Military Review

"Subsonic speed is a virtue": American experts on tests of the new Tomahawk missile

198

Tomahawk Block V launch



The US Navy in December this year conducted the first tests of the newest type of Tomahawk missiles, which were launched from the destroyer USS Chafee (DDG 90) in the Pacific waters.

The Tomahawk Block V is a completely new modification of the legendary sea-launched missile, which the Americans have been proud of for many years [...] The new version, with its subsonic speed, has a hidden advantage in the era of hypersonic missiles in China and Russia. Tomahawk Block V could be a real threat to enemy fleets on the high seas

- writes the Western press, commenting on news.

As stated in the Defense News pages, the new missile has a number of advantages. Firstly, in comparison with its predecessors, the range of destruction of Block V has increased significantly, amounting to 1600 km. The missile has increased striking power, greater penetration and a new guidance system that more accurately identifies targets.

Secondly, Block V is able to more effectively withstand external influences, as it is equipped with a more powerful electronic warfare system, which will make it difficult for the enemy to implement the task of hacking the missile control during its flight.

Third, "the advantage of the new Tomahawk is its subsonic speed," despite the fact that Russia and China have already entered the era of supersonic and hypersonic missiles.

The advantage of a subsonic missile in flight range

- says Brian Clarke, a retired submarine officer, pointing out that Block V's subsonic flight mode is fuel-efficient, so the range is "well beyond the officially declared 1000-mile radius."

To get this range on a supersonic missile, you need something much more.

Clarke suggests.

Fourthly, the rocket has a low price [according to press reports, the cost of Block V is $ 1 million, while analogues - $ 3,5 million per unit weapons].

The key ability of the new Tomahawk is cost

- says Jerry Hendrix, retired captain fleet.

According to expert Tom Karako, with the new missile, the fleet will bomb terrorist camps "without hesitation, only having received an order from the president."

However, a number of media outlets go even further, discussing the "advantages" of the new Tomahawk. Thus, the Bulgarian edition Bulgarian Military writes that due to their low cost, American ships and submarines will be able to double their arsenal of weapons. Apparently, as conceived by the authors, the number of launchers will increase spontaneously.

Photos used:
US Navy website
198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bacha
    Bacha 16 December 2020 05: 53
    +67
    Demagoguery is when they prove, lying in bed with a naked woman, that a recumbent member is better than a standing one. So it is here.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 16 December 2020 06: 20
      +27
      «Subsonic speed is an asset": American experts on testing a new Tomahawk missile

      It, of course, is possible - slowly but surely. But to give out subsonic speed characteristics as a clear and defining advantage is too much.

      1. alma
        alma 16 December 2020 06: 52
        +24
        Quote: Insurgent
        to issue a subsonic speed characteristic for a clear, and defining advantage, this is too much

        "A good mine with a bad game" ©
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 16 December 2020 08: 49
          +18
          And also homosexuals collect tomoghawks, which gives a +10 damage bonus.
          1. halpat
            halpat 16 December 2020 10: 08
            +13
            Quote: Pereira
            And also homosexuals collect tomoghawks, which gives a +10 damage bonus.

            and blacks - +10 more
            and all transgender people are in charge of this all +20.
            In total, we have + 40% to damage, taking the basic structure for 100 units.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 16 December 2020 10: 35
              +4
              Fourthly, the rocket has a low price [according to press reports, the cost of Block V is $ 1 million, while its counterparts have $ 3,5 million per weapon].

              Yes, yes, yes ... The cheapest and longest range. laughing
              And here is information from another article on VO:

              Tomahawk (TACTOM) Block V - $ 1 (the cost of the base variant for engaging ground targets). The cost of upgrading Block V to Block Va Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) anti-ship missiles or Block Vb missile with the new Joint Multiple Action Warhead System (JMEWS), as well as to upgrade Block IV to Block V standard, is funded separately. The cost of one upgrade is $ 537.

              https://topwar.ru/178060-do-36-mln-dollarov-za-edinicu-v-ssha-nazvali-stoimost-zenitnyh-i-udarnyh-raket-dlja-amerikanskogo-flota.html
          2. Comrade I
            Comrade I 16 December 2020 16: 48
            +1
            +20 to p̶e̶n̶e̶t̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n armor penetration!
          3. Charik
            Charik 17 December 2020 18: 49
            0
            yeah-especially if he comes in from the stern, and there the defense is not very
      2. Runway
        Runway 16 December 2020 06: 55
        -14%
        This is one of the parameters. What we have in service with the fleets (anti-ship missiles zoo) - most of them play at 2-2,5M. It's great. Here are just the ranges declared in terms of performance characteristics at the maximum are 2 times less than that of the "ax" (we "do not eat" for the Caliber, because it is the "brother" of the "ax").
        About "Zircon" - it's too early to beat the drums.
        So our steamers will need 400 times more time to reach the launch line (500-25 km to the target) than the launched "ax".
        If we admit banter over the Yankees with their "slow" "ax", then why don't we "swear" the "not fast" "Caliber" (tell me what is the range of the calibrated PCR?)
        1. Thrifty
          Thrifty 16 December 2020 07: 13
          +3
          VVP - have you heard such a tricky word-kinematics? So, a rocket flying at supersonic speed has a kinematic impact force on the hull or deck much higher than that of a subsonic one, even if their warhead contains the same amount of explosives of absolutely the same composition! !! Hence the damage will be much higher, perhaps even critical. And subsonic rockets will take several pieces to get the same result!
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 December 2020 07: 53
            +6
            Hence the damage will be much higher, possibly even critical.

            seems to be correct, only in fact, damage from kinetic impact is insignificant. There are ships - targets, you can see it clearly on them - a hole from a rocket, sometimes, on the move and you will not see it.
            I also remember the motor ship Vereshchagin, into which the P-35 got into during the shooting - the hole seems to be large, but in reality even a small boat did not drown and did not seriously damage anything.
            1. Temples
              Temples 16 December 2020 09: 01
              +7
              Quote: Thrifty
              VVP - have you heard such a tricky word-kinematics?

              Quote: Thrifty
              kinematic impact force

              Kinematics is pure mathematics. This is a mathematical description of the process. This is not energy !!!

              After reading the formula to the ship and proving the theorem to the captain of the ship, you will not force the hull of the ship to fall apart, but the captain of the ship will throw you overboard, so that you would tell your calculations to the sharks. laughing

              Energy - kinetic or potential. wink
          2. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 16 December 2020 07: 55
            +6
            Quote: Thrifty
            VVP - have you heard such a tricky word-kinematics? So, a rocket flying at supersonic speed has a kinematic impact force on the hull or deck much higher than that of a subsonic one,

            Kinematics (Greek κινειν - to move) in physics is a section of mechanics that studies the mathematical description (by means of geometry, algebra, mathematical analysis ...) the movement of idealized bodies (material point, absolutely rigid body, ideal fluid), without considering the causes of movement (mass, forces etc.). The initial concepts of kinematics are space and time.
            The kinematic blow is deadly!
            1. Runway
              Runway 16 December 2020 09: 02
              +4
              Well, the man in the "heat of battle" confused lean with unleavened. Why are you so immediately about the tile ... laughing
          3. Runway
            Runway 16 December 2020 08: 23
            +8
            You, dear, read diagonally (not carefully). In the note itself, a certain former warrior Clark gives a direct relationship between the range of the "ax" and its speed.
            Figuratively: you are in me with a PM with an aiming speed of 50 m / an initial speed of 315 m / s, and I am in you with a TOZ-8 with an aiming speed of 250 m and an initial speed of 250 m / s. But we are firing from My Sighting Distance - 250 m. So that you can apply the PM to you, your friend needs to stomp 200 meters. But you will go through this distance Much slower that my bullet (or 2-4 bullets) will overcome it.
            We will have a GZ RCC with an “ax shoulder” - then we can laugh at the Yankees.
            That's the whole story.
            1. Pereira
              Pereira 16 December 2020 08: 52
              +10
              And if the Ax's speed is halved, then he will fly 3 thousand km to all the Khan.
              1. Temples
                Temples 16 December 2020 11: 27
                +10
                The Americans have a lot of axes. Lots of.
                From a distance of 1600 km, they can send a bunch of these missiles to a given point.
                It will be very difficult to deal with them.

                It is also important that rockets can fly to a given point from different directions. For the shoulder is large and the carriers are full.

                It is also difficult to detect the flight of this "flock" because they fly low above the water.

                By increasing the missile launch range, the Americans increase the force of the strike.

                It is also stated that the characteristics of the rocket have been improved in terms of accuracy.

                There is nothing to laugh about.

                The caliber is a good rocket, but remember the number of both missiles and carriers.


                1. Temples
                  Temples 16 December 2020 11: 38
                  +4
                  And more.

                  American axes are a tool for governing the EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and other Turks.

                  A flock of axes fired from the Mediterranean Sea is guaranteed to destroy any European troublemaker.

                  The war with the Russians is a horror story.

                  But the control of their territories is a daily practice.

                  The Americans do not need the rebels yerdogans. I have no doubt that there will be an indicative flogging so that there are no temptations in the satellite countries.

                  This is where axes are needed - not expensive, without the death of their own soldiers.
                  1. Vladimir247
                    Vladimir247 20 December 2020 10: 26
                    +1
                    This is where axes come in ...
                    ------------
                    This is one thing.
                    And they can also assemble a ship group in the waters of the Kara and the Laptev Sea, and from there, with a massive blow to the Urals ... and the Siberian points. The old admirals calculated this scenario at the beginning of the XNUMXs. And the Americans, as far as I know, have not abandoned the concept of a massive disarming strike.
                    And how to answer, or not, to preempt that grouping ... whether we have that number of daggers is unknown ..
            2. ancient
              ancient 16 December 2020 11: 07
              0
              Quote: WFP
              We will have a GZ RCC with an “ax shoulder” - then we can laugh at the Yankees.
              That's the whole story.

              It's hard for " fellow ".." to prove "... if they have something .. they immediately get a" vigorous loaf ".. wassat
              1. Runway
                Runway 16 December 2020 11: 33
                +3
                I just voiced my subjective opinion on the note. After all, everything is on the surface.
                Just now I noticed that I was “renamed” to VVP (instead of an official abbreviation). laughing
            3. mmaxx
              mmaxx 21 December 2020 03: 50
              0
              For some reason, none of the critics writes that the Tomahawk is included in the standard cell of the UPV. Weapon interchangeability gives incredible flexibility in naval deployment
              Who can fire a salvo of 60 missiles? And who can repel such a volley?
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 21 December 2020 13: 58
                0
                UVP, of course.
          4. ancient
            ancient 16 December 2020 11: 01
            +3
            Quote: Thrifty
            VVP - have you heard such a tricky word-kinematics?

            GDP tells you about "Thomas", and you tell him about .. "Erema" wassat
            1. How many Axes does Burke have, and how many anti-ship missiles do our destroyers have? wink
            2. And what kind of "super-duper" most powerful air defense is installed on our destroyers. Which allows you to destroy a dense salvo of anti-ship missiles? And if the volley is cyclic? wink
            3. I would really like to see ... how many holes you will get on board until you get to the launch line of your anti-ship missiles ... and will there be by that time what and "what" .. to direct "?
            4 And who will prevent Burke ... to shoot and ... to get away from the enemy heading for ..180 g wink ... after all. the speeds of the approach of the ships were practically the same during the firing period, well, and ... after what time will your ship still be able to catch up with Burke and reach the firing range with its anti-ship missiles?
            5. About the quantitative composition of the Burks and our bangers "I will modestly keep silent" ... but the density of the RCC salvo I have already written above.
            PS " fellow "on every corner .. this is certainly great .... but there is such a science of tactics and .. combat capabilities of technology, which must still be able to apply. hi
            1. Xscorpion
              Xscorpion 16 December 2020 13: 03
              +3
              1.Staff axes at Burke 8.Plus 8 PLUR. The rest of the air defense. This new missile will reach operational readiness by 2030. And the standard load will be 8 axes, 8 PLUR, 8 anti-ship missiles, the rest of the air defense. Nobody will hammer all the cells only anti-ship missiles , since this will undermine the combat readiness of the AUG. While the declared range of this missile in the anti-ship missile version is unknown, many experts simply think that if the missiles can be fired on the coast from a distance of 2000 km, then the anti-ship missile will also fly. We will have Calibrov and Zirconov? Unlike the Americans, we already have them. At the moment, the Americans have practically no anti-ship missiles on the surface of the fleet.
              2. The air defense of our ships is quite enough to repel even massive strikes of subsonic missiles, but against supersonic anti-ship missiles, the Americans also cannot boast of one hundred percent invulnerability.
              3.What is there to watch? While at the moment we have an anti-ship missile, but the Americans do not.
              4.That is, according to your opinion, destroyers going at a speed of 30 knots can instantly turn 180 knots and get away from the pursuit? That is, they don’t need to slow down before turning, they don’t need to waste time turning, and then they don’t need to accelerate to maximum And most importantly, they do not need to guard the aircraft carrier group at all and they only care about their own safety?
              5. The quantitative composition of the Burks at the moment is about 40 units, which are scattered across many fleets and a third of them are in bases for repair and modernization. So in fact one of our fleet will be opposed by no more than 5-6 destroyers in each direction. Burke, the first batch, and there are more than 20 of them scrapped or prepared for disposal, they have not been out at sea for a long time, so not everything is so rosy.
              1. ancient
                ancient 16 December 2020 16: 29
                +4
                Quote: Xscorpion
                Burke's stock axes 8 plus 8 PLUR.

                Let's not .. "pull an owl on the globe" ... to please " fellow -kalkam "... they already .." have already sunk the entire amerovsky fleet "... at a glance wassat
                So .. according to your list:
                1. Axes from 8 to 56 wink on the new Flight III series, the number of Mk41 vertical launchers will be significantly increased. wink
                The ship will be equipped with two Mk41 UVP modules (48 cells - in the bow and 80 - in the stern), which will house 88 SM-3 and SM-6 missiles, 32 ESSM missiles (4 missiles in 8 cells), 24 Tomahawk TLAM cruise missiles, 8 missiles PLURO ASROC.
                I deeply doubt that fewer Axes are installed in the "regular, old Burke" wink .
                Maybe they confused it with "Harpoons"? wink
                In the navy, the "amers" have such a "system" as a specialization assignment - the ship can (and AUG and AUS and KUG) as a whole have air defense ships, strike, anti-submarine and ... multipurpose) wassat
                2.
                Quote: Xscorpion
                The air defense of our ships is quite sufficient to repel even massive strikes of subsonic missiles.

                The air defense of our ships .. sorry ... "laughing at the chickens" .... recently here they sorted out in detail Konashenkov's "urya-report" on .. "shooting down" the P-15 target ... did not read it .. recommend .. very sobering ... wink
                3.
                Quote: Xscorpion
                So far, at the moment we have an anti-ship missile, but the Americans do not.

                Where did you get such "information" from? belay Nothing ... "beguiled"? belay
                4. Why "instantly" ..... an aircraft carrier can turn around in 1,5-2 minutes (urgently) in a normal position in 3, -4 minutes .... the destroyer is naturally less.
                Then I read .... well, the fact that you are far from aviation is understandable ... but from the fleet the same .... "a decent distance ... how to Moscow ... in a seafood position"? wassat
                5.
                Quote: Xscorpion
                .The quantitative composition of Burks at the moment is about 40 units

                Well, he said ... that you are "far" from everything ... wassat .. Actually, to date, 62, collecting to bring the number to 72-73.
                Quote: Xscorpion
                which are dispersed across many fleets

                There are only 6 fleets ... in addition to the Burks, there are also Ticonderogs and all sorts of nuclear submarines ... of the Ohio and Los Angeles type and ... everything with Tomahawks and what is important with the "combat practice of application" ..... what .. ."did not hear"? wassat
                And what do you have about this ... a volcano from the Mirage and ... an unknown dry cargo ship during the "5-day war" and yes ... the use of MANPADS on a patrol boat ... wassat good
                Quote: Xscorpion
                So in fact, one of our fleet will be opposed by no more than 5-6 destroyers in each direction

                And with arithmetic you have the same ... bad ..? wassat
                About the ship composition of our fleet ... let's not ... okay ... but honestly ... it's not convenient for you ... laughing
                1. Xscorpion
                  Xscorpion 16 December 2020 18: 23
                  -3
                  You have no idea about the weapons of the AUG. 56 this is the maximum possible placement of axes, to the detriment of other weapons. There will be axes, there will be zero air defense. And you will have the keyword WILL. In 10 years at best. You are again an owl on the globe, counting as would be something that does not yet exist, as it were, in hundreds of quantities.
                  2. I read the article, laughed and even commented. Its author is also far from air defense, as I am from ballet. And by the way, he later edited the article, admitted all the same that it turned out that the target was shot down by missiles.
                  3. I didn't get it wrong. At the moment, not a single destroyer of the US Navy has anti-ship missiles. All destroyers of the first series are decommissioned and scrapped. Destroyers from the second series and above do not have anti-ship missiles.
                  4. Everything can be done, but under what conditions and what it will be fraught with, you do not know. And most importantly, every minute is the miles that enemy ships will approach. Berks are not suitable for tactics, jumped and fled. And the main task of the Burks is guarding the AUG, and they won't abandon the aircraft carrier and support ships for such jumps.
                  5.I say again, Burkov at the moment is not more than 40, since 20+ destroyers of the first series are actively sawing on metal. And when and what they will have is a separate story. You absolutely do not know the question, tell them what they have in the ranks of 22 Ticonderogi. You trust Wikipedia too much.

                  What kind of practice are you talking about? How long have the Americans participated in a naval battle, at least with an equal enemy? In what movie did you watch it? Except for filling a country without a navy with tomahawks, they have not done anything else over the past couple of decades. We at least although the boats were sunk and seized, in contrast to them. You study the issues, and do not take unverified data from Vicki, and then you may start to understand something
                  1. Lex_is
                    Lex_is 16 December 2020 19: 07
                    +2
                    I say it again, Burkov is currently no more than 40, since 20+ destroyers of the first series are actively sawing on metal.

                    Firstly, Arleigh Burke Flight II and above 46 pieces.
                    Secondly, 12 Arleigh Burke Flight I units are actively exploited.
                    Oldest, progenitor of the Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51):
                    September 18, 2020 USS Arleigh Burke moored at Berth 1, Pier 1 on Naval Station Norfolk after participating in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercise Black Widow; Underway in support of the USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) ARG's SWATT exercise, off the coast of Camp Lejeune, NC, on Oct. ten.
                    October 19, 2020 The Arleigh Burke anchored approximately 10 nm off the coast of Virginia Beach, Va., For an overnight stop; Moored at Berth 6, Pier 14 on Oct. 21.
                    December 8, 2020 USS Arleigh Burke moored at Berth 1, Pier 1 on Naval Station Norfolk after underway for routine training

                    DDG 55 USS Stout
                    February 13, 2020 The Stout recently completed its participation in a Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX), while underway in the Cherry Point, Jacksonville and Charleston Op. Areas; Conducted operations off the coast of Virginia from Feb. 1-17
                    May 17, 2020 The Stout conducted a fueling-at-sea with the USS Bataan (LHD 5), while underway in the southern Arabian Gulf; Transited the Strait of Hormuz southbound, escorting the USS Bataan and USS Oak Hill (LSD 51), on May 31; Transited the Suez Canal northbound on Sept. 28.


                    As it is too active for sawn for scrap metal, but between "no more than 40" and 58 - there is some difference.

                    You absolutely do not know the question, also tell them that they have 22 Ticonderogs in their ranks


                    And they, after all, are not directly in the ranks?
                    For example, the old man USS Vella Gulf (CG-72):

                    July 7, 2020 USS Vella Gulf conducted a replenishment-at-sea with the USNS Walter S. Diehl (T-AO 193), while underway in the Arabian Gulf; Transited the Suez Canal northbound, escorting the USNS Robert E. Peary and USNS Joshua Humphreys, on July 27; Transited the Strait of Gibraltar westbound, just before midnight, on Aug. one.
                    August 10, 2020 USS Vella Gulf moored at Berth 1, Pier 6 on Naval Station Norfolk following a five-and-a-half month deployment in the US 5th and 6th Fleet AoR.


                    If five and a half months of deployment at the other end of the world is not in service, then our entire fleet is not in service then.
                2. igor36
                  igor36 16 December 2020 21: 20
                  +2
                  "Axes" come with special ammunition, so as soon as a large number of "axes" take off towards the objects of the Russian Federation, I will begin to take off "Topol", "Yarsy", etc. , and then all your layouts about the quantity are no longer needed by anyone.
        2. lucul
          lucul 16 December 2020 07: 33
          +3
          If we admit banter over the Yankees with their "slow" "ax", then why don't we "swear" the "not fast" "Caliber" (tell me what is the range of the calibrated PCR?)

          Because we Caliber do not stick out for dignity - they are twins with a Tomahawk.
          And the Americans are pushing out - well, we wouldn’t have an analogue, but we do have one))) And if the enemy has the same thing, then why push it out? ))))
        3. Dart
          Dart 16 December 2020 10: 04
          +2
          that I didn't catch the logic ..- "
          Quote: WFP
          If we admit banter over the Yankees with their "slow" "ax", then why don't we "swear" the "not fast" "Caliber" (tell me what is the range of the calibrated PCR?)
          why "curse" him if he is definitely faster ?? wassat

          Quote: WFP
          Here are just the stated ranges in terms of performance characteristics at a maximum of 2 times less than that of the "ax" (we do not eat for the Caliber, because it is the "brother" of the "ax").

          so who to discuss if not direct opponents ?? wassat
          1. Runway
            Runway 16 December 2020 10: 20
            +3
            After capturing the target? When you slide into the air defense zone of a steamer? Almost 1000 km / h against the "Toporovskie" 936-940, without a slide for PMV?
        4. Charik
          Charik 17 December 2020 18: 52
          0
          Yes, there was an article recently about how they beat everyone with hats - only in the bunker and the madhouse food is cheaper than in the five and not delayed
        5. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 17 December 2020 21: 07
          -3
          and it will fly for an hour and a half to the target ... and the last 20 km will be covered in 80 seconds.
        6. Zhevlonenko
          Zhevlonenko 19 December 2020 07: 05
          0
          It's a little inaccurate here, 1600 is if he goes to the target, if he is in patrol mode, flew in and is looking for a target, then all the same 1000.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 16 December 2020 06: 32
      +6
      We got to the handle. They will make a rocket, so it flies like an ax, and if a tank, it crawls like an iron. request
    3. Finches
      Finches 16 December 2020 07: 02
      -3
      "Tomahawk" on a steam fart! laughing
    4. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 16 December 2020 09: 17
      +2
      Quote: Bacha
      Demagoguery is when they prove, lying in bed with a naked woman, that a recumbent member is better than a standing one. So it is here.

      We analyze the characteristics that are given to us as "something supernatural." I remember Trump also gave out a "pearl" about a rocket that is 17 times faster than the fastest rocket on Earth. And with them you need to speak in a primitive lexicon, appealing with simple comparisons. As here:

      So, their "Tomahawk" in comparison with "Caliber" - "tickler".
      laughing
    5. zenion
      zenion 17 December 2020 16: 38
      0
      Bacha (Fedor Sanych). You did not understand what the Americans said. They proved, and it is true, that an American subsonic missile can always do a feint. This rocket can always hit the ground and pretend to be dead. Like look for her, fistula her!
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 16 December 2020 06: 01
    +6
    "Subsonic speed is a virtue":
    laughing lol laughing We must somehow justify ourselves! laughing
  3. riwas
    riwas 16 December 2020 06: 04
    +7
    According to expert Tom Karako, with the new missile, the fleet will bomb terrorist camps "without hesitation, only having received an order from the president."

    Except that. A modern subsonic missile for combat with an equal enemy must be manufactured using stealth technology.
  4. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 16 December 2020 06: 04
    0
    Good for them rich.
    Throwing a heap of millionth bombs without hesitation ...
  5. Kapkan
    Kapkan 16 December 2020 06: 17
    +7
    Banana countries in danger ... Again.
  6. mark1
    mark1 16 December 2020 06: 25
    +9
    "Subsonic speed is a virtue"

    Now, if she could walk on foot ...
    - the air defense officers are waiting for her, all eyes have overlooked the sky, the radars are sweating,
    and suddenly someone from behind on the shoulder so politely slaps ... - can you tell me how to get to the Pentagon? (in this case, I play for ours)
    Although ... the missile is anti-ship, then at least land areas (if any) ...
    1. Yura
      Yura 16 December 2020 07: 33
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      Now, if she could walk on foot ...

      Therefore, only by crawling, not yet matured.
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 16 December 2020 07: 39
        +9

        Yura (Yuri)
        Today, 07: 33
        NEW

        +1
        Quote: mark1
        Now, if she could walk on foot ...

        Therefore, only by crawling, not yet matured.
        In opposition to the Merikatos, an anecdote: "-Where did you serve?. Yes, not far from New York! _ What is this, in America or what?!? - Yes, not in the Chelyabinsk region, but my company commander said that the flight time to New York about 12 minutes! " wink
        1. Yura
          Yura 16 December 2020 07: 42
          +3
          Quote: aszzz888
          Yes, not in the Chelyabinsk region, but my company commander said that the flight time to New York is about 12 minutes! "

          good I am laughing out loud! Company ... class!
  7. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 16 December 2020 06: 26
    +8
    The key ability of the new Tomahawk is cost
    belay Incredible. Americans sang about value. Did your tummy fail? recourse
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 16 December 2020 06: 50
      +3
      Incredible. Americans sang about value. Did your tummy fail?
      Rather not about value, but about the fact that this value is in those hands - in whose hands it is necessary. And there is nothing for competitors to allocate loot. We have a type of cheap and cheerful, take it will not go wrong. They also began to cut the budget of the next year, now there are a great many such "commercials".
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 16 December 2020 06: 54
    +4
    possessing subsonic speed, it has a hidden advantage in the era of hypersonic missiles in China and Russia
    There is fish for fishlessness and cancer, otherwise you cannot formulate the American statement. But if they were armed with hypersonic missiles, then the wording would be completely different. I was surprised by the "logic" of the Bulgarian edition. It seems that the people from Bulgarian Military should be versed in military matters, but no. Or is it a desire to show how well they treat the United States and how worried about their Navy?
    1. onstar9
      onstar9 21 December 2020 04: 35
      0
      Well, it is obvious that subsonic and hypersonic missiles have their own advantages and disadvantages. There are objective reasons for everything. Why argue which is worse or which is better? Hypersonic flies much faster and overcomes enemy air defenses. But, its carriers still need to "overcome" the enemy's defenses, approaching the distance of the launch of the hyper-missile. That is the question. This is the first thing. And secondly, you won't get enough of such missiles, because they are expensive. Subsonic missiles fly slower and can be destroyed by air defenses, but they can be launched from afar, from different directions and in greater numbers, because they are cheap and can zip and fly for a long time. If they are launched in large quantities, then all of them will not be intercepted by air defense systems. It is obvious. In addition, they are becoming more and more undetectable, so interception is even more difficult. So I think the ratio is the same. They will beat each other in different ways, that's all.
  9. Prisoner
    Prisoner 16 December 2020 06: 55
    +3
    "The advantage of a subsonic missile in the flight range" (c) With this missile, the anti-missile will reduce the flight time to a minimum, and where will this so-called advantage go?
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 December 2020 08: 03
      +1
      For a subsonic missile from a maximum of 30 km, from which you will see an approaching anti-ship missile at an extremely low altitude, the flight time is about 1,5-2 minutes maximum. If you manage to find and bring the ship into combat readiness, there is a chance to shoot down. And do not have time ...
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 10: 22
        +2
        If you manage to find and bring the ship into combat readiness, there is a chance to shoot down. But if you don't have time .... if "you don't have time," then it says that the crew is absent ... waxing on the warship the observation station on the cruise works constantly. at the moment, air defense of ships, regardless of the echelon (close, medium and large radius), works according to primary data, that is, the reaction time is 30 seconds, ... it is not a problem to shoot down an ax
        1. Avior
          Avior 16 December 2020 10: 27
          +1
          Destroyer Sheffield disagrees with you. smile
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 11: 19
            0
            The destroyer Sheffield disagrees with you .... well, many people disagree ... both the destroyer Eilat and the frigate Uro Stark ... but they all had different reasons ... the Eilat crew did not even suspect that the anti-ship missile was attacked, at Sheffield, the Sea Dart air defense system worked independently and was not so quick in aiming, and the case with Stark is a banal negligence of the crew ... at the moment, during the summer maneuvers in the Black Sea and firing to repel anti-ship missiles from Cape Aya, a couple was launched P-35 anti-ship missiles ... P-35 speed is slightly higher than that of an ax. nevertheless, both were shot down by the ship's air defense system Dagger (ground analogue of the Toros), and they spent one missile defense system for each target ....... atam pushus, someone agrees and someone does not
            1. Avior
              Avior 16 December 2020 11: 22
              +1
              Sheffield's radar was turned off, interfering with negotiations.
              Field tests and real combat use are different things.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 11: 37
                0
                Polygon tests and real combat use are different things ........ not very different .... for example, the Fagot and Kornet anti-tank systems did not immediately burn Abra and Leo on the field. and on the polygon there are cardboard boxes, as well as MANPADS of the Strela line, and the Needle in the Donbass completely ripped through the aviation all over the world, so that the landfill for nothing should be swept aside as absurdity ... and even positivich ... do you remember the contact between the ships of George and ECHF 08.08.08. 120, so it is noteworthy that from the subsonic P-XNUMX amethyst is practically of no use, ... but the Wasps of the air defense were just useful and very successful
                1. Avior
                  Avior 16 December 2020 11: 43
                  +2
                  that's why I wrote that different things.
                  but actually P-120 Malachite. Amethyst is P-70.
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 11: 52
                    0
                    but actually B-120 Malachite. Amethyst is a P-70 ....... but the klikuha makes no difference. I could have printed her NATO klikuha, this P-120 will not make another ...
                    that is why I wrote that there are different things ... yes, there is no difference ... this can be argued to the point of success, for example, who is more effective than our R-29 or Trident-2 in thermonuclear disassembly ... was used in combat conditions ... and the hatchet is time for the pedestal ..... deserved
        2. onstar9
          onstar9 21 December 2020 04: 39
          0
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          Air defense of ships, regardless of the echelon (close, medium and large radius) works according to primary data, that is, the reaction time is 30 seconds, ... knocking down an ax is not a problem

          Right ... And if 10 "axes" are flying at the same time, then what to do?
      2. lucul
        lucul 16 December 2020 12: 28
        -2
        For a subsonic missile from a maximum of 30 km, from which you will see an approaching anti-ship missile at an extremely low altitude, the flight time is about 1,5-2 minutes maximum. If you manage to find and bring the ship into combat readiness, there is a chance to shoot down. And do not have time ...

        You will tell horror stories to the Papuans. Tomahawks are spotted by a DLRO aircraft far enough away, or from a UAV. The question is that we don't have a lot of both. But everything can be solved.
  10. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 16 December 2020 07: 06
    +5
    The main thing in the statement is "bomb without thinking"
  11. Ros 56
    Ros 56 16 December 2020 07: 12
    +3
    This is the boast of the striped ones from a series like - what would they give if they caught up with us? And what to do, you have to somehow make excuses for the sawn loot. request laughing
  12. Bez 310
    Bez 310 16 December 2020 07: 24
    -1
    Do we have anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1500 km?
    Not a mythical RCC, about which only Wikipedia
    and they know, but a working rocket in service,
    tested in various working conditions namely
    on naval mobile targets.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 16 December 2020 08: 31
      +3
      Quote: Bez 310
      Do we have anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1500 km?

      Counter question .. what is the range of block 5a in anti-ship missile mode?
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 16 December 2020 08: 39
        -2
        Quote: Serg65
        Counterquestion..

        I want answers, not questions.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 16 December 2020 09: 08
          +5
          Quote: Bez 310
          I want answers, not questions.

          what So I need the same answers! I understand that you don’t know the performance characteristics of block 5a, but you boldly decided to compare it with Onyx ... on what basis?
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 16 December 2020 09: 14
            -3
            Quote: Serg65
            decided to compare it with Onyx

            You read my question again.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 16 December 2020 09: 23
              +3
              Quote: Bez 310
              You read my question again.

              laughing
              Quote: Bez 310
              Do we have anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1500 km?

              That's why I asked ... is there an anti-ship missile system in the world with a launch range of 1500 km? You took these 1500 km from somewhere?
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 16 December 2020 09: 38
                -1
                Quote: Serg65
                Is there an anti-ship missile system in the world with a launch range of 1500 km?

                I do not need "on a global scale", me
                only our missiles were interested.
                What kind of people are around?
                My question involved only two short
                the answer (yes, no), and they piled everyone here ...
                It immediately becomes clear that they are not great
                understand the PKR, but "want their education
                show ".
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 16 December 2020 10: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  It immediately becomes clear that they are not great
                  understand RCC,

                  So I wanted to understand the RCC ... with your help ... you are an expert, aren't you? Is not it?
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 16 December 2020 10: 52
                    -1
                    Quote: Serg65
                    are you an expert?

                    I understood a little, once ...
              2. dauria
                dauria 16 December 2020 10: 05
                +2
                That's why I asked ... is there an anti-ship missile system in the world with a launch range of 1500 km?


                Most likely there is already. But who will tell? The classic application of "Super Etandarov" with the ASM "Exoset" was simple and effective. Target detection by a scout, takeoff of a shock pair from the mainland, refueling, a low-altitude two-hour flight to the area in complete silence, a quick slide with the inclusion of a radar for search. Then either start or decrease with the continuation of the search.
                All this can be done without a carrier plane. Another thing - the British managed to find a rocket and shoot off the curtain of dipoles. So the rocket must be either invisible, or very fast, or many cheap ones at the same time.
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 16 December 2020 12: 13
                  +3
                  Quote: dauria
                  Most likely there is already. But who will tell?

                  Here I am about the same! I remember that they said no more than 300 km for the Caliber ... what bully
                2. bk0010
                  bk0010 16 December 2020 22: 16
                  0
                  Most likely already there
                  Nobody has it, it's useless (don't aim with the required accuracy). the Americans are making a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of 1000 km, then the head is smart, it will look for targets in the area, the rest - if not noticed, then missed.
      2. Lex_is
        Lex_is 16 December 2020 09: 24
        +1
        Claimed - over 1000 miles.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 16 December 2020 09: 26
          +3
          Quote: Lex_is
          Claimed - over 1000 miles.

          It is declared at Block 5, this is CD, and I have not found the range of Block 5a (anti-ship missile) anywhere ...
          1. Lex_is
            Lex_is 16 December 2020 09: 47
            +1
            It was the naval version that stated more than 1000.

            Block Va varieties, will be expected to hit surface ships at Tomahawk ranges - in excess of 1,000 miles - with the integration of a new seeker.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 16 December 2020 10: 05
              +2
              Quote: Lex_is
              It was the naval version that stated more than 1000.

              what With the speed of "Peregrine Falcon" at a distance of 1000 km .... the Americans have already tried to make an anti-ship missile from the Ax ... attempt number two?
    2. slm976
      slm976 16 December 2020 08: 34
      +4
      Do we have anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1500 km?
      Not a mythical RCC, about which only Wikipedia
      and they know, but a working rocket in service,
      tested in various working conditions namely
      on naval mobile targets.


      Here's how ...
      What is this 1600 km anti-ship tomahawk? This is the same old "good" KR Tomahawk (we have our own analogue of KR Caliber) with a subsonic speed of 880 km / h, to which, as far as I understand, a new seeker was attached.
      That is, theoretically, nothing prevents us from sticking a new GOS on our tactical missile launcher of the "Caliber" complex, and we can also report that we have an anti-ship missile with a range of 1500+ km. The question is whether it should be done?

      I don't know what the Americans put on their tomahawk, but a simple calculation shows that at a speed of 880 km. per hour, distance 1600 km. this rocket will pass for about 2 hours ... during this time, the mobile sea target will leave (even in an economic move) about 60 km. from that area. in which she was at the time of launch. How, under these conditions, the rocket with the help of its seeker should be guided to the target, it is not very clear ...
      At one time, the Americans were already armed with the Tomahawk anti-ship missiles, and they abandoned them precisely on the grounds that the effectiveness of these anti-ship missiles at long distances was low, and at short distances they were inferior in their characteristics to the Harpoon ...
      True, since then the technologies have not stood still, maybe they have come up with something new - we need to figure it out ...
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 16 December 2020 08: 41
        -6
        Quote: slm976
        The question is whether it should be done?

        I need an answer, not your questions ...
        1. slm976
          slm976 16 December 2020 09: 03
          +6
          You, dear, maybe you need anything !!))) The question is whether someone needs to answer, your questions asked in such a boorish tone!
          If you did not bother to read what you have already written above (not only me) and at least think it over, then is there any point in telling you something else?

          As soon as the characteristics of what the Americans call the Tomahawk anti-ship missile are clear, we can discuss whether we have something similar and whether we need it to have it)) ... while they had 1 (one) successful launch of something ... characteristics which is not known))), declared it an achievement .. that's it!
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 16 December 2020 09: 16
            -2
            That is, you do not know if we have anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1500 km?
            So write, without unnecessary insults and rantings.
            A simple question, but confuses everyone ...
            1. slm976
              slm976 16 December 2020 09: 21
              +2
              A simple question, but confuses everyone ...

              Have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning? (C) Carlson.)))
            2. slm976
              slm976 16 December 2020 09: 24
              +5
              I wrote to you in Russian that there is no such missile, and even wrote why it is not ...
              There are huge problems with target designation at such a distance, especially if the missile is subsonic. But you are not a reader, are you?
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 16 December 2020 09: 40
                -3
                Quote: slm976
                I wrote to you in Russian that there is no such missile

                What a different Russian language we have with you ...
                1. slm976
                  slm976 16 December 2020 10: 03
                  0
                  What a different Russian language we have with you ...


                  Yes, I noticed that too.
              2. Alex Justice
                Alex Justice 16 December 2020 16: 46
                -1
                There are huge problems with target designation at such a distance.

                Install GPS
      2. Lex_is
        Lex_is 16 December 2020 09: 40
        0
        I don't know what the Americans put on their tomahawk


        passive guidance, active guidance, two-way data exchange, visual confirmation before an attack, the possibility of reassigning a target in flight and loitering in anticipation of targeting.

        , but a simple calculation shows that at a speed of 880 km. per hour, distance 1600 km. this rocket will pass for about 2 hours ...


        That's right, about two hours.
        during this time, the mobile sea target will leave (even in an economic move) about 60 km. from that area. in which she was at the time of launch. How, under these conditions, the rocket with the help of its seeker should be guided to the target, it is not very clear ...


        It's very simple, they have a single network and target designation of the Tomahawk can be transmitted at any stage of the flight from any platform.
        They counted on the use so that without entering the enemy's engagement zone by the ship, launch the Tomahawk and bring it forward from a helicopter or Hokkai.
        1. slm976
          slm976 16 December 2020 10: 19
          0
          They counted on the use so that without entering the enemy's engagement zone by the ship, launch the Tomahawk and bring it forward from a helicopter or Hokkai.


          That is, either Hokkai or a US AWACS helicopter should be in the target area? Accordingly, where to next to the target (100-400 km.) Should the US AUG or at least a single US BNK be located, right?
          Then the question arises, why launch a missile at a sea target from a distance of 1000+ km, if the US ships are much closer to the target?
          Why then do we need an anti-ship missile range of 1600 km?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Lex_is
            Lex_is 16 December 2020 10: 52
            -2
            Accordingly, where to next to the target (100-400 km.) Should the US AUG or at least a single US BNK be located, right?


            They will try to keep the ship away, their entire anti-ship tactics boils down to removing the ship from the enemy's engagement zone. For a ship at a distance of 100-120 km, they have more high-speed missiles.
            AUG yes, but the same is not necessary and not very close, Hawkeye has a combat radius of 320 km and a surface target detection range of about 500 km.
            Can also direct the P-8 Poseidon, which has a combat radius of 3 km or P-700 Orion, which has a radius of 3 km.

            Why then do we need an anti-ship missile range of 1600 km.

            They are unlikely to shoot at 1600 km, this is too extreme, but the combination of low speed and long range gives many possibilities:
            Suspend them on duty in anticipation of target designation, freedom in choosing the direction of the target's attack, dissolve and organize a target attack with one salvo from different sides, transfer to another target.
            1. slm976
              slm976 16 December 2020 12: 29
              +2
              They will try to keep the ship away, their entire anti-ship tactics boils down to removing the ship from the enemy's engagement zone. For a ship at a distance of 100-120 km, they have more high-speed missiles.


              Well, that is, the AWACS helicopter then we remove from the alignment, there is no ship next to the target, there is no helicopter.


              Can also direct the P-8 Poseidon, which has a combat radius of 3 km or P-700 Orion, which has a radius of 3 km.


              How patrol anti-submarine aircraft will direct anti-ship missiles, and most importantly, who will allow this patrol aircraft to reach the detection range of our BNK, this is not an AWACS to find surface targets without entering their affected area ...

              AUG yes, but the same is not necessary and not very close, Hawkeye has a combat radius of 320 km and a surface target detection range of about 500 km.


              That is, we only have Hokkai with AUG, which is located at a distance of about 400-500 km, to aim this long-range anti-ship missile system. from the goal, then the following questions arise:

              1. Why do we need a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of 1000+ km, if it is much faster, easier and more reliable to destroy a target with an aircraft strike from an aircraft carrier, just without entering the target's air defense zone?
              2. Why do we need a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of 1000+ km, if the AUG order is much closer, and you can strike from a closer distance?
              3. Why jeopardize the Hokkai, which our BNK should lead for from an hour to 2 hours,? After all, on our BNK (targets) the sailors are also not blind and not deaf, there is an opportunity to call air cover, there is an opportunity to just slip away at full speed !

              That is, there are no advantages in shooting at 1000+ km. subsonic missile, I have not yet seen.
              1. Lex_is
                Lex_is 16 December 2020 12: 49
                -3
                I told you how they see it and apply it. You can see anything.

                In the Iraqi fleet, they were quite successful in directing the turntables from the R-3, despite the presence of the AUG and Hokayev.

                Hockey does not need to hang for two hours, he needs to appear and adjust the target designation.
                1. slm976
                  slm976 16 December 2020 12: 57
                  0
                  In the Iraqi fleet, they were quite successful in directing the turntables from the R-3, despite the presence of the AUG and Hokayev.


                  They could at least throw grenades from a helicopter at the Iraqi fleet, we are discussing the target with air defense capabilities, otherwise there is nothing to discuss at all - adjust the planes - throw chugunin.

                  Hockey does not need to hang for two hours, he needs to appear and adjust the target designation.


                  And who will track the target's movements from launch to correction? Where will Hokkai appear in 2 hours, to the area where the goal was 2 hours ago?
                  1. Lex_is
                    Lex_is 16 December 2020 13: 05
                    -1
                    Where will Hokkai appear in 2 hours, to the area where the goal was 2 hours ago?


                    And it is enough for him to periodically fly into the detection zone, keeping at a distance. How are you going to shoot him down from the ship, at a distance of 250 - 350 km? Aviation to call? So she will not be able to fly him constantly.
                    1. slm976
                      slm976 16 December 2020 13: 16
                      +2
                      And it is enough for him to periodically fly into the detection zone, keeping at a distance.

                      That, as it were, is called leading the goal for 2 hours.

                      How are you going to shoot him down from the ship, at a distance of 250 - 350 km?


                      I may not be able to shoot him down, but I will find out about him, and accordingly I will find out from the presence of the US AUG nearby, and then it all depends on the circumstances, if I have a single BNK at my disposal and there is no cover, I always have the option to report the detection enemy AUG and make legs at full speed from this AUG, and accordingly from the Tomahawk launched at me from 1000+ km ...

                      Aviation to call? So she will not be able to fly him constantly.


                      So the aviation will not be looking for Hokkaya, but the AUG with which it took off, and I suspect not only aviation ... it makes sense to drive AWACS, it is necessary to destroy the AUG ...
                      1. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 16 December 2020 13: 57
                        0
                        An example of a lone ship attacked by an AUG is a double-spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        If this suddenly happens during a conflict, no matter whether there are Tomahawks or not, the ship is definitely a Khan.

                        but I will find out about him, and accordingly I will find out from the presence of a nearby US AUG

                        Is not a fact. There are a lot of NATO ground airfields around our borders. Each time you find a target, no one will start an operation to search for AUG, they will try to track them without you by all possible forces.

                        make my legs at full speed from this AUG, and, accordingly, from the Tomahawk launched at me from 1000+

                        Getting your feet 25-26 knots away from aircraft and anti-ship missiles is very strong! laughing

                        only aviation ... the point is to drive AWACS, it is necessary to destroy the AUG ...

                        Of course it is necessary, and the destruction operation will be planned and a detachment of forces will be trying to collect for this, only this is not a matter of one or two hours, this will not affect the success of your repulse of an anti-ship missile attack.
                      2. slm976
                        slm976 16 December 2020 14: 13
                        -1
                        An example of a lone ship attacked by an AUG is a double-spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        If this suddenly happens during a conflict, no matter whether there are Tomahawks or not, the ship is definitely a Khan.


                        I've been talking about this for 2 hours !!! If there is a Hokkai for aiming a long-range Tomahawk, then there is an AUG, and if there is an AUG, why is this Tomahawk needed?
                        So why do we need a missile with a range of 1600 km, which should be guided by an AWACS at the final stage of the trajectory?

                        Is not a fact. There are a lot of NATO ground airfields around our borders.


                        What are you speaking about? If there is a war, there are no NATO airfields near our borders for a long time! At least at the launch range of tactical missile launchers.))

                        Getting your feet 25-26 knots away from aircraft and anti-ship missiles is very strong!


                        In 2 hours, the ship will already leave at full speed for 100 km. from the original patrolling area, and may well end up in the zone of action of coastal aviation and air defense, where Hokkai will not follow him, and accordingly, he will not be able to aim a rocket at him ... so how lucky.

                        Of course it is necessary, and the destruction operation will be planned and a detachment of forces will be trying to collect for this, only this is not a matter of one or two hours, this will not affect the success of your repulse of an anti-ship missile attack.


                        So the main task of my ship is completed, an enemy AUG is detected, then how lucky! The ship's air defense has not gone anywhere, and it is quite possible for him to shoot down a subsonic missile ..
                      3. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 16 December 2020 22: 42
                        0
                        If there is a war, there are no NATO airfields near our borders for a long time! At least at the launch range of tactical missile launchers.))

                        And where are they, the illnesses will disappear? laughing
                        What are tactical CDs? Wake up, you are fascinated!
                        USC "Northern Fleet" only has the 536th separate coastal missile and artillery brigade, is it going to demolish all 6 bases of the Norwegian Air Force with one mighty blow? laughing
                      4. slm976
                        slm976 17 December 2020 05: 58
                        -1
                        Our carriers of the CD are: aviation, submarines and surface ships, ground-based mobile complexes,
                        There are quite enough carriers to carry out any NATO infrastructure near our borders.
                        By the way, the 536th brigade, about which you wrote, in this case, has nothing to do with it, it is armed with the coastal anti-ship complexes BAL and Bastion. This brigade will not take out just any airfields.
                      5. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 17 December 2020 08: 42
                        0
                        There are enough carriers to carry out any NATO infrastructure near our borders

                        Really?
                        Well, what kind of carriers does OSK Severny Flot have?
                      6. slm976
                        slm976 17 December 2020 08: 59
                        -1
                        Really?
                        Well, what kind of carriers does OSK Severny Flot have?


                        And what is the outbreak of a war between the NATO bloc and the USC "Northern Fleet"? All the rest of our army and navy will not come to war?

                        As for the number of carriers in general, Yandex will help you - look and estimate for yourself!
                        If you are on enemy systems, you figured it out so well that you write to me:

                        Read their analytics, information on promising programs and articles written by active servicemen of the Navy - there is a sea of ​​information even in the original article that we are discussing.


                        - you will definitely figure it out with our systems and their number)
                      7. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 17 December 2020 09: 34
                        0
                        then with our systems and their number, you will definitely figure it out

                        I figured it out for a long time, so I don't write such nonsense.

                        The fleet will definitely not come, the BF and the Northern Fleet have no opportunity to perform an inter-theater maneuver, the TF, and so there is not enough forces to cover in the threatened period, there is nothing to take from there.

                        So, what funds are you planning to withdraw and from what other directions for the destruction of all air bases in Norway? How long will the transfer of forces and destruction operations take? What are the projected losses for these operations?

                        By the way, keep in mind that for the guaranteed destruction of an airbase covered by air defense means, at least 50 missiles are needed, otherwise they will not be restored for flights in a couple of days of the week.
                      8. slm976
                        slm976 17 December 2020 10: 14
                        -1
                        I figured it out for a long time, so I don't write such nonsense.


                        The transition to rudeness usually speaks of a person's lack of confidence in his righteousness, and it certainly does not benefit him!

                        The fleet will definitely not come, the BF and the Northern Fleet have no opportunity to perform an inter-theater maneuver, the TF, and so there is not enough forces to cover in the threatened period, there is nothing to take from there.


                        That is, the Federation Council itself, you no longer think of the fleet? But in vain!
                        As for the inter-fleet crossings, these are your own fantasies, I did not write anything about it!

                        Also, your favorite USC North includes the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army, I do not really understand why you neglect this, now any multifunctional fighter is a carrier of air-to-surface cruise missiles.
                        By the way, this year they are beginning to receive "Daggers"

                        So, what funds are you planning to withdraw and from what other directions for the destruction of all air bases in Norway? How long will the transfer of forces and destruction operations take? What are the projected losses for these operations?


                        Aviation maneuver is possible in general from any direction, and nearby is the ZVO from which, in the main, USC North was at one time separated.
                        Actually NATO bases in Europe, just mainly in its area of ​​responsibility, and USC North is responsible for the Arctic territories of Russia and the NSR.
                        It will also be absolutely natural and quite prompt to transfer parts of the Central Military District.

                        By the way, keep in mind that for the guaranteed destruction of an airbase covered by air defense means, at least 50 missiles are needed, otherwise they will not be restored for flights in a couple of days of the week.


                        To ensure the removal of the airbase, it is necessary to suppress the air defense and slightly damage the runway of this base, then cast iron can be poured onto it until it is completely destroyed.
                      9. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 17 December 2020 10: 40
                        0
                        No general words needed.
                        I asked specific questions:
                        So, what funds are you planning to withdraw and from what other directions for the destruction of all air bases in Norway?
                        How long will the transfer of forces and destruction operations take? What are the projected losses for these operations?

                        Can you answer them?
                      10. slm976
                        slm976 17 December 2020 10: 52
                        -1
                        No general words needed.


                        Said the person who, in 2 days of the dispute, managed to do without mentioning any specific information at all!)))


                        I asked specific questions:
                        So, what funds are you planning to withdraw and from what other directions for the destruction of all air bases in Norway?


                        Sorry, but look for yourself)). Part numbers and their composition, I will not select for you!)) You will do it!

                        How long will the transfer of forces and destruction operations take? What are the projected losses for these operations?

                        Yeah, what else should I give you in a forum dispute?) General Staff calculations? Mobilization plans? fool
                      11. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 17 December 2020 13: 17
                        0
                        That's how it always comes down to specifics - tyr-pyr and look for yourself.

                        Maybe then you shouldn't rush loudly about the fact that
                        If there is a war, there are no NATO airfields near our borders for a long time!

                        Especially if you have no idea how this can be done?
                      12. slm976
                        slm976 17 December 2020 13: 53
                        -1
                        That's how it always comes down to specifics - tyr-pyr and look for yourself.


                        No need to juggle! )) I just refused to turn over a huge amount of information for your entertainment !!)))
                        You know, I have not been in kindergarten for a long time, and I am not fond of it !!!)))
                        Encouraging your opponent to search for a large array of factual information, in support of his point of view, without substantiating your own is a very old trick!)) Usually it is used to hide your own ignorance!))
                        So, take it easy, you have already shown your ignorance earlier))). One passage about the 536th coastal missile and artillery brigade was worth what!))

                        Well, what about - spit-pyr and look for yourself - look at our communication in the post below, you will see yourself in this mirror!)

                        Especially if you have no idea how this can be done?


                        Kindergarten!)))
                      13. Lex_is
                        Lex_is 17 December 2020 13: 54
                        0
                        Yes, that's what I mean.
                        Zero specifics and hysteria.
                      14. slm976
                        slm976 17 December 2020 13: 57
                        -1
                        Zero specifics and hysteria.


                        Self-criticism is good, respect to you for that!))
  • slm976
    slm976 16 December 2020 13: 00
    -1
    I told you how they see it and apply it. You can see anything.


    And the most important question, how do you know how they is it seen and applied? The first message about the test of the anti-ship Tomahawk appeared 2 days ago, and you already have information about the US concept for its use, where did it come from? There are some links to sources, it would be interesting to read ...
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 16 December 2020 13: 09
      0
      Read their analytics, information on promising programs and articles written by active servicemen of the Navy - there is a sea of ​​information even in the original article that we are discussing.
      1. slm976
        slm976 16 December 2020 13: 18
        -1
        Well, give me a link, why do you feel sorry for it?))) And then suddenly, I’ll find something else in the sea of ​​information ..
  • Cympak
    Cympak 16 December 2020 13: 25
    +3
    The key technology of the Tomahawk Block 5 CD is a datalink, which allows you to control the missile along the entire flight path (apparently, via satellite communications). Only with this condition it makes sense to launch a subsonic missile at a long range. Otherwise, there is a problem of obsolescence of target data during a RCC flight.
    1. onstar9
      onstar9 21 December 2020 04: 50
      0
      Right. And this is obvious ... The Americans have everything thought out enough ..
  • onstar9
    onstar9 21 December 2020 04: 49
    0
    Quote: slm976
    a simple calculation shows that at a speed of 880 km. per hour, distance 1600 km. this rocket will pass for about 2 hours ... during this time, the mobile sea target will leave (even in an economic move) about 60 km. from that area. in which she was at the time of launch. How, under these conditions, the rocket with the help of its seeker should be guided to the target, it is not very clear ...


    Well, here it is obvious that "whoever discovered this target" will direct it ... The Tomahawk has no such capabilities. Otherwise, there would be no point in launching it. The tomahawk can adjust itself at the end of the flight, but before that it will be induced by external means ... It's obvious ...
    1. slm976
      slm976 21 December 2020 09: 07
      -1
      Well, here it is obvious that "whoever discovered this target" will direct it ... The Tomahawk has no such capabilities. Otherwise, there would be no point in launching it.


      What was the question! Initial target detection is also possible from a satellite, after which a cruise missile is fired at the coordinates of the target from a long range (1000+ km), if the target is stationary there are no problems - after 1-2 hours the missile reaches the target area and destroys it.
      If the target is mobile - BNK, then in these 1-2 hours it will go 60-100 km, that is, when the Tomahawk reaches the initial coordinates of the target, it needs to be adjusted, what?
      The satellite that initially detected the target during these 2 hours has long been over another area, and the fact that at this moment there will be another satellite in this area that will give a correction to the missile is very doubtful, that is, the missile will not find the target as a result, or it will need to be corrected with something else ...
      It can be adjusted from the AWACS aircraft, but for this such an aircraft must be located in a given area, and if it is in this area, then the AUG is also located there, and if there is an AUG in this area, then why did we shoot at a target from a range of 1000+ km., when it was possible to destroy it by aircraft from an aircraft carrier or a missile strike from ships of the warrant, guaranteed and from a much shorter distance?
      Hence, the question remains unanswered, why do we need a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of 1600 km?
  • Crimean partisan 1974
    Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 08: 46
    +2
    Do we have an anti-ship missile with a launch range of 1500 km? ..... and here it is not worth waving a saber .. two interesting moments .... from the text- "The key ability of the new Tomahawk is cost" - says Jerry Hendrix, a retired captain fleet .... you can't argue with that ... and the second
    "As the expert Tom Karako points out, with the new missile the fleet will bomb terrorist camps," ... that is, there is no talk of an anti-ship unit ... thus, the point of all this novelty is to increase the salvo at the same price ... the light of the recent attacks with axes in Syria has revealed the extreme inefficiency of axes ...
    that with regards to our clubs, things are like this ..... missiles of the Club-K 3m54 family on ships of 300-400 km on land up to 2000 km .. which was demonstrated by the shooting from the Caspian in Syria. also from the same Club-K there was shelling in Syria, a purely shock version of 3m14 for a maximum range of 2500 km ...
    and there is still a twist. Wallpaper Klabs go to the target at subsonic speed and at the final section of the trajectory they gain 3 mach - this is about 1 km per second ... the ax cannot do this ... as it trampled 260 meters per second and in the final section with the same speed ....
    What am I doing ... to the fact that the phantom pilots got used to it in Vietnam not to move away from the missile defense attack, but on the contrary to approach it with the afterburner ... the total speed was around 2000 meters per second. the SAM fuse simply did not have time to react, ... so draw conclusions
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 16 December 2020 11: 14
      +3
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      and there is still a twist. wallpaper Clabs go to the target on subsonic and at the final part of the trajectory gain 3 mach
      And where in the ZM-14 is a similar design
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 11: 27
        -2
        And where in ZM-14 there is a similar construction ...... in geometry ,,, .. a geometric body bounded by a cylindrical surface and two parallel planes intersecting it .... enough or everything on the topic !!!
        1. Mimoprohodil
          Mimoprohodil 16 December 2020 16: 43
          +1
          The ZM-14 does not have this detachable supersonic stage.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 16 December 2020 19: 43
            0
            The ZM-14 does not have this detachable supersonic stage ....... this does not prevent it from overcoming 2500 km from the Caspian Sea to Syria
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 16 December 2020 13: 06
      +2
      "that is, there is no talk of an anti-ship unit" ////
      -------
      It's right.
      This is the cheapest version of the Tomahawk rocket.
      The range was increased by installing a more economical engine.
      But her GOS is simple - only for strikes against stationary targets.
      ---
      The naval version (ASM Tomahawk) also exists. Created in just two years
      back. He has the most wound up GOS. But the range is still the same
      - about 1000 km. This option is three times more expensive.
  • Bourgeois 1963
    Bourgeois 1963 16 December 2020 09: 11
    +3
    There are no such serial anti-ship missiles in Russia. There is no really working anti-ship missile targeting system either. But most importantly, competencies in the mobilization production of technologically complex products have been lost. A left-handed person could shoe a flea, but the guns continue to be cleaned with bricks. In turn, knowing a little the capabilities of the US industry, I understand that increasing the production of Tomahawks several times in the shortest possible time is a trifling matter for them. In general, in my opinion, the main role in solving any complex problem is the presence of a working system capable of eliminating emerging problems at any stage of the process. And this is the most important thing. And the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1941 did not have a single tank comparable to the T-34, let alone the KV-1, for the Wehrmacht system at that moment did not matter.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 16 December 2020 09: 21
      -1
      Quote: Bourgeois 1963
      There are no such serial anti-ship missiles in Russia. There is no really working anti-ship missile targeting system either.

      So I have not heard anything about long-range anti-ship missiles.
      1. Oleg Monarchist
        Oleg Monarchist 16 December 2020 11: 57
        +4
        To aim the missile at a surface target over 400-500 km, exclusively aircraft are used. The ship itself or the rocket cannot provide guidance at a long range, and even at a maneuvering target.

        One of the difficulties of the combat use of anti-ship missiles is the lack of proper technical means of detecting an enemy surface ship and target designation, since the shooting is carried out at a long (over-the-horizon) range. To solve this problem, the USA has developed an automated system "Outlaw Shark" for over-the-horizon target designation of anti-ship missile launchers using patrol helicopters and carrier-based aircraft. At the same time, data on the target located beyond the horizon are received from various means in real time in the computer of the KR carrier vehicle. Having processed them, the computer issues target designation to the calculating device of the KR, as well as information about other ships located near the missile's flight path.


        https://missilery.info/missile/bgm109b-e

        PS The distance is 1500 km, the "ax" will overcome in about 2 hours, and all two hours between the carrier ship and the attacked ship, the AWACS aircraft will hang in the air and of course it will not be noticed ... laughing
        1. onstar9
          onstar9 21 December 2020 05: 00
          0
          Quote: Oleg Monarchist
          PS The distance is 1500 km, the "ax" will overcome in about 2 hours, and all two hours between the carrier ship and the attacked ship, the AWACS aircraft will hang in the air and of course it will not be noticed

          Yes, they will notice him ... You can always see him ... like a New Year tree. What's the use? He is not only watching you, but also many others. How do you know what exactly is behind you? For this, he exists to "hang out" there and highlight everyone .. Then, in order to defend against the anti-ship missile system, you must first shoot him down ... And why will he be "between" the carrier and the attacked enemy? Is he a front line? It will be at the level of its carriers, not closer. Try to knock him down now. Better yet, knock down the satellites ... They will see everything further ...
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 17 December 2020 21: 22
      -1
      And that is why the Daggers were given to the Navy instead of the Aerospace Forces? hi
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 16 December 2020 11: 23
    +3
    Do we have anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1500 km?


    No, and she is not needed.
  • Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 17 December 2020 21: 16
    -2
    The dagger flies for 1, but what?
  • Greyhound famously
    Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 07: 31
    +3
    In the arsenal, both types of missiles are needed (both hypersonic and less high-speed ones), preferably designed for a single launcher. The logic seems simple. Hypersonic, although more expensive, are designed to work on complex targets and as a deterrent. But cheaper but less high-speed missiles are suitable for operation in 90% of the situations available today - strikes against various kinds of land and waterfowl "barmaley" who are in trouble with electronic warfare and air defense. Spending expensive hypersound on them is a waste.
    So, the United States is improving and cheapening a low-speed type of missile - good for them. Problems in the United States with hypersound is also good ... but already for us ..
    1. zwlad
      zwlad 16 December 2020 08: 25
      +1
      But cheaper but less high-speed missiles are suitable for operation in 90% of the situations available today - strikes against various kinds of land and waterfowl "barmaley" who are in trouble with electronic warfare and air defense.

      And you can even easier - throw a couple of corrected aviation ammunition from the Dryer, it will probably be even cheaper.
      1. Greyhound famously
        Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 08: 35
        +1
        And you can even easier - throw a couple of corrected aviation ammunition from the Dryer, it will probably be even cheaper.

        If there is a possibility, then it should be so. There is only a few in which corner of the world there is an airfield where the Russian Federation places its aircraft with the United States, with this it is better, but they cannot reach everywhere. But anti-ship missiles with a large radius of action can be delivered on a ship to many places. And don't start with aircraft carriers. Firstly, we have one, and secondly, send an aircraft carrier group to make 10 sorties or send one corvette with 10 anti-ship missiles - which is cheaper to explain, I think it's not worth it.
        1. zwlad
          zwlad 16 December 2020 08: 46
          +3
          I agree that it is necessary to have a subsonic cruise missile with a long range. But to shoot it at barmaley without air defense, as it is wasteful. We don't have a printing press. The fact that we were shot at the Syrian barmaley from different water areas, it just demonstrated the possibilities. And the main work is done with DRYERS.
          1. Greyhound famously
            Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 01
            0
            I agree 100%. With one caveat - when the storage periods of anti-ship missiles currently in service will come to an end, then the issue of their disposal through shipment to real goals can still be considered.
  • anclevalico
    anclevalico 16 December 2020 07: 31
    +3
    "Now they can attack without hesitation ...". And before, apparently, after receiving the order, they had a painful thought?
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 16 December 2020 07: 42
      +2
      Quote: anclevalico
      And before, apparently, after receiving the order, they had a painful thought?

      Here, when setting a combat mission, indicate or
      specific type of weapon, or - "by the decision of the commander".
      And the commander, when choosing weapons, does not focus on
      the cost of the weapon, and its effectiveness in the data
      conditions, and the availability of the required stock.
      So, there is something to think about ...
  • rocket757
    rocket757 16 December 2020 07: 51
    +1
    The key ability of the new Tomahawk is cost

    For once, the Yankees have started talking about the cost .... however, the lower cost of the rocket, with all sorts of bells and whistles + a large amount in a salvo, this can be a real advantage.
    But all the same, you won't try, you won't know.
  • Avior
    Avior 16 December 2020 07: 58
    +1
    The main opposition to anti-ship missiles attacks now is electronic warfare and traps.
    And the missile seeker is of decisive importance. Her traps will not be deceived and EW will fall. And if they manage to deceive, speed will be a secondary factor. Will fly by quickly, but by.
    1. Greyhound famously
      Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 08: 08
      0
      The main opposition to anti-ship missiles attacks now is electronic warfare and traps
      And the missile seeker is crucial

      Have you already removed the rapid-fire 20-30 mm guns from all the ships? otherwise they just worked at low-speed targets in the near zone. And if they influenced the seeker of the missile, it was not by deception, but exclusively by brute force.
      1. Avior
        Avior 16 December 2020 08: 11
        +1
        It's at the training ground.
        Are there many such cases in real combat situations?
        Compare with the effectiveness of electronic warfare and traps.
        1. Greyhound famously
          Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 08: 24
          0
          It's at the training ground.
          Are there many such cases in real combat situations?
          Compare with the effectiveness of electronic warfare and traps.

          And how much more over the past 20 years (in antiquity we will not get in - the generations and anti-ship missiles and electronic warfare were different) were electronic warfare and traps used against anti-ship missiles in real combat situations? Tell us.
          And why are you not satisfied with shooting at target targets at the training ground with rapid-fire guns, since you apparently have no complaints about the results of the same electronic warfare against the same target targets. What kind of double standards?
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 December 2020 08: 35
            +2
            the only criterion of truth is practice.
            Real. We are considering the real experience of using anti-ship missiles.
            And why in 20 years? Do you feel like it?
            RCC are changing, electronic warfare is changing. But I do not see any fundamental, fundamental changes in order to discard the experience of the anti-ship missile system against its contemporary electronic warfare.
            1. Greyhound famously
              Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 08: 42
              0
              discard the experience of anti-ship missiles against contemporary electronic warfare, I do not see.

              Well, where is this modern "real combat" experience? Tell us at least the second time. And how (in a quantitative sense) does it correlate with experience at test sites? 1 in 1.000? 1 in 10.0000?
              1. Lex_is
                Lex_is 16 December 2020 08: 55
                -1
                EW and traps were used against anti-ship missiles in real combat situations?

                Well, where is this modern "real combat" experience?

                They have been used more than once.
                For example, here:

                On October 9, 2016, Mason, near Baba el-Mandeb, was attacked by two anti-ship missiles, launched two SM-2 Standart and one RIM-162 ESSM to intercept and deployed a decoy target.
                On October 12, 2016, Mason in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait near the city of Al-Khudaydah was again attacked by two missiles, successfully intercepted one missile at a distance of about 8 miles on the second missile, not sure if it was intercepted or it just fell into the sea.
                On October 15, 2016, Mason underwent a third attack by five anti-ship cruise missiles north of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, firing a radar trap, an infrared trap and several SM-2 Standard missiles in response, intercepting four of the five missiles. the fifth missile was neutralized by a radar trap launched from the USS Nitze.
                1. Greyhound famously
                  Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 25
                  0
                  To clarify - no one denies the presence of one or another combat experience. The question led to its quantity in comparison with range shooting and the statement of the previous commentator that an order of magnitude more range experience did not matter. Do you also agree with him on this issue?
              2. Avior
                Avior 16 December 2020 08: 56
                +2
                Real? Since the first real combat use of anti-ship missiles.
                And what does the experience at the test sites have to do with it?
                the only criterion of truth is practice.

                hi
                1. Greyhound famously
                  Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 11
                  0
                  the only criterion of truth is practice.

                  If experience at landfills is not practice, then what?
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 16 December 2020 09: 43
                    +2
                    product performance check, of course.
                    And checking its real capabilities is a real combat practice of application.
                    Do you think otherwise?
                    1. Greyhound famously
                      Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 47
                      +1
                      Isn't shooting at the range a reality check? Then what is this test?
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 16 December 2020 10: 04
                        +2
                        product performance check, of course.

                        we repeat
                        Realistic capabilities are tested in real combat applications.
                      2. Greyhound famously
                        Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 10: 19
                        +1
                        If we repeat ourselves, then answer only in one place. but for now I will answer in the same way as in the other branch where you formulated everything differently, but you will figure it out, since you are "repeating", right?
                        Do you want to say that for any sample, its performance is questionable both when it is put into service and for the entire period of its operation? And it is precisely in order to dispel these doubts that range shooting is carried out? If you doubt a rocket - shoot it 10 times a year, if you doubt a tank shell, shoot it every week (in total, several thousand times a year across the country)?
                        All for the sake of doubts about performance and not practice?
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 16 December 2020 10: 34
                        +1
                        when adopted, of course.
                        And then the calculations need to be trained.
                        Control shots to check the performance, too.
                      4. Greyhound famously
                        Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 10: 58
                        +1
                        Well, look, in order to admit that you were wrong in the most insignificant question, it took you more than 2 hours of time, a dozen comments, the same type of question asked to you more than once, to which you did not want to answer directly, from time to time trying to leave aside, breaking the discussion into 2 branches where you answer the same question in different ways, and for this you got into someone else's discussion that does not concern you. In general, they proved to be an extremely disgusting person. And if this statement was from a principle brought to the recognition of your mistake, then further discussing anything with someone like you see no point. For this I say goodbye.
                      5. Avior
                        Avior 16 December 2020 11: 03
                        +1
                        Well, look to admit that you are wrong in the most insignificant issue.

                        yes you are a slippery person, as I can see.
                        I didn’t admit anything like that, it’s your fantasies in an attempt to merge ...
                        Oh well...
                        The main opposition to anti-ship missiles attacks now is electronic warfare and traps.
                        And the missile seeker is of decisive importance. Her traps will not be deceived and EW will fall. And if they manage to deceive, speed will be a secondary factor. Will fly by quickly, but by.
                  2. onstar9
                    onstar9 21 December 2020 16: 20
                    0
                    It is clear that tests at the range, and in general all exercises, are not at all the same as in real combat. There is some training, but "training" is usually not at all what will happen in a real battle .. It's like sitting in front of the TV with a "shooter" and thinking that this is an "imitation" of a real battle. When "life is on the line", you will think and act differently, and you will make decisions completely different than in training battles and shooting ... Therefore, there is a concept - "fired or not." And one more thing - "for one beaten, ten not beaten give" ... Here is the ratio of the value of all "exercises and trainings" with real combat experience. One in ten ...
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 16 December 2020 08: 51
    -1
    Have you already removed the rapid-fire 20-30 mm guns from all the ships?

    Not yet from all, but the same Phalanx CIWS are actively removed from ships precisely because of extremely low efficiency, replacing them with SeaRAM with RIM-116.


    And if they influenced the seeker of the missile, it was not by deception, but exclusively by brute force.

    They tried to influence, but they did not hear about the anti-ship missiles they successfully repelled by attacks, they even missed targets on board.
    1. Greyhound famously
      Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 09
      0
      They tried to influence, but they did not hear about the anti-ship missiles they successfully repelled by attacks, they even missed targets on board.

      Those. The Russian Navy is behind the times and is wasting money when they put on their ships "Pantsir" naval modifications, which include cannon armament?
      1. Avior
        Avior 16 December 2020 09: 25
        +1
        That is what I wanted to write, I wrote in the very first post. I expect from you cases of real combat use of MZA on anti-ship missiles. I will read it with interest.
        hi
        1. Greyhound famously
          Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 32
          0
          Repeat just for you. To clarify - no one denies the presence of one or another combat experience. The question led to its quantity in comparison with range shooting and the statement of the previous commentator that an order of magnitude more range experience did not matter. Do you also agree with him on this issue?
          And most importantly, do not move away from the topic of "Armor" - are they a waste of time and money? Or is it not your words that cannon armament
          actively removed from ships precisely because of the extremely low efficiency

          they even missed targets on board
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 December 2020 09: 34
            +1
            Not mine. This is confusion
            1. Greyhound famously
              Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 09: 42
              0
              Sorry, really confusion, really created by the fact that you responded to my comment to another author who is now silent.
              As for the practice, which is the truth, if hundreds, and maybe thousands of shooting ranges are not practice, then what is it?
              1. Avior
                Avior 16 December 2020 09: 51
                +2
                practice of checking the performance of the product.
                but not in any way its real combat effectiveness.
                P-15, as they say, hit the target with a probability of 0,7. Surely she showed something like this during range shooting.
                During the Yom Kippur War, not one of the fifty hit their target.
                1. Greyhound famously
                  Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 10: 11
                  0
                  Do you want to say that for any sample, its performance is questionable both when it is put into service and for the entire period of its operation? And it is precisely in order to dispel these doubts that range shooting is carried out? If you doubt a rocket - shoot it 10 times a year, if you doubt a tank shell, shoot it every week (in total, several thousand times a year across the country)?
                  All for the sake of doubts about performance and not practice?
                  As for the P-15, then you did not agree with my opinion that it makes no sense to compare systems of different generations
                  over the past 20 years (in antiquity we will not use it - generations of anti-ship missiles and electronic warfare were different)

                  remember?
                  And now, true to their position, talk about the use of a missile of the late 50s in a war that took place 15 years later, and to which electronic warfare and air defense systems have stepped far forward. This does not bother you. But this seems to me not correct
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 16 December 2020 10: 20
                    +2
                    Do you think they will tell you in advance what the circumstances of the application will be?
                    Eilat drowned RCC in 1967, Yom Kippur War in 1973. 6 years.
                    The use of approximately one generation of electronic warfare and Exocet in the Falklands showed that the anti-ship missiles never hit a combat-ready and using electronic warfare warship.
                    The Americans scared the Japanese to the point of hiccups with their long-tested torpedoes.
                    There are plenty of such examples.
                  2. Greyhound famously
                    Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 10: 28
                    +1
                    Those. range shooting is all the same (your opinion) to test performance and not practice? So? If you had no doubts about the performance of anti-ship missiles, artillery systems and shells for them, wouldn’t they fire so many times a year? Or is it still for practice, and your entire logical chain is not correct?
                  3. Avior
                    Avior 16 December 2020 10: 38
                    +1
                    Excuse me, but do you think that if the expenditure on a target at the range is one missile, then it will be so in real combat?
                  4. Greyhound famously
                    Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 11: 01
                    +1
                    Well, look, above you admitted that you were wrong, although here you continue in your manner to try as you please, but to evade the answer. Let's put it bluntly, in order to admit that you were wrong in the most insignificant question, it took you more than 2 hours of time, a dozen comments, the same type of question asked to you more than once, to which you did not want to answer directly, from time to time trying to get away, breaking the discussion into 2 branches where you answer the same question in different ways, and for this you got into someone else's discussion that does not concern you. In general, they proved to be an extremely disgusting person. And if this statement was from a principle brought to the recognition of your mistake, then further discussing anything with someone like you see no point. For this I say goodbye.
                  5. Avior
                    Avior 16 December 2020 11: 08
                    +2
                    look, you lied here too, that I allegedly admitted that I was wrong.
                    What, did it come to you that they wrote nonsense initially?
                    it was obvious
              2. ancient
                ancient 16 December 2020 11: 24
                +1
                Quote: Grizzled Dashing
                Those. range shooting is all the same (your opinion) to test the performance

                Yes sir.. soldier ..Practice is developed by performing tactical methods of using anti-ship missiles with "tactical launches" ... no more.
                And in real conditions ..... "how the card will fall" recourse
            2. Vikxnumx
              Vikxnumx 16 December 2020 11: 14
              +2
              Do you think they will tell you in advance what the circumstances of the application will be?
              Eilat drowned RCC in 1967, Yom Kippur War in 1973. 6 years.
              The use of approximately one generation of electronic warfare and Exocet in the Falklands showed that the anti-ship missiles never hit a combat-ready and using electronic warfare warship.
              The Americans scared the Japanese to the point of hiccups with their long-tested torpedoes.
              There are plenty of such examples.

              Tell this theory to the crew of the Monsoon ...
              I had one friend there, and then he served in the hospital for another year and a half ...
            3. Avior
              Avior 16 December 2020 11: 36
              +3
              There was also a Kherson Komsomolets member.
              There the anti-ship missiles got there. Electronic warfare was not used. Two tragedies.
              And why did you write this?
            4. Vikxnumx
              Vikxnumx 17 December 2020 11: 02
              0
              And why did you write this?

              It is not enough to get into the flying scrap. Otherwise, he can continue to fly ...
              We must drop it securely.
            5. Avior
              Avior 17 December 2020 11: 05
              +2
              Got it. I agree, rab is safer
    2. ancient
      ancient 16 December 2020 11: 22
      +1
      Quote: Grizzled Dashing
      You want to say that for any sample, its performance is in question

      Absolutely true ...... since the "reality" of the anti-ship missile system can only be verified in the REAL counteraction of electronic warfare and P.
      Polygons are good ..... preparation, adjustment, means of SOC and telemetry ... flying. Daddy .. practically .. as it should.
      And in practice, did you try (in real jamming conditions) to detect, target designation and launch an anti-ship missile system with ARGSN? wink
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 16 December 2020 10: 14
    -1
    behind the times and wasting money when they put shell modifications on their ships

    With Pantsir, yes, this is a very problematic attempt to shove a land complex onto the Ship, and the main defeat is provided by missiles.

    The most promising for ships is Redoubt, there is also Tor-FM, which is much better than Pantsir, but with its own shortcomings.

    The analogue of Phalanx was the AK-630, which we also abandoned for the same reasons.
    1. Greyhound famously
      Greyhound famously 16 December 2020 11: 25
      +1
      The refusal of the AK-630 on the same "Karakurt" occurred in favor of the "Pantsir", i.e. in the direction of strengthening from cannon to missile and cannon armament. You propose to leave only large caliber and missiles on the ships. And what will happen to small high-speed targets, torpedoes, airplanes, helicopters, UAVs and anti-ship missiles, which for some reason turned out to be closer to the ship than 1,5 - 2 km? Who will work on them? Rockets are expensive and not always possible. Large caliber - from a cannon to sparrows. So there should be rapid-fire artillery. But this is my opinion.
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 16 December 2020 08: 27
    0
    The main opposition to anti-ship missiles attacks now is electronic warfare and traps.

    And in this regard, it is difficult to fight the Tomahawk Block V: passive guidance, active guidance, two-way data exchange, visual confirmation before an attack, the possibility of reassigning a target in flight and loitering while waiting for a target.
  • bar
    bar 16 December 2020 07: 59
    +2
    Economical, environmentally friendly, cheap, with a bunch of well-hidden benefits. I shield this success. A real source of pride, especially when there is nothing more to be proud of. laughing
  • Denis812
    Denis812 16 December 2020 08: 35
    0
    So this is it ... And the rocket scientists are stupid people and do not know. Where is the General Staff looking? It is necessary to fly more slowly, then everything will be in chocolate. Just think, they took it and got it on hypersound in three minutes on the ship. And here everything is solid, the rocket flies for half an hour, manages to figure everything along the way, and so on ...
    It seems to me that NATO should take this principle into service and implement it in all its equipment.
    For example tanks: why should they drive fast? It is better to load more ammunition, strengthen the armor, and he goes by 3-5 km / h. May God bless these experts and the generals listening to them.
  • Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 16 December 2020 10: 34
    +1
    "You drive quieter, you will continue," or maybe you won't ...
  • Hagen
    Hagen 16 December 2020 12: 38
    +3
    According to expert Tom Karako, with the new missile, the fleet will bomb terrorist camps "without hesitation, only having received an order from the president."

    This "without hesitation" from our "partners" is most alarming. When they think about it, something always goes wrong. And as soon as they stop thinking about it at all, this is a "preview of the end of human civilization."
  • Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 16 December 2020 13: 06
    +1
    ... According to expert Tom Karako, with the new missile, the fleet will bomb terrorist camps "without hesitation, only having received an order from the president."


    Everything you need to know about the qualifications of experts who are going to destroy terrorist camps with anti-ship missiles
  • certero
    certero 16 December 2020 13: 56
    0
    It's strange that everyone began to discuss the possibility of firing ships at each other. This Tomahawk is not against ships, but against ground targets.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 16 December 2020 14: 09
      0
      This is a newly developed anti-ship variant.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 16 December 2020 14: 10
    +1
    "Subsonic speed is a virtue": American experts on tests of the new Tomahawk missile


    Of course, this is an advantage, it's easier to shoot down))
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 16 December 2020 14: 14
    0
    Dozvukovaya raketa deshevle sverkhzvukovoy i dalshe biet. Eto fakt.
    No nado imet oba tipa na voruzhenii.
  • certero
    certero 16 December 2020 14: 19
    +2
    Quote: Lex_is
    This is a newly developed anti-ship variant.

    Shoot a ship 1.600 km away? During this time, the ship will sail 100 km from the aiming point. And no snake in search of a goal will help
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 16 December 2020 16: 15
    0
    Maybe the subsonic advanced missile is good against the barmaley, but against a strong equal enemy with a powerful missile defense and air defense system, this will not work ...
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 16 December 2020 16: 34
    -1
    Oh how! In an article about our hypersonic anti-ship missiles, I was crucified, burned and buried with shouts "but how to direct? !!! At 1000 km ??? !!!! And the argument that 1000 km at a speed of 8M is not enough for the ship to leave the sector of view of the seeker. But in an article about a prehistoric "ax" with a subsonic speed and a range of supposedly 1600 km, this question does not arise for anyone. Mattresses "by the will of God" will always guide everything and will not miss a millimeter. laughing
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 16 December 2020 18: 17
    +1
    Quote: Mimoprohodil
    Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
    and there is still a twist. wallpaper Clabs go to the target on subsonic and at the final part of the trajectory gain 3 mach
    And where in the ZM-14 is a similar design

    And they WILL UNFOLD!
    But the wallpaper will win, their deployment speed on alert will be higher ...
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 17 December 2020 13: 43
    0
    Block 5 still comes in two versions. This is the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) or Block Va equipped with a new multi-channel guidance system for the ability to engage surface targets and Block Vb for hitting ground targets and equipped with a new penetrating warhead Joint Multiple Effects Warhead System (JMEWS) This warhead combines a cumulative precharge with a penetrating warhead. In general, a classic with new content. No doubt an effective CD.
  • Charik
    Charik 17 December 2020 18: 40
    +1
    conducted the first tests of the newest type of Tomahawk missiles - in fact, Axes have been produced since the 80s, if the author did not know, but this is another modification
  • Charik
    Charik 17 December 2020 18: 48
    -2
    you can add minus to each other, but in the number of SLCMs, the Americans are ahead of the rest of the planet, and this is a huge advantage, even though they are subsonic, in addition to this, there is also electronic warfare on missiles and stealth coverage and low-altitude flight, and you can probably change the route in flight, so this is not just beat the terrorists, so still entot Vasya says that he (the new Ax) and the anti-ship missile system, but these are all trifles, we will scratch for 10 years, and there we don't need a war, they will put more crap $ in amersky papers and they will not be touched, so and the whole world will scare the whole world with America, China, Russia and the nuclear war between them
  • Charik
    Charik 17 December 2020 18: 59
    0
    an article for hats-shooters, schA they will trample, yes Ax, garbage, and even the sound-and the number does not know, and the Americans already have how many modifications they have, even the real Putin in his Munich speech said that some people hide a lot of weapons, so with their hats - hats
  • Rock616
    Rock616 18 December 2020 03: 12
    0
    This is when you pile into your pants, and explain to those walking next to you that it’s warmer. wassat
  • alek_kg
    alek_kg 18 December 2020 14: 51
    0
    I agree that "Subsonic speed is an advantage", but only in our "Poseidon", moreover, it corresponds to Trump's expression "hydrosonic missile"! Super duper hydrosonic deep-sea missile, and its range is good! wassat