Military Review

Helpless NATO ships

189

Subsonic small anti-ship missiles have proven their superiority over supersonic missiles.


The lower speed was not a guarantee of easy interception by air defense systems. "Harpoons" and "Exocets" stealthily approached the target at low altitudes. As of the 1990s, in the United States alone, the Harpoon anti-ship missile could be used by 200 surface ships, 65% of the fleet and nearly 800 naval aircraft aviation... And in total, the rocket was put into service in three dozen countries. Compact size and versatile appearance made it possible to hold such weapon always ready.

The Russian Navy has embarked on a dark path to create supersonic "flying poles". Whose outstanding characteristics were supposed to compensate for the lag in naval aviation. The most advanced anti-ship missiles created at the end of the Soviet era (example ZM55 "Onyx") were already an example of the desire for compactness and unification in terms of carriers. As far as the dimensions of the 8-meter missiles allowed.

The anti-ship arms race did not have time to enter its hot phase.
It was replaced by decades of complete lull. In memory of those events, only two concepts from irreconcilable rivals remained.


Lofty and loud words about the superiority of Western weapons concealed a double bottom.

In this stories there will be many more sharp turns.

As of 2021, the rivalry between subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles is completely over. The reason for this was ... No, not parting with the last examples of the Soviet past. The projects and technologies of that period still form the basis of the navy's armaments. Our adversary was to blame for this situation.

Harpoon rocket quietly and unnoticed disappeared from arsenals


Since 2000, all destroyers built overseas (and this is more than 40 1st rank pennants) entered service without anti-ship weapons. The submarine fleet was disarmed even earlier. The UGM-84 submarine-launched version of the Harpoon missile was decommissioned in 1997. And since then nothing new has appeared.


As time goes on, trends persist.

The 70th destroyer Delbert Black (commissioned in 2020), like its predecessors, does not have anti-ship weapons. Neither subsonic, nor supersonic, none. The destroyer's offensive potential is directed exclusively against the coast.

What will be the actions of EM "Arleigh Burke" in a situation with a surface threat?

What can his crew hope for?

Hope dies last. And all hopes are associated with "dual-use" weapons - long-range anti-aircraft missiles with active guidance heads. That allows you to attack surface targets at distances comparable to the effective use of anti-ship missiles. No need for radar illumination of the destroyer.

Of course, in practice, everything is not so rosy.

For example, anti-aircraft missiles, which make it possible to partially compensate for the lack of traditional anti-ship missiles, appeared in noticeable quantities only in the past decade. Before over a decade and a half the US surface fleet appeared completely helpless.

What is the attitude of the faithful friends and allies of the Americans to this situation?

The British Navy has officially announced its intention to say goodbye to the "Harpoons" in 2018, without specifying a specific date for the appearance of a replacement.

The Royal Navy has boldly stepped into the future without anti-ship weapons. At the same time, the Aster-family SAMs used by the British Navy are even less adapted for firing at ships. Strictly speaking, they are not adapted at all. As evidenced by the graceful silhouette, compactness and size of the warheads of these missiles.

The creators of "Aster" made an effective missile defense system for the shipborne air defense / missile defense system. They did not suffer from fantasies about hyper-universality. No one in their right mind will shoot missiles with 15 kg warheads at ships.

For these reasons, EM "Defender", which penetrated into the Russian territorial waters, was unable to pose a threat to the ships of the Black Sea Fleet (events of the summer of 2021).

The navies of other European states are trying to follow the example of the Anglo-Saxons. Over the past half century, no fundamentally new samples of anti-ship missiles have been created. And the number of weapons for this purpose deployed on ships is being reduced.

Small-sized subsonic anti-ship missiles have proven their advantages


Therefore, at the beginning of the century, the US Navy, in cooperation with Lockheed Martin, developed the BGM-178 RATTLRS (Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike) anti-ship missile.

The RATTLRS, with a flight speed of Mach 3+ and a range of 500 km, was a clear confirmation that high speed does not matter. RCC requires stealth, stealth, and artificial intelligence in the first place.


The sharp plot twists must have tired the reader. Therefore - in plain text.

The observed facts show that our partners are seriously interested in long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles. Outwardly so similar to the "flying pillars" and "Chelomey monsters" of the Soviet era.

This weapon has a set of essential qualities. Speed ​​- less flight time. Time is everything. Long range allows you not to expose the carrier to retaliation.

Targeting was not a "weak link" here. The navy of the said country has a sufficient number of "eyes" capable of providing an overview along the course of the IBM, around and ahead for hundreds of miles. In such a situation, the opportunity to hit first is extremely tempting. Without wasting time and not placing hopes only on aviation.

All the necessary technologies were available to create the RATTLRS. Including the most important thing is the engine. It is based on the Allison J102 used in supersonic targets imitating the Russian Onyx and Mosquitoes.

Familiar from some of the comments of the condescending tone and excuse of the enemy's failure?

Let's give an honest assessment.

Observing the creak of the development of subsonic missiles, the RATTLRS-level ammunition would have been accepted into service only by the middle of the century.

No RATTLRS appeared on the destroyers. As well as there are no subsonic missiles left. The project repeated the fate of the supersonic version of the LRASM.

But the fact remains. Overseas are interested! They understand what capabilities such a weapon has.

Here flashed the mention of a rocket with the ear-pleasing designation LRASM. So her time has come.

And there were so many promises and hopes!


Terrible AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. At first glance, it is not clear why this aircraft missile is in the topic about the armament of ships. However, there are grounds for this.

The history of LRASM began about fifteen years ago with a proposal to create a single universal anti-ship missile system. With the possibility of launching it from the destroyers' UVP and using it by aircraft carriers. The combat debut took place in the sensational cartoon from the Lockheed Martin company, in which the rocket effectively sunk a ship similar in outline to the Moskva RCR.


Terrible things were said about the rocket. Stealthy, smart, with a variety of attack algorithms. Capable of penetrating harbors, flying along the coast or over land, and approaching targets from unexpected directions. True, such maneuvers will take forever. The version adopted for service has a subsonic flight speed.

LRASM knows what ships of different classes look like and is able to accurately identify the main target. How this will work in practice - no one knows. Only in theory, based on the statements of the developers. The only thing that is beyond doubt is a powerful warhead weighing 450 kg.

And here's a strange moment: in all advertising cartoons, LRASM is airborne.

Where are the ships in this story?

In 2013, LRASM was launched from a stand simulating the MK.41 unit. Then they fired a couple more times. The problem was the danger of damaging the plastic hull of the stealth missile as it exited the silo. It seems that they have learned to deal with this phenomenon. Not a single missile was destroyed.

But, as it turned out, the main danger awaited developers from another direction. They stopped giving them money.

The "rough" appearance of the product indicated that the financing of this direction was carried out on a leftover basis. The prototype with the accelerator from the ASROC anti-submarine missile was supposed to remind the customer that the launch from the UVP was possible. But, apparently, the customer has lost all interest. The missile production contract signed in 2021 was signed in the interests of the air force and naval aviation.

Ships won't see such weapons. Not now, not in the foreseeable future.

The ships got something different!


When discussing NATO fleets, the discussion inevitably concerns the Norwegian Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

The NSM concept does not fundamentally differ from other small-sized subsonic missiles. The widespread use of composites in the construction and a decrease in the starting mass to 400 kg are not in themselves evidence of an increase in combat qualities. The fighting qualities are affected by the reduction in the mass of the warhead, which is two times weaker than the warhead of the "Harpoon"!

The main interest is associated with the "brains" of a modern rocket.

Here the story repeats with obstacle avoidance, target selection and increased efficiency in the conditions of a rugged coastline, including in skerries and fjords. This is especially true for the Norwegian Navy.

As one reader has noted, the navy is not built to hide in skerries. According to the rules of military science, the skerries are blocked at distant approaches, and the fleet locked there begins to bring inconvenience to its owners.

The US Navy does not plan to behave in this way, therefore NSM launch containers are installed only on littoral ships (LCS). They also promise to appear on promising frigates (again news in the future tense).


Obviously not what the adherents of the "modular design" were striving for ...

The littorals eventually got the opportunity to shoot at the surface enemy. The ships of the far sea zone were again left with nothing. It was simply a shame to equip 10000-ton destroyers with such missiles.

At this point, the imperial march should start, and the Tomahawk CD will flash in the air.

Why is the "Battle Ax" dangerous on the high seas?


At the present time, nothing.

The most that the existing versions of the rocket are capable of is to whistle over the mast of the ship. The only modification for attacking surface targets BGM-109B TASM was removed from service back in 1994.

For its time, TASM was an interesting development. Combining a long range with a low-altitude flight profile. By the time the subsonic CD arrived at the aiming point, the target itself was usually in a different place. Out of sight of the radar seeker. The embarrassing situation was resolved by the pseudo-intellectual behavior of the rocket, the Tomahawk circled over the probable area of ​​the target, conducting a search with a "snake" ...

However, now it does not matter. In the XNUMXst century, not a single modification of the Tomahawk appeared to combat ships.

As a naval weapon, the Ax categorically dislikes water. Its high-precision systems do not operate over a flawlessly uniform sea surface. Having got out of the UVP cell, the cruise missile immediately turns to the coast, keeping a course according to GPS and gyroscopes.

According to many who participated in the discussion of the last article, the most recent version of the "Tomahawk V" has significant potential for dealing with surface targets.

An overly bold statement.

A certain mysterious modification "Block Va", which, in the terms of the developer, "has not yet been presented", can hit the moving ships.

The opportunity to draw conclusions is left to the readers themselves.

The rest of the time is worth spending on discussing the only missile capable of attacking surface targets, which is present in the ammunition load of the Arlie Burke destroyers.

Anti-aircraft missile RIM-174 ERAM or "Standard-6"


In the general case, without reference to a specific situation and the exact characteristics of the complexes, firing missiles at ships has one advantage and three key disadvantages.

The advantage lies in the shorter reaction time of the anti-aircraft complexes. Which is of particular importance when shooting at short distances. On an unexpectedly revealed enemy.

On the other hand, a surprise awaits those wishing to shoot at the ships. Most anti-aircraft missiles will not be able to hit a surface target. Their proximity fuses are tuned to target sizes that are very different from those of ships. When approaching the ship and the surface of the water, the warhead will prematurely detonate.

When the detonator is "roughened" in the "sea target" mode, it will still be difficult to hit the enemy.

The proximity fuse will detonate at some distance from the target. Given the many times less power of the missile defense warheads, compared to traditional anti-ship missiles, such an external effect will not be able to disable the ship.

This technical problem must be solved even at the stage of creating a rocket. Therefore, "Standard-6" is equipped with contact and proximity fuses. A very rare combination for the class of anti-aircraft missiles, from which direct hits are usually not required.

The remaining two problems have no solutions.

Launched along a high-altitude trajectory, the missile defense system has no chance of remaining unnoticed. Using an American rocket as an example, its flight to the maximum range (370 km) should take at least five minutes. That gives the enemy enough time to have time to play a combat alert, shoot all traps and activate electronic warfare. For a low-power missile homing head, this will be of particular importance.

Helpless NATO ships
BOD "Admiral Panteleev" puts the veil

"Standard-6" weighs one and a half tons, but the bulk of the rocket (fuel) burns out in the first seconds after launch. Only an empty shell and a 64-kg warhead reach the target. That is enough to intercept air targets, but the use of such missiles against ships looks absurd. The warhead is almost three times inferior in weight to the "Exoset" warhead, one of the weakest anti-ship missiles in terms of this indicator.

The speed of the rocket itself (3,5 M) in matters of damage is of little importance. The entire amount of damage is inflicted by the missile warhead. If the warhead fuse fails for any reason, the following will happen.


Incident with a Ukrainian vessel (2000), which, ignoring all warnings, entered the Black Sea Fleet exercise zone.

The former trawler "Vereshchagino" had a length of 50 m and a gross tonnage of 750 tons. The rocket of the coastal complex "Redut" rushed at a speed of 1,8 M, had a length of 9 meters and was equipped with an inert warhead weighing a little more than half a ton. Fortunately, there were no casualties, the ship independently returned to the port.

If it hits the side and light superstructure, the rocket will pierce them through and rush off into the blue distance. Taking all the kinetic energy with you. Or pierced from top to bottom, to the very bottom! Given the presence of twenty watertight compartments in a modern frigate, this situation does not mean anything.

In theory, if you drive a "plastic" missile defense system into the side of a mid-twentieth century cruiser, then most of the kinetic energy will be spent on the destruction and vaporization of the rocket itself.

Anti-ship missiles do not rely on stored kinetic energy. They rely on the detonation of their own warheads! Anti-aircraft ammunition in such conditions has nothing to rely on.

The sinking of the frigate USS Reuben James after it was hit by a Standard-6 missile is not an argument in favor of the effectiveness of the missile defense system as an anti-ship weapon. The sinking of the frigate had much more significant reasons.

If you sum up all that has been said, then firing anti-aircraft missiles at ships is not an idea so-so. Only suitable against Iranian boats.

Conclusion


The absence of anti-ship weapons on the ships of the far sea zone has no rational explanation. This situation is only beneficial to the Russian Navy.

But I would like to discuss and understand its reasons.

According to many experts, the explanation is the difference in the concept of the use of naval forces. Abroad, the main striking force is considered to be aviation, which has been given the most modern means to combat surface ships (anti-surface warfare, ASuW). The situation is clear.

But there are five contradictory points here.


1. Aviation cannot constantly and continuously accompany ships. This is quite obvious. Planes from which aircraft carrier (or airbase) covered the Defender and Donald Cook during the voyages of these ships in the Black Sea?

2. The Yankees themselves have repeatedly and successfully used anti-ship missiles from surface carriers in combat conditions. In various local conflicts. What has changed now if they deny their own combat experience?

3. Small-sized anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" occupied the smallest line in the estimate for the construction of Aegis destroyers. Is the reason - meaningless "saving on matches"?

4. In connection with the "growing Chinese threat" calls are constantly being made for the need to increase the number of naval personnel. Where is the logic here? Why compete with the Chinese Navy in the number of pennants, if American ships do not care not adapted to fight a surface enemy... In such a reality, it is necessary to build not ships, but Lancer bombers with LRASM missiles.

5. Modern experience of the South Korean Navy. In the summer of 2021, the South Korean Navy presented footage of the testing of a "supersonic" anti-ship missile, which looks very much like the Onyx missile. This once again testifies to the fact that where the threat of a heated confrontation at sea persists, a completely different weapon is being created. Unlike light anti-ship missiles of European fleets. Not to American tales about the omnipotent aviation.

Author:
Articles from this series:
NATO ships were helpless
189 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. Machito
    Machito 24 November 2021 05: 44
    .
    It looks like we are leading the New Arms Race. We need to build up our technological advantage.
    1. dauria
      dauria 24 November 2021 06: 57
      +20
      But I don’t understand why a subsonic tomahawk cannot become a good anti-ship missile system. He will cover 450 km in half an hour, make a slide and inspect a square of 50x50 km. The target will not jump out of this square in half an hour. Moreover, the rocket is not alone. It is quite possible to spread them along the front, to establish data exchange. Yes, there will be electronic warfare interference, dipole curtains and decoys. But all this will be for supersonic anti-ship missiles. Here, only the combined GOS will help and "cunning brains". Easier to shoot down? Yes, not a fact. Subsonic Argentine Skyhawks managed to survive, flying over the masts of the British. And then there was a flock of little monsters from different directions.
      1. Santa Fe
        24 November 2021 07: 04
        +3
        But I don’t understand why a subsonic tomahawk cannot become a good anti-ship missile

        The Navy does not need such a rocket, since they haven’t made it yet.
        1. dauria
          dauria 24 November 2021 07: 45
          +13
          The Navy does not need such a rocket, since they haven’t made it yet.

          Maybe the enemy has not been at sea since the 90s?
          You know, Oleg, I'm not a specialist in naval weapons. Only I know for sure - supersonic is not a cheap thing in terms of fuel. So you will make giant "pillars". But does it make sense ? Here you have to count and try. Will the ship fight back or not. A man will not dodge even a pistol bullet or a rifle one. And here it is even worse - supersonic and shoots at a shorter range with the same dimensions.
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 24 November 2021 13: 55
            +2
            Quote: dauria
            But does it make sense ? Here you have to count and try. Will the ship fight back or not. A man will not dodge even a pistol bullet or a rifle one.


            The rifle bullet has more destructive power. The striking factor is not only the explosives in the warhead, but also the kinetic energy of the rocket itself, at supersonic it is noticeably higher. Plus the detonation of unused "expensive" fuel.
            For aviation, compact subsonic missiles are indeed desirable. For surface (submarine) ships, supersonic and hypersonic are preferable.
            It is better to take a comprehensive approach to solving such problems. One thing will not work - another will work.
            1. Aag
              Aag 24 November 2021 23: 51
              0
              Quote: Illanatol
              Quote: dauria
              But does it make sense ? Here you have to count and try. Will the ship fight back or not. A man will not dodge even a pistol bullet or a rifle one.


              The rifle bullet has more destructive power. The striking factor is not only the explosives in the warhead, but also the kinetic energy of the rocket itself, at supersonic it is noticeably higher. Plus the detonation of unused "expensive" fuel.
              For aviation, compact subsonic missiles are indeed desirable. For surface (submarine) ships, supersonic and hypersonic are preferable.
              It is better to take a comprehensive approach to solving such problems. One thing will not work - another will work.

              Perhaps you are correctly setting out ...
              Only first you need to (produce, arm, equip, let go ...) detect and hit the target ...
              Isn't that what we have the main problems with right now?
              Not special, just asking ... hi
          2. Dmitry Khayritdinov
            Dmitry Khayritdinov 24 November 2021 22: 34
            0
            Weapons are, in principle, a very expensive pleasure. What about fuel? Rocket "Moskit" gives out its 2M, working on an analogue of aviation kerosene. And how much is a ton of aviation kerosene now? And, of course, the launch vehicle from which the entire range of weapons is launched is not cheap. So, if you are not a specialist, then why ask such stupid questions.
            1. dauria
              dauria 25 November 2021 01: 09
              +1
              ... And how much is a ton of aviation kerosene now?

              So, if you are not a specialist, then why ask such stupid questions.

              wassat Hmm, that would not have thought that the phrase "supersonic is not a cheap thing" someone would understand in rubles and dollars. In kilograms, sir,
              The name "sound barrier" did not come from just like that. This is indeed a sharp leap in performance steps ... including aerodynamic quality. And the consumption of this kerosene per km. So you have to make a hefty rocket at the same range. And think about how to "attach" it to the ship.
              So, just for everyone ..... "aerodynamic quality" is also not in rubles. hi
              1. Dmitry Khayritdinov
                Dmitry Khayritdinov 27 November 2021 20: 22
                0
                I agree with the comments. No wonder the price for the high speed of the Mosquito is its short range.
          3. Alex777
            Alex777 25 November 2021 19: 52
            0
            Quote: dauria
            You know, Oleg, I'm not a specialist in naval weapons. Only I know for sure - supersonic is not a cheap thing in terms of fuel. So you will make giant "pillars". But does it make sense ?

            Did the creation and testing of Zircon pass you by?
            In UKSK it is placed. So nothing "gigantic".
            Altitude + airspeed made interception very difficult.
            There is no reason to doubt the 1000 km range.
            What else is needed to spoil the mood of the enemy? bully
        2. SergKam
          SergKam 24 November 2021 08: 08
          0
          The Navy does not need such a rocket, since they haven’t made it yet.

          Are you sure you read it carefully? It was made, it was in service, then it was removed in the early 2000s.
          1. Santa Fe
            24 November 2021 08: 13
            +5
            Not 2000s, but ten years earlier

            And it was about the current situation
            1. bayard
              bayard 24 November 2021 17: 09
              +4
              Quote: Santa Fe
              Not 2000s, but ten years earlier

              In the 90s, the United States did not have an enemy at sea and was not foreseen in the foreseeable future. So why do they need anti-ship missiles then?
              So they were gone.
              Now the need has arisen and the easiest way is to recreate the Tomahawk PC, because it fits perfectly into the UVP cell. And to make her new brains, to put new combat algorithms into them, is not so difficult. It is possible in general for a seeker from another - a modern rocket to be rammed there.
              As a GOS for the PC version of the Ax, the Americans had a GOS from Harpoon with additional software options (snake search). So what prevents you from doing the same today?
              The creation of a fundamentally new anti-ship missile system can create a problem with placement, because it can withstand a "torpedo caliber" of 533 mm. not always possible and advisable. And "Ax", he and in the PKR - "Ax".
              And the fact that they do not yet have such a missile does not mean that it will not appear in service in a year or two. This is generally the simplest solution.

              And if the "Stronghold of Democracy" becomes completely unbearable, they will simply buy their "Brahmos" from India.
              Of course, they will not be included in the American UVPs, but these same UVPs can be supplied by ... India. And change them when upgrading as much as you like.
              India is now their ally, the Americans have money, and as a reciprocal gratitude, they can throw PLO planes ... or unmanned aerial vehicles ...
              They now have an anti-Chinese military alliance ... with a mass of Soviet-Russian weapons.
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 25 November 2021 19: 56
                0
                Quote: bayard
                And if the "Stronghold of Democracy" becomes completely unbearable, they will simply buy their "Brahmos" from India.
                Of course, they will not be included in the American UVPs, but these same UVPs can ... India supply

                Unrealistic and impossible. From any side. 100500% yes
                1. bayard
                  bayard 25 November 2021 21: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Alex777
                  Unrealistic and impossible.

                  Are you hinting that the Indians will not be able to assemble the "Brahmos" without cooperation with the Russian Federation?
                  Well, that means they can just share technical documentation and valid samples - they have the right to export.
                  Or, by the very fact of their state of being in an alliance with the United States, Britain, Australia and Japan, they can reinforce their squadrons with their own ships with "Brahmos". They will gladly do it against China.
                  1. Alex777
                    Alex777 25 November 2021 21: 12
                    0
                    Quote: bayard
                    Are you hinting that the Indians will not be able to assemble the "Brahmos" without cooperation with the Russian Federation?

                    The States have everything else.
                    Standards, systems, strategy, tactics, technologies.
                    There is nothing in Brahmos for which it would make sense for them to contact him. Moreover, to depend on India. bully
        3. Alex777
          Alex777 25 November 2021 21: 17
          0
          Oleg! I agree with you on many issues, but in my opinion you underestimate the SAM. Or changed their minds. This is your article:
          What is left to add? Now even the Turks know that the ship's air defense missile system is not a pound of raisins.

          https://topwar.ru/38905-zenitnoy-raketoy-po-korablyam.html
      2. venik
        venik 24 November 2021 20: 12
        -2
        Quote: dauria
        Subsonic Argentine Skyhawks managed to survive, flying over the masts of the British.

        ======
        This is over WHICH British ships "Skyhawks" flew? Above Amazon-class frigates? So there is their air defense - only two 20-mm "Erlikon" and 1x4 launchers of the "Sea Cat" air defense system! with a range of up to 6 km, subsonic speed and manual reloading? Over the masts of these - FLYING ... And even bombing ... And even HIT! True, they also lost several Skyhawks (though mostly from the fire of the Erlikonosv !!!

        ---------
        Quote: dauria
        But I don’t understand why a subsonic tomahawk cannot become a good anti-ship missile system. He will cover 450 km in half an hour, make a slide and inspect a square of 50x50 km

        ======
        And how do you think they flew ??? Exactly:

        Only at the moment of the "jump" they are very well detected by the ship's air defense systems, after which, if the target has an air defense missile system with an ARGSN, then "Tomahawk will not be helped too much by shaving: a SAM with an ARGSN will most likely detect it against the background of the sea ... .. request
      3. Dmitry Khayritdinov
        Dmitry Khayritdinov 24 November 2021 22: 19
        0
        why such difficulties, there is an air wing on an aircraft carrier compound, which is capable of several times faster to overcome the required distance to the target and inflict defeat from the minimum safe distance. And how much time and money still needs to be allocated for all the improvements. Moreover, now two areas are more important: 1. space weapons and 2. hypersound, where they have significant lags.
      4. Intruder
        Intruder 25 November 2021 09: 40
        0
        Here, only the combined GOS will help and "cunning brains". Easier to shoot down? Yes, not a fact. Subsonic Argentine Skyhawks managed to survive, flying over the masts of the British. And then there was a flock of little monsters from different directions.
        This is hindered by the cost for solutions like those with: combined seeker on a "swarm" plus communications with noise-immune telemetry channels "in a flock", for such a defeat of an "expensive" frigate or cruiser ...!
        And so, the head planning unit with POFBCH (from 100 - 200 kg.) And intelligent avionics, with AGSN !?
    2. Serge-667
      Serge-667 2 December 2021 13: 27
      0
      Strictly speaking, we have always been in the lead in cruise missiles.
  2. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 24 November 2021 05: 48
    +5
    Subsonic small anti-ship missiles have proven their superiority over supersonic missiles.

    Oleg loves to lie.
    Moreover, from the first word)
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 24 November 2021 06: 06
      +2
      I don't believe in Kaptsov's tales ...
    2. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 09: 11
      +5
      Oleg loves to lie.

      Alexey Sommer is a fan of throwing words into the wind
  3. Lair
    Lair 24 November 2021 06: 39
    +19
    The reason for the US lagging behind in the RCC is very simple - the death of the USSR in 1991! In addition, the United States has always relied on aircraft carriers and submarines. Modern surface ships of the Russian Navy are 20-25 combat-ready ships, including corvettes (without ships of rank 3). Therefore, the Americans will not need missiles for such a fleet.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 07: 15
      +21
      Truth. There is nothing to argue about

      After the collapse of the Soviet Union, priorities changed. The current fleet, despite all the zircons, is apparently not being taken seriously. It seems that he is not even noticed.

      According to supersonic missile systems, it turns out that the Union was moving in the right direction, since they are still interested in them.
      1. 76SSSR
        76SSSR 24 November 2021 09: 52
        +6
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The union was moving in the right direction

        And not only for anti-ship missiles. Then the "marked" combine came and cut all the crops ...
        1. glestwid
          glestwid 26 November 2021 00: 34
          -1
          The combiner did not come, but his Finnish jeweler brought him on purpose. And not him alone.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 24 November 2021 10: 07
        +6
        Quote: Santa Fe
        With regard to supersonic missile systems, it turns out that the Union was moving in the right direction ...

        Correct, of course. Granites, at one time (despite their gigantic size) were just a masterpiece. A blow by two or four dozen similar anti-ship missiles guaranteed to destroy the enemy AUG of the late 80s ... And the carriers were a match: 949A and 1144. The Soviet Fleet took the wrong path only in the topic of aircraft-carrying ships (cruisers) and VTOL aircraft ...
      3. lucul
        lucul 24 November 2021 12: 06
        -1
        "The current fleet, despite all the zircons, is apparently not being taken seriously. It seems that it is not even noticed."
        What is it - I can not insert a quote, "quotes" do not work)))
        Grief commentators actively minus the author's approach, but he is right. And if the amers' lack of anti-ship missiles against the Russian fleet is still not so critical, then against the Chinese fleet it is critical and how.
        Here is a simple question, how are the Americans going to fight without anti-ship missiles on their ships, against the Chinese fleet? )))
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 24 November 2021 17: 29
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          how are the Americans going to fight without anti-ship missiles on their ships, against the Chinese fleet? )))

          By economic methods, basically, but also with the help of all sorts of political intrigue and manipulation, as they are used to. It is already becoming dangerous to fight the Chinese hotly. No matter what happens ...
          1. Santa Fe
            24 November 2021 21: 44
            +3
            It is already becoming dangerous to fight the Chinese hotly.

            There can be no war between production workers and research institutes / financial department

            Mutual claims are constant, conflicts - yes. War ruled out
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 25 November 2021 02: 17
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          how are the Americans going to fight without anti-ship missiles on their ships, against the Chinese fleet?

          They will have about 60 submarines, which will wage an unlimited submarine war against the NK of the PLA Navy. Above, from the attacks of PLO aircraft, they will be covered by carrier aircraft with AVM ... Therefore, I personally would not rely on the PLA surface fleet in the war with the United States.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 24 November 2021 07: 00
    +6
    PMSM lack of anti-ship missiles on US ships is fully justified. In order to "break through" the echeloned air defense of the modern KUG, and even more so the AUG, dozens or even hundreds of anti-ship missiles in a salvo will be required. This amount is easier to give by aviation, the same B-1B. Or, in our case, for example, with SSGN. And the ship, first of all, should provide air defense of the region. There is no point in wasting limited space on a RCC.

    Considered this question:
    https://topwar.ru/182274-nadvodnye-korabli-otrazit-udar-pkr.html
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 07: 55
      +14
      There is no point in wasting limited space on a RCC.

      There is enough space on the ships, so much so that it has to be left empty, like on Dutch frigates, instead of the sixth section of the UVP - a simple plate


      And the ship, first of all, should provide air defense of the region.

      Tasks are determined by purpose, situation and threats

      The western fleets do not have a surface enemy and will not appear in the foreseeable future
      1. El Barto
        El Barto 24 November 2021 12: 19
        +2
        Actually, this reflects the objective geographic reality and the position of opponents in a potential conflict.
        Taking into account the military-political unity of the conditional West, they have opponents of the continental countries of Eurasia, which are not hungry for a naval blockade and which have neither military nor economic interests in overseas territories. That is, NATO does not need to interrupt the enemy's communications, the only question is to protect its supply lines.
        Again, in the scenario of a large-scale conventional conflict, geography has its say: any landings on the maritime periphery of Russia, for example, are a dead-end and purely auxiliary option, which in itself does not decide anything. We will not seriously consider the heroic march of the USMC to Moscow from Murmansk, Novorossiysk and Vladivostok, or the strategic landing at Tiksi.
        The southern direction did not justify itself - NATO was never able to gain a foothold there. Only the traditional direction lags behind - the wide gates of the East European Plain. Moreover, "friends" like the Finns are unlikely to remain on the sidelines.
        And there we need not an anti-ship missile, but a large ground group. Which NATO is collecting on the sly. Poles, Ukrainians and other Romanians have a lot of meat, they will provide equipment and weapons.
        In general, as the great Winnie the Pooh said, it is not just that with the development of the fleet.
        And the peculiarities of the rearmament of NATO fleets confirm this.
    2. Illanatol
      Illanatol 24 November 2021 13: 59
      +1
      Quote: AVM
      it is easier to give some amount by aviation, the same B-1B.


      Aviation cannot be kept in the air around the clock. And the time to approach the attack line may be too long.
      It is too expensive to hold back large enemy surface forces at a great distance from their bases by aviation.
  5. SergKam
    SergKam 24 November 2021 07: 09
    +2
    According to me, there may be 3 versions:
    -or America and the rest of the Western countries are extremely stupid and themselves do not understand why to build ships
    -or anti-ship missiles are in fact ineffective and replaced by other weapons
    - or we simply do not know about the installed anti-ship missiles on their ships.

    Well, everyone will choose the version according to their faith. All the same, our discussion will not help / hinder the NATO generals in any way
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 07: 33
      0
      Quote: SergKam
      or anti-ship missiles are in fact ineffective and replaced by other weapons

      if you just look at the performance characteristics of the PCR, and compare with the performance characteristics of aviation, we get an obvious conclusion drawn back in 1941, surface ships are vulnerable and do not survive on the high seas , they are visible to everyone, which is today a key factor and are slow-moving, their task is auxiliary coastal submarine defense (very weak by the way) and air defense (also weak, capable of defending itself at the very least) under the umbrella of coastal aviation; conclusion = surface ships are mainly peacetime weapons, pirates and drive poachers and create information noise in the press (like the entrance of a single ship into the Black Sea)
      1. SergKam
        SergKam 24 November 2021 07: 48
        +2
        conclusion = surface ships are mainly peacetime weapons, drive pirates and poachers


        You want to say that billions were spent on Zamvolt and Peter the Great just like that? Drive the poachers?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 08: 04
          .
          Quote: SergKam
          billions spent on Zamvolt and Peter the Great just like that?

          you have chosen both very unfortunate examples to prove my case, of course Peter the Great and Sumvold are erroneous concepts. Peter the Great = a super battleship (like Yamato) built when it was clear to everyone for a long time that battleships were not needed and built exclusively for showing off the crazy Gorshkov .... it could have been instead of Peter (actually playing the role of a coastal PLO frigate) a dozen 1135 or several 1155, and we would have twice as many effective PLO ships in our fleet now as now .... well, Sumvold is an obvious fiasco of Americans who are out of their minds and a senseless money vacuum cleaner of their budget.
          1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
            Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 12: 12
            +6
            It was supposed to be the main striking component in the aug of Ulyanovsk
            + Provide zonal air defense over this aug
            Which in turn provided the deployment of SSBNs
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 12: 17
              -8
              Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
              It was supposed to be the main striking component in the aug of Ulyanovsk

              and the AUG USSR is the blue dreams of a pink pony of a gerontological pot, the idea of ​​aug in the conditions of the USSR and even more so in the conditions of the Russian Federation, this idea is even more stupid than the idea of ​​a battleship, a cruiser can handle at least some frigate PLO tasks, but AUG? no money, no tasks, only dreams
              1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 12: 43
                +2
                No problem .....

                provided the deployment of SSBNs


                Didn't you accidentally tell cool stories that you were Putin's advisor?
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 13: 50
                  -2
                  Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                  that you were Putin's advisor?

                  no, I am not, you are mistaken as always .. well, in general, you have nothing to say on the topic, so it’s better to discuss who worked where and which cow will calve soon
                  1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 15: 10
                    +3
                    The main and main task of the surface fleet is that of the USSR and Russia, ensuring the deployment of one of the components of the nuclear triad of SSBNs.
                    And the fight against the enemy SSBNs
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 18: 27
                      -1
                      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                      The main and main task of the surface fleet is that of the USSR and Russia, ensuring the deployment of one of the components of the nuclear triad of SSBNs.
                      And the fight against the enemy SSBNs

                      excellent, finally a sane and business-like statement, but ... then it means logically all ships of the first second rank to the northern fleet and Kamchatka
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 25 November 2021 21: 02
            +3
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Peter the Great = super battleship (like Yamato) built when it was obvious to everyone for a long time that battleships were not needed and built exclusively for show-offs of a crazy Gorshkov
            Nothing of the kind, this is a very well-made ship. Once upon a time, the USA had SSBNs with Polaris. The Polaris' range is not very large, so SSBNs were wiped off our shores. The USSR immediately began to make anti-submarine ships, whose task was to prevent the launch of the entire set of missiles. But the states had new missiles and SSBNs crawled from the coast into the ocean. The USSR began to build the BOD, 1155 became the top of the BOD with the destroyer 956, which was supposed to cover it. They created it on purpose, as you wanted, dividing it into 2 ships so that the BOD would not receive the displacement of the battleship. Also, 2 ships can be in 2 locations and one is not. But practice has shown that the BOD must always be covered (the enemy's fleet is too serious), but the ships of the 956 project, as a rule, solved tasks elsewhere (because the enemy's fleet is too serious). Therefore, they began to make 1144. To replace it, it would take one or two 1155 (4 helicopters against 3, but 1144 can go at full speed for a long time, due to which it can quickly change the search area), one or two 956 (Granites are much cooler than Mosquitoes), a cruiser with zonal air defense (I don’t know this before 1144) plus a couple of tankers to supply this ship group and a tug (there are many ships - there is a possibility of breakdowns). Yes, then the US SSBN went to their shores, but built 1144 based on sound ideas.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 25 November 2021 21: 26
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              But practice has shown that the BOD must always be covered (the enemy's fleet is too serious), but the ships of the 956 project, as a rule, solved tasks elsewhere (because the enemy's fleet is too serious)

              why? why couldn't they go in pairs? I am not a principled opponent of 1144, I personally saved Nakhimov from sawing on needles, but I think the concept of a large ship is erroneous, this will turn out to be a very small-scale bulky and expensive ship, as a result of problems with basing repairs and upgrades and premature write-off, and the constant presence of a pair 956 +1155 near it is not difficult enough the order of the admiral ... in general, let 1144 serve and the longer the better, but new such cumbersome are not needed
      2. Illanatol
        Illanatol 24 November 2021 14: 05
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        under the umbrella of coastal aviation withdrawal = surface ships are weapons mainly in peacetime


        Nonsense. Surface ships are quite effective combat platforms. They are capable of carrying a whole range of both defensive and offensive weapons, including nuclear ones.
        The presence of a powerful power plant makes it possible to use, among other things, powerful means of electronic warfare, against which any anti-ship missiles may be powerless. A powerful generator of all-band interference can "jam" communication channels and blind the seeker of missile weapons.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 14: 09
          -2
          Quote: Illanatol
          Surface ships are quite effective combat platforms. They are capable of carrying a whole range of both defensive and offensive weapons, including nuclear ones.
          The presence of a powerful power plant makes it possible to use, among other things, powerful means of electronic warfare, against which any anti-ship missiles may be powerless. A powerful generator of all-band interference can "jam" communication channels and blind the seeker of missile weapons.

          Rab ships are quite necessary for themselves, but should they be large? I don't think ... but I think that the size of the corvette is enough for this
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 25 November 2021 09: 02
            +1
            The electronic warfare system for the ship is only an auxiliary, additional means of protection.
            The dimensions will be determined by the possibility of placing the main, strike weapons plus air defense systems.
        2. Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 15: 13
          0
          Just a dream for the Shrike, not a goal.
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 25 November 2021 09: 05
            0
            Perhaps this is "boyan", but in Yugoslavia, "shrikes" were caught on open microwaves.
            It is not so difficult to create inexpensive LC devices that mimic the operation of radars to distract anti-radar missiles. They can be launched from the ship in the event of an attack in all possible ways.
            1. KKND
              KKND 25 November 2021 09: 14
              0
              Quote: Illanatol
              Perhaps this is "boyan", but in Yugoslavia, "shrikes" were caught on open microwaves.

              This is a fairy tale, before starting the PRR on the plane, the pilot should display the radar signal on the RVO and there the radar signals are recorded in the computer's memory. The unknown signal just won't show up.
              Quote: Illanatol
              It is not so difficult to create inexpensive LC devices that mimic the operation of radars to distract anti-radar missiles.

              Enough fantasizing, it won't come out inexpensively. You need good power. And the beam must be directed to the plane. And simulate target acquisition for tracking and a whole bunch of other things.
              1. Illanatol
                Illanatol 25 November 2021 09: 35
                0
                Quote: KKND
                The radar signals are stored in the computer's memory. The unknown signal simply does not appear.


                But what if the "unknown signal" will exactly imitate the real one?

                You need good power. And the beam must be directed to the plane


                Providing the required power for a short time is not a problem.
                And second: the radars give two signals: one constant, which is used to scan the surrounding space, and the second - exclusively only during the capture and tracking of the target for targeting the air defense system. The characteristics of the second are secret, they are constantly changing. What signal are the Shrikes targeting, huh?
                1. KKND
                  KKND 25 November 2021 10: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  And second: the radars give two signals: one constant, which is used to scan the surrounding space, and the second - exclusively only during the capture and tracking of the target for targeting the air defense system. The characteristics of the second are secret, they are constantly changing. What signal are the Shrikes targeting, huh?

                  Familiar with the most serious publicly available simulator (DCS).
                  So there is a STR on the planes. It displays both operating modes of the radar with different symbols. That is, a detection signal (more precisely, a space scan) and an arming signal. But this is how aircraft radars work. The air defense system usually has 2 radars, one detection (scans), the other guidance (accompanies)
                  So "Shrikes" have long been removed from service, I xs how they were allowed there, but HARM can also be launched into the detection radar and the guidance radar of the air defense missile system. HARM aircraft radars cannot be used.
                2. KKND
                  KKND 25 November 2021 10: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  But what if the "unknown signal" will exactly imitate the real one?

                  It is also necessary that it is aimed at the antenna of the SPO and has sufficient power so that it can catch it.
                  Then it will work, but the pilot can, if he is in a couple of tens of kilometers through a container with an OLS, look at the place where the signal is coming from and if he visually sees a structure that does not look like an air defense system radar, he will not launch a missile
        3. KKND
          KKND 24 November 2021 16: 17
          0
          Quote: Illanatol
          A powerful generator of all-band interference can "jam" communication channels and blind the seeker of missile weapons.

          For a long time already, the anti-jamming method has been used on the anti-ship missile system.
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 25 November 2021 08: 55
            0
            But the interference can be so strong that the GOS can fail.
            You can go to the sound. But if the sound is more than 200 decibels, then it will become problematic, with torn eardrums.
            1. KKND
              KKND 25 November 2021 09: 01
              0
              Quote: Illanatol
              But the interference can be so strong that the GOS can fail.
              You can go to the sound.

              It is hardly possible to create such interference with modern electronic warfare jammers, otherwise the electronic warfare system itself would fail.
              And so in the theory of RCC, you can melt the EMP.
              1. Illanatol
                Illanatol 25 November 2021 09: 38
                0
                Quote: KKND
                It is hardly possible to create such interference with modern electronic warfare jammers, otherwise the electronic warfare system itself would fail.


                You can, you can.
                Signal receivers equipped with highly sensitive sensors fail, this is not critical for the emitter.
        4. Sergey Kulikov_3
          Sergey Kulikov_3 24 November 2021 17: 00
          0
          Yes, the super-duper electronic warfare has already defeated everyone, all that remains is the electronic warfare for the soldiers to make sure that bullets and debris are removed and the galactic landing is ready :) I especially like the "all-band jamming generator" - this is a super wunderwolf for the layman, which cancels the laws of physics and makes a protective field.
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 25 November 2021 08: 59
            0
            What laws of physics will not allow you to do this? With enough power (hundreds of kilowatts), what prevents the entire possible radio frequency range from being clogged with "white noise"?

            During the Vietnam War, the Yankees used the B-52 with similar jammers on board, they effectively jammed the onboard radars of MiGs.
            And surface ships have the ability to accommodate more such devices.
      3. Silhouette
        Silhouette 24 November 2021 16: 21
        +2
        The Soviet fleet was half consisted of "toothless beauties" - ships of the 61st project, projects 1134a and 1134B, 1135, 1155. They had no strike weapons at all. I never understood it. Yes, there was a concept of paired interaction with attack ships - missile cruisers and subsequently appeared destroyers 956, but personally I was very uncomfortable when meeting or tracking the AUG or a separate "Spruyens". And not only me. It was always alone and the concept didn't work. Especially in military service in the Indian Ocean.
        1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 16: 26
          +1
          How would everyone have blizzards or funnels that could be used against nc
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette 24 November 2021 16: 32
            +1
            They could. As much as 40 km.
            1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
              Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 16: 53
              0
              90 km

              Well, it was not then possible to create a universal ship with a real displacement.
              Yes, the tandem 1155 and 956 did not take off, although everyone was building that way, look at the spruence of the first series, well, no, there is no air defense
              And the series 1155.1 which with an interference could
              to be a generalist although there were problems with air defense stabbed
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 18: 34
          -1
          how did you pour mud on such useful 1135 handsome ships for PLO, very well armed although not battleships .... Angara-A (MP-310A) air and surface target detection radar,
          Fire control radar MR-105 "Turel",
          GAS circular view "Titan-2",
          towed GAS "Vega"
          Electronic weapons BIUS "Requirement-M"
          REP systems:
          4 × 82 mm PK-16 or
          2 × PC-16 and 8 × PC-10
          Artillery 2 × 2 - 76 mm AK-726 (1600 rounds),
          on ships of project 1135M:
          2 × 1 - 100 mm AK-100
          (400 shots)
          Missile armament 1 × PLURK "Rastrub-B" (since 1986) [3],
          on the ships of Project 11352, instead of RBU-6000, the Uranium SCRC was installed,
          2 × "Wasp-M" (40 SAM)
          Anti-submarine armament 2 × 213 mm RBU-6000 (96 RGB-60)
          Mine-torpedo armament 2 × 4-pipe 533-mm ChTA-53-1135
          (8 torpedoes 53-65K or SET-65)
          Aviation group on ships of projects 11351, 11356 and 11356R / M (11357):
          1 × helicopter Ka-27 / 27PS or Ka-28, or Ka-31

          and 1155 is even cooler
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette 24 November 2021 18: 49
            0
            By no means the 11-35s were excellent PLO ships. But they were mostly used for other purposes, to track the surface foe. And the lack of shock weapons made him a toothless handsome man. 11-55s were armed with such aerodynamic freaks, which are even inconvenient to compare with anti-ship missiles.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 18: 52
              0
              Quote: Silhouette
              By no means the 11-35s were excellent PLO ships. But they were mostly used for other purposes, to track the surface foe.

              in peacetime, these really excellent PLO ships (with which you agreed, thanks for the truth) were also useful more than once for different tasks ... for example, for tracking in peacetime their PCR was quite enough for performance characteristics
            2. Yaroslav Zhigulin
              Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 18: 56
              0
              What were the spruances armed with at that time?)
              It just so happened that you happened to serve on anti-submarine ships

              If you served on 58 or 956 projects, you would feel like no pants against Apple

          2. Yaroslav Zhigulin
            Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 18: 53
            0
            You were able to Wikipedia)

            But they could not enter the doctrine of the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation, which for the most part wrote
            pink pony gerontological pots


            And 1135 and 1155 as commander-in-chief he ordered
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 18: 58
              -1
              Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
              doctrine of the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation

              do not try to change the subject and thereby hide the weakness of your position! read doctrines, but I can write it myself, if need be
              1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 19: 48
                0
                Write, evaluate, laugh
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 24 November 2021 20: 06
                  0
                  The donkey saw the Nightingale
                  And he says to him: “Listen, buddy!
                  You, they say, are a great master of singing.
                  I would really like
                  Judge for yourself, hearing your singing,
                  Is your skill really great? "
                  Here the Nightingale began to show his art:
                  Clicked, whistled
                  A thousand frets, pulled, poured;
                  Then gently he weakened
                  And languid in the distance I gave myself a pipe,
                  It suddenly crumbled in small fractions across the grove.
                  All listened then
                  To Aurora's favorite and singer:
                  The breezes died down, the choir birds fell silent,
                  And the flocks lay down.
                  Breathing a little, the shepherd admired him
                  And only sometimes
                  Listening to the Nightingale, he smiled at the shepherdess.
                  The singer died. Donkey, staring at the ground with his forehead:
                  “Fairly,” he says, “it's not right to say,
                  You can listen to you without boredom;
                  A pity that a stranger
                  You are with our cock;
                  You would have perked up more,
                  Whenever I could learn a little from him. "
                  Hearing such judgment, my poor Nightingale
                  He flew up and - flew over the distant fields.

                  Deliver, God, and us from such judges.
                  1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    Yaroslav Zhigulin 24 November 2021 20: 57
                    0
                    And at least something of its own will be?
                    Well, apart from insulting one of the best naval commanders in Russia
    2. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 07: 48
      +9
      According to me, there may be 3 versions:

      Yes, there is one version

      The fleets of NATO countries walk the seas with impunity and know that they have no enemy. Like F. Fukuyama in "The End of History" - the western path of development has no alternatives, everyone who does not recognize it becomes backward, and can not pose any threat, especially a military (!)
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol 24 November 2021 14: 07
        0
        Fukuyama himself has long publicly admitted the fallacy of his conclusions.
        The story is clearly not over, it is only gaining momentum.
        1. Santa Fe
          24 November 2021 21: 40
          +1
          He acknowledged that the story was not over. Man will always fight. There will be contradictions within developed societies

          This does not apply to our relations with the West.

          Fukuyama was criticized, for example, for not taking into account the growing importance of Islamism in his theory. In his opinion, Mohammedanism could not spread beyond the borders of the countries that originally professed this religion. And on the whole he cannot offer anything constructive. So where Fukuyama was wrong
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol 25 November 2021 08: 52
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            He admitted that the story was not over

            Quote: Santa Fe
            So where Fukuyama was wrong


            That's where tongue
            Contradict yourself, you need to be more consistent and logical.

            Fukuyama's main mistake is not underestimating Islamism. He proclaimed that Western liberalism is the crown of human development. But even in the West, other reasonable people began to understand that this system is not eternal and is already in decline.

            Well, about Islamism. In Islam, there is a strong trend towards equalizing justice, it is partly anti-bourgeois (it condemns profit, even if only in words). It seems that this is something that even Western people began to miss, so some of them began to convert to Islam.
  6. Avior
    Avior 24 November 2021 07: 32
    +8
    The author stubbornly pulls the owl onto the globe
    Launched along a high-altitude trajectory, the missile defense system has no chance of remaining unnoticed. Using an American rocket as an example, its flight to the maximum range (370 km) should take at least five minutes. That gives the enemy enough time to have time to play a combat alert, shoot all traps and activate electronic warfare.

    Although he himself wrote a couple of paragraphs above about the main field of application of anti-aircraft missiles for anti-ship targets

    ... The advantage lies in the shorter reaction time of the anti-aircraft complexes. Which is of particular importance when shooting at short distances. On an unexpectedly revealed enemy.

    And at a short distance, within the radio visibility of the ship, the enemy, when using the SM-6, will have to use electronic warfare to fight against a relatively weak missile seeker, and with a powerful shipborne radar, the SM-6 has radio correction.
    At a speed of 4M, the time to defeat will be a little over half a minute.
    Aviation cannot constantly and continuously accompany ships.

    This is not necessary. Aviation is needed at the moment of striking the enemy.
    Modern experience of the South Korean Navy.

    There is no combat experience.
    Neither Korea nor anyone else.
    In combat conditions, over-the-horizon missile launches are not used, only within radio visibility.
    In the West, the RCC is not considered a very effective means of combating NK, therefore, they do not consider their development important; in their view, the RCC is assigned a supporting role.
    The author bypassed in the articles the most important problem of using anti-ship missiles - this is the GOS. It makes no difference what warhead, speed and range of the missile, if it does not hit the target. In the meantime, anti-ship missiles against a technologically advanced enemy hit the target well in range conditions, but not in combat.
    1. dauria
      dauria 24 November 2021 16: 43
      0
      In combat conditions, over-the-horizon missile launches are not used, only within radio visibility.


      Sorry, not entirely clear. Even if the mast is 50 meters high, then on a surface ship the same height
      the range will be limited to 40 km in total. The surface ship is blind, it sees only airplanes, and even then not at an extremely low altitude. He definitely needs an airplane with a radar, a helicopter, a drone in case of emergency. And at 40 km, you can shoot from a cannon, and not with rockets. He is forced to shoot rockets over the radio horizon, even if you hang yourself. And target designation should be external. The ship is blind, blind.
      1. Avior
        Avior 24 November 2021 17: 31
        +3
        try to find cases of combat use of anti-ship missiles from a ship to over-the-horizon range on another ship. How many will you find?
      2. Illanatol
        Illanatol 25 November 2021 09: 07
        0
        Quote: dauria
        The surface ship is blind, it sees only airplanes, and even then not at an extremely low altitude.


        Companions to help. The same is for aiming anti-ship missiles.
    2. Sergey Kulikov_3
      Sergey Kulikov_3 24 November 2021 17: 09
      +1
      According to your logic, it is possible to make a GOS to combat missiles and aircraft, but it is not possible to fight ships? Oh no, they are being corrected from the ground :)
      1. Avior
        Avior 24 November 2021 17: 32
        0
        this is not according to my logic, but according to combat practice.
        1. Sergey Kulikov_3
          Sergey Kulikov_3 24 November 2021 17: 40
          +1
          And that there were already ship battles !? I haven't heard of them since the Focklands.
          1. Avior
            Avior 24 November 2021 18: 01
            0
            Yes they were. For example, Operation Praying Mantis.
            1. Sergey Kulikov_3
              Sergey Kulikov_3 24 November 2021 18: 09
              +1
              These are not ship battles, this is oil extraction.
              1. Avior
                Avior 24 November 2021 18: 48
                0
                you have not an answer, but an evasion from an answer.
                Obviously, you cannot give any cases of over-the-horizon use of anti-ship missiles.
                1. Santa Fe
                  25 November 2021 11: 52
                  +1
                  40 largest economies in the world have not fought each other for 70+ years

                  There were no naval battles, between ship formations. This does not mean that you do not need to prepare for them.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 25 November 2021 14: 10
                    +1
                    Operation praying mantis, 1988, groups of ships, aviation participated.
                    Are you expecting a battle between squadron and squadron, as in the Russian-Japanese squadron?
                    And tank battles, like at Prokhorovka?
                    Those times are already gone.
  7. Bez 310
    Bez 310 24 November 2021 08: 43
    +6
    It is necessary to correctly understand the main tasks of the US Navy.
    After formulating the tasks, determine the necessary forces and means to solve the main tasks.
    Next, you need to determine the possible opposition, and the necessary forces and means to neutralize it.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 24 November 2021 09: 30
      +5
      This is the problem of this and the previous article. Information is given in isolation from causation.
      They look like regular Uryaskaku articles. Hence the negative in the comments.
  8. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 24 November 2021 08: 45
    +3
    > The sinking of the frigate had much more significant reasons.

    What exactly are the reasons, you might ask?
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 09: 01
      +2
      Thanks for the good question.

      1. Absence of crew on board. In such conditions, the slightest damage to the underwater part can lead to overturning and flooding. If no action is taken

      As historical experience shows, emergency parties take control of such situations in minutes. It straightens the roll by counter-flooding, seals the damaged compartment and starts pumping out water. This is usually enough to maintain combat effectiveness.

      2. Loss of tightness of bulkheads in the half-disassembled hull of the sentenced frigate

      2. Considering how they hammer Perry at the exercises with all types of weapons, it is possible that there were many
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 24 November 2021 10: 26
        +4
        Skr the Indomitable is a small blast hole in the hull, and Parad's flagship is being dragged to the dock.
        BOD Otvazhny ... An anti-aircraft missile can pass through the ammunition cellars.
        BOD Zakharov. The turbine blade has pierced the double bottom. Burned to the ground, although rescued by the entire fleet under the very shore
        1. Santa Fe
          24 November 2021 10: 43
          +1
          small hole

          The master claimed the formation of a large hole, the outlet of the RCC
          An anti-aircraft missile can also pass through the ammunition cellars.

          You have to really believe in your luck to get there.
          The turbine blade has pierced the double bottom. Burned to ashes

          It would make sense to give this example if the BOD sank from the size of the resulting hole.

          And you mean the fire
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 24 November 2021 11: 11
            0
            The hole will obviously be bigger. The ammunition on our ships is practically everywhere, for the air defense system falling from above it is more difficult not to get into it than to get into it. The ship was destroyed by fire, what else do you want? The crew in all cases was on board and fought for survivability, along with dozens of other ships. And all this even without hitting the air defense missile system or anti-ship missile system.
            Watch YouTube how the Americans or the French use old SM1-2 to hit surface targets. Ships turn into a volcano
            1. Santa Fe
              24 November 2021 11: 25
              0
              Our ships have ammunition almost everywhere

              First thing I found, Burke's cut


              You have to be very lucky to get into the ammo. As evidenced by any example from the history of naval battles
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 24 November 2021 11: 31
                +1
                Burke is not our ship. Cut Atlanta, any Admirals and MRCs
                1. Santa Fe
                  24 November 2021 11: 37
                  +1
                  Nothing will change fundamentally. Armament of all modern ships
                  compactly
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 24 November 2021 13: 05
                    +1
                    There is also a Vulcan, torpedoes, the Wasp, shells, an aviation power supply and fuel. Well, there are turbines, boilers of all sorts. You won't miss
            2. Santa Fe
              24 November 2021 11: 33
              +1
              Ivan, wrote from the phone and made a mistake with the thread of comments

              Now I understood what it was about. The sinking of the frigate Ruben James
              Target ships have no ammunition.
              And there is already nothing special to burn there

              The example does not mean that it burned out. Sank - that's all.

              And none of the official sources claim that they caused extensive damage. And sank immediately. What was the damage - no one knows. The frigate sank from being hit by missiles. Which means damage in the underwater part. 64 kg is not a torpedo. There are a lot of cases in history when ships survived with more significant holes and floods.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 24 November 2021 12: 54
                +1
                It's not that important. In battle it will be refueled and loaded
                1. Liam
                  Liam 24 November 2021 14: 55
                  -1
                  An SM-6 strike (especially not with a single rocket, but with a salvo of several pieces) will send any ship to the bottom, regardless of what state it is in
                2. Santa Fe
                  25 November 2021 11: 57
                  0
                  Why the Yankees in their sources call a 140 pound warhead inadequate against a modern ship

                  And this is all the same warhead containing a certain amount of explosives. Throwing scrap steel into the ship is not discussed at all
              2. Liam
                Liam 24 November 2021 14: 38
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                The frigate sank from being hit by missiles. Which means damage in the underwater part. 64 kg is not a torpedo.

                Again 25 ... At least once read how the SM-6 works in the version of the anti-ship missile system in reality and not your fantasies.

                For the first time, the Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration, Ashton Carter, announced that the SM-6 missiles were given anti-ship capabilities. According to him, thanks to this, the United States will "get completely new opportunities", since the missile will hit enemy ships at a distance of more than 200 miles (370 km).

                After this statement by Ashton Carter, experts began to discuss the need to increase the power of the warhead of the rocket, since the charge available on the missile defense system is not capable of not only sinking the ship, but also seriously damage it.
                The shooting of the former frigate Reuben James and his drowning demonstrated the futility of this dispute.

                The SM-6 missile in the anti-ship version is equipped with a non-explosive kinetic warhead. RIM-174 flies to the target along a ballistic trajectory, and when approaching it, it dives steeply from a height of 35-40 km, in fact attacks vertically, which seriously complicates countering it with air defense / missile defense systems.

                When the seeker locks on the target, the solid-propellant propulsion engine is switched on again, accelerating the rocket to a speed of over 4 M.

                When such a "kinetic bomb" hits a surface ship of any class, it pierces through it, destroying everything in its path, and through a hole in the bottom goes into the water.
                The enemy ship is almost doomed.

                People who taught physics and mathematics at school, as well as those who know what the target turns into after such a blow (and also about the fact that the doctor and even Kaptsov himself did not forbid them to launch at the ship not 1 but 3/4/5 missiles in a salvo), real experts and all the professionals, from a sailor to an admiral, have not been tormented since then, like the unforgettable V. Lokhankin, over the riddle of the "absence of anti-ship missiles".
                By the way ... tell the public what real-life Russian naval air defense systems are you going to intercept an anti-aircraft missile on a ballistic trajectory at an altitude of 35/40 km flying at Mach 3,5 and diving vertically at Mach 4+
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 24 November 2021 15: 37
                  +3
                  Quote: Liam
                  The SM-6 missile in the anti-ship version is equipped with a non-explosive kinetic warhead. RIM-174 flies to the target along a ballistic trajectory, and when approaching it, it dives steeply from a height of 35-40 km, in fact attacks vertically, which seriously complicates countering it with air defense / missile defense systems.

                  Hmmm ... that is, the ZAK and the ZRAK cannon unit are useless against such a ZURoPCR. For with their effective range of fire, the only way to avoid hitting anti-ship missiles in the ship is to achieve detonation of the warhead with the destruction of the missile into small fragments and a sharp change in the trajectory of their bulk. Working on the glider is useless - even for a conventional anti-ship missile, the probability of missile deflection with a miss on the ship after being hit by shells is too small for guaranteed ship protection.
                  And with a kinetic warhead, there is no need to talk about any detonation.
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 24 November 2021 15: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    to achieve detonation warhead

                    There is a kinetic warhead, not explosives. A piece of scrap in general). And it goes down with the engine on ...
                    1. KKND
                      KKND 24 November 2021 17: 00
                      +1
                      Quote: Liam
                      There is a kinetic warhead, not explosives. A piece of scrap in general). And it goes down with the engine on ...

                      Where did you get this information? If this is true, Oleg actually wrote some nonsense.
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 24 November 2021 17: 13
                        +4
                        Quote: KKND

                        Where did you get this information? If this is true, Oleg actually wrote some nonsense.

                        They have transferred almost all missile defense missiles to kinetic intercept. The experience of the first war in Iraq showed the weak effectiveness of the fragmentation warhead.
                        By the way, the described principle of destruction of ships by the Sm-6 rocket is similar to the Zircon. The US Army, along with the tomahawk, are purchasing these missiles. Ground PU for them is already being mastered in parts.
                      2. KKND
                        KKND 24 November 2021 17: 24
                        0
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        They have transferred almost all missile defense missiles to kinetic intercept. The experience of the first war in Iraq showed the weak effectiveness of the fragmentation warhead.

                        Yes, I heard that some of the SMs in missile defense options are equipped with a transatmospheric kinetic interceptor, but this is understandable there is almost no air there.
                        I am wondering if it is possible for the SM-6 to work on ships as described by Liam. Where did he get that kinetic part was fired at the ship?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 24 November 2021 17: 33
                        +4
                        Quote: KKND
                        but this is understandable there is almost no air.

                        Not in this case. The missile warheads fly through the debris cloud without changing trajectory and without serious damage. They have already used up the fuel, the warhead is "armored". Several scuds amazed the Americans.
                        Quote: KKND

                        I am wondering if it is possible for the SM-6 to work on ships as described by Liam. Where did he get that kinetic part was fired at the ship?

                        The fact that this can be 100%, in September there were only tests. The description seems to be true.
                        The next version of the SM-6 will generally be hypersonic. To do this, she will be given a booster from SM-3.
                      5. KKND
                        KKND 25 November 2021 08: 56
                        0
                        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                        Not in this case. The missile warheads fly through the debris cloud without changing trajectory and without serious damage. They have already used up the fuel, the warhead is "armored". Several scuds amazed the Americans.

                        A nearby powerful explosion in the air can disrupt the stabilization of the rocket and it will begin to somersault in the air. I heard that the Americans violated the trajectories of part of the Scuds in 91, but they still fell and exploded.
                      6. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 25 November 2021 09: 22
                        +2
                        Worse, they hit the mark. It did not work well against the old Scuds, against the Iskander (which is quasi-balistic, it will work against the CD), it was generally useless.
                        High-explosive fragmentation warheads are effective against aircraft; they are extremely weak against modern missiles. Therefore, the Americans are so invested in kinetic interception, and this raises big questions for our developments.
                      7. Santa Fe
                        24 November 2021 21: 30
                        -1
                        Where did you get this information?

                        Invented and serves as a fact
                      8. Liam
                        Liam 24 November 2021 22: 20
                        +2
                        Quote: KKND
                        Where did you get this information?

                        What specifically surprises you?
                        1.What do Americans have in bulk to detect NK?

                        2.What Aegis is able to issue target designation of the CM-6 to the enemy NK?

                        3. What is not such a fantastically difficult task to replace the explosives in the rocket with a piece of scrap iron of the same volume?

                        4.What SM-6 flies on a ballistic trajectory?

                        5.What reaches an altitude of 35-40 km?

                        6.What is equipped with a cruise motor?

                        7. That its seeker is capable of guiding a missile at high-speed and maneuverable targets like aircraft, anti-ship missiles and ballistic missiles on their terminal trajectory?

                        8. That such a seeker can cope with guiding a missile at such a huge and essentially stationary (in comparison) target like ships a good 100+ meters long?

                        9.What the rocket will turn on the engine and dive onto the ship, accelerating from the starting 3,5 M to 4 + M?

                        10. That it is practically impossible to intercept it in this way?

                        11. That its seeker in the mm range is capable of sending a missile not just to the ship, but even to a certain part of it?

                        12. What is such a top-down attack - a verdict for a ship that has missile launchers in the front, all functioning systems in the middle - from radar stations to command posts, and behind a helicopter with its fuel supplies, etc. ... and all this is mixed with fuel tanks and highways, engines, kilometers of cable routes from fiberglass to electrical, warehouses with all kinds of fuels and lubricants, ammunition and others?
                        13. What is the result of such a blow - all this good will be blown to pieces and everything that can catch fire will burn?

                        14. That at least two of these missiles will hit a ship?

                        15. That all this was not theory but happened in reality, and the 4000-ton frigate went to the bottom right away. Moreover, 1 missile was enough?

                        16. What is RCC hole photo manipulation a trick for the gullible ignoramus?
                        Here you are:


                        Based on this photo, I declare that the kinetics of a bullet is nonsense and a bullet is not able to kill or seriously injure a person.
                      9. KKND
                        KKND 25 November 2021 08: 52
                        0
                        So you can link to your information? More authoritative is desirable.
                      10. Liam
                        Liam 25 November 2021 09: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: KKND
                        Desirable more authoritative

                        The description, however, aligns with the known elements of the SM-6 Block 1B development program. In budget documents submitted last year for fiscal 2020, the Navy described a plan to field the SM-6 Block 1B by fiscal 2024 with a wider, 21-in.-dia. booster to increase the range and speed of the standard, Mach 3.5-class missile, but the documents did not say by how much. The fiscal 2020 budget documents also mention plans to add a new thermal protection system and update the guidance, navigation and control system for the SM-6 Block 1B.

                        Guerts' testimony on March 10 is not the first to link the SM-6 Block 1B to the antisurface-warfare role. A presentation by the Navy at the Surface Warfare Association's annual conference in January 2019 listed the SM-6 Block 1B on a chart as one of several antisurface-warfare weapons. But Guerts' testimony adds a potentially important detail. He referenced a new “warhead design” for the new hypersonic weapon, addressing a flaw of the baseline version of the SM-6 for an anti-surface application. The warhead on the baseline SM-6 weighs only 140 lb., a mass the Congressional Budget Office cited as inadequate against a modern combat ship.

                        Is this priority enough for you?
                        https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/document-likely-shows-sm-6-hypersonic-speed-anti-surface-role
                      11. KKND
                        KKND 25 November 2021 10: 21
                        +1
                        So where is the story about the SM-6 kinetic warhead shot at the ship that you told?
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 24 November 2021 20: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Liam
                      There is a kinetic warhead, not explosives. A piece of scrap in general). And it goes down with the engine on ...

                      What I wrote about: wink
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Hmmm ... that is, the ZAK and the ZRAK cannon unit are useless against such a ZURoPCR.

                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And with a kinetic warhead, there is no need to talk about any detonation.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 24 November 2021 20: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        What I wrote about

                        Sorry .. I read and missed the last sentence of your post on the go hi Then I noticed but it was no longer possible to fix the post
                  2. KKND
                    KKND 24 November 2021 16: 59
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Hmmm ... that is, the ZAK and the ZRAK cannon unit are useless against such a ZURoPCR.

                    Alexey, when she dives vertically, that the ZAK and that conventional air defense systems are likely to be useless. Most likely it will be in the "dead" funnel of the radar and artillery lift angles.
                2. KKND
                  KKND 24 November 2021 16: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: Liam
                  People who taught physics and mathematics at school, as well as those who know what the target turns into after such a blow (and also about the fact that the doctor and even Kaptsov himself did not forbid them to launch at the ship not 1 but 3/4/5 missiles in a salvo)

                  Well, a through, vertical hole of small diameter in a ship is not yet a verdict of its buoyancy. Moreover, if there is no ammunition, fuel or critical components of the ship in the path of the body piercing this hole, then the ship will partially retain its combat effectiveness. It's another matter if there are many such holes.
                  Can you link to information about the anti-ship SM-6 that you described?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. SVD68
                    SVD68 26 November 2021 06: 35
                    0
                    Quote: KKND
                    Moreover, if there is no ammunition, fuel or critical components of the ship in the path of the body piercing this hole, then the ship will partially retain its combat effectiveness.

                    The fuel does not burn in the absence of an oxidizing agent. Penetration of the fuel tank with a "crowbar" will neither lead to an explosion, nor to a fire, because the flow of oxidant is small.
  9. Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 24 November 2021 09: 08
    +4
    1. The ships have universal launchers, that is, changing the ammo is not a problem, the ship does not need to be rebuilt. The maximum is to "upload" new software.
    2. You have all the necessary spare parts to create a rocket. If we need it, we will assemble it, we already have the engine and "brains".
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 09: 16
      -6
      The ships have universal launchers, that is, changing ammo is not a problem

      First you need to create new types of weapons
      If we need it, we will assemble it, we already have the engine and the GOS.

      In the ward number 6
  10. Forcecom
    Forcecom 24 November 2021 09: 35
    +7
    The author was a little deceitful about "Reduta" and "Vereshchagino" without showing a photo of the trough superstructure on the other hand, the outlet was not so neat, not only the rocket itself but also a third of the superstructure flew into the sky blue, and if the rocket had not hit the light superstructure and to the side where the "Coffin-type lead multiple warhead" was opposed by the hull set frames with "joy" that would have taken on the entire kinetic impulse of the "Soviet legacy" the fate of the trawler could have been much sadder.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 09: 46
      -4
      The author was a little cunning

      Dear, before you convict someone of guile, you must have confirmation of your statement
      without showing a photo of the trough superstructure on the other side, the outlet was not so neat

      So show everyone THIS photo, you should have started with it, and then draw frightening conclusions

      Otherwise, these are just words and your personal fantasies.
      1. Forcecom
        Forcecom 24 November 2021 10: 24
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        So show everyone THIS photo

        So expose me, show me at least one photo of the left side of "Vereshchagino" with a neat outlet. Something you only have the starboard side in stock.
        You began to pull facts by the ears to your conclusions, from you first and proofs.
        There were a lot of news stories on all TV channels about this incident, the journalists then covered the whole Vereshchagino, including the left side. The destruction there was decent. Yes, in 2000 the Internet was not what it is now, and it is difficult to find the relevant news releases now, but I think you can handle it. You are the Author, but I am a reader and I don’t have the leisure to spend 4-5 hours of my time looking for what the Author should have done while preparing his material.
        1. Santa Fe
          24 November 2021 10: 30
          -1
          So expose me, show me at least one photo of the left side of "Vereshchagino" with a neat outlet.

          Respected

          The duty to seek and provide evidence lies with the one who made the application.
          and I am a reader and I have no leisure to spend 4-5 hours of my time searching

          Well, why then make statements that cannot be verified

          For example, I have a number of examples with a clear description of the outlets of the RCC and none of them match your opinion. A simple example is the hit of the KSShch on the cruiser Nakhimov.

          In any case, thank you for your attention to the article.
          1. Forcecom
            Forcecom 24 November 2021 10: 36
            -1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The duty to seek and provide evidence lies with the one who made the application.

            Well, give evidence, you have indicated in your article that nothing terrible happened in the case of Vereshchagino, so show me a photo of its port side.
            1. Santa Fe
              24 November 2021 10: 52
              0
              Well, give proof

              Evidence of his opinion was cited

              If you have a counterargument - please, with evidence
              Until we saw out
              here and show a photo of his port side.

              If you think there is something interesting there, find and show everyone
              1. Forcecom
                Forcecom 24 November 2021 11: 18
                -3
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Evidence of his opinion was cited

                You did not provide proof of your opinion, since you stated in your article that the through penetration of a pig weighing several tons at a speed of more than 450 m / s on the superstructure / side of the ship does not lead to any consequences for the integrity of the hull structures. And at the same time, they did not bring a single photo of the Exit hole after such a hit (as accurate as the entrance, well, except that the metal of the case is turned outward and not inward)
                So show everyone THIS photo

                For example, I'm really looking forward to it, I could just say here that I had access to the materials of the Yakhont / Brahmos test in India and saw photos and videos of how the rocket got a little wrong, and how it ended for the target, but not I will, since these materials are chipboard + and show them "bad dumb".
                Just relying on elementary physics, I will say that with a through penetration, the outlet is always larger than the inlet, are you ready to prove the opposite?
                1. Santa Fe
                  24 November 2021 12: 04
                  0
                  And at the same time they did not bring a single photo of the Exit Hole]

                  Because he knew that there was nothing remarkable on the other side

                  It was not part of the task to deliberately mislead the readers.
                  , but I will not, since these materials are chipboard + and present them as "dumb".

                  Oh, as always))

                  I'm an ordinary amateur, no secrecy, so I'll show it as it is.

                  Hits of Headnits / Mosquitoes or Volcanoes (traces of one of the listed) into the floating base. Outlets. It didn’t add beauty. But nothing too terrible
                  Just relying on elementary physics, I will say that with a through penetration, the outlet is always larger than the inlet, are you ready to prove the opposite?

                  Plus or minus a meter means nothing at the scale of a ship.

                  This whole dispute - began from the fact that one of the commentators put forward the idea that he was being deceived, because on the left side of Vereshchagino allegedly large damage was formed. Which contradicts all known examples of such hits. Nothing special happens, even in the case of the most gigantic rockets
                  1. Forcecom
                    Forcecom 24 November 2021 12: 29
                    -1
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    I'm an ordinary amateur, no secrecy, so I'll show it as it is.

                    And not shown.
                    I understood your position - "I am the Author, I see it this way", not a question, indeed the Author of a fantastic work has the right to do so, after all, she is such a fantasy.
                    Well, since you are sure that you are right, and at the same time do not consider it necessary not only to bring photo materials that confirm it, but also to read a textbook on physics, at least the section "mechanics", then there is no point in discussing your fantastic work, in the end you in their made-up universe are really right. Write ischo, sometimes you can laugh.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      24 November 2021 12: 33
                      0
                      do not consider it necessary not only to bring photo materials that confirm it

                      Didn't your photo open?

                      If it has opened, then what is visible on it?
                      Or visual difficulties
                  2. Liam
                    Liam 24 November 2021 14: 51
                    -1
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    Hits of Headnits / Mosquitoes or Volcanoes (traces of one of the listed) into the floating base. Outlets. It didn’t add beauty. But nothing too terrible

                    If a bullet tangentially touches the skin of your shoulder, then nothing terrible will happen to you and you will delight us for a long time with stories that the bullet is practically harmless, its kinetics is bullshit, and besides an unaesthetic scar, no consequences ... But the story will take on different colors when someone will not shoot the same bullet with the same kinetics from top to bottom in the head for example.
                2. KKND
                  KKND 24 November 2021 16: 48
                  0
                  Quote: Forcecom
                  Just relying on elementary physics, I will say that with a through penetration, the outlet is always larger than the inlet, are you ready to prove the opposite?

                  As if you are a great physicist. Tell us why this outlet is always larger than the inlet?
                  The answer is not always the case. Take an awl and pierce the rubber sheet. Then measure the diameters of the holes. They will be the same.
                  Usually, when a solid flying body (bullet) hits a solid body, it loses its stabilization and unfolds flat (roughly), therefore, the exit hole is larger + particles of the body itself that have received velocity expand the exit hole.
                  In the case of anti-ship missiles and ships, the output is really greater due to the collapsed parts of the rocket and parts of the ship's structure.
                  BUT,
                  Quote: Forcecom
                  Just relying on elementary physics, I will say that with a through penetration, the outlet is always larger than the inlet, are you ready to prove the opposite?

                  This is not true!
  11. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 24 November 2021 09: 51
    +3
    Most anti-aircraft missiles will not be able to hit a surface target. Their proximity fuses are tuned to target sizes that are very different from those of ships.

    Funny.
    When approaching the ship and the surface of the water, the warhead will prematurely detonate.

    Very funny.
    The proximity fuse will detonate at some distance from the target. Given the many times less power of the missile defense warheads, compared to traditional anti-ship missiles, such an external effect will not be able to disable the ship.

    Disabling is not necessarily drowning.
    It is enough to damage critical units, for example, demolish a pair of antennas, interrupt cables, riddled the HEADLIGHTS canvas ...
    Start a fire ...

    Otherwise, yes, I agree with the author, the refusal of their fleet from anti-ship missiles is puzzling.
    If in the nineties and zero it could be explained by the absence of a real enemy, now that is China.
    Apparently, they do not believe in the likelihood of a naval battle at all.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 10: 13
      +1
      It is enough to damage critical units, for example, demolish a pair of antennas, interrupt cables, riddled the HEADLIGHTS canvas ...

      The result of a close explosion of two Shrikes (anti-radar missile with a warhead of 66-67 kg)

      The damaged cruiser went to the ersatz-repair in Subic Bey (a naval base in the Philippines), where repair crews patched holes, repaired cable line breaks and put the equipment in combat posts in order. The Parsons destroyer “shared” the SPS-48 surveillance radar antenna with the cruiser.

      After 10 days, “Warden” returned to the position in the Gulf of Tonkin.


      The enemy will continue to pose a threat. The effectiveness and value of the attack? compared to traditional anti-ship missiles
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 24 November 2021 10: 21
        +3
        Quote: Santa Fe
        the meaning of the attack?

        The enemy is out of action.
        And in 10 days in our time, the war may end.
        1. Santa Fe
          24 November 2021 10: 32
          +1
          The enemy is out of action.
          And in 10 days

          The use of traditional anti-ship missiles made it possible to withdraw the Sheffield destroyer from the battle. Forever and ever

          And that war on the 10th day did not end
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 24 November 2021 11: 38
            +2
            The enemy is out of action.
            And in 10 days in our time, the war may end.

            Forever

            If there is nowhere to be repaired, then any "forever". Finish with the spheres in a vacuum, the Vietnamese didn't have ballistic missiles. The Chinese have it.
            And that war on the 10th day did not end

            If you knew why, you would not give this fact as an "argument"
            1. Santa Fe
              24 November 2021 11: 45
              +2
              If there is nowhere to be repaired,

              In your opinion, damage to the radar prevents the ship from releasing ammunition of calibers or tomahawks at ground targets

              And can a ship be considered combat-ready without a radar. For example, he will have a pair of sonars and helicopters. all weapons except anti-aircraft

              Burke's ammunition, for example, costs 1/3 of the destroyer itself. These missiles can be unloaded from a damaged ship and immediately used by others.

              All this is about the fact that the ship should be burned and sunk, and not scratched its radar
              1. KKND
                KKND 24 November 2021 12: 46
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                And can a ship be considered combat-ready without a radar. For example, he will have a pair of sonars and helicopters. all weapons except anti-aircraft

                It will be hard without navigation radars. A helicopter, you’ll be lucky if there is a hangar and it doesn’t hit the shrapnel.
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Burke's ammunition, for example, costs 1/3 of the destroyer itself. These missiles can be unloaded from a damaged ship and immediately used by others.

                In one of your articles, you wrote about the English "Defeder" and told that the most expensive thing on ships is radar and other electronics.
              2. English tarantas
                English tarantas 25 November 2021 12: 21
                +1
                In your opinion, damage to the radar prevents the ship from releasing ammunition of calibers or tomahawks at ground targets

                It does not interfere with firing, but air defense interferes with the missiles to reach the target.
                And can a ship be considered combat-ready without a radar. For example, he will have a pair of sonars and helicopters. all weapons except anti-aircraft

                The fact of the matter is that a ship without a radar becomes just a beautiful target for aviation and ballistic missiles. If the Aug will disable at least half of the largest radars of the enemy ship group, then the transformation of the overhead group into an unexpectedly underwater group is purely a matter of time, even an aircraft will not be needed, 1 submarine with ballistic missiles.
                You ignore the existence of a number of weapons and units in order for your version of the hypothetical battle to be correct. Since 1942, the war at sea has been a war of radars. No radar, no ship.
                Burke's ammunition, for example, costs 1/3 of the destroyer itself. These missiles can be unloaded from a damaged ship and immediately used by others.

                Then tell us how long it takes, what tools should be available and where it should all take place. If two destroyers need to leave their group, and they have to, because this process is difficult to do in battle formation, then 2 ships leave the group, and a second group of only two ships with 1 radar appears. But in general, an enemy who poses at least some significant threat will not wait, but will strike right away.
                What is the most interesting thing you are missing is that the air defense missiles of American destroyers can fly hovering in a passive mode, that is, purely receiving signals from the enemy radar, and given that the target ship is much larger and static in comparison with the aircraft, then the air defense missile strike will be precisely point-like on the enemy's radars ... And as I said, further in the course are aircraft and br, which, unlike the anti-aircraft missile system, and hit further without half-placing the ship group in any case, and are universal, which means that there is a huge savings
          2. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 24 November 2021 11: 44
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The use of traditional anti-ship missiles made it possible to withdraw the Sheffield destroyer from the battle. Forever and ever

            And that war on the 10th day did not end

            But there are other examples as well. For example, the last real naval battle of our fleet. A huge "flying pole" whistled somewhere high above the masts of the Georgian boats, but the small Wasp "stung" painfully and fulfilled the task of the battle, bringing those boats out for good. And yes, the war just ended in 10 days.
            1. Santa Fe
              24 November 2021 12: 23
              0
              whistled somewhere high above the masts of Georgian boats

              The fleet of major powers (the Chinese Navy, for example) does not look like Georgian boats
              And yes, the war just ended in 10 days.

              Tell me, a ship with a broken radar can release the remaining ammunition of Calibers / Tomahawks? Here somewhere I wrote about this moment.

              Well this is so obvious that there is no need to argue about it? The enemy must be drowned and burned so that the threats disappear completely. As soon as the opportunity presented itself to attack. and not engage in half measures. scratch his radars.
          3. Kalmar
            Kalmar 24 November 2021 12: 27
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The use of traditional anti-ship missiles made it possible to withdraw the Sheffield destroyer from the battle. Forever and ever

            According to rumors, the warhead on that anti-ship missile did not work; The bulk of the work was done by the remnants of the fuel, setting off a massive fire. Those. a similar effect, in theory, could be achieved with a large missile defense system with normally working fuses.
            1. Santa Fe
              24 November 2021 12: 46
              0
              This is not a rumor, it is believed to be true.

              A powerful fire arose not from the remnants of fuel, but from a working solid-fuel engine, a rocket stuck in the destroyer's hull. TTRD was a feature of the RCC exoset

              This effect (without a fuse) can be achieved with a large zur, but it is easier to more reliably and efficiently release a traditional anti-ship missile
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 24 November 2021 12: 52
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                it is easier to more reliably and efficiently release a traditional anti-ship missile

                Of course - if it is at hand. On the other hand, the SAM variant attracts with its versatility: the same missile can shoot down an air target and spoil the surface of a surface. At least, these are the slogans Raytheon promotes its SM-6. How practical it will be in real life - I can not judge, because there are many nuances.
            2. Illanatol
              Illanatol 25 November 2021 14: 00
              0
              If the structure of the ship contains enough combustible materials.
              And sailors are not eager to fight the fire.
  12. Max PV
    Max PV 24 November 2021 10: 11
    +9
    I think the Americans have a complex of factors preventing the emergence of effective anti-ship weapons on ships.
    1) In the American Navy, destroyers are not the main strike unit, but auxiliary ships designed to protect the aircraft carrier and, to a limited extent, to attack the NC. Their sizes are misleading, but they are determined only by the need to act in one order with a nuclear aircraft carrier (maintaining the squadron speed of 30 knots for days, actions away from bases for months, refueling and receiving supplies in the open ocean, the use of weapons in waves of 5-6 points) , and weapons and equipment are already a consequence of this.
    2) Problems of unification. Americans take them seriously, but this plays a "cruel joke" with them. Firstly, the requirements for naval and aircraft weapons are different, and each side "pulls the blanket over itself", which is further exacerbated by weapons manufacturers who are trying to "finish" and sell not what the customer needs, but what is already there. Secondly, the problem of the launch mk.41, which has severe restrictions on the dimensions of the rocket, which leads to the impossibility of placing in it supersonic and hypersonic missiles with an acceptable warhead mass, and a decrease in the cross-sectional area, which does not allow to fit into it a combined seeker along with an air intake, and also complicates the placement of missiles with a body shape other than cylindrical (primarily made using stealth technology). In general, the situation with the UVP among the Americans resembles ours with tank AZ. It seems that the pluses are obvious, but the "scrap" can no longer be made longer, and even dangerous for the crew. Which fully applies to MK.41, it is just that, unlike the T-72, the Arleigh Burkes did not come under fire, otherwise, I think, if a shell or anti-ship missile hits the loaded UVP, the fireworks will be even more spectacular.
    3) Lack of goals. Let's put it bluntly, neither Russia, nor until recently, China had the opportunity to securely launch an attack on the AUG so that surface ships would be within the reach of naval anti-ship missiles without being destroyed / disabled by carrier-based aircraft before. There is nothing to say about every little thing, like Libya and Iraqi.
    4) Low efficiency of existing anti-ship missiles. "Harpoons", with all the advantages, subsonic, absolutely not "stealth", as it has an active radar seeker, but still capable of something. But the "ax" in the anti-ship missile version, firstly, is even more "brooding" - the speed is 800-900 km / h, flying at high altitude (over the sea, everything that flies above the non-contact fuse radius of the missile defense system has little chances), and at the same time it is not intended for active maneuvering when approaching the target. And LRASM with IR seeker, in general, has a sea of ​​problems. This is also a detection range that is less than that of a radar, which makes it difficult to hit a specific target at long ranges, reducing this range due to the need to maneuver to find a target, and poor noise immunity (technically, there is no problem to expose an absolutely IR-opaque smoke curtain a couple of miles long and under a hundred meters, which itself is IR-contrast, and it is possible to "blind" even with a laser of several hundred watts or a couple of kilowatts), and also a "trick" with finding a target in a given area, you can also consider from the other side, how to glare in the air defense zone of enemy ships. Is that the NSM is interesting in terms of a combined seeker, but its warhead mass is clearly insufficient. Against boats, MRKs and corvettes, there is still enough, against frigates and destroyers, only in case of massive use, at a rate like "Granites" against an aircraft carrier.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 10: 19
      0
      Max PV, thank you for the detailed commentary, very interesting
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 24 November 2021 12: 32
      +2
      Quote: Max PV
      And LRASM with IR seeker, in general, has a sea of ​​problems. This is also a smaller detection range than that of radar.

      Apparently, it is assumed that the target will be constantly monitored by some external observer - say, E-2C / D. He will transmit the CC adjustments to the missile until the time when the IR seeker does not capture the target on its own.

      Quote: Max PV
      Is that the NSM is interesting in terms of a combined seeker, but its warhead mass is clearly insufficient. Against boats, MRKs and corvettes, still have enough, against frigates and destroyers, only with a massive use

      There is an opinion that such an approach - an attack with a large number of light missiles - may be even more productive than the use of a small number of conditionally unbreakable heavy anti-ship missiles, because loads air defense more heavily.
      At the same time, say, our 22350s have a fairly dense layout; it will not be easy to stick 140 kg of warhead into it and not seriously break anything. Well, the old Sheffield has already been mentioned here - the Exocet that knocked him out is slightly superior in warhead mass to NSM.
    3. Avior
      Avior 24 November 2021 19: 55
      +3
      the problem of the launch mk.41, which has strict restrictions on the dimensions of the rocket, which leads to the impossibility of placing in it supersonic and hypersonic missiles with an acceptable warhead mass

      Super and hypersonic missiles are placed in the same cells as Caliber.
      The analogue of the Caliber-Tomahawk is placed in the Mk41 cells, from which the obvious conclusion is that it would be necessary to put both super and hypersonic ones, the problem is not in the size of the cells.
      "Arlie Burke" did not come under fire
      They came under fire, but not a single anti-ship missile reached them - either they were shot down, or by interference and the electronic warfare was taken to the side.
      Let's put it bluntly, neither Russia, nor until recently, China had a guaranteed opportunity to launch an attack on the AUG

      frankly, it is guaranteed to attack the AUG and still not.
      Low efficiency of existing anti-ship missiles.

      I agree that the effectiveness of the existing anti-ship missiles against a combat-ready warship is low.
      at the same time it is not intended for active maneuvering when approaching the target

      not a single anti-ship missile is intended for this either.
      And LRASM with IR seeker, in general, has a sea of ​​problems.

      All RCCs have different reasons.
      LRASM has a counter - surprise strike, due to stealth, completely passive combined seeker and two-way communication channel.
      technically, there is no problem to expose an absolutely IR-opaque smoke curtain a couple of miles long and under a hundred meters high, which itself is also IR-contrast

      There is also a problem with a sudden impact, characteristic of LRASM.
      Is that NSM is interesting in terms of a combined seeker

      The latest version of the Tomahawk has a complex combined seeker with two-way communication with target selection, a passive radar head, a matrix and an active millimeter radar, which turns on at the very last moment for accurate target identification.
      Against boats, MRKs and corvettes, still have enough, against frigates and destroyers, only with a massive use

      aviation is targeted against frigates and destroyers.
      1. Max PV
        Max PV 24 November 2021 23: 16
        +1
        Super and hypersonic missiles are placed in the same cells as Caliber.
        The analogue of the Caliber-Tomahawk is placed in the Mk41 cells, from which the obvious conclusion is that it would be necessary to put both super and hypersonic ones, the problem is not in the size of the cells.


        Not certainly in that way. For mk.41, the maximum dimensions of the missiles used are 533x6500mm, and for 3S14 at least 650x8500mm, I even met about 750x9500mm. The difference is significant, almost twice in volume, and one and a half times in cross-sectional area.
        1. Avior
          Avior 25 November 2021 00: 32
          +2
          There is a version of the Caliber with a supersonic warhead - no less no one was even going to make a similar Tomahawk.
          There are or have been developed projects of supersonic air-launched missiles, the volume of which, together with the accelerator, is quite affordable for the Mk41, especially since the warheads on the western anti-ship missiles are usually much smaller than on the Soviet-Russian ones.
          AGM-69 SRAM, AGM-131 SRAM II, French ASMP, hypersonic development ASN4G.
          e.g. AGM-131 SRAM II
          Length: 3,18 meters
          Diameter: 39 centimeters
          Speed: Mach 2
          Range: 400 kilometers
          And even more so, the Mk57 cells are suitable for this - the length is 7,2 m, the diameter is 0,71 m, the permissible rocket weight is 4 tons - nevertheless, there are no such missiles for them, they do not make it. Another concept of application, in the first place for these purposes, they have aviation.
  13. Santa Fe
    24 November 2021 10: 17
    0
    Funny
    Very funny.

    Dear Jacket in stock will leave some explanations. Or will continue to joke

    I'm really interested in the opinion of a specialist. Before that, I read about such an explanation, it seemed logical and which I gave in the article
    (about the proximity fuses of missiles)
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 24 November 2021 10: 29
      +1
      Quote: Santa Fe
      (about proximity fuses

      Yes, there is no need to be a specialist.
      The proximity fuse cannot issue a premature command to detonate the warhead, because it does not measure the power of the reflected signal, it determines the position of the target. And the detonation of the warhead will be exactly at the moment when the target is covered by the field of fragments / PE of maximum density. Taking into account the missile speed, target, approach trajectory ...
      1. Santa Fe
        24 November 2021 10: 39
        -1
        goals

        The goals in this case differ in size by an order of magnitude

        The covering by the field of fragments will be calculated incorrectly
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 24 November 2021 10: 56
          +1
          Quote: Santa Fe
          The goals in this case differ in size by an order of magnitude

          This is yes.
          Moreover, the field of fragments will not cover the entire target, but its part, and it is not clear which one. Which, of course, reduces the likelihood of disabling the ship.
          Although practice shows that often the power of missiles is quite enough.
          1. Santa Fe
            24 November 2021 11: 13
            0
            Although practice shows

            What practice
            Moreover, the field of fragments will not cover the entire target, but its part, and it is not clear which one.

            That is, a completely random actuation. It is not clear at what distance from the target, and the random position of the field of fragments

            It turns out that the problem indicated in the article does exist. The accuracy of the wording, here I am not so special
            1. KKND
              KKND 24 November 2021 12: 33
              +2
              Quote: Santa Fe

              That is, a completely random actuation. It is not clear at what distance from the target, and the random position of the field of fragments

              It turns out that the problem indicated in the article does exist. The accuracy of the wording, here I am not so special

              Such a problem may arise if one thinks that the proximity fuse is configured only to engage air targets and is "stupid" like proximity fuses on lamps in WWII. But who said that this is the case in reality. You can technically create fuses with a bunch of programs. And how is it really there, who knows?
              Oleg, I don’t understand why you need to sink or burn the ship? We have Admiral Nakhimov under repair since 1999. Will all the radar stations be smashed to Peter the Great with SM 6 volleys, will it be repaired for 10 days?
              1. Santa Fe
                24 November 2021 12: 50
                0
                why do you need to sink or burn the ship?

                1. Even without repairs, it will continue to be a combat unit and pose a threat. PLO, not yet released against long-range targets of the CD, helicopters. All of this can be continued to be used, without any radar

                2. The ammunition load of a modern ship costs as much as a third of the ship itself (for example, a berk). It will take many months to produce 100 rockets again. B / c can be unloaded and used by other ships. If b / c drowned together with the ship it will be a serious blow to the enemy

                For these reasons
              2. Santa Fe
                25 November 2021 12: 39
                0
                Such a problem may arise if one thinks that the proximity fuse is configured only to engage air targets and is "stupid" like proximity fuses on lamps in WWII. But who said that this is the case in reality.

                All we know is that the CM6 is equipped with an ARLGSN similar to the AIM-120C

                How smart is this GOS? Does it even have enough emitting power to determine the size of a marine target?
                1. KKND
                  KKND 25 November 2021 13: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  All we know is that the CM6 is equipped with an ARLGSN similar to the AIM-120C

                  How smart is this GOS? Does it even have enough emitting power to determine the size of a marine target?

                  Oleg what are you talking about? Radio fuses are separate antennas and are not connected in any way with the seeker. They can be located both in the nose of the rocket and on the sides.
                  Power to determine the size of the target? Why should ARLGSN determine the size? It emits a signal and flies in the direction of the reflected signal, trying to keep it amplified, with the smallest deviations of the rocket (in cases of a stationary target) as a result of natural destabilizations, it is corrected by the rudders so that the signal is maximized.
                  I don’t understand at all how the seeker of some missiles determines which part of the ship you need to get into. Perhaps they determine the radar image of the target on their matrix and fly into the parts of the ship stored in memory, all these are my assumptions.
                  If the CM6 is anti-aircraft, then it does not need to determine anything, you need to fly in the direction of the signal amplification and explode from a proximity fuse, which, in theory, can be a laser one.
                  How to find out how smart such a seeker as on CM6 is? It is unlikely that the Americans will tell you something. They can also give misinformation.
                2. KKND
                  KKND 25 November 2021 15: 36
                  0
                  Oleg, I was thinking here and probably I misled you about the work of the AGSN radar. This is how the PRPs work. The AGSN radar station should calculate the lead point, but the rest seems to be correct.
            2. Kalmar
              Kalmar 24 November 2021 12: 34
              0
              Quote: Santa Fe
              That is, a completely random actuation. It is not clear at what distance from the target, and the random position of the field of fragments

              Question from the audience: is there really no way to forcibly turn off the proximity fuse on modern missiles, leaving only the contact one?
  14. Hermit21
    Hermit21 24 November 2021 10: 42
    0
    In the summer of 2021, the South Korean Navy presented footage of the testing of a "supersonic" anti-ship missile, which looks very much like the Onyx missile.


    Generally, the DPRK.
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 10: 57
      +1
      No, South Korean Navy

      The rocket is designated K-SLBM
  15. Alexey Stepanov
    Alexey Stepanov 24 November 2021 11: 24
    0
    EM "Defender" was unable to pose a threat to the ships of the Black Sea Fleet


    And two 4-barreled anti-ship missile launchers Harpoon therefore does not count?

    Oh well...
    1. Santa Fe
      24 November 2021 11: 40
      +1
      4-barreled anti-ship missile launchers Harpoon therefore does not count?

      They were dismantled many years ago.
      1. Alexey Stepanov
        Alexey Stepanov 24 November 2021 12: 33
        0
        Yes indeed
        Thank you very much
        I apologize hi
        1. Santa Fe
          24 November 2021 12: 53
          0
          Reason to ask, reason to answer

          All perfectly hi
  16. Fisherman
    Fisherman 24 November 2021 11: 54
    0
    There is so much text and reflections, but it was necessary to start from the end of the article - they don’t need RCC. The concept of the first and massive air and missile strike on bases, according to their plan, makes anti-ship missiles unnecessary, there are no bases - there are no ships, there is no need to fight them, and there will be enough submarines. They are used to avoiding clinching and bombarding the enemy with bombs and missiles from afar, out of range of a retaliatory strike. Any clinch leads to losses, which negatively affects the spirit of the l / s, who went to the US Army to kill, not die.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. shahor
    shahor 24 November 2021 17: 47
    +1
    In my opinion, the author is trying to reveal the topic of the RCC in a somewhat shallow and tendentious way. Next door is an article about the significance of the Pacific Fleet, and it directly says that the fleets of the closed seas of the Russian Federation will be useless in the coming war. It is difficult to argue with this. And then why would Italian and French ships need powerful PC weapons? By the way, both of them have it. Who should he use it against in Middle-earth? The Turkish straits will be sealed, and if by the beginning of the war some frigate of the Black Sea Fleet of the admiral's series does not have time to leave for Sevastopol, he will live without air cover for a minute. Yes, and for some reason the Britons bought the RCC Spear, a variant of the Israeli Gabrieli. And it is in vain that the author writes so condescendingly about the light anti-ship missiles of the fifth generation. They do not hit the target, the ship, but a given place on the ship. It is not necessary to sink a frigate of the admiral's series. One hit to the superstructure and the ship is deaf and blind. One hit to the side in the UVP area - and he is unarmed. Well, let him hang out on ... A couple of weeks ago, the French launched the frigate Alsace. FREMM class. 6 tons. (By the way, from the moment of laying to launch, 000 months. From the moment of laying to transfer to the fleet, 13 months. Sad). The frigate carries the most modern air defense weapons - this is its specialization. And yes, most NATO ships carry strike weapons for land strikes. And the author does not understand why? Let's remember the school course in geography. And let's imagine that to the west of the borders of the Russian Federation, any European city is located within 24 km from the coast. Thus, the NATO fleet, solving the problem of defending Western Europe, has the ability to support ground forces, striking the rear of the advancing enemy, his command centers, etc. Here the main threat to the NATO fleet is not from the sea, but from the air, and targets are not at sea, but on the coast.
  19. Shishkov
    Shishkov 24 November 2021 20: 26
    0
    The US Navy refuses anti-ship missiles because it objectively has no opponents
  20. Usher
    Usher 25 November 2021 01: 21
    0
    As soon as the cartoon about LARSM came out, I wrote a couple of questions under the video, and they banned me on the channel))) Apparently inconvenient questions. Including a banal question, how does the rocket "see" the radar field?
  21. Dmitry Ivanov_8
    Dmitry Ivanov_8 25 November 2021 16: 13
    0
    Sometimes the comments are more interesting to read than the article itself. Yes, Standards can have just kinetic warheads. But all this is solved simply and invented in the century before last. A battleship loses its combat effectiveness in two cases of that time: it is deprived of a course and a fire (which can cause an explosion of the BC). What is easier to have on all our modern ships an analogue of the ancient, and last century, beveled armored decks? Preferably two at once. One cocks the fuse or breaks the kinetic part, the other reflects everything. You can add an anti-splinter. In fact, returning to the horizontal booking system of the most powerful battleships, which to this day remain as museums in the United States. Type "Iowa" if that. So we get protection from above from the notorious Standard-6. We also get protection from artillery shells from 30 km, which will fall on the ship almost vertically into the deck. And by the bevels of the deck below the overhead line, we get protection of the interior of the ship (its machines, generators, BC) from the penetration of the anti-ship missile warhead that hit the ship in horizontal flight and not into the deck.
    How is this option? There is no sense in vertical armor now - the battle is not being fought in line of sight. There is no sense in booking radars and add-ons either. Maximum conning tower and CIUS post in the womb of the ship. I saw somewhere that Peter the Great was dragging 100-150 mm armor plates in many places. I wonder why?
    If the radars are broken, the ship is deaf. An example of Scharnshorst at Narvik. The task then is to save and protect the ship itself as a platform on which repair kits of the same radars can be installed.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 25 November 2021 21: 15
      +1
      They scored on battleships, among other things, because a lot of shells began to fly not into the side, but into the deck, and the deck area is too large to adequately book it all (see the same aircraft carriers). And then the ingot arrives at 4M. Booking is unrealistic. But it is possible to envisage means of fighting for damage and duplicate important elements. Is it expensive to duplicate a radar, for example? Stick in a couple more civilians: far from so cool (they won't get the light to space), but much better than nothing. The same is with BIUS. The machines are already duplicated.
  22. bk0010
    bk0010 25 November 2021 21: 08
    0
    Kaptsov writes everything correctly. And Russia is to blame for this: we saw our ships ourselves.
  23. hostel
    hostel 26 November 2021 00: 43
    +1
    Apparently, the Americans relied on their carrier-based aircraft to destroy enemy ships. Until recently, Harpoon was the main missile of carrier-based aviation. In the first wave, the Americans will be able to lift no more than 24 aircraft. If we assume that each carries two missiles, then we get 48 pieces. Of these 48 missiles, some will be Harmas and some will be Harpoons. In any case, the pleasure of fighting off such a raid is below average. Hence the morale, destroyers and cruisers, the Americans sharpened on the air defense functions of the AUG and on the strikes of the KR along the coast. For a long time, in view of the absence of a serious enemy at sea, such a number was held. However, with the growth of the power of the Chinese Navy, this approach is highly controversial. Time will tell who is right.
  24. JD1979
    JD1979 26 November 2021 10: 05
    0
    1. Aviation cannot constantly and continuously accompany ships. This is quite obvious. Planes from which aircraft carrier (or airbase) covered the Defender and Donald Cook during the voyages of these ships in the Black Sea?

    And they were really threatened? There will be a threat - fleets with everything necessary will work, and this is just a demonstration of the flag.
    2. The Yankees themselves have repeatedly and successfully used anti-ship missiles from surface carriers in combat conditions. In various local conflicts. What has changed now if they deny their own combat experience?

    Everything has changed. Whom should the US and NATO fight against? Not with you? China? There are mating games with the main trading partner. With Russia? Against RTOs and other disposable barges? Funny. The Soviet ocean beauties, whom we still had to try to drown, are gone or are living out their days.
    3. Small-sized anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" occupied the smallest line in the estimate for the construction of Aegis destroyers. Is the reason - meaningless "saving on matches"?

    Why are they? If the amusing fleet of a potential enemy is drowned by conventional missiles? Plus it will still have to be found, because it is not enough and it will not come out of the bases.
    4. In connection with the "growing Chinese threat" calls are constantly being made for the need to increase the number of naval personnel. Where is the logic here? Why compete with the Chinese Navy in the number of pennants, if American ships are still not adapted to fight a surface enemy. In such a reality, it is necessary to build not ships, but Lancer bombers with LRASM missiles.

    The logic is that these are URO destroyers))) air defense-anti-missile defense systems against Chinese anti-missile systems, and the strike segment in the United States is aviation, they wrote themselves.
    5. Modern experience of the South Korean Navy. In the summer of 2021, the South Korean Navy presented footage of the testing of a "supersonic" anti-ship missile, which looks very much like the Onyx missile. This once again testifies to the fact that where the threat of a heated confrontation at sea persists, a completely different weapon is being created. Unlike light anti-ship missiles of European fleets. Not to American tales about the omnipotent aviation.

    South Caucasus is a great sea power))) almost like Russia, no planes or aviks. What else to do? Coastal missile systems))) and a little aviation.
  25. 3danimal
    3danimal 26 November 2021 13: 29
    +1
    The author, review the advertising cartoon, a fragment of which is presented in the article. At least one of the LRASM missiles was launched from a destroyer, from a UVP.
  26. EvilLion
    EvilLion 29 November 2021 08: 14
    0
    If a subsonic anti-ship missile can fly, then a supersonic one will fly by with a great chance and faster. Aircraft carriers in this regard are kaput, since a salvo from a cruiser, like our Atlanta, is guaranteed to hit the target.