In the American press: Strategic missile carriers B-1B Lancer can send the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom

For some time now, the Western edition of Forbes decided to engage not only in economic analytics, but also in an attempt to consider military issues. Moreover, often this kind of consideration is associated with rather provocative materials from the author David Ax, who previously worked in another American media.

The next Forbes publication examines the appearance of strategic bombers near the borders of Russia. We are talking about the US Air Force B-1B Lancer missile carriers, which fly over the waters of the Baltic and Black Seas.

The aforementioned American observer writes that a pair of B-1B Lancer strategic bombers are capable of destroying the Russian Baltic fleet by firing 48 long-range anti-ship missiles at the ships. The officially announced range of aircraft-based LRASM-A missiles is about 800 km.

David Ax:

The use of such a number of missiles makes it possible to send both the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom. This eliminates the main threat to both US ships and the fleets of US allies in the Eastern European region.

The American author writes that the range of LRASM missiles makes it possible to carry out attacks on ships in the waters of the Black and Baltic Seas "from practically any point in the airspace, without entering the zone of operation of the Russian air defense."

If we are guided by the logic of the American observer, then Russian strategic missile carriers are capable of destroying any US fleet at its base, and without using their nuclear arsenal. Or is it a taboo for American observers to consider the “reverse effect”? ..

Comments

[tihonmarine]

The use of such a number of missiles makes it possible to send both the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom.

Viktor Baranets answered this well:
“This is all American chatter. Sounds like the statements of an adult playing in a children's sandbox. The Baltic Fleet has anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense assets. The Black Sea Fleet is also not unarmed "
Baranets noted that Russia can also make a loud statement. For example, to promise in the event of an attack on their fleet to turn the United States into the "Stalin Strait", washing the shores of Canada and Mexico.

[210ox]

The surname of this scribbler is speaking.

[alystan]

Even more information in his name ...

[isv000]

Quote: 210ox

The surname of this scribbler is speaking.

It is more convenient for Forbes to count other people's money according to the list, and not who has how many fleets. Neither the remaining Navy, nor fighter aircraft and air defense, nor .. my God! ... Stroybat !!!

[Turist1996]

If you are talking about Ax, then you are a plus!

[Finches]

This flying bucket was created for a strategic cruise missile with a nuclear warhead ALCM (aka AGM-86A). The bucket was developed, put into production ..., but the rocket was not accepted into service. Then the rocket was finished off with a file, but it became larger and stupidly did not fit into the bucket! Therefore, the Americans began to shove everything they could and could not into it - because the strategic bomber turned into an ordinary, but sooooo expensive plane with the capabilities of a World War II bomber! Now of the entire fleet of these buckets, only 50% are combat-ready - there are 30-35 cars (according to the Americans themselves), their operation costs a pretty penny - it's like buying an expensive Ferrari or Maserati to carry potatoes from the store to your home! The author is stupid as a donkey - in his opinion, the personnel of the Black Sea and Baltic fleets will stand with their mouths open and just watch the flight of these buckets ?? Of course they will sink something, but for most buckets the situation will be as follows:
"Somewhere in the distance, my native Texas. Father and mother are waiting for me at home. My" Lancer "exploded quickly In the blue and clear sky, I can no longer see you ..."

[Dikson]

You would write side by side in comparison - how many "flying buckets" we have .. -16? fourteen? .. And how much their flights cost .. And then you write as a political officer in front of recruits ..))

[Finches]

Write an article about our planes and I will leave my comment under it. In this case, we are talking about the inventions of the American hack ... By the way, our strategists have the task of destroying America as such, and not of its separate naval base, so here we must talk not about quantitative, but about a qualitative indicator. About the power of weapons!

[Michael C]

Yesterday I was on a business trip to Belogorsk, Amur Region. And next to it there is the Ukrainka airbase. So in 3 hours I saw about 7-8 missile carriers TU-95 flying over the city and going for landing. So we have enough "buckets" and mowers with vertical take-off. By the way, over the past 5 years they often fly, almost daily. And they cost like everyone else - no more expensive than life.

[Artunis]

Unfortunately, there are no more yaks with hay-mowers, and it seems that nothing new has been invented here. And the buckets will not be enough.

[Michael C]

Not all at once, I suppose.

[Fantazer911]

The United States systematically prepares the readership for the fact that a war with Russia is inevitable, and this is not a long-term future

[lucul]

in his opinion, the personnel of the Black Sea and Baltic fleets will stand with their mouths open and just watch the flight of these buckets ?? Of course they will sink something, but for most buckets the situation will be as follows:

They already tested the Shell M, in which the target flew a couple of meters above the water and the Shell confidently took this target.
And given that the Pantsir M is now installed on almost all small ships starting with MRKs, I do not see any particular threat from these lancers.
So, rather, this article is for the internal electorate.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

On tests, the British Sea Wulf air defense system confidently hit a 114-mm projectile. At the Falklands - managed to oversleep the attack of a subsonic attack aircraft with free-fall bombs

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

On tests, the British Sea Wulf air defense system confidently hit a 114-mm projectile.

how he could "hit" if the radar 967 provides detection and determination of the course and speed of the target with RCS of 10 m² at a distance of 70 km, with EPR 0,2 m² - at a distance of 10 km. ?
/ and this is at best

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

managed to oversleep the attack of the subsonic

the operators overslept
and so 5 pieces like knocked down.
Average

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

And what confuses you? Sea wolf of the first series shot at 6 km, by the way. The 114 mm projectile with the worst layouts has a cross-sectional area of ​​more than 0.1 m.
I would not refer to the operators, the air defense system is fully automated, the reaction time is 5-6 seconds.
And yes, he shot down not five planes, but 4. Not bad? It depends on how you count. If we shift its effectiveness to anti-ship missile attacks, it turns out that in no case did it defend the ship - attacks were usually carried out by 3-4 aircraft, the best result of the complex is 2 aircraft per ship (one for each air defense system)

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And what confuses you?

well this is confusing

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

On tests, the British Sea Wulf air defense system confidently hit a 114-mm projectile.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Sea wolf of the first series shot at 6 km, by the way.

in order to "shoot" from this air defense system with radio command guidance and radar or television (in the conditions of an attack on PMA), you must:
- 967 should detect, classify and issue motion parameters (range 1-2 GHz)
-910 must accompany
and the FM-1600B must chew all this hard

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

... The 114 mm projectile with the worst layouts has a cross-sectional area of ​​more than 0.1 m

EPR is, as it were, an energy quantity, and to the "section" it does not directly depend on the area, but if you want to: Pi * D ^ 2/4 = 0,02 M ^ 2 (in the frontal projection, not EPR, but the midsection area is an order of magnitude smaller by TTX.
although the cone is certainly not a ball or a circle
EPRk = pi * R ^ 2 * tg ^ 2 alfa
R- radius
alfa is the angle at the vertex.
if the angle at the vertex is <45 degrees, then the tangent of the angle is <1, and the square of the tangent is even smaller.

just in case, bistatic EPR diagrams of cones d = 5 cm (f- 10GHz)
10 GHz is 0,029 m. Which is 5 times less than 2 GHz

in lateral projection
Length (4 diameters approximately) * diameter = 0,57 m ^ 2, but the beige in the side is not a rectangle (perpendicular to the ray), but a cylinder.
calculated EPR of the cylinder here and do not enter
for D = 5 cm and h = 20cm (almost our projectile) so

Bistatic EPR diagrams of a cylinder (f = 10 GHz)
the frequency or wavelength plays strongly, because it is squared and in the denominator
Based on the foregoing: I am tormented by vague doubts that the projectile could be intercepted. At the same time

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Closing the topic - Woodaward wrote about this, that he is the Admiral of His Majesty's Fleet.

did not read, but if there is: throw with a link. I think the error is here

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I would not refer to operators, the air defense system is fully automated

however, complex operators and control panels are present there.
At least you need to press the activation button, otherwise it will jump on your own
+

For 910: targets flying on PMV had to be hit using the additional 910 TV mode, you have to manually track the target.
The Type 911 does not have a tele-guidance function; the cameras are stored only to enable to the head of the calculation to visually confirm the goals and provide a record of the fighting.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Not bad? It depends on how you count.

for those years and that element base, a good result.
and taking into account that the air defense system of 1 ship, in fact, covered another 1
The Type 22 defended each of the two remaining Type 42 destroyers (and they zoned it). This is what the local comedians called "Type 64"
HMS Coventry and Broadsword.
Sea Wolf suffered from problems with hardware failure causing launches to fail, broken locks from the extreme sea conditions and the Argentines' low-altitude hit-and-run tactics with multiple, crossing targets which it was designed to intercept. Sea wolf accounted for three confirmed "kills" et two further possibles from eight launches.
8 launches = 3 accurately knocked down: good result
5 - generally excellent

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

Based on the foregoing: I am tormented by vague doubts that the projectile could be intercepted. At the same time

I may not understand something, but a radar capable of detecting a target with RCS of 0,2 m2 per 10 km will detect a target with RCS of 0,001 m2 at about 2,7 km. The projectile may well have a larger EPR

Quote: ja-ja-vw

did not read, but if there is: throw with a link. I think the error is here

I do not think. Here is one snippet from Woodwart's book

If you want - write me a private message from your email. by mail, I will send you a book. There was also information about shooting down 114-mm shells, but I do not remember exactly where, I did not find it straight away. If you want, I will indicate tomorrow with an accuracy of the page and the screen

Quote: ja-ja-vw

however, complex operators and control panels are present there.
At least you need to press the activation button, otherwise it will jump on your own

SAM was activated :)

Quote: ja-ja-vw

for those years and that element base, a good result.

Approximately 40% for aircraft point-blank? Well, I don’t know :))))) And - most importantly, if we take passport performance characteristics as a basis and count from them, Si Wolfe had to mow Agrentean planes in batches

Quote: ja-ja-vw

The Type 22 defended each of the two remaining Type 42 destroyers (and they zoned it). This is what the local comedians called "Type 64"

And Woodwart has 42/22 :))))

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

but a radar capable of detecting a target with RCS of 0,2 m2 at 10 km will detect a target with RCS of 0,001 m2 at about 2,7 km.

D ~ EPR ^ (1/4) (I do not know if it is clear: the root of the 4th degree)
10~0,2^(1/4) --> 10^4~0,2
Х~0,001^(1/4)-->Х^4~0,001
divide into each other
(10/X)^4=200. Отсюда Х=10/3,76=2,66 Are you in your mind, have you counted?
yes, but in 1-2 seconds it will either arrive or "fly by".
I don't think the Ferranti FM1600E was capable of issuing a firing solution.
Look what a handsome man

The "OS" (I exaggerate this) is 80 bytes in size, it has 24 bits bytes, the maximum memory size was 65 words of 536 bits, access to memory modules in 24 nsec, a memory stick of 650 words of 16 bits, and also contained an associated interface logic. A maximum of four memory modules could be assembled, providing a total capacity of 384 words of 26 bits. Plessey core memory with 65 microsecond (nominal) availability in units of 536 or 26 words
"Wonderful miracle" as one chuchundritsa from ORT would say.
At such a distance, Phalanx CIWS should already be kneaded or they are from the covered Type 42.
If in 1969 (albeit in 1973) it was possible to intercept 113 mm shells, then the British, and not the Jews, would now sell the iron gun.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Here is one snippet from Woodwart's book

well marks (interfering) and the ability to intercept them are TWO different things.
If there is precipitation in the atmosphere, then even on them EME is caused in drops of moisture
displacement currents that become sources of secondary radiation.
It is enough just to look at the "oscilloscope" in the control room of the air defense system of the 70s / 80s, it will immediately become clear that a lot of things are being recorded. But you can't intercept

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

write me a private message with your email. by mail

I do not know your mail, so I will write in a personal and I will indicate my mail

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

SAM was activated :)

they went to WWI and performed a "cross course" maneuver (well, I understand that anyway)

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Approximately 40% for aircraft point-blank? Well I do not know:)))))

compared to intercepting U-2 under Chelyabinsk Sverdlovsk, I think I will. There, in general, it was as if the tram was traveling at an echelon of 20 km (the y-2 could not maneuver it), neither the underlying surface, nor the Phalanx interfering, nor pitching, nor bombs, nor exosets

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And Woodwart has 42/22 :))))

he just doesn't know arithmetic well 42 + 22 = 64

Quote: ja-ja-vw

This is what the local comedians called "Type 64"

I don’t understand what you don’t like? A good thing, especially VLS GWS-26 - 32 cells: GWS 26 Mod 1 VL Sea Wolf and a better computer (DAK (2) with two 24-bit parallel Ferranti F2420 processors)

Exocets intercepted quite confidently.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

Are you in your mind, have you counted?

No :))) But - on the knee.

Quote: ja-ja-vw

yes, but in 1-2 seconds it will either arrive or "fly by".

Here the whole question is, from what distance they fired (or what distance they imitated when firing) It hardly made sense to simulate a distance of less than 10 km. And on it, the 114-mm Mk8 projectile had a speed of about 360 m / s. Initially, it had 869 m / s, but taking into account the fact that at an elevation angle of 45 degrees, the range was only 22 km, for 10 km the calculator gives 360,4 m / s.
The reaction time for the Sea Volf air defense system is usually indicated at 5-6 seconds, during which time the projectile will fly at an average speed of 360,4 m / s 1802-2162,4 m. Accordingly, if it was found at 2 660 m, it turns out that The air defense system should react when there is still 497,6-858 m to the ship. In addition, I am sure that during the tests they did not shoot directly at the ship, but to the side.

Quote: ja-ja-vw

At such a distance, Phalanx CIWS should already be kneaded or they are from the covered Type 42.

So they were not then on the British. What they clearly and bitterly regretted at the Falklands

Quote: ja-ja-vw

If in 1969 (albeit in 1973) the interception of 113 mm projectiles were implemented,

So Sea Wolfe is kind of born in 1979, isn't it? Could improve something

Quote: ja-ja-vw

well marks (interfering) and the ability to intercept them are TWO different things.

Thank you very much, I will know.

Quote: ja-ja-vw

I do not know your mail, so I will write in a personal and I will indicate my mail

Of course, this is exactly what I proposed to do. I just sent you the book, and here is the desired fragment from it (page 40)

Quote: ja-ja-vw

he just doesn't know arithmetic well 42 + 22 = 64

No, he just used such a notation - through a dash

Quote: ja-ja-vw

I don’t understand what you don’t like?

If you are about "64" - everyone likes it. Pure English humor. Directly "Zubiyets" is recalled (when the nose of the minesweeper "Zulus" was blown off by a mine, and the stern of the "Nubian", respectively, the remaining parts afloat were connected in the repair dock, and the resulting ship was named "Zubiyets"). I have nothing against Si Wolfe either. It's just that he is a good illustration of the fact that passport performance characteristics are one thing, but efficiency in battle is quite another.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Finches

This flying bucket was created for a strategic cruise missile with a nuclear warhead ALCM (aka AGM-86A).

quiet flying buckets about 60 units
and each such bucket can carry 24 AGM-158B JASSM-ER (yes, this is not against a marine propelling target ... but for the Baltic it is not critical: there you can spit from Aliningrad to Estonia or Sweden)

Quote: Finches

This flying bucket was created for a strategic cruise missile with a nuclear warhead ALCM (aka AGM-86A).

it never happened. AGM-86 could be placed on 4 nodes of the external suspension B-1B / dismantled, according to the CCH agreement.
And so the CSRL from the B-52H bomber is installed in the enlarged bomb bay of the modified Rockwell B-1B strategic bomber

and the revolver is loaded and
AGM-183A ARRW
и
LRSO
(how they get scolded)

Quote: Finches

the composition of the Black Sea and Baltic fleets will stand with open mouths and just watch the flight of these buckets ??

/ disclaimer for comrade "army general" bk316 - picture of 2014. But nothing significant happened: Estonia and Lithuania did not leave NATO, and Latvia did not enter the CSTO /
Baltiysk can be showered with sprats from the Baltic side. the position in relation to the metropolis is painfully disadvantageous

[ABC-schutze]

"Baltiysk can be showered with sprats from the Baltic side ...."
******************************************************************************
It is possible, of course, but, so far, there is a real "tension" in the "baltics" with the construction of a banal fence on the border with Belarus. In practice, with the help of the Slovenian "prickly gumpal" they build ...

And the demand for sprats from the main consumer, Russia, has fallen sharply. In this connection, you don't really "leave" ...

At the expense of "entry - exit. Well, who will allow them? ..

And "dismantled", at the expense of "times", in case of acute need, again turn to "mounted" ...

Spend saliva on the aforementioned "estonia" while there is no reason. But for Norway and Poland, in the context of the subject in question, just right in the Baltic there is enough ...

[ja-ja-vw]

Nobody will send the B-1B to feed the Russian fleet in the Baltic, this is nonsense of someone who has retaken the exam.
It is generally not designed to work on naval targets originally (MSTS).
they will scold AGM-158C, work it out.
And in the Baltic, what's the point of dragging an intercontinental strategist. for a strike on Baltiysk, if Poland has a coastal defense missile division as part of two batteries equipped with mobile launchers with NSM missiles?

[Turist1996]

Thank you for taking the trouble to describe all these twists and turns with this next American "miracle weapon". I really wanted to write that they do not know where to stick this Lancer, because they simply do not have the concept of its use in its current form ..
But you have described everything completely.

[Civil]

After a liquid retreat from Afghanistan, "The Empire Strikes Back" is straight forward. Funny.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

We must not forget that the United States also has nuclear weapons and a powerful missile defense system and a huge fleet, which, together with its allies, is also part of the missile defense system.

Now, if we discard the possibility of using nuclear weapons, can any of our fleet be able to repel a massive missile attack?

I do not think.

In the first attack, some of the missiles will break through and cause enormous damage to our ships.

Our air defense is not capable of repelling a massive raid of cruise missiles, and in Syria we were shown this clearly.

We need to take such threats more seriously and prepare for them, rather than shouting that we have nuclear weapons.

The Turks shot down our plane, and the presence of nuclear weapons in our possession and their absence did not stop them.

We need to strengthen our naval bases more strongly and use engineering fortifications for this, and not rely on air defense.

Here's how, for example, in Sweden -

In Crimea, it is quite possible to make a corvette for ships of the level of a corvette, and for the rest of the fleet too, you can do something similar.

Better to have 3 corvettes safely sheltered from missile attack than 5 but just at the dock.

Now our ships are in full view, slammed with one blow and no air defense will save them.

[Maikcg]

Now, if we discard the possibility of using nuclear weapons, can any of our fleet be able to repel a massive missile attack?

I do not think.

And you think, maybe it will work, maybe even like it.
Why the hell would the fleet repel a massive solo missile attack, while the rest of the military would sit in the smoking room and tell jokes.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: MaikCG

Why the hell would a fleet repel a massive solo rocket attack?

don't you understand yet? this is a tradition of local analysts. take whatever branch of the military, or even better the type of equipment or a specific model, and describe the attack on this equipment by some other equipment that was also ripped out of the structure of the troops. Well, to heighten the effect, of course, those who are attacked should look at all this and wail "oh gods! what is going on then!"
we have here Damantsev and Timokhin luminaries of this genre is not science fiction
Well, of course, there are also fans of this genre among the readers.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Why the hell would the fleet repel a massive solo missile attack, while the rest of the military would sit in the smoking room and tell jokes.

The rest I think will be busy with their own affairs. To go out to the lines and deploy for defense, etc. All of them will also need air defense cover.

All air defense of the Kaliningrad region will not cover one naval base. Here the fleet and the air defense units loyal to it (if any) will have to solve the problem on their own.

Therefore, I already write many times, we need a new air defense system, specially created to repel a massive missile attack, modular, so that the launcher, radar, OLS and command post are all separate (to ensure survivability, in the event of a radar defeat, for example), something like Iron Domes, but with our features, so that you can shoot in all directions, and not like the Jews. But the basic principle is the same - it should reflect not 5 not 10, but hundreds of missiles in a complex.

And while we cannot, we cannot intercept even those missiles that Israel launches towards Syria with a 100% guarantee or close to it. Although 3-4 aircraft are involved in the attack there.

Hundreds will fly at us, from all sides, and we must have time to react and fight back.

[Maikcg]

it should reflect not 5 not 10, but hundreds of missiles in a complex.

..and also tie the headlight on his head (the soldier) so that he mows down at night (s)

[ABC-schutze]

"Our air defense is not capable of repelling a massive raid of cruise missiles, and in Syria we were shown this clearly."
************************************************** ******************************
Well, as I believe, it was in Syria that something completely different was "not shown" ...

Namely, the inability of the United States and its "allies" to suddenly, effectively and in a coordinated manner launch massive missile strikes. From the air, the sea and from under the water. Judging by their "practical results" this is exactly the case ...

And this, given the presence of an EXTREMELY LIMITED in terms of the composition of forces and means of the air defense-missile defense potential of the Russian contingent deployed there ...

[Stepan S]

Now, if we discard the possibility of using nuclear weapons, can any of our fleet be able to repel a massive missile attack?

Who will launch this massive missile attack if nuclear weapons are ruled out? If the United States, then it is impossible to exclude, and if not them, then who?

Our air defense is not capable of repelling a massive raid of cruise missiles, and in Syria we were shown this clearly

Do you remember how many missiles flew into the target area when the Americans attacked facilities in Syria with cruise missiles? Out of a hundred, something seems to be 23, and ours did not use air defense at all, only electronic warfare forces.

We need to strengthen our naval bases more strongly and use engineering fortifications for this, and not rely on air defense.

A cruise missile will fly through a window like the one in the picture in Sweden without any problems. Convenient target, immobile and unable to withstand air defense with its own means. If there is some kind of threatened period, then all ships will go to sea, all who can go. For example, we left the pier 15 minutes after the alarm was announced.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

In Crimea, it is quite possible to make a corvette for ships of the level of a corvette, and for the rest of the fleet too, you can do something similar.

Better to have 3 corvettes safely sheltered from missile attack than 5 but just at the dock

I support, it is necessary to remove from the closed seas all surface ships of the first second rank and leave only the third, for which it is quite possible to make shelters ... otherwise in the north and Kamchatka, where only a really strong fleet is needed, there are only a few ships left ...

[Vladimir1155]

this only proves the pointlessness of surface ships on these closed seas, from which it is possible to destroy not only long-range but also front-line aviation, as well as ground-based missile systems ... all surface ships of the first second rank must be transferred to the north

[Dikson]

Excuse me, but a couple of our strategists also have 48 missiles in a salvo? Regarding the article, why not .. They hide behind false targets, swarm of drones, and all the cases .. scared of course, but given the intensity of reconnaissance flights ..- nothing is impossible .. They have already registered at our borders ..

[Lech from Android.]

A couple of our strategists have weapons like Daggers ... and if they still have nuclear stuffing, then it's generally fine ... do you really think that the US Navy will get off with a slight fright in this case.
It seems that American observers have completely lost their fear.

[Dikson]

O! Come on, come on .. about "Daggers" .. By the way, can you tell me why "Defender" didn't run away like "Donald Cook"? What, the magic of "Khibiny" is over, right? ) Unrestrained faith in the wunderwales of our weapons is easily dispelled by service in our army .. - go, and then we'll talk ..)) Why does everyone in disputes forget about simple arithmetic? A crowd of inept gopniks still kicks the coolest boxer .. - they just crush them with a mass .. Regarding the volley of 48 missiles - of course, you don't have to worry .. Firstly, we won't have so many ships .. Even at the rate of three missiles for each pennant ..) And if we talk about air defense and missile defense systems on them .. - then there is nothing to worry about at all!

[lucul]

And if we talk about air defense and missile defense systems on them .. - then there is nothing to worry about at all!

Already even on the MRK, Armor M is being installed, for which this LRASM-A rocket is not difficult.
Americans are confident that this LRASM-A is as "invisible" as their F-35.
I have a feeling that all their analysts - all advertising brochures of companies are perceived as a holy truth)))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

A cruise missile is a very difficult target. Even as old as a tomahawk, for example.

[Okolotochny]

Stop crying. Give up already.

[ABC-schutze]

"Why does everyone in disputes forget about simple arithmetic? A crowd of inept gopniks still kicks the coolest boxer .. - they just crush them in mass .."
******************************************************************************
Are you a "armchair theorist"? ..

Firstly, the coolest boxer will never wave with the "crowd". There are no fools among the competent and trained fighters. After all, they are not brought up in a yard "rocking chair" ... And some exceptions, this general rule, do not cancel in any way ...

A real fighter will knock out one - the other (quickly and for a long time) and "bounce" to the side. Perhaps a good sprint. Meters by 30 ...

Rumble after him? .. Well then, a couple of "leaders" will be knocked out. And once again "bounce" ...

The aforementioned "inept gopniks", you know, in real life have big problems with the "breathing apparatus". And after a banal hundred-meter distance, they already have a banal breathing apparatus not enough for some kind of "kicking".

Doubt? .. Well, then, try it yourself, "experiment for", 70 - 90 meters run up to the outgoing tram. And after that, in the carriage, to assess your condition and REAL ability, to any "showdown". Akromya "verbal". And even then, when the breath is restored ... This time ...

At the expense of the real possibilities of our air defense-missile defense, I advise you to "refresh your memory" widely advertised by a certain Trump, "strike with the NEWEST" US air and ship-based missiles on military targets in Syria.

There, if my memory is correct, out of 120 carriers, only a dozen reached the goal. And even then, the "affected objects" turned out to be long decommissioned buildings. Which is tantamount to getting "into milk" ...

At the same time, the firepower of the Russian contingent proper, in terms of carriers, did not work in general ... The Syrians managed it themselves. ours, perhaps, "information support" provided in a timely manner ...

Duc, do you think that in the "story with the Lancers" the mentioned "launches of 48 missiles" from the lines beyond "800 km" will remain "unnoticed" for the Russian monitoring equipment of the VKP? ..

Just in case, the carrier of the Iskander-M deployed in the Kaliningrad region flies one and a half minutes to Warsaw. That's not for long ...

In addition, any "massive volley" at Russian military targets (moreover, on Russian territory or in the Russian water area) is already a sign of the beginning of a military attack on Russia. With all the "from here following" response scenarios. Which Moscow, with the States, will clearly not be "coordinated". And the answer, by no means in a "cabinet-theoretical" format, say, "fleet versus fleet" ...

All the gopniks, from the crowd of the so-called. "NATO allies" ...

[Stepan S]

Unrestrained faith in the wunderwafele of our weapon is easily dispelled by service in our army .. - go, and then we'll talk ..

Have you served in our army for a long time? Maybe where you served and the soldiers are not given weapons. And where I know first-hand, everything is under control, everything is oiled and works around the clock.

[akarfoxhound]

You and Davydka Eksovsky would join the army in an adult way, so that you don't write fantasy glories. Do you also have a deep opinion about microbiology and the collider? Baranets said for sure - a sandbox!

[Lech from Android.]

And you should read more American observers and write your nonsense.
Baranets is a fighter on the information front and does what he has to do.
And about your opinion is true ... as they say, do not make yourself an idol ... then at least you will not regret it.

[mojohed2012]

Yeah, yeah, their strategists are listed as firing at our ships, and they, therefore, without response and opposition, with resentment on the faces of the crews, will go to the bottom with waving flags!
Somehow all this is naive and journalistic!
And where will our air defense, RTR, air force, electronic warfare and so on go? Well, the missiles will not reach their targets in a second, they will still be guided and tracked and the launches will not be missed.
Yes, some missiles will fly through and sink or damage something, but strategists will not get it in the air, but then on the ground, as well as the decision-making center behind this.
There will be no more checks, WAR!

[Lech from Android.]

Yeah, yeah, their strategists are listed as firing at our ships, and they, therefore, without response and opposition, with resentment on the faces of the crews, will go to the bottom with waving flags!

Someone on VO believes in these tales and is very offended when you explain to them that a real war is being waged according to slightly different rules than those described by various observers.

[mojohed2012]

It’s always like that with the shtatovites - they beat, and the answers are low!
In fact, if anything, there will be a response right away!

[akarfoxhound]

Idol ?! From a journalist ?! Hmm, funny ...
I, unlike you, are nice people, there is enough information and analysts from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation so that the local crap is not taken seriously. And Comrade Baranets, unlike most of those who write here, the same Zhenya Damantseva, has access to this information, is regularly present in the troops and communicates not only with the command. And, characteristically, the acting officers for the most part agree with his essays, that here and in the Reporter is a rarely observed phenomenon. Links to topwar articles are "interspersed" with us, as frequent as rains in the Karakum Desert.
On VO from the adequate only historical essays and news "without far-reaching conclusions."
P.S. and for the "idols" in the journalistic environment we respect another internationalist Vsevolod Ovchinnikov, who recently left the world, he was a professional with a capital letter, who was directly in the environment about which he wrote and who understands its intricacies. Today's "analysts" with good reason can wear the same chase as that of Sasha Balabanov, the serial operative who is soiled on TV.

[lucul]

They hide behind false targets, a swarm of drones, and that's all ..

One air explosion in THEIR territory - and there are no more false targets, no swarm of drones, or the lancer themselves. But I see this option is simply prohibitively difficult for you.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Dikson

scared of course, but given the intensity of the reconnaissance flights ..- nothing is impossible ..

but the fact that all these flights are intercepted by our aviation and controlled by our air defense certainly does not need to be taken into account ...

[anjey]

"If we are guided by the logic of an American observer, then Russian strategic missile carriers are also capable of destroying any US fleet at its base, and without using their nuclear arsenal. Or is it a taboo for American observers to consider the" opposite effect "? .."
Why no application? It is necessary to position for enemies precisely the use of nuclear weapons, as in the USSR. Moreover, now the military doctrine has been corrected - the response of nuclear weapons will be not only for a nuclear attack, but also for the usual, causing irreparable damage to the state, so the nuclear deterrent should be voiced for fans of military adventures and warmongers.

[Pavel73]

It looks like it's time to resume nuclear testing.

[Ros 56]

Where do we start, with the west or east coast of the striped?

[Pavel73]

No, not yet in the middle. On Novaya Zemlya. Atmospheric. You just have to wait for the wind in their direction. And shoot on HD-video in all details, so that it was beautiful.

[Ros 56]

I disagree, a pointless waste of money and material resources.

[Pavel73]

Why not? Our enemy partners have not seen nuclear explosions in all their glory for a long time, and it seems they are beginning to forget. Old newsreels are no longer impressive. It's time to remind.

[Ros 56]

In the garden itself, they will be more impressed.

[Pavel73]

I would not like it to come to this. The suppression of the violation should begin with a warning shot.

[Lech from Android.]

On Novaya Zemlya.

And how many megatons will we blow up ... maybe start from 50. ... remind the West about the frailty of life.

[Pavel73]

No, you don't need that much. One hundred kilotons will be enough. The main thing is to have as many video frames as possible from different points and from different distances. And so in the highest possible resolution. Install various structures (including ordinary residential buildings), military equipment (preferably Western-style), up to pistols and rifles. And then show it all melted and rubbed into dust. Maybe then these creatures will think whether it is worth continuing in the same spirit.

[Lech from Android.]

And then show it all melted and rubbed into dust.

So in order to show all this, it is not at all necessary to explode 100 megatons ... you can draw a reality show on a computer ... it will be cooler ... why spoil our nature.

[Pavel73]

You will not surprise anyone with a computer fake. No, a real chronicle is needed. Only modern.

[prior]

We must start with the Russian State Duma.
Namely, with the adoption of a law on delivering a nuclear strike to all capitals of NATO countries in the event of an attack on Russia by at least one of the member countries.
And let them comb their "Honduras" if they itch like that.

[Jacket in stock]

On the one hand, the American is right. If we just count all their missiles and ours, then nothing shines for us. They will pierce our air defense and missile defense with the first salvo only by slightly straining. And given that they do not need to fly to the point of launching missiles across the entire ocean, they can shoot back a few kilometers from Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg, the flight time will be several seconds.
On the other hand, he modestly did not mention that we will answer not only about these specific aircraft, but also about their airfields, and headquarters, and decision-making centers. And they will definitely not like it.

[Lech from Android.]

They will pierce our air defense and missile defense with the first salvo only by slightly straining.

And that our air defense will silently watch as they open bomb bays and take aim at targets in Russia?
What do you think our air defense flyers will do when they see this?

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Lech from Android.

And that our air defense will silently observe how they open the bomb bays and

And what will our air defense do?
So they flew over the Black Sea yesterday, and ...?
Well, okay, here ours flew by.
And not so long ago they flew over Kiev-Kharkov, what will our flyers do there?

[ABC-schutze]

Well, as an option, they "fly" off the coast of Florida, for example. Agree with Havana on a "return", is not an empty fantasy ...

They are at our borders, "over the Baltic" and "Ukraine". Well, we are, closer to their resorts and beaches ...

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: ABC-schütze

fly "off the coast of Florida, for example.

And how does this help against these specific Lancers that will drown our fleets in the Black and Baltic?
You do not.
But we still have to fly to Florida.
And they do not expect our Swans in Cuba, they have already passed.

[ABC-schutze]

"And how does this help against these specific Lancers that will drown our fleets in the Black and Baltic?
No way...."
************************************************** **********************
Wars are waged not by "specific Lancers", but by states. And against a specific state - the United States, it will even help ...

"But we still have to fly to Florida.
And they do not expect our Swans in Cuba, they have already passed. "
************************************************** **********************
Whether or not our Swans are waiting there, the Cubans themselves will decide. Depending on the attractiveness of our offers. If such a need is objective and real, for Russia, it will arise.

And "fly" is just one of many options. It is also possible to deliver Iskander-M (or K) there. They "fly" unnecessarily ...

Or, "for a start" Iskander-E to the Cubans themselves. Norway NATO-vtsam laaham NSM. - "against Russia". And we to Cubans -
Iskander-E, - "against the States ...

After all, seriously speaking, in fact, Uncle Sam does not have any real and effective air defense-missile defense potential of his own territory ...

[Pavel73]

There will be no sense in answering these specific aircraft, and there is no one to answer. Commanders of combat crews of missiles with nuclear warheads will be responsible. This will be the same "dead hand".

[Lech from Android.]

Commanders of combat crews of missiles with nuclear warheads will be responsible.

The Pentagon understands this very well and it is unlikely that there are crazy generals who do not understand this ... so the information wave raised by the American observer about the destruction of the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet is just another information attack and nothing more ... there will be a lot of them ahead ... so many.

[KCA]

And where will they land if all airfields have already been completely destroyed by their return?

[Popandos]

send both the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom. This eliminates the main threat to American ships,

And I thought it was a sinful thing that in these waters the main threat to the enemy's fleets would be coastal missile systems and aviation, but it looks like it turns out.

[NDR-791]

Decades pass, generations change, but nothing changes.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: NDR-791

Decades pass, generations change, but nothing changes.

Well, for this then: and created the states.

[Dikson]

O! I even know from which photo this poster was drawn .. The picture is not inserted .. In General there, a brave Scot holds two severed heads of communists during the suppression of the uprising in Malaya ..

[Cananecat]

Has Forbes got his own Damantsev? ))

[A. Privalov]

Quote: Canecat

Has Forbes got his own Damantsev? ))

David Ax of The National Interest writes for health, and from Forbes writes for peace. It's just that the editorial team cleverly chooses how and when to publish his articles.
depending on the task: whether it is necessary to please the captain, or to anger the patriotic readers. In this respect, such a journalist is just a godsend and a gold mine.

[Ros 56]

And they can also fly to the Moon and Mars and destroy all enemies there. They talked about such scribblers in Russia - shook Emelya, your week.

[Nafanya from the sofa]

Mr. David Ax must have watched "Peculiarities of National Fishing"

The key word is "if you are lucky" and their bombers will not be shot down earlier.

[T.A.V.]

Maybe it's time for the representatives of Russia, when conducting exercises or presenting weapons, to say that the Americans are enemies and the main troublemaker in the world.

[Cananecat]

Quote: T.A.V.

it is time for the representatives of Russia, when conducting exercises or when presenting weapons, to say that the Americans are enemies

There won't be enough valocardine at the Pentagon.

[rocket757]

In the American press: Strategic missile carriers B-1B Lancer can send the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom

Reasoning for children or for idiots, some kind of ... we can do this, that, but we can answer absolutely nothing at all, like, cut in on "soft, important" ...
In short, "showdown in the sandbox" and what is sad, scary that such things are said about this just like that, because the consequences can be the most severe, FOR EVERYONE!

[cniza]

Good time!

Someone wants to play with fire ...

[rocket757]

Quote: cniza

Someone wants to play with fire ...

Hi
There seems to be ANOTHER!
They want to set fire to and do not tell anyone at all that such a fire MUST return / throw back !!! Many suffer from this both here and there ... alas, alas, the majority do not think or calculate anything, and indeed they cannot!
Dangerous delusions, or even deliberate deception.
It is sad, if not dangerous.

[cniza]

The fact of the matter is that it is very dangerous, the sense of self-preservation is lost ...

[rocket757]

Judging by the actions / deeds of our authorities, they nourish, nourish hopes that they will not be answered ...
A tense situation, I must say.

[cniza]

Yes, our authorities also hope that reason will prevail, but it seems that some, in the West, are poorly educated ...

[rocket757]

Quote: cniza

reason will prevail

Too many Wishlist interrupt everything, brain work, sanity ... only the FEAR of the inevitability of a retaliatory strike can keep such people from critical actions.
That's just the fear you need to INCREASE periodically, by any available means ... specifically, clearly, it HURTS!
This, by the way, will be useful for their own safety ...

[cniza]

Yes, the veil is in the eyes and only dollars see ...

[rotfuks]

Apparently American observers are playing on computer strategies. They play tanks and air battles. And they really started playing. And when it comes to a real clash like in Afghanistan, then the valiant warriors skidded by dropping their slippers. And their English partners flee from the battlefield for loyalty dressed up as women.
https://24tv.ua/ru/britanskie-specnazovcy-nadeli-parandzhu-chtoby-obmanut-talibov_n1730349

[Bez 310]

Indeed, B-1B Lancer aircraft with LRASM missiles can destroy a large number of surface targets in the Black and Baltic Seas, while the aircraft can be located far from the borders of Russian airspace. The number of missiles that have overcome the air defense and missile defense depends on the number of missiles in the salvo, and the salvo of several B-1B Lancer is enough for the air defense and missile defense to simply "choke".
The only thing that will not allow us to strike at our ships and other targets is the inevitability of a retaliatory strike with the use of all possible weapons.
Well, and for the record - we do not have such missiles, to my great regret.

[76SSSR]

Quote: Bez 310

Well, and for the record - we do not have such missiles, to my great regret.

Don't worry too much, we have others ...

[K-50]

In the American press: Strategic missile carriers B-1B Lancer can send the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom

The North American continent will then slide to the bottom.
Are you so bored with living?

[rotmistr60]

Forbes

Probably it would really be better to deal with economic issues and continue to count money in someone else's pocket. A normal military analyst analyzing any situation always on his own, for example, a message

allows sending both the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom

will analyze what it can haunt the United States. Narrow-headed to egg-headed far.

[zwlad]

a pair of B-1B Lancer strategic bombers are capable of destroying the Russian Baltic fleet by firing 48 long-range anti-ship missiles at ships.

Maybe, of course, only the crews are sorry, he will have nowhere to return. After that, neither the United States nor Europe will exist.

[cniza]

The American author writes that the range of LRASM missiles makes it possible to carry out attacks on ships in the waters of the Black and Baltic Seas "from practically any point in the airspace, without entering the zone of operation of the Russian air defense."

This is bad, a generation is coming to power that does not know what war is and this is all written for them and is inflammatory in nature ...

[victor_47]

I wonder how powerful a warhead is needed to awaken Yellowstone ?!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Not the fact that having collected all the nuclear weapons on the ground - you will achieve. Nature operates with completely different orders of energy

[Alex777]

Quote: viktor_47

I wonder how powerful a warhead is needed to awaken Yellowstone ?!

This Yellowstone should be asked.

[singless]

Well, you can write anything you want. but writing against the wind will not work

[japan-k]

We have the same, very good anti-aircraft systems, both airborne and from sea carriers. For some reason, no one here said about the death of not only the "hardware" but also the personnel. Destroy the ships at the berth, without a crew, and in return - the option of destroying a couple, a C grade of aircraft carriers, worth several tens of BILLION $$$$ and the number of hp. the same tens of thousands of little men. How do you like this option

[Observer2014]

American press: Strategic missile carriers B-1B Lancer can send to the bottom of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia American press: Strategic missile carriers B-1B Lancer can send to the bottom of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia

Yes, they can. With the massive use of long-range missiles. Whatever missile defense and air defense of objects or entire zones is. There is still a gap. Maybe not the entire fleet at once. But part of it. And then what? Hello, the third world. And goodbye to civilization. Well, when commentators fantasize about such topics. But when it seems like serious publications ... No words ...

[Wolf]

Forbes is just a tool in the hands of global rulers. He always publishes articles strictly for the intended purpose! As A. Privalov said, the quote:

David Ax of The National Interest writes for health, and from Forbes writes for peace. It's just that the editorial team cleverly chooses how and when to publish his articles.

a pair of B-1B Lancer strategic bombers are capable of destroying the Russian Baltic fleet by firing 48 long-range anti-ship missiles at ships. The officially announced range of aircraft-based LRASM-A missiles is about 800 km.



The American author writes that the range of LRASM missiles makes it possible to carry out attacks on ships in the waters of the Black and Baltic Seas "from practically any point in the airspace, without entering the zone of operation of the Russian air defense."


In fact, David Eks (journalist) completed the task and announced to the world and the people, the ludmi in RUSSIA and CHINA, that the American tactics of war are based on a MASS SUDDEN STROKE both at sea and on the shock and in the air.
On this, the concept of the US army was formed.
The LRASM rocket is the very top of American weapons, the newest and most advanced and supposedly invisible (the question is for whom invisible) and is directed along the GPS and on the whole radar radiation in this case by ships.
Can work in a flock like David did not say and choose goals. It is ideal for use in an attack on ZPR. AUG and when the carrier of the B-1B missile carrier fires a salvo of 48 missiles.
But no one says that LRASM missiles fly at speeds similar to Tomahawks, so if they are not invisible to the enemy, then you can and effectively get away from them in different ways.
The maximum launch range is about 800 km but the real one is somewhere less than 600-700 km. If you count its speed, you need to fly 30-45 minutes !!!
If you take into account that Bulavi or Avngard need somewhere 20 minutes before Washington or the Pentagon, the governors have 10-25 minutes to make a decision, an ultimatum and radical answer!
But I wrote that this is the most modern US rocket, in Russia it is "ZIRCON" the difference between them is "small" they saw Zircon or did not see the result for the United States the same, if you give them time to pray to God if they did not even see this thread, but against LRASM you can get it.

But David did not write that the LRASM carriers can also be F 18, 1-2 pieces, Poseidon P 8, and different ships are not ready for a submarine yet.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT THE USA HAS ALREADY SOLD 200 LRASM TO AUSTRALIA !!! that ochim says a lot !!!

So the article by David Ax and Forbes is intended for people who do not understand anything and that would support a picture from their heads about the most powerful army and state in the world as well as the most powerful office in the world in Washington. So the deception of the people continues to the full

PS. Here is one useful thing, a confirmation of the plans of the American tactics of a sudden massive attack on China and Russia!

[bk0010]

The American author writes that the range of LRASM missiles makes it possible to carry out attacks on ships in the waters of the Black and Baltic Seas "from practically any point in the airspace, without entering the zone of operation of the Russian air defense."

And the control center from outside the "zone of operation of the Russian air defense" how to produce the B-1B? 800 km is a serious range, if you launch missiles (especially subsonic ones, they fly for an hour) at such a distance "into that steppe", then there will be little chances of target acquisition.

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

Hmm ... the magic word CAN ... well, then we CAN zero out 48 missiles with a slingshot. At worst, we will attract army player Akinfeev, so he will definitely introduce a football projectile "from his hands" where it should be

[Zaurbek]

There, coastal anti-ship missiles alone are enough to stop shipping ..... + aviation.

[aleks700]

Probably they can sink. And Russia can make a new ocean. Between Mexico and Canada.

[sen]

Our ships lack long-range air defense systems. For example, in the United States on destroyers:
RIM-66C RIM-67B
Standard SM-2 MR Standard SM-2 ER
Firing range, km 74 150
Shooting height, km 24 30
Launch weight, kg 704 1440
Warhead mass, kg 97 120
Our "Fort-M" has a range of 120 km, but stands only on cruisers.

[Sands Careers General]

In the American press: Strategic missile carriers B-1B Lancer can send the Baltic and Black Sea fleets of Russia to the bottom

No, here is quite the opposite, a substitution of concepts.
The Baltic and Black Sea Fleets, with air defense and missile defense, are able to send Yankee planes to the bottom, crabs for a snack

[Looking for]

American "Wishlist" They all want the conflict to be reduced to a conventional war. high population density and high concentration of infrastructure.

[CYM]

Or is it taboo for American observers to consider the “backfire”?

Vasil Ivanovich, what is the difference between erotica and pornography? - Well, Petka, for example, if you are someone - this is, of course, erotica. But if who is you - this is pure pornography.

[Spkrdctr]

You must understand that this story is propaganda. Clean rubbish. It's so bad that I can't believe Forbes published it. This was done for high school children to read quality information.

[notingem]

Looks like degenerate with eggs

[7 poplar]

well said. can and who will only give ???

[Alexander Chirkov-Air]

The Gulf of Mexico will be a judgment day for the United States)))

[silviu]

the problem is not in strategic bombers, but in target designation satellites. Russia needs much more satellites than the United States because the US fleet is huge and scattered all over the world. Although five naval space reconnaissance satellites and target designation are in orbit and rotate, this is very little for a real military conflict with the United States ...

[Borisych]

That's what I understand, bomber. B-1 in one blow will send to the bottom the Black Sea, American, Lousy British, Australian, Velikodatsky, German fascist named after the Weimar Republic, the Space Fleet of evil teals, and will poison all the worms from the planet Dune. And then President Beadon will dream of David Ax, the prince of pilots.

[AC130 Gunship]

I don’t know how it is now, but in my youth, strategists in the military doctrine of the two countries were assigned a clear task - to finish off 20% of the targets that survived the ICBM attacks.
As for the abuse of B1B here and praising its direct analogue Tu160 (which, by the way, takes less cruise missiles than the old B52), then I remembered the old proverb: Annushka is a good daughter. Praise the mother, yes the grandmother :)

[Turist1996]

Quote: Dikson

You would write side by side in comparison - how many "flying buckets" we have .. -16? fourteen? .. And how much their flights cost .. And then you write as a political officer in front of recruits ..))

No more expensive than your B-52 bucket buckets.