any servo will have to be compensated for by the influence on the satellite, equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction, otherwise, with each actuation of such a servo, the satellite will unfold in an unpredictable way.

    This is the basics of mechanics.

    Attention - I cannot explain SO elementary things. I do not have that much time, if you do not remember Newton's third law (9th grade of high school) then this cannot be my problem. So please don't ask such stupid questions next time, okay?

    Oho!
    I hope Buddhism does not prohibit the Chinese from installing gyroscopes to compensate for the disturbances caused by the servos?) Well then, no problem.
    And further. As I wrote above, if the Chinese use PAR / AFAR technologies, they do not need to deploy the radar at all to scan away from the satellite's flight path.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Then, that the enemy will not even have to maneuver, he will know that there is a strip 300-500 km wide around the planet, over which a satellite with a radar flies 14 times a day, and there is nothing else. And from this he will build all his tactics

    Sorry, but in the case I am proposing, the satellite will scan a strip of the same width. And the same number of times a day.
    The only difference is that the scanning strip will be unpredictable for the enemy, so he will not be able to come up with any tactics. Which is very helpful.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    I draw your attention to the fact that I normally communicate with people only as long as they do not demonstrate mental disability, and then no longer.

    You started asking "on the edge" questions. Think about what you want to ask, respect my time, I have a family, a job, I cannot communicate with people who fundamentally do not want to use their brain for its intended purpose, I just have no time.

    Oh, how arrogance climbed out of all the holes !!
    No wonder you got kicked out of the navy. Your poor bosses. How difficult it was for them to have in submission a man who imagined himself to be a generalisimo in any matter.
    And now you are gaining cheap popularity among shkoloty on VO. And spend a lot of your life for that. Poor fellow)
  25. timokhin-aa
    28 October 2020 18: 32
    +1
    I hope Buddhism does not prohibit the Chinese from installing gyroscopes to compensate for the disturbances caused by the servos?)


    Will they help? Well, think a little.

    As I wrote above, if the Chinese use PAR / AFAR technologies, they do not need to deploy the radar at all to scan away from the satellite's flight path.


    The radar's swath will be finite in any case. And in peacetime it can be calculated in advance.

    Oh, how arrogance climbed out of all the holes !!


    Well, there is a reason. At least you can do arithmetic, but look up at your like-minded people, my nerves are not iron, if anything.
    There are a lot of you.
    Yet.

    And I don’t need to come up with a biography, you don’t know where I was, or what I did, they drove me away or left, you don’t know either.
  • Operator
    Operator 27 October 2020 14: 43
    -4
    You are right about the ideal radar satellites, but they require an RTG on board and, most importantly, have a limited field of view, and therefore dozens of them are needed to monitor the World Ocean around the clock.

    Another thing is RTR satellites (of the "Lotos-C1" type) - just a pair of them in a geostationary orbit makes it possible at any time to detect the inclusion of the Hokai radar in the entire water area of ​​the Western and Eastern hemispheres, respectively. Low-orbit RTR satellites with an orbital altitude of ~ 300 km control a swath width of 2000 km each (those who wish can calculate their required number for round-the-clock monitoring of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans).

    Well, no one has canceled the tracking of weapons (such as the GKR "Zircon") from the ISSAPL, whose detection range and classification of the characteristic low-frequency noise of the propeller group of each aircraft carrier (the spectrum of which cannot be faked in principle) reaches 1000 km. The ISSAPL remotely "grazes" the aircraft carrier immediately after leaving the base, being outside the PLO AUG zone, and thus does not need external target designation when receiving the command to launch the Zircons from the Zeus ultra-low frequency radio transmitter (located on the Kola Peninsula) with signal reception anywhere in the oceans.

    The task is to ensure that the number of SSNS at least coincides with the number of aircraft carriers of NATO, Japan and South Korea combined. And for this, the cost of each SSNS must be minimized by reducing the displacement to 1000 tons - just enough to take on board four GKR "Zircon" and four SRT "Predator" with nuclear equipment, plus n-th number of small-caliber anti-torpedoes.

    After which the enemy will voluntarily cut their aircraft carriers on pins and needles laughing
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 27 October 2020 16: 33
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      Another thing is RTR satellites (of the "Lotos-C1" type) - just a pair of them in a geostationary orbit makes it possible at any time to detect the inclusion of the Hokai radar in the entire water area of ​​the Western and Eastern hemispheres, respectively.


      Why is it so stupid and blatant to lie?

      Lotus-C1 - aka 14F145 - aka Cosmos 2528, 2502, 2455

      The satellites fly in orbits at an altitude of 910 km.
      turnover period - 103 minutes.
      2018-082A - now over the great lakes,
      2018-082C - now exactly in the middle of the Atlantic, between Europe and the USA.
      2018-082B - Just passed the western tip of Africa and is approaching the equator.
      https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45038
      https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=43657
      https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45037
      They go by a little train.


      You can also look at 2014-086A and 2009-063A.
      These are the very ones you speak of as "a couple in geostationary orbit"

      If you looked at the orbits, you would see what huge holes are gaping between the motions of the satellites ...

      After such a failure, Operator, you need to do an auto-da-fe.
      And in front of the mirror.
      For you simply no longer have faith ...


      About spotting aircraft carriers from 1000 km is generally beyond understanding.
      Only available in pink ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 October 2020 17: 30
      +5
      Quote: SovAr238A
      The satellites fly in orbits at an altitude of 910 km.
      turnover period - 103 minutes.
      2018-082A - now over the great lakes,
      2018-082C - now exactly in the middle of the Atlantic, between Europe and the USA.
      2018-082B - Just passed the western tip of Africa and is approaching the equator.
      https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45038
      https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=43657
      https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45037
      They go by a little train.

      You just walked through the world of pink ponies with forged boots of facts. smile
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 27 October 2020 18: 14
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      You just walked through the world of pink ponies with forged boots of facts. smile

      Yesterday I did this several times with facts too.
      But, especially zealous fans of My Little Pony Tales - for some reason they complained about me for alleged insults and rudeness.
      The operator seems to have included his last argument.
      About 4 messages with real facts and characteristics were deleted.

      Absolutely, you know ... :)
  • Operator
    Operator 27 October 2020 21: 21
    -4
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Satellites fly in orbits at an altitude of 910 km
    About detecting aircraft carriers from 1000 km is generally beyond understanding

    Especially for Israeli fans of blue ponies: the radio horizon of the Russian RTR satellite "Lotos-C1" at an altitude of 900 km is 3900 km, and the swath width is 7800 km.

    Nobody doubts your edge of understanding.

    ".......", - S. Lavrov (C)
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 27 October 2020 22: 18
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Satellites fly in orbits at an altitude of 910 km
    About detecting aircraft carriers from 1000 km is generally beyond understanding

    Especially for Israeli fans of blue ponies: the radio horizon of the Russian RTR satellite "Lotos-C1" at an altitude of 900 km is 3900 km, and the swath width is 7800 km.

    Nobody doubts your edge of understanding.

    ".......", - S. Lavrov (C)


    You are self-critical, MyLittle ...

    Those. You changed your shoes on the fly - Lotus-C1 is no longer on the geostationary?
    Do you admit your lies or not?
  • Operator
    Operator 27 October 2020 23: 55
    -3
    And where did I claim that Lotus-1C is on the geostationary? bully
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 27 October 2020 22: 51
    +3
    Quote: Operator
    Another thing is RTR satellites (of the "Lotos-C1" type) - just a pair of them in a geostationary orbit allows at any time to detect the inclusion of the Hokai radar throughout the water area of ​​the Western and Eastern hemispheres, respectively

    It remains to somehow drag them into this orbit, business. And, of course, an increase in the range does not affect the detection capabilities in any way: "Hokaya" is well "heard" even from the Moon)) Do I need to mention that detect the inclusion of the Hokai radar и get coordinates, course and speed of AUG - not the same thing at all? Okay, I won't spoil the surprise.

    Quote: Operator
    SSNS, in which the detection range and classification of the characteristic low-frequency noise of the propeller group of each aircraft carrier (the spectrum of which cannot be faked in principle) reaches 1000 km

    Finally, otherwise I have already begun to worry that this time it will not reach the miracle-GAK))

    Quote: Operator
    ISSAPL remotely "pastures" the aircraft carrier immediately after its exit from the base, being outside the PLO AUG zone

    I think that MCSPL doesn’t even need to leave the base: it hears AUG directly from the quay wall, and from there it knocks it down with "Zircons". Conveniently.

    Quote: Operator
    And for this, the cost of each SSNS must be minimized by reducing the displacement to 1000 tons - just enough to take on board four Zircon GKR and four Predator SRT with nuclear equipment, plus n-th number of small-caliber anti-torpedoes.

    We bring down four aircraft carriers with four "Zircons". We drown four more "Predators". And how will your super-kayak destroy the remaining two?
  • Operator
    Operator 27 October 2020 23: 58
    -9
    First, learn to read in Russian: one MCSPL = one AB.
  • Sanichsan
    Sanichsan 28 October 2020 00: 24
    -4
    Quote: lucul
    Do you know which intelligence satellites Russia has put into orbit over the past 10 years? Or do you only have Liana flying alone?

    leave ... it's okay. this is Timokhin. his physics has not changed since 1982, which means that the radar has not changed either request
    1. Cresta999
      Cresta999 3 November 2020 13: 04
      +1
      And you, dear, have physics changed ?! My compliments to your teachers!
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 3 November 2020 17: 53
        -1
        Quote: Cresta999
        And you, dear, have physics changed ?!

        OU! belay another citizen from an alternate reality? Do you, like Timokhin, see Zamwolt's radar at 3 km as FuMO 30? lol physics did not change, which means that the radars did not change, according to your guru Timokhin. wassat
  • lucul
    lucul 27 October 2020 01: 14
    -12 qualifying.
    If you are so smart - the question is - how many times do you need to get NMC in order to use such algorithms as the same Kalman filter? You are not going to probabilistic models, extrapolations, etc. to use in relation to SINGLE events?

    There is physics, the calculation is by inertia.
    Further, where did you get the idea that the target detection range directly along the course and at an angle to it at the GOS anti-ship missiles is the same? Who told you that?

    Here the developer's data is given, such a target as avik is difficult to miss, especially since there is a circle with a radius of only 10 km.
    And the fact that the sector of capture of the GOS and the range when the enemy uses electronic warfare is reduced at times, you have not heard? And unevenly?

    The developer guarantees the capture of the seeker when the enemy uses electronic warfare 20 km from the target. This is not my gag - developer data.
    And why are you comparing the operating conditions of the seeker of a subsonic missile with the Zircon? Have you already broken away from reality? At hypersonic plasma on the body, everything is much tougher there.

    At the final stage, the speed may drop to 3-000 km / h, there is no plasma there anymore.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 01: 17
      11
      You not only do not understand the meaning of what you have read, you also do not understand what you are typing.
      1. lucul
        lucul 27 October 2020 01: 19
        -12 qualifying.
        You not only do not understand the meaning of what you have read, you also do not understand what you are typing.

        We are just waiting for Altius - as soon as it appears - the problem with target designation will be solved.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 27 October 2020 02: 23
          -3
          Quote: lucul
          Just waiting for Altius - as soon as it appears - the problem with target designation will be solved

          Not Altius, but rather a TU-214 and possibly a more massive UAV for such tasks. In the USSR, there was a TU-95RTs with the Success / Success-U complex. It was he who issued the target designation for the Basalts and Granites, and not any Legend, which was more often blind than seeing.
          So, while they give birth to Lyra and Kasatka, I think they are fighting on the basis of the TU-214, an aircraft of the same type as the TU-95RTs with a system similar to Success. Perhaps such a complex (analogue of Uspeha-U) can be installed on a UAV.
          1. timokhin-aa
            27 October 2020 09: 39
            +4
            There is no single means by which to resolve the issue. Only reconnaissance operation of heterogeneous forces.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 27 October 2020 20: 43
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              There is no single means by which to resolve the issue.
              We must make such a remedy. Let the missiles at least search the OVMC themselves. For 1-2 missiles in a salvo, instead of a warhead, put a surveillance radar, RTR, optical and IR channels to clarify the results of detection. Let this rocket climb higher and look for targets, displaying dips on its flock plus a picture on the flagship or satellite. One missile will be shot down, the second will start work, using information about who shot down the first and from where. You can make a few more cheap "noise" rockets, let them entertain the foe by roaming around the OVMC and pretending to be a star raid.
            2. timokhin-aa
              28 October 2020 12: 29
              +3
              I also had this idea. Reconnaissance rocket for standard launcher.
              The Americans, by the way, claim that we have a UAV launched from a multiple launch rocket launcher to adjust and evaluate the results.
              For the navy, such a bird would not hurt either.
      2. timokhin-aa
        27 October 2020 09: 40
        +3
        Will not be. No one means will solve the issue, especially a subsonic remotely controlled UAV. Here he will definitely not decide.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 27 October 2020 11: 10
          +4
          Destroying other people's dreams of a "golden pool" that can "make obsolete" AB USA with a low budget good
      3. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 27 October 2020 17: 06
        +3
        Quote: lucul
        You not only do not understand the meaning of what you have read, you also do not understand what you are typing.

        We are just waiting for Altius - as soon as it appears - the problem with target designation will be solved.



        And at what range will you do target designation?

        Those. do you think we have an AFAR radar station similar to the enemy AN / ZPY-3 ????
        Which Tritons are equipped with
        And at least such a radar should be installed on the drone that you want to use for target designation at sea, given that its targets should be enemy Burks, Horizons, Daringi and other 12 aircraft carrier groups with their Hokai
        Considering that we simply do not have a single one, even a small-scale AFAR ...
        considering that Altair (Altius) is three times less in terms of take-off weight, fuel capacity and payload compared to Triton.

        You really do not understand what you read and do not understand what you are writing ...
  • timokhin-aa
    27 October 2020 09: 35
    +1
    There is physics, the calculation is by inertia.


    This is not Physics

    Here is the developer's data,


    The range in a straight line from a great height with zero interference is given there.

    You understand, I drew the sector of the circle in the pictures, for convention,
    in reality there is a complex field.

    At the final stage, the speed may drop to 3-000 km / h, there is no plasma there anymore.


    What's the point in such a rocket?
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 27 October 2020 06: 39
    +2
    In short, don't distract adults, okay?

    from what? From the discussion that everything was gone? I think they will now arrange shaman dances on bones even without lukul laughing What a delicious bone you gave them
    Most of the text makes you smile. Something is of course correctly described, albeit too primitive. But some pearls delighted laughing Especially about the calculation of the lead to launch missiles. You at least take an interest in both an example about the mathematical software for firing air-to-air missiles, and the opposite - when, when receiving a signal about an attack from the on-board tracking systems and indicating an attack in the on-board computer, the probability of hitting an aircraft is calculated at the current coordinates. And a point in space is determined (for performing PfM), upon arrival at which a missile miss is provided. Everything is categorical and / or simplistic with you.
    The article is interesting only as a very, very simplified description of the process of target designation, identification and shooting. But the author did not need to draw conclusions. Well, if only he did not set the main goal of her to set fire to soft spots in ignorant readers.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 09: 38
      +2
      Especially about the calculation of the lead to launch missiles. You at least take an interest in both an example about the mathematical software for firing air-to-air missiles, and the opposite - when, when receiving a signal about an attack from the on-board tracking systems and indicating an attack in the on-board computer, the probability of hitting an aircraft is calculated at the current coordinates. And a point in space is determined (for performing PfM), upon arrival at which a missile miss is provided. Everything is categorical and / or simplistic with you.


      This is a completely different task, and the plane and the rocket maneuver in THREE dimensions, the rocket is also part of the path without thrust.

      It's just OTHER.

      Everything is simplified for me, I mentioned the use of the math apparatus of the theorver, but he himself is absent in the article, precisely because its purpose is to show people the principle of what a control center is. But what caused your antics?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. The comment was deleted.
            5. The comment was deleted.
            6. The comment was deleted.
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 26 October 2020 22: 14
    +9
    Alexander is quite a competent person in the fleet, as was the VAF (or something like that) in aviation ...
  • MrFox
    MrFox 27 October 2020 18: 05
    +1
    Are regalia more convincing than logic and physics?
  • deniso
    deniso 26 October 2020 18: 30
    +7
    Timokhin certainly loves to beautify, but here he did not overdo it. But in his own reasoning there is also a disclosure of the questions asked by him. Firstly, the AUG, united by AEGIS, will simply not allow the reconnaissance aircraft to reach a sufficient distance for target designation, in addition, they still need to be protected from carrier-based aircraft, which means that UAVs, at least similar to the MQ-4C, should come to replace the manned vehicles. It is likely that our UAV Hunter will be focused on this. The short flight time will not allow the "target" to escape far from the Zircons, because when attacking at 500 km, it is 4-5 minutes. Therefore, it is likely that Zircon does not have the ability to group attack with automatic selection and retargeting to other targets. As for the aviation Brahmos, its purchase is not excluded, but you need to understand that we also have the Tu-22M3 with the Kh-32, and the MiG-31 with the Dagger. Do we need a third system? Especially since it was reported that Zircon will have an aircraft-based option.

    As for the fleet, this is a double-edged sword - building a fleet without missiles is as useless as missiles without a fleet. So the construction of 22350 needs to be accelerated as much as possible.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 19: 00
      -7
      Quote: denis obuckov
      It is likely that our UAV Hunter will be focused on this.

      It is focused on cutting the dough. There is little other "benefit" from it.
    2. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 19: 11
      24
      First, the AUG, united by AEGIS, will simply not allow the reconnaissance aircraft to reach a sufficient distance for target designation


      It "glows like a Christmas tree" when the radar is turned on, that is, the situation is twofold - it is stupidly visible from such a distance, from which a ship simply cannot shoot without an external control center (E-2 or NIFC-CA).

      in addition, they still need to be protected from carrier-based aircraft, which means that UAVs should come to replace the manned vehicles,


      or aerial reconnaissance should be able to pile on carrier-based aircraft itself. As an option. And such aircraft with a good range, on the basis of which a reconnaissance fighter can be made, are mass-produced in the Russian Federation.

      Therefore, it is likely that Zircon does not have the ability to group attack with automatic selection and retargeting to other targets.


      Most likely no. But with a normal control center, this is a lethal rocket without all this.

      As for the aviation Brahmos, its purchase is not excluded, but you need to understand that we also have the Tu-22M3 with the Kh-32, and the MiG-31 with the Dagger. Do we need a third system?


      Quite the opposite is true - the X-32 is a dead idea, and it is not for nothing that it is not mass-produced, I think the question about the Dagger has been disclosed in the text, revise it, but we have tested the Onyx with an air base and we do not need any Indians, you just need to start buying this rocket and that's it.
      And instead of the shortened Indian version, immediately make "Zircon" for the plane.

      So the construction of 22350 needs to be accelerated as much as possible.


      I do not argue with this, it is necessary.
    3. Bez 310
      Bez 310 26 October 2020 19: 49
      11
      Quote: denis obuckov
      we also have Tu-22M3 with Kh-32

      We don't have this ...
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 27 October 2020 11: 19
        +5
        Quote: Bez 310
        We don't have this ..

        I agree, we don't have an MPA at all, it was transferred to YES, the X-32, like its carrier, no!
        The question of MA has been ripe for a long time, both with aircraft and with the training of pilots.
    4. 3danimal
      3danimal 27 October 2020 11: 16
      0
      So the construction of 22350 needs to be accelerated as much as possible.

      At least up to 8 years on a FULLY combat-ready ship. Then we will have a dozen of them in the second half of the 21st century ...
      IMHO, the radar station (Polyment) was chosen incorrectly. They would have taken from the S-350 (from which the missiles), covered with a fairing, put on a mast on a rotating platform request
      (Similar to the Type-45 Daring)
      1. timokhin-aa
        27 October 2020 12: 36
        +4
        Come on, they brought Polyment, now we need to put it on. Anyway, sooner or later there will be so many targets that a rotating antenna, even with a phased array, will not work.
        So it's good that Polyment was finished.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 27 October 2020 15: 16
          0
          So it's good that Polyment was finished.

          I agree.
          Anyway, sooner or later there will be so many targets that a rotating antenna, even with a phased array, will not work.

          But it could have saved a lot of (very) time and money.
          And again, too many targets - not enough missiles to fight off what
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 October 2020 17: 38
        +2
        Quote: 3danimal
        IMHO, the radar station (Polyment) was chosen incorrectly. They would have taken from the S-350 (from which the missiles), covered with a fairing, put on a mast on a rotating platform

        And they would get the next S-300F with its biggest drawback: the working sector is on average 90 degrees + the need to mechanically turn the antenna to change the position of the working sector.
        That is, when attacking from two directions, spaced at least at 120 degrees, one of them will be impossible to cover the air defense system, because both of them will not fit into one working sector, but constantly run in a sector between directions, mechanically turning the AP left and right - here no mechanics will survive. smile
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 27 October 2020 20: 43
          0
          And they would get the next S-300F with its biggest drawback: the working sector is on average 90 degrees + the need to mechanically turn the antenna to change the position of the working sector.

          There are significant differences: the missiles for the S-300F with the PARL seeker, and the 90 'angle is determined by the complex illumination radar.
          (For S-350 - missiles with ARL seeker, as well as Daring with SAM "Aster").
          the need for mechanical reversal of the antenna to change the position of the working sector.

          It is not necessary to turn the illumination radar if the missiles have an ARL seeker.
          one of them will be impossible to cover the air defense system, because both of them will not fit into the same working sector

          All this is about PARL GOS. And here Burke has an advantage, where there are 3 radars (4 on Tick). With the SM-6, all this has become irrelevant.
          I suggested the British version. What are his disadvantages?
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 26 October 2020 18: 40
    28
    Many thanks to the author for the hard and thankless work in explaining the complexities of modern military operations!

    In my opinion, it turned out to be as accessible as possible for an unprepared reader.
    1. Asad
      Asad 26 October 2020 18: 49
      +4
      I agree with you, the details are available! Plus to the author!
      1. timokhin-aa
        26 October 2020 19: 12
        28
        Thank you, I'm glad I did my best.
        1. srelock
          srelock 27 October 2020 01: 07
          +2
          Perhaps yes, the article still has historical value good
        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 27 October 2020 11: 22
          +3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Thank you, I'm glad I did my best.

          Alexander, many thanks for popularizing the problems of the Navy. There would be more such articles on VO.
          The most global problem with the Pink Pony is that he will not be able to think)), but the rest of the article will help.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 26 October 2020 22: 33
      19
      Quote: Lex_is
      Many thanks to the author for the hard and thankless work in explaining the complexities of modern military operations!

      The author spoiled all the raspberries with his reasoning. What a beautiful picture of life was: I put the "Zircon" on some "Buyan", and all the enemy AUGs within a radius of 1000 km went to the bottom at once ... And it was simple to measure their combat power: as long as our missiles in the performance characteristics of "Mach" kilometers more, the Americans have nothing to catch. And now it’s how complicated and sad it is.

      And if without sarcasm, then the article is very interesting. Only a few (in my opinion) have not been disclosed the question of the "stupidity" of our missiles versus their "smart" ones; all my life I read that the same "Granites" have quite advanced (for their time) brains in terms of searching for targets by a pack, exchanging information with each other and so on. "Harpoons" and "Tomahawks" (a variation of TASM) in this regard were always simpler (at least, they did not work in the flock, each rocket was looking for its own target).
      1. timokhin-aa
        26 October 2020 22: 47
        14
        the same "Granites" have quite advanced (for their time) brains in terms of searching for targets in a pack, exchanging information with each other, and so on.


        Yes, but there the algorithm for selecting targets is greatly simplified compared to LRASM, and they cannot go through the route like this, spin circles around someone else's radio horizon, etc. they cannot, they cannot skip areas of the terrain to the next water area. Take, for example, a quote from the book of the Captain about the fact that pr.670 had to be taken out on impact. That is, the fjords would be too difficult "environment" for the Granites to reach the target.
        And for LRASM or SAAB RBS15, the latest modifications are more likely not than yes.

        That's what it was about. At the same time, the task at our level of development is quite solvable.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 26 October 2020 22: 49
          +7
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          That's what it was about.

          Realized, thanks.
  • mongol9999
    mongol9999 26 October 2020 18: 50
    15
    Very good stuff. Not a rocketman, not a sailor, but not a Pink Pony either. Respect to the author.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 19: 13
      13
      Thank you for the rating, I'm glad that I did my best.
      1. sunzhenets
        sunzhenets 27 October 2020 11: 03
        +3
        Excellent! Many thanks to the author. It is not given to everyone to simply and easily tell about the complex.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 26 October 2020 18: 50
    27
    As if I sat in my own department at a lecture on tactics. good , felt young winked
    That's right, every word. Thank you, Alexander!
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 19: 15
      20
      Thank you for rating. Well, in reality, there are mistakes, but as one person said, "you cannot point to them, there will be disclosure."
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 27 October 2020 11: 31
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Thank you for rating. Well, in reality, there are mistakes, but as one person said, "you cannot point to them, there will be disclosure."

        Let's omit the mistakes, I already wrote that Pony still won't understand)) those who understand and know and forgive so much of this.
        Only yesterday I came from one of the factories, I can only swear (((!!
        Now the desire to do something useful for the country is not enough, it is time to take some repressive measures
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 October 2020 12: 38
          +3
          it's time to take some repressive measures


          The system has learned to forgive. Until nothing comes out, I think. Some time...
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 27 October 2020 20: 52
            +1
            Why should the system change? After all, its goal is not to develop the fleet, but to master the budgets. I will assume that a certain "critical mass" has accumulated, preventing the supporters of development from consolidating in their ranks.
        2. Igor Semenov
          Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 16: 25
          0
          The Dunning-Kruger effect, also known as metacognitive distortion. Unfortunately, I cannot write in Russian, they will be banned. And our Pink Pony also wears pink glasses. Mr. Timokhin - many thanks for the work.
  • Alex Nevs
    Alex Nevs 26 October 2020 18: 50
    +5
    Come on laughing ... Let it be. laughing laughing laughing How stupid are we? Yeah .. More precisely, agu babies .. And for those who think, "And why are all these wunderwales?" Also, who will "expose" whom to "bury the grandmother."
  • maktub
    maktub 26 October 2020 18: 52
    +3
    I barely finished reading, but very informative. (Even delved into laughing )
    Respect for the author
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 26 October 2020 18: 57
    +2
    Russia today has the resources to acquire forces capable of such operations in a short time, and it will not be very expensive.


    The most interesting thing, as always, was not told.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 19: 28
      +9
      Quote: Operator
      RTR satellites with a detection range of radio emission from aircraft carrier take-off / landing devices of 2000 km (from low orbit) and radio emission of an AWACS aircraft at 40000 km (from geostationary orbit)

      These means will be able to determine the approximate location of the AUG, but not accurate and definitely not sufficient before the defeat. RTR gives a "cloud" of probabilistic location of the signal source, given the distance and the fact that the signal is moving, this cloud will be a radius of several tens of kilometers.
      1. Operator
        Operator 26 October 2020 20: 02
        -15 qualifying.
        RTR satellites give the coordinates of radio emission sources with an accuracy of km, however.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 26 October 2020 22: 25
          11
          Quote: Operator
          Who would argue - you have a lot in your "historical homeland", including blue ponies and other biological objects.

          The glide path system sends greetings to the aerofinishers and steam catapults in your face.


          First.
          My historical homeland is the city of Kuibyshev ...
          Yeah ...

          Second.
          You finally found out that aircraft carriers have automatic landing systems ...
          Ага.
          Now you will probably know that every US Navy carrier-based aircraft has a REAL automatic landing capability.
          For the AN / SPN-46 Block 2 and AN / SPN-46 Block 3 systems are used only for automatic landing and their use is an emergency and extreme case.
          And yes, in pursuit, the LPI mode was implemented on them 20 years earlier than on the F-35 and F-22.
          The Americans are not fools to be able to use aircraft carriers in complete radio silence, so "fail" on the emergency system.

          In 99,99% of cases, pilots use optical systems. Laser including.
          All sorts of LSO, LRLS, IFLOLS.
          The range of the laser systems is up to 15 miles in good weather.
          Bad 2-3 miles.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 26 October 2020 22: 59
            0
            Kuibyshev, my fierydrinks
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. kamakama
        kamakama 26 October 2020 23: 41
        +8
        The effectiveness of nuclear ammunition against ships was tested by the Americans themselves and was considered unsatisfactory back in the shaggy 50s. Yes, the charge has been improved, but the effective action of tactical charges is much less than the size of the AUG. This is, if you do not touch the political component of the first use of nuclear weapons with all the ensuing consequences - nuclear weapons have no place in local conflicts, this is a preemptive weapon, and with the stockpiled quantity, it is already Judgment Day
    4. Kalmar
      Kalmar 26 October 2020 22: 44
      11
      Quote: Operator
      RTR satellites with a detection range of radio emission from aircraft carrier take-off / landing devices of 2000 km (from low orbit) and radio emission from an AWACS aircraft at 40000 km (from geostationary orbit) - no, I have not heard.

      You have forgotten your beloved miracle-GAK, with the help of which our nuclear submarines "hear" enemy aircraft carriers for 1000 km (or something like that, I forgot it).
      1. Operator
        Operator 26 October 2020 22: 46
        -18 qualifying.
        40000/2000 km seems to be more than 1000 km or is it wrong in Israel? laughing
  • Asad
    Asad 26 October 2020 19: 21
    +4
    I would like to know the opinion of experts, Musk has already launched 730 satellites for the Internet, the goal is 12000 thousand. But theoretically, can the Americans use their data for target designation? We certainly do not know what the ,, partners ,, stuffed there!
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 19: 29
      +7
      Quote: ASAD
      purely theoretically, can the Americans use their data for target designation?

      No, they cannot. For operational communication and control of the UAV, yes.
      1. Asad
        Asad 26 October 2020 19: 30
        +1
        Thank you for your reply!
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 19: 46
          10
          When asked whether it is dangerous from a military point of view, of course yes. This makes it possible to combine all the means of the US Armed Forces into a single network that simply cannot be drowned out. From headquarters deep in the United States, troops can be controlled up to the private. Unmanned and unmanned vehicles, even more so. The main thing is synchronization, where each harpoon knows its purpose, simplified, in one single salvo of all means of destruction, for example, the Chinese Navy can be destroyed. In short, there is only a quarter of a step left to Skynet.
      2. timokhin-aa
        26 October 2020 19: 41
        22
        And any number of UAVs, which is the worst. And such a system cannot be "put"
      3. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 26 October 2020 21: 52
        +6
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Quote: ASAD
        purely theoretically, can the Americans use their data for target designation?

        No, they cannot. For operational communication and control of the UAV, yes.


        oh we don't know yet ...
        What will be the second series of satellites, which are planned as many as 30 thousand pieces ...

        and you shouldn't forget about this:
        April 8, 2019 - SpaceX approves a license to operate a private Earth remote sensing system. Thus, SpaceX gets the right to take pictures of both its own satellites and the Earth. Permit issued for low resolution color imagery for 60 spacecraft in a circular orbit with an inclination of 53 °.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 21: 57
          +2
          What flies now, definitely not, what will happen in the future, only Musk knows.
      4. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 27 October 2020 00: 41
        +6
        Musk refused to put military chips and devices on his satellites.
        But he agreed to launch special inexpensive military on his Falcons.
        satellites (if they win the tender)
        which form a separate network for the military. Moreover, the military themselves
        will serve them, and Musk will not be responsible for them.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 27 October 2020 00: 45
          +6
          The Starlink case itself from the series: "Was it possible that way?" When he brings Starship to mind, it will be the next revolutionary leap. Indeed, the Man who changed everything.
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 27 October 2020 21: 36
            +1
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            The Starlink case itself from the series: "Was it possible that way?" When he brings Starship to mind, it will be the next revolutionary leap. Indeed, the Man who changed everything.


            If Starship is at least 50% what is planned, then it will change a lot. Now it is even difficult to imagine what this will lead to from a military point of view, but we will definitely try).

            PMSM will be a prequel to the series "Expansion".
    2. Operator
      Operator 26 October 2020 20: 07
      -6
      Naturally, they can - each satellite has a receiving antenna and inter-satellite communication equipment for building a trigonometric network.
    3. Niel-le-Calais
      Niel-le-Calais 26 October 2020 20: 39
      +5
      Quote: ASAD
      And purely theoretically, the Americans can also use their data for target designation

      an interesting case of using a civilian to identify a military target. But again, that won't work.
      The author harshly criticized but to the point. There is a weapon. And the blindness remained as it was.
      Throwing a deadly spear is possible ... but blindness will prevent you.
      How bad are the "eyes" for all these deadly things in service. Against mobile targets.
    4. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 27 October 2020 01: 55
      +3
      Actually, the moment of a qualitative leap should come very, very quickly. Just do not forget that the growth of the number of satellites is now described by functions similar to exponential and exponential. The satellites double in about six years. And the growth of the technical characteristics of optics is also similar - we can recall at least the growth of the pixelity of digital matrices. I would not be surprised if high definition orbital television is possible.
      For example:
      The SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory reported (2020) that researchers at Stanford took 3200-megapixel photographs, the largest ever. For this, sensors were used that will become part of the largest digital camera in the world. It will be installed at the University's Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) telescope in Chile, which will study dark energy, dark matter and create "the largest astronomical film of all time."
      The world leader in the production of high-resolution cameras is the Swiss company Seitz. In 2006 she released the Seitz 6x17 Digital camera, the matrix resolution of which is unmatched among production models - 160 megapixels.
      Modern technology allows you to take photos of huge sizes. On average, modern commercial gigapixel photography has a resolution of about 2-4 Gpix, with the exception of very specific record-breaking projects - those like the bear - are still thicker.
      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory created (2010) within the framework of the astrophysical experiment Dark Energy Survey a digital camera with a resolution of 570 megapixels.
      There are all sorts of non-traditional cameras - a light field camera, for example.
      There is ultra-high-speed shooting: 15 trillion frames per second is provided by the FINCOPA system (2020); filmmakers have all sorts of interesting photo-cinema systems.

      y = k ^ (2x / 6) - something like this will look like a function describing a graph, the values ​​of which on the Y-axis are doubled every 6 steps-years along the X-axis. And these 12 thousand microsatellites can very quickly turn into millions, hundreds of millions, billions.

      So for those who want to tickle their nerves with the breath of the Apocalypse, I propose to play predictors of the development of technology themselves - to compose systems of mathematical equations for the degree of development of the aspects of technical progress of interest. Only the neighbors should not be frightened with terrifying screams in the silence of the night ... wink
    5. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 27 October 2020 22: 50
      0
      Quote: ASAD
      I would like to know the opinion of experts, Musk has already launched 730 satellites for the Internet, the goal is 12000 thousand. But theoretically, can the Americans use their data for target designation?

      Of course they can. Purely theoretically if. laughing
      The Starlink satellite is designed for traffic of at least 17 Gbps. For this it has four phased antennas, three for transmitting and one for receiving. The power of the power plant is estimated by the size of the solar battery at about 6.5 kW.

      The phased antenna supports about 300 beams and covers a 950 km radius spot.

      For comparison, the RADARSAT type radar earth sensing satellite has an average radiated power: 300 W; pulse radiated power: up to 5 kW. Well, for example, the Russian satellite "Almaz-1A" has a radiated power: 190 W (pulse), 80 W (average); which does not prevent him from maintaining a resolution of 7-15 meters. In general, the power of power plants of other radar satellites is usually at the level of 1,2-1,5 kW. Starlink is noticeably more powerful.

      As you can see, in terms of power, there are no problems in using Starlink satellites for remote sensing of the earth. Today, the satellites already launched do not seem to directly support such capabilities, but for example they can already be used not only for communication but also for illuminating targets on the surface for use, for example, by passive radars of other military satellites or UAVs.
  • vvvjak
    vvvjak 26 October 2020 19: 41
    +6
    An interesting series of articles. Even after a working day, my "mosch" began to stir. An aircraft carrier can only maneuver before using aircraft, and for this it must head upwind and move at a certain speed, preferably maximum. This is where you can catch him RCC.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 26 October 2020 22: 47
      +8
      Quote: vvvjak
      An aircraft carrier can only maneuver before using aircraft, and for this it must head upwind and move at a certain speed, preferably maximum. This is where you can catch him RCC.


      With 22 knots, it can launch aircraft in any wind direction.
      Modern steam catapults are designed to "catapult" such monsters as the F-111B weighing under 40 tons, and the slightly smaller F-14D at 34 tons. And the still electromagnetic and stable and reliable steam catapults allow almost any US aircraft weighing up to 40 tons - to provide a standard for separation from the deck - a speed of 333 km / h.
      Well, of course, you can't really walk around in a squally wind. but in a squall it will be so everywhere.
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 27 October 2020 08: 16
        -4
        I mean that during the operation of aviation, an aircraft carrier is a uniform, rectilinear, continuously moving body. This simplifies the problem of issuing CU to the level of a school problem in physics.
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 October 2020 12: 39
          +2
          Or it should glow like a Christmas tree. Then you can maneuver, the planes will find him anyway.
          In the article, this moment is displayed at the end, albeit in one line.
  • Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 26 October 2020 19: 43
    10
    Not all ponies are the same wink There are black ponies who look at everything from the moon with a map and a compass.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 20: 12
      +9
      Angry and harsh laughing Not pink.
      Well, no one minds.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 26 October 2020 20: 32
        +1
        Very informative. Is there an article about satellite systems being planted? Interested in the fact that these are ineffective.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 26 October 2020 20: 34
          +2
          Quote: garri-lin
          Is there an article about satellite systems being planted? Interested in the fact that these are ineffective.

          Here: https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 26 October 2020 20: 35
      0
      How can a compass help? the target does not stay on the spot, and the course can change at any time!
      1. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 26 October 2020 21: 01
        +6
        It was a joke. It's just that I have a character from the same cartoon on my avatar. An evil pony living on the moon. And from the moon it is good to see where the American AUG crawled there. laughing
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 26 October 2020 21: 58
          0
          From high up to contemplate how the little people are swarming below, it must be fun.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 October 2020 20: 30
    13
    Put a plus.
    The topic, even in general terms, is disclosed well. For general development, it is generally told as simply as possible.
    For fans of the history of the fleet, there is even something to compare with - imagine that in the era of artillery battles at sea, when visually (!) Observing a target, it was necessary to introduce corrections for speed and distance even at pistol distances - and that was by no means 100% of the shells. And with the increase in the distance of the battle (but while maintaining at least some visual contact), it was necessary to develop whole instructions in order to at least somehow confidently hit the target. Therefore, 3-5% of hits were already considered a decent result. And this despite the fact that the ship's ammunition includes more than one hundred main battery shells to hit the target. Another thing is how to quickly and confidently enter data into the guidance machines: there are different target speed, course, own speed and course relative to the target, the time of flight of shells because the target can shift in tens of seconds, etc. I think there is no need to remind you that during zeroing (that is, revealing the real position of the target in the space of two coordinates, the target can change its course and speed, which leads to an increase in the time to identify the position of the target and the consumption of ammunition). This is in general terms ...
    What am I for ... Besides, when the ammunition load contains a couple of dozen missiles, and the target is somewhere over the horizon, the author has shown quite well how MUCH everything is in reality more complicated than on the couch by the computer.
    Everything is relative.
    Once again - respect to the author for the topic raised. Very good for enlightenment. For those who can read lol hi
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 23: 08
      11
      It is really even more difficult there, for example, the enemy of false targets can set up in the mind, everything must be correctly classified, etc.
      But I no longer got into such a jungle ...
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 27 October 2020 05: 18
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But I did not get into such a jungle anymore ..

        So am I about the same smile
        It is important to present the very essence, the basis of the problem, in the maximum permissible simplification. It seems to me that you succeed in this on this topic. hi
  • Grossvater
    Grossvater 26 October 2020 20: 31
    -12 qualifying.
    Hmm! The satellite gives the exact coordinates of the target in any desired coordinate system and changes these very coordinates in real time. How does it differ from an airplane, helicopter, steamer, balloon performing target designation? What prevents to determine the elements of target movement using satellite data? Only the weather and the time of day, perhaps.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 20: 58
      12
      The satellite gives the position of the target at the time of the flight - but it can evade, see the previous article.
      In theory, satellites can be used for preliminary detection, and instead of the AVRUG, described in the article at the end, when describing how to obtain a control center for a missile strike. That is, to verify the position of the target, which has already been previously determined.
      but again - clouds, etc.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 26 October 2020 21: 58
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The satellite gives the target position at the time of flight

        Yes, a satellite network is needed to continuously monitor the likely deployment areas of the enemy's navy.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 27 October 2020 00: 10
          13
          Quote: Svateev
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The satellite gives the target position at the time of flight

          Yes, a satellite network is needed to continuously monitor the likely deployment areas of the enemy's navy.


          What's the point from a network of satellites of continuous observation, if real consumers receive this information with a great delay?

          Each network of observation satellites needs tens, hundreds, and even (as the experience of enemies shows) thousands (tens of thousands) of communication satellites.
          To really create a unified information system of the battlefield for all branches of the military in real time.

          By analogy with that. what our enemies are now "licking" under the abbreviation ABMS (Advanced Battle Management System).
          When the ground forces and the navy and the air force and air force join together.

          Once the Americans had been developing FCS (Future Combat System) for almost 6 years - but in 2009 they spent a lot of money and closed the program. Just because of the impossibility to provide the required communication bandwidth.
          In 2009, they only needed to "tie together".
          And although they are not just a lot - they want prohibitively much.
          In their new doctrine, each soldier is a Soldier as a System, the soldier himself, his weapons, all kinds of instruments and devices that integrate him into the general structure of the battle group. It is always connected to a computer network, has special information monitors, and is also equipped with special sensors that transmit information about everything related to this soldier to a central computer.

          Medical vehicle - has a direct communication channel with a large hospital and can do teleconsiliums and even teleoperations right on board the armored car.

          Many different (disguised) sensors, acoustic, seismic, magnetometric, thermographic and others - scattered in the thousands behind enemy lines with a lifespan of 3-4 months - will regularly submit information to a single network about the movement of certain objects with 100% accuracy in plan selection of objects. and all attempts to redeploy, move in their rear - will be in full view.

          And of course the sharing of weapons.

          And now, thanks to that very Elon Musk, they have started to assemble the whole puzzle perfectly.
          Thanks to thousands of satellites, they have a colossal communication line capacity.
          Thousands of satellites that you will never knock - because they are not stupid there either, they came up with a reservation, and in case of war, rockets intended for launching into space will be able to knock them down! This is not an SLBM flying along a flat trajectory.
          Here's something like this, Mikhalych!

          Of course it sucks.
          I look ahead - and there ...
          Like in a Japanese movie, with tanks. against samurai.

          And yes, the Americans are planning to spend on the ABMS (Advanced Battle Management System) program - about one and a half trillion dollars. For it is extremely expensive to rebuild the entire system ...
          So you will also have to change the entire military management system. And change the entire system of training soldiers and officers ...

          Ahead of us are global changes in military affairs.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 27 October 2020 00: 32
            +6
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And now, thanks to that very Elon Musk, they have started to assemble the whole puzzle perfectly.

            The problem of communication with unmanned ground combat systems is also being solved. Their use rested on unreliable ground communications. Starlink solves this problem too, in an open area at least.
            For those who understand, the importance of Starlink can hardly be overestimated. There are just an infinite number of new use cases. In my opinion, this is the main achievement of Musk, in the information century, information transmission channels are of priority importance.
          2. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 27 October 2020 01: 21
            -3
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And now, thanks to that very Elon Musk, they have started to assemble the whole puzzle perfectly.
            Thanks to thousands of satellites, they have a colossal communication line capacity.


            About disguised sensors communicating via Starlink - is this considering the size of the antenna? smile
          3. meandr51
            meandr51 28 October 2020 00: 31
            -1
            For example, putting barrels of nails into opposite orbits ...
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A 28 October 2020 07: 17
              +1
              Quote: meandr51
              For example, putting barrels of nails into opposite orbits ...


              Who will let you do this?

              You still voice how you want to swim to the aircraft carrier and inflict a hole in it with a can opener ...
      2. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 26 October 2020 23: 05
        +1
        Satellite clouds? !! Are you stuck in 61?
  • doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 26 October 2020 20: 31
    0
    In terms of reconnaissance-TSU: I remember in the "Military Parade" at the beginning of the "34s" they wrote about the possibility of equipping the Su-XNUMX with the "Sea Serpent" system in order to create a reconnaissance and strike complex in the interests of the fleet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 21: 01
      +3
      https://vpk-news.ru/articles/55595
      In the comments, the author's text without edits

      и
      https://vz.ru/society/2020/10/19/1065987.html
      1. doktorkurgan
        doktorkurgan 26 October 2020 21: 52
        0
        Uh-huh. Those. the idea is not completely lost, although for some reason they slow down. Some incomprehensible fuss ...
        The VKS does not want to share, and admirals do not need their own strike aircraft without a magic pendel from above?
        1. timokhin-aa
          26 October 2020 22: 51
          12
          There is a funny and ridiculous reason - the carve-up of the financial flow within the same clan. The old oligarch thought that it would be cool to make a naval bomber, the fleet agreed, things boiled over, but then the young growth decided to redirect the financial flow and that's it ...
          Stupid but like that.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 26 October 2020 20: 34
    +8
    Respect to the author! Only in one moment is he wrong. These are not ponies, but couch hamsters.
  • Ajevgenij
    Ajevgenij 26 October 2020 20: 36
    +5
    I'm not a military man at all, but it was very interesting to read. Thanks.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 26 October 2020 20: 37
    +8
    Yes. Good article. For dummies it is the most.
    1. agond
      agond 26 October 2020 21: 14
      +1
      We are told that the satellite finds a target, reports its coordinates in the ocean, a rocket is launched from the shore, which after a while should hit it, of course the target may not be in the place where the rocket is flying, but another option is also possible
      1 ballistic missile was launched along a high "mortar" trajectory in a square, or rather in a rectangle, for example, 100 km wide and 500 km long, in which the target could presumably be,
      2 the warhead, during the ascent to the top of the trajectory from space, surveys the vastness of the ocean, finds the desired one in them and begins to adjust its trajectory for a hit, adjustment (guidance) occurs continuously until it enters the sweaty layers of the atmosphere, then control is disabled, the remaining 70 km of the warhead to the target passes almost vertically at a speed of 3-4 km / s in 20 seconds, during this time ships with a length of 300 m will not be able to make an evasive maneuver
      3 if a warhead with multiple striking rods
      elements, it is possible to get into a smaller ship, the air defense means of the warrant will not be able to interfere in any way, especially since at the final section of the trajectory only uncontrollable crowbars weighing 20-30 kg will remain on the warhead. in the amount of 10 pieces
      1. quaric
        quaric 26 October 2020 21: 24
        +2
        You described the Chinese version of the destruction of an aircraft carrier with Dongfeng-21 missiles. The satellite detects the oder, on the descending trajectory, an additional correction is made by the same satellite. And the destruction of the oder with a special charge. Fast, cheap and efficient.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 27 October 2020 01: 17
          +8
          "on the descending trajectory, a correction is made by the same satellite." ///
          ----
          It's impossible. The satellite does not hang over the AUG. He sweeps over her. Need a thick
          a network of satellites with fast and stable communication between them.
          The Chinese are planning to fire a whole salvo of the Dongfeng at the AUG. With an approximate
          anticipation. And hit with at least one missile out of many.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 28 October 2020 00: 42
            -1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The Chinese are planning to fire a whole salvo of the Dongfeng at the AUG. With an approximate
            anticipation. And hit with at least one missile out of many.

            that is, the GOS only work on Israeli missiles? do not work for Chinese and Russian? belay
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 28 October 2020 01: 10
              +2
              On Israeli ballistic missiles, about the same seeker as
              and in Chinese or Russian. And they are also NOT capable of striking
              moving targets.
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 28 October 2020 01: 20
                -4
                Quote: voyaka uh
                On Israeli ballistic missiles, about the same seeker

                in the sense of only inertial? well, yes..
                and over there the Chinese got confused and claim that they can do it by ships, and by the way, the USA for some reason does not doubt this wink
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 28 October 2020 01: 48
                  +3
                  Inertial and GPS, and location on the final correction.
                  Just like others.
                  How the Chinese are going to attack AUG, I explained above: several
                  missiles with several warheads, trying to guess the trajectory of the aircraft carrier
                  according to several reports of satellites flying over the AUG.
                  The Americans, of course, will write out zigzags at 30 knots,
                  so as not to get the BR into the deck. Plus, they have on all destroyers
                  Aegis with missile defense missiles that will not save.
                  So, the chances of the Chinese are not so great, although not zero.
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 28 October 2020 15: 44
                    -3
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    How the Chinese are going to attack AUG, I explained above: several
                    missiles with several warheads, trying to guess the trajectory of the aircraft carrier
                    according to several reports of satellites flying over the AUG.

                    I understand that these are your personal assumptions? or someone else's? then I ask for a link to the original source.
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    The Americans, of course, will write out zigzags at 30 knots,
                    so as not to get the BR into the deck.

                    what is this for? you, like Timokhin, are stuck in the past, not only in 1982 but in 1945? such ingenious maneuvers can only dodge the Fritz laughing or do you seriously believe that such maneuvers will dodge the aircraft carrier from the seeker? belay
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Plus, they have on all destroyers
                    Aegis with missile defense missiles that will not save.

                    well, their effectiveness has already been tested by DPRK missiles wassat
                    and you, decide .. as in a joke - either put on panties or take off the cross. laughing if there are all missile defense missiles there, then the strike potential of the compound is close to zero, and if most of the ammo are tomahawks, as in reality, then the missile defense capabilities of the compound are close to zero request
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    So, the chances of the Chinese are not so great, although not zero.

                    rather, the chances of the United States are close to zero, both to approach unnoticed (this is only possible in Timokhin's fantasies), and to avoid a missile strike, and even more so to get out of it without losses.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 28 October 2020 16: 00
                      +4
                      You did not understand my posts about the GOS, and you have no idea how the Aegis missiles work (hence the example about North Korea). Therefore, I cannot continue the dialogue with you. hi
                    2. 3danimal
                      3danimal 29 October 2020 04: 59
                      -1
                      or do you seriously believe that such maneuvers will dodge the aircraft carrier from the seeker? belay

                      The discontinuity of the incoming reconnaissance. information from satellites. (They move in orbit) The seeker must be brought very accurately to the target, taking into account its speed and course.
                      1. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 29 October 2020 16: 21
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The seeker must be brought very accurately to the target, taking into account its speed and course.

                        GOS with a radius of 50 km (minimum)? very accurately - is it within a radius of 40 km from the target? is it "very accurate"? well, OK request
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 October 2020 17: 39
                        +2
                        Not the radius but the detection range. fellow The viewing angle is 90x30 (+/- 45 in azimuth and + 10 / -20 in angle) degrees, based on the GOS available from the Radar-MMS. Aim at 60 'on the left and then what? Flying at maximum range of at least 10 minutes, add reconnaissance data obsolescence. The satellite is not an airplane, it cannot "hang" over the target and "shoot" the speed and course.
                      3. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 29 October 2020 19: 21
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        based on the GOS available from Radar-MMS.

                        straight away bully correctly "based on the characteristics of the publicly available export (read castrated) Radar-MMS GOS wink
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Aim at 60 'on the left and then what? Flying at maximum range of at least 10 minutes, add reconnaissance data obsolescence.

                        I'll give you a little hint.
                        the function of loitering in the target area is for tomahawks of the last century. adjusting the course of the rocket from the satellite is not something that is "not news", it is already commonplace request
                        and most importantly, with what re-singing the goal will be in 60 'on the left? another assumption that AUG missiles will be launched by sofa experts that do not take into account the course and speed of the target?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Flying at maximum range of at least 10 minutes, add reconnaissance data obsolescence. The satellite is not an airplane, it cannot "hang" over the target and "shoot" the speed and course.
                        right. and if you familiarize yourself with the coverage areas and satellite turnover rates, you will understand that the aircraft carrier has no chance of leaving request
                        over there a friend wrote that a grouping of several satellites in orbit travels with a revolution rate of 108 minutes.
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 October 2020 20: 15
                        +1
                        right off the bat bully right "based on the characteristics of the publicly available export (read castrated) Radar-MMS GOS wink

                        Double standards: we underestimate the characteristics, and “them” - exaggerate.
                        So we can assume that, say, "Admiral Gorshkov" can shoot down an ICBM.
                        adjusting the course of the rocket from the satellite is not something that is "not news", it is already commonplace

                        I agree. From a communications satellite, when receiving intelligence from AWACS, for example smile
                        which do not take into account the course and speed of the target?

                        Where did you get the target's course and speed? Did you send the Il-20 for reconnaissance or the reanimated Tu-95RTs?
                        (AB is swimming 10-15 m / s)
                        right. and if you familiarize yourself with the coverage areas and satellite turnover rates, you will understand that the aircraft carrier has no chance of leaving

                        Are you going to view the entire planet? Count how much is needed for this? It will turn out more or less (in real time) to observe only the selected area, maybe a couple. This is not a computer strategy with the fog of war turned off.
                        All these ideas, grabbing at straws, wonder weapons - from poverty. Well, there are dozens of reconnaissance aircraft or AWACS in stock.
                      5. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 29 October 2020 20: 35
                        -1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Where did you get the target's course and speed? Did you send the Il-20 for reconnaissance or the reanimated Tu-95RTs?

                        new assumption? satellites now only the coordinates of the target can give and the speed and trajectory do not determine? could the Soviet missile defense system of the 70s track launches and determine the trajectory of missiles and flight time, and modern satellites cannot determine the speed and direction of movement of detected targets?
                        are you sure? belay
                        and in fact, in order to closely track the AUG detected by the satellites, a pair of AWACS aircraft will be enough. you want to say that neither Russia nor China have them?
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Are you going to view the entire planet?

                        read the classics wink "the defense of the metropolis begins at the shores of the enemy's metropolis" yes
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        It will turn out more or less (in real time) to observe only the selected area, maybe a couple.

                        right. but there are not many bases in which the AUG can be based and they are precisely under the supervision of both ours and the Chinese. and conduct AUG from the moment of leaving the base request in what other places are you going to watch the field of how you recorded the exit of the AUG into the sea?
                      6. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 October 2020 21: 12
                        0
                        new assumption? satellites now only the coordinates of the target can give and the speed and trajectory do not determine? could the Soviet missile defense system of the 70s track launches and determine the trajectory of missiles and flight time, and modern satellites cannot determine the speed and direction of movement of detected targets?

                        ICBMs fly high and glow bright. The trajectory is simple, the speed is known and predictable.
                        And ships float on the water and try not to attract attention.
                        ) Very incorrect comparison).
                        The satellite must continuously observe the target for more than 10 minutes to determine movement characteristics.
                        read the classic wink "the defense of the metropolis begins off the coast of the enemy's metropolis"

                        What kind of classics do you read? Books about the capture of Washington by the brave paratroopers? smile
                        There is not enough money and production capacity to control the globe 24/7.
                        right. but there are not many bases in which the AUG can be based and they are precisely under the supervision of both ours and the Chinese. and conduct AUG from the moment of leaving the base

                        That's right, and not by aviation and ships (it's difficult with us with this), but by a small number of satellites smile ... Let me remind you that these are not balloons, they do not hang over the desired area and you cannot change their orbit for routine observations.
                      7. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 29 October 2020 22: 14
                        -2
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        ICBMs fly high and glow bright. The trajectory is simple, the speed is known and predictable.
                        And ships float on the water and try not to attract attention.
                        ) Very incorrect comparison).

                        I would say a very dubious argument negative
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        The satellite must continuously observe the target for more than 10 minutes to determine movement characteristics.
                        Where did you get it? from the ceiling? lol
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        There is not enough money and production capacity to control the globe 24/7.

                        what do you represent under control? how many times did some school teacher in Texas go to see his mistress? belay what for? dangerous targets are identified and monitored. the exit of the AUG to the sea is not a very instant event, accompanied by great activity and it is not a problem to notice it, as well as to establish a connection from satellites after it goes to sea. the United States has only 10 aircraft carriers and more than 3 they have not taken to sea for a long time request their condition is also not a secret request or rather, of course, a secret but not for intelligence wink
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        That's right, and not by aviation and ships (it's difficult for us with this), but by a small number of satellites.

                        they forgot about the submarines.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Let me remind you that these are not balloons, they do not hang over the desired area and you cannot change their orbit for routine observations.

                        Well, that is, those that are hanging, but in principle, yes, but how will this help AUG? even if you take 1 of the satellites with a turnover rate of 108 minutes, the AUG will not be able to leave the satellite coverage area, which means it will get out of surveillance request
                        PS
                        minus is not mine wassat
                      8. 3danimal
                        3danimal 30 October 2020 06: 52
                        +1
                        they forgot about the submarines.

                        In which numbers (especially 4 generations) do we have a clear advantage?
                        more than 3 they have not taken out to sea for a long time

                        Peaceful time request
                        even if you take 1 of the satellites with a turnover rate of 108 minutes, the AUG will not be able to leave the satellite coverage area, which means it will get out of surveillance

                        Continue to swim to itself and get out of it. Calculate how many satellites with a view of 400x400 km are needed to cover the entire Pacific / Atlantic Ocean in stripes? And the picture will not give you the exact coordinates of the target, in the ocean there is nothing to "attach" to. You need to accurately measure the distance to the ship, aaa will a satellite photo do it?
                        What to do with the cloud fronts that AUG will definitely take advantage of? (Did you see how many of them are in the photo from the ISS?)
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 29 October 2020 05: 02
        +1
        if there are all missile defense missiles there, then the strike potential of the compound is close to zero, and if most of the ammo are tomahawks, as in reality, then the missile defense capabilities of the compound are close to zero request

        60/40, 50/50 - not an option? And doesn't AB, with its arsenal and aviation, have strike capabilities? What prevents to increase the number of accompanying EMs? (Remember how many there are in total)
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 29 October 2020 16: 58
          -2
          Quote: 3danimal
          60/40, 50/50 - not an option?

          not an option. it's only in computer games that you can shove whatever you want. in reality there are loading options request the bulk of the destroyers will be loaded with tomahawks, otherwise what kind of shock operation is this?
          Quote: 3danimal
          And doesn't AB, with its arsenal and aviation, have strike capabilities?
          has only very limited yes I understand that Timokhina's herd of ponies believes that all aircraft on an aircraft carrier instantly appear in the air, of course with maximum load, and control everything within a radius of 1500 km naturally by striking everything that moves in this radius wassat this is not entirely true. he controls the situation, of course, but not 1500 km, but much more, through the very satellites that Timokhin deftly skipped over in his last opus, but he cannot provide a massive attack, because lifting one wing takes about an hour and their radius with a normal load is about 500 km ... at the same time, in the USA, unlike Timokhin, they understand that China and Russia probably have comparable capabilities to detect and lose an aircraft carrier for the sake of a pin prick in the form of a raid of one wing with far from obvious results, in view of serious opposition, a very dubious undertaking request
          Quote: 3danimal
          What prevents to increase the number of accompanying EMs?

          probably that they will have to be taken from somewhere request
          Quote: 3danimal
          (Remember how many there are in total)

          available where? you are again going to appeal to conventions and forget that the US Navy is smeared all over the world with a thin layer. its relocation has never happened secretly in this century request
          PS
          I will also remind you, if you are not aware that an aircraft carrier for the United States is a "sacred cow", which means the last thing they will risk.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 29 October 2020 18: 10
          +1
          the bulk of the destroyers will be loaded with tomahawks, otherwise what kind of shock operation is this?

          I'll tell you a secret: Burke and Tiki never (!) Load with Axes / Asroks alone. Their navies aren't that stupid.
          has, only very limited yes

          "The total mass of ammunition (" Nimitz ") 1954 t"
          The JASSM-ER weighs about 1,2 tonnes. And 30% of the AV ammunition will be ... 407 KR. fellow
          Very limited.
          because the rise of one wing takes about an hour and their radius with a normal load is about 500 km

          How many aircraft are in your wing and where does this information about the rate of climb into the air come from? AB approaches the site with ready-made aircraft, launches them in pairs, using all the catapults (it turns out a LITTLE faster than from the springboard).
          The Super Hornet has a combat radius of 726 km, will fly with 2 JASSM-ER, 2-3 PTB and a pair of AIM-120 (wingtips).
          The range of the CD is 980 km. Accordingly, 20 aircraft will launch 40 missile launchers at a range of up to 1700 km. And then you can send a new strike team.
          Or to raise air tankers, for "strikers" who have run out of fuel.
          available where? you are again going to appeal to conventions and forget that the US Navy is smeared all over the world with a thin layer. its relocation has never happened secretly in this century

          Look in history: The United States conducted exercises with the creation of AUS from two AUG. It will not be difficult to add a pair of destroyers (of 60+) to one AUG. (The rich do not understand ..)
          that the aircraft carrier for the United States is a "sacred cow", which means the last thing they will risk.

          This is an expensive and effective WEAPON and will be used with careful planning. There are losses in wars. (It is very unlikely that the AB will sink, instead of being damaged and sent for repair). But for such a toothy target, the enemy will have to collect a large squad of forces and means.
        3. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 29 October 2020 20: 09
          -1
          Quote: 3danimal
          I'll tell you a secret: Burke and Tiki never (!) Load with Axes / Asroks alone. Their navies aren't that stupid.

          yes, from 8 to 56 axes out of 96, but the effectiveness of their missile defense against ballistic missiles is assessed as doubtful by the American generals themselves request even all 96.
          Quote: 3danimal
          "The total mass of ammunition (" Nimitz ") 1954 t"
          The JASSM-ER weighs about 1,2 tonnes. And 30% of the AV ammunition will be ... 407 KR.
          Very limited.

          and of course he will shoot all 407 at once! #facepalm
          Quote: 3danimal
          How many aircraft are in your wing and where does this information about the rate of climb into the air come from?

          on Nimitz 48. and they will be launched for more than an hour and they will fly no further than the first one to take off, which by this moment has been circling above the aircraft carrier for an hour.
          if we assume that they will go straight to the target, what kind of massive attack are we talking about? they are there one by one air defense and coastal aviation and will accept, not to mention the fleet, which is also not without air defense request
          Quote: 3danimal
          The Super Hornet has a combat radius of 726 km, will fly with 2 JASSM-ER, 2-3 PTB and a pair of AIM-120 (wingtips).

          on paper, yes. in fact take off (time and fuel), collect the link (time and fuel), find the target (time and fuel), break through the air defense (time, fuel for maneuvering, losses) and if they could break through, which is not a fact, launching the CD and further these CDs are also not a fact that they will fly. Let me remind you that a similar (70 CR) US strike on an airbase in Syria was able to disable this small airbase for 2 (!!!) days. in Syria, which has nothing to answer, only to defend and then by very limited means!
          and you here aimed at China and Russia laughing
          Quote: 3danimal
          Look in history: The United States conducted exercises with the creation of AUS from two AUG. It will not be difficult to add a pair of destroyers (of 60+) to one AUG. (The rich do not understand ..)

          once again, for those stuck in the alternative. there are no those 60+ that you can add wherever you want. all these destroyers are already in the fleets and are based in the regions that they must control. you can add them only by subtracting them somewhere. no free. the one who hangs out in Odessa will not help those who are in the Asian region because they are involved in different regions. the two AUGs controlling South America will also do nothing to help the group in the Asian region. and those in the Persian Gulf will also do nothing to help the forces in the Asian region. they are all in different theaters.
          Yes, you can bring everything to the Asian region and more or less equal the Chinese fleet present there, but then control over all other regions is lost. at the same time, such a transfer of troops can only be hidden in the fictional world of Timokhin, and approximately in the middle of this operation, China will begin to press those who have already gathered without waiting for everyone to arrive request
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 29 October 2020 21: 01
          0
          and of course he will shoot all 407 at once!

          No, 40 in the first group of aircraft, (IMHO).
          on Nimitz 48. and will run them for more than an hour

          Nobody will send all Hornets to attack. Half the maximum. They will rise in 10-15 minutes. The service is in soap, but they get paid for it.
          they are there one by one air defense and coastal aviation and will

          If they are already awaited, the operation will fail by 50 +%.
          find target (time and fuel)

          breakthrough through air defense (time, fuel for maneuvering, losses)

          What?? KR strike on a ground target. From 900 + km.
          these CDs are also not a fact that they will fly

          More stories about rusty Tomahawks. JASSM there too ...
          Let me remind you that a similar (70 CR) US strike on an airbase in Syria was able to disable this small airbase for 2 (!!!) days. in Syria, which has nothing to answer, only to defend and then by very limited means!
          and you here aimed at China and Russia

          I will assume that if the AB were Russian and the strike was planned by aviation calibers, the question of the ineffectiveness of the CD would not have been raised smile
          It's about China. Having, by the way, an incomparably more powerful economy than ours, the ability to build new ships and replenish their losses.
          Also, there are no union obligations (“brothers” are for the media).
          there are no those 60+ that you can add wherever you want. all these destroyers are already in the fleets

          And who periodically swims in the Black Sea? They tear them away from the heart ... In AUG 2-4 EM, part of the AB always undergoes service and there is no need for an escort. The maximum assigned to them is 40 pcs. And there are reserves in all fleets.
          A couple of EMs will always be found.
          China will begin to press those who have already gathered without waiting for everyone to arrive

          China does not control the Pacific Ocean, forces can be grouped on a march to the South China Sea.
        5. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 29 October 2020 21: 37
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          No, 40 in the first group of aircraft, (IMHO).

          best case scenario. I have an incredibly perfect massive strike, but 40 CR to China? this is not enough even for a bulk island, even for one, despite the fact that this is already a direct act of aggression that leads to an immediate response, and unlike Syria, China has very much to offer.
          Quote: 3danimal
          Nobody will send all Hornets to attack. Half the maximum. They will rise in 10-15 minutes. The service is in soap, but they get paid for it.

          this is already close to reality, but what is 20-30 KR against China's coastal defense? nothing! not even a pinprick, just a yell of "Chinese! Shoot us !!!" request
          Quote: 3danimal
          What?? KR strike on a ground target. From 1500 + km.

          from 1500 Berks can even if there are fresh axes, of which there are not so many. and why then shove the aircraft carrier there? to lose a few F-18s in an operation? wassat
          Quote: 3danimal
          I will assume that if the AB were Russian and the strike was planned by aviation calibers, the question of the ineffectiveness of the CD would not have been raised

          sort of guessed right, but vice versa wink personally, I very much doubt the need for the Russian Navy "Kuznitsov". in modern conditions of technical development, an aircraft carrier is a big target that neither our ships, nor American ships, nor any others can fully protect. CR is a precision weapon, but not an ultimatum. they are effective when the enemy has no, or is suppressed, missile defense and air defense.
          Quote: 3danimal
          It's about China. Having, by the way, an incomparably more powerful economy than that of the economy, the ability to build new ships and replenish their losses.
          Also, there are no union obligations (“brothers” are for the media).

          in in!
          Quote: 3danimal
          And who periodically swims in the Black Sea? Tear off from the heart ...

          exactly. he swims there and therefore does not swim in Japanese bases. and something needs to be kept in the Black Sea, which means that something will have to be taken from somewhere, and if it is sent to Japanese bases, the United States will not be represented in the Black Sea and the region is no longer in control.
          Quote: 3danimal
          In AUG 2-4 EM, part of AB always undergoes maintenance and there is no need for an escort.
          A couple of EMs will always be found.

          are you serious right now belay an aircraft carrier and 6 destroyers will break through the coastal defenses of the Chinese in which there are over 300 ships ??? do you understand that this is madness? wassat
          Quote: 3danimal
          China does not control the Pacific Ocean, forces can be grouped on a march to the South China Sea.

          you are mistaken wink see the coverage areas of Chinese satellites and their orbits. yes, they do not intercept everything that floats there, by the way, like the Americans, but they know quite reliably what is happening there. if necessary, they will assemble a strike group from the same aircraft carrier and hundreds of destroyers and smash these American 1 aircraft carrier and 6 destroyers into one wicket request the Chinese have all their strength in one theater of operations.
        6. 3danimal
          3danimal 30 October 2020 07: 13
          +1
          best case scenario. I have an incredibly perfect massive strike, but 40 CR to China? this is not even enough for a bulk island, yes

          So there is no purpose to plow everything. High-precision strikes against military targets, air defense elements, etc. The second wave will follow, there are 200+ Axes on the escort. Can drive 4 Ohio with 600+ CR. And all this will fly at targets, hiding behind the radio horizon at low altitude, bypassing, if possible, reconnoitered air defense positions.
          from 1500 Berks can even if there are fresh axes, of which there are not so many. and why then shove the aircraft carrier there?

          AB can attack from 1700 km, has more ammunition. All the time on the move.
          If there is a desire, they will adjust 2 AB.
          And as "arsenals" with the CD - converted Ohio.
          they are effective when the enemy has no, or is suppressed, missile defense and air defense.

          In Syria, it turned out that the CD can meanly use the curvature of the Earth request
          exactly. he swims there and therefore does not swim in Japanese bases. and something needs to be kept in the Black Sea, which means that something will have to be taken from somewhere, and if it is sent to Japanese bases, the United States will not be represented in the Black Sea and the region is no longer in control.

          Once again: several EMs will always be found. I understand, it is difficult to imagine what it is like to have 89 URO ships (Burke and Tiki) of the first class, capable (!) Of long voyages.
          will assemble a strike group from the same aircraft carrier and hundreds of destroyers

          The Chinese Navy has 27 EM Type 051-055 (055 one) and 4 old 956s. No one in the world has 100 EVs and the United States holds the palm in the number of pennants.
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 28 October 2020 07: 56
    +2
    Quote: SanichSan
    and by the way, the USA for some reason does not doubt this


    Well, how can I say, no doubt. Over the past ten years, since the DF-21D was paraded, none of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers have been scrapped. And the new Ford was built at five times the price. Despite the fact that "the time of aircraft carriers is over" and this is "useless junk"? China acquired two "useless" ones during the same time, and India one more.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 26 October 2020 22: 13
    +9
    Quote: agond
    the warhead, during the ascent to the upper point of the trajectory from space, surveys the vastness of the ocean, finds in them the desired


    Is there a telescope on the warhead? Or radar? Are you sure that he will have time to ransack 50000 sq. km? Even if he has time - that he will have time to classify goals?

    Quote: agond
    and begins to adjust its trajectory for a hit


    Are there engines on the warhead?
  • Avior
    Avior 27 October 2020 00: 24
    +9
    It remains to give a link to begin with real tests of such a system.
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 27 October 2020 08: 23
    +6
    Quote: agond
    surveys the vastness of the ocean finds what he is looking for


    The angular resolution of a radar antenna is inversely proportional to the ratio of the antenna aperture to wavelength. For example, for a parabolic antenna (which is used in most pointing systems), the directivity factor is 60, so to have a beam width of one degree, you need to have an antenna aperture 60 times the wavelength. Let's say the range of our BR is a thousand kilometers. The highest point, therefore, is 500 km from the aircraft carrier. Let its height be 500 km too. The distance to the target is 500x1.4 = 700 km. To see a target from 700 km, decimeter frequency range is required. Millimeter or centimeter waves do not travel this distance. Let's take a wavelength of 50 cm. The aperture is equal to the thickness of the rocket, let it be 1 m, like that of Dongfeng or Iskander. The antenna is parabolic. We have beam width = 60 / (100/50) = 30 degrees. Terrain resolution = 350 km. The error is taken as 1/10 of the resolution, i.e. the error will be 35 km. If another ship is walking next to the aircraft in ten or two kilometers, then for the radar they will merge into one target, the rocket will fly into a piece of water exactly in the middle between them. But even without taking into account all of the above, in a piece of air with a size of 350x350x10 (let the resolution at a distance of 10 km), the amount of any small particles of dust and water vapor will be so large that the total illumination from them will many times exceed the reflected signal from the aircraft carrier.

    The Chinese missile is not guided like that. If you believe the Chinese tales, then their DF-21, when approaching the earth's surface, switches to horizontal flight. In horizontal flight at an altitude of 10 km, it turns on the radar, in general it turns into something like the Soviet P-6 rocket. In such a way that the BR detects a target from a thousand kilometers, even the Chinese did not guess to dream up.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 October 2020 05: 07
      +2
      The impression that some represent the process as in a "cartoon" or a computer game (with the "fog of war" disabled) request
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 30 October 2020 08: 12
      0
      their DF-21, when approaching the earth's surface, switches to horizontal flight

      I wonder how? Does it release its wings and continues to move by inertia? Or has fuel left and starts the engine again? request
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 1 November 2020 23: 40
        +2
        Quote: 3danimal
        Does it release its wings and continues to move by inertia? Or has fuel left and starts the engine again?


        The wings, no matter how small they are, weigh 100 kg. In the BR, the payload-to-mass ratio is 1 to 10. the weight of the rocket was supposed to increase by a ton. Or even all two. The dimensions of the previous (not anti-ship) DF-21ts are known. It remains to divide its weight by length, find out how much one meter weighs, and so on. find out how long the new rocket should be. But from what the Chinese carry at parades, it is clear that the Df-21d is no longer than a centimeter.

        In general, the whole story began with the fact that an American satellite sent images from the test site in the Gobi Desert at the time of testing on the 21st-d. She falls into some kind of rectangular building. Some not very conscientious press worker pasted the silhouette of an aircraft carrier on this picture. This, in fact, is how the "ballistic anti-ship missile" appeared. Officially, her data is "classified".


  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 27 October 2020 20: 34
    +2
    Immediately, even for a teapot:
    1) unnecessary yaw, - unmasking.
    2) The rocket is small, the "eye" is low-power - how will it find? % probability?
    They will first of all see her, and apply everything that is possible - from blinding, Rab, to fog.
    According to interviews with our highest Navy officer, AUG controls the launch of missiles within a radius of 1000-1500 km, a smaller flight.
    3) they will hammer towards everything they can. Hypersound is not needed here for interception.

    Remember - When the Syrians shot down our plane. The Ministry of Defense showed radar images at the conference.
    The S400 seemed to be filming, the distance was only 100-200, because of the aircraft electronic warfare, the Jews were no longer visible, only a cloud of interference ...
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 26 October 2020 20: 43
    +1
    How far can SOSUS-type stations be formed at the bottom and use them for target designation? SOSUS seems to be not very accurate, although acoustic stations determined the site of the Scorpion accident. Well, the future, probably, belongs to drones, both airborne and underwater. They will be able to constantly hang and track.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 21: 02
      +4
      Sometimes it rolled to get primary data on the presence of a surface target. But on surface SOSUS worked very badly, many factors had to coincide for detection, it was rather luck.
      1. agond
        agond 26 October 2020 21: 42
        -6
        Dongfeng-21 ". This is a medium-range missile, the Chinese are planning to create a larger version then the range and maneuvering capabilities of warheads will increase. And it will be possible to sink aircraft carriers literally off the coast of America.
        1. timokhin-aa
          26 October 2020 22: 52
          +8
          You can't. All this has already been calculated hundreds of times.
  • shtatsov
    shtatsov 26 October 2020 21: 59
    +6
    There would be more such articles! Where a lot is explained in less accessible language. Such would be articles on combat tactics starting from the platoon and higher. In an accessible language, by examples. There are just lots of them!
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 26 October 2020 22: 47
    +1
    Great stuff!
  • quaric
    quaric 26 October 2020 22: 54
    -5
    Quote: agond
    Dongfeng-21 ". This is a medium-range missile, the Chinese are planning to create a larger version then the range and maneuvering capabilities of warheads will increase. And it will be possible to sink aircraft carriers literally off the coast of America.

    Already created and for a long time. Quote: According to experts, a new modification of the DF-31A complex can be equipped with three MIRVs with individually targeted warheads. In addition, the new missile implements the ability to autonomously refine the target location and correct the flight path in the ballistic sector (according to the CIA, the DF-31A ICBM is capable of destroying a moving aircraft carrier within a radius of 12000 km from the first hit). The Beidou satellite navigation system (the Chinese analogue of GPS) can be used to guide the missile.
    Source: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/df-31/ VTS "BASTION" AVKarpenko
    1. Avior
      Avior 27 October 2020 00: 47
      10
      There is not a word on your link that this missile is an anti-ship missile.
      On the contrary, it is stressed everywhere that this is an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, and naturally, if it hits an aircraft carrier, it will destroy it, whether it is standing or moving.
      Only in reality it is impossible to hit an ICBM in a moving ship, so no one is going to shoot, including the Chinese.
      And so, yes, that's right, if a charge of 150 ktn or 1 Mtn gets into an aircraft carrier, yes, such a charge, when hit, will drown any ship.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 27 October 2020 01: 14
        +1
        There is a note in brackets referring to the CIA reference. And that's it smile It is not clear how it will be aimed at the aircraft carrier with the help of Beidou. Unless he will stand in the port.
  • 2я19
    2я19 26 October 2020 23: 14
    0
    Thanks to the author for the work. In fact, you have to be very partial to the problem in order to cover it in this way. It is clear that the aug is fast, the ocean is huge, the enemy is experienced, cunning and cunning, and propaganda is also important, but it is hard to believe that we can learn to fly in the atmosphere at near-space speeds, but we cannot hit. We will learn, or we already know how, but the propagandists were simply not informed.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 23: 42
      +7
      So in the article it is shown approximately what is worth getting. This is all from practical experience.
      It's just that this is a difficult matter, and not once - and I got
      1. 2я19
        2я19 27 October 2020 07: 33
        -1
        I have never been a military man, but I am of the opinion that the army is a team of like-minded people, called upon to solve complex and very complex tasks, and with a huge risk to life and health. Moreover, better than the enemy.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 October 2020 05: 22
      0
      Remember how many centuries passed from the appearance of the first missiles to their development into high-precision systems (a little exaggerated).
      Everything was described: the problems of flight at such speeds in the atmosphere, the problem of homing - the plasma on the fairing during hypersound, interfering with the operation of the radar seeker, the vulnerability of the latter to interference, design limitations (range, resolution). As well as a lack of information and data obsolescence.
  • vel1163
    vel1163 26 October 2020 23: 17
    +1
    Good article. Very smart. Approximately, at the level of an amateur, I imagined everything like that. But I would like to figure it out. After all, the range of aviation from the deck of an aircraft carrier is also small. And when it works at a distance of 500 miles from your coast, then the issue of target designation is simplified. We have no time for strategic tasks now. For now, the main thing is containment. I think for these purposes it was created, in particular, the Dagger
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 October 2020 23: 45
      +6
      .And when he works at a distance of 500 miles from your coast, then


      Look at the previous article, there is about 500 miles and it is simplified in detail.
      Well, about the Dagger - in this one.
      I would hang this Dagger on the Tu-95, in parallel with the ALCM, the very thing for this missile. For surprise attacks on air defense units, radar stations, etc. When the CR has too long flight time.
      1. Dude
        Dude 27 October 2020 02: 27
        +1
        I would hang this Dagger on the Tu-95
        I think the Tu-95 may not have enough speed to launch the Dagger. Therefore, it is necessary to screw some kind of starting accelerator to it - and this is a change in size, mass, etc.
        PS This article is definitely bookmarked. Thank you very much for your work!
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 October 2020 09: 44
          +4
          No, just the range will drop. But from the position of watch in the air, it will be possible to strike anyway and very quickly. And the enemy's air defense will not cope with it. What is he actually needed for. Here the range can be sacrificed.
          1. Dude
            Dude 27 October 2020 14: 12
            0
            ... from a position of duty in the air, it will be possible to strike anyway and very quickly. <...> Here the range can be sacrificed.
            Well, maybe. If the speed for starting is sufficient, then it can work out quite well.
            1. timokhin-aa
              28 October 2020 11: 04
              +1
              Just logically, a rocket based on Iskander at an air launch from a speed of, for example, 650 km / h at an altitude of 7500m can in no way fly less than Iskander, and neither can it. Only more, and much more.

              Here you are.
    2. Leha667
      Leha667 26 October 2020 23: 47
      +5
      Enemy aircraft with aug will usually work on the ground, and the coordinates are constant here, or on detected air targets. Plus, they have Hokai, they can see far away, they will open our PUGs without problems, without entering the air defense zone, and they will graze them.
  • Leha667
    Leha667 26 October 2020 23: 45
    +4
    Great article! I enjoyed!
    Even though I am a mechanic, I understood everything, and I knew a lot before that).
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 00: 14
      +9
      Much is not voiced in it, and not everything is perfect, but I just wanted to show the complexity of the question. The complexity seems to have shown approximately ...
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 26 October 2020 23: 56
    +9
    Author, write more. Among all that you have to flip through on the VO are such articles as a pearl of knowledge in a heap ... Maybe you would be interested in fantasizing about the organization of air reconnaissance for the fleet in the current realities? I would be glad to read your thoughts on this matter.
    Thanks for the work!
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 26 October 2020 23: 56
    -13 qualifying.
    Not a single sailor will say "battle ship", because a ship is a battle ship. The author's service in the Navy raises strong doubts.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 00: 39
      16
      Any ship on which a military crew climbed by 100% and raised a naval flag is a ship. Even a non-combat one, a measuring complex ship of some kind, without weapons at all.

      And there are more abrupt examples - project 22160, which is still listed as a NON-COMBAT unit, but armed.

      In short, you - as usual. For reference - the flag of the auxiliary fleet + mixed military-civilian crew this is a vessel
      Navy flag and fully military crew - ship. It makes no difference whether it is combat or not.

      Although why am I only wasting time on you?
  • Leontrotsky
    Leontrotsky 27 October 2020 00: 01
    +2
    And then I have a question. Let's take the RCC Onyx. According to the cited data, its seeker in active mode detects a target at a distance of at least 50 km, plus its field of view + -45 degrees (that is, the sector is 90 degrees). Onyx flies a distance of, say, 700 kilometers. Let's say with a speed of Mach 2. That is, it will cover this distance in less than half an hour. Plus, we will throw about 20 minutes to receive the control center from the same satellite and until the launch of the anti-ship missile system from the carrier. We calculate the band that Onyx will capture when the seeker is turned on when approaching the target. Classic right triangle. Left-45 degrees, draws a perpendicular to the leg, which is directly on the course of 50 km, we solve the triangle, it will also be equal to 50 km. Total-50 km to the left and 50 to the right. The strip turns out to be 100 km In the same hour, the order, moving at a speed of even 25 knots (inconceivably large for a ship's order, but oh well), will go the same 50 km. And if Onyx spends less than an hour, which most likely will be, because he will not include the GOS at the point of the intended target location, plus 700 km, strictly speaking, he will overcome in less than half an hour, because even for 2 swings it will take 25 minutes, then the order will not leave the sector of view of the GOS, even moving along the shortest path. But you can, after all, start up, say, six Onyxes on AUG-sheepskin is worth the candle. And spread their aiming points for the same 50-100 km in the form of a fan. Then, even with a rough CO, a couple of Onyxes will definitely capture the target.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 00: 45
      11
      You're oversimplifying. Firstly, 45 degrees does not mean at all that the range is the same in all directions, you need to know the antenna diagram.
      Secondly, when the missile moves to a low altitude (and this happens far from the target), the detection range drops purely due to physics.
      Thirdly, the use of electronic warfare equipment by the enemy reduces the range by several times, and the diagram changes in an unpredictable way, for example, the missile "sees" almost the same by 30 degrees to the left, and 2-3 km straight ahead.
      Plus, missiles must distinguish between "their" targets.
      We add to this the enemy's ability to set false targets on the water, and everything becomes very difficult.

      700 km is not there either.

      While the rocket is good, the best we have in the series. And getting her an aircraft carrier is possible, but difficult.
      1. Leontrotsky
        Leontrotsky 27 October 2020 10: 08
        0
        Regarding Onyx, I took the boundary parameters, by the way. 50 km corresponds to the detection of a GOS vessel with a frigate displacement. The cruiser, again, according to the published data, she discovers already at 75 km, as for the airplane, which is maybe a cruiser, in terms of displacement every 7-8, then the distance should be even greater. With electronic warfare, everything is clear, the point is different. The author of the article, speaking about the target detection range of the seeker, says that due to its narrowness, the AUG will already leave it, until the same ONYX reaches the place. And already on the basis of this, he concludes that the use of an anti-ship missile system for extreme data is, in principle, successful, impossible and ineffective. To be more precise, Onyx, most of the trajectory flies at Mach 2,5 and an altitude of 14 km, which means flight time is even less. Yes, 50 km before the target, he begins to descend, BUT, from a height of 14 km, he already detected the target. He corrected the course taking into account the new actual location of the target. He had 40-50 km to reach it. At a speed of 1,7 Mach, with which he moves "in dense layers" he will fly this distance in 2 minutes. Aviamatka, during this time it will pass less than 2 km. And therefore, the GOS no longer plays a role at the moment, on the contrary, Onyx will at this time be beyond the radio horizon for the AUG air defense system at extremely low altitudes. And once again, he will perform guidance on the final section of the trajectory in the line of sight of the target. Use, in this situation, is only possible with Phalanxes. But since Onyx is the heir to Granite and has a comparable mass, due to inertia it is able to push through the last line of air defense. As for electronic warfare, modern seeker systems are capable of targeting the source of jamming, and how, they write in the annotations to the same Onyxes, they are " noise-immune ", that is, they must be able to work in conditions of such opposition. And he himself, according to what has been written, is capable of setting false targets, leading the AUG air defense missiles off course. Here you will not find out the exact numbers and characteristics, you can only guess. Again, the same Onyx took one useful habit inherited from Granite - the ability to attack with a "flock". when several anti-ship missiles are able to operate in different guidance modes, exchange information, distribute targets. And they should not "confuse" an airplane with an arly berk. According to the statements of those who created it (it seems that I heard this in the "military acceptance"), the memory of the anti-ship missile system contains the electronic images of all the ships of the VP. In vain or something, in peacetime, during exercises, and just transitions, reconnaissance aircraft always patrol nearby. All this I wrote to the fact that in my rough opinion, the defeat of the AUG ships has a probability, even at extreme distances, much greater than the highly respected author presented.
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 October 2020 11: 12
          +7
          Regarding Onyx, I took the boundary parameters, by the way. 50 km corresponds to the detection of a GOS vessel with a frigate displacement.


          You took the manufacturer's data, and he indicated the maximum range (right along the course) from a great height and without the enemy using electronic warfare
          Look, an example of a radar antenna pattern, Onyx has a similar antenna pattern, but the shape and the number of lobes are different.



          So your 50 km is along the longitudinal axis of the field. Just figure out what they turn into if the target is 20 degrees to the left, for example. That's why you need an accurate control center.
          That is, 50 km is true, but not all.

          Well, with a decrease, the radio horizon of the rocket decreases due to the curvature of the Earth. Specifically for a flight at an altitude of 15 meters and a target with a height of 30 meters, the line-of-sight range is 24 km. It's right on course. Less sideways.

          We add electronic warfare means and we get a 3-5 times reduction in the range, also uneven, that's all.

          Superweapons do not exist and cannot be invented.

          All this I wrote to the fact that, in my rough opinion, the defeat of the AUG ships has a probability, even at extreme distances, much greater than the highly respected author presented.


          In fact, much less.
          I left a lot of problems behind the scenes.
          1. Leontrotsky
            Leontrotsky 27 October 2020 11: 52
            -3
            Why not? Improve the characteristics of the GOS - and there will be happiness.
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 October 2020 12: 41
              +6
              It costs money, and for hypersonic missiles it is also limited by physics.
          2. Leontrotsky
            Leontrotsky 28 October 2020 18: 31
            -2
            And I still disagree with you, excuse me. Firstly, in response to the directional diagram that you presented, I can cite a dozen of my own, from the same site. Specifically, do you have an Onyx or Granite diagram? Then give me a reference, I will be happy to familiarize myself with it. And if not, then do the conclusions that you made too boldly according to "approximately this RCC diagram". Again, I will return to the detection range. You did not hear, or did not want to hear, but I will repeat))) 50 km is the detection range of a frigate, with a displacement of up to 4500-5000 tons. For a cruiser 7000-10000 tons, the detection range increases to 75 km (and up to 70 with 6 points unrest). Aircraft carrier 80000t-? It seems to me no less than 90 km. And here we must take into account that we have not even with an aircraft carrier, but with a warrant, of a dozen ships that can be tens of miles apart and it is even easier to detect it than a single airplane)
            Second point. Let's say the diagram is even such as you presented, in the targeting plane + -10 degrees, these 90 km are the most likely to be detected and fit. I ask the second time a question that you ignored - the Onyxes are capable of attacking in a group, moreover, they are able to line up (I almost said it in one line out of cadet habit) in front formation and comb the area where the intended target is located. According to your diagram, one Onyx has 20 degrees in which it is guaranteed to detect a target at a distance of 80-90 km (an aircraft carrier, I mean). Five to six Onyxes will sweep a strip of 100 km. To find an order, more than enough, in my sight.))
            Third. Even if the directional diagram is such that it makes the search for a target consisting of a dozen AUG ships impossible on an area of ​​100 sq km, then it was also solved in P-500 Basalt. I mean external target designation. Why, for example, in the case of Onyx and Granites, 150 kilometers before approaching the AUG, why not get an external control center from the same Liana (the error in determining the location of the target, according to the given data, is no more than 10 meters, in the end Basalt took TSU from the Legend, where the error was much greater) and transfer it from the carrier to the same Onyx, as it was with the P-500? So no, neither on Granite, nor on Onyx, it is no longer in principle. Why? Because even without it, Onyxes are able to detect a target and hit it.
            Fourth. Does interference reduce the target detection range by 3-5 times? Let's admit. This is in the event that it is set at the same frequency at which the GOS operates, but the fact is that the radiation frequency of Onyx varies according to a random law in a very wide range. And it is impossible to suppress with interference so that it is effective - a wide range of frequencies is impossible. Yes, there will be noise, but not enough to reduce the detection range even by half. In addition, Onyx is able to interact with a group and exchange information at the same time, which means one works in a passive mode and is guided by the radar radiation, which actually detect it, the other is active, and the third, if we are talking about the last 10-15 km of the exit on the target - to work in the laser range, in which the interference is then put, it is by no means simple. Plus, the Onyxes themselves are able to expose jamming diverting air defense missiles from the real target.

            Also surprised when you ask a question in your article, how does the RCC classify a target? I hope this is a joke. I already wrote that the anti-ship missile system, in its memory, contains electronic images of all VP ships, moreover, Onyx is able to analyze the order and, by its construction, "understand" what is in front of him a landing party, a transport convoy or AUG. And on the basis of this, assign targets based on the importance of ships. Moreover, at the final approach section, he is even able to calculate the most vulnerable point of a particular ship in order to enter, either just above the waterline, or, having made a slide, collapse onto the upper deck. So at least the manufacturer's website claims.
            In general, I would like to hear your opinion on these issues, in the end the topic is very interesting.
    2. Avior
      Avior 27 October 2020 01: 29
      13
      Now add some nuances to the consideration.
      1. GOS is not included. This means that a destroyer encountered on the way at an altitude of 10-15 kilometers will simply shoot down calmly and straight-line anti-ship missiles.
      Perhaps it? More than real, they do not all huddle up to the aircraft carrier. Maybe 100 km away from it, and maybe more, if it is not included in the AUG at all, but performs its task of PLO, for example.
      He will find missiles at such an altitude within 400 kilometers, he will have enough time to prepare for firing and launch anti-aircraft missiles, and more than once.
      2. We turned on the GOS on the way. And then the GOS detects, say, a large target.
      Further, according to the logic, the missiles are lowered to extremely low altitudes so that the escort ships are not shot down at the height. The radio horizon for them immediately drops to 20-30 km.
      And if they were the first to stumble upon a UDC, a supply ship, a tanker from the AUG, or a false order that the Americans practice, then they will all fly into it, the radio horizon will not allow them to see the aircraft carrier further.
      It is even worse if the first seeker detects a smaller ship, for example, a destroyer. What's next, attack him? It is logical, because to fly over the head of a destroyer at a height is to be shot down with a high probability. But your target is not a destroyer, but an aircraft carrier.
      And he will go further, even if you hit the destroyers, which is not a fact - there are very serious traps and electronic warfare on him.
      Another problem - the radar of the destroyer will see you at an altitude of hundreds of kilometers. But the GOS anti-ship missiles will see the destroyer, at best, tens of kilometers away. This means that for a long time anti-ship missiles will fly in the destroyer's air defense zone, with the probability that they will be shot down.
      It is much more difficult to shoot down an anti-ship missile at extremely low altitudes, but if you launch along a low-altitude profile, you need to bring the anti-ship missile carrier close to the AUG, which is more than dangerous, try to reach it at 100-150 km.
      3. Even if you hit an aircraft carrier, how do you know the result of the attack? It will not even be visible on the radar, which in itself does not guarantee that we hit, by the way, and where exactly we hit.
      And what to do next? Attack more? Leave with a sense of accomplishment? Or run at breakneck speed until the aircraft carrier lifted the air group into the air?

      This is just a relatively small list of problems that you will actually face if you decide to attack an aircraft carrier.
      Just to understand how complex this problem is.
      While there is always probability, of course, the use of weapons is always probabilistic. But launching missiles at random is not the best idea ...
      1. Leontrotsky
        Leontrotsky 27 October 2020 10: 54
        -3
        I agree that a destroyer, torn from the warrant, can shoot down an anti-ship missile system by 100-150 kilometers. But he himself is, in this case, a relatively easy target. It is unlikely that they will calmly look at him, and in this case, as you described, he will be the first, most likely, to receive an anti-ship missile launch in his own way. And you will have to concentrate, first of all, on the defense of your own side. In addition, the anti-ship missile will not necessarily go over it, but can fly to the side, 50 kilometers away. And given the speed of Onyx of Mach 2,5, it is not such an easy matter to get it. And even at 300 km it is unlikely to be found. EPR of anti-ship missiles is very insignificant, and 300 km is the maximum range of air defense. The speed is such that it will fly 100-150 km in just over 5 minutes. Considering that the target is not one, and some are intended for this very destroyer, the task does not look simple at all. Moreover, the same Onyx interacts as part of a group of several anti-ship missiles. How this interaction occurs is known only to gene designers. So those Onyxes that are already working in the active mode on the destroyer can also slightly adjust the flight of those who are not intended for the destroyer. Further, when approaching the goal. At an altitude of 14 km, Onyx's seeker switched to active mode, adjusted the flight to the target, and assigned targets among similar Onyxes attacking with the AUG group. This happens 50 km before the target, then the descent begins (that is, the classic flight path for him). 50 km, at the water surface the speed drops to Mach 1,7, but Onyx will go through these 50 km in a couple of minutes. Here, the GOS itself, in fact, is not needed. For, in comparison with such speeds, the order, with its 20 nodes, can be said to be a static composition and in 2 minutes is not able to change the arrangement much. So the same aircraft carrier will leave the point at which Onyx "saw" it, before dropping a kilometer by 2, no more. Therefore, a transport that was framed for 5 miles or a destroyer is unlikely to be mistaken by Onyx for an aircraft. it can fly. But in the close range, the destroyer on board is Vulcan-Folanks, while Onyx has a decent weight and colossal energy, and it is through this that it pushes through close air defenses.
        The results of the hit can be found by how the speed of the order has changed, for example, in the help of Liana, with which, according to PION-NKS, being in orbit, it gives positioning accuracy up to several tens of meters. shores.
        In my opinion, I disagree with you here, to launch the AUG, having target designation from the same Liana, does not mean to let the anti-ship missile go nowhere. Especially when the developer of Onyxoa himself claims that for him (Onyx) there are enough very rough control points.
        1. Avior
          Avior 27 October 2020 13: 19
          +4
          Satellites, in principle, are not intended for target designation, but for reconnaissance.
          Information from them does not go directly to the attacking ship ..
          Thus, according to their data, it is impossible to shoot directly. This is only information for subsequent target designation.
          And without aviation, this target designation is not easy to obtain.
          An advanced radar patrol can be deployed at a distance from augs from threatening directions, and if you have not determined the positions of all enemy ships at the time of launch all the way from the attack site to the aircraft carrier and beyond, you have a high probability of stumbling upon a destroyer, and almost certainly not even one ... Aegis's radar is very powerful, designed to intercept missiles in near space, and your rather big high-altitude anti-ship missile system will not create a big problem for it, it will be detected in advance, the destroyer will have every chance of firing anti-ship missiles in greenhouse conditions. The altitude for the destroyer's air defense is small, even taking into account the target parameter, it will be able to shoot at a long distance and at a sufficiently high altitude - for cm-6, the maximum height is 33 km, the range is more than 240, some sources give 360 ​​km, that is, one destroyer is guaranteed to cover the strip in 250 km at least. With 18 target SAM channels and a launch rate of 1 missile per second, that is, it will fire at all your missiles at the same time.
          Attack the destroyer first? The idea is correct, only you will have to attack in the area of ​​operation of carrier-based aircraft, and after your first launch, the aircraft carrier will lift it into the air, if for some reason it clicked and did not do this before, the Americans have space reconnaissance, but they have air reconnaissance at the same level as coastal avaks under the cover of aircraft carrier aircraft, as well as the actual Hockey and Growlers of the aircraft carrier itself. And after an attack, you first have to evaluate its results, which in itself will be difficult.
          You will not be able to repeatedly remove the protection of the aug in parts, he simply will not give you so much time, he attacks himself, as if not even before you.
          Even if you manage to attack and drown at first the patrol, which, by the way, is under the umbrella of the aircraft carrier's air defense, and not just like that, the second problem is the outer contour of the air defense aug. He will also see your anti-ship missiles in advance, which means that your missiles should immediately go to extremely low altitudes, in fact, they will begin to fire long before that, your seeker will see the destroyer from 50 km - and even closer from a great height, but the destroyer will see your anti-ship missiles much earlier, and even earlier they will be seen by the AWACS aug aircraft, a surprise attack will not work. And the anti-ship missiles will have to go to extremely small ones, from where the aircraft carrier will not be visible to you, it will be behind other ships that you cannot ignore.
          And then there will be another problem with the ships of the direct protection of the aircraft carrier.
          That is, from the moment when your seeker anti-ship missile system sees the first ship and descends to an extremely low altitude, it will be able to see the aircraft carrier only by chance, and it is he who is your target, and your anti-ship missile system is not an infinite number, and the time limit is very limited. It is enough to move the aircraft carrier away from the outer contour of the escort's air defense by ten to one and a half kilometers.
          Note that I did not write about the self-defense of the destroyer at all. But the main way to combat anti-ship missiles for self-defense today is electronic warfare and traps, and not missiles and MZA, including active traps such as zero, and the fact that your anti-ship missile has a high speed is only a minus from this point of view, for the seeker RCC less time for analysis and selection of targets, and the ability to turn on the target after selection - it is not easy to turn on 2M.
          1. Leontrotsky
            Leontrotsky 28 October 2020 19: 03
            -3
            )))) What about the fact that target designation from satellites cannot be used when firing anti-ship missiles? more pzhlalusta))) As a graduate of VVMURE Popov in 1988, it will be interesting to listen to this. True, I did not graduate from BIUS NK, that is, the third faculty of my alma mater, but only the second, but I did not sleep in the discipline of the BSF (military equipment of the fleet) and I remember something from the lectures of the caperangs. Yes, and he himself began to serve on 1144 (Kirov) in the distant 89 ... however, in 92 he was already cut into metal (((. So in the 80s, the TsU took not only satellites (from the legend), but also from the PRNP stations, which tracked a possible launch of a ground-based missile launcher in Europe (the forerunner of today's Voronezh) Well, and AWACS planes, essno. which fly from the aircraft at a distance of 300 kilometers, spaced along the front, covered, each, by a pair of strikers. All. At 600 km they see an enemy bomber flying, at about the same altitude (8-9 km), the NK order, they will see 400 kilometers And ONYX? Which has a weight of 3t and a length of about 8m? It is in passive guidance mode.It is lined with a coating that absorbs radio waves, capable of exposing air defense missiles away from the target))) And even creating communications with the Onyxes flying nearby. that they were denied the opportunity to domestic missiles reap sedentary targets at sea (which is a ship), and here you can easily hit a target flying at a speed of Mach 2,5, inconspicuous and not so easy to shoot down. Onyx, let me remind you, has a mass of 3 tons, and in order to shoot it down, the MIG-31 had to fire 4 missiles during one of the exercises. and this is one of those that hit the target. but there were some that did not hit. That is, I mean that Onyx, quite possibly, will need not a single air defense missile. The umbrella works ... As long as the AUG has air superiority. And where did you get the idea that it will always be. Imagine the situation ... this very AUG is coming to our Murman, it remains ... well ... 1500 km. And there OSKSF, with 45 air defense army and VKS, with a system of airfields, of which 19 have been restored over the past decade, with 200 The aircraft here and now and, if necessary, can be thrown from the depths of Mother Russei))) What will your umbrella do if a dozen of Sushki want to visit it? The aircraft can lift 50 drums, plus help can come from the airfields of Norway. But there is no connection comparable to the 45th Army.
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 28 October 2020 19: 24
              +5
              How interesting!
              Especially about the 45th Air Defense Army and the Aerospace Forces ...
              But I think that nothing this army with AUG
              will not do, she does not have such opportunities.
              Perhaps you know more in this matter,
              then tell us why "Sushki" will fly to AUG,
              what will they do there?
              1. Leontrotsky
                Leontrotsky 28 October 2020 19: 35
                -3
                An umbrella to visit from two hokai)
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 29 October 2020 11: 07
                  +2
                  An umbrella to visit from two hokai)


                  Great plan.
                  And nothing that Sushki will come under a coordinated attack from an RLDN destroyer, combat air patrol fighters and anti-missile defense system destroyers?
                  1. Leontrotsky
                    Leontrotsky 1 November 2020 17: 12
                    -2
                    Well, it depends on how close they fly. The air defense barrier from the same ARLIE Burke extends about 300 kilometers. It is at this distance from the AUG core that the Hawkai work. Only in this case, the notorious umbrella is obtained at a distance of up to 1000 km (and then for a flying aircraft, at altitudes comparable to the work of a hockey player (about 10 km). And for NK the umbrella will already be 300 kilometers away. That is, even flying up to the launch distance on the Hokaya R-37m (300 km) Drying, no matter how one foot falls under the influence of the AUG air defense system.By combat patrols, as I understand it, you mean a pair of deck-based aircraft, usually accompanying each AWACS? So you can send a dozen Dryers in wartime, for the termination of the functioning of the umbrella, and in peacetime, for example, to create a "radar portrait" of the ships of this very AUG, which will then be incorporated into the GOS Onyx and other X-32. And about the 45th army, you are in vain. the main tasks will be both to cover their military targets with air defense means, and to ensure air supremacy of Russian aviation, when approaching just such an AUG, or even several. Around the Arctic Circle, in the last decade, about 19 These airfields, on which, in fact, about 200 aircraft are based (including the SU-30SM and MIG-21K with newfangled daggers on board and the different SU-34s there). If necessary, it will not be difficult to transfer the gain. There are about 50 attack aircraft to Aviamatka, Plus the problem, even with 4 catapults, will provide takeoff and landing of all taken simultaneously. So, the AUG, near the Russian borders of 1000-1500 km, will have to operate in conditions of total superiority in the Russian aviation forces, even with the help of NATO aircraft from the territory of Norway. For the Norwegian "partners" do not yet have a wide infrastructure.
            2. Avior
              Avior 28 October 2020 23: 45
              +4
              And what, many augs were drowned on target designation from a satellite?
              Let's not confuse real and declared opportunities.
              Under the Union, including for reconnaissance and target designation, they kept naval aviation, they understood the difference between theory and practice.
              It is not clear what you are arguing about.
              Do you doubt that Aug will detect Onyx at altitude much earlier than Onyx's GOS detects the nearest escort ship?
              That the American air defense is, in principle, capable of shooting down Onyx at high altitude (and it is much more difficult for it to do this at extremely low altitudes)?
              And what about the fact that the Aug will go to Murmank, do you seriously think that the Americans will decide to defeat Russia with the help of one AUG?
              Four were singled out against Iraq, and then they played an auxiliary and backup role, and then suddenly one, and that's it? With the risk of nuclear war?
              And no support from the shore? And regroup your forces so that there are more than two hundred aircraft in Norway?
              Why would they do this nonsense?
              Just because you want to adjust the Aug to Murmansk?
              Try to consider a different, real situation.
              The States decided to create real isolation for Russia, military, political, economic, etc., and not the ridiculous one now.
              And they organized a naval blockade outside the range of coastal fighter aircraft - this time.
              Putting pressure on possible dissenting supporters of Russia are two. Someone is bribed, someone is simply sent aug for clarification. And the ally either needs to be helped, or the ally itself will become not an ally and a trading partner - he does not need these problems because of Russia.
              And how will you help an ally facing an Aug? How to deal with the blockade?
              Consider this case, it is more real than a campaign to Murmansk with a purely one aircraft carrier.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 29 October 2020 07: 26
                +3
                Quote: Avior
                Under the Union, including for reconnaissance and target designation, they kept naval aviation

                Yes.
                And it was not only Tu-95RTs.
                Our naval missile-carrying aviation division (MRAD)
                struck (in cooperation) on AUG with a composition of 40
                strike aircraft and 10-12 electronic warfare aircraft, and was considered
                reconnaissance and strike group (RUG) in the 1st operation
                fleet.
                But now such a blow is impossible, we just
                there are not so many planes. And during the USSR such
                there were 5 (five) divisions!
                1. Leontrotsky
                  Leontrotsky 1 November 2020 22: 04
                  -3
                  Where does this information come from, my dear?))) In the "military acceptance", in a series dedicated to the modernization of Tu 22m3 to the level of m3, it is said that there are about 22 Tu3m40 units at the moment. It should be enough for a blow. And about 20 -A50U. And the A 100 is on the way. And the X-32, which are converted from the X-22, stamped back in Soviet times in considerable numbers, having cut the warhead to 400 kg, but having increased the container for fuel, as a result, increasing the X-32's flight range to 1000 km, too should be enough.
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 1 November 2020 22: 11
                    +4
                    Keep believing the TV.
                    1. Leontrotsky
                      Leontrotsky 2 November 2020 11: 35
                      -1
                      I believe not on TV, but in what the general designers tell the military correspondents in the "military acceptance", those who are directly involved in the modernization of the Tu-22m3 to the TU-22m3m and those who directly operate all this. Agree that this is more reasonable than believing the words of a random interlocutor)))
                      1. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 2 November 2020 11: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Leontrotsky
                        in the "military acceptance" military correspondents are told by the general designers,

                        So aren't they talking to the TV?
                        You can't be so naive!
                        Continue to believe the correspondents of the military
                        TV, they will not say bad things, and they will interview
                        the one who needs it, and the questions will be sent in advance, and
                        even the meaning of the answers will prompt.
                        Of course, it makes more sense than reading it yourself,
                        analyze and draw conclusions.
              2. Leontrotsky
                Leontrotsky 1 November 2020 17: 42
                -3
                Well, to begin with, the elusive JOE is not caught for one reason - he hasn't been caught yet. This is me about the sinking of aircraft carriers)) In modern times, only the Invisible was seriously damaged during the Focklands War, and even satellites were not needed. Argentine attack aircraft limited themselves to launching only anti-ship missiles. In general, the same X-32, when it flies at an altitude of about 40 km from Mach 4,6, does not just rely on the inertial system, but its seeker operates in a passive mode. That is, the negotiations of this very AUG, the work of the incis, takeoff and landing on the aircraft deck and other electronic background, which, if necessary, will allow you to adjust the trajectory, are caught. Plus, modern GOS have on board and communications with satellites, for example, Glonass, which allow not to stray from the course, and the means of communication with those satellites, which, in fact, issue the control center. All these details are well described, well, for example, in the magazine "National Defense". In the same place, by the way, the capabilities of the SM6 are well described, from which some amateurs of weapons are thrilled and which can shoot anti-ship missiles up to an altitude of 33 km.))) Once again, I repeat that the X-32, for example, flies 40 km and at a distance of 1000 km, which, by Mach 4,6, it passes faster than Onyx its 600, in 12-15 minutes.)) And now turn on your imagination and figure out what the sea surface looks like, with AUG it is not her from the height of the fortieth century.)) And even with prompts, in the time of an unproductive, but still flight))) Even the diagram of 20 degrees, which the author has laid out, is quite enough for detection (and in real life it is wider, again I refer you to "National Defense"). After that, the X-32 starts with heights of 40 km to dive on the target almost vertically, including the maximum speed and having a weight of five tons. What is the inertia, eh?)))) A kind of kinetic bomb with 400 kg warhead on board. The aircraft carrier, to paraphrase the nautical proverb about a large tidy, will be pierced from the keel to the keel, with a hole in the bottom of the squares of 20.
                As for the subglots of several AUGs, we talked about whether it is possible to destroy one or two. In my opinion, the answer is affirmative)))) As for the full-scale blockade ... my friend, we (Russia in the sense that the Anglo-Saxons call bad guys, then in this case we will behave like bad guys). The fate of our country will be at stake. In response to the blockade, whatever it may be, it must be said frankly that if the blockade is not lifted, and an attempt to "flatten" the allies, a limited nuclear strike will be delivered by forces of a limited number of Yars for a start ... well, let's say in the Yellowstone area ... relatively uninhabited area))) Set the time and the countdown has started))) Or you can choose Great Britain for a demonstration flogging)))) So that behind the Atlantic puddle they understand that this is serious)))) As the Guarantor said, why do we need a world where there is no Russia))) Yes, and it will be interesting what kind of rat fuss will begin in NATO, when they realize that nuclear war, here it is, is on the doorstep. What do we have to lose, really?)) And they ???)))
                1. Avior
                  Avior 1 November 2020 23: 31
                  +3
                  During the Falklands War, the Argentines fired anti-ship missiles at Hermes, not Invisible.
                  At the same time, they did not hit, the traps worked.
                  1. Leontrotsky
                    Leontrotsky 2 November 2020 11: 39
                    -2
                    The Invisible was hit by several bombs and was damaged. That will be more accurate. And Sheffield was let down, one might say.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 2 November 2020 12: 05
                      +2
                      Invisible's damage is controversial.
                      But you just wrote about the use of anti-ship missiles.
                      only the Invisible was damaged during the Focklands War, and even satellites were not needed. Argentine attack aircraft limited themselves to launching only anti-ship missiles.

                      And the facts are as follows - in spite of the fact that Exocet was a completely modern anti-ship missile system, attempts to launch on combat-ready ships equipped with electronic warfare completely failed.
                      In particular, the attack of Hermes. Not to mention the fact that the attack took place a month after the outbreak of hostilities. Do you intend to spend a month looking for and preparing an attack by the American AUG?
                      An attempt to attack Invisible with an anti-ship missile also failed.
                      Although all attacks were made from the direct radio line of sight.
                      Sheffield was hit due to the fact that he was in a sky-ready state.
                      Simultaneously with Sheffield, the anti-ship missile frigate Plymouth attacked, but it easily avoided being hit by the use of traps.
                      1. Leontrotsky
                        Leontrotsky 3 November 2020 10: 49
                        -2
                        You at least have a conscience)))) At the beginning of the war, Argentina had only six (!!!) PKR Exocet. And they destroyed two ships - Sheffield and Atlantic conveyor (transport). .In my opinion, with such a quantity of ammunition, inflicting such losses is a real triumph)) As for the unreadable state of Sheffield, I like it))) The battleship, together with Glasgow, makes the transition by sea, being in a theater of operations and is in the sky state?)) And during the attack, one managed to expose interference, the other was hit. And the exoset did not even think of exploding, but a fire from the remnants of rocket fuel was enough)) And in 1967, when the destroyer "Eilat" PKR was sunk, he was not ready either?)))
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 3 November 2020 11: 11
                        +3
                        Eilat did not have a rail, they did not have time to deliver, Sheffield was unprepared due to a gross error of the commander who ordered to turn off the radar, the Atlantic conveyor was a civilian ship that did not have a rail in principle.
                        And at the same time as Sheffield, Plymouth was attacked, not Glasgow - it was in a combat ready state, so there were no problems
                      3. Leontrotsky
                        Leontrotsky 4 November 2020 18: 37
                        -2
                        Senor, I see you are one of those who are always worth poking your nose into the source. What I am doing)) - "On the morning of May 4, the Argentine command decided to attack a British strike aircraft carrier formation, maneuvering northeast of Port Stanley and discovered by a reconnaissance aircraft. The air defense of the carrier formation was organized according to the standard scheme in three echelons, in The British used the destroyers Coventry, Sheffield and Glasgow as AWACS, patrolling at a distance of 220 km from the center of the convoy. The radar stations installed on the ships made it possible to detect high-altitude targets at a distance of 300 km, but the detection range of low-flying targets was 30 km (in fact, as a result of interference from the sea surface, did not exceed 20 km.) The Argentine strike group included five Super Etandar aircraft (two shock and one reserve, each of which was armed with one Exocet anti-ship missile "), Two more aircraft served as tankers. It was flown by the P-2N "Neptune" patrol aircraft. The attack aircraft approached the area where the British ships were located at a speed of 900 km / h at low and then ultra-low altitudes (40-50 m) from the southern direction, which is less threatened for the British, in radio silence. At a distance of 46 km, the flight altitude was increased to 150 m and the onboard radar was switched on for a short time, which made it possible to detect the destroyers Sheffield and Glasgow. The missiles were launched from a distance of 37 km (according to other sources - 30 km). Thus, the missiles were launched outside the potential detection zone of low-flying targets by the British radar (as it turned out later, the Sheffield radar was completely disabled to ensure the operation of the Skynet communication line). One of the missiles was detected by the Glasgow radar crew and disoriented by the dipole reflectors, while the second hit the destroyer Sheffield. The missile did not explode, but breaking through a hole of 1,8 by 4,5 m in the hull 1,2 m above the waterline, passing through the power plant control post and the combat information center, it got stuck in the survivability post, causing a fire. "
                        As we can see, there was both Coventry and Glasgow. And the radar was turned off because the communication line was turned on. These are already the costs of the RE architecture of the ship and the problems, in fact, of the British. I repeat once again, when using five to six anti-ship missiles, damaging one NK and one transport is an undoubted success. In addition, the missiles were French, and the leaders in the creation of anti-ship missiles were always Soviet / Russian designers. For only five years ago they got the AGM-158С LRASM, which only learned to attack in a group, exchanging information at the same time. What our Granites were able to do a long time ago. As for overcoming electronic warfare, albeit not anti-ship missiles, but tomahawks, there are plenty of examples, and in Yugoslavia and Iraq and Syria, the GOS here act on a similar principle, of course, with an amendment to sea and land subject. Let not 100%, but 40% cope with the EW problem. And these are the ancient block3 tomahawks, which are most of all in service with the United States. On the proving grounds, when testing such products, they create extremely harsh conditions, which are not often found in battle. And the anti-ship missiles, including, cope with them. And the fact that they are an effective means means that they are in service, and in large numbers, of all the naval powers.
                      4. Avior
                        Avior 4 November 2020 19: 42
                        +4
                        You are wasting a lot and heaping mountains of irrelevant text.
                        We are talking about modern electronic warfare anti-ship missile systems, the combat experience of which shows that, in contrast to field tests, in real combat conditions, the probability of anti-ship missiles hitting a combat-ready combat ship equipped with modern electronic warfare is extremely low.
                        This was unambiguously confirmed by the Falklands War.
                        Your empty arguments about tomahawks and other things have nothing to do with the issue.
                      5. Leontrotsky
                        Leontrotsky 5 November 2020 09: 01
                        -1
                        Combat experience of using anti-ship missiles in modern conditions? Give me at least a few episodes of such an experience)))))
                        How can tomahawks not be related to this story, when only they have experience in combat use in sufficient numbers? Yes, this is not an application of the NDT RPC. But this is overcoming the CD of electronic warfare systems, and ground-based ones, which are a priori more powerful than shipborne ones of a comparable generation, essno.
                      6. timokhin-aa
                        5 November 2020 14: 02
                        +2
                        And what is "modern conditions"? This is from what year?
                        So, in the meantime, since 1973, there have been dozens of missile attacks in the world, in different parts of the world, the most recent in Yemen.

                        Do you know how many anti-ship missiles were able to hit a target covered with interference? Zero. This is all calculated and analyzed a long time ago.
                      7. Leontrotsky
                        Leontrotsky 5 November 2020 21: 48
                        0
                        Not ... well, he lies and does not blush))))) For starters, let's take the Iran-Iraq war. There, the losses were
                        1. Two RCA Naval Forces of Iran "Kombatanat 2"
                        2. Corvettes of the Iranian Navy Milanian and Khanamuie
                        3. Patrol boat of the Iranian Navy Mahvan
                        4. Iranian Navy TSC Simorgh

                        And the American frigate Stark in 1987 caught the exoset?))) During the war with Iraq?)))
                        Let's bring Sheffield here. Moreover, Exocet is not the best anti-ship missile. (I repeat once again, if the Argentine Air Force has 6 missiles, sinking a transport and a destroyer is an undoubted success.
                        And in 2008 ??? Then MRK "Mirage" from a distance of 25 km fired 2 cruise missiles "Malachite" at a missile boat of the "Combatant-2" type. As a result of being hit by both missiles, the boat quickly sank (disappeared from the radar screen after a large short-term illumination left by the target's explosion).
                        The remaining 4 Georgian boats turned back, but one of them again went to a rapprochement with the Black Sea Fleet ships. MRK "Mirage" from a distance of 15 km fired a missile at it from the "Osa-M" air defense system. After the missile hit the side of the boat DHK-82 lost speed and left the line of fire, and after the crew was removed by another boat, it burned out and sank. And this is for small and maneuverable targets.
                        And this is in conditions when the anti-ship missiles were not used en masse, and so, from case to case))
                    2. Avior
                      Avior 5 November 2020 16: 35
                      +2
                      Complete nonsense.
                      Do you know how the GOS Tomahawk differs from the GOS of the vast majority of RCC?
                      Have you heard about the terrain?
                      Seems not ...
                    3. Leontrotsky
                      Leontrotsky 5 November 2020 22: 01
                      -3
                      What does the terrain have to do with it? Well, she has an altimeter and then what? How does he carry out the fight against REP ?? It only allows you to fly lower and reduces the radio horizon of the radar, but at the same time it also lowers its own, so much so that the problems that you describe are exactly what the Tomahawks have, so they have to scour the snake. So the Onyxes have the same gadgets, otherwise how does it go down to 10 meters above the sea surface at the final section of the trajectory? And those devices that help to overcome the counteraction of air defense systems are, first of all, the ability to change the carrier frequency according to a random law when operating in an active mode, the ability of the anti-ship missile system itself to expose interference and reflectors for air defense missiles, the ability of anti-ship missiles to carry the images of all NK air defense systems, to distinguish them from decoys and attack, in a group or alone, the main purpose of the order, to distinguish low-contrast targets on the water surface and much more. Plus, the speed of Russian anti-ship missiles is several times higher than that of Tomahawks (Onyx and X-32 are meant), better visibility and guidance, because they are guided from heights up to 14 km (Onyx) and up to 40 X-32 (range in height SM6 up to 33 km), and therefore the X-32 it will be able to reach only in the final section, when it dives from 4,6 M from a height of 40 km almost vertically. Do you have any idea what kind of overloads rim 174 must withstand for this ?????
                    4. Avior
                      Avior 5 November 2020 22: 20
                      +2
                      Moreover.
                      The Tomahawk has a Terkom-based cruise control and DSMAC on the terminal.
                      You need to know basic things about the subject before filling up the thread with your posts.
                    5. Leontrotsky
                      Leontrotsky 6 November 2020 21: 52
                      -1
                      I know them very well))) Only we are not talking about territorial committees, but about overcoming the means of electronic warfare. What does navigation have to do with it? You claim that with the advent of electronic warfare, anti-ship missiles have not shown themselves. I caught you in a lie. And you again jump off the topic. Decide what you want. And enough, really, littering in the subject. Good luck)
                    6. Avior
                      Avior 6 November 2020 22: 43
                      +3
                      In your fantasies, perhaps.
                      Come back to reality, write complete nonsense.
                      The Tomahawk is controlled by Terkom on the march section, and DSMAC on the terminal. Nothing to do with the GOS of the discussed RCC.
                      And if your rabbi does not know how to quickly change the terrain on areas of thousands of kilometers, then Tomahawk has no connection with the vast majority of existing anti-ship missiles.
                      Obviously, you have a vague idea of ​​the subject of the conversation and do not understand what you are writing about.
                      Well, I won't bother you, fantasize further.
                      hi
        2. Avior
          Avior 4 November 2020 20: 09
          +2
          ... The first missile on the frigate Plymouth was discovered by radar almost a minute before it arrived. From the ship, they managed to deliver passive interference in the form of a cloud of dipole reflectors, which the rocket aimed at.

          An active radar, homing of the second missile captured Sheffield at a distance of 12-15 km, on the final section of the trajectories the height of the missile decreased from 15 to 3 m. From the ship, the missile was noticed only 6 seconds before it hit and the commander only managed to command: “Take cover ! ”

          There was a group of ships
  • timokhin-aa
    3 November 2020 15: 09
    +3
    Nothing got into it, there is no need to repeat Argentine inventions.
    1. Leontrotsky
      Leontrotsky 5 November 2020 09: 03
      -3
      You, undoubtedly, know better))) Apparently, with the Sheffield cap you were drinking at the brundershaft at that moment)
    2. timokhin-aa
      5 November 2020 13: 58
      +3
      This is a question that has been studied up and down for a long time.
    3. Leontrotsky
      Leontrotsky 5 November 2020 21: 29
      -2
      Studied))) only the conclusions those who deal with RCC make diametrically opposite to yours))
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 27 October 2020 13: 34
    +1
    "Especially when the developer of Onyxoa himself claims that for him (Onyx), very rough control points are enough."


    Do you realize that in the General Staff of the Navy and the Naval Academy there are people who know a little more about the Onyx anti-ship missile system and the tactics of its use?
    So, for some reason, these people, in the course of command and control operations, planned entire naval operations to destroy the AUG with the allocation of a huge detachment of forces: maneuverable groups of submarines, one or two regiments of MPA, surface ships.

    You would share with them your wonderful discoveries about the ease of hitting an aircraft carrier with a salvo of anti-ship missiles from one carrier, otherwise they have been suffering from some kind of garbage for so many years.
    1. Igor Semenov
      Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 17: 08
      0
      I am aware that there are people in the General Staff of the Navy who want to continue to sit there. And who clearly see the delight of the commander-in-chief. It is from these two premises that their behavior is formed.
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 27 October 2020 17: 22
        -1
        What does the commander-in-chief's behavior and enthusiasm have to do with it?

        It is about calculating the order of forces required to defeat the AUG.
        Are you saying that the teachers of the Naval Academy and the specialists of the General Staff of the Navy do not consider it correctly and do not have sufficient competence to calculate it?
        1. Igor Semenov
          Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 18: 00
          0
          Because if you directly report to the commander-in-chief that the wunderwafel does not exist in principle, and that a long, difficult and routine WORK is required, the probability of early dismissal will be 100%
          1. Lex_is
            Lex_is 27 October 2020 18: 14
            0
            What kind of prodigies, if complex operations were planned to attack the AUG by the fleet, involving, at the same time, a group of submarines, one or two MRA regiments, surface ships?

            What are you talking about?
            1. Igor Semenov
              Igor Semenov 28 October 2020 20: 29
              0
              It was once planned that way. And now, in view of the absence of MPA and much more, stories about wunderwales are being pushed through, in which the political leadership willingly believes. Do you understand this formulation?
              1. Lex_is
                Lex_is 29 October 2020 10: 45
                -1
                It was once planned that way. And now, in view of the absence of MPA and much more, stories about wunderwales are being pushed through


                True? Where did you get this information from?
                We are opening thematic works of military universities on the tactics of combating AUG for 2019:
                we read what exactly modern military thought in our country thinks about it:


                ON METHODS OF DAMAGE SHIPS FROM THE OPPONENT'S AIRCRAFT STRIKE TEAM
                VUNC VVS "VVA named after professor N.Ye. Zhukovsky and Yu.A. Gagarin "

                ... To disable the AUG, at least 40 missiles must be fired. Thus, for a successful attack on the AUG, you need at least a Tu-22m3 regiment consisting of 20 vehicles with 2 missiles on each, plus electronic warfare aircraft and several reconnaissance aircraft.
                However, AWACS aircraft carrying out round-the-clock combat duty over the AUG,
                make a surprise air strike unlikely. Counter fighters
                carrier-based aircraft, most likely, will thwart the attack on the approach to the aircraft carrier, and besides,
                attacking forces need to successfully pass through the anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense of ships.
                Therefore, long-range missile carriers will need cover in the form of Su-35S fighters or
                MiG-31. Note that the implementation and conduct of such an operation requires the concentration of a large number of attack aircraft at airfields in coastal areas that risk being under a preemptive attack by the AUG.
                .

                Wunderwaffel not to be seen ...
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 29 October 2020 14: 01
                  +2
                  Quote: Lex_is
                  To disable the AUG, at least 40 missiles must be fired. Thus, for a successful attack on the AUG, at least a Tu-22m3 regiment consisting of 20 vehicles with 2 missiles on each is needed, plus electronic warfare aircraft and several reconnaissance aircraft.

                  The greens in their academy are raving, trying
                  adjust the answer to the available forces.
                2. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 29 October 2020 14: 59
                  -1
                  "Greens" are raving in their academy

                  Optimize! laughing laughing
                  They substantiate there how it will be wonderful to limit itself to the attacks of the RLDN destroyer, after which the AUG, having used up most of the SAM ammunition and having lost 1-2 destroyers, will be forced to leave.
                  But the Daggers and Zircons have not yet reached the defenseless aircraft carriers.
                3. timokhin-aa
                  29 October 2020 15: 55
                  +2
                  This footcloth of associate Zholobnitsky was written based on my old article from 2018, even some pieces got there by simple copying, and all this then turned out to be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
                  True, I did not have anything about 40 missiles, this is an introduction from professionals.
                  Here is the article itself.
                  https://topwar.ru/150652-ne-trogat-avianoscy-topit-jesmincy.html

                  Friends congratulated me, like, look where they read you, but in fact I am still in shock from this.
                4. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 29 October 2020 16: 28
                  0
                  adjunct Zholobnitsky's footcloth

                  Yeah, that's him.
                  The second part of the article was ripped off from you, the first part from the books of the 90s.
                5. timokhin-aa
                  29 October 2020 16: 32
                  +2
                  Meanwhile, there is scientific work on striking a long-range aviation force on an aircraft carrier formation, and they are just chipboard, that is, it was business to sit in the library, recount a number of numbers for modern ones, such as the number of anti-aircraft missiles, guidance channels, performance characteristics of interceptors, launch range them UR BB, etc. All this could have been done competently.
                  I write popularizing articles for those who are not involved.
          2. Leontrotsky
            Leontrotsky 1 November 2020 18: 14
            -4
            I don't know where you got this opinion from, but let's pick up a calculator. Russia currently has about 40 units of Tu22m3. Since we are talking about two missiles, each on board, we mean the X-32, with a range of up to 1000 km. It flies at an altitude of 40 km, at a speed of Mach 4,6 (about 5000 km / h). Suppose the launch took place from 900-950 kilometers. A volley of X-32 will overcome these kilometers to the AUG in 12 minutes or even a little change. SM6 removes targets at an altitude of 33 km with a speed of RIM 174 in Mach 3,5-4. That is, the speed of the air defense missile is less than the X-32, which, according to all scientific calculations, makes it impossible to remove the X-32 with the same air defense shipborne weapons that are now in service with NATO. We are looking at how deck-based aircraft can help. Let us remind you that they have 10 minutes. And 4 catapults. 2 minutes per plane, and then in the event that everyone is on the upper deck, and 40 X-32 flies on them. Having reached the AUG, from a height of 40 km X-32 we will begin to dive, almost vertically at maximum speed. A kind of kinetic a bomb, weighing about 5 tons with a 400 kg warhead. In such tests, the Rim 174 (the Americans licked this shake with us) was used on a decommissioned destroyer (to shoot air defense missiles at the NK - a well-known trick - in 2008, our MRK Wasp sank a couple of Georgian boats ), taking off to an altitude of 20 km, fell down at a speed of Mach 3. Its weight is about 1,5 tons, warhead is just over 100kg. In short, the destroyer was pierced from top to bottom with a hole in the bottom of about 15 square meters. Do you understand what I mean?))) Give me air-to-air missiles, which are in service with NATO, capable of reaching speeds of more than Mach 4,6, capable of withstanding overloads of 60-65 g and possessing a sufficient warhead capable of taking a 5-ton blank moving at such a speed from the trajectory, but even on Onyx (weight 3 tons and a speed of Mach 2,6), according to the same amers, it is necessary at least 3-4 air defense missiles exploded in its immediate vicinity.
  • Leontrotsky
    Leontrotsky 28 October 2020 17: 44
    -2
    Well, let's start with the fact that I did not suggest using one carrier for AUG)) Where are these words, show what you ascribe to me. Secondly, he himself served in the General Staff in recent years, in Kozlovsky. True, not in the Operations Directorate and not at the Center for Collective Use, but the operations were planned for a simple reason. For if we are dealing with AUG, then this is at least an NK order, plus multipurpose submarines, plus MRA on board the aircraft. Naturally, in order to successfully combat such a connection, appropriate forces are needed. You carefully read what the dispute is about, so as not to ascribe to others words that they did not say and to grasp the essence of the dispute. And it is simple, you can or not independently, or as part of a salvo of anti-ship missiles to detect AUG and hit the ships of the order.
  • Leontrotsky
    Leontrotsky 1 November 2020 22: 16
    -2
    I give it completely, because I myself served at Kozlovsky for some time, though not in the Operations Directorate and not at the Center for Collective Use. The fact is that any operation pursues strictly defined goals. And the anti-ship missile strike on the AUG can be part of this operation. In this case, the surface component is needed to establish a dominant over some theater, for example. With all the outgoing consequences "for partners" - the suppression of sea communications, the destruction of the bases of the enemy's fleet, the delivery of strikes from the sea deep into its territory ... The air component is needed to ensure the safety of the surface and underwater components and establish domination in the air. displacing the VP submarine from the area of ​​interest to us, destroying its surface forces, covering its coast (from the attacks of the same multipurpose and strategic submarines of a potential enemy) In this case, a conventional salvo will not solve these problems, although it can seriously damage the AUG.
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 28 October 2020 00: 41
    +4
    1. Already a long time ago (just at the time that Admiral Kapitanets described (I remembered - ... the fleet is dancing a new dance under the name .....)) it was considered that to destroy the AUG (in the Norwegian Sea) full volleys were needed 2 949s and another MRA regiment (TU 22M). so a couple of Onyxes is not enough.
    2. It is impossible to use Granites from the Greenland Sea by AUG in the West Fjord
    2. Thanks to the author for an interesting and informative article that shows the complexity of the development of a control center for sea targets.
    1. timokhin-aa
      28 October 2020 11: 01
      +3
      I am glad that you liked it, although in truth the article is an oversimplification. Much simply did not fit into it, and I can’t imagine some things, for example, if on the approach of a volley to a group target everything turns out to be there for false purposes, then how?

      Well, the conclusions from all this are very disappointing in my opinion.
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 28 October 2020 08: 41
    +3
    Quote: Leontrotsky
    The seeker in active mode detects a target at a distance of at least 50 km, plus its field of view + -45 degrees (that is, the sector is 90 degrees). Onyx flies a distance of, say, 700 kilometers.


    He flies these 700 km, keeping the course with the help of his gyroscope, and measures the switching distance using the ANN. Let the target designation error be made in the direction of two degrees. The gyroscope added another one degree error. 3 degrees at a distance of 700 km is 36 km in an arc. The ANN error along the traversed path is roughly about 1%. When targeting, the distance to the aircraft carrier was also determined with an error, let it be 5 km. Those. the missile can turn on the radar 12 km closer to the side of the target than intended. Then the swath will be 38 km. In this case, the missile heading error can be 36 km. Those. the target, without even moving, is at the very edge of the search sector.

    For example, the Tomahawk-TASM had a "harpoon" seeker with a range of 25 km. And with a maximum firing range of 450 km during the exercises, the target almost never found.
    1. Leontrotsky
      Leontrotsky 1 November 2020 18: 35
      -5
      Senor, I have to upset you)) Firstly, in those anti-ship missiles that have a modern seeker (A Onyx and X-32 are among them) have a passive radar part in its composition. This means that it does not just fly on an inertial plane, but "listens" to the broadcast during the flight. And all the negotiations on the air of the AUG, between the aircraft and the aircraft during takeoff and landing, the negotiations between the NK warrants, the work of the eejis-sits. She is primarily interested in the direction where such activity takes place. Radio silence mode is possible. But in this case, there is no need to talk about the performance of the AUG. Moreover, in many GOS there is a possibility of communication with satellites, both navigation satellites, such as Glonass, and, in fact, with those who issue the control center. In our case, these are Peonies or Lotuses (also listening to the broadcast). So it is quite possible to correct the flight))
      TASM doesn't even need to find a target. This BGM-109 with a nuclear warhead. But BGM-109B really could not find the target and, therefore, it was taught to fly "snake" in order to find a target in a given area. But then Newans appeared. The tomahawk could go to see an ally's transport, for example, or even his NK, which does not have a friend or foe identification system (in NATO, in peacetime, there are about 20 percent of such NKs), and if the war starts suddenly, as befits all wars, will there be time to install it is a big question.
      In general, it was removed from production.
      BUT !!!!!! Onyx is not a Tomahawk and this is the whole point))) The Tomahawk flies at an altitude of 10 meters and flies slowly (about 900 km / h). Imagine what kind of radio horizon the Tomahawk radar has. And what it will be able to observe, especially during rough seas, even a score of 3. Onyx flies at an altitude of 14 km (X-32 at an altitude of 40 km) - the difference is the difference? Sea surface Plus Onyx has a speed of three times, maybe, and the X-32 maybe five times. That is, the target, even if these anti-ship missiles are launched from extreme distances, have about 20 minutes. And that is not always the case. AUG goes at the speed of an order of knots of 20-22. That is, it will be 10-15 km away from the place of detection and the control center. Plus, the order itself is a rather stretched structure, sometimes tens of miles in length, which simplifies the task. But even if the task is to get into the plane, it is quite feasible. From a height of 14 km, and even more so at 40, it is visible at a minimum of 90 km. (At 75 km Arlie Burke is visible from Onyx at 10 km-14 km). So even with a narrow diagram of 20 degrees (and in real life it is wider), problems should not arise)
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 1 November 2020 23: 46
        +3
        Quote: Leontrotsky
        This means that it does not just fly on an inertial plane, but during the flight it "listens" to the air. And all the negotiations on the air of the AUG, between the airplane and the aircraft during takeoff, landing, negotiations between the NK warrants, the work of the eejis-sits.


        Someone has cruelly deceived you.

        Quote: Leontrotsky
        Moreover, in many GOS there is a possibility of communication with satellites, both navigation satellites, such as Glonass, and, in fact, with those who issue the control center. In our case, these are Peonies or Lotuses (also listening to the broadcast).


        "Onyx" is not associated with either "Peonies" or "Lotos" or "Glonass". "Peonies" and "Lotuses" do not give out the CO. Just as they do not listen to the broadcast.
        1. Leontrotsky
          Leontrotsky 2 November 2020 11: 47
          -2
          Well, if someone cheated, then "National Defense")))) There is just an article on this topic) I mean about the possibilities of modern Russian GOS. And how do you know the capabilities of Peonies, if not a secret? Is that closed?))) However ... what is the "national defense" and its editor-in-chief?))) You probably know everything better)))
          As for the Lotosov, I can hardly imagine how an electronic intelligence satellite can manage without listening to the air)
          And here is a quote for you, exactly about Liana from the just named "National Defense" - "Russian enterprises are completing the development of a new reconnaissance satellite" Pion ", Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said. The Pion will become an integral part of the Liana radio-electronic (radio-technical) reconnaissance space system, which is tasked with monitoring foreign military activity, tracking the movement of large naval and land forces, and targeting for a strike with high-precision weapons. , "Liana" is being created to replace the "Legend" - "Celina" systems launched back in the Soviet years, but the capabilities of the new system will be much wider. "
  • Avior
    Avior 27 October 2020 00: 18
    17
    Good article
    But in fact, the problem of target designation is even more complicated than the author described.
    For example, consider the case when, during the firing of the cruiser Golovko, a missile hit the minesweeper Kherson Komsomolets at the Black Sea Fleet.
    There was the problem of target selection.
    After launch, when the anti-ship missile reached the target area, the missile seeker transmitted the target's position to the cruiser.
    And it surfaced that there were three target marks and two ships to cordon off the firing area to select a target.
    The operator on the cruiser chose a target, it was transferred to the seeker of the anti-ship missile system, but in reality it was not a target, but one of the cordon ships, into which the missile hit.
    That is, they hit their ship in greenhouse polygon conditions - only three targets, and the GOS RCC transmitted the coordinates of possible targets after the RCC approached the distance of the GOS operation.
    In real conditions, everything will be much more complicated - and the number of marks is greater, and the need to select a target when launching a rocket, after which there will be a high probability that the picture of targets will change before the rocket approaches.
    This case gives a clear idea of ​​the complexity of target designation for over-the-horizon launches of anti-ship missiles, when the target is not observed from the carrier, and even when it is observed.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 00: 49
      14
      And it is more complicated, and the topic of the LC has not been disclosed, and the fact that the target had to be classified before the attack, and the fact that for some anti-ship missiles it is necessary to set the operation algorithm of the seeker (capture of the "brightest" target or the first one that entered the sector, etc.) and the fact that it is necessary to highlight the main goal, etc.

      But there are already 48000 characters. How else to complicate? It was important to show the principle, the level of complexity of the problem.
      1. Avior
        Avior 27 October 2020 00: 59
        12
        I'm not a complaint, I understand the problem of size restrictions, your article is good, and very useful for forming an understanding of the seriousness of the problem among VO readers.
        I'm just in addition.
        Some of the readers cannot accept the real complexity of target designation for over-the-horizon missile launches, even after your article.
        But in fact, everything is even more complicated.
        1. Kart
          Kart 27 October 2020 14: 52
          -3
          Even more difficult, no doubt.
          But why should a large part of the country's population hang mocking labels and call them fabulously evil epithets? Only for the fact that they have imprudence is proud - it is necessary to them, and certainly with a mockery, to explain that they are illiterate savages and victims of the regime's propaganda, who stole a rocket somewhere?
          None of the ordinary people in general has any use for these explanations, no matter how professional they are.
          They just need to be given a reason to be proud of their country, and not to spit in it.
          so think the citizens of any country who wish her well.
          Do you know what will remain with the majority after reading? The fact that once again everything is bad with us, but once it was good.
          However, we have freedom of speech.
          1. Avior
            Avior 27 October 2020 16: 01
            +4
            Excuse me, did you write that to me?
            I didn't see any labels in my post.
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 27 October 2020 17: 52
            +3
            Quote: Carte
            Even more difficult, no doubt.
            But why should a large part of the country's population hang mocking labels and call them fabulously evil epithets? Only for the fact that they have imprudence is proud - it is necessary to them, and certainly with a mockery, to explain that they are illiterate savages and victims of the regime's propaganda, who stole a rocket somewhere?
            None of the ordinary people in general has any use for these explanations, no matter how professional they are.
            They just need to be given a reason to be proud of their country, and not to spit in it.
            so think the citizens of any country who wish her well.
            Do you know what will remain with the majority after reading? The fact that once again everything is bad with us, but once it was good.
            However, we have freedom of speech.


            You still do not understand the main message ...
            I will repeat the quote from the text of the article
            And people were perplexed and told him: "So you understand that this is" Charles de Gaulle "in Cyprus, how to explain this to a rocket? And the Pony started raving, laughing loudly and shouting at people: "Yes, everything has been decided for a long time, any normal satellite can transfer the coordinates of the detected target to the right place!" People did not calm down and asked further: “Coordinates? Will they be enough? What is target designation, you know? What is the meaning of this word? "

            Here Pony was furious. He began to call people Solzhenitsyn and Rezuns, accused them of being for America and selling themselves to the State Department: Russophobes, pour mud on their country and do not understand anything at all! He wrote them various nonsense on the Internet and put emoticons with protruding tongues at the end of these nonsense, thinking that this is how his nonsense looks very convincing.

            But in reality, the pony just didn't want to think. He never found out what target designation was, although he was told. He didn't hear. He thought that everyone who is not like him is not patriots and enemies.


            A reason to be proud?
            I have such.
            But these are real reasons.
            Not flies bloated to the level of elephants.

            And a more or less reasonable person who did not skip physics, chemistry at school, who was interested in something all his life - usually has a rather critical mindset.

            He initially understands that a house is a place for construction, this is a foundation, these are walls, these are windows, these are doors, this is a roof, these are utilities, this is the supply of heat and electricity.
            This is called understanding.
            Tasks, problems and solutions.
            And those whom you defend and present as offended, who are supposedly proud, are those for whom the house sounds like in a cartoon: "we will draw - we will live"
            With this comparison, how are you?
            Do you understand now the difference between those who are really looking for solutions and those who act like pink ponies?
          3. timokhin-aa
            27 October 2020 19: 12
            +7
            They just need to be given a reason to be proud of their country, and not to spit in it.
            so think the citizens of any country who wish her well.


            And then there will be a small war in which everything will be revealed and deceived patriots without heads will go to make a revolution. And when they do, then according to the laws of the genre there will be a civil war.
            And the potential enemy will not have it at this moment.
            And there will be special forces capable of making a hole in the early warning system. And there will also be high-precision nuclear warheads for SLBMs of the W76-2 type, which will also be capable of launching a preemptive nuclear strike at mine launch sites. And there will be hypersonic missiles on submarines too. And new stealthy bombers B-21 Raider, capable of chasing those who do not receive the order to launch the PGRK will also be.

            Do you need to continue this logical chain? Or think for yourself? This unjustified pride in non-existent achievement can lead us too far.
            Personally, this does not suit me.
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 27 October 2020 05: 18
      +6
      The most interesting thing is that the third mark was the AVKR "Moscow"
      1. Avior
        Avior 27 October 2020 08: 02
        +5
        Exactly, you are right, the third mark was the cruiser Moskva, and only by chance did you choose to shoot at the minesweeper.
  • shadow
    shadow 27 October 2020 00: 52
    -17 qualifying.
    You might think that one author is smart and all the others are not. About "Zircon" really nothing is known, but he is already drawing. Know-it-all.
    Better on YouTube about Onyx look. Than to read this nonsense.
    1. Igor Semenov
      Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 17: 14
      +2
      What's on YouTube? We must immediately go to Zen. Everything there is intelligible, professional and, most importantly, patriotic to explain laughing
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 27 October 2020 17: 54
      +3
      Quote: Shadows
      You might think that one author is smart and all the others are not. About "Zircon" really nothing is known, but he is already drawing. Know-it-all.
      Better on YouTube about Onyx look. Than to read this nonsense.


      In a couple of years, you will see a modernized Onyx called Zircon live at a stand.

      What I have been talking about for several years.
      1. timokhin-aa
        27 October 2020 19: 15
        +2
        By the way, what's wrong? I think it was made on this basis - another engine, another combustion chamber, air intake and fuel. The other GOS and the booster are longer.
        Glider mechanics of control systems, gas-dynamic rudders, TPK, etc. - The same.
        There is nothing wrong with that, by the way.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 27 October 2020 19: 53
          +3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          By the way, what's wrong? I think it was made on this basis - another engine, another combustion chamber, air intake and fuel. The other GOS and the booster are longer.
          Glider mechanics of control systems, gas-dynamic rudders, TPK, etc. - The same.
          There is nothing wrong with that, by the way.


          I do not say and never said that it is bad.

          It's just that on this modernization scheme, the maximum speed in fact will most likely be 5-6M. At an altitude of 35 km.
          Only dive to the target.
          Low-altitude flight mode will "sink into oblivion".
          1. timokhin-aa
            27 October 2020 20: 57
            +3
            So it was initially clear.

            The low-altitude regime disappears due to the materials first of all. Thermal loads are enormous there.
            Zircon flies up, then down. And in the video from the Ministry of Defense, the rocket went up, and not like Onyx, only the rudders worked in a similar way. And he picks up speed in descent with the engine running.

            Pros - tremendous speed, and as a consequence: if the missile defense system will take it "almost head-on", that is, with a small parameter, which means goodbye to the collective defense of the order, there can be only one attempt at shelling, the near-zone air defense will not take it, data obsolescence minimal, the destruction when hitting the target is huge. Instead of warheads, you can push the cast iron there, the result will be no worse.

            Cons - the enemy learns about the attack strongly in advance due to the height of the "slide", the requirements for the accuracy of determining the MPC are the highest, and not always realizable (see article) fatty minus - the ion trail on which it will be possible to draw the NMC of a firing ship even before the missile hits goal and even have time to report it.
            All this can be solved in one way or another, but only if you decide ...

            Here on his plane, this Zircon.
  • shadow
    shadow 27 October 2020 01: 03
    -12 qualifying.
    Before writing, you need to read this.
    https://militaryarms.ru/boepripasy/rakety/protivokorabelnaya-krylataya-raketa-p-800-oniks/
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 01: 21
      10
      I read. Many years ago, not yet on this site, this site was not yet there, but why did you write this?
  • Old Michael
    Old Michael 27 October 2020 01: 20
    10
    Alexander, Please accept my sincere respect!
    Bookmarked the article. But not in order to reread it later on dreary winter evenings, but to discuss it piece by piece with the younger sons. We will not discuss the tactics of countering the AUG or the need for the integrated use of heterogeneous forces and means (although, most likely, we will discuss this too, but a little later, because there is a wide field for the development of multidimensional thinking in boys). They are still schoolchildren, and now is the time to show them how consistent logical constructions are built from the "thesis-argument" links. How, without "pseudoscience" and "academicism", one can state one's views on very complex and specific issues.
    Thank you!
    PS Special thanks for a very clear explanation of the essence of the control center as a process. God forbid, it will correct someone's brains ...
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 27 October 2020 01: 42
    -3
    In such articles, one should not forget that the enemy is also not perfect. Where it is written, the enemy will see, will not allow, prevent, maneuver, you should always keep in mind the% probability that there is no. The second frequent moment in such analyzes is "one against all". One missile against an air defense system, one aircraft against an AUG, and so on. There are more than 1 types of carriers, more than 1 carriers themselves, each missile contains more than 1. As a result, 3 types of carriers, 2 units each, carry 2-4 missiles = 12-24. And 5% chance of defeat turns into 60-100% probability. But even a 30-40% chance of a bullet in the forehead is enough to think hard about your behavior.
    And the third point: the knowledge of an advanced layman lags behind reality by 20-30 years, a former specialist by 10-15, practice in his field by 5-10. Etc. People who have the most up-to-date knowledge in a whole range of complex technical areas and access to the latest developments and tactics for their application do not write popular articles.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 27 October 2020 06: 28
      +1
      The second frequent moment in such analyzes is "one against all". One missile against an air defense system, one aircraft against an AUG, and so on.


      You would, before commenting, read the article to the end. There, the action of numerous heterogeneous forces against the AUG is just considered:
      So the search areas begin to narrow, surface ships enter the areas surveyed by aviation and remain there, on the path of the target's possible movement there are curtains of submarines, covered from enemy submarines by surface ships and aircraft
    2. Kart
      Kart 27 October 2020 14: 55
      -5
      Quote: gvozdan
      In such articles, one should not forget that the enemy is also not perfect.

      In such articles, so far, only one thing is not forgotten - that everything is gone.
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 27 October 2020 17: 56
      +2
      Quote: gvozdan
      There are more than 1 types of carriers, there are more than 1 carriers, each missile contains more than 1. As a result, 3 types of carriers, 2 units each, carry 2-4 missiles = 12-24. And 5% chance of defeat turns into 60-100% probability. ...


      The probabilities never add up.
      If your probability of hitting a target with one missile is 80%, then when firing two missiles, the total probability will never be more than 88-90% ....
  • set of sets
    set of sets 27 October 2020 11: 56
    -8
    An aircraft carrier at sea is not a needle in a haystack.
    And if more than a hundred satellites of the Aerospace Forces cannot give target designation to missiles in real time, then this multibillion-dollar scrap is not worth it.

    But something tells me that Mr. Timokhin either does not know something, or is deliberately lying.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 27 October 2020 12: 48
      +4
      And long ago, we have 4 satellites of the "Liana" system turned into
      hundreds of targeting satellites
      ?
      You obviously know something more than Mr. Timokhin!
      1. set of sets
        set of sets 27 October 2020 13: 38
        -4
        “Russian enterprises are completing the development of a new Pion-NKS reconnaissance satellite. This was announced by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. According to him, the department continues to work on the creation and maintenance of a military orbital group. Pion-NKS will become an integral part of the Liana radio-electronic (radio-technical) reconnaissance space system. The tasks of this component include monitoring foreign military activity, tracking the movement of large naval and land forces, as well as target designation for a strike with high-precision weapons. ,,

        The Liana system is not one satellite, but a whole system of satellites.
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 27 October 2020 13: 41
          0
          The Liana system is not one satellite, but a whole system of satellites.

          Of course, the whole system, of four satellites and Pion, which everyone is finishing developing.
          When completed and launched, it will have five satellites.
          1. set of sets
            set of sets 27 October 2020 13: 59
            -4
            ,, System of naval space reconnaissance and target designation "Liana"
            The composition of the full group is unknown:

            1 spacecraft "Lotos-S" (14F138, "Kosmos-2455");
            3 spacecraft "Lotos-S1" (14F145, "Kosmos-2502", "Kosmos-2524", "Kosmos-2528");
            possibly 1 spacecraft "Celina-2" (according to "Military Balance - 2014") of the MRCC "Legend" system. ,,

            Key words: ,, the composition of the full grouping is unknown ,,.
            1. Lex_is
              Lex_is 27 October 2020 14: 00
              +2
              Key words: ,, the composition of the full grouping is unknown ,,.

              Yes, yes, 96 satellites were hidden so that no one would guess.
              1. set of sets
                set of sets 27 October 2020 14: 10
                -4
                Nobody hides. It's just that there are, for example, mi8 helicopters. They can be either civilian or military. Similarly, satellites can be dual-purpose. For example ,, GLONASS ,,. Why not. Etc.
                More than 150 satellites of the Russian Federation in space. And you think that only 4 of them are military?))
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 27 October 2020 17: 00
                  +1
                  And you think that only 4 of them are military?))

                  The military is about a hundred:
                  Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS)
                  Unified satellite communication system (ESSS-2)
                  Satellite navigation and communication system "Cyclone-B"
                  Space digital information relay system
                  Satellite communication system "Blagovest"
                  Satellite communication system "Rodnik"
                  Systems "Oko", "Oko1"
                  Unified Space Detection and Combat Control System (EKS) "Kupol"
                  Geodetic satellite system

                  only they have completely different tasks and opportunities.

                  Specifically, optical and electronic reconnaissance in the interests of the fleet - "Liana", in the interests of the GRU General Staff - "Persona"
                2. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 27 October 2020 18: 03
                  +4
                  Quote: set of sets
                  Nobody hides. It's just that there are, for example, mi8 helicopters. They can be either civilian or military. Similarly, satellites can be dual-purpose. For example ,, GLONASS ,,. Why not. Etc.
                  More than 150 satellites of the Russian Federation in space. And you think that only 4 of them are military?))


                  The satellites are monitored by hundreds of thousands of specialists.
                  Each satellite launched into orbit is closely monitored.

                  For a satellite, its purpose is primarily determined by the orbit, size, mass, maneuvers and other parameters that are easily and naturally tracked and with a probability of 100% provide comprehensive information about the actual purpose of the satellite for all interested parties.

                  And since you don't even know that, just don't write about the omnipotent companions.

                  The enemies know even more about our satellites than about our submarines.
                  1. set of sets
                    set of sets 27 October 2020 20: 01
                    -1
                    ,, The satellites are controlled by hundreds of thousands of specialists.
                    Each satellite launched into orbit is closely monitored. ,,

                    Studied by whom? Then Putin does not get tired of repeating that it is necessary to sign an agreement not to place weapons in outer space. But the US doesn't want that.
                    Even from this one can understand that anything can be launched into space.
            2. La Peruse
              La Peruse 27 October 2020 14: 46
              -1
              You can say more !!! Failed the program completely! And again, we stubbornly who will issue the CU? Or rather IDC?
              1. set of sets
                set of sets 27 October 2020 15: 01
                -7
                Do you believe the media more and people like Timokhin.
                If at the expense of conventional weapons, much is kept secret, and guarded as a state secret, then what can we say about space.

                The information in the media is very filtered. And even more so at the expense of space. Nobody really says anything.
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 27 October 2020 20: 56
                  +3
                  Quote: set of sets
                  Do you believe the media more and people like Timokhin.
                  Do you also think that Timokhin is overly optimistic?
    2. Igor Semenov
      Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 17: 21
      +1
      "To admit that the real world is difficult and very dangerous, a person with a weak psyche cannot, he does not want to live in a complex and dangerous world and is trying to come up with a plausible fairy tale for himself." Timokhin wrote this directly for you. Truth in another article
      1. set of sets
        set of sets 27 October 2020 19: 56
        -6
        Timokhin read articles before. The meaning is the same everywhere. Everything is lost.
        Of course, I have no access to classified information and, moreover, did not give any subscriptions. But from those puzzles that I have, I can imagine the big picture.
        For those puzzles that I know about, you will not find in the media and on the Internet.
        And if not for the knowledge about them, I would also believe Timokhin. But he has information only from open sources. That is, the filtered information shared with us by the Ministry of Defense and other government agencies.
        That is, we, in their opinion, should know what we know. And that's enough for us.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 27 October 2020 12: 03
    -3
    I have always believed that the Lidar is aboard the Dagger, not the radar. The dagger from the height of its flight, which is from 20 to 50 km, could scan the surface with Lidar and find the outlines of objects on the sea surface. Compare the outlines with the parameters of the goal, and choose the desired one from a variety of goals. Those. The dagger really needs a picture, like a pink Pony.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 13: 27
      +3
      There, the radio-transparent fairing is on the nose. This is kind of hinting.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 27 October 2020 17: 18
        0
        There are different types of Iskander missiles, including those with Lidar - a small window at the base of the conical part, looks a little ahead of the course. And with hypersound, the radio radar does not work. The dagger is a heavy Iskander, 1,5 tons heavier.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 27 October 2020 13: 56
      0
      The laser is optics. And this is the easiest to disguise. Even the little animals know this.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 27 October 2020 19: 58
        0
        Quote: mmaxx
        The laser is optics.


        Lasers are different, including non-optical range.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 28 October 2020 01: 46
          0
          The stump is clear. However, light is EMP. A laser differs in that there is one wavelength. You know which one, then you can choose a disguise method.
          And so, there, they look underground with lidars. As, however, and radars.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 27 October 2020 13: 55
    +1
    Based on the foregoing, one can understand how many problems an aircraft carrier formation creates. And also about how much it solves them. And talking about targets with an air defense / missile defense area with a radius of 600 km is generally ridiculous. This one target is now superior to any of our fleets.
  • Operator
    Operator 27 October 2020 14: 50
    -6
    Quote: Soho
    making it clear (even allegorically) that part of his audience is dumb

    A foreign agent, however.
  • Kushka
    Kushka 27 October 2020 15: 16
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    From high up to contemplate how the little people are swarming below, it must be fun.

    There are people who claim that there is a certain
    giant monster organism. Earth and humanity are
    somewhere on his heel there. All these our mega projects
    transcontinental power lines, railway lines - micro-
    scopic bundles of nerves. When something like
    Karabakh is an annoyance of sizes to a point, but something
    bigger, such as BOB - this is a purulent pimple, the size of
    poppy seed, itchy a little, that's all. We are
    of course, we consider ourselves the rulers of the Universe, and she
    actually the little toe of the left hind leg.
  • Igor Semenov
    Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 15: 57
    +4
    Great job. Together with the previous article, the complexity of the task of countering the enemy's surface grouping is clearly shown. And ... alas, the unreality of this venture in our modern conditions. Our Pink Pony also wears pink glasses.
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 27 October 2020 16: 23
    +4
    great article
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 27 October 2020 16: 36
    -4
    I agree that target designation aircraft should be based on TU160, SU, at least IL76, and not IL18, thanks to the dear Alexander Timokhin, for an interesting detailed study of the methods of warfare in the second half of the last century ..... in the first lines of my research Timokhin canceled satellite target designation ... the satellite not only sees everything, but also transmits information in digital form to the control center in real time from where it can be automatically transmitted to all interested ... the analysis of any images can be carried out using a primitive neural network, without human intervention, thus all data about the AUG and others are obtained ... with the indication of coordinates and speed ... all maps are digitized and are in the computer memory as a satellite and in the headquarters and on the ship, in the plane, so way BIUS can define the target itself and hit it with means of destruction ..... I completely agree with uv. Timokhin about the vulnerability of surface ships, the difficulty of targeting them, and the invulnerability of quiet and noiseless submarines creeping under water but having all the maps and coordinates of potential enemy objects in the BIUS. Yes, everything has been decided long ago, any normal satellite can transmit the coordinates of the detected target where necessary! " "Coordinates? Are they enough? What is target designation, you know? What is the meaning of this word? " the meaning of the word coordinates is, roughly speaking, latitude and longitude, and they are of course meaningless without a map, but together with the CIUS map stored in the memory, they are very informative, given that the coordinates of the ship itself are available in CIUS and also change in real time .. ..

    and everyone who disagrees with me Solzhenitsyn and rezuns, they for America and sold themselves to the State Department: Russophobes, pour mud on their country and do not understand anything at all! I send them emoticons with protruding tongues that just like that .... well, they look very convincing.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 October 2020 17: 23
      +6
      Quote: vladimir1155
      in the first lines of his research Timokhin canceled satellite target designation ... the satellite not only sees everything, but also transmits information in digital form to the control center in real time from where it can be automatically transmitted to all interested ...

      Too thick. smile
      For the real possibilities of satellite reconnaissance were discussed in the previous article of the cycle. The satellites, according to which it is possible to actually find and classify AB, do not hang, but quickly fly in orbits, looking at certain bands. And, knowing the timetable for the passage of satellites, you can pass through these strips unnoticed.
    2. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 19: 30
      +3
      and invulnerability of quiet and noiseless submarines, creeping under water but having all maps and coordinates of potential enemy's objects in the BIUS.


      I did not write this, Vladimir.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 27 October 2020 21: 01
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I did not write this, Vladimir.
        A comrade is trying to troll, so much so that already fat drips from the monitor.
  • prodi
    prodi 27 October 2020 17: 09
    -2
    in my opinion, we do not have the task of reaching a sea target anywhere in the world ocean. We have two or two and a half threatened directions over which geostationary satellites can be hung. The target they hit is placed on the GLONASS grid and the missile is sent to the desired square; as it approaches the design point, the satellite transmits the new coordinates of the target to the headquarters, and from there the corrected signal back through it to the rocket; at the final section, the missile seeker turns on
    1. Igor Semenov
      Igor Semenov 27 October 2020 17: 36
      0
      Read the previous article. At least in part of the alleged theater of operations
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 27 October 2020 19: 51
      -2
      I fully support it, it is not necessary to look at the whole world, I will say no more a naval missile defense system at all, we have only four important points on the oceans, Murmansk Arkhangelsk Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky and Vladivostok. and on land there are Voronezh, A50 locators, and satellites, too, there is also a completely empty term about some invisibility bands, this is far-fetched, satellites can look at everything, and it is very problematic to hide from them, for example, the bands themselves generally change in time and are secret, In the General Staff, too not fools sitting, the loss of the AUG will not go unnoticed up to the calculation of its probable location, taking into account the very bands of invisibility, if any. The neglect of the coordinates of the target expressed by Alexander Timokhin is also amusing, Mercator must have turned over in his coffin, and each navigator blushed with indignation ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 27 October 2020 18: 13
    +1
    Useful material for comprehension No.
    Everything, however, leads to the same situation as the missiles had in the 60s. KVO, i.e. the accuracy of the missiles was excessively high, and the answer for the SA and the Soviet Navy was the same - SBP, i.e. a nuclear tactical warhead!
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 October 2020 19: 18
      +3
      No, not at all.

      I will say even more - some of the things necessary to solve the problem are being done right now. Just really slow.
  • Old26
    Old26 27 October 2020 19: 11
    +6
    Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
    The Chinese missile is not guided like that. If you believe the Chinese tales, then their DF-21, when approaching the earth's surface, switches to horizontal flight. In horizontal flight at an altitude of 10 km, it turns on the radar, in general it turns into something like the Soviet P-6 rocket. In such a way that the BR detects a target from a thousand kilometers, even the Chinese did not guess to dream up.

    That's right, comrade, that these are stories. Like a ballistic missile, in which the OUT lasts about 2 minutes, it rises to its apogee (about 500 km), then the descending section of the trajectory begins. But after 120 seconds only the warhead will remain from the rocket. And it, this cone, at an altitude of 0 km goes into horizontal flight and turns on the radar. I can believe in the presence of a radar, but I DON'T BELIEVE in level flight. By the way, the Chinese themselves disavowed their statements that the missile could hit moving targets after they failed to achieve the required radar resolution.

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The satellite gives the position of the target at the time of the flight - but it can evade, see the previous article.

    She not only can evade, but will definitely evade. Moreover, the time of the satellite's flight is known. A few minutes before the ship (aircraft carrier, AUG, "devil bald") enters the viewport of this satellite, the ship can change course and for a certain number of minutes can go on a completely different course and at a reduced speed. For example, the true course of the AUG (aircraft carrier, ship) is 225. Before the satellite flyby, the AUG lays down, for example, on course 135. And what will give such "precise target designation". The enemy will catch the aircraft carrier and prepare to fire missiles at it, knowing that it is heading 135, and after overflying the AUG, it will return to the previous course 225. The simplest way to "disguise" one's true intentions. And one companion is not enough here. He will give out this ... We also need an aircraft that will act as a target designator
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 27 October 2020 19: 36
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      The enemy will catch the aircraft carrier and prepare for rocket fire at it, knowing that it is heading 135, and after overflying the AUG, it goes back to the previous course of 225.


      I think that the banal idea of ​​shooting (the same BR) while the AUG is in the field of view of the satellite has been considered and rejected. Why is it inoperative?
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 27 October 2020 19: 41
        -1
        It is necessary to bring this data into the rocket and bring the carriers into the launch zone, at least 1000 km to the AUG, and this is quite a long time during which the target coordinates will become hopelessly outdated.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 27 October 2020 19: 45
          0
          Quote: Lex_is
          You need to put this data into the rocket


          It seems to me that this is a purely technical problem (I am not saying that it is solved, but it is certainly solvable).

          Quote: Lex_is
          bring the carriers into the launch zone, at least 1000 km to the AUG


          The DF-21 has a declared range of 1700 km.
          1. Lex_is
            Lex_is 27 October 2020 23: 01
            +2
            The DF-21 has a declared range of 1700 km

            The DF-21A and 2700 were declared, the DF-21D was already reduced to 1450. With this brainchild of a gloomy Chinese genius, there are a lot of hover questions.
            The preparation time for launch, even for the last modification, is 9-10 minutes, the flight time is 12 minutes. Even if the data comes directly from the satellite to the launcher from the notch until the target is hit, it will take 25 minutes, this is + - 25 miles of target displacement, the Chinese are going to compensate for this by the massive volley, but the number of missiles is not infinite, they have about 20 batteries of three launchers, and deployed they are far enough from each other, which greatly complicates the simultaneous massive salvo. With a lot of luck, they will be able to attack AUG with 6-9 missiles, and, possibly, hit an aircraft carrier 1-2, while receiving a retaliatory strike from the air wing with 2-3 AUG, URO destroyers and nuclear submarines at the detected launchers. At the same time, the global drowning of the American fleet does not work out.
            And this is even if the Americans lose their minds and climb the AUG into the zone covered by missiles, which they are not going to do.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 27 October 2020 23: 40
              0
              Quote: Lex_is
              Even if the data comes directly from the satellite to the launcher, it will take 25 minutes to hit the target, this is + - 25 miles


              This is clear. But I said "shoot (the same BR) while the AUG is in the field of view of the satellite." Those. all the time, the satellite sees the target all the time, until the moment it hits.

              Quote: Lex_is
              The preparation time for launch even with the last modification is 9-10 minutes, the flight time is 12 minutes


              Where do the numbers come from? Bastion Karpenko gives a preparation time of 3-5 minutes. In total, we have 15 minutes from detection to defeat.
              1. Lex_is
                Lex_is 28 October 2020 11: 29
                0
                "shoot (the same BR) while the AUG is in the field of view of the satellite." Those. all the time, the satellite sees the target all the time, until the moment it hits.

                Now it is technically impossible even for the Americans, who have added trillions to their projects of a single information space, there are problems with the distributed volumes of transmitted data.
                Where are the numbers from?

                From Chinese publications.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 28 October 2020 14: 33
                  -1
                  Quote: Lex_is
                  there are problems with the distributed volumes of transmitted data.


                  You don't need a thick channel to transfer coordinates. But it may be difficult to place a sufficiently sensitive receiver on the BG.

                  Quote: Lex_is
                  Where are the numbers from?

                  From Chinese publications.


                  Clear.
                  1. Lex_is
                    Lex_is 28 October 2020 14: 57
                    0
                    You don't need a thick channel to transfer coordinates.

                    it may be difficult to place a sufficiently sensitive receiver on the BG.


                    There are no particular problems with transferring coordinates from a satellite to a warhead, this has been done for many years.
                    Only an optical and electronic reconnaissance satellite does not transmit the coordinates of a single target, there is a very large array of data that are processed and analyzed on the ground (and precisely for the sake of speed).
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 28 October 2020 15: 05
                      0
                      Quote: Lex_is
                      There are no particular problems with transferring coordinates from a satellite to a warhead, this has been done for many years.


                      By whom? I just doubt it. The transmitter on the satellite is a relatively low-power, sensitive receiver on the BG is unlikely to fit, its speed is several km / s.

                      Quote: Lex_is
                      there is a very large array of data that are processed and analyzed on the ground (and precisely for the sake of speed).


                      Yes. The Earth processes data from the satellite, calculates the coordinates, and transmits them to the BG. The stream is small, the transmitter can be used powerful, tracking BG is also no problem. It is not necessary to include it in the "single information space" - it is a complete analogue of long-range missiles with radio correction in the middle section and ARLGSN on the terminal, and they work without a "single information space".
                      1. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 28 October 2020 15: 14
                        -1
                        The transmitter on the satellite is a relatively low-power, sensitive receiver on the BG is unlikely to fit, its speed is several km / s.

                        The warhead satellites' GPS signals are fully accepted, although at high speeds there will certainly be problems.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 28 October 2020 10: 44
          -1
          this is done automatically by sending several bits of information at the speed of light
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 28 October 2020 10: 46
          -1
          Quote: Lex_is
          You need to put this data into the rocket

          this is done by sending several bits of information at the speed of light
          1. Lex_is
            Lex_is 28 October 2020 12: 31
            +1
            this is done by sending several bits of information at the speed of light

            Really?
            And where is it done and by whom? Elves in the land of pink ponies?

            Even the United States has not yet succeeded in including individual tactical units into a single information space.
            Ask about the status of their programs: AMCTN, WIN-T and others and the prospects for their completion. And there we are talking only about the network of automatic data exchange command - tactical units.