Military Review

Sea warfare for beginners. The interaction of surface ships and strike aircraft

242

A Soviet bomber and a Soviet missile cruiser in one shot are two parts of the same system that complement each other.


The fact that surface ships were often destroyed during World War II aviationand the fact that aviation has become the most destructive weapons in naval war, gave rise to a kind of "extremist" idea that with the development of strike aircraft capable of hitting naval targets, surface ships (NK) are outdated and in the event of a real war they will be quickly and ingloriously destroyed.

In domestic stories an ardent adherent of this point of view was N.S. Khrushchev, from the point of view of which, in the confrontation between aircraft and ships, the latter were doomed.

This view of things was due to the extremely primitive understanding of N.S. Khrushchev, according to the testimony of many contemporaries, he reduced all possible options for confronting the USSR Navy with the US and NATO naval and air forces to one and only one ꟷ “one of our ships reflects a massive air attack ". In fact, the world is much more complicated, although we admit that N.S. Khrushchev managed to cause serious harm to the development of the Navy, both by personal decisions and by conniving at subordination fleet army generals.

This had negative consequences during the Cuban missile crisis. At the same time, the views of N.S. Khrushchev and generals from the General Staff were simply not allowed to understand the reasons for the failure of Soviet actions and what measures needed to be taken in the future to avoid their repetition. The insight of NS Khrushchev did not finally come. However, this is a topic for a separate article.

Those interested in the realities of the confrontation between surface ships and aviation can familiarize themselves with the materials “Surface ships against aircraft. World War II "... With an analysis of a particular case - the catastrophe of October 6, 1943 on the Black Sea “October 6, 1943. Operation Verp and its lessons for our time. And with generalizations of real post-war combat experience (including Soviet) in the material “Surface ships against aircraft. Rocket era ".

Unfortunately, the “extremist” view of NK exists today. As well as the opposition of surface ships and basic strike aircraft. And the consequent opinion that the creation of powerful strike aircraft makes surface ships unnecessary for the Navy, since it replaces them or makes their survival impossible.

In our time, such ideas are becoming popular in society due to the spread of an infantile outlook on life and belief in various types of superweapons. (For example, the "Dagger" system). And also due to the inability of some people to accept reality in all its complexity. The latter is manifested in the fact that a simple listing of some of the difficulties that accompany the search for enemy ships (“Sea warfare for beginners. We take the aircraft carrier to strike ") in the ocean or the issuance of target designation for the use of missile weapons on them (“Sea warfare for beginners. Targeting problem "), causes aggression in such infantile personalities. And the low level of intelligence of such a contingent reduces in their views all the variety of situations possible in a war to one or two. (If the war, then with America. If with America, then unlimited. If unlimited, then only nuclear, etc.). Although (again) the real world is very complex.

There is also an opposite point of view, which has some distribution among the command staff of the Navy. And, on the contrary, it is associated with an underestimation of the importance of strike aircraft. It is known that today there is no Naval Missile Aviation in the Navy. Moreover, even the naval assault aviation capable of attacking surface targets in the near sea zone (and partially in the distant one, as will be shown), does not receive serious development. So until now in the Pacific and Northern fleets, it simply does not exist.

Sea warfare for beginners. The interaction of surface ships and strike aircraft
Su-30SM naval assault aviation. These aircraft can be very large, but there are no assault regiments in our most important fleets - the Pacific and Northern.

This point of view, nowhere formally spelled out, should also be recognized as extreme. Despite the fact that in the admiral's environment as a whole there is an understanding of the importance of naval aviation, in practice this understanding is not fully embodied in specific actions. Investments in submarines in terms of costs are simply incomparable with those in aviation, although the former cannot operate effectively without the latter.

In this regard, it is worth doing some analysis of the flights and show how surface ships and naval aviation (including base, non-ship) interact with each other and with other forces, and also why they cannot (or almost cannot) each other replace.

In order to simplify explanations (and without pretending to be universal), the topic will be reduced to the interaction of the NK and strike aircraft that hit surface targets. Submarines and anti-submarine aircraft will be mentioned on a limited scale. There will also be a limited number of examples. It is important for us to show the principles: any interested reader can understand everything else later on his own.

Some characteristics of surface ships and aircraft (as combat assets)


Ships, submarines and different types of aircraft have tactical properties that determine their use.

Without going deep into tactical properties, let us briefly analyze the differences in the characteristics of ships and aircraft as means of combat.


It is obvious that aviation is a salvo weapon. She delivers a very powerful blow. Then those aircraft that inflicted it cannot fight for some time, while the ship is capable of staying in the designated area for days upon detecting the enemy, attacking it until it is completely destroyed, or, conversely, keeping an eye out, and ensuring that aviation is directed at it. But his punching capabilities are limited. In addition, it is very difficult for him to replenish the spent weapons, sometimes it will be impossible at all, etc.

The simplest conclusion follows from this difference - aircraft and ships, due to different, even opposite properties, complement each other, and do not replace.
Consider a few examples.

Deployment in a threatened period, aerial reconnaissance, tracking, weapon tracking


A slightly clever man in the street sees the course of events from the middle - here we are already at war, here the enemy AUG is going to our shores (one), now we are her "Dagger" (one) ...

In reality (even without corrections for reconnaissance, command control and the capabilities of the "Dagger") this does not happen - any story has a beginning.

The beginning of the story called "military conflict" is the deployment of forces and assets by the enemy in the theater of operations (or theaters) with which he will fight. This is usually accompanied by many reconnaissance signs, such as a change in the nature of radio traffic, the appearance of new radio points, heavy traffic at military bases, the entry into the sea of ​​more ships than usual, and many others.

To hide such preparations, the enemy has been carrying out such pre-war deployments under the guise of exercises for many years. Where it works out misleading the intelligence of the defending side. In general, he learns to provide surprise, and even tries to do it realistically.

Since the time of S.G. Gorshkov, there is a trick against such a scrap - the notorious "pistol at the temple of imperialism", a surface ship assigned to the enemy's naval grouping, tracking it and not allowing (if possible) to break away from it.

Such a ship is always viewed by the enemy as a threat and fetters his actions. The enemy simply does not know what will happen in the event of aggressive actions on his part - the tracking ship itself will attack him or a powerful missile salvo will come from somewhere on his target ... You have to behave carefully.


Project 1135 patrol ship Zharkiy monitors the American aircraft carrier Nimitz and its escort, February 5, 1979.


Tracking "hard" - our 61st project goes side to side with an American aircraft carrier. But this is not yet a weapon tracking, but simply a daringly executed tracking, right inside the enemy's order.

In fact, we are talking about containing the escalation of the conflict.

S.G. Gorshkov said this about the MRK project 1234, but, in general, this is true in a broader sense. Since then, little has changed - in the age of satellite reconnaissance and computer networks, a surface ship is still the most reliable means of preventing the enemy from getting lost, but this enemy must be intercepted in time, and then not allowed to leave. For this, the ship must, first of all, be high-speed, its maximum speed at a given excitement must be higher than that of a typical "opponent", the ability to maintain this speed for a long time according to the reliability of the power plant is also, in the conditions of the far sea zone this often also requires good seaworthiness and cruising range - the enemy should not be able to drive the tracking ship before running out of fuel. This already implies some dimensions for the ship and nullifies the ideas of dreamers about a "mosquito fleet", although in the near sea zone such tasks can be performed by RTOs, only "normal" RTOs, such as the new Karakurt, and not missile barges of the Buyan type -M ".

At the same stage, NK begins to interact with aviation on the coast, while in terms of reconnaissance. This may be due to the fact that aerial reconnaissance will have to direct the ship to the enemy. Or vice versa. If the ship found the enemy itself, but the latter broke away from him, then it is necessary for someone to help "restore contact" - quickly, starting from the last information received from the ship about the location of the target, find it and either transfer it to the same ship, or, if the difference in the speed of the ship and the enemy ship group does not allow it to quickly catch up with it, then another ship operating in this area. Which requires a certain number of ships.

The second important point is that strike aircraft should be ready as soon as possible according to information from the ship to take off, carry out additional reconnaissance of the target and deliver a powerful blow against it, which would destroy it. That is, the headquarters begins combat work already at this stage.

Thus, it becomes clear that at least some surface forces are needed in any case. And that they should form a single system with aviation, in which each side fulfills its part of the common task.

The failure of a surface ship to contact or breaking communication with it with a high degree of probability means the beginning of a war.

If this did not happen, but the situation is aggravated, and the country's political leadership comes to the conclusion that the risk of a military conflict is growing, then from tracking NK they switch to tracking with weapons. That is, not only is the continuous pursuit of the enemy's ship group, but also the continuous determination of its movement parameters and the constant issuance of target designation to missile weapons, which are made ready for the fastest or immediate use. In especially "acute" cases, the order can be given in advance. And at the beginning of a massive rise of an air group from an aircraft carrier or launching cruise (or any other) missiles from enemy missile ships, they will be attacked immediately. However, this is not an ordinary case.

The ship carrying out direct tracking now occupies a position relative to the enemy from which weapons can be used. Together with him, other ships can begin to operate, ready to also strike the enemy.

And if against the ships of direct tracking of the US Navy was developed its own and rather effective tactics of "counter-tracking", then with the tactical reception of the Soviet Navy "tracking with weapons" (from a long distance), the US Navy was much worse.

Separately from the tracking ships, naval strike groups are formed, ready to launch a missile salvo at the enemy at the external control center. Other enemy ship groups are also monitored by weapons. The combat readiness of aviation rises at this moment, up to (temporarily) readiness number 1 (readiness for immediate departure, aircraft at the start, weapons suspended, engines tested, pilots in cockpits, combat mission set, aircraft technicians) by all or part of them.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that at this moment the key qualities of the ships are the ability to stay in a given area for a long time and pursue the enemy. It is critical at this stage to maintain the tracking of the weapon and here's why.

In the missile era, such a thing as preempting the enemy in the first salvo has become critical. The meaning of this is well known to the military, but among ordinary people you can constantly hear groans that "all the same, the US and NATO have superiority in forces, we can never compare with them, there is nothing to even try." And then there is either a proposal to surrender or a mantra about the inevitability of nuclear suicide.

Alas, politicians appear mainly from the composition of the inhabitants, so the issue needs to be clarified separately.

So, we have an enemy with 20 warships, which are combined into two large detachments of 10 ships each. Let's call them the American term "Surface Combat Group" - NBG. Each of the groups is monitored by a detachment of warships (OBK), capable of executing a volley of all their anti-ship missiles on command. Let's say that we have four ships in each of the squads, a total of eight, anti-ship missiles on each ship, 8 units, 32 in total for 10 targets.

The ratio of forces on ships is 20 to 8, or 2,5 to one in favor of the enemy. Let's say we "won" the first salvo - the ships of our OBK, tracking the enemy's NMC with the help of passive RTR and UAV means, with periodic reconnaissance missions of shipborne helicopters, at the time of receiving the order to strike, they had accurate data about the enemy. The enemy managed to mislead, using the setting of false targets, maneuvering unmanned boats with corner reflectors, the approach of helicopters and UAVs from the side of a false order and other measures that in any case must be followed. As a result, our volley went first to the target, and the enemy's volley went almost entirely to a false order, "catching" only one or two ships in both OBK.

Suppose that the enemy shot down some of the missiles, some went “not on their own” targets, a couple of three broke down and did not reach. As a result, the volley cost the enemy six ships in each detachment - partly destroyed at once, and partly lost their speed and combat effectiveness. The enemy was able to destroy one ship in one OBK and two in the second.

What is the balance of power? Now the enemy has two battle groups of 4 ships each, a total of 8. We have 3 left in one detachment, and 2. The overall ratio of forces in favor of the enemy from 20 to 8 has turned into 8 to 5. Got it?

This is how SG Gorshkov's “pistol at the temple” should have fired. An enemy with a machine gun is stronger than a shooter with a pistol, but he would not have had time to shoot. And it could have worked.

In a "missile" war, numerical superiority is assessed differently. And most importantly, it is much more important who first discovered and correctly classified their targets, and who won the first salvo. The Americans have a catch phrase, once said by the missile-era tactics guru, Captain Wayne Hughes:

"Attack effectively first".

In our country, the struggle for the first salvo was also and is of great importance. Here is a quote from the last Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy V.N. Chernavin:

“Such a specific feature as the growing role of the fight for the first salvo is becoming extremely important in modern naval combat. Preempting the enemy in striking a blow in battle is the main method of preventing his surprise attack, reducing his losses and inflicting the greatest damage on the enemy. "

But for preemption, it is necessary that missile carriers be at a salvo distance from the enemy and that they have sufficient information about the enemy to obtain a command control. In the USSR Navy, these were cruise missile carrier submarines and surface ships. In our example, surface ships. Aviation can theoretically be used in the first strike. But in practice, an attempt to do this can lead to a loss of surprise and the adversary gaining an understanding that we start first. NK, "shooting" according to the tracking ship (and he himself also participates in the strike), this surprise is ensured on condition of continuous and successful tracking with the transfer of the control center. And besides, continuous aviation tracking is very expensive.

The Soviet Navy on a large scale took aim at American forces under this scheme twice - in 1971 in the Indian Ocean and in 1973 in the Mediterranean Sea. In both cases, the US Navy's reaction was extremely painful.

Thus, at the stage preceding the start of hostilities, the role of surface ships is very important, as well as of the aircraft supporting them, mainly reconnaissance.

With the onset of the "hot phase" everything changes. The importance of strike aircraft is sharply increasing, while the role of ships as a strike weapon is decreasing, but not disappearing. And besides, they remain urgently needed.

War


Regardless of the "results" of the exchange of the first salvoes, now (with the beginning of hostilities) the enemy forces must be urgently destroyed. And here the planes will be the main violin. It is precisely such properties of aviation as speed, the possibility of delivering massive strikes, repeating these strikes after a short time and continuing hostilities, even having lost part of their forces, that make aviation the main weapon. But ships will also be in demand.

Let's go back to our situation with the exchange of volleys, the first of which we, for example, won. The balance of power after the battle changed in our favor. But it excludes the development of success by ships. In one case, our OBK of two ships must attack four. In the other, our three ships must attack four. Moreover, our ships do not have anti-ship missiles, they are used. Some of the anti-aircraft guns were also used up when repelling an enemy strike and hitting his UAVs and helicopters. That is, you will have to approach the range of artillery use. With a different balance of forces or accurate information that the enemy no longer has missiles, and there are no helicopters armed with anti-ship missiles, this could and should be done, but in a situation of the uncertainty that we have, this is an unacceptably high risk.

Therefore, now the ships are continuously monitoring the situation, transferring the command control to other forces. And only if possible, they finish off the enemy.

And the "coast" raises the planes to strike. The enemy may have a lot of anti-aircraft missiles. And, perhaps, it will take more than one attack to destroy it. Then the detachments of warships will be responsible for guiding air strike forces from the shore until the enemy is completely destroyed. They are also responsible for the tasks of rescuing pilots of downed aircraft, assessing the real results of the strike and (if necessary) finishing off the surviving enemy ships, as well as picking up surviving members of their crews from the water.

Naturally, this is not even close. In fact, much more depends on the ships. So, all of the above mental constructions can be canceled out by the weather. A banal side wind over the runway, if it is too strong (and we remember about the latitudes in which our country is located), means that the planes are chained to the ground, they can neither attack, nor even disperse and get out of the impact. In such conditions, the task of destroying the enemy or disrupting the opportunity to attack for him will completely fall on the surface forces, which are much less sensitive to the weather.

This is especially important in the fight against an enemy with aircraft carriers. For them, the wind itself is not a problem at all. The aircraft carrier simply turns towards the wind, and if it is too strong, then it slows down, and you can raise aircraft. If the enemy has “friendly” airfields on the ground where planes can be landed instead of an aircraft carrier, then the problem is even more acute. An aircraft carrier can raise aircraft to strike in such weather and with such a roll, in which it will not be able to sit on the deck later. Our planes are standing. This is, of course, an emergency, usually not done this way. But it is possible.

Another insurmountable factor is that it is the surface forces that will meet the enemy first. And if the enemy wins the first salvo, starts hostilities first, then the ships will have to hold on to themselves and fight without the help of aircraft before the aircraft arrives (and this is in any case several hours). This requires a lot: from the power of air defense and electronic warfare systems, to a stock of its own anti-ship missiles and the presence of UAVs on board for reconnaissance and helicopters armed with missiles. And there is no choice.

There is another factor associated with enemy submarines. If the enemy's submarines (SSGN) will be able to attack the CD "from under the coast" (in the absence of effective PLO and OVR forces), then the end of our airfields (too little flight time is obtained, we do not have time to react).

But if the near zone is provided (and ships are very important here), then the line of use of weapons (CR) at airfields is significantly postponed, which sharply increases the combat stability of our aviation.

Is it possible to do without ships in operations against enemy surface forces? We look at the map. The red line is close to the limit, which can be reached by an aircraft from the Su-35 family without strike weapons, but only with air-to-air missiles and a reasonable number of outboard fuel tanks (Su-34, 35 have them). The distance of this line from the Severomorsk-3 airfield (shown by the conventional sign "3rd class airfield", in fact it is 1st class, but it is inconvenient to draw) is about 1 kilometers. This is the theoretical limit on how far aerial reconnaissance can go. It is not difficult to see that she will have to explore vast areas to find "contact". Then it still needs to be classified, to establish what exactly these are goals. And then, in conditions of continuous opposition from enemy forces (including sometimes aviation), track the position of the target until the moment of the strike.


This is an extremely difficult task, the feasibility of which is highly questionable. Surface ships can be deployed in such a way as to turn this (essentially) search line into small areas. After all, having surface forces at sea, we can absolutely know exactly what where there is no enemy.

And this sharply narrows down the possible areas in which he is. Also, if there are surface forces that won the first salvo (which we should strive for in any case), by the time of the first air strike, we will have to deal with a much weaker enemy. It also removes the issue of maintaining "contact" from the moment the enemy is detected to the moment of the strike.

Next, let's pay attention to one more line - the green one.

This is a theoretical line at which an aircraft of the Su-27 family (the same Su-30SM or Su-34) can launch an attack without refueling in the air. About 1 km from Severomorsk-000, maybe a little further.


Kh-35 under the wing of a taking off Su-34. You can start the revival of naval strike aviation at least from this.

Thus, from the moment the target is detected and until the line at which we can shoot down “fire from the sky” on it, there is a rather large gap. And it, too, should be closed by ships and, possibly, submarines.

Naturally, there are a lot of nuances. For example, the fact that they will need to provide air defense in such actions. But ensuring the combat stability of forces is a separate topic. As a last resort, we have the same "Kuznetsov", which, perhaps, will allow us to gain time inside this 500-kilometer gap. It, however, cannot be repaired in any way. There are other solutions, more "bloody" for us, but also working.

The yellow line is the last line of defense, within which Su-24, MRK, missile boats can fight. After them - only helicopters, BRAV and ground forces with the Air Force.
There is one more factor that clearly requires the use of surface forces.

Time factor


Now let's consider a matter of time. Suppose that from the moment when the air regiment received the task to strike at enemy surface ships, and until the strike itself, 3 hours passed. From this period, the enemy, regardless of the losses incurred (if they are not absolute), gets some head start in time.

Suppose that we can only throw one regiment on this surface group, the rest are busy with other tasks.

Then we have that, having survived the attack, the enemy has about 2 hours in which the regiment will return to the airfield and land. Then about eight more (this figure depends on the type of aircraft and the quickness of the TEC and can vary) to prepare for a new sortie. And then three more for another blow. Total - 13 hours. With a 25-knot travel, the ship will go 325 miles or 602 kilometers during this time.

Of course, in the real world, another air unit can attack it during this time. But it may not attack. It will depend on the course of hostilities, on the situation. Who will close the 13:XNUMX gap? Who, at least, if he does not finish off the enemy completely after the attack of aircraft, then at least will not let him act freely? Who will provide aircraft with target data for the next strike?

Only surface forces. There is simply no one else to perform these tasks with the required reliability. In theory, aerial reconnaissance could in some cases provide strike aircraft with information about the target's location. But she is vulnerable. Even a non-carrier enemy can simply request fighter cover from the shore. And, if such a cover cannot protect ships against a massive strike, then against aerial reconnaissance it will.

In fact, of course, we will talk about the complex use of surface forces and reconnaissance (and, if possible, strike all the same) aviation, but it is about the complex. Separately, by airplanes, the task will be solved very poorly... However, it will most likely not be solved separately by ships. At least, with the existing numerical ratio with the likely enemy.

The problem of air defense and the actions of fighter aircraft


Up to this point, it was about the actions of strike aircraft based on the coast. It makes sense to talk about the extermination.

There is an opinion (and it is very common) that fighter aircraft from the shore can protect surface ships from air strikes. Let's look at this with numbers.

Let's say we hung the Su-35 with fuel tanks and armed it with only four air-to-air missiles so that it could go to the “red line” (see map) and stay there for one hour. It will have no fuel for a maneuvering battle. That is, he will be able to intercept at the maximum range and separation from the enemy with a PTB. It will not work in another way. Resetting the PTB will mean that it is impossible to return to base. If someone wants to fantasize about refueling in the air, then we may not even have enough tankers for bomber aircraft. So the presence of a refueling system is not essential in such a situation.

Then we count. Two hours there, an hour there, two hours back. Total five. Then inter-flight service. We can safely say that for one Su-35 it will be possible no more than two such sorties per day. Accordingly, a pair of Su-35s over the area of ​​action of the surface forces continuously means that we will have to have at least 24 aircraft on the shore. (Neither the capabilities of the pilots, nor the losses, nor the fact that 100% of the equipment can ever be in good order, etc., are taken into account, etc. That is, these are over-optimistic estimates that are impossible in reality for a more or less long period of time).

The question arises: "Will the enemy be able to cope with a pair of fighters incapable of maneuvering combat?" We look at the map - to the enemy airfields, basically, it is much closer (the same Keflavik). The enemy has high-class AWACS aircraft with a very high target detection range. Huge fleet of aircraft refuellers. And, most importantly, he knows in advance that there are only two interceptors.

Hence the simplest conclusion. The enemy will always be able to throw as many aircraft into the attack as the air cover cannot shoot down. Let us recall Operation Verpus. Our fighters were always above the detachment of the Black Sea Fleet ships and shot down German planes. But the enemy was building up his forces. And in the end, the ships were destroyed.

And from this the next conclusion - the ships will fight back themselves. And they must be able to do it. This does not mean that we need monstrous cruisers with hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles. We need to be able to mislead all types of enemy reconnaissance using the same methods that were described in the article “Sea warfare for beginners. We take the aircraft carrier to strike "... And also jointly act by dispersed forces, establishing an exchange of information between them. Use sea-launched cruise missiles against enemy airfields. The navy must first of all use this weapon to achieve its operational goals, and only then for hypothetical strikes against the enemy's rear.

We need the Air Force not to fulfill the tasks of the district commander (who will need to protect him Tanks from the air). And they waged a war for air supremacy in the entire theater of operations, destroyed enemy aircraft in the air and at airfields. And yes, we need our own aircraft carriers. Although some tasks (albeit with large losses) can be performed without them.

And at what distance from the coast (or the airfield where fighter aircraft are based) can ships count on fighter cover? Calculations made in the USSR showed that in the presence of a radar field with a depth of 700 kilometers or more, it is technically possible to provide cover for ships at a distance of about 250 kilometers. This required a combination of air duty of some fighters and at the airfield of ꟷ others.

Modern governing documents admit that right "under the shore" (a few tens of kilometers from it) it is possible to cover ships with fighters from the position of duty at the airfield. But in our case we are talking about completely different distances.

But what fighters can do is provide protection to strike aircraft.


Fighter cover.

In Soviet times, there were many ways to cover the same naval missile-carrying or attack aircraft. Fighters could escort attack aircraft to the line of missile launch at the target. Provide a "corridor" span. Organize a barrier in the air, which will cover the passage of attack aircraft. In some cases, to impose a battle on the enemy at his airfields, giving the "shock workers" time to fly to the desired point. They could have been brought out in advance to the line of launching missiles by attack aviation and ensured air superiority for a short time at this line. And here the situation is different - reasonable forces of fighter aircraft are quite enough for such things. Having a regiment of fighters on the ground on a combat mission, it can be sent all or almost all of it.

Thus, we state that the capabilities of fighter aircraft (working to solve naval missions) are limited. And because of this, it should be focused mainly not on attempts to provide air defense of ships at a great distance from the coast, but on the protection or support of combat missions of strike aircraft.

The solution of the air defense problem of naval strike groups at sea must be solved with the help of a set of measures, including the intensive struggle of our air forces for air supremacy in the theater of operations, strikes by the air force and the fleet (cruise missiles) on airfields with enemy aircraft for its destruction, the use of naval aircraft for fighting enemy aircraft over the sea, camouflage, the introduction of enemy reconnaissance in error, etc.

At the same time, due to the fact that we have only one aircraft carrier, we need to be ready to solve problems in the face of losses from actions of enemy aircraft, which requires an appropriate approach to choosing the ratio between the types of ships in formation and their number.

Why not submarines


In such actions, submarines can theoretically find their place. Just as in the Soviet Navy, the main carrier of guided missiles after naval missile-carrying aviation were submarines with cruise missiles - SSGNs of various projects.

However, today the level of development of the anti-submarine forces of our adversaries (NATO and the United States) has become such that the preservation of the secrecy of submarines is in question. This does not mean that they are not applicable. But this means that there are a lot of difficulties in the way of their application. So, for them it will be critical to the beginning of hostilities to be where they can strike at the enemy surface forces. Otherwise, you will have to catch up with him. And this is a guaranteed loss of secrecy. One sonar reconnaissance ship within a radius of several hundred kilometers from the submarine can already detect it or ensure its detection by other forces. Those methods of evading submarine attacks that ships can resort to (being in a drift, camouflaging among civilian ships, high speed, using helicopters, noise suppression systems) are not available for submarines.

In fact, due to the resources the enemy invested in their anti-submarine defense, we found ourselves in a “reverse world”, where our submarines will sometimes be more difficult to hide from the enemy than our ships. It's funny, but in a number of cases it will be so.

One of the reasons is that the ship that has given the fullest speed, in real hydrological conditions due to being on the border of the media, can be less visible target than PLA at the same speed.

In addition, a typical ship capable of delivering a powerful blow to enemy surface ships can be simple and cheap, whereas a SSGN cannot. The Ashes Quartet stands like a strike aircraft carrier.

All this does not negate the importance and necessity of submarines, both in local wars and in global ones. But in the event of a confrontation with Western countries, this will turn out to be a "niche" weapon.

Conclusion


Even for a fleet almost devoid of aircraft carriers, the presence of naval strike aircraft is a necessity. For Russia ꟷ this is especially true, due to its geographic location and the fragmentation of theaters of military operations. A quick maneuver between theaters of military operations in our conditions can only be carried out by aviation.

At the same time, the nature of the war at sea implies that it should be naval aviation, fighting under the general command of the surface forces, whose pilots "speak the same language" with the sailors and, in general, are "flying sailors".

Strikes against surface targets require a different (than that of the Air Force) training of flight personnel, headquarters, other organization, tactical schemes, a level of interaction with surface ships unattainable for “not our own” forces, the ability to act within the framework of a single plan with the rest of the fleet and other equipment. And this means that aviation must be specialized maritime.


Launch of a heavy anti-ship missile system "Brahmos" from the Indian Su-30. Formally being an air unit of the Air Force, the Brahmos aircraft will have a naval specialization, but will not have such close interaction with the fleet. We should not repeat this mistake, but similar X-61 Onyx missiles have been in service for a long time.

It is also obvious that the potential of naval strike aviation will not be revealed without surface forces. The opposite - the inability of the surface forces alone to protect the country and its interests is also true.

The problem is the air defense of naval strike groups and units of warships. Fighter aircraft from the shore will not be able to provide it, and the Russian Federation has only one aircraft carrier and its future is in question, as well as the possibility of building new ones (this is not a technical problem, but an "ideological" one).

But on the whole, the fact that in the future fleet surface ships and naval aviation will have to form a single complex is obvious.

This is the case when 1 + 1 (NK + aviation) becomes more than two. A system of interacting aircraft and surface ships is not reducible in power to its components. The same aircraft can provide surface ships with Zircon anti-ship missiles with data for the development of the central control system, and they will be accurate enough to shoot.

Sooner or later, in a good way (as a result of society's awareness of real, and not imaginary, threats and its interests) or in a bad way (as a result of the war lost due to stupidity), but this will be done.

Attempts that have taken place were ripped offbut we'll come to that anyway.

In the meantime, it makes sense to set priorities.


Attack aircraft over the attack ship. Pacific Fleet and Eastern Military District.

Let's finish with this symbolic photo. Let it be prophetic.
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy, RF Ministry of Defense, Brahmos Aerospace
242 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nikolay Ivanov_5
    Nikolay Ivanov_5 2 December 2020 18: 20
    +4
    It would have been better if Khrushchev had not been at the head of the USSR.
    1. Observer2014
      Observer2014 2 December 2020 21: 38
      +4
      Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
      It would have been better if Khrushchev had not been at the head of the USSR.

      And also Hitler, Yeltsin and mortgages! Plus the Mongol-Tatar yoke. I’ll get tired of bending my fingers until the morning. Target designation for anti-ship missiles over the horizon who and how will we do it? I will tell one thing not to you personally, but to everyone. But don't be offended. The impression is that the surface fleet is designed for the first cut. I'm talking about the Americans. And then the team to start from across Teikovo, for example. hi
    2. Imobile
      Imobile 2 December 2020 21: 45
      +9
      Rotten people come in a rotten system! Whatever you want
      1. timokhin-aa
        3 December 2020 11: 06
        +8
        Wrong. In a rotten system, normal people are forced to act rotten or leave.
        This is the problem with "bad" systems.
  2. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 2 December 2020 18: 21
    +3
    Thank you for the article.

    Let's say we "won" the first salvo - the ships of our OBK, tracking the enemy's NMC with the help of passive RTR and UAV means, with periodic reconnaissance missions of shipborne helicopters, at the time of receiving the order to strike, they had accurate data about the enemy. The enemy managed to mislead, using the setting of false targets, maneuvering unmanned boats with corner reflectors, the approach of helicopters and UAVs from the side of a false order and other measures that in any case must be followed.


    Here are just UAVs and unmanned ships with them, not with us.

    1. timokhin-aa
      2 December 2020 18: 33
      +12
      Fix not for long if you see the goal and go to it. We have all the technologies, we have industrial capacities, we have ideas too.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 2 December 2020 18: 35
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Fix not for long if you see the goal and go to it.

        I completely agree with this. That's just the keyword "If".
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 December 2020 00: 39
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Fix shortly if

        Alexander, hi
        Thanks for the article. A couple of remarks.
        1. There is some doubt that SSGN / MPLA will not participate in hostilities. I believe it is inappropriate to exclude our spacecraft, DGAN ships, coastal reconnaissance centers, etc. War is a complex and extremely versatile matter.
        2. At sea (without AVU), the problem of enemy DLOU systems can be solved only by a spacecraft with a beam weapon (laser) or an EM URO with a "chilled" S-400/500.
        3. The front commander will never give up his aviation to the naval forces, unless of course it is an operation led by the Supreme Command.
        4. The photo with the caption "Fighter cover" is not, in fact, such: it is a flight by a pair - Su-24 and Su-30. Fighter cover is carried out by closing the "zone" from which a bomber attack is possible. And this is more like an "escort", an escort ... But this - "foam" from the article.
        And a wish.
        And what's ahead? We talk all the time about the wars of the past, and not about what awaits us in the near future. How do you like such a fact as an EMP strike from space on enemy aircraft at the airfield, in the RBD, at the turn of the mission? Or jamming / distorting GPS signals?
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2020 11: 12
          +6
          1. There is some doubt that SSGN / MPLA will not participate in hostilities, I believe it is inappropriate to exclude our spacecraft, DGAN ships, coastal reconnaissance centers, etc. from the issuance of the control center.


          I did not write about the fact that they will not. It's just that in the case of Westerners, they will be tied hand and foot. That's how they will be. And they can shoot.
          MPLA is not being built or designed in our country, here the question is hanging ...

          2. At sea (without AVU), the problem of enemy DLOU systems can be solved only by a spacecraft with a beam weapon (laser) or an EM URO with a "chilled" S-400/500.


          Or stealthy ships. Or by including fighters with long-range explosive missiles in the strike group of aviation. Or...))))

          3. The front commander will never give up his aviation to the naval forces, unless of course it is an operation led by the Supreme Command.


          Will not give it up. Never. That is why aviation must be MARINE. What is written in the article.

          And what's ahead? We talk all the time about the wars of the past, and not about what awaits us in the near future. How do you like such a fact as an EMP strike from space on enemy aircraft at the airfield, in the RBD, at the turn of the mission?


          It may still be at the airport, but not in other cases. With space, such a topic - there is no hide, our radars detect objects from 5 cm in diameter, there is no escape from the energetically optimal orbit. Therefore, the prospects for space weapons are questionable, to be honest. Well, or it's a very distant future.

          I am for artificial intelligence and cyber warfare. Climb into the network of the enemy's combat control, give it KUGs of control units on each other, etc.
          The Americans are working on this, by the way.
      3. ancient
        ancient 3 December 2020 12: 35
        +8
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Fix not for long if you see the goal and go to it.

        I liked the article .. there are "controversial" points, but they relate exclusively to the intricacies of "specifics":
        1. On M / U (when maintaining real databases) do not look at all .... from the word .. "no way" ..... "the party said it is necessary, the crew answered there". All at once get a takeoff "mm" 0/0 (if the c.c. is very .. "not experienced", then on the right the one who can wink
        Runways, as a rule, are built taking into account the "wind rose" .. so crosswinds that go beyond the restrictions on the aircraft (takeoff and landing) are extremely rare.
        Everything else is like fog, rain, snow, hail, heavy rain, thunderstorm .. "stones from the sky" .. swept away. laughing
        All of the above has been "tested" repeatedly, so ..... I ask you not to dispute soldier
        2. I would move the reach line (red) so 200-300 kilometers in our direction (reconnaissance and additional reconnaissance must be carried out .... maintaining at least 5 minutes WB must be performed, etc.) .. the only thing is to reach the line and immediately launch either "in-in" missiles or a couple of anti-ship missiles and immediately go home .. while at the M modes 0,75-0,85 ..... no more.
        3. The flight of combat aircraft is not limited ... there is such a method as a "conveyor" during an Air Operation .... the first flight was performed, arrived, preparation (refueling, suspension, checking and troubleshooting) and immediately forward (if ready BZ) .... they no longer look at the starting time for the crew (pilot) (within reason, of course) .. if you "fall out" strongly, then they give time to rest and .. again into the "battle".
        From my own experience - VO lasted 64 hours, the crews performed 3-4 flights each,
        with a departure duration ... "more than 4 hours 30 minutes") ... were VO and with a shorter duration wink
        So what an article ... "OFFSET" good soldier
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2020 15: 20
          +3
          Runways, as a rule, are built taking into account the "wind rose" .. so crosswinds that go beyond the restrictions on the aircraft (takeoff and landing) are extremely rare.


          I described the situation when exactly this happened.

          For the rest, thanks for the comments.
          1. ancient
            ancient 3 December 2020 17: 44
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I described the situation when exactly this happened.

            So I described the situations when all this was in reality ... when the side was under 25 meters .. with gusts and more ... and nothing .. ahead of the orders (though not right in the side under 90g, but still ).
            But he did not make a reservation that it was with ordinary cast iron and in general ... with cast iron ... with an unbalanced suspension ... it would be really ... catastrophically difficult. wink
          2. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 18: 01
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I described the situation when exactly this happened.
            For the rest, thanks for the comments.

            When what happened?
            When the runway was built by not the smartest people across the wind rose, in the lowlands, where the fog is regular?
            Or when people, having the achievements of modern meteorology, hammered such a thick long bolt on it and, as a result, SUDDENLY, a monthly norm of precipitation fell out overnight "in the cabin"?

            I apologize for the irony, but seriously - you apply probabilistic events only to aviation.
            Why not the ships?




            if it is too strong (and we remember about the latitudes in which our country is located), meaning

            And about the latitudes in which the seas and oceans are located, we will not remember? Is it always quiet and calm? And of course, it doesn't affect the performance of combat missions like the video?


            This particular point is very biased. Here we will write about the weather, but here we will not write.
            1. timokhin-aa
              3 December 2020 19: 01
              +2
              1. The distance between the airfield and the target for strike at sea can be up to 1000 km, the weather will be different.
              2. An example from Flitex 82, when Intruders climbed into the air. space of the USSR, and our interceptors could not take off to intercept in such weather.

              The opposite situation may well be, I do not deny.
        2. Bez 310
          Bez 310 3 December 2020 17: 06
          +4
          Quote: ancient
          From my own experience - AO (air operation) lasted 64 hours, the crews performed 3-4 sorties each, with a departure duration ... "more than 4 hours 30 minutes") ... there were also AOs with a shorter duration

          The Naval Aviation missile carriers had a different standard,
          which was practiced at each exercise (LTU, DAU,
          GMO) - 3 regimental strikes in 36 hours, with each
          departure at least 4 hours, with a mandatory boarding
          other airfields.
          But all this is in the past, and this will never happen again ...
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy 2 December 2020 18: 44
      +1
      Here are just UAVs and unmanned ships with them, not with us.


      And we also had ...

      Another area in which the USSR succeeded significantly in the 30s was unmanned surface ships.
      High-speed torpedo boats have always played an important role in protecting the Russian coast, and since the 1920s, Soviet engineers have been working on a "radio-controlled boat". They were to be sent in waves against the invading enemy squadrons to disrupt their order, distract their attention - and thus facilitate attacks from their warships.
      Developed in 1933, the wave-guided motor boat was a version of the standard G-5 (G-5) torpedo boat equipped with a radio control system. Two parallel (HF and UHF) radio channels were used to transmit command signals with acoustic tone modulation.
      The control system using the gyroscopic autopilot could execute commands such as starting the engine, stopping, changing speed, turning left, turning right, turning left / right at a certain angle (1, 5 or 30 degrees), creating a zigzag pattern of movement, installing a smoke screen and, of course, launching a torpedo. The control was carried out from the MBR-2-VI seaplane.
      It is interesting to note that the system was "programmable". Multiple turn commands can be sent in a pattern to make the boat turn exactly at a certain angle. For example, to turn 24 degrees to the left, the commands "30 left", "5 right", "1 right" were set, and a special electromechanical "adder" that summed them up as + 30-5-1 = 24. So the course can be was set very well.
      In 1935-1938, about 200 radio-controlled motor boats were built for the Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific fleets (deployment for the Northern Fleet was also planned shortly before the war). They were used in a 24-man battalion added to the standard torpedo boat brigades with specific seaplane squadrons attached to operate them.
      Unfortunately, they did not have the opportunity to prove themselves. German large ships did not particularly risk going to the Soviet coast. In the Baltic, these boats were essentially used as conventional torpedo boats, because, due to heavy losses, the air command could not provide fighter cover for its slow and vulnerable control seaplanes.
      On the Black Sea, the situation was the same - there were no suitable targets, the enemy was superior in the air. However, some radio-controlled boats (filled with tons of explosives) were used in 1943 to attack German-controlled ports and bases on the Black Sea.
      In the Pacific Ocean, radio-controlled boats were dispersed along the coastline to organize ambushes in the event of a Japanese invasion (which did not happen). After the war, all the remaining boats of this type were decommissioned. Later, their experience was used in the development of radio-controlled target boats for the USSR Navy.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 2 December 2020 21: 40
        +4
        On the Black Sea, the situation was the same - there were no suitable targets, the enemy was superior in the air. However, some radio-controlled boats (filled with tons of explosives) were used in 1943 to attack German-controlled ports and bases on the Black Sea.

        There was an episode with the use of these "wave control boats" in the Kerch port, which ended in nothing.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 December 2020 13: 35
        +3
        Quote: Choi
        And we also had ...

        There were. Only for their use local air supremacy was required. Simply because the MGH wave control equipment and the presence of a dedicated control operator forced the use of a bomber as a carrier, which became a target without fighter cover (especially taking into account the need to limit maneuvering to ensure the operator's work). So at least take a "barn" or a "pawn" as a carrier - and be so kind as to provide cover.
        And now we recall that the combat radius of the main fighter of the Navy Air Force until 1943, which was the I-16, was only 165 km.
  3. Lex_is
    Lex_is 2 December 2020 18: 43
    +7
    Alexander, thanks for another wonderful article!
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 11: 13
      +8
      Please, I will write further.
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 2 December 2020 18: 54
    +8
    Yes, dear author, the topic is very serious! Thanks!
  5. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 2 December 2020 19: 17
    -14%
    A strange situation comes out..A plane with a Dagger-fu-fu-fu, profanation, wet dreams of hurray-patriots ... and then about "we need a plane with Onyx" .. And nothing that for Onyx, in fact, there are the same problems with the need target designation? Why don't they buy them? Everything is banal: the General Staff first provides coastal defense at the expense of the Bastions, which is actually being carried out now, then shipments and submarines are delivered from the TLU for Caliber and Zircon, which will allow the fleet to "put teeth". The idea with the MPA rests on the fact that the aircraft need a modern means of destruction. Now there are those same MiG-31K with Daggers, but they are in trial operation, but they are participating in exercises and they can be quickly transferred to the desired area - to strike and quickly pull back into the continent from under the blow, also Tu-22m3m with X-32, which can also be used by Daggers, this is of course a half-hearted solution, but it is. You can, of course, buy Onyx, but then the order for other types of weapons is reduced, namely, we are talking about hypersonic air-launched missiles, which are now quietly being finished and, unlike the same Daggers, they can be safely hung even on the Su-34, even on the Su- 35, even on the Su-30SM2 ... It's just that there is an option either to invest in Onyx and then sit with them as with a decommissioned bag, or to invest in GZURs ... Onyx creates parity with the USA, but GZUR gives such an advantage to in fact, it changes the rules of the game ..
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 December 2020 20: 14
      +20
      Yes, there will be no Daggers, in three months that very speech of Putin will already be 3 years old, by the time the rockets were already flying from the planes, do you see at least one part with Daggers today? Is there an order for adoption?
      No.
      But no, because this is not at all what you were told about, and this rocket was shown with very specific goals that were not achieved.

      Dagger is not able to target sea targets. And it never will. It needs to be lightened up to three tons and modified for its use by the Su-34, at least new ones, then a very good tool for a SUDDEN strike on ground targets, from the deep rear, can be obtained. For this it is necessary to "pump" the Dagger, and not to rush with it as a fetish.

      also Tu-22m3m with X-32, which can also be used by Daggers


      Here the pros could not stand it and blabbed en masse about the fact that these aircraft had a glider resource at the limit. There will be no Tu-22M3M and X-32 neither in production nor in armament.
      Take soothing.

      which are now quietly being finished and, unlike the same Daggers, they can be safely hung even on the Su-34, even on the Su-35, even on the Su-30SM2 .. It's just that there is an option to either invest in Onyx and then sit with them like with decommissioned bag, or invest in GZURs ..


      And where is this weapon? How long to wait for it? Ten years? Twenty? If you believe the parameters that the former Commander-in-Chief Zelin once voiced on this rocket, before the series, like before China, in an uncomfortable position, Zircon is completely resting.

      Onyx could have been in service with aviation for two years, if that.

      And you are still hovering in the clouds, in some future, which is unknown when it will come.
      We have a global war before it will start before all this will happen and into it, thanks to such uryakalka like you, we will have to enter with bare hands and fantasies that "just about, wait another five years and that's it ..."
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 2 December 2020 22: 32
        -9
        1) I will give advice, never say never, otherwise it will be very funny then to listen to indistinct bleating on the topic "and you told us that this is not."
        2) Interestingly, it turns out that there is no Tu-22m3m, although there are already several machines on trial ...
        3) the production of new carcasses is planned to be established in the near future after the development of the production technology.
        4) "let's make it easier and put it on" .. Why don't you like the GZUR?) If you weren't shown, this does not mean that this does not exist in nature .. And then I was repeatedly told that there was no Zircon either .. but it turns out to be on tests are ..
        5) the war is already going on in their heads ... but this does not prevent them from writing articles)
        6) we will do so, I don’t want to argue, because you don’t perceive my position, because "I am an expert and you fly in the clouds." that there are no X-22s, that there are no GZURs ... in general ... I will take this topic under control ... and I hope I will not forget to remind you that some experts write too expertly, for example, when the Tu-3m32m will be transferred to the troops ... And this is expected next year, while he is being tested at the factory ... so for now, prepare excuses laughing
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2020 11: 27
          +4
          1) I will give advice, never say never, otherwise it will be very funny then to listen to indistinct bleating on the topic "and you told us that this is not."


          Yeah, so far only the other way around comes out - year after year, a joyful quack about what "will be". And it never comes. I will give you advice - buy a textbook of the Russian language and a textbook on logic, and realize the difference between the future and the present, the current and expected events. The main thing that needs to be learned is that "will" and "become" are two different things.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 14: 48
            -6
            learn it, because it is rather strange to listen to how the plant representatives show videos of Tu-22m3m flights and say that the tests are on schedule and the transfer will take place in 2021, and as expert journalists on the network claim that there are no planes and will not be ... in general, I suggest postpone the dispute for 1 year .. do not be afraid, I will remind)
        2. ancient
          ancient 3 December 2020 12: 42
          +4
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          Let us fix that expert Timokhin said that Daggers cannot be used for sea targets, that no tu-22m3m exists, that no Kh-32 exists,

          Why don't you .. "like"? .. Hits ... fellow -consciousness "?
          1. Yes .. they do not know how at the moment ... choose either the speed or the detection of your seeker and hitting the target.
          2. Only 2 units and then .. on trials .. how to end .. "we'll see."
          3 Learn what AKR X-32 is ... there they write for "especially" gifted "everywhere ....." tested with the warhead TK-56 "... if this doesn't tell you anything, then ... get into aviation "topics wassat
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 14: 51
            -7
            one more ... 1) you personally reported the test results or are you still rushing about with a statement 2 years ago about "well, he can't aim because we were not told how."
            2) how many units should be tested? All 30 boards?
            3) are you not tired of retyping the same thing? Or is it age-related?
            1. timokhin-aa
              3 December 2020 16: 07
              +4
              It's just that a person has flown in these Tu-22Ms all his life, he knows something. That's all.
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 20: 23
                -11%
                the fact that a person has flown does not mean that he knows all the plans of the General Staff, especially considering that I suspect that this person has not been flying for a long time and is retired
            2. ancient
              ancient 3 December 2020 17: 49
              +5
              Quote: Boris Chernikov
              1) the test results were reported to you personally, or are you still rushing about with a statement 2 years ago about "well, he cannot aim because we were not told how."

              We leave this without comment ...... consider that you are simply informed bully
              Quote: Boris Chernikov
              2) how many units should be tested? All 30 boards?

              It depends on what type and what kind of tests wink On the Tu-22M ... there were a dozen 0s (not counting the lost ones) bully
              Quote: Boris Chernikov
              ) are you tired of retyping the same thing? or is it age-related?

              It is clear .. that "you are taught, anyway, that ... one subject is blunt" or is it possible in Russian, "like peas against the wall" or you just .. "on a salary2 and .." work out "? wassat
              Then really .... "here medicine is already powerless" hi
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 20: 55
                -8
                about "awareness" .. if someone told you that it seems to him .. then you need to be baptized.

                with the difference that the Tu-22m is a new aircraft, and the Tu-22m3m is a modernized one ... of course, you need to make a dozen prototypes laughing .

                about nuclear submarines on the X-32 ... how is this in principle connected with the war? or do you really believe that in the event of a war against NATO, someone will be so scrupulous? just the use of the X-32 can serve as a cooling factor
                1. ancient
                  ancient 4 December 2020 00: 15
                  +3
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  about "awareness" .. if someone told you that it seems to him .. then you need to be baptized.

                  You are probably from " fellow slogans "so stubborn or in life fool ..... or maybe you just "work out" or .. "you are playing a fool"?
                  What do you think that we served in complete solitude, without communicating with anyone, flying, completing assigned tasks, teaching our subordinates ... and subordinates "grow up" in their positions, etc. and always communicate with their former commanders and superiors? belay
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  with the difference that the Tu-22m is a new aircraft, and the Tu-22m3m is an upgraded

                  So natural ... so why only two .. "bungled" everything and .....? wassat
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  about the nuclear warhead on the X-32 ... how is this in principle connected with the war?

                  Well, surely you are some kind of "jacket" at best .. or do not know how to "jump" or "get out of the puddle" into which you drove yourself? wassat
                  Here is your quote - ".... that no X-32 exists wassat or didn't you already write it?
                  And what is it for, this rocket is intended ... for "scarecrows"? lol
                  Those. it is not clear for you that the TK-56 is much smaller in size and volume than the usual FBCH, due to it an additional tank appeared and the Range increased ... and if the TK-56 is "removed" from there .. how are you ... "fly" to "your fellow -1000km "? wassat
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 13: 58
                    -8
                    maybe because "the old experts, Who have flown for a long time" cannot understand that the test agreement includes testing two machines while the rest are undergoing modernization? Oh yeah .. it's hard to understand .. You’ll decide in a friendly family there .. you have one The X-32 does not exist, the other does exist .. and then you are unanimously confused even in general indications .. but you are making claims to me .. not a very good bell for your health, I’ll look .. especially funny that I write, yes, I’m aware of YABC and this is normal .. and they immediately write to me about "oh, how will you fly with an ordinary warhead" ... you need to drink a glycine request
                    1. ancient
                      ancient 4 December 2020 14: 30
                      +5
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      Those who have flown for a long time "cannot understand that the test agreement includes testing two machines

                      Are you familiar with the text of the State Contract for the implementation of R&D concluded between the customer and the main R&D contractor? wassat
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      while the rest are undergoing modernization?

                      belay belay belay
                      Remember, but better hack to yourself .. on a "stubborn nose" that until all the stages of the factory and LKI have passed .. no .. "the rest of the machines" will not be upgraded ", but only after the implementation of the ALL plan of joint work on the implementation of R&D (CCH OKR), working design documentation (RDC) is assigned the letter "O1", the presence of which allows organizing serial (industrial) production to create a VT product as a whole. soldier
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      . You there in a friendly family decide .. you have one X-32 does not exist, the other does exist .. and then you are amicably confused even in general indications.

                      Nobody makes any claims to you ..... already wrote that to explain something to you, it's like .. "peas against the wall."
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      well, yes, I am aware of the nuclear warhead and this is normal .. and they immediately write to me about "oh, how will you fly with an ordinary warhead" ... you need to drink a glycine

                      Those. from your above it is written that you are a complete fool ..which cannot understand in any way .. that in order to increase the flight range of the AKR, first of all, more fuel is needed, and in order to have it, an additional tank is needed, which (with constant line-up of the rocket glider) can be placed only due to the availability of "free space" in another compartment ..... so we found this place ... since the SBS takes up much less space and volume than the FBCH .. therefore the rocket and .. "flew" within 1000 km, and if you put a standard FBCH into it, then the rocket will fly with the characteristics of ed. 102 and 108.
                      God ... well, to whom am I explaining this belay belay
                      1. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 17: 01
                        -8
                        laughing you explain to the plant in Kazan .. why they are modernizing Carcasses .. ah ah what are bad ... about "you are an engineering thought .." and that's all ... I'm in the COURSE that yabch is put on the x-32 and I already wrote that it is just the use in the event of a full-scale conflict of anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads that is even preferable precisely due to a clear definition that it is better not to joke with Russia ... Well, to a heap of information about the tests with the Yabch simulator does not mean that the office of the BCH was abandoned altogether, I personally do not see any problems to make the same OF BCH in the same 500 kg weight / size, so that a fuel tank of 400 liters would fit in too ... but there is an opinion that you did not even think that you can make a new warhead laughing
          2. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 20: 16
            +1
            Quote: ancient
            Why don't you .. "like it"? .. Strongly hits the ... -consciousness "?
            1. Yes .. they do not know how at the moment ... choose either the speed or the detection of your seeker and hitting the target.
            2. Only 2 units and then .. on trials .. how to end .. "we'll see."
            3 Learn what AKR X-32 is ... there they write for "especially" gifted "everywhere ....." tested with the warhead TK-56 "... if this doesn't tell you anything, then ... get into aviation "topics

            You are a knowledgeable person, please explain one point.
            Why is it impossible to sharpen the Tu-160 under the tasks mentioned in the article?
            1. timokhin-aa
              3 December 2020 20: 24
              +5
              Because:

              1) Monstrous price
              2) Special fuel
              3) Specific infrastructure
              4) Many, many hundreds of man-hours of inter-flight service
              5) Giant EPR
              6) Inability to conduct aerial combat
              7) Failure to urgently dump the load and perform a maneuver, for example, an anti-missile one.
              8) Requirements for aerodromes

              This aircraft is not a weapon, it is a demonstrator of technology, and the Tu-95 is much more useful.

              But in reality, you just need an aircraft based on the Su-34, and that's it, you don't need to invent anything.
              For the first time, even a Su-30SM modified for a heavy missile would fit.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 20: 40
                -4
                1) Monstrous price

                There is no need to use epithets in isolation from efficiency.
                Everything is relative.
                1 Tu-160 costs as 18 Su-34
                Carries load as 6
                At the same time he is on duty at all "theaters" at once.
                We have 5 fleets. 6 * 5 = 30.
                Those. it is already more effective for combat duty. And there are many more goodies.
                The range is much greater.

                2) Special fuel

                What’s the problem here?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  3 December 2020 21: 09
                  +5
                  Why don't you think? Now in Port Sudan, the PMTO is being equipped, the question of air support for the ships based on this PMTO will arise.
                  Let's say ours also rent an airfield.
                  And what, Tu-160 to throw there?
                  Why write such nonsense?

                  1 Tu-160 costs as 18 Su-34
                  Carries load as 6


                  After revision for naval strike missions, it will be like 20 Su-34.
                  20 Su-34s are up to 40 heavy anti-ship missiles in a salvo, this is the ability to operate in two theaters at once, based on any airfield, up to ice, etc.
                  It is also impossible to shoot them all down with one rocket.
                  And they carry UR explosives, they can defend themselves.
                  And the Tu-160 needs a fighter cover.

                  Well, a day at the airfield after departure from TEC, which would be enough for the squadron.

                  What’s the problem here?


                  Yes, it's a trifle, you can't send a plane to an alternate airfield. He does not fly on a standard TS-8
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 22: 10
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Why write such nonsense?

                    Show me where the nonsense is written?
                    Yes, there really is a better small plane.
                    But defending our country is much more important than defending an MTO point.
                    And in the defense of the country, everything that I wrote about the division into 5 fleets is true.

                    It is also impossible to shoot them all down with one rocket.

                    Can you describe who will direct the enemy air defense missiles?

                    Given the fact that the task of the Tu-160 is simply to "throw the" BK "on the move" to the skirmisher in the form of a ship, which will continue to fly?


                    And the Tu-160 needs a fighter cover.

                    Let the local guys do it.
                    The fact that the Su-34 is tailored to perform tasks without cover is an "option".
                    This does not mean at all that it will be more effective than air defense fighters in this matter.
                    On the contrary, having taken heavy anti-ship missiles, he will not be able to take medium-range explosive missiles and will be content with only the R-73 at the tips.
                    In any case, if local aircraft take over the air defense missions, they will be much more effective in this banal body kit.

                    Well, a day at the airfield after departure from TEC, which would be enough for the squadron.

                    What day? Where are you going to fly?

                    Yes, it's a trifle, you can't send a plane to an alternate airfield. He does not fly on a standard TS-8

                    In my opinion, you are sucking invented problems out of your finger.
                    Have you seen its range?
                    They need 1 basing airfield and 2 operational airfields - in the west and in the east.
                    When they bombed Syria, they worked out the route, from the airfield they first flew to the north, landed there, refueled and flew to Syria.

                    Let us also remember the scale of what we are discussing the aircraft - the scale of the logistics of 5 fleets.
                    Those. it's not a "problem" at all ...

                    It is also impossible to shoot them all down with one rocket.

                    On the other hand, you can use tamahawks with an inertial boss to stutter the home airfield, which cannot be far away because of the radius.
                    1 rocket for takeoff.
                    How will the eagles take off? Well answer)

                    20 Su-34 is up to 40 heavy anti-ship missiles in a salvo, this is the ability to operate on two theaters

                    How will they operate in the Northern and Pacific fleets?
                  2. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 23: 11
                    -3
                    As for what I briefly referred to in the previous post, regarding operational airfields.
                    - We operated in two parts of the Long-Range Aviation group. One on long-range Tu-22M3 bombers operated from the Mozdok airfield, bombing infrastructure facilities (the names of which cannot be named on decent websites). The other included the Tu-95MS strategic missile carriers, which flew directly from the Engels-based airfield, and the Tu-160 strategic missile carriers, which operated from the Olenegorsk operational airfield.
                    The crews of the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 struck at enemy targets with air-launched cruise missiles.
                    The Tu-22M3 aircraft, redeployed, were not immediately involved in the operation, so they were preparing for a possible involvement in combat work, performing training flights.
                    In the shortest possible time, training was carried out for flight, engineering and technical personnel and the material part of strategic missile carriers for the use of cruise missiles.
                    In total, both long-range aviation groups performed 145 sorties, dropped 1500 aerial bombs at previously reconnoitered targets, and used 15 cruise missiles, including new missiles from Tu-160 aircraft, which have an increased flight range.

                    For clarity, Engels, Syria, Olenegorsk.
                    1. ancient
                      ancient 4 December 2020 00: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      Tu-95MS, which flew directly from the Engels-based airfield, and the Tu-160 strategic missile carriers, which operated from the Olenegorsk operational airfield.

                      And where did you read that that the Tu-160 "worked" with Olenya through the territory of the Russian Federation? ..... They flew "around the corner", further across the Atlantic they entered Mediterranean and ...... and the Tu-95MS from Engels and Tu-22M3 from Mozdok flew through the "Caspian".

                      1. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 03: 06
                        -2
                        And where did you read that, that the Tu-160 "worked" with Olenya through the territory of the Russian Federation? ..... They flew "around the corner", further across the Atlantic they entered Mediterranean and ...... and the Tu-95MS from Engels and Tu-22M3 from Mozdok flew through the "Caspian".

                        Nowhere. What makes you think that I read it? Screenshot from google maps, I did it quickly for clarity - the main thing there are points.

                        So, what do you think about the optimization of the Tu-160 for the tasks under discussion? In all variants - in addition to the Su-34, instead of the Su-34.
                        And what do you think about the Tu-22? Needed / not needed?
                      2. ancient
                        ancient 4 December 2020 12: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        What makes you think that I read it?

                        So you .. the TEXT is quoting and it is not clear some screenshot ..... but not me? wink
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        So, what do you think about the optimization of the Tu-160 for the tasks under discussion? In all variants - in addition to the Su-34, instead of the Su-34.
                        And what do you think about the Tu-22? Needed / not needed?

                        I answered in detail all your questions .. read carefully .. I did not touch only the su-34, since the author has already explained everything in detail wink
                    2. Alexander Vorontsov
                      Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 11: 30
                      -1
                      By the way, how would you comment on this "masterpiece"?
                      He will not succeed in another way. Resetting the PTB will mean that it is impossible to return to base.

                      What kind of logic is this?

                      The PTB capacity is 4, against 000 internal ones.
                      And when the plane enters the "line" they already end + -
                      But the inner tanks are not touched.

                      Those. 75% of its fuel in internal volumes.
                      And when the zavorushka starts, they just fold for the best aerodynamic quality. EMPTY tanks ....
                      By what logic dropping the PTB dooms the plane to non-return, I generally cannot understand.

                      Please clarify this point?
                2. Alexander Vorontsov
                  Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 00: 43
                  -2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Why don't you think? Now in Port Sudan, the PMTO is being equipped, the question of air support for the ships based on this PMTO will arise.
                  Let's say ours also rent an airfield.
                  And what, Tu-160 to throw there?
                  Why write such nonsense?

                  By the way, about the example and "Nonsense".
                  In all of your examples, you are regularly fond of field battles.

                  As if we are talking about some ancient wars, the time of Achilles. When 2 armies met and began to fight. And before this battle is over, no one can go further.

                  In reality, it is not at all necessary to apply the answer in the very place where you hit you.

                  You can attack targets that are much more expensive and important than some squad of ships that bite into ours.

                  They attacked our PMTO - we took out their base.
                  And it will remain for them, as you wrote, to replenish stocks in "any bay". The mines will be recharged from the air.


                  And the fact that 10 Tu-160s can heap 120 missiles across the "metropolis" at any time will protect our PMTOs no better than a few small aircraft at a separate base.


                  Let's say ours also rent an airfield.
                  And what, Tu-160 to throw there?

                  If necessary, why not?
                3. Lozovik
                  Lozovik 4 December 2020 23: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Why write such nonsense?

                  You just write nonsense.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  20 Su-34s are up to 40 heavy anti-ship missiles in a salvo, this is the ability to operate in two theaters at once, based on any airfield, up to ice, etc.

                  The Su-27 is designed to be deployed at airfields with a class 3 or more airborne landing strips, the heavier Su-34 will not have lower requirements.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And they carry UR explosives, they can defend themselves.

                  The possibility of using air-to-air missiles does not mean the ability to successfully conduct at least a defensive air battle. The pilots of the ISA and the FBA (now OTA) do not possess air combat tactics. The Su-34 itself is a limited-maneuverable aircraft (ny = 4-5, depending on the mass).

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And the Tu-160 needs a fighter cover.

                  Actions of any kind of aviation are provided by the IA.


                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Well, a day at the airfield after departure from TEC, which would be enough for the squadron.

                  Repair and maintenance work is being carried out in the TEC regiment. Routine work during wartime is not required.
                  Each squad has a TECH unit, there are three units in the AE. Each unit has technical crews by the number of aircraft (2-3) and service groups by specialties.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  He does not fly on a standard TS-8

                  There is no such type of fuel. RT was used for flights at subsonic speed.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    5 December 2020 00: 02
                    0
                    The Su-27 is designed to be deployed at airfields with a class 3 or more airborne landing strips, the heavier Su-34 will not have lower requirements.


                    The "heavier" Su-34 with a minimum combat load may not be much heavier than the same Su-27UB, but its chassis is much more impressive as it was and will remain. So it will land and take off on a well-prepared ice airfield, on an unpaved one - depending on which one.

                    The possibility of using air-to-air missiles does not mean the ability to successfully conduct at least a defensive air battle. The pilots of the ISA and the FBA (now OTA) do not possess air combat tactics.


                    Air combat training in units of armed Su-34 is being carried out. In Syria, these aircraft flew with an air-to-air missile defense system for self-defense.

                    Repair and maintenance work is being carried out in the TEC regiment. Routine work during wartime is not required.


                    But repairs are required.

                    There is no such type of fuel


                    T-8
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      Alexander Vorontsov 5 December 2020 12: 20
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      But repairs are required

                      Several people have already written to you about prompt service, which does not imply repair.
                      You continue to write nonsense with a clever look, which is based on elementary ignorance, elementary things.

                      And what is remarkable.
                      An attempt to tell you this correctly and calmly (just point out the inaccuracy) turns into the fact that you make a serious face, write nonsense with a smart look and expose the person who corrected you as illiterate.

                      Or you start to have a discussion about something that is not a discussion point at all.
                      The way things are is a fact. You either know it or you don't.
                      You don't know specifically. But you keep trying to push your "fantasies".

                      You are like a student confusing mass and weight. But he continues to convince everyone that this is the same thing. Is this analogy clearer to you?

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Air combat training in units of armed Su-34 is being carried out. In Syria, these aircraft flew with an air-to-air missile defense system for self-defense.

                      Alexander what's wrong with you? Do you feel sick?

                      You are famous on the forum as a fighter with a hurray-patriotic quack.
                      Have you bought yourself into the patriotic reports, which say that "the Su-34 has turned into a fighter"?


                      Pilots have a pistol for self-defense.
                      Let's compare him to the machine gunner.
                      And what. He also goes to the shooting gallery sometimes, trains to shoot from his pistol.

                      They tell you about efficiency, and you are talking about a "near-minimum set" for conducting WB.
                      At your level of understanding, this is one and the same thing ...


                      The SU-34 has a 30% less thrust-to-weight ratio.
                      Maneuverability, which has already been written about.
                      For air combat, the ability to correct the flight level in time is very important.

                      Flight Crew Training - Here you also try to ignore the amount of training. For example, all doctors are taught what hemoglobin is. And everyone should be able to carry out a minimum set of procedures - measure blood pressure, for example, as well as be able to do CPR.
                      But nevertheless, when the traumatologist performs resuscitation, the next day he goes to the forum of resuscitators and asks them if he did everything correctly. Because he understands that resuscitators have much more experience in CPR.
                      So it is with the flight crew.

                      It's not worth mentioning the body kit - everything is completely obvious here. The plane, all hung with explosive missiles, is much better suited for the WB than the plane with 5 tons of weapons not intended for the WB.

                      Well, the cherry on the cake - WB tactics.
                      Here, in general, everything is complicated, but in the bottom line, in 90% of cases of the meeting of the Su-34 in a configuration when most of its load is occupied by weapons not intended for the WB, with a real threat, all he can do is just drop weapons and dump.

                      But you have seen enough of hurray-videos, where it is stated that "the bomber turned into a fighter" (I quote from the presenter) and now you are trying here not only to push this concept, but also to bring it to a qualitatively new level - not just fly in Syria, but send them from anti-ship missiles to enemy fighters.

                      This in itself is rather naive.
                      And if you take into account your reputation as a fighter against propaganda and how you yourself like to incriminate others in their amateurism, illiteracy and urya-patriotism - just "epic lol".
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      5 December 2020 16: 16
                      +2
                      Several people have already written to you about prompt service, which does not imply repair.
                      You continue to write nonsense with a clever look, which is based on elementary ignorance, elementary things.


                      Well, in your reality, faulty aircraft are not repaired until the end of hostilities. Agreed.

                      Or you start to have a discussion about something that is not a discussion point at all.
                      The way things are is a fact. You either know it or you don't.
                      You don't know specifically. But you keep trying to push your "fantasies".


                      But from now on, please give an assessment of your fabrications about the use of the Tu-160 in the war at sea. And it somehow turns out dishonestly, you don't want to report for your delirium, but I owe you something. I draw your attention to the fact that earlier on this issue, here, in the comments, a long-range aviation pilot with decades of service behind him opposed you, but you did not heed. I recommend that you analyze your work a little before criticizing someone.

                      The SU-34 has a 30% less thrust-to-weight ratio.
                      Maneuverability, which has already been written about.
                      For air combat, the ability to correct the flight level in time is very important.


                      Of course, but the very tactics of striking a surface target, in principle, does not provide for any maneuvering battles, if the attacking side needs air-to-air missiles, then for launching on converging courses with the enemy.

                      Well, yes, now please comment on how the Tu-160 will feel in such a situation.

                      But you have seen enough of hurray-videos, where it is stated that "the bomber turned into a fighter" (I quote the presenter)


                      Such a remark addressed to me would be appropriate from a Bez 310 or an ancient one, but not from a person who suggests betting on the Tu-160.

                      No offense.
                    3. Alexander Vorontsov
                      Alexander Vorontsov 5 December 2020 18: 14
                      -2
                      Of course, but the very tactics of striking a surface target, in principle, does not provide for any maneuverable battles,

                      The tactic you described is not a strike tactic ... it is a tactic of jumping on a hedgehog with a bare butt.

                      And it does not mean it at your level of understanding.

                      Firstly, the armament itself is important - 4 small short-range missiles, while the enemy has a dozen with a range of tens of kilometers. You will be stupidly shot before you can use your weapon.

                      Second, are you familiar with terms such as anti-missile maneuvers?
                      Everything in them revolves around kinetics and maneuverability - drawing energy from a rocket.
                      Snake, lapel. The rocket at the initial stage, while the engine is running, is forced to take a lead. Then the pilot turns in the other direction and the missiles, already at the reserves of kinetics, are draining their energy for a turn, gradually losing both speed and maneuverability, because it is carried out by aerodynamic forces depending on speed. As a result, it can physically fail to fly / fly by. flies on the stock of kinetic energy in the final section and simply cannot master the turn to the radius you specified (due to maneuverability) and lose grip.

                      There are many maneuvers, but they are all about maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio.


                      Well, yes, now please comment on how the Tu-160 will feel in such a situation.

                      Which one is it?
                      You have already been explained that your scenario, based on propaganda videos that a fighter was made from the Su-34 and it can be sent on missions against an enemy who potentially has an AI, without an AI is to send them to the slaughter.
                      Just like ours were sent to Georgia without intelligence.
                      In a normal scenario, fighters "clear" the way for the Tu-160 and the Su-34.

                      Now with regard to the armament of the Tu-160.

                      Did you know that in order to accommodate the Onyxes on the plane, it had to be shortened by 2 meters?
                      Carable version 8 meters, aviation 6.
                      Do you know that in modern realities, the range of use of weapons is one of the most important criteria?

                      The length of the Tu-160's weapon compartment .... 11 meters.
                      And it was created, including for a promising large rocket at that time (1 for each compartment).
                      Those. relative to the air version, the rocket can not be castrated by 2 meters, but increased by the same 2 meters. And the total difference will be 6 against 10. If you subtract from this the dimensions of the warhead, control systems and the engine, you get 4 meters against 8.
                      Those. the fuel supply is two-fold.
                      Thus, the range of this missile variant will increase 1,75 (1,5-2) times.
                      Concerning air-launched missiles on small aircraft.

                      Does this seem insignificant to you? And the same logic applies to all weapons, calibers with a range of 2000 versus x-101 with a range of 5000 (both options for ground targets).

                      Dagger is not able to target sea targets. And it never will. It needs to be lightened up to three tons and modified for its use by the Su-34

                      Yes, I understand your wrecking logic.
                      Trim, lighten and castrate.
                      How much does the CIA pay you for instilling a sabotage position to castrate everything and everyone in the Russian media?

                      Such a remark addressed to me would be appropriate from a Bez 310 or an ancient one, but not from a person who suggests betting on the Tu-160.
                      No offense.

                      It is appropriate from any source.
                      If you wrote delightful nonsense (about sending a Su-34 with 5 tons of anti-ship missiles to an area where there may be an enemy aircraft, without an aircraft's escort - writing it down as a "plus"), it doesn't matter who told you about it.

                      Again, I wrote to you tactfully from the outset.
                      But it all ends with your pathos against the background of frankly erroneous things.
                    4. timokhin-aa
                      5 December 2020 18: 51
                      +1
                      The tactic you described is not a strike tactic ... it is a tactic of jumping on a hedgehog with a bare butt.


                      I have not described the tactics.
                      But I would read about the Tu-160 strike in detail. I suggest you squeeze a short article on this topic.
                      It would be interesting to get acquainted.
                      laughing

                      Second, are you familiar with terms such as anti-missile maneuvers?
                      Everything in them revolves around kinetics and maneuverability - drawing energy from a rocket.


                      You are reducing everything to a situation where the enemy launched their SD at us. And it’s not all about that.

                      your scenario, based on propaganda videos that a fighter was made from the Su-34 and it can be sent on missions against an enemy who potentially has an AI, without an AI - this is to send them to slaughter.


                      The article contains a whole section about fighter cover. Didn't you notice him? Or from the fact that I do not repeat it in a row in the comments, did you conclude that some other person wrote it? Explain what kind of twitching about the slaughter message is. And why did you do it.

                      Firstly, the armament itself is important - 4 small short-range missiles, while the enemy has a dozen with a range of tens of kilometers.


                      This is your twitching, I did not write about such a composition of weapons.

                      If you wrote delitant nonsense (about sending a Su-34 with 5 tons of anti-ship missiles to an area where there may be an enemy aircraft, unaccompanied by an IA


                      This is your twitching. Well, or some sore overcame.

                      I wrote that the Su-34 CAN carry an explosive missile missile, if necessary, and this is in no way superfluous simply because the escort fighters may simply not be able to cope, having let several enemy planes pass without firing.

                      And two Su-34 anti-ship missiles MAY carry, but this does not mean that we must always adhere to exactly this composition of weapons with the stubbornness of a schizophrenic. We just have this OPPORTUNITY.

                      Stop juggling, please, and spend your time, for example, on an article about the attack by Tu-160 aircraft on an aircraft carrier group.
                    5. Alexander Vorontsov
                      Alexander Vorontsov 5 December 2020 19: 17
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      The article contains a whole section about fighter cover. Didn't you notice him?

                      I noticed. And I already wrote to you about your double standards - "here it is and here it is not."
                      You yourself forgot about it here
                      "And the Tu-160 needs a fighter cover."

                      Those. they themselves first wrote.
                      Then they themselves "forgot" when it was necessary to come up with additional advantages for the Su-34 in comparison with the Tu-160.


                      I wrote that the Su-34 CAN carry an explosive missile missile, if necessary, and this is in no way superfluous simply because

                      No. You clearly wrote "And the Tu-160 needs a fighter cover."
                      From the context of opposition and the general logic of "inventing" the advantages of the Su-34, it follows that the Su-34 does NOT need fighter cover. "But the Tu-160 needs ..."


                      Explain what kind of twitching about the slaughter message is. And why did you do it.

                      Above I explained what kind of "distortion" is a literal reading of your words.
                      Here is the full quote.
                      And they carry UR explosives, they can defend themselves.
                      And the Tu-160 needs a fighter cover.


                      They cannot defend themselves in the context of such an operation.
                      They can shoot down a drone that they accidentally spot in the area while carrying out their mission in Syria. They can dunk a helicopter. Or any aircraft not intended for WB.

                      They can use these missiles as "self-defense weapons" if they "push against the wall," for example, drop their pendants and fire missiles at the enemy. And then fly away.

                      In this case, the enemy himself will be forced to apply countermeasures and will not be able to immediately start pursuit. Thus, the Su-34 will gain some time to retreat compared to the situation if these missiles were not.

                      But this is not a fight. And even self-defense with reservations.


                      Stop juggling, please, and spend your time, for example, on an article about the attack by Tu-160 aircraft on an aircraft carrier group.

                      I have an article in my work now ... the most revolutionary one. About using the Tu-160 as a supersonic air tanker. I will finish it and immediately start about AUG ...


                      PS
                      By the way, you have not written anything about missile size and range.
                      Do you think this is insignificant?
            2. Lozovik
              Lozovik 8 December 2020 22: 34
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The "heavier" Su-34 with a minimum combat load may not be much heavier than the same Su-27UB, but its chassis is much more impressive as it was and will remain. So it will land and take off on a well-prepared ice airfield, on an unpaved one - depending on which one.


              The difference of 5 tons is significant. The requirements for the AT base are determined not only by the specific pressure on the surface.

              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Air combat training in units of armed Su-34 is being carried out. In Syria, these aircraft flew with an air-to-air missile defense system for self-defense.


              KBP IA for initial training (program I, combat readiness BG) of attacks of air targets (not air battles) involves the performance of at least 26 single flights and 7 in pairs. Program II of at least 60 flights, and there is also a third ... In the KBP FBA, this is not even close. In general, it is almost impossible to train a pilot who can equally effectively engage ground, sea and air targets, and even in one combat sortie on an aircraft like the Su-34.

              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But repairs are required.

              Striking ignorance. Depending on the complexity and nature of the malfunction (damage), the military repair is performed by the squadron's GVR, the GRiR TECh or (where available) the DARM.

              Quote: timokhin-aa
              T-8

              T-8 is a civilian fuel, it has not been produced or used for about 40 years.
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 20: 58
      -6
      Well, yes ... it's more difficult to shoot down a quiet bomber than one of the fastest planes in the world ... aha ... You and Mina have one fix idea for two ... in the form of one rocket per plane ... tongue And then you will probably stomp your foot when they buy your Onyxes, and then it turns out that there are new missiles, but you can't buy them anymore ... because the money has been spent ...
      1. timokhin-aa
        3 December 2020 21: 10
        +4
        Read the comments of the Ancient and Bez 310 about supersonic, they flew on it, the topic was recently discussed, I don't want to waste time on you.
        Just in case, the air-to-air missile is faster. But for you this little thing is no longer important.
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 21: 21
          -4
          and? following this logic, when developing modern weapons of destruction, one should not ask scientists what can be created, but old pilots from the late USSR, who are the most accurate experts on all issues ... about a "faster rocket" .. provided that you can provide in the necessary place a fighter with this very air-to-air missile ... and in this case, the MiG-31 is somehow more promising than the Su-34 looks ... The rocket will be carried by one and the same ...
          1. victor50
            victor50 4 December 2020 18: 34
            0
            Quote: Boris Chernikov
            old pilots from the late USSR, who are the most accurate experts on all issues

            And the "new" - times of flourishing prosperity and security for all super - fly on something else? Enlighten.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 18: 45
              -3
              I will not .. if you haven’t read what and about what .. there is no point ..
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 04: 02
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Just in case, the air-to-air missile is faster.

          It seems to me that something else was meant.
          Namely - the one who is the carrier of the air-to-air missile is also faster?

          If we consider the situation in theory, then the F-22 can reduce the distance from the Tu-95.
          But with the Tu-160 on the sane segment will not work.
          1. timokhin-aa
            4 December 2020 11: 43
            +1
            To strike at AB you need to fly TO IT, and not from it. You will fly to the OPPONENT. Head-on.

            What's not clear here?
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 18: 51
              -3
              how long will it take Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22m3 and MiG-31 to overcome 1 km? -000 "which is better" in this situation will only arrive at the launch point, when these planes are already approaching their airfield ..
  6. ancient
    ancient 4 December 2020 00: 19
    +2
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Why is it impossible to sharpen the Tu-160 under the tasks mentioned in the article?

    As soon as the Kh-101 missiles (or other AKR or anti-ship missiles, but with a launch range of at least 1500 km) are "taught" to hit maneuverable sea targets) ... no one bothers to "attract" the Tu-160-e to such tasks. soldier
    "Americans" are "sharpening" their B-1B ... wink
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 December 2020 00: 55
      +3
      You can rebuild the Tu-160 for an anti-ship missile carrier
      He apparently meant it.

      Well, maybe someday he realizes that he is writing.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 03: 49
      -2
      Quote: ancient
      no one bothers to "attract" the Tu-160 to the performance of such tasks. soldier

      It confuses me that this has not been done so far, so I guess there may be some reasons that I am not aware of.
      That's why I decided to ask you.

      What dear Alexander wrote - in my humble opinion, everything is very "by".
      The person has a clearly biased attitude, far from objectivity. His arguments are not so much strong in themselves as "by any means to pull the desired onto the reality."
      Thinking up hurricanes, blizzards, filling full tanks through a garden hose, mindlessly broadcasting information about 64 man-hours, dogfights, etc.
      1. ancient
        ancient 4 December 2020 11: 21
        +3
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        It confuses me that it hasn't been done yet

        It was not done because:
        1. Initially, the Tu-160 was created (in fact, he is) a strategic missile carrier designed to destroy important (strategic) objects on the territory of the enemy, located on another continent, using long (strategic range) AKR.
        2. In those days, for the destruction of AUG (AUS), KUG, etc. quite enough YES and MRA armed with Tu-16K, Tu-22K, and Tu-22M aircraft (2 and 3). + IA and FBA have already "learned" how to use AKR X-31.
        Therefore, it was not considered necessary and necessary to "modernize" the Tu-160 for "chugunki" (although the SUV provided their use) and anti-ship missiles ...
        3. At the present time, this is all the more impossible to do, because. Tu-160 is negligible and the lack of the necessary anti-ship missiles ... and the "fleet on the" banks "(standing in the naval base) can be destroyed (damage, disable) and the existing AKR DB. wink
        Therefore, Dear Alexander stated everything very clearly, objectively and even .. correctly ... maximally "smoothing out sharp corners and problems." bully
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 12: 11
          -2
          Quote: ancient
          3. At the present time, this is all the more impossible to do, because Tu-160 is negligible


          Quote: ancient

          clearly, objectively

          You apparently have a good relationship with him, which is why you say so.
          As a new person on the portal, I can see from my bell tower that it doesn't smell like objectivity.

          It is banal when it comes to the fleet, he writes that the main thing is to set a goal and solve it systematically. What is right.

          When it comes to aviation, fuel becomes a problem.
          Why...
          1. ancient
            ancient 4 December 2020 14: 49
            +3
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            When it comes to aviation, fuel becomes a problem.
            Why...

            I see ....... as I understood from this phrase .. you are very .. "far from aviation."
            Example: Imagine a squadron of Tu-95s, Il-76s suddenly landing at an IA, IBA or FBA airfield and God forbid .. IL-38 .... OBATO (or ATB) .. "hangs up" ... what to feed such a "crowd" crying
            So it is with fuel ... Everyone flies mainly on RT and TS-1 (only "Rooks" can even ... on "wood" .. just a joke wassat ), but only Tu-160s fly on T-8 nitrided aviation fuel.
            And what do you think it is available on airfields that are not prepared for this aircraft? Not to mention the BC and the NK and ABSU groups.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            You apparently have a good relationship with him, which is why you say so.

            I have good relations with all site visitors, if you can see that a person is a real expert on the topic under discussion, even with a topic who does not "understand" in this topic, but wants to understand .... welcome to the club drinks what is not clear we will explain, we will chew and .. "let us set on the true path" wink
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            from my bell tower I see that it doesn't smell like objectivity.

            In this you are deeply mistaken, I dare to assure you wink
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 15: 30
              -2
              I see ....... as I understood from this phrase .. you are very .. "far from aviation."

              No, it's just that I was brought up and it once again played against me.
              My humility and respect for people once again turned out to be weak and stupid.
              The fact that I did not "teach a scientist" was shown to me that I do not understand.

              Quote: ancient
              And what do you think it is available on airfields that are not prepared for this aircraft?

              Why unprepared.
              I didn’t paint it for you, because it’s in vain, you already know that.
              Here I have to ask, why do you equate an "operational airfield" with an "unprepared" one?

              If you are from aviation then you don't need to explain. What is an aerodrome network.
              That there are people who have to plan it. This is their professional job.
              Building an adequate airfield network is not a "problem".
              This is an ordinary, typical job.

              You won’t say that you need to turn away from aviation because there are many problems - to train a pilot, for example?
              You, however, perceive this as an adequate working moment.
              And not as an unsolvable problem, which is the basis for abandoning aviation.

              How is the issue of organizing 2 operational airfields fundamentally different in complexity from the task of MTS 5 fleets, for example?

              We have at least 2 operational airfields prepared for refueling the T-8.
              In the west and east (bartholomewka).


              I am also well aware of what co-based airfields are.
              There are 60 (!!) international airports in Russia.
              SIXTY

              It is guaranteed that you can land Tu-160 on any of them in case of an emergency.

              What is the difference between an airport and an airfield, I think you also know. In terms of infrastructure.
              I think you know that many of them ALREADY have reserved "places" for the needs of various structures, from the FSB and the Ministry of Emergency Situations to the Aerospace Forces.

              Precisely because I know all this, I do not consider this a problem.
              But Alexander clearly DOES NOT know this. Therefore, he comes up with the stupidest "problems". Which are not problems. And they are ordinary "questions". As well as providing any other military infrastructure.

              Exposing your amateurism in aviation.
              Well, you are tactfully silent.
              Modestly trying to explain something to him about 13 hours of service ... but all these explanations flew into one ear, flew into the other. And below in the text, he continues to write nonsense. There are no other words. About 13 hours of service every flight)))))

              And no one will tell him - Sorry, but you ... started talking.
            2. ancient
              ancient 4 December 2020 18: 14
              +3
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Here I have to ask, why do you equate an "operational airfield" with an "unprepared" one?

              Here we "enter" into the area of ​​"disclosure" of certain information .. so my answer is .. "hints". bully
              There is a redeployment to an operational airfield, which, in principle, is prepared for our "reception" and further "maintenance" ... everything is there in advance and everything is according to plan.
              But in reality there is a "way out of the blow" .. it's all very fast and fleeting .. the planes are with operational refueling ... tons .. therefore takeoff and flight .... where is enough and where you can.
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Building an adequate airfield network is not a "problem".
              This is an ordinary, typical job.

              In the days of the USSR, something similar was created, but alas and ah ... the Great and Mighty is no longer like ..... the 30th century will soon be ... and during this time so much firewood was "broken" and almost the entire "combat-ready airfield network remained in Ukraine and Belarus ..... and what we have left ... "laughter through tears" in the center and in the South, just a little beyond Krivoy Lake (remnants), well, the remnants of Primorye and Khabarovsk Territory. crying
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              How is the issue of organizing 2 operational airfields fundamentally different in complexity from the task of MTS 5 fleets, for example?

              Nothing .. now and restore for these events Deer.
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              and in the east (bartholomewka).

              And what have the tactical airfields of the RA and the former 11th Army of the Russian Air Force and Air Defense? belay with a runway 2500x48?
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              I am also well aware of what co-based airfields are.
              There are 60 (!!) international airports in Russia.
              SIXTY

              But you are not aware that from Thursday night all "Civil" aviation switches to the foot system of measuring altitude and reference and will fly on QNH / QFE.
              Do you have a lot of Air Force planes equipped with foot meters? wassat (by the way, all State Aviation is left in the metric system)
              So do not ... about the joint basing and we have enough fingers of one hand. wink
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              It is guaranteed that you can land Tu-160 on any of them in case of an emergency.

              The deepest delusion ... the deepest. soldier
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              What is the difference between an airport and an airfield, I think you also know. In terms of infrastructure.
              I think you know that many of them ALREADY have reserved "places" for the needs of various structures, from the FSB and the Ministry of Emergency Situations, ending with the VKS

              It was earlier in the USSR ... for the aviation of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB .. well, and the VTA Air Force (my hand does not rise to call .. "cosmonauts" .. even kill). yes ... and now ... tactical and reconnaissance aircraft are still packed ...
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Modestly trying to explain something to him about 13 hours

              That I did not notice such a time interval ... recourse ... maybe he didn't mean it, but you don't understand?
            3. Alexander Vorontsov
              Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 19: 55
              -1
              That I didn't notice such a time interval ... recourse ... maybe he didn't mean it, but you didn't understand?

              Here is about a day.
              Well, a day at the airfield after departure from TEC, which would be enough for the squadron.

              But about ordinary planes
              Then about eight more (this figure depends on the type of aircraft and the quickness of the TEC and may vary) to prepare for a new sortie. And then three more for another blow. Total - 13 hours

              Those. the principles of servicing aircraft, what is operational service, the rotation between the operational airfield and the rear, where a more serious service is established, a person clearly does not know.
              Although I repeat - you wrote to him. But ... the information was ignored.


              There is a redeployment to an operational airfield, which, in principle, is prepared for our "reception" and further "maintenance" ... everything is there in advance and everything is according to plan.

              I also speak about it.
              This is a question of how "smartly" everything is organized.
              Yes, in the USSR, everything was apparently a cut better and higher. But this is not a reason not to do what we can with what we have.

              The deepest delusion ... the deepest

              And what will hinder?

              Landing in an emergency situation is in any case an additional risk.
              You can remember the superjet.


              And what have the tactical airfields of the RA and the former 11th Army of the Russian Air Force and Air Defense, belay with a runway 2500x48?

              Is there fuel, Tu 22 fly on it?

              Do you have a lot of Air Force planes equipped with foot meters?

              Returning to the story with the superjet, my opinion may be wrong, but I adhere to the point. that military pilots are more professional in terms of aircraft control. and in matters of takeoff and landing.
              And they are less dependent in this regard on factors facilitating this process.

              Nothing .. now and restore for these events Deer.

              What and speech.

              and practically the entire "combat-ready airfield network remained in Ukraine and Belarus ..

              I wrote about this, that what was advanced went to other countries.
              And we still have what used to be the "rear".


              So do not ... about the joint basing and we have enough fingers of one hand.

              This is a separate topic. In the west, it is actively used.
              We are, apparently, very rich since we can afford, given the extreme size of our country, in parallel with civilians, we can also build a network of military personnel.
              And when you look at the airport, it looks very appetizing - and the roads are connected and the railway is often nearby. Housing. Protected area, powerful centralized fuel supply systems. The storage is debugged.



              By the way. Concerning Engels.
              Is there a centralized refueling system? Or are they transported by trucks to the planes?
              And if not, why not? Or is it classified information?

              There is a fuel collection point there with a discharge from several railway tanks at the same time, judging by the photo from google maps.

              By the way 2: It seems that there are caponiers with fuel in Sheremetyevo. But I heard about it at the level of a bike, i.e. the fact that there is something under the ground is a fact (it sticks out from above as a mound), but what and in what state, I do not know.
              Or not caponiers ... I forgot the name of underground reservoirs in reinforced concrete or a brick box ... but I think the essence is clear.
            4. timokhin-aa
              5 December 2020 00: 15
              0
              By the way. Concerning Engels.
              Is there a centralized refueling system? Or are they transported by trucks to the planes?
              And if not, why not? Or is it classified information?

              There is a fuel collection point there with a discharge from several railway tanks at the same time, judging by the photo from google maps.


              What a twist. Why are you coming here? Are you provoking the disclosure of GT?
            5. Lozovik
              Lozovik 8 December 2020 22: 37
              0
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              By the way. Concerning Engels.
              Is there a centralized refueling system? Or are they transported by trucks to the planes?




              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Or is it classified information?

              What are the secrets? Even RTB can be seen from space laughing
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 20: 05
    -4
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Here the pros could not stand it and blabbed en masse about the fact that these aircraft had a glider resource at the limit. There will be no Tu-22M3M and X-32 neither in production nor in armament.
    Take comfort

    Your attitude to this aircraft is not entirely clear.
    All else being equal
    1) The use of this aircraft will significantly change the radii described by you; While on alert, it can cover a large area at a greater distance;
    2) Takes more.
    3) One way or another, but work on this aircraft was carried out (on modernization). Let 1 copy but it is a "physically existing" copy. And not a concept or a layout, with all the "consequences" (especially against the background of the resumption of production of the Tu-160, technologically the family of engines is the same, the mechanisms for turning the wings are similar. That is, at the same capacities and using the same processes, you can make Tu -22, you only need to adapt)

    A logically more correct solution would be to resume production of these machines (which I really hope, to be honest).
    To lose them "just like that" is somehow completely stupid.

    On the other hand, what prevents the Tu-160 from completing the tasks?
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 20: 26
      +4
      1) The use of this aircraft will allow


      They will soon be banned from flying due to the irreparable wear of the airframe.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 12: 20
        -5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They will soon be banned from flying due to the irreparable wear of the airframe.

        God ... hand-face. How difficult it is with you ...
        Aren't you tired of writing the same thing? Banned ... banned. Take it easy.

        The point is that work on their modernization was carried out. Resources were wasted.
        And the question arises ... those who planned these modernization works - they could not but optimize that the residual resource would not allow the modernization program based on these gliders to be implemented in practice.

        Did they plan to launch a NEW series of these aircraft? Because everything looks like this.
        That was the question. Let me emphasize - the question. Call for discussion)) Anyone who has thoughts on this matter or information.
        1. timokhin-aa
          4 December 2020 12: 29
          +5
          Do our current military programs teach you nothing? In a day or two, M. Klimov's article on the situation with R&D will be published, see how it is there in real life, who and what takes into account ...
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 15: 45
            -3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Do our current military programs teach you nothing? In a day or two, M. Klimov's article on the situation with R&D will be published, see how it is there in real life, who and what takes into account ...

            And you? Why don't they teach you - and you write your fantasies?
            And others should they "teach"?
    2. ancient
      ancient 4 December 2020 11: 38
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      All else being equal
      1) The use of this aircraft will significantly change the radii described by you; While on alert, it can cover a large area at a greater distance

      Only on condition of basing within 100-150 km from the coastline and ... what does it mean to "cover" (a vague term is suitable for an air defense aircraft, but not for YES).
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      2) Takes more.

      Here you have to choose .. or take more or .. "get" further ... together ... well, no way ..... "the damned eats ... you can't get enough hay" (remember the line from the movie "Go to battle alone old men")

      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      3) One way or another, but work on this aircraft was carried out (on modernization). Let 1 copy but it is a "physically existing" copy.

      Then the appointed calendar period allowed to do any kind of modernism.
      Yes, there is, but ..... "the modernization of the old airframe", the modernization of the Tu-22M2 "resulted" in the creation of a completely new aircraft (airframe, engines, fuel automatic equipment, etc.) with improved AO and avionics ... while maintaining "concepts".
      And you are "trying" .. to breathe "new life" into the old plane .. which, in principle, is not bad ... but if this "event" took place with a production rate of 8-10 cars a year .. then yes .. .. and at the moment ....
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      A logically more correct solution would be to resume production of these machines (which I really hope, to be honest).

      Absolutely not the right decision ... to make a "small" Tu-160 out of it ... it will not work ... in any way ... already "tried" ..... rearmed on AKP X-15 ... it seems to be " fellow "and you can" get "far away" and missiles .. "there are many in the MZBU", but ..... who will give you ... the "darling" to fly so far into the enemy's territory, and even into a given area (square), yes at a distance of 250-300 km to the object ...? wink
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      To lose them "just like that" is somehow completely stupid.

      And this is almost done ... so ... "it's too late to drink Borjomi when the kidneys have fallen off"
  • Volder
    Volder 4 December 2020 07: 12
    -4
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Yes, there will be no Daggers, in three months that very speech of Putin will already be 3 years old, by the time the rockets were already flying from planes
    Contradict yourself: there are no daggers and will not be, but they have already flown and there were at least 10 of them.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Is there an order for adoption? No.
    Tank "Armata" is also not accepted for service. But this does not mean that it does not exist, and that it was not possible to create it. It's just that the Russian bear takes too long to harness. About 100 items have already been ordered.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    this missile was with very specific goals that were not achieved. Dagger is not able to target sea targets. And it never will.
    How is this known? What are the sources of information. They didn't get it out of their heads, right? In my opinion, you are wishful thinking. If you do not believe the officials from the Ministry of Defense about the capabilities of the Dagger, this is your right. You might as well not trust anyone at all.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Here the pros could not stand it and blabbed en masse ... There will be no Tu-22M3M and X-32, either, IN PRODUCTION OR WEAPON.
    If these professionals are not currently working at a plant where they are upgrading aircraft, or are not serving in the Russian Aerospace Forces, then if I were you, I would not be so sure of the truth of their statements. In addition, the likelihood of deliberate disinformation is not excluded ... 32 pcs. The X-22 was sent this year for upgrading to the X-32 level. There are even photos on the network of how they are transported in open wagons on the railway tracks. Well, the first flight of the modernized Tu-23M3M was made 2 years ago. The first serial Tu-22M3M will go to the troops from 2021. In total, it is planned to modernize 30 combat aircraft. Someone will have to eat a tie when this happens :)
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Onyx could have been in service with aviation for two years, if that.
    The Kh-32 missile will be better than Onyx, so they do not rely on aviation Onyx.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And you are still hovering in the clouds, in some future, which is unknown when it will come.
    Previously, they also talked about the Poliment-Redut air defense system and the S-350 Vityaz air defense system. They still talk about the "Armata" and the Su-57 ...
    1. ancient
      ancient 4 December 2020 11: 58
      +3
      Quote: Volder
      If these pros are not currently working at a plant where they are upgrading aircraft, or are not serving in the Russian Aerospace Forces, then if I were you, I would not be so sure of the truth of their statements.

      Some of you .. "horse" concepts .. honestly wassat
      Quote: Volder
      The X-22 was sent this year for upgrading to the X-32 level.

      So what fellow -that "... exactly for the" alteration "for the Tu-22M3, and not for .. Tu-22M3M ..... hard to think? wink .
      Quote: Volder
      There are even photos on the network of how they are transported in open wagons on the railway tracks.

      Nonsense "gray mare" .... rockets (except for "earth to air") are transported ONLY in TRANSPORTATION CONTAINERS in special wagons or "gondola cars) .. and the fact that on the" photo walking in the network "is it already or .." model for the museum "or" stand "for study or for disposal. wink and by the way .. lodgement is required.
      Quote: Volder
      Well, the first flight of the modernized Tu-23M3M was made 2 years ago. The first serial Tu-22M3M will go to the troops from 2021.

      What .. have you already completed all the test cycles? belay
      Quote: Volder
      In total, it is planned to modernize 30 combat aircraft. Someone will have to eat a tie when this happens :)

      If I live to see this .. "bright future" .. then I will definitely look at this your process .. how will you chew your tie ... without drinking wassat
      1. Volder
        Volder 7 December 2020 10: 34
        0
        Quote: ancient
        rockets (except for "ground-to-air") are transported ONLY in TRANSPORTATION CONTAINERS in special wagons or "gondola cars) .. and the fact that on the" photo walking in the network "is already or .." a model for a museum "or a" stand "for study either on utilization.
        Any standard carriage can be made special. carriage if equipped with a lodgment. Apparently, you have not seen the photos in question (there is a lodgement inside). There are too many identical copies for a museum, so it is no longer necessary. Utilization is also eliminated, because the unit-by-unit disassembly of missiles is carried out at the storage location and transported disassembled.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 2 December 2020 19: 21
    +1
    I had such a vision of this problem. Thank you for spreading everything out by miles, kilometers and hours. When will the fleet have its own strike air force?
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 December 2020 19: 57
      +7
      When will be ... difficult question. The last attempt to create them was in 2019.
      The Navy is not against, but not for. While.
      So we just have to wait.
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 2 December 2020 20: 00
        +3
        Maybe we can wait until the airfields on the Kola Peninsula are empty. Google gives photos of our airfields to the smallest detail.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 2 December 2020 22: 08
        -1
        Alexander, what did you mean by failure here?
        This had negative consequences during the Cuban missile crisis. At the same time, the views of N.S. Khrushchev and the generals from the General Staff were simply not allowed to understand the reasons for the failure of Soviet actions and what measures needed to be taken in the future to avoid their repetition
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2020 11: 16
          +4
          The Americans turned our transports down and forced us to withdraw missiles from Cuba by force. I have a plan to write about this, but later.
          While you can watch something on my telegram channel, about two months ago I posted there some links and tablets on the Cuban missile crisis. Closer to the beginning.
          https://t.me/SeaPower
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 11: 45
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The Americans turned our transports down and forced us to withdraw missiles from Cuba by force.

            There are 3 stages.
            Delivery of missiles.
            Blockade.
            Output.

            1) Delivery has been completed. And this is the success of the Anadyr operation.
            2) The blockade was carried out after.
            3) The withdrawal of troops all the more.

            What is the failure?
            1. timokhin-aa
              3 December 2020 12: 06
              +4
              The delivery of troops was not completed, some of the ships under the threat of the use of force by the Americans had to be turned off, then under their pressure it was necessary to withdraw the bulk of the troops, missiles and Il-28 bombers, they, as a kind of compensation, simply promised to withdraw the Jupiters from Turkey, and they were withdrawn only after making sure that SSBNs, which had just appeared then, could work instead.

              This is defeat. And Khrushchev was largely removed because of this. We have this story very strongly mythologized.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 12: 58
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                We have this story very strongly mythologized.

                I don't know any "us". There is factology.

                The delivery of troops was not completed

                Look, 20 missiles are planned.
                And delivered 18.
                Is it a success or a failure?

                You have a lot of cognitive distortions that you broadcast either consciously or not.
                In particular, the lack of intermediate options.

                When an operation is planned, several scenarios are laid.
                Absolute success is the maximum plan. They always strive for it. But in practice, this is almost always an unattainable ideal.
                Then comes the most likely scenarios.
                And then the criteria for failure.

                You have 2 positions. Complete success and failure.

                And you are logically proving by contradiction - since they did not bring the cooks and their pets ... then the operation has failed.
                These are the wrong criteria.

                There are no objective criteria for the "failure" of the operation.
                But there is every reason to believe that success has been achieved.

                And the logic is pretty simple.
                The people who were planning the operation realized that the physical placement of the missiles dramatically increases the signature.
                And from this moment the countdown begins.

                They ALWAYS find them.
                They will definitely block Cuba.

                The question is when.

                And here is the key point - the Americans did not find transportation or planning.
                They found a WEAPON. In Cuba. Already.
                I do not think that ours are so DULL to demonstrate the HULL of a rocket, for which the engine travels in 21 ships. Warhead in the 40th.

                This is me for the question of myths.
                There are also especially gifted ones who think that the missiles were not ready there (again, how many?).
                First, we will place the case in the most visible place.
                And then ... we will collect it in six months.
                I hope you were not going to open the public's eyes to such "facts"?


                As a result, the fact that the "Ideal Scenario" was not implemented is by and large the norm.
                Especially when you are competing with a really strong opponent.
                How Khrushchev disposed of the results is another matter. Flies separately, cutlets separately.

                PS
                In order to correctly assess the outcome of the operation, you need 1 - to know exactly what was planned, how much and what. 2 - know exactly what was in the ships that were deployed.
                No one has such data.
                The opinion that the operation was a failure, that's just a failure, is based on the opinion that ours are clinical. With the syndrome. Well, right here in general with the diagnosis. To transport not complete, but as incomplete as possible. First, 20 engines, then 20 warheads, then 20 launchers, etc. That there would be no combat-ready missile before the 40th ship)))
                So that the 40th would be detained and the whole operation would depend on him.
                And of course start collecting right from the case.
                1. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 3 December 2020 15: 43
                  -5
                  It is interesting that the argument in the style of "well, the Americans abandoned missiles in Turkey because they had longer-range missiles" sounds even stranger, especially in the conditions of the Cold War, when the more missiles that could be launched, the better for some reason it is not taken into account ..
                2. Revival
                  Revival 3 December 2020 15: 57
                  +2
                  Then, remind me who requested the negotiations, we or they?
                  Khrushchev did not cross the Rubicon under the ultimatum, not the Americans
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 16: 19
                    -2
                    Quote: Revival
                    Then, remind me who requested the negotiations, we or they?
                    Khrushchev did not cross the Rubicon under the ultimatum, not the Americans

                    The very fact of the existence of negotiations suggests that as a result of this operation, what became the subject of negotiations was acquired.

                    Or you and the Americans are considered "diagnosed"? Who went to the negotiations "forgetting" that they "failed" the operation of the USSR, and there is only a model of a rocket.
                    1. Revival
                      Revival 3 December 2020 16: 31
                      +3
                      No, I mean that they delivered an ultimatum, and we retreated.
                      And even the withdrawal of missiles was not synchronized by both sides.
                      1. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 16: 43
                        -3
                        I divided what happened into 3 stages.
                        Delivery of missiles. Blockade. Conclusion.
                        And he asked what the author of the article sees defeat. He wrote
                        "The delivery of troops has not been completed."
                        Those. we are talking about the first stage - delivery.
                        You cannot discuss in negotiations what ... which is not. What does not represent a problem, a threat. etc.
                        Do you agree with that? Or not?

                        they delivered an ultimatum

                        The ultimatum is the beginning of the war.
                        Good. You have been given an ultimatum. You are in Khrushchev's place.
                        What are your actions?
                      2. Revival
                        Revival 3 December 2020 21: 00
                        +1
                        We did not discuss the justification for action.
                        My actions in his place are completely irrelevant.
                        The fact is that it was a concession.
                        This I mean that we have developed a urapposition about the Caribbean crisis, such as "we are awful and they did it."
                      3. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 21: 09
                        -2
                        Quote: Revival
                        This is me to what we have developed

                        You know, I'm a new person and as a beginner, allow an unbiased opinion from the outside?
                        I got the impression that HERE (on VO) there is a completely opposite trend.
                        Those. to write about how bad everything is, how we all lost - here it is "automatically" raised to the rank of intellectuality.

                        The operation itself was really "wow"
                        Or do you think that the Americans again just grabbed the barrel for nothing?
                        And what Khrushchev did is different.
                      4. Revival
                        Revival 3 December 2020 22: 57
                        +2
                        You just have to write the truth, I am for it
                      5. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 23: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Revival
                        You just have to write the truth, I am for it

                        I am also for that.
                        And truth is about separating phenomena.
                        The people who planned and carried out the operation are not the same as then "squander" the results and sow the fields with corn.
                        I think it's true.
          2. timokhin-aa
            3 December 2020 16: 33
            0
            And who removed what from where, and when.
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              Alexander Vorontsov 3 December 2020 16: 51
              -2
              I asked you to be specific.
              Which stage do you consider a failure?
              Delivery. Blockade. Conclusion.
              Can you answer more clearly?
              The delivery of troops was not completed

              What does it mean? That delivery failed?
              Or are you talking about negotiations?
              1. Revival
                Revival 3 December 2020 21: 02
                +2
                The whole idea of ​​placing missiles at close range to the United States was covered.
                The presence of pershing under our noses in the future was, but we did not have such a lever. It's like an illustration
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 3 December 2020 12: 30
    +5
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The Americans wrapped up our transports

    In July-October, during Operation Anadyr, 85 cargo and passenger ships made 183 voyages to and from Cuba
    and forced to withdraw missiles from Cuba by force.

    In exchange for the withdrawal of their missiles from Europe, and refusal to place ballistic missiles on cruisers of European states


    Launch shafts of Polaris aboard the Italian cruiser "Giuseppe Garibaldi" were never used for their intended purpose

    The military-political goals set by the Soviet government were mainly achieved

    The poor country was able to deceive the rich, creating a lot of inconvenience to her. Made the United States go down to its level and play by the rules of the poor, in which the Yankees knew little
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 December 2020 19: 56
    +1
    Alexander, the fleet of the USSR, and the imitation of the Russian fleet is heaven and earth! All the crabs of the world are laughing at our fleet - the country is kind of big, but the fleet is microscopic! How many ships are in the ocean zone, and how many of them are combat-ready? A couple of Burks will send our entire fleet to the crabs in a quarter of an hour. Yes, and with aviation, the one that is naval, we are far from rosy, not to say frankly, disgusting! This is the Chinese fleet that can fight almost on an equal footing with the US squadrons, having at the very least even a couple of aircraft carriers, and we only have caps, nothing else ... ...
    1. Imobile
      Imobile 2 December 2020 22: 20
      -4
      The Soviet fleet was terrible from afar. And if you go deeper, then not very. My friend's uncle served in the 70s in the navy. So the new ship is the pride of the USSR fleet, they almost lost it. God forbid, the seams were leaking, but of all the pumps, only one worked and it was covered, so he recalls how almost in the last minutes they managed to repair it and heroically save the ship.
      1. Dude
        Dude 3 December 2020 02: 43
        +3
        My friend's uncle served in the 70s ...
        Already blazed! laughing Is this a kind of officer's daughter? It should have been like this: "The uncle of a friend of a sister-in-law's second cousin's godfather's daughter of my second wife from her first marriage, now deceased" ® wassat
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 3 December 2020 14: 02
          +3
          Quote: Dude
          Already blasted

          Take an interest in SS "Elbrus" and explode even more!
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 3 December 2020 14: 00
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      USSR fleet

      Do you know something about the USSR fleet?
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 2 December 2020 20: 03
    +7
    Unfortunately, naval strike aircraft
    we do not have, and apparently never will.
    Anti-submarine aviation is out of date
    and dies, and most likely will soon remain
    planes for parades only.
    Su-30sm aircraft are not needed in the Navy, and
    were taken to the Fleet not at all for "combat"
    considerations.
    The only task the Fleet will be
    decide - ensuring combat stability
    SSBN, but will it decide? Not sure...
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 11: 16
      +5
      In its current form, it will not decide.
  • Avior
    Avior 2 December 2020 20: 12
    +9
    The first real applications showed both the strength and weakness of the anti-ship missile.
    A high hit probability was ensured if the enemy did not apply countermeasures.
    Conversely, the use of countermeasures in the form of traps and electronic warfare with a high probability ensured that the anti-ship missiles would not hit the target.
    From here was born the first strike tactic from the tracking position. They tried to make the missiles as fast and long-range as possible in order to ensure the surprise of the strike and to take the enemy by surprise. Our Ship was all the time near the enemy at sea, accustoming the enemy to such a situation, otherwise the appearance of the tracking ship would instantly alert the enemy.
    But if the first blow was inflicted by the enemy, then all tactics collapsed, and the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles dropped sharply.
    The first strike effect can actually only be used once, so a big war decision had to be made.
    1. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 2 December 2020 22: 07
      +2
      Quote: Avior
      The first real applications showed both the strength and weakness of the anti-ship missile.
      A high hit probability was ensured if the enemy did not apply countermeasures.
      Conversely, the use of countermeasures in the form of traps and electronic warfare with a high probability ensured that the anti-ship missiles would not hit the target.
      ...


      How do you rate the AGM-158C LRASM in this regard?
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 December 2020 06: 10
        +5
        This is a new approach to RCC.
        Instead of the traditional radar seeker, a more complex and potentially more anti-jamming system was installed.
        In fact, this is a different concept of pkr - instead of speed, the emphasis was placed on stealth and increasing the likelihood of defeat due to a complex seeker, the old radar seeker is clearly ineffective.
        But finally, conclusions can only be made based on the results of combat use.
    2. Imobile
      Imobile 2 December 2020 22: 23
      -4
      Quote: Avior
      The first hit effect can actually only be used once.

      We will never attack first! Everything related to this factor, all weapons, equipment and tactics are boldly scrapped! and make new
      1. timokhin-aa
        3 December 2020 11: 17
        +6
        And if the question arises like this - or hit first, or in the box for everyone? What then?
        1. Imobile
          Imobile 7 December 2020 20: 44
          -2
          As with Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact will probably carry over.
          1. Essex62
            Essex62 8 December 2020 10: 24
            0
            And who can, and most importantly on what basis, decide to hit first? In principle, it is not possible to win this war. Only retribution, or rather fear of retaliation by the puppeteers who decide to drive us into the box.
            In all other cases, locally, peripherally, even on our territory (enclave, Crimea), they pile on us.
      2. SID
        SID 3 December 2020 12: 25
        +1
        Quote: Imobile

        We will never attack first! Everything related to this factor, all weapons, equipment and tactics are boldly scrapped! and make new

        Remember the Finnish War of the 39th. Many times happened with Turkey in the 18-19 centuries. Wars of Svyatoslav with Byzantium, Khazars ...
        And it worked. So, I would not say so categorically ...
  • Undecim
    Undecim 2 December 2020 20: 13
    +16
    In my opinion, the author has set himself a super task - to convince the "infantile part of society, believing in various types of superweapons" that the possibility of its effective use is not automatically applied to a "submissive" weapon, but requires significant organizational and technical efforts, often exceeding efforts to creation of the most "pacified analog" weapon.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 2 December 2020 20: 57
      +7
      The author will not convince, the war will convince, in the first case they will change their minds; in the second they will die;
    2. SID
      SID 3 December 2020 12: 23
      +2
      The author is not trying to convince, but to explain, to make it possible to understand the essence of modern naval warfare. Those who want to understand, no matter what, are not translated :)
  • Lirik R
    Lirik R 2 December 2020 20: 48
    -7
    The author did not write anything about ZGRLS - it's already good)
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 December 2020 23: 42
      +8
      In the first part of the series there is about ZGRLS
  • Local from the Volga
    Local from the Volga 2 December 2020 20: 58
    -8
    "Alas, politicians appear mainly from the ranks of the common people, so the issue needs to be clarified separately."
    Especially Bondarev V.N., Shamanov V.A., in relation to the Navy Kulikov V.V. and many more!
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 11: 26
      +5
      Compare with those who are from the townsfolk. It was not for nothing that I added the phrase "mostly", you even quoted it, but I didn't understand anything, as usual.
      1. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 3 December 2020 19: 04
        -6
        But you, with your fables, are tired of waiting in the General Staff for advice!
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 December 2020 19: 05
          +4
          You cannot understand who, where, who and what you are waiting for. This is not given to you by nature.
          1. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 3 December 2020 19: 06
            -6
            Here you have learned to be rude !!!
            1. timokhin-aa
              3 December 2020 19: 13
              +5
              Go to your profile, in the comments, see what you write to people here and ask yourself a question - do you deserve human treatment?
  • Lirik R
    Lirik R 2 December 2020 20: 59
    -12%
    Quote: Undecim
    In my opinion, the author has set himself a super task - to convince the "infantile part of society, believing in various types of superweapons" that the possibility of its effective use is not automatically applied to a "submissive" weapon, but requires significant organizational and technical efforts, often exceeding efforts to creation of the most "pacified analog" weapon.


    “The infantile (allegedly) part of society, believing (allegedly) in various types of superweapons,” through elections, chose competent leaders who ensure both organizational and technical efforts to create weapons and actually determine the ways of their effective use. Which, however, testifies precisely to her non-infantility)
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 2 December 2020 21: 05
      +18
      "The infantile (allegedly) part of society, believing (allegedly) in various types of superweapons" through elections, chose competent leaders
      A good joke, especially about the "path of elections" and "competent leaders".
    2. Revival
      Revival 3 December 2020 16: 25
      +2
      146% trolling))
  • Lirik R
    Lirik R 2 December 2020 21: 20
    -13%
    Quote: Undecim
    A good joke, especially about the "path of elections" and "competent leaders".


    Generally not a joke, but about the infantile part of society - a successful joke, yes.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 2 December 2020 21: 59
      +14
      but about the infantile part of society
      It was the author who showed the top of his upbringing, calling the social group of turborpatriots - hamsters "an infantile part of society."
      1. Lirik R
        Lirik R 2 December 2020 22: 04
        -9
        The author, it happens, and outright nonsense in articles writes, poorly prepared, so he is forgiven
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 2 December 2020 22: 10
          +11
          Yes, the author, like everyone else, has weaknesses, but the preparation of materials for articles can hardly be attributed to such, especially against the background of most of the site's "songwriters - boyans".
          1. Lirik R
            Lirik R 2 December 2020 22: 39
            -8
            Complete nonsense was written about ZGRLS, for example. You can't prepare like that)
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 2 December 2020 22: 53
              +5
              Are you an over-the-horizon radar specialist? By the way, the minus is not mine.
              1. Lirik R
                Lirik R 2 December 2020 22: 54
                -7
                No, I read it on the Internet)
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 2 December 2020 22: 56
                  +7
                  If it does not bother you, give an example where the author, as you claim, was wrong. Some kind of flawed follows our dialogue, but does not dare to identify himself. Apparently the vocabulary consists of only cons.
                  1. Lirik R
                    Lirik R 2 December 2020 22: 59
                    -8
                    There literally every sentence is a masterpiece, but the forum rules are unlikely to miss comments, too emotional)
                    1. Undecim
                      Undecim 2 December 2020 23: 00
                      +9
                      And you pull yourself together, pull yourself together. After all, criticism must be reasoned.
                  2. Lirik R
                    Lirik R 2 December 2020 23: 06
                    -5
                    To summarize, the author signed up for a complete lack of understanding of what OGRLS are, how they differ, how they work, what are the possible characteristics of each, depending on the principle of operation. And therefore, what kind of "bypassing the ZGRLS" can he offer and what opportunities for target designation to evaluate?
                    1. Undecim
                      Undecim 2 December 2020 23: 31
                      +7
                      The author did not set the task of describing over-the-horizon radar as such.
                      As I understand it, you are ready to reasonably challenge the author's conclusion that the ZGRLS is not suitable for issuing target designation?
                      1. Lirik R
                        Lirik R 2 December 2020 23: 42
                        -6
                        Are you serious?) How can you suggest a "bypass ZGRLS" without knowing the elementary? The author simply cannot know exactly how the interaction is organized, but the main thing is demonstrating sheer ignorance.
                      2. Undecim
                        Undecim 2 December 2020 23: 50
                        +6
                        The author does not speak about the "bypass". The author comes to the conclusion that the ZGRLS currently in operation are not suitable for issuing target designation for anti-ship missiles.
                        Can you prove otherwise? Only specifically.
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      2 December 2020 23: 43
                      +9
                      Of course he's not ready.
                    3. Lirik R
                      Lirik R 2 December 2020 23: 47
                      -3
                      And yes, and what kind of ZGRLS the author has in mind - a space wave or a surface wave?
                    4. Undecim
                      Undecim 2 December 2020 23: 51
                      +5
                      Irrelevant. You can consider both.
                    5. Lirik R
                      Lirik R 2 December 2020 23: 57
                      -2
                      Well, of course - one of our surface wave ZGRLS has a version specially sharpened for improved target designation characteristics - that's what it is called with "-TS" at the end.
                      And each of the ZGRLS of the space wave has its own song in this sense)
                    6. Undecim
                      Undecim 3 December 2020 00: 09
                      +4
                      one of our surface wave ZGRLS has a version
                      What kind of "one with" c "at the end"? Can you elaborate? And how many types of sky-wave ZGRLS have you counted?
                    7. Lirik R
                      Lirik R 3 December 2020 00: 18
                      -3
                      There is no need to distort - it is you who propose to count the types of the ZGRLS of the sky wave, I said - one of our ZGRLS has a surface wave, there is not one of them, even by name) So you do not know anything about "Podsolnukh-Ts"?
                    8. Undecim
                      Undecim 3 December 2020 00: 24
                      +5
                      And you publish the link, about "Sunflower - C".
                    9. Lirik R
                      Lirik R 3 December 2020 00: 27
                      -4
                      General Director of NIIDAR at Army-2020 said in an interview
                    10. Undecim
                      Undecim 3 December 2020 01: 00
                      +10
                      In his interview, Makarov said that NIIDAR develops ZGRLS surface wave with the possibility of targeting. You yourself understand that the development process, especially in Russia, is an action with an indefinite end time.
                      In addition, the interview confirms that at this stage ZGRLS cannot perform target designation functions. That is, the author in the article was absolutely right and your attempts at criticism are nothing more than a concussion.
                      By the way, at your leisure, try to find and read how the state of the sea surface affects the possibility of detecting sea targets by ZGRLS.
                    11. Lirik R
                      Lirik R 3 December 2020 20: 38
                      -5
                      Quote: Undecim
                      In his interview, Makarov said that NIIDAR develops ZGRLS surface wave with the possibility of targeting. You yourself understand that the development process, especially in Russia, is an action with an indefinite end time.


                      Are you sure about that? )

                      Quote: Undecim
                      In addition, the interview confirms that at this stage ZGRLS cannot perform target designation functions.


                      How already? ) And the author confidently asserts that ZGRLS cannot give target designation in principle. The spots are there on the map, and the position of the ship inside these spots is estimated by the theory of probability, and nothing else on the screen.

                      Quote: Undecim
                      That is, the author in the article was absolutely right and your attempts at criticism are nothing more than a concussion.


                      The author does not know how ZGRLS work, what can he be right about?

                      Quote: Undecim
                      By the way, at your leisure, try to find and read how the state of the sea surface affects the possibility of detecting sea targets by ZGRLS.


                      Most indispensable. And you look for information about how long and which OGRLS can measure the wave height in the sea.
                  3. Revival
                    Revival 3 December 2020 16: 28
                    +3
                    Well, here we are))
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 2 December 2020 21: 31
    0
    This had negative consequences during the Cuban missile crisis. At the same time, the views of N.S. Khrushchev and the generals from the General Staff were simply not allowed to understand the reasons for the failure of Soviet actions and what measures needed to be taken in the future to avoid their repetition

    What is meant by "failure"?
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 2 December 2020 21: 46
      +1
      What is meant by "failure"?
      Failure means failure.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 2 December 2020 21: 31
    0
    Alexander, thanks for the article!

    This already implies some dimensions for the ship and nullifies the ideas of dreamers about the "mosquito fleet" ...

    The Russian Navy needs a destroyer. Unified rocket and artillery ship. And not any frigates, BODs, corvettes and other different types.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 2 December 2020 21: 54
      +2
      Interesting conclusion
      And what do you propose to do with this one destroyer? What tasks to solve?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 2 December 2020 22: 08
        -1
        All the tasks that a destroyer can do, but not a single frigate, BOD, corvette ...
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 2 December 2020 22: 52
          +3
          Well, you need to provide a near-field PLO, how to do it? One destroyer, which costs as much as 4 IPC, and cannot, unlike them, be in 4 places at the same time?
          It is necessary to escort and protect from seizure merchant ships with strategically important cargo - how to perform this task? The same as the only destroyer, leaving the near zone without cover?
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 3 December 2020 06: 50
            0
            Dear colleague, MPK, RTO, PMK are definitely needed. This is the near sea zone. We are talking about a distant sea / ocean zone, where no one can solve the assigned tasks better than a destroyer.
            And escorting merchant ships with a destroyer is very costly. Although, it all depends on the situation, the load ...
            Frigates popular in the world, recently, have also begun to gain weight, and the output is all the same 6-8 kt. destroyers called frigates. It is simply impossible to cram everything you need into 4 thousand tons, and even provide decent seaworthiness and autonomy.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 3 December 2020 14: 16
      +4
      Quote: Doccor18
      Unified rocket and artillery ship. And not any frigates, BODs, corvettes and other different types.

      what And how are you going to cram what is pushed into what is not pushed? I'm just curious..... repeat
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 3 December 2020 18: 02
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: Doccor18
        Unified rocket and artillery ship. And not any frigates, BODs, corvettes and other different types.

        what And how are you going to cram what is pushed into what is not pushed? I'm just curious..... repeat

        If you do not try to shove Polynomial and 305 mm AU, then you can "shove".
        Project 22350 has almost everything you need. If we double its standard displacement, we get a hull 15-18 meters longer and 3-4 meters wider. We are increasing to 32 TPK UKSK, and to 64 TPK Redut air defense system. Instead of one - two helicopters or 4 UAVs. SJSC Zarya-3, of course, is not the ultimate dream, but so far there is nothing else. What else have you forgotten?
        And, well, yes, GEM ... Well, maybe they will already solve this problem.
        Well, what's "unpickable"?
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 4 December 2020 12: 23
          +2
          UKSK, UVP, additional ZRAK will eat 16 meters long, a second echelon of power plant is needed, living compartments ... will it fit?
          what Well, at least kill me, I still don't understand ... why such a large ship is needed ... isn't it easier to increase the number of 22350s, which in turn will increase the attack rate of the attacked object from different directions and the survivability of attacking ships?
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 4 December 2020 12: 46
            +2
            ... why do we need such a large ship ...

            Autonomy, seaworthiness, survivability,
            ammunition ....
            ... isn't it easier to increase the number of 22350s, which in turn will increase the attacker's attackability

            May be. Only here are how many of them will be mastered by our long-suffering shipbuilding industry. For me, it is better to have two destroyers than three and a half frigates, and the costs are comparable.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 7 December 2020 07: 55
              +1
              Quote: Doccor18
              Autonomy, seaworthiness, survivability,
              ammunition ....

              regarding ..
              Quote: Doccor18
              two destroyers

              By no means ... three and a half frigates scattered on the ground are much more tenacious than two destroyers!
              Quote: Doccor18
              how many of them will be mastered by our long-suffering shipbuilding industry.

              The project has already been worked out, more than one hundred factories have been sharpened for it ... will master! And rushing about with new ambitious projects ... it's a destructive practice ...
  • Selevc
    Selevc 2 December 2020 21: 46
    -5
    The article is all in the spirit - "maybe so, maybe that way ..." - fortune-telling with a pitchfork on the water ... In case of a conflict with a serious enemy, one must understand that any decent war usually does not go as expected. and the interaction of naval and air combat formations can be limited, disrupted by the enemy, or completely impossible.

    And the result of the battle is a combination of all factors - the training of the crew, the coherence of actions, the efficiency of the command, the flexibility and non-standardization of the decisions made, and of course His Majesty the case. Considering all this, it is good when a warship or an aircraft is versatile enough to fight in completely different situations, even in the most extreme situations (which are not uncommon in war) - and it is good when this principle is laid down at the design stage and worked out in exercises ...
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 2 December 2020 22: 05
    +8
    Good afternoon, Alexander, thanks for the interesting article!

    There are several questions.

    1. If we are talking about tracking the NK for the AUG, and the main enemy for us is precisely the AUG, then from what distance will the NK be able to track the AUG? Considering the radio horizon, this is clearly less than 100 km, i.e., in fact, it will be inside the AUG order. What are his chances of avoiding the blow if the opponent decides to hit first or realizes that they are hitting him?

    2. If we are talking only about solving one problem - issuing a control center, then isn't it better to use a long-range UAV? Of course they will be shot down, but at least there are no people there, and at a price they are not comparable to NK. Shot down one, the second advanced.

    Something like Altair or Helios can hang for a day in a couple of thousand kilometers from the base, and if electric UAVs develop (and they get it), then the patrol time there will go on for months, and perhaps for years, and reach will be global.

    Of course, we can say that they do not exist yet, and we are building NK at the very least, but these are quite simple technologies, much simpler than an aircraft carrier, it is simply impermissible not to master them. If desired, this is no more than five years for conventional UAVs and no more than ten for electric ones. It is not a fact that a radar will be installed on electric ones, but optical reconnaissance systems and RTR are quite enough.

    3.
    One sonar reconnaissance ship within a radius of several hundred kilometers from the submarine can already detect it or ensure its detection by other forces.


    Do you mean when driving at a speed above low noise? But on the last submarines, this speed has already reached 20 knots, at least on the Seawulfs. It is unclear, of course, what it is like on Boreas and Ash ...

    4.
    Those methods of evading submarine attacks that ships can resort to (being in a drift, camouflaging among civilian ships, high speed, using helicopters, noise suppression systems) are not available for submarines.


    Disguise under civilian ships, UAVs, in the future, and UAVs. Are active acoustic masking systems also being developed?

    5.
    One of the reasons is that a ship that has given the fullest speed, in real hydrological conditions due to being on the boundary of the media, may be a less noticeable target than a submarine at the same speed.


    And the submarine near the surface is not in the same hydrology as the NC? (this is the question)

    6.
    In addition, a typical ship capable of delivering a powerful blow to enemy surface ships can be simple and cheap, whereas a SSGN cannot. The Ashes Quartet stands like a strike aircraft carrier.


    But NK, comparable to Ash, is, conditionally, Peter the Great or Leader, and an analogue of an inexpensive NK is a diesel-electric submarine or a submarine.

    7.
    If someone wants to fantasize about refueling in the air, then we may not even have enough tankers for bomber aircraft. So the presence of a refueling system is not essential in such a situation.


    This is generally a problem of the USSR / RF - uneven construction of the Armed Forces. Make 50000 tanks, but 90 are outdated, as well as ammunition for them, make the newest fighters and throw cast iron from them. Build aircraft carriers, but do not make berths for them.

    Fuel tankers, transporters, AWACS and RER aircraft are the most important element of the Armed Forces, if NK + aviation is like 1 + 1> 2, then military aviation + tankers + AWACS is raising capabilities to a power.
    1. ANB
      ANB 3 December 2020 00: 18
      0
      I will add another question from myself to the author
      ... And the submarine near the surface is not in the same hydrology as the NC? (this is the question)

      In addition, NK also has a wake. And the screws do not know how to work in low-noise mode.
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 December 2020 10: 45
        +3
        There is a Musker system
        ... To reduce sonar signature, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are equipped with systems that supply air to the underwater part of the ship (Masker system) and to the edges of the propeller blades (PRAIRIE system). As a result of the operation of the latter system, a cloud of air bubbles forms, distorting and smoothing the acoustic signal of the ship. A ship using the PRAIRIE system can be identified by a paler and more foamy wake than usual. When using the Masker system, the trail does not start under the stern, but from about half the length of the hull.
        1. ANB
          ANB 3 December 2020 11: 57
          0
          Is there such a thing on our NDTs?
          1. Avior
            Avior 3 December 2020 12: 42
            +3
            I can’t say, I’ve never heard that there is.
            But in principle, the Americans have had such a system for a long time.
            I also heard that now we are talking about the electric motion of the NK when searching for a submarine at low speed.
      2. timokhin-aa
        3 December 2020 11: 24
        +3
        But the ship is protected from low-frequency illumination, and this is the difference in detection range by tens of times.
    2. Avior
      Avior 3 December 2020 12: 55
      +3
      ... And the submarine near the surface is not in the same hydrology as the NC? (this is the question)

      The hulls of modern submarines are not optimal for surface movement. Maximum travel speed when surfaced is much lower than submerged.
      surely they create a lot of noise.
      1. ANB
        ANB 3 December 2020 13: 17
        +2
        ... probably a lot of noise

        Yes, cavitation starts right there.
    3. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 16: 31
      +3
      1. If we are talking about tracking the NK for the AUG, and the main enemy for us is precisely the AUG, then from what distance will the NK be able to track the AUG? Considering the radio horizon, this is clearly less than 100 km, i.e., in fact, it will be inside the AUG order. What are his chances of avoiding the blow if the opponent decides to hit first or realizes that they are hitting him?


      There are passive RTR seats, there are helicopters, in theory there can be UAVs. A group of ships can control the enemy's order, although, of course, they will not see it in full. In peacetime, before the war, the CNS can walk as in the photo, but if they managed to give a command to track the weapon, then they will follow the enemy from the edge of the "radio horizon". The chances of avoiding the impact of the ship are few, including getting out of the flight path of their missiles.
      But his task is to ensure the issuance of the central control unit, while tracking the weapon, to have time to execute a volley.

      2. If we are talking only about solving one problem - issuing a control center, then isn't it better to use a long-range UAV?


      They should be used in conjunction with other tools, not in place of them. It is important not only not to substitute people, but also to ensure the fulfillment of the combat mission, and here the UAV has a lot of weaknesses, from vulnerability to electronic warfare, to limited means of detection.

      Do you mean when driving at a speed above low noise? But on the last submarines, this speed has already reached 20 knots, at least on the Seawulfs. It is unclear, of course, what it is like on Boreas and Ash ...


      We are talking about something else - the KGAR emits low-frequency waves into the water, and they pass huge distances under water, and make even silent, dead objects resonate, moreover, the secondary wave from the boat can be caught not by the KGAR, but by an enemy submarine, for example. Our submarine's own noise is generally past, it may not make any noise at all.
      NK is hardly vulnerable to such things, it must be HEARED, and taking into account the complex hydrology in the near-surface layers of water, this is a problem.

      And the submarine near the surface is not in the same hydrology as the NC? (this is the question)


      They keep hiding. But still, they are more vulnerable to low-frequency illumination than NK, they cannot give a move, they will go deaf. Niche weapon, until something is done with low frequencies, it will be so.

      But NK, comparable to Ash, is, conventionally, Peter the Great or Leader


      How to say....
      You can make a high-speed frigate for 30 billions, which will have the same 3 * 3S14 as Gorshkov, but with a simplified design and otherwise weakened weapons.
      Then, instead of one Ash, we will have two "hounds" for the same money with the same total salvo, but with much higher combat resistance and more versatile.

      This is generally a problem of the USSR / RF - uneven construction of the Armed Forces.


      Not much better now. The lack of money keeps us from repeating Soviet eccentricities, otherwise they would continue to anneal us.
  • Imobile
    Imobile 2 December 2020 22: 09
    0
    Thanks, very interesting. A question to the author, is there really a need for aircraft carriers? Why catch up if you can go ahead and create drones. They will be much smaller and it is possible to create submarines with aerial drones. It will be much cheaper than an aircraft carrier, and other innovations can be made using stealth technology.
    reduced to one and only ꟷ "one of our ships repels a massive air attack»
    And this is a reflection of all that idiocy that is in the Armed Forces. This does not only apply to ships and tanks. Instead of building multiple communication lines interacting in automatic real time, they hung everything on Kuznetsov. I wonder why there are no electronic warfare (EW), ground-to-ground, ground-to-air missiles, torpedoes and the S-500 complex on the Kalash?
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 2 December 2020 22: 47
      +4
      you can go ahead and create drones.

      First, it would be good to create drones, with which we are not a lot.
    2. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 3 December 2020 04: 54
      -2
      Already at the next exhibition a squadron drone carrier (an escort or a squadron, at choice) of the Zaletny type will be presented in the layout.
    3. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 11: 21
      +4
      Thanks, very interesting. A question to the author, is there really a need for aircraft carriers? Why catch up when you can step forward and create drones. ABOUT


      This is another "desire for the strange" - in a modern war, UAVs should be ON ANY SHIP AT ALL, and without aviation, you will skid on elementary tasks - in order for a UAV to replace a real plane, its "intelligence" should be comparable to that of a human, and in terms of heuristic insights, instincts, etc. - also.
      This is unrealistic. UAV is an aviation assistant, not a substitute. Hammering unorganized, poorly trained troops from the air is one story, suddenly realizing that you went not on the target, but in a missile ambush, and in half a second to take that same. The only correct decision is another matter altogether.

      Well, yes - any aircraft carrier is a drone.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 2 December 2020 23: 07
    +7
    In our time, such ideas are becoming popular in society due to the spread of an infantile view of life and belief in various types of superweapons. (For example, the "Dagger" system). And also due to the inability of some people to accept reality in all its complexity. The latter is manifested in the fact that a simple enumeration of some of the difficulties that accompany the search for enemy ships ("Sea warfare for beginners. We bring an aircraft carrier to strike") in the ocean or the issuance of target designation for the use of missile weapons on them ("Sea warfare for beginners. Target designation problem" ), causes aggression in such infantile personalities. And the low level of intelligence of such a contingent reduces in their views all the variety of situations possible in a war to one or two. (If the war, then with America. If with America, then unlimited. If unlimited, then only nuclear, etc.). Although (again) the real world is very complex.
    good smile
    The trouble for Russia is that it needs a PERSONAL at the helm, capable of realizing that it (Russia) has its own path of development. The current parody of Western capitalism, adjusted for the local flavor, has led to the fact that if something new appears, it was created on Soviet ideas, if it was built, then in quantities inadequate to the size and wealth of the country. As a result, there is only a king with a naked ... um ... the back of the thigh. The appearance of a superweapon was trumpeted to the whole world, but if you dig deeper then it is actually not in service in the required quantities (you hold on - there is no money) request We have not yet been crushed because they themselves degrade, and simply because no one has tried it yet. (God forbid) ... It is worth the same Japan to take the islands (to land troops, destroying the defense in advance), than we will answer. NOTHING! Only by turning what thread a city where a thread in Hokkaido into an analogue of Hiroshima with a shout to give another day to return the territories. For this is in the Defense Doctrine.
    But the Personality would mobilize the country, return the people's wealth to the people, adjust the financial system to the real sector of the economy, and not play with pieces of paper on stock exchanges. I would return the Soviet education system, which taught people to THINK and ANALYZE, not guess the answers. A person would understand that we will ALWAYS be strangers to the West, NEVER the West, before which we are almost fawning (partners, panimash), will not talk to us on equal terms, we are barbarians for them. This manifests itself everywhere - in sports, in trade, in politics. A person would understand that only by creating a closed civilization (with lessons learned from past failures) can one hope for at least self-respect and people's faith in their future. Without pi ... Borey Moiseyevs, "one parent and two parents", without education half-witches who make 5 mistakes in the word "bread" one after another "teaching" concepts for non-surrender of the strip.
    Then the money will appear for ships, planes, brains will not flow away. And maybe we'll learn to play football, and not go to pubs ... Ugh ... request
    Kapets ... it's boiling ... what I went to bed ...
    PS. Timokhin like - let him even make people THINK with his articles!
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 December 2020 23: 56
    +3
    The article is interesting. An attempt to present a complex model from the field of operation research on the "fingers".
    But the conclusion is obvious - the issue of balancing the quantity, quality and principles of interaction between the fleet and aviation requires an understanding of the tasks and capabilities.
    Well, we also remember examples of thoughtless bombing of tank columns by naval aviation in 1941.
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira 3 December 2020 03: 33
    -4
    The ratio of forces on ships is 20 to 8, or 2,5 to one in favor of the enemy. Let's say we "won" the first salvo - the ships of our OBK, tracking the enemy's NMC with the help of passive RTR and UAV means, with periodic reconnaissance missions of shipborne helicopters, at the time of receiving the order to strike, they had accurate data about the enemy. The enemy managed to mislead, using the setting of false targets, maneuvering unmanned boats with corner reflectors, the approach of helicopters and UAVs from the side of a false order and other measures that in any case must be followed. As a result, our volley went first to the target, and the enemy's volley went almost entirely to a false order, "catching" only one or two ships in both OBK.

    Suppose that the enemy shot down some of the missiles, some went “not on their own” targets, a couple of three broke down and did not reach. As a result, the volley cost the enemy six ships in each detachment - partly destroyed at once, and partly lost their speed and combat effectiveness. The enemy was able to destroy one ship in one OBK and two in the second.

    Or even better, a methyor will suddenly fall on the enemy's grouping, or a saucer from Alpha Centauri will fly in and set them on fire with lasers))
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 11: 22
      +3
      And something serious to write?
      1. strelokmira
        strelokmira 4 December 2020 16: 21
        -3
        And something serious to write?

        Hmm, this is what I write in the article as without problems, we can destroy a numerically and technically superior enemy with small forces?))
        1. timokhin-aa
          4 December 2020 18: 41
          +2
          Why no problem? Where did you see without problems?
          1. strelokmira
            strelokmira 4 December 2020 18: 53
            +1
            Why no problem? Where did you see without problems?

            Well, yes, but it wasn't you who wrote it, it appeared by itself) Okay, destroy at least the fleets, the paper will endure everything
            To me, if I may say so, "analysts" here, very much remind the propagandists from Armenia, how the conflict began like that on all Internet resources they screamed about how in three days Azerbaijan would be defeated, defeated ... Well, here too, the superior fleet of the enemy will tear a hot water bottle like a tuzik
  • SID
    SID 3 December 2020 12: 08
    +2
    Thank you for the article. This "Sea War" cycle must be continued.
    As the understanding of the war at sea spreads among the people, the pressure on "rotten people in the system"...
    Quote: Imobile
    Rotten people come in a rotten system! Whatever you want

    ... and their opportunities for abuse are reduced, and for healthy people in the system, opportunities open up to creative work.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 December 2020 13: 29
    +4
    Hence the simplest conclusion. The enemy will always be able to throw as many aircraft into the attack as the air cover cannot shoot down.

    In the second approximation: the radius of effective work of coastal fighter aviation when covering ships is equal to: 1/2 the distance from the home airfield to the border of the detection zone of air targets minus the launch range of the enemy anti-ship missiles minus the takeoff and gathering margin. Only in this case the reserves from the coastal airfield will have time to come to the aid of the duty unit before it is shot down by the enemy's air clearing group and its strikers will launch the anti-ship missiles.
  • Volder
    Volder 3 December 2020 13: 56
    -3
    People who at some points disagree with the author are "infantile and aggressive personalities with a low level of intelligence", "not very smart people in the street." This is directly written in the article. And after such insults to readers, the author expects that he and his work will be treated with respect. And before that, he called all those who disagree "pink ponies" and sneered at their naive simplicity. Moreover, when the author is pointed to his gaps in the presentation of information, then he himself does not admit his mistakes. But his far-reaching conclusions are off scale ...
    In this article, the author once again emphasized his misunderstanding about the centralized coordination of the actions of the Navy and the Aerospace Forces, about the principles of network-centric warfare. The problem of poor interaction in interspecific groupings has long been resolved. As part of the Aerospace Forces there are bombers, which are equipped, among other things, with anti-ship missiles (X-35, X-32, 9-S-7760) to combat sea targets. These missiles will certainly break through the Aegis-class air defense / missile defense system.
    Further. The author does not cite excerpts from any documents where a preemptive (preemptive) strike on the enemy is allowed. Our military doctrine provides only for a retaliatory or retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons. The use of conventional (non-nuclear) missiles in a major war is unlikely. Therefore, the first volley at the beginning of the battle will be made by the enemy. The opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy V.N. Chernavin does not take into account the political and diplomatic component, and it also became obsolete after the disappearance of the USSR. It becomes clear why the author does not consider situations in which conditions for the first salvo from Russia would arise. Even if a hundred enemy ships approach the territorial waters of the Russian Federation, we will not have to shoot, but obediently wait for the first salvo from the enemy. Russia is not a country that needs the status of having unleashed a war.
    If the enemy's submarine (SSGN) will be able to attack the CD "from under the shore" (in the absence of effective PLO and OVR forces), then the end of our airfields (too little flight time is obtained, we do not have time to react).
    Airfields are certainly not the end. The author "forgets" that the speed of the Tomahawks is subsonic and they are effectively brought down / taken away by our echeloned air defense / electronic warfare system. Needless to say, these systems are constantly on alert, and during a threatened period, their combat readiness approaches 100%. It is also recommended to look at the map to make sure that not all of our airfields are near the coast. Many of them are located far from the seas.
    approximately 1 kilometers. This is the theoretical limit on how far aerial reconnaissance can go. It is not difficult to see that she will have to explore vast areas to find "contact". Then it still needs to be classified, to establish what exactly these are goals.
    The author again "forgot" about long-range ground-based radars, which well record the takeoff of aircraft - even from the ground, even from the water surface. It is clear that if an airplane suddenly appeared in the middle of the ocean or sea, then this clearly indicates AUG. NATO members are unlikely to risk attacking Russia without their aircraft carriers. About satellite imagery from space, orders of ships moving in one direction (wake), and therefore easily identifiable, I am already silent ...
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 3 December 2020 14: 10
      +2
      Or you can learn more about
      centralized coordination of actions of the Navy and VKS.

      that
      The problem of poor interaction in interspecific groupings has long been resolved.
      ?

      I think it will be interesting for many to read.
      1. Volder
        Volder 3 December 2020 14: 37
        -5
        Quote: Lex_is
        Or you can learn more
        Have you heard anything about the National Center for Defense Management of the Russian Federation? Google ...
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 3 December 2020 14: 41
          +2
          I suspect I've heard a lot more about him than you wink

          And?
          Will there be a story about the centralized coordination of the Navy and the Aerospace Forces?
          1. timokhin-aa
            3 December 2020 16: 11
            +3
            No, it will not laughing
            1. Lex_is
              Lex_is 3 December 2020 17: 29
              +3
              Sorry.
              So I wanted to hear how people with wide stripes from the Central Command Center of the General Staff in manual mode carry out operational interaction between the Air Force and the Navy.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 3 December 2020 17: 53
                +2
                Quote: Lex_is
                So I wanted to hear how people with wide stripes from the Central Command Center of the General Staff in manual mode carry out operational interaction between the Air Force and the Navy.

                How, how ... I'm afraid that it will be as usual: all interaction will come down to the fact that the uncles with large stripes will begin to use the Navy Air Force to solve the problems of the Air Force of the Aerospace Forces - in the interests of the ground.
          2. Volder
            Volder 4 December 2020 07: 48
            -4
            Quote: Lex_is
            Will there be a story about the centralized coordination of the Navy and the Aerospace Forces?
            For people like you, the official website of the Ministry of Defense says in black and white:
            The National Defense Control Center of the Russian Federation (NCU) is designed to provide centralized combat control of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; ensuring control over the day-to-day activities of the Air Force and the Navy ...
            Main goals:
            - provision of command, coordination and control of flights and flights of aviation of the Armed Forces;
            - providing command, coordination and control over the fulfillment of the tasks of combat service and combat duty by the forces (troops) of the Navy ...
            - maintaining the centralized combat control system of the RF Armed Forces in readiness for combat use ...

            For additional explanations and details about the work of the Center, you can contact Shoigu personally or his subordinates. I think they will be happy to provide you with all the information you are interested in, revealing the content of internal regulations and instructions.
            1. Lex_is
              Lex_is 4 December 2020 08: 39
              +1
              That's it!
              Well, if the site says - then of course, what is there to argue with?

              And do not tell me, who are the operators of the General Staff and at what level do they plan operations and interact?
              Is it not very difficult for you?
              1. Volder
                Volder 4 December 2020 09: 46
                -4
                Quote: Lex_is
                Well, if the site says - then of course, what is there to argue with?
                It is correct that you do not undertake to argue. Arguing without arguments is a dead number. I understand that you really do not like the activities of the Center and the very fact of its existence, hence the same distrust as to "Putin's cartoons".
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 4 December 2020 09: 49
                  +1
                  Before making deep statements, it is not superfluous to have at least some knowledge of the topic.
                  If your knowledge of the level "I read something and did not understand nichrome what it is" it is better not to show unfamiliar people all the gaping depths of your thinking and refrain from loud statements.
                  1. Volder
                    Volder 7 December 2020 09: 24
                    0
                    Quote: Lex_is
                    Before making deep statements, it is not superfluous to have at least some knowledge of the topic.
                    Your empty rantings are not accepted. Only arguments that you don't have are accepted. I recommend not to get personal when discussing topics.
                    1. Lex_is
                      Lex_is 7 December 2020 10: 06
                      -1
                      I see no reason to give any arguments to a person who does not have the slightest idea about the structure of command and control of troops and has no idea how the work of general staff operators differs from the headquarters of the fleet.
                      1. Volder
                        Volder 7 December 2020 10: 46
                        0
                        If you had at least some idea of ​​the structure of command and control, you would know that the work of general staff operators is not duplicated and does not contradict the work of the fleet headquarters both in terms of functionality and tasks. If you do not understand why the National Defense Center exists and do not believe in its effectiveness, then sorry, these are not my problems.
                      2. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 7 December 2020 14: 05
                        -1
                        Do you have verbal incontinence?
                        Take it easy.
                        You have demonstrated the full depth of your knowledge, no more is needed.
                      3. Volder
                        Volder 7 December 2020 14: 42
                        0
                        So that you are understood correctly, instead of some hints, innuendo and a transition to personalities, it is advisable to immediately say directly and specifically what you mean and what you disagree with. Any disagreement needs to be substantiated. You probably know better than the military how to work properly. And they do not know, because they are dumber than you. You are funny :)
  • timokhin-aa
    3 December 2020 15: 26
    +3
    It's all so clear that I just don't even know ...

    By inviting you to write short comments. Because for each of your statements, you will have to give a bunch of explanations, and in order to answer this comment, you will have to write a whole article, everything is so neglected.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 December 2020 17: 40
    +2
    Quote: Volder
    It is clear that if an airplane suddenly appeared in the middle of the ocean or sea, then this clearly indicates AUG.

    Or about the arrival of a patrolman in the area. Or about the flight of the Air Force nicknames. Or about going out to the "bogus" area - the same UAV imitating aircraft carrier aircraft.
    In short - an unidentified spot on the screen.
    Quote: Volder
    About satellite imagery from space, orders of ships moving in one direction (wake), and therefore easily identifiable, I am already silent ...

    Yyyy ... just a couple of articles ago there were space images of AUG - even the group's course cannot be determined from them. There was also a map of the "holes" in the view areas of the satellite imagery.
    1. Volder
      Volder 4 December 2020 08: 32
      -2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Or about the arrival of a patrolman in the area. Or about the flight of the Air Force nicknames. Or about going into the "bogus" area - the same UAV imitating carrier aircraft. In short - an unidentified spot on the screen.
      There are no planes on patrolmen, there are helicopters. The flight of strategic aircraft is carried out from the coast and at the same time there is always the same number of aircraft (new ones suddenly do not appear). What kind of UAVs simulate aircraft carrier aircraft? I don't know about those. Enlighten, please. Unidentified stains are rare. For example, identification of commercial and tourist vessels can be carried out by RTR satellites (Pion-NKS, Lotos-S), forming a radio-technical image of sea objects based on the analysis of radar information.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      just a couple of articles ago there were AUG satellite images - even the group's course cannot be determined from them. There was also a map of the "holes" in the view areas of the satellite imagery.
      The aircraft carriers in those images barely moved. As for the map, the orbits of the Chinese satellites over the region in the form of narrow lanes were mistaken for the coverage area. The line of sight of satellites covers the entire region, not narrow areas.
      1. timokhin-aa
        4 December 2020 08: 53
        +1
        There are no planes on patrolmen, there are helicopters.


        A man wrote to you about a patrol plane

        What kind of UAVs simulate aircraft carrier aircraft? I don't know about those.


        Almost any, you just need to attach the "lens".

        RTR ("Pion-NKS",


        Peony is not an RTR, it has not just been harvested yet - they do not know how to collect it.

        The aircraft carriers in those images barely moved.


        Why do you think so?


        As for the map, the orbits of the Chinese satellites over the region in the form of narrow lanes were mistaken for the coverage area. The line of sight of satellites covers the entire region, not narrow areas.


        No, you are confusing the swath width with the line of sight.

        Where does such militant illiteracy come from in you?
        1. victor50
          victor50 4 December 2020 19: 18
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Where does this come from in you militant illiteracy?

          It is traditionally from here. laughing
  • t-12
    t-12 3 December 2020 16: 53
    -2
    All of this is correct. Only one question: will there be a naval war with NATO at all? You mean ships against ships? Or will NATO withdraw its fleet to the bases (under the protection of coastal artillery and aviation), while our fleet attacks with ground-based aircraft? Around the Black, Baltic, Sea of ​​Japan there are entirely NATO air bases.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 3 December 2020 17: 42
      +2
      Only one question: will there be a naval war with NATO at all?


      Who knows him? It is quite probable.
      Or NATO will withdraw its fleet to the bases (under the protection of coastal artillery and aviation)

      And why should he take the fleet so far? Nothing particularly threatens him in the places of deployment.
      And they do not have coastal artillery, due to its uselessness.
    2. timokhin-aa
      3 December 2020 19: 08
      +2
      And this is a very good question. Highly. For real.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 4 December 2020 07: 59
    -3

    And also due to the inability of some people to accept reality in all its complexity.

    To which the author of this article belongs. What does this actually do in the Armament section? Is there an overview of the performance characteristics of a particular sample? This kind of work is written to be in opinions, because, damn it, a person is doing exactly what he does here - pushes his opinion.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 December 2020 08: 55
      +1
      Write a complaint to Sportloto.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 4 December 2020 08: 43
    +2
    What conclusion arises from the article - it is necessary to study, study and study military science in a real way. Naval development should proceed from clear goals of naval strategy and well-thought-out tactical schemes.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 10: 30
    -1
    If someone wants to fantasize about refueling in the air, then we may not even have enough tankers for bomber aircraft. So the presence of a refueling system is not essential in such a situation.

    I want to clarify if I understand correctly.
    We do not have many components of naval assault aviation, ranging from technical equipment (Onyx missiles) to organizational issues - the creation of the entire MTB, the building of a control system for the beginning of the fleet command, active development of tactics for use, followed by joint exercises on a regular basis.
    This is not all.

    There are air tankers and a refueling rod on the Su-34.

    But, by what logic do you propose not to fantasize about what is. And against the background of this, write a large text on the topic of what we do not have (i.e. fantasize).
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 December 2020 11: 50
      +1
      The point is that there is no need to plan refueling - it will not be very long.
      But the blows described in the article can execute forces that can actually be created in three years.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 12: 29
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The point is that there is no need to plan refueling - it will not be very long.




        But the blows described in the article can perform forces that can actually be created in three years

        The point is that an operation that has been performed for a long time is characterized by you as a fantasy. And the call was made not to do it.
        And the fact that "will be in 3 years" - ie. what you write about the whole topic, about it means fantasizing normally.

        Don't you think this logic is a little ... lame?
        I remember a bearded saying - you either take off the cross, or put on your panties.
        1. timokhin-aa
          4 December 2020 12: 31
          +1
          Count the tankers in the ranks and see how many they are being built.
          And this is without taking into account the fact that their sailors may simply not be given.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 12: 55
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Count the tankers in the ranks and see how many they are being built.

            In any case, there are more of them than what will be only "in 3 years". It seems obvious to me.

            In this case, we have Tankers, they have been produced for a long time, and the crews have been training for a long time.
            And this is much more real ... in fact, than your FANTASIES about missiles that will be "in 3 years".

            But for some reason you allow yourself your fantasies.
            And much more real things, in the form of real-life tankers, are dismissed as impossible.

            And this is without taking into account the fact that their sailors may simply not be given.

            And the missiles about which you FANTASY here are given right here tomorrow, right?

            Let me explain - I'm not against missiles and "fantasies". I just don’t see the difference, why you can fantasize about your own, while others “cannot” from your words, fantasize about a more real thing - just give the plane today and that tomorrow they would already work out typical operations.
            1. timokhin-aa
              4 December 2020 13: 29
              +1
              In any case, there are more of them than what will be only "in 3 years". It seems obvious to me.


              Their current quantity is not enough even for YES. And, unlike tactical aviation, their number cannot be increased quickly.
              Is this incomprehensible?
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 14: 08
                -3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Their current quantity is not enough even for YES. And, unlike tactical aviation, their number cannot be increased quickly.
                Is this incomprehensible?

                What's not clear to you about the phrase "double standards"?

                I tell you about Thomas, you tell me about Eremu.
                What is physically - you dubbed fantasy.
                And then what is not - you dedicated a whole cart of text.
                How quickly you can increase their number is not at all relevant to this issue, this is the next stage.
                And why don't you apply your own philosophy, which you wrote to me, to your article?
                Do our current military programs teach you nothing? In a day or two, M. Klimov's article on the situation with R&D will be published, see how it is there in real life, who and what takes into account ...



                Do you really not see the giant double standards that you regularly encounter?
                Don't you really notice?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  4 December 2020 18: 38
                  +3
                  My humble life experience suggests that a person who believes in hunting for surface ships with Tu-160 cannot distinguish double standards from triple or single standards.
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 19: 08
                    -2
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    My humble life experience suggests that a person who believes in hunting for surface ships with Tu-160 cannot distinguish double standards from triple or single standards.

                    And mine says that people turn to personalities exclusively from impotence))))

                    By the way, I don't believe in anything, I just asked questions in the format of an open discussion.
                    I received strong arguments from the pilot and agreed with him.

                    You can read above. his tz. convinced me. Because I considered his argument weighty.
                    And your arguments are frankly weak. Based on ignorance.
                    A large number of errors, for example, about PTB - it is very interesting to see an approximate calculation.
                    What kind of education do you have, by the way?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 December 2020 13: 00
      +4
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      There are air tankers and a refueling rod on the Su-34.

      The problem is that the Air Force of the Navy and the Air Force of the Aerospace Forces are two different departments. All tankers are now in the VKS Air Force (two dozen Il-78). And they will be used, due to their small number, only in the interests of this particular department.
      The aviation of the fleet can only hope for refueling in the style of the Su-24 or "Hornet" - from the same type of vehicle with PTB and UPAZ.
      1. timokhin-aa
        4 December 2020 13: 27
        +2
        He does not understand.
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 14: 17
          -3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          He does not understand.

          No need to bring down the sore head to the healthy.

          It is more convenient for you to say that I do not understand something than to admit my GIANT double standards.
          There is nothing wrong with that, but this is apparently your psychology.

          A crowd of fan-fights is running after you here, plus NOBODY can point you to wild trash.
          Both in some details and huge holes in logic.


          As for the details - a joke with dropping the PTB and not far from the base.
          Explain now without dodging - why won't he reach if he drops the PTB?
          Take a piece of paper and write in a number and voice it here.
          1. timokhin-aa
            4 December 2020 18: 36
            +1
            Explain now without dodging - why won't he reach if he drops the PTB?


            It will not reach it because there is not enough fuel. And planes do not fly without fuel.
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 18: 56
              -2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              It will not reach it because there is not enough fuel. And planes do not fly without fuel.

              Please provide fuel calculations.
              How many were in the internal and PTB.
              How far the plane flew from the airfield.
              At what point was I forced to drop the PTB.
              How much fuel remains in the internal tanks.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 14: 41
        -2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The problem is that the Air Force of the Navy and the Air Force of the Aerospace Forces are two different departments. All tankers are now in the VKS Air Force (two dozen Il-78). And they will be used, due to their small number, only in the interests of this particular department.
        The aviation of the fleet can only hope for refueling in the style of the Su-24 or "Hornet" - from the same type of vehicle with PTB and UPAZ.

        I understand the problem perfectly.
        The question is different ... why it is positioned as unsolvable, and the issue of missiles (which I understand is done only in the fantasies of the author of the article) against the background of real aircraft (tankers) deserves a whole article.


        In my opinion, these are both "fantasies". But with tankers, the fantasy is more real. That's what it is about.
        Again, in my opinion, it is necessary to work in both directions.


        will only be in the interests of this particular department.

        Alexander wrote above that they are not enough for the needs of the DA aviation.
        I'm wondering what kind of needs YES has. On practice.
        The combat radius of the Tu-160 is 7000, the missiles fly another 5000.
        What real combat missions will refuellers be required for?
        Not for training, when they fly across the North Pole to Syria, but straight on the battlefield.


        I do not see a problem of 20 vehicles, give 3 to one of the fleets.
        So that the command would train, develop tactics, train them.
        All this will be useful both today and with an eye to the future. Who knows what will happen to our aircraft carrier. But in the fleet there will already be personnel who actively used refueling.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 December 2020 14: 56
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          The question is ... why is it positioned as unsolvable

          Because the Indians have already made friends with the Su-30 "Brahmos" - and we have a chance to meet the three years indicated by the author. And new tanker aircraft will take 15 years to build - and only then the Aerospace Forces will have enough of them to share.
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Range combat radius Tu-160 7000

          With a maximum range of 13950 km, the combat radius of 7000 km is impossible. The combat radius is about a third of the practical range: a third of the fuel there, a third - back, a third is additional consumption at suboptimal speeds and altitudes (supersonic, PMA, etc.) and deviation from the optimal course.
          We get the combat radius of the Tu-160 somewhere around 4-4,5 thousand km.
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          rockets fly another 5000.

          And which ALCMs fly 5000 km?
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 15: 57
            -2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And new tanker aircraft will take 15 years to build - and only then the Aerospace Forces will have enough of them to share.

            As a result, the question boils down to the fact that you think that there are not enough of them, and I believe that there are not many of them, but a couple can be transferred to the fleet.
            Do you have any calculations that show how many tankers a VKS needs?
            That's right in numbers.


            With a maximum range of 13950 km, the combat radius of 7000 km is impossible. The combat radius is about a third of the practical range: a third of the fuel there, a third - back, a third is additional consumption at suboptimal speeds and altitudes (supersonic, PMA, etc.) and deviation from the optimal course.

            I have already written here an article about the Tu-160, where I referred to the encyclopedic data on this aircraft, taking into account the history of its design and the numbers discussed in the process.
            The radius of 7000 km includes a supersonic section of 2000 km.
            Therefore, the "third" about which you write is already taken into account.

            And which ALCMs fly 5000 km?

            x-101

            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 4 December 2020 17: 49
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              I have already written here an article about the Tu-160, where I referred to the encyclopedic data on this aircraft, taking into account the history of its design and the numbers discussed in the process.
              The radius of 7000 km includes a supersonic section of 2000 km.

              You wrote in the article:
              With the agreed options for the combat load from the complex was supposed to receive: operating range with 24 Kh-15 missiles - 6-100 km; with two X-7 missiles - 100-45 km; with 7 Kh-300 missiles - 8-000 km. With 12 promising missiles, analogs of the American ALCM (future Kh-55SM) -8-500 km. In this case, the supersonic flight section of the aircraft had reach 2-300 km.

              That is, 7000 km radius is assumptionswritten in the TK. It is not known what actually happened, but the official maximum range of the Tu-160 is 14 km. And the combat radius of 000 km with such a range does not work in any way.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 18: 53
                -3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                That is, 7000 km radius are the assumptions written in the TK. It is not known what actually happened, but the official maximum range of the Tu-160 is 14 km. And the combat radius of 000 km with such a range does not work in any way.

                When a complex of weapons is being developed, the main factor is precisely the combat radius, taking into account the typical intended BZ.
                Those. the calculation of the combat radius is initially more technically competent and justified. That's why I brought him. But apparently in vain I tried to show not just naked numbers, stupidly copied from the wiki, but some kind of logic behind them.

                OK. I heard you.
                1) In KB-Tupolevo, one of the main parameters of the strategist "missed" by as much as 30% and instead of 7500 its radius is 5000; 10 years thought and gave birth -30% of the plan.
                2) At the same time, they did not miss in the completely left parameter - ferry range;
                3) And you, on the basis of this "correct parameter" (why did you define it as the correct question of another) on your knees, using the mathematical apparatus of the aliens "rule of thirds" were able to calculate everything correctly and see their miscalculation.

                Pluralism of opinions. I have nothing against.

                OK. Let's count your way. 4000 range of the aircraft ... 5000 range of the rocket (funny ... well, what can you do).

                So who is the YES going to bomb with refuellers?
                And what is the calculation of the quantity?

                I'm serious. Is there a concept?
                Here is the target, here is the range, here they take off, at such and such a stage they must refuel. How many tons should they take? So many bombers, so many refuellers?

                Where is the calculation of the required number of aircraft for DA?
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 4 December 2020 22: 36
    -3

    And also due to the inability of some people to accept reality in all its complexity.

    To which the author of this article belongs. What does this actually do in the Armament section? Is there an overview of the performance characteristics of a particular sample? This kind of work is written to be in opinions, because, damn it, a person is doing exactly what he does here - pushes his opinion.
  • Pamir
    Pamir 4 December 2020 22: 56
    +1
    In general, the Navy needs a lot, the construction of the Navy is a very expensive thing, but necessary. The Navy is the most expensive type of the Armed Forces in the structure of the Ministry of Defense. The trouble is probably that mentally the country's leadership from generation to generation is purely mainland-minded. It is too accustomed that trouble always comes from land But it has long been known that the most dangerous likely enemy is overseas, and if he wants to (if we exclude the creation of fifth columns and Maidans), then due to geography, there will be no alternative to influencing us at least at the initial stage of the conflict, due to geography, only with with the help of the Navy and the Air Force. And then, God forbid, we will not have problems, well, maybe not a catastrophe, but it will be difficult. Own aviation in the structure of the Navy is necessary, even if some naval chiefs need to be broken through the knee. And work without twisting aviation with NK, without each other will not work. Alexander article is good, respect.
  • ab2020
    ab2020 3 January 2021 11: 38
    0
    Oh, they love to appoint Khrushchev to blame for everything. And they forget that the cost of the army was monstrous. And for a country that has survived the worst war, it is clearly excessive. And the politicians of that time were looking for their "asymmetric response". Found it? Yes. And just in missiles: intercontinental. In the Navy: in the development of missile weapons.
    Neither now nor then does the country have the resources to maintain several AUGs. And fantasizing about "how many where and what kind of weapons we need", it should be remembered that Russia has a population of 130 million, and we are opposed by the USA + Europe - more than 1 billion, China - more than 1 billion. We have objectively fewer resources for the army and fleet. And we need "cheap and cheerful".