Military Review

A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error

553

Better this way than delving into these strange and incomprehensible questions of naval warfare. Alas, the enemy will not appreciate it.


March 10, 2021 at "Military Review" an article by the authors Roman Skomorokhov and Alexander Vorontsov was published under the title "Does Russia need a strong fleet?"... True, the authors did not give an answer to the question posed in the title by themselves, suggesting instead to use strategic Tu-160M ​​bombers for strikes against surface targets, which need to start building at a speed of 3-4 to 5 vehicles per year, so that in 10-15 years to have them in the amount of 50 units. Not 49 and not 51, but exactly 50. The same aircraft (as conceived by the authors) should also carry anti-submarine missiles. And, most likely, somehow apply them. According to the authors, such rates are quite real. And even somehow they are not burdensome.

It must be said that the article contains two ideas. One of them is the position of Roman Skomorokhov that Russia needs a small coastal fleet. R. Skomorokhov's position contains nothing new. Earlier, in another article, he already tried to prove the uselessness and uselessness of naval capabilities for Russia, to which he received a detailed and motivated answer from M. Klimov, given in the article "The ability to fight at sea is a necessity for Russia"... And I must say that no reasonable counter-arguments to the theses of M. Klimov on the part of R. Skomorokhov did not follow.

The second idea is A. Vorontsov's idea of ​​using the Tu-160 in military operations at sea. This very extravagant idea, oddly enough, even received supporters.

Well, if so, the new article is still worth some sort of analysis.

Firstly, it contains a number of misconceptions that are very characteristic of our society, which in themselves need to be analyzed, without connection with the creativity about anti-submarine operations of Tu-160 bombers.

Secondly, since the comrades have already mentioned the name of your humble servant, then not to answer, it turns out, it will be somehow ugly.

Let's get started.

Erroneous Basis


In theoretical constructions, the most important part is the basis - the basic axioms, dogmas on which the theory is based, as well as the internal logic embedded in it. The latter is even more important than dogmas - any theory must be logical. Alas, the respected R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov “caught” the first failure already at this stage - their entire article is based on logical errors. And this is incorrigible.

Let's take an example from the very beginning of the material.

In the section "Geographical Features of Russia", distinguished authors write:

“If the calculation is simplified, this leads to the fact that, having three times the total budget than, say, Turkey, our fleet is 1,6 times weaker locally. If in numbers, then against 6 of our submarines there will be 13 Turkish, and against 1 missile cruiser, 5 frigates and 3 corvettes there will be 16 Turkish URO frigates and 10 corvettes with missile weapons. In general, it is worth separately calculating the total capabilities of the Black Sea fleets of Russia and Turkey.

A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error

This calculation is a convention designed to demonstrate the principle itself. And he does not take into account a number of factors (which also play against us), for example, such as the presence in the composition of our fleet an additional and very impressive item of expenses for the maintenance and support of the work of atomic strategists.

This state of affairs, to put it mildly, is depressing and makes you think - Is it worth spending money on the fleet at all if these investments represent a movement "against the tide"?

This feature of the geography of Russia is well known to people associated with the navy, but its discussion is often ignored due to the fact that casts doubt on the effectiveness of spending money on the fleet, as well as the place of the fleet in the overall structure of the RF Armed Forcesand, as a consequence, the importance of all the discussed problems of the fleet for the country's defense as a whole.

As you can see, there is a hole behind the folding text, since the reasoning is built according to the scheme:

1.Turkey can have a larger fleet in its "own" region than the Russian Federation, with a smaller naval budget.
2. List of military budgets of different countries in descending order of the table.
3. This is depressing, and our investment in the fleet is "going against the tide."
4. In connection with clauses 1, 2, 3 “the efficiency of spending money on the fleet as well as the place of the fleet in the general structure of the RF Armed Forces” raises doubts, as does the need to discuss naval problems.

And then about the same.

That is, the arguments given by the authors are not logically connected. The so-called "Imaginary logical connection", moreover, repetitive. Because from the fact that, for financial reasons, it is impossible to ensure equality "in terms of pennants" with this or that country, it does not follow that "the place of the fleet in the general structure of the RF Armed Forces raises doubts."

It just means that you need to have a policy and strategy adequate to the balance of forces. China's navy is larger and stronger than Vietnam's, but that doesn't mean Vietnam doesn't need a navy. Moreover, just its hypothetical absence (taking into account the great "maritime capabilities" of China) for Vietnam would have very negative consequences. We do not differ from Vietnam in this.

Another example from the text, this time from the section "Soviet experience":

In essence, the idea is clear and not new - if, say, Turkey closes the strait for us (let's say a coup will take place in Turkey, which has already been attempted, and will come to power ... But who knows, who will come?), Then we need to place the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea in advance.

Such a plan is good, but it implies one piquant moment - it is essentially nothing more than an even greater dispersion of the available forces. That is, "the nose was pulled out, the tail got stuck." We tried to solve the problem of isolation - exacerbated the problem of disunity of forces.

That is, in the introduction that the authors used, namely the build-up of the Navy's grouping against Turkey, the transfer of additional forces to the Mediterranean Sea, this aggravates the problem of the disunity of our fleets.

Well, or down to earth.

We have an aggravation with Turkey (again). And we are transferring the repaired Kuznetsov with a normally trained air group to the western part of the Mediterranean (to the west of Greece, which is hostile to the Turks). "Nakhimov", with systems brought to a combat-ready state and weapons, a pair of BODs to provide air defense in the near zone and PLO connections. And three Project 22350 frigates with "Calibers" to provide air defense, anti-aircraft defense and cruise missile strikes on the coast. They are also joined by Project 11356 Black Sea frigates, also with "Calibers". And on Khmeimim we are deploying an assault naval aviation regiment from the Baltic. Maybe not in full force, Khmeimim is not rubber.

There are four missile boats in Tartus. And on some site - a group of Ka-52K for hunting a Turkish "trifle".

According to the authors, this aggravates the "problem of disunity of forces."

To be honest, it's just not clear what you can answer to this. There is a logically incoherent statement, a set of letters. How can you answer a set of letters?


Disunity of forces ... Well, what is the answer to that?

After all, in fact, in the introductory, in which we build up strength only against Turkey (and the respected authors used this example), the transfer of additional forces to the region leads to the fact that they become more... There is only one point of application of our power, while we ourselves, acting from the periphery of the enemy, “pull apart” his forces in different directions.

Since the forces, for example, of the Black Sea and Northern Fleets, together with the Baltic Aviation Regiment, are ready to fight in such a situation together... At one theater of operations. So what kind of "deepening disunity" are we talking about? This is clearly a logical error. If the forces come together, then they do not separate, no.

Elsewhere, the authors write:

One of the most common mistakes in preparing for war is the application of concepts that have dominated the past, without regard to modern realities.

This is often the fault of authors who traditionally cover naval topics.

Thus, the authors commented on the need to fight for the first salvo.

The question of the advantages of the first missile salvo is disclosed in the article “The reality of missile salvos. A Little About Military Superiority, "which is highly recommended reading. There is also some mat. apparatus that allows you to delve deeper into the issue.

The authors R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov call the fight for the first salvo an "old concept" and point out that following it is unacceptable.

Alas, there is no other concept in the world. Moreover, the underlying "salvo model" fully describes the fight aviation with surface ships. Since both aircraft and ships are at war with each other with missile volleys.

There is no other mat. apparatus. There is no other concept: neither in the USA, nor here, nor among the Chinese.

This is not an "old concept" but a current one. It's like a requirement to combine front sight and rear sight when firing from an open sight - well, there is no other concept of shooting, and it cannot be with such scopes. Or you can compare it to an attempt to permanently abolish the rifle chain as an infantry battle formation. And what, she's old, more than a century and a half to her? But there is no other battle formation for the open area, although everything did not fit into a chain like a wedge, of course.

Further, the authors write:

In the above screenshot we are talking about "sea battle".

The fact is that at the current level of development of aviation and missile weapons in the context of the geographic characteristics of Russia, the concept of "sea battle" ceases to exist as something independent.

Which requires proof, right?

In August 2008, for example, we had a clash between our detachment of Black Sea Fleet warships and Georgian boats. It was not possible to destroy a single one, but at least they were herded back to the base, where they were eliminated by the paratroopers. Elementary logic requires that the next "Georgian boats" not leave in the same circumstances. From the point of view of the authors, however, the geographic features of Russia nullify naval combat as "something independent." What does it mean? Why is there such a discrepancy with reality?

Alas, the authors' proofs of their theses are also not very good. Using, so to speak, "alternative" logic, the authors naturally obtain conclusions that do not touch reality at all.

Erroneous judgments and outright lies


Let's get back to the beginning.

To simplify the calculation, this leads to the fact that, having three times the total budget than, say, Turkey, our fleet is 1,6 times weaker locally.

If in numbers, then against 6 of our submarines there will be 13 Turkish, and against 1 missile cruiser, 5 frigates and 3 corvettes there will be 16 Turkish URO frigates and 10 corvettes with missile weapons.

In general, it is worth separately calculating the total capabilities of the Black Sea fleets of Russia and Turkey.

Let's ask questions.

1. Is the ratio of the number of ships identical to their real combat power?

This question is really difficult. For example, in the case of completing tasks to combat submarines, the answer will be "more or less the same." But in the battle of the surface forces with each other, the winning of the first salvo and the total missile salvo of the ships participating in this becomes immeasurably more important. The salvo equations well show that in a modern war, even the weaker side can ensure the complete destruction of the strongest with zero casualties, simply by winning the first salvo and not "flashing" its location in front of the enemy.

That is, the answer, in the case of comparing the potential of the surface forces from the point of view of fighting each other, is no, it is not identical.

Moreover, theoretically, we have a chance to get a force multiplier - a naval assault aviation regiment, which is part of the Black Sea Fleet. Above the combat readiness of this regiment, in theory, it is necessary to work properly. But, if this is done, then the correlation of surface forces, precisely from the point of view of the struggle between surface forces, becomes simply meaningless. Since the total missile salvo of the Black Sea Fleet with an air regiment in any battle will be several times higher than that of any surface forces conceivable for Turkey. And then there are the Baltic pilots.

So why did the respected authors do their calculations? What do they show?

2. Will the Turkish Navy fight "on two fronts"? After all, we have strength in the Mediterranean. Why didn't they count them? Because they are not with the Black Sea Fleet? So what? Maybe then the ratio should be different in the event of a war?

These, of course, are not the only mistakes made by respected authors.

So, describing the possible consequences of attacks by cruise missiles and other weapons on our naval bases, the esteemed authors stubbornly proceed from the assumption that in any case our fleet will, like sheep in a slaughterhouse, stand in bases. Although in reality this is not the case even now.

In addition, twitching is evident. Also, unfortunately, found in the text. For example, the article shows the unpunished destruction of our Black Sea bases by Turkish cruise missiles.

Of course, the Roketsan SOM missiles are very dangerous. But with a properly organized air defense, with the proper work of reconnaissance and aerospace forces, the strike will not turn out as deadly as R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov are trying to show.

Yes, we will have some losses. And the Turks will run out of cruise missiles. This country simply does not have enough of them. They will be able to get some objects in the Black Sea region, but only a few objects. Then they will have to fight with other weapons.

In fact, out of touch with the number of missiles, ships can be put out to sea in advance, and planes can be relocated to the rear. Intelligence must work properly so that no one will arrange a new "June 22" for us. You need to strive for this, and not fall into horror.

There are also mistakes due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what naval power is.

For example:

Take, for example, the regional state of Japan or Turkey. The sphere of interests of Japan is the Kuriles, they do not care about the Russian Black Sea Fleet anyway. The Turks, on the other hand, are interested in the hydrocarbon deposits near Cyprus, and they do not care much about what is happening in the east of Russia. Therefore, the question of the complete destruction of the enemy's fleet for regional states is not on the agenda from the outset.

There is a lack of understanding of "how it works", which is, unfortunately, frequent in our "continental" power continental thinking, so to speak.

What do we have in reality?

Here's what - this diagram shows where Japan gets most of its oil from.


The bulk of Japanese oil is imported from the Persian Gulf. And it is delivered by tankers by sea. That is, on sea communications.

The question is where it will lead bringing before the Japanese decision-makers, that at the first aggravation of the military situation around the Kuriles, tankers with Japanese oil from the Persian Gulf will no longer enter Japan? Temporarily, of course.

Will it ease tensions or, conversely, provoke Japan to attack?

Fleets are a global force, they influence the situation globally. "Tirpitz" influenced the battles at Stalingrad and Rostov, everyone remembers that, right?

But we have a PMTO in the Red Sea, it can have four ships and the same number in rotation in the Persian Gulf and nearby.

Maybe the Japanese will ask the US to intervene?

Maybe yes.

Only it is not a fact that the latter will immediately and with all their might get into this conflict. They did not fight for Georgia, for Ukraine, against us for their terrorists in Syria. And there are doubts that they will rush headlong into the battle for the Japanese Kuril Islands.

We have several bases with American hostages in Syria, which we, in general, can attack without taking responsibility. "Caliber" from "Warsaw" and "Thundering" get Alaska. True, they are not yet at the Pacific Fleet. The Ministry of Defense is holding the "Thundering" for the next naval parade, apparently. But they will be there anyway. And soon.

Yes, the "Thundering" has "dead" air defense. But he can launch a rocket from the UKSK. Not so simple. And the Americans cannot fail to understand this. This does not guarantee anything for us. But, alas, no one will give any guarantees to the Japanese either.

So the Black Sea Fleet is quite “about Japan”. Very much "about Japan". R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov were very seriously mistaken in this case too.

By the way, a question to the authors, which is cheaper: to build 50 Tu-160Ms or to drive the Grigorovich and Essen to the Persian Gulf and wave handkerchiefs to the Japanese tanker captains from the bridge even before it all started? Interesting question, huh? Otherwise, the authors are concerned about the economy ...

It's worth remembering the cost here.

So, at Soviet prices (with penny kerosene), airplanes really looked much preferable to ships. (For example, at the "cost of 1 anti-ship missile in a salvo of the fleet"). Until they started flying. But after that, the aircraft operating cost meter “spun” much faster than that of ships.

But, let's imagine that Japan sent its ships to the Persian Gulf. Their fleet is larger than all our fleets put together. You can dispatch a squadron without any problems, there are supply transports, and the preparation is excellent.

What then?

And then we build up our forces faster than they do. Thanks to the same Black Sea Fleet as well. And we will have to fight in relatively equal conditions - right now we do not have an aircraft carrier, they also do not. At the same time, we can agree with the Iranians on the passage of the "Air Force" Tu-95s through their airspace, at least for reconnaissance. They will not be able to attack Japanese ships, but they will definitely be useful as a means of reconnaissance.

And the Japanese will not have their own aviation there. They will have to secretly negotiate with someone. With those who are not afraid to receive "Calibres" at oil terminals (with the excuse that they were the Houthis). Or to their bases in Iraq (on behalf of the local Shiites). And these prospects may well be. And communicated to the right people.

And some "loaf" or "Severodvinsk" can bypass Africa and, somewhere along the way, break away from American tracking. Even with the help of surface ships of the same SF. And there is a missile salvo, which no one can ignore either.

In general, everything is much more complicated with this fleet than the authors think.

Not with the fleet, of course, either.

R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov write this:

It is clear that the only direction where one could at least draw this notorious 1000 km line is the direction of the Northern Fleet. But here, too, everything is not so luxurious.

The thing is that Norway is a NATO member. And you shouldn't consider it as a peaceful and independent country. During the Cold War, it was in Norway, under the protection of American special forces, that the warehouses of nuclear weapons were located. American. And the distance from its borders to Murmansk and Severomorsk is just over 100 km.

This is their commentary on the issue of combat missions of our aviation in the Barents and Norwegian Seas and on a possible strike from the Norwegian territory.

And again we, like rabbits in front of a boa constrictor, are waiting for a sudden blow, our ships are at the piers, there is no choice, our destiny is to get on the snatch.

In reality, northern Norway is a rather sparsely populated area with extremely sparse vegetation, well observed from space, if necessary, or by aerial reconnaissance along the border, without invading the airspace.

There is only one serious road, it is impossible to hide the transfer of troops along it. And also, with the presence of a minimal amphibious force, you can cut off the entire part of Norway east of the Varanger Fjord, and destroy any troops that will be there. And they will not hold Spitsbergen, and the "Bastions" on Bear will appear much faster than the Naval Strike Missile batteries.

And if you land in Varanger Fjord, then from there the Iskanders will finish off to Narvik. And the loss of Narvik is the loss of half of Norway immediately.


Otherwise, why do we need the 14th corps and the marines there?

So our planes will quite fly "past" Norway for aerial reconnaissance and for strikes, if anything. There would be someone to fly. Now, thanks to the efforts of a number of brilliant strategists, there is no one in the Ministry of Defense. But it won't always be that way.

Of course, there is a danger from Norway. They talk about it at least flights of American bombers B-1B Lancer from the Norwegian air base... They really pose a threat to the same submarine bases.

And it was not for nothing that M. Klimov, in one of his articles, called for the restoration of the base in Gremikha and the redeployment of part of the forces of the Northern Fleet there, especially underwater ones. This problem really exists. But it should be dealt with rationally, dispersing forces and ensuring their continuous presence on the high seas, and not getting carried away by projection.

In general, respected authors should reconsider their "operational views" - they are far from what can or will be done in reality. Infinitely far away.

Unfortunately, the authors have sunk to outright lies.

It is difficult to say who it came from: from A. Vorontsov or from R. Skomorokhov. Perhaps one of them will be able to clarify this issue.

Quote:

Accordingly, pouring in huge amounts, as Timokhin and Klimov want, is inappropriate.

Neither Timokhin nor Klimov ever proposed to "pour huge sums" into the fleet. On the contrary, most of our articles on military-economic topics are just devoted to how reduce the cost of the fleet relative to today's level, without losing combat effectiveness. Or how to increase combat effectiveness at approximately current costs without seriously increasing them.

The only exception is a hypothetical light aircraft carrier. But even for it, funds can be found by reducing useless programs, and not by significantly increasing budgets.

It is a great pity that the authors have resorted to such discussion methods. However, it is simply impossible to leave this accusation without comment.

Hopefully, in the future, they won't go back to that again. In the end, it is much better not to lose a reputation than to restore it later.

But back to the analysis of the article. To its final part.

A blow to reality


Let's get back to the main message of the article.

Accordingly, pouring in huge amounts, as Timokhin and Klimov want, is inappropriate. Build four fleets, each of which will be able to withstand regional representatives of the same NATO bloc? In modern realities, it will take 60–70 years, if not more.

To build about 50 Tu-160M ​​units at an accelerated pace and equip them with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles - this task is still within our reach. And it will take 10-15 years.

And the fleet in this form will be able to solve the tasks of protecting the shores of Russia. It's not even worth dreaming about any "distant shores" there. But even their own shores will have to be protected under the reliable umbrella of strategic aviation.

In addition to the already analyzed false thesis about "pouring" money into the Navy, it is postulated that, firstly, we need 60–70 years to build a fleet capable of resisting the United States and NATO. And secondly, that instead of this, you can quickly build 50 Tu-160M, modernized for the use of anti-ship missiles and PLR. Say, we are quite capable of doing this in 10-15 years.

I would like to draw the attention of respected authors to reality.

Let's start with "confronting the US and NATO." Let's ask R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov a few questions.

For example, what is “resist”?

Does that mean "to fight"? But, for example, if somehow the American measures of protection against a sudden nuclear strike are bypassed (we will not fantasize on this topic for now) and a successful first nuclear strike is delivered, then even our current fleet, using strategic nuclear weapons, may well “resist”.

Or maybe “confront” is something else?

In fact, this is a matter of political goals. In the 70s, several times smaller than the US Navy, the Soviet fleet completely resisted the Americans. And successfully.

In the 80s, the many times more powerful Soviet fleet, on which huge money was spent, could no longer resist the Americans. An adequate strategy, for which the enemy is not ready, beats his superiority in pennants and even in a volley. In everything. And if we are interested in the topic of "confront", then we need to start with goals.

We want what? Destroy the USA? To incline them towards peaceful coexistence? Fall in love with yourself?

From here, the tasks of the fleet will be written down. And from them everything else, including the type of ships and the number.

These things are, of course, easy to understand. Just not all.

But as soon as we reach the "umbrella of strategic aviation", then everything becomes clear to anyone.
So, the fleet is expensive. We will not master it. We need 50 modernized bombers.

How much does the Tu-160M ​​cost?

According to the media 15 billion rubles apiece.

In addition, on January 25, 2018, a state contract was signed between the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the Tupolev company for the supply of the first batch of Tu-160M ​​strategic bombers - it provides for the creation of 10 aircraft worth 15 billion rubles each.

Thus, 50 aircraft is (excluding inflation from 2018) 750 billion rubles.

However, we need a modernized aircraft.

First, it must carry anti-ship missiles. And this means that the avionics of the aircraft must form and transmit on board the missile control center according to the airborne radar of the aircraft. Or according to target data coming from an external source.

Today the Tu-160 does not have such a system, and there is no ready-made complex that could be installed on it.

How long does it usually take to create such systems?

About six years. And a lot of billions.

But the authors also want to use anti-submarine missiles with the Tu-160M!

It changes everything.

The fact is that the PLR ​​is such a guided missile, in which, instead of a warhead, either a nuclear charge on a parachute or an anti-submarine torpedo. In the latter case, the torpedo needs to enter data to defeat the maneuvering and evading submarines, for the development of which the search and targeting system (PPS) of the aircraft must receive the elements of target movement (EDC, this is the same as the MPC, the parameters of the target movement in the surface fleet, for submarines Is the course, speed, depth).

For this, firstly, the aircraft must have the same sighting and search system as an anti-submarine aircraft. And secondly, it must be able to deploy sonar buoys.

Well, or more simply - we must also stuff the Novella into the Tu-160M ​​(there is no other PPS in the country), and also ensure the dropping of the buoys.

Modern non-acoustic detection means give aircraft the ability to detect a boat at depth without dropping buoys. This, of course, does not apply to our aircraft. As for the American and Japanese, in the future - the Chinese. But we could do it too.

But it is impossible to measure the EDC using the data of such means. So, "show the target to the torpedo" too. She, the torpedo, does not understand the words. She needs to set each parameter before starting. Or is it just a blank and that's it. Even when this torpedo is on the rocket.

Further, since we do not have anti-submarine torpedoes on board, but missiles, we need to fly away from the target. At the minimum launch range. And from there ...

Or you have to work with two Tu-160Ms. One is in the search version of the download, the second is in the shock. Or two - in search and shock. It turns out to be a great money saving!

It is difficult to say how much it will cost to develop a fundamentally new avionics for the Tu-160, test it, ensure the use of buoys, etc. And "under it" you need missiles (especially anti-submarine airborne ones), crew members (one pilot or navigator with the rank of lieutenant - many tens of millions of rubles for training), bases for these aircraft ...

It is easy to imagine how much the costs will increase by the time the last board is delivered.
In principle, we can safely talk about a trillion rubles.

Много это или мало?

Let's estimate.

One aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40–45 kT is 370–400 billion.

Corvette with a rational composition of radio-technical weapons and weapons - 18.
Specialized naval base strike aircraft in the Su-34 glider, with crew training - about 3 billion. The maximum is 4.

Reconstruction of the city of Sochi "for the Olympics" - about 500.

With this money, you can fight in Syria for about 15-20 years.

Or build a subway in seven or eight cities.

Amusingly, the authors are not confused by these numbers. They believe that by pouring that kind of money into a highly dubious project, they can save money on the fleet. Which brings us back to the beginning of the article, to the questions of logic.

And this is not counting the fact that the Tu-160 cannot be used in anti-ship operations even when it is upgraded into an anti-ship missile carrier. It is impossible or pointless.

There are two practical algorithms for using anti-ship missiles from aircraft against ships. The first is with the target capture of the missile seeker while still on the carrier.

This is how our MRA was supposed to work. The aircraft reach a range that allows them to detect an enemy order with their radars, starting from the data of the previously completed reconnaissance and strike group, other reconnaissance data, and signals from their own radar. The crews, using the aircraft equipment, issue the control system to the rocket for the already observed and classified (identified) target.

The advantage of this method is that the crew understands (well, or thinks they understand) where they are sending the rocket. The downside is that all this requires action deep inside the enemy's air defense zone - which was the reason for the high estimated losses of MPA in such sorties.

Theoretically, another option is possible - a "ship-like" launch. According to data from reconnaissance equipment, for example, a reconnaissance aircraft. When a missile is launched into a pre-empted target (or calculated) location, and the target is captured by the seeker already on the route. The crew of the aircraft itself does not observe the target.

This is how LRASM is applied.

The first variant of combat use involves the entrance of the Tu-160M ​​hundreds of kilometers into the depth of the enemy's defense, filled with interceptors and missile ships.

And how will he survive after that?

After all, this "Su" can perform sharp anti-aircraft maneuvers, go to the water, hiding under the radio horizon. And there are a lot of them, one missile defense system cannot dump all. A huge plane can't do that.


Tu-160 and people for scale. The idea of ​​"melee" on this machine looks extremely strange. Source: erikrostovspott.livejournal.com

When creating missiles and reconnaissance and target designation systems capable of providing the second option, the question arises, why shouldn't these anti-ship missiles simply be dropped from the retrofitted Il-76?

Why overpay for the Tu-160?

The authors want to save money. The cruising speed of a subsonic transporter or striker is slightly lower. Survivability in impact on surface targets is the same.
Why then the Tu-160M?

Authors R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov do not give answers to such questions.

And the questions themselves are not raised. And, apparently, they do not know that they can be delivered.

But they offer an expense of 750 billion (and in fact, one and a half - two times more).
But you need to save on the fleet.

At the same time, the authors did not understand the fact that in naval warfare aircraft and ships complement each other and together form a single system, even after reading and using the article for citation “Sea warfare for beginners. Interaction between surface ships and strike aircraft "... By using, but not trying to understand. After all, pictures with a beautiful white plane are much easier to understand ...

Operational-tactical survival task


So does Russia need a strong fleet?

Russia needs a fleet that matches the threats and foreign policy challenges it faces.

It will be interesting to end this material as follows. Without continuing the analysis of the shortcomings and shortcomings of the material of R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov, we better outline the problem that may arise in front of our country in 2030. And the readers themselves will be able to fantasize about how the Tu-160M ​​will help us solve it.

So, in 2030, the Navy degraded completely. We have parades, celebrations, pretentious calls of the remaining units to foreign ports, there are no effective naval forces. There are several Poseidon carriers in the GUGI. Rumor has it that the Poseidons themselves will also appear soon. The commanders-in-chief are still changing every two or three years. "Borei" continue to go to military service, but without support. And their commanders, as in Soviet times, do not particularly try to report on something that looks like the presence of a foreign submarine somewhere nearby. This does not correspond to the doctrine of the greatness of Russia and is seen as the first step towards betrayal.


Greatness! And whoever does not shed a tear of happiness from our Greatness is a traitor and pours slop on the country.

Civilians are prohibited from discussing such things on the basis of the new article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Insult to the honor of the Armed Forces." Critical journalists are forced to remain silent.

Anti-torpedoes never appeared in the fleet, there is no anti-torpedo protection in the fleet, the last anti-submarine aircraft is stationed in St. Petersburg and flies only to the Main Naval Parade. But the "young fleet" was created in a pair with the "youth army", with blue berets instead of red ones. The Main Temple of the Navy was built in Vladivostok. Questions about the fact that there is already one main church (Nikolsky Cathedral) in Kronstadt were carefully hushed up by the press. The temple turned out to be beautiful. The media and press applaud the development of our fleet and its greatness. Greatness is everywhere, on TV and in newspapers, on the radio and on the Internet. Nobody can question him anymore. Greatness is beyond doubt.

It was hinted on TV that the Zircon-2 hypersonic missile with a range of 2000 kilometers already exists and has been put into service. True, no one has seen her yet. But it is known that there will immediately be a container launcher for it. A series of medium missile ships (SRK) is being built, which are an enlarged MRK for two 3S-14 launchers. True, the ship does not have air defense and anti-aircraft defense, but, according to media reports, it can sink an aircraft carrier. The Pacific Fleet receives a series of Project 22160M patrol ships. These ships are distinguished by their speed increased to 23 knots.

In the meantime, the US has a breakdown in the global trading system in dollars. The oil dollar and similar cycles in other areas of world trade no longer work the way they used to. World trade is increasingly going under China. Africa trades in yuan. And the United States can no longer maintain a negative trade surplus of a trillion dollars, as it has been for many years in a row. And this is a disaster, a freebie in ¼ of the annual federal budget cannot disappear without really grave consequences. This cannot be allowed.

Something needs to be done with China, but what? It is integrated into the Western economy. If it is defeated, then the West itself will be in trouble. He must be forced to surrender and driven back into the stall of the dollar trade. But how? He has a Russian support behind him. As a military ally, Russia is no longer "very good." But the Chinese, firstly, are calm about their rear. Secondly, they know that if something happens, then because of Russia, they will not be able to completely block them. Weapons of some of the Russian Federation can also throw. True, not marine. Well, at least so.

But what if this rotten support was knocked out? It is significant to grind it into powder. And then call the Chairman of the CPC and make an offer that cannot be refused? Yes, Russia is a nuclear power, it has a full-fledged early warning system. But there is one vulnerability that the Russians, obsessed with their "continental" and "land", seem to have forgotten.

In March 2030, the Columbia SSBN goes into its next "routine" combat service. But it does not go to the North Atlantic. The boat makes a hidden passage to Gibraltar and then enters the Mediterranean Sea. There, at the appointed time, its commander must receive an order for further action. The team is nervous. Farmer kids in Kentucky and Oklahoma hate this deployment. He smells like a graveyard. And besides, they, Americans, used to think of themselves as good guys. But no one rebelles, everyone follows orders. In the end, they took the oath. And in the Pentagon, probably, they are not fools. And where to go from the submarine? No choice…


The worst enemy is at sea. The picture shows the Columbia-class, the new US Navy SSBN.

In mid-March, Columbia takes up a combat position west of the Ionian Islands. Now the fate of this boat is connected with two points in which none of its crew has ever been. And now it won't be. The first is the Engels airbase in the Saratov region of Russia, the home of the Tu-95, Tu-160 and Tu-160M ​​bombers. The second is the village of Svetly, located not very far from it, and the 60th missile division of the Strategic Missile Forces. From "Columbia" to this place about 2340 kilometers.


The route to the 60th missile division and Engels airbase.

A ballistic missile can be sent to a target along a so-called "low" or "flat" trajectory, that is, not along a ballistic curve. The rocket in such a flight flies much lower, solely due to the speed and thrust, with some assistance in the lifting force on the body. A significant part of its trajectory during such a flight is OUT. With such a launch, the accuracy of delivery of warheads to the target decreases. The range is also reduced, and at times.

But still it is more than 2000 kilometers. But the time it takes for the missiles to reach the target along such a trajectory is very short. The Columbia's salvo will cover the 60th Missile Division and the base in Engels about three times faster than the Russian counter-strike team. No early warning system will help them, they simply will not have time to react, the flight time of the Columbia missiles is less than 10 minutes. But the volleys from a single "Columbia" were "feeble".

Four missiles on Svetly, 10 warheads each. Then re-enter the initial starting conditions, differentiate. Four missiles again ...

The commander was sure that he was sent simply to scare the Russians - such volleys of four missiles might not have time to cover the missile division. But after a while the officer of the watch who replaced him reported that the acoustics had spotted an old Ohio-class Wyoming boat at a great distance to the west. And then he understood everything ...

By March 60, three American SSBNs were deployed in the Mediterranean to attack the 27th Missile Division and Engels Air Base. Four more - to strike at the remaining formations of the XNUMXth Guards Missile Army from the Barents Sea. The distance from where to Yoshkar-Ola, Teikovo and Kozelsk was much less than from Mediterranean to Svetly and Engels.

Two more SSBNs from Barentsukha were supposed to work for the 42nd division in Svobodny. Three - for the Orenburg divisions. The need to fire at four missiles was compensated by the fact that several boats fired at any target. And the spread of blocks along the course and combat path was seriously compensated by high-precision fuses on the W76-2 warhead. In no case did the flight time of the salvo exceed 10 minutes. And when the 27th Missile Army (Teikovo, Yoshkar-Ola, Kozelsk) was hit, it was even less.

Calculations showed that the Russians were seriously (at least five minutes) late in giving the command to retaliate.

The rest of the SSBNs were concentrated in the Pacific Ocean. There is a launch corridor in which (when missiles are launched from the Gulf of Alaska) they pass below the radar field of Russian early warning radars. When launched a little "to the side", they still fall into this field. But it's too late.

When hitting the formations of the 33rd Guards Missile Army (Irkutsk, Gvardeisky, Solnechny, Sibirskiy), the time between the entry of warheads into the radar field and their detonation was less than five minutes ...


This is this corridor. The same place as always. And in 2030 it will also be there. A missile strike along this trajectory can only be seen by satellites. If they see ...

It all came down to whether the Virginias would be able to destroy two Boreas in time for combat service - one in the north and one in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Given the completely absent Russian anti-submarine defense, this did not seem to be a problem.

It remained to cover the Russian submarines in the bases and the Ukrainka airbase. The bases were destroyed by strategic aviation strikes, which were synchronized in time with the attack of submarines. And the Ukrainian woman was "given" ICBMs - there were not enough submarines for her. And the bombers could not work out on it quickly and suddenly. ICBMs were in time, as the Russians did not know how to get out of a nuclear strike in 15–20 minutes, like the Americans.

On March 2030, XNUMX, the Columbia, whose commander had already read the combat order by this time, floated up for a communication session.
The order to strike at the appointed time, received earlier, was confirmed ...


Photo: National Museum of the US Navy / wikimedia.org

Perhaps we can stop at this.

Readers are invited to fantasize about how this could end история.

Think about what can be done to make such a strike impossible?

Think about when it would be necessary to start taking the actions necessary to prevent this strike from taking place? And what forces and means are needed to prevent it?

And return to the question asked by R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov. Does Russia need a strong fleet?

Which one then?

What should he be able to do?

Is the "old concept" of disrupting a nuclear missile strike from ocean areas relevant to us or not?

Maybe not? Perhaps, as the authors wrote, "it is unacceptable to follow it"?


Shall we dare to turn our backs on all this?

Maybe Russia should still act "Vorontsov-style"? And yet to start cutting a series of naval Tu-160Ms for a trillion rubles? Will he help in the situation described above?

And the coastal fleet?

Corvettes?

Maybe it's time for us to start thinking how we should, and not chasing chimeras? And make it a rule to understand the issue at least at the everyday level, before speaking out?

Otherwise, an operational-tactical task of ten years ago at that time will one day turn out to be real and absolutely unsolvable. After all, politicians in 2030 will be those students who read "Military Review".

But how can they go wrong with the vision of the future? Will they follow an initially wrong idea? Will they make a logical mistake?

And then there will be simply no one to argue about the necessity and uselessness of the fleet.
Author:
553 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alien From
    Alien From 12 March 2021 05: 08
    +35
    Dear author! Both you and other authors on the naval theme are sick with it (in a good way)! The reverent attitude of the members of the forum is guaranteed, because the sea, in the shower! hi
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 12 March 2021 05: 46
      +1
      In August 2008, for example, we had a clash between our detachment of Black Sea Fleet warships and Georgian boats. Not a single one could be destroyed,
      that is, MRK belay "Mirage" did not disable 2 Georgian boats? it's another matter why the boat did not decompose into its components after being hit by a "mosquito"? but these anti-ship missiles were going to fight with the AUG ... request what
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 12 March 2021 05: 57
        -8
        Well, and an article ... Who would doubt the education and knowledge of the Marshal of All Russia, Mr. Timokhin.
        Only why did your operational report contain a "misunderstanding":
        In August 2008, for example, we had a clash between our detachment of Black Sea Fleet warships and Georgian boats. They failed to destroy a single one, but at least they were herded back to the base, where they were eliminated by the paratroopers.

        Others report:
        From the report of the commander of the Mirage MRC to the flagship: “Of the five targets, one is destroyed, one is damaged, and three are out of action. Missile consumption: two anti-ship missiles, one anti-aircraft missile, no casualties among personnel. There is no damage to the ship "

        ==========
        But that's not the point. You have described the prospects of the "Russian apocalypse" here, but the chapter, in which, without references to the names of other authors and incomprehensible for most facts and terms, the concept of the development of the Russian Navy is presented, indicating the reasons for this.
        All this set of comparisons and some sort of showdowns suggests that 30 years of development "subsided" into something incomprehensible ... Why - "it is not clear what"? Yes, because in any case, our "hit" in heaven will happen before those who make a decision on the "first salvo" die. A bleak prospect.
        Skomorokhov's articles are intended to focus attention on the problems of building the Russian Navy so that neither the United States, nor Turkey, nor anyone else even has a desire to use their own Navy against Russia.
        Your article did not evoke any other feeling, except for the thought that runs like a "red thread": "I myself am not so smart." Or do you think that Russia with such a construction and repair base (and most importantly - the terms of repair and modernization) have prospects of becoming a significant maritime power for such potential adversaries as the United States or, for example, "friendly" China?
        Forgive me, but so far everything is going according to a bleak scenario (yours or some other) and the prospects that:
        And then there will be simply no one to argue about the necessity and uselessness of the fleet.
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 12 March 2021 05: 59
          -17%
          damn those that comrade Timokhin spit ... fellow
        2. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 08: 47
          +23
          Skomorokhov's articles are intended to focus attention on the problems of building the Russian Navy so that neither the United States, nor Turkey, nor anyone else even has a desire to use their own Navy against Russia.


          It seemed to you.

          Or do you think that Russia with such a construction and repair base (and most importantly - the terms of repair and modernization) have prospects of becoming a significant maritime power for such potential opponents as the United States or, for example, "friendly" China?


          This is some kind of abstraction. What does meaningful mean? Why do we need this? Go back to the real world please
        3. Devil13
          Devil13 22 March 2021 12: 26
          0
          I can admit that you need personal links to articles about the current state of the fleet and authors, and you haven’t heard about the author Maxim Klimov, who is he and where is he from.
          But the current composition of the fleet and the state of affairs are not familiar to you either?
      2. WHAT IS
        WHAT IS 12 March 2021 06: 17
        +33
        Why didn't the boat decompose into its components from being hit by a "mosquito"?

        Both missiles "P-120 Malachite" flew over the Georgian boats without having time to capture them, having flown the maximum distance, one missile either fell into the water, or was eliminated by itself, the second either captured a Moldovan motor ship (from which pictures of the rocket wreckage were shown), but did not reach , and exploded at a distance, or the self-liquidator simply triggered, by accident, in the immediate vicinity of the ship. Here I have doubts about the distance from the rocket to the ship voiced by the crew members of the ship during an explosion at an altitude of 30 m and at a distance of 100 m 840 kg of explosive, explosive If the wave had not drowned the ship, all the superstructures would have swept away, unambiguously. But the sailors of the ship could incorrectly determine the distance, but there were still fragments and marks from fragments on the ship. After launching missiles that flew past them, inspired by their invulnerability, the Georgian boats just entered the zone of operation of the Osam air defense missile system, and 15 kg of explosives is quite a sufficient dose to cause significant damage and cause a fire on low-tonnage vessels.
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 12 March 2021 06: 34
          +4
          Quote: WHAT IS
          Both missiles "P-120 Malachite" flew over the Georgian boats without having time to capture them,

          that is, the official version is another "whistle" ...? propaganda ... and all that?
          1. Avior
            Avior 12 March 2021 07: 25
            +18
            I would not confuse the official version and the stories of journalists.
            Officials are voiced by officials, not journalists
            1. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 12 March 2021 08: 01
              -6
              Quote: Avior
              I would not confuse the official version and the stories of journalists.
              Official voiced by officials, not journalists

              Have you read Chekhov's story "The Chameleon"?
              Officials voiced the version that "suddenly it came out" and "never did it sink" ..., was shot down ..., surrounded ..., caught fire while performing welding ..., was shot ... turned upside down 180 degrees ... and here's another one:

              We are in these versions, as in a litter of "roymsi".
              There are many versions, but in fact the result is completely different.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Terran
            Terran 12 March 2021 12: 32
            +18
            These photos have already been uploaded, see below where it is clear that the Georgian boats "destroyed in a Moscow battle" were flooded in the port


        2. huntsman650
          huntsman650 14 March 2021 02: 12
          0
          Wasp MRK did not shoot! There is a debriefing at the Sevastopol forum! And the rudders are folded at the final section, it does not explode!
        3. Glad
          Glad 23 March 2021 01: 17
          0
          P-120 Malachite in an explosion at a height of 30 m and at a distance of 100 m 840 kg of explosive, if the blast wave did not sink the ship, all superstructures would be swept away, definitely.

          Ghm ... Do you accidentally confuse a high-explosive warhead with a special (ie nuclear)? Not? And it is very similar.
          Even if we assume that the TNT equivalent of the explosive with which the Malachite warhead is filled is 840 kg, then the maximum that would threaten the ship is a number of holes in the superstructures from fragments and a good shock from the shock wave on the team's ears without significant health consequences ... And that's it!
          For physics cannot be trampled on. The lethality of the shock wave falls in proportion to the cubic root of the weight of the explosive, and the lethality of the fragments is proportional to the square root of the same weight.
          So, the distance to the rocket, voiced by the sailors of the ship, is quite consistent with the damage that the ship received.
      3. timokhin-aa
        12 March 2021 08: 45
        +10
        You were born yesterday, by God ...
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 12 March 2021 12: 31
          +11
          I apologize, but the forum commenting rules do not allow you to publish detailed comments on large articles. Therefore, I am forced to post the second part of the comment on the article itself in this thread. Well, I'm not like that, life is like that :)




          There are two practical algorithms for using anti-ship missiles from aircraft against ships. The first is with the target capture of the missile seeker while still on the carrier.
          This is how our MRA was supposed to work.

          Correctly. Because aviation anti-ship missiles are not developing properly. The admirals, with their characteristic "perspicacity", obviously believed that they would buy from the Germans not only motors for their ships, but also missiles for aircraft. The aviation version of Onyx was announced along with the ship version. But it never showed up. And the armament of the MRA Su-30 said that it would not appear. One missile for one plane is not an option that will justify the maintenance of an entire branch of the military. Tu-22M3 will not be produced, apparently, PAK DA has a strange concept, and the Su-34 did not look. Therefore, the criticized authors talk about the Tu-160M. They have no other poets for you ...

          When creating missiles and reconnaissance and target designation systems capable of providing the second option, the question arises, why shouldn't these anti-ship missiles simply be dropped from the retrofitted Il-76?

          As I understand it, this will be PAK YES. But reconnaissance means and missiles are needed for him too. Do they exist, or do they not? :)

          In the meantime, the US has a breakdown in the global trading system in dollars. The oil dollar and similar cycles in other areas of world trade no longer work the way they used to. World trade is increasingly going under China. Africa trades in yuan. And the United States can no longer maintain a negative trade surplus of a trillion dollars, as it has been for many years in a row. And this is a disaster, a freebie in ¼ of the annual federal budget cannot disappear without really grave consequences. This cannot be allowed.

          Let us suppose...
          He must be forced to surrender and driven back into the stall of the dollar trade. But how? He has a Russian support behind him. As a military ally, Russia is no longer "very good." But the Chinese, firstly, are calm about their rear. Secondly, they know that if something happens, then because of Russia they will not be able to completely block them.

          Controversial. If Africa trades in yuan, China itself has resources comparable to the United States. Including the naval and the defeat of Russia, it will most likely lead to consolidation within China, and most importantly - panic on the stock exchanges, which UNIVERSE will not lead to an increase in the dollar, because the probability of getting 10 warheads in New York is real, and this is kirdyk to Walt Street. And the Russians will be able to land at least one missile on the United States for sure. The risk is colossal, and just as a means of strengthening the dollar, a nuclear war with Russia makes no sense. Even a retaliatory strike weakened by 10 times is 150 warheads on the territory of the United States. Even if all of them are no more than 100 Kt, these are 150 destroyed objects of the "city" type. This means the end of any dollar system in general. Rollback to the situation before 1947. And if a part of the BB goes to Britain and Germany, then this is generally the end of the exchange trading system. This means the localization of regional markets within local currencies.

          ... SSBN "Numberа[/ i] mbia "

          Was Christopher Columbus or Columbus?
          Christopher Columbus (Italian Cristoforo Colombo, Spanish Cristóbal Colón, Latin Christophorus Columbus). In Russian, the name of the state is translated as Kolу[i] mbia. Just like Paris is translated as Paris.

          Readers are invited to fantasize about how such a story could end.

          A disaster for the US economy and state. The retaliatory strike will not be on boats and ships, but on the territory of the United States. This will plunge the States, if not into the Stone Age, then into the state of the middle of the 20th century for sure. There will be no "financial empire" left. The dollars will be used as a kindling for stoves, and the yuan will become the world currency. The only world currency. And this despite the fact that China, looking at the US lawlessness, will not crack across the United States in pursuit of its nuclear arsenal. For the sake of guarantees. For if the cowboys once showed inadequacy, then waiting for them to give birth to a new nuclear missile strike is simply stupid. While the US boats with empty missile silos, China will finally finish off the US, and at the same time will resolve the issue with Japan.

          This I mean that the question of striking Russia for the United States is not a question of the superiority of the fleet. This is the question impossibilities get the desired result.
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 12 March 2021 17: 10
            +9
            You are wrong when you say that one 150 Kt charge (our most massive charge) can destroy a city. It depends on which city, even the Americans in their plans, now made public, planned 20 nuclear bombs on Moscow. Those. they clearly understood that a big city could not be destroyed with one bomb.
            1. BAI
              BAI 12 March 2021 20: 21
              +2
              It depends on which city, even the Americans in their plans, now made public, planned 20 nuclear bombs for Moscow. Those. they clearly understood that a big city could not be destroyed with one bomb.

              There is such a concept - "guaranteed destruction". The nuclear warhead outfit is based on the expectation that the target must be destroyed guaranteed, in any case. If more charges than necessary break through to the target, the better. Not all charges will reach the target. But the target must be destroyed.
            2. abc_alex
              abc_alex 13 March 2021 00: 29
              +6
              Quote: Fan-Fan
              You are wrong when you say that one 150 Kt charge (our most massive charge) can destroy a city.

              In order to permanently stop the work of the New York Stock Exchange, it is not at all necessary to glass the whole of New York. In this case, one warhead will be enough for the city to be abandoned by the population for years. If not forever. Well, you will not live in a city, in the middle of which there is a funnel of 150 Kt, giving off all kinds of radiation! And the transfer of such a complex infrastructure facility to another place is a task that no one seems to have solved yet ... If 100 cities of the United States are defeated in such a state, not radioactive glass, no, and not suitability for ordinary life, then transfer financial institutions will simply have nowhere to go. And in itself, the provision of the dollar with the US public debt will turn into a legend of the days gone by ...
              1. ycuce234-san
                ycuce234-san 13 March 2021 20: 13
                0
                To shut down the New York Stock Exchange forever ...


                It is no longer actually tied to real estate and specific equipment. Because everything has long been in computer networks, which were once specially invented specifically for a nuclear war - everything is based on algorithms and computer programs now, distributed on many computers of the world, and not on specific people-clerks.
                Therefore, all this financial and banking infrastructure is now much more resistant to nuclear war than they think about it and than it was in the 70s and 80s. Surprisingly. For example - fiber optic is not afraid of electromagnetic interference on a metal-conductor and only separate sections of the network will be damaged during explosions; and autonomous power supply can always be provided for such an important task. Therefore, trading may not even be stopped, they will simply impose restrictions on fluctuations in rates and trading speed.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  13 March 2021 21: 03
                  +3
                  By the way, this is a joke.

                  "In other news. After the pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US, the Dow Jones fell 10000 points. After the exchange's power supply resumed, however, it regained 1000 points. Analysts say that in the near future we expect an explosive growth in demand for stocks for companies. producing food, which will lead to an increase in the index of those types that outstrip economic recovery after the end of a nuclear war. "

                  laughing
                  1. ycuce234-san
                    ycuce234-san 13 March 2021 23: 30
                    -1
                    So so funny. Trading halt can happen on the most ordinary exchange day and not only during a crisis, as in 2008-9. This can be done programmatically.
                    But the fact that the planetary "ARPANET" is finally created, in the seemingly nuclear-safe 21st century, and is ready to fulfill its role in a nuclear war - this is the irony of fate, the irony of fate, evil. Although it seemed that the ghost of Skynet and the terminators remained in history at the border of the 1990s.
                    The ideas laid down by DARPA (and Raytheon) have not disappeared anywhere: you can read and compare BBN Report 1822 (aka Internet STD 39) and modern standards - the essence is the same, only you need to configure it differently, and correct it in detail, roughly speaking.

                    http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/bbn/imp/BBN1822_Jan1976.pdf
                  2. Eroma
                    Eroma 14 March 2021 15: 39
                    +3
                    Welcome hi interesting to read your articles good as a person not versed in naval affairs, I wonder how everything works in the navy.
                    I would like to ask a question: why do you think that destroying the Borey is not a problem for the US Navy, as if it were not a submarine, but a transport ship? what Even if he is alone and without cover, with old torpedoes and without counter-torpedoes, logically they should be the most difficult target! For combat, they may be poorly equipped, but their task is to be "STEALTH" in the ocean and to evade combat, and for this Borey seems to have everything: this is a nuclear submarine of the latest generation, i.e. stealth indicators are the best in the world + ocean controls are also the most advanced in theory. Those. he is better than most in control of the situation around and has excellent chances to dodge the battle. Again, logically, if Borey has moved away from the base a couple of tens of kilometers in depth, it is already very difficult to find him, especially since he acts with podolds.
                    1. Intruder
                      Intruder 14 March 2021 16: 04
                      -1
                      Again, logically, if Borey has moved away from the base a couple of tens of kilometers in depth, it is already very difficult to find him, especially since he acts with podolds.
                      and then, upon returning to the base, his crew contemplates the destruction of this very base ... and truncated! Submariners sailed on this Borea !?
                2. Intruder
                  Intruder 14 March 2021 16: 00
                  0
                  Therefore, trading may not even be stopped, they will simply impose restrictions on fluctuations in rates and trading speed.
                  I agree, they will raise backup (s) in hot mode on backup storage systems, somewhere at remote Fed facilities, which are intended for this very "northern fur animal" with a Russian accent laughing and not only, the exchange will be locked for several days ... and then life will continue ...
                  If 100 cities of the USA are defeated in such a state, not radioactive glass, no, and not suitability for ordinary life, then there will be simply nowhere to transfer financial institutions.
                  an interesting and bold statement above, that in the US there are 100 cities, well, even if with a stretch, American builders are able to build quickly, even the Chinese learned from them skyscrapers - to "rivet" in 14 days ... laughing
                3. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 14 March 2021 21: 34
                  0
                  Quote: ycuce234-san
                  It is no longer actually tied to real estate and specific equipment.

                  Still as attached. Client terminals, of course, are independent and downloaded, but the actual indexing of positions, accounting for their movement, everything is done at the central nodes. And interruptions in their work will be a disaster, since the exchange always trades in debt, the suspension of the movement of funds on accounts even for a day means massive crashes.

                  But even if nodes, satellite communication stations and data centers survive, what will happen to the dollar? Now the entire financial system of the United States rests on the obligations of the United States to pay off debt payments on time and cover one issue of debt obligations with another. And who will believe in this ability in a country whose 100 largest cities lie in ruins?
                  Therefore, even if the auctions are not stopped by some miracle, who will buy there and what will be sold to them? Restrictions? Perhaps, but what is the point if production is reduced by a factor of several, a gigantic number of buyers will simply disappear, and the dollar rate will collapse not down to a few times, but ten times or even more?
                  1. ycuce234-san
                    ycuce234-san 15 March 2021 09: 40
                    -2
                    Exchanges in the first and second world war worked, did not stand idle. Investors even took into account the value of German securities.
                    There is in the internet a graphic graph of the "Stalingrad stock market crash" - "The German stock market during the Second World War." And now they will work, albeit not in peacetime, with modern telecommunication technologies, Nakraynyak will temporarily return to purely raw materials, commodity and diamond-gold standards. And if the next generation of the network is introduced in the form of a satellite Internet with tens of thousands of satellites, then trading servers can begin to place hundreds of thousands of them directly in space - closer to information transmission systems. It will become almost impossible to break such a system.
                    And if the West wins, the dollar can count on another century of hegemony, domination and prosperity.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 12 March 2021 20: 06
            +6
            Quote: abc_alex
            the question of striking Russia for the United States is not a question of naval superiority. This is a question of the impossibility of obtaining the desired result.

            Allow me to insert your 5 kopecks into your thinking.
            No matter what we say, the main enemy of the United States is still China. For he, not Russia, is treading on the heels of the Yankees in matters of world leadership. There are two fighters on the world stage today: the USA and the PRC. In Russia (in a situation of tug-of-war between world heavyweights), it is sad to realize, the role of a makeweight. On whose side it falls, he will win. Therefore, it makes no sense for the States to measure their "tusks" with the Russians, risking unacceptable damage and weakening in the face of the threat of a nuclear conflict with the Khunfuz. They need to either get the Russian Federation on their side, or prevent rapprochement with the whales.
            On the other hand, China is still weaker than the United States in military-technical and purely military terms. But this plus for Ams quickly tends to zero, tk. The PRC is building up its nuclear potential by leaps and bounds and equipping the PLA with modern types of weapons. In addition, China has moderately friendly relations with the Russians.
            Therefore, who is going to attack whom and when is a very difficult question in the highest political and diplomatic spheres of our time.
            And the result sought for the Yankees in relation to Russia is pro-Yeltsin's scum at the helm of the country, complete loyalty to striped-eared shitcrats from Fashington and poking with a fork into the sirloin of Comrade Xi. Everything from the election campaign in 2021 to the presidential elections in 2024 will be dedicated to this ... in the near future.
            AHA.
            1. Alien From
              Alien From 12 March 2021 23: 31
              +1
              At one point, Trump understood better than anyone else that the Chinese are not gut. Business as usual ..... Biden?
        2. FCSO
          FCSO 13 March 2021 16: 22
          +1
          Most are unambiguous.
          No wonder Bernard Shaw said that "Only 2% of people can think. Another 3% think they can think. And the remaining 95% would rather die than start thinking."
      4. mvg
        mvg 12 March 2021 12: 49
        +8
        Why didn't the boat decompose into its components from being hit by a "mosquito"?

        Because they were shooting OSO. From about 30 km ...
      5. Serhi
        Serhi 12 March 2021 13: 16
        0
        at 18.41, the Mirage MRK fired 25 Malachite cruise missiles at the Kombatant-2 missile boat from a distance of 2 km. As a result of being hit by both missiles, the boat quickly sank (disappeared from the radar screen after a large short-term illumination left by the target's explosion). The sinking of the boat is known only from the report of the Russian sailors, the place of the alleged defeat of the target was not examined.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 12 March 2021 17: 12
          +4
          But everyone knows that the biggest liars are in war, hunting and fishing.
      6. Alex777
        Alex777 12 March 2021 17: 02
        0
        it's another matter why the boat did not decompose into its components after being hit by a "mosquito"?

        All ingenious is simple: "Mosquito" did not hit the boat.
        The quite "peaceful" "Osa-M" was enough for him. bully
      7. seregin-s1
        seregin-s1 12 March 2021 17: 30
        0
        In service with "Mirage" 2 × 3 P-120 "Malachite". A rocket with a speed of 0.9 M and a warhead of 800 kg. Most likely hit, but did not explode, or fell nearby.)
      8. Skifotavr
        Skifotavr 12 March 2021 18: 40
        +3
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Why didn't the boat decompose into its components from being hit by a "mosquito"? but these anti-ship missiles were going to fight with the AUG ... request what

        Perhaps because some highly respected sofa-slider experts cannot distinguish the P-270 Mosquito from the P-120 Malachite, which was fired by the Mirage. Everything starts with "M"! request
    2. Mitroha
      Mitroha 12 March 2021 06: 04
      +2
      As for me, excuse me, Alexander, there is too much sarcasm and dark fantasy in the article. Although it is difficult to disagree with the basic postulates. KMK
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 12 March 2021 08: 03
        -1
        Quote: Mitroha
        there is too much sarcasm in the article

        That's it! good
        So it didn't seem ... drinks
      2. timokhin-aa
        12 March 2021 08: 45
        +27
        I didn't like how these guys attributed to me something that I never claimed.
        I had to assess not only their ideas, but also their thinking abilities.
        1. Kuroneko
          Kuroneko 12 March 2021 14: 05
          +6
          To be honest, Roman shouldn't write about the navy. He himself once confessed to me that the topic was "not his", in contrast to the airplane one (he once knocked in a PM about the next misunderstandings on his "naval" article).
          By the way, since he is an "airplane pilot", I think that this is where the legs grow about the proposal to start riveting anti-ship Swans.

          PS Can I have one question? Not quite on the topic of the article, of course ... But about the fleet.
          Alexander, how do you feel about the concept of arsenal ships? Well, how the West looked at them, I am aware (they refused after the collapse of the USSR, but they are again starting to work on the topic). Interested in your opinion, will such animals fit into the Russian Navy?
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 12 March 2021 17: 18
            +5
            Say Roman is more of an airplane, but then his topic about the Tu-160 is not clear, the plane is very expensive, even as a strategic missile carrier. And Timokhin is right that it is very difficult to remake it for an anti-ship missile carrier, and it is not profitable in all respects. Well, the fact that Roman wants his Motherland to have naval aviation is right.
            1. Kuroneko
              Kuroneko 12 March 2021 18: 53
              +2
              Quote: Fan-Fan
              Well, the fact that Roman wants his Motherland to have naval aviation is right.

              Strategic missile carriers are clearly not naval aviation, excuse me. = _ = Although, if you wish (and foolishness), you can chop nuts with microscopes.
            2. Eroma
              Eroma 12 March 2021 23: 51
              0
              I don't know about the Tu160 arsenal, but I myself heard from federal news a note about the flight of our Tu160s somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, where they conditionally destroy some kind of target! hi if it's not Hawaii, then the target should be the ship what based on this, we can suggest that on the Swans there are already devices that allow us to enter data from the control center for missiles and missiles, we have it, called the X32 with a launch range of 1000 km, this is the maximum range of the AUG air defense as I understand it winked IL76 has few chances, but Tu160 can quickly dive into the air defense zone to fire a salvo of several missiles and dump back at a speed beyond the F18! The attack, which will last for minutes, can be blocked by electronic warfare from the Tu160, interference can disrupt the aiming of the F18, which gives the chances to escape by 2 MAX good aft of that, the high speed of the carrier and the high altitude gives a gain in the missile launch range, maybe it's only 50-100 km to the plus, but this plus may be the only chance to attack! Of course, PLUR on a supersonic bomber does not look like it wassat But against NK this is a very option and each plane gives a win in a salvo like a missile cruiser! bully and the intercontinental range allows the submarine to be supported at the edge of the geography and to attack targets along their CO. And if the enemy's fleet is over, then like an ordinary strategist, you can strengthen the VKS in strikes against decision-making centers! bully
              The idea to revive the MPA at a qualitatively new level is not so bad
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 17 May 2021 09: 24
                0
                the Tu160 seems to be like an internal arrangement of weapons in the drum. there will definitely not be x32. I saw Tu22m, Tu95ms with external suspensions, but I did not see the 160th. most likely they worked from the ocean on the landfill or x555, or x101.
        2. Machito
          Machito 12 March 2021 16: 39
          +7
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          I didn't like how these guys attributed to me something that I never claimed.
          I had to assess not only their ideas, but also their thinking abilities.

          Well, the fact that Skomorokhov and Vorontsov are molding a humpback was immediately clear. I liked the fact that they are trying to arrange a polemic: the truth is born in disputes. There was no doubt that you will beat off in your article, but I would like less emotion. I hope that you will continue the argument and write an article: what should be the Russian fleet. respectfully hi
        3. Pamir
          Pamir 12 March 2021 20: 36
          +2
          It is especially interesting, Alexander, how they entered the anti-submarine component for the TU160. This is no longer nonsense, this is a clinic. The question is, how do they imagine what anti-submarine aviation is? Until that moment, I had read the authors of the TU160 as anti-submarine aircraft, and everything became clear. Bez, wrote "more and more I can't", I understand him, and fully support him. I have a question, do they have a shortage of slavolays? Or are they tormented by what the more informed people in the navy write about? Well, I'm not an expert either, but one thing in comments, quite another in articles.
    3. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 12 March 2021 08: 43
      +7
      I like it. Compared article submissions, read arguments / counterarguments.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 12 March 2021 20: 51
        +4
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        I liked it.

        Me too. But still, there is some kind of inner discomfort. Kaptsov and Klimov have more and more clearly structured, or something ... Thesis, argument, texture, conclusion ... It's difficult. This is an art and a gift from God. Not everyone is given because it is very difficult: brief, clear, reasoned. You must have talent and bright brains. AA has it all, but not honed to the heights of perfection ... Yeah, there.
        And now about the bad news. Something with which I do not quite agree.
        1. About the boat 10.08.2008/XNUMX/XNUMX - a mistake by the author. Nothing to add ...
        2. Chernavin was still talking about the "first salvo" and justifying the need to fight for it. but time passes and the theory develops. Therefore, our attempts to bracketed the struggle against their missile defense / air defense gave rise to the GZO. And so, without taking into account the Aegis, you can screw up, even with a powerful electronic warfare.
        3. The question looms strange: - "How not to light up your place in front of the enemy"! Are we ignoring intelligence altogether? Or amy not including RES will send their anti-ship missiles and other crap on the flight? But RTR is a terrible force in skillful hands and clever heads!
        4. I cannot agree with the statement that when hunting for submarines, the number of NKs is equalized and their capabilities do not play a big role. Far from it. Some have PLO and PLURO turntables on board, while others have subkeys GAS and bomb throwers / torpedoes ... Well, who will have the advantage !?
        5. AA, well, you cannot make such "politically incorrect" reservations as "the battle for the JAPANESE Kuriles"! Everyone, now only with blood and a piece of japa meat can get them ... "back".
        6. The conversation about the Tu-95 is somehow not quite ... correct, or something. This is a fighter going down in history. But in his youth, in the Tu-95K-22 modification, he carried the X-22 anti-ship missile system and could upset the enemy with a 300 km strike on his KUG ... now they will attach 3m22 to the Tu-160m. Let's see what will come of this venture.
        But the most important thing, the author rightly noted, is not to crash into reality!
        Sincerely. hi
    4. Alex1949
      Alex1949 12 March 2021 18: 22
      -9
      It's time to differentiate the author of the article on the Military Review. It's just not possible to read it!
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 March 2021 00: 26
        +5
        So don't read it!
    5. avg
      avg 12 March 2021 21: 41
      -1
      Some time ago I stopped reading Skoromokhov. If it goes on like this, then I will stop Timokhin. And who is stronger, an elephant or a whale, my youngest grandson does not yet know. request
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 12 March 2021 05: 08
    +23
    Does Russia need a strong fleet?
    We need both the Army and the Air Force and the Navy!
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS 12 March 2021 05: 54
      +18
      Absolutely agree!
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 12 March 2021 06: 09
        +1
        And this is not counting the fact that the Tu-160 cannot be used in anti-ship operations even when it is upgraded into an anti-ship missile carrier. It is impossible or pointless.
        that is, the Americans will launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160 it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...! that you are Timokhin, you reason strangely ... and so in everything, my opinion is that there is more delusion in your article than in the article by R. Skomorokhov and M. Klimov. pulled phrases out of context ... IMHO.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 12 March 2021 08: 14
          +12
          Quote: Aerodrome
          Americans to launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160 it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...!

          Do we have such missiles?
          I didn’t hear ...
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 12 March 2021 18: 17
            +1
            Quote: Bez 310
            Quote: Aerodrome
            Americans to launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160 it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...!

            Do we have such missiles?
            I didn’t hear ...


            Depends on what you mean by "similar"? If in range, then most likely not. But here the question is, what is the real range of Onyx or Zircon (not export options)? If about 700 km, then this is excellent, if 500 km is tolerable. Those Tu-160s, if made as carriers, may well shoot them from a relatively safe distance for themselves. Is it possible to put an anti-ship seeker on the CD of the hundredth series or make an aviation version of the Caliber?

            Retargeting capability in flight? If it is not there, then it is imperative to add it, and this is one of the highest priority tasks for all types of long-range weapons, regardless of whether it is on ground-based launchers, aircraft, submarines or shipborne ones.

            The creation of advanced GOS is one of the key tasks. Without them, neither ship-based anti-ship missiles nor aviation will be of any use.

            The question is, how bad is everything here or is it good with us now? To what extent can our anti-ship missiles identify targets, what is the resolution of the seeker, from what distance, how are they susceptible to active and passive interference?

            And does anyone know this, including the developers of the anti-ship missile system? Or can only war test everything, since we do not have access to American electronic warfare equipment, they have ours?
          2. Pamir
            Pamir 12 March 2021 20: 46
            0
            Bez, you wrote "more and more I can't", I understand you, and fully support you. You are an aviator, as I understood, a Drummer, a representative of the MPA, but I think both in the capabilities and in the required characteristics of anti-submarine warriors, you also know a lot. I can understand how, a supersonic strategist TU160, can work in an anti-submarine version? Either I have skis for the summer, or have a friend, a motorcycle, a sport bike of 1500 cubic meters, not for a motoball with a ball?
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 12 March 2021 22: 29
              +10
              Quote: Pamir
              A drummer, a representative of the MPA, but I think both in the capabilities and in the required characteristics of anti-submarine warriors, you also know a lot. I don't understand how, a supersonic strategist TU160, can work in an anti-submarine version?

              Yes, I worked in MPA and PLA, so good
              I know that the Tu-160 strategist can now
              work only on goals with previously known
              coordinates, that is, on the ground stationary.
              Neither ships nor submarines Tu-160
              cannot work. It is possible that during various
              improvements, this aircraft will be able to
              work on ships, but I very much doubt it.
              On submarines, this plane will not work
              NEVER!
              1. Pamir
                Pamir 12 March 2021 23: 40
                +2
                Everything is clear Bez, plus, I don’t understand, this is from those writers, is this a provocation of unknown people? Thirst for likes? There are not enough extra stars on virtual shoulder straps? Apparently it is.
                In my understanding, a TU160 strategist is what? Probably a flight and a strike on pre-identified geostatic targets on the shore, in the enemy's continent, and no search-watch. Amateurs (TU160), even on surface targets, will not be able to hit apparently, or only in a developed imagination. What submarines? If this is a narrowly specific direction, even for aviation.
                Here I understand for the anti-submarine warriors a narrow specialization is required, both aircraft and crew training. Anti-submarine aviation, take at least the speed, demand and altitude, the speed is 600 km, or better 500 km / h, the height is no more than several hundred meters, when searching and on duty I am silent about the rather specific equipment, and it should work regardless of the whims of the all-sea bad weather, with 95 percent of the flight time in search of an anti-submarine. I don’t understand how you can attach the TU160 to all this? It will have to be converted from a swan to a seagull, which is unreal. This is not even nonsense, this is a clinic.
                Therefore, I even thought it was not worth writing in the second, counter-article (Vorontsov-Skomorokhov) not to write, it is better to put out the light, go to bed. How do the guys (Vorontsov-Skomorokhov) shove the TU160 into a non-subordinate Navy? This is an indescribable pleasure, and for the Navy, probably near-zero.
                1. Pamir
                  Pamir 12 March 2021 23: 49
                  0
                  Typo, "at 95% of the flight time in search of an anti-submarine." I apologize when searching for a boat, anti-submarine, when searching for a boat.
                2. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 13 March 2021 07: 56
                  +5
                  Quote: Pamir
                  for anti-submarine warriors, a narrow specialization of both aircraft and crew training is required.

                  Anti-submarine aviation is the most difficult "aviation"
                  requires special aircraft equipment and also
                  special and laborious training of crews. Generally,
                  PLA (anti-submarine aviation) - "special country", and
                  Tu-160 "does not roll there".
              2. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 13 March 2021 00: 59
                +1
                Quote: Bez 310
                Yes, I worked in MPA and PLA, so good
                I know that the Tu-160 strategist can now
                work only on goals with previously known
                coordinates, that is, on the ground stationary.
                Neither ships nor submarines Tu-160
                cannot work. It is possible that during various
                improvements, this aircraft will be able to
                work on ships, but I very much doubt it.
                On submarines, this plane will not work
                NEVER!


                Given that this can be done by the Tu-22M3, it is unlikely that this cannot be implemented on the Tu-160. Especially if the new avionics are digital and can be software upgraded.

                It's about NK, not about submarines.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 13 March 2021 08: 02
                  +3
                  Quote: AVM
                  the new avionics are digital and can be software upgraded.

                  I'll tell you this - "it was not the reel ...".
                  Once there was an attempt to transfer to the aviation of the Navy
                  supersonic aircraft Tu-144. Even parking lots
                  built for them ...
              3. ccsr
                ccsr 13 March 2021 16: 48
                0
                Quote: Bez 310
                "strategist Tu-160" can now
                work only on goals with previously known
                coordinates, that is, on the ground stationary.

                So it was put into it from the very beginning - the ground objects of the military and civil infrastructure of the Americans are more important to defeat than groups of ships several thousand kilometers from our coast.
                Quote: Bez 310
                It is possible that during various
                improvements, this aircraft will be able to
                work on ships, but I very much doubt it.

                Economically and from a military point of view, it is inappropriate to use such an aircraft against the AUG. Perhaps, over time, other missiles and other ways of adjusting the flight mission will appear, but even if this is created, it is not a fact that these aircraft will be used against ships - this is unreasonable and wasteful.
                Quote: Bez 310
                On submarines, this plane will not work
                NEVER!

                And they have never been assigned such tasks - they themselves can cause damage to the Americans, commensurate with the damage from our nuclear submarines. And the characteristics of this aircraft are more suitable for attacking the enemy than for defending against an attack.
          3. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 14 March 2021 15: 07
            +1
            Quote: Bez 310
            Do we have such missiles?
            I didn’t hear ...

            So the key word is "meaningless", i.e. the emphasis is on meaning rather than not or is.

            The problem is that at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the Tu-160 was still a child with many childhood illnesses and much of what the designers had planned to do was simply not done.
            And after the 1990s, they did not do this at all.

            Therefore, we do not have much of what the United States has.
            And it’s bad that no.
        2. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 08: 43
          +17
          that is, the Americans will launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160, it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...! that you Timokhin, you reason strange ...


          If you don't think much, you will see that no, not strange.
          The Americans did not build new bombers for these missiles. They retrofitted existing ones.
          And not all, but one wing.
          And Vorontsov wants to spend a trillion on NEW bombers.
          In addition, they have no problems with reconnaissance in the theater of operations and there is a technical ability to adjust the flight mission of the rocket after launch via satellite.
          When we have this, come.

          so this is more nonsense in your article than in the article by R. Skomorokhov and M. Klimov


          Did Skoromorkhov and Klimov write any articles together? Or what are you talking about?
          Well, an example of nonsense, please.
          1. AlexSub
            AlexSub 12 March 2021 12: 27
            -18%
            Quote: timokhin-aa

            In addition, they have no problems with reconnaissance in the theater of operations and there is a technical ability to adjust the flight mission of the rocket after launch via satellite.
            When we have this, come.



            We also have no problems with theater reconnaissance.

            They need to correct the flight mission, because their antediluvian subsonic missiles will fly to the target for about an hour (if we take a distance of 1000 km.). During this time, the target can go a decent distance.
            Again, at subsonic speed, the rocket's only chance of survival is to travel above the sea surface. It is clear that there is no radio horizon at all. And the correction of the flight task is here more likely from weakness, and not from strength))) Again, with the active use of electronic warfare, the corrected data will most likely not reach the rocket.

            For example, the same X32 will fly to the target for 11 minutes. The target capture radius of the seeker is 300 km. Neither the Americans nor other NATO members are currently in a position to intercept this missile.

            Just wondering what caused such blind faith in the American military-industrial complex ???
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 March 2021 12: 57
              +12
              We also have no problems with theater reconnaissance.


              Oh, really?
              And the peasants don't even know ...

              target capture GOS 300km.


              There is no target acquisition radius. As concepts.
              I propose to read something on the topic, then teach the elders about life.
              1. AlexSub
                AlexSub 12 March 2021 13: 54
                -9
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And the peasants don't even know ...


                These are the problems of the "men".


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                There is no target acquisition radius. As concepts.


                Yes, I admit, I meant the target capture range. For the rest, as I understand it, there are no objections)


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I propose to read something on the topic, then teach the elders about life.


                Do you have complexes or what? Where did someone teach you in life?
                At least I didn't even try to do it.
            2. Bez 310
              Bez 310 12 March 2021 15: 58
              +10
              Quote: AlexSub
              For example, the same X32 will fly to the target for 11 minutes. The target capture radius of the seeker is 300 km. Neither the Americans nor other NATO members are currently in a position to intercept this missile.

              Could you tell us more
              about this "miracle rocket"? Especially about
              GOS is interesting.
              1. AlexSub
                AlexSub 12 March 2021 16: 20
                -12%
                Quote: Bez 310
                Could you tell us more
                about this "miracle rocket"? Especially about
                GOS is interesting.


                Yes please:

                http://ru-an.info/n/67551/

                Take a look at the link. Everything is described in detail there.

                The rocket is no longer new. Now there are samples that are much more interesting, and most importantly, faster and further. Including sea-based.

                I don’t understand what justifies the fanatical belief of the author of the article, in American subsonic missiles, originally from the last century. But if we consider the exchange of strikes by the anti-ship missiles of our fleet with the Americans (at least in the 500-kilometer coastal zone). Chances to survive they very little.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 12 March 2021 16: 59
                  +12
                  Quote: AlexSub
                  Take a look at the link.

                  Looked ...
                  This is the usual nonsense of an amateur.
                  Well, how can you believe it:
                  "The US Army has 11 aircraft carriers. Each Tu-22M3 can take
                  three Kh-22 cruise missiles aboard. It turns out to be destroyed
                  of all American aircraft carriers, we need only four Tu-22M3 bombers. And one rocket will remain unused "?
                  As I understand it, you don't understand anything
                  in the fight against ships, if you believe such nonsense.
                  Yes, this is clear from your comments ...
                  1. AlexSub
                    AlexSub 12 March 2021 17: 44
                    -10%
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    This is the usual nonsense of an amateur.
                    Well, how can you believe it:
                    "The US Army has 11 aircraft carriers. Each Tu-22M3 can take
                    three Kh-22 cruise missiles aboard. It turns out to be destroyed
                    of all American aircraft carriers, we need only four Tu-22M3 bombers. And one rocket will remain unused "?


                    The fact that the journalist wrote a gag. I agree that this paragraph is utopian.

                    BUT! The characteristics of the rocket given in the article are real. If in doubt, you can easily check in other sources.
                    As far as I understand, you were interested in the TTD missiles, not the fantasies of a journalist.


                    Quote: Bez 310
                    As I understand it, you don't understand anything
                    in the fight against ships, if you believe such nonsense.


                    I am not responsible for the journalistic gag. I didn't really read the article. I looked that there are the main TTDs, plus Siskov's comment (whose competence I hope is beyond doubt), so I threw the link.


                    Quote: Bez 310
                    Yes, this is clear from your comments ...


                    It is possible to specify what exactly and what exactly is clear. I don't understand why I could "offend" you so much ...))
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 12 March 2021 18: 22
                      +11
                      I will not "concretize" anything,
                      let everything remain as it is. Can you
                      and continue to believe all that delirium,
                      which you find on the Internet.
                      1. AlexSub
                        AlexSub 12 March 2021 18: 30
                        -8
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        I will not "concretize" anything,
                        let everything remain as it is.


                        In this case, in the future I will perceive your subsequent comments as idle chatter ...

                        You asked for information about a rocket. I gave you a link where, in addition to the main characteristics of the rocket, there was a not quite competent phrase of the journalist.

                        If you want to discuss the essence, let's discuss the means of destruction. But why pulling a phrase out of context, fall into emotions?
                      2. Vasia
                        Vasia 13 March 2021 19: 32
                        -2
                        I will not "concretize" anything,
                        let everything remain as it is. Can you

                        This phrase is the essence of local "patriots" :)
                        In general, the dialogue with this character turned out to be indicative. At the same time, judging by the assessments of the comments, here most of these are inadequate, respected exclusively by each other.
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        13 March 2021 20: 56
                        +2
                        It's just that a person is too lazy to argue with a schoolboy. It was he who went to the American aircraft carrier in a training attack on the Tu-22M. Why does he need the revelations of the schoolboys?
                      4. AlexSub
                        AlexSub 13 March 2021 21: 53
                        -1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        It's just that a person is too lazy to argue with a schoolboy. It was he who went to the American aircraft carrier in a training attack on the Tu-22M. Why does he need the revelations of the schoolboys?


                        In my opinion, a person who is either rather stupid or very young and arrogant can give such assessments ("shkolota") to strangers.

                        For example, did you ever sit on the boatswain's head?
                      5. SovAr238A
                        SovAr238A April 9 2021 14: 06
                        0
                        Quote: AlexSub
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        It's just that a person is too lazy to argue with a schoolboy. It was he who went to the American aircraft carrier in a training attack on the Tu-22M. Why does he need the revelations of the schoolboys?


                        In my opinion, a person who is either rather stupid or very young and arrogant can give such assessments ("shkolota") to strangers.

                        For example, did you ever sit on the boatswain's head?


                        Those. Have you ever looked at the characteristics of the seeker of the anti-ship missile system and do not know the angle of the beam of the seeker and the maximum target acquisition range?
                        I dare to disappoint you.
                        The angle is at best 30 degrees, the capture range does not exceed 50 km for an aircraft carrier when flying at an altitude of 5 km.
                        For low-altitude flight - no more than 10 km ...
        3. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 18: 30
          +9
          You are now communicating with a person who saw American aircraft carriers on the screen of the radar station of his Tu-22M. This is so, by the way, to make it easier for you to regulate the confidence of your statements.
          And then some of you are very confident.
          1. AlexSub
            AlexSub 12 March 2021 18: 56
            -9
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            You are now communicating with a person who saw American aircraft carriers on the screen of the radar station of his Tu-22M. This is so, by the way, to make it easier for you to regulate the confidence of your statements.


            In no case do I want to question your previous achievements.

            But all the same I want to understand why such clearly inflated advances to Western technology? With rather mediocre characteristics (take the same anti-ship missile AGM-158C LRASM).
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 March 2021 00: 25
              +6
              I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about Bez 310
              1. AlexSub
                AlexSub 13 March 2021 01: 54
                -5
                Quote: AlexSub
                For example, the same X32


                Quote: Bez 310
                Could you tell us more
                about this "miracle rocket"? Especially about
                GOS


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                You are now communicating with a person who saw American aircraft carriers on the screen of the radar station of his Tu-22M.


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about Bez 310



                I correctly understood that a person is not familiar with the range of weapons "his Tu-22M" ??? Once he asks such questions.

                Oh well....

                Rocket X32
                In 2016, this missile was adopted by the Russian Long-Range Aviation. More recently, Strategic Culture published an article by a US military analyst claiming that the X-32 is capable of turning US aircraft carriers "into a heap of metal." Let's try to figure out how much this corresponds to the truth and what are the capabilities of the new Russian aviation anti-ship missile system.

                Cruise missile The Kh-32 is a further evolution of the Soviet heavy anti-ship missiles Kh-22., which has become the "main caliber" Soviet long-range supersonic jet bombers Tu-22 and Tu-22M.

                It is worth noting that targets with the characteristics of the Kh-22 are still extremely difficult even for modern air defense systems. The main means of dealing with X-22 missiles from the side of a potential enemy were shipborne electronic warfare systems. The first modifications of the Kh-22 missiles had a seeker with a detection range of a large surface ship of the order of 300 kilometers. To use these missiles, it was required that their seeker captured the enemy ship while still on the carrier. And in the conditions of counteraction of high-power jamming ship stations, target acquisition on the carrier was extremely difficult. The low noise immunity of the missile made it possible to suppress its seeker, and also made it extremely "susceptible" to passive interference. For this reason, one of the many developed schemes for the combat use of missiles included a preliminary strike "on areas" with X-22 missiles with a nuclear warhead, in the area where the enemy's AUG was located in order to disable electronic warfare systems, after which the main group was to strike missiles with a conventional warhead. It is worth noting that this option was one of dozens of developed schemes for attacking the AUG by naval missile-carrying aviation, in addition, it is more characteristic of the very first modifications of the X-22. However, this attack scheme is firmly entrenched in the "popular consciousness" and is very often cited in various articles on the possibility of fighting AUG, as "proof" of the impossibility of hitting an enemy aircraft carrier without the use of nuclear weapons.

                Work on the creation of a new rocket based on the Kh-22 - Kh-32 was continued only at the beginning of the new millennium. According to unconfirmed reports, the production of experimental batches of missiles was started at the turn of the current decade. By 2013, one Tu-22M3 bomber was equipped with the experimental production of the Tupolev Design Bureau for testing the new X-32 missile.
                In 2014, the serial production of new missiles began, and at the end of 2016, the Kh-32 was officially put into service. The Kh-32 will be carried by modernized Tu-22M3M bombers.

                What is the difference between the X-32 and its predecessor? The X-32 is almost completely identical in appearance to the X-22, with a few exceptions. However, the "insides" of the missiles are very different. The X-32 uses a significantly improved starting and sustainer engine. The starting engine now allows you to "lift" the rocket after launch to an altitude of about 40 (!) Kilometers. Reportedly, the speed of the X-32 has increased to 5400 km / h - more than 5M! The range of application is up to 1000 kilometers.
                Moreover, most of the X-32's flight takes place at an altitude unattainable for any anti-aircraft missiles. For example, for the most advanced anti-aircraft guided missile (SAM) of the US Navy SM-6, the maximum interception height is 33 kilometers. At the same time, at such an interception height, the boundary of the affected area decreases sharply, and the missile practically loses its ability to maneuver - the anti-aircraft missile simply "fizzles out" (since most of the flight flies by inertia), and given that the American missiles of the Standard family have aerodynamic rudders, any effective maneuvering required to intercept such a complex target is simply impossible. It is possible to try to shoot down the Kh-32 only after it begins to dive at the target, however, in this case, intercepting a missile rushing at a speed of more than 5M is an extremely difficult task even for the most advanced air defense systems. One can often come across the assertion that the American SM-32 anti-missile missile can "get" the X-3. However, this statement is absurd. SM-3 is designed exclusively for intercepting ballistic missiles, for which the so-called. exoatmospheric kinetic interceptor. This kinetic interceptor, which is a small homing device with a matrix thermal homing head, a control module and shunting micromotors. As its name suggests, it is designed to intercept ballistic missile warheads outside the atmosphere. At the moment, the minimum target hitting height with this kinetic interceptor is 90 kilometers, and cannot be used for aerodynamic targets, which include the X-32 SM-3.

                But the main difference between the Kh-32 and its predecessor is a new guidance system based on a modern element base. The rocket reportedly has a new INS and an active homing head. Apparently, the GOS X-32 belongs to the latest generation GOS and is not inferior in noise immunity and "intelligence" of the GOS of the Onyx anti-ship missile system. Most likely, the GOS X-32 implements all modern methods of ensuring noise immunity, such as, for example, frequency tuning from pulse to pulse according to a random law. The X-32 is launched into the area of ​​the known location of the target and the main part of the flight follows the data of the INS and after reaching the set point, it switches on the active seeker and searches for the target and aims at it. The flight altitude of the Kh-32 provides a gigantic radio horizon for its seeker, which is over 700 kilometers, which exceeds the detection range of the missile's seeker targets. Thus, the Kh-32 can successfully find a target even with extremely "rough" target designation. In addition, as reported, the GOS X-32 has the ability to correct the trajectory in flight, in case of update by the carrier aircraft or some other "source" of target data. It is worth noting that back in the 1980s, a homing system was installed on the Granit anti-ship missile system, which made it possible to search for targets by the radiation of shipborne radars. And since the 1980s, all modern anti-ship missiles have a mode of aiming at the source of interference in the event of suppression of the seeker by means of electronic warfare. There is hardly any doubt that all of the above capabilities are implemented in the GOS X-32. Also, according to available data, the Kh-32 can be used to destroy large ground targets. Probably, we are talking about large area or large radio contrast targets.
              2. Bez 310
                Bez 310 13 March 2021 08: 17
                +11
                Quote: AlexSub
                a person is not familiar with the range of weapons "their Tu-22M" ???

                This person is familiar with "the nomenclature" ...
                And not only with her, but also with the device of this
                "nomenclature". Hence the questions that
                seem strange to you.
                After all, this person relies on knowledge, and you
                - on articles of journalists in the open press.
                But I won't argue with you, I'm tired of ...
              3. AlexSub
                AlexSub 13 March 2021 11: 43
                -4
                Quote: Bez 310
                This person is familiar with "the nomenclature" ...
                And not only with her, but also with the device of this
                "nomenclature". Hence the questions that
                seem strange to you.
                After all, this person relies on knowledge, and you
                - on articles of journalists in the open press.
                But I won't argue with you, I'm tired of ...


                If you look closely, you will see that I did not even begin to argue with you. Just answered your question. After that, for some reason, you decided to continue the dialogue on an emotional plane, and not on a rational one.

                If you really have something to say. And at the same time you ask the question:
                Quote: Bez 310
                Could you tell us more
                about this "miracle rocket"? Especially about
                GOS is interesting.


                Tell us what is wrong, in your opinion, with the GOS in the X32? Especially in comparison with the anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM?
                It would be interesting.
              4. Essex62
                Essex62 14 March 2021 02: 44
                +1
                I think this simply does not exist. Therefore, they do not want to explain anything to you. Blessed is he who believes. wassat
              5. AlexSub
                AlexSub 14 March 2021 15: 21
                0
                Quote: Essex62
                I think this simply does not exist. Therefore, they do not want to explain anything to you.


                Especially distrustful comrades will have to remind that the rocket put into service back in 2016.

                https://topwar.ru/99721-zavershayutsya-ispytaniya-krylatoy-rakety-h-32.html


                And there really is nothing to explain. Because a salvo of a couple of dozen X32 missiles is almost guaranteed to destroy, or at least disable the AUG. So far, the Americans have nothing to fend off such a salvo of hypersonic missiles. And this is not our most modern anti-ship missile system.
                And what about the enemy in this direction? The newest anti-ship missile system is the subsonic AGM-158C LRASM. At maximum launch range, it flies to the target for more than an hour. That is, until it reaches it, not only the target can move a decent distance, the war may already end ..))
                Flies low, respectively, the radio horizon is practically zero, the seeker simply will not see the target. Again, at the moment, this missile has been launched into "small-scale production", that is, it has not even passed the tests properly.
                It turns out that at the moment, the enemy only has Harpoons from the last century, shooting at 300 km.

                It would seem that this fact, at least, cannot upset a Russian person (I consider all Jews, Tatars, Uzbeks, etc., who have lived in Russia for more than 8 years) to be Russians.
                But, for reasons unknown to me, some "patriots" on this site, from mentions of the powerlessness of a potential adversary in certain areas (not all!), Start uncontrollable burning sensation in the anus.
                So they slide into emotions without real arguments ..))
              6. timokhin-aa
                14 March 2021 18: 29
                +2
                And there really is nothing to explain. Because a salvo of a couple of dozen X32 missiles is almost guaranteed to destroy, or at least disable the AUG.


                Well, where did you get the idea?

                And what about the enemy in this direction? The newest anti-ship missile system is the subsonic AGM-158C LRASM. At maximum launch range, it flies to the target for more than an hour. That is, until it reaches it, not only the target can move a decent distance, the war may already end ..))


                That is why she can independently search for a goal.

                Your "enemy's powerlessness" is simply your stupidity, in the real world it does not.
              7. AlexSub
                AlexSub 14 March 2021 19: 18
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, where did you get the idea?


                Because they have nothing to intercept a gyrosonic target.



                Quote: timokhin-aa
                That is why she can independently search for a goal.


                First, how? Describe if you are really a connoisseur, not a chatterbox)
                Secondly, what next?
              8. timokhin-aa
                15 March 2021 00: 22
                +1
                Because they have nothing to intercept a gyrosonic target.


                Who sang this to you?

                First, how? Describe if you are really a connoisseur, not a chatterbox)
                Secondly, what next?


                The software determines the probable positions of targets, starting from the last stored contact, flies through these areas in a "snake" with the included radar radiation sensors, and short-term switching on of its seeker.
                Finds either the target immediately, or its radar. If the radar then turns away, goes beyond the radio horizon, then, then goes "snake" measuring the radiation and determining the source.
              9. AlexSub
                AlexSub 16 March 2021 01: 12
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Who sang this to you?


                If you have any objections, please explain in a reasoned manner.


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The software determines the probable positions of targets, starting from the last stored contact, flies through these areas in a "snake" with the included radar radiation sensors, and short-term switching on of its seeker.
                Finds either the target immediately, or its radar. If the radar then turns away, goes beyond the radio horizon, then, then goes "snake" measuring the radiation and determining the source.


                Oh well))

                1. Where did you get the information on this rocket? Do you serve in the US Armed Forces? Do you work Lockheed? The rocket is now undergoing testing. Produced in small batch. That is, by and large, the product is at the stage of revision and debugging, and what the US Navy will receive at the output can only be assumed.
                I would like to understand, do you have your own sources of information in Langley? Or do you want to pass off your dreams and desires for this rocket, as a fait accompli? ..))

                2. Suppose further search for the target will occur as you described. Taking into account that the target, making an evasion maneuver, can move away from the "last stored contact", at a distance of about 50 km in any direction. The rocket needs to survey a circle with a diameter of 100 km. Considering the low speed of the rocket, as well as the zero radio horizon, it will take a decent amount of time to crawl like a "snake" in the water (I think about half an hour), while the search circle must be constantly increased.
                A slide for faster target detection, isn't it exactly supposed? And then, I'm afraid the possibility of refueling this miracle rocket is not provided ..))
                Well, then we still need to overcome the air defense targets. At subsonic speed ...

                3. So far, the rocket is being produced in small series and is being tested, it is definitely not scary to us. That's when they finally bring their product to mind, then it will be possible to discuss it as a real threat. In the meantime, only as hypothetical.

                But the X32 can fly aboard an American destroyer or aircraft carrier today!
                This fact cannot but rejoice))
                And it is also able to cause a fire in the asses of potential opponents and in those who sympathize with them ..))
              10. timokhin-aa
                16 March 2021 01: 43
                +3
                If you have any objections, please explain reasonably


                Reasonably, SM-6 has been shooting down ballistic targets since 2016 at about the same speeds as that of the Zircon.
                The advantages of a hypersonic missile are quite different, not that it is supposedly not knockdown. She's quite confusing.

                But the X32 can fly aboard an American destroyer or aircraft carrier today!


                My dear schoolboy.
                These missiles are not in service.
                They are not mass-produced.
                The increased range of this missile due to the nuclear warhead TK-56, which is much smaller and lighter than the high-explosive. Due to what they shoved extra into it. fuel.
                Get back to reality.
                This rocket is a pure PR project.

                And it is also able to cause a fire in the asses of potential opponents and in those who sympathize with them ..))


                I sincerely hope that when you are drafted into the army, you will go to war and will have to go into battle with faulty weapons.
                Or without cartridges. This will be very fair, because you were against fighting such terrible things.

                Then it will probably reach you that people who in peacetime demand the elimination of deficiencies in the combat capability of the Armed Forces are not "sympathetic to the enemy." Otherwise, it somehow turns out wrong - in order for schoolchildren to feel good, adults must be silent about existing threats, even fatal ones.

                Well, then, if you survive, I will call you a traitor, because you will tell that you were sent to the slaughter, pour dirt on the country. And if you do not survive, then the average level of intelligence of the population of the Russian Federation will be slightly, but higher.
              11. AlexSub
                AlexSub 16 March 2021 02: 22
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Reasonably, SM-6 has been shooting down ballistic targets since 2016 at about the same speeds as that of the Zircon.


                That is, in your opinion, a slower rocket will shoot down the one that flies 2 times faster?
                This is not argumentation! This is nonsense contrary to the laws of physics.


                Quote: timokhin-aa
                My dear schoolboy.
                These missiles are not in service.
                They are not mass-produced.


                I hope you are smart enough not to be rude to strangers in the future. Because your manner of communication is more inherent in adolescents who experience an inferiority complex due to their age ..))

                Here is an article by Ria-Novosti, which states that this missile has been in service since 2016.
                https://ria.ru/20210206/strelby-1596266396.html

                There is much more confidence in this agency than in the statements of anonymous, sofa experts, of uncertain age and rank ..))

                By the way, you still haven't answered the question !!! Did you serve in the navy, or not ???
                The boatswain was not offended? ..))



                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I sincerely hope that when you are drafted into the army, you will go to war and will have to go into battle with faulty weapons.
                Or without cartridges. This will be very fair, because you were against fighting such terrible things.

                Then it will probably reach you that people who in peacetime demand the elimination of deficiencies in the combat capability of the Armed Forces are not "sympathetic to the enemy." Otherwise, it somehow turns out wrong - in order for schoolchildren to feel good, adults must be silent about existing threats, even fatal ones.

                Well, then, if you survive, I will call you a traitor, because you will tell that you were sent to the slaughter, pour dirt on the country. And if you do not survive, then the average level of intelligence of the population of the Russian Federation will be slightly, but higher.


                Here, in my opinion, comments are superfluous ...)))
              12. timokhin-aa
                16 March 2021 21: 50
                +2
                That is, in your opinion, a slower rocket will shoot down the one that flies 2 times faster?
                This is not argumentation! This is nonsense contrary to the laws of physics.


                All interceptions of ballistic targets have been like this since ours in 1961. There, in general, the difference in speed was twice, and not in favor of the anti-missile.

                Here is an article by Ria-Novosti, which states that this missile has been in service since 2016.
                https://ria.ru/20210206/strelby-1596266396.html


                Here is an article by Ria-Novosti, which states that this missile has been in service since 2016.


                Have you seen what is written on the X-32 on the fence? Here in the VO there were people from the units that fired this rocket. And the press is being cared for by DIMK MO, who no longer know how to lie to them.

                By the way, you still haven't answered the question !!!


                Why do you need to know this? What does this change in the SURROUNDING REALITY? I can tell you that I served as a Pravak on the Mi-14 or in the Marine Corps as a sapper or as an electrician at the IPC, first of all, you will not be able to check this, and secondly, THIS DOESN'T AFFECT THE SURROUNDING REALITY, including in terms of missile weapons.
                I can be a sailor, a pilot, a paratrooper, a driver, an anti-tank gun loader - it doesn't matter, the Kh-32, as it was a PR project, will remain so. Reality does not depend on who describes it.

                Here, in my opinion, comments are superfluous ...)))


                Well, why - this is exactly what a contingent like you deserves. Send to storm the fortified area without ammunition, and at the first objection - to the wall for treason.

                This is exactly what you are trying to achieve for the RF Armed Forces by shouting. This means that it would be fair and correct to do so with you.
              13. AlexSub
                AlexSub 16 March 2021 23: 25
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                All interceptions of ballistic targets have been like this since ours in 1961. There, in general, the difference in speed was twice, and not in favor of the anti-missile.


                Now let's analyze the capabilities of the most modern and powerful air defense system of American Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Orly Burke-class URO destroyers based on Aegis BIUS with the most modern Standard-6 missiles. This missile (RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM) entered service with the US Navy in 2013. The main difference from previous versions is the use of an active radar homing head, which allows Standard-6 missiles to effectively hit targets according to the “fire and forget” scheme. This significantly increases the effectiveness of the use of low-flying targets, in particular over the horizon, and allows you to hit targets according to external target designation data, for example, an AWACS aircraft.

                With a starting weight of 1500 kilograms, "Standard-6" shoots at 240 kilometers, and the maximum height of defeat is 33 kilometers. The speed is Mach 3,5, about a thousand meters per second. The maximum overload of the rocket during maneuvering is in the region of 50 units. The warhead is kinetic (for ballistic purposes) or fragmentation (for aerodynamic purposes) weighing 125 kilograms, twice as large as that of the previous series of missiles in the family. The maximum speed of aerodynamic targets hit is estimated at 800 meters per second. The probability of one missile hitting an aerodynamic target in polygon conditions is set at 0,95.

                Comparison of the performance characteristics of the X-32 and "Standard-6" shows that the main section of the flight of our missile lies almost seven kilometers above the upper limit of the defeat zone of the American missile defense system and is almost twice its permissible maximum speed of aerodynamic targets: 1500 versus 800 meters per second. Conclusion: the Americans will not be able to hit the Russian missile.

                However, this does not mean that they will not fire at hypersonic missiles. BIUS "Aegis" is capable of detecting them and issuing target designation, since it provides for the possibility of solving missile defense missions and even combating satellites, the speed of which is much higher. Therefore, SAM "Standard-6" will be applied, it remains to assess the likelihood of defeat.

                Note that the probabilities of hitting SAM targets given in the TTD are, as a rule, given for polygon conditions: when the target does not maneuver and moves at a speed that is optimal for hitting it. In the realities of hostilities, the probability of hitting targets, as a rule, is significantly lower. This is due to the peculiarities of the guidance of the missile defense system, which impose the indicated restrictions on the permissible speed of the maneuvering target and the height of its destruction. It is important to note that the probability of hitting the "Standard-6" missile system in a maneuvering target will be influenced by such characteristics as the detection range of an active seeker and the accuracy of the missile entering the target lock zone, permissible overload during maneuvering and the density of the atmosphere, as well as errors in determining the location and elements of movement of the targeted object according to the target designation radar and CIUS. All these factors determine the main thing - whether the missile defense system will be able to make contact and "select" the amount of miss to the level at which the warhead, taking into account the maneuvering of the target, will be able to hit it.

                In the open media, there is no data on the range of the active seeker of the "Standard-6" missile defense system. Based on the mass and size characteristics of this rocket, let us assume that it can “see” a fighter with an RCS of about five square meters for 15–20 kilometers. Accordingly, for a target with an EPR of about 0,5 "square" - for the Kh-32 missile, the range of the Standard-6 seeker is 8–12 kilometers. Shooting when repelling attacking anti-ship missiles will be conducted, of course, on a collision course. That is, the speed of the missile's convergence will be about 2200-2300 meters per second, and the missiles have from three to four seconds to perform the convergence maneuver. The possibilities for reducing the magnitude of the miss are very small, especially when it comes to interception at altitudes significantly exceeding the limit, where the rarefied atmosphere significantly reduces the maneuver of the missile defense system. That is, in fact, in order to successfully defeat such a target as the Kh-6, Standard-32 on the marching sector must be brought to the target with an error not exceeding several zones of destruction of its warhead: 30–40 meters.

                When firing at the diving Kh-32 in the dense layers of the atmosphere, the possibility of destruction is also limited due to the short time of its movement to the task completion line - about 20 seconds.

                Calculations show that the probability of a Kh-32 missile being hit by a single Standard-6 is unlikely to exceed 0,05–0,08 under the most favorable conditions and target designation directly from the missile launcher. When firing at the data, for example, of an AWACS aircraft or another ship, taking into account errors in determining the relative position of the carrier and the target designation source, as well as the time for the exchange of information, the error in the withdrawal of the missile defense system to the target will be greater, and the chance of hitting it tends to zero (0,01, 0,02-6). We state: "Standard-32" - the most effective missile defense system in the Western world - has very low chances of hitting the X-27. They may object to me: the Americans from the cruiser "Ticonderoga" were able to hit a satellite flying at a speed of 240 thousand kilometers per hour at an altitude of about 32 kilometers. But he did not maneuver and his place was determined with extremely high accuracy after long-term observation, which made it possible to bring the missile defense missile to the target almost without a miss. The defending side will not have such opportunities when repelling the X-XNUMX attack, and the anti-ship missile system will maneuver.

                Now let's estimate the possibility of hitting the X-32 anti-ship missiles of the cruiser Ticonderoga or the destroyer URO Orly Burke. Note that the radar range of these ships for detecting the Kh-32 can be estimated within 230-270 kilometers. That is, the time of the approach of the anti-ship missiles to the task completion line from the moment of its detection is less than three minutes. The operating time of the fully closed Aegis air defense system from the moment of detection to the launch of the missile is 30–35 seconds. In the remaining time, from two Mk41 UVPs, 20-30 missiles can be fired, capable of potentially hitting the attacking X-32.

                The possibility of destroying the X-32 ZAK "Vulcan-Falanx" of the ship is negligible. Hence, the destructive potential of the cruiser Ticonderoga or the destroyer Orly Burke will amount to one or two Kh-32 missiles. Accordingly, the air defense potential of two such ships - two - four X-32.

                From this it follows that the KUG of two URO cruisers or destroyers, under the most favorable conditions, is incapable of repelling the impact of even a pair of Tu-22M3 aircraft carrying two Kh-32 missiles. At least one ship will be incapacitated with a 0,6-0,7 probability. A strike by a flight consisting of three planes with the expense of six X-32 missiles is guaranteed to destroy both ships.

                A salvo of 24 X-32 anti-ship missiles on AUG will be fatal. The probability of incapacitation or sinking of an aircraft carrier will be 0,75–0,85 with the destruction of two or three escort ships. Our aircraft will be on the line of attack, without entering the zone of action of enemy carrier-based fighters. That is, the strike of a group of 12 Tu-22M3s with two anti-ship missiles on each will be sufficient to destroy the AUG with a high probability. (from)

                https://www.arms-expo.ru/analytics/vooruzhenie-i-voennaya-tekhnika-/konstantin-sivkov-raketnyy-kompleks-kh-32-menyaet-rasklad-sil-v-borbe-na-more/



                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Have you seen what is written on the X-32 on the fence? Here in the VO there were people from the units that fired this rocket. And the press is being cared for by DIMK MO, who no longer know how to lie to them.



                Here is the opinion of Konstantin Sivkov, Doctor of Science, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences.

                https://www.arms-expo.ru/analytics/vooruzhenie-i-voennaya-tekhnika-/konstantin-sivkov-raketnyy-kompleks-kh-32-menyaet-rasklad-sil-v-borbe-na-more/

                Your links to anonymous "people from units" and other "daughters of officers", already fed up with it.
                In my opinion, you are a little hung up on the stage of "denial" and "anger". You can of course still "bargain". But it is better to bypass the stage of "depression", immediately proceed to accepting the obvious ..)))






                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Why do you need to know this? What does this change in the SURROUNDING REALITY? I can tell you that I served as a Pravak on the Mi-14 or in the Marine Corps as a sapper or as an electrician at the IPC, first of all, you will not be able to check this, and secondly, THIS DOESN'T AFFECT THE SURROUNDING REALITY, including in terms of missile weapons.
                I can be a sailor, a pilot, a paratrooper, a driver, an anti-tank gun loader - it doesn't matter, the Kh-32, as it was a PR project, will remain so. Reality does not depend on who describes it.


                From this stream of consciousness, I conclude that you did not serve in the navy. And knowledge about the subject is taken from pictures and articles?
              14. ccsr
                ccsr 17 March 2021 12: 05
                0
                Quote: AlexSub
                They may object to me: the Americans from the cruiser "Ticonderoga" were able to hit a satellite flying at a speed of 27 thousand kilometers per hour at an altitude of about 240 kilometers. But he did not maneuver and his place was determined with extremely high accuracy after long observation, which made it possible to bring the missile defense missile to the target almost without a miss.

                As far as I remember, they also had a radio beacon working on that satellite, which is why the hit happened, and if it hadn't been, it is still unknown how it would have ended.
                Quote: AlexSub
                From this stream of consciousness, I conclude that you did not serve in the navy. And knowledge about the subject is taken from pictures and articles?

                Absolutely correct conclusion - everything is so. But he knows how to powder the brains of ignorant people - you can't take that away from him.
            2. ccsr
              ccsr 17 March 2021 11: 58
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              I can be a sailor, a pilot, a paratrooper, a driver, an anti-tank gun loader - it doesn't matter, the X-32, as it was a PR project, will remain so.

              No, you cannot, because as one American proverb says, "You can get a farmer out of a village, but never a village from a farmer."
              So no matter what you are pushing about military affairs here, jacket assessments will prevail anyway, and this catches the eye of military professionals.
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 12 March 2021 21: 34
    +3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The Americans did not build new bombers for these missiles. They retrofitted existing ones. And not all, but one wing.
    And Vorontsov wants to spend a trillion on NEW bombers.


    If we abstract from the task of building a fleet, then the completion of the Tu-160 is, in fact, a continuation of the plans of the USSR? After all, the construction of the Tu-160 was interrupted by restructuring, + we lost part of the aircraft in Ukraine, and the United States rebuilt its B-1B series in full. And 50 pcs. Tu-160s are valuable not only as an anti-ship weapon (if they are adapted to solving such a task, which I consider extremely important), but also as an extremely powerful, versatile, flexible, long-range means of projection of force.

    After all, they are going to build them in the interests of the Air Force anyway? The PMSM is not an opposition to the fleet, but its addition, capable of becoming it (the fleet), like the Air Force, the most important striking force, capable, together with the SSGN, of providing a breakthrough for any AUG / KUG air defense.

    As part of the nuclear triad, bombers are the most ineffective and vulnerable component. Bomb the Papuans?

    And the issue of interaction between the Air Force and the Navy is also a question of organizing the Armed Forces as a whole, if the interaction of the Air Force, Navy, and Lands is not implemented at the proper level, if there are "swan, cancer and pike", then this is a dead end in itself. After all, the US Air Force is not handing over this squadron to the Navy, but learning to work together?

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    In addition, they have no problem with theater reconnaissance.


    And without this in general, everything is an ass, excuse the expression. Therefore, for us the means of space reconnaissance and communication are now task number 1. More important than torpedoes, counter-torpedoes, UAVs, Su-57, Armata and everything else. And in the apocalyptic scenario described by you, it is the satellites that can detect the beginning of the strike on the torch of missiles before they enter the radar line of sight, giving a chance for a retaliatory strike.

    And they, as a catalyst, multiply the capabilities of everything - the ground forces, the air force, the navy.

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    and there is a technical possibility to adjust the flight mission of the rocket after launch via satellite communication.
    When we have this, come.


    And this, task number 2, arising from task number 1.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 March 2021 00: 24
      +8
      And 50 pcs. Tu-160s are valuable not only as an anti-ship weapon (if they are adapted to solving such a task, which I consider extremely important), but also as an extremely powerful, versatile, flexible, long-range means of projection of force.


      If PAK YES can be done, it will be such a tool. But there is no Tu-160. I will even say more - restarting the Tu-95 with a new cockpit, with ejection seats, modern avionics and a powerful electronic warfare system, with the ability to use not only missiles, but also bombs, including nuclear ones, would be even more useful than the Tu-160 ...
      The only advantage of the resumption of production of the Tu-160 is that the Kazan plant was encouraged, and the subcontractors, plus the production of engines was resumed.

      And that's how you need PAK YES
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 13 March 2021 00: 53
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And 50 pcs. Tu-160s are valuable not only as an anti-ship weapon (if they are adapted to solving such a task, which I consider extremely important), but also as an extremely powerful, versatile, flexible, long-range means of projection of force.


        If PAK YES can be done, it will be such a tool. But there is no Tu-160. I will even say more - restarting the Tu-95 with a new cockpit, with ejection seats, modern avionics and a powerful electronic warfare system, with the ability to use not only missiles, but also bombs, including nuclear ones, would be even more useful than the Tu-160 ...
        The only advantage of the resumption of production of the Tu-160 is that the Kazan plant was encouraged, and the subcontractors, plus the production of engines was resumed.

        And that's how you need PAK YES


        In a way, I agree, but PAK FA is also questionable, what kind of beast it will be. Tu-95 - perhaps I am extremely close to the B-52 concept with its mind-blowing survivability and maintainability.

        But the Tu-160 also has its advantages - the ability to quickly reach the line of attack and separation from enemy fighters after an attack + excellent carrying capacity. All the same, aircraft such as Tu-160 and Tu-95 (or its conditional analogue B-52, or the promising PAK-FA should be combined).
        1. ramzay21
          ramzay21 13 March 2021 04: 20
          +5
          The problem is that the very concept of the Tu 160 has long been outdated. A breakthrough in modern supersonic air defense is no longer relevant and the costs for it are huge, ranging from the cost of such an aircraft to fuel consumption and maintenance costs. Therefore, we need a subsonic inconspicuous aircraft, well, or a simple and inexpensive one, and the modernization of the existing ones.
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 13 March 2021 10: 20
            0
            Quote: ramzay21
            The problem is that the very concept of the Tu 160 has long been outdated. A breakthrough in modern supersonic air defense is no longer relevant and the costs for it are huge, ranging from the cost of such an aircraft to fuel consumption and maintenance costs. Therefore, we need a subsonic inconspicuous aircraft, well, or a simple and inexpensive one, and the modernization of the existing ones.


            I would not consider supersonic as a way to break through air defense, but rather as an opportunity to quickly reach the ammunition launch range until the "window of opportunity" is closed. I think the subsonic B-2 outperforms any supersonic aircraft in terms of costs.

            Ultimately, it is possible to use subsonic as the main flight mode in 90% of cases, this, of course, will not give the same fuel efficiency as the B-52, but it will bring it closer to it.

            And further. PAK YES it is not known when it will be, and whether it will be good. Tu-95 is probably still too outdated platform to restore it.

            The Tu-160M ​​and SSGN based on the 955A project can become the main conventional (and, if necessary, nuclear) strike force of the Air Force and the Russian Navy, supplementing and then gradually replacing the Tu-22M3 and SSGN 949A.

            If there is a sufficient supply of WTO, such a tandem in itself can pretty much ruin the life of any country, destroying all strategic goals in the deep rear. And in the event of a serious crisis, carry nuclear weapons.
            1. ramzay21
              ramzay21 14 March 2021 05: 55
              0
              Considering the range of use of modern missile weapons and the fact that this range will only grow in the future, the speed of the carrier ceases to be an essential parameter. The key here is the number of carriers and the flight range.

              Tu 160 is much more expensive than Tu 95, therefore Tu 95 can be built more for the same money. The flight range of the Tu 95 is also longer. If you upgrade the Tu 95 turbojet engines and put catapults on it, you get an excellent and inexpensive strategic bomber. And most importantly, at the cost of production and maintenance of 50 Tu 160, it is possible to build about 100 Tu 95. If we add to them the existing aircraft of this type after modernization, we will get more than 150 aircraft of the same type, which will significantly reduce the operating costs of these aircraft.
              Given a system of bases and a sufficient number of tanker aircraft, 150 Tu 95s, which can strike anywhere on the planet, will become a weighty argument in any dispute.

              And the PAK DA currently being designed will be able to provide operations closer to the enemy air defense zone and direct missiles fired from the Tu 95, which will significantly increase the effectiveness of strikes.
              1. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 14 March 2021 11: 36
                0
                Quote: ramzay21
                Considering the range of use of modern missile weapons and the fact that this range will only grow in the future, the speed of the carrier ceases to be an essential parameter. The key here is the number of carriers and the flight range.


                I disagree. Carrier speed + ammo speed cumulatively reduce threat response time. The ability to move quickly, strike, and quickly leave is an advantage. When attacking the same AUG, the range of anti-ship missiles can be 500-700 km, and at this range, bombers can already meet security aircraft. A supersonic bomber can increase speed in the last segment, reach the point of destruction faster than escort fighters reach the line of launching missiles, shoot back and leave. In this scenario, the Tu-160 faces a meeting with a maximum of 1-2 F-35s, which will have 8 missiles in-in for two. In the meantime, the Tu-95 reaches the launch line, half of the wing will be lifted into the air. Even if the Tu-95s successfully shoot back, they will no longer be able to leave. But neither the F-160 nor the F-35 can catch up with the outgoing Tu-18.

                Quote: ramzay21
                Tu 160 is much more expensive than Tu 95, therefore Tu 95 can be built more for the same money. The flight range of the Tu 95 is also longer. If you upgrade the Tu 95 turbojet engines and put catapults on it, you get an excellent and inexpensive strategic bomber. And most importantly, at the cost of production and maintenance of 50 Tu 160, it is possible to build about 100 Tu 95. If we add to them the existing aircraft of this type after modernization, we will get more than 150 aircraft of the same type, which will significantly reduce the operating costs of these aircraft.
                Given a system of bases and a sufficient number of tanker aircraft, 150 Tu 95s, which can strike anywhere on the planet, will become a weighty argument in any dispute.

                And the PAK DA currently being designed will be able to provide operations closer to the enemy air defense zone and direct missiles fired from the Tu 95, which will significantly increase the effectiveness of strikes.


                Their subsonic range is comparable. Yes, Tu-95s can most likely be produced more, but their maximum combat load is two times less (20 tons versus 45), and the normal one is almost three times less (7,8 tons versus 22,5 tons), i.e. one Tu-160 in terms of transportable ammunition will replace two Tu-95s. Accordingly, 1 Tu-160 and 2 Tu-95 should be compared in terms of the cost of the car and the cost of operation. As the American experience with the B-1B shows, the Tu-160 can be equipped with external holders, increasing the subsonic ammunition load (when the mass allows, but the number of launchers is no longer there).

                The practical ceiling of the Tu-160 is 1,5 times larger, which removes it from the affected area of ​​some types of air defense systems. In any case, with the climb and speed, it is more difficult for the missiles to hit the target. No, it is clear that they can do this, but the affected area (radius) decreases.

                Tu-160 is able to escape from fighters in afterburner, Tu-95 is not. In itself, the presence of high flight characteristics gives an advantage in terms of the possibility of implementing various tactical scenarios for the use of the aircraft.

                Of the advantages of the Tu-95, somewhere I highlighted information that it seems like its engines cannot be seen from space, while the engines of the Tu-160 can theoretically be tracked, but I cannot find confirmation. According to other information, the noise from Tu-95 engines is so strong that submarines can detect it even in a submerged position. Theoretically, this makes it possible to throw autonomous acoustic sensors with a satellite communication channel around the RF, capable of detecting the departure of the Tu-95.

                The radar signature of both aircraft is most likely very high, but in the Tu-95 it is most likely higher, incl. due to rotating propellers and weapons on the external sling. Honestly, I don't understand why at least something was not done in the modernization of the Tu-160 in this direction - a few sawtooth edges and / or special coatings, similar to the measures implemented on the B-1B, albeit to a lesser extent.
              2. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 14 March 2021 14: 57
                -1
                Quote: AVM
                I disagree. Carrier speed + ammo speed cumulatively reduce threat response time. The ability to move quickly, strike, and quickly leave is an advantage.

                It’s useless to explain.
                Already tried 100 times. Asked questions - how much do you estimate the hour of the "life" of the enemy airfield, which has 50 aircraft? The difference between has time to destroy or not.
                Don't care - they don't see any difference.

                The real story was already when the TU-160 left the fighter in afterburner.
                In all ages, speed has been important in battle, who has speed control of the distance ... he leads the battle.

                Despite the fact that the fighter cannot catch up with the Tu-160, they continue to write scripts about how it will be shot down with 1 missile. Given that the launch distance of Tu-160 missiles is measured in thousands of kilometers, and air-to-air missiles in tens and hundreds.
                And it still cannot catch up.
                Mystic...
              3. timokhin-aa
                14 March 2021 18: 51
                +1
                Despite the fact that the fighter cannot catch up with the Tu-160, they continue to write scripts about how it will be shot down with 1 missile. Given that the launch distance of Tu-160 missiles is measured in thousands of kilometers, and air-to-air missiles in tens and hundreds.
                And I can't catch up yet


                I already gave you advice - start imagining something from yourself before throwing a show-off.

                Let's disassemble your nonsense from the basics.
                What kind of missiles are you writing about thousands of kilometers? X-55,555,101,102?
              4. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 14 March 2021 23: 09
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I already gave you advice - start imagining something from yourself before throwing a show-off.



                I already gave you advice

                Oh yeah. An event in my life ... Some dude on the internet wrote "blabblabela".

                Your call is very important to us, don't hang up ...
                * Trololo-lolol-lololo ... lololo lolo lolo .... *
                If you want to leave a complaint, press alt + f4 ....

                Let's disassemble your nonsense from the basics.
                What kind of missiles are you writing about thousands of kilometers? X-55,555,101,102?

                55th, 101st and any promising missiles that can be accommodated in the dimensions of the compartment 2 * 2 * 12
              5. timokhin-aa
                15 March 2021 00: 15
                +2
                * Trololo-lolol-lololo ... lololo lolo lolo .... *
                If you want to leave a complaint, press alt + f4 ....


                I understand your pain, Alexander, but what if you really are NOBODY?

                55th, 101st and any promising missiles that can be accommodated in the dimensions of the compartment 2 * 2 * 12


                But all these are missiles for striking ground targets. With what are you going to hit the ships?
              6. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 15 March 2021 01: 54
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                but what if you are really NOBODY?

                Alexander, I advise you to contact a professional psychiatrist with this question that interests you ... I sympathize with you, but I really am not strong in this, and you seem to have a neglected case. Therefore, it is better to turn to a specialist in a profile - how to be and how to live with it further. I am sure they will help you.

                But all these are missiles for striking ground targets. With what are you going to hit the ships?

                It seems like it is written in Russian
                and any promising missiles that can be accommodated in the dimensions of the compartment 2 * 2 * 12

                American missile https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
                The range is about 1000 km.

                To attack the AUG Tu 160, you need more, although you can try to come up with tactics with such data.

                Better if the range is about 1500 and preferably with a higher speed.
                Fortunately, the dimensions of the Tu 160 compartment make it possible to place larger missiles than the American ones and, due to this, achieve the very best indicators in terms of range and speed.

                But these are all rockets for striking ground targets

                Come on! What a twist. Who would have thought)))
                Missile carrier with missiles to strike at ground targets))
                And that there is no need to bomb anything on the ground, right?

                Alexander you are really so funny, once again how to write so even stand still fall.
                Take the US operation in Iraq ... and count how many LAND targets were bombed there, and how many MARINE targets.

                Well, for example ... before you so "imposingly" brush aside all ground targets - well, it's all on ground ...

                Precisely, all of humanity now lives in the sea!
              7. timokhin-aa
                16 March 2021 01: 21
                0
                I have complete order with the psyche, the problem is in you, you are an empty place with show-offs. You have to do something about this.

                American missile https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
                The range is about 1000 km.


                They lied about the range. Recently it turned out that they are just now having a sluggish scandal about the fact that this rocket does not fly as promised.
                But that's not the point. We do not have:
                1. Such a rocket.
                2. Ideas on how to make such a rocket.
                3. The means of reconnaissance, allowing to realize the potential of such a missile.
                4. IZOI systems allowing to realize the potential of such a missile.
                5. Tactical model of the use of such a missile

                And most importantly, if all this were there, then it could be launched from any aircraft, from the Tu-95, from the modernized Il-38.
                , with the Tu-142 and in general with anything, without dumping a trillion rubles for the Tu-160M ​​series with modifications for naval tasks.
                Then why do we need a Tu-160M?

                Everything else is the tasks of Long-Range Aviation, they do not apply to the Navy and Naval Aviation.
      2. ramzay21
        ramzay21 14 March 2021 21: 12
        0
        Despite the fact that the fighter cannot catch up with the Tu-160, they continue to write scripts about how it will be shot down with 1 missile.

        The F 22 has a higher speed than the Tu 160, and it is they who are flying to intercept now, so he will be able to catch up. But the problem is that the F 22 will launch a long-range missile much earlier than the Tu 160 detects it.
      3. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 14 March 2021 21: 30
        0
        Quote: ramzay21
        Despite the fact that the fighter cannot catch up with the Tu-160, they continue to write scripts about how it will be shot down with 1 missile.

        The F 22 has a higher speed than the Tu 160, and it is they who are flying to intercept now, so he will be able to catch up. But the problem is that the F 22 will launch a long-range missile much earlier than the Tu 160 detects it.


        The F-22 has a maximum speed of 2410 km / h; the Tu-160 has 2200 km / h, a difference of 210 km / h. How long can the F-22 maintain such a cruising speed - a few minutes? How will its range drop?

        In addition, the Tu-160 should not detect the F-22 or any other fighter.
        But the F-22 cannot constantly hang in the air, especially when the attack vector is not known exactly. The calculation of the attack is built in such a way that the bomber quickly went to the launch distance, turned around and went into the gap, and the fighters did not have time to reach the line of launching missiles in-in. With such a small gap in speed and a huge gap in range, the F-22 will have no chance of catching up with the bombers. But they can catch up with the Tu-95, i.e. even if the targets are hit, it will be a "one-shot" attack.

        And by the way, there is no F-22 on aircraft carriers, and the firing range at ground targets is much higher.
      4. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 15 March 2021 02: 23
        -2
        Quote: ramzay21
        Despite the fact that the fighter cannot catch up with the Tu-160, they continue to write scripts about how it will be shot down with 1 missile.

        The F 22 has a higher speed than the Tu 160, and it is they who are flying to intercept now, so he will be able to catch up. But the problem is that the F 22 will launch a long-range missile much earlier than the Tu 160 detects it.

        Vasiliy...
        The combat radius of the F-22 is 800 km.
        The range of an air-to-air missile, at an unrealistically best case, is 300 km - taking into account some promising mega-missile.
        The total is 1100, let it be 1500 ...

        Flight range of Tu-160 missiles. 5 km
        It is from this distance that the Tu-160 can shoot at the airfield from which the F-22 will take off
        From a distance of 3000 km, he will be able to throw 1500 km OVER this airfield.
        Now explain to yourself first how they will meet?

        I'm not talking about the fact that we will have our own fighters, our own air defense ... just an even field.
        Strategic missile carriers are fired at ground targets long before entering any threatening zone. This is their feature (one of).
      5. ramzay21
        ramzay21 15 March 2021 03: 42
        +1
        The combat radius of the F-22 is 800 km.
        The range of an air-to-air missile, at an unrealistically best case, is 300 km - taking into account some promising mega-missile.
        The total is 1100, let it be 1500

        They still refuel in the air, and then the range is much farther. And being in the area of ​​the F22 missile launch, it can catch up and intercept it, while remaining invisible to the Tu 160. This is all the more possible because, unlike us, they have everything in order with reconnaissance and target designation.
        Flight range of Tu-160 missiles. 5 km
        It is from this distance that the Tu-160 can shoot at the airfield from which the F-22 will take off

        And if so, what's the difference between Tu 95 and Tu 160? Tu 95 over Khabarovsk can shoot at any base in Alaska, why does he need supersonic?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 15 March 2021 10: 57
    +2
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

    The real story was already when the TU-160 left the fighter in afterburner.

    Tu-160 left on afterburner from NATO fighters trying to accompany him. In wartime, no one will engage in these ritual dances - the Tu-160 will have to leave not from the fighters, but from the RVV they released.
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Despite the fact that the fighter cannot catch up with the Tu-160, they continue to write scripts about how it will be shot down with 1 missile. Given that the launch distance of Tu-160 missiles is measured in thousands of kilometers, and air-to-air missiles in tens and hundreds.

    And what, the goals for which the Tu-160 will work are located right on the border? Or do you still have to fly to the same "Dew line" (to the NORAD operation zone) in order for the ALCM to reach the target?
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A April 9 2021 14: 32
    0
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

    The real story was already when the TU-160 left the fighter in afterburner.
    In all ages, speed has been important in battle, who has speed control of the distance ... he leads the battle.


    Yes, there was no history.
    This is a notion, a duck written in the Chinese jaundiced press called Sohu, then picked up by our media, which is not confirmed by anything.
    Nothing.
    By anyone.
    Just someone's fantasies.
    You yourself are not funny that the alleged incident happened with Japanese and Russian planes. and jaundiced Chinese meat wrote about him. that no one in China knows about?
    Did they hold a candle there in the sky?
    After all, not the Japanese. nor the Russians made any statements ...
    Attention is the question, where did the Chinese suck this nonsense from?


    And yes.
    The life of NK-32 with afterburner is no more than 1 hour.
    Therefore, they have a restriction on the afterburner operation within 20-30 minutes, so as not to ruin the already very small engine resource. which does not exceed 300 hours.
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 14 March 2021 21: 02
    0
    I disagree. Carrier speed + ammo speed cumulatively reduce threat response time. The ability to move quickly, strike, and quickly leave is an advantage. When attacking the same AUG, the range of anti-ship missiles can be 500-700 km, and at this range, bombers can already meet security aircraft.

    Sorry, but the idea of ​​using strategic bombers to attack the AUG seems to me not very good. If the commander of the AUG is competent (and there is no doubt about it), then it will not work out unnoticed at the launching distance of anti-ship missiles in a combat situation, moreover, that 50 Tu 160, that 150 Tu 95 will suffer losses incomparable with the cost of the AUG. Strategic aviation, especially from the Tu 95 and Tu 160, should be used to deliver strikes against stationary, well-surveyed targets with the launch of long-range missile launchers from a safe distance, without entering the enemy's air defense zone. The PAK DA will be able to approach the enemy's air defense zone closer, and it can also direct missiles from the Tu 95 or Tu 160. And the Tu 95 or Tu 160 in this case will be used as flying arsenals.
    To attack the AUG, you need a cheaper and more maneuverable MPA aircraft, and the Su 34 is a good candidate for such aircraft. Again, if you recreate the necessary airfield network and resolve the issue with tankers, then the combat radius of their use will become significant. In addition, the main question arises who will carry out reconnaissance and target designation for the MRA and the Navy. And this is where modern AWACS and PLO aircraft are needed. And the production of AWACS and PLO aircraft should now be the number one task in aviation.

    Their subsonic range is comparable. Yes, Tu-95s can most likely be produced more, but their maximum combat load is two times less (20 tons versus 45), and the normal one is almost three times less (7,8 tons versus 22,5 tons), i.e. one Tu-160 in terms of transportable ammunition will replace two Tu-95s.

    Tu 160 and fuel takes more than 2 Tu 95. Two aircraft are better than one. Two planes can strike at two different locations, and it is more difficult to shoot down two planes than one.

    The speed of the Tu 160 at supersonic speed is lower than that of the F22, and it is they who fly to intercept, so it will not be possible to escape, in addition, the F22 will launch a long-range missile much earlier than the Tu 160 detects it.

    It is quite possible to reduce the noise of turboprop engines, while making them much more economical, and this can significantly increase their combat radius. But nothing can be done with radar visibility. The only way out is to teach Tu 95 to fly in PMV, which should also be done in the process of its modernization.
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 14 March 2021 21: 51
    0
    Quote: ramzay21
    Sorry, but the idea of ​​using strategic bombers to attack the AUG seems to me not very good. If the commander of the AUG is competent (and there is no doubt about it), then it will not work to approach unnoticed at the distance of launching anti-ship missiles in a combat situation


    Why? AWACS planes are quite confused, escort ships are drowned. It is quite possible to expose the sector for attack. Nothing is as agile and flexible as aviation. Tactical aircraft are extremely limited in patrol time at a great distance from the aircraft carrier, i.e. you can keep several fighters 500-700 km from the aircraft carrier, but you will have to rotate them constantly. What if the bombers come from a different direction? How many fighters do you need to permanently cover the entire perimeter of the ring with a radius of 500-700 km?

    And it is in this case that the Tu-160 has an advantage - the ability to quickly reach the launch range, until the enemy's forces are pulled up, and escape from a retaliatory strike.

    Quote: ramzay21
    moreover, that 50 Tu 160, that 150 Tu 95 will suffer losses incomparable with the cost of AUG.


    And we don't need to launch 50 Tu-160 or 150 Tu-95. If we assume that one Tu-160 can carry 24 aircraft calibers, or 12 Onyx / Zircons, then 10 aircraft against the AUG will be a big threat. It will not be so easy to repel the impact of 240 low-flying anti-ship missiles or 120 supersonic (and even more so hypersonic).

    If it is a reinforced AUG - 2-3 aircraft carriers, then yes, more aircraft are needed. But, PMSM, the attack should be coordinated with the SSGN, another 2-3 SSGNs based on Project 955 (955K) - this is another 300 anti-ship missiles.

    Quote: ramzay21
    Strategic aviation, especially from the Tu 95 and Tu 160, should be used to deliver strikes against stationary, well-surveyed targets with the launch of long-range missile launchers from a safe distance, without entering the enemy's air defense zone.


    As soon as the enemy has a strong fleet, this becomes inevitable. The United States hangs LRASSM on the B-1B not because of our 3,5 ships, but because of the rapid strengthening of the Chinese Navy.

    It is too wasteful to make now such machines only for "doomsday", given that, as an element of strategic nuclear forces, they are the least useful. It is even dumber to bomb any rag-tag with them.

    Quote: ramzay21
    The PAK DA will be able to approach the enemy's air defense zone closer, and it can also direct missiles with Tu 95 or Tu 160.


    I don’t think it’s not that unnoticeable. We are lagging behind the United States in this. We need to develop a satellite constellation, and a breakthrough is needed here.

    Quote: ramzay21
    To attack the AUG, you need a cheaper and more maneuverable MPA aircraft, and the Su 34 is a good candidate for such aircraft. Again, if you recreate the necessary airfield network and resolve the issue with refuellers, then the combat radius of their use will become significant.


    I don’t think so. Su-34 drags armor useless at sea, better than Su-35. But in any case, no refuellers will give them strategic range. And how many of them are needed to realize the density of a salvo at the level of 10 Tu-160? 120 cars? - 240? - one anti-ship missile per carrier! + 30-60 aircraft by a tanker, and this is the minimum. This is real? And still, the radius will be smaller. And organize this whole dump.

    Quote: ramzay21
    In addition, the main question arises who will carry out reconnaissance and target designation for the MRA and the Navy. And this is where modern AWACS and PLO aircraft are needed. And the production of AWACS and PLO aircraft should now be the number one task in aviation.


    Against surface ships, these are satellites and UAVs. I have dealt with this issue in articles:
    Find an aircraft carrier: space reconnaissance
    https://topwar.ru/176991-najti-avianosec-kosmicheskie-sredstva-razvedki.html

    Find an aircraft carrier: a view from the stratosphere
    https://topwar.ru/177245-najti-avianosec-vzgljad-iz-stratosfery.html

    Find an aircraft carrier: to replace the Tu-95RTs
    https://topwar.ru/177276-najti-avianosec-na-zamenu-tu-95rc.html

    ... But nothing can be done with radar signature. The only way out is to teach Tu 95 to fly in PMV, which should also be done in the process of its modernization.


    Low heights become useless, their "golden" time has passed. Now aviation is leaving for medium and high altitudes. It is believed that the American B-21, unlike the B-2, is optimized specifically for high-altitude flight. And there are reasons for this:

    Where will military aviation go: will it cling to the ground or gain altitude?
    https://topwar.ru/162562-kuda-ujdet-boevaja-aviacija-prizhmetsja-k-zemle-ili-naberet-vysotu.html
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 17 March 2021 06: 42
    0
    Why? AWACS planes are quite confused, escort ships are drowned. It is quite possible to expose the sector for attack. Nothing is as agile and flexible as aviation. Tactical aircraft are extremely limited in patrol time at a great distance from the aircraft carrier, i.e. you can keep several fighters 500-700 km from the aircraft carrier, but you will have to rotate them constantly. What if the bombers come from a different direction? How many fighters do you need to permanently cover the entire perimeter of the ring with a radius of 500-700 km?


    To begin with, it is necessary to detect ships or AWACS aircraft, especially if the enemy will take appropriate actions to evade detection. To do this, we need our own AWACS aircraft that would be able to patrol, detect and identify targets and we need a detachment of such aircraft capable of exploring significant areas. The AWACS aircraft is not an easy target, it can only be attacked on an aircraft with a very low ESR and a group.
    At the same time, their AWACS aircraft, in case of detection of our attacking aircraft, will instantly transmit information and CU on our aircraft to their ships and aircraft, and an attack by our AUG air defense aircraft will follow, with the guidance of anti-aircraft missiles and aircraft in the air by their AWACS aircraft. Lucky question. But. We do not have a single AWACS aircraft in the Navy, and there are practically none of them in the Aerospace Forces. We have no air connection with low ESR aircraft.
    Therefore, we have nothing to detect neither their AWACS aircraft nor their ships, and we have nothing to effectively attack them with. If used to attack the AUG Tu 160, then they will be destroyed by the AUG air defense systems and carrier-based aircraft on the guidance of the same AWACS aircraft. This was already the case in Yugoslavia, when the F15 guided by AWACS shot down the modern MiG 29 of the Yugoslav Air Force, which did not even understand where the missiles were coming from into their planes.
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 17 March 2021 08: 10
    +1
    Quote: ramzay21
    Why? AWACS planes are quite confused, escort ships are drowned. It is quite possible to expose the sector for attack. Nothing is as agile and flexible as aviation. Tactical aircraft are extremely limited in patrol time at a great distance from the aircraft carrier, i.e. you can keep several fighters 500-700 km from the aircraft carrier, but you will have to rotate them constantly. What if the bombers come from a different direction? How many fighters do you need to permanently cover the entire perimeter of the ring with a radius of 500-700 km?


    To begin with, it is necessary to detect ships or AWACS aircraft, especially if the enemy will take appropriate actions to evade detection. To do this, we need our own AWACS aircraft that would be able to patrol, detect and identify targets and we need a detachment of such aircraft capable of exploring significant areas. The AWACS aircraft is not an easy target, it can only be attacked on an aircraft with a very low ESR and a group.
    At the same time, their AWACS aircraft, in case of detection of our attacking aircraft, will instantly transmit information and CU on our aircraft to their ships and aircraft, and an attack by our AUG air defense aircraft will follow, with the guidance of anti-aircraft missiles and aircraft in the air by their AWACS aircraft. Lucky question. But. We do not have a single AWACS aircraft in the Navy, and there are practically none of them in the Aerospace Forces. We have no air connection with low ESR aircraft.
    Therefore, we have nothing to detect neither their AWACS aircraft nor their ships, and we have nothing to effectively attack them with. If used to attack the AUG Tu 160, then they will be destroyed by the AUG air defense systems and carrier-based aircraft on the guidance of the same AWACS aircraft. This was already the case in Yugoslavia, when the F15 guided by AWACS shot down the modern MiG 29 of the Yugoslav Air Force, which did not even understand where the missiles were coming from into their planes.


    It is clear that this is a whole complex of actions. I considered the sequence of actions and types of weapons that can and should be used to detect and destroy AUG, and in principle are suitable for opening and destroying any A2AD zones.

    Find an aircraft carrier: space reconnaissance assets https://topwar.ru/176991-najti-avianosec-kosmicheskie-sredstva-razvedki.html

    Find an aircraft carrier: a view from the stratosphere https://topwar.ru/177245-najti-avianosec-vzgljad-iz-stratosfery.html

    Find an aircraft carrier: to replace the Tu-95RTs https://topwar.ru/177276-najti-avianosec-na-zamenu-tu-95rc.html

    Find an aircraft carrier: driven hunt https://topwar.ru/177711-najti-avianosec-zagonnaja-ohota.html

    Destroy an aircraft carrier: hunting for AWACS aircraft https://topwar.ru/177748-unichtozhit-avianosec-ohota-na-samolety-drlo.html

    AUV against AUG https://topwar.ru/178257-anpa-protiv-au.html
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 17 March 2021 07: 02
    0
    I don’t think so. Su-34 drags armor useless at sea, better than Su-35. But in any case, no refuellers will give them strategic range. And how many of them are needed to realize the density of a salvo at the level of 10 Tu-160? 120 cars? - 240? - one anti-ship missile per carrier! + 30-60 aircraft by a tanker, and this is the minimum.

    The Su 34 has one advantage, the pilots have much more space there, which is important for long flights, and if the Su 34M modification is maximally unified with the Su 35, it will turn out to be a very good and inexpensive MRA aircraft capable of air combat. If the Indians hang 3 Brahmos anti-ship missiles on the Su 30, then we will be able to hang at least 34 if not 3 anti-ship missiles on the Su 4. Then an air regiment of 48 aircraft can carry almost 200 anti-ship missiles, and this is already a serious force, for much less money than 10 Tu-160s. But again, there are no anti-ship missiles for our aircraft yet.

    I don’t think it’s not that unnoticeable. We are lagging behind the United States in this. We need to develop a satellite constellation, and a breakthrough is needed here.

    I agree with you, something needs to be done.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 13 March 2021 17: 18
    0
    Quote: AVM
    Tu-95 - perhaps I am extremely close to the B-52 concept with its mind-boggling survivability and maintainability.

    The Tu-95 primarily benefits from the point of view of patrolling in peacetime, which is why it can be upgraded in such a way that a new aircraft will be obtained, but with improved operational and technical characteristics. And the game is worth the candle, tk. patrolling during a threatened period quickly quenches the ardor of some proud genatswale or their foreign patrons.

    Quote: AVM
    But the Tu-160 also has its advantages - the ability to quickly reach the line of attack

    It is because of this that we need it so that in peacetime it would be possible to attack the capital or objects of countries hostile to us with non-nuclear warheads. The events of 08.08.08 could have ended in 12 hours with the complete surrender of Georgia, if a decision was made to strike Tbilisi with cruise missiles from several raised Tu-160s.
    Quote: AVM
    promising PAK-FA must be combined

    Well, a promising aircraft will not be able to provide a solution to these two tasks with maximum efficiency, and therefore we must first decide on the concept level for long-range aviation, which is more important for us in peacetime - patrolling or a quick strike at long distances.
    I do not think that the authors who write here, like Timokhin, generally understand what is at stake, deciding that since they have given some characteristics of the aircraft, then everyone is obliged to believe in their know-it-all.
    In fact, they are not even aware of what is now in the minds of those who determine the scientific and technical policy of the Aerospace Forces. And therefore, they can sculpt a hunchback here, using pseudo-scientific terms, but I am sure that such as Timokhin do not know the real state of affairs at all.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 14 March 2021 15: 26
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    If you don't think much, you will see that no, not strange.
    The Americans did not build new bombers for these missiles. They retrofitted existing ones.
    And not all, but one wing.
    And Vorontsov wants to spend a trillion on NEW bombers.

    The Americans are equipping the old ones, for the simple reason that they HAVE a sufficient number of these oldest ones that they built in their time.

    And in our country, the construction time of the Tu-160 fell on the period of the collapse of the USSR, and therefore it was not possible to build a normal series, despite the fact that 95% of the work was completed.

    and part of what was built was destroyed in Ukraine.
    How many American B-52s with zero "mileage" were sawn, can you tell me?

    On the question of the uselessness of this plane - the fact that the Americans rushed to destroy it will probably not tell you anything or hint either ...

    I find it prudent not to throw 95% ee away.
    You are offering to throw them in the trash. (despite the fact that the B-52 is already over 70 years old, and they plan to fly in 100 years, and the Tu-160 is only 30 years old, but you see it is "old").

    And not all, but one wing.

    Iii? This is the meaningful "not all" ... what conclusion is hidden behind this, you can find out?
    Not everything is clear, because some will train to work on targets on the ground, and some will specialize in attacking surface targets.
    What confused you here?
    1. timokhin-aa
      14 March 2021 18: 53
      +1
      You are offering to throw them in the trash.


      You are a pathological liar. I never suggested "throw them in the trash." Stop juggling so brazenly.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 15 March 2021 13: 04
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You are offering to throw them in the trash.

        You are a pathological liar. I never suggested "throw them in the trash." Stop juggling so brazenly.

        Timokhin you wrote that it would be better to build the Tu-95 instead of the Tu-160.
        This implies the position that since instead of the Tu-160 it is better to build the Tu-95 ... then it is better that Russia does not have the Tu-160.
        The Americans paid exactly for this in Ukraine. I uploaded the video.
        That's exactly what they paid for it)))) To REDUCE the number of Tu-160.

        The non-release of the Tu-160 ... this is also a "reduction" in their number in comparison with the release, because the existing aircraft are aging and will retire.

        Cool huh?
        And where did I lie? What did you not write about the Tu-95? What did you not write critically "in Vorontsov's way" to build planes at the price of the Olympics or 48 ships or 2 small aircraft carriers?
        Or the fact that the Americans paid to reduce the number of Tu-160s?

        Take it right now and write in which of these 3 points I lied))))
        And we'll see what you write) And which of the two of us is a liar)) Ha ha ha ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          16 March 2021 01: 25
          0
          Timokhin you wrote that it would be better to build the Tu-95 instead of the Tu-160.
          This implies the position that since instead of the Tu-160 it is better to build the Tu-95 ... then it is better that Russia does not have the Tu-160.


          All this does not imply the need to "throw into the trash" already existing machines.
          You do not.
          You have problems at the logic level, as I wrote in the article.

          The non-release of the Tu-160 ... this is also a "reduction" in their number in comparison with the release, because the existing aircraft are aging and will retire.


          Need PAK YES.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 16 March 2021 10: 46
            +1
            It doesn't follow from all this

            From all this, it follows that your opinion is aligned with the fact that the Americans paid grandmothers - a fact, reinforced concrete.

            Need PAK YES.

            I will write an article about this.
            In short, ..
            Amrikans fly on 70-year-old planes, more precisely, the concept of 70-year-old.
            And they plan to bring them to 100 years.
            And you propose to change the 30-year-old plane.

            Tu-160 - there is experience of operation and experience of mass production, it is clear that it is not true for a long time, but nevertheless, it was.
            There are clear measurable criteria - starting from price, ending with the amount of ammunition, fuel, radius, etc.

            When you compare it with PAK FA, you actually compare the numbers with what?

            1. timokhin-aa
              16 March 2021 22: 04
              +2
              From all this, it follows that your opinion is aligned with the fact that the Americans paid grandmothers - a fact, reinforced concrete.


              What do you mean, I am categorically against cutting the existing Tu-160. Moreover, while there is no PAK YES, it is necessary to complete those that have already begun to do.
              Don't attribute your nonsense to me.

              Americans fly on 70-year-old planes, more precisely the concept of 70-year-old.
              And they plan to bring them to 100 years.


              They still have same-sex marriages there, maybe we can borrow them?
              They have "Raider" on the way, there are B-2, B-52 and Lancer, that is, their set of bombers covers all possible tasks.

              They "pull" the B-52 for the same reason that we will begin to hop around the Tu-95 in 10-15 years, when it starts to INCREASE in the Arbat military district - the 52nd and 95th are the only aircraft that can hang oversized weapons on an external sling or a missile not suitable for in-fuselage launchers.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 16 March 2021 22: 28
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                What do you mean, I am categorically against cutting the existing Tu-160. Moreover, while there is no PAK YES, it is necessary to complete those that have already begun to do.
                Don't attribute your nonsense to me.

                3 points again

                1) What did you not write about the Tu-95 instead of the Tu-160?
                2) Why didn't you write critically "Vorontsov-style" to build planes at the price of the Olympics or 48 ships or 2 small aircraft carriers?
                3) Or the fact that the Americans paid for the reduction in the number of Tu-160s?

                Take it right now and write in which of these 3 points I lied))))

                And which of this I "attributed" to you.


                They still have same-sex marriages there, maybe we can borrow them?

                Not. It is enough to live within our means and carefully manage what we inherit from the USSR, realizing that even repeating this will be difficult for us, given the events of the 1990s.
                And when they "pull" their planes up to 100 years old do not turn up their noses from their 30-year-olds.

                They have a "Raider" on the way, there is a B-2

                When you converted the Tu-160 into aircraft carriers, it turned out that there are 1 Tu-25s per aircraft carrier.

                A B2 based on stealth technology, the very one on which the PAK YES is planned to be made, costs 2 lard. Those. how much does one American aircraft carrier account for? 1-3 B5? This plane went down in history as the most expensive in the world and you are hoping to save on PAK YES. On what grounds?

                and Lancer, that is, their set of bombers covers all possible tasks.

                Well, yes, what did you want?
                They have a military budget of 700 lard, we have 60.
                If you have a salary of 60, and your neighbor has 000, then there is nothing surprising in the fact that he has 700 cars and 000 motorcycles in his yard, covering "the whole range of tasks" and you have one family car in the yard and there are tasks in the lists there is no "riding with elite escorts on a BMW cabriolet" because there is no money either for escort girls or for a convertible.

                It is clear that it is better to be both rich and healthy and to have both PAK DA and PAK FA and this and this and the fifth and tenth.

                We don’t have anything. You can get tired of listing - we do not have a medium transport aircraft, we do not have all aircraft based on it, while in the USA Hercules has 2 dozen modifications and does most of the work ... we do not have a tactical tanker for aviation based on a medium transport vehicle. .. we do not have a refueling rod on transport aircraft ... we do not have a tactical level of an AWACS aircraft, which would complement both ground-based long-range systems by directing missiles over the horizon and interact with aviation ...

                And instead of changing a 30-year-old missile carrier (as for me, it’s like "going crazy with fat" - what could we do if we had fewer gaps and 10 times more money) it is better to do something out of this.
              2. Lozovik
                Lozovik 21 March 2021 14: 47
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                They "pull" the B-52 for the same reason that we will start jumping around the Tu-95 in 10-15 years

                Forget about the Tu-95, of all long-range aircraft, it has the smallest resource (5000 hours, service life of 25 years), it has no future.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The 52nd and 95th are the only aircraft that can hang oversized weapons on an external sling or a missile that is not suitable for in-fuselage launchers.

                Is it?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 12 March 2021 12: 32
    -15%
    Quote: Aerodrome
    but...! that you are Timokhin, you reason strangely ... and so in everything, my opinion is that there is more delusion in your article than in the article by R. Skomorokhov and M. Klimov.

    Tikhvin singers claim that the plane does not need speed! they believe that instead of that 160, the 204 would have done well, the payload is more cheaper and the fuel economy is even more ... and here, too, Timokhin walked along the Tu160, which he hates, (not by order of our enemies, they scold the pinnacle of aviation technology that has not yet been surpassed ). Where did I think that the Tu160, due to the speed of departure, can approach the guarded air defense target 100 km closer than the Tu95 .... but this is without taking into account the enemy fighters, which do not give that 204 any chances at all, and the Tu 160 can leave them after the missiles are launched .. Timokhin is still in the 19th century when squadrons went out to battle and exchanged blows, maybe fighters, following the replacement of TU 160 by Tu204, will be replaced by PO 2? and fuel economy and payload ... the rocket is faster anyway? tongue ..... all this, in my opinion, is a curtain of empty words and references to hide the critically fatal shortage of surface ships, their visibility and slow speed and, in impotent anger, swearing at fast aviation and at secretive submarines.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 12 March 2021 17: 12
      +10
      Quote: vladimir1155
      not by order of our enemies, they scold the top of aviation technology not yet surpassed

      What is this?
      Whom did you contact?
      Or is it a denunciation in this form?
      Something that reminds me of ...
      It's funny about the "top".
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 12 March 2021 21: 36
      +5
      Quote: vladimir1155
      tu160, (not by order of our enemies, they scold the pinnacle of aviation technology that has not yet been surpassed).
      Unbeatable - very likely a peak - definitely not. Radar, avionics, electronic warfare, communications - everything is outdated, there is no support for a low-altitude breakthrough, the engines are uneconomical, the low speed at subsonic (850 km / h, the passenger Boeing 777 has more than 900), the hull is overweight (a consequence of sharpening for the existing capabilities of aircraft manufacturing plants of that time, up to the fact that the rivets were larger than required), low resistance to overloads (to implement a low-altitude breakthrough, it should have been brought to 4-5G), a rather tough sharpening for X-55 missiles (when the Tu-160 was taught to bomb, there were many hassle). So for tasks other than a strategic missile carrier, the Tu-160 will need to be refined robustly.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 14 March 2021 21: 14
        -2
        Quote: bk0010
        Unbeatable - very likely a peak - definitely not.

        I am not an expert in aviation, but I think if they start producing again, they will take into account the shortcomings of the previous modification, and what to demand from the aircraft invented decades ago? now it is being modernized, like silt 76, ... everything flows, everything changes
      2. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 15 March 2021 20: 21
        +1
        Quote: bk0010
        Radar, avionics, electronic warfare, communications - everything is outdated,


        This is what modernization is for.

        The existing on-board radar "Obzor-K" will be replaced with a new radar of the "Novella" NV1.70 family, which is operated by JSC "Zaslon". Ulyanovsk KBP is developing a new cockpit with LCD monitors for the Tu-160M. The aircraft will also be equipped with the NO-70M navigation system with the SINS-SP-1 inertial system, the ANS-2009M astronavigation system, as well as a navigation computer developed by the Compass ICB. Tu-160M2 will be able to plot a course without the help of satellite signals. This will become possible thanks to the SINS-SP-1 inertial navigation system: the device will make it possible to determine the course and speed of the aircraft by recording data from laser gyroscopes and quartz accelerometers. Concern Radioelectronic Technologies (KRET) is creating a fundamentally new airborne defense complex for the Tu-160M2, which will be fully integrated into the aircraft's avionics. Four enterprises presented their technological solutions - "Electroavtomatika" named after Efimova, Ulyanovsk Instrument-Making Design Bureau, Tekhpribor and the Signal radio plant. It is planned to partially implement the principle of integral-modular avionics, when each electronic unit of the aircraft, if necessary, will be able to take on the functions of other control systems. KRET will develop avionics for the modernized missile carrier by 2020. The Tu-160M2 will be equipped with elements of integrated modular avionics, which will then be used in PAK DA. The Tu-160M2 aircraft will be equipped with an electronic warfare system with improved capabilities to overcome air defense. Elements of the new complex KRET partially works on the T-50 aircraft (PAK FA), something will come from the Himalayas complex, something will come from the new PAK DA.

        Quote: bk0010
        no support for low-altitude breakout


        He is not really needed anymore. After the appearance of missiles with ARLGSN, it becomes more and more dangerous to drive aircraft to low altitudes, especially bombers. The newest B-21 is supposedly optimized for medium to high altitudes.

        Quote: bk0010
        engines uneconomical


        Quite to themselves, given the range of speeds they provide.

        Quote: bk0010
        low speed at subsonic (850 km / h, the passenger Boeing 777 has more than 900)


        This is not so critical. B-52 - 819 km / h, B-2 - 900 km / h. According to various sources, the B-1B has 930 cruising, 1130 km / h maximum at low altitudes, but at large maximum limits of 1,25M, it is possible that because of this they will all go to the landfill - even the reinforcement of the hull does not help such a colossus on small heights at that speed.

        And for all, the radius is comparable or less than that of the Tu-160 on subsonic.

        Quote: bk0010
        the body is overweight (a consequence of sharpening under the existing capabilities of aircraft building plants of that time, up to the fact that the rivets were more than required)


        Heavy is good, heavy is safe (just kidding). Although, in every joke - perhaps this will help to operate the glider longer - there is a margin of safety.

        Quote: bk0010
        low resistance to overloads (for the implementation of a low-altitude breakthrough, it should be brought to 4-5G)


        And don't, see the previous points.

        Quote: bk0010
        rather tough sharpening for X-55 missiles (when the Tu-160 was taught to bomb, it was a lot of trouble). So for tasks other than a strategic missile carrier, the Tu-160 will need to be refined robustly.


        It has already been finalized, it is likely that now they are installing avionics with an open architecture, which was impossible before. And in general, the USSR could afford highly specialized cars, we cannot. Previously, the United States had this all the time.

        By the way, did you notice that unification has become wider lately? They will unify weapons for combat helicopters, missiles from the MiG-31 will be registered on the Su-35, the UVP of ships and submarines will take Caliber, Onyx. This is the inevitable course of things.

        Since about 2011, the aircraft can use up to 12 new missiles with a new generation nuclear warhead X-102 and its non-nuclear version X-101. Especially for the Tu-160M ​​/ M2 and PAK DA, the Raduga company is developing the Kh-BD cruise missile, which is a variant of the Kh-101/102 with an increased range. Two other missiles are being developed for the Tu-160 and PAK DA - the X-SD and the GZUR. The X-SD is being developed by "Raduga", it is a subsonic cruise missile that uses the guidance system from the X-101, but its hull is more modest in size, similar to the American JASSM AGM-158. Tu-160M ​​/ M2 will be able to lift up to 12 X-SD missiles on two drum launchers (you need something in the dimensions of the X-15 to take 24 pieces on board.)... The GZUR is being developed jointly by the head enterprise Tactical Missile Corporation JSC in Korolev and Raduga from Dubna as part of the GZUR (hypersonic guided missile) program. GZUR is a missile that reaches a speed of 6M and a flight range of 1500 km when flying at high altitude, capable of hitting various ground targets.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 15 March 2021 20: 34
          0
          Quote: AVM
          He is not really needed anymore.
          (This is about a low-altitude breakthrough) I don't think so: for me, this is a replacement for low radio signature.
          Quote: AVM
          This is not so critical.
          (This is about low subsonic speed) It's a shame: the passenger is faster.
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 15 March 2021 21: 13
            +1
            Quote: bk0010
            Quote: AVM
            He is not really needed anymore.
            (This is about a low-altitude breakthrough) I don't think so: for me, this is a replacement for low radio signature.


            The basis of US air defense is AWACS aircraft and fighters. For them, there is no difference between flying at low altitude and high. Modern radars are perfectly capable of distinguishing targets against the background of the earth, otherwise how would the MiG-31 be looking for quite inconspicuous missile launchers?

            But at low altitude you cannot gain significant speed, it is always easier to attack from above, missiles do not need to lose energy to climb - the area of ​​destruction of ground / surface air defense systems is not a cylinder, it is a dome. With an increase in height, the cut of this dome - read the range of the missile defense system is getting smaller.




            The missiles have a greater range and speed in the final section, since they do not gain altitude, but lose it - gravity does not interfere, but helps.

            The PMSM is not an inconspicuous bomber that must compensate for the lack of stealth with a powerful electronic warfare system. At the same Tu-160, the carrying capacity allows you to place a powerful electronic warfare station, like on specialized aircraft, a laser self-defense system that blinds missiles with an IR seeker, possibly towed traps.
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 12 March 2021 12: 43
    +9
    that is, the Americans will launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160, it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...!
    You can start up with the Tu-160M, whatever you want, everything can be screwed on. Auto articles correctly set and focused on target designation! Where and in whom to start up ?! The Americans are fine with this, ours is not very good. And it will be even more not very. But how beautiful: "At every verst, with copper rivets"!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 March 2021 15: 26
      -8
      Where and in whom to let? Everything will be tied to Liana and other satellites - the main thing is that the ships enter the radius of destruction, and target designation using electronic maps of the terrain and Glonass will be enough for coastal objects.
    2. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 16 March 2021 07: 53
      +1
      Quote: AKuzenka
      that is, the Americans will launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160, it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...!
      You can start up with the Tu-160M, whatever you want, everything can be screwed on. Auto articles correctly set and focused on target designation! Where and in whom to start up ?! The Americans are fine with this, ours is not very good. And it will be even more not very. But how beautiful: "At every verst, with copper rivets"!


      If we do not solve the problem of space and aviation (primarily UAVs) reconnaissance and target designation, then we can not count on conventional forces at all. An opponent with a "long arm" and a "keen eye" will always win. Now is not the time of WWII - we cannot win the war with tanks and infantry. We will not even be able to defend ourselves (excluding nuclear weapons).
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 14 March 2021 15: 01
    0
    Quote: Aerodrome
    And this is not counting the fact that the Tu-160 cannot be used in anti-ship operations even when it is upgraded into an anti-ship missile carrier. It is impossible or pointless.
    that is, the Americans will launch their long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. from the "Lancer", it is possible, and it is not meaningless, but with the TU 160 it is impossible and meaningless ... however ...! that you are Timokhin, you reason strangely ... and so in everything, my opinion is that there is more delusion in your article than in the article by R. Skomorokhov and M. Klimov. pulled phrases out of context ... IMHO.

    Yes, you understand their logic correctly.
    I'm already tired of writing about it in my articles. A total of
    1) Training to recharge these planes with drums
    2) Training for the fastest take-off of Strategists together with Tankers with a minimum interval
    3) Investment in infrastructure for such aircraft,
    https://topwar.ru/178839-guam-kak-jelement-sderzhivanija-kitaja-ssha-vydelila-1-mlrd-dollarov-na-razvitie-bazy.html
    4) Flights of such aircraft over Ukraine ...
  • CTABEP
    CTABEP 12 March 2021 13: 14
    +9
    But it would be nice to start with the economy. Because without it, in the 21st century, nothing good will come of it.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 12 March 2021 13: 32
    +8
    We need both the Army and the Air Force and the Navy!

    Undoubtedly. But in the right priorities and sequences, taking into account real threats.
    And then we will build an aircraft carrier, and when the guys gather near Kharkov, we will begin to rush and persuade the Japanese to sell rifles for their last pennies.

    With an unchanging smile and in the most sophisticated expressions, the minister replied that the wishes of the Russian government would be considered in detail, but this issue could not be resolved quickly, since Japan itself is participating in the war and itself needs weapons.

    - The issue of the release of rifles, cartridges and guns to Russia will require a very thorough and lengthy consideration, - with these words the minister stood up, and the audience ended. It lasted only about fifteen minutes, while three quarters of the time we talked about completely extraneous things.

    It became clear that the solution of an urgent issue of great importance for the Russian army was being delayed indefinitely.

    Fedorov V. G. "In search of weapons".
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 12 March 2021 05: 20
    +28
    The economy needs to be engaged in production in order to build a fleet and education with science, so that there is someone to build this and that.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 12 March 2021 17: 31
      +8
      And these are complex issues and it is a pity that no one deals with the economy or these issues. But I drew attention to this in the article:
      Reconstruction of the city of Sochi "for the Olympics" - about 500.

      This turns out to be 500 billion down the drain, and how much did the football championship cost? And this is in a country where the fleet is in a "corral", where there is no naval aviation and where there is a lot of things? In a country where you had to take 5 years of pensions away from people? Well, who can call such a policy of the authorities smart? Which country can handle these costs? The conclusion suggests itself - it is impossible to govern the country like that!
      1. Firelake
        Firelake 15 March 2021 09: 33
        +1
        Count how much money was returned. Investments in the army do not pay off until the army brings in new contracts for the entire spectrum of companies. Example US Army: consumes a lot of money but also generates a large financial flow for civilian companies. Especially after regime change in banana republics
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 12 March 2021 05: 30
    +1
    A very interesting article, controversial but interesting.

    In August 2008, for example, we had a clash between our detachment of Black Sea Fleet warships and Georgian boats. Not a single one was destroyed.
    In the internet there are doubts about the type of the sunk ship, but not about the sinking as such.

    naval assault aviation regiment, part of the Black Sea Fleet
    What is this regiment armed with now? They write about 12 Su-24s and that's it, Su-25 is not serious.

    How much does the Tu-160M ​​cost?
    According to media reports, 15 billion rubles apiece.
    In 11, the Il-76 and MRK "Karakurt" cost about 2 billion rubles.

    And now it won't be. The first is the Engels airbase in the Saratov region of Russia, the home of the Tu-95, Tu-160 and Tu-160M ​​bombers.
    But what about the "aerodromeless" basing?
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS 12 March 2021 06: 00
      +18
      Not "Tbilisi" for sure, there is a photo of him burning in the port. Most likely, it was "Gantiadi", and on the same day in the evening the MPK "Suzdalets", while trying to break through from the port of Poti with an "OSA-M" missile, sank a Georgian patrol boat of the " Downtless ".
      1. Avior
        Avior 12 March 2021 07: 28
        +10
        It was lucky that the Georgians did not have boats and coastal complexes with modern missile systems, otherwise there would be problems
    2. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 08: 41
      +14
      In 11, the Il-76 and MRK "Karakurt" cost about 2 billion rubles.


      Karakurt was never worth 2 billion. 6 without Carapace, 10 with Carapace.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 12 March 2021 09: 04
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Karakurt was never worth 2 billion. 6 without Carapace, 10 with Carapace.

        It's even more interesting for me, but I've seen such estimates:


        The most likely reason for the rejection of the 17th and 18th "Karakurt" is that due to the worsening economic situation, the Ministry of Defense decided to save money on the construction of RTOs. From a financial point of view, the ships are not that small. Together they cost 4 billion rubles.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 09: 24
          +12
          I saw the estimates of the chief designer of this ship.
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 12 March 2021 05: 37
    +10
    Alexander Timokhin touched me with his article ... there is nothing to complain about ... except where he focused on the political goals of the United States ... I will add that they are inextricably dependent on the economic goals of the United States, this is clearly seen from the current picture of the world on the borders of Russia and the internal political the situation in the United States itself.
    This should be the starting point for shaping Russia's defense policy at the moment.
    The article is a definite plus ... the arguments are convincing, reasoned with facts in hand. hi
    I would like to wish the same to all other authors on VO.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 12 March 2021 17: 39
      +3
      Yes, the article is good, but the description of possible events in the Persian Gulf raises doubts, they say, our frigates "Essen" and "Grigorovich" will easily let the oil tankers of Japan sink to the bottom. After all, the Japanese can also send their ships to protect the tankers, and they are more numerous and more powerful than ours, their fleet, as the author himself admitted, is stronger than ours. And Iran will not let our aviation so easily, Iran is also not happy about the war in the Gulf.
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 12 March 2021 06: 05
    +5
    Thanks to Alexander for the competent article.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 12 March 2021 17: 23
      -6
      I take offense at the "literacy" of A. Timokhin's article. All his arguments about the war of the Russian Navy with Turkey or Japan are at the level of children's games in the sandbox. The fruit of an immature imagination. A normal person who is not obsessed with computer war games and strategies understands that Japan is an occupied country that does not have the right to fight independently for its interests, even if it is even the islands that it considers to be its own. She can only fight for the interests of the overlord. This is a law that the strategist Timokhin does not know. But this gives a different balance of power at sea. Real, not imaginary.
      Maybe the Japanese will ask the US to intervene?
      Maybe yes.

      And according to Timokhin, maybe not. And on this he builds his reasoning.
      Urgently send Timokhin to political studies, so that he memorized the US bases in Japan and the Pacific Ocean, and also studied the topic "NATO bloc - a threat to peace", so that everything about the war with Turkey would also become clear to him.
      1. ramzay21
        ramzay21 12 March 2021 22: 26
        0
        The Japanese, even without the United States, have a fleet of a completely different order than our Pacific Fleet. And we have to do something about it. In modern realities, the most optimal solution is what Alexander offers.
  • Walking
    Walking 12 March 2021 06: 53
    +18
    Roman Skomorokhov has never been a pro in naval matters, all the articles he published on VO are compilations from various sources, and even then with errors, which are constantly written about in the comments. Vorontsov was not even remembered as an author on VO, but judging by the article, he was also not an expert on the Navy.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 12 March 2021 07: 06
      -9
      Quote: Hiking
      Roman Skomorokhov has never been a pro in naval matters, all the articles he published on VO are compilations from various sources, and even then with errors, which are constantly written about in the comments. Vorontsov was not even remembered as an author on VO, but judging by the article, he was also not an expert on the Navy.

      but on VO - all experts ... and in everything.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 12 March 2021 08: 14
      +4
      Quote: Hiking
      Roman Skomorokhov is never a pro in naval matters, all the articles he published on VO are compilations from various sources ...

      belay Well, why didn't you continue: I am declaring this to you, as Marshal of the Russian Fleet, General Director of Sevmash, Honored Inventor and Rationalizer ...
      ==========
      Do you not like the style or just write the same (like Timokhin's) non-binding article in a "bummer"? Or answer immediately by highlighting the "wrong" quotes and protesting them with the "truly correct" "have an opinion"?
      Every time I read such a "bile", I always wonder how the "wrong communists" destroyed the built system of management and instead of it - the "wrong" one, for three decades they beat these Soviet three kopecks, trying to get three rubles and build the "correct" , in which it will be clear why in the new country of the Russian Federation everything that is still being built and produced is much more expensive than similar things in other countries.
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 12 March 2021 08: 57
      +17
      Quote: Hiking
      Roman Skomorokhov has never been a pro in naval matters, all the articles he published on VO are compilations from various sources, and even then with errors, which are constantly written about in the comments. Vorontsov was not even remembered as an author on VO, but judging by the article, he was also not an expert on the Navy.

      Good morning hi
      Skomorokhov is the author of excellent articles, as they say, on the topic of the day. It is pleasant to read his rational and sparkling criticism of the political and economic intricacies of the bureaucracy of recent years. But it doesn't go with the fleet ... And it seems like a lot has already been written, but it doesn't go ...
      Alexander Vorontsov is remembered for excellent articles on underwater equipment. Very serious and competent articles with conclusions. It was pleasant to read.
      Klimov and Timokhin write about their beloved (and me) fleet ... cool, professional. Articles are a huge plus.
      Shpakovsky, when he wrote about the Soviet school, I didn’t want to read, why only so much hatred for the country in which he was born and raised ..? But what kind of historical articles he writes. Anything expensive to read ... And illustrations for articles ..! And the epigraphs ... You have fun.
      Conclusion: each of the authors is excellent in their topic. Trying to go into another, and without understanding the essence in detail, it turns out guaranteed seams ...
      And the audience is not easy, there are real professionals, albeit retired ...
      As for the fleet, Russia cannot live without a fleet. Not at all. There will be no Russia without a fleet. You can also recall the pre-Petrine mockery of foreign merchants-speculators, their naval boycotts, and so on. and so on .... Has something changed in 300 years? Nothing has changed. It only escalated even more ...
      1. Aag
        Aag 12 March 2021 14: 59
        +4
        Quote: Doccor18
        Quote: Hiking
        Roman Skomorokhov has never been a pro in naval matters, all the articles he published on VO are compilations from various sources, and even then with errors, which are constantly written about in the comments. Vorontsov was not even remembered as an author on VO, but judging by the article, he was also not an expert on the Navy.

        Good morning hi
        Skomorokhov is the author of excellent articles, as they say, on the topic of the day. It is pleasant to read his rational and sparkling criticism of the political and economic intricacies of the bureaucracy of recent years. But it doesn't go with the fleet ... And it seems like a lot has already been written, but it doesn't go ...
        Alexander Vorontsov is remembered for excellent articles on underwater equipment. Very serious and competent articles with conclusions. It was pleasant to read.
        Klimov and Timokhin write about their beloved (and me) fleet ... cool, professional. Articles are a huge plus.
        Shpakovsky, when he wrote about the Soviet school, I didn’t want to read, why only so much hatred for the country in which he was born and raised ..? But what kind of historical articles he writes. Anything expensive to read ... And illustrations for articles ..! And the epigraphs ... You have fun.
        Conclusion: each of the authors is excellent in their topic. Trying to go into another, and without understanding the essence in detail, it turns out guaranteed seams ...
        And the audience is not easy, there are real professionals, albeit retired ...
        As for the fleet, Russia cannot live without a fleet. Not at all. There will be no Russia without a fleet. You can also recall the pre-Petrine mockery of foreign merchants-speculators, their naval boycotts, and so on. and so on .... Has something changed in 300 years? Nothing has changed. It only escalated even more ...

        Cool, colleague !!
        (IMHO, of course ...): the most accurate assessment of the authors of "VO"! I share ...
        I will try to write Alexander Timokhin separately, there are comments, but the correct one will be direct.
  • Runway
    Runway 12 March 2021 07: 05
    +9
    Expected "alaverdi". laughing
    Of the 4 "defendants" of the battle (three theorists and one practitioner), only one calmly, succinctly and reasonably showed the problems of the Navy and the "working process" (I really hope he will not get into "this" polemical membership).
    Two "swung at William Shakespeare" (Tu-160 in the fields of Ukraine - stupidity or consequences on March 8). Their colleague in the shop, like A.S. Pushkin, accepted the challenge ... and wrote a lot of nonsense in a cube (although he could have limited himself to three compressed paragraphs).
    A request to theorists - read the military doctrine of the Russian Federation - if you carefully read with an eye on the map of the military-administrative division, "solitaire" according to the capabilities of the RF Armed Forces in peacetime will develop (and you will not have to write fantasy).
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 12 March 2021 08: 18
      -2
      Quote: WFP
      only one calmly, succinctly and reasonably showed the problems of the Navy and the "working process"

      Concise and justified, this is when passing from one paragraph to another, from one chapter to the next, the thought and the very perception of information is not lost.
      That is why classical works can be retelled in your own words.
      1. Runway
        Runway 12 March 2021 08: 27
        +2
        So it is in Klimov's article. I'll add the word "sequentially".
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 12 March 2021 07: 51
    +6
    I agree with the author, that's right, Russia needs a strong ocean-going fleet. Not useless corvettes 22380/22385, "frigates" 11356 and MRK (albeit equipped with PU 3S-14), but destroyers 23560 and frigates 22350.
    Many multipurpose nuclear submarines are needed to work against their strategists and support our Boreis. And not necessarily expensive "Ash", you can modernize the current torpedo 971 boats, equip with modern torpedo armament and GAK, for the "rough" work on the search and escort of their "Columbia" is enough for the eyes.
    But the reality is completely different, and I do not see any changes for the better. The fleet is once again becoming "galley", glad to the corvettes. We lay them in dozens and other pelvis. There is no destroyer even in CD. There will be 22350 frigates at best. The third oceanic "Orlan" - "Lazarev" was given under the cut, combat-ready multipurpose nuclear submarines - less than a dozen. With the introduction of new Ash Trees, the situation will not change, since there are only 6-7 of them, and it will be time to write off the existing 8 and 949 years in 971 years.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 08: 56
      +13
      Well, corvettes are also needed. Others are only visible. There are quite a few tasks for them.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 12 March 2021 09: 04
      +3
      We lay them in dozens

      Yes, even so ... Well, no.
      We produce subseries, projectors and videos, and the seriality "cries around the corner" ...
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 12 March 2021 07: 51
    +2
    Again Turkey, Norway! Has that country died out only in the vicinity of Moscow? And they forgot about Japan! If RTOs can be transferred along rivers from the Baltic to the Black Sea, then nothing will come to the Pacific Fleet! Yes, there is a problem! But don't narrow it down to the center only! That's when you have to defend the Kuril Islands, that's when some officials in their chairs and fidget! Recently, the Pacific Fleet is funded on a leftover basis! In the project UDC and BDK on the Northern Fleet and the Northern Fleet are planning! Ava hold on there in the Far East! THAN???? Nearby are American military bases! Should we repel aggression with nuclear missiles? Nakhimov is certainly good! But where will he be! How can we deliver reinforcements to the Kuriles and Kamchatka? Turkey, I don’t know, but Japan, at the suggestion of the United States, can arrange a provocation in the Kuril Islands! Maybe these liberals are proposing to give up the territory to the Urals! Ilenya will be on the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet! What nonsense! Even a word in the article about the Far East? Can you just move the capital to the Far East, so that the policy changes in favor of the country's defense, and not stuffing something in your pocket?
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 12 March 2021 09: 15
      +4
      That's when you have to defend the Kuril Islands, that's when some officials in their chairs and fidget!

      The worst thing is that they may not "fidget", where is Moscow, and where .. Kuril Islands ...
      For them, the Vladimir region and the Komi Republic are infinitely distant, and the Kuril ridge is somewhere in a completely different galaxy ...
      Recently, the Pacific Fleet is funded on a leftover basis! In the project UDC and BDK on the Northern Fleet and the Northern Fleet are planning 

      The UDC will be sent to the Far East for sure. But what can he alone be able to do? He needs a whole squadron to escort, and not the Guardians with the Karakurt, but the Gorshkovs and Shchuk ... And how many are there in the entire Navy?
      It can definitely move the capital to the Far East so that the policy changes in favor of the country's defense

      With the transfer of the capital to Vladivostok, you went a little too far ...
      But somewhere in the center (geographic) just right ... In Novosibirsk, Omsk or Krasnoyarsk. Although, while Stalin was sitting in the Moscow Kremlin, he saw and knew much more about the country than even those who are now sitting in their places ...
      1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
        VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 12 March 2021 13: 11
        +4
        About the transfer of the capital to Krasnoyarsk, you took it off my tongue! Wanted to say. And the enemy missiles will hardly reach! Well, perhaps ballistic! And not all countries have such a range! We have as they say: Until the thunder breaks out, the man does not cross himself!
        1. squid
          squid 13 March 2021 06: 43
          +1
          Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
          About the transfer of the capital to Krasnoyarsk, you took it off my tongue! Wanted to say. And the enemy missiles will hardly reach!

          It depends on whose. China so vice versa low beam
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 12 March 2021 21: 01
      0
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      then nothing will come to the Pacific Fleet!
      Nuclear submarines are capable of inter-naval maneuvers, the Coast, Ball and Bastion can be transferred in a couple of weeks, aviation (which remains) can be overtaken.
  • Arkon
    Arkon 12 March 2021 08: 15
    +7
    A ballistic missile can be sent to a target along a so-called "low" or "flat" trajectory, that is, not along a ballistic curve. The rocket in such a flight flies much lower, solely due to the speed and thrust, with some assistance in the lifting force on the body. A significant part of its trajectory during such a flight is OUT. With such a launch, the accuracy of delivery of warheads to the target decreases. The range is also reduced, and at times.

    But still it is more than 2000 kilometers. But the time it takes for the missiles to reach the target along such a trajectory is very short. The Columbia's salvo will cover the 60th Missile Division and the base at Engels about three times faster than the Russian counter-strike team. No early warning system will help them, they simply will not have time to react, the flight time of the Columbia missiles is less than 10 minutes.


    The author has some strange fantasies. What is the connection between "flat trajectory" and "retaliatory strike"? The flat trajectory of a ballistic missile (although some believe that Trident has insufficient energy and mass perfection for it) is still tens of kilometers of trajectory height. At this height, they are perfectly detected by all types of radars, and the launch itself is perfectly visible by over-the-horizon radars. After that, the usual air defense works, anti-missile defense on flat trajectories is not needed. Already a dozen missiles will be shot down like in a shooting range.
    But after that, the response of the strategic nuclear forces will follow.

    It is a pity that in the heat of controversy, the authors on both sides go into inadequacy in pursuit of "hype". negative
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 08: 51
      +5
      it is still tens of kilometers of trajectory height. At this height, they are perfectly detected by all types of radars, and the launch itself is perfectly visible by over-the-horizon radars. After that, the usual air defense works, anti-missile defense on flat trajectories is not needed. Already a dozen missiles will be shot down like in a shooting range.


      Well, estimate the location of the ZRV parts, relative to the shown at least the trajectory.
      In addition, SLBMs are too high-speed targets, the defeat will be very difficult.
      1. Sergey Kulikov_3
        Sergey Kulikov_3 12 March 2021 15: 58
        +2
        You have problems with arithmetic, 2000 km in 10 minutes with a flat trajectory - it's fantastic!
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 12 March 2021 19: 05
          +2
          I do not know how you better perceive information, through pictures, or through text. I'll start with a picture:


          But if you are ready to read the long text, then here is a link to the translation of the article by Lisbeth Gronlund and David C. Wright Depressed Trajectory SLBMs: A Technical Evaluation and Arms Control Possibllities Science and Global Security, 1992, Volume 3, No. 1, pp. 100-160 ("Flat Trajectory Sea-Based Ballistic Missiles: Technical Assessment and Control Capabilities"):

          http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/ru/archive/sgsr03gronlund.pdf

          If you prefer to read the article in the original language:

          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250893644_Depressed_Trajectory_SLBMs_A_Technical_Evaluation_and_Arms_Control_Possibilities

          PS Please let me know after reading where the authors have problems with arithmetic.
          1. Sergey Kulikov_3
            Sergey Kulikov_3 13 March 2021 01: 00
            0
            I really like to read science fiction, but why read arguments about the unrealizable, and even give these arguments as an argument? Are there such missiles available? Not? So we will start from the facts, and not from the high-like.
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 13 March 2021 02: 12
              0
              https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=2&nid=360618&lang=RU

              "General Director, General Designer of JSC" GRTs Makeeva ", Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir DEGTYAR.

              [...]

              The Liner rocket, possessing the highest energy and mass perfection among domestic and foreign sea and land strategic missiles, has a number of new qualities. These are the increased sizes of the circular and arbitrary zones for the breeding of warheads; application of flat trajectories throughout the entire range of firing ranges in astro-inertial and astro-radio-inertial (with correction by GLONASS satellites) modes of operation of the control system. "
      2. Arkon
        Arkon 12 March 2021 23: 06
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, estimate the location of the ZRV parts, relative to the shown at least the trajectory.


        Engels covered the S-400 back in 2018.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 13 March 2021 02: 25
          +1
          Only S-500 missiles will be able to hit such targets.
          1. Arkon
            Arkon 13 March 2021 07: 26
            0
            On a flat trajectory - no. There speeds up to 3 km / s.
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 13 March 2021 23: 10
              0


              Do you want to calculate the average speed? 1850 / (7,2 * 60) = 4,28 km / s. The maximum is clearly higher.
              1. Arkon
                Arkon 22 March 2021 12: 43
                +1
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Do you want to calculate the average speed? 1850 / (7,2 * 60) = 4,28 km / s. The maximum is clearly higher.


                Name a rocket that will fly along such a trajectory. The USA does not have it. But, even if it appears, even now the S-400 hits targets at speeds up to 4.8 km / s - this is official information, the real characteristics, I think, are different. And not the fact that for the worse.
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra April 1 2021 13: 28
                  0
                  Name a rocket that will fly along such a trajectory. The USA does not have it.


                  How do you know what the United States does not have?

                  "... It should be emphasized that American specialists are also participating in the tests of the Trident-2 SLBM of the British Navy, which is not a party to the START Treaty. This creates conditions for the White House to bypass the provisions of the treaty in order to conduct covert tests of its SLBMs in the interests of increasing their combat capabilities, since the transmission of telemetric information about the flight of British SLBMs to the Russian side is not provided for by the treaty ... "
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 13 March 2021 17: 25
            0
            Quote: AlexanderA
            Only S-500 missiles will be able to hit such targets.

            And what from this? Well, it will go to the S-500 troops and replace the S-400 with a new complex - this is a common procedure for protecting objects of strategic importance. What is the problem you saw?
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 13 March 2021 23: 25
              0
              For those planning a sudden disarming strike on Russia's strategic nuclear forces today, the S-500 does not pose a problem, since the S-500 is not yet in service. Until 2025, when the first production samples of the S-500 are expected to be transferred to the troops, we still have to live
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 14 March 2021 10: 46
                0
                Quote: AlexanderA
                For those planning a sudden disarming strike on Russia's strategic nuclear forces today, the S-500 does not pose a problem, since the S-500 is not yet in service.

                How do you know how our aerospace forces will repel a massive attack by the existing systems? Even on the ancient air defense missiles of the sixties, a special nuclear charge was provided for detonating at altitudes over 20 km in order to destroy warheads aimed at the capital.
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Until 2025, when the first production samples of the S-500 are expected to be transferred to the troops, we still have to live

                As long as we have SNF on duty, don't worry - we'll live to see it.
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 14 March 2021 12: 42
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  As long as we have SNF on duty, don't worry - we'll live to see it.


                  Not covered by the S-500 on duty SNF, without taking into account SSBNs in combat service, in case of a completely sudden US nuclear strike, provide less than a hundred strategic nuclear warheads in a retaliatory strike. This is not enough for a reliable containment. In this article, the arguments are:

                  https://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/armedforces/2014/1017/145314357/detail.shtml
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 14 March 2021 12: 51
                    0
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    Non-covered S-500 on duty SNF,

                    And no one intends to cover empty mine installations with missile defense systems - they are primarily provided for large cities and industrial centers.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    in a completely sudden nuclear strike, the United States provides less than a hundred strategic nuclear warheads in a retaliatory strike.

                    These fantasies are not supported by anything, except for the words of the authors in "National Defense", who have no idea how our top leadership will react, if only the first signs of preparation for such a strike emerge.
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    This is not enough for a reliable containment. In this article, the arguments are:

                    I have already ridiculed their argumentation - find yourself in this thread for my answer to such nonsense.
                    1. Alexandra
                      Alexandra 14 March 2021 13: 48
                      -1
                      And no one expects empty mine installations


                      Do you understand well what the phrase "retaliation" means?

                      "The Military Doctrine (Article 27) states that the main tasks of the RF Armed Forces include maintaining the composition, state of readiness and preparation of strategic nuclear forces, forces and means ensuring their use, as well as control systems at a level that guarantees the infliction of specified (deterrent) damage Therefore, to assess the possibility of inflicting deterrent damage on the enemy, it is advisable to consider the most difficult conditions - a retaliatory strike after a sudden "disarming" massive nuclear strike (the so-called "deep" retaliatory strike). "

                      These fantasies are not supported by anything, except for the words of the authors in "National Defense", who have no idea how our top leadership will react, if only the first signs of preparation for such a strike emerge.


                      Do you understand well the phrase "sudden blow"? Do you know how our top management reacted on the eve of June 22, 1941?

                      "In Moscow on December 23-31, 1940, a regular annual meeting of the highest command and political personnel of the Red Army was held. At this meeting, the Chief of Staff of the Baltic Special Military District, Lieutenant General P. S. Klenov, in particular, said:" I recently looked through the book Isserson "New forms of struggle". There, hasty conclusions are made, based on the war between the Germans and Poland, that there will be no initial period of the war, that the war is solved today simply by the invasion of ready-made forces, as was done by the Germans in Poland, who deployed one and a half million people.

                      I think this conclusion is premature. It can be allowed for such a state as Poland, which, arrogant, lost all vigilance and which did not have any intelligence of what was being done by the Germans during the period of many months of concentration of troops. "

                      Klenov's personal fate turned out to be tragic: at the beginning of July 1941, he was removed from office and dismissed from the army, and on July 10, he died. But incomparably more tragic was the collapse of the front led by him (as well as the entire Soviet-German front) with well-known dire consequences. "

                      Unlike Hitler's strike, a nuclear strike by the US Strategic Nuclear Forces today can be carried out completely suddenly, without additional additional deployment of the US SNF.

                      I have already ridiculed their argumentation - find yourself in this thread for my answer to such nonsense.


                      I hope you have at least the Peter the Great Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy behind you? And then you know when candidates of military and technical sciences, corresponding member and professor of the Academy of Military Sciences are ridiculed by a commentator who at best visited the military department of a civilian university - this is really ridiculous. It is even funnier when professors are ridiculed by untrained pre-conscription youth.
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 14 March 2021 17: 44
                        0
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Therefore, to assess the possibility of inflicting deterrent damage on the enemy, it is advisable to consider the most difficult conditions - a retaliatory strike after a sudden "disarming" massive nuclear strike (the so-called "deep" retaliatory strike). "

                        If you knew how to correctly understand official documents, then you would understand that we are talking here only about "assessment" and this text does not carry any directive instructions. Moreover, the text only CONSIDERED one of the options, but there is not a word about our preemptive strike, as well as there are no specific instructions that determine how we should react even before striking us. Learn to at least correctly understand the military language before referring to the Doctrine, then a serious dialogue can turn out. By the way, the Doctrine is the same as the Constitution for the country, but the whole country lives according to laws and decrees, and also according to some departmental regulatory documents.

                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Do you understand well the phrase "sudden blow"? Do you know how our top management reacted on the eve of June 22, 1941?

                        It's just nonsense to equate the situation on June 22 with the modern combat duty of the strategic nuclear forces, when Russia can destroy any enemy within half an hour. You do not give such examples, but just keep in mind that nuclear weapons completely changed the nature of a future war, where the example of June 22 is simply irrelevant, especially since you yourself declare this:
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Unlike Hitler's strike, a nuclear strike by the US Strategic Nuclear Forces today can be carried out completely suddenly, without additional additional deployment of the US SNF.

                        Just explain to me if you can use the word "suddenly" from your point of view - it will allow you to understand how you imagine the scenario of a future war.

                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        I hope you have at least the Peter the Great Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy behind you?

                        No, I have another higher military education - engineering, and this is enough for me to understand what is a priority in the armed forces. And remember that an officer's outlook is determined by the steps of his military career, and not by the education that he received at the Higher Higher Educational Institution.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        And then you know when candidates of military and technical sciences, corresponding member and professor of the Academy of Military Sciences are ridiculed by the commentator

                        My bosses myself were candidates of technical sciences, and one of my subordinates defended himself in Mozhaika, becoming an associate professor, and believe me, they would also laugh at the pearls of people who undertake to talk about things that they had nothing to do with during the service. By the way, the Academy of Military Sciences is generally a public organization, so for me this does not mean anything.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        It is even funnier when professors are ridiculed by untrained pre-conscription youth.

                        Without any verbiage, can you point out where I was wrong?
                      2. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 16 March 2021 01: 46
                        -1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        If you knew how to correctly understand official documents


                        In my opinion, you could not understand the text of the military doctrine. "... maintaining the composition, state of combat and mobilization readiness and training of strategic nuclear forces, forces and means ensuring their operation and use, as well as control systems at a level that guarantees infliction of unacceptable damage to the aggressor in any environment"

                        Learn to at least correctly understand the military language before referring to the Doctrine


                        Learn to correctly understand the phrase "causing unacceptable damage to the aggressor in any environment"before offering someone" to understand the military language competently. "

                        Please remember. In "any conditions of the situation" - means even in the most difficult conditions, i.e. in the face of a "deep retaliation". I believe that you know this concept of "military language"?

                        It's just nonsense to equate the situation on June 22 with the modern combat duty of the Strategic Nuclear Forces


                        Above, you wrote that the professors of the Academy of Military Sciences "who have no idea how our top leadership will react, if only the first signs of preparation for such a strike are discovered." I am trying to explain to you that the first signs of a disarming nuclear strike today can be found 5 minutes before the start of a nuclear attack (this is also the concept of "military language", meaning the facts of detonation of nuclear weapons in the areas of designated targets). It will not be June 22, 1941, or even December 7, 1941 (when most of the battleships of the US Pacific Fleet were hit in the first minutes of the attack). This will be an incomparably more difficult situation. And your objections to the expense of "repelling a massive blow with existing complexes" and "empty mine installations" - they are, excuse me, illiterate.

                        A sudden massive attack by an SLBM using a flat trajectory from the water areas near the borders of Russia is precisely designed for the fact that there is still nothing to reflect it, and the silos do not have time to empty. There are a number of nuances in preparing such a strike, but I see no point in discussing them here and now. All of them are considered in sufficient detail in the work: "Sea-based ballistic missiles with flat trajectories: technical assessment and control capabilities" 29 years ago:

                        http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/ru/archive/1992/06/depressed_trajectory_slbms_a_t.html
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 16 March 2021 12: 43
                        0
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        In my opinion, you could not understand the text of the military doctrine.

                        It is enchanting to listen to a person who himself prepared the governing documents, some of which were signed by the Minister of Defense or the National General Staff.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        I am trying to explain to you that the first signs of a disarming nuclear strike today can be revealed 5 minutes before the start of a nuclear attack (this is also the concept of "military language", meaning the facts of detonation of nuclear weapons in the areas of designated targets).

                        I don't even want to comment on this nonsense - you have an idea of ​​strategic intelligence at the level of those who wrote that article, but it is not high.
                        By the way, what do you mean by words
                        facts of detonation of nuclear weapons in areas of designated targets

                        This is some kind of ammunition and where - describe in more detail so that your level of understanding of the topic is clear.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        All of them are considered in sufficient detail in the work:

                        Firstly, this is not the work of our strategists, and has nothing to do with our armed forces:
                        Lisbeth Gronlund, David Wright, "Flat Trajectory Sea-Based Ballistic Missiles: Technical Assessment and Control Capabilities," Science & Global Security 3, no. 1-2, (1992): 101-159.

                        Well, the time and place of publication in general does not fit in with modern reality. But I am glad that you did not bring the work of Admiral S.O. Makarov to substantiate your dubious conclusions.
                      4. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 17 March 2021 00: 47
                        0
                        It is enchanting to listen to the person who prepared the governing documents himself.


                        It is enchanting when a person who "prepared the guiding documents himself" does not understand the meaning of the phrase "in any conditions of the situation" and begins to invent "introductory" facilitating these "conditions of the situation". Remember, the term "deep retaliation." These are the conditions for which unacceptable damage to the aggressor must be guaranteed. Any other, lighter conditions do not correspond to the spirit and letter of military doctrine.

                        I don't even want to comment on this nonsense - you have an idea of ​​strategic intelligence at the level of those who wrote that article, but it is not high.


                        Oh, so you are also a representative of the GRU General Staff !? Was it yours in the 80s who counted the number of burning windows in the Pentagon at night, and during the day the number of cars in its parking lot? But no, they weren't yours. And in those documents that you prepared, were there any proposals on the topic of curtailing the early warning system, since intelligence will still report accurately? This I do not want to comment on nonsense about omniscience intelligence. After June 22, 1941, one can only stutter about this nonsense.

                        This is some kind of ammunition and where - describe in more detail,


                        These are nuclear warheads W88 and W76-1 / W76-2 as an integral part of warheads Mk.5, Mk.4A and ... I don’t know which Mark was assigned to the unit in which the nuclear charge W76-2 was packed. Where? Can I show you on a schematic? Here is just such a scheme with the consequences of a "disarming" strike:



                        Firstly, this is not the work of our strategists, and has nothing to do with our armed forces.


                        Do the missiles of our Armed Forces obey some other physical laws? And yes, it is not our strategists who attach such importance to Nuclear Superiority

                        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07075332.2017.1420675?journalCode=rinh20

                        This paper argues that between 1969 and 1976 US policy-makers actively sought to transcend nuclear parity. The Nixon and Ford administrations demonstrated increasing uneasiness toward nuclear parity and yet, proved unwilling to match the Soviet Union quantitatively. In the search for an answer to the question of what strategic superiority was in the age of parity, they came to understand it in distinctly qualitative terms, adopting a number of decisions related to nuclear planning, intelligence analysis of the nuclear balance, and nuclear weapons innovation and modernization, aimed at securing a qualitative edge over the USSR.

                        Do you translate nuclear weapons innovation and modernization, aimed at securing a qualitative edge over the USSR?

                        To understand your level of proficiency in the topic, write how The MC7400 AF&F unit on the new W76-1 / Mk4A warhead contains a super-fuze that dramatically increases its hard target kill capability And for what purpose did our strategists need it dramatically increases the kill capability?

                        I am glad that you did not bring the work of Admiral S.O. Makarov to substantiate your dubious conclusions.


                        Do you only need fresh? Is 2017 not yet rotten in your eyes?

                        https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/

                        Or should we immediately start asking your conclusions about why not our strategists needed an unknown amount of W76-2? :)
                      5. ccsr
                        ccsr 17 March 2021 11: 53
                        0
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Remember, the term "deep retaliation."

                        Can you give the characteristics of this "deep retaliatory blow", or will you again get off with general phrases? Well, at least where will it come from and can you name the flight time?
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Was it yours in the 80s who counted the number of burning windows in the Pentagon at night, and during the day the number of cars in its parking lot?

                        I understood your level of knowledge - you can not go too far, it is even lower than that of the authors of the article.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        After June 22, 1941, one can only stutter about this nonsense.

                        I realized that you only know about this fact, but believe me, too much time has passed since then, and the b / n Directive itself completely refutes your fantasies - on June 21, a few hours before the start of the war, intelligence unambiguously reported this. You just don't know anything about Golikov's documents, that's why your cheap speculations don't impress me.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Here is just such a scheme with the consequences of a "disarming" strike:

                        Do not fool people - this is a document not even of our analysts, so you will tell fairy tales to other gullible people.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Is 2017 not yet rotten in your eyes?

                        Was there an exchange of nuclear strikes? I don’t remember this, you can share your fantasies.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Or should we immediately start asking your conclusions about why not our strategists needed an unknown amount of W76-2? :)

                        Most likely, they worked off the money, so they sculpted what would come to mind - this happens with such "analysts".
                      6. Alexandra
                        Alexandra April 1 2021 13: 13
                        0
                        Can you give the characteristics of this "deep retaliatory blow", or will you again get off with general phrases? Well, at least where will it come from and can you name the flight time?


                        According to the link, everything is painted:

                        https://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/armedforces/2014/1017/145314357/detail.shtml

                        If anything is not clear, write, I will explain.

                        Flight time of what, SLBM on flat trajectories? According to the link, everything is painted:

                        http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/ru/archive/sgsr03gronlund.pdf

                        If you have any questions, please write.
  • BAI
    BAI 12 March 2021 08: 41
    +6
    1.
    In August 2008, for example, we had a clash between our detachment of Black Sea Fleet warships and Georgian boats. They failed to destroy a single one, but at least they were herded back to the base, where they were eliminated by the paratroopers. Elementary logic demands to ensure that the next "Georgian boats" do not leave in the same circumstances. From the point of view of the authors, however, the geographic features of Russia nullify naval combat as "something independent."

    This shows that large ships are not needed in the Black Sea Fleet. Cruisers are not chasing boats.
    2. Reasoning about the blockade of Japanese tankers is a song! The author does not take into account that the US fleet will immediately appear there to ensure freedom of navigation? To fight with the states? It makes no sense to compare the US and Russian navies.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 08: 54
      0
      This shows that large ships are not needed in the Black Sea Fleet. Cruisers are not chasing boats.


      What are they big?
      And in Mediterranean, what are the "issues to solve"?

      2. Reasoning about the blockade of Japanese tankers is a song! The author does not take into account that the US fleet will immediately appear there to ensure freedom of navigation?


      The question of US interference was voiced in the article.
      1. alstr
        alstr 12 March 2021 11: 37
        -2
        "And in Mediterranean, what are the" issues to solve "?"

        And for this you need to separate the flies from the pricks.
        There are two tasks:
        = coast guard
        = Demonstration of the flag and strike capabilities in the far sea area.

        So that's it. These tasks cannot be solved in the same ways, i.e. the same ships.
        More precisely, it is possible, but expensive and ineffective.

        We have 38 thousand km of sea borders (coast). Of these, at least 10 thousand require constant protection (in the form of guard lines).

        And now, with simple mathematics, let's calculate how many ships are needed to simply ensure the minimum PLO (if we take a rough detection radius of 100 km, but in fact this is a very optimistic estimate), then at least 50 PLO ships will be required. And taking into account repairs and combat readiness, at least 100 pieces.

        And now we just have to understand that we will not build 100 frigates. We can't even build 50, even just physically it's difficult (just stupidly there won't be enough space on the stocks). At the same time, one should not forget about the coastal part (ports, bases, warehouses, aviation, etc.)

        And to demonstrate the flag, a couple of squadrons of 10-15 pennants are enough. In this case, large ships.

        And now we do not have both.

        Therefore, based on the existing realities, it is necessary to cut back on appetites. And to begin with, collect ONE AUG that will solve problems in the far sea zone. Moreover, from the existing ships

        And to throw the remaining forces into the creation of a fleet for the protection of maritime borders.

        In this case, it is necessary on the basis that on the one hand, a very large number of watchdogs are needed (let's call them that), then it makes sense to start creating watchdogs-queens, i.e. when the base ship carries several smaller (ideally unmanned) ships and a network of area protection is already being created from them.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 11: 51
          +2
          I don't even know how to comment on this.
          Where do you get these numbers from?
          1. alstr
            alstr 12 March 2021 12: 20
            -3
            Which numbers confused you?
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 March 2021 12: 33
              +2
              Все.
              This is just a complete disconnection from reality.
              1. alstr
                alstr 12 March 2021 14: 31
                0
                Well, let's see which numbers are all wrong:

                Border length: The total length of the state border of Russia is 60 km, including land (on the mainland) - 932 km (of which river and lake - 22 km, land proper - 125 km), and sea - 38 807 km [
                Now, if you count on the map, then you need to create a line in the north from the Kola Peninsula to Spitsbergen (+/-) - this is about 1,2-1,5 thousand km. and In the Pacific Ocean, approximately from Wrangel Island in an arc to Vladivostok - this is about 6 - 6,5 thousand, plus the rest on trifles. That's about 10 thousand km.
                And this is the minimum, tk. the entire NSR remains unguarded.

                The detection range of submarines from a surface ship is at best 100 km (here I can be wrong, and most likely the detection range is shorter). Taking into account the fact that there are no special means of destruction at such ranges for submarines, a radius of 100 km will be adequate.

                And then mathematics. 10000/200 = 50.

                Further, the usual composition of the US AUG is 1 aircraft carrier + up to 10 escort ships and several supply ships. So it turns out 10-15 pennants.

                And what's wrong with that?
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette 12 March 2021 17: 32
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And in Mediterranean, what are the "issues to solve"?

        Please list the "questions" in a column.
    2. Silhouette
      Silhouette 12 March 2021 17: 26
      -1
      Quote: BAI
      Reasoning about the blockade of Japanese tankers is a song!

      I laughed for a long time!
  • mark1
    mark1 12 March 2021 09: 07
    +1
    I put + for the article. Normal (even good) well-reasoned article.
    I think it's unnecessary to debate on the topic of whether or not the Russian fleet is needed - a fleet, of course, is needed, strong, balanced both in terms of ship composition and in its role in the overall task of defending the country for ALL branches of the armed forces. You should not consider his activities in isolation from other structures of the Armed Forces.
    Tu-160 is of course useless, but there are many, many small underwater drones (let's call them reusable drifting hydroacoustic buoys) that would help to create a clear picture of what is happening around our maritime borders (and a little further) and give out the control command if that is me I think it makes sense to think about it (the price is certainly not low, it may be equal to the Tu-160M ​​(sea) program)
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 12 March 2021 09: 18
    0
    In essence, the idea is clear and not new - if, say, Turkey closes the strait for us (let's say a coup will take place in Turkey, which has already been attempted, and will come to power ... But who knows, who will come?), Then we need to place the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea in advance.

    Why is it not possible to first deploy a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and only then make it so that a coup takes place in Turkey? And so that those who will never block the straits for us come to power? Is it possible that Maidan technologies are owned only by the State Department, and we are incapable of doing this?
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 09: 23
      +8
      Well, so far, they are not able to. And you need to start not with Turkey, first practice on cats.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 17 March 2021 18: 39
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, so far, they are not able to. And you need to start not with Turkey, first practice on cats.

        On cats it is inhumane, on khaches it is possible while they have it seething and burning after Karabakh.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 17 March 2021 17: 34
      0
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      In essence, the idea is clear and not new - if, say, Turkey closes the strait for us (let's say a coup will take place in Turkey, which has already been attempted, and will come to power ... But who knows, who will come?), Then we need to place the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea in advance.

      Why is it not possible to first deploy a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and only then make it so that a coup takes place in Turkey? And so that those who will never block the straits for us come to power? Is it possible that Maidan technologies are owned only by the State Department, and we are incapable of doing this?

      Well, take it and think about it.
      Taking into account the cultural affinity, the fact that Ukraine economically at all levels of the economy (from dependence on our exports to the fact that Ukrainians worked in Russia) was much more in the sphere of influence of the Russian Federation - how else to evaluate what happened and, as a result, it was pulled out into your sphere of influence? Does this indicate what? Whose Kung Fu is Better? If it were ours, it would still be in the sphere of our influence.
  • Operator
    Operator 12 March 2021 09: 20
    -24%
    Another pouring from empty to empty is senseless and merciless.

    The funniest thing is how the author pedals the pronoun "we", being an outlying citizen by nationality laughing
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 09: 22
      +7
      Minusanul.
    2. Revival
      Revival 12 March 2021 16: 30
      -3
      A disgrace, not a comment.
      And so it is clear that you have nothing to say
      1. timokhin-aa
        12 March 2021 18: 25
        +5
        Andryusha is registered in the hospital, where you can neither get a driver's license, nor a certificate for a weapon.
        Why read what he writes? Reading the Operator is bad manners, and for a long time, decent people have been molding a minus into a jug without looking at him simply because they caught the eye and passed by.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 12 March 2021 20: 49
          -5
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Why read what he writes? Reading the Operator is bad manners, and for a long time, decent people have been molding a minus into a jug without looking at him simply because they caught the eye and passed by.

          Here she is the essence of vile "decent people" - Timokhin did not even hesitate to publicly announce this, finally openly showed his true face.
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 March 2021 00: 16
            +2
            And how else to behave with aggressive psychiatric patients?
  • mik193
    mik193 12 March 2021 09: 21
    +7
    I especially liked the "operational-tactical survival task" section. It is into this ass that our uryakals, armchair naval commanders and effective managers are leading us. Many thanks to the author.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 09: 22
      +7
      Yes, this is the same annoying me as you.
      1. mik193
        mik193 12 March 2021 10: 12
        +16
        Straining is not the right word. The simplest example is the Navy Day parade. They drag a "baton" from the Northern Fleet to the Kronstadt raid and a bunch of happy idiots shout "hurray". And to think what is behind this? Deliberate withdrawal of the ship from the combat composition of the fleet (in the "shallow dish" of the Baltic Sea, it is actually not capable of combat), inappropriate consumption of the resource of mechanisms, the reactor core. Here it is - window dressing, bordering on crime.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 11: 38
          +7
          Thank God, he was smart enough to drive him back and forth on the surface, otherwise the portrait would have been written off by all and sundry.
          1. mik193
            mik193 12 March 2021 11: 45
            +3
            And in the Baltic, in most cases, he would not have been able to dive ...
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 March 2021 11: 49
              +4
              Well, in North and Norwegian I could. They just led him.
              1. mik193
                mik193 12 March 2021 11: 52
                +1
                Well, whatever one may say, anyway, the ship was actually incapable of combat. I would not be surprised if there was no ammunition.
                1. Fan-fan
                  Fan-fan 12 March 2021 17: 54
                  +4
                  But what rave reviews were in the press, even the European one, regarding the smuggling of this "loaf" into the Baltic. Correctly they say: show-off is more expensive than money, and this was a noble show-off.
                  1. mik193
                    mik193 12 March 2021 18: 03
                    0
                    Unfortunately, in addition to money, this example contains the concepts of combat readiness, defense capability, etc. Then it is more likely not a show-off, but a bluff.
                    Well, I won't talk about the press at all ...
                2. Foxnova
                  Foxnova 12 March 2021 18: 13
                  0
                  Naturally, it was not.
                3. Kushka
                  Kushka 12 March 2021 23: 04
                  +2
                  Ammunition at the parade? !!!!
                  Well you give !!!
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 13 March 2021 17: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Kushka
                    Ammunition at the parade? !!!!
                    Well you give !!!

                    I think that you have assessed the level of military knowledge of local "military experts" - they will believe that combat missiles are being transported across Red Square too.
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    14 March 2021 18: 31
                    -1
                    It's not a tank. Loading missiles there is a whole story. They are not thrown back and forth like shells.
          2. Foxnova
            Foxnova 12 March 2021 18: 13
            +1
            And then for 40 years there is no acoustic partrette of the loaf.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 March 2021 15: 39
              0
              It can also be changed
              1. Foxnova
                Foxnova 13 March 2021 20: 21
                0
                Then what's the problem

              2. K298rtm
                K298rtm 14 March 2021 15: 44
                0
                Rather distort.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  14 March 2021 18: 30
                  -1
                  Yes, that's right, that's more correct.
        2. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 17 March 2021 20: 05
          -2
          Quote: mik193
          a bunch of happy idiots shouting "hurray"

          Well, you appreciate your compatriots. Perhaps you feel like d'Artagnan surrounded by gay people?
          Quote: mik193
          inappropriate resource consumption of mechanisms, reactor core. Here it is - window dressing, bordering on crime

          You underestimate the moral factor and the importance of propaganda.
          The confidence of the people in the power of the fleet - it will be more valuable than the resource of one boat.
          1. mik193
            mik193 17 March 2021 20: 13
            0
            Alas, I do not feel myself as d'Artagnan. Just sick of the overwhelming amount of inadequate.
            Moral factor, propaganda, confidence - I hear the voice of the Soviet political officer. Without materiel now (which is still lacking), you can shout as much as you want. And you need to serve not the Tsar, but the Motherland.
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 12 March 2021 11: 36
        +1
        Alexander, thank you. Even if we assume that you are wrong (and you are not), then there are more arguments and analysis of the situation in your material than in your opponents. Roman Skomorokhov generally leaves the impression of a person who tries to mask gaps in knowledge with sarcasm and rhetorical techniques, trying to appeal not to the reader's thinking apparatus, but stupidly pressing on emotions. This "sells" (perhaps the quotes should be removed here) is easier. It is very difficult to deal with such people - there is personal experience.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 12: 59
          +1
          Please.
  • Niko
    Niko 12 March 2021 09: 21
    +4
    Not a hit. But Roman's article was so terrible that a quick and very emotional response was to be expected.
  • Darkesstcat
    Darkesstcat 12 March 2021 09: 56
    +4
    Thanks for the article, by the way, it was like Peter the first laid down the Russian fleet, after it was not possible to take the fortress due to support from the sea?
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 11: 34
      +4
      Yes, Azov. And so it was.
    2. clerk
      clerk 13 March 2021 16: 11
      +1
      ... By the way, it's like Peter the first laid down the Russian fleet, after they failed to take the fortress due to support from the sea?
      Yeah. And then I had to give it up with all the fortifications because of the lost Prutsky. By the way, the epic with Sevastopol and Port Arthur from the same series.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 March 2021 09: 58
    +2
    Maybe it's time for us to start thinking how we should, and not chasing chimeras?


    For example, accept that we will never be able to fight at sea on an equal footing with anyone, and minimize investments in this matter, investing instead in strategies of guaranteed retaliation and maneuvering forces, that is, in missiles and aircraft.

    And yet to start cutting a series of naval Tu-160Ms for a trillion rubles?


    Considering that the corvette, whose capabilities are insignificant, costs 15 lard, hitting the Tu-160 (by the way, what is so super expensive in it?) Look ridiculous.

    As for the submarines with nuclear missiles on board, their role against the background of normal Strategic Missile Forces is approximately zero, including because the submarine can simply not be reached at the right time. The silo-based complexes can give an answer almost automatically, in the event of a massive missile attack being detected. And mobile launchers are simply unrealistic to knock out everything at once due to their number and constant change of positions.

    Well, when writing scripts for a missile attack from submarines, the author should accept the obvious fact that if the United States wants to launch missiles from the Mediterranean Sea, or the Indian Ocean, they will do it, we can’t stop them, even with the Tu-160, or without. There is simply no physical ability to hold in every place from which a launch of the flotilla is possible, and any PLO has a chance of not completing the task. That is, again, it all comes down to whether we can detect the launch and launch a response, not to a submarine, but to enemy territory.

    At the same time, one must understand that mines and patrolling zones of mobile installations are not in cities, that is, the Americans will have to attack a mostly open field, but the response will go to their cities.
    1. Darkesstcat
      Darkesstcat 12 March 2021 10: 09
      +2
      So it seems in the described scenario, just because of the weakness of the naval unit, the time to determine the strike will be minimal and the weakened response will be eaten by the system about the United States. Roughly speaking, the fleet could raise the level of expectation of a missile strike, but since there is none, most of the triad will not be in high alert mode.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 12 March 2021 10: 12
        +1
        Yes, the United States does not have any missile defense system. In fact, no one has it now. Rockets, on the other hand, can fly with a high flight speed only through space, which means that they will be perfectly visible on radars even from Voronezh.
        1. mik193
          mik193 12 March 2021 10: 45
          +1
          Consider the option of striking a Tomahawk-class anti-ship missile system against our ground targets from multipurpose submarines near our shores.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 12 March 2021 11: 01
            -7
            An outdated subsonic rocket, the "carapace" loves it.
            1. mik193
              mik193 12 March 2021 11: 26
              +5
              It is unlikely that he will have time to react, if the rocket goes in the mode of automatic rounding of the terrain, the more the massive launch will not stop. Moreover, the first strike will be against air defense systems. And the enemy equipment does not stand still.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 12 March 2021 11: 33
                -6
                "Jewelin" almighty, "tomahawk" almighty, "bairaktar" almighty ...
                1. mik193
                  mik193 12 March 2021 11: 38
                  +3
                  No way. Here intelligence comes into play - but where is the all-shattering "Armor" based in you? And even on Tomahawks, the TERKOM system before launching can be reprogrammed to bypass the area where it is eagerly awaited. And the strike will certainly be complex and from different directions. So it will not be superfluous to reduce the number of attack boats on the approach by the actions of anti-submarine forces.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 12 March 2021 11: 43
                    -2
                    Do you understand that you cannot do this? Moreover, the enemy, remaining potential, will constantly arrange provocations, and you will not know whether he is going to fight, or just another swim.

                    As for the "tomahawk", there is no fundamental difference, it will not reach 200 km, or 10. The task of the air defense missile system is to reflect the attack within a radius, and not from the direction.
                    1. Fan-fan
                      Fan-fan 12 March 2021 18: 04
                      +1
                      Somewhere here on the VO there was already an article that the Pantsir's radar will see a low-flying CD only 25 km away, until it identifies a target and aims at it, it will shoot in pursuit.
                      This means: Armor must be placed every 50 km. Where to get so many of them?
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 12 March 2021 15: 21
                -7
                And our air defense on a flat terrain will be blind with a unified and integrated radar system that can already now see low-flying cruise missiles hundreds and thousands of kilometers away in all directions.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 12 March 2021 17: 47
                  +2
                  And our air defense on a flat terrain will be blind with a unified and integrated radar system that can already now see low-flying cruise missiles hundreds and thousands of kilometers away in all directions.

                  I wouldn't count on this system too much.
                  Against CDs walking along the terrain, it will not help much with a change in course at correction points.
                  And the amy know well the closure units of our radar stations, proved by Matthias Rust. wink
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 12 March 2021 21: 12
                    -6
                    Against CDs walking along the terrain, it will not help much with a change in course at correction points. Well, yes, subsonic cruise missiles flying on flat terrain - what a danger. And the amy know well the closure units of our radar stations, proved by Matthias Rust. - It was 30 years ago since then everything has changed - a single air defense system has appeared.
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor 12 March 2021 22: 26
                      +3
                      That was 30 years ago, since then everything has changed - a single air defense system has appeared.

                      RTV brigades were reduced to regiments. Separate battalions and companies are 80 percent in the same places (the corners are the same).
                      Yes, computers are now instead of plexiglass tablets. wink
                  2. clerk
                    clerk 13 March 2021 03: 46
                    0
                    ... And the amy know well the closure units of our radar stations, proved by Matthias Rust.
                    There is no need to talk about Rust - he was being led from the border - just no one took responsibility for giving the order to shoot him down. South Korean Boeing complex ....
            2. Silhouette
              Silhouette 12 March 2021 17: 35
              +1
              Did you hit at least one?
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 12 March 2021 21: 15
                -6
                In Syria, not only Tomahawks were shot down
            3. mik193
              mik193 12 March 2021 18: 14
              +1
              Educational program on "Tomahawk".
              https://warways.ru/boevye-mashiny/rakety-i-raketnye-kompleksy/tomagavk-raketa.html
    2. mik193
      mik193 12 March 2021 10: 24
      0
      There is simply no physical ability to hold in every place from which a launch of the flotilla is possible, and any PLO has a chance of not completing the task.

      This does not mean that there is no need to conduct an anti-submarine search in places of possible launch. It is not the launch that needs to be detected, but the enemy's SSBN preparing to fire and destroy it in a timely manner. For this, the fleet must include anti-submarine submarines, nk, aviation, and long-range hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 12 March 2021 10: 58
        -2
        Is your head all right? In neutral waters, the boat can sail anywhere. Has the right to. And, if, having come to a given area, it starts launching, you will not have time to do anything. It has long been learned how to make rockets that launch from under water without first flooding the mine, which could mean preparation for launch, since it is a noisy procedure.
        1. mik193
          mik193 12 March 2021 11: 23
          +1
          Well, first of all, IT floats. They go to sea. You have the most primitive concepts about combat patrolling. And one of the tasks of anti-submarine forces is the opening of areas of combat patrol of SSBNs with the subsequent task of tracking and destruction. Yes, silo flooding is an outdated technology. But preparation of SSBN for launch is also detected by other parameters. And the rule "if the enemy launched one missile - don't let him fire the second one" has not been canceled. Turn on your head.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 12 March 2021 11: 38
            -3
            Have you seen the interval between starts? Sometimes even the TV channel "Zvezda" shows useful things. And so, of course, it is very productive to open up areas (otherwise they cannot be understood from the range), and, of course, you can disperse the enemy squadron, which will hang out there on a permanent basis, but only when the submarine receives the Order, the squadron about he will also know this, and at this very moment he will do everything so that you cannot touch the boat with your finger. And before that, it will wring you out over and over again, and you will not know if the commander has a well-sealed envelope with instructions in the safe, or nothing will happen again.
            1. mik193
              mik193 12 March 2021 11: 43
              +4
              I saw the interval between starts on the remote control, not on TV. About squeezing squadrons - terrible nonsense, I just have no comment ...
          2. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 12 March 2021 11: 57
            -5
            They go to sea.
            They walk by themselves, and swim on the sea.
            1. mik193
              mik193 12 March 2021 11: 59
              +2
              turd floats, sailors walk.
              1. Israel
                Israel 12 March 2021 13: 15
                +9
                Well, how can we not remember about the captain of the long voyage, and not walking, and the ship has buoyancy, not walking. And on the one hand, IT floats, but at the same time they walk for themselves. And there is the crew, not the "cruise crew".

                And for a big ship - a great voyage! And not "walking".
              2. Silhouette
                Silhouette 12 March 2021 17: 38
                +2
                Have you heard about the crew? ... And about the sea captains? ... Or is it not about the sailors?
          3. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 12 March 2021 23: 28
            -1
            Quote: mik193
            preparation of SSBNs for launch is also determined by other parameters.

            Well, yes, well, yes ... Wouldn't it make it difficult for you to name them?
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 March 2021 00: 14
              +2
              For example, the boat is trimmed. The hydraulics are working, making noise. Pumps. Did not guess?
        2. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 11: 36
          +3
          But what about trimming, the launching depth session, what has already been canceled? And these are very noisy procedures.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 12 March 2021 11: 47
            -3
            Well, of course, from the sonar you will definitely understand that right now the boat will shoot. Well, the required depth can be taken hundreds of kilometers away. The main problem with all your reasoning is that they require, as the most important component, a very high quality crystal ball.
            1. mik193
              mik193 12 March 2021 11: 57
              +3
              Prelaunch preparation is normally audible in the main range of the SAC. And if you also connect a spectrum analyzer - no problem at all. What does the crystal ball have to do with it.
            2. timokhin-aa
              12 March 2021 12: 04
              +4
              Well, of course, from the sonar you will definitely understand that right now the boat will shoot.


              Quite right, it is.
            3. K298rtm
              K298rtm 14 March 2021 16: 12
              0
              There was only a small thing left - to carry out covert tracking of the SSBN.
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 13 March 2021 12: 14
          +2
          Quote: EvilLion
          having come to a given area, it will start launching, you will not have time to do anything. It has long been learned how to make rockets that launch from under water without first flooding the mine, which could mean preparation for launch, since it is a noisy procedure.

          A few words about.
          1. Modern carriers (SSBN, RPKSN) do not have to "come" to the ROP. They can strike from the route, the main thing is that the target is within reach of the weapon. Machines (ASBU, BIUS) work all the time in parallel and data from the NK are constantly updated (according to the observation schedule), but if this is not available (for some reason), then modern NKs are capable of storing Nav. data ensuring the accuracy of the application of the RK, up to 6 days !!!
          2. "She starts launching" (?) Is you probably about prelaunch preparation ... Well, that's understandable. It is not clear why, being at the g / a contact in the SHP by discrete, according to the operating mode of pumps, steering gears, it is impossible to identify the occupation of the "corridor"? After all, not to breathe in the fresh sea air, it floats up to the starting H (40 m !!!) and not for the defile, it reduces the speed to 3-4 knots !!!
          3. You correctly noted that: "wet start" has gone down in history, but wet start is also not silent, because there are still no missiles that start without opening the shaft covers. Yes, they pierce the membrane, but not the lids! And the opening of the lid and its fixation on the stopper - well, a very "musical" moment. Where is the big drum of a symphony orchestra!
          But I hasten to reassure you: you will not hear any of this ... ROP is clearly grazing by the Yankees' shock PLA. And here the treasure is buried, to which we still have to get to the bottom! Yes, we had contacts, tracking ... BUT! detection is almost always not in a g / a way, but when entering a g / a contact the Yankees came off ... and then turned on the barrel organ for the fisherman and teleported 5-8 knots, imitating the NK ... Yes, here ...
          4. To the question that "you will not have time to do anything." We were ordered to start up the TO on the bearing to the target in order to disrupt the PP. But then it was easier - there was no PTZ on board. Therefore, hearing the howl of a torpedo coming at you, it was almost impossible not to twitch. And this 100% meant a breakdown of the PP.
          Yeah, here ...
          And a small illustration to what has been said in terms of noise levels, true multipurpose submarines, but, I think, with SSBN / RPKSN the picture is the same, and maybe "equal", as ours claim ...

          Good luck.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 13 March 2021 17: 51
            0
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            They can strike from the route, the main thing is that the target is within reach of the weapon.

            Since you know many details, I will not refrain from asking a question that is clear to some of those interested. Let's say our nuclear submarine goes to the area, but on the route it receives a command to launch the entire spacecraft. The following questions arise:
            1. How quickly can an adversary determine that a combat signal has been received and qualify it as a launch command to receive a kill command?
            2. With what accuracy are the coordinates of our nuclear submarine determined at this moment and who can do it quickly, for example, in our northern seas?
            3. What forces does the enemy usually have (in peacetime) to destroy our nuclear submarine and how long will it take for him to do this? Will he have enough time for all measures from signal detection to destruction, if several minutes pass from the start of the first and last nuclear submarine missile?
            4. If a different algorithm is used in the Navy, please describe it as briefly as possible.
            These questions are not idle and are understandable to those who provided information about the moving enemy troops and knows how to do this in real time.
            But if you consider that these issues are not subject to discussion, then I will not have anything against it.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 13 March 2021 20: 54
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              But if you consider that these issues are not subject to discussion, then I will not have anything against it.

              Yes, the Lord is with you! I was only a clerk at the political department! And I have never gone to sea ... How do I know such and such secrets !? bully
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 13 March 2021 21: 05
                0
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                How do I know such and such secrets !?

                There is no need to grimace, I already understood that most of those who write here on naval topics are unlikely to be able to answer this responsibly. And Timokhin and Klimov will not drive in at all, what is hiding behind this, but they will not stop shouting "Guard fleet is dead".
                Nevermind...
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 13 March 2021 21: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Nevermind...

                  You are even from the GRU, but it would not hurt to check the PM from time to time! bully
                2. timokhin-aa
                  13 March 2021 21: 23
                  0
                  Prapor, and launching on targets from anywhere and at an arbitrary moment of time cannot be performed at all, technically. The missiles will go "somewhere there."
    3. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 11: 35
      0
      It feels like you've read to the middle.
    4. ccsr
      ccsr 12 March 2021 12: 48
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      Considering that the corvette, whose capabilities are insignificant, costs 15 lard, hitting the Tu-160 (by the way, what is so super expensive in it?) Look ridiculous.

      As for the submarines with nuclear missiles on board, their role against the background of normal Strategic Missile Forces is approximately zero, including because the submarine can simply not be reached at the right time. The silo-based complexes can give an answer almost automatically, in the event of a massive missile attack being detected.

      Quite right, that's why both the Tu-160 and our SSBNs are just an addition to our Strategic Missile Forces, and they will never be replaced in principle. The only reason they are needed is to increase the number of directions from which the territory of the United States or China can be attacked in order to create problems for their missile defense. And all this was known both under Gorshkov and under Brezhnev, and all the dancing around the ocean fleet is now only evidence that people are too far from reality, and do not understand that today's Russia is not even half of the USSR. Let me remind you that at that time the USSR produced about 20-22% of world GDP, and today's Russia does not have half of such a result. So it's time to roll up our lips, and just really consider what we can afford for the funds that the country allocates for the defense industry. Unleash the local "specialists" in the military to implement their "brilliant" plans for the construction of the armed forces, we will not only be left without trousers, but also without the country's defense, but we will surpass the NATO countries with the characteristics of the Klimovsk torpedoes. Timokhin's fantasies should be perceived as a theater of the absurd - he will not pay for the pogrom that the United States will inflict on us, if we are imbued with his ideas and begin to realize what is not profitable for us.
      1. mik193
        mik193 12 March 2021 17: 38
        +1
        Excuse me, but what about the opposition to the enemy in the theater of operations? Is it really not necessary to have forces and means of struggle, for example, with the enemy's planes? Of course, it is necessary to really count money, and at the same time it is hard to take would-be designers and effective managers for sexual characteristics. As for the distant and oceanic ones, I am far from uryakalnyh illusions, but there should be air defense, anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense of my near zone. You don't need to spit over NATO with the characteristics of super torpedoes, just do it no worse than theirs. Etc. etc.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 12 March 2021 20: 27
          0
          Quote: mik193
          Excuse me, but what about the opposition to the enemy in the theater of operations?

          In the most direct way - an attack on the continental territory of the United States, with almost all of our strategic nuclear potential. True, China will also have to be left, but there we can handle operational-tactical nuclear weapons.
          Quote: mik193
          Is it really not necessary to have forces and means of struggle, for example, with the enemy's planes?

          We will not be able to create such anti-submarine defense systems to neutralize their submarines 6-8 thousand km from the European part of Russia, because this is not realistic. It is from this that one must proceed, and not think in categories that are far from life.
          Quote: mik193
          but the air defense, anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense of its near zone should be.

          Here I completely agree with you - this is our limit, and all other arguments about oceans are the whim of narrow-minded people.
          Quote: mik193
          It is not necessary to spit on NATO with the characteristics of super torpedoes, just do it no worse than theirs. Etc. etc.

          Well, NATO ships will not go to the line of launching our torpedoes, even if they are at a distance of 100 km from them. And to attack enemy ships with torpedoes with our SSBNs can only occur to dreamers like Timokhin and Klimov.
          1. mik193
            mik193 14 March 2021 18: 20
            0
            Well, you can counteract the enemy at least by organizing tracking of his SSBN with the task of destroying them "on command" even during the threatened period, or as our enemy plans during a nuclear-free period of hostilities.
            We may not be able to neutralize all the enemy SSBs, but we must strive for this. We all care whether 10 SSBNs shoot at us or, say, 5?
            About super torpedoes - a good torpedo in an underwater battle never interfered with anyone.
            A counterattack by the enemy's attacking multipurpose aircraft is the most necessary thing, and you also need to fight off the KPUG.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 14 March 2021 20: 22
              0
              Quote: mik193
              We may not be able to neutralize all the enemy SSBs, but we must strive for this. We all care whether 10 SSBNs shoot at us or, say, 5?

              It will cost us less to destroy tens of millions of citizens of our potential enemy than to create what you propose, and at the same time, from the point of view of the reliability of these systems, the means of the Strategic Missile Forces will be much higher.
              Quote: mik193
              About super torpedoes - a good torpedo in an underwater battle never interfered with anyone.

              Limited range and speed are the biggest challenges for classic torpedoes. That is why launching a rocket from a submerged position with a flight to the target for several minutes is a much more promising system that will replace torpedoes.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 12 March 2021 18: 28
        +4
        Let me remind you that at that time the USSR produced about 20-22% of world GDP, and today's Russia does not even have half of such a result.

        Even up to 2% falls short.

        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 12 March 2021 21: 20
          -2
          Only you have forgotten something comparing Russia and the USSR - in addition to Russia, the USSR included 14 republics and there was a planned distribution economy, and after 30 years the world economy did not stand still GDP of the whole world was growing.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 12 March 2021 22: 29
            0
            Only you have forgotten something comparing Russia and the USSR - in addition to Russia, the USSR included 14 republics and there was a planned distribution economy, and after 30 years the world economy did not stand still GDP of the whole world was growing.

            And I don't argue with that. The fact itself is important. And the conclusion is that the less funds, the more thoughtful the costs should be.
    5. mik193
      mik193 12 March 2021 17: 55
      0
      we will never be able to fight at sea on equal terms with anyone, and minimize investments in this matter, investing instead in strategies of guaranteed retaliation and maneuvering forces, that is, precisely in missiles and aircraft.
      I just want to sign: N.S. Khrushchev.
      Yes, fighting at sea will most likely have to be done in conditions of superiority of the enemy in manpower and equipment. The task is to weaken the enemy's blow as much as possible and inflict unacceptable losses on him. It is impossible to do this with missiles and aviation alone; only an integrated approach is needed.
      Who told you that the enemy will attack an open field, and not control centers, command posts, naval bases, etc.?
      And maybe I don't understand something, but why did everyone run up against the Tu-160? There are enough other missile carriers in naval aviation.
    6. Aag
      Aag 12 March 2021 19: 03
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      Maybe it's time for us to start thinking how we should, and not chasing chimeras?


      For example, accept that we will never be able to fight at sea on an equal footing with anyone, and minimize investments in this matter, investing instead in strategies of guaranteed retaliation and maneuvering forces, that is, in missiles and aircraft.

      And yet to start cutting a series of naval Tu-160Ms for a trillion rubles?


      Considering that the corvette, whose capabilities are insignificant, costs 15 lard, hitting the Tu-160 (by the way, what is so super expensive in it?) Look ridiculous.

      As for the submarines with nuclear missiles on board, their role against the background of normal Strategic Missile Forces is approximately zero, including because the submarine can simply not be reached at the right time. The silo-based complexes can give an answer almost automatically, in the event of a massive missile attack being detected. And mobile launchers are simply unrealistic to knock out everything at once due to their number and constant change of positions.

      Well, when writing scripts for a missile attack from submarines, the author should accept the obvious fact that if the United States wants to launch missiles from the Mediterranean Sea, or the Indian Ocean, they will do it, we can’t stop them, even with the Tu-160, or without. There is simply no physical ability to hold in every place from which a launch of the flotilla is possible, and any PLO has a chance of not completing the task. That is, again, it all comes down to whether we can detect the launch and launch a response, not to a submarine, but to enemy territory.

      At the same time, one must understand that mines and patrolling zones of mobile installations are not in cities, that is, the Americans will have to attack a mostly open field, but the response will go to their cities.

      I think I agree with most of your theses. I am embarrassed by your statement about the constant change of positions of the PGRK. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and is not foreseen for a number of reasons ...
      Comrade Timokhin is a good fellow in terms of popularizing problems, this cannot be taken away. (I read the final part of the article as a good detective, like N. Cherkashin in his youth). Klimov fights with the system (it can be different, pathetic, but in fact, right, for life of submariners!) Honor and praise to both.
      Only such problems, for sure, to varying degrees, have ripened in all types and branches of the RF troops (perhaps it is worth starting with the economy, political structure, - this is not about that now).
      I am glad about Alexander's lively reaction to articles, comments ... It is depressing that in the heat of the struggle with opponents, he himself sometimes slides down to their level: "if you think ...", "the level of thinking abilities ..." .I understand, it is difficult to communicate with some ...
      "Do not get involved in an argument with idiots. They will lower you to their level, there they have a clear advantage ..." - I do not remember where, but close to the text.
      So, to the article under discussion ... By the way, many thanks to the author (however, like Skomorokhov and Vorontsov, you can argue, you can and should!) For the article. Only the author (Timokhin), according to the above scheme, "rolls down" to the level of opponents: juggling with facts ("facts" -08.08.) ... Of course, I do not know what Timokhin knows for certain (and what he can afford to publish in the public domain ... But! In those areas to which I visited, directly close, and even now indirectly not far (Strategic Missile Forces), - the author has "inconsistencies", distortion of facts, - (launching an ICBM "along a flat trajectory" from a submarine, a strike on the 29th rd (Irkutsk) from the Pacific Ocean .. That is, in this part of the article we nullify the activities of reconnaissance, air defense, missile defense, videoconferencing, but we are actively pressing on the same flaws of opponents in the same positions .... ???
      Once again I call on all the "local" ones to respect ... there are young people who are undecided, but, in part, with their ambitions, understanding of life ... So let us, at least for them, show an example of a constructive, mutually respectful dialogue on vital topics ?!
    7. bk0010
      bk0010 12 March 2021 21: 07
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      Considering that the corvette, whose capabilities are insignificant, costs 15 lard, hitting the Tu-160 (by the way, what is so super expensive in it?) Look ridiculous.
      Corvette solves the PLO problem. How do you want to solve it cheaper? The task of hitting ships can be solved cheaper and more efficiently (at least on the Su-34).
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 12 March 2021 10: 28
    -3
    Let's ask R. Skomorokhov and A. Vorontsov a few questions.
    Questions about the availability of an appropriate level of military or military-technical education should be asked to the authors, even before a decision is made, about posting the corresponding article on VO. And this is the responsibility of the VO editorial board. The porridge should be cooked by the cook, and the boots should be sewn by the shoemaker.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 11: 34
      +6
      Questions about the availability of an appropriate level of military or military-technical education should be asked to the authors, even before a decision is made, about posting the corresponding article on VO.


      Then you will just watch advertising banners. The question is to understand what you are writing about. It is not necessary to be able to lift a missile carrier into the air to write about its existence.
      There is simply no need to fantasize.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 12 March 2021 10: 31
    +4
    It is clear that the reduction in funding for the fleet raises concerns, but the author showed an alternative in the face of aviation, which is several times cheaper and longer-range ships in the Black Sea direction.
  • Vladimir Alekseevich
    Vladimir Alekseevich 12 March 2021 10: 54
    0
    The fleet is certainly needed. Do not outsource naval operations to China :)
  • Foul skeptic
    Foul skeptic 12 March 2021 11: 01
    -3
    Civilians are prohibited from discussing such things on the basis of the new article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Insult to the honor of the Armed Forces"

    There are some suspicions that there is no such article.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 11: 32
      +1
      Did you understand the meaning of what you read?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 12 March 2021 11: 44
        +4
        Aaa, I apologize, it is you fantasies describing what will happen.
        Then I'm wrong in my claim
      3. Niko
        Niko 12 March 2021 12: 52
        0
        There are really enough people who don't read very well
    2. mik193
      mik193 12 March 2021 11: 32
      +2
      Not yet. And then ... who knows ...
  • Undecim
    Undecim 12 March 2021 11: 41
    +14
    On the pages of VO - Skomorokhov's megafight against Timokhin. At stake is the belt of the "Fleet Commander of the Voennoye Obozreniye" site. The rivals held the first round.
    Both authors boldly use fantastic options far from reality in their tactical constructions.
    Skomorokhov is going to sink submarines from a supersonic strategic bomber.
    Timokhin is going to wave a pen to the captains of Japanese tankers and deprive Japan of oil by "raiding fleet operations."
    Ideas are equivalent to the extent possible and effective.
    Looking forward to the next round.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 11: 53
      -2
      Ideas are equivalent to the extent possible and effective.


      And what is the technical problem with looming in front of the tanker?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 12 March 2021 11: 58
        +11
        There is no problem to get lost. The problem is why and in front of whom.
        Counter question - Are you really sure that the oil consumed by Japan is transported by Japanese tankers flying the Japanese flag?
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 12: 03
          -2
          What's the difference, there are the same on the arena for years, if you hurry in advance, then at least a third of traffic to Japan can be predicted. Japanese tankers sail too. Remember the unclear whose blow on two tankers in 2019.
          Moreover, if we are talking not about a real blockade, but about a demonstration of intentions, without real actions against the vessel, then no matter where this Japanese tanker goes, the hint will be understood unambiguously.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 12 March 2021 12: 15
            +14
            What a difference
            What's the difference? In response to your "demonstration of intent" the captain of a Panamanian flagged tanker will show you the most important American finger and move on. Are you going to drown the neutral?
            And there is no doubt that they will understand the hint, and after a very short period of time you will hint under the careful supervision of the Japanese ships and the ships of their allies. They also have something to hint.
            Are we going to revive auxiliary cruisers?
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 March 2021 12: 17
              -4
              What's the difference? In response to your "demonstration of intent" the captain of a Panamanian flagged tanker will show you the most important American finger and move on. Are you going to drown the neutral?


              Drown? !!!! Yes, even during the war, I will simply deploy them and that's it.
              And before the war - only MAY. No aggressive action.

              And there is no doubt that they will understand the hint, and after a very short period of time you will hint under the careful supervision of the Japanese ships and the ships of their allies. They also have something to hint.


              Well, let's see who turns it off first, right?
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 12 March 2021 13: 04
                +5
                Yes, I will just unfold them even during the war
                Zinovy ​​Petrovich to help you.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  12 March 2021 18: 21
                  -1
                  Surely.
                  But we have a fresher example, the quasi-blockade of Mariupol, for example.
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 12 March 2021 18: 36
                    +5
                    quasi-blockade of Mariupol
                    An outstanding naval operation, especially given the mighty Ukrainian Navy.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      13 March 2021 00: 12
                      0
                      The question is that the result was achieved without the removal of the courts at all.
              2. Aag
                Aag 12 March 2021 21: 22
                +1
                So, you are complaining that there are not enough "scrappers" ...
                Probably so, but not only in the Navy!
                ... Perhaps, for all articles (((.
                Let's already look for a compromise.
                (The divine controversy is aware ...
              3. Firelake
                Firelake 15 March 2021 17: 58
                0
                I'm waiting in the news that after a collision with a tanker, the battle ship will sink))))
                Well, you are serious, right?)
          2. Silhouette
            Silhouette 12 March 2021 17: 50
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Remember the unclear whose blow on two tankers in 2019.

            Propose to trample? Or terrorize the Japs? .... Kindergarten, pants with straps.
      2. Sergey Kulikov_3
        Sergey Kulikov_3 12 March 2021 16: 31
        +3
        Why "loom" in the event of a conflict? Do you think an attack on ports and oil refineries is not humane, in case of a conflict !? Why catch tankers !?
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 18: 20
          0
          loom before the conflict. Let the enemy understand that his home theater will not be limited, and that there will be many surprises.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 12 March 2021 11: 42
    -11%
    On March 2030, XNUMX, the Columbia, whose commander had already read the combat order by this time, floated up for a communication session.

    On March 2030, XNUMX, the Columbia, whose commander had already read the combat order by this time, floated up for a communication session. But the near-earth satellite constellation did not get in touch. The companions were silent. The commander gave the order to release the drone. After a while, through an unmanned periscope, he saw a blood-red glow in the sky. Through the glow, the full moon was barely visible, a piece of which had already been eaten away a little by the terminator's line. The moon was crimson and surrounded by a luminous ring that distorted the line of the lunar terminator beyond recognition. The lunar seas became like the empty eye sockets of a human skull .. The sky suddenly lit up with a luminous line. It was the trail from Zircon flying to the boat. It was in vain that the submarine was given this name, it is unfortunate, the commander of Columbia managed to think. He did not have time to make a wish.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 11: 53
      +4
      Yes, you have to get a job at Izvestia!
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 12 March 2021 20: 13
        0
        Farmer kids in Kentucky and Oklahoma hate this deployment. He stinks of graveyard.

        And far, far away
        somewhere out there in Oklahoma
        photo of son
        dropped her hand ..
      2. Ugochaves
        Ugochaves 13 March 2021 15: 43
        0
        As it is not consistent with you.
        You yourself offered to write the ending, you proposed a fantasy, or do you Wang and know the future?
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 13 March 2021 00: 16
      +1
      Quote: Svetlana
      the commander of which by this moment had already familiarized himself with the combat order,

      He got familiar with it, but apparently missed lectures on tactics in Anapolis bully And in vain ...
      1. Why float up for a communication session if there is a buoy (float) antenna for this?
      2. The satellite does not communicate. These are repeaters ...
      3. Why did he release the UAV? Decided to discover yourself?
      4. An unmanned periscope? ... - No, I didn't! Commander - took, Survey (navigation with an artificial horizon) - took ... Unmanned - did not take!
      5. And did the Zircons from the RCC urgently get retrained in the PLUR? Well, tady - OH! laughing
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 13 March 2021 10: 36
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The satellites do not get in touch. These are repeaters ...

        The structure of artificial intelligence (AI), issuing instructions - has a distributed structure, just like the Internet. This means that the failure of a part of the structure's elements will not affect its functionality, it will only lead to a slowdown in work. Part of the distributed AI structure is also located on satellites - repeaters. In this context, satellites, as part of the AI ​​structure, are communicating. To deprive the nuclear submarine of communications, it is necessary to eliminate not some of the structural elements, but the entire system of "repeaters".
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        An unmanned periscope? ... - No, I didn't! Commander - took, Survey (navigation with an artificial horizon) - took ... Unmanned - did not take!

        Think of a submarine deployed unmanned vehicle as a flying periscope capable of greatly expanding the range of capabilities of our submarines,
        Rear Admiral Blake Converse, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Submarine Force, said in a statement last year
        see https://topwar.ru/180755-letajuschij-periskop-i-drugie-zadachi-podlodki-vms-ssha-osnastjat-bespilotnikami-blackwing.html
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And did the Zircons from the RCC urgently get retrained in the PLUR? Well, tady - OH!

        For a prompt response, it is desirable to have a PLUR in a hypersonic design. Target designators (after the failure of satellites of the Liana system) can serve as unmanned thermal airships


        Their working height is 10..20 km, speed is 400..800 km / h. At altitude, the air is rarefied, there is little resistance, so such speeds
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 13 March 2021 10: 59
          0
          Quote: Svetlana
          Consider deployed on a submarine unmanned vehicle like a flying periscope

          Nope, let's consider the UAV as a flying VIDEO CAMERA, because even a non-penetrating periscope is connected to the OVL boat, and not a radio link that can be jammed by the JV. The admiral spoke with a certain degree of tolerance, designing the TELE ("farsighted") function on the TLU, which in this case is the UAV. By analogy, the admiral could call the FLYING periscope and the E-2C Hawkeye. He, too, can broadcast the image on the TV channel to NK and other consumers ... laughing
        2. Svetlana
          Svetlana 15 March 2021 07: 56
          0
          One of the options for calculating the parameters of a thermal disk airship:

          The shape of the shell can be optimized (to achieve maximum buoyancy, or maximum speed). The closer the shape to the ball, the greater the lifting Archimedean force at a fixed thermal power (due to a decrease in heat loss through the shell surface), but the lower the achievable speed (the ball is less streamlined than an oblate ellipsoid of revolution) see http://aerodriving.ru / teplobal
      2. Ugochaves
        Ugochaves 13 March 2021 15: 48
        +1
        Well, you are so strict, these are fantasies about what will happen in 2030
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 12 March 2021 12: 06
    +4
    So does Russia need a strong fleet?
    And galactic cruisers, and space marines, and the army of clones - everything is needed. Where is the more pressing question "can Russia afford a strong fleet?"
    In the current situation, aviation looks much more preferable. And the option with the Tu-160 as a carrier of anti-ship missiles does not look so crazy, for this everything is already there, you just need to finish the software.
    But fantasies about the war with Turkey and the blockade of Japan are just something)
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 12: 13
      0
      And the option with the Tu-160 as a carrier of anti-ship missiles does not look so crazy, for this everything is already there, you just need to finish the software.


      How are you not ashamed to show yourself after this?
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 12 March 2021 12: 21
        0
        How are you not ashamed to show yourself after this?
        To breed demagoguery is not a big deal.
        Especially if they are not able to explain how the launch of cruise missiles with the seeker differs from the launch of the same cruise missiles, but without the seeker.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 12: 34
          +2
          The fact that there must be a system on board that will convert the signal from the aircraft's radar into machine data that the rocket "understands" and writes them into memory.
          Where is she in Tu160? Nowhere, missions for missiles are being prepared on the ground for several days.
          1. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 12 March 2021 12: 47
            -2
            What the hell is an airplane radar when an over-the-horizon launch of an anti-ship missile system?
            This is the first.
            Secondly, "the system that will convert the signal from the aircraft's radar into machine data that the rocket understands to write them into memory" will weigh 200 grams or less.
            de she in Tu160? Nowhere, missions for missiles are being prepared on the ground for several days.
            Because the avionics of aircraft are at the level of the middle of the last century. If a country cannot properly modernize strategic aircraft made of analog iron in digital form, what kind of rivalry with the West can we talk about?
            1. timokhin-aa
              12 March 2021 13: 02
              +3
              What the hell is an airplane radar when an over-the-horizon launch of an anti-ship missile system?


              And with over-the-horizon, a target designator is needed, which, having detected a target, will transmit this data to the bomber, and this process will be performed, but not according to the signals from its radar, but according to signals from the reconnaissance.
              Otherwise, everything is the same.

              If a country has strategic aircraft made of analog iron into digital it is normal to modernize


              This is not about that, but about the fact that there is no system for the formation and transmission of the central control system for the Tu-160 to the missile.
              And for the "over-the-horizon launch" and anti-ship missiles, no.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 12 March 2021 21: 24
                -4
                This is not about that, but about the fact that there is no system for the formation and transmission of the central control system for the Tu-160 to the missile. Doing it now won't be a problem. "And for the" over-the-horizon launch "and anti-ship missiles, no". And that X 32, Dagger and Zircon are not over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 12 March 2021 12: 11
    -3
    Alexander Timokhin writes "This is not an 'old concept', but a current one. It's like a requirement to combine the front sight and rear sight when firing from an open sight - well, there is no other concept of shooting, and it cannot be with such sights. Or you can compare it with an attempt to permanently cancel shooting chain as an infantry battle formation. And what, it’s old, more than a century and a half? But there is no other battle formation for the open area, although everything did not fit like a wedge on the chain, of course. " .... read it again and think about this nonsense! learn how to think and read or go back to kindergarten = nursery group .... Where have you seen infantry attacking in a chain in the 21st century? you also remember about the psychic attack about the grenadiers walking in a slender square at the enemy ... and Timokhin is not right about the rear sight ... now it is a whole electronic tag in an electronic sight, informationally connected with a terrain map embedded in a computer, satellite navigation, sensors wind and the power of the sun bending a cannon ... and more often not a cannon, but a rocket. While Timokhin and Udavka and his minions dreamed of surface monsters, the world changed slightly. No one is moving in formation, everyone is hiding, the rocket launcher must escape in a minute after the shot, otherwise it is destroyed. the infantry rarely sticks out, otherwise it will be destroyed. Now the information age, means of destruction are an order of magnitude more effective than means of protection, and the main thing is the ability to disguise, hide, and the ability to strike a blow so as not to be unmasked. In this obvious situation, conversations about the performance characteristics of surface ships, about their transfer not only through the straits (tsushima, for example), but simply about their passage across the oceans, these are empty words, they will be sunk no matter what their displacement and size of cabins have performance characteristics, (and especially These "sailors" are so afraid of pitching that they can't even understand how one can not be afraid of it, and they think that only those who have not experienced it are not afraid ... 1135 is not enough for them, learn from the fishermen! in the seas and respect the real men of the rookies. I personally have storms on smaller ships, and I know what it is.). So it's not just the concepts of Udavka and Timokhin that are outdated .. the very concept of linear combat and, as a consequence, the very concept of an attack surface ship! ... Nk can carry out anti-submarine warfare exclusively in the coastal zone to protect coastal assets with some means of self-defense. they are not for a linear battle, especially in the conditions of the BF Black Sea Fleet of the Sea of ​​Japan, where the opponents have enough coastal means of destruction .... minus for the truth sit on an aircraft carrier and "sail" somewhere in war conditions as your ideological leader adm. Rozhdestvensky, after all, you know "swam." Maybe the Japs will all scatter like hares from your greatness, the absence of pitching and the size of your vessel ... and never once will they fire a rocket ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 12: 37
      +4
      read it again and think about this nonsense! learn how to think and read or go back to kindergarten = nursery group .... Where have you seen infantry attacking in a chain in the 21st century?




      United States Marine Corps, 2016.
      Any comment on bullshit?

      and especially these "sailors" are so afraid of pitching that they cannot even understand how it is possible not to be afraid of it, and they think that only those who have not experienced it are not afraid ... 1135 is not enough for them, learn from the fishermen! appreciate the size of the seiners and the time they are in the seas and respect the real men of the salagi. I personally have storms on smaller ships, and I know what it is.


      Former naval officer doesn't know how pitching limits the ability to use weapons? What a twist!

      The rest is too lazy to comment.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 12 March 2021 12: 39
        -7
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Former naval officer doesn't know how pitching limits the ability to use weapons?

        are you talking about the cannons on the EBR, huh? ... but haven't tried missiles
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 13: 03
          +4
          No, I'm talking about missiles and torpedoes.
        2. mik193
          mik193 12 March 2021 17: 27
          +1
          Excuse me, but there is still a parameter "seaworthiness by arms"?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 March 2021 21: 06
            -2
            Quote: mik193
            "seaworthiness in arms"

            your statement is meaningless! it is clear that the pitching on a motorized rubber boat interferes with targeting with a gun ... but here there is a specific conversation of adult officers ... namely, are there any obstacles to the use of weapons by a frigate with a displacement of 3000 tons according to Beaufort points, so if you claim that the frigate 1135 has such restrictions, then give the documents that describe it, a list of weapons and restrictions for each, ... otherwise, on the blue gas, the combat capability of half of the world navies was canceled ... and you can't even give a single figure
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 12 March 2021 12: 46
        -5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        United States Marine Corps, 2016.
        Any comment on bullshit?

        that's just nonsense, everyone knows the low training of the US infantry, and shooting at a target from 10 meters, the main difference between your photo and reality is that there is no enemy on it, if they had an enemy nearby, they would not be standing, but lying with lay somewhere far away in trenches and bushes, or better in bunkers made of concrete, and for pissed incompetent, unfired journalists, you can walk in a chain, they all eat up and even cite this nonsense as an "argument", to me
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 13: 04
          +9
          that's just nonsense, everyone knows the low training of the US infantry, and shooting at a target from 10 meters


          600 from an open sight is the norm. How hello simple.
          Stop writing fairy tales.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 12 March 2021 21: 04
          -4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          if they had an enemy nearby, they would not stand, but lay somewhere far away in trenches and bushes, and preferably in concrete bunkers, but for pissed incompetent, unfired journalists

          I think your educational program for this illiterate journalist is not in the forage, because he cannot understand that the photo shows the shitty TACTICAL training of the US Marines, but it does not at all reflect the planning of operations at the level of formations and the involvement of interacting structures with infantry units. It is enough for a military specialist to glance at his photo and understand that this is a showy bullshit, but people like Timokhin experience a military orgasm from them, as was the case with Lieutenant Dub in the famous work:
          Second lieutenant Dub had a glimpse of hope that at last he would be able to bring Schweik to court-martial for treacherous anti-militarist propaganda, and therefore he quickly asked:
          - So you think that a soldier should throw cartridges or bayonets so that they lie somewhere in the ravine, like over there?
          “No, by no means, mister lieutenant,” replied Schweik, smiling pleasantly, “if you please look over there, down at this abandoned iron chamber pot.
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 March 2021 21: 25
            0
            I think your educational program for this illiterate journalist is not in the forage, because he cannot understand that the photo shows the shitty TACTICAL training of the US Marines, but it does not at all reflect the planning of operations at the level of formations and the involvement of interacting structures with infantry units.


            Crazy ensign, but nothing, that the question was about the shooting chain?
      3. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 12 March 2021 21: 33
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Former Navy officer

        If he were such, he probably would have known that the word "salagi" has not been used in the Navy for a long time.
      4. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 13 March 2021 01: 21
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Former Navy officer

        AA, do not flatter yourself about BURATINO.
        He is not an officer, otherwise he would have known that the weapon has a limitation in pitching angles ...
        (This is elementary, Watson! (C)
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 13 March 2021 01: 16
      +4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Bye, Timokhin and the stranglehold and his henchmen ... respect real men, rookies.

      Dear, who were you all the same on 1155 !? bully
      In vain did you go over to personalities and direct insult to people who know a little more on the topic than you, who
      personally storms and on smaller ships
      ... But still - BURATINO!
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 12 March 2021 12: 16
    -2
    Yes, every sofa expert and strategist of the whole universe on VO knows that it is necessary to screw in Sarmat on every rubber boat and then everything will be buzzing.))))
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 12: 38
      +1
      No, only you know, this is a joke from your head. Personal innovation.
      1. evgen1221
        evgen1221 12 March 2021 14: 09
        +4
        Funny, but funny. That's just how often the answers to some questions on VO end in exactly this way - bang yao.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 18: 18
          0
          Well, yes, there is.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 15 March 2021 18: 24
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Corvette with a rational composition of radio-technical weapons and weapons - 18.
            and they are ?! It seems even 20380, has long stepped over 23 ... but with a rational composition of weapons at the same time ?! No. how to be ?! request ... according to your (and Klimov's) statements, their real competitor (11664!), was hopelessly hacked to death by OSK, in collusion with the top manager of AK Bars, without pushing the development of Zelenodolsk PKB ?!
  • ccsr
    ccsr 12 March 2021 12: 19
    -5
    I do not want to seriously discuss the fantasies of the authors of that article and the counter-arguments of the journalist Timokhin, but I note that Skomorokhov is absolutely right, believing that for us the tendency to reduce the fleet and build ships of a smaller class is relevant, because "stretch your legs over your clothes." As for the construction of 50 Tu-160 units, then apparently Vorontsov does not quite adequately assess the situation in our armed forces, taking the figure from the ceiling. And the transfer of them to the fleet is generally on the verge of reasonable - the navy does not even have such a culture to serve these missile carriers, i.e. you will have to create your own infrastructure, etc.
    So in general, as I wrote earlier, the article by Skomorokhov and Vorontsov as a whole correctly reflects our future trends in naval construction, which the journalist Timokhin does not understand at all.
    For example, for his counterargument, he writes:
    The Columbia's salvo will cover the 60th Missile Division and the base at Engels about three times faster than the Russian counter-strike team. No early warning system will help them, they simply will not have time to react, the flight time of the Columbia missiles is less than 10 minutes. But the volleys from a single "Columbia" were "feeble".

    This illiterate specialist does not at all understand what the scenario of a future war will be, and even his reference to the EWS data, as a starting point, best of all says that for him the scenario of a future war is just a dark forest.
    I will calm him down, because before the missiles from "Columbia" reach Engels, several Tu-160 aircraft will already be in the air, or are at other airfields. But the point is not in these planes, but in the fact that even before the Columbia launches and the missiles reach Engels, a massive attack by our Strategic Missile Forces will fall on US territory, and they know about it. That is why their military specialists, in contrast to the propagandist Timokhin, realistically assess our capabilities of a first strike, and therefore will try in every possible way to avoid the uncertainty of the situation. Timokhin apparently does not know that we notified about any launch of strategic missile technology at least a month after 1972. Now there is some uncertainty in the contracts, but as far as I understand, this order has been preserved. Moreover, it is still customary to notify in advance about the training and exercises of the nuclear triad.
    So, what kind of start from Columbia can Timokhin be talking about, if the addition of American nuclear submarines to sea in excess of the usual is already a sign that an urgent need to activate intelligence forces and take measures to prepare the armed forces for a possible nuclear war.
    All other writings of Timokhin do not deserve attention to be seriously analyzed - the level of military knowledge of this writing journalist is too primitive.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 12: 39
      +4
      So, what kind of start from Columbia can Timokhin be talking about, if the addition of American nuclear submarines to sea in excess of the usual is already a sign that an urgent need to activate intelligence forces and take measures to prepare the armed forces for a possible nuclear war.


      Yes, at least become active.
      Looking for something than them, these boats?
      And what will the increased combat readiness give you in such a situation?

      You feel drunken delirium, as usual.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 12 March 2021 13: 21
        -6
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Looking for something than them, these boats?

        For sure Timokhin is illiterate - by the combination of intelligence and analysis of the current situation, we can ourselves be the first to carry out an attack on the territory of the United States, and what will happen there later with some kind of submarine in this situation, our military leadership does not really care.
        Timokhin apparently does not know how to understand what is hidden behind Putin's words:
        "Today, the American nuclear doctrine records the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to the use of non-nuclear weapons. At the same time, the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons are not specified at all. And Russia is declared as the main military adversary," the Russian leader stated.


        Since we do not know how the Americans will use nuclear weapons against us, then in a crisis situation we ourselves will be the first to use nuclear weapons. Even in a group of forces, the commander could personally decide to use operational-tactical nuclear weapons:

        It remained to give a signal and everything rushed. Everything is ready, the shells are in the tanks, it remains to shove into the barrel and forward. They would have burned everything, they would have destroyed everything there. Military facilities, I do not mean cities. I often met with the chairman of the NATO military committee, Klaus Naumann. He once asks me: "I saw the plans of the GDR army, which you approved. Why didn't you start the offensive?" We tried to collect these plans, but someone hid it, made copies. And Naumann agreed with our calculation that we should be in the English Channel within a week. I say: "We are not aggressors, why are we going to attack you? We always expected you to start first." So they explained it. We cannot say that we should have started first.
        - So you were preparing for the war in the early 1980s?
        - We didn’t just prepare, but we were ready! Marshal Ogarkov created four
        strategic directions for guiding an offensive war. The western was in the Polish Legnica, and then in Smolensk, the south-western in Kishinev, in Baku there was the southern, in Ulan-Ude, the Far Eastern, Chinese. Hungary (Southern grouping) was in the same direction with the Kiev and Odessa districts. We had to smash southern Europe, including Italy. The General Staff has these plans, these samples may someday be needed, everything is thought out there, although it is necessary to clarify.
        - Was the use of nuclear weapons planned?
        -- Of course.
        - Would we hit first?
        -- Of course.
        - Foreign Minister Gromyko repeated that the USSR would not be the first to use nuclear weapons.
        - He said one thing, but the military had other thoughts. We must be responsible for the war.

        - Isn't the political leadership responsible for this?
        - The political leadership of Gorbachev and others betrayed the Union. They were bought in America.
        - How did you buy it? They didn't give a bribe to their pocket.

        Read more: https://lv.sputniknews.ru/Russia/20201111/14656937/Putin-rasskazal-o-pervom-udare-i-vozmozhnosti-primeneniya-yadernogo-oruzhiya-Rossiey.html
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And what will the increased combat readiness give you in such a situation?

        Journalists who have not served in the army will never understand this.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 18: 17
          +2
          It is for sure that Timokhin is illiterate - by the combination of intelligence and analysis of the current situation, we can ourselves be the first to carry out an attack on the territory of the United States,


          The ensign suffered.
          The whole world is in ruin!
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 12 March 2021 12: 20
    +6

    1.Turkey can have a larger fleet in its "own" region than the Russian Federation, with a smaller naval ...
    ...
    That is, cited by the authors arguments are not logically related... There is a so-called "imaginary logical connection", and it is repeated many times.


    Strictly speaking, arguments and should not be linked logically between themselves... They must support the thesis. Example:
    1) the plane is made of aluminum;
    2) the resource base of Siberia began to be developed only in the 60s.

    Is there a logical connection? Not. But as arguments for the thesis: "the loss of Ukraine in the first months of the war put the Soviet aviation industry in front of the problem of the lack of aluminum" both work. And it is precisely the thesis that connects them logically.

    We have an aggravation with Turkey (again). And we are transferring to the western Mediterranean ...
    ...
    According to the authors, this aggravates the "problem of disunity of forces."
    To be honest, it's just not clear what you can answer to this. There is a logically incoherent statement, a set of letters. How can you answer a set of letters?


    Not really. After all, the authors proceed from the fact that the funds you have listed are not a kind of "strategic reserve of the Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief." That they were previously used in other fleets to solve operational problems. And their transfer to Wed. the sea will weaken those fleets from which they are withdrawn. After all, let's be fair, whenever it comes to large ships, we are convinced that "there should be one aircraft carriers for the fleet and plus one in reserve." Arguing that the transfer of large ships between fleets is not rational. This means that by collecting the Mediterranean squadron, we weaken other fleets, deprive them of key (aircraft carrier) combat units. The same thing about the "nose and tail" in one place became stronger, in another weakened. There is logic.


    The question is - what will be the result of communicating to Japanese decision-makers that at the first aggravation of the military situation around the Kuriles, tankers with Japanese oil from the Persian Gulf will no longer enter Japan? Temporarily, of course.
    .
    Maybe the Japanese will ask the US to intervene?

    Not. Rather, this will lead to the fact that the Japanese oppose our ships in the Persian Gulf with their own. And they will be based on the bases of the US Navy. And there will be a race situation in the number of pennants. In which we will forced remove ships from other fleets, while the situation of inequality of forces in the Far East will remain unchanged.

    By the way, a question to the authors, which is cheaper: to build 50 Tu-160Ms or to drive the Grigorovich and Essen to the Persian Gulf and wave handkerchiefs to the Japanese tanker captains from the bridge even before it all started? Interesting question, huh?

    That's a really good question. Taking into account the fact that now these authors already have a logical substitution. Build new the plane is certainly more expensive than drive ready ship. And which is more expensive: to drive a ready-made naval strategist or a ready-made ship? Considering that the passage of the Grigorovich to the Persian Gulf is a week's journey as part of a group of ships, and a strategist's flight under favorable conditions (an agreement with Iran) is a maximum of a day?
    Well, really, since we started with logic, let's not play with it. :)

    It is difficult to say how much it will cost to develop a fundamentally new avionics for the Tu-160, test it, ensure the use of buoys, etc. And "under it" you need missiles (especially anti-submarine airborne ones), crew members (one pilot or navigator with the rank of lieutenant - many tens of millions of rubles for training), bases for these aircraft ...

    It's like that. BUT! We have been told many times that the Russian fleet needs blood from its nose to modernize its aviation component. And there is simply no platform for an anti-submarine aircraft today. Tu-204, of course, fits, but knowing how wooden our "admirals" are, I strongly doubt that someone will make new sides especially for the Navy.
    And the Tu-160M ​​can become real universal platform, as once was the Tu-95.


    Is it a lot or a little? Let's estimate. One aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40–45 kT is 370–400 billion. Corvette with a rational composition of radio-technical weapons and weapons - 18.
    Specialized naval base strike aircraft in the Su-34 glider, with crew training - about 3 billion. The maximum is 4.

    Yes, but why, reasoning logically about the complex of problems in the development of the Tu-160 PLO, the authors forget about the complex of problems in the development of an aircraft carrier? For example, the problem of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. Which generally need to be done from scratch.
    Yes, and the "sea" Su-34, though very desirable, but still a project. Which has no movement. Yes, the Su-34F regiment is four dozen Onyxes in a salvo. But where are these Su-34Fs? Admirals now, with their usual stubbornness, are buying the Su-30, and there is no need to attach a heavy anti-ship missile to it. Is that in a very lightweight version and one, that is, 20 missiles in a salvo.
    And for the Su-34F, the same submarine search complexes and a new specific radar are needed.

    And the Japanese will not have their own aviation there. They will have to secretly negotiate with someone. With those who are not afraid to receive "Calibres" at oil terminals (with the excuse that they were the Houthis). Or to their bases in Iraq (on behalf of the local Shiites). And these prospects may well be. And communicated to the right people.

    Why covertly? They can OPEN with the USA. And those within the framework of "ensuring freedom of navigation" will provide Japanese aviation with sites at their bases. The US Air Force has bases in Qatar and the UAE, Oman and the SA. And I assure you, the US citizens will not give a damn about the danger for the host countries "to receive" Calibers "at oil terminals." They have shale oil in a coma, oil 200 each will give it an unprecedented impulse in development.
    I want to remind you that Japan is the official military ally of the United States.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 March 2021 12: 59
      +2
      Quote: abc_alex
      That's a really good question. Taking into account the fact that now these authors already have a logical substitution. Building a new plane is, of course, more expensive than driving a finished ship. And which is more expensive: to drive a ready-made naval strategist or a ready-made ship? Considering that the passage of the Grigorovich to the Persian Gulf is a week's journey as part of a group of ships, and a strategist's flight under favorable conditions (an agreement with Iran) is a maximum of a day?
      Well, really, since we started with logic, let's not play with it. :)

      I also want to add that Grigorovich will not reach at all if he is sunk along the way, and the TU160 may even return to the base many times ... these supporters of surface monsters and art duels in the spirit of the 17th century with a pitching interfering with aiming ... like their ideological Leader Rozhdestvensky consider an enemy who is a fool who does not see an enemy ship and humbly awaits when it will come and join ... neither in the Bosphorus on the Suez Canal nor in the Indian Ocean will they drown it? let it drip? tongue
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 12 March 2021 12: 24
    +2

    There are two practical algorithms for using anti-ship missiles from aircraft against ships. The first is with the target capture of the missile seeker while still on the carrier.
    This is how our MRA was supposed to work.

    Correctly. Because aviation anti-ship missiles are not developing properly. The admirals, with their characteristic "perspicacity", obviously believed that they would buy from the Germans not only motors for their ships, but also missiles for aircraft. The aviation version of Onyx was announced along with the ship version. But it never showed up. And the armament of the MRA Su-30 said that it would not appear. One missile for one plane is not an option that will justify the maintenance of an entire branch of the military. Tu-22M3 will not be produced, apparently, PAK DA has a strange concept, and the Su-34 did not look. Therefore, the criticized authors talk about the Tu-160M. They have no other poets for you ...

    When creating missiles and reconnaissance and target designation systems capable of providing the second option, the question arises, why shouldn't these anti-ship missiles simply be dropped from the retrofitted Il-76?

    As I understand it, this will be PAK YES. But reconnaissance means and missiles are needed for him too. Do they exist, or do they not? :)

    In the meantime, the US has a breakdown in the global trading system in dollars. The oil dollar and similar cycles in other areas of world trade no longer work the way they used to. World trade is increasingly going under China. Africa trades in yuan. And the United States can no longer maintain a negative trade surplus of a trillion dollars, as it has been for many years in a row. And this is a disaster, a freebie in ¼ of the annual federal budget cannot disappear without really grave consequences. This cannot be allowed.

    Let us suppose...
    He must be forced to surrender and driven back into the stall of the dollar trade. But how? He has a Russian support behind him. As a military ally, Russia is no longer "very good." But the Chinese, firstly, are calm about their rear. Secondly, they know that if something happens, then because of Russia they will not be able to completely block them.

    Controversial. If Africa trades in yuan, China itself has resources comparable to the United States. Including the naval and the defeat of Russia, it will most likely lead to consolidation within China, and most importantly - panic on the stock exchanges, which UNIVERSE will not lead to an increase in the dollar, because the probability of getting 10 warheads in New York is real, and this is kirdyk to Walt Street. And the Russians will be able to land at least one missile on the United States for sure. The risk is colossal, and just as a means of strengthening the dollar, a nuclear war with Russia makes no sense. Even a retaliatory strike weakened by 10 times is 150 warheads on the territory of the United States. Even if all of them are no more than 100 Kt, these are 150 destroyed objects of the "city" type. This means the end of any dollar system in general. Rollback to the situation before 1947. And if a part of the BB goes to Britain and Germany, then this is generally the end of the exchange trading system. This means the localization of regional markets within local currencies.

    ... SSBN "Numberа[/ i] mbia "

    Was Christopher Columbus or Columbus?
    Christopher Columbus (Italian Cristoforo Colombo, Spanish Cristóbal Colón, Latin Christophorus Columbus). In Russian, the name of the state is translated as Kolу[i] mbia. Just like Paris is translated as Paris.

    Readers are invited to fantasize about how such a story could end.

    A disaster for the US economy and state. The retaliatory strike will not be on boats and ships, but on the territory of the United States. This will plunge the States, if not into the Stone Age, then into the state of the middle of the 20th century for sure. There will be no "financial empire" left. The dollars will be used as a kindling for stoves, and the yuan will become the world currency. The only world currency. And this despite the fact that China, looking at the US lawlessness, will not crack across the United States in pursuit of its nuclear arsenal. For the sake of guarantees. For if the cowboys once showed inadequacy, then waiting for them to give birth to a new nuclear missile strike is simply stupid. While the US boats with empty missile silos, China will finally finish off the US, and at the same time will resolve the issue with Japan.

    This I mean that the question of striking Russia for the United States is not a question of the superiority of the fleet. This is the question impossibilities get the desired result.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 12 March 2021 12: 25
    +2

    1.Turkey can have a larger fleet in its "own" region than the Russian Federation, with a smaller naval ...
    ...
    That is, cited by the authors arguments are not logically related... There is a so-called "imaginary logical connection", and it is repeated many times.


    Strictly speaking, arguments and should not be linked logically between themselves... They must support the thesis. Example:
    1) the plane is made of aluminum;
    2) the resource base of Siberia began to be developed only in the 60s.

    Is there a logical connection? Not. But as arguments for the thesis: "the loss of Ukraine in the first months of the war put the Soviet aviation industry in front of the problem of the lack of aluminum" both work. And it is precisely the thesis that connects them logically.

    We have an aggravation with Turkey (again). And we are transferring to the western Mediterranean ...
    ...
    According to the authors, this aggravates the "problem of disunity of forces."
    To be honest, it's just not clear what you can answer to this. There is a logically incoherent statement, a set of letters. How can you answer a set of letters?


    Not really. After all, the authors proceed from the fact that the funds you have listed are not a kind of "strategic reserve of the Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief." That they were previously used in other fleets to solve operational problems. And their transfer to Wed. the sea will weaken those fleets from which they are withdrawn. After all, let's be fair, whenever it comes to large ships, we are convinced that "there should be one aircraft carriers for the fleet and plus one in reserve." Arguing that the transfer of large ships between fleets is not rational. This means that by collecting the Mediterranean squadron, we weaken other fleets, deprive them of key (aircraft carrier) combat units. The same thing about the "nose and tail" in one place became stronger, in another weakened. There is logic.


    The question is - what will be the result of communicating to Japanese decision-makers that at the first aggravation of the military situation around the Kuriles, tankers with Japanese oil from the Persian Gulf will no longer enter Japan? Temporarily, of course.
    .
    Maybe the Japanese will ask the US to intervene?

    Not. Rather, this will lead to the fact that the Japanese oppose our ships in the Persian Gulf with their own. And they will be based on the bases of the US Navy. And there will be a race situation in the number of pennants. In which we will forced remove ships from other fleets, while the situation of inequality of forces in the Far East will remain unchanged.

    By the way, a question to the authors, which is cheaper: to build 50 Tu-160Ms or to drive the Grigorovich and Essen to the Persian Gulf and wave handkerchiefs to the Japanese tanker captains from the bridge even before it all started? Interesting question, huh?

    That's a really good question. Taking into account the fact that now these authors already have a logical substitution. Build new the plane is certainly more expensive than drive ready ship. And which is more expensive: to drive a ready-made naval strategist or a ready-made ship? Considering that the passage of the Grigorovich to the Persian Gulf is a week's journey as part of a group of ships, and a strategist's flight under favorable conditions (an agreement with Iran) is a maximum of a day?
    Well, really, since we started with logic, let's not play with it. :)

    It is difficult to say how much it will cost to develop a fundamentally new avionics for the Tu-160, test it, ensure the use of buoys, etc. And "under it" you need missiles (especially anti-submarine airborne ones), crew members (one pilot or navigator with the rank of lieutenant - many tens of millions of rubles for training), bases for these aircraft ...

    It's like that. BUT! We have been told many times that the Russian fleet needs blood from its nose to modernize its aviation component. And there is simply no platform for an anti-submarine aircraft today. Tu-204, of course, fits, but knowing how wooden our "admirals" are, I strongly doubt that someone will make new sides especially for the Navy.
    And the Tu-160M ​​can become real universal platform, as once was the Tu-95.


    Is it a lot or a little? Let's estimate. One aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40–45 kT is 370–400 billion. Corvette with a rational composition of radio-technical weapons and weapons - 18.
    Specialized naval base strike aircraft in the Su-34 glider, with crew training - about 3 billion. The maximum is 4.

    Yes, but why, reasoning logically about the complex of problems in the development of the Tu-160 PLO, the authors forget about the complex of problems in the development of an aircraft carrier? For example, the problem of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. Which generally need to be done from scratch.
    Yes, and the "sea" Su-34, though very desirable, but still a project. Which has no movement. Yes, the Su-34F regiment is four dozen Onyxes in a salvo. But where are these Su-34Fs? Admirals now, with their usual stubbornness, are buying the Su-30, and there is no need to attach a heavy anti-ship missile to it. Is that in a very lightweight version and one, that is, 20 missiles in a salvo.
    And for the Su-34F, the same submarine search complexes and a new specific radar are needed.

    And the Japanese will not have their own aviation there. They will have to secretly negotiate with someone. With those who are not afraid to receive "Calibres" at oil terminals (with the excuse that they were the Houthis). Or to their bases in Iraq (on behalf of the local Shiites). And these prospects may well be. And communicated to the right people.

    Why covertly? They can OPEN with the USA. And those within the framework of "ensuring freedom of navigation" will provide Japanese aviation with sites at their bases. The US Air Force has bases in Qatar and the UAE, Oman and the SA. And I assure you, the US citizens will not give a damn about the danger for the host countries "to receive" Calibers "at oil terminals." They have shale oil in a coma, oil 200 each will give it an unprecedented impulse in development.
    I want to remind you that Japan is the official military ally of the United States.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 12: 51
      -1
      I want to remind you that Japan is the official military ally of the United States.


      Not when Japan itself attacked another country.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 12 March 2021 13: 24
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Not when Japan itself attacked another country.

        Stop fantasizing - while American troops are in Japan, the decision to start a war can only take place with the consent of the US administration.
        1. timokhin-aa
          12 March 2021 18: 15
          -1
          The ensign guarantees this. He was notified from the Pentagon yesterday on the second pile.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 12 March 2021 20: 33
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The ensign guarantees this. He was notified from the Pentagon yesterday on the second pile.

            An illiterate journalist is not even aware of the 1951 Treaty, so he is talking nonsense as always:
            The treaty provided the United States with the right to establish military bases and station an unlimited number of armed forces on Japanese territory as for "ensuring the security of Japan from an armed attack from outside" and for "suppressing major internal riots and disorders." He limited Japan's sovereignty, prohibiting it from entering into any agreements of a military nature with third powers without the prior consent of the United States.
            .... It is the Japan Self-Defense Forces, under the leadership of the US administration played a special role during the Cold War.

            And how can the Self-Defense Forces start a war without the leadership of the United States - tell the verbiage.
            1. SVD68
              SVD68 13 March 2021 04: 33
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              And how can the Self-Defense Forces start a war without the leadership of the United States - tell the verbiage.

              Well, what's the connection between the US war clearance for Japan and the US war over Japan? It is well known that fighting with someone else's hands is more pleasant. The United States blesses Japan to go to war with Russia, but will not fight for Japan. How they did not fight for Georgia and do not want to fight for Ukraine.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 13 March 2021 16: 34
                0
                Quote: SVD68
                The United States blesses Japan to go to war with Russia, but will not fight for Japan.

                As you really imagine, if there are American bases on the territory of Japan, maneuvers are carried out, exercises and the United States will instantly be drawn into the war. Therefore, the Americans are well aware that they will become hostages and will never allow this.
                Quote: SVD68
                How they did not fight for Georgia and do not want to fight for Ukraine.

                There are no American bases and no military treaties - this is a fundamental difference.
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 12 March 2021 13: 31
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Not when Japan itself attacked another country.

        And she will not just attack. From the point of view of international law, it will ensure freedom of navigation in the world's oceans. Formally, there will be no reason not to help. Moreover, an attempt to stop the movement of tankers will be considered piracy. They will be unambiguously accused, and they will impose sanctions. Or then declare war on Japan.
        I understand your point, and even approve of the logic of Japan's coercion, but there is no need to oversimplify the situation. In the worst scenario for us, Japanese tankers will begin to sail accompanied by international convoys of NATO countries.
        1. SVD68
          SVD68 13 March 2021 04: 37
          0
          Quote: abc_alex
          ... From the point of view of international law, it will ensure freedom of navigation in the world's oceans.

          No, from the point of view of international law, cargo for a belligerent on neutral ships can be seized by another belligerent.
  • DMi
    DMi 12 March 2021 12: 31
    +5
    When firing a flat ICBM tractor from the conventional Columbia, you will have to fly through the common air defense zones. With banal S-400, S-300 and interceptors on duty. Of course, they will chew snot and wait for signals from the General Staff to shoot down unidentified missiles. Absolutely indestructible target) in a straight line without electronic warfare and 4 pieces in a volley) Something the author plays along and pushes himself along. Truth is nothing, your personal Ego is everything.
    1. timokhin-aa
      12 March 2021 12: 42
      +1
      Well, how do you knock down a target with a speed of more than 10000 km / h and a flight height of several tens of kilometers? In some areas, the S-400 could, but only with a zero parameter in the forehead.
      Will she be there?

      You wrote the garbage, not to intercept such a blow.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 12 March 2021 13: 03
        -4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, how do you knock down a target with a speed of more than 10000 km / h and a flight height of several tens of kilometers? In some areas, the S-400 could, but only with a zero parameter in the forehead.
        Will she be there?

        Wait, first of all, are you sure that a sea-based ICBM is generally capable of flying in the atmosphere at that speed? Not to fly out of the atmosphere, namely to fly in it? Air resistance, heating, lateral g-forces ... It's one thing to bring an object into near space, and another to go all the way in the dense layers of the atmosphere. And how is keeping the course on the route carried out in this case?
        And by the way, on this route, too, the trajectory will remain ballistic; the ICBM cannot maneuver in the atmosphere.
        To intercept such missiles, you can use the Yudol anti-missile system. There, of course, there is a nuclear warhead, about once such a booze went ...