Military Review

On the exercises in the United States worked out "strike on Russia" with stealth missiles

112

The US Air Force and Lockheed Martin demonstrated the effectiveness of the new concept of a massive missile attack Rapid Dragon during maneuvers that took place in August this year. During exercises in the United States, they worked out a "strike on Russia" with stealth missiles.


This is reported by the American Internet publication The Drive.

Pallets with AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles during tests were thrown by parachutes from the cargo compartments of EC-130J Super J and C-17A Globemaster III aircraft. Thus, according to the Lockheed Martin company, almost any more or less roomy aircraft can be used as a platform for cruise missiles. Pallets can significantly expand the strike capabilities of the US Air Force, which are now used for these purposes by fighters and strategic bombers. Thus, the United States will be able to launch missile strikes from more airfields and fire more missiles at the same time, which increases the possibility of hitting multiple targets.

In recent tests, the Americans used stealth missile counterparts. After release and stabilization in the air with the help of a parachute, the pallet released "surrogate" missiles, which are identical in aerodynamic properties to the AGM-158B. The maximum flight range of such missiles is 980 kilometers, which allows the aircraft to strike at the Russian Arctic and even reach part of Siberia without being in the affected area of ​​Russian air defense systems.

Pallets for missiles are planned to equip not only the US Air Force, but also to supply them for export, including to the American allies who do not have strategic bombers.


Photos used:
https://www.193sow.ang.af.mil/
112 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 1976AG
    1976AG 23 September 2021 10: 06
    0
    Well, if so, then in addition to transport workers, we will install our missiles in sea containers, and the containers can be crammed all over the world and let them try to determine where the usual container is, and where with a cruise missile.
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 23 September 2021 10: 09
      +6
      It was invented about 15 years ago.
      1. 1976AG
        1976AG 23 September 2021 10: 28
        -1
        Quote: Pereira
        It was invented about 15 years ago.

        I do not argue.
    2. Seryoga64
      Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 23
      -1
      Quote: 1976AG
      and the container can be crammed all over the world and let them try to determine where the usual container is, and where with a cruise missile.

      And no missiles will be enough to sink all transports in a row.
      Confused by this
      but also to supply them for export, including to the allies of the Americans who do not have strategic bombers.

      Oh, there are so many who wish. Psheks will be the first to stand in line
      1. 1976AG
        1976AG 23 September 2021 10: 29
        -2
        Quote: Seryoga64
        Quote: 1976AG
        and the container can be crammed all over the world and let them try to determine where the usual container is, and where with a cruise missile.

        And no missiles will be enough to sink all transports in a row.
        Confused by this
        but also to supply them for export, including to the allies of the Americans who do not have strategic bombers.

        Oh, there are so many who wish. Psheks will be the first to stand in line

        Export modifications are always limited to a range of 300 km.
        1. Seryoga64
          Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 33
          -1
          Quote: 1976AG
          Export modifications are always limited to a range of 300 km.

          This is also a lot
          1. 1976AG
            1976AG 23 September 2021 10: 35
            -1
            But it is incomparable with the range even of 1500 km, not to mention the greater.
            1. Seryoga64
              Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 39
              -3
              Quote: 1976AG
              But it is incomparable with the range even of 1500 km, not to mention the greater.

              Of course. Pshekia is nearby. They don't need 1500km
              1. 1976AG
                1976AG 23 September 2021 10: 44
                -6
                There are foreign missiles in Pshekia and they do not need to acquire ours. They won't even be allowed to line up for our missiles. Not matured yet.
                1. Seryoga64
                  Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 46
                  0
                  Quote: 1976AG
                  There are foreign missiles in Pshekia and they do not need to acquire ours. They won't even be allowed to line up for our missiles.

                  I said somewhere about OUR missiles? belay
                  1. 1976AG
                    1976AG 23 September 2021 10: 50
                    -6
                    Actually, I was talking about ours. But in any case, Pshekia is not Turkey, it will only have what Fashington will allow it, so it need not be discussed.
                    1. Seryoga64
                      Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 55
                      0
                      Quote: 1976AG
                      Actually, I was talking about ours.

                      So in the article about our missiles, not words request
                      What makes you think that I am going to say about the sale of our missiles pshekii?
                      she will only have what Fashington will allow her, so she need not be discussed.

                      Have you read the article? There it is written in white on black
                      It is planned to arm not only the US Air Force with missile pallets, but also to supply them for export, including to the allies of the Americans, not possessing strategic bombers.
                      1. 1976AG
                        1976AG 23 September 2021 11: 07
                        +1
                        Yes, sorry, my joint. After a day without sleep, attention is completely lost. I'll go to sleep better.
                      2. Seryoga64
                        Seryoga64 23 September 2021 11: 09
                        0
                        Quote: 1976AG
                        I'll go to sleep better.

                        Spocky smile hi
                  2. Petro_tut
                    Petro_tut 23 September 2021 10: 59
                    +1
                    I said somewhere about OUR missiles? belay

                    So the colleague is clearly from the United States, since their missiles laughing
                    1. Seryoga64
                      Seryoga64 23 September 2021 11: 02
                      0
                      Quote: Petro_tut
                      So the colleague is clearly from the United States, since their missiles

                      Thank you for the tip hi
                      I somehow did not realize laughing
                2. Petro_tut
                  Petro_tut 23 September 2021 10: 56
                  +1
                  In pshekia, other people's missiles are standing and they do not need to acquire ours.[i] [/ i] They won't even be allowed to line up for our missiles. Not matured yet.

                  Good comment from a colleague from the USA laughing
                  1. Seryoga64
                    Seryoga64 23 September 2021 11: 03
                    -1
                    Quote: Petro_tut
                    Good comment from a colleague from the USA

                    Gospydyayayayaya, already from there they climbed ... laughing
      2. lucul
        lucul 23 September 2021 10: 32
        -3
        Oh, there are so many who wish. Psheks will be the first to stand in line

        There are of course, but what's the point?
        How will they give target designation for 900 km for these missiles? No, the amers understandably have something, but other countries have something to issue target designation for 900 km to the target? )))
        1. Seryoga64
          Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 34
          -2
          Quote: lucul
          Do other countries have something to issue target designation for 900 km? )))

          Share your data
          1. lucul
            lucul 23 September 2021 10: 47
            -2
            Share your data

            For amers, the RQ-4 Global Hawk for $ 200 million is used for these purposes. And it is far from invulnerable, but the number one target when attacking, so you need a lot of them.
            I don't think the Americans will sacrifice their key weapons for the sake of the wasals.
            1. Seryoga64
              Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 50
              -3
              Quote: lucul
              I don't think the Americans will sacrifice their key weapons for the sake of the wasals.

              I mean that they will share the data on the targets, and the psheks will bring them into the rocket itself
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 23 September 2021 10: 53
          0
          This is for hitting stationary targets: headquarters, barracks, warehouses, bridges, etc.
          1. Seryoga64
            Seryoga64 23 September 2021 12: 00
            0
            Quote: Tlauicol
            This is for hitting stationary targets: headquarters, barracks, warehouses, bridges, etc.

            And who said that they would hit moving targets?
      3. letinant
        letinant 23 September 2021 10: 34
        +11
        The question is different, they just threw out the shelves with blanks, which fell right there on the ground. And now we are afraid of this ?! Falling out a rack of this design will light up on the radar like a searchlight in the night. And the situation will be like this. What will you think when on your radar screen, behind a transport plane, flares will go, either a landing party, or here. Plus to everything, even if at least once they actually start in combat mode, otherwise I have seen so many cartoons from them. And a paper glider for delivering supplies to the front line and a mule carrying platoon equipment and a self-loading mortar and an airborne tank. Where is it all !? Therefore, first real launches, then I will start to be afraid.
        1. Seryoga64
          Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 37
          0
          Quote: letinant
          ! Falling out a rack of this design will light up on the radar as a searchlight in the night

          So what?
          The maximum flight range of such missiles is 980 kilometers, which allows the aircraft to strike at the Russian Arctic and even reach part of Siberia. not being in the affected area of ​​the Russian air defense systems.
          1. letinant
            letinant 23 September 2021 11: 32
            +3
            The maximum flight range of such missiles is 980 kilometers, which allows the aircraft to strike at the Russian Arctic and even reach part of Siberia without being in the affected area of ​​Russian air defense systems.

            And then, the "Voronezh" radar will easily detect them, if not at 980 km, then at 500 km for sure. Moreover, 500 km from the location of the radar and not from the target of the missiles. Roughly speaking, the dump should take place near our border.
            1. Seryoga64
              Seryoga64 23 September 2021 11: 39
              -3
              Quote: letinant
              Otherwise, the Voronezh radar will easily detect them, if not at 980 km, then at 500 km for sure

              So it seems that the conversation is going on about the carrier. Well, I found it over 500 km, how to amaze? We do not seem to have an air defense system that hits such a distance
              1. letinant
                letinant 23 September 2021 11: 49
                +5
                So it seems that the conversation is going on about the carrier. Well, I found it over 500 km, how to amaze? We do not seem to have an air defense system that hits such a distance

                I admit the discharge occurred in the region of the North Pole. What objects can he reach with such a range? By the time the missiles approach, everything is ready "ONCE". Let's say from the territory of Ukraine, there are even more weapons. And the most interesting thing, I completely forgot. And you would not be alarmed if at least 20 transport planes took to the air and went to your borders. Personally, I tensed and put up barriers from fighters, AWACS, jammers before approaching. Well, just in case.
                1. Seryoga64
                  Seryoga64 23 September 2021 11: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: letinant
                  What objects can he reach with such a range? By the time the missiles approach, everything is ready "ONCE".

                  I have no idea what goals they will be directed to. And why the North Pole? Are there few goals in the European part of the Russian Federation?
                  Personally, I tensed and before approaching I set up screens of fighters,

                  And they went without cover? belay
                  And how many missiles each carrier carries. The strength is not enough to knock it all down. Moreover, which ton will often be aimed at the air defense themselves
                  1. letinant
                    letinant 23 September 2021 12: 14
                    +4
                    And they went without cover? belay
                    And how many missiles each carrier carries. The strength is not enough to knock it all down. Moreover, which ton will often be aimed at the air defense themselves

                    How many did it miss in Syria? 50%? Enough for the rest. An escort of fighters will strain even more. And you are generally considering a full-fledged war.
                    1. Seryoga64
                      Seryoga64 23 September 2021 12: 17
                      -3
                      Quote: letinant
                      And you are generally considering a full-fledged war.

                      Of course. What did you mean?
                      1. letinant
                        letinant 23 September 2021 12: 43
                        +3
                        Of course. What did you mean?

                        Now in more detail. What stage of the war are you talking about?
                        Initial: two types of development. 1. A surprise attack, the point is to do it as stealthily as possible. 2. To declare war, then naturally everyone will be on the ears.

                        The war is in full swing: there is no talk at all about the use of military vehicles as strike aircraft. 1. Losses of VTA are inevitable and taking into account that constant transportation of goods is necessary, I think no one will give you even one plane.

                        The end stage of the war: The parties suffered losses, one naturally more than the other. With the current state of the weapon. It is impossible to avoid strikes on your territory !!! The first targets are infrastructure, military and technological (factories, ports, shipyards, etc.). Modern technology does not make it possible to quickly replenish reserves. The construction of at least one S-130, this is at least 20 factories in the United States alone. And taking into account that they bring titanium for the chassis from Russia or China, it raises a big question about BTA!

                        Conclusion: taking into account that in the second stage of the war and the final enemy the enemy will most likely not be able to use it. The first stage remains, the initial one. Back to my question, WILL YOU TENSION WITH AT LEAST 20 AIRCRAFT TO YOUR BORDER? AND IF STILL WITH FIGHTERS?
                      2. Sailor
                        Sailor 23 September 2021 18: 46
                        +4
                        WILL YOU TENSION TO AT LEAST 20 AIRCRAFT TO YOUR BORDER? AND IF STILL WITH FIGHTERS?
                        hi
                        May I connect to your conversation?
                        On the VO there was an article about the bourgeois vision of an air attack on a serious enemy. There are several "waves":
                        1) seemingly on hypersonic means (as I understand it, decapitate, disarm and blind)
                        2) all sorts of cruise missiles and UAVs
                        3) conventional aviation with all sorts of wingmen should already finish off.
                        So, if, for example, for the 2nd wave they have additional hundreds of CDs, then this can be serious.
                        Correct if you misunderstood - the topic is interesting
                      3. letinant
                        letinant 23 September 2021 21: 39
                        +3
                        May I connect to your conversation?
                        On the VO there was an article about the bourgeois vision of an air attack on a serious enemy. There are several "waves":
                        1) seemingly on hypersonic means (as I understand it, decapitate, disarm and blind)
                        2) all sorts of cruise missiles and UAVs
                        3) conventional aviation with all sorts of wingmen should already finish off.
                        So, if, for example, for the 2nd wave they have additional hundreds of CDs, then this can be serious.
                        Correct if you misunderstood - the topic is interesting

                        Glad to see you.
                        Well, for starters, let's consider the real state of affairs and not fiction.
                        1. The United States and its allies do not have hypersonic missiles. We remove this item accordingly.
                        2. The massive use of UAVs or the delivery of airborne vehicles to bases will not go unnoticed. UAVs, due to flares and certain performance characteristics, will be noticed and identified.
                        3. Again, points 2 and 3 are connected here. Due to the certain way of basing the air forces of the NATO countries (bases, a large concentration of aviation), activity will be noticeable, which is characteristic of preparing for an attack. I'm not saying that we have spies everywhere, but in the modern world it is impossible to keep big secrets. There will be a blogger, eyewitness, etc. who will film and post it on the network. If you block the network in the preparation area, then this is a reason to pay attention to this territory. There are electronic warfare troops that see radio traffic, the frequency of requests to satellites, and many more ways to detect preparations for a conflict.

                        This method of striking is typical of covert operations. But this is easy to exclude, just to prohibit the BTA overflight over its territory. To be honest, I do not even imagine how to squeeze this garbage into modern warfare. Since at the very beginning of the conflict, the BTA aircraft must be loaded with reserves for their transportation to the theater of operations. And not to engage in "garbage" in the form of strengthening strategic aviation. And in general, they already had similar projects in the 1980s for reworking the Boeing 747. And even then they wrote a report that all transport aircraft, including civilian ones, were needed to transport supplies and personnel from the first day of the war.
                      4. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 23 September 2021 22: 05
                        +3
                        Given the total air superiority, there is no problem to change this means. In NATO, only its European members have ~ 1500 fighters, God forbid, we have 500. Not to mention AWACS and refuelers, there is a difference in tens of times. I emphasize, even without the United States. But this is the automatic start of a nuclear war, only this stops them.
                        However, it is worth considering this means mainly against China, for the Asia-Pacific region. They are actively preparing to fight there. These RCs can hit not only stationary objects, but also ships.
                      5. letinant
                        letinant 24 September 2021 00: 37
                        +3
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        Given the total air superiority, there is no problem to change this means. In NATO, only its European members have ~ 1500 fighters, God forbid, we have 500. Not to mention AWACS and refuelers, there is a difference in tens of times. I emphasize, even without the United States. But this is the automatic start of a nuclear war, only this stops them.
                        However, it is worth considering this means mainly against China, for the Asia-Pacific region. They are actively preparing to fight there. These RCs can hit not only stationary objects, but also ships.

                        AGM-158 in the required modification will be made in a quantity of 400 pieces. only by 2025. And what about fighters, AWACS, aircraft refuellers and the topic of the article? Or have you re-read Wikipedia? And about China, don't worry about them, they accompany each military plane. And in the case of China, this system is useless, I will also give you a hint and North Korea will bury this system. This system is for Gabon, where there is no modern radar field.
                      6. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 24 September 2021 00: 45
                        -1
                        Quote: letinant
                        And what about fighters, AWACS, aircraft refuellers and the topic of the article?

                        They always have to do with it. The use of such systems in isolation from the rest of the armed forces is impossible.
                        I'm not worried about China, their Air Force is already superior to our Aerospace Forces in all components.
                        North Korea poses no serious military threat. A backward, slave Army that will simply be destroyed following the example of Karabakh. Here behind her is China, which will not let the Kim regime fall.
                      7. letinant
                        letinant 24 September 2021 02: 47
                        0
                        They always have to do with it. The use of such systems in isolation from the rest of the armed forces is impossible.
                        I'm not worried about China, their Air Force is already superior to our Aerospace Forces in all components.
                        North Korea poses no serious military threat. A backward, slave Army that will simply be destroyed following the example of Karabakh. Here behind her is China, which will not let the Kim regime fall.

                        You are an ignorant person. Can't keep the topic of conversation. Living on templates. You do not know about the PRC aviation and do not know the potential of the DPRK. And you are not familiar with logic and have not read serious texts. For this, let me take my leave, this conversation has become boring to me.
                      8. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 24 September 2021 07: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: letinant
                        You do not know about the PRC aviation and do not know the potential of the DPRK.

                        wink
                      9. Sailor
                        Sailor 24 September 2021 00: 04
                        -1
                        1) According to open data, it is not yet available, but for now it is possible to put the conditional "Pershing-M" at this point - the threat of reducing the flight time after their rupture is considered by many to be real;
                        In terms of intelligence, it seems to be so, but you cannot underestimate these reptiles either: regular NATO exercises on a grand scale from sea to sea have become frequent (here whose intelligence will outplay).
                        Who knows what is on their minds - for the Papuans such CDs are expensive, so they have invented something for themselves? ))
                      10. letinant
                        letinant 24 September 2021 00: 22
                        +3
                        Quote: Seaman
                        1) According to open data, it is not yet available, but for now it is possible to put the conditional "Pershing-M" at this point - the threat of reducing the flight time after their rupture is considered by many to be real;
                        In terms of intelligence, it seems to be so, but you cannot underestimate these reptiles either: regular NATO exercises on a grand scale from sea to sea have become frequent (here whose intelligence will outplay).
                        Who knows what is on their minds - for the Papuans such CDs are expensive, so they have invented something for themselves? ))

                        The Pershing is a short-range ballistic missile as soon as it is detected. So you can immediately forget about all these complexes. A big mess will begin there and tanks, ships, planes will no longer be useful.
        2. lucul
          lucul 23 September 2021 10: 38
          +3
          The question is different, they just threw out the shelves with blanks, which fell right there on the ground.

          The question is in cost. They are going to overload the capabilities of our air defense with these stealth missiles. The question is in cost, why is this rocket cheaper than the same Tomahawk? And again, the issue of target designation, which is limited by the radio horizon.
          1. Kars
            Kars 23 September 2021 10: 42
            0
            Targeting by google maps. What is the problem. It is unlikely that they will shoot at moving targets.
            1. lucul
              lucul 23 September 2021 10: 50
              +2
              Targeting by google maps.

              +/- 200 meters? )))
              1. Kars
                Kars 23 September 2021 11: 13
                0
                It looks like the joke failed.
                Do you think there are no more accurate satellite maps?

                Reliefometric extreme correlation system
                1. lucul
                  lucul 23 September 2021 11: 37
                  +1
                  Do you think there are no more accurate satellite maps?

                  For more accurate satellite maps, repeater sensors located in Russia are required, and they were removed 10 years ago.
                  So the accuracy is +/- 200m.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 23 September 2021 12: 09
                    0
                    Relay sensors? For a satellite taking off from orbit? Not in the know about such technologies. I know that there are rockets in which it puts a map of the area along the route and a photo of the target, and it flies constantly checking.
            2. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 23 September 2021 10: 56
              +4
              Quote: Kars
              Targeting by google maps. What is the problem.

              Probably the fact that the GPS is jammed. request
          2. letinant
            letinant 23 September 2021 11: 42
            0
            The question is in cost. They are going to overload the capabilities of our air defense with these stealth missiles. The question is in cost, why is this rocket cheaper than the same Tomahawk? And again, the issue of target designation, which is limited by the radio horizon.

            Price 400 t. Green rubles.
            But then another question surfaced. Here nadybal in the net.
            As part of the combined guidance system, along with the thermal imaging seeker borrowed from the AGM-130 planning bomb (operating at the final guidance site), an inertial control system with correction according to the NAVSTAR ARS data and hardware and software for autonomous target recognition are used. To direct the missile at the target, correlation comparison algorithms for the detected object (targeting area) obtained in the IR range of the image are used with the reference signatures stored in the onboard computer, which also allows you to automatically select the optimal targeting point.

            When launching a rocket over a long range, the problem of transmitting information about the current location of the rocket arises. This information is necessary, in particular, to determine whether a missile hits a target. The existing design includes a BIA (Bomb Impact Assessment) type transmitter (Bomb Impact Assessment) and an antenna device on the rocket body, which transmit data to the strategic reconnaissance aircraft RC-25V and W at speeds up to 135 bps in the frequency range 9600-391.7 MHz.

            We need her RC-135.
          3. Seryoga64
            Seryoga64 23 September 2021 12: 15
            0
            Quote: lucul
            than this rocket is cheaper than the same Tomahawk?

            Yes, it's not about the price, but this
            "Blow to Russia" stealth missiles.

        3. t-12
          t-12 23 September 2021 10: 53
          -1
          a rack of this design will light up on the radar like a searchlight in the night
          If the rack is not metal, but composite, then it will not light up.

          Target designation for stationary targets (radars, airfields, power plants) is not needed; enough inertial navigation + video cameras with pattern recognition (at the end site).
          1. lucul
            lucul 23 September 2021 11: 51
            +1
            If the rack is not metal, but composite, then it will not light up.

            In fact, flocks of ducks shine on radars, but they are certainly not metal)))
            1. t-12
              t-12 23 September 2021 12: 09
              -1
              Water glows in the ducks, of which 70% of the ducks' body consists. Weather / lightning radars work on the same principle.

              And the plastic is radio-transparent.
              1. lucul
                lucul 23 September 2021 12: 20
                -1
                Water glows in ducks, which makes up 70% of the body of ducks.

                Ie, the radar does not work in the rain, right? )))
      4. Machito
        Machito 23 September 2021 10: 50
        +1
        And how is target designation carried out for cruise missiles dropped from a transport plane? Transport workers do not have AFAR. It turns out that you have to use external target designation, which is not so reliable. In the event of a global nuclear attack, the idea can and does make some sense. Although a bunch of slowly flying transports accompanied by fighters can be easily spotted and can launch a counter-preemptive strike even before the transports arrive at a cruise missile salvo range. In general, the next Zamvolt turns out.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 23 September 2021 22: 03
          +2
          For CDs flying over land, external target designation is not required.
          They have in their memory photographs of the area. And inertial for
          general check. And a photo of the target object.

          External target designation is needed for long-range anti-ship missiles.
    3. Petro_tut
      Petro_tut 23 September 2021 10: 49
      -6
      Well, if so, then in addition to transport workers, we will install our missiles in sea containers, and the containers can be crammed all over the world and let them try to determine where the usual container is, and where with a cruise missile.

      BEZVOZMEZDNY THAT BE A FREE, your containers on the Comflot will not be lucky, and if they are lucky, then it is not a fact that on top of other containers, so leave wet dreams for the sofa laughing ,
      1. Seryoga64
        Seryoga64 23 September 2021 11: 41
        +1
        Quote: Petro_tut
        your containers on the Comflot, no one is lucky,

        Our lucky
        1. Petro_tut
          Petro_tut 24 September 2021 16: 05
          -1
          Our lucky

          Yeah, and then they will unload it anywhere in South Korea, so the Koreans will open their mouths in surprise laughing
          It is immediately clear that the comment was written by people far from logistics. laughing
          Open the site of the "transcontainer" And you will see where that floats, I think the idea of ​​loading containers on ships after it will fall off, the times when the ships of the Country of Soviets, by the decision of the party and the Ministry of Defense, plowed the waters of the world's oceans "sunk into oblivion"
    4. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 23 September 2021 10: 50
      0
      we will install our missiles in sea containers, and containers can be crammed all over the world

      And after the very first incident with the discovery of a cruise missile carrier disguised as a merchant ship, let's say goodbye to the opportunity to conduct international maritime trade. "Great plan", which is already there;)
    5. JD1979
      JD1979 23 September 2021 10: 55
      -2
      And, I can 15 times a day))) try to determine whether I am lying or not?))) The problem is that it is simple to say, but to make it harder. And the topic of containers has remained a topic. But the Americans are making an absolutely working scheme, and also very cheap.
  2. Pereira
    Pereira 23 September 2021 10: 08
    +4
    I have been voicing this idea for several years. And I was regularly ridiculed. What will the strategists say now?
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 23 September 2021 10: 12
      +1
      Quote: Pereira
      I have been voicing this idea for several years. And I was regularly ridiculed. What will the strategists say now?

      the Americans heard you ... (my humble opinion is the idea is so-so, such a touch, you need to get to the launch zone, and this is possible only in the complete absence of air defense)
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 23 September 2021 11: 25
        -2
        Launch from your territory. That's the whole trick.
    2. Seryoga64
      Seryoga64 23 September 2021 10: 24
      0
      Quote: Pereira
      What will the strategists say now?

      The exact opposite
      Well, or they will remain silent
    3. Fredgar Puzix Jr.
      Fredgar Puzix Jr. 23 September 2021 10: 52
      +1
      Great Pereira, I did not laugh at you, we are waiting for your next idea!
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 23 September 2021 11: 27
        +1
        Thanks. Another idea is to use balloons as carriers of air defense missiles + over-the-horizon radar. Not to be confused with the WWII Zepellins.
    4. Petro_tut
      Petro_tut 24 September 2021 16: 07
      0
      I have been voicing this idea for several years. And I was regularly ridiculed. What will the strategists say now?


      Open the site of the "transcontainer" And you will see where that floats, I think the idea of ​​loading containers onto ships afterwards will fall off by itself, the times when the ships of the Country of the Soviets, by the decision of the party and the Ministry of Defense, plowed the waters of the world's oceans "sunk into oblivion"
  3. Nafanya from the sofa
    Nafanya from the sofa 23 September 2021 10: 16
    +5
    This is reported by the American Internet publication The Drive.

    And let us write in the Internet edition "Voennoye Obozreniye" that our sausages have developed such a system that when it is turned on, all unmanned aerial vehicles are instantly re-aimed at the Pentagon and the White House.
    Well, like "We have such devices
    But we will not tell you about them.
    Scuba divers are good "
    1. Cheshire
      Cheshire 23 September 2021 10: 20
      0
      Quote: Nafanya from the couch
      And let us write in the Internet edition "Voennoye Obozreniye" that our sausages have developed such a system that when it is turned on, all unmanned aerial vehicles are instantly re-aimed at the Pentagon and the White House.
      Well, like "We have such devices

      Do not fire the office), you know what they read there.
      bully
    2. JD1979
      JD1979 23 September 2021 11: 21
      0
      Quote: Nafanya from the couch
      we will write that our specialists have developed such a system

      Site manager ... damn, after watching videos on the tundra from Thornide, this word honestly causes rzhach, although it seems like nothing like that)))

      Nothing 18+ in the videos, just cool failes from the game))
      1. Nafanya from the sofa
        Nafanya from the sofa 23 September 2021 12: 18
        +2
        In general, "sausages and sausages" will be correct. But I was ashamed. repeat
  4. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 23 September 2021 10: 17
    0
    From the side of the Arctic Ocean, these missiles have not yet reached the launching areas of our ICBMs with a range of 980 km. It is not for nothing that we are restoring airfields in the Arctic, acting ahead of the curve. We will meet these Hercules over the North Pole, and maybe even further.
  5. lwxx
    lwxx 23 September 2021 10: 18
    +4
    They are not shy about talking about a strike against Russia. So ours should speak directly about a preemptive strike against the United States and Great Britain. That is to say, let their inhabitants feel all the charm of the talking shop of the tops. They will start building bomb shelters, etc. And then all the partners, decision-making centers. No, direct strikes on the aggressor countries and their allies.
    1. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 23 September 2021 10: 56
      +2
      They are not shy about talking about the beat

      The article refers to The Drive. Which is just a private media outlet. And therefore expresses exclusively the opinion of his editorial staff and correspondents.
      By the way, I found the original source
      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42469/our-best-look-yet-at-rapid-dragon-cargo-plane-launched-stealth-cruise-missiles-in-action
      and in it I did not find anything about "a strike on Russia."
      1. lwxx
        lwxx 23 September 2021 11: 09
        0
        “Rapid Dragon, which you can read in detail about here, is based on the use of existing airliners as“ weapon trucks. ”This, in turn, is intended to offer a way to increase the number of available retaliatory weapons, which could be useful if the United The states will find themselves in a state of war, for example, with China or Russia. "As you can see, Russia is mentioned in passing. Although you are right, our authors have already done it.
        1. Terran ghost
          Terran ghost 23 September 2021 11: 19
          0
          Only there are not airliners, but airlifters - that is, military transport aircraft.
          But my question is more about the norms of the START-3 treaty. Doesn't the possibility of launching cruise missiles from military transport aircraft actually turn them into strategic bombers?
          1. lwxx
            lwxx 23 September 2021 12: 08
            -1
            recourse as well as our "container transportation" probably also raise questions.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 23 September 2021 10: 18
    +1
    During exercises in the United States, they worked out a "strike on Russia" with stealth missiles.
    And yet, they officially announced that they are training in an attack on another vigorous power, or is this again a translation problem?
    Explanations that everything is clear anyway ... not interesting, we also have a lot of things they say, all sorts of different and I even agree with them in many ways, BUT EVERYTHING! How exactly was it announced?
    1. t-12
      t-12 23 September 2021 11: 08
      0
      This, in turn, is intended to offer a way of boosting the amount of available standoff strike assets, an expedient that might prove beneficial if the United States were to find itself at war with China or Russia, for example.

      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42469/our-best-look-yet-at-rapid-dragon-cargo-plane-launched-stealth-cruise-missiles-in-action
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 23 September 2021 11: 51
        0
        Confrontation between powers possessing weapons of mass destruction, in sufficient numbers, only not military, not direct. Now it is. We do not know the future, it is not worth guessing.
    2. Nemestnyi
      Nemestnyi 23 September 2021 13: 45
      +1
      Not even the problem of translation, but the problem of wanting furious headlines on VO.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 23 September 2021 13: 59
        0
        At the expense of headlines, it's everywhere, practically.
        The times when the headline was at least some kind of expression of the essence, the thought that was traced in the article, alas, alas, is now in the past, too often.
  7. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2021 10: 19
    -4
    A dangerous system. And the S-400 won't save you from it.

    We need air defense systems similar to the Jewish Iron Dome with spaced-apart modules - a separate launcher, a separate radar, and, as an option, a separate OLS and a separate command post.

    We need an air defense system to repel the name of a massive raid of cruise missiles and is resistant to enemy fire.
    1. alstr
      alstr 23 September 2021 10: 37
      0
      Actually, all the s-300/400/500 systems were created exactly according to this scheme.
      There is a command post and there are fire divisions, which also have their own radar for both search and guidance (moreover, separate antenna elements are used for guidance).
      Moreover, now all new air defense systems provide for the receipt of external target designation (even for portable systems there are control panels).

      There can only be a question about the cost and complexity of missiles and the sufficiency of target channels.
      In the end, there is an option to return to nuclear air defense missiles.
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2021 14: 57
        -2
        The S-400 will ruin the country if it is used to destroy cruise missiles, and it will not reflect a massive launch in any way due to its small b / c.

        The task of the S-400/500 airspace control is the destruction of satellites, ballistic missiles and targets such as a transport aircraft / fighter.

        And cruise missiles should shoot down complexes with cheaper missiles.

        We need an analogue of the Iron Dome so that it can hit with relatively inexpensive anti-missile missiles like a machine gun, can work in passive mode and the people who control it are away from the launcher and radar, so that if such a complex is detected and attacked, it will not suffer.

        Ideally, for one command post it was possible to connect and put into operation additional launchers and radars and OLS.

        And all this can be done on the basis of small trailers that you could yearn for Tigers.

        Then we will build a real barrier against a massive missile attack.

        In the meantime, even Israel with a couple of dozen missiles pierces the air defense of Syria, consisting of our air defense systems, despite the fact that the direction of the attack is usually known.

        What happens if we are attacked on sheep or China with hundreds of missiles? Yes, we won't even be able to cover Moscow for a long time, the missiles for the S-400 will run out, and the TOPs and Armor are being knocked out together with the crews. Not the first attack so the tenth.
        1. alstr
          alstr 23 September 2021 15: 06
          +1
          First, the purpose of the S-400 and S-500 is different. The S-400 is more air defense, and the S-500 is more missile defense.
          But both have the task of destroying the CD.
          Secondly, I wrote:
          “There can only be a question about the cost and complexity of missiles and the sufficiency of target channels.
          In the end, there is an option to return to nuclear air defense missiles "

          Thirdly, the s-400/500 has the task of covering OBJECTS, not themselves. To cover the complexes, other complexes should be used - Armor, TOP, etc.
          And here they will have cheap rockets.

          And to the question of what will happen if hundreds of missiles are launched, there is only one answer - a nuclear war.
          And from the point of view of defense, a nuclear air defense missile will suffice (by the way, such a missile was designed for the S-300).
          I launched such a rocket and there are no missiles within a radius of a couple of tens of kilometers - what does not throw off the actual explosion will die from EMP ..
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2021 15: 32
            -2
            Of course, they can shoot down the S-400/500 cruise missile, only the zenith of the missiles of our air defense systems is significantly more expensive and there are fewer of them.

            And to the question of what will happen if hundreds of missiles are launched, there is only one answer - a nuclear war.


            Jews in 1982 smashed to smithereens 19 Soviet air defense divisions in Syria.

            Did a nuclear war start then? No!!!

            So how did you decide that it will start now?

            And out in the news - Saudi Arabia wants to buy an Iron Dome from Israel to repel missile attacks, but nothing has been heard about the S-400.
            1. alstr
              alstr 23 September 2021 16: 19
              0
              Once again, the S-400s are calmly shot down by the CD. And the price does not matter in comparison with the price of the object.

              And mind you Israel worked in Syria, not Russia. Any massive attack on the Russian Federation is a nuclear war.
              1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2021 21: 27
                0
                The price of the zenith of the rocket matters, since we will not make many expensive missiles, but they have already made thousands of cruise missiles and will make more, and there will be hundreds of them for each of our complexes.

                As a result, our air defense systems will not be able to repel a massive missile attack.
                1. alstr
                  alstr 24 September 2021 10: 10
                  0
                  A nuclear anti-aircraft missile will help very much or a missile with an EMP defeat.
                  Plus, do not forget the electronic warfare and camouflage equipment. After all, the main thing is not that the missiles do not fly, but that they do not hit the target.
                  1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                    Ratmir_Ryazan 24 September 2021 11: 03
                    -1
                    Stop talking nonsense about nuclear anti-aircraft missiles !!!

                    These anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads were invented in the USSR to repel massive bombing raids, which can be detected hundreds of kilometers from the front and destroyed by an air nuclear explosion, the territory is not exposed to nuclear contamination, but its troops are affected by the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion.

                    With cruise missiles, everything is different, they fly very low above the ground and the air defense system will detect an approaching enemy cruise missile, or rather a swarm of them a few kilometers from its position at best! How are you going to use nuclear anti-aircraft missiles under such conditions ?! You will destroy your position together with the protected object, and you will also get radioactive contamination of the area, since the detonation of nuclear weapons at an altitude of 20-30 meters, consider a ground explosion, with all the ensuing consequences - thermal radiation, shock wave, electromagnetic pulse, penetrating radiation and radioactive contamination terrain !!!

                    In fact, what you are proposing here (repelling a massive attack of cruise missiles with nuclear anti-aircraft missiles) is SELF-EXECUTION !!!

                    Live in the real world, not the fantasy. And in the real world, countries using cruise missiles confidently defeat those countries that use Soviet / Russian air defense systems, examples of Yugoslavia, Syria, Armenia are not enough for you?

                    The number of missiles in one attack will only grow, and therefore we need our own analogue of the Iron Dome, modular, with several spaced apart launchers, command and control stations and radars to work in a passive mode, and also an OES.
                    1. Bootstrap
                      Bootstrap 24 September 2021 12: 28
                      0
                      Let me insert my 5 kopecks into your dialogue .. OGRLS sees the plane on the take-off run. I think "surprises" are out of the question here. All of these are BUT sub-vocal rockets BEFORE. While they fly 1000 km, Washington can be glazed 3 times.
                      Yes, and have already landed "super smart" rockets in the sandbox ... Trump will not let you lie.
                      So what for, but for the air defense you can be calm. But this is for now ..
                      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                        Ratmir_Ryazan 24 September 2021 15: 12
                        0
                        The punched reinforced concrete fortifications and the damaged aircraft in them indicate that at least some of the missiles during the attack on the airfield in Syria reached their target.

                        That is, even an attack of 64 missiles was not completely neutralized by either the electronic warfare system, the S-400, or the Pantsiri.

                        It's time to think about how and how to repel more massive attacks that will come in waves from cruise missiles to our positions.

                        We need a new air defense system against exactly such a threat, something like the Iron Dome, multiply charged, with spaced modules.

                        Israel uses missiles with an active seeker, so firing from it is not cheap, we could make a combined launcher to use the same missiles from the Pantsir and some other missiles with active seeker.

                        And what we have will not withstand a massive missile attack.
                    2. alstr
                      alstr 24 September 2021 13: 49
                      0
                      First, there are no problems with launching and controlled detonation.
                      Let me just remind you that the S-300/400 can shoot at stationary ground targets.
                      Just by the beam. Yes, and fired the missiles and forgot to eat.

                      Secondly, it is possible to undermine and at an altitude of 1-2 km, tk. all the same, the swarm (namely, at it and you need to shoot such missiles)) will be swept away by a shock wave or EMP.

                      Thirdly, for such missiles it will be enough and only an EMP explosion, tk. due to their size, they cannot have serious barriers to counter EMP.

                      Fourthly, it will not be suicide for the reason that the meeting point can also be obtained outside the Russian Federation, since the launch range will be more than 500 km, then it is quite possible to meet a CD wave at a distance of 300-400 km.
                      There will be such a pleasant surprise for Sweden and Finland. Or Poland.

                      Yes, there will be an infection, but the damage will not be as great as from the CD wave.
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 23 September 2021 11: 09
      0
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      We need an air defense system to repel the name of a massive raid of cruise missiles and is resistant to enemy fire.

      can we buy from the Syrians? wassat their air defense has completely repelled the massive attacks with cruise missiles ... oh yes ... I completely forgot ... the Syrians have our air defense in the export version and thinner in organization and experience ... bully
      What would you like? Do you have an order to cry or advertise their "supersystem" against water pipes from the Jews? what
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2021 15: 03
        -2
        Where and what has Syria reflected there? Israel bombs them as it wants and also shows the defeat of our air defense systems later on YouTube.

        So far, we have more or less normal relations with them, so they did not destroy so many complexes, but they showed that they could, but would like, they flew out in dozens of planes from different directions, they would attack the Syrian ones and our objects would fire a volley of 150 200 missiles and would mix our air defense systems with sand, and the base in Khmeinim would be turned into ruins along with all the aircraft there.

        We need a SAM-machine gun, like the Jewish Iron Dome. It is obvious.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 23 September 2021 18: 12
          0
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          Where and what has Syria reflected there? Israel bombs them as it wants and also shows the defeat of our air defense systems later on YouTube.

          yes you! belay and here is the last time a massive blow modern missiles on the territory of Syria ended in zilch. The air defense of the Syrians repulsed the attack. after that, Israel switched to the Palestinians, who have no air defense at all. it seems a bit expensive modern ammunition so to waste ...
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          We need a SAM-machine gun, like the Jewish Iron Dome. It is obvious.

          but the Palestinians have shown that this "machine gun" breaks through the water pipes filled with gunpowder! or did you miss it? and you propose to invest resources in such a useless thing? garbage that, not only cannot cope with modern maneuvering missiles, but does not protect even the most primitive ones ... bully
  8. Two
    Two 23 September 2021 10: 31
    0
    According to the principle of "a thousand cuts", it is necessary to charge, in broad American circles, the idea that any sheet rolled into a tube becomes an instantaneous missile of multifunctional action. The kind of filling is unpredictable. Stop diarrhea!
  9. sen
    sen 23 September 2021 10: 41
    +2
    Nothing fundamentally new. Forty-seven years ago, in October 1974, an experimental launch of the Minuteman-5 ICBM was carried out in the United States from the C-1A military transport aircraft.
    https://topwar.ru/65707-vozdushnyy-start-mbr-40-let-spustya.html
    If missiles can be launched so safely, then the question becomes. Why do you need a B-21? Our Tu-160 has a higher speed.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 23 September 2021 15: 05
      0
      The B-21 is needed for the first attack - the destruction of air defense facilities, and then hundreds, and maybe thousands, of missiles will be poured from the transporters until the enemy hangs out the white flag.
  10. zwlad
    zwlad 23 September 2021 10: 58
    +1
    the effectiveness of the new concept of massive missile attack Rapid Dragon during maneuvers

    Cool, of course, but Putin has long warned the West that missiles with nuclear warheads will fly in response.
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 23 September 2021 11: 36
    0
    An arsenal plane makes sense for some kind of operation.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 23 September 2021 11: 42
    0
    In fact, the possibility of using the CD by "transport workers" was also considered in the USSR ... Some types of "transport workers" were supposed to be equipped so that, if necessary, the CD could be used .. But whether it came to practice, I don't remember ...
  13. YOUR
    YOUR 23 September 2021 11: 50
    0
    War of the cartoons.
    Both we and they in those distant times practiced launches of ICBMs from transport aircraft. Then we agreed, tk. these weapons are practically very, very difficult to track, like our "nuclear trains", all development has been discontinued
  14. pomor23
    pomor23 23 September 2021 13: 45
    0
    "The maximum flight range of such missiles is 980 kilometers, which allows the aircraft to strike at the Russian Arctic and even reach part of Siberia without being in the affected area of ​​the Russian air defense systems." ))) Lord, what are the same ...... !!! Even if we assume that everything is so, and even some of the missiles will reach the Russian Arctic and cause us some damage, that the Americans seriously believe that if we do not reach their delivery vehicles, then how would it be? Throw missiles to the Arctic and won? And Russia immediately surrendered and did not answer ??? Yes, the answer will be immediately and global, from all the trunks, the whole world to dust and, this time no jokes! Why then carry this heresy? Yes, let them drop over California!
  15. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 23 September 2021 14: 41
    -1
    They have already tried them with axes in Syria; Well go ahead laughing
  16. Maikcg
    Maikcg 23 September 2021 16: 47
    0
    almost any more or less roomy aircraft can be used as a platform for cruise missiles

    Shoot them all down. The Lord will distinguish his (s) Arnold Amalric, papal legate
  17. Alex_Rarog
    Alex_Rarog 23 September 2021 17: 31
    0
    27 missiles per plane is dofig. It would be nice for ours to develop a similar scheme ... I think there would be 36 of them in Ruslan for sure ...
  18. Adimius38
    Adimius38 23 September 2021 19: 13
    0
    A cool concept, a really ordinary transport can become a sheer nightmare for the enemy
  19. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 23 September 2021 22: 54
    0
    Quote: letinant
    all transport aviation, including civil aviation, is needed to transport supplies and personnel from the first day of the war

    It depends on how much this BTA. For this task, they can afford to buy a hundred new transport aircraft and a thousand missiles.
    The whole thing in the cost price is definitely cheaper than launching these missiles by strategic aviation or information security, which can carry them. This means that for a sharp increase in the mass of a blow - it is quite a suitable remedy. MRAU in a perfect idea.