"Russia bets on high speed": Western press on the differences in new anti-ship missiles

Relatively recently, there has been a lull in the development of new types of anti-ship cruise missiles. However, there is now a boom in the creation of new samples of this type. weapons... At the same time, different countries have different priorities in the search for a balance between the speed, stealth and maneuverability of missiles.

As noted in the Western press (IISS), only in recent months the Israeli company Rafael presented its Sea Breaker subsonic missile, the European manufacturer MBDA launched work on the Teseo Mk2 / E subsonic missile, South Korea demonstrated a supersonic anti-ship missile system, and Russia conducted the first test launches " Zircon ", capable of moving at a flight speed of more than five Machs - hypersonic. However, new participants are also entering the anti-ship weapons market.

The Israeli company Israel Aerospace Industries is working under the Gabriel V program. Meanwhile, the Roketsan enterprise has completed tests of the first Atmaca anti-ship missile system in Turkey, and the UAE with its Halcon HAS-250 product has begun testing them. All three products will fly in subsonic mode.

However, both Russia and China are developing both subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles. As noted in the IISS, the creation of various types of weapons is associated with the specific purpose of the product and, accordingly, its characteristics, namely the choice between the flight speed and stealth of missiles.

_{Turkish subsonic anti-ship missile system Atmaca}

Russia is betting on high speed. Moscow is close to putting into service the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile system. The United States and Europe have traditionally used subsonic anti-ship missiles, relying on high maneuverability combined with low infrared and radio frequency signatures and salvo attacks to penetrate ship defenses.

- indicated in the publication.

At the same time, in the 1980s, the French and West German industries were working on the Anti-Navire Supersonique supersonic weapons with a flight speed of more than Mach two, but they were curtailed with the end of the Cold War. The new European creation Teseo Mk2 / E will receive only subsonic speed, but in this case the emphasis is on expanding the target detection potential (thanks to dual-mode search technology - through active radar and electro-optical seekers) and ensuring the possibility of striking ground attack targets. Electro-optical finders are also used in the Sea Breaker product from Israel's Rafael.

Thus, in the course of creating new anti-ship missiles, the developer makes a choice between a number of characteristics - speed, stealth, maneuverability and target detection efficiency. For Russia, according to the Western press, the first indicator has become a priority.

The first launch of the South Korean supersonic anti-ship missile system, September 2021:

Comments

[nPuBaTuP]

I think that Russia's choice is correct ..

[Egoza]

Quote: nPuBaTuP

I think that the choice of Russia is correct

But how fast the press reacts! And, for some reason, only Russia and China notices! )))

[dzvero]

And, for some reason, only Russia and China notices! )))

They would not mind noticing in themselves, but there is nothing ...

[observer76]

And they replace the new version of Harpoon, Topor-5, NSM and LRASM. This is nothing?

[dzvero]

Yes, the fleet is being updated, but in the article about the high-speed bet - which now means hypersound. And here they still (!) Have nothing to brag about ...

[observer76]

Because they are not developing it in this sector of armaments and will not be. Their developments are aimed at aerobalistic solutions such as the Dagger and MRBM gliders with a range of about 1500 km.

[dzvero]

do not develop and will not.

Oh, is it? Ten years ago, the United States was in the lead in the hypersound race. Then there was a pause and woke up only after the "cartoons". I don't know why there was a gag, but now they are trying to make up for it, especially after the Chinese are connected.

[observer76]

If hypersound for the CD was considered in the past, then it was not considered for the RCC in the past, and the plug was explained by M. Albright, who had retired. They considered that the times of frontal confrontation had sunk into oblivion and it was not necessary just. And today, aerobalistic and glider hypersound is being developed for the MRBM, but not for the CD or anti-ship missiles. So the cartoons made a completely different impression, especially since they have been embodied so far only in aerobalistics and the glider has been chosen by the ICBM, that in the voiced Quantities and performance characteristics there is also more politics than a real means) and in the Russian Federation.

[observer76]

For Russia...

[Cowbra]

It is not so easy to shoot down a hypersonic one - and even without a warhead, it will twist things

[observer76]

Kinetic interceptors of ICBMs exist and live well, but don't they? Why would you?

[Cowbra]

Quote: observer76

Kinetic interceptors of ICBMs exist

Nichrome just don't work! And yet - to kinetically hit the ICBM - there will be no explosion. And the anti-ship missile - even without an explosion - there will be no ship. Yes, and to jerk after defeat - it is quite possible for itself

[observer76]

Yes, there are no such things at all, only BR under their influence they do not fall apart into pieces. It depends on which ship and which anti-ship missile system. The Americans over there were fucking their old Peri Mk48 with a harpoon to boot, and he didn't want to drown for a long time even after such abuse. Vaughn Bramos is still some serious missile, and it flies into the water with its muzzle under the blow of even non-kinetic air defense. What kind of damage is caused by which warhead is a separate conversation.

[Cowbra]

Yes, we remember how Exocet Curve flew to Sheffield Briton. Didn't jerk, how did it end? Caput to the destroyer, and this is from the slow Exocet. By the way, they showed there what the bomb hits lead to, that they do not explode - to the same thing.

[observer76]

Didn't you run like that with Peri? They were bullied after being withdrawn to the reserve. Wondering why?

[Cowbra]

Quote: observer76

Didn't you run like that with Peri?

Maybe because an empty tin can - everything was removed and there is nothing to burn? The striped people love this business, they and SM-3 hit 50% of their targets at the range when they knew their trajectory, and even the Patriots hit somewhere, but in battle the Patriots cannot get into the sky - they return to Saudi cities

[observer76]

Well, about 50%, except for sources from Runet, not a single Western source speaks, it means just political anti-advertising. Patriot is an air defense complex, its alteration for missile defense is highly specialized and is not sharpened for many of today's goals, but he removes planes well. Therefore, in Israel, for example, they do not even try to buy the latest versions, continuing to modernize the PAC-2 specifically for the air defense mission, for which it is quite good.

[Cowbra]

Quote: observer76

Well, about 50%, except for sources from Runet, not a single Western source speaks, it means just political anti-advertising.

Pedivikia speaks, and she is supervised by the State Department

[observer76]

In pedigree, especially not in English, who wants to write and the State Department, do you think that panties are not supervised in stores yet?

[Cowbra]

Those who want to write, but are censored by the State Department, therefore they are everywhere in foreign agents.

[observer76]

You'd better not discuss paranoid phenomena with me. I am not a doctor.

[observer76]

So Sheffield burned for a long time, and zatanul already when towing to England. Obvious miscalculations in the fight for the survivability of the ship. And in Peri, although there may be nothing to burn, but in the head he was given such that Sheffield never dreamed of.

[dzvero]

In the first Patriots in Iraq, an interesting jamb of programmers got out and the complex shot FOR the target. They fixed it later, but one ancient Scud, applauding salute, still ended up in the Amer base ...

[Cowbra]

Quote: dzvero

and the complex bullets FOR the target.

This is when 22 missiles shot down one SCUD, and did not shoot down? Well, they fixed it so much that Saudi Aramko has since burned twice))) Together with the CIA base in Iraq

[dzvero]

Yeah, something with the rounding of the numbers in the computer

[observer76]

The conversion of Patripots into a missile defense system today does not meet all current realities and therefore the PAC-3 system does not guarantee the protection of areal objects, only point ones. An attempt to use it to protect such an object as an airport is simply a mistake by the command of the country in question.

[observer76]

Patriots and those first used in Israel during the first Iraqi war did not fall into the Scuds either. They were fixed under the Scuds in place, but it turned out that this only made things worse, because the Scud exploded relatively low in the air and covered everything with shrapnel.

[dzvero]

Weeds come out in all systems, and the more complex the system, the more problematic it is to fix it. But when, after 30 years in the ranks ... and in different areas ... it already smells like a systemic crisis.

[observer76]

It's just an air defense system and point missile defense against missiles up to a certain caliber. To fix it in a wider range of applications is simply the wrong way. In Israel, they abandoned it altogether and are armed with only the air defense-shnuyu RAS-2.

[Cowbra]

And when, apart from the Patriots, there is no air defense or missile defense, it is called "Mary Popins has arrived."
Although not, there are still TAADs who slept through the flight of the Korean missile over Japan.
And yet - when not a single attack on the base in Iraq was repulsed, even when Iran warned about the date of the attack, when Arab-American factories and embassies in Baghdad are blazing over and over again - this is called "shoals get out", and "This crap is not at all works "-" Back to the future ". She never shot down a drone, a subsonic missile system, or a ballistic missile - well, why the heck was it developed? She doesn't know how to shoot down any target!

[observer76]

Of course there is, besides the Patriot air defense is quite good. And besides THAAD, there are GBI and SM-2 and SM-3 and SM-6. Nobody fired at ICBMs fired at the maximum altitude trojectory. On such a sharp parabalistic trajectory, a missile is not fired at the target, it is not a ballistic or flat one, and it is only GBI that can shoot it down on such a "space" trajectory, so it was not intercepted, because there is no need. They shot down PAC-2, and even scuds shot down, although not productively. How air defense is a good complex The last trophy of the PAC-2 was the Su-22, and with one rocket and quickly.

[Cowbra]

Quote: observer76

Nobody fired at the ICBM fired at the maximum high-altitude trojectory.

Obviously he didn't shoot, this is anti-space defense

THAAD (English Terminal High Altitude Area Defense [θæd], read "Ted", [1] the early name of the English Theater High Altitude Area Defense) is a mobile ground-based anti-missile complex for high-altitude transatmospheric interception medium-range missiles

And how to shoot something if he didn't see a missile launched from Korea over Japan? It's not like shooting down 1 of the two missiles in the range, when you know where and where it will fly from and when.

[observer76]

She was not seen only on the pages of strictly defined Uryapatriatic sources in Russian. This is not confirmed by any other. First take an interest in the trojectory of that rocket, so as not to write ridiculous nonsense.

[Reserve buildbat]

Even a subsonic anti-ship missile without warhead makes a sickly hole in the ship. A hypersonic piece of anti-ship missiles (if someone accidentally managed to get into it) arranges such a "fire show" that the ship will not seem a little even without explosives. Look at millet even at amerovskie videos on acceleration in a Gauss cannon ("railgun") a piece of iron in 1 kg. And if the rocket weighs 300 kg? The piece that flew to the ship. It will tear like Tuzik a heating pad.

[observer76]

Can you imagine what happens to the overweight contraption on the ballistic trojectory when it encounters a kinetic interceptor? What does not turn into steam, is scattered into small pieces and at such angles that one can speak of a serious defeat by fragments only in a random combination of circumstances. When an anti-ship missile is flying at an altitude of about 25-27 km, the situation is practically the same, only the trajectory is not ballistic.

[Reserve buildbat]

Please list me the kinetic interceptors for hypersonic anti-ship missiles that are in service with NATO.
And the meeting of a hypersonic anti-ship missile with a volcano-phalanx projectile will turn into steam only a projectile

[observer76]

An interceptor does not have to be hypersonic. Example - Barak-8 intercepts BRAMOS, yielding to it in maximum speed on a collision course, due to its high maneuverability. A candidate for adaptation to intercept a hypersonic target will be all the same SM missiles that are intended for naval missile defense. The main adaptation should be in terms of software, allowing the rocket not to go far into the transatmospheric layer, based on a ballistic trajectory, but to continue a gentle flight towards the target at an approach altitude of the anti-ship missile system. Shooting down a hypersonic projectile in a dive at the end with a flank is a rather useless exercise.

[Reserve buildbat]

"But the men don't know ..."
These are illiterate engineers ... It is believed that the speed of the interceptor missile should be at least one and a half times higher than the target missile and the available transverse overload should be at least 2 times higher than that of the target ... , it turns out, the barracks (obams?) shoot down the hypersound, despite the fact that the reaction time of the complex is not enough to launch the missile before the hypersonic "target" smashes its target to pieces.

[observer76]

Yes, the developers of the Hets-3 did not even know what to ask you when they were developing a kinetic interceptor against ICBM warheads with a speed of only 8-9M.
And I also did not know that you can respond to a posting without reading what is written in it and not understanding what you are responding to.

[Reserve buildbat]

Has it ever occurred to you that a hypersonic maneuvering anti-ship missile system is not a blank falling along a ballistic trajectory? So read the literature, or something ...

[observer76]

And it never occurred to you that you can't really maneuver at hypersound in 8M, even if it's 27 km in height. You can slightly correct the trajectory, slightly wiggle back and forth, but a lateral overload even in 12G will break the nafik rocket, and for a kinetic interceptor it is up to 20 today. Would you also remember physics or what?

[Reserve buildbat]

And you just calculate what deflection the rocket will have when changing course by 30 arc seconds within 0,1 seconds. And think about what g-forces and turn rate should be in an anti-missile or gun mount trying to shoot down an anti-ship missile system. By the way, rockets flying at a speed of 4M with an available transverse overload of 60G have long been firmly fixed on the pylons of fighters. That is, part of the issue has been resolved long ago. Even with an overload of 30G, a hypersonic anti-ship missile will easily evade an anti-missile, which has a speed of 3-4M with an available overload of 60G. I'm not even talking about the reaction time of the air defense missile system, which may stupidly not be enough to launch an anti-missile. Incidentally, this is a very serious problem for "our Western partners" at the moment. They sometimes manage to notice a hypersonic target, but they do not have enough speed to shoot at it. Again, do not confuse a maneuvering hypersonic missile with a blank falling along a ballistic trajectory.

[observer76]

The numbers that you voiced are the longitudinal overloads that air-to-air missiles and missiles have reached today. And missiles withstanding such lateral overload so far exist only in dreams. With what acceleration the interceptor should compensate for the target's maneuver depends on the distance to the target. In addition, there is little air resistance at 25-27 km, but it is still present in the 4M interceptor and the 8M missile, too? What's wrong with the target serif launched from 500 km and glowing on the radar like a New Year's fireworks? The average speed is not at all 8M throughout the entire section, it is good if 5, i.e. more than enough time to react.

[Reserve buildbat]

learn materiel, physics, geometry and mathematics ...

[observer76]

Thank you, but according to the subjects taught at the Soviet Polytechnic at the Department of Electronics, which I graduated from, everything is in order with my posts, maybe you just don't know what these subjects are, just heard the names? By the way, what kind of materiel are you doing now?

[Niko]

Quote: Cowbra

It is not so easy to shoot down a hypersonic one - and even without a warhead, it will twist things

Have the problems, guidance, target designation already been resolved? One of the main reasons the West stakes on sub-sound is that the odds of not just launching, but GETTING, are many times higher (if you want to get into something less than a continent, of course.)

[Zaurbek]

The Russian Federation and NATO have different tasks and different difficulties in the destruction of ships:
1. The goal of the Russian Federation is AUG, which will interfere with the deployment of nuclear submarines ... with powerful air defense from air defense systems, Aircraft and AWACS. At the same time, the Russian Federation, in fact, does not have heaps of bases around the world, AUG and cannot get close to the target.
2. Targets of NATO, Israel - single and not very, ships without AUG and air cover. Hence the approach, plus the unification of the launchers and the missiles themselves, so as not to fence a bunch of launchers on a bunch of ships. And an expanded range of carriers and aircraft and diesel-electric submarines and nuclear submarines and various ships and ground launchers.

[observer76]

The stake is on stealth, maneuverability and wide possibilities of detection and differentiation of targets. This clearly makes the choice in the direction of a subsonic missile. To this should be added the ratio of the range to the weight of the warhead and to the physical size.

[Zaurbek]

Under the USSR, everything, too, and the "flock attack" and the size of warheads were calculated to defeat the AUG and armored CD and used nuclear warheads

[Or me]

"Russia bets on high speed": Western press on the differences in new anti-ship missiles

These people are strange in the "Western press". Once upon a time, the speed of a stone from a sling, arrows from a bow / crossbow suited everyone. But progress does not stand still. Don't they understand this?

[observer76]

No, when there were slinges and stones, there were no radar systems, air defense, as well as over-the-horizon guidance. Everything was decided by the speed of the gun and the projectile. But today it is not so.

[Maks1995]

This has been known for a long time, since the times of the USSR.

If there is dominance in the sky - subsonic. Cheaper, simpler, more numerous, longer-range, more imperceptible.
No domination - supersonic. So that the enemy does not have time to intercept

[observer76]

He will not have time to intercept only when the distance leads to a lack of time or a massive attack on one target again leads to the same shortage. In all other cases, a supersonic missile is practically cut off, and a hypersonic missile will have advantages for some time, but over time it will also turn out to be vulnerable to kinetic interceptors. Finding both is no problem practically from the start.

[knn54]

All-weather, with AI anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. Combat radius of F / A-18E / F is not less than 700 km, missile range is not less than 600 km. Each plane carries two missiles. Not to mention US "strategists"
The Zircon's range is less than 1000 km.
And the carriers of "Zircons" (as well as the rockets themselves) are few.
Without a sufficient number of underwater and surface carriers of the oceanic zone, as well as air-sea missile-carrying aviation, there is practically no developed THREE-COMPONENT (space, air, surface-underwater) permanent reconnaissance and target designation system "Zirkona" is not a panacea. Taking into account the developed PLO system at enemy.

[URAL72]

It is unlikely that the range of Hornet can be added to the range of the rocket if we are talking about, for example, the Mediterranean Sea. Already in peacetime, AUG designed to destroy AUG are at the minimum possible distance from the target. So it was under the USSR. Unfortunately, now we can collect less AUG than theirs, but China comes into play ...

[Orange bigg]

Quote: knn54

All-weather, with AI anti-ship missiles AGM-158C LRASM. Combat radius of F / A-18E / F is not less than 700 km, missile range is not less than 600 km. Each plane carries two missiles. Not to mention US "strategists"
The Zircon's range is less than 1000 km.
And the carriers of "Zircons" (as well as the rockets themselves) are few.
Without a sufficient number of underwater and surface carriers of the oceanic zone, as well as air-sea missile-carrying aviation, there is practically no developed THREE-COMPONENT (space, air, surface-underwater) permanent reconnaissance and target designation system "Zirkona" is not a panacea. Taking into account the developed PLO system at enemy.

We have Gremlin, Ostrota, Larchinka-MD assumed as hypersonic multifunctional missiles (as anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles in one person) airborne. You can also remember the KR X-50, X-69 (X-59MK2).

[observer76]

Which ones are still under development?

[Orange bigg]

Quote: observer76

Which ones are still under development?

Uh-huh. At the development stage for more than 10 years. This is me about the Gremlin (GZUR) and the X-50.

... According to Pyotr Butovsky in the article "Russian bombers to be armed with new Kh-50 theater-level cruise missile" in Jane's Missiles & Rockets magazine, Russian sources in early December 2017 revealed the designation X-50 for the new Russian aviation operational tactical (sub-strategic) cruise missile. Sources said that the deployment of production of X-50 missiles is planned under the new Russian State Armament Program for 2018-2027 (GPV-2027).

.Developed by JSC "State Machine-Building Design Bureau" Raduga "named after A. Ya. Bereznyak "in Dubna within the framework of the X-SD (" medium-range ") program, the X-50 missile is presumably a subsonic cruise missile using the guidance system of the Kh-101 strategic cruise missile, but with a smaller, inconspicuous glider similar to the American AGM-158 JASSM rocket. R&D on X-SD began in the early 1990s, but was subsequently suspended for several years.

The Kh-50 missile, designed to be accommodated in the weapon bays of the Tu-22M3 bombers and the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 strategic bombers, is 6 m long - about 1,5 m less than the Kh-101 missile - and has a mass of about 1600 kg. It is expected that the rocket, equipped with a turbofan engine developed by Omsk Motor-Building Design Bureau (OMKB) "Product 37-04" (or TRDD-50B), will reach a range of more than 1500 km, having a cruising speed of 700 km / h and a maximum speed of 950 km / h.

The most complete information about the current Russian program of supersonic aircraft weapons was presented by the former Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel-General Alexander Zelin in a lecture delivered at a conference of representatives of the aviation industry in Moscow in April 2013. According to Colonel General Zelin, Russia is currently implementing a two-stage program for the development of hypersonic missiles. At the first stage, it is planned to develop by 2020 a "compact operational-tactical aviation missile with a flight range of 1500 km and a speed of Mach 6"; this is the aforementioned GZUR. It should be supplemented in the next decade with weapons with a speed of M = 12, assuming a global range.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3016213.html

[observer76]

It is very promising, taking into account as much as one prototype of the Tu-22M3 and one preproductive Tu-22M3M from which they can be launched ...
And yes, there are no such missiles yet.

[Orange bigg]

Quote: observer76

It is very promising, taking into account as much as one prototype of the Tu-22M3 and one preproductive Tu-22M3M from which they can be launched ...
And yes, there are no such missiles yet.

So Sushki will also be able to carry GZUR and X-50, the same Su-34 or Su-30SM2.

[observer76]

From when they can ...

[Orange bigg]

Quote: observer76

From when they can ...

Okay, Baba Yaga is against it?

[observer76]

Against what? Development of the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation? And this is somehow relevant in general, who is against or for? This is not a democratic institution. I mean that when they will, then we will state this fact.

[observer76]

When dropping from heights> 10 km to 900 km.

[Sergei Khukharev]

Russia is not betting on high speed, but on the accuracy and inevitability of hitting the target, realizing this by creating hypersonic missiles, from which it is impossible to defend itself. Hypersound without control and targeting does not pose a significant threat to the AUG.

[observer76]

There is no inevitability. Accuracy when flying hypersound is pretty relative. And today kinetic interceptors shoot down ICBMs, tomorrow they will shoot down PKT in high-altitude (hypersonic sectors). Finding them is not a problem, and having altitude> 25 km in the hypersonic section of the samop, it is for high-speed interceptions, your C-200 developed up to 6M in the high-altitude interception section.

[Max PV]

Here the determining factor is rather non-obvious at first glance reasons. First, because of the greater economic potential, the size of the fleet and the number of missiles on ships, primarily the United States, can afford to lose more missiles in a salvo. At the same time, to hit the target, they will need fewer missiles due to the smaller displacement of Russian ships. Roughly speaking, the Americans can launch, for example, 16 anti-ship missiles, and achieve the desired result, even losing 14 of them, and we cannot lose more than 8-3 out of 4.
Secondly, due to the limitations of the size of the missiles used (the maximum missile length is 41 m less than that of the 3S14, the maximum missile diameter is at least 2,5 mm less), the UVP mk.120 does not allow placing in it a supersonic, and even more so, a hypersonic anti-ship missile with no matter how sane the mass of the warhead.
Thirdly, the absence in the west of the school and experience in creating supersonic anti-ship missiles. Not because of Zadornovskaya "stupidity", but because of the lack of need (see point 1).
At the same time, talk about stealth and "cleverness" of Western anti-ship missiles is more from the field of propaganda. For example, the USSR successfully resolved the issue of organizing an attack by a "flock" of anti-ship missiles long before they started talking about it in the West. Yes, and the issues of target selection, noise immunity, development, in addition to radar, also IR, laser and other GOS, have been solved for a very long time. The same ancient P-120 had a combined ARL + IR seeker. And as for "stealth missiles", in the case of anti-ship missiles, it is closer to the question of "stealth infantry". A working active radar seeker already completely negates the concept of "stealth", and the antenna even of a disconnected seeker is quite radio noticeable, especially at ranges of anti-anti-ship missiles (exit from the radio horizon 20-25 km from the target). And the "pure" IR seeker is not a panacea, since it is even more susceptible to interference than radar. It can be affected by heavy fog or precipitation, and the use of laser and optical countermeasures, as well as IR-opaque and hot smoke curtains can completely exclude target detection.

[Avior]

IR GOS

IR GOS are point, and there are matrix. A big difference in terms of noise immunity.
Modern GOS combined - matrix + microwave radar.

[observer76]

Yeah decided, already tested a flock of two, according to the data that were written here on VO. The West fundamentally does not develop anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles supersonic, not because it considers a mass launch as a solution, but because it believes that at a long distance anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles have nothing to do with a supersonic engine, and for shorter distances and less maneuverability requirements, their anti-aircraft missiles are suitable as supersonic RCC. A working seeker crosses out stealth only in Murzilka magazine.

[Shahno]

Nothing new, of course. Cheaper, more, we get a real effect.
Well, you launch max 50 of these hyper (super) sonic missiles, well, 40 will pass. AND?
On TA 100 fell ... And that, only made me angry.
Ps. About nuclear weapons is a separate conversation.

[observer76]

When did it drop 100 at once on the TA?

[Shahno]

Immediately, no ... I meant the total number. I apologize for having united TA and Gush Dan. The last attack from Gaza, somewhere like that ... But Gush is given as a maximum as Peter in terms of parameters, and Tel Aviv is still a district. So local subtleties.
Ps. Well, that is, Ramat Gan is not TA Jaffa, and certainly not Rishon LeZion. Although everyone in the world knows it Tel Aviv.

[observer76]

Hits in residential buildings in such a number were not even throughout Gushdan during the last mass shelling. I myself saw the fireworks, though from the Sharon area. One rocket was shot straight over our block already in vertical fall. The explosion flared in air like a cloud. Those who write nonsense about the inefficiency of the Dome on the VO have never seen its work in the eyes, not from the position of an outside observer, but from the position of the target they are flying at. Would have seen at least once, would have greatly changed their mind.

[Shahno]

There were hits. It wasn't all so sad, but there were. What, I told you.
If 10 of them had a different charge?

[observer76]

Yes, there were, I do not deny. In such a quantity, it was not. Another charge, in the sense of chemical or bacteriological? Yes, it would be an extremely sad result. But this is already a scenario for a completely different course of events.

[venik]

"...Russia is betting on high speed. Moscow is close to putting into service the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile system. The United States and Europe have traditionally used subsonic anti-ship missiles, relying on high maneuverability combined with low infrared and radio frequency signatures and salvo attacks to penetrate ship defenses...... "
=======
Well, it's kind of an ambiguous question ..... In the Russian Federation, in addition to the hypersonic "Zircon", there are also subsonic "Uranus" and supersonic "Onyxes" and "Calibers"! And the states are also seriously thinking about hypersonic anti-ship missiles, although they are not doing very well yet ..... In short, everyone does what they CAN within their capabilities.

[observer76]

They think about hypersonic ones, but not about anti-ship missiles. And they succeed normally, since real orders followed only recently, everything else from the past from the field of research with a backlog for the future.

[voyaka uh]

And no one modestly writes whether a hypersonic anti-ship missile can hit a moving target.
And if so, how?
How does she aim?

[mark1]

Quote: voyaka uh

How does she aim?

- There is, and the strong Red Army has a mighty secret. And whenever you attack, there will be no victory for you.

[voyaka uh]

Let's hit with hypersound on the road and sloppiness!

[venik]

Quote: voyaka uh

And no one modestly writes whether a hypersonic anti-ship missile can hit a moving target.

=======
Have you seen a LOT of anti-ship missiles capable of engaging exclusively IMMOVABLE targets?
--------

Quote: voyaka uh

And if so, how?
How does she aim?

========
Tell you everything! Are you a spy by any chance?
But seriously, what prevents it (hypersonic anti-ship missiles) from aiming at the target? Plasma Cloud?

[Avior]

in the course of creating new anti-ship missiles, the developer makes a choice between a number of characteristics - speed, stealth, maneuverability and target detection efficiency. For Russia, according to the Western press, the first indicator has become a priority.

In principle, exactly so.
In Russia, in continuation of the Soviet approach, the emphasis on missile speed, in the West, they proceed from the fact that the main enemy of the anti-ship missile system is electronic warfare and fired traps, therefore, they took the path of complicating the anti-ship missile system.
The reaction time to the attack is also a different approach.
The Russian modern approach is to reduce the margin of time due to the high speed of the anti-ship missile system (but at the same time the missile flies at a high altitude), in the West, due to stealth, low flight altitude and stealth at subsonic speed.

[observer76]

This is closer to reality.

[S. Sergei]

In the video, the competitor to Zircon is launched from the Phantom.